Category Archives: Screenwriting

New dawn of TV drama: Director Glendyn Ivin

INTERVIEW

Australians have entered a new and exciting age of television, says the director behind shows including The Beautiful Lie, Gallipoli and Puberty Blues. By Caris Bizzaca

Television drama isn’t changing, it’s already changed, director Glendyn Ivin says.

With moody, atmospheric series such as The Code and Top of the Lake, television has become more cinematic in look and is presenting itself as a strong alternative to the movies.

“It’s also not just the look, but in the storytelling and the kind of storytelling. It’s smarter if you like,” Ivin says.

“Whereas it’s very hard to get an audience to go to the cinema to see that sort of story, it’s far easier and the audience is much greater, when it’s delivered either free-to-air, or catching up on streaming services later on.

“It’s almost like the new dawn of drama, that’s where it’s ending up.”

Traditionally, when you talked about the notion of exploring characters in a long-form production, you were referring to a 90 minute feature film. But Ivin says he’s relishing the chance to tell stories over a number of television episodes like with The Beautiful Lie, a modern-day adaptation of Anna Karenina.

“If you look at The Beautiful Lie, it feels cinematic, it feels like it could be a film but it goes for six hours,” he says of the Melbourne-set show starring Sarah Snook.

“So whether its six hours or 13 hours, long-form television series feel like the new way of telling dramatic stories, particularly in Australia.”

And as an audience member, it’s also exciting.

Ivin, a self-confessed Mad Men fan, says even the notion of ‘binge-watching’ was unheard of just a few years back.

“It’s such an unusual term, but being able to tell a story like that and being able to watch it when and how you watch it, it’s so much better for the audience… the fact that streaming has provided a multitude of different ways to consuming good storytelling, (shows) we are in a golden age of television.”

Ivin directed the 2009 feature film 2009, but the vast majority of his work has been in TV, working with producer John Edwards on Offspring, Puberty Blues, TV movie Beaconsfield and miniseries Gallipoli.

It was actually that collaboration that led to The Beautiful Lie.

While working in the dark editing suite on Gallipoli and dealing with the heaviness of war stories, Edwards would keep raving about a new project screenwriter Alice Bell was writing.

“I think he was just tempting me with it or baiting me,” Ivin says, particularly because Edward knew how much he enjoyed working with Bell (who was a writer on Puberty Blues).

Toward the end of 2014, Ivin got his hands on a screenplay and by March filming had kicked off.

Ivin, who directs three of the six episodes, says when dealing with adaptations like The Beautiful Lie or Puberty Blues he doesn’t necessarily feel like he has to stick to the story religiously.

“Great adaptations aren’t just saying ‘oh they’ve got the story right’, but that they’ve got the feel, the energy and the spirit of the text,” he says.

“For me, trying to capture the way that someone felt when they read the book is just as important.”

Watch The Beautiful Lie on ABC TV Sunday nights at 8.30pm or catch-up on iview.

If you liked this story, please share it!

West Wing director Thomas Schlamme says TV more experimental

The director of The West Wing, Thomas Schlamme, enjoyed what was considered the best of times in television. Audiences were predictable and the budgets for him to direct series from E.R. and Sports Night to The West Wing and Aaron Sorkin’s follow-up, Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip, were massive and growing.

Yet even as audiences fracture to different platforms and television budgets consequently shrink, Schlamme remains even more optimistic for his craft.

“People are using a business model where they made enormous amounts of money,” he says of television’s apparent malaise. “In fact, (now) you can actually have a fairly successful company just making less money.”

Schlamme recalls the downside of the boom budget times, when their drama based in a television network, Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip, didn’t work and “I literally felt I was bringing down the Western economy! Warner Bros came to us and said we were being hit,” he recalls. “I thought the yen was going to fall and the world would implode because of the budget we were spending on that show and we weren’t getting an audience.”

The series still broke even but, Schlamme adds, “They just weren’t able to print money off it and they were so mad at us they couldn’t print money because it looked like a show that could.”

Schlamme is directing Manhattan, a drama about the making of the atomic bomb and starring The Code’s Ashley Zukerman, for the WGN America cable network. Schlamme, who is earning the best reviews of his career for Manhattan after coming from the similarly revered series The Americans, says his optimism as a storyteller is because there “are just so many different avenues”.

“I remember if I had a project it used to be: Should we go to NBC or ABC?” he says. “Now it’s like we can go to five places I’ve never heard of and, no, they’re not going to give me as much money to make the show so I’ve got to come up with a way to make it). Now, much more is being demanded artistically of a television director than ever before,” he says.

Schlamme notes that the medium is becoming more sophisticated, particularly visually, compared to his early years in which there was a very limited television vocabulary and networks said, “You’re in somebody’s home, don’t do any fancy work, make them feel comfortable.”

Once The West Wing and HBO — with The Sopranos — changed the visual and narrative possibilities of television in the late 1990s, Schlamme says, “I felt like I was liberated as a director to use anything that was in my toolbox. And, in fact, if you really look at it, outside of big C-G (computer-generated) movies, movies have become safer and television has become more experimental.

“It’s a little bit, for me at least, in America, television is much more like independent filmmaking. You can actually be braver and in some ways the confinement of time actually opens up creativity rather than closes it.”

More Here: www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media

Michael Bodey – The Australian – November 09, 2015

After Oddball and Paper Planes, hunt is on for next family film hit

Buoyed by the success of this year’s hits Oddball and Paper Planes, the hunt is on for Australia’s next big family-friendly movie.

In a highly unusual move, Screen Australia has put out a call for established filmmakers to submit ideas for a live-action family film that can be made for under $7 million.

The agency is calling for one-page submissions, and will pick 10 to attend a two-day workshop in Sydney next March, after which up to three will receive funding to develop a first draft.

Joan Sauers, a screenwriter and script editor who is managing the program for Screen Australia, says there is a dearth of family films in the pipeline, despite the commercial appeal of the genre.

“So many applications [to the funding agencies] are for incredibly dark niche films, and I love dark films but they aren’t always successful,” she says. By contrast, “Some of our more mainstream family films have done incredibly well, but we just don’t get enough of them”.

Sauers frames this call-out as a kind of challenge to Australia’s mid-career writers, directors and producers (note to first-timers: this scheme isn’t for you). “If you weren’t going to do an outback serial killer movie, and you were going to do a family film, what would it look like?”

She nominates David Michod (crime films The Rover and Animal Kingdom) and the Spierig Brothers (time-travel thriller Predestination, vampire flick Daybreakers) as the sort of people she’d like to turn their hands to a family film. And she insists she’s not being funny.

“The sort of family films we should be making are a little darker, a little more ironic, a little more left-field of typical Hollywood fare.”

A little more Roald Dahl, perhaps?

“Exactly – Dahl is the perfect example of stories that offer something that appeals to both adults and kids.”

