British Comedy Guide

Interview with Jan Jung

This is very useful reading for anyone ready to embark on writing a sitcom or about to send a draft on to a prod co.

You can read the interview at it's host site, 4Laughs, here:

http://www.channel4.com/4laughs/feature/interviews/Jan_Jung.html

Alternatively I've reprinted it below. Interview by Fay James.

Jan Jung is the Executive Director of Screenplay Productions. Using his 25 years experience as a Producer, Director and Writer, producing films in Hollywood and Europe, he decided to settle in the UK and set up Screenplay Productions, a powerhouse of new writing, focusing on development and production of ideas for TV as well as nurturing next generation of talented writers.

4Laughs caught up with Jan to chat about how to become a sitcom writer...

Where should new writers look for good script writing advice?

BBC Writers Room has a lot of good advice. If you're totally new and you've just set out, the BBC Writers Room give a few benchmark scripts to download that give you an idea about format, pace, length, how characters work. It's a good idea in general to read as many successful sitcom scripts as possible. There is also a template called Script Smart Gold, the BBC's sitcom template, which can be installed into Microsoft Word and gives you the correct tabulations to help you to set character correctly, underline and bold in the right places. If you are serious however, I suggest you invest in one of the dedicated script software packages. One of the most recognised is Final Draft. This has a number of templates built in, including BBC's Scripted Comedy (which is the same as Script Smart Gold).

What does Screenplay Productions do?

Screenplay Productions is a fairly new company. I set it up when I arrived in UK three years ago on the back of my 25 years experience as a Director and Writer or predominantly feature films abroad. I Produced and Directed feature films in Denmark, Los Angeles and other places. I realised during that process that what you really need is a dedicated Producer, a person to care about what appears on the screen. A lot of Producers that I've come across don't really do that. When I moved to the UK I wanted to become the Producer I never had myself. Being a producer means you give a lot of support and you have a lot of knowledge about what is necessary to make a TV programme a success. From knowing how to get it through that labyrinth of pitfalls and difficulties from just having, an idea, to getting it financed, to getting people to write, to cast it - getting everything correct to that when it 'happens' it becomes a successful programme.

This is why I started Screenplay Productions. Being new to the country, it meant I had a choice - I could start looking up established talent or I could go for new talent. We are in a situation in the UK where, especially Channel 4, people are constantly on the look out for new talent. New talent in Comedy is different from new talent in Drama or non-scripted material in as much as either you 'have it' or you 'don't'. Either you have the ability to write something that is funny or you don't. You can learn a lot if you study it, but there are people, like brilliant musicians, that really understand comedy via intuition. This is why the Comedy genre is a lot more open to new talent - new people who can tell good jokes and understand how to build up a gag, understand how characters work, and most importantly have a good ear for dialogue.

I embarked on that route. Instead of going to established talent, who have a tendency to have their own companies or be tied in with established companies - is was a fairly easy choice. With Channel 4 always looking for new people and new companies, it was a natural way for me to work.

Over the past three years at Screenplay, more so, over the last year, we have been open to everyone who wanted us to have an opinion about their sitcom script, to send it to us and we would give them personal and dedicated feedback. We read every single script from page one to the end, figured out worked and what didn't work then gave the writers serious feedback. We've taken a number forward that have been in development, some of them successful, some of them not. We have a couple of writers who've been commissioned by BBC and Channel 4. Working together with people like Nira Park, a very established sitcom Producer, and Penny Croft, daughter of David Croft and also a very established Producer we hope to take a couple of sitcoms into pilot, and hopefully after that into serious production.

However, we are continuously looking for new scripts.

Do you only accept scripts in the proper format?

Yes and no. If on page one of a script I can see this writer is unique; this writer understands how to set up characters, has a good ear for dialogue. If the dialogue makes me laugh very quickly I can see there's a genuine understanding, then the format doesn't matter, I'll keep on reading. However, if after page one or two I still haven't seen a reason for really wanting to read on and it's not in the proper format, then the chances of me feeling surprised later in this script are very slim - it's getting the wrong impression from the beginning. You can compare it to a job interview. If you're late for a job interview and you seem unmotivated, you lower your chances for success. This is the same with format. If you understand the format and you've written it in the proper format, it sends a signal to me that at least you have prepared yourself for meeting me, or letting your script meet me in the best possible position.

