As far as I'm concerened, and I'm not concerened in the slightest, GBH stands for Good Bloody Humour.
I recently had a script assessed by some First Lookers. My three "wizer-men" told me that violence and
humour don't mix! It's strange how people think that humour has rules and limitations. Stranger still when
they are supposed to be my peers!
Depends on the violence, tone, style, and what have you; it obviously worked in Bottom.
Quote: Stephen Birch @ December 18 2009, 10:10 AM GMTAs far as I'm concerened, and I'm not concerened in the slightest, GBH stands for Good Bloody Humour.
I recently had a script assessed by some First Lookers. My three "wizer-men" told me that violence and
humour don't mix! It's strange how people think that humour has rules and limitations. Stranger still when
they are supposed to be my peers!
I think it depends on the context. There has of course been some very funny violent comedy over the years. But there's also been some tiresome "oooh, look at me with my dark black edgy comedy" shit.
Tom and Jerry prove that violence and comedy mix very well indeed and, even in the 'real' world, Vic and Bob are very funny when hitting one another about the head and face with heavy cooking utensils.
Coming even further in the 'real' world, Del Boy was once beaten up quite severely and we were treated to a look at his badly-bruised and battered face.
In fact, only this week, 'Big Top' had one of the characters punching another in the face several times with maximum force and that was by no means done in a comedic fashion. It was a genuinely violent 'punishment beating' carried out in anger.
It's clear therefore that violence and comedy are often mixed to critically and commercially successful effect (except in Big Top, obviously) but it's not a mixture everyone enjoys.
And Bjork attacking that reporter in the airport was quite funny.
It rather depends on the nature of the violence and how it is handled. I am not going to take offence at the Three Stooges, but My Family with Fred and Rosie West, I might object to.
There is a wonderful scene in Andy Hamilton's Underworld, in which a real life gangster wanders onto the set of a Guy Ritchie style laddish gangster romp, and explains to the director, at gunpoint, the realities of violence, as a trickle of urine runs down the director's leg.
Quote: Ming the Mirthless @ December 18 2009, 10:23 AM GMTIn fact, only this week, 'Big Top' had one of the characters punching another in the face several times with maximum force and that was by no means done in a comedic fashion.
It was done by a man in a clown's outfit accompanied by comic sound effects. How is that not in a comedic fashion?
Not sure there's much of a market for a violent sitcom. Hard to see where it would fit in to todays schedules.
Quote: chipolata @ December 18 2009, 10:56 AM GMTNot sure there's much of a market for a violent sitcom. Hard to see where it would fit in to todays schedules.
E4?
Thanks for your words. It's so nice to know that there are open minded scribic supporters lurking in the shadow words, and the potentially violent underwords. Happy Christmas to you all, and a mirthful Mingmas as well.
Hang on a sec Stephen, I'm not done yet so don't mug me off!
I would happily watch a "Chopper" style sitcom as that had violence and humour a plenty, some of the funniest scenes I've seen anywhere in fact......you schlaaaaaag!
Nil By Mouth was pretty funny.
The problem with scripting violence is that it so often reads as simplistic and rather corny slapstick. Conveying the image you have in your head as regards the nature and timing of violence is a tricky thing. The other concern is that violence is often interpreted as an escape clause for a writer who can't come up with a funny line. Easy to pitch if you've a proven track record of physical comedy, such as Rik & Ade did before they did Bottom. Not so easy if you're not an established writer/performer.
With my "humour/violence" the violence, tension and setting are intended to be realistic and dramatic with the humour coming as a "sucker-punch" for the audience. A reversal of the Carrie type "hand bursting out of the Grave". For example I would have a dog stroll up and piss on the grave - the hand bursts out of the grave - the gog bites it.
Quote: Stephen Birch @ December 18 2009, 12:23 PM GMTWith my "humour/violence" the violence, tension and setting are intended to be realistic and dramatic with the humour coming as a "sucker-punch" for the audience. A reversal of the Carrie type "hand bursting out of the Grave". For example I would have a dog stroll up and piss on the grave - the hand bursts out of the grave - the gog bites it.
Okay I am confused now. The gag you have described would be perfectly acceptable in a spoof horror, but how is it "realistic and dramatic"?
Quote: Timbo @ December 18 2009, 10:32 AM GMTIt was done by a man in a clown's outfit accompanied by comic sound effects. How is that not in a comedic fashion?
I refer my honourable friend to the many horror films featuring men in clowns' outfits who are anything but comedic and, in particular, to the notorious scene in 'A Clockwork Orange' in which a woman is gang-raped, beaten and murdered by a group of men made-up like clowns, the whole obscenity being played out to the delightful strains of 'Singing in the Rain'.
Comedic?
I think not.