It’s interesting, seeing how a project develops from initial concepts through to the writing of a treatment.  In this case, a horror film I’m co-writing with Scotty Clark.  The first pass of it, the notes we made as we spent a few afternoons drinking tea and coffee and eating Portugese egg pastries in Scotty’s living room, we nailed the events of the story and through that defined much of what our characters are about.

Now, I’m taking responsibility for drafting the treatment.  It’s a closer view, and there are areas that need more attention on further inspection.  The protagonist’s journey needs to be clarified, and that can only be done by highlighting aspects of his fall and rise.  Which in turn means digging deeper into his character, finding out what he says makes him tick, and looking underneath that to peer at what’s really going on.  There’s a difference between the way we portray ourselves in the world and what really motivates us, and it’s that stuff that needs to be explored.  Which doesn’t mean I’ve nailed it, but does mean we’re moving in the right direction.

Then there’s tonal stuff.  We had discussed the antagonists and their particular response to the world they find themselves in, but now it seems that some details of our thinking could come across as relatively trite, almost comic.  Better to maintain their dignity, their character, by not exploring some of the elements we’d considered looking at when we were bouncing ideas around.  It’s the distinction between bad guys who do bad stuff, and those in Tarantino films that discuss Captain Caveman as they do — either choice can work, as long as you’re committed to its implications.  In this instance, I favour seeing the bad stuff without having the side issues we’d contemplated.  Like I said: tone.

What’s satisfying is the realisation that some of what we’ve come up with really works.  This is a horror film, and there are some concepts and images that I think we can safely say you won’t have seen on screen before, and which are truly unsettling.  We’ve gone the monster route, and chosen a pretty conventional monster, but you’ve not seen them like this before.  Of course, as with any decent horror the true monsters are human, and that comes into play too: I’m working on the climax of the story at this point, and it’s intentionally depressing, demonstrating that social and political power counts for more than anything else in the final analysis.  That blend of horror and social realism is an interesting one, and in our favour in the novelty stakes I feel.

There’s still a long way to go, but this project feels very promising.  It’s been a buzz to work on, and Scotty and I have another collaboration in the offing.  What Scotty will make of my take on the treatment, I have no idea.  I’m pleased with it, but there are nuances in the transition from notes to treatment that he may disagree with; character traits, the way some scenes are played, names.  So far our disagreements have been constructive, and I’m sure they’ll continue to be so.  If they result in the story being stronger, that’s fine.

Every choice you make precludes other ones.  You can’t wear boots and trainers at the same time.  Either are acceptable, and the question is which fits the purpose at that moment.  There are a wealth of possibilities contained within the choices available: what’s important is making a choice and sticking with it.  That’s the essence of the director’s job, and it’s why a host of highly skilled people dance around the director so they can be freed up to choose wisely.  What’s increasingly apparent is that the process begins with the choices made at the stage the story is planned, and continues from there.