Brighton Rock - Q & A with writer/director Rowan Joffe

So I went to a BBC Q&A with Rowan Joffe yesterday, writer/director of the upcoming Brighton Rock. Rowan talked first about Brighton Rock and then went on to make some more general points about writing, directing and the business.

Asked why his production of Brighton was set in the sixties - and why remake it in the first place - he said the book Brighton Rock was a classic of British literature and why shouldn't there be more than one production of it? (as with Shakespeare, for example).

However, he obviously didn't want to go up against the classic Attenborough 1939 version, and thought that a contemporary setting would run into character problems - namely finding someone as naive and innocent as Rose in today's saturated media environment would be incredible.

So he decided to set it in the 1960's, namely 1964. This chimed with the theme of youth supplanting the older generation in the book, as youth society then was rebelling and respect for institutions such as the church and government were collapsing. A time of change.

Also the aspect of "cool" that accompanies the sixties, along with the opportunity to make a fantabulous soundtrack didn't put off the producers apparently. Don’t underestimate this “cool” aspect, but also don’t let it direct the story in any way – story is that most important.

On that fundamental issue of story, Rowan realised, after analysing the book, that it was not a story about a gangster on the make, but rather a love story. A quick synopsis in case you’re not familiar with the tale.

Pinky is a viscous little psycho who almost singlehandedly wipes out the established gangster hierarchy in Brighton, but is seen committing one of the murders by innocent country girl Rose. However, instead of killing her as the reader expects, he decides to woe her, linking them in a perverse and almost a sadistic relationship. Ultimately he marries her…and that’s as much as I can remember (I read it years ago)

Rowan's take on this is that it was not a gangster film but a love story. He mentioned that Greene, when deciding to write about a virtue - love in this case - decided to examine it from it's exact opposite - hate. And there is much about Pinky that is hateful.

This was a method Greene was apparently very fond of. It's an inspired way to contemplate a subject. One explores a subject through it’s absence – the shadow it leaves or the whole it can’t fill. The yin yang symbol flashes to my mind here, two opposites only existing because of and in spite of each other. Without each other they can’t exist, though they are locked in constant conflict. Indeed, they define each other and bring each other into existence.

Yey, I'm a secret hippy.

That was about it on Brighton Rock, but he littered the talk with some great advice. Some snippets:

• Scenes need to add up to images to attract a good director
• The script should be the vessel for the best ideas of the people on the film - don't be precious about it.
• As a writer and director understand the story and you'll be open to new, good ideas. Don't understand the story and you'll panic and make the wrong decision.
• You need to play and experiment and fail - and that is allowed in TV land, but not at all in film.
• You can never get the brilliance that is in your head fully onto the page. If you think you have, then you're wrong.
• Have a writing structure (eg 9-5) as professionals have to write to order, not when they feel like it. But saying that, if you’re inspired, carry on.
• Writer's Block doesn’t exist -it's an excuse, fear, laziness, the internal editor. You can always write something - even if it's just a to kill list – and once you've done that, then you should be clear to start on the proper job.
• It's much harder to write originally than to adapt - though even with adaptation you encounter unique problems
• It's a vocation. Only write if you have to.
• Failure is the greatest way to learn.

He also talked at length about being a writer/director and the types of skills they involved. Both are very different obviously, but at heart the same absolute directive applies - put Story above anything else.

Directors need social skills to bring out the best in actors, and need to be able to play the political game of the industry, to navigate the media to one's advantage. They are like the managers of football teams - it's all in the planning and preparation - in effect, once that's done the film could conceivably be shot without them being present.

He also talked a bit about formatting screenplays - how they look, the white on the page. While it is good to keep dialogue and action paragraphs spare and lean, be careful of being too ambiguous - you have to hit just the right level of showing the story while not alienating the reader with big clunky paragraphs - and bear in mind your audience, which at the first hurdle will be overworked, underpaid script readers.

One way to try to evaluate what you've written is to imagine that your screenplay has been written by the most obnoxious, vain, arrogant idiot you can conceive - one who you want to tear apart. If you still like the script then, you might be onto a winner.

