Monday, December 01, 2008

Elements of Act Three - Part 1



So why is this so hard?

The third act so often falls apart or disappoints, don’t you think? We all seem to be somewhat afraid of it – that is, unless it’s all there in our heads to begin with and we can just – “speed we to our climax”, as Shakespeare said.

But even then, a third act is a lot of pressure. So maybe I’ll just make it easier on myself and say that this is going to be just the start of a SERIES of discussions on the third act. (There, I feel better already.)

(And as a reminder – the third act is generally the final twenty to thirty minutes in a film, or the last seventy to 100 pages in a four-hundred page novel. The final quarter. )

To study how to craft a great third act, you have to look specifically at the endings that work for YOU. (Back to “The List”. Have you made yours yet?).

But let me be entirely general for a second, and give you the bottom line:

The essence of a third act is the final showdown between protagonist and antagonist.



Sometimes that’s all there is to it – one final battle between the protagonist and antagonist. In which case some good revelatory twists are probably required to break up all that fighting.

By the end of the second act, pretty much everything has been set up that we need to know – particularly WHO the antagonist is, which sometimes we haven’t known, or have been wrong about, until that is revealed at the second act climax. Of course, sometimes, or maybe often, there is one final reveal about the antagonist that is saved till the very end or nearly the end – as in THE USUAL SUSPECTS and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and PSYCHO.

We also very often have gotten a sobering or terrifying glimpse of the ultimate nature of that antagonist – a great example of that kind of “nature of the opponent” scene is in CHINATOWN, in that scene in which Jake is slapping Evelyn around and he learns about her father.

There’s a location aspect to the third act – the final battle will often take place in a completely different setting than the rest of the film or novel. In fact half of the third act can be, and often is, just GETTING to the site of the final showdown. One of the most memorable examples of this in movie history is the “storming the castle” scene in THE WIZARD OF OZ, where, led by an escaped Toto, the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion scale the cliff, scope out the vast armies of the witch (“Yo Ee O”) and tussle with three stragglers to steal their uniforms and march in through the drawbridge of the castle with the rest of the army. A sequence like this, and the similar ones in STAR WARS and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, can have a lot of the elements we discussed about the first half of the first act: a plan, assembling the team, assembling tools and disguises, training or rehearsal.

And of course speed is often a factor – there’s a ticking clock, so our hero/ine has to race to get there in time to – save the innocent victim from the killer, save his or her kidnapped child from the kidnapper, stop the loved one from getting on that plane to Bermuda…

NO. DO NOT WRITE THAT LAST ONE.

Most clichéd film ending EVER. Throw in the hero/ine getting stuck in a cab in Manhattan rush hour traffic and you really are risking audiences vomiting in the aisles, or readers, beside their chairs. It almost destroyed my pleasure in one of the best movies I’ve seen this year – totally took me out of what had been up until that moment a perfect film.

But when you think about it, the first two examples are equally clichéd. Sometimes there’s a fine line between clichéd and archetypal. You have to find how to elevate – or deepen – the clichéd to something archetypal.

For example, one of the most common third act structural patterns involves infiltrating the antagonist’s hideout, or castle, or lair, and confronting the antagonist on his or her own turf. Think of THE WIZARD OF OZ, STAR WARS, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS – the witch’s castle, the Imperial Starship, Buffalo Bill’s house.

Notice that this pattern naturally divides itself into two separate and self-contained sequences:

1. Getting in

and

2. The confrontation itself.

Also putting the final showdown on the villain’s turf means the villain has home-court advantage. The hero/ine has the extra burden of being a fish out of water on unfamiliar ground (mixing a metaphor to make it painfully clear).

SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is a perfect example of elevating the cliché into archetype. It takes place in the basement, as in PSYCHO, and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. Therapists talk about “basement issues” – which are your worst fears and traumas from childhood – the stuff no one wants to look at, but which we have to look at, and clean out, to be whole.

But Thomas Harris, in the book, and the filmmakers, bringing it to life in the movie, create a basement that is so rich in horrific and revelatory and mythic (really fairy tale) imagery that we never feel that we’ve seen that scene before. In fact I see new resonances in the set design every time I watch that film… like Gumb having a wall of news clippings just exactly like the one in Crawford’s office. That’s a technique that Harris uses that can elevate the clichéd to the archetypal: LAYERING meaning.

NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET takes that clichéd spooky basement scene and gives it a whole new level, literally: the heroine is dreaming that she is following a sound down into the basement and then there’s a door that leads to ANOTHER basement under the basement. And if you think bad things happen in the basement, what’s going to happen in a sub-basement?

To switch genres completely for a moment, an archetypal final setting for a romantic comedy is an actual wedding. We’ve seen this scene so often you’d think there’s nothing new you can do with it. But of course a story about love and relationships is likely to end at a wedding.

So again, make your list and look at what great romantic comedies have done to elevate the cliché.



One of my favorite romantic comedies of all time, THE PHILADELPHIA STORY, uses a classic technique to keep that wedding sequence sparkling: every single one of that large ensemble of characters has her or his own wickedly delightful resolution. Everyone has their moment to shine, and insanely precocious little sister Dinah pretty nearly steals the show (even from Katharine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart, and Cary Grant!!) with her last line: “I did it. I did it ALL.”

(This is a good lesson for any ensemble story, no matter what genre – all the characters should constantly be competing for the spotlight, just in any good theater troupe. Make your characters divas and scene stealers and let them top each other.)

Now, you see a completely different kind of final battle in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. This is not the classic, “hero confronts villain on villain’s home turf” third act. In fact, Potter is nowhere around in the final confrontation, is he? There’s no showdown, even though we desperately want one.

But the point of that story is that George Bailey has been fighting Potter all along. There is no big glorious heroic showdown to be had, here – because it’s all the little grueling day to day, crazymaking battles that George has had with Potter all his life that have made the difference. And the genius of that film is that it shows in vivid and disturbing detail what would have happened if George had NOT had that whole lifetime of battles, against Potter and for the town. So in the end George makes the choice to live to fight another day, and is rewarded with the joy of seeing his town restored.

This is the best example I know of, ever, of a final battle that is thematic – and yet the impact is emotional and visceral – it’s not an intellectual treatise – you LIVE that ending along with George, but also come away with the sense of what true heroism is.

And so again – in case you haven’t gotten the message yet! – when you sit down to craft your own third act, try looking at the great third acts of movies and books that are similar to your own story, and see what those authors and filmmakers did to bring out the thematic depth AND emotional impact of their stories.

If there's anyone out there who's actually recovered from the holiday weekend - what are some of your favorite third acts? What makes it real for you - the location, the thematic elements, the battle itself?

More next time – and here’s more about What Makes a Great Climax?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

=====================================================


All the information on this blog and more, including full story structure breakdowns of various movies, is available in my Screenwriting Tricks for Authors workbooks.  Any format, just $3.99 and $2.99.



Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amaxon DE

Amazon FR

Amazon ES

Amazon IT


If you're a romance writer, or have a strong love plot or subplot in your novel or script, then Writing Love: Screenwriting Tricks II is an expanded version of the first workbook with a special emphasis on love stories.


Smashwords (includes online viewing and pdf file)

Amazon US

Barnes & Noble/Nook

Amazon UK

Amazon DE




11 comments:

Keith Raffel said...

Hi Alex, Enjoyed the posting!

My #2 and I just saw The Maltese Falcon at the local movie palace on Saturday night. The whole movie is turned upside down as 1) Sam, the fat man, and others finally get their hands on the black bird, which isn't what the characters expected, and 2) Sam's love takes a backseat to duty and justice which isn't what the audience expected. What a great film!

Alexandra Sokoloff said...

Hey Keith, so nice to see you!

Yes, poor Bogey, he just can't catch a break with love.

Oh, but noir women are always evil anyway, so no big deal.

The endings of MALTESE FALCON and CASABLANCA say a lot about the times... people were expected to give up love for honor. Forget what Goldwyn said about only sending a message through Western Union. Film is pure propaganda!

Gayle Carline said...

