The Bible, II – Some questions answered.

I had a bit of exciting news yesterday.

The Guardian ran a competition to pitch ideas for a new TV series to a panel of judges from the industry and get their feedback.

Ten ideas were shortlisted and sent to the judges who critiqued them. My idea, The Bible, II made it into the top ten. You can see all the shortlisted entries here.

The competition was judged by four preeminent industry professionals: Amy Sherman-Palladino, creator of Gilmore Girls and Bunheads; Stuart Heritage, Guardian television, film and music writer; Larry Andries, producer and writer for Supernatural, Alias and Six Feet Under; and Dee Johnson, executive producer and writer for Nashville, formerly of The Good Wife, ER and Melrose Place.

God?

SYNOPSIS

The Bible, II.

Logline: God comes back to Earth for a bit of weed – only to discover what a mess humans have made of the place. It’s time to put things straight. But sorting out the human race isn’t as easy as it looks.

It’s like: The gritty, down-to-earth comedy of Shameless, meets the surreal world of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Pitch: God is a disheveled, hedonistic, naive, wanderer who returns to Earth, with his sidekick, Archangel Gabriel, for a bit of ganja. Unbeknownst to him, the cheese sandwich he left behind a few millennia previously has evolved into the human race who’ve transformed his garden of paradise into a veritable shithole. And he’s not happy about it one little bit. God decides to take whoever is in charge to task – in this case – the Prime Minister of Britain. But, for every problem he solves, he seems to create another one. On the run from the government, God is ably assisted by the former secretary to the PM, the sophisticated and savvy, Sophie Chalmers. They embark on a whirlwind tour of the world’s problems, discovering just what it means to be human.

Quote: On being told drugs are illegal and highly addictive by a bartender… GOD: “Not half as fucking addictive as oxygen, mate. What if I make that illegal?”

SERIES OUTLINE FOR: THE BIBLE, II.

EPISODE 1.

GOD returns to earth and sees what a mess the place is. God realizes it’s his mistake and starts to sort the place out. GOD takes the PM hostage, sorts out the war in Afghanistan and the oil crisis at the same time.

SUB PLOT: SOPHIE helps GOD discover what it is to be human.

EPISODE 2.

Running earth isn’t as easy as it looks. Millions of people’s livelihoods have been taken away as a result of the world’s oil supply running out. GOD sets about
switching to renewable energy and ending global pollution.

SUB PLOT: SOPHIE teaches GOD to take responsibility.

EPISODE 3.

GOD can’t understand why millions of people are starving so he sorts out starvation and hunger. But some people aren’t too happy about having to share with the less fortunate. He also can’t understand why we eat living creatures so he extols the virtues of vegetarianism, good weed and cheese sandwiches.

SUB PLOT: SOPHIE teaches GOD about mortality.

EPISODE 4.

GOD can’t quite get his head around the fact that some people live in luxury and some people in poverty, so he sorts out world poverty and divvies up the dosh. This causes riots in rich first-world countries.

SUB PLOT: SOPHIE teaches GOD selflessness.

EPISODE 5.

Killing is beyond GOD’S comprehension. GOD gets into a scrap with OBAMA and PUTIN. GOD puts an end to all the world’s conflicts. The knock-on effect is a population boom which the Earth can’t sustain.

SUB PLOT: GOD explains the devil to mankind.

EPISODE 6.

The next level: GOD teaches SOPHIE about life, the universe, immortality and that anything’s possible.

SUB PLOT: ANGEL GABRIEL explains GOD to SOPHIE.

EPISODE 7. GOD rested.

JUDGES COMMENTS

I think some of the criticisms that the judges raised are very valid. Others I have already addressed. (There was a very limited word count on the submission so I had to leave certain bits out.)

I’d like to address some of the other concerns here, (just in case any producers are looking in).

Palladino’s concerns: “Why does God need to find out what it is to be human?” And why is God an idiot? Would an idiot really be able to be God? Why am I looking for any sort of reality in this? Because if there isn’t any, even with the weirdest shows, they don’t work.

