Sitcom Structure

When I flop on the couch to watch TV I want something I can expect. I want something I just can release my daily constraints onto. I want some comic relief. Modern sitcoms have intentions to free people from daily stress. People want to come home to a stress-free environment – watch television to give them some humor, comic relief, and some sense of structure in their life. The sitcom structure can attest to that. The storyline is straightforward. We know there will be humor. We know that although there is conflict - everything will be okay. We know that there will be mini-resolutions.

These mini resolutions are key to the impact of sitcoms. In the midst of these mini-resolutions, the sitcom is amusing but it gives the sitcom moral support. It persists to impact the viewer in a positive way. These mini-resolutions are typically juvenile but teaches the audience valuable lessons. It persists to take the structure of the sitcom in full circle – from beginning to end. It takes the audience into little mini shows that don’t take thought to watch. Typically, one doesn’t have to update on the previous episodes to understand the story in the next episode. These mini-resolutions are refreshing. They are exactly what the audience wants – a stress-free and comical environment that everyone can relate to on a daily basis.

The original ABC show “Full House” advocated the sitcom structure. “Full House”, although cliché, offered viewers daily lessons that everyone can partake in. “Full House” gives mini-resolutions in every episode. In a recent re-run of “Full House,” a Tanner sister decides to borrow her sister’s sweater but spills mustard on the sweater. The rising action exists when Stephanie is debating about telling DJ, her older sister, about the stain. Some comical relief takes place in the middle of the show, but in the end, a mini-resolution exists. Such as that Stephanie tells her older sister yet instead of anger and resentment, forgiveness takes place. The resolution of her sister forgiving her takes place – the cheesy lesson is molded into the audience’s minds. Each episode has similar structures – rising action, resolution, and then lesson. Each episode gives that mini-resolution and lesson that implies to everyone, which makes “Full House” so appealing because everyone can relate.

This structure of the sitcom can ultimately lead to success. Its mini-resolutions despite their cheesiness are something relatable. It provides that structure in people’s lives. It provides comical relief, yet provides the lessons of moral much needed in society.

Below is a clip from "Full House" I could not embed it because of technical difficulties. This clip proves "Full Houses" sitcom mini-resolutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7-_2jXj0oU

Shots have Power!

Shots in movies can be huge motivators of emotional impact in people. Shots can not only convey orientation, information, and important detail but have a way of grasping the attention of the audience. They have a way of provoking joy, tears, or fear in the emotions of the people. Shots are key to making an awarding winning film – strictly based on the power of shots. Shots have the power to make or break a film. Shots are critical to emotion.

            In Saving Private Ryan, Steven Spielberg is a master mind in creating shots that capture the attention and emotions of the audience.  In the beginning scene from “Saving Private Ryan,” Spielberg uses a long shot, low angle shots, close up shots, and medium close-up shots to support the emotional appeal in his story.

            Spielberg uses a long shot in the very beginning combined with a high angle shot to give the retired captain a powerless, hopeless feel. The captain is walking in an Arlington National Cemetery and the camera pans to him walking by himself surrounded by gravestone crosses. This camera shot adds an emotional appeal. It proves the captain is feeling hopeless surrounded with painful memories. The high angle gives him a feeling of less power.

            Spielberg also uses close up shots to give important detail to what the viewer needs to know. The viewer needs to know that the soldiers are scared and shaking. Spielberg uses a close up shot to show that their hands are shaking with fear as the solider opens his water canteen. This gives the audience a more shocking and chilling reaction to the film.

          He also uses medium close ups to portray the emotion that the characters feel. These shots conform the emotions of the characters. They go from general to specific. They convey relationship shots with the other soldiers. One of the shots is that the camera dollys from one to solider to the other showing their relationships with one another and the emotions they are battling with in terms of the future battle they are about to partake upon. Thus showing the intensity and fear in all of their faces. Another shot Spielberg used was a medium close of the captain in the cemetery to convey the sadness in his face and show the misunderstanding of his family members in the background. This shot exemplified relationship information.

           This key examples prove that shots HAVE POWER. Shots are the essence of a quality film. Shots can direct emotions to fear, joy, or sorrow.  They have the power to overcome one’s emotions and take one on a 2 hour journey. Shots – have power.

The Star System

           The best form of promoting a film is attracting people to what they already know and enjoy. People don’t like change, they like consistency. When people find an actor or actress that they enjoy watching on the big screen, they often stick to watching them in all movies. When an actress or actor captures the hearts and imaginations of audiences, stardom prevails and stardom is the best Hollywood mechanism that can exist. Hollywood uses the stardom system to promote their films. When people are familiar with a star, they flock to see the film, typically without any information regarding the film. People just want to see their beloved star. The star system helped Hollywood grow extensively. Throughout the 1920’s through 1940’s, the overwhelming popularity of stars helped production companies sway their opinions on who to cast and what genres to cast the beloved stars in. Stars were the perfect, cost effective advertisements for their films. Stars made what Hollywood is today!

