9
Determine the POV

There are many ways to tell a story, and each approach differs depending on what your series is about and around whom the series orbits.

So let’s start with this basic question: whose story is it?

You have several options. Following is a breakdown of different types of POVs employed on one-hour dramas, sitcoms, and half-hour dramedies. Please note that there is a great deal of overlap between several of these categories:

Single-lead protagonist POV. Primarily utilized to show the world of the series through one dominant perspective. In the cases of Dexter, Revenge, The Big C, and Nurse Jackie, this limited POV is particularly important because each of these series’ leads has something to hide. Dexter is a police blood spatter expert who moonlights as a vigilante serial killer. Revenge centers around a beautiful young socialite (imposter) with a ruthless vendetta. In The Big C, Cathy Jamison (Laura Linney) had a terminal cancer diagnosis that she prefers to ignore in order to live the rest of her life to the fullest without pity or remorse. Nurse Jackie Peyton (Edie Falco) is a supereffective E.R. nurse, wife and mother—who also happens to be a drug addict, fueling her propensity to regularly cheat on her husband and lie to her kids.

In each of the preceding examples, the audience is privy to their vulnerabilities whereas all or many of the people in their daily lives are (mostly) presented with a façade or persona of the protagonist versus a more open character willing to disclose their secrets and ulterior motives.

See also Enlightened, Justified, The Following, My So-Called Life, Rescue Me, Californication.

Single main protagonist with one main sidekick. Series such as Sherlock (U.K. version) and Elementary (U.S. version), Breaking Bad, House, M.D., The Killing, and Royal Pains feature a brilliant yet flawed lead character who is usually socially awkward, misanthropic, and/or lacking an essential skill— necessitating the need for a partner in business, love, life, and/or crime. Sherlock Holmes needs his Watson to help him navigate the technological world and to compensate for Sherlock’s key “blind spot” in life: his lack of empathy. Sherlock is an expert at figuring out riddles and mysteries, but he’s lousy at interpersonal relationships—which tends to be Watson’s strong suit. Watson also serves as a vital sounding board for Sherlock’s hypotheses, as well as being Sherlock’s (only) true friend and confidant. Sherlock needs Watson but he’s loath to admit it, which fuels their bromance with humor and conflict.

In Breaking Bad, Walter White (Bryan Cranston) begins as a milquetoast, high school chemistry teacher, loving husband and father—a far cry from the badass drug lord with delusions of grandeur that Walt will eventually become. For the first few seasons, Walt is completely dependent upon Jessie Pinkman (Aaron Paul), a young hotshot renegade drug dealer who also happens to be one of Walt’s former students. These two guys have zero in common, except their mutual goal to cook the purist, most potent crystal meth on the black market. With Walt’s brain and Jessie’s street smarts, they’re a match made in heaven.

Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie), another brilliant pariah, relies on his one main confidant, Dr. James Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard) to be his moral compass. Dr. House routinely butts heads with his supervisor, Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein) who, invariably, is as ready to dismantle House’s hubris and insubordination as he is to undermine her authority. House is able to perform his job with such precision in spite of Cuddy, whereas his professional friendship with Dr. Wilson actually helps fuel his effectiveness.

In The Killing, Homicide Detective Sarah Linden (Mireille Enos) is fiercely driven and single goal-minded—often going to self-destructive extremes. But it’s her unconventional, irreverent partner Stephen Holder (Joel Kinnaman) who simultaneously challenges and supports her out in the field. As good as she is at her job, she wouldn’t be nearly as proficient without Holder in her corner—and they both know it. There’s a tacit respect and trust between them that ebbs and flows with the highs and lows of the murder case(s).

In Royal Pains, two brothers, Dr. Hank Lawson (Mark Feuerstein) and Evan Lawson (Paulo Costanzo) run a thriving “concierge doctor” practice in the form of discreet house calls to the rich and famous. In the pilot episode, Hank is essentially exiled to the tony beachside playground of the Hamptons after being accused of fatally botching the surgery of a wealthy hospital benefactor in New York City. As the series progresses, Hank is an easy-going, down-to-earth physician with an excellent bedside manner, but he lacks the business acumen and spontaneity of his younger, wheeler-dealer brother. Together, these brothers are a dynamic duo, even though Evan is often more of a liability than an asset. And, after all, Evan is the one who came up with the idea of HankMed in the first place. Like most brothers, the two can bring out the best and worst in one another because they know each other’s weaknesses so well. But, when the chips are down, they’ve got each other’s backs.

Dominant lead character surrounded by ensemble. The following series are examples of how a leader is only as strong as the team he or she guides, chastises, empowers, and inspires.

In Scandal, Olivia Pope (Kerry Washington) is a gorgeous, wicked smart, savvy public relations and damage control expert. The best in the biz—she’s a cunning, charming, always impeccably dressed and discreet Beltway insider with a flawless reputation. But behind the scenes, she’s also a micromanaging control freak whose personal life is usually spinning out of control. Olivia has super sharp political instincts, knows how to play the Washington power game, and very rarely loses because she has an elite group of specialists on her staff. What makes Olivia so good at her job is she knows she can trust her staff implicitly because they were each “wounded birds”—hand-picked, rescued, and trained by Olivia. She essentially saved their lives and now there is no doubt that there is nothing they wouldn’t do to protect and serve their boss.

