Star Wars: A New Hope is a classic example of the Three-Act structure. The Three-Act structure is defined mostly by the placement of the story's main climax, which is near the end of the film at the end of the third act and resolves the story of the movie. The previous two acts both conclude with their own small climaxes that advance or complicate the story, adding to the building tension, or "raise the stakes" in the plot. The first Star Wars film is an especially good illustration of all of this, as it serves as the beginning of a story arc.
A New Hope begins with the first act, in which Luke Skywalker meets the droids C-3P0 and R2D2, who are carrying the plans to the Imperial Death Star to be delivered to Obi-Wan Kenobi. Once Luke and the droids meet Obi-Wan, and the message is relayed to him, he decides that they should all leave to deliver the plans to the desperate Rebellion. Luke protests that he can't leave his home, where he lives with his aunt and uncle. However, once he returns to his home, he learns that his aunt and uncle have been killed and his dwelling destroyed by Imperial troops. It is at this point that the first "mini-climax" occurs: Luke, seeing that he has no home or family left, decides to accompany Obi-Wan on his mission to deliver the plans to the Rebellion.
The second act sees Luke and Obi-Wan joining Han Solo (their pilot) on their way to Alderaan to deliver the plans. Their ship is intercepted by the Death Star, where they encounter the Rebellion's Princess Leia as they attempt to evade capture by Imperial troops. Obi-Wan deactivates the tractor beam of the space station, and all characters converge back to the hangar where their ship is being held to make their escape. On the way, Obi-Wan encounters Darth Vader, which culminates in climax of the second act: After a duel, Obi-Wan sacrifices himself so that Luke and the others may escape, leaving Luke with Leia and Han Solo, who deliver the plans to the Rebellion.
The third act is essentially the Rebellion's attack on the Death Star. Since the plans that Luke delivered showed a weakness in the Death Star, the Rebellion decides to launch a strike in which Luke takes part and pilots his own ship. This entire battle serves as the climax of the whole film, in which Luke ultimately is successful in attacking the Death Star's weak point, which destroys the whole ship, resolving the immediate threat of the Death Star. The movie ends within 5 minutes after this point, resulting in a happy ending typical to the three-act structure.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
(Arrested) Development of Sitcoms
The sitcom is a long-standing fixture of television programming. You only need compare proscenium sitcoms from today and from the birth of television to be able to see how little has changed aside from the subject matter. I would like to focus on episodic sitcoms, however, to discuss sitcom characteristics. Specifically, I'd like to focus on the now-defunct show Arrested Development to show how the episodic story structures function in the sitcom.
The episodic sitcom format is typically defined by a "three-act" structure and at least 2 plot lines which end up resolving in the third act. However, these are mini-resolutions that don't actually result in much character growth. This allows the next episode to start from a kind of clean-slate, where another plot line or story can begin without very much hindrance, which is pretty crucial for keeping a season going and for new ideas to be implemented. While there is significant change over the season as a whole (as one might notice if they watched a season premiere and a season finale), there is very little from episode to episode.
Arrested Development illustrates this very effectively. You could essentially watch any episode and see the three-act structure with multiple plot lines in action. Since the premise of the show includes a very large number of characters (No less than 10), there are usually several things happening at once throughout each episode. Each character's actions will inevitably end up affecting the others in ways that aren't immediately obvious, but once the "third act" occurs, and the episode comes to a climax, the multiple plot lines collide and the resolutions take place. In one season finale episode, all of the characters unknowingly (in groups who arrive with their own respective motives) converge at a chapel, in which the father and mother figure of the family involved in the show are to be married to renew their vows (it would take a long explanation of the series to explain why this is a big issue). When the family arrives, all of their problems collide, including one character's feud with another man who happens to be the chaplain at this particular church. A fight ensues, and, eventually, most issues are resolved. Though this is the season finale, when compared to the previous episode, there isn't a staggering amount of change involved. The characters actually all end up where they started the episode (most notably the father character, who is returned to prison, where he spends much of the series).
