3 act vs. 5 act - structure
Conor Buescher
I have a question regarding screenplay structure. In reading Lew
Hunter's, "Screenwriting 434", he pretty much pounds the three act
structure of storytelling into your brain with a large mallet.
Essentially - get the hero up a tree, throw rocks at him, let him
come down from the tree.
In the supplements of the "Godfather Trilogy" there are Coppola's notes
for the Tragedy of Michael Corleone, which consists of five acts.
Is the five act structure more in lines with Shakespearean drama? Or
is it the three act structure with the second act broken into more
distinct pieces? Allowing each piece to build upon itself. This would
be more in line with Dona Cooper's book, "Writing Great Screenplays for
Film and TV", in which she discusses building roller coasters for the
audience.
In watching films myself, it seems easier to break them down into
a five act structure, rather than a three act structure, at least for
me, or are they really all three acts and I'm just fooling myself?
Any comments? What works good for the rest of you guys?
Conor Buescher
bue...@python.cs.orst.edu
Tad Davis
: Is the five act structure more in lines with Shakespearean drama?
Actually I have a six-act structure.
1. Accepting the task (i.e. Setup) -- Hamlet agrees to revenge his
father's death.
2. Developing the plan -- Hamlet hits on the idea of using the play
within the play.
3. Engagement / confrontation -- Hamlet puts his plan into operation,
resulting in a head-to-head conflict with the King.
4. Disaster -- Hamlet kills Polonius, effectively costing him all the
advantage he's gained to that point, and destroying his plan.
5. Renewal -- Hamlet returns from the trip to England, calmer, more
clear-headed, with renewed resolve.
6. Completion -- Hamlet kills the King and thus revenges his father's
death.
I have to admit that when I tried to use my own idea to construct
something from scratch, as opposed to analyzing something already
written, it took me down the wrong path. But it does help as a template
in some situations. "The Magnificent Seven" fits the pattern, if nothing
else.
------------------------------------------------------
Tad Davis (dav...@umis.upenn.edu) 215-898-7864
------------------------------------------------------
Cyd Ropp
three acts. Each act climax dramatizes a major reversal of fortune. Three
acts requires at least 4 great scenes -- 1 inciting incident and 3
climaxes. McKee says that the typical timing for 3 act structure in a
feature is inciting incident sometime within the first few minutes; act 1
climax around 30 minutes in; act 2 climax around 95 minutes in; act 3
climax around 115 minutes; 5 minutes for resolution. The very long 2nd act
is filled with subplots, each with their own 3 act structure and reversals.
If there are no subplots, then it's more common break the s'play into four
or more acts, with timing for a four act falling around 30, 60, 95, and
120.
Raiders of the Lost Ark was in 7 acts, with 7 major reversals, each one
paced and progressive. Jesus of Montreal; Cook, Thief, Wife, Lover, and
the Tenant were 8 act films. Casablanca was the rare 2 act film, according
to McKee.
______________________________________
Cyd Ropp cy...@pro-harold.cts.com
Michael J. Cordell
> a five act structure, rather than a three act structure, at least for
> me, or are they really all three acts and I'm just fooling myself?
>
> Any comments? What works good for the rest of you guys?
>
>
> Conor Buescher
> bue...@python.cs.orst.edu
>
into the infamous three act scenario, but when I then start
getting into more specific scene-by-scene development I find
myself breaking the second act into two parts (it's just so
easy for me to lose focus otherwise). So I guess my answer is
I end up with four "acts" (or at least three and a half).
You ask the right question by asking "what works for others"
rather than asking "what's the right answer". The key really
is to learn what people recommend but then just figure out what
works for you. The finished product is the key.
Timothy Inners
terms is because it is often the most common form out there. Most
Hollywood screenpalys use it. However, I wrote a 3-act screenplay where
the 2nd act could have been broken up into three separate acts, thereby
providing five. I suppose you can see why it si hard to pin down where
some acts end and others begin.
