Backstage... At The Cambridge Footlights

[The Mumbler]

It's pure Nev Fountain-speak.

Who, lest we ever forget, did actually hit a sometime CaB poster a few years back.

[gloria]

Wasn't it the one included as an easter egg in the SOTCAA Christmas book?  Or am I being very, very stupid?  Of course it's entirely possible that both those things are true.

That was never submitted to or rejected by Radio 4.

Then I'm sorry Joe & Mike!  I have done a big fuck-up there.  Was it ever seen by any producers?

[neveragain]

If I remember rightly (and I did save the page somewhere) then the introduction told us that they, as in the SOTCAA lot themselves, gave up on it because Radio Four had become a different place to that which they were parodying and/or subverting in the script. And the show itself was entirely wonderful! It very much should have been submitted.

And... can anyone put up the documentary somewhere more... see-able?

[alan strang]

Then I'm sorry Joe & Mike!  I have done a big fuck-up there.  Was it ever seen by any producers?

Not unless they found the easter egg too.

And the show itself was entirely wonderful! It very much should have been submitted.

Cheers, but it wasn't that good. A nice idea though.

[Gypsum Fantastic]

Could you stick it up somewhere? I'd love to read it.

[slim]

For a start, that level of commitment would have prevented any echoes of plagiarism, which does seem to have been genuinely unintentional, but at the same time, you should be able to spot such things, having enough knowledge to trace suspect gags back to the original shows, and (obviously) cut them. It's the same for any creative 'industry', surely? You have to know what's gone before pretty well before you start, and there's almost never any excuse for accidental plagiarism. It either comes down to theft or ignorance, neither of which are lovely things.

I disagree. That puts an unhealthy level of responsibility on the writer (or artist in the case of other pursuits). I make sure I only write original things, or new variations on established themes/jokes, but there's no way I have enough time to watch all comedy ever. I doubt anyone has. If s2e13 of Will & Grace has the same throwaway gag about fellatio, there's no way I'm going to know and no way I'm going to watch that dross to find out.

Or did you mean more generally? In which case, how do you define what is an acceptable likeness and what isn't?

[sigh]

It's the complete lack of imagination that fucks me off. The total ignorance of Wilmut-matters.

Can I be dumb and ask what this means? I thought I had missed some huge comedy theory somewhere along the line (maybe I have), so I did a Google search and everything it came up with was about Cloning. I assume this is a polite, or jargonistic, way of charging plagiarism? Again, apologies for the ignorance.

[Jemble Fred]

Well you can't know every joke that's ever been written down or broadcast in the history of mankind EVER, obviously. But it's unacceptable to ever knowingly use someone else's joke – in improvisation it's cheeky and a bit shameless, but putting it in a script is downright unforgivable. If you've twisted an existing line as a deliberate reference, and made it your own, that again is fair-dues.

Admittedly, this creed does make it hard to explain away certain moments in Blackadder and A Bit of Fry & Laurie, sucked right out of the mouth of Peter Cook ("We get enough of that at home"/"Which side do you dress?" etc).

[sick as a pike]

It's the complete lack of imagination that fucks me off. The total ignorance of Wilmut-matters.

Can I be dumb and ask what this means?

Probably a reference to this and other worrks

[slim]

Ahhhh, I see. I couldn't fathom why you were demanding such an unreasonable thing but now I know - I'm a dolt.

Anyone who knowingly plagiarisisesesise is a turd and should be put in the stocks, yes.

[Catalogue Trousers]

ELW10 wrote, and sigh wondered about:

The total ignorance of Wilmut-matters.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that ELW10 is referring to Roger Wilmut, writer of excellent studies of both 60s ("From Fringe To Flying Circus") and 80s ("Didn't You Kill My Mother-In-Law?") "alternative" popular comedy. I guess that what he's saying is that those involved have no real sense of comedy history, or of what makes a comedian funny. This could all be a load of pish, of course.

Edited to add:

Damn, pipped at the post. Ah well, no harm done.

[poor fool]

I have written on the Richard Blackwood Show. You've got me bang to rights. I have also written for I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here. I wrote episodes of Popetown. I don't mind that I did those - I needed to earn a living.

Hello.

I just wanted to ask a question about this, in a totally non-argumentative or vicous manner, because I'm interested in what you have to say. The thing is, I can appreciate that everybody needs to earn a living, and in many artistic fields the means to an income mgiht often be at the price of integrity.

