How Three-Act Screenplays Work (and why it matters) 

At the same time his films frequently include five breaks, so that might be an argument towards the Hulk act theory.

Pulp Fiction, Django, and Basterds break down easiest into three acts (Pulp just divides one act between the opening and the ending, while Basterds is basically two stories that share the same third act). Don't know if Kill Bill lines up the same way (especially since it's unclear if it should be analyzed as one or two movies).

Eh. Pulp Fiction jumbles the structure though.

I agree Tarantino doesn't remove the structure, just gives a different and often unique perception of it.

Kill Bill has a three act structure both as one or two movies. The three acts just aren't presented to us in a chronological fashion if you take it as one movie. Vol 1 opens with what is the beginning of act 2, does that for maybe ten minutes, and then is the entirety of act one. In and of itself, Vol. 1 has a three act structure as well; setting up the main conflict, working towards the big confrontation, fighting for 45 minutes. Vol. 2 is a bit harder, since it's basically all second act up until she finally gets to Bill and the stakes change, but even then you could argue that with all the flashbacks and exposition in there, we still get the set up of the hero's main quest, working towards the main confrontation, and then resolving it all, complete with a twist in the third act.

that's an amazing analysis !

another thing is that in some shakespeare there are plot threads left hanging, or resolved offstage. Macbeth has quite a few plot points resolved offstage and we're informed of them rather jarringly through dialogue, like Lady Macbeth killing herself. they aren't bad stories, but they are often paced oddly and packed with seemingly needless content in the middle.

Agreed! Considering the first point: one thing I find particularly "unnecessary" to my modern mind when looking at Shakespeare's plays is that they pretty much always end with "the status quo is stable again", usually in the form of power gaps being replaced after the death of an important character, which causes the final scene to run very long compared to other scenes in the fifth act which are commonly some of the shortest in the play as a whole. For example: To me, _Hamlet_ could effectively end with Horatio mourning over Hamlet as Fortinbras' soldiers storm the castle, but Shakespeare finds it necessary to extend past the emotional drama, and get into explicitly stating how Fortinbras is to become the new ruler since the royal family of Denmark is all dead, as though the audience needed the resolution of tension to be spelled out for them.

+Master Markus this is likely because the intended audience of his plays were the largely illiterate masses of the 1500s England. If I were writing for that audience I would also be tempted to air on the side of caution and really go all out to tie everything up in a neat little bow.

Thing is, though, Shakespeare plays may be more complicated and more stuffed with...well...stuff, but even they tend to follow the three-act narrative structure outlined here. Take Hamlet, for example. The "inciting incident" would be when Hamlet hears about his dad's ghost, and decides he wants to see it for himself. Then the ghost tells him "Oh hey, your uncle killed me; you should probably go do something about that" and that sets act two in motion. The midpoint would be where Hamlet confirms Claudius is guilty, and Claudius knows Hamlet knows. Conflicts keep building up until we get the graveyard scene where Hamlet crashes Ophelia's burial, and Hamlet and Laertes agree to duel. Now the final confrontation is inevitable, and that sets act three in motion. Deaths of kings, princes, and nobodies; Fortinbras orders a stop to the cycle of revenge; funeral march; FIN. Looking at that from the perspective of Shakespeare's five acts, that basically puts the "act two" of the three-act narrative in what Shakespeare called acts two, three, and four. Proportionally, this is about right for the standard three-act narrative used in film for the last century or so.

Maybe one day. Ironically, I'd have to finish my master's degree first (yay, more student debt!)

I second this potential RU-vid Content Creator Retirement Plan.

As a teacher (Middle School English) I'm watching this with a "edit here", "mute there", and "hide screen here" mentality because this is essentially a more concise, if more academic, version of what I teach early in the first quarter. This is probably better suited to High School in terms of complexity though. With that said, Lindsay unless you're going to teach Uni level, DON'T TEACH! Save your liver and your sanity.

Honestly @Cyrus, that was why I was like "eh, should probably finish that masters" - not sure how interested I'd be in teaching except for Uni level, as comp lit and critical studies only really start at uni level.

I'm in the same boat honestly. I'd much rather teach Uni level, but climbing back up the mountain of student debt is not all that appealing.

Megamind had the problem that it came out at basically the same time as Despicable Me, which seemed like it had the same premise (right down to having a minion literally called a "Minion") and was a far bigger hit. But Despicable Me was more a straight kid's movie, and Megamind was really a romantic comedy. I recall hearing that the script was originally shopped around as a live action superhero rom-com aimed at adults.

+Matt McIrvin Megamind was also a whole lot better.

