Finding Your Voice Vs Good Form.

I'm at this really interesting point in my career right now where I don't, you know, have one. I'm set to graduate in just a few short months and I'm eager to get out there and prove that I can be a professional, adaptable dramatist. 

I use the term 'dramatist' in the more general sense of the term. I don’t mean it interchangeably with playwright, since my experience with the theatre has always been decidedly amateurish. I use it because I've never been quite comfortable with the term 'writer'.  To me the word 'writer' calls up the image of an intellectual - perhaps Stephen Fry - with his eloquent speech and vast vocabulary.  I've never been comfortable attaching that label to myself since my prose leaves a lot to be desired and I spell like a dyslexic on crack. But the term dramatist fits - I've always had a good instinct for Character A + Character B placed in Situation X = pretty good drama. 

But how do I sell myself as such? At the moment I'm working on my thesis - a character driven drama pilot about a British band on the brink of US success. It's something I've been working on for 3 years, off and on. I'm extraordinarily fond of it and it's come a long way in those 3 years. It's due to have its first public reading in 6 weeks and so the final push is here. How can I make this piece as strong as it can be? 

I look at it and I see it's two versions - split like two alternating realities - the version that's as dramatic as possible, that moves quickly and hits it's plot points with flair and nudity - and then I see the version that I write for myself.  That moves a little slower, takes it's time and is palpable with sexual tension despite the fact that everyone remains fully clothed. 

Which is the strongest version? Which version showcases my abilities as a (okay, I'll say it) writer, better? 

One demonstrates I've been well trained - I know how to craft a story that can be told in 42 mins, broken down into 5 acts, that moves quickly and stops the audience from turning over. The other version shows I've got a clear and distinct vision - that I can craft a story with depth and subtlety and just a dash of originality. But maybe that vision doesn't fit into today's TV landscape. 

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a bit of TV snobbery. There's a reason the 42min/5 act show moves so quickly - they don't take their audience for granted. And it's important to always remember that you're telling the story for someone else. If the audience changes the channel mid-way through act two it's not their fault for being impatient – it’s your fault for failing to deliver a compelling story. But can we ever really know ahead of time, what will make them switch? 

There seems to be a general rule at writing school that more is more. That you should make life for your characters as hard as possible and in a multitude of ways. That you should add more and let the air out. But isn't it possible that we don't need violence or sex to shock our audience? Isn't it possible that the 'oooh shit' moment can come with a complete shift of how we see Character A? They're not the ignored and abused creative force we thought they were, but an emotionally manipulative control freak who is so swimming in self-pity that we want to knock their teeth out. Or is that, in and of itself, not strong enough? Do we need another character to actually knock their teeth out, in order to get the point? 

Therein lies my dilemma. And I guess it comes down to an issue of tone. And an issue of clarity. By leaving it in the characters' head do I risk an audience missing it? Have I crafted the scene well enough that it reads? I mean, if I have another character actually knock his teeth out, it's much more likely to be understood, right? But will the audience then feel force fed?

I know I sometimes find the 'more is more' method frustrating. I recently watched a show called Nashville since I was told it was the country music version of my pilot. I could see why someone might think that, but checking it out I realised they always went for the obvious choice. What would make the situation worse? Oh, this. And so they'd do it. For me, it seemed dull - there was never a genuine surprise. The 'more is more' mentality seems to be permeating Doctor Who at the moment, too. But that ‘guns and explosions’ disaster is another blog post. 

So when handing in my script to an industry professional, which is the bigger sin? Something that doesn't quite fit - that's bloated and strange and doesn't have perfectly timed acts? Or handing him something that's filled with obvious choices. "Oh, these two characters are competitors? Let's have them compete over everything - women, work, masculinity, fame, athleticism..." Living no room for the grey, for the ambiguous, for the complex.

I'm not sure yet. Something tells me I might need a sample script for both, but that sounds like a lot of hard work and I just wasted all my time writing this blog post. 

Don't tell me you agree with that?

So they repealed ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ today.

For any of those unfamiliar with the law(it’s American after all) ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is a piece of legislation passed during the Clinton administration in 1993 that allowed gay men and women to serve in the US military providing they didn’t tell anyone that they were gay. In the 17 years since the legislation was passed over 13,000 men and women have been fired from active service after their superior offices have discovered their true sexual orientation.