Timothy Inners esq...@cpcn.com
David Hoag
First, there is always a three-act structure within any five-act structure.
I think the five-act structure is more elaborate than what you lay out as a
six-act structure (which I would say is a five-act structure, as I would
combine the last two as one act). _The Magnificent Seven_, _The Godfather_,
_Citizen Kane_, et al, are all five-act structures, but you can find a
three-act structure there, too. _Braveheart_ was an attempt at a five-act
structure, but it fell apart in the fourth act.
With that said, I think one needs to be very cautious about use of the
five-act structure. It does not work for most screenplays. I think you need
a compelling reason to use that structure, because it is much more complex,
and really extends beyond the paradigm you have laid out, which really is a
progression that fits into three acts that is usable for many "quest"
stories.
I also believe in the four-act structure for certain uses, but again, only
for special reasons.
David Hoag
material, particularly adaptations and biographies, will suggest a five-act
structure. It's far less formulaic, I would say, then laying out a three act
structure (as Lew, one of my film school teachers, points out with his rocks
and trees example). Five-act structures are much, much larger stories, with
more characters, and, particularly, multiple arcs and long passages of time.
You could not, for example, write something like _While You Were Sleeping_ or
_Fatal Attraction_ in a five-act structure. Five-act projects are much more
"epic" in their approach.
I am guessing that the forthcoming _Nixon_ may be in a five-act structure.
In a way, the five-act story has a false denoument at the end of act three,
which then spins into a whole new direction in acts four and five. _Gone
With the WInd_ is a good example of this.
Douglas Eboch
the story with no thought to structure and see what structure suggests
itself. Most often, this is three act, but I have written a four act and
a five act script. Of utmost importance though, is to figure out how to
DESCRIBE these scripts in three acts (fairly easy to do) because that's
all most development people understand.
The way I look at it, each act is the following and resolution of a major
tension, culminating in a climax which resolves that tension and spins
the story in a new direction. These are joined by the main conflict,
which starts in the first five pages and resolves in the last five. I
look for the natural major tensions and climax points in my treatment,
and that's how many acts I create. If it's not three, I study other
films that seem to use the structure to learn what I need to do to make
it work. And of course having a strong, well defined main conflict is
crucial.
Blair P. Houghton
> I have a question regarding screenplay structure. In reading Lew
>Hunter's, "Screenwriting 434", he pretty much pounds the three act
>structure of storytelling into your brain with a large mallet.
> Essentially - get the hero up a tree, throw rocks at him, let him
>come down from the tree.
Funny thing: on the front of _SW434_ is a blurb proclaiming
Hunter the premier teacher of screenwriting on the planet;
on the front of William Froug's _Tricks of the Trade_ is a
blurb *by* Hunter proclaiming Froug the premier teacher of
screenwriting on the planet...
> In the supplements of the "Godfather Trilogy" there are Coppola's notes
>for the Tragedy of Michael Corleone, which consists of five acts.
Coppola would do that, and he makes long, artistic movies
that only make money because Coppola's a certified cinematic
genius.
> Is the five act structure more in lines with Shakespearean drama? Or
Almost always, Shakespeare == five acts.
Modern drama is almost always three acts.
>is it the three act structure with the second act broken into more
>distinct pieces? Allowing each piece to build upon itself. This would
>be more in line with Dona Cooper's book, "Writing Great Screenplays for
>Film and TV", in which she discusses building roller coasters for the
>audience.
What's she playing at? She should have *started* by showing
Shakespeare's five-act habit. I was taught this simple fact
in the eighth grade. It's one of the earliest memories I have
that great talent is merely the fiddly bits on top of great
craftsmanship.
> In watching films myself, it seems easier to break them down into
>a five act structure, rather than a three act structure, at least for
>me, or are they really all three acts and I'm just fooling myself?
A two-hour, money-mill sort of picture will be three acts.
