This thread is open to paying and free subscribers. Feel free to ask any question about anything. Writing? Comedy? Specific sketches? Stuff you’re too lazy to google? It’s all fair game!
When people say "make a big choice" or that actor did great because they made a big choice, what do people generally mean? I feel like folks tend to have slightly different definitions, so I'm curious as to what yours is, and how one can go about coming up with and making those sorts of choices?
Actors have to make a lot of choices because it's impossible for everything to be laid out in the script. Some things might be explicit, while others are merely implied. Some things aren't described at all, but an actor can take the information they do have and decide things about the character that make sense. And a lot of these choices will inform the performance. A character is angry: are they they kind of person to scream their head off, or to speak with quiet intensity? How does the character physically take up space? Are they still or fidgety? Do they hunch over and make themselves small, or are they they kind of person to take up all the space around them? There are a million decisions that must be made to fill in the gaps of the script.
A big choice, for me, is a character decision that isn't immediately obvious based on the text. When it works well, it makes the character seem more complex, or makes the performance more nuanced.
How do you make these choices? I don't know! I'm not the best actor in the world. I do think there's some value in exploring the opposites of your instincts. It's always interesting to me when I hand a script to an actor and they deliver a line in such a way that makes me say, "that's not what I imagined, but it works great."
I gotcha, that's a very clear definition and it makes sense to me, so thank you for that. I guess as for actually doing it there's nothing to do but practice and experiment. And going against your own instinct is a great point, but so hard to do in practice but that comes with the territory.
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this and for your thoughtful answer! Really appreciate it. Hope you had a great thanksgiving and wishing you and yours a great holiday season!
I got a note on a recent sketch that was to think about the weird character's justification for what they were doing. In my rewrite, I think I focused too much on the justification, and it felt flat. The beats didn't heighten, it was almost just a debate between the characters about the weird character's viewpoint. As though I was trying to heighten the justification for the weird thing instead of the weird thing itself.
Does that make sense? Is this something you see often, and do you have any advice for how to handle heightening the unusual thing instead of a character's justification for the unusual thing?
Yes! This is absolutely a thing that can happen. Over-justification. This happens when you justify so much that either the sketch becomes about the justification, or you explain that weird thing so effectively that it's not weird anymore.
It's hard to give you any specific guidance without knowing the specifics. Some things to keep in mind:
- You need shockingly little to justify strange behavior. Usually one sentence will do. Sometimes you can get by on an image. Audiences WANT things to make sense, so they'll be looking for anything that will do that. You might just need to trust that one line is all you need.
- You may not need a straight man. If you got stuck debating the justification, maybe your straight man is getting in the way.
- You may need a more motivated straight man. Does your straight man have a reason to be in the scene? Or are they just reacting to unusual character? Perhaps the conversation turned to the justificaiton because the straight man has nothing else to do.
- The best justifications are inextricably tied to the game. The unusual behavior is shining a light on a real, everyday truth. Have you lost sight of that on the second rewrite? What was funny about your idea in the first place? What was the initial inspiration? Why did you choose to write this? The real justification might be in the answer to those questions and it might be different from what you put in the script.
If you're willing to share: can you tell me more about your sketch? What was your initial inspiration, what's the game, and how did you end up justifying the unusual behavior in the rewrite?
Thanks for this! The sketch is a Sesame Street writers room, and one of the writers thinks The Count should be hornier because vampires are inherently horny characters.
In the first draft he was just kind of suggesting sexual things for The Count to do, and loosely trying to justify them by relating them to lessons for kids (like The Count using vampiric mind control to seduce Bert & Ernie being a lesson on consent).
In the rewrite, I hit a pattern of a sexual suggestion—>tie it to a kids’ lesson—>give an example of another vampire character doing that thing when the other writers question it.
On writing that out it seems like it makes sense, but I don’t think I heighten the absurdity of the suggestions enough, and spent maybe too much time on him trying to justify how his weird sexual pitches can be educational for kids.
Your issue is not really with the justification. Essentially you're juxtaposing Sesame Street and sexy vampires, two tonally different things with a commonality: vampires. I'm on board. I get it.
The problem comes from your setting. Since you've set this in the writers' room you now have a sketch where people are TALKING about the game, instead of a sketch where characters are playing the game. My advice is to skip the writers' room. Set your sketch in Sesame Street with the Count trying to be a sexy vampire, or with the Count's visiting sexy cousin or something. OR set it in a sexy vampire night club type environment and have the Count trying to fit in.
