I’m done studying TV development for now, but the insights I’ve found have led me back to screenwriting. I’m trying to think of ways to adapt some of the structural tricks they use to film format.
TV follows 4 act structure whereas film usually follows 3 act. The difference is more than just an extra act. TV 4 act structure is rigid, built concrete around the notion of a commercial every 12-15 minutes. One of the most useful tips I got from studying TV writing is the idea of writing your act-outs first. An act-out is the reveal of a plot twist or heightened tension (such as a gun pointed at someone) just before they cut to commercial. The act-outs occur at the end of each act, with the 4 acts in an hour long TV show divided equally into four parts. Writing your act-outs first gives you key moments of heightened tension as a starting point.
Let’s say your hero is hanging off the edge of a cliff — a good bit of high tension. From there you can work backwards and figure out how they got there. It gives you a healthy starting point for your writing, from where you can bridge backwards the build up of that moment.
In that way, commercials, as much as we hate them, provide dramatic strength to the medium of TV by enforcing conflict highlights every 12-15 minutes. This is one reason TV can be so addictive — it’s designed to be. They want you to keep watching after the commercial break, and that’s exactly what act-outs are for… in addition to giving the writers a jumpstart on their writing.
The problem of course is in trying to translate this to traditional 3 act film structure, and the fact that films do not have commercials.
“But at least you have 3 act-outs?”
Actually, you only have two. The end of the 3rd act-out would be the end of the 3rd act, which is the end of the movie. And they don’t usually leave off with a “To Be Continued…” so really there only two possible act-outs; One at the end of the first act, and another at the end of the second act. Given the average length of a feature film is 110 minutes, you have not only a larger chunk of time in total, but with fewer acts the material is spaced out across a much bigger divide. Enter the notoriously long Act II in most films.
So how can we ‘break’ a three act film structure into more dramatically compelling chunks? There are lots of ways, including the 12 stages from Writer’s Journey, although as many TV writers have pointed out both the acts and stages of a film are less concrete than those in TV. In TV, the structure is forced by the medium and commercial breaks. In film, there is no hard structure. The end of the first act and beginning of the second act in a film may vary by several scenes, depending on who you ask about where the dividing line falls — including the creator. “We enter Act Two at roughly X point…” Film structure has never been as concrete and probably never will be.
“What’s the problem?” You might ask. The problem is that TV structure is reliable, entirely consistent not only for the writers but also for the viewers. Film structure is not. There is a reason that much TV in recent years has had high levels of compelling writing, to a degree that competes or even surpasses film writing. That is because the format demands consistent and reliable high levels of drama accentuated by much more regular dramatic spikes. So how do we compete?
Film needs a more reliable structure. It may not mean abandoning three act structure, but at the least it will depend upon breaking film narratives down into a structure that is more… granular. Frankly, I’m not sure the 12 stages of the ‘journey’ are even enough. I’d love to find a way to apply the concept of carefully meted act-outs containing heightened tension into a film narrative.
If one of the things that makes TV so compelling is that you have dramatic twists every 12-15 minutes, isn’t that something film could benefit from as well?
While we do have alternatives like the beat calculator and 7 sequence structure, I continue to search for a better way.
Recent Comments