What is the classic structure for a short?

Post by **plutone** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:13 am

A pop song is Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus

A feature is 3 acts.

Love those forms and writing for them. I've completed 1 short as a collaboration. But, I want to do something on my own and can't seem to get the feel for the structure of a short. I'm partuculary thinking of something between 2-6 minutes. Is there a classic structure for short storytelling?

Post by **mattias** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 11:41 am

yes, "twist, build, twist". a lot like the three act structure but with shorter first and third acts and more defined plot points. it's not the only way but in my experience it's the most common.

/matt

Post by **timdrage** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:10 pm

In my experience the classic structure for a short is to make it waaaaay overlong, contrived, pretentious and boring!!!

Come up with your own better structure please!!!

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 6:58 am

Pretty much the same as a feature with probably less exposition, like mattias said. The hero usually encounters more than one obstacle, and preferably not two (nothing should come in pairs, it's too symmetrical). After being nearly defeated, when he is at his lowest some new information enters into the story or a previously introduced character or element is brought back. This enables the hero to either literally triumph or die/fail but in spirit succeed...

Unless you totally dispense with all of these rules

I tend to make somewhat unstructured shorts. It bothers me when the audience can see the 3-act structure on a point by point basis, so I try to change it up enough so the overall feel is more organic and less predictable.

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 6:58 am

Pretty much the same as a feature with probably less exposition, like mattias said. The hero usually encounters more than one obstacle, and preferably not two (nothing should come in pairs, it's too symmetrical). After being nearly defeated, when he is at his lowest some new information enters into the story or a previously introduced character or element is brought back. This enables the hero to either literally triumph or die/fail but in spirit succeed...

Unless you totally dispense with all of these rules

I tend to make somewhat unstructured shorts. It bothers me when the audience can see the 3-act structure on a point by point basis, so I try to change it up enough so the overall feel is more organic and less predictable.

Post by **etimh** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:43 pm

Re: The "correct" form of a film short?

Rudy Burckhardt, photographer and experimental filmmaker who worked in the New York underground in the 1950s, penned this poem called Movieland about the art of making the short film. It was included in an essay entitled, "How I Think I Made Some of My Films," in the book To Free the Cinema.

Movieland

You must then come up with something to say,
Anything as long as it's no more than five minutes long
It's rapture that counts, and what little
There is of it is seldom aboveboard
That's its nature
What we take our cue from
Not something so very strange, but then seeming ordinary
Is strange too
Strange ordinary ordinary strange
commonplace exciting everyday exotic
boring deja-vu pedestrian surreal
truly great fantastic a hit
never Hollywood
auteur cinema technically perfect
angle close-up zoom dolly
cut dub budget
in the can
But all was strange.

No correct, right, proper, or classic structures. Strive for strangeness.

Tim

Post by **mattias** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:40 pm

etimh wrote:No correct, right, proper

agreed.

or classic structures

huh? nobody says you have to use them, but are you really saying they don't even exist?

/matt

Post by **etimh** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:59 pm

mattias wrote:
etimh wrote:or classic structures
huh? nobody says you have to use them, but are you really saying they don't even exist?

Point taken, I should have expressed it in quotes, as in "classic."

"Classic," as in institutionally sanctioned, historically reproduced, and popularly legitimized, at the expense of threatening alternatives.

I got lazy there for a minute. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

Tim

Post by **plutone** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:08 am

Twist, build, twist. Mattias, that really resonates with me. I looked back at the short I participated in recently and the form is there. It was a 1 day miniDV project for cinemasports.

http://www.motioncity.com/deadend/

As for destroying the form, that's just blah, blah blah to me. All the best stuff - even the edgy, cool stuff - adheres to form. It's what you do with it that counts.

Humor seems to be good for a short. The O Henry surprise, I guess.

Post by **ccortez** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:49 pm

etimh wrote:
mattias wrote:
etimh wrote:or classic structures
huh? nobody says you have to use them, but are you really saying they don't even exist?
Point taken, I should have expressed it in quotes, as in "classic."

"Classic," as in institutionally sanctioned, historically reproduced, and popularly legitimized, at the expense of threatening alternatives.

The thing about forms is, they can free us as well as enslave us.

Robert Bly, Donald Hall... those guys write Amazing American Free Verse Poetry. But they both write a bloody hell of a sonnet as well. And Picasso, as is commonly pointed out, was a fantastic classical painter. I won't get into Charles Ives, b/c nobody knows who that is anyway... ;)

Walk before the run, learn and apply the rules before breaking them to good effect.

Using little forms, structures, "rules"... all of these things can help us learn our craft, and they can help us reveal the stories that are in our mind. The rules occupy our left brain and keep it busy so the right brain is free to do its job. That's my theory (not originally mine, borrowed) anyway...

Post by **ccortez** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:51 pm

plutone wrote: As for destroying the form, that's just blah, blah blah to me. All the best stuff - even the edgy, cool stuff - adheres to form. It's what you do with it that counts.

word up. i took a lot more words to say that just now... ;)

Post by **steve hyde** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:10 pm

ccortez wrote:
etimh wrote:
mattias wrote: huh? nobody says you have to use them, but are you really saying they don't even exist?
Point taken, I should have expressed it in quotes, as in "classic."

"Classic," as in institutionally sanctioned, historically reproduced, and popularly legitimized, at the expense of threatening alternatives.
The thing about forms is, they can free us as well as enslave us.

Robert Bly, Donald Hall... those guys write Amazing American Free Verse Poetry. But they both write a bloody hell of a sonnet as well. And Picasso, as is commonly pointed out, was a fantastic classical painter. I won't get into Charles Ives, b/c nobody knows who that is anyway... ;)

Walk before the run, learn and apply the rules before breaking them to good effect.

Using little forms, structures, "rules"... all of these things can help us learn our craft, and they can help us reveal the stories that are in our mind. The rules occupy our left brain and keep it busy so the right brain is free to do its job. That's my theory (not originally mine, borrowed) anyway...

Well said Chris. Rules are more fun to break when we have really good reasons for breaking them.

Steve