What's your all-time biggest laugh?

Dinner table conversation between comedy writers can lead to some interesting discussions. Lots of schadenfreude of course – and that’s even before we order. But there are plenty of funny takes on the world, sports, pop culture, and sex (mostly the lack thereof).

Old vintage TV shows we loved is also a semi-popular topic (I say “semi” because we don’t like that we’re old enough to have written on many of these chestnuts). But the HONEYMOONERS was mentioned recently, and everyone perked up (that show was even before “our” time). I said that the biggest laugh I ever had was for the payoff of the “$99,000 Answer” episode. I won’t spoil it in case you haven’t seen it (in which case, GO SEE IT). But suffice to say the entire episode builds to one last joke and it’s a killer.  I was ten at the time and probably laughed for ten minutes. 

That led to a discussion of “what was the biggest laugh you ever had?” Preferably sober. More fun than hearing theirs (e.g. Monty Python) would be hearing yours? So I throw out that topic today. And please, don’t feel obligated to cite an example from MANNEQUIN 2. But think back – hopefully this will be a tough choice because you’ve had many big belly laughs in your life (not a tough choice because you have amnesia) – what moment, scene, one-liner, cartoon, stand up routine, America’s Funniest Home Video made you uncontrollably laugh the hardest, loudest, longest?

This is going to be one of those days where the comments are more interesting than the post. I, for one, look forward to your responses. If nothing else I bet it will illustrate how subjective comedy is. There will be some entries that other readers won’t think is funny at all. I’m also curious as to whether your single biggest laugh came as a child (like mine) or as an adult. Anyway, it should be fun. Put on your thinking caps and I’ll see ya in the comments section. Thanks.

TRUMBO: My review

Saw TRUMBO recently at a DGA screening. It was packed. I said to several of the members in line, “You realize this is about a WRITER, not a director, right?” But they wanted to see it anyway. And you should too, if you like Bryan Cranston (who doesn’t?), care about social injustice, or want to finally see Diane Lane juggle water tumblers.

The story is about Dalton Trumbo, a hugely successful novelist and screenwriter in the ‘40s who refused to cooperate with the witch hunting Committee on Un-American Activities and (along with others) was blacklisted in the ‘50s. To make a living he and other blacklisted writers were forced to churn out schlock B-movies at a fraction of their normal fee while using pseudonyms. It’s as if today Aaron Sorkin could only get work writing Women-in-Prison movies for direct-to-video under the name Candy Apple.

If John McNamara doesn’t win the WGA Best Screenwriting Award for this screenplay with this subject matter he never will. It’s got to be the ultimate crowd pleaser for THAT crowd.

Unfortunately, there is now a parallel to today’s events. Hopefully this film will enlighten some people as to the real dangers of blatant fear and mistrust (although those people are probably all home playing MORTAL COMBAT X).

TRUMBO is a little long and lecture-y at times, and I don’t know if you’d appreciate it as much if you have no connection to that world or time period, but I found it fascinating. And I could watch Bryan Cranston peel potatoes for two hours.

There were some other terrific performances. John Goodman is absolutely hilarious, Louis C.K. is proving to be one hell of a legitimate actor, and Helen Mirren, as always, is terrific.

One of my favorite things in the film is her portrayal of gossip columnist/barracuda, Hedda Hopper. At the time she wielded enormous power in Hollywood and was a reprehensible human being. A bitch with a capital C. How nice that that is becoming her legacy – not her power, not her influence – but her loathsome presence and empty soul. Roast in hell you bitch with a capital C.

Beyond that there are actors playing movie stars and those always feel more like impressions than real people. How do you make John Wayne seem real when the real John Wayne was a cartoon? This becomes less of an issue however, as movie audience gets younger. Very few Millennials will say Michael Stuhlbarg didn’t really capture Edward G. Robinson that well (I actually thought he did… and he really nailed Arnold Rothstein on BOARDWALK EMPIRE).

But hey, any movie where Otto Preminger is one of the heroes is worth seeing. And Kirk Douglas comes off well too.

Dalton Trumbo was a character. Very flamboyant, larger-than-life. After seeing the film I went on YouTube where there are some appearances by the real Dalton Trumbo and it’s amazing how well Cranston captured him. But that’s like saying an actor really had Abe Lincoln’s voice down. Unless you go to YouTube, you have no idea how Trumbo acted or sounded. So take my word on it.

Like I said, TRUMBO is worth seeing. I don’t think it’s going to receive many Oscars. But if it does win one, I suspect the Academy will adhere to tradition and not give it to them for twenty years.

Crickets

A few weeks ago I had a one act play I wrote and directed that was staged at the Whitefire Theatre in Studio City as part of their HOLLYWOOD SHORTS evening of one acts. I was blessed with a great cast – Liz Bliss and Paul Pape. And the response was tremendous. Big laughs every performance. I even got laughs on straight lines. That’s when you know they’re lovin’ it.

And then one night – death.

From the very start – silence. Jokes that usually got howls got a few titters. And those were charitable. As we comedy writers say – it was so quiet you could hear crickets. I fully expected to see tumbleweeds blow by during the scene.

It just so happened we were videotaping that night. I said to the cameraman it’s like he captured the Zapruder film.

So what happened? The actors gave their same sterling performance. There was no air conditioning problem or technical malfunction.

It was just a terrible audience. The cast of the WALKING DEAD. You needed a mirror to see if they were still breathing.

Needless to say, it was tough to sit through. My heart especially went out to the actors. Within the first two minutes they knew they were in trouble. And still they plowed forward – dragging a dead horse across the finish line to shoot it. We couldn’t get to the neighborhood bar fast enough.

