I’ve always been a big fan of drama and the performing arts, so I may have gotten a tad excited when I first saw the second part of our readings by M. Rabiger, focusing on a common story arc often used in theater.
Rabiger brought to the fore the importance of how we view our characters and how we want the audience to empathize with them; what makes them special enough to be worthy of our attention and to be deemed entertaining. In this we found the classical archetype of a ‘hero’, and more specifically, one whom adheres to the ‘three act structure’ of a play. The three act structure primarily focuses on the ‘hero’s journey’: rise, fall – redemption/climax, resolve. Facing and overcoming their hardships is what comes to define the hero as a hero, and which is why find this structure so inspiring and entertaining; we admire and want to be able to do the same as them. This structure has individually been around for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures for this very reason.
transitioning to television now, likewise this is the reason as to why someone with this sort of story makes an ideal interviewee.
In the past many typically “successful” interviews would also followed this format, beginning casually, slowly leading into more serious questions followed by reaching their intended point, the hardest hitting question of the interview (the climax), then to resolve it by wrapping it up with closing statements. these questions and answers being similar to ‘beats’ of a plot in a play, thus being able to follow a similar format.