Screenwriting : How do you make sure your 2nd Act starts off correctly without it escalating too quickly? by Andre Gress

The second act is typically divided into two sections. When I work I call them Act IIa and Act IIb. So in a way you DO have 4 acts total. This might depend on your genre, but, my suggestion is: in Act IIa, the hero approaches his problem using his weakness (which is his default way of approaching every problem). This FAILS. Typically at the end of this sub-act (the midpoint) he'll have his first major run-in with the antagonist and something huge will happen. Now in Act IIb, the antagonist is gunning for the hero. But now the hero's a little smarter and fights back using his STRENGTH. But -- ha! This fails EVEN WORSE, leaving the hero at the end of this act at his lowest point. Now he'll have to regroup and, using some tool he acquired along the way, go into Act 3 with a new balanced approach that wins the day (or fails in an interesting way). Then just parcel out your fun stuff periodically and in an escalating way. Again, depending on your genre: don't put your biggest action set piece or most hilarious scene on page 38 and ramp down from there. Build, you know?

I honestly feel that limiting yourself to three acts is incredibly unproductive, creatively. All of the greatest movies and filmmakers have an understanding of why act breaks are there and what they're designed to make an audience feel and can, as such, exploit them in the most effective ways. Watch The Dark Knight, which had something like 12 acts or Edge of Tomorrow, which had more than I could count. Our screenplay uses a Shakesperean five act structure and the momentum and propulsion created by that has been its biggest asset. Add an extra act! Add 5!

thank you so much guys! really helped a lot!

Anthony, I guess we have terminology differences. The Dark Knight and Edge of Tomorrow definitely have three acts from my perspective. If you count sequences or story beats, obviously there are many more. But whatever term works for you. I tend to see a pretty consistent definition of what an "act" is, but I haven't read every book out there.

6-stage is a more detailed way of describing a 3-act structure. As (I think) you elude to, the two are not mutually exclusive. (Not that I'm trying to set myself up as some Great Defender of three act structure. But it's a useful -- and common -- way of thinking and talking about story, as long as one realizes that it's not the entirety of what you need to know.)

Kerry I love discussing this sort of thing so I hope you take no offence to any of my comments and understand it's purely, like most writing styles, subjective and my opinion. Grain of salt and all that. The three act structure is one of the most unhelpful and annoyingly perpetuated "tools" in the writing industry. At the end of the day, of course stories have a Beginning, a Middle and an end, you and I both learnt that in primary school. At the end of the day all you're doing is breaking the story down and simplifying it, two words which have pretty negative connotations. Surely you want your stories to be complex and built-up? Look, I know it's a losing battle, it's the most heavily bandied about industry term and, don't get me wrong, relatively useful as a throwaway shorthand to identify where in a script there are problems but, much like the Monomyth, I firmly believe should be used as the analytical tools that they were initially created as. As for the Dark Knight and Edge of Tomorrow, neither of us will ever know what act structures they were built around, unless of course we meet the writer, because anyone can break a movie down into any number of acts that they want. I personally, through experience and industry discussion find that the most propulsive and effective way to define an act is when a character makes a decision that leads them into a world that is dramatically different to the one they left. It ensures that all plot points are based in character, which is what an audience invests in. Like I said, it's gonna be hard, but I preach this to anyone I come into contact with and hear it even more from other working writers (not snake-oil salesman "teachers") who agree unequivocally. At the end of the day, I'll leave you with this - Tarantino, one of the smartest working writers who has an innate knowledge of storytelling... Pulp Fiction? 5 distinct acts separated with title cards. Both Kill Bills? 5 acts separated with title cards. Basterds? Django? Like I said, purely an opinion, but the more we promote stories that utilize any amount of acts needed and as long as we understand the mechanisms, hopefully we'll end up with less of this Transformers trite.

Anthony, have you recently read Screenwriting 101 by Film Crit Hulk! by any chance?