The episodic sitcom format is typically defined by a "three-act" structure and at least 2 plot lines which end up resolving in the third act. However, these are mini-resolutions that don't actually result in much character growth. This allows the next episode to start from a kind of clean-slate, where another plot line or story can begin without very much hindrance, which is pretty crucial for keeping a season going and for new ideas to be implemented. While there is significant change over the season as a whole (as one might notice if they watched a season premiere and a season finale), there is very little from episode to episode.
Arrested Development illustrates this very effectively. You could essentially watch any episode and see the three-act structure with multiple plot lines in action. Since the premise of the show includes a very large number of characters (No less than 10), there are usually several things happening at once throughout each episode. Each character's actions will inevitably end up affecting the others in ways that aren't immediately obvious, but once the "third act" occurs, and the episode comes to a climax, the multiple plot lines collide and the resolutions take place. In one season finale episode, all of the characters unknowingly (in groups who arrive with their own respective motives) converge at a chapel, in which the father and mother figure of the family involved in the show are to be married to renew their vows (it would take a long explanation of the series to explain why this is a big issue). When the family arrives, all of their problems collide, including one character's feud with another man who happens to be the chaplain at this particular church. A fight ensues, and, eventually, most issues are resolved. Though this is the season finale, when compared to the previous episode, there isn't a staggering amount of change involved. The characters actually all end up where they started the episode (most notably the father character, who is returned to prison, where he spends much of the series).
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Camera Work in The Departed
The Departed, directed by Martin Scorsese is a pretty high-quality film, so I thought that it would be a good work to turn to in order to illustrate different camera angles or shots. In two scenes from the Departed, I'll show how long shots, medium shots, and close-ups are used to serve a function or to convey a meaning of some sort.
The first scene I'd like to address is a one that uses a medium shot and then makes heavy use of close-ups. You can click here to watch it, as embedding has been disabled for the video. At the very start of the scene, there is a medium shot that establishes the setting (in a bar after-hours) and how few people there are in this setting. I believe this medium shot was used to set up the tension of the scene, in which Leonardo DiCaprio's character is interrogated by Jack Nicholson's character, who is a mob boss trying to figure out who the police informer in his organization is (DiCaprio's character is the informer). As there are no other people in the bar, this medium shot establishes that DiCaprio's character is alone and that he's in a place where something could easily happen to him without any witnesses or help.
As the questioning in the scene ratchets up the tension, the close-up shots show how stressed DiCaprio's character becomes. His facial expression varies from intense, worried, or faux-nonchalance as the questions become more pointed and he clearly starts to fear that he may have been found out. These are minute details that other shots at farther distances would definitely miss, so the function of capturing the mood and incredible tension in the scene through the actors' reactions through close-ups is absolutely essential.
There is a very good example of a long shot that is used in another scene for which I can't find a video. The shot shows Matt Damon's character from behind standing on a sidewalk looking up at something in the bottom corner of the frame. This is a long shot, but the rest of the frame is black, and there is a kind of a circular "peep-hole" effect around Matt Damon, as he is the only thing that can initially be seen. The hole then quickly opens up so that the rest of the frame is visible, and now it can be seen that Matt Damon is looking at the police headquarters building, where his character had been trying to get to. I thought that this was a very clever way of doing an extreme long shot with a character without the audience not noticing where the character was. The police building is very large, and to capture the whole thing in the frame obviously required the camera to be at some distance. Scorsese could have easily just done the shot without Matt Damon's character in it at all, but I think he also may have wanted to show, by having Matt Damon next to this massive building, that his character (who is infiltrating the police department) is just one man who has to bring down a massive organization.
The first scene I'd like to address is a one that uses a medium shot and then makes heavy use of close-ups. You can click here to watch it, as embedding has been disabled for the video. At the very start of the scene, there is a medium shot that establishes the setting (in a bar after-hours) and how few people there are in this setting. I believe this medium shot was used to set up the tension of the scene, in which Leonardo DiCaprio's character is interrogated by Jack Nicholson's character, who is a mob boss trying to figure out who the police informer in his organization is (DiCaprio's character is the informer). As there are no other people in the bar, this medium shot establishes that DiCaprio's character is alone and that he's in a place where something could easily happen to him without any witnesses or help.