What I want to know is, why do you feel the need to earn money this way, rather than, say, poking at a computer in a horrible office somewhere, or stacking shelves, or down the labour exchange? To put it another way, wouldn't it be better all round if you made money doing something you don't like which is totally unconnected to the thing you love? Because no one is forcing you.

Anyway - I hope that doesn't sound harsh or anything, I just wondered what your position is on that.

[Braintree]

It's pure Nev Fountain-speak.

Who, lest we ever forget, did actually hit a sometime CaB poster a few years back.

What? Physically attack a poster? I knew he was mental(He seems rather erratic and possesive in some of the stories I've been told) but that just confirms it.

The nosey person that I am would love to know who he hit.

[Clinton Morgan]

And John Oliver is the worst. Or the one that got to me the most. With his hair.

Nice. But not as nice as "even the 'oo' in his name is irritating."

[Jack Shaftoe]

poor fool said:

What I want to know is, why do you feel the need to earn money this way, rather than, say, poking at a computer in a horrible office somewhere, or stacking shelves, or down the labour exchange?

Not to put words in infinite monkeys' mouth, but writing comedy for money beats all the above options every time, even if it's something you look back on and think 'hmm, that wasn't quite as good as I hoped'. The pay's better (though not always that much better, to be honest), and it's all contacts towards getting yourself in a position to do stuff that's more interesting. I've done a tonne of shit manual or office jobs (as I'm sure has everyone reading this thread), and i can't see the point of going back to them out of some sense of false dignity, when I can get paid to write something that at least has a chance of getting a laugh out of someone.

If you're openly writing for someone whose morality (or whose projected character's morality) you despise, then that's a different matter. But if you're a comedy writer, there's definitely a certain level you have to work at to survive.

I've sent lots of work in for shows of which I would never describe myself as a huge fan, but at least saw something that I liked. Little Britain was one (not that they even take in outside submissions as far as I know), although by the time the third series came along, it had gotten pretty much beyond the pale so I didn't bother. Man Stroke Woman I thought had some good moments, and I like some of the actors, so I sent them material on spec until eventually I got some stuff commissioned for series two.

I did get asked if I wanted to contribute some sketches for Titty Bang Bang, and said no, despite being more overdrawn than I've ever been at any time in my life. If I'm honest with myself though, it had just as much to do with the fact that the sense of humour of whoever puts the show together is so far removed from mine, it would be counter-productive at best. But also I have quite a short cv, and having Titty bang bang comprise about an eighth of it would be a bit dispiriting, to be honest.

For me, I suspect it comes down to ego as much as financial necessity (although the latter is a big factor). If the chance for writing something that is on the 'okay but not raved about' level comes up, I'll happily contribute on the off-chance that my material is so brilliant, it'll raise the level of the project single-handedly. I'm aware this is unlikely and bollocks, but it still beats working in a small electronics factory in Cornwall for two years for less than three quid an hour.

[/end four yorkshiremen voice]

Anyway, sorry, I'm sure infinite monkeys is more than capable of giving his own answer, I just wanted to give my two penn'orth to a very prettily phrased question.

Edited, because I've just remembered Rob Long's phrase 'Sooner or later, everybody in this business (in this case writing US sitcoms) has to eat a big shit sandwhich'. Which is much better that what I said.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

What, I can't take the fact that you're suggesting that people who are just comedians deserve 'more' than violent abuse?

What are you actually saying, Brutus? That you think they should be physically hurt? What? WHAT? I don't think you genuinely believe what you just wrote, do you?

It's an odd thing, this 'hyperbole for comic effect' thing. If I'd said 'John Oliver is the most fantastic man alive and I want to have his babies', nobody would explode with fury and say 'But that's ridiculous and biologically impossible!'. No, it would be understood that I meant 'John Oliver is a good comedian in my opinion'. So the same should apply to negative comments, yes? I obviously don't literally want to kill John Oliver. I probably didn't literally lose sleep due to seething. Anyone with half a brain can tell that my apoplexy translated as 'I'm concernd about the elevation of people like John Oliver and the damage that may inflict on comedy'.  

In any case, I think the 'stop calling people cunts' thing is a red herring, because the 'reasonable'/soberly-worded stuff on C&B often gets ridiculed as well. It gets called humourless and over-analytical and people say 'Huh, do any of you guys actually just sit down and laugh!?' and so on. It's the negativity itself people seem to have a problem with, not necessarily the OTT expression.  

a helpful insider's perspective

See, that's a problem right there - the assumption that you have better perspective because you work in the industry. In fact, you just have a different perspective.  

the lack of faith many of you have in the people who are being asked to produce comedy today .  

