Who Knew Pirates Could Follow Structure?---The 3 Act Structure In The Curse of the Black Pearl

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is one of my favorite movies of all time. I love this movie for several reasons, one of them being Johnny Depp's outstanding performance as Captain Jack Sparrow. However, it is not only Johnny's good looks and mad acting skills that make this movie so appealing to me; it is also the use of the "3 Act Structure" which makes the plot all the more interesting to watch. With the use of the 3 Act Structure, the movie is sprinkled with plot points throughout various stages of the film, leaving the audience wondering, "What's coming next?!"


The 3 Act Structure consist of Introduction, Complication, and Resolution. At the end of each segment, there is a Plot Point designed to carry the story over into the next section. These Plot Points are complications within the story meant to intrigue the audience and to make them want to know what happens next in the film. Also, the 3 Act Structure usually utilizes a climax near the ending of the film, with its resolution being a positive outcome.


Now, let's look at the 3 Act Structure in The Curse of the Black Pearl:

 1) INTRODUCTION (1/4 of Movie)

• The opening scene introduces Elizabeth Swann, William Turner (among other characters), and the notion of Piracy. 
• Glimpse of the pirate ship, The Black Pearl.
• Emphasis placed on a golden Pirate medallion hanging around Will's neck (which Elizabeth takes from him)
• The story moves forward a few years, and Elizabeth and Will's characters are developed further, suggesting a romantic interest between the two.
• Elizabeth's character pretends to be demure on the outside, but inwardly she desires a life of adventure and she is fascinated by pirates. She is attracted to Will but realizes she cannot be with him because of his low social status.
• Will's character is the portrait of hard work and honesty. He is a blacksmith and is very much attracted to Elizabeth. However, because he is so proper, he prevents himself from letting Elizabeth know how much he likes her.
• Setting is established: Port Royal, an anti-piracy port rules by Commodore Norrington and Governor Swann.

• The pirate Jack Sparrow is introduced as he tries to steal a ship from the port, and he is consequently arrested and imprisoned.
• Elizabeth falls into the ocean with the Pirate medallion around her neck. The latter sends a wave across the ocean. 
• As a result, the Black Pearl, whose crew has been in search for the medallion for years, attacks Port Royal and kidnaps Elizabeth with the medallion. 
• The crew of the Black Pearl is introduced. Most prominent: Captain Barbossa.
• INTRODUCTION PEAK: The Introduction peaks when Elizabeth is kidnapped and when the audience finds out that Jack Sparrow has somehow been involved with the Black Pearl in the past. The plot point is the scene where Elizabeth taken away on the Black Pearl along with the medallion.  This is the Plot point because it leaves the audience with the following questions: 

•  What's going to happen to Elizabeth?
• Why do the pirates need the medallion so badly?
• Will William try to rescue Elizabeth?
• Why does Jack Sparrow know the Black Pearl and its crew?
• What is Sparrow's history, and how will he be involved with the rest of the characters in the film?
• What is that curse which makes the Black Pearl crew turn to skeletons when the moonlight hits them?!

2) COMPLICATION (2-3/4  of Movie):

• Jack Sparrow agrees to help Will rescue Elizabeth in exchange for his freedom. 
• Stakes are raised as Will breaks the law to spring Sparrow out of jail. 
• The two, after shaking off the Port Royal Navy, embark in a voyage to catch up with the Pearl.
• Will finds out that his father was pirate, something he is repulsed by, and that he also used to be friends with Sparrow.
• We find out that the Pirates are cursed (thus the turning-into-skeletons part), and the only way to break the curse is to return the medallion to its original chest and shed the blood of the one carrying it. Audience is led to believe that Elizabeth will be killed. 
• The plot thickens when Elizabeth's blood does not lift the curse, and we find out that it is actually Will's blood that will lift the curse!
• Audience finds out that Jack Sparrow used to be the Pearl's captain until Barbossa led a mutiny against him. 
• Jack is trying to regain the Pearl.
• There is an array of maritime confrontations between the Pirates and the Jack & Will crew. In the end, Will is captured, and Jack and Elizabeth are left to die on a deserted island.
• COMPLICATION PEAK: The Complication peaks as Will is captured, and Jack and Elizabeth are deserted on an island in the middle of the ocean. This stage is the Plot Point because it leads the audience to believe that there is no hope left because all the main characters find themselves in unfavorable situations. This Plot Point leaves the audience asking themselves the following questions: 

•  Will Elizabeth and Jack be able to escape? And if so, how?
• Is Jack Sparrow really as legendary as he is supposed to be?
• Is Will going to die?
• How will the movie continue if all the characters are doomed?
• Does this mean that the "evil guys" win?
• How could any of the characters turn the situation around?
• Will William's blood lift the curse?
• Why is Will's blood so important? 

