How Three-Act Screenplays Work (and why it matters)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Following up on the (brief) discussion in the Hercules video about how three act structures create a conventional narrative in Hollywood movies.
A screenplay having three acts is not just arbitrary, nor is it a myth - some of your favorite movies use it, and here's why it works.
Cited articles:
Film Crit Hulk - "The Myth of the Three-Act Structure" birthmoviesdeat...
The de-Hulkifier: simonganz.com/2...
Todd Vanderwerff - "The biggest problem with modern blockbusters, explained by Independence Day: Resurgence" www.vox.com/201...
Patreon: / lindsayellis - บันเทิง
It's funny when people say Tarantino eschews structure when one of his most commonly used motifs is to visually mark act breaks with on-screen text.
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.
I still contend that Megamind was a seriously underrated film. It had the usual animated film problems of relying too much on big actors and reference humor, but I thought the story was an excellent take on the superhero genre that we've seen plenty of times in comics but never in Hollywood films (just look at Suicide Squad, which tried and utterly failed to have villains as main characters).
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.
@Aaron Sanders _Take that back!_
@@jonathansalvador5037
Despicable Me works in a world leaning more towards a James Bond villain.
One thing I've noticed studying Shakespeare and his five act plays is how uncomfortable that format feels to an audience used to three act structures. It always seems like there's too much "stuff" in Shakespeare's plays. Even when people try to remember the story from some of the most famous plays, they forget about some parts. Probably has to do with the length of those plays, as they tend to run for longer than most Hollywood movies. I've been wondering recently if five act structures would not be better suited to video games. I tend to hate when games try to emulate movies and go for a format substantially too short for the content provided. Makes for drawn out second acts.
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.
Structure is horrendously underrated, especially in the indie film circles. Story structure can help you contextualize what it is you're trying to say, so that you can have that texture of reality and resonance in all of your scenes without the story getting lost in whatever indie film aesthetic you're going for.
You don't need your structure to be of three acts; you may not even need a pre established structure, but you need something for which to hang the story elements on in order for them to shine.
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 remember one of the Pixar Blu-Rays (probably Inside Out) had a great featurette on how they structure their movies. It's usually: Character is on top of the world, something happens to screw up their life, they do something to rectify that, it screws things up even more, character learns something, character has to do some sort of race against time, and by the end they fix everything. This is most exemplified by Toy Story, I think.
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 __________."
MORE FILM STUDIES TYPE VIDEOS PLZ
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.
I could listen to Lindsay talk about films in an educational way all day everyday.
Right now, in corona sequestering, that is pretty much what I do. :-P
I just wanted you to know that when you put captions on (because you’re watching this at work) it says “will Tony build a soup that works”
Alternate title: Chef Man
I can relate to Tony so much better now.
David LS 😂😂😂
Minestrone Tony!
@@WanderingWriter no, Iron Chef.
Learning the structure doesn't help you write. It helps you produce, though.
After you have a script/book/comic/etc. written, turning an analytical eye to correct and improve, to patch weaknesses and accentuate strengths, can mean the difference between your story seeing the light of day or not.
Those that believe "drafts" and "take twos" don't exist are mistaken.
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
4:50 TENSION & ACTS
5:42 Backstory
6:08 S1 Point of Attack
6:42 S2 Inciting (Central conflict)
7:40 Want v Need
8:35 S3 Lock In (go on quest)
Main Tension
9:18 S3 begins Act 2
9:33 S4 (try first time goal)
9:54 Midpoint
(change goal/ twist)
10:30 S5 Build on Twist (shift MP-S5)
11:26 S6 (Conflict comes together)
Low point (find new tension Act 3)
12:39 S7 Decide face related tension 3
13:17 Twist 3 (keep interest/ personal)
14:12 S8 Climax (resolve 3 Tension)
WHY IS AN ACADEMIC ARTICLE WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS? I DON'T LIKE BEING SHOUTED AT ABOUT FILM.
Aries?
BECAUSE WE NEED A GIMMICK TO SELL THE ARTICLE
THIS MADE ME LAUGH
8:17 One of my teachers once said that, "if all of your protagonists are in a bus, someone has to drive the bus."
I propose a kickstarter to get Lindsey enough money to complete her Master's Degree
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 TH-cam 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.
