"Well…it's like Who Am I? but with teaspoons!"

I learned a heap with our guest speaker, Colin Cameron, on Tues this week. Basically he gave us a brief on the relationship between the broadcaster and the producer, how commissioning works, how to make a show happen, the challenges that independents face, tips on how to be the best producer in the world!

Commissioners

They hold money and air time: you need both for successful TV. “The person holding the purse strings and access to schedules is the one you want to look for.”

- InIncreasingly they come from marketing, scheduling or audience research backgrounds

- Tthey are obsessive: they will watch the overnights and base decisions on how well a programme does in a particular slot; whether it improved on that slot from the year before etc and this method applies to whether on BBC, ITV, Channels 4 & 5 and digital channels too.

- MMove to the producer to solve their problems and to secure their repuatation as a trustworthy channel etc

- CCommissioners, now, are deeply involved in every step of the project to ensure that it will gratify the needs of their specific slot, channel and audience.

- TTHEY WILL TAKE THE CREDIT IF THE SHOW IS A SUCCESS

- IF IF IT IS A FLOP THEN IT IS ALL YOUR FAULT!

It was also apparent that it is increasingly tough to get a show off the ground because commissioners rarely fund the project themselves now. Apparently they’ll put up a certain amount but it’s progressively more expected for US to bring the money, particularly with drama and more and more with documentaries…. The way you get money to float a show sounds kinda dodgy to me, for example ad-funded programming because it’s hard to maintain the editorial worth whist meeting the needs of the advertisers too. On the hand I thought format exploitation sounded really smart: you take the shape of the programme and then replace the onscreen talent with your own country’s famous people. It makes programmes really marketable and if you can propose format exploitation in the pitch, then it’s so much more likely to get bought/funded. That’s why Days That Shook The World did well because it had a voiceover and no talking heads in it, so then other countries just had to dub it in their own language.

Producers:

-BrBring the talent and ideas to the table

- TTurn an idea into compelling T

We did an exercise on tendering and this, whilst being fun and being the source of my title (courtesy of Murray!), it showed me just what commissioners may choose and why. We were given the options of three programmes.

BBC History had said they wanted a new popular history magazine format for early evening BBC2. We had to imagine we were the commissioners and make a decision as to which project to go with. Key points we had to think about were: the time slot, to think economically (which one would have the best returns) and editorially. Out of four groups no-one picked the one which actually got commissioned! I had thought another programme (Six Degrees) had looked the most promising on returns, popularity and had potential format exploitation. But this programme was picked because of the success of the American version that is now in its 7^th series. So commissioners

a) get scared with big budgets (Six Degrees had a MUCH larger budget than any other programme being tendered.)

b) pick programmes that have a safe format and don’t look risky…

Things that crossed my mind:

- Will ‘talent’ take over TV? In other words will the only way we will be able to sell programmes is with an ‘expert’ or a ‘celebrity/well-known kinda guy’?

- Does EVERYTHING have to be sold on the price over quality?! Going back to The Days That Shook The World – it was sold on its cheapness and it was a combo of drama, archive and contemporary footage sold at documentary prices! (But no, there is still loads of quality programmes out there – just like Nel: From Camden To Kabul, which blew me away – I’ll talk about that later!)

- When will there be a correct balance with the editorial content between the broadcaster and the producer since, apparently, all the broadcasters in the UK have held on strongly to the editorial control for programmes….

Key points of advice!

KNOW YOUR PITCH

By this target the channel by knowing exactly what the channel’s output is, do they want an ‘expert’ (Ch4, BBC2 and BBC4) or a ‘celeb’ (BB1, ITV1)?

Have a very good idea on how your pitch will play out.

Do your research: BBC commissioning website and Channel 4’s are good resources.

I really enjoyed Colin's talk because I learned a few more tips and saw the reality of how shows are tendered and put forward and how they are chosen on a tight basis, all very nitty gritty but I think with a good balance TV could be graced with some amazing shows.....I hope we have him again next year.

Today was the one of the best days I've had on this course so far.

