Three-act structure...

zagoraz · Apr 27, 2005

What do you guys (and gals) think about three-act structure? A good guideline? Too limiting? Good or bad (or both?)

I've personally never sat down with any of my screenplays and tried to make sure certain plot points happened on certain pages. It feels too forced for me. I know it's not necessarily meant to be taken so literally. But I think some screenwriters use those books as instruction manuals and the end result is a weak script with a weak plot and no character development.

But you can't really knock it either. If used right, it usually works. Thousands of movies can attest to that.

I don't know, I'm just rambling now.

Scott

Joe Calabrese · Apr 27, 2005

Since Aristotle pretty much created the 3 act structure in his Poetics, almost every story since has followed it closely, even if amended and tweaked. Sure, you can add a prologue and epilogue, you can add a fourth act in the middle, but still remains the 3 major turning points which lay for your story and protagonist.

As for being rigid to the beast. I write the way I see it and loosely follow it, but during the rewrite stage I try to tighten it so the points happen around the right pages, give or take a few. I also depends on the genre. An action film needs a beat at every ten pages (what used to be the time for each reel). Audience are so used to it, just as watching 24 frames go by, that if action doesn't happen every ten minutes, they feel bored somehow.

Here is a good observation I found regarding the 4 act structure which as you can see is really a modified three act structure with what I call a midpoint plot twist.

HTML:

Field calls it the "pinch".  Vogler calls it the "second major
threshold".  What they both refer to is the middle of the
traditional second act of the three-act structure.

For God's sake, gentlemen, LET'S CALL A SPADE A SPADE!  It's been
there all along, yet no story structuralist wants to go against the
grain and say that the middle act is in fact TWO ACTS (point C on the
diagram).

What's the problem with acknowledging that the traditional three-act
structure has in fact been a four-act structure all along?  It's not
going to shake the foundations of Hollywood.  But it might help
screenwriters fix stories that sag between pages 30 and 90 (in the
120-page paradigm).


                             p.1/120 
            REALM 1  .  .  .  . A .  .  .  .  REALM 4
            .                 * | *                 .
            .               *   |   *               .
            .             *     |     *             .
            .           *       |       *           .
            .         *         |         *         .
            .       *           |           *       .
            .     *             |             *     .
            .   *               |               *   .
            . *          ACT 1  |  ACT 4          * .
       p.30 B-------------------|-------------------D p.90
            . *          ACT 2  |  ACT 3          * .
            .   *               |               *   .
            .     *             |             *     .
            .       *           |           *       .
            .         *         |         *         .
            .           *       |       *           .
            .             *     |     *             .
            .               *   |   *               .
            .                 * | *                 .
            REALM 2  .  .  .  . C .  .  .  .  REALM 3
                              p.60

LEGEND:

        REALM 1         The hero's Ordinary World.  This is the realm
                        That the hero knows -- he knows the terrain
                        and how to live in it.  But here is just your
                        average Joe Public, although he displays hero
                        potential.

        REALM 2         The Netherworld.  This is the realm the novice
                        hero must pass through to reach the Kingdom of
                        Evil.  This territory is unknown, frightening
                        and wonderful.  Here, the hero is swept along
                        on an inexorable tide that leads to ...

        REALM 3         The Kingdom of Evil.  Here the forces of evil
                        are the masters.  This is their home turf,
                        where they are strongest.  The hero is gonna
                        have to be very clever to avoid capture.

        REALM 4         Back to the Netherworld.  Only now the hero
                        knows the rules and expectations of this
                        realm.  He'll need this knowledge to help him
                        evade the pursuit by the Bad Guys.

NOTES ON THE ACTS.

      - Each act is the reflection of it's opposite.  Realm 1 is the
        opposite of Realm 3, just as Realm 2 is the flipside of Realm
        4.  Where in Act One the hero feels relatively safe, secure,
        and in control, in Act Three he faces mortal danger,
        uncertainty, discomfort, etc.

      - In Act Four, the flight, the helpers of Act Two reverse to
        become hinderers (revealed to be agents of evil all along),
        the hinderers of Act Two reverse to become helpers
        (swapping sides to join the forces of good).

