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.