Mean Girls

In order for any film to make sense it needs some sort of organization, a base. That is why there are three types of narratives: classical tragedy, alternative, and three act structure (which is the one we see the most.) "Mean Girls," one of my all time favorite movies, is organized by the three act structure. It is basically about a girl, Cady Heron (protagonist), who goes from being home schooled in Africa to attending a public high school in America. It is not very hard for her to adjust to the change as she is accepted right in with The Plastics, the A-list girl clique at her new school. Than she makes the mistake of falling in love with Aaron Samuels, the ex-boyfriend of alpha Plastic Regina George, which leads to major conflicts.

The film has a very interesting syuzhet. The first act begins with an establishing shot as Cady takes a look at what will be her new high school. As the fabula evolves we can see that Cady forms a strong friendship with The Plastics, that would soon lead to trouble. The rising action of the film begins in 14:55, when Cady tells The Plastics that she is interested in Aaron Samuels. Regina, his ex girlfriend, offers to help her out with him, which turns out to be a total lie.

Stakes escalate in the second act as the climax approaches. In 28:15 Cady spies Regina kissing Aaron, they boy she was interested in, after she had told her she would help her out with him. A close up shot is used to reveal how Cady feels after seeing this; she feels betrayed and is filled with anger. She decides she must do something about this to get revenge on Regina. After brainstorming different plans she finally decides to target the only assets she has, her body and her "army of skanks." She than follows through with her plan for revenge, which is consisted of several dramatic plot points.

The third act of the film introduces the end act. In 76:24, the falling action begins when Regina gets hit by a school bus. After Regina gets hit by the bus, the cattiness between the girls stop and they decide to make peace. As the film uses a modern cinematic style, it ends with a happy ending.

Episodic vs. Serial

Sitcoms are something we have all come to love. They are usually an hour and a half long, are funny and tend to all be either episodic or serial (mostly episodic.) When a sitcom is episodic, it always ends where it begins, there is not much of a character arc, and there is an individual lesson within each episode. Each episode tells a different story every time with the same cast of characters while characters rarely develop or change and the stories tend to follow a basic formula. The story is always complete in one episode, meaning the viewer does not need to watch the episodes in a sequence to know what is going on. Serial sitcoms on the other hand, tell stories that develop over a period of time and the viewers have to tune in every time in order to know what is going on. Each episode is predictable and is likely to rise and ask a central question. Both of these types of sitcoms generally are developed from the same sitcom genre, they use reoccurring characters in common environments. The environments, such as a home or a workplace, are usually chosen in a way that they will be able to relate to the viewer.

One of my all time favorite sitcoms is "Full House." This type of sitcom would be considered an episodic sitcom because each episode is a new story. This show is basically about a single father, Danny Tanner, who in need of help to raise his three daughters asks his rock musician brother-in-law, Jesse Katsopolis and his comedian best friend, Joey Gladstone to move in with them. The show is filled with humor and inspiration, as we watch how three men try to raise three little girls. For the most part it is shot from the comfort of a homie house and is family oriented. The house gives the viewer a sense of humbleness and averageness, something the viewer can relate to. That is one of the reasons I love this show because it is about a humble family facing the typical problems families encounter on a daily basis, and it enables me to feel connected and comfortable.

Below is a scene from "Full House" and as

you can see in the background, the house is

 portrayed very homie and average.

Matilda :)

How would you like to watch a movie where you had no clue what was going on? you probably would not appreciate it. Fortunately, the film industry has discovered many strategies to get across messages of what is going on in a film to the audience; they use what they call film language. They have developed different camera angles and shots that have different meanings within the context of specific films. In "Matilda", which is a movie about an extraordinary girl of wondrous intelligence with neglectful parents who are too ignorant to notice her, therefore she is forced to live with out the guidance of elders; there are a variety of angles and shots to portray how Matilda is intended to be viewed in the film.

Matilda's father always liked to think as himself as superior to Matilda. He would never give her the benefit of the doubt and he always thought she was just a dumb little girl. There was a scene in the movie where he kept repeating to her over and over "Your wrong I'm right, your small I'm big." While he was saying this, a high angle shot (used to connote power) was being used. High angle shots are used to take power away from the subject, in this case the power was being taken away from Matilda.

