[…] Note: The …read more […]

I think the difference in how we use the term denouement today arises from the difference between classical tragedy and modern drama. Aristotle defines the demarcation beat between complication and denouement as the event where the fortune of the main character goes into reverse gear. In classical tragedy, once the main character suffers a reversal of fortune, it's all down hill. This is the way Shakespeare's tragedies play out. In Romeo and Juliet, when Romeo kills Tybalt in Act 3, Scene 1, the play shifts into denouement mode; the heretofore successful scheming of the two lovers and the friar unravels. Nothing works out for them after that reversal of fortune. It's all downhill through 4 more scenes in Act 3 and 2 more acts. (In the 1968 adaptation, Romeo kills Tybalt about 3/5 of the way through the movie playing time. So about 40% of the play is, in classical terms, denouement, the unraveling of all their efforts, all their hopes and dreams.) In modern drama, the standard plot scenario is more like a roller coaster ride. The main character's fortune usually rises to a high point in the 1st half. Then a reversal of fortune causes his fortune to plunge to the lowest possible point where all seems lost. Then he finds away to reverse course and soar to final victory.

Thanks for that analysis, pgronk, and that makes sense. Here's my question for you: WHY has that change evolved? Any thoughts on that? I have a theory. Curious as to yours (and others).

I like that roller coaster analogy, prgonk - apt image; it's almost as if we modern audiences now expect at least one reversal of the reversal? Also, while thinking about the complications and rising and falling action in "her" it occurred to me that Spike Jonze shows how Theodore and Samantha transition, both together and separately, through various types of love, as the Greeks defined those gradations of the emotion - eros, philia,agape - and also, how fitting that when Samantha joins with the other OS minds in a cloud of koinonia-style fellowship, a moment of apotheosis or transcendence, Theodore (who cannot quite follow her there yet since he is still merely mortal) is comforted by Amy, whose storge mode of affection for him seems almost sisterly. I can't help but think that Aristotle himself might have really enjoyed that movie. . .

Scott, I'm not sure. Except that drama genres and venues are so much different now. By sheer dint of creative evolution, dramatic theory broke out of the strait jacket imposed on it by a narrow-minded, slavish interpretation of Aristotle's ideas (particularly in the post-Shakespeare royal theaters of England and France). It had to in order to be relevant to modern times. And your theory? Even so, I personally find Aristotle's definition of denouement to be as relevant as ever. In fact, my myopic eyes see a common denominator between the fatal reversal in classical tragedy and the temporary reversal in melodrama: "harmartia". What is the trigger mechanism that shifts the plot from complication to denouement in classical tragedy? It seems to be "harmartia", the error in judgement or attribute of character. And that's seems to have been Shakespeare's general m.o in plotting the doom of Romeo and Hamlet and Macbeth. In melodrama, why is there a reversal of the main character's fortune in the 2nd half of the plot? Because the main character's initial strategy for success unravels. Why does it unravel? Because it's not bullet proof; it's not good enough to sustain a counterattack. And more to the point, the protagonist's character isn't "good enough". He may owe his initial success to sundry virtues, but he hasn't yet overcome his primary weakness, his "harmartia". If anything -- to use my favored analogy -- at the midpoint he's still trying to pour new wine (changed circumstances) into his beloved, old wineskins (bad habits, defense mechanisms, etc). The wineskin is doomed to break, right? The plot and villain take deadly aim at that underlying "harmartia" and force him to deal with it -- or else, force him to abandon the old wineskin for a new one to hold the new wine presented to him by the plot. (I'm making this up as I go along. I may have to eat everything in this post. So much for my own "harmartia".) Anyway, it seems to me that in classical tragedy, the main character doesn't get a 2nd chance to recover from the consequences of a flaw of character or a mistake in judgement. Whereas in melodrama, he does.

And furtherless: >>Yet there are many dramatists who, after a good Complication, fail in the Denouement. I think that is as true today as it was in Aristotle's day.

Actually, Aristotle was not all that specific about when the reversal (that initiates the denouement) should occur. The reason we think he meant for it to be more in the middle than towards the end where we place it is because of the Roman drama theorist Horace. In his Ars Poetica, Horace interpreted Aristotle’s Poetics into a set of rules, such as that plays should have decorum, should conform to the unities of time and place, and should always occur in five acts. The five act structure was carried into Shakespeare’s time, was even legislated into law in France for a while and, by customary practice, continued to dominate until late in the 19th century. The terms “rising action” and “falling action” were coined in 1863 by the German theorist Gustav Freytag in his book Technique of the Drama, the first modern drama theory text. In what has become known as “Freytag’s Pyramid” he describes drama structure as having a steady upward trajectory in Acts I and II, then in Act III there is a climax that reverses the action, and in Acts IV and V the action “falls” to its denouement. I wrote about all this in my history of three-act structure. It’s a little academic, but if you’re a story structure geek (like me), you’ll find it of interest. You can find it here: http://www.screentakes.com/an-evolutionary-study-of-the-three-act-structure-model-in-drama/

Wow, Jennine. I read the post you linked to and it's terrific. BTW I had been looking for a copy of Lawson's book and found a PDF online. Intriguing to see a few screenwriting 'gurus' who are now promoting five act structure as some sort of new revelation, unaware of Horace and the thousands year history of that form. I love three act structure as it resonates, at least for me, with Nature. So many cycles with three movements including the biggie: Birth - Life - Death When you studied with Daniel, did he teach the sequence theory?

>>>Horace interpreted Aristotle’s Poetics into a set of rules... Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The more things change, the more things remain the same. Even today the tendency to codify hard and fast rules persists down to specifying on what page (or in what minute) such and such plot beat MUST occur.

Thank you, Scott, for your nice words. I don't remember Frank emphasizing the sequence approach. Although I know a classmate of mine, Paul Gulino, has written a book about it. Reading Paul's book, it certainly meshes with how I remember Frank's overall approach. No question thinking in sequences can be helpful in finding a structure.

This is a fascinating study, Jennine - thank you for sharing it. (I think the Archer book sounds interesting as well. . .)