BBC nurtures new and young writing voices?

"There has never been a better time for new and young drama writers to get work onto our TV screens thanks to a number of BBC initiatives.

By targeting the very best new writers from fringe, theatre and radio, the Writers Academy alone, with its 90% success rate, has pumped a whole new generation of talent into continuing drama and now into the wider industry. But this is just a small part of the corporation’s growing commitment to new writing.

BBC Writersroom offers an extraordinary range of outreach schemes, partnerships with regional theatres and development projects for writers getting their first foot on the drama ladder. Its success has meant there are now more new voices than ever bringing their work and their vision to our screens.

In the last year alone, young and first-time writers have worked across all BBC channels on new pieces, as well as returning dramas such as Spooks and Being Human. Of particular note are BBC1’s Fiona’s Story, BBC3’s Personal Affairs and BBC4’s Long Walk to Finchley and Consuming Passions - original drama from the very best new talent in the industry, who sit alongside dozens more with original pieces in development.

New commissions from upcoming writers include Simon Stephens’ Dive, co-written with Dominic Savage, Tony Saint’s Syntax Era, Tom Butterworth and Chris Hurford’s Money, Joshua St Johnston’s Material Girl, Lindsay Shapiro’s Enid, Peter Harness’ Forgotten Fallen and Neil Cross’ Luther. With the Comedy College in its second year and the Writers Academy in its fifth, patronage of new writing has never been greater. And it is impossible to complete any overview without acknowledging the many voices Jimmy McGovern and his extraordinary team have nurtured on The Street.

Far from “spurning new talent for the tried and tested”, the BBC does more than any other broadcaster to support them. We take our responsibility in this area extremely seriously, are proud of their achievements and believe there will be many more to come."

John Yorke, controller, BBC Drama Production and New Talent

*************************************************************************************

Over to you people - do you agree with John Yorke, or Lisa Campbell, who wrote "More worrying is the opposite of ageism - youthism? - which sees the BBC spurning new talent for the tried and tested. One drama producer trying to champion a young writer was told the BBC, as the only broadcaster really commissioning drama at the moment, was inundated with writers, and why should they go for young unknowns? Er, because they are the future?"

We are what we write

With CBBC stuff, Ustinov stuff and the regular work, I've been a bit swamped with script reading whilst trying also to write myself (which I hear is traditional for a screenwriter.) But during the course of the reading and discussions with clients, some interesting things have come up that I thought would be worth sharing.

One question that came up was this. I told a client (he shall remain nameless unless he wants to comment below!) that he wrote confidently, to which he replied, what in real terms does that actually mean? It's obviously positive thing, but how do I know what it is that I'm doing right to get this response? And it was an excellent question - because I have never quantified it in those terms. It's just a feeling you get whilst reading a script. I've also been told that I write confidently so it was worth thinking about what this actually meant.

I feel it suggests that you have a certain control over your understanding of a project. You know the world and the characters inside out, you know what's going to happen, when and why. If it's a series pilot for example, you give the impression you know exactly how the series will pan out. Notice I said give the impression. You don't of course actually have to know every single beat of a 6-13 part series. It would be frankly staggering if you did. What was it that Toby Whithouse said about Being Human - something like that he knew in the final episode Herrick would walk into a room and George would step out of the shadows. That was it! And it was then a case of working out what has to happen to get to that point. I'm working on a series idea at the moment where I know in the final episode, one particular character will be shot by another particular character. How it gets to that point at the moment I have no idea! So what does it mean to write with confidence?

Like I said it's more a feeling you get, so I will describe it in metaphor. Think of a person, so cool he glides not walks. He can chat comfortably with either sex, he is basically the Fonz. Now think of that in terms of the words you put on the page. Are the characters described with a few punchy verbs, is the dialogue crisp and economically written, do scenes flow into one another to make up sequences, acts and ultimately a complete coherent story?

And it occurred to me just now that the antithesis to all of that is overwriting. Overwriting betrays a lack of confidence. Because if you are unsure about what you are writing, you can often feel the need to over state and over explain things. This is the other reason that it's preferable to have a script as tight and as short as possible. (Whilst still doing justice to the story of course.) It's not just because readers/producers can't be arsed to read long scripts and will visibly sag under the weight of epic after epic landing on their desk.

They say you only have one chance to make a first impression. This is never more true than with screenwriting. Unless you are Paul Abbot (see here) you won't recover from turning in a bad first draft. You'll go on to write other projects, but that particular one, with that particular producer/company/agent, will be dead. So it's worth spending the extra time to go through it all and ask yourself have I done everything (plot, character, dialogue, action) as economically as possible? People take courses to become more confident and assertive. They are qualities we desire and other people admire. So it makes sense that you definitely want to be described and known as someone who writes confidently.

