Hollywood's Three Act Structure in "The Proposal"

            First off, as usual, I hope you all are having a great start to the weekend. We’re playing Baylor, HOOK ‘EM!! \\m//, and it is also Halloween weekend which should be pretty fun. Second, I would like to say: SPOILER ALERT!! If you have never seen this movie, this blog entry may ruin it for you haha. I will be discussing Hollywood’s THREE ACT STRUCTURE and how it works within one of my favorite movies “The Proposal”. “The Proposal” is about a guy named Andrew (Ryan Reynolds) who, in order to keep his job, is forced by his boss Margaret (Sandra Bullock) to marry her so that she does not have to get deported back to Canada. This is a really funny comedy romance film with many amazing, A-list actors and actresses. Ryan Reynolds is one of my favorite actors, and in my opinion does an amazing job in “The Proposal”. I hope you all enjoy this week’s blog!!

            Hollywood’s three act structure is broken down into three parts: the introduction (approx. 30 minutes), the complication (approx. 30-60 minutes), and the resolution (approx. 30 minutes).  Acts one and two contain plot points which escalate stakes, imply complication, and end the act. Plot points are the equivalence to transitions and propel action into the next act. Act three, or the resolution, contains the climax which is the point of greatest intensity in the development and resolution of the film. In Hollywood’s three act structure the climax is shifted toward the end of the film. In the first act of “The Proposal”, the assistant editor of a publishing company (Andrew) shows up to his work. Once the editor in chief, or his boss (Margaret), arrives at work all of the employees scramble around to try to make it seem as if they were very busy. They are all scared of her because of the way she presents herself and treats others. Margaret soon gets called in to talk to people of higher authority in her building and tells her assistant Andrew to come and get her in ten minutes. She finds out that she is being deported for a year and tries everything she can to talk her way out of it, but fails to do so. When Andrew comes in to get her to leave he makes up an excuse to get her out of there. In Andrew’s last few words of his excuse he says, “I told her you were otherwise engaged, she insisted”. Margaret thinks about the word “engaged” and she makes a quick decision. In order to stay in America and not be deported she tells the men of higher authority that she and Andrew are getting married. In order to save both of their jobs, they must go to the immigration office to settle this issue. After talking to Mr. Gilbertson of the immigration office, Margaret and Andrew are told that if he finds out that they are committing fraud that Margaret will be deported and Andrew will face a fine and serve jail time. They have a schedule interview with Mr. Gilbertson to answer questions on one another and he will also be frequently checking up on them. Once leaving the immigration office, Andrew tells Margaret to get down on one knee and ask him nicely to marry her, in which he says okay. This is where the act peaks known as the plot point number one that implies that complication is about to begin, propels action into the next act, and asks a question that the next act will answer. The time of this plot point is about 21 minutes into the movie, and it escalates the stakes and ends the act.

            The second act begins with Margaret and Andrew on a plane to go to Sitka, Alaska to go visit Andrew’s family and to tell them about their engagement. During the trip they must review and learn the answers to questions that only a couple would know about each other for the interview with Mr. Gilbertson. Once reaching Andrew’s parent’s house, Margaret and Andrew encounter several physical and emotional complications. For example, when they first get to the house at Andrew’s welcome home party, Andrew announces his and Margaret’s engagement. After doing so, everyone shouts out for them two to kiss. Once they kiss, they have a real moment and seem to enjoy kissing each other, which really throws them both off. Another example is one night when they are about to go to sleep they start having a very personal conversation that turned out to be a good one. They are awoken by Andrew’s family who come in with breakfast and also a proposition. They want Margaret and Andrew to get married there at their home in Alaska the next day. They are forced to say yes because Andrew’s “Gammy” comes in and says that she wants to see her only grandson get married before she’s dead. They say yes to this proposition and Andrew freaks out. Margaret is there for him and makes him feel better, and the two of them have another moment together. They both realize that they are actually falling for each other, so Margaret then has a “freak out” moment herself and has to leave the house to go think about things. This is the plot point number two that occurs 66 minutes into the movie. This sets up the complications and action that will occur in the last act, which is the resolution, and also asks a question of what is going to happen at the marriage ceremony that will be answered in the third and final act.