It’s easier said than done, of course, but the numbers do suggest the idea has some merit. Oddball has just passed $6.3 million locally. Paper Planes has taken $9.65 million in Australia, and is about to be released in Britain. George Miller’s Babe took a mammoth $36.7 million in Australia alone.

Family films also have a long tail, cropping up on TV and VOD and in DVD sales and rentals for years, sometimes even decades, after they were first released.

“What’s so great about kids’ movies is they can be rewatched by a fresh audience that just doesn’t know enough to care that a car went out of fashion years ago,” says Oddball director Stuart McDonald. “As long as it works, they’re engaged.”

Before the release of Paper Planes, writer-producer-director Robert Connolly said he was inspired by the sort of Australian films he grew up watching as a kid but felt no one was making any more. “If we don’t make films like that then how do you build an audience for Australian cinema looking to the future,” he asked.

That’s a view with which Sauers concurs. “I hear parents all the time saying, ‘I wish there was an Australian film I could take my kids to so they could hear Australian accents on the screen’,” she says. “We need that new generation of Storm Boy and Starstruck. If you don’t get the audience as kids, you won’t win them back.”

The program is targeting live-action films because they are relatively cheap compared to animation, where budgets typically run north of $100 million in Hollywood.

LA-based Australian screenwriter Harry Cripps has experience of that end of the spectrum – he is co-writing the outback-set Dreamworks animation Larrikins with Tim Minchin – but says a smaller budget is no impediment to making a good film.

“It’s the same principles: money is great, you can do more things with it, but if the story isn’t there it doesn’t matter,” he says.

Cripps will help finesse the selected projects at the workshop next March and says he’s looking for “great characters, great dialogue that comes from the heart, and a huge idea”.

He cites Shrek as a perfect example (but don’t, for goodness sake, copy the idea, and do ignore the fact it was animated). “That was the first time I saw a family film and forgot I had a kid with me, the first time I thought, ‘Oh, you can make a film that’s equally appealing to kids and parents’.”

Sauers agrees that the key to a great family film is that it appeals equally to kids and adults – and ideally to older kids and teens too.

“The best ones are about children who solve adults’ problems for them,” she says.

“Films like The Goonies, where the kids save the town from evil developers, or the Parent Trap, where the kids have to get the parents back together, or Home Alone, where the parents forget they’ve left their kid behind.

“Parents can enjoy those stories as much as anyone because they are dealing with their issues too – like divorce, like developers, like dementia.”

Here’s an idea: how about a movie in which a bunch of kids save all the adults in the Australian film industry by writing a hit family film?

Just a thought.

Karl Quinn – SMH – October 4, 2015

Here’s one for all the family: The top 10 live-action Australian family films at the Australian box office

Crocodile Dundee (1986) $47.7 million (#1 Australian film of all time)

Babe (1995) $36.77 million (#3)

Crocodile Dundee II (1988) $24.91 million (#7)

Strictly Ballroom (1992) $21.76 million (#8)

Red Dog (2011) $21.46 million (#9)

The Dish (2000) $17.99 million (#10)

The Man from Snowy River (1982) $17.22 million (#11)

Young Einstein (1988) $13.38 million (#18)

Phar Lap (1983) $9.25 million (#28)

Kenny (2006) $7.78 million (#33)

Source: Screen Australia. Figures are not adjusted for inflation.

Film bosses accused of mutilating scripts and pushing out writing talent

Original and subtle work is often altered to follow a money-making formula that results in bland movies

Script writer William Nicholson said he was once credited with writing the script for a film which bore little relation to the original.

Three of Britain’s Oscar-nominated screenwriters say that an increasing tendency among film studio bosses and directors to “mutilate” film scripts is forcing top writers to either direct their own work or write for television, where they command greater respect.

Jeffrey Caine, William Nicholson and Steven Knight – whose acclaimed screenplays include those for The Constant Gardener, Gladiator and Dirty Pretty Things respectively – told the Observer that writers were often sacked without warning from the studios and would then discover that their original work has been altered beyond recognition by a production line of writers.

Caine said that studio executives, directors or actors who “ride roughshod” over film scripts can leave writers feeling embarrassed when their names appear in the credits.

Writers often find themselves blamed for excruciating dialogue they never wrote, he said, adding: “I have seen lines of dialogue in films with my name on them that I wouldn’t have written under torture.”

To add insult to injury, writers are sometimes unceremoniously removed from projects, though their name may appear in the credits. They may not even be told they have been replaced: they discover their sacking by chance on a blog or trade report. Nicholson recalled delivering a commissioned screenplay and receiving a phone call from the studio saying it was “wonderful – we’re so excited”. He then heard nothing. Two years later it appeared in cinemas; other writers had taken it on.

His name was on it, but it bore little relation to his original.

The phenomenon is not new. Howard Clewes, a leading British screenwriter, took his name off Mutiny on the Bounty, starring Marlon Brando, in 1962, because he was so dismayed by the rewrites. Today’s writers do not have that option. Writers’ Guild rules do not permit writers to take their name off a screenplay if they have been paid more than a certain amount. Studios can, in effect, buy their names.

Nicholson said he understood the pressures on studios, particularly with huge financial investments, but lamented “a failure of manners”. They could, he said, send “even an email, saying they appreciate ‘you gave six months of your life, but … we’ve moved on’. They never, ever, do.” He added: “Although I understand why they treat writers so badly, it’s not in their interests to do so. They will get poorer work from their writers. Create an atmosphere of trust and [writers] will take risks and write better for you. Create an atmosphere of fear and neglect and they won’t.”

Nicholson won an Oscar nomination for Shadowlands in 1993, starring Anthony Hopkins, which he said was shot from his screenplay because Richard Attenborough was both a great director and a gent who respected a script. But on Gladiator he was the third writer – “two other writers … had suffered the ignominious fate, which I have suffered many times”. TV was “very significant” for top writers, he said, because there they have “enormously more power and respect than film writers”.

Caine’s screenplay for The Constant Gardener, starring Ralph Fiennes, was his adaptation of John le Carré’s noveland showered with nominations for Oscar, Bafta and Writers’ Guild of America awards. It was filmed largely as he intended – a rare thing in the industry, he lamented. Film-makers who do not understand the subtleties of storyline, characterisation and dialogue are “only interested in the crudest storytelling, and the most banal and superficial elements of character”, Caine said. “The writer tries to put in subtleties, but they sometimes end up being excised from the script.”

He likened the problem to a chef being asked to prepare his signature dish for a dinner and finding the host smothering the meal with ketchup. “Many major big-budget movies these days taste of ketchup,” he said, because each change to the original dilutes it. “All the best stuff that made it cohere and made it work is no longer there, and all you’re left with is pretty pictures … That’s why so many blockbuster, mass market films are so bland.”

The problem applies less to independent films and more to originals than adaptations as with the latter there is a basic storyline and also characterisations producers and the director know they can’t stray from too far.

Hollywood’s principle on mass-market movies is the more writers the better.

