#1: Guilty of Romance (Japan) had interesting moments (like the parallel storylines of crime investigation and someone walking into danger) but when the main character suddenly made no sense and story dragged the few good bits were overshadowed by repetitious dumbness. They had a good idea but failed to develop it. Marks 2.5/5

#2: Fuerteventura. A Swedish film about a guy who travels to Canary Island while grieving for his girlfriend and meets a girl who looks just like her… Grief is very hard to dramatise and endless moping, drinking and showering and more moping and drinking won’t make me empathise with the main character. Felt like a student film where the filmmaker asks you to feel deep emotions without earning them. Includes pretentious dreamy bits which didn’t add much. Twist ending was wasted due to lack of ideas and development of story. Marks 2/5
Dreamy bit dialogue example spoken by the barman: ‘There are tests to check if you’re dreaming. There are no tests to check if you’re awake.’ (cue expression of shock and horror on main character’s face and awe in the audience) Surely, the first test will suffice to prove either. Gh.

#3: Summer of Goliat. an odd documentary/fiction hybrid that wants to create mood like Apichatpong Weerasethakul but fails. An intriguing start: 11-year-old kids discussing whether their friend killed his girlfriend or not but that story is forgotten about right after the intro. Most interesting storyline was about a woman who had been dumped by her husband but that was overshadowed by the mess of too many meaningless episodes and oddities (a rehearsal for a scene that follows – meh?). Could’ve been good. Marks 2/5

#4: A Quiet Life. A relief to watch after the first three disasters. An engaging Italian crime drama about an Italian chef enjoying a quiet life in Germany; when found by his grown-up Italian son his Mafia past starts to catch up with him. Excellent performance by Servillo, some good drama going on but not original or deep enough to make a masterpiece, more like a good Sunday night crime drama about family ties. Marks 3.5/5

#5: 22nd of May. Most exciting and imaginative film so far! A film from Belgium about a security guard involved in a shopping mall bombing. A far better examination of grief than the Swedish film about moping, it covers different angles and perspectives of the same event, dealing with grief, responsibility and guilt. At first very confident in the style of storytelling it does go a bit off the rails when main focus goes off the main character is shared between him and two other men. Still, worth watching! Marks 4/5

#6: The Prize. 7-year-old girl Ceci lives with her mother in a dilapidated house by the cold bleak seaside. Set in Argentina during repressive military regime, Ceci’s mum is hiding from the authorities while Ceci has to listen to propaganda about brave soldiers at school and becomes confused about what opinions she’s allowed or not allowed to express in public… Superb performance from the girl, some excellent tense scenes (but also some too slow and ‘empty’ ones), naturalistic and sincere storytelling but not complex enough for my taste (not in a hurry to watch it again). Still, recommended viewing. Marks 4/5

#7: French film Nana about a 4-year-old girl living in the countryside. Basically, you’re watching a kid play for an hour, plus a few minutes dedicated to her parents’ problems. Gorgeous, beautifully shot, lovely locations and a cute kid, but that’s it. During Q&A, the director attached a lot of themes to the narrative which, I guess, were just a bit too thin and subtle in the film to be noticed, plus, ambiguity in a story that is sparse anyway, doesn’t help much. Marks 3/5

#8: New Jerusalem. An odd couple drama that took a bit of time to get going but turned into a fascinating relationship study between an emotionally suffering, educated and open minded Afgan veteran with Irish background and his boss who’s a narrow-minded racist Evangelical Christian but who really cares. An enjoyable and fascinating American indie film. Marks 4/5

#9: Oh, I love the Romanian new wave! Best Intentions is about a neurotic son who keeps fussing over her mother who’s had a minor stroke. Amazing naturalistic performances, not one false note, good characters (who create humour with their behaviour) and an engaging story. But. The only thing that bothered me was the point-of-view style of filming which meant that characters, when looking someone in the eye, looked straight into the camera. Couldn’t get used to it. Otherwise, a brilliant film. Marks 4.5/5

#10: Austrian film called Breathing about a boy in juvenile detention centre who gets a job as an undertakers’ assistant and looks up his mother. Well made, well performed and engaging enough… But. Reminded me of the style of brothers Dardenne but didn’t have the same level of intensity and drama. A very good film but not intriguing enough. Marks 4/5.