As the questioning in the scene ratchets up the tension, the close-up shots show how stressed DiCaprio's character becomes. His facial expression varies from intense, worried, or faux-nonchalance as the questions become more pointed and he clearly starts to fear that he may have been found out. These are minute details that other shots at farther distances would definitely miss, so the function of capturing the mood and incredible tension in the scene through the actors' reactions through close-ups is absolutely essential.
There is a very good example of a long shot that is used in another scene for which I can't find a video. The shot shows Matt Damon's character from behind standing on a sidewalk looking up at something in the bottom corner of the frame. This is a long shot, but the rest of the frame is black, and there is a kind of a circular "peep-hole" effect around Matt Damon, as he is the only thing that can initially be seen. The hole then quickly opens up so that the rest of the frame is visible, and now it can be seen that Matt Damon is looking at the police headquarters building, where his character had been trying to get to. I thought that this was a very clever way of doing an extreme long shot with a character without the audience not noticing where the character was. The police building is very large, and to capture the whole thing in the frame obviously required the camera to be at some distance. Scorsese could have easily just done the shot without Matt Damon's character in it at all, but I think he also may have wanted to show, by having Matt Damon next to this massive building, that his character (who is infiltrating the police department) is just one man who has to bring down a massive organization.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Blinded by the Studio System
The studio system which dominated the film industry before the introduction of television and various anti-trust suits was based on vertical integration. The big studios of the time owned just about everything involved with producing and presenting their movies, from contractual ownership of their stars, down to the very theaters that the movies were played in. It is the ownership of theaters in particular that I think is important, because it caused big studios to not be very attentive to the actual quality of the films they made.
There may not seem to be a connection at first glance between ownership of theaters and the quality of a film, but back in this "golden age" of movie-making, a prevailing practice in the movie industry was "block booking" or "blind booking." With this practice, big studios insisted that their theaters purchase movies in large quantities (essentially an "all-or-nothing" deal), in many cases without even having seen them. Even if a movie was bad, or a "B movie," the studios didn't need to worry about the quality, because they knew the movies would be bought and shown in theaters anyway through their block booking system. After this system was outlawed by the government in 1948, the studios could understandably no longer afford to produce films haphazardly, as they did before. They had to be more careful with their money and the films they made, as they were no longer assured to bring in profits through the theaters.
A good example of this can be found in Richard Koszarski's book An Evening's Entertainment: The Age of the Silent Feature Picture, 1915–1928. In this book, Koszarski writes about how Paramount, who at the time had all the top stars in the nation under contract, began using the block booking system to leverage theaters to buy their other "modest" quality films (which, otherwise, would probably not make it into theaters) in which new stars were being "developed," along with their popular films. In light of this, it was fitting that, when this practice came under legal scrutiny, it was Paramount who was at the center of the block booking anti-trust suit US v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
There may not seem to be a connection at first glance between ownership of theaters and the quality of a film, but back in this "golden age" of movie-making, a prevailing practice in the movie industry was "block booking" or "blind booking." With this practice, big studios insisted that their theaters purchase movies in large quantities (essentially an "all-or-nothing" deal), in many cases without even having seen them. Even if a movie was bad, or a "B movie," the studios didn't need to worry about the quality, because they knew the movies would be bought and shown in theaters anyway through their block booking system. After this system was outlawed by the government in 1948, the studios could understandably no longer afford to produce films haphazardly, as they did before. They had to be more careful with their money and the films they made, as they were no longer assured to bring in profits through the theaters.
A good example of this can be found in Richard Koszarski's book An Evening's Entertainment: The Age of the Silent Feature Picture, 1915–1928. In this book, Koszarski writes about how Paramount, who at the time had all the top stars in the nation under contract, began using the block booking system to leverage theaters to buy their other "modest" quality films (which, otherwise, would probably not make it into theaters) in which new stars were being "developed," along with their popular films. In light of this, it was fitting that, when this practice came under legal scrutiny, it was Paramount who was at the center of the block booking anti-trust suit US v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Old Family
All in the Family was a surprisingly controversial sitcom that was aired during the 1970's in the US. How does a show that deals with hot-button American issues head-on compare to modern TV sitcoms? I don't watch very much in the way of TV sitcoms, but for this blog post, I will draw upon what I know about the sitcom Will And Grace, as I was ceaselessly (and somewhat mercilessly) exposed to it by my older sisters when I was younger.
