OCD VD DOC

Not sure about this one - it makes me laugh but I don't know if it's a bit peurile, even for me. The idea is he's a returning sketch character who we'd see in a variety of situations, not just the clinic.

Anyway, comments welcomed.

OCD VD DOCTOR

1. INT. STD CLINIC SURGERY. DAY.

DOCTOR HARRIS IS IN HIS VD CLINIC SURGERY, FRANTICALLY SCRUBBING HIS HANDS IN THE SINK WITH A BRILLO PAD.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Germs…die you bastards…die…

HE PRODUCES A RUBBER MALLET AND BEGINS HITTING HIS HAND WITH IT.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Die!

A KNOCK ON THE DOOR. STARTLED, DOCTOR HARRIS QUICKLY COMPOSES HIMSELF, RETURNING TO HIS DESK.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Come!

A MAN (STEVE) WALKS IN SHEEPISHLY. DOCTOR HARRIS' LIP CURLS IN DISGUST.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Take a seat.

HE GOES TO SIT.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Not that one! It's just been sterilized!

STEVE:
(POINTING TO ANOTHER CHAIR) There?

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Yes. The unclean one.

A QUICK SHOT OF THE CHAIR, ACCOMPANIED BY AN OMINOUS MUSICAL STING.

STEVE PULLS THE CHAIR UP AND SITS.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
So what seems to be the problem?

STEVE:
Well…it's a bit embarrassing really. I've got this itchy rash…(POINTING) down there.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Oh Christ…

HE PRODUCES A SQUIRTY SPRAY DISINFECTANT BOTTLE AND GIVES HIMSELF A GOOD MISTING.

STEVE:
Are you alright?

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Yes, fine, fine. This rash…has it been seeping…(HE CAN'T BRING HIMSELF TO SAY THE WORD AND SPELLS IT)…P.U.S.?

STEVE:
Pus?

DOCTOR HARRIS GAGS AND NODS.

STEVE:
Erm…no, I don't think so.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Oh thank God. I can't do pus. I just can't. Right then…I suppose I'd better take a look. Pop your trousers down.

HE STANDS AND DROPS HIS TROUSERS.

STEVE:
(LOOKING DOWN AT HIS CROTCH) So…what do you think?

CUT BACK TO DOCTOR HARRIS TO REVEAL HE'S GOT A PAPER BAG OVER HIS HEAD.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
I'm not looking at it! Describe it to me.

STEVE:
Well…it's sort of red…

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Oh God…(MISTS HIMSELF)

STEVE:
Flakey…

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Oh shit, shit, shit…(MISTS HIMSELF MORE)

STEVE:
And a bit crusty round the edges…

DOCTOR HARRIS:
(MISTING LIKE A MAN POSSESSED) Enough! Trousers up! Trousers up damn you!

STEVE QUICKLY PULLS HIS TROUSERS UP AND SITS DOWN AS DOCTOR HARRIS REMOVES THE BAG FROM HIS HEAD.

STEVE:
So, do you know what it is?

DOCTOR HARRIS:
(QUICKLY WRITING HIM A PRESCRIPTION) Yes, it's cock germs. It's always cock germs. Dirty, shameful cock germs. Here. Take this and get out. And for pity's sake stop scratching!

STEVE REMOVES HIS HAND FROM HIS PANTS AND TAKES THE PRESCRIPTION.

STEVE:
Sorry. Well…thanks for this. Bye.

HE HOLDS HIS HAND OUT, SHAKES THE DOCTOR'S HAND AND LEAVES. HE SUDDENLY REALISES WHAT HE'S DONE AND STARES AT HIS HAND IN HORROR.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
(HORRIFIED WHISPER) Cock…germs…

WITH HIS OTHER HAND HE REACHES BELOW HIS DESK AND PRODUCES AN AXE.

END SKETCH.

I like this. The character is very good and stands out. Well written and funny. I don't think it's as puerile as you think it is

Dan

Lee, I was laughing throughout I loved this sketch, it had a great start and a great end and would have great potential for a mini series of sketches as well. (as long as not milked).

I loved the idea of him shouting at himself just worked for me so well.

two thumbs up (I'm not rating peoples sketches by thumbs up now by the way).