With a class with Barbara in the morning we covered some important points about the world of being an exec producer and she's faaabulous. We looked at two very different types of programmes, discussed how they were commissioned/broadcast and what audiences they were reaching. First up was Sea of Souls (which I watched with my mum years ago when it was aired in 04) and it's just as good now. Being a mainstream programme it had all the ingredients there so to expect a large audience/following. Dawn Steele is a popular and local actress who had just finished Monarch of the Glen (which I also adored) and so she will have pulled in a high rating, likewise with Bill Paterson with the older generations. The narrative was really gripping: a character's dreams start to project themselves out into real life. It was interesting to know that it was initially intended to be a film but then was turned into a series, which I think works better as more parapsychological events could be explored, which was done, rather than just one and relationships could be developed between the central characters. I was really surprised to read later on IMdb, though, that the series has been sold to over 40 countries as of December 2005! I had never really thought about it properly before today, about selling a programme to other countries to air, but it's a bit obvious really. It was also really encouraging to hear from Barbara that the whole series was filmed in Glasgow – makes me feel happy that shows I've watched, way before coming to RSAMD and before I was looking into this world, were home-grown.

THEN I got introduced to Generation Kill. It now has a new devotee. I think the editing is excellent: snappy, but artistic at the same time. I was completely compelled by the action: it's a world I'll never see firsthand and so it's the closest I can get and its a world which fascinates me…the morals, the conversation, the no tv, no showers, no skyscrapers, no trains. No kids, no goldfish, no carpets. No highlighters, no alcohol...just a pack of smokes and letters. And a healthy dose of crude, lewd school boy jokes and slurs which are so un PC but somehow are not offensive?! Was interesting to see and talk about it....it's a programme I really liked but it's a very niche genre so it's not as “mainstream” as Sea of Souls, even though its budget is way much more!

Did you know that Rudy Reyes was played by himself?! The man is a god! I'm not talking about his face (though it's nice..) but he's a Buddhist, a top martial-arts fighter and a member of the First Recon. Barbara said that generated a lot of press by casting a real Marine fighter, which helped since none of the (numerous) actors were very well known and so it was difficult to attract huge audiences. I really really liked how they didn't rush to introduce the main characters. They were there on the edge of the screen and then brought in, or rather, shoved into your face – just like it would be in real life. Men came and went and milled about and lay on the floor. The main character – Evan 'Scribe' Wright played by Lee Tergeson – was introduced about 15 minutes in but it felt natural and fluid. Generation Kill is genius and I am so buying the box set.

I'm going to write about our guest speaker (Colin Cameron) tomorrow..

River City

Today we headed out to Dumbarton to see the River City set. No less than 5 mins in the fire alarm went off so we all poured out in the cold and stood about but when we got back in to start the tour, I felt really happy to be there!

I thought it was great that so many people had taken the trouble to talk to us and take us around the set. Seeing the backlot and the studio was a real eye-opener on how deceptive the programme is - when watching the show you'd never think that it was fake or that there was only three walls to the place!

I really liked some spaces but what I found most interesting is that you could tell instantly what type of character lived in this space and what class they would be or what kind of life from the bedspread or the way the kitchen was laid out.

The co-director (can't remember his name!) took us around the studio and answered all our questions. He made a point on how each person had their own job and that he wouldn't want to try and overtake them with it which I thought was a good piece of advice. He also mentioned that "everyone can make a contribution to an idea and I like it to be collaborative - but it's no democracy!" The main point he made was that the aim of every person on the show is to tell the story and at no point should it be lost. The director will see how it could be told and the editor should assemble them together in an understandable way etc.

The series producer took us round the backlot which was the most enjoyable part for me. Seeing how the place had been built from scratch so much of it was so believable! We saw a scene being cut and it was great seeing the crew in action. There were child actors and they shoot so that they spend as little time on set as possible. He also showed us how the schedule is broken down which was good to see and he explained how it might not always look like a lot but the when the director meets the 1st assistant it may become that one scene has a lot of detail and so most of a day may be spent on that.

Money came up quite a bit - their budget is quite tight and so they maximise every space they have and it was impressive what they had done with the spaces.