But here’s the reality: It’s going to happen. That’s just the way it is. I don’t think there’s a successful stand-up comedian in the world who hasn’t absolutely bombed – probably multiple times.

It happens frequently on multi-camera sitcoms – even with a warm up man. You just get a dull audience. When Jay Tarses, a showrunner for MTM during the glory years, used to handle the warm up duties on THE BOB NEWHART SHOW and THE TONY RANDALL SHOW, if he got a bad house he turned on them. He’d say things like “Hey, your hearse is waiting.”

The thing to do is just shake it off. A bad audience is completely out of your control. You can try to analyze it. They were too old, the acoustics were bad, the show started late and they were tired, the weather was inclement, Mercury was in retrograde, one of the actors said Macbeth in the theater, etc. But it’s all bullshit. Just like parking tickets and common colds, you’re going to experience them once in awhile. No sense beating yourself up over it.

Obviously this is different from a performance that works in some places but not in others. Then it’s up to the creative team to make whatever changes are necessary to fix the problems. But when you’ve heard the material kill week after week and suddenly it just lays an egg, there’s nothing you can do other than shrug and have another Moscow Mule.

Truly, the hardest part is having friends lie and tell you the show was wonderful when it wasn’t. When you hear things like “Very enjoyable” “Really good work” and “We love you anyway” you know. When the theatre employees tell you that no one left in intermission – as if that means it’s a smash – again, you know.

But it’s all part of the beauty of live theater, which is a phrase only used by theater people when things are going badly. The trick is to just keep going. You’re not alone. I guarantee you there were performances where the great Shakespeare himself said, “I wonder if I can get into the plumbers’ union.”

Just keep going. Next week will be better. Or they can start lining up those Moscow Mules right now.

By the way, the following week -- HUGE laughs.   Thank God.  

The date which will live in infamy

Aloha.  It’s always a little strange to be in Hawaii on December 7th. That’s “the date which will live in infamy,” although as each year passes more and more young people have no idea what that means.

On this date in 1941 Japanese bombers attacked Pearl Harbor. That was, for the United States, the beginning of World War II. For that generation, it was their 9-11. And even though I didn’t come along until many years later, I heard about it all my life. I’m sure Millennials can’t conceive of a time when we won’t remember 9-11 but you'd be surprised -- time goes by shockingly fast.

There have been several movies about this historic event, most not so good – but by far the worst is PEARL HARBOR atrociously directed by Michael Bay. It’s basically a horribly written love triangle followed by a shit ton of bombing.

IN HARM’S WAY is another dud but at least has John Wayne.

Better is TORA TORA TORA, although the battle ships are miniature toys filmed in the tank at Paramount. But it’s a more balanced film and shows the actual planning – far more worthwhile than watching Kate Beckinsale try to deliver cringeworthy lines like, “Slow down, flyboy!” and “Every night I watch the sunset and soak up every last ray of its warmth and send it from my heart to yours.” Transformers wouldn’t even say that.

The best is probably FROM HERE TO ETERNITY from the ‘50s. You got your Hollywood star power in that one, from Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr (the famous beach love scene) to Sinatra who won an Academy Award (I wonder how many horse heads that cost the Godfather.).

If you're not familiar with this event, please check out a movie (except PEARL HARBOR) or book on the subject.  It's something you really oughtta know.  

So at least for a moment this day,  “Remember Pearl Harbor.” Especially if (like me) you’re in Hawaii. Like everything else, paradise comes with a price. And even though it happened a long long time ago now, let’s never forget.

Somebody should say this about Sinatra

As readers of this blog know, I am a huge Sinatra fan. Well… the Sinatra from the Capitol Records period in the ‘50s.  Any record he made while wearing a hat.   No matter how many people he roughed up, his singing during that period was extraordinary. 200 years from now people will still be listening to Sinatra (and hopefully watching MASH reruns).

This would have been his 100th birthday, which is a good excuse to stage tributes to him. CBS has one tonight – a biggie featuring a lot of rock stars. This to me is quite ironic since Sinatra loathed rock n’ roll. He didn’t understand it, he lashed out at it, made fun of it, and worse – tried to do it himself. ( Maybe if Ava Gardner had sung with Jefferson Airplane he would have gotten it. We’ll never know.)

Appropriately, there are no comedians honoring him on this show for a very good reason – Frank Sinatra was painfully unfunny. Sorry. There it is. Were he alive I’m sure some no neck thugs would be visiting me, but let’s get real. Listen to any Rat Pack concert recording. The jokes are all cringeworthy, racist, hostile, inside, and embarrassing.

Now you could say Sinatra just needed better writers, but that wouldn’t have helped. He had zero comic timing. Dino had comic timing. Sammy (poor Sammy) had comic timing. But Frank (and remember I love him) was to comedy what Sam Kinison was to the Great American Songbook.

His movie comedies were not much better. When I hosted the Neil Simon festival on TCM I screened COME BLOW YOUR HORN (Neil’s first play adapted into a film). It’s the story of two Jewish brothers in New York. Frank gave it that ring-a-ding-ding edge you rarely see in Jewish families.

And worse than not being funny– he thought he WAS funny. There’s nothing more excruciating than that. My heart goes out to the toadies and hangers-on who hung out with him and had to laugh at his horrible jokes 24/7. Especially Sammy who was the butt of those jokes. Frank’s idea of delivering a line was to break into “Amos & Andy.” Yes, it was from a different time but Jesus!

Sinatra was an absolute master at interpreting songs. He could infuse emotion into music like nobody before or since. He was more than an artist – he was a master. I remain in awe.  Again... during that period he wore hats. 

But when it comes to comedy, Nancy is funnier.

