Enquiring Minds Want To Know

It's hard to remember my expectations at the start of the project. To be honest, at that stage, you're just worrying about yourself -- is it crap? Have I got it right? And will I ever get the bloody scripts in on time? There's not that much of a bigger picture, just day-to-day concerns. It's funny when I hear people who like the show talk about it in grand terms -- it's about love, it's about the journey into adulthood, becoming a man, it's about finding a family, etc. I never think in those terms. I thought it was about Stuart, Vince, and Nathan, simple as that. Though paradoxically, when people are slagging it off, now I'll stand up and defend it, armed with hindsight, saying, "It's about love! It's about family!" Haha, I've only just realised that. Thanks Jackie, I'm a twat!

della femina: Your new series, about a gay man who falls in love with a woman (and which sounds similar to the supposed spin-off series about Hazel and Bernard that we'd read rumours about), is being produced for ITV.

Russell T. Davies: Yes, a word about Hazel and Bernard, et al, just to clear that up. After QAF2 was written, I realised there was room for a spin-off -- a different show -- called Misfits: Hazel, Bernie, Alexander, maybe the return of Donna, and a whole raft of new characters. Not one hundred percent gay -- that's why it was called Misfits, a bunch of people who don't fit in anywhere; that notion of the invented, extended family. Channel Four loved it, made me work on it for five months; I wrote four scripts, twenty-two storylines, [and] then they said no. Fair enough, that's their prerogative. And to this day, none of us knows why! God, try getting a straight answer from them. Strange TV business -- but it's always like that. Shame, the scripts were fab; I can write bollocks sometimes, but they did work. Oh well. But it was never about Hazel and Bernard falling in love! Haha! Oh, my eyes.

della femina: But Hazel married the copper and Bernard became a porn baron, as far as we knew. How'd you work around that?

Russell T. Davies: Well, Bernie being a porn baron just meant he was working as a hospital porter, and made judicious use of a camcorder before the anaesthetic wore off...Blimey, how does my mind work? So you'd just send him off to work every other episode. But Hazel marrying the lovely PC, Des Stroud, was the backbone of the entire series. Cos it was a marriage just doomed to failure; though he's a lovely bloke, and loves Hazel completely, she actually marries him for a bit of financial stability -- Vince really did keep that house afloat -- and, more importantly, because she's bereft, practically in mourning. Her son -- the man she's spent 30 years with, seeing him practically every day -- ups and disappears, and she's left with no one. And there's Des. His story was fab, too -- a good, law-abiding man, thrown into this world of misfits, and actually loving it. So the series started three episodes before the wedding, and then charted the gradual decline of two lovely, well-meaning people who've trapped themselves. That sounds miserable, [but] it was very funny too.

I think I'm like this because I worked on soaps for so long. In soaps, with a team of writers, no one person ever really owns a story. It's everyone's. And further back, even when I was a student -- we're in black and white now -- I directed a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream in which -- considering it can be the lightest and flimsiest of plays -- I stripped out all the comedy, and made it dark and sinister and nightmarish. So some people would say I ruined it -- some schoolteachers certainly did! But I thought it still worked, and the play survived. It was great, changing it radically.

The most important thing is to think of the U.S. version as a new show, a different show. Even before they'd written a word, a twenty-two episode series is a profoundly different thing, a different concept, to an eight-parter. The viewers who'll have the worst time are those who sit with UK tapes and U.S. tapes, comparing them line by line - "Stuart wouldn't say that!" etc. No he wouldn't, and that's why I wanted the character's names changed -- it's not Stuart, he's Brian. He's very, very similar to Stuart, but he's not the same -- and gets more different as the series goes on. For example, he's got a completely different family. And once you change the family and background, then the character really starts to change -- just as it should, if it's going to stay alive.

