The structure of John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN

Usually, I would choose a more complex film to discuss, such as Memento or Blood Simple.  However, in honor of Halloween, I will talk about none other than John Carpenter's masterpiece of suspense and horror, Halloween.  This film is not exactly a perfect example of the three-act structure, but it does fit into that category in that it has three clearly defined and, therefore, easily-identifiable acts.  It features an introduction, a complication, and a resolution.

Unlike most films, the introduction portion of Halloween is rather brief.  It only lasts about eleven minutes.  This act begins on Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, in 1963.  We witness, through a POV shot, young Michael Myers murder his older sister and get caught by his parents.  After that, the movie jumps ahead 15 years, to 1978, where we are introduced to one of our protagonists, Dr. Sam Loomis.  He is Michael's psychiatrist and is traveling to the sanitarium where Michael is being held, so he can transport him to a court hearing.  During this scene is where the first act peaks.  Michael manages to steal the car that Loomis was in and escape.  The question that is asked by the end of this act is: where is Michael going to go?  Thus ends the first act.

The complication section of the film returns to Haddonfield, where Michael has escaped to.  Here, we are introduced to our other protagonist, Laurie Strode.  This section of the film introduces us to her and her two friends, Annie and Linda, and informs us a little about them.  Also, in this section, Dr. Loomis arrives in Haddonfield in pursuit of Michael, absolutely sure that he has returned there.  The first half of this act mainly features Laurie and her two friends being stalked by Michael.  The second half, however, raises the stakes.  While Annie and Laurie are babysitting two neighborhood children and Linda is on a date with her boyfriend, Michael continues to stalk them for a little bit until he finally goes after them, one by one, to kill them.  The deaths of Annie (at 53 minutes), Linda's boyfriend (at one hour and five minutes), and Linda (at one hour and seven minutes) are, undeniably, the high points of this act.  Also, this act covers Dr. Loomis' and the Haddonfield Sheriff's search for Michael.  This takes place mainly at Michael's old, abandoned house, where Loomis waits for Michael to show up.  The complication section lasts for about fifty-eight minutes.  The question posed by the end of this act is: what is going to happen to Laurie?

The resolution portion of Halloween begins with a quick cut to Dr. Loomis, still at the Myers' old house when he notices the car that Michael stole.  Then the film cuts back to Laurie who, having just gotten off the phone with who she thought was either Annie or Linda (whom it was, being strangled to death) and having seen the lights at the Wallace house across the street where she believed the call came from (the same house where Annie, Linda, and her boyfriend were murdered), decides to walk over there and see if everything is alright.  When she arrives, she goes upstairs and finds the bodies of the three victims and encounters Michael, who tries to kill her.  The rest of the act features Laurie trying to escape from Michael.  This leads to the high points of the act, which are when Laurie is trying to escape from the Wallace house, Laurie trying to get into the Doyle house (where she was before), Laurie hiding from Michael in a closet, and Michael standing back up while Laurie, thinking that he is dead, is not watching.  Also, the two kids who were being babysat manage to attract Dr. Loomis' attention, who shows up just in time to shoot Michael as he is about to kill Laurie after sneaking up on her.  This leads to the final peak of the act, in which Loomis goes to find Michael's body and discovers that it is gone.  This scene concludes the film.  This act lasts about twenty minutes.  So, in defining acts, this act can be called a resolution, although that can be argued against, due to the fact that some things are left unresolved so that title can be misleading.

The Episodic and Serial Natures of the Situation Comedy

The situation comedy, or sitcom, is one of the oldest and most popular forms of television programming.  Sitcoms are usually either episodic or serial in the nature of their plots.  A sitcom is episodic if each individual episode's plotlines are unique to and cleared up in a single episode, and they do not carry over into another episode.  A sitcom is serial if its storylines and plots carry on between episodes.

Although there are plenty of sitcoms that can simply be classified as either episodic or serial, many of the most successful and memorable sitcoms feature different aspects of both.  If a sitcom is purely episodic, then it can entice some viewers who really do not care for long-running storylines, but it can also alienate some viewers for not trying to develop itself more.  If a sitcom is purely serial, then it can attract some cross-over viewers from the drama genre, but it can also make it harder to gain viewers because they would have to go back to the earlier episodes to fully understand what is going on.  However, by combining different aspects of these two natures, they can attract as many viewers as possible.