Tune in to a Levine marathon!

Two episodes by two Levines!  Tonight from 8:00-9:00 TV LAND is running back-to-back new episodes of INSTANT MOM.   Both were written by Annie Levine & Jonathan Emerson.  And the first one was directed by me.   Both are funny episodes.  Good jokes and they're in focus.  Thanks for watching, DVR'ing, buying!

That's some bad hat, Harry

Ever notice at the end of shows there are those cards that fill the screen with names of bizarre production companies, sometimes animated and sometimes with sound (“That’s some bad hat, Harry.”)? Those are called vanity cards. When writer/creators form their own production company (and they all do) they’re entitled to a vanity card.

The question is: what to do with it? When my partner David Isaacs and I got a series on CBS we had to create our vanity card. First we needed to come up with a name for our so-called entertainment conglomerate. Candidates included “13 and out”, “FU Money”, and “Tina Delgado is alive ALIVE!” We decided to just call it “Levine & Isaacs Productions”, thus extending the outer reaches of our creativity. Look, it’s on screen for like one second, so why not just go for ego under the guise of simplicity?

Some of these vanity cards are so cutesy and pretentious. We wanted to steer clear of that. Maybe the worst was Stephen J. Cannell's. You see him writing at the typewriter with an Emmy in the shot. He takes the paper out of the typewriter, flings it into the air, and its brilliance morphs into an animated version of his company's logo. Yikes!

Now for the visual.

Chuck Lorre fills his card with long fine print rants. That’s an ingenious idea but (a) we didn’t want to copy Chuck, and (b) who wants to do all that extra writing work?

We thought of showcasing our dads waving at the camera as a tribute to them. But then we realized, networks were going to think that was me and David and we didn’t need being blackballed for ageism while we were still in our 30s.

We considered baseball caps from our favorite teams. His was the Yankees but mine would change depending on who hired me to do play-by-play. So that was out. Then we figured, just use caps from our colleges – UCLA and the University of Miami. But UCLA raised my basketball tickets that year and the U of M was undergoing another scandal so we nixed that idea.

To animate something would be costly. And again, there was that fear that we would look incredibly full of ourselves.

So we settled on this. Did it in black and white because there was nothing on TV in black and white then. When it appeared, a little shimmer went across the screen but otherwise this was it. You’re welcome to download it and use it as your wallpaper or screen saver.


This is a re-post from five and a half years ago.

Friday Questions

Hard to believe it’s December already. Here are this week’s FQ's:

KAS gets us started with a question on everyone’s lips:

Where do you keep your Emmy? Can it be the featured photo in questions, please?!

Yes.  See: above.  I keep it in the dining room on a cabinet. If I were single I’d keep it around my neck.

Mark is up next.

My wife and I stopped watching a one hour drama because it seemed the characters never evolved and because of that it got rather boring.

But it seems that characters in comedies can't really develop, can they? What good would Norm be he stopped drinking beer? Or if Hawkeye started behaving like a Captain? Or if Frasier figured out his issues with women? Still, they need to kind of evolve, don't they? How do you handle that?

Characters have to evolve very slowly. And it is a dance. On the one hand, viewers might respond to a certain character for some reason and you want to keep fulfilling their expectations. But there is the danger that the character gets stale and the viewers lose interest. You’ve got to read the tea leaves.

Actors understandably get tired playing the same thing week after week. But remember, in success you’re looking at a hundred-plus episodes. You can’t make too many drastic changes.

There have been instances where shows have made significant changes and they've backfired -- in some cases killing the show.    Better to go too slow than too fast.  (Of course that's easy to say until you're trying to break stories for year five and everything has already been done.)

From Jerry:

What drives the decision of whether to do holiday themed episodes? Does the network like them and will request them? One of the writers has a great idea for a turkey getting stuck on someone's head?

Networks do like holiday themed shows. Sometimes they specifically ask for them so they can promote an entire night of “Christmas” shows or “Yom Kippur” shows, etc.  

As a showrunner, I tend to find them a pain-in-the-ass. How many variations of Christmas stories can you do?  Same with Thanksgiving?  And they usually have to end with warm fuzzy moments.  Ugh! 

One year on ALMOST PERFECT, we had Christmas decorations all around but made absolutely no mention of Christmas. It was just a regular episode that happened to take place in mid December. Personally, I think that was the best holiday show we ever did.

Boomska316 queries:

I was wondering how "Point Of View" was filmed? Was the actor playing Private Rich wearing a helmet cam or something?

No. There were no helmet cams in 1978. It was a pretty bulky camera the cameraman hoisted on his shoulder. Charles Dubin did a masterful job of directing that episode. I lost the Emmy for that show, but it still pisses me off more that HE lost the Emmy for that show.

And finally, from Grace:

Ken: how do shows handle it when one season picks up where the previous season ended? For instance, in the seventh-season finale of Frasier, Daphne and Niles decide to run off together in the Winnebago; in the season eight opener, they're in the same places in the same Winnebago in the same clothes as though the two scenes were made together. So I guess my question is are those sorts of scenes generally made together? Do you send the audience home and have the actors stay so everything looks the same? Do you take tons of photos and use the episode to restore everything when you return to work? I can't imagine how the writers would necessarily KNOW that they needed to do all that work, but I've seen it on a lot of shows, so obviously someone's planning.

All of the above. On some occasions they will film the “B” side of the cliffhanger that night and just have it in the can. But most of the time, yes, they take a ton of photos, and have the footage from the original cliff hanger scene so they’re able to match it pretty closely.   Reason:  the writers haven't figured out the solution to the cliffhanger yet.  They say, "we'll think of something over the hiatus." 

