Write Here, Write Now

Your Character's Motivation

2012-01-26T01:45:00.000-08:00

I get that writers work very hard to differentiate their characters in relation to one another within their ACTUAL SCRIPTS. So when a writer gets the head-scratching note "differentiate characters more", I can empathise with their confusion. After all, they've already done that... Right???

Probably not. Sorry.

You see, script readers see certain characters OVER AND OVER AGAIN, regardless of who has written them, what genre script they're in or what format, TV, movie, radio. Really. I'm not even talking about stereotypes or so-called "stock characters" either: those familiar characters even laypeople might notice (ie. the "tart with the heart", the depressed mother, etc. And yes, it *is* more frequently the female characters that get stereotyped like this).

We all have perceptions of what "certain people" are like, especially "certain people in certain jobs". It's not even prejudice half the time, just plain wrong. For example: a friend of mine's husband is a sheet metal worker. I have no idea what this is really. In my mind, he goes to work with a large hammer and hits a a massive piece of corrugated iron all day. I know for a fact this isn't true and he's even tried to explain that he is involved with the manufacture of cooling units for air conditioners for large buildings. But nope: my treacherous mind's eye insists he's hitting that big sheet of metal with a hammer instead. I guess I can just visualise it better!

Of course, sometimes we have to sacrifice facts for drama. This is why in scripts nurses might give injections with abandon or cops might beat up suspects whenever they feel like it. I get that. What's surprising though is how many writers write said nurses or cops into their scripts the SAME WAY. Nurses are frequently ANGELS OF DEATH or SCAPEGOATS. Cops are good or bad with little room for the middle ground. In short, it simply gets a little dull - hence the "differentiate characters more" note.

Yet what about thinking about the character's PERSONALITY more than their job? After all, we are all more than what we do; we are not defined by it. What KIND OF PERSON is this - and has it impacted on WHY they've chosen that job? Or maybe they couldn't think of anything else? Or perhaps they're following a beloved relative on the same career path? All of these things are the tip of the iceberg and can literally break open your character, without the need for long monologues or confessions.

Let's go back to the notion of the nurse character: nearly always a female character - occasionally a gay man - the nurse I see in specs usually breaks down like this:

- She hovers in the background
- is usually down-trodden in some way
- she's quiet and resentful; or quiet and heartbroken

This appears to be how the average writer "sees" nurses according to the specs I see with this character in. Female, put-upon, just waiting to be exploited or to have her revenge! Yikes.

Now let me think of the nurses I know in real life - there are two in my immediate family, in fact - and the ones I have met on my own various medical adventures...

... Yeah. Not one was like that. NOT ONE.

We need characters to have a MOTIVATION that drives them... A REASON they have been brought to life by the writer. Now of course they have to earn their place in the narrative and everything they do (or don't do) must play its part in the story. That's a given. Beyond that however, you're home free... So why write the same character everyone else is writing??

Let me illustrate. When I was 21, I got beaten by a mosquito or similar on my ankle. I scratched it and drew blood, bad Lucy. Then I left it. Even naughtier. It was the height of summer but everything was OK more or less.

Then randomly, the then-three year old Male Spawn stabbed me in the ankle with a green marker pen when he was colouring.

It was very painful, 'cos he got me right in the bite. I told him off, splashed some water on it and a waterproof plaster... and you guessed it, left it again. Cue two days later and I've got a pus-filled nightmare on my ankle the size of a GOLF BALL. OUCH!!!

So I hobbled off to the doc's to see the practice nurse who told me off with much gusto and then proceeded to tell me this: she became a nurse purely to deal with cases like mine.

That's right. This nurse told me she LOVED PUS. Her idea of a good day's work was lancing boils, cleaning pus-filled wounds and basically dealing with anything in this ick-related area. Yes, she wanted to help people blah-blah-blah (and anyone who has ever had a wound or boil go bad will say it's a BIG HELP to get rid) but ultimately she didn't really care, as long as she got some great action. A BAD DAY WAS A DAY WITHOUT PUS, as far as she was concerned. That was her motivation.

So what is your character's motivation? It doesn't have to be as mad as that nurse's - real life is always stranger than fiction I reckon - but it DOES have to be different to all the others in the spec pile. So next time you need to write a character, think of the people you've met in real life *like* that character... What can you use?

Hollywood: Mighty Machine

2012-01-25T01:47:00.000-08:00

It's very fashionable at the moment to denigrate Hollywood movies. And as screenwriters, it's not difficult to see why this has occurred. Hollywood is a gigantic machine with a HUGE output, so liken it to a sausage factory and really, you're not far wrong.

Yet the difference between Hollywood movies and indie output, apart from sheer volume, is not really that big: Hollywood has many, many misfires - those films no one would touch with a barge pole. Yet their hits are SO big, this distracts us even as filmmakers. After all: who *really* cares if no one went to watch Disney's $175m flop Mars Needs Moms when everyone in the known universe is buzzing about Paramount's $170m Hugo? (Wow, $175m?? Oh yeah... the budgets. That's a HUGE difference. Anyway).

It's easy to feel angry with Hollywood. It often feels as if it literally sells the fans out. PREDATORS had a "twist" in it so mind-numbingly obvious that any fan of the franchise, never mind a script editor, could have fixed it in a weekend. Yet it was still paraded in front of us as a supposedly tantalisingly morsel for the resolution. Even worse, its female character, a supposed assassin capable of taking part of Black Ops, walked straight into it through... compassion??? Sorry WHAT? Talk about pissing off the Fanboyz and the entire female population of the audience (never mind just the FanGrrrlz) in one fell swoop.

There's an endless array of remakes and reboots that frustrate even the most hardened fan of any franchise as what was good about it is diluted, over and over again so the films become almost unrecognisable *cough* MIMIC 3 *cough*. Then of course there are the Hollywood filmmakers who just won't leave their OWN franchises alone, repackaging with new technology (I'm looking at you, George Lucas) or relaunching ancient characters with leading actors in their 60s (yeah, George Lucas again).

There's also incestuous casting, where the actor or actress of the moment is cast in everything going, over and over until we're sick of the sight of them, no matter the genre, how good the actor's performance or even how good the film is.

And then of course, so often story is MISSING ALTOGETHER - and no filmmaker gets this levvied at them, rightly, as much as Michael Bay. It's almost as if he says, "Script? Don't worry about it... HAVE THIS BIG FUCK-OFF EXPLOSION INSTEAD."

So, it's easy to see why scriptwriters and filmmakers despair of Hollywood, telling their peers and their students Hollywood is gigantic sausage factory. They tell their peers and students to ignore Hollywood, that story is king/queen and that we MUST HAVE MORE INTEGRITY than that gigantic machine that churns out movies.

Except... I love Hollywood movies.

Yeah that's right.

LOVE THEM.

I think there's a LOT to be learnt from Hollywood. Like:

Story might be king/queen, but spectacle comes a close second. Michael Bay, whether you like him or not, has a career for a reason: he is the KING of spectacle. And AUDIENCES LIKE SPECTACLE. Even us screenwriters and filmmakers. It's impressive to see something like the tilted set in TRANSFORMERS 3: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. Laypeople in the audience might be thinking, "Ooooooh no, Shia and his friends are going to fall out the window!" They're getting involved. OK I wasn't - I found the lack of storyline dull TBH - but I tell you what I WAS doing: I was thinking, "Blimey, I wonder what kind of organisation and Health & Safety protocols and whatnot went into that scene? I wonder how long it took? I wonder if any stuntpeople hurt themselves?" I was involved too - just in a different way. I was impressed too - just in a different way.

Hollywood *can* create something out of nothing. We hear loads about Hollywood starting productions without finished scripts, two of the most famous ALIEN 3 and JURASSIC PARK 3. Just recently MEN IN BLACK 3 joined the list apparently (seeing a trend here?). We can wring our hands and say how terrible it is the script is undervalued like this, or (regardless of whether we like the finished product) we can MARVEL that they can create coherent works like this out of well, literally, nothing much. How many indie filmmakers can do this? I've seen my fair share of indie movies with underdeveloped screenplays and the contrast is MASSIVE. I haven't seen MEN IN BLACK 3 yet, but I have to say that ALIEN 3 (the theatrical version, minus Paul McGann) is, controversially, my favourite in the franchise (so shoot me). I also genuinely enjoyed JURASSIC PARK 3: it hit all the right notes in terms of dinosaur scares and a Spinosaurus kicks the ass of a T-Rex. Gotta be a score. Oh: and they even managed to stick a LITERARY ALLUSION to Peter Pan in there too with the crocodile/clock with the Spinosaurus and the satellite phone! OK there's a massive Deus Ex Machina at the end but you can't have everything and I never expected a perfect movie.

Hollywood knows the importance of "the same, but different". Most franchises get BIGGER every time. The original DIE HARD was what modern scriptwriters would call a "contained thriller", so by the time we get to DIE HARD 4.0, the action takes place in the ENTIRE CITY. The original Resident Evil was the same: contained in The Hive in the first movie, Alice ventures into Raccoon City for the second, the world and beyond for the subsequent movies. We can trace this throughout any successful franchise. Audiences want the same, but they want it DIFFERENT ENOUGH to have a new experience of those same characters. Hollywood knows this and does it well - and we've all seen sequels - yet I read a lot of sequels, especially in the spec pile, that don't seem to appreciate this in the same way.

Hollywood knows about packaging. Hollywood KNOWS how to pique potential audience's interest... They put the "right" people together: not just actors, but directors and even producers too ie. "From the team that brought you..." They know people are interested in films not just at face/story value and don't apologise for it. Many indie filmmakers in comparison say it should ALL be about the story and are perplexed when their audience want to know more about what created it, yet this is an opportunity, not a threat.

Hollywood misfires are nearly always closer than indie misfires. Of course it's possible that Hollywood movies *just* stink at times, but often, when Hollywood movies flop, surprise is expressed. After all, there was a "great" cast; great photography; an intriguing logline - whatever. Sometimes those flops come into their own years later, with critics saying a film is way ahead of its time. In comparison, often indie films never see the light of day - they don't even get out of the can. Even if they can get distribution, those movies rarely see even the modest return they might expect because they have completely underestimated what their audience wants or needs from a movie (next).

Hollywood knows its audience. Whilst Hollywood sometimes underestimates the FANS, it rarely underestimates its audience. Whatever the genre, Hollywood can usually produce output that will appeal to SOMEONE, because even if the movie flops you can usually find it on network or cable a few years' later.

So whilst STORY might not always be king/queen in Hollywood, you can bet your ass AUDIENCE IS. Whilst this sometimes feels like a bad thing - especially as a filmmaker or scriptwriter - is it? I'm unconvinced. I think there's a lot we can learn from this mighty machine in making our own projects fly. That doesn't mean to say we have to create things we feel are vaccuous and of course we don't have the budgets to match Hollywood's, either. But we can take the bits that work.

So what are we waiting for?

Guest Post: Postcard From La By Jared Kelly

2012-01-21T01:19:00.000-08:00

As regular Bang2writers know, my good friend Jared (yes THE Jared that went to the WRONG pub that time) won Julie Gray's Just Effin' Entertain Me screenplay contest. As you may NOT know, Jared nearly didn't enter his fantastic horror script DESCENDANT into the contest... Luckily for him he decided to heed my hysteria and threats and made it just in time. It seemed Julie loved Descendant's DEVASTATING ending just as much as I did and Jared's only won an AMAZING all expenses paid trip to LA to schmooze with Hollywood bigwigs, which he's undertaking right now! Of course I couldn't let the opportunity pass without him letting the blog know how it's going, so here you are. Enjoy!
-----------------------------
Dear Frau Schreibenführer,

I thought I'd drop you a brief missive from Los Angeles (before I end up buried in the Nevada Desert with my cock stuffed in my mouth) to say thanks for suggesting/encouraging/ordering/threatening me to fire my horror script across the pond to the land of genre.

As you well know, I had no interest in ever entering any script into any competition, yet here I am writing to you from my sunny hotel on sunny Beverly Boulevard, in the sun, with the sun shining down in its sunny way, making everything a lot more sunny and warm and also a bit more sunny. The sporadic gentle wafting of maple syrup and desperation adds to the delightful accompaniment of roaring V8s, rock music, and the cries of sun-kissed avocados being mashed to a viridescent pulp. "Holy guacamole, Batman!" (You can have that one for free, Christopher Nolan.)

The lovely Julie Gray collected me from the airport yesterday and drove us straight to a wonderful little bar in Hollywood. Famous for its decor, cocktails and beautiful t?e?e?t?h? staff, I proceeded to drink them dry of a well known Irish cocktail called Guinness. Muchos boozing later, Julie decided to continue celebrating the horror genre that brought me to these sunny shores by taking me to the Mexican restaurant where Sharon Tate ate her last meal before being brutally murdered by Charles Manson. Nice. I avoided the salsa.

This afternoon I've got a meeting with an industry giant at a giant company (when I say "meeting" I obviously mean "grinning constantly and rapidly rotating my thumbs while enacting impromptu little tap dances") and later tonight Julie has arranged a celebratory 'winner' thing at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, which involves dining with a legendary writer of SNL, Simpsons and King of the Hill fame.

Julie's been amazing and has got me doing all sorts of brilliant industry stuff, culminating in a meeting at Dreamworks. Between her and my brilliant, intelligent, clever, smart, handsome and very astute agent (does he read your blog?) I'm going to be so ball-deep in Hollywood these next few weeks I fully expect to come back with friction burns, plastic breasts, several therapists and engaged to a toy dog called Choo-Choo-Lou-Lou the Third.

Give my regards to Blighty and many thanks for the push. xx

Deviation Trailer - ONLINE NOW

2012-01-18T12:10:00.000-08:00

The title had it all really... The trailer for the dark thriller I associate-produced, Deviation, is online now!

You can watch it here on its distributor Revolver's Youtube Channel. Please forward this link to all your friends and followers and support British Film!

Remember to lock your car door...

Told in one night, DEVIATION is a chilling, taut psychological thriller that follows one woman's horrifying abduction by a psychopathic stranger.

Amber (Anna Walton) a young nurse, intent on getting home to her family after a long shift. Frankie (Danny Dyer) is a dangerous psychopath on the run. When he takes her hostage in her car, she realises that she must rely on her own wits to survive and soon a deadly cat and mouse game ensues through the long, nightmarish night.

By morning, only one of them will be left alive...

IN CINEMAS FEBRUARY 24TH 2012.

Trailer

Facebook Page

Twitter

What's In A Name? Some Thoughts On Formatting Characters' Names

2012-01-18T03:26:00.001-08:00

Many thanks to Bang2writer Ross Holland, who has this quick query:

I'm currently writing a script which has a character 'masquerading' as someone else. How do I show that in the script once the reader sees this in the text?

As with most "advanced" and particular format queries in screenwriting, there is no "set" way - and like most things to do with format, we're talking CLARITY - ie. making it as easy as possible for the "flow" of the read.

Here's how I've seen it done:

1) Starting with the Character's fake name - for example, JOHN - and then adding the "real" name after the reveal s/he is not who s/he says s/he is, ie. JOHN/JAMES. You should stick with JOHN/JAMES from that point onwards I think, it just makes it easier for everyone. This is easiest when the fake name is JUST THAT - the name itself, rather than someone pretending to be someone ELSE (see next).

2) If your character is pretending to be ANOTHER character that's actually in the script (or is a different version of *that* character), this is when it gets a little more complicated. On this basis, I think the easiest way to do this is by making it clear which is "real" one, ie. for example your character JULIE realises someone is pretending to BE her, you might want to call the "other Julie" FAKE JULIE. In an early draft of NATURAL BORN KILLERS, there are two characters "playing" Mickey and Mallory in a movie version of their lives and they are referred to as MOVIE MICKEY and MOVIE MALLORY. I have also read scripts when protagonists realise there are clones of themselves - ie. "KEVIN regards CLONE KEVIN in confusion".

There are of course other ways of representing this element - these are just the simplist IMHO. Whatever you end up doing though, just remember the reader needs to keep an "anchor" on who-is-who. This leads me on to a further point, raised by a couple of scriptwriting students I was speaking to last week. Basically this point came up in conversation:

Don't choose names for different characters that are too similar.

I can't stress this enough. As an example, I had a script once with two leads: ROSE and RORY. To me it looked fine but everytime anyone read it, they always got Rory's name wrong. Constantly. It was a real issue for notes in particular and actually screwed up Rory's arc! I couldn't believe it. At first I tried to fix Rory himself... Still, problem after problem. Then I changed Rory's name to JAKE. Suddenly, magically, my readers' problems with Rory melted away! It was basic semantic noise. Also:

Watch out for your own issues with characters' names.

As careful as we can be, sometimes *we* get our OWN characters' names wrong! The most common I see:

i) Characters speaking twice in a row in dialogue (for no discerning reason and usually because the second time it's *supposed* to be someone else in reply)

ii) Different characters having the SAME name (sometimes we fall so in love in with a particular name, we give it to a main character AND a peripheral by accident)

iii) Choosing outlandish names (usually a character has an outlandish name for a STORY reason... If yours doesn't, ask yourself whether you truly "need" it... The same goes for names that "mean" something - is it subtle and clever? Or affected and weird? Or worse: is it a name readers see ALL THE TIME, like Edmund for the "treacherous son", like in KING LEAR?)

iv) Spelling names wrong (I have actually read scripts where there's a different spelling EVERY SINGLE TIME! Honestly!)

What's in a name... A LOT. It's how your reader will relate to your character - SO CHOOSE WISELY!

Got a format query like Ross? Check out The Format One Stop, a run down of the most common format errors I have seen reading literally hundreds of screenplays.

The Tip Of The Iceberg

2012-01-16T08:15:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time, not so long ago, we might have heard something on the radio or TV or read it in a newspaper and mentioned it to our spouse or housemate when they got home. Perhaps we might mention it at work and have a brief five minute conversation, before moving to do something else.

It's all different now.

Never before have we been able to share opinions so quickly and so widely. With the like of Twitter and Facebook, we can send something to someone on the other side of the world at the touch of a button. Sometimes we forget our opinions are not facts. We forget interpretations are just that - and that our versions of reality do not match other people's. Why would they? We do not live the same lives as those other people. But then, we forget that, too.

I call it The Age of Ego. Thread after thread is dedicated to our opinions: some good-natured; some enlightening; some genuinely thought-provoking. Others are full of vitriol, anger and resentment. It's not just the internet either: TV and radio programmes, newspapers and magazines fall over themselves to include "Vox Pops": the voice of the people. What do you think of [this TV programme]? What do you think of [this government cut]? What do you think of [this tyranny on women: how they look? How they dress? How they eat?] And so on and so forth.

People say this is a good thing. Those who never had a voice, now do. And if your problem was that you were never heard, perhaps those people were right. The internet is certainly democratic. For me though, it comes down to this:

Yet how *useful* are our opinions and POVs, if we are merely shouting into the wind?

I believe there's a huge void between what we THINK and what we DO. And I look around me and see people TALKING a lot, but not necessarily DOING enough... And then wondering why they are not progressing. Bang2writers frequently come to me and say, "How do I progress?" but really they want me to say: "You're doing all the right things, keep going."

But that's not for me to say. Are you DOING enough... like this:

... How many new contacts have you made in the last year?

... How have you maintained your existing contacts?

... How many projects have you read about in the last six months - do you know who is making what?

... How many people have you helped?

... How many agents have you met?

... How many new things have you learnt/read up on - ie. new tech, distribution, web series?

... How many scripts have you read?

... How many networking events have you been to?

... How many meetings have you tried to get?

... How many scripts have you sent to various opportunities - contests, schemes, initiatives?

... How many ads and call-outs have you answered?

... How many industry people have you met for coffee?

... How many pitches have you made?

... How many queries have you sent?

And all that's just the TIP of the iceberg.

So don't ask me... Ask yourself. And listen hard to the answer.

The "Great Writing" Myth

2012-01-09T01:42:00.000-08:00

Like most new writers *way back when*, I started out convinced that as long as my scripts were GREAT WRITING (ie. ORIGINAL and WELL-WRITTEN), I would get there in the end. After all, that *had* to be what the AUDIENCE wanted?

As a new script reader then, I was LEFT AGOG when what **I** thought were derivative, crappily-written scripts made their way to screen. But then I decided it was just a freak occurrence and toddled off on my way...

... Then it happened again.

... And again.

... Over

And

Over

... Again.

I started to notice that originality was NOT a pre-cursor to success. In fact, not only was originality overrated, it could actually HAMPER whether a project saw the light of day! OMFG, how could this be?

EVEN WORSE: being a GREAT WRITER was not necessarily the key to getting made... As I noted, again and again - especially in contest or initiative piles - the "best" writers were not necessarily the ones who won or made it through to the other side ... It was the ones whose projects had the BEST FIT, which of course was entirely open to zeitgeist, interpretation and any number of other intangible things that writers have no control over whatsoever. And THEN they had to make it out of development! ARGH HOW THE HELL DID ANYONE MAKE IT WITH THESE ODDS?!?

I think it's fair to say I had a meltdown. Of dramatic proportions. For about a year my writing life was in turmoil. Everything I had always believed about so-called "great writing" was clearly wrong. I became ENRAGED and then I became very very SAD. "Goddamn this industry that rewards mediocrity!" I lamented, to anyone who would listen.

"Younger" writers would nod sympathetically and either agree - "there's too many rewrites and reboots!" was a common response, though that was not actually what I was talking about - or say quietly I was clearly bonkers: "Doesn't she know that all you have to do is write something well enough?" They'd no doubt say to each other behind closed doors (obviously once they'd checked I wasn't outside with a listening device and a shotgun).

"Older" writers would smile however and say this: "It gets worse before it gets better."

I had no clue what they meant. I just raged and wailed and went round in metaphorical writing circles... Instead, I began to think I was INCAPABLE of writing anything "well enough"... And became convinced others thought so too. And then, suddenly:

EPIPHANY.

I don't know when it hit, exactly. And it doesn't really matter. All that counted was a HUGE weight lifted off my shoulders, because I finally joined up what I had always known, but never truly felt in my heart until that moment:

It's not about *just* about the writing.

Scripts do NOT speak for themselves.

It's about you, the writer, more.

It's hard to accept the above, I get that. I couldn't accept it for a long while. We are taught to believe that if we write something "well enough", then this great story will literally JUMP OFF THE PAGE and get us a deal. We've all heard of this happening to *someone*, so we reckon, quite rightly, "Why shouldn't it happen to me?" But on the flipside, why SHOULD it happen either? Great writing is a hard slog and not easy by a long shot, so why are writers encouraged to put their entire DESTINY in whether something is written "well enough" when we ALL KNOW the notion of "great writing" means different things to different people anyway???

It all comes down to this:

I can think of perhaps two writers I've met in my entire scriptwriting life who've literally been plucked from obscurity to go on to BIG, consistent success. TWO. How many other professional writers have I met now? Gotta be in the hundreds. So what did they do? They climbed the ladder, one rung at a time, slowly, painstakingly, sometimes falling and having to get back up again. They BUILT their career, one difficult inch at a time, making sacrifices and difficult choices behind closed doors that others don't get to hear about.

So much in this writing lark depends on "outside elements" we cannot control. Don't let yourself be nobbled mentally by The Great Writing Myth, which says a well-written script is "all" it takes. Get building instead.

ON THE BLOG BEFORE ABOUT CAREERS & BELIEF:

Creating Your Career

Build It And They Will Come: Lucy V's Wager

It's Not About Luck... And It Totally Is

Short Films Event: Panel on Writing Screenplays for Short Film & Screening

2012-01-06T01:19:00.000-08:00

This looks like an interesting event for all the short screenplay writers and filmmakers out there - unfortunately I can't make it, so if you go, let us know your thoughts!
-------------------------------------------
To celebrate the launch of Short Films: Writing the Screenplay by Patrick Nash, Kamera Books invites you to a panel discussion as part of the London Short Film Festival on Friday 13th January at 4pm at RADA.

The Panelists are author Patrick Nash, LSFF filmmaker Douglas Hart (Long Distance Information), agent Julian Friedman and Edward Hicks, Head of Film, Television & Radio at RADA. Chaired by Hannah Patterson.

Under discussion will be the entire screenwriting process from story, structure, character and dialogue to loglines, treatments and screenplay competitions. Copies of the book will be available to buy at the special price of £10.

The launch is followed at 7pm by the screening of new short films - please note that this is a separate, ticketed event.

New Shorts 18: Fathers & Sons

Experience a selection of powerful dramas as this short film programme zones in on the fraught relationships between father and son. Includes Peter Mullan in Douglas Hart’s Long Distance Information, and the new short film by award-winning director Simon Ellis in Jam Today. For further information visit the site

Prequel To Cannes Networking Event, Feb 8th-9th, 2012

2012-01-05T03:39:00.000-08:00

One question I get asked A LOT by Bang2writers is, "Where can I network?"

So... What are you doing February 8th and 9th, 2012?

Come to the Prequel To Cannes Networking Party at the Lighthouse, Poole!!

The party brings Dorset's scripty types out in force - including TV writer Danny Stack, as well as filmmakers Tim Clague and Suki Singh. And of course little ol' me!

There are masterclasses and events on offer during the day, too: I will be offering a class on pitching, before chairing a pitching event where participants will be invited to pitch their projects to win a "pitch pot" (guaranteed minimum £50). Leave your nerves at home and showcase your pitching talents - who knows, you might win CASH or even the attention of any filmmakers in the room... What have you got to lose???

This is a great event in a GREAT venue and it's not just for Dorset-types either: it's open to ALL. Whether you're a writer, filmmaker, actor or anthing else, we want to see you there!

