Glocalization

Globalization is the melting pot of cultures and societies. This fusion may include certain ideas and practices, often a global manifestation of a successful product. A classic example is the American globalization of McDonalds. The restaurant has established itself in over one-hundred and ten countries, sharing our wondrous diet with the world. But the cheap non-sense we know as McDonalds here in America may not be so appealing to the residents of every country, so we see many countries with altered McDonalds menus to create greater appeal for the market in that country. They attempt to "localize" the food, therefore creating the term Glocalization, the localization of globalization.  For example, there are kosher McDonalds in Israel. One-dollar double cheeseburgers are disappointingly absent from this menu, along with any other product consisting of both meat and dairy. The missing items may be replaced with more mediterranean style dishes. In that sense, they have taken something "americanized" as a result of globalization and reversed the process by in this case "israelizing" the "americanized", or as we have defined, they have Glocalized.

Advertising

This advertisement for the film Kill Bill is certainly powerful and persuasive (at least to its prospective audience). More than anything it is an attention getter. The ad is ludicrously violent, so much that the violence cannot be contained in a traditional rectangular billboard-- it must be emphasized all over the street! Not only is it over the top, but the lunatic making the mess is not a deeply disturbed man, but a white blonde woman! It would persuade one to see the movie out of many feelings, depending on the receiver's personality. Some may want to see it out of curiosity. Other may be amused by the ridiculousness of the advertisement. A handfull of people may even identify with the violence. But how exactly does this advertisement invoke these particular feelings? What exactly is this advertisement tapping into to get our attention in the first place? Primarily this advertisement displays an appeal of aggressive dominance. This is the same type of appeal we see in violent video game ads, television shows and movies, and many other miscellaneous advertisements geared towards a male audience. This appeal is driven by the idea that one would feel powerful by dominating through aggression. The Kill Bill advertisement is no different in that it too conveys the violent, aggressive message of the film with a sword which has just dominated the street by covering it in blood. This advertisement also appeals in an ideological way as it challenges the stereotype of males being the aggressive gender. Stunningly beautiful Uma Thurman also adds a sort of misplaced sexual appeal to the picture, as her features are consistent with the media's definition of 'sexy'.

The Three Act Film Structure

The three act film structure is the most commonly used structure in Hollywood today. This storytelling method is convenient in that it easily allows for an explicit beginning (act 1), that presents and main conflict, a middle (2), that involves attempts to solve the conflict, and an end (3), finding the solution to the conflict. In this arrangement, as the story progresses the tension rises through the first two acts until it reaches a climax in the third act. Most films that follow this order end happily, with the tension decreasing after the climax bringing us to the end of the film. A modern example that clearly utilizes the three act structure is Greg Mottola's Superbad. 

Act I

Act one is roughly the first fifteen or twenty minutes of this movie. During this time we are introduced to our main characters, Seth and Evan, and the goals they will be achieving throughout the movie. Seth must get with Jules, and Evan must get with Becca. Both of the boys must work together to supply Jules' party with alcohol so the respective girls will fall for them. Will a successful supply of alcohol result in sucessful sexual advancments at the girls of their choice? This the central question of the film. The question brought up at the turning point, or plot point, of act one, is how will Seth and Evan successfully buy and transport the alcohol to the party?

Act II

This act takes up the bulk of the time. During this act Seth and Evan make many failing attempts to solve their problem, each one building more tension after the next, following the traditional track of the three act structure. It is also at the beginning of act two where the sub-plot becomes evident. Evan and Fogel are rooming together at college the next year and they are trying to keep Seth from finding out. 

As a starting attempt to solve their problem, Seth and Evan decide that Fogel, who has recently acquired a fake ID, will buy the alcohol. Unfortunately, the name on the ID is unbelievable, and Seth is skeptical that it will work, or that Fogel will even be brave enough to even go through with it. As Fogel is checking out with almost one hundred dollars worth of alcohol, Seth and Evan miss the robber that comes into the liquor store, sucker punches Fogel in the face, and takes money from the cash register. All Seth and Evan see are the cops that arrive at the store shortly after Fogel makes his way in. At this point Seth and Evan decide to separate from Fogel in their search for alcohol under the assumption that Fogel was caught and is going to be in trouble. Fortunately for Fogel, the cops seemed to buy his pseudo-identity and offer him a ride to his destination. This is the event that drives us through the rest of act two. It is here where the story splits. Seth and Evan continue in their effort to find alcohol, again with the tension building consistently. They find themselves at a strange party filled with people much older than themselves, many of them in aggressive states or on drugs. Despite this, they decide to try and steal some beer from the party and find their way to Jules'. At the same time, Fogel's developing relationship with the officers offers us some relief from the intensity of Seth and Evan's journey. As the two boys run for their lives from the drunk adult party we are hit with the second plot point as the cops (who have been drinking themselves) hit Seth with their car, busting open some of the stolen beer all over the street. As the three friends begin to recognize the current situation, they all decide to make a run for it, with the remaining alcohol in their hands. It is here that we ask ourselves, will they make it to the party? Will they achieve their ultimate goals of getting with the girls?

Act III

This act is the last fifteen to twenty minutes of the film. They successfully make it to the party with the alcohol, but the tension is not yet done building. Fogel accidentally lets the rooming situation slip, and more tension builds between the characters. Seth drunkenly tries to kiss Jules and slams his face violently into her eye. Evan, who is undoubtedly more successful than Seth in his pursuit, still ends up with having to deal with Becca throwing up during their sexual encounter. This brings us to the climax of the film, the point where the tension is at a maximum, when the same drunken cops come and bust the party. The problem is Evan has passed out of the couch, and they need to leave immediately! Despite Seth's anger with Evan over his choice of roommate, he picks him up and sneaks out through the back, struggling to support Evan's weight. They make it back home safely, where their best-friendship is reinforced with a sleepover including some pizza bagels and a boop on the nose. It is here that the conflict of the subplot is solved, and the story ends happily when they run into the girls as the mall, and split up to enjoy a real date with them. 