I think the first mistake is to compare this god with the God of real The Bible. He isn’t a Christian god, he’s the creator of the universe. He created it for his own pleasure, not ours. He didn’t know we existed so, yes – he’s fallible.

I have already written a pilot episode and in that we see that God isn’t an idiot. Naive maybe, but not stupid. Part of his incomprehension about how violent humans can be is because he doesn’t understand it – ultimately, he’s a very nice guy!

In terms of the ‘reality’, I think that is covered in the various scenarios God has to try and sort out which are outlined in the other episodes. (The judges did not see these. There wasn’t room.)

Heritage’s concerns: I love this idea. It’s bold and inventive and a million miles away from the majority of humdrum workaday sitcoms. I really want to see it get made. But with a couple of tweaks …

A couple of lines in the pitch – “a whirlwind tour of the world’s problems” and the monologue about how to stop the war – make me think that the writer might suffer from a bad case of the Sorkins. Whoever came up with this, I’m worried that they want to treat the show as a manifesto for how they’d like to fix the world. They transparently see themselves as the voice of God, which is sort of icky. But if God was written as more of a dick – more fallible and stupid and confused about the mess he’s made – it’d have so much more potential. Also, I can’t think of anything more depressing than a God who can quote comparethemarket.com adverts, but that’s beside the point.

I’m not sure where the reference to comparethemarket.com adverts is, so I’ll skip that one.

I think a ‘transparent manifesto’ is a very valid point. Rather than push my own agenda, (I’m not a vegetarian!!), I wanted to strip humankind down to its most basic level in order to be fair and just. God’s dilemma here is that for each problem he resolves, he creates another one. (If you stop oil production – millions are out of work and where do we get our energy etc.)

I wanted the viewer to see this ‘fair and just world’ and ask – Actually, do I really want to share my wealth, my luxury so that others in poorer countries can have a better life?

Johnson’s concerns: Love the irreverence of this pitch and the world. Needless to say, it’s a political can of worms, as a lot of believers would truly bristle at this depiction. And it would take a mighty brave studio/network president to get behind this sort of polarizing concept. That said, the pitch itself is quite entertaining. I’d watch this but I’m probably not representative of the largest markets. A Netflix-type situation might be for this as a series. What’s missing, however, is what God wants. Is it something that he ultimately can’t have? A girlfriend? For me the largest problem here as a writer is working through the logic problems in terms of God’s powers versus the government’s.

Ironically, what god wants is to be loved. But we don’t know that from the start because of his selfish hedonistic ways. It is only when he discovers humankind that he realises he is missing out on something much more fulfilling – love.

In terms of his superpowers, again, this isn’t the God of The Bible, this god is fallible in lots of ways.

Andries’ concerns: This pitch is a challenge. There’s no middle ground here. The premise is so out there that’s it’s either a really good idea or a highly problematic one. I lean toward “good idea” with one big proviso: the pitch desperately needs to be on solid footing with its tone. God as a hedonistic ganja-seeking wanderer is a premise with little margin for error. It would help to give a reference point for the type of creative eye the writer envisions. For example: “Imagine if Quentin Tarantino, Monty Python or fill-in-the-blank created a half hour comedy.” If I were a network executive, my strong recommendation would be to re-pitch the idea as an animated comedy. That format allows for more outrageous, over-the-top storytelling than the literalness of filmed comedy.

Can’t really argue with any of that!

I’d just also like to include a couple more quotes that The Guardian sent me that they couldn’t fit on the website:

Amanda Holpuch: Your pitch was Dee Johnson’s favorite and Larry Andries favorite in the Comedy category and they each included special notes about your pitch we couldn’t fit in the interactive. Stuart Heritage said: “Lights Out is my favourite (very closely followed by Bible II)”.

