Interview with the Unmutual website re: Magic Number 6, Oct 2012:
http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/interviewsgosling.htm
Wales Online feature on Magic Number 6, Jan 2013:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/portmeirion-edinburgh-festival-host-new-2497145
Leicester Mercury article on Magic Number 6, Jan 2013:
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Turbulent-tale-Prisoner-escaped-TV-screens/story-17799377-detail/story.html
Leicester Mercury article on Magic Number 6, July 2013:
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/VIDEO-Play-takes-Prisoners/story-19560456-detail/story.html
Article on Midlands Movies re: The Monochrome Spy
http://www.midlandsmovies.com/#/blog/4558436876/Midlands-Spotlight---Crooked-Hand-Productions/9393678
Article in Leicester Mercury re: The Monochrome Spy
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-spy-film-premiere-Phoenix-Square/story-26037226-detail/story.html
Article on Steve Hackett's LOVE SONG TO A VAMPIRE promo, April 2015:
https://www.loudersound.com/news/steve-hackett-issues-vampire-promo
Interview with Paul Gosling from The Waiting Room Online, August 2015:
http://www.twronline.net/issues/twr93/twr93_pg_interview.htm
Article on the YES 50 Documentary, June 2019:
https://www.loudersound.com/news/watch-yes-documentary-yesterday-today-tomorrow
Article on Steve Hackett's PEACE promo video, September 2019:
https://www.loudersound.com/news/steve-hackett-launches-video-for-his-at-the-edge-of-light-track-peace
Article on Amanda Lehmann's MEMORY LANE promo video:
https://www.loudersound.com/news/amanda-lehman-releases-video-for-new-single-memory-lane
Article on Steve Hackett's SIROCCO promo video, January 2021:
https://www.loudersound.com/news/steve-hackett-launches-new-music-video-for-sirocco
Article on Steve Hackett's UNDER A MEDITERRANEAN SKY videos:
https://northernlifemagazine.co.uk/steve-hacketts-wonderful-mediterranean-journey/
http://www.twronline.net/issues/twr93/twr93_pg_interview.htm
Article on the YES 50 Documentary, June 2019:
https://www.loudersound.com/news/watch-yes-documentary-yesterday-today-tomorrow
Article on Steve Hackett's PEACE promo video, September 2019:
https://www.loudersound.com/news/steve-hackett-launches-video-for-his-at-the-edge-of-light-track-peace
Article on Amanda Lehmann's MEMORY LANE promo video:
https://www.loudersound.com/news/amanda-lehman-releases-video-for-new-single-memory-lane
Article on Steve Hackett's SIROCCO promo video, January 2021:
https://www.loudersound.com/news/steve-hackett-launches-new-music-video-for-sirocco
Article on Steve Hackett's UNDER A MEDITERRANEAN SKY videos:
https://northernlifemagazine.co.uk/steve-hacketts-wonderful-mediterranean-journey/
Interview with Paul Gosling by Chris Thurmott, May 2013: The state of play for writers in TV, Stage and Radio.
What is your opinion on the state of Television compared with ten years ago?
I think we’ve seen an evolution in television in the last decade – we were already seeing the beginnings of the explosion in the number of channels – freeview boxes and early internet use – that’s gone through the roof now. The proliferation of channels and viewing options means that the sense of communal viewing – that ‘water cooler’ moment in the office the next morning has as a result disappeared or is disappearing.
You’re as likely to talk to someone who just happens to be watching the same DVD box set as you are, someone who saw what a channel broadcast the night before. There is the Twittersphere – that can give us a sense of viewing trends, but for instance I went on Twitter to gauge reaction to the last series of Doctor Who. And the reaction was 50-50 polarised – either it was younger tweeters saying it was ‘awesome’ or older viewers who just couldn’t get into it for various reasons (myself included).
What that means for TV commissioners is that they’ve got the unenviable task of guessing what these fractured audiences might enjoy watching, with less money and more pressure to have a hit. It’s a ‘wilderness of mirrors’ for them, and for us as writers, even more difficult to pitch shows and ideas, because the reality is as William Goldman famously said about Hollywood:“No one knows anything.”
Do you think reality television has had a positive or negative effect on the standard of television programming?