What this does is it makes the game more direct (we're playing it instead of talking about playing it). It also makes the unusual thing very clear. When you're in the writers' room the unusual thing becomes the person who is pitching Sexy Count, not Sexy Count himself. And you get stuck explaining this character: why is this writer pitching this idea? What do the other writers think about it? Etc. When this writer isn't the interesting part -- it's the vampires! So let's see the vampires!
Thank you! I actually subscribed because I feel like I’ve taken up so much of the thread at this point.
What you’re saying makes total sense, but: to me, the funny idea *is* the person pitching Sexy Count. The idea of actually doing Sexy Count itself as a game doesn’t appeal to me as much as just a guy who thinks The Count should be sexy, and doesn’t quite get why it’s inappropriate for a kids show.
But I think your notes clarify why I’m finding it tough to play that particular game, and it’s something I found to be an issue when writing it from the get-go: just talking about things instead of doing them makes it hard to build momentum.
This has been illuminating and given me some idea of where I need to go, thanks again!
Thanks for subscribing! Totally a valid way to go. In that case, I do think it's valuable to justify why this guy wants the Count to be sexy -- why it's important to him, and what the stakes are. He needs to be invested enough that the scene is about him, and not about the things he's saying.
My question is this: what are you working on right now? You alluded to doing TV stuff in another post. If you don’t want to/can’t share that is totally fine!
I just recently wrapped up writing on a new animated show that I'm not yet allowed to talk about, which is a bummer because I would very much like to talk about it.
Totally. That's something I've been thinking about a lot, but also feels a little weird to talk about since my TV experience is so limited compared to my sketch experience -- ya gotta take anything I say with an even bigger grain of salt. I'll probably have something touching on this topic relatively soon!
Nov 25, 2022·edited Nov 25, 2022Liked by Mike Trapp
Hey Mike, any pointers on improving/practicing sketch acting (or for masking weaker acting)? I hate for a finely-tuned script to be let down by its execution.
AK posted a post I made on this. The best and most uncomfortable thing to do is to watch footage of yourself. It sucks, but it does help. Know your lines well enough that you don't have to think about them at all. And watch comedic actors you like! Part of the reason Key and Peele are so great is that they can both get laughs out of small looks and big choices. Pick apart a performance you like, just as you would a script.
When you have a premise that you think has potential for comedy, what's your method for determining the best format for the joke? When you've got an idea, how do you decide whether it should be a sketch, standup bit, tweet, etc?
When I had to write a bunch of sketches for my job, I would always TRY to steer things toward sketch just 'cause I needed as many sketch scripts as I could. A lot of ideas can be massaged into different formats, so some of it is just what you'd like to write. Sometimes an idea is just too small to be a sketch though, and you'll usually know if you can't think of a second beat. That's a good indication that you just have a good joke that might be better as a tweet. Or you might need to broaden your thinking -- is this idea merely a single beat in a larger pattern? Maybe the thing you thought was a game is actually just one beat.
These days I'm writing more long scripts, so the question is often instead, "Is this a sketch or a TV/ feature idea?" And it might be if the idea suggests a larger world or a specific character.
So, I guess, in summary: if your funny idea suggests a larger pattern, it's at least big enough for a sketch. If it suggests an interesting character it might be big enough for a longer story. And if it doesn't suggest any of that, it might just be a joke. But if you're committed to one specific form, you can probably develop the idea in to any form you want.
I’ve seen a few twitter threads recently of people discovering “31 Words that sound like slurs but aren’t”, and maybe don’t have the most positive reaction. 7 years and 15 million views later, how do you feel about that one? To be clear I don’t mean this as a gotcha or a hit piece, I’m just really interested to know how someone involved in a sketch feels about it when it no longer feels like the sort of thing they’d make now?
Yeah, totally. This is repeating myself a bit from another question, but MOST of my old work is like "eh, I wouldn't do it that way now." But I think that's also probably a good thing -- if you don't hate your old stuff, it means you're not growing. And if you spend ten years commenting on everything, you're gonna say some dumb stuff!
That sketch specifically was a response to a moment when some people seemed inordinately focused on circumstances when they might be able to use a slur, when they maybe should have been more focused on WHY they were so interested in finding those loopholes in the first place. If nothing else, that was at least a valid thing to poke fun at (which is more than I can say for some other scripts)
I've been messing around with this new chatGPT and it feels like a great idea generator. It's like having an AI writers room. It would be interesteing to hear your thoughts on this new tech if you try it out.
I haven't tried chatGPT. So far I've found most AI stuff to be a bit of a novelty, but not terribly useful to me, personally. That being said, I think inspiration can come from anything that disrupts your typical mode of thinking, and I can absolutely see how something like this could do that. If it works for you, then great!
