BBC/Film Council parternship

Busy with the Irish Film Board script reports today but thought it remiss not to mention last week's news about the BBC and the Film Council getting together. Here's the deal:

"The BBC and the UK Film Council, two of the biggest stakeholders in British film, have joined forces to put film and broadcasting at the centre of a brand new partnership.

The BBC and the UK Film Council will work in tandem with a range of collaborative projects designed to give audiences more choice, develop and support creativity and skills across the industry and encourage public participation in film.

A key element of the BBC’s renewed commitment to film is a new BBC film strategy for broadcast across all its channels and platforms, supported by a minimum 50% increase in the BBC’s budget for film from £10 million a year to £15 million a year and an increase in the proportion of the BBC’s acquisition budget allocated to British films with a guaranteed £50 million over the next charter period subject to the outcome of the licence fee settlement.

This increased investment is part of a new BBC film strategy setting out clear objectives for the way the BBC can support and participate in British film for the duration of the next charter.

The five key points of the BBC strategy are:-

1. Increase BBC TV channel support for British films with the launch of a new BBC channel strategy for film, including extra commitment to new talent on BBC Three.
2. Increase the proportion of acquisition spend directed to UK film for feature films that could play on BBC One and Two. The BBC will invest a guaranteed £5 million a year over the next charter period for this purpose (with scope for a potential further £5 million a year).
3. Help stimulate indigenous British feature film production through a minimum 50% increase to BBC Films’s budget.
4. Continue to drive innovation and awareness of film across the BBC’s media outlets;
5. With the BBC’s partners, continue to support British talent, training and development.

As well as the massive boost for British film production and acquisition, the UK Film Council and the BBC will pool resources in partnership with Skillset and the British Film Institute giving audiences more choice to film and cinema through the Uk Film Council’s Digital Screen Network, and the BBC’s Creative Archive; developing and supporting creativity and skills to ensure the UK attracts the brightest and the best talent in to the film industry through the Film Skills Training Strategy A Bigger Future and through the Film Network; and encouraging public participation and increasing opportunities for learning through First Light and the Charter for media literacy.

Commenting on this new creative partnership, John Woodward, Chief Executive Officer of the UK Film Council said:

“Our new partnership backed by the substantial increase of the BBC’s films budget is a real boost for the British film industry. We know the general public want to see more British films; recent Ofcom research showed that film on TV was more important to the public than soaps. We’ve always worked well with the BBC in the past, but we have a now have a unique opportunity to put this relationship on a new footing sharing the same mission to ensure that more British films are made and shown on the BBC channels.”

Stewart Till CBE, Chairman of the UK Film Council said:

“Over the next charter period we could see almost a doubling of the BBC’s acquisition budget from £6 million a year up to £11 million a year which means more people will get to see more British films on their television. Coupled with the BBC’s commitment to increase production spend by a minimum 50% from £10 million a year to £15 million a year means that more British films will be made. Together this increased investment is a formidable boost for the British film industry.”

Jana Bennett, BBC Director of Television said:

“Films make a huge contribution to the mix of content on offer to British TV viewers. By investing this acquisition money in UK films we are ensuring that television audiences have access to a mix of movies which includes the very best of British. The newly defined roles of each of the channels in broadcasting film will also help viewers find the movies that they love on the free to air channels that they trust.”

Alan Yentob, Creative Director of the BBC said:

“BBC Films has a unique place in the UK film industry as a supporter of projects which would otherwise not make it onto the big screen. Many of these have made a huge impact with critical and commercial success including A Cock & Bull Story, Iris, Dirty Pretty Things, Bullet Boy, Mrs Henderson Presents, In This World, Match Point and Billy Elliot. Increased investment will broaden the portfolio of films we can bring to the screen enhancing the BBC’s contribution to the UK film industry.”

How (Not) to Write a Script in Four Days

The first thing you shouldn’t do is tell people what you plan to do. Undertaking a script is an arduous task and not to be taken lightly so announcing to the world that you’re going to write a screenplay in four days is only asking for trouble on a number of different levels. One of the more pertinent problems of this type of announcement is that you’ve got to finish what you started. And naturally, after day one, you won’t want anything to do with a computer and keyboard.

But you’ve got a four day deadline that you’ve only got yourself to blame for so it’s just best to suck it up and crack on.

Day One: Research and Basic Outlining
At this early stage of the process, I’m thinking that my script is going to be a fun and lively sci-fi/action/horror/thriller along the lines of Underworld and Blade so, to get myself in the right frame of mind and to help me get in the zone, I view these said films and make some notes on the general style and structure.

I then do some very rough outlining: “Lead characters in action in their ‘normal’ supernatural roles. Mid-attack or whatever, their powers and motivation falter, and they find themselves ‘human’. Souls and power sucked out of them by the villain. Gather together and try to figure out what’s going on. Villain gathering strength from the supernatural gangland, plans to take over the world.” The purpose of this is that I have some vague notion of somewhere to go rather than getting stuck after page 5.

No pages of the script are written.

Day Two: Write 30 Pages
It’s so easy to write that. ‘Write 30 pages’. Three words. So simple. And it also conjures up an equally beguiling image of sitting down at a computer and whacking out 30 pages because you’ve got some vague notion of where you want the story to go.

Wrong.

Immediately the inner-critic kicks in and tells me that while the opening sequence is okay, in a rough draft kind of way, the rest is rubbish. I’m on page 14. I want to stop and re-read and edit and change but I tell myself that this won’t help me in my challenge. I’ve got to get the script done, not perfect. So I plough on regardless. I finish the first 22 pages before I take some time-out for refreshments, promising to write another 20 (30 if I’m buzzing) before I got to bed on a drunken high. I get drunk and too tired to write. Only finish 32 pages. Still, it’s achieved the first day’s golden purpose: write 30 pages. Easy.

Day Three: Write Another 30 Pages
Aw hell. Another 30 pages? There’s rugby on TV y’know (Scotland beat England!). And I have a life too. So I procrastinate. I do things around the house and spend quality time with my better half. We go to see Walk the Line and afterwards, suitably inspired, I try to crack another 30 pages of the script before I call it a day.

Quality of plot and action quickly goes out the window but I have no time to stop and amend. I just get it down. It hurts on two levels: one, it’s rubbish, and two, trying to come up with more rubbish to complete the writing agenda. I get to page 58 on the script. Not quite the allocated pages but it’ll do.

Day Four: Finish the Bloody Thing
Or ‘Write Until your Soul Bleeds”. All the craft and skill of a quality screenplay is sadly lacking as the plot veers off into inconsistencies and tonal confusion that only a frazzled scribe could make. Me. It’s quite fun though, in a ‘hey, not bad for four days’ work’. And some of the narrative doesn’t make me wince. I say ‘some of the narrative’, what I really mean is ‘page one’. But the pages must be confronted and completed. It’s like being on a 3,000 mile car journey on a flat road and the only way to get there is to chew up the miles, resolute at the wheel.