Well, the obvious answer would be that it’s been negative – you can argue that producers have hit upon an endless stream of programming that’s engaging to watch and low-rent. Now I might say I have no interest in any of it, but then something slightly slicker comes along, like The Apprentice, with all its colourful characters, conflicts, people you love to
hate, people you root for. Someone on the MA course in my year said he thought
it was the best drama on TV for those reasons and he may have been right.
That’s the ‘reality’ show – it’s cleverly edited to maximise the drama, or sense of drama
– but it’s a media construct like any other programme. I think there’s a lot of ‘writing’ going on in these shows, but not in the sense we as writers or would-be writers understand or could find employment in, because narratives are being constructed by the participants, the producers, the directors and editors.
This becomes clear when we watch the follow-up programme, You'veBeen Fired! – suddenly we see behind the mask, if you like and realise so-and-so wasn’t so bad after all, they’ve had a make-over not just in terms of their appearance but we see how they are okay as people. That transformation is itself is another form of media construct, of course!
Which is the medium you think is the best one to work in? (TV, Stage or Radio)
Well for obvious reasons, I have become quite fond of stage-work of late! It’s a real hands-on experience as a writer, particularly as I also produce – it’s a chance to see your work come to life before your eyes. I had an odd experience when I was watching rehearsals for our initial run (I went to all of them over a period of 6 weeks). In about week 4, I forgot I’d written it and was just watching these characters interacting. That’s testament to the skill of our cast, of course.
I guess in TV, there’s a lot less control for writers as soon as the production process kicks in –it becomes far more remote, creatively. Who knows if many writers are that pleased with the eventual product?
Is it possible to adapt any story into any medium or should the medium be decided upon before the story can get going?
A good story could and should work in any medium. I said to Toby Whithouse that I thought the premise of Being Human (a vampire, a werewolf and a ghost share a flat), sounded like the set-up for a sitcom. I have to say he was fairly non-plussed by this! But he agreed that if a premise is strong enough, it can be adapted to any genre or form.
Is Radio drama stronger now than it has ever been?
Well that’s hard for me to answer. I had some experience of creating some radio shorts back in the last century, when we were still analogue (using quarter-inch tape, yellow chalk markers and razor blades!) Beyond that I submitted a radio script to Writersroom a couple of years back and the initial reader’s report was enthusiastic that (probably in the light of my own earlier production experience), I understood the potential of the medium. A second draft was read and reported the opposite!
My guess is that many writers still think of radio as an easier route to get a broadcast credit and having been knocked back by TV, try it instead. As a result that has now become over-subscribed; so if it is stronger than before that may be because there are so many more writers trying to get in and producers can cherry-pick the best of them.
Is the apparent lack of competition in radio drama a bad thing? For example does Radio Drama suffer slightly from only having the BBC as a main broadcaster?
For writers to only have one serious outlet for long-form radio drama is less than ideal. Of course, if you do break through, then there’s more kudos with it. I do know a few writers in commercial radio who work on short-form dramas, but hardly anyone speaks on commercial radio these days, even the DJs, so they’re doing that in addition to writing copy for adverts and so forth rather than making a living out of it.
Should there be or does there have to be a difference in the way characters talk to one another depending on the medium?
Well I think Paul Bettany’s character in The Da Vinci Code wouldn’t work well on the radio! But seriously, in TV it’s all ‘show don’t tell’ - in radio you are trying to create a world in the mind’s eye, so the use of sound is crucial in creating a sense of place and atmosphere. In terms of characters and dialogue, in radio you’re trying to avoid lines like:
”Is that a gun you’re holding?”
“Yes and it’s pointed straight at you” !
I saw a one-act stage play a while back that was clearly written for the radio that was totally dialogue-driven
(and I’m sure worked brilliantly in that arena) but it was a bore to watch.
Does good writing work regardless of the medium?
Well, I think that if you create characters that people identify with, understand their motivations and invest in a journey of discovery with them, willing them on to achieve their needs, then it doesn’t matter about the medium or the genre, whether that’s a thriller, a romantic-comedy or whatever.
Does television require more imagination from an audience member because there are so many other distractions available?
It’s not so much imagination as a question of focus. I think most writers are appalled at this, but the reality is I think viewing habits have changed because of laptop technology. For a lot of people, TV is a background activity that they’ll occasionally look up at while they’re on Facebook or Twitter, or whatever they’re doing on the computer.
