The combination of Serial and Episodic programming into the sitcom "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air"

Sitcoms traditionally fall under three basic features, series, serial and episodic.  I will be focusing on how some traditional sitcoms fall under both a serial and an episodic programming.  Episodic programming is a style in which each show is its own separate entity, meaning that jokes and storylines from the previous episode tend to not carry over to the current one.  A serial programming style is the midpoint between episodic and series sitcom's.  If you turned on a random episode of "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" you would be able to laugh to just as many jokes as the person who has seen every episode of the show to that point and you would be able to grasp the general plot of what was happening.

The sitcom "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" (TFP) incorporates both a serial and an episodic style into its episodes.  Every episode of TFP does not progress the series as a whole all that much.  It is the occasional episodes where Will Smith's mom comes to town or he breaks up with his girlfriend Lisa that help continue the serial aspect of the show. The show is designed for every viewer, from the weekly to the occasional one.  The famous introduction song that every episode of TFP opens up with is a prime example of how this show is both serial and episodic.  It gives the viewer a premise as to how Will got to be where he is all the while telling nothing about the show as a whole on an episodic basis.  This style of programming has proved to work time and time again with TFP being a prime example.

Long, Medium and Short Camera Shots- "The Hangover"

      

       The traditional way scenes from films are shot is from long to medium to short.  This holds true in most genres and films, including The Hangover.  The example I will use is the scene where Phil, Stu and Alan go to the hospital to search for answers on where Doug could be.  The first shot is just the hospital, seen from the parking lot.  Doing the shot from so far without showing any detail is a simple way to show the viewer what the next scene will be about or where it will be located.  The very general image just reinforces to the viewer where the three characters are going.

       The next shot is of a doctor hitting a man's knee with a knee hammer to check his reflexes.  The shot is very close to the two involved in it to give a little more detail than the previous but all it show's is the action happening.  It does not show the men's faces or their facial expressions or reactions.  This shot serves the purpose of letting us know that the three of them are either in the room or are going to be dealing with the doctor.  It does not let us know what they are going to ask him or how they will (or in this case already have) approached him.  It is a set up for the close up shot.

       In the close up shot Phil, Stu and Alan's facial expressions are examined upon Phil questioning the doctor if he knew why they were in there in night before.  Their facial expressions, especially Alan's, show a look of confusion.  The shot serves the purpose of portraying to the audience what it is the characters are feeling or thinking.  With the short or close up shot, details are the major key.  This is indicated in this shot, from the look on Alan's face, to him holding the baby, to Phil using his hands while he talks.  The long and medium shots are simply build ups to the short one, but in that final shot close up, all the pieces that have been lingering from the last two shots are put together.

Market Control

       Competition is the driving force of the American economy.  The more competition a business can eliminate, the greater chance of success they will have.  This is what the Classic Hollywood System (CHS) created with its market control system.  If they could slim the competition down to just five major studios and only a few minor studios, the industry would become a lot less complex and easier to run and make a profit.

       The studios started focusing on certain genres of movies, i.e. Warner Brothers and gangster films, as well as MGM and musicals.  With all of the studios focusing on their own genres, they each had their own market; and, in a way, weren't competing with each other as much as they were competing for the approval of the American public.  This eventually led to studios signing on actors and directors and sharing them with each other for a small sum of cash, that way no other competition would be brought into the market.  The idea was that if Warner Brothers would continue to make their gangster films, MGM would continue to make their musicals, and all of the other studios focused on their own genres, then they all would be targeting a different audience base, eliminating competition.  This also allowed the studios to share their actors with each other. They knew that if in one film they lent an actor to another studio then maybe in the next film that studio would lend an actor to them.  The studios found that they could do more than simply coexist; with the help of each other, they could thrive more than ever before.

       A modern day juxtaposition of Humphrey Bogart would be Denzel Washington.  Although not every movie of Washington's is an urban gangster film like Bogart's typically were, they both have a certain character type associated with them.  In the 21st century, you will not see a movie starring Denzel Washington as a weak, feeble character. Bogart too was positively type-cast, he always played the role of the stubborn man who didn't give in to anyone or anything.  That is why Bogart was such a trademark of Warner Brothers films.  In his twenty-eight year acting career, he was in seventy-seven films, almost all being Warner Brothers.  The last five movies that Denzel Washington has starred in have all been from different producers.  The Big Five studios all had genres that they were associated with and actors that went hand in hand with those movies.  Back then, unlike today, these actors were used in movie after movie by the same production company. 

