Examining Three Act structure

This is a bit of an overdue post from a narrative lecture two weeks ago, the works been sat in my sketchbook, and the looming deadline for the module has prompted me to start organising my work. It the lecture we looked at three act structure, plot and sub-plot. Taking into account devices so as the highway mind map, characters stereotypes and archetypes, and then looking at two stories, one a short animation called special delivery, the other a short film called Joy Ride.

Three Act Structure
Three act structure is a very typical hollywood method of telling a story, you don't have to look hard at all to see it emerge in most pieces of film, whether they be shorts, feature lengths or anywhere inbetween.

Act One: Introducing the scene, introducing the antagonists and protagonists, introduce the goals and conflicts of characters, and or ask questions.

Act Two: Introduce a problem, or answer some of the questions we have as an audience, develope the characters, show their strengths and weakness. These are often displayed through the challenges they face.

Act Three: resolve the characters problems/ challenges, (or alternatively don't several films "No country for old men" for example, leave you at the end feeling strange because they didn't stick to the hollywood convention of resolving the characters problems). Show life lessons learnt by the characters over the course of the film.

We also view the story of a film or a short as a circle, often films end, in at least one way, back where they began, the difference however is the character has changed, they have overcome adversity, solved problems, gained wisdom from experience. And it is the resolution that gives us that satisfaction and the feeling that everything has come to an end. And as I mentioned some films, Cohen brothers in particular, choose not to. This can work well depending on the films setting, often dystopian films dont just end with the character not resolving their problems but many actually end with the character failing. This can cause people to be unsatisfied with the film. However I don't always agree. I am going to use an example of a book (it has been adapted to a film, but I havent seen it yet, however the books serves as just as good an example). In the book 1984 Winston Smith tries to contact the resistance and join them in order to bring down the oppressive government, however the book is ended in a bleak manner due to Winston's capture, imprisonment, torture and release back into society. WInston by himself simply could not compete with the sheer size and will of the entire government.
This ending does not annoy me, while its true it doesnt resolve in a "hollywood" manner giving me the satisfaction of resolution it feels more realistic.





The contrast is the film "Equilibrium" in which Christian Bale's character is an enforcer of a dystopian system, until he is freed from the drugs that suppress emotion and starts to fight against the system, joining the resistance and eventually fighting by himself, against surmountable odds to the heart of the government killing the dictator behind it. This is very much the hollywood approach that the character overcomes almost insane odds, to give you the sense of resolution at the end of the film. However interestingly neither method is wrong, I enjoyed "Equilibrium" and "1984" it is just a case of how you want the audience to react to your story.