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.

Radio, Industrial Growth, and Technological Change

Due to a combination of the economic and industrial growth of the Roaring Twenties and technological change, radio, which was still a young industry at the beginning of that era, grew into one of the industrial titans of the United States' economy.

When industries grow and make big profits, they have to think of new ideas to keep their growth alive.  Usually, this involves investing in new or growing technologies to keep appealing to their current customers.  Sometimes, this works to tremendous effect and the companies continue to contribute to economic growth, and sometimes it works against them and they lose a lot of money (some of these companies have to declare bankruptcy and close down).  An example of a failed technology is the Betamax format of home video technology that lost the format war to VHS.

After World War I, there was a substantial boom in the United States' economy.  This period, known as the Roaring Twenties, led to industries being able to expand their bases.  During this time, many companies, such as Tums, had a lot of faith in the radio industry, and invested in it to help it grow.  By getting the word out about radio in many ways, such as by advertising programs in newspapers and magazines, the broadcasting companies and their investors were able to attract more and more listeners.  As more people tuned in, the companies saw more profits.  As stated in the text, this eventually led to the founding of companies which included the likes of the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), which were created exclusively for radio broadcasting.  The creation of these companies solidified radio as a force to be reckoned with along side the highest earning of United States' industries.

Social Learning Taken to the Extreme

With some of the ridiculous acts being committed by society, the idea of social learning should not be shrugged off easily.  Prominent members of the media argue against the claim that some of society's actions are influenced by what they allow to be shown in theaters or broadcasted on television, but, especially nowadays, the theory of social learning is a hard one to deny.

The theory of social learning is very simple to understand.  It states that people mimic behaviors that they witness in the media.  Many people spend more time with fictional characters such as Spider-Man or Edward Cullen than they do with their own families and friends.  This is becoming increasingly more prominent as time passes by.  What is already an unnerving enough thought is intensified by the fact that some of them are imitating the acts that they see these characters do.  This would not a problem if the acts are harmless and just annoying, but some people have committed very unsettling acts, such as biting each other, or even violent ones-including murder, because of movies or other things that they have seen in the media.

One of the examples I mentioned above was that teenagers bite each other.  You might think that this is an exaggeration, but I assure you that this is actually happening in the world.  Recently, there has been an increase in the number of vampire related films and TV shows released.  With a few exceptions, many of these have tried to "humanize" this classic monster, but they have done a lot more than just that.  Because of The Twilight Saga, True Blood, and The Vampire Diaries, people now see vampires as sexy.  A nocturnal being that lives on human blood and gets it by sucking it right out of peoples' veins is now considered sexy.  What is especially chilling about this phenomenon is that now, due to social learning, a small group of people have taken to biting their boyfriends/girlfriends, as well as just their friends, to show their true love.  As the video below will explain, this act is social learning taken to the extreme.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Modern Hegemony

Although the practice of hegemony has existed for ages, as proven by James Lull, only recently has it become a more serious threat.  Because of the vast array of media that civilization has available to itself now, as well as the vast amount of wealth accumulated by some, the ability for those in the higher socioeconomic circle to impose their views on others has never been easier.

In the early days of hegemony, oppressive ruling powers were more direct about imposing their beliefs on the lower classes.  They simply forced people to obey them by threat of imprisonment or death.  However, their forced imposition of their wills was not met kindly by the masses and led to revolts by the people and the overthrowing of the leaders' institutions.  Nowadays, with a few exceptions, there are more stable governments in existence.  But, most of the wealth is held not by the governments of our world, but by private individuals, and is used by them to further their own personal goals.  Some of these people, such as the owners and CEOs of giant corporations, use this money to pay media companies, or people involved with media companies, to try and indoctrinate the citizens of the world into furthering their causes.  This can be something as small as buying a product or as large as voting for a candidate for political office.  Far less people revolt today because these leaders of industry do not go about their methods in oppressive ways.  This just goes to show that indirect hegemony is more dangerous than direct hegemony.

An example of this can be seen in the 2002 British horror film, 28 Days Later, about a virus that turns everyone into raging zombies and overcomes the population of Great Britain, and perhaps populations beyond the borders of this country. At the beginning of this film, the protagonist wakes up in a hospital and is really thirsty.  After wandering through the abandoned building, he finally satisfies his thirst with, of all things, a can of Pepsi.  Later in the film, after nearly outrunning a horde of zombies and taking shelter with two other survivors in a convenience store, one of the survivors gathers up provisions.  Of these provisions, the majority of them consists of cans of Pepsi.  There is even more product placement for this beverage peppered throughout this film, but my point is made.  According to this film, whenever you are either dehydrated or (please stick with me here) one of the few people uninfected by a deadly virus that has overcome an entire country, one of your best sources of survival is to drink Pepsi.  This is an obviously ludicrous assumption considering how horrible Pepsi is for peoples' health.  So how did this idea present itself in this film?  Obviously, the people in charge of the Pepsi corporation paid the producers of this film to feature their product in it.  The people at Pepsi hope that people will get this message from this film and rush out to purchase their product.  The reason this is possible is because the people at Pepsi control a large amount of wealth and therefore have the power to go about something like this, and the mass distribution of this film ensures that many people will probably go out and watch it.  Therefore, Pepsi's will is indirectly being imposed onto the lower socioeconomic masses of this world.