But this new show is for the U.S. market, where most people, even most gay men, haven't seen the original. Those viewers will have the best time, cos it'll be new. Doesn't mean they have to like it, but they can analyse it on its own terms. Maybe there's the prospect that, given the size of the U.S. series, and their powerful marketing, then to most people in a few years, the original will be sidelined and marginalised. But not in my mind! And I mean that: you can never predict or compensate for the reaction of others, so there's no point in worrying about it.

della femina: Despite rumours to the contrary which have appeared on the MBTV boards, the three main actors in the original series were straight men. Did you sense a backlash amongst any segments of the gay community for this, or was everyone just blown away by what an amazing job the actors did regardless of their sexuality?

Russell T. Davies: Oh, plenty of people moaned about it -- I can see their point, that's just another expression of years of repression and under-representation, blah blah blah. But you don't cast to make a political point, you cast to make good drama, full stop. We cast the three best actors, simple as that. We didn't ask in audition if they were straight or gay, because I believe you can't. If you're applying for a job at Tesco's, you shouldn't be asked if you're straight or gay, and acting's a profession, like any other.

Besides, gay, straight, labels, bollocks! You wouldn't believe the number of gay actors who came in to audition and immediately offered the information that they were straight. Sad, really. And how the hell would they have coped with the publicity? Nightmare.

della femina: It's been written that the second series of QAF would have been longer if not for the fact that it was difficult to persuade Aidan Gillen to return to the role of Stuart. Was he wary of being typecast?

Russell T. Davies: There was no difficulty getting Aidan to return. He asked to see the script, of course, then said yes straight away. I wonder myself if he'd have done a full run, but we never got that far. I don't like speaking on his behalf -- but here I am! -- but I don't think Aidan ever worries about typecasting, as such. He doesn't think like that. He didn't like being high profile -- none of us expected that with the show. Can't blame him, it's a weird thing.

della femina: How would the series have been different if you'd had, say, another six episodes with which to work?

Russell T. Davies: First of all, Channel Four asked for a ten-hour sequel, very happy with the whole thing. I sat down to write the first hour, not sure myself if it was going to work, or whether we should stop it. So when you're at that stage, not knowing if anything is going to proceed, you don't start booking actors. You can't. You contact the agents, to see if there's an interest; you can't make any other commitment. And all three expressed an interest, which was fine. I soon discovered that the ten-parter wouldn't work (or rather, that I didn't want to write it), so it didn't get any further than that; it immediately became a two-hour wrap-up. I decided two hours -- Channel Four would have taken two, four, six [hours], all were discussed. But I knew there were only two hours left before I repeated myself. So I suppose when I was vaguely plotting the aborted ten-hour version, I was considering alternatives if Aidan didn't want to do a full run. But I was doing the same for Craig [Kelly, who played Vince], and for Charlie [Hunnam, who played Nathan], even for Denise [Black, who played Hazel]. It's part of the job.

della femina: In watching the series, I was struck by how so many components -- the writing, the acting, the lighting, the music -- were done so well, coming together to create something quite magical. Did you realise whilst in production that you were an integral part of creating something that was going to be incredible when you put it all together? Is the finished product as you imagined it would be, and does it live up to the expectations you had when you started the project?

Russell T. Davies: Thanks for saying that. Because I'm the big old poof in charge of the writing, I tend to get a bit too much of the limelight, at the expense of the producer, Nicola Shindler. Who is simply a genius. Really. I think it's the best-produced and best-directed bit of telly I've seen in years. She knows exactly how to spend money on-screen, where to put resources, how to push and unify all the elements of design and lighting. Most producers don't have a clue.

So in the middle of production, I was absolutely sure we were creating something that looked good, with high standards and its own distinctive style. Though let's be honest, filming is long and boring and pissy and tense and sometimes calamitous, so you don't sit there and luxuriate in what you're doing, you're too busy worrying about tomorrow. And about getting a life.

There was a bit of a buzz in production, I suppose. We did know we were doing something...if not new, then different. But honestly, all that's tempered by the fact that we had no idea people would watch. Late night, Channel Four, gay? Ten thousand viewers, if you're lucky. No one foresaw this -- no one. So any buzz was immediately crippled by the thought, no one's going to see it! Even on the sequel -- oh, filming is just pressure! Rain, noise, behind schedule, etc. Anyone who enjoys filming is mad.

