Just The Job

FADE IN

INT. OFFICE RECEPTION –DAY

CHANEL BROWN, a urban clothes wearing young man of about 18 has a job interview, so let's the receptionist know he has arrived.

CHANEL
(in that hair caught at the back of the throat voice kids do nowadays)
Marning babes, I aff an in-er-view wid some dude cull Simons or Simmons or summin' ligh dat, 'er check dis innt?

Hands over a scrunched up piece of paper.

(So in English the gist of it is that he has an interview with someone called Simmons)

RECEPTIONIST
I'm afraid he's a bit busy at the moment but I'll show you into his office where you can wait.

INT. - OFFICE - DAY

Chanel slumps down into the chair and goes through a few bored motions, such as:

Putting foot up on the desk and rocking back and forth on back legs of chair.

Gets up, does some kung fu type moves while letting out "Hi-ya-ha" type noises.

Starts rolling, then smoking spliff.

Makes a call on mobile to mate.

CHANEL
Yo, wassup my main man? Yeah blood, woz kicking it last night innit? Me banged 6 ecstasy tabs and met dis 'ot chick and go back to 'ers to get jiggy.

SIMMONS
(On phone O.C.)
Okay thank you, that's just the news I was hanging on for, goodbye.

Hangs up the phone.

SIMMONS
(to Chanel incredulously)
Sorry about that Mr Brown, so tell me, what exactly is that makes you think you would be suitable for joining the Army?

FADE OUT

I'm hoping it comes over in the written form here that you are led to believe that Chanel was in the office alone, when actually Simmons was there all along. I think it's another case really of something that works better visually as opposed to on paper and with decent performances, looks better than it reads.

I was also undecided as to what organisation to use here and it was a choice between Army, Police or The Samaritans, but the basic joke is that he was displaying inappropriate behaviour for all three.

just to be blunt it far to overwritten. we only need to know what we see. I'm going to be frank feels a little contrived to me. Maybe it's not aimed as at my target audience.

As a side note you shouldn't need to explain after wards what happened in the script it's your job to get that across in you script.

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but I'm getting into producing now and just giving my opinion

No that's not harsh at all Gavin and appreciate you taking the time to add your comments.

Having said that though, I don't quite get the overwritten and the only needing to know what we see comments, because from my point of view, that's all I felt I did in the actual sketch itself.

Although I have said on here before, maybe Im not the best at portraying a visual joke that I see in my mind's eye and getting it down in the written word form and I obviously know myself what I mean but appreciate that I need to make it clear to others what my intention were.

I agree that I did add on comments at the end, although that was to find out if I had actually managed to get it all across because I fell that if this was ever filmed, then you can hide the fact that Simmons was in the room all along just by use of framing and camera shots, whereas I’m not really sure how you do that with the written script.

I make you entirely right in that it's my job to get that across in my script but I've never done any courses in this kind of thing nor have any experience so it's all a learning curve for me.

Just out of interest, have a look at this sketch using the link below and then imagine trying to write that up as a written piece of work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncirovhlQcw

I know I would struggle and would find it much easier to just "Tell" the sketch to somebody.

You did not just link to that lazy, racist, xenophobic sketch did you ima? I would struggle with my conscience rather than struggle to write it down.

Your sketch is easy to write

INT. - RECEPTION - DAY

CHANEL
Marning babes, I aff an in-er-view wid some dude cull Simons or Simmons or summin' ligh dat

RECEPTIONIST
I'm afraid he's a bit busy at the moment but I'll show you into his office where you can wait.

CUT TO:

INT. - OFFICE - DAY

Chanel slumps down into the chair. Puts foot up on the desk and rocking back and forth on back legs of chair. Gets up, does some kung fu type moves while letting out "Hi-ya-ha" type noises. Starts rolling, then smoking spliff. Makes a call on a mobile .

