Harry Potter And the Sorcerers Stone

One of my favorite movies that has a three act structure is Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone. The film starts off in the first act by introducing the main character (Harry Potter) and showing how he lives with his aunt and uncle. Strange things happen to him and he’s not sure why. The plot escalates when he starts receiving strange letters that his uncle will not let him read. Hundreds begin to come and eventually his aunt and uncle decide to relocate to a more remote house in order to escape the bombardment of mail. They are discovered by a man named Hagrid, and in the first plot point (marking the end of the introduction act of the film) he tells Harry that he is a wizard.

            The second act of the film follows Harry as he buys his school supplies, meets his fellow classmates, and is generally introduced into the wizarding world. Strange things are still happening to him and he and his friends discover a secret that is being hidden in the school. The plot continues to grow as they dive deeper into the mystery and the second act finishes with the second plot point that what is being held secret in the school is a magical stone that can turn any metal into gold and grant the holder immortality.

            The final act of the film even further builds the plot as Harry and his two friends Ron and Hermione seek out the stone because they think it is in danger of being stolen. They face traps and challenges throughout depths of the school grounds and Harry eventually comes face to face with the person who attempts to steal it, the murderer of his parents: Lord Voldemort. The final act of the film peaks with the struggle between Harry and Voldemort over the stone, and the climax of the film (plot point #3) is when Harry defeats Voldemort (for the time being) and protects the stone from being stolen.

So no one told you life was gonna be this way...CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

One of the characteristics of sitcoms as discussed in Wednesday’s lecture was the serial format sitcom. A serial format sitcom advances a long-term plot, is not as focused on lessons as episodic sitcoms, and the characters have long and complicated arcs. Serial sitcoms also do not have very predictable plots, and they can take a long time to develop (possibly multiple seasons). Many sitcoms may follow this format, but it is important to remember that they also may take some characteristics from episodic sitcoms (lessons may sometimes be taught/ multiple-part episodes usually leave off where they begin). In my opinion, truly good sitcoms have elements of both but for the sake of this blog I’ll focus on just the serial aspects of my favorite sitcom of all time:

            Friends ran for ten seasons from 1994 to 2004 and during that long run it developed an overall plot from the first season to the end. The major long-term plot question was obviously the Ross and Rachel situation (will they? Wont they? It took ten years to answer). Another example of a long-term plot is Monica and Chandler’s relationship (got together at the very end of season 4 and didn’t get married until the end of season 7), as well as However the show also demonstrates other aspects of a serial format in that it is not lessoned based, and the characters have long developments as exampled in Joey’s acting career (started as small time stage actor and worked his way up to a star of Days Of Our Lives) and Rachel’s career (started as a waitress and got a job in fashion, eventually ending up at Ralph Lauren). Overall this show follows a serial format (though taking episodic elements here and there) and as one of the longest running sitcoms of all time, people seemed to have enjoyed it.

(1994)

(After long & complicated character arcs)

=

(2004)

The Bourne Shots (Camera Shots That Is)

     For my post this week I chose a scene from The Bourne Supremacy. The scene starts with a long shot in which the audience learns where we are (with the assistance of a caption at the bottom.) This long shot is used to simply show the location of the following scene.

     This is followed by a medium shot, where we find out who the scene will be focusing on.

 This scene is focusing on the woman to the far left (in the film the camera follows her as she walks behind the pillar into the courtyard). This is the first time you see this character and you soon find out who she is and why she is important.

     Finally, this is followed by the close up of her face and her facial expression:

In the scene, after she walks into the open courtyard she sees a man she is familiar with come out of a car (this shot is actually immediately after she sees him) and from the look on her face she is not happy to see him. You soon after find out why she looks so serious and not content to see him, but from this shot alone you can guess how she feels towards him just from the close up look on her face.


     These shots all serve a specific purpose in the scene and create a smooth transition from the last scene to the next. If the long shot wasn't shown, you wouldn't know where you were. If the medium shot was omitted and it went straight to the close up, it would be jumpy and not smooth. If the close up was left out, you would just not be able to anticipate the upcoming events. All the shots are necessary and performed well.

The Times Are A Changin'

                                                                (Then)

Depictions of family life in sitcoms have changed dramatically over the past 40 years. In order for sitcoms to seem realistic, they try to create families that reflect current-day norms, and societal norms have definitely changed since the ‘70s. Everything from family dynamic to dialogue in sitcoms are directly related to how a normal society of the day functions.

            I decided to compare the episode “Judging Books by Covers” of All In The Family that we watched in class to the episode “Coal Digger” of ABC’s Modern Family.  Both shows focus on a typical current-day family, but are very different in how they are portrayed because times have changed a lot since the days of Archie Bunker. Even though the episodes have numerous differences, they do have some small similarities, and I’ll focus on a few of each.

            All In The Family is about a typical middle-class American family and in the 1970s that consisted of a husband and a wife, both white, and their daughter and her husband, living in an average sized home. The episode we watched focused on the main character Archie Bunker and his views of homosexuality regarding his son-in-law’s friend Roger. Roger in the show is depicted as a classy, fashionable, polite, enthusiastic, verbose gentlemen who Archie thinks is very unmanly by referring to him as a “fairy,” “flower,” and “little birdie,” to which the audience always roars with laughter. However derogatory terms like that are not socially accepted today (for good reason), which was actually demonstrated in class whenever he said those words, especially when he used the harsh term “fag,” there was no laughter in the classroom watching the video, because we all know that that type of language is not only extremely offensive, but in today’s society with a much more open view of homosexuality then was in All In The Family, it is not regarded as normal or acceptable speech.

            Modern Family is quite different in that it has a larger main cast, including three smaller households that are all related to one another and part of a big family. One household is a husband, wife, two daughters and son, all white. The second is a white, wealthy man (the wife of the first household’s father) and his young Columbian wife, and her son. The third household is the one that differs the most from All In The Family in that it consists of the wealthy man’s son who is gay and his partner, and their adopted Vietnamese baby daughter. Homosexuality in this show is obviously much more open and regarded in a much more mainstream fashion than All In The Family, which is the main difference between the shows. There is nothing strange about the relationship with the two men and no one in the family ever calls them derogatory names or finds offense in the fact that they are gay.

            The ways in which the two episodes are similar is that when Archie finds out his strong, tough, ex-football playing bar buddy is also gay, he is very confused because he doesn’t fit his typical view of a gay man. In the episode “Coal Digging” of Modern Family, Cameron (the gay son’s partner), is not only feminine, but also an ex-football player who enjoys sports and camaraderie as much as the next guy. The episodes both show that just because someone is gay does not mean they don’t enjoy certain things that are unfortunately usually labeled as “straight” (like football for instance).

            The two shows both reflect current-day situations and society. In the ‘70s, homosexuality was not as open or accepted as today (even though there still is a lot of work to do today but that’s a whole other story) and it was reflected in the episode with the offensive language and humorous reaction from the crowd. Even when the episode ends you never know whether or not Archie accepts his friend for being gay, which in turn does not show the audience that homosexuality should be accepted or not. In today’s society however, homosexual couples are very common and even able to marry in many places worldwide. Offensive and snide remarks towards gay people, although unfortunately still used, are not as acceptable in society and many people, homosexual or heterosexual, would take great offense to them. These episodes greatly demonstrate how times have changed in America and how views on people and their lifestyles have grown more accepting and for lack of a better term “regular” over the past few decades. 

(And Now)