British Comedy Guide

Sketch Sketch

Below is another sketch I've been toying with following my previous overwritten sketch. Not sure it works, but would appreciate some feedback, if anybody is up for it.

-----------
INT. OFFICE. DAY

Stern manager at large desk. There's a knock on door.

Manager: (BARKING) Come!

Smith walks in.

Manager: Ah! Smith! Come in! Sit down!

Smith sits down.

Manager: Now. As an accountant, I know what's funny, and I have recently noticed there are parts of your sketches where people do not laugh.

Smith: Really?

Manager: Yes. And I have had my team of statisticians on it with their clever mathematics and they have produced a very revealing graph.

The manager produces a pie chart where one half is red and the other is blue. The blue has a big label with 'Laughs' written on it and the red has 'No Laughs' written on it.

Manager: Now, as you can see, a whole half of your sketch does not contain laughs.

Smith: Which bits didn't get the laughs?

Manager: Interesting you should say that. Now, I've been talking to those clever, clever statisticians again - men and women with comedy running through their veins, I might add - and they have spent months and millions of pounds analyzing which bits get laughs and which bits don't. And they have produced this very revealing graph.

The manager produces another pie chart, half red and half blue. In the red, it says 'Setup' and in the blue it says 'Punchline'.

Manager: As you can see, it's the punchline that gets the laugh. The punchline!

Smith: Uh... yes? That's right.

Manager: Right. So we want you to keep the punchlines and get rid of the rest.

Smith: But, I couldn't do that. The punchlines wouldn't be funny then.

Manager: No. They will be funny. Millions of pounds and a load of statisticians say so. More importantly, the very revealing graph says so.

Smith is incredulous.

Manager: Now, I also noticed that some parts of your punchlines are funnier than others. And my statisticians have worked out which bits are and which bits aren't. Now, we've discovered that the punchline is actually quite often what we call in the trade a 'Sentence'.

Manager holds up sign saying 'Sentence'

Manager: Stop me if I'm getting too technical for you.

Smith shakes his head.

Manager: Now, we were intrigued by these 'Sentences'...

Holds up a sign with 'Intrigued' on it.

Manager: So we dug a little deeper, and do you know what we found? We found these things called 'Words'. Now, I don't expect you to understand this techie jargon - Lord knows, it makes my head spin! - but suffice it to say, we have discovered that some of the words in your punchlines, or 'Sentences', are not actually funny. For instance, this 'Word' is not funny.

The manager produces a card that says 'The'.

Manager: Whereas, this word is funny.

The manager produces a card that says 'Sausage'.

Smith is more incredulous.

Manager: And so is this word.

The manager holds up 'Kumquats'.

Manager: And this word.

The manager holds up 'Bottom'.

Manager: So from now on, in the interests of being efficient and funny, you are only allowed to use those words.

Smith: Sausage, Bottoms and Kumquats?

Manager: Indeed. Sausage.

Holds up a picture of a sausage.

Manager: Bottoms.

Holds up a picture of a bottom.

Manager: and Kumquats.

Holds up a sign of a brick.

Smith: But it won't be funny!

Manager: Oh yes it will. The very revealing graphs say so. And very revealing graphs do not lie!

Smith deflates.

Manager: Now, this is not all. A very peculiar thing happened while my clever statisticians were watching some sketches. In one sketch, they couldn't find any sentences or words at all, but people were still laughing! Without words! Imagine that? It was as if the laws of the universe had turned upside down! We were intrigued. We looked deeper. Spent billions of pounds, and those clever boffins came up with this very revealing graph.

The manager holds up another red and blue pie chart. This time blue says 'Fall over'. Red says 'Don't fall over'.

Manager: Apparently, falling over is funny. This was confirmed this morning when my wife fell over and broke both hips, and I laughed until I was sick! Hahaha! So, from now on, in all your sketches, whoever says a word must fall over.

Smith: Every time they say a word?

