On Saturday October 2nd, I will be running this course, designed for both writers and script editors, with Adrian Mead’s company MeadKerr in Edinburgh. I hope to see you there!

For full information go to:-

http://rewrite.eventbrite.com/

REWRITE – THE INSIDER’S GUIDE TO WORKING WITH SCRIPT EDITORS AND PRODUCERS

No doubt you have heard that getting work in the film and TV industry is a case of, “Not what you know, but who you know.”

Guess what?

It’s true.  Talent will get you so far but relationships are where the business gets done.  So, let’s have a relationship quiz.

The following describes one of the key people who can make or break your career.  Who are they?

When a producer is actively looking to hire writers this is the person they call for recommendations.  Did you say an agent?  Wrong! The producer wants an unbiased opinion.  Also, although you may not have an agent you can build a relationship with this industry insider and benefit from their recommending you to others.

Next clue.  If you strive to get work writing on a TV show this is the person who is employed to read your stuff, meet new writers and report if you are suitable or not.  Did you say producer?  Wrong!  Producers use this person to act as their eyes and ears.

Okay, last chance.  After all your hard work marketing yourself a producer is considering you for a project, but first they need to check out what you will be like to work with.  Who do they call to check on your temperament, your ability to take notes?

Of course I’m talking about script editors and if you are a screenwriter, aspiring script editor or producer understanding the role script editors play and how to work with them is essential.  Luckily for you we have put together a course to do just that.

THE TUTOR

Philip Shelley, one of the UK’s most experienced script consultants and editors, will lead the course.  Philip has worked as a script editor and producer in TV drama and film for 15 years.  He has script edited numerous projects including A Good Murder, Waking The Dead, Inspector Morse, Kavanagh QC and many more.

The list of established writers Philip has worked with includes-

• Chris Chibnall (Born & Bred, Torchwood, Law & Order UK)
• Declan Croghan (Waking The Dead, Murder Prevention)
• Ed Whitmore (Waking The Dead, He Kills Coppers)
• Damian Wayling (The Bill, Waking The Dead)
• Charlotte Jones (The Palace)
• Stephen Churchett (Kavanagh QC, Inspector Morse)
• Terry Cafolla (Messiah, Holy Cross, Making Waves)
• Lucy Gannon (Peak Practice, Dad)
• Patrick Harbinson (The Day of The Triffids, ER)

Philip also runs the “Introduction” and “Advanced” Script Editing courses for the BBC Training Academy.  As producer, Philip has a feature film project in development with the UK Film Council and a sitcom in development with BBC Comedy.

During this info-packed day Philip and a panel of writers and producers will explore -

-      What can script editors do for writers?

-      Handling rewrites –  fighting your corner without falling out.

-      “It’s not what you know…”  Relationships that get you work.

COURSE DETAILS

VENUE: St Columba’s-by-the-castle
14 Johnston Terrace
Edinburgh EH1 2PW

FEE: £85.00 (includes lunch and refreshments)

DATE: Saturday Oct 2^nd 2010

COURSE BREAKDOWN

10.00 Introduction to the Course

Session 1 – What is a script editor? 10.15 – 11.30

An overview \ discussion of the skills and knowledge needed to be an effective and successful script editor.

11.30 – 11.45  Coffee break

Session 2 – Working with producers :  12.00 -1.00

Experienced industry producers will reveal – How writers are chosen for a project.  What producers expect from writers.  Remaining professional and building good relationships.

Lunch: 1.00 – 2.00 A light lunch is provided allowing you an opportunity to network with fellow delegates and pick the brains of course speakers.

Session 3 – Waking The Dead – An overview of the script editor’s job in production. 2.00 – 3.45

Case study of script editor’s role on Waking The Dead (BBC) with clips.

The relationship between producer, writer and script editor.

To whom is the script editor primarily responsible?

Selecting and briefing the writer

Working through drafts of outline, treatment and script

Collating and presenting notes

Running script meetings

Liaising between all areas of production and writer

Research

Dealing with script crises; and much, much more!

This session will cover all the main aspects of a script editor’s job.