What I found profoundly interesting about this video essay, was how it correlates to music theory. Before I use the example that really jumped out at me, I would like to mention what my music theory prof said during his introduction, in my first theory class in my first year, "Music theory does not aspire to teach you how to write music, but to give you a language to express to others what you experience when you listen to music, so you can compare and discuss."
I love that quote, but what I really wanted to mention is the similarities between the first musical form you study, from what is called the common practice period(1600-1800 roughly), and this form is the Sonata Allegro form. It is both a binary and ternary form in that you have the exposition, which is usually repeated, the development, and the recapitulation. The exposition establishes the two themes, the theme in the tonic key, and a secondary theme in the dominant key. The development then takes these two themes, and explores, fragments, modulates around to various keys, and explores their various elements in various treatments, ending the in the recap which presents both themes in the tonic key with a sense of resolution. Sorry to drop jargon or ramble, but the similarities really astounded me. To avoid confusion, the development and recap are not repeated, hence the aspect that makes it both binary and ternary, as well as the concept that traditionally two tonal key centers are the focus of contrast. Anyway, I am making this confusing after all this beer, It is just astounding how much overlap there is, and I truly enjoyed this video as it resonated with something very dear to me. As an interesting aside for anyone curious, this is one of the interpretations of Beethoven's music that lead to him being so beloved, as he popularized making the development the main bulk of the sonata allegro form, much larger than the exposition and recap(there are exceptions as he did interesting things in the recaps too).
Anyway, Thank you for such a fantastic video! I would love to hear you one day tackle film music on a more detailed level, as it is absolutely a passion of mine.
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
"Jafar just..golfed me into the Himalayas"
Snow Cone?
I've started using the three act structure in the creator's fashion in my writing recently, not as a blueprint or inspiration, but rather as a tool for structuring my already existing ideas in the planning phase. It helps with getting everything down on paper all organised like and tends to highlight where things are still missing and where I need to do more planning before I start writing my manuscript proper.
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!
I love that you included Megamind in your examples! I feel that it's a movie that isn't appreciated enough.
@Crystal Kanashii wow how did you take *that* from Megamind?
Who needs film school when there's Lindsay?
every time you make an essay video i learn how to put certain "gut feelings" i've always had about movies into actual words so thanks for making me sound smart
Lindsay, have you seriously considered teaching in film academy? 'Cause you've extraordinarily talented and you'd make for an excellent professor.
Maybe one day. Ironically, I'd have to finish my master's degree first (yay, more student debt!)
I second this potential TH-cam 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.
Thanks for bringing up sequence structure. It's what we studied at USC Cinema ... not just as film theory, but as a useful tool for outlining on the creative side.
There was an entire class devoted to sitting in a screening room and breaking down films as we watched them/reverse engineering what the script was doing based on what we could discern on the screen. Production students and critical studies nerds jammed into one room arguing over whether to call it an inciting incident or a precipitating event? Good times.
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.
the Return of the King felt like it had a fourth act, mainly consisting of hugs and awkward smiling.
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.
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.
Usually when I watch it, I keep a running total of the number of fake-out endings. There are some eight scenes after the climax, including one that ends with "I'm glad to be here with you, Samwise Gamgee, here at the end of all things" and a fade to black, but it's only the SECOND fake-out ending. I like these last scenes, and I think they're necessary to wrap the plots up, and when you marathon all three extended cuts in a row, the amount of time they take is deserved. At the same time, the fact that each scene tapers off into what feels like the end, only for another scene to abruptly start, feels weird.
Hands down, best birthday gift I've gotten today!
Belac889 Happy Birthday
Happy birthday!
Same! (3 days early.)
happy bday, mines on Saturday!!
Happy birthday!
I adore Loose Canons, but can this become it's own series? Not sure what the title would be, but the subtitle would definitely be "Don't pay for film school, watch internet videos."
I totally think knowing the three act structure can be good for creativity. It’s like … “know the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist”.
Or even like mix and match the best parts of different systems/narrative structures deliberately to try and create a weird new maybe fun experimental one!
I feel like I just got an entire semester's worth of film class. This video is great!!!
This channel deserve a LOT more subscribers ...
I feel like I just sat through a film theory course. But in a good way. And far more entertaining than the music theory courses I had to sit through.
Boy, did I pick the wrong major. Ah, well.
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
New Lindsay video equals a plus to my day.
