DrWhoBook_On Sep 15th The Times published some emails which were  communications between Russell T. Davies and Benjamin Cook, a journalist with whom Davies was working on the newly released:  Doctor Who: The Writer’s Tale


The first email in the article took my breath away with its description of the story development process. Obviously, Davies had been asked by Cook for notes which might be an insight to his process and Davies’ response is an insight into my own and I’m sure so many others’ process too… I’ve never seen the mud of story gestation and development expressed so clearly.  When I say to you "Sorry, I’m terrible when I’m writing" because I haven’t called in a while or because I’ve been sitting right there but not quite present and it’s been going on for months and yet I don’t have anything I’m ready to show you or even seem to be able to tell you the story very clearly… well, it’s not an excuse but this is why.


From: Russell T.Davies To: Benjamin Cook Sunday February 18, 2007 12:41:59 GMT


There’s little physical evidence of the script process to show you. No notes. Nothing. I think, and think, and think…and by the time I come to write, a lot has been decided. Also, a lot hasn’t been decided, but I trust myself, and scare myself, that it’ll happen in the actual writing. It all exists in my head, but in this soup. It’s like the ideas are fluctuating in this great big quantum state of Maybe. The choices look easy when recounted later, but that’s hindsight. When nothing is real and nothing is fixed, it can go anywhere. The Maybe is a hell of a place to live. As well as being the best place in the world.


I filter through all those thoughts, but that’s rarely sitting at my desk, if ever. It’s all done walking about, going to town, having tea and watching telly. The rest of your life becomes just the surface, chattering away on top of the Maybe…and the doubts. That’s where this job is knackering and debilitating. Everything - and I mean every story ever written anywhere - is underscored by the constant murmur of: this is rubbish, I am rubbish, and this is due in on Tuesday! The hardest part of writing is the writing.


 



Comments No Comments »

Sequence Approach The first thing that struck me about this book is how very readable it is - the style is incredibly accessible and occasionally, in the film sequence-breakdowns, laugh-out-loud cheeky (though I loved The Fellowship of the Ring, after reading chapter 12, I would kill for his assessment of The Two Towers but that’s just the old FOMEr* in me!)

The Sequence approach is apparently the approach taught at UCLA (where Gulino is a lecturer) and represents a refreshing change and, to my mind, a more natural approach than the 3 Act Structure though it is by no means exclusive of it. The theory is clearly and succinctly outlined in the first 19 pages then demonstrated by the breakdown into sequences of eleven films: Toy Story, the simple fact is that the script for Toy Story is one of the better ones written during the last century; The Shop Around the Corner; Double Indemnity; Nights of Cabria; North by Northwest; Lawrence of Arabia; The Graduate; One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest; Air Force One; Being John Malkovich and; The Fellowship of the Ring.


Believe it or not, that’s all I have to say about this book except to recommend it highly to anyone suffering Act 2 malaise - the sequence approach is likely to give you the lateral jump needed to see your way out of that rutt. Of course, this book is also a great excuse to revisit some old favourites, after all we are screenwriters - watching movies is work.


Click here to see James Bonnet’s article "What’s Wrong With The Three Act Structure" (Beginners: only read this if you have grasped 3 Act Structure and - this article is not an excuse for not knowing it!)


*FOME Fellowship of the Middle Earth - The Monash U. Tolkien appreciation society (the most welcoming bunch of people ever to inhabit the Southwest corner of the caf.) of which I was a happy member - it was the only club I joined other than the Choir. Yes, I was/am a bit of a geek!




Comments No Comments »