Validity of the Three Act Structure

A Messenger

A Messenger

Active member
I have some doubts about the necessity of recognizing the importance of the three act structure when writing a feature screenplay.

The appeal of writing for me has always been that it is sort of an organic activity where no rules need be applied save that it is interesting. I do think it is important to always consider how your material will be perceived and the pacing which will achieve the best effect but is the consensus that three acts is the primary way to succeed?

I am working on a second draft of a feature length screenplay and I am trying to get a feel for the pacing. It seems that this is where the recognized structure would start to pay dividends but it feels to me to much like selling out.

Any thoughts? I look at a movie like Citizen Kane and see no real overriding structure, it's more like a series of interesting events. What is the danger of attempting this sort of narrative?​

 
I don't think that a three act structure is a set of rules, it's more like... guidelines. The three act structure is just that, a structure or foundation, into which your story is built in.

I'm sure I'm over simplifying this, but the three 'acts' consist of the set up, confrontation (or conflict) and resolution. It's very difficult to care about a character or be interested in a story without these three components.

I'm not a writer, so there are probably some writer's here that could address this better. Just my .02.
 
Chaos

Chaos

As mentioned, it's just a guide to help you organize the story.

On the other hand, it also helps the viewer understand the story with a natural rhythm that mimics life and how the brain will process information, and resolve problems. Those who can organize their approach in incremental steps will likely resolve their problems before those who just go at it and hope for the best results.

Citizen Kane is far from random ...

read this from this http://www.filmsite.org/citi.html


Its complex and pessimistic theme of a spiritually-failed man is told from several, unreliable perspectives and points-of-view (also metaphorically communicated by the jigsaw puzzle) by several different characters (the associates and friends of the deceased) - providing a sometimes contradictory, non-sequential, and enigmatic portrait. The film tells the thought-provoking, tragic epic story of a 'rags-to-riches' child who inherited a fortune, was taken away from his humble surroundings and his father and mother, was raised by a banker, and became a fabulously wealthy, arrogant, and energetic newspaperman. He made his reputation as the generous, idealistic champion of the underprivileged, and set his egotistical mind on a political career, until those political dreams were shattered after the revelation of an ill-advised 'love-nest' affair with a singer. Kane's life was corrupted and ultimately self-destructed by a lust to fulfill the American dream of success, fame, wealth, power and immortality. After two failed marriages and a transformation into a morose, grotesque, and tyrannical monster, his final days were spent alone, morose, and unhappy before his death in a reclusive refuge of his own making - an ominous castle filled with innumerable possessions to compensate for his life's emptiness. The discovery and revelation of the mystery of the life of the multi-millionaire publishing tycoon is determined through a reporter's search for the meaning of his single, cryptic dying word: "Rosebud" - in part, the film's plot enabling device - or McGuffin (MacGuffin). However, no-one was present to hear him utter the elusive last word. The reporter looks for clues to the word's identity by researching the newspaper publisher's life, through interviews with several of Kane's former friends and colleagues. Was it a favorite pet or nickname of a lost love? Or the name of a racehorse? At film's end, the identity of "Rosebud" is revealed, but only to the film audience. [One source, Gore Vidal - a close friend of Hearst, wildly claimed in 1989 in a short memoir in the New York Review of Books that "Rosebud" was a euphemism for the most intimate part of his long-time mistress Marion Davies' female anatomy.]
 
You want to talk about random structure, try watching a Tarantino flic, or 12 monkeys. They start towards the end, go to the middle, back towards the end, and then finish at the beginning. All the time you are sitting there trying to figure out what's going on, and in the last 5 minutes, they tell you.

I'll take the old fashioned 3 acts- in order, please?
 
Structure

Structure

You're certainly right about Citizen Kane. I guess my point is that it doesn't follow the typical "Set-up, Confrontation, Resolution" mold, expounded on in screenwriting books.

I find the idea of a screenplay as a series of exciting or interesting events that provide progressively more insight into the nature of the story to be very appealing.

Then again I have a 160 pg turd to polish which may show the basic flaw of my philosophy.
 
Keep in mind that 3 act structure can be applied to non sequential films - it has to do more with the tension/feel of the script more than whether what is being shown is in a logical order as far as time. Even some of the seemingly weirdest/most random movies can be broken down into a traditional 3 act structure, it just may not be as obvious as your standard fare.

