What Makes a Good Sketch?

[The40YearOldVegan]

So I’ve been watching a lot more sketch comedy lately, and reading people’s thoughts on various sketches. It seems like there are different schools of thought about what makes a sketch funny or good.

What do you guys think makes a good sketch? Are there certain types of sketches that affect you more? Is there a sketch that you think represents everything a sketch should be? Are there any comic devices you can’t stand?


I’ll go first! I started taking comedy writing classes at Second City a week ago, and I’ve learned a lot about what makes the Second City Sketches “better” than the things I write. In particular, our teacher had us get into pairs and write dialogue (without stage directions) in which we had to establish the Who, What and Where of a scene. After we read our scenes, she took a few volunteers to perform some of Second City’s “Best Of” sketches.

It was then that I realized how meticulously detailed the sketches were. In fact, the sketches themselves often took place during everyday activities (shopping at the mall, doing dishes, watching a ball game) with characters who seemed more like representations of real people as opposed to parodies of celebrities or wacky gimmicky characters. Even if this isn’t my favorite type of sketch, I feel like if a sketch writer can’t write a scene like this, it’s definitely something they should work on.

Although I feel it’s important to be able to write the types of sketches I mentioned above, my favorite kinds of sketches are ones that are rooted in absurdism. I can think of two sketches off the top of my head that make me laugh uncontrollably:

Rocket Dog (from when Tracy Morgan hosted SNL in ’09)
Pit-Pat (from the second episode of Mr. Show)

There’s something about these two sketches that I really wish I saw more often. Whatever it is, these sketches just seem to fire on all cylinders, almost every line makes me laugh.

[davidd]

I went through the Second City Writing Program a few years ago and have written and performed a lot of sketch since then, so this is a topic that's always on my mind.

I have to say, I think the best sketches are the ones that have a clever premise but also have a great storyline and conflict as well. To me, an ideal sketch must create tension the same way any good story should. Far too many sketch writers come up with a premise and two jokes and think they've written a clever sketch, but they forget to engage the audience with any kind of conflict or tension.

Mr. Show is my all time favorite TV show as far as good sketch writing is concerned. Two scenes that come to mind are "Imminent Death syndrome" from season 1 and "Audition," from Season 4. Both scenes have funny premises, but they also have funny storylines that help to propel the core joke of the scene.

[mikemayberry]

I will start by saying that I know nothing about the nuts and bolts of sketch comedy, I am strictly a consumer. With that being said, I think a good sketch, just like a good play, needs good performers and a production budget. Stand up is so much easier to "look" professional, and the production budget is why. For stand up, you just need material, a personality and a mic. Low/no budget sketch shows can have awesome material, but I still don't enjoy it because it looks amatuer.

[John_Roy]

I went through the Second City Writing Program a few years ago and have written and performed a lot of sketch since then, so this is a topic that's always on my mind.

I have to say, I think the best sketches are the ones that have a clever premise but also have a great storyline and conflict as well. To me, an ideal sketch must create tension the same way any good story should. Far too many sketch writers come up with a premise and two jokes and think they've written a clever sketch, but they forget to engage the audience with any kind of conflict or tension.

Mr. Show is my all time favorite TV show as far as good sketch writing is concerned. Two scenes that come to mind are "Imminent Death syndrome" from season 1 and "Audition," from Season 4. Both scenes have funny premises, but they also have funny storylines that help to propel the core joke of the scene.

The Audition may be the perfect sketch. Clear game, big, clear turnaround. I the board meeting sketch after they blow up the moon, where David is fired over and over while Bob's other employees get promotions after insulting him, is another great example.

Sketch writing is very hard. And there are a lot of bad examples that make it onto big time television shows. Any sketch which is a "fake TV show" that has no ending but a "That's all the time we have" (they're making seven minute long talk shows now?) when it peters out is a sketch they could've worked harder on.

I think a good sketch has a definite end point, maybe where one character's point of view changes, maybe where the status shifts, but definitely where the events of the sketch are resolved. The "Schmool" sketch, to use another Bob and David example, is another great ending.