COFFEE BREAK – 4.00 – 4.15

Session 4 – Rewrites: The writer’s POV  4.30 -5.30

A panel of experienced screenwriters discuss how they work with producers and script editors – what script editors can do for you the writer – the relationship between script editor and writer on a production – how to avoid getting fired! – The state of the industry – upcoming career opportunities for writers and script editors.

Getting someone interested in your work is only the start of the process. This is your chance to learn from successful writers, script editors and producers about what happens next. Join us and get the insider knowledge you need to build your career.

Philip Shelley

script-consultant

A  bit late in the day to report back about this but better late than never. On Thursday May 27^th I was part of a panel discussion, along with Ceri Meyrick from the BBC Writers Academy and literary agent Rob Kraitt (AP Watt Ltd.), organised by Euroscript, to discuss ‘How To Get Into The Industry as a Screenwriter’.

The event was fantastically well-attended and strong evidence (if any were needed!) of how many enthusiastic screenwriters there are out there.

The general consensus seemed to be that things are undoubtedly a bit tough at the moment, particularly in the world with which I’m most familiar – TV drama. As you probably will have noticed, there just isn’t nearly as much being shown or commissioned as there was a couple of years ago. The world of feature films is always difficult but probably not that much more difficult now than it ever has been!

Some thoughts and strategies from the panel – in these straitened times, it’s a good idea to think about who does have access to money for writers – and this tends to be the publicly-funded bodies like the BBC and the UK Film Council. This certainly is borne out by my personal experience – my two most recent paid development projects (as producer) were for BBC Comedy and the UKFC!

So think about other sources of public funding eg the regional film agencies,  different areas of the BBC. For instance, radio drama was mentioned a couple of times in the evening as a good way-in for dramatic writers. Writing radio drama is obviously different to writing screen drama – but there are similarities; and there is a demand for radio drama. This is an area that is definitely worth looking at. There is some quality drama on BBC Radio, and a BBC radio drama credit will give you increased writing credibility as a screenwriter.

Literary agents are important but even the literary agent on the panel (Rob Kraitt) emphasised how much could be done, how much of the initiative for getting your foot in the door then kicking it open, is down to the writer themselves and not necessarily their agent. This was interesting but certainly accords with my experience. Don’t think getting a good literary agent is the Holy Grail in itself. And once you have (got an agent) don’t sit back and rely on them to open all the doors for you.

The general conclusion seemed to be that the combination of good spec scripts, professionalism and persistence would still get the job done. But persistence is probably particularly important at the moment.

From personal experience though, I know how script editors and producers are constantly on the lookout for good writers to write their shows. And Ceri confirmed this is very much the case at the BBC. Get those spec scripts in as good a shape as they can possibly be. If you have a really cracking script to show people, it will open doors for you.

Good luck!

Philip Shelley

Script-consultant

June 9^th 2010

Running this website has given me a deep fasination into what makes a good ‘romcom’ as I have been sent several examples of the genre, some very good. It’s such a tricky genre to conquer because we all know how the story’s going to end but the writer’s trick is to nevertheless keep the viewer guessing while sub-consciously the viewer knows exactly where the story’s headed. If we enjoy spending time with the (usually) warring couple, then that seems to be half the battle.

Here’s a link to a Guradian article about the tricky art of the romcom, more about the casting than the writing but with some interesting things to say.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/apr/23/who-can-save-the-romcom

More about what makes a good rom-com later…

Happy Writing!

Philip Shelley

script-consultant

Here is information from Ceri Meyrick about how to apply for this year’s BBC Writer’s Academy. Good Luck!

The next generation of TV writers are being sought by the BBC for its prestigious Drama Writers Academy, a unique course that equips writers with the skills to work on BBC flagship continuing drama programmes.

Now in its sixth year, the Academy is the only course in the world that guarantees writers the opportunity to work on prime time television.  Established by BBC Controller of Drama Production John Yorke, its aim is to create a pool of writing talent to work on some of BBC One’s best-loved and most popular shows – EastEnders, Casualty, Holby City and Doctors.

