<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The Natural Three Acts	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-natural-three-acts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-natural-three-acts/</link>
	<description>Story. Screenplay. Sale.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:40:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Carolin		</title>
		<link>https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-natural-three-acts/#comment-376</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Carolin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://thestorydepartment.com/?p=8501#comment-376</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As far as I know, Shakespeare didn&#039;t even write his plays in a 5 act structure. He just wrote the scenes and the act structure was imposed on the play afterwards by the publishers. I guess you could rearrange the scenes of each play quite easily into a three act structure.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as I know, Shakespeare didn&#8217;t even write his plays in a 5 act structure. He just wrote the scenes and the act structure was imposed on the play afterwards by the publishers. I guess you could rearrange the scenes of each play quite easily into a three act structure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: frances		</title>
		<link>https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-natural-three-acts/#comment-375</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[frances]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://thestorydepartment.com/?p=8501#comment-375</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Actually Shakespeare&#039;s 5 Act structure lends itself beautifully to TV and ad breaks - think about it. All of the plays are full of humour (often dark/ graveyeard and irony) - event the most historic.  Each takes its audience on an emotional journey and each concentrates on a multi-dimensional villian (in accordance with the traditions of his time as heroes were only two dimensional until believe it or not Jane Austin whose heroes had sensibility).  The plays are highly visual with embedded satege directions within the dialogue.  Most people make the mistake of trying to impose a Stanislavskian (precursor to the method) style of performing on it.  Shakespeare is the ultimate of non-acting - allowing the words (comeplete with phrasing determined by the punctuation) to flow through the player/ actor and have the actor react to the words and the sounds they create instead of imposing an interpretation upon it.  This fits in perfectly with the post structuralist perspective of film &#038; theatre (and its twin) - meaning is not in the message itself - meaning is generated/ made by the receiver of the message. 

Having said all of this - I agree I am bored witless going to the cinema or watching a movie and being overly aware of the structure.  I want to be suprised when I see a movie.  I want to be engrossed in the story not checking my watch to see if the turning point is about to arrive so the movie will move on.  The danger of elevating structure over character is the story is not there and special effects and OTT violence are used to distract the audience from the lack of storywriting (and storytelling skills) of the production.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually Shakespeare&#8217;s 5 Act structure lends itself beautifully to TV and ad breaks &#8211; think about it. All of the plays are full of humour (often dark/ graveyeard and irony) &#8211; event the most historic.  Each takes its audience on an emotional journey and each concentrates on a multi-dimensional villian (in accordance with the traditions of his time as heroes were only two dimensional until believe it or not Jane Austin whose heroes had sensibility).  The plays are highly visual with embedded satege directions within the dialogue.  Most people make the mistake of trying to impose a Stanislavskian (precursor to the method) style of performing on it.  Shakespeare is the ultimate of non-acting &#8211; allowing the words (comeplete with phrasing determined by the punctuation) to flow through the player/ actor and have the actor react to the words and the sounds they create instead of imposing an interpretation upon it.  This fits in perfectly with the post structuralist perspective of film &amp; theatre (and its twin) &#8211; meaning is not in the message itself &#8211; meaning is generated/ made by the receiver of the message. </p>
<p>Having said all of this &#8211; I agree I am bored witless going to the cinema or watching a movie and being overly aware of the structure.  I want to be suprised when I see a movie.  I want to be engrossed in the story not checking my watch to see if the turning point is about to arrive so the movie will move on.  The danger of elevating structure over character is the story is not there and special effects and OTT violence are used to distract the audience from the lack of storywriting (and storytelling skills) of the production.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/?utm_source=w3tc&utm_medium=footer_comment&utm_campaign=free_plugin

Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 

Served from: www.thestorydepartment.com @ 2026-01-27 15:38:02 by W3 Total Cache
-->