Steel Magnolias 3 Act Structure

Steel Magnolias (1989) is a movie that uses the three act structure.  The movie begins with a wedding preparation, and we are introduced to the characters this way. Shelby (Julia Roberts) is about to get married while her family, and especially her mom, M’Lynn (Sally Field), is trying to get everything together for the big day.  The first act ends about twenty six minutes in when Shelby has an episode at the salon and we learn she is diabetic.  Here, we also find out that she won’t be able to have children with her condition.  This first mini-climax sets up a clear issue for the rest of the movie, because Shelby wants to have a baby.

During the middle act, Shelby does get pregnant, against her doctor’s and mother’s wishes, and it affects her health.  This implies complication, because she also has to go through dialysis and get a kidney transplant from M’Lynn.  It is apparent that Shelby’s health is not stable, and the middle act focuses on this uncertainty.  We know that something will go wrong because she riskilly chose to get pregnant and have a baby.  The climax is at the very end of the middle act, about an hour and thirty-three minutes in, when Shelby dies from her health problems. 

The third act shows how the characters are coping with Shelby’s death and what happens after.  The movie ends with one of the characters, Anelle (Daryl Hannah), having a baby.  The third act is geared toward resolution, and the baby is a reminder that death is a part of life.  It’s a happy ending because all the characters are gathered at an Easter celebration and it’s a jovial scene.  Shelby’s son, Jack Junior, is surrounded by people who love him and loved his mother.  Anelle having her baby is a sign of life, growth, and new excitement for the future.

movieposter.com

Enthusiastic About Sitcoms

Sitcoms are situational comedies which cover a wide range of subject matter across the spectrum of shows, but have some defining characteristics as well.  Sitcoms tend to be episodic, which means that characters never age, and plot circumstances from one episode do not carry on to the next.  This is a vital aspect of the sitcom, because it doesn’t allow for much character development; the characters remain relatively static from show to show while the plot is dynamic each episode.  Sitcoms tend to exude a certain type of humor, from slapstick to satire, which is consistent for the duration of the show. 

One of my favorite sitcoms is Curb Your Enthusiasm which stars Larry David, the co-creator of Seinfeld, as himself.  This particular show truly is a situational comedy, its premise relying on the array of painfully awkward and yet, hilarious situations that Larry finds himself in.  Larry's character lacks the sensitivity and manners that is expected of him, and this facilitates the scenarios that the show portrays.  Curb Your Enthusiasm is episodic in nature because the characters remain the same while the plot events and circumstances change from one episode to the next.  The show is largely improvised, and the humor nearly always is a result of the actual situation.  The humor is unique, I think largely due to the improvisation, and is refreshing amidst a sea of shows with humor that’s been overused.  You'll find yourself laughing hysterically over a situation that you never want to be in yourself.

photo from: fanpop.com

Camera Shots

Throughout the course of a film, three types of shots are typically used.  The first is the long shot, which is the orientation shot.  This provides the setting for where the scene will take place.  The second type of shot is the medium shot, which is the information shot.  This should provide more clues than the long shot, perhaps by showing what a character is engaged in or how many characters there are.  The close up shot is the third type, and it depicts important detail.  The director uses the close up shot to focus on specific details that he or she wants the audience to pay careful attention to. 

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966) is a terrific movie which has all three types of shots in it, though it most frequently uses the middle shot and close up.  The first long shot is shown when the two main characters are walking up to a house.  This shows us that the couple is walking into a house, presumably their own, and we see that this is where the following action will take place.  An example of a middle shot is after the guests, Nick and Honey, come over to George and Martha's house.  The middle shot is of the four characters in George and Martha's living room.  It is informative because it shows the dynamics of the situation.  Here, we see that the four characters are all engaged, but the energy is tense as Martha is pointing and George is standing.  All characters have a drink, which is consistent throughout the movie. 

There are many intense close up shots within this film; here is one instance when Martha is yelling viciously at George.  This shot portrays the detail of Martha’s emotion and her raw, biting fury.  Through this shot, we can better grasp the complexity of her and George’s relationship through the high level of emotional battery. 

Photos from: altfg.com and chicagonow.com



Contract Talent

The classic Hollywood system had many well-known aspects to it, one of the most important of which is contract talent which the big studios employed.  This method of contractually binding certain stars to a studio was known as the “star system.”  Unlike today, one actor would sign a contract to work for a film studio for a given number of years.  This strategy was immensely important for the studios because during the Golden Era, stars were vital to drawing audiences to a film; they were often more of a magnet than the film itself was and their names were placed above the film title.

Once signed, these contracts required actors to take leading roles in movies that the studio wanted them to, regardless of whether or not the star necessarily wanted to.  Today most actors don’t belong to such intense contracts of this kind, however contracts certainly still do exist.  The practice of contract talent affected the types of films that were made because the studios would pump out as many films with their “star” as they could.  Back then, a studio could produce four or five movies per year with their star talent in a mass-produced, factory-based system.  Since most everything was in-house, this strategy proved to be profitable and effective.

One classic example of contract talent is Humphrey Bogart, who signed on with Warner Brothers.  From 1936 to 1940 Bogart was in 28 films, which shows how much a studio took advantage of its signed talent.  That large a number of films being released in that amount of time is unheard of now, but there is also a greater variety of talent working for different studios.  Bogart was one of the biggest stars then, and he drew audiences to Warner Brothers’ films.  In 1941 he played a role in The Maltese Falcon and in 1942 he took a lead role in Casablanca; both these films are now iconic.  Bogart ultimately was a hugely successful actor and provided the fame and talent for many of Warner Brothers’ films that are now considered classics.    

backgroundpictures.org

All in the Modern Family

"All in the Family", on air in the 1970s, is known for addressing controversial social issues of the times, often through Archie’s outward opinions.  One of my favorite new shows is "Modern Family", which manifests some similarities to and differences from "All in the Family".  "Modern Family", as the title connotes, is a comedy that revolves around the lives of a family in the present day.  There are three generations of family members in "Modern Family" while only two in "All in the Family"; the characters in "Modern Family" do not all live under a single roof, while the Bunkers do.  "Modern Family’s" patriarch also lacks the extreme cynicism and belligerence that Archie wears so well.  However, both shows are comedies that find humor in the everyday lives of people and situations.

