I’m currently doing a rewrite on my sitcom episode and have a question regarding exposition.

I don’t want to reveal my script on here, but here is a basic breakdown of what happens midway through the episode:

* Some visitors come to the place of business that the sitcom takes place at
* Desperate to impress the visitors, the manager of the business takes them out to lunch. They depart for lunch
* Cut to - Several hours have passed and the manager and the visitors have not come back for an important meeting. The assistant manager starts to panic thinking that everyone has gone out and got pissed.
* Eventually, they all come back very late

Then comes my doubt as:

* The assistant manager is then given a brief rundown, by one of the visitors, of what happened whilst they were out. What has happened is completely different to what the assistant manager had been fearing.

Do you think that my last point is a case of exposition? If I showed what happened whilst the manager and the visitors were out, then it would take up far too much time. I just found that the explanation was the best option. I don’t feel that its too unbelievable for the conversation to take place, but I just wondered what others thought.

I guess it all depends on how it's shown. You don't have to have the visitor explain it as such... you could use (for example) a series of stills which serve as the visitor's explanation, against suitable background music. Or something much funnier.

I generally hate exposition but if it's done smartly, it can be used to great effect.

If you're not showing what happpend on the night out for a particular reason then the visitor's explanation is more a 'reveal' than exposition, which I tend to see as more for the viewers' sake than the characters'.

Hope that made sense...

I see what you mean and thanks for the advice. I think you’re right in saying that it’s more a ‘reveal’ than exposition.

I think it’s ok as it is. Obviously, its difficult for anyone to comment without seeing the script, but I think the dialogue is realistic. The assistant manager needs to know what’s happened. He’s been trying to get sense out of his manager, but hasn’t succeeded due to something that has affected him whilst they were ‘out to lunch’. It’s for the characters benefit as well as the viewers.

For the moment I’m gonna keep it as it is.

I got told by people in the know: always show the funny stuff happening rather than explaining it afterwards.

Dan

Yeah, that makes sense. My sense of unease is usually a good indicator that somethings not quite right.

I think I may do something similar to Darren's suggestion. A montage of stills perhaps with a voice over giving brief explanations.

I now cant get episode 1 of 'Only Fools And Horses' out of my head! They have a montage of photos when Del Boy is trying to flog some suitcases!

i agree that it is a reveal. it is also a potential pay off for a gag if its set up right - e.g. the assistant jumps to conclusions and starts accusing the manager of getting drunk etc and then the reveal is that they were actually talking business.
you could do it with a single visual gag - e.g. someone has a huge spreadsheet with figures on. essentially the visual reveal should be linked to what they were doing - if they were tasting wine it could be lots of bottles of booze. if they were looking at clothing it could be a bizarre costume that one of them is wearing.
hope this helps.

Just been looking at my script and trying to figure out how to present this scene.

My initial idea is to have the visitor start explaining the story. Each part of the story will be told by a montage of 3 photo's and the visitors voiceover.

However, there are two other characters who are listening to this story and they have things which need saying. So, do you think its best to cut back from the montage to reality for their lines? Or just include them as a voiceover on the montage?

Oh and it is also part of a pay off for a joke. The assistant manager has been accusing his manager of getting up to all sorts of nefarious activities at lunch, but it turns out it was a very embarrassing event for his manager.

It says in the Screenwriter's Bible something to the effect of:

"Trust your own judgement, and if you feel something isn't quite right, it probably isn't. Follow your instincts."

I've been pulled up twice by BBC readers for exposition and both times I felt something was wrong, but for a simple life I thought I'd "risk it." Risking it doesn't work.

I know I'm thick but ...

What the f*ck is exposition?

Exposition may refer to undepicted plot elements elaborated in dialogue or other features (such as a newspaper headline, or overheard conversation etc.) within a film, book, or other works of fiction.

Googled as I wasn't sure either...

What happened to the campaign for plain English?

It's fuc*ed

Basically exposition is passing on information known to the characters that are talking but stated for the benefit of the consumer. A real crude example is:

So how's Brian, your son? Is he better after falling off that bike at ninety miles an hour?

In real life the dialogue is simply:
How's Brian?

because both characters know everything else. The rest was tagged on for the consumer's benefit. The writer has to work out a way of passing this info on in a more natural way, if it's important to the work.

Most exposition is clunky and forced but Voice-over (a classic form of exposition) can be absolutely dire or touching genius (Sin City for the top end of VO art)

Yep, I think we're talking more about reveal than exposition here, too.