So that’s tough for television producers and writers. Having said that, the use of I-player and similar apps means that some people are even more critical of TV and paying much closer attention to it because they are totally focused on what they invest their time in watching. That there are ever-more realistic looking computer games with a narrative the player can dictate and a proliferation of movie adaptations of stories that are already popular (novels, comic books), means TV has to compete that much harder.
Do Television programmes have to written better because there are so many other alternatives?
As I say, people have these other options so it’s harder for TV to break through. Doctor Who is an interesting example of how the TV execs seem to be thinking: "If we make it looklike a blockbuster movie (the show never looked better in terms of production values), sound like one, have lots of explosions and action and big speeches;then that will grab an audience’s attention".
But this is Doctor Who for an ADHD audience. It’s all become about the feelings of the characters and not really about sci-fi anymore –so the older audience members who remember classic Who are alienated, but the younger generation love it – so there’s the audience split.
Is a story’s success dependant on the medium it’s being transmitted through?
I still think TV is the medium that reaches the most people, but this fractured audience we’re seeing, with all the options and platforms we can watch through puts a new spin on something being successful.
Going back to the DVD box set watching experience, I suppose there are viewers who feel disenfranchised if they don’t
have Sky, so there’s shows that become successful through word-of-mouth and people discover via DVD, like Game of Thrones, that they can then watch as much or as little of as they please.
The days of making an appointment to sit in front of the telly to watch a show are definitely on the way out.
The whole House of Cards deal with Netflix - that may be a model for TV production that just takes the whole
broadcasting concept out of the equation – you pay upfront and get the whole series online and TV
doesn’t really matter. I’m sure as technology evolves, there’ll be more and more ways to get stories out there.
But look, what makes a story a success? I’ve been talking about commercial viability and ratings, but I’m sure there are some independently-produced dramas up on Youtube that tell great stories. Anyone can write ‘TV’ in that sense; anyone can be a producer or a ‘studio’. So as a writer, there are lots of possibilities to write, not necessarily make a living out of it.
If a story fails to work in a particular medium, is that the fault of the story being unable to fit other mediums, or the fault of the medium being too restrictive and “set in its ways”?
I’m sure we can all think of TV shows or movies where the performances and the direction let the script down. We can see that the writing was good, but all the other stuff- that’s usually out of the writer’s hands.
In terms of television, without opening a Pandora’s Box here about censorship and the watershed, TV can tell any story you want. But if you’re frustrated by the limitations of TV as a medium, why are you trying to write it? You write for the medium you got fired up by, don’t you? So if you want to write a blockbuster, TV’s not for you – there’s not the budget. If you want to write graphic horror for TV, either forget it, write a 18-certificate movie script or do a Hitchcock and box-clever – and use the power ofsuggestion.
Do you think television has dumbed the imagination? Why do you or don’t you think so?
Television’s an awfully big place –you could say the BBC has dumbed down with its reality shows, but at the same time it tries to fulfil its Reithian remit to educate and edify - look at all the historical, arts and culture and natural history programming it produces –it’s still world-beating.
But look, as writers or viewers we should be able to watch anything and know that it could spark an original idea or a unique spin on the norm. So ‘dumbing down’ is more of a state of mind in that case.
Chris Thurmott is currently completing an MA in Television Scriptwriting at De Montfort University. He has written and performed for the stage including his short play Termination (Southwark Playhouse, 2012). He has written and is currently script editor for the thrice-weekly radio drama Huntsford (Huntingdon Community Radio). He is also working with a victim support company to help victims of crime through drama and writing a pantomime for the district guides in his local area.
What is your opinion on the state of Television compared with ten years ago?
I think we’ve seen an evolution in television in the last decade – we were already seeing the beginnings of the explosion in the number of channels – freeview boxes and early internet use – that’s gone through the roof now. The proliferation of channels and viewing options means that the sense of communal viewing – that ‘water cooler’ moment in the office the next morning has as a result disappeared or is disappearing.
You’re as likely to talk to someone who just happens to be watching the same DVD box set as you are, someone who saw what a channel broadcast the night before. There is the Twittersphere – that can give us a sense of viewing trends, but for instance I went on Twitter to gauge reaction to the last series of Doctor Who. And the reaction was 50-50 polarised – either it was younger tweeters saying it was ‘awesome’ or older viewers who just couldn’t get into it for various reasons (myself included).
