When it comes to comedy screenwriting, sometimes (but not all the time by any means) story can take a backseat to spectacle or humor. Whether or not it should I think comes down to personal taste.
So I wonder to myself, what separates a good screenplay from a great one? Is it just having a strong story, or is there another ingredient that elevates it further?
I think there has to be a good marriage between story and plot, and there has to be specificity in the story, good detail. Sticking with the comedy example, as that’s my genre, I don’t think you need original jokes necessarily. You need original execution.
In comedy, forever, we have had a chair being pulled away from another person and them falling down. In Neighbors (2014), we had a fresh take on this joke. Seth Rogen’s character sits on a chair in his office, but Zac Efron’s character has concealed an airbag from a car on it. Once Rogen sits, he’s shot into the ceiling, before crashing back onto the chair.
If originality in execution is more important than originality in concept (like with the chair gag), does that mean structure and tropes are more flexible in comedy than in other genres? Or do comedic screenplays still need to follow a strict structure to work effectively?
For example, lets look at examples from Mel Brooks. Spaceballs, was the joke where Yogurt talks about the merchandise. They could quite easily be cut from the film and the film would still work as it had no baring on the story. But should it have been? Absolutely not, it was funny as hell.
I would say the same for the scene in Spaceballs where Dark Helmet is getting the toys to make out with each other, Puttin’ on the Ritz in Young Frankenstein, and the scene in Blazing Saddles where it’s obvious they’re on a movie set at a studio. All unnecessary for the story to work, all hilarious so they stay. But then again, not everybody is Mel Brooks.
I think tropes are more flexible. And I also think today, you need jokes that are borne out of character, story, and plot. They’re just more cohesive. Going back to my previous example, at that point in Neighbors, at the point Seth Rogen is shot into the ceiling, we know he’s “at war” with Efron’s character and friends.
The joke works because we’ve not seen it before, and surprise is a key element of comedy. That said, in South Park’s cutaway jokes “it was like that time Mother Theresa was overdosing in my car”, can be funny, but for me, it can be a little same-y or repetitive. “It was like that time…” kinda works, but can be exhausting as it’s not borne out of character, story, and plot.
I do think that jokes work best when they’re rooted in character, story, and plot.
Comedic screenplays should prioritize character development just as much as drama.
I think comedic screenplays definitely should prioritize character development just as much as drama. Although it can be a little more forgiving. I do also think it depends on the style of comedy and the character. The Marx Brothers had more leeway to stop the progression of the film, in order to do a routine. The sequence with Chico, Harpo, and Edgar Kennedy in Duck Soup. I only vaguely know what’s happening, but it’s still funny because of the conflict.
When Austin Powers is trying to escape in the first movie, and he gets the little van stuck in the small corridor trying to do a 25-point turn, is funny, but completely unnecessary to the story.
In Beverly Hills Cop, Axel Foley doesn’t change. He’s the lead character, but not the protagonist. I think the protagonist is split between Rosewood and Taggert. They change the most by the end of the story. Comedies that are more grounded in reality, I think are less forgiving than comedies that are a little more cartoon-y.
I think comedy movies from the early 20th century were more forgiving the progression of the story for a good gag. I am not entirely sure if they are today. But I do think more comedy sub genres have more leeway than others.
