Silence of the Lambs and the 3 Act Structure

The film, "The Silence of the Lambs" (Demme, 1991), is in my opinion a paradigm for the Hollywood three-act structure. The first act in a film serves as the exposition by introducing the characters, their surroundings and their relationships. "Silence of the Lambs" begins with the explanation of the main characters, including Clarice, the FBI agent in training; Jack Crawford, the detective assigned to the case; Dr. Hannibal Lecter, the cannibal psychiatrist; and Buffalo Bill, the serial killer whom Clarice and Crawford are attempting to catch. The audience is first introduced to Clarice inside the police headquarters, and she is quickly briefed by Crawford on her assignment: to interview Dr. Lecter and to find any information that can relate to the recent murders. After this encounter, Clarice begins the arduous process of interviewing Hannibal in the prison. In these first 30 minutes, the audience gains insight on the characters, and the events that will presumably follow.
Immediately at 30 minutes in, a complication arises that will become the main plot-point for the remainder of the film: Catherine Martin is kidnapped in front of her apartment by Buffalo Bill. The stakes are heightened because Catherine Martin is 25 year old the daughter of Senator Ruth Martin. This event propels the action the next act, as the focus is shifted to finding Catherine at all costs. Additionally, this event asks a question that the next act will eventually answer: will Catherine Martin be found in time.
Later in the film, around the 87th minute, Clarice comes to the realization of what Bill's motive is, and she immediately dials Crawford. However, Crawford is on a plane heading to capture Bill. It is believed that Crawford has knowledge of Bill's location, and that they are hours away from making an arrest. This action spurs the film's resolution. The audience believes that everything is going to end well with an arrest by Crawford and the FBI. This ends the second act of chasing Bill and gaining new insight into his actions and whereabouts. Despite this assurance, there still lies the complication of successfully arresting him, and bringing Catherine to safety.
In the film's resolution, Crawford rushes to the supposed hiding place of Bill while Clarice believes she is going to Mrs. Lipman's house to inquire about the death of a girl. Soon, the FBI has Bill's supposed house surrounded, ready for an ambush. Throughout the resolution, numerous complications arise: the FBI has the wrong house, and infact Clarice is face to face with Buffalo Bill; Catherine takes Bill's dog hostage; and Catherine is soon forced to fend for herself in Bill's darkened and convoluted basement. The audience is left wondering: will Clarice escape unscathed and kill Buffalo Bill.
Finally in the 103rd minute, Clarice finally resolves the problem, and shoots Bill in his basement. Soon after, the FBI and police arrive and safely rescue Catherine from captivity. Clarice is then seen receiving her FBI badge, and graduating from training. Crawford then congratulates her on a job well done.The film soon ends with Dr. Lecter walking away from the law, in an unknown location. The final act, or the resolution has ended, and the audience can go home satisfied. The ending also depicts each of the main characters' probable futures.

Sitcoms and Scrubs

As discussed in Wednesday's guest lecture, a sitcom commonly contains several important aspects. These include: a modified three act structure; the series either as a cumulative or seasonal text; and mini-resolutions. The first aspect, a modified three act structure, means simply that each individual episode is divided into three acts: the beginning, middle, and end. The second aspect, cumulative or seasonal text, refers to the storyline, and whether it is continuous from the first season through the last season, or whether this story line alters from season to season. Lastly, the mini resolutions refers to a certain solution being reached after every episode, similar to a moral lesson.
These mini-resloutions are often prevalent in countless sitcoms made throughout the history of television. They function within the sitcom genre by teaching the audience a lesson. With these resolutions, the episodes take on a greater meaning, and can be related to everyday society. The half hour to hour of television becomes more than some mindless comedic garbage, and instead becomes an applicable lesson of life. However, I am not saying that I learned about life by watching sitcoms on TV. I am merely saying that the episodes take on a greater meaning with these mini-resolutions, by connecting the storyline together neatly. Most of the time these mini-resolutions are cheery, and the characters gain a greater understanding of a topic broached in the episode. However, even in some sitcoms the resolutions are not always joyous. For example, in the sitcom "Scrubs" numerous episodes have ended on a somber note with a patient dying, or one of the protagonists coming to grips with the harsh consequences of life. "Scrubs" attempts to alter the audiences' pre-conceived notions of the sitcom genre, and mold it into a dramedy hybrid. In the resolution of the episode "My Fallen Idol" JD confronts Dr. Cox, and apologizes in a serious manner for acting rudely to him. JD admits to being frightened to confront the sick patients, and gives credit to Dr. Cox for being so brave. In this scene, the two share a serious moment, and the audience feels as though the story has more depth than just some silly slapstick comedy. The story becomes real and relatable.

