“I was very impressed by the high quality of the writing and acting, and extremely depressed when I asked someone, based on the calibre of the readings, how does one make a transition from LCW to BBC to ITV.

The person beside me replied, “Oh, it’s extremely easy.  Just go to Oxford or Cambridge, and when one of your friends gets a job at BBC or ITV, call them up!”

I don’t know how true that is.  I hope it’s comedic overstatement.”

Here is my reply.

As for making the jump from LCW to the BBC.  The person next to you was probably more right than wrong… if you are looking for one easy step.

The chance of you sending a script to the BBC and them making it is tiny if not non-existent.  Think about it as if you were an actor, you would do plays, do commercials, do one lines, student films, short films, go to audition after audition, make contacts within the industry and then when you made it everyone would say “you came from nowhere.” No one, not even writers come from nowhere, they will always have a body of produced work behind them.

As writers we need think more like actors, but as is quite often the case, we writers are perhaps not so pushy, we are use to working alone tapping at our keyboard and not selling ourselves and our scripts. We have dreams of crafting a Lord of the Rings epic before ever producing a short film. We also think that writing is easy, and never learn the craft of good story telling that is led by emotion and not events (it doesn’t help that so much out there is dross anyway).

If you want to write, start off small, with sketches that can be filmed or performed by sketch groups (Messers of Comedy and Stephens and Brooks are two groups that will accept scripts). Move up to one act plays, there are many directors and actors out there desperate to perform since they need the experience too. Once you are getting work seen you can get an agent and then you can get your scripts read by people who matter.  If a script is submitted to a company by an agent it will be read, if not, it will sit on a pile and may get read. An alternate route is to get into Soap, start off as a runner and work your way up through the ranks – it maybe a more reliable root, but perhaps nowhere near as creatively fulling.

I guess the bottom line is you need to write and get things produced rather than letting sit in a draw.  Easy things to get produced are short films and sketches and with modern distribution methods provided by the the net a lot of people get the opportunity to see it.

Moving onto the script itself, there was much debate about traditional pantomime laws (someone said the army had to be involved, someone else said you can no longer throw out sweets as health and safety wants to prevent blindness by Haribo). A phrase often used is “You must know the rules before you can break them”, and in the case of ‘Cinders’ while there was a nod towards the panto genre, there was much that seemed missing.  There was no audience participation song, no cries of “behind you you”, very few double entendres and the Ugly Sisters were woefully underused as villains to rile up the crowd and make Cinders’ life a misery. But all of these points are easily fixed in rewrites and after all that is why a script comes to the group.

Structurally the script suffered from a large ensemble cast all fighting for attention.  The traditional role of Buttons was split between him and a new character dubbed ‘Narrator’, Buttons came off worse in this deal.  Instead of being the best friend and confident of Cinders he just wandered in every now and again giving him very little opportunity to interact with the audience or become a character we cared about.   In this humble writers opinion the two characters would be better off if they merged into one serving the duel purpose of guiding the audience and also showing us why we care about what happens to Cinders.

As mentioned before the ugly sisters were underused, they should be more involved in Cinder’s miserable life so we can see why she wants to escape to a better life.  However this use of introducing something and not using it to full effect within the story was perhaps the biggest problem.  With so many ideas being thrown on the table many of them felt like weird insider jokes rather than tools of story telling. The lesson here is if you introduce an idea, you should pay it off. In Cinders one of the characters can read minds, it is repeated over and over again and in the end the skill is used to find Cinders in the basement… except like a real mind reader, he only claims that she is in there after she burps and someone says “that must be her!”  So there was no reason for the character to have this skill.  A comparison would a Bond film where Bond gets given a car that can go underwater and then gets in a boat to cross a river. Sometimes these things remain in a script because it is hard to bite the bullet and kill your darlings, but sometimes it has to be done.

On the plus side Cinders is an ambitious project with a very talented cast, there are some fantastic characters such as the Supreme Makeover Fairy (an excellent modernisation of the fairy god mother) who really lift the script up.  I have no doubt that the production will have successful run, so stay tuned for details in the near future.

Finally there is no pantomime law that says the army has to be involved.

This week we bent the rules and allowed the first 40 pages of a feature length screenplay and it didn’t work. The main reason appeared to be that it was not a reading script, it was a shooting script loaded with shot after shot of visual details that were insignificant to the plot. Narrators kill the pace of scripts as actors rarely had a chance to build a back forth before being interrupted with more visuals. Furthermore because “smoke rings kissing the skylight” was given the same weight as water ski washing up on the shore which turn was given the same weight as pubic hair plucked from the couch the audience have no idea what is an important detail and what is glitter.

As rule people watch films and listen to TV, so it is understandable that a film script will include far more visuals than a sitcom. However, unless you are a great writer and in demand neither the director nor the actors care when you think someone should put their arm around someone else or when the camera should focus on a skylight. If you feel so strongly about these choices then you might as well direct.

The other problem with film scripts in this forum is that the audience does not get a full sense of the story, even with the last 100 pages summed up, it is not as satisfying as a reading where we get to hear the ending performed. In a way it’s sad, but we will close the door on feature scripts, it is still something I would like to explore in the future, but the LCW just is not the venue for such ventures.

