Screenwriting Structure Part 14
Posted on May 17, 2008
Filed Under Screenwriting, Structure
Wow, not having a working “contact” page has been a nice vacation… LOL. Only people I “like” are sending me emails. What a fucking concept! I may have to ditch the contact page altogether.
I thought I would share a recent email communication I had with one of the usual visitors here because it really does go with screenwriting structure and to be honest, I haven’t seen it discussed like this in any books, articles, or blogs and it’s actually very relevant to the series.
I basically answered an email and for the fucking life of me, I can’t remember the actual question but if the visitor I wrote this to wants to speak up — go for it.
I hope this explains structure to those of you who worry so much about formula… LOL. I had to rewrite some of it because I had deleted the original email and a truncated version of popped up in my search results so I have taken some artistic license to bring it to you here.
Here it is:
LOL. To be honest, I kind of had the idea that this might be happening with you… Just a feeling but I generally go with my gut and it has served me well.
What you have to try and keep in mind is that your stuff IS already different. The stories are different. The characters are different. The way YOU write it is different from the way this shit is being written today.
KNOW THAT. Relish that.
Structure will pull it all together.
Remember the baseline?
This is the HARDEST thing I can get people who want to break in to the business to understand…
Now the following is SIMPLY an attempt to explain what I mean — I am not talking about you — per se.
I think you’re a really good writer. I think you definitely bring your “A” game to the game. So that aside, read the following and let it cook a few days…
Let’s say that the following are the current baselines…
———-Pro Writer Baseline———-
—-Highly Talented Writer Baseline—-
——–Talented Writer Baseline——-
————Newbie Baseline———–
Newbies and Talented writers have a ways to go…
Highly Talented Writer is almost there. Pro writers ARE at the top — “in the game.”
For newbies and talented writers, it’s often simply a matter of experience but having said that, I have read a shitload of newbie and talented writer screenplays that could have easily been elevated to Highly Talented Writer Baseline if ONLY they would have had some kind of applied structure. Now when I say that, you have to rise above the actual words that I’m using and not simply let the word or phrase, “structure” — pigeonhole you into meaning something formulaic.
We can talk for months and years about outstanding movies that break the mold. I have never argued that point but I think arguing about it online, forums, blah blah fucking blah does a disservice to newbies and talented writers because what they fucking need is structure to get them on the right path MOST OF THE TIME.
So many books talk about structure but really do NOT explain it in any real detail and show me a book, article, site, whatever that says not to use 3 Act Structure… And, for those that do, it’s almost as if the author IS IN FACT telling you to simply use the structure they give you as is.
See, the lines are extremely blurry. Anything can fit into a 3 Act Structure but I think when you call a kind of structure 3 Act Structure, it causes mass confusion because that’s what’s out there the most and if you’ve ever looked at the basic 3 Act Structure — there’s really not much to it. That doesn’t mean it’s bad. Of course it works but it was the 3 Act Structure with its SIMPLE BASIC explanation that allows those using it to be creative i.e., since it doesn’t list every possible fucking story element that could happen within the 3 Act Structure environment, you are free to be creative and do whatever you want because the 3 Act Structure is in fact so very fucking vague.
I don’t like vague.
So I started my research into structure and the first thing I found that I despised about 3 Act Structure is the twice as long 2nd act. I fucking hate that — but that’s just me.
With my background and the way I think and the way I do things — the way I was taught to take notes — blah blah blah — I like things to be nice and tidy. Meaning, I like 4 distinct acts of somewhat equal length. It just makes sense to me. It goes along with my mindset. Easy to understand. Easy to remember. It’s simply a process and a process that works for ME.
If it can work for others then ME HAPPY.
I am a non-linear thinker. I’m no less an artist than anyone writing but I realized early on that Society — at least the society that I live in and continue to live in does not lend itself toward an artist’s mentality. Nothing wrong with that but the problem is that as artists, we tend not to think like average society when it comes to the actual writing or THE ART.
However, for me — I am not speaking for you — for me — everything leading UP to the art is fairly linear to me. Preparation. Research. Notes. Whatever. It’s the actual ART that I DEVIATE from linear thinking and I have observed this with a lot of people.
