The Last Blog

- Had you ever used a blog before attending RTF 305? IF SO, WHAT WAS ITS FOCUS?
Nope. Before RTF 305 I never used a blog.

- What were the positive aspects of using the blogs in the course?
The blogs were a simple way to write about class material. Also, they felt more relevant in a class about media than say a paper.

- What difficulties did you encounter in using the blogs? (both technical and conceptual)
The blog prompts were almost predictable and boring to a point that doing the blogs seemed worthless. Like... I feel like I did the same prompt over TV a few times.

- If you had difficulties in using the blog, how were you able to overcome the difficulties you encountered?
I didn't really have technical diffulcities at all.

- What types of blog prompts were more or less interesting or difficult? (provide an example and rationale)
Honestly I wound't say any were that interesting. They just were something do to. All of them were kind of forced and tedious. I wish they were more creative.

- Would you recommend using a blog in future course, either in RTF 305 and other undergraduate courses at UT-Austin? (explain why..)
I wouldn't recommend against it necessarily. I think it is better than a paper.. but at the same time the prompts definitely need to improve. If the prompts could be more engaging then I feel this tool could be very useful.

- What would you suggest to change or improve the blogging experience in the future?
I would hope that over time prompts become more engaging. The blogs have a lot of potential and I feel that one day they will be a really interesting tool for writing and such. Also, there shouldn't be prompts that require watching a movie. I know that a lot of students simply didn't have time for that.

 "Yes, you can use my blog in a paper or report". 


No more blogs! WOO! See you at review!

Something About the World and Globes and Disney and RTF and Brazil but not Really Brazil and TA Sessions

Globalization is a process of increasing interconnectedness among nations, cultures, and people. This process is accelerated by technological developments and is often carried through film.

Cultural imperialism reflects the imbalance in global power structure. Essentially, media flows more heavily from certain parts of the world, notably the US, to other parts. Hollywood corporate giants produce a great quantity of films that become international successes and therefore influence other countries.

A good example of this is Disney. Disney produces a huge number of animated films that are shipped across the globe for consumption by other countries. The Disney Pixar film Wall-E grossed an estimated $532 million worldwide. This is a huge amount of money going to a largely American film studio. In fact, most Disney films have become a standard for children across the world. The impact of this can be seen in Disney theme parks opening up in places like Japan and across Europe. Basically, globalization has allowed just one company to spread its ideas to a vast number of people. Maybe I’ll just happen to go to Tokyo Disney Sea… which isn’t under water… as the name might lead you to believe. Globalization and cultural imperialism has made Disney a worldwide phenomenon.

Something About Space and Cars and Advertising or Something

American luxury brand Lincoln has for many years been considered to be sub-par in term of what a luxury vehicle should be. However, its recent advertisements have helped to transform what the brand means.

This ad is powerful as it speaks to the modern luxury consumer quite effectively. It showcases the Lincoln vehicle as a sophisticated “spaceship” full of refinement and technology. The song in the background, Major Tom by Shiny Toy Guns, with its modern, spacey sounds, contributes effectively to the atmosphere presented in the thirty-second spot. The ad is especially powerful in that it gives a struggling brand an edgy new look. The flying lights are reminiscent of a young, hip, downtown scene, a demographic that Lincoln is clearly trying to attract now.

The advertising appeal of escape is often used to convey that the product will remove one from their otherwise dull and boring life. The appeal works by having the advertisement create an atmosphere that is inviting and, simply, better. In order to do this, the ad must have a target consumer, as every viewer’s desired escape will be different. Once this consumer demographic is decided, the ad must then effectively show a world that speaks to the human desire for self-improvement.

The Lincoln ad exemplifies the appeal of escape by creating the metaphor that the Lincoln MKZ is a spaceship ready to elevate one’s driving experience. The ad gives the impression that this Lincoln will be an escape from the mundane, everyday driving experience. This can be seen in the futuristic, otherworldly space in which this vehicle in the ad occupies. In addition, the lights flying all over the car adds to the futuristic escape that this car will bring. 3-2-1 Liftoff… escape from reality and into your nearest Lincoln dealer.


Space Car.

Saw has Three Letters. Films Have Three Acts.

Hollywood’s “Three Act Structure” has famously been used for decades in a good portion of the films that come from the major studios. All genres can feature this structure, and in honor of Halloween, we’re going to look at how the three act structure plays a role in the 2004 horror film Saw.

Act I, otherwise knows as the introduction, begins with two people, Adam and Dr. Gordon, trapped in a grungy, dirty, disgusting bathroom with a dead man lying in the center. Each is chained to a pipe at the ankle and doesn’t know how they got there. As this is Act I, most of the time is spent trying to set the scene. Much focus is given to the fact that these men are totally trapped in a bathroom that is just not right somehow. After struggling to break free for some time, the two men try to use the saws that have been placed by them to cut the chains. With failure, plot point 1 happens when Adam throws his saw at a mirror, revealing a camera behind it watching them.

This act leads directly into the much longer Act II, or the complications act. At the beginning of this act, the question previously raised of who is watching them is answered. It is revealed that Adam and Dr. Gordon are victims of the infamous Jigsaw killer, who finds ways for his victims to seemingly kill themselves. This act greatly explores who Jigsaw is through a series of flashbacks and police investigations, further complicating things for the two men trapped as it is revealed how they are all connected. The stakes are now higher as a police team is trying to stop Jigsaw, who will do anything to not let that happen. This act ends with plot point two, which is Dr. Gordon trying to fool Jigsaw into thinking that he completed his task of killing Adam. Immediately he is electrically shocked and falls to the floor. This ends with the question of who could possibly be shocking them.

