Sitcom Trials Autumn '09 Page 55

Quote: Kev F @ December 4 2009, 11:31 AM GMT

We could be getting into a long discussion here! Stage to screen, both with comedy and other work, is a fascinating transition that we've all seen done well and done badly. Recently Sky Arts did a series of live transmissions of plays from the West End and they came across well, but you had to make an allowance for their context. It was once the case that sitcoms on TV were performed and shot much as stage plays, with the audience audible, and that can still work (IT Crowd, Miranda) but sometimes looks creakily old fashioned (Big Top). Whether that's the script, the style of direction, fashion, it's all a complex thing over which we could pore long and hard.

So sitcoms written for the 'stage' can, indeed, clash in style with sitcoms written for a more filmic treatment (The Thick Of It, Gavin & Stacey, Gary Tank Commander, Curb Your Enthusiasm - to name just four sitcoms I watched last night), they are different animals sharing a zoo.

As for whether the Sitcom Trials stage performances would look good filmed, the answer is that if you just point a single DV camera at a performance on a small stage, be it a stand up or fringe theatre (and the Trials are somewhere between the two), then it's usually going to capture little of what the audience experienced. You'll hear a lot of laughter, as a lot of this season's video clips have done, but you may not have gathered what it was that caused that laughter (it was very rarely a comic line, much more often a reaction or a bit of timing from an actor, or something which, in the context of the narrative, suddenly became clear, but in a 30 second snippet wouldn't).

Watch the Sitcom Trials TV series clips (all sitcomtrials.co.uk clips link to the others) and you'll see how we attempted to make the transfer from stage to studio. In some instances it works well, with the four studio cameras capturing what they were meant to. But then the paucity of the backdrop and the suspension of disbelief required to stop you realising you're watching four actors in close proximity to the audience in a very small studio, is hard to surmount.

Like I say, I could go on about this for ages, without necessarily answering the question. I really ought to concentrate on making good new comedy, always learning lessons from the past.

View original

Thanks, yes I think you have given a good explanation. There is a lot to the subject and you have answered what I was asking.

Quote: swerytd @ December 4 2009, 12:22 PM GMT

Personally, I found it difficult to write something with the 'cliff-hanger' in mind. It felt a bit forced, rather than natural sitcom

View original

It is, indeed, a contrived format, designed to keep the show involving for the audience while showcasing the comedies. All formats have their pros and cons. Performing full half hour sitcoms, which is what we did in Situations Vacant before I developed it into the Sitcom Trials, gives a better representation of what the writer wants to sell to telly, but half an hour is a bloody long time if your script's not very good. (Those of us from the old days in Bristol still recall Sisters, the sitcom starring 7 nuns, about which the writer famously remarked "I would rather cut off my left arm than lose one of my nuns". That was a very long half hour).

15 minutes of not very good sitcom is an improvement on that, but can still leave the audience impatient, wondering where this will end and what they can do about it. 10 minutes of sitcom, incomplete as that may be, with the audience given the opportunity to choose to see the ending of just one of the comedies it sees, is, I think, the most compelling way of, as I've always said, not wasting their time with anything they don't like, and ensuring they're never more than ten minutes away from something they might prefer.

We now have Sitcom Saturday and Sitcom Mission offering more long-form sitcoms, and if the Sitcom Trials continues, it's got the Trials format. Horses for courses - a group of racehorses apply to a series of Universities, with hilarious consequences... sorry, that's the Sitcom Trials Pitch Fest©, totally different subject.

Quote: Kev F @ December 4 2009, 1:18 PM GMT

It is, indeed, a contrived format, designed to keep the show involving for the audience while showcasing the comedies. All formats have their pros and cons. Performing full half hour sitcoms, which is what we did in Situations Vacant before I developed it into the Sitcom Trials, gives a better representation of what the writer wants to sell to telly, but half an hour is a bloody long time if your script's not very good. (Those of us from the old days in Bristol still recall Sisters, the sitcom starring 7 nuns, about which the writer famously remarked "I would rather cut off my left arm than lose one of my nuns". That was a very long half hour).