Even as Hollywood was just beginning to take off in the 1920s, so did people’s infatuation with the actor and actresses they were watching. Stardom existed early in Hollywood history. Even stars such as Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Rudolph Valentino were a big hit in the early 1920s. These stars were attracting audiences so quickly that studios were more concerned about who starred in their film than the film itself. Typically, the stars predicted the success of a film. Stars were also known for particular traits. Such as Judy Garland and Gene Kelly were known to sing and dance during their films. These type of actresses swayed studios to make more musical genre films. Studios conformed to whatever the genre their particular star was associated with in the early days of Hollywood. Warner Bros studio star Humphrey Bogart was associated with crime films. But as his stardom persisted and he developed a dedicated audience, Bogart changed audiences’ viewings from crime to gangster to detective only within a few years. This dedication of the audiences that people were not watching the film itself but people were watching him. Thus proving that the star system was a tangible way for studios to achieve success in their movies.

A good example a beloved star that changed history is Shirley Temple. Shirley Temple was a 20^th Century Fox star that captured the hearts of all audiences. She was one the most popular child actresses of all time. She became the essence of superstardom – she could sing, dance, and act. She was an epic success to 20^th Century Fox Studios. Fans adored her cheerful attitude and people were attracted to her innocence. Eventually 20^th Century Fox sold millions of dollars worth of products that advertised her name. They sold dolls, records, clothing apparel, and more. She was the stable actress for 20^th Century for many years in the 1930s. When MGM was casting Wizard of Oz, Fox refused to loan Shirley Temple out to the MGM studios. Shirley Temple was a tool for promotion to 20^th Century Fox. She proved that the star system was tangible for studios of the early Hollywood age.

Beloved stars captured the hearts of the American people. Even modern Hollywood uses stars to sell tickets at the box office. People like consistency and familiarity. It’s a comfort that will always be in American film. Stars will always have an impact on the structure on the Hollywood studio system – stars are the essence and money of American film.

The New Family Unit?

Television has changed drastically throughout the decades. The influence that media has on society wants to change as well. In the 1970s family-based TV sitcom “All in the Family,” Archie Bunker represents a typical father figure of the decade. Archie is a typical outspoken racist who seemingly voices his opinion to anyone willing to take it. “All in the Family’s” idea was to recreate the typical American household of the time – a household that involved racism and discord. This portrayed family life style influenced the way 1970s family units modeled as “normal.”

However, only a few years later, TV producers wanted to portray a typical family without the racism and conflict. They wanted to reverse the negative influence TV had on families. They created an award-winning TV sitcom called “Everybody Loves Raymond.” This show portrayed the perfect family model. The Barone family had conflict, however, they were not wrought with racism and sexism. The Barone family modeled that all conflict can be resolved in the end unlike the Bunker family in “All in the Family.” TV producers wanted to change the way America thinks about family. Of course families will have conflict! Of course families will not be perfect! But all families can work together as a uniform family unit and be successful.

“All in the Family” and “Everybody Loves Raymond” dealt with a similar concept – the family life. But each show demonstrated differently how the family unit should behave. The Bunker family proved racism and male dominance were normal if not vital in the family. The Ramone family proved that working together with similar interests was successful. The Bunker family was an exaggerated appeal of the typical American family in the 1970s. Modern sitcoms want to eliminate any exaggeration with family life. With the current studies of how easily media can influence behaviors, TV producers want to sway families into a more concrete family life style – that involves teamwork with the husband and wife.

TV producers want to show what families SHOULD look like in “Everyody Loves Raymond.” The Ramone family dealt with children, neighbors, and common everyday problems. They solved these problems with integrity but with added humor. On the other hand, the Bunker family dealt with racism, injustice, political matter, or “everyday problems.” However, the Bunker family didn’t solve these problems with integrity but rather a swayed biased family unit that added further strain to the family unit. Both shows dealt with “everyday problems” but both shows handled the situations very differently.

This clip from "Everybody Loves Raymond" proves that a family unit without conflict can actually exist....

"Radio Days"

Every one strives for something better than before. Better technology, better innovation, better ways of communication. People feed off the newly and improved technology whether for personal or corporate use. When new technology emerges, the idea spreads like wildfire to the masses. People become aroused with the “new and improved.”  Such as radio in the 1920s, technological change proves to be a motivating factor for popularity to the common people.

