ACT 1

1. 0.45 – 2.36 Strike approached by Anna Phipps and told about her missing daughter (Dr. Margot Bamborough).
2. 2.36 – 3.25 flashback to the disappearance in 1974.
3. 3.25 – 4.24 flashback to Anna Phipps as a child.
4. 4.24 – 5.21 Strike and Phipps.
5. 5.21 – 6.34 Strike and Robin talk by phone. Robin asks about aunt Joan.
6. 6.34 – 8.55 Strike’s aunt’s home. Discovers his aunt has incurable ovarian cancer.
7. 8.55 – 10.59 Robin discusses case with flatmate Max.
8. 10.59 – 12.06 Robin driving, talks with Matthew on the phone (ex-husband).
9. 12.06 – 13.55 Strike’s sister Lucy says Strike should marry Robin.
10. 13.55 – 15.03 Robin alone watches more videos on her phone about the case.
11. 15.03 – 16.34 Strike on a ferry eavesdropping on strangers. Robin waits on the pier.
12. 16.34 – 17.05 Strike and Robin talk in the car.

What can we notice about Act 1?

Firstly, three scenes are dedicated to the B story or personal stories of the characters, as opposed to the case.

Scene 6 revolves around Strike’s aunt having ovarian cancer. Scene 8 has his sister ask him why he doesn’t marry Robin. Scene 9 has Robin on the phone to her ex. We might argue the only reason we have scene 6 is so Strike can meet his sister for scene 8. I’m not sure what relevance the ovarian cancer scene has to the story, except perhaps, as it is a story by JK Rowling, pointing to the organs which are a main difference between men and women. Men cannot have ovaries. Clandestine argument? So, if scene 6 points to the feminist women’s rights theme which continues throughout the episode, then only 8 and 9 relate to the romance between Strike and Robin.

Then we might say:

1 scene relates to theme – feminism and women’s rights:

Scene 6: screen time: 2.21

2 scenes relate to Strike and Robin’s romance:

Scene 8: Screen time: 1.07

Scene 9: Screen time 1.49

The total screen time of Act 1 from 0.45 – 17.05 = 16.20

Total screen time dedicated to the new case: 12.03 (approx 75%)

Total screen time dedicated to non-case or B stories: 4.17 (approx 25%)

Total screen time dedicated to Strike and Robin’s romance: 2.56 (approx 20%)

Total screen time pointing to women’s issues / feminist themes: 2.21 (approx 15%)

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?