Validity of the Three Act Structure

Here's the thing about writing scripts, it takes years, I mean years to figure it out and do it right. It's a lot like fencing. Anyone can pick up a foil (sword) and thrust it at an opponent, but in foil fencing there are a lot of rules: if you thrust and they counter attack, you lose right of way, you must then counter their counter and attack, to regain right-of-way and so on.

So it is for screenwriting. I don't know any screenwriter who's seriously into writing who keeps a Syd Field book nearby. Syd helps you understand the theory I suppose of writing, but he's like lower level concepts. I'm also not a fan of McKee. Having said that, learn what structure is.

Understand the concept of solid writing.

Beginning
Middle part I
Middle part II
End
 
I agree that structure is very important in regards to the connection a movie has with it's audience. I have to reject the concept that there is only one way to talk to the audience though. If you keep them engaged it doesn't matter how you did it.

The ebb and flow of a story often give it a unique quality. This unique ebb and flow is lost if you stick to the standard "exciting event happens on page 10" philosophy. I think the novel Slaughterhouse Five is great example of this, very structured but in a very unique way.

Perhaps you could argue that even Slaughterhouse Five or a movie like Amores Perros adhere to the three act structure but do you think that structure was taken into account when these were being written? Is it meaningful to view art in that way? Don't you lose something if you dissect a beautiful piece of work to figure it out?

As far as selling out, I don't think you're necessarily selling out even if you had a piece of software that told you what the goal of every page should be. It's just seems really distasteful to me that things would be done that way.
 
I think you'll find that most if not all authors that explain about structure will highlight the fact that those 'rules' are guides and should not be inforced and harm the flow and nature of a story (in whatever form it may take).

I hope you put this much thought and energy into writing your own material as you do studying three act structures and other templates of structure :)

EJ
 
A Messenger said:
The ebb and flow of a story often give it a unique quality. This unique ebb and flow is lost if you stick to the standard "exciting event happens on page 10" philosophy. I think the novel Slaughterhouse Five is great example of this, very structured but in a very unique way.
Click to expand...

oh dear. if you think that's what three act structure is, you don't get it at all.
 
I don't think a lot of people are getting it. Traditionally, the 'Three Act Structure' consists of... duh.. three acts:

Act I:
Presents the problem and ALL the characters in the story.

Act II:
Put our protagonist through utter hell.... problem after problem, tear after tear.
At the end of Act II should be the lowest point for our protagonist.

Act III:
Resolves the problem. Doesn't matter how, but has to put a conclusion on the main problem.


So that is it really. It doesn't mean "Beginning, middle and end." It doesn't give you specific times to put problems (page 10, ___ must happen). It simply puts names to the parts of an entertaining story. Sure, you can choose "not" to use them. But i gurantee you, if your story is at all entertaining, it will be able to be categorized into three acts in the traditional respect. Even if some acts are only 1 or 2 pages long. (specifically act iii)
 
<curses inability to modify an incomplete post>

Id have to agree Nathan, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Messenger, Im not sure what you think 3 act structure is, but its definitely not a screenwriting version of mad libs where you just fill in the details and theres a format made out for you. Its a very general story structure that can apply to a wide variety of stories/movies/genres/ideas/visions, from standard fare like summer blockbusters to more complex works from across the world.

And, *gasp* Im pretty sure Slaughter House Five would fit the mold (although its been awhile since Ive read it).

Any distaste you have seems pretty unfounded. You could just as easily say were all sellouts because we take the unlimited visions of our head and relegate them to the constraints of a page of paper. Us screenwriting hacks!
 
Alright, I didn't set out to be annoying but I suppose I crossed that line. :)

I do agree with what Nathan says about what makes up a story. That isn't rocket science. Any good story is going to involve introducing characters, having them deal conflict, and then some sort of resolution. That's true of a story of any structure.

Last post from me unless somebody says something really compelling:

The thing that interests me is how these guidelines are allowed to inform your writing. Do you consider the structure when you write? Do you let the structure you're following tell you when the other shoe drops? Is understanding the structure you're following a reactive or proactive thing? First, second, third draft? When?

Anyway, interesting topic I think.
 
Well I think you'll find that the more you write, the less tempting it is to just sit down and try to type a draft out on the first shot.

You begin with structure. Notes. Note cards. Synopsis, treatment, character bios etc. Whatever gets your motor going. That's what structure does. It helps you build your first draft by planning ahead.

Its not being aware that you're writing and around the bend is ACT II. You already know what ACT II is by the time you get to because you started with notes.
 
The thing that interests me is how these guidelines are allowed to inform your writing. Do you consider the structure when you write? Do you let the structure you're following tell you when the other shoe drops?
Click to expand...

Of course. It's a excellent guide. I use it all, if not every time.

EJ
 
If nothing else, when it comes time to shop your script around, the powers that are in charge are going to have to be able to follow the story. Writing a script, unlike writing a regular story, has a structure that must be followed. Most scripts that are submitted are tossed after only a few pages, because they don't follow the format.
 
Knoxworth said:
Well I think you'll find that the more you write, the less tempting it is to just sit down and try to type a draft out on the first shot.

You begin with structure. Notes. Note cards. Synopsis, treatment, character bios etc. Whatever gets your motor going. That's what structure does. It helps you build your first draft by planning ahead.

