The Three Act Structure of Up

The three act structure is by far the most commonly used plot structure in Hollywood history. It is a timeless classic that will never go away, because it simply works so well. In my practical examination of the structure, I will once again be using Up.

First Act

The first act of Up is unique in the fact that it contains a prologue which introduces viewers to Carl Fredricksen and his wife Elle, from the moment they met each other as children, through their married life, all the way to Ellie's death. Although this is an incredibly beautiful twelve minutes of film, the prologue is exactly that: a prologue that, while incredibly important to the film's narrative and character development, is not an explicit part of its narrative arc. The prologue is relatively self-contained. As such, the first act truly begins after Ellie's death, as we see Carl struggling to live his life without her. Here, we are introduced to the conflict that sets the film's primary plot in action: construction workers are trying to build where Carl's house is. Eventually, this leads to a court order placing Carl in a nursing home, and his plan to fly his home to South America, where Ellie always wanted to go, is created. Along the way, we meet Russel, a young Wilderness Explorer who ends up in Carl's house when he takes into the air with his balloons. By the time Carl takes off, the first act has already accomplished many important goals. It has established the two primary characters, placed them on a quest, and established a goal for its protagonist. However, the first act doesn't truly end until Carl and Russel have set down in South America, miles away from Paradise Falls, their ultimate goal. This creates a plot point, as it introduces a new complication: Carl and Russel must now walk the house across the wilderness to reach Paradise Falls. This sets up the next phase of their journey, and, at the 33 minute mark, sets off the second act.

Second Act

The second act, by far the longest act, contains the bulk of the narrative progression. Carl and Russel meet Dug, a friendly talking dog, and Kevin, a giant bird who is hoarding food for her children. As they trek across South America, Carl, initially reluctant to have Russel along for the ride, begins to appreciate the child's company, and become something of a surrogate father figure to him. Eventually, however, a new conflict is introduced. Carl meets his childhood hero Charles Muntz, who turns out to be Dug's master. Muntz seems friendly, until it is revealed that he is on an insane quest to capture Kevin. When Muntz realizes Carl and Russel know where Kevin is, they run, aided by Dug. Eventually, after an action-packed chase, culminating in Muntz capturing Kevin and escaping in his blimp, they finally end up at Paradise Falls, battered, bruised, and defeated. This plot point, seemingly representing the conclusion of the original goal, ends the second act on an unhappy note, as Carl enters his house at the 70 minute mark, with the conflict with Muntz still looming in the background.

Third Act

Russel is angry, but Carl has finally given up, pretending all he wants in life is to be left alone. Once inside, however, he realizes the present is what really matters, and that Ellie wanted him to move on with his life. The climax, then, occurs at the 73 minute mark, as Carl realizes the people currently in his life are what truly matter, and vows to help Russel save Kevin. The falling action constitutes a huge action set piece, as Carl launches his house back in the air to intercept Muntz's blimp, culminating in a sword fight with Muntz that leads to his falling to his presumable death. Carl and Russel take over the blimp together, "father and son," and fly back to North America, where the two share a tender moment watching cars pass by. The falling action concludes both the primary narrative arc, and the primary character arcs for both Carl and Russel. As per the three act structure, the happy ending is achieved, and the credits can roll.

The images used in this post can be found here:
http://thomasmoronic.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-favourite-film-of-year-up.html
http://www.allmoviephoto.com/photo/2009_up_021.html

I'm using Up for a series of projects in another class, so I'm intimately familiar with the film at this point. I'm just a little sick of writing about it!

Axial Sitcoms

As discussed by Colin Tain, there are many distinctive elements that define a traditional television sitcom. Although few sitcoms on the air today employ all of them, these elements can still be found throughout the television landscape. One such element is the axial nature of sitcoms. This refers to the fact that most traditional sitcoms tend to revolve around one central character, who is the focus of almost all plots, taking center stage, with other characters serving secondary roles to this primary character. Axial characters are easy to name throughout television history: Homer Simpson, Archie Bunker, Lucy Ricardo, Jerry Seinfeld, etc. However, for a more modern example in a more nontraditional sitcom, The Office's Michael Scott is an axial character.

In terms of the show itself, this means that almost all episodes of The Office revolve around events Michael's childishness sets in motion. From having to fire an employee, to calling ex-girlfriends regarding herpes, to forming a rival company to Dunder-Mifflin, Michael is at the forefront of almost all plots in the show. Although Jim and Pam tend to be their own characters, most other characters are defined through Michael, such as Dwight, whose defining characteristic is his subservience to Michael, or Oscar, whose homosexuality is revealed through Michael. Micheal's office is often framed in the center of the picture, as is Michael. Although all the characters are defined, Michael is by far the most important, establishing him as the axial character.

The image used in this post can be found here:
http://www.dvdcollectionsale.com/The-Office-Seasons-1-5-DVD-Boxset--DVD-1780.html

Honestly, why are they even bothering continuing The Office without Michael next season?

Shot Types Within Up

There is a tendency to disregard the presence of a "camera" in animated movies. After all, as a cartoon, the camera isn't REALLY there; everything on screen was drawn, either by hand or on a computer. However, this thought process severely undercuts the importance of the director, who must still frame every shot as though he has a camera in hand. As such, a skilled director of animated pictures can employ all the complexities of camera work typically associated with live action films. Within its first fifteen minutes, Up provides great examples of all three types of shots Professor Ramirez-Berg discussed on Monday.

