Yves Lavandier has in his book Writing Drama a very interesting chapter about structure. He discusses the three acts in a way I’ve never heard before.
He considers the first act to be the period before the audience knows the purpose and the objective of the story; the second act the period where the main character tries to achieve the objective; and finally the third act the period after the objective has been abandoned or achieved.
He specifically points out that this contradicts the common opinion about three-act-structure in American movies. He claims that before 1980 American movies were based on the theories above, but 1979 Syd Field published a book about movie script structure that introduced the structure most commonly used today.
Syd Field’s first act is about 30 minutes long and lasts to turning point one, where the story gets a new direction. Yves Lavandier wants it no longer than 10 minutes, 20 at the most.
This made me think about what an act really is.
I won’t go back as far as the Greek Dramas this time, because I know too little about those, but as far as a play in theaters before electricity came. Then you had candle lights. An act could be no longer than the time it took for a candle to burn down. The needs for acts were practical. You needed to change candles, and many times the on stage set as well.
An act was something necessary for practical reasons. A limitation. A forced upon structure of the play.
When Yves Lavanger says that the third act is the about ten minutes after the climax, and Syd Field wants it to be thirty minutes - which twenty of those if before the climax - it does not really mean that there are any differences in the story.
Except from the fact that these two gentlemen would put their acts’ borders differently.
Neither theory goes well with the need to change candles.
Maybe it is time to let go of the term "act"?
2 comments:
This was a very good post.
I tend to think in acts when I write but I like a long first act, a short second act and a tiny third act.
I don't work that way in short scripts but most of my features work this way.
I prefer to think in key points rather then acts. But I need to put the key points in the right place in the story and then acts come in handy.
When two theories about acts meet like that it felt like acts were not that important.
Writing short scripts I try to think begin, middle and end.
Post a Comment