Pre-Production | SUBMISSION (Links)

Pre-Production Package

(Click here for a digital version of the package - too large to embed)

VET-MAN Script



Research and Development Journal

• Pitch and Ideas
• The Brief and Initial Ideas
• Idea Development and Pitch
• Research
• Armando Iannucci: The Thick of It, The Death of Stalin, and Alan Partridge
• Jesse Armstrong and Sam Bain: Peep Show, Four Lions
• Writing and Directing Research
• Development
• Topline, Synopsis and Treatment
• Character Profiles
• Auditions and Casting
• Test Shoots, Blocking and Camera Positions
• Writing the Script
• Writer / Director Statement
• The Package

Project Evaluation

Pre-Production | Evaluation

What worked?

I am happy with how we worked together as a team.  We have known that we work well together from the start of the project and I am glad this came together as it did.  The test shoots, for example, worked well because we each planned what days we could do, how we would get there and exactly what we needed to do once we got there.  Using Google Drive was also extremely beneficial to our collaborative work.

I feel the script has turned out fairly well; it is not perfect, but it has laid a good foundation for going into production.  I am particularly happy with how some of the jokes have worked, such as the slogan on the side of the van and the owl punch are my personal highlights and I am proud of them.

The casting process went very well - I am confident that the cast we have chosen will deliver the lines well and turn the script into something better than I envisioned.  I am also pleased that I have been able to push myself out of my comfort zone from casting people I knew to holding auditions and casting five actors I have never met before.

In my opinion, the completed package also looks very professional and well put together.  I think we made the right decision to spend longer making the package so we were not limited by how much time it would take to print a book.  Whilst I would have preferred a professionally printed version, printing and then comb-binding the package still looks professional and we had plenty of time to get everything polished before then.

What didn't work?

I feel that I limited myself with what to include in the script and I could have been more ambitious with locations and casting.  As I was writing the initial script, Mel and Katie were planning out their work in response to what I was writing, so I held back with making too many drastic changes as I did not want to create too much stress for them.  Especially in the weeks leading up to the deadline, I knew that we had some cast and locations secured so changing things would have thrown a spanner in the works for the producing side of things.

I could have presented the blocking a lot better than I have.  The hand-drawn diagrams work well for my benefit but to others, they may seem unprofessional, or lacking in detail.

Some aspects of the production have been overlooked to a certain extent.  Whilst we have agreed that we will be avoiding the use of music and aim for a realistic soundscape, we did not delve far into the realm of sound for the pre-production package.  Since none of us are really focusing on this, this is understandable, but we will need to consider it in greater depth when it comes to creating the final film.

What did I learn?

I learned a lot about the writing process.  I have written a fair amount of scripts over the duration of the course, but since this was my primary role for this project, I learned a lot about how to take on constructive criticism for my work and to be prepared to completely rewrite, or even scrap certain elements of my writing.

I also learned a tremendous amount about the auditioning process.  This is something I have never really been ambitious enough to try properly before, but I enjoyed chatting to potential cast members and hearing them read my script.  This boosted my confidence and gave me some vital experience in networking and interviewing.

This project also allowed me and my team to manage our time better.  As mentioned previously, we chose to spend more time working on the project over a potentially better looking book.  We had more time by choosing to do this, but we still had to ensure everything was complete almost a week before the deadline and so I learned more about time management for this project.

What could I develop?

I could be more ambitious with my writing and less confined with regards having to change particular aspects of the script for the purpose of logistics.  This will allow me greater freedom to write scenes that would be more in tune with the narrative and would not limit me to locations and cast that are already confirmed.

I could certainly work on how I present my blocking.  At the moment, I feel it is good enough for me to understand, but to others it looks a bit confusing and messy compared to how the rest of the project is presented, particularly the script and storyboards that Katie created.

I should also focus more of my attention toward aspects such as sound, establishing where to use diegetic and non-diegetic sounds in the production stage.  As director, it will be my decision as to what the film sounds like and so it is important that I establish this before we start shooting and editing.

Pre-Production | The Package

Myself, Katie and Melissa worked together to create the complete package.  We opted to create a physical copy of the package, as opposed to a website, as we felt it would look more refined and professional.  We originally wanted to have it printed professionally as a book but this would have required more time to print.  Therefore we agreed a compromise of printing the package ourselves and binding it at a local stationary store so that we would have a lot more time to refine the different elements of the package.

I am happy with how the package has turned out, as I feel we have all presented our ideas professionally.  I feel that it sells the concept well and sets out a clear plan for when we go into production after Christmas.

