Archive for November, 2007
There's a great piece by Karen Miller in the Book Swede's pages about how to write really hard, big novels...it resonates for me powerfully, after spending this year on a complex world-building SF novel (Ketos).
The bit of Karen's piece that fails for me though is her analogy with how you make a triple layer Black Forest gateau. Her theory is that it goes in the oven looking like a mess, and emerges looking magnificent. Trust me - not when I make cake! It always comes out far far worse than it goes in.
Many years ago I studied Anglo Saxon as a module at University, and could actually read and speak a few snippets of that of that long dead, resonant, rhythmic, repetitive, blood-drenched-battle filled ancient tongue. ('Biter was the baduraes, sword edg onfeng' - that's the only bit I can remember. Meaning 'Bitter was the battle, sword clashed against um, 'onfeng'? Lance? Forgive me, it was a long time ago.)
I also read Beowolf, in translation not in the original Anglo Saxon, and I remember finding it tough going. A wonderful core story - Grendel is the monster, but when he's killed, Grendel's Mother stalks the land - hilarious but chilling. And great passages of rhythmic epic writing. And I don't doubt Seamus Heaney's claims that it's one of the greatest poems ever written. But it is without doubt a tough read - very repetitive, and full of bragging alpha males.
And so I have to take my hat off to Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, for what they've done with their script for the Robert Zemeckis' directed Beowulf. They turn a turgid yarn into a ripping yarn. And without taking any credit away from Avary, surely it was Gaiman's influence that turned a macho blood-fest into a subtle dissection and critique of the nature of heroism? Quoting from memory: late in the story, Beowulf (Ray Winstone) says, 'Men are the monsters now,' beautifully turning a reactionary tale into a critique of war. And the extraordinary twist in the story, featuring a near-naked CGI Angelina Jolie, most certainly was not in the original....
This is, all in all, a very very smart movie. You wouldn't know that from the rather sniffy reviews, which all tactitly imply that Gaiman/Avary are playing fast and loose with a flawless classic, rather than making a magnificent hero's journey morality tale out of a dense and bloodthirsty and at times impenetrable text.
The final sequence is fabulous in every sense of the word - a brilliant tour de force spectacle every bit as thrilling as the best bits in the first Lord of the Rings.
There are flaws, as in every movie - Anthony Hopkins is fine as Hrothgar, but Robin Wright Penn makes an attempt at a matching Welsh accent that was ill-advised and, for a Welshman, deeply annoying. And John Malcovich? Um?
But I found this beautiful and spectacular and thought-provoking. And like The 300, this is a film which stretches the visual possibilities of film. It's eerie, at first, to see such almost-real CGI animations; but by the final climax I had suspended my disbelief totally, and could totally see why they just had to do it that way.
The nude scenes have been much mocked, because of the way the naughty bits are always cunningly concealed. I didn't mind that - am I really ready to see a CGI willy or vulva? I think not! And to my mind, it was very like the coy way nudity has always been handled in Marvel Comics, which I'm sure is the intended vibe. (But it still manages to be genuinely sexy. Especially Angelina as Grendel's mum! - quick, cool me down with swamp water immediately..!)
The 3 D experience added enormously to the richness of the experience. I remember seeing House of Wax in 3D in a cinema near Piccadilly Circus many moons ago. The modern incarnation of 3D is streets ahead of that - and for a spectacular movie like this creates a truly remarkable viewing experience.
'I've come to kill your monster!' says Ray Winstone/Beowulf in an early sequence. Good lad, off you go then....
And okay, that bit is maybe just a tiny bit unintentionally funny; though I wouldn't swear to that. Gaiman of course has the most delicious sense of humor, and he doesn't mind leavening drama and tragedy with belly laughs.
One of the pieces of writing I'm proudest of is my own adaptation of another literary classic for radio - Sir Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene. (That also had a dragon, in fact...) The experience of making that was fabulous, though extremely risky; I kept closely to the story, but I iconoclastically wrote the whole thing in my own very different Hollywood-influenced style.
But at that time, I never would have imagined that these dusty greats of Eng Lit would start making their way into the multiplexes of the world....
The Writers Guild of America are currently on strike...in Britain, there are many screenwriters so starved of work that the idea of going on strike actually seems comical. And very few writers in the UK earn the kind of mega-bucks which their US counterparts can earn, so it's hard to feel too sorry for them.
There is a principle at stake however. The CEOs of the corporations which own Hollywood are busy persuading their shareholders that there are vast fortunes to be made out of the internet, via various digital platforms which will allow us to watch films on our computer or mobile phone or I-Pod (George Walkley, the adorable and techno-literate head of marketing at Orbit, already watches movies on his I-Pod on his way to work, which is way ahead of my own technology capability.)
It's obvious really that before long DVD will vanish and we'll all be downloading films directly on to our television sets; and most of us will be happy to pay for that privilege.
