this sounds ridiculous even to a guy who knows jack about screenwriting....

[preyer]

okay, maybe 'jack' is a bit overstated. i'm still learning. just about done with 'save the cat.' interesting, fun read. i'll check out a few more how-to's to see how they compare, but i'm thinking that most of them will say roughly the same thing.

unless you're this guy:

http://www.writersstore.com/article.php?articles_id=555

between the two, i think i'll be looking more into syd field than this guy's ideas, which seem to be all over the place. (anyone got a spare copy laying around they're not using?)

anyway, am i the only one who thinks this guy is a bit on the kooky side or what?

[RylenolFlu]

I read this article a little while ago and quite honestly it has stuck with me. It's just refreshing to hear someone say that stories can live outside of the three act structure. He suggests looking at the problem of the screenplay as opposed to going nuts about fitting events into neat act breaks and plot points. While I agree that structure is necessary to carry out a well told story, I think that creativity can bloom more freely when you remove certain strictures.

[krano]

i never read this guy's method before, but i picked up on something similar through Writing the Charactered Centered Screenplay and my own intuition. when i wrote my first script, i established a rigid structure from the very beginning. yeah, it was easier to write beacause all events were in a clear, consequential sequence, but when i finished it and reread it a week later, i realized how "dead" my characters were.

i think by contriving a set, fixed structure from the beginning, the character's actions become forced. eventually, i do establish a structure, but i let it resemble a three act structure on its own free will.

really, though, everyone has their own creative process, so do whatever feels right.

[preyer]

refreshing in the 'i really believe this' kind of way or refreshing in the 'hey, by the way, i've also got my own how-to book on screenwriting' sense?

he goes on about the act structure as being arbitrary, then goes into a 'natural structure.' sorry, ry, i just think he's contradicting himself.

he's got a list of movies which, he claims, has no three act structure at all. (funny, he mentions 'star wars,' which is the very definiton of the hero's journey tale and, indeed, can be broken in three acts seemingly pretty easily, though i've yet to do it. considering that the three act structure in films have been around since, oh, since film practically began, i think, it's absurd to think lucas, having gone to film school, didn't conceive of having three acts in his movie/s.) his samples seem to strain at proving his point, but i'm not sure i buy it. okay, i'm positive i don't buy it.

some will claim that you can go to any high concept film's 17th minute and find the exact same points in each (proportionally speaking, i assume). besides, most mainstream films absolutely can be broken into three acts and it's pretty clear where the act breaks and plot points are.

isn't looking at a screenplay's problems often very much centered around *not* hitting the right beats? i suppose mr. bonnet doesn't believe in those, either?

do you have an example of being freed creatively by removing certain strictures?

[FinbarReilly]

That guy is so talking out of his nether regiions...

The three act structure (introduce the problem, get a handle on the problem, solve the problem) has been with us since Day One. It's a big part of the Hero's Journey (a la Campbell), and it even applies to TV (the first two "acts" set up the problem, the next three or four deal with it, and the last two solve it and/or deal with the complications it causes).

Heck, even most myths follow it (Trojan War: Paris steals Helen and the heroes gather in Act 1, the War is fought in Act 2, and Troy is sacked in Act 3).

This guy is scary....

FR

[krano]

if you think about, a three act structure is natural: beginning, middle, end (i think read it in the Poetics).

a possible interpretation of what this "guru" is saying is that it's not necessarily a good idea to force the breaks in your story, but to let the natural divisions of beginning, middle, and end develop on their own.

[RylenolFlu]

Well, I wasn't meaning that I buy into the "forget the 3 act thing", I fully see the necessity of having structure in film writing. I agree more with his philosophy in terms of the creating the story part. I think Bonnet recommends just letting the story evolve "naturally", as he puts it, and then once the story is fleshed out the screenwriter can decide how to map it out over the 3 act. I'm a relative newcomer to serious screenwriting (as in really trying to make a living someday out of it), but the idea of letting go of structure during the "drawing up the story" period might help certain people achieve a better sense of creativity.

[preyer]

being a guy wholly intending to do 'high concept'/mainstream stuff, i believe in, say, the B story. in that, there's a place for that to begin, not just 'wherever feels right.' true, a lot is intuition, but it's that intuition that's been broken down to specific beats, right?

i know it seems that adhering to a strict three act structure appears limiting, it appears to contain less creativity... but doesn't it also work, and usually work a helluva lot better than taking your best guess at it?

obviously, i'm not seeing the holistic beauty of this 'method.' maybe in his book he would make it clear. i'm almost tempted, and a bit afraid, to read a few more of his articles.

[krano]

being a guy wholly intending to do 'high concept'/mainstream stuff, i believe in, say, the B story.

i too would guess this is the source of the difference. i think bonnet's method is geared toward character driven stories like The Barbarian Invasions versus Die Hard, at least early on in the writing process.