On Mad Men, Don Draper (Jon Hamm) begins as the agency’s creative director and the driving force of its success. With the uncanny ability to perform his job best after too much debauchery, Don is equally adept at impressing hard-to-please clients and alienating his bosses and colleagues. Don is a self-destructive genius. For a time, he was able to keep up appearances in the office and at home despite his crumbling marriage to Betty (January Jones). And after his fall from grace, Don manages, once again, to rebrand and reinvent himself with a new (younger model) wife, Megan (Jessica Paré).

Don Draper is the glue of Mad Men. The conceit of the series works so well because it is based on the central question: Who is Don Draper really— and will he ever truly change? While each of his main colleagues (Roger, Peggy, Pete, Joan, Ken, Harry, and big boss Bertram) has his/her own aspirations and desires and plotlines each season, they mainly serve as the prism through which we view the many facets of Don Draper. If Don weren’t so good at spinning his version of the truth, he wouldn’t be such a rock star in the ad world. Advertising is designed to sell us stuff we don’t really need, based upon the illusion that a product will fill the void in our lives and make us happy. Don may be too cynical to believe in the idea of lasting happiness; he knows what it’s supposed to look like and sound like, but he may be too numb to feel it.

Sex and the City, Girls, and Entourage all focus on one main protagonist (Carrie, Hannah, Vince) and her or his three best friends. Whereas Sex and the City and Entourage embodied the slick, materialistic excesses of Manhattan and L.A., Girls revolves around four besties who are struggling in their careers and love lives. What differentiates each of these series from being pure “ensemble” dramedies is the dominance of their lead character’s POV. Sex and the City begins and ends with Carrie’s newspaper column, told via V.O. and setting up each episode’s main theme. Girls is about Hannah and her three friends. And while we follow art gallery assistant Marnie (Allison Williams), and cousins Jessa (Jemima Kirke) and Shoshanna (Zosia Mamet) into their separate plotlines, Hannah is the nexus of the series. Everyone reports back to Hannah, and the series is as much about how their lives impact Hannah’s narcissism as it’s about the actual lives of her friends.

Entourage (creator/showrunner Doug Ellin) is based upon the real-life exploits of Mark Wahlberg as he and his buddies moved from Boston to Los Angeles to pursue fame, fortune, fast cars, and femmes. Wahlberg’s alter ego from Queens, New York is Vincent Chase (Adrian Grenier). He may not be the most dynamic or noisy character in the series, but he’s the sun around which his friends’ and colleagues’ lives all orbit.

A good litmus test for this type of POV paradigm is this: if you remove the dominant protagonist and just leave the ensemble, would the series still sustain and continue to exist? Vince is the ideal blossoming movie star precisely because he’s so laid back and indifferent to fame. His super agent Ari (Jeremy Piven) requires power and money like a vampire needs blood, whereas Vince is a simple, humble guy who could take it or leave it, as long as he’s got his buddies, good weed, and gets laid. Of course, Vince likes the fame and money, but his life doesn’t depend upon it. Vince is the star and the moral center of the show’s universe. Everyone around him is a social climber: Vince’s best friend, Eric Murphy (Kevin Connolly) ambitiously manages Vince’s career; Vince’s elder half-brother Johnny “Drama” Chase (Kevin Dillon) is an aspiring actor; even pothead slacker Salvatore “Turtle” Assante (Jerry Ferrara) is an entrepreneur with big dreams. But Vince’s POV enables us to recognize the absurdity, pretension, and phoniness of show business. Ari is, by far, the loudest, showiest role in Entourage. His shallowness, greed, thirst for power, hysteria and hubris, shocks, provokes and makes us laugh out loud, and yet Ari is best in small doses. To prove my point, if you remove Vince from the ensemble, what you’re left with is a series about selfish, soulless Hollywood players. Ironically, Vince makes us care because he doesn’t.

See also Sons of Anarchy, The Mentalist, The Good Wife, The Sopranos, The Shield, Weeds, Veep, Boardwalk Empire, and True Blood.

Voice-over (VO) narration as running commentary on current action. Generally used to widen perspective and place events in a thematic or ironic context.

Sex and the City used Carrie Bradshaw’s (Sarah Jessica Parker) magazine column to articulate (via V.O.) each episode’s thematic question. In a season 1 episode (“Secret Sex” written by creator/showrunner Darren Star), Carrie poses this thematic question:

Carrie (V.O.)

How many of us out there are having great sex with people we’re ashamed to introduce to our friends?

In this episode, Carrie goes out on her first date with “Mr. Big” (Chris Noth), but he’s reticent to introduce her into his social circle and just wants to stay in (bed) with her, leading Carrie to believe that he’s somehow ashamed of her. Should she withhold sex in this context or just go for it? Meanwhile, Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) meets a hunky guy at the gym who seems to be hiding something from her. When she discovers a “spanking” video in his apartment, she has to decide whether she should dump him or walk on the wild side and tell no one. At the same time, Charlotte (Kristen Davis) divulges to her girlfriends that she’s having sex with a rabbi. Samantha, at the other end of the spectrum, has no issues with broadcasting her sex-capades with anyone, anytime, anywhere, and believes that sex should not be delayed for moral reasons. In Sex and the City, Carrie’s quest is always the A story, and her girlfriends’ plotlines are the corresponding B, C, and D stories that are all on the same theme.

