Family Portrait

Anyone have any ideas on how we could improve this one?

F/Xoor opens and closes, bell rings

GEORGE:Ah, hello madam, how are you today?

SUSAN:Not happy.

GEORGEh dear. What's the problem?

SUSAN:It's this family portrait we sat for last week. It's awful.

GEORGEh, I wouldn't say that.

SUSAN:You can't even see our faces.

GEORGE:Yes, it was the best I could do in the circumstances.

SUSAN:It was posed in a studio. You're meant to be a professional.

GEORGE:Is that your family in the car outside?

SUSAN:Yes.

GEORGEof! No offence, but they are frightfully ugly. The photo's much better without them.

SUSAN:Well, I'd like a refund.

GEORGE:I don't blame you. Oh sorry, did you mean for the pictures? Now, now, let's see if we can work this out. How about another sitting?

SUSAN:I really don't think so.

GEORGE:I assure you it will be much better than last time. We could face them away from the camera; that might be a little more palatable.

SUSAN:No.

GEORGE:How about some kind of bagging solution?

SUSAN:No.

GEORGE:I could replace you husband and kids with more aesthetically pleasing models. (BEAT) Here.

SUSAN:What's that?

GEORGE:It's an artist's impression of how it would look if you weren't all so tremendously unattractive. I think you may find Valentino particularly to your taste. Quite the ladies man too, I hear. Very low standards indeed.

F/Xoor opens

SUSAN:Good day.

F/Xoor slams shut, bells jangle

(pause)

F/Xoor opens and closes, bell rings

SUSAN:Actually, could I just take the husband?

Yeah. Line breaks.

Sorry. My eyes need line breaks.

After:

george: How about some kind of bagging solution?
susan: No.

you could go more absurd like:

george: They'd be bags for life, not those horrible plastic bags that clog up landfill sites.
susan: No.
george: Or how about being photgraphed in total darkness?
susan: No.
george: I could Photoshop in some amusing cartoon eyes.
susan: No

It's alright as an idea - it's not funny enough though. You might be able to get more mileage out of the photo guy's insults being a lot more inventive. Your funniest line for me is "How about some kind of bagging solution?" Also I think Valentino should be replaced with someone more accessible, more "now".

Also, who says "Good day" anymore? For that matter who says "Madam" anymore? It makes the sketch feel very old-fashioned and straight-laced, even for radio.

Just one opinion, hope it helps.

Thanks Kevin, lost the formatting when I pasted it. Better now?

Mikey - That's great, really helpful. A big improvement already. Maybe there is hope after all.

Quote: Lbug @ November 6 2009, 1:00 AM GMT

Thanks Kevin, lost the formatting when I pasted it. Better now?

Mikey - That's great, really helpful. A big improvement already. Maybe there is hope after all.

View original

Not at all.

Quote: Lee Henman @ November 6 2009, 1:02 AM GMT

Not at all.

View original

Thanks Lee, I think you must have snuck your response in while I was bashing out a one fingered reply to the previous posts like a sloth with a stick. Not sure I'm cut out for the fast moving new fangled world of internet forums.

Quote: Lbug @ November 6 2009, 1:07 AM GMT

Thanks Lee, I was bashing out a one fingered reply

View original

Kinky!

Going by your feedback:

Quote: Lbug @ November 5 2009, 11:47 PM GMT

I think there's something more interesting to be done with her reactions, which is one-note until the punchline. She could be taken around the houses a bit more.

View original

they probably don't want you to have her spouting "no", "no", "no". (Sorry Mikey!)

Quote: Mikey Jackson @ November 6 2009, 12:55 AM GMT

After:

george: How about some kind of bagging solution?
susan: No.

you could go more absurd like:

george: They'd be bags for life, not those horrible plastic bags that clog up landfill sites.
susan: No.
george: Or how about being photgraphed in total darkness?
susan: No.
george: I could Photoshop in some amusing cartoon eyes.
susan: No

View original

Not that Mikey's suggestions are bad, but if you go with something like that they seem to want her to react a bit more.

Quote: Mikey Jackson @ November 6 2009, 12:55 AM GMT

george: I could Photoshop in some amusing cartoon eyes.

View original

Have you been reading my RFTP entry also in critique?

http://www.www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/15609

Hi Lbug

At the beginning could you give them a bit more character? Make the woman more bolshy but talking over the end of his lines (and thus him more submissive) so she's clearly a woman in charge.

How about at the end, twisting it so she ends up blaming the husband in some way? Maybe he never agreed to the plastic surgery she demanded of him? Or blaming his parents gene pool or something? Might work if she's seen as very pushy.

Dan

Now then Lbug.

As well as Susan's reactions being a little more animated, I also think you could get away with throwing in a couple more suggestions from George - photographing the family from a great distance for example; or something more bizzare perhaps. Or you could have him go into more detail with regards to the 'bagging solution'.

I'm not sure about the ending though. I like the idea of there being a 'model family' for the purposes of comparison. I think it would be quite funny if, in the end, the woman came round to his way of thinking and either ends up apologising, or, she suddenly becomes hysterical with grief once she's forced to acknowledge the hideousness of her own family!

I would have the woman coming to collect the portrait, so she is seeing it for the first time - that way there is humour to be had from her initial shock and you hit the ground the running

The sketch could be tightened considerably, quite a few lines and half lines could be cut that don't add to the comedy- what is gained from reminding the photographer he is a professional? why does the photographer need to see the family again outside in the car? why does the photographer need to promise the new photo will be better, surely that is inferred? having suggested that they should face away from the camera does he need to say it would be more palateable?

The refund gag is not sufficiently well set up to work, in my view.

As others have suggested, I think you need to escalate more - in doing so you might find it leads you naturally to a more surprising punch.

And just a minor thing, why bother naming the characters? There are only two people in the sketch, and they can be easily, and more usefully, differentiated as 'photographer' and 'customer'.

Quote: Lbug @ November 5 2009, 11:44 PM GMT

SUSAN:Well, I'd like a refund.

GEORGE:I don't blame you. Oh sorry, did you mean for the pictures?

View original

This line killed it for me. It made me actually wince. Can't believe others havent commented on it

I'm not a sketch writer, but I'm a sketch lover so feel qualified enough to comment, not so in making recommendations, sorry

A big thank you to everyone who's commented for their advice, suggestions and opinions, they will really help with the rewriting process - although it is a brutal reality check when you see how much funnier your work would be if it was written by someone else.

We'll see what we can knock up and post the results here.