 When Gugliemo Marconi invented the wireless telegraph, it spurred a major outbreak of radio to the masses. Radio was the first true means of worldwide communication in the early 1920s. This technological change proved to be a turning point in history.

David Sarnoff was the radio operator that radioed for help when the Titanic hit. This radio innovation proved it could be a powerful tool in government and military safety.  When the government released the radio to private hands at the end of World War I, people latched on to this craze like wild fire. The technological change shifted people’s ideals to keep up with the latest information.

 Radio became a common household item. It factored into everyday life. In Woody Allen’s film “Radio days”, radio became sort of each person’s identity. Radio became part of their lives. People accept technological change and conform to the lifestyle that technology allows for them.  It’s almost like the “keeping up with the Jones” theory – when fellow neighbors are conforming to the latest and best innovations, it is almost someone’s obligation to follow in the midst of the change. In “Radio Days” everyone keep up with the latest radio shows to prove to themselves that they were current in society.

However with this evolution of radio becoming part of everyday life, radio evolved into what the people wanted – variety. Radio started to stream different types of talk shows, music, family shows, or news. Each person could now adapt to any particular radio show they wanted to. Like in “Radio Days,” each family member had a different show they liked. Some liked Masked Avenger while others like romantic tunes. Radio evolved into anyone’s interests. Radio because of the technological change that it beheld became an American necessity.

Can Media be the Blame?

Within the last few decades, teen pregnancy has been on the rise. Today, 75 percent of teenagers have engaged in sexual intercourse and within that percentage 20 percent of young girls conceive a child. With this recent uproar of teen pregnancies – who is to blame? Is the media to blame for this uproar? Can the media embed sexual tendencies into the minds of young vulnerable teenagers? Media has created a world where sex out of wedlock is mainstream. Teen pregnancy is mainstream. Media indirectly brainwashes the minds of teenagers to believe media’s perception of “mainstream.”

Social learning is a concept in which users of media model and imitate the attitudes and actions seen in the media. People learn by observing and whether the affects of social learning are immediate the images people see on TV are permanently placed into “vulnerable” minds forever. The constant reinforcement of typical ideas placed in the media (such as pre-marriageable sex) leads to the behavior itself. People without their consent are molded by the media to believe certain ideas. Profit seeking media alters people’s standards for the worse.

The constant reinforcement of sex in the media continues to be a main concern. Sex is seen as cool, useful, and normal. It is seen as something used to manipulate people. The recent show “Gossip Girl” is flooded with provocative sex scenes and promiscuous  situations. With this glamorized form of sexuality, it is evident that shows like this mold the minds of teenagers (being young adults the target age group for the show). “Gossip Girl” shows that sex is mainstream without any real consequences that partake with sex before marriage. It is evident that shows like “Gossip Girl” mold the minds of teenagers by the recent increase in sexual activity and teen pregranacies.  Teenagers cognitive minds are swayed through social learning. The morality of our teenagers has decreased dramatically since media has come into the equation.

The following video shows a provocative sex scene on "Gossip Girl" -

Media and Body Image

Smooth skin, long legs, acne free, flowing hair, slender shape…perfection. We are under this mind set of that a women’s body needs to be the ultimate physical perfection. The perfection that is flawless from head to toe. The emphasis that the media has on perfection has negative impacts on society.  The media stresses the importance of the aesthetics and sexual appeal of the body, instead of the personality.  Media has control of the way we think and feel about our bodies. This  idea has become the “norm” in society and it has become so normal that we didn’t even know it hit us….

            Hegemony is the use of media to sway our view toward a particular topic. Without the audience knowing, the media creates the idea that audience overtime accepts as “common sense” in society. The media has proved this theory correct through incorporation of physical perfection.

The media (as a whole) has altered our perspective about the way we feel about bodies. It is “common sense” that women’s bodies should represent perfection because that is what we see on ads, magazines, and television. The overwhelming sights of perfect bodies has lead girls to believe that perfection the ideal causing girls to nearly starve themselves to attain this “common sense.”

In the documentary, “Killing Us Softly” women are still as things. It proves that physical perfection is seen so much throughout society that it alters women’s perspectives. Women are used as tools for sexuality for men – “pornography has become mainstream” as stated in the film. The media inflicted idea has caused generations of girls to rethink their bodies resulting in anorexia, mental disorders, and sometimes suicide.

The image below proves hegemony in society. This common belief that women are seen has sexual creatures, only used for male play. The ad is an ad for “Fetish.” The title reads “he can smell the scent even as you shake your head no”. This ad is a little over the top but still represents that idea that women are used for sexual play and overemphasizes the importance on physical beauty. However, this ad made tabloids all over the world and didn’t seem to obstruct a outcry. This proves the hegemony in society that beauty and sexuality in women is the only thing that matters.