Film Review: How Different Structures In Story Telling Are Presented With The Investigation Of The Film 'Die Hard'

Today I was introduced to different narrative structures in storytelling. Below are my notes taken in the lecture.

I first looked at Aristotle's classic 3 act structure. This consists of the following;

Act 1 - Introduction

Act 2 - Where most of the action takes place

Act 3 - Everything comes together, a resolve

Act 1 is the setup - who, what, where and the introduction to the conflict.

Act 2 spends the time developing the conflict.

Act 3 resolves the conflict, tying up any other loose ends in the narrative. If you plan to make a sequel to the film, you are able to leave certain plot points unresolved. 

The traditional way to structure a story is by making the beginning 25%, the middle 50% and the end 25%. In modern-day interpretations of the Aristotle structure, the percentages are moved around in order to create a slightly different narrative. This makes the film seem more interesting as it strays away from the traditional, making certain points in the plot unexpected. The Syd Field paradigm is an example of this, being an extension on Aristotle's structure. When it comes to act 3, if you plan to make a sequel to the film, you are able to leave certain plot points unresolved. 

Syd's version of storytelling calls for changes in the plot such as changes in the structure and adding twists to the story. TV shows commonly use this in structuring their stories in order to keep viewers interested. 

5 act structures

This is done by dividing the narrative up into 5 independent acts:

Introduction 

Rising Movement

Climax

Falling Action

Catastrophe or resolution

Shakespeare commonly used the 5 act structures in his plays

Die Hard

Die hard follows a 3 act structure, with each scene driving the plot forward to the next act. There are no scenes which aren't necessary to contribute towards the plot, making it very action packed and in keeping with Aristotle's classic 3 act structure.

Act 1

Introduces the characters. John McClane is a cop who has travelled across the country to see his wife and children for Christmas. He comes across slick and mysterious in the opening and seems to be at odds with his wife. This is never specifically mentioned, however their are many signs in each scene which lead you to believe this, such as John's wife, Hollie, using her maiden name at work. John reacts to this in a frustrated way, showing the viewer that he still very much cares for his wife, even though he may not make that very clear to her. The fact that its set at Christmas also helps set the scene for the narrative as everyone in the office has lowered their guard. This makes it much easier for the terrorists to carry out their attack. The story is also set for most of the narrative, within the office building. By keeping the location consistent, it helps to keep the narrative moving in a linear way.The antagonist is introduced as well as the conflict of the film. Terrorists want money from the vault in the building and are willing to get their hands dirty to achieve their goal. 

Act 2

This is the main part of the film which includes John crawling around the building, avoiding the terrorist as he attempts to get help from the outside world. He becomes a real pain for the terrorists by killing men and stealing the detonator. This large chunk of action helps the audience to get invested in the story as well as the characters. You learn more about John as a person as you see the lengths he goes to in order to protect not only the ones he loves, but also the police officers he's never met and staff in the building.  

Act 3

John manages to outsmart the antagonist, getting in close enough to fight him one on one. He manages to save his wife and produce the best outcome possible for the situation. This would not have been without Johns inclusion in the narrative, everything is wrapped up leaving no loose ends. 

Overall I enjoyed watching Die Hard, with it being a classic film within the action adventure genre. I think the beginning is paced really well, their is just that small section in the middle where I feel like the film looses its pacing slightly. From a narrative standpoint, this is due to John being trapped, with his only available course of action is to wait for the aid of the policemen. This section is very short and its inclusion is needed, however it sticks out particularly as the other scenes consist of SO much action. 

 I really like Alan Rickman as the villain. His lifeless tone and cold personality work really well together. He perfectly embodies what a terrorist is. He keeps his cool and thinks carefully about his next actions. He is the complete contrast of John McClain's character, who comes across as if he jumps head first into action, thinking of the consequences later. Rickman is essential in driving the plot forward. He is the main reason for creating the conflict within the story and must lose by the end in order for the conflict to be resolved, following the classical structure. 

I also feel like the film has aged really well, considering it was made in 1988. This is mainly due to its use of practical effects, relying on CGI for a limited amount of scenes. This helps to ground the film in reality, making it seem believable. The characters actions are also committed in the realm of what's possible in reality. This is sometime hard to do as action films are commonly over the top. This makes the film stand out more, making its viewing more enjoyable. 

You could argue that the plot is a bit too formulaic, making the story feel predictable and boring. I didn't feel like I got to really know the character and instead was just following along on his adventure. I did like how they drop hints throughout the opening sequence which paints a picture of the characters life. I don't know if I am just used to films nowadays flipping the formula because of the predictability films find their plots becoming. Why go and what a film that everyone has pretty much already seen? However it didn't help that I had seen the film prior and so new what events took place. It was however interesting to see how the film followed in the structure and I liked how everything within the plot had a resolution. This is becoming rarer in film nowadays. As the industry has grown, films seem to be released solely for their money making potential. Although Die Hard does have sequels, it feel as if this is not the end goal when watching this film and instead it just wants to tell the story of John McClane. I enjoyed the adventure the film took me on and feel it would not have been able to be paced as well, had it not followed in the three act structure.