Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Why is the Three Act film still the most popular film? - FilmmakersNetwork.ie Forums
Really, why? I know it’s probably actually due to Hollywood’s dominance but really, over here in lil’ old Ireland shouldn’t we invest more in non-prescribed films?
The three-act’er fits the American view of life and well… yeah they do it really well, the production values, the acting, the everything… unrivalled.
But Europe has (or had) a really strong non-melodramatic non three-act cinema, one that rivalled Hollywood, at least in the sixties anyway.
I’m thinking of Bergman and Fellini, Traufaut and Ken Loach.
All were part of definitive filmmaking movements like New Wave, Italian Neorealism, Kitchen-Sink Realism etc.
But why are they just ‘movements’ as opposed to firmly established film trends / genres that still exist to this day?
Why has British cinema, for example, capitulated completely to the American model and made such atrocious (my opinion only) simulations of American film e.g.
Eastern Promises, Notes on a Scandal, The Constant Gardener, Children of Men, Slumdog Millionaire?
– all horribly predictable soft-centred genre films that just don’t work in the British / European idiom.
When I revisit the Art House cinema of the sixties I’m blown away every time, for two reasons: (1) That European Cinema was so bold, and so experimental, I mean Peeping Tom, Persona, 81/2, Blow-Up, Jules et Jim, Kes …and (2) that all those distinctive ‘movements’ we had have now for the most part blurred into the American model.
Now I’m not knocking the American model at all, far from it, American cinema has been for the most part the ‘best’ cinema: conservative and avant-garde by turns, but always making some of the greatest films – but the three act film is the American form, at least they’ve made it theirs.
We should experiment, show up a different face of cinema, if only because we can’t match their budgets and their native expertise.
We should be encouraging an experimental cinema, one that can at least grab audiences by the balls.
There’s still some filmmakers like that, Haneke, Lars Von Trier (not his greatest fan but appreciate what he does and why), Amalodovar, Wim Wenders.
But their numbers are dwindling.
Where does it all end?
Are all films the world over destined in the future to be ruled by the ‘high concept’ market-orientated production model?
Made by producers rather than visionary directors?
God help us all if so… I know the ideologies that drove European cinema in that past just aren’t there any more (socialism, nihilism, avant-gardism) but surely that doesn’t mean we don’t have our own vision for cinema and more pertinently, have our audience willing to pay 8, 10, 12 euro to see a film with a message…
Or am I just an idealist?
Pretentious perhaps?
I don’t know. I just despair, that’s all…
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Watched How the West Was Won today - more of a five-act film!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Watched How the West Was Won today - more of a five-act film!
Indeed, and I believe 2001: A Space Odyssey was a four-act film - madness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, fully agree.
I don't have an answer though.
I think part of it maybe that there's possibly far more films being produced nowadays than in the '60s - it's more accessible.
To compete with each other I think filmmakers try to make films as liked as possible and for a mass audience three act structures works best.
This in the minds of the green-lighters now, I wouldn't agree it's the way to go.
Anton is a film that comes to mind about the danger of trying to make liked 'Hollywood' films with tiny budgets here.
Well, that's my theory anyway.
I also believe it's the main reason the IFB have funded so much horsesh*t all these years.
I mean spending one twentieth of their annual budget on a 'Irish wedding screwball comedy' called Happy Ever Afters.
Most likely the only comedic thing about it is that it has a black character called Wilson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not being silly but I think it is succesful for the same reason the four legged chair is- It works really well.
You can have a five legged, nine legged or one legged chair, but really we don't use them so much because the four legged version works so well.
If you think about storytelling (which is what films are) then think about the most elemental stories- jokes.
They have a setup, complication and resolution.
Three acts, very predictable form but brilliantly adaptable.
Does an extra act make something better?
Not necessarily. It is a very satisfying way to tell a story.
As for the films you mention, I think Notes On A Scandal is great in the way it kind of subverts expectations.
I just watched it last week and loved it.
Ruairiob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A while back I went over my DVD of Mulholland Drive, a pretty unconventional film by most standards, looking for the three acts, the plot points etc, and I found them (I found this a little harder with a more mainstream movie, American Beauty).
I'm not suggesting Lynch thumbed through Syd Field's Screenplay before writing/making it, just that the story happens to have three acts.
You can divide any film into three acts, or five, or whatever (I favour unven numbers, myself).
I don't think it's that "three act films" are popular (in fact I'm not sure three acts films are really what's being complained about here), just that that's the simplest way to break them down, and the simplest way to structure a film, and as Ruairiob points out above, it works.
Is Eastern Promises really a British film?
Or The Constant Gardener?
Personally I find Jules et Jim boring, though Peeping Tom has a beautiful structure.
Bet you could divide it into three parts though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 3 act structure has been in use for thousands of years.
You can find it in movies, books, music, poetry, anything with a narrative.
As tdh pointed out, you'll find it in films that you don't even realise use that structure.
Hell, describe a night you spent out on the town and it'll follow it.
And as Ruairiob said, it works really well.
The main reason for this is that it's so open, ie you have set points in the structure and how you get their is up to you.
Creating a film that doesn't follow this structure is incredibly difficult, and making one that's a success is even harder.
The best thing to do is decide what you want to film, plan it out and shoot it.
But more often than not, you'll find it has 3 acts built into it whether you want it to or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|