Was wondering what people think about having a "straight man" as the central character in a sitcom? The one who is surrounded by much more exaggerated characters. Someone for all the madness to happen to... resulting in empathy from the viewer/reader. It seems to be an angle that many new writers use (myself included), so it it just a rookie mistake ?? Sort of like putting yourself in the show as a way of witnessing the madness you are creating. I guess I'm thinking along the lines of of Michael from Arrested Development or perhaps Ray from Everybody loves Raymond as examples of shows with this sort of character. I realise they themselves must have a certain amount of drive or reason for being in that situation but they themselves aren't the master of their own destruction in the same way as Say Basil Fawlty was ??

It has been done to some success, Gervais in Extras, mother in Bread, Rev, Miranda. I think the BBC in particular at the moment are looking for 'monsters' as main leads in sitcoms at the moment though.

The best example I can think of is allo allo. As Renee is a straight character it allows multiple stories to spin around him

Seinfeld as opposed to Larry David in curb say.

Extras grenat example better Ryan allô allo

I think it works. Depends on the characters that populate the rest of the show, though.

One of my favourites is Newsradio. If you haven't seen it, the pilot is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY2tWkDr9F4

Quote: Mattytheswan @ 15th July 2014, 10:10 AM BST

they themselves aren't the master of their own destruction in the same way as Say Basil Fawlty was ??

View original

But Basil thought he was the straight man - that's the point.
So in a way, the dynamic is always the same.
Whether they think they're surrounded by fools , or are in fact surrounded by fools - it's the ability of life, and those characters to thwart the lead at every turn that drives the comedy.

The trouble is, 'straight' leads are a bit easier to write - they're closer to how we perceive ourselves - so the 'monsters' are at a premium.

Quote: Lazzard @ 15th July 2014, 11:41 AM BST

But Basil thought he was the straight man - that's the point.
So in a way, the dynamic is always the same.
Whether they think they're surrounded by fools , or are in fact surrounded by fools - it's the ability of life, and those characters to thwart the lead at every turn that drives the comedy.

The trouble is, 'straight' leads are a bit easier to write - they're closer to how we perceive ourselves - so the 'monsters' are at a premium.

View original

Right, ok. This makes sense. I agree that straight men are easier to write, hence why I have done it I suppose there needs to be a "straight" person ,or persons, in there somewhere in order to heighten the effect of the more outrageous ones... or monsters.

Cheers all for the other suggestions of straight(ish) leads.

I'm not sure I can give you an answer but I can tell you the first thing I wrote was exactly that. The straight man in the middle commenting wryly on the madness around him (my god, just writing that sentence makes me want to punch myself in the face), and the first decent thing I wrote had a big characterful character as the main guy.

Make of that what you will

I'd have thought the danger creatively is that you will end up writing what's often called a "pale protagonist" - a not very interesting central character. And I guess it'll be hard to attract the best possible acting talent to play that kind of part.

You may find execs will often ask questions like "Why do we care about this character?" or "What does this character want?" And I reckon that even if you think those questions are dozy, being able to answer them may indicate whether your show has a compelling reason to exist.

Of course, if you're a stand-up that TV wants to be in business with anyway, all these considerations go out of the window and you can play pretty much what you like...

Not sure I would call Renee a straightman: it is his avarice, lust and cowardice that drives the story lines. He also gets most of the genuinely funny lines.

The best example I can think of is Barry Evans in the early Doctor series. He was the clean cut young man dealing with the problems created by the behaviour of others. The writers found him almost impossible to write for and heaved a sigh of relief when he was given the push and the reprehensible Robin Nedwell was promoted into the lead.

Quote: Tursiops @ 16th July 2014, 2:39 PM BST

Not sure I would call Renee a straightman: it is his avarice, lust and cowardice that drives the story lines. He also gets most of the genuinely funny lines.

The best example I can think of is Barry Evans in the early Doctor series. He was the clean cut young man dealing with the problems created by the behaviour of others. The writers found him almost impossible to write for and heaved a sigh of relief when he was given the push and the reprehensible Robin Nedwell was promoted into the lead.

View original

That's interesting.
I wonder if it's a function of a more novelistic way of writing.
The writer as passive observer is more common in novels - a narrator almost.
When you take that person and make them a protagonist perhaps something is lost in translation,...

Having an eerily similar problem at the moment, as it happens - trying to adapt a series of novels into TV.
Already thinking that the central character might need pushing a little.

What genre Lazzard?

Quote: Marc P @ 16th July 2014, 4:03 PM BST

What genre Lazzard?

View original

Well, we're aiming at the Sunday night slot.
Somewhere between Blandings, Mapp & Lucia and Cranford.
Who knows...

Quote: Lazzard @ 16th July 2014, 4:01 PM BST

That's interesting.
I wonder if it's a function of a more novelistic way of writing.
The writer as passive observer is more common in novels - a narrator almost.
When you take that person and make them a protagonist perhaps something is lost in translation,...

View original

Possibly; the Doctor series had their origins in the novels.

I suspect though that it is primarily a comedy problem; the broader the comedy more the central character needs to provide the engine by being the author of his own misfortunes.

In comedy-drama it is not such a problem; as witness the earlier film adaptations of the Doctor novels, or James Herriot on both film and TV. With Herriot he has dramatic problems to deal with as well as comedic ones, these are easier to relate to with him as an everyman, which is probably why it works. In a comedy drama such as Doc Martin where the lead is a monster, albeit a sympathetic one, we do not connect to the character in quite the same way.