|
|
|
|
Looking for tips and tricks to the art of writing for television? Welcome to the blog of experienced television writer Jane Espenson. Check it out regularly to learn about spec scripts, writing dos and don'ts, and what Jane had for lunch! (RSS: )
|
|
Home » Archives » March 2006 » Back to Jack
[Previous entry: "Something So Hard To Write, It Could Injure You"] [Next entry: "Pointing at What Hurts"]
03/10/2006: Back to Jack
You know what's always bothered me about that story about Solomon? You know, the one where he suggests cutting the disputed baby in half, knowing the true mother would give the child up rather than have that happen? The fake mother who goes along with the verdict. "Oh. That sounds fair. At least I'll get a half a baby."
And yet... sometimes cutting the baby in half is exactly the right answer.
Remember the jokes in the Jack Benny radio script archive? Remember how labored they were? We already discussed one example with a set-up that seemed endless.
Here's another example lifted from the archive:
Jack: How many kids have you got now? Dennis: Thirteen. Jack: Thirteen kids? Dennis: Yup, one for every month in the year. Jack: Dennis, there are only twelve months in the year. Dennis: NOW HE TELLS ME.
Okay. So what do those last two lines add to the joke? I submit that if you're going to laugh at all, you're going to do it after "one for every month in the year." The rest is an explanation of the punchline. And sure enough, as audiences got more and more used to broadcast comedy, set-ups got shorter, and post-joke explanations started to fall away. And half a baby was, indeed, better than a whole one.
And yet, that baby can be cut back even further. How many times have you had to sit through a set-up that seems to go on forever:
CLUMSY HUSBAND Honey, you don't have to warn me that a Sloppy Joe is "sloppy." I know the meaning of the word. Besides, I'm not six. I think I can manage to somehow maneuver a sandwich into my mouth without-- (He drops the sandwich onto himself)
And explaining the punchline? That's actually a mistake I've made myself. Here's an exchange adapted from one of my Buffys:
WILLOW (to Xander) I wish Buffy was here.
Buffy enters.
BUFFY I'm here. WILLOW I wish for a million dollars. (off Xander's look) Someday it'll work.
Looking at this now, I should not have had Willow explain. It was clear enough what she was doing. She did not need to spell it out to Xander.
The people who are going to read your spec are smart and they will get the joke without a lot of set-up or explanation. In fact, more than anything, this lack of these things is what makes a script feel smart.
Lunch: A wonderful Sloppy Joe, which made me start thinking about messy sandwiches and jokes about same.
|
|
|
|
Get Blog Updates Via Email
|
|
|