Elements of Act Three
Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 4:04AM in Alexandra Sokoloff Oh, all right, I guess I can’t avoid this one any longer.
So why is this so hard?
The third act so often falls apart or disappoints, don’t you think? We all seem to be somewhat afraid of it – that is, unless it’s all there in our heads to begin with and we can just – “speed we to our climax”, as Shakespeare said.
But even then, a third act is a lot of pressure. So maybe I’ll just make it easier on myself and say that this is going to be a SERIES of discussions on the third act. (There, I feel better already.)
To study how to craft a great third act, you have to look specifically at the endings that work for YOU. (Back to “The List”. Have you made yours yet?).
The essence of a third act is the final showdown between protagonist and antagonist.
Sometimes that’s all there is to it – one final battle between the protagonist and antagonist. In which case some good revelatory twists are probably required.
(And as a reminder – the third act is generally the final twenty to thirty minutes in a film, or the last seventy to 100 pages in a four-hundred page novel. The final quarter. )
By the end of the second act, pretty much everything has been set up that we need to know – particularly WHO the antagonist is, which sometimes we haven’t known, or have been wrong about, until that is revealed at the second act climax. Of course, sometimes, or maybe often, there is one final reveal about the antagonist that is saved till the very end or nearly the end – as in THE USUAL SUSPECTS and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and PSYCHO.
We also very often have gotten a sobering or terrifying glimpse of the ultimate nature of that antagonist – a great example of that kind of “nature of the opponent” scene is in CHINATOWN, in that scene in which Jake is slapping Evelyn around and he learns about her father.
There’s a location aspect to the third act – the final battle will often take place in a completely different setting than the rest of the film or novel. In fact half of the third act can be, and often is, just GETTING to the site of the final showdown. One of the most memorable examples of this in movie history is the “storming the castle” scene in THE WIZARD OF OZ, where, led by an escaped Toto, the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion scale the cliff, scope out the vast armies of the witch (“Yo Ee O”) and tussle with three stragglers to steal their uniforms and march in through the drawbridge of the castle with the rest of the army. A sequence like this, and the similar ones in STAR WARS and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, can have a lot of the elements we discussed about the first half of the first act: a plan, assembling the team, assembling tools and disguises, training or rehearsal.
And of course speed is often a factor – there’s a ticking clock, so our hero/ine has to race to get there in time to – save the innocent victim from the killer, save his or her kidnapped child from the kidnapper, stop the loved one from getting on that plane to Bermuda…
NO. DO NOT WRITE THAT LAST ONE.
Most clichéd ending EVER. Throw in the hero/ine getting stuck in a cab in Manhattan rush hour traffic and you really are risking audiences vomiting in the aisles, or readers, beside their chairs. It almost destroyed my pleasure in one of the best movies I’ve seen this year – totally took me out of what had been up until that moment a perfect film.
But when you think about it, the first two examples are equally clichéd. Sometimes there’s a fine line between clichéd and archetypal. You have to find how to elevate – or deepen – the clichéd to something archetypal.
For example, one of the most common third act structural patterns involves infiltrating the antagonist’s hideout, or castle, or lair, and confronting the antagonist on his or her own turf. Think of THE WIZARD OF OZ, STAR WARS, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS – the witch’s castle, the Imperial Starship, Buffalo Bill’s house, the sewers in IT, Las Vegas in THE STAND...
Notice that this pattern naturally divides itself into two separate and self-contained sequences: getting in, and the confrontation itself.
Also putting the final showdown on the villain’s turf means the villain has home-court advantage. The hero/ine has the extra burden of being a fish out of water on unfamiliar ground (mixing a metaphor to make it painfully clear).
SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is a perfect example of elevating the cliché into archetype. It takes place in the basement, as in PSYCHO, and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. Therapists talk about “basement issues” – which are your worst fears and traumas from childhood – the stuff no one wants to look at, but which we have to look at, and clean out, to be whole.
But Thomas Harris, in the book, and the filmmakers, bringing it to life in the movie, create a basement that is so rich in horrific and revelatory and mythic (really fairy tale) imagery that we never feel that we’ve seen that scene before. In fact I see new resonances in the set design every time I watch that film… like Gumb having a wall of news clippings just exactly like the one in Crawford’s office. That’s a technique that Harris uses that can elevate the clichéd to the archetypal: LAYERING meaning.
NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET takes that clichéd spooky basement scene and gives it a whole new level, literally: the heroine is dreaming that she is following a sound down into the basement and then there’s a door that leads to ANOTHER basement under the basement. And if you think bad things happen in the basement, what’s going to happen in a sub-basement.
To switch genres completely for a moment, an archetypal final setting for a romantic comedy is an actual wedding. We’ve seen this scene so often you’d think there’s nothing new you can do with it. But of course a story about love and relationships is likely to end at a wedding.
So again, make your list and look at what great romantic comedies have done to elevate the cliché.
One of my favorite romantic comedies of all time, THE PHILADELPHIA STORY, uses a classic technique to keep that wedding sequence sparkling: every single one of that large ensemble of characters has her or his own wickedly delightful resolution. Everyone has their moment to shine, and insanely precocious little sister Dinah pretty nearly steals the show (even from Katharine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart, and Cary Grant!!) with her last line: “I did it. I did it ALL.”
(This is a good lesson for any ensemble story, no matter what genre – all the characters should constantly be competing for the spotlight, just in any good theater troupe. Make your characters divas and scene stealers and let them top each other.)
Now, you see a completely different kind of final battle in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. This is not the classic, “hero confronts villain on villain’s home turf” third act. In fact, Potter is nowhere around in the final confrontation, is he? There’s no showdown, even though we desperately want one.
But the point of that story is that George Bailey has been fighting Potter all along. There is no big glorious heroic showdown to be had, here – because it’s all the little grueling day to day, crazymaking battles that George has had with Potter all his life that have made the difference. And the genius of that film is that it shows in vivid and disturbing detail what would have happened if George had NOT had that whole lifetime of battles, against Potter and for the town. So in the end George makes the choice to live to fight another day, and is rewarded with the joy of seeing his town restored.
This is the best example I know of, ever, of a final battle that is thematic – and yet the impact is emotional and visceral – it’s not an intellectual treatise – you LIVE that ending along with George, but also come away with the sense of what true heroism is.
And so again – in case you haven’t gotten the message yet – when you sit down to craft your own third act, try looking at the great third acts of movies and books that are similar to your own story, and see what those authors and filmmakers did to bring out the thematic depth AND emotional impact of their stories.
I'm going to stop now, because there's something else I want to post about today.
So - if there's anyone out there who isn't shopping, today - what are some of your favorite third acts? What makes it real for you - the location, the thematic elements, the battle itself?
More next time – and here’s more about What Makes a Great Climax?
Previous articles on story structure:
Story Structure 101 - The Index Card Method
Fairy
Tale Structure and the List
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Forget shopping. Do something purely great for yourself and anyone you love, instead - go see this film.
You'll be knocked over - repeatedly - and then lifted to undreamed of heights - by the story, the filmmaking, the sheer magic of it.
But more than that, this is the most perfect example of perfect structure I've seen in a long, long time. The structure of this story is THE way to tell this story.
It's based on the novel Q and A, by Indian diplomat and novelist Vikas Swarup, which I'll be reading immediately, and I want to talk about both the novel and the film as part of this structure series, but I don't want to spoil one moment of the experience of watching and reading by telling you anything more.
I will warn that the first 20 minutes or so are so harsh I wasn't sure I was going to be able to take it, but once you grasp where it's going, you completely commit to the ride.
Just GO.
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
Based on the novel Q and A by Vikas Swarup
Adapted by Simon Beaufoy
Directed by Danny Boyle
Reader Comments (26)
I'm afraid to do anything else to it because of the trouble I've already had today.
Not many books I can say that about.
I'm off to NYC tomorrow for my first televised panel discussion in the big apple.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
One third Act I like (and I know this was a cheesy 80's movie) was in THE KARATE KID.
Daniel goes from having that fronted confidence in the beginning to having the guts and determination to fight Johnny in the final match of the tournament, despite the fact that he had an injured leg. The way I see it, it wasn't so much about winning the tournament so much as it was proving himself. That and who wouldn't love to have a Mr. Miyagi in their life?
