The Four Act Structure

[mscherer]

Over the past few years I have read dozens of books on screenwriting, searched hundreds of Web pages for tips and techniques, and spent a lot of time just plain THINKING (another excuse not to write). I have looked at the three, four, and nine act structures. Sequencing methods (anywhere from 8 to 16). The Hero’s Journey. Blake Snyder’s Beat Sheet, et-cetera, et-cetera, et-cetera.

What I have settled on, and what works for me, is a hybrid of the Four Act Structure and the Sequence Method. The template I use follows:

ACT I – The Loner
Sequence #1 ( 01-10) Setup: Protagonist In The Ordinary World
Sequence #2 ( 11-20) Call to Adventure / Predicament / Inciting Incident
Sequence #3 (21-30) Turing Point: Change Of Plans / New Lower Obstacles

ACT II - The Wanderer
Sequence #4 ( 31-40) Elaborating on the Dilemma and The World of Story
Sequence #5 ( 41-50) Hero encounters TESTS, ALLIES, and ENEMIES.
Sequence #6 (51-60) Point Of No Return / Discovery Of False Goal

ACT III - Towards The True Goal: The Warrior Phase
Sequence #7 ( 61-70) Complications, Higher Stakes, And Subplots
Sequence #8 ( 71-80) Culmination Toward The Main Plot
Sequence #9 (81-90 ) All Hope Is Lost

ACT IV - Result Of The Action: The Martyr
Sequence #10 ( 91-95 ) Final Push Toward The Main Plot
Sequence #11 ( 96-100) False Resolution (The Twist)
Sequence #12 (101-105) Final Test of Character and True Resolution
Sequence #13 (106-110) Final Confrontation
Sequence #14 (111-115) Climax

That’s it. Comments?

[nedbrewitt]

I like it. I have a serious question; which came first, the structure or the story?

[mscherer]

Actually, the idea for the structure evolved while writing a script, so I guess this is not strictly a 'chicken or egg' thing.

I think of writing a screenplay similar to building a sailing craft with structure representing the essence of that sailing ship/boat.

I realize many writers deride the use of any structure because, they believe, structure stifles creativity and leads to generic films, but I disagree

There are many kinds of sailing craft on the waters, ranging from skiffs (small Indie films) to multi-million dollar yachts (huge tent pole movies), but all have the essence (components) of a sailing ship: keel, deck, mast, bow, stern, rudder, etc. Yet, while all these ships are constructed from identical components, no two ships are identical.

Structure is the essence of the film, not the film itself.

End of rant/discourse/rambling. ;D

[nedbrewitt]

Hi, I hope you don't think I was being argumentative... i wasn't. I just wondered if someone in Hollywood at the start of it all said 'I want a film and it has to follow these lines' or if the most successful ones all seemed to have the same structure when analysed.

Personally I think structure is good, because the success of a film depends on the audience understanding it. If a film is unstructured it can resemble two jigsaw puzzles mixed into one (IMO).

I reckon a writer doesn't have to follow structure rules verbatim, but can take or leave as much or as little as they wish. whatever they do it will still be structured, if it isn't it won't make sense. whether that is good or bad is up to the watcher.

Cheers (English way of being friendly)

[mscherer]

Ned, may I call you Ned?

I didn't think you were being argumentative at all. I took it to be a serious question. All stories have had structure and the first 'official' recognition of that structure (stories have a Beginning, a Middle and an End -- hence the Three Act Structure) was set down by Aristotle in his Poetics, still in print.

[mbarrett]

I try and keep a loose structure, but like to hit certain points in the screenplay/story.

My take is -

- You have to open with something bold - an image, scene, or saying. This way the reader and/or viewer is instantly attracted.
- State what the point is in this story within the first ten pages and start out with the problem.
- Get the ball rolling after page 12 by giving us more clues about the conflict.
- A deciding point in the screenplay has to come at page 30 where the character is in an "OH SHIT" scenario.
- After page 30 - the character/s have to overcome their problems to get to the finality. Usually something else happens around page 58 - like they get shot or caught or put over a vat of boiling oil.
- Probably around page 78 something really horrible should happen. I know on top of everything else - i.e. being shot or whatever. The character is given an obstacle that looks like they are going to get squashed right there - a big ass stone ball rolling down a narrow passage will work. I digress.
- the last part of the story - you need to have that person overcome the plight and learn the answers to their problems.

So - that is pretty much how I look at a story. I guess it's probably loosely based off Save the Cat beat sheet, but just a wee bit different.

I also like that the character has some flaws. Let's be honest - no character is perfect and that's what makes the story.

Further - in your acts - you need to have some type of relief. It can not all be dismal and despair. I think Mike taught me that one.

Anyway - to make all of this long post short. I think the framework is great if you can do it, but I generally try and keep it flexible. I learned a long time ago that you need to KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid.

Okay - one last thing - you really need to look at the story and see if you have something and then loosely start out the story by seeing if you hit your points of interest.

Lots of rambling this morning.
Mark

[77kart]

Several famous and successful screenwriters emphasize structure. I don't rememberer them all but I think it would include:
- Ernest Lehman
- Robert Towne
- William Goldman
I remember in Goldman's book, Adventures in the Screentrade, when he was hammering out the script for A Bridge too Far, he talked about finding the spine of the story. Turned out to be a cavalry-to-the-rescue theme if I remember correctly.

