Hi There,

This week, my most recent blog for the BBC WRITERS ROOM website – about NETWORKING.

To be a successful writer of TV drama, the most important thing is your ability to write (obviously!) BUT it is worth remembering that there is a whole other side to your work as a TV dramatist that shouldn’t be under-estimated.

That is – the aspect of marketing yourself and your work (I can hear your groans already), getting your work in front of the people that matter, getting yourself in front of the people that matter, and making sure you are the sort of person that other people want to work with.

Broadly speaking, all the aspects of being professional and focused about your career that are the same the world over in any business.

But writing is a very particular craft; and very often the sort of people who become writers aren’t always the sort of people to whom ‘networking’ and other related business activities, come naturally.

On the one hand you need to have the introspection and ability to live inside your own head and spend much of your life by yourself in front of your computer that enables you to get the work done – ie living a necessarily pretty isolated existence. But on the other hand you need to be comfortable going to meetings, pitching your stories and talking yourself up as a writer.

These two sides of a screenwriter’s life aren’t quite mutually exclusive – but they call on two very different sides of your personality and require different skills.

This blog is going to concentrate on the business/ networking side of your work as a screenwriter.

The principle / idea underlying this blog is – however good your script is, you’re always far more likely to be hired to write something by someone you’ve already met than by someone you’ve never met. The working relationship between writer and producer / script editor is often intense, and you get to know each almost unnaturally quickly – so if the producer in question has already met you and feels there was a rapport, that you’re going to get on and that communication between you is good – they’re far more likely to hire you.

So – you need to try and MEET as many potential employers as you can. Although I hope this goes without saying, while pursuing this idea professionally, there is a fine line between professional ambition and courtesy on the one hand; and desperate pushiness on the other hand. Don’t be that (admittedly very rare) writer who people will do anything to avoid, the writer who pins you in a corner, invades your personal space and won’t let you get out until they have spent half an hour on a rehearsed pitch monologue.

This networking aspect of your life as professional writer has to be constantly ongoing, in the same way as your writing. You can’t spend 6 months concentrating furiously on the networking side and then think you’re done. You have to be able to enjoy this side of the business, and make sure you’re constantly putting yourself and your ideas out there.

1 SOCIALISING.

An example that is fresh in my mind – recently I went to see the very excellent PARLIAMENT SQUARE by 4screenwriting alumnus James Fritz at the Bush Theatre in London. In the bar before or after the play, I (by chance) met and talked to 10 people I knew there – mainly writers, also two script editors.

Thinking back, without exception, all the people I met there are successful writers and editors. They’re all talented, smart people. But they’re also successful because they are sociable and outward-looking. They are excited to see new writing work, and to meet people.

It’s a cliché – but often the most important connections you can make are not at the formal events (the play) but in the bar afterwards. This is something I’ve learnt from years of running the Channel 4 course and other screenwriting courses.

 However good you are at writing, if having a drink with your fellow writers and industry professionals is your idea of Hell, it will without doubt negatively impact on your career potential. (And I’m not saying here that you have to be a big drinker. Alcohol is not an essential part of the equation!)

Here is a checklist of other networking-connected aspects you should be thinking about to enhance your screenwriting career –

2 CHAMPIONS.

Your aim, once you have two or three ‘spec’ scripts which you feel really do your talents justice, should be to get these scripts read by as many influential industry people as possible.

Having someone (or as many people as possible!) in the industry who will champion your work is a very powerful thing.

The world of TV drama is quite small and script editors, producers, agents etc are constantly talking to each other and swapping notes. It’s also important to remind yourself that, although this may not appear to be the case, we script editors and producers are all looking for good writers, for the NEXT BIG THING.

3 RESEARCH

The world of TV drama is expanding and changing at an unprecedented rate. And it’s up to you to be aware of all the potential opportunities out there. So you need to be looking at where you fit into the industry and what opportunities you should be trying to take eg writing competitions. There are more and more of these. You need to decide which are worth entering, which aren’t, which in particular are a good fit for you as a writer.

Probably the two most visible ways-in as a TV dramatist are the BBC Writers Room and the Channel 4 screenwriting course. BUT because so many people know about these schemes, a lot of people will enter and – however brilliant your script is – the odds of breaking through via these schemes are not good. (We received 2040 scripts for the 2018 C4 screenwriting course and from that chose 12 writers). So – think laterally. Don’t necessarily go for these more high-profile entry points but find other competitions and initiatives where your odds are better and where you could stand out (eg regional schemes).

