ACT I Structure

[10s]

I'm curious about how different writers approach writing their ACT I.

Anyone use a structure template for ACT I ?

Set-Ups demand a lot of compact & lean writing even with little exposition. Sometimes I'll make up a cheat sheet listing certain things I want to cover by a certain page. [I think of it as a highway road marker sign listing off where I'm at and what lies ahead.] And sometimes I find ways of meeting this criteria successfully and other times I get stumped and have to do a U-turn.

What ingredients do you think are needed to get the ball rolling in the 1st ten - twelve pages and then onto ACT II ?

Any thoughts appreciated.

thx!

 

[Nektonic]

First thing is that once my basic plot for the script is laid out, I turn directly to the opening scene. What is the first scene, image, character, mood, etc... that the audience (or in this case, the reader) gets thrown into with this particular film?

It depends on the genre, but I usually like something that is a grabber and something that is maybe a little unconventional or even paradoxical. That is the first image and how I approach it.

As for getting the ball rolling, I think that as long as I know the turning point from ACT I into ACT II, then I can work towards it. It is a challenge though. The opener needs to grab the audience, then you have to setup the world, which is fun but challenging. I have a tendency to, especially when writing action scenes, to overdo it and use up too many pages for it. I also do tend to overdo my opening scenes because I really want to give the reader/audience something to sink their teeth into and also be primed to really get into the film. I think the opening scene is sort of a "this is what you are going to see in this film". It is almost a preview and a pact that you make with the audience, guaranteeing them that the film will really bend over backwards and do all kinds of cinematic cartwheels to entertain and enlighten them.

 

[Nektonic]

Where is everybody?

Hey 10s, I see that I'm 3 posts behind you in total posts. If anybody actually decides to chime in on this thread, maybe we can both hit 1,000 right here since we only need about 20 more each.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

When I think Act One I think about

• an attention grabbing opening hook
• introducing the protagonist and his/her flaw/wound and ordinary world, creating reader identification with the protag so it is a protag we care for so we want him/her to achieve their goals.
• introducing the reader to the story world, the genre
• getting the protag to a new world (usually geographic), usually by means of some inciting incident that calls the protag to a new setting
• at the end of Act One, throwing the protag's life out of balance -- the first turning point into act two, present a clear external goal for the protag to achieve near the end of the story

 

[10s]

Randall that's a lot to accomplish, especially if it's a short without it feeling rushed. I believe you mentioned you're working on a 15 minute short.


The 1st 25 % is only 3 minutes, 45 seconds long. That's a small tight box to fit things into. It seems like something has to give unless one is really clever and combines things together without it feeling rushed or crammed together.

Most important would seem to be the Audience Indentification/Empathy. The story world will naturally come out of this.


Truby's 7 step model should work well for a short.


For the 1st ACT it would entail: Weakness/ Need, or as you stated, Wound/ Flaw. And then it depends upon how the story opens. Will it be a Prologue, a flashback, a normal openning,, or an action openning, with hero or without? etc... there are so many important things to get right inside this critical box ... overall, this is a lot of hard work!

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

Randall that's a lot to accomplish, especially if it's a short without it feeling rushed. I believe you mentioned you're working on a 15 minute short. ...

I didn't know the OP was asking about a short script. My comments were with regards to a feature length screenplay much more so than a short. However I still find I am able to accomplish the points I made even in a 15 minute short. My current 15 page supernatural horror short does set up act one with all those aspects even in just a few pages. It is doable, just takes some tight writing. (I am writing several shorts, but have also written a couple of feature screenplays and am currently working on two new feature length screenplays)
~randall

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Randall that's a lot to accomplish, especially if it's a short without it feeling rushed. I believe you mentioned you're working on a 15 minute short.


The 1st 25 % is only 3 minutes, 45 seconds long. That's a small tight box to fit things into. It seems like something has to give unless one is really clever and combines things together without it feeling rushed or crammed together.

I didn't get the impression from your original post that this was about short films...

And I don't agree that in a short film one need have a 3 act structure... any more than in stage plays that are 1 act plays...

I think the use of the word 'act' is a bit dodgy in films, but since many people use the term and the phrase 3 act structure, it is perhaps useful for something...

But for a 15 page short, you could do just as well as talk about the setup, the development, the finalee... beginning, middle, end... in some order...