[77kart]

mscherer. Of all the books you've read, what are the three must-have, wouldn't-want-to-be-stranded-on-a-desert-island-without books?

[Sean Z P Harris]

Well, the stories I've worked on so far seem to follow a similar pattern, based primarily on the 3 act structure. But I guess the structure goes (loosly) like this:

Act I

1-5 Open scene - grabber.
5-10 State goals/introduction to main character traits/ character/world introduction(s)
10 -20 inciting incident/further world/character introduction(s)
20 - 30 Protags life turned upside down - slide into:

Act II

30 - 40 first crises. Protag active, but on back heal
40 - 50 second crises - Protag still active, yet things are worse
50 - 60 Centre scene in which protage seems to loose it, but then something happens that sees them determine a steely resolve to reach their goal.
70 - 80 On the offensive for third crisis - believe their making headway
80 - 90 Attack almost full on - believe they have reached their goal, but - BOOM! - disaster strikes and all almost seems lost!
90 - 100 But something happens. The protag reaches inner resources and turns things around, but they are not out of woods yet as the head for:

Act III

100 - 110 They believe the final confrontation is at hand - and it almost is - but something else occurs. They make a discovery that turns everything around again! Again all seems lost, but...
110 - 120 they are changed now. The old them would have quit here - hell, their old self wouldn't have a chance in this situation. But they are not their old self. They are - for better of worse - reborn, and now face the final battle in which they win (although sometimes at great personal loss).


So, make of that mess what you will!

I think it's good in the beginning to have some structure in mind. The shape of this will vary from story to story, yet it should become clear after you have completed your outlining (if you decided to go down that route).

That main thing is not to let it dominate your story. Story should dictate structure in the end, not the other way around.

[clayjs]

To me, structure has two purposes, depending on where you are in life:

For the beginner (me), it works as a first draft safety net. I have particular characters in a given situation. There are literally millions of things that could happen next. An established structure helps me to narrow them down to the possibilities that best serve my story.

For the advanced writer, structure works as a creative hurdle. It provides pivots on which to turn tired story ideas and tropes into something new, while maintaining accessibility. I watched Teshigahara's 'Woman in the Dunes' just a couple of days after reading 'Save the Cat' and was delighted to find a brilliant surrealist art film that had essentially the same story structure as 'Miss Congeniality' and 'Legally Blonde' (Snyder's examples). 'Woman in the Dunes' is a movie of ideas and symbols, but it's the rigid structure that allows it to resonate so strongly on a first viewing. The structure does half of the work for the viewer, so he can dig through the difficult stuff on his own.

My favorite argument for the power of structure, though, is the sonnet. Sidney's 'Astrophil and Stella' is a long sequence of very rigidly structured poems that fit loosely together in a theme. Each poem has fourteen lines of ten syllables each, following a designated stress pattern and rhyme scheme. Each poem is also broken into parts that essentially serve as acts, taking the story of the sonnet in new directions. And each uses the same very rigid form for very different purposes. The point here is that the sonnet, like any structure, informs 'audience expectation', and the job of the poet is to meet the audience's expectations in new ways.

It's also the job of the screenwriter, and of anyone involved in the craft of film.

-Clay

[plucharc]

I have been working with the three act structure up to this point, but I like the idea of dividing Act II into two separate acts. It makes that whole second act marathon seem a heck of a lot less daunting.

Thanks for sharing!

[zzf]

There are many different approaches. I have toyed with a few of them myself. For my current project, I am using a really threadbare version of the sequence method (8 - in my case 7+ - 15 minute/page sequences).

It's really easy to get bogged down in this stuff. Don't think too hard about it. Good luck to all!


• MINI-MOVIE ONE: Our hero’s status quo, his ordinary life, ends with an inciting incident or “call to adventure”.
• MINI-MOVIE TWO: Our hero’s denial of the call, and his gradually being “locked into” the conflict brought on by this call.
• MINI-MOVIE THREE: Our hero’s first attempts to solve his problem, the first things that anyone with this problem would try, appealing to outside authority to help him. Ends when all these avenues are shut to our hero. So in --
• MINI-MOVIE FOUR: Our hero spawns a more grandiose, more extreme plan. He prepares for it, gathers what materials and allies he may need then puts the plan into action -- only to have it go horribly wrong, usually due to certain vital information the hero lacked about the forces of antagonism allied against him.
• MINI-MOVIE FIVE: Having created his plan to solve his problem WITHOUT changing, our hero is confronted by his need to change, eyes opened to his own weaknesses, driven by the antagonist to change or die. He retreats to lick his wounds.
• MINI-MOVIE SIX: Our hero spawns a new plan, but now he’s ready to change. He puts this plan into action...and is very nearly destroyed by it. And then...a revelation.
• MINI-MOVIE SEVEN: The revelation allows our hero to see victory, and he rejoins the battle with a new fervor, finally turning the tables on his antagonist and arrives at apparent victory. And then the tables turn one more time!
• MINI-MOVIE EIGHT: The hero puts down the antagonist’s last attempt to defeat him, wraps up his story and any sub-plots, and moves into the new world he and his story have created.