CJ - only "screenwriting book" a working writer will ever need. As you're probably aware it has the most succinct and easily understandable examples, of which I've just used one. Any writer would do well to give hulk the 3 dollars and read that thing every month for a year :)

No offense taken. If Andre has the mastery of Tarantino and wants to write in five acts, God bless. He'll be very successful. But one thing I tend to see from writers just learning the craft is that when they sit down to write they have this: - An idea of how the story begins - An idea of how the story ends (hopefully) - A knowledge that they'll have to get from the beginning to the end, and maybe a handful of ideas of what they'd like to put into this mystery section in the middle That mystery section is often called Act 2, and that's the section Andre was asking about, so I weighed in with what I've learned about the structure of Act 2 in some genres. If his story is Pulp Fiction, my advice isn't all that useful. But if his story is more conventional (some of us DO write in a conventional structure, even if we periodically have to act sheepish about it) then he might be able to make use of my advice. If his story is less conventional, then maybe your advice ("Add an extra act! Add 5!") wins the day. One thing that's clear from these Stage32 debates is that everyone works differently. If your method leads to your success, obviously it's the right method for you. Then, because we're all wonderful people, we try to share what works for us with others. :)

Kerry - agree 110 per cent. Every writer should do not only what works for them, but what works for the story. If Andre feels he's going to be struggling to cram his story into three acts he should feel like he has the freedom to expand his conventional structure into an unconventional one as, chances are, it will improve the story he's trying to tell. Again, your advice was very specific and I'm sure very helpful as you do seem to know your stuff. But every writer should aspire to be the next Tarantino or Mamet or whoever it is that they look up to and, even when starting out, I personally feel would be better served not limiting themselves. Learn how act breaks affect an audience, why we have them, have a look at a couple of different ways at defining them and what they do to your story and then just let the creativity flow until you write the words FADE TO BLACK. Unless, like you said, it's the best way to tell the story that they want to tell! Good stuff, I hope this sort of discussion is what I get every time I comment :)

All agreed. Just two more things: 1 - Tarantino blows my mind. If I could write like him, I sure as hell would. 2 - Conventional isn't all bad. My profile icon is Walter Neff. Dude sold insurance -- pretty conventional. But he wasn't boring. ;-)

Anthony, I'm not a fan of the book but it certainly has it's moments and has some highly respectable fans. As you tell, some of what it says went in as I recognise it's teachings when I see them. But what matters is you've found a book that speaks to you as a writer and I sincerely respect that. Personally I work to three acts with the second act split into two sub-acts and a stand alone mid-point sequence. Or, as some would say, five acts.

I'd love to hear what you didn't like, CJ, as you can probably tell I found it pretty revelatory. I found the trust he put, even in new writers, to take the teachings not as gospel, but as ways to fill out an arsenal, incredibly refreshing. Not to mention the offer to email him personally, which I've taken him up on a few times, something I don't remember when I got to the end of Mr. Mckee's or Mr. Field's respective books.

Is this a question about escalating too quickly or not continuing to escalate? Act 2 is conflict and escalation of conflict... As Billy Wilder, who only won six of the Oscars he was nominated for (which trumps that gasbag Truby) said: Act 1: You get your cat up a tree. Act 2: You throw rocks at him. Act 3: You get him down from the tree. So you want to throw rocks (plural) at your cat... once you have your protagonist locked in the conflict (up the tree) you want that conflict to escalate repeatedly, which makes Act 2 a struggle with the conflict. I have a whole book on Act 2, but here's a link to a Script Tip that's incorporated into the book... http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/tip279.htm

Ha. Gasbag. I'm glad you said it. I actually learned a few interesting things from Truby, but his take on story structure is absolutely baffling. I'm glad someone got something out of it, but I wouldn't recommend John Truby for story structure unless you want a stomach ache.

Give me Truby any day over Blake Snyder. When he says 3-act structure is dead though, that's a bit out there. Still, acts and act breaks are not always easy to define with absolute certainty.

