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!

 

[Cracker Funk]

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...

Yeah, I've heard the movie bucks traditional storytelling. In one way, that excites me, and in another way, it worries me. I'm going to do my best to give it a fair chance.

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.

Well stated. I agree, full-heartedly.

EDIT: I'm sorry to be so flippy-floppy, but in the last couple minutes I realized that though I strongly agree with your sentiment, I can't say I actually subscribe to it. I'm being self-contradictory, I know. When screenwriting, I DO make sure that we have a proper midpoint, and in fact, I'm currently trying to decide if the midpoint in my next feature should be a false-high or a false-low (still brainstorming, not yet writing).

 

[FantasySciFi]

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.

I believe we are in agreement. What I wanted to distinguish here was that "acts" are about Structure, not the Story. Form and function. Does the car engine have to be in the front of the car? Could it be in the middle of the vehicle? What about ships or helicopters? Or even hovercars or construction equipment? Where are they in dragsters? Placement and purpose influence each other.

An increasing trend is to put the climax first, then flashback and build up to that point, then continue forward with the resolution. The non-linear presentation can shift the climax after the midpoint. Separating presentation (structure) from plotline (story) is the part that blurs the line.

Every Story, you're right, needs to have that pivotal moment--whether movie or fairytale. Usually, that falls at the midpoint or very close to it. I liken story action to rollercoasters. Usually around the middle of the ride, you hit the high point and the racing down from that is exciting. High energy can come from the triumph/defeat of the driving goal for the story. For some written stories, that comes at the 2/3rds mark with the last minute sprint to the end. Others set the tragedy up front (1/3) and it's a matter of watching the trainwreck play out.

I certainly agree this is not an issue of right or wrong. Sometimes I think the advice given by "gurus" is taken too literally, as a checklist. I agree with you: As a Story rule, there must be a climax event: false-high or false-low. Structure-wise, I feel it simply needs to happen in "Act 2", however defined, since the rest of the action flows downward. Statistically that's in the middle. I'm not convinced that artistically a writer should restrict themselves to making it dead center. As a learning model, I think it helps provide a useful gauge. However, it may happen 10 pages on either side of middle, depending on the story's needs.

My concern is more with the idea of predicting the story from its structure. That level of formulaic predictability saps the entire creativity from the whole process in my opinion. Structure is simply a framework upon which the story is displayed. Television episodes are highly structured around commercial breaks, but the stories can be very different. "Acts" help establish flow, not content. In that sense, they facilitate good storytelling.

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

My concern is more with the idea of predicting the story from its structure. That level of formulaic predictability saps the entire creativity from the whole process in my opinion. Structure is simply a framework upon which the story is displayed. Television episodes are highly structured around commercial breaks, but the stories can be very different. "Acts" help establish flow, not content. In that sense, they facilitate good storytelling.

Totally. Structure is about where to put your points of highest dramatic tension and how to build to them. I think that people also forget that a "dramatic high" doesn't have to be a big set-piece (explosions, gunplay), but that these moments are character turning points, times for character decisions and re-evaluations, which can be small but important moments.

I like that TV writing based on commercial breaks forces the writers to remind us that the characters have to decide something; the cliffhangers are often based upon leaving the audience thinking "and what are they going to do NOW?" Drama requires momentum, and TV writers really understand that.

 

[NickClapper]

Different point but relates to not taking form and structure too seriously...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaVGoj4whZs

Who's she going to end up with?

 

[FantasySciFi]

Who's she going to end up with?

Oo! Oo! If I guess it, do I win the all expense paid romantic vacation to Cancun?

Thanks for the post, Nick.

(Formulaic stories are still different from structure. )

 

[NickClapper]

Oo! Oo! If I guess it, do I win the all expense paid romantic vacation to Cancun?

Thanks for the post, Nick.

(Formulaic stories are still different from structure. )

But this is the structure for romantic comedies now.

Much as some would say if you're writing an action movie where you have to have a 'false high or low' at around the mid point, if you're writing a romantic comedy you have to have a 'false enemy' who the protagonist ultimately ends up with.

I'm just illustrating the danger of using these structures in a tick box sort of way. The idea of the false high or false low is (or was originally) to lure the audience into thinking that the protagonist is going to get away safely/die/have the game significantly changed. The trouble with applying these formulas to closely is that if I go to the cinema and am watching a film where, at the 53 minute mark, the cops are about to arrest the killer, I know that the killer's going to slip through the net.

