The Definition of Well Written Page 6

Quote: Marc P @ December 5 2010, 6:35 PM GMT

[quote name="JPM1" post="699804" date="December 5 2010, 5:31 PM GMT" my opening bid for it's lack of any compelling events

What say ye?

View original

I say you don't need any compelling events, necessarily, in comedy. Character yes, events no. Not always.[/quote]
Perhaps I could have been clearer...

Events are the results of character's choices.

Plot and character are thoroughly intertwined because a good plot is the result of the choices characters make. In Him & Her the characters make almost no choices and therefore cause very little to happen. Their relationship is almost completely monotone throughout the series because they are almost completely passive.

It was a show that never really got out of bed...

Might not a show be good and interestng and different for it's very lack of "choices" made by its characters, by its very "passivity". Characters can be passive ... they can be victims ... surely this is as legitimate a subject for comedy as choice generated action?

Quote: Wistyish @ December 5 2010, 7:02 PM GMT

Might not a show be good and interestng and different for it's very lack of "choices" made by its characters, by its very "passivity". Characters can be passive ... they can be victims ... surely this is as legitimate a subject for comedy as choice generated action?

View original

I'm going to argue that an active character will always be more compelling than a passive character.

(There are always exceptions, yes, but 99.% of the time....)

An active character wants or needs something. Ideally, what they want turns out to be different from what they need and the moment those things collide is the climax - consider Nora in A Doll's House.

A passive character is hard to care about because they don't reveal themselves to us by showing us what they want and how they go after it. There's no real opportunity for reversal, acheivement, heartbreak, et cetera... Consider Brydon's character in The Trip.

I think a victim is different than a passive character. A victim reacts to things happening to them. How they react reveals to us what they want and how they'll get it.

I'd love to see a sitcom that really breaks the mold in a way that's just as compelling as the best shows in the mold. This year we saw several that tried but I'd say none were terribly successful (Roger and Val, The Trip, Him & Her.)

Wisty - what did you think of Him and Her? and What's your vote for worst-written and why?

Quote: JPM1 @ December 5 2010, 7:21 PM GMT

Wisty - what did you think of Him and Her?

View original

Shouldn't this be in the SitCom forum?

Quote: JPM1 @ December 5 2010, 5:31 PM GMT

Ok, fine. Seinfeld is better than "quite good"

But next time you watch, look closely at Jerry's reactions to other people's lines. I think in those moments his weaknesses as a performer are very clear.

View original

Nah, I actually like his performance, it works for me.

Jerry Seinfeld is a limited performer but he doesn't pretend to be anything else. And his no-range acting is perfect for his role in Seinfeld.

Quote: JPM1 @ December 5 2010, 7:21 PM GMT

I'm going to argue that an active character will always be more compelling than a passive character.

(There are always exceptions, yes, but 99.% of the time....)

View original

This is fine. But it isn't what we are discussing. Character comedy is not necessarily about events. You are coming at this from a drama POV and not comedy. Think about Alan Bennett's talking heads. The episode of Porridge when it is just the two of them in the cell. Narrative isn't always about events happening it's about realisation - sometimes for the characters, sometimes for the audience. It's all about what the audience discovers about the characters, and sometimeswhat the characters discover about themselves. For this -watch The Trip.

Talking of realizing things. The moment when David Brent realizes that Finchy is a cock is a great sitcom moment.

Yes, I love that bit. Possibly the best moment in the whole of The Office. Top 3 certainly.

Quote: JPM1 @ December 5 2010, 7:21 PM GMT

I'm going to argue that an active character will always be more compelling than a passive character.

(There are always exceptions, yes, but 99.% of the time....)

View original

Never mind the definition of "well written", what about a thread on the definition of "always"?

We haven't done one on "the" yet.

Quote: Marc P @ December 5 2010, 10:14 PM GMT

This is fine. But it isn't what we are discussing. I'm not sure you grasp what character comedy is about. It is not necessarily about events. You are probably suffering from an analytical take for having been taught about drama and not comedy on your course. Think about Alan Bennett's talking heads. The episode of Porridge when it is just the two of them in the cell. Narrative isn't always about events happening it's about realisation - sometimes for the characters, sometimes for the audience. It's all about what the audience discovers about the characters, and sometimeswhat the characters discover about themselves. For this -watch The Trip.

View original

Hi Marc,

What we were discussing was the quality of Jerry Seinfeld's acting

In the pursuit of the definition of Well-Written we were taking a tangent and asking if we can measure the individual components of a manuscript i.e. character.

I'm afraid I don't know the example you cite but what I can say is that a realisation is often an event in and of itself. Sometimes it's also the result of a series of events. A realisation in comedy is often the conclusion of a dramatically ironic situation. Though I don't know it, Id' bet that in that episode those characters didn't know something about themselves that teh audience saw the whole time and their realisation was the conclusion of that irony.

I'd also contend that there's no such thing as "character comedy" Or, more precisely, that all comedy is "character comedy." Even an action comedy like Get Smart is really about the choices those characters make in that bizarre situation.

In The Trip I think you'd be hard pressed to point to any realisations the characters have about themselves. The whole series is still on iPlayer. If you can pick and episode and minute mark where one of them realises something I will buy you a pint.

In summary - our question within the question is whether or not the quality of a sitcom's characters can be measured and I would argue that, to a certain extent, they can. If only in the sense that active characters can be said to be more compelling than passive characters. (A descriptor than can be applied to every single character in every single medium without exception.) Given that, part of the definition of well-written should likely include reference to the quality of character.

P.S. - I'd like to ask you as politely as I can to do your best to avoid making assumptions about me personally or the course I just completed. Let's try to keep this conversation polite.

Sorry J just deducing from what you posted here on your take on things, not on you or your course personally. You said earlier that comedy wasn't part of the course and I was simply saying that you are applying the theories of dramaturgy to comedy which isn't always helpful.

You were also saying that active characters are more interesting than passive - that was the point I was addressing as that was the one I quoted. Seinfeld is a good actor or not?? I don't know - I have only ever seen him in Seinfeld and for my money he hits the comedy note like Babe Ruth hit a baseball.

Think of realisations as reversals if you will. They can turn an act and they can turn a scene. They don't have to be action based. Think of the end of The Apartment when the turning point of the film is when Jack Lemon doesn't do something. He doesn't take the executive bathroom key.

The apartment! an excellent example!

He chooses not to take the key. That is the very definition of an active character. He makes a choice which affects the forward movement of the story and simultaneously reveals himself to the audience. A very well constructed event, indeed.

I think we may have misunderstood each other on the definition of action and event.

I'd still love to know where in The Trip you see a realisation!

so.....

Would anyone else like to put forward a sitcom they think is the "worst-written" and why?

Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 9:47 AM GMT

I'd still love to know where in The Trip you see a realisation!

View original

What about the moment on the cliff top when the bore he escapes from gives him a little insight into his own personality/behaviour some moments before. Very well written - very funny. Oh what a gift it is to give us to see ourselves as others see us - etc!

And as I said before the show ain't finished yet.