You've Got My Attention

Axial Characters often have axial skeletons

The axial character is key to the success of a sitcom, for he draws the attentions of the viewer and contextualizes the rest of the cast in terms of his personality. Other characters in a show are oftentimes, not even perceived as complete figures, but rather the fragments that the axial character sees them as. These other characters need not be fleshed out fully in order for the axial character to complete a story arc. Indeed, it is often better that these characters are not completed for it always for a sense of empathy with the title character not afforded to those less important in the cast, giving more meaning to the axial character as a whole.

Such a Happy Family

The axial character is central to the show "Everybody Loves Raymond," for the character of Ray Romano defines not only the characters around him, but also the entire world of the sitcom itself. Ray is always the main focus whenever he is in a scene, and the world seems to be defined by his pessimistic attitude. While his immediate family is gradually formed as the series progresses, they are still defined in the roles in which Ray views them. Ray's overbearing mother constantly guilts and manipulates him in to performing tasks for her, while his cantankerous old father shows deep resentment of anything "girly." Ray's brother is a morose and ponderous fellow, who always complains that Ray has everything better than him, a fact which is oftentimes correct. Ray's wife is always exasperated with him, and often seems just on the brink of a breakdown. These characters are usually seen only through the cynical lens of Ray, warping our perceptions along with him. Thus we can see the importance of the axial character, for all the other characters as well as the world itself, are viewed only through the lens of Ray's pessimistic attitude.

Do the Kung Fu Hustle

The director employs the use of low-angle and medium shots coupled with close ups to show the progression of the main character from a petty criminal to kung fu master.

Before

After the hero's true potential has been unlocked, his expression changes from one of constant annoyance and fear to to one of cool impassivity. When he is revealed after his short recovery, he is wearing clean white robes, and the director uses a low angle shot to reveal his new-found power. The shot focuses on the back of the character, and as he opens the door light floods in bathing him in an angelic glow to further emphasize his transcendent nature.

After

The shot then switches to a close-up on his face, which up to this point in the film had been constantly contorted in fear but now remains steady and relaxed. The camera never leaves his face as he turns around to view the multitude of opponents that face him, circling as he circles, staying steady at eye-level. After the character is done surveying his surroundings, the camera pans down and to the back of his head once more, just as he is about to fight his final battle.
As the battle unfolds, the shot switches to a medium range, to show a more traditional viewing angle for the action. Once he dispatches the henchmen, the fight begins with the evil "Beast." The camera remains at a medium shot throughout the concluding battle, until the very end. Just as he defeats the "Beast," the camera once more closes on his serene face, as he unleashes his final and most devastating technique, the fabled "Flying Buddhist Palm Technique."

The Gilded Age

They would never have allowed this

During the Golden Age of Hollywood, the ability of a studio to completely control every aspect of a movie's production and distribution via Vertical Integration allowed for an unprecedented volume of quality films to be created.

Unlike film production today, movie studios used to treat the creation of a film in much the same way that a manufacturing industry would, with efficiency reigning king. Everyone from stars and writers to cinematographers and gaffers were put under contract, and indeed sometimes even traded around much like a piece of property. Many films were "authorless," with no particular director getting credit for a film. But most important was the ruthless efficiency with which these studios produced the films in question. By controlling every aspect of a film, the studio was able to keep costs down as well as ensure that a movie would be produced and marketed as quickly as possible. The studios kept all those involved in a film's production on site to reduce the time needed to assemble a film as well as to enable quick distribution.

Like old studios, he doesn't give a damn

A clear example of the power and effectiveness of Vertical Integration is the year 1939, regarded by many to be one of the finest years in cinematic history. 1939 saw the release of several films considered to be amongst the greatest ever, such as The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a feat which would not have been possible without the studio's rigid control of the film creation process. As noted in the film 1939: Hollywood's Greatest Year, such prodigious output would not be possible today, as the bureaucracy and costs associated with creating a film have skyrocketed exponentially since the golden years of Hollywood. Though many would consider the idea of Vertical Integration to be both monopolistic and exploitative of most of those in the film industry, one cannot deny the idea's role in creating an environment where studios could create vast amounts of high quality films at much reduced costs.

