SCREENWRITING GURUS’ STRUCTURAL MODELS
When you add to the three act structure equation the Screenwriting Gurus’ structural models with its act percentages, page numbers and specific order of events, i.e., Syd Field’s Paradigm, Blake Snyder’s structural Beat Sheet, Christopher Vogler’s 12 stages application to screenwriting of Joseph Campbell’s Mythology and The Hero’s Journey, etc., there are writers in the three act structure camp who want out -- and fast.
The anti-camp says the following about the gurus’ models: It’s formulaic. It’s predicable. It’s mechanical. It’s follow-the-dots. It’s coloring between the lines, meaning you MUST not color outside the lines or your art will be ruined. It makes your characters puppet-like. It’s like a security blanket to the writer, etc.
In the 1960s, Syd Field was a reader for a production company. He wondered why only 2% of the screenplays that he read were memorable, so he broke them down and analyzed them. In doing so, he discovered some recurring patterns, certain beats happening at the same time.
(Note: In my opinion, just because he found some recurring patterns doesn’t mean it was because of this structure that made the scripts memorable. It’s the art on the pages that made those scripts memorable.)
In 1979, he published a book with his findings called, “Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting.”
In his book, he coined Act 1 as the SETUP, the first 25% of the story. Act 2 as the CONFRONTATION, 50% of the middle of the story and Act 3 as the RESOLUTION, the last 25% of the story. He says Plot Point 1 (an event that hooks into the action and spins it around into another direction; Linda Seger calls it the First Turning Point), happens at 25% of the story (page 25 for a 100 page script; page 30 for a 120 page script), which transitions Act 1 to Act 2.
Plot Point 2 happens at 75% of the story (page 75 for a 100 page script; page 90 for a 120 page script), which transitions Act 2 to Act 3.
Syd Field says there are many plot points in a screenplay, but the ones that anchor the storyline in place he refers to them as Plot Points 1 and 2.
Later, Field added a Midpoint (dividing Act 2 and the story in half; page 60 of a 120 page script) to the paradigm, where he says it’s, “an important scene in the middle of the script, often a reversal of fortune or revelation that changes the direction of the story.”
He says not all stories have a midpoint.
And later again he added Pinch Point 1 (halfway point of first half of Act 2)) and Pinch Point 2 (halfway point of the second half of Act 2) to the paradigm.
I was okay with his paradigm up to the Midpoint addition, but I could have done without the “Pinch Points” help.
Syd Field says the Inciting Incident will happen within the first 10 pages. In Blake Snyder’s structural Beat Sheet, he says the Inciting Incident happens on page 12. It’s the mention of these page numbers that drives the anti-camp crazy against gurus.
When naive and impressionable new writers read books on the craft of screenwriting that are on the top of Amazon’s best screenwriting sellers’ list, it’s possible that these new writers are going to be influenced to follow a guru’s model. Maybe even at the detriment of the story they want to tell, where they would delete or add beats, scenes, characters, set pieces, etc., so their script’s page numbers and events would exactly match a guru’s model.
I would like for these books to point out that, yes, the majority of scripts/movies will have an Inciting Incident (or whatever element and page number) occurring within the first opening ten pages to get the story going and not bore the audience, but what counts is what works for the story you, the writer, wants to tell.
And give examples: JAWS’ Inciting Incident, page 2, when the girl is killed by the shark. North by Northwest’s Inciting Incident, minute 6, Roger Thornhill is mistaken for George Kaplan by two bad guys and is taken away by gun point. THE ITALIAN JOB’s Inciting Incident, minute 21, double cross happens by one of the gang members. ROCKY’s Inciting Incident, minute 33, Apollo picks Rocky out of a list of fighters to fight him in a championship match, where this “A” throughline story starter doesn’t cross paths with Rocky until minute 53 when Apollo’s manager offers Rocky the fight.
The idea is, which new writers must understand, is not to take the gurus’ structural models literally. It’s to be used as a helpful guideline, not as an ABSOLUTE, UNBREAKABLE RULE!
The thought that the Inciting Incident MUST always happen on page 12, no matter what, is ridiculous. If a new writer doesn’t come, eventually, to understand this, then maybe “creative” writing isn’t for him.
