I had initially planned to post my interview with Brennan Lee Mulligan this week, but a series of unexpected events has delayed the edit. That will still be coming soon! To tide you over, I’m opening up this question/comment thread for ALL subscribers.
Anything you’ve wanted to ask, but it seemed off topic?
Something you wanted to say, but weren’t able to comment?
Something you want to see more of in the newsletter?
This is the place to put those burning thoughts! Anything goes!1 I’ll likely answer questions in blocks in the afternoon and evening, so you may not get an immediate response, but I’m going to try to get to everyone’s comment before the weekend.
Mike! I watched Um...Actually for the first time the other day and it was hilarious. You are a great host and the format is so fun. I will keep watching!
May 16, 2022·edited May 16, 2022Liked by Mike Trapp
Anyways : I feel like a lot a games I write are litteral translations of the unsual idea I start with. For example, last one was : when you get sick and someone takes care of you, you end up being infantilized. And the game was : someone is sick and their significant other takes care of them and infantilizes them and the heightening is pretty straightforward : they get treated in evermore childish ways blablabla. It's not finished but it's the way it's going. I feel like it's a bit lazy, but at the same time, it's also simple and efficient. Is this something I should be worried about ? I mean it could have been : the baby section at the hospital is filled with adults with laryngitis for example. But that's less easy to justify, suddenly harder to produce, less relatable to the audience, etc... Seems like an effort that wouldn't necessarily pay off.
When a sketch has a very simple game you have to work a little harder to keep ahead of the audience. If you suspect that your game might be a little predictable, you'll want to lean a bit more heavily on things like misdirects, jokes, and extreme heightening to keep the audience on its toes.
But it might also be that your game isn't strong enough. In your example you talk about someone who feels infantilized when sick, and they keep getting treated more and more like a baby. There is a truth to this core idea, but for me it's lacking that element of surprise or unexpectedness. And since that's missing from the base idea, you may find that the rest of your sketch becomes just a list of childish things with someone being annoyed by them.
So go back to that core. Keep digging. Is there something under your original idea that points to a contradiction or a subversion of expectations? What exactly about being infantalized while sick is surprising?
As an example, one thing I think of is how when we're sick we try to treat our ailment in two very different ways: (1) tender, loving care and (2) cold, sterile pharmaceuticals. These feel like opposites, but they both seem important. Perhaps there's a sketch in which a stoic, plain-speaking doctor tries to prescribe a warm hug and a bowl of soup. Perhaps it is the doctor who is engaged in all the infantalizing treatments -- which would be a little more surprising, but still carries a grain of logic: that IS a way we treat illnesses, but not the way we expect DOCTORS to treat illnesses.
I don't know for sure if that's an idea with enough legs either, but I mention it to get you thinking. The big takeaway here is that you need that element of surprise. Either your sketch is strong enough that it naturally implies lots of surprising moments and observations, or it's simple and you either have to pump surprise in through other means, or reexamine your game and see if there's something more surprising you can focus on.
Thanks ! That's a great idea ! I was thinking of ways to have a more complex link between my game and my idea, but it's true that when I feel I need that, it's often that the idea is also pretty half baked.
I find it funny that you basically just reviewed my sketch very helpfully without even reading it ^^ Must've described it very well !
Hello. I've begun writing in a group and we had our first pitch meeting tonight. I was VERY frightened that it would go bad and it would just be silent and awkward. But in fact it went so wellll I'm so glad ! We pitched a few ideas, we brainstormed a lot. We reviewed a few drafts and we selected a first sketch to rehearse. This all thanks to you. I'm so glad I subscribed to this. Man if you ever come to Paris I would so much wanna show you. Well... it's all in french, so don't bother. But whenever we do a show, I'll be back here thanking you again !!!
I'm so glad to hear that! Especially because I remember you had an earlier comment where you were wondering how to get a group together. Very cool to see it happening!
Obviously you're known for your sketch and improv experience (expertise?), but I feel like one of your underrated skills is hosting, whether it's Um Actually or the CH Podcast. Did you put deliberate time into learning how to host or did it come as an outgrowth of improv/something else?
