If you watch my breakdown here, you will find the act lengths are:
Act 1: 0.00 – 24.32
Act 1 length: 24.32
Act 2: 24.32 – 32.02
Act 2 length: 7.30
Act 3: 32.02 – 41.08
Act 3 length: 9.06
Act 4: 41.08 – 44.56
Act 4 length: 3.48
Act 5: 44.56 – 57.44
Act 5 length: 12.48
This article explains how many scenes in each act are dedicated to each story thread: Trilogy, Season, Personal and Storyworld:
This exploration of the opening episode of Sally Wainwright’s award-winning crime drama trilogy Happy Valley reveals 4 story threads, a 5 act structure, multiple antagonists, blurred boundaries and how the structure follows the journey not of trilogy protagonist Catherine but of the season antagonist Kevin. Dive in and discover.
From this article:
I asked chatgpt how does Jimmy McGovern structure episode 1 of Time. This was the response.
In Episode 1 of Time, Jimmy McGovern skillfully structures the episode to immerse viewers in the harsh, tense environment of a British prison while introducing the complex inner lives of the main characters. McGovern, known for his gritty, character-driven storytelling, uses a dual narrative approach to introduce the two main characters, Mark Cobden (played by Sean Bean) and Eric McNally (played by Stephen Graham), and to establish the emotional stakes that drive the story forward.
By ending the episode on cliffhangers for both characters, McGovern effectively hooks viewers, leaving them invested in the fate of these two men whose lives are irrevocably intertwined within the brutal confines of prison.
Having analysed Happy Valley season 1 episode by episode, act by act, I decided to write my TV pilot in 5 act structure.
I am using the same colour code as I used in my HV analysis, with an extra colour as I am working with two protagonists (my first time attempting this).
I am certainly not expecting a perfect result from this first attempt at a TV pilot but hopefully something which I can continue to work on when the MA has finished and something which I can submit with an element of confidence that it will pass.
Here is the way I have colour coded the first act, inspired by my analysis of the structure of Happy Valley.
What about you? Are you colour-coding your outlines?
Having looked at the previous 4 episodes, we are now on to episode 5.
It is actually really interesting to see the colour codes change.
Whereas in episode 1, act 5 is colour-coded mostly blue – dealing with the A story (season) main plot, as we near the season finale of episode 6, act 5 of episode 5 is mostly red – dealing with the A story (trilogy).
So, as we near the end of season 1, writer Sally Wainwright is preparing the ground for the season trilogy.
Here are the 5 acts of episode 5.
Colour codes as follows:
Interesting to note that act 1 is completely focused on A story for the season – Ann’s kidnap plot.
Act 2 gives us mostly season plot scenes but 3 family scenes inserted as well.
In Act 3 we see the writer bring us back to the main plot of the trilogy with splashes of red mixed in with the blue (season plot) and green (family).
In Act 4 we start to see the trilogy become more pronounced with red trilogy scenes outweighing blue and green. There is also one scene which ties one of the season antagonists to the background issue of drugs (colour code: brown) from where Happy Valley gets its name.
Finally, to kick us into the finale that is going to be Episode 6, we have the last act of Episode 5, which, with the exception of the first scene, is completely focused on Catherine, Ryan and Tommy Lee Royce and the deceased Becky.
SPOILER ALERT
In scene 52 Catherine explains to her grandson Ryan that she is crying because she misses his mum – Becky – who committed suicide after being raped by Tommy Lee Royce. This storyline will play out over the next two seasons, culminating in Episode 6 of Season 3. And in a twist of genius, the final scene of season 3 pays off the opening scene of season 1, even though season 1 and season 3 were made 8 years apart.
If you have any interesting notes about Happy Valley please let me know on Twitter @screenwriteorg
SPOILER ALERT & CONTENT WARNING: ADULT THEMES
Let’s look at the structure of Episode 1 and see how writer Sally Wainwright weaves the 4 story threads together:
NB: The A story (trilogy) refers to the story overarching the entire 3 seasons. A story (season) means the story which expands throughout Season 1.
Episode 1 seems to be written in 5 acts, and follows the actions of the season protagonist (Kevin) rather than the trilogy antagonist (Tommy Lee Royce).
The end of each act is a turning point instigated by the actions of Kevin.
The final shot of the 1st act also reveals the trilogy antagonist Tommy Lee Royce.
Because of this, I have broken the episode into 5 acts:
Episode 1 opens with Catherine’s day to day – police procedure – not related to either A story (season) or A story (trilogy).
The following scene after the opening credits starts off the A story (season).
Scenes 4/5/6 refer to the A story (trilogy).
Midway through Act 1 Catherine kisses her ex-husband – already with someone new – referring to her personal life. She still has a thing for her ex-husband.