So, first, don't take anything I say here as a universal rule, or an absolute imperative. This is just how I think about writing sketch and how I approach comedy.
When I talk about the truth of a sketch, I'm talking about the thing that resonates with the audience and makes it worth watching. This could be an observation about the world at large, or a piece of media, but it could also be simple human behavior.
In this sketch, the waiter is stuck in a contradiction of two recognizable truths: (1) in times of emotional distress you need comfort from someone else, and (2) waiters should not make requests or demands from other people. These are not shocking observations, but the surprise comes in the way these two seemingly true things come in conflict with each other. The waiter is trapped by a contradiction of these two truths. He NEEDS a hug, but he MUST play by the rules of being a waiter and CANNOT directly ask for one. We get comedy as we bounce back and forth between these two conflicting truths, and the character looks for a solution to an impossible problem. The waiter tries different tactics to get the hug, but always under the rules of how a waiter should behave (offering two sides, telling diners they made a good choice). At the same time we see him getting more and more emotionally distraught, more and more desperate for that hug as his stoic, waiterly veneer starts to crumble.
As a final thought -- as you're dissecting a sketch, trying to figure out how it works, it sometimes helps me to imagine the alternatives. What would happen if the waiter directly requested a hug? Take a moment to imagine how the scene might progress from there. In my mind, the sketch deflates. The tension disappears because with that action the waiter stopped playing by the rules of being a waiter. It's no longer about the contradiction of two truths because one of them (waiters can't ask for things) has been abandoned. A similar thing happens in my mind if, say, this waiter was pushing for something other than a hug? As I imagine some alternatives it seems to me that he MUST be asking for something with a strong, relatable emotion tied to it. I get why an emotionally distraught person might bend social norms and behave unusually to get what they need. I would need some kind of justification if he were just trying to push "the lamb special" or something. Even changing his emotion can affect the sketch. If he weren't sad and if he was asking for a hug while smiling, his character and the fundamental tension would change. Instead of a sad man stuck in an impossible situation, he would be a creep trying to trick people.
This is probably way too much! But this sort of over-analytic comedy dissection is kinda what this newsletter is all about.
Been thinking recently, and come to this realization ( or is it more like a no brainer) : The truth in comedy, or the truthfulness, it has to be juxtaposed by the absurd? Or the way I've been noticing it more: there has to be some sort of "negative" thing being looked at.
I don't know, but when i think about sketches and stuff, even if there is something really outlandish, there is like a ohno thing going on. Shaudefrude?
Maybe a better question, one that you could actually answer: How can i recreate the funny moment, or the joke, on command? how much premise is needed, cause lots of the time i end up telling "one time at band camp..." stories. ( example above) Ps. huge fan of the college humor stuff.
I think like when talking with friends and a joke, or premise is made. Its hilarious in that moment, but to recreate it into an actual joke elsewhere. Like for either a stand up bit to write it out, or for in a skit. How to make a joke land again?🤷♂️
This happens to me too. I think it always comes down to context.
In conversations with friends, not only do you have the entire context of the conversation for that joke to land, but you often have years of friendship behind it too.
That's a bunch of context you don't have with a cold audience. So you have to build that context in an efficient and effective way for the same sort of joke to land.
Sketch/Scene structure comes in to help with that context building. Hopefully that makes sense!
To expand on this -- if you want to recapture spontaneous comedy in a script you really have to understand what made the moment/joke/situation funny in the first place. What is the unusual thing? Why does it feel unusual? I think it's helpful to really pick apart those moments to see how they tick. You can't just repeat the punchline and hope it to work without the set up.
I haven't taken any classes at Second City, and I don't use this system described, but I think it makes a lot of sense! A few obvious benefits:
- improv builds in a immediate bullshit detector. If something feels untruthful, forced, or flat, you'll feel it in the improv. It's much harder to see that on the page.
- You've got multiple minds working at the same time, which increases the chances of surprise and opens up new ideas.
- It lets you organically discover games you might never have thought of by staring at a blank screen.
Essentially, it takes the inspiration and brainstorming part of sketch writing and makes it a group effort. I totally see the appeal, even if I'm too much of a loner to do it regularly. If it works for you, great; if it doesn't, it's certainly not the only way to write sketch.
What books do you wish more people have read so you can talk about with them? Are there any shows/books/movies/properties you wish you could have an Um Actually question about but haven't had the right audience yet?
