I’ve come across similar descriptions of structure, but I don’t think it was Billy Wilder. It sounds more like Ben Hecht, to name one possibility.

I don’t advocate “throwing rocks” at your character in the opening unless they are “preliminary” rocks that are unrelated to the main dilemma the character faces in the story, “set-up” rocks, so to speak.

The difference between the films you mentioned and the hypothetical script implied in the article is that the former were written by established pros, and the latter is a “spec” (speculatively-written) script by an unknown trying to become established.

Newcomers have LESS space to say as much or MORE, and said with GREATER power, than an established pro. Pros can send in a 150 page script full of CUT TOs, parentheticals [dialogue with (xxxxx) below the character name heading], unfilm-ables [action paragraphs that can’t be filmed: “He feels she doesn’t understand him.”], etc. New writers have to stay within 90 – 110 pages, ideally. There must be nothing but dialogue and action, written with absolute efficiency. And after all that, the newcomer’s spec must be better and fresher than what’s out there by the pros. Newcomers have to BREAK in, not join the party through RSVP.

Act 1: throw your cat up a tree.
Act 2: throw rocks at him.
Act 3: get him down from the tree. ?

The problem is you don’t want to start throwing rocks before the cat is in the tree. And you want to make sure the cat is struck up there. And you want to make sure your rocks are threatening.

Too many screenplays (or is it ADD editing?) try to jump start the story then artificially escalate the drama later.

A solid movie like ‘Chinatown’ or even ‘Bottle Rocket’ or even Antonioni’s “The Passenger” just feels confident. Consequent;y, you’re willing to ride along for more than 20 minutes without a clear idea of the story (or the protagonists goal) simply because you know it’s a well carpentered foundation that’s being laid.