On theme:
Writing for television and the editorial influence



WRITING FOR TELEVISION
The major problem facing any writer coming fresh to television is to understand what it is. Is it a new art medium or merely a new method of disseminating information? Is it simply an extension of radio, or is it just an inferior form of cinema? These are basic questions which require an answer. Before dealing with them, however, I would like to set down the three main problems which, in my belief, face any writer, new to television. They are:
(1) The problem, already mentioned, of understanding the nature of the medium
(2)The problems of time and space encountered in const rusting the script.
(3)The problem of lay-out of the script.
Now to deal with these in order. Perhaps the best way 1o start on the first is to compare television with other media and' to plot its affinities and contrasts.
Like radio, it is broadcast to a mass-audience grouped in small numbers; it forms part of a daily service; it may be produced inside the studio, outside it, or both; and each programme is consumed in one performance, or a small number of performances. Like the film, it employs cameras and the action is seen through lens; it is viewed on a screen; it employs simultaneously sound and vision; it employs grammatical devices such as the mix and the fade. Like the theatre it is a live medium; its actors or actualities give a continuous performance.
Now for the points of divergence. Unlike radio, television, must bow to the exacting demands of vision as well as sound. Unlike the film it is principally a live, as opposed to a recorded, medium — although this may change with time; its action has only relative mobility. Unlike the stage play, its action can move swiftly from set to set; it plays to small intimate groups of people at short range.
From this brief analysis it should be apparent that, although television draws characteristics from these media, it can by no means be identified with any one of them. It has too many affinities with the film merely to be an extension of sound radio; it has too much of radio and the theatre merely to be an inferior form of cinema. It is a new and exciting medium in its own right. It is not even an alternative to the theatre or the cinema; it is rather a window on the world, a magic window through which can be seen passing all the sights and sounds and people of the day. Maurice Wiggin, the television critic, once called television "a periscope through which we can see how the world wags". This seems to me a definition it would be hard to better.
When I said that television was a live medium I was, of course, quite aware that it does employ both recorded sound. (on disc or tape) and recorded vision (on film). Most plays and documentaries use linking filmed sequences and some types of programme use a high proportion of film. When this happens television takes on temporarily the characteristics of a recorded medium, though its real nature remains the same. Being a living medium is the principal cause of what I have called the problems of time and space. These keep cropping up in various forms in every script and any writer who is determined to master television must develop a technique for dealing with them.
Let me give a simple example. In one scene a character called John Smith is drinking in a night club, dressed in a dinner jacket. In the next scene he is at his office next mornings .dressed in a lounge suit. In a film, this would be quite straightforward. The •action would be recorded shot by shot and edited together. In television, however, the position is quite different because shot follows shot and scene follows scene in real time. If John Smith has to change his costume, the script must be constructed so as to give him enough time. Even if no change of costume is necessary, he must still be given time to walk from set to set, collecting any necessary "props" en route.
Occasionally the problem may be eased by the insertion of a linking film sequence but by no means every time. Within a scene the time factor still holds; if an actor has to lace up his boots, tie his tie, or even put on a car wheel, the actual time must be allowed. These actions cannot be telescoped, as in a film.
Closely allied with the problems of time are the problems of space and, indeed, they are often aspects of the same prob!em. Every set in the script has to be built and erected in the studio. Some sets can be managed by back-projection and other devices but, in general, all the sets demanded in the script must be erected side by side. From this it follows that their number will be limited by the available studio space; it is no use a writer asking for twenty-three sets, because he will never get them. He may get twelve; he is lucky to get more than eight.
This, considering the size of the larger studios, may seem an unnecessary curb on the writer, but there is a very good reason: the studio lay-out must take into account not only the disposition of the sets but the necessity of movement from set to set. The needs of the actors have already been touched on, but also there are the camera crews and their dollies, the microphone booms, the lighting men and a whole army of technicians. Unless they can keep up with the actors, the programme as a piece of television ceases to exist. The general rule is, therefore, that the more room there is for maneuver, the faster, the actors and technicians can move.
At its best, television has only relative mobility and its action moves from set to set, or from set via film sequence to set. Within each set the aciton is usually pegged to a room, an office, a shop, or some other unit until it moves on to the next scene and is pegged there. It cannot (as in the film) move down corridors, along roads, and up hills or down precipices. .For this reason the television scene is similar to the stage scene and the television script tends to consist of thirty to sixty such scenes, grouped into sequences and linked in the mounting I rhythm of the action. I should add that this technique of writing " was not invented by television writers nor borrowed direct from the cinema; it was developed by William Shakespeare
The number of sets and scenes employed in Hamlet or Richard III is very much the same as in a television script. If Shakespeare were alive today he would be our leading television writer. Certainly the present fashion for one-set plays would have driven him from the theatre.
How can these problems of time and space be reduced to a minimum?
The only way, in my experience, is to work out a detailed construction of the script before a line of dialogue is written. In this should be included a synopsis of each scene and characters involved in it, and the details of each set. If this is done systematically a good many snags will be apparent, and so may be dealt with, before it is too late. In fact, the construction should be worked out until it is near perfect because any faults that remain will show up larger still in the completed script.
