As screenwriters of varying experience and success, we’ve all heard over and over again about 3-Act structure. I’ve written about the importance of structure in this blog many times, and especially how important it is for young and unknown screenwriters to demonstrate that they have a grasp for the structure before anyone will take them seriously as screenwriters. But ultimately, what does it really mean for a screenplay to have good structure? Most academics and books will tell you that Act 1 needs to end somewhere between pgs 25-30, there should be some moment that spits Act 2 in half, and Act 2 should end somewhere around page 90 for a 120-page screenplay. But what does that mean? How do we know when one act ends and another begins?
When I was first starting out at trying to write screenplays, I never had a problem with ending Act 1. Quite simply, the transition between Act 1 and Act 2 is where the adventure begins. We (should) have gotten all of our exposition, and we should have a clear idea of who the hero is and what he or she wants. The second act is all about him or her going for it. Luke is going to rescue Princess Leia (Star Wars). Indiana Jones is going to find the Ark of the Covenant (Raiders of the Lost Ark). Erin Brockovich decides to take on a giant chemical company (Erin Brockovich). Fred Dobbs is going up the mountain to dig for gold (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre). These moments all happened 20-30 minutes into 2-hour films with the first 20-30 minutes spent introducing us to the heroes, showing us what their problems are, and introducing us to the other important characters in the story. The break between Acts 1 and 2 is way more often than not pretty cut and dried.
However, I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve read a script that either has a weak transition from Act 2 to Act 3, or even worse, has no transition at all. The writer merely continues the second act all the way to the end of the story. They often try to have a major moment that changes the direction of the story in order to head towards the climax, but for whatever reason, they simply couldn’t close the deal.
Quite simply, the end of the second act needs to be the moment where the hero loses everything. This is the absolute low point for the hero in the story. She’s been working the entire second act, and usually due to her character flaw, she’s failed to get what she wants and/or needs, and what’s more is that it looks like she never will. Now, is this a hard and fast rule that occurs in every screenplay? Of course it isn’t. However, it does happen often enough that I encourage novice screenwriters to take that approach to the transition from the second act to the third act in order to simplify their process. Also, the transition from the second act to the third act needs to be an event that is traumatic enough to cause the direction of the story to change and force the hero to rethink what they’ve been doing and learn more about themselves and the world than they thought they would.
Obi-wan Kenobi is killed by Darth Vader, robbing Luke of his mentor as well as his confidence that he can learn the Force without him. Belloq kidnaps Marion and steals the Ark from Indiana Jones, presumably to deliver it to Hitler which will make the Nazis invincible. Erin Brockovich’s obsession with bringing justice to the chemical companies has caused her to become alienated from her kids, who were the reason she took this job in the first place. Having gone completely paranoid from his greed, Fred Dobbs tries to kill his partner and steals his share of the gold on their journey to town.
All of these characters were seemingly headed towards success in the second act when either their inner flaws or outer enemies caused them to lose their initial mission, hit rock bottom and forced them to go in a different direction in order to raise themselves up and get the prize. Now then, why do so many writers stumble when attempting to get into the third act? I think there are three reasons.
1. They’ve fallen in love with their hero.
Too many writers fall in love with their heroes as though they were their children. Like any parent, the writer doesn’t want his hero to experience too much (or any) pain as the go along their journeys. They don’t want to make them uncomfortable because they just love them too much. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve come across this issue while reading a script. The writer seems to forget that the best thing for the story is to make the hero as uncomfortable as possible and to put him through as much pain as possible. Think about what Hugh Glass goes through in The Revenant. Although in that film the second act ends when he’s seemingly rescued and brought to the camp, his ordeal apparently over. It’s the exception that proves the rule, however the story certainly heads into a different direction at that moment. But returning to my point, don’t be afraid to put your character through an ordeal. It’s what the audience wants, and more importantly it’s what they need in order to engage with the character.
2. They simply just don’t understand or don’t respect dramatic structure.
I do believe that there is a serious lack of understanding about dramatic structure, and how it works, and why it’s important. I’ve heard many would-be writers lament the 3-Act structure and curse the limitations that they believe it puts on to their creativity. What they don’t understand is that a screenplay is like a building that houses their story, and that the structure is like the building’s foundation. Any building built without a foundation will collapse and any screenplay written without a thought to the story’s structure will suffer the same fate. You want your hero to learn and to grow and the number one way to do that is to have her experience failure at the end of the second act. Without that moment, you’re left with a screenplay that is shallow and hollow.
3. They don’t understand character growth.
Piggy-backing on that last thought, the third act is where your character finally completes his arc as a character. This is impossible to accomplish without a proper arc in the story. That is impossible to accomplish without solid structure and that means in part a clear break between acts two and three. A well-defined character arc is one of the most important components to your story, for without it, your audience will be left wanting more, and not in a good way.
Perhaps you’re trying to tell a story in a different way. Perhaps you’re the type of person who doesn’t want to be weighed down by a bunch of rules and best practices. All I will say to that is that these methods are tried and true and have produced some of the most memorable stories ever committed to celluloid. Of course there have been writers and filmmakers who have broken the rules, but many of them were already well established at the time. As I’ve said many times in this space, you need to be able to demonstrate that you know the rules before you’ll be trusted to break them. Craft a screenplay that is well-structured, including a clear break between acts 2 and 3, and you’ll be well on your way to demonstrating that ability.
At Monument Script Services we pride ourselves on our understanding of story structure. If you’re working on a script and you’re struggling with the break between Acts 2 and 3, or if you’re having any other structural issues, please click the link below to see how we can help improve the foundation of your story.