Sitcoms

Television shows are generally narrated through one of two formats: episodic or serial. However, sitcoms are most often episodic. Several characteristics of sitcoms are associated with episodic narration. Each episode is usually meant to teach one particular lesson, where a character will raise a question and receive an answer within the 22-minute timeframe of a sitcom. Most episodes will not extend into the next week; each episode will be its own complete story, which can stand on its own apart from the series. This leads to predictability and the audience is familiar with how each episode will play out before watching it. In general, there is no great character arc throughout an entire sitcom series — the characters are stagnant and sometimes never even age or progress through life or school. This allows many sitcoms to be not only funny, but also rather absurd. Characters are put into strange and unrealistic situations, and by the next episode these happenings are ‘forgotten.’ This is the formula for most sitcoms, both animated and live-action.

One sitcom that exemplifies this episodic narrative strategy is the animated series Family Guy. Each episode of this show stands apart from the series as a whole, in which one entire plot will begin and finish and what took place in a particular episode will not be mentioned again in succeeding shows. An example of one of these episodes in one entitled “Road to Rupert” in which two of the show’s main characters, Stewie, a talking baby, and Brian, a talking dog, set off on a cross-country road trip to find Stewie’s lost teddy bear. Throughout this trip, they encounter a myriad of odd people and end up in several crazily unrealistic situations, only to end up safely back at home by the last minutes of the episode, no questions asked. In the following episode, these events will not be referred back to or even remembered, and the audience knows and expects this. It is all part of the episodic formula in which episodes do not connect to form a developing plot. Because of this, the characters never experience any real change.  Every week, the viewer can expect to see Peter Griffin in his white button-down and green pants, sitting in a bar with his friends Joe, Cleveland, and Quagmire; Stewie in his red overalls, planning the murder of his mother and takeover of the world; Brian the dog womanizing and drinking; Meg at the butt of every joke, etc. They never age and rarely, if ever, do things in their lives change.  Family Guy, like many sitcoms, never amounts to much more than any one episode. 

Shot Progression and Camera Angles in The Lion King

In lecture on Monday, Professor Ramirez-Berg discussed the shot progression that directors use in films and the denotative meanings of those shots, as well as the connotative implications of the directors’ chosen camera angles.

Specifically, the professor spoke of the connotation of power in a variety of shots: eye level, low angle, and high angle. These are similar to the long shot, medium shot, and close up. The eye level shot is power “neutral” and usually considered an identification shot, while the low angle gives power to a subject and a high angle shot takes power away. This is how filmmakers generally take advantage of the different camera angles; however, some directors have been known to use the various shots ironically (for example, using a low angle to limit power of a subject) or in unpredictable ways (such as changing the normal shot progression or holding a particular shot, like the close up, for a long period of time, omitting the rest). These angles are used in all films, including animation. One example of a film that uses these shots in aesthetically beautiful ways is Disney’s The Lion King.

In this film, one particularly dramatic and action-packed scene involves the young lion cub, Simba, faced with the peril of a sudden incoming stampede of wildebeests. In this scene, the filmmakers animate a classic array of shots and angles to illustrate the progression of the situation.

First, we have a close-up of the character, Simba.

Close-ups are meant to convey feelings and emotion, and here the viewer can easily see that Simba is feeling a combination of shock and fear, which work to foreshadow what is coming next.

A low-angle shot of the wildebeests rushing toward him.

In this shot, the viewer (and Simba) is lower than the oncoming “traffic” here and thus, less powerful. The wildebeests are the subjects given all the power as an invading force: they are up above, towering over everything else, while we are below and much weaker. This combined with the previous close up expresses the imminent peril of terror.

We then have a higher angle shot of Simba clinging to a tree branch for safety.

Although it is not as extreme of an angle as the previous two, it still works to convey the loss or lack of Simba’s power in this situation. The “camera” is above him, limiting his power, and the obvious look of fear on his face in this medium shot (which is an information shot) communicates this even further.

This is just one scene from the film that uses a combination of many shots and angles to create a clear message; many more examples of these shot progressions and camera angles can be found throughout The Lion King, and they all work to produce an enthralling movie. 

The Studio System of Classical Hollywood

Several major factors contributed to the intricate design of the classical Hollywood studio system. All aspects of film, from the production to the exhibition, were controlled by Hollywood studios, which created a large and demanding oligopoly of a few powerful studios. Contracted talent is one facet of the production side of the studio system. Today, directors and actors are largely their own free agents, working only a few big projects a year, and picking and choosing which projects they are passionate about, but studios in the 1930s and ‘40s had complete control of their ‘talent.’ Studios had actors, directors, editors, and writers contracted in a factory system so that they could be forced into doing any project, and as many projects, as the studio willed. Directors, who today generally make only one or two feature films every few years, could be contracted to direct up to 3-5 films, and actors could be slated to star dozens every year. This created incredibly large filmographies for actors in the classical era as compared to actors today. In addition to being contracted under one particular studio, the ‘talent’ could be, in a sense, loaned out to other production studios to star in or direct even more films. Work in Hollywood at this time could be never-ending for big stars like Humphrey Bogart and Judy Garland, and directors such as Michael Curtiz.

