The whole thing was a bit of an experiment, and I fully intend to adapt that screenplay to novel form sometime in the future. It actually turned out better than I expected it would. But all of that is neither here nor there; I only tell the story to provide a bit of context.
While researching story structure, I inevitably came across the "Three-Act Structure," and I began to ask myself some pretty basic questions about the necessity of using it. Sure, it works, and it works well. But other structures can be just as (or more) impactful.
And so, I wrote an essay. I know that it's strange that I wrote an essay for fun, but there it is. I love to write, and I love to talk about writing. I didn't bother citing sources or anything (who wants to read that junk?), but I think I got my point across.
Following is that essay:
Three Acts?
We've all heard of the Three-Act Structure in regards to story, but after watching a film recently (which will remain nameless), I found myself wondering whether three acts were really necessary. Do stories need to adhere to some rigid formula in order to be successful, easily followed, and entertaining? My theory is that they do not. In fact, I think that, in some cases, the Three-Act Structure can hinder a story's success.
I guess the first order of business is to explain exactly what the Three-Act Structure is. I'll start (predictably with the First Act. Generally speaking, it comprises the first quarter of a story. In layman's terms, I would call it the introduction of the story and its major characters. It has otherwise been referred to as the Setup, and is used to establish the main characters, their relationships, and the normal world in which they live. Early in the first act, a dynamic, on-screen (or page) incident which leads to a second and more dramatic situation (known as the First Turning Point) should occur. This First Turning Point signals the end of the First Act, and ensures life will never be the same again for the protagonist. In addition, it raises the dramatic question which will be answered in the climax of the story.
The Second Act (which comprises about half of the story) typically depicts the protagonist's attempt to resolve the problem initiated by the First Turning Point. Most of the time, the protagonist finds himself in ever-worsening situations (we have half of a story to fill here, after all). During this Second Act, the protagonist must learn new skills (to better confront the problems), arrive at a higher sense of awareness of who they are and what their capabilities might be. Generally, they are helped along the way by mentors or co-protagonists. Basically, this is the meat of the story. This is where we get character growth and the elaboration of our characters.
The Third Act features the resolution of the story and its subplots. The Climax (also known as the Second Turning Point) is the scene or sequence in which the main tensions of the story are brought to their most intense point, and the dramatic question is answered. Also, the characters' growth is solidified, leaving them with a new sense of who they really are.
What I want to focus on here is the idea that three distinct acts are actually necessary. Why do we have to have two Turning Points. Why can't there be three? Or four? Or one? Why does the protagonist's character have to change? Why does the dramatic question have to be answered at all? And all of that about arriving at a higher awareness of who (or what) they are is a load of bull. Unless your story spans decades, it feels forced.
I certainly won't argue that the First Act's purpose is unnecessary. We have to be introduced to the characters, after all. We need to know about their world and their problems. To neglect that would rob the story of its point; it's not enough that the character acts -- we need to know why. But why can't we learn these things within the action of the Second Act? But I'm not going to focus on that -- the First Act, by and large, is usually fine. You don't need it, but its presence makes telling your story easier.
The Second Act, as I said earlier, is where the story actually happens. It's where we see the action (emotional or physical). So we pretty much need it for a compelling story. One issue I have, though, is that the Second Act (in so many cases) is just a page filler. What happens in that Second Act does not matter at all. You could change the details, and it would not affect the story in the least. But that's more of a debate about lazy writing than it is about the narrative structure. Another question I have is whether or not the character really has to change. I like it when a character has questions about their path, but not when that character resolves those questions in a few days. I want flawed characters. I don't want them to have the answers. And I certainly don't want them to do a magic 180 degree turn in the space of a few days. Again...lazy writing. I guess my main concern is not that the Second Act exists, but rather that the content of that Second Act is the subject of lazy (or outright bad) writing.
The Third Act is where I really have some issues. As you might suspect (based on the above-mentioned problems), I don't necessarily agree that the protagonist must leave this act with a new sense of who he is. Change does not happen that quickly. In reference to character, change is subtle, and it happens over a long period of times (years rather than a few days, weeks, or even months). As far as the climax is concerned, I would argue that it is part of the action of the story, and should be a part of the Second Act.
Too often, the Third Act seems to be tacked on because someone reminded the writer(s) that convention suggests that they need on. This makes the story overlong and artificially inflates its concept. The most recent example of this (that I can think of) is the film Knight and Day. It was not a bad movie (I actually liked it in spite of its flaws), but its Third Act felt like it belonged on the cutting room floor. It just didn't seem to flow from the other two acts, making the film feel almost like it had two endings. Thus, the end of the movie felt confused. It wouldn't have been difficult to fix, either. Cut some of the Second Act, push the climax up, and then have your conclusion.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that story should not be paint-by-numbers. There shouldn't be rules. Sure, it's easier if you have that Three-Act backbone to keep you on track. In many cases, it's even the best way to structure your story. A story, however, should be organic. It should grow the way it wants to grow, rather than be pigeon-holed into a popular structure.
What's more, there are quite a few stories where the Three-Act Structure is ignored. There are a lot of other idea about how it should be done (The Hero's Journey, Syd Field's Paradigm, The Eight-Sequence Structure, etc.), and there are successful examples of them all. But I ask the question again: why don't you just write the way you want to write, and let the structure take care of itself?
So why is the Three-Act Structure prevalent? It is not superior. Easier, yes. Better, no. And therein lies the problem We are all lazy. My humble opinion is that writers use it because it is easy, and they lack motivation to tell a story in a unique way. All through our education, we are taught that stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Reinforcing this, most films and novels tend to follow this structure, and it is encouraged by publishers and film producers. It is cyclical. Most stories follow the Three-Act structure because writers only ever see that particular narrative structure.
Personally, I tend to think of a story as an organic thing. Sure, I get that it needs an introduction and a conclusion (of sorts), but what happens in between is dictated by the characters themselves. I can't imagine a worse thing for a story than its author trying to force it into any sort of rigid structure. It seems to me that doing so would be a disservice to the characters and the story itself. So, as long as you tell the story you want to tell, who is to say whether the structure is right or wrong? No one.
