Step Brothers
The first act of the Three Act Hollywood Structure is the beginning. This act summed up in one word is the "introduction". It is in this act that the characters, the setting, and situation are presented. It usually lasts about thirty minutes. Within the first few minutes of Step Brothers, the main four characters are introduced: Brennen, Dale, Nancy, and Robert. Nancy, Brennen's mother, and Robert, Dale's father, meet at a medical conference and end up getting married. This event sets the premise for the entire movie. During the majority of the beginning act, Dale and Brennen butt heads over sleeping arrangements, sharing parents, touching drum sets, play a series of pranks on each other, and even get into a physical confrontation in which Brennen uses a bicycle as a weapon and yells rape at the top of his lungs. However, every act has a mini climax. This mini climax end the act, aid in transition, and propel the story forward. The climax of the first act occurs when Dale and Brennen bond over their hatred for Derrick. Brennen tells Dale that they can be friends who ride majestic, translucent steeds while shooting flaming arrows across the Bridge of Hemdale after Dale punches Derrick. This newfound friendship thrusts the story into act two. (Act 1 is 33 minutes long.)
The second act of the Three Act Hollywood Structure is the middle. This act summed up in one word is the "complication". In this act, the tension of the story rises as complications ensue. The complication of Step Brothers is the fact that Robert does not approve of Dale and Brennen's lifestyle. He believes that since these jagaloons are forty, they should grow up, move out, and get jobs. Four minutes into act two, Robert is already pressuring Dale and Brennen to get jobs. Robert decides to sell the house so he and Nancy can sail around the world together, so the two men have to move out. They sabotage Robert and Derrick's efforts to sell the house. Things come to a head when Dale and Brennen make a music video that ruins Robert's boat and dream. Robert can't recover and this resentment results in him and Nancy getting divorced. Dale and Brennen fight over the divorce. The tension definitely rises within these scenes. The climax of scene two occurs when Brennen buries Dale alive. The two decide that the other one was just holding them back, and that they were never really brothers. This leads into act 3. (Act 2 is 34 minutes long)
The third act of the Three Act Hollywood Structure is the end. This act summed up in one word is the "resolution". It is in this act that the major climax of the movie takes place. After the two step brothers fight, they both try to assimilate into society and "grow up". They both move out, get jobs, buy toilet paper, and read books by Montel Williams. The climax takes place at the Catalina Wine Mixer. Brennen's company hosts a fundraiser and he hires Dale's catering company to supply the food. When the singer of Uptown Girl, California's preeminent 1980's Billy Joel cover band, begins to yell at one of the partygoer's wife, the mixer takes a turn for the worse. Both Dale and Brennen pretend that they have outgrow their childish ways, but Robert knows differently. He tells them that they must go up on stage and perform to save the mixer, their relationship, and their whimsy. This is the climax of the movie. After this scene, the two mend their friendship, rediscover their dinosaurs, and return to their old ways. After this climax, there are only about 6 minutes left before all the complications are resolved. Robert finally accepts his sons and this is shown when he gives them a boat treehouse, pirate hats, magazines, cross bows, and Chewbacca masks.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Sitcom
One aspect of a sitcom is whether it is episodic or serial. Episodic sitcoms and serial sitcoms are on opposite ends of a spectrum from one another in terms of how a viewer watches the show. Episodic sitcoms are usually thirty minutes in length. They do not really require previous knowledge of the show to understand what is going on. The characters don't age or change, they are predictable. An example of an episodic television would be I Love Lucy or Family Guy. Serial sitcoms on the other hand tend to be longer, a full hour. They do require previous knowledge about past seasons in order for the viewer to know what's going on. For this reason, characters tend to grow and learn through situations. There is more of a character arc present in serial television. In serial television, the show has an expiration date because the characters are aging and moving on in their lives. An example of serial television would be Friends or Curb Your Enthusiasm. In Friends, you would have to watch previous episodes to know the relationship between characters. In Curb Your Enthusiasm, situations tend to last over a number of episodes or a season. For example, when Larry is starring in The Producers, you would have to watch previous episodes to understand why he was cast and why people are acting certain ways about his performance.