Also, as far as its validity, I take it as very valid. Sure, all rules that apply to screenwriting (3 act structure, use of VO, certain areas of formatting) are guidelines more than hard rules, but there is a reason that these are the guidelines - they work. They can be broken, but itll do you well to know why they are in place and what they do for a story before you break them, so you know exactly what youre doing by breaking them.

Applying a 3 act structure to your story (or even using it as a comparison to see where you think you might work) is nowhere near selling out. Its being smart and using a proven structure that can help you create an interesting story. That doesnt mean you have to follow it to a T, but just examining what you have vs. 3 act structure cant hurt. Its not like every 3 act structure movie looks the same. And, of course on the flip side, using a 3 act structure doesnt gurantee a good movie - a godawful movie can still use a 3 act structure.

Overall I guess I would say it is a tool. Use it if you want, its been proven to work (but it alone wont save you).
 
A messeng - before you can break the rules, you have to play by the rules, then break them. In other words, understand structure first, so then you can figure out a way to ignore it and still have a compelling story to tell.

The three act structure is really rather simple: set up, duke it out, conclusion. If you story wanders here and there with no real point, you better have characters that scream, "Love Me!" otherwise, it will be another rambling storyline with no end in sight.
 
I really despise that "learn the rules before you break them" saying.

Regardless, I was going to challenge Messenger to write a script that just had a beginning and an end. Now there's the question of validiity for you... practically anything you write could conform to the three act structure. Its all about interpreting where ACT I, ACT II, and ACT III begin and end.

You could ignore Robert McKee and Sidd Field, read 40 screenplays & then sit down and write one. There's no internal mechanisims that you have to name and consiously be aware of every step of the way. Like the three act structure AKA "beginning, middle, end". Sometimes that gobbily goo just serves to convulute what's important.
 
I used to really despise the 'learn the rules then break them' mindset as well, especially through college. But now that I have a chance to think of it, it does make sense.

Sure, you could totally ignore the rules and not bother to learn them and still write an absolutely amazing screenplay, but... (and heres the kicker)... you wont know why its an amazing screenplay. You wont know why what you did works (whether that be because it does conform to standard structure, or because you strayed from it but found a way to keep it interesting). And while that may not matter immediately with that script (since its amazing as balls), it will once you attempt to keep writing more scripts...

Just my 2 cents on that subject.
 
Lots of people like using the three act structure. It's been around for thousands of years, and will remain for a long time to come.

Other people prefer using 4 acts.

Some 5.

Other 8.

Others again, 12.

It what helps you guide your story the best.

Personally, most, if not all stories can be broke down into three acts.

That's what makes it a most useful tool in relating your story to yourself, and others.

EJ
 
I'm not sure there is much difference between conscious rejection of the rules and willful ignorance of them. Willful ignorance somehow seems more pure to me.

One thought would be that to know the supposed "rules" puts you in a box that you have to sort of break out of. You've been trained to think like everyone else so you have to learn to speak for yourself.

The problem with willful ignorance is that although your work is "all you" per se, "you" may actually suck and not even know it. The possibility that seems the most hopeful is that the willfully ignorant person can tell what is good from what sucks.

For example, do you have to know the rule that crossing the line is bad to look at a series of shots where the line is crossed and know that something is wrong? I don't think that you do.

Do you have to be taught that an Act 1 which lasts for 45 minutes isn't a good idea? If you know what works intuitively you'd immediately reject this.
 
I would say there is a difference between rejection and ignorance of the rules. Ignorance means you dont know them, but rejection means you do know them. Though it may seem more 'pure' to go into a project with absolutely no blue print, that doesnt always make it the best choice (ask an architect). But overall, ignorance is pure (its why little kids are so darn cute!). It brings me back to a point I made earlier though - while in ignorance you might write something that works, you wont know why it works, besides just that 'you do.' From a one-off standpoint, this is fine, but to consider yourself someone who studies, understands and practices screenwriting, or any other creative art form, saying 'it just works' to justify your art will never work (just walk into an art critique and try that one).

How would you know that a 45 min first act is a bad idea without being taught it? By watching films. What films are you watching? A great percentage that use the three act structure. So really, youre learning the three act structure whether you realize it or not. Whether its a good ole fashioned book learning or by watching and studying movies on your own, youre really studying the same thing - it just seems that you have a problem with calling it this.