Well, hope these little notes of wisdom and insight help ya. Rowan came across as very pleasant, down to earth guys. I’ll certainly go see the film.

It's out in cinemas from 4th February.
Cheerio!

How to write a historical epic/biopic

I've been working on one of these magnificent beasts for a while now - in fact much too long - so I thought I'd try and give you the benefit of my battles. I'll use the earlier review I did of William and Harold (a 2010 Brit List script by John Hodges) to add some specificity to my observations (please read it if you're not familiar with e 1066 story).

First off, don't do this at home! Turning reality into Fiction is a headscrew backward thing and you're bound to get blasted either from fans of the real historical time/incident/life, or criticized by professionals for not making it dramatic enough. And it probably won't be made anyway. It's a thankless task.

But, if you're determined, and you've got a great story which many people already know of (therefore a pre-existing customer base), which ideally hasn't been filmed before, you still have to answer one fundamental question, hopefully before you start.

WHY? The most aggravating, persistent and often the first question I get from professionals is: Why tell this story now? What makes it relevant to todays' man on the street?

Now I hate this question, partly because I'm still searching for an answer, and partly because I think there may be a defect in its assumption (still working on that though). "Why not", I'm tempted to answer glibly. Or "Because it's a fantastic story" is the other one. But these don't wash. One part of me thinks that it's hard to justify the reason behind telling the story without telling the story itself, and then, why not just tell the story? Another thinks the answer is "universal themes" and that it's a fantastic story - shouldn't that be enough?  But then one has to understand that specificity here is the key. What about the themes of the story will affect today's audience and why? As a period piece is one of the most expensive types of film to produce I guess they're entitled to an answer. However, I'm intrigued as to how Braveheart (I imagine it was the focus of "freedom"), Gladiator and Elizabeth answered these questions beyond the all encompassing -  it's a great story? Any ideas? 

William and Harold has a get out clause from this question - it's not a spec. However, if you look a bit wider you'll find that there are another 3 or 4 1066 projects being developed at the moment. Why? It most be more than a coincidence surely? Zeitgeist? That's descriptive, not analytic. One factor is the mental real estate - most English people and many others know the story. Another factor is that there's never been a film of this before. Maybe the (British) industry felt it needed an epic and this was the most likely answer? I think also it's a little thing with dates. The events of 1066 were a watershed, and having just entered the 21st century, maybe it just feels right. Another answer might be that it's about the nation state and national identity in a time when many (not me) feel under threat from the European Union and multiculturalism. Possibly. Or just rank bullshit.

So, you've answered your sceptics (well done there) and go on to embark on this historic voyage. The first major problem most historical biopics encounter is lack of story drive. Now, there is most definitely story there, but I mean story in that the protagonist has a definite goal and has to overcome obstacles to achieve it.

The problem with reality is people rarely have specific gaols, and therefore their actions do not  / cannot reflect a specific goal, which leaves the writer with a narrative consisting of unrelated incidents which while they may be intensely exciting and wonderfully written in their own right, are effectively little more than a few 15 minute shorts stuck together using the same characters. This is the many headed hydra you now have to decapitate. So, before creating a monster, beat out your story and make sure it has focus. Each event / incident (except the inciting incident) should be caused by your protagonist (even if at a remove/by mistake) and should naturally cause the next event of the film - the events should follow each other cumulatively, with the Protagonist at the heart of the film, crescendoing at the climax. Sucking eggs, I know, but once you've immersed yourself in research and have all these wonderful asides and tangents to tell that's the birth of the hydra. So focus, people, focus!

In William and Harold the writer introduces a love element between Harold and William's wife. Why? It's a complete fiction so what could ever justify it dramatically? How about the story drive.

Without this love element it would be a story about greed. Two men fighting over wealth (England) - which, let's face it, is a turn off. The protagonist has to have an aspirational gaol - in this case love - but honour, altruism etc will all suffice, though love is the most powerful.