Unless it isn't. Anything with commercial breaks written
into it is harder to figure. American drama knows almost
nothing about a denouement longer than a trailer, so it's
hardly worth analyzing it by act. I applaud anyone who can
put the action climax at the end of act three but keep the
character-development climax at the middle of act two[*].
>Any comments? What works good for the rest of you guys?
Who, me? I make my living by enslaving electrons. But we
all have demons, eh?
--Blair
"And they itch something fierce."
[*] Anyone else agree with me that "Forrest Gump" had this
reversed? It worked that way, too.
Blair Boone
In a previous article, bl...@world.std.com (Blair P. Houghton) says:
>BIG SNIP
Actually, Shakespeare wrote scenes until he had enough for a play.
Later editors imposed the five act structure on his texts.
Blair Boone
Laszlo L. Spencer
I'm a reader. Every reader I know (reading for feature film) looks for a
three act structure. That's the beginning and end of it. If you're
trying to break in, use a three act structure to show thick skulled jaded
people like me that you know what you're doing. Once you have that
multi-million dollar eight picture deal you can write however many acts
you want and then brag about it in "Premiere."
Just to recap:
Write in three acts.
-- Laszlo
Taliesin77
(Laszlo L. Spencer) writes:
>Write in three acts.
I defy any reader anywhere to tell the difference between a 3 or 5 act
structure once a screenplay is written. Are you actually looking at page
numbers and ticking off beats? When a building is finished the scaffolding
is taken away. Good writing doesn't show the structure, it tells a story.
Kevin Troy Darling
V.P. Rogue Productions
Tempe, AZ/Venice, CA
mch...@ipof.fla.net
(Taliesin77) wrote:
>
> I defy any reader anywhere to tell the difference between a 3 or 5 act
> structure once a screenplay is written. Are you actually looking at page
> numbers and ticking off beats? When a building is finished the scaffolding
> is taken away. Good writing doesn't show the structure, it tells a story.
>
> Kevin Troy Darling
> V.P. Rogue Productions
> Tempe, AZ/Venice, CA
I accept your challenge Kevin,
What you're saying doesn't make any sense. A structure is nothing like
scaffolding. You're statement goes against the entire dramatic format put
forth by Aristotle. The very idea that an audience can't determine the
major plot points of a film or script is unrealistic and an easy
challenge.
go to any movie and if you can't determine the 2-3 points when the story
takes a twist and moves off in a new direction you're just not paying
attention. This is why Syd Field is so venerated and reviled. He stated
the obvious facts of dramatic structure and applied it rigorously to
films. While I'm no Syd Fieldphile, I must admit that what he said is
without a doubt one of the most important factors in the telling of any
story. i.e. Beginning. Middle. End!!!
For my example I will use PATTON, which I watched last night. If you look
at this film, and the script (which I have), you will see the 5 act
structure easily as they are even differentiated by Geographic locations.
You have
Act I. Patton in the Desert fighting Rommel.
ACT II. Patton in Sicily, trying to beat Monty to Messina. Plot Point
being when he finds out that he's in trouble for slapping the soldier.
ACT III. Patton is without a command, all over England and the Middle
East. Until he gets brought back.
ACT IV Commands 3rd army in Battle of Bulge in Europe.
ACT V. Wars over. Dealing with the Russians in bombed out Berlin.
Need I say more?
I'm sorry if I got so riled up by your comments, but to hear people make
the sort of presumptuous observations that you made about structure justs
begs to be set straight.
Nothing personal. :)
Mike.
Taliesin77
mch...@ipof.fla.net writes:
>I'm sorry if I got so riled up by your comments, but to hear people make
>the sort of presumptuous observations that you made about structure justs
>begs to be set straight.
Okay, I'll admit to my expressiveness, but please don't tell me I'm being
more presumptuous than anyone else. Until this site is populated solely by
professional writers, producers, et al, we all have fairly equivalent
credentials (e.g. our opinions.) And even then, one could argue that
selling work does not necessarily make a writer more informed on matters
of writing (take 90% of sold screenplays as your example.)