Gay men and women who have risked their lives on the front line defending their country have lost their jobs and their pensions all because of an indiscreet Facebook status or because of telephone calls made by scorned ex-lovers. And that’s true by the way. I mean, that shit really happened. In the 21^st century in the ‘land of the free’ the lives of brave men and women were ruined all because of something as irrelevant as their sexual preferences.

We in Britain with our far superior sense of social equality have allowed gay men and women to serve openly since 1999. Well today the States finally caught when President Obama signed the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’

Now as clear cut as this issue would seem to most of us, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ has been a contentious issue in the states, with passionate arguments both for and against the legislation. That doesn’t shock me about America; their politics have always been muddled and filled with contradictions about personal freedoms. Since I don’t live there and their laws don’t apply to me I try (and often fail) to not get too wound up about it.

However, I wasn’t expecting ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ to be a contentious issue in my own home. So imagine my surprise when I inform my brother of the good news, only to find that he disagrees with the law’s repeal. In fact, he believes they should go one step further and out-and-out ban gay men and women from the army.

Now my brother’s not a homophobe. I wouldn’t say he’s entirely comfortable with the idea, but he’s got plenty of gay friends and loves hanging out with my gay roommate/s. So apart from his desire to sit on the Right of any political debate why does he believe gay men don’t have the right to serve?

From what I gather, here is his argument: The army relies on the recruitment of young, testosterone-filled men. These young testosterone-filled men have a sub-culture that revolves around all things manly. Apparently the addition of gay men to this sub-culture would not go down well. They would consider it, and I quote, ‘a distraction’.

So I counter with the usual argument; Isn’t it about human rights?

He replies: In what way? Since when is it a basic human right to serve in the army?

Me: Since it’s your right if you sleep with women, but not if you sleep with men.

He replies: It’s the army. It’s not ‘everyone gets a turn’. They’re doing dangerous work and we can’t sub-plant our moral norms onto such a highly-charged environment, where the outcome of their work is more important than the way it is conducted.

Oh fuck, I think, moral relativism. I so don’t want to go there.

So I bring up the big example: segregation. Back in yesteryear when racism was still the flavour of the day, the American army was segregated into white platoons and black platoons. In 1948 Harry Truman signed a law ordering the integration of black and white troops. Back then people made the same ‘distraction’ arguments. In fact the law was so unpopular Truman had to sign an Executive Order because he couldn’t get the law through congress. But desegregation was the right thing to do. Everybody knows that.

I put this to my brother. He then argues that desegregation was different.

How?

Because most people were racist then, whereas only army members are homophobic now.

He looks at me like this closes the matter. It doesn’t. If anything – it’s blown the whole thing wider open. What the hell does that mean?

He argues that it is precisely the homophobic, testosterone-filled man aggression that we rely on to win wars. Being racist has no positive outcome, but the outcome of a homophobic sub-culture is victory in battle. Butch aggression actively wins wars and if that comes with a side order of homophobia, so be it. He says it’s not pretty and it sure isn’t politically correct but it’s true.

At this I’m stumped; I don’t agree but I can’t counter. My only real argument will have him calling me a Guardian-reading nonsense-spouting happy-clappy imbecile again. So I’m going to tell you my argument instead: shouldn’t we be bigger than that? Aren’t there moral absolutes?

In the same way that segregation was institutionalised racism, isn’t the banning of openly gay men and women from serving institutionalised homophobia? It is. And there’s no way round it. You can rationalise it ‘til the cows come home but the US Government, or a small branch of it anyway, was supporting homophobia.

People have the right to think what they like. Racism isn’t illegal. Homophobia isn’t illegal. But the incitement of hatred is. Convincing others to be racist or homophobic is against US law, so why does the US army consider itself above it? How can any government expect to pass law with any sense of moral authority under such an ethical contradiction? Do as I say, not as I do.

There are moral absolutes and people should hold their governments accountable to them.

That of course is too simple for my brother who is convinced that I’m just a wishy-washy left winger that sees disenfranchisement everywhere I look. But it’s not a dogma, it’s not a left-wing agenda. It’s about rights pure and simple. And what you do with your private parts has never, and will never, be any of the government’s goddamn business.  

A Nonsense Institution

I have never been married. I can’t possibly pretend to know the intricacies of being involved in such an institution. But that’s not going to stop me having an opinion about it.