But sometimes waiting until next year creates problems. I worked on a series that had one of these cliffhangers, but did not film the “B” side at the time. And during that extended hiatus, one of the lead actors had cut his hair significantly. They had to make a custom wig for him (at considerable expense you can imagine).

At least that was fixable. A stickier problem is when an actor gains or loses twenty pounds during the hiatus.  And that happens more than you think. 

What’s your Friday Question?

SPOTLIGHT -- My review

I haven’t seen PAN, but so far SPOTLIGHT is the movie of the year in my humble but correct opinion. Imagine, a thoroughly engrossing film without a single explosion. Even more astonishing, a film that lives up to the hype.

Michael Keaton was way better in this than the FRASIER we wrote. Mark Ruffalo is incredible without being the Hulk. Liev Schreiber was very convincing playing Jewish. Stanley Tucci had a great part and excellent hairpiece. John Slattery is now and forever “Roger Sterling.” And Rachel McAdams is hot even when she’s researching.

The ‘70s brought us ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN and now we have ALL THE CARDINAL'S MEN. Writer/director Tom McCarthy and co-writer Josh Singer artfully tell the true story of the Boston Globe’s uncovering of the major scandal involving child molestation and the Catholic Church. I don’t think they’ll be selling SPOTLIGHT T-shirts and coffee mugs at the Vatican gift shop.

It has always been a comfort that we had investigative journalists courageously fighting bureaucracy to uncover scandals like this or Watergate. The Washington Post essentially brought down the President of the United States (and once again, THANK YOU). The Fourth Estate has served as our national watchdogs.

But what about the future?

With newspapers going belly up and TV news an utter joke, who is going to uncover the next insidious cover up? The Boston Globe was able to employ four staffers who just investigated stories. Compare that to Los Angeles Times that last week swept out thirty of their top reporters and editors. Can the LA Times even cover horoscopes now?

It’s strange to think that SPOTLIGHT felt like a period piece even though it was set in 2001 and 2002. I found myself nostalgic for the days when newsrooms weren’t deserted.

SPOTLIGHT delivers on all fronts. For my money, it’s the best movie of the year. Check your local paper for showtimes… assuming you still get a local paper.

Actors may not like it, but do it anyway

Actors hate getting interior direction (or parentheticals). They resent when the writer includes (angry) or (hurt) before a line of dialogue. They believe they should have the freedom to interpret and deliver the line the way they see fit. And to a large degree I agree with them. They need to breathe life into their characters and they don't want to be told how to react.   In some cases it can be downright insulting when you see (angry) as an indicator to the line: “Go the hell, you son of a bitch!”  (This is a common rookie mistake.) 

But there are times when interior direction is required. Dialogue can often be ambiguous and the writer needs to get across his intent. Let me give you an example.

This is a brief scene from my play, A OR B? It opens the second act. Ben and Abby are a young couple. They enter a hotel ballroom to attend a big charity dinner. Here is the scene with no indicators or stage direction whatsoever.

BEN: Let’s not let what just happened affect this evening.

ABBY: Don’t be so hot.

BEN: We won’t stay too long.

ABBY: I got nothing on.

BEN: Lucky me.

ABBY: You’re vibrating.

BEN: Hello?

ABBY: We got two bars in here.

BEN: No, Ted.

ABBY: You’ve got to hang up.

BEN: Later.

ABBY: What a tool.

BEN: This is not the place.

ABBY: I’m just doing my job.

BEN: You’re sick.

A little hard to follow, no? Also not particularly funny. I would think actors would have a bitch of a time trying to make sense of this scene.   

But here’s the twist: the play shows two parallel scenes (a la SLIDING DOORS). In one scenario Ben and Abby are lovers. In the other they’re co-workers. What I do to open the second act is to do both scenes with this exact same dialogue, but based on their relationships, they are two very different scenes.

Here they are, but this time with indicators and stage direction. First track: they’re lovers.

They are still in the afterglow of making love in the bathtub.

BEN: Let’s not let what just happened affect this evening.

ABBY: (a compliment) Don’t be so hot.

BEN: (anxious to get back to it) We won’t stay too long.

Abby gives him a quick peek of cleavage inside the dress.

ABBY: (sotto) I got nothing on.

BEN: Lucky me.

Abby’s hand discreetly brushes across Ben’s crotch.

ABBY: You’re vibrating.

BEN: (it’s obvious why) Hello?

ABBY: (looking around) We got two bars in here.

BEN: (looking around) No Ted.

Abby’s hand brushes his crotch again. He clearly reacts.

ABBY: (to his reaction) You’ve got a hang up.

BEN: (discreetly brushing her hand away) Later.

ABBY: (sotto, impressed) What a tool.

BEN: (slightly embarrassed) This is not the place.

ABBY: (pointedly, suggestive) I’m just doing my “job.”

BEN: (ultimate compliment) You are "sick."

And now the alternate version.  They're strictly co-workers.  Ben wanted to make love. Abby refused.

Same beginning. But no afterglow. Their body language is much stiffer and professional.

BEN: Let’s not let what just happened affect this evening.

ABBY: (hot meaning angry) Don’t be so hot.

BEN: We won’t stay long.

Abby shrugs. She’s got no plans.

ABBY: I got nothing on.

BEN: (sarcastic) Lucky me.

Ben’s phone buzzes in his pocket.

ABBY: (re phone) You’re vibrating.

Ben pulls out his cellphone and answers it.

BEN: (into phone) Hello?

Abby takes out her cellphone and checks the reception.

ABBY: (re receptions) We got two bars in here.

BEN: (on phone) No, Ted.

ABBY: (re phone) You’ve gotta hang up.

