• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

What Notable American Features Do NOT Use the Three Act Structure?

M

marktapiokines

Hi all -

I teach Screenwriting Fundamentals on Lynda.com. When my course launched, I read a comment somewhere from a well-meaning Italian who dismissed any course that would even mention the three act structure. (Obviously some people equate all 3 act movies with high-concept Hollywood junk.) I responded that many artistic and challenging films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and THERE WILL BE BLOOD adhere closely to this structure.

So my question for you is... In the last 30 years or so... What noteworthy American features (studio or indie) are NOT 3-act films? This isn't a conversation about whether the structure is good or bad. This is purely a challenge to name films from the 1980s onward that didn't use it.

I'll start with PULP FICTION, MEMENTO, and - an odd choice, but it's true - John Carpenter's THEY LIVE. I can't honestly think of any others off the top of my head. Can you?

Mark Tapio Kines
http://www.cassavafilms.com
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Not all of these films are American
Pulp Fiction
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Atonement
Memento
Mulholland Drive
Rashomon
Inception
Upstream Color
The Social Network
Citizen Kane
Magnolia
The Master
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Once Upon A Time in America
21 Grams
The Thin Red Line
8 1/2
Annie Hall
City of God
Traffic
The Usual Suspects
Adaptation
The Constant Gardener
Forrest Gump
Slumdog Millionaire
Kill Bill Vol. 1
Amores Perros
Things we Lost in the Fire
Twelve Monkeys
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks, ChimpPhobia! You did list a few movies older than the early '80s - my point was that the three act structure really began catching on at around that time - but that's OK. You have some good examples. FORREST GUMP, yes, because of its epic nature. (Similarly, biopics are hard to shoehorn into 3 acts.) THE MASTER is a good example too. And "patchwork quilt" movies like MAGNOLIA, TRAFFIC, and for that matter CRASH and SHORT CUTS all qualify as well.

MULHOLLAND DRIVE and KILL BILL VOL. 1 are kind of cheats, since they were originally structured to be different things. (Might the entire 4-hour KILL BILL saga be 3 acts?) but it is a reminder that films can still get made and released that don't follow the normal structure.

That said, just because some films play with time doesn't mean they don't follow the 3 act structure. I don't remember the structure of all the movies you listed, but here are some examples (SPOILERS follow)...

INCEPTION is a 3-act film, though Act 1 is longer than usual - Act 2 begins when Cobb has assembled his team, and that's an hour into the film. Act 3 definitely begins after Ariadne's epiphany of going into Limbo.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK follows the 3 act structure if you focus on the Winklevoss/Zuckerberg relationship. Act 2 begins when they hire him; Act 3 begins when they realize he's made it big with what they think is their idea.

ATONEMENT is 3 acts; Briony's plot of revenge against Robbie takes up act 2 and leads us to the typical end-of-act-2 revelation when we see who was really responsible for Robbie's "crime".

12 MONKEYS is definitely 3 acts; Bruce Willis is sent to 1996 at the beginning of Act 2 to stop the 12 Monkeys organization from destroying the world, and the revelation of what the 12 Monkeys are really up to takes us into Act 3.

ETERNAL SUNSHINE is a 3-act movie. Act 2 begins when Joel goes to Lacuna to have his memories of Clementine erased; it ends when Mary, the Lacuna employee, realizes that she's had her own memories of her affair with Howard erased - that's the revelation that leads into Act 3.

ADAPTATION - Maybe? Who knows! My head hurts just thinking about Kaufman's script.

Keep 'em coming!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hey Mark,

First, I liked your writing course. I haven't had the time to get around to the latest Lynda writing courses (if they are yours too) but I plan to.

It all depends on how rigid you are with the 3 act structure you want to be to whether you can call things in that category or not. In their simplest form, most successful movies have to fall somewhat into that structure.

For instance, with the Chimp's list, if you look at them, even Pulp Fiction, Inception, The Usual Suspects, Forest Gump (if you take the relationship as the line), Twelve Monkies, even The Social Network all fall into 3 acts, where you establish premise/characters, build up and resolve.

Some people just don't like to be pigeonholed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks Sweetie (must I call you that? It sounds so intimate!). I have only the one Lynda.com course thus far, but I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Yes, as I noted in my previous post, I agree with you that INCEPTION, 12 MONKEYS, and THE SOCIAL NETWORK were all written within the traditional three act structure. But I think it's safe to say that PULP FICTION was not, and that FORREST GUMP probably wasn't either.

You do raise a point, however: it's tempting to "project" the three act structure onto films that don't necessarily have it, as if to say, "Something important happened around the 30 minute mark. Therefore, that must be the plot twist between Act 1 and Act 2!" Most likely it is, but this may not always be the case. And anyway, in narrative films, there should ALWAYS be something important happening. Whether a feature uses the 3-act structure or not, the real trick is to prevent audiences from noticing the beats.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
marktapiokines said:
Thanks Sweetie (must I call you that? It sounds so intimate!).