They obviously work very hard with crazy schedules and even though I don't watch River City I really enjoyed seeing the place and appreciated how they took the time to talk to us and I really respect that they work their asses off to make it work.

Home

Home? Knowing a place like the back of your hand and keeping it in your heart. I have many of them and so I was so excited when we started our 'Home' project. Both good things and bad things happened with this and I can't say whether I liked it very much in the end..

Firstly it was a great opportunity to see how all of us would work together and who would naturally become the organiser and who would be more artistically inclined, etc? Finally I was getting to work with more people than before and it would give me a glimpse of how the next three years might turn out. I got that. Some of it wasn't too pretty if I'm brutally honest.

Tensions ran sky-high and no-one was too sure on how to say it. We pulled together on the big day and we accomplished some fantastic shots and I really felt like we bonded on our trip to big ol' Loch Lomond (I love my country sometimes, the views up there...wow) A niggling but kept biting me though and it was when we'd shoot and everyone was doing a bit of this and a bit of that – none of our roles were terribly clear. I think it was wrong to ever say the word 'collaborative.' Sure, it sounded good and looked nice on paper but in practise? Nuh-uh. I was frustrated when it seemed some were being a bit greedy and kept insisting on bossing people about. There was a huge communication break down and we were cutting over each other and I know more than 4 people out of the 7 were completely ignored at times. I don't want to lay the blame at anyone's door but I was disappointed...in myself as well. I struggled to find a way to cope with the tenseness and it resulted in myself being irritable or shut off from the task in hand because I felt I'd get ignored anywayIt's something we all need to work on because in the industry no one is going to be faster to fill your shoes if you don't contribute and stand in the corner for whatever reason or by throwing your weight about and saying things you know people aren't going to appreciate.

That all said, I really enjoyed putting a 2 min film from scratch. The planning was fun and the shoot itself gave me a boost when I knew that this is what I wanted to do for the rest of my life – standing there, with an image in my head and then creating it. Yeah, there was lots I'd do differently but that's what we're here for: to learn. We can't be perfect and the best we can do now is take from the project, all the good things and channel them into the next project!

Into The New….

So recently us wee ones documented Into The New: performances at The Arches devised by CPP4. I was in Crew 1 with Amelie, Lucy and Julia and I think we did a great job in perfecting speedy transitions between performances and setting up/packing up!

The performances were bizarre, for my understanding of theatre anyway (and my comfort zone) but it's let me practise the best poker face in the land. That said – I really really enjoyed two performances, especially Sarah Hopfinger's. Her piece really spoke out to the audience and it made us laugh a lot which is what is worth paying for, in my opinion. She drew on her life experiences, rather than relying on shocking people by being naked as the day you were born and I respected her for it.

It was hard to know what to do sometimes, artistically, with the frame because we had to go with whatever was being done without any warning – there was no way we could say 'cut' and get a better shot! Improvisation played a large part in documenting their shows and it was good to get a feel for spontaneity with the kit, if that makes sense. (Good to kept on our toes because it meant we were constantly alert and able to sort problems with speed.)

On the other hand....there was no need for the staff to rush us unnecessarily and demanding that we cut our preparation short, even though we had turned up perfectly ahead of schedule. More importantly, how do you expect us to do our job if someone is insisting that we miss out vital preparation steps, like backfocus?!

Nevertheless we all got a good shot on the kit and it helped make the process become more natural and it showed me that, even under stress and odd timetabling, I and we can deal with it and still make the best of it!

the scouting book for boys

The reviews are a-ravin' already and I cannot wait till the 19th! I took a wee peek at the Film Distributors' Association and the title caught my eye, as did the small picture next to it. The distributor is Pathe and this ticked another box on my checklist of my 'ideal film'. It looks and sounds independent and home-grown and the reviews confirm this. And what's more, they all love it.

From what I've read it sounds like a heady summer film, richly fuelled with discovery and full of life lines being crossed, bent, pushed and snapped… apparently it goes to some dark places but nevertheless a must see. It's interesting that it's mentioned that despite this it should be released in the US - it seems that the Americans need to get a freakin' grip and stop trying to disguise truths with CGI effects (sorry, I'm still wounded after The Lovely Bones..)!

