I was out like a light last night. Seven hours later I was awake.
Something I hadn't done the previous evening was prepare my attack on the speed-pitching. Sorting out which pitches I was going to deliver to which of my victims. Stapling the one-sheets to my writing CVs and business cards. (Yes, I am that sad/prepared, I brought a stapler and sellotape, though I have no idea what I might use sellotape for.)
The hotel booking didn't include breakfast and they are not cheap at this hotel, but the refectory was open at the college. I checked Google Maps for a quicker route through Regent's Park and set off. It was quicker.
There was breakfast. A nice big cooked breakfast - I like nice big cooked breakfasts and I can get away with it because I do a lot of walking. (In fact I am losing weight.) Chatting to other delegates, ones I knew and ones who I came to know.
I was terrible, I kept complaining how I hadn't got any of the sort of people I wanted for the speed-pitching. Everybody who I told (and who didn't I tell?) was sympathetic. Poor me.
Anyway one of my speed-pitchees (the agent) was in a session in the morning so I, calculatedly, went to that session in order to research him further. So Katy Williams and Gary Wild talking about being agents and what agent do, and what they don't do.
the most important thing when trying to get an agent: Try not to sound crazy. Just be professional. Make sure the little things are right - in other words, don't give anyone an excuse to reject you. And what they want in a client is someone who is personally active in promoting his/her own career. An agent doesn't do it all.
This handy little fact helped enormously when I saw Gary in the speed-pitch - because I was able to tell him all the stuff I did to push myself and try to get gigs, as well as producing my own material.
Katy broke an agent's job down into four areas: Sales; Lawyer; Script editor; and Counsellor.
The proportions change depending on the client.
They said a lot more besides but that's some of the important stuff.
Then I went to see Phil Parker. I'd gone to Phil's sessions at the previous Cheltenham festival and found them to be fairly important, talking as he was about writers creating entire universes in which to tell their stories - and having multiple creatives building multiple stories, images, games or whatever in those universes - while the original creator still maintains control.
His thrust this year was rather different: Film and TV are buggered (he didn't use that word). Though independents will still continue to be able to self-finance and make stuff.
Meanwhile entire web series (once the new hope) have sunk without trace and millions have been lost - but that's because the stories have been rubbish - really stunk. There was a vampire series (costing $5m to make) that was sub-Buffy without achieving even Eclipse quality (and whatever you may like or dislike about Eclipse it's made money).
But mobile has exploded.
On an income-per-minute basis the 90 second "Angry Kid" animations by Aardman have made more money than Wallace and Gromit. New delivery platforms have different narrative requirements but it's Phil's view that as writers we can cash in.
If we can write a structured character-driven 90 seconds (max of three minutes) story we can be miles ahead.
Whether you agree or disagree with Phil you can't ignore him. He's always thinking about the future and never about the status quo.
Curiously enough it is part of our world domination plan to release short bits of material as we develop our steampunk projects. Taking Phil's comments into consideration we just need to make them structured.
And then I had lunch. People were nice and wished me luck and broken legs.
And then I did the speedpitching. Considering I've never done it before I think it went reasonably well.
We got 5 minutes for each pitch with 40 seconds to change seats, which was plenty. And got 3 people to pitch to, we knew in advance who we were getting so could research them and (hopefully) pitch the right thing.
I made sure I took control, in a nice way, by shaking hands, introducing myself and asking how they were holding up :-) I'm so naughty.
Thing is, at the MetFilm School evenings Justin Trefgarne said that good pitches turn into conversations. So my view was: make it a conversation first and you're already winning.
First I had an agent - and I watched as his eyes glaze over when I said "science fiction" (apparently they'd also glazed over when someone said "period piece").
So I finished that pitch off pretty quick and he asked what else I'd done. Knowing that he's interested in someone who is pro-active in advancing their career, I pushed all those aspects of what I do and ended with my UK private eye series (something you don't get much). At which point he brightened up. So I'll be contacting him later.
Then I got a European film producer and pitched my (atypical for me) script "Une Nuit a Paris", to which he said "it seems like TV" so I admitted that I prefer writing TV. I presented him with my one-sheet leave-behind (with CV and card stapled on). Which he skimmed and went "how's it different from The Hangover?" so I said and he became interested.
Then I got the US film producer and pitched the same film (she noticed I'd taken control and was a bit miffed, so I let her have it back) and she said "So, how's it different from The Hangover?" So I looked surprised and slightly put-out. "I'm British" I said. She laughed "That's good, you keep that!" "I've got a one-sheet", I said. "I can accept that." So she got the sheet, CV and card as well. We'd finished early so I asked her what she was working on :-)
And that was that.
I hadn't heavily rehearsed my pitches, just reminded myself of the key points, because I knew it wouldn't go according to any plan I had in my head, I just told them enough so they got the idea.
In the end they're just people.
The final session of the day for me was the one on writing for kids. Well I already have a script and it was a semi-finalist in the CBBC/Writersroom competition last year. But it was interesting listening to everything that was said by the four panellists.
I didn't make any notes during this, partly because I was sitting on the floor for a lot of it (no room) and partly because by this time my head had turned to mush. But it turns out that a number of countries (like Canada and some in the Far East, and even the Middle East) are desperate for British writers. And that the kids market is very open, fewer writers seem to think this is a lucrative area - but it is. Very. Kids shows get repeated endlessly - and the writer gets paid every time.
I got some food in the bar, had a long chat with William Gallagher, (name check).
I met up with many many other people today and we did lots of exchanging of cards :-)
Last day tomorrow and I need to meet several people specifically.
What's on the turntable? Elton John on the TV
Showing posts with label une nuit a paris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label une nuit a paris. Show all posts
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
London Screenwriters' Festival #1
I am very tired. End of Day #1 at the LSF. I'm going to try and crack through this fairly quickly because I need my sleepy-byes, but once I start writing I tend to just keep going.
Wednesday evening I prepared one-sheets for Monsters and Une Nuit in Paris, because these were most likely to be the things I pitch - oh and my writing CV. It had to be Wednesday because Thursday daytime was the only opportunity to do any printing.
Thursday I got the stuff printed and headed back to my place of residence. Late again because the day job is getting to need "working late" because a deadline is looming.
I packed my gear, as I'm staying in a hotel near the event. Packed all my stuff and realised I had rather a lot to carry - only two bags but really heavy. Normally I book into hotels the evening before an event but London is far too expensive for that.
Then horror hits. I'm entering the Shine Pictures competition which has a deadline on Friday so I'm uploading my entry, and the form refuses to accept that my PDFs are actually PDFs. I get very annoyed. I waste two hours creating PDFs in different ways trying to force the site to recognise my files. Eventually it dawns on me: I change to Internet Explorer and it works. (I am professionally disgusted - it takes work to make a site fail like that.)
Dawn's Friday morning. I'm up at the usual time, well slightly earlier really. Finish packing, dress, breakfast, lift to station, train to Farringdon, Circle Line to Baker Street. And I'm there.
I can't go to the hotel as I can't check-in yet, so I have to lug my bags around.
The event is at Regent's College which is located in Regents Park. And it's very nice in very pleasant surroundings. I encounter a co-attendee of the MetFilm School course, and rescue her from a garrulous member of the College. She is grateful.
So we arrive together. I get registered (Hina registered the previous evening), prove I am me (who else would I be). Make our way to the Refectory and grab some food while the MetFilm Yobs collect around us. And Jez Freedman. I tell everyone who'll listen that Jez is excellent as a script reader and doesn't charge enough. (I always say this, because it's true.) Jez points out that he deliberately keeps his prices low because he wants to offer a service that he didn't have when he was starting out.
Jez is one of the good guys.
It heads towards 9am and the MetFilm Yobs move as an amorphous blob to the introductory session in a large hall and fill up a row.
This is a very well-appointed college, the seats in the main hall are extremely comfortable. It has it's own cinema. Various food shops around the refectory, two bars, a very nice restaurant as well as the various classrooms.
The Introduction has David Chamberlain and Chris Jones doing a double-act. Chris takes a photo of the audience from the stage. There are announcements.
Then we get a long interview with Tim Bevan one of the founders of Working Title. He explained the genesis and working philosophy of the company - so unlike the horrors of Hollywood.
Generally speaking the original author of a script stays with it throughout its development, though other writers may be brought in for their views, a script is not put into production (usually) until it's ready. They want good stories with great characters and emotion.
His description just made me think of Pixar, which operates on a similar philosophy. And both companies produce successful films more often than not.
There was lots more but time is getting on...
The next for me was a chat with Ben Stephenson (Head of BBC commissioning) and Gub Neal who had been commissioner for ITV (during its 90s heyday) and Channel 4, but now runs the Artists Studio.
They said a lot. Too much to go into now. But I suppose the highlights were Ben's response to a question about trying to follow trends: "No, trends are rubbish." And Gub's comment about how successful writers are usually disinterested in what the audience want - they write what they want.
Does foreign money affect the writing? Gub: Yes.
How much UK output is bought by the US? Ben: None. (The only slight exception now being the US-made Torchwood.)
Then I went off to get checked-in at the hotel and missed the beginning of the afternoon sessions. So sat around and chatted to people.
I went to see what Paul Ashton of the BBC's Writersroom had to say for himself - he talked about the imponderable issue of the Writer's Voice. It's very important and people know when a writer's "got it", but nobody knows what it is. It wasn't terribly enlightening and I'm not sure it's a good choice of subject for the many new writers who could disappear up their own confusions trying to think about it.
He also said that 85% of scripts sent to the Writersroom failed the 10 page test and were sent back without comment.
I was seriously beginning to flag by this time. I tried to go to the networking session but it was packed out. I ended up in the cinema watching shorts for a bit. then went to the bar for the 8pm SF writers get together.
The bar was packed.
I gave up. And came back to the hotel.
And now I'm going to sleep. Good night.
What's on the turntable? Something modern and cool on BBC Radio 3
Wednesday evening I prepared one-sheets for Monsters and Une Nuit in Paris, because these were most likely to be the things I pitch - oh and my writing CV. It had to be Wednesday because Thursday daytime was the only opportunity to do any printing.