Check out this link for the full programme and ticket prices, starting at just £5. See you there!

Should I Do A Scriptwriting MA & Which Courses Are Good?

2012-01-02T10:56:00.000-08:00

With the start of a new year, many people's resolution may be investing in their writing career in some way, so inevitability a question I get frequently at this time of year is this one from Bang2writer Kate Lally:

I was just wondering if, in your professional opinion, an MA in screenwriting is worthwhile. And if so, do you think certain unis would be better than others?

Is an MA "worth it"? Well it's important to remember only YOU can know for sure - but disclaimers aside, I have many articles on this site about university courses, just click the label. For the record though, the short version is I DO happen to think going to university to study scriptwriting (or similar) is worthwhile. It's what I did and I gained a LOT from it. For my in-depth thoughts on why I favour uni courses, check out this post. You may also be interested in Bang2write Intern Ellie's thoughts on why MA courses can be worthwhile in this article she wrote last summer.

That said, lots of things have changed in the last ten years. When I was at university, there might have been courses to do but there was no real internet content about scriptwriting, a very limited online community and social networking in the form of Twitter and Facebook hadn't even been invented yet! (Ack, feel sooooo old). I do think it's VERY important to decide on your own motivations for going to uni to learn writing, though. If you think uni will make it "easier" to "break in" - I can tell you for definite: it WON'T. It's hard for everyone no matter where they start, uni or not. I have very successful friends who didn't go and very successful friends who did... It really does depend on the individual. University is not a golden ticket. If however you want to learn and write as much as you can and utilise your uni experience to gain as much work experience/contacts as you can tho (sooooo important), I think it can be a brilliant place to start as a writer. Uni is expensive but I think having that amount of time to devoting to finding your "voice" as a writer and developing a portfolio is invaluable.

As for MAs that are supposed to be good... I think it's important to remember there will be never be the "perfect" course, designed to meet every last one of your needs and ambitions. If however you can find a course that suits approximately 60% or more of them, I think you're doing pretty well. Please note I never recommend specific MAs because I don't have one (I did the BA (Hons) in Scriptwriting For Film & TV at Bournemouth University instead).

With all that out the way then:

I have met many of the Bournemouth MA students past and present on the Bournemouth full-time MA course who report a positive experience for the most part. It's also worth noting Bournemouth also runs a Distance Learning MA in Screenwriting which several of my Bang2writers have reported has worked well with them while juggling family life.

For those of you who want to write for TV, I hear great things about Leicester De Montfort's MA in Television Scriptwriting. London Screenwriters' Festival has run at Regents' College, London the last two years and their students frequently volunteer with us, many of them reporting good experiences on their scriptwriting and filmmaking courses. Friends of mine have done courses in creative writing at East Anglia and at Edinburgh Napier University too and have reported good experiences. David Bishop of Vicious Imagery did the course and now works on it, in fact!!! I have also heard friends and Bang2writers recommend Royal Holloway and Goldsmith's.

By the way, if you are a mature student (ie. over 21) and have no prior qualifications, you may be interested to know it is still possible to get on a MA course. It depends on the policy of the individual university, but as an example, here is Bournemouth's MA Scriptwriting, which says:

If you lack the formal academic qualifications needed to enter a postgraduate or post-experience degree, there are several alternative routes to follow - some based on experience. Contact the AskBU Enquiry Service for more information.

If you DO want to get some qualifications that are the equivalent of A Levels (and thus gain you a definite place at uni somewhere), you may be interested in The Access To Higher Education Course. This is a course for adults over 21 specifically designed to fast-track you to higher education.

End of the day, university or not, as writers we make our OWN opportunities - there's a free to download MA course available from Falmouth College listed in my "Required Reading" List if you wanted to try that first to get a "lay of the land" on what might be expected of you.

My main advice would be tho: don't let money worries get in the way if you really want to go. There is always a way, even if it means thinking RIGHT outside the box. I really believe money (or more accurately, LACK of it) should never stop your education or dreams. Easier said than done of course - I had to think long and carefully about the debt I was signing up for as a 21 year old single mother - but I can tell you, I'm so glad I went and completed the course (because it was touch and go at one point!). I honestly believe my life now would not have happened without it.

So:

Do you want to go to uni - what are your main concerns? Did you go to university and do any of the courses listed here, or perhaps another MA? Add your questions and thoughts to the comments section here or over on the Facebook page and I'll add them here... Over to you!

Happy New Year: Highs & Low

2011-12-31T05:38:00.001-08:00

It's been a great year - London Screenwriters Festival was bigger and better than its first year; Deviation, the thriller I associate-produced, sold to Revolver Entertainment for distribution in the new year and BUT WHAT NEXT? my first YA novel, sold to Rowohlt Publishers in Berlin and continues to be considered by a number of prominent UK publishers. And of course there was the arrival of our beloved Wee Girl # 2, who has found her voice and makes her feelings known every chance she gets - just like her elder siblings, the Wee Girl and The Male Spawn, both of whom are also going strength to strength.

But it's also been a very sad year. Old Mrs C finally lost her six year battle with cancer. We didn't always see eye to eye and we "had words" more than once, but I have to say I admired Old Mrs C a great deal and loved her forthright manner and her cheeky grin when she'd suddenly say something completely out of the left field, like when she bought some play food for the WG:

"I took out all the sausages," She says in a low voice.

"Why?" I enquire, imagining she was going to say something like they were quite small and represented a choking hazard.

"Because frankly Lucy they looked like SOMETHING ELSE!" She exclaims with a grin.

Unfortunately Old Mrs C never got to see WG2 be born, which was the worst part. She knew of all our plans and hopes for our new baby however, asking what we would call her a few weeks before she died:

"Emmeline." I say proudly, thinking she will approve.

"Emmeline?!" Old Mrs C gasps, "That's an odd one."

"It's after Emmeline Pankhurst?" I say, sure *this* will get me the nod: no one could have been more of a feminist than Old Mrs C, even if she didn't identify as such.

"Oh, ONE OF THOSE." Old Mrs C says, "... No. Emma. That's better."

"No Margaret," I say slowly, "the baby's name is Emmeline."

But Old Mrs C lays back in her big armchair with her oxygen. "Yes, we will call her Emma." She smiles.

I'm afraid we didn't call her Emma, Margaret - but I think you'd like her just the same... Besides, you'd be disappointed if I actually agreed with you ; )

OLD MRS C - REST IN PEACE

5 Openers That Make Readers GROAN

2011-12-19T01:00:00.000-08:00

We hear loads about the judgements made on our first ten pages, but spend even a short while as a script reader and you'll see in real terms many scripts don't even make it past the first PAGE.

Le shock! How can this be??? It's very simple. The writers whose scripts don't even make it past the first page are those who have made some cardinal sin: the wrong format is obvious, as is a plethora of black on the page. But perhaps more importantly, there are scripts with cliched, bad or just plain DULL openers.

First off, what do I mean by "opener"? Well, in this case I don't even mean the entire first page, but the FIRST IMAGE we see. Every script should open WELL, giving the reader some sense of the tone of the story and what's to come. Yet shockingly, a huuuuuuuge amount of writers open on random things, events and objects and confess to readers like me they "hadn't really thought" of that first image.

Yet the first image you choose to show us in your story is VITAL in gauging the reader's interest. On this basis then, here are my top 5 groan-worthy first images I see again and again which make me want to PLUCK MY EYES OUT:

5. The mirror. So... we have a FACE in a MIRROR. It's your main character, considering their own REFLECTION! Nice! It gives us the impression they have some kind of problem and aren't shallow Hollywood-type characters. Right?? Um, no. It's just boring. Particularly seen with female characters and dramas.

4. The windscreen wipers. The windscreen wipers, going full pelt as rain comes down might be atmospheric, but it's huuuuugely overdone in supernatural thrillers and horror. And weirdly, these wipers/rain are rarely connected to the problem that comes next - ie. an accident that propels the characters into the conflict, so the reader is left wondering: "Why start here with THIS image?"

3. Walking. This one - walking feet, usually on a pavement - can turn up in ANY genre. So your character's walking down the street. Yeah man: this is one cool dude. He's waaaaaaallking! Note to self writers: walking down the street gives the reader very little clue *about* your character. REALLY. Yes, that includes if he's meandering, striding, ambling, WHATEVER. Please stop it! Introduce us to your character doing something INTERESTING. If that *includes* walking, then great, but don't make walking the FOCUS 'cos it's DULL.

2. Alarm clocks. So here we go... Tick, tick, BOOM: alarm goes and character's hand appears, slamming the alarm. We then proceed to see said character get ready for the day. OMG REALLY?? This has been around for yeeeeeeeeears and though it *is* receding at last, it still pops up with enough annoying regularity to make me want to stab myself in the leg with a fork. The biggest offender here is comedy, but the alarm clock *could* turn up as a first image in just about ANY genre, particularly spec TV pilots.

1. Blackness. This has popped up in earnest in the last two to three years that I've noticed. Basically we start with a BLACK SCREEN. That's right! No first image AT ALL. Usually there is a voice-over the top, sometimes a sound effect, sometimes both. And what's wrong with that? Nothing really - it *could* be okay, but its main issue is its ubiquity. It is EVERYWHERE: spec TV pilots, features, shorts, you name it.

We all know first impressions count for a lot in this biz - sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Whatevs. We have ONE CHANCE to impress. But what's the likelihood of impressing if the first thing a reader does when they see your very first image is groan, "Seen it before, a million times?"

Always think of that FIRST image, let the reader know the tone of your story and give them an idea of what's coming next. And most of all, be original.

Want Some Blog Posts This Week?

2011-12-12T01:49:00.001-08:00

... Then do me a favour. Join my Dropbox folder!

Yes I'm totally in need of space for some secretness I have planned for the new year for all my delicious Bang2writers, announcements soooooooooon! Watch this blog, the Facebook page and Twitter for more in January.

In the meantime, I can offer you three articles as PDFs that will NOT appear on this blog... they are:

A Full Breakdown Of The Three Acts - want to know more on how structure works, with real, RECENT examples applied? This short article aims to blow away the cobwebs and confusion.

"Reader-Proofing" The First Ten Pages - We all know the first ten pages are the most important in your script but HOW can you have your best chance of passing this first hurdle? I break down EXACTLY what you can do.

Script Reader Myths - Worried about sending your work "out there" to those Nazi readers?? Don't be... I tell you why.

And as a bonus:

"Lost The Plot" - this article talks about structure and how it impacts on plot and originally appeared in the fabbo Moviescope Magazine waaaaay back in 20008.

SO HOW DO YOU GET THESE ARTICLES?

Simply email me at Bang2writeAThotmailDOTcoDOTuk - and join Dropbox when you receive the link from me! (Because I've referred you I get some extra space you see).

These articles will only be available a short while, so make sure you tell all your writery friends!

Thoughts On The London Doc Summit (Dec 3-4 2011, Regent's College) by Kristen Vermilyea

2011-12-09T06:23:00.000-08:00

I was GUTTED to be unable to attend Team LSF's latest offering at Regent's College last weekend - the brilliant-sounding Doc Summit, all about documentary. Luckily for all us Bang2writers, the marvellous Kristen Vermilyea has stepped into the breach to write it up for us. Thanks Kristen! And enjoy...

As I sat in my seat watching the room fill up and waiting for the first ever London Documentary Summit to begin, I decided I should visit the loo. Feeling ever so trusting of my new friends, I left my jacket and bag at my seat and ventured down the hall to find the ladies. No sooner had I pushed the door open did I hear, “All full” from a voice behind the door. As I turned back to wait in the hall, another woman came behind me and was about to open the door. I passed on the ‘all full’ message and we both stood there, but only for a moment as a very helpful and smiling face told us of a secret rest room down the hall, past the security desk, and down the stairs. We both thanked the woman with the inside scoop and headed downstairs.

It’s funny, because we’ve all been there - two strangers headed from and to the same place but not exchanging a word. For a brief second I thought to myself, ‘you really should say hello. She’s obviously here for the same reason you are and it never hurts to say hello...’ But I couldn’t be bothered and though we smiled and held doors for one another, we didn’t exchange any words.

Back in the stuffy little room, and after our hosts, Chris Jones and and Andrew Zinnes welcomed us, guess who was introduced as the first speaker? Yup. The woman from the loo. Her name is Jo Lapping and she is with BBC Storyville.

Over the course of the two day summit, Jo, along with 11 other speakers, spoke candidly about everything from what networks and producers are looking for, to how to find a distributor, write a solid treatment, increase your online presence, navigate your way through post production, how to pitch your idea, the difference between 24p and 25p, festivals to check out and how you might actually get paid for your film! (I could give you the answers, but that wouldn’t be fair, now would it? Come to next year’s event and find out for yourself!)

Here are a few things I came away with:

As a documentary filmmaker, you need to focus on narrative; this point was driven home by just about every speaker over the course of the weekend. Not only does one need to constantly ask oneself what the story really is, as filmmaker Geoffrey Smith brought up, one needs to realize that the film’s story is not the same as the film’s narrative. What is the underlying story? For example, his film, The English Surgeon is about an English Doctor traveling to Ukraine to do an operation, but the real story is about, in Smith’s own words, “one man’s struggle to do good things”.

While this may seem logical and second nature, it seems that it really may not be for some of us. So many films are just following the life of someone or an event or a specific history, but unless there is the thread of a narrative, just like in fiction films, the story falls flat and fails to deliver.

Chris Atkins, director of Taking Liberties explained by using examples from his films, the legal concept of Fair Use (Fair Dealing in the UK), something that perhaps not everyone will encounter in their filmmaking, but a very important tool nonetheless.

He emphasized the need for a good lawyer and that one that is expensive is not a bad thing, if they really know their stuff. If you hire a cheaper lawyer who is less experienced, it will take them more hours to get to the same place and in the end, end up costing you more money. (Duh.) He was so adamant about this fact that several audience members asked for the name of the law firm with whom he works. (Again, I would share, but this time my reason being that I cannot read my own handwriting - but the first name does look to be Simon or Simons, for what it’s worth.)

I also gleaned lots of helpful little nuggets from Chris Jones’ two presentations on post production and social media for filmmakers, and was quite pleased with myself for already being engaged in many of the platforms which he mentioned (though not as active as I need to be, so pat on the back withheld).

He asked this room of almost one hundred people how many people were on Twitter and only a smattering raised their hands. He then went on to ask how many were tweeting from the summit and there were only 6. (this time I did manage to pat myself on the back, but admittedly, it had been quite some time since I had tweeted and it was likely to complain about motherhood to the price of chicken at the grocery in Zurich.)

Tim Spark of distributor Mercury Media, went on at length about the distribution process which I found enlightening and frankly worth the price of admission. As distribution can often prove to be the most difficult part of making a film and so many of us don’t have a clue how it works, I found the info that Tim provided trés helpful.

In addition to the traditional distribution model, we heard about Distrify, a revolutionary way to monetize your film. I was so jazzed about this that I called my producing partner (from a film we shot seven years ago that we got distribution for in the states) and asked her to look up how long the contract was for. We never saw a dime and this would be a great way to reinvigorate the film and maybe even give the investors (my parents) back some of the money the invested in the film! (I’m not holding my breath, of course, but as they are never expecting a dime in return, wouldn’t it be great to give them a check for even 50 bucks?!)

The only disappointing thing about the weekend was that there was no official networking event, though I was told that they (Chris and Alex) repeatedly tried to have one and their plans were dashed for one reason or another. They did emphasize that we needed to introduce ourselves to one another and network (like grownups do, I’m told), but it was still difficult, as people tend to stay in their groups and without a drink in hand, it can be difficult (so I’m told).

I did force myself to sit with a group (of handsome men - can you blame me?) at lunch the first day and it turns out that one of them went to college in the states with my high school boyfriend and another may just be helping my produce my doc. And on top of that, due to our quick and fast bond, I was invited to drinks and dinner with the group and didn’t have to be all alone in a foreign city - lucky me!

So, to recap:

You never know with whom you’ll be headed to the loo so always at least hold the door. Even when there is no official networking event, do try to say hello. Even if you consider yourself shy. Create and maintain a presence on the web on everything from Facebook to Twitter to About.me and more. Write, write, write. Go out and make films you are passionate about. As is true with anything in life, your passion and enthusiasm for things is contagious and this is how things catch fire and move forward. Connect. Stay connected. Don't be afraid to ask for help and partnership.

Was it worth flying over from Zurich? Indeed. I look forward to continuing and creating more relationships in hopes of working in London and here in Switzerland. And if you’re looking for a great place to shoot ... come on over - we have Alps!
----------------------------------------------
Kristen Vermilyea is an actor, writer, producer, blogger, voice-over artist, film festival consultant and 'go-er', excessive ruminator and reluctant hausfrau. She lives in Zurich, Switzerland and you can see her website here. Follow her on Twitter here.

What Is The Difference Between An NDA & A Release Form?

2011-12-08T01:43:00.001-08:00

A couple of Bang2writers messaged me yesterday via email and FB chat, asking about NDAs and release forms, so I thought it might be of use to repeat it here for anyone else who might be wondering.

What is an NDA?

NDA stands for "non disclosure agreement". This is something PRODUCTION COMPANIES may send out with its scripts to readers like me. This is not because they are afraid *I* will steal their script, but because they are afraid rival companies will get the heads-up on their project... Essentially it's a note to me saying I shouldn't talk (or tweet, or Facebook, or write blog posts - as if!) about their project for a certain period of time (usually between 1 and 3 years, to allow for development/production). Projects with NDAs are usually "packaged" - which usually means they have a cast attached, a budget drawn up, maybe they've even started production or are in post production. Since SO MUCH MONEY can be involved in filmmaking (even "low budget" pictures can be upwards of two hundred thousand pounds to make), NDAs can be a good idea. That said, even packaged movies sometimes will not ask me to sign NDAs - it's just not good manners for me to talk about someone else's project, never mind leak details and I never would, anyway.

What is a release form?

A release form is a "permission to read" document and again, something a PRODUCTION COMPANY may ask a writer to sign before they will consider reading his/her script. Usually the release form will ask the writer to not hold the company liable for any SIMILAR projects they may develop that's NOT the writer's script in question, after it has been read by said company - or, in other words:

If we read your script... then make a film that's not your script but is *like* your script... You can't sue us.

A lot of new writers believe release forms are so ruthless production companies can RIP WRITERS OFF with abandon. This is not the case. The production company is instead merely protecting itself from lawsuits from those new writers who believe all prodcos are out to rip off writers. After all, given the amount of ever popular ideas and similar specs doing the rounds, there is a stronger than average chance a writer *will* see a similar idea to theirs go into production and then go off on one legally about it. Better to sidestep the problem before it becomes an issue - hence release forms.

As a writer, should I send NDAs out with my spec?

Absolutely not. For one thing, there's a strong chance people will not read it! It's considered paranoid and frankly, unprofessional. As a general rule, Bang2write does NOT read specs with NDAs attached from individuals as I believe it contributes to this bogus culture of paranoia regarding copyright. Whilst this has meant some writers have then said "Well I'm not sending my script to get read by you", I can honestly say I can't even remember when this last happened, so I think avoiding NDAs works - I'd wager many more writers are realistic about this issue NOW than say, five years ago.

As a writer, should I sign release forms?

The more release forms you see from production companies, the more you will see they're much the same: the language, what they set out, their intention. And certainly, if you want to be read in America, you will more often HAVE to sign release forms than not (they don't seem as big a deal over here). That said, if you happen to see a release form that sets alarm bells ringing in terms of being considerably different to what you've seen before, or if you've never seen one before and aren't sure what to expect, then simply ask someone who's dealt with them before - there are so many online groups on Facebook, LinkedIn and of course #scriptchat on Twitter, you will more than likely have your concerns answered before the day is out.

Good luck!

Creative Ways To Edit Outside The Box by Mariana Ashley

2011-12-07T01:11:00.000-08:00

It can be really difficult just knowing where to start when it comes to editing our own work, so here are some GREAT editing tips from Bang2writer Mariana Ashley this morning - useful to us novelist types, but also screenwriters! Thanks Mariana! I'm fairly certain that editing is one of the most underutilized tools in modern writing, particularly for those who self-publish. I understand and sympathize with this wholeheartedly. It is difficult enough being expected to churn out great writing from nothing on a regular basis; add editing to this and you have a full plate. On top of all of this, editing is not the most enjoyable of activities in the first place. Luckily, there are some unique editing methods that might make the process much more interesting and effective. While editing is never easy (it is meant to challenge and test limits), hopefully these methods will at least make the process more appealing.

Edit Backwards
Try editing your work backwards one sentence at a time. This forces you to slow down your editing process by isolating each sentence with a hiccup, and also gives you a unique perspective of your work. You will undoubtedly spot some dull phrases that previously seemed to "flow" well enough in context; now you can tweak them and improve your piece overall.

Read Aloud
As much as this editing convention is advised, I still find it underused. Reading aloud makes mistakes seem more apparent and easily reveals the areas of your work that read awkwardly. You will also notice small grammatical errors like omitted or scrambled words.

Speed Read
While everyone seems to associate slow, meticulous reading with editing, I also find it helpful to give a very quick skim of your draft as well. Keep in mind the structure of the work and what each paragraph or section is trying to accomplish. This should give you a better holistic view of the work.

Micro Editing
If you have time to be extra thorough, you might want to try reading through the draft with focus to only one specific element of language. You could, for instance, only look at how punctuation is used or verbs (and verb tense). Micro editing is great when you have an idea what your weak points are in writing and language.

Take a Break
It's best not to edit a draft all in one sitting. If you work too long on one draft, you will start to have ideas and make assumptions about the draft that aren't actually written in it. Taking a break (I would say at least a few hours) will keep your view of the draft honest and accurate. Just be sure that your editing process doesn't consist entirely of breaks.

Change Document Formatting
After you come back from a break, to get a truly fresh perspective of the draft, you should perhaps try editing the document's formatting (font, spacing, etc.). This will psychologically distance you even further from your original draft, inducing a more objective editing process.

Get Someone Else to Read It
This obviously isn't the most unique of editing methods, but you may be surprised how much it isn't implemented by writers. Some may be nervous about sharing a fresh draft with critical eyes. Others may just be unsure of who to give it. I recommend giving it to other writers and educators; both should do a fair share of critical reading to give you effective criticism.
---------------------------------
Mariana Ashley is a freelance writer who particularly enjoys writing about online colleges. She loves receiving reader feedback, which can be directed to mariana.ashley031ATgmailDOTcom.

Can I Write A Sequel Of My Spec - Even If The Original Script Has Not Been Produced?

2011-12-05T08:21:00.001-08:00

I've had this question a couple of times in recent weeks, plus I've dealt with it with Bang2writers more than once, so I thought it could do with a post of its own.

The short answer is: YES. Of course you can. You can do anything you want. That's Spec Writing 101.

But wait, wait...

Is it a GOOD idea to write a sequel of your spec?

Hmmmm.... Not really. And I'll explain why.

We all have limited time, whether we're writers, readers or BigAss Execs. Potentially, writing a spec that DEPENDS on someone having read the FIRST one may not be the greatest idea. What if they didn't like the first one? Or what if they don't have time to read two scripts? It might severely impact on whether either even gets out the envelope or email inbox.

"But this story/these characters have so much more mileage!" writers complain.

Great. Everybody loves mileage. So here's what you do...

... Don't make that second spec a sequel in the traditional sense - MAKE IT A COMPANION INSTEAD.

In other words, have the same characters, the follow up story, WHATEVER --- but just make sure it STANDS ALONE.

Now you have the best of both worlds: you get to write the characters you love again... But that reader, producer, director, actor or whomever you're sending it to doesn't HAVE to read the first script in order to "get it".

You really do get 2 for the price of 1.

Of course you could do exactly the same for a prequel... Or for a WHOLE FRANCHISE. If your idea really will run and run, why not? If it's the best idea in the world - and who says it can't be? - I don't really see a producer somewhere down the line saying, "Oh you know what? We *were* interested in this idea until I saw you'd written thirteen individual scripts all with their own arc and and great merchandise potential". AS IF. Worst case scenario is, they'll take the one they like and ignore the rest. So go for it if that's what you want! No rules, remember.

Good luck!

Self Belief: Can Do Attitude

2011-12-03T01:48:00.001-08:00

Once upon a time - not so long ago, actually - writers had TOO MUCH self belief. They'd send first drafts off the moment they wrote FADE OUT and were CONSUMED WITH RAGE when they go the inevitable feedback, "this needs more work". Who the HELL were these readers anyway???

Then The Scribosphere happened and writers started grouping together: blogs came first, then Facebook, then Twitter. Writers were no longer writing in quite the isolation they were before. First they simply chatted about writing. Then they started to share experiences. Then their actual work.

That's when the script pile started to change. Readers began to notice there were not quite so many first drafts in the pile; there were not so many obvious mistakes (especially in format) and characters and structure were not missing opportunities in the narratives they would have before. Readers looked upon it all AND SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

Except there was one thing that was not so good.

Writers began to lose their self belief.

It didn't "just" happen. It was a slow and stealthy process. Where once upon a time a writer could conceive of an idea and have the confidence to see it through to the end of the draft, these days they require the feedback of OTHERS - whether paid-for readers like me or their peers - to VALIDATE them. Slowly but surely, writers have come to RELY TOO MUCH on feedback.

(I'm sure your jaws have just hit the floor. I know: I'm a SCRIPT READER, I "shouldn't" be saying this. But then, as I've said before I'm not in this for the money, because there isn't that much. I do this job because I want to help writers. It is as simple as that. And of course feedback in GENERAL is good... but relying on it to inform your own belief on how "good" or "ready" your script is?? Noooooooo.).

