What's the play called?

In Hollywood, the three act narrative structure is the norm for movies. Many big studio productions follow this structure, and rely on it's conventionality to convey the dramatization portrayed in the films. This structure derives from the dramatic plays that once were the chief form of entertainment. One movie that follows such narrative style is Anna and the King. Anna and the King follows the story of Anna Leonowens as she arrives in Siam to tutor the children of the king. The narrative structure follows the structure: exposition, complication, and resolution.

The opening introduces us to Anna and her situation. She has arrived to Siam and is going to tutor the children of the king, as it was agreed by correspondence. The introduction follows a typical structure, introducing the setting, the characters and the situations. Anna's rebellious attitude, her lack of assimilation into the culture, and war in Siam are the conflicting factors. The first plot point that propels the introduction into the next act, the complication, is a ball that the king of Siam puts together for important government officers of Britain.

The second act, the complication, deals with the fact that the other nation still views Siam as a primtiive third world country. Furthermore, a coup d'etat movement has been gaining momentum, and it turns out that the military advisor of the king is in charge of it. This leads to the climax, where the king's children and Anna are evacuated from the palace and into a safe shelter. The decision that the king makes, not to kill his advisor, is the climax. But then an explosive goes off and his advisor dies. This is the second plot point which leads to the resolution. In the resolution, the Anna shares a last dance with the king before returning to England. We see that the prince takes over the throne and abolishes slavery, a movement that Anna felt very passionate about. This movie follows all the cues of a three-act narrative, and lays them out well. It includes an intricate story that is laid out for the audience in a neat manner.

What is a sitcom? What is Glee?

According to long-standing conventions, there are specific genre differences that identify sitcoms from dramas in television. Typically sitcoms are half-hour, episodic situation based that are somewhat absurd; dramas tend to be hour-long and have a more seasonal theme that tries to mimic reality. Genres help audiences know what to expect, and creators know what rules of thumb to follow when making products such as TV shows. A show that has blurred the line between the two is the sitcom Glee, which uses a different format and therefore creates changes to the genre.

Glee follows a much more seasonal theme sequence throughout the show, as a pose to an episodic one. Also, it analyzes these themes in an hour-long broadcast as a pose to a half-hour one. In this sense, it follows a traditional drama's structure. However, even though the themes are 'realistic' ones, such as teen identification issues, coming-of-age, bullying and self-identification, the way the show explores these is a very comedic manner that usually relies on hyperbolic settings. Characters often overreact to situations and serious actions, such as the bullying seen by coach Sue Sylvester, are turned into comedy.

Furthermore, the seriality of the show is much more drama-like. The entire first season concentrated on the Mr. Schue's effort to unify the Glee club and get them to win at the sectionals competition. Instead of basing every episode on an issue and answering the issue as well as demonstrating a moral message. The relationship of Finn and Rachel is an example; it is spanned over several episodes on both the first and the second season but it does not give have a specific overall message regarding relationships because it concentrates on the dramatic aspect of the relationship. A show like Modern Family usually presents a problem about relationships at the beginning of the show, and by the end it clarifies what the issue was and the way it was resolved. Glee does not do that.

If you're a bird, I'm a bird shot

The famous 'chick flick' The Notebook has many different aspects that make it interesting other than excessive melodrama. But, this movie uses effective camera angles to achieve an exacerbated melodramatic effect. Instead of analyzing the heart-tugging scenes, I will analyze the famous scene where Noah tells Allie, "if you're a bird I'm a bird."

The shot follows the familiar long shot, medium shot, close up progression. It starts with a long shot showing that Noah and Allie are in the beach. Instead of being an isolating shot, we can see how both of them are interacting with each other. The waves and birds around them help create a sense comfort in nature. Of course, trying to achieve a generally sympathetic relation to the public, the scene is shot for the most part in an eye level angle. We can see how Noah and Allie are in love, and the way that the audience feels is like an outsider looking into their relationship. This forms a sort of bond between the lovers and the audience, because we can see their interaction.

Progressing through a variations of long shots and middle shots, we can see how Allie and Noah start getting closer to each other physically. These shots are all shots at eye level, once again solidifying the relationship between them and the audience. The camera zooms in and out slightly, but not enough to go back to a panoramic shot. We don't feel that the characters have an established power, nor do we feel that they are destitute. These shots are meant to show how 'normal' of a couple they are, having a date in the beach. 

