Three Act Structure: Pride and Prejudice (2005)

The first act of the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice introduces the characters of Elizabeth Bennet, her family, Mr. Bingley, Miss Bingley, and Mr. Darcy. We see that they live in the late 1700s/early 1800s and that Elizabeth's family is relying on the girls getting married because of their poor economic situation. In contrast, Mr. Bingley, Miss Bingley, and Mr. Darcy are very wealthy. The first act develops a relationship between Jane Bennet and Mr. Bingley, which makes it look like they might get married. Elizabeth dislikes Mr. Darcy because of his seemingly pompous attitude. Despite this, Elizabeth's family is excited by the possibility of Jane's marriage. The first plot point happens at a ball that Mr. Bingley gives. While dancing, Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy have a heated debate about his actions toward a mutual acquaintance, Mr. Wickham. This argument intensifies Elizabeth's dislike of Mr. Darcy, but we can see that Mr. Darcy is in love with Elizabeth. This confrontation leaves the viewer wondering who is right about the Mr. Wickham situation, but the main "complication" is the relationship between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. The viewer wonders if the two characters will resolve their differences. This introductory act takes longer than thirty minutes because there is so much to introduce and develop.

In the beginning of the second act, we find out that Mr. Bingley and company have gone to London for an indefinite amount of time. Jane and her family are devastated that Mr. Bingley has left without any warning. Elizabeth blames Mr. Darcy, believing that he didn't want Mr. Bingley and Jane to marry because of their difference in wealth. In a later visit with Mr. Darcy, Elizabeth finds out that this it true. This scene is a "mini-climax"; Mr. Darcy proposes to Elizabeth, proclaiming that he loves her. However, Elizabeth only gets mad at him and finds out that he did indeed deter Mr. Bingley from staying with Jane. After this scene we find out that Mr. Darcy did not act cruelly toward Mr. Wickham as Elizabeth had originally thought; Mr. Wickham was totally to blame. This answers one question that act one has raised. This discovery also starts to change Elizabeth's mind about Mr. Darcy, as do various other events having to do with Mr. Darcy, including him encouraging Mr. Bingley to finally propose to Jane. At the end of act two, we have the second plot point where Mr. Darcy's aunt accuses Elizabeth of being engaged to Mr. Darcy. This event seems to further complicate the relationship between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth, as we now know that a marriage between them would be opposed. By now, though, we know that Elizabeth loves Mr. Darcy and would marry him if he asked her again. This answers the other question raised in the first act and provides a transition to the third and final act.

The third act begins when Mr. Darcy finds Elizabeth walking in a field and again proposes to her. We can see here that Elizabeth's feelings have totally changed - that she has fallen in love with Mr. Darcy. She accepts his proposal, which makes up the resolution to the original "complication"; their strained relationship. This final act is very short, less than thirty minutes. After all, there's not much more we need to know other than the fact that Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth get married.

Intertextuality in TV Sitcoms and "Arrested Development"

In his lecture on television, Colin Tait described many characteristics of sitcoms, such as intertextuality. Intertextuality is when a show references other shows; a sitcom does not need to do this, but many sitcoms do make use of it. It is also far more common in sitcoms than it is in other shows, such as dramas, because it tends to be a comedic device. Intertextuality is a way to be funny without having to rely only on what's going on in the episode at the time. Most of the time when I see this, it's a character making a reference to a popular movie or actor, not necessarily another TV show. Something related to intertextuality is reflexivity, where a show references itself. This rewards viewers who regularly watch the show through jokes that someone who doesn't normally watch the show wouldn't get. It also allows the writers to use previous material, or to creating a running joke, or "gag". Because sitcoms generally go on for many episodes, intertextuality and reflexivity give writers more material to work with in addition to giving the audience more variety in the comedy they're watching.

My favorite sitcom, Arrested Development, uses intertextuality and reflexivity regularly. Arrested Development likes to make reference to the past work of its cast and crew; for example, references are made to the show Happy Days because of its connection to the producer and narrator of Arrested Development, Ron Howard. In another episode, Buster sings in a car to the same song that the actor who plays Buster did in a Volkswagon commercial. References are also made to movies. In one episode, after being kicked out of the house Tobias dresses up as a British nanny, Mrs. Featherbottom, so he can take care of his daughter, clearly referencing the movie Mrs. Doubtfire.

The show also uses reflexivity extensively. For example, in one episode Tobias and Carl Weathers discuss how great of a restaurant Burger King is, making fun of product placement: they do this because of Burger King's sponsorship of the show. Arrested Development also makes references to future events and episodes. Before Buster's hand gets bitten off by a seal, we see him discover a long-lost hand-shaped chair of his, while exclaiming "I never thought I could miss a hand so much." If a viewer goes back and watches this episode a second time, they will know that Buster is about to lose his hand, which will make his statement even funnier. So, intertextuality and reflexivity are big factors in what makes Arrested Development funny, but they also apply to most other sitcoms and impact them as well.