And there's more. Writers not only began to rely too much on feedback, they began to rely too much on people's ideas of what makes "good" writing - either the finished product or the *way* of getting words on the page. In short, writers started to procrastinate over HOW they should write the "right" way, putting too much stock in "techniques" like those I mentioned in my previous blog post.

(Yes, I know there's a certain irony in writing a blog post about how writers rely too much on blogs about writing - but then the remit of *this* blog has always been: "There are no checklists. There are no formulas. There are no rules. There are no "ways". Do it YOUR WAY").

Writers could be a pain in the ass back in the early noughties, I'm not denying it. You try telling a writer who's given you a 328 page screenplay in Comic Sans that's leather bound with gold embossed lettering on the front you won't read it! Chances are, you'll be there three days later answering outraged emails. It's tedious and annoying.

But that nutcase noughties writer still had something too few writers TODAY have: self belief. A writer without self belief has NOTHING. Seriously. That writer might get words down on paper, but s/he will not get much further. Either literally, as s/he hides away from the *other*, just as important, element of scriptwriting, which is marketing themselves... Or metaphorically, because s/he CANNOT LET GO of their work, rewriting over and over, it's always a work in progress, it's never "finished". They work hard, but basically tread water forever. Two different ways of getting to the SAME OUTCOME. There are others too, but those are the two biggies.

There might be no rules to writing, but one thing I am certain of, having worked with copious amounts of writers over the years:

The writers that "make it" (whatever that means) are the ones with SELF BELIEF. They have the confidence not only to get the words down on paper, they get their scripts out there and actively pursue every opportunity and avenue they can in marketing themselves, too. They don't apologise for their work; they don't worry what others think of them, either - and they don't DEPEND on feedback to validate them or their scripts. They can recognise feedback with an agenda and they know their OWN motives for writing what they do. What's more, they have the confidence to abandon projects that are not working and do not haul themselves over the coals for "failing" - because it is NOT a failure to junk a project. It's just part of the process.

But most of all, the writers I see doing well tend to have this attitude:

"Why NOT me? Why CAN'T I do well at this?"

ANSWER: there is no reason they "can't"... so they DO.

Sure, all of us have dark moments when we wonder why the hell we bother, especially when there's a run of rejections: we wouldn't be human, else. But if you open every new file thinking negative thoughts of how you're never going to get anywhere with this writing lark, perhaps now is the time to move on to something different. Good luck!

How To Write Great Characters

2011-11-30T23:33:00.000-08:00

It's oft-said that it's *all* about characters, so one thing Bang2writers ask me about over and over again is "how" to write a "great character".

Sorry, but there is no actual *way*. Lots of people advocate various techniques... But most are a variation on that fabled notion of "getting inside a character's head". Character questionnaires, talking to/visiting the very people you want to write about and what Dom Carver calls "method writing" are a good start in terms of representing one's characters... but that's all they are: a START. I don't think "getting in the character's head" is even HALF of the game, but more of that in a sec.

In the meantime, here are some recommendations I make to Bang2writers struggling with their characters:

No such thing. One of the reasons there is no specific "way" to write a great character, is because there is no such thing as a universally "great" one. Though some are more popular than others, ask a room of people who their favourite is and there is a strong chance every one of them will be different. That's obvious stuff. Yet what is not so obvious is how to create *a* character that "resonates" with someone, anyone - because writers are so busy chasing after that mythical notion of THE GREAT CHARACTER EVERYONE LOVES. Let this restrictive element go and suddenly you have the freedom to explore things you may not have conceived before.

If someone does not like your character, that is not a failure. Of course we want everyone to love our characters. They're our BABIES. But if someone HATES your character? STILL A SCORE. Any emotion is better than none. That's why, to me, even T2's version of Sarah Connor is a big SUCCESS - I might not like her, but what's that got to do with anything? I've NOTICED HER. Kudos to Jimmy C.

Contradictory feedback on characters happens. Deal with it. Because everyone's idea of what makes a "good" character is different, be prepared for contradictory feedback. Here's some I got recently:

[The character] is a strong enough personality to participate in the narrative, but not so strong the audience cannot imagine THEMSELVES in her place, allowing them to identify with her... Subtle and clever.

Whilst [the character] has an interesting arc, I didn't feel suitably "close" enough to her to be able to identify with her properly.

Who's right? Both of them, neither of them... I have to ask MYSELF what I was trying to achieve with that character and base my decision on THAT, not rely on what *someone else* says... That way madness lies.

Great characters need great stories. Whilst many people say it's "all" about the characters, I don't actually believe this. Story and character are a symbiotic relationship; you can't have one without the other. And I'm not sure a GREAT character (whatever that is) can be borne out of an underdeveloped story. So if a Bang2writer is struggling with their characters (for whatever reason), I often recommend they look to their story FIRST - is it "wanting" in some way? Is that *why* this character will not fall into line? It's surprising how many writers go round the houses trying to fix characters when it's the story those characters are within that needs fixing... You wouldn't simply put buckets down to catch the water from a leaky roof and forget about it; you'd fix the roof, wouldn't you?

So:

Going back to that notion then of "getting in the character's head" and it not being the full story... Working with writers over the years, I've noticed a reluctance from many to really pin down WHY they want to conceive the stories and characters they want to write about. In fact, they'll often do anything BUT that, whether it's obsess over dialogue and format or what a character has had for breakfast.

Yet knowing WHY you write the stories and characters you do is often KEY to breaking open those very characters those same writers want to "get in the heads of". The reason for this is very simple: your characters are essentially YOU. They cannot exist without you. They are the ultimate parasites. They are based on your own thoughts and experiences - how can they not? - and you REPRESENT those characters according to the agenda (or "point") your STORY has, which will also be based on your own thoughts and experiences. Alan writes a great post here about it, in fact.

In essence then, the "head" you need to get into is not the characters' so much, but YOUR OWN - and without understanding exactly why you've chosen *this* character and *this* story, I would venture you could be severely limiting your ability to "get into the character's head" anyway. All the character questionnaires and whatnot in the world is unlikely to help when a producer asks you *that* question they ask so often:

"Why this story?"

I've seen so many writers falter with that question or a variation of it. As a result meetings go awry and writers lose opportunities they may otherwise have been able to grab with both hands. It's a mega shame too, since these meetings often take place months or even YEARS after those writers started the script.

Stories are generally about journeys. Journeys can take absolutely ANY road. As a result, I would venture we as writers need to understand where we've come from, where are we are now and where we're going as it has a knock-on effect on our writing. If we haven't a clue WHY we have chosen a particular story and the characters within it, then it's like guiding our characters in the dark with a blind fold on... We're lost before we start.

So next time, when you're tempted to really try and get in your character's head, think of your own first. Do YOU know why you've chosen this story? Do you know what its purpose is, how your character represents that, who it would appeal to and WHY it deserves to exist *more* than others like it in the pile? Because if you don't, no one else will. Once you've nailed all that down, you can fill in as many character questionnaires as you like.... Go!

EveryWoman: Where Is She?

2011-11-29T06:18:00.001-08:00

I was at The Underwire Festival this weekend just past, celebrating women in film, behind AND in front of the camera, though my session was called "A Room of Her Own: Writing Leading Ladies". Here I am, with Underwire host Gemma Mitchell, fellow writer and director Ben Blaine & StarNow casting agent and actress, Jessica Manins... Hope to see you there next year!

I had thought I had heard every possible argument FOR including more female POVs in terms of characterisation, but an interesting insight came up during the session which even I had not considered in-depth before:

"Why is there only "room" for "extraordinary" women?"

This came from one of Underwire's founders, the fabulous (not to mention extraordinary) Gabriella Apicella, whom you can follow on Twitter here.

Let's rewind a minute, before I address Gabriella's query. If we look to leading men in film, the stamp "hero" is very much in evidence. These guys are fighters in a both literal AND metaphorical way, going for truth, justice or survival and dragging us all with them in their wake. They can be ACTIVE, INTERESTING and most of all VARIED... It doesn't matter what your "version" of a hero is, whether that's a guy, walking away from an explosion in a tattered vest or an understated, quiet lawyer or something in-between: film's got you covered, baby.

What's more, male protagonists even cover the ANTI-HERO - that guy who's not even remotely like the TRADITIONAL HERO type, someone who may even be a VILE HUMAN BEING, yet still an audience may get on board with him *for some reason* and NOT always for the "classic" reasons... ie. "vile human being learns to become decent human being".

In other words, male leads in film can be pretty much ANYTHING. And why not?

Yet despite this, female leads in film are not permitted the same scope to be as VARIED - instead they kick ass, are cold bitches or are victims. So when there IS an interesting, flawed woman, all the females in the audience are so busy saying "Oh! Thank God for that, for once I haven't had my brain sucked out by this representation of a woman" they forget to ask ANOTHER burning question:

"Why only one?"

Think about it. A male lead in a film might be his own man, but so are his buddies, henchmen and nemesis too. There is a veritable SEA of men in your average feature film.

Yet if we have an interesting, flawed FEMALE LEAD? Typically - it's JUST HER, either literally or metaphorically as she FORCES her head above the crowd.

The knee jerk reaction to Gabriella's query is obvious, then: ALL characters, regardless of gender, race or whatever should be extraordinary. Shouldn't they...?

Yes. And no. And the reason is just as obvious:

The EveryMan character.

Just like film has got the male HERO and ANTI-HERO character sewn up, The EveryMan Character is just as valid as a character arc. The Everyman is conceived as an ordinary character with whom the audience is supposed to be able to identify easily because it COULD BE THEM, only in extraordinary circumstances - immediately making a mockery of the notion that ALL characters MUST be extraordinary. Because they don't!

Think of David Mann in Spielberg's debut feature, DUEL. For me, David is the epitome of the EveryMan character - check out his surname!! He's a normal bloke, wanting to get home. We know relatively little about him other than that. It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but I recall a brief reference to the fact he has a family and he works in an office. End of the day, the movie is about how he, as a "normal bloke" deals with that seriously ABNORMAL trucker and the attempts made on his life.

On this basis then, where is EveryWoman?

DUEL is a great example of a strong genre movie that still delivers, despite not having an "extraordinary" character in the lead. Yet even in drama, it's not often we see EveryWoman, even if the female characterisation is GOOD. Instead, those women are LARGER THAN LIFE, no matter what.

It shouldn't be hard to conceive of an "ordinary" woman and put her in "extraordinary" circumstances, yet we see her with disturbingly far less frequency than EveryMan. Instead, if we ever see female leads (and they're not falling into stereotypical territory), then they are nearly always EXTRAORDINARY in some way, with "special skills" of some kind that set her apart. Though this *can* be a good start, is she automatically needed? Maybe an EveryWoman character in her place could give your script the edge in terms of getting an audience on board.

Perhaps Execs fear they are "talking down" to the female section of the audience by suggesting there is such a thing as an "EveryWoman"? Yet I am one. I tick various boxes on the "normal woman" scale: Married - check. Kids - check. Working - check. I do the school run, the shopping and the washing. I see nothing to be ashamed of, just because I am not kicking ass with my martial arts skillz, seducing superheroes or leading bank heists on a regular basis.

So next time you sit down to dream up a female protagonist, don't ignore the existence of EveryWoman. She could be just what your script and story needs, to make your audience relate to your journey.

USP, PT 2: You, The Writer

2011-11-22T02:15:00.000-08:00

So three or four times a year I have a conversation with a writer that goes like this:

WRITER: I've got this great script and I'm working with some great people, we're going to take it all the way and get it made.

ME: Brilliant, good for you.

WRITER: Are you interested in collaborations?

ME: Always.

WRITER: Well, I've got this Science Fiction TV pilot...

ME: ... Ah. I won't waste your time. I don't do Science Fiction. Or TV.

WRITER: Why not?

ME: Because I haven't seen a Science Fiction spec in about 5 years that's sold me on its USP for the audience.

WRITER: That's because you haven't read mine yet.

ME: I'm afraid I'm just not interested in a collaboration.

WRITER: But TV is ace and full of high concept Science Fiction stuff at the moment.

ME: Soz. I can't help you.

Note that I report on and help develop both science fiction and TV pilots when writers HIRE me - this post relates solely to me being part of a team to get a project MADE... And the above does NOT play out because I want to lord it over the writer in a "I'm more experienced than you" type of way - when it comes to TV, I'm completely inexperienced. Though I've had meetings with /pitched to indie TV prodcos, a few broadcasters and even done a bunch of trial scripts for TV soaps, I've never *done* TV in terms of getting out of development hell and onto the actual screen. Similarly, it's not that I DON'T LIKE Science Fiction as an actual genre; though I find it largely tired and familiar at the moment (even in commissioned shows), that's not to say I wouldn't like an idea just because it's Sci-Fi. I've enjoyed MANY shows and features under the SF banner.

No, it all comes down to this:

Science Fiction is not part of my USP's remit. Nor is traditional TV (outside the notion of "transmedia"). They're just not what I do.

So what DO I do?

The List:

Features

Female protagonists

Thriller

"Issues" - ie. women's rights, teenage pregnancy, drugs, poverty

Parenthood

Novels

Horror

Script Editing

Genre

Non-linearity

Romantic Comedy

Transmedia/Multi-Platform Content Delivery

Social Networking & blogging

... And I bet not ONE on that list surprised you much, right?

That's because I've spent a LONG time cultivating my USP, not only in my own work and type of work/teams I attach to, but in the way I represent myself at events like London Screenwriters Festival and online, via this blog, Facebook and Twitter.

But how can a writer develop his/her own USP, or identify what theirs is? Here's a few thoughts:

USPs don't arrive overnight. I spent a long time refining and adding to my USP. From the list I obviously began as a blogger, script editor and feature writer. I was interested in Genre, specifically Horror. My interest in female protagonists came next, specifically when I noticed how few in the spec pile there were, then how many female characters were subjected to gratuitous rape scenes. A lot of the rest came organically: for example, it was not until I joined Facebook and Twitter I noticed the surge in interest in my parenting tweets, specifically those about "Male Spawn" and "Wee Girl" - I had originally tweeted these as comic relief, nothing more. However other tweeters and Facebookers started to talk to me about their own children and then - oddly - even ask my advice! Before I knew it parenting, though not technically part of my ACTUAL work at that time, had become part of my online persona... Which then became part of real life: at London Screenwriters Festival last year I ran a session with Media Parents on being a freelancer, then I ended up writing a novel about teenage pregnancy and young parenthood, so it all came full circle. It probably will again somehow!

A USP is not a quick fix. A well-developed USP takes years and is always a work in progress. I would argue that as soon as you think you're "there" in terms of your USP, it will take a weird turn... To illustrate my point, if the writer in the example conversation on this post said, "I have a great URBAN sci-fi..." I might not have been so quick to tell him/her "I don't do SF". Why? Because of ATTACK THE BLOCK's success this year, which I also happened to think was pretty ace. Basically, if you work on the basis "anything can happen", you will be receptive to those opportunities that come knocking when you least expect it.

A USP may alienate, as well as attract people. Some writers are desperate to write EVERYTHING in the hope this will mean producers will find them more attractive. I have Bang2writers who have attempted every genre, in every format going. This isn't necessarily a bad strategy, but I do question whether those writers are in danger of becoming Jacks Of All Trades. Far better I think to pick something and do it really well, than try everything and do it OK. The one downer of the former however may be that some people will not consider you because of the perceived notion of *who* you are, which can be particularly problematic if you're a woman or part of a minority not well represented in the media, as it is very easy to become victim of a double standard. ie. opinionated men are apparently "legends", whereas opinionated women are apparently "obnoxious". But if you feel a more obvious USP could work for you, then you also need to be prepared to be rejected for it, as well as accepted for it.

A USP is NOT fake. Critics of writers marketing themselves as well as their work (often you will hear the lament, "the work should speak for itself!") will say writers are "faking it", especially online when it comes to social networking. I can't speak for all writers attempting to market themselves here, but can tell you that, whilst I strive very hard to refine and maintain my online persona in particular, there is not one single element of it that is out-and-out fake. I write so much online I simply would not be able to keep track!!! What you see is what you get with me - just the polished version, meltdowns included. I like to create a sense of drama; I won't apologise for it. It's what writers are meant to do, as far as I'm concerned... And which is why I don't *tend* to tweet about how ill feel; how depressed I am; how busy or stressed I am or what I'm cooking for tea. It's dull. Sure I feel/think/do all of those things, but I've CUT THEM OUT of my online persona, in the way a screenwriter edits out the boring bits of their script, like your protagonist needing to go to the loo!!!

A USP is your "Mission Statement". Don't get hung up on whether your USP is "good" or "bad" or "needed". I got some great advice once, which was "Go for what you feel YOU need and what you feel the INDUSTRY needs *from* you." There's no limit on what your USP can include, though I would argue a few key elements are what makes them fly. As someone said at London Screenwriters Festival only recently, "Can't think of "Lucy V" without thinking "female protagonists"!" And that's the whole point.

So what's your USP, as a writer?

USP, Pt 1: Your Project

2011-11-21T03:11:00.000-08:00

DISCLAIMER: If you think screenwriting is all about art or originality, talent or simply "great writing" (whatever that is), then go away. You won't like this post. Don't say you weren't warned.

Still here? Right. Here goes.

... So, you've got a GREAT idea. What's its USP?

USP = Unique. Selling. Point.

*This* is the point of screenwriting. It doesn't matter how arty or original your idea is; it doesn't matter how talented you are; it doesn't matter how fabulously written your script is on the page. You could be all three of these things and if producers or financiers can't pin down your work's USP, they will not take a punt on it.

Think about it... Why should they? If your project hasn't got that "je ne se quois" we have not seen before, if it's not the same but different, if it isn't OBVIOUS as to WHOM this piece is for and WHY, those producers would be literally throwing a load of money in development, production AND marketing down the drain. That's a loooooooot of cash.

And this is what writers persistently seem unable to grasp: it is NOT just about nabbing a producer with your butterfly net: that is only half the story, maybe even a third. The battle STARTS when you have a producer - now you have to find your AUDIENCE.

And audiences are demanding bitches! Think of your place in one... 'Cos we're all in one. For example - I love Crime Drama and this love affair began with CSI. I do not tend to watch Law & Order. Why? 'Cos I like the CSI "versions" (not flashback) and I don't like the somewhat drier tone of Law and Order. Law & Order is actually a great programme, but end of the day, I don't actually care about the justice SYSTEM - when it comes to crime drama, I want to watch hero/ine cops doing cheesy one-liners and walking, slo-mo in arty camera shots. So it stands to reason I love NCIS just as much as all the CSIs. It has the jokey tone of the CSIs, but crucially doesn't try to **BE** CSI; it has its own narrative logic; its own character/group dynamic and it also tends to have much more explosive action or stunts every week, as opposed to being generally reserved to finales or season openers like in the CSIs. Crucially too, NCIS has the cool value of the CSIs' "versions" of the crime, but focuses instead on CHARACTER REACTION to what has happened/will happen next, those fantastic "black and white photo" moments, as opposed to the stories of the week... A subtle but HUGE difference.

That's how NCIS got commissioned when the CSI franchise was already in existence. They wouldn't have just said, "Oh, it's CSI - but in the military!" (though that would have been a great start). They would have focused on not just on the similarities, but on the DIFFERENCES, because otherwise an audience would ask (quite understandably), "Why watch NCIS when I can watch CSI already?"

Now let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time, I worked on a script with a producer and director (the director had written the script, I was attached as a script consultant/associate producer). It was set in the future and people were mutating all over the place in weird and wonderful ways, so its most obvious reference point was The X Men, though there was shades of Torchwood as well. The plan was to make it an comic and animated web series.

To say I was excited about this project is an understatement. The script itself was a diamond; the dialogue in particular was something I hadn't seen before - knowing and funny, whilst NOT trying to be Joss Whedon. The storyboards were done by an AMAZING artist and as super-deluxe comic freaks, the producer and director were 100% committed to their story. They had a brilliant plan which included a fantastic social media strategy. They were speaking to a mega-talented animator who believed she could bring the 2D comic panels to life in 5 minute segments, which would be paid for via advertising and ideally distributed via social media networks and shared by users.

In short they had it all nailed down. Except one thing:

The USP.

What was different about this project, in comparison to the many, many X-Men-and Torchwood-like-projects that were doing the rounds about at that time?

Answer: nothing.

Every meeting we went to, every pitch we blew down various financiers with our foresight into *how* we would make this and get this done. But then, as is so often the case, would come that question:

"What is the USP?"

In short, the story was JUST LIKE The X Men... too like it. It was too much the SAME and not enough of DIFFERENT. Just how were we going to hook the audience and MAKE THEM WATCH? What was special about ours, in comparison to not only all the other specs out there, but all the other superhero stuff already in creation?

So we started combing through it in desperation. Female protagonist? Nope, science fiction has that all covered in a tradition that goes back thirty years. A Dystopian vision of the future? Nope, Sci fi has that in the spades. A Utopia? Ditto. Is it for children? Facebook and the like has an age limit, audience is compromised, especially in the under 10s - and kids don't tend to use Twitter. For adults? Nope, we already have sexy SF. We started to freak out and did some mad drafts, including one where we tried to go for the mythical "urban sci fi" and ended up writing a pornographic version of The Terminator meets The Matrix. What. The. Hell...

... We were screwed.

"We have a great script!" The director wailed.

And it's true - we DID.

"We have a great package, we've thought of everything!" The producer cried.

And it's true - we DID.

But it wasn't enough. It wasn't different enough. We couldn't find anyone to give us the cold, hard cash. And we ended up junking it.

So next time you think "originality is overrated" (which is certainly true), be sure to think NEXT:

What's special or different about MY project in comparison to all the others?

What will MAKE my audience watch?

NEXT: Why having a USP as a writer helps your career.

Relationships & Teamwork

2011-11-15T04:49:00.000-08:00

We all know by now it's not JUST about the writing. We should all be getting "out there" and creating relationships, too. But what does this really mean, bar the obvious, like not hiding away out of sight?

I am not a religious person and nor is my family, but I went to a church school when I was a little kid. Obviously much was made then of various tales and parables in the scriptures, particularly ones about teamwork, like:

A father takes his son out to a forest and shows him a stick. He gives it to his son and tells him to break it. The son does so, easily. Then the father gives his son a whole bunch of sticks and tells him to break those instead. The son tries and can't. The message? "Strength in numbers".

Or perhaps the slightly creepier:

A man doubts if there's an Afterlife, so an angel comes down and says he will prove it to him. First, the angel takes the man to Hell. Far from being the firepit he imagines, the man is escorted into a large banquet hall. There is a huge table and it is filled with wonderful, sumptuous food. But everyone who is seated at the table is totally miserable. Why? Because they have to use giant chopsticks to eat the food, which they can't get into their own bowls and mouths - they are damned instead for eternity to look at this great stuff and not enjoy themselves. Ouch. Then the angel takes the man to Heaven - and the man is knocked over sideways when he sees EXACTLY THE SAME SCENARIO there. "How can this be?" The man says, "This is supposed to be Heaven!" But the angel smiles knowingly and sure enough, the people in Heaven pick up *their* chopsticks and instead feed the person OPPOSITE with their food, who in turns reciprocates the action for them, unlike down in Hell. The message? "Happiness is working together".

So, this is not a post about the rights and wrongs of the Bible (or indeed religion in general), but about the joys of teamwork.

I spend a lot of time talking to and working with writers and it always surprises me how few are receptive to the notion of teamwork. Instead, they often seem to think it's all about writing *the* great script, then taking it out into the world, then snaring an option, producer and development deal (and eventually production) with some kind of virtual butterfly net.

Of course, for some writers this does happen. But they are not the norm. And the likelihood of it happening? Must be millions to one. For one thing, your great script is probably not as great as you think it is. And even if it is, it has to be the *right* time for it. And there has to be money available (which doesn't suddenly disappear). And then you have to find a producer who doesn't want to make HIS/HER own ideas instead.

Talk about lining up all your ducks in a row!!! But the purpose of this post is not to depress you, so let me continue.

We all know the odds are against us. Some of us carry doggedly on... and good for you, if you're one of these people. After all, anything can happen. I really believe that. And if you apply and enter EVERYTHING in the known universe to do with writing, go to all the events and network your ass off, then by the law of averages something has to happen eventually. How can it not? As long as you can withstand the rejection and that worse feeling of "standing still" that sometimes comes for months or even years on end, it's the way to go.

But if you DO get depressed at throwing spaghetti at the wall like this, then I have a solution for you:

Don't work alone. Become part of a TEAM.

In this team, you're the writer. So get a director, a producer - and anything else you feel you need. What about a script editor? Editor? Cinematographer? Actors if you know them; if they have a "following" or are famous, even better. What about a person with *the knowledge* if you need it, ie. an advisor of some kind if you're writing about something specialist. Hey, have someone on board who's dead good at MORAL SUPPORT, why not? Those people can be worth their weight in gold when everyone else is freaking out and wanting to throw the project out the window.

Basically, get anyone. Anyone you can. But think about it and make sure you're all on the same page. Maybe one person is a combo of various things on the list - even better. Make your decisions wisely, be upfront, know the market, be passionate, let everyone know what you want to do and how you intend to go about it - and see if their ideas match with yours. If they do, you could be on to a winner.

So build this project from the bottom up. Or, in other words: create a team, identify a premise for a project based on real market research, get it written and made and sold. It CAN be done.

That's of course what so many writers cannot accept. Very often they are hostile or even antagonistic to the idea. "How do I find a producer? You can't get them *just like that*." They might sneer.

