Can someone please explain the different act structures and give examples?

[gibbo]

Hi guys,

I've been looking for some clear cut definitions and examples of the different act structures for film but I can't find many explanations in lamens terms. I've found some information but they all seem to have an assumed level of knowledge of which I have next to none.

Is there an FAQ, sticky or any sort of other in depth explanations with examples, and I guess more importantly, "the rules" of the different kinds of act structures floating around, aimed at newbies?

I really would love to be able to dissect a movie while I watch it and know what's what, what's going on and when it's suppose to happen. I can do this for almost all Romantic Comedies as they are generally very formulaic. It's just not always clear for me, I was sure Cool Hand Luke was a two act structure but apparently its 3 act. And Scarface was a two act structure when I thought it was 3.

Anyhoo, I think I know a bit about the rules of the three act structure, but this is all pretty much observations on my part and is probably wrong:

- Act 1 is the set up, 2 is the conflict and 3 is the resolution
- Generally act 2 is twice as long as 1 and 3
- Using a stock standard 2 hour movie as an example: Act 1 would last 30 minutes, with an "event" at about 10 or 15 minutes in that sets the tone of the movie and a glimpse of the conflict, then at about 30 minutes something happens that introduces the actual conflict which starts act 2: A plot twist or something. Act 2 lasts for about 1 hour, IE: the protagonsit searching for someone or something. Then, at the end of act 2 there is some form of "extreme low" for the protaganist, IE: kidnappened, down and out, love interest gone for good etc. Then act 3 starts which is the resolution which builds up to the finale! IE: Protagonist beating the antagonist, find true love etc.

Here is an example of what I think a 3 act structure is using Winter's Bone, it's one movie that I'm sure has a very clear and defined 3 act structure and one of the few that I can dissect:

Don't read if you haven't watched it, there are spoilers!

Spoiler

Act 1 introduces the characters and the sparseness of the landscape etc. About 10 minutes in that guy comes and looks for her Dad (the event that sets the tone of the movie: Missing Dad) Then at the end of act 1 she starts looking for her Dad, this is the beginning of act 2. She then spends act 2 looking for him, getting told lies, wild goose chases etc. Then, she gets held against her will and beat up which is the end of act 2 (protagonist extreme low), Then act 3 begins and with her perseverence she is led to her Dad's "grave".

I'm so sorry for the length of the post, it's just that I really want to understand the different kinds of Act Structures for films as I see it as being instrumental in writing a decent screenplay, I doubt I will even attempt to write one without a sound understanding of this knowledge.

Thanks a lot for reading, and thanks in advance for the replies!

 

[Dreadylocks]

In the premiere section here on IT there is a great, thorough-but-basic explanation. That alone is worth the 25 bucks, IMO.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Actually, it sounds to me like you've got it figured out pretty well.

I'm a fan of Blake Snyder's "Save the Cat". As a disclaimer, I should mention that it's the only book I've ever read on screenwriting, so I'm obviously no authority on this matter, and I'm not saying it's the best book out there. But I will say that I think it made me a better screenwriter.

Anyway, he talks about the "thesis", the "antithesis", and the "synthesis". In the first act, the world is normal, the same as it's always been. This is the thesis. Somewhere in the first act, however, something happens that causes our hero to enter a world that is completely opposite. In the 2nd act, everything is turned on it's head, the antithesis. In the 3rd act, the synthesis, the two worlds from acts 1 and 2 collide, and everything that was wrong with the world in act 1 is made better, because of the ways that our hero has transformed while he/she was dalying about the bizarro-world of act 2.

Uhh, that sounds kind of confusing, the way I wrote it. Snyder explains it much better than I do.

Also, ever since reading his book, I kind of see every film as kind-of having 4 acts, actually. Because the 2nd act definitely has two distinct sections, and the entire movie rests upon the midpoint. The midpoint is crucial, and it's in basically ALL movies.

 

[Murdock]

Maybe this will help.

