Blog Post #9: The three act structure of The Lost Boys

     Professor Ramirez-Berg explained the template for nearly every Hollywood produced movie: the three act structure. Act one sets up the action, act two introduces the conflict, and act three has the conflict and resolution. Of course there are always deviations from this norm, such as the repeat action structure, or the five act structure commonly used for tragedies, but as stated, most films follow the linear three act structure.
     An example of the three-act structure is the film The Lost Boys. The first act, the set-up, quickly explains how Michal, his brother Sam, and his mother have come to live in Santa Clara--the "murder capital of the world," with their grandfather. The first act also introduces Micheal to the vampire gang, and Sam to the vampire hunting Frog Brothers. The first plot point comes when Michael is tricked into drinking blood by David (the perceived leader of the vampires). This action is the first step in turning him into  vampire, and leads into the second act. The conflict arises out of Michael's increasing vampireish tendencies (such as sleeping all day, having no reflection, and his thirst for blood), and Sam's resolution to help change Michael (and eventually other "half-vampires") back to normal. The second plot point comes when Michael leads them to the gang's cave, where the Frog Brothers intend to kill all the vampires, but instead only kill the smallest after his death awakens the others. The third act involves Michael, Sam, and the Frog Brothers preparing for the impending battle with David and the remaining vampires at nightfall. The climax, logically, is said battle in their Santa Clara home. As you can see, Joel Shumacher's The Lost Boys clearly follows the Hollywood three act structure as described in Professor Ramirez-Berg's lecture.

The scene where Sam discovers Michael is a vampire:

Blog Post #8: Episodic Format of Community

The episodic sitcom format affords great freedom to writers and viewers. Shows which implement
this style do not have sweeping seasonal character arcs, and viewers can easily begin watching any show during the season and grasp what is happening in the story. A problem for a character is highlighted for one, sometimes two episodes, then the show moves on to the next plot-line. By the next episode, what happened previously is rarely referenced, and can largely be disregarded as it's not essential to the current episode. Episodes very rarely tie into each other, and each is essentially their own story, they just all utilize the same characters. This gives the writers more opportunity to feature the life of each character and develop their traits whenever they see fit--instead of relying on season-long arcs to reach the same realization. And a viewer can miss an episode, but understand the next. This is not to say that episodic sitcoms cannot feature character growth and development. General stories can be found throughout a season, they are just not the predominant story of the episode.
     One example is the show Community: during the season premier, Chang was trying to get into the study group. He tries to do so for one more episode, then the story is largely dropped.
After this situation, nothing more has been done with Chang trying to earn the groups affection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73sdlRGqC6I (It will not embed, so please watch at the link).
His character is given other stories, and the main characters in the study group are more prominently featured. Other examples are Jeff and Brita's/Amy's relationship or Shirley's divorce, both situations were large parts of one story, then quietly referenced in other shows without any development to that specific storyline.

Here is what I find to be a fantastic example of a scene whose consequences will never be mentioned, and if so only in passing:


*Everyone, please watch Community. It's a great show with a unique premise, and I can't have any more of my favorite shows get canceled...seriously."

Blog Post #7: The Camera Work of 28 Days Later

Danny Boyle's 2002 thriller 28 Days Later features incredibly compelling camera work to convey the completely isolated mood of the film. The film begins with an introduction to the "rage" virus. A close up on a television is playing violent news reels, then the camera pans back to reveal multiple televisions with the content, then back further to reveal the subject to which this content is directed--a monkey. The use of reverse shot progression, from specific to general immediately disorients the viewer: they are unsure of what is going on, where they are, why they are being shown this, then the meaning becomes more clear as the scene progresses. Slowly, more information is given via the medium and long shots: the viewer can now see that this is in a lab, and there are cages and cages of monkeys, all very upset. Then the shots revert back to close ups, specifically on the faces and upper bodies of the monkeys, being sure to show them scream and pound their fists against their cage. At this point, the motives of the scene are still uncertain; the shots meant for identification are providing extremely limited insight into the surrounding area, and this confusion sets the tone for the remainder of the film.       