And use the internet to research the industry – and your craft (although if you’re reading this on the BBC writers room website I’m preaching to the converted!)

4 EVENTS

Off the top of my head – here are some organisations – BBC writersroom (of course), London Screenwriters Festival, BFI, BAFTA, RTS, BAFTA Rocliffe, Indie Training Fund, Creative Skillset, Shooting People, In Development, LFF, Writers Guild, Creative England – that hold screenwriting events. And there are many, many others. This list (because of where I’m based) is London-centric – but there are events all over the UK – and brilliant organisations that bring writers together – like NI Screen, Scottish Screenwriters, Scriptwriting North, New Writing South, Writers Centre Norwich – in most regions of the UK.

Not only will these events stimulate your creative imagination, they are also a really useful way to meet like-minded creatives and potential employers.

 And then there is the vast and growing plethora of film & literary festivals around the UK and the world; Guardian talks, Writers & Artists events, events at universities, theatres, bookshops, etc etc. All great ways to get away from your computer and out into the world and meet other writers.

5 YOUR PEERS / WRITERS GROUPS

Writing is by its very nature a lonely business. There is great value in solidarity between writers – for sharing experiences about craft and the industry, swapping notes on people you’re working with / want to work with. And, importantly, for finding out about opportunities. If you have a network of writer friends, it can be invaluable. But above all, it’s great to have a trusted network of fellow writers with whom you can meet regularly and swap work and give each other feedback. Having your own writers group who are committed to meeting regularly and sharing work is invaluable.

Here’s a link to a guest blog from my website that illustrates what I’m talking about. http://script-consultant.co.uk/2015/11/20/writing-groups/

6 SOCIAL MEDIA

Twitter in particular (also facebook and linked-in) can be very powerful in helping to cultivate your network and find out about events and opportunities you’d otherwise not know about. Twitter is a great way to identify like-minded people in the industry. It’s a weird and rather wonderful thing that if you follow and enjoy someone on twitter, when you actually meet them face to face, it’s a whole lot easier, and you already have loads to talk about with them. (@PhilipShelley1)

7 FRIEND OF A FRIEND OF A FRIEND

You may well find that – without realising it – you know people who work in TV or film – or you will know people who know people. Use them shamelessly. If they don’t want to help they will say no and you can move on. But in my experience people actually like to be asked for your help – it flatters them. Contacts are all important. Scour your brain and your address book for potentially useful contacts.

In CONCLUSION – this is all about the less mysterious – and frankly less difficult – part of being a writer – where the same rules apply as in any other line of business. It’s about the obvious things – like being polite, communicative and considerate. But it’s also about being ambitious – and not seeing that as a dirty word. Potential employers will want and expect you to be focused and serious about your work as a writer.

If you can’t puff your chest out and tell the world you’re a writer, and believe that your work is good enough to be taken seriously by people in the industry, then you make it very hard for them to take you seriously.

Don’t apologise for yourself or your work. Demonstrate your self-belief, communicate your strengths as a writer – if you can’t do this, no-one is going to do it for you. It’s about being ambitious, hard-working, organised, polite and positive. But above all, it’s about finding a way to enjoy this social side of the business. This is an industry full of people with similar interests to you, all of whom want to make the best, most exciting work they can. What’s not to like about that?

The next newsletter will be on Friday April 20^th,

All the best

Phil

PHILIP SHELLEY

www.script-consultant.co.uk

www.tributepodcasts.co.uk

@PhilipShelley1

April 6^th 2018

Hi There,

I was delighted to see that ANN HAWKER came 2^nd in Phil Gladwin’s 2018 screenwriting goldmine awards.

I worked with Ann on this script through my script consultancy as one of my 6 month script mentees. It was a process I really enjoyed, and I was so delighted with the script Ann wrote. I’d like to tell you a bit about the process because I think it might be of interest. I’d known Ann for a while and read a few of her scripts and, while I had always admired and enjoyed her writing, I’d have to say I’d never really engaged with any of her scripts on a really emotional level. For me there was always something about them that felt like she was trying to write what she thought the industry wanted, that she thought had commercial potential, rather than projects that really told me enough about her as a writer (and a person). I admired the competence of her scripts without being excited about them. So our first meeting was in all honesty a slightly awkward, difficult one in which I very nosily quizzed her about her personal life, and tried to get her to talk about the things that really meant something to her on a deep, personal level – the sort of things that didn’t just interest her, but bothered, moved, angered or thrilled her. The thing Ann spoke about with the most passion was her own mother’s recent diagnosis with Alzheimers. So between us we decided that she should write a film (very loosely) based on her own emotional experience. From the first outline this story came off the page brilliantly – it had such rich emotional texture, and the finished script is the same – an outstanding example of Ann’s ability as a writer and a script that is deeply moving and committed.

