Ah. Structure. I think that could be a book unto itself. Certainly there are different schools of thought. To many, and really, myself, typically structure is all about the types of events that appear at certain points in the script.
A friend of mine has a different take:
My pet peeve is the misuse of the word structure to mean plot point. It doesn’t. Plot means plot, what happens, story events. Shoud a film have a plot? Certainly, most do. But that has nothing to do with the film’s structure. When we talk about structure, we should be talking about dramatic tension.
To go into screenplay mechanics speak here for a minute, the first act of a screenplay gives us the protagonist (or many, if this is multi-plot). What makes a character a protagonist? A goal. The protagonist has a goal. Hopefully, that goal has something at stake should the protagonist fail. And there are some obstacles. Right so far?
Structure is the rising tension when the protagonist is failing or the relief of dramatic tension when the protagonist is winning. It’s the audience’s emotional response to plot reverses. The flood of happiness when the protag wins through. This is what the editor is cutting, scene to scene. Sometimes, this is referred to as the “spine.” Structure doesn’t dictate where the plot points go, or what they are. Structure is described using adverbs – poorly, triumphantly, easily, disastrously.
The writers who really, really object to this are the ones who don’t have a protagonist, but a main character (like a novel.) Without a goal, the tension is flat (ipso facto) and the structure can’t be fixed.
– See more at: http://www.talentville.com/discussion/3431
Anyways… that’s her exploration of structure, and certainly worth thinking about. I’ve gone with a more traditional exploration with my checklist:
- Did the story feel like it followed classic structure? First quarter, setup, devoted to laying down the rules and establishing the world, the characters and situation? Second and third quarters, development, devoted to running all of those oppositional characters against each other, exhausting their dramatic possibilities, leading inexorably to your third act – resolution. Have the setups been resolved properly?
- Did the third act tie everything up?
- Did it feel like it had its roots properly established back in the first act, and were they properly entangled in the second?
- Were the payoffs delivered in the third act actually setup properly? Or did they feel like they came out of nowhere?
- Did the A-Story, B-Story and C-Stories feel properly structured?
- A-Story – the physical action of the story – the quest
- B-Story – the central relationship of the story – the hero and the mentor, the hero and the buddy, the hero and the villain, the hero and the romantic interest
- C-Story – the hero’s inner growth
- Do the A-, B- and C-Stories feed into one another?
- If the story veered from classic structure, was it effective? Was it called for by the material itself? Or did it feel like an arbitrary decision on the part of the author? Are there any ways this could have been done better?
(note: on that last point… I don’t penalize writers for not following a specific paradigm. I’ve seen reviewers attempt to overlay the Save The Cat beat sheet and knock them points if everything didn’t line up with it. Not so much into that. Not so much into slavishly applying anything to anything, really)
I think at some point I’d like to take a look at Margaret’s structure ideas in greater depth and see if I can’t wring some solid points to consider. But, till then, I think I’ve got enough to write about.
Next up… Dialogue.