Sketch wise we were on form with the tightly written Pirate Day, it knew the ending and wasted no time getting there. PC Hulk explored too many ideas and doing so lost its sense of purpose.

An interesting meeting to be sure and the feedback from those in attendance was some of the best thought out and delivered I have see in a long time.

We kicked off with a sketch by Gareth, he normally has something in his back pocket and today it was a tribute to X-Factor sob stories, well observed, but climaxing in his usual dive into the gutter and an ending someone pointed out was similar to Little Miss Sunshine (I didn’t have the heart to say that the film had now been ruined for me), but it was an enjoyable way to start the meeting.

Jon Neale stepped up next, following his last effort which was perfectly criticised for being a series of great jokes in search of a sketch.  This week he was much more focused with a simple phone call.  In the sketch we only hear one person’s voice and it was pointed out that in general people don’t handily repeat everything they are told  and some other devices to reveal what the operator was saying would work wonders in what was another well observed and funny sketch.

Our third sketch ‘Where Have All the Bistros Gone‘ came from Robin Bailes who has a known dislike for the style. Intended for stage, the sketch was based around the town and country divide. Main criticism was levelled at the slow start and the half page of additional material that followed a passionate and funny speech.

Finally we come to our main feature, ‘Misanthropology‘ by self confessed Seinfeld addict Alex Papakyriacou. Pulling no punches Alex was quick to confess that although the names were changed this was his attempt at a Seinfeld script, from the situations, locations, characters and running jokes.  This is a situation we have never had in the group before, we have never had what is, in almost every sense, a ‘spec script’. This made criticism that slightly more complicated as people tried to rack their brains about what use such a script would hold. Although it is possible to get on a show’s writing team by producing a great spec script, it helps if that show is still in production. Taken on its own merits, people unfamiliar with Sienfeld were lost under the weight of so many characters, those familiar however, could follow with ease. While this might be deemed a success in the tribute box, it means it was failure as a pilot. The three plot lines were given almost equal weight which made it hard to identify an “A” story  or a primary perspective. Structurally the characters were kept apart for too much of the script and the non-recurring characters thrown into the mix were given as much screen time as the main characters. Anyone who was in the group at the start of the year would have remembered the ending from an earlier short from Alex. Sadly this ending in the new context was too convenient, relying on series slightly implausible events followed by a gross misunderstanding to get the pay off. With the loose theme of meat to tie everything together Misanthropology was an interesting exercise, but I doubt much can be done with the finished product.

One thing I do need to address, because I hear it too often, Seinfeld did have plots and was a very well constructed sitcom. Just because they built episodes around small things like buttons, toys and spare keys does not mean there was no plot. I thank you.

First up was Joel Soetendorp two-part sketch “Drawn Together“, a clever title that was actually not mentioned (but also shares the name of an cartoon reality hybrid show ). As is often the case with sketches, they go on too long, they are built around a single joke and then padded out because a one page script looks a little sad.  However when the script is built solely around a single idea, one page is plenty, any more than that and you have to have worthwhile characters who your audience invest in.  Joel’s script fell into this trap with an early punchline that was never matched by anything that followed, but it was a great early gag.

So, speaking of character led comedy, next up we had Brett Snelgrove’s webisode idea “The Knot”. The 5 minute scene presented us with a unique couple in a fun situation, sure it was saggy and needs some rewrites, but he is definitely on the right track.  The question is, was it a sketch or was it webisode? Tough to tell, right now I am leaning towards sketch because I got no sense of an over arching storyline for the future, but this could change.

Our last sketch came from Jon Neale and his script “Miss World”, packed with some great gags, it was best explained as a bunch of jokes in search of a sketch. The sketch jumped around all over the place and while it got laughs, the inconsistencies in structure makes it useless in it’s current form.

Our main feature “The Daily Grind” by Shereen Docherty was warmly received following a passionate reading from our actors and as usual it generated much debate. One of the things that gets thrown up in feedback is correct formatting, since Shereen’s script was 1.5 spaced, the 30 pages took just over 20 minutes to read, shorter than a sit-com should be. The page a minute guide is a good one, but personally I don’t care that much on a script which is coming to the group for feedback.  I expect them to be too long, or too short because it’s a draft.  Even when it comes to correct formatting these are many different styles and at the end of the day as a long as it looks like a script you will be just fine. Of course formatting on Word can be hard, so if you are looking for a free script writing program try out Zhura or Celtx. Next up was the use of named music tracks, this falls into the same category of putting in named products.  There is this myth that a prospective buyer of your script will look at your choice of music or use of a name brand and bin your script lest they have to pay out the big bucks to licence them.  In reality they don’t care because hopefully your great story, snappy dialogue and fascinating characters will out weigh the mild inconvenience of changing “Coca Cola” to “cola”.   This is not to say that you now have a green card to ram your script full of product placement and hit songs, a good rule is only put it in if it helps enrich your script, if you can cut it, cut it. That might sound like I am going back on myself, but that “cut it” rule should apply to everything in your script; if it serves no purpose, cut it.