Harold in this script falls for William's wife, and the author cleverly answers a question here that has puzzled historians for decades. To set the scene:

Harold has just defeated the Viking invasion of Harald Hardrada in Yorkshire. He learns that William has crossed the channel and is camped near Hastings, laying ruin to the local area. He force marches south, losing many men of the way, and with hardly a break in London marches out to battle William. And loses.

Now, in reality, if Harold had stayed in London over winter it would have accomplished two things. William would have been weakened, both in that his supply lines would have been stretched if not broken, and with the resultant weak of his soldiers' moral - they came to conquer and instead had to spend winter in a freezing tent.

Further, Harold could have raised a huge army from across England, harassed the Normans with guerrilla tactics and lightning raids if he had wintered in London. Had he done all this history could be very differ. But he didn't, and the writer has to tell us why.

My personal answer would be a form of honour. The rivalry between the two men is widely documented, and also provides a story driver suitable for the age. But John Hodges (writer of William and Harold) decided instead to set-up a love story between Harold and William's wife, and made that the main reason Harold attacked William so quickly. Harold knows she is there, and can't bear for her to be so near yet so far, so he attacks before he is ready  and loses.

It's a very elegant answer - it solves one of the main riddles of Harold's reign while adding an emotional through line / story drive to the whole film (the love affair is set-up in the first act). And it works very well.

This brings me to the second main headache of historical films. Accuracy and truth.

To my mind accuracy can be compromised in favour of the truth behind the story, but then the question is which story? Are you telling the established history or a new spin on it - and if so, how well founded is that spin? If it's merely to entertain and make the story work then I'm not so convinced. If it's to do those things but ultimate to discover the truth (as you see it) then you should be on firmer ground.

So what to show, omit, change and invent? This is less a craft question and ultimately boils down to your sensibility as a writer. As much as I admire the elegance of Hodge's solution in William and Harold (the love story), I think it fails on the truth level. He's invented a love affair (as far as I know there is no evidence for an affair between Harold and William's wife - and I'm pretty familier with the history), and ignored what I think it the heart of the story - the rivalry between the two men - which there is evidence for. For example the contemporary accusation that Harold broke an oath to William to support Willima' ascent to the English throne on the previous King's death - even though this oath was made under duress, when Harold was captive a few years earlier in William's castle. So you've got it all there - oaths, treachery, honour etc. However, it may mean making Harold the bad guy (on account of breaking his word) which probably wouldn't be palatable to an English audience. Like I said, it's hard.

However, from that oath, and the values of the era, I think a strong case can be made for the heart of the story to revolve around these powerful men and their relationship and honour - not around an invented love triangle.

But moving on from that specific example, what I'm trying to say is if the main drive of the story is convincing, then your audience will let you get away with a fair degree of artistic license - for example playing with the timeline, inventing / coalescing characters from a wider spread of people, changing events slightly. If they're unhappy with the underlying story, they're more apt to pick holes - because they want to find something wrong with it as they dislike it.

So be wary before riding into battle with history! A few main main points to keep in mind - know why this story is relevant now, make sure that it is a story - not a series of unlinked events in a characters life, and finally, tell the truth of it, find the story drive - and tell it so convincingly everyone accepts it!

If you're off into history give me a wave as you pass by - and good luck

My review of the Harold and William screenplay can be found here.

Supernatural Archetypes in True Blood and Being Human.

Happy New Year, Vampire hunters.

I assuming you’re familiar with the above TV series – if not go and watch them, they’re rather fun. Spoilers contained below though I have only watched the first two series of each programme. I believe series three of True Blood is airing in the US, and Being Human series three should grace our TV screens here in the UK soon.

Now, I’m sure this has been noted before, but True Blood (HBO) and Being Human (BBC) are basically the same programme. The same characters, situations and even plots just made in different countries – and therefore a good way to maybe examine the archetypes across this genre (with a few references of course to Buffy – how could I not?).

Both series are character driven- the plots springing from the protagonist’s communal desire to live a normal life, under the radar, rather than terrifying and killing us poor mortals. As a motivator it’s a pretty inactive goal, but shows their intrinsic yearning to be normal, one of the herd, a human like us – and therefore validates our own existence while acknowledging the darker desires we all fall prey to.

