The Shrinking World

         The world in the modern age is smaller than it has ever been before. This is due to many factors, including the invention of of vehicles that allow us to travel great distances in relatively short periods of time and more recently the information sharing technologies (namely the internet, as well as cheaper media production devices), which in a bit of a twist are rendering those other technologies obsolete as we can send information from point A, lets say Burma, to points B, C, Q, and Z, the rest of the world, in a matter of minutes. This shrinking of the world means that its many cultures are more connected than they have ever been before, and that connection is what we refer to as globalization.

Globalization in turn leads to the sharing of media, and when one country or culture adopts and then adapts say an entertaining TV comedy to resonate more with a local audience we have whats known as cultural hybridization, or glocalization. We can see this in one TV comedy in particular: The Office.

The Office was created first in the UK in 2001, and the show has since been adapted for audiences in the US, France, Brazil, Germany, and most recently Israel. Those adaptations follow the same format, but by changing the setting as well as the individual jokes and of course the language, the show is made more resonant within that particular country. 

Open Happiness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjixzd0qUew&feature=related

This Coca-Cola advertisement is a little old, I believe its from the past year’s Super Bowl, which is essentially the advertising event of the year (for American advertisers at least, but thats part of the reason I think its so powerful. It has staying power. The other two reasons why I believe it succeeds are its production values, which are sky-high, and the fact that it is quite simply a happy little story. The advertisement, while there, almost takes a back seat to the little insect-based vignette that unfolds as the usually creepy-crawlers band together to pull off a heist. That happiness is what sells the product, as the ad is basically saying, “Coca-cola makes the world into a beautiful place.”    

In this way the advertisement is an appeals to the motion of escapism, as mentioned in the lecture by prof. Straubhaar. That notion also plays into the safety appeal, as by drinking, or at least buying, Coca-cola we can escape to a happier time, i.e. our childhood. These kinds of advertisements generally play on that idea that once, as children, we had a much brighter view of the world and the products in these ads are offering to help us get back there. 

The advertisement linked to above exemplifies this approach in presenting nature in an idealistic, everyone works together for a common goal than shares in the end, childlike way. Also the song, Peter and the Wolf (which is a classic children's tale) by Sergei Prokoflev, is a song that we identify with childhood, or at least I remember it from mine (making me probably more susceptible to its wiles). In addition everything in the ad, from the colors to the setting and animations, is geared towards making the audience happy and in this regard the ad succeeds. In that success we are allowed that brief escape and the company hopes that we feel grateful enough to buy its product.    

A New Hope in an Old Structure

Star Wars: A New Hope, or episode IV (or the first one produced) has the biggest happy hollywood ending I can think of (people reportedly stood up and cheered at the movies final moments). What’s more, it is also a prime example of the classic three act structure.

ACT I: Exposition (41 Minutes Long)

The first act begins with the famous scrolling text that acts almost like a prologue and helps with the big exposition (i.e. where are? a galaxy far far away etc.) and then goes straight into some light action in the form of the movies first battle scene. This scene also introduces the characters of Princess Leia and the droids R2-D2 and C3P0. It also serves to introduce the idea that R2 is very important to both sides, the empire and rebellion. After this first scene the movie slows way down as the droids have a little adventure which winds up bringing them to our protagonist for the remainder of the film, Luke Skywalker, whose uncle buys them. Then we get some more exposition, which is after all what the first act is about. R2’s importance is half-revealed when Luke discovers the message that it is carrying (the message bringing up another character: Obi-Wan Kenobi). The droid then runs off, leading Luke to chase it down. At the end of this chase (which using the word chase makes it sound much more exciting than it is) Luke meets Obi-Wan we have the final little bits of exposition (i.e. what happened to Luke’s father, and a little more on the emp/reb conflict) and Obi-Wan offers to take Luke on an adventure as his student in response to the aforementioned message. Luke however, refuses expressing that he has to remain at home for the sake of his responsibilities (he also feels that he can’t influence the outcome of the conflict). The climax of the first act, or the first plot point, comes when Luke, returning to his house, finds out that his family has been murdered by the empire. He then reverses his previous decision and decides to join Obi-Wan. This decision leads those two characters to set off on the adventure and this brings us to...   