On the character front Shereen had succeeded in creating some interesting characters, although it was disappointing that on the rare occasion where we have a female scriptwriter we were still lacking in good roles for women. As a pilot the ensemble piece was a little confused since we did know who’s story we were really following. Something we see often in a script at the LCW is the main character just seemed to be along for the ride, things happen to him and around him without him having to make any decisions. The inactive protagonist is a common problem in event led scripts, remember let the characters lead the story, no the events.

Well that is all for this week and just in time as we have another meeting in 3 days.

Anyway, our main feature tonight came curtsey of Martin Price and Lawrence Scholey, their script entitled Please Help Me saw a group of flat mates throw a party.  Warmly received by the group for its humour and creative events, there was of course plenty of ideas for improvement. Although the script flowed quite nicely, many considered it to be a series of sketches rather than coherent plot. A slave to the devices, the script failed to set up any of the events before they happened, this left audience surprised, but missed out on the trick of building anticipation.  The idea of throwing a party although a fine idea does not work for a pilot or spec script.  Since a party involves so many people it does not give a good idea of how the series would play out, we don’t know who are the regular characters, and who are just around for that episode. The originality of the idea was also questioned, it is well known that every writer has a flat share script in their back pocket, right next to their heaven and hell script, there would have to be something special in that script to make it stand out in the crowd. Being Human after a year in development solved this problem by making one character a werewolf, one a ghost and the other a vampire.

As writers we will often draw on our own life experience when writing a script, the mistake we often make is to take just the events and characters that we fondly (or not) remember and forget the emotion behind it.  We hide our deeper feelings behind the visual, but it is that emotion which makes real characters that the audience connects with.  Inside we share many of the same vulnerabilities and fears and we can sympathise when we get to see it in others. Since Please Help Me was based on many real life experiences it could have benefited from revealing a little more depth and brutal honesty in the characters.

Sketch wise we had The Flush by Mark Leeson a charming piece of character interaction on the serious matter of phone etiquette. The visuals needed Porn Sketch by yours truly brought up interesting debate, but from my point of view the visual nature of the sketch could not be captured in a reading, so I am still not sure the best way display what I believe is a very strong idea.

ComComedy had a weekend full of filming, a series of office sketches were produced using material supplied by members of the group and call has been put out for sketches based in a park.  You can find more details on ComComedy here.

Right, back to writing for me now. Until next time.

Sketchageddon III was yet another mighty success for the London Comedy Writers, at least when I remembered to cast the scripts. Whoops.  Anyway, lets see what we had.

Acceptable Discrimination?, Body Harvest, and Big Issue by Gareth Moore, – The winner of last months blog contest hit the floor running three sketches, general consensus was tighten them at the top… except the last one which at 3 lines was short enough.  Debate rages about whether you can still take the piss out of ginger people.

The Art of Wally by Olly Allsopp, – Equally well received and with one person even commenting that it was one of the finest Wally based sketches he had ever heard.

The Present by Sally Ingrey, – Not so much a sketch, but scene from a film, wonderful dialogue, interesting characters.

Owning a Break-up and Carbs and Bombs by Ahmed III – The first sketch pulled an excellent slight of hand on the audience, while the second one that paired an airhead and a suicide bomber had an interesting mix emotions, but ultimately very funny.

I Was Also Thinking of Writing a Script by Anon II – In response to last week’s anonymous script, another was submitted, a fantastically funny homage to the original.  If only we knew who were writing these… maybe it was the same person….

Absolute Weakest Link by Luke Llyons, Class Conscious by Jeremy Davies and John’s last minute submission were all well received, however all suffered from similar ideas being done before.  This lead to an interesting debate about the originality of characters and ideas, or whether once they are performed, even be it over 20 years ago can  no one else go there? Deliberate or not.

The Lamb and Lion by Douglas Hooker – again this was less a sketch and more a scene from something larger, there were nice moments, but ultimately most felt that this was character exploration for the writer rather than a story.

Cuba Libre by Sally Sheringham – Two men in Cuba, this script had some great moments, although as is quite often the case, was over written at the start and the ending didn’t quite work. Some thought it would be better to explore a longer version, perhaps a feature film.

Middle Earth and Drone Controllers by Joel Soetendorp – Two short nicely written if somewhat surreal pieces, great take on the military and Middle Earth.

Finally Matthew Jessee presented the first of what I hope will be many webisodes from the group.  Sadly by the time we got round to this everyone was tired, while we are normally done by about 9.30, in an effort to get everyone’s sketches in we had over run and it was nearing 10.15.  The energy had left the room and reading came out oddly flat. Comments were fairly positive although the script still held too close to a scene from a sitcom rather than a single self contained story. Since the script Desperate was originally written as sitcom, it now needs a lot of changes to make it work in significantly different medium.  This means cutting down on locations, telling smaller stories and focusing mainly on a single character.

Well that is all for now. At some point when I have processed my thoughts I will comment on my Fourth Plinth disaster, and thank you to all those who offered such kind words of support. Like they say, life goes on and it doesn’t matter how you fall, but how you pick yourself back up.