It for the three act form. Check in my blog I have another post that list some other along with a brief outline.



http://www.indietalk.com/blog.php?b=112

 

[FrankLad]

I'll second "Save The Cat". Very straightforward - and humorous - read.

It sorta changed the way I think about writing, and how I watch movies.
Or at least, I tend to look out for the common "beats" now. (Blake made the case that there are 15 essential beats in most any movie.)

http://www.blakesnyder.com/downloads/beatsheet.doc

 

[FrankLad]

There's also John Truby's "The Anatomy of Story", though I'd say it's a bit more intense on the theory side than "Save The Cat".

 

[gibbo]

Thanks for the replies guys, I've taken the advice and just ordered Save the Cat. I have Robert McKee's Story, but I didn't finish reading that one, I will soon though. I wanted something a bit more light-hearted.

What about 2 act structures?

Actually, it sounds to me like you've got it figured out pretty well.

I'm a fan of Blake Snyder's "Save the Cat". As a disclaimer, I should mention that it's the only book I've ever read on screenwriting, so I'm obviously no authority on this matter, and I'm not saying it's the best book out there. But I will say that I think it made me a better screenwriter.

Anyway, he talks about the "thesis", the "antithesis", and the "synthesis". In the first act, the world is normal, the same as it's always been. This is the thesis. Somewhere in the first act, however, something happens that causes our hero to enter a world that is completely opposite.

Is this referring to the end of act 1/beginning of act 2 or the other "event" that I was talking about at around 10 or 15 minutes in?

In the 2nd act, everything is turned on it's head, the antithesis.

Umm... is this the beginning of act 2?

In the 3rd act, the synthesis, the two worlds from acts 1 and 2 collide, and everything that was wrong with the world in act 1 is made better, because of the ways that our hero has transformed while he/she was dalying about the bizarro-world of act 2.

Uhh, that sounds kind of confusing, the way I wrote it. Snyder explains it much better than I do.

Also, ever since reading his book, I kind of see every film as kind-of having 4 acts, actually. Because the 2nd act definitely has two distinct sections, and the entire movie rests upon the midpoint. The midpoint is crucial, and it's in basically ALL movies.

Hmm, interesting... this book sounds good!

Maybe this will help.

It for the three act form. Check in my blog I have another post that list some other along with a brief outline.

http://www.indietalk.com/blog.php?b=112

Thanks for that.. I wonder if you could give a little example of a popular well known movie? If not it's ok!

I'll second "Save The Cat". Very straightforward - and humorous - read.

It sorta changed the way I think about writing, and how I watch movies.
Or at least, I tend to look out for the common "beats" now. (Blake made the case that there are 15 essential beats in most any movie.)

http://www.blakesnyder.com/downloads/beatsheet.doc

Thanks, I cant wait for this book.

There's also John Truby's "The Anatomy of Story", though I'd say it's a bit more intense on the theory side than "Save The Cat".

I might have a look at it after I read Save the Cat

 

[rayw]

 

[Murdock]

Thanks for that.. I wonder if you could give a little example of a popular well known movie? If not it's ok!

For 3 act form?? Just about any movie made. E.T., The Predator, The Piano, 7 Samurai, La Femme Nakita, TWiNs etc etc

 

[FantasySciFi]

I've been looking for some clear cut definitions and examples of the different act structures for film but I can't find many explanations in lamens terms. I've found some information but they all seem to have an assumed level of knowledge of which I have next to none.

Is there an FAQ, sticky or any sort of other in depth explanations with examples, and I guess more importantly, "the rules" of the different kinds of act structures floating around, aimed at newbies?

The idea of "rules" should be understood as "guidelines". Sometimes a good screenwriter will 'break' a rule to good effect. For new writers, though, it helps to have guides to follow. Academic screenwriters will discuss (read argue) about the necessity of (or not) for various features. I tend to like to keep it simple. Michael Hauge presents a very simple clean exposition which follows what I'll call the UCLA approach to the 3 Act structure. Hal Ackerman also provides a clean layout scheme. Snyder's tends to fall in the 'post-modernist discourse analysis approach'--thesis/antithesis/synthesis. All are different ways of talking about the same beast. This was talked about in another thread: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=30110 (I included a couple videos links that talk about this.)

