CS Weekly Archive > From the Trenches > 02/16/07

Romance, College, and

Other Humorous Pastimes:
Starter for 10's David Nicholls

by peter clines

David Nicholls talks about finding a voice, writing a humorous novel, and how years of screenwriting experience helped him adapt it into a great romantic comedy script.

David Nicholls was already a successful screenwriter in Great Britain (Simpatico, Aftersun) when he was struck with the desire to write his first novel, Starter for Ten. Named after the opening catchphrase of the quiz show, the novel follows Brian (James McAvoy) a working-class youth who's smart enough to earn a place at Bristol University, but not quite wise enough to survive there. An unusual story in setting and structure, it came as a surprise to Nicholls when the book became a huge success and was optioned for a motion picture (see review, below).

Having now finished The Understudy, his second, equally acclaimed novel, Nicholls took some time out to trade a few emails across the Atlantic with CS Weekly and talk about books versus film, American comedy versus British comedy, and adapting his own work to meet studio and audience expectations.

The novel for Starter for 10 was released in the states as A Question of Attraction. Why the name change? Was it your idea?
The book was originally called Starter for 10—in the U.K., it's a widely known catchphrase from the TV quiz show. Obviously, outside the U.K., this means nothing, though it's made clear fairly early on in the movie. The U.S. publishers asked to change the title to A Question of Attraction. I can see the reasoning, but I still prefer the original title—it's a little obscure, perhaps, but intriguing, I hope. Also, in the U.K., the novel's been a big bestseller, so we didn't want to lose that audience.

When you wrote the novel, were you thinking about a screen adaptation?
Not consciously. Brian's voice came first, and prose seemed the natural vehicle for that voice. I found myself just splurging 1,500 words a day of this character's thoughts and observations, but because it was all first-person, present-tense, it seemed far too internal and discursive to ever make a movie. Most of the humor seemed to come from the tone, the observations, the irony, and I wasn't sure how to get that across in a screenplay. Also, there's an unspoken rule in U.K. cinema that student movies don't work. There's no college-movie genre here; university is seen as a little elitist, stuck-up, not an appealing location for a mainstream movie. So, who would ever make it?

But when people read the book, they all said the same thing—it's a movie. And sure enough, when you strip away the narrator's voice, you're still left with quite a recognizable coming-of-age love story. The University Challenge quiz show gives it a structure and a plot-motor, too—like a sports movie, but with general knowledge instead of baseball. But it is different from the book: it's less episodic, less discursive and observational.

How did you end up adapting your own novel into the screenplay?
It was part of the deal. The novel is based on very personal experiences, so I'd have hated to see someone else take it away. And I was a screenwriter before I ever wrote a novel, so I had some idea of the process—that it would be collaborative, and would involve drastic changes, a stronger sense of genre, a less ambiguous ending. Once I'd accepted that, it wasn't an unpleasant process at all.

You've done a few screen adaptations before. Do you have a regular method for how you go about adapting materials for the screen?
A familiarity and love of the material are the main priorities. I've adapted Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing for the BBC, one of the happiest writing jobs I've ever had, despite the evident sacrilege involved. In that instance, it was really a case of using the play, which I adore, as a springboard, a starting point—not so much an adaptation as a re-imagining. It was a very, very loose reworking—an attempt to point up the similarities between Shakespeare's play and the classic romantic comedy, a form that Shakespeare pretty much invented. Of course, the moment you lose the language, it stops having much to do with 'Shakespeare,' though we were surprisingly close to the original in terms of plot, structure and tone.

I've also adapted Sam Shepard, his play Simpatico (with Matthew Warchus). In that case, the approach was much more editorial: cutting, reshaping, relocating, 'opening out'. The worst thing to do would be to write a sort of faux-Shepard, so nearly every word was Sam's.

We've just been editing the movie version of Blake Morrison's memoir, And When Did You Last See Your Father?—a different challenge again. As a memoir, it's very episodic and poetic, with nothing like the structure of a conventional movie narrative, and far less dramatic tension. So the challenge there has been to give a shape to Blake's memories without becoming too conventional, and without overly distorting the truth (or Blake's version of it).

So no, no real technique, apart from an absolute absorption of the source material, a love of it.

Is it harder to adapt your own work? Do you feel yourself clinging to some scenes or moments longer than you know you should? Or is it a nice second chance at the story?
It's great to have a second look, and it meant that I got to tighten up the story a little—cut down the cast of characters, refine some dialogue, elaborate on some roles. And yes, there were definitely scenes that I was loath to lose, either at script stage or in the edit. But I also know that a faithful adaptation would have been four hours long, and deathly. I like to think I've learned a huge amount in the process about the difference between what's funny in prose and funny on screen.