Good, Bad, Ugly

The film, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (Leone, 1966) opens with an extreme long shot with immense depth of field of the barren desert in which the film takes place. The director, Leone, chooses to open his film with this shot in order to set up the location, and to allude to the utter scope of the entire film. Additionally, the shot suggests a sense of loneliness and alienation, as the film takes place in a vast desert with villains and no escape. Without cutting the camera, Leone transitions from this extreme long shot to a close up/ extreme close up as the character steps into frame. In this close up, Leone shoots his character at eye-level, to suggest a neutrality and relatability with the audience and the character. This shot is followed by another extreme long shot, as two figures begin to emerge from the horizon. Immediately, the scene becomes foreboding, as the two men emerge on horses and begin to confront the lone man. The tension continues to build, and Leone continues to use the close ups and long shots. As the two men continue closer to the other man, Leone elects to use a medium shot. Here, the shot alludes to the two characters' relationship, possibly as friends. This scene is also filmed at a low angle to suggest a sense of power for the two men. Clearly they are armed and prepared for a good old western showdown.

Golden Age of Hollywood

The Hollywood Studio System lasted from 1927 through the 1950s and is generally regarded as the golden age of American cinema. During this period, Hollywood was predominantly run by five major studios: RKO, Warner Brothers, Fox, Paramount and MGM. 

Vertical integration quickly became an important aspect of the Hollywood system. I chose this aspect because I am amazed at how only eight production companies controlled the entire American cinema. Currently in 2010, there is no oligopoly among Hollywood studios, and often independent production companies produce films that are critically acclaimed and have gone on to win Academy Awards. 

With the method of vertical integration, the studios maximized their profits by controlling each individual aspect of production, such as production, distribution and exhibition. The studios owned large plots of land for the construction of intricate sets, controlled the terms for the films release date, and operated the largest cinemas in the country. 

Vertical integration constantly affected the kinds of films the studios made because the studios held all control over the crew of the films. Essentially, stars were under contract for the studios and they were always working on projects. Directors would often make up to five films per year, whereas current directors on average will make one every three years. For example, during the year 1942, in addition to directing "Casablanca", Michael Curtiz directed "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and "Captains of the Clouds". This amazed me because the film "Casablanca" is regarded by AFI as the second best film in history. Essentially, it is a masterpiece. One would think that such a film would require countless years of work from the director; however, Curtiz made Casablanca in the same year as two other films. Throughout Curtiz's entire career he directed over 170 films, a truly unprecedented number. 

http://www.fathom.com/course/10701053/session1.html

All in the Family

After watching ''All in the Family" for class, I could not help but notice how different the show was when compared to a modern day sitcom, such as "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." "In the episode of "Family" the characters appeared jaded, and the father was unlikable, in my opinion. Personally, the story line revolved too heavily around the issue of homosexuality, and the jokes were excessively crude. Rarely was humor used in a light-hearted way; rather, the jokes were dry and mean-spirited.
Currently, my favorite sitcom is "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." The show is extremely raunchy, and the topics discussed are controversial;  however, the characters still possess a loving, good-natured quality. Never have I felt uncomfortable watching the show,  whereas "Family" left me with an uncomfortable taste. The characters in "Sunny" are blatantly ignorant and stupid, similar to the characters in "Family".
Since its debut in 1971, the show "Modern Family" was monumental in that the topics and opinions discussed in the dialogue were considered inappropriate for family audiences. Issues such as homosexuality, racism, and sexism were broached with a  sense of casualness. The show constantly ranked among the highest rated television shows, and even won numerous Emmys.
"It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" debuted in 2005, and immediately audiences loved the smart, painfully hilarious sitcom. The series follows a group of five self-centered bar owners, as they run their Irish Pub into the ground. I have loved this show since its inception, and although it is rude, and the characters appear stupid and one-dimensional, the show possesses a lovable quality that I feel as though "All in the Family" could never possess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Always_Sunny_in_Philadelphia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_in_the_family