      - The development of the hero shows a similar opposition between
        Act 1 & 3 and Act 2 & 4.  In Act One the hero is a powerless
        orphan; in Act Three he has become a powerful warrior.  In Act
        Two he is a wanderer in the Netherworld, acting on his
        own behalf and being pulled or lead toward the domain of evil;
        by Act Four the hero has become a Martyr working for society,
        leading the way instead of following.

There is *nothing wrong* with working in four acts instead of three.
You still work with a beginning, middle, and end.  You still work with
ascending levels of conflict and crises.  It will only make your story
stronger by clarifying the middle of your story.

IWrite · Apr 27, 2005

I think the 3-act structure is a great paradigm for placement of your story's tentpole beats.

The one problem with the structure is that because the 2nd act is so long, often times scripts tend to sag in the 2nd act because writer's do not place enough beats between the tentpole ones.

It's important to be cognizant of this 2nd act danger zone and plot your action accordingly.

Optimus · Apr 27, 2005

Aristotle didn't invent the 3 act structure for drama. He merely made an observation after studying great stories; that every great story has a beginning, middle, and end (3 acts, as they later came to be called).

You can call them anything you want: hero's introduction and inciting incident, rising tension, and climax, etc.

Who cares?

EVERY dramatic story you tell, if told well, will comprise 3 parts, or acts.

You'll see various variations: 4 act (where the 2nd act in the 3 act structure is merely divided into acts 2 and 3), 9 act (where each of the 3 acts is now divided into 3 subacts), 12 act, 5 act (I think USC's MFA program teaches 5-act structure)...ad naseam.

It's all the same. But, some writers like to conceptualize the 3 act structure as smaller acts in order to help them better craft their story; it helps them to keep the tension of the plot points and story beats if they can subdivide them. Use whatever works.

If you write a good, well-crafted story, it'll follow the exact same bell curve that every great story does.

Beginning, Middle, End. You can plan, study, and manipulate the nuances any way you wish.

However, be mindful that traditional "three act structure" is the "language" of Hollywood.

So, if you ever get a meeting with the studio big whigs, or producers, or whatever, you'll need to understand the 3 act structure merely to be able to communicate your ideas to them effectively when articulating/discussing your story.

Sure, you can write your story any way you want (3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 120 acts...even though they're really fundamentally all the same), but when you're ready to sit down and talk to the people you need to talk to, you better be able to translate and articulate your "4 act vision" into the "3 act language" of Hollywood.

You'll often hear some wannabe "writers" whine about the "constraints" of the 3-act structure, or how it's "obsolete." 99% of these people are just crappy writers who are incapable of writing an effective story, therefore they blame their lack of talent on the 3-act structure, rather than the fact that they suck.

The remaining 1% who whine about it are just weirdos with delusions of eccentricity and supranatural insight.

So, 3-Act structure isn't a "type" of dramaturgical model; it's THE model. It doesn't limit or inhibit or constrain your story in any way. The only thing that limits or constrains your story is your writing ability....or lack thereof.

You'll find that if you write or read a great script and then analyze it, then it'll follow the 3-Act structure nearly perfectly (or 4, or 5, or however many acts your mind divides it into). Beginning, middle, and end.

It's just the natural, organic existence of drama.

3-Act structure is a way of analyzing great stories for discussion. It's sort of like versus in the Bible. They were only added so pedants could reference the passages more quickly in order to better argue about them. The Bible already contained passages and sections and sagas. Versus and chapters were merely added in order to better study the contents.

Same with drama. Every great story contains the same elements. 3-Act structure is merely a model which most accurately allows those elements to be discussed.

maestrowork · Apr 27, 2005

If a story is good/great, I don't even notice the three-act structure anymore. There are always the beginning, middle, and ending. Everything else is just variations.

Topcat136 · May 1, 2005

I agree... The more you write. The more the progression as the story grows the acts fall into place by themselves. It really shouldn't be "Alright, the first ten pages are so are done... that'll be my first act..." kind of thing. Especially when you are first writing it. Don't stop! Keep on going until its done. THat's what I do... Only looking for contintiuity errors at first. THat's when I find where the three act structure lands naturally and you can make it more agressive or less as you see fit. Sorry, I tend to ramble

JustinoXXV · May 1, 2005

"You'll often hear some wannabe "writers" whine about the "constraints" of the 3-act structure, or how it's "obsolete." 99% of these people are just crappy writers who are incapable of writing an effective story, therefore they blame their lack of talent on the 3-act structure, rather than the fact that they suck."