ACT II: The Adventure and Thickening of Plot (55 Minutes Long)

The first part of Act II is shows a much darker picture of the world (or rather galaxy) in which our story is set, and introduces our final main character in Han Solo, who is decidedly seedier than our other heroes. The group, comprised of Luke, Han (and his sidekick Chewbacca), Obi-Wan, and the two droids, then proceed to fight their way off the planet. Then the Empire, being led by Darth Vader and Tarkin, escalate the scale of their evildoing and proceed to blow up Princess Leia’s home planet while forcing her to watch (this takes place on the Death Star which is also where the majority of the second act takes place). This cements their evilness in the eyes of the audience. Which makes it all the more exciting when our heroes arrive on the scene to rescue her. This is when all of the characters finally come together. The climax of this Act, or the second plot point, comes in the duel between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader. At the end of the duel Obi-Wan lets Vader kill him, cementing Luke’s resolve to help the rebellion and propelling us to...

ACT III: The Climax (28 Minutes Long Including Credits)

The shortest of all the acts, by about half, Act III is has two parts. The first reveals why both sides were so keen on capturing R2 back in act one: he has the schematics for the Death Star inside of him. It also lets our characters reach the ends of their arcs: Luke is a pilot, as he wanted to be in the beginning of the film, Leia is free and back in charge, and Han gets paid, which he insists he the only reason he helped anyone out, and leaves. The second half is the big climactic battle of the film, wherein Luke destroys the Death Star after having been saved by Han who had a change of heart. Then we have a very brief scene’s worth of falling action where our two male leads are rewarded by Leia and everyone cheers and is very happy. It is on this note that the movie ends with a bit of triumphant music and we cut to credits. 

The Mirror in The 4th Wall

The Mirror in the 4th Wall

     

       To say that I watched a lot of TV growing up would be a profound understatement. The same can be said for the rest of my family and this is probably why we have two whole rooms in our house devoted to and arranged around television sets. But this, according to family sitcoms at least, is a fairly normal thing in America and as it is so very normal it is reflected in our entertainment, particularly the sitcom. In the typical American sitcom, which generally reflect some aspect of American life (whether it be Friends or family), we view the world largely from one angle. That angle is very much similar to the way we watch a production on a stage, through the 4th wall. Most sitcoms, especially those with domestic settings are set the same way: the audience is always looking into the house or apartment from the same direction, as if the location was missing a wall. What is interesting about sitcoms is that this 4th wall is generally where the character’s TVs are located.

This leads to an interesting phenomenon wherein we the audience see ourselves almost mirrored by the characters in the TV who are looking at a TV, whose location is in the same relationship as the one that we share with are set. Now that last sentence may be a bit confusing so lets look at an example from Everybody Loves Raymond. Deborah, the wife of the titular character, and Raymond enter and proceed to put their wedding tape into the VCR which is on top of the TV facing directly away from the audience. They then settle onto the coach, as anyone would in this situation, to watch the memories (for about ten seconds until it is revealed that Ray has taped a football game over the ceremony). This is just my favorite example, but there are many moments where the show’s characters sit on that couch facing us, the audience, and perform a kind of pantomime of what we are doing on the other side of the 4th wall. It is in those instances where the fact that the TV and its programming mirror our own lives becomes very apparent. 

Grand Central Station

Grand Central Station

        

    This is the name of a scene from the Terry Gilliam film, the Fisher King. It is also the name of one of my favorite scenes of all time. In this scene Gilliam uses the three shots discussed by Dr. Ramirez-Burg to set the scene first in reality and then in the fantasy world of one of the main characters, Parry played by Robin Williams. The result is one of the best examples of the use of shot progression in film.

     The scene begins on a long shot of a crowd filling up New York’s Grand central station.

This shot does two things: First it gives us the setting (the crowded station) and second it lends the scene momentum as the crowd is seen rushing in. This momentum, the hustle and bustle of the normal city life is juxtaposed against the slowness of life for the homeless people, Parry included, who are shown in the following medium shot, which tracks along from within the crowd (to get the best sense of this I recommend watching the scene) looking out at those less fortunates lined up against the wall.  The tracking shot ends on Jack (the film’s gruff protagonist who is trying to help Parry) and Parry, and then we cut to a close up of Jack’s face as he gives the line “Never gonna find her in this crowd.” (this refers to the woman Parry loves and follows from a distance every day). What follows is a series of close-ups of Parry as he scans the crowd, and another homeless character who tries to engage him in conversation. Parry then exits the scene leaving Jack (who is not homeless and not entirely comfortable with those who are) alone with that other character. 