Film Progression in Sweeney Todd

 Sweeney Todd is a great movie to look at for examples of shots and angles and their meanings. At one part of the movie Mrs. Lovett walks into Sweeney Todd’s barber shop after he has killed a rival of his, Pirelli. This medium shot shows general information like the setting (barber shop) in addition to letting the viewer know that Todd has just killed Pirelli by the blood on his sleeve and the razor he’s cleaning. We also see just who’s inside the room: Todd, Mrs. Lovett, and Pirelli, who we know is stashed inside the chest shown in the foreground. We can also see the faces of Todd and Mrs. Lovett which shows us that Todd is calm and unaffected by the murder he committed, and Mrs. Lovett does not know what has happened yet.

 In this close-up shot of Mrs. Lovett after she opens the chest and discovers the dead Pirelli inside, we see that she is looking at Todd in horror. She cannot believe that Todd has just killed this man, and thinks he has gone crazy. Understandably, she is also frightened by the sight of the dead body, which she did not expect to see.

This low angle shot serves to give Mrs. Lovett power. She is no longer frightened by the sight of Pirelli’s dead body; indeed, she is now quite indifferent to it. She even takes Pirelli’s purse as he won’t be needing it anymore. The low angle is also from Pirelli’s point of view, showing that he doesn’t have power anymore. In fact, Mrs. Lovett even decides later to use his body to make meat pies. That has to be the ultimate example of Pirelli losing power and Mrs. Lovett gaining it.

Gene Kelly and the Classical Hollywood Studio System

One method the classical Hollywood studios used to stay successful was to have actors and actresses on contract with one studio; that is, an actor contracted to a certain studio could only make movies for that studio. According to Colin Tait’s guest lecture on Classical Hollywood, studios saw stars as tangible products of immaterial production. Audiences would recognize an actor that they liked and would go to see his movies. The popularity of an actor helped studios make money; a movie always excited an audience more if it featured an actor or actress they liked. Popular actors were so beneficial that the studios would train them and even pay them to sell the studios’ products.

A big reason why people wanted to go see a certain actor in a movie was because they expected certain things to be the same in each movie he was in. Stars were associated with specific genres, so this caused studios to have actors be in the same kinds of movies over and over again; for example, Humphrey Bogart was always in crime/detective movies. People expected this, so studios responded by making a lot of the same kinds of films with the same actors.

 

One well-known actor in this situation was Gene Kelly. Gene Kelly was associated with musical films such as An American in Paris, Les Girls, Brigadoon, and Singin’ in the Rain. In virtually all of his movies, Kelly would sing and go though intricate dance numbers. MGM, the studio Kelly was contracted with, knew people expected this from Kelly, so the studio made sure to put Kelly in musical films. The few movies Kelly was in that weren’t musicals did not do nearly as well as the ones he sang and danced in. When people saw a trailer for a movie with Gene Kelly in it, they expected to see a musical; this expectation kept people coming back to see more of Kelly’s movies, which brought MGM more and more revenue.

"All in the Family"

“All in the Family” challenged conventional ways of doing television shows in the 1960s, in that it included controversial subject matter such as racism and homosexuality that wasn’t acceptable in American television prior to the premiere of the show. I’m comparing this show to a contemporary sitcom, “Everybody Loves Raymond”. 

The most obvious difference between these two shows is the time they were made; “All in the Family” premiered in the 1960s and “Everybody Loves Raymond” premiered in the 1990s. For “All in the Family” this means that the show dealt with the pretty new idea of racial equality, and that being racially prejudiced was now a bad thing. The show also dealt with the hippie movement and homosexuality. In the episode we watched in class, the father, Archie, was strongly against homosexuals. In fact, he used a ton of offensive language such as “fag” and “fairy” to describe someone he thought was gay. He also found out that his best friend was gay, which conflicted Archie; he was used to condemning and making fun of gay people, but he didn’t want to insult his best friend, someone he highly respected as a man. “Everybody Loves Raymond” did not deal with these issues as deeply as “All in the Family” did. Homosexuality was mentioned several times in the show, but it was never seen as a big deal. When Marie thought Robert was gay, it was clear that she didn’t like the idea; however, it wouldn’t have been the end of the world if he had been. When Robert is wondering if he’s gay or not, Raymond tells him “So what if you are?” This is most likely because homosexuality is more accepted now, so it’s not as much of a horrible thing as it was in the 1960s.

           

          These shows are similar, though, in that they both dealt with the subject of homosexuality. They both viewed being gay as at least a somewhat negative thing. The reason for this is because homosexuality disrupts the social norm of being straight. Both shows view family as immensely important, and the families don’t want anything to come in the way of that.

           

          “All in the Family” dealt with Archie’s friend actually being gay, while “Everybody Loves Raymond” didn’t. Archie finding out his friend was gay was a huge blow to him, but nobody very important in “Everybody Loves Raymond” was gay. This contributes to homosexuality not being as important in “Everybody Loves Raymond” as it was in “All in the Family”. Another difference between the two shows is that the kids in “All in the Family” are much older than the kids in “Everybody Loves Raymond”, so “All in the Family” uses the kids in much more controversial subjects. The children in “Everybody Loves Raymond” are very young, so when the show does deal with them, it’s mostly about simple problems like the kids not wanting to go to school. So, “All in the Family” is a much more controversial show than is “Everybody Loves Raymond”. This is probably because less things are controversial now; things like homosexuality, racial equality, and pre-marital sex are slowly becoming the norm, so modern TV shows have less subjects to highlight that would actually be controversial.