Thanks for helping me get that idea to paper

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I made an even worse mistake by calling him a “f***ing moron” for teaching a structural approach that is 15 years out of date.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.”

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.

Best,

Todd

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.

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

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.