Why Writers Should Focus On Acts 1 And 3 Before Writing Act 2 - Jill Chamberlain

[@filmcourage]

What is your opinion? Do you agree with Jill?

[@ZordaanTelevisioN]

I never agree completely with anyone who assumes the 3-act structure as a given, especially when some of the greatest plays ever written were written by Shakespeare in 5 acts. That being said, I think she's based overall.

[@beebuzz959]

@@ZordaanTelevisioN I have to agree with Robert McKee when he said all stories are 3 acts: beginning, middle, and end. You can break those up into however many acts you want after that. But Jill was addressing questions on the middle act, and merely trying to help writers with it, who often struggle with it. She was breaking it up into a way we can maybe write it more easily. That's all. You can take the 3 acts and break them up however you want to from there. But all Jill said was the 2nd act is not important for setting up the story or resolving it, but not that it's not important. People took what she said out of context and got defensive. She merely said it's not important in the setup, that that's the first act, and if you set it up right, mostly all you have to do for the 2nd is to throw problems at the character based on the setup and their flaw, so that in the 3rd act they can either resolve that, overcome their flaw based on the vessel you as the writer provided for them to journey through the 2nd act with, or to not overcome it.

[@beebuzz959]

@@ZordaanTelevisioN That's not different than Shakespeare or any other play or movie or book that has been successful, story-wise. What she said can be broken up into however many acts you want to in order to get it written.

[@Angell_Lee]

She's great, thank you so much!

[@5Gburn]

I'm just coming from the interview where she speaks about tragedies, in which she said there should be an upward momentum (positive outcomes) based on the character's bad choices before they step over the line and lose big-time. Here she says Act II should be obstacle after obstacle after obstacle, and we're witnessing the character fail. In this interview, she doesn't specify what type of story (comedy or tragedy). Am I correct in inferring that tragedies have the opposite trajectory leading up to the climax? --Sleepless at My Laptop

[@beebuzz959]

I absolutely LOVE doing rewrites! It can be rough at first, but that's when the characters come alive and you get to experience their emotions.

[@lonjohnson5161]

I don't mind throwing stuff out. I mind not knowing what I need to throw out.

[@beebuzz959]

Copy and paste it to another window and save that. I rarely ever use it again, but it's nice to have. I can also tweak it for something else too.

[@lonjohnson5161]

@@beebuzz959 I always keep copies of my work as I go along. It's rare I bring anything back, but I'm more comfortable knowing it is there.

[@martaferguson-dun645]

That's her job, to help you know. However, by draft 4-5 I find the rhythm of the story/characters make it clearer. Then send it back to readers to test that intuitive sensibility.

[@danieljackson654]

How wonderful are these words. I need to hear this as I begin a new project. Yes. Writing is process. Process habituated through répétition as the French call a rehearsal. I think Jill needs to listen to the beginning of this segment. CONFIDENCE. Since repetition is part of the writing process, telling the writer to rewrite is an Attribute of the process. The QUALITY refers to HOW that directive is given. I need to hear this. It means to continue the process

[@ShingInAction]

Act one was where we met I loved you at first glance You read your lines so cleverly and never missed a cue Then came act two, you seemed to change, you acted strange And why I've never known...

[@DanielL.Phillips]

Thanks Film Courage. SHe's wonderful..

[@ajiththomas2465]

Just treat Act II as 2 Acts together. So reimagine the 3 Act Structure as a 4 Act Structure. For the Act II, the climax of Act 2A is the Midpoint and after that is the Act 2B which ends and transitions into Act 3. If you know about the concept of Dan Harmon's Story Circle, then just imagine each of the 4 Acts as 4 Story Circles leading into each other. Does this reimagining help?