[Plot Device]

I could ALMOST agree with what this guy is saying. But my feeling is that the human mind needs to pace itself through its ingestion of a story. The 3-act structure allows the brain to pace itself through. To me it's kinda like eating a seven-course meal at a fine dining restaurant--anyone here every done that? Seven courses is a LOT of food! You need no less than two hours to eat your way through all that, and you MUST pace yourself. Not all meals are seven course, just like not all films are three acts. But ALL films have SOME kind of structure to them, and the need of such structure is to service the audience and their need to digest at a reasonable pace.

I agree with him that not all films SHOULD be three acts. But in spite of his insistence upo some leeway, three acts is the standard -- the norm. And my feeling about most aspects of art and artsianship is that you need to master the basics FIRST before you head off into the realm of the rare and the unorthodox.

[cynicallad]

I know him as that guy with the stupid flyers hung up in every coffee shop in the 30 mile zone.

[nmstevens]

I could ALMOST agree with what this guy is saying. But my feeling is that the human mind needs to pace itself through its ingestion of a story. The 3-act structure allows the brain to pace itself through. To me it's kinda like eating a seven-course meal at a fine dining restaurant--anyone here every done that? Seven courses is a LOT of food! You need no less than two hours to eat your way through all that, and you MUST pace yourself. Not all meals are seven course, just like not all films are three acts. But ALL films have SOME kind of structure to them, and the need of such structure is to service the audience and their need to digest at a reasonable pace.

I agree with him that not all films SHOULD be three acts. But in spite of his insistence upo some leeway, three acts is the standard -- the norm. And my feeling about most aspects of art and artsianship is that you need to master the basics FIRST before you head off into the realm of the rare and the unorthodox.


I think that what this guy is saying is a lot of nonsense and he starts off, as far as I'm concerned, by blowing all of his credibility by conflating definitions.

Yeah, thanks Mister smart guy -- we know that there are one act plays and two act plays and three act plays and TV shows with seven acts and feature films have no "official act breaks" except maybe a few long movies like Gone With the Wind that had intermissions -- which Made "Gone With the Wind" what? A "Two Act" movie?

Baloney. That particular literal usage of the term "act" has no relationship to what we speak about when we speak about "three act structure" -- which clearly intersects exactly the same kinds of innate structural story elements that he then goes on to talk about in his own patent-pending story formulae that he's trying to peddle himself.

It's more than simply "beginning, middle, and end."

The First Act establishes the premise, sets up the central problem and gets things underway.

The Second Act carries the events of the story to what's known, in classical terms as "the climax" -- which isn't the high point but the "apparently insoluble problem"

The Third Act solves the problem (or fails to) and encompasses the denoument.

Or, if it were a horse race, the First Act brings the horses up to the starting gate, identifies who's racing who, who the jockies are, and fires the starting pistol. They're off.

Second Act is the bulk of the race. Who gains on who, who falls. Who almost falls. Who comes from behind.

Third Act is the home stretch when the long shot you bet your life savings on and is now in last place -- and he comes from behind until a few lengths from the finish line he is now neck and neck with the horse favored to win and maybe he wins -- or maybe he doesn't.

This is stuff that they were teaching in basic dramatic theory when this guy was in diapers. There's nothing new or special about and it doesn't have anything to do with when the curtains rise or fall -- any more than it has to do with some Hollywood genius's idea of what page some Plot Point 2.3 should fall.

It is absolutely intrinsic to basic dramatic structure.

NMS

[preyer]

besides, wouldn't GWTW be proportionally 'correct' in a three act structure? act II starts with the outbreak of the civil war. hm, not sure where act III breaks (when rhett comes back into the picture?), but i'm sure it's in there somewhere. that's a tough one to me (and i'd just watched the dumb thing again a few weeks ago). i mean, it's a huge book and a huge movie that had legendary production problems (i think everyone and his cousin in hollywood took turns directing it at some point).

i think you're right, plot, there needs to be a suitable pacing involved for it to work to its maximum... if you're going for the big score. i'd have to suffer to rewatch it, but maybe b.o. stampedes like 'the blair with project' didn't have a B story, which gives hope to those with a different goal. i personally can make any of my novel ideas fit quite nicely into the three act structure even though at the time that was the furthest thing from my mind. in other words, i intuitively kind of 'know' the novel story structure. and isn't it this 'intuitiveness' that makes us all believe we're good storytellers? so what if people put a label on specific processes and says this goes here, that goes there? doesn't knowing this, whether we use it or not, make us *better* storytellers?

that's what's got my panties in a bunch here, that on the surface mr. bonnet suggests it all a bunch of horse hockey. i don't believe it is, especially for modern movies. or any movie for that matter. he'll seems to be saying 'forget all that bullshit about acts' out one side of his face and later, as nm points out, trying to sell his method out the other side, which seems to be more of the same basic structure just with his own vernacular involved to hide the fact he's got nothing.

is his method a recipe for disaster? probably not. like i said, it's probably not really different than any 'credible' screenwriter's method, just a lot looser. probably a lot sloppier. like in a novel, everything has to be very concise. good gravy, i've figured that much out by now. but, like i always say about novels, 'write in an active voice, not passive,' there are always those few examples to 'prove' me wrong. so, it's not enough for me and every editor with a blog on the subject to say active, not passive, some writers will find an article about how it doesn't make a bit of difference and potentially hurt that writer's abilities to get more work published. a lot of examples by the article writer 'proving' his POV on the subject, fueling those who don't want to learn their craft and think (or hopes against reality) anything goes.

