Just something that occurred to me as I was reviewing the MHeyman BLACK SWAN screenplay.

Now, before anyone starts beating on me, this is just a visualization of the three act structure, panned as it is, that I thought might be... remotely helpful to someone when constructing their story in outline form before fleshing it out.

Yeah, I always answers questions like these with: Diner. Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Films of that ilk that are classics. Did they have a plot? And did the characters really learn anything or achieve some super-growth? No, but for some reason we loved them. Because of theme (sorry Jeff), not plot. We can identify with them.

Oh and by the way Aristotle invented the three-act structure and Hollywood pseudo-gurus have been getting rich by re-packaging it to screenwriters for decades now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenwriting#Three-act_structure

Thanks for that wiki link.
One of my immediate self-educational projects is to apply excruciating analysis to differing screenplay structures.

I think the classic Three Act and Syd Field Paradigm are the two easiest to grasp as a beginning point.
From there I'll find samples that adhere to the Hero's Journey which seems just a wee more complex.
Spreadsheets to follow, of course.  

(BTW, I would appreciate any CURRENT [ten years or less] film titles you guys can share which are specifically built upon the Hero's Journey structure. TIA!)

It seems writers are forever wanting to "creatively introduce" something "new".
Yeah, well... I'm a nube+ at this gig myself, and I'm of the opinion you gotta know WTH is standard HWood fare before you start "breaking rules".


Speaking of theme vs. plot, when I was listening to Heretic's rocking cool Jeff Goldsmith podcast interview with Screenwriters Mark Heyman and Andres Heinz I heard one of them speak something about a third factor of TONE which is honestly something I have difficulty nailing down, especially having some humor in a drama without being goofy.

Some stories naturally lend themselves to a tone, while others... could be played different ways.
Isolating which tone I want to apply to a story - before I get too far down the road with it - is something I sometimes find difficult, even when being free to giving it much leeway.

I don't think I can say exactly what tone is. I'm horrible at explaining myself, but I know it's important to set the tone from the beginning. The writer knows what the tone is. S/He knows the script, but as a reader I often read a script and I picture it in my head just fine only to find way too late that the tone of the script isn't at all as I had first pictured it. It is then very hard to switch how you see the story in your head if you at first thought you were reading a dark comedy only to find out later it's really a dark drama. Do I even make sense at all?  

So yeah, tone is important to establish early on IMHO.

Ray, are you writing anything? Up for a 6 or 7WC?  

Quoted from Grandma Bear ...but I know it's important to set the tone from the beginning. The writer knows what the tone is. S/He knows the script, but as a reader I often read a script and I picture it in my head just fine only to find way too late that the tone of the script isn't at all as I had first pictured it... So yeah, tone is important to establish early on IMHO.

EXACTLY!
I don't mind pounding out a blind plot or story (semantics) outline from a premise, but before I start cooking up dialog and action I kinda gotta know if I want O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? or NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN?
Juno?!

Quoted from Grandma Bear Ray, are you writing anything? Up for a 6 or 7WC?

I'm afraid I've committed myself to some serious research that'll likely take a few months to achieve a satisfactory approximation of a resolution.
So, "No", I'm not good for either writing a d@mn thing for myself (of the four+ dozen features I have in the premise hopper) let alone a 7WC.

I just ain't got that kinda honest time available.

I done learnt too much that I don't know enough.

Maybe next year?

I'd really like to get a handle on the bigger picture before investing so much time into a quality, marketable screenplay.
My goal is to bang out one of my own by the end of the year, and what month is this... ? Oh, gee. It's already d@mn near the end of July. Only got's five more months to go and I know at least two if not three of those will get chewed up on my educational journey.

Sorry, sorry, sorry... !!!!    

As you probably know, Ray, I am early on the learning curve for structure. I try to watch movies now and plot out the structure in my head. I watched an old movie the other night, one that I know has been dissected many times by film people. I've read none of those articles, so the following is just my own dissection, if you're in the mood to play along.

The movie is Groundhog Day. I've read a lot recently on STC and standard 3 Act, and I have a hard time calling this a 3 Act story, even though in so many ways it seems classic Blake on the surface. I can't help thinking that to call this 3 Act is almost forcing that X ray onto the patient, when in fact the skeleton is something different. Maybe you can help me.

Standard 3 Act is Intro, Conflict, and Resolution.
There are some other structural guideposts that could be confused as act changes, such as inciting incident and midpoint. So we have to be careful to see the difference between a an act turning point and a different type of structural element.