Observing that some of the best screenplays came from writer-directors such as John Huston and Billy Wilder, Caine said that DIY directing or producing is now the best way to preserve the integrity of screenplays, though he has no wish to pursue that route himself. But writers doing so include Richard Linklater, whose Boyhood is an Oscar frontrunner, and Damien Chazelle, who wrote the acclaimed thriller Whiplash.

Ultimately, decisions are driven by money, Knight said. “With a film … it costs a lot of money to get it made. They’re terrified they’re going to lose that money. They look at what’s worked before and think ‘we’ll do that again because that worked’.

Therefore, they will take a script they like – and then change it so it resembles something else because they think that’s engineering it towards success, which isn’t the case.”

He feels that television is now the “home of really good writing” because writers are left alone and directors shoot what’s on the page.

Although this is not a new phenomenon. But, in a way, film-making was ever thus.

Caine claims: “Cinema is the greatest artform ever devised. Had Shakespeare lived now, imagine what he could have done. Then imagine the mutilation. He would no doubt have been a writer-director, as he actually was.”

Directing his comments at audiences and critics, he added: “Before you rush to blame the screenwriter for a bad script, just remember that it may not be the script that these guys signed off on.”

Dalya Alberge – The Guardian – Sunday 11 January 2015

Screen savers: the untold story of US TV’s showrunners

They are the new masters of TV, a bunch of jelly-bean-eating hotshots who have ushered in a golden age. But what do showrunners actually do? Andrew Collins on a film that goes behind the scenes at everything from Boardwalk Empire to The Good Wife

‘Be entertaining’ … the writers’ room on Men of a Certain Age, featured in the new It’s a truism that TV is now better than the movies. So where does that leave Showrunners: The Art of Running a TV Show? It’s a movie about TV. Specifically, it’s the first feature-length documentary to take us inside the inner sanctums of critically acclaimed and commercially successful US series like The Good Wife, Sons of Anarchy, Bones, House of Lies and Boardwalk Empire.

The difference between the American and the British way of making TV drama is no more than the placement of an apostrophe. In the US, it’s all about the writers’ room. In the UK, it’s the writer’s room. Both methodologies are romanticised: the Showrunners film caffeinated, air-conditioned detention centre in Burbank where story arcs are “broken” and whiteboards incrementally filled by salaried Buffy fans juggling stress balls; and the shed at the bottom of an Oxfordshire garden in which a tortured author taps out every syllable of an eight-part masterpiece based on his own novel to the strains of Radio 3 until called in for supper. Perhaps it’s no wonder we mythologise the US system.

Ignoring the old saw about letting light in upon magic, Showrunners points an awed spotlight on to a species previously granted tongue-tied anonymity in a pre-internet age. As Tara Bennett, the author of the film’s companion book, writes: “Who would have ever thought that the pale, weary, self-deprecating talents plunking tirelessly on their abused keyboards would become the pin-up faces for the modern era’s latest Golden Age?”

The documentary’s director is Des Doyle, a voluble, black-T-shirted Dubliner who, after 12 years pulling focus in the camera department on everything from dragon apocalypse Reign of Fire to Barry Levinson’s sectarian wigmaking romp An Everlasting Piece, decided in 2010 to make a film of his own. A growing fascination for big, millennial, creator-led US shows like The X-Files, Buffy and Lost gave him his subject. “I’d waited diligently for a documentary to come along to explain exactly what a ‘showrunner’ did,” he says. “But it never did.”

For the next two years, Doyle and his modest crew stalked Los Angeles collecting firsthand testimony from almost 30 American showrunners – Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel), Terence Winter (Boardwalk Empire), Shawn Ryan (The Shield), Ronald D Moore (Battlestar Galactica) – resulting in a blockbusting nature documentary in which mostly white, male, 40-50-something showrunners are glimpsed in their natural habitat, feeding as a group on jelly beans and ideas.

Terence Winter established himself by writing for televisual motherlode The Sopranos on HBO and graduated to running his own show, Boardwalk, for the same creatively empowering network. “I’m one of those people who buys a DVD and goes right to the DVD extras, the behind-the-scenes interview, the auditions,” he says, explaining why he loves Doyle’s documentary: “It’s always fascinating to hear people talk about the business and get a look behind that curtain.” He laments the fact that he rarely gets the chance to swap notes with fellow showrunners. “For the most part, the business of running a show is more than a full-time job.”

Since the job description isn’t even an above-the-line accreditation (you’ll see “created by” or “executive producer” scroll past in the opening credits, but never “showrunner”) what does it actually entail? In reality, you guard the creative vision while acting as a lightning rod for all production issues. Jane Espenson, who ran Battlestar spin-off Caprica, reckons “a showrunner has to have a bit of dictator in them”. Her former boss Ron Moore likens the job to being “a forest manager – I manage the forest, but someone else is out there dealing with all these trees, pruning them every day”. Winter says they’re “part psychologist, part motivational speaker. You’re a host at a dinner party trying to get everybody to open up a little bit.” Hart Hanson, avuncular creator of the long-running Bones, adds: “Most, but not all, have terrible posture.”

On Boardwalk, which after five grandly slow-burning seasons has just reached its finale, Winter ran his writers’ room just as David Chase had done on The Sopranos, with a sign on the wall based on a Chase dictum: “Be entertaining.” Averaging about five writers at any given time, he’d come in with “a broad-strokes roadmap of where I thought the season should go” and lead a process that involved “a lot of sitting around a table, eating potato chips, ordering lunch, a lot of digression. To the untrained ear, it may sound like a bunch of people bullshitting, but those are the things that get made into TV shows.”

For instance, the Brooklyn house Winter grew up in had fallen into a state of disrepair (“I was always embarrassed of it as a child”). When his mother, who still lived in it, passed away, he fixed up the entire house before selling it. “I didn’t realise it at the time, but what I was really doing was repairing my childhood.” In the writers’ room somebody said: “That would be a great story for Nucky.” That’s the show’s flawed lead, played by Steve Buscemi. Fans will recall that Nucky does the same thing in season one, episode seven. “He also burns the house down,” Winter laughs. “I didn’t do that.”

Doyle’s film is full of similar firsthand insight. Robert and Michelle King, the husband-and-wife team behind The Good Wife, credit their success to “the fact we don’t have resentful spouses at home”. On the subject of social-media interaction with fans, the heavily tattooed Steven S DeKnight, showrunner of Spartacus, recalls: “I’ve gotten into a dust-up twice where I found out later I was actually in a yelling match with, like, a 12-year-old.” Hart Hanson muses: “There’s a very small portion of the audience who think they know how the soup is made and give you advice on how much salt to put in it. I think they should be ignored.”

Female showrunners remain rare, although the likes of Shonda Rimes (Scandal), Espenson and Dee Johnson (Nashville) are making a difference. According to a 2012- 13 study by San Diego State University, women still only account for 24% of US “series creators” (it’s 34% for writers). Janet Tamaro, showrunner of TNT’s female buddy crime series Rizzoli & Isles, observes in the film: “Some people – both male and female – have an easier time being told what to do by a man.” When staffing his room, Winter abides by the law of what he calls “hangability – these are people you gotta want to hang out with”. He used six female writers on Boardwalk.

