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:
These articles illuminate 8 separate techniques:
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.
This article is also available to watch on Youtube
We’ve been looking at techniques for responding to questions.
In the last post we looked at two examples from Mammoth Screen’s The Serpent by Richard Warlow. Let’s look at some more examples from the same script. This is episode 1, available from BBC Writers Room.
In this scene, Charles and Monique are trying to sell the sapphire / diamond ring to Wim and Lena.
When Monique asks Charles ‘they don’t have to decide now’ it is not a real question. Of course Charles wants them to decide now, but, he’s willing to play the long game. It’s a lot of money.
How does Charles reply? Of course not. But he’s lying. Of course he wants them to decide now. So what technique is this? We might say Charles is responding to Monique’s question by saying what Wim and Lena want to hear.
Let’s look at another question, a bit later in the same scene.
Let’s look at another scenario.
At the Dutch embassy, Lawana, the Thai administrative secretary, asks Herman to clarify that he is who she is expecting: Mr. Kippenberg?
Herman swears in Dutch before responding with a question: how long ago did the others leave?
Lawana – perhaps she doesn’t want to say. So Herman answers his own question.
To conclude, three more techniques writer Robert Marlow uses when responding to questions:
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:
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?
Let’s look at some dialogue techniques which we can apply to our scenes.
Section A: Responding to questions.
Whatever is said, have your next character ignore it and reply with something completely unrelated.
ADAM
Are you going to eat the apple?
EVE
Nice figleaf.
2. Respond with the same question.
ADAM
Are you going to eat the apple?
EVE
Are you going to eat the apple?
3. Respond with an action.
ADAM
Are you going to eat the apple?
Eve can’t believe what Adam is wearing. She turns away, so he can’t see her laughing.
4. Respond with a different question:
ADAM
Are you going to eat the apple?
EVE
Are you going to keep asking the same question?
5. Respond to the question.
ADAM
Are you going to eat the apple?
EVE
I might.
6. Respond to the question and ask the same question:
ADAM
Are you going to eat the apple?
EVE
I might. Are you?
7. Respond with an unrelated statement, then respond in the next line.
ADAM
Are you going to eat the apple?
EVE
Nice figleaf.
ADAM
You like my figleaf?
EVE
I was planning to eat the apple.
Just a few techniques to take control of your dialogue.
Do you have any 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.
1. It opens with a mystery to solve.
2. It sets up the believer / sceptic dichotomy.
3. Before the climax the two protagonists finally agree on a theory.
4. Shows differences in character e.g. in the scene on the plane we learn that Scully is scared of turbulence whereas Mulder is fearless.
5. Scenes either
i. present new information
ii. restate already known facts.
iii. provide an outside force that moves the story forward (e.g. a phone call that says Pegg O’Dell is dead).
iv. reveal character
v. ask active questions.
6. We learn of Mulder’s reasons for joining the FBI – that his sister vanished when she was eight and he was twelve.
7. Facts are presented to us but the connections linking the evidence is not spelled out. The audience is left to do the work (and, in my opinion, in this pilot, it doesn’t all make sense).
8. Structurally, there are 42 scenes.
9. The longest scene is the climax.
10. The story begins and ends with the characters going into the woods.
Genre: Espionage Thriller
Developed by Howard Gordon & Alex Gansa
Based on Prisoners of War by Gideon Raff
In the pilot we are introduced to all of the major players that will bring season one to its nerve-shredding climax.
We open in Baghdad, Iraq, as Carrie Mathison’s ‘asset’ (informer), a bomb-maker for the US military’s arch enemy Abu Nasir (Navid Negahban) is about to be executed. He says he has intelligence about an imminent attack on US soil. He says he will give Carrie the intel if Carrie promises to protect his family.
Carrie appeals to CIA deputy director David Estes (David Harewood) to commute the execution sentence. Estes refuses saying the US doesn’t dictate law to Iraq anymore. Baghdad is their jurisdiction. Besides, it’s clear Estes doesn’t believe the intelligence.
Immediately we see Carrie’s opposition stems not only from those wishing to carry out an attack on the US, but Carrie is also faced with opposition from the powers above her inside the CIA. This opposing force from within the CIA proves a powerful enemy to Carrie’s goals throughout the entire eight seasons.
Carrie agrees to protect the family of her asset. In return, the bomb maker tells her that a US marine has been ‘turned’ into an Islamic terrorist just as Nicholas Brody (Damien Lewis) is ‘rescued’ from his 8 year hell as a POW in Iraq.
Is it a coincidence? The ‘turned’ soldier has to be Brody. But no one in the CIA will listen to Carrie. And especially not David Estes. In his eyes, Brody is a hero. End of.
There is clear tension between David Estes and Carrie, which Estes disguises as professional differences. He has a thing for her, it’s clear.
Carrie asks her mentor, Saul Berenson (Mandy Patinkin), to set up surveillance in his home. Saul refuses. Carrie does it anyway, illegally planting cameras in every room of Brody’s house, except, crucially, the garage, where he prays to Allah.
We learn from this that Carrie is anti-rules. She is also on medication for bi-polar, which she keeps a secret from the CIA, even from Saul.
Only her sister, who prescribes her the meds, knows.
But Carrie’s mental health condition is also her ‘superpower.’ In times of mania, Carrie is able to see patterns no one else can see. When she goes off medz, she knows Brody is a terrorist, but no one else believes her.
It is Carrie against the world. Even her mentor, Saul, is an obstacle to her plans. Carrie is alone except for one friend, Virgil (David Marciano) who helps Carrie set up the illegal surveillance, with his kid brother, Max (Maury Sterling).
Although no one believes her, we the audience know that Carrie is right in her theories, putting us in a superior position – dramatic irony.
One other thing we learn about Carrie is, there is no mention of a romantic partner, so is she single?
On his return to the US as hero, Brody requests to speak to his wife (Morena Baccarin) before he faces the media. He doesn’t know, but we know, that wife, Jessica, is in bed with his best friend, Mike (Diego Klattenhoff).
This sets up the A plot and B plot and asks active questions.
1. Will Estes, or Saul, or anyone in the CIA, believe Carrie?
2. Will Carrie find the evidence she needs through her illegal surveillance?
3. Will Carrie learn 100% that she is right?
4. Will Carrie be able to stop Brody from carrying out his attack?
5. Will Brody find out that Jessica, his wife and the mother of his children, has been sleeping with his best friend?
Finally, the other major player in season 1 we are introduced to in the pilot is Brody’s daughter, Dana (Morgan Saylor).
Screenwrite.org 