This is an interview with John Yorke, who was the executive producer of Eastenders from 1999-2002. In his time with the show, he brought high ratings to the UK soap and immense critical acclaim. Now, he's head of continuing drama series for the BBC. I think a lot of the stuff he says in this interview holds true to US soaps too, so if you're interested in it, watch it.

If only US soaps had quality EP's and writers like some of their UK counterparts.

You'll need Real Player to view it.

The link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/w...m=1&bbram=1

You'll need Real Player to view it.

This is a short outline of what he said. I may have left some things out, but oh well.

New writers should love the shows they're writing for, but also have a distinct voice. If you're going to write for a continuing drama series, you should at least know some of the history of the show.

You must be able to capture the voice of the characters and you must structure your stories, because it's essential to creating characters.

Continuing drama series' are made and based on the success of individual characters. Soaps like Eastenders and Casualty are remembered for the people who inhabit them.

A good writer should be able to distinguish characters from one another. He said that if you have a script and you cover the character names in that script, the person who reads that script should and must be able to know who is talking. In other words, a writer must capture voice.

Character and story are the same thing. Character is an expression of story and vice versa.

Writers should not write character in a way where the character and script is telling the audience who the character is. Doing so doesn't create drama or very good drama. The audience must learn about the character from what the character does. In other words, behavior demonstrates character, not words. When there's a difference between what the character says and does, you have subtext and subtext is what makes drama come alive, so it's essential. He said subtext or underlying meaning is at the heart of every good script.

He said most of the shows he's in charge of are multi-protagonist dramas. For example, Eastenders will tell up to six stories in every episode. He said the key to write such dramas successfully is to have every story reflect upon a common theme. He said Eastenders' former Lead-Writer Tony Jordan was very good at this. He said that even though there were different stories and views in every episode, Jordan would title his episodes after a theme he wanted to emote to the audience. For example, he would name an episode 'Jealously' and would attempt to show different facets of the one theme, some would be subtle and under the radar, while others would be obvious. He likens it to Shakespeare, where you'll have a serious main story and a comedic sub-plot, but fundamentally they'll be about the same facet of human behavior and in the end about what the writer wants to investigate.

Edited July 8, 200718 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

Thank you, Y&RWorldTurner! I hope more people will watch and discuss it, of course!

I watched it earlier and meant to say thanks Y&RWORLD TURN for posting that. It's really a worth to look at. He really knows what he's talking about.

The problem is that I think most American soap execs, writers, etc. are delusional enough to believe they are following all the rules.

Edited July 9, 200718 yr by Faulkner

I wish he we had him and Tony Jordan here in the US writing for our soaps.

I found this quote from another interview with another former EastEnders EP, Louise Berridge. It's pretty interesting.....

LB: The last thing was a show called Messiah, a co-production with Paramount, the first time I’ve worked with American television directly. The difference was interesting to work on. I gave a talk to a bunch of students from Syracuse University. They came to London. It was fascinating getting their reactions to watching EastEnders, and the difference between American television and British television. They were awestruck about how unglamorous it was—that we show ordinary-looking people, which is something I noticed again working with Paramount. That we like things to go really real, not necessarily pretty but real. I don’t want to make a big generalization, but would you say that’s a big difference?

WG: That is the reason why I’m attracted to EastEnders—that it represents real life. There has never been a serious show on American television that covers contemporary working class people. Also, Americans regard EastEnders as a drama, not a soap.

Louise Berridge is hated all over the place.

Louise Berridge is hated all over the place.

I know, she was a horrible EP at EastEnders. She introduced too many new characters that were horrible. However, I did find the quote interesting. Anyway, with or withour Berridge, EastEnders still sucks.

However, I did find the quote interesting.

Yes, it is interesting.

Anyway, with or withour Berridge, EastEnders still sucks.

Unfortunately, true.

I wish he we had him and Tony Jordan here in the US writing for our soaps.

I would love to see a a British or Australian soap writer to take a shot at Head Writing an American soap. I wonder if it could work. It could be interesting.

I would love to see a a British or Australian soap writer to take a shot at Head Writing an American soap. I wonder if it could work. It could be interesting.

I said it ages ago, no-one listened. No-one even commented on the idea.