In the pilot episode of Grey’s Anatomy, titled “A Hard Day’s Night” and written by creator/showrunner Shonda Rhimes, we’re introduced to the dominant main character of the ensemble. We know she’s the lead character because her last name is “Grey,” the episode begins and ends with her, and it’s her voice in the teaser—in which we also witness Meredith as she tries to gracefully depart from last night’s one-night stand with a handsome but more or less anonymous stranger—who, to her mortification, will later turn out to be her boss: Dr. Derek Shepherd aka McDreamy (played by Patrick Dempsey).

Meredith (V.O.)

The Game. They say a person either has what it takes to play, or they don’t. My mother was one of the greats. Me on the other hand … I’m kinda screwed. Like I said I’m screwed. I can’t think of any one reason why I want to be a surgeon. But I can think of a thousand reasons why I should quit. They make it hard on purpose. There are lives in our hands. There comes a moment when it’s more than just a game. And you either take that step forward or turn around and walk away. I could quit, but here’s the thing … I love the playing field.

As the pilot episode unfolds, Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo) begins her residency at Seattle Grace Hospital. She encounters her follow interns: tough perfectionist Cristina (Sandra Oh); introverted George (T. R. Knight); ex-model Izzie (Katherine Heigl), and arrogant Lothario Alex (Justin Chambers). They’re all introduced to their supervisor, Dr. Miranda Bailey (Chandra Wilson) who’s unaffectionately referred to as “The Nazi.” During their first long, grueling, exhilarating and intensely challenging shift, each intern grapples with personal demons and the fear that he/she isn’t good enough to succeed. And if life and death stakes at every turn aren’t high enough, we learn that Meredith is living in the shadow of her mother, Dr. Ellis Grey (Kate Burton) who was a prominent Seattle surgeon in her heyday. At the conclusion of the pilot episode, Meredith visits her mother in an assisted living facility, and we discover that Meredith’s voice-over was actually a one-sided chat she was having with her mother—who is now suffering from Alzheimer’s and barely even recognizes her daughter. In the touching grace note to the pilot, Meredith realizes that life is hard and offers no guarantees of success. But if you don’t play, you can’t win; the risk offers its own reward.

While each intern has his/her own specific challenge as a newbie doctor, every medical case is linked to Meredith as our guide. In season 1, this series focused first and foremost on Meredith. However, as the series progresses and other regular characters became more popular (and some left the series to pursue other opportunities), Meredith became less prominent and a more equal member of the ensemble.

In Dexter, Dexter Morgan’s (Michael C. Hall) voice-over narrative is crucial to our deeper understanding of his motives. We can see with our own eyes who, how, when, and where he kills. But it’s the articulation of his inner psychology in voice-over which enables us to grasp at why.

Unlike Sex and the City, Grey’s Anatomy, and Enlightened, Dexter’s V.O. is less thematic and more of an examination of his psyche. Dexter lives by his own (secret) code as taught to him by his late, adoptive father, Harry. Dexter is incredibly smart, but fastidious, emotionless, cold, calculating, and trusts no one (at least not in the early episodes). He maintains a double life: by day, a hardworking blood spatter pattern analyst for the Miami police department; by night a vigilante serial killer who metes out justice and punishment on his own terms. The V.O. keeps the audience inside Dexter’s head and tries to help us reconcile his violent actions. His emotionless voice lulls us and draws us in. And, even though, his killing sprees compel us to turn away— we keep watching again and again—because while Dexter is a monster, he’s a well-intentioned monster.

He also has a dry, funny, droll wit, so while we’re repelled by his actions, we’re also in on the joke. He disposes of miscreants and societal douche bags. Sure, it’s dead wrong. But it’s human nature to have thoughts of getting even—and Dexter acts out the fantasy of getting away with murder. Sure, he’s a sick puppy and his actions are reprehensible, but in Dexter’s world, that’s entertainment.

See also Enlightened.

Dual leads POV. Another POV option is a dual focus. In Homeland, we spend an equal amount of time with Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes) and Nicholas Brody (Damian Lewis). She’s a CIA agent in the antiterrorism unit; he’s a former POW soldier who’s returned to Washington, D.C., as a war hero. Or maybe he was “turned” (brainwashed) by Islamic extremist Abu Nazir (Navid Negahban), while being held captive for eight years, and is now a terrorist. Or maybe he wasn’t brainwashed at all, but instead has come to see the value of retribution against the United States for its hawkish imperialism? Carrie suspects the latter, but her POV is unreliable because she has no hard proof, coupled with her erratic behavior caused by her going off her bipolar medication. Is Carrie’s commitment to U.S. Homeland Security so devout that she’s willing to have sex with the married Brody to earn his trust? Or is she actually falling in love with and sleeping with the enemy?

