Licence to Bore?

No this is not the name of the next Bond film. Neither have I forgotten our look at successful British movies over the past 18 months. I'll get to that. But there have been a couple of other things on my mind and I'd like to share them with anyone kind enough to read this blog!

In my previous entry I blogged about the panel at the BFI. I didn't mention it myself but it's been widely reported elsewhere that Jimmy McGovern said theatre writers should carry a card in their pockets that said 'licence to bore.' It got a good round of laughter, which suggested there weren't many playwrights in the room! Turns out this is not the first time Jimmy has said this. In this interview in 2007 he says something very similar, although the emphasis seems to be to backtrack on this. (Maybe he's seen some really bad plays and read some really bad screenplays by playwrights between now and then that has led to another reversal!?)

I don't go to the theatre very much, and when I do, it's usually to see something by the best of the best, Mr Will Shakespeare. But here's what Jimmy went on to say: "I get lots of approaches from theatre writers who want to write for The Street or whatever and I’m telling you, a lot of theatre writers are crap. It’s boring. You don’t learn story structure writing in the theatre. Stay away from the theatre, it’s the worst thing you can do if you want to write for TV. Fight to get on a soap, get on Corrie, get on Emmerdale. That’s where you’ll learn." (Quote from Michelle Lipton's transcript.)

And I agree with Jimmy. I don't understand the obsession of people in the film and television industry of searching for new writing talent... In. Other. Mediums. It was not without a certain irony that days before Jimmy's comment, Joe Oppenheimer (BBC Films) said he tends to look at people with a track record in TV or theatre and thinks theatre is the best source for finding new writers. Meanwhile Charlotte Knight from The Rod Hall Agency said Theatre is where you can see writing in its purest form, there’s nothing to hide behind. (Sourced from Dave Melkevik's Serious Screenwriting write up - so any mistakes are down to him!)

First of all, no Charlotte, it's not. The novel is. I think King Lear is the greatest play ever written, but if someone was daft enough to cast me in the lead, the play would not get very good overnights. Playwrights are at the mercy of actors just as much as screenwriters. More so, because you can't re-shoot. But this notion of finding screenwriters from already established novelists and playwrights drives me crazy. I'm not saying everything in the screenwriting garden is rosy. And we'll come back to this in an upcoming blog post. But there are writers and scripts out there of high quality. And if people backed them instead, helped them develop their work, even if they had no credits or track record in something else, that is where you would find your screenwriters of the future. SCREENwriters. The clue is in the name.

A few years ago The Script Factory ran a course specifically designed to encourage and introduce successful novelists into screenwriting. I found the whole concept nauseating. This is the problem with writing. Screenwriters, novelists and playwrights all put words on a page for a living. Surely it's interchangeable? If you can do it in one form why not another? But would you use a property lawyer for a matter of criminal law and vice versa? Why not? They both studied Law. What about a tax accountant for corporate finance issues? They are both accountants. Or an ear, nose and throat doctor for heart surgery? They both studied medicine. I think you get my point.

And it works both ways. All we screenwriters seem to hear from Julian Friedmann these days, be it on Twelvepoint or at SWF is that we should be writing novels. (And by the way that is not meant to disrespect Julian, who I respect, like and has done me more than one favour.) But Julian, I don't want to write novels. I want to write screenplays. And I want the gatekeepers in my industry to be looking for me, not going to the theatre. Read scripts, not what's on the New York Times bestseller list.

Now all this of course comes with a caveat. You can of obviously do what you want. It's a free country and if someone wants to write novels, plays, screenplays, radio scripts, whatever, they are free to do so. And if they are talented in everything then good luck to them. But that is not what I'm talking about. You should have to prove yourself in each medium. Not success in one means you get a leg up in the other. Nick Hornby is one of my favourite novelists and he started his screenwriting career by adapting his own book. Fair play to him. But now he's an Oscar nominated screenwriter. And all credit to him for the fantastic script An Education is Debbie Moggach is another novelist who made a successful transition to screen. And I'm sure there are others and playwrights too. But, if Jimmy McGovern is right, these are the exceptions that prove the rule (whatever that means - I've never quite understood the expression! But the other irony of course is that Jimmy himself has used those with a playwriting track record, but not a screenwriting one, in both The Street and Moving On.)

