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

Government Regulation and the Early Days of Radio

Government regulation was instrumental in speeding up the process of developing radio and determining ownership and operation. 

From the beginning, American government demanded control over the use of radio. It set up the companies that would develop radio, and then shaped the industry through regulation. After returning radio from the Navy after World War I, the Commerce Department began to regulate broadcasting and grant licenses. This culminated in the Radio Act of 1927, which was more specific than the Radio Act of 1912 and created the Federal Radio Commission. This level of government involvement set a precedent that would continue throughout radio's history and would reappear in new forms of media.

The government’s determination became clear in its early dealings with radio. After World War I, the U.S. Government refused to allow Marconi to buy U.S. Patents and instead demanded that he turn over his American assets to General Electric. Working with AT&T, they created Radio Corporation of America (RCA) and instituted a patent pool for the three companies. The government was instrumental in making sure the United States had the technology and business foundations necessary to accelerate the growth of radio.

Social Learning Theory and The Delicate Balance of Buzz

It would seem like an obvious conclusion: in order to promote your movie, you want to have lots of people talking about it. The more early buzz, the better performance for your film. However, this simple formula does not always work. The problem of over-exposure can be explained with a more complicated reading of the Social Learning Theory.

The Social Learning Theory basically suggests that our relationship with the media is, in great part, a result of imitation. Unlike the uses and gratifications theory, which argues that we choose media in order to meet a certain need, Social Learning focuses on personal experience and observed behavior. These form an 'outcome expectation' that then informs our decision-making. For example, if we hear people talking about how much they enjoyed the new Pixar movie, we may be inclined to go see it, now having the expectation that it will be a fun movie to watch.

This theory is particularly interesting when considered with the strategy of movie buzz. This article suggests that the effects of the Social Learning theory are not so simple: hearing good things about a movie does not promote it indefinitely. The buzz may peak early, leaving people bored with the idea by the time the movie is actually released. There also may be a backlash in buzz as a result of too much excitement. This is what almost happened with 'Inception,' and the article was written before the movie came out when it seemed like the incredible expectations attached to the movie would lead to disappointment. Ultimately, 'Inception' avoided that fate; either the hype did not cross over to a harmful area, or the movie was strong enough to hold up against its glowing reviews. However, the implications of this idea still persist. As a personal example, I remember finally convincing a few relatives to watch 'The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl' a couple years after it had been released. Having heard wonderful things about this movie, my relatives were extremely disappointed when they found the movie fun and entertaining enough, but not anything incredible. Instead of dismissing the movie as good but forgettable, though, they actively hated it. The gap between their expectations and their experience caused them to become more angry than they ever would have been if the movie hadn't been hyped.

This interpretation of the Social Learning Theory shows that while other's opinions are very important in the decisions we make regarding media, they also color our expectations and make our personal outcome hard to predict. The relationship between early buzz and eventual reception are quite complex; it seems that in promotion, media distributors will have to strike just the right balance of excitement in moderation.

Picture: http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Inception-Poster.jpg
Article: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/07/inception-chris-nolan-review-good.html

The Bechdel Test, Gender Roles and Hegemony

Bechdel's Test

(I apologize for the lighting, it's a work in progress.)

I’m female. It’s an indicative statement that affirms the obvious, yet with those two words a whole set of subtexts is instantly set off. The expectations and implications associated with being female are drawn to attention quite often these days, but there is still a steady undercurrent that defines women as somehow fundamentally different than the generic view of ‘human.’ This subtle, constant work of hegemony is a driving force in the creation and maintenance of gender roles, and the Bechdel Test is only one example.

Hegemony, by definition, is not preached openly or forced onto the populace by coercion. It is accepted as “common sense,” swept under the realm of conscious observation. Through the reinforcement of images and messages that support a dominant group or ideology, hegemony creates a definition of normalcy that goes undetected. This in turn creates a cycle: because something is assumed to be normal, it is incorporated into a hegemony, at which point more people are persuaded of this something’s normalcy.

Most issues with gender roles have been pulled out from this blind spot at least in some form: the exploitation of women in advertising and entertainment, the treatment of women in the workplace, politics, and other forms of leadership. But one that stayed beyond my notice for some time is the general lack of female characters in movies. Sure, most movies now emphasize at least one strong female cast member, but most of the time this character is so busy being female that they don’t have time for basic character development. Too often, women only exist in a narrative because of a familial or romantic connection to a male character; even more regularly, they are restricted to themes associated with the feminine or they are used only as prizes or objects to be rescued and saved. A more recent phenomenon is a problem that arises when the character is taken too far in the other direction: the creators produce an ‘Action Girl’ who has no character traits other than being the designated stand-in for an often inaccurate idea of what strength looks like in a woman.

While it may appear that female characters are stronger and more frequent in storytelling media, the truth is they are still far from being recognized as a generic human being with generic human problems. In the video above, I address this through a discussion of the Bechdel Test. Click here for more information, or watch this video showing even more examples.

Postscript

(Correction: At least than half of the people you meet on a college campus will be female.)