3) RESOLUTION (4th/4 of the Movie)

•  Jack and Elizabeth are rescued by the Port Royal Navy. Elizabeth agrees to marry Commodore Norrington in exchange for the Navy to go save Will. The Commodore accepts and agrees to have Jack Sparrow's help.
• Sparrow leads the Navy to the cave where the Black Pearl crew is hiding, just second away from killing Will and spilling his blood all over the contents of the Aztec Gold Medallion chest. 
• Jack Sparrow goes into the cave in an attempt to save Will. As part of his plan, Jack pretends not to care whether Will is killed or not as he warn Barbossa that the entire Port Royal fleet is just outside the cave, waiting to capture them all. 
• The audience is led to suspect that Sparrow might have a secret plan up his sleeve. 
• Barbossa agrees not to kill Will yet, and makes Sparrow captain of the Pearl. (Because Jack suggests that he should take the English fleet's ships)
• The plan goes wrong as the skeleton pirates go after the Norrignton's crew. A brutal battle ensues. The chances of Norrington's victory seem dim, as the pirates are skeletons and are not affected by swords or gunshots. 
• Inside the cave, Jack finally reveals that he is indeed trying to rescue Will, and he starts a sword fight with Barbossa. 
• Meanwhile, Elizabeth makes her way to the cave in an attempt to rescue Will by herself. 
• After a long sword fight, Barbossa stabs Jack Sparrow in the stomach. The audience is left to believe he will die, until he steps back into the moonlight and reveals that HE IS ALSO A SKELETON!

• Sparrow reveals that he lifted the medallion from the chest in order to become "undead", and thus be safe in his fight with Barbossa. 
• The Norrington crew keeps fighting the pirates.
• RESOLUTION PEAK: The Peak in the Resolution is the CLIMAX when the following ensues: Jack, in the middle of his intense sword fight with Barbossa, throws Will the medallion. Will spills a little of his blood over the medallion. There is a gunshot. Will returns the blood-covered medallion to the chest. The audience is unsure of who shot whom. Then, we find out that Sparrow shot Barbossa, who finally dies because Will's blood lifted the curse, and he is thus mortal once more. The rest of the skeleton pirates are made mortal as well, and they end up surrendering to Norrington. basically, the "bad pirate" Barbossa is dead along with half his crew. Jack Sparrow is Captain of the Black Pearl once more.
• The third act's resolution ends in Jack Sparrow escaping the Port Royal gallows with Will's help, who finally comes to term with being a pirate. Jack escapes and keeps the Black Pearl. Will declares his love for Elizabeth, as she does towards him. Elizabeth's engagement to Norrington is cancelled, and Will and Elizabeth are last seen sharing a kiss overlooking the beautiful Caribbean. 

SUMMARY:

1st Act: Introduction of characters.
Peak: Elizabeth is captured.

2nd Act: Jack and Will try to save Elizabeth and recover Black Pearl
Peak: Will captured. Jack & Elizabeth deserted

3rd Act: Battle to end curse and rescue Will.
Peak: Climax, curse is lifted. Good guys win. Jack gets to live and captain the Pearl. Will and Elizabeth get together.
*Images from Google Images.

"Rachel, we know you still have feelings for Ross"--The 4th Wall in Sitcoms

One characteristic of TV sitcoms: The Fourth Wall.
One of the most evident characteristics of the TV sitcom is its use of the fourth wall. The fourth wall refers to a invisible wall between the character world and the audience world, which separates the two, leaving the characters "unaware" of the peeping Tom audience. In production terms, there is no tangible fourth wall as it is in this opening where the cameras and crew are set up, pointing towards the action contained within the other material 3 walls. The fourth wall allows the sitcom to create a world of its own, paralleling our own world. In other words, since the sitcoms ignore the audience, it is as if it actually exists and we just happen to be looking in to their window. The fourth wall is used across the board for TV sitcoms with the exception of "Mockumentary" shows like the office. In shows such as this, the characters actually speak out to the audience and reveal their feelings to its faithful viewers. This is called breaking the fourth wall.

 See? There's nothing unusual about Dwight addressing us.