Thanks so much for saying so. With hosting, I feel like it was a real "sink or swim" situation with hosting "Um, Actually." When I started I didn't feel particularly comfortable hosting, and didn't think I was very good at it, but I also had too many opinions about the show to let other people do it. Over time, I think I got a little better, and it really is a skill that's different from anything else. Improv helped -- knowing how to think fast, how to spot patterns, how to support the other people on stage with you, getting comfortable with being open and truthful on stage -- but I really think it's its own thing. The best way to get better at it is to suck at it for a little while and then course-correct.
Are there any sketch formats (or topics!) that you are interested in writing, but haven't had the opportunity to explore at all or as much as you'd like? Thanks for opening this up to all subscribers, by the way!
Y'know, it's so hard to figure out where the balance is between making sure paying subs get enough value without abandoning free subscribers. I'll probably do a few of these open threads per year!
As for sketch formats: I was very lucky at CH in that I had a lot of freedom to explore formats and topics. I always had fun doing themed weeks that blended sketch and story, (like the Purge sketches or the Shining sketches) and would love to experiment more with that. A concept album of sketches, in a sense. I've also been thinking more about audio sketches lately -- but that's mainly because they seem easier to produce than filmed sketches, and I am lazy.
The purge was one of the greatest series imo ! How did you chose it ? Were there a lot of themes proposed ? How does an ensemble of sketches get greenlit ? Did you guys pitch a lot of ideas for other themes ? Or were purge ideas accumulating and someday you decided to do a whole week of it ?
Do you ever think there is a situation where one should tailor their writing style towards who they are submitting to? I have a very absurdist, Tim Robinson sense of humor. Sometimes I feel like most people I’d be sending my work won’t get it or be receptive to it, so I’ve thought about having a group of sketches/scripts that are tailor-made for certain types of audiences.
As a general rule I'd say you should write what makes you laugh. If you've got a more absurdist style, and that's what you like, the best case scenario is that someone else likes it and wants you to keep writing the way you like to write. So aim for that! So much of good comedy (in my opinion) springs from truth and authenticity, which will be absent if you're only trying to please other people. If you write something you love, the worst case scenario is that one person likes it; if you write something you hate, the worst case scenario is that zero people like it.
On top of this, you don't actually know what people are looking for. They might be looking for a new unique voice, not the thing that you think is popular right now. It would be a bummer to steer away from the very thing people wanted because you were trying to please them.
The one caveat to this is that if you're in the running to write for some specific, established show or channel, you'll probably want to demonstrate that you're familiar with the voice of that place. I remember reading a CollegeHumor sketch that called me "Krap" throughout the whole thing. That sort of suggests a lack of interest that can reflect negatively on your work. But even when we were hiring new writers for CH we weren't looking for people who wrote exactly like the existing sketches, we were looking for people who would fit in the existing environment WHILE adding their own new, specific voice.
I always think about avoiding that worst case scenario at all costs, but I never thought about how that might make things worse. This will certainly stick with me. Thanks, Krap!
At CollegeHumour people had certain characters or tropes that they were associated with, beyond just dumb guy(Grant), straight guy(You), not straight guy (not Grant). How much of writing a sketch relies on knowing these on-screen characters, and knowing the people you're actually writing for.
A lot of these things were characteristics we fell into organically, and they shifted a lot over the years. Might not be surprising to learn I played a bunch more idiotic characters before I became head writer, at which point people started writing me as the straight man more. This was the particular style for CH videos, but it's definitely not a universal. Most sketch actors like playing a wide range of characters.
At the same time, it doesn't hurt to know an actor's strengths. If you write an SNL packet, for example, it's expected you'll know who the current cast is and write sketches that seem like a good fit for them.
I've always wondered in the Dropout game shows where there isn't an explicit prize at the end (like Um Actually or Breaking News), is there an off-camera prize or punishment?
Nope! I made a deliberate decision with Um Actually to not award any prizes because sometimes points are awarded in a somewhat subjective way. I wanted to take some of the focus off of the idea of "winning" and refocus things toward conversation. Similar with Breaking News -- it's not really about who wins, it's about the experience.
I do some improv in my free time and I'm seeing quite a lot of crossover between improv and sketch. What do you think are some lessons that you can learn from sketch that translate well to improv, and what are lessons that you think should never be applied to improv?