The brilliance of season 1, in particular, of Homeland was how much we did not know. Each episode presented us with different perspectives and theories as to Carrie and Brody’s motives—but then the next episode would demolish our expectations and send us back to trying to predict the next plot development. Homeland exists in the moral gray areas, and so Abu Nazir’s vendetta against the vice president of the United States is rooted in Nazir’s heartbreak of losing his son in a U.S. drone attack. And Brody, who is also a father, can completely empathize and relate to Nazir’s grief. Homeland proves that well-developed “good guys” are flawed, complex, and possess dark sides, and well-drawn villains also have sympathetic points of view. The challenge in such a dual focus is shifting the pendulum of our sympathy from one character to another without alienating the audience or making us feel manipulated.

In The Americans, the dual POV is not just written as “us” (United States) versus “them” (USSR), which would have been too simplistic for this smart series. Instead, we are treated to the distinctive points of view of Elizabeth (a Soviet loyalist who’s committed to her mission) and Phillip (who has started to question his mission). We also get to witness scenes from this arranged marriage as their true feelings surface, as their kids mature and rebel against parental expectations, and as neighbors and KGB cohorts start to become suspicious. If this were a series solely depicting moles and espionage, it would probably flatten out and flat-line fast. Fortunately, the astute series creator (Joe Weisberg knows that all great series are about families. Cold War espionage plotlines can start to feel repetitive and limited, whereas family dramas are universally relatable and can provide unlimited story engines).

The Americans also expands its POV to include Elizabeth and Phillip’s new neighbors, the Beemans, along with the added tension that Stan Beeman (Noah Emmerich) is a counterintelligence agent in the FBI; this provides us with a secondary POV as counterpoint to Elizabeth and Phillip’s—when they’re aligned—and further expands the POV when they’re all at odds. This added layer and POV affords us the opportunity to experience how unsuspecting neighbors Stan and Sandra (Susan Misner) get to know Elizabeth and Phillip. We get the sense that, if not for their backstories, these two couples would become good friends. (I’m looking forward to the episode when they all go camping together.) At this early point in this new series, Stan and Sandra, along with Paige and Henry, are all totally clueless about Elizabeth and Phillip’s double duties. The “sweet spot” of the show is that the couple of spies Stan is hunting for are right under his nose. This is a series about keeping your friends close and your enemies even closer.

Dual protagonist POVs are almost always improved and enhanced when each of the equal protagonists have different opinions, values, and perspectives, as well as their symbiotic, complementary strengths and weaknesses. The basic idea behind this theory is that if you put two incomplete people together you get one whole, perfectly well-rounded individual.

Examples:

In The X-Files, FBI special agent Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) believes in paranormal phenomena, while his partner, Agent Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), is a skeptic.

In Bones, FBI special agent Seeley Booth (David Boreanaz) is paired with forensic anthropologist Dr. Temperance “Bones” Brennan (Emily Deschanel). Booth represents the law, while Bones represents science; together they form a powerful investigative team. The dynamic is even more richly delineated as Booth believes in faith and God, while Brennan believes in science, evidence, and atheism.

In Castle, Richard Castle (Nathan Fillion), a best-selling mystery author, is teamed with NYPD detective Kate Beckett (Stana Katic). Their dynamic is represented by their sexual tension and differing approaches to criminal cases.

Rizzoli & Isles pairs Boston detective Jane Rizzoli (Angie Harmon) with medical examiner Maura Isles (Sasha Alexander) to solve crimes. Mirroring the Bones dynamic of law and science, the characters play different halves, as Rizzoli is a tomboy and Isles is more of a girly-girl.

In Nip/Tuck, plastic surgeon Sean McNamara (Dylan Walsh) is a straight-laced, married-with-kids type, while his partner, Christian Troy (Julian McMahon) is the show’s charming bad boy.

While an ensemble, the strongest dynamic in The Big Bang Theory is between roommates Leonard Hofstadter (Johnny Galecki) and Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons). Both are brilliant, yet Leonard is functional in society, while Sheldon is so trapped in his mind that it makes him a social misfit.

2 Broke Girls follows roommates Max (Kat Dennings) and Caroline (Beth Behrs) as they try to start up a cupcake business. Max is from a poor, working class family while Caroline was born rich. While both are now broke, they have differing points of view based on their upbringing.

Whether it’s the Ashton Kutcher character or Charlie Sheen’s, Two and a Half Men follows the tried-and-true “Odd Couple” dynamic: it mixes Alan (Jon Cryer), an uptight father, with a hedonist, charming bad boy. Each one is right and each one is wrong. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Ensemble cast/multiple POVs. Desperate Housewives, Grey’s Anatomy, Shameless, Downton Abbey, Burn Notice, The Walking Dead, Friday Night Lights, Parenthood, The Wire, Entourage, Six Feet Under, Glee, Dallas, and How I Met Your Mother

In these series, there are often more than A, B, and C plotlines. There are as many stories as necessary to “serve” each of the main characters. However, the A story will often encompass more than one character.

In The Walking Dead episode “I Ain’t a Judas,” the A story revolved around Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) debating what they should do next in the face of dwindling food and supplies; the B story involved The Governor (David Morrissey) as he prepared Woodbury for battle; and the C story involved Andrea (Laurie Holden) as she decided to travel to the prison to negotiate with Rick. All of the stories, however, involved other supporting characters. This storytelling device is used more often in serial dramas, rather than self-contained episodes.