It's not even a question of right audience. Even for people who read a ton of sci-fi and fantasy, there's no guarantee they'll have read the particular one I want to talk about, even if it's fairly well-known. But to give a specific answer: I absolutely love Ted Chiang's short story collections. Interesting, original sci-fi that I could talk about for hours. When it comes to Um Actually, I'll often try to sneak in stuff I want to talk about, even if I suspect people may not know what I'm talking about.
As a person, I don’t usually like the idea of networking, as it feels like you’re using people to further your own goals. And the last thing I ever want to do while trying to get my self out there is feel like I’m using people. What advice do you have on networking with others, especially when working with others from ucb.
I think a lot of people have the wrong idea about what networking really is. You might imagine a situation where you befriend someone who has something you want in order to get that thing. And of course this would feel bad. It's predatory and shmoozy. It also rarely works anyway. This isn't real networking.
Real networking is a long game. You're not approaching people with higher status in hopes of immediate rewards. You're befriending people of equal status in hopes of helping EACH OTHER. Literally, all you're doing is making friends. Getting to know people who are doing the same thing you are. And you're not using the other person, because you're both in the muck trying to help each other. You make a lot of friends, help a lot of people. You read their work and they read yours. Some of these friends find some small successes in weird, impossible-to-replicate ways. And you find your own small successes, meet new people and help them out too. And you all keep helping each other. And then maybe there's a moment where one of these friends hears about a job you'd be perfect for and they say, "I know the perfect person for this." Or you're trying to reach a specific producer and you remember one of your friends worked on something they produced. And suddenly, you realize, you've built a very effective network.
Real networking takes a lot of time and energy, and is just a faster way of saying "building honest relationships with your peers."
Honestly I’m glad to see this answer. I mean it doesn’t help the innate nagging at the back of my mind that says “what if they think your using them” and it waves it’s non-corporeal hands like a ghost as it mocks you, but honestly the idea of making friends of any status, who also enjoy comedy is the goal. The main issue I face here is not viewing many people as my equal. I tend to view most people as my better.
But this really takes a lot of the fear out of it. Because people always make networking seem like it is the former, and even if it was, I just want the chance to make people laugh and feel good for a while. Thanks trapp.
Congratulations! I did improv for years and was nervous before every show. I worry any extra advice will just get you in your head more, so I'd say trust your teammates and trust yourself. You're already in the troupe so you must be doing something right!
Do you have any tips for getting integrated into your local comedy community? I’m a solid writer/performer, but with my social anxiety I’m having difficulty breaking into the scene.
Also, do you have any movies you’d recommend for an aspiring comedy writer? I watched the Jerk for the first time recently & it had me crying with laughter.
Classes are a good way to break down social barriers and connect with people. It levels out power dynamics and creates natural openings for seeing shows together or grabbing a casual drink after class. Things like improv and sketch tend toward group stuff more naturally than stand up, though.
Man, most of them! There are a lot of sketches I'd just as soon disown for various reasons. Some of these are okay sketches I would write differently these days. Others have one or two jokes in them that I think come off as cruel or ignorant and aren't strictly necessary for the game. The ones I like the least are the cynical ones -- ideas I didn't honestly believe in, but wrote anyway because it seemed like they'd get clicks ("Downton Funk") or because someone else in the room pitched a new version of the game that others liked, even when I didn't ("The Ultimate Workout"). This is part of the reason I think it's a good idea to write the things YOU think are funny and not the things you think OTHERS will like. My least favorite stuff is the stuff I wrote because I was trying to please someone else, or predict what the algorithm would like.
And, in contrast, the stuff I'm most proud of is the stuff I wrote for me. Ultramechatron Team Go! is still my favorite thing I made for CH. There's a lot of "me" in there. From premise to specific jokes, it's the kind of stuff I enjoy. I've certainly made more successful things, but that's the one I WISH people got more into.
When people say "make a big choice" or that actor did great because they made a big choice, what do people generally mean? I feel like folks tend to have slightly different definitions, so I'm curious as to what yours is, and how one can go about coming up with and making those sorts of choices?
Actors have to make a lot of choices because it's impossible for everything to be laid out in the script. Some things might be explicit, while others are merely implied. Some things aren't described at all, but an actor can take the information they do have and decide things about the character that make sense. And a lot of these choices will inform the performance. A character is angry: are they they kind of person to scream their head off, or to speak with quiet intensity? How does the character physically take up space? Are they still or fidgety? Do they hunch over and make themselves small, or are they they kind of person to take up all the space around them? There are a million decisions that must be made to fill in the gaps of the script.
A big choice, for me, is a character decision that isn't immediately obvious based on the text. When it works well, it makes the character seem more complex, or makes the performance more nuanced.
