|
|
Reading other screenplays is a good idea, sure, to get a feeling for timing, rhythm, and the sorts of shortcuts used in screenplays that aren't found in prose, but also good for noting where people deviate from the standards. William Goldman's screenplays don't look like David Mamet's which don't look entirely like what you see as a mock-script in many screenwriting textbooks.
I would suggest reading screenplays of movies you're familiar with, to see how the pacing, the structure or phrasing, effect the finished onscreen presentation, as well. Or where the film doesn't adhere to the screenplay. I'm not presuming on you, really, but I have known people to immerse themselves in screenplays to help themselves, but immerse themselves in 'great scripts' for films they hadn't actually seen, and well, that's helpful in some ways just because they're really good scripts, but it's not as helpful.
Beginning, middle, end, is not (especially in a nonlinear presentation) really what the three act structure is about, of course, and I don't think it matters whether this is a solicited script, something you're thinking of pushing through an agent or something for a friend or yourself to direct. Script's a script. I would also suggest watching films or looking at screenplays and marking out the acts on your own. Doesn't ever have to be three acts, even if that's the most traditional from a eurocentric standpoint. TV's often in five, a lot of Asian films tend to be four acts, and so on. The one act, for some people, in incredibly potent, and these aren't necessarily time-based at all.
Take all the above with a grain and do your own thing, though. And good luck. |
|
|