Hi Edward

As per my (StoryAlity) doctoral research: the problem with "3-Act" structure is all films actually have it...

(You can find that so-called 3 `Act' structure in any feature film, even: non-linear ones.)

So - this means: both successful - and completely-unsuccessful (eg - either commercially, critically, or both) films have it (so-called `3-Act' structure).

So 3 "Acts" won't tell you (ie - anyone), how to tell a successful film story - they just tell you: How to tell *a* film story. (Whether it be: good, or bad, or anywhere in-between.)

See Truby's poolemic against 3-Act structure, here, which I completely agree with (as it's empirically correct.) It's linked, here:

3 `Acts'? Did Aristotle *ever* say that-?!

http://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/storyality-26-3-acts-did-aristotle-ever-say-that/

If you put `Memento' back in chronological order - it has 3 `Acts', same with Pulp Fiction, and Reservoir Dogs - and Rashomon. And, Vantage Point.

But likewise - if you look at `the biggest money-losers', and the most critically hammered films, they too have this `3-Acts' thing. (I don't think it helps anyone...?)

I love all Kubrick's film's - (well, maybe except his first 2 features, which he admits are garbage)... `Full Metal Jacket' is wonderful - and has 2 `parts', (Parris Island, and Vietnam) but, you can still break Joker's story into 3 Acts... (or in fact, 5 Acts - or even 10 Acts).

You can even split the masterpiece that is `2001' down into 3 Acts: (1) the apes discover the monolith on Earth (and it hyper-evolves them), (2) man later discovers the 2nd monolith on the moon (and the cosmic burglar-alarm goes off), and (3) Dave enters the 3rd one near Jupiter, and he enters the realm of the `Gods' (super-intelligent hyper-evolved extraterrestrial beings).

Kubrick said on a few occasions: "a film story needs 8 non-submersible units in the story" Meaning 8 x story sequences you can't do without...

But - Kubrick also made 5 feature films, before he got paid a cent (`Spartacus' was the first film he got a director's salary on...), and I am not sure that everyone has that kind of passion (or personal budget?) for the art form. (ie 5 feature films without a cent)

If I was starting out (as a screenwriter or filmmaker) I'd rather a shortcut to the easy route, myself. ie How to make a film with your first film that is: more likely to make a profit, so that your 2nd, 3rd and 4th films are easier to get financed/made. (Which is of course why I look, in my own research, at `film story virality', and: How did the most viral films happen...? And - how might others, perhaps do likewise?)

At any rate, great question Edward, and am very interested to hear other views on all this.

Cheers

JT

What is actually the point in dividing a film into 3 acts? every story has a beginning, middle and an end. what does this tell us about the real narrative structure? how many plotlines are there? what happens in the middle of the film? is there a climax or does a new plotline start? How many protagonists are there? and so on? the analysis of the these and other questions gets you far more insights than that of the macro-structure, be it 2, 3, 4 or 5 acts.

best

claus

While it is true that both successful films and flops adhere to three act structure I would venture to say that it would be very hard to find a film that is successful that did not adhere to it. As to the flops I would say that it is not the case that it is so because three act structure, rather it is the execution within....

I don't know if it's my favorite but I just screened Closer for my intro to film classes. Students seem to struggle with the structure of the story and it's episodic nature. Edward, I agree that people are conditioned to respond to the conventional 3 story act structure.

Hi Edward, Laura,

Just curious - how are you (both) defining an `act', in a film story?

Also, Edward, with regard to your notion " it would be very hard to find a film that is successful that did not adhere to it." (ie - 3 Acts)

But - since all films can be divided into 3 `Acts' (both successful films and unsuccessful films) isn't that therefore saying: `All successful films are: films.' (?)

Also: How are we defining film `success'? (Commercial? Critical? RoI / Virality?)

Either way, it's a fascinating area.

Also - If you haven't read it, I recommend DK Simonton's `Great Flicks': Scientific Studies of Cinematic Creativity (2011)

Cheers

JT

I would define three act as a work that has a beginning, middle and end - where the beginning is that which sets the action in motion - a middle that arises from it and which leads to -- an end where the story is complete not concerned necessarily with anything that follows after.

Hi Ed

I appreciate the answer. And - it's a good answer.

But, (and, I don't mean to be disagreeable - honestly, I am just trying to analyze Story, and What it is, and, How it works) - in the hope of enabling people to tell better stories... (more successful, ie ones that go viral.)