John Yorke, BBC Controller of Drama Production and Course Tutor says: ““Over the last five years, with the help of some of the best people in the industry; Richard Curtis, Jimmy McGovern, Russell T Davies, to name a few, we’ve been able to give new writers the space, time and tools to allow them to develop strong, individual work. The success of Academy graduates such as Mark Catley, Daisy Coulam and Justin Young proves what an incredible and unique opportunity this is.”

Alongside training on all aspects of drama production from casting to scheduling, students will also receive direct writing experience on continuing dramas, with commissions on the shows once they successfully complete the course.  Master classes will be led by the best writers in the business including: Richard Curtis (Notting Hill), Russell T Davies (Doctors Who), Tony Jordan (EastEnders, Life on Mars), Jimmy McGovern (The Street), Barbara Machin (Casualty, Waking The Dead), Peter Bowker (Occupation) and leading directors such Dearbhla Walsh (Shameless, The Tudors, Little Dorrit) 

Since its inauguration, 34 out of 40 graduates have gone on to gain full time work writing for TV –  with 14 now established as core writers on continuing dramas.  These include Mark Catley, graduate of the 2005 course who is now Consultant Producer/Lead Writer on Casualty, and Justin Young who was made Consultant Producer on Holby City this year. In addition many writers have graduated onto other shows – Daisy Coulam has just had a comedy pilot green lit and Ian Kershaw is a core writer for Shameless.

Creativity, talent and a passion for telling stories are essential criteria for those applying.  Applicants must have had at least one professional commission in television, theatre, radio or film.

The deadline for applications is Wednesday 5th May.

Click here for online application form:

http://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?newms=jj&id=32750&aid=69426

Or for further infomation, call Ceri.

CERI MEYRICK

DEVELOPMENT PRODUCER, NEW TALENT

BBC Drama Production

Rm 265 Drama Building, Television Centre

Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ

Tel: 0208 5764044

See our new Continuing Drama page on the BBC Writersroom website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/writing/continuingdrama.shtml

Philip Shelley

script-consultant.co.uk

I am running a one day intensive ‘Insider’s Guide To Script Editing’ course in Central London on Saturday April 10th, in association with Initialize Films. Guest speaker is writer PAUL FARRELL, who, among other shows, has worked on SILENT WITNESS, WAKING THE DEAD and PRIMEVAL.

You can find out everything you need to know about the course on the Initialize Films website www.initialize-films.co.uk

This will be a one day introduction to what a script editor is and does, and give you some invaluable pointers about honing your critical skills and getting work as a script editor in the world of TV drama.

Hope you can make it!

Philip Shelley

www.script-consultant.co.uk

Here’s a link to a paper by the very aptly named  American academic JAMES CUTTING which discusses the differences between our perception of film shots and scenes, and how we perceive things in reality.

http://wexler.free.fr/library/files/cutting%20%280%29%20perceiving%20scenes%20in%20film%20and%20in%20the%20world.pdf

Yes! More mathematical approaches to screenplay writing! I’m not sure how practicable this is – I think if you were to try and impose these arcane scientific \ mathematical ideas to writing your screenplay first draft that you may well just disappear up your own fundament. BUT this is rather interesting nonetheless. And makes you think about how screenplays work – about the cuts within scenes and between scenes – the grammar of film or what Prof Cutting refers to as the ‘contract with the audience’.

It’s written in slightly impenetrable academic language but it’s full of fascinating insights into how film fiction and screenplays operate. For instance, it starts:-

‘Watching a film is different than observing the real world. In particular, scenes in film are framed and set off from a larger context, they are divided up into shots that are composed from different points of view, separated by instantaneous cuts, and with the camera performing other feats impossible for the unaided eye, such as zooming in. Real life has none of this. How is it that we come to accept the wholeness and integrity of film with multiple shots and cuts?’

A very interesting question but is this entirely true? How about, for instance,  when we go to sleep at night then wake up in the morning? That could be viewed just like a cut between scenes couldn’t it?

Here are a few more thought-provoking quotes from Cuttings’ article:-

‘Episodic memory, a central concern of cognitive science, is essentially the memory of scenes from our life.’