I feel something interesting to note is that Despicable Me, in contrast with Megamind, takes place in a world strangely absent of superheroes. With no opposing forces to balance them out, "super-villain" becomes less a specific character in a specific type of story and more a vague archetype. Suicide Squad had the same problem, wherein the "villains" are really only that in name, but are really just straight heroes from a story structure perspective.

Anthony Rand megamind is trashy as shit

@@aaronsanders6162 _Take that back!_

Completely agree. You need to know the rule to break them effectively.

Agreed - this is a very good structure to start from.

I agree! Sometimes Indie movies are trying so hard to be new and innovative that they forget there has to be a point to telling a story even if it's just to show the mundane.

Or pin you in a box

@@MrLCGOwho decides the rules in the first place?

I actually made a draft for a book I wrote after I saw this video. I made it in three acts and then used that to write my book. It really helped me produce text, it helped my focus, it helped my creativity, and I got really satisfied even before I started editing the manuscript.

Knowing about structure can help you recognize that what you are writing isn't working even before it is done. Analysis doesn't have to wait until after you put down the pen.

Malcom Chase Actually, learning structure does help you write. That's one of the reasons I watched the video.

@@jackgray2419same here. It definitely helps me write more fluidly

CrystalJupiter Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes!

+

I tend to have trouble understand them the first time, but yes, I really like these lectures.

I find that watching something like this two or three times helps me understand what is being discussed. The first time through gives me an overview of the lecture, and the other times I watch through helps fill in the little details that make it all come together.

Monsters Inc. too, and Finding Nemo in a way

Finding Nemo follows this almost exactly, except that the race against time is basically 70% of the movie, and the character (Marlin) learns something during said race and ends up fixing things through his lesson. At the beginning of the movie, Marlin and his wife are happily planning their new life and raising their many children. (Marlin is on top of the world.) His wife and all of his children save one are eaten. (This screws up his life.) We fast forward to his remaining child, Nemo, as an adolescent, and he's so paranoid about losing him that he's incredibly overbearing and pretty much never lets his child experience the real world. (He's trying to rectify the incident that screwed up his life, or more specifically, trying to make sure it never happens again.) Nemo is resentful of Marlin to the point that he deliberately does something dangerous simply to spite him, which gets Nemo kidnapped and put in a dentist's aquarium. (This is Marlin's life screwing up even more.) Marlin then has to race to save Nemo, (The race against time) and in the end, learns that letting his child enjoy life is more important than his fears, and that Nemo can take care of himself without having to be doted over all the time. (Everything is fixed.) Every Pixar movie I can think of can be broken down this way. In Cars, the race against time is even a literal race. This, of course, doesn't make Pixar movies bad by any means, but it's interesting to break them down and realize that they've all got the same basic skeleton.

@CaptainJZH ... not a film student like Lindsay here, but I think that's a film comedy structure. The 'fix everything' at the end works for various scenarios; to fall in love, learn not to be a jerk, etc.

holy shit. that is exactly how manyof them go.

You've reminded me of "22 Rules of Storytelling" by Emma Coats (Pixar storyboard artist). One of them is: "Once upon a time, there was _________. Every day, _________. One day, ________. Because of that, _________. Because of that, ________. Until finally __________."

Alternate title: Chef Man

I can relate to Tony so much better now.

David LS 😂😂😂

Minestrone Tony!

@@WanderingWriter no, Iron Chef.

Aries?

BECAUSE WE NEED A GIMMICK TO SELL THE ARTICLE

THIS MADE ME LAUGH

Aww, that's nice, but I should be good (assuming everything works out on USC's end). The rest of my tuition exists in the form of an as-yet-unsold GMC Sierra.

***** well, good luck, perhaps you and Kyle can just start a RU-vid College or something

Here here! More Kyle collaborations will always be valuable!

+

I agree. I'm weeks away from finishing me and the money issue is killing me.

Right now, in corona sequestering, that is pretty much what I do. :-P

@Crystal Kanashii wow how did you take *that* from Megamind?

Yup, the idea of form and structure is something that's an integral part of any kind of time variant art/performance. Speaking as a musician, (a theorist/composer no less), I always felt like the quote you mentioned had the right idea, but lacked an essential part. While theory does not teach one to create, it does teach one the language of music. While for some it used to explain someone else's message (a theorist/analyst), for other's the language is used to help one construct a message (the composer) The really cool part is that how a piece of work is interpreted is very dependent upon the observer musical lens. You can expect that a classicist, a modernist, and a Contemporary analyst will read your choices differently, and you can use certain techniques to communicate differently to those people's sensibilities. The same idea of structure shows up in dance, and non-static visual art as well. It's very cool.

