Finding the humour on the page Page 3

Quote: Griff @ January 25 2009, 11:59 PM GMT

The point Marc's making is that reading scripts is a skill. An experienced scriptwriter, actor, director, producer, or anyone involved with working with scripts for a long time, will be able to pick up a script and imagine its potential far better than someone who has only read two or three scripts in their life and who has never been involved in bringing scripts to life.

So the more scripts you read and write and work with, the less something like The Royle Family will seem devoid of potential when you read it.

View original

I suppose the next question is, does the reader - even an experienced reader - need to make an effort to visualise a script - even a good script?

Is it the case that the to the experienced eye that it leaps off the page, or are you reliant on them meeting you half way?

The point to this line of enquiry is to bottom out whether, when submitting a script, particularly on spec, it pays to over-egg the pudding with self-evident gags in order to get noticed (on the principle that they can always be taken out), or to trust to the reader's ability to visualise the humour that comes from the interaction of the characters.

(I am actually finding this hard to write, as to me a gag is a gag, and it does not work if it does not come from the character and contribute to interaction, and the gags should come thick and fast; the question relates more to how bloody obvious you need to make them.)

I think that to quote the Troggs tape:

The missing link in the chain here is whether the script / production ultimately has a sprinkling of "some fu**ing fairy dust on it" a substance that is as elusive as rocking horse shit.

Daba-daba-daba-cha! "Split yer 'ands"

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=En4ase-1-FA

Quote: Marc P @ January 25 2009, 11:46 PM GMT

Sometimes writers use a thing called an anlaogy to explain something else - actually all art is metaphor in a way. But basically a composer can read a musical score and can 'hear' it in is head. Scriptwriters do the same thing with a script, only they can visualise it. The more you have a handle on your craft the more you can handle it I guess.

View original

God this is going to sound so pretentiously wanky. But forgive me anyway, please. I've just got back from the pub.

As a (sort of) real musician, I've often noticed the similarity between natural chord progressions in a piece of music, and the natural flow of comedy dialogue / story. It's quite difficult to explain, (especially when you're full of Guinness} but basically when you're writing a piece of music, there are certain rules you're encouraged to follow. Now you can follow these rules to the letter and create a pleasant, harmonious piece that will subconsciously please almost everybody, or you can bend the rules and create a piece of music that's a little more dischordant and harder to listen to, but ultimately provokes a wider and more intense range of emotions within the listener.

But the thing is, if you BREAK the basic rules of music, something weird happens. You get a very clear division between a small group of people that ADORE it, and a large group of people that DESPISE it. But strangely, the small group of people seem to love it so much that it outweighs the hatred of the majority.

And that's how I see comedy. There's room for everything. Mainstream, alternative or experimental, there's always going to be an audience for all these disciplines, and I personally think the world would be a poorer place without that variety.

Quote: Griff @ January 26 2009, 1:52 AM GMT

Lee, I'm definitely with you on the music analogy. (I'm also a musician.)

I think that "difficult" music requires effort by the listener - the first time you hear strange rhythms, harmonies, instruments that you're not used to, you're instinct is to dislike it. But if something pulls you in and makes you listen to it anyway, and after repeated listens you find you love it, that extra investment you had to put in kind of makes you love it much more than the "easy" stuff you get with one listen. And then you want more of that music, and "harder stuff". I was pretty unsure about Tom Waits the first time I heard him, but now the weirder and more "unlistenable" his stuff gets, the happier I am.

Who's my Tom Waits of comedy? Maybe Peter Cook for me, I don't know.

View original

Hah. We're obviously Bongo Brothers. (Scuse the Boosh reference).

Off to beddiebyes.

Quote: Timbo @ January 25 2009, 11:35 PM GMT

Up to a point; I personally find visual humour much harder to write than dialogue, and I am never sure if I have succeeded in putting it across, but yes that is my job as the writer.

View original

This issue was a thread that I was going to start. I understand the ins and outs of making a bit of dialogue or a comical conversation both readable and funny. It's not always easy, but I understand what needs to go into it.

However, visual/physical humour I find harder. I recently wrote a short sketch that had no dialogue in it and relied entirely on tone and timing, which I found incredibly difficult to convey.

How would you guys go about writing something like that?

Physical comedy is mind-numbingly hard. I've always harboured a desire to write a Laurel and Hardy short but when you seem them in action you realise that a certain genius is going on that transcends the script.

