Episodic Sitcoms: Full House

One of the main characteristics of TV sitcoms is their episodic nature. After all, we would be quite perplexed if we were to watch a sitcom, only to find, it only had one episode. However, the presence of episodes is not necessarily what makes most sitcoms episodic. There are several characteristics that make most sitcoms (but certainly not all), fall under the episodic label. First off, most sitcoms end about where they begin. It is not often that we see a sitcom take great twists and turns to make the sitcom into something new. Although things may change during episodes, the overall order of the world is often the same as in the beginning. Generally they follow the same predictable plot development. A problem is developed and introduced, the characters try to solve the problem, the issue is resolves, and everything is back to normal. This resolution usually contains a lesson or statement within it that raises and answers a central question. Furthermore, there is not much character arc. The status of the characters at the end of an episode is not far from where it was at the beginning. All of these common sitcom characteristics allow us to label most sitcoms as episodic.

One of my favorite sitcoms that this can be applied to is Full House. Full House follows about the same general plot structure during each episode, and in the end, one or more characters learns a lesson. Many times these lessons raised questions about family life or domestic issues. Although the characters status, age, and view of the world changed slightly over the years that full house ran, for the most part, from one episode to the next, the characters were static. These characteristics clearly make Full House an episodic show.

Shot Progression in Sherlock Holmes

In filmmaking, different shots and shot progression are used in order to convey meaning. Each shot gives the audience a new bit of information that they process; so different shots obviously convey a different meaning. To demonstrate this, I would like to use the example of one of the first scenes of Sherlock Holmes where the audience is first introduced to Watson.

This series of shots uses the conventional long shot to medium shot to close up. It begins with giving a long shot of the street and then zooming in slightly to focus on the window through which we see Watson for the first time. At this point it is still a long shot. This shot does not necessarily show lots of detail about Watson, but that is not its purpose. Rather, it orientates the audience to who is speaking and his location. It is simply showing us “this is Watson, he is a character.”

Next, the frame changes to a Medium shot inside the house. We see Watson from across the room talking with his to-be father-in law. This shot gives us more information. Before, we just knew that Watson was the man talking in the window, but now the audience can start to see more information about him- his environment, posture, attitude, ect. Overall, it gets the audience to start thinking about him.

Next, when Watson moves into the hallway talking to the secretary, there is a close up shot. This gives detail about him. We know more about his facial features and expressions, his clothes, and his character. Since the close up is while he is dealing with an issue, we can see the subtle nuances of how he deals with aversion (calm, cool, collected, but aware of the need for action.)

Through this series of shots, the audience is able to comprehend Watson as a character more thoroughly. There are many other examples of the same shot progression throughout the film, but they all show the same conclusion: different shots can convey a different message.

(pictures of these shots coming soon once I learn how to take a screen shot on a mac)

Genres in Classical Hollywood

During the Age of Classical Hollywood, the immensely vertically integrated studio system used many ploys to achieve success. One of the most interesting and important of these was the use of genres within filmmaking. Genres were employed to give audiences specific conventions to expect during the film, therefore telling them their likelihood of enjoying the film. The genres were simplified categories for types of stories that audiences identified with.

This affected the types of films a studio made because they could stick to a systematic formula for each film. Each genre would follow basically the same pattern, but perhaps with slightly different circumstances and actors. However, different actors were not guaranteed. In fact many actors became associated with one specific genre (for example John Wayne and Westerns). Therefore, the genres produced affected the actors who were cast. This formula based type of movie production created a predictable relationship between filmmakers and audiences because audiences knew what to expect and filmmakers could be relatively sure of the audience’s reaction to it. When social or political sentiment tuned against a genre (like it did with the idolizing Gangster Genre), film companies would turn to a different genre, like, in this case, detective films. Genres further influenced film development when it came to hybrid genres. Filmakers could create highly sensational hits by mixing genres and therefore giving movies a sense of novelty. Furthermore, if one genre was popular, you could be sure that the studios would pump out more movies from that genre. Overall, the supply and demand of different genres determined what kinds of movies were made and watched.

One example how the genre system worked can be seen in the evolution from gangster films to detective films to hybrid films. Gangster films were very popular and the audiences had a very high demand for them. However, the effect of idolizing vicious criminals was called to question, so the industry shifted to the detective genre. From there, they shifted to hybrids of detective film and other genres. This entire genre evolution can be seen in conjunction with the star system and Humphrey Bogart’s career. He started out his career in gangster movies and then transitioned to the hard-boiled detective in detective films, and then to a hybrid of detective and romance in the Maltese Falcon. The elements of several genres can be seen in the embedded trailer from The Maltese Falcon.

All the Family Vs. Hannah Montana

The differences and similarities between “All in the Family” and “Hannah Montana” clearly show an evolution (or perhaps devolution) in Media through TV. These two shows are both family-based situational comedies made within decades of each other, but even that small difference in time period produced drastically different products. First off the family structure is different. The 60’s family is the traditional nuclear family with a mother, father, daughter, and son, whereas Hannah Montana has a broken family (without a mom). Another prime difference is the subject matter. “All in the family” deals with controversial subject matter that would have been brought up in normal families during the sixties. On the other hand, “Hannah Montana” deals with extraordinary circumstances that none of the normal population has to deal with, like the daughter being a pop star who goes to school undercover as a non-famous person. The entire attitude of the two shows is different. “Hannah Montana” is showing that famous people are just like normal people, where “All in the Family” shows the meaningfulness of a regular life.

Even though these two shows are drastically different they have many similarities. They both have fathers who mean well and want to protect their children from the perceived evils of society. Most of their scenes are also set in the home around the TV or eating area. The families are both close and actively involved in each others lives. Often the father figure will make a decision designed to help his children when it actually hurts them. They also use situations that the audience can relate to in order to increase the humor. Even though our lives do not mirror any of the characters, the familiarity of dilemmas they face do give us a connection with their experiences. For example, we may not be a pop star, but we have all been in an awkward situation on a date.

