A newly made Hollywood film that fits the three act structure discussed by Professor Ramirez-Berg is The Hangover. The three act structure worked well for this film because it is goal oriented, in chronological order, and has a happy ending.
The first act is the introduction of all the characters, tells what they are doing and why, and presents the main conflict of the film, “we lost Doug!” It develops the strongest with the car scene as they are driving to Los Vegas when you can get a sense of who each character is and how their role will play out. The peak, or mini climax, is when the four guys are on the roof giving speeches and taking shots to get the night started. Then instead of showing the action, or the night adventures, the director cuts to the next morning when they realize they have lost Doug.
The second act begins when they are outside by the pool trying to back track to figure out where Doug might be. This lays out the compilation of the film and the journey they will make: they have to find Doug in time to get him back for his wedding. The search for Doug makes up the largest part of the film, as does most Hollywood three act structured films. The next plot point in this act is when they win the $80,000 at the casino to give to the little Asian guy from the trunk to get Doug back. They soon come to find out it wasn’t “white” Doug that the Asian guy was hording from their miscommunication the night before.
The third act begins when they find Doug on the roof where they had put him the night before. This begins the resolution. Now the next order of business is getting home in time. And, what do you know, they make it home just in the nic-of-time and the wedding is saved and everyone is happy! The End.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Fourth Wall
Sitcoms, or situation comedies, are TV shows that are created in series with several episodes connecting each other. The information from one carries into the next and gradually increases. One key aspect of sitcoms is that generally, not always, they are focused on a particular set sometimes with an audience in the background which is known as the “fourth wall.” The fourth wall can be where an audience is that isn’t seen or just where the camera crew is and all of the technical equipment. However, mainly in a sitcom you only see three walls at a time. For example, has anyone ever seen the right side of Monicas apartment in Friends? I sure haven’t and I obsessively have all the seasons and greatest hits.
The Office is an example of a sitcom. It is cumulative, also known as serial in the TV world, and is a funny extension of the theatre. Different situations arise and are dealt with in a humerous way with star Steve Carell as their leading man. Anyways, when you are watching an episode you never see the camera turn around in a 180 degree angle because there is that sense that the audience is the fourth wall. Having the audience be the fourth wall gives the viewer a sense of peeking in on what is happening as if there is a piece of glass separating the action from the viewer (oh the irony). This gives the audience a feeling of being nosey on an issue that perhaps without they would not have seen.
The Office is an example of a sitcom. It is cumulative, also known as serial in the TV world, and is a funny extension of the theatre. Different situations arise and are dealt with in a humerous way with star Steve Carell as their leading man. Anyways, when you are watching an episode you never see the camera turn around in a 180 degree angle because there is that sense that the audience is the fourth wall. Having the audience be the fourth wall gives the viewer a sense of peeking in on what is happening as if there is a piece of glass separating the action from the viewer (oh the irony). This gives the audience a feeling of being nosey on an issue that perhaps without they would not have seen.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Blind Side
The Blind Side is a recent motion picture about a family that takes in a homeless boy and in conclusion ends up being a star football player. However, he faces many trials and tribulations before he gets there of self assurance and figuring out that his new family was meant to be his all along. Emotion is a large part of this film and is well noted and is displayed with numerous close ups of laughter and tears.
The long shot I want to look at is one where it shows the main character, Michael, the homeless boy walking down the street after he has realized he has nowhere to go. This long shot include Michael only down a distant road telling the audience that he is all alone and has nothing left. This gives detail into the setting of where he came from but most importantly his isolation and that he has no one to care for him or love him. A key thing to realize about this shot also is that it is from a high angle as well taking away any bit of power he had left. This large, tough boy is now small and weak.
Next, is the close up. Once he is adopted by the family he begins to play football and is exceptionally talented! You get good sense of the emotion and anger on the football field by a close up shot of his face through the facemask, dripping in sweat, and gritting his teeth. The director does this to show his feelings of hard work and intensity he must find in himself to defeat his opponent and is a metaphore for his life.
Last, but not least, is the medium shot at the end that tied the movie together. It is a shot that includes the entire family showing how they have all come together and grown as one. This depicts their relationship and how close the family is. This one shot gives you all the information you need to know about the family and the roll each plays.
The long shot I want to look at is one where it shows the main character, Michael, the homeless boy walking down the street after he has realized he has nowhere to go. This long shot include Michael only down a distant road telling the audience that he is all alone and has nothing left. This gives detail into the setting of where he came from but most importantly his isolation and that he has no one to care for him or love him. A key thing to realize about this shot also is that it is from a high angle as well taking away any bit of power he had left. This large, tough boy is now small and weak.