Yes, in any movie you can find <<2-3 points when the story
takes a twist and moves off in a new direction >>, but are these
Aristotelian? A twist is not neccesarily the same as an act break. An Act
can be seen as the play in microcosm. An Act has a beginning, middle, end
in the same way as screenplay. This implies that the act takes us from one
stasis to a new (perhaps elevated) stasis. The next act begins with that
elevated stasis and transforms it to another stasis. These transformations
should involve struggle and all be resolved in the final act (in most
cases, I always believe there are exceptions though I may not always allow
for them.)
As an example take what I see as the first act of "Rasing Arizona":
Hi and Ed meet, develop a relationship, but find they want more, so they
steal a baby.
Now IMO this act break occurs before the credits even roll. Call it a
prologue if you want, but a prologue is still an act.
I haven't seen patton in a while, but your first break,
<<Act I. Patton in the Desert fighting Rommel.>>
in its description does not suggest a beginning, middle and end. It
describes a sequence. I'm sure you could word it in a way that suggests a
transformation of stasis in Patton's character. That requires deeper
analysis than is usually afforded in the first read or viewing of a film.
I suspect that this was not your first viewing of Patton, and to answer my
question you may find yourself wanting to watch it again, or review it in
your head. Of course, I will allow that you have a lot of practice and a
quick mind (I always give myself that consideration) and can make instant,
deep assessments (okay I'm getting sarcastic, but I'm just trying to have
fun here while I'm defending my diatribes.)
I'm afraid that I've insulted your abilities, in my off-handed challenge.
Yes, an educated reader or viewer can detect act breaks. I'm concerned
that all to often these launching points are arbitrary and have little to
do with actual character development through the course of a film.
I prefer to see Syd Field's view through a back door. It is true that
enjoyable films introduce their characters early (by about 10 minutes),
have regular changes in stasis (of roughly 30 minutes periods), Good
writing will conform to this standard without really trying.
My objection to the Field method is when it is touted as the structure of
a film. Good writing has good structure and good structure does not
announce itself in the course of the viewing. I suspect that I could
create a seven act structure that would fool most Fieldian (sic) viewers
if I simply included an action sequence about pages 30, 60, and 90. I have
seen too many screenwriting students add and delete lines to force their
first act break on page 30. In my mind what Field recognized in
screenplays was their pacing. His great sin <g> (or the sin of his
followers) in my mind was that he misread pacing for structure. The pace
of a great film will turn or be launched by events that are defined by the
structure.
This leads me back to the scaffolding metaphor:
you write,
<<What you're saying doesn't make any sense. A structure is nothing like
scaffolding. >>
Scaffolding is that structure that temporarily defines the building while
it is b
mch...@ipof.fla.net
(Taliesin77) wrote:
> Okay, I'll admit to my expressiveness, but please don't tell me I'm being
> more presumptuous than anyone else. Until this site is populated solely by
> professional writers, producers, et al, we all have fairly equivalent
> credentials (e.g. our opinions.) And even then, one could argue that
> selling work does not necessarily make a writer more informed on matters
> of writing (take 90% of sold screenplays as your example.)
>
> Yes, in any movie you can find <<2-3 points when the story
> takes a twist and moves off in a new direction >>, but are these
> Aristotelian? A twist is not neccesarily the same as an act break. An Act
> can be seen as the play in microcosm. An Act has a beginning, middle, end
> in the same way as screenplay. This implies that the act takes us from one
> stasis to a new (perhaps elevated) stasis. The next act begins with that
> elevated stasis and transforms it to another stasis. These transformations
> should involve struggle and all be resolved in the final act (in most
> cases, I always believe there are exceptions though I may not always allow
> for them.)