The idea of 'acts' is more like the question of writing 'chapters' in a story. What makes up one complete action? 'Scenes' are like the sentences. The final sentence of the paragraph acts as a transition. The final paragraph of a chapter should have you wanting to turn the page.

Some examples I've posted in other threads:

A Scene (or 'paragraph'):

It is often hard, but as a writer, we often have the back story in our own head. So we are not naive viewers of our own stories. That does not mean you have to give elaborate explanation up front. You can recall through dialogue or flashback information that the audience can hook into later.

SCENE = CONTEXT + ACTION + DIRECTION
(why are they here) + (what are they doing) + (what happens as a result)

If it's my favorite movie and my favorite scene, again, I know the movie, the characters, and the dynamics. I don't think the scene would has as much meaning if I just jumped into the middle for the first time.

"Luke, I am your father" -- Big deal. Who's Luke? Who's the guy in black? Why not rule as father and son? What's the kid's problem?
"These are not the droids you are looking for." -- Ok. Why is this old guy waving his hand? Secret code?

Especially for emotionally intense scenes, the audience needs to know and be invested in the characters to actually care. At least as deeply as we care since we've created them and mentally lived their back story.

Using a Six-Act Breakout:

Everyone here has different techniques which work for them. Some use index cards, others just start writing. My advice is that film tells a story. So rather than worrying immediately about characters and description, write a one page version of your story. Getting the idea onto paper (or computer) is the first step.

"A boy sees a girl across the street, and he falls instantly in love. He goes to cross the street but the lights are against him. He sees her get on the bus and his heart falls. He grabs a pen and writes the bus number and time of day on this palm. He goes back the next day a half hour early to see if she is there again. She doesn't show. He's disappointed. The bus pulls up and leaves. Just then the girl comes running up and is upset because she was running late. ...."

At this point, I'm not sure how I want it to end. I haven't really thought about the boy or girl. But I've started my story going. At this point, I would break it up into the "6 Act Model". Put a header on six index cards or sheets of paper. What I'm going to talk about can be found at Michael Hauge's site: http://www.screenplaymastery.com/structure.htm

Act 1 - Set Up (introduce the characters and situation)
Act 2 - Introduce a New Situation and a Complication
Act 3 - Formulate a Plan of Action to Succeed (character throws self in headlong)
Act 4 - More Complications and Higher Stakes (usually a major setback)
Act 5 - Final Push to Succeed with it looking unlikely (suspenseful moment, climax)
Act 6 - Resolution and the Ever After

I would go through and put the elements of my story above onto the index cards under the headings

Act 1 - Set Up (introduce the characters and situation)
A boy sees a girl across the street, and he falls instantly in love.

Act 2 - Introduce a New Situation and a Complication
He goes to cross the street but the lights are against him. He sees her get on the bus and his heart falls.

Act 3 - Formulate a Plan of Action to Succeed (character throws self in headlong)
He grabs a pen and writes the bus number and time of day on this palm. He goes back the next day a half hour early to see if she is there again.

Act 4 - More Complications and Higher Stakes (usually a major setback)
She doesn't show. He's disappointed. The bus pulls up and leaves.

Act 5 - Final Push to Succeed with it looking unlikely (suspenseful moment, climax)
Just then the girl comes running up and is upset because she was running late.

Act 6 - Resolution and the Ever After
??? Maybe, I'll have him small talk with her. They hit it off and go grab a cup of coffee.

Now I can go back and add details and think about dialogue. The structure of the film is in place. I want it to be a bit more robust so,

Act 1 - Set Up (introduce the characters and situation)
A boy sees a girl across the street, and he falls instantly in love.
- The boy is dressed in a giant Hotdog suit advertising for the deli behind him.
- The girl sees the giant hotdog and flashes one of those "you're adorable" smiles.