            The third and final act is known as the resolution. One of the first complications in this act comes when Andrew’s mother, grandmother, and Margaret go to a shop to get Margaret fitted in her wedding dress. Once after talking about being a part of the family, Margaret gets very emotional and has a meltdown because she forgot what it was like to have a family. Another complication arises when Mr. Gilbertson calls Andrew’s dad and his dad invites Mr. Gilbertson over to the house where they made a deal. The deal was that if Andrew confessed then he would be free and Margaret would be deported. Andrew told them that he and Margaret were in love and that they were getting married. In the middle of the wedding ceremony Margaret announces that she has something to say. Margaret confesses the whole thing once she found out how wonderful of a person Andrew was, and called the wedding off. This proved that Margaret was really in love with Andrew, and didn’t want to hurt him or his family. Andrew goes to look for Margaret and finds a letter from her to him. He realizes that he is actually in love with her and tries to catch her at the airport before she leaves to go to New York. Her flight leaves before he could catch it, and he does not get to tell her that he loves her before she is gone. Andrew then flies to New York and catches Margaret while she is packing at the office before she is deported to Canada. Andrew confesses his love to her and asks her to marry him, so he could take her on a date. She told him that she thought it would just be easier if she left, and he said, “You’re right. That would be easier.”  They both told each other that they were scared, knowing that they were in love, and then they kissed. This is the climax in the third act that occurs approximately 100 minutes into the movie, with around 8 minutes left of the rest of the film before the ending. The whole movie built up to this one point in the resolution that held the greatest intensity. The very ending showed clips of them with Mr. Gilbertson in their interview at the immigration office to end with them taking the step further to getting married.

            I hope you all enjoyed my blog post for this weekend. If you have never seen this film I HIGHLY recommend that you do!! The duo of Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock makes for an outstanding film. This film to me was a great example of Hollywood’s three act structure. I have included a link to a video of the trailer for the movie “The Proposal”. It’s a must see, so see it soon!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFL8b1p1ELY

Characteristics of the TV Sitcom and That 70's Show

            Hey everyone, hope you all are having a great weekend. This week’s blog post is about characteristics of the TV sitcom. I’m going to discuss how it functions within the sitcom genre, and I am also going to apply that characteristic of the genre to one of my all time favorite sitcoms: “That 70’s Show”. This episodic sitcom no longer runs new episodes, but it still runs on TV today. This is no doubt a great comedy sitcom that we as college students can look at and relate to, no matter which character it is that we are relating to.

            The television situation comedy, TV sitcom for short, is a genre of comedy that possesses several unique characteristics. A situation comedy is based on a storyline that usually consists of a family, a group of friends and/or acquaintances, or even a place of work with ongoing characters that consistently hold a place on the show almost every episode, if not every. The situations in the sitcoms can change show after show, and they also have the ability to play out across several simultaneous episodes where the characters and situations begin to change and evolve. Sitcom episodic characteristics include modified three act structure, series as cumulative and seasonal text, mini resolutions, cycles and repeated patterns, and character growth. With cycles and repeated patterns, the audience becomes familiar with the same characters and situations that each episode presents. Similar comedic situations, environments, and phrases are used episode after episode to act somewhat as a trademark of that certain TV sitcom for viewers to relate to. Another characteristic is character growth. During the time span of the episodes of a TV sitcom, characters usually grow in certain aspects such as age, adolescence, intelligence, responsibilities, growth in friendships and relationships, and etc. The characters’ growth and certain occurring situations during the TV sitcoms episodes combine comedy with seriousness, but making sure that comedy is the most important, utilized aspect, and is used throughout the sitcom.

            One of my all time favorite TV sitcoms is “That 70’s Show”. This show is based on the life of Eric Forman, his family, and his close-knit group of five friends: Donna, Hyde, Kelso, Fez, and Jackie. Based in Point Place, Wisconsin in the 1970’s, this situation comedy covered issues such as sexuality, drug use, feminism, the recession, and mistrust of the American government, all strategically acted out and combined in such a way to make each and every one of them comical in their own special way. “That 70’s Show” features the characteristic of cycles and repeated patterns. Similar characters, such as Eric Forman and friends (Donna, Hyde, Kelso, Fez, Jackie), Eric and Donna’s parents (Kitty and Red Forman, Midge and Bob Pinciotti), and a local hippie named Leo. These familiar characters consistently appear in a couple of main locations where the comedy takes place. These environments include: Eric Forman’s house (inside and outside), Eric Forman’s basement, the Vista Cruiser (Eric Forman’s car), and The Hub (a local eating joint where the gang hangs out at). The whole gang over time begins to develop phrases that stick with them throughout the episodes that the viewers become very familiarized with. Some of these phrases include: Fez’s “You son of a b***h”, Eric Forman’s “What the hell”, Kelso’s “Burn”, and probably the most well known is Red Forman’s “Dumbass”. All of these cycles and repeated patterns in the comedy of the characters, phrases, and environments are what made the TV sitcom “That 70’s Show” what it was. Another characteristic of the TV sitcom “That 70’s Show” is the strategy that the creators of the show used to comically present the growth of all of the main characters throughout the episodes. In this show from the beginning episode to the ending episodes the characters grow in age, adolescence, responsibilities, friendships and relationships. For example, in the beginning episodes Eric Forman and Donna Pinciotti were just friends that had a crush on each other, but over the course of the episodes they started to date each other. When later episodes were made Donna and Eric got engaged, but near the end of the episodes they split up and were no longer a couple. The gang’s friendship grew stronger and closer throughout the episodes, grew older in age, and went through adolescence and matured over the years together.