[Higgins]

That guy is so talking out of his nether regiions...

The three act structure (introduce the problem, get a handle on the problem, solve the problem) has been with us since Day One. It's a big part of the Hero's Journey (a la Campbell), and it even applies to TV (the first two "acts" set up the problem, the next three or four deal with it, and the last two solve it and/or deal with the complications it causes).

Heck, even most myths follow it (Trojan War: Paris steals Helen and the heroes gather in Act 1, the War is fought in Act 2, and Troy is sacked in Act 3).

This guy is scary....

FR

The Trojan war as summarized doesn't correspond to any one script. In the Iliad for Example act 1 is Achilles gets mad, act 2 is things go very wrong for the greeks and act 3 is Achilles takes his vengeance and act 4 is he shows he is humane after all.

[icerose]

I don't set out with a specific structure or anything, I just write the story as I see it. If it has a serious story problem, chances are it lies with the structure. Like one fell too short and I was missing most of my first and part of my second act.

I write the story first, and then edit and revise. Things seem to fall into place the more I practice writing and the more I read.

I suppose you would call it a natural order. I'm a big fan of the "Do what works for you." method.

[CDarklock]

It seems to me that this guy is 100% correct: the three-act story structure is an arbitrary division. So is the five-act structure. Indeed, any division of the story at all is arbitrary. A story has one act: the story. You may decide certain parts of the story are significant, and divide the story at those parts... but someone else might not agree with you on which parts are significant.

To use the Star Wars example, most people would divide the story into three parts quite easily by encompassing the flights of the Millennium Falcon near the end of each act: one to Alderaan but actually ending up at the Death Star, one from the Death Star to the rebel base on Yavin's moon, and one to assist Luke with the battle around the Death Star. But there are still other division points; you might divide at the purchase of the droids, or the rescue of the princess, or any number of other places. You can arbitrarily turn Star Wars into a story of however many acts you like. You can even divide it in two pieces rather effectively by placing the single important event at Ben's lightsaber duel with Darth Vader.

Regardless of what the writer may think of the structure, ultimately the reader imposes a structure of his own upon the story. A sufficiently rich story can be divided in many ways; indeed, I would argue that if your story ONLY fits into a three act structure, it's almost certainly a bad story. There's just not enough in it.

[jonpiper]

. . . that particular literal usage of the term "act" has no relationship to what we speak about when we speak about "three act structure" -- which clearly intersects exactly the same kinds of innate structural story elements that he then goes on to talk about in his own patent-pending story formulae that he's trying to peddle himself.

It's more than simply "beginning, middle, and end."

The First Act establishes the premise, sets up the central problem and gets things underway.

The Second Act carries the events of the story to what's known, in classical terms as "the climax" -- which isn't the high point but the "apparently insoluble problem"

The Third Act solves the problem (or fails to) and encompasses the denoument.

. . .

This is stuff that they were teaching in basic dramatic theory when this guy was in diapers. There's nothing new or special about and it doesn't have anything to do with when the curtains rise or fall -- any more than it has to do with some Hollywood genius's idea of what page some Plot Point 2.3 should fall.

It is absolutely intrinsic to basic dramatic structure.

NMS

Why don't we refer to these sections or parts -- or whatever we want to call them -- as something other than acts? Can't we call these time periods in the story something else so they aren't confused with the traditional acts that originally were established for bathroom breaks and scene changes?

Do we all agree that every story must have an established premise and a central problem that gets things underway? That we must carry the events of the story to what's known, in classical terms as "the climax" -- which isn't the high point but the "apparently insoluble problem?" Finally, do we agree that the problem must be (or fail to be) resolved.

Do we all agree that the above contents must be presented in the time sequence suggested by "dramatic theory?" Can we perhaps establish the premise after the events of the story are underway?

[CDarklock]

Do we all agree that every story must have an established premise and a central problem that gets things underway?

That's rather like saying "every story must be a story". It's impossible to break the rule, because the rule is circular. It's a tautology.

Imagine that you try to write a story without establishing a premise. Well, guess what? The lack of a premise is your premise. So you have a premise after all.

The central problem is very much the same sort of thing. If there isn't one... why, that's the problem. So you do have a problem.

Some people have said that every story must have a main character. If you don't have one... why, the character is simply an unusual kind of main character. I've heard the opinion stated that in certain works, the world is the main character. Or time is the main character. Or the reader is the main character. So this rule, too, means nothing. It's just an arbitrary bucket, and you compel yourself to fill that bucket with something. You can step entirely outside the bounds of logic and reason to fill that bucket, so long as it's filled.

If you like a particular set of buckets, great. Use them. But at the core, they're just your own personal set of arbitrary choices. They have no more cosmic power or validity than any other set of arbitrary choices.

[jonpiper]

That's rather like saying "every story must be a story". It's impossible to break the rule, because the rule is circular. It's a tautology.