Larry Andries: COMEDY WINNER: THE BIBLE II
It would make me nervous to say yes, but that’s the exciting thing. Sometimes a network has to take a big swing. If it’s developed carefully, it will be a buzzed about, Twitterworthy comedy with cutting social commentary. The next South Park. Or it will be cancelled after the third episode. But these are the risks programmers make every season.

Dee Johnson: In terms of my favorite, I would have to say I found Bible II the most entertaining. But that said, it’s probably one of the most challenging to mount because of its subject matter. In terms of taking it to the next step, I would suggest the writer give serious thought to what episodes look like – does God just handle a different world problem every week?  Is there a series long arc that takes him from just showing up to leaving the world again?

So, if there are any producers / directors out there who’d like to discuss it further, just holler.

I have a dream too, you know.

True, it may not be as ambitious and world-changing as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s. But it’s a dream nonetheless.

To be honest, I wasn’t going to post about it until I felt I was in more of a position to realise this dream. But short of winning the Euro Millions Lottery, it aint going to happen without some serious philanthropic backer.

So, what is my dream?

Well, it’s to build a School of Arts for under-privileged kids.

Kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds in large inner-city estates. Kids who might not ordinarily get the opportunity to explore the more creative aspects of their nature.

What good would that do society? We’re in a depression, don’t you know!

Problems in every field of human endeavour are virtually always solved by creative thinking. Even the great Albert Einstein said so himself. Creativity allows us to look at problems from different angles and apply new thinking to solve problems.

Moreover, I don’t see it as a school that produces an unprecedented amount of artists. But an unprecedented amount of creative thinkers – whichever vocation they choose to pursue later in life. Whether it be mathematics, science, business, computers, product design, or economics.

And yes, a few more more artists too. And what’s wrong with that? Art is seen as a dirty word in this country. If I tell people I write poetry, they shift uneasily in their seats. If I said I write poetry in Ireland the response would be a polite smile and a nod toward the back of the queue.

Do you think the first rocket flight to the moon was dreamed up by a scientist?

Sure, scientists and engineers made it a reality. But it is creative people who come up with the ideas and the original solutions of how they can be achieved.

What will the kids do?

The school will develop and encourage creative thinking and self-expression.

It will foster, nurture and encourage exploration of the arts in all its many and varied forms including: painting, drawing, sculpture, ceramics, poetry, literature, screenplays, theatre, drama, dance, music, design, digital arts, film, photography, humanities, languages, and the classics.

Where is this school?

I quite fancy the idea of transforming a derelict Victorian mill. There’s something quite ironic about that. Though it certainly wouldn’t be a prerequisite. (Salts Mill in Bradford is a good example.)

Initially, an inner-city campus close to urban populations that have a high level of low socioeconomic families. Basically, anywhere across the Manchester – Huddersfield – Halifax – Leeds belt. It’s also sufficiently ‘central’ enough to accommodate children from further afield.

It would also be good to have a rural retreat – somewhere like the Lake District, Peak District or the Yorkshire Dales, where children can attend week-long courses/classes which double up as a holiday.

I would also like to open an international sister school in India or Sri Lanka where people from distinctly different cultures can share ideas. These schools could also participate in exchange programmes. (Then subsequently, even further afield: China, South America, South Asia.)

What about science subjects?

This school wouldn’t be a replacement for existing schools and their curricula – more of an extension to them.

Would it exclude people from non low socioeconomic backgrounds?

Not at all. But opportunities for middle-class families in other schools are much more accessible, regardless of ability.

Intake for low income kids would be based as much on desire and enthusiasm to participate rather than ability. There would be a limited number of places for more affluent children. Sort of like Eton – in reverse.

What kind of courses will it run?

Day-long workshops for visiting schools.

After-school classes.

Week-long courses. (Which would include accommodation for traveling students.)

Weekend classes.

Full-time sixth form courses. (A-levels.)

Masters and PhD courses.

What ages are we talking about?

Key Stage 2, up to, and including, sixth form.

Undergraduate, Masters and PhD courses.

