Hulk say 3 Act Structure Dumb

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Didn't see this posted. Pretty damn funny AND he makes a lot of good points.

http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/hulk-presents-the-myth-of-3-act-structure/

 

[JoshL]

Hulk needs to find and disengage caps lock key. Josh have flashbacks to early 90s BBS/IRC. Could barely read otherwise engaging article!

 

[steve gelder]

This was in The Onion in 2004.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-no-one-want-make-hulk-2,11081/

"Why no one appreciate daring vision of Ang Lee? Aaargh! Ang Lee genius! Maybe panels on screen gimmicky, but him try something new. When last time you try something new?!"

gelder

 

[FantasySciFi]

I'm always intrigues by these discussions. How about five examples
of each. It will help me understand where you're coming from.

Almost every linear narrative will be divisible into an act structure. The most basic being "2 acts" - beginning and end. The fundamental of any narrative is 1. introduce the characters and the situation, 2. explore how the situation develops as the characters interact, and 3. show how the situation resolves. You can, of course, put infinite divisions, transitions, etc. into that basic narrative. What tends to make this linear is that time moves in one direction. The plot moves in one direction.

Nonlinear narrative, when pulled off well, gives a whole new sense of timing. Often the viewer is following multiple storylines, taking place at different times, sometimes the events happen in different orders or the writer/filmmaker invokes alternate realities that blur over. It really takes an A-list writer/director to make it work successfully.

Classic non-linear films:
David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive"
Chris Nolan's "Memento"
Bruce Rubin's "Jacob's Ladder"
Eric Bress' "Butterfly Effect"
Terry Gilliam's "Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen"

Television does it all the time. Some examples would be "Twin Peaks" or "Lost" where time and reality seem to bend and blend. There was a brilliant episode of CSI (Vegas) where there were three crimes and we start near the end of the day, then rewind to see how the event unfold and are intertwined. Then at the end, it all comes together.

Non-linear stories have a meaning only after everything has been seen. The whole is greater than its parts. After watching it, the viewer will recall, "Oh, that's why that was important." Linear stories tend to be "predictable" and require 'twists endings'.

It doesn't mean that there aren't linear elements in a non-linear narrative. A non-linear story itself just doesn't have an easily defined "beginning" or "end" or defined "direction of plot evolution". They may have stories within stories that bleed over into each other making reality less defined.

Anyway, that's how I would characterize non-linear.

 

[directorik]

Thanks FantasySciFi. I’m a huge fan of nonlinear storytelling and
you left out my favorite. Before Kubrick became “A-list” he and
Jim Thompson (who never became an “A-List” screenwriter) made an
excellent nonlinear film.

jax_rox speaks of having the three-act structure taught and then
talks about the films that have it and do not being about equal.
At least that is the impression I get from the post. I am curious
what jax_rox’s means.

Your comments on nonlinear stories were helpful. However, my
question is about the three-act structure and jax_rox’s comment,
not so much about nonlinear story telling. I guess I should have
quoted both paragraphs so My specific question was more clear.

 

[FantasySciFi]

jax_rox speaks of having the three-act structure taught and then talks about the films that have it and do not being about equal. At least that is the impression I get from the post. I am curious what jax_rox’s means.

I agree. A 50-50 split is unrealistic. I appreciate that you were addressing jax_rox. I apologize for pulling your comment out of context. My thought is that others seem to think that movies can be 'cookie cuttered' and fall into a linear pattern. While most films do follow a linear development, it's not the only way of writing a screenplay. So I borrowed (co-opted?) your request for examples as an opportunity to address what I think is the major flaw with taking writing experts too seriously. Most advice assumes a linear story. It helps to see the flip side of the coin. And too often examples to the contrary aren't given.

I’m a huge fan of nonlinear storytelling and you left out my favorite. Before Kubrick became “A-list” he and Jim Thompson (who never became an “A-List” screenwriter) made an excellent nonlinear film.

There are others. I tried to pick out a few examples that people likely would have seen that reflect a bit of the diversity of the non-linear narrative. It takes a few "rule breakers" to stir change. I agree that there are directors and writers who create excellent non-linear films, and it takes a credentialed writer/director ("A-List" potential) to convince a studio to break from tried-n-true patterns in a major release. There are exceptions. The wild success of "Blair Witch Project" created a shift in movie narrative approach now echoed in many features. Found footage is an interesting way to create a non-linear narrative without recourse to flashbacks.