Imagine that you try to write a story without establishing a premise. Well, guess what? The lack of a premise is your premise. So you have a premise after all.


The lack of a premise may be my premise or my basis for my story; however, I don't understand how that can be the premise of my story. That's like saying you're serving nothing for dinner. What is dinner without food? Oh, that's my idea of a dinner. We all sit around the table and have a discussion without eating.

At any rate, must I establish the premise in the first time period of the screenplay? Must every story be built around the same framework in the same order?
Establish premise and central problem. Carry events to the climax. Solve the problem.

[CDarklock]

At any rate, must I establish the premise in the first time period of the screenplay? Must every story be built around the same framework in the same order?

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

No.

No story need be built around any framework. A framework is a tool. Use the one that fits your job. When someone else comes along, he'll try to cram your job into his own framework - because when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There is no one framework. There will never be one framework. Trying to find the one framework is doomed to failure, and most people will self-delude rather than admit their folly.

[jonpiper]

Some argue that there is a fundamental structure which all stories are built upon. They say that according to "dramatic theory," certain things must happen at the beginning of the story, other things during the middle, etc.

It's good to hear some opposing views.:)

Anyone know of good screenplays that don't follow the "normal" structure?

[ricetalks]

Psycho. We don't even meet the main character (Anthony Perkins) for the forst 1/2 hr of the film.

Pulp Fiction. You're going to have to bend your 3 act structure to all hell to try and get it to fit this pic.

Apocalyse Now. Does anyone really believe that Martin Sheen's overwhelming driving force is the pursuit of Col. Curtz up the river?

The Way We Were. Does that really fit a three act structure? What's the inciting incident? What is the overwhelming drive of the central character?

I'm sure I can think of more.

The best book I have come across for writing screenplays and screenplay and story structure is "How To Build A Great SCreenplay" by David Howard. I find Syd Field's book okay as a first introduction to the ideas of structure but too simplistic and dogmatic to be of any real long term value. Especially when you are dealing with a more compilcated film.

[ricetalks]

"How to Build A Great Screenplay" I find has laid out a much more practical hand-on approach to working out story structure. It is much more condusive to the organic way most people work on a screenplay or struggle with their stories as they emerge.

[nmstevens]

Why don't we refer to these sections or parts -- or whatever we want to call them -- as something other than acts? Can't we call these time periods in the story something else so they aren't confused with the traditional acts that originally were established for bathroom breaks and scene changes?

Do we all agree that every story must have an established premise and a central problem that gets things underway? That we must carry the events of the story to what's known, in classical terms as "the climax" -- which isn't the high point but the "apparently insoluble problem?" Finally, do we agree that the problem must be (or fail to be) resolved.

Do we all agree that the above contents must be presented in the time sequence suggested by "dramatic theory?" Can we perhaps establish the premise after the events of the story are underway?


Who, exactly, are these people who are "confused" by the concept of the "three act structure" because they think that it only refers to when the curtain comes up or down or when the commercial breaks come?

Before we start re-inventing the wheel, wouldn't it first be incumbent upon us to conclude that there's something confusing about the concept of the wheel?

NMS

[nmstevens]

Psycho. We don't even meet the main character (Anthony Perkins) for the forst 1/2 hr of the film.

Pulp Fiction. You're going to have to bend your 3 act structure to all hell to try and get it to fit this pic.

Apocalyse Now. Does anyone really believe that Martin Sheen's overwhelming driving force is the pursuit of Col. Curtz up the river?

The Way We Were. Does that really fit a three act structure? What's the inciting incident? What is the overwhelming drive of the central character?

I'm sure I can think of more.

The best book I have come across for writing screenplays and screenplay and story structure is "How To Build A Great SCreenplay" by David Howard. I find Syd Field's book okay as a first introduction to the ideas of structure but too simplistic and dogmatic to be of any real long term value. Especially when you are dealing with a more compilcated film.


There are a number of movies that consist, in various ways, of multiple stories, sometimes sequential, sometimes overlapping, that sometimes literally overlap and sometimes are only connected thematically.

It isn't correct to say that Norman Bates is the protagonist of Pyscho. If you start at the beginning, clearly Miriam is the protagonist. Her need drives the story. In that story, Norman acts as a sort of "mentor" character, who ultimately convinces her to go back and face the music.

And then she's killed -- and a new story starts. And in *that* story, Norman takes over -- and it's a story about loyal son Norman trying to do the right thing in the face of a lunatic mother.

But that story doesn't run through to the end. At a certain point, a new protagonist emerges -- Miriam's sister. Once she's on the scene, trying to find out what happened to her murdered sister, we're no longer on Norman's side. We're on her side. At that point, Norman becomes an obstacle to *her* achieving her goal -- of finding out the truth of what went on in that motel and what's hidden in that house.

It's really three separate stories.

And a lot of movies do that. Something like Radio Days consists of multiple stories -- not told sequentially, but broken up into pieces - the stories of the kid growing up, his parents, his unmarried sister, the story of the cigarette girl who ultimately becomes a big success in radio. All separate stories interwoven, but linked together by the common thread of the connection to that popular medium -- radio -- that's now completely vanished.

