Recently, I’ve applied for a couple of screenwriting bursaries in the UK and they all judge your worthiness (or not) on the quality of the treatments you submit.

Not only that, when they feedback to you, they’ve automatically broken down your script into a three act structure.

When you think about it, this isn’t an uncommon event. Readers, whether they are reading treatments or scripts, tend to look for various structural elements. Usually of the three act McKee variety.

Whether we apply structure to our scripts or not, chances are that we’re going to be judged off the most widely accepted structure tools.

of course, there is a flip side to all of this when, as happened to me recently, the reader mistakes the inciting incident (page 10ish) for the first act break (page 25ish)…

Oh my, then you’re in a world of pain.

My take on all this, is people only really notice the structure, when they’re not absorbed in the story. It’s used to explain why screenplays aren’t picked up, rather than why they are.

Kind words are always appreciated… Thanks!

spat,

It’s always good to absorb… Then debate. LOL.

Unk

I have not responded to you before, but I have been reading your posts and I just want to say thank you for giving out such helpful information and advice.

I really try to use all the information I learn towards my first ever screenplay. Yes, it is daunting to create, but I want to finish it (one of my life goals!).

You seem down to earth and really smart at what you do.

I also like that you share your daily routines – makes you more real and three dimensional, instead of just some flat computer screen!

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks and keep up the great work!

I might reply to future posts!

I guess I just wanted to reiterate what’s been touched upon above… That even those screenwriters who don’t necessarily subscribe to a particular kind of structure almost always (as Clive pointed out) write as though they had.

I would not presume to go on to say that any of these writers are in fact following a particular structure but what I would say instead is that STORYTELLING in and of itself is more or less hardwired into our DNA. It’s been passed down through the generations and as one person told another person a story, and that person observed the immediate reaction to his or her story, he or she either consciously or subconsciously tweaked and adjusted that story for the next time he or she told it.

In other words… Trial and error and then substantial tweaking to get the BEST reaction from an audience. After generations of storytelling, these storytellers knew what story elements got an audience’s attention.

I believe that has been carried down to US. Remember, books on any kind of structure were written AFTER many stories were told, many plays were performed, and of course many many movies were created.

All the above were observed and then deconstructed into many different forms of structure which is why nobody can really watch a movie and say with absolute certainty that SO & SO wrote that movie according to SO & SO structure. There’s really no way to know unless you ask the writer and EVEN THEN, many do not want to admit using any kind of structure… LOL.

Which is why I recommend that you simply find a structure that seems workable to YOU. A structure that seems to more or less follow the kinds of movies you enjoy and hopefully want to write yourself.

They all work… But they don’t all work for EVERYONE.

Unk

It’s funny you mention the different tool analogy. I always have it in my mind that I’m trying to put a square peg into a round hole, and if I bang long enough and hard enough with a big enough mallet, eventually it’ll fit in. At least that’s what it feels like sometimes.

And you’re right, any good script is going to have a structure. Whether you consciously sit down and map out that structure or not is up to the writer. As Unk referred to, some writers have film so engrained in their head that they can just kind of feel their way through a script AND have it work. they “use the force,” if you will.

Firstly, Tom, I so identify with your description of working the a loose three act structure, the second act as described by most proponents is a nightmare. I’ve never found anything better than “Act Two: stuff happens, at the mid-point the stakes go up dramatically and at the end is the darkest hour.”

I once sat in a seminar with a three act guru and I asked her what she though the difference was in the protagonist between the first and the second half of the second act… and, she didn’t have an answer. Which is fair enough.

The thing I’ve always wondered is this: if the stakes are knocked up considerably at the mid-point, surely that alone is going to change the protagonist and how they react. Isn’t that a given? The whole point of a plot is it shows how the characters react and change when presented with circumstances. By definition a story is the alchemical reaction of individual character to circumstance. If you change the circumstances, you change the character.

The second thing I wanted to touch on is what Unk said about “this is how my brain works”

I think this is key — We all function slightly differently. So a set of tools that work perfectly for one person, don’t work as for someone else.