The nature of the Inciting Incident’s function of one’s story calls for what page it’ll be found on. That is the controlling aspect, not a guru’s structural model, which its purpose is to be utilized as a guideline only.
The anti-camp says, what about the gurus’ list of specific events happening in a specific order on a specific page such as Blake Synder’s structural Beat Sheet with “Opening Image (page 1), Theme Stated (page 5), Set-up (pages 1-10), Catalyst (page 12),” etc., and Christopher Vogler’s adaptation of Joseph Campbell’s book, applying it to screenwriting with its 12 Stages of The Hero’s Journey?
There are many movies that include most, if not all of the 12 stages’ model (knowingly or not) presented by Vogler’s adaptation of Joseph Campbell’s “The Hero’s Journey,” i.e., “Ordinary World,” “Call To Adventure,” “Refusal of the Call,” etc, such as: ROCKY, MATRIX, STAR WARS, THE LOIN KING, THE LORD OF THE RINGS, etc. Are you going to try to tell me that this makes these films formulaic, predicable and mechanical? All these films were creative and engaging critical and commercial successes.
In another screenwriting forum, Christopher Vogler addressed the anti-camp’s noise about there are successful films that don’t include his stages or order, where it, the stages, being formulaic, predictable, connect-the-dots, paint-by-the-numbers, etc., where he said the following:
“I never claimed that every movie has, or should have, every element of my outline in exactly that order ... The point (about writing) is utility. If it’s useful, use it. If it’s not useful, if it gets in your way, makes you feel handcuffed, confuses you, or just seems bogus to you, don’t. ... The hero’s journey idea is a metaphor, and not, I hope, a cookbook recipe, a mathematical equation or chemical formula. ... It’s just another tool -- a very versatile and useful one, I think -- in the story-teller’s tool box.”
If a writer feels his Act 1 is 15 pages too short, or 15 pages too long because it didn’t fit the gurus’ structural models, I suggest that he looks to see if the first act accomplished the goals needed and included the elements needed that makes his story work. If the story works, then it’s not too short, or too long. You can ignore the gurus’ page numbers and/or events’ guidelines.
Easy-peasy, don’t you think?
In a Final Draft (FD) interview for their Blog, they asked screenwriter Ben Ripley (BR), SOURCE CODE, the following question:
FD: Do you follow a set method when you write? Randall Wallace once told me that he always laughs when people try to talk to him about the Inciting Incident in BRAVEHEART. He said you could name multiple moments in the movie and he would agree with you because he never sat down and said, ‘This is where I need my Inciting Incident.’ Do you follow a basic method or is it to just let the story tell itself?
BR: I do know what my first, second and third acts are. I do know what the midpoint is. I do know what the theme and the point of the story is and what the character’s journey should look like. But what Randall Wallace may have been alluding to is that in the process of creating, things shift around and what you thought the point of the movie is becomes something else. It shifts from draft to draft. It shifts from draft into production. It shifts from dailies into rough cut. It shifts again when rough cut becomes final cut. So, you might have a bunch of different midpoints during that whole arc. But I would argue that you would be well served before you sit down and write and spend some time to consider what could be some of those four or five important structural scenes. Because it gives you a frame to hang the story on even if it evolves away from that.
-- Two professional screenwriters who use two different methods when crafting their screenplays.
Writers and new writers must understand these gurus’ models are to be used as a guideline only.
WHY ARE THERE RECURRING PATTERNS IN A SCREENPLAY?
The anti-camp says, because it’s arbitrary a person could pick any random plot point to fit Syd Field’s paradigm.
This is a possible outcome in some instances, but there’s no doubt for the majority of scripts/films there is a clear and important Plot Point 1, Midpoint (if one is included) and Plot Point 2, that changes the direction of a story and moving it forward.
A natural recurring pattern occurs because of the natural nature of telling a story with its beginning, middle and end, having a balance, rhythm and symmetry.
I know there are stories told in an untraditional manner, but in most stories, something happens at the end of the setup of Act 1 (action, dialogue, visual, whatever), where the story’s direction changes and moves the story forward into the Act 2 arena with its confrontations, so, naturally, this will cause a recurring pattern.