CHANEL
Yo, wassup my main man? Yeah blood, woz kicking it last night innit? Me banged 6 ecstasy tabs and met dis 'ot chick and go back to 'ers to get jiggy.

SIMMONS
(On phone O.C.)
Okay thank you, that's just the news I was hanging on for, goodbye.

Simmons Hangs up the phone. Chanel realise Simmons is in the office

SIMMONS
Sorry about that Mr Brown, so tell me, what exactly is that makes you think you would be suitable for joining the Army?

FADE OUT

I think you do overwrite sometimes, when you write a visual sketch it only has to convey the joke you don't need details like Chanel's clothing if he talks like dis, its obvious what he would wear.

I didn't find the sketch funny because you could see what was going to happen from the first line, why don't you have Chanel come out with something really intellegent.

How would I write up the Catherine Tate sketch?

INT: Office - DAY

Catherine Tate wastes 2:40 minutes of my life repeating the same feeble joke 7 times. Obviously she feels the need to improve on the age-old tradition of 3s.

END SKETCH

If one of us had dared send that joke into the Beeb, they would have put us on a list of undesirables.

He sounds well qualified for the army, doesn't he?

I'm not quite sure ajp29 what you mean by saying

"You did not just link to that lazy, racist, xenophobic sketch did you ima?"

as I'm assuming that for you to make a judgement on the sketch, then you must have used the link to watch it so therefore must know that I DID link to it.

If on the other hand that was some kind of way to make me question anything, let me just point out that the reason that I put the link up was to get the point over that it's sometimes difficult to put something in writing how it appears on screen.

I'm making no judgement either way on the subject matter of the sketch itself as that wasn't my argument and realise that some people might not appreciate the sentiment of what it contains, yet others will say the joke is on the translator character for making herself look stupid, in the same way that Johnny Speight always argued that the joke was on Alf Garnett.....but like I said before, I don't care either way, as that wasn't my reason for using it as an example.

Regarding your re-write, I can see that it looks much tidier and I still have the intended picture of the Chanel character in my mind's eye but then that's because I've know all along what I thought he should look like. In your version of the sketch you come straight in and apart from the name it tells you nothing about him.

Obviously if this was ever filmed then I wouldn't need to set up a visual description of clothing or look because the viewer would be able to see that for themselves, but the reason I mention the clothing is that the basis of the sketch and joke is one of inappropriate behaviour and call me old fashioned, but that kind of clothing to me isn't appropriate for an interview and you'd still think that even someone like Chanel would know to put on a suit.

You're probably right though that I do maybe overwrite and that's due to trying to insure that I cover everything to get my point across and I've sadly failed here because you wrote

"Simmons Hangs up the phone. Chanel REALISES Simmons is in the office"

But the joke was that Chanel could see that Simmons was in his office ALL ALONG but he didn't care because due to a total lack of good social skills, Chanel himself didn't even see it as being inappropriate behaviour.

Ultimately though it's for me to get that across and if you didn't pick up on that then it's not really you fault and it's down to me, but I'll keep trying anyway and thanks again for your advice and comments, they are much appreciated.

I'm also not convinced that:

"you could see what was going to happen from the first line"

but nevermind.....although your line about Chanel coming out with something really intelligent has possibilities, the joke wasn't so much about a judgement of intelligence and more so about social skills as mentioned above.


SlagA I totally agree with what you say about the repetitive nature of the joke and after the first couple of times, then it does get very boring, regardless of what you think about the nature of the basic "joke" itself.

I think Catherine Tate got away with it due to like I said before, the Beeb would probably take the...her character being the victim of stupidity line of argumen...and also the fact that she's not someone from the 1970's as I'm sure if someone like Freddie Starr tried it then we all know what would happen there.

Fred

I think part of the problem is that we have a big revelation. But none of the characters show any acknowledgement of it. So it's just a series of disconnected events happening.

If the kid was embarrassed, or the interviewer was stunned that would be a mini-story/sketch.