One of my favorite television shows, Sex and the City, happens to fall under the category of a serial sitcom. Sex and the City displays all the typical traits of a serial sitcom. For example, in order to understand Carrie's anguish when Mr. Big marries another woman at the very end of season two, one would have had to see Carrie's relationship with Mr. Big in seasons one and two. In the last episode of the series, Charlotte receives the news that she and her husband Harry are being given a baby from China. However, one would not fully appreciate this scene if they did not already know about the reproductive and adoptive challenges Charlotte has had throughout all the seasons. The show constantly refers back to previous relationships and situations, so it is pertinent that people watch it chronologically in order to fully understand. The characters grew throughout the series. In the first season, the girls are younger and presented in almost a one dimensional light. Samantha is the promiscuous one, Charlotte is the hopeless romantic, Carrie is the inquisitive one, and Miranda is the cynical one. Although each of the characters do retain their respective traits over the series, they each grow and the viewer comes to know them as more than just a single character trait. And although I love the fact that the characters grow, and with this growth become more real, it did limit the number of seasons the show was on air. This is because the women were aging, and at one point, they had to move on with their lives as characters in serial sitcoms do.
Character Growth of Sex and the City
Sex and the City Pilot- One Dimensional Characters (watch from 0:00 to 2:09)
Sex and the City Series Finale- Character Growth
In order to display the character growth, it would take too many clips, but these last few minutes of the series show a lot.
One of my favorite television shows, Sex and the City, happens to fall under the category of a serial sitcom. Sex and the City displays all the typical traits of a serial sitcom. For example, in order to understand Carrie's anguish when Mr. Big marries another woman at the very end of season two, one would have had to see Carrie's relationship with Mr. Big in seasons one and two. In the last episode of the series, Charlotte receives the news that she and her husband Harry are being given a baby from China. However, one would not fully appreciate this scene if they did not already know about the reproductive and adoptive challenges Charlotte has had throughout all the seasons. The show constantly refers back to previous relationships and situations, so it is pertinent that people watch it chronologically in order to fully understand. The characters grew throughout the series. In the first season, the girls are younger and presented in almost a one dimensional light. Samantha is the promiscuous one, Charlotte is the hopeless romantic, Carrie is the inquisitive one, and Miranda is the cynical one. Although each of the characters do retain their respective traits over the series, they each grow and the viewer comes to know them as more than just a single character trait. And although I love the fact that the characters grow, and with this growth become more real, it did limit the number of seasons the show was on air. This is because the women were aging, and at one point, they had to move on with their lives as characters in serial sitcoms do.
Character Growth of Sex and the City
Sex and the City Pilot- One Dimensional Characters (watch from 0:00 to 2:09)
Sex and the City Series Finale- Character Growth
In order to display the character growth, it would take too many clips, but these last few minutes of the series show a lot.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Shots in Titanic
Camera Angles
Much of the movie Titanic deals with the struggle between social classes and the polar ups and downs of emotion. For this reason, James Cameron uses camera angles in shots to convey to the viewer the extent of a character's power in a given scene. One example of Cameron's utilization of camera angle to strengthen a scene is in the very beginning when the character Jack Dawson first makes his way on the the boat. Having just won the tickets minutes prior in a lucky poker game, Jack and his friend Fabrizio run to the front of the ship. At the same time, the captain of the ship is also shown a few decks up receiving news about the ship's starting progress.
Titanic- I'm the king of the world!
The prime example(s) of camera angle use can be see at 1:37 of the video. For a short second, the camera flashes back to the captain, with a low angle shot. This shot establishes his character to be exactly what you would expect an optimistic captain of the new and revolutionary cruise ship to be: powerful. The scene then switches back to Jack Dawson who exclaims "I'm the king of the world!". The character can say the line, make the gesture of spreading out his arms, and the viewer will get it. But James Cameron knows using another low angle shot for this moment will let the viewer truly grasp the emotion Jack feels at this moment: complete freedom, happiness, and the idea that nothing could bring him down.
Shot Progression
In the beginning of the scene where Jack takes Rose to a third class party, Cameron uses an interesting shot progression. Instead of starting with a shot of the full party, he starts with a close up. This creates suspense and excitement for the audience. This shot is especially effective here because it immediately shows this third class party to be an exact opposite of the first class party in the scenes directly prior. The close up on the instruments and energy shows exactly what the first class party was missing. He then pulls the camera back to show the rest of the party. This shot and shot progression was very useful in drawing the distinction between the third class party and the first class party.
Titanic- Third class party
Distance of Shots
Another scene in the movie that utilizes a different kind of shot is the "I'm flying!" scene. Jack and Rose have been engaging in a curious flirtation up to this point. This scene happens in the movie when Rose turns against her mother's wishes and societal conventions and meets Jack at the front of the boat.