            The TV sitcom “That 70’s Show” exhibits characters, phrases, and environments that show repeated patterns, and show the growth of the characters over time all combined with comedy. There are many TV sitcoms that each possess different and also some of the same characteristics that function within the sitcom genre. If you have not seen "That 70's Show" I HIGHLY recommend seeing it at least once in your lifetime. But I warn you: once you see it once, you'll be hooked! I hope you all enjoyed my blog entry for this week. Here is a link to a video of the opening credits of the first season of “That 70’s Show”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_3ECxWjPyc

The Shot Progression and Camera Angles in the movie "Gladiator"

            Hey everyone, hope your weekend is going a little smoother than mine. I don’t know about you, but classes are keeping me plenty busy! I’m doing this weekend’s blog post on scenes from the movie “Gladiator”. I will be taking different scenes and will analyze them to present to you the different camera angles and the progression of the shots that have been used. There are three different progression shots: long shot, medium shot, and the close up. There are also three different camera angles: eye level shot, low angle shot, and high angle shot. All of these different shots and angles will tell the viewers something important about the characters and surroundings in the shots, and how to feel for them emotionally. This is no doubt an incredible film. I would say I hope you enjoy this blog, but considering that it’s “Gladiator”, I know you will!

            The scene that I am going to address is titled “A Soldier’s Death”. In this scene Caesar has elected Maximus (Russell Crowe) to become the new Caesar, and not his own son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix). Because of Commodus’ jealousy, Maximus is sent to be assassinated on Commodus’ order. He does this before anyone knows of Maximus’ duty to become the next Caesar, therefore Commodus is hailed as the new Caesar. When Maximus now on foot enters the woods detained by Caesar’s guards, director Ridley Scott uses a long shot, or orientation shot, to show the audience the details of where the assassination would be taking place. There was dead grass, broken branches, brush, and even bones lying everywhere. It seemed to be a very sad and dead place, which is symbolic to the assassination that is supposed to take place. Next was a medium shot that gave the needed information on the status of the main character at that time. The medium shot showed that Maximus was tied up and in the guards’ full control. He was subject to the guards’ command, and was helpless. Although these shots appeared to be nothing but bad news for Maximus, Scott also used a low angle shot to show that Maximus, although detained and about to face death, still held power. This was important because it foretold events that may occur in the near future. One of the next shots in the scene presented a close up shot to give important detail on Maximus’ facial expressions, so the audience would be able to see, and even feel what he was feeling at that moment in time. The close up shot was held on his face, which is known as shock progression. At first Maximus’ eyes were watering, appearing to exhibit the feeling of sadness and desperation because he knew his life was soon to be at an end. But then, still using a close up shot, he acquires a new look in his eyes: one that makes him appear to have an idea or a plan to try to save his own life. A low angle shot is also used to show that Maximus is still very powerful in this shot. This shot was used very well, because in this scene Maximus, right before getting ‘a soldier’s death’, rises from his knees to not only fight, but kill all of the guards to escape with his life. Once Maximus escapes and rides off on a horse, at first a long shot and eye level shot are used. These two shots together show Maximus’ surroundings and where he is at, and also how he is very much alone and now neutral in power. The shot soon turns into a long shot with a high angle shot. This presented a very sad, alone, and powerless Maximus riding an extremely far distance through the mountains trying to get to his home and family. Once he reaches home, he finds that his farm, crops, and family have all been burnt and killed. A series of eye level close up shots were used to show the pain and agony that Maximus felt. These eye level close ups show a crying, speechless, heartbroken, beaten down man that felt he had nothing left to live for, and they allowed the viewers to truly feel the pain and suffering that Maximus was going through at that moment in time. This part of the scene was perfectly shot, because it was let known that this was Maximus’ lowest point in the film.