And, of course, Pulp Fiction does the same thing. Multiple stories, told non-sequentially, linked by common characters, themes and motifs.

Where one might think that there is an absence of story, very often what you find is simply much more sophisticated story-telling going on.

NMS

[ricetalks]

Not by any means saying there is an absense of story. In fact, I'm saying these are examples of the best type of stroytelling. What they DON'T do is fit neatly into the idea of a classic three act structure. These films point out the SHORT COMINGS of the idea of dogmatically trying to stick to a standard structure idea. In fact, they would be ruined by it.

[nmstevens]

Not by any means saying there is an absense of story. In fact, I'm saying these are examples of the best type of stroytelling. What they DON'T do is fit neatly into the idea of a classic three act structure. These films point out the SHORT COMINGS of the idea of dogmatically trying to stick to a standard structure idea. In fact, they would be ruined by it.

The point I'm making is that too many people present this view of the "three act structure" in a kind of straw man way -- as if every story has to be laid out in a "well-writ skrene-play" formula, and that *that* equals the three act structure and that what strays from that abandons it.

What I'm saying is -- where you have a story, as that is traditionally understood, you have a three-act structure.

And in narratives that consist of multiple, intertwined stories, each separate story thread consists of three distinguishable acts.

So one can look at each of the three separate story threads in psycho -- the Miriam story, the Norman story, the Sister story -- and work out, in each one, the first act, the second act, climax, third, resolution -- intertwined.

And to understand those structural requirements, in fact, gives you the tools you need in constructing complicated multiple stories like this.

Maybe one of those story threads has no proper resolution. Maybe it has no effective climax. Not properly set-up.

But that only makes sense if you understand that each of those threads -- each of those sub-stories, in fact, is bound by that same fundamental three-act structure that would apply if you were only dealing with a single over-arching story.

NMS

[ricetalks]

While this may be true, it still does not fit into Syd Field's ideas of story structure for a film. The writers who originally wrote these scripts could not have done it if they had dogmatically tried to conform to the ideas as laid out in Syd Field's books. A single central character with a deep-seated need who is triggered by an inciting incident on page 2 and is set off on a journey to pursue his goal.

Janet Leigh is the inciting incident for Anthony Perkins. And their meeting falls somewhere around page 25. (I haven't read the script, I'm just going by my memoryof the movie) This certainly does not conform to Syd Field's idea of story structure, nor do any of the films I ahave cited, and that is my point.

These films have a different overall structure than the classic Hollywood structure. Sure they have structure. But the point is, there isn't only ONE type of story structure that should be accepted as the RIGHT story structure (aka. Syd Field's) and these films are proof of that.

No where in Syd Field's book do I read about him talking about intertwinning stories. I don't read him say, "Yeah, you can have intertwinning stories that are held together by their theme and, yeah, soemtimes these intertwinning stories will not have a proper resolution, or not an effective climax or properly set up, but that's okay. Sometimes, if you do it right, you can get away with that. AND HERE IS HOW YOU CAN DO THAT. THESE ARE THE RULES THAT APPLY." That's something quite different than what he advocates.

[jonpiper]

Before we start re-inventing the wheel, wouldn't it first be incumbent upon us to conclude that there's something confusing about the concept of the wheel?

NMS

No.:)

We don't try to re-invent the wheel, for the wheel is a basic structure. We think creatively and design new machines that use other devices rather than the wheel.

This thread questions whether or not the three-act structure is as fundamental to story as the wheel is to the circle.

In your analysis of Psycho, I think it could be argued that what you call other stories are actually subplots.

[ricetalks]

Here's soemthing I read that I can agree with and I think it is a much better way of thinking about structure. I bring this up because it seems we live in a time when often the only thing someone looks for in the screenplay is, "Does it conform to the ideas of story structrue as laid out in Sid Field's books?"

Building a great screenplay is like building a house or a building. It has to have structure to stand. Whether that building is a residential home framed with wood or whether, as a sky scraper, it is framed with steel beams. Good structure is what everything hangs on and what makes it a strong building. But the structure of a building is not a building. People can't live in it or use it. You can have a very well structured building that is ugly as hell. And the same is true of a screenplay. The structure of a story is not THEE story. I can find a great screenplay and a terrible screenplay that both have the same structrue. I have seen movies that have perfect structure in accordance with what Syd Fields advocates. But they are mediocre and sometimes down right terrible films. And, yes, sure there are some great films that DO have the structure that Syd Fields advocates. And, yes, his structure does work. But to read a screenplay and judge it solely on whether or not it conforms to this particular idea of structure is to not read it completely or properly. And too often I find that seems to be about all anybody really knows about evaluating a script. Too often the capacity to control structure seems to be valued above all else at the expense of everything else.

[nmstevens]

No.:)

We don't try to re-invent the wheel, for the wheel is a basic structure. We think creatively and design new machines that use other devices rather than the wheel.

This thread questions whether or not the three-act structure is as fundamental to story as the wheel is to the circle.