Thursday I got the stuff printed and headed back to my place of residence. Late again because the day job is getting to need "working late" because a deadline is looming.
I packed my gear, as I'm staying in a hotel near the event. Packed all my stuff and realised I had rather a lot to carry - only two bags but really heavy. Normally I book into hotels the evening before an event but London is far too expensive for that.
Then horror hits. I'm entering the Shine Pictures competition which has a deadline on Friday so I'm uploading my entry, and the form refuses to accept that my PDFs are actually PDFs. I get very annoyed. I waste two hours creating PDFs in different ways trying to force the site to recognise my files. Eventually it dawns on me: I change to Internet Explorer and it works. (I am professionally disgusted - it takes work to make a site fail like that.)
Dawn's Friday morning. I'm up at the usual time, well slightly earlier really. Finish packing, dress, breakfast, lift to station, train to Farringdon, Circle Line to Baker Street. And I'm there.
I can't go to the hotel as I can't check-in yet, so I have to lug my bags around.
The event is at Regent's College which is located in Regents Park. And it's very nice in very pleasant surroundings. I encounter a co-attendee of the MetFilm School course, and rescue her from a garrulous member of the College. She is grateful.
So we arrive together. I get registered (Hina registered the previous evening), prove I am me (who else would I be). Make our way to the Refectory and grab some food while the MetFilm Yobs collect around us. And Jez Freedman. I tell everyone who'll listen that Jez is excellent as a script reader and doesn't charge enough. (I always say this, because it's true.) Jez points out that he deliberately keeps his prices low because he wants to offer a service that he didn't have when he was starting out.
Jez is one of the good guys.
It heads towards 9am and the MetFilm Yobs move as an amorphous blob to the introductory session in a large hall and fill up a row.
This is a very well-appointed college, the seats in the main hall are extremely comfortable. It has it's own cinema. Various food shops around the refectory, two bars, a very nice restaurant as well as the various classrooms.
The Introduction has David Chamberlain and Chris Jones doing a double-act. Chris takes a photo of the audience from the stage. There are announcements.
Then we get a long interview with Tim Bevan one of the founders of Working Title. He explained the genesis and working philosophy of the company - so unlike the horrors of Hollywood.
Generally speaking the original author of a script stays with it throughout its development, though other writers may be brought in for their views, a script is not put into production (usually) until it's ready. They want good stories with great characters and emotion.
His description just made me think of Pixar, which operates on a similar philosophy. And both companies produce successful films more often than not.
There was lots more but time is getting on...
The next for me was a chat with Ben Stephenson (Head of BBC commissioning) and Gub Neal who had been commissioner for ITV (during its 90s heyday) and Channel 4, but now runs the Artists Studio.
They said a lot. Too much to go into now. But I suppose the highlights were Ben's response to a question about trying to follow trends: "No, trends are rubbish." And Gub's comment about how successful writers are usually disinterested in what the audience want - they write what they want.
Does foreign money affect the writing? Gub: Yes.
How much UK output is bought by the US? Ben: None. (The only slight exception now being the US-made Torchwood.)
Then I went off to get checked-in at the hotel and missed the beginning of the afternoon sessions. So sat around and chatted to people.
I went to see what Paul Ashton of the BBC's Writersroom had to say for himself - he talked about the imponderable issue of the Writer's Voice. It's very important and people know when a writer's "got it", but nobody knows what it is. It wasn't terribly enlightening and I'm not sure it's a good choice of subject for the many new writers who could disappear up their own confusions trying to think about it.
He also said that 85% of scripts sent to the Writersroom failed the 10 page test and were sent back without comment.
I was seriously beginning to flag by this time. I tried to go to the networking session but it was packed out. I ended up in the cinema watching shorts for a bit. then went to the bar for the 8pm SF writers get together.
The bar was packed.
I gave up. And came back to the hotel.
And now I'm going to sleep. Good night.
What's on the turntable? Something modern and cool on BBC Radio 3
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Bechdel test - do I pass?
John August has been reminding everybody, who doesn't already know, about the Bechdel test which assesses the presence of women in movies. The questions are simple:
So, does Winter pass (even though it's only about 30 mins long)?
Yes, two female characters with names (40% of the named characters but one of them is the protagonist) . They do talk, albeit briefly, and it's not about men.
Quick run through of other stuff I've written: Monsters passes (TV); Air passes TV); Unit X passes (TV) ; Babel passes (film); Une Nuit a Paris passes? (I think) (film); Tec passes definitely (TV); Running fails (film). So, not too bad.
And Running wouldn't be too hard to fix - several characters could easily be female.
Which leads to the question: why are they male in the first place, if it doesn't matter? Essentially because I was just following stereotypes. If I can manage two females in Unit X which is World War II US Army (okay, one's a doctor and one's a nurse); I'm sure I can manage more women in Running (in fact just thinking about it introduces some interesting possible dynamics).
How do your scripts stand up to the test?
What's on the turntable? "Soultrane" by John Coltrane. Nice.
- Are there two or more female characters with names?
- Do they talk to each other?
- If they talk to each other, do they talk about something other than a man?
So, does Winter pass (even though it's only about 30 mins long)?
Yes, two female characters with names (40% of the named characters but one of them is the protagonist) . They do talk, albeit briefly, and it's not about men.
Quick run through of other stuff I've written: Monsters passes (TV); Air passes TV); Unit X passes (TV) ; Babel passes (film); Une Nuit a Paris passes? (I think) (film); Tec passes definitely (TV); Running fails (film). So, not too bad.
And Running wouldn't be too hard to fix - several characters could easily be female.
Which leads to the question: why are they male in the first place, if it doesn't matter? Essentially because I was just following stereotypes. If I can manage two females in Unit X which is World War II US Army (okay, one's a doctor and one's a nurse); I'm sure I can manage more women in Running (in fact just thinking about it introduces some interesting possible dynamics).
How do your scripts stand up to the test?
What's on the turntable? "Soultrane" by John Coltrane. Nice.
Friday, January 01, 2010
New Year Happy!
Last year I said this:
I didn't get a commission, although I got a lot of excellent feedback from various TV companies, including a promise to be considered as a writer if the series in question is renewed. (Which is about as good as it gets without actually getting a commission.)
The project entitled Traitor for which I was creating one paragraph story ideas has yet to come to fruition but the person running the project (after an email nudge) promised to take a look over Christmas. They will be commissioning this February. So that is still the most promising option.
So although I didn't get a commission this year, I have made good progress towards the goal and I'm waiting on the board to roll a 6 exactly.
As for finishing projects: There was Air, that's done and dusted and got rave reviews from the industry readers (you can read the first 10 pages). Unit X, a US TV pilot, which I finished but have put aside as needing a lot of work. Une Nuit a Paris, a feature, also finished and put aside as needing a lot of work.
And Winter which was originally a short, then became my "exciting new web project" proposal for the BBC- which they turned down, and now it's the new Web series which we'll hopefully shoot in 2-3 months. But it needs finishing. So technically it's never been finished.
I also mentioned at the end of that post last year that I needed to get a paying job fast. Which I did, and my web development contract work has been pretty good all year (after a slow start).
My current contract ends at the end of January but the agents are already ringing my phone off the hook - it's nice to be wanted. Though it's getting to the point where I'm getting picky - I want the next contract to be in Birmingham specifically (for various reasons).
Anyway, next year's goals.
The works in progress this time are:
Winter as mentioned above.
Tec which is the TV detective thingy that I've written once but needs more and lots of changes.
I do need to work on new stuff because I don't have enough on the go currently - new ideas needed.
And enter screenwriting competitions - why only 4? Well, I'm not much of a feature writer currently so I'm stuck with TV. And I need to pick and choose what I work on and submit. So just four is fine. One will be Red Planet (but I'll need Tec finished for that), one might be Screenwriters Festival (I'll need Tec for that too). And we'll see what else.
Happy New Year!
What's on the turntable? Not a thing.
- Get a commission
- Finish all work in progress
I didn't get a commission, although I got a lot of excellent feedback from various TV companies, including a promise to be considered as a writer if the series in question is renewed. (Which is about as good as it gets without actually getting a commission.)
The project entitled Traitor for which I was creating one paragraph story ideas has yet to come to fruition but the person running the project (after an email nudge) promised to take a look over Christmas. They will be commissioning this February. So that is still the most promising option.
So although I didn't get a commission this year, I have made good progress towards the goal and I'm waiting on the board to roll a 6 exactly.
As for finishing projects: There was Air, that's done and dusted and got rave reviews from the industry readers (you can read the first 10 pages). Unit X, a US TV pilot, which I finished but have put aside as needing a lot of work. Une Nuit a Paris, a feature, also finished and put aside as needing a lot of work.
And Winter which was originally a short, then became my "exciting new web project" proposal for the BBC- which they turned down, and now it's the new Web series which we'll hopefully shoot in 2-3 months. But it needs finishing. So technically it's never been finished.
I also mentioned at the end of that post last year that I needed to get a paying job fast. Which I did, and my web development contract work has been pretty good all year (after a slow start).
My current contract ends at the end of January but the agents are already ringing my phone off the hook - it's nice to be wanted. Though it's getting to the point where I'm getting picky - I want the next contract to be in Birmingham specifically (for various reasons).
Anyway, next year's goals.
- Get a commission - I really must work harder on this one.
- Finish the works in progress.
- Develop 10 new TV ideas.
- Enter four screenwriting competitions.
The works in progress this time are:
Winter as mentioned above.
Tec which is the TV detective thingy that I've written once but needs more and lots of changes.
I do need to work on new stuff because I don't have enough on the go currently - new ideas needed.
And enter screenwriting competitions - why only 4? Well, I'm not much of a feature writer currently so I'm stuck with TV. And I need to pick and choose what I work on and submit. So just four is fine. One will be Red Planet (but I'll need Tec finished for that), one might be Screenwriters Festival (I'll need Tec for that too). And we'll see what else.
