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.