How does the fourth wall function within the sitcom?
The fourth wall functions in the following ways:

• It separates the characters from the audience. This gives the sitcom a sense of realism, and tricks the audience into believe the lives of the characters within the show.
• It contains the emotion of the characters. Since the characters do no speak out to the audience, the latter doesn't exactly know what the character is always thinking or feeling, unlike the characters in the office. Since the characters do not speak to us directly about their emotions, we are kept guessing as to "what's coming next?". 
• The fourth wall allows the TV world to be integrated into contemporary society, in a way. For example, shows like Friends or Gossip girl employ the forth wall. Since their characters seem to carry on normally, it is not hard to imagine that Rachel, Ross, Serena, and Blair actually do live in New York and have established lives there. 
• The fourth wall also gives the audience a broad look at the show. It allows us to always be looking into their lives. This serves as a form of dramatic irony, since we the audience can see what's going on with each character simultaneously, while the characters themselves do not always know what their fellow characters are doing, feeling, etc. 
• Having a fourth wall does bring the audience closer ( since we're practically spying the characters) but at the same time, it pushes the audience away. There are times where the audience might know the solution to a certain character's problem but is unable to communicate it to the character itself (obviously) and the character is unable to "emotionally unload" while addressing the audience (like it happens in shows like the Office). 
• The fourth wall can also increase the level of connection between the audience and the characters. Because the audience is looking in to every aspect of the character's lives, we feel like we truly know these characters. Therefore, since we "know everything about them", it is easy to connect to certain characters and to know what's right and what's wrong for them. 
• Essentially, the fourth wall brings the show to life because it makes it possible for the sitcom to mimic reality. 

Example of the Fourth Wall in a sitcom:
One of the few TV shows I used to watch is Friends. This sitcom is the perfect example of the use of the fourth wall in the following ways (corresponding to my previous list):

• NY, especially the apartment where the friends gather uses the fourth wall. The characters never address or acknowledge the audience, thus making the show believable. It is easy to imagine that apartment and those friends actually living in NYC.
• It contains certain emotions of certain characters, as seen with Rachel. Since she doesn't speak her mind to the audience, the latter is left wondering, "Does she love Ross? Are they ever going to get back together? Does she regret breaking up with him?" 
• The show uses a believable, realistic setting: an apartment in NYC, which immediately allows the audience to believe that they actually live there. 
• There is ton of dramatic irony as we know every detail of the characters' lives and shenanigans. For example, we the audience know that Chandler and Monica are dating. For many episodes, none of the other friends know about their relationship, and the episodes themselves revolve around them trying to hide their relationship from them...but we know.
•  The fourth wall does put up a wall between the characters and the audience. Rachel does not look directly at the screen and talk about her feeling for Ross. She just copes with it by herself, and we are unable to help her just as she is unaware that we would like to help her.
• We are brought in closer through the fourth wall because we know the characters so well. When Rachel doesn't get together with Ross, we just want to shake her and say "Get back together with him. He loves you. Trust me, its what's best for you". We also feel like encouraging Ross every time Rachel turns him down. 
• Lastly, the events that these friends go through are realistic enough for us to mistake it as reality. The show's long run allowed people across the globe to identify and grow to love all the characters in Friends. Each person has his or her favorite, and we all feel (those who watch Friends) like we know them down to their very core. The fourth wall allows such intense realism, that fans wouldn't be surprised if they ever bumped into Ross, Phoebe, Rachel, Joey or Monica at the coffee shop at NYC.

Pictures from Google images.
Video from Youtube.

A Close up Look on the Bear Jew---Tarantino's Use of Shots

One of my recently favorite movies is “Inglourious Basterds” by Quentin Tarantino. There are two major components of the film that immediately stand out to me: 1) Tarantino’s genius manipulation of black comedy. I specifically recall people bursting out laughing in the movie theater in sespecially brutal scenes. There’s nothing funny about a person getting beat up with a baseball bat, yet Tarantino somehow makes people giggle at the first sign of violence. 2) Tarantino’s continuous use of meaningful camera angles and shots. Because he uses a myriad of shots and angles, the audience immediately is brought into the story. Tarantino makes good use of long, medium, close-up, low angle, and high angle shots, like the ones Professor Ramirez Berg talked about in his lecture. Each scene of “Inglourious Basterds” is encoded with subliminal significance through Tranatino’s meaningful use of shots, as it is evident in the following scene:

“Bear Jew” Scene from “Inglourious Basterds”

The scene I will dissect today is the famous “Bear Jew” scene. Eli Roth, playing the afore-mentioned Bear, comes out to kill a German Nazi officer with a baseball bat because the latter refuses to collaborate with the Basterds. Take a look:

LONG SHOT: (Min. 0:1:08-0:1:10)

This very brief long shot shows the place where the Basterds are “negotiating” with the German Nazi officer.  It is a crane shot where the setting is visible, in this case the woods, but the people themselves are not discernible from one another.

