Analysis Of The Movie ' The Sitcom Two And A Half Men '

Recently in my AP English class, we watched The film “Twelve Angry Men”. The film was unique in the fact that it only had one setting, the Jury Room. The film showed no one else but the jurors and the warden, who all remained completely nameless throughout the entire movie and we're only identified by their juror numbers. The jurors were drastically different which I believe added more diversity and made the plot more complex and intriguing to the audience. I don't believe the film had a specific intended audience, I believe that this show can be appreciated by all audiences because it shows that reasonable doubt is a much easier state of mind then certainty.

As a group, we selected The Other Guys, a comedy movie taking place in the New York City police department. The story involves two mismatched detectives that attempt to seize an opportunity in the department. In the movie, The Other Guys, the department is run by Captain Gene Mauch. The atmosphere in the department runs in a way that focuses on two main detectives doing most of the action outside the office. These two-star detectives are Danson and Highsmith, who are played by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson. However, a shootout with robbers results in the deaths of Danson and Highsmith, leaving a hole in the department. After mourning the death of the detectives, everyone in the office desires the opportunity to be the lead detectives of the department. The movie follows two of the detectives in the department as they attempt to fill the role of lead detectives. These characters are Allen Gamble, played by Will Ferrell, and Terry Hoitz, played by Mark Wahlberg. Both Allen and Terry have pasts that have been plagued by bad luck. Allen was once a pimp turned detective after being rushed to the hospital from poison ivy in his butt. Terry shot Derek Jeter during the Major League Baseball Playoffs. Even though Allen and Terry have been plagued by bad luck, they hope that making the arrest of all time would turn their life around.

The movie Parenthood cover’s many of the topics we have discussed this semester in class. But it obviously focused very strongly on parenting and marriage. During the course of the movie we see the four Buckman children’s very different style of parenting. Although all four were raised by the same parents the culture of their individual families are all look very different. Gil Buckman felt abandoned and ignored by his father and therefore responded, with his wife Karen, by being a very active and attentive parent. Gil and Karen are on the authoritative end of the parenting spectrum, and their families’ culture revolves around activities such as baseball games, Kevin’s baseball game, Birthday parties, school plays and basically having fun together (Lecture, 4/22). On the opposite end of the parenting spectrum are Nathan and Susan. They are very authoritarian and reminded me of the “tiger Mom’s” of China. The culture of their family means that they don’t have their daughter in preschool, they are waiting a prescribed amount of time to have a second child and Nathan is continuously drilling facts into their daughter. Susan feels like she should be playing with children her own age but Nathan’s feelings have taken over their family’s culture.

Divorce is common in the United States; remarriage is just as common. As a result many marriages result in a blended family. A family in which both of the parents have children from previous marriages. Often the blended family shares a permanent residence. Clair Cartwright and Kerry Gibson state in their 2013 report, The effects of co-parenting relationships with ex-spouses on couples in step-families, that in the United States in 2008, around 9% of households and around 12% of cohabiting households were blended families ( Teachman & Tedrow, 2008). A blended family is an excellent place to observe symbolic interaction theory.

The show reinforces the classical gender roles that female stereotypes continue to thrive in the media we consume every day. Women in this show is objectified and mostly portrayed as just beautiful with little education. (Gender Stereotypes in Mass media, 2014).

Scopophilia is defined as the pleasure in looking. There are three kinds of looking in film: characters looking at other characters, cameras looking at the characters, and finally, the audience looking that the screen through the camera. The only way to change how women are viewed in cinema is to disrupt the looking. Through the narrative and technical structure in Stepford Wives (1975), the traditional male gaze is questioned while at the same time the main character, Joanna, is given her own gaze.