First of all, how are these shows different? Will and Grace is, not surprisingly, a modern sitcom about friends Will (a gay lawyer) and Grace and their relationship with each other. All in the Family is about the Bunker family, chiefly focusing on Archie Bunker, a working class World War 2 veteran and patriarch of the family. Will and Grace, in the fashion of almost every other modern sitcom, deals with comfortable issues in our society. While much of the humor is centered around gay mannerisms or culture exhibited by Will and his gay friends, none of it is very controversial in the mainstream of our modern society, which, for the most part, has accepted gay culture. All in the Family, in contrast, dealt with many issues which many modern sitcoms, including Will and Grace, would never dare touch. Much of the humor in All in the Family is generated from Archie Bunker's bigoted views, and how they come into conflict with the world around him. Archie Bunker's character routinely uses derogatory slang terms in reference to other ethnic groups. Archie Bunker is constantly at odds with the increasingly-tolerant world around him, while Will and Grace simply deal with day-to-day issues with work and relationships. Another issue which further divides these two shows is the fact that Archie Bunker is working-class, while Will and Grace are both professionals who live in very expensive lofts.
There honestly isn't very much similar between these two shows, except for a few things that I can think of. Both of them make use of stage sets, similar to that of traditional theater. Both of them deal with the issues of homosexuality, though Archie Bunker, of course, treats it with extreme derision. Both of them deal mainly with white characters.
As I've said, the shows both deal with their own respective issues. All in the Family deals with race, religion and politics in a way that most shows would never dream of doing today. Shows today would certainly never even think to deal with the issue of feminism, something that Archie Bunker opposed, as it is so widely accepted today. Will and Grace would definitely never take such a blunt approach to racial relations in America, or nearly any of the other things that Archie Bunker takes on. On the other hand All in the Family never dealt with the kind of gay-rights issues that are present sometimes in Will and Grace. Since there are many gay characters on the show, occasionally gay politics makes its way into the show, which is something that saw very little activity in the 1970s, when All in the Family was aired.
First of all, how are these shows different? Will and Grace is, not surprisingly, a modern sitcom about friends Will (a gay lawyer) and Grace and their relationship with each other. All in the Family is about the Bunker family, chiefly focusing on Archie Bunker, a working class World War 2 veteran and patriarch of the family. Will and Grace, in the fashion of almost every other modern sitcom, deals with comfortable issues in our society. While much of the humor is centered around gay mannerisms or culture exhibited by Will and his gay friends, none of it is very controversial in the mainstream of our modern society, which, for the most part, has accepted gay culture. All in the Family, in contrast, dealt with many issues which many modern sitcoms, including Will and Grace, would never dare touch. Much of the humor in All in the Family is generated from Archie Bunker's bigoted views, and how they come into conflict with the world around him. Archie Bunker's character routinely uses derogatory slang terms in reference to other ethnic groups. Archie Bunker is constantly at odds with the increasingly-tolerant world around him, while Will and Grace simply deal with day-to-day issues with work and relationships. Another issue which further divides these two shows is the fact that Archie Bunker is working-class, while Will and Grace are both professionals who live in very expensive lofts.
There honestly isn't very much similar between these two shows, except for a few things that I can think of. Both of them make use of stage sets, similar to that of traditional theater. Both of them deal with the issues of homosexuality, though Archie Bunker, of course, treats it with extreme derision. Both of them deal mainly with white characters.
As I've said, the shows both deal with their own respective issues. All in the Family deals with race, religion and politics in a way that most shows would never dream of doing today. Shows today would certainly never even think to deal with the issue of feminism, something that Archie Bunker opposed, as it is so widely accepted today. Will and Grace would definitely never take such a blunt approach to racial relations in America, or nearly any of the other things that Archie Bunker takes on. On the other hand All in the Family never dealt with the kind of gay-rights issues that are present sometimes in Will and Grace. Since there are many gay characters on the show, occasionally gay politics makes its way into the show, which is something that saw very little activity in the 1970s, when All in the Family was aired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)