I would use Seven as an example of a good film that subverted the normal structure three quarters of the way through that film the game changes completely and it becomes impossible to predict the outcome. But other films (action, romance, comedy...etc), like the trailer I posted, can become dangerously formulaic if you apply academic principles to what is, essentially, a creative exercise.

 

[FantasySciFi]

But this is the structure for romantic comedies now.

I'm just illustrating the danger of using these structures in a tick box sort of way. The idea of the false high or false low is (or was originally) to lure the audience into thinking that the protagonist is going to get away safely/die/have the game significantly changed. The trouble with applying these formulas to closely is that if I go to the cinema and am watching a film where, at the 53 minute mark, the cops are about to arrest the killer, I know that the killer's going to slip through the net.

Does that mean I don't get the all expense paid romantic trip to Cancun?
You're just one of those psychics or something. Maybe watching all those movies mutated your genes! Now I'm jealous. I didn't get neat Nick-O-Vision.
Can you prove your really human? Maybe your a Norse God with a secret power ring.
I am not worthy!

Okay, I'll shut up now. ... I think I've had too much coffee.

 

[Adeimantus]

We are all story tellers, right?

Stories can be told in many acts, often depending on the length of the story, but there is a good reason full-length movies, plays, TV dramas and novels almost always are told in three acts. It isn't due to an artificial convention that this happens, but for a very profound reason.

As a member of the audience we welcome the story-teller and say "I want an experience that reveals an insight or two into life, that gives me pleasure. If I give you several hours of my life, I expect that in return."

Now, acts are REVERSALS. Two major reversals in a play or movie almost NEVER reveal an insight into human existence. THREE major reversals are needed for that. Why?

Two reversals aren't enough--consider: things were bad, then they were good. Or things were good, then they were bad--end of story. Or things were bad, then they were very bad. Something's lacking, right?

The third reversal (things were good, then they were bad, then they were very good) is the classic example in drama, (things were bad, then they were good, then they were very bad) is the classic example in tragedy.

The third turn or reversal allows a synthesis, it allows us to understand the "things were good" or "things were bad" in the first act on a higher level, or with a deeper understanding and insight.

If you go into four, five, six, seven or more acts (or reversals), which some movies do, you risk boring the audience. "Yeah, she lost again, now she won, now she lost, now she won....surprise, surprise, YAWN."

So three acts is the standard, and it's the standard for a very good reason: because it allows stories to reveal human nature more profoundly and, therefore, more satisfyingly and entertainingly.

Cheers!

-Charles

 

[gibbo]

Wow guys, thanks for all the replies, there is almost too much information to go through (hence why it took me so long to reply!)

I do find all this very interesting and helpful, you guys all rock! I do still have some questions though!

I'm still uncertain about this "midpoint", It was mentioned that it can be a false high or a false low which is fairly easy concept to grasp, but it was also referred to as being a "point of no return",

this I would like to know more about so as to avoid the formulaic false highs and lows... I would much rather a more subtle point of no return if that makes sense? I guess I could do a subtle false

high or false low, but I would prefer to do something different.

My understanding of a "point of no return" would be where the protagonist finds out certain information or is in a situation where, basically, they're too far into it now to go back?

Like in Winters Bone (sorry to keep using this as an example, but it's stuck in my mind for some reason)

Spoiler

where her uncle says "you can't go back now if you start" or something like

that?

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...

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?

Keep it in this thread

Anyway, have you every seen a movie without a midpoint?

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.

Could you give some popluar examples please? It would really help!

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.

Thanks, I will have to watch it again with that in mind!

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.

Thanks for that I'll read it soon....

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.

Thanks again for the reply. I will have to re-read this thread again to take everything in I think.. so much good info!

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.

I understand completely, I realise that creative writing enables you break lots of rules but I feel like I need to know the rules in order to break them!

But this is the structure for romantic comedies now.

Much as some would say if you're writing an action movie where you have to have a 'false high or low' at around the mid point, if you're writing a romantic comedy you have to have a 'false

enemy' who the protagonist ultimately ends up with.

I'm just illustrating the danger of using these structures in a tick box sort of way. The idea of the false high or false low is (or was originally) to lure the audience into thinking that the protagonist is

going to get away safely/die/have the game significantly changed. The trouble with applying these formulas to closely is that if I go to the cinema and am watching a film where, at the 53 minute

mark, the cops are about to arrest the killer, I know that the killer's going to slip through the net.

I would use Seven as an example of a good film that subverted the normal structure three quarters of the way through that film the game changes completely and it becomes impossible to

predict the outcome. But other films (action, romance, comedy...etc), like the trailer I posted, can become dangerously formulaic if you apply academic principles to what is, essentially, a

creative exercise.