Um, yes you can. It's called The Internet and networking. You just do it BEFORE the script is written, instead of afterwards. If you post on various sites, meet people & go to events you WILL find producers. And if you just stop chasing after THAT BIG PRODUCER WHO DID THAT THING, you will probably find one standing right next to you DESPERATE to do a project with you...

... IF you ask them.

... IF you don't make it all about you - or more accurately, *your* script/idea which you just won't bend on.

... IF you are realistic.

... IF you make a team.

and

... IF you look to the marketplace, identify who your audience is and how you're going to get their interest (and thus sell the film to the distributors or in TV, networks).

But the naysayers start off again, "Oh no," they say, "I'M not working for free while the producer lives in his or her gold house, no chance."

But that producer will be doing all s/he can for the film, same as you, as part of a collaboration... Everybody's equal in this team. That's the point!

But still they argue: "Well if the producer is on the same level as me, I might as well work alone, because I want to step up to the next level."

And how will you do that, without or with few credits? And how do you know the producer you *could* be working with isn't the next BIG PRODUCER WHO DOES THAT THING - and you've been *in* with them from the beginning??

But STILL they continue: "I'm not writing FOR the marketplace. I have more passion/integrity than that."

Ignore the market at your peril. I'm NOT advocating being cynical about it: if Thriller is selling, but you believe 100% in your new science fiction world, OF COURSE you should go for the latter. But you also need to remember who your audience is and that without them, there might as well be no project. Sometimes you will have to junk ideas and scripts - it is not worth continuing, you must be realistic. But it makes the times things join up all the sweeter.

Yet: "There are no guarantees... it's not as easy as that."

Who said it was easy??? Working as a team doesn't mean you won't all have a hard slog on getting your work to screen. But it DOES give you more control over your own destiny. Given the amount of time writers spend complaining about not being taken seriously, I would have thought more writers would JUMP at the chance to make the kind of relationships that WILL get them taken seriously.

But: "I want MY idea, 100% - or nothing.".

Then friend, I cannot help you. Good luck on your solo journey. Hope you get to the destination you want.

But if you think there *could* be something in this idea of teamwork:

Two heads are better than one. Even more are EVEN BETTER. The more people who know you and your ambitions, the more chance you have of getting somewhere with it. This is how the film and TV industry operates. Sometimes the films and TV programmes are great; sometimes they are bloody awful. Sometimes it doesn't even matter how good OR bad they are because despite our best efforts they misfire and no one really watches them anyway. But they EXIST and are SOLD - which is a lot better than being 99.9999999999% of nothing in my view.

So why not start that way, from the beginning?

Make a team. Decide on an idea, based on good knowledge of the marketplace. Now... do it. Write it, get it financed, make it, get it sold to distributors or networks. You probably can't do it alone but choose the right people to work with and you WILL see your words as images.

See you on the other side. Or not. The choice is yours.

N.B. A great post from Film Utopia's Sunday Blog on the same subject, Why We Should Destroy The Spec Script Market

Writer Parents - Do You Know About These Services?

2011-11-14T00:27:00.000-08:00

Top scribe and charity volunteer Adrian Mead has been in touch, wanting Bang2writer Parents to know about Parentline, a charity which gives online and telephone support to parents who need it:

"We all know how tough it is to get time, space and inspiration to be creative but add childcare to the mix and franlkly I'm just amazed you get anything done! Recently I've been volunteering for PARENTLINE, a great organisation that supports anyone who cares for, or has concerns about a child. If you are needing somewhere to get info, support or a place to vent your frustrations or concerns I can highly recommend them."

You can get in touch with Scotland's Parentline, here.

As everyone knows, I'm a parent and I've actually used the English version of Parentline, then called Parentline Plus but now called Family Lives in the past several times, especially when my Male Spawn was going through a particularly evil phase about two years ago that seemed to last forever. Like Adrian then I can recommend them totally - I was never judged, told I should pull myself together or "crack down" on the Male Spawn... Instead they worked very hard with me (in my case, via email... I was too upset to use the phone) to establish possible causes for the bad behaviour and come up with lots of potential solutions. It is no word of a lie to say they helped save my sanity, since there were many times I felt I was going around in circles and hitting a brick wall simultaneously, as I'm sure MANY parents feel sometimes!!

So don't suffer in silence... You don't need to!! Being a parent is so rewarding, but it's also HARD and it only gets HARDER as they get older. Get in touch with Parentline or Family Lives and take the first steps to dealing with any problems, issues or concerns you have with your family.

Copyright & Adaptation

2011-11-13T04:17:00.000-08:00

Scriptpunk asked this on the Bang2writers page on Facebook:

A Q for You! Do you have any idea when book copyright goes into the public domain? ie. Jane Austin, Charles Dickens, Bronte Novels - would you need to get permission from the estate to adapt or are they in the public domain therefore open to reintepretation al a Autin's Emma as 1990s Classic Clueless?

UK copyright lasts the author's lifetime plus 70 years. So, the works of Shakespeare, Chaucer, The Bronte Sisters, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and all their mates are up for grabs. You don't need to ask anyone to adapt their stuff; you can just do it. It's pretty easy to see why Victorian Literature (and older) is so popular then when it comes to adaptation.

Dead authors don't necessarily mean you're home-free either then - for example, Roald Dahl may have been dead since 1990, but his work is still in copyright. Make sure you check how long your chosen author has been dead for!

By contrast, you MUST buy the film/TV rights of any living/recently deceased author before you can adapt their work. It is generally unwise to adapt something without the author's permission and try and seek the rights later - for all you know, the rights may already have been bought, then in which case you've just totally wasted your time if you actually want to take that script to the marketplace.

In addition, it's worth remembering film and TV rights are sometimes sold even BEFORE the book has published! Other times, the novelist wants to adapt their OWN work. That's not to say spec adaptations are blown out the water - sometimes novelists will enter into collaborations with screenwriters in a bid to take their work to film and TV, but you really need to do your research and like everything in screenwriting, create those relationships to get projects like that off the ground.

Another thing worth remembering - all this copyright stuff can depend not only WHEN it was written, but where you live, too! Here is a list of countries and their copyright laws that's worth looking at.

Good luck!

Don't Second Guess: Find Your Audience

2011-11-07T08:50:00.000-08:00

Writer thinks, "I'll write a script. It's gonna be great." S/he completes the script. Sends it off.

Reader gets it at some initiative/contest/literary agent's/whatever. Reader thinks, "What a mess. This writer hasn't a clue what he or she is doing. PASS." Reader sends it back.

Writer decides s/he is going to ADVANCE next time - whatever it takes. S/he does a ton of research. Sees where s/he went wrong in the first instance when it comes to format. Thinks, "This must be it now". Sends it off.

Reader gets said script and says, "Craft is OK, but story/structure/character/dialogue/delete as appropriate is off. They don't know their Robert McKee/Syd Field/Linda Seger/insert Guru here (oooer)" S/he writes PASS again. Sends it back.

Writer CAN'T BELIEVE IT and is very upset. S/he reads McKee, Field, Seger et al. Decides to never use voiceover and to always hit their turning point on page 22 and to write ABOUT IDENTITY. Sends it off.

Reader receives the Guru-fied script and says, "Oh you know what? This script is predictable, it's like it believes in formulas. There's no heart here." Another PASS. Sends it back.

Writer gets CRAZY ANGRY. Goes back to his/her research. Notices there's a trend for vampires/angels/cowboys/period drama/etc. Decides to write THE NEXT BIG THING in that field. Sends it off.

Reader gets said NEXT BIG THING and says, "Oh this is very dated. Whilst vampires/angels/cowboys/period drama etc is the thing NOW, those movies/TV dramas have been in development for years. This has missed the boat." Yet another PASS. Sends it back.

Writer breaks down. Can't believe it. "Now what????? I'VE TRIED TO DO WHAT YOU WANT!!!"

MORAL OF THE STORY --

Don't try and second guess; there is no magic formula.

And that goes for readers as well as writers.

It's all about the writing. It really as simple - and as complicated - as that. Good writing: you REALLY DO know it when you see it. Frustrating. Harsh.

But guess what - if you're true to yourself and don't try and second guess, you're far more likely to find yourself getting those CONSIDERS and even RECOMMENDS.

And as a reader, if you let go of the notion of the "what SHOULD be done", you're far more likely to see the really good scripts, rather than letting them slip through your fingers.

There is only story. And understanding who it is for and why... The Audience.

UK TV Spec Scripts

2011-11-06T01:45:00.001-07:00

Vexentrix asked about TV Spec Scripts of existing shows this week on Twitter and it's something I've talked about with British writers many times in the past, so I figured it was time to write an official post about it.

In the US, it's common for a writer wanting to break into TV to write a spec of episode of that actual show and send it in, in the hope of grabbing the producer's attention and getting a commissioned episode. Here is a list of 2011 specced US Comedies and another list of 2011 specced US Dramas.

We don't do this in the UK. If you write a spec episode of Spooks, Corrie, Eastenders, Doc Martin or anything else, it simply will not get read. There's loads of reasons why, including the fact it can be a big fat legal headache in terms of copyright, but the short version: it's just not the way it's done over here.

In the UK, you send your ORIGINAL script in - ideally, it will be a script in the same *kind* of vein as the show you want to write for, but retaining your own voice. (Though that said, I've known people get into shows with scripts wildly different in tone, such as one lady who got onto a well-known soap with a slasher horror script which demonstrated how fabulous she was with character and dialogue, so you never know).

If the producer of said UK show reads your script and likes what s/he sees, one of two things might happen afterwards:

1) They ask you to write a trial script. THIS is when you have to write a spec script of the show, basically and is most-oft used in continuing drama. The show will send you a selection of storylines, you pick one and write *your version* of that episode (which frequently has been broadcast already). If they like that, that's when you get asked in for a meeting or story conference - and from there, you may get your commission (yes, it's still not in the bag!!! Argh!)

2) They ask you in for a story conference. This is usually for hour-long drama and it's the more experienced TV writers who've perhaps had quite a few half hours aired already that will jump straight to this bit, though not always. Story conferences are often the producers and all the writers - and storyliners, if applicable - all meeting up to thrash out the long running storylines of the year (if a soap) or the slow-burn serial elements of a longer one hour drama.

There are of course other ways of getting commissioned on a TV show - a simple meeting with a producer (especially for a completely new show, or a children's series) - but the above seems to be the most common route.

BTW, Lots of writers appear to think you can only work in British TV if you have an agent. This is not true. Whilst it is markedly easier to gain access to various shows *with* an agent, plenty of Bang2writers have worked their way into various schemes and shows without one. The question is, are you going to take no for an answer? Damon Rochefort told us a fab story at London Screenwriters Festival about how he decided he would work for Corrie and SIMPLY WOULD NOT ACCEPT the various rejections he got (which was a lot). Eight years later, the rest is history.

ALSO:

If as a British writer you're feeling hard done by that UK TV doesn't recruit its writers the US way, you may be interested in the following conversation I had last weekend at LSF with Finding Nemo writer David Reynolds, who started his career writing for The Conan O' Brien Show:

DAVID: You might want to spec for a TV show...

ME: ... We don't do that here.

DAVID: How do they pick writers, then?

ME: You send in an original script.

DAVID: They read your ORIGINAL work?? That's brilliant!!!!

I agree with David; I think it is brilliant - so if you want to write for TV, get writing... And take your lead from Damon: DON'T TAKE NO FOR ANSWER. There will undoubtedly be a lot of them, but if you keep going, logic dictates you've got to get there eventually. Good luck!!

#LondonSWF 2011

2011-11-02T05:50:00.000-07:00

... Whoa. How good was that???

London Screenwriters Festival 2011 was a.maz.ing! It's been a tough year - as Chris said in the keynote speech, most businesses fail in their second year of trading - but we not only hung on and pushed forward, we did EVEN BETTER than last year!

So much so in fact, I think I raced through the festival in a blur! If you saw me and I rushed straight past you or stopped for about five seconds - my apologies. I was hoping to catch up/meet more people than I did, but in helping arrange the LSF Advanced Mentor Programme for a lucky 18 writers; listening to speed pitches in my capacity as a script editor; running three panels AND interviewing TV ledge showrunner Ashley Pharoah, I somehow raced through the whole three days at the speed of light. Suddenly it was Monday - and I felt like I'd been hit over the head with a sledgehammer!

Super kudos to the team for making it such a great event - the volunteers were characteristically fantastic and the speakers were so generous with their time. I think Finding Nemo writer David Reynolds tried to meet every single delegate at the fest! He was brilliant, hanging out in the bar (though he didn't appear to like the Tiger beer I bought him! Hint for you there if you're in a position to buy him one yourself). Ashley Pharoah too was brilliantly generous and really seemed to care about inspiring us all: after our "In Conversation" session, he went up to the scriptchat for ages. Similarly my panelists offered up fabulous insights, whether it was Damon Rochefort on his obvious love of what he does at Corrie; TV Exec Kathleen Hutchinson on how Holby and ER used to swap body parts; Sophie Meyer from Ealing Studios & Ed Clarke on how good writing is obvious from the first page; or Athos Kyrus and Sarah Olley on how readers ARE committed to reading your script, but the writer has to fulfill their end of the bargain too - ie. don't be boring & don't go for formulas or quick fixes.

Many thanks to everyone who made the LSF possible this year and I look forward to doing it all again next year - in the meantime, I'll leave you with a photo of Ashley Pharoah & I looking rather shocked for some reason, let's hear your captions in the comments section... GO!

GO TO @Londonswf's WEBSITE

New Calendar for #LondonSWF, Check It Out

2011-10-26T01:50:00.001-07:00

Many thanks to #LondonSWF delegate and Bang2writer @rcosgrove for designing and creating this fab calendar for #LondonSWF. See you there, Richard!

Build It And They Will Come: Lucy V's Wager

2011-10-19T04:04:00.000-07:00

Lots of screenwriters are fond of the Field of Dreams quote "Build It And They Will Come" - and good on 'em. I truly believe that if you keep going, no matter what, one day all will come good. I have to believe that, as it's pretty much the story of my life, not just screenwriting.

"Build it and they will come... " Is it actually 100% true?

Yes. And no.

Common sense dictates that if you keep going, something has to happen for you eventually. But by that same token, common sense also says there are no guarantees either.

So instead of wondering IF it will happen for you, consider yourself a success ALREADY.

That's what I said.

If you are writing, never mind about the sales; there are many people already jealous of your success at just getting words on the actual page. Never mind saying you *only* placed in a contest, or you've *only* got [this number of credits] or you're writing TV when you'd rather write features or novels or whatever. Creative people are put down by others in society left, right & centre; let's not put ourselves down AS WELL.

If you're writing, you're a writer. You are a success. End of. Liken screenwriting to the notion of Pascal's Wager, but instead of imagining God exists, imagine that elusive notion of "screenwriting success" exists for you instead. Let's call it Lucy V's Wager!

After all, you have absolutely nothing to lose and absolutely EVERYTHING to gain.

Frauds & Parasites! (Or Why There's ALWAYS More Than One Way Of Looking At This Scriptwriting Lark)

2011-10-17T06:10:00.000-07:00

WRITER 1: There's this person, right. S/he's written a book/a blog and/or designed a course/put on a conference and reckons it'll help writers understand writing. WHAT A FRAUD.

WRITER 2: (quietly) Actually I read it/did it and found it quite helpful.

WRITER 1: Yeah, well, I don't so I'm gonna tell you: YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

WRITER 2: Well, that's not very nice.

WRITER 1: Sorry, you're forcing my hand. If you believe in all these formulas and whatnot for success, you're an arse.

WRITER 2: Except, I never actually said that did I? I said I thought the book/course was quite helpful. I didn't say I believed it 100%. William Goldman said no one knows anything and I get that. But I also think there are people who might have something interesting or useful to say, especially if they're actually doing what I want to do. Why is their experience not worth anything?

WRITER 1: Um, I never said that.

WRITER 2: Um, yes you did. You said they were frauds.

WRITER 1: Well ... that's all and good, but for every *sensible* person like you then, there will be HUNDREDS OF NEWBIES taken in by this crap and they will be left horribly disappointed when their work doesn't sell and they're left living in THEIR OWN SWILL.

WRITER 2: But shouldn't we be looking at our OWN work and thinking it about in our OWN way - which includes reading books and blogs and whatnot - if that's what we want to do, individually? Personally I like looking at everything I can and deciding what I think does AND doesn't work.

WRITER 1: Except it's just procrastination! It takes us away from the real stuff - ACTUAL WRITING. If it was as easy as these supposed Gurus and bloggers reckoned, we'd all be doing it, right?

WRITER 2: Well, quite a lot of us are. If there wasn't a market for it, they wouldn't write the books. Or the blogs. Or hold the courses. Right?

WRITER 1: See, you're getting it now! They're like PARASITES, sucking away at our talent! If these story guys were SO into story, they wouldn't be doing it for MONETARY GAIN.

WRITER 2: Right. 'Cos when you work in the media, you don't have mortgages or rent or childcare or food or hall rental or anything like that. And anyway, Bloggers don't get paid for the most part. They give hundreds of posts of info away for free. By the way, have you actually read or done any of these books or courses you're attacking?

WRITER 1: No. I don't need to. *I* can recognise them as THE FRAUDS THEY ARE.

WRITER 2: I give up.
----------------------------
LINKS

Dear Writer

Free e-book, Screenwriting Tips (PDF)

The Required Reading List

My interview with Yves Lavandier (part one: On Scriptwriting and part two: Script Reading, Gurus & Philosophy ), author of my personal fave book about writing, Writing Drama - buy it here.

How To Connect with Other Writer 2s (and hopefully avoid the Writer 1s)

Deviation sells to Revolver Entertainment

2011-10-15T01:54:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post to tell you Deviation, the Thriller I've been involved in as associate producer, has sold to Revolver Entertainment.

Deviation stars Danny Dyer as Frankie, a vicious escaped convict who abducts young nurse Amber (Anna Walton) in her own car on her way home from work. It's a fantastic, dark Thriller set in one night and I feel privileged to have worked on it with the fabulous Lara Greenway and JK Amalou, not to mention the rest of the team.

This means you'll be seeing Deviation in the cinema early next year, most likely Feb/March time, so keep an eye out.

Now -- onto the next movie! Watch this space...

Deviation - IMDB

Deviation website

Deviation on Facebook

Oi, Writers No!

2011-10-14T01:33:00.001-07:00

Yet again this week I came across the lament, "Oh I had this great idea... But then it turns out it's quite similar to [this other thing] that's already been done. Oh no. This means I can't write it anymore. Oh boooo hoooo...."

Yes, I'm looking at YOU, Dodgyjammer!!! : P

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I TOLD YOU PEOPLE:

1) It's execution that counts.

2) Originality is overrated.

3) It's all been done anyway.

And don't tell me "it's different for TV/Film/Web series..." - whatever! All start with a PREMISE. And yes, the same premises get recycled OVER AND OVER AGAIN: "the same but different"! It's not just what the Execs want, but the AUDIENCE TOO. Why try and reinvent the wheel?? Why not make YOUR VERSION the BEST EVER instead!?

Now go and sit on the naughty step.

Meeting People: Agents, Producers & Directors, Other Writers

2011-10-11T01:49:00.000-07:00

So, with London Screenwriters Festival round the corner (83% of tickets sold if you haven't bought one already, HURRY!), the focus turns to networking and pitching and "first impressions count" ... Here's my strictly tongue-in-cheek look at how NOT to appear when meeting people for the first time. (Please note I'm just as likely to have BEEN the weirdoes in these scenarios as been on the receiving end, so learn from MY mistakes!):

MEETING AGENTS

WRITER: (thinks) Oooooh, there's an agent I want to read my script. (talks) Hi Mr/Ms Agent, how lovely to meet you.

MR/MS AGENT: Hello, writer.

WRITER: Read my script.

MR/MS AGENT: Um, well, I'm not really taking on any new clients right now...

WRITER: That's not what you said on Twitter.

MR/MS AGENT: Really?

WRITER: Yep. You were talking about reading loads of great scripts... You said in a tweet to @someoneIvenevermetinreallife on July 14th at 3:14pm. I think it was a Thursday.

MR/MS AGENT: Well I might have done, though I probably meant from my *existing* clients...

WRITER: So, what you're saying is you won't read my script?

MR/MS AGENT: Well I never said that exactly...

WRITER: Great! What's your email address?

MEETING PRODUCERS & DIRECTORS

WRITER: (thinks) Oooooh there's that director or producer of that MASSIVE *thing*... (talks) Hi Director/Producer, I loved your massive *thing* that was everywhere [LVH: ooooh matron]

DIRECTOR/PRODUCER: Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.

WRITER: Though I thought it would have been better if [this has had happened] in the story instead.

DIRECTOR/PRODUCER: Okay. Thanks for your feedback.

WRITER: And if you'd cast [this actor] instead. And hadn't had "a film by..." in the title sequence. 'Cos after all it's the writer's project as well, right?

DIRECTOR/PRODUCER: Right. Except I wrote it as well.

WRITER: [frozen smile, hoping s/he can get away with it] .... Aaaaaanyway: can I send my script in?

DIRECTOR/PRODUCER: Sorry, we're not accepting submissions right now, our slate's full.

[A new producer appears from the sidelines]

NEW PRODUCER: Ahem... I'll take a look at your script?

WRITER: Who are you? What are your credits?

NEW PRODUCER: Well I'm working on them... Perhaps we can collaborate?

WRITER: Well, are you going to pay me any money for that?

NEW PRODUCER: Well, no... I don't have any. But I wouldn't get paid either. But we could create something together and get our first credits?

WRITER: Not the point. You're trying to devalue me and what I do. Get lost.

[New Producer skulks off]

WRITER: Pfffft, Chancer.

MEETING OTHER WRITERS

WRITER: (thinks) Oooooh there's that writer whose blog or Twitter feed I read... (talks) Hi Tweeting/Blogging Writer.

TWEETING/BLOGGING WRITER: Hi! Who are you?

WRITER: Oh yeah, silly me - I know you but you don't know me! I'm @thatothertweetingbloggingwriter. I don't have photos online in case my Ex/bullies from school/aliens from Mars see me.

TWEETING/BLOGGING WRITER: Oh yes. I enjoyed your tweets/posts about [your project], how is that going?

WRITER: Terrible! No one wants to know. I'm SO DEPRESSED.

TWEETING/BLOGGING WRITER: Oh dear, sorry to hear that.

WRITER: Not your fault, it's the producers. And the script readers. And the agents. They're all combined in some kind of secret cabal to keep ME out.

TWEETING/BLOGGING WRITER: Have you tried altering the platform you're using to deliver the story - like looking to the graphic novel market?

WRITER: But I don't want to write graphic novels. I want to write movies.

TWEETING/BLOGGING WRITER: Well have you thought about making it yourself?

WRITER: If I wanted to be a producer, I'd be a producer. I'm a writer. I don't want to dilute my talent.

TWEETING/BLOGGING WRITER: Well there are lots of ways to diversify...

WRITER: You've got an agent, haven't you?

TWEETING/BLOGGING WRITER: Um, yes.

WRITER: Can you refer me?

TWEETING/BLOGGING WRITER: But I haven't read any of your work.

WRITER: So I'll send you a script. What's your email address?

TWEETING/BLOGGING WRITER: Well, I'm quite busy with my *own* work...

WRITER: So you won't help me? That's typical of this industry. No one will help ANYONE.

[Writer stalks off in a huff, leaving Tweeting/Blogging Writer]

TWEETING/BLOGGING WRITER: Blimey...

... FADE OUT

4 Nights In August Script Challenge - SHORTLIST ANNOUNCED!

2011-10-05T04:31:00.001-07:00

There has been major deliberation going on here at LSF Towers - not to mention some screaming, crying and general fisticuffs as to WHO goes through from the longlist to the coveted shortlist of The 4 Nights In August Screenplay Challenge.

As with the creation of the longlist, yet MORE hard decisions had to be made. However due to the quality of the entries we were not able to whittle it down to the final 5 as expected, so instead we have a final 12!

Without further ado then and in alphabetical order ONLY:

BIRTHDAY by Michelle Golder

BURNING BOOKS by Steve Irwin

EVERYTHING YOU NEED by Dave Turner

FATHER TO THE MAN by Liz Holliday

FOUR DAYS ERE THE FESTIVAL OF DEACON LAURENCE IN AUGUSTUS by Sara Atiiyan

I WITNESS by Gareth Turpie

IN HEAD by Jamie Wolpert

LOST & FOUND by Mikey Jackson

RIOTERS AT THE GATES by Jon Cronin & Anna Carmichael

THE GAME by Terence Barry

WHY? by Milethia Thomas

YOU by Dominic Brancaleone

What's great about this shortlist is that each entry is very different in its own way, presenting very intricate stories that reflect the complex issues behind the riots. We have entries here full of light and shade; nostalgia; even comedy. The styles of storytelling too are very different, with dialogue and non-dialogue scripts; talking heads and even almost "war reporting" cinema-verite styles to name a few. Several have no human or animal characters in whatsoever.

The longlisted entrants who did not get through to the shortlist this time however must not despair - they placed in the top 16% of the contest, no mean feat at all when we had so many entries. And they have no idea how close to fisticuffs Team LSF REALLY came...

Don't forget you can see inside the spec pile as a whole for the contest, here. And here's a blog about coping with rejection for anyone who needs it. And stay away from windows for at least 24 hours! ; )

NEXT ANNOUNCEMENT: The Winner!!! Coming VERY soon... Watch this space.