I also don't think you need to mention clothing.

Bugger me, that Catherine Tate sketch is unbearable! It's amazing what writers can get away with once they've got a reputation. If Freddie Starr etec etc had made that in the 70s it might appear on some smart arsed clip show on BBC Four next to earnest commentators emphasising how things have moved on...
Yours is much better!

ima when you start with a character who says 'in-er-view wid some dude' you know exactly what the character looks like, its subjective. i didn't get the joke that Chanel could see mr simmons from the start so that bit has to be written in.

Links to sketches usually reflect the humour of the inidvidual posting it which is why i jumped to a conclusion, i apologise. When writing visual sketches remember to keep it short and only include essential details e.g. clothing is only important if its pivitol to the sketch.
You said the 'joke is one of inappropriate behaviour' so you had to include details of his clothing but you put a description of inappropriated behaviour, in fact it may be funnier if he is wearing a suit, in any case the director will decide so don't worry about it (unless your the director).

Again Shoepie maybe I wasn't able to make it very clear in my wording but the bit that says:

SIMMONS
(to Chanel incredulously)

is supposed to signal that he finds it incredible to think that Chanel even considered himself suitable for the army/police/Samaritans or whatever.

I did at first put he asked "Sheepishly" but then changed it to incredulously and I suppose with the odd resigned or quizzical look or gesture, such as Simmons maybe taking off his glasses as he asks the question, this would all contribute to the impression of his disbelief and that would act as the acknowledgement perhaps?

I’m also not sure ajp29 about the best way of how to write in the fact that Chanel knew Simmons was there from the start, without it either giving away the joke before we reach it, or alternatively making it seem like I'm having to explain the joke after it has occurred. With filming though, you would just see the camera cut to both of them in the same shot and that would visually tell you that they were both there all the time.

Oh and no need to apologise about the link as it's easy too assume that that was my kind of humour, but no harm done eh?

Hi Ima

It's possible to write these up (yours and the Tate sketch) in a form that would dispel the confusion. I think that there are some unnecessary distractions in there so start by throwing out some deadweight.

The receptionist, dump her. She's confusing the sketch by being an unneeded element. So dump all the first scene, but I've made some explanations where you've definitely over-writen

You wrote: (So in English the gist of it is that he has an interview with someone called Simmons)

The line of explanation above isn't needed, if the reader is too dim to have worked this out then they won't be pro script-readers.

INT. - OFFICE - DAY

Chanel wearing scruffy urban clothes performs kung fu moves, adding his own loud sound effects.

Cut to: CHANEL pretends to be firing a machine gun, he throws an imaginary grenade and makes a loud 'boom' sound. He is smoking a large spliff that makes him hard to see through the smoke. (I cut the rolling part - unneeded fluff)

Cut to: CHANEL makes a call on mobile to mate. (Comment: it'll be clear by action and dialogue who cChanel is calling. Change to-)

Cut to: CHANEL makes a call on his mobile.

CHANEL:
Yo, wassup? Yeah blood, woz kicking it last night innit? Me banged 6 ecstasy tabs and met dis 'ot chick and go back to 'ers to get jiggy.

(Cut this line of SIMMONS)
SIMMONS
Okay thank you, that's just the news I was hanging on for, goodbye.

(Comment: Why Simmons would let Chanel in the office during an important call is confusing. Cut straight to CHANEL.)

CHANEL:
Bro, gotta go, some geezer giving my the evil eye. (You can supply your own youthspeak sentence, i'm not up on all that jive :-).)

CHANEL hangs up the phone. We see SIMMONS sat at a desk. CHANEL sits and puts his feet up on the desk.

CHANEL:
What was the question again?

SIMMONS:
(incredulously)
So what, exactly, makes you think you'd be suitable to join the Army?

END

This still isn't perfect (I'm short of time here.) but it's removed the Receptionist and cuts straight to Chanel's behaviour. Simmons' question places the whole scene back into context.