And yet those same CEOs argue, to writers and actors and other creatives who currently get a profit share from DVD sales and television screenings of their work, that it's not possible to pay any revenue from digital broadcasts, because the market is so uncertain. They want to pay the money! But they're scared to, for fear their shareholders will become destitute and impoverished.
And yet these same shareholders are being promised vast amounts of dosh arising out of the digital era...Hmm. This is called talking from both sides of your mouth at the same time.
Next year there'll be an actors' strike in America, about the same principle.
In showbusiness everything is negotiable; the only rule is that both sides should negotiate fairly and openly. And I guess this is why the Writers Guild of America is being so intransigent; they fear they are being fibbed to.
For my part, I'm hugely looking forward to the next stage in media technology - when I bin this cheapo computer and my small screen telly and walk around in a box surrounded by cinema screens.
But let's hope the transition to a digital future starts to proceed a little more smoothly and fairly.
I went to the London Film School Screenwriters Showcase on Monday night, at the ICA (that wonderful white building on the Mall). This is an event designed to promote the work of students on the LFS Screenwriters Course, now in its 3rd successful year. The film-making students who come to LFS - directors, producers, cinematographers - all make short films which get prestigious industry screenings. And this Showcase is an inspired endeavour to give the screenwriters a similar high profile end-of-course show.
It's harder, of course - a film can be screened in front of an audience, but a script can't be put on public display. It has to be savoured privately. But the organisers of the showcase assembled a cast of first rate actors who read scenes from each of the screenplays, and the results were exhilarating and genuinely dramatic.
I know from experience what a joy it is for a writer to see words take flesh, when actors perform them. But the innovation this year was to get the writers themselves to introduce and pitch the projects, and then in most cases to read the scene directions too. Some writers even went off book and described the action to the audience as if they could actually see the scene taking place.
The intention was to involve the writers closely in the showcase at all levels, and at the same time to tacitly promote the idea of the screenwriters as Authors of their own work. For novelists, who are by definition also Authors, this seems a modest ambition. But for screenwriters - used to the weird workings of the auteur theory of cinema - it's immensely important and empowering.
And in every case, the writers who presented their own work carried with them a charisma and a vivid personality that was also very clearly evident in their writing. This is why book readings work; even writers who aren't public speakers convey a tone and an essence of self that is at the heart of what they have written.
Brian Dunnigan, the talented and slyly mischievous director of the course, gave a charming speech; Ben Gibson, head of the school, proved once again that he is a champion of the writer's voice; and Margaret Glover, tutor and writer, inspired everyone.
I've been teaching at the London Film School for three years now; it's a fabulous place to be, buzzing with energy, and populated with a diverse range of students from all over the world. And every term, a vast number of short films are shot and edited and screened there, making it one of the most prolific film studios in the UK.
Remarkably, the LFS is sponsored by Cobra beer, and so every event is furnished with copious supplies of free alcohol. This, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on my commitment to the school and its courses...
There is a famous list, compiled in Hollywood, defining all the people involved in the making of a feature film according to their status. The star is at the the top, with the most status; the director comes second; the guy who runs the hot dog stall outside the studio lot comes somewhere near the bottom; and last of all, of course, comes the screenwriter. And this is a fair reflection of how the biz generally works...
But events like the Screenwriters Showcase give me hope that it is, after all, worth writing for the screen.
For those who follow such things, I'll now give a full list of all those who honed their screenwriting craft at the LFS last year:
Jimmy Ruzicka
Ines Braga
Nina Mitrovic
Stavros Pamballis
Francia Fernandez
Matthew O'Connor
Lucia Lopez
Santiago Faz
Vivienne Westbrook
Pinyada Asahi
Francesca Zeeman
Hrafnkell Stefansson
Amos Soffian
Gabriel Vallejo
and last but by no means least,
Andres Llorente.
I glanced briefly at NASA TV yesterday, but it all looked rather boring - the usual shots of men in Mission Control eating their biscuits and scratching their ears. Had I perservered, I would have seen some live footage of one of the most dangerous spacewalks ever. (NB There are some very beautiful photos on this Guardian site. I assume they're NASA copyright, but just in case they're not, I won't reproduce them here - check them out for yourself.)
This morning (Sunday 4th November) on NASA TV I've been watching an interview with the Commander of the Space Shuttle Discovery, Pam Melroy, and Italian asronaut Paolo Nespoli (the interview was conducted in both English and Italian.) Because of the microgravity, Melroy and Paolo looked for all the world like Thunderbirds puppets, bobbing up and down slowly, with their arms and legs held at odd angles. They shared a microphone, which floated in mid air between them.
Pam Melroy explained that the latest spacewalk was an unplanned mission to repair a torn solar array. And she spoke warmly at the way that all the members of the crews of the Shuttle and the ISS worked together on this mission. The genius of NASA is that they make these things look boring - that's how they keep it safe - but it was clearly a hazardous enterprise.