At this point you simply start writing the script. You don't need CeltX or fancy software. Just a plain old Word works fine. There are lots of sites that give you more detailed formating guidelines. Just one is
http://www.storysense.com/format.htm . But there are lots of resources, some even posted by others earlier.

If you create more complex movies, you will need to learn about character roles. There is a post by Rockstar that talks about those. Books by Syd Field are good. Also, I highly recommend getting a copy of Trottier's book on screenwriting.

A good film tells a good story. While I don't agree with everything Robert McKee says, he is right in that it all comes down to story. The best way is to just start putting your ideas down.

PS: I am not advocating following a rigid formula. I am suggesting that starting out it helps to have a template to focus thinking about your story ideas. Over time, you'll find your own voice and style. In the Hauge article, he is generalizing. Please don't take his percentages literally so you break your pages accordingly. By the middle of your story, you should be at the top of the rollercoaster. Have fun!

And you asked:

I really would love to be able to dissect a movie while I watch it and know what's what, what's going on and when it's suppose to happen. I can do this for almost all Romantic Comedies as they are generally very formulaic. It's just not always clear for me, I was sure Cool Hand Luke was a two act structure but apparently its 3 act. And Scarface was a two act structure when I thought it was 3.

Everything we've discussed in based on linear stories. Non-linear stories throws that whole scheme out and plays by new rules--Memento, Irreversible, etc. That was discussed in a recent thread: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=31938

It's important to understand that the screenplay has three elements: format, structure, and story. We often hear "form and function", that is the relationship between structure and story. To analyze movies by 'forcing them' into an act structure such that events happen at a specific time, you miss the point. Statistically, it happens at certain points. In my experience there are only two and a half structural rules that are almost universally observed despite linear/non-linear movies:

1. In the first 10-20 minutes, you must introduce the major players in a way that makes the audience care what happens to them (love or hate) and present the driving theme behind the movie.

2. Every 5-15 minutes (10 on average), you have to have something happen that hooks the audience's attention.

3. The last 5-15 minutes must wrap up the subjective storyline. (this is part-story rule)

Everything else is up for grabs. After setting up the 'inciting event' (the end of act one), everything else races towards the end. If it goes up in action it must come back down (leading to 3+ acts). If the inciting incident is the peak, it may look like it has only two acts.

It is hard to dissect out story rules from the structural rules. That's why there is often academic debate. Structure is influenced by the story but is not the same, and vice versa. A non-linear story can have multiple imbedded linear stories.

As a new writer, take and master a three act format of your choosing after having read, studied, etc. various viewpoints. And write. As an reader/analyst, do the same. And also read older scripts. You'll find them far less formulaic and challenging to "classify". Genre influences structure and story.

You ask good questions, but there isn't a lot of consensus on the answers. Even regarding formatting. What you will find as you dig deeper is that produced screenwriters are more likely (and able) to break 'the rules' than those starting out.

 

[gibbo]

http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab352/rewriteitagain/ScriptStructure.jpg[/IM][/QUOTE]

Cool, thanks for that. I assume that's from Save The Cat? I doesn't really make sense to me at all looking at it but I'm sure it will after I read the book!

[QUOTE="Murdock, post: 195001, member: 16608"]For 3 act form?? Just about any movie made. E.T., The Predator, The Piano, 7 Samurai, La Femme Nakita, TWiNs etc etc[/QUOTE]

What I actually meant was: Using that paradigm could you quickly fill it out using, say Predator as an example? So I can go back and re-watch it (Due for a re-watch anyway!) and consciously look for the event happening (I'd probably print out the model and have it with me while watching)

I'm the kind of learner that needs an example to learn something...