--section deleted--
> My objection to the Field method is when it is touted as the structure of
> a film. Good writing has good structure and good structure does not
> announce itself in the course of the viewing. I suspect that I could
> create a seven act structure that would fool most Fieldian (sic) viewers
> if I simply included an action sequence about pages 30, 60, and 90. I have
> seen too many screenwriting students add and delete lines to force their
> first act break on page 30. In my mind what Field recognized in
> screenplays was their pacing. His great sin <g> (or the sin of his
> followers) in my mind was that he misread pacing for structure. The pace
> of a great film will turn or be launched by events that are defined by the
> structure.
>
dear taliesin77,
I must say that you made some very valid points in the last post and they
seemed a lot more thought out than your first post, so I will agree in
part with what you said.
I know that I feel that structure is the _most_ important aspect of
screenwriting. Therefore, in my writing, it is my most central
consideration when concepting the story. And by structure, I mean more
than just adding or deleting lines to make it fit 30 60 90. You're right
about film students doing that. I've seen it myself. However, I think
that's just an example of writers giving the nod to Field's theories
without understanding them.
To truly understand field, and the 3 act structure, one must understand
that audiences crave what they recognize. this is why sequels are so
commonplace. This is why we've seen die hard in a bus, die hard in a
train... Part of it is because the studios aren't very interested in
experimenting, but more it is because mass audeinces don't want to
experiment. People are comfortable with the 3 act structure. they
unconsciously know how the story is going to unfold and it makes them feel
safer in the film. this is a major reason why artsy, experimental films
don't make big box office. the experimentation with tradtional structure
is jarring for most.
I imagine I'll be hearing some responses regarding PULP FICTION and its
playing with structure. Well, to head them off, I'll say this. There
will always be great movies that go against the rule and succeed. That's
what's great about film. However, I still think that the exception proves
the rule. For every Pulp Fiction, there are a number of Die Hards that
succeed in B.O. Pulp Fictions playing with structure was inventive and
successful, but if all movies did it, I think a large mass of audience
would be put off.
Finally, your post got cut off at the line below.
> Scaffolding is that structure that temporarily defines the building while
> it is b
but I'm sure I get your point. I say structure is the girders, the
bluepring and the mortar of the building. Not just the temporary
scaffolding.
Appreciate your position.
Mike
Taliesin77
mch...@ipof.fla.net writes:
>Finally, your post got cut off at the line below.
Scaffolding is that structure that temporarily defines the building while
it is being built. It gives a place for the builder to lay brick upon
brick. When the building is finished the scaffolding is taken away. The
building supports itself but that support is not (usually) visible. It can
only be seen by inference. A great screenplay does not announce it's act
breaks, the viewer is engaged.
I'm sure there were other gems of wisdom which got trimmed, perhaps
mercifully, but you've got the picture.
It takes a sinner to recognize the sin I suppose, but I always bristle
when the pedants attempt to dictate style through format. Problem is, I'm
always pedantically enforcing my own style. The cycle never ends.
<<To truly understand field, and the 3 act structure, one must understand
that audiences crave what they recognize. this is why sequels are so
commonplace. This is why we've seen die hard in a bus, die hard in a
train... Part of it is because the studios aren't very interested in
experimenting, but more it is because mass audeinces don't want to
experiment. People are comfortable with the 3 act structure. they
unconsciously know how the story is going to unfold and it makes them feel
safer in the film. this is a major reason why artsy, experimental films
don't make big box office. the experimentation with tradtional structure
is jarring for most.>>
This is precisely what I meant by my back door approach to Syd. If you try
to write in the Field format, you will probably write a poor screenplay.
If you write a good screenplay, Field will be satisfied. I loved Syd
Field's books before I took my first screenwriting class as an
undergraduate. Suddenly, my pages were being counted! I think the
instructor was perpetuating whatever abuse she had endured, rather than
questionning the assumptions. And what it really gets down to is this.
People who aren't really writers assume that the whole process is about
format, and will judge your writing ability solely on that criteria.