BEN: (on phone) Later.

He hangs up and returns the phone to his pocket.

ABBY: (re Ted) What a tool.

BEN: (scolding) This is not the place.

ABBY: (defending) I’m just doing my job.

BEN: (disgusted) You are sick!

The fun of the sequence was that practically each line had double meaning. I never could have conveyed that just in the dialogue.

No, I wouldn’t pepper my scripts with parentheticals, but every now and again you need to declare your clear intent. Don’t be afraid to do that. At the end of the day it’s YOUR script. There may be better ways but at least see your way first.

And another thing: If you’re writing a spec it’s primarily made to be read. Readers hate parentheticals a lot less than actors do.

Supergirl is becoming Supertrain

When SUPERGIRL premiered I gave it a good review. Well done pilot, likable star, nifty action, and the tone was fun. The debut numbers were terrific (for 2015… if a show premiered with those numbers in 1975 it would be yanked from the schedule that week). Since Oct. 26th the ratings have been steadily tumbling. I was curious as to why so went back and screened the subsequent episodes.

I get it now. The scripts are all made of Kryptonite.

Within three weeks the SUPERGIRL series has become seriously stupid.

Clearly, the staff is flailing around searching for what this show is, and it doesn’t take X-Ray Vision to see they haven’t found it. To me, if feels like they’re letting research dictate the direction, trying to satisfy every target demographic.

Since superhero shows traditionally attract men, they’re going out of their way to get women into the tent. It’s not an action show; it’s really about women getting the chance to be empowered. She’s a role model for feminism. SUPERGIRL is important.

Okay, well that didn’t seem to work. SUPERGIRL has not replaced Sheryl Sandberg. So in order to attract women, they hit hard on emotional stories. Working through family relationships. In the sappiest possible way. The Thanksgiving episode was like every bad Lifetime Movie where Meredith Baxter died from the disease of the week.

But to play it safe, women always like romantic comedy. Give them that. Supergirl likes Jimmy Olsen but he likes someone else and the sweet guy in the office (who is probably gay) likes her but she can’t see it. And she goes out on bad dates. Oh, poor Supergirl.

Upscale Millennials must be served if CBS ever hopes to get Lexus on board. So Supergirl works in a slick upscale corporation with sets probably rejected from Nancy Meyer movies. Hmmmm. That might not be enough. What they need is a horrible boss. Yes, Millennials loved those horrible boss movies. Give Supergirl one of those. So they created the Calista Flockhart character who is such a cliché she struggles to be one-dimensional.

But wait. The show still needs male viewers. So throw in monsters, mutants, and miscellaneous rejects from WALKING DEAD with super powers so Supergirl can beat the crap of them. And of course, there needs to be a made-up covert government organization in a secret location that looks like rejected BLACK LIST sets so we can check the conspiracy box. Conveniently, this secret compound just happens to be in the city where Supergirl resides. What are the odds? Oh, and throw her sister in there as an operative because, well… what the hell do you do with the sister?

Stunt casting is a must. Helen Slater (the original Supergirl) and Dean Cain (Superman from LOIS & CLARK) are Supergirl’s parents. What amazing gets! And Superman himself makes cameo appearances. In one episode he saved Supergirl. Touching but it also eliminates a lot of suspense because at any time Superman can just fly in and save her. But I’m sure research said you must include the Man of Steel. Especially on CBS. They had Superman appear on I LOVE LUCY you’ll recall.

Supergirl also has to stay up with the times. And today that means there is a faction that is anti-Supergirl. All she does is avert disasters, save lives, and stop crime but citizens are ready to get out the pitchforks and torches. Don’t they have a Ben Carson rally to attend? Leave Supergirl alone.  It's bad enough she can't get dates. 

By trying to be all things to all people the show has managed to please no one. Pick a direction. Or maybe go in an alternate one. What seems interesting to me is SUPERGIRL as a metaphor for how hard it is for women to have it all. The conflict of Kara trying to maintain a career, having a personal life, and saving the world is an interesting one. As it is now she goes from office responsibilities to vanquishing transformers to checking in at C.I.Alien HQ to baking pies with relative ease. You’d think not all bank robberies would occur during lunch breaks.

I hope they can figure it out. Like I said, I liked the pilot. And it’s not like superhero series don’t work. I’m surprised NBC doesn’t make Carson Daly wear a cape. But more attention must be paid to the scripts than the effects. CGI can’t create good drama. Nor can focus groups.

Writers are getting royally screwed... AGAIN

There is a new insidious practice studios and networks are getting away with.

PAPER PARTNERS

If two writers form a partnership they understand going in that they’ll be paid essentially the salary of one writer. They choose to do that because they feel the product is ultimately better, their careers will rise faster as a result, and it’s a perk in hiring because the showrunner gets two for the price of one.

But here’s what studios and networks are doing, especially for entry-level positions: They’ll take two young writers, who have been writing solo, and just tell them they’re now a partnership. As a result, each makes only 50% and the studio gets two-for-one. Think: shotgun weddings.

NOTE:  To be clear, these writers are being hired on STAFF, not just writing a script.  And often if you're just a staff writer you don't even get a script assignment.   You're just working full-time for half the salary.  

The young writers of course are powerless to do anything about this. If they refuse, the studio just shrugs, and gets the next person. I know young writers who worked full-time on staff and didn’t make enough money to qualify for health insurance. Meanwhile, each writer pays full dues to the WGA. 

This is a despicable practice, and what hurts the most is that WRITERS are letting it happen. Showrunners are not standing up to the studio and saying they refuse to go along. I mean, you expect the studios to screw us royally. But writers are permitting this unconscionable practice to continue.  To me, that's disgraceful.   They're worse than scabs. 