Downton Abbey tells the story of the wealthy upper class who live in the grand estate of the same name, as well as the servants who work there. In episode 6 of season 2, a badly burned Canadian officer comes to Downton claiming he is their lost heir, but the family isn’t sure whether to believe him; Matthew Crawley (Dan Stevens), still in a wheelchair, is cared for by Mary (Michelle Dockery); meanwhile, Carson (Jim Carter) debates whether to work for Sir Richard Carlisle (Iain Glen). These are but three stories in a tapestry of many other character threads.

Parallel or Multiple Worlds

Once Upon a Time takes place in two parallel worlds; one in Storybrooke, Maine, and the other in the fairy-tale world of the Enchanted Forest. What happens in one affects the events in the other.

Game of Thrones is an example of multiple worlds, as well as a sprawling fantasy epic set on the continents of Westeros and Essos. Within each realm are a world of characters, settings, and rules.

Parallel time periods, sporadic or consistent use of flashbacks to inform on present action. The Americans, Revenge, Any Day Now, and Lost. The main purpose of flashbacks is to inform present day dilemmas or provide the key to solving a central mystery. They can also be used to provide subtext.

Examples:

Revenge is a retelling of The Count of Monte Cristo, where Emily Thorne (Emily VanCamp) returns to the Hamptons to take revenge on those who wronged her late father when she was a little girl. The show utilizes flash-backs to reveal character secrets and motivations.

The series Any Day Now revolved around the long-term friendship between women of two races, Mary Elizabeth O’Brien Sims (Annie Potts) and Rene Jackson (Lorraine Toussaint). They became friends in Alabama in the 1960s during the civil rights movement. Though set in present time, every episode wove a current story with one from their shared past.

In Cold Case, a show in which Detective Lilly Rush (Kathryn Morris) sought closure for longtime, unsolved cases, the use of flashbacks helped dramatize the testimony she got from interviewees.

Synergistic/complementary arenas. Law & Order franchise

Law & Order, in which the first half-hour revolves around the NYPD tracking a case and arresting a suspect, and the second half-hour shows the prosecution of the defendant by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. The show dramatizes the conflict between catching a criminal and the legal hurdles to prosecute one. In an episode titled “The Collar,” a priest refuses to cooperate with the authorities, claiming that his communication with the killer was “privileged.”

Subjective or objective POV. CSI, Numb3rs, Bones, Ally McBeal, The Ghost Whisperer, Wonderfalls, Twin Peaks, and Battlestar Galactica

A subjective POV example includes The Ghost Whisperer, in which Melinda Gordon (Jennifer Love Hewitt) has the ability to communicate with ghosts.

In CSI, audiences see the “CSI shot,” an extreme close-up of forensics, whether a gunshot, hair, or injury. It is a completely objective view of evidence.

In Bones, the team often debates alternate theories as to how a crime happened, giving the audience the chance to witness the possibilities and go inside “the mind” of the team.

In Ally McBeal, Ally (Calista Flockhart) has visions of a dancing baby, which serves a metaphor for her biological clock.

In Battlestar Galactica, audiences witness Dr. Gaius Baltar (James Callis) as he interacts with Cylon Number Six (Tricia Helfer). Number Six appears only to Baltar and no one else, which leaves the audience wondering: is it all in his mind? Or is it really happening?

Documentary/Interview Commentary

Breaking the Fourth Wall. Another POV option is “direct address,” in which a character talks directly to the camera (aka the audience). Modern Family uses this technique to great comedic advantage in its confessional interviews as commentary on the present action; in many cases, two characters will participate in these interview segments. The Office also uses this device. The benefits of this type of storytelling are twofold: one, it allows the audience to see characters “captured” in moments when they don’t think they’re being filmed, which gives the audience a true sense of the characters, and second, it provides an important counterpoint to when they are “interviewed” and shows us how the characters want to be seen.

In House of Cards, we get a different, more theatrical commentary from Francis Underwood (Kevin Spacey) who will often “spontaneously” turn to the camera—just as he’s about to enter the action of a scene and/or in the middle of a scene—as an ironic, wry “wink wink” aside to bring the audience in on his Machiavellian agenda. It’s an artificial, stylized approach that suits the often duplicitous, insider world of D.C.

Omniscient POV

In Desperate Housewives, a dead woman, Mary Alice Young (Brenda Strong), narrates the show, aware of all that’s happening on Wisteria Lane.

In Joan of Arcadia, the title character, Joan Girardi (Amber Tamblyn), is a teenager who can speak and see (an all-knowing) God.

In Gossip Girl, the show is narrated by an omniscient blogger “Gossip Girl” (Kristen Bell). While the voice is a woman’s, the blogger is ultimately revealed on the series finale as Dan Humphrey (Penn Badgley). Talk about unexpected.

External Narrator from the Future as V.O. Observer Looking Back

In How I Met Your Mother, the show is narrated from the future as a man looks back on his life, ostensibly telling his kids (and us) the story of “How I Met Your Mother.” Narrated by Ted in voice-over by Bob Saget, but portrayed in “present time” by Josh Radnor, the device allows the audience to hear the wisdom gained after an event, along with the event itself.