I think it's worth while for people to actually learn the format because we read a lot more out of the format than just that the tabs are in the right place on the page. We can see links and timing, watching it actually spring into the eyes of an experienced Producer. By simply reading the script in the proper format we can see how many sets are required, the cast, how expensive and how complicated it will be to make this sitcom.

What's more important, character, story or both?

There is a long-standing discussion about this. There are two schools - you get character or you get story.

Character

There are a lot of sitcoms where characters carry each episode. Situation comedy is about characters coming together in a situation with opposite or different aims, or same aims but with different ways of getting them. The fun derives from the conflict between the characters done in surprising ways. Sitcoms depend on characters being who they are and the clashes between each character, then the story evolves from what the characters do. Many experienced writes talk about how the characters carry the story they don't really need to do anything. They bring the characters together and the story springs from that.

Story

The other school is that you have to have a storyline. You have to have something that needs to be done each episode. This requires a different thinking, as you need to structure it - similar to as if you were writing Drama and then characters and story become almost equal.

My experience currently is that the Commissioning Editors are looking for both story and character. It's not enough just to come with a bunch of sketches strung together - there has to be a story running through the whole episode. That said, there a lot of people also introducing the over-arcing story structure, which means that over a series of 6 episodes something will happen at the end. This is not necessarily a good idea, especially if you're starting out. If you're lucky and hard working that the series gets into production there will inevitably be episode that aren't as strong as the others for various reasons. This means that if you have a couple of episodes that aren't very strong you don't really want them to site next to each other, you want to swap them around. You can't to that if you have an over-arcing storyline, so try to avoid it. Instead, keep the story arcs to the episodes only.

Pilot Script

The pilot script is different from the rest of the scripts. This is where you establish characters, setting and the theme for the whole series. This is the script we (Screenplay Productions) want to see - not all six episodes, as I normally just read the first.

Remember just the Pilot Script, no over-arcing storyline, but both character and story.

Is it necessary for the writer to understand budget?

Indeed it is. For a new writer, they will start at the bottom of the budget scale and generally, budgets aren't huge. You have to think 'budget' when you write. Thinking budget as a writer means do not put an enormous amount of characters in try to keep it as simple as possible, as few characters as possible. But don't cut down the necessary characters. If the story requires a certain amount of characters, and then they should be there - try to think of a small ensemble cast. If you look at the IT Crowd, you have three characters carrying through a brilliant sitcom. It was the same for Father Ted. You don't need a vast amount of people.

The same is for sets. If we talk about a studio-based sitcom, which is what BBC, Channel 4 and ITV are currently looking for, back to the roots where we don't do single camera shoots, but multi-camera shoots in front of a live audience. You can only have so many sets available in a studio, so minimise it to three or four. Don't have vast amounts of rooms in whatever setting you're writing about, try an move the action to as few room as possible with the smallest cast possible - simply because it's cheaper. The cheaper it is the more feasible we can see it is, the more attention we get from Commissioning Editors on the back of the good script. Even if it's a good script and we can see it's vastly expensive, a period piece for instance. If it requires castles and other expensive settings, as a first time writer, don't go there. Think small, think economical, and think more about your characters and story.

Why are characters so important?

Without good characters, you have nothing. Everything comes from the characters - the people we love, or we want to love to hate. If you don't have quirky characters that don't have something we can identify with or feel sorry for, then there is no story. You can't make an action story into a sitcom, that will never work. If you look at all the successful sitcoms, characters have carried them all. It doesn't matter which one you think about, there will always have been a memorable character, that is the one you walk away with and remember. It's not the setting, it's not necessarily what they said, but it's the character and the character traits - they way they go about doing things in his/her life is what we like. They can be obnoxious characters, less successful characters there is always something about them that makes us feel good about being in there company. The characters area always contrasted put against someone else who brings out the best or worst in them.

Dialogue is the only way in which you can express character - what they say, how they say it, what they don't say (subtext) and how they react, is how we characterise your cast. This is the only way we can learn about the character. Forget about funny settings, forget about contraptions, forget about slapstick, gags and jokes, you need a good set of characters that have good interaction with each other. If you look at the characters in some very good sitcoms, you'll see that they very rarely like to be together. Whether it's in the basement of big IT corporation, they don't really want their female Head of Dept, if it's Steptoe and Son, they hated each other or Only Fools and Horse they hated what each other were doing. All this contrast between what the characters are doing drives the story forward and we derive the comedy from that. Without character, we have nothing.

How do new writers find out if their dialogue works?

