All language subtitles for 16 - Dramatic structure of three acts.eng

What is the dramatic structure
of three acts?

The first to talk about this was
Aristotle, in the year 300 and peak BC,

but what does this mean?

Apparently, human beings
are used

to tell us stories
in a certain way

or in a certain order.

Aristotle said that it is
the approach, node and outcome

and we keep thinking about the stories
in the same way.

Imagine that you are going to tell
a baby or a baby

a story and start with:
"There was once an ant ...".

We tell you that for the first time
that little ant leaves the anthill

and starts walking through the forest,
to recognize it.

Everything seems surprising,
incredible, and he keeps walking

and goes under a leaf
and keeps walking

and goes under a tree,
keeps walking,

and goes to the side of an earthworm ...

Subtitled by
-♪ online-courses.club ♪-
We compress knowledge for you!
https://t.me/joinchat/ailxpXoW3JVjYzQ1

At some point, that girl or that baby
going to say: "And then? What happened?".

Because we are used to
to have something happen,

to have conflict,
to have a trigger.

Carrière says something
that I am going to read to you:

"There are rules, nobody doubts it.
On the other hand, they are very simple

and can be summarized
in a single obligation:

Captivate and keep
the viewer's attention ".

That is our only obligation.

At this time, the central paradigm
of telling a story has to do

with these three acts.

There are other ways
to tell stories,

but let's stop at the dramatic structure
of Aristotle's three acts

and let's explore a little more
what is this structure dramatic

A dramatic structure
is a way of dividing the story

that can help us not to get lost
and can give us a hand

to know when it is convenient
put certain actions ,

how much is left to finish,
what is the midpoint.

It's a kind of map
or a kind of skeleton

of our narrative.

For that we are going to use an example
that is the Aristotelian structure

of three acts.

Before let's define what we understand
by dramatic structure.

It's a kind of thesis
demonstrated by dramatic actions.

We have an idea
of certain dramatic actions

that will tell us if that idea
is correct or is incorrect.

A structure consisting of
in a selection of events

organized in such a way
that a world view is expressed.

An idea.

So,
we have an idea of the world

and we are going to organize
the events of that story

to see if that idea of the world
is like this or not.

Remember the premise idea
that we were working on.

Structuring the story
and giving it coherence and cohesion

forces us to establish
some order parameters

so that we can generate
our bases.

The truth is that it helped me a lot
study the dramatic structure

and whenever I have to make a script
I do this schema.

Notice that we have on one side
introduction, or the first part,

the act one, the development
and the outcome.

Let's call them
Act I, Act II and Act III.

Act I, according to this scheme,

has the initial conditions
of the story.

There is going to present
the main character,

is going to expose the problem,
will be a crisis or alteration

and there will be an active search
of the character .

Act II leads to the development
and the dramatic progression of the conflict,

and it will take us to a midpoint
that will be just half of the story.

Now let's see what it is about.

Afterwards, the actions go
to orient towards the outcome

and they will enter Act III.

Act III is where
the actions of the end

and the frames
that the script was opening are resolved.

Look, if we start then
for Act I,

there we'll see
the story in this place.

Think of a play.

The curtain
opens and we see the stage.

So, there we say to the viewer:
this story takes place at this time

and in this space,
and these are the rules:

In this world the characters fly,
in this world there are slaves,

in this world they have all beards ... "
We can imagine what we want.

From there, we installed a credible
and installed our character.

We present to the character,
what is his daily life,

more or less what are his
concerns,

what are the characters that we go
to need throughout the script.

And then something is going to happen
that we're going to call detonating.

There's an event that's going to change
the course of things.

You're going to lose a microchip,
going to have a threat,

something that causes actions
start unleashing.

The character in what we call
the first turning point

or the end of the first act,

goes to do something.

Notice.

present is the universe,
present the character,

something happened that broke
the initial balance

and something will happen, and that is that the character
will make a decision.

The character is going to say:
"I have to rescue such a person",

"I have to recover the microchip",
"I will accept the challenge they made me".

That decision that the character takes,
what we call the first turning point,

going to be what moves
throughout the second act

and that is going to take
until the third act.

So, I always imagine
as a kind of catapult.

I have to create the conditions
necessary for that character

to fly out with force
and go through the entire second act.

Usually it's the biggest fear,
is to see how we do

so that in the middle does not bore

and get to the third act
and that does not disappoint either.

Because if the character leaves
at the first turning point

fired towards the third act
and finally does not do

what one expected,
or does the opposite

or loses the objective of what is
what the character was going to do,

the audience usually
loose or loses interest.

Then we went through the second act
and there are many adventures

and there are many moments
in the middle.

And there is a moment
that is called midpoint

where the character renews
the commitment that he assumed

in the first turning point,

and that will take him
to the second turning point.

We are saying it in a global way,
but more or less it is to be understood

what is that skeleton
of the story.

