The psychological structure of the screenplay.
Studying general psychology, I found that cognitive activity and problem solving are broadly similar to the dramatic structure of a screenplay. But if in the screenplay there are three stages of solving a problem by the main character, then in real life all living beings on the planet solve problems in four stages. Therefore, the psychological structure of the screenplay consists of four acts.
The first act - the main character encounters a problem and tries to solve it using his usual methods, but fails.
The second act - the main character tries to solve the problem in random ways, through brainstorming or emotion, and fails again.
The third act - having failed, the main character loses his initiative, falls into depression or frustration due to the depletion of mental resources. The main character is trying to come to terms with the problem and move on.
The fourth act - after restoring the mental resources of the body, the main character begins to study the problem in detail and, as a result of insight, a sense of enlightenment, finds a solution to the problem. The hero solves the problem and wins.
As you can see, this differs little from the track structure, we just make the second half of the second act more meaningful.
What do you think about such a psychological structure of a screenplay?
1 person likes this
Hi, Arthur Charpentier. "The main character encounters a problem and tries to solve it using his usual methods, but fails." The main character doesn't usually try to solve the problem until Act Two. Act One is the setup.
What you described in Act Three usually happens in Act Two. And what you described in Act Four usually happens in Act Three.
Maurice Vaughan, That's right!
From the point of view of psychology, the setup, the exposition, is not needed. You can start the act immediately with the main character's problem, without getting to know him or creating an exposition. All this can be written later in the first act.
Many films suffer from a long boring exposure when at least something interesting starts after half an hour.
I suggest first writing the conflict, the main character's problem, and then adding an exposition, showing how the hero lives and acts according to his experience and character.
1 person likes this
Maurice Vaughan.
I suggest starting the second part of the film, that is, the third act of the four, by reducing the main character's activity and making him more passive. To show the influence of depression and frustration on his decisions to adapt to the current situation, maybe escape from the problem or try to negotiate with the opponent.
1 person likes this
"I suggest starting the second part of the film, that is, the third act of the four, by reducing the main character's activity and making him more passive. To show the influence of depression and frustration on his decisions to adapt to the current situation, maybe escape from the problem or try to negotiate with the opponent." You're right, Arthur Charpentier, but I don't think the main character should ever be passive in a story, unless being passive is his/her main flaw and he/she learns to be active in the story (character arc).
1 person likes this
Maurice Vaughan
It is important to show the main character's period of frustration in order to have a stronger effect on the viewer and evoke stronger emotions in him at the climax of the film. The stages of cognitive activity are the same for all people. If you want to evoke strong emotions from the finale in the audience, you need to guide people through all the stages correctly.
1 person likes this
I agree, Arthur Charpentier. I wouldn't use "passive" to describe it though. That might turn off some producers, directors, and actors because "passive" could be seen as a character who just lets things happen to him/her instead of driving the action. That's one of the big notes I got on a script when I started screenwriting. It's one of the best notes I've ever gotten.
Maurice Vaughan, the hero should be passive only in the third act. Of course, the author can disguise this in the form of chasing the hero or give him other activities unrelated to solving the main problem.
1 person likes this
This is a fascinating observation! As a film composer, I'm always looking for deeper connections between the visuals, the narrative, and the emotional impact of a film.
Your analysis of the four-act structure based on psychological problem-solving is quite insightful. It resonates with me because music often mirrors these stages.
Act 1: The music might establish a sense of normalcy, perhaps with light, repetitive motifs, gradually building tension as the protagonist grapples with the initial problem.
Act 2: The music could become more chaotic, reflecting the protagonist's internal turmoil and the randomness of their attempts to find a solution. Dissonant chords, jarring rhythms, and unpredictable shifts could mirror the emotional rollercoaster.
Act 3: The music might become more introspective and melancholic, reflecting the protagonist's despair and the depletion of their mental resources. A sense of stillness or even a minimalist approach could convey the weight of the situation.
Act 4: The music could undergo a dramatic transformation, becoming more hopeful, triumphant, and even euphoric as the protagonist finds a solution and achieves catharsis.
I believe this four-act structure, grounded in psychological principles, offers a powerful framework for both screenwriters and composers. It provides a deeper understanding of the emotional journey of the protagonist and allows us to craft narratives and scores that resonate on a more profound level.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on how this framework might translate into specific musical cues and motifs within a film score.
1 person likes this
Hello, Hannah Woolmer!
I am very glad that you have joined the discussion of the topic. I like your interpretation of the psychological structure. Being an author, of course, you can fill works with any ideas, meanings and images.