Than there is the medium shot which is used as and information shot. It usually shows the relationship between a subject to its surroundings and the cituation they are in. While Matilda's father is proving himself as being ineferior to her, the camera switches from a high angle shot to a medium shot; which informs us of the relationship between Matilda and her father. We can see Matilda's fathers hand in her face while her facial expression shows she is angry at him.

Throughout the movie Matilda was forced to grow up without the guidence of her parents. From when she was young she had intelligence out of the ordinary, which made growing up alone something that came fairly easy to her. All the shots of her doing things on her own were low angle shots, which give power to the subject. Therefore, all these shots were saying that Matilda was powerful and independent.

Studio System with the Star System

I must say the concept of the studio system was pretty clever in how it managed to create and arbitrary business out of the film industry, which was greatly benefited from. After the Great Depression is when things took a different toll in a direction that would lead to monopolistic control of the film industry. Paramount, Loews/MGM, Warner Brothers, Fox, and RKO were the five major studios that basically controlled the film industry; and they all had similar strategies which they used to do so. A strategy which I found interesting was the star system which relates directly to the "contract system" they created; which secured stars to the company.

Companies would use the names of popular stars to promote their films. They would note that there were certain stars the audience loved and they seemed to always give them the same kind of roles in movies, different character but same role. The audience were willing to watch whatever movie as long as their favorite star appeared in it, making it a great market strategy and influencing the direction of the creation of certain films.

 

Rudolph Valentino, Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin were a few of many popular stars whose names were used to promote films. The industries would use the talents of stars to their advantage,  Judy Garland, who appeared in the "Wizard of Oz" as Dorothy, is a great example of how the star system was used. The audience loved her presence on the screen as she was always given a role in musicals as the happy go lucky girl; because of her rich exuberant voice and warm personality. We see much as this still happening to this day, Michael Cera is always the dorky sweet nerd, Jennifer Aniston who is always trying to find love, Kate Hudson is always perky and bubbly, and I could keep going. Whatever the matter is, the strategies film industries use seem to work, making them in to billion dollar industries.

"George Lopez" vs. "All in the Family"

Not many features have changed about the concepts of comedy family sitcoms since the 70's. Like "All in the Family", contemporary family sitcoms are generally focused on family controversies related to what is going on in society at that point in time. A good example of  a family comedy sitcom that could fairly relate to "All in the Family" is my all time favorite "George Lopez." This contemporary family comedy is about a an over protective and loving father, attempting to deal with his dysfunctional family along with other random mishaps. Like in "All in the Family", "George Lopez" is about a working class family and the protagonist for both is the man of the family, the father. Another similarity they have is the role of the wives, in both shows the wife is portrayed as sweet and supportive women who are by the husband's side and do not have much of an input in conversations. In both shows the men of the family almost never agree with the decisions of some of their family members, which often only gives the family more avidity to do what they want. The setting in both shows is similar, both families live in a spacious two story house and the majority of the scenes take place in either the family room or in the kitchen. I also noticed that both shows consist of a character with a strong personality that often cause disputes withing the family; in "George Lopez" it would be Benny, George's mother and from "All in the family" it would be Michael Stivic (meathead.)

"All in the Family" and "George Lopez" also have many differences, considering "All in the Family" is from the 1970's while "George lopez" is from 2002. First off, in "All in the Family" the only characters are the mother, the father, the daughter, and the son in law; while in "George Lopez" you have the parents, a daugher, a son, the fathers best friend, and a grandmother (fathers mom.) Also the type of humor is quiet different. In the more modern comedy, the humor is not as obvious where as in the older comedy, humor is more appearant and it is more about the actions of a character rather than the words. The way both shows were shot is another difference. In "All in the Family" everything involved with the shooting format was much more simple while in "George Lopez" the camera moves a lot more and captures more angles.

Both shows are based around every day issues but they are not necessarily pertained to the same subject matters; and both families deal with them in a different way. For example, the episode of "All in the Family" we saw focused on homosexuality and how the family had different view points about it. Archie, the father, had a hard time accepting homosexuality while George from "George Lopez" had no problem with it and it was not as big of a deal to his family (maybe because since the 70's there has been some progress in society concerning that subject.) Therefore,  "All in the Family" deals with more intense topics that directly affect society such as racism, homosexuality, women's liberation, rape, miscarriage, breast cancer, menopause and impotence; where as "George Lopez" is pure comedy and the issues that come up are more family oriented.

The transition from the 70's to 2000 in shows is not quiet as obvious but there are some differences. The issues they dealt with then are issues we still encounter today.