What a Wonderful Family

All in the Family is wholly different from a contemporary family show such as Two and a Half Men, both in the way that it presents the families at hand, as well as the themes addressed.

All in the Family was originally intended to be a satire of a bigoted man, with his unassuming and vacuous wife, juxtaposed with his hippie daughter and son-in-law. The show would address certain issues, such as the idea of a person being a "fag" or "fairy" in the case of Michael's friend. Archie regarded him as a pansy for his perceived homosexual tendencies, such as a dislike for sports and appreciation for music and dance. Conversely, Archie is shocked to discover that his macho friend who used to play professional football is in fact gay, since he is so atypically gay in Archie's mind. In the Two and a Half Men episode "It was Mame Mom" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0735164/ the main characters, two brothers named Charlie and Alan pretend to be gay lovers so that they can impress an important client of Charlie's.

The two shows approach the matter of being homosexual very differently from one another; All in the Family centers the episode around Archie's realization that homosexuality is not strictly the domain of the effeminate and that even those he considers to be "normal" men can in fact be gay. The episode revolves around the theme of "what it means to be a gay," and looks at it in a broader social structure. The episode of Two and a Half Men however, does not examine the nature of being gay, rather it takes homosexuality as a norm in society. The episode does not revolve around the fact that there are gay individuals, but rather the antics of the characters whilst they pretend to be gay. I was also struck by the language used in All in the Family, such as the term fag, which seems to carry a much more derogatory meaning than most words and would not be used in television now. Indeed, it seems that All in the Family examined the nature of what it means to be gay, whereas Two and a Half Men did not feel the need to explore the idea of homosexuality, because the show assumed that all would be familiar with and accept it.

Radical Radio

Industry was the driving force behind the rapid expansion and formation of radio in the 1920's, because it provided both a monetary and ideological incentive for the growth of the medium.

A technology can only go as far as men are willing to take it, and the best way to motivate an individual to pursue a new paradigm is through money. Industry provided the proverbial carrot that those individuals needed in order to foster and maintain the growth of the burgeoning new medium. The idea to create a new "mass audience radio" wherein a company or band could reach thousands of new listeners every day represented a new step in the evolution of media. The government realized the potential of placing radio into private hands, which is why control reverted to the private sector following World War I. Radio allowed for individuals living in rural areas or cramped urban quarters to be exposed to and learn about the surrounding world, be it the music of a different part of the country such as Mississippi Blues, or the way another group of people live such as the couple "Roger and Irene" in Radio Days.

Radio in the 20's provided a unique opportunity to advertisers; a war-weary country was desperately seeking for an escape from the horrors that it had just undergone. And so it came to be that various companies would go to advertising companies and create various series that were meant to both entertain and sell product. Radio Days provides another example, wherein the show "The Masked Avenger" fills the title character with such desire for a "Masked Avenger" ring that he steals from his Rabbi for the opportunity to acquire one. In addition to integrated advertising, radio shows would also tell listeners that a program was "provided by" a specific company or product, thus helping to ensure that their name was brought up as often as possible. Eventually, radio became so large that entire companies were created around the medium itself, such as CBS and NBC. These new companies would garner their money through the selling of ad space, akin to certain newspapers which allowed them to reach hundreds of thousands of listeners and accrue even more money in the process.

