Writing sitcoms to put a lump in your throat

What do you think to sitcom writers who write to make you cry?

Is it a more modern thing, or were there examples in earlier sitcoms?

The first I remember was John Sullivan in OFAH, the episode when Rodney married Cassandra. That look between Del and Rodders when Rodders was going off to start his new life leaving Del behind, with Simply Red's Holding back the years playing in the background.

Just lately I've been watching some sitcoms from this century and it happens quite regularly now.

In Early Doors, when Melanie tells Ken that she is going to meet her real dad and Ken starts crying on his bed, with Tony Bennet's The Good life playing in the background.

The office also does it in the special, where Dawn was leaving the party and saying goodbye to Tim with Take That's back for good playing.

There's the scene in Gavin and Stacey where Gavin finds out that he's fireing blanks which is followed by them sitting in silence in the car with Gavin holding back the tears.

There's the Que sera scene with Barbara and Norma in the Royle Family.

Is this a modern thing in sitcoms or are there earlier examples? Do you want this in a comedy?

Is it that we're just a bunch of cry babies now?

It's been said almost since the earliest days of comedy that every comedian wants to play Hamlet.

There's a certain amount of truth in that, and I think it might be equally true that a great many comedy writers want to be writers of serious drama.

For me, a sitcom should be a situation comedy and not a situation tragedy. There's more than enough tragedy in the real world and there's more than enough tragedy in the ordinary lives of most ordinary people. We don't need comedy professionals deliberately adding to the world's woes.

In any other trade or profession, you get sacked for failing to do the job you're paid to do - especially when you're showing off your skills at something else when you should be doing the job you're paid to do. Why should it be any different with situation comedy?

It's more common in modern stuff, but it's always been there, and sometimes people forget it, but pathos in old comedy definitely wasn't limited to the miscarriage in Only Fools or the finale of Blackadder.

Whether it's tonal or in one of the bigger sort of scenes you've mentioned, you find it in TV comedy, particularly British, right from the start. Depicting struggle and pathos is practically a staple of it.

I think tragedy is an important ingredient, if not indeed the basis, of most classic sitcoms but it's tragedy of a broader and deeper kind than is referred to in Ivor's opening post. In answering his question, we should understand that we are talking about instances of deliberate tear-jerking on the part of the writer.

"You need your bit of pathos" as a TV commissioning editor said to me.

Quote: Rood Eye @ 15th January 2019, 12:26 AM

I think tragedy is an important ingredient, if not indeed the basis, of most classic sitcoms but it's tragedy of a broader and deeper kind than is referred to in Ivor's opening post. In answering his question, we should understand that we are talking about instances of deliberate tear-jerking on the part of the writer.

View original

Yes writing a tear jerker is what I'm getting at.

Steptoe and son was brimmed full with pathos, but never to the extent of a tear-jerker.

Same with Porridge

I can't think of anyone before Sullivan who really went in for the kill. And he seems to have inspired your modern writers to do the same.

Or is it just me going soft and soy boy in my old age.

Quote: Ivor Hardy @ 15th January 2019, 1:51 AM

I can't think of anyone before Sullivan who really went in for the kill.

View original

Shakespeare ? Henry the IV parts one and two had Falstaff "the horse back breaker", the man that sweated lard. Arguably his most famous comedic character. I thought he was hilarious, but I read now that they only termed his work "comedy" if it had a happy ending. Therefore Henry the IV was not technically a comedy.

I would say Flowers and Fleabag are two excellent yet melancholic comedies, which probably wouldn't have floated ten years ago. Would you call them tear jerkers ? Personally I'd call them witty dramas. Surely traditional comedy audiences want to escape tearful situations ? So these new bread of witty dramas you refer to are capturing a new audience. But the popularity of Mrs Brown Boys and stand up comedy, suggest there's still an audience for the out and out comedy. I must admit I get annoyed when a Drama tags itself as a comedy and there's not a single laugh out loud joke in it.

Quote: Firkin @ 15th January 2019, 9:17 AM

Shakespeare?

View original

Yes, there are indeed tears to be shed while reading/watching Shakespeare but Ivor's question refers specifically to sitcom.