But at the same time, I also know a few artists who were brought up by artists. Raised in an artist family. Lived in areas dominated by artists. Not a lot of them because there’s NOT a lot of them but they do exist. While these people usually have to find their own way to their art, they do seem to have a little easier time of it because they are not bound by the same society to which I am certainly bound…
They have evolved in a completely different way than us linear thinkers so they devise their own process.
Neither is more right than the other. Neither works better.
It’s simply what works BEST for YOU.
The 4 Act Structure I came up with works best for me and as it turns out, I would say that 98% of those people I share it with also FEEL like it would work better for them and guess what, when they write their screenplays using it, they usually end up a hell of a lot better. Having said that however, EVERYONE WILL USE IT DIFFERENTLY. You get out of it whatever you get out of it.
Some people look at it and jump to the conclusion that it’s some kind of list that you go down and simply cross off as you write that particular element into your story… The dreaded formula… LOL.
And for THOSE that want to use it that way — fine. I can explain it all I want but in the end, people do whatever the fuck they want to do.
I’ve never promoted it as some kind of end all one structure fits all structure. As I said previously, it’s simply a starting point.
It’s a “compass.”
With a compass, you are at point “A” and you know that you must head due north to eventually get to point “B,” right? But if you’re going over mountains and through rivers, and whatever, you have to take detours. You might have to go west for a few days before you can start heading north again. You then find out that there’s no way for you get over that mountain because it’s straight the fuck up and down. So now you have to turn around and head south until you find a passage… A valley, a trail, whatever… Something that allows you to eventually start heading north again.
That’s all a really good structure is… A starting point. Every writer is different but hopefully, many writers will simply let their characters take those passages… Those valleys and trails until they stumble back on the trail i.e., structure.
And although the books, articles, and even SOME of the gurus advocate using their structure in such a way that you simply follow and connect the dots, I think they do that because it’s easy to advocate.
Where I break off from that mindset is that I think every writer owes it to US to divert and let the story evolve until it has literally created its very own structure… One that is perfect for that story. Organic and germane to the story you’re creating.
In order to DO THAT however, you gotta be IN SHAPE! You have to be prepared! You have to be running the 100 yard dash in a competitive time otherwise, you have no fucking business even being at the race.
Not yet anyway.
Structure does that for you. You start off with a great structure as your compass… Your roadmap. But somewhere along the way, other adventures pop up and you go after them with a vengeance and the story goes into a different direction — hopefully a direction you never even considered before. This is growth. This is organic structure. This is YOU writing YOUR story differently from everyone else even though you may have started off with a structure similar to other movies.
On the other hand… When you don’t start off with a valid structure to point you in the right direction, you can easily miss adventures and landmarks that you should definitely not have missed and you owe it to us — your eventual audience to, at the very least, be aware that these adventures and landmarks exist.
It will be up to you and your characters to decide whether or not they really do fit in the grand scheme of things but you at least want to know about them up front so you can make that educated decision somewhere down the line.
A good solid structure is your jacklight .
But you can do it any way you like… Everybody gets to dance .
Unk
Comments
16 Responses to “Screenwriting Structure Part 14”
Leave a Reply
Where I break off from that mindset is that I think every writer owes it to US to divert and let the story evolve until it has literally created its very own structure… One that is perfect for that story. Organic and germane to the story you’re creating.
This is probably the most important take-a-way I’ve received from this site. I always heard the word structure and how important it is to screenwriting. And I knew three act structure and followed that basic outline. But I still felt I didn’t really “get” structure.
Then, I think it was the 3:10 To Yuma thread where UNK said he was most interesting is seeing how the structure was updated and I wondered why, if the structured worked back in the 50s, why wouldn’t it work today?
That led to the discussion about how each screenplay has it’s own unique structure. That structure is created, essentially, by creating the script – and I’d even say by writing the script.
I got into a discussion about Juno with someone online. He was basically a Juno-hater (the only reason she sold the script is because she used to be a stripper!). Now, I’m not the biggest fan of the first 15 minutes, but the movie improves and in the end works.
Now the person criticizing Juno said it was poorly structured – to prove the point, he said Juno told four different people she was pregnant in act 1. But he then conceded it did come together to have a satisfying conclusion. Now, to me, this sums up what structure is. A movie can’t have a satisfying conclusion without having good structure. I think it’s impossible. The purpose of structure is to string all these scenes together to make a complete and enjoyable film – or, in other words, a satisfying film.
