Three Act Structure - Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Elizabeth (and the Medallion) taken aboard the Black Pearl

The first climax is 41 minutes in after Elizabeth requests ‘parlay’ and agrees to be taken to the Black Pearl. Her surrender and transfer of the medallion effectively ends the attack on Port Royal, but her imprisonment by Captain Barbossa raises the two questions: What will happen to her, and why is the medallion so important? Her capture escalates the stakes for the other characters, and the plot moves from Port Royal to the seas.

Jack and Elizabeth marooned, Will captured

The second act responds quickly, sending Will and Jack after her in the ‘commandeered’ Interceptor, along with a newly-recruited team of pirates and a bit of backstory. This is followed by a long sequence where Barbossa monologues to Elizabeth and reveals the undead nature of his crew. After a brief climax at Isla de Muerta where Will rescues Elizaebth but abandons Jack, the reshuffled crews convene at a battle at sea. The end of this battle comes at 1:35 when Barbossa defeats the crew of the Interceptor, taking Will and the medallion and abandoning Jack and Elizabeth. The next question posed is: how will Elizabeth and Jack escape? Will they be able to stop Barbossa from killing Will and ending the curse?

Barbossa's death and his crew's defeat mark the end of the third act

The climax of the third act answers: yes, yes and no. After joining with the lawful forces of Norrington, Jack and Elizabeth successfully engineer an encounter that saves Will’s life and corners Barbossa’s crew in a battle that proves unwinnable after the lifted curse reverts them to their mortal states. This victory comes at 2:03, but after the 2-hour mark Pirates indulges in a short epilogue that does not fit with the rest of the three act structure. While the main threat has been defeated at the end of the third act, Will and Elizabeth's relationship and Jack’s fate are not resolved until approximately ten minutes later. After two acts at sea, the characters return to Port Royal, where Jack's criminal statues as a pirate is resolved in an escape with help from Will and Elizabeth.

Post-third act, the characters finally receive closure

First Act: approx. 41 minutes long, 0:00 - 0:41

Second Act: approx. 54 minutes long, 0:41 – 1:35

Third Act: approx. 28 minutes long, 1:35 – 2:03

Plus 10 minute long ending segment, 2:03 – 2:13


Images from ScreenMusings.org

Sitcoms: Serial/Episodic Strategy

The sitcom generally follows one of two narrative strategies: serial or episodic. An episodic sitcom uses a formula where no lasting changes occur to its characters or situation. At the end of each episode, everything is ‘reset’. Serial narrative is very similar; while nearly everything remains stable from episode to episode, larger changes may carry over. (For example, a character going to college or a new character being added to the cast.)

These strategies look very alike in sitcoms. Each episode is dedicated to one theme, problem, or lesson; a small cast of characters operates in the same world each episode; few significant lasting changes occur. This style is clear in many of the pre-teen-aimed sitcoms of Disney Channel and Nickelodeon. In that context, a common example of the stagnancy of the sitcom world is the reluctance to initiate romantic relationships between characters.

 

Relationships remain stable in this situation in order to milk the most out of friendships, rivalries, and romantic tension. No matter what happens during an episode of Lizzie McGuire, at the end, Lizzie and Kate are still enemies, her brother is still annoying, and her best friends are still Miranda and Gordo. This allows viewers to watch the series without having to catch every single episode. The audience is comfortable jumping in because they know what to expect from this world. It isn’t until the post-series movie that Kate regrets her ways and Gordo and Lizzie admit their feelings for each other. The writers don’t have to deal with the consequences of these changes, and the audience still (eventually) gets the satisfaction of resolution.

Pictures:

http://www.impawards.com/tv/posters/zoey_101.jpg

http://images.tvrage.com/shows/5/4269.jpg

http://oi27.tinypic.com/14scl7n.jpg

More discussion about this idea:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LastMinuteHookup

Scenes and Shots: The Lord of the Rings

"The Choices of Master Samwise" 0:00 - 1:10

The scene starts with medium shots of Frodo running through the dark cliffs just outside the tunnel where we were first introduced to Shelob. Having only just narrowly escaped the spider, Frodo now wanders through a labyrinth of rock. This scene doesn’t focus on building tension with the rising music and quick chases used before. Instead, it is eerily quiet; the music will not pick up again until the moment that Frodo falls to the ground. (Spoilers!) 