            Ridley Scott uses a series of different shots in several scenes that hold an important place in the film “Gladiator”. This film was beautifully made, and some of the shots were the reason that the film turned out as great as it did. Depending on what the director of a film wants the audience to see and feel for different characters, he or she will use the different progression shots and camera angles accordingly. I am convinced that the film industry and movies would not be as popular today if it did not possess a variety of different progression shots and camera angles. Progression shots and camera angles tell the viewers what and how to think about the characters emotions and power, and also their surroundings. I hope you all enjoyed this weekend’s blog post. I sure did, considering that I got to watch different parts of one of my favorite movies! I have given a link to a video clip of the movie trailer to “Gladiator”. If you have never seen it, I HIGHLY suggest that you do. It’s greatness!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvTT29cavKo

Film Studios and Their Star Systems

In this week’s blog post I am supposed to describe a specific aspect of how the studio system worked. There are many factors and individuals that contribute to the success, and unfortunately sometimes the failure, of film studios. In the next few paragraphs I will be discussing the importance of the STAR SYSTEM in Hollywood’s major film studios, and exactly how it functions and plays a huge role in the studio system.

As soon as Hollywood, California became the home of motion picture films, major film studios began “producing movies almost on an assembly line”, and developed teams of writers, directors, actors, technicians, equipment and etc., which allowed their production capabilities to grow at high rates (Media Now, 192). As production increased the studios began to understand that the popularity of certain actors/actresses was one of the main factors that contributed to the number of viewers the movie attracted. As a star was born, their “father” studio rose to the top; this is known as the STAR SYSTEM. The definition of star system in my “Media Now” textbook states, “The star system was the film studios’ use of stars’ popularity to promote their movies” (Media Now, 192). Studios now had a very valuable marketing technique that promoted studio films, and in result earned many more viewers. Each studio had its own star system which gave them their own style that differed from all of the others. Studios now began to develop their own genres that attracted different groups of viewers.

Whether the studios produced prestigious films, B movies, or both, the actors/actresses were bringing in consistent profits for their studios. Each film studio had their own star system, and each actor/actress had their own set of talents and acting skills that they were best at and well known for. This allowed for the stars to act in the same types of movies time and time again. The stars started to become associated with a certain genre, rather than acting in all sorts of different types of movies. Film studios that had stars that were talented in the area of singing and dancing began to produce movies under the genre of musicals. Musicals allowed the actors/actresses the chance to act out their true talents in the film. Other genres included: westerns, horror, action/adventure, comedy, romances, war movies, and etc. Actors/actresses that showed a strong point in one certain genre began to continually appear in the same types of movies in that specific genre.

A good example of an actor/actress that was committed to a specific genre is MGM star Judy Garland. Judy Garland had a consistent set of character traits, such as singing and dancing, which associated her with the musical genre. She acted in movies like “The Wizard of OZ”, “Meet Me in St. Louis”, “A Star is Born”, and etc. Every time a movie starring Judy Garland was produced, the viewers would know exactly what to expect: at least one or two singing and dancing scenes featuring Judy Garland. MGM also used Judy Garland’s talent and popularity to promote several other MGM stars in her featured films. For example,  the film “Broadway Melody of 1938” features a young teenage Judy Garland who sings the song “You Made Me Love You” to a picture of another MGM star Clark Gable. This shows the technique that the MGM studio used in their star system. They used a very popular actress, Judy Garland, to promote another popular star, Clark Gable, in their film. Of course, this is only one example of many. MGM was not the only film studio to use this technique in promoting their stars and films.

I hope you all are enjoying your weekend and enjoyed this week’s blog post. Film is a huge part of my life, I love it! But then again, who doesn’t. Here is a link to Judy Garland singing to the picture of Clark Gable in the film “Broadway Melody of 1938”. This was also talked about and shown in Colin Tait’s appearance in our RTF 305 class as a guest lecturer. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-5PGkg1yg0

Works Cited: Media Now textbook, Colin Tait.

"All in the Family" VS "The Brady Bunch"

The 1970’s featured many great sitcoms including: The Bad News Bears, Happy Days, The Jeffersons, Laverne and Shirley, M*A*S*H, Sanford and Son, and one of my favorite shows of all time, Three’s Company. In this week’s blog post I will be comparing two family-based TV situation comedies. In the blue corner we have “All in the Family”, and in the red corner we have “The Brady Bunch”. The gloves are on and the mouth guards are in. LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!