Long Shot

Up's opening musical montage is a complex piece of narrative, and its camera work follows suit. The most distinctive long shot found within the montage depicts Carl carrying Ellie to their new house, with the house positioned squarely in the center of the screen to immediately draw the viewer's attention. It is dilapidated, with overgrown grass and dense (but beautiful) foliage surrounding it, but its significance is already clear. This is the house where Carl and Ellie first met as children, and now they own it. By keeping the house in the movie, and framing it the way this long shot does, the house arguably becomes a character in and of itself, which is important throughout the story. The image depicted above is not actually the long shot I've been describing, but is an equally important one. It depicts the house after Ellie's death, showing all the work Carl and Ellie put into fixing it, but also the destruction that has taken away all the beauty surrounding it, and acting as our first indication that Carl is out of touch with the world around him. It is a parallel shot, deliberately meant to recall the first long shot of the house.

Medium Shot

A medium shot of Carl and Ellie fixing up their house follows almost immediately after the previously mentioned long shot. Unfortunately, I can't find an image of this online, but it is not hard to describe. It shows Carl and Ellie, still in their tuxedo and wedding dress, respectively, inside their home, beginning the work ahead of them. Carl is hammering nails into the wall, while Ellie is sawing a board. This conveys the information that fixing up the house is the first thing on the couple's mind, as they start immediately after the wedding. As well, although it does not convey the emotion an upcoming close up will, our ability to see the characters' faces tells us that they're completely happy with the work. This is exactly what they want to be doing.

Close Up

Although there are many close ups throughout the montage, the most powerful one comes toward the end. I can't find this image online either. Once again, all I can do is describe the shot. It takes place a long time after the other two shots, toward the end of Ellie's life. Both she and Carl have reached old age, but Ellie is dying, and is lying in her hospital bed. We see a balloon float toward her from the doorway, and then the close up on Carl. Everything we could need to know is conveyed in this one shot. Carl gives a broken smile, attempting to hide how he's feeling, but his eyes give it away. He knows Ellie is about to die, and is fighting with his emotions to be there and comfort her as much as possible. However, his heart is completely broken. After the montage depicting their entire married life together, this shot's power is amplified. While it was never in question, Carl's love for Ellie is best represented by this one shot.

The image used in this post can be found here:
http://oddgirloutblog.blogspot.com/

I wish I could have found images for the other two shots, but it's certainly understandable that I couldn't. You can't expect every frame of a movie to be online.

Classical Hollywood

Classical Hollywood was a very different industry from the Hollywood we're used to today. Perhaps the biggest difference; the one that seems most important to me, as it's the hardest to wrap my mind around, is the system of production Classical Hollywood employed. The system could most readily be compared to an assembly line, "Fordist" in nature- everything was assembled on sight. There would be a room filled with writers working on scripts, right next to a room filled with editors working on their latest films, right next to a sound stage with actors and directors working on their next film. This assembly line system was highly efficient, and allowed studios to put out far more films than they can now, albeit oftentimes at the expense of quality. The system also tended to marginalize the input of everyone but the actors, who served as the face of filmmaking. Today, something like The Social Network is advertised as a David Fincher film with a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. This provides an interesting contrast to Casablanca, considered one of the greatest films of all time, yet whose director, Michael Curtiz, is hardly a household name.

The assembly line system also affected the kinds of films Hollywood produced. The system was all about efficiency, and creativity often fell by the wayside in the process. This helped foster the creation of clear-cut genres, such as the crime genre, or the western. These films tended to be rather similar to each other, playing on what audiences both expected and wanted. There were exceptions, of course, but a large portion of the many films Hollywood produced could be easily categorized by design. Certain actors even tended to be associated with certain genres, such as Humphrey Bogart, who was expected to play the "hard-boiled detective" type. Casablanca may seem to defy categorization, but the film is really a combination of multiple clearly defined genres, most notably romance and war films. As well, Bogart, though not a detective, brought many of his familiar qualities to the film.

The picture used in this post can be found here:
http://legendsrevealed.com/entertainment/2009/05/15/movie-legends-revealed-5/

See, a picture! I lived up to my word on this one.

All in the Family Meets Arrested Development

Traditional family based sitcoms like All in the Family are no longer as prominent as they once were. Certainly they still exist, but their popularity seems to have waned. Modern Family is currently a huge exception, but, unfortunately, I don't watch that show. Other than that, the most popular comedies on the air are nontraditional programs like The Office and The Big Bang Theory. However, a recent cult classic provides an excellent contrast: Arrested Development.

The two programs are strikingly different, but they do have some similarities to each other. Both primarily focus on one family: the Bunkers in All in the Family and the Bluths in Arrested Development. Both father figures are  insensitive, and not intended to be role models for viewers. And both shows approach a wide variety of controversial topics, including homosexuality, religion, and the integration of mentally challenged individuals into society. However, most of the show's similarities end there. All in the Family presents a family that, while flawed, is still happy, and generally attempts to impart a moral with each episode. In contrast, Arrested Development is far more cynical, and shows a family completely dysfunctional in every respect. They're different styles of comedy, but All in the Family has more "heart."

Although there aren't necessarily any subjects All in the Family tackles that Arrested Development wouldn't, there is an interesting difference in censorship. As seen in the screening, Archie Bunker made frequent use of the word "fag," which would absolutely never be allowed on TV today. Archie was often used to explore similar taboos, and could be considered quite controversial. As a satire, All in the Family could be much more potent due to these relaxed censorship standards. One can't help but wonder what TV would be like if such taboos were lifted today.

Second blog entry with no pictures. I'm on an ancient computer this week, and can't upload them. This will be remedied next week!