Scripts versus performance

Sorry if this is badly explained but I'm interested in peoples views. I've recently read the shooting script for the first ep of Life On Mars-a series I loved. Despite being familiar with the episode (I have the dvd's!)I found reading the script a strangely flat experience. The actors voices didnt come through at all-to the extent that a different cast would have made a very different show.
I've not read many tv scripts yet as my previous experience is in theatre,and my own work has been mostly improv or written to the strengths of known performers so this was fascinating to me. (ok,I know I need to get out more)
I know that stand-up for instance rarely translates well written down because a big part of that artform is the delivery/stage persona but I hadnt considered this would be the case with a hugely successful tv show. Is this normal? What are other peoples experiences of reading scripts from known shows-or stuff they've previously seen performed?

I pretty much only read scripts after I've seen the TV show/film/play, never before.
But unlike you, I *always* hear the actors voices. I couldn't not.

Yeah, I only ever read a script after I've seen the show; that's how it's meant to be received. It would bug me if I watched a show for the first time having already read the script. And with all the sitcom scripts I've read, for this forms most of the scripts I read, I too generally just hear the actors and view how it was played out in my head.

Not to say one can't analyse how the thing's put together. I found the 'Extras' scripts very useful in seeing how the sitcom was structured and how it worked.

I think performance can only be good if the script is good unless its a porn film or improvised

Quote: James Williams @ January 6, 2008, 12:56 AM

Yeah, I only ever read a script after I've seen the show; that's how it's meant to be received. It would bug me if I watched a show for the first time having already read the script. And with all the sitcom scripts I've read, for this forms most of the scripts I read, I too generally just hear the actors and view how it was played out in my head.

Not to say one can't analyse how the thing's put together. I found the 'Extras' scripts very useful in seeing how the sitcom was structured and how it worked.

View original

I think this is what I'm getting at.If you read a script as you've seen it played out then it's the performance you're focused on rather than the writing. But its the writing that has to sell itself before performers are even considered.What interested me about LOM is that whereas I would usually read it based on the performance I'd seen it just didnt happen with this script.And I'm not sure why.
It was kind of like hearing something on the radio and then seeing it on tv and being surprised that the exact same show was different than what was in your head. But in reverse.
Ok I'm tired and making no sense so I'm off to bed

I have felt a similar thing reading a lot of old Peter Cook scripts. Obviously the guy was top class and I love his stuff but some of the scripts seem very flat when you read them UNLESS you imagine the ACTUAL PERFORMANCE, as you say niteowl.

I think performance is a major part of it. The script is a blueprint and of course you need a good one but you also need the performers skills to maximise the potential the script is offering.

A good performance can lift a mediocre script whilst a bad performance can KILL a good script IMO.

Very interesting debate.
I've discussed this a little in one thread whereby some posters think a script unfunny etc. I tried to explain that a script can be unfunny on the page but hilarious off. i.e. The Royle Family, the script is so banal it is incredible how funny it is acted out.
This is the difficulty in placing scripts, one has initially to be lucky to get an editor who sees something in it, enough for them to ask the writer to meet them and discuss it.
Was the author of Life On Mars a known writer?

Quote: bushbaby @ January 6, 2008, 10:38 AM

Very interesting debate.
I've discussed this a little in one thread whereby some posters think a script unfunny etc. I tried to explain that a script can be unfunny on the page but hilarious off. i.e. The Royle Family, the script is so banal it is incredible how funny it is acted out.
This is the difficulty in placing scripts, one has initially to be lucky to get an editor who sees something in it, enough for them to ask the writer to meet them and discuss it.
Was the author of Life On Mars a known writer?

View original

Unless you're in the industry you can't say 'It'll be HILARIOUS stuff' as no one will listen. They'll go 'Er, no it's not'. 'But-but-but what about The Royle Family?!' - 'Do stand up for 15 years, then have two comedies on the telly, and then get back to me'

And yes the writer had written lots of drama - EastEnders and the like. The show itself was created by Tony Jordan - one of the most respected and successful drama producers ever. That's how the script got made. It may not have jumped out at you but he'd done enough in his career for commissioners to go 'It's Tony, he knows what he's doing'.