#11: Las Acacias. An Argentinian film about a lonely truck driver who gives a lift to a woman with a baby. Good performances but enough plot nor essence for a short film, no tension to carry the long, long, looooong silences. Did I say actors are getting younger? The start of this film is a 5-month-old baby who got the liveliest reactions from the audience. Marks 3/5 (generous)

#12: Swedish film She Monkeys about teenage girls doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be – it’s a bit ‘psycho friend gets you in trouble’, it’s a bit ‘competition ruins friendship’, it’s a bit about jealousy, a bit of this, a bit of that. I’m also not fond of the thought that ‘oh, let’s bring in a whacko character to make things interesting’. No, you still need a plot, you need dramatic events. Synopsis says ‘taboo-challenging’ and characters push ‘each other to their limits’ (of how long you can keep a wooden blank expression on your face?) Best thing in it was the younger sister who fancied her babysitter, that was engaging and humorous. Marks 3/5
Where are exciting, dramatic, intriguing films?! Too many safe mediocre simplistic well-done forgettable films. Looking forward to watching We Have a Pope tonight, that one sounds like it could be more intriguing.

#13: Finally something brilliant! Italian film We Have a Pope about a newly elected pope who doesn’t want the job. Pure originality from start to finish, there was skill in every scene, it never went where you expected, always surprising, a very clever and very funny film. I was truly impressed all the way through till the great ending that resonates well with the current (or not so current, and universal) issues with leadership and hunger for power. One of the best films of the year, no doubt. Marks 5/5

#14: Hungarian classic Red Psalm is set in the 1890s, about oppressed farm workers going on strike. Interesting form of storytelling and a technical challenge (composed of 26 carefully choreographed shots). Yes, I get it – people are oppressed, they stand up for themselves, there’s violence… but what about it? There’s no comment or angle, just form. Marks 3/5

#15: Let the Bullets Fly, a Chinese action comedy so dull we walked out during the first half (life is too short). Annoying characters, meaningless dialogue (is shouting meant to be funny?), attempts at inventive action were overshadowed by unimaginative storytelling and lack of drama. Marks 1/5

#16: My 20th Century, a Hungarian film from 1989. A story about twins who get separated, one becomes a feminist anarchist and the other a hedonistic courtesan. Some lovely imagery (Edison’s light bulb scenes), interesting storytelling (parallel stories of the twins, plus interludes like the one below where starts tell the dog to run free), some interesting relationships when one man meets both sisters but can’t tell it’s a different person. An interesting film but could’ve had more depth. Marks 3/5

#17: Dekalog (1990) parts 2 and 4 – good old Pieciewicz and Kieslowski. Part 2 is about an old doctor and a woman next door whose husband is dying while she’s expecting a child from another. Part 4 is about a young woman who finds an envelope on her dad’s desk with ‘Open after my death’ written on it. Engaging and nuanced exploration of different types of human relationships. Marks 5/5

#18: Kieslowski planned a new trilogy based on Dante’s The Divine Comedy but sadly died before he could make it. Kieslowski’s long time collaborator, screenwriter Pieciewicz turned Kieslowski’s script notes into a screenplay. (Tom Tykwer made Heaven in 2002.) Hell (2005) is a story of three sisters and their relationships affected by a childhood trauma. An intelligent and engaging film with some underdeveloped (male) characters and performances. Marks 4/5

#19: Swedish film Involuntary had about a zillion parallel unconnected storylines. Most of them had one or two excellent intense scenes in it (like the one with a teacher who witnesses another teacher mistreating a kid and stands up for the kid, later beginning to feel as an outcast amongst teachers as a result) but each storyline could’ve made a 3-scene short film, they were that sparse. The themes of responsibility to self and others (and embarrassment) could’ve been explored more in depth had they not wasted time on too many empty scenes and unnecessary storylines. Marks 3.5/5

#20: Small Town Murder Songs – a very enjoyable Canadian crime drama about a cop with a violent past, disowned by his family, who works hard on becoming better. Stormare gives an excellent performance as a man with unreleased anger. Only a tad uneven in a few places and just a little bit of ropy dialogue, but otherwise stylish and memorable. Loved the music. The more I think about it the more I like it. Marks 4/5

#21: French/Belgian black comedy Kill Me Please about a suicide clinic where patients can choose how they want to go and have a situation staged for them, but when the disgruntled locals attack the clinic they react in an unexpected way. The irony and comedy could’ve been taken further had the plot not been too random, it was dark but not funny enough. Marks 3/5