I knew a guy who made a film that he said didn't follow linear structure. So I said, "what on earth does that mean?" He replied to say his film didn't have a beginning, middle, and end. His film got rejected by every distributor and film festival in North America, Europe, and Asia.

So I'll agree with Opty's assestment.

zeprosnepsid · May 3, 2005

I read someone's theory once that humans are born with an inate understanding of three act structure. it's like part of human understand. odd, but possibly true. It resonates for a reason. I don't remember who said this though. Joseph Campbell or someone.

Can anyone think of some good movies that don't follow 3-act structure.

write4details · May 3, 2005

Very good point, but often overlooked, Optimus. This structure thing (like the protagonist theories and all the others) were "invented" not to create plays...but to discuss them. A very important point.

The uqibuitousness of this thing (like the Hero's Journey, or deconstruction or marxist-freuedean crit or whatever) is debatable. You argue with people and it's like...everything's like that. Well, it's hard to deny that all stories have a beginning, middle and ending. Or ANYTHING, actually. How usefull that is is hard to say.

Once people start drawing the graphs and listing the numbers and naming the components and asking if you have your threshold guardians and shapeshifters in line, you get into some dubious areas.

Counter to this 3structure thing (which is apparently vital to pay attention to, although evidently it is impossible to write anything that doesn't obey it) is another theory, which tends to be more from writers and from critics --the writer's mortal enemies. Namely....tell your story. Get your characters to live and let them start telling their stories. Round, polish, trim. And you end up with something. Instead of a bunch of graph paper.

There is no point in denying or arguing about three act structure. There is also no point in paying any real attention to it as a writer.

IWrite · May 3, 2005

Whether you use the 3 act structure to structure your plot or not - it is advisable to look at your finished product in that paradigm.

Because the 3 act structure is the conventional way scripts are constructed and thought about - it is also the language used when discussing story.

It is not uncommon in a pitch meeting to be asked about your inciting incident, first act turning point, mid-point etc - so it's best to have a clear idea which of your beats would represent those things. And with the inciting incident in particular it is important to understand what one is. If you don't know - then you are not ready to write a screenplay.

mead · May 5, 2005

I'll agree with IWrite, out of no butt kissing obligation, however out of experience. I've gotten into many creative mediums, photography, drawing, painting, song writing, guitar, screenwriting, and making movies in general. I used to jump into those things and scorn tradition, mostly because it was intimidating and an insult to creativity, that's the misconception, just because there is a basic formula set up already doesnt mean that only a completely inept and untalented person would follow it. The formula has been honed by extremely talented and creative peopel over years, its best to give it respect, and if you do choose to break it it should be done with respect to it. It is easier and more reasonable to deviate from a standard formula than try and fail constanly at crafting your own. The more you know the better. Unless you were a born writing, and I think you'd know if you were or not, you must learn about what you are getting yourself into.

Trey · May 6, 2005

here's a website that goes indepth into a 9 act structure and is all around pretty helpful:

http://www.dsiegel.com/film/Film_home.html

JustinoXXV · May 6, 2005

"Hi. My name is David Siegel. I didn't go to film school. I started writing scripts in 1986 when I worked at Lucasfilm, Ltd. in the computer graphics division that became Pixar. Since then I've written 7 scripts and haven't even tried to sell one yet because I'm still learning as a screenwriter."

David Siegel, the owner of that website, made those comments.

He has been writing since 1986, hasn't sold a script, yet he can come up with his own pet theories. Whatever.

If you want to seriously learn, learn from accomplished professionals. Read their books, mentor under them, take classes from them, get feedback from them,etc.

I'd say away from random websites.

Joe Calabrese · May 6, 2005

I took a peek and I'll say it's interesting but nothing new and earth shattering. He basically took the 3 acts (beginning middle and end) and gave each act a subdivision of the same 3 acts within each act.

