Three Acts of Film and Jackie Chan

The three acts of film are the introduction, the complication, and the resolution. The first act establishes the central characters and the setting for the audience, perhaps even the problem. The second identifies the plot and deals with how the main character goes about handling it. The final act brings about the climax of the story where the protagonist finally overcomes the conflict (usually). The 2010 remake of 'The Karate Kid' like its predecessor is a perfect example of the three act structure.

Act I: The Introduction

In the first act of the film we are given a lot of information. Dre Parker, played by Will Smith's son Jaden Smith, has moved with his mother from Detroit to Beijing, China to seek a new life. The film establishes that the protagonist, Dre, does not like the culture clash when he gets beat up by a couple of kids from his school. Through this we get a feel for the character and the environment. We also see the problem because he is in fear with no friends, and has no one to turn to.. except Jackie Chan. Chan plays Mr. Han, the new Mr. Miyagi, the mechanic for the apartment complex. This act is approx. 30 minutes of the film.

Act II: The Complication

Dre goes to school and still gets pestered by the other children. Mr. Han sees this after Dre gets trapped in an alley by the boys. They go talk to the leader of the dojo who threatens them to fight. Mr. Han gets him to instead agree to letting the boys fight in the open Kung-Fu tournament and then agrees to teach Dre kung-fu. The majority of the rest of the film is Mr. Han teaching Dre to discipline and respect through strenuous training. Over time Dre finally learns these things as the two characters grow a master/apprentice almost father/son relationship and then begins real Kung-Fu training in preparation for the tournament. This act is approx. 75 minutes of the film.

Act III: The Resolution

In the final act we finally get to the tournament Dre and the film has been working towards. It goes through the rounds of the tournament following Dre as climbs the bracket. He begins to conquer his fear and starts defeating his fellow students who used to pick on him. In the final round he faces Cheng, the boy who started the whole dilemma and is the leader of the gang. After persistence and an injury to the leg, he overcomes all obstacles and defeats him. Now Dre would no longer be fearful of going to school, because more importantly than winning the tournament he has earned the respect of the "Fighting Dragons". This act is approx. 30 minutes of the film and is also a perfect example of the triumphant story arc and the happy ending structure which commonly use three acts.

Lessons Learned

The aspect about television programs and sitcoms in general that intrigued me the most was the idea of episodic vs. serial structure. Both structures are used quite often on television, in fact almost every show is one of the two, and as obvious as it is I'm surprised that I have yet to stop and think about the difference between the
two. Sitcoms are generally known to be episodic programs in which the television show ends where it begins and the main character or characters learns a lesson. You would think that using the same format every week would get repetitive or boring, but most good t.v. sitcoms have such intelligent dialouge or outrageous situations that the lessons learned or "morals" are very subtle. This is very much the case on one of my favorite shows called The Big Bang Theory.

The show is like all other sitcoms in that it is a half hour comedy that for the most part ends where the episode began. The main characters Sheldon and Leonard are often faced with a problem, usually individually, that sometimes involves their scientific profession or their social awkwardness. When they are having social problems there neighbor from across the hall, Penny, is there to assist them and their two other friends from work. Regardless, at the end of the episode one of the five main cast members learns a lesson of some sort. There are some aspects of the show that interconnect the episodes, such as Leonard and Penny's relationship that develops over the course of the seasons, but other than that the plot of each episode is only relevant to said episode. Being one of the highest rated comedies on television now, it is apparent that the writing is very clever and the acting is top notch (Jim Parsons recieved the Emmy Award for Best Actor in a Comedy this year) and because that is this case, the episodic platform will continue to be successful.

One of my favorite clips from the first season: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MUY3hLC8JQ

The Language of Film

Many people don't usually realize this, but just about every movie uses the camera angles, or cinematography, as a way of describing a scene, giving details about the setting, or even defining a character's emotions. Three types of shots that are very common in film are the long shot, middle shot, and close-up; when these angles are used correctly they can tell us much about the scene and the mood without a single line of dialouge. For my example I decided to use Peter Jackson's movie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.