Manager: Of course! No opportunity for laughter must be missed!

Smith looks pained.

Cut to:

INT. TWO RONNIES TYPE SHOP STAGE. DAY.

A shopkeeper stands behind the till. A customer walks in. The customer walks up to the shopkeeper.

We see Smith standing off stage looking depressed and beaten.

Customer: Kumquats?

The customer falls over. The audience erupts with laughter.

Smith looks up.

Shopkeeper: Sausage!

The shopkeeper falls over. The audience erupts with laughter again.

Smith is confused.

Customer: Bottom!

The customer falls over again.

The audience laughs hysterically. They have tears in their eyes. Some of them are rolling about in the aisles.

Smith looks at his script, shrugs, and throws it over his shoulder.

Hi VV.

Not sure about the out. I like the understated nature of mine. One to mull.

I think you're right with Kumquat. I was tempted to go ruder with the picture for it, but I have a general rule to avoid crudity unless it fits and is necessary, so brick was my first port of call.

Aspidistra might be too distant for an audience, wouldn't it?

Given that 'sausage' and 'bottom' are two banal childish words, it might be better to have something else that's childish, maybe 'wee-wee' or something.

Hmm...

A sketch from a newbie on the nature of comedy, to which our Veronica posts a baffling response, has me checking under bridges, but, whatever, it is funny and justifies the length.

Have you had trolls posting entire sketches? Troll free here. Just trying to get my funnies out.

You might not believe what the olog-hai get up to on here. Sadly it can make you think twice before commenting on anything!

"Tis the season of goodwill so apologies to Grem for any bafflement and to Veronica for any unwarranted slur. Veronica's advice is often sound, but seriously kumquats are 50% funnier than aspidistras.

Be that as it may, I have removed my (entirely-non-baffling) critique lest the combination of a talented newbie and a positive critique from my good self be misconstrued.

Hey VV, post your critique back up. It was very good and fair.

VV, I liked the feedback and thanks for taking the time.

Quote: Timbo @ December 28 2010, 6:22 PM GMT

A sketch from a newbie on the nature of comedy, to which our Veronica posts a baffling response, has me checking under bridges

Yeah Tim, really not helpful. Please refrain from posting such speculations, as per site rules. Thanks.

Yes, I think it has been established that I am in the wrong; put it down to the effects on my liver of too much alcohol and far too many mince pies, and the stress of having to spend way, way too much time with relatives.

Grem, you are clearly a talent and as such a very welcome addition to the site. The sketch is remarkably well-written, and works at its considerable length, which is both a strength and a weakness. A strength because it shows you ability to run with an idea and hold interest, and a weakness as there tends to be an assumption these days that audiences have the attention span of gnats. How commercial the sketch is otherwise it is difficult to say; but it should certainly appeal to the embittered wannabees of BCG (I put myself in that category).

Hey, it's all good. I've had my fair share of writerly knockbacks over the years and I'd be in a bad place if I got really sensitive about it all. Plus I can generally tell if someone has an agenda or is being nasty.

The worst response is silence. Or one of those stock BBC rejection cards.

I liked this upon first read, then I read it again looking out for dialogue that could be trimmed and I really can't see much. There are some lines you could lose, but I thought it flowed well and I liked it had a chance to breathe.

Perhaps if you edit it so the direction appear in brackets, it will reveal that there isn't that much that's superflous.

Yeah, I really like this. The idea of Suits trying to distil comedy down to one formula is both hysterical and indeed, chillingly prophetic. Can't you just see some Professor Frink-like guy creating a machine that monitors, learns and eventually writes comedy (insert laugh here)?

Like others I'm not too sure about the out. I think maybe if it DIDN'T work, the accountant guy could present Smith with a graph the next day explaining how they have now calculated what type of audience should be let into these comedy gigs, or something. Just basically refuse to accept he was wrong.

Excellent stuff.

Share this page