Not for nothing did I make an arc between
the first turning point and the second,

because that is going to be
the character's bow,

and the character can not be the same
between saying goodbye to that first act

and reaching that third act.

Those divisions between acts we can
imagine as closing the curtains

and opening the curtains.

At the end of the first act, the character
says: "I'm going to rescue the princess",

for saying something,
and the curtain closes.

And when the curtain is reopened
to start the second act,

one has the expectation that
that character will rescue her.

So, we said that
to have hits and counterattacks.

Throughout the second act
the character will propose something,

the universe or the antagonist
will respond differently

and everything will go "in crescendo"
until you reach a climax.

At the climax,
the story will have

the moment of greatest interest,
or the point of greatest tension.

There we will ask ourselves if the character
will be able to solve that

that was proposed to solve
at the beginning in the first act.

Let's think this in very general terms
,

but it's more or less like we should
start thinking about each story,

be the chapter of a series,
be a feature film or a short film.

In very general terms
we should think:

Act I, character presentation,

universe, something happens that breaks
that balance, which is the trigger,

and that pushes the character,
or the character is thrown,

and goes through the whole second act
trying to get what he wants

and going to get to the third act,
where he will define the story

and let's see if the character is able
to achieve what was proposed,

or is not capable.

In the same way, that
that we talked about earlier is an idea

that we have to prove.

There's a time when,
for example, we take Romeo and Juliet,

the characters believe
in love forever,

and we'll see if in the end the characters are
capable to be together forever.

Somehow yes,
because they die together,

but not the way
they expected.

So this structure
should serve us,

and later
we'll see in the runway

as not to get lost
and start writing our script.

We see the example
of the dramatic structure of Siesta.

If you see any episode
of "Siesta Z",

will have more or less
the same dramatic structure,

because each of the classics
of the literature that we had to adapt

was very different, then,
that somehow forced us

to try to think some kind of box,
or some kind of system,

in which we could put books
u plays so, so different.

Then every episode of Siesta
starts with Act I.

In the first act,
Siesta falls into a dream,

in the introduction Siesta
already falls asleep,

and in the first moment of the episode
Siesta enters flying

to the universe in which
is going to develop the story

Subtitled by
-♪ online-courses.club ♪-
We compress knowledge for you!
https://t.me/joinchat/ailxpXoW3JVjYzQ1

which is nothing else
than his dream.

Immediately, Siesta finds
the protagonist of the story

and makes a tandem,
or a kind of union,

in which we make a pact
with the spectators

and we know that they will be traveling together
whole episode.

Immediately there is something that breaks,
as we saw, as a detonator

or something that breaks the balance,
and Siesta gets into the second act

along with the protagonist,
shouting the premise of the work.

For example:
"Long live love forever!"

or "Revenge!", And somehow
Siesta is always going to verbalize

what the work
that we are adapting is about.

At that time, Siesta and the character
get into Act II.

In Act II there is always
a game of twists and turns

that are like ...
think of action and reaction.

Or as a blow and kickback.

And each of those hits and kicks
has to have a dramatic progression

on the rise.

Something must always happen
that is more serious

and that he has to keep us interested
asking us, and now what will happen?

So we're going to call
turns of the plot,

to note that they are in progress,

and every time there has to be
something else at stake.

There is a moment that exists
in all structures of three acts

which is a moment when the hero
is like in a very deep well

that we think he will be
impossible to recover.

Think for example
in one of my favorite movies,

"Rocky I", one sees Rocky and says:
"He's not going to get up anymore,

will not be able to beat to Apollo Creed, "
who is the one he's facing.

Then one thinks that everything is
lost, but at the same time

we know that he is the protagonist.

It can not be that everything is lost.

At that moment we
call it Nightmare.

The moment when everything is wrong
and Siesta apparently can not,

together with the protagonist,
carry out their desire

or achieve what they set out to scream
the premise at the end of the first act.

Immediately after
comes Act III with the climax.

Resolved somehow
conflict

and see if shape
positive or negative,

but is "in crescendo",
or succession of coups and counter.

There comes the moment of confrontation,
which is like the summit,

like the top of the mountain.

Finally, the episode ends and Siesta
in all the chapters is

with the author or author
of the play.

Somehow, at that moment
we say that it is an adaptation.

We found the person
who wrote it,

and Siesta always asks him
asking him, for example,

"they all died,
and now what's going to happen?" .

For example, Shakespeare tells him:
"It was a tragedy, what did you expect?"

And if the author is anonymous,
we thought of putting

an anonymous character
who always tries to say who he was,

and finally he is not able
to say it.

But at that last moment,
somehow,

what we want to say is
that this was an adaptation

and finally, at the end of the episode,
Siesta he wakes up

and ends the chapter.

Then we have
a double exit from the episode.

On the one hand it manifests
that this is an adaptation,

and finally we say that everything
what happened was a dream.

Let's now see
how we can tell our story

in a very brief way,
in a very synthetic way,

in a synopsis, and how we can
add that in our binder.

That's what we're going to see
in the next lesson.