Next, is the close up. Once he is adopted by the family he begins to play football and is exceptionally talented! You get good sense of the emotion and anger on the football field by a close up shot of his face through the facemask, dripping in sweat, and gritting his teeth. The director does this to show his feelings of hard work and intensity he must find in himself to defeat his opponent and is a metaphore for his life.
Last, but not least, is the medium shot at the end that tied the movie together. It is a shot that includes the entire family showing how they have all come together and grown as one. This depicts their relationship and how close the family is. This one shot gives you all the information you need to know about the family and the roll each plays.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Stars Shine the Brightest
In Classical Hollywood, the studio system was a distinct and potent part of the industry. The studio system is what defined the era, in my eyes, since it had so many key elements that set it apart from any other. On example of the studio system was there use of Stars. Stars were more than just actors in a hit film, but they were advertisers for the company from which they were owned.
The use of Stars, such as Humpfrey Bogart or Lucille Ball, made films less about the quality and more about the quantity, or the number of viewers or money it brought in. People began to go to the movies to see their favorite stars regardless of what the movie was. The public could identify with a Star and followed their films. This made it more profitable for the production companies since the quality was less they wouldn’t have to spend as much money making the film and consequently they would generate a lot of revenue from it. These companies were savvy and rolling in the big bucks.
For example, when you went to a cinema the Star in the film was more important than the film itself since that’s who the audience identified with. Because of this you would see the stars name written above the title and generally in a larger font too. The genre, the company, the content was no longer the main factor it was all about the Stars in Classical Hollywood.
The use of Stars, such as Humpfrey Bogart or Lucille Ball, made films less about the quality and more about the quantity, or the number of viewers or money it brought in. People began to go to the movies to see their favorite stars regardless of what the movie was. The public could identify with a Star and followed their films. This made it more profitable for the production companies since the quality was less they wouldn’t have to spend as much money making the film and consequently they would generate a lot of revenue from it. These companies were savvy and rolling in the big bucks.
For example, when you went to a cinema the Star in the film was more important than the film itself since that’s who the audience identified with. Because of this you would see the stars name written above the title and generally in a larger font too. The genre, the company, the content was no longer the main factor it was all about the Stars in Classical Hollywood.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Old vs. New
It is interesting to see how over decades the media can change and the content it produces. For example, let’s compare All in the Family and Everybody Loves Raymond. In the episode of All in the Family that we watched in class I felt that they dealt with more challenging issues to try and break through societal standards, as opposed to Everybody Loves Raymond where their conflict was more so between family and work matters and weren’t as challenging and made for more fun instead of thought.
However, they were similar in format. Both shows were family based, comedy, and the setting was primarily the same focused in the home with a typical mom, dad, and children set up. Another important factor to note is that the main character in both shows was the father, but the mother in All in the Family was much more passive and didn’t have as dominant of a role as in Everybody Loves Raymond. The main difference was the role each family member played, in my opinion.
The specific issues that were addressed were also quite different. In All in the Family sexual orientation was the main issues and I am sure in many other of their episodes the topics are just as offensive but informative in a satirical way. However, I felt in Everybody Loves Raymond and in most contemporary family comedies that they focus their conflict on issues between family, school, or work, as in the episode I watched were the grandfather insulted the daughter of Raymond and the resolution was his apology. Another important attribute is that some of the issues targeted in both may seem a little harsher or prevalent in older sitcoms because it was not as much of a societal norm, such as gays and lesbians, whereas if you were to see gays or lesbians on TV today it would not be near as offensive or uncommon.
However, they were similar in format. Both shows were family based, comedy, and the setting was primarily the same focused in the home with a typical mom, dad, and children set up. Another important factor to note is that the main character in both shows was the father, but the mother in All in the Family was much more passive and didn’t have as dominant of a role as in Everybody Loves Raymond. The main difference was the role each family member played, in my opinion.
The specific issues that were addressed were also quite different. In All in the Family sexual orientation was the main issues and I am sure in many other of their episodes the topics are just as offensive but informative in a satirical way. However, I felt in Everybody Loves Raymond and in most contemporary family comedies that they focus their conflict on issues between family, school, or work, as in the episode I watched were the grandfather insulted the daughter of Raymond and the resolution was his apology. Another important attribute is that some of the issues targeted in both may seem a little harsher or prevalent in older sitcoms because it was not as much of a societal norm, such as gays and lesbians, whereas if you were to see gays or lesbians on TV today it would not be near as offensive or uncommon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)