Although “All in the Family” and “The Brady Bunch” possess both differences and similarities, I personally believe that their differences present a much broader topic. “All in the Family” featured a family from Astoria, New York. This family included husband Archie Bunker, who was a working-class WWII veteran, wife Edith Bunker (dingbat), daughter Gloria Bunker (little girl), and son-in-law Michael Stivic (meathead). “The Brady Bunch” was also an American situation comedy that revolved around a family of eight (nine if you count Alice the housekeeper). This family included Mike Brady, who was a widowed architect and his three sons Greg, Peter, and Bobby, and also had a live-in house keeper named Alice. Mike married Carol who had three daughters, Marcia, Jan, and Cindy. In “The Brady Bunch” throughout the whole series the six Brady children are between the ages 6-18, where as in “All in the Family” series, Archie’s daughter Gloria and his son-in-law Mike are in college and then graduate college. In “All in the Family” although Archie and Edith love each other dearly, they often disagree with each other and get into quarrels; Archie continually calls his wife Edith a dingbat. Archie and his son-in-law Mike also have many differences and beliefs and often get into disagreements. Archie calls Mike a meathead. This differs from the relationship of Mike, Carol and their kids in “The Brady Bunch”. Mike and Carol Brady of course do have their differences like any married couple and family, but for the most part they agree and make sure that they have a very tight-knit, united family. Unlike the Bunker family in “All in the Family”, the Brady family in “The Brady Bunch” was clearly wealthier. Mike Brady was an architect; where as Archie Bunker was a dock foreman for a company. The Brady’s house, clothing, family trips, and etc. were all indicators of the Brady family being wealthier.

There are also some similarities in the two 1970’s sitcoms. Both “All in the Family” and “The Brady Bunch” are focused on the lives of a Caucasian family. This is important, because although racism was not as much of a big problem in the 70’s as it was in decades before, the shows still exhibited that the white race was dominant. Despite all of the disagreements and arguments, both the Bunker family and the Brady family showed that they could and would get past them and unite together with the ones that they loved. The creators of both “All in the Family” and “The Brady Bunch” wanted to show viewers what their view of the real American family was like and how they dealt with certain issues. Both of these families also had children. Although the Brady family has six children and the Bunker family only has one, two if you include the son-in-law Mike. No matter the amount of them on these two shows, the children play an important role in the families and shows. Both “All in the Family” and “The Brady Bunch” had loyal viewers who agreed with the views and opinions of the shows and their characters, and really related with the shows in general.

“All in the Family” was an American situation comedy that depicted the issues of racism, homosexuality, women’s liberation, politics, and etc., which were topics that used to be believed as unsuitable for a television sitcom. This sitcom revolved around the main character, Archie Bunker’s views and beliefs on the controversial topics, and how he was “dismissive of anyone not in agreement with his view of the world” (Wikipedia). In “The Brady Bunch” the issues covered by this sitcom were not near as harsh as the ones in “All in the Family”. “The Brady Bunch” focused on issues dealing with the kids and their childhood, such as sibling rivalry, family unity, responsibility, dating, self-image, puberty, and etc. “On occasion, remarks relevant to the ‘real world’ were covertly thrown in, but never truly impacted the innocent, carefree charm of the series” (IMDB, Rathjen). “The Brady Bunch” presented issues about the children and what they were going through in their stages of growing up, such as dating, self-image, puberty, sibling rivalry and etc. “The Brady Bunch” was much more suitable for children and the whole family to watch together as a source of entertainment and something that the family could really relate to. This was quite different from the prejudiced, discriminative, argumentative, harsh remarks and opinions on the ‘real world’ in “All of the Family”. “All in the Family” is more for the mature audience rather than for the whole family, unlike “The Brady Bunch”. “The Brady Bunch” was a sitcom that was appropriate for and viewed by families, adults and children included. “All in the Family” covers more controversial topics including race, sexuality, politics and etc. that are not suitable for all ages, and some viewers may find offensive. This sitcom also presented issues that the viewers could relate to and agree upon.

Works Cited: IMDB, Wikipedia.

Well I hope you all enjoyed my blog post for the week. I wasn’t ever much of a fan for “The Brady Bunch”, but when I was younger I did watch “All in the Family” with my grandparents sometimes; I thought that it was a very funny, successful show. I still wish we could have watched an episode of “Three’s Company” in class, though. I love that show! It’s one of my all time favorites! If you’ve never seen it, I heavily suggest that you do ASAP, if you’re looking for a million good laughs. Here is a link to a “Three’s Company” fansite that I have included in my blog post. I hope you all had a great weekend and enjoy this link!

http://www.threescompany.com/