When it comes to the smaller "setups and payoffs" of your script, the role of a running gag, "Chekhov's Gun", or the "rule of three" will be dependent on how much of the same or similar thing an audience will allow until they tire of it.
Introduce an important prop (the "Chekhov's Gun") without ever coming back to it later, and your audience will feel shortchanged. Go back to the well of a running gag too often, your audience will become tired and irritated.
You can call him Ray, or you can call him Jay,
he's just a visual aide, folks, that's all he is today.
Among other story factors, here are a few things to think about when implementing your little "repeat touches".
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRAW LOTS OF ATTENTION TO THEM
A common mistake in writing has to do with a lack of subtlety in learning to weave detail into a story. To combat this, you could conceivably make a running gag out of something very minor, or introduce a "Chekhov's Gun" with even more subtlety than others.
While Rick Dalton is established early on as being handy with a flamethrower,
one could easily miss said flamethrower also being present in Rick's shed on first viewing.
Chekhov's Flamethrower
Good, nuanced screenwriting makes use of more than one sensory level for its details. Don't confine your running gags or "brick jokes" (seemingly-irrelevant gags or details that do have an unexpected callback or payoff) to just dialogue or story events. Audiences may expect certain types of props, jokes, or subjects to be not-so-subtle, so if you need to, don't hesitate to try scaling back your gag in question.
The running (done at least twice) gag of Otis and Eve's "I said that / I said it" back-and-forths
is stated merely in dialogue, and wasn't very funny in this writer's opinion.
Tellingly, this repetitive gag was cut entirely for Superman's theatrical cut.
GO WITH YOUR GUT (AND THINK LIKE A VIEWER)
How often will you implement your running gag? Will you adhere to the "rule of three" limit? Or scale back a bit and stop at just two instances? This is where (as if you haven't already) you should think like a moviegoer. Only you will know how this will all fit tonally and with what else your script is going for, but the attention of an audience is admittedly quite fickle. Unless you put a spin on it, writing a fourth instance of a running gag past the rule of three is a massive risk (and even with said spin on it). In the hyper-realistic medium of film, the human attention span has its limits, on both ends of the speed spectrum. Keep in the mind the eye of the viewer.
As of 2007, Homer Simpson has jumped or fallen down Springfield Gorge only
three times, with only the second time immediately following the first.
USE THEM TO BUILD YOUR CHARACTERS
For example, different characters will react differently to the same gag. Character S might react very differently than Character I, or they will give the same answer to two different, yet similar ideas or gags. Ideally, your gags or jokes shouldn't always just be there for the sake of having a joke (and pushing the story forward, important as that is).
Bart's propensity for labelling everything with his new labelmaker
comes back to bite him in the ass in "Radio Bart".
Leaving aside character humor itself, since the "Chekhov's Gun" definitely needs a payoff and cannot be there for the sake of needing a prop, you could use it towards character as well. Who ends up using the now-important prop? Is it a surprise? Is it part of a twist even? Are they skilled at using it? Terrified of it but forced to use it now? Everything in your script should have a purpose, and ideally more than one purpose.
"I said, hop in."
The reemergence of Mr. Burns' Spruce Moose model plane
caps off his deteriorating mental state in "$pringfield".
DON'T FORGET THE "BAIT AND SWITCH" CARD
This is a good "cheat" to put a new spin on an old gag, or to switch up the third instance of a running gag. Is your running gag a condition or misfortune that is now affecting an unexpected character? Is a last instance of a gag now used in a more serious tone? Is the least likely character presumed to be qualified for a situation actually the most qualified for some absurd, but logical reason? Basically, you should always remember the power of subverting expectations.
The titular "Bart's Comet" breaks up into the size of a chihuahua's head,
exactly as predicted by (of all characters) Homer.
Running gags and the like are an aspect that will vary considerably and will (or should) be unique to their respective scripts, so hopefully with the above, I've gotten you to really think about how not to overdo a gag or underdevelop a "Chekhov's Gun", in the hopes of keeping your audience invested.
"Oh, dear god, no!"
Copyright © Chynna Moore
No comments:
Post a Comment