: Re: What is the meaning of the dictum that the third act should contain the greatest crisis? I am working on a screenplay in which the protagonist has to surmount a crisis in each of the three

@Cugini967

Vote Up Vote Down

Because the story you are telling will be finished in two-hours, you need to be economical in your dramatic decisions. Every scene must count, and therefore every scene must build from the previous one. If each of the three crises is of equal weight, nothing is really advanced, and you create a pattern similar to the Labors of Hercules: nobody really remembers all 12 because they were all pretty much the same.

If each of the three crises has equal weight to you the author, you may want to consider writing three separate films. The first establishes the character and she overcomes a physical threat. That's great for pulling people in. Pitting her against society in the second film ups the stakes dramatically and can easily set up the self-doubt or whatever psychological crisis she will face in the third film. The third film by its very nature will then reframe the first two since the inner danger is far greater than the two previous, external dangers.

If three separate films is not an option, you could first write each act as its own detailed synopsis. As you write them out, figure out ways that they relate (other than in terms of narrative). Make each crisis its own self-contained thing and then write the all-important transitions from one to another.

"Act III" is certainly where people expect the biggest crisis to occur (in most studio films). Are psychological crises more important or intrinsically better than the other types? That depends on your audience and on your own dramatic value system.

(0)

Login to post a comment!