The British showrunner is even rarer, due to shorter series and tighter budgets, although Chris Chibnall (Broadchurch), Neil Cross (Luther) and Jed Mercurio (Line of Duty) are taking the baton from Russell T Davies and his successor at Doctor Who, Steven Moffat, who emulate the American model. At an Edinburgh TV Festival session in August, ITV’s new drama controller Victoria Fea dampened buccaneering fantasies about become the showrunner on a British series: “We have lots of authors in this country who sit in their garrets and write in splendid isolation. That doesn’t necessarily go with running a production meeting.”

Winter, a fan of everything from The Singing Detective to The Hour, has better news. “Whatever you guys are doing over there in England, it’s working pretty damn well. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

Watch the trailer here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYWRgqRcSO4

Showrunners: The Art of Running a TV Show is available to purchase from Friday at www.showrunnersthemovie.com

Andrew Collins – The Guardian, Tuesday 28 October 2014

Move over, Morse: female TV detectives are on the case now

From DCI Jane Tennison in Prime Suspect to The Killing’s Sarah Lund and Gillian
Anderson in The Fall, female sleuths have transformed crime drama, creating a richer brand of whodunit

Tough and tender: Helen Mirren as DCI Jane Tennison in Prime Suspect, a show British television changed in 1991, when DCI Jane Tennison (steadying herself outside the door, taking a deep breath, fixing a cool expression on to her face) walked into an incident room filled with a sneering, jeering, sniggering, lewd, matey, loyal band of detectives who were almost all male: a rugby team of lads, incredulous that someone in a skirt was to take charge of a murder investigation, humiliated by having a woman boss. The drama of who killed and mutilated the female victims ran alongside the drama of a woman battling in a man’s world: how could Tennison withstand the hostility and outright bullying of her colleagues and bosses, and at the same time manage her private life? She had to be tougher than the men at work and still soft and tender at home, placating her lover, apologising to him, cooking for him, compartmentalising her world, though of course the boundaries kept crumbling and collapsing. In the lonely spaces in between, she stood in corridors, visibly collecting herself for the next fight; she smoked ravenously. She was her own battleground.

Produced by a woman (Sally Head), written by a woman (Lynda La Plante) and starring a woman (Helen Mirren), Prime Suspect turned the familiar detective show inside out, dismantling the world that had become so familiar on TV, where maverick male detectives were the experts and women usually the victims – the abandoned body, the mutilated object on the floor, legs splayed and throat cut and dead eyes staring up at us, the clue that needed solving. It was an exhilarating spectacle of female assertiveness and protest, and of its bitter personal cost.

Twenty-three years later, the lonely figure of Jane Tennison has been joined by a thickening crowd of other women; an exception has become a trend. Female detective dramas have almost become their own genre. Move over Poirot, Wexford, that helped to redefine TV crime drama.

Morse, Frost, Bergerac et al – for many of whom time barely seems to pass, and whom experience does not scar – to make way for Gillian Anderson’s DSI Stella Gibson (The Fall, which is returning next month), Olivia Colman’s DS Ellie Miller, (Broadchurch, the second series of which is scheduled for 2015), Lesley Sharp and Suranne Jones’s DCs Janet Scott and Rachel Bailey (Scott & Bailey, the fourth series of which started last month), Vicky McClure’s DC Kate Fleming (Line of Duty), Sarah Lancashire’s Sgt Catherine Cawood (Happy Valley),Brenda Blethyn’s DCI Vera Stanhope (Vera). And let’s not forget Sofie Gråbøl’s Sarah Lund (The Killing) and Sofia Helin’s Saga Norén (The Bridge). Women are solving crimes now; women are exploring our terrors, doubts and anxieties for us. And very terrific and odd women they are.

Brilliance: The Bridge’s Saga Norén, played by Sofia Helin, is among the new wave of For this female cast often bring their own psychodramas into the traditional whodunnit, making it rich and bleak and murkily complicated. They are themselves mysteries; they resist easy solutions and the dynamic momentum of plot, which drives forward in spite of the repeated tugs of red herrings, and gets tangled up in the downward pull of character, in the labyrinths of memory, sadness, anger and guilt.

Fictional detectives are often loners, but being women makes them doubly alone.

Many thrillers are about good and evil, but these thrillers are about being human, flawed and in trouble. They make us care not only about the outcome – the satisfying narrative click is still there, if sometimes a bit muffled – but also about the characters. We identify with them, fear for them, want them to be happy, know they won’t be, want to own their shirts, or jumpers, or coats. For a while they are more real than our reality.

The Killing, which was in the front line of the new female-led detective series, had a plot that was addictive and yet creaked with inconsistencies. It was assembled from hefty building blocks of misdirection. But flowing around these, washing through every crack in the investigation, was the intimate stuff of ordinary life: the slow and terrifying unfolding of grief, the aftermath of horror, the grubby and impressionistic portrait of a city, streets half-seen through car windows, where the rain falls and light doesn’t come and the fog shrouds buildings in strangeness. And at the heart of this was Lund, little and pale and stern, and most wonderfully grumpy. Wearing that genre-redefining female TV detectives

jumper that spawned a thousand copies, chewing that gum, not speaking when expected, making mistakes and never apologising, letting down her boyfriend, letting down her son, behaving terribly, not smiling, not explaining, not agreeing, not listening, not being womanly. Not a good girl at all, but an intractable, unstoppable force.

Gender changes meaning. If Sarah Lund had been Sean Lund, her behaviour wouldn’t be particularly remarkable or taboo-breaking. Not being there for her son, arriving at family occasions late or not at all, being curt: that’s what men with important jobs do all the time. It is easier for them to break the rules, since they made them in the first place; indeed, the rule-breaking, the violence and the hard drinking seem part of what makes them effective detectives. Women’s behaviour, by contrast, is judged against the norm of their male colleagues: it can never be invisible, never taken for granted. And for a woman to behave as a man often does sets up a conflict in the viewer as well – we want her to be like this, but we also don’t because she’s swinging a wrecking ball through her life. Some of the most nerve-racking moments of the series involved not the tracking of the murderer but the moments when Lund’s jaw clenched and we knew she was about to do something that she might not regret but that we partly would. Her demented pluckiness radicalised the plot.

Demented pluckiness … Sofie Gråbøl as Sarah Lund in The Killing.

If The Bridge’s Norén had been played by a man, everything would have changed: the moment when she walks up to a stranger in a bar, for instance, asking if he wants sex, would not give us the same frisson of discomfort and delight. A male would not have set us alight as Norén did with her social blindness, her brilliance, her role as truth-teller and, in the end, as the conscience of a drama that investigates the murky world of crime and exposes fault lines in society and in the self.

Happy Valley’s Sergeant Cawood is doubly an outsider, because Cawood is not just a female police officer but a grandmother – not so young any more, or glamorous, but bashed about by life and now on a journey that will take her back into her own past.