The Wonder Years was famous for using this device which worked perfectly for this story of a man (Daniel Stern) looking back with nostalgia on his coming of age during the late 1960s.

Playing with Time

The series 24 is famous for condensing an entire season into a story that takes place over the course of only twenty-four hours. Thus, each episode is told in the near-real-time of one hour, compressing events and heightening the stakes.

In Early Edition, Gary Hobson (Kyle Chandler) mysteriously receives an edition of the Chicago Sun-Times one day before it’s actually published, so each day, he makes it his mission to stop terrible events before they happen.

Lost uses flashbacks (to provide character motivation) but also uses flash-forward (to show the future) as well as flash-sideways (which were alternate realities based on the actions the characters took in the present).

Once you have a unique, original, inventive, and provocative idea for a TV series that’s populated with cool people doing cool stuff, your next big challenge is to find your way in to the series. And that means point of view.

Interview: Alex Gansa

Alex Gansa Credits

Best known for:

  • Homeland (Executive Producer/Developer/Writer) 2011–2012
  • Peabody Award 2011
  • AFI TV Program of the Year 2011

    Emmy Winner (Outstanding Drama Series) 2012

    Emmy Winner (Outstanding Drama Writing) 2012

    Golden Globe Winner (Best Drama Series) 2012

    WGA Award Winner (New Series) 2012

    WGA Nominated (Drama Series) 2012

  • 24 (Executive Producer/Co-Executive Producer/Writer) 2010/2009
  • Entourage (Consulting Producer) 2007

    WGA Nominated (Comedy Series) 2008

  • Numb3rs (Executive Producer) 2005
  • Dawson’s Creek (Executive Producer/Writer) 1999–2000
  • Maximum Bob (Executive Producer/Writer) 1998
  • The X-Files (Supervising Producer/Writer) 1993–1994
  • Sisters (Supervising Producer/Writer) 1991
  • Beauty and the Beast (Producer/Co-Producer/Writer) 1989–1990/1988–1989

    Emmy Nominated (Drama Series) 1989

  • Spenser: For Hire (Writer) 1986–1987

NL: Because Homeland is based on an Israeli series, Hatufim, what are the primary differences between the source that inspired it and where it’s gone?

AG: I think the first major difference between the source material and Homeland is the genre. Hatufim is very much a family drama and Homeland is a psychological thriller. That’s a huge difference. At the same time though, there are many things we borrowed from the source material that are central to the story, so we owe a huge debt to that show. But, there are significant differences. The main one being that returned prisoners of war in Israel are national figures from the moment they’re taken prisoner to the moment they’re exchanged and returned home. When Gilad Shalit was returned, he was traded for, I think, about a thousand Palestinians. The calculus that goes into making that political decision in Israel is enormous, and so once those people are returned, they are at the least the center of the debate and at the worst in the middle of a firestorm. There was a certain charged quality about the prisoners of war coming back to Israel which we knew would not hold in America. A prisoner of war who comes home to America would be on the twenty-four-hour news cycle, and then everyone would forget about him. Our feeling was that we had to introduce another element into the show, so what we did was reduce the number of prisoners of war coming home. In Hatufim, it was two and in Homeland, it’s obviously one. In place of the second prisoner of war, we added another point of view character and that was Carrie Mathison [Claire Danes].

NL: And, obviously the whole CIA and the structure of that organization, so it’s a whole new series inspired by the germ of Hatufim.

AG: I’d say that’s true. There is an intelligence apparatus in the Israeli version, but it’s much more in the background. The thrust of the Israeli intelligence aspect in Hatufim was, “Did those guys give up any information seventeen years ago when they were captured prisoner?” And obviously the thrust in Homeland is, “Is this guy going to commit a terrorist attack on American soil right now?”

NL: Since the main focus of this chapter is on point of view, did you start with Carrie as your way in to approach the material or did you start with Brody (Damian Lewis) as the prisoner coming back?

AG: It’s so interesting because the point of view question was the question that perplexed [Executive Producer] Howard [Gordon] and me as we began to develop the show. There was a lot of debate and a lot of very vigorous disagreement about that. On the one hand, can you tell a story with two points of view? What kind of show was this going to be? Was this going to be a show about a CIA intelligence officer chasing a bad guy or was this going to be something a little more interesting? Those debates took place among many different people—not just Howard Gordon and me, but also the studio and the network, regarding where we were going to wind up. Were we going to be on FOX or Showtime? I honestly think that if we had wound up on broadcast television that it would have been a much more straight ahead story with a single point of view—with the good guy, Carrie, in her point of view, chasing the bad guy, Brody. Luckily and through serendipity, we ended up on Show-time and were able to tell a much more nuanced, binary story.

NL: The gray areas are so pronounced in the direction that you went because you’ve created sympathy for Nazir (Navid Negahban). It’s a very controversial element. And the vice president becomes the villain in a way. What was your approach to antagonists?