There is nothing wrong with thinking about acts and transitions especially when starting out. And many successful movies do follow the pattern. Following any pattern too rigorously creates a groove. Disney has been very successful with the boy-meets-girl formula approach in every cartoon it releases. And perhaps it has engrained the linear hero's journey into the viewing audience's mind from childhood. The biggest flaw with Hollywood is that if something makes money, they work the idea/pattern to death. Of course, if you look at the romance book market, you'll find the same thing.

The other huge misconception is that everything can be 'cookie cuttered' into the Hero's Journey (goal-directed change in the principal character). One of Disney's less successful films is "Mary Poppins". It is not a Hero's Journey in a classical sense. Arguably, the kids are mentored by Poppins and enter her magical world but they face no challenges or explicit goal, per se. She helps them become 'better' by virtue of experience at the end. It does have dancing and music. In contrast, "Nanny McPhee" has the children challenged to marry off their father (goal-directed) and becoming 'better behaved' in the process. McPhee, like Poppins, is a mentor. "Being There" with Peter Sellers is entertaining but not goal-directed. Chauncey is simply acted upon. "Forrest Gump" works in a similar manner but is more non-linear as it skips back over memories.

I would venture that 90-95% of all popular movies have both a linear structure and the Hero's Journey. Unfortunately 'analyzing popular movies' becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. With many examples to draw from, experts justify their claims. And writers following their advice simply create more examples. That could be because of the ease of writing using that style, the audiences being more accustomed to that format, or any number of rationalizations. Most writing experts will hit the beats of that well-worn pattern adding their own spin or jargon. That's fine as long as they recognize it's a subset of possibilities.

Kubrik's work and that of others can create pieces that challenge the audience to re-imagine storytelling and their visual experience. By being able to look objectively at linear and non-linear examples, examples of different story motifs (hero, anti-hero, enlightenment, etc.), the writer/filmmaker can start to explore and develop their own style and voice.

 

[directorik]

Always good to read your thoughts on writing FantasySciFi.

"Mary Poppins" is my favorite film. And you're right, the "Hero's
Journey" is not the children or Poppins; the character who takes
the journey is the father.

 

[fernando97echeverria]

The way I do it, is this:

I either have three of these types of plot ideas: One following a character/group or duo of characters through a clean plot (like There Will Be Blood, Amadeus, Kill Bill), having one clean plot populated by several characters going through it for their own gains (like Fargo, American Beauty, Inglourious Basterds) or several stories all intertwined by an event or theme (like Pulp Fiction, all of Inarritu's films ).

If it's the first two, I like to have a clean three-act structure as the BASE plot. Then, if I want, I can scramble the narrative if it calls for being disorienting (such as my time-travel crime thriller Travelers) or just keep it straight. But the three-act structure should pretty much always be obeyed in order for the story to be emotionally impacting or accessible.

If it's the third, I look at each individual story and view them as one of the first two types of plots. Then, I follow the rules I had for the clean plots, then re-assess them all as an anthology piece, and see if the anthology itself has a three-act structure.

That's my two cents. I don't know if it makes much sense, but....yeah

 

[Jack Lynt]

You know, when it comes to storytelling I have this sort of romantic notion of early humans sitting around camp fires just telling stories to one another...or perhaps even very early on they had something like "official" storytellers, sort of like bards or something. When it comes to rules like story structure, I think, good, whatever helps to tell a good story...but I'm also thinking that we ought to be vigilant that these rules do not get too dogmatic or stultifying. Isn't that the point that most of us are getting at?

Or is that naive? After all, making a possibly multi-million dollar film in the twenty-first century is maybe not quite the same thing as telling stories around the fire while nasty, deadly predators lurk around us in the surrounding darkness, or like entertaining the chieftain or our Liege Lord and his retinue? Hmmm?

Of course, nowadays it's natural for us to assess everything's and anything's value in terms of dollars and cents or quid or euros or yen or yuan or box office or returns or whatever.

But, back in the olden days, I suppose storytelling could have pretty high stakes too. At best, perhaps folks would just lose interest in hearing anymore of your storytelling, or even more problematic, you might lose your livelihood as professional storyteller. But at worst, maybe the Emperor would have you castrated or something. Gee, those were the days, huh?

 

[jax_rox]

I agree. A 50-50 split is unrealistic.

For the record, I was generalising somewhat I didn't specfically mean a 50-50 split, moreso meant that you learn the three-act structure and then you can kinda do what you want. Whilst most stories will fit into some kind of act structure, and indeed it is what we are used to as an audience, if you want to break the mold and do something really non-linear then once you've got the basics down, you are then qualified to do such a thing.

If you know what I mean...