#22: South Korean action thriller The Yellow Sea is about a taxi driver in Yanji who is hired to kill someone in South Korea, while he’s there he also tries to find his wife who disappeared after going to work there. This is a very enjoyable and a well made action film, the main character is human and vulnerable which makes it more intense, it’s imaginative and it’s exciting and totally relentless (people were gasping and laughing from tension in the cinema). This will be in the same category as the Bourne films and The Fugitive, although not as intricate plotwise but does include some social issues. If you like action, watch this! Marks 4/5

#23: Hungarian master Bela Tarr’s last film The Turin Horse is a beautiful piece of cinema. Nietzsche sees a cab driver beat his horse, Nietzsche puts his arms around the horse and sobs, then goes back home and after two days of lying silent on the sofa says ‘Mum, I’m stupid’. A month later he’s diagnosed with a mental illness that makes him speechless and bed-ridden for the last 11 years of his life. That’s the backstory. The film is about what happened to that horse. Marks 4/5

#24: Films are meant to be seen on a big screen! Although physically hard to sit through, the seven and a half hour Hungarian opus Sátántangó is a lot more powerful and immersive in the cinema. The story about the death of communism is set in a village where life has come to a standstill and people wait for their money so that they can leave when two crooks return with other plans. I feel like I’ve actually walked down the streets of the run-down village, walked in the mud and rain and sat in that pub. It’s a visual treat where the duration of the shots make you really look and really see, a wonderful escape from the world of short attention span. Marks 5/5

#25: Shame, Steve McQueen’s second film co-written with Abi Morgan was a disappointment after Hunger which was such a bold and impressive debut film. To sum it up: he’s a sex addict, sister comes to visit, he’s a bit annoyed, sister is upset, the end; plus a number subplots that go nowhere. Yes, sex addiction is a provocative subject matter but just having a subject matter is not enough. Someone has an addiction and…? As a comparison – watching a drug addict shoot up for 90mins won’t make me care. Fassbender’s wholehearted performances doesn’t make up for the lack of story and drama, and the terrible student film gimmicks to create empathy – character is upset and goes for a jog and I’m supposed to empathise? A montage (of what we more or less already know) is supposed to create a dramatic culmination? And where was the shame? Marks 3/5

——————————————————————

Top 5:

We Have a Pope

Small Town Murder Songs

Best Intentions

The Yellow Sea

New Jerusalem

(plus Sátántangó from the retrospective)

• Launching a new series
• Thriller – the Trojan horse
• Adaptations (briefly)
• a few words from Ben Stephenson on what to pitch

This is the last set of notes from BBC’s TV Drama Writers’ Festival 2011.

———————————————————————————————–

LAUNCHING A NEW SERIES
Chair: Ben Stephenson (BBC Controller of Drama Commissioning)
With: Bill Gallagher (Lark Rise to Candleford), Jane Featherstone (Creative Director at Kudos; Spooks), Ashley Pharoah (Life on Mars), Toby Whithouse (Being Human).

Pharoah: develop an instinct for conflict that will take years to unravel.
Gallagher: create a character you care about, want to know what happens to them, create an iconic character you love (as a writer)
Whithouse: character is fundamental. He writes pages of bios the audience never sees. You never run out of story.

Stephenson: what about premise and concept?
Featherstone: you want a character you want to spend time with – interesting, not necessarily loveable.
Pharoah: premise is important; premise, potential conflict and character – they are the main ingredients.
Whithouse: give the audience what they need, not what they want. Don’t second guess what they want.

Stephenson: series is hard ’cause it’s essentially contrived (not one straight story). You’ve got to love episodic format – something different every week.
Featherstone: after repeatedly reworking the firs episode – cutting and cutting – lesson: get to the heart of the premise quickly!
Whithouse: in the first episode the best way to introduce a character is through them doing their thing, action.
Gallagher: every week thinking – how do I make life difficult for these characters in a new way.
Whithouse: you want to write so well, you want to embarrass the lead writer!
Featherstone: you’ve got to have a story motor, especially when working outside genre. Something has to keep the story running.

———————————————————————————————–

THRILLER – THE TROJAN HORSE
Chair: Jane Featherstone (Kudos)
With Hugo Blick (The Shadow Line) , Fiona Seres (The Silence), Frank Spotnitz (The X-Files)

Blick: thriller – you’ve got a heightened sense of jeopardy you don’t want to let go of. Characters represent our greater selves.
Featherstone: real people in tough situations
Spotnitz: You want to be scared. Think about childhood fears. Film is good for thrillers for its ability to control time -
Blick: – and manipulate point of view.