As for the finished product, I think it's far, far better than I could ever have imagined. Like the end of Episode Four, the script says 'Vince runs down the street' or something - and look at that shot! And Murray's music. Fabulous. And at the same time, having sat through filming, and the edit, and the dub, you can [see] the faults in all their glory: that crap extra in the background, that stupid shirt [on] the roof of Bernard's car, as he arrives at the wedding in QAF2 -- off, on, off again! There's always stuff you'd do differently, lines you'd write again. That sounds picky -- I still love it!

della femina: One of the main scenes which continually blows me away is the one in the second series where Nathan's sitting outside with Dazz, and he gives that great speech about how he's getting old -- at sixteen -- and can't waste time hanging around, then takes off and catches up with Vince and Stuart as they strut down Canal Street. Everything in that scene -- the lighting, the music, the dialogue, the delivery, the way the actors move -- is perfect. How could you have been such a huge, integral part of creating something so loved by so many people and not feel an immense pressure to be consistently brilliant? Or does knowing you've made that contribution to television -- and to people's lives -- free you up in a way; do you just think, "Oh, even if my series isn't as well-received or high-profile, I've done my bit"?

Russell T. Davies: Yes, that's funny, it does free you up a bit; if my gravestone has QAF engraved on it, then that's not bad! Thanks for saying that -- I'm quite bad at receiving praise, I mean, what can you say except "Thank you," feebly?! That scene is lovely, isn't it? That bloke who plays Nick Tandy -- the bloke who just walks past -- says he's still being recognised now! So it is lovely and wonderful to think that it means so much to people -- let's face it, it means that much to me, so I know how it feels. The odd thing is, that satisfaction has to exist alongside the fact that plenty of people hated it, and hate me as a result. Which is weird. Literally, there's one man in particular in Manchester who thinks I'm the devil. I was out last night, on Canal Street, and he was in the same pub. And for about two hours, all he did was stand there and stare at me. Absolute hatred -- which I'm used to now, but it's still weird. Oh, that sounds like a sob story -- fuck him, he's a nutter! But it's swings and roundabouts; for every bit of praise, there's someone who wants your blood.

della femina: But Hazel married the copper and Bernard became a porn baron, as far as we knew. How'd you work around that?

Craig Kelly had agreed to come back for the first four episodes, to marry off his mum, and Charlie had potentially agreed to come back for the wedding episode. Oh, such a shame. Though Antony Cotton was booked for the series, we wouldn't have seen Alexander as Alice Band -- I always presumed some of those QAF2 photos could be way in the future!

della femina: Now, I've only lived in Britain for a few years, but I have to say that I'm a bit surprised that this new series is going to air on ITV; out of all the terrestrial channels, it seems the least likely to show such a series. Have they asked you to handle the issues with kid gloves, or are they letting you have the freedom Channel Four granted you when you were writing QAF?

Russell T. Davies: They've given us complete freedom. But it's a different show -- it's called Bob & Rose, it's not QAF, it's got a different tone, a completely different story, and while bits of it might look the same -- cruising up and down Canal Street -- it's with a different intent. And that's my choice, no one from ITV censoring it -- honestly, they're fab and honest to deal with, it's a great relationship. So it won't be as explicit or as graphic as QAF, because it was never conceived to be. We're going for the nine o'clock slot. And this might surprise you, I can actually be prudish about stuff! I'm not sure that saying "fuck" feels comfortable at nine on ITV -- and bear in mind, plenty of nine o'clock ITV dramas do say "fuck," they're all right about it. But this whole story is much more delicate, it feels intrusive. It's not a bland or safe show; hopefully it's nicely radical underneath, but the tone and style are created entirely by the nature of the story, by the characters of Bob and Rose themselves -- they're fabulously ordinary, the last people on earth who'd think of themselves as radical or cutting-edge, so the story-telling suits their demands. I don't know, I'm still writing it, I finished episode three this morning.