But I think it's safe to say that PULP FICTION was not, and that FORREST GUMP probably wasn't either.
Click to expand...

It's always funny when guys call me Sweetie ;) You can call me Michael if calling another guy Sweetie seems too intimate to you.

This is what I love most about writing. It's all open to interpretation. There are no real rules with the exception, the audience must understand your story.

If by the 3 act structure means hitting each beat, then you're right. Those movies don't follow that structure. If you take it loosely, they do. There is an opening (introduction to the premise), the build up, and a resolution (either positive or negative).

For Forest Gump, take the relationship between Jenny/Forest and also the relationship between the soldier/forest, you get all the points told in a round about way. Forest gets the girl, lives out the life to honor the life of his fallen comrade. Pulp Fiction too, after taking the first act starting at about the 10 minute mark. Take the story of Samuel Jackson getting out of the business and surviving with John Travolta failing to exit and paying the ultimate price.

Just because they're not happy endings for all, doesn't mean they don't make a satisfying resolution for the audience.

This view is not necessarily right, just a point of view.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Interesting thoughts. Now I sort of want to see those films again. Well, maybe not FORREST GUMP. :)

But yes, even films with unusual storytelling approaches might have an "invisible" three act structure driving them. I just re-watched VERTIGO last night, and I could say it's got three distinct acts. But... I could also say it's got five acts. It's an unusual film!

This brings up another thought: When the 3 acts are so hidden that people disagree over where the act changes occur, it may mean the script is really complex and subtle, but it also might mean that the screenwriter simply didn't care to follow the 3-act structure.

For films like THE AVENGERS, you can see the structure very clearly; the stories hit the rhythm that we're accustomed to. But PULP FICTION, for example, lacks that rhythm, so we don't wait for the usual act changes. It would be interesting to watch the film again and see if there really is a 3-act structure, or if - like I said earlier - we're just "projecting" the structure onto the film, by taking some important scenes that arrive around every half hour, and declaring them to be the major plot twists.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
marktapiokines said:
This brings up another thought: When the 3 acts are so hidden that people disagree over where the act changes occur, it may mean the script is really complex and subtle, but it also might mean that the screenwriter simply didn't care to follow the 3-act structure.
Click to expand...

All possible. It could also mean that different people are looking at different things within the story. I came across a video on youtube where he explained basic structure of each story type and then continued to break down more complicated movies. One for instance was Matrix and it was very enlightening to see his viewpoint on how it was 4 types of movie story arcs all within the same movie. If he is correct, perhaps it's less important to follow the 3 act structure and to deliver clear concise stories that have some depth where different viewers can enjoy different elements. So people can enjoy the same movie for different reasons.

Back to what you were saying, It could also be for other reasons.

Just something to think about.

marktapiokines said:
For films like THE AVENGERS, you can see the structure very clearly; the stories hit the rhythm that we're accustomed to. But PULP FICTION, for example, lacks that rhythm, so we don't wait for the usual act changes. It would be interesting to watch the film again and see if there really is a 3-act structure, or if - like I said earlier - we're just "projecting" the structure onto the film, by taking some important scenes that arrive around every half hour, and declaring them to be the major plot twists.
Click to expand...

This is what makes filmmaking so much fun and so challenging to figure out. There are so many different approaches to take and they all have the potential to be correct.

For instance, I recently read Save the Cat. From memory, it uses a 15 point system, on top of a 3 act structure. Some of what he taught I found quite valuable and other bits I found too rigid. What's best with these structures is allowing you to form a solid structure to build from.

While I still say that Pulp Fiction follows the 3 act structure, although loosely, it does show that you don't need to hit each and every beat. You don't necessarily need a hero. You don't necessarily need an ally or a mentor. At the core of it, you need very few things. An Interesting Opening (I'm also a huge fan of the prelude), you need an entertaining middle and you need a satisfying resolution. You need to tell the story well and keep your audience engaged. It can be like Tarantino with his excellent use of amazingly interesting characters and dialogue that keeps you begging for more, or it can be a Michael Bay plot driven, sfx/action, keep you on the edge of your seat spectacular. It can be accomplished many ways.

The 3 act structure is simply an effective tool to help writers create the framework for stories that is the bread and butter for Hollywood. The greats master the basics, expand on it, combine their creative spirit and bring their masterpieces to the world.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Good post. You know, I purposefully avoided reading "Save the Cat" (as well as any other screenwriting book) as I wrote my Screenwriting Fundamentals course. Not only because I wanted to make sure my ideas and observations were my own, but because I think those rules do become too rigid.

Although I talk a lot about the three act structure in my course, my main goal is really to teach writers how to make their stories more engaging and unpredictable (by adding obstacles, suspense, reversals of fortune, etc.). In this context, that's the true usefulness of this structure: it forces writers to make sure their scripts have at least 4 good plot twists to keep their stories moving forward. Believe me, for many writers that's hard to do!