There's absolutely a lot of crossover (which is why there are some groups who will use improv to generate and refine sketch ideas), and I do think that each one can inform the other. Sketch can be a nice slow-motion replay of an improv scene. The mechanics are pretty similar, but in sketch you have the time to use only the best stuff, to pace out beats exactly how you want, and get your wording totally perfect. I think improv can be a great comedy lab to help you understand game and comedic rhythms -- there's an audience there providing immediate feedback about when things are working and when they aren't.
What sketch elements should you avoid applying to improv? The big thing is that sketch is mostly an individual creative experience while improv is collaborative. You have to be willing to let go of control. You might not be able to pace out that joke just the way you want, and the scene may go in a direction you didn't want or plan.
I would love to see a post on shorter form sketches. I don't know how much experience you have, but I've notices a lot of the concepts and tenets of the 3-5 minutes sketches applied to 1-2 minute TikToks and would love to know your thoughts on how to get appropriate heightening in such a short form, and how to quickly establish the game and setting for a video that needs to grab your attention in the first 5-10 seconds.
Yeah, let me think on this! The honest truth is that these sort of ultra-fast TikTok sketches are slightly new to me, but I think there are some specific things I could recommend from similar sketches I've done. But I think this is a good idea since it's probably where most sketch is living online these days!
I don't know if anyone has asked this yet, but what is your personal favorite (funniest, or otherwise just the best) example of chuffah you were personally involved with, and/or in other sketches?
I wish I could remember exactly what video this was in, but one of my favorites is completely non-verbal. It's a CollegeHumor video that was made before I was on the Originals team. There's one sketch that opens with two people holding coffee mugs. They simultaneously take a sip and as they lower their mugs we see long ramen noodles trailing out of their mouths and realize that their mugs are full of ramen. It's a great little visual gag that's very unexpected.
I realize this might be a question more for BLM, but do you have advice for D&D DMs who want to build roleplaying scenes better for their players? Especially comedic ones.
If you just want to point me at resources or past emails that's totally fine.
This is way outside my wheelhouse, but I'd bet one of the most helpful things you can do as a DM is to help label or define the game of the scene. A lot of people have a harder time identifying game than they do playing it. If you're able to basically play the straightman and call out what's funny about a scene, or have an NPC do it, that could help people find the funny and add their own beats. Of course, that requires that YOU are able to identify the game, and that's where a little improv training probably comes in handy.
So far Chuffah has been a HUGE help towards building my sketch writing skills, but do you have any advice on acting for sketch? I've tried out twice for my university's sketch team, and while my script submissions were pretty dang solid, I always fell short on the acting audition. I'm certainly comfortable on stage, but I lack the experience of a thespian. Would love some tips on how to embrace whacky characters and embody the emotion of a sketch!
Hmmmm, someone else in this thread asked about books on performing and I think some of those could be a good place to start. Hard to give any universal advice here, but, as with sketch writing, I think truth and authenticity are extremely valuable. Commit. Play characters as realistically as possible without winking at the audience. Sounds like I should maybe make my next interview with an actor who could talk more authoritatively about this stuff!
A classic due for a comeback. It's obviously very dumb, but if you've ever seen a live pie in the face it is undeniably funny. It feels shameful to say that because it's so, so stupid, but the sound of a pie splatting into a face is unlike anything else, the aftermath looks ridiculous, and if I had to defend it I would point out that it CAN lead to quick, dramatic status shifts.
Maybe about, oh, ten years ago(?), my sketch team at the UCB theater had a sketch about a clown being hired by her ex-husband for a child's birthday party. I don't totally remember the specifics of the game, but to the best of my memory it was about this clown trying to simultaneously support her kid, launch invectives at her ex, and put on a generically goofy clown show for everyone else. It involved MANY pies in the face. I want to say, like, 12? This clown screaming about losing the best years of her life and then WHAM! slamming a pie into her own face. It was a cheap gag and it absolutely killed. Another thing it killed -- the brand new video monitors the theater has installed literally the day before. One of the pies hit so hard that it launched shaving cream clear across the stage and splatted right onto the screen. There was a big patch of dead pixels after that in the place where it landed.