Some of the action stuff isn’t bad but the story lacks cohesion with its characters and plot. I try to convince myself that most of the films in this genre do the same but it’s a slim excuse.

Complete the script at 1am. 98 pages. Punch drunk with elation, disappointment and whiskey. I wanted it to be better but I suppose I should be grateful I got it done. But now the philosophical question: is it better to have a rough first draft completed over a quick period which will now need time and care to get it into shape or is it best to carefully prepare a first draft so that you’re closer to sending it out?

My initial feeling is that this bashed out script is certainly better than the first script I ever wrote. But that wouldn’t be hard. And it has some fun moments, scenes, characters and plot turns that I can use and elaborate. It’s all very rough, raw and inconsistent. But of course it would be. I’m very happy with the idea and the characters but the plot, pace and structure has a long way to go yet.

For those who’re interested, I’ve put up the first eighteen pages of the script (where I introduce the main characters) at the Files section of my website. The film is called ‘Us Mere Mortals’ and is about four creatures of the night who are turned into humans so they unite to form an unlikely team of vigilantes in their quest to regain their immortality. Some violent and sexual scenes, which you can take as a warning, or an encouragement.

Back to real work…

'Challenge' Upate

I'm regretting it already. Although it is fun, in a masochistic kind of way.

(Very) basic outlining yesterday coupled with a few viewings of similar films of its type, namely Underworld, Blade (Trinity) and Van Helsing. Maybe Van Helsing wasn't the best reference to use...

Underworld wasn't as bad as I had expected. It had some interesting elements to its characters & story, and you could see what it was trying to do, and the actors managed to pull it off, just.

Blade Trinity was a lot of fun for action, not so much on plot, and the latter half of the story kind of dwindled away into nothing. Still, it was the pick of the bunch.

And so, my horror-scifi-action-thriller has begun. I'm trying not to stop as I write but writing with gay abandon is a new experience, and I'm only just getting into the swing of it.

I'm on page 32. I thought I'd get drunk tonight and plough my way through twenty more pages but I've had my drinks and am now too tired, so I'm going to bed.

If I have 80 pages by Sunday night I'll be pleased but I still hold out for a complete 'rough draft' by then too.

Peace.

A challenge...

It’s been a refreshingly busy start to the year - January and February are usually dead - and it’s been a good mixture of actual paid work and speculative script hopes and dreams. It’s funny how money and contracts always take longer to thrash out than the casual rejections that are quick to fill your in-box. OK, maybe not that funny.

Have had a couple of rejections to my new spec script, which is frustrating but fine, and one positive response which is going to physically manifest itself into a meeting over the next couple of weeks. Really excited about the script’s prospects and potential but even though I have a meeting to discuss, the rejections sting and burn.

Yesterday, I finished reading a batch of 15 scripts for the Irish Film Board and I’ve got until March 1st to hand in my reports. It should take me two/three days to do the coverage so I plan to do that on Monday and Tuesday. That leaves me with today, tomorrow and the weekend to do some proper writing.

So I’m going to set myself a challenge. I’m going to write a brand new script over the weekend. It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just needs to get done. The purpose of the exercise is to finish a rough draft so that I can polish it up at a more leisurely pace and present that as a ‘first draft’. This self-imposed challenge has come about partly because I’ve got two full working days to just write (my usual trip to London not necessary) but mainly because of the rejections I’ve received this week.

Rejections have this bizarre tendency to make me feel dizzy with disappointment for a couple of hours until I come out the other side fuelled with a feverish drive and determination. And so, my creative carburettor has turned my feelings of anger and disappointment into a grit and resolve to prove them all wrong.

For some strange and masochistic reason, every rejection makes me feel more positive that I’m going to succeed. Sure, I have to go through that dizzying spell of fraught despair but that bullish resolve soon surfaces (part-delusional, part-certainty) and I’m ready to go to the races again.

As this blog’s tagline is: “A place to pitch, moan and share”, I’ve realised that there’s been plenty of moaning and sharing but there hasn’t been any real pitching. And so, let me pitch to you the two ideas I’m going to wrestle with before I choose one to write over the weekend.

One: a new children’s series called ‘Doctors and Nurses’ where all the adult roles are played by children. Press Gang meets Bugsy Malone, but without the song and dance.

Two: a genre bending horror-thriller-adventure about four creatures of the night who are demoted into mere humans and unite to make an unlikely gang of vigilantes in their quest to regain their immortality.

I think I know already.

If you’re a producer and one or both of the ideas floats your boat, you know where I am.

See you on the other side.

Love Thy Script Editor

A writer’s job is to communicate a story through a clear and expressive narrative that includes the premise, plot and characters of the writer’s vision. It’s a script editor’s job (and to some extent an audience’s) to respond to the material and to identify the story’s weaknesses.

The writer knows what he’s trying to say (and thinks he has said it), and how he wants the audience to feel at any given moment in the story, but he may not have expressed it clearly enough and the script editor needs to question and encourage the writer to strengthen his narrative so that the work’s full entertainment value can be enjoyed.

This may sound like ‘an ideal world’ scenario (we’ve spoken about script editors before in the post about ’rewriting’) but any script editor with any ounce of sensitivity and creativity will help the writer express his story in a more detailed and improved manner. Those script editors who slash a story (and the writer’s heart) to pieces without any thought for what the writer was trying to say should be demoted to unpaid script reader for as long as they realise that their job is a bit more difficult than reading a script and offering: “it’s not very good is it?”

One of the most valuable lessons I learnt about script editing was when I attended Arista Development’s Story Seminar week in Italy 2004. I went along as a script editor to pick up some skills that would compliment and heighten my script reading analysis. I was confident with what I knew and I was confident with what I would learn.

The week is an intensive training schedule where you attend screenwriting lectures and workshops in the morning (around a very picturesque setting). Those also in attendance are writers and writer/directors who have taken their script along in an effort to understand the development process a bit more and apply some of the week’s learning to the next draft of the script. To this end, Arista team up the script editors with the writers and you get to work.

I was teamed up with a passionate writer/director who was stuck on his feature debut: a very personal and emotive script. Reading his notes before our first meeting, I got excited about the project and the prospect of us working together. He seemed to identify the weaknesses in the script that I had also spotted and, because he was a professional, I thought I could get stuck in to the script editing process in order to make real progress.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I jumped into our first meeting two feet first and his reaction was stonewall defensive. It was a disaster. I leaped into suggestions and my own personal reaction to the script without first earning his trust or asking the right questions. It was awful.

Because of the intensity of the week, it really was a challenging and emotional experience, and because of my first ill-step on the road to development, I was left in tears every night in my room because of my misplaced effort. Still, I was determined to make matters right. I knew what I had to say was useful and my notes would help him but I had to build that bridge of communication so that he would listen and consider what I had to say.