‘Why are we able to make sense out of two shots with no transition? Acceptability seems predicated, in part, on the physical differences between shots. Cuts become acceptable only when the general patterns of light in the two shots are sufficiently different…’

‘Among other things, continuity means keeping track of what is in each shot and making sure that the world that is projected on the screen appears coherent. However, it appears that we, as perceivers, are not that particular about such coherence.’

…and this quote from John Huston –

‘All the things we have laboriously learned to do with film, were already part of the physiological and psychological experience of man before film was invented… Move your eyes, quickly, from an object on one side of the room to an object on the other side. In a film you would use a cut. … in moving your head from one side … to the other, you briefly closed your eye.’

The section entitled, ‘How Cuts, Shots, and Narrative Knit Together a Film for a Perceiver’, is particularly interesting.

If you haven’t got the time or energy to read the whole thing,  here’s an article about Cutting’s work in New Scientist, which sums it up a bit more succinctly (but less interestingly) :-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527483.900-solved-the-mathematics-of-the-hollywood-blockbuster.html

Philip Shelley

Script-consultant

March 2010

FILM CRITICS

Seeing the recent critical pasting received by the film The Boys Are Back made me think about how much we all rely on film critics to inform us about what films we should and shouldn’t see – and how badly served we often are!

This is what I said about the film in my blog about the London Film Festival on Nov 6th last year: ‘a beautiful bit of story-telling,’…’ the observation of character and particularly poignant and hilarious moments in the family’s life is so well done. And writer Allan Cubitt, without, in my opinion, ever resorting to cheap sentiment, manages to wring every last drop of narrative tension from this deceptively slight story. Familiar in terms of subject matter – the tragic death of a loved partner – this is intelligent, accessible film story-telling at its best.’

Compare that to what some of the UK national newspaper critics had to say about it when it came out a few weeks ago, ‘an insufferably cutesy film about single parenthood,’… ‘this excruciatingly artificial and prettified film,’… ‘Not one single thing, for one single moment, looks real or sincere’,… ‘A phoney, sugary tale without substance’.

But all the above quotes are taken from British reviews. Interestingly some of the international reviews have been very different.
This from ‘The Age’ (Australia) – ‘this beautifully etched, deeply moving drama’, ‘Nothing in this finely honed film feels forced or conveniently sentimental.’

And this from the Hollywood Reporter:
‘Few films have so poignantly portrayed a father’s relationships with his sons as “The Boys Are Back,” a film by Scott Hicks that reminds you he once directed the luminescent “Shine.” For the first time since that magical feature debut, Hicks has invested heart and soul in a film project.’
‘Never does anything feel forced or contrived. Life, as this memoir reminds, can offer plenty of drama that need not abide by fictional formulas or genre conventions.’

Which all goes to prove what? Well, that you take your pick but, for god’s sake, don’t take any critic’s word as gospel unless they have proved over many examples that their taste concurs pretty much exactly with yours – and even this is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case.

But for me there’s something else here – and it’s that in the UK I don’t think we’re very well-served by our national film critics. Philip French may have reached Observer-instigated National Treasure status but to me he’s the worst of the bunch. Almost everyone of his film reviews needs a spoiler alert – he ALWAYS gives the story away! Such a large proportion of each of his reviews are spent regurgitating the plot so, regardless of whether he tells you anything interesting about a film, he’s pretty much always going to take away some of the pleasure of watching a good film – he never lets you enjoy the unexpected unfolding of a story. This seems to me just rank incompetence. Surely, not giving the story away is the most basic requirement of any film review? And most of the rest of the review is him showing off with everything he knows about previously-made, similar films (which is admittedly sometimes quite entertaining).

Here’s an example. And – just to warn you – if you haven’t seen NOWHERE BOY and want to see it, DON’T READ THIS!
PF’s NOWHERE BOY review http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/27/nowhere-boy review

The critical pasting received by The Boys Are Back reminded me how all those jaded critics watch films every day of their working lives; it’s not surprising, I suppose, that they’re a bit grumpy and mean-spirited.
A load of cynical 50+ middle class white guys sitting in a preview theatre at 10 o’clock on a Tuesday morning probably are pretty resistant to a film that works by connecting with your emotions as well as your intellect. Thinking about it like this, it makes you understand why heartfelt, committed emotional stories or comedies (pretty much any comedies) get short shrift from these jaundiced hacks – and makes you realise why more ‘esoteric’, ‘intellectual’ films like The White Ribbon get all the plaudits. Don’t get me wrong, I thought The White Ribbon was a really good film but it was intellectually rather than emotionally engaging. And I don’t think it deserved its incomparably better reviews than The Boys Are Back.

