Validity of the Three Act Structure

Nathan.Buxton said:
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.
Click to expand...

The way I learned it was the "Learn the rules before you break them, and if you're gonna break a rule, put something better in its place," thing. Inasmuch as I'm completely agreeing, just my approach.

I have learned and internalised the three act structure as well. It's just how I think[ when it comes to screenplays. When I do 24 hour film festivals, we have 1 day to make a 3 minute short film. We brainstorm, think of our beginning, our middle and our end. I make a plot curve, allot the designated amount of time to each act (act I gets ~ 45 seconds, II gets 1:30, III gets 45 seconds) and figure out how to hang my plot on those points.

For some people, that could be considered suffocating. But I'll tell you this - the shorts that we've turned in in these contests (and we've placed the last 2 years in a row) are the only shorts with an act structure. the others are normally a couple of scenes but a single act, or trailers. you can tell the difference when you compare.

for a messenger, you might consider that suffocating. stifling. "you're stepping on my creativity, man..." but in all seriousness, it helps. It helps with pacing. It helps with structure. It helps to ensure that your story is complete. To be a professional storyteller, you need to know your craft inside and out. You need to know WHY the three act structure's been around since before aristotle. since before the written word. since the dawn of language. If you can sit down and knock out a story and hit all of those major "needs," as far as your structure is concerned, then you know enough to start breaking the rules.

I, for one, love films like "The Phantom of Liberty," which really does its best to defy act structure. I love surrealism. But in order for me to get to the point where I'm writing outside of act structure, I need to know enough about it to know how to still tell a complete story. I need to know what the act structure accomplishes in order for me to find a way around it.
 
mrwrong - I'm curious to know what you think an "Act" is. How would you define it? The idea that a story has an introduction to the characters, interesting events that occur and build, and then some sort of resolution clearly isn't unique to a three act structure. If you disagree explain what's going on with MacBeth or any of Shakespeare's five act plays.

I'd say that an act is really just a series of scenes that are related to each other in tone or content. In Citizen Kane for instance you might argue that the structure is as follows:

Act 1 - "News on the March" film loop
Act 2 - Thatcher's recollections
Act 3 - Burnstein's recollections
Act 4 - Leland's recollections
Act 5 - Susan Alexander's recollections
Act 6 - Xanadu Sequence

How far off am I guys?
 
Charli said:
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.


End
Click to expand...

To pick up on this, She's right, writing a good script, using conventional 3 act structure is extraordinarily difficult. And if you had to boil screenwriting down to one word, a lot of writers would say "Structure". I can't imagine why anyone would want to screw with structure. You've got about a one in a hundred chance *with* 3 act structure, inventing your own unique style of structure is going to put you at about one in a million.

A lot of people here are talking themselves in to bad ideas.

Just shut up and listen to Aristotle. The wheel has already been invented.
 
A Messenger said:
mrwrong - I'm curious to know what you think an "Act" is. How would you define it? The idea that a story has an introduction to the characters, interesting events that occur and build, and then some sort of resolution clearly isn't unique to a three act structure. If you disagree explain what's going on with MacBeth or any of Shakespeare's five act plays.

I'd say that an act is really just a series of scenes that are related to each other in tone or content. In Citizen Kane for instance you might argue that the structure is as follows:

Act 1 - "News on the March" film loop
Act 2 - Thatcher's recollections
Act 3 - Burnstein's recollections
Act 4 - Leland's recollections
Act 5 - Susan Alexander's recollections
Act 6 - Xanadu Sequence

How far off am I guys?
Click to expand...

Okay, it's been several years since I've seen CK, though it's one of my favourites. But from my vague recollection, I would look at it like this - the act structure is thematic, not plot-oriented as you seem to see it. For CK, it was character-oriented. Act I was News on the March and then Thatcher, his childhood. It shows you his big dreams and the opportunity, but also the sacrifice of his childhood. This movie is also what's commonly known as a "tragedy," one of the classic tragedies is Oedipus, and what makes it a tragedy is that it is a character who has everything and loses it. So what you see at the end of Act I is the perfect opportunity, because the rest of the movie is defined by how he squanders it.

Act II is his rise to power, all of the amazing things he did. This is a man on the move, he's growing, he's becoming the hero. This is different than more typical, up-beat stories, because in those stories, Act II is normally where the hero is most beleagured... he's hitting obstacle after obstacle so that the audience really FEELS it when he triumphs. In tragedy, this is the opposite, so that the audience really FEELS it when he falls. So, he rises to power, he gets the money, the girl, the whole nine yards. He's on top of the world. And then he gambles everything on his run for big power.

