Things we noticed watching tv this week 29 (spoilers)

Have you ever read a book and thought, I'd love to adapt that? My guess is that most people reading this will answer yes. It happens to me all the time. I love reading. I read as much as I can. I read for its own sake, the sake of enjoyment. But never truly switching the screenwriting brain off, in the back of mind I'll still be thinking how would I do this on screen? I do this professionally now too of course, as in this era of the adaptation, Production Companies are sending out novels to their readers as much as scripts.

For me, author John O'Farrell is a genius. His novels are just hilarious and continually make me laugh out loud. So when I read May Contain Nuts, with its premise of a mother dressing up as her daughter to take a prestigious school entrance exam, I thought yup, this would make a cool script. In my head I'd pictured Catherine Tate, with her stroppy teenage act already honed, but actually the diminutive Shirley Henderson was perfectly cast. It's been a while since I read the book, but if memory serves this was a pretty faithful adaptation. The trouble was, and this was a real eye opener for me, we react differently to things on a page to things on screen. I know what you're thinking - tell us something we don't know! We know a great book doesn't necessarily make a great screenwork. But what I mean by this is that you can take the same characters, doing the same things, with the same basic motivations, that you like and find very, very funny - put them on screen, and find the whole thing irritating, unbelievable and generally lacking charm.

It didn't seem to be confident enough to play the material straight, but just make it really, really funny. Maybe this was the intention, and right from the word go it was meant to be a satire of upper middle class Britain, UK soccer mums, and all its trappings. (Writer Mark Burton certainly has a fantastic pedigree in quality satire and Elizabeth Berrington played Ffion with such scene chewing, comic book villainy that she was scarier than many a feature film baddie.) But tonally, something similar to say, Outnumbered, may have worked better. Outnumbered does not look to satire what it's like to live in a British middle class family, it is what it's like to live in a British middle class family - constructed and heightened of course to get the comedy, but still played straight. So many of the values of modern life, so much of what we place emphasis on and give importance to, so much about our education system is wrong and ludicrous already, you don't really need to 'send it up.' Just play it straight and work with characters we can relate to and empathise with, whilst concentrating on the comedy, and you may end up with a far more engaging script.

Lack of engagement is not something Occupation suffered from. How often do we hear why can't we do something like The Wire over here blah blah? Well okay, this drama was only three hours long, but still, in terms of quality, it was brilliantly written by Peter Bowker. I'm also really pleased it was three hours long. Not quite sure about the whole consecutive nights thing, but there must have been a massive temptation to say okay let's cut this to two hours so we can make it a one off TV event. But the three hours allowed the story to play out in a much more fulfilling, sweeping, emotional roller coaster.

What was most impressive is that there was no agenda in Occupation. No generalised statements, no easy answers, no simple solutions. This was epitomised with the final scene, when three characters just sit, looking at each other, and you can feel them thinking, how the hell did we all get here?

I've been deliberately vague and I'll tell you why. I'm gonna make this a first for Things we noticed watching TV this week. I just want everyone to go and watch it. I don't think it's still on iplayer, but it's out on DVD and even if you don't want to buy it, it can certainly be rented. Post what you thought about it, and why, here. And hopefully appreciate that this, is what we can achieve on British TV.

Things we noticed watching tv this week 27 (spoilers)

As Arsenal continue to do their bit to send me to the Writers' Academy, I thought it was about time to catch up on some TV. Known for his outspoken comments, I eagerly tuned in to watch legendary screenwriter William Goldman on last weeks South Bank Show. And there were certainly a couple of interesting moments. Goldman believes that movies should not be longer than 110 minutes - and that big directors these days are being indulged with their two and a half hour epics! He also noted that after he virtually came out of nowhere to sell the screenplay for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for $400,000, everyone hated him, which he gave as the reason critics have never been too kind about his movies. (Although labeling them all failures and I think whores at one point, possibly didn't help either.) But what was more interesting from my point of view was that he wrote that screenplay after eight years of research. EIGHT YEARS. I mean I'm sure that wasn't all he was doing and all that, but whoa. That is still a long time to be mulling over a project. Food for thought certainly.

But the most significant discussion for me concerned the whole 'auteur' theory, which holds that a film reflects the directors personal creative vision, essentially ignoring everyone else involved in making the movie. Unsurprisingly, Goldman slammed this madness and stated that even directors know it is nonsense. But this wasn't just a very big screenwriter laying his claim. Goldman willingly acknowledged the credit directors deserved for the sheer physical exertion needed making a movie. I'm enjoying reading Danny's account of shooting his film, amazed by the work needed to marshal 30 people etc - and that is just for a short! Directing is not something I aspire to, and Goldman is of course right to acknowledge the principal effort they make in actually shooting a film script. But in the words of James Moran, where were they when the page was blank? (Unless of course the director has indeed also written the script - that's a whole other story.) But in the words of Richard Attenborough, "the quality of a film nine times out of ten is down to the quality of the screenplay." Well we all knew that, right? But what bothers me about all this is that nothing ever seems to change. Goldman highlighted the 'Hitchcock movie' syndrome, ignoring the talented writers he worked with like Ernest Lehman. So I can't change it. And probably no one reading this blog can. But if this all seems obvious to me, you and everyone else, change has to come from the most powerful of writers. I'm talking mainly of course movies here. Directors will probably claim it's the other way around in TV!

It certainly a problem David Simon, creator of The Wire, probably doesn't have to face. I've finally finished watching season one, just in time for season two which kicks off tomorrow night on BBC2 again. I should say right from the start that I don't think The Wire is a bad show, by any means. But having come to it post hype (which I hate to do for this very reason,) it's quite another thing to be styled as the greatest TV show of all time! Maybe later seasons are brilliant, and I certainly saw enough to want to watch on, but as a first season, I don't think it was as good as shows like West Wing, The Sopranos, Life on Mars, Heroes to name but a few.

So why all the fuss? Firstly, there is an authenticity and rawness to it which is no surprise as David Simon was a reporter in Baltimore, where the show is set. This extends to the violence and the language, which means it's certainly not for everyone. That's why in the States it's on HBO, and not NBC. And there are moments of brilliance, like using the gang structure and warfare to explain the rules of chess, or a long, almost purely visual scene, where the only word uttered is a certain four letter one. But what I liked about it most was the fact that it is a pure series. There are no story of the week plot lines. It's just one long story, broken up by weekly installments. Like reading a novel in a way. I've said before that I am a loyal viewer. And I am not alone! In this day and age, with iplayer and on demand and sky plus and dvd box sets, broadcaster need to understand that they can do this more and more. If they become more receptive to this style of show, writers will love it and become more confident with delivering fantastic stories over a period of time that is impossible anywhere but in TV.