LINK TO PACKAGE (too large to embed)

Pre-Production | Writer/Director Statement

I began formulating the idea for VET-MAN back in our Transitions unit last year and the original inspiration was to create a comedy mockumentary, based on Channel 4’s Supervet series.  The idea was to take the filming style and subject matter of the series and turn it into a comedy by making the lead character completely incompetent.  This would draw on a number of other series, such as I’m Alan Partridge and Come Fly With Me, which apply documentary-style filming techniques that could draw humour from the characters being completely unfit to work in the environments that they are in.

Inspirations

As we completed the original VET-MAN, I wanted to expand upon it and change the character and move away from the mockumentary style to focus on my own comedic storytelling.  As I began developing the initial treatment and character profiles for VET-MAN, I looked at what comedies I found funny and wanted to explore what it was about them that appealed to me.  I started by looking at the work of Armando Iannucci, who is best known for creating political satire such as The Thick of It and The Death Of Stalin, but also co-creating the ‘Alan Partridge’ character, played by Steve Coogan.  The Thick of It is one of my favourite comedy series’, and it stands out to me because of the absurd incompetence of the characters balancing with the believability that the series could be a fly-on-the-wall documentary of a real government department.  Through the duration of the writing process I was also watching other comedy programmes for inspiration, such as Brooklyn Nine Nine, Big Train and The IT Crowd.

From the beginning I knew that I wanted to approach the comedy with a handheld, single camera style, utilising crash zooms and panning to keep the viewer engaged in the story.  Therefore, Katie has been testing out these techniques and will be exploring this in her own section of the package.  *From my research into single-camera style comedies, I have found that these camera techniques add another layer to the humour and work with the beats to bring out these comedic moments.

The title for our film ‘VET-MAN’ was inspired by the title of the Alan Partridge film Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa.  The name ‘Alpha Papa’ is the codename that Partridge chooses for himself and completely summarises his view of himself in such a pitifully arrogant way: he sees himself as an alpha male.  Our lead character, Tim, sees himself as VET-MAN; a vet and a masculine, heroic figure.

Characters

Tim is named after my music teacher from school who, whilst he knew a lot about music, was not very successful and very arrogant about his musical ability when in reality, he was not a very talented musician.  I also looked to Alan Partridge for inspiration, as he is a character who is seeking to achieve his goals but is completely selfish and unlikeable as a person.  I wanted my main character to share these traits as an unlikeable, arrogant and sociopathic character.  I have found that inherently disagreeable characters work well for comedy, as the audience relishes in their failure as it is difficult to empathise with a person that they do not like.

The other main character, Luke, was inspired by a minor recurring character from Peep Show – ‘Barney’, who is completely desperate to win the attention and approval of main characters ‘Jeremy’ and ‘Super Hans’ for their band.  I wanted Luke to be very impressionable and to appear to show a comical level of admiration and idolisation toward Tim.  In a sense, they are similar as they both want to become vets except they seek to achieve their goals in different, misguided ways – which will eventually lead to their failure.

As the youngest member of my own family, I consider myself an expert in how to get through life with two older sisters.  I wrote Tess’ characters with my own sisters in mind and the interactions between Tim and Tess were archetypal of a relationship between two siblings.  Tess, as Tim’s older sister, truly cares for Tim, but she is also not afraid to tell him when he is wrong and she is willing to argue her case no matter how Tim may respond.

Writing the script

After the character profiles were complete, I went on to write the script itself.  Writing comedy is still fairly new to me and I looked into other comedy writers that I admired, such as Jesse Armstrong, who worked on The Thick of It alongside Armando Iannucci.  He is arguably more known for Peep Show which he worked on with his writing partner, Sam Bain – the two also wrote the satirical terrorism film, Four Lions, amongst a number of other successful films and television series’.  One of the most successful aspects of the dialogue in these films is bluntness and ignorance of its characters, contrasting with the awareness of others.  In an interview with the telegraph, the pair argue that your moments in comedy should not come about to be ‘shocking’, the shocking moments must add to the humour of the scene.  I have taken this advice on board through how I have approached the ‘owl scene’ in particular, where the lead character, Tim, punches and kills an owl in a moment of panic.  The absurdity of a vet that kills all the animals he is on screen with is a good foundation for humour and will come across as shocking to the viewer, but within the context of failing his degree and trying to live up to his father’s name, it still makes sense.