I’m not saying that every script you write has to be based on your own emotional life, or that every story you write has to be taken from your own personal experience. But I do think everything you write needs to be rooted in something you feel strongly about. Your passion and the intensity of your feelings needs to come across in your writing. You always need to be asking yourself – why am I the best writer to be telling this story? And I think one of the reasons AN AUSTRIAN HOLIDAY works brilliantly is because at that time Ann was the very best person to be telling that particular story.

Ann’s response – ‘It’s very interesting, but it made me think quite hard about my writing and motivation.  While I agree with you that my writing became so much better as I wrote from a more personal point of view, I have a slightly different perspective on what was going on. 

I know you felt that in my previous scripts I was trying to write what the industry wanted. That wasn’t my motivation.  I certainly never consciously tried to write what I felt the industry wanted.  In fact, as far as I was able, I was trying to do the opposite and seek out original, untold stories that interested me.   However, your sense of a lack of originality in those scripts came I think, because on some level I wasn’t completely emotionally engaged with the story.  I have been trying to unpick why.  I certainly felt I was totally involved with my characters as I was writing, but clearly for you as a reader something was not clicking in place. Perhaps some of this was due to my background as a documentary maker and I was unknowingly constrained by a distanced, observational approach to my characters and situations? On top of that I was probably not willing to really lay myself emotionally on the line. It is a little exposing to say the least!  I am not sure of the exact combination of reasons, but I think this, for me, is a really important thing to unpick. because it relates to how I continue to write.   Have I found a way to unlock my stories to make them feel as if they are utterly mine?  I don’t know yet is the answer.  The next script might tell.   Finding a true level of emotional engagement with what you are writing is not always as easy as some writers might think. It can be quite easy to kid yourself into thinking “I’m really in the moment with this story,” when in fact the emotional core of has still not been reached.  

I’m also intrigued that you found the meeting we had uncomfortable.   Strangely, my memory of the meeting was that I quite enjoyed being probed about what was going on in my life, maybe because it was necessary.’

——————————-

And here is a lovely piece of writing by one of my favourite writers, crime novelist David Armstrong (not only a brilliant writer but father of the equally excellent Jesse!). I can highly recommend all of his novels; and he’s written a really good book about the craft and business of writing – ‘How Not To Write A Novel.’

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bookseries/B00JQJQ80C/ref=dp_st_072786579X

‘David taught English for nearly twenty years before his first novel was taken by HarperCollins. He’s since had published a further eight crime novels as well as the non-fiction guide to the miseries (and occasional joys) of being a midlist writer, How Not to Write a Novel. He’s also written poetry, journalism and a couple of stage plays; he was a Fellow of the Royal Literary Society at Aston University for three years and has tutored several Arvon Foundation courses. His books are all on Amazon and Kindle. If you would like a signed copy of any of them contact him directly at:

49, Hampton Rd, Oswestry, Shropshire SY11 1SW

‘Losing Heart’

March 23^rd 1994

London

 I think we may not make our first anniversary.  I blame Andrew Motion.  And the Four Fountains Greek restaurant on Muswell Hill.

 Last week, calling in at Prospero’s Books, I saw that Motion and Jeremy Treglowan were giving a reading there tonight.  This is what I had always hoped – and even imagined – that being in London might, ideally, be like.

The talk is good.  It’s better than good.  These writers, talking respectively about their newly published biographical subjects, Philip Larkin and Roald Dahl, are the goods.

Motion keeps it short – fifteen, maybe twenty minutes.  Plenty of good, amusing, anecdotal stuff.  He knew Larkin well, and the two men obviously liked one another.

He is attractive, colloquial and erudite.  He’s wearing black jeans, a deep blue shirt over a black tee shirt and a black short-sleeved cardigan.

Treglowan has a hard act to follow, but his subject is so interesting – the Norwegian monster, a children’s writer who seems to dislike children – that he copes well, speaks interestingly and keeps it to twenty minutes.