Finally, to close the scene, Allie jumps and Noah catches her. After she asks him if she could have been a bird and he responds yes, she tells them that he should say he is a bird too; after that he says "if you're a bird I'm a bird" and all the girls in the movie theatre go "aw." All of this is shot in a close up shot leading up to a kiss. Here, their love is perpetuated and we can feel very connected and sympathetic towards them because we as an audience feel that we have been with them and seen their relationship develop, even though it's only been one short scene. After the kiss, the camera zooms out into a long shot, showing the two lovers hugging. Again, the audience feels even more connected because it is as if they were one figure in the frame. Who can resist that?

Here is the link to the scene in youtube: If you're a bird I'm a bird.

Studio system

During the 1920's and all through the 1940's, the studio system took control of Hollywood. The studio system was characterized by a the total vertical integration of the industry, with five major studios controlling it. The studios however were still tied to a major aspect of the system, the stars. More than the content of the film, studios realized that actors and actresses were a major magnet for audiences. Being under contract, stars were tied to one studio, but studios were tied to the stars' popularity among the public. This was a major driving force in the industry, because it shaped the way studios, films, and genres developed. 

Stars were a cornerstone in the creation of genres and films. At first, certain characteristics of films were very much tied to the stars' characters, and therefore to the star. Stars would often play characters with similar personalities or circumstances even in completely unrelated films. Characters were very much defined by the stars who would eventually play them, because previous characters' characteristics became stigmatic for many stars. The adherence to star conventionality was so strong that it sometimes even created discrepancies in films. Characters played by stars who often appeared in musicals would sing in the middle of films that were anything but musicals. It also affected the films made by studios. Since these stars were tied to a specific archetypical character, all the movies with this star would follow the plot or setting that fit with the archetype. So, the studios with stars that played musicals' characters would produce musicals.

This is true for stars such as Judy Garland. Judy Garland started her career extremely young, and as a young girl in films, she often sang and performed. Many roles were playful or meant to be entertaining, and this became true of most of her younger years. Signed by MGM, many of her films were turned into semi-musicals. For example, The Wizard of Oz, where characters often performed throughout the film. Later, her roles became increasingly dramatic, and so did the films, like Meet Me in  St. Louis. This example shows how films, studios, and genres accompanied conventions created for stars.

All in the family? Maybe more so in a Modern Family.

All in the Family is a 70's family comedy that touched on various subjects that had been untouched before. Similarly now, the family comedy Modern Family has been bringing a new edge to comedy by approaching a family dynamic from new angles. However, there are still differences in how the shows took a stance on these issues. While Modern Family has a fresh approach on homosexuality, All in the Family demonstrates the judgmental views regarding homosexuality that pervaded the 1970's. The main character, Archie, shows his reluctance to believe that his masculine friend is a homosexual because he does not fit his 'fairy' stereotype. At the same time, he bashes his son-in-law's flamboyant friend. In Modern Family, homosexuality is viewed as a much more normal occurrence in culture. A couple has an adoptive daughter, and the show chronicles their interactions with the rest of the family. They are already assimilated into the culture as a pose to being judged.

Both shows have pioneered the views on homosexuality, though. At the time of All in the Family, homosexuality was a taboo topic; it was still aired and discussed in this show. Now, 'gay adoption' is very much a hot topic that provokes discussions and debates worldwide. All in the Family and Modern Family demonstrate that homosexuals do not necessarily fit a specific mold that society has imposed upon them. Archie's friend is masculine and athletic, and in Modern Family, Mitchell and Cameron are able to go around the system to adopt a girl, even though it is frowned upon by many. Both shows take on controversial issues that have been in American culture for a long time.

All in the Family does however show a more conservative view on homosexuality. Archie represents the dominant white male audience, reluctant to accept homosexuality as part of American culture. Modern Family shows a fresh perspective, handling more the integration of homosexuals into everyday life. Modern Family also tackles another contemporary issue, Latin American culture in the United States. Gloria is one of the main characters in Modern Family, and her culture and heritage are often depicted in the series, as well as her culture shock. All in the Family was not aired when Latin American culture made up such an important proportion of American culture. The two shows however have similarities in and differences that make them an important outlet for gatekeepers to extend a message to audiences.