The WGA claims they don’t receive too many complaints about this. Well OF COURSE NOT! A young writer trying to break in is not going to blow the whistle on a major Hollywood studio. Get real.

It’s OUR job as writers to stop this. I know the incoming WGA president, Howard Rodman, is aware of this problem, and I hope he takes steps to address it. But the real culprits are the showrunners who are allowing their fellow members to be victimized. I’m sure there are a few asshole showrunners who actually LIKE this practice because they can take advantage of it. But I am hoping the majority are decent people who realize what an injustice this is, and have empathy for young writers just as someone had for them when they broke in.    This practice ends when showrunners have the balls to say to studios they won't accept it.

And if a young writer pays full dues and works full-time on a show he at least should be entitled to health insurance.   What kind of a union are we that we can't even provide THAT? 

Obviously, this is not an issue we are going to go out on strike for, but it’s serious, and makes us writers look toothless and heartless.

Stop Paper Partners.  Young writers deserve better.  

Movies with great beginnings and disappointing middle and endings

A re-post from many years ago...

The 2010 movie, HEREAFTER, opens with an extraordinary sequence. You’ve probably seen the trailer. A giant tsunami rips through a Southeast Asian resort. SPOILER ALERT: You don’t want to be on the beach that day.

The giant wave advances past a luxury hotel and roars through the town, destroying everything in its wake. It’s awesome and terrifying. Sensational filmmaking. Fortunately for the actors, Clint Eastwood was directing. He usually gets it in two or three takes. Imagine poor Ms Cecile de France, who gets swept along like a rag doll, hearing: “Okay. From the top, everybody. Take 46. Cue the water!”

The only trouble with that sequence is… the rest of the movie is dull and lifeless by comparison. And it got me thinking about other movies that had amazing beginnings but fell flat after that. You go into a theater, it starts, you’re blown away, you think you’re in for a really great ride, and then the movie just fizzles.

Probably the greatest example of this is SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Spielberg’s depiction of the Normandy Invasion is maybe the most gripping twenty minutes on film. You watch it and say, “Y’know, I think I’d prefer the tsunami.” But once the doughboys land the movie turns into this trumped up story.

That first sequence was so effective that Spielberg could have come on the screen himself and said, “Well, folks. That’s what war is really like. Pretty fucking incomprehensibly horrific, wouldn’t you say? I don’t know what else there really is to add. I mean, every soldier had his own story and many are compelling and heartbreaking, but let’s face it – after that invasion – the scope and devastation – how am I gonna follow one or two guys and still have the same impact? I’m good but I’m no David Lean. So instead of making you sit for another hour and a half of “more of the same but not as good”, I’m gonna just let you go. I’m guessing these images I just showed you are going to stay with you for awhile. That’s good. Go have coffee and talk about the brutality of war. Maybe head home and go to that new internet thingy all the kids are raving about and search for information on D-Day. Anyway, thanks for coming. Sorry it was so short, but I’ll make it up to you. BRIDGE OF SPIES will be twice as long as it should be.”

What other movies can you think of that had great beginnings but never lived up to its promise? Here are a few that I can think of:

BODY HEAT – Steamy and sexy for the first twenty minutes. My glasses fogged up. If only they didn’t then get into the story.

Most of the last 20 Bond movies. Wow zowie action sequences that had nothing to do with the plot, followed by Tim Dalton or Pierce Brosnan thwarting supervillains and rescuing Denise Richards (who, we’re supposed to believe in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, is a noted nuclear physicist).

I loved the first half-hour of INDIANA JONES 4 (the real title is too long and doesn’t mean anything anyway). I wish Spielberg had broken in and made a speech in that one too.

FULL METAL JACKET – Stanley Kubrick’s first act in basic training was riveting. Then they go to Vietnam and since they couldn’t take the Drill Sergeant (the great R. Lee Ermey) along with them the movie goes flying off in fifteen different directions. Their “shit was definitely flaky” as the DI might say.

And finally, TOUCH OF EVIL – Disappointing movie and Charlton Heston playing a Mexican is laughable, but this opening tracking shot is nothing short of phenomenal. Especially when you consider it was made in 1958, well before Industrial Light & Magic. Directed by Orson Welles before he succumbed to ego and Pinks’ hot dogs.

Okay, so help me add to the list.

Fred & Ginger never did THIS

Fun video day continues. Check out this dance routine. Wow.

Adele is funny too

This is great.  For a BBC special they put out the call for Adele impersonators.  And then Adele herself posed as someone else and joined the audition.  Watch what happens.   How can anyone not love Adele?

(Black) Friday Questions

Here’s something to read as you stand in long lines today – this week’s (Black) Friday Questions. I need sweaters, by the way.  But not Cosby sweaters. 

Wendy M. Grossman begins:

A number of us have been seriously admiring Aya Cash's work on YOU'RE THE WORST (which you should all see, if you haven't). Someone opined that she has no chance at an Emmy nomination, however, because the network that broadcasts the show is the ultra-obscure FXX. Is this true, do you think? Does it hurt the chances of THE AMERICANS, Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys that they're on FX? I know the main actors on JUSTIFIED never won anything - but Margo Martindale, guesting in season 2, did. I'd have thought that with shows on Amazon and Netflix winning awards we were entirely over that sort of snobbishness.

It’s not a matter of snobbishness; it’s a matter of too many choices. Getting Emmy voters to sample all these shows on all these networks and platforms is very difficult. Unfortunately, many worthy efforts fly under the radar.

Buzz and marketing are now more important than ever.

