Last week I managed to blag my way (God knows how) onto the BBC Writersroom Writers festival - So I thought I'd blog my way through it for anyone who might find it useful.
It was a couple of days in Leeds, of intense lectures and meeting lots of grand folk, all of whom seemed way more progressed in their careers than me - so, the only way is up!
The festival started off with a round table with successful writers debating whether it was right for writers to try and change the world. Hugo Blick, writer and director of The Shadow Line recently on the BBC was very interesting about the writer's relationship with the audience and politics in general. His point was that without opposing political ideologies - i.e. that all parties accept the Neo-Liberal framework and only disagree within those confines - it is hard for a lone voice to offer an alterative. He then went to connect this with apathy being a self-fulfilling prophecy, but what I took from this was the relationship he saw between writers, politicians and the general public, one I hadn't really examined before.
Then I went to a great session on Holby City - how the process of writing for them works, where and how they find their writers. Basically they'll get you in for a chat if they've read your script (supplied by an agent) and liked it, and may try you out on their shadow scheme - or if you have experience, give you an episode. The other thing that came up was the 5 act structure - a new one to me, but apparently what most of the BBC hour long dramas adhere to. It's basically three acts, but act 2 is split into 3 separate acts making 5 - which means a big turning point or reversal every 8 or so minutes.
A couple of session after that were no great shakes and then off to the pub for a bit of boozing - grand.
Though not so grand when the master of BBC Drama, John Yorke, gave us a potted history of screenwriting craft from Aristotle to the present day. It was titled "The Curse of the Scriptwriting Guru", and while admitting he was setting himself up as one, he proceeded to trash all claims to guru dom.
His argument - one which I had come to in my own way, though not nearly to the same depth or development - were that there were many paths up the mountain of structure - that there was a Platonic ideal of structure that all these masters - Vogler, McKee, Field - were reaching toward, though each were forging their own path and understanding. It boils down to the basic idea that humans understand information by assigning patterns to it. And the most basic way of doing this, as one of them old Greeks says, is THESIS; ANTITHESIS; SYNTHESIS.
This breaks down into the three act structure. Humans then naturally think in this structure, and all these gurus have come up with ways of understanding this underlying truth. So they are all right, and are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, to be successful with structure, one needs to be inclusive - to know the different systems of thought and choose which one, or combination of more than one, suits you best.
A pale shadow of what the man said, but it was brilliant.
There were a couple of other sessions - notable "Starting a New Series", in which the round table stressed the need for fantastic characters matched with a great hook, and the orchestration of the piece - i.e. set it up so there's room for natural stories of the week and built in conflict between characters. Wit and humour is an essential that many writers often forget to put in.
It was a fantastic couple of days, and as ever, the chance to meet and talk to like-minded people was brilliant. If they do this again, get your self on it. Leeds is nice too.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Sunday, 26 June 2011
Industrial Scripts' Script Reading Course for Film & TV
On Friday I went on Industrial script's Script Reading Course for Film & TV.
Highly recommend, not only for the no nonsense approach of Industiral's Script's main man Evan Leighton-Davis, but also for the extensive support and backup they give you. This includes a 50 page handout of the course, including a very extensive list of industry contacts - one that would (and probably has) taken years to build - and doing a sample script report after the course and getting feedback on it from the course tutor, Evan.
I'll give a few highlights from the course, but first a disclaimer. Yes, I won this course. And yes, I won it through the UK Scriptwriter's Podcast - again. Those of you who've paid attention will rember I won another of their competitions in January. Now before it starts to look too bad I must stress I've never met Danny or Tim - and besides, Evan (who I hadn't met till I did the course) chose the winner of this competition, not Danny or Tim. I felt a little guilty when I won this second prize, but hey, what ya gonna do? It did apparently come up in conversation between Evan and Danny after Evan announced the winner. ANyway, hope my roll keeps...rolling.