That being so, we should be looking back no further than the first sitcom that any significant number of people saw on British television - and that was surely "Hancock's Half Hour" in 1956.

Examples for bad laugh/lump substitution:
"The Orville" was at first a sitcom and now it is an almost Star Trek TNG with long maudlin goodbyes and everything. There are many "Friends" episodes that have nothing funny in them (with births, separations, departures and so on). I see it as a crutch in lack of good script.

It demonstrates skilled writing to be able to make the viewer become immersed to the extent of becoming emotionally attached to the characters and remain consistently funny. The behind the scenes documentory about Friends was a real eye opener to how modern sitcoms are made with 15+ on the writing team and constant revisions even changing a joke during filming if it falls flat. In one joke they even asked the audience if they got the joke to help decide if they should keep it in or change the script. I know Friends isn't everyones cup of tea but since day one I've found it hilarious because of a combination of how well the characters develop and remain believeable and how sharp the script is throughout the whole ten year run.

Friends doesn't get too sentimental so there are very few tear jerker moments. I think the most well known moment from my generation has to be when they go over the top In Blackadder Goes Forth but there are many moments in Only Fools as well such as the hospital scene and when Delboy takes a beating for Rodders. The writing and characters make it very easy to forget everything and become engrossed. Gervais and Merchant have shown themselves to be masterful at drawing the viewer in with a carefully structured direction. They are known for joshing about during filming but I've noticed from all the comments from people behind the scenes that they put a lot of effort in to getting the perfect take and will keep reshooting it until they are happy.

Not related to sitcoms but kitchen sink drama is bursting with humour. As someone from up north I love all the little humourous moments that might go un-noticed by someone unfamiliar with northern traits. The TV version of Jim Carwright's Road with a fresh faced Jane Horrocks does the play justice.

To my mind, a sitcom has to be pure comedy or else it isn't a sitcom: characters in a sitcom may suffer misfortune as long as the audience's reaction is either laughter or a rueful shake of the head with an accompanying comment such as "Just his luck!"

As soon as we approach territory wherein the audience or the character is reduced to tears of sadness, we've entered another genre. The inclusion of such material in a sitcom may improve the entertainment experience for the audience or it may not. It may lift the writing and the program as a whole into a higher sphere or it may not. The one thing it does do, in any event, is to stop it being a sitcom.

So you're a purist Rood ? How do we measure "comedy" is it in the gag count ?

The problem is that we now search for programs via tags, so people are trying to put every search tag going on their program. For example "The End of the Fu**ing world" where children brutally murder someone, had the "comedy" tag. There were a couple of moments that raise a tentative smile, but News at 10 is definitely funnier. Fleabag was also dark and gritty yet wonderfully funny. How would you classify those programs ?

Quote: Firkin @ 16th January 2019, 8:36 AM

So you're a purist Rood ? How do we measure "comedy" is it in the gag count ?

The problem is that we now search for programs via tags, so people are trying to put every search tag going on their program. For example "The End of the Fu**ing world" where children brutally murder someone, had the "comedy" tag. There were a couple of moments that raise a tentative smile, but News at 10 is definitely funnier. Fleabag was also dark and gritty yet wonderfully funny. How would you classify those programs ?

View original

I don't think we can measure comedy by the gag count, because (for me) the finest comedy contains no gags at all. I don't think you'll find many gags in a Hancock episode, mainly because before each episode was recorded, Tony went through the script and carefully struck out every single joke the writers had written.

I think we might all agree that a comedy can be dark and gritty and still be a comedy. I think many would also agree that a sitcom can be dark and gritty and still be a sitcom. My question with regard to the original post in this thread is whether or not a sitcom can bring a tear of sadness to a viewer's eye and still be a sitcom.

It's all a matter of definition and it's impossible to come up with a unique one-word name for every type (or combination of types) of TV show. Can a sitcom include scenes of sadness? I'd say "Of course it can" but if that sadness is so powerful that the audience is moved to tears, I think we've moved out of sitcom and into another genre.

The final scene of "Blackadder goes Forth" is interesting because it's at that point that the show does indeed move out of sitcom and the audience of millions realises to their great surprise that, for the past six half-hours, they've not been watching a comedy - they've been watching an absolute f***ing tragedy.