The third great problem encountered by the television writer is the lay-out of the script. The difficulty is that, besides, reading well as a piece of narrative, the script has to convey a good deal of technical information to the producer, the actors, the designer, the lighting supervisor, the studio manager and several other people. These two qualities are not necessarily complementary and a script may, for example, convey technical information quite adequately but read so badly as a narrative that it loses all chance of production. The best lay-put achieved so far, to my knowledge, was evolved by Robert Barr, the writer-producer of television documentaries until recently with the B.B.C. For simple reference I will call it the single column layout. The main points are as follows:
(1) At the beginning of each scene the following information is given:
The number of the scene.
Whether it is live in the studio or filmed.Whether it is interior or exterior.Whether it is at night or by day.
The set (if live); the location (if filmed).
At the end of each scene there is a direction showing how it is to be linked to the next. If the scene ends a sequence the fact is stated. (A sequence is a group of scenes comparable to a chapter in a book or a movement in a symphony. It covers a complete stage in the development of the plot.)
Stage and camera directions are set right across the page; dialogue is in-set.
...One of the advantages of this lay-out is that there is no doubt as to where a scence or sequence ends and where the next one begins. Nor can there be any doubt as to how the writer intends the scenes to be linked.
That deals, as far as it is possible to do so here, with the three main problems of the writer, but there are naturally others which vary with each programme. One difficulty however crops up so often that it should be given special mention: it is the difficulty of giving the appearance of continuous action or movement where actually there is a break.
...I do not think anyone imagines that writing for television is an easy business; even for the writer who has succeeded in the theatre, the cinema, radio or elsewhere, there is a new technique to acquire and the difficult process of adapting a personal style to the needs of a complex medium. But it is my belief that the attempt is worth-while, not only for the rewards of success, should they come, but also because it will introduce the writer to a new and exciting field of experience. Finally, it should be realized that television needs the writer even more than he needs television. Without him it can never grow to maturity, never deploy its latent power; and it can never be a wide, open and shining window on the world.
(From Television in the Making, ed. by Paul Rotha)
THE EDITORIAL INFLUENCE
What is a good television assignment and what is not? There are many variables involved; the editorial values of a story; your resources, in terms of personnel and equipment to do the job; and the cost, in terms of money, time and effort. Also much depends on what you are trying to do, in your overall approach to the responsibility of covering news for your station.
You may not completely control this over all approach. Much depends on the basic attitudes and policies of the station management, and it is necessary to work within that framework. If your operating budget is small and your staff is limited, your coverage necessarily reflects such limitations.
...There are several basic points to keep in mind about assignments. The most important one is: People are more interesting to people than inanimate things. A building may be impressive but when a person comes into the frame, your attention shifts to that person. We should exploit this natural curiosity about other people because, whether we realize it or not, all of us are constantly seeking to understand one another
But an interest in people doesn't mean that all interviews
will be interesting. All too frequently interviewing somebody in the news is used as the easy way out. We are not covering a story if we get somebody to say on camera what has already been published in the press and broadcast on radio. Unless the interview carries the story further, provides new information or sheds new light on development, there's little reason to use it. Of course, one cannot always know whether a film interview will carry the story one step further, so we often have to try it, and see what happens. But just because it has been shot doesn't mean it must be used.
Not is interest in people justification for indiscriminate interviewing of the so-called man in the street. You are not providing news or information when you ask somebody to be an expert on something they cannot possibly be qualified to discuss. Man in the street assignments are really not valid unless you are asking people questions they are qualified to answer.
What makes a good television film story? I believe it is writing of the story. Good writing can make a striking piece out of routine visual elements. And the fact is, most of what one can film is quite commonplace and routine. And though an imaginative approach by a good cameraman can make something interesting out of a Rotary Club luncheon, there's a limit to what he can do visually.
One picture is not necessarily worth a thousand words. It depends on the words, how they are put together, and most important, the idea behind them.
Another important aspect of assignments: know your staff and use them to the best advantage. Certain men can do better with a certain kind of story than others, because of their own individual make-up. The special talents of a reporter or cameraman should be taken into consideration in making an assignment.
Too frequenty we are content to settle for what is really talking coverage of an important story instead of doing the kind of job television can do. The city, state or federal government passes legislation or undertakes some project. So we interview the man who sponsored the bill or heads the project. In doing so we are being dull. We are quality of not taking advantage of the very special capability of this medium. Newspapers are limited to doing this — but we are not. Instead of having somebody talk about it, we can show it. Why settle for an interview with the city councilman or a state representative when there's a wealth of meaningful stories to be had by digging a little.
When we assign a story, we don't try to spell out in detail how it should be done. We expect that the team doing the story will know what to try to include in the piece. If there's a special angle in which we are interested , we tell them what it is. But on the whole, we leave it up to the men in the field to figure out what is the best way to do it. By being on the scene, they know what the local conditions are and what problems are.
...So it is up to the correspondent on the assignment to come up with an angle that will be interesting informative and will put the story in perspective.
Again and again, this is done with adequate but less than extraordinary visual elements coupled with good writing.
A good assignment should both involve a good idea and good men to execute it. But the fact is that even when the idea isn't so good, if the men who handle it are skilled and imaginative, chances are you will come up with something worthwhile.