So, for instance — when it comes to structure, my approach to screenwriting is similar to Unk’s, in that we agree pretty much right down the line about his “master structure.” However, when it comes to character development I’ve never found the “Personality Types” that useful, simply because I’ve got a different model that I use, which works for me.

I guess to use Unk’s analogy, it’s possible to hammer in a nail with a ball peen hammer, a mallet or half a brick. For character development Unk uses a ball peen hammer and I’m more of a “half brick” kind of a guy. Same process, different tool.

With any of these techniques it’s definitely a case of “tools, not rules.” I personally don’t think there are rules to be broken, because I don’t actually believe there are any rules.

I also think that screenwriters who claim not to follow a formal structure pretty much always end up unconsciously writing to a formal structure; simply because we absorb the conventions of story telling through consumption of stories.

I’ve seen hundreds of screenplays by writers who are “anti-structure,” where you can see from what they’ve written, which movies they’ve seen in the last couple of months.

They’re not consciously ripping people off, but on an unconscious level they’re structuring their stories based on what they’ve seen. We all do it (I’m surely not the only person who has ever been working on a script they thought was original, only to have late night DVD binge of their favorite movies, only to discover that key themes, ideas and even whole characters have been lifted from those very films!)

The irony of this is, by placing a formal structure at the heart of my writing, rather than restricting myself by a set of rules, I’m more than often freeing myself to do something completely original, because I’m taking conscious control of the structuring. A process that allows me to challenge conventions or to use them in surprising ways.

The audience remembers the ending more then the rest of the movie.

For example “Limbo” has an ending that fits perfectly to the story, even though it might not be as satisfying to an audience, it creates concludes the mood perfectly into even the title “Limbo”.

I think I can speak for EVERYONE and tell you that we are in fact very honored to have the greatest writer of all time pop in for a visit… LOL.

Josh,

I wasn’t arguing with you… I am in agreement. They brought in the antagonist later than usual and it still works. Good to know!

Will,

You said, “You did, Unk…you did. But it just seemed it was kinda buried amongst some of the rhetoric and all the CAPS that it mighta lost out to “rules were meant to be broken.”

Hmmm. You’re really not one of those people are you? LOL.

Rules ARE meant to be broken. You just gotta know ‘em before you can break ‘em.

My point being…

It’s okay if you want to break the rules. I LOVE that kind of thinking. I promote that kind of thinking! Just don’t try to break the rules until you are intimately familiar with the rules. Until you know the rules, there are no rules and if there are no rules, you can’t really break them… Which usually equates to writing hogwash.

Tom,

Are you anti-structure or are you anti-someone else’s structure?

If you kind of loosely follow 3 Act Structure, you could certainly add to it and form your own OVERALL structure and then as you’re writing, keep referring to your list… The only problem is building the list and worrying that your list is missing something… LOL.

I use my own 4 Act Structure and to me, Act 1 is the hard part because I want to set up SO MANY STORY ELEMENTS within that 1st act so that as I write acts 2, 3, and 4, the story makes sense. When I used 3 Act Structure many many moons ago, Act 2 was ferocious because to my thinking, it was just too much of a bridge to Act 3. My brain doesn’t work THAT WAY.

Breaking the proverbial Act 2 in half and turning it into 2 Acts, is easier on my brain.

Unk

In terms of scructure, I’m always afraid I’m missing something. I’m inherently an anti-structure person. It’s not how my mind works. So I basically just use a loose 3-act structure when writing. First act = normalcy, game changing incident. Act 2 = protagonists struggle to acheive goal. End of Act 2 = darkest before dawn. Act 3 = climax/resolution.

Act 1 and 3 are easy. Act 2 is the hard part. And I think that where deeper components of structure come into play (ie the 5 act structure). I kind of just feel it out.

And I think I also use past movies as a loose guide. Kind of play the script in my head to see if it works as a film. I don’t know, I think that works for me. Time will tell.