"All in the Family" compared to contemporary family based sitcoms

       Modern day family-based sitcoms like "According to Jim" differ from "All in the family" in many of ways.  In "According to Jim" the show is focused on how the kids of today are living in a spoiled world where everything is handed to them.  In "All in the family" the show is focused on the differences between the young adult population of that time and what was socially acceptable then opposed to when Archie was their age.  Although both focus on the difference of generations, times have changed, hence the difference of issues from two family-based sitcoms that aired 30 years apart from each other.
       Although times have changed many traditional roles in modern day sitcoms are the same as they were in the 1970's, as when we see Sharon in "According to Jim" and Edith (also known as dingbat) in "All in the Family" not typically outside of the home.  The mothers of the housdehold always seems to be backing up her children while the father is saying how they are to sheltered and complaining about what America has become. Jim and Archie are the typical supporters of the family that like to have a drink with their buddies and associate themselves with "manly" activities like football. 
       The writers of "All in the Family" were a little ahead of their time for questioning things like what a typical gay man might look like.  They incorporated many different social issues into the show throughout the course of its time on air.  Although the sitcom "According to Jim" might even have an episode similar to the one we viewed of "All in the Family" that portrays what a typical gay man looks or acts like, it does not incorporate modern social issues into the program that others are not necessarily willing to talk about.  A modern day family-based sitcom might incorporate issues like this into the program but not ones that the American public hasn't already seen like the writers of "All in the Family" may have been willing to show in the 1970's.

       Early 20th century Americans did not demand technological change and advancements, because the American mass media had not yet allowed them to know what was possible.  Technological change, including Guglielmo Marconi's invention of the radio telegraph and David Sarnoff's invention of the commercial radio, led to the the formation of the radio industry in the 1920's.
       The American population saw the potential of radio with the Titanic disaster in 1912.  The United States' government was the first to realize that the radio could communicate with the masses quickly and efficiently.  At first, they regulated radio by giving airwaves only to the military and big businesses. However, they soon required the businesses to operate under a license. This licensing led to people seeing the money that could be involved in the radio industry.  Large amounts of people would be able to listen to a radio program on a daily basis, listening to their favorite artists as well as radio dramas and national news.  Finance minded businessmen discovered another conduit for revenue: during appropriate times, advertisers would be able to give a promotional ad or commercial at a simple cost to the radio station.
       People from all different avenues saw this as a business opportunity. William S. Paley, a businessman who was working in the tobacco industry, saw the potential of advertising in the radio.  Paley then started CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System) in hopes that advertising would be the driving force of his network.  This led to commercial sponsors interested in selling a consumer good into integrating their product in the show.  This would change mass media for years to come.

Cultivation theory

       From the way people view others from different regions to the way people view love, cultivation theory affects all of these.
       The cultivation theory is when people are constantly filled with the same image or viewpoint about a certain person, topic, etc. so much so that they believe that image is the only way to be, when in reality it isn't.  This theory fits into the roll of the everyday life for most people.  Men in particular are cultivated at a very young age that they must be strong and tough and not show any weaknesses.  This is problematic in the fact that one thing leads to another and all of the sudden that four year old kid who watched the John Wayne movie is 19 now and is preparing to go out tonight with his buddies to fight a rival gang to make sure that the other gang knows that they are "tough".

       The old saying "the man of the house" being passed on to the oldest son when a father goes away to work, war, etc. is a prime example of the cultivation theory taking affect.  The media has always portrayed the household as having to be run by a man, so when the father leaves the next male has to take his place.  This is a rather hard task for a 12 year old grade schooler.  Television shows and films are constantly showing this image, which in often cases is making young boys grow up too fast.

       I believe that the cultivation theory is all around us everyday.  It affects the way we see the gender, age, ethnicity etc. to a point that we don't even notice it because it is our everyday normal thoughts.

Blog Post 2: Females as Sex Symbols

       The media of 2010 plays a big role in forming the minds of today's youth.  In particular, is the way they portray females as sex symbols.
       According to dictionary.com, one of the definitions for the word frame is "a structure for admitting or enclosing something. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frame)"  This definition is similar to how the media chooses to enclose women as sex symbols.  One thing is just about for certain, that whether you are watching a beer commercial, a music video or an add for the upcoming blockbuster hit movie, you will find a sex symbol in all of these.  Whether the film, commercial, add, etc. has to do with women or not the media takes every opportunity they have to make a pretty fe-male look sexy or seductive with the feeling that it "adds" to their product.  The women used in these rolls are all told that by giving up their bodies they are increasing their value.

       The film "The Other Guys" which recently opened in theatres, August 6th of this year, is a good example of a movie that goes out of their way to use Eva Mendes as a sex symbol.  The films main audience are the people who have enjoyed the comedical likes of some of Will Ferrell's past movies like "Old School",  "Step Brothers", and "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby" just to name a few.  The producer's though feel that they can add another audience to their viewing pool with their short clips of Eva Mendes such as the scene when Will Ferrell is going to try to solve the case and Mendes, showing a lot of skin, claims to her husband (Will Ferrell) "Listen my little sugar balls, don't get hurt. These (as she grabs her breast) are waiting for you when you get back home, they are perky, they are firm and they are yours!"  That scene and those lines serve as one purpose, to spark the interest of men who find Mendes very attractive by using her as a sex symbol. 

       The media today is telling our youth that all of this is acceptable and that in many cases women are simply objects.  This not only leads to many demeaning rolls for women, bu also to many more problems that we have in society today such as young girls doing their best to imitate these movie stars by starting to dress more adult like and wearing less and less clothes.