beginning screenwriting 101 forgot the third act - Chef (2014) Discussion

[–] coolbrett 11 years ago

I agree. Characters you thought were important (due to them being in half of the movie), just disappeared in the second half. Then his enemy turns out to be his key to success, and then it finishes. The rest of it wasn't even that interesting. A chef loses his sh*t due to an obnoxious critic, gets fired for trying to keep the critic happy, starts a new business and gets help from his son. I think Favreau really needs practice writing screenplays.

reply

[–] sarachann10 10 years ago

Actually he gets fired/quits because he wants to be more creative but the boss wouldn't let him and he was tired of that so he left.

reply

[–] Johanna479 11 years ago

Yeah, the basis for the intended third act would begin when he watches the "One Second Everyday" video which compiled all of the moments that he shared with his son, giving him some sort of jolt of emotion to be a better father. He calls his son to take back what he said about him not being able to work on the truck. Cut to...food truck doing great business with his wife taking orders, doing great business, and the food critic (that caused the plot of the movie to occur) to simply show up, make amends, and out of nowhere offer to buy Favreau a restaurant so he can have complete control over the menu. Cut to...Favreau and Vergara dancing in the back patio of said restaurant after supposedly getting remarried.

I would surmise that this was technically a third act, but with such little shown in terms of Favreau getting any sort of comeuppance for his prior actions and everything literally working out for him better than his life was in the beginning, I can see how some would find that it lacks enough emotion or a satisfying resolution that isn't simply too clean

reply

[–] dmedinacooper 11 years ago

I liked the reduced 3rd act. The food critic was the most important resolution and we already knew he was a fan of the chef's from his first review (or first sentences of the sucky review). At first I thought it would have been nice to see some of the other restaurant workers like ScarJo and Tony(?), but then again why? They were already supporters of the Chef so there was no more resolution needed there. The "relationship" with ScarJo? Seemed like just a convenient sexual relationship so no harm, no foul (and no wedding invite). The development was in him realizing how much his son needs him and how much he needs his son and getting his confidence back in himself as a chef to regain his confidence in himself as a father and husband. (That was a long sentence). Anything else was soup. If anything, I would have loved to see some scenes with them still taking out the food truck for lunch and the long lines.

reply

[–] stazzercise 10 years ago

The third act was fine for a movie like this. You don't need to bring back characters from the beginning--why are you obsessed with this? Almost every movie has characters throughout a movie who aren't brought back for some big finale. Especially for a slice-of-life movie like this, it would seem unrealistic. The Cannavale and Johannson characters did their job early on.

reply

[–] joeruf23 10 years ago

"Almost every movie has characters throughout a movie who aren't brought back" Yes. There are many bad videos out there

reply

[–] gnilknoc 10 years ago

My take is a typical movie is: act one. Boy meets girl. Act two. Boys loses girl. Act three. Boy gets girl. (or vice versa). This film was just boy gets up his courage to overcome some obstacles and meet girl. Boy gets girl. The end. That is, boy meets girl, boy gets girl. While I appreciate non-formula films, and this was enjoyable, but more like a nice sauce than a complete meal. I've had many relatives, who agree with liking the simplicity of it, however.

reply

[–] DrinktheCoolaid 10 years ago

Do you really think the romance angle is the biggest arc in this? I would say this movie is 70% father/son over any relationships. Are you referring to Sofia's character with the gets up his courage to overcome obstacles? You could say its boy meets girl, boy divorces girl,(movie starts) boy comes friend with girl, implied final scene that they might of got back together.

I enjoyed this film for the fact that it actually avoided a lot cliches I usually see in these type of films while still being a feel-good experience. Not to say there is no cheese in this film because there definitely is.

reply

[–] DeltronFF 10 years ago

I thought it was just fine with this movie, but I will say, for a movie close to 2 hours, I actually did want more. But only because I liked the characters and the story.. I wouldn't have minded a more "typical" third act. With that said, I was just fine with this.

Honestly, my favorite part of the movie was that it wasn't so formulaic. Just as you said, boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl. As I was watching this movie I was like.. "ok, so when is the disaster moment with his son going to happen?" (figured it would be the son since there really isn't a woman he is chasing, I wouldn't consider his ex-wife in that role in this movie). Anyway, I was so happy it never came. There were a couple small moments of tension with his son in the second half, but it didn't get to that "boy loses girl/ then makes up in the final minutes of the movie". I was so happy it went that route.

----------
The sticky stuff on the stairs tastes bitter!

reply

[–] crashdummy35 9 years ago

I thought it was just fine with this movie, but I will say, for a movie close to 2 hours, I actually did want more. But only because I liked the characters and the story.. I wouldn't have minded a more "typical" third act. With that said, I was just fine with this.