Ah, yes, the big reveal! This is where many books disappoint me. One that didn't was A Prayer for Owen Meany. We finally see Owen's dream (actually, his nightmare) come true, and his clarity while he faces his death. I love the way it suddenly all makes sense, and the way he's so desperate for his friend, the narrator, to understand.

I'm usually more satisfied with movies (either I'm reading the wrong books or watching the right films). I either like stories that come with at least one major twist (Inside Man comes to mind), or that simply slap the characters into reality (Philadelphia Story). One movie that stands out, for me, as doing both was Primal Fear. We all got spanked at the end of that one, including Richard Gere.

jnantz said...

Alex,
Being a child of the theater, I figured you'd be a little more familiar with Theatre of the Absurd. I couldn't remember if I said this one before or not...in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the final act of the play takes place on the boat carrying them (and Hamlet) to England. They are literally being carried to their doom the entire third act. And yet one remarks how fond he is of boats, because, "...one is free on a boat. For a time. Relatively." And the final confrontation is with the Player, who has "been here before", and knows "which way the wind is blowing."

For any of your readers who are unfamiliar with Absurdism, research the movement and its roots first, or you'll never get what's going on (or, more to the point, why NOTHING is going on) in the plays.

Alexandra Sokoloff said...

Gayle, I had to skim around your post because believe it or not I have not read Owen Meany and didn't want to hear about it. Something else for my TBR pile.

You bring up a great point. I think too many writers try too hard with the reveal. It's much better not to force it.

I was reading something just last night that was the best thriller I've read in some time, but the end went for a double twist and the author was scrambling around with pages of really clunky exposition to try to justify the twist.

I won't name the book because it really was VERY good up until then, but the end really ruined it for me. This was the kind of thing that gets imposed on screenwriters all the time - and it was pretty shocking to see an author, who really doesn't have to, fall into the trap.

Alexandra Sokoloff said...

Jake, I love R&G (and basically anything Stoppard has ever done) and thought the film was a really great adaptation. Would have been perfection had Richard E. Grant been cast as originally intended.

Gayle Carline said...

Sorry about that, Alex! You seem like such a prolific reader, and it seems a lot of people have read Owen Meany. I should never assume...

I do understand about the complexity of the twists. The thing is, most readers are satisfied with one, truly remarkable surprise at the end. We don't need two or three, and you really need to be a Most Advanced Special Writer, a plot savant, to do more than one twist well.

I've been reading a lot of mysteries lately (thought I should, since I wrote one), and I'm having fun with the J.A. Konrath series. They're horribly violent, and I'm not a big fan of some of the supporting characters, but I enjoy watching the protagonist and antagonist zero in on each other through the first two acts, then clash spectacularly in the third.

R.J. Mangahas said...

Alex --- I love Stoppard too. I played Able in Enter a Freeman.

Another third act reveal that is such a classic (now that I see your picture at the beginning of this post) was the often-quoted "Luke, I am Your Father." Even though Empire isn't on my top 10 movie list, man, what a reveal!

BTW, as soon as I get the chance, I'm off to see Slumdog Millionaire. I've already had several people tell me it was a great movie.

Kristine said...

Yay, Alex! We're into Act Three.

Great things to think about here. In looking over my draft, I think I finally understand how the climax and big reveal work. I'm so paranoid about endings. There's gotta be a good twist for me or I feel disappointed. A lot of pressure, indeed.

Jodi Picoult and Harlan Coben are authors who can do twists really well. As for movies, I would have to say THE SIXTH SENSE and HIDE AND SEEK (with Robert De Niro) are most memorable with the Big Reveal/Twist.

I also think HALLOWEEN (by Rob Zombie) is an interesting example of story structure and effective use of thematic/visual elements. The protagonist/antagonist confrontation is stunning because of the location. It's very symbolic and brings the whole movie full circle.

Alexandra Sokoloff said...

Just starting Act Three, Kristine, and you've given me some great things to look at, thanks!

I can't for the life of me remember the twist of HIDE AND SEEK. Troubling!

Jodi Picoult does everything well. Sigh.

Yes, you're right about Harlen Coben, too. Both of them - such great high concept premises that don't ever fall short!

Alexandra Sokoloff said...

RJ, I think you will love SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Let me know what you think!