End of Act 1 examples:
THE ITALIAN JOB - 106 minutes. The first 25%, end of Act 1, would be at minute 27.
In the movie, Plot Point 1 happens at minute 29 when Stella (Chalize Theron), legitimate business owner cracking safes, calls Charlie (Mark Wahlberg), gang leader, to tell him she’s in for his plan to rob back the gold that Steve (Ed Norton) stole from the gang’s last job.
When Charlie approached Stella earlier and told her that he found Steve and needed her help to crack his safe, she refused (”I’ve moved on”), but later she changed her mind because in the double cross to steal the gold Steve killed her father, the gangs safe cracker. She phones Charlie and says, “I want to see the look on that man’s face when his gold is gone. He took my father from me. I’m taking this.”
Now that Charlie has the safe cracker specialist that he needs to crack Steve’s impregnable Worthington 1000 safe, his plan can move forward, which moves the story forward into the Act 2 arena.
This is not an arbitrary plot point. This is a clear and important event that changed the direction of the story, moving from Act 1 into Act 2. There is no other plot point in the ballpark of the script/film as important as this one to perform this function.
GONE WITH THE WIND (released in 1939, 40 years before Syd Field’s paradigm) - 256 page script. Midpoint, 50% would be page 128, which happens in the script at page 126 when a starving Scarlett stands in her mashed vegetable garden, looks up to the heavens and proclaims:
“As God is my witness...As God is my witness...They’re not going to lick me!...I’m going to live through this and when it’s over I’ll never be hungry again...No, nor any of my folks!...if I have to lie - steal - cheat - or kill! As God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again!”
Not arbitrary. A clear and important event/revelation that changes the direction of the story, moving from the first half of the story and first half of Act 2 into the second half of Act 2 and the story. You’ll find no other plot point in this ballpark to perform this function.
(In the filmed version, this Midpoint event shifts where it happens within 10 minutes of the halfway point.)
SPARTACUS - 193 minutes. End of Act 1 (25% would be at minute 48) - Minute 49 to 53: The head guard teases Spartacus about his beloved Valancia being taken away from the school for Rome and in a rage Spartacus attacks and kills the head guard. This incites all the other Gladiators to attack the guards.
End of Act 1 happens at minute 53 where Spartacus is now free and leads a rebellion.
End of Act 1 event is not arbitrary. It’s a clear and important event that changes the direction of the story, moving from Act 1 into Act 2. There is no other plot point in the ballpark as important as this one to perform this function.
I’ve purposely used SPARTACUS as an example because I heard the anti-camp say, “the important thing is to tell a good story and deliver the goods. Don’t worry about having three distinct acts, who cares where the first act ends in SPARTACUS. What difference does this all make to the story? How would this help you understand how your story works?”
The anti-camp said: “who cares where the first act ends in SPARTACUS,” etc.
I would say the audience cares. They don’t want to be bored. They want to be entertained. A well, balanced structured story helps to accomplish this.
Does a writer have to write with the three act structure in mind to entertain an audience? Of course not.
A writer could have written instinctively, without an outline, without the three act structure form, and still come up with the same Spartacus’ rebellion event at the Gladiator School that moves away from the setup and into the confrontation aspect of the story.
The problem is that some of those writers, as I demonstrated with the SPARTACUS example, who write instinctively use their strong voices to tell writers who do like to use the three act structure form that it’s not needed, it’s restrictive, it’s worthless in crafting a great story, etc.
CONCLUSION
When it comes to creativity, there are no rules.
If a writer feels more comfortable writing instinctively for their story development process, no outlining, and feels that’s what works for him to achieve a great completed screenplay, then fine.
If a writer feels more comfortable outlining with a three act structure, beginning, middle and end, in mind, and feels that’s what works for him to achieve a great completed screenplay, then fine.
If a writer feels more comfortable using a template designed by a guru and feels that’s what works for him to achieve a great completed screenplay, then fine, but with the caveat to keep aware that storytelling is organic and emotional in nature, so I suggest to use a guru’s template only as a guideline and not to unnaturally force your story to fit page number and/or event targets.