Same. Really enjoyed this movie. Wouldn't have minded a bit more....

reply

[–] LTUM 10 years ago

yes i do agree with you. it's a good point

wrapped kinda fast. i liked it anyway, but i agree it coulda been handled better

------------------
Once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her Daddy in the bathtub.

reply

[–] ScripTipps 10 years ago

Structure has never been Favreau's strength. The Vegas trip in SWINGERS was a complete detour from the story, but it was funny. Everything in the middle of that movie was kind of random, but the movie works because of the setup/payoff of the ex-girlfriend at the very beginning and the very end, and because the random stuff in between was fun.

He wrote the scripts for SWINGERS and CHEF very quickly, like just a couple weeks. CHEF is just 96 pages. He doesn't get the truck until page 70. The road trip is just 9 pages (pp82-90), then everything is wrapped up in LA in just 5-1/2 pages. On paper, the truck IS the third act, but on film the pacing is much different. Kinda weird, yes, but somehow he's able to get away with it. The movie was enjoyable and it had a lot of heart. He obviously doesn't make movies for Syd Field or Blake Snyder.

http://www.ScripTipps.com/

reply

[–] tsheridan94 10 years ago

Three act structure is itself a completely arbitrary technique that simply provides a convenient guideline for movies that only want to make a lot of money or help people add structure to a screenplay that they don't really have an idea for. I agree the ending was rather worse off than the rest of the film here, but that was because of a lack of emotional reality and trying to put absolutely everything into a perfectly happy ending that wasn't necessarily earned. It didn't fail because of the apparent absence of a third act.

reply

[–] zurichpoet 10 years ago

Not having a 3rd act was the only thing inspired about this turd. As this movie really forgot: truth, logic, passion, verve, common sense, respect for the arteries, deodorant, proper hygiene, sexiness, coherent editing, children who act like children and not robots, and most of all, a much needed girdle for John Leguizamo.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tsheridan94 10 years ago

Thank you for a logical refutation of my points. It's nice to see you threw out some evidence that I'm wrong.

But in the meantime, allow me to explain myself. Yes, three act structure is completely arbitrary. A writer could write a script without paying any attention to the three act structure, and then by simple plot events, a person (with the misguided conception that all movies need three act structure, which I'll get to in a second) could pull out an event of plot significance and say that it's a turning point, therefore it is a three act structure based screenplay. Another person could independently take the same script, and select some different events, and use those as the plot points that indicate the three act structure.

But really, the idea that screenplays all have to, or even should, subscribe to this is ridiculous. No one claims there to be a universal structure by which authors write novels, because that would be complete ridiculous. To say the styles of Charles Dickens and Jack Kerouac followed the same literary format would be absurd. So why then, do so many people say three act structure is necessary for the creation of a screenplay? (I don't think this is exactly the point you are making, although with the unwarranted mocking tone and no actual response to my original claim, that's really just a guess on my part).

But then to reply to what I do think you're trying to disagree with me on, yes, I think three act structure is a crutch. It's so common and universal in Hollywood that there's nothing inherently interesting to the format of the structure itself. Sure, it can be applied to an interesting plot, but the idea of merely having three acts in and of itself doesn't add interest to a screenplay. So I believe that a person shouldn't write a screenplay to follow the three act structure, they should write it to honestly tell the story they set out to tell, without considering the structure itself, unless the fundamental components of the structure reflect and enhance the story itself. As I said, with the (in Hollywood) near-universal use of the three act, I don't think in most cases this structure actually says something about the story itself, i.e. form doesn't necessarily meet function. So yes, I feel if you're writing a screenplay while keeping the three act structure completely in mind while writing, feeling you have to hit certain plot points at a certain place, and have the separate acts predetermined to achieve something specific, than you are severely limiting yourself and are in fact, compromising the integrity of a story to keep with what people have often taught to be necessary to a screenplay.

Tell a good story. Leave trying to fit screenplays into the same universal template to the Hollywood bigwigs in post production.

(And the frequent use of "you" here is not necessarily talking directly to you, WordSalad, but is a universal "you.")

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chilone 10 years ago

You're obviously not a screenwriter

Are you? If so, name some of your successes that would be good schooling for Mr. Favreau.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chilone 10 years ago

Poor diversionary attempt. Idiot? Lol. Did you read what I wrote? What example? I gave no example of anything and I made no analogy of any sort. How 'bout you answer the question?

One thinking they have knowledge and actually having it are two entirely different things.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chilone 10 years ago

No. What you are is very full of yourself, thinking that attempting to insult someone you know nothing about makes you somehow impressive. You haven't PROVEN anything. I'm not impressed with your self proclaimed alleged credentials. The proof is in the pudding and there isn't any at this point.

Lol!! Do you honestly think being taken seriously by a piss ant that resorts to unprovoked insults and name calling means anything to me?

At least you deleted your other fail post lol!!!