But my overall point is that it's no good senior industry folk complaining about the lack of new writing talent coming through, if you keep looking for it in the wrong places. I've been hearing how great a place theatre is to find new talent for as long as I've been screenwriting. And I've been hearing the complaint about the lack of new talent for just as long. So you do the math.

The Writer in Modern TV

Last night I was at the BFI event - which had a subtitle of Second Coming or Looming Apocalypse? Tony Marchant, Jimmy Mcgovern, Donna Franceschild, Gub Neal, Nicola Shindler and Ben Stephenson were the ones charged with deciding. If you don't know who these people are, and want to work in British TV, then you should. So do your own googling! (Also there was David Butcher, but I'm never overly bothered by what critics have to say. And it was chaired by Mark Lawson)

So where did everyone sit on this rather wide range of a question? Unsurprisingly, all pretty much firmly in the middle. I'm probably one of the worst in the blogging community at doing event write ups, because my note taking is appalling. But these were some of the highlights of the discussion. (Disclaimer - like I've said before my short hand is rather hit and miss so the following is probably a lot of paraphrasing. Apologies to any of the participants if I've misquoted them.)

I ended up feeling a bit sorry for Ben Stephenson because the conversation inevitably turned to him to defend what the BBC does and doesn't do. All. The. Time. The poor bloke looked increasingly uncomfortable trying to strike the balance of not talking too much, and having to weigh in every two minutes. When discussing the lack of risk of TV drama - he insisted that he believed risk can very often define great TV. The BBC (somewhat bizarrely) are doing a drama about the creation of Coronation Street, the reason being because at the time, no one wanted it, no one thought it would work and the result of course is that now everyone is standing on the show's shoulders.

Tony Marchant said that you can do difficult topics on TV, but that they have to be packaged in a genre. He felt it was a shame things couldn't be tackled as straight drama. Ben agreed that a Trojan horse of a genre piece can be useful in terms of attracting an audience. But he wouldn't want to foster a false element on a story because it wouldn't work and therefore would be rubbish.

Interesting, although in the last few years all we've been hearing is high concept, high concept, high concept - Nicola Shindler thought the need for this was beginning to disappear. Gub Neal concurred that the idea of low concept - high character, was finally filtering through. And he was unequivocal in that it's coming through from the US shows over the last five years.

Donna Franceschild thought that The Street would show execs and broadcasters that drama about ordinary people (or seemingly ordinary people, but were of course actually anything but) can be a critical and popular success. And it just didn't. She felt it's still about self-censorship and what can we sell, not necessarily what we want to make. Ben acknowledged that from a BBC point of view, yes there's a corporation and a business and no system is ever perfect. But the only way to get the best TV is to get the best writers and allow them to write what they are passionate about.

And that's probably a good place to leave it. There was more of course, but my hand got tired. It was being filmed so I guess look out for it somewhere in the near future. Final word should probably go to Jimmy McGovern, the absolute master and most entertaining member of the panel. This was actually in the programme notes but he appears to have written it himself.

"I started writing seriously when I joined the Scotland Road Writers' Workshop in the seventies. Pedre James gave me my first break at the Liverpool Everyman round about 1980. And then Brookside took me on and I learned everything I know there. I left Brookside in 1989 after the Hillsborough Football Disaster and nobody in television drama wanted to know me - not the BBC and certainly not Channel 4 - until Simon Passmore commissioned me to write a play about the Gunpowder Plot for the BBC Screenplay strand. George Faber, the executive producer of Screenplay, then commissioned me to write a film called Needle and, shortly after that, Gub Neal asked me to write Cracker. And, after that, I was on my way. About 20 year from beginning to breakthrough."