Often the problem when too many words of explanation are needed is that the sketch is not set up right, cuts in or out at the wrong time, or the dialogue or actions needs revision to give the viewer the meaning. Everything you mention should have meaning, the actions and words especially are the means to convey the sense and context of a sketch, not writer's notes to a reader.

If you find you're adding notes as explanation to a sketch, don't post until you've managed to remove the need for them because it clearly isn't ready to be read by an audience.

Hope this helps.

I did find the comments helpful SlagA and take your point about the receptionist and the first scene. I wanted her to be an attractive older woman and then have Chanel act in some Ali G type way in thinking that he could refer to her as darling or babes in a manner that some of these kids do nowadays, where they think they are irresistible to every woman on earth.

If the receptionist was kept in then maybe she could have Chanel follow her to Simmons' office and he does some sort of gesture behind her back to signify he approves of her figure or whatever and she then points to where the office is a leaves but Chanel just goes right in without being summonsed, instead of taking a seat and waiting.

The bit in brackets where I wrote:

(So in English the gist of it is that he has an interview with someone called Simmons)

that wouldn't have been included on the actual script and was just to clarify, as most people reading wouldn't be pro script-readers but maybe I'm guilty of over compensating, so again I take your point.

I did have to laugh though (but in a nice way) regarding your comments of why Simmons would let Chanel in the office during an important call, as I thought that was a case of maybe too much analysis, and surely with comedy you have some scope for ignoring real life logic don't you?

I did really like your comment:

Cut to: CHANEL pretends to be firing a machine gun, he throws an imaginary grenade and makes a loud 'boom' sound.

I had been contemplating adding in a few more acts of inappropriate behaviour but didn't want to overdo it but think your suggestion fits in well with that kind of thing.

The whole premise of the sketch is based on the theory about never trust a man who when left alone in a room with a tea cosy, doesn't try it on his head.

It's not just the trying it on that's funny, it's also the thought of him being embarrassed by someone seeing you do it.....although in the sketch, Chanel isn't really that bothered about being seen.

As an observer I can see that most of this is meant as constructive advice. Ima obviously put it on here for some feedback.

I think ajp's reaction was a bit knee-jerk but yes - I can see that maybe there was a bit too much unneccesary explanation and padding.

Has anyone had a chance to look at my "Hit Men" on the Critique list?

Ima, why i suggest taking the receptionist out is to get at the bare essence of the joke you're trying to get across.

Quote: imamazed @ March 12, 2007, 9:41 PM

I take your point about the receptionist and the first scene [but] I want Chanel to act in some Ali G type way to her ... thinking he's irresistible to women.

View original

What happens if you want to include extra details is that you're moving from a basic 'inapropriate actions' set-up to telling us about other (distracting) aspects of Chanel. If this was a sitcom excerpt then that's fine, you have much more freedom to include character building asides.

A sketch is a more restricted vehicle. You may build up a wonderful picture of this guy's character but if you cloud the original joke or confuse the viewer with too much detail then it was all for nothing.

In this situation, where nearly everyone misunderstood the joke, you have to work out why this happened. The writer has to take it apart, look at the essential joke, and if it means shedding favourite but confusing detail / asides / etc, then so be it. A writer's task is too know what must be dumped to save the sketch. After all, you want a collection of sketches that make people laugh, not a collection comprising great social commentary but which leave the audience asking 'what was all that about?'

The responsibility and the final decision on what goes in / out is always the writer's. But ask yourself: if a group of fellow writers, who are familiar with reading (and in some cases deciphering) another writer's work, fail to comprehend the idea, what chance has a TV audience of comprehending? We can say that the camera angles will make this work but then we're shifting our job onto the director.

Personally, the receptionist is dead-weight and having the two men on the phone at the same time will be visually and aurally confusing for a viewer. I'd just have the interviewer patiently waiting his chance to butt in. This is only personal opinion. Hope you find something useful.