I really love how you explained the three act structure and it's components, easy but not overly simplified (key word here is overly)
I would love to see more film school like videos explaining this topics.
I was just thinking today that you've been really prolific this year, and you come out with a new video. Thank you, Lindsay, saving us from film school debt one video at a time.
I would love to see a video essay on 80's John Hughes, specifically his collaborations with Molly Ringwald and Sixteen Candles in particular.
I've been writing for years without any kind of formal preparation. Interesting how I've been doing all of this accidentally.
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.
I never commented before youtubers told me it helps their algorithm. Now i just do it while the ad plays
you should teach online courses, these video essays and film study videos are wonderful.
I had a vague sense of what a three act structure was, but I'm so glad you expanded on it and explained why Its important. Now I can truly know what I'm talking about when I say Suicide Squad failed to make a three act structure that felt like it flowed well, rather than taking the sequences and chopping them up and sticking them in places they don't belong.
I love the explanation you give for why lit theory (or film theory in this case) exists. I keep trying to explain it to people to no avail. Now I have a nice reference. Also, I second the comment about you becoming a university professor. My eventual goal is to become a lit professor, but I need to pay down some of these student loans (you're right about the masters being expensive- mine was ridiculous).
Currently a junior in Film School and just wanted to come back here to say that this singular video has more information than an entire semester of FT-411 (Screenwriting 1).
I think this is why David Fincher's Girl With the Dragon Tattoo always feels so "meh". It's made extremely well (because, come on, it's David Fincher) but they follow a five act structure; when it feels like the end, there's actually half an hour left that doesn't feel too necessary. So instead of an act where tension is released and we're given a moment of catharsis, it's stretched out and ends up leaving an off taste in your mouth.
Either way, I loved the video Lindsay. Your channel is, without a doubt, my favorite on TH-cam.
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!
I always return to this video to get a nice little refresher for story structure, missing you Lindsey
In response to what you said in your last video and what you are doing in this video, thank you for saving us from paying for film school. I never leave your videos without feeling the wiser for it.
Lindsey,
As an aspiring screenwriter living (surviving) on the most modest of budgets, you have no idea how much I appreciate your work and how much I've been able to learn because of it.
Should I one day be lucky enough to "make it" professionally in the business, I'll always remember my first teachers (whose videos occupied every break I've ever taken while working my multiple, mind-numbing, soul-crushing day jobs): 3) those magnificent hacks over at RedLetterMedia, 2) the brilliant Kyle of BHH, and you, Miss Ellis, undoubtedly hold claim to the top spot (1).
You're a natural educator and a disarmingly charming human being.
Thank you.
Lindsay, we should be paying you for teaching us this! really!
You are great, thank you!
More of this!!! More of this please!!! I could die happy listening to you explain about story/character/film structure!! If you ever wanted to make more videos about patterns in film (either good characters, good stories, good technicalities, etc) I would watch those in a heartbeat!
Thanks for all the work you do!!
This is really well put-together and very easy to understand.
I think all the movies you used to show your point really helped make it clear and easy to understand. I mean, aside from the fantastic script. But there's such a big range of movies you used that all fit nicely into the three act structure that it reinforces what you say excellently.
Lindsay, until pedagogy becomes far more interactive and engaged, this has been the best presentation on the subject I've ever seen. I'm referencing this video later, both to conform to and respectfully violate this model in future fiction. Thank you.
Why I'm I at film school, we did screen writing last trimester and I've learnt so much more from this video then I did in 12 weeks. Your amazing, thank you so much for this and pretty much every other video you've done.
It's not a film (yet, actually quite close!)... but in the video game Metal Gear Solid 4, after the traditional acts are finished, all the conflicts resolved and the story basically wrapped up, we get introduced to a twist that doesn't really change things significantly, but makes you rethink about the whole story. This twist is within a 1 hour sequence that introduces new story elements and keeps developing the characters.
This is so much more focused and easier to understand than when my high school comm/video arts teacher tried to teach us about the three act structure. I'd be very interested in seeing a video about the five act structure and so on.
I just love your narrative style and sarcastic view on, well, everything. keep it up!@
I really really REALLY appreciate you distinguishing tools of the creative process from tools of critique. Writers constipate their creativity attempting to build within formulas rather than just exploring the story as it appears to them.