ANY method that works for a writer and his story is not wrong.
When you add to the three act structure equation the Screenwriting Gurus’ structural models with its act percentages, page numbers and specific order of events, i.e., Syd Field’s Paradigm, Blake Snyder’s structural Beat Sheet, Christopher Vogler’s 12 stages application to screenwriting of Joseph Campbell’s Mythology and The Hero’s Journey, etc., there are writers in the three act structure camp who want out -- and fast.
The anti-camp says the following about the gurus’ models: It’s formulaic. It’s predicable. It’s mechanical. It’s follow-the-dots. It’s coloring between the lines, meaning you MUST not color outside the lines or your art will be ruined. It makes your characters puppet-like. It’s like a security blanket to the writer, etc.
In the 1960s, Syd Field was a reader for a production company. He wondered why only 2% of the screenplays that he read were memorable, so he broke them down and analyzed them. In doing so, he discovered some recurring patterns, certain beats happening at the same time.
(Note: In my opinion, just because he found some recurring patterns doesn’t mean it was because of this structure that made the scripts memorable. It’s the art on the pages that made those scripts memorable.)
In 1979, he published a book with his findings called, “Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting.”
In his book, he coined Act 1 as the SETUP, the first 25% of the story. Act 2 as the CONFRONTATION, 50% of the middle of the story and Act 3 as the RESOLUTION, the last 25% of the story. He says Plot Point 1 (an event that hooks into the action and spins it around into another direction; Linda Seger calls it the First Turning Point), happens at 25% of the story (page 25 for a 100 page script; page 30 for a 120 page script), which transitions Act 1 to Act 2.
Plot Point 2 happens at 75% of the story (page 75 for a 100 page script; page 90 for a 120 page script), which transitions Act 2 to Act 3.
Syd Field says there are many plot points in a screenplay, but the ones that anchor the storyline in place he refers to them as Plot Points 1 and 2.
Later, Field added a Midpoint (dividing Act 2 and the story in half; page 60 of a 120 page script) to the paradigm, where he says it’s, “an important scene in the middle of the script, often a reversal of fortune or revelation that changes the direction of the story.”
He says not all stories have a midpoint.
And later again he added Pinch Point 1 (halfway point of first half of Act 2)) and Pinch Point 2 (halfway point of the second half of Act 2) to the paradigm.
I was okay with his paradigm up to the Midpoint addition, but I could have done without the “Pinch Points” help.
Syd Field says the Inciting Incident will happen within the first 10 pages. In Blake Snyder’s structural Beat Sheet, he says the Inciting Incident happens on page 12. It’s the mention of these page numbers that drives the anti-camp crazy against gurus.
When naive and impressionable new writers read books on the craft of screenwriting that are on the top of Amazon’s best screenwriting sellers’ list, it’s possible that these new writers are going to be influenced to follow a guru’s model. Maybe even at the detriment of the story they want to tell, where they would delete or add beats, scenes, characters, set pieces, etc., so their script’s page numbers and events would exactly match a guru’s model.
I would like for these books to point out that, yes, the majority of scripts/movies will have an Inciting Incident (or whatever element and page number) occurring within the first opening ten pages to get the story going and not bore the audience, but what counts is what works for the story you, the writer, wants to tell.
And give examples: JAWS’ Inciting Incident, page 2, when the girl is killed by the shark. North by Northwest’s Inciting Incident, minute 6, Roger Thornhill is mistaken for George Kaplan by two bad guys and is taken away by gun point. THE ITALIAN JOB’s Inciting Incident, minute 21, double cross happens by one of the gang members. ROCKY’s Inciting Incident, minute 33, Apollo picks Rocky out of a list of fighters to fight him in a championship match, where this “A” throughline story starter doesn’t cross paths with Rocky until minute 53 when Apollo’s manager offers Rocky the fight.
The idea is, which new writers must understand, is not to take the gurus’ structural models literally. It’s to be used as a helpful guideline, not as an ABSOLUTE, UNBREAKABLE RULE!
The thought that the Inciting Incident MUST always happen on page 12, no matter what, is ridiculous. If a new writer doesn’t come, eventually, to understand this, then maybe “creative” writing isn’t for him.