It was an extremely tough week where I had to dig myself out of the hole of my first meeting. I managed to repair the damage somewhat, and he edged a little closer to what I had to say, but I was crushed from the effort and his reaction (and the fact that he was a patronising prick didn’t help either). But I pushed all that aside and just focused on what I was there to learn and what the week was for. I had paid my money (Skillset graciously helped me with some cash from their freelance bursary) so I wanted to get the most out of the experience.

I learnt far more than I ever imagined I would and it taught me a valuable lesson for feature script editing in that, ideally, you should ASK the writer questions and then OFFER suggestions if his replies are not as convincing as he and you would like. It’s the writer that holds the key to the story. He knows more about the plot and characters that he will ever realise or admit to so a fruitful script editing relationship is about pushing the writer to find those answers and implement them successfully into the script.

Speaking of unpaid script reader jobs, here’s an opportunity that some of you may be interested in (from Shooting People):

“Recently-formed production company, CUS Pictures, is looking for sophisticated, enthusiastic, London-based readers to critically appraise and give targeted feedback on the raft of scripts currently under the company's consideration.

Would suit those with a background in screenwriting or script analysis. Some industry experience helpful but not essential.

Reading would initially be done from home. There is scope to move to a development role in the office, working with writers to improve successive drafts. Opportunities to work in prep and production also exist over the longer term and would depend on the individual.

Immediate start. Unpaid initially.

Pls send CV and include tel no. on your reply. Initial meeting would be in Brick Lane.
Many Thanks,
Andy Coltman
andycoltman@yahoo.co.uk “

Script Vs Film: The Devil's Rejects

Writer/director Rob Zombie pulls no punches. With a pseudonym like that, you wouldn't expect him to. If you've seen House of 1,000 Corpses, his directorial debut from 2003, you'll know what I'm talking about. He’s making the kind of films today that some of the controversial and banned horrors of the 70s/80s would like to be. For the critics, his particular brand of violent horror is all too easy to dismiss but Mr Zombie knows what he likes and knows how to get it on-screen.

The Devil’s Rejects was a sequel of sorts to House of 1,000 Corpses and while a bit too hairy and uncomfortable for the teen horror crowd, it was an unashamed gore thriller that satisfied Zombie’s cult audience and did respectable business at the American box office. The violent content of the story is uncomfortable and extreme but reading the script last year, I was surprised and impressed at the solid level of craft that Mr Zombie applied to his screenplay…(beware of nasty spoilers ahead)

“It’s always interesting with films of this type because the sequel can often outdo the original because of the hype and cult following that can generate from word of mouth and gore tactics. The House of 1,000 Corpses may not go down as a classic but it did respectable business and there’s always an audience out there for this type of slasher flick.

With that in mind, there could be something in this sequel as the story picks up where the last one left off and continues with its twisted violence and humour. The script is fairly decently written and it follows a neat structure with some effective characterisation and basic storytelling techniques. The content may not be exactly discerning or laudable but it sure has a sense of what it is and what it wants to do.

It offers a bit of story with Sheriff Wydell out to revenge a bizarre family of psychotics (The Devil’s Rejects) for the murder of his brother, the good lawman George Wydell. This concept is offered up to drive the entire film so that the Rejects’ killing and mayhem can take centre stage. To be fair, it’s effectively done. There’s a simple set up which is followed by an equally simple structure of ‘find the killers before they kill again’.

This structure gives the script lots of room to take advantage of the Rejects’ twisted sense of violence, justice and humour. When the Rejects escape the cops in the opening sequence, the next sequence sees Otis and Baby taking an innocent music band hostage and torturing them just to kill time before Captain Spaulding shows up. Wydell is still on the hunt for them and he gets to have some fun with Mother Firefly while two vigilantes Rondo and Snapper track Otis and Baby down.

For the target audience, this is great stuff as it gives them what they want. Violence, crude humour and sickly scenes. The story involving Wydell and his revenge is built up for the first half of the flick but then basically discarded so that the violence and retribution can crank itself up a notch. It all turns a bit silly and superficial. It’s to be expected really but it’s difficult to see the film having true and lasting appeal at the cineplexes.

This is a DVD/video home run where the film’s notoriety and violent action will be its biggest draw. Despite the criticism that can easily be thrown at the film, there is some good writing on display. There’s a good twist towards the end when Wydell gets killed and an effective twist again when his deputy Dobson unexpectedly shows up to kill the baddies.

It would have been great if the writing had taken a bit more care with its characterisation and character development (honestly, there is some in evidence) but writer/director Rob Zombie knows what he wants to do so he doesn’t get too bogged down with the complex nature of the beasts. This is all about profanity, violence and sick individuals.

So sure, yeah, it’s got some mileage for marketability but it’s not going to endear itself with critics or a large audience. But that would be missing the point. This film is not for them. This is primarily for a male 16-24 audience that laps up computer games, violence and porn as everyday habits. It should make some money as a release but as stated before, it’s the DVD/video market where this is likely to make its return.”

I'll Have What He's Having: The Jacket Potato

Today’s thrifty special in The Screenwriter's Diet series: Jack-Pot-Toon-Sweets.

Or for those who speak normal English, Jacket Potato Tuna Sweetcorn.

Effort: Easy peasy
Cost: Pittance


Ingredients:
A jacket potato. Tin of tuna, tin of sweetcorn. Lemon juice, salt & pepper. Optional: mayonnaise, herb of your choice, cheese.

Method:
Heat the oven to really hot, baby.
Stab the potato with a fork or sharp knife all around its surface.
Nuke* the spud for five/six minutes on a high setting.
Using a paper towel, dab some oil (olive/sunflower or veg) around the potato and plonk it in the oven.
While that’s crisping up, mix the (drained) tuna and sweetcorn in a bowl. Season with salt & pepper and add lemon juice if you want, and/or bind it with a little bit of mayo. If you’ve got an herb lying around (basil, parsley), great, chop it up and bung it in.
Take the spud out of the oven after about ten minutes, or until suitably crispy.
Split open, fork the insides into a fluffy mash, adding some butter to make it nice and soft, not dry. Add the toon-sweet mix and there you go.

For those not watching their waist-line, top with melted cheese.

Alternative but equally delicious toppings for the jack-pot: beans, cheesy beans, cheesy beans and bacon, bolognese, bolognese with parmesan, or any blimmin’ thing you want really…

The ideal snack for the harassed but hungry screenwriter.

* Microwave

What a Writer Doesn't Write

In screenwriting, it is commonly accepted that subtext is a key component to a story, partly responsible for the audience’s emotional involvement and ultimate dramatic reward. But there is another facet of subtext that is not as commonly discussed or considered, at least not in the subtext sense: narrative description.

The way a writer writes his script and displays his knowledge of craft is all-important in how a reader/exec, and an audience, responds to the material. From the pages that roll by, the reader will (hopefully) get a solid sense of tone, pace, characterisation, emotion, drama and structure that represents the writer’s voice; his/her particular way of telling a screen story.

