The Monster Squad: A Three Act Structure

In Fred Dekker’s 80s cult classic, The Monster Squad, a clear three act structure is presented in the story of a group of boys who are obsessed with monsters having to battle Dracula when he comes to their small town and attempts to take over the world. The three act structure usually goes as follows: An introduction, the first 30 minutes or so that tells us about our characters and situation, the complication, the next 30 minutes to an hour which show the main conflict they must face, and then finally the resolution, the last 30 minutes or so in which everything is wrapped up and dealt with.

The Monster Squad’s first act opens in the 1800s with Van Helsing trying to send Dracula to an alternate dimension before he can use a magical amulet to take over the world. However Van Helsing’s attempt fails, and from there we cut to the films present day in the 1980s where we meet a group of kids that are obsessed with monsters to the point where they’ve formed their own club call “The Monster Squad.” When the club’s leader Sean is given Van Helsing’s diary as a gift, this puts into motion the entire film, and gives us our first plot point. The diary is written in German, so none of the boys can read it, but once it comes into their possession, Dracula comes to the kids’ town and summons all the classic monsters of the 1930s and 40s (Frankenstein, the Wolfman, Gillman, and the Mummy). Awesome, I’m fully aware.

The presence of these monsters causes strange happenings in the boys’ town, and it doesn’t take long before the boys realize that monsters are to blame. They also know that they’re the only ones who can do anything about it, but in order to do that, they must first find a way to read Van Helsing’s diary. They decide to ask the help of the creepy German guy that lives across the street, but soon afterwards come to find that he’s not as creepy as he seems. He’s actually a very nice old man, and tells the boys that the book says that they need to stop Dracula from getting his hands on that amulet (which has found its way into their town) before midnight tomorrow or the world will be doomed. This makes for our second plot point as the boys officially have a ticking clock of a timeframe to complete their mission and save the day.

Meanwhile, Dracula knows that the children are in possession of the book, so he sends Frankenstein to kill them and retrieve the book. However the plan backfires when Frankenstein befriends the children. Meanwhile the team prepares themselves for the big night when they’ll break into Dracula’s house and steal the magical amulet before he can get to it. However things don’t go as smoothly as planned. When the kids finally get to the house, they’re ambushed by the other creatures that are waiting there for them. Luckily the kids are able to narrowly escape and get away with the amulet, but now Dracula is after them. The Scary Old German from across the street comes to tell the kids how to reopen the worm hole that Van Helsing failed to do at the beginning, and the chase is officially on, giving us our third plot point and leading us to our climactic finale.

In a large show down in Town Square, each boy of the Monster Squad gets their own moment of badassery, taking on and defeating the monsters they so love by using the knowledge they already have of them. The monsters are defeated and the boys are able to open the wormhole just before it becomes midnight, sending Dracula and the other monsters away forever. This provides a happy ending structure that is typical with the 3 Act Structure.

Kenny Powers - An Axial Asshole

A classic characteristic of the sitcom would be its centering around an axial character. Many sitcoms would be star vehicles, being extremely performer based and constantly revolving around a single central character. The style of the show would be based around that main character, having the camera work and editing center on the star and keep them as the main focus point of what was going on. The writing would also be based upon that lead’s characteristics to the point where even the supporting cast was defined in terms of their relationship and reactions to that character. The structure of each episode would be around the character’s growth within its three acts, and the series cumulative scenarios and seasonal arcs would be on the progression of its axial lead.

Although it may not be correct to label this show as a sitcom, HBO’s Eastbound and Down is very much a show based on an axial lead. Kenny Powers, a hateful ex-ball player for the major leagues is desperate to get back on top, and Eastbound and Down follows the man’s plight at redemption. Kenny is very much the center of attention, not only in the world of this show, but in his own mind, and thus there is rarely ever a scene in which he is not either the central character in the frame or the topic of conversation. However the series also plays with the conventions of having an axial lead. The supporting characters of the show are based on how they react to Kenny, but Kenny acts more as a force of corruption, a storm that reeks havoc on all he encounters and his interactions with the supporting cast causes them to worsen and change because of it. A prime example is the character Stevie, a music teacher at the school Kenny must temporarily work at, but as the series progresses, Stevie becomes so enamored with Kenny and his hotshot antics that it drives Stevie to quit his job and become obsessive with Kenny in a terrifying manor, causing him to turn into just as much a degenerate as Kenny. Perhaps the most ingenious example of this show being a backwards sitcom is in the progression of its axial character. Kenny is unchanging. Through out the series he learns lessons, but he never changes because of them. He is perpetually a hateful human being and yet somehow we love him for his antics because he is just the backwards version of the American hero that has been offered to us time and time again. Kenny Powers is dark, vile, and yet hilarious, just like his show.

