Blog Post 9: Three Act Structure

The three act structure has three components that define the beginning, middle and end of a film.  The first portion, the beginning, serves as the introduction that sets the precedence for the film and establishes characters, setting and the initial conflict.  Once it reaches the first plot point, at the end of the introduction, the act comes to a close as the stakes escalate and there is an implication of complications to be resolved in the second act.  The first act is usually around thirty minutes long.  The second act, the complications lasting between thirty and sixty minutes, brings forth the main conflict of the film.  The second plot point marks the end of the second act; much like the first plot point propels action into the next act and asks a question that the next act will answer.  The final act, the resolution, resolves the conflicts of the film.  This act structure is usually used for quest stories, triumphant tales and films with happy endings.  The films generally focus on a single protagonist, end with a clear resolution, are goal oriented, and flow in a chronological order.

The film Avatar is a great example of a three act structure.  The introduction, act one, of the film establishes the setting of Pandora and the main characters: Jake Sully, Dr. Grace Augustine, Colonel Miles Quaritch, Trudy Chacon, etc.  As the first act develops, Jake Sully is being slowly immersed into a strange new world.  The stage is set for the plot to unfold when Jake finally enters Pandora’s environment.  The first plot point comes when Jake is left stranded in Pandora’s harsh environment and forced to survive on his own.  This is the point at which the characters and the setting have been well established and now the action transitions toward the main conflict of the story, Jake and his interactions with the natives and Pandora itself.  The defining scene toward this transition to a new complication is personified in Neytiri’s attempt to kill Jake Sully only to recall her arrow at the sight of the strange floating seed from the tree of souls. 

The second act goes deeper into the relationship between Jake Sully and Neytiri and shows him slowly learning their ways to one day be accepted to forewarn them of an impending fate.  Near the end of the act Jake is given an ultimatum to get the Na’vi to leave Home Tree within the hour by Colonel Miles Quaritch and Parker Selfridge.  At this point Jake addresses his reasons for learning the Na’vi’s culture and Neytiri rejects him saying he will “never be one of the people”.  This escalates the stakes for Jake has not only failed to help the people but has also ruined his statues in the community.  The act ends with the destruction of Home Tree that was symbolic of the last form of mediation between the humans and the Na’vi. 

The final act centers on the conflict between the humans and the Na’vi as the film begins the resolve the underlying issue that has always been present.  With their home destroyed and the humans aiming to attack, the Na’vi, and their non-Na’vi assistance, rally together in one final retaliation.  This scene lasts for about forty minutes to an hour and ends with the dramatic battle between Jake Sully and Colonel Miles Quaritch.  The climax of the act is the final resolution between the battle of these two who epitomize the polarities of integration and destruction.  After the death the Quaritch, the climax of the movie is resolved and the rest is merely the falling action. 

Blog Post 8: TV Sitcoms

Many TV sitcoms have a very episodic narrative structure.  Episodic shows allow for all of the focus of the generally only thirty minute show to be allocated to a specific issue that is only a major factor in that episode.  With such a condensed format, sitcoms are able to present a quickly developed conflict with polar ideals, hyperbolic attitudes and in most cases constant humor.  In contrast to dramas, normally an hour long, serious, serial in structure and regularly acted, sitcoms are arguably a cathartic simulation of opinions on specific issues by which an audience can identify with or refute with their obstreperous formula of presenting the conflict at hand. 

With each episode a character of a sitcom reacts to the issue of the episode in different ways, and audience members identify with their favorite characters.  Through each episode the character develops as a result of the conflict and adds to their dimension.  Because of this, audience members can become better attached to their favorite characters and see how they handle certain conflicts in condensed situations. 

With such an episodic format, sitcoms are also able to address many more issues than dramas which generally focus and deeply develop only a few conflicts over a span of many episodes.  At the beginning of every episode, for the most part without regard to two part episodes and season finales, the slate is wiped clean.  The characters are usually the only constant in sitcoms with the issue of the episode being the only driving force at any plot development and conflict. 

One of the greatest examples of a sitcom utilizing an episodic is The Simpsons.  In each episode a new issue is addressed, usually correlating to and/or parodying the current political agenda or other TV show.  The characters of the show and their basic attributes are the only constant throughout the series, and they are affected by the happenings of the particular episode at hand having more depth added based on the issue.  With a thirty-minute airtime and an episodic format, The Simpsons is able to maintain a hyperbolic and comical presentation of focused episodes on specific issues and events.

Blog Post 7: Long, Medium, and Close Up shots

The cinematographic progression of scenes usually follows the order of a long shot to a medium shot and finally a close up.  Using this technique, it is easy to establish the setting in the long shot, define the characters and provide a focus in the medium shot, and finally relay the important details and emotions in the close up.  Though this is normally a steadfast formula for a scene, there can be an even more dramatic effect with the reversal of this progression.  A great example of this reverse progression comes from the classic “flying” scene in James Cameron’s Titanic.