Again, damned if you do and [damned if you don't]. You've just made me realise that people will say I'm writing with kid gloves. Oh, blimey. Fuck it, different show, with me in a different state of mind.

By the by, I don't think there is such a thing as ITV drama. I believe David Liddiment, head of the channel, would show anything if it's good. He once told me, to my face, that he would have shown QAF. And I worked for that man for many years, he just wouldn't lie, believe me. Maybe the odd compromising or hyped publicity statement, yeah, but I've done that, it's part of the game. Face to face, he's brutally honest. It's writers and producers who impose that ITV-ishness, not the channel. If they show rubbish sometimes, it's cos too many people submit rubbish. ITV made Cracker and Prime Suspect, two of the best shows ever. They made Band of Gold! Every bit as sexually raw and honest as QAF -- Band of Gold paved the way for QAF's sexual freedom far more than any other of the ancestors that are listed (This Life, etc). But of course, Band of Gold was massively popular -- what, fourteen million viewers? So it gets left off the list by cultural commentators. Snobbery again.

della femina: Is Nicola Shindler producing Bob & Rose?

Russell T. Davies: Oh yes, and I'll be co-producing as well. For the moment, I sort of think, "Why work with anyone else?" I hope -- though it's good to work with other people too -- that I'll always work with her.

della femina: Will you be working with her on The Second Coming, the four-hour series you're writing for Channel Four about the Son of God returning to Earth?

Russell T. Davies: Ah yes, that. I'm angry now. In fact, I fucking hate that channel. I spent ten months working on that, it was given a definite greenlight in May -- I'm sure you know, but a greenlight means it's absolutely commissioned, scheduled, etc, it's real -- I wrote all four hours, did about fifteen rewrites to everyone's satisfaction. Not only that, but I turned down other work, because Channel Four asked me to turn down other work. And then -- you can see where this is heading -- three weeks ago, they pulled out, the bastards.

I'd better just say that I don't expect anything I write to get made! Fair enough to turn an idea down. But I do have expectations, once it's greenlit. Ten months of my life gone! After five months working on Misfits. Hey ho, that's television. So don't expect anything of mine to crop up on Channel Four again, I've got the message.

della femina: So...The Son of God returning to Earth; not exactly your run-of-the-mill miniseries. How did you come up with the idea for that one?

Russell T. Davies: Just the best idea on planet earth -- I've been thinking of it for about eight years. Oh, I'd better move on...

della femina: Over in the U.S., John Goodman is starring in a series where he portrays a gay single father, living in the Midwest. I heard that and thought, "God, what Russell T. Davies could do with a show like that!" Are you at all worried about being known solely as a writer of gay-themed shows, or do you think your days of writing gay characters as peripherals to heterosexuals are over?

Russell T. Davies: God knows. I don't even worry about it, cos if you think about people's perception of you, then you start writing with that perception in mind, and it's compromise from there on. Again, it's so out of my control that I don't even worry about it. I'd be completely happy to write something one hundred percent straight, if I liked the story. Would commissioners question that, because I'd written it? Maybe there's a chance of that. But commissioners know that the vast majority of viewers don't pay attention to the writer's name -- they don't give a toss, they don't think about TV in that way.

della femina: True, but we're still waiting for you to have your name tacked on at the beginning of the titles of your series, à la Jimmy McGovern's 'The Lakes'.

Russell T. Davies: Haha, don't hold your breath! And doesn't that sound terrible? If ever I was offered that, I'd turn it down, sounds daft.

I still believe that if a script is good, then it will get made. I really believe that. So all I've got to do is keep writing well. That's enough of a pressure!

della femina: Entertainment Weekly, the bible of American entertainment news, recently put out an issue about how homosexual characters and storylines are becoming more prominent on American television. As an American, I've always been surprised and slightly awed at how (comparatively) nonchalantly gay storylines on British TV were handled; the fact that Brookside featured a lesbian kiss caused a bit of an uproar, but nothing like the same-sex kisses on Roseanne and Ellen, or the gay kiss that FOX wouldn't even air for an episode of Melrose Place. Would you be interested in creating a series for American television, or is it somewhere that you'd rather not venture, even if it is a (seemingly) more tolerant place these days?