Possible meanings:

• The long shot is used as an establishing shot to show where the characters are located. This shot identifies the setting in its most basic sense: A secluded portion of the woods. It also shows how the characters are positioned in relation to one another

• The shot also implies complete isolation. This shot is especially relevant to the Nazi officer because it shows just how hopeless a situation he finds himself in. The long shot signifies how “far away from home” the Nazi officer is. There seems to be no one around to help him, and no civilization within reach to hear his cries of help and desperation (if he ever dared to cry out in the first place). He is isolated within a group of enemies and encompassing woods.

• The long shot also implies “spectacle”. The long shot allows the audience to see everything that’s going on as if in an omniscient point of view. It gives the shot a sort of “Roman Coliseum” look where the action is in the center of the frame, and the audience is all looking in. This shot is possibly Tarantino’s way of saying, “Look at what’s going on. Take it all in, and enjoy the show”. We get to view the scene from above momentarily, and thus we do not miss any details within it. This long shot relates to the Basterds within the scene as well, because the “Bear Jew’s” baseball bat-beat up is indeed a spectacle, a form of entertainment for the characters.

• The shot also possibly symbolizes emotional detachment within the Basterds, especially with the Bear Jew. As is evident in the scene, Donny feels no remorse at killing the Nazi officer. On the contrary, he enjoys it very much. The same goes for the rest of the Basterds; as it is evident from their cheering, laughing, and clapping, the rest of the Basterds feel nothing other than sheer joy at the sight of Donny’s performance.

• Lastly, the shot also serves as a sort of warning for the audience, one that encourages them to be emotionally detached as well. Since the whole film features black comedy, in which murders are supposed to be awkwardly hilarious, this long shot distances the audience from the violence just before it takes place. It is possible Tarantino’s way of saying, “Ok, detach yourself NOW because what’s coming is pretty gruesome”.

MEDIUM SHOT: (0:1:24-0:1:29)

My favorite medium shot within this scene is the one depicting the German officer’s upper body before the as he hears the Bear Jew approaching him. It is beautifully done since the character is positioned in the center, an artistically successful alteration of the rule of thirds, and the audience can identify the character being affected by the action, and his response to it.

Possible meanings:

• This medium shot points out which character is going to be directly affected by the action in the following frames. It shows the German officer by himself, squarely in the center of the shot.

• This shot also allows the audience to focus their attention on that specific character, since there aren’t any other people besides the officer in the frame. This is important because the Nazi officer is extremely important in this scene, as he is the vehicle to introduce the Bear Jew. Therefore, the audience must focus their attention to him and to what is going to happen to him

• This medium shot serves its “Information” purpose as it informs that the importance as of the scene has shifted from Brad Pitt (Aldo Raine) to the Nazi Officer.

• Also, while this shot does not contain any emotional context, it does include an impeding sense of doom. Since medium shots are usually followed by close-up shots (which do convey emotion), the audiences get a feeling of impatience and suspense as the medium shot lingers on the officer, taunting the audience by not shifting to a close-up right away

CLOSE-UP SHOT: (0:2:30-0:2:33)

This shot finally shows The Bear Jew after he’s come out of the tunnel. He confronts the Nazi officer, and a close-up is shown of both their faces.

Possible meanings:

• This close-up shot serves to communicate the most important part of the scene. It allows the audience to be brought “face to face” with the Bear Jew. It frames Donny, giving him a sense of omnipotence, glorifying him enough to be excused from the moral consequences of his actions.

• This close-up also frames the importance of the dialogue by closing in to Donny’s face. In the close-up he says, “Did you get that for killing Jews?” this is a very important piece of dialogue since it embodies what the Basterds are fighting for. They are avenging all the people, especially Jews, who were killed unfairly by the Nazis

• This shot also puts the audience in the perspective of the Nazi officer. We see the Bear Jew just as close as the officer does. The shot communicates a sense of confrontation to the audience. 
•  
• Like I mentioned before, this shot communicates emotion as it is evident in Donny's line. Since Donny himself is  a Jew, he delivers his line to the Jew-murdering Nazi with emotion. 