AG: We always felt that our antagonist remained Brody. So, if we were trying to develop sympathy for him, we did that by inhabiting his point of view and making his reasons for turning and carrying out an attack against America as understandable as we possibly could. You could look at the season of Homeland as two parts: the first part with the central question: “Was he or was he not turned in captivity?” Then, once we answered that question, the second question for the remainder of the season became, “Is he or is he not going to go through with what he’s agreed to do?” The second question, in my opinion, was the more interesting one because now we were able to inhabit Brody’s point of view. We had to make the reasons for his action legible and sympathetic. That was our mission as storytellers: To get inside Brody’s brain to understand why he had chosen this path and watch him wrestle with the decision to actually go through with it or not.

NL: In your mind, does he suffer from Stockholm syndrome? Was he literally brainwashed—like in the classic film, The Manchurian Candidate? Because one of the things that I loved about the season finale was how his daughter and his paternal familial responsibilities were the things that thwarted that suicide bombing.

AG: I don’t think he was brainwashed. We didn’t want to tell a psycho-tropic, unintelligible brainwashing story. We thought that would be dishonest, but we did want to believe that he was a broken man. By that I mean, years and years of torture and psychological abuse will strip you down to the studs, and Nazir did that through this extreme capture and torture. And then re-humanized Brody, in a way, by introducing him to his son Issa. It was that human relationship and the introduction of religion through the Koran which built Brody into something different than he was before. We didn’t view that as brainwashing. We viewed it as Nazir searching for a way to use this man as a political tool in this world. And, Nazir wasn’t aware that Issa was going to be killed. He didn’t sacrifice his own son to do this. Nazir used what happened in that drone strike to radicalize Brody in a way that he probably wasn’t aware he could have before that. Nazir was improvising at that point. And, Brody was probably on board to do something that Nazir didn’t think he would ultimately be able to do.

NL: Brody is split in half between his American identity and his Muslim extremist identity, so I’m wondering if there was a parallel to his dual identity and Carrie’s bipolar disorder? How was she conceived?

AG: Initially the show was written on spec, but Howard had a big deal at FOX. We were servicing that deal by writing this pilot. So, it was originally written with the intention of selling it to a broadcast network. Not that we wanted it to go to a broadcast network, but that was our first mission statement.

NL: Like a follow-up to 24?

AG: Yes. So the first iteration of the pilot was much more along the lines of what I told you earlier. Carrie was an intelligence officer. She had some problems, but she was not bipolar. She was just a little reckless and unreliable. She was chasing Brody because she believed he had been turned overseas. And then, once we realized we could do this show for cable, the whole world opened up for us. Actually, Showtime was the first to say, “We love the story. We love the setup, but we’d really like the character of Carrie Mathison to be more cable-worthy. She doesn’t have to be such a straight-ahead hero.” But, they had no idea what that should look like. Was she a sex addict? Was she a pill popper? In what context were we going to make her a cable heroine? Howard and I wrestled with that for a long time. And, ultimately, we began to see the merits of making both characters unknowable and damaged in a way. To put them on equal footing in that sense.

We look at Brody as someone who is damaged by his experience as a soldier and prisoner of war, and Carrie as someone who is damaged by her experiences overseas as well, but mostly because of her disease. She’s reckless and unreliable on one side, and he’s unknowable on the other.

NL: Once you had the pilot written, did you map out the arc of the first twelve episodes?

AG: We did. Howard and I had a very clear idea of the first twelve and what they were going to look like. We knew that Brody was going to perpetrate some terrorist action against America. But we didn’t, for example, know that he was going to put on a suicide vest. We went through a litany of other options: Were there other targets? Was a drone center a target? Was there a particular drone pilot who was responsible? We didn’t know. Was it something bigger? Was it a State of the Union thing? Was he going to kill [Vice President William] Walden [Jamey Sheridan]? We just didn’t know, and ultimately, the vest became very iconic. But, we all shied away from it at the beginning because it’s such a signature of a terrorist. We were always a little unsure if a United States marine would go to those lengths.

NL: And, what about Carrie ending up with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)?

AG: That was less clear when we arced the episode. In fact, every episode after the pilot, we were asking ourselves: “Is this the episode where Carrie has her manic breakdown?” And, we pushed it every single episode. So, by the time we got to episodes 10 and 11, we thought, “Well, this is perfect.” Because here we are at the end of the season, just when the event is going to happen, and that’s the time to make Carrie as unreliable and as reckless and as crazy as you could have her because her fellow intelligence officers were going to dismiss her. But yet she’s carrying the truth.

NL: In terms of point of view and relationships, because you came from network television, did you map out A, B, C, or D stories? You have Carrie and Saul (Mandy Patinkin), who are such an anchor to the story. Brody and Dana (Morgan Saylor) also became very central. Do you arc things individually character by character? Do you focus on exploring this relationship in a multi-episode arc? What is the process of breaking story on the show?

