And I hoped this was "The One" . . .

Hi all,

For anyone curious (or voyeuristic) enough to care I recently sent the writersroom an 120-page feature length pilot for a show called "Backbenchers". Pure satirical calling-card gold (so says I) my pitch black ambitious attempt at skewering the facade and phoney charades of outer government and public information etc, however the joke's on me and this is the incisive mauling I got in the post yesterday:

______________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for sending us your script Backbenchers to bbc writersroom which we have now read, im afraid we have decided not to take things further with you on the basis of this script, and so we are returning it to you. It's worth noting only a small proportion of the scripts we recieve are given feedback and I include below the script readers comments which I hope you find useful:

Pitched as comedy the script presents a larger than life and undeniably hideous incarnation in the form of James Ellinthorpe III, single-minded in his ambitions and self-serving in his quest for power. With a weaker and obsequious coalition aid the core dynamic bears passing resemblance to that of Alan B'stard and Piers Fletcher Dervish. But, where this relationship had moments of humanity the same is absent here. Constantly spewing invectives Ellinthorpe is incomprehensively offensive and viciously dishonest ensuring that (after an outstanding opening page) all sympathy for him has evaporated by the end. His character is systematically abusive and hateful to his assistant, his wife, his children and everyone who crosses his path. Compounded by the fact this unlikeable man is also unfunny the narrative collapses in the absence of genuine comic relief or emotional truth.

Light on story on plot, merely an attack on supposed media/governmental hypocrisy, the script lacks focus, dramatic and emotional imperative and tonally the idea is misconcieved resulting in moments that intend to be funny yet are unpleasent and cruel. What is the objective here? What story is being told and why? Is this a sitcom or a drama? Without a solid concept in place it is unclear how further episodes could be sustained. I suggest a need to revisit the concepts and if this is the best vehicle for it.

Unfortunately we are unable to discuss your script in any more detail blah blah etcetera and so on.
____________________________________________________________________________

Ouch!

Will you take the criticisms and work on what they highlighted?

I don't see what they've written as the be all and end all; feedback is just another step in getting it polished.

With a weaker and obsequious coalition aid the core dynamic bears passing resemblance to that of Alan B'stard and Piers Fletcher Dervish.

I suppose that was always going to be the reference.

But take heart-

(after an outstanding opening page)

You piqued their interest so much that they read it all. I imagine not many get past a few pages.

They didn't like you main character. Remember even very nasty people have achilles heels. Work on him.

Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ June 7 2011, 10:07 AM BST

Remember even very nasty people have achilles heels.

View original

I got the impression they wanted to see less flaws and more humanity in the main character, some redeeming features.

Sounds like you need to step back and see where you have let personal anger and moralizing get in the way of plot, character and comedy.

Yeah, I think my own moralizing maybe got in the way, sort of Private Eye worldview, I'll put the script away now and stick to writing for pleasure than gain/credit.

I thought about trying to make a politician 'human' and like the lovable buffoons in Yes Minister and The Thick Of It(which is 100% genius) but any character I write in that vein tends to come out like Patrick Bateman, evil and self-obsessed, just my blackhearted and bitter worldview I guess, I don't view these people through starry eyes and see the potential for comedic mishap, yet, the reality behind sham Campaigns Of The Day, corporate bungs, faux debates and agenda-laden news agency releases etc, I think is very funny.

Anyway, suppose a scene on page 5 where a BBC floor manager realises there's too many white faces in a broadcast audience and so has five minutes to recruit as many "ethnic" looking people as he can off the streets to put in the audience so that there's "fair" representation of diversity on camera didn't go down well.

Anyway, it's their world not mine.

Quote: Bebopalula @ June 7 2011, 3:27 PM BST

I thought about trying to make a politician 'human' and like the lovable buffoons in Yes Minister and The Thick Of It(which is 100% genius) but any character I write in that vein tends to come out like Patrick Bateman, evil and self-obsessed

View original

If you can't make this character more human how about making another, more human, character to act as their foil? To balance the dark with a bit of light.

Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ June 7 2011, 10:07 AM BST

You piqued their interest so much that they read it all. I imagine not many get past a few pages.

They didn't like you main character. Remember even very nasty people have achilles heels. Work on him.

View original

For sure!! And you got feedback, which most don't (as they themselves say!).

Quote: phreaky @ June 7 2011, 10:20 AM BST

I got the impression they wanted to see less flaws and more humanity in the main character, some redeeming features.

View original

Yeah. Even the most bastardly of characters (e.g. Alan B'Stard) have some human moments and some things we like.

Fawlty is a total c***, but we like him a lot as there is a greater monster (Sybil), and we feel for his frustration and hen-peckedness.

I say, take these criticisms on the chin and think about how you can rework it.