It reminds me too of the blanket critical response to The Wire. Now The Wire has many strengths but this whole cult of criticism seems to have grown up around it which I really react against, not least because, at times, I think The Wire is (deep breath) well a little bit….boring. You see, now you’re shocked – no-one dares say anything negative about The (mighty) Wire! In fact the whole cult of how wonderful US TV drama is compared to UK drama smacks to me of ‘the grass is always greener’. I’m sure if you just took the best of UK TV drama and filtered out all the stuff that hasn’t quite worked, it would look pretty damn good. And that’s what we get over here. We get all the stuff that’s already proved successful, not the stuff that has been canned after the pilot or the first season. In my book, the first series of Criminal Justice wasn’t just as good as most US TV drama, it was better. OK rant over…

Philip Shelley
Script-consultant, Feb 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/dec/01/research-tv-drama-csi

Here’s a link to an interesting article from The Guardian. Some boffins try to apply a scientific \ mathematical approach to script analysis. Interesting how they quite successfully boil down the plot of a CSI episode to 30 keywords(!) and allow writers to identify sub-conscious themes in their work.

It also reminded me of how I started to think about ‘Waking The Dead’ stories in a similar way as mathematical equations that needed solving! So – you have your cold case story (from the past), which is one story-line that runs through the 2 x 1 hours.
But you also need a story-line in the present (so it’s not all just retrospective backstory) – classically, another series of murders committed by the killer from the past to evade discovery.
So you have two parallel storylines that ultimately connect; and into this mix you have to throw other elements, for example: –
flashbacks (an essential characteristic of the show), and how you ‘motivate’ these flashbacks;
the issue of making sure your WTD heroes drive the story, while also creating compelling guest characters;
giving each of the regular investigator characters an investigative story strand that uses their particular specialist expertise;
and providing your protagonist – Boyd – with an antagonist who’s a match for him, the default end sequence being a long interview sequence between protagonist and antagonist punctuated by revelatory flashbacks.
Not forgetting your big turning point \ twist at the end of Hour 1 to hook audiences for Hour 2 the following evening!

Thinking about all this, it would probably would have been a good idea to give writers a chart that looked like a scientific diagram to illustrate it!

Philip Shelley
www.script-consultant.co.uk
Jan 20th 2010

London Film Festival – Studies in Narrative Structure

Last week I went to 4 very different films at this year’s LFF, and they proved very inspiring and creatively energising. They all made me think about different aspects of film drama and screenwriting.
For instance:-

Lo Spazio Bianco ‘The White Space’. An Italian film about a woman in her late thirties who, after a brief fling, becomes pregnant for the first time. The baby is born three months prematurely and the heart of the film covers the three month period in which the woman lives in a horrible limbo, visiting her tiny baby daughter in her hospital incubator every day, unable to touch her, the baby’s life in the balance. Viewed objectively the story is quite slight. There are few twists and turns but it’s a beautiful character study of a woman of a certain age at a huge moment in her life. The performances and script are excellent but what really grabbed me about this film was the way it was structured. Whether this was something that was done in post-production, or whether it was an original and integral part of the script, I don’t know. But what raised it above the ordinary were the bold cuts, the huge leaps back and forth across time in the story. So for instance, the film cut from the moment when the woman discovers she is pregnant to a scene in a hospital room where she is being gowned up, surrounded by medical staff (and as an audience at this point we’re asking – where are we now?) before she is led into the incubator room to see her baby for the first time, after the birth. Only later does the film go back and fill in the gaps in our knowledge of her birth. The effect of this juxtaposition of scenes is at first unsettling but ultimately hugely effective.
And then right near the end of the film, as the story reaches its climax, and the woman is walking back through the streets of Naples (and the city of Naples is a powerful element in the story) to the hospital to witness the moment when the breathing tubes are removed from the baby to see if she can breathe on her own, we cut from these shots of the woman walking alone in the present, to scenes of her walking alone in the streets in the past – and for the first time, right near the end of the film, we see her collapse, the moment when she went into premature labour and is then wheeled into hospital and told her baby has only a slim chance of survival. Cutting these two sequences together adds huge power to the story-telling and makes us want to know even more badly whether the baby survives or not.
There were so many examples like this in the film of non-linear story-telling adding hugely to the effectiveness of what might otherwise have been quite a simple story.

