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.

Malcolm in the Middle in of the Family

All in the Family is a situation comedy that was broadcast on the CBS Network from January 12, 1971 to April 8, 1979.  The show was notable for taking on issues that had been previously absent from American television. In comparison, the FOX show Malcolm in the Middle, which was broadcast on that network from January 9, 2000 to May 14, 2006, had a seemingly, very different goal.

One can tell these shows came from different generations just by watching for only a few minutes. All in the Family was shot in front of a live audience using the traditional three-camera setup. In addition, this show was shot on the new, less expensive format of videotape. In comparison, Malcolm in the Middle was shot on film using a single camera and without a studio audience. This less traditional style for a sitcom reveals production values more in line with a film television drama rather than a TV show. In addition, the age of the characters in Malcolm in the Middle was definitely skewed towards a younger generation as compared with All in the Family.

These two shows do have some similarities. Both rely heavily on the conflict between family members to provide humor, whether at be Archie the bigot’s conflicts with his more liberal son, or Malcolm fighting with his rather crazy mom Lois. In addition, they were both 30-minute (less with commercials) sitcoms on network TV.

One area where there two shows differ greatly is how and what issues are discussed. While All in the Family was very provocative and dealt head on with the issues of racism and homosexuality (above) through Archie the bigot, Malcolm in the Middle was much more focused on the internals of the family. The latter show cared more about family dynamics and inter-personal conflict than the issues facing the country. Malcolm in the Middle never really seemed to actively challenge society norms outside of the geek fitting in at school and the like. All in the Family was much more “in-your-face” about serious issues.

Overall, these two sitcoms define their decades. All in the Family was provocative in that it challenged the pressing issues of the 1970s while Malcolm in the Middle tried to make sense of a modern early 2000s family. Despite their differences, these two shows have one thing in common; they both were popular and won many awards.

Oh Hey Radio... It's Me... The Government

In terms of shaping the American radio industry, government interaction and regulation definitely had the greatest influence as it essentially controlled who owned radio, what networks could exist, and set the basics for frequency designation. In fact, without government interaction and regulation, radio in America today could be a very different machine.

In general, governmental interaction and regulation provides influence by making compliance a law that is subject to punishment. In order to avoid legal troubles or possibly being shut down, any sector subject to government control must abide by the rules set forth. For example, the government, through the FCC, regulates what is acceptable to show on network television. If the standards are broken, even accidentally as occurred during Super Bowl XXXVIII where performer Janet Jackson’s breast was exposed on live TV, fines upwards of half a million dollars can be levied. Essentially, control by government interaction and regulation works by providing for consequences if compliance is not met.

Specifically in the case of American radio, government interaction first occurred with the Radio Act of 1912, in which the first radio transmitters were licensed.  Soon after, a forced settlement with Marconi, the developer of the radio transmitter, mandated that he sell his American interests to GE. This important event prevented foreign control of American radio. If the government had not stepped in, public radio today could be very different. Who knows who would have owned the airwaves? In relation, government interaction limited monopolies by forcing too powerful networks to sell part of their corporation. For example, the FCC forced NBC to sell off its second network to prevent NBC from becoming too powerful. That second network eventually became ABC. In addition, the government stepped in to make sure that the different frequencies did not overlap. With the Radio Act of 1927, The Federal Radio Commission was created, which defined the broadcast band and made frequency designations more standardized. Government interaction here prevented radio stations from overlapping and degrading each other’s signals. This act was completely beneficial for the consumer and definitely helped propel and shape radio. With less confusion on the listener’s end, the popularity of radio could only rise.

Overall, government interaction and regulation helped shape the American radio industry more than any other factor. Without it, radio certainly would have delved into chaos in the 1920s and might have been very different today.

Look What I Learned at the Movies Mom!

The concept of social learning is instrumental in understanding how films like Juno and it’s handling of teenage pregnancy can potentially lead to negative societal impacts.

Social learning at it most basic level is the act of observational learning on behalf of a viewer of media. When a viewer watches a piece of media, a movie or television show for example, they can absorb some of the ideas and value systems presented in that media and begin to imitate what they have just seen. The issue with social learning arises when the hyper-fantasized worlds portrayed in media influence viewers in ways that would be unacceptable in reality. Through social learning, people can develop value sets like the idea that men have to be extremely manly or even violent to be successful, or that women have to meet some crazy perfect body type to be considered beautiful. Of course, imitating these in reality is not always ideal.

The 2007 film Juno (trailer), directed by Jason Reitman and written by Diablo Cody, deals with the issue of character Juno facing high school being a single, pregnant teen. As a comedy, the movie never really places too harsh of implications on Juno for her situation, something that probably would occur in reality. Due to this, social learning could occur through the film teaching teens that being single and pregnant can be almost entertaining and have few if any consequences. In 2008, at least 17 teens at Gloucester High School (right) in Massachusetts were pregnant by the summer. Apparently, these girls had entered into a pregnancy pact that could have come from watching movies like Juno that portray teen pregnancy with very few consequences when in reality the consequences are life altering, something that the movie seems to skip over. The power of social learning can turn a simple comedy film into a national controversy that shook America.

Overall, social learning has the power to turn media from entertainment into life teachings for viewers. The question arises, if viewers are known to imitate media, should the media be more careful as to what is shown?

Media Framing

            Much like a picture frame can crop out or cover up part of a picture, possibly removing some detail, the framing of any piece of media can significantly change its meaning, as is the case with many news stories.

            Framing can be characterized as the deliberate association of one or more ideas with a piece of media. These carefully selected linkages play a large role in helping to maintain hegemony among consumers of media by essentially forcing a particular viewpoint upon them. With careful word choice, camera angles, or cropping (among other techniques), an editor of media can make two similar pieces have completely different meanings. A positive can be turned into a negative, and vice versa, with the simple changes of a few words, pictures, or clips of video. Essentially, the way an editor or producer frames a piece of media goes a long way in terms of how the public perceives that media and what they will take away from it.

             A recent example of news framing can be seen in the media’s handling of the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As seen in the CNN News screen shot to the right, BP is referred to as just that, “BP,” the name that it has been going since 1998.  This is in direct contrast to how statements released to the media by President Obama called the company by its original full name, “British Petroleum.” The name stuck and media outlets began using this name as opposed to just BP. This BBC News article explains how the British greatly took offense to these remarks. Essentially, documents released to the news media from the US government are using framing to try and make Americans see this oil rig blowout as a foreign, British problem. This framing, by simply using an older, outdated term for BP, associates this disaster with Britain as a whole, rather than just one company. Obama insisted that his comments were not anti-British, and while that may be true, his media statements have already been released. The framing and linking had already been sent around the country and world. All of a sudden, Britain had dumped oil in the gulf, not just BP.

          Overall, framing is a very powerful tool. The media can change and manipulate a story to give the view that they want. All it takes is the simple manipulation of a few words, pictures, or clips of video to make this happen.

RTF305... Yes!

Oh hey. My name is Andrew. This is me over there. Yes. This semester in RTF 305 I really want to learn about film and the film industry. I have always had an interest in film and I want to explore that in this class. I hope to be able to learn how the creative side and the business side of the media and entertainment world meet. I hope one day to work in the business side of an entertainment company, and I think that this class will be able to prepare me. I am looking forward to having a great semester in RTF 305. Yes!

Also... sometimes I read a blog on film. www.cinematical.com Enjoy.