[@gamesbrowngames]

imagine 3 acts in every act, making a 9 act structure then each of those acts having micro acts to progress through the act acts making a 27 act conglomerate

[@spacechampi0n]

Yeah, but I find it more useful to describe what you as the writer actually have to do in each Act. What is an Act? It's a reveal of the antagonist at the Act's midpoint, followed by a decision or reveal of the protagonist at the end of the act. Each protag and antag needs a reveal of their: motivation, goal, plan, and mindset, and how those might change over the course of the story. Some of these reveals might be decisions, but they're still revealed to the audience. Example (reveals can happen in any order, but together pace the whole story): Act One, Hook: reveal of protagonist's motivation (usually motivation comes from their relationships / position in the social, political, economic or physical setting). Act One, Inciting Incident: reveal of antagonist's plan (at least part of it's effects are seen for the first time). Act One Key Event: reveal of the protagonist's plan, which could have a wrong initial goal. Act Two midpoint: reveal of the antagonist's goal. Act Two end (story Midpoint): reveal of the protagonist's new mindset, clarified over previous mindset confusion. Act Three midpoint: reveal of the antagonist's mindset, ie. the depth of their cruelty for example. Act Three end: reveal of the protagonist's change of goal, now pursuing the correct one with an improved plan but which might be kept from the audience. Act Four midpoint (the climax): reveal of the antagonist's motivation, that reveals the nature of their relationships or hidden identity. Act Four end (the resolution): protagonist's plan worked, and consequences dealt.

[@beebuzz959]

I agree with Robert McKee that all stories have 3 acts; as in a beginning, middle, and end. You can then break those up into whatever works for you to get that particular script written.

[@ajiththomas2465]

@@gamesbrowngames Yeah, that could work. Just don't fall into the trap of being so granular by structure that you get choked by it.

[@gamesbrowngames]

@@ajiththomas2465 each sentence can have its own 3 act structure

[@20ice47]

I just watched a movie that didn't think ACT 2 was important. It was horrible. don't care about your ending if getting there was BORING.

[@beebuzz959]

Well, yeah. But she didn't say that. If you watch it again, in the beginning of this video she states ALL acts are important. She explains the 2nd isn't important for setting up the characters or plot though, just that if you set those up well in the beginning, then in the2nd all you have to do is throw problems at your character to make them miserable while trying to get through the journey to the 3rd act, where the problems are resolved one way or another. A lot of writers have a hard time with the 2nd act, and I think she's just trying to make it easier for us to get through it. I also agree with her that that's a great help to get through the script if you look at it like that, and set up the opening, and it's easier to resolve in the end.

[@Angell_Lee]

Wow, thank you so much!! 💖💖💖

[@arkfounder7056]

Act II is the journey, center and arguably the most incomprehensible act of the three-act structure, every time I neglect its importance at even the remote slightest, things go wrong real bad.

[@ajiththomas2465]

Just treat Act II as 2 Acts together. So reimagine the 3 Act Structure as a 4 Act Structure. For the Act II, the climax of Act 2A is the Midpoint and after that is the Act 2B which ends and transitions into Act 3. If you know about the concept of Dan Harmon's Story Circle, then just imagine each of the 4 Acts as 4 Story Circles leading into each other. Does this reimagining help?

[@beebuzz959]

I didn't get that Jill was saying to reject it, just that it's not important in the character setup of reveal of how it's resolved. She said all acts are important, just not in the way a lot of writers think, and that if you set the character and story up in the first, in the 2nd you can use throw problem after problem at them in their journey to the 3rd act, where the character issues and story is resolved.

[@TheTaleKeeper0]

I'm in film school and every screenwriting professor (professionals with industry experience) puts emphasis on the setup in Act 1. If you can't hook them emotionally in Act 1 then Acts 2 and 3 won't have their intended impact.

[@LivingCreekChristianChurch]

What is the criteria for a good point of no return?

[@beebuzz959]

My take is where something happens that forces your protag into the journey of the movie, with something that happens where they can't go back to the life they had in the beginning of the film - where they were introduced with their problem they can't seem to overcome, that is either overcome or not by the end of the film. The point of no return is an event that changes their life and forces them into action, based on them overcoming their flaw or not.