Titanic- I'm Flying
For the majority of this scene, James Cameron uses medium shots and close ups. The medium shots tell a lot about the relationship between characters, so it would obviously be utilized in this scene. The close up shot allows the viewer to "read" a character and gauge their emotions. When she approaches him in the beginning of the scene, a medium shot is used to show how the two feel about each other. This creates audience attachment to the characters and their story. A little further in the scene when they are both standing on the railings, the camera gives us a close up on both of their faces together. This shows them both to be completely happy. James Cameron switches it up at 1:32 into the video by using a long shot. As we learned in lecture, long shots show isolation. However, this isolation conveys the idea that Jack and Rose are all that matter, they are alone together. This also positively influences how the audience will think about them.
Much of the movie Titanic deals with the struggle between social classes and the polar ups and downs of emotion. For this reason, James Cameron uses camera angles in shots to convey to the viewer the extent of a character's power in a given scene. One example of Cameron's utilization of camera angle to strengthen a scene is in the very beginning when the character Jack Dawson first makes his way on the the boat. Having just won the tickets minutes prior in a lucky poker game, Jack and his friend Fabrizio run to the front of the ship. At the same time, the captain of the ship is also shown a few decks up receiving news about the ship's starting progress.
Titanic- I'm the king of the world!
The prime example(s) of camera angle use can be see at 1:37 of the video. For a short second, the camera flashes back to the captain, with a low angle shot. This shot establishes his character to be exactly what you would expect an optimistic captain of the new and revolutionary cruise ship to be: powerful. The scene then switches back to Jack Dawson who exclaims "I'm the king of the world!". The character can say the line, make the gesture of spreading out his arms, and the viewer will get it. But James Cameron knows using another low angle shot for this moment will let the viewer truly grasp the emotion Jack feels at this moment: complete freedom, happiness, and the idea that nothing could bring him down.
Shot Progression
In the beginning of the scene where Jack takes Rose to a third class party, Cameron uses an interesting shot progression. Instead of starting with a shot of the full party, he starts with a close up. This creates suspense and excitement for the audience. This shot is especially effective here because it immediately shows this third class party to be an exact opposite of the first class party in the scenes directly prior. The close up on the instruments and energy shows exactly what the first class party was missing. He then pulls the camera back to show the rest of the party. This shot and shot progression was very useful in drawing the distinction between the third class party and the first class party.
Titanic- Third class party
Distance of Shots
Another scene in the movie that utilizes a different kind of shot is the "I'm flying!" scene. Jack and Rose have been engaging in a curious flirtation up to this point. This scene happens in the movie when Rose turns against her mother's wishes and societal conventions and meets Jack at the front of the boat.
Titanic- I'm Flying
For the majority of this scene, James Cameron uses medium shots and close ups. The medium shots tell a lot about the relationship between characters, so it would obviously be utilized in this scene. The close up shot allows the viewer to "read" a character and gauge their emotions. When she approaches him in the beginning of the scene, a medium shot is used to show how the two feel about each other. This creates audience attachment to the characters and their story. A little further in the scene when they are both standing on the railings, the camera gives us a close up on both of their faces together. This shows them both to be completely happy. James Cameron switches it up at 1:32 into the video by using a long shot. As we learned in lecture, long shots show isolation. However, this isolation conveys the idea that Jack and Rose are all that matter, they are alone together. This also positively influences how the audience will think about them.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Actors Under Contract
One of the major aspects of Classic Hollywood was the concept of having actors under contract. This meant that certain actors would be contracted to certain studios, and therefore star in the movies of that particular studio. While many actors would be contracted to one studio, this function was also flexible in the fact that studios would sometimes lend out their actors to other studios in order to keep a tight hold on the movie-making market. However, for the most part, these actors would be delegated to a particular studio. For instance, as we learned in lecture, Metro Goldwyn Mayer had so many stars under its contracts that its slogan was "More stars than there are in the Heavens". I felt this aspect of Classic Hollywood was especially important because the stars involved were crucial to the popularity of movies at the time. Movies were many times even called by the lead actor's name, for example "Cary Grants", rather than the title.
"More stars than there are in the Heavens" - MGM's contracted stars
The different stars contracted to each studio affected the types of films that studio made. Many times stars were "typecast" into certain roles. This almost predetermined what kind of movies each studio could make with their different actors. To examine stars' involvement in the studio system, we can look at MGM in particular. MGM had many big name actors such as Judy Garland, Gene Kelly, Bing Crosby, and Fred Astaire. Many of MGM's stars, including those previously listed, were known for their ability to sing and/or dance. For this reason, MGM made a lot of musicals during the time of Classic Hollywood. If Judy Garland were in a movie, she was guaranteed to sing. If Gene Kelly were in a movie, he would surely dance.