Psssst...

2011-10-05T02:24:00.001-07:00

... Want to see what the inside of a contest script pile looks like?

Then check out the insider info I posted on The London Screenwriters Festival blog yesterday.

From format and feasibility, to character and story, there's some quality overall info on the entries as a whole - so if you're wondering why your entry didn't make it through or just want to see what a job it is for readers sorting scripts and why, then go over there now!

Check it out here.

Coping With Rejection

2011-10-04T01:51:00.000-07:00

Since I rejected 170+ people yesterday for The 4 Nights in August competition, I thought those non-longlisted entrants would like to know whether rejectors ever feel guilt.

Yes, this one does.

I've rejected A LOT of people over the years. I joke sometimes that's why I never get very far in contests myself: it's scriptwriting karma, if you will. Way I figure it, if you write "Pass" enough times on coverage and add up enough low scores or percentages, it's bound to bite you in the ass in an industry that does, in part, rely on luck.

And I'm very conscious these are people's DREAMS I'm essentially treading on, whether I like it or not. As a writer myself, I've been rejected more times than I care to count. I know it stings. Hurts, even. I have received rejections that have had me sobbing inconsolably. Really. And not because the person who's rejected me has been vitriolic either, but because I happened to want that opportunity SO MUCH and to have it taken away, when I've worked so hard, seems unbearable.

I totally get it.

So every time I work on a contest or an initiative, I always try and let EVERYONE know, successful or not (email failure notice allowing, there's always some!). Though some people have told me over the years they couldn't care less whether they were "close" or not - or that sometimes it's WORSE to know - the resounding majority of writers are happy to at least hear the outcome, even if they jokingly call it a FFOF or a FO@5.

But here's something else people might be interested to know:

When I first started, sorting scripts was EASY. This is what we did - first we got rid of the scripts that didn't look like scripts, the ones in non-industry standard format. Secondly, we got rid of the scripts that made no sense. Thirdly, we got rid of the scripts with characters we'd seen before, had confusing motivations, indiscernible goals and/or were just plain non-empathetic for any reason.

But it's HARDER now. It really is.

For one thing, most scripts LOOK like scripts, since most are industry standard format. Secondly, far LESS scripts make no sense whatsoever. Thirdly, generally characters - whilst admittedly still sometimes non-empathetic or familiar - usually appear to know what they are doing and why, at least for *most* of the script.

Now, sorting contests is HARD. Readers have to make some really tough choices in who should go through. Sometimes there is quite literally a hair's breadth between who DOES go through and who DOESN'T. It's as simple as that. I've even seen names AND SCRIPTS I recognise do BRILLIANTLY in one contest and yet not even place in another - and this happens all the time. It's even happened to MY scripts.

So next time you get rejected, don't obsess over not winning or placing. It really is the taking part that counts. Honest!

LINKS

Industry Format Ref Guide (PDF)

Resources and articles on character & structure

#scriptchat 4 Nights In August: Longlisted Entries Announced!

2011-10-03T04:02:00.000-07:00

So we had a whopping 241 entries for the London Screenwriters Festival Four Nights In August Competition! To say we were surprised is an understatement. Traditionally, script calls with very specific and difficult briefs like ours usually attract a small amount of entries and our readers initially predicted 50 – 60 entries, yet we received well in excess of this with a WEEK to go before the deadline. Amazing!

As ever, we’ll give you a look inside the spec pile, but first we will announce the top placing entries and their writers. All of the scripts below made it through the first round, gaining a second read. In NO particular order then:

BROOM by Dan Rogers

YOUNG PEOPLE TODAY by Debbie Moon

CHOICE by Gavin Harrison

SHATTERED by Lewis Swift

LOST AND FOUND by Mikey Jackson

OLD NEWS by Nicholas Buss

THE CHOICE by Kristi Barnett

AMY By Louisa Fielden

BURNING BOOKS by Steve Irwin

IN HEAD by Jamie Wolpert

KALAMATA by Hugh Prior

YOU by Dominic Brancaleone

PIRANHA by Kevin Pacey

SPLIT by Alexander Roy

HANNAH & GEORGE by Chip Tolson

FRACTURED by Lynne O’ Sullivan

BIRTHDAY by Michelle Golder

KIDS LIKE US by Martin Thelwell

WASTE by Bev Prosser

WORD ON THE STREET by Christian Hayes

OPPORTUNITY NOX by Stephen Atherton & Ian Gilbertson

WHY? By Milethia Thomas

EVERYTHING YOU NEED by Dave Turner

AFTERSHOCK by Christina Tring

BULLSEYE by Tom Kwei

CONSEQUENCE by Anne Marie Fry

4 NIGHTS IN AUGUST by Mark Hodges

FATHER TO THE MAN by Liz Holliday

THE ARROGANCE OF YOUTH by Sheila McGill

CAUSE & EFFECT by Jordan Sheehy

THEM & US by Daniel Hill

TWO FACES by Joseph Ackroyd

THE FLAME OF MY ANGER by Bella Nova

THE GAME by Terence Barry

RIOTERS AT THE GATES by Jon Cronin & Anna Carmichael

CHOCOLATE by Lizzie Mason

I WITNESS by Gareth Turpie

HOME INVASION by Christopher Bevan

FOUR DAYS ERE THE FESTIVAL OF DEACON LAWRENCE IN AUGUSTUS by Sara Atayiian

Please don’t be despondent if your script didn’t make it through the first round. As ever, there were some hard decisions to be made – I know competition readers always say that, but that’s ‘cos it’s TRUE!

But don’t take my word for it, here’s some “insider info” from our readers about scripts that did not make it past the first round, yet they still loved:

Asib Akram, YESTERDAY’S NEWS. Our reader said, “I would have loved to have put this one through, but the petrol bombs just made it infeasible for the second phase of the contest, the filmmaking challenge.”

Karena Marie Satchwell, AMATEURS. Our reader said, “Brilliantly executed dialogue, the transitions from character to character were fab - but with so much smashing of property, it was just unsuitable for the filmmaking challenge.”

J Mockridge, OUTSIDE LOOKING IN. Our reader said, “A great idea with an interesting twist, but I was unsure of how it could be “translated” by MANY filmmaking teams without making an essentially identical film each time.”

Nikki Edwards, FRAGMENTS. Our reader said, "This one stood out for its simple yet effective structure... However this script scored low in feasibility too due to the need to break into a car AND break a shop window. Much of the first half of the script would have needed to be modified by filmmakers."

Christopher Schiller, STAY HOME, STAY SAFE & Harry Loney, TOCK. Our reader said, "They both fell down on feasibility, but they both stood out for me because I really enjoyed them." (Sometimes it really is as simple as that).

These are just a handful of the great scripts we received – and perhaps already you may see why your entry did not make it past the first round, as “feasibility” for no-budget filmmaking teams was key to ensure scripts progressed … If not however, don’t worry: I will be composing an in-depth “look in the spec pile” as usual later in the week, so keep your eyes peeled!

Team LSF are working very hard now to whittle down the longlisted entries into a shortlist and our next announcement is just days away. Good luck!

Exposition

2011-09-29T02:35:00.000-07:00

Here's the dictionary definition of "exposition" that's relevant to writers:

ex·po·si·tion (ksp-zshn)
n.
1. A setting forth of meaning or intent.
2. The part of a play that provides the background information needed to understand the characters and the action.

In other words then: YOUR STORY AND WHAT IT'S DOING NEEDS TO BE CLEAR TO THE READER.

Pretty simple and obvious, right? Except loads of scripts in the pile don't do this. Why not?

Writers want "mystery". Loads of writers, especially in science fiction & thriller, want to hold something back in order to make a BIG REVEAL at the end. And why not? Twists in the tale are cool. The problem occurs when the writer holds EVERYTHING back, so the story feels "back ended", thus the reader spends 75% of the script wondering what the hell is going on.

Writers want "ambiguity". Sometimes scripts are *too* cut and dried, especially when it comes to character motivation: we have goodies and baddies doing stuff for very specific reasons and it all becomes a little pedestrian. Ambiguity can be desirable, but it's a delicate balance: how much is too much, ie. where is the line drawn between a vengeful hero and a complete psycho we can't empathise with 'cos he's as bad, or even worse, than the antagonist?

Writers don't want to patronise the fans. When writing genre pieces writers often confess they don't want to alienate the die hard fans. This is particularly problematic with science fiction and horror. It happens one of two ways I've noticed generally: writers either invest in convention TOO MUCH or TOO LITTLE, so the reader is either yawning, 'cos it's too predictable (uber-exposition, if you will) or completely confused (what IS this story?).

Writers don't want to USE exposition. That's right. We've heard so much now about the notion of "expositional dialogue" in particular, there appears to be a generation of writers who believe exposition is actually A BAD THING. But if we look back to that dictionary definition, we can see it's actually not - we NEED it.

There are of course more individual issues too when redrafting that occur because of exposition, but speaking generally over the years, I've noticed it tends to fall into one of those four camps above. So how to fix each one?

Well actually, there's ONE way to fix ALL OF THEM.

Mete your exposition out, piece by piece THROUGHOUT the script.

Remember the story of Hansel & Gretel? One of the reasons it's such an enduring fairy tale is because it is so clear in its intent: it's basically a "curiosity killed the cat" story... They followed the breadcrumbs and ended up where they were not supposed to be. They had to vanquish the beast - the Witch - in order to get out of the gingerbread house.

So: utilise the idea of your exposition being "bread crumbs", leading us to your very own gingerbread house - the resolution.

It really is as simple as that.

Most exposition becomes OBVIOUS because it comes *all at once* at a particular point in the script; similarly, exposition becomes CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE, too. If you dose your exposition out, little and often like those breadcrumbs, you'll be surprised by what you can get past not only the reader, but the audience too. What's more, they most likely will WANT it, too.

The End Is Just The Beginning: Adventures In Self Publishing by EJ Mack

2011-09-28T01:42:00.001-07:00

"Why?” Surely the most common question of them all. We ask it constantly as a child and continue to do so right throughout our adult life. As humans we are constantly asking why things are as they are and why people do what they do. But little did I know that I'd be asked this question myself time and time again when people discovered I'd made the choice to self-publish.

I'm not sure it was a conscious decision as such, more one of those organic, grows-on-its-own, kind of things. One minute I was happily taking my first baby steps as a screenwriter, the next I'd dug up an old, unpublished novel called '25 Random Facts' and thought, "I know, I'll blog it and see if people actually think I can write." It was a no-brainer; the thing was already written so demanded no effort from me. I could carry on with my screenplays whilst also finally finding out whether or not I was barking up the right tree when it came to my new career post babies. I'd been writing since I was 20 but always lacked enough self-belief to do anything with it; pursuing agents and publishers was simply too daunting for me. Yet finally, here I was, brave enough to put myself out there and see what came of it. For once I was serious about something.

There were two things I didn't expect however:

1. That pride would force me to re-edit and in some cases re-write each chapter before I released it onto the blog, one chapter a week.

2. That people would actually like it and tell me so. Some of them even got frustrated when I was a day or two late posting the next chapter.

And that's all it took to plant the seed. Oh, and I guess the fact that the media was full of stories of self-published authors making a tonne of money on Amazon might have had some small bearing on it...
Getting it published online took a little patience - it is actually a very simple process once you understand the formatting issues but these can be enough to send you to an early grave. To date I have now published to Amazon (Kindle), Smashwords (all readers) and Lulu and each time I've had to reformat my files and scan them religiously for formatting issues (and there are ALWAYS some hiding in there somewhere). Then of course I had to find a cover image. At this stage I was not aware that you could purchase licenses for images online so I merely doctored a personal photograph. I was just desperate to get it out there and selling as fast as possible.

So finally it was up, out there in the marketplace, ready to be snapped up by all those discerning readers. Except no one was snapping. No one even knew it existed and I was fighting for attention alongside hundreds of thousands of other authors. Suddenly I realised the true benefits of having an agent and publisher on side. Marketing and publicising the book has got to be the hardest, most soul-destroying part of all. The writing was a breeze in comparison to the brick walls I've come up against. I've sent it out to online reviewers, those that I could find, with successful results - the reviews have been fantastic - however I still need to rustle up even more if my book is to have that 'must read' air about it. I've tweeted (what feels like endlessly) about it, I've driven everyone mad on facebook about it. I have a Facebook 'page' and have joined Goodreads. I've even blogged about it whenever I can find the time and have something to report.

But even after all that I began to feel like I was stalling and so decided in the end that what I needed was paperbacks. Once again I went through the formatting process and had promo copies printed. Then I trawled through every publication I could think of that might review it only to discover the same adage - they will not review self-published books. And contrary to popular belief, I don't believe it's anything to do with snobbery about us 'Indie Authors' (sounds so much nicer than 'self-published' don't you think?). Now that I know just how many of us there are out there, I quite appreciate that reviewers need some kind of quality filter to avoid being absolutely inundated with books that they would never find the time to read.

From my experience, what it all amounts to is that the act of self-publishing does not signify the end. Rather it is the beginning of a whole new chapter of roller-coaster highs and lows. The fantastic reviews, the sudden, unexpected sales followed by days, sometimes weeks of nothing. My time now is filled with scouring the web for promotional ideas, playing around with cover art and rewriting blurb to see if it sparks further interest. But most of all I'm back to writing the next book as the more and more I read, the more I understand that in self-publishing, to sell your book the first thing you need to do is write another.
----------------------
BIO: An author and screenwriter from South West London, E J Mack recently self-published her first novel, '25 Random Facts', online and in paperback. She is now busy working on a follow up for release by the end of the year whilst also putting the finishing touches to two screenplays. Find her on Twitter here and read her own blog, here. Finally - Buy 25 Random Facts: what you waiting for!

How Do I Become A Script Reader And/Or Script Editor?

2011-09-22T02:12:00.000-07:00

One question I get asked all the time is, "How do I become a script reader or script editor?"

As I've said before, I never SET OUT to become a script reader. I did the BA (Hons) Scriptwriting for Film & TV course at Bournemouth University and part of the course covered it. As I detail in this post, when work experience came around (which you HAD to do, to pass), it made sense to script read; I was a single Mum with no childcare at the time and I was told I could do it largely from home. I never dreamt it could be - or would be - the start of my media career, though I'm very glad it was.

From script reading, it made sense to make the move into script editing. For those who don't know the difference, it's a subtle one, since yes, both involve actually - you guessed it! - READING THE SCRIPT! In script reading, you'll usually be reading scripts FOR an agency, prodco or initiative; you'll read a script just the once & compose a report on whether said script deserves a second look or not (and eventually, the agent representation and/or the filmmakers the money to make it, though that's usually out of the reader's hands). In comparison then, when you script edit a project, you're much more INVOLVED in the process not only of the writing/revising, but sometimes getting the film made too, like I was with Deviation.

To sum up: script reading is about ASSESSMENT; script editing is about DEVELOPMENT.

But *how* do you become either of these two jobs?

Well first off, I'd recommend being a script reader BEFORE being a script editor. It's not compulsory and I'm sure lots of people will probably think the total opposite, but I happen to think people are much better at script editing if they happen to have read a loooooooooooooooooot of scripts. It not only helps you assess where scripts go wrong on the page, but looking at the slush pile on a regular basis can give you a unique insight of the marketplace from the *inside*.

In the old days, when I started, interning was the sure-fire way "in" to script reading and this has not changed. Getting a few weeks' work experience at a literary agent's or production companies and being given a free rein on their mountain of scripts is a GREAT way to get started, even if it means being thrown in the deep end. I'll never forget one guy opening a door and I saw pile after pile of scripts, stacked up, like tall, Leaning Tower of Pisa formations in a room about the size of a medium kitchen. Eager to impress, I told him I'd get them all read by the end of the summer. "You won't get them all read by the END OF YOUR LIFE," he retorted "... And always plenty more where they came from!"

How the world of interning works HAS changed however since I started. Though university students are exempt, the average intern now requires paying by law. Whilst proper and good that people are not exploited - of course - this DOES mean the opportunities to intern, especially at small companies, have dwindled away. This then has the knock-on effect of work experience opportunities at the bigger companies being FIERCELY competitive. Then of course interning is not for everyone, especially if you have responsibilities and rent, bills etc to pay.

So if you're not a university student but want the necessary script reading training (but can't intern), then there's always a script reading course. These have sprung up in the last decade or so, starting first with The Script Factory, but now including Industrial Scripts and other related courses at Euroscript, London Script Consultancy, Straight Curve and no doubt many others. [PLEASE NOTE: Though I hear many good things about those places I mention from my Bang2writers, I have not done any of the courses so cannot formally recommend... If you can, please add your thoughts to the comments section of this post!].

But maybe for whatever reason you can't do a course, either. Script reading *is* one of those jobs you can do "on the side" and "build up" whilst you "learn on the job". If this is what you want or have to do, there's no reason in the world you can't. Join Peer Review sites and directories, like my Feedback Exchange. Check out sites like Talent Circle. Use social networks like Facebook and Twitter to find filmmakers who need your help. So help them. Learn with them. All build your credits together. Yes, getting that first job will be difficult - but perhaps you can utilise skills from other jobs or education to get "in" with the filmmaker: working with kids at other creative endeavours perhaps, or a degree in English could go a long way. You could try approaching people to help read for contests and initiatives. From there, the world is your oyster. These days I do far more script editing than script reading - and I love it!

So, to conclude:

There's many, many ways in and if you want to create and build your career this way, go for it. Do be aware it can be just as much a slog establishing yourself as actual scriptwriting, this is no "quick fix" or easy route. And don't think you'll earn megabucks, 'cos you won't! ; )

#scriptchat Stephen Gallagher Q & A with Eleanor Ball - Ellie's last post!

2011-09-21T04:41:00.000-07:00

This is Ellie signing off! I've had a great time interning for Lucy over the last few months, meeting people I'd never usually have the chance to meet and learning things I'd never usually have the chance to learn, and I'll consider myself a bona fide Bang2writer for years to come.

For my final blog post I've been given the wriggle-worthy chance to pick the brains of Stephen Gallagher. He's the screenwriter, novelist, director, and all-round Man of Many Bowstrings who created and wrote ITV's Eleventh Hour and NBC's Crusoe. He's also written Doctor Who episodes from the Tom Baker and Peter Davison eras, as well as for Rosemary & Thyme, Bugs, and The Forgotten, which aired last year on ABC. His thrilling back catalogue of bookage includes short story collections Out of His Mind and Plots and Misadventures, and novels he has adapted for TV: Chimera, Oktober, and The Kingdom of Bones.Stephen enjoys long walks and Bovril (but I made that part up).

Stephen has been extremely kind to answer my questions, with very thought-provoking results, rife with great advice. Read on or fight me.

Which is more important to you: writing to entertain, or writing to make people think?

No distinction. All play has purpose, it's wired into the species. Some people have this notion that high art is the only culture and entertainment is 'mere entertainment' and I don't think either's fair. I'm for popular cuture that respects intelligence. Maybe I can explain it this way; when my daughter was small we got onto various mailing lists for toy catalogues. There were the dull ones full of 'educational toys' and then there was the Hawkin catalogue -- full of glorious crap and it read like THE BEANO. But the stuff you found in there did exactly the same things for a kid's mind as the toys designed by a committee of psychologists, with real imagination and without the dull air of State Approval. Thinking is entertainment. The point of art is to make it effortless. You can talk about 'getting the audience to do the work' but you've failed if you don't make them want to. Of course, in making your audience think, you don't want the thought to be, "This is a waste of my time."

Books, television, radio, articles: it seems you've done the whole kaboodle, and then some extra kaboodle on the side. In what medium do you feel most at home?

I feel like an outsider in every medium, if I'm honest, and that may be part of the reason why I've never thrown my lot in with just one. There's also a big element of 'kid in a candy store' about it. Wanting to try your hand at everything.

Radio was at the root of it all, I think, and I'd recommend it to anyone as a grounding for all dramatic writing, whether it's for the page or the screen. I'd done the odd competition story and some amateur work for the theatre but that first radio script was like building your first wall. Get it right or see it fall down. Your basic tools are dialogue and structure -- structure first, really, structure comes before everything -- and what you learn there can be taken onward into prose fiction or screenwriting with equal usefulness.

What do you think makes British dramas like Eleventh Hour so ripe for American adaptation?

The upside of the American network ethos is that they'll try anything that looks as if it might draw them a crowd. They'll buy a pitch, pour money into it, test it, air it, tweak it, drop it, try something else, all in the space of a year. It's brutal but there are plenty of chances to get up and have another go. I got my first real glimpse of the system at a MediaXchange event in London a few years back. Two days of panels and screenings with showrunners, producers and staffers from LA, basically talking you through the system, the practice, the way of putting series together. It was a couple of hundred quid for the weekend, some of the best money I ever spent. Most people there were sent by their production companies. I saw Simon Crawford-Collins and the Spooks writers, and Shefali Malhoutra from Granada. Simon had been my location manager on Oktober, and Shefali would be the development producer on Eleventh Hour. One of the panelists was Luke Reiter, with whom I'd later work on The Forgotten.

One of the things that stuck with me was an improv exercise on the Saturday afternoon where the US writers took unpromising elements yelled out by the audience and turned them into a workable franchise. I began to see the difference between the thinking for a story and the thinking for a show. I put that into practice when I started work on Eleventh Hour but didn't get too far with it on the UK version where I didn't even get to meet the other writers, let alone brief or supervise them. But as one of the JBTV execs later told me, when she picked the pilot script off a pile she spotted my intentions straight away. As British writers start to think more like executive producers we'll find the US taking more interest in our stuff. Then maybe our own broadcasters will be a little more adventurous as they realise they're no longer the only game in town.

Definitions of “science-fiction” are becoming increasingly convoluted – just look at Wikipedia with its measured approach to plausibility within the genre. How do YOU define science-fiction, and what's your attraction to it?

Oh, Jeez. Bear in mind I'm a dinosaur and my conception of what makes sf was formed pre-Star Wars, and by magazine stories and novels rather than by anything on the screen. The heart of sf to me is a surprising idea pushed to its logical conclusion, which can require the creation of an alternate but plausible narrative reality to contain it. Not sf tropes in a bog-standard adventure plot.

You were lead writer on Crusoe (but hang on, that isn't my question). My question is, what exactly is a lead writer? As a lead writer how much influence do you have over the other scripts, and how do you go about finding other scriptwriters for the series?

A lead writer is Britain's gelded version of a showrunner. Both write show-defining scripts, set the series arcs, brief the other writers and take a final pass on the scripts for consistency. But generally speaking, a lead writer has no producing power. If you can fire a director, you're a showrunner. If a director's giving you notes, that's a lead writer. The Crusoe job was an odd hybrid, for two reasons -- time was so short that the production company bought my take in its entirety and let me crack on with it, and then I was working day-to-day with an American producer and network. They expect you to own problems and solve them, not just offer suggestions. The other writers were people known to Power TV in one way or another. NBC brought in Rohan Gavin, and Avrum Jacobson came in from Canada.

Ever sat in Starbucks with a script...?

Nah. See? I told you I wasn't a proper writer.
------------------------------------
LAST WORD FROM LUCY: Thanks Stephen, you're a star. And as for you Ellie, I can safely say it's been a PLEASURE to have had you on board here and at the Facebook site and I know my Bang2writers think so too... Thanks so much for your time and I'm glad you got something out of it 'cos we certainly did: your articles have been insightful, informative, interesting and most importantly, fun to read! Best of luck creating and building your career and see you in the blogosphere and hopefully, "real life" too!

Connect with Ellie here on Facebook and find her own blog here.

I Am Not A Lucky Person

2011-09-15T07:51:00.000-07:00

You don't have to go far to hear writers, filmmakers, actors etc expressing RAGE when told however hard they've worked, they're "lucky". Hell, I include myself on that.

I am not a lucky person.

Name any given situation, even something as small as picking one outcome **or the other** - left or right? Heads or tails? Red or black? - I WILL PICK THE WRONG ONE. 100% true factoid. I've ended up in enough wrong places and lost enough bets and money to know this.

I am a hard working person.

Hell yeah. We all are. I know lots of people think media stuff arrives by magic and/or that we're all rolling in cash after taking a dosser course at uni and/or being in the "right place at the right time", but we all know that actually, getting somewhere in this industry is A LOT harder than it looks.

If I can do it, anyone can.

And I believe this. If you want something badly enough - in my case, to be a writer, but WHATEVER is it is you want - you can do it, if you put your mind to it. If you don't take no for an answer. If you don't let worries (like no money) grind you down. If you keep going in the face of adversity. If you believe hard enough and long enough and NEVER STOP MOVING and KEEP LEARNING and LISTENING.

Except...

It's not automatically as easy as that.

Everything I've just said I believe in 100%, but I also accept a lot of life is luck.

Yes, luck.

A lot of people seem to think the equation is "hard work = everything you deserve", whereas "laziness = everything you deserve" in the same way, only with the reverse outcome. Yet it's possible to work hard and take the luck where we can get it; the latter does not cancel out our previous efforts. And in the same way, those lucky people who we envy as they breeze through life do not make our efforts crud, either.

Then of course there's everything in the middle, 'cos life is rarely about those opposite ends of the scale anyway. Most of us work hard; not all of us get what we deserve. There are hard working people breaking their backs in jobs some (inadvisably) sneer at and people doing all they can to find work, to no avail. Equally, sometimes things - inheritances from estranged relatives; the dream job; the perfect partner - FALL INTO OUR LAPS with minimum effort. We'll accept those things and call it luck and get on with our lives. And why not. We deserve it; we work hard.

But:

No one gave me anything... and yet I've been given everything.

I think life is a paradox. I might work hard now, but I was given a rare gift as a child: a mother who saw my interest and talent in the creative arts and encouraged it. She never said wanting to write was a ridiculous idea. When I wrote stories, she read them and talked about them with me. When I said I wanted to do Media Studies, she never said it was a pointless dosser course or tried to steer me towards a more "acceptable" subject. She never tried to live through me or mould me into something she thought I should be. And one time - a real strong memory of mine, when I was aged about 8 - she took me into a bookstore and said I could have as many books as I wanted. I remember coming out with about a HUNDRED (though I think it was probably more like 10-15) and having the biggest smile on my face, sure I must have the BEST MUM IN THE WORLD. And of course I did.

But again - that was just luck. I could have been born into a completely different family: perhaps one with a matriarch who thought writers were - God Forbid - wasters or liars. Or one where the only "respectable" jobs were those where you could do something TANGIBLE, like being a lawyer, doctor or teacher. Or maybe just one where education was something where time was marked until OF COURSE you left school at 16 and went out to work - wherever, who cares, a job is a job - what *else* would you do??

Don't forget where you came from... or what it took to get here.

OK, that line's from ROCKY IV. Doesn't make it any less true. All of us started somewhere. Some of us are lucky and our personalities, talents and whims are nurtured. For some of us, we grow up in spite of our backgrounds - family, financial, whatever. Wherever we began, we can pat ourselves on the back and say, "If I can do it, anyone can" - OR we can also accept Lady Luck, The Gods, Fate, Dr Who or whomever has smiled on us and given us a break SOMEWHERE, even if we can't pinpoint exactly when or how that was.

I am not a lucky person.

Except I'm doing what I always wanted to be doing. It's hard work. But I'd rather be doing this than anything else in the world.

So I AM lucky after all.

ON THIS BLOG BEFORE ABOUT LUCK:

How Do I Become A Professional Scriptwriter?

It's Not About Luck... And It Totally Is

Submissions, Rejections & Relationships

Are We There Yet? (Making It As A Writer)

Good Luck (A Post On Making Your Own)

Sitcom: Friends Vs Seinfeld by Eleanor Ball

2011-09-14T08:33:00.000-07:00

You know TV programmes used for whimsical padding? Those you watch without scheduling, and when you're exhausted; like Deal or No Deal or Family Guy, the TV equivalents of toast and jam? Those type of programmes take up a significant portion of my life (oh what a busy girl), so I was one of the loudest mourners as repeats of Friends ended last week. I was hammering tearfully on its already well-pummelled gravestone.

Friends has to be the ultimate whimsical padding. For most it doesn't result in any great frenzy of emotion; it doesn't abuse the tear ducts or evacuate the stomach. It earns titters from some, and eye rolls from others. And because the episodes were repeated on E4 and Channel 4 in endless loops of stupid New York skylines and twanging incidental music, it could pop into your day and night at any time. At different points in my life over the last few years I've watched it with dinner at 7PM, then again at 7AM after struggling home and trying to stay awake in the hour before lectures began. Those six creamy New Yorkers followed me wherever I went.

Usually I watch sitcoms instead of listening to music, when packing or dressing or cooking (hah! I don't cook) or getting up in the morning (hah! I don't get up in the morning) – or even writing. With its pre-chewed mouthfuls of humour and warmth Friends was ideal for background fodder, so what will I use now that the repeats are finished?

As I write this I'm watching Seinfeld. Season 7, episode 9. Titled The Sponge. In which Elaine stockpiles her favourite birth control product when the pharmacist stops selling them. Given her finite supply, she has to decide whether or not her boyfriend is “Spongeworthy”.

I can't find Seinfeld on TV but I found it online, and it's the perfect Friends replacement. In fact, compare the first season with the first season of Friends and you'll find out where Friends got its ideas from. Seinfeld is very funny and very easy to watch, though it can be difficult to use as background fodder given that the show often provides us with excruciating scenarios and we want to find out who ends up on top. It's especially fun if you watch it in the knowledge that George is based on co-creator Larry David, of Curb Your Enthusiasm fame. Seinfeld is scripted and Curb Your Enthusiasm unscripted, but it's amazing how the quality of ridiculous social observations don't differ much between the two.

British audiences seem to love social observations (just look at our stand-up comedians in contrast to the “yo momma” norms of Stateside comedy gigs), but somehow Seinfeld just wasn't as big a hit over here as Friends was. Yes Seinfeld appeals less to kids, but most adults prefer Chandler to Jerry any day. You'd expect British audiences to lap up Seinfeld's liberal anti-prude agenda and long-lasting decision to have no sentiment or messages at the end of episodes.

So E4 should show repeats of Seinfeld instead, then. But it won't. So if you find yourself with 22 minutes to put your feet up on the coffee table, and you're confronted with Friends' sudden lack of omnipresence, don't despair! Put on Seinfeld instead. It's funnier, cleverer, and, unlike Friends, it's not a guilty pleasure – it's just a pleasure.

---------------
Eleanor just finished the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

Guest Post - Sex & Drugs & Filter Rolls: Is Punk Cinema Possible? By Dylan Spicer

2011-09-11T07:51:00.000-07:00

Many thanks to Step2Inspire writer and all round good guy Dylan Spicer who has stepped into the blog breach this week as I wrestle with London Screenwriters' Festival stuff, including our recent Tweetfest. Connect with Dylan on Twitter here and read other articles by him here. Enjoy!
------------------------------------------
Last week I watched the Ian Dury 2010 biopic Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll. Andy Serkis was superb in the main role, and it really managed to capture the feel of Dury’s music and life. But what I found interesting is that although the movie may contain “punk” themes, production wise a film of this nature doesn’t live up to these ideals. It is a massive financial undertaking, especially when advertising and promotion are considered. Each shot would have been carefully thought out, each role both in acting and costume meticulously worked on. This is not even to mention the sheer amount of organisation, logistics, and bacon sandwiches that must have been required to make the shoot a possibility.

And in terms of the success of the movie, fair enough. Also the makers of Sex & Drugs were never actually trying to make a punk movie, rather a movie about a punk. However, is it possible to make a movie within the notion of “punk”- something truly innovative, without ever selling out, whilst at the same time having a bloody good time? Turning to the lower echelons of indie cinema may provide an answer.

For example, Pink Flamingos, John Water’s 1972 look at the most offensive family in the world, is a disgusting array of various shocking scenes. Be it unsimulated coprophagia, or references to chid abduction, the content is still genuinely controversial to this day. Shot as it was by Waters and his friends at the weekend, despite low production values the movie challenges social norms, whilst clearly the crew are having a great time filming it.

However, it was still shot on film, and the cost of stock and processing will mount up regardless. Waters came from a rich background, fortunate enough to be able to shoot in such a reckless style, and reshoot should the contents be unusable. Should another artist in a different financial position want to try a similar thing, he would need some kind of financial backing that might well veto the project.

So can decent cinema be done on a low budget? The digital revolution provides an alternative. This is certainly not movies like The Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity, which still requires the weight of Hollywood distribution behind them to succeed. Rather, something like Youtube or Blip that allows users to upload their content for free seemingly can allow features or serials to be shot for nothing across the world. And yet even here we have the stipulations of a big company. Be it nudity clauses, certain rules on decency and taste, and even then, the technical and financial know how that the internet brings. It seems even this, the closest we can get to a punk movie, is still stuck in bureaucracy.

So it may seem as if Sex & Drugs & Rock &Roll is nothing more than a classic example of how any attempt to portray an alternative lifestyle in cinema can never actually live up to the ideals shown. Yet perhaps this shows the fallacy of the whole notion of “punk” art. Is it any different from the distribution of the real Ian Dury’s work? All his hits are freely available on iTunes or in HMV, and often used in various adverts and campaigns. But does that really detract from the original message of the music?

Film is such an expensive and logistical nightmare that to create it within a truly alternative set of rules is virtually impossible. But film is such a powerful medium capable of stirring such a different range of emotions,ultimately what the film is trying to achieve with its message is vastly more important than a vague of notion of not selling out.

"Four Nights In August" - One Page Scriptwriting Contest from @londonswf

2011-09-08T09:27:00.000-07:00

FOUR NIGHTS IN AUGUST: A one page screenwriting contest from the London Screenwriters’ Festival – enter a one page script, based around the theme of the London Riots 2011, to win a ticket to London Screenwriters Festival 2011.

Three nights of rioting in London, Birmingham and Manchester shocked the nation this August and stirred high feelings about the state of the UK and the people within it.

Condemnation, criticism and finger pointing was rife from politicians and the public alike, with even celebrities taking to social networks to voice their disapproval and beliefs about why it happened and what should be done with the perpetrators.

LSF’s own Chris Jones witnessed rioting on his very own doorstep in Ealing and blogged about his feelings on the matter, READ HERE.

But what do YOU feel about the riots? We want to know – in the form of a one page script. Consider what happened before the events, what happened during them, and afterward? Who was involved and how? Why were they involved? What was the impact on their lives and of the lives of the people around them? And what does it mean to them, to you and to us all?

We want to read your stories!

As ever, the challenge will be to say the most with the least, this is why we have imposed the one page limit.

The winner will get a free ticket to the festival, October 28-30th 2011, other goodies and his/her script will be showcased and made available so that ANY film maker can produce the screenplay and upload the film to YouTube in a separate contest.

The deadline for the contest is Friday, September 30th, MIDDAY GMT – so get scribbling!

To enter, send your one page screenplay, along with your email and phone number and name to...

contests@londonswf.com

Accepted format

PDF ONLY

FAQs and Terms and Conditions below.

1. Does it have to be DURING the actual riots, or can it be just *about* the riots?
The riots are the theme, not the location/time. We want to know what you/your characters think of the riots or how they coped – interpret that as you wish.

2. Can my script be about fictional riots?
No, we want the script to be about the actual riots that struck the UK in August, 2011.

3. If I win, will my script definitely get made?
No – it will be made available on the website for others to read, and should filmmakers wish to, make – in a perfect world, several film making teams may produce the winning screenplay and you will be able to see how one script ends up interpreted by different people! But if that does not appeal and you do not want your script to made available like this, please do not enter.

2. Can I use dialogue?
It’s totally up to you: use dialogue, don’t use dialogue, whatever you want!

3. Is there a fee for this contest?
No, it’s 100% free. So please tell ALL your writery friends.

4. Can I use alternative formatting to fit my script on one page?
No. Please use standard spec script format, otherwise we will have no choice but to disqualify your script (just so it’s fair for everyone). If you’re not sure what the standard for spec scripts is, CHECK OUT THIS 1 PG REF GUIDE.

5. Can I go over the one page *just a tiny bit*?
Nope, sorry. And don’t try any tricks like over-widening the margins, ‘cos our crack team of readers will find you out and hunt you down like the dogs you are. Or disqualify you, whichever is quicker.

6. My script HAS to be more than one page in order to make sense. Can I enter it anyway?
No, sorry. This is a one page script competition, so not the place for your script. Any scripts longer than one page will have to be disqualified.

7. Can I enter more than once?
No, sorry. Just the one entry this time.

8. But I’ve already bought a ticket to the festival!
Fantastic – in that case, if you win, we will refund you so you’d still be coming for free.

9. Can writers from overseas enter?
Yes of course – though please note getting to the festival and accommodation to take advantage of the prize ticket is the winner’s responsibility, not ours.

10. Where do I send my script?
Please send your script to contests@londonswf.com PDF ONLY. Please ensure you have a TITLE PAGE attached to your one pager, complete with the title of the script, your name and a valid email address. If we don’t know what it’s called or whom it’s by, we won’t enter the script into the contest. And if we don’t know how to contact you, we can’t tell you if you’ve won!

Terms and Conditions
• The screenplay must be no more than 1 page and correctly formed as per the
following guidelines POSTED HERE. Anything over one page will be disqualified.
• Only one entry per individual and or writing team. However, an individual can enter a script once and again with NEW script with a writing partner.
• Deadline for submissions are FRIDAY , SEPTEMBER 30TH 2011, Midday GMT.
• The winner receives one free ticket to the 2011 London Screenwriters Festival. Winners who previously purchase tickets to the festival (highly recommended) will receive full refund of their ticket price.
• Winners will be notified before the festival.
• By submitting your script to the competition you agree that you hold harmless ScriptPlus Limited, London Screenwriters Festival, Comedy Writers Festival and any of its affiliates and or sponsors from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, and expenses (including but not limited to attorney's fees, and costs of the court) which may be incurred by reason of any claim involving copyright, trademark, credits, publicity, screening, and loss of or damage to the screening videos entered.

BUT WHAT NEXT? My Novel & The Current Abortion Debate

2011-09-03T01:49:00.000-07:00

As anyone who follows me on Facebook or Twitter knows, this last week I have been imploring my friends and followers to email their MP regarding Nadine Dorries' and Frank Field's proposed amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill regarding abortion.

For anyone who may have missed it, Dorries and Field believe women seeking abortions should be offered counselling "independently", as they think charities who perform abortions such as Marie Stopes and BPAS, have a "financial conflict of interest" - in other words, those organisations are too "pro-abortion" to be "trusted" to give women impartial advice as those £s apparently come into play.

There have been many arguments against the above notion and the amendments themselves this past week and I can't put mine any better than the array of links I have composed below this blog post. Certainly, the government has already performed a massive U-turn on its support for the proposals, though it's unclear at the time of writing whether the vote will be taken or not next week.

I hope not. I am vehemently Pro-Choice. So much so, I wrote a whole novel about it aimed at teen girls 14 - 20, which recently sold in Germany to Rowohlt Publishing and is currently being considered by a number of British publishers.

BUT WHAT NEXT? is a Pro-Choice book, exploring the phenomenon of teenage pregnancy from the protagonist Elizabeth's angle, where she literally LIVES all the ways her life could turn out: the Sliding Doors effect if you like. I became frustrated with depictions of unplanned pregnancy in soap, movies and books a long time ago. Always, teens are confronted with unexpected pregnancy and after a short period of freaking out - and perhaps visiting an abortion clinic and then running out - they opt to keep the baby. From there they are frequently bad mothers or slide into post natal depression and various other things go wrong for them. I read this character frequently in spec scripts and in recent years, I've spotted only Diablo Cody's Juno as even **attempting** to offer another side to the teen Mum.

In one sense, the story requires drama and conflict, so writers cannot be blamed for opting characters keeping babies - had the character had an abortion, the story would be over pretty quickly. Or would it? I'm not convinced - which is why I included a section on abortion in BUT WHAT NEXT? And guess what: it was as long as all the other chapters! Showing depictions of abortion *can* be part of stories, as long as we let it. And I think we must.

Many people express surprise at my beliefs on the importance of society being Pro-Choice. I have, essentially, lived my own life the Pro-Life way: I got pregnant as a teen (unplanned) and kept the baby, with no consideration of abortion. That's not to say I wasn't scared way back then, or I had everything I needed even, least of all the support and love of the baby's father. Having the baby was just something I HAD to do.

And that's just it. I believe absolutely in women's rights to CHOOSE and to be TRUSTED to make those decisions. I don't believe for a moment these amendments are really about counselling, but access to abortion. We don't live in an age where getting information is difficult. You need only Google the word "abortion procedure" to receive a plethora of results on how it is carried out. These amendments make the supposition a woman doesn't have the wit or maturity to understand what she is doing and must be "guided". Do we honestly believe women have been so busy playing with kittens Harry Enfield-style they've never even THOUGHT about such things as abortion in advance of needing one, or spoken to OTHER WOMEN about their experiences? As Suzanne Moore writes in the Guardian: "... Beware [these amendments'] language of care. This is not about care but about control."

I might be Pro-Life personally and always see a pregnancy through to its natural conclusion, but that is MY choice. I am Pro-Choice politically because my life and circumstances are not the same as other women's. When I decided, aged just fourteen (really!), I would never have an abortion, I made that decision knowing full well that though my parents were not well off, they would NEVER outcast me for it. They would welcome a grandchild, even in less than ideal circumstances - which they ended up doing. Again, that's not to say all was easy 'cos it wasn't for any of us, but they never wavered in their support and respect of my decision.

Think now about how different my decision might have ended up because I wasn't as lucky to have parents as great as that. What if they had told me to get an abortion or never darken their doors again? What if I had been in care? Consider medical problems I may have had, which might have made it difficult to carry through a pregnancy: is something like diabetes more "allowable" than say, having mental health issues? There are other, more "grey" areas too: what if I had been at university, studying for a career where single parenthood cannot be combined with it as "easily" as becoming a writer - ie. becoming a doctor? Philosophically, is one life - the potential child's - worth "more" than those other people I may have saved during the course of my career? And then let's not forget the endless finger-pointing at single mothers, especially those who must claim support from the state. Are women selfish for wanting an abortion, or selfish for wanting to keep the child when they have no money? Is having money the only barrier or ticket into parenthood??? The list goes go on and on because there are SO MANY differing individual circumstances. It can even change in an individual woman, depending what "stage" she is in her life!

Being Pro-Choice recognises a "one size fits all" approach to abortion access cannot work, because every woman is different. This blog post by Gia, 19 Weeks, sums up exactly why - not from a writer like me musing about it - but from a nurse on the front line. (Be warned those of a delicate disposition are advised not to read).

This is why I hope Dorries' and Field's proposals don't go through next week - and why I hope you'll take a moment to email your MP about them.

LINKS

Abortion Rights website - email your MP about Dorries' & Field's amendments

FACT CHECK: Cutting Through The Rhetoric On Abortion - a neutral examination of Nadine Dorries' and Frank Field's proposals

The Costs And Consequences of Dorries' Proposals - let's cut through the emotive stuff and break down the FIGURES and what they mean

How The Abortion Amendments Pose A Health Risk To Women - As it says on the tin

The Latest Abortion Statistics For England And Wales - this makes surprising reading as to *who* is having abortions and in which age groups abortion is actually DOWN. We must turn the usual lazy stereotypes on their head

Interview With The Chief Executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) Anne Furedi - why a Pro-Choice society is needed

Tory MP And Novelist Louise Mensch's attempt at an Amendment - make sure you read the comments for Dr Evan Harris' view on why it's STILL fundamentally flawed

What The Conservative Women's Organisation Thinks Of The Amendments - Dorries cannot count on her fellow women's support

Is It Possible To Be Pro-Life AND Pro-Choice? - A fascinating essay about the limitations of following one "side" OR the other

Georgia Law Could Give Death Penalty For Miscarriages - unbelievable, hey? This bill was actually proposed in February of THIS YEAR in the US... Let's not let the UK get this far!!!

Terrifying Tweetfest: The First @londonswf Contest Launches

2011-09-02T04:55:00.001-07:00

Want to win a FREE ticket to London Screenwriters Festival? Then get yourself to Twitter my friend! We're reviving our twitter logline competition, this time called The Terrifying Tweetfest: in honour of Halloween (LSF 2011 takes place just before it) we want your HORROR loglines!!

Simply write a tweet of 140 characters incorporating the hashtag #LSFhorror to be in with your chance of winning.

Not sure what a logline is? Then check out The Required Reading List, there's a whole section on them. Remember a logline is NOT a tagline!

But HURRY UP - the Tweetfest closes next Friday (Sept 9th) at 5pm GMT.

ENTER NOW - Go Go Go!

Here are all the terms and conditions - please check the FAQ below before contacting LondonSWF or Bang2write on Twitter.

FAQ

What do I get if I win?
You get a 3 day pass to the London Screenwriters’ Festival 2011, worth £300, 28th to 30th October 2011. If you have already bought a ticket, we will give you a refund.

It’s not a Horror Festival, why have you chosen a horror logline contest this time?
‘Cos it’s Halloween the Monday after the festival … And ‘cos Judy, the festival manager, needs some inspiration about what she’s going to do to unwind… Some SAW booby-trap-type antics? Sucking unsuspecting victims’ blood? Terrorising some people in the woods?

How many times can I enter this one?
You can enter three times. Any seen after the third will be disregarded.

What’s the deadline?
The deadline is Friday, September 9th, 5pm GMT.

What if I forget the #LSFHorror hashtag in my tweet?
Then you won’t get entered into the contest! The hashtag is to help us with our searches and make sure no one gets missed, so make sure you include it.

Can people from overseas enter?
Yes.

How will you pick the winner?
Team LSF will pool its opinions and pick its favourite 10 from the tweets (after Sept 9th). We will then rank the top ten in order of preference. The top ten will be published to the LSF site at London Screenwriters’ Festival 2011.

Can I post my logline on the LSF Facebook page?
No, sorry – the twitfest is Twitter only, any loglines written on the FB page will be disregarded.

I’m not sure what a logline is, can you help?
Sure. Check out The Required Reading List – Loglines has its own section! Find it here.

Can I enter a hybrid genre logline, ie. Horror-comedy, Horror-SF, etc?
Of course you can. But do make sure we can know what it is from the *tone* of the logline!

I’m not on Twitter. Can you post my logline for me?
No, sorry – we’ve got loads of admin on at the moment and we’d hate to go and forget your loglines, so this is a Twitter contest ONLY. Why not join Twitter though? It’s free and offers loads of great contacts and info for writers, especially if you follow the #scriptchat hashtag. A guide to getting started on Twitter.

140 Characters minus #LSFhorror, are you kidding? That’s totally not enough space to write my logline.
You’d be surprised how much you can squeeze into a tweet, even with a hashtag! It’s certainly a handy exercise for writers, give it a go!

Hmmmm…. I dunno. If I post my logline online like this, how do I know Team LSF won’t try to nick my idea? Or one of the delegates??
You can’t copyright an idea anyway. Plus script readers see the same ideas ALL THE TIME, it’s the execution of that idea that counts. Really! So why not give our contest a go? You’ve REALLY got nothing to lose… Check out this post about WHY people don’t nick scripts or ideas.

GOOD LUCK!!

Q & A: Eleanor Ball asks Industrial Scripts about Talent Connector

2011-09-01T08:14:00.001-07:00

The friendly souls over at Industrial Scripts have recently launched a new service: Talent Connector. So I pinned them to a wall and asked them what it's all about.

1. Hello! Who are you?

We are Industrial Scripts, a London-based script consultancy comprised of some of the UK’s leading script editors and backed by Paramount Pictures and the Curtis Brown talent agency.

2. What makes Talent Connector different from other script development services?

There are a number of script development services open to UK writers but ours is the first free talent promotion service backed by major companies. As the name implies, Talent Connector allows us to act as an intermediary between unrepresented talent and interested parties. We don’t do the work of an agent and we don’t take a fee if a project sells or if a writer attracts an agent, but instead we deliver a verdict on scripts of a certain quality and, due to our industry credentials, our opinion is taken seriously.

3. Do I need to have scriptwriting experience or qualifications to submit my script?

Anyone who signs up for one of our selected feedback services is eligible. Experience isn’t required – talent is the key!

4. Are you more likely to recommend my script if it's broad and familiar, or do you have a stronger taste for the weird stuff?

The straightforward answer is we’ll promote a script irrespective of genre so long as it demonstrates ability. Different companies in the film and TV industries are looking for different types of material and we’ll promote any project provided we think the writing is of a high enough standard.

5. Will I find an agent through Talent Connector?

If we find your script to be outstanding then it is very unlikely that agents won’t show an interest in you on the back of our recommendation. We can facilitate those scripts with potential but we’re not the Corleone family: we can’t strong-arm agents and producers into taking on scripts which are lacking in promise or expertise. Our service is most suited to talented writers who lack connections – something which we can offer them.

6. If you recommend my script, what are the chances that it will go all the way to the screen?

Film and TV are notoriously unpredictable industries, with all kinds of variables beyond a writer’s control. Unless you are a ‘name’ writer – and even then – you’ll have to jump over a lot of hurdles to get your project to the screen. Our goal with Talent Connector is to help with that first, absolutely crucial step for people with abundant talent but few contacts.

The Official Press Release for Talent Connector - all the details

-----------------------------
Thanks Ellie! I'm sure lots of writers will find this spotlight on Talent Connector very useful. Have you used Industrial Scripts or been recommended by Talent Connector? Let other Bang2writers know your thoughts over on the Facebook page.

Industrial Scripts, Talent Connector Service - Press Release

2011-09-01T08:12:00.000-07:00

Industrial Scripts launches 1st UK script promotion programme, backed by Curtis Brown Group

The ongoing programme assesses film & TV scripts and champions the best unrepped talent to come through the company’s coverage system, using Industrial Scripts’ experience and network. It is the first of its kind in the UK and Industrial Scripts neither charges writers fees to market projects, nor takes a fee if projects sell or attract the representation of an agent.

Industrial Scripts is the London-based script consultancy founded by some of the UK’s leading script editors, hosting the broadest range of script development services in Europe.

The company, active in script development, training and the education sector since January 2010, also recently launched a successful script doctoring/re-write service through two ex-UK Film Council Executives: THE KING’S SPEECH Creative Editor Aaron Anderson and THE IRON LADY Story Editor Jon Croker. Its script editors all have high-end industry experience, consulting for companies including the UK Film Council, Paramount Pictures, BBC Films, Ealing Studios, Scott Free, Working Title and Warner Bros.

Talent Connector is continuously open for submissions, all year round, and will culminate each December with the announcement of the Industrial Scripts Gold List – when the best 10 scripts to pass through the coverage system will be revealed, and prizes awarded.