So it falls to the antagonists to create the story. When they are other supernatural beings, they want our heroes to remain in their world and play by their rules. When human, they want to destroy the threat posed by our heroes. Assimilate or exterminate! Either way our heroes – caught between two worlds – are pulled by the world they want to escape (the supernatural), and pushed away by the world they want to enter (the natural). Classic outsider premise, but adding the two worlds dynamic gives the set-up a natural tension and reflects the essential duality of human nature.

The antagonists also want to exploit the special powers of our protagonists - specifically Annie (Being Human) with her power over death and Sookie (True Blood) for her power over the mind, apart from the “normal” supernatural powers the other protagonists have. In both cases it boils down to the men folk protecting their not so helpless women folk.

So to the main characters. The mainstay – verging on clichéd – of the haunted, guilt ridden vampire who’s sworn off their evil ways and the blood-high is the main bloke in both drams (both Bill Compton – True Blood and Mitchell – Being Human). All very puritanical in some ways, reason overcoming bestial behaviour, which is a theme running through both shows (the werewolf/ shape shifter characters, the two worlds).

On a complete tangent, it just struck me that this is a continuation of the European enlightenment, when the Europeans replaced God/the other with Reason. This battle is now being fought in our collective subconscious with the ever so popular symbol of the vampire, who stands for everything “other” than reason – ie God and the beast and mysticism. Why else do these “good” vampire characters have such a Christ similarity in their suffering, self-denial and morality? They are spirituality/reason fighting against our darker side of mysticism, animal desires etc. It extends to psychology - the good vampires also represent the superego at permanent war with the dark desires of the id – the bad side of the vampires – something also present in the were creatures.

Anyway, this character/archetype is also reflected in Angel from Buffy – maybe the first incarnation of such a type? And I imagine it/he appears in Twilight too though I haven’t dared watch that, for the good of my soul.

In these programmes the female lead is always human but gifted – somehow a bridge between the two worlds – maybe even representing the ideal her friends are searching for. Sookie in True Blood is special as she can read people’s minds, and Annie in Being Human is dead but can resist the pull of the afterlife – whatever it may be. Buffy, of course, is The Chosen One. All are original/unique powers to add to the mix and give something different to each series. But these characters share many characteristics - their humility, courage, empathy and realness in such a weird world - and form the focus of the programme. They represent what is whole and good and needs to be protected – while doing some of the protecting themselves as well. These are the “empowered” and “strong” female characters we hear so much about, and are the heart of the programme around which all revolves. They are the heart that their vampire lovers lack.

Where vampires represent a spirituality of sorts – either good or evil, I think the werewolf and the shape shifter must represent our unconscious, primitive and animalistic side - slightly overlapped with vampires but with vampires they are pure evil, whereas Were animals are more uncontrollable and instinctive. This get slightly complicated in True Blood as Sam witnesses everyone else being bestial at the orgies, but he is tempted to his wild side by the lady shape shifter. George, in Being Human, unlike Sam has no control over his power and as such it is a curse, not a blessing. However, both characters provide some light relief while adding a non-threatening sweetness to the mix. Neither is seen as particularly sexually attractive or predatory, at least in comparison to the vampire. Both are loyal, a dog-like characteristic, and have a more certain morality than that of the vampire. They are the sidekick of the supernatural world, the third of the triumvirate.

And it all comes together in a big love triangle, the girl always choosing the vampire – how can one resist such repressed power? (who would Annie chose in being Human if she could? My money’s on Mitch). Then you can mix it up a bit, keep the tension, develop their relationships while they fight their good fights. All yummy entertaining fun.

So there you have it. The formula for a hit supernatural show. Three main characters, a love triangle, a woman with a unique power and two supernatural, tortured men lusting after her. Wrap it up in a new world, with the three of them trying to escape the supernatural and live “normal” lives, add a few antagonists on both sides (ie natural and supernatural) and you’re there.

Just please, no more good vampires. Think we’ve about done that.