The audience is then thrust into Act III, which is known as the resolution act. This act is the most action intense of the film. The police are breaking into the house where the bathroom is, Adam and Dr. Gordon have become disillusioned, and the deadline for killing Adam at 6:00 as come and gone. As the final act of the film, the stakes are the highest for the two people trapped in the bathroom. In keeping with Hollywood tradition, the final plot point, the climax, happens right at the end of the film. After Dr. Lawrence cuts off his foot and crawls out of the bathroom, the “dead man” in the center rises and reveals to Adam that he is Jigsaw. He explains his fate, walks over to the door, says the powerful words, “Game over,” and slams it shut. The move closes with screams of Adam as he realizes he will be trapped forever. The climax is very effective as it happens right at the end of the film, holding the viewer until that point. Interestingly, unlike most three act structure films, this one doesn’t really have a happy ending.

Happy Halloween… I didn’t do Avatar. 

Friends

Sitcoms have long been a staple in American TV. These thirty-minute comedies have kept viewers watching for decades. Two important characteristics that have helped with the success of sitcoms is their ability to employ both mini resolutions and character growth. With mini resolutions, almost every episode, with the some exceptions, ends with a solution to the problems presented in the episode. Simply, every thirty minutes wraps up nicely. In addition, sitcoms also have character growth. This means that over time, usually seasons, the characters will take on new personality traits or experience some change that makes their character different continuing on with the series. These two aspects working together can create a show that is rewarding for the viewer once a week in an episodic format, and also yearly in a seasonal format.

These two traits of sitcoms can be seen very well in the once hugely popular NBC show Friends. Almost every episode ends with a resolution to the events of that episode. For example, the series premier concludes with a resolution to Rachel’s problem of leaving her fiancé at the altar. She moves in with Monica and is taught how to survive in the real world. It is essentially a mini resolution to her immediate problem. Almost every episode is like this with a resolution to whatever crazy antics occurred in the episode. Of course, over multiple seasons, the mini resolutions become less important as character development changes serious aspects of the show. For example, a viewer watching the first season would never be able to guess that Monica and Chandler, through character development, would end up married trying to adopt a kid. Character development allowed all six characters of the main cast to grow and change over Friends ten season run. With out character development the show most likely would not have lasted for as long as it did.

Overall, through mini resolutions and character development, every episode of friends concluded nicely yet let to a bigger plot line down the road. It was this that led to Friends having the 4^th most watched series finale ever. 

Shots Shots Shots... EVERYBODY!

The 2010 film Devil tells the supernatural story of a group of people trapped in an office elevator where one by one they are hurt or killed.  The beginning of the film starts with a long shot flying over a downtown skyline and eventually flying into an extremely tall skyscraper. This orientation shot (or possibly disorientation shot at the entire thing is upside down) is used to effectively isolate this one building from the others. Starting from far away and eventually moving in from the roof, the long shot sets this one key office building apart from the rest. Essentially, the viewer knows that something is going to happen here, although exactly what is not yet known.

Following basic shot progression, the director then employs heavy use of eye-level medium shots to discover the people inside the elevator and see how they interact with each other. The medium shot here is used to gather basic information. It is important to note that the shots are mostly eye level. This is a power-neutral shot that doesn’t give anyone in the elevator more obvious power than another. This is important in keeping the viewer in the dark about who will commit the atrocities that are about to begin happening.

Very quickly, the director switches to using close up shots as the elevator halts and begins to shutter. These shots, which provide important detail, are used to get intimate with the emotions of the characters. These shots effectively convey the fear that these occupants have in a trapped elevator high above the ground floor. The close-up shots provide the audience with the level of fear necessary for the film to work. Basically, they can make an audience in a huge theater feel emotionally connected and trapped in a small elevator.

Overall, Devil follows the basic shot progression in the beginning to slowly let the audience know more about the supernatural situation at hand. It works, but nothing can save this film from being, well, a little stupid. Really stupid.

Lights, Camera, Vertical Integration!

From the 1920s through the 1940s, Hollywood as it is known today was quite different. The Classic Hollywood Era was a time of high profits, high attendance, and most importantly, the mostly gone studio system. With this system, classic Hollywood studios thrived with relatively little competition.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the studio system was that it operated under a policy of vertical integration. In other words, the Big Five Studios (MGM, Paramount, 20^th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, and RKO) owned and controlled every aspect of their business from production all the way to distribution and exhibition. This ownership also included the actors and actresses themselves. This tight control allowed the studios to be much more efficient than today. Simply, vertical integration made classic Hollywood the powerhouse that it was.

Since part of vertical integration included the contract labor of the “stars,” studios’ films often reflected the actors and actresses that were in their respective stable. A good example of this is the Warner Brothers studio, which was famous for their crime films. Humphrey Bogart, an actor that Warner Brothers had on contract, became famous in crime films for his signature look of a trench coat and fedora. Since he had so much star power, Warner Brothers produced many crime films because the studio system and vertical integration essentially gave them control of Bogart (Casablanca 1942). If they could cast Bogart in a crime film, audiences would love it. They expected his casting from Warner Brothers.

A good example of how powerful vertical integration made the studio system was how films were distributed. MGM was linked with Loews Theaters in the same vertically integrated corporation. This meant that the studio that made the film also had direct access to a place to distribute them without having to worry about an outside theater. In addition, when MGM wanted to show films in a theater owned by another company, they would package up to 5 together, with only 1 being of quality, and the theater would have no choice but to accept all of them.

Overall, vertical integration allowed the classical Hollywood studio to put a lock on the market. They controlled everything from the start to the finish of a film. Essentially, he studio did everything, a concept that today would violate anti-trust laws left and right. From the 1920s to the 1940s, vertical integration made Hollywood the powerhouse that it was.