Blick: Suspense vs mystery – there’s a difference. The former – you keep the audience waiting (loaded gun), the latter – you don’t know what it is.

Spotnitz: tap into social discomfort and paranoia. Using thriller as a Trojan horse for some message is tricking the audience, Spotnitz doesn’t like it at all.
Seres: think – what if something happened to my family, a member of my family
Blick: morality the characters have to test themselves against
Spotnitz: repeating the same (genre) formulae, keeping it fresh is hard
Blick: Bond films – sex and death is boring, love and death is great

Featherstone: How to avoid clichés, keep it fresh?
Seres: it’s got to be an emotional thriller, think how to make it emotionally thrilling
Spotnitz: heart and head. It has to feel like it’s the character’s experience
Blick: have fun
Featherstone: it’s all smoke and mirrors

On Plotting

Blick: tent pole of a set-piece. Know where the thrill is heading, so that all the tools have already been weaved in when that scene takes place
Seres: write the last scene first (which you can throw out) and then the ten scenes before it.

On Pacing

Spotnitz: as a writer imagines himself in the cutting room – every moment counts
Blick: pressure. Characters with secrets running and stopping pace
Spotnitz: character must come first

Audience question: how to balance plot and character?

Spotnitz: they need to be seamlessly intertwined. Plot is driven by character. It should feel like only this character can experience this (unique experience).

———————————————————————————————–

ADAPTATION
Chair: Bill Gallagher
With Paula Milne (Endgame), Sarah Phelps (Oliver Twist)

Using a classic story, adding your own voice, vision and understanding to a well-known story.

Phelps: [on working with the source material] you have to think about where the characters come from, what’ their background, why are they here? For example Oliver Twist – industrial revolution, London was the centre, it was a society on the brink of change.

Gallagher: characters embody the essence of the times

Phelps on translating a novel for the screen: you want to keep what it meant for the author
Milne: but you can’t be in awe of it

Phelps (on writing in general): you’re a juggler, you’ve got to keep those plates in the air, spinning.

———————————————————————————————–

BURNING QUESTIONS
Ben Stephenson and John Yorke answer questions about BBC drama

Stephenson: we’re interested in the domestic market. If the product won’t travel, it’s not a concern.
Single dramas are very important to BBC.
Sick of being pitched: remakes (especially ones without any passion), don’t try to second-guess us and the audience. We want original ideas. Think: how can the story be more that it is? (tone-wise, clarity). Don’t try to guess what anyone would like.

———————————————————————————————–

Related links:

BBC Writersroom interview with Ashley Pharoah and Matthew Graham

EW interview  ‘Being Human’ creator Toby Whithouse on the shocking finale

Frank Spotnitz’s Big Light Productions

BBC Writersroom Sarah Phelps interview

On this blog: BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival. Part 1 (Writers to change the world?; Bio-pic)

BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival, Part 2 (Controversy; Jimmy McGovern)

BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival, Part 3 (John Yorke on theory and practice)

Also on this blog – notes from the BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival 2010. See previous entries.

———————————————————————————————–

“First learn to be a craftsman; it won’t keep you from being a genius.” – Delacroix

Genre and following rigid screenwriting rules can make the story predictable, formulaic. A lot of people have turned against screenwriting theory. Charlie Kaufman has said that structure is useless. Guillermo del Toro gets very angry when people who throw Campbell and McKee at him.

Gurus demand blind faith to sell rigid rules. They refuse to take questions. It’s like a religious cult. They don’t want to explain anything, or ask why? (things should this or that way). It’s all demagogy.

Rules like ‘you have to have an inciting incident on page 11 and not on any other page!’ are ridiculous but there is a grain of truth in all the theories. Stories do have elements in common. We need to think why the rules are there.

What’s the Story

Archetypal stories:

• monster threatens the community, one takes it on himself to kill the monster and restore happiness (Jaws, Alien, The Wire, etc, etc)

• hero in a brave new world, first transformed, impressed, slowly things start becoming more sinister… (Alice in Wonderland, The Firm, Tootsie, etc, etc)

• community in peril, an elixir is far away, one has to go and get it, journey into the unknown, etc. (Apocalypse Now, etc.)

Most stories can be put in one of those categories. Or they can be a mix of one and the other or all three.

They all share the same fundamental structure, engine.