Hopefully, when you looked at archival Second City stuff, you looked at "Pictionary," which I think is by Colbert and Carrell's cast, as this is one of the tightest and best sketches they ever produced.

[Dorset Naga]

Of course, it's easy to be negative, so I'll take the easy road:

Comic devices I can't stand: parodies of celebrities. Unless of course it is extremely inspired and relevant. As someone who doesn't always keep up with who the latest teen star is, i often don't know who the fuck SNL is parodying these days. Even the best celebrity parodies don't usually stand the test of time as a funny sketch.

"After we read our scenes, she took a few volunteers to perform some of Second City’s “Best Of” sketches."

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression most of SC's Best of sketches would be the final product of an evolved improv. Or that -- even if they started as written sketches they were likely tweaked a lot by the improv of great performers who are field testing each line, keeping the ones that work, discarding the others-- which could explain why those sketches have so much more detail to them than a single writer is likely to sit down and compose in a brief period.

[Dorset Naga]

I'm just going to keep adding to this...

I just read the Steve Carrell profile in the current New Yorker, which is mainly about the subject of improv vs. sticking to script in TV/movie comedies these days. It highlights the joke from the movie Airplane: "Nervous?" "Yes." "First time?" "No, I've been nervous lots of times." --as an example of humour that now seems unbearably corny because the punchline makes you feel insulted by the obvious "written" set up as opposed to it resulting from the product of characters freely interacting.

The question then arises in my mind: How much is the writing process changed when you know that many of the best jokes will likely be ad-libbed? Does the comedy writer's purpose now steer more toward creating the situations and environment in which funny actors can be funny, while worrying much less about whether they come up with any great jokes in the first draft? Does it cause the writer to think more in terms of the specific actors they expect will play the roles? i.e., "If I just put Steve Carrell in this situation he will find a way to make it funny." Or, on the other hand, does it only handicap the writing process if the writer doesn't treat his draft as if it were a finished product (even though he knows it isn't)?

[pg13]

It highlights the joke from the movie Airplane: "Nervous?" "Yes." "First time?" "No, I've been nervous lots of times." --as an example of humour that now seems unbearably corny because the punchline makes you feel insulted by the obvious "written" set up as opposed to it resulting from the product of characters freely interacting.

Haven't read the article...but I'm surprised by this take, because EVEN THEN, the jokes in "Airplane!" were corny... No one was making movies like that, no one was putting dialogue together like that...which made it awesome.

It was BECAUSE it was obviously "written"--while the supposedly serious action and dead pan reactions filled the screen--that made it remarkably funny. Remember, this is when no one could have imagined Leslie Nielsen being funny...same with Lloyd Bridges...same with Robert Stack... Putting foolish lines in their mouths, lines that had no way of being real, but letting them deliver them with absolute sincerity...THAT's where the humor came from...

It was fresh and innovative for its time BECAUSE it was corny and unrealistic.

pg--And frankly, I'd rather watch "Airplane!" again than ANY Will Ferrell comedy (for example)...but maybe that's just because I'm old.--pacific northwest

[mattmanser]

I'm with PG about that "First time?" joke - it may be corny, but nothing that makes me that happy could ever make me feel insulted.

[Dorset Naga]

Haven't read the article...but I'm surprised by this take, because EVEN THEN, the jokes in "Airplane!" were corny... No one was making movies like that, no one was putting dialogue together like that...which made it awesome.

It was BECAUSE it was obviously "written"--while the supposedly serious action and dead pan reactions filled the screen--that made it remarkably funny. Remember, this is when no one could have imagined Leslie Nielsen being funny...same with Lloyd Bridges...same with Robert Stack... Putting foolish lines in their mouths, lines that had no way of being real, but letting them deliver them with absolute sincerity...THAT's where the humor came from...