Happy New Year!
What's on the turntable? Not a thing.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
The story so far...
Back here I outlined what I felt my goals were for this year.
1. Get a writing commission.
2. Complete my current works in progress
The WIPs then were: Air, Unit X, Une Nuit a Paris, and Winter.
So how's it gone?
No commissions, I have the collaboration offered to me specifically because the Producer liked my style. I have the other potential commission still waiting.
Air was completed to a good result.
Unit X was completed to a poor result, but I know what's wrong with it.
However some time later I re-evaluated my projects on the basis of how they could forward my career, though I can't find the post. This threw Une Nuit a Paris out of the running, as was Unit X, both need too much work. But I did finish the first draft of Unit X.
Winter was a potential commission from the BBC but wasn't accepted. It got canned by me because it's far too complicated to write as a spec, it could never even work as a spec for reasons I won't go into.
Okay, I will go into it: Imagine you had to write a script but at every major decision point you had to branch off and write the rest of the script. But you've taken one branch, now you have another decision point, the story can go two further ways, you have write both. And so on.
That's a lot of writing for a spec.
Instead I've nearly completed Tec, I wrote Which? my fun Torchwood/Being Human crossover, and experiment in writing in other people's character's voices. Tec exists to show I can write non-SF/non-Fantasy. Oh and I wrote the feature script Running as well from scratch in April.
So what's next?
Good enough.
What's on the turntable? It's quiet here on the train. I'm not in the Quiet Carriage, because people there always make loads of noise. Seriously.
1. Get a writing commission.
2. Complete my current works in progress
The WIPs then were: Air, Unit X, Une Nuit a Paris, and Winter.
So how's it gone?
No commissions, I have the collaboration offered to me specifically because the Producer liked my style. I have the other potential commission still waiting.
Air was completed to a good result.
Unit X was completed to a poor result, but I know what's wrong with it.
However some time later I re-evaluated my projects on the basis of how they could forward my career, though I can't find the post. This threw Une Nuit a Paris out of the running, as was Unit X, both need too much work. But I did finish the first draft of Unit X.
Winter was a potential commission from the BBC but wasn't accepted. It got canned by me because it's far too complicated to write as a spec, it could never even work as a spec for reasons I won't go into.
Okay, I will go into it: Imagine you had to write a script but at every major decision point you had to branch off and write the rest of the script. But you've taken one branch, now you have another decision point, the story can go two further ways, you have write both. And so on.
That's a lot of writing for a spec.
Instead I've nearly completed Tec, I wrote Which? my fun Torchwood/Being Human crossover, and experiment in writing in other people's character's voices. Tec exists to show I can write non-SF/non-Fantasy. Oh and I wrote the feature script Running as well from scratch in April.
So what's next?
- Work on the collaboration thing which we'll call Clones.
- Work on a spec for an existing TV show, which is Noise.
- Work on a second spec script for an existing TV show ... hm, that'll be called Wildlife.
- And work on new drafts of Running
- and of Tec - which will be my entry for the next Red Planet.
Good enough.
What's on the turntable? It's quiet here on the train. I'm not in the Quiet Carriage, because people there always make loads of noise. Seriously.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Block and tackle
I wrote nothing yesterday, I hit a wall.
As regular readers will know, I loathe the concept of "Writer's Block". I believe I am justified in this loathing (obviously) and I shall explain (this is my view):
When someone says "I can't write, I have writer's block" it's as if they have some sort of disease, that it's something outside themselves preventing them from writing.
There certainly are things from "outside" that might stop you from writing, like worries about money, or a loved one's had an accident, or you have someone close to you who is constantly undermining you.
These are real external issues - they are not a disease and they are not "Writer's Block", but they can stop you writing.
From my personal experience the only thing that stops me from writing (and I tempted to believe that this is the real truth generally) is that I don't know what to write.
If you don't know what to write then you can't write it.
So clearly the trick is: find out what to write.
I've known for a couple of days that I have a problem with my plan for Running, it was too low-level from the start. In other words what I was writing as an Act-level description was really more of a Sequence-level.
And I ran out of plot. I was trying to write my Act III notes when I was barely halfway through. And then I made the mistake of sitting in front of the computer pretending that I was trying to solve the problem - because I knew what it was - when really I was doing nothing.
I faced the fact that I was deluding myself yesterday evening and decided not to try to fix it then and there - because other issues were intruding. Like the fact that I had an interview for a contract in Bristol today and I had to get everything sorted for that.
However that was to my advantage because it meant I had 6 hours of writing time available without interruptions sitting on the train. I made the decision I would sort out my plot problems and write a goodly number of pages today.
Then I had a terrible night. I had to get up about 5:30am, I went to bed at midnight and the dog decided to disturb us during the night. So I was really tired.
I drank a lot of coffee today - but not in the interview, didn't want to get coffee-breath. (The interview seemed to go well but, frankly, I've given up trying to second guess the result. Anyway I have a telephone interview tomorrow and another possibility coming up.)
So I spent the first part fo the journey figuring out how to fix my plot problems. I'm not a fan of flashbacks generally but I thought adding a few really short ones spaced out through the script would help explain things. I made a big note to add some more stuff in one particular scene. Then I sorted out how to fill up Act IIb and Act III.
Then I fell asleep.
I woke up at Birmingham and set about integrating the flashbacks. Rather than abrupt changes to flashback, I wanted to have common elements between the flashback and the present, to make the integration smooth - and that seemed to work well. I also kept them very short, 30 seconds max. (I can always take them out later if I decide they don't add anything.)
Thing is there is the issue that in order to "win" ScriptFrenzy I have to write a script that's 100 pages long. Which may mean padding, though I try not to.
On the way back from Bristol I carried on writing, though I was so tired I fell asleep twice and seemed to jump in space because I almost failed to notice I'd fallen asleep.
In the end I still added only another 7 pages but they were good pages for the most part.
I had a very bright idea for a Parkour action scene in a location I'm betting that no one else has ever done. I like the process of putting your hero into a situation that it's completely impossible to get them out of, and then getting them out of it in an entirely logical way. In this instance the "getting them out of the impossible situation" put them into the new location.
(I had fun with that one in my Une Nuit a Paris script where the hero and the prostitute are chained up in an S&M room in a brothel. Getting them out of there was ... interesting.)
However I ran into an interesting problem: It was rubbish. There was no drama, no impetus, nothing.
Now I like writing action, apparently I'm good at it. The stuff I usually write is exciting and full of will-they won't-they tension.
But not this. It was as limp as a dunked Rich Tea biscuit. There is no tension because the people running away are not being closely pursued by their enemies, and there are no enemies ahead of them. Just look at all the Die Hard movies, the real tension comes when the jeopardy is right there, right NOW.
So that needs sorting out.
In the meantime I now know where I'm going again, and I can write again. There is no "Writer's Block" - just not knowing what to write.
What's on the turntable? "The Last Time I Saw Richard" by Joni Mitchell from "Blue"
As regular readers will know, I loathe the concept of "Writer's Block". I believe I am justified in this loathing (obviously) and I shall explain (this is my view):
When someone says "I can't write, I have writer's block" it's as if they have some sort of disease, that it's something outside themselves preventing them from writing.
There certainly are things from "outside" that might stop you from writing, like worries about money, or a loved one's had an accident, or you have someone close to you who is constantly undermining you.
These are real external issues - they are not a disease and they are not "Writer's Block", but they can stop you writing.
From my personal experience the only thing that stops me from writing (and I tempted to believe that this is the real truth generally) is that I don't know what to write.
If you don't know what to write then you can't write it.
So clearly the trick is: find out what to write.
I've known for a couple of days that I have a problem with my plan for Running, it was too low-level from the start. In other words what I was writing as an Act-level description was really more of a Sequence-level.
And I ran out of plot. I was trying to write my Act III notes when I was barely halfway through. And then I made the mistake of sitting in front of the computer pretending that I was trying to solve the problem - because I knew what it was - when really I was doing nothing.
I faced the fact that I was deluding myself yesterday evening and decided not to try to fix it then and there - because other issues were intruding. Like the fact that I had an interview for a contract in Bristol today and I had to get everything sorted for that.
However that was to my advantage because it meant I had 6 hours of writing time available without interruptions sitting on the train. I made the decision I would sort out my plot problems and write a goodly number of pages today.
Then I had a terrible night. I had to get up about 5:30am, I went to bed at midnight and the dog decided to disturb us during the night. So I was really tired.
I drank a lot of coffee today - but not in the interview, didn't want to get coffee-breath. (The interview seemed to go well but, frankly, I've given up trying to second guess the result. Anyway I have a telephone interview tomorrow and another possibility coming up.)
So I spent the first part fo the journey figuring out how to fix my plot problems. I'm not a fan of flashbacks generally but I thought adding a few really short ones spaced out through the script would help explain things. I made a big note to add some more stuff in one particular scene. Then I sorted out how to fill up Act IIb and Act III.
Then I fell asleep.
I woke up at Birmingham and set about integrating the flashbacks. Rather than abrupt changes to flashback, I wanted to have common elements between the flashback and the present, to make the integration smooth - and that seemed to work well. I also kept them very short, 30 seconds max. (I can always take them out later if I decide they don't add anything.)
Thing is there is the issue that in order to "win" ScriptFrenzy I have to write a script that's 100 pages long. Which may mean padding, though I try not to.
On the way back from Bristol I carried on writing, though I was so tired I fell asleep twice and seemed to jump in space because I almost failed to notice I'd fallen asleep.
In the end I still added only another 7 pages but they were good pages for the most part.
I had a very bright idea for a Parkour action scene in a location I'm betting that no one else has ever done. I like the process of putting your hero into a situation that it's completely impossible to get them out of, and then getting them out of it in an entirely logical way. In this instance the "getting them out of the impossible situation" put them into the new location.
(I had fun with that one in my Une Nuit a Paris script where the hero and the prostitute are chained up in an S&M room in a brothel. Getting them out of there was ... interesting.)
