Tradition

First point, I've found out an annoying aspect of posting on this blog first thing in the morning when I wake up. I make alot of wordos (like a typo, except I accidently type in a whole different word), so until I find the mistakes just read what I MEAN, not what I SAY.

The traditional three-act structure in most stories is one of the staples of the narrative.

1. INTRODUCTION: Meet the characters, have any unusual 'rules' about the world explained to you ("Don't cross the streams"), and learn where everyone stands in relation to everyone else.

1. Things change: The happy little lives of the main characters are disrupted somehow, leading us into the...

2. COMPLICATION/BODY: The characters embark on their journey. This can either be a good thing for them (The Ghost Busters FINALLY getting some business) or a bad thing (You must leave behind your life to destroy the Ring of Power).

2a. Act two downer: Something goes hideously wrong, and things are now worse then ever. Frodo's run off with the Ring with only his slightly odd friend for company, the Environmental Protection Agency's shut off the containment unit, Dr Doom is picking off the Fantastic Four one at a time, and individually they're no match for him.

3. CONCLUSION: Grand conflict sequence in which somehow, against all odds, the heroes triumph.


Last night I saw 'The Dark Knight', I enjoyed it, really I did, but bits of it shat me. Primarily there were no 'acts' beyond:

Act 1: Introduction, isn't Batman Badarse?

Act 2: JOKER IS BADARSER

Act 3: Joker and Batman do stuff. Horrible stuff happens.

Act 4: Joker and Batman fight again, and again, and again. Horrible stuff happens.

Act 5: Batman wins.

There was no 'rollercoaster of events' with the rise, the fall, the recovery. It started with a high, dropped, bibbled up and down, then ended. There felt like no point at all where the hero (or audience) could even take a breather. That's fine at times, but in a three hour movie you need moments where you can relax for a second, thinking 'All is well'.

It's part of what bugged me about the second two 'Pirates of the Carribean' movies. They split the story in total over two movies, which left them with an odd story. The cliffhanger was good, but in general the story just felt like it was meandering on alot, with no real direction until the end. I still remain convinced that about 75% of the story in the middle and most of the ship-to-ship combat was just the writers saying "Ok, we want a scene where character X meets character Y, but they're on seperate boats. Ok, let's have them attack each other!"

When talking with my father last night (just generally because he was giving me a lift, and it was better then having silence) I mentioned the three act structure and he - in his long, long winded way - talked about how "Sometimes you need to learn the rules, so you know how to break them". It's great to break the rules, it results in new and entertaining stories sometimes, but I'm not convinced either POTC 2&3 or TDK broke them 'right'. They were good, fun movies, but the break from the three-act-structure isn't what made them so, in my view.