It was fresh and innovative for its time BECAUSE it was corny and unrealistic.

pg--And frankly, I'd rather watch "Airplane!" again than ANY Will Ferrell comedy (for example)...but maybe that's just because I'm old.--pacific northwest

You make a good point. I may be misrepresenting the New Yorker take a bit (I'm the one who inserted the word corny), but they do refer to it as a "traditional comedy" - which of course is completely unfair. it was a breakthrough when it came out -- and i still think it's very funny myself

[davidd]

Yeah, I have to say I'm starting to get pretty sick of the Judd Apatow-ization of comedy these days. People seem to be taking for granted that ad-libbing is always better than sticking to the script, which I don't believe is true. You couldn't have made a great comedy like Airplane by telling Leslie Nielson and Peter Graves to improvise. Sure, those writerly jokes can easily fall flat and sound corny, but on the other hand, I think relying on ad-libbed jokes can be limiting when you're trying to create a comedic tone that is not solely resting on the actor's words. When you write, you're not just writing dialogue, and an actor can't improvise a tone or a thematic element.

And so, tying this back to sketch comedy, one of my main goals as a sketch writer is to try to make everything I write actor-proof and director-proof. I try to keep the dialogue and plot tight enough that no line can be replaced with something the actor thinks is funnier, and so that the director has a clear vision of what the scene should be like just from what's on the page. That way, at least in my opinion, actors and directors can only add to the piece, not take away from it or alter the core of it.

I think all the Mr. Show sketches mentioned above have this element that I'm talking about. The writing is so tight that you can't take out a line and have it still make sense.

[The40YearOldVegan]

Yeah, I have to say I'm starting to get pretty sick of the Judd Apatow-ization of comedy these days. People seem to be taking for granted that ad-libbing is always better than sticking to the script, which I don't believe is true. You couldn't have made a great comedy like Airplane by telling Leslie Nielson and Peter Graves to improvise. Sure, those writerly jokes can easily fall flat and sound corny, but on the other hand, I think relying on ad-libbed jokes can be limiting when you're trying to create a comedic tone that is not solely resting on the actor's words. When you write, you're not just writing dialogue, and an actor can't improvise a tone or a thematic element.

And so, tying this back to sketch comedy, one of my main goals as a sketch writer is to try to make everything I write actor-proof and director-proof. I try to keep the dialogue and plot tight enough that no line can be replaced with something the actor thinks is funnier, and so that the director has a clear vision of what the scene should be like just from what's on the page. That way, at least in my opinion, actors and directors can only add to the piece, not take away from it or alter the core of it.

I think all the Mr. Show sketches mentioned above have this element that I'm talking about. The writing is so tight that you can't take out a line and have it still make sense.

I feel the exact same way. I try to make my sketches airtight, so they'll be funny no matter who delivers them. I also think that adlibbed jokes are not by their nature funnier than written jokes, nor that written jokes are by their nature corny and stale. A good writer can create characters as realistic and spontaneous as any improv artist.

[davidd]

Right on, 40YearOldVegan.

Man, this is a great thread. I could nerd out about sketch comedy all damn day.

[pixel revolt]

A pet peeve of mine is when actors ad-lib a line about their wig that is un-noticeably crooked or purposefully self-comment or break. Audiences love it, as they laugh whenever an actor breaks or comments on the scene, but it feels kind of deflating when the actors go back to the sketch, say the next written "laugh line", and the audience doesn't laugh because the entire rhythm and flow of the sketch no longer exists. Makes you wonder what the point of writing, rehearsing and putting up a sketch is if it's all about one guy's grey wig being slightly off. Which is why, as you've said, writers end up working doubly hard to make their sketches "actor proof" but the result ends up being an over dependence on "funny written lines" which creates a endless cycle of accomodation, all starting with some people who love themselves a little too much to commit to their acting/lines.