Groundhog Day(how I divided it as I watched)
Act One: Intro main characters, tone, world. We see Bill Murray as a selfish and cynical guy, Rita as caring and curious. Then all of a sudden Bill Murray finds every day is Groundhog day. We'll come back later to discuss whether this is inciting incident or end of an act.
Act Two: Murray struggles to understand what has happened. He thinks maybe he's gone crazy. After a while he settles into a funk. It ends in the bowling alley bar when the drunks point out he sees the glass as half empty. This awakens a realization, that this is an opportunity to have some fun.
Act Three: Murray takes advantage of his new "power". Blakies will call this Fun and Games, but it seems clear to me this is more than that. It's an important part of his development, of the transformational path he is on that is the theme of the movie.
At the end of this act, all turns to despair. He realizes he can't get Rita and doesn't understand why. He has not experienced any growth, remains a selfish person, and no matter how crafty his powers enable him to be, she always sees through it.
Act Four: he wallows in despair. He is stuck in purgatory with no way to change anything. His life is empty. He tries to kill himself numerous ways(Blakies will shout 'Hint of death!') At the end of this act, he finally realizes he has abused his power, that he in fact has an opportunity to help people and to better himself. And this leads to the resolution of:
Act Five: Murray helps practically everyone in town, and focuses on bettering himself. He learns that he can make everyone's life a better one, learns to love that. He is now a changed person, and with no effort on his part, he is now able to earn the love of Rita.

I've seen it described that the protagonist's world changes at the end of Act One. That's how we know we're at the end of it. So it seems clear to me that Act One ends in this movie when he wakes up again on Groundhog Day. Of course, Murray is unchanged, but he remains unchanged until he reaches despair and comes out of it later in the movie.

I just have a hard time not seeing this as 5 Act. It's so well structured that you feel all four turning points on the protagonist's journey very clearly.

Any thoughts welcome!

Note: not trying to start an argument, just a discussion. I am not anti-Blake, anti-theme, or anti-yogurt. I see Groundhog as highly structured, highly thematic...and Five Act. A great movie too! I wonder if any other actor could have played it?

Well, I'm definitely not going to get into an argument about theme again, but for Anthony, let me just say again, I am not opposed to theme in scripts and films in any way...I just don't think it's as important as everyone else seems to, and especially not in many genres of film.

But unlike theme, tone is something I'm totally into and totally understand.  IMO, it's very important and comes into play both positively and negatively in all movies and scripts.

The tone isn't the genre, it's the feel of the way the material is being handled.

If you know the tone right off the bat, you should be able to accept the movie for what it is, and therefor, not expect more than you'll get, and bring up issues that the project wasn't concerned with.

For me, tone is much more important than theme...every time!

I think one thing about tone is after you set it, you have to be consistent and maintain it. It's easy to stray off on a certain scene, for example from dark to comedic or lighthearted.

And once you establish tone, the key is to keep your dialogue matched to it.

And I do love the diagrams above. Definitely useful for focusing a story.

Mind you, I haven't seen this movie in a couple decades, so I went off memory and the wiki synopsis, but here goes...

Thanks Ray. Does that take long?

Ok. To me this break down left out a really, really big thing, a critical turning point.

The bowling lanes bar, when the drunk looks at his half filled glass and says to Phil, "I see you as a guy who would say this glass is half empty rather than half full." This causes an awakening in Phil, a renewed hope, and he spends the next 15 or 20 minutes taking advantage of his power. This is critical in his development, as it leads him eventually to realize that it's not enough to make superficial changes to win Rita over.

That moment in the bar, with the half full beer glass, is to me a key structural component to the story.

Thanks Ray!

Takes about three minutes to read and understand your or anyone's posts.
Another five to ten minutes of simple homework.
Open MSPaint, open the picture file, "Save As" something else.
Make the picture bigger to fit in more blabbin' (by now I've already largely figured out a solution to the question posed).
Box-select items and text to move 'em outta the way
Figure out what stuff to delete, box-select and delete, fine details I gotta paint out white, re-paint in some details.
Write the text I wanna add, box-select lines and re-stack for space conservation.
Move new text blocks to appropriate existing text.
Re-create the ACT II and ACT III wiggly lines, re-position the "2C".
Move all text blocks to some semblance of appropriate proximity.
Draw lines from text blocks to appropriate wiggly line points.
Make the page bigger, again, select all, re-position lower to add in the blabbin' at the top.
Save as JPEG
Open photobucket account, upload, copy link, post here.

I dunno.
Maybe 3/4 hour?

Half-empty bit or not, the story still fits the Three Act/Syd Field template just fine.
I thought the turning point was Rita's bit, but it's been a while for me and the wiki synop is less than exhaustive.


From a story building perspective, the important part is to consider how the story progresses from a depressed, p!ssed off Phil if he doesn't get it through his thick head "something's gotta change" cause the situation sure ain't.

Where would the story go then?

Whatever the kick-off or inciting reason is is irrelevant.
THAT it happens is very relevant.

Look at it another way, could we take any of America's most common jobs and make this same story work?
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/11/11/americas-most-popular-jobs/

1. Retail salespeople:  Worst salesman ever wants promotion to team leader - and bang the dept manager - gets to relive Black Friday until he "gets it".