The greatest difference between the book and the film—completely out of my control—comes from what a cast brings to the script. And I really love this cast. They're exceptional, I think.

Brian's a bit odd as a screen hero because throughout the story he screws up constantly (with Alice, Alice's folks, Rebecca, his teammates, his mom, his friends). Was that harder to write for a script?
I think it's a staple of British humor—the likeable fool. Perhaps we enjoy fallibility more than an American audience. I certainly don't find it hard to write —self-deprecation comes very easily to me, and quite right, too. I think, in the movie, we're blessed with a particularly stunning actor, James McAvoy, who keeps Brian likeable, charming and charismatic even when he's screwing-up. Also, in the movie, he's a little more physically attractive, and less of a consistent buffoon than in the novel. The novel is pretty much one idiotic episode after another, and we've toned that down a little.

Do you relate well to Brian, and his ongoing quest for cleverness over wisdom?
Certainly the book was an attempt to recapture my 19-year-old self, which is perhaps why it was so quick to write—five months to first draft. I like to think, 20 years later, I tend a little more towards wisdom, but I certainly have that male insecurity about wanting to appear knowledgeable—shouting out the answers at the TV during quizzes, that kind of idiocy.

Having been on both sides of it now, what do you think is the essential point of a good adaptation? On the other hand, what do you think can absolutely kill one?
A fidelity to the spirit of the original, but also a healthy, tough-minded ruthlessness. Things are going to change—they have to. The most faithful adaptation I can think of, John Mortimer's TV adaptation of Brideshead Revisited, is wonderful, and startlingly faithful. It's also 12 hours long—about the same length of time it takes to read the novel, perhaps longer. It's incredibly rare to have that luxury, so you've got to be tough, and ingenious, in your approach to the material, whilst still retaining a love and respect for it.

I think one of the finest adaptations is All The President's Men—a very smart, exciting reworking of potential dry source material. It grips like a thriller, yet no one dies. My least favorite is Breakfast at Tiffany's. I'm bemused by the popularity of that film—it's so coarse and clod-hopping compared to the elegance of the novella.

You're doing very well as a novelist and also as a screenwriter for feature films and television. Not many people can strike that balance. How do you manage it?
It's hard, because I love doing both so much. The best thing about writing scripts is that it's so collaborative, and the worst thing about writing scripts is it's so collaborative. But so far I've been lucky enough to work with fantastic people. I love the novel as a form in itself and try to make sure that they're not screenplays in disguise, but good book ideas don't come along that often. I think I've finally got an idea that seems right, so I'm just getting that started. The theory is that I write both at the same time. That's the theory.

Peter Clines has had a lifelong love affair with the movies. He grew up in New England, where he studied English literature and education, and now lives and writes somewhere in Southern California. If anyone knows exactly where, he would appreciate a few hints.

David Nicholls, Starter for 10 courtesy Picturehouse

From the Trenches
Working screenwriters discuss in their own words a particular aspect of screenwriting, from the mechanics of writing to the personal and professional impact that writing has had on their lives. > VIEW ARCHIVE

The Art of Craft
Screenwriting experts discuss how to approach various aspects of writing and the writing life. A mini-seminar each week from the people who write the books and teach the classes. > VIEW ARCHIVE

The Big Picture

Features that cover all aspects of screenwriting, from our "Seven Best" lists to analysis of old favorites and new classics. > VIEW ARCHIVE

Expert Witness
A panel of experts assembled to provide the facts about the screenwriting business. Readers will be able have their questions answered by an agent, producer, entertainment attorney, and WGA representative—and without paying that 10% commission. > VIEW ARCHIVE

Son of a Pitch
A weekly tutorial on how to write a script. Each week deals with a different element of creating a script, with the ultimate goal to provide a step-by-step instruction manual for new writers. The guide for this is a writer just diving into screenwriting himself, who asks the pros questions any new screenwriter would have about this brave new world. > VIEW ARCHIVE

Weekend Read
Film, book, web site and technology reviews from a writer’s perspective. How can these items help a writer on his or her journey, or make that journey more enjoyable? > VIEW ARCHIVE

DVD Review of the Day
DVD reviews from a writer’s point of view. What aspects of this script and features of this DVD illuminate the writing, development, and storytelling process? > VIEW ARCHIVE