The nature of the Inciting Incident’s function of one’s story calls for what page it’ll be found on. That is the controlling aspect, not a guru’s structural model, which its purpose is to be utilized as a guideline only.
The anti-camp says, what about the gurus’ list of specific events happening in a specific order on a specific page such as Blake Synder’s structural Beat Sheet with “Opening Image (page 1), Theme Stated (page 5), Set-up (pages 1-10), Catalyst (page 12),” etc., and Christopher Vogler’s adaptation of Joseph Campbell’s book, applying it to screenwriting with its 12 Stages of The Hero’s Journey?
There are many movies that include most, if not all of the 12 stages’ model (knowingly or not) presented by Vogler’s adaptation of Joseph Campbell’s “The Hero’s Journey,” i.e., “Ordinary World,” “Call To Adventure,” “Refusal of the Call,” etc, such as: ROCKY, MATRIX, STAR WARS, THE LOIN KING, THE LORD OF THE RINGS, etc. Are you going to try to tell me that this makes these films formulaic, predicable and mechanical? All these films were creative and engaging critical and commercial successes.
In another screenwriting forum, Christopher Vogler addressed the anti-camp’s noise about there are successful films that don’t include his stages or order, where it, the stages, being formulaic, predictable, connect-the-dots, paint-by-the-numbers, etc., where he said the following:
“I never claimed that every movie has, or should have, every element of my outline in exactly that order ... The point (about writing) is utility. If it’s useful, use it. If it’s not useful, if it gets in your way, makes you feel handcuffed, confuses you, or just seems bogus to you, don’t. ... The hero’s journey idea is a metaphor, and not, I hope, a cookbook recipe, a mathematical equation or chemical formula. ... It’s just another tool -- a very versatile and useful one, I think -- in the story-teller’s tool box.”
If a writer feels his Act 1 is 15 pages too short, or 15 pages too long because it didn’t fit the gurus’ structural models, I suggest that he looks to see if the first act accomplished the goals needed and included the elements needed that makes his story work. If the story works, then it’s not too short, or too long. You can ignore the gurus’ page numbers and/or events’ guidelines.
Easy-peasy, don’t you think?
In a Final Draft (FD) interview for their Blog, they asked screenwriter Ben Ripley (BR), SOURCE CODE, the following question:
FD: Do you follow a set method when you write? Randall Wallace once told me that he always laughs when people try to talk to him about the Inciting Incident in BRAVEHEART. He said you could name multiple moments in the movie and he would agree with you because he never sat down and said, ‘This is where I need my Inciting Incident.’ Do you follow a basic method or is it to just let the story tell itself?
BR: I do know what my first, second and third acts are. I do know what the midpoint is. I do know what the theme and the point of the story is and what the character’s journey should look like. But what Randall Wallace may have been alluding to is that in the process of creating, things shift around and what you thought the point of the movie is becomes something else. It shifts from draft to draft. It shifts from draft into production. It shifts from dailies into rough cut. It shifts again when rough cut becomes final cut. So, you might have a bunch of different midpoints during that whole arc. But I would argue that you would be well served before you sit down and write and spend some time to consider what could be some of those four or five important structural scenes. Because it gives you a frame to hang the story on even if it evolves away from that.
-- Two professional screenwriters who use two different methods when crafting their screenplays.
Writers and new writers must understand these gurus’ models are to be used as a guideline only.
WHY ARE THERE RECURRING PATTERNS IN A SCREENPLAY?
The anti-camp says, because it’s arbitrary a person could pick any random plot point to fit Syd Field’s paradigm.
This is a possible outcome in some instances, but there’s no doubt for the majority of scripts/films there is a clear and important Plot Point 1, Midpoint (if one is included) and Plot Point 2, that changes the direction of a story and moving it forward.
A natural recurring pattern occurs because of the natural nature of telling a story with its beginning, middle and end, having a balance, rhythm and symmetry.
I know there are stories told in an untraditional manner, but in most stories, something happens at the end of the setup of Act 1 (action, dialogue, visual, whatever), where the story’s direction changes and moves the story forward into the Act 2 arena with its confrontations, so, naturally, this will cause a recurring pattern.
