TRYING TO RECONCILEComplications Ensue
Complications Ensue:
The Crafty Screenwriting, TV and Game Writing Blog


April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

November 2015

December 2015

January 2016

February 2016

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

December 2017

January 2018

March 2018

April 2018

June 2018

July 2018

October 2018

November 2018

December 2018

January 2019

February 2019

November 2019

February 2020

March 2020

April 2020

May 2020

August 2020

September 2020

October 2020

December 2020

January 2021

February 2021

March 2021

May 2021

June 2021

November 2021

December 2021

January 2022

February 2022

August 2022

September 2022

November 2022

February 2023

March 2023

April 2023

May 2023

July 2023

September 2023

November 2023

January 2024

February 2024

June 2024


Thursday, May 12, 2005

I'm trying to reconcile two bits of comic wisdom. Both Chris Abbott and Mark Farrell pointed out to me that you cut comedy differently from drama. In drama, the witness says something, and halfway through, you cut to the investigator for their reaction. In comedy, you stay on the character saying the joke until they're done saying it.

At the same time, comedy isn't in the line, it's in the reaction to the line. We don't laugh during the line. We laugh in the pause after the line.

Is it that you don't cut to the other character's reaction because you don't want to telegraph it -- you want to save that character's reaction until the joke is out -- because it's the reaction itself that's funny?

In shows like Everybody Loves Raymond, Mark and also DJ McCarthey have remarked to me that they get a lot of comic mileage from characters' reactions. We're laughing as they react to the situation -- and then we laugh again when they say whatever joke they have to say after we've seen the reaction on their faces:

-- Raymond's mom says something horribly annoying to him
-- Raymond does a slow burn
-- Raymond: sarcastic comment>

Thinking back I guess they did this on Friends, too, but I think the pace was faster so it wasn't as obvious a pause between the reaction and the line.

I'm not sure this is universal. You don't need to wait for the reaction shot:

Ross: comically expresses his frustration--
Rachel: unaffected, comes out with a zinger.

So the comedy isn't only in the other character's reaction. All we need is our own reaction. But if you really want to milk a scene, you're probably milking it in the other characters' reactions.




don't watch much tv, but know friends. this reaction thing was done a lot with chandler after joey said something dumb.

like when joey was dating phoebe's twin. joey wants to go on date with twin on a given night but it turns out to be phoebe's birthday (and the gang is having a party for phoebe that joey can't miss). joey is irked because it's also the twin's birthday and they had plans too. 'what are the chances of that'? he asks.

here, ross and chandler wait for joey to realize what is going on with the twins having the same birthday. chandler gets most of the weight as he is sitting next to joey. wait, wait - you can hear the audience about to bust. joey gets it, throws his arms up and chandler says: there it is! audience finally gets to roar laughing at joke that's been ongoing for several seconds.

proof is in the pudding - check out jack benny's radio program. gracie allen would get in a zinger and, nothing...titters from audience but no reaction from jack. and, this was radio - no picture. at home the folks were looking at each other thinking 'jack just got burned pretty bad'. then, he'd say his line - it was okay, would get a laugh, but the comedy was in the silence between gracie's line and jack's retort. (if you listen, there is often huge response to gracie's line [i mean, sometimes just roaring laughs for maybe 10-20 seconds], followed by polite laughs after jack's response)

off top of head - seems like there is a corollary in psych thrillers - the scare isn't in the scare, it's in the wait for the scare. anybody that writes this genre knows: what really scares the audience is what's not seen, not what jumps out of the shadows

ps - there's also an axiom in classical music - the music is in the spaces between the notes

By Blogger Marcy Green, at 12:33 PM  

I think it's a choice that affects the texture of the comedy. In a fast-paced comedy show like Reno 911 or The Simpsons, they use very few reaction shots, unless that reaction is necessary to set up another gag.

I'd compare the choice to the choice of whether to use a laugh track in a comedy. In both cases, you make a bargain: how much do we expect the audience to catch that this is funny? How much do we trust the actors to make the reaction shot interesting?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:19 PM  

Actually, the Simpsons does sometimes get humor from a reaction shot--the only problem is, it's harder to convey a reaction in a cartoon. So, the reaction shots often seem to consist of Homer looking blank (because it's easier to convey "blankness" in animation), or of Marge or Lisa saying "Ummm" or something similar (because an audio reaction allows the actor to convey emotion in the same way that a visual reaction does in a live show.)

But different shows definitely do this to different degrees--as you say, Raymond uses the reaction shot often and brilliantly, which I think is one reason why the show has such a classical feel to it.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:21 AM  

it depends on where your laugh is

the comedy in everyone loves... is in the reaction of the character.
so you cut to them so we can see their jaw drop or whatever they do.

when it's just the phrase itself that is funny, you stay where the money is.

By Blogger Unknown, at 10:34 PM  

Post a Comment

Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.

This page is powered by Blogger.