The Three Act Film Structure

Most of the films we see in today's society follow the three act film structure--that is, they feature an opening act which serves to provide introductory informations, a second act in which the film's main conflict arises, and a third act which features a climax followed by resolving action. Many of the big blockbusters that come out follow this three act structure, including James Cameron's "Avatar." The first act of Avatar provides all of the introductory information necessary for the film. We are introduced to the planet Pandora, as well as the protagonist Jake Sully, and other supporting characters. We also learn the details of the avatar process. The first act peaks as Jake Sully is discovered by the Na'vi people in the Pandora jungle and essentially becomes a part of their village. This plot point serves to bring the movie into the second act as we are introduced to the main conflict: Jake Sully must decide if his loyalty lies with the Na'vi people or with the imposing Americans. The second act develops as Jake becomes more and more understanding of the Na'vi people and their ways, learning to live the way they live. The second act ultimately peaks after the Americans have attacked the Na'vi village and Jake Sully decides that they need to bring all of the Na'vi people together to fight back. This brings about act three: the Na'vis battle against the Americans. The third act is much shorter than the second and peaks as the final showdown occurs. In the end, Jake Sully and the Na'vi defeat the antagonists. The film ends with the resolving action: the Na'vi get to keep their land, Jake Sully has found love, etc. The "happy ending" is a typical feature of the three act structure.

The American Sitcom

           Since the days of "I Love Lucy," sitcoms have become an important part of American life. For years, families all around the country have gathered around the TV at a certain time every week to watch their favorite sitcom. Within the genre of sitcoms, most television shows have a lot in common. They are comedies that tend to be episodic, meaning they introduce new plots that are resolved within the episode each week. They can be silly, often to the point of hyperbole. This is an important aspect of the genre, because it means that viewers who may not watch every week can understand and enjoy the show during those weeks they do watch, which is often not true for serialized dramas like "Lost." Many times, sitcoms are shot in front of live audiences (meaning that there are laugh tracks which essentially let the viewer know when they should be laughing) and use the multiple-camera format. Sitcoms typically follow a similar pattern throughout the show and tend to be much more predictable than dramas. A lot of the time, they feature wide indoor sets, and don't usually show outdoor shots.
           Take for instance a show that has always been a favorite of mine: NBC's "Friends" which aired from 1994-2004. Friends follows all these typical characteristics of a sitcom. It uses a multiple camera setup and is shot in front of a live audience. There is a laugh track in every scene, and whenever something particularly shocking happens, the audience will usually scream for a while. The show is episodic--every episode introduces a couple of new conflicts that are each resolved by the end of the show. Every episode follows a typical pattern. Friends differs from other sitcoms in the fact that it has six equal stars. So where as most sitcoms focus on one or two or so main characters, Friends has six actors that all get equal screen time. This leads to many different subplots throughout the show, all of which are also resolved by the end of each episode. The show is certainly hyperbolic at times, and each character has a certain persona they embody--everyone knows Chandler is the funny guy and Joey is the slightly dumb Ladies' Man. The sets in Friends are wide open rooms (apartments that are incredibly large by New York standards) and the viewer can usually not see the outdoors. Friends is a classic example of an incredibly popular American sitcom.

The Use of Shots in Film

The use of shots in films are often very significant in the context of films. Film shots set the tone of the film, and add meaning to the scenes in which they are used. There are three main types of film shots: the long shot, the medium shot, and the close up. The final scene of Slumdog Millionaire, the 2008 Academy Award winner for best picture, employs all three of these types of shots. Often times these shots are seen in a progression from the long shot to the close up, and this is the case for Slumdog Millionaire. In this scene, Jamal Malik has just won "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" However, all he cares about is finding Latika--the girl he loves. The director uses a long shot of Latika standing at the train station. This long shot provides a sense of isolation, as if she is the only person around. This is important in the context of the film, because despite everything that is taking place around him, Jamal only cares about Latika. Next the director uses a medium shot of Jamal running up to Latika, followed by a medium shot of Latika waiting for him. These shots provide a transition and allow the viewer to see where Jamal is in relation to Latika. Finally, the director uses a close up of the two as they embrace. The close up shot is used to add emotion to the already emotional scene. We see a close up of Jamal looking into Latika's eyes, allowing the viewer to more closely view his joy. The film ends with a close up shot of the two of them kissing--something the viewer has anticipated for the whole film.

The Star System of Classical Hollywood

Thanks in large part to the vertical integration used by film studios, classical Hollywood was very different from the Hollywood that exists today. As film studios gained more and more power in the 1920s, they began to employ a new system of doing things: the star system. The star system revolved around the studios use of movie stars' widespread popularity to promote all movies they would produce. Eventually it got to the point where studios could attract viewers based purely on a star's name alone. This affected studios' decisions because movies became more focused on the stars themselves, rather than the content. If a major star was known for singing, he would typically sing in every movie he was in, regardless of whether or not singing fit into the content of the movie. Studios would even begin placing the stars names above the titles of films on movie marquees. One example of this would be a movie star like Fred Astaire. Fred Astaire became a major star during the 1930s. He became famous for his dancing with partner Ginger Rogers. Once he became known for his dancing, he would continue to dance in every movie he appeared in, simply because this is what audiences expected. Studios knew that audiences would come see their movies because they loved the dancing Fred Astaire, so that is exactly what they gave them.

All in the Family vs. Modern Family

Although family based TV comedies have changed a lot over the past forty years, the issues they deal with can be surprisingly similar. Comparing the "Judging Books by Covers" episode of the 1970s comedy All in the Family to "The Kiss" episode of 2010 Emmy winning comedy Modern Family proves this point. The All in the Family episode's plot centers around Archie Bunker's homophobic tendencies and his discovering that his friend is gay. The Modern Family episode focuses on Mitch and Cam--a gay couple. Cam is upset with Mitch because he will never kiss him in public. Ultimately, this plot was actually a way to address the public's disapproval that Cam and Mitch had actually never kissed on the show, and the episode ended with the two finally sharing a kiss. These two episodes are similar in that not only are they addressing the same issue, but they both have similar characters. Archie Bunker plays a stereotypical homophobe, as does Mitch's father Jay. They are different in the way they portray the story. The difference in time periods also clearly makes a difference in the attitudes towards homosexuality. On All in the Family, Archie uses prejudiced language with words like "fag"--a word which would not be spoken on television today. Also, Modern Family shows two men kissing--something that was not likely to be on television in the 70s. As for issues that differ between the two, the most obvious would be the effect that technology has played on television. Many things that took place in the Modern Family episode involved technology: a mom reading her daughter's text messages, no one can figure out how to fix the printer, etc. Given that none of this technology existed in the 70s, things like these do not take place in All in the Family.