AG: It’s a combination of all the things you’ve said. A lot of it is done episode-by-episode. And, a lot of it comes out of the character. For example, if you look at Saul and his relationship with his wife. That was born out of the fact that we didn’t have a role for Saul to play over a couple of episodes. So, we thought here we have an opportunity to tell a little bit about Saul and thought the audience might be interested. But, when we pitched that story originally, people were like, “Well, who fucking cares about Saul? We don’t care about this guy and we don’t care about his wife.” So, there was a lot of investigation at the beginning of the series about what kinds of stories it could hold and what was going to be compelling. In fact, after the pilot was shot, Howard and I had a lot of disagreement about whether anyone would be interested in Brody’s family at all. Would anybody care about his relationship with his wife? Or, his kids? There was a terrorist attack up and running—would anyone even pay attention? Were the episodes going to feel unbalanced? What became interesting and evident in the first couple of episodes was that you were almost more interested in what was going on in Brody’s house than what was going on in the more traditional bad guy part of the story.

I believe it was Joseph Conrad who said: “Writing is like mining coal with your hands.” And we’re in the mines, trying to find the veins of stories to uncover. Sometimes they’re evident at the beginning of the season. We knew where the Brody/Carrie relationship was going to go. That was something that we knew we had to plot out at the beginning. We knew, for example, that Dana was going to be the character that talked Brody offthe ledge at the end. So, if you watch the pilot and you see when they meet for the first time in the waiting room after Brody comes offthat plane, you’ll see that the hug with his wife is awkward, tentative, and hesitant. But, his hug with Dana is heartfelt. And, that’s when you start to see his emotion come through. So, that relationship, we always knew was going to be central. We basically knew the Carrie/Brody arc. I’m not quite sure if we knew she was going to wind up being in electroshock therapy at the end. But we knew she was going to have a breakdown.

NL: Did you know from the beginning that Marine sniper Tom Walker (Chris Chalk) was the POW who had been turned?

AG: The whole relationship between the soldiers we really took wholesale from Hatufim. One of the soldiers was carrying around this dark secret that he beat his fellow prisoner of war to death. We thought that would be a great psychological underpinning of Brody’s captivity.

NL: Are there any story rules when you’re breaking story in terms of pacing and doling out what and when you’re revealing from episode to episode? In other words, we seem to get one major new piece of information in each episode, and they each end in a cliffhanger. Is that a very conscious approach when you’re breaking story that you need to have one of those big revelations each time?

AG: I think that was very much the strategy of our first season. And, it was a legacy of working on 24.

NL: It works very well. It’s addictive.

AG: Because we were so uncertain and so unsure whether anyone was going to be interested in the family stories or the story of Saul’s dissolving marriage. We always wanted to make sure, especially during that first series of episodes, that we would end on something that genuinely wanted to make the audience come back. It was definitely a narrative strategy and something we worked for in the room—sometimes effectively and sometimes not so effectively, in my opinion. Because thriller tropes are so universal and people have seen them so often, we knew that there were certain muscular action moves that were going to take place over the course of the season. And, what we did narratively was to have them happen before the audience was expecting them to happen. Everybody knew that Brody and Carrie were going to have some kind of an emotional/physical relationship, but the fact that it happened in episode 4, just blew everyone’s minds. Because they thought: “Wait a minute, how the fuck is that possible?” So, I think we were able to deliver the audience’s expectations before they were expecting them, which made them feel fresher than if we had dragged them out.

NL: In the episode called “The Weekend,” the scene where they go to the cabin and have tea in the kitchen is an apt example of that. I thought, “No way—he’s not going to figure this out this soon.” And then, next thing I know, Brody’s got the gun in his hand aimed at Carrie.

AG: At the beginning of the season, we were following the blogs a little bit. And, after every episode, there would be these whole lines of debate like, “They’ve painted themselves into a corner. How the fuck are they going to get out of this?” We definitely compressed the story and energized the entire season by doing that. Also, when you’re starting a series, you have no idea whether it’s going to be successful or not. So, all of us who have been around for a long time, all the writers in here—we’re all middle-aged at best—and we want it to succeed or fail on our own terms. So, we pushed the envelope, we didn’t take the safe route, we got Brody and Carrie together way before anyone saw it coming, so we had some interesting building blocks in place.

NL: How are you mapping out the next season? Is it going to pick up right where you left off? Are you going to jump ahead?

AG: We’re definitely going to jump at least six months.

NL: Will there be a main or central question? A new mystery to explore?

AG: There will be. Although it will not have the same purity of the first season’s questions. It’s the curse of a second season. You’re able to float a lot of questions in the first season, but you have to answer more of those questions in the second season. I think you have to dig deeper to create a compelling story again. You’re catching us right in the middle of breaking stories for the second season and that’s the struggle we’re engaged in.

NL: I would imagine that one of the biggest challenges from the get-go would be how to get Carrie back into the CIA again.

AG: It’s interesting—everybody says that, but that has been the least of our problems. (Laughs.)

NL: When Carrie has her mini epiphany in episode 8 (“Achilles’ Heel”) with Saul, it’s such a memorable moment for me. She tells Saul that she’s come to the realization that: “I’m going to spend the rest of my life alone”— just like Saul. It seems like that’s another thing you can explore in season 2, Carrie’s personal/romantic life which was left in a state of total chaos.

AG: The real trick at the center of the show is Carrie and Brody. That’s what we have to accomplish in the second season: to bring them together in a way that feels believable and dramatically pregnant—to ultimately push their doomed romance forward for another season.

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset