Forgive my ignorance, but I have questions...
In the world of play writing, plays typically have clearly identified acts and scenes. For example, the Sam Shepard play TRUE WEST has two acts and nine scenes (four in act one and five in act two). In Shakespeare's AS YOU LIKE IT, the play has five acts and twenty-two scenes spread across those acts. On the page these acts and scenes have their own headings and are thus clearly identified.In screenwriting we also talk about acts (is it a three act structure, five act, eight sequence, etc., etc.?) and there are even many popular diagrams and sequence charts proposing the "best" layout for screenplay structuring using acts as major, definable sequences. BUT it is not the standard practice to actually identify the acts in the screenplay itself. Perhaps some writers do this but I have not yet come across it.
Would it not make sense for at least some screenplays to have their acts clearly identified? Seems to me there could be a lot of benefits doing so. Why is using act headings not a common practice in screenwriting? Any harm in doing so? What am I missing?
1 person likes this
In the very old days, acts during plays were used to create breaks for the audience and/or to redress the sets and maybe change outfits. There are still acts for redressing the set where the curtain drops, but audiences usually stay in their seats. Intermissions are used for the audience to take a break and get out of their seats.
I remember seeing a few movies as a kid that had intermissions and we would get out of our seats and get more popcorn sodas. Otherwise, no expected breaks with most movies, so acts aren't listed.
TV scripts have acts where we usually expect to see commercials. Premium channel shows without commercials won't have the acts listed.
These terms are just a taxonomy/glossary that enable us to have informed conversations. Without have term and definitions we would all our time explaining we mean the second act, for example.
The reason we don’t state them, is because they are just abstractions for conversation. Highlighting them has no function from a story POV and doesn’t add to the story process.
A possible problem I see coming from this, is that some nut job would say we need to have a fixed number of pages after a break.
2 people like this
Christopher Phillips I also remember movies with intermissions. I think for very long movies they should still do that in theaters at least. It makes sense, of course, to have clear breaks in plays to reset the stage and give actors a chance to change costumes, etc. Obviously, we don't need all that for movies, but I wonder about reading and evaluating screenplays. Could having clearly demarcated acts be a good thing?
2 people like this
Craig D Griffiths That makes sense. And I'm convinced that one could take nearly all of the typical screenplay structures (three act paradigm, five act, save the cat, eight sequence, hero's journey, etc.) and lay all of them over nearly any screenplay and find a way to make them fit. They're more for the writing I suppose. And there are probably already too many people who evaluate screenplays via some structure and corresponding page counts.
3 people like this
For a lot of plays Acts are sequences of own beginning middle & end. Whereas Scenes can be any number. There’s other reasons @Christopher has a good point regarding intermissions both in the near & distant past. I studied & performed in plays some years back from ancient to 80’s, too infinite in variety to write here but always felt a solid reason for headings as actor & writer. A “live” art form for everyone taking part, only one shot on the day, no room for error & absolutely no comeback the itinerary serves to steer the mind & body opposed to represent a visual blueprint that can be readily tweaked.
3 people like this
I don't write out act breaks presently. I only really ever see them in TV scripts nowadays and it feels like a vibe/taste thing these days whether you use them or not. I'd rather just write more obvious/harder ins and outs to scenes for future collaborators to interpret than spell out when to break. To me they feel a little bit like training wheels for an early draft but when you're deep into drafts, you should be done figuring out the hard structure and be more worried about whether the characters and story are working
2 people like this
Tucker Teague "I used to ponder these questions too, and the insightful response from @Pat Alexander aligns with what I have heard from others. In screenwriting, the focus should not be on the acts, but rather on the storyline and characters. The goal is to make them captivating enough to keep the viewer engaged." I hope that helps make some sense out of things.
4 people like this
I have act titles in my more pulpy spec scripts. They really suit the tone. If someone doesn't like them so much they want to end the read there, that's cool, I don't want to work with them either LOL.
2 people like this
In the same way that I can subtly imply camera direction in my action lines. I feel like my act breaks are implied in the structure and writing of my script. I do like many movies that use title cards to break up the story into more episodic chunks though.
I don't believe anything is off the table with how you want to write your script, unless you're writing for something/someone in particular that has formatting guidelines
2 people like this
Adam Harper I also like the use of title cards. I also like the idea that nothing is off the table. I can imagine writing a screenplay with acts and scenes clearly identified with title cards. I think something like that would probably work best in a comedy.
2 people like this
If I remember correctly, Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life had title cards for the acts/parts. Wes Anderson will use them. Tarantino uses them.
2 people like this
Dan Guardino TV scripts with commercials have acts. For movies, it tends to be writer/director scripts that might have acts or chapter titles.
1 person likes this
Dan Guardino that's my point. Even though screenwriting gurus are always talking screenplay structure in terms of "acts" etc., And even though plays have acts explicitly called out on the page. It's not standard practice to explicitly call out acts on the page in screenplays (I'm talking feature length scripts). I'm wondering why and why not?
5 people like this
Tucker Teague, in the theatrical and TV world, writers are at the top of the hierarchy pyramid. The writers mentioned in this thread who title their acts are also writer-directors. In the world of features, writers are put somewhere just below the person who empties the honeywagon.
It's almost like, when you respect the people who build your creative foundations, they treat a script more like a piece of treasured literature rather than some piece of homework ready to butcher, and the quality of results for each approach is becoming increasingly clear.
5 people like this
CJ Walley "In the world of features, writers are put somewhere just below the person who empties the honeywagon." - Beautifully put.
1 person likes this
The only way I would accept seeing "Acts" written into the screenplay would be as title cards so the audience knows.
1 person likes this
CJ Walley that makes the most sense to me. And just as I was reading your answer I was also reading this page from "The Big Goodbye: Chinatown and the Last Years of Hollywood." Might be a bit hard to read with the small text but it's quite apropos.
4 people like this
Tucker Teague, love it. That is indeed serendipitous to read. For what it's worth, I've always been the sole writer on the films I've written and very little has ever been changed from my draft to the final shooting script. That's one of the perks of being in the lower budget realm.