Faith has to be earned though. If I look at a comedian and see an empty, careerist, devaluing-the-past-in-order-to-make-the-present-seem-better void, what am I supposed to do? What reason do I have for giving comedians the benefit of the doubt?

[infinitemonkeys]

Hey, come on Mr Ward 10, I never said better perspective. I don't presume to put myself in a special place. It's just been my experience that people on boards such as these are interested in what different, or sometimes factually correct, information I may have, that's all.

And, Jack Shaftoe, what you say is basically what I would have said (including the Titty Bang Bang thing, incidentally.)

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

How do you define what is an acceptable likeness and what isn't?

If they do a spoof chat show and their guest is a Fomula 1 driver, I think it's reasonable to get a bit dismayed.

I'm less concerned with the pilfering of specific gags, which I accept can be accidental - I get more annoyed when comedians do watered down versions of superior things, which then get sold as original. Whether it's Mitchell and Webb doing 'Tony and Control'-esque stuff or Richard Ayoade shamelessly nicking Partidge inflections, it just seems so pointless. If fresh-faced comedians aren't going to be original/exciting/refreshing, then why do they bother?

[slim]

I agree to a point. I think you shouldn't water down old concepts, but then it can be a bit difficult as you're placing artifical constraints on the writing.

For example; the Pepperpots. I love the idea of men in drag with silly voices (fnar) but I'll never use it because, to me at least, it'll always be inferior to the Python team. Is that good or bad? There's plenty of room for others to use that character base too, but it would seem unoriginal to do so, even if the script was significantly different.

I find this all quite confusing and, at times, demoralising. The amount of gags I think I've written and then later found elsewhere is starting to piss me off.

[Jack Shaftoe]

I once wrote an 'undercover policeman' sketch which was almost exactly the same as the Fry and Laurie sketch of a similar name, which I had seen once, then clearly pushed to the back of my mind. Somehow I had convinced myself I had come up with the entire thing.

Thank fuck it was never used anywhere, but it still makes my blood run cold to think of it.

[Jemble Fred]

I used to have a similar paranoia that I'd unwittingly ripped off the Smith & Jones' Scottish Lighthousekeepers sketch. I was ridiculously relieved to see it again and learn that my sketch was completely different.

[Gavin]

I once wrote a fantastic poem which rhymed Simon and hymen and didn't realise for years that I stole it (the rhyme anyway) from a Stephen Fry novel.

[neveragain]

I once sat down and wrote À la Recherche du Temps Perdu. When I found out an hour later, boy, did my face look red!

[Jack Shaftoe]

I once sat down and wrote À la Recherche du Temps Perdu. When I found out an hour later, boy, did my face look...

EDIT: OMG!! D'oh!!!! etc.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I agree to a point. I think you shouldn't water down old concepts, but then it can be a bit difficult as you're placing artifical constraints on the writing.

For example; the Pepperpots. I love the idea of men in drag with silly voices (fnar) but I'll never use it because, to me at least, it'll always be inferior to the Python team. Is that good or bad?

Only if you bring nothing new to the party.

[Jemble Fred]

A pointless tip – if you have a character who you feel may infringe on Pepperpot airspace, as far as performing goes, add a regional accent. Makes all the difference.

I'm just talking about performance though – if you're writing about a load of old women called things like 'Mrs Transubstantiation' who shout 'Burma' or talk about dead crabs...you're on your own.

[slim]

That's what I mean though - I wouldn't write the same thing, obviously, but the fear of cries of plagiarism is enough to make me steer clear entirely. This is my problem, of course, being neurotic as I am, but it feels like it can limit opportunities.

[Jemble Fred]

Well the closest I've ever got was a fat ugly old woman who really had to be played by a man, who in this case came from Dudley. Never got round to performing it, and to be honest if I did it would probably be more reminiscent of the enormously obese woman Steve Pemberton played in LoG.

Sketch => Bin.

But ultimately, it really didn't matter because the ideas and jokes in the sketch had no connection at all with Python or LoG. It would have been the *performance* that raised eyebrows.

[biniput]

Soryy to bring this thread up again but I just saw the download and my reaction is "what the F*** do we have to look forward to in future comedy".  The idea that  at this rate people will look back at this and think  "shit... I wish I had been a partof it all... just being there"  makes me want to shoot myself.  Where did it all go wrong.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Bump

A companion piece of sorts:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/w1ez71

From a Radio 2 documentary on the Footlights in 1997, narrated by Graeme Garden.