The Sitcom Mission 2011 Page 119

A rep is a good idea.

I think the debate here really is centred around the focus of the competition. It is being used as a showcase for writers,actors,directors and the producers. It is not solely writer led. If it were the writers absolutely should be involved in every step of the way and have opportunity for meaningful dialogue with all concerned - actors,directors,stage managers, producers. Without the writers you couldn't have this kind of showcase - but everyone involved isn't doing it simply to 'find the new best sitcom' or sitcom writer.

Quote: Marc P @ May 8 2011, 11:18 AM BST

A rep is a good idea.

I think the debate here really is centred around the focus of the competition. It is being used as a showcase for writers,actors,directors and the producers. It is not solely writer led. If it were the writers absolutely should be involved in every step of the way and have opportunity for meaningful dialogue with all concerned - actors,directors,stage managers, producers. Without the writers you couldn't have this kind of showcase - but everyone involved isn't doing it simply to 'find the new best sitcom' or sitcom writer.

View original

Agree 100%. This is very much a showcase for actors and directors, too.

Si, I've got an idea, how about we put on a showcase for producers...

Quote: Marc P @ May 8 2011, 11:18 AM BST

A rep is a good idea.

I think the debate here really is centred around the focus of the competition. It is being used as a showcase for writers,actors,directors and the producers. It is not solely writer led. If it were the writers absolutely should be involved in every step of the way and have opportunity for meaningful dialogue with all concerned - actors,directors,stage managers, producers. Without the writers you couldn't have this kind of showcase - but everyone involved isn't doing it simply to 'find the new best sitcom' or sitcom writer.

View original

The writer, therefore, should be allowed as much input as the others

It certainly makes sense.

Quote: Declan @ May 3 2011, 2:42 PM BST

To celebrate Julie Bower's utterly brilliant 49 Cedar Street being broadcast on Radio 4 this Thursday at 11pm, here are interviews we did with Julie and her producer Colin Anderson:

https://www.comedy.co.uk/sitcom_mission/blog/27/

https://www.comedy.co.uk/sitcom_mission/blog/28/

View original

I just listen to this on 'play back' and thought it brilliant, hilarious and soooo different.

I was talking comedy

Quote: Declan @ May 8 2011, 12:17 PM BST

Si, I've got an idea, how about we put on a showcase for producers...

View original

Wouldn't work. Where do we find someone stupid enough to put in all that effort for nothing?

Quote: bushbaby @ May 7 2011, 2:53 PM BST

Just another point and speaking as an actor. If the line consists of a list of things one after the other, I would say that line at breakneck speed (nothing worse than a list read out slowly) I thought all actors were taught that but maybe it's because I did the Stanislavsky method.

View original

I'm all for the 'there are some bad actors, directors and writers, but lots who aren't' summation of the argument.

But I am genuinely a bit puzzled by this comment. I was trained in Stanislavsky method and I would (massively) summarize it as dividing parts into beats, identifying the psychological motive behind the beat, and finding an actable physical action to embody that motive.

In what way does Stanislavsky method imply that every time you read a list - regardless of the circumstance - it should be read at a 'breakneck speed'?

For example a lover listing the admirable qualities of their partner. That would be rather odd at high speed.

Quote: andyblacksheep @ May 8 2011, 6:18 PM BST

I'm all for the 'there are some bad actors, directors and writers, but lots who aren't' summation of the argument.

But I am genuinely a bit puzzled by this comment. I was trained in Stanislavsky method and I would (massively) summarize it as dividing parts into beats, identifying the psychological motive behind the beat, and finding an actable physical action to embody that motive.

In what way does Stanislavsky method imply that every time you read a list - regardless of the circumstance - it should be read at a 'breakneck speed'?

For example a lover listing the admirable qualities of their partner. That would be rather odd at high speed.

View original

Yes it would and that's how to do a comedy 'list' line. If it's not comedy, do it as in 'romance'

I was talking comedy

Now I finally understand, There's method in her madness.

I always said...'if its good enough for Robert De Niro, it's good enough for me.'

Fair enough, that makes sense!

(although there is comedy of another sort to be had by reading a list incredibly slowly - did you see Stewart Lee 'listing' the sort of crisps his granddad likes? Just brilliant. But in that case the whole point is how unnatural it is, so wouldn't fit an acting situation.)

I think that confirms BB's point. Can you imagine one of his monologues being done by an another actor?

When I think of it Andy, it doesn't just apply to comedy. There's a play in the West End at present about Judy Garland's last few weeks of her life and at one point [a serious moment] the actress lists at breakneck speed about 7/8 drugs she's taken during her lifetime, force fed them as a child and hooked for ever more. Not only was it right to do it at speed, imagine how boring it would be read out slowly but it also told us, Judy could remember the drugs without hesitation as the names were imprinted on her mind. So, to sum up, I guess it depends on the script etc but IMO, a list of items should be read out at speed
Then to lighten the moment, she adds...'I could have floated down the yellow brick road'....haha

Quote: Marc P @ May 8 2011, 8:18 PM BST

I think that confirms BB's point. Can you imagine one of his monologues being done by an another actor?

View original

Go to any open mic stand up night these days and you'll see some people giving it a try

(I mean copying his style, not directly lifting his routines BTW)