Writers' blog - Episode 9
By writer Peter Cox
Hi all,
We've had a question on the message boards which I'll begin by answering. It comes from Andrew54, and the question is: "I think both groups, the Liberators and Two Gardens, are cults in different stages of development, do you agree?" Great question, and I'm glad it's something you've picked up on. And the answer is a definite sort-of!
It all rather depends on how you define a cult. Many people
inside a cult would describe it as an extended family; like-minded
people helping one another out. And in some ways, thats what the
Liberators are to one another. However, I think one defining thing
about a cult, that the Liberators lack, is a formal leader who sets
the rules that the others follow.
Obviously Edward fulfills that position inside Two Gardens, and
you could consider Michael the leader of the Liberators, although
sometimes the others are not exactly following everything he says.
Although it may be, as you say, simply that they are in different
stages of development: perhaps Michael may ultimately become an
Edward in his own way, but then that would be giving away too much
of what's to come!
Another difference is that cults tend to have a metaphysical purpose: that is, something religious or spiritual that guides their actions and defines their goals. For the moment, the Liberators purpose is simply to rescue their loved ones from Two Gardens. But who knows, perhaps that will all change???
As episode 9 has just screened, I suspect by now the audience are beginning to realize there's something rather more otherworldly going on for some of the Liberators than they first expected. There's a big reason why we go back to Gina in flashback again in ep 9. The episode 3 flashback was about how she lost Andy to the cult but episode 9 is about an event that happened to her that ultimately turns out to be pivotal to why they're all here. So that's enough of me being mysterious. Sorry, its tough to say a lot without blowing the story.
Getting back to something a little more concrete, I'd like to
focus a little attention on the purpose with my last blog: that is,
offering some advice to people interested in television writing and
development or perhaps just story-telling in general.
It's been suggested to me that I might want to mention the purpose
and technique behind the flashbacks. As some of you might know,
David and I (and others) used a very similar technique way back in
The Insiders Guide to Happiness days: focusing on a single
character per episode, and using flashbacks to get a peek into the
background of the characters.
There's a few reasons behind doing this, most of which are pretty
obvious: it's a simple way for the audience to see a different side
of the characters and get to know (and hopefully like, or at least
understand, them more); it shows us elements of the plot that might
shed a new and surprising light on whats happening in the present
(eg, perhaps it may be revealed that a mysterious stranger we're
seeing that we thought only just arrived, has actually been
secretly stalking a character 5 years ago); finally it allows us to
show past events without having a character explain them (eg,
having a character describe how their brother died in their arms is
never going to have the same emotional impact for the audience as
seeing it). For me, however, the use of flashbacks cuts to a core
rule of storytelling: the dramatic power of a story depends
entirely on how much it matters to the character we're seeing the
story through.
Now, that's a rather convoluted way of saying something that I can perhaps explain best through an example: Okay, let's say we have a 6 year old boy. Lets call him James. Now, James has a Stuffed Bear (lets call it Mr Jiggles) that he loves with all his heart. We see that it's his best and only friend in his otherwise unhappy life with his nasty stepmother. It keeps him company; it makes him feel safe at night, listens to all his problems. One day Mr Jiggles is stolen. James cries, heartbroken, and goes on a journey to get Mr Jiggles back. Do we want him to get it back? Hell yeah! Why? Because it REALLY REALLY matters to James, so (assuming we kinda like James), we want him to get Mr Jiggles back, and we're prepared to sit there for an hour or two as we follow James as he overcomes various trials to get Mr Jiggles back.
We know the bear isn't real. We don't care about getting our own stuffed bear back. But we care about Mr Jiggles because James cares. The more he cares, the more we care.
So the point is we don't need to have a comet flying to earth which will wipe out all humanity for us to care about the story and whether our character succeeds. It's about how much the characters care, and how well we understand why.
So what does this have to do with flashbacks? Well, let's take Gina in Ep9 for example: Andy's death isn't going to mean much to us unless we can actually see and EXPERIENCE what Andy really means to Gina. Hence the flashbacks in episodes 3 and 9, featuring Andy and Gina's relationship, are to bring the audience with Gina, and, with luck, allow them to care the way Gina does. So, if the writers have done their job half way decently, if Andy dies and Gina cries, we can feel what's underneath those tears: the loss of everything Andy meant to her. And we know what he meant to Gina, because we've seen it.
So that's a pretty brief explanation of the why's behind the flashbacks in The Cult.
Okay, that's it for now. Till next time!
