Structure: 3 Acts, 4 Acts, or more?

[mscherer]

Over the past five 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. Basically, stolen from the best.

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

ACT I – The Loner/Orphan/Disunity
Sequence #1 ( 01-10) Set-up: 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/Explorer/Deconstruction
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/Activist/Reconstruction
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/Death/Unity
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

Some explanation is in order. What do these Act headings really mean? Follow me:

ACT I – The Loner/Orphan/Disunity: at the end of the first act our hero must be alone and/or isolated – physically; emotionally; socially. Our hero has left her ordinary world and is alone in the new story world.

ACT II - The Wanderer/Explorer/Deconstruction: because our hero finds herself in new circumstance, there are new skills to be learned as she wanders/explores this new story world. Our hero must deconstruct and understand this new story world in order to survive.

ACT III - Towards The True Goal: The Warrior/Activist/Reconstruction:
Armed with new skills our hero is ready to take on this new story world and/or the bad guys. Our hero is ready to reconstruct her new world in a way she can control and/or manipulate.

ACT IV - Result Of The Action: The Martyr/Death/Unity: With victory our hero’s old-self dies – her new-self is born. She possesses better skills, more knowledge, and a better understanding of self. She is now in harmony with the new story world and the new story world is in harmony with her.

That’s it. Comments?

Keep Writing.

[echenry]

Structure is SIMPLE: beginning, middle and end.

Not to be rude, because it is important to be AWARE of all the different ways a writer can tweek a story, and put a fresh spin on things (ie. Charlie Kauffman, or Quintin Tarantino -- the masters of the structure tweek) but it ALWAYS boils down to: beginning, middle, and end.

Your post reminds me of something Robert McKee might write, hence the header tittle.

Rock on Mike! NEVER be afraid to go deep, but don't get lost in that deepness... Structure is simple.

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

[mscherer]

@e.C.

I appreciate you reading my post and your comments however, I respectfully disagree with you. The Four Act Structure does have a beginning (ACT I), a middle (ACT II, ACT III), and an end (ACT IV). And though many screenwriting ‘gurus’ will allow for an ACT IIa and an ACT IIb, I prefer to separate them because they represent distinct actions on the Hero’s part.

To illustrate my point I will do a quick analysis of DIE HARD – a movie generally believed to have an almost perfect structure -- to see how it fits the Four Act pardigm.

By the end of ACT I – The Loner/Orphan/Disunity:
John McClane has had a fight with his wife and she leaves him alone in Ellis’ office. He finds himself separated from the rest of the Christmas party revelers. When the bad guys take over the building, he attempts to call Argyle for help, but the bad guys have severed the phone lines. He finally ends up on the 32nd floor in an unfinished and barren room.

John McClane is, for all practical purposes, alone. An orphan. His world has been turned upside down – disunity.

ACT II - The Wanderer/Explorer/Deconstruction:
finds McClane exploring his new surroundings. He moves from floor to floor and takes inventory of his environment. In one scene he says to himself, ‘...32 construction... 33 computers’. He then observes James, Uli, and Heinrich wheel wooden crates up to another floor. Clearly, in this act McClane is an explorer, a wanderer, and is attempting to deconstruct – become familiar with – this new situation.

In ACT III - The Warrior/Activist/Reconstruction:
McClane goes on the offensive. He pulls the fire alarm. Captures, fights, and kills Tony, one of the terrorists. He goes into ‘cop-mode’. Contacts the police with a confiscated CB radio and when that doesn’t garner the results he wants, he throws another terrorist out of a shattered window onto Officer Powell’s squad car. He has now totally disrupted Hans’ plan.

ACT IV - The Martyr/Death/Unity:
In the final act, everything goes against McClane and his survival becomes less and less certain:
1. Hans learns McClane’s true identity: New York cop.
2. Comes face to face with McClane while checking the C4 planted below the helio-pad.
3. Hans then recovers the detonators and now his plan is back on track.
4. Karl finds McClane and tries to kill him – take revenge for his brother’s death.
5. FBI chopper fires on McClane believing he is one of the terrorist.
6. McClane barely survives the explosion by jumping off the roof with the fire hose.
7. McClane offers himself up to Hans (a martyr) in one last, desperate attempt to save his wife.

In the end:
1. Hans dies (death).
2. Powell kills Karl and in that one act, ‘kills’ his old timid self and becomes the police officer he used to be (death).
3. Holly and McClane are happily together – their old relationship is dead (death).
4. The ‘world’ is back in balance (unity).

I believe if you take this Four Act paradigm and apply it to any movie the pattern will be self-evident. Don’t take my word for it – pick any movie – analyze it – tear it apart. Determine for yourself if Four Acts are better than three.

Keep Writing!

[echenry]

Glad to hear you've found a structure pattern that works for you, Mike. Based on your ACT I except from "Cardinal Sin" that you were kind enough to post, I'd have to say whaever you're doing is working: good structure is evident in your writing.

From your original post it sounds like you've done you're homework too.

Every writer needs to come to grips with structure and needs to be aware of all the tools out there.

For me, myself, I try to keep it loosy-goosey untill I have a draft written, THEN I apply structure for purpose of establishing MEANING. I think that's what any kind of structure paradigm is about: establishing meaning in a story.

Anyway, thanks for the lesson, Professor Sherer! You sound VERY READY to lead a class in screenwriting structure -- using your own "hybrid of the Four Act Structure and the Sequence Method" of course.

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

[oz]

I think you both make good points. I've structured the hell out of an outline/script before writing AND I've "discovered" the story all "loosey-goosey" as I've written that 1st draft then applied the structure at rewrite. I prefer applying structure after but there's no wrong way or right way and I've failed and succeeded both ways.

I really think it depends a great deal on how well you know your characters. If I really know them and can hear them even when I'm not at my desk, I may not need as much structure but then again, sometimes those are the very characters who will take me off in directions I didn't plan on going and that's not always productive.

I do think mscherer's break down is handy, though. After you read and study all the paradigms out there it can boggle the mind as to what works best and if you're looking for something compact, his looks good---before or after pages.

[mscherer]

Oz,

Thanks for the kind words. You're right, of course, to each his own. Four Act Structure works for me; one man's opinion; mileage may vary; batteries not included. ;D

[scottmyers]

@mike: I definitely think your construction or paradigm has merit. It's similar in approach to my own Narrative Throughline which is 3 Acts and 10 Major Plot Points (Plotline / External World) and 4 Movements (Themeline / Internal World), the latter the Disunity to Unity articulation of the transformation arc that exists in so many mainstream movies.

Do you mind if I post your construct on GITS as the basis for a discussion re story structure?