Let’s consolidate the lessons we learned from looking at dialogue in episode 1 of The Serpent by Richard Warlow, published on the BBC Writers Room website.

Overall, there are three articles:

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

These articles illuminate 8 separate techniques:

1. Say what others want to hear.
2. Respond with action.
3. Answer your own question.
4. Choose not to answer
5. Respond with a question
6. Avoid the question
7. Seduce
8. Euphemize

What other techniques are there for answering questions? Let me know on Twitter @screenwrite.org

This article is available to watch / listen to on Youtube below.

So, this is the 3rd and final part of looking at questions in The Serpent, and techniques writer Richard Warlow uses when his characters respond to them.

I can see 3 techniques in this section worthy of noting.

SPOILER ALERT.

Technique 1: Responding with action: in this section of script, Charles and Ajay have kidnapped a backpacker, Teresa. Ajay isn’t sure of the plan. So he asks Charles. Charles responds with an action – he points out to sea.

Technique 3: Euphemistic

Our final example, then, of techniques used by Richard Warlow when his characters respond to questions in episode 1 of The Serpent, is where Charles uses a euphemism in order to conceal his heinous intentions. Here’s the moment:

No. Better than that actually means No. I’m going to kill you. His better than that softens the blow. If the meaning of euphemism is “the use of a word or phrase to avoid saying another word or phrase that may be unpleasant or offensive” (Cambridge dictionary) then we might say Charles phrase here is euphemistic.

In my opinion this is a fascinating choice by Richard Warlow. He has the choice to have Charles respond to this question in any way he wants. He has Charles give Teresa one last glimpse of false hope before she meets her dreadful fate. Superb.

Don’t forget to follow me on twitter @screenwriteorg or follow this blog for future posts.

This post is available to watch / listen to here:

In the last post we looked at three techniques writer Richard Warlow uses in episode 1 of The Serpent when his characters respond to questions.

(The script is available on the BBC Writers Room website.)

In this post we’re going to consider three more techniques.

Here goes:

In this scene Celia and Teresa are floating down the river in Bangkok discussing heroin and hash in Kathmandu.

Celia asks Teresa Then where are you going?

Teresa chooses not to answer.

Technique 1. Choose not to answer.

Let’s look at the next section of the script.

Celia’s next question is You sure you don’t want to get high?

Teresa answers a question with a question. Why get high? Standard screenwriting technique, but, how does Celia respond to Teresa’s question?

She doesn’t. Teresa continues her train of thought, enjoying the breathtaking new oriental landscape.

Technique 2: respond with two questions, while revealing character.

Finally, in this scene Teresa calls her Grandma (Emma) back in California, who asks:

Teresa responds I just felt I didn’t say goodbye properly.

That’s not true. And we know it’s not true, because by the end of the scene Teresa has admitted to Emma, her grandma, that she has a ‘bad feeling’…

But, initially, Teresa avoids the question, possibly to protect her grandma from the truth.

Technique 3: avoid the question.

So, three more techniques from Richard Warlow

1. Choose not to answer.

2. Respond with two questions while revealing character.

3. Avoid the question to protect the asker from the truth.

We’ve been looking at dialogue, and the choices we have when responding to questions.

But how do the experts do it?

This is an excerpt from episode 1 of The Serpent by Richard Warlow available on the BBC Writers Room website.

Herman works for the Dutch consulate in Bangkok. Van Dongen is the ambassador. Herman interrupts him at a pool party, which Richard Warlow describes as:

See the diplomatic classes at play. Plenty of BOOZE. Multiethnic, elite, transactional. Men and women; drink and sex. And Herman – the only man still in his work clothes, nodding
a polite and embarrassed hello here and there —

It seems to me Van Dongen is saying ‘no’ but indirectly. He says ‘no’ without saying ‘no’. He says ‘no’ using other words.

What about this next section, immediately following?

Van Dongen: When did you last speak to your mother?

Which strikes Herman like a knife. Love that. Wants to answer. But —

Van Dongen doesn’t let him. Instead, he twists the knife with sarcasm. And belittles him, in front of others, showing character.

Brilliant.

In the last post we looked at 7 ways for a character to respond to questions.

Having read this review of Better Call Saul which mentions Walter White’s ability to misunderstand a question, here are five more techniques for our arsenals:

1. Misunderstand the question:

ADAM

Are you going to eat the apple?

EVE

Am I going to eat the what?

2. Mishear the question:

ADAM

Are you going to eat the apple?

EVE

Am I going to meet the apple?

3. Misinterpret the question:

ADAM

Are you going to eat the apple?

EVE

Do you want to eat the apple?

4. Respond to the subtext:

ADAM

Are you going to eat the apple?

EVE

You’re too controlling. I’m leaving.

5. Respond with sarcasm:

ADAM

Are you going to eat the apple?

EVE

I’m going to eat all the goddam apples!

Do you have any more to share?

MA Writing for Script & Screen – reflective blog

Over half way through the module, in week 8, and I’m almost ready to submit my X-Files reboot. I’ve got my character bios, my premise, my step outline, my key scenes. And my module tutor this week told me he thought my twist reveal works. Bingo.

Except, one minor problem: one aspect of this X-Files reboot is to include, reinvent or re-imagine a character from the original TV show, for fan service.

Well, I opted for the laziest choice, Section Chief Scott Blevins, played by Charles Cioffi. (BTW Mulder and Scully cannot appear – it has to be new protagonists). Having only watched three episodes of the original season, choosing to analyse in detail the pilot rather than watch the whole season, (our course leader had said to watch one season was enough) I reimagined Chief Blevins with Charles Cioffi who would be the longest serving Director of the FBI in living history at the age of 87.

Problem is, the character died in ’97. (Charles Cioffi is still alive).

Hmmm. That’ll learn me to cut corners on my viewing / research.

My tutor gently and helpfully pointed out that one aspect of the course is the ability to research and write to a brief, noting British soaps as needing this kind of skill from a screenwriter.

But, like any great teacher, my tutor not only pointed out a problem, but he offered me a solution. Two solutions, in fact.

You have enough time, he said, to research etc. You could possibly re-introduce a different character. One that isn’t, er…dead. (Solution No. 1)

Or…make your episode a prequel to Scully and Mulder, when Chief Blevins is still alive. (Solution No. 2.)

Brilliant!

My tutor said there’s nothing in my script that really suggests present day, except emails, mobile phones and a methamphetamine epidemic. All of which are easily substituted. Emails: snail mail. Mobile phones: landlines. Meth: heroin, cigarettes or alcohol. Since we are working to a family friendly brief, maybe the meth-addicted mother would be better on ‘the sauce.’

So, I’m edging towards solution No. 2.

However, I didn’t really want to lose the meth angle. So now I’ considering Mitch Pileggi aka Walter Skinner, who works out perfectly as a 70 year old (Mitch Pileggi was born in 1952) in the race for longest serving director of the FBI with J.Edgar Hoover.

And, having just wiki’d Mitch, I find out he was in Wes Craven’s Shocker, which was the very first film I watched stoned on marijuana, and which frightened the life out of me more than any other film ever.

Perhaps I’ll slip in a cheeky reference in dialogue e.g. You never fail to shock me, special agent.

It’s all starting to make sense.

Problems, problems, problems.

Still, they are only story problems.

My kind of problems!

3 weeks until submission.

Time to think, watch, review and reflect.

I am grateful for superb tutorial feedback. Over all my tutor gave me 7 excellent points to consider with some brilliant ideas on how to improve my work and take my story to the next level. He really went the extra mile.