You are not logged in. Please login or register.
http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/2011/ … structure/
Yes, this site is gimmicky and silly, but Film Critic Hulk is also very smart, well-spoken, and insightful when it comes to movies. I really liked this article about three-act structure. What do people think?
Hulk verbose and inconveniently formatted.
Last edited by Zarban (2011-11-11 20:14:49)
Any story has three broad stages -- beginning, middle, end. Shit starts happening, the shit gets worse, the shit gets resolved. You can choose to subdivide those categories any way you like -- even hardcore three-act cheerleaders will divide the first act into introduction and inciting incident, the second has a "midpoint turn" bisecting it, and the third act typically includes both climax and denouement -- but in the end the story falls into one of those three stages.
The three act structure is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's useful when telling a story, especially in screenplay format where you have rigid page count restrictions, to be able to divide the script into thirds and get a feel for how well it's paced. If it takes you until well into the "second act" (or, god help you, the "third") to actually get to the point of the fucking script, you have a problem. If the "second" act isn't a constant escalation of complications, you have a problem.
The mistake people too often make (because all the screenwriting books tell them to) is to to fit every story into the same box. Oh shit, I'm on page 72, it's time for The Romantic Leads Have A Falling Out. There's no legitimate reason for them to, at this in the story, but the Page Count Gods have declared it thus. This is what "formulaic" means.
Storytelling is a fractal thing. At every level you're dealing with beginning, middle, end. Ideally, you should be able to subdivide a story into as many acts as there are scenes, because every scene should end with the characters somewhere they weren't when the scene began -- emotionally, physically, knowledgably, geographically -- with no easy way, or no way at all, to get back to where they started. Because if a scene doesn't accomplish that, it better be funny as fuck or there's no reason for it to exist.
Three act structure isn't a myth, but following it slavishly and calling yourself a writer is like doing Video Copilot tutorials and calling yourself a VFX artist. You know which buttons to push to accomplish a very specific task, but you don't understand what each step is doing and can't synthesize them into anything new, which is where artistry actually begins.
I read the rest of it. He makes his case, but I'm not clear why he's so angry. Most writers have always known that three-act structure is not the be-all, end-all of storytelling, but I'm not convinced by his claims of 9-20 acts in some good movies.
Three-act structure is about the protagonist deciding to get involved in the conflict and then later deciding how to put an end to the conflict. Every good story MUST hit those two plot points. Additional plot points are just obstacles to resolving the conflict (Indy losing the Ark multiple times) or revelations that raise the stakes (losing Marion). Three-act structure is just the SIMPLEST way of describing a good story.
Hulk first says you can have any number of acts then touts 5-act structure as the right way to approach structure because it's used by Shakespeare and TV dramas. Ick. Five-act structure won't save you from writing a bad story any more than 3-act structure will (even Shakespeare wrote some crap, after all). I've often noticed that a good movie has a major plot point or two in the middle of act 2—his example of Iron Man is a good one—but so what?
When Tony discovers that Obadiah is trying to screw him, it doesn't change Tony's ability to resolve the basic conflict (ending Stark Industries' involvement in warfare and righting its wrongs). It just raises the stakes, which is something good writers talk all the time.
There's also a moment in Iron Man's act 2 when Rhodie finds out about the suit and wants it for the military, raising the stakes majorly again and setting up the entire second movie. But Hulk ignores that development because it ruins his 5-act theory for that story. But Sid Field would say, "Great! You've chased your protagonist up a tree, and you're throwing some really big rocks at him! Bravo!"
Hulk basically states at the beginning that the act structure of a story should tell you how to write it. But that's a formula and, as an insightful man* once said, there's a difference between form and formula. Three-act structure is a convenient way to think about stories and discuss them with other people in a way that helps you understand the basic elements of the conflict and its resolution; that's all.
* BW Finifter, Down in Front: Star Wars IV: A New Hope, @0:47:30
The form and formula thing started with Dorkman on Avatar, if I recall correctly.