Back to the original question: Anybody else know any other recent American features that don't employ the 3 act structure? BLUE JASMINE, maybe?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
marktapiokines said:
Good post. You know, I purposefully avoided reading "Save the Cat" (as well as any other screenwriting book) as I wrote my Screenwriting Fundamentals course. Not only because I wanted to make sure my ideas and observations were my own, but because I think those rules do become too rigid.

Although I talk a lot about the three act structure in my course, my main goal is really to teach writers how to make their stories more engaging and unpredictable (by adding obstacles, suspense, reversals of fortune, etc.). In this context, that's the true usefulness of this structure: it forces writers to make sure their scripts have at least 4 good plot twists to keep their stories moving forward. Believe me, for many writers that's hard to do!

Back to the original question: Anybody else know any other recent American features that don't employ the 3 act structure? BLUE JASMINE, maybe?
Click to expand...

Blue Jasmine had a three-act structure. The film was somewhat non-linear, but still followed the three-act structure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The curious case of Benjamin button.
Tree of life.
Eastern promises
No country for old men
The three burials of Melqueades Estrada
Gerry

Raise the titanic barely has a third act, once the ship comes up, it rushes through the climax to the point it fizzles the movie is practically over, villain comes off as a wimp with a serious combover. Byzanium remains untouched. credits roll. At least there is no Celine Dion song.

Funny how two David fincher movies are in this thread
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks Raymond. Good ones.

BENJAMIN BUTTON falls into the same "epic sweep" category as FORREST GUMP, so it could be argued that there is no 3-act structure, or as Sweetie mentioned (re: GUMP), maybe the Pitt/Blanchett relationship creates it. I can't remember.

I thought EASTERN PROMISES was 3 acts (although the plotting is messy; I don't think the script works). And NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN almost certainly was, despite the unusual third act. Why do you say otherwise - just because (spoiler alert!) the "protagonist" dies offscreen at the end of Act 2? Just curious.

TREE OF LIFE - yep. There's no traditional narrative at all here. But ironically, the film is still three distinct acts, though perhaps "movements" is a better term. First quarter of the film is all the cosmic/dinosaur stuff, Act 1. Middle half of the film is all about the family in the '50s, Act 2. And the last quarter is Sean Penn and the end of the universe/heaven stuff, Act 3.

GERRY is definitely not in 3 acts, and I'd say that Van Sant's other two films in that group, LAST DAYS and ELEPHANT, aren't either.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Benjamin Button to me had a new story for every decade and each one had a conusion so there were three acts within each story, so there were multiple vignettes.

As for no country I though it felt like two acts, after the "protagonist" dies the movie just becomes ambiguous.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
Really?

Just curious. I remember No Country for Old Men following the three-act structure. There wasn't a clean resolution, but the film opening with the characters introduced, in the middle there was building tension, and near the end is an exciting scene.
Click to expand...

As mentioned, I think that because the "protagonist" (the Josh Brolin character) dies - offscreen and without fanfare - at the end of Act 2, Act 3 is so (intentionally) disjointed and anticlimactic. We sort of get that third act confrontation in the scene between Javier Bardem and Kelly Macdonald, but it hardly constitutes a traditional ending.

Funny how Hollywood enforces the three act structure so much, then hands out awards and nominations to the films that break away from it!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Isn’t there a difference between “traditional” and no three-act
structure?

I see a very clear three-act structure in “No Country for Old Men”.
Not just in the “Hollywood” version but in McCarthy’s excellent
book. There is even a “hero’s journey” that is (to me) clear and
quite standard. The “hero” isn’t Moss but Bell. His journey is
different than, say, Luke Skywalker, but it is still a hero’s journey
and directly reflects the title. Not "traditional" in the academic
way - but still there and (to me) quite clear.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
Isn’t there a difference between “traditional” and no three-act
structure?

I see a very clear three-act structure in “No Country for Old Men”.
Not just in the “Hollywood” version but in McCarthy’s excellent
book. There is even a “hero’s journey” that is (to me) clear and
quite standard. The “hero” isn’t Moss but Bell. His journey is
different than, say, Luke Skywalker, but it is still a hero’s journey
and directly reflects the title. Not "traditional" in the academic
way - but still there and (to me) quite clear.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. Ed Tom Bell - the Tommy Lee Jones character - is in fact the real protagonist of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. (I haven't seen it since 2007, so I am a little foggy.) It is definitely the story of him and his final case, how it teaches him to see the true depths that people can sink to, and how it leads him to retire.

The Coens use this kind of protagonist - what I'll call the "naive professional" - quite often. It's a person who is good at his or her job, seemingly clever and confident, but blind to how corrupt and evil the world can actually be. The films they're in make them see the hard truth, and that story/character arc is evident in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN as well as FARGO, A SERIOUS MAN, TRUE GRIT, THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, and BARTON FINK.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
marktapiokines said:
THE SOCIAL NETWORK follows the 3 act structure if you focus on the Winklevoss/Zuckerberg relationship. Act 2 begins when they hire him; Act 3 begins when they realize he's made it big with what they think is their idea.
Click to expand...

I always wondered about this movie. Could one classify it as a Then & Now script? Act One should probably be Face Mash.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top