Funny punchline Lee. Nice sketch!

Comedically, it's good stuff. It works well for the most part, although the trouser-dropping bit felt a little contrived to me: Why would Doctor Harris ask Steve to do this at all, if he had no intention of actually examining Steve's genitalia? It's clearly just there for the gag. (There are ways around this, such as Steve taking the initiative, rather than Doctor Harris.)

From a purely technical standpoint, I also had a couple of issues with the action descriptions and your use of the pronoun "he". E.g.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Oh thank God. I can't do pus. I just can't. Right then…I suppose I'd better take a look. Pop your trousers down.

HE STANDS AND DROPS HIS TROUSERS. 

Who is the "He" referred to in the action? The context suggests it's Doctor Harris, not Steve. You need to make these unambiguous.

A script is not the story itself. It's a set of instructions explaining how to translate the story into another medium such as video or audio.

(Coming from an IT background, I've found scriptwriting suspiciously similar to programming. The parallels are many.)

Quote: stimarco @ September 20 2009, 1:59 PM BST

Comedically, it's good stuff. It works well for the most part, although the trouser-dropping bit felt a little contrived to me: Why would Doctor Harris ask Steve to do this at all, if he had no intention of actually examining Steve's genitalia? It's clearly just there for the gag. (There are ways around this, such as Steve taking the initiative, rather than Doctor Harris.)

From a purely technical standpoint, I also had a couple of issues with the action descriptions and your use of the pronoun "he". E.g.

DOCTOR HARRIS:
Oh thank God. I can't do pus. I just can't. Right then…I suppose I'd better take a look. Pop your trousers down.

HE STANDS AND DROPS HIS TROUSERS. 

Who is the "He" referred to in the action? The context suggests it's Doctor Harris, not Steve. You need to make these unambiguous.

A script is not the story itself. It's a set of instructions explaining how to translate the story into another medium such as video or audio.

(Coming from an IT background, I've found scriptwriting suspiciously similar to programming. The parallels are many.)

View original

Well, Doctor Harris asks Steve to drop his trousers because it's his job, however much he hates it. It wouldn't make sense to me to have Steve drop his duds without being invited to do so by Doctor Harris. It also gives me the chance to squeeze the sight gag in, with the cam cutting to Doctor Harris to reveal he's got a paper bag on his head.

The "He" referred to in the action I suppose can be read as slightly ambiguous, and for a final shooting script it would probably be changed to "STEVE STANDS AND DROPS HIS TROUSERS". But really, I suspect that only the most anal of script readers would single that out as a problem, because it's plainly obvious who I'm referring to.

I think tt's easy to get wrapped up in little technicalities like this - indeed I've been to script meetings where a good gag gets analyzed and changed so much that the original joke is often lost. It's very frustrating to see that happen.

Anyway, I'll change that direction to STEVE STANDS AND DROPS HIS TROUSERS. But I think I'll be keeping the paper bag gag in, because I reckon it'd get a laugh.

Cheers

I really like this sketch. Good work Lee.

I liked this one as well, good stuff.

* Steve stands & drops his trousers.

Lee, don't take this the wrong way: Your sketch was good. Possibly even 'good enough' for some markets. I certainly laughed at bits of it.

But, on re-reading it, I think it could be even better...

Quote: Lee Henman @ September 20 2009, 4:49 PM BST

Well, Doctor Harris asks Steve to drop his trousers because it's his job, however much he hates it.

View original

No, he's an Obsessive-Compulsive doctor. While he knows he has to do this, his natural reaction would be to resist it, perhaps try and diagnose it by just asking the patient questions. The patient should take the initiative, insisting Doctor Harris take a look to save long, complicated explanations and—possibly—to just get it over with. You'd get a lot of gags from the conflict right there.

This is a characterisation issue.

It also gives me the chance to squeeze the sight gag in, with the cam cutting to Doctor Harris to reveal he's got a paper bag on his head.

Why not full breathing apparatus—the sort used by firefighters with a full-face mask, air cylinder, gloves and the like? Same visual gag, but fits Doctor Harris' character better and Dr. Harris would still be able to see his patient's nadgers. More humour from his reactions right there.