I really buy into the “organic” approach to structure. Personally, I (consciously) use maybe five guideposts when writing a script. Inciting incident. End of Act 1. Mid-point. End of Act 2 (or darkest before dawn) and climax. Personally, I think if you at the very least hit those, you can create a script with a good structure. Now, I have found that other elements of structure exist in my script – like the call to action dilemma that UNK recently wrote about – but I didn’t consciously put them in there.
The return of the UNK. I too believe that structure is dependent on the given film. The way through the jungle of a love story is not the way through the desert of the action film.
The 4 Act thing is very interesting also, though I am even more granular and do everything based on sequences. I do divide all subplots and story threads into B-M-E (beginning, middle, end), but I don’t really count Acts, though if you consider the Act 2 midpoint you already have 4 Acts.
I count minutes between major conflict points. Of course it’s nearly impossible to hit everything on the minute, but that uncertainty actually allows two movies about the same topic written by the same writer to hit the stories’ beats differently.
Of course that involves the use of character structure, which is a whole different ball of wax to be mastered.
I think the next thing that all writers have to do when they understand structure is to look at the “philosophy” of film to get an understanding of how the images and sounds make scenes.
I was just at my new writer’s group (don’t know how long it will last as I’m getting that Trigger Street feeling) and what I noticed most everyone doing was inefficiently describing images and sounds. And by that I mean they tend to all have too much ink. Rather than a personality description, there will be a lot of character description like hair color or clothing. I think that goes to show that they are afraid they won’t say enough, but screenwriting is saying as little as possible.
The most interesting thing is that I had a 5 page read and everyone was amazed. Even funnier is that most had never heard of The Screenwriter’s Bible. I think that comes from the “lottery-winner” approach to screenwriting even from some BFAs.
I’ll say it again, as a Mechanical Engineer and software developer, THIS IS HARD. It takes reading, studying, analyzing, writing and writing some more. But even more it takes aptitude. Fortunately, this aptitude can be gained by reading scripts and comparing them to movies, studying the greats, especially Hitchcock, Bergson, Deleuze.
I mean though the “guru” method may work after you find your voice, that type of teaching can’t help you find your voice, only honesty and hard work can.
So,
Keep writing as writing is the Revealing of the Soul.
That was me that was the lucky fella on the other end of this exchange . . . the above was actually the last part of a great dialogue, and while I don’t want to rehash all of it, the last part leading to the above was so cool I feel I gotta share.
I wrote back to him:
Just an aside, I just want to underline WHY what you wrote to me is so valuable . . . when you wrote this:
“Allow yourself to allow your story to start out with a plan and evolve on its own into a structure that best suits the characters and story. I think you THINK that’s what you’re doing but you’re asking me so I’m telling you what I think.”
It was shocking because I THOUGHT that was what I was doing . . . I’m not anti-structure, nor anti-big movie (far from it, I wanna write the big commercial movies and think I will be able to someday) . . . but if I’m coming off that way, and I think I must be, then there’s a disconnect somewhere in my head and that’ gotta be addressed and soon, too . . . It could be that here, where I am, it’s drummed into my head by the various idiotic reps I’ve had and the d-people I’ve met that in order stand out and make it as a spec writer, YOU GOTTA BE DIFFERENT and that may be how I fell into this sticky mindset, I dunno . . . you’ve given me much to mull and digest . . .
And . . . SCENE!
And Unk responded with the above.
I’m still stewing in it . . .
For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been anti-structure, though I understand now how some folks feel I am.
My position previous, which may have led to this perception, was that structure was an organic thing best found rather than imposed, but I can see my reactionary ways toward “lists, rules, etc” could have boxed me in.
But I’m reconsidering all my positions, these days.
The STRUCTURE=FORMULA is something that I run into a lot with other writers. There is a desire to break free of all Hollywood rules.
I look at it like this: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Sure, somethings in Hollywood films are as broke as broke can be broken, but you’ll find that the best non-Hollywood films usually have a sound structure — because structure is not a Hollywood thing, it’s a story telling thing.