Most shows will now offer screeners to Academy voters and that helps a lot. There have been shows I had heard about but never seen, and then when the screeners came in I decided to give them a try. In some cases it affected my voting.

Ironically, I almost think that being on an obscure network is almost advantageous. There’s a cool factor. Broadcast network shows have a stigma these days, which is too bad because THE GOOD WIFE deserves way more recognition than it receives.

From Paul:

Ken: You've made your disdain for "Two Broke Girls" and your love of multi-camera sitcoms evident multiple times. If asked to write or direct and episode of "Two Broke Girls," one of a dwindling number of multi-cams on the air, would you?

Not that they’re ever going to ask me in a million years, but I would be happy to direct an episode. I love Kat Dennings and have worked with her before. I would not want to write an episode. I’m not the right guy for that assignment.

cadavra asks:

I've been to more than one taping where the star was well-known for his improv skills. After they had a satisfactory scripted take, they would then do a wild take with the star ad-libbing entirely new dialogue. I once went to a taping of the short-lived SHAKY GROUND, and Matt Frewer's new jokes were absolutely funnier than the written ones, but when the show aired, they used the less-funny scripted lines, which struck me as a case of the writers/producers' egos trumping a superior result (perhaps one reason the show didn't last very long). What do you think of their actions, and were you in this situation, what would you do?

I would say to the star either you trust my judgment and writing or get another writer. I don’t write lines to compete with actors’ ad libs.

Look, it’s not the actors’ job to save shows and elevate the writing. Their job is hard enough, requiring enormous skill and discipline. It’s my job to give them the best possible material so they really shine.

Understandably, it can get tough when a show is built around a star, especially a stand-up, and if he has input, that’s fine. But during rehearsal. Once cameras are rolling I don’t want my actors throwing off the crew (who depend on line cues to move), and I don’t want my actors showing up the writers.

As for the specific lines in SHAKY GROUNDS, I can’t say why the writers ultimately stuck with their original ones. Maybe it was out of spite, or maybe the ad lib lines – although funny – didn’t move the story ahead.   I have to say, I have not heard many bad things about Matt Frewer. And I loved him in ORPHAN BLACK.

And finally, from Mitchell Hundred:

What do you think of famous movie people coming in to direct the pilots of TV shows (e.g. Martin Scorsese directing the pilot of Boardwalk Empire)? How much of an effect does it have on the show as a whole?

Networks are star fuckers. There’s great prestige in getting top flight film directors to direct TV pilots. On one level I can see it. A pilot sets the template for the series and an A-lister can really establish the look and tone.  An A-lister is also very promotable, which is a big plus in launching a new series. 

On the other hand, there are a lot of terrific TV directors, who also know how to move quickly. Film directors are used to a much more leisurely production schedule.

And film directors are ridiculously expensive. How else are you going to get some of these guys? They come in, work a few weeks, make a pile of money, leave and never come back, and generally have part ownership of the show. Sweet deal.

What’s your Friday Question? Happy holiday weekend.

THANKS

Thanks for reading the last ten years.   I thought the blog party was cool, but now I see in New York there's a whole big PARADE.   With giant balloons and Broadway stars freezing their asses off.   And later there are football games.  Really?   That's above and beyond.    It's just one little blog -- to make today a National Holiday -- well, that's almost more gratitude than I deserve.  But I really appreciate it.  I think I'll have a big turkey dinner to celebrate.  And hey, I just got an idea.  Although I can't have all of you here, maybe if you had your OWN turkey dinner tonight it would feel like we were all celebrating together.  Just a thought.  Again, THANKS.    And happy holidays.

Ken

Best Of: 2015 -- What I look for in a spec pilot

Thus concludes my year-a-day look back at ten years of blogging.  Here's a post from earlier this year.  A popular feature has been advice to young writers who will thank me someday when they win an Emmy.  Next January I begin teaching a graduate course in pilot writing at UCLA.  Here are the kinds of points I'll be stressing:

A few years ago, David Isaacs and I wrote a pilot for a major network. The development executive was new to the job. We turned in our first draft and heard he was very happy with it. Instead of going to the network for notes we would just do a conference call. The notes would be minimal. All the stuff that’s music to writers’ ears.

At the appointed time he got on the phone and was hugely complimentary. “It’s amazing how you guys introduced the premise and characters and set up the story and it all flowed, it never felt forced. We learned a lot about the characters along the way, and you got it all in in 46 pages.”

I know the appropriate answer would have been thank you and leave it at that. But for some reason I couldn’t do that. What I said instead was this:

“Thank you. That’s great to hear. But… that’s the job. We were just fulfilling the assignment. All of your pilots should come back like that. If not, you’re hiring the wrong writers.”

He laughed and said I was probably right.

The point is, there is a level of craft that should go into pilots. Setting up the premise, introducing the characters, seamlessly weaving in the exposition, setting the tone, being funny, letting the audience know the direction the show will go in – these are REQUIREMENTS.

The trick is to do all of that and have the jokes be better, the characters more original, and the story more inventive than the other well-crafted pilots. What sets one pilot script above the others should be inspiration not professionalism.

Young writers today are being told to write pilots as their specs. The industry is looking for exciting new voices.

What am I looking for when I read a spec pilot? Exciting new voices are nice, but first I’m trying to determine if this person even has a clue. The basics have to be there. Can this person tell a story? Are his characters well-drawn? Are their actions properly motivated? Are the jokes organic to the characters and tone? Do the jokes move the story along?   If a writer can accomplish all that and have a fresh outlook that is genuinely funny then he’s hit a home run. But if the execution is amateurish the exciting “voice” gets lost.

Learn the basics.