This is a series written by a woman, Sally Wainwright, that – through one extraordinary ordinary woman – can examine decades of damage in a family and a community. While it has a dynamic story, it also bores down through the strata of guilt and love and grief and failure. Happy Valley is superbly made and beautifully acted, especially by Lancashire, whose face is etched with a life of sorrow and endurance, and whose character is so encumbered by baggage that the series almost resembles a high-quality misery memoir in uniform, or a female northern gothic (the music in the opening credits is very like the music from the southern gothic detective series Justified). Cawood is the sister of a heroin addict; her daughter was raped, had a child by the rapist, committed suicide, and this in turn broke up Cawood’s marriage. Her ex-husband has remarried but they still sleep together. And this is before episode one has even begun. She has so much on her mind, no wonder she forgets to call for backup when going down into a dark cellar alone. These female detective dramas are a very Protestant genre: people carry burdens they will never shake off; character is an accretion of memory and guilt.

When a male detective spits in the hair of DC Fleming in Line of Duty, it matters that a man is spitting at a woman. It makes it perverse as well as ugly. When DCI Gibson, in The Fall, examines the body of a sexually abused and murdered woman, it makes all the difference that a woman is looking at a woman – that a living woman is touching a dead woman’s body, staring at the wounds, imagining what took place. A woman is hunting a serial rapist of women, and there is an intimacy between the worlds of the living and the dead, a connection.

Fetishised: Gillian Anderson’s portrayal of DSI Stella Gibson in The Fall is subject to The Fall explores notions of femaleness and sexual violence and it does so in a way that is powerfully unsettling and sometimes queasy-making. The camera lingers on its central character: her strongly beautiful profile and the full curve of her lips; her sleek hair, her gorgeous silk shirts (almost as iconic as Lund’s jumper), her shapely calves, the way she looks as she swims, as she undresses. She is itemised, fetishised, turned into a body, watched and assessed. It can feel that the way the serial killer watches his victims is eerily replicated by the way the camera watches Gibson. She complicates this by her own sexual behaviour; aloof, icy, sexually passionate without being warm, she uses men the way that men traditionally use women. She turns them into objects, the way that women are turned into objects by the male gaze or, at the other end of the spectrum, by the rapist.

Gibson, like Tennison or Lund, destabilises the traditional whodunnit. Fictional male detectives in the past have often been robust figures of competence, standing at the some lingering camera work. centre of the plot, from where they make sense of the incomprehensible, turn chaos into order, join up the clues to find the criminal, restore normality. But we no longer have such a belief in authority (the “Evening, all” of Dixon of Dock Green), in disinterested genius or in absolute answers. The world we live in now is more tentative, contingent and compromised; the doctor, the priest and the detective can’t solve everything. The lover won’t come like a knight on a charger to rescue the woman in distress (in fact, it’s better to beware the lover). We have only ourselves to depend on. We are our own redeemers because there is no God, though there is still Freud, and the notion of Manichean good and evil has been replaced by things that are murkier and less comforting. The Fall, or Broadchurch, or Happy Valley or Line of Duty are not neatly resolved; lives have been wrecked and grief cannot be assuaged. It uses the old tropes to make new meanings. There can’t be happy endings any more. Female detectives represent this new kind of reality because they often become implicated in the stories they are trying to make sense of. Women, however defended they are and strong, have a vulnerability about them simply because of their gender.

This porousness of boundaries is at the heart of Broadchurch. Colman’s heart-wrenchingly touching DS Miller seems at first a more traditional female character than her fictional colleagues. For a start, she isn’t in charge but subordinate to David Tennant’s Alec Hardy. Hardy is the brooding, silent, complicated one with the tragic backstory, while Miller seems to have a life of domestic stability, almost a stereotype were it not for the poignancy Colman brings to the role. Miller is happily married and has a son; her manner is practical and motherly. She puts warming mugs of tea into Hardy’s thin, cold hands, comforts people, responds with instinctive kindness to the sorrow of others. But (spoiler alert) it turns out that the horror they are trying to hunt down is inside her own home, her bed, her heart; she’s been lying night after night beside a paedophile and murderer.

Heart-wrenching … Olivia Colman brings poignancy to the role of DS Ellie Miller in For in this female world, the detective is also a victim. The walls between the professional and private worlds collapse and this allows the viewer to identify with the character, as we can never identify with the expert, the invulnerable or the flawless. Few of TV’s female detectives become enduring staples in the way of Morse, Broadchurch. Wexford and the rest – perhaps because the pressure of the women’s interior worlds must always explode outwards. They cannot be the stable centre of a drama lasting years or decades.

Perhaps Scott & Bailey will prove the exception to this rule of loneliness and instability: a complicated and intimate female friendship and working partnership lies at the heart of the show (which was created by women and written, again, by Wainwright) and this friendship is the foundation for its success and staying power.

There might be frictions and rivalries, but the two detectives share secrets and a wry humour, drink pints of beer and glasses of wine together, bring humanity and wit to a world of poverty and gruesome murder. The two of them and their female boss normalise female authority in a way that a woman alone cannot.

Detective novels recently have been full of unreliable narrators. Gone Girl and Before I Go to Sleep are two of the most interesting examples of the linear form of a whodunnit being derailed by the narrative voice; there have been thrillers told by characters suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, desperately trying to keep the pieces of their world in place and making a coherent picture out of fragments. The slipperiness of memory and the self-deceptions of the mind compromise the notion of an absolute truth. (I write psychological thrillers with my husband, Sean French, under the name of Nicci French: when we chose to have a female psychotherapist, Frieda Klein, as the protagonist of our series, it was because we felt a detective of the mind could more satisfyingly explore contemporary anxieties and because a woman is always in some sense an outsider, who does not and cannot belong to the old world order.) In the same way, many of the new female-detective dramas challenge the familiar realism of the genre – and of course realism is a style like any other, that lays a template over the mess of life and gives the fictional illusion of order and completion. Female detectives tend to bring instability into a story because they are always on the margins, having to negotiate in a man’s world and refreshing a complacent genre with a new self-awareness.

I bought The Fall as a box set (the phrase “binge-watching” has just been added to the Oxford Dictionary), having read reviews that were almost unanimous in their acclaim. But I couldn’t hurtle through it. Halfway into the first savage episode I started to cover my eyes, looking through my fingers and then not looking at all.

Finally, I had to turn it off and for many months couldn’t return to it, because I had been so unnerved and horrified by the level of cruelty towards women. The serial rapist and killer watches his chosen victim, follows her, toys with her, tortures and obliterates her; we do not see her as a subject in her own world, but as an object – the  object he has chosen. These slow, drawn-out scenes are intercut with scenes in which Gibson has sex. And just as the rapist toys with and tortures his victim, so the camera toys with the viewer, giving agonising moments of hope before the final extinction.