The Argentinian film "The Secret in Their Eyes/El Secreto De Sus Ojos" is another movie that threw me off completely... similar to Seven. If you haven't seen it I recommend watching it, great film.

We are all story tellers, right?

Stories can be told in many acts, often depending on the length of the story, but there is a good reason full-length movies, plays, TV dramas and novels almost always are told in three acts. It

isn't due to an artificial convention that this happens, but for a very profound reason.

As a member of the audience we welcome the story-teller and say "I want an experience that reveals an insight or two into life, that gives me pleasure. If I give you several hours of my life, I

expect that in return."

Now, acts are REVERSALS. Two major reversals in a play or movie almost NEVER reveal an insight into human existence. THREE major reversals are needed for that. Why?

Two reversals aren't enough--consider: things were bad, then they were good. Or things were good, then they were bad--end of story. Or things were bad, then they were very bad.

Something's lacking, right?

The third reversal (things were good, then they were bad, then they were very good) is the classic example in drama, (things were bad, then they were good, then they were very bad) is the

classic example in tragedy.

The third turn or reversal allows a synthesis, it allows us to understand the "things were good" or "things were bad" in the first act on a higher level, or with a deeper understanding and insight.

If you go into four, five, six, seven or more acts (or reversals), which some movies do, you risk boring the audience. "Yeah, she lost again, now she won, now she lost, now she won....surprise,

surprise, YAWN."

So three acts is the standard, and it's the standard for a very good reason: because it allows stories to reveal human nature more profoundly and, therefore, more satisfyingly and entertainingly.

Cheers!

-Charles

Again thanks for all the replies guys, and keep them coming too! I'm determined to get this down pat.

 

[gibbo]

I'll make a new post as the above was getting a bit too large. So it seems that 3 act movies can be broken down quite a bit depending on how far you want to take it!

I would just like to keep it simple for now I think, and just be able to identify the major points in a movie.

Do you guys mind "checking" my thoughts and commenting on if my "points" are correct (I know this is subjective but just as a starting point)?

A couple of movies I have watched recently:

Deliverance

Tone setting event which gives a hint of what the real guts of the movie is, generally 10 or 15 mintues into the film:

10 or so minutes in the boys come across that recneck servo and encounter some pretty crazy characters, which sets the tone of the movie, banjo scene etc. (this was at about 10 or 15 minutes in) This says to me that there will be trouble up ahead regarding rednecks.

End of act 1/beginning of act 2/new situation etc/change of "world" and beginning of conflict, generally a quart of the way through (20 - 30 minutes in):

I think this is clearly defined by the boys arriving at the river and entering it (this happened at pretty much 30 mintues exactly I think)

Beginning of act 2/beginning of complications:

As mentioned before, in the river.

Midpoint/point of no return (obviously around halfway):

I'm saying this is the infamous squeal like a pig scene? The characters have already done something

Spoiler

(killed a man)

and now there's no turning back, this is neither a false high or a false low. (well actually it could be seen as both?)

end of act 2 beginning of act 3 which is identified with a major setback, (generally 3 quartes of the way in):

I'm not sure on this one? Maybe the canoes being destroyed/lewis breaking his leg?

I guess from there the protagonists should find a way to overcome their major setback and work towards a resolution of the entire film and not just the major setback?



Rescue Dawn

Tone setting event which gives a hint of what the real guts of the movie is, generally 10 or 15 mintues into the film:

10 minutes or so into the movie Dieter is shot down. THis says to me that this movie is about his journey back or getting rescued (ignoring the title!)

End of act 1/beginning of act 2/new situation etc/change of "world" and beginning of conflict, generally a quart of the way through (20 - 30 minutes in):

30 minutes or so into the movie Dieter is delivered to the POW camp.

Beginning of act 2/beginning of complications:

As mentioned before, arriving at the camp.

Midpoint/point of no return (obviously around halfway):

I'm not sure about this one... anyone care to chime in? Is it when they escape? or would that be too far on in the story?

end of act 2 beginning of act 3 which is identified with a major setback, (generally 3 quartes of the way in):

Is this when his friend, Duane dies? Or when they are just generally in the jungle being lost?

I guess from there the protagonists should find a way to overcome their major setback and work towards a resolution of the entire film and not just the major setback?


Winter's Bone:

Tone setting event which gives a hint of what the real guts of the movie is, generally 10 or 15 mintues into the film:

Arond 10 minutes into the film, the guy from the bonds place comes to her house to look for her dad and lets her know that she will lost the house if her dad is not found. This says to me that the movie is about her finding her dad.