Act III is the downfall. This is where he squanders everything. Sort of like watching a man snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This is where he falls, where his pride overtakes him and he destroys himself. When everyone he's stepped on along the way gets their licks in return.

God, this feels like I'm back in college. Anyways, others can feel free to throw in their takes, but that's my opinion on it and the act structure. Actually, I think act II might have started after he turns the newspaper around, but I'm not sure on that one. Either way, you get my drift.

Also, while some plays, novels and films may utilize an alternate act structure, such as 4 act films or 5 act plays, I would say that they're all sort of variations on three act structure. They are their own creations, but they work in much the same way - act structure points are places where you hang your major actions and movements, and knowing which movement is coming up and when will help you to move the story along at a good pace and fill all the necessary gaps.
 
I would agree wholeheartedly Mr. Wong. The only thing Id add is that when youre comparing our 'three act structure' to a Shakespearean play, keep in mind that Shakerspeares acts divide the action from a plot standpoint while the 3 act structure deals with breaking up the action thematicalyl. Basically, what hes calling acts and we are are different (you might as well call our acts 'parts' just for this comparison). Shakespeares plays can still be evaluated from this structure though - its just that Part 1 might end sometime in the middle of Act 2 and Part 2 might end sometime in the middle of Act 4, based on theme and tension. (That may not make sense without some sort of diagram or addendum, but it makes sense in my head - sorry if its confusing).
 
That's an interesting way of describing the plot. Kane's life has a definite arc where he becomes very powerful and then loses everything. Is your argument that the three act structure describes his life in chronological order or that it describe the way the movie presents his life, out of order?

If your argument is for the latter I'm not sure I understand it. If you recall there are successes and failings in all the recollections. For instance in the Thatcher memoirs Kane rises to power as a News Paper tycoon but at the end of it he has lost all his money in the great depression and is forced to relinquish control of his empire.

To be fair the stories become more intimate (and more damning) as the movie progresses, there is clearly a structure there. I would say my 6 act structure description fits well with your point "act structure points are places where you hang your major actions and movements."

In this sense is it valid to tell people that they should be writing three acts? Isn't maintaining the narrative arc the important thing? Why is three acts the ideal way to do this? :)
 
At the end? That was the first line of the film!

Had you heard that rosebud was Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies', how should I say it, intimate areas? :huh:
 
A Messenger said:
At the end? That was the first line of the film!

Had you heard that rosebud was Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies', how should I say it, intimate areas? :huh:
Click to expand...
All right, you busted me- I've never seen the whole flick, just bits. I knew rosebud was in there somewhere... the sled, not the naughty bits ;)
 
A Messenger said:
That's an interesting way of describing the plot. Kane's life has a definite arc where he becomes very powerful and then loses everything. Is your argument that the three act structure describes his life in chronological order or that it describe the way the movie presents his life, out of order?

If your argument is for the latter I'm not sure I understand it. If you recall there are successes and failings in all the recollections. For instance in the Thatcher memoirs Kane rises to power as a News Paper tycoon but at the end of it he has lost all his money in the great depression and is forced to relinquish control of his empire.
Click to expand...

An act is more than a simple plot point. For citizen kane, as a character-motivated storyline, it's about periods of his life, not just the individual moments. His early youth, his successes and failures and re-successes, the acts are not about what's he done, but WHO he is and how he gets to be that person.

The argument is not that the three act structure describes his life in order, but the three act structure describes the STORY in order. The story, the way Welles set it up, was that you are presented with the end of his life first. This is crucial to understanding the rest of the act structure, and the reason for this is that welles gives away the plot ending first. You already know, before you learn anything about him, that he will die old and alone.

As a viewer, the question of "what happens?" is already answered. This is done to similar effect in the movie American Beauty as well - Spacey's character begins the movie talking about his death, so you, as the audience, never wonder *if* he's going to die - you already know it's going to happen. As such, it frees up your mind to focus instead on WHY he dies and what leads him to this place. You focus more on every individual event, because you know where it will end.

So that's the beginning of Citizen Kane. You know that this man dies old and alone. You know that he was mega rich and some kind of uber-important person. So the question you, as the viewer, pose to yourselves is "Who is this man and why does he die this way?" That's what the rest of the movie is set up to answer.

So you go to the childhood. You get the backstory. You find out who this kid is and where he comes from. So, at the end of Act I, you now know where he came from, but you don't know how he gets to the top, or how he loses it all. That's what Acts II and III deal with.

To be fair the stories become more intimate (and more damning) as the movie progresses, there is clearly a structure there. I would say my 6 act structure description fits well with your point "act structure points are places where you hang your major actions and movements."