Yeah, but it's, you know, it's cool. No biggie.
The Times regrets the error.
...the Michael vs Brian part, anyway. Michael definitely says it in Star Wars. Teague asks the question with regards to Avatar.
Also, I've always been bothered by how Tennant's throat jitters in the GIF. You can't tell me you visual effects artists haven't noticed that.
Last edited by Zarban (2011-11-11 22:47:47)
He makes his case, but I'm not clear why he's so angry.
You've set me up so perfectly that I feel uncomfortable going through with the joke.
Also, this would make a great Intermission.
Last edited by Doctor Submarine (2011-11-11 22:57:45)
It's a fair point that three-act structure is over-emphasized in mainstream Hollywood movies... but that's largely because of the system itself. You have to get your script past studio execs who literally will page-count it to see if you've done it "right", according to the Syd Field structure that has become the blueprint for How You Do It.
But some writers think of a script as four acts, using what others call the "second-act midpoint' as another act break. And others plan their scripts with a long second act that is itself made of three sub-acts, which adds up to a Shakespearian five acts.
And if you've ever seen a theatrical movie on commercial TV, you've probably seen some awkward breaks where the movie just stops and cuts to a commercial. But a movie that was written FOR tv will have a definitive cutting point for every commercial, because tv movies are designed around the commercial breaks, and thus may have nine acts, maybe even more.
But it's all the same thing, really - it's about keeping the story moving, and building in surprises and turning points wherever you can. Five acts, nine, eleven, whatever. Go crazy.
The importance of three-act structure is that it's the minimum number. If you can't at least break your story into some form of beginning, middle, and end... well, it still might work, but you're braver than most if you wanna try it.
Exactly. You gotta be a Kubrick to get away with that shit.
I would argue that FMJ actually has 6 acts
Whatever, Mike gets credit for all my smart things.
I don't even care or anything.
But yes, beginning, middle, and end is all it is. But below that even is the through line. What one action is the focus of the story? Follow that, beginning middle, and end, and stop when that action stops.
Hero goes on a journey of redemption? Start at the beginning (or better yet, slightly after) and stop once he is redeemed.
Lest someone rifle my bowels for mentioning McKee, I DO agree with his definition of what an act is - a major reversal. Be it the character or situation, that's generally how I feel my way around the breaks.
But this is a really smart thread, and I don't want to ruin it with stupidity. So E=MC[]ed.
Three act structure isn't a myth, but following it slavishly and calling yourself a writer is like doing Video Copilot tutorials and calling yourself a VFX artist. You know which buttons to push to accomplish a very specific task, but you don't understand what each step is doing and can't synthesize them into anything new, which is where artistry actually begins.
Which is exactly the problem with a lot of educational curriculum. They teach you parrot methodologies at a high level, but in some part, fail to give you a comprehensive understanding at the fundamental level. (...and Beethoven has a quote where he says pretty much the same thing about artistry)
Last edited by Hastings (2011-11-18 16:25:51)
Three act structure isn't a myth, but following it slavishly and calling yourself a writer is like doing Video Copilot tutorials and calling yourself a VFX artist.
I'd be more apt to compare the three act structure to the rule of thirds, or the 180 rule. Shit can be broken, but you'd better know why you're doing it and what it means.
I don't think those are quite the right comparison. Those are simple things you're either doing or not. If you frame a shot in thirds you're probably not going to get a bad shot. You probably won't get a great one, either, if that's the only thing you know about framing, but you can hit the "competent and serviceable" bar pretty much every time. Whereas mindlessly following the three-act structure (and particularly the page count dogmas that screenwriting books like to put out there) won't guarantee you a competent result, and in fact has a tendency to create problems in the final product rather than solving them. There's a lot of moving pieces in a well-told story, and the necessary pieces will change depending on your story; whereas like I said, a shot is either framed in thirds/a line cross, or it's not.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