However, the golden rule of screenwriting (there are no rules or to put it in a Matrix context: “there is no spoon”) is this: less is more. Screenwriters are continually told that they should only describe what happens on the screen, and let the drama and exposition flow from the characters’ behaviour and actions. While this is generally good advice, it is impossible to write a script without indicating some unseen sense of emotion or what a character is thinking.

Some will gasp at the notion of describing what your character is thinking or telling the reader what’s emotionally under the surface but sometimes the writer simply cannot take the risk of the reader not getting it and which could lead to a hasty and misinformed ‘Pass’ on the reader’s coverage. This dismissive tendency is at the root of writers’ never-ending frustration at over-worked interns and the system not recognising their talent.

Reading screenplays isn’t very hard but understanding and appreciating screen language is something that every reader should take a little bit more time to mull over. It’s sometimes too easy to read a script and think: plain, dull and uninvolving, when really the script could be rich with subtext and dramatic content, and worthy of a consideration.

The onus inevitably rests with the writers to make sure their story is as clear and as expressive as possible but with the adage of “less is more” haunting your head at every page, just how do you combine the key emotional and dramatic beats with basic directions such as: “John walks in to the room”?

(a page from one of Robert Thorogood's scripts, writer/creator of Death in Paradise, which was developed through the Red Planet Prize.)

As the writer, there’s so much to consider: how am I going to dramatise this in the best way possible; what are the characters feeling; what should they say etc? And then this thought-process gets distilled to the clear form of screenwriting where, to a layman, it could read plain and unremarkable.

In TV drama, you have a little bit more leeway not to stop and explain what is going on or what a character is thinking (because everyone's more familiar) but for feature spec scripts, it’s crucial that every bit of emotion, story beat and motivation is understood by the cold reader. Less is indeed more but sparse description combined with the direct expression of what the subtext is could be the perfect accompaniment for the reader to ‘get the story’ without them feeling that they’re being hammered over the head every step of the way.

It’s an extremely delicate balance and one writers struggle over every day. Ideally, scripts want that keen sense of story and momentum, with characters and motivation jumping off the page through the dialogue and action. However, “less is more” can sometimes come across as “less is less” and the reader is left none the wiser by your cool sense of style and wicked grasp of craft.

For the writer, it will be clear as day what the character is doing and why, and will think the audience has got it, but sometimes if it’s not directly in the narrative description, then the reader’s just skimmed by it.

So much criticism and responsibility is laid at the writer’s door to make a screenplay as engaging as possible with the fewest amount of words and wonderful visual description but readers/execs need to take some responsibility too, and be aware of “what the writer isn’t writing” or try to consider the choices the writer has made in telling the story in the manner in which it’s coming across.

Maybe in an ideal world, this could happen. Just because they say it’s rubbish and leave you crushed with rejection doesn’t mean that they’re right. As it is, we simply have to keep plugging away and hope that someone with a discerning eye and a solid appreciation of screenwriting will recognise and embrace the work as told.

It’s a topic that can’t easily be summed up in one short post, there’s so much to discuss and debate (different styles of screenwriting, what someone does well another will do atrociously, a wannabe Shane Black for example) but style and tone aside, the important exposition about character, story and emotion is what I’m talking about, the stuff that’s not in the dialogue but in the characters’ visual behaviour and motives…

Breaking and Entering

There’s a great interview over at Guardian Film with the five BAFTA nominees for “The Carl Foreman Award for Special Achievement by a British film-maker in their First Feature Film”, which is a fancy way of saying ‘Best British Newcomer’.

But the nominees - Joe Wright, Peter Fudakowski, David Belton, Annie Griffin and Richard Hawkins - aren’t newcomers at all. They’ve been working in the industry for years. Or on the television side at least. Ah! There it is. Television. As they themselves discuss about being nominated as a cinema newcomer: “there's a line that you've crossed and that you're now accepted ... into the magical world of movie-making” whereas Joe Wright doesn’t “see any divide between the work I've done previously [in TV] and this.”

So, is it a case of the film industry making a grand gesture about itself by declaring these talented folk as ‘Best British Newcomer’ or is there a genuine divide between TV work and film fare? Christ, I don’t really know. I expect there’s a divide because cinema is on a bigger scale and attracts the larger egos but ironically the work reaches a smaller audience: “More people will watch something on TV than will ever go and see it in the cinema.”

They say it takes about ten years to become a successful screenwriter. Does that mean that ten years of doing hard graft and working your ass off grants you the misnomer of ‘Best Newcomer’? That you might plough away happily with loads of TV commissions but then you’re first cinema screenwriting credit is hailed as ‘Hot New Talent’? (I like it when publications use the phrase: “in his/her feature debut” whether it be a writer or director.) A couple of years ago, Matt Lucas and David Walliams won Best Newcomer at the British Comedy Awards, and they’d been around for about ten years in the comedy circuit, doing their time.

Personally, I can understand and accept this kind of categorisation because while you may work very hard for years under the radar, the industry needs to identify and classify your voice once it becomes known to a greater part of the viewing public. But the snobbish divide between cinema and TV is an interesting one. Most execs that I’ve come across encourage and approve of writers doing as much TV as possible - that’s where all the up and coming screenwriters are coming from - but there are some who hold their nose at the thought of the ‘lower ranks’ of TV, and wouldn’t dream of gracing their presence on anything but a 75x50 foot screen.

It doesn’t upset me too much. Nor does the heated debate about the “film by” director credit (over at Artful Writer). I’m kind of in the middle. Frustratingly on the fence. How about you?

Screenwriting DIY

Don’t let not having an agent stop you from getting out there and nabbing work or missing a networking opportunity. In How to Get an Agent I mentioned that to register on an agent’s radar, you will need to have applied a bit of hard graft and created some momentum of your own first (short, play, radio etc).

Too many people are whingers. They complain about the system instead of getting underneath what makes the system tick and trying to manipulate it to their own ends. The whingers will have written one, possibly two, scripts but will have had them rejected around town so they think - “that blasted Writers’ Room” or “bloody script readers, what do they know?” or “I am a genius, can’t they see that!”.

Having your work rejected or unappreciated by people in the business is the first rung on your career ladder. Once you accept it and move on, then you’re ready to raise your game to the next stage. It’s all about your belief, passion and conviction. You may receive a further twenty rejections and knockbacks but with a combination of common sense, a passion to succeed and the odd new contact you’ll make, inevitably an opportunity will arise somewhere, at some stage.

“Everything happens for a reason” is usually a phrase I disregard as a load of old tosh but when you take direct responsibility for the phrase, as in, “I’m going to make sure something happens, and the reason will be because I worked very hard”, then it takes on a whole new practical meaning. “No fate but the fate you make”. I believe in that.

Tim Clague, my new Bournemouth colleague, is an inspiration in this regard. If you don’t already know, Tim was nominated for a BAFTA with his short film Eight, directed by Stephen Daldry before he went on to do Billy Elliot. Since then, Tim has gone on to write and direct a number of shorts, and secure some feature development deals.