The course was great - here's a few highlights but if you've got the cash and are wanting to be a script reader this is the one to do. Gonna bullet point your arse:
In script reports:
But, where this course excelled was the time it devoted to actually finding a reading job. Evan went into depth with information, strategies, tips and personall anecdotes on how to get those in demand jobs - and all very good advice it was too. Ultimately what I took away from the course was the necessity of strategising one's career - building a brand and working with the best. This applies in any profession, but even more so in the media, where name recognition is everything.
So just make sure that whatever you do - be it writing scripts, writing script reports or riding a laser-beam to Jupiter, make it very, very good - just like Evan's course.
In a coupe weeks I'm off to the BBC Writersroom Writer's Festival in Leeds, so hope to be blogging some about that.
Keep writing!
Highly recommend, not only for the no nonsense approach of Industiral's Script's main man Evan Leighton-Davis, but also for the extensive support and backup they give you. This includes a 50 page handout of the course, including a very extensive list of industry contacts - one that would (and probably has) taken years to build - and doing a sample script report after the course and getting feedback on it from the course tutor, Evan.
I'll give a few highlights from the course, but first a disclaimer. Yes, I won this course. And yes, I won it through the UK Scriptwriter's Podcast - again. Those of you who've paid attention will rember I won another of their competitions in January. Now before it starts to look too bad I must stress I've never met Danny or Tim - and besides, Evan (who I hadn't met till I did the course) chose the winner of this competition, not Danny or Tim. I felt a little guilty when I won this second prize, but hey, what ya gonna do? It did apparently come up in conversation between Evan and Danny after Evan announced the winner. ANyway, hope my roll keeps...rolling.
The course was great - here's a few highlights but if you've got the cash and are wanting to be a script reader this is the one to do. Gonna bullet point your arse:
In script reports:
- don't fence sit
- do refer to recent movies
- even if it's a bad script, write a good logline.
- don't waffle.
- Synopsis - dot' do this: and then this happened, and then this, and then this - NO, Peter, NO (who's Peter? Peter is the bad script reader).
- Pace is the result of Structure (with a capital S).
- look at the big picture - how does the script sit in comparison to others? Is it designed correctly, with characters that complement each other and naturally create tension - indeed, are there enough or too few characters? Does the scripts world/arena work or is it unbelievable?
- is the story too simple or complex?
But, where this course excelled was the time it devoted to actually finding a reading job. Evan went into depth with information, strategies, tips and personall anecdotes on how to get those in demand jobs - and all very good advice it was too. Ultimately what I took away from the course was the necessity of strategising one's career - building a brand and working with the best. This applies in any profession, but even more so in the media, where name recognition is everything.
So just make sure that whatever you do - be it writing scripts, writing script reports or riding a laser-beam to Jupiter, make it very, very good - just like Evan's course.
In a coupe weeks I'm off to the BBC Writersroom Writer's Festival in Leeds, so hope to be blogging some about that.
Keep writing!
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Being Human creator Toby Whithouse Q&A
I know, this poor blog has been lost in the virtual wilderness of bleeting electrons and absent writings for a few weeks now. It just needs some love - mea culpa.
I was nicknamed lazy Blaisey, many years ago – entirely unjustly, I might add - what I’m trying to say is that I have been busy: I have just started script reading for a prod co, (am enjoying it and learning a lot), as well as desperately trying to finish my rewrite by end of April (Nichols competition is calling)
But I did manage to finagle my way into another BBC event last Friday, a question and answer with the creator and Exec Producer (Showrunner to your Americans) of the cult BBC series Being Human.
Thought I’d write it up while I had a chance. If you don’t watch this series, I highly recommend it – last week’s episode was on crack!
For some reason I’d thought Toby had appeared from nowhere to create this show. If only. Like most mere mortals he had to work his way up, starting from being a failed actor.