Twenty years! And that's for Jimmy McGovern! Please, no one tell my wife.

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

Okay so after writing all that out the clever and apparently very fast note taker Michelle not only has a brief write up on her blog, but also a link to a six page transcript! So if you wanna read more - go there.

British Pride

No I haven't joined a White Supremacist group (not sure they'd have me.) Here's what this is about. I've been a bit quiet of late. Yes I've been busy - but for good or for bad, that never seems to change. And I was a bit unwell, but whatever. No, the main reason for the quiet has been (and this is gonna sound pretentious whatever way I try to spin it) is that I've been thinking. Don't get me wrong - that hasn't involved sitting for hours and staring into space, or even sitting for minutes and staring into space. It's more been when I've been doing other things or can't sleep, which is often.

You see one of the pleasures of working on Dough has been the chance to learn from John Goldschmidt. It's been like my own private masterclass and mentor scheme rolled into one. John is so knowledgeable about our industry, and so generous with that knowledge, that I have learnt more in the last nine months working with him than I did in the previous six years. I'm not necessarily talking about the writing. I'm talking more about how the industry works, how movies get put together - basically all the stuff they don't teach you, no matter how great the writing course.

We want Dough to be a successful British movie. But how is 'success' defined? The British film industry seems to live in a perpetual state of crisis. People often look back to the mid to late nineties, at films such as Four Weddings, Billy Eliot, Bend It Like Beckham, East is East, Full Monty, and Lock Stock (apologies to those left out) as the last golden age. But over the last 18 months or so there have been a number of 'successes,' defined differently, that would suggest that we continue to make movies that are worthy of note, be that through box office, critical, artistic achievement, or all three.

So I've decided that over the next few weeks I will look at some of those films, not just from a screenwriting point of view, but through thinking about things I have picked up over the last few months; the budget, the actors, the financing, the package etc. I haven't actually decided which ones to look at yet, so can't tell you. But stay tuned!

ps. All opinions and comment will be mine and mine alone - and bear no reflection on John or anyone at Viva Films!

Did you hear that?

I've been a bit quiet of late, mainly due to being quite busy and/or unwell. I had a virus, then a cold, then thought I was getting better so went back to work, and am now worse with flu. So I'm doing all the right things; resting (i.e catching up on TV and movies) drinking hot drinks and taking paracetamol. But I find that if I don't write something I still get a bit antsy. My head is far too fuzzy for any constructive work but I thought I'd chance a little blog. (So please excuse any incoherence)

As the DOUGH script nears completion (as much as any script ever does) we decided to have a read through. The only previous experience I've had of this sort of thing was with THE STORYTELLER at the International Emmys. On that occasion half a dozen Broadway actors brought my words to life... whilst I just sat there in a surreal daze trying to take it all in. So although I don't think either John, Jonathan or myself would claim to have much in the way of acting skills, we gamely set about the task. They took on the two leads and I read all the rest. And it was an incredibly useful exercise.

For one thing, if you read in a natural, evenly paced way, you build up a momentum and you can really see the rhythm of a script in a way you might not have done before. Scene to scene, whole sequences or even just enclosed in one scene, you get an idea of what is flowing and working, and what is not. Also, people tend to read what they think is there on the page, rather than what is. It may be small changes and nuances, but the gut, instinctive line of dialogue tends to be better and more natural than the one you originally wrote.

I plan on having a reading of all my scripts now. All you need is a few friends, get some snacks in, and you'll probably all have a laugh. And you might just learn something about the script you've been slaving over for a few months but that has never been lifted off the page. Yes there is a certain amount of exposure in this. You're laying it all out there, and putting it on the line. But we all know a thick skin is an absolute necessity in this business anyway. So just do it. And if it's crap, don't blame the would be actors. Think about why it didn't sound out loud like it did in your head. If you can be honest with yourself it will make the next draft so much better, so much sharper, and having gone through the reading, you'll be all the more confident about it.

