Watching the Dawson's Pilot AgainComplications Ensue
Complications Ensue:
The Crafty Screenwriting, TV and Game Writing Blog


April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

November 2015

December 2015

January 2016

February 2016

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

December 2017

January 2018

March 2018

April 2018

June 2018

July 2018

October 2018

November 2018

December 2018

January 2019

February 2019

November 2019

February 2020

March 2020

April 2020

May 2020

August 2020

September 2020

October 2020

December 2020

January 2021

February 2021

March 2021

May 2021

June 2021

November 2021

December 2021

January 2022

February 2022


Sunday, May 10, 2009

We just re-watched the first four episodes of DAWSON'S CREEK for research for the pilot we're writing for The N. What strikes me about the show -- the "secret," if you will -- is a series of disconnects.

The fifteen-year-olds are, as usual, played by actors who are obviously not fifteen: James van der Beek is 21, Katie Holmes is 20, Joshua Jackson is 20 and only Michelle Williams, at 18, is a teenager. That's normal. It's pretty rare for a show about minors to be played by minors; that's why DEGRASSI was such a revelation. It's more expensive to shoot with minors, they don't have the same level of acting chops, they have bad complexions, they can't sign their own contracts, it's a pain.

But you can cast 18-year-olds who look 16, and Kevin Williamson didn't do that. James van der Beek has enough forehead wrinkles to pass as 30, and Joshua Jackson towers over his teachers.

And they talk like 30 year olds. Not just ordinary 30-year-olds. They talk like 30-year-olds who have had five years of therapy. Kevin Williamson raises on-the-nose dialog to an art form. With the exception of Katie Holmes's Joey, the characters say exactly what's on their mind to a degree that only people in really good marriages do in real life. They say what they feel, what they're scared of, what they think the other person thinks... I think it's safe to say that 15-year-olds don't make a habit of confessing themselves to their loved ones. I think it's safe to say that most 15-year-olds only have a fairly vague idea of what they're scared of.

Aside from raising the subtext to text, the conversation is highly literary -- very much dialog that sounds written rather than spoken. Complex sentences, literary locations -- the actors almost carry it off convincingly but it still winds up sounding wordy.

This is not how I write dialog, myself. I try very hard to have my characters sound like they're struggling to get their thoughts out, while revealing more than they mean to, and failing to get across all of what they really mean. But obviously it was an experiment that turned out rather well. Can't argue with 128 episodes.

Meanwhile, the characters have the innocence of pre-teenagers. At least, Dawson, Joey and Jen do. In the first four episode, Dawson aspires to kissing Jen, and then gets bent out of shape when he discovers that she is (gasp!) not a virgin. And she, an alleged New Yorker, feels guilty over not being a virgin. Meanwhile, Pacey comes onto his English teacher, but when she calls his bluff and offers to do him in a classroom at night, he chickens out. In my experience, straight 15-year-old guys don't aspire to kiss the girl except as a prerequisite to getting to the other bases. And had any hot female teacher offered to have sex with me anywhere when I was 15, I believe I would have a story to tell. I can't speak for the 90's, but when I was in high school, fifteen was hardly an unusually early time to lose your virginity. Granted, I went to Dalton, a pretty fast school. But these days, whether rainbow parties actually exist or not, 15-year-olds are definitely sexting and hooking up.

So there's a disconnect there too.

And the guys, talking amongst themselves, talk like women. Pacey spends much of a scene working himself up to telling Dawson that he had sex with Ms. Jacobs, apologizing all over himself, worried that Dawson will think less of him somehow. As opposed to what you'd expect between 15 year old guys:
  • Pacey enters, shuts door.
  • Pacey
  • Dude, you'll never guess who I had sex with last night!

  • Dawson
  • Your hand?

  • Pacey
  • Eat me. No. I totally had sex with Ms. Jacobs!

What does all this mixing up give the show?

First of all, the actors are a lot hotter than actual 15-year-olds would be. And we feel safe digging their hotness. I'm sure I'm not the only guy who felt relieved when Emma Watson had her 18th birthday. Do you really want to see a 15-year-old girl having sex on screen? That's going to be a bit pervy, innit?

Second, the mixing up spreads out the demographics of the show. Adults can watch it because the characters are in some ways emotionally 30. You can let your 12 year old watch it because the only transgressive sex is clearly and repeatedly labelled as transgressive and problematic. Teens can watch it because it is theoretically about their lives, if they happened to live in a resort town.

The female-friendly male dialog isn't accidental either. A show about relationships is bound to skew female. So it's no wonder that Dawson is written in some ways like a girl or a gay guy. (I wonder how autobiographical the show is, given that Kevin Williamson, the creator, is a handsome gay guy.) Any time you're writing about guys in relationships, you have to either fake it and have them talk like women, or you have to bust out all your writer's tricks to illuminate their emotions: have their girlfriends enunciate their emotions for them, or have the conversation where he's talking about some other person but he's really talking about himself, etc.