Long Shot

-this angles pans across the fields of the Shire as the protagonist Frodo Baggins is reading a book. It establishes both the new environment in which the scene is taking place and introduces us to the new character. It also establishes that the Shire is a peaceful and beautiful place.

Middle Shot

- the mid-shot shows the wise wizard Gandalf the Grey as he approaches Frodo. Because it is a closer angle it gives more detail to the characters, and it also works much better for scenes with dialouge than long shots. You also get a better feel for the two characters in the scene.

Close-Up

- the close shot allows the audience to see the facial expressions of the characters in the scene. In this particular scene you see that Frodo is pretending upset with Gandalf, until they both cannot hold their straight faces and start laughing. The angle really lets you connect with characters and gives you a better understanding of who they are.

The full scene can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wiebk9sIqSo

Bogart and the Star System

During the classical "Golden Age" of Hollywood the big studios controlled the film industry. The Big Five studios of the time period were MGM, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and RKO. In the early years of cinema these studios were known to sign movie stars to contracts under their studios. The "star system" (or studio system) meant that actors were generally restricted to one particular studio that would sometimes lend their big stars to the other studios. These was a significant aspect of the industry at the time becuase it gave the studios exclusive rights to some of the well known actors that many Americans enjoyed seeing. Knowing this, the studios often used their contracted stars in several pictures a year, often playing "type casted" roles.
Studios having the liberty to cast their stars in as many films as they pleased often casted them in many films in genres they became quickly associated with. This impacted many stars in the Golden Era's careers. Errol Flynn became the adventure swashbuckler hero in most of his movies, Basil Rathbone generally played the smart villian type, Olivia de Havilland was the beautiful woman in distress, etc. All three of which can be seen in the genre film, The Adventures of Robin Hood, directed by Michael Curtiz (known for directing Casablanca). This often made it hard for actors to branch out from the type they were known for playing, even after the era of the star system was over.
Humphrey Bogart is a perfect examply of actors under the studio system. Initially signed under 20th Century Fox, eventually became contracted to Warner Bros. Studios. They worked Bogart constantly in "B movies" mostly the crime genre they were famous for. Between 1936 and 1941 Bogart starred in average of one film per two months. He became very much associated with the detective persona who followed his own rules but still had a moral character. Even though Bogart won an Academy Award and became the greatest actor according to the American Film Institute, he never really broke free of his type cast because of the star system.

All in the Family Guy

There have been countless family-based television comedies throughout the decades of the technological innovation. Almost all of them consist of similar aspects in which make them a family show, such as personal conflicts amongst the households members or just the average domestic hardships that the average person can relate to. This is indeed what makes this type of program popular. In 'All in the Family' Archie and his family dealt with many situations that are still relevant today, but it also contained more specific issues that were important when it originally aired on CBS in the 70's. For instance, in the episode from the screening two weeks ago, the characters dealt with the issue of sexual orientation. Even though this can still be considered an issue today, the subject was far more sensitive thirty years ago. Another issue, shows from that era dealt with was racial stereotypes, this too isn't that concerning of an issue.

Almost twenty years later we have another type of family comedy. Seth MacFarlane pitched his animated family sitcom to Fox and it began airing in the end of the 90's. 'Family Guy' was similar to All in the Family, in that it usually involves the father character (Archie and Peter Griffin) learning something new or understanding a misconception. The Griffin family is also like the Bunker family in that they both are average American families who sometimes disagree but in the end always have each other. Although the two may have some similarities, there are far more differences between the shows. One is that Family Guy doesn't always necessarily have a moral to every episode, sometimes they are just humor-filled. Also, when Family Guy does deal with issue of today, it often does so in a satirical manner. The major difference between the two is that television shows can get away with much more than they could in the past. Censorship isn't as harsh and shows now take more risks when it comes to violence, humor, and controverisal topics. Family Guy is a perfect example, because after three successful seasons Fox cancelled the program in 2001 thinking it's adult humor wasn't doing good enough to stay on the network. It eventually picked it back up in 2005, and is now one of the highest rated shows on television. This just goes to show that television shows, including family comedies, have evolved to be suited for the time period and what may have been relevant or offensive in the 70's isn't in modern times.