This week Scarlett Johansson announced her split from husband of two years, Ryan Reynolds. Dexter star Michael C. Hall and his spouse, co-star Jennifer Carpenter, also split after a whooping 2 whole years or marriage. Marriage must be tough. However did they make it a whole 730 days?

I know marriages fall apart – infidelity, abuse and 50 years of personal growth can all push marriages past the point of reconciliation. But 2 years? C’mon people. Back when marriage was done right, you wouldn’t consider a divorce after 2 years. Married couples have had fights that last longer. But these days people fall in and out of marriage so quickly that the institution has been reduced to the equivalent of asking a boy out on the playground.

I’ll be honest. This out and out fucks me off. I want to get married someday but I want to get married. I don’t want a boyfriend that comes with a ring. I want a life partner - someone to buy a home with, make big decisions with - a father for my future children. Not just someone I’ll continue to shag as long as it’s convenient.

But now I’m thinking I might not bother. It doesn’t mean anything anymore. We’ve all become so determined that we can have everything – the perfect house, the perfect job, the perfect marriage. If one small thing falls out of place – and we have to actually start working at our relationships - then suddenly it’s not right, cause the movies say it’ll be easy. It’s a whole generation of emotionally retarded people running around with their heads in the clouds.

Well fuck-you-very-much generation before me. You’ve trashed it. Congratulations.

In America anti gay-marriage campaigners claim that gay marriage makes a mockery of the institution. Are they kidding? The institution is a mockery. If gay men want to get involved in this farce – good luck to them. They deserve their chance to act like spoilt brats like the rest of us.

Sex, Lies & Phone Calls

I had a bit of a row with my roommate the other day. Well, not a row, more a good-natured debate. The topic? Jason Manford.

As you are probably aware Jason Manford got fired from his job as host of The One Show a few weeks back (or ‘resigned’, whatever) following allegations that he had indulged in internet sex despite having a wife who was pregnant with their 3^rd child. Now my debate with my roommate was not on the morals (or lack thereof) of such a disrespectful act. The debate was: should he have been fired for it?

My roommate’s argument was that as an employee of the BBC Manford was required to show a certain amount of decency in the way he conducted his life. My argument was: why?

He’s a grown man and as his extra-curricular activities had no bearing on his ability to read from an auto-cue, the decision to fire him was ridiculous. Arguments that he’s a role-model are moot - he’s not a children’s TV presenter nor does he present for a programme entitled ‘The Benefits of Celibacy.’ The One Show is a naff magazine show that spouts useless crap anyway, so why should I care what its presenters get up to in their own time?

During this debate me and my roommate managed to drudge up the whole ‘Sachsgate’ affair. When Brand was fired and Ross was put on suspension – I understood it. Not sure I agreed with it, but I got the arguments. These guys used license-fee-payer’s money to make pathetic phone calls to an old man in order to brag about sleeping with his granddaughter. Well, that wasn’t really on, was it? But until someone can prove Jason Manford was using my money to get his rocks off, I don’t see how it’s in anyway the same situation. Yes, we pay his wage. But we do that so he’ll do his job - which he was handling just fine. So why do I care if he wants to risk his marriage? He can dress up like a giant baby and get a woman in a gimp mask to throw spaghetti at him whilst four men stand around jerking off, for all I care. As long as he washes off the spaghetti before he turns up for work, he’s fulfilled his remit as a television presenter.

Leaving behind the image of a nappy-clad Manford for a moment, (or forever, hopefully) - the drudging up of the Sachsgate affair had actually forced me to confront my own hypocrisy.

I remember those couple of weeks. I remember the country basically going mad; discussing nothing but a couple of presenters attempting to be edgy and basically taking it too far. What really got my goat at the time was the amount of complaints. So many more people complained about the calls then those who had actually heard them when it was first broadcast. I found myself wondering how people could be so pathetic. Didn’t they have better things to be doing then complaining about something they never would have heard if it hadn’t been for the non-stop media coverage?

Of course, this holier-than-thou attitude towards the masses was before I caught myself doing what was basically the same thing.

Over a year later I read a now-infamous article by Jan Moir in The Daily Mail. The article concerned the death of ex-boyzone member Stephen Gately. Moir had taken it upon herself to decide (before the autopsy report had even come in) that Stephen’s sexuality had in some way contributed to his death. She backed this up with ‘evidence’ of the completely unrelated suicide of Matt Lucas’s ex-husband, concluding that the gay ‘lifestyle’ somehow lead to death and despair.