I really wanted to push the macabre humour and so dealing with death in harshly comical ways was a must for my script.  I have grown up watching sketch shows such as That Mitchell and Webb Look and the League of Gentlemen which both deal with these matters very bluntly and graphically, which some shows may avoid.  One of my favourite scenes from the League of Gentlemen features Mr Chinnery (a cursed vet – another inspiration for Tim) killing a tortoise by inserting pressurised oxygen into its head, causing it to explode.  The imperfect practical effects here work to make this scene a lot funnier than it would be is we avoided showing the violence.  It looks so absurd but by showing us exactly what happens, we are given the full payoff of the scene – I intend to do this for the owl scene by showing the punch in its entirety.  By showing the entire build-up, it will be necessary to show the punch itself so the punchline is delivered.


The script has undergone several stages of development through the pre-production process.  The initial first draft came to 24 pages and needed a lot of work done before it was anywhere close to good enough for production.  I found through my feedback and my own development, I needed to make my lines punchier, and ensure I was following the fundamental rule of screenwriting show and not tell.  Using action to depict characters’ motivations and backstory over dialogue is vital – the audience is not foolish and they do not need their hand to be held through the story – as a screenwriter, I need to ensure that my script avoids too much exposition in favour of action.

I also learned through research and feedback that I must expect my script to change a lot throughout the process.  In an interview with Prolifiko, Armando Iannucci, who works in a team to write a lot of his sitcoms, states that there should be no ego, and that a writer should be “non-proprietal about [their] writing”.  So from the beginning, I was prepared that I must not take any negative criticism personally, and that I needed to take it on board in order for the script to turn out well.

Casting

When auditioning the actors, I carried out research into what I should be looking for in the actors, and what I need to be doing, as a director, to get the most out of their auditions.  Along with our producer, Melissa, we planned how we would hold the auditions.  She focused on the logistics of scheduling actors and advertising the project to potential actors on Mandy.com, whilst I aimed to establish what we would be looking for in their performances and ability to work under my direction.  I read Nick Bamford's 'Directing Television: A professional survival guide' and a number of online sources which gave a useful insight into the auditioning and casting process.  This allowed me to establish a basic set of criteria to keep in mind when meeting and auditioning the cast:

• Can they act?
• Can they take direction?
• Do you like them?

These seem like very straightforward aspects to look for in an actor but these points are vital to ensure, not only that they deliver a good performance, but also that they will be good to work with.  Most of the sources I found agreed that good acting is truthful.  If you can forget that you are watching an actor, and are instead seeing a character or real person, the actor has succeeded in portraying that through their performance.

It is a vital factor for myself and the quality of the finished film that the actors I cast can follow my direction - ultimately, I am the creative vision for the project and if an actor cannot take my direction for whatever reason, they are impeding on my ability to do that.  Of course every good project has input from the cast but if they cannot follow what I say, this will get in the way of producing the film we want to.  Throwing curveballs in the audition will allow me to see how well they can adapt their performance and their ability to do so will make my job a lot easier when it comes to shooting.

In a professional environment, you should be able to work with anyone, whether or not you like them.  However, Bamford argues that if you can choose who you work with, why would you need to put yourself in a difficult position of disliking somebody you are working with?  It is important to chat to the actors and get to know them a bit so I can determine whether I like them and whether it will be useful or a hindrance on the work I am directing.

During the auditions, I ensured that I ran through each scene several times, asking the actors to portray the scene as they initially interpreted it, then asked them how else they could perform it and observed how versatile their abilities were, how well they took the direction and how willing they were to accept my feedback.  This worked effectively and quickly showed me the capabilities of my actors and allowed me to find who would work best for the roles we were auditioning for.  I will delve into more detail with regards to casting later on in the package but I have summarised why I chose the cast I did. 

I found that Ed, who will be playing Tim, was very good at portraying the sarcasm and condescension that I wanted, particularly toward Tess and Luke.  I loved how Dan, who will be playing Luke, was able to perfectly accentuate Luke’s innocence and misguided attempts to please Tim.  It was a difficult decision as to who would play Tess, and so I decided to develop Mollie’s character further so that she was more of a significant character.  I really enjoyed Skevy’s portrayal of Tess as I felt she portrayed a troublesome, yet caring big sister very well so I decided to cast her as Tess.  Becky also auditioned for Tess and I felt she portrayed the more authoritative and imposing side, so I developed Mollie’s character to heighten these features, and Becky was more than happy to go ahead with this idea. Sheila also delivered her lines well and since she has worked with UCA on a number of shoots, we were content that she would be good to work with.