The first wide shot reveals Shelob crawling out of a crack in the cliffs. As a wide shot, it shows Frodo’s powerlessness compared to the giant spider. It also reveals that the place he has stumbled into is enclosed, further establishing his inability to save himself.

After another medium shot of Frodo, the audience receives the iconic horror image of the monster creeping up behind the protagonist. This shot is slightly tilted, reflecting the eeriness of the situation. It is also a low-angle shot, used ironically to show that Frodo is unaware of the spider approaching behind him. It grows more and more tilted, turning nearly 90 degrees, with Shelob’s screen presence continuing to grow. This escalates the danger.

The next few shots are also very specific in their angles: for example, the shots from Frodo’s perspective as he scans the area and the medium shot that shows Shelob’s stinger drop right behind the hobbit.

The most drama, however, is saved for the close-up reaction shot after Frodo is stung. The audience sees exactly what happens to him after the initial shock transitions to confusion and pain. We even get a nice view of his foaming mouth as the shot lingers. This shot capitalizes on Frodo’s emotions and physical reactions.

All photos from Arwen-Undomiel.com

The Studio System: MGM and Musicals

The studio system of Hollywood’s Golden Age was defined by an oligopoly of major studios that used vertical integration to control the entire moviemaking process. In the same way, these studios contracted major stars, directors, and other key players to work specifically for them. As a result of this system, each studio cornered its own portion of the market by establishing itself in a certain genre.

The reliance on certain stars and certain filmmaking teams caused studios to specialize in a single genre. Each part of production, from writing to acting to sets, was recycled, making it easy to reuse them for similar films. For example, MGM’s employment of Judy Garland and other performers made it logical for them to make musical after musical.

MGM embraced Technicolor with movies such as Gone With the Wind (1939) and The Wizard of Oz (1939), and continued making films of musical spectacle after World War II. The harnessed their star power in musicals such as Meet Me in St. Louis (1944) with Judy Garland and Singin’ in the Rain (1952) with Gene Kelly. However, while MGM’s chosen genre proved profitable for a time, it had clearly lost much of its audience to television by the 1960s. In addition with the government’s ultimatum to cease concentration of ownership in 1948, the competition from television was enough to prevent studios such as MGM from making expensive movies on a regular basis. As MGM evolved to fit the changing demands for entertainment, its adherence to genre was lost.

http://blogs.tcpalm.com/marilyn_bauer/the-wizard-of-oz.jpg

All in the/Modern + Family

http://www.disneydreaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Modern-Family-Season-2.jpg

            The moment I got the prompt for this blog I knew most people were thinking the same thing I was: ‘Modern Family.’ But while it may be unoriginal, ‘Modern Family’ comes to mind instantly for a reason. It is the contemporary equivalent to ‘All in the Family,’ despite the numerous differences between the two shows.

            Both shows deal with cross-generational couples and explore their differences in opinion, but ‘Modern Family’ stands out for its larger cast and the significant presence of children. In addition, Archie Bunker’s outright intolerance is very different from the uncomfortable acceptance of Jay Pritchett. Both shows are clearly influenced by the standards of their time. While ‘All in the Family’ breached controversial subjects and created situations where traditional values could be questioned, it had to operate in the context of the 1970s. While issues such as homosexuality had reached the mainstream, they were by no means widely accepted. Therefore, Archie uses derisive terms such as ‘fairy’ to describe his daughter’s friend while expressing his complete disgust with gay men, and is arguably an ignorant bigot. However, many of the show’s plots were dedicated to proving the protagonist wrong. The opinions of his daughter and son-in-law were generally presented as being more reasonable, even if much of the audience ended up sympathizing with Archie anyway. In contrast, the entire cast of ‘Modern Family’ accepts Mitchell and Cameron’s relationship. Still, the show notes the awkwardness that sometimes remains attached to the situation. While ‘All in the Family’ drew its conflict from the explicitly opposite beliefs of Archie and the younger characters, ‘Modern Family’ finds it in the differing perspectives of its characters.

            While both shows are products of their times, they are not afraid to satirize these societies. Their willingness to do this, and their setting in a family with multiple generations and differing opinions, is where their similarities stem from.

Helpful Articles:

Modern Family’s Indictment of Modern Families

All in the Family – Review of ‘Modern Family’ Pilot

‘Modern Family’ is Reviving the Half-Hour TV Comedy