Seems to me what you are describing there, (with the definition, and it's a good one) is cause-and-effect.

ie Here is a story: "A man was born, lived, and died."

(Not a very interesting one, but a story)

Here is, not-a-story: "A man."

(It - very obviously - only has a beginning. Not a middle, nor an end.)

I think since Pleistocene Era days - we have been obsessed with problem-solving. (As it means we can then: survive and reproduce.)

eg Problem: I am starving. Solution: get food.

Problem: There is no food... (fruit, nuts and berries) Solution: Kill an animal.

Problem: That deer has big antlers - and could kill me. Solution: Invent the spear.

etc.

All good stories (stories that go viral) are about problem-solving.

Cause and effect.

See:

http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/storyality-73-the-heros-journey-its-not-what-you-think/

Anyway thanks Ed, all great food for thought! (For me. It may well be stuff that's all patently obvious to you. But I've been a professional creative writer for 20 years - and won awards and everything - and I still think no-one has explained very well Why or How good writing/storytelling actually works.)

Most people learn it by accident/random chance. Too bad about the ones with bad luck.

There must be a better way to teach this stuff.

Which of course is what my StoryAlity research is trying to solve.

Cheers

JT

I would like to suggest that Dali's and Bunuel's "Le Chien Andalou" (1927) resists three-act structure and works because of its surrealist interaction of archetypal symbols, smashing conventions in their interactions.

Good example Nelson

As to what makes a good story, how about learning from one of the best storytellers, Miguel de Cervantes? In his exemplary novel, "The Colloquy of the Dogs," one dog tells the other, "Some stories contain grace in themselves; others, in the way of telling them. I mean that there are some that, though told simply, give contentment; others there are that need to be dressed up in words, and with facial expressions and manual gestures and voice changes make something out of nothing, and change from weak and wishy-washy into sharp and pleasurable." In other words, in some stories, the content is all-important; in other stories, the style, the mode of narrating. Extrapolate this contrast to film, and you cover the whole lot.

Fascinating stuff, Nelson. Thanks!

You´re quite welcome, Edward. I thank you for proposing this provocative question, truly food for thought.

"Otto e mezzo," Fellini´s acclaimed "Eight and a Half," works for me since, because of its non-linear structure, it underscores the difficulty of the creative process.

Recent Mexican films have been dealing with a structure that could be characterized as a one-act structure. You could see some examples in the work of C. Reygadas, A. Escalante (both getting the "Best Director" award in Cannes in 2012 and 2013, respectively), but also lesser known filmmakers such as Elisa Miller or Nicolás Pereda. Particularly, I believe the works of Pereda, and also Julio Hernández Cordon (studied in Mexico, though Guatemalan) are quite worth a while. Interestingly, most of them deal with the issue of violence.

Well-timed question! Watched quite a few US movies over Xmas and many of them didn't have a third act. The just ran out of steam, watered out, as if the characters were left to drift until they got lost, stuck. What next?

I don't mind existentialist films (on the contrary) but there really seemed to be a pattern of indecisiveness, of filmmakers (society?) at loss...

In traditional dramatic storytelling 2nd act would be main tension, attempting to understand/find/avoid something/someone. Once that's done the hero confirms the journey in the 3rd act, showing/proving to the audience that they've changed, that they've really sorted got it together. So points to loss of confidence, to helplessness... Not quite Gerry, but almost like an endless walk in the desert. Whatever it is, it seems un-(US)American. Is something changing?

Re alternative structures, even if the plot isn't linear you can still have a three act structure, just in a different order. 8 1/2 appears to break all the rules because it's so imaginative, but it's actually quite classically built. Also interesting to look at Godard's interpretation of 8 1/2 (Passion).

That is good question. i think it depends what is movie you mean it. which kind of movie in which special society? for instance. in Islamic society which is more patriarchal society is different than western society and which elements are more important or better to say more colorful in movie is also included. i give you an example , i am from Iran and nowadays most movie makers focus on women rights or how women suffer patriarchal society , so act structures in those movie are different from on movie that focus on scientific or fantasy which i also it depends what is the main focus on these movie. i hope i can help you if you be more precise .

Good Luck Edward

How about Adieu au Langage (2014) by Godard.

'We ought to find problems of comprehension fascinating. They remind us of storytelling conventions we take for granted, and they push toward other ways of spinning yarns, or unraveling them.' - David Bordwell

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2014/09/07/adieu-au-langage-2-2-x-3d/