He uses "The 3 Act Structure Is Dead" as advertising, but imagine what happens if any of his students land an assignment or sell a script and get notes that say something like "Act 1 goes on too long, you need to trim it down"? The real business is (and has been) centered around the 3 Act Structure. It's been working for 2,400 years so far, why mess with it? Syd Field didn't invent it, Billy Wilder's last film was made a decade before Syd Field's book come out, yet he said things like " If you have a problem with the third act, the real problem is in the first act." I think the "3 Act Structure Is Dead" stuff damages the chances of anyone who believes it, making this advertising stunt dangerous and destructive.

The thing with SAVE THE CAT is that Synder was a successful professional screenwriter and his technique worked for him, and works for many people who use it. They regularly have pro screenwriters with films in cinemas contribute to the webpage. You may not like it, but it works and works within the system. His method isn't anti anything that is part of the way things are done in the film business.

Snyder made some interesting observations and cool tips that can help writers BUT his book was so popular that it has inevitably become the gospel for the intellectually lazy. So my issue is not so much with Snyder (R.I.P.) but with dude who's read one screenwriting book - Save The Cat - and they're done. Now they want to tell me that a logline HAS to be ironic and they're looking on page 75 for the dark night of the soul and where is my "theme stated", if it's not there I've written an art film. So I'm more concerned that producers will start asking where's the "save the cat scene" in this script than "the 3 act structure is dead, this needs more acts", only because Snyder's book was a bigger hit than Truby's.

But I'll never understand this attitude. Like I said previously, we're all well aware that the three-act structure is widely perpetuated and commonly referred to in industry discussions. That doesn't mean it's right. Like Alle said above, anyone can crush any story into three-acts, from a subjective standpoint that's a very simple, if pointless, exercise. Objectively, you're more likely to create organic, original stories if you break the shackles of thinking about structure like you're implementing the method section of a recipe. If you fancy falling into the same category as an Orci/Kurtzman or even Blake Snyder himself (we're talking Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot and Blank Check Snyder, are we not?!) by all means, feel free to be as formulaic as necessary. But like I've said before, looking at screenwriting or any art form through the lense of "there's a certain way to do things and it clearly works, see examples A through Z" is just pointlessly limiting your own creativity and that of the future paragons of the industry. After all, if the up and comings in the screenwriting industry aren't going be the ones to say "hang on, we deserve a better class of story than this", then who will?

My Scenes Blue Book is currently ahead of 2 out of 3 SAVE THE CAT books on Amazon's Top 20 Screenwriting list... I've never had a producer use any of the SAVE THE CAT nomenclature, but all of them have use three act stuff.

Had to requote your paragraph it's so awesome: "After all, if the up and comings in the screenwriting industry aren't going be the ones to say "hang on, we deserve a better class of story than this", then who will?" Preach

Nice, William. I got the Idea machine and Strong Protagonist ones.

I guess the reason I'm not clamoring for a better class of story is that most (though not all) of my favorite movies are undeniably straightforward three-act, and would come pretty close to fitting into a Blake Snyder beat sheet. I personally haven't felt constrained by this structure, and I think I'm writing pretty fine stories. :) But God bless the innovators. Every art needs virtuosos doing something different than everyone else. I already know I'm not Mozart... if I end up as Salieri I'll consider the lifetime of awards and steady employment to be a worthy consolation.

We teach in terms of sequences rather than acts as 3 act structure is a bit old school. There are generally 2 sequences in "act one" 4 in "act 2" and 1 or 2 in "act 3"

3 Act isn't old school if you end up with an assignment from a producer on the lot or pretty much anyone else in town. Had an assignment a couple of years ago where I had to indicate the act breaks in my treatment (which I never do, I figure the act breaks are between me and the script).

Kerry: I seem to have seen a movie you did some writing on...

Bill, if it's my "story by" credit, I trust you know enough to know I didn't write a blamed word of that awful POS. :) My original script was freaking terrific, though. They bought it then the director totally rewrote it (into the ground).

Lew Hunter taught the 3 act structure at UCLA and in his Screenwriting 434 graduate program, as well at his Colony. Works for Lew and works for me.