2. Cashiers:  Cr@ppiest cashier ever wants to stop being so timid around customers - and bang the Budweiser vendor - gets to relive local boating event until she "gets it".

3. Office clerks: All left thumbs clerk wants to convince the boss to get a better GD photocopier and fax - and bang that same boss! - gets to relive the day the computers all crashed until he "gets it".

4. Combined food preparation and service workers:  The head chef wants to group-bang all the waitresses in a single evening - while on duty! - gets to relive a very unsatisfied Mother's Day until he "gets it".

5. Registered nurses:  The ER charge nurse wants a promotion to nurse manager - and bang the new xray tech - gets to relive a plane/train disaster until she "gets it".

6. Waiters and waitresses: see above food services, reverse rolls, er... roles.

7. Customer service representatives: Prostitute wants just one john to have "normal" sex with her - and get to bed before dawn - butt relives The Great Cleveland Steamer Event until she "gets it", (and boy oh boy is she getting it)!

8. Material movers: Truck loader wants to binge eat before - attending The Great Cleveland Steamer Event - butt must relive the most f3cked up delivery day ever until he "gets it".

I can keep doing this all day, butt surely you get the idea by now.

It's a template that can be applied to any situation.
All the niggling details that support the premise can be worked out once the setting and scenario are determined.

I'll probably make this my last post in the thread since I have a tendency to piss people off who think I am just trying to be difficult. I'm actually just trying to learn and understand, but I'll leave it alone after this one.

And I love your approach, Ray, trying to master all aspects of the game. Certainly it makes sense to master something so commonly accepted as gospel like Three Act is, and STC beats. I am digesting your posts with great interest!

The problem I have is that it seems forcing GroundHog Day into Three Act is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. I don't mind being proven wrong on this, in fact I'm ready for it! But the above chart did the opposite. It reinforced my belief that this is not Three Act.

I can't make a chart, but let me relist the Acts as I did above, more succinctly.

Act One: intro chars, world, protags flaws and wants. Ends on first Sonny & Cher repeat.
Act Two: Phil struggles to adjust to new reality, make sense of it. State of frustration but not despair. Ends when it's pointed out he's seeing glass half empty.
Act Three: Phil takes advantages of his new powers, tries to use to bang bang Rita.
Act Four: Despair, as he cannot win Rita. Tries suicide.
Act Five: Realizes he is not using his power to help people, like he could. He now helps people, betters himself. He changes, this transformation results in his winning Rita, and finally ending the day.

All of those are turning points, four of them, are very explicit and equally powerful.

Each turning point is the end of an act, which means five acts.

The basic story is a guy wants something, obstacles are in the way, he must change himself to overcome the obstacles and get what he wants. Those are 3 basic elements, so we can call it 3 Act in that way. But that notion is so elemental that I have a hard time crediting Aristotle or anyone for inventing it. I'm hungry, I find food, I eat. You're horny, you find a girl, get laid.

To repeat: I think the Three Act model is cooler than sliced bread. Very useful. I'm not against it. So these were just points for consideration! Thank you for the thread and all your work. Your responses take time, I understand if you choose to move on or let someone else jump in.

Thank you Ray, Kevin, Pia and everyone supporting this thread.

I really do believe that this is the correct approach. There is no other way
than to analyze structure and cross reference in different movies and formats.

Ray, you've done so much work here and we all really appreciate it. I also appreciate your deconstruction. You know, they say that brilliance is the ability to reduce something down to its simplest forms. You indeed show this and it's respected by us here.

Thanks again. Going to see Harry Potter tonight. Loved the books. The movies have worked hard to capture (as we talked about tone earlier in this thread) the tone of the series. And all of us know (who read the books) that the tone became increasingly dark as the series manifested itself through time.

Thanks so much again.

Sandra

Nah, we're cool.
I don't in the least think you're being difficult. (Either I'm stupid or meaner than h#ll, pick one).
I ain't nowhere near frustrated, let alone committing suicide.  Ha!

Three Act vs Five Act looks largely like semantics to me.
Whoopie-shiddoodledoos.
Six of one half-dozen of the other - whatsit really matter, frankly?
As long as the money is green I don't care.

Are all the story/plot bits and parts there?
Yes? Great! You got yourself your very own Frankenstein's monster.
No? Bummer. Gotta think of the missing ingredient to make that b!tch walk.

No biggie.
Seriously.

As I identified earlier, my intentions are to begin with the Three Act and Syd field Paradigm and move onto the Hero's Journey structure.
Do you have a link or two to some good discussions, explanations, or outlines of what constitutes a formal Five Act structure?
Thank you!

I'm game for anything.

If I can learn to differentiate between insects and arachnids surely learning about chilopoda and diplopoda can't be far behind.
Juno?