Post Nine: I'll Take Three Please.

Within the standard Hollywood narrative implemented for most films, there are certain elements that can become expected from the audience. Usually with this type of movie, there is a single protagonist (the hero with whom we follow the story), goal-oriented (the protagonist has a goal that he or she wants to achieve and the pursuit of it by overcoming the obstacle propel the story forward), a three-act structure (includes an introduction, complication, and resolution), is in chronological order (events take place in order), and the end includes a clear resolution (the ending is not ambiguous and only allows a limited interpretation).

Specifically, the three-act structure allows the audience to follow a clean and clear narrative. In the first act (introduction), what the film is about is defined usually in reference to what the protagonist’s role is in the story. The second act (complication) introduces the conflict that the protagonist has to try to overcome. The third act (resolution) is supposed to resolve the conflict and conclude the story. For a standard two-hour movie, the first act is approximately 30 minutes, the second act 30 – 60 minutes and the resolution 30 minutes.

Each act peaks at its respective plot point (with two plot points and the climax in the third act). A successful plot point ends the act and escalates the story even further by complicating matters even further. They essentially act as transitions between the acts by asking a question that the other act promises to answer.

In the example of the movie Finding Nemo:

The first act introduces the characters of Marlin and his son Nemo. It illustrates the dynamics and relationship between the two characters: Marlin is very overprotective of his only son and Nemo, like any other child, can become annoyed with his father.

The first act ends when Nemo is kidnapped by underwater divers and Marlin starts his journey through the sea in order to find his son. Thus the conflict is introduced.

Along with the conflict being introduced, another key character, Dory, enters the storyline as she tags along with Marlin as he tries to reach his goal of finding Nemo (hence, the title of the movie).The entire second act is composed of Nemo trying to get back to the sea and Marlin trying to find his son as he encounters sharks, jellyfish, and other perils of the big blue ocean.

The climax in the third act is when Marlin finally reaches the dentist’s office but sees Nemo upside down (implying that he is dead). He leaves, thinking that his son is dead.

However, Nemo is actually alive and finds his way out of the dentist’s office through the pipes and gets released into the ocean.

After Nemo is trapped one last time, the conflict is resolved when he finds his father and they live happily ever after.
In summary: The first act introduced the characters (Marlin and Nemo). The second act introduced the conflict and complications that arose as the characters tried to overcome the conflict (Nemo getting kidnapped and his father Marlin trying to find his son). The third act start with the climax and ended with the resolution (Marlin thinking that his son is dead goes back home but finding out that his son is actually alive and being reunited with him).

(Screenshots taken from the movie Finding Nemo)

Post Eight: Stay Tuned!

Ah, the television. Although many critics call the television the “idiot box”, the television has attracted quite a following amongst many different audiences from the comedy-seeking Modern Family watchers to the loyal 30 Rock fans. These sitcoms tend to be only a half-hour long (with commercials), humorous in content, episodic, and consist of hyperbolic or overdramatic plots (which typically would not happen in real life). One of the characteristics of the sitcom genre is that there is usually a pattern that progresses as the show does. This pattern or cycling establishes a routine within a particular show which in a way guarantees its audience somewhat of a comfort zone or an expectation from the show. This way, the audience can sit down every week at the same time to the same network and see the same leading characters and similar plot devices and not be overly surprised at what they are viewing. By using this method, sitcoms can create a loyal following amongst viewers.

The show Weeds is a sitcom that revolves around the protagonist/antagonist (depending on the viewer's perspective) Nancy Botwin. Recently widowed and unable to afford her expensive-suburban lifestyle, she resorts to dealing marijuana. As the show progresses with additional seasons, her involvement in illegal dealings also increases from dealing marijuana to becoming involved with an underground drug cartel in Mexico. As the seasons continue, the plot thickens and the characters find themselves in increasingly difficult and even hyperbolic situations. However, the pattern stays consistent: the Botwins find themselves new ways to deal the drugs and avoid legal authorities. For example, by the start of the fourth season and the following ones, the Botwins eventually relocate to a different place because they have to run from those who are after them. In season 4, the Botwins, on the lam, move to (fictional) Ren Mar. They then move to Mexico, after Nancy finds herself involved with the mayor of Tijunana and also the person controlling the underground smuggling activity. They then race to Canada and after being turned away, find themselves in Seattle. After facing more problems from the authorities and their past in season 6, the Botwins find themselves back on the road to an off-the-road trailer park and subsequently are chased out of town. The last episode hinted that they would be heading to Copenhagen.