In this sense is it valid to tell people that they should be writing three acts? Isn't maintaining the narrative arc the important thing? Why is three acts the ideal way to do this? :)
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. What I'm getting at is, while plot, character and theme are all tied together, you have to be thinking about all three in your structure. You can write a "Die Hard" movie with a 5 act plot structure, "Badguy blows up buildings. McCain tries to stop. Fails. McCain tries to stop again. Badguy kidnaps McCain's daughter, McCain finally succeeds." But that doesn't tell you anything about what else is going on in the movie. Undertones? Subplots? Themes? A movie is not *just* one main plot that gets set up and resolved, there are multiple plots inside, multiple questions posed and (hopefully) answered, and a theme that applies the story to something bigger. It could be the war on terror or it could simply be "Greed will eat you alive." All of these are dealt with in the act structure, but not in your plot structure.
 
BTW, also to make mention, Citizen Kane is a full-circle movie, since it ends you at the very beginning, with his death. But, the thing is that all of the questions you've had about this guy are answered, except for what the film ends on - what "Rosebud" actually means. Had they shown you what it was when he first dies, it would have no significance, no meaning. But since you've gone through the whole movie, it finally answers the last question of what rosebud means. By then, you're prepared for what it is. In that sense, even though the film "opens" with the ending, Rosebud is the actual end of the story, which is why it's at the end of the film.
 
As mrWr0ng says, try not to think of an Act as a literal progression of plot, but rather the full accumulation of plot, character, theme, and style. All of these elements progress in any good story, regardless of whether the story is linear or not.

Also, yes, obviously there are great works that violate the traditional mold of storytelling. That's what makes them great works, most likely. But great works do not just appear by magic. They are created by talented, determined people who first must understand the rules by which the world turns. It's easy to come up with excuses for why you shouldn't have to learn the rules. It's actually pretty hard to create anything worthwhile, though, if you never learn them.

Don't get hung up on semantics. Just study the format and internalize it, so that it's not sitting there staring you down. It's behind you, pushing you forward.
 
As mrWr0ng says, try not to think of an Act as a literal progression of plot, but rather the full accumulation of plot, character, theme, and style. All of these elements progress in any good story, regardless of whether the story is linear or not.
Click to expand...

That isn't what an act is. What you're talking about here is a redefinition of a term with a well understood meaning. An act is a literal progression of plot. I hate to put it this way but it's me and Shakespeare and Samuel Beckett in one corner and you and Mrwrong in the other, oh well. Any engaging story is going to have "accumulation of plot, character, theme, and style", who in their right mind would argue that this isn't a good thing? Not me.

Whether your definition makes any sense or not is really a moot point for my purposes. My argument at the start was that restricting your plot (not character arc) to the three act structure, which conventional wisdom in the screenwriting trade states is necessary, is actually not the only way to do things. I questioned the validity of this plotting structure being held up as the way to write.

It's been fun, cheers.
 
Brian - You don't actually believe that I hope. You've got to admit that it's pretty depressing if 99% of screenwriters follow these guidelines unquestioningly. That is what I mean about turning an art into a science.

It's also quite possible that one may question the validity of the rule and still write something that ends up following it. It just isn't made an explicit goal to conform to that.
 
it's not depressing. What's depressing is that you probably don't even know exactly what you're arguing against.

SHOW ME ONE EXAMPLE WHERE THE THREE ACT STRUCTURE IS LIMITING.

Show me a specific, concrete example that shows us how you could make a story better by "defying the three act structure."
 
I'm as familiar with this topic as I need be to have an intelligent discussion - I've read Mckee, Field, and even Aristotle's Poetics. Not that any of that matters because the discussion isn't about me, it's about the ideas.

Show me a specific, concrete example that shows us how you could make a story better by "defying the three act structure."
Click to expand...

This is a rather silly proposition. I'm supposed to dissect Raiders of the Lost Ark and tell you how it would have been better served as two acts rather than three? I'll think about it if you tell me how Death of a Salesman would be better served as three acts rather than two.

Calm down friend, no more personal attacks please, I really don't care what you think about me anyway.
 
Last edited:
Death of a Salesman is a play, and while a play can adhere to the 3 act structure we're discussing, it is important to keep in mind that plays are different than screenplays. There's been a lot of confusion on this point throughout the thread. While I understand the point trying to be made, we have to compare apples to apples here.

It seems there are multiple definitions of what the 3 Act structure entails, what an act is, etc that may be part of the confusion. Concentrate on telling a story with a great beginning, middle, and end and you'll do better than most. And yes, 99% of screenwriters (or the powers that will secure financing for you at least) adhere to the 3 act structure because it facilitates said beginning, middle, and end in an accessible manner. It's a good structure, and story is structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top