Sure would! But I'll cheat and make this a weird fact about both bugs AND writing. The Schmidt Sting Index was an attempt by an entomologist to rank the painfulness of insect bites and stings. Since there's nothing you can, y'know, measure for pain, he did this by letting bugs bite and sting him and then writing down how relatively painful he thought they all were. Absolutely insane, but his written responses are strangely open and sometimes poetic. Here's how he described the sting of a sweat bee:
"light, ephemeral, almost fruity. A tiny spark has singed a single hair on your arm."
and here's how he described the sting of a warrior wasp:
"Torture. You are chained in the flow of an active volcano. Why did I start this list?"
The one I read when I was first starting was "Truth in Comedy." The other one that gets recommended a lot is "Impro," but I haven't read it myself. I feel like books will only get you so far. They're good at introducing basic concepts, but it helps to actually DO some improv (to start to learn what doesn't work) and watch good improv (to learn what does). Depending on where you live you might not have access to great improv, but you could check out the Middleditch & Schwartz special on Netflix (DISCLAIMER: I haven't yet watched these, but I've seen both of them perform live many times and they're very good!)
I also recently finished Bob Odenkirk's memoir, "Comedy Comedy Comedy Drama," which is not a guidebook, but does contain some interesting thoughts about sketch, improv, comedy, acting, and creativity in general.
- Fantastically powerful characters speaking or behaving in passive-aggressive ways. This has been done a million times, but god help me, I always love it.
- Overtalking: bickering scenes where characters are talking over each other. It's not a joke, just a "vibe" but I love characters who are both so stubborn and passionate that they just scream right over each other. Also feels more realistic.
- Breaking: seeing other people laugh when they're not supposed to. This is totally cheap, but it DOES make me laugh.
Do you feel that you learn and improve more when working with a writing partner or by yoursef? I find I'm much more productive when writing with someone else but part of me feels guilty that I'm not thinking through the ideas and process on my own as much as I could.
Don't feel guilty if you prefer working with a partner. Nothing says you need to work by yourself -- if both you and your partner find it beneficial then why not make things easier on each other? I personally prefer writing individually and then getting notes, but this is because I'm very conflict-averse and I struggle with negotiating creative differences on a script. But there's a definite energy you get from co-writing and work can often go faster than it would if you were writing by yourself. And you can pick up new ideas from each other in way that helps you both improve. There are a lot of successful writer pairs -- if it works for you, go with it!
I loved WTF 101. Have you thought about branching out even further, e.g writing for comics or games? Have you been working with other media or platforms where you've been able to apply your comedy writing skill set?
Thank you for saying so! We tried to pitch WTF101 around as a bigger show, but had no takers.
Since late last year I've been writing for a show that has not come out yet, and that I'm not allowed to talk about. But I promise, once I'm able to, I won't shut up about it.
As for comics and games, I'd be open to it if I had the opportunity! Most of my focus has been on TV.
After I learned the "beat 1, beat 2, pattern break, beat 3, end", I can't unseen it anymore. I was wondering if this can be applied on longer form such a independent 11-minute episode on a series
Not as much as you might think! Things longer than sketches (even 11 minutes) tend to follow a different structure since they're generally focused on narrative instead of game. But you might see this sort of pattern in longer works during comedic montages or in the B or C storylines where the story is a little thinner. You also might see it in a runner (a joke that gets called back throughout an episode).
Unfortunately, if you try to apply sketch structure to a longer form, it tends to feel thin and repetitive. If you really squint there's some similarities: set up your world, set up your characters, establish the weird thing, watch it escalate, resolve it -- but the specific way you do that in longer work is different. This is still something I'm adapting to, so it feels a little presumptuous of me to tell you the best way to write an 11 or 22 minute script, but you can find a lot of resources online that'll walk you through different ideas about structure.
No specific subject, but I always try to make sure I have something novel to say before I sit down to write -- I won't tackle a subject simply because it's topical. And these days I'm avoiding political sketches because I don't HAVE to write them, and they seriously bum me out.
As the pandemic lifts (not really, but we’ve apparently decided to pretend), employees are finding a new balance between work from home and working in offices. Do you see a long-term affect on the comedy writing and production process that will incorporate remote work more permanently?
Man, I WISH I knew the answer to this. I'm in a writers' room right now that's met remotely the entire time. There are some very obvious benefits and some very obvious drawbacks. I think remote stuff is here to stay for meetings with lots of people, or smaller more casual meetings, but I'd bet writers' rooms and shoots will return to in-person as soon as people can.