[QUOTE="FantasySciFi, post: 195002, member: 17734"]The idea of "rules" should be understood as "guidelines". Sometimes a good screenwriter will 'break' a rule to good effect. For new writers, though, it helps to have guides to follow. Academic screenwriters will discuss (read argue) about the necessity of (or not) for various features. I tend to like to keep it simple. Michael Hauge presents a very simple clean exposition which follows what I'll call the UCLA approach to the 3 Act structure. Hal Ackerman also provides a clean layout scheme. Snyder's tends to fall in the 'post-modernist discourse analysis approach'--thesis/antithesis/synthesis. All are different ways of talking about the same beast. This was talked about in another thread: [url]http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=30110[/url] (I included a couple videos links that talk about this.)

The idea of 'acts' is more like the question of writing 'chapters' in a story. What makes up one complete action? 'Scenes' are like the sentences. The final sentence of the paragraph acts as a transition. The final paragraph of a chapter should have you wanting to turn the page.

Some examples I've posted in other threads:

A Scene (or 'paragraph'):


Using a Six-Act Breakout:


And you asked:


Everything we've discussed in based on linear stories. Non-linear stories throws that whole scheme out and plays by new rules--Memento, Irreversible, etc. That was discussed in a recent thread: [url]http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=31938[/url]

It's important to understand that the screenplay has three elements: format, structure, and story. We often hear "form and function", that is the relationship between structure and story. To analyze movies by 'forcing them' into an act structure such that events happen at a specific time, you miss the point. Statistically, it happens at certain points. In my experience there are only two and a half structural rules that are almost universally observed despite linear/non-linear movies:

1. In the first 10-20 minutes, you must introduce the major players in a way that makes the audience care what happens to them (love or hate) and present the driving theme behind the movie.

2. Every 5-15 minutes (10 on average), you have to have something happen that hooks the audience's attention.

3. The last 5-15 minutes must wrap up the subjective storyline. (this is part-story rule)

Everything else is up for grabs. After setting up the 'inciting event' (the end of act one), everything else races towards the end. If it goes up in action it must come back down (leading to 3+ acts). If the inciting incident is the peak, it may look like it has only two acts.

It is hard to dissect out story rules from the structural rules. That's why there is often academic debate. Structure is influenced by the story but is not the same, and vice versa. A non-linear story can have multiple imbedded linear stories.

As a new writer, take and master a three act format of your choosing after having read, studied, etc. various viewpoints. And write. As an reader/analyst, do the same. And also read older scripts. You'll find them far less formulaic and challenging to "classify". Genre influences structure and story.

You ask good questions, but there isn't a lot of consensus on the answers. Even regarding formatting. What you will find as you dig deeper is that produced screenwriters are more likely (and able) to break 'the rules' than those starting out.[/QUOTE]

Wow, what a post! Thanks!

With that 6 act breakout example, is that just for 1 scene in a movie or a whole feature length film?

It seems like, using the example you gave anyway, that it's for either a scene, sequence or at the most an act.

And referring to this:

[quote]1. In the first 10-20 minutes, you must introduce the major players in a way that makes the audience care what happens to them (love or hate) and present the driving theme behind the movie.

2. Every 5-15 minutes (10 on average), you have to have something happen that hooks the audience's attention.

3. The last 5-15 minutes must wrap up the subjective storyline. (this is part-story rule)[/quote]

You wouln't say that the midpoint is as crucial as CrackerFunk said?

I think the midpoint in Winter's Bone was very noticeable, much like the rest of the film. Going from memory: [SPOILER]I remember the girls Uncle (the guy helping her look for her Dad), saying something like "Once you start this you can't give up"[/SPOILER] or something like that, I just can't remember if that was in the middle or not?

 

[Cracker Funk]

You wouln't say that the midpoint is as crucial as CrackerFunk said?

I hate to just constantly reference the same author, but he's my only source material. Anyway, Snyder talks about how the midpoint must be a false-high, or a false-low. And if you pay attention to pretty much any movie you ever watch, right about halfway though the movie, everything either looks like it's going perfectly to plan, or the exact opposite. False-high/false-low. I definitely believe in the importance of hanging your movie on the magical midpoint.