In all archetypal stories there are: protagonist, antagonist, inciting incident, crisis, climax, resolution – that’s structure. Set-up, confrontation, resolution.

Book: Marc Norman What Happens Next: A History of American Screenwriting

Why are stories told this way?

How do we perceive the world?

Through challenge, adversaries. Truth will emerge through conflict.

Perception – you see something new, analyse it, assimilate it. We order the world, process it. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Act I – character flaw, something is missing
Act II – confront them with their opposite, assimilate change
Act III – resolution

5 act structure
(3 act structure is just a simplified 5 act structure)

Eugene Scribe “The Well-Made Play” (on Scribe and the “well-made play” read here)

Thomas Baldwin Shakespeare’s Five-Act Structure (1945) (available online here )

All plays have the same underlying structure:

1)      impending struggle
2)      acts (in the struggle), counteracts preceding the main battle
3)      chief assault, seems to have victory
4)      Preparation for counter attack
5)      Result of action, resolution

The structure of Mcbeth forms a triangle with rising action until mid-point, and falling action.

Things that affect a story:
1)      Order: symmetry, order, balance (The Godfather split in half – the two parts mirror each other)
2)      Technology and biology: the size of the human bladder, duration of a candle
3)      Duration: Aristotle – turning points, peripeteia (to keep things interesting)

5 act structure forces you to use the archetypal story shape.

5 acts, midpoint, 4 turning points.

Syd Field ‘pinch points’ (SF advocates 5-act structure). Vogler, Campbell – the monomyth. Thomas Baldwin, Vogler, Field – they all talk about the same story shape (they just give elements a different name). All script structure theories are about the same story shape – because it’s about the way we perceive the world.

Gurus have given the term ‘dramatic structure’ a bad name. It’s become a dirty word. Tony Jordan hides his screenwriting books like porn. David Hare writes perfect archetypal structures without being aware of it.
Structure is nothing to be ashamed of. Structure is a projection of inner psychological conflict.

Yorke on reading scripts:
Most common mistakes: protagonist is passive, not doing anything; and exposition (it’s like reading radio dialogue)

Audience comment: can’t make a story with just the structure or a good idea without structure – it will fall apart.

Audience comment: similarities with ‘subject, naming, verb’. Bruce Chapman of the 3-act structure of the world.

———————————————

See also:

BBC Drama Writers’ Festival. Part 1 (Writers to change the world?; Bio-Pic)

BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival, Part 2 (Controversy; Jimmy McGovern)

BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival, Part 4 (Launching a series; Thrillers; Adaptation)

Hanna Billingham’s notes from day 2 of the festival here

———————————————

• Controversy and getting into hot water
• Jimmy McGovern in conversation
• related links

——————————————————————————————

CONTROVERSY AND GETTING INTO HOT WATER
Chair: Jack Thorne. With Tony Marchant, Jeff Povey, Claire Powell (Chief Advisor, BBC)

JT: what is controversial TV? Do you know when your writing is controversial?

JP: No. Just writing drama, relationships. Not aware of controversy. Got to keep pushing people. Knew it would upset people. Gripping beautiful drama, wanted it to be dramatic (distinction between dramatic and controversial).

TM: What affect does it have on you? If it’s now truthful the writer is copping out. Didn’t think about other people, controversy. Thought about relationships and drama. Unpopular message is important to get right. Find a story about  that is very specific and universal. (TM’s The Mark of Cain is set in Iraq – not just about war but about the friendship between boys, rite of passage.) Someone being threatened by the truth. That’s what drama should do.

CP: Writers aren’t controversial enough any more. How do you make something tough about Iraq without harming our boys? [see Telegraph link below] Have to have a strong storyline, much-loved characters.
Sensitive times. It’s difficult for writers to do something really controversial.
Impartiality.
Continuing drama is in the moment.

(the film The Accused was mentioned)

JT: Who decides what the controversial thing is? Mumsnet? Murdock? Media?

On viewer comments: they (viewers) talk at you. People are writing in [to the producers and writers] demanding answers from you all the time (but not waiting for any reply or explanation). Which means that some good films don’t get shown again after complaints, even after one single complaint from someone.

TM: Can’t be a piece of ideology dressed up as drama. Has to be drama first.

From the audience: other mediums can’t show the level of reality TV can (for example, theatre).