Its not being aware that you're writing and around the bend is ACT II. You already know what ACT II is by the time you get to because you started with notes.
Click to expand...


If you are planning that much, than WHY would you have ANYTHING against the three act structure? It's not like it's a very restricting 'guideline.' What could you possibly do, that would make your story SOOOO much more interesting, that would specifically defy the three act structure?

Introduce a character in the second or GASP even third act?

how about not introduce the problem until the third act?

well... even if you break the "rules" of the three act structure.. your play will still be a three act play. If you introduce a character in act 2, it's still act 2 because the problem has been set up and the protagonist is dealing with it. And even if the whole problem of the movie isn't even revealed til the end (maybe memento?) IT'S STILL A THREE ACT PLAY!!! Even short stories, and hell a ONE PAGE STORY will have three acts.

it's when you can get that around your head, and actually learn and study each act as an individual, and all three as a whole, that you can begin to even have an opinion on the three act structure.

It's not a formula
It's not a strict set of rules

It is one of the most fundamental ways of breaking of a play; of distinguishing what the story is. If you can't identify every single part of your movie, than how many scenes are not needed? Or how many are you actually missing?

bah im rambling...
 
I think its a very interesting topic as well - I like to hear other peoples takes on how they write.

Id say it is worth differentiating peoples takes on the three act structure. At its most basic, it can be reduced to something along the lines of: 1) Introduce a problem 2) Try to solve the problem and fail 3) solve the problem. Then, of course, there are the Syd Fields of the world who make it much more detailed with specific places for inciting events, low points, love interests, denouments (sp?) etc..

The only real time I take a look at the three act structure besides its most basic form is if I've got it written (or at least a good portion) and it just doesnt seem to be working for some reason.

Ive learned it, and its always kinda there in the back of my mind, but I never sit down with a script and map out the details related to somebodys take on the three act structure. Ill map out a plot line, or something of the sort, but wont pay too much attention to where the major beats are falling at that point (if its reached this stage with me, its usually already shaped up to a pretty good structure anyways).

I would definitely never start writing without a good idea of what I wanted from the story and allow someobodys idea of what the three act structure should look like dictate what page I made a certain event happen.

At least my take on how I relate it to my writing.
 
I couldn't resist.

Lt Col Wade - that's exactly the I point I was feebly trying to get at. When you have a story in your head there's already structure there, you don't really need to add anything to it. Thanks a lot, well said.

As for all stories being in three acts tell me why Hamlet has five or why Death of a Salesman has two.
 
Nathan.Buxton said:
If you are planning that much, than WHY would you have ANYTHING against the three act structure? It's not like it's a very restricting 'guideline.' What could you possibly do, that would make your story SOOOO much more interesting, that would specifically defy the three act structure?
Click to expand...

Are you writing with me in mind? My response is determined by your answer. I used the original post to talk about Field and Mckee but I didn't single out the three act structure. I challenged Messenger to write a story with only the setup and the resolution. Which is actually supportive of the three act sturcture.

I did say that there are things that convulute what's important and I made a mistake using the three act structure as my example. Just imagine a screenplay guru had a term called the "Triangle of Miniplot, Archplot, and Antiplot" and I used that as an example instead.

Three Act Structure is golden. I hopped onto the wrong concept to rant about gurus.
 
You're right he's a windbag. 5 Acts, LOL! What the hell was he thinking?

He would have never sold a screenplay with that ridiculous attitude.
 
Not every story has three acts, but it must have a beginning, middle, and end. Sometimes the terms are synonymous...sometimes they're not. If a "story" doesn't have a beginning, middle, and end, then it's not a story. It's a postcard or snapshot of an event.

Also, neither William nor Kurt wrote screenplays...they wrote plays and novels. The guidelines for writing a good screenplay are very different from writing a good play or novel. Apples and Oranges. Good luck turning a Proust novel into a film.

Geezie, what is so wrong with becoming familiar with the "rules" before breaking them? Any other way is just plain lazy. You don't think Monet knew what he was doing when he painted On The Bank of the Seine? Revolutionary stuff, but the dude still went to art school first. Knowing what tends to work doesn't automatically equal unoriginal.

At the end of the day, just write a good story. As always, I love each one of you...

A Mess: Thanks for not becoming defensive about some of the responses...it's nice to see that and makes these boards more enjoyable :)
 
Knoxworth said:
Are you writing with me in mind? My response is determined by your answer. I used the original post to talk about Field and Mckee but I didn't single out the three act structure. I challenged Messenger to write a story with only the setup and the resolution. Which is actually supportive of the three act sturcture.

I did say that there are things that convulute what's important and I made a mistake using the three act structure as my example. Just imagine a screenplay guru had a term called the "Triangle of Miniplot, Archplot, and Antiplot" and I used that as an example instead.

Three Act Structure is golden. I hopped onto the wrong concept to rant about gurus.
Click to expand...


Sorry i guess my comments were mis-directed. In a way, i guess i completely agree with your point. But i'm also adding that the people who are disgruntled with the three act structure just need to step back and look at the big picture.

And really, I don't know everything. I'm learning myself. But i think the fact that i'm looking into tried and true methods will improve my ability. Writing blindly, hoping that what you have is good will seldom succeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top