Has he done this with an agent? Did he wait for representation to roll in when he got nominated for a BAFTA (back in 1998)? Hell no. He’s done it all himself with his passion and conviction for filmmaking. And Tim believes wholeheartedly in the skill of self-marketing and getting yourself out there. In his blog, he recently spoke about attending the Meet the Agents seminar at BAFTA (and followed it up with this).

Tim is preparing a pitch to South West Screen and the Film Council to sponsor an alternative course for new writers: Sales. Using marketing tools and common business practices to sell you, the writer, as a product and what you have to offer. Never mind the agent. Do it yourself.

To really convince SWScreen and/or the Film Council that they should sponsor Tim’s idea, he needs to hear from writers who are interested in such a course. Visit Tim’s blog and get in touch to let him know. If he’s got a list of 50 writers, he can approach the funding bodies and say: “look, I haven’t done a market survey but 50 writers have told me that they’d be interested in something like this, so it’s worth doing”. So if you’ve got some gumption and think you’re ready to advance your career but not yet right for an agent, then it’s time to learn the essential practical skills needed to present yourself and your work in a more appealing fashion.

Being street-savvy and having bags of common sense will get you a long way but practical and professional practice will also help you to get that bit further than the rest of the wannabes that are out there.

Let’s rock this joint.

Script Vs Film: Sin City

I think I’m going to start using spam emailers as characters in my scripts. Today’s heroine: Fanny Dennison.

Anyway, in this week’s Script Vs Film, I thought it would be interesting to put up Sin City for examination as it’s a film that most people will have seen by now and it’d be good to take a look at a script that relied more on its distinctive visual flourish and appealing cast. Also, I think this script in particular is most relevant for the Script Vs Film series as at the flicks, it rocked the world of its target audience but as a script, well, here’s what I thought (spoilers etc):

“This is a stirring, violent, visual and gritty adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel, Sin City. It’s pretty much boys only, as in that is the main fan base, but the subject matter and overall concept is enough to ensure that these fans will get their kicks from Rodgriguez’s crime-fest. The film is extremely targeted on its audience and it makes no apologies as it blasts its way through three different stories about three different crime sprees in the heart of the fictional Sin City.

It’s not going to appeal to an audience like Spider-Man or the more accessible comic book heroes but with Rodgriguez behind the helm, plus the slew of top name actors, this will no doubt do the business come its release. Apparently, a lot, if not all, of the action is going to played out in front of a green screen so that the background and visual aspects of Sin City can be fully pumped up for CGI and whatever. This will add a considerable flair to the proceedings and makes the visual potential of the flick a whole lot tastier, given Rodgriguez’s proven track record for elevating his visual material with the Spy Kids series.

In truth, the three different stories aren’t particularly remarkable or noteworthy but they are strung together in a neat style and brisk pace to ensure that the action and humour are what the film is really about.

Structurally, it couldn’t be simpler. The three stories – Sin City, The Big Fat Kill and That Yellow Bastard – serve as the film’s three main acts. There’s a short prologue and epilogue that bookends the film with the same scene but by the end this scene takes on a whole new different meaning for the audience than when the flick started. This was quite a clever device but ultimately this scene didn’t have an emotional or overly dramatic impact. The writing though is impressive as it maintains a swift momentum for each story and the action that takes part therein.

Sin City introduces us to the world of the film as Marv vows revenge for his beloved Goldie. From this, we get the basic set up of Sin City and the few characters that are going to pop up in the remaining stories or at least, have a significant presence. Marv’s story is entertaining enough, if a bit blustery and short. The stories are at a disadvantage really because they don’t have much time to elaborate or develop because of the time limits imposed by the three stories-within-one-film scenario.

Still, it’s swiftly on to The Big Fat Kill – Dwight’s predicament after a prostitute kills a respected cop – and here the action, gore and thrills are turned up a notch. Tarantino is directing this segment so expect more of the daring usual from QT.

That Yellow Bastard, the final instalment, offers the film the chance to get to an emotional heart with the use of Hartigan, the chiselled veteran cop, who is set up for assaulting Nancy, the young girl. Their character development together when Hartigan is released from prison eight years later is a neat alternative to the action and gore of the previous stories but there’s not too much time to dwell on it as Hartigan confronts Roark Jnr for an action and gore showdown.

It got a bit confusing as to who the yellow bastard was in the story. Initially, Bob, Hartigan’s double crossing partner, stood out as that yellow bastard but later, the story implies that Roark Jnr is the sallow illegitimate. As such, the story doesn’t get a chance to shine with a powerful theme about Hartigan’s revenge on that yellow bastard. Indeed, the three stories don’t seem to be thematically linked, which isn’t a necessity but would have been good.

The only link between the three is the fact that they all take place in Sin City, a hell on earth where the line between being a good guy and a bad guy doesn’t really exist. Fans of the comics, excuse me, the graphic novels, will probably revel in Rodriguez’s criminal delight, while a solid mixture of geeky and discerning teens should also get their kicks from this dark take on a popular genre.”

Screenwriting Diet

The brief mention of ‘broad bean salad’ in the “A Life in the Day” post has provoked more emails and queries than any controversial or playful discussion on the finer attributes of screenwriting. So, maybe this could be the first in a new series: “I’ll Have What He’s Having: The Screenwriter’s Diet”.

For those screenwriters living on a tight budget (me) and/or trying to remain reasonably slim (hello again), here’s the lowdown on the broad bean salad.

Ingredients:
One tin of sweetcorn. Not a piddly thing. A nice big one, preferably with a green giant staring right at you from the label.
One tin of red kidney beans.
One tin of broad beans.
A good handful of your preferred herb (I recommend basil).

Method:
Drain the tins of sweetcorn, kidney beans and broad beans. Go on, drain those suckers until they’re an inch from their short sweet lives.

Then dump them all in a big bowl. Chop up the basil and add it to the mix. Season with salt and pepper. Stir it all together into one crazy kaleidoscope of gastronomical goodness. (I sometimes sneak in a handful of pumpkin seeds and sesame seeds to give it that extra bit of bite and nutrition).

Now what you have is a salad that will last the week in a chilled fridge. DO NOT DRESS THE SALAD WITH OIL/DRESSING etc. Only dress the salad when you take the portion you want to eat on any given day. This also gives you the opportunity to play with the flavour of the salad so that it doesn’t become a boring accompaniment to your dish (“not broad bean salad again!”).

Recommended dressings: olive oil or olive oil and lemon. Thai sweet chilli sauce. Great with all types of fish or meat.

Here's the science bit: beans have some special/peculiar way of digesting in your system so it's quite filling, and you won't be hungry until tea-time. OK, so it wasn't very scientific but you get the gist.

And way back when, in the post about Genre Schmenre, I mentioned a really easy pasta recipe.

Ingredients:
Some farfalle pasta.
Smoked salmon (any fish really).
A good cup of frozen peas.
A tub of single cream (or to hell with it, make it double).