Again, this is a characterisation issue, I think.

(Another thing that made me think, "Huh?" was the musical sting and shot of the "unclean chair". The chair is never mentioned again after this and appears to have no relevance to the rest of the sketch. And why would an OCD doctor keep such a thing in his own office? Again, characterisation.)

But really, I suspect that only the most anal of script readers would single that out as a problem, because it's plainly obvious who I'm referring to.

"But really, I suspect that only the most anal of script readers would single that out as a problem, because it's plainly obvious who I'm referring to. "

I'm an ex-programmer and teacher. Yes, I'm very pedantic and anal. The very same day the rest of this bloody planet agrees to stop blathering on about professional sports and Z-list celebrities, I'll agree to stop banging on about quality and clarity of communication.

With regard to the trouser-dropping gag (and the unclean chair): My point is that both are out of character. My reaction to the doctor wearing a paper bag wasn't "Haha!" but "What the..? Why would he even DO that?" Sure, it's funny-ish for a split second, but it's weakened because it's so forced and contrived.

*

In general, a teleplay, screenplay, stage play or radio play is still a play, regardless of whether it's a two-hour kitchen sink drama or a 30-second skit. The same dramatic rules apply. It's still fiction. A story. You still need characters. You still need a sense of place. You still need believable conflict, dialogue and action. None of these are optional if you want to wring the most from the work.

Both drama and comedy are forged from conflict, be it that arising between two or more characters, the situation itself (hence "situation comedy"), or an obstacle the protagonist(s) must overcome. It's the literary equivalent of friction.

Why have "Lab Rats" and "Lunch Monkeys" received so much stick? Because they're dramatically shallow. There's no real characterisation. Each character is a two-dimensional, cartoon-like cipher. The situations are usually too artificial. The resulting conflicts feel forced and contrived.

"Two Pints...", for all its detractors, does have good, well-observed characters. (Some of the B-characters tend to be a bit on the cartoonish though.) I can understand why it has its fans, even though I'm not one of them.

Quote: stimarco @ September 20 2009, 7:31 PM BST

Lee, don't take this the wrong way: Your sketch was good. Possibly even 'good enough' for some markets. I certainly laughed at bits of it.

But, on re-reading it, I think it could be even better...

No, he's an Obsessive-Compulsive doctor. While he knows he has to do this, his natural reaction would be to resist it, perhaps try and diagnose it by just asking the patient questions. The patient should take the initiative, insisting Doctor Harris take a look to save long, complicated explanations and—possibly—to just get it over with. You'd get a lot of gags from the conflict right there.

This is a characterisation issue.

"But really, I suspect that only the most anal of script readers would single that out as a problem, because it's plainly obvious who I'm referring to. "

I'm an ex-programmer and teacher. Yes, I'm very pedantic and anal. The very same day the rest of this bloody planet agrees to stop blathering on about professional sports and Z-list celebrities, I'll agree to stop banging on about quality and clarity of communication.

With regard to the trouser-dropping gag (and the unclean chair): My point is that both are out of character. My reaction to the doctor wearing a paper bag wasn't "Haha!" but "What the..? Why would he even DO that?" Sure, it's funny-ish for a split second, but it's weakened because it's so forced and contrived.

*

In general, a teleplay, screenplay, stage play or radio play is still a play, regardless of whether it's a two-hour kitchen sink drama or a 30-second skit. The same dramatic rules apply. It's still fiction. A story. You still need characters. You still need a sense of place. You still need believable conflict, dialogue and action. None of these are optional if you want to wring the most from the work.

Both drama and comedy are forged from conflict, be it that arising between two or more characters, the situation itself (hence "situation comedy"), or an obstacle the protagonist(s) must overcome. It's the literary equivalent of friction.

Why have "Lab Rats" and "Lunch Monkeys" received so much stick? Because they're dramatically shallow. There's no real characterisation. Each character is a two-dimensional, cartoon-like cipher. The situations are usually too artificial. The resulting conflicts feel forced and contrived.

"Two Pints...", for all its detractors, does have good, well-observed characters. (Some of the B-characters tend to be a bit on the cartoonish though.) I can understand why it has its fans, even though I'm not one of them.