Then, we’re back into the Season story.
Next, trilogy story.
Season story.
Trilogy story.
Then 2 scenes which set up the season story (the inciting incident)
The final scene of Act 1 cleverly weaves together both A story (season) and A story (trilogy) around antagonist Tommy Lee Royce.
Act 2 opens with conflict between Ryan and Catherine – A story trilogy.
Next 2 scenes A story season.
Then 2 scenes C story.
Finally, A story season.
Act 3, the central act of the episode, begins with A story trilogy telling us the reason for this Protagonist / Antagonist battle – an immensely powerful scene where Catherine tells Ryan’s teacher the entire backstory of her daughter Becky, Lee Royce’s violent sexual assault and Becky’s consequent suicide.
We might call this the midpoint.
The following scene takes us to Catherine arranging to meet ex-husband Richard. I have included this as A story trilogy, as opposed to B story (family) because it leads up to Catherine’s expression to Richard of her absolute hatred of Tommy Lee Royce.
The next 3 scenes are dedicated to A story season.
Act 4 is completely dedicated to A story season.
Scenes 38/39/40 focus on A story season.
Scene 41 refers to police protocol as Catherine tells an amusing story to Kirsty about drugs.
Then, she spots Tommy Lee Royce, midway through the final act.
The final 4 scenes of act 5 all represent the season A story.
SPOILER ALERT.
We can see that this episode is structured very differently from Episode 2
Like Episode 2, let’s explore in 5 acts.
Again, as previously, the 4 story threads are colour coded as follows:
Let’s start.
As you can see, unlike Episode 2, (we will do a comparison in another post) the entire act is dedicated to the A story (season) and the cop-murder of Kirsty.
Actually, this storyline could have its own colour code as an episode storyline, I decided to keep blue because the murder of Kirsty is a consequence of Ann’s kidnapping: A story (season).
The act is a furiously tragic depiction of the murder of Kirsty: emotional, brutal, shocking. It’s a terrific opener to Episode 3.
Many of these scenes are quick fire editing between the four characters: Kirsty, Lewis, Ann and Tommy Lee Royce.
The act break is clear, as Tommy Lee Royce leaves the body of Kirsty dead on the floor and the lights of her police van flashing.
Again, Act 2 is dedicated to the A story (season) with a slight nod to the C story of police, drugs & corruption.
The act again is clearly marked as a dramatic sequence and follows Catherine dealing with the crime scene.
Again, Act 3 is almost fully dedicated to the season A story – the kidnapping of Ann.
Again, there is a slight nod to Catherine’s day to day world of police protocol. Actually, these two scenes (44/45) depict Catherine dealing with anti-police hate speech.
Act 4, right up to minute 40 (scene 54) deals with the A story (season) the kidnapping of Ann.
Scene 54 is the first time in the entire episode we have seen any C story – Catherine’s personal life, with a slight nod to the A story of the trilogy – Ryan’s relationship with his dad Tommy Lee Royce.
Act 4 ends with a shocking line from Clare which brings Catherine crashing back to hell and hooks us to the A story for the trilogy:
“On the plus side… ” says Clare, “at least it (the murder of Kirsten) has taken your mind off Tommy Lee Royce.”
Act 5 is also dedicated to the A story of the season – the kidnapping of Ann.
Only the final scene brings us back to the A story for the trilogy – Catherine V Tommy Lee Royce.
What do you think about this structure?
SPOILER ALERT. Please do not read if you have not seen Happy Valley Season 1.
We explore this episode in 5 acts.
Please note – Happy Valley is a trilogy: 3 seasons with 1 main overarching story.
In this post we will look at the various story threads, and how writer Sally Wainwright weaves them together.
We can observe four story threads:
The main story which runs through the three seasons is about Catherine and her grandson Ryan and his relationship with his father – trilogy antagonist Tommy Lee Royce. I have called this the ‘A’ story (trilogy).
Next, there is the season story: the kidnapping of Ann Gallagher by Kevin, Ashley, Lewis and Tommy Lee Royce. Let’s call this the ‘A’ story (season).
We can see immediately how the two A stories – season and trilogy – intertwine around the character of Tommy Lee Royce (the trilogy’s main antagonist).
Thirdly, we have Catherine’s extended family: her sister Clare, her ex-husband Richard and her son Daniel. Let’s call this the ‘B’ story.
Fourthly, we have the theme of drugs, police procedure, and corruption. Let’s call this the ‘C’ story.
The different story threads are colour coded.
Let’s look at Act 1.
So, here we can see the episode opens with the C story, followed by opening credits.
It is interesting to note there is no B story.
Immediately following the credits we are into the season A story – the kidnapping.