One of my absolute favorite sitcoms, 30 Rock, is the perfect example of this combination.  Each individual episode has its own plotline, yet certain plot points from certain episodes carry over from episode to episode and season to season.  The perfect example of this is present in some of Jack Donaghy's relationships.  Many of them, such as those with Phoebe (Emily Mortimer), C.C. (Edie Falco), and Elisa (Salma Hayek) progress for multiple episodes.  Yet there are long stretches in 30 Rock in which no storylines are carried over.  Overall, 30 Rock strikes the right balance between its episodic and serial characteristics.

Camera Shots in DARK CITY

Camera shots are as important of a part of the storytelling process as setting and characters (depending on the movie). They accomplish so many different tasks with so little effort, such as indirectly inform\ the viewer of the characters' feelings or sets the mood of a given scene. Alex Proyas' Dark City is one of those films in which every single shot was carefully planned out and in which the director knew exactly what he wanted to accomplish with each one.

The perfect scene to mention in relation to Dr. Ramirez Berg's lecture would be the introduction to Jennifer Connelly's character, Emma Murdoch (or, her character at the moment).  The film introduces her by showing her performing her job as a lounge singer.  She is standing in the center of the stage at the front of the lounge.  What few lights there are in the room are focused on her, making her the most illuminated object.  Therefore, aside from a couple of cutaway shots to her band members, our attention is focused solely on her.  All of what is described below is one continuous camera shot.

Dr. Ramirez Berg explained that the standard shot progression is long shot, then medium shot, then close-up.  However, Proyas has elected to introduce Emma to us with this progression reversed.  The first shot is actually a close-up of Emma's face.  This shot shows us the details of her face.  We get to see her wounded eyes and the way in which her lips are moving, letting the words to the song escape from her mouth.  We can tell that she is sad about something just by the way in which she is singing the song Sway.  Also this is actually the perfect way to introduce us to her.  As we find out later in the movie, she very well could have been a completely different person just a couple of hours earlier.  Therefore, it shows her in complete isolation, which is very well how you might describe most people inhabiting the titular city because they are constantly receiving new memories.  Therefore, everyone really knows no one, and Proyas emphasizes this by isolating her.

Slowly, the camera zooms out to a medium shot.  This shot sort of reveals the details of where she is and what she is doing.  Earlier, we just knew she was singing and there was a band playing behind her.  Now, we begin to learn the specifics of where she is.  We also get a bigger hint of the atmosphere of the scene.  Most of the light is on here, with some on her band members.  However, there are dark spots inbetween them so as to fit the mood of the music.  It also serves to hint at the darkness that is permeating Emma's mind.  What we started to feel with her eyes and words we now see with her backdrop.

Finally, the camera stops zooming out.  It rests on a long shot of Emma.  We now see all of the details of where she is, and the mood of the scene is fully revealed.  What helps distinguish this shot is the silhouette of a waitress walking by the camera.  This reveals to us where she is (a cocktail lounge) and what her purpose there is.  The whole stage is present so all of her band members are accounted for.  The reason this progression ends on a long shot is to emphasize her isolation.  Even though we see that she is not alone in the scene, the close-up shot still remains in our memory and we remember how isolated she was in that shot.  The dark spaces inbetween her and her band members sere as individual ways of isolating each character.  the camera conveys all of this to us and helps to fully establish the scene.

Below is the scene described above.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7H_1KuJ5SU

Genres: Expectations Determining Products

Expectations were what controlled the film industry during the era of classic Hollywood.  Studio executives were obeying the laws of economics by supplying their customers with the products that they wanted, and expected, to see.  More specifically, they released films according to previously set genre expectations.  Films that belonged to a specific genre usually followed the formulas set by their predecessors with very little deviation.