——————————————————————————————

JIMMY MCGOVERN

in conversation with Kate Rowland

This was all in a humorous tone, so don’t take things too seriously!
Kate Rowland is BBC’s Creative Director of New Writing and heads the BBC Writersroom.

Americans are thick. (on why they don’t watch British imports)

He writes about what it means to be a human being – compassion, especially forgiveness.

You have to have passion about the story, it’s got to drive you. Feel angry, feel it’s funny, etc.

On Sunday which is based on the events of Bloody Sunday: bad journalism created a need for a story.  Newspapers painted a very distorted view of what was going on. JG went to Derry for 4 years, interviewing people. People tell their story through you. It has to be empowerment. He got it right because he spoke to the people who were involved in it.

On Accused: ordinary people in extraordinary situations. We confuse law and justice.

Conflict of humanity and the need to kill (men were forced to kill while their superiors held them at gunpoint – kill or be killed). Young men are killing other young men.

Doesn’t feel he’s ever gone too far, offended anyone. Scripts are thought through, plus there are others (producers etc), he’s not alone. (when dealing with stories based on true life)

Other thing he wouldn’t do is hurt his mum. Other family members are fair game (laughs). Use anything!

If you don’t need a psychologist, you’re failed as a writer. (laughter)

Employ your brain and your heart. You get right into the characters, you have to strive to write a great drama.

When someone else’s TV drama comes out, nothing makes him happier than realising after 10 minutes it’s crap (laughs).

Think about different options how a scene could work.

Every white person thinks they’re racist deep down. In Australia he felt like he was an aboriginal as well – in England, as a scouser.

Inspiration: Jim Allen “The Spongers” (part of BBC’s “Play for Today”)

——————————————————————————————

Related links:

The Guardian Are you sitting comfortably? (Dec 19, 2005)
‘Television drama should offend its viewers more often.’

Tony Marchant interview in The Guardian Portrait of the artist

BBC Writersroom interview with Tony Marchant

Jack Thorne on Twitter

BBC Writersroom interview with Jack Thorne

Wikipedia on Jimmy McGovern

On both controversy and McGovern BBC’s refusal to drop McGoverns drama is an insult to our brave soldiers (Telegaph)

BBC Writersroom interview with Jimmy McGovern

Hannah Billingham’s notes on the Jimmy McGovern session

BBC Writersroom on Twitter

On this blog: BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival, Part 1 (Writers to change the world?; Bio-Pic)

BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival, Part 3 (John Yorke on theory and practice)

BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival, Part 4 (Launching a series; Thrillers; Adaptation)

——————————————————————————————

• Is it the writer’s responsibility to change the world?
• The bio-pic: the fall-back position?
• and related links on the speakers

——————————————–

IS IT THE WRITER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO CHANGE THE WORLD?
Chair: Paula Milne.
With Tony Marchant, Hugo Blick, Jack Thorne, Roy Williams, Gwyneth Hughes

(this conversation was quite fast, so here are mostly snippets of what was said)

Writers should aspire to make a difference. (Milne)

Writers without politics are like soldiers without a country – mercenaries.  (John Clarke)

Morality explored through personality.

The viewer might start liking the antihero which is something you don’t want in the case of a drama with a political message.

We live in non-ideological times. Political topics change fast and sometimes it feels like there’s nothing to write about.

Exhaustion of democracy turns into cynicism, which turns into apathy. (Marchant)

Politics explored through personal relationships. The Wind That Shakes the Barley – politics were explored through the relationship between the brothers.

If you don’t know the past you don’t know what you’re missing at the present. Writers should examine political past.

There should be an ongoing political debate, challenging dramas – through character.

Fantasy as politics (Robin Hood about McCarthyism)

The Thick of It – comedy – do we expect real politicians to be just as incompetent?

Politics is part of everyday life. Politics is not just about politicians and a political system, it is partly our responsibility (as citizens, as writers), it is part of everyday life.

——————————————–

——————————————–

THE BIO-PIC: THE FALL-BACK POSITION?
Chair: Alice Nutter.
With Brian Fillis, Amanda Coe, Madonna Baptiste, Gwyneth Hughes.

(again, these are snippets and often not direct quotes)

AN: How do you find original drama in a biography? How do you approach a bio-pic to manage with the baggage of life?

AC: It depends on the subject.

Coe: find a 3-act structure – build-up, crisis – in the subject’s life.
Coe starts from a sympathetic position. What’s the most dynamic part of  a life – becoming something [experiencing a change]. Look for a crisis point in their life.