Mike! I watched Um...Actually for the first time the other day and it was hilarious. You are a great host and the format is so fun. I will keep watching!
Hey thanks!
Anyways : I feel like a lot a games I write are litteral translations of the unsual idea I start with. For example, last one was : when you get sick and someone takes care of you, you end up being infantilized. And the game was : someone is sick and their significant other takes care of them and infantilizes them and the heightening is pretty straightforward : they get treated in evermore childish ways blablabla. It's not finished but it's the way it's going. I feel like it's a bit lazy, but at the same time, it's also simple and efficient. Is this something I should be worried about ? I mean it could have been : the baby section at the hospital is filled with adults with laryngitis for example. But that's less easy to justify, suddenly harder to produce, less relatable to the audience, etc... Seems like an effort that wouldn't necessarily pay off.
When a sketch has a very simple game you have to work a little harder to keep ahead of the audience. If you suspect that your game might be a little predictable, you'll want to lean a bit more heavily on things like misdirects, jokes, and extreme heightening to keep the audience on its toes.
But it might also be that your game isn't strong enough. In your example you talk about someone who feels infantilized when sick, and they keep getting treated more and more like a baby. There is a truth to this core idea, but for me it's lacking that element of surprise or unexpectedness. And since that's missing from the base idea, you may find that the rest of your sketch becomes just a list of childish things with someone being annoyed by them.
So go back to that core. Keep digging. Is there something under your original idea that points to a contradiction or a subversion of expectations? What exactly about being infantalized while sick is surprising?
As an example, one thing I think of is how when we're sick we try to treat our ailment in two very different ways: (1) tender, loving care and (2) cold, sterile pharmaceuticals. These feel like opposites, but they both seem important. Perhaps there's a sketch in which a stoic, plain-speaking doctor tries to prescribe a warm hug and a bowl of soup. Perhaps it is the doctor who is engaged in all the infantalizing treatments -- which would be a little more surprising, but still carries a grain of logic: that IS a way we treat illnesses, but not the way we expect DOCTORS to treat illnesses.
I don't know for sure if that's an idea with enough legs either, but I mention it to get you thinking. The big takeaway here is that you need that element of surprise. Either your sketch is strong enough that it naturally implies lots of surprising moments and observations, or it's simple and you either have to pump surprise in through other means, or reexamine your game and see if there's something more surprising you can focus on.
Thanks ! That's a great idea ! I was thinking of ways to have a more complex link between my game and my idea, but it's true that when I feel I need that, it's often that the idea is also pretty half baked.
I find it funny that you basically just reviewed my sketch very helpfully without even reading it ^^ Must've described it very well !
Hello. I've begun writing in a group and we had our first pitch meeting tonight. I was VERY frightened that it would go bad and it would just be silent and awkward. But in fact it went so wellll I'm so glad ! We pitched a few ideas, we brainstormed a lot. We reviewed a few drafts and we selected a first sketch to rehearse. This all thanks to you. I'm so glad I subscribed to this. Man if you ever come to Paris I would so much wanna show you. Well... it's all in french, so don't bother. But whenever we do a show, I'll be back here thanking you again !!!
I'm so glad to hear that! Especially because I remember you had an earlier comment where you were wondering how to get a group together. Very cool to see it happening!
Obviously you're known for your sketch and improv experience (expertise?), but I feel like one of your underrated skills is hosting, whether it's Um Actually or the CH Podcast. Did you put deliberate time into learning how to host or did it come as an outgrowth of improv/something else?
Thanks so much for saying so. With hosting, I feel like it was a real "sink or swim" situation with hosting "Um, Actually." When I started I didn't feel particularly comfortable hosting, and didn't think I was very good at it, but I also had too many opinions about the show to let other people do it. Over time, I think I got a little better, and it really is a skill that's different from anything else. Improv helped -- knowing how to think fast, how to spot patterns, how to support the other people on stage with you, getting comfortable with being open and truthful on stage -- but I really think it's its own thing. The best way to get better at it is to suck at it for a little while and then course-correct.
Are there any sketch formats (or topics!) that you are interested in writing, but haven't had the opportunity to explore at all or as much as you'd like? Thanks for opening this up to all subscribers, by the way!