I really would like to do a comparison of that movie, AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN, DIRTY DANCING, and SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, as different ways to tell what is essentially a mentor story.
Thanks - and is that link to more on Climax stuff that hasn't been here before? In any case, it's not working for me, but I'll check it again later.
Such good stuff, Alex. I can't wait to buy the book.
I'm currently working on ms #6, & I'm actually stuck at Act 2. But it'll come together.
Thanks for the comparison. I'll be back for the rest of your articles. Meanwhile, I'm on the search for SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.
It's hands-down the best I've seen this year, possibly in the last five.
I think you've read the climax post already, but there's some good examples in the comments that you wouldn't have read yet.
Thanks for reminding me about it. I've heard that about the ending from other people.
For some reason, I'm living in the world of children's books and movies right now.
One that comes to mind is HOLES and the full circle nature of its ending. You just can't see how it's going to resolve and then it does in the only way it possibly could.
Both the book and the movie satisfy. As a matter of fact, we avoided seeing the movie for years because we were afraid it couldn't live up to the book. Guess what? The book's author wrote the screenplay; we didn't realize it until we'd been blown away by the visual version.
I’m wondering if the author’s training as an actress, in stage, film and voiceover work may have contributed to the larger than usual Act 3. Considering your own background any thoughts?
While out running about today I'll check to see when there is going to be an Australian release for Slumdog Millionaire too. Thanks for the heads up.
Still waiting for all of this great information in book form. :-)
And Catherine, i've been meaning to get THE LIKENESS - I really liked IN THE WOODS. Just so much reading to do! Your intriguing structure note just nudged me.
I think anyone who's done a lot of theater has the three-act structure ingrained in them. In theater it's even more blatant than movies because you have a literal curtain. And because no one wants anyone in the audience wandering out of the theater during intermission, playwrights developed cliffhangers for the act curtains (1 and 2) to make sure people came back in after that drink.
Reading good plays is a great way to pick up on act structure, as well as being great for characterization and dialogue.
As far as my favorites for Act 3...TERMINATOR - Yeah they're in the 'present', but it's a machine factory, so it's still the cyborg's turf.DEAD POETS' SOCIETY - Act3, pt1 is when Tom Anderson has to go to the headmaster's office, only to find his folks there as additional pressure, and he caves. But then, when the 'villain' (headmaster) is teaching in the mentor's classroom (Mr. Keating), Anderson and many of the other boys find the courage to defy the headmaster. Thought that was a neat reversal.ALIENS - Ripley has to get Newt out of the Monster's maze, while chased by the queen. Then, she has to fight the queen on the Sulaco (Ripley's Turf) and blast it into space for the second time.And of course, COLD MOON by Jeffery Deaver. They're fighting to catch the Watchmaker and still foil his ultimate plan, and there are at least 3 different reveals to twist the reader around.
Thanks again for doing this, Alex. We all learn so much from you.
The climax is always the easiest part for me to write, but I tend to speed it along too quickly. I get so excited that I finally figured everything out, I pour it out really fast and never see the need to make it more meaty. My editor, however, always does, and she always knows exactly where in the story I get that head rush moment and kick it into triple time.
I wrote my first real ensemble ending where all the major characters come together at the end to defeat the villain. It was hard for me because I usually like my hero, heroine, and villain to be in a show down. Sometimes it's the heroine and the villain and we're waiting for the hero; other times it's both of them; other times it the hero in danger and the heroine has the key. But always, it's both of them that are needed to solve the puzzle, dispatch the bad guy, and realize that they are better together than apart. So in SUDDEN DEATH when I wrote it that way . . . it didn't work. Not until everyone who'd been part of the story ended up at the final showdown did it click into place. But damn, was it hard to write!
I loved DPS, Jake. Great movie. If it was a book, I missed it.
Identifying where the third act begins has always been hard for me, unlike the beginning of act two or the midpoint. Maybe I just haven't thought about it much. I like the constantly increasing tension, the mountains and the small, getting smaller, valleys of release, the final confrontation.
You are such a quick study! You are so right about this - wonderfully said:
"TERMINATOR - Yeah they're in the 'present', but it's a machine factory, so it's still the cyborg's turf."
That's exactly right.
And all your comments on DPS has made me put it on my list of stories that I will break down for structure step by step.