If an unknown tried that, they'd be laughed out the office.

It's much easier to get a producer to see something in it if what they're looking for is obvious - i.e. it's funny on the page.

Actually, Life On Mars took around 5+ years to get on screen because it was rejected by most broadcasters, just thought I'd say.

ah, Tony Jordan, a brilliant writer,

Quote: Seefacts @ January 6, 2008, 11:25 AM

Unless you're in the industry you can't say 'It'll be HILARIOUS stuff' as no one will listen. They'll go 'Er, no it's not'. 'But-but-but what about The Royle Family?!' - 'Do stand up for 15 years, then have two comedies on the telly, and then get back to me'

And yes the writer had written lots of drama - EastEnders and the like. The show itself was created by Tony Jordan - one of the most respected and successful drama producers ever. That's how the script got made. It may not have jumped out at you but he'd done enough in his career for commissioners to go 'It's Tony, he knows what he's doing'.

If an unknown tried that, they'd be laughed out the office.

It's much easier to get a producer to see something in it if what they're looking for is obvious - i.e. it's funny on the page.

View original

Seefacts.
Caroline's Royle Family was rejected a few times before she begged a producer to watch them act it out, so being a stand-up etc doesn't automatically get your script accepted

Seeing your stuff performed is an interesting experience - the bits you thought were hilarious can come across as totally flat and the lines you thought didn't work can be the best bit in it.

Sometimes this is because of the performance, but it can also be because what works on paper doesn't always work in reality. One mistake a lot of people (including myself) make is to forget that an action takes time to complete and can completely throw out the pacing.

When you film something, it gets even worse. Not only are you relying on good script and good performance; but you also need good direction and good editing - even the wrong music can destroy the pace and tone of a piece leaving you with an a disasterously unfunny piece.

The sad truth is, you have to make the script funny in the first place - sometimes at the expense of what you know will work on screen. If no one laughs at the script, it won't get made - unless you have enough of a track record to rely on. The theory being, you can always correct the bits that won't translate later - or make suggestions during rehearsals/shooting which alter the performance side of it.

Quote: bushbaby @ January 6, 2008, 11:50 AM

ah, Tony Jordan, a brilliant writer,

Seefacts.
Caroline's Royle Family was rejected a few times before she begged a producer to watch them act it out, so being a stand-up etc doesn't automatically get your script accepted

View original

If she'd been a nobody, it wouldn't have got made then.

Yes I agree Phil. I had two comedy plays put on in London Fringe and where I thought it funny the audience thought hilarious and where I thought I may get a chuckle it got fits of laughter.
It is said that if something makes you laugh (as you write) it will make 10% of others laugh too.
I did a hat-changing monologue at Christmas time at a business party. It was something I'd written in the 60s. I was extremely nervous and didn't know if it would work 40 years later but it did. The monologue is actually not all that funny if read on the page (only to me, it cracks me up) It's the way it is acted out and vocalised. The 'audience' loved it and I got loud belly-laughs.
I wouldn't put it on here because perhaps no one would get what it's saying.

Aw. I want to read it now.

Quote: Seefacts @ January 6, 2008, 12:14 PM

If she'd been a nobody, it wouldn't have got made then.

View original

No it definitely wouldn't Seefacts and that's what we are saying with scripts 'on the page' Even if 'you' think it is hilarious, 'you' have to convince an editor that it is. That's why I said to you in another thread that it is virtually impossible for a new writer to break through into TV with a sitcom. But getting back to Caroline, it took some convincing to get the producers to watch the cast act an episode out for them. 'We' don't have that luxury.
But the debate here is not so much Royle Family (I gave that as an example) as, a script can be so boring on page but hilarious off.