What else does the school have?

Apart from studios and classrooms?

There’d be accommodation for students who are visiting from further afield.

Cafe / restaurant.

Gallery to promote and sell students’ work.

Gallery featuring independent contemporary and traditional art.

Masterclasses from guest lecturers.

State of the art library. (Both on and off-line.)

Book shop.

Art-house cinema.

Who will pay for it?

Well, that’s the biggest question of all.

A like-minded philanthropist would be nice.

Arts Council grant.

Lottery funding.

A percentage of Masters and PhD students’ tuition fees could go towards funding.

Sales from restaurant and galleries.

Fundraising / donations.

An Ideal World School of Arts.

Salts Mill, Bradford.

David Hockney at Salts Mill.

Salts Mill interior.

Studio space?

Any constructive criticism and advice about how to get something like this funded and off the ground would be greatly appreciated.

Ponette

Hadn’t had a really good blub in a while?

Well, your days of sobbing uncontrolably into your pouches are over, my furry little marsupials.

Ponette isn’t a new film. It came out in 1996, but I felt I had to share it with the class.

It tells the story of Ponette – A four year old French girl coping with the death of her mother in a car crash. (In which she was also involved.)

Her father has to go away and work, (like you would leave your daughter at a time like that), so she is sent to stay with her aunt and her children in the French Alps.

The film centres around how Ponette copes, not just with the loss of her mother, but how other children react to her. (Oooh, Kids can be cruel.) She tries everything to get her mother to come back, from magic chants to turning to god.

What I really love about this film is that it is shot predominantly from a child’s POV.

Very rarely do we see an adult in shot unless they are bending down or in a wide shot. (Or Extreme close up.)

It really does help the viewer see things from Ponette’s POV. Played heartbreakingly by Victoire Thivisol. (Apparently, there was a psychologist on set the entire time to make sure she wasn’t suffering any trauma as a result of playing the role.)

So, if you’re into your art house movies, I suggest you get a copy off Amazon.

But make sure you have a family-sized box of Kleenex handy. I defy even a psychopathic autistic savant not to be turned into a quivering mass of tissue and snot after seeing this one.

Directed by Jaques Doillon
Written by Rahul Dodhia
Starring Victoire Thivisol.

William Kentridge

http://moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/williamkentridge/

This large-scale exhibition surveys nearly three decades of work by William Kentridge (b. 1955, South Africa), a remarkably versatile artist whose work combines the political with the poetic. Dealing with subjects as sobering as apartheid, colonialism, and totalitarianism, his work is often imbued with dreamy, lyrical undertones or comedic bits of self-deprecation that render his powerful messages both alluring and ambivalent.

The Yes Men do the right thing

Billed as: “Comic vigilante justice”,  The Yes Men are two guys doing ‘spoof’ news features to great effect. They did one pretending to be officials from The Dow Chemical Company accepting responsibility for the Bhopal disaster and promising to make reparations in the region of $12m. As you can imagine, Dow immediately denied any responsibility/liability. As a result of the fake report shares fell by 3% losing them an estimated $2billion. The point they are making is the market do not want Dow to do the right thing. What does this say about our world and what we value most?

http://theyesmenfixtheworld.com/

Dog Kinky

A synopsis of the feature film: “DOG KINKY”.

© David Milligan Croft

Based on the short story, ‘Woman’s Best Friend’, by the same author, which was shortlisted for The Independent on Sunday short story competition and published by Bloomsbury: IOS new short stories.

What’s not to die for?

DOG KINKY

A black-comedy feature film set in a surreal rural community in the West of Somewheresville, about an 11-year-old boy who repeatedly tries to murder a retired Judge in revenge for him killing his beloved dog.

Inadvertently, the boy keeps “accidentally” killing other people in the village whose dogs have also been murdered by The Judge in the most bizarre and elaborate ways.

Whilst trying to reap his revenge, the young lad uncovers a salacious plot by The Judge to blackmail the love of his life – his schoolteacher, in return for kinky sexual favours.