Josha:
My previous attitude toward structure was similar to yours. I didn’t condemn it, but I thought it had been overstated and humped to death by too many would-be gurus; I read their chapters about structure - they kept saying “you gotta have it” - but they never really told me why. So I focused on my characters - figuring they would figure out my structure for me.
Unk:
Your rhetoric convinced me otherwise … and totally killed my confidence. Now I spend my days reading screenplays and watching movies, taking notes on structure points, reverse engineering, generating new ideas … and building my confidence back to where it needs to be.
I can’t complain. Cause I’m getting closer to my A game. And when I do channel enough confidence to write that next draft, I’ll be hearing fireworks.
“If it can work for others then ME HAPPY.” Yeah, we happy.
I actually have a PDF written on Story Structure from a wide arrange of authors such as Michael Hauge, Stanley D. Williams, Christopher Vogler, Blake Snyder, etc…It has always been a great reference tool to me…and I guess right now would be an appropriate time to share.
If anyone would like it…
http://files.filefront.com/Story+Structurepdf/;9929065;/fileinfo.html
Not sure, If I can post a link on UNK’s page…but for the sake of better screenwriting I think he will allow it…hopefully :)
—————————-
I think that everything fits into a three-act structure, but I also think that if you know how to tell a story, you automatically write it that way, because that is how the emotional journey or whatever you want to call it works; it’s how life works: Something’s not perfect, you try to solve it the easy way which works to a point but ultimately doesn’t, so you have to do it the right way, the hard way.
But because it’s just “how a story works” it’s not a very useful tool to build a story; it just doesn’t tell you enough.
I like to think in eight sequences: 1) Before the inciting incident; 2) waiting for the problem to just go away; 3) solving it the easy way; 4) trying another angle which seems to work; 5) oh, it’s not that easy; 6) holy frak, all is lost; 7) doing it the right way; 8) coda.
I read this in a screenwriting book (in German, so it’s not much use mentioning the name) and it works for me wonderfully.
Since then, I’ve come to believe that this is what underlies both the three-act structure (1+2 = Act 1, 3-6 = Act 2, 7+8 = Act 3) and McKee’s [?] five acts (1/2 = Acts 1/2, 3+4 = Act 3, 5+6 = Act 4, 7 = Act 5, 8 shouldn’t be more than a three pages anyway). Of course, it also works for your four-act version (the middle act of the three-act version cut in half).
I usually find that I can easily identify these eight sequences in my outline, and if not, tweaking the story to fit that mold more makes it better.
Again: (a) Your mileage may vary. (b) Structure is a tool for massaging the story you want to tell, not a fill-in-the-blanks.
(As this might come off as terribly wise and/or arrogant, a disclaimer: I haven’t sold anything yet.)
Structure – everybody uses it. So I ask: Why is it such a dirty word?
I’ve been a long time proponent of the four act structure since reading Syd Field. What, you say? Yeah, ever since I saw that first diagram with the first act plot point — the mid-point — the second act plot point I thought to myself: That’s four equal parts, not two small acts with a big chunk in the middle. I never looked back.
Lately I’ve been playing around with sequences. I’m almost a convert. Today I went to my local coffee shop and came up with this little diddy:
Four Act – Twelve Sequence Structure
Act I – Orphan / Loaner
Sequence #1 – Ordinary World – Setup,Theme Stated:
Sequence #2 – Catalyst / Debate:
Sequence #3 – Leaves Ordinary World:
Act II – Wanderer / Explorer – Transformation
Sequence #4 – Learning the New World:
Sequence #5 – Acquiring New Skills:
Sequence #6 – False: Victory / Defeat / Goal:
Act III – Warrior / Activist - On The Run
Sequence #7 – A Ticking Clock Starts:
Sequence #8 – Bad Guys Closing In:
Sequence #9 – Dark Night of the Soul:
Act IV – Martyr / Death – Hero’s flaw dead,buried:
Sequence # 10 – Light Bulb Moment:
Sequence #11 – True Victory:
Sequence #12 – Resolution:
Feel free to use, abuse, modify, revamp, or ignore. All I ask is that you
Keep Writing.
