This is my blog post for today's assignment.

The first rule of making a film with a 3-act structure is you must have an introduction.
The second rule of making a film with a 3-act structure is you must have a complication.
The third rule of making a film with a 3-act structure is you must have a resolution.

Fight Club does this.

Act I: The movie's introduction serves to establish the main characters and storyline.  We learn who Tyler Durden is (sort of) and what he is doing with his life.  The first act also typically lasts 30 minutes, consuming the film's first quarter.  In Fight Club, the first act comes to a conclusion right at the 30 minute mark, during the first fight outside the bar.  This scene also serves as the first plot point that propels the audience into the second act.

Act II: Known as the complication, the second act throws obstacles at the main character.  Fight Club accomplishes this with all the fights, Marla drama, and Project Mayhem.  While the first act only takes up one quarter of the film, the second generally comprises the next two, or 60 minutes.  Fight Club's runs up until Tyler Durden's disappearance, right on the 1:38:00 mark.  This disappearance acts as the second plot point, slingshotting the viewer into the third and final act.

Act III: The final act, or resolution, is where shit really hits the fan.  This act includes the climax, or maximum tension point, and takes up the film's last quarter.  In Fight Club, this point begins when the main character restlessly searches for Tyler, speaks to Marla on the phone, and eventually realizes his true identity.  From this point on, after the audience has already shat brix, the film concludes with the denouement.

Sitcoms.

The conventional sitcom has a 3-act structure.  The first act introduces a problem that the characters must solve.  The second shows the characters trying to fix whatever issue, normally in a humorous fashion.  Finally, the third act resolves the problem and is generally referred to as "the lesson."  By introducing a new problem with each episode, screenwriters attract viewers to see what will happen next.  An example of a sitcom that incorporates the 3-act structure is "The Office".

The most recent episode of "The Office" begins the first act with Jim, Dwight, and Michael losing a sale to Tim Olyphant's character.  In order to fix this problem, the show moves into the second act as the characters set up a sting operation in order to investigate Olyphant's successful sales techniques.  Finally, the show ends and the problem is resolved when Michael Scott abruptly hires the competition: "If you can't beat them, join them."  This episode, like all the other episodes of "The Office" and many other sitcoms, presents a problem, goes through the process of solving that problem, and ends with a resolution. 

Shots Seen Round The World.

The camera shots used in film can be put into 3 main categories.  The first, the long shot, gives an overview of the scenery.  The second, the medium shot, is known as the information shot.  Finally, the close up shot reveals the important details needed to tell the story.  In The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson uses these shot types to convey the setting and emotions of the characters.

In the above pictures, Jackson takes the normal shot progression from long to medium and flips it.  By showing the characters at a medium distance in this scene, the audience can make out the outlines of the Fellowship of the Ring, including the more pronounced figures of Legolas in the back and Gandalf in the front.  This allows the viewer to know who is trekking along the snow covered mountain.  Then, the camera starts to zoom out, allowing more of the scene into the picture.  By backing the camera up, Jackson reveals just how small the characters are compared to the vast danger of the mountain.  This long shot isolates the characters against the menacing blizzard surrounding them.  Finally, Jackson finishes off the sequence showing close ups of the characters to reveal their distressed emotions.

The above images use the close up shot technique to portray just how treacherous the situation is.  By zooming in on the faces of characters such as Aragorn and Legolas, the spectator can better focus on the emotions of the characters instead of being distracted by anything else in the picture.

The full clip can be seen below:

10^3

The classical Hollywood system had many parts to it, one of them being the star system.  The star system was a sort of actor exploitation: using the actors as an image for new and upcoming movies.  In this system, the film hardly ever mattered, as long as so and so was in it, the movie would become popular.  These stars would also be used to promote up and coming stars, creating a continual process.  The studios would poach actors from an early age, glamorizing them and making them into likable characters.  By molding who they would play from an early age, the actors were exclusively linked to both their specific studio and specific genre.  Because these star system actors were tied down to specific genres, this often affected what movies the studios put out, based on the popularity of a particular actor.

The studios would act in response to who the public liked the most, churning out movies that reflected that character and appropriate genre.  Thus, the industry went through a monotonous cycle of actors, contractually forced to play the same role over and over again.  Studios would also rent actors from other studios in hopes of producing similar successes. 

A classic example of a star within the star system is Judy Garland.  Garland was signed to MGM back in 1935.  She had a specific list of character traits shared among most young female stars, representing a youthful and innocent image.  She is most known for her star role in The Wizard of Oz in 1938.  At age 16, MGM had already established her as a spirited musical talent.  The following is a clip from The Wizard of Oz, showcasing Garland's role in classic Hollywood.

10/3/2010

Television shows have a way of capturing and showcasing issues that may have been shrugged off otherwise.  The 1970's show "All in the Family" and present day series "Modern Family" are no different.  These productions deal with a wide range of "problems" revolving around the household.  However, though they have their similarities, "All in the Family" and "Modern Family" are also very different.  A testament to the evolution of cultural norms, these two shows illustrate society's irregularities relative to their own time period.

When "All in the Family" aired back in 1971, the series pushed the envelope on what was shown on network television.  Depicting such issues as homosexuality, "All in the Family" successfully criticized and dealt with the concerns of the typical prejudiced American.  The show's creators did this through the main character, Archie Bunker.  Archie represented the stereotypical and close minded blue-collar worker of the 1970's, criticizing everything and everyone outside of the social standard.  This was perfectly exemplified in the episode at the screening, when Archie cynically disapproved of his son's gay friend.  Though "Modern Family" also deals with homosexuality, the series does it very differently.  Instead of taking a critical approach to homosexuality, creators Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan perfectly incorporate the idea into the family, allowing the audience to overlook its peculiarity.  By establishing an environment in which a gay couple is commonplace, "Modern Family" shows just how far American culture has come.  Though both shows discuss homosexuality, this is not the only topic they care to highlight.

In "Modern Family," the show incorporates an interracial couple in the form of Jay and Gloria.  Gloria, a young woman of Colombian descent, is married to white middle aged Jay who also acts as the step father to Manny, Gloria's son.  This mashed up couple covers divorce, mixed and matched age, and cultural diversity, affairs that "All in the Family" did not include.  An issue that "All in the Family" discussed that "Modern Family" did not was the inclusion of a married couple still living with their parents.  Creators of the 1970's show also included the belittlement of women, exemplified most effectively in Archie's poor treatment of his wife.

Although "Modern Family" and "All in the Family" have their differences, both shows effectively shine a much needed light on America's prejudices.  By adding a comedic element to the mix, the shows camouflage their message in an easily digestible form.  The shows are also similar because they both keep intact that warm family feeling, though at times it can be a bit breezy.