Blocking and Test Shoots

As we draw ever closer to the production period, we began to test out certain aspects of the film that we would need to ensure we were actually capable of producing some of the scenes we planned.  The ‘owl scene’ in particular was something that we absolutely had to practice before it came to production so that we could ensure it looked realistic.  We were initially aiming to achieve this through editing (motion tracking and masking the different shots of the real/fake owl), however once we tested the ‘stunt’, it was considerably more practical and effective to cut between different angles.  This highlighted the importance of test shoots and ensuring that we assess the viability of what is in the script before going into production.

We also ran through different lighting and camera setups (which Katie will explore in her chapters), as well as the blocking out the scenes and camera positions.  Blocking the scenes now would be imperative to the success of the shoot days so that we knew exactly where everyone needed to be and at what time.  I went through each scene and determine where to position the actors and the cameras, so that we were prepared for production.

I have also considered the sound of the film.  I feel that using music to influence the mood of the piece would force the comedy which would come across as cheesy.  None of the series’ I have researched use music to influence the humour, and I feel that I will follow suit and avoid it at all costs.  This will allow the humour to flow through the dialogue and the action which will feel a lot more natural.

Conclusion

At its heart, VET-MAN is the story of a man who is desperate to succeed and get out of his father’s shadow, but his ambition takes him on a dark path which he eventually pays the price for.  As a comedy, it will take a blunt and macabre approach to explore the character of Tim Stewart and his attempts to achieve his dream.  As a writer, I have and will continue to develop the script so that is strong enough to go into production, so that when I come to direct the film, we are able to create a confident piece and, most importantly, make people laugh.

*due to a printing error, the italicised text did not appear in the finished package.

Pre-Production | Writing The Script

After I had completed the topline, synopsis and treatment, I was then able to begin working on the first draft of the script.  From my research, I knew that this first draft was inevitably going to change throughout the writing process, so I was not too worried about making mistakes and I was prepared to throw out any ideas that did not work after I received feedback.

The first draft came to 24 pages: [DIRECT LINK]



Mel went through the script prior to sending it to Simon for feedback.  She was mostly looking to bring up any logistical challenges that may arise from the script but she was also looking out for any errors I had made.  Some of the logistics that came up include: the van logo (what is actually going to be on the side of the van), risk assessments (the running over the dog scene), and the practical effects (e.g. blood).

Simon read through the script and advised me on the next steps for the script:

• Formatting
• He suggested I add the draft number for clarity when reading through each different draft.
• He also suggested I add the characters' ages to their introductions to aid with visualising them and giving an idea about their character before we see or hear them.
• Pacing
• In the current script, there is far too much dialogue with not much happening.  As Simon pointed out, by page 9, Tim has only printed his diploma and got in his van.  By following the '1 page = 1 minute rule', this puts it at almost half way through the 20 minute maximum length of the film.  Therefore I need to make the action and dialogue much tighter and punchier.
• The dog scene in particular drags out a lot, to the point where it takes far too long to get to the punchline.  Simon described it as 'dialogue tennis' as it jut went back and forth and did not go anywhere.
• There should be a lot more room for story and at the minute, there is little substance to the story.  Tim is just going from place to place, not doing very much.
• Believability
• The idea of a vet operating illegally in a van is tenuous already so I really need to sell it through what happens in the script.  It would make my script a lot more believable if we saw Tim actually be a vet.
• Tone
• The tone is not there yet - it is unclear whether it is a safe comedy but it has elements of dark humour, it needs to focus on one or the other.
• Potential Ideas
• Simon suggested that Tim loves animals but is just terrible with them and accidentally kills every animal he touches.

This was very useful feedback going forward as it gave me a lot to work with for the next draft: [DIRECT LINK]




In the second draft, I cut out a lot of dialogue in an attempt to make it punchier and to help with the pacing of the film.  One of the issues with the first draft was that I was spoon-feeding a lot of the plot through the dialogue which would be better conveyed through action, or not at all.  Therefore I cut out spaces between dialogue such as characters leaving a location and telling the other characters where they are going as this was unnecessary exposition.  The audience can usually fill in the blanks, so I do not need to spell out every movement and motivation for them.

I also worked out the text that would be displayed on the side of the van - as seen in the first draft, I knew the sort of joke I was aiming for but was still unsure as to exactly what I could write as the slogan.  I was inspired by a recurring gag on Top Gear in which the presenters wrote slogans for fake businesses on the side of their vehicles which would say something different, usually smutty, as the door was opened (see image).  I made a mockup of the slogan I was intending to use on the van, and I feel it works well and fits with the tone I am trying to convey.