New writers have a tendency to write too much dialogue. Dialogue has to be short, crisp and funny. It has to be very descriptive of the character and sit well with the character. Its also has to tell us what the character intends to do. But that doesn't mean you'd write it as if you were writing an explanation, you'd write it in a quirky way. This helps us understand more and more, deeper and deeper into the character. There's only one of finding out if it works is to read it out loud - to find out how you character speaks, act. It is difficult to read it aloud to yourself because you can make it work on paper, but get a few friends together and read it aloud to them. See what works - what makes them laugh, what makes them not laugh, where you stumble. You write differently to what you speak - it's a different part of the brain, which helps you construct logical sentences. When you speak, you repeat constantly and put sentences together in a non-logical way. To get away from that situation, you need to move it from the logic side of the brain to the speaking part of the brain and you need to hear your dialogue - get someone to read it for you. Read it yourself while you write it, imagine how people would say it, and then get someone to read it for you. Then make notes immediately, getting the quirky things people say back on the paper and put the meaning you had originally into it. It's a fruitful exercise.

What should new writers avoid?

I receive a lot of scripts where people think that weird an wacky is wonderful, but it isn't. It refers back to the characters, they can be quirky and strange, that's good. But if the setting is also strange and weird, and is thought to be contributing too much to the story that funny plus funny is double funny, that it actually doesn't work, it's not actually funny. Weird and wacky often detract what we need to concentrate on which are the characters. So make a setting as neutral as possible and try not to go over the top with everything. Many people add on stuff thinking that it's funny, then add more stuff, but it becomes to noisy. I think 'no no I can't take in all this funny!' you have to decide where the comedy derives from in my story, what is it that's funny? What characters are funny and why are they funny in this setting?

When is the first draft a first draft?

The first draft is not the first version you write that you're actually happy with. Getting through a script for the first time is an achievement and you feel relieved that you managed to do it. However, a lot of clever people have said that the first draft is always shite, and it is. You'd realise this if you put it aside and came back to it two months later and read it again, you'd see how poor it actually is. You'll be very excited about your first draft, but that is not what you should show to people. You have to really re-think, this is now a good foundation, a good beginning, but not necessarily, something you'd like to show someone. By going back and redrafting, finding out what is it that's essential for this story - work again on your characters, the dialogue and the theme, then it becomes much more clearer in your head what you want to do and who you characters are. You can only do that by re-writing. It's an essential part of writing a script. The first draft, the one you send to people like me, is a draft that other people have read and you've seen them laugh without you having prepared them for it. When it works and the story comes to a proper conclusion, we go through all the proper emotions, you've got all the point in there, the characters are in the writers opinion as perfect as possible, then its ready to be sent to people like me who see a lot of them.

I see a lot of scripts where more thought should have been given before it was sent to me, and it is unfortunately the kind of things that turns a script down. The more I see people have worked with it and understand their own characters, the better the chances I will pick it up and think there is something to work with - if I give this person notes he/she will come back with something's that's improved. It's not a question of getting it together and thinking it works - this isn't enough. It has to be polished. Some of the scripts I've written, in the case of drama, I easily got to 15 or 16 drafts before we're ready to shoot. The writing process is not something that ends with 'oh, I reached the end the first time through and I'm happy about that'. The writing process is much longer than that.

I have two types of writer - the wannabes and the gonnabes. The wannabes are all those who want to be and the gonnabes are those who I really believe will make it. To get from a wannabe to a gonnabe you'll have to show that you can actually rewrite, that you can take on notes and take your own material and take it, reshape it and improve it - pop out of that perception you have about your own material that its perfect. I have come across a few promising writers who have failed as their first drafts never made it to the second draft stage, they simply just couldn't do it. They were locked into a perception that what they had done was perfect, it didn't need to be re-written, and unfortunately a couple of project had fallen because of that.

How long should a sitcom script be?

This depends on what channel it is. The BBC is a non-commercial channel, so theirs are almost 30 minutes; where as ITV and Channel 4 have their commercial breaks, so theirs are a little bit shorter.

A BBC script lands around 50+ pages in the proper format. If you look at Channel 4 and ITV, the script will be around 38 pages.

What are the most usual settings?

