In this Issue:

What's the Market for Light Entertainment Scripts?
A New Approach to Comedy Writing


What's the Market for Light Entertainment Scripts?

In November, Maria Alexander attended a forum put on by the Writers Guild titled 'What's the Market for Light Entertainment Scripts?'

The panel for this event consisted of Nick Symons, the Controller of Comedy at Carlton TV, Bill Dare, Chief Comedy Script Editor at the BBC TV and BBC Radio, Elaine Cameron, Head of Scripts at Heartswood Films and Brad Ashton in the Chair. A late addition was John Bartlett of DLT who produces "My Family".

There were many questions raised at this meeting some of which people will be already familiar with. The first was whether they are looking for full scripts or just ideas. The answer was full scripts. No one seemed very excited about ideas. When asked what kind of scripts would they rule out they were very vague. It seemed just when they decided they would not see one more spoof documentary or five aliens in a flat in Balham along would come a great script so they didn't rule anything out.

One person asked if getting a star attached was a good idea and the panel thought it was. They also felt that some people, like Richard Briers, would always be good to write for as he wasn't doing much these days.

They were asked about cable and Elaine Cameron said she went there as a last resort. She didn't feel they had the budgets.

Brad Ashton offered some good advice. He suggested that you write the sitcom as a short story first and that it always helps to start a scene with a phone call to explain the plot as they do in America.

There were many amusing anecdotes about actors rewriting scripts - such as John Alderton turning up to a rehearsal of the recent Mrs. B murder mystery series with Diana Rigg and announcing he'd rewritten the last half of the script. The panel felt that then you needed a strong producer to say "No - we are doing the script." Luckily in that case Diana Rigg put her foot down. But the message was to protect your work when it is getting made.

They are all looking for good scripts and encouraged us to write what interests us while Bill Dare came up with the comment that a writer finds humour in a world where other people don't see comedy.

Brad Ashton repeated how interested Europeans are in English comedy writers and there were many amusing stories.

Finally, this didn't really tell anyone anything new. The main message was to write a good script which almost certainly everyone knew when they went in.

by Maria Alexander



A New Approach to Comedy Writing

Interesting new developments seem to be implying a change in how comedy is written and produced in the UK.

While some of you may be thinking 'about time' others will be very unhappy at this prospect, as Britain's comedy seems set to move towards a more US approach. Certainly, I'm sure no one would object to the possibility outlined in 'Broadcast' magazine (22/09/00) of more money for writers, and even, more respect for their role. However, this seems set to come as part and parcel of the American approach of team writing. And this is where opinions really divide.

The inspiration that can be drawn from several minds, many people all finding the same thing funny, can create a supportive and creative environment. This in turn can allow writers to focus closely on the exact words, and getting in as many comic moments as possible. On the other hand, the constant need to check every detail can be distracting to some writers, who work best by really knowing their characters, and letting the creation take over. Even British writers who have worked solo can't agree on which approach creates the best comedy.

One of the important factors young British comedy writers are taught is to make every line work for them - not just, as it can seem to in US comedy, getting a laugh - but in deepening and strengthening the characterisation. You should know which character says the line, even if you read it, without further cues. In some US comedy, characters can seem a little interchangeable. Where they aren't, they often seem stereotyped. 'The dizzy one', 'the vain one' and of course 'the cynical one'.

Yet there is an awful lot of US comedy on our screens, written by teams of authors, accused of just maintaining the status quo in each episode. Perhaps these are just pandering to audience expectations, but they selling around the world, and viewed by billions. Some of the UK's recent output seems unlikely to make it through more than one series, and the crucial 'caring about the characters' so often seems to be missing.

In that, are we asking too much of our comedy? Is this, along with other rules of comedy, such the 'stuck-in-the-situation' theory, just too much for any sitcom to produce? Fawlty Towers was written by two people, and you can't really like and feel a great deal of sympathy for anyone but Manuel. 'Rhona' seemed to work, in spite of just being a bunch of friends who meet up. (They didn't even need to slip a flat share or two in there) Yet 'My Family' manages different characters, by age and attitudes at least, has the characters firmly stuck there, but still lacks that certain sparkle. Team written as it was, the family sitcom formula has been better used.

Having said this, grabbing a huge audience in the first series may simply not be possible. Based on viewing figures, which are largely today's metric, 'Only Fools and Horses' would not have made a second series. Recently, moments from some of the later series ranked as several of the nation's top ten comedy moments. The first series of 'Men Behaving Badly' with Harry Enfield in the part later taken by Neil Morrissey could not be considered any less than a flop. ITV decided not to go near it again, but someone from the BBC picked it up, dusted it down, and ran another series. The characters then better formed, the writing went from strength to strength, and MBB ran for numerous series, only finishing when the cast felt the need to call it a day.

Are the likes of 'Friends', 'Frasier' and 'Seinfeld' genuinely better for being written by big teams? Certainly the associated longer runs allow for building characters - and audiences - and give the authors some freedom to experiment and throw in the odd two-parter. Does this make them better? Does breaking some of the comedy rules matter? Perhaps it's a question of which rules you can get away with breaking. Does the US approach just make sitcom more manufactured, planned to the last detail, with 'Laugh here' suitably signposted by the line being between Chandler and Joey, or anything to do with Nialls and Maris? Or has UK sitcom reached a stale state, in need of some enlivening by a fresh - but still tried and tested - approach to shake it all up? Let me know what you think of the trend on the BSCW forum.