What's even more is that it is written my Skins scriptwriter Jack Thorne and directed by a young guy who goes by the name of Tom Harper - and he sounds nice because he 'has an innate feel for space and landscape and the shots, captured by Robbie Ryan, of the pair running along caravan roofs…' [Jason Solomons, THE OBSERVER] Fabulous.

This Is England's Thomas Turgoose stars alongside Holliday Grainger, who plays Emily; David's childhood friend and presumably first love interest.

I can see this being put into my favourite list but we shall see - I am wary these days….but I tell you no-one will be more delighted than me to see a beautiful summer film which has one of those twists..

uh-oh ……

I've just listened to the first two episodes of The Virtual Revolution on iPlayer…and I'm quite scared. As I sit down to listen to Dr Aleks Krotoski I notice that the first episode was broadcast at 03:05 in the morning! Why on earth did they do that? Did they not want people to sit up and notice what we are doing? Or are they scared they'll scare too many people, like I have just been scared?

Anyway Dr Krotoski says that the web has taken "our world and shaken it apart." My first reaction was "Dinny be silly, the internet is a good thing!" But I'm only exposing myself to the things I want to see on the internet: online shops like asos; www.poshgirlvintage.com; www.farfetch.com; www.adorevintage.com etc…or my facebook page (which I really, really must put on private - it's just madness to risk future employers spying my status's and pictures which only make sense to me and my friends and look plain awful to others!) …. or iplayer. The list goes on but the point is that I'm not seeing the power the internet is giving to the less nice people in the world.

Here is a website (looks perfectly trustworthy and helpful) on how to make a nuke:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-Make-An-Atomic-Bomb-53392.shtml

Excuse me? Yes, a nuclear bomb. I could easily (with some cash of course) go out now and make a pretty big bomb if I really, really wanted to. Not that I do, but it's worrying that some creep out there who has it in their head that this is their destiny to blow up people and things could do so very happily.

Dr Krotoski uses quite a few negative words when describing our virtual world: desire; control; profit; censorship…all very uncomfortable really.

A hierarchy is being created again which is ironic because the web was "designed in a way which deliberately resisted authority". The people with more resources have more power, basically.

Did you know that 1 in 3 of us have a facebook page?! That is insane. Part of me says: "Yay, I can be friends with whoever I please and I can connect to people who I thought were long gone from my life (childhood friends who I've not seen for years or people I met once but wanted to talk to again), this is a great thing." Another part just says "Oh for god's sake woman, more than half of the people in your friends on fb are people you don't even LIKE (I love the socialogical reasons behind this - do I keep them because I feel I'll have more power by seeing the pages of others and I can see what they are doing?) or even know that well, or hell, at all and it takes up so much TIME in your life when in fact, you would have stayed in touch more by phone. Or goodness me, by letters."

My best and most meaningful moments of contact with people have been on the street, away from computers and phones (there was no network to speak of) and I write to my friend in Italy and I find I'm so much more honest with her than to 99% of the facebook contacts.

Yet I still won't do the insane act of de activating my account like a friend of mine did last week…we were all in complete and utter shock. (I mean, please.)

But then Dr Krotoski says in her strangely robotic voice that the internet has opened us up to things we could have never imagined. I mean, COME ON! Do we never learn? Why do we always sound so pathetically surprised and bewildered when we start something and don't bother entertaining the thought that this just may go beyond our expectations? Why do I get the feeling we are constantly underestimating our own creations?

Now, big news. As of today I now follow Vogue and other innocuous things on Twitter. I'm starting to regret it already. I'd refused to join before because I felt that it was creepy to 'follow' people and that it would lead to some kind of new obsessive behaviour…..I don't know…..

Maybe I'll give it a week and see but I've realised with a bit of shock just how much of my life is plastered over the big www. I enjoy tagging myself in pictures and sharing funny stories online and being the first to know about something but have I gone too far?

do it big, do it right and give it class

That was MGM's motto and boy, did they do that!