TREATMENT

The film opens when JOE COSTELLO arrives home from school to find his father kissing and canoodling with a woman of ill repute. Joe’s mother passed away several years previously and has been left to be brought up by his dad, Walter, and his older brother, Brett. The only constant in Joe’s life is his relationship with his dog, Amber, a gift from his mother before she died. This relationship is brought to an early demise by Judge McGlinchy.

Joe has a crush on his teacher, Sarah. Though, she is only concerned for Joe’s welfare, which he mistakes for affection. He is heartbroken when he learns that Sarah is involved in some kinky fetishy affair with the very man he wants to kill. Sarah is forced into these lurid acts because of her husband’s attempts to embezzle money from the local law enforcement benevolent fund, which The Judge has evidence of.

Joe’s first attempt to murder the Judge ends in disaster when he accidentally electrocutes Mary Mac, a psychiatric nurse, who pays The Judge a visit in connection with the demise of her own dog, Sabre. Next, to meet their demise, is Robbie Flowers, whose dog only had to enter the Judge’s garden to meet his fate. Unfortunately, so does Robbie, at the hands of Joe, in the form of an elaborate Heath-Robinson type contraption with an axe at the end of it.

Unfortunately, Joe’s father is implicated in both the murders and is duly whisked off to jail leaving the two brothers to fend for themselves. That is, until the fearsome, Aunt Catherine arrives on the scene to lick the boys into shape.

Next on Joe’s list, is his Dad’s defence attorney who’s in league with the bad old Judge. Fortunately, this does mean that Walter is innocent of the spate of serial killings as he was ‘inside’ at the time of the latest crime.

Joe professes his love for his teacher, Sarah, but is gently knocked back. Though, not so gently by his brother, Brett, who finds the whole thing highly amusing and proceeds to humiliate his younger sibling.

Sarah’s husband, Pierse, decides to put an end to all the blackmailing shenanigans by topping himself. But The Judge has one more trick up his sleeve to get Sarah into her cat suit one last time, and that is to kidnap her dog, Mitsy.

The stage is set for the final showdown. Sarah arms herself to the teeth and pays The Judge one last visit, where he unveils his piéce du resistance: a suit made up of all the dogs he has murdered. Oh, and an electric chair he managed to pick up from an old prison.

Joe, meanwhile, is also about to pay The Judge a final visit. He too, arms himself to the teeth, but this time with a less contrived weapon of mass destruction: Molotov cocktails. He duly torches The Judges crib, accidentally torching the love of his life in the process.

Joe manages to rescue Sarah and the pair try to outrun the pursuing Cops. Cornered in the local dog pound, Joe creates a diversion for Sarah to escape, by releasing all the caged hounds. Unfortunately, Joe is captured and sentenced to 15 years for arson and murder.

All turns out rosy when Sarah arrives on his release with a little surprise for the best friend a woman could ever have.

Drop me a line if you’d like to see the first draft of my screenplay.

Welcome to Hell

http://www.jakeanddinoschapman.com/

This is a very disturbing film by the Chapman brothers. Love it or hate it, their work cannot be ignored. (Personally, I love it.) Might be something to do with re-enacting the Battle of the Bulge with my kid brother on our living room carpet. Or, more frighteningly, the fact that these scenes are based on a form of truth about mankind and war. Grotesque, savage, disgusting, merciless, terrifying, real. From Goya’s depiction of the Napoleonic/Peninsula war to the concentration camps of WWII. And even more recently with mass graves in Bosnia and Rwanda.

A few months ago I saw an exhibition in the Manchester Art Gallery where the Chapman brothers had replicated some of Goya’s scenes from the Peninsula war in 3D form. What was worrying is that the same atrocities committed 200 years ago are still in practice today.

To me, this film accurately shows that there is a hell and it is right hear on earth. Obversely, (and fortunately), the same can also be said of heaven.