What that means for TV commissioners is that they’ve got the unenviable task of guessing what these fractured audiences might enjoy watching, with less money and more pressure to have a hit. It’s a ‘wilderness of mirrors’ for them, and for us as writers, even more difficult to pitch shows and ideas, because the reality is as William Goldman famously said about Hollywood:“No one knows anything.”
Do you think reality television has had a positive or negative effect on the standard of television programming?
Well, the obvious answer would be that it’s been negative – you can argue that producers have hit upon an endless stream of programming that’s engaging to watch and low-rent. Now I might say I have no interest in any of it, but then something slightly slicker comes along, like The Apprentice, with all its colourful characters, conflicts, people you love to
hate, people you root for. Someone on the MA course in my year said he thought
it was the best drama on TV for those reasons and he may have been right.
That’s the ‘reality’ show – it’s cleverly edited to maximise the drama, or sense of drama
– but it’s a media construct like any other programme. I think there’s a lot of ‘writing’ going on in these shows, but not in the sense we as writers or would-be writers understand or could find employment in, because narratives are being constructed by the participants, the producers, the directors and editors.
This becomes clear when we watch the follow-up programme, You'veBeen Fired! – suddenly we see behind the mask, if you like and realise so-and-so wasn’t so bad after all, they’ve had a make-over not just in terms of their appearance but we see how they are okay as people. That transformation is itself is another form of media construct, of course!
Which is the medium you think is the best one to work in? (TV, Stage or Radio)
Well for obvious reasons, I have become quite fond of stage-work of late! It’s a real hands-on experience as a writer, particularly as I also produce – it’s a chance to see your work come to life before your eyes. I had an odd experience when I was watching rehearsals for our initial run (I went to all of them over a period of 6 weeks). In about week 4, I forgot I’d written it and was just watching these characters interacting. That’s testament to the skill of our cast, of course.
I guess in TV, there’s a lot less control for writers as soon as the production process kicks in –it becomes far more remote, creatively. Who knows if many writers are that pleased with the eventual product?
Is it possible to adapt any story into any medium or should the medium be decided upon before the story can get going?
A good story could and should work in any medium. I said to Toby Whithouse that I thought the premise of Being Human (a vampire, a werewolf and a ghost share a flat), sounded like the set-up for a sitcom. I have to say he was fairly non-plussed by this! But he agreed that if a premise is strong enough, it can be adapted to any genre or form.
Is Radio drama stronger now than it has ever been?
Well that’s hard for me to answer. I had some experience of creating some radio shorts back in the last century, when we were still analogue (using quarter-inch tape, yellow chalk markers and razor blades!) Beyond that I submitted a radio script to Writersroom a couple of years back and the initial reader’s report was enthusiastic that (probably in the light of my own earlier production experience), I understood the potential of the medium. A second draft was read and reported the opposite!
My guess is that many writers still think of radio as an easier route to get a broadcast credit and having been knocked back by TV, try it instead. As a result that has now become over-subscribed; so if it is stronger than before that may be because there are so many more writers trying to get in and producers can cherry-pick the best of them.
Is the apparent lack of competition in radio drama a bad thing? For example does Radio Drama suffer slightly from only having the BBC as a main broadcaster?
For writers to only have one serious outlet for long-form radio drama is less than ideal. Of course, if you do break through, then there’s more kudos with it. I do know a few writers in commercial radio who work on short-form dramas, but hardly anyone speaks on commercial radio these days, even the DJs, so they’re doing that in addition to writing copy for adverts and so forth rather than making a living out of it.
Should there be or does there have to be a difference in the way characters talk to one another depending on the medium?
Well I think Paul Bettany’s character in The Da Vinci Code wouldn’t work well on the radio! But seriously, in TV it’s all ‘show don’t tell’ - in radio you are trying to create a world in the mind’s eye, so the use of sound is crucial in creating a sense of place and atmosphere. In terms of characters and dialogue, in radio you’re trying to avoid lines like:
”Is that a gun you’re holding?”
“Yes and it’s pointed straight at you” !