In your analysis of Psycho, I think it could be argued that what you call other stories are actually subplots.

Would you really assert that the the events following Miriam, from the very beginning of the story -- where we literally haven't even met Norman, have no sense of him as a driving force of the story, have no sense of him having any need at all -- don't in fact meet him for a good fifteen minutes -- in fact, the only "story" that we know about at all, is the story of Miriam and her theft of the money -- is simply a "sub-plot" of the "Norman" story -- who, in fact, has no observable objective at all, until he "discovers" the Miriam has been killed and then has to cover up the crime in order to protect "her?"

You talk about story "basics" -- well one of the story basics that I've always heard about is that a story doesn't "start" until the the central problem is established.

So, according to your analysis -- when does this happen -- if all that's gone before is simply a "sub-plot" -- if, in fact, the protagonist doesn't even show up until fifteen minutes into the movie and his central problem -- a dead girl killed by his mother -- doesn't show up until substantially later than that?

Even if you claim that the "real" problem -- the "mother that goes a little mad" -- even that isn't established until a good twenty minutes into the movie when Miriam hears the putative argument between Norman and Mom.

There are a number of movies in which one can clearly identify a single spine -- a main story, and then "sub-plots" -- minor, secondary stories that support or illuminate the major story.

In The Seven Samurai -- you have the major plot -- the battle between the Samurai and the villagers and the brigands. But you also have this other little story about the girl being disguised as a boy by her father and the young naive Samurai who finds her and they have a brief love affair -- but in the end, she stays behind and he goes off.

*That* is a sub-plot -- it's a smaller story within the larger story that illuminates a certain thematic aspect of the larger story -- which is that that particular aspect of village life -- love and home and family -- a Samurai may seize that for a moment, but he can't have it for a lifetime -- it's part of the victory that he wins for someone else. Not for himself.

The smaller story illuminates the larger story.

But really, you could cut that smaller story out and the larger story would still stand on its own.

You couldn't cut out the "Miriam" story and have Psycho stand on its own, any more than you could cut out the "sister" story and have Psycho stand on its own.

Each part is essential and co-equal.

NMS

[nmstevens]

While this may be true, it still does not fit into Syd Field's ideas of story structure for a film. The writers who originally wrote these scripts could not have done it if they had dogmatically tried to conform to the ideas as laid out in Syd Field's books. A single central character with a deep-seated need who is triggered by an inciting incident on page 2 and is set off on a journey to pursue his goal.

Janet Leigh is the inciting incident for Anthony Perkins. And their meeting falls somewhere around page 25. (I haven't read the script, I'm just going by my memoryof the movie) This certainly does not conform to Syd Field's idea of story structure, nor do any of the films I ahave cited, and that is my point.

These films have a different overall structure than the classic Hollywood structure. Sure they have structure. But the point is, there isn't only ONE type of story structure that should be accepted as the RIGHT story structure (aka. Syd Field's) and these films are proof of that.

No where in Syd Field's book do I read about him talking about intertwinning stories. I don't read him say, "Yeah, you can have intertwinning stories that are held together by their theme and, yeah, soemtimes these intertwinning stories will not have a proper resolution, or not an effective climax or properly set up, but that's okay. Sometimes, if you do it right, you can get away with that. AND HERE IS HOW YOU CAN DO THAT. THESE ARE THE RULES THAT APPLY." That's something quite different than what he advocates.


You always have to be careful when you talk about "classic" Hollywood movies -- because there are a lot of classic movies with multiple story lines that don't follow this so-called "classic" formula any more than a lot of contemporary movies do.

Just because somebody says that "X" equals some classic structure doesn't mean that it's necessarily true -- and very often you'll find that anyone who seeks a universal paradigm is always cherry-picking examples that fit the model that he's selling.

There are all sorts of things that you can sit down and watch that just plain aren't "stories" in the classic sense.

Andy Warhol made a movie that consists of "X" number of hours of a motion picture pointed at the Empire State Building. Period. That was it. The whole movie.

He made another movie that consisted of a guy sleeping. That was it. He got into bed. He went to sleep. The movie showed him sleeping for a full six or eight hours. At the end of the movie, he woke. Up. Movie over.

That was it.

Would I attempt to apply conventional narrative structure to something like that or to Le Chien Andalou?

Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

There's a whole universe of non-narrative films that are operating according to a fundamentally different non-dramatic aesthetic and you simply can't apply the rules of standard dramatic theory to those works.

That would be like complaining that the works of M.C. Escher violate the rules of perspective.

No kidding.

But if you're dealing with *story* films -- then you are working within the realm of drama and dramatic construction. And then you are in a place where those rules -- which reach far back beyond Syd Field and far back beyond the invention of the motion picture -- apply.

And if you leave a character undefined, or let a story peter out, or fail to focus a protagonist's goal or fail to build suspense or any of the countless other things that one can fail to do in shaping a story -- then those that are listening are going to change channels or head for the exit just the way their distant ancestors would have grabbed a piece of mammoth and wandered away from the campfire.

Because when you make those mistakes today -- you lose your audience just the way storytellers always have.