Because Hollywood was churning out films and putting casts and crews on many films every year, many of the films that came out during this golden era had strange and fragmented storylines, poor acting and direction, and were considered ‘B movies.’ Directors, actors, etc., had no input on the plot of whichever film they happened to be making and these movies were more often than not being filmed as it was lighted.

Contracting talent like this caused many films to go through dozens of writers before a film was made, and some even went through rewrites throughout the duration of filming.  This caused scripts of the day to have no real author, and as a result, many movies became quite jumbled, with aspects of the plots confusing or unknown to the audience, and perhaps even to the actors reciting the lines.  An example of this is the 1942 film Casablanca, which gives credit to three writers (who originally adapted it from a play), yet went through many more writers and rewrites — so many that it was in a race to keep up with the pace of actual production and filming. In addition to this, the director, Michael Curtiz, was given little to no input in the formation of the film, and thus was receiving the story essentially as he filmed it, which caused some effects of the film to be rather melodramatic. The acting, as well, could be seen as melodramatic or stiff, perhaps due to the actors never knowing exactly where their characters were going or how the plot would end. Despite all these inconsistencies, however, Casablanca has gone on to become one of the most beloved movies in the world; however, this is an exception. The studio, the directors, and the actors, and the production team went into the film not expecting to be making anything particularly important. It was simply another movie being churned out by Warner Bros. It may even be that people love this film because it can be so odd and inconsistent at times. But, in the end, whether it is loved or hated, this film, as well as many more like it, is the product of a studio system that involved an assembly line style creation, loaned out stars, and an ‘authorless’ script, all of which are characteristic of the “Golden Age” of film. 

The 70s v. "The 70s"

I don’t watch many contemporary sitcoms. I am a big fan of reruns, however; comedies of the 1970s, and ‘80s are my favorites. This is probably why I also quite enjoy That ‘70s Show, a program set in the decade of the 1970s with several differences and similarities to All in the Family.

As That ‘70s Show was set in the same era as All in the Family was filmed (the ‘70s, not the ‘60s, Prof. Straubhaar), these two shows do share certain similarities. For one, there is the cast of characters in the two shows’ respective families: Archie Bunker and Red Forman, the stern, conservative fathers; Edith and Kitty, the kooky mothers; Michael and Eric, the smart-alecky ‘sons’; and finally, Gloria and Laurie, the blonde and beautiful daughters. These characters seem to create and react to various situations in comparable ways. In the episode of All in the Family that we screened on Thursday, Archie perpetually berates Michael for having a “fag” friend; on frequent occasions in episodes of That ‘70s Show, Red makes jokes about gay people, referring to one as a “fruitcake.” Like Michael to Archie in AitF, Eric will frequently stand up or talk to back to Red, who will, in turn, refer to him as something demeaning (Archie: “meathead”; Red: “dumbass”). Throughout these antics, Edith and Kitty are always around to say something silly and perhaps even dimwitted, both in oddly shrill voices that became their trademarks.

Many differences are apparent in these two shows, as well. Dissimilarities between T70sS and AitF in language use are likely quite surprising to the modern, young viewer— perhaps due to standards television is upheld to today that it wasn’t in the 1970s. One shocker is Archie Bunker’s frivolous use of the word “fag” — a word bleeped out on television today. That ‘70s Show does use quite a bit more ‘foul’ language than All in the Family, but “fag” today is largely considered a ‘buzz’ word — something that is simply not allowed on a modern sitcom.  Perhaps in this respect, All in the Family dealt with homophobia in a very straightforward way that That ‘70s Show was not capable of. As I haven’t watched All in the Family much outside of Thursday’s screening, I cannot honestly say whether or not That ‘70s Show tackled issues that All in the Family didn’t, but I would suggest that it is likely, as unlike the older show, T70sS was not considered “edgy” by 1990s-2000s standards, and so would be able to address certain topics without as dramatic a reaction from viewers that AitF likely received at times.