Method:
Make the pasta al dente, then chuck into frying pan with a bit of olive oil. Add torn strips of smoked salmon and the frozen peas. Pour in the tub of single cream. Season with those good buddies salt & pepper. Squeeze juice of about half a lemon and serve. Delicious and simple and quick. You may be tempted to top it with parmesan cheese. Don’t.

Today’s dinner: Rack of lamb with pistachio herb crust with potato & parsnip bake. Can’t wait.

Pitching

You go in. Tell your story. They show you the door.

In between, they may interrupt you to take a phone call, or answer an email, or close their eyes (hopefully in a good way). They may listen to your pitch, ask a few questions about the characters and make a couple of suggestions for the plot. Naturally their suggestions are all fantastic and insightful, these guys know story yeah, that’s why they pay them the big bucks.

There are great articles on the web about pitching from more experienced scribes than me. Do a Google search and you’ll get hundreds. But Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio’s column about pitching was particularly useful when I got the opportunity to pitch an idea to Working Title a couple of years ago. Most of you will have read the WordPlay article but I decided to take its advice on board for my pitch. After all, if it’s good enough for Katzenberg and Spielberg, then it’s good enough for Working Title in the UK, right?

Absolutely. Let me just say that everything that Elliot & Rossio say in that pitching column happened to me (bar making a sale, goddamit). Basically, for those who don’t know (go and read it now), they suggest outlining your pitch on index cards and pinning them to a corkboard. Then you bring it along to the studio like a schmuck (through traffic, elevators, reception) but it’s worth it because the pitch becomes an interactive meeting and all attention is on the board rather than you. It’s great.

When I pitched, the stress level went down as soon as I saw the exec’s eye on the board, working out the story ahead of me, and I was able to relax more into telling the story. Afterwards, the exec told me that no-one had pitched to him like that, definitely one of the better ones he’d received (he was doing a big solicited call for pitches). He really liked the concept and the story, appreciated the work I put into it, and was willing to take me to the next stage to pitch to the Head of Development.

Foolishly, I gave the exec a six/seven page outline of my pitch, told him to use that for reference but subconsciously I was pleading with him not to make me perform to the bigwigs, please tell them what you liked and give them the outline. Well he did, and they thought it over, but they passed. It was a great experience though, one of my first big time “Hollywood” pitches.

Another notable pitch was with Hammer Horror. They liked one of my scripts (a horror natch, not a romcom or anything) but had certain reservations about the plot. I went in to meet the exec and we discussed what needed to be done. After some interesting discussion, he suddenly asked me to pitch him the potential new story for the script. My heart skipped. I started to speak and the exec closed his eyes (in a good way). He was nodding his head to my words like he was listening to Danny iPod. His eyes were closed so he could focus. So I went all Keyzer Soze and took anything I could from around the room to give me inspiration.

Most pitches will be in writing. One page outlines, two page outlines, outlines, treatments, sample scenes, series bibles, beer mats. Anything that can express the concept and appeal of whatever project you’re trying to sell.

For one-on-one pitching, it takes a certain amount of preparation and confidence to try to convince the person to take your story on board. It’s hard. Some bad writers get their gigs by doing good pitches. If you’re “good in the room”, then half the battle is won. For written pitches, it’s down to your talents as a writer, the appeal of your concept, and the special spin of your pitch. Whatever its form, pitching is the key element that kickstarts the whole exciting process of getting something made.

It could be your agent on the blower to an exec about your latest epic or you down the pub telling your mates about your cracking new idea or running something by a colleague to see if the premise is any good. It’s all pitching. Conversing, querying, and communicating. We do it all the time. It’s only when we become consciously aware of the ‘pitch’ that our mind begins to generate nervous excitement and the fear of fluffing it up. Fear not. Tell the story. And everything else will follow.

Skillset's Graduate Fellowship Programme

Skillset's Graduate Fellowship Programme has been launched this week.

Developed in partnership with the UK Film Council, the Graduate Fellowship Program will provide 12 participants with the opportunity to gain working experience and training in a film company (Host).

They have a number of fantastic placements on offer, which may be of interest to you or someone you know.

Full details of the programme can be found on their website at Graduate Fellowship.

A Life In the Day...

The exciting rough and tumble of my life was an interesting mix of the good and the bad yesterday. Here’s how it panned out:

8.30am: Get up. Turn on computer. Breakfast - juice, coffee, muffin (homemade).

9.00am: Sit at computer. Check emails, blog, internet.

10.00am: Work on a couple of ideas for Doctors.

12.30pm: I finish two full outlines for Doctors and am quite pleased. I email script editor, she’s quick to reply, and she seems pleased too. I start to feel good about today’s broadcast episode of Doctors as it’s my “lifesaver”.

1.00pm: Starving. So I have lunch (smoked haddock with broad bean salad, mmmm).

1.30pm: On the computer, I skip through my script for today’s Doctors which increases my enthusiasm for the story.

2.00pm: Settle down to watch the episode on BBC1.

2.35pm: Take my head out from behind my hands as I could barely watch without cringing or feeling physical pain.

The first half of the episode was vastly rewritten, without my knowledge or approval, and the style of direction was embarrassing (there were fantasy sequences so they felt they had to dress them up as 'fantasy sequences', complete with over-the-top acting, fanfare music and a dreamy 'look' to the screen...omigod).

2.40pm: The script editor emails to say ‘hope you enjoyed that, we thought it was really good’ (is this their stock email after every ep) ‘what did you think?’. So I tell them exactly what I think and subtly enquire as to who rewrote my script. I don’t get a follow-up response. My current script editor emails to say she wants to talk through my story ideas - I knew I was getting away too easy - and we arrange to speak at 5pm.

3.00pm: Decide to go for a swim to unwind but in my agitated state I bring the wrong amount of money with me and I’m back home in 15 mins.

3.30pm: Now very wound up but can’t be arsed to go outside again so I do a half-hour writer workout instead. In a thoroughly vain and solipsistic exercise, I re-read my script for Doctors and convince myself that my version was genius.

4.30pm: I start the rewrite of Aliens FC, one of the animation features I’ve co-written with Sam Morrison, all round good guy and Everton supporter.

5.05pm: Doctors script editor calls. I expect her to rip my stories to pieces but she’s happy with them all bar some minor, minor tweaks (“change that doctor, he’s leaving etc”). My attitude about Doctors today changes from: “I don’t want to write another episode for them as long as I live” to “Hmmm, four potential stories for commission”.

5.15pm: Continue the animation rewrite. I manage to do 10 pages and am very pleased with myself.

6.15pm: Start reading a script that a director friend is developing and has asked me to read as a favour.

7.15pm: Good news. Me and Sam did some (free) work on a pitch for a new animated show in November 2005 and my agent emails to say that the production company involved are willing to pay us a (small) fee to write the pilot script.

7.30pm: Dinner. Nothing fancy. Jacket potato, beans (some cheese on top) and left over cocktail sausages. The dinner of Screenwriting Kings.