The reverse shot progression is also prominent in the scene immediately following, when the Jim is introduced to the film. An extreme close-up first introduces his face, and then there is a medium shot showing him in a hospital bed, then back to a close up of his face. The alternating shots leave the viewer longing for information: "Why is he in a hospital?" "Is anyone else there?" "What is he doing?" Information is clearly being withheld. As he walks out of the hospital, we see medium shots of Jim walking alone through streets. Through extreme long shots, we can now see that the city is London, and appears to be completely deserted. The leak of information through the reverse progression signifies the complete isolation Jim feels, as he realizes that he is absolutely alone, and the sheer confusion that ultimately arises from this realization.

These are the first six minutes of the film, which show the scene's I'm talking about:

Blog Post #6: Stars of the Studio System

     The studio system dominated Hollywood production from the 20s until the 50s. Unlike today’s system, the studio system involved complete ownership over all aspects of film creation: the actors, writers, producers, and theaters. Having actors on contract was especially important—better actors drew larger audiences. Occasionally these actors were traded between studios, but most often they were exclusive to one specific studio.
      Essentially, studios trained audiences to expect certain types of films when billed with certain actors. When someone saw Judy Garland, Clark Gable, or Humphrey Bogart, listed as a film’s star, they knew what to expect from the movie. This predictability limited the creativity  of the studios—as they could churn out fundamentally identical movies and continue to make a profit—while it also limited the abilities of the stars as they were typecast and shoved into the same role over and over again.
      This is perhaps most apparent over the career of John Wayne. He is now referred to as the quintessential cowboy. Relentlessly, he was cast as the heroic cowboy in westerns. Yes, this did transform him from struggling bit actor to a “star” with the success of “Stagecoach.” Despite the fact that he had made westerns for years prior, his breakthrough film forever relegated him to the role of Hollywood’s cowboy.

Blog Post #5: "All in the Family" vs "Modern Family"

The family based sitcom has been around since the beginning of television. It has served as a medium for comedy as well as compelling social commentary, as seen from the shows "All in the Family" and "Modern Family." Set decades apart, the two shows still touch an enduring societal issues, but contemporaneous issues as well.
The screening of "All in the Family" brought about the issue of homosexuality in the 70s. Archie is disturbed by one of his daughter's friends, who he repeatedly referrers to as a "queer" and "fag" on the basis of his appearance. He is then floored to find out that not only this man is straight, but one of his friends--who he considers to be the pinnacle of manliness--is in fact gay. The episode revealed how uncomfortable society was by the emergence of
homosexuality from underground to acceptable lifestyle.
Conversely, the show "Modern Family" touches on the acceptance of this lifestyle in the 2000s. Mitchell and Cameron are a gay couple with an adopted daughter. They face the issues of their sexuality in multiple episodes, as they are concerned by what others will think of them, such as when they attempt to act straight at their daughter's playgroup and when Mitchell does not want to publicly show affection to Cameron.
Both shows confront the difficulties that arise from homosexuality, one, the issue that comes from discovering a friend's sexuality, and the other a couple trying to live with theirs. The approach is very different between the shows, but both touch on the same issue as it applies to their target generation.One of the most apparent differences is that "All in the Family" only deals with Archie and his immediate family. Whereas "Modern Family" shows the interrelationship of three families, though they are all related. The family dynamic provides different types of issues to be brought up. "All in the Family" is limited to the relationship Archie has with his wife, daughter and her husband. However "Modern Family" can explore the relationship between father/adult child, parents/young children, brother/sister; essentially, they can explore greater familial relationships, where
"All in the Family" cannot. Both shows provide excellent social commentary despite the fact that they are set decades apart. Surprisingly, they also touch on some of the same issues, which illustrates that some family issues are enduring, while others are strictly limited to the time period in which a show is set.




This is a promotional video for "Modern Family"