     Then we have a whole bit of dialogue/social commentary between those two characters, which is important in terms of our discussion because it shows the viewpoints of these characters on the way the world is, and it is very much the one we all live in. Then we cut back to a close up on Parry’s face scanning the crowd. Next we see the spot he is looking at, the woman appears, and we go back to his face and a smile appearing on it. This last close up and its smile are the most important elements in the scene as they signal the transition from the real world, Jack’s world, into Parry’s. We know we are in Parry’s world in because in the background of the following mid-shot there is a couple dancing. The following shots get wider and wider as more people join the dance, and we are given long shots of Parry following, or as he would see it dancing with, his love. We then cut to an extreme wide shot showing the whole of Grand Central Station as if it had been transformed into a ballroom. This sequence continues for come time, cutting on one occasion to a close up of the clock in the center of the station to illustrate both the regularity and the fleeting nature of this scene for Parry, until we have a final close up on Parry’s face, where the smile starts to waver, then another mid-shot showing the woman finally disappear into the subway line. The instant she is swallowed by the crowd the dancing ceases, and we cut back to the smile fading from Parry’s face and are brought back into the real world. A point that is sold by the crowd once again jostling him as the go by. And so ends the scene. 

Now I couldn't figure out how to imbed the video down here but this is a link to the dance part of the scene on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lASPrnWf6cA

The Dream Factories

The Dream Factories

            It’s interesting to think how closely the, during the Golden Age of classic Hollywood, movie industry resembled the automobile industry. MGM and Warner Bros. were very much like Ford and GM: large corporations making similar, yet distinct, products. Both industries worked off the ideas of vertical integration and to that effect both used the assembly line style of creation pioneered by Henry Ford around 1908.

            Continuing the comparison, let’s consider the use of templates or genres. Both industries made, and in many cases still make, use of this idea. Every car company makes the standard lines types of cars, SUVs, Sedans, Vans etc. in the same way that the studios of classic Hollywood made films in the standard line of genre’s, horror, romance, slapstick, musicals etc. This lent the films of classic Hollywood a certain amount of predictability, the gangster would always meet a grizzly end, and there would always that final shootout, in the same way that we expect a mini-van to have three rows of seats in addition to sliding doors. The films of the classic Hollywood studios were homogenized according to there respective genre’s, and much like how the modern day automakers are generally synonymous with a certain make of automobile, the studios were synonymous with particular genres.

            A good example of this is the original King Kong which was produced at RKO studios. A classic monster film it includes the following genre staples: a damsel in distress, the monster’s grizzly end, and the lust of the monster for that damsel that leads to it. King Kong also fit into the Jungle Film-genre, which included strange and wild creatures, explorers, and of course a voyage typically taken by American scientists or explores. The way this movie illustrates my point is that it is the epitome of predictable: the moment we see the beautiful Fay Wray we know the monster will set it sights on her, and also that in the end it will die. While people may have been shocked and moved by the visuals and story, no-one was surprised when “beauty killed the beast”. 

All in the Family and that One that Everybody Loves

http://ml.berkeleyblogs.com/archives/actor_peter_frank_barone_boyle_dies.html All in the Family and that One that Everybody Loves             Growing up there are two things I remember watching with the whole of my family: Monk (a comical detective procedural) and Everybody Loves Raymond. Now its been years since I watched the latter, but seeing All in the Family at the last screening brought me some pretty vivid flashbacks, because at a glance the two shows are extraordinarily similar. They are both family-based sitcoms in which two generations of the same family are in close proximity and use the resulting generational clash as a source of humor and they both have the same embodiment of that conflict: The Grumpy Old Man.             Frank Barone and Archie Bunker are practically the same person. They are both brash, unapologetic, and very set in their antiquated viewpoints. They are also two punch line machines for their respective shows. However as similar as these characters are they can also serve to demonstrate the biggest difference between the two programs: namely that All in the Family has much sharper teeth.             Archie Bunker is not a nice character, but then he isn’t supposed to be someone we identify with, no his job (from a writing standpoint) is to provide a satire of the view that he represents. On the other hand, Frank Barone is drawn as a much more likeable character, and this may be due to the fact that he is not the center of the show, as Archie is and that distance makes it easier to laugh at and sometimes with him. This difference can be extended to the rest of the characters and indeed the whole of each show. While Everybody Loves Raymond does raise an issue from time to time, it is much more a comedy designed purely to entertain, as opposed to All in The Family which has the agenda of provoking a reaction. This point was clearly demonstrated by the episode we watched in class as Everybody Loves Raymond would (and to my knowledge has) never dealt so with an issue as touchy as gay rights.