AN: finding a smaller universal story.

BF: finding the thing that makes them [the subject] tick. You’ve got events, characters – which also prevent you from writing a free-flowing story. For example, a drama about a man who is refusing to accept… (something universal).

MB: Find key moments, key relationships.

AN: Is it a fall-back thing? The audience already knows the person (easier to sell, attract viewers) or (when the person is not well-known) you have to show why they’re important, why you’re telling this story.

GH: It has to mean something (what goes on in the story)

——————————————–

Related links:

Paula Milne interview in The Independent

Paula Milne: Give the audience what they need in Broadcast (12 July, 2011)

BBC Writersroom interview with Tony Marchant

The Guardian interview with Tony Marchant

Hugo Blick on how I wrote The Shadow Line in The Guardian

BBC Writersroom interview with Jack Thorne

Jack Thorne on Twitter

Interview with Roy Williams from The Writers Guild

Gwyneth Hughes on Five Days in Metro

On this blog: BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival, Part 2 (Controversy; Jimmy McGovern)

BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival, Part 3 (John Yorke on theory and practice)

BBC TV Drama Writers’ Festival. Part 4 (Launching a series; Thrillers; Adaptation)

——————————————–

Sessions you will find notes from:

DAY 1
Is it the writer’s responsibility to change the world?
The bio-pic: the fall-back position?
Controversy and getting into hot water
Jimmy McGovern in conversation with Kate Rowland

DAY 2
The curse of the scriptwriting guru (John Yorke)
Launching a new series
Thriller – the Trojan horse
Adaptation
Burning questions (with Ben Stephenson)

———————-

EXTRA

Listen to excepts from the the workshop ‘Team writing US style’ with The X-Files writer Frank Spotnitz on the BBC Writersroom Blog

Read Bill Grundy’s report on the event on the BBC Writersroom Blog

Read Hannah Billingham’s notes from the festival: Day 1, Day 2, Jimmy McGovern

TAKE OUT (2004) – about a take out delivery guy, a very simple story with a feel of Italian neorealism, an unusual American film for being solely from the point of view of Chinese immigrants.

LOVE (1971) – a very impressive and bold Hungarian film by Karoly Makk about the wife of a political prisoner waiting to hear about her husband while tending to her ailing mother-in-law and making her believe her son is a successful film director in America. Beautiful visuals and the most imaginative use of flashbacks I’ve seen in a while.
My guess is that had it not been a Hungarian film it would be one of the well-known world cinema classics, and it’s not probably because of Hungary’s politics at the time and because world classics are usually picked from countries with a greater number of cinematic output (read: bigger countries)).
Guardian review of Love

BODY SNATCHERS (1993) – aliens are replacing humans on a military base; entertaining but could’ve been better, the characters where too sketchy and the film would’ve been more tense if I had cared about them, great performance by the young boy as the younger brother.

WILD RIVER (1960) – Elia Kazan‘s film about a government official who has to get an old woman to leave her home on a river island about to be flooded because of a new dam. Quite an intense depiction of intolerance and racism.

CUTTER’S WAY (1981) – had a quite an uneven script that can’t decide whether it’s about crime, revenge or relationships. But John Heard gives an absolutely amazing performance as a one-legged, one-armed, one-eyed loud-mouth veteran Alex Cutter who effortlessly steals all the scenes from Jeff Bridges‘s dull main character.

STOLEN KISSES (1968) – Truffau‘s film about a young man who after being discharged from the army goes through several jobs including a private investigator working undercover in a shoe shop to find out why the employees dislike their boss when he falls in love with the boss’s wife.  Amusing but a bit too eccentric and random for my taste.

At the cinema:

HOWL (2010) – film that feels like a staged documentary about the life and works of the poet Allen Ginsberg. In one storyline literary expression and meaning is on trial (the publisher was sued for obscenity in Ginsberg’s Howl) which accompanied by readings of poetry and animated sequences makes the whole thing fascinating (for a writer anyway).

ARCHIPELAGO (2010) – a very enjoyable film by Joanna Hogg about a family holiday where family dynamics and personal idiosyncrasy start to emerge with some of the character quirks (and very English middle class behaviour) taken so far (while still remaining realistic) that they become laugh-out-loud funny.

For non-Estonian speakers: the actor presenting the show is disappointed that he wasn’t invited to play in the new TV drama and decided to create one on his own – The Class: Life Before.