End of Act 1 examples:
THE ITALIAN JOB - 106 minutes. The first 25%, end of Act 1, would be at minute 27.
In the movie, Plot Point 1 happens at minute 29 when Stella (Chalize Theron), legitimate business owner cracking safes, calls Charlie (Mark Wahlberg), gang leader, to tell him she’s in for his plan to rob back the gold that Steve (Ed Norton) stole from the gang’s last job.
When Charlie approached Stella earlier and told her that he found Steve and needed her help to crack his safe, she refused (”I’ve moved on”), but later she changed her mind because in the double cross to steal the gold Steve killed her father, the gangs safe cracker. She phones Charlie and says, “I want to see the look on that man’s face when his gold is gone. He took my father from me. I’m taking this.”
Now that Charlie has the safe cracker specialist that he needs to crack Steve’s impregnable Worthington 1000 safe, his plan can move forward, which moves the story forward into the Act 2 arena.
This is not an arbitrary plot point. This is a clear and important event that changed the direction of the story, moving from Act 1 into Act 2. There is no other plot point in the ballpark of the script/film as important as this one to perform this function.
GONE WITH THE WIND (released in 1939, 40 years before Syd Field’s paradigm) - 256 page script. Midpoint, 50% would be page 128, which happens in the script at page 126 when a starving Scarlett stands in her mashed vegetable garden, looks up to the heavens and proclaims:
“As God is my witness...As God is my witness...They’re not going to lick me!...I’m going to live through this and when it’s over I’ll never be hungry again...No, nor any of my folks!...if I have to lie - steal - cheat - or kill! As God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again!”
Not arbitrary. A clear and important event/revelation that changes the direction of the story, moving from the first half of the story and first half of Act 2 into the second half of Act 2 and the story. You’ll find no other plot point in this ballpark to perform this function.
(In the filmed version, this Midpoint event shifts where it happens within 10 minutes of the halfway point.)
SPARTACUS - 193 minutes. End of Act 1 (25% would be at minute 48) - Minute 49 to 53: The head guard teases Spartacus about his beloved Valancia being taken away from the school for Rome and in a rage Spartacus attacks and kills the head guard. This incites all the other Gladiators to attack the guards.
End of Act 1 happens at minute 53 where Spartacus is now free and leads a rebellion.
End of Act 1 event is not arbitrary. It’s a clear and important event that changes the direction of the story, moving from Act 1 into Act 2. There is no other plot point in the ballpark as important as this one to perform this function.
I’ve purposely used SPARTACUS as an example because I heard the anti-camp say, “the important thing is to tell a good story and deliver the goods. Don’t worry about having three distinct acts, who cares where the first act ends in SPARTACUS. What difference does this all make to the story? How would this help you understand how your story works?”
The anti-camp said: “who cares where the first act ends in SPARTACUS,” etc.
I would say the audience cares. They don’t want to be bored. They want to be entertained. A well, balanced structured story helps to accomplish this.
Does a writer have to write with the three act structure in mind to entertain an audience? Of course not.
A writer could have written instinctively, without an outline, without the three act structure form, and still come up with the same Spartacus’ rebellion event at the Gladiator School that moves away from the setup and into the confrontation aspect of the story.
The problem is that some of those writers, as I demonstrated with the SPARTACUS example, who write instinctively use their strong voices to tell writers who do like to use the three act structure form that it’s not needed, it’s restrictive, it’s worthless in crafting a great story, etc.
CONCLUSION
When it comes to creativity, there are no rules.
If a writer feels more comfortable writing instinctively for their story development process, no outlining, and feels that’s what works for him to achieve a great completed screenplay, then fine.
If a writer feels more comfortable outlining with a three act structure, beginning, middle and end, in mind, and feels that’s what works for him to achieve a great completed screenplay, then fine.
If a writer feels more comfortable using a template designed by a guru and feels that’s what works for him to achieve a great completed screenplay, then fine, but with the caveat to keep aware that storytelling is organic and emotional in nature, so I suggest to use a guru’s template only as a guideline and not to unnaturally force your story to fit page number and/or event targets.
ANY method that works for a writer and his story is not wrong.
Comment