Out of work, he wrote a play which promptly got him TV writing gigs. After a few of those a Prod co gave him the bare outline of the idea for No Angles, a channel 4 series on nurses up north – which was quite good fun. And then Being Human. He admits he’s lucky, but I think he might have a smidgen of talent as well. He did stress the Being Human – becoming a showrunner – happened at the right time. Any earlier and he would have fucked it up. He also stressed that working up as a writer on other people’s shows taught a huge amount, enough to now run this – you can’t do it without this kind of experience – so don’t worry if you’re a little older…
So an old BBC contact approached him about creating a series based on the lives of twenty something housemates who bought a house together. This promptly launched him into development hell, months of trying to get blood from a stone – it’s hardly an inspiring premise. Then, in the last meeting on the possible programme, he flung in a few ideas from a short he was writing about an anal werewolf.
Why not make one of the flatmates – an anal compulsive control freak – a werewolf? And the recovering sex addict could be a vampire? The agoraphobic girl becomes a ghost? Sounds like on of those moments to me when everything clicks into place and you’re staring at genius.
And analysing it (just a little) the key is that the characters came first, and their characteristics – their supernatural elements were only added later, as a veneer to make them..more sexy? Give them a story? But is this working from the specific to the general? – from a real character to an archetype? I thought it was supposed to be the other way round, but just goes to show, rules are made to be broken.
So it worked, and worked brilliantly. Their supernatural elements perfectly complemented their characteristics, creating rounded supernatural characters with depth and a unique story. Go get ‘em!
Other than that, Toby was very interesting on budgets. Prosthetics, settings, number of characters, all kept down due to budget. That, and the limits it places on production brings a concentrated creativity to the piece – if you’ve sent the house bound episode with Herrick in the attic that just proves the point. Should give us all heart.
He was also quite wise on one’s attitude when writing. Starting out on Being Human, he was stuck – couldn’t find his way and wrote uninspiring stuff. Only the realisation that he should write it as though it’ll never get made actually allowed him to spread his imagination (within the budget confines) and explore this world he’d created.
One question came of how he mixed both tragedy and comedy in the series – which it does, mostly to good effect. Toby didn’t actually get the assumption of the question – that there were different genres. He said he just wrote life as he saw it and didn’t classify. I can see his point, but I think - especially if you are writing film – you really do need to be aware of genre. It’s one of the most basic tools when it comes to selling. He might be in a very nice place (the BBC) which can take occasional risks. That said, the tone of the series has varied widely from scene to scene let alone series to series, and that I think is one of its strengths. Genre has always been a marketing invention / demand, and he’s blessed to be free of it.
Then I went home and caught the penultimate episode of series 3 on Sunday. That was some of the best TV I have watched in a good long time – surprise, revelations, reversals, all the characters gong through the shit – it was beautiful TV. Thank you Toby Whitehouse.
Am just off to some networking drinks with general script development people now… so remember, mustn’t drink too much….
All best
Out
I was nicknamed lazy Blaisey, many years ago – entirely unjustly, I might add - what I’m trying to say is that I have been busy: I have just started script reading for a prod co, (am enjoying it and learning a lot), as well as desperately trying to finish my rewrite by end of April (Nichols competition is calling)
But I did manage to finagle my way into another BBC event last Friday, a question and answer with the creator and Exec Producer (Showrunner to your Americans) of the cult BBC series Being Human.
Thought I’d write it up while I had a chance. If you don’t watch this series, I highly recommend it – last week’s episode was on crack!
For some reason I’d thought Toby had appeared from nowhere to create this show. If only. Like most mere mortals he had to work his way up, starting from being a failed actor.
Out of work, he wrote a play which promptly got him TV writing gigs. After a few of those a Prod co gave him the bare outline of the idea for No Angles, a channel 4 series on nurses up north – which was quite good fun. And then Being Human. He admits he’s lucky, but I think he might have a smidgen of talent as well. He did stress the Being Human – becoming a showrunner – happened at the right time. Any earlier and he would have fucked it up. He also stressed that working up as a writer on other people’s shows taught a huge amount, enough to now run this – you can’t do it without this kind of experience – so don’t worry if you’re a little older…
So an old BBC contact approached him about creating a series based on the lives of twenty something housemates who bought a house together. This promptly launched him into development hell, months of trying to get blood from a stone – it’s hardly an inspiring premise. Then, in the last meeting on the possible programme, he flung in a few ideas from a short he was writing about an anal werewolf.