[@beebuzz959]

And you set the flaw up in the opening act. The 3rd act is where you show if they're able to overcome that flaw or not. In most cases, you want them to overcome the flaw, but you don't have to. Both will work, but most work best with them overcoming the flaw. you don't have to be that kind of writer though.

[@projectbrian]

I would like to know this as well.

[@tintinfromindia2103]

Act 2 is important. Treat your act 2 writing/rewriting as relationship draft. A relationship between characters & seamless integration of plots. I disagree from headline that it's not important as people think. Every page is important

[@beebuzz959]

She literally said all acts are important, just not for setting up the character and the plot and problems. She said the 2nd act is for the journey, basically, throwing problems at the character until you get to act 3 where it's resolved or not.

[@tintinfromindia2103]

@@beebuzz959 ok 👍 the headline was something else. Good day

[@5Gburn]

Revisions are decisions--and dang, is it ever hard to make up my mind sometimes. 😂

[@Christopher-888]

If you don't keep up the momentum built up by Act 1 then there is possibility of the audience either walking out before act 3 begins or lose interest. The same way an album is put together, if you have alot of filler and not enough upbeats to keep the momentum going then it becomes overlong and diminishes the album as a whole in the end.

[@beebuzz959]

She didn't say the 2nd act isn't important in keeping up momentum, just that it's not important in setting up character flaws or plot, just that if you do that well in the beginning, the 2nd is predominantly throwing problems at your character that escalate on their journey to, and finally get them to the 3rd act, where the problems in the beginning are resolved one way or another. But she said if you set it up right in the beginning, throwing problems at them throughout the 2nd act is what makes a good 2nd act.

[@johnnhoj6749]

Act 2 is mostly about making your ending plausible. So is all of the film to an extent, but imagine a complete properly-working 3-Act script and you then just removed all the pages containing the 2nd Act. You would have set up a situation in Act 1 but then leapt straight to Act 3 where the characters are carrying out actions which seem wildly disproportionate to the situation they were in on the previous page. An audience wouldn't buy it for a second. A good Act 2 has made the extreme actions and dramatic changes in emotions and attitudes plausible, if not inevitable.

[@beebuzz959]

Jill didn't say to get rid of the 2nd act or that it isn't valuable. If you watch it again, in the very beginning she even says all acts are important, just not in the way most writers think they are. I think she's just trying to help break it down so it's easier to write, since so many have a hard time writing it. And I agree. It's easy for me to write the 2nd if my first is setup, and the 3rd wraps it up well, by just throwing problems at my character as they go on the road to the 3rd act.

[@johnnhoj6749]

@@beebuzz959 I wasn't suggesting that Jill was recommending getting rid of the 2n'd Act. I was merely pointing out, for me, the most useful way of thinking abut the 2nd Act. What should go into the 2nd Act? Everything which needs to happen in order to justify and make plausible and emotionally and intellectually satisfying the extraordinary events of the 3rd Act. Many writers are daunted by what seems like the barren featureless wasteland of the 2nd Act, my way of thinking about it gives them a possible route and landmarks.

[@yohanalexander2850]

I think Act2 is very important since it describes the processes how Act 1 goes down to Act 3. Scenes in Act 2 will mostly be the scenes you remember about the movie or even define the movie itself. LOTR becomes an adventure story when Frodo at the end of Act 1 decided to walk into Mordor delivering the ring to Mount Doom. If Frodo decided to negotiate with Sauron at the end of Act 1, LOTR becomes a political intrigue drama. Also if Frodo decided to contact Danny Ocean to help him devise a plan to put the ring in Mount Doom, LOTR becomes a heist movie.

[@beebuzz959]

That's not what I took from what Jill said. She said all acts are important, but I think she was stressing it's not important in the same way, the setup way. The importing things in the other acts are to setup the characters issues and all that's going on, then showing how they resolve and arc in the 3rd act. She said the 2nd act is to throw problem after problem at them that forces them down the road, based on what their issues are.