15 minutes of not very good sitcom is an improvement on that, but can still leave the audience impatient, wondering where this will end and what they can do about it. 10 minutes of sitcom, incomplete as that may be, with the audience given the opportunity to choose to see the ending of just one of the comedies it sees, is, I think, the most compelling way of, as I've always said, not wasting their time with anything they don't like, and ensuring they're never more than ten minutes away from something they might prefer.

We now have Sitcom Saturday and Sitcom Mission offering more long-form sitcoms, and if the Sitcom Trials continues, it's got the Trials format. Horses for courses - a group of racehorses apply to a series of Universities, with hilarious consequences... sorry, that's the Sitcom Trials Pitch Fest©, totally different subject.

View original

Why is it contrived? Don't or shouldn't all stories have a beginning/middle/end? The end in sitcom trials entries being the solution to the cliff hanger

Quote: bushbaby @ December 4 2009, 2:05 PM GMT

Why is it contrived? Don't or shouldn't all stories have a beginning/middle/end? The end in sitcom trials entries being the solution to the cliff hanger

View original

You ask the philosophical ones, don't you? Sure and isn't everything contrived in some way? Why're most TV shows an hour long minus adverts? Why are films too long when you get past the 90 minute mark? Why is the perfect pop song about 3 and a half minutes?

All good questions, and all open to change. We have 30 minute sitcoms on TV because sometime about 70 or 80 years ago someone found that that was how long audiences liked their comedy shows on the radio to be. Then people wrote comedies to that length and we somehow took it to be some ancient law, like the Golden Section or the Harmonic Scale. Or the Rule Of Three, why does that always work? No-one can explain it, but it seems to.

All these formats, like the Three Act Structure, are contrived. But some we don't notice cos we're used to them. In fact if a sitcom breaks the rules, like a double length episode of Friends which starts to unravel through its unfamiliarity from the usual formula, we notice the change far more than notice our complacent accepantance of something that we would, if we were actively participating in the entertainment as thinking individuals, challenge and question every time it was thrust upon us.

So, as I say, the "cliffhanger" format of the Trials is contrived, to serve a deliberate end. What isn't? And why not? And haven't I got work to be getting on with? Stop making me do all this thinking! I don't do thinking. I'm in light entertainment!

Quote: Kev F @ December 4 2009, 2:37 PM GMT

All good questions, and all open to change. We have 30 minute sitcoms on TV because sometime about 70 or 80 years ago someone found that that was how long audiences liked their comedy shows on the radio to be. Then people wrote comedies to that length and we somehow took it to be some ancient law, like the Golden Section or the Harmonic Scale. Or the Rule Of Three, why does that always work? No-one can explain it, but it seems to.

View original

Is it not something as simple as how long you can expect your audience to pay attention before lots of them start needing to take a piss or have a cup of tea or something?

Cheers James and Kev.

In fairness, I didn't manage to get along to any of the shows this run, so was just conveying what I heard.

Dan

Quote: Kev F @ December 4 2009, 2:37 PM GMT

You ask the philosophical ones, don't you? Sure and isn't everything contrived in some way? Why're most TV shows an hour long minus adverts? Why are films too long when you get past the 90 minute mark? Why is the perfect pop song about 3 and a half minutes?

All good questions, and all open to change. We have 30 minute sitcoms on TV because sometime about 70 or 80 years ago someone found that that was how long audiences liked their comedy shows on the radio to be. Then people wrote comedies to that length and we somehow took it to be some ancient law, like the Golden Section or the Harmonic Scale. Or the Rule Of Three, why does that always work? No-one can explain it, but it seems to.

All these formats, like the Three Act Structure, are contrived. But some we don't notice cos we're used to them. In fact if a sitcom breaks the rules, like a double length episode of Friends which starts to unravel through its unfamiliarity from the usual formula, we notice the change far more than notice our complacent accepantance of something that we would, if we were actively participating in the entertainment as thinking individuals, challenge and question every time it was thrust upon us.

So, as I say, the "cliffhanger" format of the Trials is contrived, to serve a deliberate end. What isn't? And why not? And haven't I got work to be getting on with? Stop making me do all this thinking! I don't do thinking. I'm in light entertainment!