Russell T. Davies: I don't really think about it, to be honest. Well, I'd love to write an episode of Buffy! Though imagine that -- blimey, talk about performance pressure, I'd probably write it so badly! It's not the tolerance issue that puts me off, it's just the fact that...Well, I love British TV; for all its faults, I'm happy working here. I'm just not that ambitious, in that sense. Then again, never say never...

della femina: Conservatives were never going to let Queer as Folk air without a snide remark or two, but the scenes depicting sex with a fifteen-year-old Nathan really gave them something to grab onto. Did Stuart having sex with Nathan strike you as a particularly abhorrent thing to do?

Russell T. Davies: Abhorrent? No, not at all! I think it was real. It would happen, could happen, does happen. That doesn't mean it should. Interesting, cos here we're entering into a discussion where I have to give a moral judgement, and I really try not to do that with characters and stories of my own. It limits your exploration of the scene. Can you write a truly amoral story? Discuss! I think the scene gets very confused in people's minds, because men are naked in it. And that still, seriously, blows a fuse in any analysis. I find it weird when gay boys -- bless 'em -- get off on that scene. I'm afraid I might be the author of quite a few wanks, there. I do find that strange, but then, we're conditioned to find scenes of consensual sex sexy, which isn't what I was doing. I think it's quite a scary scene. And funny, one doesn't rule out the other. It's complicated, in a good way -- scary, funny, tense, daft, important, irrelevant. And the sex is vital -- there's plenty of other times in the series where you don't see sex, but in episode one, the entire story, the Stuart/Vince/Nathan axis, starts with that shag. I think you need to see Nathan getting fucked, because it's his mind that's really being fucked. And the first bed scene is vital -- Nathan comes too soon, which makes him feel bound to Stuart, like he forever needs to make it up to him. So, in the end -- have I rambled on this one? I'm getting tired! -- I can see a whole list of adjectives applied to that scene. But all I care about is the story. Story and character are truthful, and that's my only job. Others can bring round the adjectives -- we'll have a party!

della femina: You share what might be charitably called a Doctor Who obsession with Vince; obviously, there's going to be a bit of you in whatever you write, including the characters, but is there any character in Queer as Folk with whom you particularly identify?

Russell T. Davies: No, honestly, I'm always asked this, but they all exist equally in your head -- they've got to, if you're going to write them properly.

della femina: Watching the series as a straight female -- and having heard from loads of friends that its clubs are the most fun -- I developed a deep desire for a night out on Canal Street. At the same time, everybody hates a tourist. Does it annoy you that gay men and lesbians can't keep this one area of their lives for themselves, or do you think people should get over themselves and just have a good time?

Russell T. Davies: Difficult. Depends on the mood I'm in. Sometimes straight people down on Canal Street really pisses me off, sometimes I think it's fine.

That's a long and complicated argument, cos areas like Canal Street are still growing up, and too many people think, stupidly, that growing up means attaining some sort of ideal, like there's a perfect state which can be reached. People don't bloody manage that, why should streets? But we go on imagining that one of two futures is possible: a completely gay space, or perfect assimilation, gay and straight. But the street itself will just ignore all our poncey theories, and go on evolving under its own steam, beyond our control and with no actual end to that evolution; it's a continual process.

della femina: I've just found out that a (boy) friend of a friend is dating Ben Maguire [Christian Hobbs], and I must confess to being a wee bit jealous. Apart from the men of QAF, you've also had the steaming hot likes of Robson Green and Kate Winslet appear in shows you've written. Which cast member(s) did you find particularly appealing?