Television as a Self-Reflexive Medium

The reflexivity of sitcom television is a reoccurring and progressing phenomenon. Colin Tain shed light on the importance of the action of watching television within many older sitcoms, how the show made a point of the characters gathering 'round the "campfire". Not only do many sitcoms involve the characters actually watching tv, but many modern sitcoms include dialogue or even whole plot lines making references to and poking fun at other popular movies and television shows.

For example, shows such as Family Guy and South Park rely heavily on television itself for their material. Whether it's making fun of the newest and lamest reality tv show, or the most popular current news story (which often has to do with television related gossip), or even if its just the characters watching tv themselves, these shows would not be what they are without the subject and resources of television. The more television one watches, the more connections one can make while watching shows such as these. Self-reflexivity is evident even on television news programs, with the increasing amount of stories digging in to television celebrity's lives. So what exactly is television about? Well, television is about television! If television was a man, he would have the world's biggest ego!

Camera Angles and Meanings from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

At the beginning of the movie, as the kids run into the candy shop, the salesman is telling the children about Wonka's new candy. We are at the salesman's level as he introduces the new candy. But when a child asks, "How does he do it?" the director demonstrates the child's ignorance, and the salesman's wisdom by shooting the child at a higher angle as the salesman answers, "Do you ask a fish how it swims? Or a bird how it flys?".

This is the establishing shot for the scene that introduces the spoiled "I want it now" girl. She and her father are in the family owned factory, but the father has ordered the workers to unwrap Wonka bars. Why? Because the daughter wants the golden ticket... and she wants it NOW! 

The workers are shot from a high angle to indicate that they are powerless. They are completely under the control of the father, the factory owner. As he puts their jobs on the line with an order to accelerate the process he is shot from a low angle and we look up at him in his elevated office. The angle of the shot and the placement of his office are both communicating the power that the father holds over the workers.

This is the scene where Willy Wonka releases the group to freely explore "the nerve center" of his factory. Previously while he was explaining about the room the visitors were getting quite fidgety, but it remained clear that Wonka was the dominant force, keeping them from leaving his vicinity before they were released among the edible world. But as he bows to them, motioning they are free to roam and eat, he is shot from a higher angle, indicating his loss of power in the present moment among the group.

When blueberry girl begins to puff up, Wonka orders an Oompa Loompa to resolve the issue. The shot of Wonka making his request to the Loompa is yet again another high angle - emphasizing Wonka's power over the Loompa. The Oompa Loompas being short are also a visual representation of their power in comparison to Willy Wonka's power.

As the Oompa Loompa's take her away, the girl becomes powerless and under control of the Loompa's. Again this is emphasized by shooting her from a high angle.

The Star System

An interesting aspect of early studios was what the book calls the "star system". Studios created consistant line-ups of performers and directors. As the names of the (good) actors and actresses became remembered, people would come and see the movie for the person in it, regardless of the movie. As the studios caught on to this phenomenon, the actors and actresses became re-occuring, along with the content and characters in the films. This made certain actors become assosciated with certain types of roles. The films became less about the story and more about that star acting the way he or she acts best. A perfect example of this-- mentioned in the lecture-- is Humphery Bogart. He had many roles associated with fighting crime. He developed a certain image that sold the films he was featured in. The star system is certainly present in modern Hollywood: Michael Cera as the dorky teenager, Ben Stiller as the witty Jewish man, Seth Rogen as the witty Jewish man who is always stoned, Jim Carey as the outrageous clown (although he has proved worthy of other roles), (early)Adam Sandler as the stupid idiot, Will Ferrell as another stupid idiot, Jack Black as a crazy, innovative idiot on drugs, etc.... All of these actors have made their way to success through a consistant character. Surely they have made lots of money, but in my personal opinion the most successful actors are the ones capable of performing many different roles such as Adrian Brody, Heath Ledger, and Jim Carey, who although made his way to stardom through what I like to call the Careyacter, really can act.

All in the Family v. Weeds

Many differences and similarities exist between All in the Family, and contemporary sitcom television. For instance, if we look at Weeds as a prime example: 

First off, All in the Family was created in the 1970s. The writers of the series would never dream of including some of the subject matter seen in Weeds. One could say that All in the Family was too afraid to "go there" back then, but if the show were able to be narrowcasted on specific cable television networks like Weeds is today, would it still have been afraid to "go there"? So there are era-defining moral differences between the shows as well as technological differences that may or may not shape each other. 

Another difference in the shows are the production styles. All in the Family was shot with multiple cameras in front of a live studio audience. The production was like taping a theatrical performance. On the other hand, Weeds is shot with a single camera, much like a movie would be shot. The actors perform the scene multiple times from different angles. 

Although the subject matter in Weeds is undoubtedly more contentious than in All in the Family, All in the Family certainly "went there" for its own era. It touched on many controversial issues of the time, and 'commented' on them through the episodes. In the episode we watched during our screening, Archie was a 'comment' on some peoples' attitudes of homosexuality during that time. It pointed out the close-mindedness of people during that era. In comparison, Weeds does the same thing. It 'comments' on today's controversial matters, specifically marijuana prohibition, and points out the ridiculousness of marijuana's role in contemporary West Coast society. With the California's upcoming election in November and the country's growing acceptance towards medical marijuana, Weeds will be a comment on history as our generation looks back on the first two decades of the new millennium.