However I ran into an interesting problem: It was rubbish. There was no drama, no impetus, nothing.
Now I like writing action, apparently I'm good at it. The stuff I usually write is exciting and full of will-they won't-they tension.
But not this. It was as limp as a dunked Rich Tea biscuit. There is no tension because the people running away are not being closely pursued by their enemies, and there are no enemies ahead of them. Just look at all the Die Hard movies, the real tension comes when the jeopardy is right there, right NOW.
So that needs sorting out.
In the meantime I now know where I'm going again, and I can write again. There is no "Writer's Block" - just not knowing what to write.
What's on the turntable? "The Last Time I Saw Richard" by Joni Mitchell from "Blue"
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Living it large on humble pie
Edit: "humple pie"? He-he-he-he. Humple! (I misspelt humble in the title.)
I got the feedback on Unit X today. Philip Shelley was concerned that I might be upset by his blunt comments about it. I am going to repeat my e-mail reply to him here, I think it's that important.
Hi Philip
I have read your notes. I smile wryly: that’s pretty much what the original notes about Monsters said.
Lacking in focus.
Clearly I have learned nothing.
Except that if you had asked me, when I first sent out Monsters, what I thought was wrong with it, I would have had no idea. (This was before you saw it.)
But if you’d have asked me what I thought was the main problem with Unit X, I would have said “lack of a clear protagonist”. (So why did I send it to you? Because I needed someone else to tell me and point at bits going “what on earth is that?”
So I have learned something. Which is good. Comments like “baffling” also applied to Monsters.
Besides what are my normal high standards? You’ve only seen two scripts by me - you didn’t see Une Nuit a Paris which was absolutely slammed by Dave Bull (“sub-Carry On”). He wanted me to tell him that I had written it before Monsters, but I hadn’t - however I had sent him a first draft. Won’t do that again!
I needed a bit of humility. You have handed me some humble pie on a plate. I eat with relish.
I’m not past writing rubbish and, as far as Unit X goes (and Une Nuit a Paris) I just haven’t found the story yet.
As I said, I’m not a tender flower, and when you told me I had some talent you lit a fire under my writing which can’t be put out.
Loving that humble pie - smothered in raspberry sauce.
What's on the turntable? "All is Full of Love" by Bjork from "Homogenic". Bjork is just so ... Bjork.
I got the feedback on Unit X today. Philip Shelley was concerned that I might be upset by his blunt comments about it. I am going to repeat my e-mail reply to him here, I think it's that important.
Hi Philip
I have read your notes. I smile wryly: that’s pretty much what the original notes about Monsters said.
Lacking in focus.
Clearly I have learned nothing.
Except that if you had asked me, when I first sent out Monsters, what I thought was wrong with it, I would have had no idea. (This was before you saw it.)
But if you’d have asked me what I thought was the main problem with Unit X, I would have said “lack of a clear protagonist”. (So why did I send it to you? Because I needed someone else to tell me and point at bits going “what on earth is that?”
So I have learned something. Which is good. Comments like “baffling” also applied to Monsters.
Besides what are my normal high standards? You’ve only seen two scripts by me - you didn’t see Une Nuit a Paris which was absolutely slammed by Dave Bull (“sub-Carry On”). He wanted me to tell him that I had written it before Monsters, but I hadn’t - however I had sent him a first draft. Won’t do that again!
I needed a bit of humility. You have handed me some humble pie on a plate. I eat with relish.
I’m not past writing rubbish and, as far as Unit X goes (and Une Nuit a Paris) I just haven’t found the story yet.
As I said, I’m not a tender flower, and when you told me I had some talent you lit a fire under my writing which can’t be put out.
Loving that humble pie - smothered in raspberry sauce.
What's on the turntable? "All is Full of Love" by Bjork from "Homogenic". Bjork is just so ... Bjork.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Q versus A
Now then, my Running script.
Interesting.
I was looking at my notes on the train this evening (I didn't get to it last night after all). I had a male protagonist and a female protagonist, brother and sister. I knew this was one character too many but that's how I had originally envisioned it.
Cut to interview with Joss Whedon that I watched last week.
Joss has developed this simple idea about the difference between TV and Film: A TV series is a Question, while a film is an Answer. I'm not going to dwell on this, I shall leave it as an exercise for the reader to understand what he means.
For me it wasn't exactly a revelation, more of a "yeeeeees ... yes ... I see. That's right."
And that's what was wrong with Running and the "one character too many".
If this is to be a film, it has to be an Answer. It runs its course and ends at a satisfying conclusion. But having these two protagonists sets up a dynamic - a conflict - between the two that isn't resolved. Which means it would be remain a Question.
I don't mean, of course, that I think everything in a movie has to be resolved, nor do I think that you can't have an ensemble cast in a film (Joss did it himself in Serenity). But for this film, for Running, the additional character results in this unresolvable conflict.
So I lose a character but do I lose the brother or the sister? That's an easy one for me. I'm like Joss Whedon, I like writing interesting female characters (even Une Nuit a Paris, which is about a stag weekend, has two ... no ... three strong female characters), so the brother is thrust into limbo.
Once that was resolved I had to think about the opening scene, I like to thrust the audience straight into the action, and have them just a little bit confused. I went through various scenarios, and eventually hit on one where the characters began to live, including the apparently dead one. At which point I knew I had it sorted.
The opening scenes await.
But I'll have to wait until Celtx 2.0 downloads and I can get cracking with my exciting new soft toy - I mean software toy.
What's on the turntable? "Blue Motel" by Joni Mitchell from "Hejira"
Interesting.
I was looking at my notes on the train this evening (I didn't get to it last night after all). I had a male protagonist and a female protagonist, brother and sister. I knew this was one character too many but that's how I had originally envisioned it.
Cut to interview with Joss Whedon that I watched last week.
Joss has developed this simple idea about the difference between TV and Film: A TV series is a Question, while a film is an Answer. I'm not going to dwell on this, I shall leave it as an exercise for the reader to understand what he means.
For me it wasn't exactly a revelation, more of a "yeeeeees ... yes ... I see. That's right."
And that's what was wrong with Running and the "one character too many".
If this is to be a film, it has to be an Answer. It runs its course and ends at a satisfying conclusion. But having these two protagonists sets up a dynamic - a conflict - between the two that isn't resolved. Which means it would be remain a Question.
I don't mean, of course, that I think everything in a movie has to be resolved, nor do I think that you can't have an ensemble cast in a film (Joss did it himself in Serenity). But for this film, for Running, the additional character results in this unresolvable conflict.
So I lose a character but do I lose the brother or the sister? That's an easy one for me. I'm like Joss Whedon, I like writing interesting female characters (even Une Nuit a Paris, which is about a stag weekend, has two ... no ... three strong female characters), so the brother is thrust into limbo.
Once that was resolved I had to think about the opening scene, I like to thrust the audience straight into the action, and have them just a little bit confused. I went through various scenarios, and eventually hit on one where the characters began to live, including the apparently dead one. At which point I knew I had it sorted.
The opening scenes await.
But I'll have to wait until Celtx 2.0 downloads and I can get cracking with my exciting new soft toy - I mean software toy.
What's on the turntable? "Blue Motel" by Joni Mitchell from "Hejira"
Sunday, February 22, 2009
New Best Friends
Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott are my new best friends in the screenwriting world. These boys have written major successful films that you've heard of: like Aladdin, Shrek, Small Soldiers, Mask of Zorro - and Pirates of Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. (Their name is on Godzilla, but that's another story.)
And, in case you didn't know, they have a set of articles on their website about screenwriting in Hollywood - it's mostly a horror story. Now they write features, but a large proportion of what they have to say is just as applicable to TV writing.
But I'd like to draw your attention to these two: The Task and The Off-Screen Movie.
I've been thinking about the feature I wrote about a year ago during Scriptfrenzy: "Une Night a Paris" (One Night in Paris). I sent it to two readers, one gave it an "it's okay" with a few caveats. The second was far from complimentary and hoped very much I'd written it before I wrote "Monsters", which I hadn't. However I had had the arrogance to send a first draft. (Naughty.)
Thing is Une Night a Paris is not a "genre" film. It's a contemporary comedy thriller. Or, at least, that was the plan - to be unfavourably compared to the less-good Carry On movies is not encouraging. And I dropped it like a hot potato.
But now I see it as an experiment. Critique should never be taken at face value, accepted there's plenty wrong with the script, what actually needs fixing? Both readers commented that it didn't seem clear exactly what sort of film it was - the tone varied too much - so clearly that is a genuine issue.
But the rest?
The first of the above referenced articles considers what the hero must do to achieve their goal. You can have the outer want and the inner need, but the Task is the actual actions that must be performed - and this is the thing that actually gets filmed. This is the DO of the film.
We all know that a protagonist has a goal and we're supposed to put obstacles in their way to make it hard. But here it's suggested that this is a half-hearted description of the real situation.
And I looked at Une Nuit a Paris, with the goal/task viewpoint and realised it was very ill-formed in my script. The Goal barely existed at all, so even though there was a clear Task there was no real reason that the protagonist should go through that hell. He had no desired goal driving him - why bother?
The Off-Screen Movie is a piece of genius, it helps to explain the existence, or lack, of script momentum. In all my TV scripts to date I don't think I've had a problem with momentum, for the very reason described in this article. However Une Nuit a Paris does suffer from that problem, and this article describes the problem and the solution. Which is cool.
There are a lot of articles (over 50), and they are not short. But they're all worth reading.
What's on the turntable? "The Trees They Do Grow High" by Pentangle from "Light Flight CD1". Another beautiful song - a tragic story of forced marriage turning to love that lasts but a brief while.
And, in case you didn't know, they have a set of articles on their website about screenwriting in Hollywood - it's mostly a horror story. Now they write features, but a large proportion of what they have to say is just as applicable to TV writing.
But I'd like to draw your attention to these two: The Task and The Off-Screen Movie.
