Prompts: 

• Reflect on the plot points your team developed for a Red Riding Hood adaptation, with reference to Cobley’s definitions of story, plot and narrative, and how these could be developed further.
• Watch a feature film and map it against the conventional three-act structure, by identifying its normality, disturbance, first act turning point, second act turning point, climax and resolution. Reflect on how it conforms and/or deviates from the structure.

_____________________________________________________________________

What differentiates plot, story, and narrative? Up until recently, I had assumed that the three terms were all simply synonyms for one another – of course, naivety and lack of knowledge can be blamed for such a misinformed assumption.
Starting the ‘THE PLOT THICKENS’ studio, my new classmates and I tried to make better sense of the differences. We began by developing a list of concise plot points for a sci-fi Red Riding Hood adaptation. This procedure begged the question: was our curated list genuinely reflective of “plot points”, or did it more accurately encompass “story points”… perhaps even “narrative points”?

Figure 1: A photo of the Red Riding Hood adaptation plot points

Looking to Paul Cobley’s work on the topic, I found much clarity. He states that:
“Story” consists of all the events which are to be depicted. “Plot” is the chain of causation which dictates that these events are somehow linked and that they are therefore to be depicted in relation to each other. “Narrative” is the showing or the telling of these events and the mode selected for that to take place’ (Copley 2014 [2001], 5).

Reflecting on this definition, I’ve concluded that the current list simultaneously fits both ‘Story points’ and ‘Plot points’. It has a list of all the major events (satisfying the classification of “Story”) and it is also lists them in chronological order, implying cause and effect (satisfying the classification of “Plot”).
On the other hand, “Narrative points” would include how each listed point is executed. For example: The narrative for point 3 (Red goes to get money) would discuss how red goes about doing this.

Having progressed in my basic understanding of story, narrative, and plot, I’d also like to dedicate some thought to the conventional three-act structure.
An effective method for doing this is by applying it to a household film. As luck would have it, in anticipation of the upcoming release of Kung Fu Panda 4, I’ve decided to re-watch Kung Fu Panda 1.

Starting with a depiction of normality, Po -a dreamy panda bear- is seen working at his father’s noodle shop. The disturbance occurs when Po is unexpectedly chosen as the Dragon Warrior. This even upsets the traditional customs and challenges his own self-doubt. The first act turning point commence when Po begins his training. The second act turning point occurs when Po discovers the secret of the Dragon Scroll. The climax unfolds as Tai Lung, the villain, faces off against Po. Finally, the resolution sees Po triumph over Tai Lung, proving himself as the true Dragon Warrior.

As one can see, the film can be mapped against the conventional three-act structure. However, there are slight deviations that I have inevitably noted. To better relay them, we need to take a closer look at the conventional story spine – a more detailed version of the 3 act structure.

Figure 2: A photo of the conventional Story Spine

According to my very mathematical calculations, the movie goes like this:

_____________________________________________________________________

References

Cobley, P. 2014, ‘Narrative’. London and New York: Routledge. Accessed 05/03/2024