BBC Writersroom Toby Whithouse Q&A (Contains Being Human spoilers)

It would be fair to say that Being Human has been my favourite series so far in 2009. So I thought it would be fun to pop along to the BBC Writersroom hosted Q&A with the creator and writer Toby Whithouse. I should say firstly that the Arnopp did a very cool interview with him on his blog last May, so check that out here cos there is some cross over.

But back to tonight and Toby was in discussion with Kate Rowland, BBC's Creative Director of New Writing. As ever, I will give my apologies to you, dear reader, anyone who was there, and Toby too, cos I am no journalist and have my own, rather weird shorthand which can be a bit hit and miss.

But anyway...

Toby began life as an actor and as he put it himself, arrogantly decided to write script as he kept getting sent crap material. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. Lucy Cohu told me the same thing in New York, and it was implied too by Brendan Burke, who played my protagonist in The Storyteller read through. I always react in dismay when I hear this. For one thing, I of course also arrogantly believe that my scripts are not crap so would like good actors to read these instead! But, whereas yes, I have also read a fair share of ropey material, I have also read some gems, and it annoys me that these are not getting out there. They deserve to be, and hopefully at least some are.

Toby never really had a plan of where he wanted to be in 5 years or what he wanted to be doing in 10. All he knew was that he wanted to write sitcoms. But funnily enough, when he finally got the chance, he hated it. He felt that the artificial creation of a script that had to have 5 jokes on a page or else, was a very unnatural way to write. By the same token, and having done some stand up to hone his comedic writing, Toby wouldn't be able to write a script without gags in it. It would feel weird. Then I was amused when he said something I have long thought myself with regards to my own writing. If you write a drama with 20 gags in it, everyone says how funny you are. If you write a sitcom with 20 gags in it, everyone says this guys not very funny! It's so true and it's worth bearing in mind when describing our work. Send a comedy script out and the reader will be expecting to laugh their arse off (and will be pretty merciless if they don't.) Send out a drama that is very funny, and they will be pleasantly surprised, grateful, and remember your work. (Of course this is not carte blanche! I wouldn't recommend trying to disguise a sitcom as a drama or anything like that!)

At the start of a project, Toby spends a lot of time working out the characters (with detailed biogs etc.) When World Productions approached him about No Angels, all they had was a series about four nurses. Toby had to come up with the rest. So he met up for a drink with a lot of nurses (which he claimed was not as much fun as it sounds.) But what was important here was the research. Toby is a big fan of the empowering nature of research. It gives you confidence about your subject matter, but also, will give you story. (He got an absolutely cracker from one nurse about trying to disguise the death of a now stone cold patient by putting them in the bath - which ended up in the No Angels pilot I think.)

I asked him if whether with fantasy like Being Human, did he also do a lot of work on creating and establishing the rules of the world? He said that they thought quite a lot about what Vampire mythologies they would use and what they wouldn't (because there are so many out there already!) But other stuff like the vampire plot to take over the world evolved during the writing. At the end of the day it's mostly down to what makes the best story. This isn't entirely what I meant but I didn't get the chance to follow it up. What I really wanted to know were the rules about what Annie could and couldn't do. (No one can see her, at first at least, but she can make casserole - do people then see a casserole dish moving in mid-air!?? But perhaps this is best left alone and has only occurred to the way my brain thinks.)

Anyway, moving on and Toby will then write a treatment. If he's writing for himself, he might do one or two and then onto the script. But when in the field as it were, many companies have their own 'rules' which you are then contracted to about how many treatments, scene breakdowns etc you have to do before going to script. One particularly interesting thing he talked about was genre writing. Toby has never really seen his work as genre based. By that he meant that within a series like Being Human, or even within one episode in the series, scenes or moments can shift from dramatic, tragic or comedic. He said that life is a mixture of genres. In real life, a tragic thing could have happened, and everyone can be dealing with that, and then someone will break wind. No one thinks, oh we've changed genres. So Toby tries to reflect that in his writing. To be honest, I'm not sure about this. I think you can write a drama with a healthy balance of comedy and pathos, and vice versa, but mixing genres? Not too sure. (My old mentor Phi Parker would be doing his nut right about now but I suspect what Toby describes as genre is not the same as Phil's Genre Analysis.)

For Being Human, Toby now had a pilot and series bible ready. And he knew that in Episode 6, Herrick would walk into a room and George would step out of the shadows. That was it. But by having that, he knew that everything then had to lead to that point. But he admitted that writing a pilot is a difficult business. You have to balance setting up the series and telling a good story in the episode itself. With Being Human, he wrote the pilot that was shown on BBC3 last year, and then had to virtually do it all again, but differently, with the beginning of the series proper!

Questions were then opened up to the audience and here is a selection of topics covered.

On difference between writing for the stage and screen
TW. Stage you can do anything because it's cheap. More money in TV means more constraints and less brave. On stage you can experiment. But there is no money in theatre and I have a family support! But you do get to control your work. I am lucky with Being Human but previously, the script I have written for other shows and sent away, did not always reflect the DVD copy of it that came back!