8.00pm: Watch some football. Flick between Fiorentina Vs Inter on Bravo and Chelsea’s win over Everton (sorry Sam).

10.00pm: Finish reading the script. Normally I’d read in one sitting but as it’s a mate, I’ll read it twice anyway.

11.00pm: Check emails, blog, internet. I don’t get much of a response from friends about today’s ep (“well done!” etc) but some get in touch to say: “I didn’t see it”, “Forgot”, “Saw last 5 mins, very good”, “The video recorder exploded”. I’m relieved. Or perhaps they’re just being polite. Get a headache from the computer. Go to bed.

Film Vs Film: When a Stranger Calls

It was SuperBowl extravaganza over the last few days for our American cousins and during this typically quieter period at the weekend box office, a teen thriller with “no real stars and no real budget” crept in to the number one spot with a cool $22m. The film is When a Stranger Calls, a remake of the 1979 cult classic of the same name.

As a script reader, occasionally you will be asked to do a variation on the standard coverage and routine of read a script/do a report. This may come in the form of synopsising a book, chapter by chapter, so that execs can skim read what it’s all about without them actually reading the book. Or it could mean going against your script reader principles (pause to chuckle) and doing ‘positive coverage’ for a script they like even though flies buzz around it because it stinks so much.

Three years ago, I was given the 1979 version of When a Stranger Calls to assess for remake material. Note: not the script, or a treatment, or an outline of what the remake might look like. I was simply given a VHS copy of the 1979 film and told to do a standard report but to focus on any merits it had for remake potential. As a reader, you welcome these diversions. It’s a break from the norm, you get to watch something instead of read it, and you feel genuinely important to the development thinking of a project that may or may not go into production.

Here’s what I wrote (***spoilers of the 1979 version, and possibly remake version, ahead***):

“This film is an effective combination of teen suspense and a cat and mouse cop thriller. It tells a simple, straightforward story and doesn’t rely on cheap shock tactics to enthral the audience. As a result, the story line is well paced and structured to ensure that the frights and suspense are well managed but the story is a little bit too straightforward, and it doesn’t take full advantage of its neat premise and interesting characters.

At first, the story presents itself as a teen suspense flick when a babysitter is terrorised by an anonymous caller who wants her blood but the twist is that the anonymous caller is actually phoning from inside the house! This is a good and inventive premise but just when you’re thinking that you’re in for 90 mins of the babysitter and the psycho, this plot line is used only for the first act before the story pushes forward to seven years later to begin a cat and mouse cop thriller between the arresting officer and the escaped psycho.

This cat and mouse scenario takes up all of the second act, a good hour, before making a welcome return to the babysitter, now married with kids herself, for the third act showdown between her, the psycho and the arresting officer. So in reality, the ‘When a Stranger Calls’ title and the nuisance phone calls are only one part of a broader story involving the psycho’s uneven state.

This film was made in 1979 and did good business – it has a 1993 TV sequel, “When a Stranger Calls Back” - but its appeal for the modern market as a remake is not that great because of the familiar genre and similar story lines that have cluttered up the multiplex over the last few years. The first act involving the terrorised babysitter and the anonymous caller has been done far more stylishly and gorier in the ten minute opening sequence of “Scream” involving Drew Barrymore.

The second act cat and mouse cop chase is a fairly routine case of getting close to the killer but him getting away at a crucial moment, and the final act showdown between the three main characters is your typical confrontation that leads to a sudden death for the psycho. Because the film doesn’t crank up the cheap shock tactics, the story and suspense works quite well, and perhaps with a stylish 21st century make over, this film could be worth investing time and money in, but the central idea and story line seems too familiar and common, and it does not seem wholly original or inventive to reappraise this specific material for a remake.

This is not to scoff at the notion of a remake but it just gives the impression that the premise and story line lacks a certain cutting edge, and does not sit up with enough appeal or potential. The characterisation of the main characters is curiously two dimensional and we do not get any insight or gain valuable information about the private eye, the psycho or the babysitter. This is regretful but the performances make up for this characterisation short fall, in particular English actor (the psycho naturally) Tony Beckley giving a convincing and sympathetic performance.

It could be argued that there is no protagonist for this film because it divides itself between the babysitter and the private eye for top billing but their story lines effectively interweave so that the audience doesn’t feel detached from their particular fears and concerns. The simple and clear structure of the story is quite basic but effective and a 21st century makeover would need to beef up the style, structure and characterisation of the piece to make it have true appeal for the modern market.

As it stands, it’s a modest and entertaining suspense thriller that does the job nicely but its premise and story line have now become too familiar and common place so it is unlikely that a significant audience would appreciate a modern remake of well-known ideas.”

$22m in its opening weekend. A budget of $15m. "No real stars, no real budget". Some clever peeps in the film industry are congratulating themselves. But the title of the sequel cracks me up: When a Stranger Calls Back. Hitting our cinemas in 2008?

London or Bust

“I’m fed up with London this week… It does nothing for me anymore.”
David Hemmings in Blow Up.

In America, there’s an on-going debate for screenwriters whether they should stay where they are (in US suburbia) or head for the sunnier climbs of Los Angeles, cinema’s epicentre. There’s certainly a lot of practical logic with the idea that if you want to be part of something then you should be there to participate, and moving to LA to duck and dive within the system is a must for those young, old, brave, lucky and desperate enough to succeed.

Fortunately, because screenwriters can make a living without ostensibly having to deal with another human being, there is an argument about whether you have to be in the physical locality of LA at all. However, while most execs, agents and production companies will be after a good script no matter where it’s written or where the writer hails from, there can be no denying that if you’re not part of the scene, it’s unlikely that you’ll be given the respect and credibility that you would prefer. In a world where the swift efficiency of a “meet and greet” is king, there’s little substitute for face-to-face networking and familiarity.

Here in the UK the question is: ‘do I need to move to London to establish and advance my career?’ The answer: preferably yes, not catastrophic if no. Why? Because the UK is a very small place compared to the grand expanse of America. If you live in the Scottish Highlands and manage to snag a producer’s interest in London, and he invites you for a meeting, the worst you’re looking at is a six hour train journey to England’s capital. Bosh, done. And of course, the advent of broadband and everyone’s over-reliance on email means that ongoing communication can be maintained at an agreeable level.

For television, it’s a completely different picture because various regions and broadcasters have plenty of exciting production and activity. In London itself, most of the film world is controlled in Soho and its immediate vicinity. It’s a small community, incestuous and parochial, and nepotism and favouritism flourishes with the ease of an email. If you live outside of this world, then you’re not part of it, and you’re not being spoken about, and you’re not being known, and you’re not being mentioned. Your script may land in their in-box but you’re just another wannabe or just another reject until they can put a face to the name.

This sounds like a harsh reality but it has different shades of truth to it. Yes, it’s better to schmooze in London and to be known within the industry than it is if you’re just a graduate from Leicester with no real contacts. But access to London is easy and fairly reliable so if you’ve really got a great script, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from.