NMS

[jonpiper]

Would you really assert that the the events following Miriam, from the very beginning of the story -- where we literally haven't even met Norman, have no sense of him as a driving force of the story, have no sense of him having any need at all -- don't in fact meet him for a good fifteen minutes -- in fact, the only "story" that we know about at all, is the story of Miriam and her theft of the money -- is simply a "sub-plot" of the "Norman" story -- who, in fact, has no observable objective at all, until he "discovers" the Miriam has been killed and then has to cover up the crime in order to protect "her?"

You talk about story "basics" -- well one of the story basics that I've always heard about is that a story doesn't "start" until the the central problem is established.

So, according to your analysis -- when does this happen -- if all that's gone before is simply a "sub-plot" -- if, in fact, the protagonist doesn't even show up until fifteen minutes into the movie and his central problem -- a dead girl killed by his mother -- doesn't show up until substantially later than that?

Even if you claim that the "real" problem -- the "mother that goes a little mad" -- even that isn't established until a good twenty minutes into the movie when Miriam hears the putative argument between Norman and Mom.

There are a number of movies in which one can clearly identify a single spine -- a main story, and then "sub-plots" -- minor, secondary stories that support or illuminate the major story.

In The Seven Samurai -- you have the major plot -- the battle between the Samurai and the villagers and the brigands. But you also have this other little story about the girl being disguised as a boy by her father and the young naive Samurai who finds her and they have a brief love affair -- but in the end, she stays behind and he goes off.

*That* is a sub-plot -- it's a smaller story within the larger story that illuminates a certain thematic aspect of the larger story -- which is that that particular aspect of village life -- love and home and family -- a Samurai may seize that for a moment, but he can't have it for a lifetime -- it's part of the victory that he wins for someone else. Not for himself.

The smaller story illuminates the larger story.

But really, you could cut that smaller story out and the larger story would still stand on its own.

You couldn't cut out the "Miriam" story and have Psycho stand on its own, any more than you could cut out the "sister" story and have Psycho stand on its own.

Each part is essential and co-equal.

NMS

I think the Miriam segment is the beauty of the story. The shower scene comes as a surprise. Because Miriam was introduced at the beginning as an MC, we were were misdirected to belive she would probably survive to the end.

Normally a scene like that would be suspenseful, but the protag or MC would survive. The Miriam segment was necessary for the writer to introduce Norman the way Norman was introduced in the film.

So is the Miriam segment a subplot or a separate story?

As I recall, the detective came to track her down because of what she had done, not because she was murdered. Didn't her actions become a subplot that related to the real story which was about a psycho?

The way I see it, Miriam's actions were a device that led us in one direction and then allowed the story to take a complete spin in another direction after the shower scene. I cannot recall how many minutes into the film this happened.

Miriam's background also allowed the introduction of the detective, who was looking for her because of what she had done, as I recall. So the Miriam "subplot" was necessary for the psycho story to continue.

Sorry, NMS, you did argue that if a smaller story is necessary for the larger story, it is not a subplot. So the Miriam segment is not a subplot by your reasoning and I stand corrected. However, I don't think the Miriam segment is a fully developed story. By my analysis, it is a necessary part of the larger story, but not a separate story in the traditional sense.

[jonpiper]

I just browsed over the Psycho script http://www.weeklyscript.com/Psycho.txt
And Miriam is Mary.:)

I agree, for the most part, with ricetalks's analysis of this script.

[nmstevens]

I think the Miriam segment is the beauty of the story. The shower scene comes as a surprise. Because Miriam was introduced at the beginning as an MC, we were were misdirected to belive she would probably survive to the end.

Normally a scene like that would be suspenseful, but the protag or MC would survive. The Miriam segment was necessary for the writer to introduce Norman the way Norman was introduced in the film.

So is the Miriam segment a subplot or a separate story?

As I recall, the detective came to track her down because of what she had done, not because she was murdered. Didn't her actions become a subplot that related to the real story which was about a psycho?

The way I see it, Miriam's actions were a device that led us in one direction and then allowed the story to take a complete spin in another direction after the shower scene. I cannot recall how many minutes into the film this happened.

Miriam's background also allowed the introduction of the detective, who was looking for her because of what she had done, as I recall. So the Miriam "subplot" was necessary for the psycho story to continue.

Sorry, NMS, you did argue that if a smaller story is necessary for the larger story, it is not a subplot. So the Miriam segment is not a subplot by your reasoning and I stand corrected. However, I don't think the Miriam segment is a fully developed story. By my analysis, it is a necessary part of the larger story, but not a separate story in the traditional sense.


The "Miriam" story is complete, in and of itself. You could end it with the "pull back" from her eye and fade out. Obviously, it wouldn't be a feature but it has three acts, it completely develops her character, has an arc, goals, obstacles, supporting characters -- and a surprise twist at the end.

Of the three stories, it's the only one that can really stand completely on its own.

You're correct that the "Miriam" story is necessary for the larger piece -- but the reverse isn't true -- you don't really need the rest of the movie for that first third to stand on it's own. You could shut the movie off at that point -- and it will work as a perfectly legitimate short. It's only because, for the most part, we know all about Norman being his mother and all the rest, that we have the sense that more should be coming.