Regards,
Mike
To Tom - 3:10 to Yuma originally only had two acts. And, yeah, it worked back then but filmmaking is not a stagnant thing. Audiences today expect constant advancement, more and better everything - writing, directing, effects, costumes, lighting, whatever. Audiences ten years from now will expect more than we could ever give them today.
Some films will withstand time because they have that certain something that makes them classic. But that doesn’t mean you could make the classic today and audiences would accept it as good filmmaking — even if it is.
Tom,
I always start out with my ONE STRUCTURE FITS ALL STRUCTURE… LOL. Again, just a starting point. As I move through the story, I find that certain story elements are better left to happen in other places RATHER than in the structure format I started out with. To me, this is the story growing ORGANICALLY to the point that I can no longer utilize the ONE STRUCTURE FITS ALL STRUCTURE.
My own 4 Act Structure simply is a work in progress of story elements that I keep seeing WORK in specific places within the screenplay and movie. It’s really not much more than a massive cheat-sheet to get you started.
At some point, your story should develop a into a living, breathing entity that supersedes your cheat-sheet.
Christian,
I started working with sequences about 3 years ago… I like the approach to the point that I can say to myself that tonight I have to write such and such sequence.
My own sequence approach is also based on my 4 Act Structure i.e., each act contains 4 sequences for a total of 16 sequences.
I’ve been in the middle of tweaking my current 4 Act Structure document to include the sequence approach which I will probably toss up on the download page at the end of the structure series.
Josh,
Not even just a little? LOL.
Nick,
Most screenplays do have structure. Most newbie screenplays have poor structure. The screenwriters that can write without any kind of comprehensible structure are very few and far between and to be honest — I don’t know ANY.
Even those who scream formula write with some kind of structure and what I find fucking HILARIOUS about that is that they purport to be an ARTISTE yet they have this bullshit half-wit structure that they’ve managed to piece together from who knows where? Probably watching other movies I would guess.
So here are these ARTISTE screenplays with just a hint of recognizable structure that we’re supposed to fall all over and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to shoot.
My question to the Artiste… Why just a hint of recognizable structure? Why not just do away with it completely? A fucked up screenplay is STILL a fucked up screenplay.
All I’m saying is that you can begin with the end in mind and utilize a good solid structure that will cause YOU, the WRITER to THINK about your story backwards, forwards, sideways and all ways.
Ah… The trek from Artiste to Artist is a rocky road… LOL.
Zane,
Maybe not so rocky?
You Suck,
Cool, I’ll read it.
OJ,
True, most forms of structure are very similar. What I don’t like about the basic 3 act structure however, is the vagueness. In fact, you can almost read 5 books on basic 3 act structure and get 5 different explanations and I think that IS because it’s so vague.
But you are correct… You can fit anything into it.
The trick is to find a structure that works for YOU and get to know it inside and out. Make your own cheat-sheet and actually write several screenplays from it — all the while considering every story element you’ve utilized.
I come from THE RIFLEMAN side of the house… i.e., turn on TV LAND and watch an old episode of THE RIFLEMAN. It’s the ONLY regular television I watch. Comes on early in the morning.
Anyway, watch one episode. It’s a little less than 30 minutes long but SON-OF-A-BITCH did the writers PACK a hell of a lot of story in a half-hour!
We can all learn a lesson from that writing.
Mike,
Exactly. You know I use a similar structure to that but I also utilize 4 distinct Protagonist modes within each of the 4 acts for a total of 16 sequences.
Each mode within each act is dependent upon the mode that the protagonist is currently going through. So basically, we see the protagonist go through all 4 modes within each act but WITHIN the CONTEXT of the current act.
This way, you easily attain rising action, rising conflict, change, etc.
Everything a young screenplay needs to grow. LOL.
MaryAnita,
Agreed.
Great comments AS USUAL.
Much appreciated!
Unk
The
As usual, I like what Unk has to offer.
Here’s what I’m gonna take away from his last installment:
When I’m “in the zone” and my writing is just flowing, I just let it flow without worrying about “structure.” I just enjoy the moment and just let things happen. It’s sorta of like trying to learn to play tennis — after weeks of practice and lessons, one day you find yourself actually taking some great shots and having a blast. So you just wanna(and should) keep on playing).