Professor Ramirez Berg also talked about high angle and low angle shots. Both of these can be seen in the close-up shots in the scene:

• HIGH ANGLE: The close up shot of the Nazi officer (hoplessness)
• LOW ANGLE: Close-up on Donny the Bear Jew (empowerment)

-Images from Google images.

MGM: "We love you, Clark Gable!"--Explaining Hollywood's "Star System"

In order to better explain Classical Hollywood movie studios' "Star System", I am going to start off this blog by exemplifying the term with a contemporary example. 

Take into account the following two actors: Johnny Depp and Angelina  Jolie. Characteristically, these two actors are typecast as the following:

JOLIE:

• Physically attractive
• Seductive, mysterious, intelligent
• Strong, independent

DEPP:

• Physically attractive
• Complex
• Versatile

Usually, fans go see THEM in movies, rather than the whole movie itself. I wouldn’t be surprised if “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Salt” had been major “flops” had their lead actor/actress been some nobody without the appeal that these two have accumulated. The effect of Jolie and Depp’s popularity on the success of the movies they are representing is an example of the “Star System”.

Now, please take a few minutes to look at the following clip: Watch from 2:00 mins. onward.

The “Star System” was introduced in the Hollywood Classical Era, which spanned from the 1920’s to the 1940’s. This system was used by major movie studios in order to attract attention to their films and subsequently have them become successful. In my words, here’s the way the Star System works:

•  Famous movie stars attract an abundance of fans.
•  An abundance of fans equals increased movie attendance (to the films the stars are attached to)
• Increased movie attendance equals large sums of money
• Large sums of money equals tangible “Success”
• Tangible success means more money for new movies
• New movies mean more money
• And so on...

THUS, movie studios took advantage of movie stars’ popularity to promote and profit from their own movies.

Effect of the "Star System" on movies:

The effect that the "Star System" had on movies was that often the movies would revolve around the stars themselves. Naturally, attention was paid to the plot, set design, secondary characters, etc. However, the biggest effect of the system was that the success of the movie depended on the "bankability" of  the star. Because of this dependency, the films had to portray the stars in a heightened way in order to increase their "starness", if you know what I mean. Consequently the films did spend an awful lot of time glorifying the actors that were going to fund the studio's next assembly-line project.

Another effect of the Star System on movies was that studios realized the attraction potential that big names had. Consequently, studios paired up two movie stars to double the effect of their advertising. As a result, we have movies such as "Casablanca", in which Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman portray once-lovers. This pairing, because of the grandeur of the two stars together, has become an iconic couple. 

Also an effect of the "Star System" on movies was that each movie star's name served as a stamp, as a label of what to expect. For example, if Clark Gable's name was on the marquee, audiences would know that the movie was going to be like: Probably one that revolves around a villain (usually Gable) who feigns extreme masculinity in order to hide his weaknesses. 

Example of "Star System":

An example of the "Star System" is Clark Gable because of his continuous appearance in MGM films. An article about the actor's life written in the NY Times states, "By 1932, he was a star at MGM where, except for being loaned out on occasion, he'd remain for the next 22 years." (http://movies.nytimes.com/person/10097/Clark-Gable/biography). During those 22 years, Gable served as bait, if you will, to attract millions of moviegoers to MGM films. Some of his numerous films include: The Painted Desert, Dance, Fools, Dance, A Free Soul, Possessed, etc. His name, his distinctive voice, and his trademark moustache were a sure bet: As long as he was in a film, fans would faithfully watch the movie, regardless of plot or quality. The New York Times also states, "Gable enjoyed a he-man image created by the MGM publicity department, and perpetuated it on his own" (http://movies.nytimes.com/person/10097/Clark-Gable/biography). It was this image, the image of the reluctantly charming macho and leading man, that kept audiences faithfully at his side, allowing MGM to grow richer while Gable fans swooned over the "King of Hollywood". 

Images from Google Images

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXGfDsENVCE

When Archie Met Peter---"All in the Family" vs. "Family Guy"

“All in the Family” and “Family Guy” are situation comedies that follow the lives of the Bunker and Griffin families, respectively.  “All in the Family” aired in the 70’s, while “Family Guy” has been airing since the late 90’s. These two sitcoms prove to be interestingly comparable, since they tend to address similar, often controversial, issues while using widely different formats. Naturally, there are some differences between the two TV shows but these help illustrate cultural and social issues being dealt with at their respective time periods.