Why not make one of the flatmates – an anal compulsive control freak – a werewolf? And the recovering sex addict could be a vampire? The agoraphobic girl becomes a ghost? Sounds like on of those moments to me when everything clicks into place and you’re staring at genius.
And analysing it (just a little) the key is that the characters came first, and their characteristics – their supernatural elements were only added later, as a veneer to make them..more sexy? Give them a story? But is this working from the specific to the general? – from a real character to an archetype? I thought it was supposed to be the other way round, but just goes to show, rules are made to be broken.
So it worked, and worked brilliantly. Their supernatural elements perfectly complemented their characteristics, creating rounded supernatural characters with depth and a unique story. Go get ‘em!
Other than that, Toby was very interesting on budgets. Prosthetics, settings, number of characters, all kept down due to budget. That, and the limits it places on production brings a concentrated creativity to the piece – if you’ve sent the house bound episode with Herrick in the attic that just proves the point. Should give us all heart.
He was also quite wise on one’s attitude when writing. Starting out on Being Human, he was stuck – couldn’t find his way and wrote uninspiring stuff. Only the realisation that he should write it as though it’ll never get made actually allowed him to spread his imagination (within the budget confines) and explore this world he’d created.
One question came of how he mixed both tragedy and comedy in the series – which it does, mostly to good effect. Toby didn’t actually get the assumption of the question – that there were different genres. He said he just wrote life as he saw it and didn’t classify. I can see his point, but I think - especially if you are writing film – you really do need to be aware of genre. It’s one of the most basic tools when it comes to selling. He might be in a very nice place (the BBC) which can take occasional risks. That said, the tone of the series has varied widely from scene to scene let alone series to series, and that I think is one of its strengths. Genre has always been a marketing invention / demand, and he’s blessed to be free of it.
Then I went home and caught the penultimate episode of series 3 on Sunday. That was some of the best TV I have watched in a good long time – surprise, revelations, reversals, all the characters gong through the shit – it was beautiful TV. Thank you Toby Whitehouse.
Am just off to some networking drinks with general script development people now… so remember, mustn’t drink too much….
All best
Out
Monday, 7 February 2011
How to approach a rewrite
So, I’m embarking on a massive rewrite, and in order to do a proper job this time I thought I’d layout a plan of action. And then I thought I might as well put it up here - it might help someone.
I’ve culled this from many sources – The 21st Century Screenplay by Linda Aronson (highly recommended), a Hal Croasmun newsletter, and an audio podcast from Just Effing Entertain Me, as well as a few random thoughts of my good self. Hope it’s useful!
There are I think two main tenants to a rewrite. Have a plan, and focus on specifics.
That said, a rewrite can encompass anything from a dialogue pass to a complete restructure with attendant new characters. I’m not on either extreme, but having a plan is essential so you know what you want to achieve, how you’ll do that, and by when. One also has to specify – it’s very easy to say Character X needs more depth, but unless you know how you’re going to develop his emotional arc, how will you achieve that? Almost impossible when you’re stuck in the middle of act 2, trying to find the way out through a dense wood. Much better to do this at planning stage, when you can see the shape of the forest.
So, in some easy to follow steps, here’s how I will proceed.
1. Collate all your feedback – from yourself and readers – that you think should be included. I’ve done this and have a word doc of 60 odd pages now (gulp). But fear not! Always break it down into bearable, pint size chunks.