How do you make these choices? I don't know! I'm not the best actor in the world. I do think there's some value in exploring the opposites of your instincts. It's always interesting to me when I hand a script to an actor and they deliver a line in such a way that makes me say, "that's not what I imagined, but it works great."
I gotcha, that's a very clear definition and it makes sense to me, so thank you for that. I guess as for actually doing it there's nothing to do but practice and experiment. And going against your own instinct is a great point, but so hard to do in practice but that comes with the territory.
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this and for your thoughtful answer! Really appreciate it. Hope you had a great thanksgiving and wishing you and yours a great holiday season!
I got a note on a recent sketch that was to think about the weird character's justification for what they were doing. In my rewrite, I think I focused too much on the justification, and it felt flat. The beats didn't heighten, it was almost just a debate between the characters about the weird character's viewpoint. As though I was trying to heighten the justification for the weird thing instead of the weird thing itself.
Does that make sense? Is this something you see often, and do you have any advice for how to handle heightening the unusual thing instead of a character's justification for the unusual thing?
Yes! This is absolutely a thing that can happen. Over-justification. This happens when you justify so much that either the sketch becomes about the justification, or you explain that weird thing so effectively that it's not weird anymore.
It's hard to give you any specific guidance without knowing the specifics. Some things to keep in mind:
- You need shockingly little to justify strange behavior. Usually one sentence will do. Sometimes you can get by on an image. Audiences WANT things to make sense, so they'll be looking for anything that will do that. You might just need to trust that one line is all you need.
- You may not need a straight man. If you got stuck debating the justification, maybe your straight man is getting in the way.
- You may need a more motivated straight man. Does your straight man have a reason to be in the scene? Or are they just reacting to unusual character? Perhaps the conversation turned to the justificaiton because the straight man has nothing else to do.
- The best justifications are inextricably tied to the game. The unusual behavior is shining a light on a real, everyday truth. Have you lost sight of that on the second rewrite? What was funny about your idea in the first place? What was the initial inspiration? Why did you choose to write this? The real justification might be in the answer to those questions and it might be different from what you put in the script.
If you're willing to share: can you tell me more about your sketch? What was your initial inspiration, what's the game, and how did you end up justifying the unusual behavior in the rewrite?
Thanks for this! The sketch is a Sesame Street writers room, and one of the writers thinks The Count should be hornier because vampires are inherently horny characters.
In the first draft he was just kind of suggesting sexual things for The Count to do, and loosely trying to justify them by relating them to lessons for kids (like The Count using vampiric mind control to seduce Bert & Ernie being a lesson on consent).
In the rewrite, I hit a pattern of a sexual suggestion—>tie it to a kids’ lesson—>give an example of another vampire character doing that thing when the other writers question it.
On writing that out it seems like it makes sense, but I don’t think I heighten the absurdity of the suggestions enough, and spent maybe too much time on him trying to justify how his weird sexual pitches can be educational for kids.
Okay! Cool! So, here's what I think:
Your issue is not really with the justification. Essentially you're juxtaposing Sesame Street and sexy vampires, two tonally different things with a commonality: vampires. I'm on board. I get it.
The problem comes from your setting. Since you've set this in the writers' room you now have a sketch where people are TALKING about the game, instead of a sketch where characters are playing the game. My advice is to skip the writers' room. Set your sketch in Sesame Street with the Count trying to be a sexy vampire, or with the Count's visiting sexy cousin or something. OR set it in a sexy vampire night club type environment and have the Count trying to fit in.
What this does is it makes the game more direct (we're playing it instead of talking about playing it). It also makes the unusual thing very clear. When you're in the writers' room the unusual thing becomes the person who is pitching Sexy Count, not Sexy Count himself. And you get stuck explaining this character: why is this writer pitching this idea? What do the other writers think about it? Etc. When this writer isn't the interesting part -- it's the vampires! So let's see the vampires!
That's my take at least. Hope it's helpful!
Thank you! I actually subscribed because I feel like I’ve taken up so much of the thread at this point.
What you’re saying makes total sense, but: to me, the funny idea *is* the person pitching Sexy Count. The idea of actually doing Sexy Count itself as a game doesn’t appeal to me as much as just a guy who thinks The Count should be sexy, and doesn’t quite get why it’s inappropriate for a kids show.
But I think your notes clarify why I’m finding it tough to play that particular game, and it’s something I found to be an issue when writing it from the get-go: just talking about things instead of doing them makes it hard to build momentum.
This has been illuminating and given me some idea of where I need to go, thanks again!