The scripts we see the most in the past year are shop-coms - a comedy set in various shops, charity shops in particular. Some of them are very funny, but there is saturation. One broadcaster won't accept any more shop-coms. Don't send in shop-com scripts, we've seen enough of them - try finding a different setting. The other one is student digs - we seen a lot of young writers, writing from their own experiences (which is a very good way forward), but don't set it in the most obvious place. However, don't go over board or invent a place that doesn't exist, find a place that is slightly different from your own personal setting. It requires you to sit down and really think of a natural home for your characters, but a not a frame that limits them. Make your characters universal to begin with, that you can imagine them in various places - making an interesting/original combination - something that I haven't seen before, but still without making it expensive.

What will set me apart?

Find your own voice. This is the new writers 'X-Factor' - you add something of yourself to your characters and the overall tone. It's not something you have seen before, or something which is a cross between 'this' and 'that', it's where everything is coherent in a way that only a unique writer can make; a harmony between everything (characters, theme, setting, dialogue).

How do I turn ideas into script?

If you have an idea, ask yourself where the idea originates. What is your starting point? Is it a character, is it a funny situation, or is it an idea of a setting? Don't start with a script, but write down as many ideas you can about it. Remember, the characters are the most important thing to develop - if you don't have good characters, you done have anything. So, if your setting is your beginning, then begin to think about who can populate it. Who is your protagonist who we root for, who's dreams we follow? Why doesn't it work - who is also put there to make life difficult for this person? Where does the comedy come from?

To start, write a few sketches between the characters. How would they act and speak to each other - develop their back-story as much as you can. Think about areas they don't want to talk about, their flaws and what ultimately makes them likeable? Not necessarily, how nice they are, but what makes us like them. For example, Alan Partridge is an obnoxious person, but we love him because we know he knows has a lot of short comings. When he's alone we see how horrible he feels about himself, but when he's confronted with someone he takes on the role of a broadcaster and of someone who is on top of it all. His PA is the complete opposite of him and between the two of them, we can see who he is because she doesn't need to say anything, its just the way she is - she gives us the image of him.

Mould and define your characters. Get the contrasts out. If you have two characters the same, nothing will come out of it. You can only get the bad side out of a character by exposing it to another character who is the exact opposite. When you have this, then you can define your storyline and your pilot script then begin on your dialogue and put it all together.

wow, I'm speechless

Interesting, thanks David. I was going to send them some of my stuff, but decided against it when I thought they may not be that into comedy. Great interview though, never realised that format was that important - I thought a generic one that was easy to read would be ok for sending out, then tailoring it to broadcaster-specific formats later.

I've not followed Jan Jung's career much but I've been impressed with what he does, he approached me a while ago (and a few others I believe) asking if there was anything I could submit to him! He also continued to answer a few of my questions in a prompt fashion.

Great little interview there.

Great interview, and I will say this... Nira Park FTW!

To survive 25 years in Hollywood and Europe speaks volumes about Jan. He's a talent and an incredibly nice person with it.

Agree with the above. Jan seems to be a very nice bloke with plenty of time for people. I submitted our radio sitcom to him and he ripped it to shreads! However, he took the time to give us an incredible amount of feedback and explained where we were going wrong/what we needed to do which was infinitely more helpful than 'we've decided not to develop it any further'. He didn't have to do this and, after the initial shock(!), has probably given us a lot more advice than he really had to.

Dan

That was a very interesting read, thanks!

And I thought his critiques were in depth! Great interview.

Quote: SlagA @ September 6 2008, 7:52 PM BST

To survive 25 years in Hollywood and Europe speaks volumes about Jan. He's a talent and an incredibly nice person with it.

I'll second that.

Thanks, Mr Bussell. Jan Jung is excellent with his feedback and this interview is hugely enlightening.

Great stuff. Thanks for posting - this one needs to be pinned for good doesn't it?

My experience mirrors that of swerytd's above. I submitted a script to Jan Jung and it was torn to pieces. In fact the only good thing he had to say was that I understood proper script formatting (Ouch!!). and that really was the only good thing said. This negative feedback obviously hurt at the time but on reflection, a fair portion of what Jan had to say has been of use. He at least does take the time to read your script and give you feedback, and this is definately of more use than being given a typical 'thanks but no thanks' reply.

Def.

Hi all,
first time out of the blocks for me. This is a really informative interview. I was so impressed I printed it off in case I never see it again. The only thing I'd quibble with is Mr Jung's endorsement of the Final Draft software, which gets a major trashing on Amazon (and is the reason I've not bought it).

Wow. That's really helpful for new writers such as myself, I don't really write sitcoms but there are tips in there which I can use for dramas, films etc.

Share this page