I’m in heaven; Jacqueline is close to Morpheus, but looks very pretty in her slumbers.

The question and answer session is always tricky, with the mandatory nutcase off the street, (an Australian woman on this occasion,) and the obligatory show-off who wants to be a writer or critic, but is probably a schoolteacher, and uses words like ‘rebarbative’.

There’s some points-scoring between this particular show-off and the biographer, but it’s no contest: after all, it’s Motion who has the pile of books in front of him.  And, as always, the audience, whilst relieved that someone is saying something, is actually innately hostile to anyone who has the effrontery to ask anything.

Jacqueline buys me a copy of the paperback Larkin.

Motion inscribes it, and we have the few mandatory stilted words before shuffling off into the night.

*

We don’t want Chinese.  We don’t want Indian.  I fancy Italian.  We peer in at a Greek.  It is inauspicious with red-plush booths and very bad paintings of ‘Greek’ scenes.  Three dispirited couples are eating.

We order the twenty ‘mezes’ for nine pounds-fifty, as per ‘special menu’ on the window.  Jacqueline’s ‘domestica’ is deep yellow, and she says it tastes like sherry.  The waiter brings a new bottle.

We pick our way through sad saucers of chopped beetroot, taramasolata, tsatziki, hummus, potato salad and cucumbers.

Some incubus makes me introduce a bit of prickly nonsense about the previous evening’s row, when Jacqueline had spent two hours cleaning the kitchen floor and I sat upstairs watching the Oscars on TV.

She says that my ‘conscience’ is my problem.  I get bullish.  She does her hands on forehead number, headache, stressed out etc.  I get more bullish.  She starts to shout.

The calamari arrives.  It is tough; the sardines stale.  I look at her, feel no affection, and make no effort to disguise it.

The other diners have ceased their desultory chat; the old man who is murdering the food behind the hatch – eight or ten dishes of which are still due – has come out and taken a seat in the adjacent booth to feign cigarette smoking whilst he listens to the English couple rowing.

A final platter arrives:  halloumi; chicken legs; pork steaks and skewered lamb.  The argument flickers in and out of life, punctuated by Jacqueline’s asking repeatedly whether I really love her.

I leave the table to wash my hands.  When I return, she has paid the bill and is standing.  We have a few minutes’ very awkward silence while we wait for the minicab.  The other couples have given up any pretence of conversation and simply observe our discomfiture in silence.

Back at the house, in the kitchen, over tea (Jac) and whisky (me), there is a deal more scratchy fighting.  I know only one thing: I have had this row with other women before (or something very like it), and that it is me who is wholly culpable.’

——————-   

Thank you so much to DAVID ARMSTORNG and ANN HAWKER for their brilliant contributions to this newsletter.

The next newsletter will be on Friday April 6^th.

All the best

Phil

PHILIP SHELLEY

www.script-consultant.co.uk

www.tributepodcasts.co.uk

@PhilipShelley1

March 23^rd 2018

Hi There,

A few months ago, I put out a call to you the subscribers to this newsletter for questions you may have about any aspects of screenwriting. Sorry it’s taken me so long to get to them but here, finally, are my answers to your very interesting and thoughtful questions.

A massive thank you to Adrienne Aiken, Tony Clare, Adam Dickson and Alec McAulay for these questions, and I hope my answers are helpful in some way to you, and everyone else who reads this. Please do get in touch and continue the debates these 4 writers have kicked-off!

What is your view on writing a treatment (or series bible) regarding adding character and quirky styling. By this I mean not being dead straight in informative and storytelling aspects, but perhaps aligning the style of the pitch with the style of the project. I’ve seen this done before, in treatments for things like “Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency” http://www.zen134237.zen.co.uk/Dirk_Gently/Dirk_Gently_-_Bible.pdf which is pretty quirky, and it appeals to me, but what I like isn’t necessarily what industry execs and script readers will warm to. Is this approach something reserved for more known/experienced/respected writers, and if a newer writer were to pitch this way, it would be regarded perhaps as amateurish?