"All in the Family" presents many of the controversial and confining issues of the 1970s, as we see in the episode, “Judging Books by Covers” which addresses homosexuality.  Archie suspects Mike’s friend is gay, and reveals his hateful attitude toward homosexuality.  Archie proves his bias throughout the episode with his language and exclamations.  The most impressive difference, and proof of how as a nation we have progressed, is the openness that "Modern Family" demonstrates.  One of the characters is gay and married with an adopted daughter; the couple is openly gay and the family openly accepting.  Dear old Archie would have had a fit over this setup; it is quite a divergence from "All in the Family’s" portrayal.  The contemporary show doesn’t criticize homosexuality or eccentricity, "Modern Family" actually thrives off of the uniqueness of its characters and their lives. 

Shows today certainly wouldn’t use the language that Archie did; while it may have been accepted in that generation, today many of his language choices are considered inappropriate and even explicit.  The contemporary show also wouldn’t be as sexist as Archie often was, as his behavior towards his wife most consistently illustrates.  In fact, many shows today include the theme of women in charge, and "Modern Family" adheres to this theme.  Conversely, some things that "Modern Family" addresses, like characters’ physical relationships, may not have been included in "All in the Family".  Still, though their differences are plenty, both shows’ roots stem from the same tree; they both find humor in the chaos of family and the comfort of home.

photos from: forum.dvdtalk.com and americanmemorabilia.com

Technological Change: For Better or For Worse

Technological change was most vital in shaping the formation of the radio industry in the 1920s because it provided the foundation on which the industry could grow and flourish in its future developments.   Without the technology to produce the new concept of radio, industries, government regulation, and audience demand would not have been possible. 

Technological change is a process, no new development magically and instantaneously is accepted, and that still holds true today.  For radio, one of the first most notable developments came from Guglielmo Marconi with his creation of the wireless telegraph.  Its true value was only fully acknowledged after its role in the Titanic rescue, which drew the military’s attention.  The next important technological development was the use of FM (frequency modulation) radio, which broadened the radio horizon even more by providing more music at a better quality.  These are just a few examples of how technological change progresses; it advances from one new development to the next, and once it moves forward, it can never return.

Technological change impacted the evolution of the US radio system in the 1920s by bringing about change with new inventions and practices.  This evolution also provided the need for standards, and thus caused the Radio Act of 1927.  This act created a Federal Radio Commission which defined the broadcast band, standardized frequency designations, and limited the number of stations operating at night.  These changes were brought about by the invention of radio and the possibilities that came with it.  Like any new invention, growth is accompanied by concern, and while technology allowed for radio to advance, this act is a good example of the limitations that the radio industry faced in the 1920s.

I can’t help but wonder if recent technology has actually reversed radio’s growth.  Now, because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, most radio stations are in the grips of just a few owners and syndication has replaced DJs.  We are also being confronted with new types of radio: internet radio, satellite radio, personalized radio.  It seems to me that the initial charm of radio, the relationship the listener had with the DJ and the control the DJ had over the program, has faded with the newer technological advances.  The original-style radio station format is now limited to a few non-commercial stations who are at risk of extinction, and if we lose those then we will be puppets to what we hear on the radio.

image provided by do512.com

Fashionably Learned

Social learning theory helps me to better grasp the impact of images of women in advertisements as discussed in Killing Us Softly.  Under this theory, people imitate attitudes and behaviors they observe in the media.  Social learning theory dictates that our expectations of the media are said to form around outcomes of behavior, and self-efficacy influences our media behavior.  Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment displays the physical outcome that violence in the media can spur, but I think that the psychological effects are equally pervasive. 

Killing Us Softly illustrates social learning theory through Kilbourne's analysis of the objectification and exploitation of women in advertising.  Young girls see advertisements with beautiful, wealthy-looking women and aspire to look like them.  However, since most young girls can’t change their “beauty” or get rich fast, they try to emulate models’ bodies.  This would be alright, if not for the fact that today the physical norm for a model is donning a size zero with unusually lanky limbs.  Still, girls try to imitate this (often nearly unattainable) appearance.  In addition to the physical portrayal of women, their roles as associated with men’s in advertisements are subordinate and often inappropriate.  Social learning theory proves that through this, girls wrongly learn that it is acceptable to be objectified and mistreated by men.  Women of all ages can be affected by advertisements, but I believe that the most vulnerable members are young women because most advertisements portray young women.  They are most at risk for grasping onto an image and trying to gain a model’s physique and behavior. 

I found an example similar to the many that Kilbourne presents us with in Killing Us Softly.  Like so many others, this fashion advertisement portrays the woman as passive and subordinate while the men are controlling and strong.  This particular ad is a bit disconcerting because the man is literally holding the woman down while the other men watch in approval; it's hard to ignore the situation's rape-like overtone.  Kilbourne, in accordance with social learning theory, would likely argue that the message behind this advertisement is that it is okay for men to physically constrain women.  I think that girls can be affected by images like this; they might subsequently believe that men should be stronger than them and should control them.  This, of course, is totally false, but what does it matter as long as you're fashionable?

image provided by mimifroufrou.com