Take a moment to look at the following clips:
*NOTE: SOME OF THE MATERIAL MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE

 

 

-Clip 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkjnKTEffbQ

-Clip 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGA000ozeMc

 Keeping in mind last screening's "All in the Family" episode; I am going to compare the two TV shows according to the following 3 categories:

1. How are they different?

• "All in the Family" deals with the theme of accepting homosexuality through Archie Bunker's character. Archie is portrayed as disliking, making fun of, and being repelled by homosexuals. Contrastingly, the characters in "Family Guy" seem to accept homosexuality, as seen with Stewie's (baby) character.
• "All in the family" presents a homosexual character as physically strong, well-built, athletic, serious ex-football player.  In other words, homosexuality is not represented in a stereotypical way.  Contrastingly, in the first "Family Guy" clip, Peter portrays homosexuality a slightly more stereotypical way. 
• "All in the Family" uses derogatory language (in this case, when referring to homosexuals), while "Family Guy" tries to be more politically correct
• "All in the Family" addressed Homosexuality by having Archie confront one of his friends in a serious manner. "Family Guy" addresses Homosexuality acceptance by making fun of stereotypes (such as the one seen in the first video) thus pointing out how absurd stereotypes are. In other words, "Family Guy"'s comedy style  is much more openly ironic

2. How are they the same?

• In "All in the Family" and "Family Guy", the family dynamics are similar. The father is the main figure, and each episode's story usually revolves around what he does/says. The mother is there as support to her husband but doesn't get as much attention as he does. The children are a form of "reaction" to their father's character and actions but they don't get as much importance as the father figure either. 
• Both shows usually employ the main character (in this case, the father figures Archie and Peter) to address the main issues of each episode. For example, Archie is the one that learns how to deal with homosexuals. Similarly, Peter is the one that has to learn to accept other people and whatever unconventional situations they might represent.
• Both shows deal with controversial issues. "All in the Family" is trying to show that homosexuals are just as much a part of society as anybody else (among other social and cultural issues), and that people should learn how to accept and respect that. "Family Guy" usually addresses similarly controversial issues such as homosexuality, immigration, racism, etc., and also encourages acceptance and respect. Basically, both shows intend to impart a morale by the end of each episode. 
• Both shows provoke and challenge the status quo, by addressing said controversial issues in such an open manner.
• Both shows use comedy as a tool to help normalize concepts that would be usually unacceptable in society. 
• Both shows portray the main characters as intolerant. At first, Archie does not accept or respect his daughter's friend because he suspects he is a homosexual. Peter also dislikes and/or makes fun of homosexuals, physically impaired people, lesbians, etc., and gives off the impression of being a "macho". Both character seem to represent intolerance at the beginning of the show but by the end, they realize their faults and try to impart some valuable lesson on their respective families and, indirectly, on the audience as well.

3.What kinds of issues did “All in the Family” deal with that "Family Guy" doesn’t, and vice versa?

•  "Family Guy" deals with most of the issues dealt with in "All in the Family" because it was created in a much later time period. "Family Guy" started out in the late 90's where controversial issues were already being dealt with in the Media. In other words, "Family Guy" is controversial because of the way it addresses said issues, not because what issues are addressed. 
• Of course, "All in the Family" was controversial back then because it was one of the first shows that dared to speak of social and cultural issues in such an open way. 
• Having said so, "Family Guy" deals with much more explicit content than what would have been acceptable in the 70's such as sex and drug abuse. 
• Also, "Family Guy" addresses immigration issues because they are of extreme relevance today. Naturally, "All in the Family" didn't address such issues because they were not yet as present as they are today. 
• "Family Guy" also tends to make fun of politicians and celebrities, often belittling and humiliating them. "All in the Family" didn't mock politicians or celebrities in such a cynical manner. Perhaps TV in the 70's had more self-imparted censorship than it does today. 
• "Family Guy" revolves around inside jokes of the news/celebrity world, often portraying real-life characters to be made fun of. "All in the Family" was a show with fictional characters and situations. 

Despite their differences, both sitcoms are an important part of Televised society because they hold a mirror up to us in the hope of encouraging acceptance and respect. Whether it be Archie, Peter, or any of the other characters, sitcom characters continue to voice society's concerns and reactions. It it through these characters that society as a whole has become more open and more willing to question the hegemonic ideals that surround us today.

*"All in the Family" image from google.com