Thanks for subscribing! Totally a valid way to go. In that case, I do think it's valuable to justify why this guy wants the Count to be sexy -- why it's important to him, and what the stakes are. He needs to be invested enough that the scene is about him, and not about the things he's saying.
I’m loving Chuffah and I’ve learned so much!!
My question is this: what are you working on right now? You alluded to doing TV stuff in another post. If you don’t want to/can’t share that is totally fine!
I just recently wrapped up writing on a new animated show that I'm not yet allowed to talk about, which is a bummer because I would very much like to talk about it.
I'd love to see a post about some of the things you learned and the differences between writing a sitcom and a sketch
Totally. That's something I've been thinking about a lot, but also feels a little weird to talk about since my TV experience is so limited compared to my sketch experience -- ya gotta take anything I say with an even bigger grain of salt. I'll probably have something touching on this topic relatively soon!
awesome, super exciting!! looking forward to that then :)
Hey Mike, any pointers on improving/practicing sketch acting (or for masking weaker acting)? I hate for a finely-tuned script to be let down by its execution.
AK posted a post I made on this. The best and most uncomfortable thing to do is to watch footage of yourself. It sucks, but it does help. Know your lines well enough that you don't have to think about them at all. And watch comedic actors you like! Part of the reason Key and Peele are so great is that they can both get laughs out of small looks and big choices. Pick apart a performance you like, just as you would a script.
This post helped me: https://open.substack.com/pub/chuffah/p/8-tips-for-performing-sketch?utm_source=direct&r=ipwm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
When you have a premise that you think has potential for comedy, what's your method for determining the best format for the joke? When you've got an idea, how do you decide whether it should be a sketch, standup bit, tweet, etc?
When I had to write a bunch of sketches for my job, I would always TRY to steer things toward sketch just 'cause I needed as many sketch scripts as I could. A lot of ideas can be massaged into different formats, so some of it is just what you'd like to write. Sometimes an idea is just too small to be a sketch though, and you'll usually know if you can't think of a second beat. That's a good indication that you just have a good joke that might be better as a tweet. Or you might need to broaden your thinking -- is this idea merely a single beat in a larger pattern? Maybe the thing you thought was a game is actually just one beat.
These days I'm writing more long scripts, so the question is often instead, "Is this a sketch or a TV/ feature idea?" And it might be if the idea suggests a larger world or a specific character.
So, I guess, in summary: if your funny idea suggests a larger pattern, it's at least big enough for a sketch. If it suggests an interesting character it might be big enough for a longer story. And if it doesn't suggest any of that, it might just be a joke. But if you're committed to one specific form, you can probably develop the idea in to any form you want.
I’ve seen a few twitter threads recently of people discovering “31 Words that sound like slurs but aren’t”, and maybe don’t have the most positive reaction. 7 years and 15 million views later, how do you feel about that one? To be clear I don’t mean this as a gotcha or a hit piece, I’m just really interested to know how someone involved in a sketch feels about it when it no longer feels like the sort of thing they’d make now?
Yeah, totally. This is repeating myself a bit from another question, but MOST of my old work is like "eh, I wouldn't do it that way now." But I think that's also probably a good thing -- if you don't hate your old stuff, it means you're not growing. And if you spend ten years commenting on everything, you're gonna say some dumb stuff!
That sketch specifically was a response to a moment when some people seemed inordinately focused on circumstances when they might be able to use a slur, when they maybe should have been more focused on WHY they were so interested in finding those loopholes in the first place. If nothing else, that was at least a valid thing to poke fun at (which is more than I can say for some other scripts)
I've been messing around with this new chatGPT and it feels like a great idea generator. It's like having an AI writers room. It would be interesteing to hear your thoughts on this new tech if you try it out.
I haven't tried chatGPT. So far I've found most AI stuff to be a bit of a novelty, but not terribly useful to me, personally. That being said, I think inspiration can come from anything that disrupts your typical mode of thinking, and I can absolutely see how something like this could do that. If it works for you, then great!
Hey Trapp!
I've been enjoying more absurd sketches lately but I'm not always sure what the "truth" is in them.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR4hMcLf/
In the example above, is the relatability/truth factor just that the waiter wants a hug and affection like any other human being?
I think a lot of Tim Robinson's stuff comes down to emotional relatability too, although it's obviously very heightened in his characters.
Ha, this is great!
So, first, don't take anything I say here as a universal rule, or an absolute imperative. This is just how I think about writing sketch and how I approach comedy.