I've been thinking about the feature I wrote about a year ago during Scriptfrenzy: "Une Night a Paris" (One Night in Paris). I sent it to two readers, one gave it an "it's okay" with a few caveats. The second was far from complimentary and hoped very much I'd written it before I wrote "Monsters", which I hadn't. However I had had the arrogance to send a first draft. (Naughty.)
Thing is Une Night a Paris is not a "genre" film. It's a contemporary comedy thriller. Or, at least, that was the plan - to be unfavourably compared to the less-good Carry On movies is not encouraging. And I dropped it like a hot potato.
But now I see it as an experiment. Critique should never be taken at face value, accepted there's plenty wrong with the script, what actually needs fixing? Both readers commented that it didn't seem clear exactly what sort of film it was - the tone varied too much - so clearly that is a genuine issue.
But the rest?
The first of the above referenced articles considers what the hero must do to achieve their goal. You can have the outer want and the inner need, but the Task is the actual actions that must be performed - and this is the thing that actually gets filmed. This is the DO of the film.
We all know that a protagonist has a goal and we're supposed to put obstacles in their way to make it hard. But here it's suggested that this is a half-hearted description of the real situation.
And I looked at Une Nuit a Paris, with the goal/task viewpoint and realised it was very ill-formed in my script. The Goal barely existed at all, so even though there was a clear Task there was no real reason that the protagonist should go through that hell. He had no desired goal driving him - why bother?
The Off-Screen Movie is a piece of genius, it helps to explain the existence, or lack, of script momentum. In all my TV scripts to date I don't think I've had a problem with momentum, for the very reason described in this article. However Une Nuit a Paris does suffer from that problem, and this article describes the problem and the solution. Which is cool.
There are a lot of articles (over 50), and they are not short. But they're all worth reading.
What's on the turntable? "The Trees They Do Grow High" by Pentangle from "Light Flight CD1". Another beautiful song - a tragic story of forced marriage turning to love that lasts but a brief while.
Friday, January 02, 2009
The day after yesterday
I did say I'd do my "What's coming next year" yesterday, but life intervened, as it does. The family went for a major New Year's day walk, climbing through the moors, up icy ravines and across the heather. We made our own path. Then went to visit some friends and played board games.
So, 2009:
I don't like resolutions as such as they usually put the emphasis in the wrong place, "to diet" is a bad resolution; while "lose 2 stone" is a good target. I prefer to call them goals, but most people call them targets.
So I do goals and not resolutions.
So works in progress are:
Air - my kids fantasy TV series, this needs the first episode filling out to full length and then working up to a high quality.
Unit X - can't say much about this, the chap who wants to get Monsters made, thinks Unit X is a fantastically commercial idea. So I better write it.
Une Nuit a Paris - needs a complete re-write but it turns out the French govt is now providing tax breaks for films made in France.
Winter - well, this may turn out to be the commission, it's not something I'm going to work on unless I get paid, it's far too complex. (I'll actually have to create a piece of software to help me write it!)
Last night I had another idea which I think will work best as a stage play, but it'll have to wait.
In other areas I really have to get a paying job fast. Annoying.
What's on the turntable? "Urge for Going" by Joni Mitchell from the compilation "Hits"
So, 2009:
I don't like resolutions as such as they usually put the emphasis in the wrong place, "to diet" is a bad resolution; while "lose 2 stone" is a good target. I prefer to call them goals, but most people call them targets.
So I do goals and not resolutions.
- Get a writing commission.
- Complete my current works in progress
So works in progress are:
Air - my kids fantasy TV series, this needs the first episode filling out to full length and then working up to a high quality.
Unit X - can't say much about this, the chap who wants to get Monsters made, thinks Unit X is a fantastically commercial idea. So I better write it.
Une Nuit a Paris - needs a complete re-write but it turns out the French govt is now providing tax breaks for films made in France.
Winter - well, this may turn out to be the commission, it's not something I'm going to work on unless I get paid, it's far too complex. (I'll actually have to create a piece of software to help me write it!)
Last night I had another idea which I think will work best as a stage play, but it'll have to wait.
In other areas I really have to get a paying job fast. Annoying.
What's on the turntable? "Urge for Going" by Joni Mitchell from the compilation "Hits"
Saturday, October 18, 2008
That "Once Upon A Time" Moment
It's funny really, ever since finishing "Monsters" I've been rather ambivalent towards the next piece of writing. No rush, not really important, I can take it or leave it. Stuff like that.
Of course there was the non-starter of "One Night in Paris", which didn't help. And I sit around pontificating about how I've been a professional writer for over 20 years and blank pages don't scare me.
Then there was the slow build up of "Air" with that bit of work I did last week and the excitement last night of getting the structure straight.
All this time I've had the opening scene in my head. I've known exactly how this story begins, the images vivid in my mind.
I did a little more work this evening on the plot lines. I had realised my descriptions of the plots were glib. A protagonist is only as good as the intentions of the antagonist. You make the protagonist bigger by making the antagonist bigger. My descriptions were vague when it came to what the antagonist actually intended. So I got those tightened up.
And finally the force of water behind the dam became too much. I couldn't "not write" any longer.
So I launched Celtx, sorted out the various options that I wanted, prepared the title page, and saved the otherwise empty file up to celtx.com (a backup that's guaranteed to be off-site and, depending where you are, in a completely different country).
And then I began to write the opening scene, and a shiver of delight ran through me as the images began to flow. I was excited again, I haven't felt that way in quite a while.
... and then I discovered that what I had been imagining as the first scene wasn't the first scene after all but something completely different.
Writing's full of surprises.
What's on the turntable? "Heads we're dancing" by Kate Bush from "Sensual World"
Of course there was the non-starter of "One Night in Paris", which didn't help. And I sit around pontificating about how I've been a professional writer for over 20 years and blank pages don't scare me.
Then there was the slow build up of "Air" with that bit of work I did last week and the excitement last night of getting the structure straight.
All this time I've had the opening scene in my head. I've known exactly how this story begins, the images vivid in my mind.
I did a little more work this evening on the plot lines. I had realised my descriptions of the plots were glib. A protagonist is only as good as the intentions of the antagonist. You make the protagonist bigger by making the antagonist bigger. My descriptions were vague when it came to what the antagonist actually intended. So I got those tightened up.
And finally the force of water behind the dam became too much. I couldn't "not write" any longer.
So I launched Celtx, sorted out the various options that I wanted, prepared the title page, and saved the otherwise empty file up to celtx.com (a backup that's guaranteed to be off-site and, depending where you are, in a completely different country).
And then I began to write the opening scene, and a shiver of delight ran through me as the images began to flow. I was excited again, I haven't felt that way in quite a while.
... and then I discovered that what I had been imagining as the first scene wasn't the first scene after all but something completely different.
Writing's full of surprises.
What's on the turntable? "Heads we're dancing" by Kate Bush from "Sensual World"
Friday, October 17, 2008
Patience, Prevarication and Planning
I originally entitled this blog "impatience, prevarication and planning" but I thought having three "P"s sounded cleverer.
I just got very excited because, stuck in Reading again this weekend as the launch of the website is only days away, I have been working on my next work.
This is not my "One Night in Paris" because I got some very poor feedback (the feedback was good, the opinions expressed were unpleasantly accurate) so it needs more time to ferment. Plus the fact my wife made a suggestion last week that suddenly turned the whole idea upside down and would make it super-cheap to produce. It needs fermentation or possibly extended composting.
So I'm working on Air. (snigger)
"Air" is the working title for my kids fantasy TV series -- as I'm still waiting for responses from all the agents and TV Companies that are reading Monsters.
Air is inspired by a 70s TV show called Sky (see what I did there, with the name) and while it has some similar concepts it's a very different tale. Sky was seriously scary but totally amazing, and had a profound effect on me.
But to the point of this blog (finally) I'm very impatient when it comes to writing because I really do just want to get in there and get some words down, let's face it I'm not going to write all 12 episodes, this is just a spec, so 30 pages is something I could just throw together. Right? Wrong. That would be fatal.
I sat down last week and got some ideas into a concrete form, tried to do some planning following the suggestions in Adrian Mead's little tome How to Make it as a Scriptwriter as I like to try things out. I also used the excellent Writing a Great Movie by Jeff Kitchen - don't be fooled, this book is excellent for all types of dramatic writing, and it's the only book on screenwriting that I come back to time and again and actually use as a reference.
All this meant I had to think about the protagonist's dilemma in detail, and then attempt to derive the theme from that. All good stuff, because getting a handle on theme can really provide a depth to what you're doing.
I did all this, wasn't really happy with what I'd produced and then the day job intervened for a week.
I got back to it this evening. Walking back from the day job allowed me some thinking time and I realised how I could structure the whole 12 episodes with overlapping 3-episode plotlines that would result in a sequence that would demand continued watching because so much would happen and keep on happening.
I probably didn't explain that very well, so here's a picture to paint a thousand words...
It's like writing 8 features, 2 x 60min and 2 x 30 min, except that obviously the A plots get more time than the B plots which get more than the C plots.
This might seem very formal but as I began to fill in what the storylines would actually be it all came together very nicely with each plot idea contributing to and complementing the others.
It's all very well saying that I'm going to only write a 30 minute episode but unless I know what's happening in the rest of the series in reasonable detail that episode will be shallow.
As I worked on the plot ideas another thing happened. The real reason I am very pleased with myself: The theme suddenly hit me. Something simple, easy for children (and adults) to identify with and something that has real emotional impact.
Oh yes, I'm a real smarty-pants.
What's on the turntable? "Live Bed Show" by Pulp from "Different Class". Jarvis Cocker is another great writer, his songs evoke real characters and tell definite stories.
I just got very excited because, stuck in Reading again this weekend as the launch of the website is only days away, I have been working on my next work.
This is not my "One Night in Paris" because I got some very poor feedback (the feedback was good, the opinions expressed were unpleasantly accurate) so it needs more time to ferment. Plus the fact my wife made a suggestion last week that suddenly turned the whole idea upside down and would make it super-cheap to produce. It needs fermentation or possibly extended composting.