Dave makes this important point "Still, acts and act breaks are not always easy to define with absolute certainty." It seems to me every discussion I read about act structure really boils down how we individually rationalise acts. The only thing that makes Synder's Save The Cat beat sheet three acts is the fact he calls it three acts. If you consider his focus on the mid-point, then his structure could easily be called four acts. If you take the core sections of his structure you get six acts. If you take each individual phase of his structure you get more like nine to ten acts. If you then add in his recommendations to alternate the a-b story, flip each sequence emotionally, show certain phases from two sides, and his third act breakdown then suddenly Snyder's isn't looking that distanced from the likes of Film Crit Hulk!. Tarantino is considered to write in five acts simply because he titles what he defines as his five acts. Take those title cards out and people would dissect his work differently. Such as the execs who rejected Pulp Fiction on the basis of poor structure. I hate to see all the Synder bashing. I think the guy deserves way more credit and respect than he gets. And no, I don't follow his structure personally.

Kerry I'm into the most commercial stuff as well, but often times I find an opportunity for a truly classic movie is lost because of a resorting to formula rules and Save The Cat type structure. 21 Jump Street is one example where it was on a roll, and was hilarious but as it went along, you could see where it became a bit shoehorned into a formula, where if it was let breathe a bit and some more artistic freedom was allowed it could have been an alltime classic. Many times you can smell a completely random and forced "dark night of the soul" or plot point - we know it's there because we're screenwriters. The audience doesn't, they just leave the theater with the vague sense that it wasn't a fully realized vision. They thought they movie had some funny scenes, but they can't articulate why it's not in their all-time top 10. If you can find a way to put in a dark night of the soul or a ticking clock great because these devices work but if you jam it in there, and it's not organic, earned, and true to character, the audience will pick up on it and you'll have maybe a 6.3 on IMDB when you coulda had an 8. Spinal Tap, Swingers, Caddyshack, they were all classic comdies because they were afforded the vision to do exactly what they thought was funny and did not have a formula to check themselves against. The rules for them were simply to have 3 acts and don't be boring. Movies today are more cookie cutter for sure.

I was taught to work in 3 acts, but the important thing is that the structure disappears (that's what craft truly is), and as Dave wrote, anything you place in the story should be organic, earned and true to character. Try writing another version in 3 acts. See if it works better. If not, go with the 2 act story you have.

Not being one who has been taught about such things, or ever gone to writers school, though I have read about such things as Act one and two in one or two script writing books I have recently read. I did must say though that I did wondered about this for a while and nearly gave up even attempting to begin writing scripts. So I asked a script polisher I know where one divides a story into three acts. She said, "Just tell the story". That maked sense to me. If you are a good story teller what else matters? I can't recall ever sitting through a movie and saying to myself, "Ah, that's where act one started and finished and that's where act two started...etc. The great movie, "Finding Forester" is a classic on writing, especially the scene where Sean Connery takes a blank sheet of paper and bangs away on his old typewriter. His student just sits there watching Connery and looks at the blank page before him. When Sean Connery finishes he pulls the sheet of paper out of the typewriter and hands it to the student. The student is amazed at what is on the sheet and then says, but what about all the mistakes and structure etc? Sean Connery says, "That's work; right now we write!" Andre, just write! let someone else worry about the structure. Tell the story mate! Robert

Robert, if you'd studied three-act structure, you probably would start noticing the act breaks in movies. Finding Forrester is a fine example. It has a very traditional three act structure. Watch it again -- the act breaks are where you think to yourself, "wow, that act was even worse than the last one." :)

Good one, Kerry!

Bingo! Lol

The Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a current movie where virtually everything we have been taught unfolds onto the screen - while the devises could have been disguised better, a very good film.

Look upon it as foreplay, Andre, timing and pacing are important, too quick/soon may not get you the desired results - consider the commencement of the second act when your hand is finally resting on her knee - what comes next and the eventual outcome is dependant on your ability - I think this simple rule of thumb may serve you well re parameters, good luck.