Three Act Structure

Even though it is a much better book than movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is one of my favorite movies that follows the three-act structure that Professor Ramirez-Berg lectured about. In the first act we get the introduction of the characters, especially our main character, Harry Potter, and the distant family he’s living with. However, the plot point at the end of the first act and the beginning of the second act is when Harry learns that he is a wizard. This point in the story line escalates the stakes because Harry is not going to just be living a normal life anymore and will have wizarding problems. There is going to be an implication of a conflict because of the mysterious nature of wizardry. We are going to see much more action in the next act.

In the second act, we see a conflict developing. As Harry and his friends adapt to lives as wizards and witches, they see that there is something suspicious with Professor Snape and Professor Quirrell, they think one of them wants to steal the sorcerer’s stone. We don’t know who wants to steal the stone, but we learn in the next act. The plot point finally comes when Harry and his friends are in the Forbidden Forest and Harry sees a creature feasting on unicorn blood. Harry comes to the realization that he is in serious danger and must protect the sorcerer’s stone. This escalates the stakes by setting up the next scene’s answers to these questions: who is the villain? Will he end up with the sorcerer’s stone? The stage is set for the ultimate showdown between Harry and the villain.

With the final act, we finally have the answers to our questions. As Harry goes to protect the stone, we learn that the villain is the unsuspecting Professor Quirrell. In the climax of the movie, we have the final battle between Harry and the team of Quirrell and Voldemort over the possession of the sorcerer’s stone. Luckily Harry escapes with the sorcerer’s stone in a violent fight. Quirrell dies while Voldemort escapes. The conflict is resolved (only to some extent as there are sequels) and the story starts to wind to an end. 

                                               picture from http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/film/ps/film-ps-dvd-cover.jpg

Sitcoms

         Sitcoms are still probably one of the more popular types of television programs in modern society even though we’ve seen a decrease in quality sitcoms in the past couple decades.  Most people enjoy watching them because they aren’t very complicated and are very easy and relaxing to watch. Most sitcoms are half an hour long and are mostly humorous to watch, usually having characters in ridiculous positions. The characters usually don’t develop very much and aren’t very deep, which probably contributes to the mindless, comedic aspect of a sitcom. Usually a sitcom revolves around a central them, but the end of the episode most often resolves specific episode problems.

            

                                                 Taken from sidereel.com

             My favorite sitcom Friends typifies this comedic structure. Most of the episodes are about a group of six really good friends going through their every day lives. Most of the comedic substance comes from hilarious yet sometimes far-fetched situations and one-liners. Each episode has its resolution at the end. Some of the characters develop slightly over time but most of the characters remain similar to they are at the pilot. Friends isn’t at all complicated to watch but makes for an entertaining television show. 

Camera Angles

             In the opening scene of the motion picture Angels and Demons, director Ron Howard uses different camera angles in order to describe and set the tone for the scene. The first scene takes place in a big indoor pool and Howard uses the long shot to set the stage for the scene. From the long shot, we see a man swimming in the pool with another man entering the swim complex. There is an almost ominous tone as these are the only two people in the building.

            As the camera moves in for the medium shot, we see the swimmer to be Tom Hanks, the star of the film. If you have seen the movie, The Da Vinci Code, you recognize him as the character Robert Langdon. The other man does not look familiar. If not, you don’t know who these people are yet, but we know they are going to have a relationship because the man is walking toward the swimmer, even though the swimmer doesn’t immediately realize this man’s presence.

            Finally, the camera moves in for a close-up. We are able to identify who this unknown character is, as there is a crest on his briefcase that represents the Vatican. Also we know this person is in a position of power, as the camera is focused upward on the man. As the camera angle focuses on this man’s face, we see a concerned expression, which tells us that there is possibly a problem within Vatican City. Just from this expression, and by extension, this camera angle, we know the basis of the conflict for the whole movie. 

Star System

            In my mind, the most significant component of the studio system is the star system. The stars were the actual representation of what the film studio produced. They were contracted and then paid to sell the studio’s product, i.e. the movie. Between the top eight however, top talent could be rented in between studios.

            The star system affected which films a company produced in many different ways. First of all, most stars became associated with specific genres. If the public were used to seeing certain stars in certain roles or movies, companies would continue to give actors similar roles. Also if a film company had seen success from another company using a specific actor to star in a specific type of movie, they could rent this actor to make a similar movie of their own.

            Judy Garland and Humphrey Bogart were perfect examples of this phenomenon. Judy Garland’s work for MGM prompted her to become associated with musicals. Therefore, MGM started to produce more musicals for her to be a part of and produced one of their biggest hits in The Wizard of Oz. Bogart’s work basically reflected the genre evolution of his time. At first, Warner began to produce crime movies with Bogart as its star, but as censorship took over, they produced a likeable criminal type character, which Bogart took the role of. Then finally Warner began to produce detective films and Bogart assumed that role of well. In each movie, Bogart would end up in his classic outfit of a raincoat and hat. 

Comparing Sitcoms

            From when All in the Family aired in the 1970s, the evolution of the sitcom became evident when Modern Family came on TV.  In this particular episode of All in the Family, most of the comedy centers on Archie’s personal issues and how the rest of the family believes his stubborn stereotypes are politically incorrect. However, in Modern Family, the laughs are based on the different family interactions and personal problems that they all face. It also seems that All in the Family, was trying to send a message about societal problems while modern sitcoms don’t always necessarily try to teach a lesson and rather just go for comedic entertainment.

            Even though they are more than 30 years apart, All in the Family and Modern Family do maintain some similarities. Both shows display some sort of dysfunctional family element. In All in the Family, Archie’s family has various comical problems in terms of how they interact, argue, debate, etc. with one another. Similarly in Modern Family, the three separate families all of their certain idiosyncrasies which makes their relationships so successfully hilarious. Also both shows have typical familial roles. They both have the goofy husband, the kids that almost back talk their parents and wives who love their husbands.

            Both shows deal with the issue of homosexuality, but in totally different ways. In the episode of All in the Family, when Archie’s daughter brings home a friend that acts flamboyant for a man and Archie immediately thinks he’s gay. He begins to call him pansy, tuity fruity and other types of stereotypical insults without even getting to know him. This attitude makes Archie seem unreasonable and homophobic which criticizes society’s view of homosexuality at the time. However, Modern Family deals with sexual orientation head on, as one of the families consists of a gay couple for parents. This marks a change in societal thinking because back in the 70s, people such as Archie had discriminating thoughts about homosexuality while, in today’s society, it is commonplace to see a gay couple raise a family.