When I talk about the truth of a sketch, I'm talking about the thing that resonates with the audience and makes it worth watching. This could be an observation about the world at large, or a piece of media, but it could also be simple human behavior.
In this sketch, the waiter is stuck in a contradiction of two recognizable truths: (1) in times of emotional distress you need comfort from someone else, and (2) waiters should not make requests or demands from other people. These are not shocking observations, but the surprise comes in the way these two seemingly true things come in conflict with each other. The waiter is trapped by a contradiction of these two truths. He NEEDS a hug, but he MUST play by the rules of being a waiter and CANNOT directly ask for one. We get comedy as we bounce back and forth between these two conflicting truths, and the character looks for a solution to an impossible problem. The waiter tries different tactics to get the hug, but always under the rules of how a waiter should behave (offering two sides, telling diners they made a good choice). At the same time we see him getting more and more emotionally distraught, more and more desperate for that hug as his stoic, waiterly veneer starts to crumble.
As a final thought -- as you're dissecting a sketch, trying to figure out how it works, it sometimes helps me to imagine the alternatives. What would happen if the waiter directly requested a hug? Take a moment to imagine how the scene might progress from there. In my mind, the sketch deflates. The tension disappears because with that action the waiter stopped playing by the rules of being a waiter. It's no longer about the contradiction of two truths because one of them (waiters can't ask for things) has been abandoned. A similar thing happens in my mind if, say, this waiter was pushing for something other than a hug? As I imagine some alternatives it seems to me that he MUST be asking for something with a strong, relatable emotion tied to it. I get why an emotionally distraught person might bend social norms and behave unusually to get what they need. I would need some kind of justification if he were just trying to push "the lamb special" or something. Even changing his emotion can affect the sketch. If he weren't sad and if he was asking for a hug while smiling, his character and the fundamental tension would change. Instead of a sad man stuck in an impossible situation, he would be a creep trying to trick people.
This is probably way too much! But this sort of over-analytic comedy dissection is kinda what this newsletter is all about.
🤯 This is so helpful. And this is the type analysis I'm trying to train my brain to naturally do. This makes way more sense now, thanks so much!
What’s the best place to get a sandwich near Dartmouth?
Collis makes sandwiches with fresh fluffy bread. That was always my choice.
Been thinking recently, and come to this realization ( or is it more like a no brainer) : The truth in comedy, or the truthfulness, it has to be juxtaposed by the absurd? Or the way I've been noticing it more: there has to be some sort of "negative" thing being looked at.
I don't know, but when i think about sketches and stuff, even if there is something really outlandish, there is like a ohno thing going on. Shaudefrude?
Maybe a better question, one that you could actually answer: How can i recreate the funny moment, or the joke, on command? how much premise is needed, cause lots of the time i end up telling "one time at band camp..." stories. ( example above) Ps. huge fan of the college humor stuff.
I gotta be honest: I'm not totally following what you're saying here. When you say "recreate the funny moment on command" what are you talking about?
I think like when talking with friends and a joke, or premise is made. Its hilarious in that moment, but to recreate it into an actual joke elsewhere. Like for either a stand up bit to write it out, or for in a skit. How to make a joke land again?🤷♂️
This happens to me too. I think it always comes down to context.
In conversations with friends, not only do you have the entire context of the conversation for that joke to land, but you often have years of friendship behind it too.
That's a bunch of context you don't have with a cold audience. So you have to build that context in an efficient and effective way for the same sort of joke to land.
Sketch/Scene structure comes in to help with that context building. Hopefully that makes sense!
To expand on this -- if you want to recapture spontaneous comedy in a script you really have to understand what made the moment/joke/situation funny in the first place. What is the unusual thing? Why does it feel unusual? I think it's helpful to really pick apart those moments to see how they tick. You can't just repeat the punchline and hope it to work without the set up.
it does thank you.
Hey Mike!
What's your take on the Second City approach to sketch writing where you improvise a scene, re-improvise it, and write that sucker from there?
I did levels 1-5 but the last part struck me as odd
I haven't taken any classes at Second City, and I don't use this system described, but I think it makes a lot of sense! A few obvious benefits:
- improv builds in a immediate bullshit detector. If something feels untruthful, forced, or flat, you'll feel it in the improv. It's much harder to see that on the page.
- You've got multiple minds working at the same time, which increases the chances of surprise and opens up new ideas.
- It lets you organically discover games you might never have thought of by staring at a blank screen.
Essentially, it takes the inspiration and brainstorming part of sketch writing and makes it a group effort. I totally see the appeal, even if I'm too much of a loner to do it regularly. If it works for you, great; if it doesn't, it's certainly not the only way to write sketch.