PS: An excellent question about the thorny topic of treatments, pitch documents etc. I’m very happy to tackle this question for several reasons – not least because it includes a link to a polished, professional TV show proposal / bible – and this sort of document is very hard to find. I agree that this document is ‘quirky’ and I would say – be very careful before deciding to write an outline that is so self-consciously ‘wacky.’ With source material by Douglas Adams, I think there is some justification, because his stories demand a radical stylistic approach. And I do think it’s important that your written pitch tonally reflects how you want the script to read. (And ultimately I think this is a very good example of one of these documents). But what you should be concentrating on is making your story as compelling and well-thought-out as possible. These documents are hard enough to write well without also trying to do something novel and gimmicky. In my experience, too many treatments that try to stand out from the crowd by being stylistically innovative put too much emphasis on style and not enough on content. If your story is strong enough, it should speak for itself without the need for gimmicks.

This outline is 28 pages long. Be very careful that when you are submitting pitches and other sales documents like this, that they are as short as you can possibly make them while still doing full justice to the idea. And that’s a judgement only you as writer can make. But these documents are very hard to write and very hard to read. And whoever you’re sending this to (producer, script editor, agent etc) will be far keener to initially read a 2-3 page document than a 28 page document. This sort of document should give as much substance as possible (the last thing it should give is empty sales-pitch promises) but it’s never going to provide all of the answers. It should lead to interest and more questions from the reader. (I’m sure that the stage this project was at, a 28 page document was completely justified – but if it’s your initial pitch of an idea, 28 pages is way too long).

——————————-

I have a drama script which a few people have read and liked. Two readers (independently of each other) both mentioned the same actor for the lead role. The actor in question is highly talented but would, I imagine, be within the reach of a low budget feature. My question is: given these opinions on the role, would it be worth me sending the script to the actor’s agent to ask whether he would be interested in playing the part if it went into production? Does this carry any weight when approaching Production Companies?

PS: That’s a tricky question! I’d say it’s entirely dependent on the box office appeal and potential influence of this actor. In general, I would advise against attaching an actor to a script before you have a producer involved. Any producer taking on your project will want to feel that they’re in on the start of the project with you, and that they would want to be involved in the decision about the lead actor. Ultimately my purist view would be that the script should speak for itself. Attaching actors (obviously there are a few ‘name’ exceptions to this!) closes down your options too early in the process. However if the actor attached has their own contacts and can open more doors for you, it may be worth considering. But again, I’d say be very careful before you go down this path. Your choice of actor may not be everyone’s choice of actor. And if a producer you like and who likes the script is then put off by the attached actor, it will be very frustrating for you.

——————————

Probably like many other readers of your Newsletter, I have completed several scripts which for the most part just sit in files on my computer. When approaching Production Companies with any of these scripts, I never know whether to send it as a Spec Script and specify this in the covering letter. Or, just send it marked for their consideration in the hope (and assumption) that if they did not want to include it in their slate but liked the writing, they would take it as a spec script anyway. Is there a best way to approach this?

PS: Every script you send out professionally should be targeted at a specific individual in a specific company. There needs to be a particular reason why you are sending a script out now. You should know when sending a script out why you’re sending it out. And sometimes it will be because you want to work on a specific show or for a specific company, and your script fits the tone / subject-matter of that show; sometimes it will be because you want to work with a particular producer / company and you think the script is a good fit for them (as a ‘spec’ / sample of your writing); or you will be entering a competition, etc etc. OR the subject-matter of the script is particularly timely and you have a clear reason for believing a particular producer / company might be interested in it.

The best way to get a script to a potential employer is through another contact – ie someone recommending your script. It’s so important to use the contacts you already have to generate more contacts. For the people in the industry actively looking for new writers, dedicating time to reading unsolicited scripts is (to be brutal) the least time-efficient part of their work. The likelihood of them finding writers who they want to work with is far higher when the script comes with a recommendation.

This may all be too obvious to be worth stating but I am reading (perhaps unfairly?) a slightly too untargeted approach of script submission into your question??

————————————

I am an aspiring writer with a lifelong love of TV, especially the classic shows thrown up by the golden age we currently inhabit, and as such I have written short films and a TV pilot. I am always reminded that a lot of writers start out in theatre, however, I have no real desire to write plays. As so many 4screenwriting alumni are theatre writers, as being someone who writes for screen exclusively, am I at a disadvantage compared to other new writers?