Those are a few examples of the musicals made by MGM during the time of Classic Hollywood. These actors and their skills had a massive impact on the studio system and the audience's reception of movies at the time.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
All in the Family Guy
When we watched All in the Family for the screening, it was the first time I had ever seen it. As soon as I saw the intro, I knew which modern day television show I was going to compare it to. Family Guy. The openings bear such a striking resemblance to one another that it raises the question of whether Seth MacFarlane took inspiration from All in the Family.
All in the Family
Family Guy
The two shows have many differences. One of the most obvious differences one could ascertain within a few seconds is that Family Guy is animated while All in the Family is not. This opens up possibilities for characters such as a talking dog, a talking baby, etc for Family Guy. Another difference is that All in the Family takes place in the 1970's while Family Guy is supposedly taking place now. This time difference presents the two shows with very different viewpoints and outlooks that can definitely be seen in the writing.
However, I feel that there are many more similarities than there are differences. Both shows present a family structure of husband, wife, daughter, and son. This allows for the two to discuss topics in a similar way. Both shows present this family to be living in the suburbs. This presents a very similar venue for the topics to be discussed in. Although the characters of Archie Bunker and Peter Griffin are very different in many ways, they are both also very set in their own ways. Archie Bunker just happens to be set in a bigoted way while Peter Griffin is set in a smug dufus kind of way. Both shows use parody as a way of getting their point across, which brings me to the types of issues each show covers.
As a means of comparison, I found an episode of Family Guy that discusses the topic of homosexuality to juxtapose with the episode of All in the Family we watched. The episode was entitled "Family Gay". In this episode, Peter engages in a series of medical experiments to make money, the last of which injects him with "the gay gene". For the rest of the episode, Peter is overtly gay and flamboyant. This brings me to a difference in how the two shows use parody to get their points across. In All in the Family, Norman Lear parodies a bigot with the character of Archie. However, as we learned in lecture, this backfired in a way when people started identifying with the bigoted Archie Bunker. In Family Guy on the other hand, Seth MacFarlane directly parodies the stereotype itself. He then uses other characters to comment on the subject and represent different viewpoints. For example, Stewie represents the religious homophobe while Brian represents someone who is more liberal and open minded. This is very similar to what Norman Lear did with the different viewpoints of the son, daughter, wife, and drinking buddies. Both shows use parody such as this to talk about all kinds of topics including race, gender, etc. These two episodes are just a good example of how each show goes about doing so.
Seth MacFarlane's Parody
All in the Family
Family Guy
The two shows have many differences. One of the most obvious differences one could ascertain within a few seconds is that Family Guy is animated while All in the Family is not. This opens up possibilities for characters such as a talking dog, a talking baby, etc for Family Guy. Another difference is that All in the Family takes place in the 1970's while Family Guy is supposedly taking place now. This time difference presents the two shows with very different viewpoints and outlooks that can definitely be seen in the writing.
However, I feel that there are many more similarities than there are differences. Both shows present a family structure of husband, wife, daughter, and son. This allows for the two to discuss topics in a similar way. Both shows present this family to be living in the suburbs. This presents a very similar venue for the topics to be discussed in. Although the characters of Archie Bunker and Peter Griffin are very different in many ways, they are both also very set in their own ways. Archie Bunker just happens to be set in a bigoted way while Peter Griffin is set in a smug dufus kind of way. Both shows use parody as a way of getting their point across, which brings me to the types of issues each show covers.
As a means of comparison, I found an episode of Family Guy that discusses the topic of homosexuality to juxtapose with the episode of All in the Family we watched. The episode was entitled "Family Gay". In this episode, Peter engages in a series of medical experiments to make money, the last of which injects him with "the gay gene". For the rest of the episode, Peter is overtly gay and flamboyant. This brings me to a difference in how the two shows use parody to get their points across. In All in the Family, Norman Lear parodies a bigot with the character of Archie. However, as we learned in lecture, this backfired in a way when people started identifying with the bigoted Archie Bunker. In Family Guy on the other hand, Seth MacFarlane directly parodies the stereotype itself. He then uses other characters to comment on the subject and represent different viewpoints. For example, Stewie represents the religious homophobe while Brian represents someone who is more liberal and open minded. This is very similar to what Norman Lear did with the different viewpoints of the son, daughter, wife, and drinking buddies. Both shows use parody such as this to talk about all kinds of topics including race, gender, etc. These two episodes are just a good example of how each show goes about doing so.
Seth MacFarlane's Parody
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)