The Fall powerfully explores sexual violence and the way in which serial rapists and killers eroticise power and death, but there’s a very fine line between exploring violence and male misogyny and simply portraying, even enacting it. I couldn’t work out if it was feminist or almost pornographic in its visceral depictions of degradation and sexual horror. Perhaps it is both – and perhaps that’s why it is so powerfully disturbing. But I wonder if the series could have got away with its portrayal of the sexual torture of women if it hadn’t had a strong professional woman at its centre.

Did Anderson’s DCI Gibson legitimise the portrayal of sexual horror?

Alfred Hitchcock famously said that thrillers were about making women suffer. In a recent piece in the New Statesman, the actor Doon Mackichan passionately attacks mainstream TV drama and film for feeding the culture that sees violence against women as entertainment. She writes that she will no longer act in any drama with a storyline involving “violence against women”, unless it has a radical feminist agenda.

She is partly echoing what the thriller writer and reviewer Jessica Mann wrote in hernow famous diatribe against sadistic misogyny in contemporary crime fiction, in which “young women are imprisoned, bound, gagged, strung up or tied down, raped, sliced, burned, blinded, beaten, eaten, starved, suffocated, stabbed, boiled or buried alive”. And she adds that female writers are as guilty as their male colleagues.

I’m writing as one of those women increasingly troubled by the violence in our genre.

It’s a fine line, a grey area, a slippery slope. In Happy Valley, we see a young woman kidnapped, brutalised, sexually assaulted and drugged in a series of extended sequences across six episodes. We are immersed in a world of suffering. Mackichan wants dramas that do not involve violence against women. But the world is full of misogynist violence and art will always be drawn to areas of darkness and trouble.

Look at fairytales: even little children need a safe way to explore horror and cruelty.

Women do suffer and women are raped, and while it’s a fine line to tread between what is justified and what is gratuitous, at least now there are a great many brilliant, strong, determined, heroic women detectives in fiction – if not yet in fact – who can help them.

Women saving women.

Women saving themselves.

Nicci Gerrard – The Observer, Sunday 5 October 2014

TV writers lift the lid on the art of funny business

JUSTIN Kennedy takes it as a compliment that most viewers don’t realise The Project has a team of writers. Actors and presenters are the face of the machine, deservedly taking credit for their performance. But who put the words in their mouths? Who dreamt up the storyline, wove the intricate characters and moulded the rapid-fire succession of jokes that keep us in stitches?

In Australia, there are jobbing writers, who bounce from project to project, content creators, team players and solo sailors. We spoke to some of the smarties behind the scenes who bring our favourite shows to life.

At The Project, Channel 10’s nightly news and chat show, former stand-up Kennedy and his colleagues script witty one-liners and clever segues to prompt the panellists.

“It’s giving them options, pre-loaded,” Kennedy says. “It’s basically just a fallback.

“We kind of juggle different elements in the show. The first one is we choose the news chats, the headlines that will turn into a funny chat. Something lighthearted generally. We’ll have a couple of serious bits, then the news item that breaks off into a 30-second conversation.

Kennedy and three other writers bounce ideas off each other, which is a luxury he didn’t have in a previous, and much less glamorous, job.

“I worked on (ABC program) Letters and Numbers as a writer, as the only writer,” he says. “That’s another show where people go, ‘There’s a writer for that?’

“Basically all I had to do was write a lot of letter and number metaphor intros. It was a bit lonely, sitting in this little room in Elsternwick going slowly at writing out 300 or more wordplay-based intros each week.”

Josh Thomas says he’s had input from script producer Liz Doran and co-star Thomas Comedian Josh Thomas’ brief stint with Rove was distinctly unrewarding. “I did like, a week of interning on Rove,” he says. “There was this segment, ‘What I’ve Learned this Week’, where they’d all say a joke. You’d have to write like 20 of those. Then I worked on Rove’s monologue. You get sent the topics, and write some jokes, and then he turns them into his monologue. I never got in. Or, I got, like, one joke in that, and another in the end segment in about six weeks.”

But far from finding it demoralising, Thomas counts his time with Rove as a valuable experience. “I got a few weeks in and realised it’s just not what I do. I had a go. They didn’t renew my contract. I probably wouldn’t have renewed my contract either. Sometimes that’s a good lesson.”

These days, Thomas is in the enviable position of creating his own material from scratch. After years spent pitching the concept for ABC2’s Please Like Me, he wrote the show almost single-handedly. Having nursed the show from conception to realisation, it was an extremely personal project.

Thomas admits that writing the first season of six episodes was exhausting, and the second time around, he has had to accept more help from his closest creative confidants, script producer Liz Doran and friend and co-star Thomas Ward. “So we sort of plot the show together and then I go off and write it,” he says. “We’re being so quick this time, it’s like three weeks an episode (to write). If I don’t get it done, Liz and Tom and I divide it up.

When Thomas writes for female characters, he draws on advice from Doran, but women are still significantly under-represented as writers.

Robyn Butler, who has dabbled on Micallef Tonight and the Eric Bana Sketch Show, says the situation is slowly changing. “But when I started out, I’ve often been the only woman in the room and had to tell the others that I’m not the one who makes the tea,” she says. “It’s just a more male pursuit, comedy.

“Interestingly, Kath and Kim and The Librarians have women front and centre. They’re written by women who put women in the frame. It’s not that men are being mean. It’s just not their reality, it’s not their world.”

Butler mainly works with one bloke, her husband and writing partner Wayne Hope.

Most recently they’ve enjoyed success with Upper Middle Bogan on the ABC. “We started out writing everything together,” she says. “Less so in the last two years, as our slate has been so full. The story is the hardest part for me. I call the dialogue the dessert. That’s the easy part for me personally. The story is the part where I feel a bit sick.

“If I don’t know what happens next, I’ll go to Wayne and we’ll go for a walk around the block. Our poor dogs, they hate it when we’re writing, they get walked so much.”

Butler reckons Hope is the “ideas man”, which he says is “lovely, but not true”.

“I like the broad strokes, I like kicking that around. Conceptual stuff, underlying motivations for storylines and people,” he says. “Then I quite like moving that into story arcs and story beats. But that’s where Robyn’s skill comes into it. Her ability to shape scenes, so that every scene has its merits, every scene is charged, is her absolute skill. And then she sprinkles it with brilliant dialogue.”

“It’s like, ‘Guess what? My job is to make stuff up’. I’m a writer. It’s the difference between someone sitting down and painting a landscape they can see, and painting a Jackson Pollock out of their head.”

Anna Brain – Herald Sun – August 08, 2014

More Here:

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/television

TV’s Revolution in Story

Called “the best script doctor in the movie industry,” John Truby serves as a story consultant for major studios and production companies worldwide, and has been a script doctor on more than 1,800 movies, sitcoms and television dramas for the likes of Disney, Universal, Sony Pictures, FOX, HBO, Alliance Atlantis, Paramount, BBC, MTV and more.

When I travel the world teaching story classes, writers and producers don’t ask me how to write a Hollywood superhero movie. They want to know how to write shows that come close to the incredible quality of the drama they see on American television in shows like Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Homeland, House of Cards and Game of Thrones.