The slogan reads "We love pets, small and large. From cats to cockerels... We care!", and as the door opens it will read "We love large cock".

I sent the script off to Simon and wrote specific notes on what to change in the script as well as more general points about the narrative:

• More dialogue needs to be cut to make the scenes flow a lot better and quicker to the punchline than they currently are.
• Tess' character contradicts herself, putting doubt into her character - i.e. in scene 1, she seems adamant not to let Tim go ahead with his illegal practices but she ends up letting him go anyway. Her appearance later on at the owl sanctuary also does not make much sense and is an anti-climax as Tim has spent the whole film up to this point on a journey to reach it.
• Simon also pointed out that Pete's character no longer adds much to the plot so there is not much point in him even being there anymore.
• I also found myself spoon-feeding plot through the dialogue, so I will need to work out better ways of showing instead of telling.
• We agreed that the final scenes need a lot of work as the whole film falls on a bit of an anti-climax.

With these pointers in mind, I went on to write the third draft script: [DIRECT LINK]

As I would expect, I am growing more confident in my writing as each script changes, yet the third draft still had a way to go before completion.  I had cut out a lot of dialogue that was not serving purpose other than exposition and I changed Tess' dialogue and actions so they were more consistent with her character: she now outright refuses to help Tim and he ends up taking the tools off her against her will.

I had also gone ahead with the decision to remove Pete, as he was not adding anything to the rest of the story (although he does mistakenly appear in one action which I will rectify in the next draft).  The owl sanctuary scene has now been completely re-written, almost as a heist scene.  Rather than showing up and not much else happening, Tim and Luke must now convince Mollie that she needs their help and come up with a plan for this to come into fruition.  This works a lot better as there is more of a setup for the punchline when Tim eventually kills the owl.

Simon advised I remove more lines to help with the pacing and flow of the scenes so that I could get to the punchlines quicker.  He suggested that I try to bring out Tim's desperation further so that his motivations are more apparent and more of a driving factor for his actions.  This would allow for Tim to lose his cool toward the end as he gets closer and closer to the end of his tether.

With this feedback in mind, I went on to the fourth draft: [DIRECT LINK]



In this draft, I had largely been refining details and trying to condense the dialogue so I could get closer to a complete script.  Simon gave me several more pointers on some changes I should make before the script was at that stage of completion:

• He said that it was coming off as more of a sketch than a comedy at the minute, as we do not see much of Tim's motivations.  He seems to go from place to place with little consequence.
• I need to establish why Tim is doing what he is doing, what he has to lose, and determine what has caused Tim to do it.
• I also need to avoid drawing out scenes for too long and avoid actions that have little to no effect on the characters, or else the audience will be unable to empathise with them and the humour may be lost.
• I would argue, however, that a lot of the comedy I have watched and researched relies on the central characters being purposefully unsympathetic, making it easier for us to laugh at their downfall.  'Mark' in Peep Show, for example, is a generally uptight and unpleasant person which almost allows the audience to not feel guilty about finding his misfortune funny.  He is an anti-anti-hero, where an audience is sympathetic to an unconventional protagonist, the audience is unsympathetic to and relishes in Mark's failures, as he deserves everything that happens to him.  That being said, I will look into how I can approach this in the next draft of the script, as I need to solidify how I want Tim to come across to the audience.

Here is the fifth draft of the script with this feedback taken on board: [DIRECT LINK]

I had aimed for this to be the penultimate draft, as we were running out of time to produce the package - I do still intend to edit the script up until we shoot, as I would like to continue to collaborate with the cast during rehearsals etc.  I had added more about Tim's backstory and motivations in response to Simon's feedback, although I had done so lazily through exposition instead of action, which I will change for the sixth draft.  I have re-written the final scene and I am much more satisfied with the ending than I was previously.

Simon advised I delve deeper into the family history to show how and why Tim decided to pursue his veterinary career.  He said that it has a stronger middle, but it is let down by the start and end which come across weaker in terms of comedy.  Therefore, I will need to look into how I can improve the humour in these scenes and increase the stakes to give the film as a whole a better structure and pace.

With this, I went on to the sixth and currently final draft: [DIRECT LINK]



On the whole, I am happy with how the script has progressed over the project.  As I said previously, I am planning to continue to develop the script with feedback from the cast, however I would be happy to go into production with the script as it is now.