Ultimately, these two shows do seem to follow a basic formula that most sitcoms, past and present, tend to follow. Hilarity ensuing between families in otherwise ‘everyday’ situations is an aspect of sitcoms that gets real-life families to sit down for a half-hour together every night and enjoy. Naturally, the shows are not identical, but they do follow an outline that works. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj_bgxAkGpU

Technological Change in Radio

Technological change is what began the common use of radio in the 1920s and what allowed radio to continue to grow throughout the decade, as it still does today.  From the initial creation of the radio, to the mainstream use of it every day, to the many evolutions it has gone through since, radio has always been greatly affected by technological change and progression.

As consumer demand expands, radio expands as well, leading to more common use, larger audiences and better quality of sound thanks to better radio frequencies. This is all thanks to technological change, which took radio from solely military use, to common household use, to the main source of entertainment in America. As audiences asked for more, radio controllers supplied in, but were only able to thanks to the progression of technology is response to the demand.

Radio as we know it today was initially begun by technological improvements by Guglielmo Marconi, who created the radiotelegraph and performed the first transatlantic transmission. After this kind of radio helped to save many lives on the Titanic in 1912, the idea for what radio could accomplish broadened greatly. It became so commonly used, first by the Navy in the early ‘20s, and then in average American homes by the middle of the decade, regulation became necessary to prevent interference between frequencies (the Radio Act of 1927, for example). This was perhaps the biggest initial technological evolution of radio in the 1920s — the idea of making radio accessible to the masses for news, shows, and music. Eventually this led to use of FM radio, which was not as affected by interference as AM radio and allowed for many different radio stations in a single city. Multiplex stereo radio was also introduced at this time as technology continued to progress in response to consumer demand. The sound quality of music played on radio stations improved thanks to new technology, which in turn made for larger audiences. This technological growth made for a “golden age” of radio from the 1920s to the 1950s and allowed for the syndication of talk radio in many cities throughout the country. Eventually dwindling audiences led to another technological boom in the last twenty years, leading to the automation of radio. Satellite radio allowed for national formats to become popular and in the last several years, Internet radio has become the most widely used radio technology. Today, new music is usually found on “personal” radios such as Pandora, which gives a consumer access to most any song and even goes so far as to create personal playlists.

Social Learning in Media

Social learning is a concept related to the strong effect of media theory. Social learning in media occurs when a person observes an event, action, or implication in media and models his or her own behavior and/or attitudes after these observations. An example of this is illustrated in chapter 13 of Media Now. In a study, children watched a recording of an adult violently beating a blow up “Bobo” doll with different endings including negative consequences, positive consequences, and no consequences. It was found that the children who saw the tapes with positive or no consequences acted the same way they observed when presented with their own Bobo doll. Social learning is a concept also cited in the film Tough Guise. This documentary shows us that as boys observe men in films with seemingly ever-growing muscles, guns, and tough attitudes, they feel they should also behave in those ways. Films like First Blood and Terminator reinforce the notion that men must be “tough” in order to be masculine, or “true men.”  Boys emulate this ideal from early ages, as presented in Tough Guise, and this has led even to a rise in violent crimes among men.

Social learning is evident in a wide array of advertisements aimed at men of all ages. In one ad for boots aimed particularly at construction workers, the text reads, “For men who screw, bang, ‘n’ drill.” The words “bang” and “drill” perpetuate the stereotype that men are tough and aggressive, sexually and otherwise. This ad says to men, “real men are rugged and violent.” Men observe this advertisement and those like it and, in turn, believe that they, themselves, must toughen up. The theory that media has a strong effect on its audience may not be true (as there is parallel theory stating that media has only limited effects), but for those who are susceptible to the glossy print, the effects can be detrimental. 

Hegemony

Hegemony is basically defined as one ruling group in a society having almost dictatorial power over all others and thus being able to control all aspects of a single industry. This is seen in a myriad of areas throughout our own society from music, to television, to movies, and more.

One practice of hegemony is something called “framing” which involves this leading group telling people how to think about a person, issue, or event — do we think about this person or thing positively or negatively? Shaping the way we think about technology, politics, etc., is an important way of maintaining hegemony, which is naturally what an industry-dominating company or group wants to do. In a sense, framing is the creation and perpetuation of stereotypes. Framing is meant to influence or change people’s perceptions of products and people.

An example of framing in hegemony is Apple’s “Mac vs. PC commercials.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb_Q8WRL_g&feature=related

Here, Apple does a clever job of shaping the viewer’s perception of PCs, not by slandering the computer, but by sarcastically illustrating PC’s inherent flaws as compared to Mac’s apparent lack of them. In this particular advertisement, the viewer learns to associate deadly viruses with PCs, thus causing one to prefer a Mac, which, according to the commercials, will not encounter the same problems. Apple’s advertisements frame PCs in a negative light, and in response, people react to Apple products positively.