End of act 1/beginning of act 2/new situation etc/change of "world" and beginning of conflict, generally a quart of the way through (20 - 30 minutes in):

Is when she actually sets out looking for her dad.

Beginning of act 2/beginning of complications:

As above, actually setting out to find her dad

Midpoint/point of no return (obviously around halfway):

Is when her uncle says to her something to the effect of "if you want to do this, you can't go back etc"

end of act 2 beginning of act 3 which is identified with a major setback, (generally 3 quartes of the way in):

Is when she is "captured" and beaten up.

I guess from there the protagonists should find a way to overcome their major setback and work towards a resolution of the entire film and not just the major setback?


Thanks so much!

 

[gibbo]

Awww jeez... I hope this is not too much to ask of you guys, I just realise the extent of my posts and what I'm asking of you...

This is what happens when I sent myself with a task.. I get obessed

 

[maralyn]

Try to figure it out for yourself.

Or, give yourself a frontal lobotomy and follow instructions.

 

[gibbo]

Try to figure it out for yourself.

Or, give yourself a frontal lobotomy and follow instructions.

I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-o'-me than a frontal lobotomy

 

[FantasySciFi]

I don't agree 100% with what he says, but I think he presents well the necessity of understanding the hero's journey. The 'story' or 'myth' contains elements that can be mapped across. However, the pacing of those elements is not specifically tied to a particular structure. The structure evolves out of the story. And the story is adjusted to fit within the limited time of the film. Form follows function and function follows form. Anyway, check out the following address with its 510 stages. Understand the concept of story, and the structure piece works itself out more naturally.

http://www.*******.co.uk/index4.html (NB: This address boggles IndieTalk, so copy outside)
use 'click ok' (one word) where the stars appear.

Though as he notes, "The Hero's Journey is the template upon which the vast majority of successful stories and Hollywood blockbusters are based upon. In fact, we have not come across a [Hollywood] story that does not conform to this template, though there are slight differences between pre and post [around] 1950 output. Understanding this template is a priority for story or screenwriters." (italics are mine)

 

[maralyn]

Here we go again. But don't listen to me, listen to a successful Hollywood writer:

http://johnaugust.com/2011/outlines...tm_campaign=Feed:+johnaugust+(johnaugust.com)


Fassbinder's Anarchy of Imagination is a good read. And don't be afraid to explore the essays of early structuralists, Hollis Frampton and Stan Brakhage for a more poetic perspective. They inspired Peter Greenaway.

 

[gibbo]

Here we go again. But don't listen to me, listen to a successful Hollywood writer:

http://johnaugust.com/2011/outlines...tm_campaign=Feed:+johnaugust+(johnaugust.com)


Fassbinder's Anarchy of Imagination is a good read. And don't be afraid to explore the essays of early structuralists, Hollis Frampton and Stan Brakhage for a more poetic perspective. They inspired Peter Greenaway.

I understand what you're saying completely.

However, I think it's imperative that I understand all the questions I have asked in this thread. If I'm going to write a movie and not include acts, a midpoint (debatable it seems) and any other major plot points or inciting events, what would I have? A synopsis? An outline/screenplay where nothing happens? I think it would be an amateur at best screenplay that would get shot down and I would be told to go back and find out more about structure etc... catch 22?

That said I want to learn and there are many different types of intelligences and ways of learning. I have recognised my style of learning and what works for me which is why I made this thread. I never said I was going to write a screenplay and strictly adhere to the rules that I've been trying so hard to understand, I actually said that I don't want to get too detailed about it, I just wanted stick to the main points (different acts, midpoints etc). Is it wrong to want to make sure that I understand structure as well as I can so I can identify different points in different movies and maybe include them in my own work? (some of these are a necessity anyway)

A lot of people seem extremely obsessed with not following rules and I appreciate the concern but I've already figured this out, partly by myself (reading lots) and partly thanks to my Mum (who is a writer and gives me great advice).

Anyway, all that said I do really, really appreciate all your, and others input into this thread. There is great information in here that not just myself but other people can benefit from and I would like to keep it going along the course I intended for it.

Thanks again!

 

[Theodebernacius]

I was watching "True grit" (another magnificent movie from the Coen bros) with this thread in mind and I was amazed by how nicely it fitted the structure outlined here:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=30110

and the diagram posted by rayw.


BELOW BE SPOILERS FOR "TRUE GRIT"



I would say that the crossing of the river by Mattie marks the transition from 1st to 2nd act. This crossing, without use of the ferry and in defiance of both Cogburn and LaBoeuf, makes us break into the 2nd act while emphatically demonstrating the hero's proactiveness.