2. The next step is to divide this huge mass of feedback (PS include good feedback so you don’t go and cut what people think works well) into separate docs. So, one for each main character, examining their arc and emotional development – and actually breaking this down specifically, so we know in what scene his outlook changes from pessimistic to optimistic, for example. Also a separate document for the main relationships between each character, how those relationships grow and develop. I’ll also create docs for tone, theme, dialogue, and structure – the last probably split into different sequences – a much more manageable way to view the entire piece.
3. The difficult part here is specifying. For example, the main character needs to be more enticing but how? I would figure this out through his arc and emotional development, and then specify how and when this occurs in the sequence docs – breaking it down into separate scenes. In effect, writing a large outline.
4. Once you’ve done that for characters, relationships, theme, dialogue, tone and anything else you can think of, and out it all into the sequences docs I would read through and check it all scans, all the set-ups and pay offs are there, that the plot is consistent and makes sense.
5. Only then will I start on the actual script. And this time I’m gonna be radical. I use Celtx (a great free screenwrting software programme) at the moment, so my full script is in that programme. But last week I was lucky enough to win Movie Magic Screenwriting software courtesy of the UK Screenwriter’s Podcast, so I’ve decided to retype it all out by hand (bigger gulp). I imagine (and may be wrong) that this will force me to re-evaluate every word I retype, and will hopefully improve it as a result.
6. Then a final read through check. For me, this entails mainly looking at dialogue and the shape of the scene – that it moves the story forward, reveals character, and builds to a climax with appropriate twist/cliff-hanger ending, fuelling the move into the next scene. And of course, wordsmithing – making the action lines and dialogue sing.
And then a fully finished screenplay! Give yourself a time limit and get cracking! Good luck!
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Lucky Day
Well I was wondering what to blog about this week, tearing out my overlong hair and generally winding myself up.
But then - and apologies in advance for dancing perilously close the circle the hell reserved exclusively for boasters - I go and win not one, but two competitions today! Both fairly small, but offering great prizes.
First off was the competition of podmasters Tim Clague and Danny Stack - check out their most noble, friendly and necessary podcast here, and for answering their question right I won a heap of goodies - Movie Magic Screenwriting software, a DVD of Screenwriters interviews and a subscription to Moviescope magazine. Yay!
Mr Stack also took up my challenge of comparing and contrasting True Blood and Being Human, which I shamelessly suggested after doing exactly the same thing on my blog, here (the secret is, re-use your content. But maybe don't boast about it.)
So, excitement all over, I can home to find an email from Circalit saying my review of the spec script Gilgamesh on their site had won Review of the Month, earning me a free full coverage report from Industrial Scripts, a service I had been eying up already because of their talent connector.
Just hoping this run lasts til tomorrow when I can grab a lottery ticket at the local newsagent.
Boast over,
and many thank and worshipfullnesses to the kind competition people and the luck Gods.
What will tomorrow bring?
But then - and apologies in advance for dancing perilously close the circle the hell reserved exclusively for boasters - I go and win not one, but two competitions today! Both fairly small, but offering great prizes.
First off was the competition of podmasters Tim Clague and Danny Stack - check out their most noble, friendly and necessary podcast here, and for answering their question right I won a heap of goodies - Movie Magic Screenwriting software, a DVD of Screenwriters interviews and a subscription to Moviescope magazine. Yay!
Mr Stack also took up my challenge of comparing and contrasting True Blood and Being Human, which I shamelessly suggested after doing exactly the same thing on my blog, here (the secret is, re-use your content. But maybe don't boast about it.)
So, excitement all over, I can home to find an email from Circalit saying my review of the spec script Gilgamesh on their site had won Review of the Month, earning me a free full coverage report from Industrial Scripts, a service I had been eying up already because of their talent connector.
Just hoping this run lasts til tomorrow when I can grab a lottery ticket at the local newsagent.
Boast over,
and many thank and worshipfullnesses to the kind competition people and the luck Gods.
What will tomorrow bring?
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
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.
That was about it on Brighton Rock, but he littered the talk with some great advice. Some snippets:
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!
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.
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!
Thursday, 20 January 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)