One important assumption, is that I’ve already dedicated a lot of thought to my structure — that earlier adherence to developing a solid structure is what allows me to get “in the zone” and produce those “great shots.”
After I’ve enjoyed the high of the zone, I set my writing aside for awhile, then go read it again. That’s when I say, “Yeah, my back-hand sucks. So, I tweak my shot and hit a 100 more backhands in a row until it gets better.”
I think one thing Unk is trying to get across is not to get hung up on the structure thing. Or at least in a way that impedes your “approach to the game.” And especially when you are “in the zone.”
OK. Sorry for the corny sports analogy.
Great blog. I find it to be a wonderful resource. For those interested in novel writing, I’ve started a blog, My Writing Life, http://www.learnedaboutwriting.blogspot.com to share tips. Currently, I writing about my ten-point revision strategy. I’d love to trade links with you. If you have the time to pop over, please check it out and let me know.
Best,
Todd
I actually always thought of Syd Field’s 3 Act Structure, really as 4 Act structure. (mainly, for the reason you site, the ridiculously long Act Two).
If you look at most movies, they have a HUGE defining Midpoint. Something that happens that is the highest high or the lowest low in the move that turns the story on its edge.
AMAZING, how this point splits Act Two in half. Almost in to two separate Acts… Hell, no curtain call, might as well call them different acts.
It’s the point in ALIENS when the space marines go from trash talking badasses, to facehugger-meat-sandwiches.
In RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK when Indy finds the Ark, only to have it taken away from him, and left buried alive.
In TRUE LIES when Helen Tasker finds out her husband is a spy, when they are kidnapped by terrorists.
Those seem like pretty big turning points to me. I never really understood why those didn’t “count” when smaller turns (like Act One turns in a lot of movies) do/did.
I know from personal experience that getting the structure wrong makes the difference between having a movie you can sell and one that you can’t.
One of the main reasons my second feature film “No Place” didn’t sell, is because I had the inciting incident too far back in the script. So, on screen the first act dragged. This kind of structural error guarantees a film won’t sell, because sales agents and distributors aren’t going to hang in, for the story to take off.
In my experience, the only anti-structure arguments you ever hear, are from people who’ve never taken a film to market. And whilst I think everyone has the right to experiment, hold opinions and to do their own thing, I think you have to be an egoistical idiot to pass on advice about screenwriting without any real experience of taking a product to market.
There is, however, one point about screenwriting which is almost never discussed… and that’s to do with the constantly changing nature of the filmic language.
Whist classical structure is vital as the framework, what gets hung on that structure has to reflect evolution in film.
The truth is Casablanca as a screenplay wouldn’t be pitchable in the modern market. Neither would most of the examples usually used to provide templates. Both film and the culture it reflects has moved on.
So, UNK’s right… you have to have a structure that serves the story and not the other way round. And, more than that, you have to constantly have an eye on the breaking trends in the industry.
I got the opportunity to discuss structure with a development exec from one of the majors at Cannes this year. The truth is, like most of the industry they use the three act structure… but not as a way to make scripts conform, but more as a way of providing a common language to discuss notes. All they want from a script is the potential of massive box office.
What this means is, even if you are using a nine act structure… you’d better be able to discuss it as if it is a classical three act.
To my shame, about a year ago, I got into an argument with a screenwriter who was running a professional development workshop in the UK. He’d rejected a script of mine for the programme because in his opinion it didn’t conform to Syd Field’s 3 Act structure. Now, despite the fact that he was wrong in that opinion, I made an even worse mistake by calling him a “f***ing moron” for teaching a structural approach that is 15 years out of date. When, I should just thanked him for his notes and checked that my inciting incident was clear.
The other thing to remember is that even structure is subjective. One man’s inciting incident isn’t always going to look that way to someone who sees it as “just another moment.”
I’ve always felt that first act screenwriting is the most difficult and important thing to work on. If you can establish normal, turn it upside down while introducing your plot elements and keeping everything interesting, you’ve got a good screenplay. Ten pages to catch them, then 20 to hold them. If you can do that, the reader will (generally) take the ride with you.
[...] con agradecimientos al Unknown Screenwriter sobre estructura. También, y en nuestro idioma, El Guionista Hastiado nos enseña sobre [...]