Instead of focusing immediately on the setting, the attention of the first part of the scene establishes the emotions of the characters with the use of close up shots.  Rose has slight feelings of uncertainty initially and through the close up it is well conveyed while simultaneously being juxtaposed to Jack’s confidence.

Following the close up, the progression moves to a medium shot to move the focus away from the emotions of the characters and more toward the setting they are in.  The scene is not focused on the two characters emotions individually but rather on them together in a broader sense.   

The progression then goes to the long shot to finally establish the scope of the scene.  It establishes Jack and Rose at the front of the enormous Titanic and reorients the viewer to the fact of where they are.  This progression, reverse from the standard, goes from an intimate close up to an ostentatious long shot.

Then to add even more dimension to the scene, the camera returns to an extreme close up to establish the emotional response of the scene and the change in Rose’s emotions of uncertainty to sentimentalities of trust.

(screenshots from the movie Titanic)

Blog Post 6: Studio Systems

One of the critical aspects of the studio system was the use of reoccurring genres to which audiences repeatedly flocked to.  A genre discerns a specific type of film with a fingerprint formula to which the audience can form a fixed preconception of the film before ever setting foot in the movie house.  Like the star system with its use of familiar stars to promote movies, a film’s specific genre gave the audience member a drive to see a movie that was similar to a movie they had already seen. 

Through this aspect of the studio system, such genres of comedy, drama, action, horror, science fiction, classics, family, westerns, animation, documentary, and foreign have given rise and developed into the bread and butter of the movie industry.  Because the movie industries had these reproducible templates, mass production of similar movies with similar themes became the norm.  The genres affected the kinds of movies produced by giving a simple way for making movies that were generally widely accepted by the audience and the movie industries did not have to worry about the risk of not having appeal to get the viewer to the theater. 

A prime example of a genre appealing to an audience is the persistence of the John Wayne’s eighty-four westerns.  From the 20s to the 70s, westerns were a staple for the average moviegoer as John Wayne’s massive empire portrays.  The dominance of this genre is an example of how this part of the studio system worked toward capturing the attention of audience members to go to a movie that was familiar yet still a new experience. 

Blog Post 5: Malcolm in the Middle & All in the Family

While All in the Family depicts an older family mainly revolving around Archie Bunker and his introduction to controversial issues, Malcolm in the Middle portrays a family of chaos from the perspective of Malcolm and the affects that his and his brothers’ behavior has on his parents and society.  All in the Family shows depicts the desensitizing of controversial issues from the perspective of Archie who is unwilling to accept change; however, Malcolm in the Middle presents controversial issues from an advocate’s perspective through Malcolm.  The generation gap between the 1970s, the time period All in the Family is, to the 21^st century in which Malcolm in the Middle is a major reason for the differences in perspective and means of conflict, but the issues in which the two shows explore has remained relatively the same.  The 1970s had much less tolerance for rebellion, thus affecting the means by which new ideas and perspectives were presented while the 21^st century began to indulge in as more commonplace for civil disobedience and protest; however, the issues in question remained remotely similar. 

Both shows are set in a comedic genre that is relatively assertive on dealing with issues relevant to their times, and balance the between bringing up sensitive topics in both a comedic tone while at times still being able to shift gears to a declarative demeanor about a certain issue to prove a point or subtly open society’s eyes to something that would otherwise be left unaddressed.  The family setting of the two sitcoms is also somewhat irregular in that they do not necessarily portray a typical family dynamic: All in the Family having an older couple, one far set in his ways and one understanding of the new, along with an adult married daughter, and Malcolm in the Middle is a family of temperamental parents and four unruly brothers.  By both shows having such specific the audience is able to view the ambiguous ideas the families deal from a third party perspective while simultaneously identifying with the character that personifies their respective view on the issue. 

A major difference in the two shows is the scope to which issues are addressed.  All in the Family tackles many issues by addressing them in terms of the whole idea and from a relatively distant stance while Malcolm in the Middle typically has the issues thrust into the mix of their family chaos.  One has a more theoretical approach while the other deals more in a sense of practicality. 

While All in the Family dealt more with issues of generational shifts, Malcolm in the Middle addresses more issues about acceptance and cooperation.  The dramatic issues addressed from All in the Family had a stronger degree of focus on the morality of the respective issue, such as racism and homosexuality, while Malcolm in the Middle addressed more subtle issues, such as common high school problems of acceptance and fairness, in a less universal sense but rather a fast paced direct cause and effect fashion.