Breaking Down 2001: A Space Odyssey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukeHdiszZmE 

The scene I will be dissecting takes place towards the end of my all time favorite film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Dave, an astronaut has just survived repeated attempts against his life by HAL 9000, the operating system that runs the entire ship Dave resides on, and now he is heading to the Logic Memory Center to turn off HAL and essentially kill him.

We open on a Medium shot over Dave’s shoulder, which according to Monday’s lecture is meant to be the information shot. We don’t see Dave’s face, but his quick pace through the ship’s rooms shows that this is a man with a mission, an objective, and even as HAL is asking him to stop what he is doing, Dave continues unaffected. We even cut to another Medium shot, this time from a low angle, cementing Dave’s power in this scene. He is a harbinger of death, and cannot be stopped.

Now this is admittedly a rougher scene to dissect through the basics of shot composition, as it is mainly shot in wide shots at low angles such as the one shown here:

Used through out this scene, these compositions not only strengthen Dave’s image of power, but also how alone he is. HAL has managed to kill everyone else that has resided on the ship, so that even when Dave succeeds, he is still on his own in space, the ultimate place of solitude.

Then Kubrick eventually cuts to a straight on Close Up of HAL. In a shot designed to show detail in terms of feelings and emotions, all we see is HAL’s red eye fill the entire frame, creating a meta sense of irony as his entire death brings to question whether he is capable of humanity. HAL is always in control, but now he is helpless as to his impending termination.

Once Dave is finally in the hub of HAL’s brain, Kubrick shots him from numerous angles; high, low, and straight on, framing him at times to be a miniature in the frame and at others to fill it. This creates not only disorientation in terms of gravity, due to Dave’s weightlessness in space, but also in terms of his power in the scene. We as an audience lose our grasp of who’s in control, in the right, and displaying humanity, and it captures the brilliance of Kubrick’s work.

The Star System

The star system in classic Hollywood was one of the key elements that allowed big movie studios to survive, and one of the factors that has more or less stayed strong in movie marketing today. As said in Monday’s lecture, “Stars were tangible products of immaterial production,” and because of this movie studios were able to better sell their films based on the involvement of certain actors or actresses. The appeal of certain talent became so proven that they were able to sell a movie regardless of what it was about. Some stars would even have their name billed above the movie’s title on theater marquees.

Studios began producing films appealing to the popular demand of certain stars rather than specific genres. Star vehicles, promoting certain actors/actresses stable set of recognizable traits from movie to movie became more of the norm and stars would be put under contract and shared amongst studios for promotional purposes.

One particular example of a star used by the studio system was Judy Garland. Garland was a star attached to MGM from childhood, possessing an amazing singing voice that the country fell in love with, resulting in her being cast in numerous music related projects by the studio. Her stardom would be used to attract attention for other MGM stars. Garland was probably most famous for her role of Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz.

 

All in the Family vs Arrested Development

Television in the time of “All in the Family” and the television we watch today are two entirely different beasts. Different in terms of morals, in understandings of what was and wasn’t politically correct, and in abrasiveness towards how certain subject matter is handled. This divide is none more obvious than when comparing shows such as the 1970s family comedy “All in the Family” and the more modernized version of a 21st century family in the TV comedy “Arrested Development.” In the episode of “All in the Family” that we watched at last week’s screening, we saw Archie, the father, being mean as he talked about his daughter’s friend being a “pansy” and “gay,” only to discover that one of his own friends was actually a homosexual. What makes this show stand out is its progressiveness in tackling issues such as homosexuality, race, and bigotry in a time when such topics weren’t receiving airtime. Today, on a show such as “Arrested Development” for example, these topics are also tackled, but in a more passive aggressive/ironic approach. In that show, there is a character named Tobias, who’s homosexuality is obvious to everyone but himself, and is therefore referred to humorously and in ways that would have been deemed highly inappropriate in the 70s. However in “All in the Family,” the topics were dealt with much more directly. Now I’m not suggesting that irony and sarcasm didn’t exist in the 70s, but it entered the social norm in later years, becoming far more prevalent. “All in the Family” dealt with homosexuality in a far more up front manner.  However, where both shows were similar is in that they knew that humor was needed in order to bring such ideas to the table.