Now this is where the pragmatist in me takes over and I have to admit that
if you want to get your writing past the slog-head readers <g> you had
better be using the proper format. Why make your life any harder than it
has to be? I make my rebellions small and then I beat my breast in forums
such as this. When I start taking submissions, I might set my format
filter (sic) on high, but they will all be my preferences.
And as a final pontification (this posting), I suspect that Field(ian)
screenplays are not three acts but are actually two acts with the climaxes
of acts one and two being the plot points that are misinterpreted as act
breaks. The Field(ian) middle act merely being the denoument of act one
and the build of act two. The third act being merely the denoument of act
2.
Now, I'll get some feeback. {;-)
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Kevin Troy Darling, V.P. Rogue Prod.
Tempe, AZ/Venice, CA
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Brian Bagnall
of the Lost Arc? Excellent movie... so does it follow the 3 act
structure?
Brian Bagnall
>To truly understand field, and the 3 act structure, one must understand
>that audiences crave what they recognize. this is why sequels are so
>commonplace. This is why we've seen die hard in a bus, die hard in a
>train... Part of it is because the studios aren't very interested in
>experimenting, but more it is because mass audeinces don't want to
>experiment. People are comfortable with the 3 act structure. they
>unconsciously know how the story is going to unfold and it makes them feel
>safer in the film. this is a major reason why artsy, experimental films
>don't make big box office. the experimentation with tradtional structure
>is jarring for most.
Case in point: Slackers. This thing had NO structure, other than
sticking with some characters a while then moving on. There weren't
even any characters that stayed in the movie for more than 15 minutes
>I imagine I'll be hearing some responses regarding PULP FICTION and its
>playing with structure. Well, to head them off, I'll say this. There
>will always be great movies that go against the rule and succeed. That's
>what's great about film. However, I still think that the exception proves
>the rule. For every Pulp Fiction, there are a number of Die Hards that
>succeed in B.O. Pulp Fictions playing with structure was inventive and
>successful, but if all movies did it, I think a large mass of audience
>would be put off.
Success probably has more to do with how FUN a movie LOOKS like it
will be. Jurassic Park looked like it would be a hoot, but it sucked.
Didn't matter in the end because the commercials and endless chatter
about cloning dino's on PBS, etc... got it on everyones mind and they
had to see it.
>but I'm sure I get your point. I say structure is the girders, the
>bluepring and the mortar of the building. Not just the temporary
>scaffolding.
Some movies, like Slackers, prove that you don't need conflict all the
time to be interesting, you JUST HAVE TO BE INTERESTING. Also proves
you don't always need structure to blow a viewer away.
Taliesin77
(Brian Bagnall) writes:
> Also proves
>you don't always need structure to blow a viewer away.
"Slackers" has a structure. I haven't seen it. It may not be a
Aristotelian, 3 act structure, but it has something.
Mysti A Rubert
Brian Bagnall <umba...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>
>Case in point: Slackers. This thing had NO structure, other than
>sticking with some characters a while then moving on. There weren't
>even any characters that stayed in the movie for more than 15 minutes
Hmm, seemed to me the story had a very firm structure, though
not the typical one. Like that old John Hartford song, a shaggy
dog story told to a very specific tune.
Mysti
18gi...@gypsd.ca
> I have a question regarding screenplay structure. In reading Lew
> Hunter's, "Screenwriting 434", he pretty much pounds the three act
> structure of storytelling into your brain with a large mallet.
>
> Essentially - get the hero up a tree, throw rocks at him, let him
> come down from the tree.
>
> for the Tragedy of Michael Corleone, which consists of five acts.
> distinct pieces? Allowing each piece to build upon itself. This would
> be more in line with Dona Cooper's book, "Writing Great Screenplays for
> Film and TV", in which she discusses building roller coasters for the
> audience.
>
> a five act structure, rather than a three act structure, at least for
> me, or are they really all three acts and I'm just fooling myself?
>
>
>
> bue...@python.cs.orst.edu
--
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is
addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged
information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take
action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent
reply, should be deleted or destroyed.