Y'know, it's so hard to figure out where the balance is between making sure paying subs get enough value without abandoning free subscribers. I'll probably do a few of these open threads per year!
As for sketch formats: I was very lucky at CH in that I had a lot of freedom to explore formats and topics. I always had fun doing themed weeks that blended sketch and story, (like the Purge sketches or the Shining sketches) and would love to experiment more with that. A concept album of sketches, in a sense. I've also been thinking more about audio sketches lately -- but that's mainly because they seem easier to produce than filmed sketches, and I am lazy.
The purge was one of the greatest series imo ! How did you chose it ? Were there a lot of themes proposed ? How does an ensemble of sketches get greenlit ? Did you guys pitch a lot of ideas for other themes ? Or were purge ideas accumulating and someday you decided to do a whole week of it ?
Do you ever think there is a situation where one should tailor their writing style towards who they are submitting to? I have a very absurdist, Tim Robinson sense of humor. Sometimes I feel like most people I’d be sending my work won’t get it or be receptive to it, so I’ve thought about having a group of sketches/scripts that are tailor-made for certain types of audiences.
As a general rule I'd say you should write what makes you laugh. If you've got a more absurdist style, and that's what you like, the best case scenario is that someone else likes it and wants you to keep writing the way you like to write. So aim for that! So much of good comedy (in my opinion) springs from truth and authenticity, which will be absent if you're only trying to please other people. If you write something you love, the worst case scenario is that one person likes it; if you write something you hate, the worst case scenario is that zero people like it.
On top of this, you don't actually know what people are looking for. They might be looking for a new unique voice, not the thing that you think is popular right now. It would be a bummer to steer away from the very thing people wanted because you were trying to please them.
The one caveat to this is that if you're in the running to write for some specific, established show or channel, you'll probably want to demonstrate that you're familiar with the voice of that place. I remember reading a CollegeHumor sketch that called me "Krap" throughout the whole thing. That sort of suggests a lack of interest that can reflect negatively on your work. But even when we were hiring new writers for CH we weren't looking for people who wrote exactly like the existing sketches, we were looking for people who would fit in the existing environment WHILE adding their own new, specific voice.
I always think about avoiding that worst case scenario at all costs, but I never thought about how that might make things worse. This will certainly stick with me. Thanks, Krap!
At CollegeHumour people had certain characters or tropes that they were associated with, beyond just dumb guy(Grant), straight guy(You), not straight guy (not Grant). How much of writing a sketch relies on knowing these on-screen characters, and knowing the people you're actually writing for.
A lot of these things were characteristics we fell into organically, and they shifted a lot over the years. Might not be surprising to learn I played a bunch more idiotic characters before I became head writer, at which point people started writing me as the straight man more. This was the particular style for CH videos, but it's definitely not a universal. Most sketch actors like playing a wide range of characters.
At the same time, it doesn't hurt to know an actor's strengths. If you write an SNL packet, for example, it's expected you'll know who the current cast is and write sketches that seem like a good fit for them.
I've always wondered in the Dropout game shows where there isn't an explicit prize at the end (like Um Actually or Breaking News), is there an off-camera prize or punishment?
Nope! I made a deliberate decision with Um Actually to not award any prizes because sometimes points are awarded in a somewhat subjective way. I wanted to take some of the focus off of the idea of "winning" and refocus things toward conversation. Similar with Breaking News -- it's not really about who wins, it's about the experience.
I do some improv in my free time and I'm seeing quite a lot of crossover between improv and sketch. What do you think are some lessons that you can learn from sketch that translate well to improv, and what are lessons that you think should never be applied to improv?
Thanks for the great newsletter! :)
There's absolutely a lot of crossover (which is why there are some groups who will use improv to generate and refine sketch ideas), and I do think that each one can inform the other. Sketch can be a nice slow-motion replay of an improv scene. The mechanics are pretty similar, but in sketch you have the time to use only the best stuff, to pace out beats exactly how you want, and get your wording totally perfect. I think improv can be a great comedy lab to help you understand game and comedic rhythms -- there's an audience there providing immediate feedback about when things are working and when they aren't.
What sketch elements should you avoid applying to improv? The big thing is that sketch is mostly an individual creative experience while improv is collaborative. You have to be willing to let go of control. You might not be able to pace out that joke just the way you want, and the scene may go in a direction you didn't want or plan.