Blessed – an Australian film about a group of troubled youths in working-class Melbourne. Again this was a really interesting, enjoyable if bleak film made even more interesting by its structural originality. The story is told in two halves, entitled ‘The Children’ and ‘The Mothers’. The first half is told from the POV of an unconnected group of troubled teenagers. The film cuts between several different, unconnected stories. Then in the second half we revisit the same stories all told from the POV of the teenagers’ mothers. And we discover several unexpected connections between the characters from different stories, as some of the stories start to come together.
Structurally, particularly in the first half, this is reminiscent of Short Cuts or Crash and keeping the stories separate for so long only makes the eventual surprising links between them all the more satisfying from an audience POV.

Finally two films that are both about families in crisis (how many films that phrase covers!) the UK \ Australian co-pro The Boys Are Back; and a Brazilian film A Deriva (Adrift) which starred French actor Vincent Cassel. Both films are beautifully written, character-driven in the best way. Of the two films, Adrift is more claustrophobic and low-key – an intense study of a family break-up, over the course of a summer by the attractive Brazilian seaside, as seen through the eyes of the eldest daughter of the family, a beautiful 14 year old who, while observing her parents’ infidelities and break-up, is beginning to discover boys and relationships for herself. It’s this approach to the story – seeing it through the eyes of a 14 year old girl that really raises this film to a different level.
The Boys Are Back is structured more conventionally – the story is told from the POV of the Clive Owen \ protagonist character and is generally linear. Based on Simon Carr’s memoir, this is just a beautiful bit of story-telling about a complicated family situation (big understatement), a middle-aged man whose wife dies, leaving him to bring up his two sons by different mothers. The observation of character and particularly poignant and hilarious moments in the family’s life is so well done. And writer Allan Cubitt, without, in my opinion, ever resorting to cheap sentiment, manages to wring every last drop of narrative tension from this deceptively slight story. Familiar in terms of subject matter – the tragic death of a loved partner – this is intelligent, accessible film story-telling at its best.

Philip Shelley
www.script-consultant.co.uk
Nov 6th 2009

DAMIAN WAYLING INTERVIEW

Damian is a writer whom I first met when he was on the Carlton new writers course some years ago. It was clear then that he had real talent – a highly original, distinctive voice, and strong story-telling instinct. He has gone on to have the success his talents and dedication deserve and here are his thoughts on various matters connected to screenwriting…

Why did you want to write for the screen originally? What films \ TV shows inspired you?

I wanted to write for the screen because… I’m not sure I know. I loved the dialogue heavy films of Billy Wilder, all those sharp pulp-noir movies, and Preston Sturges and Ben Hecht screwball comedies – so I suppose I wanted to write that kind of crackling dialogue delivered by smart people. I still do, but now I also know that the most powerful moments in movies usually have no dialogue.

How did you get into the TV drama business?

By degrees. I worked as a graphic designer doing record sleeves for pop bands before getting a job working on a TV show. The show was Network 7 – a youth current-affairs show produced by Janet Street-Porter. Lots of people in TV started there. One of them, Eric Harwood, formed a documentary company and my first writing work was on programme proposals for him. Then he was surprised to find himself a producer on a TV drama for Channel Television. It was set on Jersey – lots of kids arrive and get jobs for the summer. The scripts were by a very experienced Coronation Street writer and were very bad. Lots of Famous Five style plotting. Eric knew I was ‘trying to write’ and asked me to help him rewrite them. We locked ourselves in a room and produced six half-hours in about three weeks. The Exec Producer weighed them in his hand and said ‘yeah, they feel about right’. What we wrote got shot, and that’s the way I thought it went. It’s never happened that way since. One of the cast was Tom Ward in his first role. I’m currently writing for him on Silent Witness.
After that I found an agent, who I still have. There were a number of false starts on shows like Casualty and Peak Practice before I finally got my first screen credit on The Bill.