Hey Doug! It has been 3 years since your comment but I still wanted to ask you a question, your comment inspired the following query in me: I have came across many music theory discussion videos where they mention a question-answer, tension-release, call-response structure in melody. So far my impression is that this tension-release structure was applicable to _musical phrases_. Is there any similar structure between _sections_ of a song or a musical piece? (like the sequences within an act in a film). I would like to thank you in advance if you decide to share your thoughts.

@@Badz_B34chst4r Oh absolutely, though it is usually a bit more subtle, or at least less overt as more often than not this is accomplished with structural devices instead of surface level ones. Probably the most obvious are pairings such as a Toccata and Fugue, or a prelude and Gigue etc. In the case of a suite, or partita the various sections are usually organized in a particular fashion so that they contrast and compliment each other. However, when the divisions are less defined, so will be the devices used to create a antecedent and consequent effect. Changing keys is one of the more common ways this is done. Two keys that have either a strong relationship or a strong contrast, depending on if the goal is to stabilize or destabilize a region. Such as two keys that have a strong directional relationship, in which one has a strong tendency towards the other, much like the dominant to tonic relationship, or the major and its relative minor. Sometimes the other road is chosen, and a key is selected specifically due to its distance from the reference key. Such as one with few common tones, or one that undermines the definitive pitch classes of the original scale. In general, aside from actually separate movements, in common practice music the most common device is the use of modulation, and key relationships. In the mentioned Sonata Allegro form, the first theme is often in the tonic, and the second contrasting theme in the dominant key. In the development the composer often explores these differences, and breaks them apart, rearranges them, turns them upside down or backwards...expands or compresses them etc. The development goes all over with modulations and key changes. Then in the recap, most often the main themes are all restated in the original tonic key, showing a sense of release of the contrast between the two keys. Especially in 18th century music, these sorts of design choices were paramount as symmetry was a major focus at that time. By the mid ninteenth century composers were more focused on a subjective voice than formalism and such conventions became less determinant. Hope that helps somewhat, it is a pretty broad subject to try and fit into a paragraph haha

Snow Cone?

Yeah, people saying that story structure is destructive or unnecessary is annoying. At least for me I can't just wing it and come up with something intelligible. If someone is able to just channel the muses and spew out a coherent narrative, then good for them. But you can't just expect everyone to be able to do that.

Yeah, as long as you have a solid base idea first, I see no problem with using the three-act structure (or five-act, or any other useful structure for that matter) to help organise everything. It's when you use it as a rigid "how to story" before you have anything more than a vague concept that it starts becoming a problem and your narrative runs at risk of becoming cookie-cutterised.

Completely agree. I think learning about story structure/theory etc can only help with writing. Yeah, don't just sit down and tick all the boxes like she said, but if it helps you understand what has worked before and why it worked, then that knowledge can only be helpful to your own creative endeavours.

I actually did the same and was really satisfied with the result!

Ha CTWR 516? :p

O... M... G... Did you do critical studies at USC? I always assumed you were East Coast Intellectual(tm) from Columbia's film school (which I mean in the very best way).

Nope, I was an MFA at USC production (crit studies I did in undergrad), and yep, this was basically my CTWR 516 notes

How was USC?

expensive.

It's funny you say that cause I also study music theory and it felt to me that movie structural analysis is paralleled with music structural analysis. Much like, say, a sonata or a fugue consists of parts and units with specific progressions in order to make sense, so does a clear-cut (or sometimes not so clear-cut) three-act structured movie. When you listen to a sonata for the first time you don't immidiately distinguish between the transition from one point to the next and neither does that happen when you watch a movie, like Lindsay pointed out. Overall, I'm definitely re-watching this, it's pretty awesome.

+ChristieFystiki I never made it past freshman year music theory; I'm guessing it got more interesting. ;-)

ChristieFystiki You're absolutely right. Both studies are similar. Movies have thematic textures and nuances just like operas and symphonies

Степан Худяков I don't personally know anyone who majored in music theory, but we were required to learn it as musicians. It's the study of how & why music works, and yes, it helps you to be a better musician.

Степан Худяков You learn about harmony and rhythm and the structure of musical compositions. In a nutshell

Belac889 Happy Birthday

Happy birthday!

Same! (3 days early.)

happy bday, mines on Saturday!!

Happy birthday!

Thank you!!

I think the ending was initially confounding but ultimately appreciate it more. It illustrates that, even after our main narrative and mystery are concluded, things move on and our characters have to go back to their lives, not just having that passage of time implied in the sequel. I won't argue that it was essential to the film, but it changed the way I thought about the film and what I ultimately took away from it. Though it might've been extraneous, it built on the context and significance of the story we saw unfold, whereas something like Snowden, which also "suffers" from an extra half hour after things seem ready to end, didn't seem to contribute anything to the main story I'd sat through. I apologize for the length and rambling nature of this response.