Effects of the Media

The media's ability to influence social learning plays a key role in defining what values and attributes an individual desires and or despises, such as the depiction of heroism in the films of John Wayne, as well as irrevocably shaping one's opinions of the world around them.
The media itself has proven to be an indelible force that is able to change public opinion regarding what is and is not acceptable. A person's actions, and indeed, self worth, are defined by a set of ever fluctuating rules that are as fickle and capricious as the people who enforce them. One moment, the public may find itself weary of rock and roll and thus begin to spread out and begin to experiment with other genres of music such as disco. Or moviegoers may tire of westerns and instead begin to demand cop films. Yet, as soon as these shifts arise, they are just as quickly swept away amidst a tide of boredom from the general public. It may seem to some that these waves of public opinion, or fads, are utterly out of the hands of the media at large. And while it is true that the media cannot always create a fad or ensure that a product or idea succeeds, it is in fact able to plant the idea in the public's mind, and influence their thoughts and behavior. Thus, social learning is both a blessing and a curse for the media, in that the media is able to provide the tools and means for the public to fully embrace a new idea, such as the rise of hip hop music throughout the 2000's, but not able to ensure that the idea takes hold in the public subconscious.
What I find to be most interesting in regards to the media's social influence, is its seemingly self-perpetuating value system. A group of kids will grow up watching westerns starring John Wayne, and then begin to idealize a sort of "rough and tumble cowboy" as evidenced in the film "Tough Guise" by the massive support garnered by Ronald Reagan. These children grew up idolizing the John Wayne character and everything he stood for; he was a sort of indelible being, who could do no wrong. As such, when a man came along touting the same values and attitude that defined their childhood hero, these men and women set their reservations aside and chose to follow he who defined the epitome of their values. Yet, why did these children learn to fantasize about cowboys and the American way? It was the media who imparted the vision of such an individual in the collective minds of a generation, making Ronald Reagan's election possible.

Media Targets and Impacts

The media is just as fickle and capricious as the people who report it. To say that the news is impartial and tries to report only the facts is a nice thought, but naive. That is not to say that the media intentionally misleads, though it oftentimes can, rather the media is inherently influenced by those who create it. One can find meaning and judgment in the most seemingly innocuous statement, whether real or perceived. Indeed, the public craves such opinion, which explains the abundance of radio and television personalities who forcefully expound their own thoughts. People enjoy hearing opinions they agree with, which is what allows the hegemony in media to continue. The reason two stations as divergent as CNBC and Fox News can both thrive is that people love to hear others not only agree with them, but also agree to such a degree that all traces of doubt that they once had are expunged. The stations also use this to their advantage, each utilizing a unique viewpoint or agenda and furthering it with whatever means they have available. The stations are also able to regulate precisely what they report, giving large amounts of coverage to events that other stations would similarly ignore. Yet, at the same time I do not believe that media has the same sort of control that it once did, as the advent of near-instant and efficient communication has allowed large groups of people to spread the word of events faster than ever before.

 Perhaps the best example of media framing is the media's coverage of the conflict in the Middle East. A tumultuous issue at best, one need simply look at the different titles of these two articles to see the dichotomy of opinion on the matter among major US publications alone, one from a prominent conservative publication The Wall Street Journal and one from the more liberal minded Time Magazine. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703995104575388754261573556.html?mod=googlenews_wsj and http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2015602,00.html 

The titles alone, "Funding Palestinian Incitement," and "Why Israeli's Don't Care About Peace with Palestinians" are clearly meant to not only appeal to a specific group of people, but also to incite some sort of reaction. A holdover from the early days of print media are hyperbolic headlines, mean to attract viewers, whether out of agreement or anger or simply intrigue. Both articles talk about the conflict in the Middle East, yet they both chose contrary and conflicting stories and viewpoints, illustrating how varied the ideas of different media can be on a particular subject. The editors at the Wall Street Journal know that they are trying to appeal to a generally conservative readership, and such a thought process is imparted in the tone and content of their articles. Yet, one can argue that the content of the articles themselves is irrelevant, with pageviews instead being what these sites seek. For the more pageviews a website can accrue, the more ad revenue a website can command, which is always good as newspaper and magazine subscription numbers continue to dwindle. A favorite example of this phenomenon is from my favorite webcomic that illustrates the logic behind outlandish and abrasive articles and headlines in a logical fashion.

source: Penny-Arcade.com