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chilone 10 years ago

WOW!! I snickered, giggled, guffawed, chortled and yes, I laughed out loud!! I'll humor you by not using the dreaded "lol" in this post so you will have less irrelevant minutia to try to use as a diversion.

So yeah, I'm a high level executive in a fortune 500 company. See what I did there? Talk is cheap.

But you obviously don't have a creative bone in your body and you probably work with your hands so you wouldn't understand either way.

Your baseless projection of things you know nothing about, means nothing, but you can go with it if it makes you feel better.

But there is a contract and a cheque signed to me, moron.

Yada yada, blah blah. Again, talk is cheap.

It's funny because you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing. Really... what's your IQ?

It's obviously higher than yours or at least my reading comprehension skills are. Do you know what "unprovoked" means? I responded in kind.

Yes because it was full of insults. After reading your posts, I realized that I don't have to insult you. You're such a dumbf-k that you do a great job of that without any assistance.

Do you realize that you followed up saying that you don't have to insult me, with an insult? I laughed out loud again!! I can see how your screenwriting will be highly successful if bad "who done its" are your specialty seeing as you are an expert in plot holes, contradictions and inconsistencies.

Here's a couple more insults from your post even though, in your own words

I realized that I don't have to insult you.

More "laugh out loud" material:

an idiot like you,

and

moron,

You're doing great :)

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chilone 10 years ago

Hahahahaha!! You should quit embarrassing yourself already!!

You could've said you drove a cab and I still wouldn't believe you.

As if I care?

But didn't you do the same thing? Assuming and believing figments of your own imagination just to make yourself feel better?

No. I didn't.

Yeah, sure. You replied to me first, and not the other way around.

Again, bad reading comprehension. I said unprovoked insults. I didn't insult you first.

If I was looking for an idiot manchild in his late 40's who has too much time to pick up silly fights on the internet because he's probably alone and lonely on account of his wife finally getting back her senses and leaving his worthless ass

More meaningless vitriol that says more about you than me.

You're too sensitive. I just said what's true. If you took it as an insult then that's on you.

You would have been better off saying "my dad can beat up your dad" than that ridiculous response!!!

I won't waste much time on your last diatribe other than to say that reading a book on something does not make you an authority on it, good at it, qualified to do it or even have an understanding of it.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chilone 10 years ago

OH NO!!!! NOT THE IGNORE LIST!!!!! mur-DUR!!!!!

I accept your surrender.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] piahellgrenbrooks 9 years ago

Well, you really could have said all this in about three succinct sentences...

reply

[–] tsheridan94 9 years ago

Ok.

The beats of a story are subjective, so you could have three different people pointing out different plot points in the same story, and independently saying these arbitrary selections automatically point to the existence of three act structure.

Further, thinking that screenplays require a set in stone format to be considered "right" is stupid, because no other form of art claims these kind of hard and fast rules.

So basically, three act structure is a crutch for people to use when they don't feel they have the ability/knowledge to tell the story the way it needs to be told to enhance their message.

Better?

reply

[–] piahellgrenbrooks 9 years ago

Yes. Much better!

reply

[–] schmadie 10 years ago

As a screenwriter, I thought this was a lovely film.

It didn't overreach, it didn't try to be something it really didn't want to be, and it stayed away from horrible stereotypes like the bitch ex-wife.

Was it an amazing artistic accomplishment? No.

Did it need to conform to the 'three act' convention? No.

Could it have been something more substantial? Sure. But considering that he went from a desire to be a haute cuisine chef to owning a food truck and making 'people food', it makes perfect sense that it ended up being the film that it is.

Again, I use the descriptive lovely.

reply

[–] khany82 10 years ago

I thought this film was a bit bland, it kept on these close ups of the kid looking like a puppy with the same bland expression whenever it involved a father/son scene, I don't think Jon can really carry a film, not this character in this script, the music was like "playing the greatest hits" of generic cuban music that we've all heard instead of some more substantial and creative (bar one), it was shumultzy, it didn;t make me hungryer ..just curious for Cuban food ..but not hungryer like u'd expect a successful Chef film should. (It did feel like a twitter film and is the food truck craze still on? Those are more like questions really) but I think the shortened third act waas probably a good idea considering his history with third acts like those in Iron man 1 & 2. I also feel like it might've been better with a Cuban lead.. now if I could just tweet this to Jon in 140 characters.

reply

[–] j4ny21 10 years ago

Like contemporary cuisine, which has done away with the archaic protein-veg-starch obligations of more classic cuisine, the three-act structure is also largely archaic. The film had all the conclusion it needed, and I agree with the above posters who liked this move for not over-reaching and just doing an excellent job at accomplishing what it set out to accomplish-a relatively real, light road/bonding movie whose motif happened to be food.

Not sure if Favreau intended for the parallel between the modern cuisine and the modern lack of three-act structure I mentioned above, but I certainly have no issue interpreting it that way.

reply