For the short film scripts I've written, which is all I've written to date, I've tried to setup things in the first 2 pages. next 4-10, development of the setup, last 2-3 conclusion. The 4-10, are really variable...

Then there's actually shooting the thing... where the there may be significant alterations from the script based on availability of cast, location, or just time...

 

[10s]

My original post was about feature length screenplays, but somehow I included shorts also. Getting a short story off the ground takes as much work but there's such little time to develop it and I don't believe the audience gives any story a special indulgence just becuase they're a short. That's a very challenging exercise IMO to pull it off well.

A feature's 1st ACT determines if anyone will bite the bait and go with you on the journey. To do it successfully takes some skill.

Look at the different opening styles of films such as: Gladiator or Witness, and Terminator or The Fugitive. Each has a unique way of introducing the story, characters, their world and capturing the audience and holding them. In "Witness" we don't meet John Book for quite a while and the same goes for Terminator; we take a while meeting the Terminator do his business before we meet Sarah Connor the Hero. In Gladiator we meet the Hero right off in a thrilling battle that engages us and helps us understand who the hero is.

Interesting side-note about Witness. For a somewhat low key styled story it's amazing how tight and fast the scenes go by. IMO this is an example of good craftsmanship.

 

[Nektonic]

You all make good points, and I agree somewhat about short scripts. Sometimes you just need a good setup, then rising tension, and finally the climax and payoff. Depends on the short and how many pages the writer is aiming for, as well as case by case particulars for each individual story.

10s, I totally get what you are saying about how one film starts a certain way while another will open on something completely different and with a different mood and pace. That is why I get so fixated on the opening image and scene. It is really important.

I too notice that many films don't immediately include the primary protagonist in the opening scene. How about The Matrix? First scene is a big action piece with Trinity and Agent Smith. Even Morpheus, who is the mentor of the hero Neo, is only heard on the other end of a phone conversation. But when you put it all together, it immediately creates a sense of intrigue in the viewer. Morpheus is never actually seen until near the end of the first act. He is only heard on the phone and referenced in conversation. It adds up to create a powerful effect on the viewer when he is finally shown. Now for any other film this might not work at all, but for The Matrix, it is perfect.

It seems that many films with a sense of mystery, horror, and sometimes action films too... they start with a scene without the film's protagonist. Think of The Ring. Two teenage girls alone on a stormy night. They set up the whole film by relaying the rules of the ghost to the audience and then we see those rules acted out in grim detail. Quite an effective setup. Only a few scenes later do we get to meet Naomi Watt's character who drives the film with her investigation into the seemingly mysterious death of one of the teenage girls. Of course, this all probably ties into all the slasher films that start with a teaser scene of some dumb teenagers getting sliced and diced by the masked killer.

Another one that is really fun is Desperado. In the first scene, Steve Buscemi's character goes into a bar and tells an over-the-top story about the deadly mariachi. This really sets up the mariachi as a larger than life entity, almost like a legendary old west gunfighter.

In all three cases, by not featuring the film's hero in the opening scene, the writer is able to go farther in terms of action, suspense, visuals, overall viscerality, and finally the payoff of the opening scene. We can kill a character and set up the villain in an effective way without having to spend time developing the protagonist. Once the audience is hooked by the energy of the opening scene, we can then get into the meat of things in terms of character development and the details of the plot. It may not work for every script, but in these types of stories it is pretty darn effective I must say.

 

[10s]

Nektonic, nice posting -- good valid points. Now I need to rewatch Matrix again ... thanks for the excuse!

Your're absolutely spot-on about setting up anticipation. If it wasn't there then half the audience might get bored and doze off. For us, it's the art of playing the audience's curiosity we must master [along with emotions] so they play an active role in putting pieces together attempting to find meaning. Humans just can't stand things that don't mean anything.

Just look at some avant-garde films; they interest us in part because we want to make sense out of them, but when we finally realize we've been had, and there is no meaning [just gibberish] we quit participating!

Our job IMO is to set up a story that sucks in the audience and makes them forget everything; to be in the moment, to be present. That's a rare psychological event for many people with all the distractions and pressures we each face. A good movie that can lift us up to another world and remove us from the confines of this world is an amazing experience unlike any other. It's a special form of communication that has profound influence and it all starts with ACT I.