The article was ignorant, spiteful and just downright bizarre and I complained about it. A lot. Not officially, you understand. I’m a firm believer in free speech and that just because I was offended by the article it didn’t mean that it wasn’t her right to scribe the ghastly thing. But I did bitch to anyone that would listen.

And the thing was – I hadn’t even read this article in the paper itself. I had read it online – after being told to by National Treasure Stephen Fry. If it hadn’t been for the Twitterati I never would have known of its existence. But now knowing it did, I could hardly ignore it. It was then that I realised my own hypocrisy: those that had complained over Sachsgate had every right to. Whether they heard it when it was first broadcast or not – knowing their license fee was supporting two utter pricks without a sense of boundaries, is not something they felt they could ignore.   

So there it is: I’m a hypocrite. I sneer at public outcry before outcrying very publically myself. But I learn. It may take me a year or two but eventually I realise I must apologise to the public I had previously damned. As to whether Jason Manford should have to apologise to anyone but his wife, well, that I’m not so sure about.

The Mosquito Effect

I recently read Time magazine’s ‘The 50 Best Inventions of 2010’. In at no 45 was ‘The Malaria-Proof Mosquito’. This Mosquito has been genetically engineered to be immune to the malaria-causing Plasmodium parasite. Since malaria causes over 1 million deaths a year this little critter is certainly quite the ‘invention’.

The plan, it seems, is to take this already genetically engineered mosquito and make it harder, better, faster, stronger - than your standard mosquito. This beefed up super-bug will then be released into the wild causing a survival-of-the-fittest type battle whereby it will cane the standard mosquito’s pathetic backside. And voila – a malaria-free world.

Considering there are over 250 million cases of malaria reported every year this seems an innovative solution to one of the developing world’s biggest problems. (And the developed world will never be forced to watch Geri Halliwell filling in for Cheryl Cole ever again.)

Instead of developing new treatments and working out the logistics and cost of distributing it to 250 million people per annum, scientists have headed straight to the root of the problem. And all they have to do is replace an entire species.

Now it will surprise no one that I am not a scientist. I graduated in Media Studies, which amazingly didn’t offer a course on ‘small invertebrate and their role in delicate ecosystems’. However, am I the only one that has spotted a hole in this elaborate plan?

We Homo Sapiens have a history of underestimating the delicate balance of ecosystems. For example, Cane Toads were introduced in Australia as a form of pest control and have since gone on to become the biggest pest of all – their poisonous bodies causing numerous snakes and lizards to enter the endangered species list. And by now everyone’s heard about Britain’s disappearing bee dilemma.

So my question is: what effect will these super-mosquitoes have on their various ecosystems? For all we know the Plasmodium parasite is vital in the germination of the banana plant, without which bats would struggle for food, causing populations to plummet and causing the world’s rodent population to soar. Not only does this give me the creeps but it would also go on to cause serious problems of its own. It’s the butterfly effect. Or the mosquito effect, if you will.

Of all the examples I hear of humans playing God, I actually find this one the most shocking. Designer babies, stem-cell research, sheep-cloning, that’s nothing compared to replacing an entire species with its beefed-up cousin. And I think it’s important to stress that I have no moral objection to anyone playing ‘God’ (as my placing the word ‘God’ in quotation marks probably implies.) In fact, I think fucking with nature can have untold benefits; genetically modified corn can feed up to four times as many people per acre than the standard variety and is going to be a huge factor in combating world poverty.  

So why do the mosquitoes bug me? Logically I think it’s an incredible idea. Ingenious, actually. This is a 21^st century solution to an age-old problem. But I can’t help but feel it’s not right. Until we’ve had time to seriously consider the microscopic ramifications of such a manoeuvre maybe we should hold out on effectively unravelling a mosquito genocide. Nature won’t always be able to compensate for our insistent meddling. And once the bugs are gone – they’re gone.

Now like I say, I am not a scientist. And I’m sure the scientists have considered this. I’m almost 97% sure this isn’t the end of the world. But since that’s not 100, I thought it was worth a cheeky mention.

Check out the link for yourselves:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2029497_2030618_2029819,00.html