 

[Murdock]

What I actually meant was: Using that paradigm could you quickly fill it out using, say Predator as an example? So I can go back and re-watch it (Due for a re-watch anyway!) and consciously look for the event happening (I'd probably print out the model and have it with me while watching)

I'm the kind of learner that needs an example to learn something...

I guess so.

Lets try Pedator cause it should be simple. I might not be spot on because I'm going from memory.

PREDATOR

ACT ONE
The Hook-We see the Arnold and companyariving by helicopter to a secret looking base. Dutch has a cryptic conco with Dillon.

The Complication- Dutch's team learns that the "real" mission was for intel not recue.

The Hero's Call to Action- The team has to get to the extraction point

First Act Plot Point- Cooper gets his guts blown out by the alien. Team recognises it isn't a normal weapon that did it.

ACT TWO

Hero's Goal- They really want to get to the chopper.

Midpoint Plot Point- Mac sees the alien and goes after it. Dillon follows.

Act Two Plot Point- They are running to the extractionpoint when Sonny decides to have a reckoning with the alien. We hear him die and know the alien is hot on their trail.

ACT THREE

Hero's Goal- Dutch leads the alien away from the others

Climax and Resolution- Dutch and the alien prepare for the final show down. Then they have it out.
Dutch wins.

I thinks that's pretty close someone else might want to chime in.

 

[NickClapper]

I hate to just constantly reference the same author, but he's my only source material. Anyway, Snyder talks about how the midpoint must be a false-high, or a false-low. And if you pay attention to pretty much any movie you ever watch, right about halfway though the movie, everything either looks like it's going perfectly to plan, or the exact opposite. False-high/false-low. I definitely believe in the importance of hanging your movie on the magical midpoint.

Right, this is actually true of a lot of the traditional screen writing theorists.

Most would say that roughly in the middle there should be a point where things look as though they've been resolved. It looks like everyone is going to be happy, get their own way, be safe...etc, but then the shit hits the fan again which leads to the build up to the climactic finale.

Think about in Die Hard when John McClane manages to contact the police and alert them to the takeover of the building, gets to the roof, kills some of the stooges...etc and things look like they've been resolved. Can't remember what happens next exactly but I remember more ass kicking in the second half...

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

I used to be a freelance writer, and wrote some screenplay studies years back that break down some major movies.

Here's one for "The Matrix":

http://www.uncleanarts.com/writing/tutorial/tutorialmatrix1.htm

If there's interest, I also did one for "The Truman Show" which I can post.

 

[FantasySciFi]

With that 6 act breakout example, is that just for 1 scene in a movie or a whole feature length film?

It's a breakout for the whole film. Snyder's, Ackerman's, and Hauge's can sit like transparencies over the top of each other. Really there's nothing new about their layout.

You wouln't say that the midpoint is as crucial as CrackerFunk said?

It's true for most modern, action driven movies. Snyder and the UCLA school tend to look at linear story telling. In those cases, I'd agree. However, for non-linear stories, the halfway point doesn't necessarily mean anything. It's difficult to parse a Woody Allen film using the scheme. Whether you love it or hate it, the "Blair Witch Project" doesn't easily fit the standard scheme. Older movies tend to also break at different points. Movies that incorporate dance or music often have different pacing.

The magic midpoint can come anywhere in "Act Two", not just the midpoint of a linear movie which is the most common. Again it's a statistical truth that gets reinforced by following it as a pattern. However, indie voices do sometimes innovate. And thus, the industry productions shift.

The magic midpoint often falls on one of those recurring 10 minute action hooks. So usually between 30-50 minutes into a film, a significant action sequence happens. Is it guaranteed to happen midpoint? No. Does it say something about a film's quality if it doesn't happen? No. Does it affect its marketability to the audience? No. Look at the commercial success of "Jackass". I'd be hard pressed to put that into an act structure. However, the action segments tend to fall every 10 minutes or so. I don't think the half way point in Usual Suspects provides any assistance in appreciating the rest of the film.