Re: the original point. I think finding the funny on a page is in the eye of the beholder. One man's gag is another man's out-of-character crowbar is another man's character-driven line. If you've already seen a show and like it, you'll find it hard to not read an episode script and imagine those people's faces and voices. So you'll tend to see more humour than if another person 'cold-reads' it.

We may be forgetting that some of these shows weren't sold 100% on the script. And I suspect that some of those shows wouldn't have been made if it relied totally on the page. Having well-known actors put their weight behind a project, writers with track records, a pre-filmed pilot showreel, people with an 'in' that bypasses the lower filters, will factor in the decision to commission.

Yes, the script is the bedrock but in the Royle Family's case (and I think The Office) it was the script that caused doubt, so obviously the script wasn't totally selling the show. Experienced people had trouble seeing the potential. It was other factors that eventually overcame the doubters in the commissioning process.

New writers don't have this advantage so our scripts have to exceed those scripts that come from established writers and all the benefits that that brings on-board.

I think what the lad Slag says is spot on and I agree with it 100%.

Hence my suggestion that it's a combo of script, actors & producers that make the complete article.

I think that the last paragraph of the post is bang on too.

I'm sure that there are shows that do leap off the page but I would guess that they're in the minority and that a lot of "lunches", "words in ears" and "in the knows" etc are all part of the organic process of getting a show from paper to screen.

Well done Slag son, sit on that bench and have a suck of orange.

So to summarise, it seems that while there is some skill in being able to read the humour in a script, there are things which simply can't be conveyed by the words. So if unknown writers want to submit scripts, they would do well to restrict themselves to writing stuff where the humour is evident from the words alone.

Quote: NoggetFred @ January 27 2009, 8:54 AM GMT

So to summarise, it seems that while there is some skill in being able to read the humour in a script, there are things which simply can't be conveyed by the words. So if unknown writers want to submit scripts, they would do well to restrict themselves to writing stuff where the humour is evident from the words alone.

View original

It is an incorrect summation. If something can be imagined it can be described.
That, after all, is the only real job of a writer.

Quote: Griff @ January 27 2009, 9:31 AM GMT

I'm with Marc on this.

The advice "Don't write anything clever like The Office or The Royle Family because even experienced people won't get what you are trying to do unless you have 'words in ears' working in your favour" seems plainly wrong to me.

But it's for each of us to make our own decisions and strategies.

View original

I don't think that anybody is suggesting don't write an Office or Royle Family style show (I'm certainly not because I would be delighted to do so) but whether or not it would get through the filters that SlagA refers to with my name on the title page it is another thing entirely.

Griff, Are you suggesting that getting a script commissioned is a 100% meritocracy? I don't believe this to be so because if you look at some stuff that makes it through then that surely is a hard argument to win.

Don't ge me wrong I think that reputation in any business counts and it certainly helps oil the wheels - and indeed reputations don't come more intact than Caroline Ahearne's and IMO quite rightly so.

You can't be responsible for what happens after you have written your script, but you can be a hundred percent responsible for how it is written.

Quote: Marc P @ January 27 2009, 10:06 AM GMT

You can't be responsible for what happens after you have written your script, but you can be a hundred percent responsible for how it is written.

View original

Is that chapter one of Marc P's "Stating the Bloody Obvious"?

Quote: Marc P @ January 27 2009, 10:06 AM GMT

You can't be responsible for what happens after you have written your script, but you can be a hundred percent responsible for how it is written.

View original

Totally 100% true Marc.

I think there are two separate discussions developing here. One is the art of the script and how it's written and the other is how it "flies" after that

Quote: chipolata @ January 27 2009, 10:08 AM GMT

Is that chapter one of Marc P's "Stating the Bloody Obvious"?

View original

I have a degree in it.

Quote: Marc P @ January 27 2009, 9:11 AM GMT

It is an incorrect summation. If something can be imagined it can be described.
That, after all, is the only real job of a writer.

View original

Agreed, Sir.

NoggetFred, Marc's right, your summary is incorrect. The writer produces a script. That script should convey as far as possible (depending on the writer's skills) the original vision and meaning of the writer. Marc is also spot on in that, in the areas we can control, we should be thorough and make our output the best it can be. Although there are areas we can't control, there's no room for excuse on our side.