"Psycho" is my all-time favorite movie, and a masterclass in subverting the three act structure.
First off, read Robert Bloch's original novel if you have a chance. A lot of what is in the final film is still in there and its a fantastic read.
Second, you THINK the whole first act is going to be about Marion Crane getting away with the money. Nope. She dies by the end of the first act. Whole second act, you don't know what the hell is going on or where the story is going to go. You think it's going to be about the detective solving the mystery, but he dies too. Finally in the third act Norman is captured and you realize what kind of story you've been in this whole time.
My only criticism is that intrigue does deflate over time. The shower scene is such a high point anything after that is kind of a disappointment, and in the end Norman is brought down in an uninteresting way by the most uninteresting characters. Fortunately you have that chilling ending to go out on.
I saw the ad for David Mamet's MasterClass online course right before sitting down to write a film outline with the help of this video. That's about as perfect a psych-up as I could ask for.
If you haven't seen Kirikou and the Sorceress, that's my movie suggestion of the week. If you have, it would be a good one to break down.
This is genuinely more information than I think I've gotten in the last 2 years of my film course... and way more entertaining. Please keep these going, they're genuinely amazing.
Lindsay, I just want you to know that I'm working on a novel (my first) and your analytical videos are among my favorites to listen to when I need advice or help. Thanks so much for these videos.
This is super helful, Linsay. I think the biggest lessons Film Crit Hulk gives us is that each story requieres it's own custom structure and the act breaks have to be in relation as to how the story changes towards a direction to which a character can't come back from, like Lou in Nightcrawler, at some point it's not enough for him to make a living out of Nightcrawling, he wants more. Mixing that theory with what you show us about tension really nails the whole thing for me. At least, it gives me a foundation for the stuff I'm doing. Thanks :)
Having a twist that comes out of nowhere is why I consider Mamoru Hosoda's "The Girl Who Leapt Through Time" to be 3/4 of a good movie, because it all works until the twist (the main character's friend is a time traveler as well) comes out of nowhere and yanks the plot into an entirely different direction.
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'm not even interested in film studies or anything like that but you make it sound so interesting, it makes me appreciate the movies that i like and don't like more and even understand why some movies that i like are not good movies as a whole.
Hope you keep doing this, being watching for a long time and hoping to keep doing it for a long more
Yes, more of these types of videos!
I want to go into film but I'm gonna have to sell my soul to afford it.
Hands down, this is the best detailed explaination of the 3-act-strucutre I've been given in my life. I love your content!
Thanks for uploading. 💗
So do I now owe you a semester's worth of tuition after watching this?
I just wrote some actual plot outline after binging most of this playlist (this is especially wild bc I literally can't remember the last time I managed to make an Entire Goddamn Plot) and I'm grateful this video starts with "you don't have to use the 3-Act Structure as a checklist while writing"
what's especially interesting is recognizing what I did write that correlates while having no idea how the structure worked until. Osmosis is powerful stuff.
I love film crit hulk and you. It is fun to see things I love interact.
as a film student from Russia (with a different approach to film structure) this was fascinating and also helpful. ty Lindsay!! your content is gold and i`m glad i get to know it better bit by bit
Thank you so much Lindsay! I'm looking forward to watching another great piece of critical analysis :) You're incredible!
I would still argue that having the knowledge and theories under your belt makes you more critical of your own work, and by that extent, it still helps with story writing, although not in a creative way as you said, but in a self-criticism sort of way. Great video!
And Professor Lindsay drops the mic.
i really, *REALLY* enjoyed this. I'm a big fan of the 3 act structure. this breakdown using these movies(most of which i have seen more than once) that I've seen was a good way of explaining them.
new to the channel, been eye gorging the entire site. love the growth of the channel. can't wait to see more
Listening to the audio commentary on Alien, I remember Ridley Scott himself saying that Alien is a 4-act movie, the 3rd act ending when the Nostromo blows up and the 4th act beginning when Ridley finds the Alien in the escape pod.
Theory is taking a guideline of thought based on a comparable precedent to an already-existing body of work. I'm gonna have to keep this definition in mind.
You should teach this shit. You and Kyle Kallgren could run a whole film class together--I mean, damn.
I saw this video long ago and thought it was good but then I decide to get more into writing and learning structure and after watching some 100 videos I go back to this one and I'm been blown away with how much important information I can get from it this time, this video is pure gold.
