Alex Epstein has posted some interesting thoughts on the three-act structure. This is something I’ve thought about a fair amount, so I thought I’d weigh in.
First, for those of you who aren’t screenwriters, this post is going to be a brief overview of the three act structure. I’m going to take my examples from the original Star Wars (or “Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope,” for my fellow geeks). If you are one of the nine sentient beings on the planet who has yet to see the film, spoilers follow. There is also a spoiler for Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I’m picking Star Wars because I figure everybody has seen it, but I could have used any one of thousands of other examples. About 90% of all mainstream movies–and about 98% of all good ones–fit broadly into a three act structure, where the acts can be defined as follows:
ACT I: An introduction to the normal life of the protagonist (Luke Skywalker is a bored moisture farmer on a desert planet), as well as the world of the movie (Out in space, a battle is raging between a ragtag bunch of rebels and an evil empire). And then, into this world, comes…
THE FIRST ACT BREAK (also known ” the “first plot point,” the “act out,” or many other terms. (It is NOT known as the inciting incident, which, embarrasssingly, is what I called it in the first draft of this article. Thanks to Brandon for catching the error.)) Whatever you call it, this plot point is something that dramatically changes the daily life of the character. (After two strange droids arrive, Luke’s aunt and uncle are brutally murdered.) I call this the Manishtana Moment, from part of a Hebrew phrase from the Passover seder which translates as “Why is this night different from all other nights?” The first act break answers this important question, and it also gives the character…
A CONCRETE GOAL IN SERVICE OF A LARGER GOAL: Thanks to the first act plot point, our protagonist decides to (or is given the chance to, or is forced to) pursue some concrete physical goal (help Princess Lea get the Deathstar plans to the Rebel alliance) in order to pursue some larger, more abstract goal (strike a blow against the Empire). And once our hero has taken on his concrete goal, we are into:
ACT II, where our protagonist actively pursues his goal despite a series of increasingly challenging obstacles. Interestingly, lthough most moviegoers aren’t conscious of the three-act structure, Act II is what they’ll talk about if you ask them what the movie is about. In other words, nobody ever says “Star Wars is about this moisture farmer on a dull desert planet.” Act II will build to…
THE SECOND PLOT POINT. This is a moment that takes the story in some new direction. The most common second plot points are:
–The hero achieves his concrete goal (Luke succeeds in getting the plans to the Rebel Alliance) but realizes he still must take further steps to achieve the larger goal (Luke must use the plans to blow up the Death Star.)
–The hero fails to achieve his concrete goal ( Indiana Jones fails to keep the Lost Ark of the Covenant out of the hands of the Nazis) and now must somehow still achieve his larger goal (Indie must stop the Nazis from using the Ark to win the war.)
-The hero reaches a crisis point where he is as far away from achieving his concrete goal as he could possibly be, and all seems lost.
The second plot point closes Act II, and we then move to…
3. ACT III, in which we zip through the climax and the denoument, and tie up any loose ends.
As a rough, general rule of thumb, Act I generally takes up 25% of the running time; Act II takes up 50%; and Act III takes up the remaining 25%.
So that’s the whatof the three-act structure. Next up: a discussion of why.
Hey there-
Cool post. I enjoy it.
But I think (if we are going to wax intellectual about structure) you are wrong about the inciting incident taking us into the second act.
The inciting incident happens and then, yes the protagonist persues the goal, but it isn’t until the major plot point at the end of act one, a twist (shooting the action into a new direction), that Act 1 finishes and Act 2 begins.
-A wonderful example of this is Woody Allen’s Small Time Crooks: The team of theives are shooting for the goal of robbing a bank, the End of Act 1 is the Officer discovering the plot, which takes the film in a WHOLE new direction.
Usually, about half of Act one occurs AFTER the inciting incident.
Just trying to clarify that the inciting incident is not the END of Act 1, but somewhere in the middle (In generally shared contemporary screenwriting speak).
Thanks again,
Brandon
In My example for small time crooks, the inciting incident would NOT be when the officer finds the theives in the wrong store.
The Inciting Incident for this story would probably be when his wife agrees to go along with the robbery scheme. This sets the wheels in motion towards the goal, and eventually leads to the End Of Act Plot Point. (Without her agreement, there wouldn’t be a succesful cookie business).
Hey again-
I’d just like to note, the above(s) are actually more of questions than anything else.
Your sentence “Once the inciting incident has occurred and our hero has taken on his concrete goal, we are into The Second Act” is a bit misleading maybe?
I have been led to believe that we are into the second act after the First Act Plot Point, which ends the “goal” of the First act and spins the action in a new direction.
Please let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Brandon
Sorry to be slow in responding–I’ve been traveling for the last week.
Anyway, you’re right that I’m confusing the inciting incident and the first-act plot point. Thanks for catching that. It’s rather embarrassing to start off a lengthy exposition on the three-act structure by misusing a term!
That said, I think I’m typical of most screenwriters in that I spent a fair amount of time studying the rules of screenwriting when I started off, but I only started getting interest in my scripts when I let my knowledge of the rules recede into my subconscious, if that makes sense. So I can only plead that it’s been a long, long time since I’ve read a screenwriting book.
Anyway, thanks for catching and correcting my mistake!
You make perfect sense when you talk about the best work coming when you let the rules recede. I couldn’t agree more.
I am at the point where I’m letting the rules recede, but still do enjoy reading about the craft and thoughts from people I admire.
The only reason I said anything is because I wanted to make sure I wasn’t way off base with my general understanding of the rules (though that might not even matter).
Believe me, I don’t hold the rules of structure (or any rules) sacred. But if we’re gonna talk about it, I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. (Or else what would be the point of all my Amazon bills).
Thanks for the response.
Best,
Brandon