So I'm working on Air. (snigger)
"Air" is the working title for my kids fantasy TV series -- as I'm still waiting for responses from all the agents and TV Companies that are reading Monsters.
Air is inspired by a 70s TV show called Sky (see what I did there, with the name) and while it has some similar concepts it's a very different tale. Sky was seriously scary but totally amazing, and had a profound effect on me.
But to the point of this blog (finally) I'm very impatient when it comes to writing because I really do just want to get in there and get some words down, let's face it I'm not going to write all 12 episodes, this is just a spec, so 30 pages is something I could just throw together. Right? Wrong. That would be fatal.
I sat down last week and got some ideas into a concrete form, tried to do some planning following the suggestions in Adrian Mead's little tome How to Make it as a Scriptwriter as I like to try things out. I also used the excellent Writing a Great Movie by Jeff Kitchen - don't be fooled, this book is excellent for all types of dramatic writing, and it's the only book on screenwriting that I come back to time and again and actually use as a reference.
All this meant I had to think about the protagonist's dilemma in detail, and then attempt to derive the theme from that. All good stuff, because getting a handle on theme can really provide a depth to what you're doing.
I did all this, wasn't really happy with what I'd produced and then the day job intervened for a week.
I got back to it this evening. Walking back from the day job allowed me some thinking time and I realised how I could structure the whole 12 episodes with overlapping 3-episode plotlines that would result in a sequence that would demand continued watching because so much would happen and keep on happening.
I probably didn't explain that very well, so here's a picture to paint a thousand words...
It's like writing 8 features, 2 x 60min and 2 x 30 min, except that obviously the A plots get more time than the B plots which get more than the C plots.This might seem very formal but as I began to fill in what the storylines would actually be it all came together very nicely with each plot idea contributing to and complementing the others.
It's all very well saying that I'm going to only write a 30 minute episode but unless I know what's happening in the rest of the series in reasonable detail that episode will be shallow.
As I worked on the plot ideas another thing happened. The real reason I am very pleased with myself: The theme suddenly hit me. Something simple, easy for children (and adults) to identify with and something that has real emotional impact.
Oh yes, I'm a real smarty-pants.
What's on the turntable? "Live Bed Show" by Pulp from "Different Class". Jarvis Cocker is another great writer, his songs evoke real characters and tell definite stories.
Friday, September 26, 2008
I shouldn't be here...
... but I am.
It's Friday evening and I should be in my real home with my wife, kids and pets. But I'm not. I'm still in Reading because my job demands it. The website navigation that my team works on must be complete and running at a usable speed by Monday 9:00am (and miscellaneous other bugs fixed).
If it's not then 5 months work (mostly mine) gets thrown out the window.
Interesting to be in on this actually as I've never really been in this sort of situation before: I've run businesses, been part of businesses, but nothing bigger than, say, 50 people. And the ones I ran never exceeded 10 employees, usually just 3.
More to the point of writing: Stuart Perry has been blogging about 5 inspirations to who he is as a writer. It wasn't a meme but he suggested that other bloggers might like to take up the baton. As I'm still waiting for feedback on "Une Nuit a Paris" I shall take up this challenge. Starting in the next blog which I will write directly.
What's on the turntable? "One More Kiss, Dear" by Vangelis from "Bladerunner soundtrack"
It's Friday evening and I should be in my real home with my wife, kids and pets. But I'm not. I'm still in Reading because my job demands it. The website navigation that my team works on must be complete and running at a usable speed by Monday 9:00am (and miscellaneous other bugs fixed).
If it's not then 5 months work (mostly mine) gets thrown out the window.
Interesting to be in on this actually as I've never really been in this sort of situation before: I've run businesses, been part of businesses, but nothing bigger than, say, 50 people. And the ones I ran never exceeded 10 employees, usually just 3.
More to the point of writing: Stuart Perry has been blogging about 5 inspirations to who he is as a writer. It wasn't a meme but he suggested that other bloggers might like to take up the baton. As I'm still waiting for feedback on "Une Nuit a Paris" I shall take up this challenge. Starting in the next blog which I will write directly.
What's on the turntable? "One More Kiss, Dear" by Vangelis from "Bladerunner soundtrack"
Sunday, September 14, 2008
That's a wrap (for monsters)
I think Monsters is as good as it's going to get for now so I need to package up my application form for the Red Planet competition and the first ten pages and get them into the post tomorrow.
And then there's the question of what next. Not really much of a question.
"Une Nuit a Paris" gets moved to the front burner from where it's been simmering at the back. Particularly as I just discovered the 8th Sept deadline was the early submission date for BFSC/Kaos and I until Nov 14th. This means I can get some decent feedback as well.
Which is good.
On the day job there was the final demonstration on Friday afternoon - after I had departed for northern parts. (They invited me to attend the demo, I declined. It was also my wife's birthday, not that it would have made any difference even if it hadn't been.)
Nobody got fired. Apparently the Powers-That-Be were satisfied with the progress. Now I just have to make it work fast enough to be useful in the real world.
What's on the turntable? "House Carpenter" by Pentangle from "Light Flight".
And then there's the question of what next. Not really much of a question.
"Une Nuit a Paris" gets moved to the front burner from where it's been simmering at the back. Particularly as I just discovered the 8th Sept deadline was the early submission date for BFSC/Kaos and I until Nov 14th. This means I can get some decent feedback as well.
Which is good.
On the day job there was the final demonstration on Friday afternoon - after I had departed for northern parts. (They invited me to attend the demo, I declined. It was also my wife's birthday, not that it would have made any difference even if it hadn't been.)
Nobody got fired. Apparently the Powers-That-Be were satisfied with the progress. Now I just have to make it work fast enough to be useful in the real world.
What's on the turntable? "House Carpenter" by Pentangle from "Light Flight".
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Plot vs Character (again)
This is the perennial question ... what should comes first? Plot? Character? Both? Neither?
I was thinking about "Monsters" on the walk back from work, did I think of the characters first? Or the plot? Or the setting?
It was after Buffy had finished that I decided I wanted to write something to replace it. We'd had Alias which I sort of lost contact with somewhere into the second series. Dark Angel which eventually got quite good before it was canned. There was the faint promise of Ripper, something British by Joss Whedon, Dr Who hadn't returned and neither Supernatural or Heroes had been thought of yet (well, they might have been thought of, but anything public was far in the future).
So I thought, something similar but different. Not supernatural, not superheroic in the "this defies basic physics" sense (I love superhero stuff, I'm no slave to physics, it was just my thinking process). Definitely with a kick-ass lead teenage female.
So I decide on mutation and wrote a TV series bible for it, with lots of world creation. The lead character came first, the setting came second and that dictated the plot.
For "One Night in Paris" it was different. The setting was dictated by a song. Some of the supporting cast were suggested by the same and other songs by the same band. I had a rough plot and then I needed lead characters to fill it. I had to answer the question: "Who would spend one night in Paris and meet a prostitute?" The character was dictated by the setting and rough plot.
For "Running" again it was setting, and the dictates of the production company, that lead to character and plot simultaneously.
So which comes first?
It doesn't matter. It's totally 100% irrelevant. I might even suggest that if someone thinks it matters then they haven't yet attained a professional writing attitude -- or they're trying to sell something.
What matters is characters the audience can care about in a situation that demands their attention. Something that generates an emotional response, because that is what audiences really want. They want to laugh, cry, get angry, feel loved and loving, and all that emotional stuff. That's what really counts.
And the road you take to get to a script that delivers those things is irrelevant, as long as you do get there.
What's on the turntable? "From Now On" by Supertramp, on their Greatest Hits compilation. Supertramp tell stories with their lyrics, well worth listening to.
I was thinking about "Monsters" on the walk back from work, did I think of the characters first? Or the plot? Or the setting?
It was after Buffy had finished that I decided I wanted to write something to replace it. We'd had Alias which I sort of lost contact with somewhere into the second series. Dark Angel which eventually got quite good before it was canned. There was the faint promise of Ripper, something British by Joss Whedon, Dr Who hadn't returned and neither Supernatural or Heroes had been thought of yet (well, they might have been thought of, but anything public was far in the future).
So I thought, something similar but different. Not supernatural, not superheroic in the "this defies basic physics" sense (I love superhero stuff, I'm no slave to physics, it was just my thinking process). Definitely with a kick-ass lead teenage female.
So I decide on mutation and wrote a TV series bible for it, with lots of world creation. The lead character came first, the setting came second and that dictated the plot.
For "One Night in Paris" it was different. The setting was dictated by a song. Some of the supporting cast were suggested by the same and other songs by the same band. I had a rough plot and then I needed lead characters to fill it. I had to answer the question: "Who would spend one night in Paris and meet a prostitute?" The character was dictated by the setting and rough plot.
For "Running" again it was setting, and the dictates of the production company, that lead to character and plot simultaneously.
So which comes first?
It doesn't matter. It's totally 100% irrelevant. I might even suggest that if someone thinks it matters then they haven't yet attained a professional writing attitude -- or they're trying to sell something.
What matters is characters the audience can care about in a situation that demands their attention. Something that generates an emotional response, because that is what audiences really want. They want to laugh, cry, get angry, feel loved and loving, and all that emotional stuff. That's what really counts.
And the road you take to get to a script that delivers those things is irrelevant, as long as you do get there.
What's on the turntable? "From Now On" by Supertramp, on their Greatest Hits compilation. Supertramp tell stories with their lyrics, well worth listening to.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The first cut is the deepest
Been busy this week, partly working on a website (a pet project rather than work) and thinking about the feedback I had on the latest draft of Monsters.
And it's nearly September.
So I had to decide: One Night in Paris, my comedy which I'd planned to send to the Kaos competition hasn't been touched and needs plenty of work before it's ready. Meanwhile there's less than two weeks left. Or Monsters which needs more work and the deadline for the Red Planet competition is the end of September.