I would love to see a post on shorter form sketches. I don't know how much experience you have, but I've notices a lot of the concepts and tenets of the 3-5 minutes sketches applied to 1-2 minute TikToks and would love to know your thoughts on how to get appropriate heightening in such a short form, and how to quickly establish the game and setting for a video that needs to grab your attention in the first 5-10 seconds.
Yeah, let me think on this! The honest truth is that these sort of ultra-fast TikTok sketches are slightly new to me, but I think there are some specific things I could recommend from similar sketches I've done. But I think this is a good idea since it's probably where most sketch is living online these days!
I don't know if anyone has asked this yet, but what is your personal favorite (funniest, or otherwise just the best) example of chuffah you were personally involved with, and/or in other sketches?
I wish I could remember exactly what video this was in, but one of my favorites is completely non-verbal. It's a CollegeHumor video that was made before I was on the Originals team. There's one sketch that opens with two people holding coffee mugs. They simultaneously take a sip and as they lower their mugs we see long ramen noodles trailing out of their mouths and realize that their mugs are full of ramen. It's a great little visual gag that's very unexpected.
I realize this might be a question more for BLM, but do you have advice for D&D DMs who want to build roleplaying scenes better for their players? Especially comedic ones.
If you just want to point me at resources or past emails that's totally fine.
This is way outside my wheelhouse, but I'd bet one of the most helpful things you can do as a DM is to help label or define the game of the scene. A lot of people have a harder time identifying game than they do playing it. If you're able to basically play the straightman and call out what's funny about a scene, or have an NPC do it, that could help people find the funny and add their own beats. Of course, that requires that YOU are able to identify the game, and that's where a little improv training probably comes in handy.
So far Chuffah has been a HUGE help towards building my sketch writing skills, but do you have any advice on acting for sketch? I've tried out twice for my university's sketch team, and while my script submissions were pretty dang solid, I always fell short on the acting audition. I'm certainly comfortable on stage, but I lack the experience of a thespian. Would love some tips on how to embrace whacky characters and embody the emotion of a sketch!
Hmmmm, someone else in this thread asked about books on performing and I think some of those could be a good place to start. Hard to give any universal advice here, but, as with sketch writing, I think truth and authenticity are extremely valuable. Commit. Play characters as realistically as possible without winking at the audience. Sounds like I should maybe make my next interview with an actor who could talk more authoritatively about this stuff!
Pie in the face gags: played out, or a retro comedy staple due for a comeback/gritty cinematic reimagining?
A classic due for a comeback. It's obviously very dumb, but if you've ever seen a live pie in the face it is undeniably funny. It feels shameful to say that because it's so, so stupid, but the sound of a pie splatting into a face is unlike anything else, the aftermath looks ridiculous, and if I had to defend it I would point out that it CAN lead to quick, dramatic status shifts.
Maybe about, oh, ten years ago(?), my sketch team at the UCB theater had a sketch about a clown being hired by her ex-husband for a child's birthday party. I don't totally remember the specifics of the game, but to the best of my memory it was about this clown trying to simultaneously support her kid, launch invectives at her ex, and put on a generically goofy clown show for everyone else. It involved MANY pies in the face. I want to say, like, 12? This clown screaming about losing the best years of her life and then WHAM! slamming a pie into her own face. It was a cheap gag and it absolutely killed. Another thing it killed -- the brand new video monitors the theater has installed literally the day before. One of the pies hit so hard that it launched shaving cream clear across the stage and splatted right onto the screen. There was a big patch of dead pixels after that in the place where it landed.
Would you be interested in using this comment as an opportunity to just share some weird facts about bugs or presidents?
Sure would! But I'll cheat and make this a weird fact about both bugs AND writing. The Schmidt Sting Index was an attempt by an entomologist to rank the painfulness of insect bites and stings. Since there's nothing you can, y'know, measure for pain, he did this by letting bugs bite and sting him and then writing down how relatively painful he thought they all were. Absolutely insane, but his written responses are strangely open and sometimes poetic. Here's how he described the sting of a sweat bee:
"light, ephemeral, almost fruity. A tiny spark has singed a single hair on your arm."
and here's how he described the sting of a warrior wasp:
"Torture. You are chained in the flow of an active volcano. Why did I start this list?"
