Сторінка
2

Writing for television and the editorial influence

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).

(2) 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.)

(3) 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.