Basically he's defining terms that are already existing. Every movie has three acts, every act has beginning a middle and an end as well as should every scene.

As for looking at theories that are not by professionals who haven't sold yet.

Oddly enough I watched just a few hours ago a documentary about this guy who had unorthodox and revolutionary idea in math and he wasn't a professor and even did poorly in school when attended. In fact he was just a patent clerk when he published his theory of general relativity. In case I have to spell it out, Albert Einstein was a nobody, but had a sound theory.

No harm in looking at other people theories and formulas (even the so-called crackpot theorists), just use it only if you agree with it, not because the author of such says it's the gospel.

I've read McKee and I consider his bantor total bull. I've read Syd and I find his stuff simplistic. However, I have taken some elements I found usefull and threw away the rest.

We're all adults and can look at other people's POV and decide for ourselves whether they are valid.

JustinoXXV · May 7, 2005

"No harm in looking at other people theories and formulas (even the so-called crackpot theorists), just use it only if you agree with it, not because the author of such says it's the gospel.

I've read McKee and I consider his bantor total bull. I've read Syd and I find his stuff simplistic. However, I have taken some elements I found usefull and threw away the rest.

We're all adults and can look at other people's POV and decide for ourselves whether they are valid."

Albert Eistein is a lone case and an extreme exception to the rule. If I wanted to learn how to be a doctor, I'd go to medical school. If I wanted to learn how to be a stockbroker, I'd get on the job training (it is the norm to be trained on the job). I wouldn't ask the guy working at McDonalds for advice.

If I wanted to be in the real estate business, I'd ask the advice of successful people in the business, read books on it, maybe take classes or sign up for certain training programs. I wouldn't ask for advice from someone who has rented for 20 years.

In almost every field, people have some sort of formal training, whether university classes, on the job training, etc. People are taught by experienced professionals.

The real film industry is the same way. People are taught by experienced professionals.

Only on internet boards can someone who has been writing so called spec scripts for nearly 20 years without a sale be given a moment's notice.

Now, when you do deal with professors or mentors, obviously not everything they say is the word handed from god. No one can know or be right about everything. However, an experienced industry professional overall is a much more credible and worthwhile source of info than someone who has a bunch of dusty 20 year old unsold specs.

There just isn't any comparasion.

Joe Calabrese · May 7, 2005

Of course seek professional guidance. I agree. Don't go to talk to the fry cook at McDonalds on learning the art of stock-brokering. But while standing in line waiting for your Big Mac, if you happen to hear the fry cook talking about macroeconomics to the cashier and you think to yourself, "This guy sounds interesting," then sure, go talk to him. No harm in listening, even if he isn't a professional.

And what does "professional" mean really? The number one best selling author and lecturer on screenwriting is Robert McKee. Why do so many people listen and read his stuff? For crying out loud, In the past 25 years the guy has only 2 writing credits (TV for that matter) and one is for Mrs. Columbo. Gimme a break.

And Syd Field-- Don't get me started, but I will say he has no screenwriting credits. None except some visual poem he is accredited with "concept by."

These so-called professionals are no more a pro than I am. Atleast I have a credit for a feature to my name and atleast I have current stuff in the works.

But again, don't listen to me. I'm not a professional. :Thumbs:

IWrite · May 7, 2005

joecalabre said:
And what does "professional" mean really? The number one best selling author and lecturer on screenwriting is Robert McKee. Why do so many people listen and read his stuff? For crying out loud, In the past 25 years the guy has only 2 writing credits (TV for that matter) and one is for Mrs. Columbo. Gimme a break.

And Syd Field-- Don't get me started, but I will say he has no screenwriting credits. None except some visual poem he is accredited with "concept by."

These so-called professionals.

Joe -

You may not like either McKee or Field but you are being a little inaccurate when you speak of them.

Field worked in development for years before writing his books. He read thousands of screenplays over that time - and worked with some very well-respected producers (i.e. David Wolper).

Robert McKee has a solid education in both theater and film. He's a fulbright scholar - so he ain't dumb.

Both of them have served as consultants for major producers on major projects. They both have the respect of the 'greenlighters' in this business.