This is way off topic, but are there any books you recommend for new performers, specifically ones that might cover improv?
The one I read when I was first starting was "Truth in Comedy." The other one that gets recommended a lot is "Impro," but I haven't read it myself. I feel like books will only get you so far. They're good at introducing basic concepts, but it helps to actually DO some improv (to start to learn what doesn't work) and watch good improv (to learn what does). Depending on where you live you might not have access to great improv, but you could check out the Middleditch & Schwartz special on Netflix (DISCLAIMER: I haven't yet watched these, but I've seen both of them perform live many times and they're very good!)
I also recently finished Bob Odenkirk's memoir, "Comedy Comedy Comedy Drama," which is not a guidebook, but does contain some interesting thoughts about sketch, improv, comedy, acting, and creativity in general.
What is your guilty pleasure in comedy whether it’s fart jokes or deez nuts trappings, etc.
- Fantastically powerful characters speaking or behaving in passive-aggressive ways. This has been done a million times, but god help me, I always love it.
- Overtalking: bickering scenes where characters are talking over each other. It's not a joke, just a "vibe" but I love characters who are both so stubborn and passionate that they just scream right over each other. Also feels more realistic.
- Breaking: seeing other people laugh when they're not supposed to. This is totally cheap, but it DOES make me laugh.
Do you feel that you learn and improve more when working with a writing partner or by yoursef? I find I'm much more productive when writing with someone else but part of me feels guilty that I'm not thinking through the ideas and process on my own as much as I could.
Don't feel guilty if you prefer working with a partner. Nothing says you need to work by yourself -- if both you and your partner find it beneficial then why not make things easier on each other? I personally prefer writing individually and then getting notes, but this is because I'm very conflict-averse and I struggle with negotiating creative differences on a script. But there's a definite energy you get from co-writing and work can often go faster than it would if you were writing by yourself. And you can pick up new ideas from each other in way that helps you both improve. There are a lot of successful writer pairs -- if it works for you, go with it!
I loved WTF 101. Have you thought about branching out even further, e.g writing for comics or games? Have you been working with other media or platforms where you've been able to apply your comedy writing skill set?
Thank you for saying so! We tried to pitch WTF101 around as a bigger show, but had no takers.
Since late last year I've been writing for a show that has not come out yet, and that I'm not allowed to talk about. But I promise, once I'm able to, I won't shut up about it.
As for comics and games, I'd be open to it if I had the opportunity! Most of my focus has been on TV.
After I learned the "beat 1, beat 2, pattern break, beat 3, end", I can't unseen it anymore. I was wondering if this can be applied on longer form such a independent 11-minute episode on a series
Not as much as you might think! Things longer than sketches (even 11 minutes) tend to follow a different structure since they're generally focused on narrative instead of game. But you might see this sort of pattern in longer works during comedic montages or in the B or C storylines where the story is a little thinner. You also might see it in a runner (a joke that gets called back throughout an episode).
Unfortunately, if you try to apply sketch structure to a longer form, it tends to feel thin and repetitive. If you really squint there's some similarities: set up your world, set up your characters, establish the weird thing, watch it escalate, resolve it -- but the specific way you do that in longer work is different. This is still something I'm adapting to, so it feels a little presumptuous of me to tell you the best way to write an 11 or 22 minute script, but you can find a lot of resources online that'll walk you through different ideas about structure.
Is there a sketch subject that you steer clear of based on past experience?
No specific subject, but I always try to make sure I have something novel to say before I sit down to write -- I won't tackle a subject simply because it's topical. And these days I'm avoiding political sketches because I don't HAVE to write them, and they seriously bum me out.
This was helpful and motivating! Thank you for getting back to me. Writing political stuff bums me out too.
As the pandemic lifts (not really, but we’ve apparently decided to pretend), employees are finding a new balance between work from home and working in offices. Do you see a long-term affect on the comedy writing and production process that will incorporate remote work more permanently?
Man, I WISH I knew the answer to this. I'm in a writers' room right now that's met remotely the entire time. There are some very obvious benefits and some very obvious drawbacks. I think remote stuff is here to stay for meetings with lots of people, or smaller more casual meetings, but I'd bet writers' rooms and shoots will return to in-person as soon as people can.