Yes it's true I could tighten up the first 10 pages of Monsters and just send those, while spending the next week blasting my way through a rewrite of One Night in Paris. But the plot lines in Monsters are so carefully knitted that the wrong change at the start could mess up scenes later on. It's a kind of all or nothing deal.
So I'm skipping Kaos. No point spending money on a competition with something that definitely won't make it past the first cut. And I'll concentrate on Monsters.
It's pretty weird really. This time last year I was sure Monsters was as good as it could get and I had a really good opening 10 pages. It didn't even make it through the first cut. (Though I was in good company with the other 1900 writers.)
This year I know my opening 10 pages are a 100 times better. And I know I still need to work on them.
Last year I was arrogant enough to think I stood a good chance of making the first cut. This year I'm much less certain.
Last year I laboured under the impression I could write. Yet this year I know I can.
I can be a truly arrogant bar steward sometimes ... but I learn.
What's on the turntable? "Dr Tyrell's Death" by Vangelis from CD2 of the "Bladerunner" 3 CD set. This is totally brilliant music inspired by a totally brilliant film. Ridley Scott's cut is definitely (and definitively) the best. He fixes some problems with the original edit and can you imagine a callback to re-shoot a scene 25 years later? He did it, and it is seamless.
And it's nearly September.
So I had to decide: One Night in Paris, my comedy which I'd planned to send to the Kaos competition hasn't been touched and needs plenty of work before it's ready. Meanwhile there's less than two weeks left. Or Monsters which needs more work and the deadline for the Red Planet competition is the end of September.
Yes it's true I could tighten up the first 10 pages of Monsters and just send those, while spending the next week blasting my way through a rewrite of One Night in Paris. But the plot lines in Monsters are so carefully knitted that the wrong change at the start could mess up scenes later on. It's a kind of all or nothing deal.
So I'm skipping Kaos. No point spending money on a competition with something that definitely won't make it past the first cut. And I'll concentrate on Monsters.
It's pretty weird really. This time last year I was sure Monsters was as good as it could get and I had a really good opening 10 pages. It didn't even make it through the first cut. (Though I was in good company with the other 1900 writers.)
This year I know my opening 10 pages are a 100 times better. And I know I still need to work on them.
Last year I was arrogant enough to think I stood a good chance of making the first cut. This year I'm much less certain.
Last year I laboured under the impression I could write. Yet this year I know I can.
I can be a truly arrogant bar steward sometimes ... but I learn.
What's on the turntable? "Dr Tyrell's Death" by Vangelis from CD2 of the "Bladerunner" 3 CD set. This is totally brilliant music inspired by a totally brilliant film. Ridley Scott's cut is definitely (and definitively) the best. He fixes some problems with the original edit and can you imagine a callback to re-shoot a scene 25 years later? He did it, and it is seamless.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Another week gone
I haven't blogged all week because I've been extraordinarily busy, mainly with Monsters. I got various bits of feedback from Philip Shelley (on his hols for two weeks) and David Bull (who's doing a special deal on "First 10 Pages" for all Red Planet competition peeps ... well actually anybody, but it might be especially useful to you). (Neither of these guys is cheap, they both have exceptional industry experience and you have to pay for it.) And then there was my read-through.
I'd been having issues with the storylines. I liked them, but my consultants sort of disagreed - not actually disliking them but pointing out certain aspects that were dire need of improvement like the fact that there was nothing to suggest that they would connect at any time in the future.
I dug my heels in. Damned if I was going to use a trick and/or device at the start to make it all work and play nicely together. Trouble is I had come to agree there was a problem, and I spent hours, days even, trying to see how I could fix it without using tricks and/or devices. Look at Heroes, I said to my wife, they don't use a trick and/or device to tie the plot lines together. She gently pointed out that the prescient comics and paintings did exactly that job.
I love my wife. And she was right. Again.
So I resorted to a trick and/or device. And it works beautifully, I really like the result. Damn it.
So last week I re-wrote and re-vamped the story, cut madly, re-wrote sections of dialogue, added more emotion and tension in 7 hours of intense work. Then zoomed the result back because Philip was off on holiday for two weeks and I needed more feedback fast.
Which I got: Fixed! I was told. Excellent. Loved the new dialogue, loads more emotion, felt the structure was (almost) fixed. Then proceeded to point out a whole bunch more stuff that needed doing.
But I've stopped arguing and started actually looking. He's right, of course. He (Philip, in this case) has been editing scripts for very popular TV shows for far longer than I've dreamed I could write screenplays. Not to say that I shouldn't disagree and argue, but actually looking at the script objectively is a skill we all have to learn, I think.
So now I'm looking at the new stuff to fix. I cut scenes mercilessly while on the train today, there's a whole aspect to this society that has grown in significance over time - yet it's not really significant to the plot, it's just an aspect of the society. So I've taken out all references to it, all the scenes that depended on it and I've left it open instead. Plus cut other scenes that weren't contributing to the plot and started rebuilding others to make them work better.
I think I'm finally on the last leg. (Either that or I'm on my last legs.)
Just remember all you Red Planet peeps: Last year's winner had one of the best script consultants in the world, oh yes. Personally I'd like to stand a chance of making at least the first cut this year. What makes you think you can do without one?
Unfortunately it means that "One Night in Paris" ended up on the backburner. I have some holidays of my own coming up and I'm not entirely sure I can knock it into shape in such a short time. Still, I love a good deadline.
What's on the turntable?
I'd been having issues with the storylines. I liked them, but my consultants sort of disagreed - not actually disliking them but pointing out certain aspects that were dire need of improvement like the fact that there was nothing to suggest that they would connect at any time in the future.
I dug my heels in. Damned if I was going to use a trick and/or device at the start to make it all work and play nicely together. Trouble is I had come to agree there was a problem, and I spent hours, days even, trying to see how I could fix it without using tricks and/or devices. Look at Heroes, I said to my wife, they don't use a trick and/or device to tie the plot lines together. She gently pointed out that the prescient comics and paintings did exactly that job.
I love my wife. And she was right. Again.
So I resorted to a trick and/or device. And it works beautifully, I really like the result. Damn it.
So last week I re-wrote and re-vamped the story, cut madly, re-wrote sections of dialogue, added more emotion and tension in 7 hours of intense work. Then zoomed the result back because Philip was off on holiday for two weeks and I needed more feedback fast.
Which I got: Fixed! I was told. Excellent. Loved the new dialogue, loads more emotion, felt the structure was (almost) fixed. Then proceeded to point out a whole bunch more stuff that needed doing.
But I've stopped arguing and started actually looking. He's right, of course. He (Philip, in this case) has been editing scripts for very popular TV shows for far longer than I've dreamed I could write screenplays. Not to say that I shouldn't disagree and argue, but actually looking at the script objectively is a skill we all have to learn, I think.
So now I'm looking at the new stuff to fix. I cut scenes mercilessly while on the train today, there's a whole aspect to this society that has grown in significance over time - yet it's not really significant to the plot, it's just an aspect of the society. So I've taken out all references to it, all the scenes that depended on it and I've left it open instead. Plus cut other scenes that weren't contributing to the plot and started rebuilding others to make them work better.
I think I'm finally on the last leg. (Either that or I'm on my last legs.)
Just remember all you Red Planet peeps: Last year's winner had one of the best script consultants in the world, oh yes. Personally I'd like to stand a chance of making at least the first cut this year. What makes you think you can do without one?
Unfortunately it means that "One Night in Paris" ended up on the backburner. I have some holidays of my own coming up and I'm not entirely sure I can knock it into shape in such a short time. Still, I love a good deadline.
What's on the turntable?
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Head too big for door
I had an "appraisal" at work yesterday. As I've never worked in a huge company before this was a new experience. (The fact that it's not usually done on contractors seems not to bother this company, I'm fine with that.) And it seems I'm exceptional.
Of course I always knew that, but now it's official.
Then I got feedback on my intended BFSC entry "Une Nuit a Paris" which was generally good, needs some work but then it was my first draft. (God, what smart-alec.) To be honest I didn't really know what to do with it which is why I went for the feedback so early. Now I have a better idea. But most important it really is funny. Thank goodness for that. I was terrified that it would fall totally flat.
"Monsters" got feedback too, from two sources, which I then compared and contrasted, popped off a couple of emails to try to clarify some things and got back the clarification I needed. Which is excellent news. Hopefully I can make the changes and get it off to Red Planet.
Yours excellently.
What's on the turntable? "Who Wants to Live Forever" by Queen from "A Kind of Magic". Of course, this is the soundtrack music for "Highlander" a film that I love. Though the sequels have never managed to live up to it. (For various reasons.) The TV "Highlander" series (1990s), however, was superb with excellent characters and some powerfully emotional plots. Nowadays the fight scenes in the Highlander film look tame, but in the TV series Adrian Paul plays the immortal, and being a dancer and martial artist his fights were far better. In another bout of Hollywood insanity there is an effort to re-make it.
Of course I always knew that, but now it's official.
Then I got feedback on my intended BFSC entry "Une Nuit a Paris" which was generally good, needs some work but then it was my first draft. (God, what smart-alec.) To be honest I didn't really know what to do with it which is why I went for the feedback so early. Now I have a better idea. But most important it really is funny. Thank goodness for that. I was terrified that it would fall totally flat.
"Monsters" got feedback too, from two sources, which I then compared and contrasted, popped off a couple of emails to try to clarify some things and got back the clarification I needed. Which is excellent news. Hopefully I can make the changes and get it off to Red Planet.
Yours excellently.
What's on the turntable? "Who Wants to Live Forever" by Queen from "A Kind of Magic". Of course, this is the soundtrack music for "Highlander" a film that I love. Though the sequels have never managed to live up to it. (For various reasons.) The TV "Highlander" series (1990s), however, was superb with excellent characters and some powerfully emotional plots. Nowadays the fight scenes in the Highlander film look tame, but in the TV series Adrian Paul plays the immortal, and being a dancer and martial artist his fights were far better. In another bout of Hollywood insanity there is an effort to re-make it.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
A Writing Process #2: Running with Aristotle
I have given my new work-in-progress the working title "Running", I always like to have a snappy title I can use to refer to things.
