Frank Daniel's sequence approach

Of the structural theories I researched, this one strikes me as providing the most practical help for a screenwriter. It also has the advantage of being conceptually

elegant compared to some of the other theories of dramatic structure.

Films are (or were previous to digital cinema) distributed on reels each 8-10 minutes in length. In the early days of film, writers were advised to use a structure that would

allow for a natural narrative break at the end of each real. This was particularly

important until the late 1920's, because most theaters only had one projector and the audience would have to wait while the projectionist changed reels. Feature films

used about eight reels, so they had eight narrative sequences. Frank Daniel, who

headed the film programs at Columbia and USC, suggested that using eight sequences of 10-15 minutes is still a reasonable way to structure the narrative of a

film.

[…]

Frank Daniel described dramatic tension as either a chase—someone wants

something badly but is having trouble getting it— or an escape—someone badly wants to get away from something but is having trouble escaping.

The sequence approach divides a film into three acts: a first act comprised of two sequences, a second act comprised of four sequences, and a third act of two

sequences.

[…]

[1st Sequence] First, a hook to excite the viewer's curiosity. Then, the exposition

answering who, what, when, and where. Show a glimpse of the life of the protagonist before the story gets under way. This first sequence ends with the inciting incident.

[2nd Sequence] Protagonist tries to reestablish the status quo disrupted by the inciting incident, fails, and is faced with a worse predicament. […] this sequence poses "the

dramatic question that will shape the rest of the picture." This is the end of the first

act.

[3rd Sequence] The protagonist attempts to solve the problem presented at the end of

the first act.

4th Sequence] The solution from the last sequence is seen to fail, and the protagonist

tries one or more desperate measures to restore the status quo. The end of this

sequence is the midpoint/first culmination/crisis, which brings a major revelation or reversal. The audience should be tempted to guess the outcome of the story.

[5th Sequence] The protagonist deals with the ramifications of the first culmination. Sometimes new characters are introduced, or new opportunities discovered in the

fifth segment. This segment may also deal heavily with subplots.

[6th Sequence] Last sequence of the second act, and the second culmination. The

protagonist has exhausted all the easy courses of action, and directly addresses the

central dramatic question. The audience should be tempted to guess the outcome of

the story, although the obvious answer may often be a mirror opposite of how the film actually ends.

[7th Sequence] The apparent solution of the central dramatic question in sequence F shows its problems here. The stakes are raised. The effect of a long dangling cause

may occur. The story is seen in a new light, and the protagonist might need to

reverse his goals.

[8th Sequence] The tension created by the inciting incident is truly resolved. Consider

this resolution in light of the hints from the first and second culminations. Any remaining subplots are resolved. There may be a brief epilogue. The last sequence

may in some way (visually?) recall the first sequence.

[…]

Many movies use the following elements to create a satisfying narrative:

Optionally, start with a short, exciting hook, which creates a question in the mind of

the audience.

Give the audience enough exposition that they know the who, when, and where of

the story. Establish the status quo of the characters' world.

An inciting incident unbalances the status quo in such a way that the protagonist

feels compelled to fix things.

The protagonist will attempt to solve the central dramatic question in the easiest, most obvious way. This problem is too difficult for the easiest solution, so the

protagonist's initial solution fails. This is the start of the second act.

The protagonist devises a more complex, ambitious (or desperate) plan, which can

be brought to fruition only after completing a series of sub-tasks. This culminates in a

false climax, and a reversal. The outcome is not what the protagonist hoped, or he learns something that changes his goal.

Repeat the last step as needed.

Often a brief epilogue shows the new status quo established by the protagonist's

actions.

[…]

The protagonist would realistically try the easiest or most obvious solutions first.

Repetition and variation are interesting.

In each scene, the audience should be asking: will the protagonist get what he so

badly wants or not?

Moving the audience repeatedly between hope that the protagonist will get what he

wants and the fear that he will not creates dramatic tension.

Source: http://paulgorman.org/writing/dramatic_structure.php (Retrieved

04/10/20010)