It proves “Men on television are…powerful” when Hank commands his family (Witt). In addition, “Women are portrayed as spending much of their time…talking” and “The women in these media are also more likely to be seen doing activities best described as stereo-typically female” (Signorelli). Most of the episode consisted of the women talking. While it conforms a lot, it also defies stenotypes. The Women on the show are average size, not “thin” (Signorelli). When talking, Frankie and hank don’t dominate each going against the stereotype of “…men are usually more dominant.” (Witt). Most of the female characters also wear little to no makeup defying women’s emphasis being “…on attractiveness and desirability”

Imagine the world is invaded by aliens. Some of them eat humans, some live among humans, and others live outside of our world. You don’t know it, but many of the people who have shaped our lives and our culture aren’t even human themselves. This is the world of the 1997 film Men in Black, directed by Barry Sonnenfeld. Men in Black is a sci-fi comedy about a group of enforcement agents defending and regulating aliens from invading Earth. But if you take their costume off, Men In Black can be seen as far more than a comedy about space aliens. Under the lens of postcolonial criticism, the film reveals itself to be a veiled, political commentary on immigration. A lens is a way for us to look at a piece of literature in a whole new depiction that we may not have thought of the first time we had read or watched a piece of literature. Through the postcolonial lens, I can see the movie as a biased contrast between the immigrants and the immigration police. Interpreting the movie through this lens allows me to see that the Men in Black are the immigration police, and are considered to be the protagonists of the film. On the other hand, the aliens, or immigrants when looking through the lens, are the antagonists of the movie; The Men in Black protect the US from bad aliens, giving immigration police the positive reinforcement of the brutal evictions immigrants received in the 90s.

As a young adult, it is difficult to grow up without parents and still be tough and brave. In addition, teens can be emotional and overreact at times. In the novel The Outsiders, by S.E Hinton, a fourteen-year-old kid named Ponyboy Curtis feels different emotions that make him stand out from other Greasers, or “hoodlums”. Ponyboy, the youngest of all the Greasers, is a great example of a teen who feels isolated, brave, and emotional throughout the novel.

In Sixteen Candles and The breakfast club we see so much in common as well as differences present. These 2 John Hughes movies were a big hit in the Directors career, as well as Pretty in Pink but we are not discussing that movie. In these movies we see a lot of themes crossed over that are explored in many different ways. One of the main characters for both these movies was Molly Ringwald; we really showed and expressed these ideals of her characters perfectly. There were many themes that we can compare and contrast these movies. The 4 main themes that I believe really made impacts on these shows are: rich vs. poor, popular or unpopular, changing to fit the ‘norm’, and Common similarities between social classes. Hughes is an amazing director that really captures these moments in each theme; he captures them and presents them at the most unexpected times in the movies that fit perfectly.

The movie Parenthood revolves primarily around the three generations of the Buckman family. The family is rooted from Frank, who is the patriarch of the Buckmans. Him and his wife Marilyn are the parents of four adults, Gil, Helen, Susan and Larry. Their four children have also developed families of their own. Gil, their eldest son, is married to Karen. Together they are raising three children, Kevin, Taylor and Justin. Helen is a single mother of two teenagers, Julie and Gary. Susan is married to Nathan, who raises their daughter Patty with the goal of educating her into a child prodigy. Lastly, the youngest son of Frank, Larry, is unmarried but has recently just discovered his three year old son. Together, the two generations of offsprings of Frank and Marilyn Buckman demonstrate Alfred Adler’s Birth Order Theory.

Additionally, in several night scenes, Lachman used long shot to shoot the whole windows in the eye-level only with the lighting from the rooms. This technique produced a circumstance that audiences are standing outside of the building seeing peeking what these people are doing. The window frames look like interval between characters. Dividing them visualizes the inner difference of characters. They are in the same genre of people. In the party of Harge’s parents, Carol smokes outsides and Jeanette steps in. The window frames separated Carol and Jeanette generating a boundary between them. Also in the scene that Therese and Danny are at the office of Time magazine, Lachman used the same cinematography method creating distances between two characters.

I believe the ideological message this film conveys is that our criminal justice system needs to do a better job instilling fairness and justice in the court system. Therefore, social status or social conditions will not be the determining factor for conviction based on inequality beliefs. I think this film being made in the early 50’s, is still in line with the issue of race relations as we encounter discrimination even today.

Idealized Influence – defined by the values, morals, and ethical principles of a leader and is manifest through behaviours that supress self interest and focus on the good of the collective.

The movie Twelve Angry Men is about the twelve jurors that could adjust their influence in a decision-making process for conviction an eighteen years-old boy, whether the boy guilty or not guilty in murdering of his father. It represents a perfect example for applicable of a work group development framework. It also has examples of influence techniques among a group’s members. This paper is looking at those specific examples in the movie and focusing in analysis the reasons why Juror 8 is so much more effective than others in the meeting.