View original

Eee, I wish I could 'av a long chat with yer luv.
What I was trying to say is that it shouldn't be contrived. A good story teller will have the cliff hanger at the end of the middle bit....or summat, so that the end resolves the problems brought up in the beginning and middle.
Any way get back to work

Just thought I'd add my two penneth as I went to three of the initial heats and a semi final. I was booked to go to the final and disappointed that I had to miss it but I had already seen four of the finalists by then - so with the exception of Elise's which I was sorry to miss, I thought the winner was the best this season. I could see End to End being made as either a sitcom or possibly an hour long comedy drama and was v pleased for Matt and Steve having 'worked' with them at the last trials. And well done to Pete on the audience vote - and well done to Dan March for surviving water spat in his face that many times!

As a writer I wasn't keen on this format though compared to last time. Personally I find it hard enough to cram basically a half hour episode into 15 minutes let alone ten initially - in terms of setting up a plot with beginning middle and end and establishing characters properly and trying to be funny on top. Knowing that the ten minutes has to achieve all that whether or not the last two mins gets seen is no mean feat!

As an audience I preferred the fifteen minute versions too. There were sitcoms I would have liked to have seen all of but didn't. And those I did see had a hard job justifying the 'pay off'. By that point you've had to physically set up the stageing, introduce and perform and take away the set five times then wait for the count up and then set up the final one. The expectation is to end on a high but for me that wasn't happening. Some were trying to resolve their character's dilemma say, with more focus on drama than comedy which didn't quite work in that situation. Or they had a big build up before hand and couldn't quite match it in the pay off. The momentum has been lost and I think the expectation is that this should be the funniest bit of the night but it wasn't in my view at least.

Obviously people are disagreeing on this one though and that aside I did see some good scripts and great performances as always. And well done to James for staying sane and all the hard work he put in. It's also great to have these opportunities for new writers and the chance to experience a taster of what most of us are aiming for!

Jx

Quote: Jane P @ December 4 2009, 9:37 PM GMT

Just thought I'd add my two penneth as I went to three of the initial heats and a semi final. I was booked to go to the final and disappointed that I had to miss it but I had already seen four of the finalists by then - so with the exception of Elise's which I was sorry to miss, I thought the winner was the best this season. I could see End to End being made as either a sitcom or possibly an hour long comedy drama and was v pleased for Matt and Steve having 'worked' with them at the last trials. And well done to Pete on the audience vote - and well done to Dan March for surviving water spat in his face that many times!

As a writer I wasn't keen on this format though compared to last time. Personally I find it hard enough to cram basically a half hour episode into 15 minutes let alone ten initially - in terms of setting up a plot with beginning middle and end and establishing characters properly and trying to be funny on top. Knowing that the ten minutes has to achieve all that whether or not the last two mins gets seen is no mean feat!

As an audience I preferred the fifteen minute versions too. There were sitcoms I would have liked to have seen all of but didn't. And those I did see had a hard job justifying the 'pay off'. By that point you've had to physically set up the stageing, introduce and perform and take away the set five times then wait for the count up and then set up the final one. The expectation is to end on a high but for me that wasn't happening. Some were trying to resolve their character's dilemma say, with more focus on drama than comedy which didn't quite work in that situation. Or they had a big build up before hand and couldn't quite match it in the pay off. The momentum has been lost and I think the expectation is that this should be the funniest bit of the night but it wasn't in my view at least.

Obviously people are disagreeing on this one though and that aside I did see some good scripts and great performances as always. And well done to James for staying sane and all the hard work he put in. It's also great to have these opportunities for new writers and the chance to experience a taster of what most of us are aiming for!

Jx

View original

Why do they have set changes? For instance, Merrily We Roll Along, a full length musical has no set as such, just a sort of 'scaffolding' back stage where sometimes it's used. Otherwise the stage is used as a college/office/apartment/audition room/theatre/restaurant etc etc. Audiences are great with imagination!
That would save a lot of time and money

Quote: bushbaby @ December 4 2009, 10:13 PM GMT

Why do they have set changes? For instance, Merrily We Roll Along, a full length musical has no set as such, just a sort of 'scaffolding' back stage where sometimes it's used. Otherwise the stage is used as a college/office/apartment/audition room/theatre/restaurant etc etc. Audiences are great with imagination!
That would save a lot of time and money

View original

When I say 'set' anyone who's been to the Trials will know it's down to the bare bones - mostly a few chairs, possibly tables, a few props here and there - some use more than others, but it does have the effect of breaking momentum a little..