View original

Stimarco - thanks for this crit, you've obviously put a lot of thought into it. I can't say I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I do appreciate your thoughts and the time you've taken to analyze this sketch. I do actually agree with you on some things - the slight ambiguity in the direction for instance.

But what you're doing here is pointed out characterisation issues from the perspective of what you would've done had you written the sketch. (Hardly surprising obviously, as that's what Critique is for, but what you seem to be doing is dictating what is actually right and wrong, rather than what your opinion is. I've been guilty of this in the past and have changed my tune somewhat. In my opinion now, there are no rights and wrongs in writing comedy. There are guidelines, obviously. General areas of rules we should stick to, but you can have the most lovingly-crafted script that adheres completely to all the accepted textbook character / technical "rules" - and then it's performed, and nobody laughs. If I've learned only one thing over the last few years of bashing my stuff about and working with producers and other writers etc, it's that sometimes you just have to go with the "funny". As I said before, I've been in script meetings where a good, funny idea is anal-yzed (excuse the facetious hyphen) into oblivion, and it often seems to ultimately detract from the original idea.

Anyway, my thoughts are, you're saying Dr Harris wouldn't have asked Steve to drop his trousers because of his OCD. I say he would because he knows it's his job and he has to do it, even though it's causing him so much inner turmoil. It's not a question of what's right or wrong in this instance, it's just personal preference. Both ways would probably work in my opinion, but I personally prefer my way.

Your opinion on the paper bag - again, you thought it was "forced and contrived". I just think it's a funny image (especially if done as a reveal) and the audience would laugh, which is obviously what I'm going for. Again, the unclean chair to me enhances Dr Harris's character rather than diminish it. Dr Harris makes all his patients sit on the unclean chair, so that he knows which is clean and sanitary, and which is covered in shameful cock germs.

My original question about this sketch was whether or not it seemed too peurile. The general concensus seems to be not, so I'm happy with that. But honestly, thanks for the crit, it's always great to read considered responses.

Far be it for me to try and gild your lily lee but what about a gas mask, as opposed to a brown paper bag? The bag just doesn't quite seem right to me (my opinion of course, I'm not telling you what to do, oh God what have I said *backs out of room bowing and saying a thousand sorries*). Not too puerile in response to original question. Reminiscent of a sketch from Jam, if memory serves me correctly, with the inappropriate doctor who asks his patients to take down their trousers and 'jump up and down, shake it from side to side' when they've gone in with a cough or summink.
Four fish out of five.

Yeah, I like the gas mask idea especially if it's a revealed unexpectedly. Maybe even a deep sea divers outfit but that's probably over-egging the cake.

Neat sketch though. I like.

Quote: The Giggle-o @ September 20 2009, 11:28 PM BST

Far be it for me to try and gild your lily lee but what about a gas mask, as opposed to a brown paper bag? The bag just doesn't quite seem right to me (my opinion of course, I'm not telling you what to do, oh God what have I said *backs out of room bowing and saying a thousand sorries*). Not too puerile in response to original question. Reminiscent of a sketch from Jam, if memory serves me correctly, with the inappropriate doctor who asks his patients to take down their trousers and 'jump up and down, shake it from side to side' when they've gone in with a cough or summink.
Four fish out of five.

View original

Yeah, a gas mask would work in a more surreal sketch I think. But in this instance, the paper bag seems to nudge the boundaries to just the right side of believability. Happy for other suggestions though.

Quote: Lee Henman @ September 20 2009, 11:35 PM BST

Yeah, a gas mask would work in a more surreal sketch I think. But in this instance, the paper bag seems to nudge the boundaries to just the right side of believability. Happy for other suggestions though.

View original

Welder's mask, Splatterhouse-style mask... Maybe he could have a prodding stick that he uses so he can stand as far away as possible? Nah. Stick with yours!

Quote: Lee Henman @ September 20 2009, 11:35 PM BST

Yeah, a gas mask would work in a more surreal sketch I think. But in this instance, the paper bag seems to nudge the boundaries to just the right side of believability. Happy for other suggestions though.

View original

How many doctors do you know who kill germs on their hands with a mallet?

Get a grip, man!