Show Archive‎ > ‎2009‎ > ‎Scripts‎ > ‎

The Kidney

A HUSBAND and WIFE in the process of a divorce, each of which has an army of LAWYERs. Long boardroom table with Boston Legal/boardroom writing (possibly exec meeting).

HUSBAND: Tell her she can have the Victorian bathtub if I get the Rembrandt.

HUSBAND’S LAWYER: Ms. Thompkinson-Smythe may have the Victorian Bathtub if my client gets the Rembrandt

WIFE’S LAWYER: Is that acceptable?

WIFE: Yeah, that's fine. It's a fake anyway.

WIFE’S LAWYER: It is acceptable.

HUSBAND’S LAWYER: Okay, that's everything then. All that's left is to sign the divorce papers.

WIFE: (to LAWYER) Um, what about...

WIFE’S LAWYER: Hmm?

WIFE: The thing we were talking about.

WIFE’S LAWYER: What thing?

WIFE: The thing we were talking about before.

WIFE’S LAWYER: Please excuse us for one moment. I need to have a private consultation with my client.

They whisper for a moment

WIFE’S LAWYER: (to husband) Right. That. Let me consult my colleagues.

Lawyer and colleagues form a scrum, and have a conversation.  Every now and then one of them looks up and over at the other side, the phrase "We should get pizza later" can clearly be heard above the chatter at some point.

WIFE’S LAWYER: My client is requesting the return of her kidney.

HUSBAND: What?!!??

WIFE’S LAWYER: My client expresses disbelief at this claim.

WIFE’S LAWYER: On the 23rd of March, 2007 at precisely 3:14pm, a transaction occurred between your client and my client at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, whereby your client received one Kidney, Left, functioning, Slightly Used, from my client. My client is requesting its return.

HUSBAND: What? That's insane!

HUSBAND’S LAWYER: I need to consult with my client.

Conversation with lawyer whispering and husband exclaiming things like "That's ridiculous!", "I can't do that!" etc.

HUSBAND’S LAWYER: My client refuses on the grounds of ex gratia.

WIFE’S LAWYER: I think you will find that according to subsection zeta of the matrimonial contract, for the duration of the marriage Mr Cottingham and my client were in union as one and as such bodies and internal organs were joint property. At the termination of this union and the separation of Mr Cottingham and Ms Thompkinson-Smythe, the kidney remains the property of my client regardless of its current location. My client requires its return from your client before my client presses charges against your client and your client loses more than the kidney.

HUSBAND: MORE than my kidney?!

WIFE’S LAWYER: Yes, perhaps a lung. And objection is made to your possessive reference to the kidney.

WIFE: It’s MY kidney.

HUSBAND: But my lungs are mine!

WIFE’S LAWYER: Well that is not yet being disputed.

HUSBAND: (to LAWYER) DO something!

HUSBAND’S LAWYER: I must consult with my colleagues. (Scrum forms with colleagues, every now and then a head pops up and looks over at the other side.) I'm afraid we're stuck.

HUSBAND: Hang on. How old is Michael now?

Lawyers pull out various documents and one is passed to Husband's lawyer.

HUSBAND’S LAWYER: Your son, Michael, is 18 years 1 day 19 hours and 43 seconds old. 44 seconds, 45, 46... Husband indicates he gets the idea. He is currently hungover, having had sex 3.5 times with 2.6 women. 2.7, 2.8, 2.9....

HUSBAND: Yes, yes. And he has a kidney?

HUSBAND’S LAWYER: (Consults documents) Two actually.

HUSBAND: Oh well, as long as he has one. Tell my ex wife she can have her kidney back if I get custody of the kids.
HUSBAND’S LAWYER: My client is willing acquiesce to the request if he is able to get the fruits of his union.
WIFE:
Nope, they're not his anyway.

(pause)
WIFE: Only if I can keep their kidneys.

Lights Down

Comments