This pattern and cycle of finding new destinations allow the Botwins to continue their illegal shenanigans, propel the story and continue the sitcom (it would end if they were ever to get caught!) The pattern also implies that no matter how outrageous the situation may be, Nancy and her group can always find a way out and the viewers can find out simply if they stay tuned…for next week!

Post Seven: Shots, Shots, Shots...Everybody!

American Beauty is a critically acclaimed dark comedy that wonderfully depicts one’s man mid-life crisis. It also showcases a great variety of camera shots: long shot (establishing shot), middle shot, and the close-up shot.

• A long (establishing) shot does exactly what the name implies; it establishes or introduces the setting/characters/and overall and necessary information


• A medium shot is neither a long shot or close-up shot; it is something in the middle as the camera starts to focus on something in more detail


• A close-up shot is the most emotionally driven shot as the camera starts to show the more important details of the scene; usually the shot focuses only one person

In this scene, Lester Burnham, the protagonist is watching his daughter's dance performance.

The long-shot establishes that this scene is taking place in a high-school gym. His daughter is amongst the many other dancers. This shot essentially just tells the audience that the characters are in a gym and watching a dance performance.

The medium shots eventually start to pan and focus on a particular girl (who is not his daughter) who has caught Lester's eye. These two sequential shots show Lester's point of view (POV); he is not watching his own daughter's performance but is much more interested in this other girl, Angela Hayes.

The (extreme) close-up shot, which is eventually paired with an intense spot-light (and coincidentally, the disappearance of the other girls) shows the intimacy between Lester and his imaginary encounter with this particular girl. She has grabbed his attention and is the focus of Lester's POV. This is also the most emotionally-stimulating shot because the audience can actually feel the tension within the scene as Lester lusts after Angela.

Another example of these shots can be seen in the classic and possibly most well-known scene of the movie. In this scene, Lester is fantasizing about Angela naked in a field of roses.

Here, the viewing audience is introduced to the scene with both a long-shot and a high-angle shot. It establishes that the setting is in a bedroom with Lester. The high-angle is usually utilized when the director wants to take the power away from the subject. Here it is used to show Lester and his wife in bed (with his wife turned away from him) to imply that we are invading Lester's privacy.

A close-up shot of Lester tells us that he is in fact awake. Rose petals start to fall from above him and his fantasy starts. It cuts to...


A room with rose petals and a female figure in the middle as seen in this long-shot. With the quick cut from Lester and the rose petals still falling from above, the audience is introduced to Lester's fantasy and his POV again.

A medium shot slowly pans and focuses on the female figure in the middle.

It is revealed in this close-up shot that the female figure is Angela Hayes. The shot is intimate and detailed. Within his imagination, there is an interaction between her and Lester as she flirts with him. It also seems as though she is interacting with us as she looks straight-on to the camera during this shot.

(Scenes are screenshots taken from the movie American Beauty)

Post Six: The Stars Are Brighter Than Ever...

The very idea of Hollywood seems to convey a sense of wonder and amazement amongst its loyal followers and moviegoers. The industry is synonymous with phrases such as “the dream factory” or “movie magic”; it is where people can practice escapism. However, even with the “magic” that the industry is able to produce, it is still a business and has followed a certain system (also known as the studio system). This particular system and its ability to reinvent itself have enabled Hollywood to withstand time and revolutionary changes that have threatened the industry itself.

The most important and crucial aspect of the studio system has to be the emphasis that Hollywood placed on its film celebrities and their “star” qualities. Major film studios approached the business as a vertically integrated one, which meant that each studio controlled all aspects of production and distribution. They developed their own unique gathering of actors, writers, directors, and technicians that worked with the heads of the companies to produce certain types of films. With this system in place, Hollywood realized that members of the viewing audience were keen to see certain celebrities on the screen. They had developed a sense of loyalty and adoration towards certain actors and actresses and were willing to watch the movies as long as their favorites were showcased. Instead of emphasizing the type of movie or storyline, the studios marketed the celebrity actors as commodities. They took advantage of this growing phenomenon by putting the most popular celebrities in as many movies as they could and creating a specific storyline to showcase the actor or actress’ talents.