PS: I think it’s always been the case in the UK that a significant proportion of new screenwriters started out in the theatre. There is a much healthier new writing culture in theatre than there is in screenwriting (mainly for the simple reason that it’s easier to stage a play than it is to make a film). And this is a tradition that persists. This is another tricky but very good question! My instinct initially was to just say  – I absolutely don‘t think that, if you’re interested in being a professional, working screenwriter you need to have started as a playwright. But the more I think about it, and the more I look at the facts of the Channel 4 screenwriting course over the last few years, it is true that at least as many if not more of the writers on the course who have achieved screenwriting success have come from a theatre background than from a purely screenwriting background. Many of these writers then go on to juggle writing work across the different media – which I think is a really good thing to aim for. It’s hard enough to make a living as a professional writer without also limiting yourself to one medium. There are of course many examples of successful screenwriters who have no interest in writing for the theatre – but evidence would suggest that writing for theatre might significantly increase your chances of getting noticed. And I feel slightly uneasy saying that – because it shouldn’t have to be the case.

My main experience of these new writers breaking into TV is through the Channel 4 screenwriting course. Over the 8 years we have had a significant minority of stage writers (who have decided that they’d like to write for TV) on the course. Screenwriting is obviously a very different skill to writing a play, and some of these writers find that transition difficult – although for the most part they take to it brilliantly. There is no doubt that success in theatre will give you a certain cachet in TV and film but it’s not a pre-requisite. There are many examples of writers from the Channel 4 course who have no interest in writing a play but have achieved great success as TV dramatists.

——————————-

Various filmmakers, including Neil Jordan, say you should only write what can be seen, and what can be heard. Others says you can include elements on mood, emotion etc. that indicate a character’s state of mind, in order to aid the actor. Personally, I favour the former, with a pragmatic inclusion of the latter, where necessary. Do you feel there is any consensus on this issue among script readers?

I think the answer is in the question! Reading a lot of screenplays as I do, the question of what works best in the writing of directions in screenplays is something I think about on a daily basis (sad I know). I’m with you – as a rule of thumb the directions (‘action’ as it’s called in Final Draft) should clearly and simply describe what we’re seeing on screen – whether this applies to people, objects or action. So – you should describe what a character looks like physically, what they’re physically / visually doing when we first meet them but I would say you shouldn’t describe their internal emotional state or back-story. Usually this feels to me like cheating – giving the reader access to privileged information that won’t be accessible to the audience. Too often, doing this just makes it hard for the reader to clearly work out how the story will play on screen. The experience of reading a script should be as close as possible to watching the film. The reader should only see / know what the audience will see / know. I would say this should be your starting point – and any exceptions to this should be very carefully considered!

————————————

The next newsletter will be on Friday March 9^th.

All the best

Phil

PHILIP SHELLEY

www.script-consultant.co.uk

www.tributepodcasts.co.uk

Twitter: @PhilipShelley1

E: philip.shelley@script-consultant.co.uk

Hi There,

CHANNEL 4 SCREENWRITING COURSE 2018

I’m finally coming to the end of my reading for the 2018 Channel 4 screenwriting course, and it’s been a long but very rewarding haul. We received considerably more scripts than in the previous few years – up from 1300 to 2040.

I have read so many good, interesting scripts, and emails have gone out to the short-listed writers, 30+ of whom we will be interviewing at Channel 4 in a couple of weeks time before selecting the final 12.

If you haven’t heard from us – sorry! This means your application wasn’t successful. I’m sorry we can’t email everyone individually – but we don’t have the resources. And thank you so much for entering. As ever the process of whittling down 2040 applications to 12 writers is painful and difficult. But the range and quality of the scripts is more and more impressive every year.

A few observations about common elements in the scripts that stood out for me –

One quality that I continue to think is in short supply when you read vast amount of scripts is the desire among writers to tell big political stories about the state of the world and the UK today. It seems to me that there is so much in the news every day that is extraordinary, that will affect our lives for years to come – the obvious examples being Brexit and Trump – and yet so few people seem to be writing about contemporary politics, social injustice, inequalities of wealth and resource, injustices in the justice system, immigration and the refugee crisis, etc, etc. Even among the short-listed writers, these sorts of scripts are few and far between.

Here are some of the other things that made the short-listed scripts stand out –

A sense of humanity – having something to say about the human condition, usually with beautifully-observed nuances of characterisation.

Connected to this sense of humanity, some of the scripts that stood out in terms of pure enjoyment (which is after all largely what it’s about) were the sunny love stories that were warm, humorous and life-affirming. The converse to this is the large number of grim, relentless stories that don’t seem to have a strong agenda – apart from depicting misery.

A really fresh, left-field perspective on a story world or group of characters that were new to me – scripts that took me into a world that felt fresh, distinctive and revealing.