[mattmanser]

I write a lot of sketches, and naturally by the time the sketch gets to the rehearsal stage I want it to be as good and tight as possible. But almost every time during the rehearsal process, the actors will say or do something not in the script that is absolute gold and I'll make sure that they use that in the performance. (And of course, the actors will do other things in rehearsal that don't quite work and should not make their way to the stage.) In any case, I think it's good to be open to discovering new, funny things to add to the sketch even after the writing process is supposedly complete. (I don't know if anyone was actually saying otherwise; and I suppose it makes a difference if you're directing your own material or handing it over to someone else so that things are out of your control.)

[ErikNielsen]

A pet peeve of mine is when actors ad-lib a line about their wig that is un-noticeably crooked or purposefully self-comment or break. Audiences love it, as they laugh whenever an actor breaks or comments on the scene, but it feels kind of deflating when the actors go back to the sketch, say the next written "laugh line", and the audience doesn't laugh because the entire rhythm and flow of the sketch no longer exists.

Solution: get better actors. Some actors can resist this urge. Some actors can pull it off when it's necessary -- you seem to suggest that an aside leads inevitably to the sketch breaking down, and that is simply not true.

Even I broke character in a sketch once, when my fake mustache fell off... and I never break character. But we went right back into the sketch with little or no damage. And I can't even act... so I can't imagine this is that hard to do. It basically just requires an understanding of comic timing and pacing, and if your actors don't have that, they probably shouldn't be acting in comedy.

Get better actors.

(Or at least actors who already have the kind of hair you're envisioning for the characters? Wigs are a nuisance anyway.)

[pixel revolt]

My expectations/opinions on this are reasonable and not absolute. If a mustache falls off or a prop breaks in half, a funny ad-libbed line acknowledging the snafu is helpful, especially if the actor can do it in character and within the reality of the scene. That is when I've seen houses erupt, those ad-libs in character are spontaneous funny and smart funny and also invested funny. But I've also seen people call things out that no one in the audience notices, like a wonky light cue that only people at the tech rehearsal before the show could ever identify as wonky, and I've seen people make "bare minimum effort" ad-libs, where they basically just stop acting and say "Nice hair, Mr. President!" They are always our friends who do it and we're all doing this stuff for free so no one is gonna really be a dick about it but it's worth pointing out anonymously on a message board. Rehearsal is a great place for ad-libs but I feel once it's showtime they should be used as an emergency tool to keep the audience's attention off the snafu and back on the sketch, and not as extra gravy laughs that take the attention off the sketch and onto the snafu. But what do I know. Sometimes the biggest laughs are from the sketch going "wrong" but I think the goal should be to get laughs from the sketch going as written, rehearsed and intended.

[ErikNielsen]

That much having been said, that's performing, not writing. Sketches, like most kinds of comedy, are about economy and pacing. A sketch needs a strong idea, you need to introduce variations/expansions on that idea fairly systematically, and as soon as you run out of new jokes that proceed naturally from the situation, you need to get out.

This is why, for example, sketches about celebrities rarely amount to much. The idea isn't a plot-based idea. Sketches are, by their nature, heavily plotty. Yes, sometimes there are characters in there, but that's just an overlay. In most sketches, all you need to know about the characters are their situation and how they're approaching it. Consider the Kids in the Hall "Citizen Kane" sketch. It's all about one guy who is weirdly unwilling to admit that the movie he saw was "Citizen Kane", and the other guy -- the straight man -- getting increasingly upset. It's a simple progression. You don't know anything about those guys beyond those facts, and it wouldn't help the sketch if you did.

Whereas if you're like, "I'm going to do a sketch about William Shatner," well, what do you have? You're probably going to want to do a bit about how he's self-important, definitely mimic his weird line readings, maybe mention him wearing a girdle, maybe do a bit where he recites the lyrics to a song, maybe a "TJ Hooker" reference...

See what I mean? It's all over the place. It doesn't build, it just sort of fumbles about, because it's a collection of details, not a structure. (And most of the details aren't going to surprise anyone.) You need that structure.

Start here, go up. If you can't go any further up, you have to end it. If an exchange/plot point doesn't move things up, either make it bigger, move it earlier or cut it out. End with a twist if you can, but if not, don't force it. And perform it as quickly as possible -- any successful sketch delivered ten percent slower is an unsuccessful sketch.