My caveat with academic screenwriting is that we all pull out examples to justify our conclusions. And new, clever screenwriters/movie makers make films that challenge those assumptions. The only truths I've observed are: (1) make compelling characters, (2) keep the action flowing, and (3) provide a satisfying resolution to your story's theme. That doesn't mean the analyses are useless. Quite the contrary, they help give a framework for constructing movies from deconstructing films. But by analogy, if you only look at the 'deconstructed' architectural plans for casinos and cathedrals, it doesn't help building other structures like schools or airports. That requires breaking rules and thinking in new directions.

The "typical" format can look at * 1 * 2 * 3 * form. If you count the *s as part of the theme, you have seven segments. Theorists will say the first and last stars are only "half" so you have:
8 page intro, 15 pages set up, 15 page inciting incident, 15 page midpoint, 15 page collapse, 15 page turnaround, and the 7 page conclusion.

Or they may 'lump stars'. (1 *)( 2 *)( 3 *) [= 3 Acts or 6 Acts)] Or (* 1) * (2) * (3 *) [=5 Acts] Or * 1 * 2 * 3 * [= 7 Acts], etc.
One reviewer had identified 17 key points in a movie!

Suddenly, script writing degenerates into justifying mathematical divisions--seriously formulaic! That's why I argue to keep it simple: Act 1 - introduction/setup Act 2 - action/drama Act 3 - resolution. Hauge helps to divide these three acts into two sub parts. I could argue that each of these three acts actually has three sub-parts. But that puts you back in the muddy waters that prompted your original question.

If it is a modern, linear, action story, yes, it likely has a midpoint turning point. Because new screenwriters are taught there has to be one. Outside of those three parameters, it's probable though not guaranteed.

 

[Cracker Funk]

It's a breakout for the whole film. Snyder's, Ackerman's, and Hauge's can sit like transparencies over the top of each other. Really there's nothing new about their layout.


It's true for most modern, action driven movies. Snyder and the UCLA school tend to look at linear story telling. In those cases, I'd agree. However, for non-linear stories, the halfway point doesn't necessarily mean anything. It's difficult to parse a Woody Allen film using the scheme. Whether you love it or hate it, the "Blair Witch Project" doesn't easily fit the standard scheme. Older movies tend to also break at different points. Movies that incorporate dance or music often have different pacing.

The magic midpoint can come anywhere in "Act Two", not just the midpoint of a linear movie which is the most common. Again it's a statistical truth that gets reinforced by following it as a pattern. However, indie voices do sometimes innovate. And thus, the industry productions shift.

The magic midpoint often falls on one of those recurring 10 minute action hooks. So usually between 30-50 minutes into a film, a significant action sequence happens. Is it guaranteed to happen midpoint? No. Does it say something about a film's quality if it doesn't happen? No. Does it affect its marketability to the audience? No. Look at the commercial success of "Jackass". I'd be hard pressed to put that into an act structure. However, the action segments tend to fall every 10 minutes or so. I don't think the half way point in Usual Suspects provides any assistance in appreciating the rest of the film.

My caveat with academic screenwriting is that we all pull out examples to justify our conclusions. And new, clever screenwriters/movie makers make films that challenge those assumptions. The only truths I've observed are: (1) make compelling characters, (2) keep the action flowing, and (3) provide a satisfying resolution to your story's theme. That doesn't mean the analyses are useless. Quite the contrary, they help give a framework for constructing movies from deconstructing films. But by analogy, if you only look at the 'deconstructed' architectural plans for casinos and cathedrals, it doesn't help building other structures like schools or airports. That requires breaking rules and thinking in new directions.

The "typical" format can look at * 1 * 2 * 3 * form. If you count the *s as part of the theme, you have seven segments. Theorists will say the first and last stars are only "half" so you have:
8 page intro, 15 pages set up, 15 page inciting incident, 15 page midpoint, 15 page collapse, 15 page turnaround, and the 7 page conclusion.