Next, we are nudged into the A story for the trilogy – Catherine (protag) V Tommy Lee Royce (antag).
The next two scenes introduce Catherine’s day to day of busting small time drugs gangs so represent the C story.
The act finishes focusing on the A story (season) of kidnapping with season victim Ann whimpering, bound and gagged, to carry us into Act 2.
Now let’s check Act 2. Again, no B story.
Here we can see that Act 2 focuses only on the two A stories, expertly interweaving the season story and trilogy story.
The act again finishes with Ann (season victim) and her ordeal, propelling us into Act 3.
Act 3 finally gives us some insight into Catherine’s personal life.
In fact, Act 3 blends all 4 storylines.
This central act opens with a scene introducing Daniel, Catherine’s son, inviting her and her sister Clare to dinner (paid off in Act 4 Scene 32.)
The next scene, 17, interweaves the C story, drugs and corruption, with the B story and the A story (trilogy).
The next 4 scenes, 19-22, focus on the season A story.
Scene 23, which we might call the midpoint of the episode, points to the A story of the trilogy.
Again, the act ends by focusing on Ann and her ordeal.
Act 4 steers away from the A story for the trilogy (Catherine / Ryan / Tommy Lee Royce) and opens with a 4 minute scene which references drugs and corruption, the C story.
The next scene, 27, foreshadows Kirsty’s death.
Scenes 28 / 29 focus on the A story (season).
The central scene of Act 4 brings us back to the C story: drugs and corruption.
Scenes 31/32 revolve around Catherine’s son, ex-husband and grandson – B story.
Act 4 ends with us focusing again on the A story for the season (33/34).
Act 5 opens with B story, with a powerful moral conflict between Catherine and Richard discussing the consequences on their family of dealing with bringing up a child who was born to their (deceased) daughter as the consequence of a rape.
The rest of this final act is equally split between A story (season) and A story (trilogy) – expertly separated by one scene, 38, which glues both stories together and brings protagonist and antagonist (almost) face to face.
Catherine has yet to meet her trilogy antagonist, but here, we the viewer – in privileged superior position – know that only a wall separates her from direct confrontation with her arch enemy Tommy Lee Royce. Dramatic irony at its finest.
The final 3 scenes draw us back into the A story for the season to propel us into the next episode.
Do you agree with this analysis? Please let me know your thoughts.
A question I have for Christopher Vogler (The Writer’s Journey) is how can the Midpoint be the Supreme Ordeal, when the ordeal in the final battle is supremer. There is no such adjective as supremer.
Supreme reigns supreme.
The Supreme Ordeal, by very definition, is the most powerful ordeal of the story. It is the ordeal which causes the hero to change, to have a moral revelation (John Truby, Anatomy of Story – 22 Steps of a Master Storyteller) at which point the hero’s unconscious need is made conscious and the outward goal is achieved, or not, depending on the character arc of the hero.
I have always seen the outward goal being achieved in the Final Battle / Climax / Crisis in Act 3, where, according to John Truby, the hero has a moral revelation, the ‘need’ is made conscious, and the outward goal is achieved, or not.
I am still unconvinced that Hague’s 3 Act structure and Vogler’s 12 Step Hero’s Journey are concordant. Perhaps The Hero’s Journey only suits a certain kind of story – the mythic tale – and cannot / should not be forced into the 3 Act structure of other genres.
However, if we must cram it into 3 acts, I prefer to see the Hero’s Journey like this:
ACT 1:
Ordinary World
Call to Adventure
Refusal of the Call
Meeting the Mentor
Crossing the Threshold
ACT 2:
Tests, Allies and Enemies.
ACT 3:
Approach to the Inmost Cave
Supreme Ordeal
Reward
Road Back
Resurrection
Return with the Elixir
The 4 R’s of the last phase of The Hero’s Journey: Reward / Road Back / Resurrection / Return are interconnected, almost flowing into one scene / experience for the hero.
The Reward is the elixir, the Road Back is literally, the road back home, the Resurrection is arrival in the ordinary world, and Return with the Elixir is making lessons learned known to loved ones, society and the wider world. A good example of this is 127 Hours (screenplay by Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy).
(spoiler alert)
In 127 Hours, Aaron Ralston has his Supreme Ordeal, where he cuts his arm off, 15 minutes before the end of the film. See 3 Act Structure in 127 Hours. The final 15 minutes (Act 3) are the Reward (he is alive) The Road Back (receiving help from passers by) Resurrection (moral revelation / need made conscious – he needs other people) and finally Return with the Elixir (he writes his book ‘Between a Rock and a Hard Place’ and helps Simon Beaufoy and Danny Boyle write the screenplay for the movie of his life.)