I saw a one-act stage play a while back that was clearly written for the radio that was totally dialogue-driven
(and I’m sure worked brilliantly in that arena) but it was a bore to watch.
Does good writing work regardless of the medium?
Well, I think that if you create characters that people identify with, understand their motivations and invest in a journey of discovery with them, willing them on to achieve their needs, then it doesn’t matter about the medium or the genre, whether that’s a thriller, a romantic-comedy or whatever.
Does television require more imagination from an audience member because there are so many other distractions available?
It’s not so much imagination as a question of focus. I think most writers are appalled at this, but the reality is I think viewing habits have changed because of laptop technology. For a lot of people, TV is a background activity that they’ll occasionally look up at while they’re on Facebook or Twitter, or whatever they’re doing on the computer.
So that’s tough for television producers and writers. Having said that, the use of I-player and similar apps means that some people are even more critical of TV and paying much closer attention to it because they are totally focused on what they invest their time in watching. That there are ever-more realistic looking computer games with a narrative the player can dictate and a proliferation of movie adaptations of stories that are already popular (novels, comic books), means TV has to compete that much harder.
Do Television programmes have to written better because there are so many other alternatives?
As I say, people have these other options so it’s harder for TV to break through. Doctor Who is an interesting example of how the TV execs seem to be thinking: "If we make it looklike a blockbuster movie (the show never looked better in terms of production values), sound like one, have lots of explosions and action and big speeches;then that will grab an audience’s attention".
But this is Doctor Who for an ADHD audience. It’s all become about the feelings of the characters and not really about sci-fi anymore –so the older audience members who remember classic Who are alienated, but the younger generation love it – so there’s the audience split.
Is a story’s success dependant on the medium it’s being transmitted through?
I still think TV is the medium that reaches the most people, but this fractured audience we’re seeing, with all the options and platforms we can watch through puts a new spin on something being successful.
Going back to the DVD box set watching experience, I suppose there are viewers who feel disenfranchised if they don’t
have Sky, so there’s shows that become successful through word-of-mouth and people discover via DVD, like Game of Thrones, that they can then watch as much or as little of as they please.
The days of making an appointment to sit in front of the telly to watch a show are definitely on the way out.
The whole House of Cards deal with Netflix - that may be a model for TV production that just takes the whole
broadcasting concept out of the equation – you pay upfront and get the whole series online and TV
doesn’t really matter. I’m sure as technology evolves, there’ll be more and more ways to get stories out there.
But look, what makes a story a success? I’ve been talking about commercial viability and ratings, but I’m sure there are some independently-produced dramas up on Youtube that tell great stories. Anyone can write ‘TV’ in that sense; anyone can be a producer or a ‘studio’. So as a writer, there are lots of possibilities to write, not necessarily make a living out of it.
If a story fails to work in a particular medium, is that the fault of the story being unable to fit other mediums, or the fault of the medium being too restrictive and “set in its ways”?
I’m sure we can all think of TV shows or movies where the performances and the direction let the script down. We can see that the writing was good, but all the other stuff- that’s usually out of the writer’s hands.
In terms of television, without opening a Pandora’s Box here about censorship and the watershed, TV can tell any story you want. But if you’re frustrated by the limitations of TV as a medium, why are you trying to write it? You write for the medium you got fired up by, don’t you? So if you want to write a blockbuster, TV’s not for you – there’s not the budget. If you want to write graphic horror for TV, either forget it, write a 18-certificate movie script or do a Hitchcock and box-clever – and use the power ofsuggestion.
Do you think television has dumbed the imagination? Why do you or don’t you think so?
Television’s an awfully big place –you could say the BBC has dumbed down with its reality shows, but at the same time it tries to fulfil its Reithian remit to educate and edify - look at all the historical, arts and culture and natural history programming it produces –it’s still world-beating.
But look, as writers or viewers we should be able to watch anything and know that it could spark an original idea or a unique spin on the norm. So ‘dumbing down’ is more of a state of mind in that case.
Chris Thurmott is currently completing an MA in Television Scriptwriting at De Montfort University. He has written and performed for the stage including his short play Termination (Southwark Playhouse, 2012). He has written and is currently script editor for the thrice-weekly radio drama Huntsford (Huntingdon Community Radio). He is also working with a victim support company to help victims of crime through drama and writing a pantomime for the district guides in his local area.
