Archive for March, 2010
Monday, March 8th, 2010
Creating TV Drama Series: Something Borrowed, Something NYPD Blue
Something different…but the same. Trying to shoehorn my way into TV writing, I’ve spent years trying to concoct never-been-done before ideas for drama series. And yet what are my favourite shows on TV at the moment? A show about Cops and a show about Doctors. (This doesn’t include Lost, obviously – but Lost is the exception to every rule including this one so it will get its own blog posts at numerous later dates 
)
For anyone who hasn’t seen either Bones or House then I’ll summarise: In Bones they solve a murder every week and in every episode of House they try and work out what’s wrong with sick people. Genius, innit.
Well, actually yes. Why do I actually watch and love either of these shows? Not because of the above, that’s for certain. But each provides a clear and renewable ‘story-engine’ to provide a launch-pad for the plot of many, many episodes. I was lucky enough to recently attend a really useful seminar in Manchester with BBC’s Controller of Drama Production John Yorke where he clearly described some of the must-haves for a returning series:
Naturally, I agree. For Bones, the big softy in me loves the family aspect of the show. The more the series progresses, the more we see how damaged each of the brilliant people in it are and you like them even more for being able to function whilst being that broken. In House, I’m watching to the see the chinks in House’s bastard façade that defines his morality. And, while I’m waiting, I can enjoy just House being a bastard. But a clever bastard. And that’s what the creators of these shows are too, dagnammit!
As the series have progressed, I’d also say that both the murder and medical mysteries have actually slipped down the importance scale in an average episode. But they’re always there as the spine in Bones and the foundation in House. Without them, there’s no need for the characters to even be together. It’s telling that the fourth season of each show featured Brennan and Booth and House and Cuddy facing murder or disease on a plane bound for Asia – deprived of their usual facilities and facing the ticking clock of landing. But both were very different – apart from the fact that they were both brilliant.
Even if both will-they/won’t-they pairings got married, there had better be dead/dying body in their Honeymoon suite! But it’s the fact that the writers have made me want there NOT to be a mystery to solve that makes these shows so successful.
It seems the series creators ensure we want to see their characters happy…then do everything they can to ensure that they’re not!
Friday, March 5th, 2010
POLL: The Mist
(contains bloody great big spoilers for the film adaptation of THE MIST and Stephen King’s novella)
Having second-thoughts about the opening scene for my own horror screenplay, I asked on facebook last week what people’s favourite opening scenes for a horror movie was. Amid the usual suspects of Jaws, Scream, Hellraiser and Candyman (my suggestion – love that film!) the subject of The Mist raised its head – specifically, its ending. I don’t want to single my friend on facebook out (Hi Beth! ) as I’ve had myriad film conversations where hatred for The Mist’s harsh ending has suddenly dominated and been fiercely argued. I’ve yet to meet someone who is clinging to the fence.
Personally, I love it. Not because innocent characters die needlessly but I think it’s a perfect resolution to everything that has come before. To me, the whole film is about being overprotective. The metaphor for the erosion of civil liberties is pretty crass in places earlier in the film and I think it’s easy to see where Frank Darabont’s allegiances lie but, after all the zealotry on display throughout the film, the notion that it’s better we kill each other now to prevent a potential horror down the line is very powerful. But nuts to political allegory, I was moved by the tragedy of our main character trying to do the right thing - but in vain. Heart-breaking.
The original novella ends differently. David and co drive away from the supermarket as in the film but find nothing but death and monsters. Through the crackle of static on the radio, they make out the single word ‘Hartford’. Unsure, with this brief glimmer of hope, they set off for Hartford – not knowing whether safety or danger awaits them. Not bad at all but, in cinematic terms, would this have led to an even bigger no-no…the AMBIGUOUS ENDING!! (something I often get told off for)
So I don’t get the hatred. Especially hatred for the ending like it’s some separate entity from the rest of the film. How would you have ended it differently? Should the story not have been told at all? If you do like the film, do you like it for similar reasons to me?
Soooo…The Mist. Discuss 
Loading ...Monday, March 1st, 2010
Writing Roles for Gorgeous George…
Well, not *just* for George. This time every year – come Award Season – there are always a number of films where you could easily think ‘that film would be nothing without that central performance from (insert A-Lister)’. Maybe this is true. But how do you write the roles that big actors actually want to play?
When I went to see Up in the Air back in January, I realised halfway through that this wasn’t just a role written for George Clooney – it’s just that Clooney was the perfect actor for the part. And he is acting up there. Despite me thinking that Ryan Bingham is one of those characters that Clooney always plays, I’d never really seen him do it (maybe not since ER anyway). And while George was up for a Bafta the other week, it was for Best Adapted Screenplay that Up in the Air got its gong.
This might all sound bleedin’ obvious, but I’ve been reading an increasing amount of scripts that sacrifice character for concept - when really character should be the concept. Especially if you’re trying to get a first feature made. If you can’t prove you can write decent characters for lower-budget films, why will anyone trust you to write characters for expensive ones?
January also saw the release of Daybreakers and Britflick Exam – two films with some decent character actors but few decent characters. Both were dominated by cool high-concepts but, in my opinion, without decent character stories both ran out of steam as soon as the novelty of the big ‘what if?’ had worn off. It all seems so frickin’ obvious but, sitting there watching Up In The Air, it really hit home that high-concepts must still have the character at heart. As Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio put it:
High Concept = Character + Conflict + Hook (where Hook is often a cool catalyst or big event)
Maybe you do have the next breakthrough lower-budget, high-concept like Paranormal Activity or Cube did. But then the makers of these films have struggled to catch the same lightning in a bottle if they’ve even attempted a follow up. If all you’ve got is a gimmick then that will quickly be imitated and become stale. Whereas, the more banal films Denzel Washington does with Tony Scott, the more iconic his character in Training Day becomes to my eye.
Just looking at the Best Actor and Best Actress Oscar nominees of the last decade, roles including Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood, Ellen Page in Juno, Anne Hathaway for Rachel Getting Married and (it wouldn’t be a blog post without him) Bill Murray for Lost in Translation really stand out (and that’s deliberately not including actors winning for real-life characters in Monster, Capote, The Hours or Milk). This is who they want to play. It can’t be coincidence that the screenplays of all of these films were also – at least – nominated for their Oscar categories.
Not that the awards themselves are the priority… but I’m just saying that, if you can write a screenplay that lures Daniel Day-Lewis from being a cobbler for a few months, chances are that finding funding might be a little easier! 
