Old NewsRevue reject - Uberinjunction

Ages old reject I found in my documents folder. I was actually surprised that it was better than I remembered. Obviously, it was at the time when everyone was guessing that Mr Ryan Giggs was the mysterious subject of a superinjunction, and to make matters worse, he played a shite game against Barcelona that week.

Uber Injunction

JUDGEvoice over)
As members of the jury, you have been brought here today to pass judgement on one of your peers. But you'll just have to take my word for that, since this case is the subject of an Uber Injunction. None of the people, places or events can be named or spoken of. Counsellor, would you please call your first witness.

SOLICITOR:The prosecution calls Mr Whats-his-face.

A man with his eyes covered with a black strip marked "CENSORED"
enters the witness box.

SOLICITOR:Could you state your full name, please?

WHATSHISFACE:No.

SOLICITORo you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

WHATSHISFACE:Yes. As soon as my publicist has negotiated a fee with a leading newspaper.

SOLICITOR:Where were you on the night of...yonks ago?

WHATSHISFACE:I was here and there.

SOLICITOR:Can any witnesses corroborate this?

WHATSHISFACE:Yes. Whats-his-name and What-d'ya-call-her.

SOLICITOR:And how long were you here and there?

WHATSHISFACE:I would say approximately between "a little while" and "ages".

SOLICITOR: Mister Whatshisface, did you or did you not do something, or otherwise not do something, to some person or persons otherwise undisclosed or unknown, at some point, somewhere?

WHATSHISFACE:That's a spurious allegation, and what's more, I resent the implication.

SOLICITORo you deny it?

WHATSHISFACE:Well, I dispute some of the details.

SOLICITORuch as?

WHATSHISFACE:I did do something, to somebody, at some point, but that person was, shall we say, very much disclosed and became known to me.

(Makes the shape of bosoms with his hands)

SOLICITOR:And you would be...?

WHATHISFACE:Nice try.

SOLICITOR:Mister Whatshisface, why did you decide to take out an Uber Injunction?

WHATSHISFACE:I am not at liberty to say.

SOLICITOR:And why not?

WHATHISFACE:No one's told me.

SOLICITOR:No one has told you why you took out the injunction?

WHATSHISFACE:No. After the thing that might not have happened happened, I spoke to someone who may or may not be my agent, and she, he or it told me that I had to cease the conversation immediately as I was now the subject of an Uber Injunction.

SOLICITORo your agent took out the injunction without your knowledge?

WHATSHISFACE:I cannot confirm or deny that I have had knowledge...

(Makes the shape of bosoms with his hands)

...of my agent. If, indeed, I have an agent.

SOLICITORurely you must know if you are paying for an agent or not?

WHATSHISNAME:Well, no, since her last pay rise she has insisted that I am no longer allowed to look at my bank statement as they are the subject of an...

SOLICITOR:...Uber Injunction, yes. Mr Whathisface, one last question. Many people have been saying that Ryan Giggs played his worst game ever against Barcelona and that he's fit for the scrap heap, what do you make of that?

WHATSHISNAME:Bloody outrageous, I worked my bollocks off in that game....shit!

SOLICITORrosecution rests.

END.

This is excellent. Did you send it in?

Has a bit of the feel of Yes Minister, which I like.

Thank you.

Yes I did - no reply AND I stopped getting the running order emailed to me!

I have to say I think it isn't that well executed, nice premise maybe and a couple of ok jokes. But it could be tighter.

My main problem (I suppose as with a lot of writers) is being able to tell when my own material is funny. I find it amusing when I write it and then hate it once I have sent it off, so I do appreciate the feedback. I suppose I'm just trying to gauge where I am on the spectrum: keep practising, you've got some potential - or - I'd give up if I were you, not even close.

When I read it, I thought it was a very good idea, maybe you missed the odd opportunity at throwing little extensions on some of the gags? And yeah, there was the odd one that didn't quite work, but they weren't bad and could be tweaked v easily. I think the idea was very strong though and there were some great touches. Like the miming breasts.

I know what you mean about finding your own stuff funny. What I've discovered is, did it actually make you laugh out loud when you thought of it or read it back? If not then it might not be quite as funny to other people. I tend to find the audience will only laugh at the stuff you knew was gold when you came up with it. Objectivity is something you build by writing more stuff. Even if it's your worst stuff.

That's my two pence anyway!

(I can't tell you the amount of scripts I drafted for News Revue and didn't send because I simply couldn't tell if it was funny to other people or not...)