Awesome, thank you so much!
My twin's doing the conservatory over there so I really appreciate the extra insight from ya
What books do you wish more people have read so you can talk about with them? Are there any shows/books/movies/properties you wish you could have an Um Actually question about but haven't had the right audience yet?
It's not even a question of right audience. Even for people who read a ton of sci-fi and fantasy, there's no guarantee they'll have read the particular one I want to talk about, even if it's fairly well-known. But to give a specific answer: I absolutely love Ted Chiang's short story collections. Interesting, original sci-fi that I could talk about for hours. When it comes to Um Actually, I'll often try to sneak in stuff I want to talk about, even if I suspect people may not know what I'm talking about.
As a person, I don’t usually like the idea of networking, as it feels like you’re using people to further your own goals. And the last thing I ever want to do while trying to get my self out there is feel like I’m using people. What advice do you have on networking with others, especially when working with others from ucb.
I think a lot of people have the wrong idea about what networking really is. You might imagine a situation where you befriend someone who has something you want in order to get that thing. And of course this would feel bad. It's predatory and shmoozy. It also rarely works anyway. This isn't real networking.
Real networking is a long game. You're not approaching people with higher status in hopes of immediate rewards. You're befriending people of equal status in hopes of helping EACH OTHER. Literally, all you're doing is making friends. Getting to know people who are doing the same thing you are. And you're not using the other person, because you're both in the muck trying to help each other. You make a lot of friends, help a lot of people. You read their work and they read yours. Some of these friends find some small successes in weird, impossible-to-replicate ways. And you find your own small successes, meet new people and help them out too. And you all keep helping each other. And then maybe there's a moment where one of these friends hears about a job you'd be perfect for and they say, "I know the perfect person for this." Or you're trying to reach a specific producer and you remember one of your friends worked on something they produced. And suddenly, you realize, you've built a very effective network.
Real networking takes a lot of time and energy, and is just a faster way of saying "building honest relationships with your peers."
Honestly I’m glad to see this answer. I mean it doesn’t help the innate nagging at the back of my mind that says “what if they think your using them” and it waves it’s non-corporeal hands like a ghost as it mocks you, but honestly the idea of making friends of any status, who also enjoy comedy is the goal. The main issue I face here is not viewing many people as my equal. I tend to view most people as my better.
But this really takes a lot of the fear out of it. Because people always make networking seem like it is the former, and even if it was, I just want the chance to make people laugh and feel good for a while. Thanks trapp.
I just auditioned for and was selected for my first improv troupe. Any advice? Any comments or concerns? I'm very nervous.
Congratulations! I did improv for years and was nervous before every show. I worry any extra advice will just get you in your head more, so I'd say trust your teammates and trust yourself. You're already in the troupe so you must be doing something right!
Do you have any tips for getting integrated into your local comedy community? I’m a solid writer/performer, but with my social anxiety I’m having difficulty breaking into the scene.
Also, do you have any movies you’d recommend for an aspiring comedy writer? I watched the Jerk for the first time recently & it had me crying with laughter.
Classes are a good way to break down social barriers and connect with people. It levels out power dynamics and creates natural openings for seeing shows together or grabbing a casual drink after class. Things like improv and sketch tend toward group stuff more naturally than stand up, though.
What is a great episode to watch you in on Dropout? Apart from Uhm actually ofc.
Well, this'll be me repeating myself, but I always wished more people had watched Ultramechatron Team Go!
Which sketch you wrote for CollegeHumor that was made and uploaded are you LEAST proud of?
And for balance, which one are you MOST proud of?
Man, most of them! There are a lot of sketches I'd just as soon disown for various reasons. Some of these are okay sketches I would write differently these days. Others have one or two jokes in them that I think come off as cruel or ignorant and aren't strictly necessary for the game. The ones I like the least are the cynical ones -- ideas I didn't honestly believe in, but wrote anyway because it seemed like they'd get clicks ("Downton Funk") or because someone else in the room pitched a new version of the game that others liked, even when I didn't ("The Ultimate Workout"). This is part of the reason I think it's a good idea to write the things YOU think are funny and not the things you think OTHERS will like. My least favorite stuff is the stuff I wrote because I was trying to please someone else, or predict what the algorithm would like.
And, in contrast, the stuff I'm most proud of is the stuff I wrote for me. Ultramechatron Team Go! is still my favorite thing I made for CH. There's a lot of "me" in there. From premise to specific jokes, it's the kind of stuff I enjoy. I've certainly made more successful things, but that's the one I WISH people got more into.