And then there are overtly repetition-based sketches, where the humor is all in the anticipation. (I'm thinking of Monty Python's "Cheese Shop" sketch, for example. Not so much "The Audition," which introduces a new heightening detail at the end of each iteration.) These are confusing, but they certainly do work.

Also you have more atmospheric, character-driven, less structurally deliberate sketches -- the Kids in the Hall are great at these. But I feel like those kind of have to be done by feel -- if you don't know innately how to write them, you can't write them. Structure can be learned. (All this might be wrong.)

Which is not to say tightly plotted sketches don't leave a lot of room for artistry. Probably my favorite sketch of all time is Monty Python's "Michelangelo and the Pope" sketch -- and the reason it's my favorite sketch is not because it builds well (it does), or because the punchlines are strong (they are), or even because of the characterizations (these are strong too), but because a few of the strongest plot developments are hit obliquely at first, then drawn out. It's like simultaneously setting up anticipation and defusing it, and it's kind of amazing.

[FizzGig]

I've lurked on AST for years now without posting. This thread has brought me out of my corner.

I've been writing and performing sketch for almost three years now. At the beginning, I was a purist - I believed what I wrote was the most perfect, tight, awesome thing that had ever been written and changing one single syllable was unacceptable. Then I watched a sketch I fought tooth and nail to keep in "mint" condition die on stage. There are "director and actor proof" sketches but they are few and far between.

What I've learned over the course of my sketch "career":

1) Trust your actors. Sometimes they'll have a take on a character that you never thought of and it takes the sketch to another level. I've been lucky to work with some of the best actors in my city and I'm constantly amazed at how an actor can take a line I thought was in the sketch to further the story and make it a huge laugh line. Sometimes, a simple ad lib made during rehearsal will turn into something brilliant. Don't fear those moments, they can be gold.

2) Trust your director. Again, I've been fortunate to have a fantastic director heading up my troupe from the beginning and I learned that he'd never steer us wrong.

3) Speak up. If you're in rehearsal and you feel an actor isn't putting the correct emphasis on a line or the director is pushing the wrong "feel" for the sketch, don't be afraid to speak up and explain your original intent. This goes for ad libs, too (you can't change anything during of the performance, of course.)

4) Trust the other writers in your troupe. Collaboration is a good thing. When I can't think of a good way out of a sketch, I bring that sketch to the next meeting and ask for ideas.

5) Don't be a diva. I've seen sketch writers and performers diva the fuck out of their work or performances to the detriment of the show. I graduated from my theatre's sketch writing program. During our grad show one writer was convinced that their sketch was perfect. This sketch was 9 pages long and relied on the actors speaking with thick accents and using slang terms from the '40s. No matter what we did or what we suggested, this person refused to change one word. Since it was the grad show, it went up. And it died. Because of the difficulty we had with this person, I know quite a few people who shy away from working with them because it's next to impossible.

Ok, I'll end my novel here.

[The40YearOldVegan]

Nice to see this is getting some good discussion

Fizz, you make a lot of good points. I've got a few good adlibbers in my troupe who are often good at spicing up dialogue when it would otherwise be flat. When I say I'm writing "airtight" sketches, I guess what I mean is that they'll do the job well even if no one contributes. I always accept suggestions if I feel they add to the sketch (and they often do.)

As for the diva bit, I've had my share of overambitious sketches (I've got a good one in the works involving Lewis and Clark and the Sunday funnies). I find the best way to work as/with someone like that is to allow each writer one "creative freedom" sketch for every 4ish "normal" sketches. I feel like the better you are at writing normal sketches, the better you can bring to life crazy ideas.

[Dorset Naga]

the first sketch i had performed--an argument with a clerk about purchasing gay porn-- an actor changed a line from "hurry up i have a dog in a hot car waiting for me outside" to "hurry up i have a baby in a hot car.." i realized immediatly it was best to let the actors add what they can.