Now hand me those tablets and put the kettle on again, please.

Competitions

Coming Up 2011 is now accepting applications. Deadline is 9th June 2010. All the information you need can be found here

I wrote about the scheme in the build up to last years comp, which you can read here if you so wish.

It's also worth mentioning now that The Sir Peter Ustinov Scriptwriting Award deadline is 1st July 2010. All the information you need can be found here.

I've written about this award in various rambling blogs over the last couple of years - most of which can be found here if you are interested.

Last year UK bloggers Michelle Goode and Scott Payne both made the final 10. (The last four winners have gone Brit, Aussie, Brit, Aussie - so come on people, let's lay down a marker for The Ashes and bring this back home too.)

As with last year, I will be on the jury. I will also once again happily send my script The Storyteller to anyone who wants to read it - for their own personal use. Just email me at the usual address.

My experience reading entries last year was that a badly formatted script almost certainly meant a badly written one. There's no intrinsic reason why this should be the case, I'm just telling you how I found it. So it's rather timely that Lucy has produced a pretty definitive guide to formatting issues. If you're unsure about anything, check it out. If you are sure about everything, check it out anyway. And if you still have questions feel free to email me.

Other frequently asked questions involved the 'family audience' stipulation and the length of script. In terms of the family audience, don't get too obsessed with it. My script has swearing, bit of sex, alcohol and pain killing drug abuse! Both Felicity and Claire's scripts had adult themes and bit of swearing (if I remember right.) But don't go overboard either. The script will be performed in front of a live audience - and no one wants to hear a script with swear words every other word and over the top sex or violence. I'm not saying you can't write what you want to write - but just think about whether that script is right for this competition.

In terms of the length, anything in standard screenplay format between 30-60 pages (approx) is absolutely fine.

I would also try and tell a complete story - beginning, middle and end. That doesn't mean it has to be a one off story. Pilots are accepted too. But think about the vast majority of pilots you've seen. Most have a story of the day of sorts that begins and ends, even if the wider story involving the main characters is left open.

And of course, this post can hardly end without a shameful plug for Script Reading On The Blog. If you do want me to read your entries, just please don't leave it to the last minute. For one thing, it's a nightmare for me. But for another, what's the point in paying for my feedback if you haven't got enough time to rewrite on the basis of it.

Good luck everyone!

Fever Pitch (Page)

The DOUGH pitch page has entered the public domain (cue scary music)

Feast your beady eyes here

Circalit Screenwriting Competition with BBC and Hollywood Producers‏

I have no idea who these guys are, but this email popped up in my inbox. So please do your own checking.


Dear Jez,

I thought readers of your blog might be interested in hearing about a free Circalit-hosted monthly screenwriting competition in connection with the BBC, Hollywood producer Julie Richardson, and a number of other industry professionals. Please see the details below.
Kind regards,

Raoul

BBC and Hollywood Producer Julie Richardson to Judge Monthly Screenwriting Competition on Circalit.

Screenwriters across the globe are posting their scripts up at www.circalit.com where BBC and Hollywood producers are now reviewing winning scripts with a view to production. The competition takes place monthly and is divided into television scripts, feature length screenplays and shorts. The winning scripts are decided every month by public vote and are then sent to BBC and Hollywood producers to be reviewed and potentially produced. The BBC will be reviewing the winning television script each month, whilst Julie Richardson, managing member of Imaginarium Entertainment Group and best known as the producer of box office hit “Collateral” will be reviewing the winning short (any screenplay under 60 pages). Meanwhile, feature length screenplays are being judged by Hollywood scriptwriter, Tom Lazarus, and Europe’s premier script development organisation, The Script Factory, in partnership with Twentieth Century Fox, Columbia and a host of other major production studios.

--
Raoul Tawadey
CEO and Founder

http://www.circalit.com/
raoul@circalit.com