Movies much like stage plays rely heavily on the three act format for the script. In those three acts could be several scenes, but each act has a specific purpose.
Act I: The introduction. Especially in movies, the introduction to the characters and the circumstances revolving around them is critical. Normally, the first act is anywhere between ten to twenty minutes. We need to know who the characters are, we need to know a little about their backstory, we need to know how it's relevant to what is coming up in the movie, and we need to set the stage for act II. There is a a lot that needs to be done in a very short amount of time.
Examples are always best. Here is an example of a great screenplay that has a great first act: Die Hard. First scene we are introduced to John McClane. He's on an airplane, a little apprehensive about flying, we establish that he's a cop just by showing his gun and a little dialogue, we see he's an average joe because he doesn't sit in the back of the limo, we establish he has marriage troubles with dialogue between him and the limo driver... and all this is done in a very short amount of time, but very effectively. We also meet Holly. We get to know her situation a bit. We learn that she misses the big lug and has some regrets about taking this job in LA. We see that it was a huge opportunity for her because she has her own office with her name on the door. The office conflicts and politics are established and become important later in the movie. (especially with Ellis) We also see a lot about the terrorists. The way they take the building, how they dress and interact with each other, how Hans carries himself as an aristocratic character in complete opposition to John McClane's character, and we know what the terrorists want. It's a beautiful setup to a great movie. All done in about the first twenty minutes of the movie.
A bad example would be Battle: Los Angeles. There almost isn't a first act at all. The audience is told the aliens invade through a news reel. Next thing we know, we are in a briefing talking about how the US military plans to fight back. The motivations of the aliens are glanced over, we never see the aliens clearly, and no characters are established other than they are soldiers. It's impossible to have drama if we don't know who the people are, what they are fighting for/against, or why we should care. It's like building a house with no foundation. Do you really expect it to keep standing?
Act II: Things get interesting. By far the longest act in any movie is act II. Once we set the stage, now things can start to go wrong. Everyone knows that conflict is the bread and butter of drama. Nobody wants to see a movie where everything is fine. That doesn't happen in real life and it shouldn't happen in a movie. Think of all the ways to have conflict: personality conflicts between characters, personality conflicts with one character, outward fights between characters, political tension, racial tension, religious tension, gender tension, social class tension, economic tension, and on and on. Act II is where the writer has fun. Act I everything is set up nicely, Act II we get to break everything.
The name of the game is conflict. And in keeping with the traditional writing model, the conflict must steadily increase. If there are any surprise twists or sub-plots, act II is where to put them. The most important thing is to keep the tension rising. There can be breaks of course. Even a viewing audience needs a chance to catch their breath. A running firefight for sixty minutes might sound good, but it's taxing and the audience will lose interest.
In slasher movies, there's a reason people get killed one at a time. It's to keep the action rising. One person gets killed, reaction shot by the survivors, some dialogue, and repeat. By killing only one person it also provides a little creativity in how that person dies. As I said, we have to keep the action rising. If person #1 has his head cut off with a machete, person #2 can't die in a relatively more tame way. It just becomes a let down and the audience just says, "that's it? Lame." Think about Final Destination 5. The first person dies by falling off the uneven bars and breaks her back/neck. Overall, a fairly tame way to die even though the death scene was very elaborate. But the next scene is a guy dieing in a massage parlor. Needles are embedded deep into his skin, there's a fire, and a Buddah statue crushes his head like a grape. That's called upping the ante.
Act III: The final countdown. In any movie this is it. This is the grand finale. This is the moment the entire movie has built up to. This is the final fight scene. This is the moment of realization. The climax and final resolutions. Here we find out if the two lovers live happily ever after, if the good guy defeats the bad guy, or even if anybody lives. Many people will forgive a slow buildup if the payoff is good. But not if they wait too long. Let's go back to Die Hard. The climax of the movie is the showdown between Hans and McClane. Hans' plan is all but ruined, he has Holly hostage, another villian is there with a gun too, the building is a fiery mess, and all John McClane has is a gun with two bullets. How does he solve this problem? It's the classic Mexican standoff scene. One man vs two and the life of a loved one in the balance. It's a great scene. It is about the last twenty minutes of the movie. We have our climatic scene and then all the loose ends get resolved. Beautiful.
An example of a bad climax would be Shutter Island. While it's not a bad movie, it is anti-climatic. Throughout the movie it's a mystery of what is really going on. All the pieces just don't fit and as our intrepid inspector is about to confront the shady doctor, the music swells, the door opens, and.... they have a nice chat.... yeah.... great movie. It's very suspenseful and a must see if you haven't seen it yet, but the climax is very disappointing. It just feels like the whole story fell off a cliff. All the tension and drama gets sucked out of the room immediately. The realization is satisfying but not dramatic.
Another example of a bad climax is when it goes on for too long. Transformers 3 has this problem. The climax is a disjointed mess of action sequences that don't fit well together and sometimes undermine each other. And it goes on for about an hour! There is such a thing as too much action.
Some movies break from the three act style with mixed results. Shawshank Redemption for example could be considered a four act play. The climax of the movie is Andy's brilliant escape from prison. But that isn't the end of the movie. While most of the movie revolves around Andy, it's not entirely his movie. Red is telling this story to us much like Grandpa reading us a bedtime story. Act III is the completion of Andy's story, but Act IV is what happens to Red. It's a break from the norm and some people like this, but it does have the problem of dragging out the resolution to the story. Something that is normally very quick, suddenly becomes the last twenty minutes or so of the movie. That's a lot of time for an audience that has already seen the best part and is ready to go home.
How the movie plays out is entirely up to the writer of the script. Some acts might be longer or shorter. Some disregard the three act format all together. However, breaking a movie down into three acts is usually a winning formula.
No comments:
Post a Comment