Well of course fighting for 45 minutes is the norm. Less talking, more fighting means less we have to translate into Chinese!
Anyways, wonderful video, and I'm glad to see you're making more content.
This is a great video. I know you said at 1:40 that a 3-Act Structure is not that useful for making a story, but I still find your breakdown very useful.
I often come up with dozens of broad ideas for movies (Universal Monster teamup in WWII, "Robin Hood" set in the Jim Crow South, "Magnificent Seven" meets "Dirty Dozen" in WWII Manchuria, etc.) but I often run into constant writer's block or end up abandoning the idea due to these just being broad ideas and vague collections of characters and sequences without structure. Your simplification of the 3-Act Structure into a checklist-like system is incredibly helpful in anchoring my ideas with a solid foundation I can more easily work with.
Thank you for this video.
This is why I'm subscribed to your channel.
Holy cow.
I have been writing and scripting a story for over 2 years now and I'm realizing it follows the three-act structure. Not completely in the way you've outlined it, but it's definitely there.
Disney's Hercules: "You wanna hurt me? Go right ahead if it makes you feel any better. I'm an easy target. Yeah, you're right. I don't characterize my characters well. I also characterize them too well. I could be a cold-hearted cynic like you, but I don't like to hurt people's feelings. Well, you think what you want about me. I'm not changing. I... I like me. My writers like me. My fans like me. Cause I'm the real article. What you see is what you get."
what
Chez Lindsay My attempt at humor has failed, and I will sit in a corner so that I may think about what I've done.
GOLD is what
John Candy's monologue from Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. Very nice choice.
yes it also reminds me of Catcher in the Rye
I'm enjoying spotting these in the rough draft of my (eventually self published) fiction. :)
I find that fun - after you've written or outlined something, it's like, oh, huh, I guess that's the midpoint.
The way I just keep and keep going back to this video is INSANE lol Thank you so much for the quality content Lindsay
"simba decides hakuna matata" made me laugh, for whatever reason.
I remember something I was taught not in screenwriting class but in a storyboarding class. It helps me a lot in writing and film analysis:
Act 1 is where the main character's (s) conflict is introduced. If they have a goal, this conflict is related to it, but not always directly.
Act 2 is where the character(s) try to solve the problem made by the conflict at least twice. One attempt in act 2 is too little because it implies the character(s)is not trying and makes the conflict seem dull. You can have the character attempt to solve the problem more than twice but too many attempts makes the plot boring. It's best to focus on subplots and character development here.
Act 3 is where the character makes a last attempt at solving the problem. Success results in reaching the goal and finding something the character NEEDS rather than wants. Failure results in tragedy and/or the character realizing that what they truly need is gone.
To me, this is the easiest way to write a three act film and to identify whether a film follows this structure. Spoiler alert, most films do.
Nightcrawler is SO GOOD. Jake Gyllenhaal was definitely snubbed that Academy season.
I appreciate the theory is not a substitute for writing angle. In music, we talk about music theory, which is just finding patterns in successful pieces. For musicians, the greats are the ones who defied those patterns in clever ways.
I think Elisa hinted at it in her review, "Only Lovers Left Alive" doesn't really adhere to the three-act-structure because it doesn't have a definite plot but more story arcs? Any thoughts on that?
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've never realized that this actually maps pretty well to the first Kingdom Hearts videogame. The second sequence would end when Sora learns about the keyholes and discovers that Riku's working against him, the main tension release would be when Donald and Goofy abandon Sora at the start of Hollow Bastion, and the third act plot twist would be the revelation that Riku was possesed.
You're amazing. I love your vids and I'm learning so much with this! your teaching is really good
I wish my script writing classes had taken more of your approach to structure. My experience was more along the lines of "You have to engrave this specific set of story beats on your soul down to the page numbers they should happen or you'll never sell a script." At the same time I appreciated the more critical and direct approach the professor took, as opposed to the English department creative writing classes I took where it felt like the the only real piece of advice was write a lot and then spend even more time writing revisions. At least I felt like the script writing classes had something specific to teach me.
By the way Lindsay, I saw one video where you said that Transformers was going to change the way films are produced in Hollywood. Would you ever make a video explaining whether or not that prediction came true?
yeah, I should get around to that...