The issues presented in Hannah Montana are much less controversial than those presented in “All in the Family.” For example, “All in the Family” brought hot button issues on camera like the acceptance of homosexuality in society whereas Hannah Montana might deal with problems encountered while throwing a party. The issues encountered in “Hannah Montana do not provoke thought, whereas the ones in “All in the Family” were designed to make the audience think about their life. This presence of serious issues in “All in the Family” versus trivial issues in Hannah Montana shows a different goal of the producers of these two shows.

shaping the Radio: Government Regulation

Regulation and government intervention was pivotal in the shaping of the Radio industry because it made personal use of the Radio possible.

Regulation and government intervention in the radio works by passing laws and regulations that mediate aspects of the radio. This is done through government-established organizations. These have included the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) and the more general Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This regulation and intervention generally occurs due to perceived problems within the Radio industry.

Regulation and government intervention affected the Radio during the 1920’s by making radio possible in general. First off, the U.S. government made radio publicly available (it was restricted during World War I). Without this step, the Radio would have never become a popular media force. Another example of regulation and government intervention during the 1920’s was the Radio act of 1927. This act set up the Federal Radio Commission

(FRC). The FRC put many regulations in place. These regulations mainly concerned broadcast band, standardized frequency, and the number and hours of stations operating. Without this form of regulation, radio may not have ever taken hold in the U.S. because it would have been a chaotic unorganized mess of signals.

Social Learning from Beyonce

The social learning theory of media effects can be seen in children imitating sexual dancing, like in the case of Beyonce’s “All the Single Ladies” music video.

Social learning is a way in which the media effects society where people imitate images they see. In this theory, when people are presented repeatedly with images, they eventually start to imitate what they are presented with. In this way, society starts to reflect what is shown in the media. This makes the media a very powerful force, which is sometimes problematic when the media shows images that we don’t want society to imitate.

One of the best examples of this is in the numerous YouTube videos of small children imitating Beyonce’s dancing in her “All the Single Ladies” music video. I have embedded one of the better videos in this blog. In the video, a girl of about three years old dances along with Beyonce’s video, imitating everything, even slapping her bottom. This type of dancing, much less bottom slapping, is generally not considered normal three-year-old behavior but because of her exposure to Beyonce’s video, she does these actions anyway. It is clear that the girl has chosen to act more like the images she sees. This example very simply shows how media affects our society through social learning.

Framing

Framing is a powerful force in our Mass Media society and this can be seen especially well in the recent news coverage of the Ground Zero Mosque.

Framing is the way the mass media presents topics in order to influence how we think about them. Everyday we are presented with thousands of images that are specially crafted to incite a specific reaction or opinion within the viewers. This action of framing is a powerful tool that the mass media is not shy about using. Framing can also influence what we associate with a topic by presenting an idea or item alongside another idea or item.

This concept can be applied to the recent coverage on the ground zero mosque. There are currently plans to build a mosque near ground zero, which is a hot button emotional issue that has become even more tense due to its framing by reporters. Although there are thousands of examples of framing of this issue, I have focused on two that create a clear picture of the concept. I have provided links to two videos from different news sources, MSNBC and Fox. By watching these two videos and comparing them, the clear use of framing is evident.

To start with, the MSNBC video frames the issue in a way that makes the audience see minimal to no problems with the mosque. They do this first by presenting facts from polls with comments that make disagreeing with the building of the mosque seem unconstitutional. For example, when presenting the poll about whether or not Muslims have a right to build the mosque, it is stated that the announcer is “encouraged they agree with the constitution.” The video also frames the issue by using rhetoric that makes the mosque seem more favorable such as the 60 minutes footage that calls it a “hub of culture, a hub of coexistence.” They also call people in favor of the Mosque “progressives,” making disagreement with the building of the mosque seem very negative. The framing is even stronger when they make it into a political issue taking a “liberals” vs. “democrats” stance as opposed to a more simple “pro mosque” vs. “against mosque” stance. This makes liberals more likely to take the side of “pro mosque” because they have been stereotyped into that group. Furthermore, it is implied that people who do not agree with the building of the mosque are extremists when MSNBC uses examples of recent violent acts against Muslims. These are just a handful of the vast examples of choices MSMBC made in order to frame the story. Due to this framing, an audience member is more likely to walk away from the video with a “pro mosque” view.

On the other hand, the FOX video frames the same exact issue in a completely different way. They start out the video with a look at the exact site where a 150 year old building will be torn down in order to build the mosque. The inclusion of the “150 year old” detail is a strong example of framing in this story. It is a detail that is completely unnecessary, yet it is included to cause the viewer to make a negative association with the building of the mosque in hopes they will interpret it as tearing down something historic. Next the audience receives a “closer look” at the site which is “right around the corner” from ground zero. This emphasizes exactly how close the mosque is to the world trade center. That detail builds an emotional connection between the audience and the issue. In the last part of the video, FOX brings on a firefighter who was at the scene on 9/11 and a leader of CAIR, a Muslim organization. By having the anti mosque side of the debate represented by someone who is considered a national hero, the audience is automatically going to be more likely to take the anti mosque side. These are just some of the many ways the media’s choices frame the story. Overall, this framing makes the viewer more likely to have “anti mosque” sentiments.

Both of these news stations could have easily included very different information on the same issue or included the same information in a different light. They made their choices in order to frame the issue in the way they wanted, and therefore have their own desired effect on the viewer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQexblf8tRg

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4301094/battle-over-ground-zero-mosque/?playlist_id=87937