The scene taken from The Great Ziegfeld was sensational - so many girls, so many men, so much material sparking and glittering, EVERYTHING was over the top and dazzling! I literally watched 'A Pretty Girl is Like A Melody' with my mouth open and I loved Dennis Morgan's voice.

Fred Astaire is amazing, period. Astaire made a hat stand looked good and I dread to think how many hours he spent just practising - his talent just pops off the screen.

Anchors Aweigh is so cute! Gene and a mouse! It's interesting though, that the "symbol of MGM musicals" - Gene Kelly in Singing In the Rain - his dancing is relatively simple compared to the other scenes I've seen in all these films. But I think it's the precision that sticks in people's minds and for me as a child I just loved he didn't mind getting wet.

The amount of swimming Esther Williams did was RIDICULOUS. I Laughed so much when she swam through the water and there were about 10 other girls sitting there smiling like anything obviously desperate to breathe!

The voice which impressed me the most though was Mario Lanza in The Toast of New Orleans with Kathryn Grayson.

All that talent with MGM is so so so much better than 75% of the talent on our screens now - or is it just that they are talented in a different way?

"we all make mistakes and we all pay a price"

I watched House for the first time EVER today (yes, yes I've got a TV at last!) ….and I must admit I was slightly impressed (: It may become a new guilty obsession…

It's American so it's no real surprise to find it's kind of cheesy and the plots are done to emotion-trip you but I still bought into it. It was thought that the girl might die but her husband got me interested - he wasn't sure if he wanted her to live because it turned out that she'd had an affair. It got me thinking how people can have affairs and still love their husband or their wife very much…where is the line for forgiveness?

Right now I'm watching a western! All very gripping stuff: there is a grandpa, Johnny (very fit young guy) and his son Abe. Johnny is an outlaw and has kidnapped Abe. Thing is Samuel (the grandpa) is starting to soften…he wants his grandson but he knows now that Johnny wants out - he left blood for him to find. OOH. I really don't know who to root for! There is a banker, who is tracking with Sam and another dude, who wants to marry Johnny's wife but Johnny wants to kill him. What a palava.

"Justice must be a sharp sword."

Nothing like American TV, really gets me everytime.

storylining ...

Today we had Kim in the morning again. Over the last week we have been in groups (Harry, Ada, Meg and I) and we've been storylining a new character into a week of Corrie. Our character is Jackie Morgan and she is the half-sister of current character Kelly. We wrote out an episode each following the story that Jackie is a lesbian, gets close to Carla (her boss) and kisses her! Kelly sees them and uses this to her own advantage (the two sisters don't get along.)

SO...today we wrote out the main 'tag' (the hook) from each episode under its day. For instance, I wrote Monday: Jackie and Carla exchange numbers. Each group had their own colour..ours was green, yay!, so when we put them on the wall there was a column of four grabbing stories under Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday.

The stories were all scrambled (in order of importance) to begin with but we started establishing the 'A story' by putting the most gripping idea in the top row and doing the same with the second most amazing idea in the row below - the 'B' line. Then there were 'C' stories etc. With a couple we put them further on in the chain - either in a row or a column in order to deliver emphasis or to tie up a story.

This was a really, really, really good exercise to have done with Kim because firstly, it was so visual. The colours were a simple but extremely effective way of drawing the eye to where the thread of the story was being put. You could easily see, almost at once, what would not sit well and what worked.
Secondly, you suddenly had a very clear time scale plan without going nuts looking at days and dates on a piece of paper. I'd imagine you could have a whole wall - with or without as much detail desired - outlining a week or a month of soap storylining.
Thirdly, it's an exercise you can apply to most types of programmes to help you plan ahead: dramas, soaps, maybe even documentaries?
FOURTHLY...you could even work out likely dates for higher viewings and arrange big 'boom-booms' accordingly or vice versa (:

River City don't use this method but Coronation Street do and Eastenders are starting to. Already the ratings for Eastenders have gone up, which is very interesting!

I'll be using this method myself plenty of times I'm sure, I really feel like I learnt a new way to storyline today and in a fun way!