For example, MGM boasted that they had the greatest ensemble of actors (which were contracted to work only with that company) which included Judy Garland. She was extremely popular with moviegoers; the studio used her as another way of hyping or promoting other stars. The studio consistently type-casted her as a naïve, innocent young lady, one that the audience grew to expect would burst out into dance and song at least once during a movie. Thus, audience members began to associate her with a certain genre and would go into a movie starring Judy Garland with the expectations that she would perform a certain way. And because this genre was so successful, MGM became known for its consistent production of musicals.


Even today’s film studios take in account who they cast in their movies. Many moviegoers will base their decision on whether or not they will see a movie on the film ensemble. If it is someone that they enjoy watching or have a sense of loyalty towards, chances are, he or she will see it despite the weak premise, storyline, or other technical aspects. Many actors and actresses have also started a trend of working with the same people over again to the point where moviegoers expect a certain style from them. Examples include director Tim Burton working with Johnny Depp to create absurdist and dark films, Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider with their multiple tongue-in-cheek comedies, and Wes Anderson and Bill Murray with their dry-humor-driven films. Even if the movie itself does not show much promise, people will still go to see these movies because of the people behind and in the movies. Even actors and actresses criticized for their lack of talent will still bring in ticket sales as long as a loyal fan base is willing to pay. In addition, celebrities are also used in advertisements to push products: “you will be like Angelina Jolie if you use this perfume!” Even glancing at a cover of a tabloid in a supermarket will tell someone exactly how celebrity-driven our society has become. Actors and actresses are scrutinized, followed, and photographed as people obsess over their most intimate and private details. The idea that an actor is a commodity is still very prevalent.

Post Five: All in the Family vs. Modern Family

All in the Family was a very popular sitcom which ran from 1971 to 1979 (IMDB). According to the IMDB website, All in the Family had a premise of “a working class bigot [who] constantly squabbles with his family over the important issues of the day” (IMDB). One of the many contemporary family-based television situation comedies currently airing is called Modern Family which also deals with a family working through every-day issues and problems. All in the Family and Modern Family share differences and similarities as both shows deal with broad issues within the family setting.

All in the Family mainly deals with the main protagonist (or antagonist depending on the outlook) Archie Bunker and his conservative ideals and how his surrounding family members deal with them. In the All in the Family episode shown in class, it deals with the subject matter of homosexuality and the issue of homophobia. Archie Bunker is seen as unable to cope with his homophobia, pointing fingers at whomever he believes to be a “faggot”. He mocks his son-in-law’s effeminate friend and becomes shocked when his very masculine friend reveals his own unconventional sexual orientation. Archie is an archetype of a conservative and homophobic male unable to accept changing gender roles.

Modern Family is only in its second season so far but has shown itself to be a very progressive show because not only does it take the conventional family setting and actually makes it humorous in a refreshing way, but it also includes two homosexual fathers taking care of an adopted child. The two men are Cameron and Mitchell Tucker—one of them plays up the stereotype of flamboyant and obvious homosexuality while the other is more muted and does not cater to people’s predisposed perceptions of homosexuality. With this pair, Modern Family is able to subtly explore questions and the issues of homosexuality in today’s society. As a matter of fact, the last episode “The Kiss” aired on September 29, 2010, showed the two men giving each other a small kiss. Not many shows or major networks allow this sort of depiction and with this small little gesture, the ABC network was able to move a little bit forward.

Both shows are the similar because they deal with different issues within a family setting. They bring up issues that the American people and families probably ask themselves on a daily basis or at least of which have an opinion. They usually include a moral or lesson learned at the end. Both shows can be considered progressive when compared to their television counterparts. In All in the Family, the male main character Archie is portrayed as a conservative bigot whereas in Modern Family, the members are more supportive (although Jay, Mitchell’s father, sometimes is uncomfortable with the subject). All in the Family is much more blatant and negative with the exploration of the subject, even throwing around the word “faggot” around. Modern Family takes small steps and is much more subtle in dealing with the issue of homosexuality, taking a much more lighter note about it as the show tries to depict the two men as fun-loving and sweet caretakers. In addition, All in the Family has a very serious political undertone, as Archie scoffed at “socialists” who he believed were ruining the country. Although both shows show varying degrees of radicalism, it seems as though All in the Family was able to get away with a lot more. Even though Modern Family can still play with unconventional ideas, it has to keep in mind that it has to take the issues with some degree of hesitation so that it does not offend or alienate any of its viewers or the network.