I think because they were setting up tension for a second movie. Lisbeth stealing all that guys money wouldn't work as a first act or sequence in a new movie.

I would argue that's the same case with Casino Royale.

Dude, you have to watch the original Swedish version. It is absolutely superb!

Return of the King has a really long resolution in order to tie up the whole series. However it wouldn't be considered as an act itself. Acts can be uneven. The video mentions that certain movies have a long first act, like Lion King. So it is very imaginable for a movie to have a long third act. Personally I like to think of stories as having four acts. I like the number four. The eight sequences in the video can be evenly divided to four acts. I think this could apply to Return of the King. I am going to go off of Frodo parts, because I forgotten the details of the other parts. Act 1- Frodo goes up the stairs. A problem arises. Sam and Gollum fight a lot. Eventually Sam is left behind. Act 2- Gollum leads Frodo into Shelob's den. Shelob captures Frodo. Then the orcs take him to the tower. Things get bad, and Frodo is at his lowest point. Act 3- Sam rescues Frodo from the Tower. They travel through Mordor. This is a shift from things getting bad to things getting better. Frodo being imprisoned and saved in the tower can be a midpoint of sorts. Act 4- Frodo destroys the ring at Mt. Doom. Gollum dies. Then there is the long resolution with the eagle rescue, fellowship reunion, coronation returning to Shire, Grey Havens, etc.

ok but the scene where frodo gets on the ship at the end fucking destroys me every time and i will hear no word against it

Just Write has a video on why the ending of RotK seems so long. It's all about Frodo and the residual darkness inside him. So, no, not just hugs and awkward smiles.

DOSRetroGamer a resolution? Lol

I find that the end of Return of the King only feels long if you're watching that movie alone. But if you're marathoning the whole trilogy it feels the perfect length because it's the conclusion of three movies' worth of story.

As Lindsay puts it, you most likely learnt it by osmosis.

Agustina Kazuyo it's actually pretty common amongst "talented" writers. picking it up from things you've watched

Well, these structures will tend to happen by emulation. It's much harder to NOT emulate, or rather to emulate in such an indirect way as to render it very difficult to tell where the significant inspiration comes from, than it is to allow inspiration to have a prominent impact on your own writing. In doing you, it is highly likely to wind up with these structures in place even if there was no conscious intent for the work to have them. In fact, I would argue the more accustomed to stories you are (by watching them/reading them) the more likely it is for this to happen on its own. That's a very simplified way of describing osmosis, which has already been mentioned.

David Lev I agree with that twist not being well set up but I consider the girl who leapt through time my absolute FAVORITE film.

Oh, no, it's a great movie, definitely.

David Lev Indeed. God bless Mamoru Hosoda. It's a shame he doesn't get as much credit outside of Japan. One can only hope his career flourishes more than it already has.

I find that fun - after you've written or outlined something, it's like, oh, huh, I guess that's the midpoint.

yeah, I should get around to that...

I am looking forward to it =)

This is something to get excited for.

...

Having seen it multiple times, I'd argue Only Lovers Left Alive has a three-acts structure: Act 1 ends with the lovers being reunited, Act 2 ends with the sister being kicked out, and the climax is them running from the police and looking for blood. There's still an overall arc with Adam starting out suicidal, and by the end, unwilling to die of starvation, and also finding meaning in relationship with others (ironically by having two of his only friends die throughout the story)

shamanite Okay, good point.

I am sorely tempted to make a 45 minute hunchback apologia - I kind of love it too, I think it's unfairly maligned.

That would be incredible. There's so much good about it, even though it does have flaws.

I think Hunchback is possibly the most interesting yet bungled movie Disney ever made. The movie's overall execution is quite stirring, but it has a couple facets that detract from it. And the thing is the mishandled stuff isn't that bad on its own, but it distracts us from so much from the truly great stuff that it stands out more as a result.

I think the film stands as a fascinating compliment to hercules. Hunchback has some of the most dark and subversive elements in a disney film, while also succumbing to some of its most irritating traits. (IE gargoyles) It would be really interesting to hear your thoughts on it!

People get all up on Musker & Clements, but I think Wise & Trousdale are by far the more interesting duo. Atlantis is boring as hell, fine, but Beauty & The Beast and Hunchback both have a texture and complexity that I find is lacking in a lot of other Disney fare. Their movies always struck me as taking themselves a little more seriously, trying to hit more dramatic beats than comic ones. And their painted, layered backgrounds are gorgeous.