The ‘W’ Model of Movie Structure: Part Six

Act Three: The Second Up Angle

If we have done our jobs as screenwriters, by the end of act two we should be at the very bottom of the second down angle. Things were at their worst until our protagonist finally learned the lesson of their trials and saw the way forward. Now all that remains is to follow them up the steep slope of the second up angle to eventual success (an ‘up ending’) or failure (a ‘down ending’).

The revelation at the end of act two drives the protagonist into making a plan to achieve the resolution of her theme. Of course the opposing forces have not been idle and they will resist her every step of the way. That’s what makes third acts fun, so don’t stint on the resistance.

At the end you have a choice whether to have your protagonist succeed or not. Of course most mainstream movies end in success for their heroes or heroines. This is what is called in some circles the redemptive ending. Our heroine has redeemed her past failings and has restored a better world. Remember that you do have a choice here, but your choice as to how to resolve your story should come organically from the way you have written your protagonist and their theme.

A trap many young writers fall into is thinking that just by killing off their protagonist at the end they have somehow written a radical story. Yeah, you better blush and look away. I know who you are… This is almost always not the case. Unless their failure is in itself dramatically, thematically and emotionally satisfying we will ‘hear the typewriter’ behind the scenes and spot the twist for the empty and sophomoric gesture it probably is.

On the other hand, down endings can be incredibly effective when handled well. Historically, tragedies have their own internal logic in which an otherwise admirable and sympathetic protagonist has a tragic flaw which dooms them to an awful fate. This is loosely related to the concept of hamartia in Aristotle’s Poetics. In Shakespeare’s play, for example, Macbeth is doomed by his ambition: “I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself, and falls on th’other.”

McKellen as Macbeth in 1976 - one of the greatest interpretations.

Of course one doesn’t have to write a Shakespearian tragedy to earn a down ending. Nevertheless, the link between character and fate we are shown in such classic stories offers an important lesson. In my book Write What You Don’t Know: An Accessible Manual for Screenwriters, I offer a long case study of Brick, a contemporary movie with a well worked down ending. In Brick the protagonist, Brendan solves the mystery of his ex girlfriend’s murder. However he ends up badly damaged as a person both physically and emotionally. The story punishes Brendan for his failings as a man, even as it allows him to succeed as a detective.

We’ve mentioned this before, but whether your protagonist succeeds or fails, the story world we are left with at the end of the movie has changed. Perhaps for the better, maybe for the worse but it can’t be the same as it was at the beginning or your story had no effect. In objective terms, the story world of Brick is restored at the end of the movie. In subjective terms, it is broken. At the end of the final story angle you might need to give us some time – maybe only a few moments, maybe a scene or two – to observe and reflect upon this change.

At the end of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two, for example, we are given a short epilogue set years in the future. We see many of the surviving characters on Platform 9 and ¾ of Kings Cross Station, putting their children on the train to Hogwarts. The world has healed after the death of Voldemort, we are being told, our wizarding friends are happy and life goes on. Now we can feel safe in leaving them to their destinies. At least until Ms. Rowling decides to write another book…