Or they may 'lump stars'. (1 *)( 2 *)( 3 *) [= 3 Acts or 6 Acts)] Or (* 1) * (2) * (3 *) [=5 Acts] Or * 1 * 2 * 3 * [= 7 Acts], etc.
One reviewer had identified 17 key points in a movie!

Suddenly, script writing degenerates into justifying mathematical divisions--seriously formulaic! That's why I argue to keep it simple: Act 1 - introduction/setup Act 2 - action/drama Act 3 - resolution. Hauge helps to divide these three acts into two sub parts. I could argue that each of these three acts actually has three sub-parts. But that puts you back in the muddy waters that prompted your original question.

If it is a modern, linear, action story, yes, it likely has a midpoint turning point. Because new screenwriters are taught there has to be one. Outside of those three parameters, it's probable though not guaranteed.

I agree with a great deal of what you're saying. And before I respond, let me assure you that I of course do not intend this as any kind of confrontational argument. I think this is a very healthy exchange of ideas.

You mention "academic" screenwriting, and I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's true of any and all art-forms that you risk ruining the art by over-intellectualizing it. Artistic expression just has to come from the gut, for lack of a better phrase, and screenwriting is no exception.

I keep referencing Snyder, for example, and in my opinion, much of his teachings are just WAY TOO formulaic. But it's only formulaic if you take it in that way. I don't see his formula as something I have to follow, but it does give me plenty to think about.

Now, on the issue of the midpoint, actually, I think it's existence is a lot more prevalent then you're recognizing. "Jackass" isn't narrative storytelling, so that doesn't count. But "Usual Suspects"? I'd have to watch it again, but I feel pretty strongly that I'd be able to pinpoint a definite midpoint. It might not come at exactly the halfway point, but I'll bet it's pretty damn close.

To go back to what I mentioned earlier, I really do believe in the false-high/false-low. I believe in it in the sense that I think it makes sense for good storytelling. And I believe in it's existence, in the sense that I see it all over the place.

Side-note question: I could start a new thread, but actually I think the people in this thread are the ones I mostly want to hear from (because I believe very much in the traditional 3-act arc, and I want to read an author who discusses that). Anyway, it's time for me to branch-out. Need to read another good book on screenwriting. Favorite suggestions?

 

[CamVader]

Some really excellent information here.

 

[brianluce]

You pretty much have it. Now, start writing!

 

[NickClapper]

Having just watched The Tree of Life I'm tempted to mail a copy of Save The Cat to Terrence Malick... If I could only get hold of his address...

But more seriously- Looking at screenwriting in this way is the right and proper thing to do, it's how you learn. But you need to take it out of your mind when you're actually writing. I aaas watching Atonement the other day with a 1st AC and he was going out about how perfect the shots were but how the whole thing felt kind of clinical and frigid.

I only half agree because I think Atonement is a good film, but it's a film in which filmmaking rules are applied and abided by. In that sense Joe Wright is a very cautious director. Talented, yes, but everything he does has been well documented since the start of filmmaking.

Back to writing- the reason the three act formula came about is that it's the natural way of telling stories. Even jokes have three act structures (An Irishman, an Englishman and a Scotsman walk not a bar...) and so does every parable in the Bible. If you have a story to tell and you know where it starts, where it ends and where it goes in between, chances are when you write it down it will be structured correctly for a three act structure.

Academic screenwriting can break things down into 3,12,30...etc acts but this is designed for looking at films not for writing screenplays. Theories like Snyder's should really be applied to films after they're written so that you can nod your head and go 'yes, this film follows a very traditional structure...' . They're not meant to be read whilst you're writing so that you can tick boxes and make sure that your hero has a false high, a moment of realization and a final reveal.

Read screenwriting books whilst you're watching and studying films. Then when you're not watching and studying films, write your screenplay.