Indeed, a revolution in story has been unfolding in American TV drama for the past ten years. It is as significant as the rise of the novel in the mid-1700s, the shift in theater to psychological realism in the late1800s, the development of film in the early 1900s and the emergence of the video game as a story medium in the 1980s and ‘90s.

What do the best-written shows on television have in common? Well, the first thing you notice is that every one is a serial. And that makes all the difference. Every revolutionary move in character and plot stems from the emergence of the serial form.

In the old days, TV consisted almost entirely of stand-alone episodes. Writers told a complete dramatic story in forty-four minutes. For example, the criminal committed a murder in the first scene, and the cops caught him in the last. The following week, they told the same story with slightly different circumstances. This guaranteed that the medium as a whole could be nothing more than a factory of generic story product.

With the introduction of the remote and cable, the serial form was born on television.

Now shows had multiple main characters, with their own weaknesses and desires, and they didn’t solve their problems at the end of one episode, or even fifteen. In story terms, this meant, above all, interweaving multiple story lines over many episodes. No longer confined to a forty-four-minute straightjacket, a writer could get to a deeper truth by using film’s unique crosscutting ability to compare and contrast characters and storylines.

This had a huge structural effect on the TV story, because it meant that the unit of measure of the TV show was no longer the episode — it was the season. The canvas on which the writer worked became ten times as long as a feature film, and ten times as complex.

So, it’s no coincidence that the revolution in story occurred hand in hand with TV coming into its own as an art form. But how precisely did the serial form revolutionize the TV story in both character and plot? Let’s begin with the main character of the show, since the first principle of great storytelling is that plot comes from character.

Much has been made of the fact that serials sparked a fundamental shift from hero to anti-hero. Anti-hero, as it is commonly used, is a bit of a misnomer, and it obscures the revolutionary nature of these characters. Technically, an anti-hero is simply the opposite of the classic hero in some way. He, or she, may be a bumbler, a holy fool or a rebel.

But the way most critics define the term when talking about the leads in the great TV shows since The Sopranos is that anti-heroes are bad guys. Not evil, but bad, and therefore unlikable in some way. He may be a killer like Tony Soprano (The Sopranos), a liar and philanderer like Don Draper (Mad Men), a meth dealer and a killer like Walter White (Breaking Bad) or a Machiavellian schemer and killer like Frank Underwood (House of Cards).

But these characters are not just bad — that’s simplistic and could not produce great stories for long. They are complex, which produces far better stories.

Now, the word complex is often thrown around in writing circles, and no one bothers to define it structurally. Most people think it refers to psychological contradictions, which all these characters certainly possess. But what it really means is that these characters have moral contradictions. So they all have a highly compartmentalized moral code that constantly tests them to the depths of their being.

Still, these complex lead characters, though crucial to the revolution in story, could not produce shows of such high quality over so many episodes and seasons. That comes from the character web of the story, probably the single-most important factor in creating a great show. Simply stated, the character web has to do with how all the characters in a story weave together as a single fabric, both connecting and contrasting. A show with a unique character web — in which each character is set in proper structural opposition to the others — is the only way writers can create great stories for several years.

When serials replaced stand-alone shows as the standard of television drama, they didn’t just deepen the main character. They radically increased the number of characters who could drive storylines, in effect showing the audience a mini-society.

Emmy-nominated shows like Game of Thrones and Downton Abbey can track upwards of thirty or more important characters. This places a tremendous burden on the show’s creators and calls up another critical point: the audience will become completely lost unless the character web is highly organized.

The necessity of organizing the characters increases the quality of serials because it means that each mini-society is determined by some kind of system that controls people under the surface and even enslaves them. In The Sopranos it was the Mafia. In Mad Men it’s a consumer culture that glorifies a false American Dream. In Game of Thrones and Downton Abbey it’s a rigid patriarchal class structure.

In many of the best serials, writers use another critical technique in designing the character web: they highlight and explore the moral element in life, both within and among characters. Starting with the central moral problem of the hero, they make all other characters some variation of that problem. They construct a field of fire where all the characters must traverse morally dangerous ground.

This gives a show two additional strengths. First, even the minor characters have complexity, so each is individually compelling, while collectively they produce knockout power. Second, each episode is packed with plot: the writers tease the audience with a moral challenge in the opening and then relentlessly turn the screws until the final scene.

Shows like Breaking Bad, Homeland and CBS’s The Good Wife (nominated in 2011 and 2012 for Outstanding Drama Series and, in my view, the best-written show on broadcast television) have put a unique twist on the moral character web, one that has consistently generated great stories, episode after episode, season after season.

The story world is, in some form, a Darwinian state of nature in which the characters are forced to make nearly impossible moral decisions. The fundamental question each week is: Can these characters remain human, and decent, while they struggle to survive?

Shows like Game of Thrones and House of Cards flip this technique. They are not about how to live a good life in a morally challenging world. They are about winning the game. In fact, the most revolutionary aspect of Game of Thrones has been its willingness to kill off its heroes — most notably in the shocking “Rains of Castamere” episode — largely because, in acting morally, they were also being stupid.

The move to the serial also expanded and deepened the plot of the TV story. Many observers have commented that this is a case of back to the future, to the serials of Charles Dickens and the tremendous plot density of the nineteenth-century French novel.

But the serials of TV drama have a fundamental difference from their predecessors: they are long-form narratives married to single event drama. The viewer enjoys both dense and surprising plot over the season as well as heart-stopping dramatic punch in each individual episode. The power of this combination to seduce and stimulate the viewer cannot be overestimated.

With the rise of the serial, the single biggest plot challenge for showrunners and their writing staffs became exponentially more difficult — and more compelling. It was no longer: How do you construct a tight and surprising episode? It was: How do you segment the plot and sequence the episodes over an entire season?

Again, the moral construct of the character web has often shown the way. The main technique top TV dramas like Breaking Bad and The Good Wife use to structure their episodes and seasons is to sequence the difficult moral challenges their heroes face. Breaking Bad’s creator–executive producer Vince Gilligan and writers like George Mastras and Thomas Schnauz are geniuses at this technique. By introducing Walt (Bryan Cranston) as a moral everyman, they were able to sequence the plot not just on the increased opposition he faced, but on his heightened moral challenges.

Each episode tracked both an escalation of trouble for Walt and a moral decision that was more complicated than the one that came before.

As this revolution in story plays out in television — and television takes over from film as the most influential and far-reaching entertainment medium in the world — we may see the revolution affect film as well. For years, Hollywood has made superhero movies for eleven months of the year, while releasing a handful of Oscar-worthy dramas in December. But no one is fooled anymore. Ten years of TV dramas telling the best stories in the world has the top acting, writing and directing talent clamoring to join the party.

Now it just so happens that in television, writers control the medium, and they are acknowledged to be the authors of their shows. So the astounding quality of writer-driven serials has quietly been exposing the absurdity of the auteur theory, which maintains that the director, not the writer, is the author of a film.