Russell T. Davies: Honestly, I don't tend to fancy actors. Actors are mad -- who'd be an actor? I don't think I've ever slept with an actor. No, just thought about it, I haven't. I remember in a show I wrote for the BBC, Century Falls, the actor playing the manservant had the best arse I'd ever seen. Career highlight. No, I only looked. And there was one actor in The Grand I fancied like mad -- but I've just realised that everyone, and especially actors, does an internet search for their own name, and I'm not letting them find me out!

della femina: On Queer as Folk, Stuart makes good use of the Internet and, in particular, IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Did you have to do any, er, research on how one goes about hooking up with potential sex partners online?

Russell T. Davies: Um, strangely I seemed to know most of the relevant information. Which is why I wrote it, can't bear bloody research! The most research I did was on supermarkets -- most of which I ditched, it was too mad! There's a sitcom waiting to happen there. In Asda, if you work in the office, you're given a red baseball cap. You're allowed to put the cap on once a day, and when you do, your fellow workers can't interrupt you for two hours. If I put that in a script, they'd say I'm mad. I won't even bother you with the Fruit Identification Programme.

There you go, but tell you what, while I'm feeling chatty...I saw one question on your QAF forum, before it was archived, which asked, "What was QAF2 like before Donna was written out?" Good question, no one's ever asked that -- d'you mind if I rattle on about that? Talking about Misfits has sent me into flashback mode.

In the original QAF2, there was a lot less Dazz -- he filled the space Donna left. Basically, it picked up on the hint in [the first series], that Donna's mum had a boyfriend who was a bit dodgy, maybe even fancying Donna. That got a bit worse -- just a bit, still only hints -- but that story gave a chance for Nathan to do something for Donna for once, to show Nathan growing up and taking responsibility for others at last. So he packs Donna's bags and moves her into Hazel's! Resulting in a lovely but vile scene between Donna and Bernard's revolting sixty-year-old boyfriend, Raymondo: "Who's the fish?" Yuck! As you can see, rewrites always do you good, cos I loved the extra Nathan/Dazz stuff in the end, particularly Nathan and his mum in the kitchen after dinner.

Apart from that, Donna was just around in a lot of the scenes -- and stealing the limelight, as is her wont. Brilliant actress, she was so lovely. There's only a couple of points where I still miss her. Towards the end of the second hour, in the pub, Stuart talks to Nathan's mum, Janice - "He thinks you're God," etc. -- that was supposed to be Donna. And it's fine with Janice, but it's such a shame that Donna never spoke a word to Stuart on screen; that scene was invented to redress that. What a combination.

And then, in Dante's, Vince kills himself laughing when Stuart sees a man he fancies but Nathan steps in, snogs the man, and takes him home. Nice moment. But then, they were supposed to see Nathan and the man just walk past Donna, who's been abandoned, and she just stands there with an abandoned look -- just like Stuart has done to Vince a million times. So Vince stops laughing, and Stuart laughs at him. Nice. Never mind!

I think, then, Donna was with Nathan on Canal Street for the climax -- yes, of course she was, cos she was living at Hazel's, I think this is actually why she was living at Hazel's, really, to get everyone in the right place for the ending. So Donna sees Hazel and Bernie race off in the MG to stop Vince at the supermarket, and Donna runs off to school to tell Nathan, and Nathan runs off in pursuit, Donna following. I still hate the fact that, to get Nathan to Canal Street, Alexander phones him up. Why?! Alexander phones Nathan?! Since when were they friends?

But then, for the final Canal Street scenes, I'm fifty/fifty now. I loved Donna being there, cos it sort of spoke for a different future for Canal Street as Stuart hands over the keys, straight and gay mixed. Like Stuart and Vince are old hat, now. "Stick with your friends, and you'll be fine," Vince still says -- there's no bloody friend there! But the point still stands. And then again, the entire series was about those three boys, so I love the fact that now, it's just those three for the crucial moment. That's probably better.

Then, there'd been a few lines dotted throughout, of Donna taking a more political, activist stance than Nathan -- that's why the mysterious, offstage "Youth Group" is mentioned, attending Nathan's birthday party -- that was under Donna's instigation. All of which was just leading up to Donna's final photo caption, "Donna became M.P. for Manchester East." And I bet she did, too.