Evan Leighton-Davis of Industrial Scripts said: “5 years ago the first line on the script filter was the agencies. Now, however, many agents can’t even accept unsolicited material due to the volume of submissions, leaving new writers scratching their heads as to where to turn. We’re confident we’ve created an everyone-wins filtration system with Talent Connector: writers receive industry-standard script feedback from vastly experienced development professionals, and the opportunity to have their work championed at no extra cost; while execs, agents and producers can access already-vetted scripts without exposing themselves to an unmanageable surfeit of material. Similar programmes have been highly successful in America and we are confident we’ll unearth great talent in the UK too”.

Nick Marston, MD of The Curtis Brown Group said: “As an agency time-management is becoming increasingly important in the crowded digital landscape we all now inhabit. As the volume of scripts and writers grows year-on-year it’s important to think of innovative ways of assessing and tracking new talent, and we are delighted to be backing the respected script consultants within Industrial Scripts and their Talent Connector programme, which we think will become the main access and entry point for new talent in the industry”.

The first set of qualifying film & TV projects was released to agents, execs and producers on 20th July 2011, and further releases will occur once a month thereafter.

Bona fide agents, executives, producers and directors across the industry can subscribe to Industrial Scripts’ once-a-month newsletter containing details of qualifying film & TV projects by emailing info@industrialscripts.co.uk with their CV attached, and “Talent Connector Opt-In” in the subject line.

A comprehensive FAQ about Talent Connector can be found here: http://industrialscripts.co.uk/talent-connector-public/

All information about Industrial Scripts and its script consultants can be found here: http://industrialscripts.co.uk/

LSF 2011 is GO! First Speakers, Sessions etc Announced

2011-08-28T03:53:00.000-07:00

That's right, the London Screenwriters Festival 2011 website is LAUNCHED - go check it out now for a first look at people who will be there, including the mighty ASHLEY PHAROAH of Life on Mars, Ashes to Ashes and Wild At Heart! There's also a taster of some of the fab sessions that will also be running, including speed pitching, script clinics, designated networking sessions and more!

And there's plenty more where all that came from... watch this blog and Chris Jones', the website or Facebook or Twitter pages for more BIG announcements in the coming weeks. I can't tell you how excited I am, I loved the 2010 event, but feel sure this one will be EVEN BIGGER AND BETTER - and that's not hyperbole either. Industry People saw how well last year's event came together in such a short time, so are even MORE keen to get involved in this year's - delegates are in for a treat!!

And of course all Bang2writers are welcome to a nice big fat discount if you haven't bought your ticket yet - how does £30 off sound to you?? Just go to the big orange button on the right hand side of the LSF website that says BUY TICKETS and enter code BANG2WRITE.

And of course LSF would not be without its WRITING COMPETITIONS - a few of you have been asking about The Greenlight Award, which has been replaced this year. BIG ANNOUNCEMENT SOON!!!

Can't wait.

See you there!

Rom Com Guilty Pleasures by Eleanor Ball

2011-08-21T07:32:00.000-07:00

Love, Actually has got to be one of the nation's favourite guilty pleasures. The other week, over on the Bang2write Facebook page, I asked what you think of Richard Curtis's shameless Christmassy love fest and I got some interesting answers.

We had one or two people take away Brownie Points for its Christmas setting! Bah, humbug. Sure enough there is a jingle-jangle fairytail lightness to Love, Actually, and I imagine the film reel smells of fruitcake, but it's watchable any time of year. At least, any time of year you feel like an indulgence. I think we all put on a bit of weight when we watch Love, Actually.

But that's the perfect setting, because the film relies on indulgence and overcoming pessimism. If you can get through Love, Actually you've well and truly embraced the wonderful world of Rom Com indulgence.

Love, Actually may not be the best Rom Com out there – though Hugh “News of the World Nemesis” Grant does top a few, like About a Boy, which isn't really about romantic love; it's about a boy. And Love, Actually is about love, actually, and resolutely so, despite not being the best romcom out there. I mean, take this famous screenshot:

Why does Keira Knightley's character need to be told she's perfect, huh? Since when did she have self-esteem issues? They must have cut out a scene in which she sobs “ooh my husband doesn't think I'm perfect, what am I going to do?”

Anyway, although it doesn't reek of quality, Love, Actually certainly towers above the rest in terms of... quantity.

Back over on Bang2writers John made the very good point that Love, Actually has strength in its structure. It tells about a dozen stories of lurve; stories that, were each to be a feature film on its own, would be drawn out and dry. You know how we often praise films for showing bits of the story that “we don't normally see”? Love, Actually does the opposite; it shows only the biggest and best parts of the story.

Take Colin Firth's story. It comes in four parts. 1) Boy meets girl, 2) boy falls in love with girl, 3) boy and girl part ways and 4) boy and girl spend their suspiciously copious free time learning one another's languages and then meet up and suddenly get engaged in a crowd of randoms.

If that had been a feature length story, we would have learned more about those randoms, we would have explored Colin Firth's backstory as a writer, and we would have learned at least something about the female love interest, but really what we want to see is the first meeting, the falling in love, and the kiss. With Love, Actually we're allowed to skip the main course and go straight to dessert. That's why we put on weight when watching it.

Writing a guilty pleasure Rom Com must surely be just as guiltily pleasurable as watching it. You can shy away from logic and realism and instead paint beautiful pictures of what we want to see. Cosy bits, passionate bits, heartbreaking bits; and, let's face it, bits in which at least one character takes their top off.

I would've thought Rom Com would be a pleasure to write anyway, but we heard on Bang2writers that our own Lucy has read more than enough romcom scripts to know that there there is a lot of room in which to stumble disastrously off track. As Lucy says, there can be not enough Rom and not enough Com. Love, Actually is stuffed with both, and when we've not got Rowan Atkinson pulling faces, we've got Emma Thompson and a stepfather-stepson relationship playing guitar on our heartstrings.

Even cynics can enjoy guilty pleasures like Love, Actually, but you have to push through a barrier of self-awareness first and shake off the cynicism, which is sometimes best done on your own, and in secret. And, as a tip: sometimes shame can be scrubbed off using sandpaper.
---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

Fans of Fiction: cool or uncool? By Eleanor Ball

2011-08-08T01:20:00.000-07:00

Fans of fiction.

Are they cool?

A lot of fan culture takes place online, and we've established now that the internet is cool. See, we're on it as we speak, and we're super-cool. The Social Network is one of the biggest films of the past decade; it seduced critics, hustled massive audiences, and rolled around in Oscars the way Colin Firth rolls around in melted chocolate (which he does, by the way, and often).

And in The Social Network the geeky jabbering and lines of code are perpetually melded with beer, parties, and Victoria's Secret models. These things are cool, and The Social Network was cool, alongside its subject matter Facebook, which is seen by some as being the core of the internet. The internet is cool.

But the natural home of the fan is not social networks but message boards. Facebook and Twitter are about quick short updates and the “like” button, but fans prefer to ramble and analyse. When I was 15 I joined a Green Wing fan forum in which the key subject was Stephen Mangan's chest hair. No joke.

Maybe an issue some people have with such fans is that they fixate on things they are unlikely to be a part of – someone they'll never meet, a series they'll never write, and so on. It's better, perhaps, to fixate on something that belongs to you. I had the pleasure of attending a screening of West is West at BAFTA earlier this year, and the producer, Leslee Udwin, spoke about the film beforehand. I don't think I've heard anyone speak so passionately about a film. She's a real West is West fangirl! Devoted to something she's actually a part of.

So perhaps the idea is that if you're devoted to something you're nowhere near a part of, then you're a bit of a loser. I've heard this opinion a thousand times, from friends and strangers alike.

And they're WRONG! Because if you participate in fan culture online and immerse yourself in a story and maybe even contribute to it with fanfic (just look at all the Doctor Who writers who started off writing fan fiction), then you're an enormous part of it. Take Harry Potter. Very current topic of conversation given the release of the final movie (which I loved!).

JK Rowling admitted to consulting fan website The Harry Potter Lexicon while writing her books, and I recently returned to Mugglenet for the first time in 9 years to find it bursting with essays that would make English literature graduates gaze shamefully at their feet. Fans are now an enormous part of the Harry Potter world. Actually, they kind of ARE the Harry Potter world!

So these people are devoted to their fixation and they're actually part of it too; like the producer is a part of West is West; in a completely different capacity, but just as passionate.

Therefore, it's not really valid to think fans are uncool because they're wasting their time on something they're not a part of. They're a big part of it, so they're not wasting their time. And at least it's cooler than golf...
---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

Linda Aronson Advanced Screenwriting Masterclass - MASSIVE discount for Bang2writers!!!

2011-08-02T05:40:00.000-07:00

I read LOADS of scripts that try to use advanced storytelling techniques, such as time jumps, tandem narrative, flashback and non-linearity. And guess what: 99% of them do not use these techniques well. This is why these techniques end up with a bad name in the spec pile, which of course is such a shame and threatens creativity as readers on work experience end up believing McKee-style assertions about supposed "lazy writing" instead.

If only there was someone who ran classes on HOW to use these devices WELL...

... Oh wait THERE IS! None other than Linda Aronson. Now I met Linda at London Screenwriters Festival last year and can not only report she's a LOVELY PERSON, she's great at what she does as well - which is explaining how narrative works and how we can break it down and represent it.

Linda is running one such class this November (12th/13th), brought to you by Team LSF. A 2 Day Class, this would normally be £119.00 - but to Bang2writers, you need only pay £65!!! That's right. Just SIXTY FIVE POUNDS - that's £32.50 per day for fab insights that could very well change your scriptwriting for the better FOREVER.

Just enter code BANG2WRITE at the site to get your discount. And tell all your writing friends!

What Makes "Star Quality"? By Eleanor Ball

2011-07-31T07:15:00.001-07:00

I've been hearing a lot of things about Jennifer Aniston recently, which got me thinking. What kind of noise do you make when you hear the name “Jennifer Aniston”?I hear “urrrgh” or “yaaaay!” or “gaaaah” or “squeee!” or “SHHH”. Turns out that for such a supposedly vanilla streak of innocuous American camera-fodder she's quite a controversial figure. (This blog post, by the way, is about her career, not her personal life.)

I've been asking folk what they think of her, and the noises do indeed come before the coherent verbal opinions. Sometimes it's a non-committal “mehh”, usually meaning they remember her from Friends but they don't have any opinion on her, but often it's a far more committed sound, either very negative or very positive. Hollywood certainly thinks we have a great positive reaction to her. Because, as a unit, we kind of do. Innit.

She's nice. Look at her hair and everything. She leapt into the limelight with Friends, where spoilt and selfish Rachel turned into a sympathetic and appealing flag-bearer for young city women. Jennifer Aniston became synonymous with Rachel, and because Friends was such a broad and inoffensive series Jennifer Aniston became a role model for young girls.

I grew up watching Friends, and, like everyone else in the universe, my favourite characters were Chandler and Phoebe. But as an adult I decided that Chandler was self-righteous and Phoebe was just mean, and Ross and Rachel became my favourite characters, because they were the most real to me in an albeit idealised sitcom – and Rachel most of all. And I didn't give credit to the scriptwriters, but to Jennifer Aniston.

You know how people say Jennifer Aniston “just plays Rachel” in every film she's in? Bruce Almighty, Marley & Me, and so on. It's because she very much made the Rachel character her own, independent even of scriptwriters and directors, and that's why I give her credit for the attractive traits of the character. So Rachel married Ross, lived happily ever after... then they went on a break and Rachel went on to become Rom Com queen.

Therefore, you can't really like Rachel and dislike Jennifer Aniston. Unless! You're judging Jennifer Aniston on what you imagine her to be like. We all know that the media reports information (and misinformation) to us in the shape of fully-formed opinions, so our judgements on celebrities have to come from our own personal insights. She seems smug, or plastic, or robotic, or prissy, or punch-drunk...

Or maybe she just seems too... widespread. She's in so many similar films. But at the same time, it was inevitable after Friends that she'd be typecast, so it's an admirable ability to be able to embrace this. She thrives in her typecast form. She does what she says on the tin. And what a good-looking tin. So why so many negative noises directed at her? Over to you...

---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

Simple Symbolism

2011-07-29T06:49:00.000-07:00

So... here's one I prepared earlier!

Many spec writers want to introduce symbolism in their scripts. And why not? Sometimes the best writing we see "hints" at other things; there are multiple ways of "reading" it -- and us screenwriterly types can pat ourselves on the back for "seeing" it.

When it comes to symbolism of any kind, think LAYERS, like an onion. You can do this any way you want: visual metaphors, allusions, motifs, character traits. There are no rules, remember. However, the biggest issue I see when it comes to symbolism:

It's not clear what the screenwriter is actually doing.

Let's go back to that notion of an onion. It's round, right? It looks like an onion. Well "durr" you say... And this is how your script should be: it's a script, it's got a story, we should know what the story IS - however you structure it, linear or non-linear. So if you have a story about a big huge alien eating everyone's ass, that's what your script IS: its top layer, if you will.

However, too many specs are so into the symbolism, they forget about keeping the plot simple. Taking into account a produced film then, ALIEN is as I've just described. A monster gets on board a ship and starts picking people off, one by one. Easy to comprehend, just like it's easy to look at that onion and say what it is, regardless of what language we're speaking. Basically:

EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET YOUR STORY AT FACE VALUE: that top layer is plot, pure and simple: "in this story [this event or thing happens]".

So, you have the "top layer" ANYONE can get... so now let's look at the NEXT layer, those all-important characters. Very often scribes want to have SYMBOLIC CHARACTERS - representations of good and evil; God and the Devil; Adam and Eve; happiness and sadness; commerce and art; communism and capitalism and so on (and yes, I've seen all of these, many times). And why not? But too frequently they're so in love with these representations and what they mean in the grand theme of their work, they forget to essentially write the characters as actual people and audience can relate to.

So let's look at ALIEN again. But let's step aside from Ripley; she is NOT the catalyst for the events that happen in that first movie, it's not actually her actions that kick everything off -- instead, it's John Hurt's character, Kane. An English guy, very curious, loves himself a bit, thinks he's better than the rest of his crewmates, so the same rules don't apply to him. We even see him wake up first from hypersleep, even though he's not the protagonist.

That's Kane on the surface... but Kane underneath? Check it out:

BECAUSE he thinks he's better than the rest, because he thinks the same rules don't apply to him, he disobeys orders - AND TAKES EVERYONE INTO THE PATH OF THE CREATURE... but not only that: look at his name!! Kane = Cain. What does Cain stand for from the bible? DEATH - he is a murderer. Whilst Kane is not a murderer in ALIEN, he DOES bring death into the ship. Also, In the dictionary, to "raise Cain" is to "cause a commotion". Without Kane, there would be no movie cos they'd have never come into contact with the facehugger.

But guess what? You don't need to get Kane's name is like "Cain" or anything else to appreciate what Kane *is* in this movie - which is the doom of everyone else. That second layer is just cool and good writing.

So in other words: don't be too clever when it comes to symbolism. You need the "obvious" stuff first ANYONE can get... Add the fancy stuff in that second layer for others to get... like film students and screenwriters.

The Great Characterisation of Hayao Miyazaki by Eleanor Ball

2011-07-24T07:04:00.000-07:00

I recently saw Ponyo! It's a cute and fantastical animated children's film based on the story of the little mermaid.

When people think of Hayao Miyazaki they often think of the beauty and mythology of his films. If you've seen Spirited Away I'd be surprised if you haven't been genuinely moved by the scene in which a train ripples softly over a one-inch deep lake.

His films, both written and directed by him, are perhaps too beautiful, because it can overwhelm some sparks of genius that normally we'd be appalled to miss. Namely the strength of the protagonists.

Miyazaki's girl characters are distinctly ordinary. Normally mousey-haired and scrawny, they're not the disturbingly coy and leggy little girls of many animes, they don't tilt their heads and pout, and they are extremely recognisable. Mainly because Miyazaki was inspired by girls he knows in real life. Hence San's roguish grumpiness (Princess Mononoke) and 10-year-old Chihiro's habit of tugging at her t-shirt (Spirited Away). Little quirks you could only get from watching the people around you.

Similarly, very young anime characters have a habit of being flawlessly and frustratingly cute, but Miyazaki knows that small kids can be a lot more than that. In Ponyo, little Sōsuke needs the world to be as gentle as he is, and such is his big heart that it at one point causes his brilliantly immature young mum to tackle him in amazed adoration, delighted that she's created a human being she admires so much.

As for Ponyo herself, she's not the delicate little daffodil that many animes would have her be. She's a wild and happy handful, and in her song is described not as a beautiful princess but as “a little girl with a round tummy!”. Anyone who's had experience with little girls knows that they're perfectly capable of stampeding.

Miyazaki's characters are more alive than most live-action characters. Unfortunately, it can be hard to get people to believe this. They're bogged down with the word “cartoon”. They say, let's watch something serious, let's watch something real. So is Kick Ass more serious than Watership Down? Is Dumb and Dumber more real than Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis?

My point isn't that animation is generally more real than live action (or even equally real), because I don't believe that to be the case. My point is simply that animation doesn't automatically denote a lack of seriousness or reality, and Miyazaki's films are a perfect example of that. Miyazaki writes animated films because the real world doesn't have the means to construct the walking castles and giant wolves that rule his imagination, and in my opinion the real world couldn't do it justice even with a billion dollar budget.

Most importantly, Miyazaki's stories and characters don't lose out by being animated. Live action couldn't make them more real or alive. I know that anime fans claim that anyway, but you can trust me because I'm not really a big anime fan! I mean, I did join the Anime Society briefly at university, but that's only because they had hats and Maltesers.

So if you've avoided Hayao Miyazaki's work because you don't really like animation, then battle through the barrier! It's important, ya know. Start with Spirited Away, then try to write a protagonist even half as real as Chihiro.

---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

Swearing: New ****ing Rules! By Eleanor Ball

2011-07-16T04:25:00.000-07:00

Beware! The below post is about swearing, so it contains a good deal of norty language.

Remember South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut? I was 12 years old when that came out so I could relate to the movie's plot about a bunch of kids going to see a R-rated movie. But while I was watching it, my aunt was in the background. Ironing. Stony-faced as the song "Uncle Fucka" blared from the TV...

I cowered in embarrassment and couldn't enjoy the movie. And sometimes, these days, I see people I'M watching a film with cower at swearwords! And it's annoying! I cower at people cowering. Swearing is never meant to turn you off a film, but sometimes it just does. It can get in the way. It can be out-of-place and conspicuous. And swearing can be so over-used in a film that when it's intended to finally be used for emphasis and drama, you can quite happily munch popcorn through the stream of expletives, so desensitised to the swearing that they might as well be saying "gosh darn it, you killed my father, you naughty little silly" for all the emphasis is worth.

So the lesson is don't use loads and loads of swearwords. But... but...! What about the much-beloved Four Weddings and a Funeral "fuck, fuck, fuckity-fuck!" intro? Or one of the most acclaimed scenes in The Wire, which features substantial dialogue restricted completely to a single expletive:

Two very different scenes. Funny and sweet and engagingly farcical with the former, and witty and canny and cool with the latter. Both very audacious, effective, and enamouring. All because of the swearing.

And hopefully, no matter how clean-mouthed you are in the real world, neither of those examples make you cower. On the contrary, hopefully they make you think "this is fucking well-written".

So, some swearing makes you bored and cower, and some swearing makes you curse in adoring enthusiasm. So it's not about the audience, it's about the writer. A good writer can turn prudes on. In which case, I think the answer to this is to introduce some kind of FASCIST SCHEME to the scriptwriting industry and DISALLOW some writers the ability to use swearwords. I know there are already stringent swearing rules in place, but they're about taste and decency – and who cares about taste and decency? I'm talking about enjoyment here, and stopping people from cowering in embarrassment. So, fascist rules, independent of ratings and certificates and the watershed, based on the talent of the writer.

If you're a pretentious little scriptwriting student looking to make your first TV series (like me!) you can have many bastards, some shits, and one fuck. If you're a devilish up-and-comer on BBC3 or HBO, you can have two fucks and a cunt. And if you're a writer of The Wire, Deadwood, or The Thick of It, and therefore use swearing as a measured and almost mathematical character device, then you can go fucking nuts.

Them's the new "rules".
---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

ON THIS BLOG BEFORE ABOUT SWEARING:

F*ck Off You C*nts: Swearing in Scripts

Audience: Who Is Your Script FOR?

Don't Waste My Mutha****ing Time!

Screenwriting Tip: Audio Description For The Blind By Eleanor Ball

2011-07-10T07:49:00.000-07:00

I've just discovered a brilliant new source of writerly inspiration. And if you've not already discovered it yourself, I recommend you plunge right in:

Audio description for the blind.It happened the other day when I was checking out old episodes of The Apprentice (yep, I'm still livin' large and workin' hard). The recent series is the first I've ever seen, and I'd noticed no sign of Alan Sugar being anywhere near as abrasive as people warned me, so I thought maybe he was worse in previous series and wanted to sample this for myself. Anyway, it took me a few minutes of great confusion before I figured out that one of the episodes was narrated for the blind.

“We sweep high over the London skyline and the sun sets behind a glass building, the world reflected in its windows. In the boardroom, Sir Alan sits stony-faced. He taps his fingers, and glowers as the candidates enter”.

That would be at home in a script. In fact, that would make an ideal description in a script. It's lucid, it's provocative, and it's succinct. It's Hemingway!

“In the bed of the river there were pebbles and boulders, dry and white in the sun, and the water was clear and swiftly moving and blue in the channels. Troops went by the house and down the road and the dust they raised powdered the leaves of the trees”.

Adjectives are often so irresistible to a writer. I've always thought of them as dog treats. Every now and again the mysterious and tortuously fabricated God of Writing will chuck us an adjective, and we'll eat it right up, and savour it, and probably slobber a lot. And if the God of Writing drops the bag of treats, we'll gobble every single one of them up off the kitchen floor.It's taken me years and years to finally think of adjectives as treats rather than A HUMAN RIGHT. Instead of describing a character as “a cat-like Cuban” I'd describe him as a swarthy, sinuous, streamlined prowling panther with a loping elegance and a darting élan, and – WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN.

Audio description for the blind is a spring of scriptwriting advice.

It's for an audience who can't see (or have trouble seeing) what's on the screen, so narration has to be very clear. Simple and recognisable. Audio description has taught me that description should also be somewhat clichéd. Not “CAN” be clichéd; “SHOULD” be clichéd. Don't let the audience inwardly backtrack because a description is trying to be too clever. Maybe you don't have to say she looks equine. You could just say she looks like a horse. More people know what that means.

Audio description also has to be incredibly succinct, because there are limited pockets of silence or incidental music in which to narrate. So this teaches you what's important and what bloomin' isn't. At one point in the aforementioned Apprentice episode, the candidates enter the boardroom, and the narrator doesn't describe Katy flicking her hair, or Simon strutting; it says “the men enter the boardroom first, leaving Katy to follow behind”. It picks out what's most important.

I don't know who writes these audio descriptions, but their work feels like a scriptwriting masterclass. Maybe there's this whole unknown and undervalued pocket of writing talent out there. Or maybe Hemingway didn't die in the 60s.

“The driver stopped his horse and lowered the metal sign on his meter. The top of the carriage was up and there were drops of water on the driver’s coat. His varnished hat was shining in the wet. We sat back in the seat together and the top of the carriage made it dark”.

Mmmmmm. He makes such gorgeous use of those dog treats.---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

Write What You Know? Then Write About Being A Writer! : P by Eleanor Ball

2011-07-05T02:13:00.000-07:00

If you were at the Goldsmiths MA Scriptwriting Showcase last Thursday, thank you for attending! It was wonderful to see so many people there. The showcase was a great success, and we're especially proud of it because we're the first year to do it and we organised the lot on our own, from the casting to the gaffer tape. If you have any queries about the writers, actors or scripts, please hit me up here or on Facebook.

Anyway, enough about my class's brilliant initiative that makes you want to hire us instantly (which it does). There were lots of writers at the showcase exchanging tales and tips, which reminds me of the most common writing tip on the face of the planet.

Write what you know. A piece of advice given to every new writer, every old writer, and every writer who needs to get back on track having just penned a screenplay about narcoleptic racist hobgoblins from space.

Of course what's meant by that piece of advice is not just physical stuff. You don't have to just write about your job or hometown or family; but your opinions and emotions and values too. Write what you know. The problem with that is that every writer has one thing that every single one of us -- without exception -- knows, and should, according to the advice, therefore write about. And that's... BEING A WRITER.

As a result, sometimes it seems like every second protagonist out there is a writer of some sort, a journalist or a blogger or a novelist or a scriptwriter. They're usually quite warm, modest, wry characters (Dan in Real Life, Extras, Sex and the City, Invention of Lying), or greatly romanticised by their humble art (Moulin Rouge!, Little Women, Murder, She Wrote), or dramatised by their isolation (The Shining) or ego (Garth Marenghi's Darkplace). And even then, when we've finished writing about ourselves, there's still our heroes to write about, many of whom are -- naturally -- writers. So there's Finding Neverland and Miss Potter and Wilde and Shakespeare in Love -- and Marley and Me and Julie and Julia -- and Carry on Writing ("is that a pen in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?!" "No, it's a laptop").

I think there are plenty of characters that don't HAVE to be writers. Like Jeff Daniels's character in The Squid and the Whale, for instance. Or, more recently, Eddie in Limitless. If you haven't seen it yet, Limitless is a fun swishy thriller which heavily relies on the annoying myth that we only use 20% of our brainbits. I enjoyed Limitless more than I thought I would, mainly because my expectations were lowered dramatically by everything I was ever told about it, but one thing I did frown at was the profession of the main character, Eddie.