The best TV series — both within an episode and throughout a season — are all about story. The more a film or TV show is based on a well told story, as opposed to visual spectacle and detail, the more its authorship is based on the writer, not the director.

In the days of stand-alone TV, it was easy to distinguish the boring visuals of the small screen from the grandiose spectacle of film epics and thus depreciate television.

But again, things have changed. Television serials, in just one season, are far more epic than any movie, and they are filmed with just as much visual flair. With such great storytelling, no one would dream of claiming that the director is the author of a top TV drama. We can only hope that one day movies will see the light.

If you love story as much as I do, living through this revolution in TV drama has been an incredible ride. The lone drawback, of course, is finding time to watch all those great shows.

http://truby.com – July Newsletter

John Truby’s Breakdown of “Godzilla”

Spoiler alert: this breakdown divulges information about the plot of the film.

John Truby is Hollywood’s premiere screenwriting instructor and story consultant. Called “the best script doctor in the movie industry,” Truby serves as a story consultant for major studios and production companies worldwide, and has been a script doctor on more than 1,800 movies, sitcoms and television dramas for the likes of Disney, Universal, Sony Pictures, FOX, HBO, Alliance Atlantis, Paramount, BBC, MTV and more – http://truby.com – June 1 2014

It’s easy to make fun of Godzilla. Laughable franchise. Dinosaur that looks like a chicken. Really big scales that make it impossible for him to sleep on his back. But making fun doesn’t get us anywhere. This film has been huge at the box office and is a lot better than I thought it would be (which is a pretty low bar, I admit). But for mastering the craft of screenwriting, especially for summer blockbuster movies, the question to ask ourselves is: what would I do if I were given this assignment? More specifically, what were the story challenges in this film and what would I do to solve them?

Let’s begin with the basic opposition on which any story is based. The normal approach to a horror-disaster film is monster against humans. But that’s a grossly unfair fight. Millions of humans are just foot fodder for the big guy. Even the strongest military on earth is helpless in the face of such power. Which means that, like virtually all disaster movies, the normal Godzilla movie has no plot. Talk about hitting the same beat. Nameless humans are trampled ad infinitum. That brings up the challenge of character. Obviously, you won’t be getting into the psychological and moral needs of Godzilla. And if you tell this story in the normal way, you won’t be getting any character definition from the nameless humans he kills either. You’re left with the military commanders staring helplessly at the destruction, which is as one note as it sounds.

To see how the writers solved these challenges, and the process we might work through on a similar project, we begin by going back to the genres, or story forms, on which Godzilla is based. This is epic horror, technically a story in which the fate of the nation is determined by the actions of a single individual fighting a monster. This basic principle governs all major character and plot decisions the writers make.

The Titanic was the best disaster film ever made. The key technique James Cameron used to elevate it above one of the lowest of all genres was to begin with a love story. This allowed the audience to get to know two people extremely well, and to invest deeply in their love. Then when the disaster hit, it wasn’t just mass destruction of a number of characters we never got to know. This disaster really hurt.

Here, writers Dave Callaham (story) and Max Borenstein (screenplay) establish a single human character, Ford Brody, who will be the fulcrum of the epic. Some have criticized the film for its slow start. But this time is crucial to show Ford’s ghost and his intense emotional need to solve the problem no matter the cost. It also connects him and his family to the audience, so that the later mega-battles will mean more to the audience than amazing special effects.

So how does the genre of epic horror help the writers set up the character opposition? They go back to the single most important technique in horror, first used in Frankenstein, where they flip the human and inhuman. In other words, at some point in the story the monster becomes the hero. This technique was also used in Terminator II, where the relentless monster of Terminator I turns into the good guy and an apparently normal-looking human is an even-deadlier terminator.

Of course the writers don’t take this technique as far as Frankenstein or King Kong. Godzilla doesn’t become a psychologically deep character capable of falling in love with some pretty human. But we get a nice plot beat, and it sets up the real battle of the story.

The decision on how to set up the character opposition gives us another benefit. Since humans are apparently impotent in the face of Godzilla’s power, why not create a second and third monster that can give Godzilla real trouble? This opposition may lack the emotional power of a fight between Godzilla and humans, but real emotion requires a fair fight, so that wasn’t going to happen anyway. And since this is both a horror and an epic action story, the fight between mega-monsters is guaranteed to generate much better action set pieces.

The epic horror genre dictates a third major decision for the writers, having to do with the story structure. Adding epic to horror means the action story beats will track the plot. And the most important beat in any action story is the vortex point.

A good action story always converges to a single point known to the audience fairly early in the story. This allows the writers to begin the story on an epic, often worldwide, scale without paying a heavy price. The big danger to the epic action story is that the grand scale can destroy narrative drive as the story meanders from place to place. But by setting up a vortex point, the writers create a cyclone effect where all characters and action lines converge at progressively greater speed.

Sure enough, the vortex point here is San Francisco. All monsters and humans, including our everyman hero, Brody, drive relentlessly to this point in space and time. The storyline speeds up and the battle they fight there is a whopper.

Most writers forget that horror is consistently the most popular story form in worldwide storytelling. But it’s also a very narrow form. Combining it with a genre like action magnifies its power tremendously, especially in the film medium. The trick for writers is learning how to combine the forms so that you get the best of both.

This particular mix of genres won’t get you any respect. You won’t win any awards. But you will get the pleasure of laughing all the way to the bank.

Aussie writer secures US agent, manager

Australian writer Justine Juel Gillmer has signed with major US talent agency WME (Blake Fronstin) and with Jeff Silver’s 4th Floor Management.

Gillmer’s pilot Wanted has been optioned by ITV Studios US Group and Deb Spera and Maria Grasso of One-Two Punch Productions, who, along with Gillmer, will executive produce the series.

Set in 1874, the drama follows three women – an assassin, a grifter and a healer – who become entwined in the web of a criminal conspiracy stretching across America’s Wild West.

“The producing team, as well as Justine’s reps, are currently working to solidify the package and are in contact with a select group of buyers,” said Keith Sweitzer, the literary manager and producer who represents Gillmer in Australia and is among the producers attached to Wanted.

Gillmer is writing one episode for each of the second series of Playmaker Media’s Love Child and FremantleMedia Australia’s Wonderland.

She started writing for TV in 2005 after graduating from AFTRS with a Masters in Screenwriting.

Her credits include episodes of Packed to the Rafters, McLeod’s Daughters, Crownies, Mako-Island of Secrets and In Your Dreams.

She was script producer on SLR Productions’ Sam Fox: Extreme Adventures, a children’s series based on the popular action adventure books by Justin D’Ath.

Gillmer is also developing Vault, a feature film with Mike Wiluan of Infinite Studios, Singapore, described as a pan-Asian period action pic involving a Singaporean heist that goes wrong and the ancient myth of the deadly Langsuir.

By Don Groves

IF magazine  Tue 15/04/2014