What sort of shows have you worked on?

Lots of crime shows – The Bill, Waking The Dead, Trial & Retribution, Silent Witness. I suppose you get known for something and get approached for more of the same. But that’s ok, crime shows are not really about crime they’re about the things that led to the crime: love, hate, revenge, fear, lust, greed – all the universals.

What have been your most enjoyable shows to work on and why?

More recently I’ve done more non-crime scripts. One was for a BBC series that was about to be made when the US co-production money fell away. It’s a contemporary remake of Vanity Fair. Nobody gets murdered and it was a pleasure to write. It was a semi-adaptation and there was always the book to lean on when things got tricky. I hope it will get made. Another is Garrow’s Law – an 18th century legal drama. It’s ‘law’ rather than ‘crime’ and the legal and period language was a pleasure to play with. The story was based on an actual treason trial and there were hundreds of pages of transcript to read. I think I managed to do it justice, fit in a B story and keep the love interest going – all in a fifty-seven minute script!

What scripts are you proudest of and why?

The Garrow’s law script came out pretty well. There were three writers on the series and we were all cautioned by a very good script executive, Hilary Norrish, to be careful not to write ‘period drama scenes’. An excellent warning.
I also developed a project some time ago with a producer who has since become a friend. The notion was ‘the English MASH’ set in 1940 when it seemed inevitable that German troops would sweep across the Channel. Lots of the country houses of England were requisitioned and turned into Emergency Medical Services Hospitals. The lady of the house would look after the interests of the nursing staff, the army would run the place and between them treat the flow of wounded.
It’s a period that’s always interested me and I did a lot reading before sitting down to write a pilot episode. It came out very well and it always gets a very positive response when it’s sent out as a writing sample. Nobody’s yet done anything so rash as say they want to make the series!

What have you been working on most recently and what are you working on next?

Currently writing for Silent Witness. It’s a death in custody story and has a go at the IPCC. After that I have to write a draft of a film script that I seem to have been working on since I was a teenager. It’s a revenge thriller with a backstory set twenty years ago. It’s been picked up more times than Amy Winehouse. I’m swapping lots of emails with the producers about the ending, but it’s a great story and the script is in the best shape it’s ever been – so I will deliver the best draft I can and they’ll go out and try and sell it.
Apart from that I’m trying to get ‘a number of original projects’ made.

What advice would you have for budding writers starting out in the business now?

Be patient, but not too patient. Remember you’re involved in a trade – you’re trading what you can do – write – for what the producer has – money. That should put you on an equal footing. Don’t walk away from a script meeting with a story you’re not excited by. Don’t assume your script editor is either always right or always wrong.

Is it important to have a good agent? What qualities should you look for in an agent?

Yes it is, but the problem is defining ‘good’. I only have experience of my agent, who is terrific, and stories from other writers about theirs. I’m with a relatively small agency and quite happy about that. I would worry about getting lost in the list in some of the bigger outfits.

What qualities do you need to succeed as a writer in TV drama?

Hmmm. An absence of preciousness about your scripts is a good start. Build them with love and care, but be prepared to rebuild them – a lot.
An ability to empathise with all the characters in your stories – even, possibly especially, the bad guys, losers and monsters.
I know some very sociable people who are successful screenwriters, but not many. My appetite for socialising is satisfied fairly easily. Which is just as well because the job involves spending long hours in your own company. I envy writing teams, but don’t think I could make that work.
If you have curiosity you’ll find story possibilities in lots of places.
You need persistence in the face of apparently irrational and ill-considered rejection.
An enthusiasm for watching good TV drama.
Some talent…

Philip Shelley
script-consultant.co.uk
Oct 7th 2009