When I first arrived in the capital, it was a fun and exciting time, and within six months of media temping, I got my break at Channel 4. This could not and would not have happened in Dublin where I was previously residing. My work there had come to a standstill and I was barely making enough money to pay the rent, hence my move to London to give it a shot. And within a very short period of time, I had settled in nicely with an exciting job and equally interesting prospects down the line.

That’s what being and living in London gets you. Opportunity. It’s certainly granted me the chance to live and learn, and to apply that knowledge to advance my goals. Ironically, after eleven years of living in London, I’ve just moved to the south coast, near Bournemouth.

In my effort and focus to be a screenwriter over the last six/seven years, I inevitably didn’t have much reason or desire to be in the centre of town. Script reading helped to maintain contact with those in the know while the odd social occasion was also useful for showing my face. This line of socialising meant I was in London once or twice a week (unless you have lots of money, you’re probably living in Zone 4 or more, an hour’s commute each way).

But I grew weary of the tube and the trains, of the crowds, of the over-priced beer, of the dirt. So I’ve moved two hours away from the city as it provides me with easy access to continue my once/twice weekly jaunts whilst also enjoying the invigorating lifestyle of the coast. I’m far but not too far. I'm maintaining contact and shaking hands with the right people whilst also letting the growing strength of my work do most of the talking. But it’s important to continually make new contacts because you never know where opportunity will strike…

Feedblitz

Have added an email update thingy on the right for those who like to get the blog from a feed. I don't know if I've done it right but I'll give it a go for a while. Happy to leave it up or take it down, whatever's easier for everyone... let me know.

Few Things of Interest

This summer in Cheltenham (Tuesday 27 June - Friday 30 June) there’s going to be a Screenwriters’ Festival specifically targeted for the UK market. The first of its kind in this country.

“The Screenwriters’ Festival is dedicated to the art, craft and business of writing for the screen. Bringing together professional industry delegates, high profile guests and new talent from around the world, the Festival provides a unique forum to debate and discuss writing dramatic scripts for film, television and new media.”

Julian Fellowes and Jimmy McGovern explain why it’s about time. This should be great, or at the very least, it could be just what the UK industry needs to start treating screenwriters with the respect and consideration that they deserve. See you there.

In other news, Golconda has extended the deadline for their horror comp they’re running in conjunction with the Script Factory. The new date is March 17th 2006 (begorrah, to be sure) and the winners announced late April 2006.

Changing tack now for our Scottish readers (if there are any) -

Do You Want to Write a Television Drama? - 4th February 2006

”This one day seminar continually receives fantastic responses from attendees.

Adrian Mead, former bouncer/hairdresser and now award winning writer and director of film and TV drama imparts his insider knowledge to aspiring and new writers with an interest in writing and developing television drama.
The class covers -

Understanding the mysterious world of Script Editors, Development Execs, Commissioning Editors and Agents. How to get that vital first break, make a living and sell your work.

Learning how to accept and usefully employ criticism, handle rewrites and, crucially, protect your own voice.

TUTOR: Adrian Mead
DATE: 10.00 - 5.00pm Saturday 4th Feb 2006
VENUE: ST Columba’s by the Castle. Johnston Terrace. Edinburgh
COURSE FEE: £40 incl VAT and refreshments. Payable in advance.

This class always sells out quickly so book early to avoid disappointment.
e-mail info@meadkerr.com or call on 0131 554 4539.”

And you wait forever to see something of mine on the telly, then two opportunities come along at once...

I've got a couple of episodes of Doctors on next week. The first - entitled ‘Love Me and Lose Me’ - is on Monday 6th, 2.05pm (right after Neighbours, but you knew that) and it's about a woman who has to choose between two lovers. The other one is on Wednesday 8th, same time - called ‘Changes’ - about an old man who must face up to the realities of his life.

Have a great weekend.

Film London's Microwave

"New Announcement from Film London !

Microwave feature film fund launches

Yesterday Film London launched the much anticipated Microwave project to develop ten micro-budget film projects in the capital.

Microwave challenges film-makers to shoot a full length film for up to £75,000 with the option of raising additional in-kind support taking the budget to a maximum of £100,000. The scheme will provide an intensive approach to film-making, with an emphasis on tightly focused scripts, short production schedules and commercial potential.

Chief Executive of Film London, Adrian Wootton said, “Never before has a scheme attempted to fund feature productions on such a challenging scale. New technologies have significantly reduced the costs of film-making and we hope to build on the recent success of ultra low-budget films such as Tarnation, The Last Horror Movie and Song of Songs, which demonstrate the potential for commercial movie-making at this level.”

Backed by the BBC, the scheme provides direct funding together with a unique professional mentoring scheme from leading industry figures including directors Stephen Frears (My Beautiful Laundrette, Mrs Henderson Presents), Gurinder Chadha (Bend It Like Beckham, Bride and Prejudice), and John Akomfrah (Seven Songs for Malcolm X); and producers Sandy Lieberson (Performance; Rita, Sue and Bob Too), Jeremy Thomas (The Last Emperor, Sexy Beast) and James Schamus (Brokeback Mountain, Hulk).

Film London and its partners will also offer a range of assistance including in-kind support from leading facilities and service companies, including Ascent Media and AFM Lighting. The BBC is the project’s broadcast partner and will screen the finished films.

Full guidelines for the scheme will be available online at the end of February 2006.

For more information go to: Microwave

****UPDATE****

"Please read the following notes regarding the Film London's micro buget film fund - MICROWAVE

* Microwave is open to registered companies based in Greater London - the scheme is not open to individuals. Successful teams will have made a least one short or no-budget feature film and have some experience and knowledge of production, marketing and distribution. Films do not have to be London stories, but must be mainly filmed and post-produced in the capital, and applications must include a full shooting script, budget and schedule. The scheme will also provide opportunities for film-makers from all communities. *Projects can be fiction, documentary or animation. *Projects are funded up to the production of a final cut master. *The scheme will fund ten films over three years. *Full details and an application pack will be available from the end of February at: www.filmlondon.org.uk *Film London is a not-for-profit agency so all monies recouped will be reinvested into the Microwave scheme.

Film London is the capital's film and media agency. Film London sustains, promotes and develops London as a major international film-making and film cultural capital. This includes all the screen industries based in London - film, television, video, commercials and new interactive media. Film London is supported by the UK Film Council and the London Development Agency through Creative London. Film London also receives significant support from Arts Council England London, the European Regional Development Fund, the Mayor of London and Skillset.

Film London's activities include:
*Investment in new and established film-makers through a range of low budget production schemes *Supporting training and business development activities *Developing audiences and access provision across the film and media sector *Showcasing of London films and talent *Domestic and international tourism initiatives *Promoting London on an international stage as an attractive base for film and media production *Providing comprehensive information on London locations and production services, as well as practical advice and support to film-makers shooting in London."