But obviously -- more does come along. And this isn't an anthology film -- the three parts are clearly intended to relate to one another -- to interweave to form a completed whole.

But there just ain't no way you can stuff "Psycho's" structure into Syd Field or "Save the Cat" or any other standard template.

It is a different and a much more sophisticated structure in which the connection between the parts is *thematic.*

This movie is exploring this notion of the razor-thin closeness between sanity and madness.

Miriam -- on the surface, a perfectly normal woman, living a very typical life. Even her problems -- getting enough money to marry her divorced boyfriend -- they're every day problems.

And then -- there's the solution. An envelope full of cash. And in a moment of madness (because how could she possibly get away with it?) -- she takes the money and runs.

And first section -- normal woman -- moment of madness -- is drawn deeper and deeper into the trap -- the boss sees her, the cop sees her, the used car guy is suspicious -- how can she possibly make this work -- it gets crazier and crazier and crazier -- finally taking us into the central section.

Norman. And what's the landscape? Down below, the motel -- drab, conventional -- symbol of normality. Up above -- the gothic house against the storm -- the domain of the Mother. Madness looming above the Normal.

Here, the battle is really drawn -- Norman against his Mother. Norman is sane, gentle, birdlike -- but bound by love and filial obligation to his vicious crazy mother.

Miriam, seeing Norman in this inescapable trap, resolves to go back -- back to the Sane World, to face what she's done and try to make things right.

But it's too late. She's come too deep into the world of this "Central Section." She is now no longer governed by the laws of right and wrong or justice and injustice -- but by the laws of madness that strike without rhyme or reason -- so even having resolved to do the right thing -- she's killed.

Now we see how reason and madness work within this central section, as the desperate Norman, confronted with the actions of his mad mother, is forced to use the methods of reason in the *service* of madness -- to cover up his mother's crimes. And now, with no one left to root for, we are left to root for Norman -- to *want* him to conceal the body, to do a good job mopping up the blood, hiding the car -- oh, and be sure to get rid of that money in the newspaper. And when the car doesn't go down in the mud -- we're worried. We *want* the car to go down. Because that fragment of reason -- a son working to protect his mother -- in a mad world is all that we have to hold onto.

Then we move onto the final section -- the sister and boyfriend. These are unimaginative characters that move completely in the world of reason. For them, along with Arbogast, it's strictly about the money. Even when they realize that Miriam was at the motel -- everyone is still thinking about the money -- no one thinks about madness.

But we know better. We know (or think we know) -- what's going on in that house. That there's a lunatic mother residing in there -- and that in a contest between this sane world and the mad one -- madness dominates. It wins.

Arbogast goes in to find the mother -- he's killed. Then the sister and the boyfriend -- still thinking in terms of the money and what does that poor mother know about Norman -- go to investigate -- and they go for the final collision between sanity and madness.

And what is that final revelation about sanity and madness -- that they, in fact, exist not only in the same world, not merely that they are next-door neighbors -- but we in fact are brought back to the very beginning -- to Miriam.

That they exist in the same person -- that Norman and Norman's mother, sanity and insanity -- are the same person.

But the movie goes even further. Because in the denouement, when we think that we are being brought back to the sane, comfortable world, and the psychiatrist lays it all out -- how Norman underwent the whole split personality thing and became the sane Norman on the one hand, and the vicious mother on the other -- after all that boring exposition -- what happens?

We go to "Norman" in the cell -- now in the Mother's persona -- and we go inside "her" head -- and what's inside? She's not vicious, not cruel. No -- she's thinking about how it was really *Norman* who did it all -- dressed up like her, pretended to be her, while she just sat and did nothing.

So in the end -- who was the killer, really? Where is the line between sanity and insanity, really?

As I've said -- while it may have risen to fame on this "shock effect" of having the star killed a third of the way into the movie -- it is enormously more than simply a "shock effect" movie.

It is an extremely sophisticated piece of story-telling.

NMS

[NikeeGoddess]

i'm not even going to try and read all of you guys' wordy posts. way too much thinking - so if i missed the point or say something wrong just ignore me.

Janet Leigh is the inciting incident for Anthony Perkins. And their meeting falls somewhere around page 25. (I haven't read the script, I'm just going by my memoryof the movie) This certainly does not conform to Syd Field's idea of story structure, nor do any of the films I ahave cited, and that is my point.why treat Fields book like it's the end all bible?! no matter what anyone says in any script book you can always find a script or story that doesn't fit their mold.

These films have a different overall structure than the classic Hollywood structure. Sure they have structure. But the point is, there isn't only ONE type of story structure that should be accepted as the RIGHT story structure (aka. Syd Field's) and these films are proof of that.true, but they still have a basic 3-act structure. the psycho example is equivalent to pulp fiction. both directors wanted to mess with audiences' basic knowledge of storytelling. the shock of miriam (who we assumed was the MC b/c of marketing) being murdered so early really freaked people out.