As readers of this blog will know, this is the first time in NASA history that both the Shuttle and the ISS have had female commanders. If we end up with a female American US President, that will be a hat trick.
A really dumb fact; the crew of the Discovery have taken with them the actual lightsaber used in the Star Wars movies. They won't use it to battle any Jedi Knights; it just sits in a locker for the duration of the mission, and then will return home to take pride of place on the mantelpiece in George Lucas's ranch.
Last night's Writer's Guild forum on fantasy and science fiction writing proved a great success. We had a full house of interested writers, many of them non-Guild members (there was a large contingent from the London Film School, where I'm a part-time lecturer.) And the panel debate was, I felt, though I'm biased of course, lively and very informative.
Ashley Pharaoh was there to talk about Life on Mars, and he showed a splendid clip which demonstrates the show's amazing stylistic range - from naturalism to surrealism to out and out verbal comedy. There was a stunning exchange between John Simm and Philip Glenister, in which Glenister's character splurges a smorsgabod of offensive homophobic terms.
Ashley thinks of the show as imaginative writing rather than 'sci fi' per se. And the chair for the evening, Edel Brosnan, described it as 'uncanny' writing which is a lovely word to use.
The point though is that this is a show which has challenged the stranglehold of social realism and police procedural in British television. It manages to be a great cop show - but it is also allowed to be weird, and strange, and philosophical, and thought-provoking.
And is it SF? On the basis of what happens in the final episode of the last series, I'd say yes; but the power of the show was always the way it made the ambiguity of its own reality a part of the story. Is this actually happening or is it just fantasy? And of course what we saw in the final ep may just have been another dream...! So I guess in many ways the show this is closest to is Dennis Potter's The Singing Detective - which was also a detective drama, and a mystery, but played beautifully with our ideas about what is real and what is imagined.
Phil Ford spoke about his experiences writing and script editing for shows like Dr Who, Torchwood, and The Sarah Jane Adventures. Phil is a life-long science fiction devotee, who has suddenly discovered there's now a sweet shop in his living room.
I spoke about my experiences working as a development executive for Scottish Television, when I was told in no uncertain terms by senior ITV execs that they were never going to do SF, because it was stupid....! And audiences wouldn't like it! Phil nodded vigorously at this point; he had obviously heard the same comments many times, in the days before Russell T. Davies's Dr Who. Phil has spent a career in TV swimming against the tide; but now the tide has changed...
And Phil showed a clip of the Sarah Jane show - the wonderful Gorgon episode - which had us spellbound.
The third panellist, Adrian Hodges, co-creator of the bold dinosaur series Primeval, spoke about how he approaches the task of creating 'worlds'. Adrian has written a huge amount of historical drama, including the BBC's splendid life of Charles II. But Adrian is adamant that documentary realism is not possible or desirable for a dramatist; you have to create a world that's credible, and accurate in its essentials, but which is also accessible and resonant for a modern audience. And for him there's no real difference in approach between writing an historical drama, a literary adapatation (he wrote the movie version of Michael Hastings' Tom and Viv) and dinosaur dramas.
Adrian also wrote The Lost World; so dinosaur drama really is a genre he has made his own!
I spoke about SF and fantasy in novels, and read a short excerpt from Debatable Space, which seemed to be well received. The excerpt features a line in which Lena bemoans the fact that in her far future world some people have been bio-engineered so that their excrement emerges wrapped in polythene - to ensure that their shit does not smell.
How, Lena wails, can I stay sane, knowing a thing like that?
I'm delighted that the Writers Guild have organised this forum, because it really does mark a seachange in the way genres like SF are perceived by the 'mainstream' media. For years, SF has been treated as 'not posh' (a phrase one of the panellists used.) But now TV execs have woken up to the fact that SF has a loyal and discerning audience, and that it's a genre which offers different and exciting ways of telling a story. Different and exciting and, quite often, more imaginative ways.
However, Adrian did make the telling point that there was a time when TV audiences were very forgiving of wobbly sets and poor special effects - in the days of I, Claudius, and the early Dr Who. But after the movie Star Wars, TV audiences got pickier; so one reason SF has been off British TV for so long is that our companies literally couldn't afford to make big SF epics like Star Trek or Stargate.
But that's changing, as the cost of CGI comes down. And for my money, the production values of a show like Battlestar Galactica seem to me equal and at times superior to the values we'd expect from a feature film. (When the Vipers fly out of the mother ship, it always send a shudder of awe down my spine.)
And, in my view, the potential of SF on television has barely been tapped. So I'm looking forward to even more bold new shows in the next few years. A British Heroes? Why not?
But the secret for me about creating a show like Heroes is that you don't start by copying an existing show - you create something genuinely new! So pale imitation superhero series interest me not so much; I'd much rather see shows that come from somewhere fresh, and unexpected, and original.
(For an edited verbatim account of the debate, click here.)