During the 1st act I would select as 1st turning point the moment when Mattie announces that she, a 14 year old girl, will participate in the manhunt for Chaney. Another turning point is the introduction of LaBoeuf as the competition.

The beginning of the 2nd act is followed shortly by a turning point where LaBoeuf leaves the party. The mid-point is unmistakably the shootout at Greaser Bob. I wouldn't call it a false victory or defeat but it clearly cuts the the movie in 2. Before that the tone is humorous. After, it gets more serious. The Greaser Bob sequence has 2 parts, is the most grisly of the movie and results on the killing of about 5 men. It also marks the return of LaBoeuf.

The 2nd act ends with a major setback, an "all is lost" moment. Cogburn, then LaBoeuf tell Mattie the trail is cold and LaBoeuf leaves once more. There is a literal "dark night of the soul" with snow and all.

The following morning makes us enter the 3rd act immediately when Mattie chances upon Chaney. The turning point of the 3rd act happens when Mattie shoots Chaney but at the same time falls into the snake infested pit.

All in all, "True grit" seems to have a classical textbook structure. And there are some fine examples of pipe laying (maybe not the right term) with payoff in the 3rd act: Cogburn boasting about having once charged 7 men and LaBoeuf saying his carbine can reach its target over 300 yards.

 

[maralyn]

You people are hard work. Writing and analyzing are two different processes.

The following is taken from an interview with the Coens:

Do you guys outline before you write, or just write?
Ethan: Just write...
Joel: Generally we do. Depending on the script, we may have a sort of vague idea where we want things to end up...but never outlined or rigorously laid out in any way before we write.

 

[gibbo]

Hey mate, thanks for your post! That's what I'm looking for...

I was watching "True grit" (another magnificent movie from the Coen bros) with this thread in mind and I was amazed by how nicely it fitted the structure outlined here:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=30110

and the diagram posted by rayw.


BELOW BE SPOILERS FOR "TRUE GRIT"



I would say that the crossing of the river by Mattie marks the transition from 1st to 2nd act. This crossing, without use of the ferry and in defiance of both Cogburn and LaBoeuf, makes us break into the 2nd act while emphatically demonstrating the hero's proactiveness.

During the 1st act I would select as 1st turning point the moment when Mattie announces that she, a 14 year old girl, will participate in the manhunt for Chaney. Another turning point is the introduction of LaBoeuf as the competition.

The beginning of the 2nd act is followed shortly by a turning point where LaBoeuf leaves the party. The mid-point is unmistakably the shootout at Greaser Bob. I wouldn't call it a false victory or defeat but it clearly cuts the the movie in 2. Before that the tone is humorous. After, it gets more serious. The Greaser Bob sequence has 2 parts, is the most grisly of the movie and results on the killing of about 5 men. It also marks the return of LaBoeuf.

I was thinking about that scene (shootout in the hut), it doesn't really fit into false victory or false defeat. Does something happen in that scene that makes it "a point of no return"? I seem to remember it as a point of no return, I think they learned some information from those guys? I can't remember, I saw it in the cinema...

The 2nd act ends with a major setback, an "all is lost" moment. Cogburn, then LaBoeuf tell Mattie the trail is cold and LaBoeuf leaves once more. There is a literal "dark night of the soul" with snow and all.

The following morning makes us enter the 3rd act immediately when Mattie chances upon Chaney. The turning point of the 3rd act happens when Mattie shoots Chaney but at the same time falls into the snake infested pit.

Hmmm... I would have thought that Mattie falling into the snake pit was the end of act 2? Again, It's not very clear in my mind...

All in all, "True grit" seems to have a classical textbook structure. And there are some fine examples of pipe laying (maybe not the right term) with payoff in the 3rd act: Cogburn boasting about having once charged 7 men and LaBoeuf saying his carbine can reach its target over 300 yards.

Pipe laying? What's that?

You people are hard work. Writing and analyzing are two different processes.

The following is taken from an interview with the Coens:

Do you guys outline before you write, or just write?
Ethan: Just write...
Joel: Generally we do. Depending on the script, we may have a sort of vague idea where we want things to end up...but never outlined or rigorously laid out in any way before we write.

Realistically that doesn't mean a thing. For all we know they have a copy on Blake Snyder's Save the Cat and refer back to it constantly (very unlikely I know, but just because they say it, doesn't make it true)

On the other hand, if it is true, it doesn't mean much either. They probably just accidentally happen upon it out of practice or pure talent. I mean, if I can figure out what I did in the first post by myself then anyone can.