Many of the most effective scripts had a refreshing simplicity – the confidence to focus on a minutely detailed story about something that was relatively simple – but had the confidence to focus intently on this situation / relationship.

…and connected to the above is a sense of clarity and narrative focus in the best scripts. The best scripts come alive immediately off the page and are easy to read. In fact, the best scripts are impossible to stop reading. There were many scripts that didn’t feel quite right for the C4 / E4 profile – but nevertheless absolutely compelled me to read to the end.

There were certain scripts that really stood out because of the flair and confidence of their story-telling – stories that hit the ground running, and that progressed with a sense of pace, surprise, economy and excitement.

Scripts that really feel like they have something to say stand out. There are certain scripts that feel grown-up and meaningful in a way too many of the scripts don’t.

W1A

I was blown away by series 3. The characterisation and dialogue are superb. A masterclass in how to write comic dialogue. Every character has their own, brilliantly-observed verbal tic / mannerism. Long dialogue scenes go by where no-one says anything of any meaning or significance – but there’s such a strong sense of sub-text between the characters – like the Ian Fletcher / Lucy / Anna triangle. And the Jack / Izzy / Will triangle. Screenwriting at its absolute best, writing of real skill and subtlety made to look deceptively simple. Written and directed by the brilliant John Morton. I’m a big advocate of inarticulate dialogue – and W1A is such a great example of that at its best.

BEGINNING by David Eldridge at the National Theatre, Dorfman.

I really recommend this play – the 3^rd excellent play in succession (after OUR LADIES OF PERPETUAL SUCCOUR and CONSENT) that I’ve enjoyed at the NT Dorfman.

What was so impressive about BEGINNING as a script and production was its simplicity but also its bravery. A two-hander set in a naturalistic Muswell Hill, one-bedroom flat setting, this was in effect a single, uninterrupted scene of 1 hour 40 minutes. The two characters are ordinary, lonely, richly-drawn, and this is a really humane, charming, thoughtful piece of writing. It’s transferring to the West End in the New Year.

JANE FEATHERSTONE BAFTA speech

This is definitely worth listening to on the BAFTA Guru website – a fascinating examination of the state of writing in the ever-changing UK TV drama industry. Jane was kind enough to reference the C4 course as one of the (too) few formal opportunities for new writers to break into TV drama. She talked about how the bigger indies and broadcasters in the UK need to put their money where their mouths are – and actively commission and foster the deep well of new writing talent that exists in the UK. Among many other thing she talked about how she thinks SVOD (Netflix, Amazon etc) co-pros with UK indies and broadcasters will soon be a thing of the past – how these SVOD co’s will soon go straight to the writers and commission them directly – and how it is incumbent on the drama indies to bring through the next generation of ‘commentators’ – the successors to TV dramatists like Sally Wainwright, Jimmy McGovern and Russell T Davies; how UK indies need to nurture and commission the next generation of UK writing talent – and encourage them to tell stories that are specifically about the UK for a specifically UK audience.

This is something that really strikes a chord with me. She talks about how ten years ago on SPOOKS there were opportunities for writers like Howard Brenton and Zinnie Harris to really make their mark writing episodes on another writer’s show (David Wolstencroft), and how these sorts of opportunities are fewer and further between now. This gap is partly being filled by the opportunities that less experienced screenwriters now have in writers rooms on co-pros with a US influence (eg shows like HARLOTS  and TIN STAR – both of which have included 4screenwriting alumni in their writers rooms).

But I believe there is a space / scope for lower budget authentic, specific, regional, distinctive British shows – made specifically for the UK market, that don’t have an eye on co-pro possibilities and overseas sales. Stories that say something interesting and important about the UK today – and are not ‘High End’ but contained, pragmatic and achievable. On a very tiny scale this was part of the thinking behind my tribute podcasts (tributepodcasts.co.uk – watch this space for news about launching a 2^nd series in the next few weeks).

http://guru.bafta.org/jane-featherstone-2017-television-lecture

Finally this week a shout-out for Phil Gladwin’s excellent screenwriting goldmine script competition – now entering into the final weeks of its entry period. This is a great opportunity to get your script in front of an impressive array of influential industry folk, who can really give your career a massive leg-up.

https://awards.screenwritinggoldmine.com/

The next newsletter will be on Friday Dec 1^st,

All the best

Phil

PHILIP SHELLEY

www.script-consultant.co.uk

www.tributepodcasts.co.uk

@PhilipShelley1

November 17^th 2017