Neither one is just some "guy with foundationless theories". Their theories came out of what they saw and learned working in the business. And if you look at the number of very successful screenwriters who have used their methods to write successful - not to mention fabulous screenplays - it's clear that by following their paradigms - you can create a structurally sound script - provided that you have the talent to back it up.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But there is a difference between any old opinion and informed ones. Mckee, Field, Linda Seger - have informed opinions. They have earned respect and my guess is that the majority of working writers, not to mention award winning writers - over the last few decades - have used these methods to structure their scripts. I don't know a working writer who doesn't have a copy of Screenplay on their shelf.

To lump McKee and Field together with some shlub with a website and an opinion - gives a skewed version of reality. Field et. al. have proven themselves - many times over. The same can't be said for the shlub.

Joe Calabrese · May 7, 2005

Although I can't stand McKee, I respect his contributions to the industry. Although I find Field outdated, I respect his work too.

My comments about McKee and Field were directed to those people who only look at credentials as a source of determining a professional status.

Education, as well as practical working experience, and sound theories can do that as well.

I want to remind everyone that I am not defending the guy with 9 acts. In my earlier post I did say it wasn't anything special and was in fact a variation on the three act structure. But even though I didn't find it useful, I won't unequivocally tell someone to close their eyes and ears to anyone who doesn't have credentials but may still offer good advice. I would warn of the dangers, but let them ultimately decide on their own.

IWrite · May 7, 2005

joecalabre said:
Although I can't stand McKee, I respect his contributions to the industry. Although I find Field outdated, I respect his work too.

I found McKee to be a pompous a** but he did have some good things to say and I still find myself turning to my notes from his seminar on occasion, along with the books on my shelf. I find Field's basic paradigm on structure to be sound I don't find it outdated in the least. As has been pointed out the concept of the 3-Act structure goes back to Aristotle. I don't think the idea of the first act turning point has lost any resonance after 25 years.

joecalabre said:
I want to remind everyone that I am not defending the guy with 9 acts. In my earlier post I did say it wasn't anything special and was in fact a variation on the three act structure. But even though I didn't find it useful, I won't unequivocally tell someone to close their eyes and ears to anyone who doesn't have credentials but may still offer good advice. I would warn of the dangers, but let them ultimately decide on their own.

I'm not slamming the 9 act guy any more than you're defending him. But I do believe when you are trying to learning the craft - when you are trying to understand the concept of structure - it is wise to limit the number of opinions you hear - as opposed to seeking out every damn opinion there is. Once you understand the basics - then you can explore more. But during the initial learning stage - it's best to stick with one method - and when seeking out that method - I highly recommend going with an established, proven professional.

zeprosnepsid · May 9, 2005

That guy's 9 act looks a lot like 3 act to me.

Joe Calabrese · May 9, 2005

That's what I said.

zagoraz · May 9, 2005

"Mckee's a Fulbright scholar, Charles. Are you a Fulbright scholar?"

Sorry I couldn't resist. I just watched Adaptation yesterday.

berkus · May 10, 2005

For my 2 cents: McKee is the man. Just about everything he says rings true.

He has a section on 3-act structure in his book and (I think) he uses "Leaving Las Vegas" as an example of a 1-act movie. He says 3 acts are not mandatory, just what makes sense to keep people interested for an hour and a half.

Mightypen71 · May 11, 2005

Has anyone seen my 18-act structure idea I've been pushing? It's the new norm! It will rock your world ... er, maybe not.

Seriously, at first I thought McKee was full of it. Didn't get some of the devices. Felt everything constricted my creativity. But after several more readings of his book and after 20 or so failed projects where I let my creativity go bezerk, I have now found his thoughts extremely effective.

I think most plays naturally fall into 3-acts unless the writer purposely goes another route. It's just natural, I believe.

zeprosnepsid · May 11, 2005

Well musicals are usually two acts are they not? I was just watching the Phantom of the Opera movie yesterday and it was so definite. Annnndddd...end act 1! They couldn't get rid of it even in trying to make a 3-act structure movie. It was really obvious. I think in two act they usually set up the story and the conflict in the first act and then come back in the second after, often after time has past, in order for everything to boil over.

Three-act structure...

Fear the Death Ray

Trey

berkus