To be honest, I think Eddie is just a writer because his name is Eddie. It's a writer's name. He has scraggly hair and lies on the sofa a lot. Eddie gets dumped by his girlfriend (oh, can only be a writer then), and can't finish his book, but then he gets a magic bean and can finish his book because he gets super brainpower. Then we never see his profession as a writer again. He becomes a stock trader.

It would've been far more interesting if Eddie was, say, a nurse who becomes a House-esque diagnostic genius, a law clerk who trumps the lawyer, an advertiser who sells the world the crappest product imaginable; or how about a philosophy lecturer?

There's a million jobs in which to be a loser-turned-superman. Not everyone HAS to be a writer.

---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

In Development: Script Editing Evening With Andrew Ellard & Paula Hines by Eleanor Ball

2011-06-29T07:24:00.000-07:00

If you don't yet stalk the In Development bunch, get stalkin'! In Development is a frequent meet-up of friendly professionals who work in drama and comedy development. It's hosted by Sarah Olley and Hannah Billingham, who very kindly let me bound along to this month's get-together.

Despite random strangers giving me contrary directions (damn random strangers with their sabotage), I eventually made it to the cracking BFI Benugo bar, where I met lots of charming people with lovely complexions. The discussion of the evening was script editing comedy.

This is a topic I've always found fascinating, not only because I'd love to be a script editor myself, but because editing comedy has a whole time-consuming extra level to it. Joke control. Ensuring that the beginning of the episode is as funny as the end, nailing the consistency of comedy tone, and generally lending the all-important editor's angle to the terrifying subjective area of jokes.

But what I learned at In Development is that it's actually more the serious stuff that the comedy script editor has to deal with it. Making sure the funny bits actually contribute to the plot, or don't harm the structure, and encouraging the writers to put in that little bit of sincerity that keeps people coming back. There's nothing I love more than a subtle, quiet bit of seriousness in a very funny comedy. Remember in Black Books when Bernard throws his trench coat over a sleeping Fran?

The guests at Tuesday evening's event were Paula Hines and Andrew Ellard, both of whom were extremely friendly and approachable. I didn't get to spend much time with Paula, marvellous script editor of The Smoking Room and After You’ve Gone, but I did shamelessly monopolise Andrew Ellard for a while, such a funny fella that it's no wonder Red Dwarf and The IT Crowd are so good. I got to geek out about Red Dwarf, which was great fun. I was born on the day the very first episode was broadcast, ya know.

Andrew is very keen to see more funny female characters in TV, a beautifully Bang2write agenda. Let's get it done. A female character saying funny things doesn't mean those things are JUST for female ears.

Very enjoyable and informative evening, and unique in that In Development is aimed not at writers but at those working in, and interested in, TV and film development. Check out the blog and don't forget to stalk.
---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

The Criticism Sandwich by Eleanor Ball

2011-06-26T01:56:00.001-07:00

Don't know about you, but I can be cripplingly sensitive when it comes to feedback. Actually, to hell with it, I DO know about you, dearest new bang2writer chums, because we're all creative and therefore much of what we do comes from deep within, unless we manage to roboticise the process. A cold word about something that I've poured my soul into (even though my soul is currently on the market if you're interested) can turn me from confidently chipper to wildly scribbling down plans to leave the industry and run away to raise mustangs in the Nevada mountains.

Of course you can harden with experience. There's all these blogs in which the writers share what stony criticism they've received that day, only to blissfully announce the very next day that they have a great new idea. Even though the LAW says they're supposed to have committed suicide by then. All I can do is stare at the screen in dazzled hero-worship and yearn for the day when I'll have their hard skin. But I've also heard from seasoned writers who throw themselves under a boat the moment they hear the slightest hint of criticism, so unfortunately experience isn't a sure-fire remedy for creative sensitivity.

As for giving criticism without puncturing the heart (ego?!) of a writer, one of the most common pieces of advice is THE CRITICISM SANDWICH. Self-evidently, the idea is to “sandwich” your criticism between two slices of good feedback. Great setting, crap idea, and well done for using recycled paper. Criticism sandwich. But what an ambiguous term. You wouldn't normally eat two pieces of bread on their own. But surely we gobble up good feedback?! Good feedback is nourishing. But criticism is the vegetables on the side of the plate that you don't really want to eat, but you know you have to because you know they're good for you.

… Okay, I'm getting my food analogies muddled up. I'm going to break for lunch.

Anyway, when it comes to the criticism sandwich, don't we sort of know the game already? Yeah we got it figured. If we hear some good feedback we know the bad stuff is on its way, especially when the good feedback is suspiciously irrelevant, or even decadent, as if they're scraping the barrel a bit. I really liked that bit on page 15 where Sam is wearing orange trousers. I loved that there wasn't much swearing. I enjoyed that the vampire was a lesbian.

Maybe it's a wee bit patronising to assume that we need a bit of ego-strokage before we can handle some important and constructive criticism, but then again, maybe that's a good assumption. I certainly feel better after a bout of useless compliments, even if they are just token and tact.

But putting aside potentially condescending tactfulness, maybe the real problem with the criticism sandwich is that it puts “positivity” and “negativity” in two completely different camps, telling us that we can hear only “good” things and “bad” things. So the issue is a writer's approach to feedback, and the tendency of some to hear constructive criticism as a dire personal insult worthy of leaving the industry and running away to live with wild mustangs.

---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

Q: Aren't All Movies "Character-Driven"?

2011-06-22T01:58:00.000-07:00

Something came up on the Bang2writers page recently, which I thought was worth repeating/expanding on, since it's a question I get asked a lot:

When it comes to "character-driven" versus "event-driven" movies, aren't ALL movies character-driven on the basis that a character has to need/want something, else there is no movie?

My take? Yes. *And* no... Let me explain.

It's certainly true nearly all movies have a protagonist with a discernible need/want or goal. The obvious exception to this is the passive protagonist - though in these cases, someone else usually has to "take the reins" for this character (like a mentor figure, love interest or even antagonist), so really, it's still "character-driven" in that *a* character, somewhere in the narrative, is driving the action. Certainly audiences are interested most in characters over plot - which is why sequels, remakes & reboots etc are so popular: we want to see the SAME characters in DIFFERENT (though usually similar) scenarios - and of course Movie Execs are only too happy to oblige us in this with various franchises and whatnot.

So sure, all movies are "character-driven" in the above sense... HOWEVER:

When it comes to the traditional notion of a movie being "character-driven", basically we're talking about characters' own decisions driving the narrative - the minutiae of life, if you will, the little things that may seem to HUGE to oneself, but the world would not notice their passing. We're talking about broken relationships, family reunions, custody battles, searches for birth parents; sometimes life at school or work or in prison (dependant on story). Character-driven movies are often about relationships rekindled or coming back from the brink of *something*: sometimes with other people, sometimes alone, sometimes with the help of an animal or pet. Often character-driven movies are about taking chances, about identity or about family and its importance (or not).

In short... "Character driven" movies are very often about PERSONAL realisations about life and what it means, whether uplifting or sad. This is why drama is so often character-driven.

In comparison then, "event-driven" movies are very different. That protagonist may have an obvious need/want or goal - and in genre movies, it's spelt out in glorious technicolour, for that need is more often than not SURVIVAL, whether literal or metaphorical. In comparison to the "character-driven" drama where frequently a character STARTS the action themselves on the basis of a decision they need to make, the "event-driven" traditionally DRAWS a character into the problem (which they may otherwise not have had, had "fate" not got in the way).

This is why genre movies in comparison have a "call to arms" to its characters in a different way, ie:

The bank is foreclosing on Average Joe's gym, so the characters must get money from *somewhere* to keep evil corporate Globo Gym from making them into a car park (DODGEBALL).

A lawyer is in the wrong place, wrong time and receives highly classified information that turns his world upside down, which he must get into the RIGHT hands before the WRONG hands silence him (ENEMY OF THE STATE).

A gang of space truckers land on a planet infested with hostile alien life forms and accidentally bring one back on board the ship with them, which they must somehow destroy (ALIEN).

As you can see, that "call to arms" present a PROBLEM to the characters in the movie... Characters *would* have got on with their lives as normal *had this event not happened* (ie. kidnapping, crossing the path of a serial killer, the plane gets hijacked, etc).

CONCLUDING THEN:

"Character-driven" movies are traditionally those movies where the want/need comes from INSIDE the character/s, whereas "Event-Driven" movies, that "call to arms" is usually more EXTERNAL, most often a "beast" - literal or metaphorical - that needs vanquishing.

For more chat on stuff like this, join Bang2writers on Facebook.

Why You SHOULD Do A Course In Scriptwriting by Eleanor Ball

2011-06-20T06:19:00.000-07:00

Last week Lucy penned a really useful post on media careers and what to do after a media course, which inspired me to churn out some thoughts as a meedja student about to face the abyss.

I'm in the final term of a scriptwriting MA, which means much less classes, and much more closing the curtains on warm sunny days. Not to get too personal or anything, but here is a snap of my Halls of Residence bedroom floor:

… So what that photo probably tells you is that when I've finished with something I literally just THROW it from my person with great force, but what I mean to say by the photo is that a scriptwriting course is lots and lots of work. Readers of this blog probably know this already from experience; but if there are any of you in the same scenario as I was a year ago, wondering if a scriptwriting course is worth the time, money and shrapnel, I'm gonna say yes.

It's annoying trying to decide if you should “study” scriptwriting, because there's contradictions and anomalies firing from all directions – and all cylinders. There's people who attach scriptwriting courses to a loss of individuality, then there's people who see it as vital for survival. Then there's all the bods in between. And even after wrapping our heads round all the contrasting opinions from all the loud-mouthed writers we admire, we're still left with the fact that WE'RE creative ourselves, and therefore we gotta annoy ourselves by philosophising before we come to a decision.

Which means worry about our integrity. Will a course iron out all the little kinks that make me my own writer? Will a course replace my opinions with someone elses? Will I get cookie-cutter feedback? Will a course trivialise the art of writing? Can you teach art? AND WHAT IS ART ANYWAY? WHY ARE WE HERE? Then you have to go to bed because you broke your brain, and you wake up the next morning only to find that you still can't come to a decision.

If you really really want to be a scriptwriter, do a (good) scriptwriting course. The idea is to go into it with confidence. Unless you sign up for a course ready to be beaten until you're a walking textbook, creative individuality is not so wispy as to be blown away by a gust of academia.

Scriptwriting courses teach you skills that increase the chances of getting your script read. I've also found the course very helpful in learning about the ways and faux pas of the industry, which is tortuously complex. Or, at least, it seems that way to me. I only really know about scriptwriting in the UK rather than globally, but such a teeny percentage of it seems to be about actual scriptwriting. As Lucy said, you can't just sit in your bedroom writing. Most of it is about socialising, attitude, flexibility, and whether or not you have little Batman-themed post-it notes.

So if you go into a scriptwriting course with faith in your individuality then you're reasonably safe from being stripped of it, and if you go into it free from the illusion that scriptwriting is just scriptwriting then you're likely to get loads out of it.

But what about if you get your soul destroyed by networking?! On a scriptwriting course, you have to network if you want to scriptwrite scripts after you scriptwrite the scriptwriting course. You flaunt “scriptwriting student” as a selling point, which makes you vaguely attractive to people in the industry because you might-be-the-next-big-thing-but-probably-not-but-just-in-case.

Confession time: I'm kind of naïve and optimistic (I don't know, maybe you picked that up already...), because I overdosed on cynicism as a teenager. As a result, I view networking with rose tinted glasses, insisting that everyone is being nice to one another because... well, they're nice and that's all. At a networking party, I don't stare at everyone's nametags looking for the biggest names; I drift over to the people whose company I enjoy the most. Everyone figures out what method of networking suits them personally, and, for people like me, I recommend the try-not-to-be-over-professional method. I'm not exactly a cool and crisp type, what with being perpetually terrified that I'm gonna crash into a table Miranda-style and the whole room will stare and I'll be exiled from London.

If fear of networking is stopping you from doing a scriptwriting course, then don't let it. You do have to network, but you don't have to approach it in the same way as everyone else. There's a billion books on networking, and loads of good advice about how to do it professionally and formally, and a number of training courses too, but I've been to a few events now when you come face to face with an aficionado on the subject. And as they charm you effortlessly and use all the correct hand gestures and gaze DEEP DEEP into your eyes, puncturing your very retinas with their charisma, you can tell you're being Networked.

But yes. Do a scriptwriting course. Yes yes yes. It might be intense, but it's practicable, it's enjoyably sociable, it's intensely motivating, it can teach you stuff you didn't even know were the basics, and it can make you a real life scriptwriter. If that's definitely what you want...

---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

ON THIS BLOG BEFORE ABOUT SCRIPTWRITING COURSES:

Creating Your Career: Life After A Scriptwriting Course

University - worth the money?

Studying Writing: Being a "Lone Ranger" vs Going To University

My Writing Story: University

Personality Is Personality: Making Gender "Irrelevant" In Characterisation

2011-06-17T03:24:00.000-07:00

Bang2write's fab intern, the mighty Eleanor Ball has decided to tackle a BIG subject for her first official blog post - and why not? Please direct any questions, comments, etc to her here in the relevant section or over at Bang2writers. Enjoy!

My script is about a group of girlies. People keep asking me if that would eliminate the male half of the audience. No, damnit!

It's an interesting challenge, trying to make a sitcom with mainly female characters appeal to all chromosomes, but it's a shame I took it for granted that it would indeed BE a challenge. It shouldn't be a challenge.

Both men and women watched The IT Crowd and Black Books, two sitcoms with predominantly male characters. And if basement-bound geek Roy or glowering book-seller Bernard had been female (I think Jessica Hynes could've played them both magnificently), surely the audience would've remained roughly the same. Unless we're just talking about fancying Dylan Moran.

So what's the challenge? Is it simply trying to make both genders feel represented? But I feel represented by plenty of characters, regardless of what gender they are. I actually feel more represented by male characters in TV and film, because often female characters are led by a mysterious personality trait known only as "Woman".

Besides, an all-female group in TV is pretty similar to an all-male group. Personality is personality. Take Sex and the City (all female) and Mad Dogs (all male). Sensible one, slutty one, innocent one, aggressive one...

It's the same in Desperate Housewives, another famous all-female group. Creator Marc Cherry once said the show is supposed to represent stereotypical women from old soap operas, but even that is outweighed by the fun drama of the show. I was talking to a classmate yesterday -- an action movie obsessed cagefighter who drinks those high protein meal replacement thingies -- and he shiftily mentioned that he loves Desperate Housewives. Men watch Desperate Housewives, I'm pretty sure everyone knows that. Desperate Housewives is not about women's issues, it's about revenge and lies and friendship and family and peer pressure and mob culture and unbridled entertainment so undiluted that you might as well inject it.

See, fun for all the family. Boys and girls alike. Being female isn't a "hook" or a "twist", and it's not "PC" to have female characters. Groups of female characters are just as likely and default as groups of male characters. I'd love to see a coincidentally all-female group of characters somewhere. But if that happened, they'd be marketed as "female con artists" or "female pirates" or "female Christian abseilers", as if 51% of the world's population is a minority.

So I'm going to get back to the challennnnnnnge of writing an all-female group of characters for a mixed-gender audience, by making it completely irrelevant that they're female.
---------------
Eleanor is on the MA Scriptwriting degree at Goldsmith's, specialising in comedy drama. Join her on Facebook here and read her own blog, here.

Nemesis

2011-06-14T23:42:00.000-07:00

If you follow me on Twitter, you'll know I've fretting about the upcoming arrival of the bebe, aka MICROSPAWN. Not for any birthing trauma reasons (though that is obviously a *bit* of a factor!) but because of my family's GROUP DYNAMIC.

As one tweeter pointed out a while ago, introduce a new character too quickly MID-SEASON and it could lead to CANCELLATION! After all, like any good scriptwriter's family, we all have our CHARACTER ROLE FUNCTIONS:

ME - I'm the protagonist, **obviously**. There aren't enough female-driven comedies/tragedies/action-adventures/horrors/dramas and though the genre mixing is troubling, I'm hoping it will settle down somewhere in the second act. I'm not ENTIRELY sure what my mission is yet either but that should iron itself out too. (I blame myself, I should have prepared a beat sheet).

MR C - he's the love interest, natch and there to look pretty. A bit like Dex Dexter in DYNASTY actually, though without the roll top bath (one day....!) Oh and he fixes stuff, so if our spaceship breaks down, he's on hand with the tool box. We just better remember he's scared of the dark AND spiders, so he'll be the screaming damsel in distress should any monsters figure anywhere down the line.

MALE SPAWN - he's the mentor figure, always on hand to dispatch advice in our journey, like how to spot a Nimbus cloud or inform us how desperately uncool we are. He's not revealed any kick-ass martial arts skillz or the fact we're actually all trapped in a dream-within-a-dream Matrix-style yet, but I'm waiting.

WEE GIRL - - She's the best friend figure/voice of my conscience, obvs. Just this week she's reminded me I'm "like, well pretty" and to feed the cats so they "don't totally die". No doubt as she gets older she'll have lots of other sage advice for me, especially when I'm ruining other people's weddings.

If seven is the magic number when it comes to script characterisation, we still have a while to go in terms of fulfilling *all* the standard character role functions, but it's come to my attention we have one achingly OBVIOUS role missing:

AN ANTAGONIST!!!

As a family we mostly get on, so we've had to make do with an "antagonist of the week" for some time - neighbours, teachers, a friend from school, the postman at one house - which we have dispatched with relative ease during the "story of the week", though occasionally said antagonist has become a serial element that lead us towards the SEASON FINALE of that year. But we've always been victorious.

But if Microspawn IS the antagonist... She will walk amongst us! A bit like Boyd in JUSTIFIED... then what?!?

I'll keep you posted.

#scriptchat Meet the Lovely Eleanor Ball!

2011-06-12T08:21:00.000-07:00

As you know, recently I advertised for the first official Bang2write social networking-style intern, so all you lovely Bang2writers won't go without your scriptwriting, industry & novels bloggage and linky-goodness while I take a few weeks off to have baby number 3. I was stunned by the number of interested parties and would love to thank everyone who got in touch, all of whom were completely 100% delicious in their own right! I know people **always** say "it was a hard decision" but it REALLY WAS, it was agony choosing!!!

Without further ado then, I'd like to introduce the marvellous Eleanor Ball. I've introduced some of you via Facebook, but please do friend her if you haven't already - or visit her own fabulous blog, here. I chose Eleanor because I felt her writing style matched that of Write Here, Write Now's the best. She will be writing blog entries here and finding you links etc over on the Facebook page - she will be the admin over at Bang2writers, so please do get in touch with her directly here or there. I will of course be checking in too and won't be gone for a while (unless the baby makes a surprise appearance!).

Here's ten fascinating facts about Eleanor, in her own words - enjoy and please give her a warm welcome!

ABOUT ELEANOR:

1. I'm from a little village in the Scottish Borders called Stow, whose inhabitants once devised a method of cleaning pipes by attaching an eel to a piece of string and putting the eel in the pipe. Gotta admire the imagination.

2. I'm a scriptwriter, but the first thing I wrote was a book called Adrian the Warrior. I was 7, and it was for my wee brother. There was a magic carpet and a sabre-toothed tiger. Arabian Nights eat your heart out.

3. My favourite genre to write and watch is comedy. Like many, I aspire to see women much better represented in comedy and in comedy audiences. Some stand-up comedians think their entire audience is male. "Tell your wife or girlfriend", they sometimes say. What, are we all men and lesbians? "Have you ever noticed when women..." Yes we've noticed! Half of us are female!

4. One of my favourite films is Mortal Kombat. And if you need to ask why, you need to see it first. "Your soul is mine!"

5. Back home I have a three-legged cat called Dorito. He tells me what to do.

6. I'm a great great granddaughter of Bulwer-Lytton, who first said the pen is mightier than the sword (because he was crap with a sword).

7. There's an apocalyptic thunderstorm (here in London) as I write this. Again! Not that I'm trying to turn the topic to the weather or anything...

8. I started writing scripts when I was a teenager because I saw in the credits of Green Wing that they wrote as a team, which I'd never seen before in British TV. I wanted to be one of them, so I wrote my own Green Wing scripts. I think at one point Guy dared Mac to perform a lung transplant without touching the ground.

9. I slavishly obey Charlie Brooker's Guardian column. If he told me to jump off a cliff, I'd... well, I wouldn't jump off the cliff, but I'd sit by the cliff and read his Guardian column.

10. I'm currently studying scriptwriting at Goldsmiths, but my undergraduate degree is in philosophy, which I studied in Aberdeen. I wrote my dissertation on the philosophy of humour, and largely concluded that we laugh in order to feel superior. I'm much less cynical now. I'm pretty sure we laugh because it's funny.

Deviation Poster

2011-06-10T02:11:00.000-07:00

So... Feast your eyes on THIS:

... I know! SQUEEEEEE, etc.

You might have heard this is Danny Dyer "as you've never seen him before" - but HERE IS THE PROOF. Look at his eyes! Talk about channelling his inner serial killer. YIKES. And Anna is just awesome in human form, her face is so expressive, it's like you can SEE HER THOUGHTS. I love them both in this film so much and am so proud to be associated with Deviation, the movie and whole team is fabulous!

We're not far off now... See more pics and info on the Deviation Facebook Page by "Liking" it here. GO GO GO!

Creating Your Career

2011-06-09T23:43:00.001-07:00

It's *that* time of year when scriptwriting, media and filmmaking students come to the end of their courses and find themselves looking for work. Whilst exhilarating, it's also a strange and frightening time; I remember it well. In comparison to many other courses - where you *are* what you trained for, 'cos there's a piece of paper with a degree on saying so (ie. a teacher, a doctor) - it feels as if you need to START ALL OVER AGAIN. And in some ways, this is exactly what you do: gone is the "safe environment" where you've explored the craft, your voice, what you think about things... Instead, it is replaced with the more unforgiving reality of the industry, where you and everyone else often feel as if you're feeling your way in the dark!

Now of course teachers, doctors etc work hard; there's no disputing that. And I've experienced the harshness of being an unemployed teacher in a land where people with PGCEs are all over the shop. That said, moving sideways *as* a teacher is considerably easier in my opinion than getting "started" as a writer. Though I *had* wanted to teach English at A Level some more, because I had a TEFL qualification, because I had a PGCE, I found myself a job in an English Language School. Sorted. In comparison as a writer, you have to CREATE your career - it doesn't matter what your piece of paper says - you need the EXPERIENCE to back it up, too. And this takes time. Sometimes LOADS of it. That's just the way it is.

Students and recent graduates often email me and ask what they should do next. My answer? I can't know, only they can. They know what their personal circumstances are; they know what they WANT to do and how to balance it with what they HAVE to do. This differs from person to person. However, there's plenty of things that unite every person who've just left uni with a media -based qualification:

Hardly any one will get what you're trying to do. Relatives, friends, people in the street will not really understand what you're doing. They'll assume your big career strategy is a whim and any work you write is a charming hobby at best. If you're interning, they won't really know what it is; any potentially exciting developments that happen to you will be met with a "Oh, lovely" before they launch into what happened to them at their own work. When you DO find someone who actually takes the time to find out what you're doing, HANG ON TO THEM.

Laypeople will constantly tell you Media Students are a bunch of lazy tossers. Despite the fact you've just worked your arse off for the last three years and have EVEN MORE WORK ahead of you in establishing yourself, you'll hear all the time how people who do media-based qualifications at uni don't actually do ANYTHING. These people will sometimes include those closest to you who should know better. IGNORE THEM ALL. It's their problem, not yours; you know how hard you work.

Media People will tell you talent can't be taught. Anyone who's gone to university to do media stuff will report being told by some in the industry that university degrees aren't that great or that they've wasted their time. Sometimes this will be by Bigwigs who never went (but still did well); other times it will be from people who went to university, didn't have a good time and believe *they* wasted their OWN time. But know this: things CHANGE and people's circumstances are INDIVIDUAL. Twenty five years ago there were no scriptwriting degrees; that doesn't mean ALL the ones available now are useless - any more than it means they're all good, either. But don't apologise for going to uni if you feel you got something out of it! And keep going, because that uni qualification is not a golden ticket.

It's about strategy, NOT overnight success. All the people I know who've carved themselves a niche in this industry - whatever that means - had a STRATEGY. They set themselves goals and followed them through - networking, blogging, creating their brand, etc. They did not sit in their bedrooms *just* writing.

Talent is important, perseverance is KEY. Everyone I've ever met has told me "it gets worse before it gets better". I always wondered what this meant until 2008 hit me, full on in the face, with the force of a concrete herring at 40mph. Before this, I had been making good, generally straightforward progress... Yet that year I was forced to run on the spot despite my best efforts NO MATTER WHAT I DID. It was hell!!! But it passed and now I'm making good progress again. I think everyone gets tested like this, probably multiple times, over the course of their career. You have to just keep going... Which is easily said, but until you've had to face those challenges, it's difficult to appreciate how hard that is, especially when you feel like your HEAD WILL EXPLODE.

Things do not happen straight away. You're MAKING a career here; this takes time. Never forget that. Everything I have now is a direct result of things I set in place YONKS ago. I don't earn stacks and I've still got ages to go. But that's half the fun. It's not all about the destination - if you think it is, maybe you're in the wrong game!!!

And finally:

When you do "make it", everyone will tell you they believed in you all along. That's right - all those laypeople without a clue will suddenly tell you how fab you are. Media People who *you know* said things like "what's s/he ever done??" will suddenly email or Facebook you with congratulations. Don't be bitter. Just enjoy your moment - cos you'll soon find yourself working mega hard for the next one.

GOOD LUCK!