I really dont think that writing in the three act structure takes away from your voice. Take the script from Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump and Eternal Sunshine and try and tell me they all sound the same and lack originality.

Of course there is much to be said for tackling a project with a clean slate. Noone is saying 'when you start writing you damn well better have that three act structure mapped out and fill in the blanks.' Which brings me back to the original point - I still think it is very valid. It has worked for a long time (much longer than the history of cinema), and I think this makes it valid. There are plenty of reasons to follow it, and plenty more to throw it to the wind, and good films can be made both ways.

You could argue well into the night about whether you need to know the rules before you break them, but I wouldnt consider using a three act structure selling out by a long shot. It compromises your vision no more than having to write your words on a piece of paper (or computer screen) does.
 
I admit that reading Field and Mckee are helpful. But no more helpful than sitting down and writing 60 pages here and there and finding dead ends.

They help you find focus & new ways to approach the material, even though their methods are opposite a lot of the times.
 
Ultimately there's tool around that are there to help you.

If you chose to pick them up and use them - then so be it.

If you chose to not use them - so be it.

Tools are there to help you. not limit what you do.

EJ
 
I agree with everything you guys are saying.

To the extent that these tools focus you and help you be more creative I think they are a good thing.

The scary part of using them is that they threaten to turn an artistic enterprise into a science which is depressing.

As for the two Act movie, would Mulholland Dr. qualify?
 
Mulholland Drive frustrated me when I watched it. If you sense a lack of structure its probably because it was written as a one hour TV pilot. They filmed the first hour, realized it wasn't going to happen, and slapped a resolution on it.

A lot of people praise it as genius but how it could it be? The story was supposed to last for an entire season. I much prefer Blue Velvet or Wild At Heart.
 
the hell? a three act structure is "selling out"? every single story that's ever worked has involved the three act structure or a variation on it.

all it means is "Beginning, middle, end." every story has that. every story. there is a setup, there is movement towards a conclusion, and there is a conclusion.

there is no boxing in here. there is nothing preventing you from opening your mind and exploring. every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. period. it doesn't matter if you're quentin tarantino, aristotle or shakespeare. just because the screenplay itself doesn't follow that structure hard and fast doesn't mean it isn't there - your STORY has a beginning, a middle and an end.

citizen kane? three act structure. pulp fiction? three act structure (AFAIK, tarantino wrote the screenplay in order then jumbled it up either during production or in post). memento? three act structure. it's there.

if you're not seeing the structure in films, it's because you don't know what you're looking for. a lot of times the breaks are very obvious, a lot of times they are not. this can be due to either good or bad writing. but it's there.

what i like about McKee's "Story" or Seger's "Making a Good Script Great," is that they give you both plot and character-based reasons for act changes. if you're going for a plot-based screenplay, you can pick action points of your story to change on. if you're going for a character-driven screenplay, you can pick emotional moments for your characters as points for act changes. but it's all there.
 
A Messenger said:
The scary part of using them is that they threaten to turn an artistic enterprise into a science which is depressing.
Click to expand...

No, Hollywood does that. The problem is, we've been trained to recognize that this is how a story is to be told. It's always been that way in movies. When someone breaks out of that mold (and I'm not talking about Tarantino or Christopher Nolan) the film becomes less marketable, because it's a step or two away from the conventions that the audience is accustomed to.
 
IBEJohnson said:
No, Hollywood does that. The problem is, we've been trained to recognize that this is how a story is to be told. It's always been that way in movies. When someone breaks out of that mold (and I'm not talking about Tarantino or Christopher Nolan) the film becomes less marketable, because it's a step or two away from the conventions that the audience is accustomed to.
Click to expand...

Agreed totally, and I'd go so far as to consider it "communication" in its barest form. If you and I are going to speak english to each other, we both need to understand english. We both need to have a shared definition of the terms we're using. If you think that a vacuum is a device that sucks up dirt and I think a vacuum is an elephant, we're not going to understand each other when we start talking about house cleaning. Rules in language are required for us to communicate to each other. Rules in story are required for us to communicate them, period.

But having one set definition for words is not something that takes the artistic enterprise out of them. i mean, we're all writing screenplays here, so that's one "rule" of filmmaking already being followed that doesn't suck creative juices away from the process. At the same time, though, if one were to think that writing a screenplay was "Selling out," or that using a camera to make your film was "selling out," there's no way a film would ever get made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top