[@wexwuthor1776]

2nd act is where all the development happens. That is at least as important if not more important than the 1st and 3rd.

[@ccwoodlands1565]

If a script isn’t working, it’s because of Act 1.

[@wexwuthor1776]

@@ccwoodlands1565 How many movies have started strong and been dull in the middle?

[@beebuzz959]

@@wexwuthor1776 That doesn't mean it's setup wrong. But I watched this video too, but don't see why everyone is getting defensive for the 2nd act. I heard Jill say all acts are important, just the 2nd isn't important in the way most writers think it is. The setup is important for act one, and to throw a continuous stream of problems based on that setup at the character. Then in act 3 it's either resolved or not. How is that saying act 2 isn't important?

[@nicholasfranghias9542]

My GRANDMOTHER can write a First Act. The actual challenge is the second act; how this long desert it is dramatised with energy in two parts culminating to the midpoint where the main character becomes more active maturing into what will lead us to the Third Act and resolution. Personally, I divide the Acts into sequences. 23 or 25 sequences.

[@beebuzz959]

Are you saying you're grandma's a really great writer, or the first act doesn't matter? I watched this video too, but I never heard Jill say once that the 2nd act isn't important, actually she said the opposite, that all acts are important, just that most writers approach them wrong. I think she's merely trying to help people get through the 2nd act. And I agree with what she said, it's a big help to look at the 2nd act as not setting up the story or character, just to go along with throwing problems at them in the journey that is the 2nd act, until you get to resolve it in the 3rd act. But I think first acts are hard to write, if written properly because there's so much you need to get out right away, but in a simple way, and to do so in an engaging way that hooks the audience. I'm also guessing your grandma is a lot more competent than you're giving her credit for.

[@Darfaultner]

wtf is Sideways? How does that help?

[@reallymakesyouthink]

A lot of films the second act could be replaced and the film would be the same. The second act is often a side quest. In a comedy though it's often where the funny stuff happens as there aren't any structural restrictions.

[@beebuzz959]

I don't think it should be a side quest though, but I'm sure many films still eff that up and could be replaced. But I think they work best when they go along with the story, if it's been setup right in the beginning act.

[@reallymakesyouthink]

@@beebuzz959 I agree and some of the best films manage to avoid this temptation. Just to show the contrast looks at Star Wars. A New Hope, everything in the film matters and builds towards the big ending. A Phantom Menace takes you to a planet to watch a Pod Race then we go back for the show down. That's a classic Act 2 Side Quest example.

[@Hayilemikael-k3r]

Hi My name is hayilmikael I am from in Ethiopia.I have a passion for movies. I write a movie. But I am not working due to lack of access. The ideas I write are also mythological. I would appreciate it if you could help me. It is possible to establish production with small equipment in my country. Thank you.

[@corpsefoot758]

Have you tried moving for a time to another country, where filmmaking might be more accessible? I don’t think it will be easy to write mythological movies with a low budget and low-experience filmmakers helping

[@Hayilemikael-k3r]

@@corpsefoot758 No, I didn't try. Because I have no income. I got some understanding of film in my country school. I understand that mythological ideas are not easy to make. But that's what I think about most of the time. And I look forward to doing it. I understand that I need experience. Even though I went to a great film school, I really like it. My point is that if I get small items, I don't struggle to organize myself. There are many things to do in this country. Thank you for understanding my thoughts. so true.

[@kevingeiger1966]

It is if I stop watching. 😏

[@beebuzz959]

Did you watch the video? The title takes it out of context of what she said. Jill said all acts are important, but the 2nd isn't important, in her mind, for setting up the story or character. I think she was trying to break it down in a way that makes the 2nd act easier to write. And I agree with her. If you setup the problem in the first act, mostly what you have to do for the 2nd is throw problems at the character on their journey that escalate to the resolve of the 3rd act. If you do that, it's pretty entertaining. But if you do something totally different and wait to setup your story in the 2nd, then it's not usually entertaining, but more like hearing the makeup to a joke you already know the punchline to.