In the audio book by Hague and Vogler Hero’s Two Journeys Vogler sees the Resurrection phase of the hero’s journey as the Final Battle / Climax – an even more supreme ordeal than The Supreme Ordeal.
But this is impossible. There is no such word as supremer. There is no superlative. Supreme is the superlative.
“If something is supreme, it is more powerful than anything else.”
Supreme is superlative. There is not a stronger adjective. It is already the strongest it can be. Words are all we have as writers. So why call the midpoint the ‘supreme’ ordeal when there is an even stronger ordeal ahead in the Climax?
The Supreme Ordeal, is not only the greatest, utmost, extreme ordeal, it is the last, final and ultimate. There is no more powerful ordeal than The Supreme Ordeal. Therefore, if The Supreme Ordeal is the most powerful ordeal for the hero, it must occur in the Climax, in the Final Battle – and not at the midpoint. It must occur where it has the power to affect the most change in the hero. In 127 Hours, it’s where Aaron cuts his arm off. In Gladiator, it is in the arena fighting the tigers. In Thelma and Louise, (interestingly, both Hague and Yorke use Thelma and Louise as an example) The Supreme Ordeal is surely the decision they make to drive over the cliff. Sure, the midpoint was an ordeal, they held up the gas station, and as Hague says, it is the Point Of No Return – there is no going back from that, they cannot undo what they did – but doesn’t deciding to take their own lives have more of an effect on their lives? Of course it does, it takes their lives. Holding up the gas station makes them felons. They can go to prison for a very long time. But their decision to take their own lives kills them. It has a more powerful effect on them. It kills them. So it must be the Supreme Ordeal. If so, the Supreme Ordeal, in Thelma and Louise, is not the midpoint, it is the Climax.
In conclusion, I would argue that every story / movie / TV drama has a stronger Climax than the Midpoint. Therefore, I see the Supreme Ordeal as in Act 3 and not at the midpoint.
However, I am wrong 99% of the time. So I’ll leave it with you to decide.
Is anyone else having problems reconciling The Hero’s Journey with Michael Hague’s 3 Act structure?
I have listened to the presentation Chris Vogler does with Michael Hague (Screenwriting for Hollywood) on Audible, where each puts forward their own hypotheses for structure. However, I’m still having problems. My issue is this:
Chris says that The Supreme Ordeal (step 8 of the 12 step hero’s journey) is the same point in a movie as the midpoint in 3 act structure terminology.
Also, that the Resurrection (step 11) is the same as The Final Battle in Act 3 (Hague).
My question is this: why is the ‘supreme ordeal’ called ‘supreme’ if there is a bigger battle to come (The Resurrection).
It should not be called ‘supreme’. Supreme is superlative. You cannot get higher or better or more intense. I suggest that although this is the ‘central’ ordeal of the hero it is not the midpoint.
I suggest The Supreme Ordeal is The Final Battle in Act 3.
Furthermore, the Approach to the Inmost Cave is followed by the Supreme Ordeal. Here we have two superlatives: inmost and supreme.
If we can trust that these words hold fast to their true meanings (and as writers all we have are words) then inmost must be inmost and supreme must be supreme: it is the cave where the dragon lives. It is the battlefield where David slays Goliath. It is the gladiator’s final arena. It is the ring where Rocky has his title fight. It is the life or death russian roulette scene in The Deer Hunter.
Inmost must be inmost. Supreme must be supreme. There is no tougher test than the supreme ordeal. Yet Chris Vogler says The Resurrection corresponds to The Final Battle in Act 3.
But the final battle must be the hero’s toughest test. The climax of the movie. The moment where the hero wins or loses, lives or dies (physically or emotionally).
Supreme must be supreme or we disempower the word of its meaning. And if we disempower words before we even start to write our screenplay, what hope do we have?
For this reason, although I pay attention to Vogler’s Hero’s Journey, I cannot reconcile it to correspond to Hague’s 3 act structure in the same way as he teaches. I cannot, in my mind, have a more supreme ordeal than the supreme ordeal.
There is no such word as supremer.
Supreme is supreme.
So, if I stick to my guns and trust my gut, how does the 12 step hero’s journey work?
The 12 steps would look like this:
Act 1:
Act 2:
Act 3:
Let’s take 127 Hours as a paradigm. Simon Beaufoy and Danny Boyle adhere to perfect 3 act structure. The movie is exactly 90 minutes and is structured like this:
Act 1: 15 minutes.
Act 2: 60 minutes.
Act 3: 15 minutes.
According to my theory, this would mean the two shortest acts have the majority of the hero’s steps. Act 2 has only Tests, Allies and Enemies. But aren’t these three words enough to fill the 60 minutes of Act 2?
What are your thoughts?
Screenwrite.org 