I am looking forward to it =)
This is something to get excited for.
...
I'm in an Intro to Screenwriting class for my minor right now and we just learned about acts and sequences. This was incredibly helpful and informative, thank you!
It should also be noted that the three act structure isn't the only three act structure available.
this is deep
Lol, I can't tell if you're being facetious or not!
I think the 3AS is great when you use it as an analytical tool, like you mention in the episode, as it does help you understand why something works or why certain patterns pay off in film. It's like being given a new example every time you watch something looking for the 3AS. One thing that really used to rustle my jimmies was back at Uni where in the screenwriting modules 3AS as laid out by Frensham was the only way you write a screenplay. Without fail, it has to exactly fall into this structure, including by page count. These prove especially difficult hoops to jump through in a five page screenplay.
Lindsey is so intelligent like she should teach professionally
The most important part about this whole debate, I feel, is the point addressed right in the beginning: Three-Act-Structure is an analytical lens, not a writing recipe.
The writing-advice-literature industry, which I consider one of the worst groups of people, period, abuses the concept to fill pages or videos to such a degree that way too many writers actually believe they need to squeeze their narrative into that framework. That is kind of like getting your grades at the beginning of the semester and then trying to perform exactly as predicted. It's the wrong way around. An understanding of structure can help pacing and plot development, but first and foremost it helps understand a work, not create it.
Working towards that framework also arguably devalues said framework, since its analytical quality no longer applies when a work is specifically created to fit the framework.
I know I'm coming to this discussion seriously late, but this was extraordinarily educational and I loved it. Thank you.
I wondered if I could run movies that left me feeling cold through this structure to see if I could understand why. So far, I've only tried it with Tron Legacy, but it was fascinating. It showed me that the reason that movie fell flat was that Sam's want v. need tension wasnt properly developed in sequences 5-7. So the conclusion of the movie doesn't resolve the main tension and he gets an ending that he didn't earn. As a writer, I also used it to work the kinks out of a story that has been bugging me for years.
If you have any more essays you want to do on narrative structure and storytelling, I'm all ears.
A strange take on this is the Fifth Element, Korben doesn't learn anything, never met the antagonist, and is more motivated by lust than love which was convenient for him to save the world using Leeloo as an object to mask his being a lust driven reprobate. It's an amazing film because no one learns anything in the end.
I mean he finds love, Leeloo learns she's human, and the other characters all grow as people.
Daniel Ramirez I don't think so, maybe it's because Bruce Willis is a hammy actor, but he doesn't really show emotion around Leeloo. In fact, he seems more infatuated about how child-like she seems (that private room he shared with Leeloo in the spaceship for the Cruise Liner really emphasizes this). He goes after her to the airport because he was pissed she was going with the Monk instead.
Leeloo doesn't so much learn that she's human (because she's not), rather she learns humanity (good, bad, and everything else in between) and that it's worth saving. She's probably the only character who learns anything and it was that.
Everyone else, no. Zorg remains a jackass all the way through to the end. The Monk and his apprentice join in to fulfill his ancestor's promise, but don't become braver or learn anything. Ruby Rhod didn't learn anything, except maybe how to accidentally kill a guy.. The President was watching from the sidelines to make sure things don't go to complete shit.
Snow Mystique Yeah, no. I don't really agree with any of that. How is Leeloo not human? I don't really get the idea of him just chasing lust. I never got the intention that he was "just doing it for some broad."
Daniel Ramirez Leeloo is a corporeal form of a Supreme Being, she isn't human. Some people assume that Leeloo as we've seen her after resurrection wasn't her original form.
My reasoning for Korben being lustful is mostly due to him not having any meaningful dialogue or much positive interaction with her throughout the movie until the very end when he tried to convince her that humanity was worth saving and it wasn't like a deep, meaningful conversation that showed any depth between them because they didn't spend enough time with one another that led to that moment being special for them. This was probably why some people thought the fifth element being 'Love' was kind of campy/cliche.
Snow Mystique A supreme being can still be human.
Incredible explanation. Finishing up a script that’s giving me fits, and this is helping me rethink structure to make it more appealing and understandable. Thank you again.
I'm here to agree with those who want more film theory.
I enjoy Loose Cannon. It's interesting. But this crap is just completely fascinating.
thank you for this very interesting look at the most common type of film narrative