And then, of course, you have a title character who is written like a massive dweeb: he's insensitive and selfish, and relates to women only through a filter of being a film buff. He's the kind of guy who avoids going to the dance and sits at home watching John Travolta movies, and who films his first kiss with the girl he's hot for, because it's not real for him unless it's on film. If you were being realistic, you'd cast the young Woody Allen.

But then we'd lose interest. So you cast an extremely handsome and charming actor, and just go on writing the show as if he's a dweeb who doesn't know how to kiss a girl. (A problem, I suspect, that James van der Beek never had growing up.) It's an old TV trick. 30 ROCK stars Tina Fey, who is at a minimum a very handsome woman, and writes her as if she's nerdy and overweight. For NAKED JOSH, we wrote Josh as if he didn't have a clue about women, and cast David Julian Hirsh, who has leading man looks. In WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, Sally's kind of a bitch, really; except that Meg Ryan plays her, and she's just as cute as a bug in a rug.

It's funny to see just how much of a fantasy a supposedly realistic drama like DAWSON'S CREEK really is. It's not just the resort atmosphere and the good-looking cast. It's not just the twenty-something actors playing teens. It's a whole texture of fantasies that allows Williamson to tell the stories and allows the characters to be so much more transparent and the stories more illuminating than they might be in a more "realistic" show -- while drawing and holding the widest possible audience.

Not than anyone needs me to say it but ... nicely, nicely done, Mr. Williamson.



This is all very astute, but I want to take issue with your boast that "at 15, you would have had a story to tell." One of the things I like about that emotional beat is that it lays bare a pretty commons disconnect between performing and enacting for boys, even for men. Boys learn that they want sex all the time, no matter what, and in an itchy but abstract way they do, yet when they're faced with a girl who wants them as hungrily as they've been performing their own desire, they often freeze up, confused by a change in the script. So kudos to Williamson for staging that.

By Blogger Wrongshore, at 5:50 PM  

Brilliant post! Nice to see you get 'nuts-and-bolts' at length. I've always been a logic-based writer (reality-based, if you will), so your concept of deliberate 'mixing it up' is brand new to me. And quite amazing. Don't know if I'll do it deliberately, but it sure sounds like a great excuse if someday I'm confronted with logic problems (disconnects) in a story I've written that nevertheless works.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:01 AM  

Wrongshore is right, I'm 25 and, if i remember my 15's, i can more easily relate to the show's characters than to your experience, Alex.

I got to agree on the wordy dialogue but, if i remember right, there were many teenagers who thought and discussed their relationships in that faction, i was one of them, my best friend another. Not all teens are like that, fô shô, but some are, and i think those were the type of characters the writers were aiming for.

Oh, and i would crap my pants if my Portuguese teacher in 10th grade would hit on me. She was, like, wow, like, hot.

By Blogger kadgi, at 7:27 AM  

Funny, these are all reasons I never liked Dawson's Creek. I liked Buffy. Buffy was fun. Dawson's Creek was always so IMPORTANT. I'd rather get my important metaphors through vampire attacks than a conversation between pretty actors who say everything they feel.

But you're right, you can't argue with ratings. Lots of people liked it.

By Blogger Emily Blake, at 10:51 AM  

Funny that you should say that about the ages of the actors.

I just checked the cast for the Vampire Diaries (developped by Williamson) and it's the same problem.
They're supposed to be about 16/17 and i believe none of the actors are going to be below 25.

Considering the books he's basing the show on, he's got a lot of leeway as there's no real world building or character building. They can pretty much do anything with it. I sure hope they will not follow the books cause as much as i find the twilight books poor, the VD books are worse.

By Blogger Skyfleur, at 10:03 AM  

I'd like to buy your book Crafty TV writing. But shipping it to my country is much more expensive than the book itself (and I can't be sure it will arrive)

Is there an electronic version of the book I can buy?

By Blogger 2b, at 5:16 AM  

There isn't yet an electronic version, but you can ask Amazon for a Kindle edition and they will pester my publisher.

I'll also pester my publisher.

What country are you in?

By Blogger Alex Epstein, at 9:24 AM  

I'm from Argentina. I researched a little more and it turns out the shipping costs about the same than the book. And Amazon doesn't give an ETA for the book for my country.

The Kindle is an interesting option, but I'd have to buy one first :)

Thank you

By Blogger 2b, at 3:31 PM  

BTW see if the shipping is different from different Amazons. or might be cheaper, who knows?

By Blogger Alex Epstein, at 5:19 PM  

I watched the pilot episode when it first aired, but couldn't get past the fact that Dawson, an alleged film geek and Spielberg-phile (aka, me, at that age), had a freaking HOOK poster on his wall.

By Blogger Matt, at 2:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.

This page is powered by Blogger.