Quote: Jane P @ December 4 2009, 11:04 PM GMT

When I say 'set' anyone who's been to the Trials will know it's down to the bare bones - mostly a few chairs, possibly tables, a few props here and there - some use more than others, but it does have the effect of breaking momentum a little..

View original

Oh I see. Merrily had two tables sometimes, that's all. In big theatres too!!

Quote: Kev F @ November 13 2009, 12:29 PM GMT

I've glanced back at the pocket review I wrote of all 20 finalist scripts when I was sent them by James in September.

It would be unfair at this stage to name the scripts I commented on, but looking at my notes I see one script that is through to the semi-finals and was an outstanding success on the night merited this from me:

"Dire. Talky, nothing happens, cringeworthy wordplay. 1/5"

Another semi-finalist, which again rocked the house, got this from me:

"Talky, been done better before, not funny enough. 2/5"

And of one script which didn't make it to the semis, not even as a highest scoring runner-up, I wrote:

"Very well written, good characters, good laughs. 4/5"

View original

What about at this stage?

Quote: Fence @ December 6 2009, 1:29 AM GMT

What about at this stage?

View original

Which just proves that what isn't funny on the page translates to hilarious acted out...as in Royle Family, the scripts are so banal, it is only because Caroline Ahern had contacts and was able to act it out in front of directors/producers that she got the series on TV
Sample

Jim
What did you cook for Dave's tea?

Caroline
I did a big meal
Jim
What
Caroline
Beans on toast.

Funny on paper? No way. Acted out in the Royle Family style? Hilarious

Quote: Fence @ December 6 2009, 1:29 AM GMT

What about at this stage?

View original

Okay, a couple of those reviews, that I wrote of scripts when I first read them:

"Dire. Talky, nothing happens, cringeworthy wordplay. 1/5"
- That was Saul Wordsworth's Alan Pob, which romped through its first heat as the funniest thing on the night, really being brought to life by Chris Fitchew's directing and taking the lead role, and in particular one scene with Chris and Jen Brister which took the barest of bones and timed it to perfection. On a second viewing, in the semi final, the story did indeed appear thin. But it turned out better than I'd thought all along.

"Talky, been done better before, not funny enough. 2/5"
- That was Assemblage Of Evil. As a comics fan, and latterly a fan of No Heroics on ITV2 (or 3?) I've seen comedy superheroes and villians done well and badly (tried it myself with Is It A Bird years ago, actually pre-dating the first Sitcom Trials), and on the page Assemblage lacked action or originality. The Unexpected Items, the former Oxford Revue sketch team who performd it in the Trials, again brought it to life creating an end result that was better than the script alone. Though on the night of the final, on the bigger stage, the lack of action did become very noticeable. I was right about the 'talky'.

"Very well written, good characters, good laughs. 4/5"
- This was the one that was knocked out in its Heat, The Not Gots by Malcolm Duffy. It fell very flat in performance, which was a shame because there were some strong characters in there with nice motivation, and a good active bit of comedy drama. That's the sort of difference performance can make.

Returning to the subject of the 10 minutes and the cliffhangers, I watched an episode of Big Bang Theory last night (watching series 2 on Virgin Media TV On Demand, you can also see them mornings on Channel 4) and was surprised to see by the end that it was only 20 minutes long. So, by the time they get to their ad break, they've had less time than most Sitcom Trials entries to grab their audience and make sure they don't flip over. Don't see them complaining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlhHTdDqoBc&feature=related

I love The Big Bang sitcom but I watched the very first one and after ten minutes I was about to switch over, it was so boring and no laughs yet, then, it became really funny and I've watched it ever since. I am so glad I stuck with it.
I wondered at that point how it had ever been accepted....thinking of the first ten pages theory.