On whether he could then now go back to writing other shows
TW. Depends on the show. I am doing that at the moment in fact. I spent 7 years writing on other shows but always wrote my own plays. I think you have to have that outlet otherwise you'll go insane.

On rewriting
TW. There comes a point where you have to get the script out of the house. Otherwise, if it's still there, you can always go back to it and pick over it. Deadlines are good for this. And the more you pick over something the more attached you get to it, and then when things are cut or changes have to be made, it becomes harder.

On the writing process
TW. It's a job. I get up with the kids at 7am. At my desk by around 8:30am and work until 5pm. I try to write five pages. Write them and then revise them. So by the end of the day I have five good pages.

On actually liking writing
TW. If you don't like it, then don't do it. The downside is that it's very solitary. But I like having control over my day. I can work, get up, walk about, have a sneaky nap, email, work, etc. Obviously you can't really do that in an office.

On series drama or story of the week
TW. Viewing habits have changed. It used to be that if you missed a show on TV in its slot, that was it. So broadcasters were worried that viewers wouldn't come back if they feel they've missed some important story beats. But nowadays it's becoming less risky. There is iplayer, repeats, and most crucially DVD box sets.

On the old classic (why does someone always ask this at these things) where do your story ideas come from?
TW. No idea.

And on that note, everyone decamped to the bar. (I actually didn't cos I had to get off. But I did want to sneak up on Toby and wave my Star of David at him just to see what happened. But he was bit swamped and as we've never met before thought better of it anyway.) But all in all it was a pretty enjoyable way to spend 90 minutes or so. What I liked about Toby was that apart from being very funny, he seems like a nice bloke too and really appears to be having the best time doing what he is doing. With young kids and the fact that he spent 7 years writing for other people, I'm not sure how old he is. Maybe he just has a young face. But whilst I found him inspiring, at the same time it was a bit scary. I was left with the feeling that I really need to get a move on!

***Appendix***

Just seen another couple of reports from the Q&A. So for more, go here and here.

Things we noticed watching tv this week 22 (spoilers)

What the hell has happened to Skins? Boldest of bold moves to chuck out your cast after just two seasons, and start again with a completely new one. Or just plain foolish? I'm not sure. I guess it can work if you come up with half a dozen characters as good as the last lot. But at the same time you can't just mimic what's gone before. We might want to see more of Tony, Sid and Cassie, but if it's not actually them, we certainly don't want a pale imitation. So you are basically creating a brand new show and have to win over the audience all over again. Brave indeed. For me the first two episodes in the new series were a disaster. They represented all the worse bits about Skins, teenagers having sex and doing drugs, ooooh, shocking. Er, get in line behind Hollyoaks, Eastenders and every other soap. Tonally it was all over the place too. A teacher farting into a megaphone in a school assembly, James dropping his trousers nonchalantly in front of everyone, another teacher almost having a breakdown as a result - was this Carry On Skins? By the second episode we had James (again!) initiating a food fight between two rival gangs (one led by the disastrously miscast Mackenzie Crook) and other shenanigans at a brothel, which involved James getting one over Crook. There was slapstick everywhere! And it was all a little odd and annoying. By the end of it, even James' best mate was fed up with him, My only question was how did it take this long?

But then, but then. Then came episode three. Then came Thomas. Thomas has given Skins its soul back. Here was an episode about a guy we actually cared about, who was charismatic, gentle and fascinating. It lurched into silly slapstick only once, when to settle their dispute, Thomas and big, bad gangster Crook had a chili eating contest (why the hell would you give 300 quid to anyone who settled their disputes this way?) My other concern is that Thomas was sent packing by his mum at the end! But surely, please, he will come back soon. I think the best praise a screenwriter can give a show is when they come away and say, I wish I'd written that.

Speaking of which, we're half way through Toby Whitehouse's Being Human over on BBC3. The pilot last year was simply wonderful so expectations were high for the series. I've got to be honest, I preferred pilot Annie to series Annie. No disrespect to Lenora Chrichlow, but she was so awesome and alive in Sugar Rush, it's hard to see her as a ghost! I'm also missing Adrian Lester as Herrick but mostly because I have a bit of a man crush on him (he's just sooo smooth.) But anyway, back to the series and there is plenty of good writing to enjoy. The genesis of the show is that Touchpaper wanted a series about flatmates, which Toby thought was a bit This Life - so came back to them with the flatmates being a vampire, werewolf and a ghost. What a simplistic and absolutely fantastic example of taking something familiar, and totally freshening it up. And once again, it's not really that the stories are breaking new ground, but that the characters are so enjoyable to spend time with. It's probably no coincidence then that my two fave shows at the moment then are this, and Hustle.

Okay time to go, because I have an enormous book to read and critique for a company (I kid you not, it's over 700 pages!) Don't forget to watch Moses Jones and Whitechapel tonight so you know what I'm talking about this time next week!!