Although "Running" is intended to be a collaborative work I'm really liking the way it's shaping up and it'll be fine even if the company don't like the idea. (I'm all fired up and can't hang around for their response, the muse has grabbed me by the short and curlies and shoved me in front of the computer ... well, notepad in this case.)
Because of the way this story came about I'm working my way through Jeff Kitchen's writing tools from his "Writing a Great Movie" book. Yesterday I attacked with the 36 Dramatic Situations which began to give me a handle on character and relationships.
This evening I started reading through his introduction and came across his reference to Aristotle's "Unity of Action". This comes up in other guises when people talk about scenes, characters, dialogue, sequences and so on being irrelevant. The idea is that the work you create must have a "Unity of Action" every part of it must be part of the whole such that if you were to remove it it would damage the whole.
If something can be removed without affecting the whole then it's redundant and should be cut. (In "Une Nuit a Paris" I have a redundant character who's for the chop next draft.) But you can apply this rule right from the start, Jeff Kitchen expresses it as: "A Single Action; A Single Character; A Single Result".
But my conception of "Running" has two lead characters, I could break the rule but I've learned that my expertise is not yet sufficient. So I decide the protagonist will be Rebecca while her brother, John, can serve to express the next bit of plot construction.
Writing gurus often talk about things like "turning points" particularly in reference to the switch from Act 1 into Act 2. Aristotle doesn't. He has "Dilemma", the two lemmas. The best way to express it is the "damned if you do damned if you don't" situation.
Lots of screenwriting books use "Back to the Future" as a superb example of screenwriting craftsmanship. Jeff Kitchen doesn't, so I will to illustrate. If you take "turning point" as your move from Act 1 to Act 2 then most people would suggest that when Marty McFly goes back to 1955 that's the turning point, his world is upset. As Speilberg puts it his life's equilibrium is all messed up.
Of course he thinks that the Doc has been shot and he needs to get back to save him, but time is not an issue at this point, he has all the time in the world.
But that's not a dilemma. All he has to do is find the Doc and let him get the car running to send him back. Not easy, but not a huge challenge. But what happens shortly after? He screws up his own past such that though he must get back to the future, he can't until he fixes the relationship between his mother and father to be. Dilemma. Complicated by the fact that his mother wants (in the biblical sense) him.
A dilemma is also measured by its stakes: and in BttF the stakes couldn't be higher: If he fails then he ceases to exist.
So, I read through the use of Dilemma as a tool (which can be applied to an existing script as well as used when creating a new one) and applied it to Running. It's another brainstorming exercise identifying the dilemma and then working out all its ramifications.
As a result I've got a really good idea about the main character, Rebecca, and her dilemma (John will dramatise one side while she can express the other). And more plot ideas have been falling out into my lap. This is good stuff.
What's on the turntable? "Incantations Part Two" by Mike Oldfield from "Incantations". Part Two (and Part Four) feature Maddy Prior, the singer from the folk-rock band Steeleye Span (who also recently reformed - along with Pentangle - for their 40th anniversary tour).
I may have mentioned my fondness for 70s Prog Rock. This isn't really Prog Rock, it's something else. Mike Oldfield wanted to create "classical music" in a rock mode (a bit like the 70s/80s band Renaissance, only less "pop"). It's not "easy" music; he loves strange rhythmic patterns, and so do I.
Although "Running" is intended to be a collaborative work I'm really liking the way it's shaping up and it'll be fine even if the company don't like the idea. (I'm all fired up and can't hang around for their response, the muse has grabbed me by the short and curlies and shoved me in front of the computer ... well, notepad in this case.)
Because of the way this story came about I'm working my way through Jeff Kitchen's writing tools from his "Writing a Great Movie" book. Yesterday I attacked with the 36 Dramatic Situations which began to give me a handle on character and relationships.
This evening I started reading through his introduction and came across his reference to Aristotle's "Unity of Action". This comes up in other guises when people talk about scenes, characters, dialogue, sequences and so on being irrelevant. The idea is that the work you create must have a "Unity of Action" every part of it must be part of the whole such that if you were to remove it it would damage the whole.
If something can be removed without affecting the whole then it's redundant and should be cut. (In "Une Nuit a Paris" I have a redundant character who's for the chop next draft.) But you can apply this rule right from the start, Jeff Kitchen expresses it as: "A Single Action; A Single Character; A Single Result".
But my conception of "Running" has two lead characters, I could break the rule but I've learned that my expertise is not yet sufficient. So I decide the protagonist will be Rebecca while her brother, John, can serve to express the next bit of plot construction.
Writing gurus often talk about things like "turning points" particularly in reference to the switch from Act 1 into Act 2. Aristotle doesn't. He has "Dilemma", the two lemmas. The best way to express it is the "damned if you do damned if you don't" situation.
Lots of screenwriting books use "Back to the Future" as a superb example of screenwriting craftsmanship. Jeff Kitchen doesn't, so I will to illustrate. If you take "turning point" as your move from Act 1 to Act 2 then most people would suggest that when Marty McFly goes back to 1955 that's the turning point, his world is upset. As Speilberg puts it his life's equilibrium is all messed up.
Of course he thinks that the Doc has been shot and he needs to get back to save him, but time is not an issue at this point, he has all the time in the world.
But that's not a dilemma. All he has to do is find the Doc and let him get the car running to send him back. Not easy, but not a huge challenge. But what happens shortly after? He screws up his own past such that though he must get back to the future, he can't until he fixes the relationship between his mother and father to be. Dilemma. Complicated by the fact that his mother wants (in the biblical sense) him.
A dilemma is also measured by its stakes: and in BttF the stakes couldn't be higher: If he fails then he ceases to exist.
So, I read through the use of Dilemma as a tool (which can be applied to an existing script as well as used when creating a new one) and applied it to Running. It's another brainstorming exercise identifying the dilemma and then working out all its ramifications.
As a result I've got a really good idea about the main character, Rebecca, and her dilemma (John will dramatise one side while she can express the other). And more plot ideas have been falling out into my lap. This is good stuff.
What's on the turntable? "Incantations Part Two" by Mike Oldfield from "Incantations". Part Two (and Part Four) feature Maddy Prior, the singer from the folk-rock band Steeleye Span (who also recently reformed - along with Pentangle - for their 40th anniversary tour).
I may have mentioned my fondness for 70s Prog Rock. This isn't really Prog Rock, it's something else. Mike Oldfield wanted to create "classical music" in a rock mode (a bit like the 70s/80s band Renaissance, only less "pop"). It's not "easy" music; he loves strange rhythmic patterns, and so do I.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Parisian Nights
So, I've just finished my first set of corrections on Draft 1 of "Une Nuit a Paris". I spent the train journey up north on Friday reading through a hard copy, editing and making notes.
And the funny bits made me laugh, which is a good start. The big question is: will it make anyone else laugh. I hope so. I was quite impressed with it considering it only had the bare bones of planning and was written on the very tight schedule of ScriptFrenzy when I had fallen well behind. (Well, there's no one else to be impressed at the moment, writers should be impressed by their own work.)
Then I spent the journey back down south on Sunday and some time this evening making the corrections. It's not a finished draft as there are some facts about a gun that need to be brought out much earlier so they can be forgotten which will make the climax meatier.
I was a little concerned about the clash of genres, it's a rom-com/thriller. The only thing I could think of to compare it to was the Audrey Hepburn/Cary Grant classic "Charade" which also takes place in Paris. Not that I'm suggesting it's as good as that. I wish!
But in Charade the thriller sections are very definitely not funny - while the funny bits definitely are funny. And that's what I hope I've achieved.
The read-through of Monsters will be going ahead in two weeks (ohmigod) I have to sort out how to share out the parts (about 42 speaking parts in total) between 12 people except I don't even know what the male/female split is yet. But I think Celtx's production facilities might be able to help. Then I have to spend a fortune getting at least 6 copies (more would be better) printed up by this Saturday.
What's on the turntable? "Joanni" by Kate Bush from the "A Sea of Honey" CD from the Aerial collection. Just to be awkward Kate called her comeback double CD by the name "Aerial" and then named each of the CDs as well. Kate Bush is my age and I have always adored her music ever since I was blown away by "Wuthering Heights". She stopped making records to have a normal life and be a mother while her son Bertie grew up. Anyone who also likes Rolf Harris will find him on this album, painting.
And the funny bits made me laugh, which is a good start. The big question is: will it make anyone else laugh. I hope so. I was quite impressed with it considering it only had the bare bones of planning and was written on the very tight schedule of ScriptFrenzy when I had fallen well behind. (Well, there's no one else to be impressed at the moment, writers should be impressed by their own work.)
Then I spent the journey back down south on Sunday and some time this evening making the corrections. It's not a finished draft as there are some facts about a gun that need to be brought out much earlier so they can be forgotten which will make the climax meatier.
I was a little concerned about the clash of genres, it's a rom-com/thriller. The only thing I could think of to compare it to was the Audrey Hepburn/Cary Grant classic "Charade" which also takes place in Paris. Not that I'm suggesting it's as good as that. I wish!
But in Charade the thriller sections are very definitely not funny - while the funny bits definitely are funny. And that's what I hope I've achieved.
The read-through of Monsters will be going ahead in two weeks (ohmigod) I have to sort out how to share out the parts (about 42 speaking parts in total) between 12 people except I don't even know what the male/female split is yet. But I think Celtx's production facilities might be able to help. Then I have to spend a fortune getting at least 6 copies (more would be better) printed up by this Saturday.
What's on the turntable? "Joanni" by Kate Bush from the "A Sea of Honey" CD from the Aerial collection. Just to be awkward Kate called her comeback double CD by the name "Aerial" and then named each of the CDs as well. Kate Bush is my age and I have always adored her music ever since I was blown away by "Wuthering Heights". She stopped making records to have a normal life and be a mother while her son Bertie grew up. Anyone who also likes Rolf Harris will find him on this album, painting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)