Hollywood still goes about this today, but to a lesser extent.  It is nowhere near as prevalent as it was during those days.  Back then, films within a specific genre were amazingly similar to one another.  They often contained the same stars playing the same character types, the same plots (with minor tweaks), very similar cinematography, and the same endings.  By adhering to these set conventions, the studios were giving the viewers what they wanted, considering that viewers were not as demanding back then as they are today  This seems like an innocent enough business model, but there was a negative side to this system: the lack of variety among the films that were released.  Don't get me wrong, there was plenty of variety present among the different genres.  However, for the films set within a specific genre, differences were rather scarce.  Sure, they contained different character names and settings, but that's about it.  If it were not for such innovators as Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, and the directors of the French New wave, the studios could have continued in this tradition for a long time.

The perfect example of this is the western genre.  From the late 1930s to the 1970s, the western was one of the most popular genres in existence.  Dozens of western films flooded the market every year (Rio Bravo, The Searchers, High Noon, 3:10 to Yuma, and many more).  People constantly flocked to see them, so they were very successful.  Therefore, more were released.  Yet, despite the vast number of these films in existence, many of them were strikingly similar.  They often had the same stars (John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Clint Eastwood) playing the same character types in every film, similar plots (lawmen versus outlaws, misunderstood outlaws do good things, etc.), and they often ended the same way (courageous lawmen triumph, misunderstood outlaw escapes the law).  These similarities were prevalent in many films of this genre, and yet people kept going to see them, so the studios kept making money.  This prompted the studios to continue making them.  The western genre was like this until the 1970s, when its popularity started to wane.  Ever since then, westerns have changed quite a bit.  Now, it's a much darker genre with much different conventions, usually morally challenged characters who do not always triumph (Unforgiven, Appaloosa, Open Range).  They are also not always as cheerful today as they used to be.  Also, not nearly as many westerns made nowadays because so many more genres and sub genres exist.  It's not how it was back in the days when the western reigned supreme.

ALL IN THE FAMILY vs. GEORGE LOPEZ

Television has changed in many ways since the 70s.  Some of these changes can be seen when comparing a 70s family-oriented situation comedy (All in the Family) and a modern family-oriented sitcom (George Lopez).  The first, and foremost, difference between these two programs concerns the ethnicities of the lead characters.  All in the Family is about a white family, whereas George Lopez is about an Hispanic-American family.  All in the Family deals with two generations of family members: one consists of Archie and Edith Bunker, the other consists of Michael and Gloria Stivic.  In George Lopez, three generations are present: George and Angie Lopez; their children, Max and Carmen; George's mother, Benita; and Angie's father, Victor.  Also, All in the Family's main plot lines usually deal with disagreements between Archie and Michael due to their competing views on society, whereas the main plot lines of George Lopez episodes usually deal with George's and Angie's problems with raising their children (as well as the repercussions of the way that Benny raised George).

However, these two different shows also share many features in common.  Both shows concern the day-to-day activities of two different families and how the members of those families relate to one another.  Another similarity between them is they both contain a character whose principal character trait is to constantly berate the other characters: Archie in All in the Family and Benita in George Lopez.  Also, both sitcoms feature many arguments between the patriarch and matriarch of each family (Archie and Edith, George and Angie).

Obviously, since All in the Family aired over 30 years ago, times have changed.  Certain issues that were covered in episodes of that show are absent from George Lopez, and vice versa.  One such issue is homosexuality.  Homosexuality was a big issue in All in the Family.  George Lopez has never really needed to cover that issue as much as All in the Family did because homosexuality is more commonplace today than it was back then.  Another issue present in All in the Family was racism, mainly against black people.  The civil rights movement was still happening during the 70s, so that would be a big issue to cover in a show like that.  Nowadays, there are nowhere near as many occurrences, so a show like George Lopez never really needed to cover it.  Issues covered in George Lopez that are absent from All in the Family include drug and alcohol abuse, dyslexia, teen pregnancy, and racial profiling against Muslims.  These issues were either non-existent, seen as unimportant or too controversial to mention in a nationally syndicated television program in the 70s.  However, as the years went by they became more prominent so it was more acceptable or important for a show to talk about them.