Master the craft of pilot writing. Yes, they're difficult and the process is time consuming and frustrating. But the good news is you’re competing with lots of people out there whose scripts are a hopeless mess. When I told that network executive to hire better writers, I was referring to YOU.

Best of luck.

Best Of: 2014 -- How we plotted stories on MASH

The "Best Of" now moves to 2014.  One thing you readers said you especially liked was inside stories on how we made MASH.  So here's one from March 16, 2014.
MASH episodes tend to be complicated and I’m often asked how we plotted out stories. So here’s how we did it.

First off, we chose the best stories we could find – the most emotional, the most interesting the best possibilities for comedy. Plotting is worthless if you have a bad story. Chekhov would pull out his hair trying to make “B.J.’s Depression” work. (Side note: stories where your lead character is depressed generally don’t work in comedy. Moping around is not conducive to laughs. Better to make them angry, frustrated, lovesick, impatient, hurt – anything but depressed… or worse, happy. Happy is comedy death.)

We got a lot of our stories from research – transcribed interviews of doctors, nurses, patients, and others who lived through the experience. But again, the key was to find some hook that would connect one of our characters to these real life incidents.

Some of these anecdotes were so outrageous we either couldn’t use them or had to tone them down because no one would believe them.

For each episode we had two and sometimes three stories. If we had a very dramatic story we would pair it with something lighter. The very first MASH we wrote, Hawkeye was temporally blind and Hawk & Beej pulled a sting on Frank.

We would try to mix and match these story fragments so that they could dovetail or hopefully come together at the end.

All that stuff you probably knew. What you didn’t know is this:

We broke the show down into two acts and a tag. Each act would have five scenes. Brief transition scenes didn’t count. But go back through some episodes. Five main scenes in the first act and five in the second. As best we could we would try to advance both of our stories in the same scenes. But each story is different and we tried to avoid being predictable.

Usually, we wrapped up the heavy story last. That’s the one you cared most about.

The tag would callback something from the body of the show, generally drawing from the funny story.

And then we had a rather major restriction: We could only shoot outside at the Malibu ranch for one day each episode. So no more than 8 pages (approximately a third of the show). And that was in the summer when there was the most light. By September and October we could devote 6 pages to exteriors. And once Daylight Savings was over that was it for the ranch for the season. All exteriors were shot on the stage. So if we wanted to do a show where the camp is overrun by oxen we better schedule it for very early in the summer. Those 20th guards never let oxen onto the lot without proper ID.

If possible we tried to do at least one O.R. scene a show. We wanted to constantly remind the audience that above all else this was a show about war.

We always feared that a sameness would creep into the storytelling so every season we would veer completely away from our game plan for several episodes just to shake things up and keep you off the scent. That’s how all format-breaking shows like POINT OF VIEW, THE INTERVIEW, and DREAMS came about. And during our years we extended that to a few mainstream episodes. We did NIGHT AT ROSIE’S that was more like a one-act play. Everything was set in Rosie’s Bar. (I wonder if a series like that but set in Boston would work?) We moved them all to a cave. We did an episode set exclusively in Post-Op and assigned each of our characters to a specific patient. Letters-to-home was another nice device.

I should point out here that I didn’t come up with the MASH guidelines for storytelling. That was all Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds (pictured). We just followed the template. And for the record, in all my years in the business, no one is better at story than Gene Reynolds. It was amazing how he could zero in on problems and more impressively, find solutions. The story had to constantly move forward, it had to have flow, logic, surprises, the comedy had to real as well as funny, and most of all – the dramatic moments (especially during the conclusion) had to be earned.

So that’s how we did it, based on how they did it. And when I occasionally watch episodes of MASH from our years there are always lines I want to change or turns that could be made more artfully or humorously, but those stories hold up beautifully. Thank you, Gene Reynolds.

Watching UNDATEABLE LIVE live

UNDATEABLE LIVE is unlike any sitcom I’ve ever worked on. And of course, I’m old enough that the first sitcom that ever put me on staff was run by Euripides. I’ve done single camera, multi-camera, block-and-shoot, tape, film, High-Def, and Greek Chorus, but I’ve never done one that aired live.

Last Friday I attended the broadcasts (I can’t say tapings) of UNDATEABLE LIVE after writing a post about the show saying I was curious to see what it’s like – the process and the contrasting experience of witnessing the broadcast and then seeing it on television.

This was my second attempt at this. Thankfully, there were no worldwide catastrophic events that caused cancellation. I understood why the producers and network cancelled last week and understand even more having now seen the process. It’s a party.

For a studio audience, it’s the best sitcom experience ever. Normally an audience will be there for at least three hours. Scenes are filmed multiple times and there are generally lengthy delays for costume changes, joke changes, and one light bulb goes out on the set necessitating six ladders, seven guys, and twenty minutes. With UNDATEABLE LIVE you’re in and out in ninety minutes tops. You sit down, a warm up guy gets you revved, there’s a band and musical guest, the cast is introduced, you watch the show ONCE, the musical guest does a few more numbers, and you go. Compare that with FRIENDS where it took so long to shoot an episode they literally had TWO audiences. After four or five hours the first audience was mercifully released and a new one took its place. Navy Seals in training are not put through that torture.

UNDATEABLE LIVE does two performances – one for the East Coast at 5:00 PM (8:00 back East) and 8:00 for the West Coast. Some changes are made between shows.

Me and Bill Lawrence

UNDATEABLE LIVE embraces the convention, which – what the hell? You might as well. Several of the cast members are stand ups, so they’re comfortable tossing out an ad lib now and again. And part of the fun of the show is watching to see if something unexpected happens – if an actor flubs a line, someone breaks up, the Messiah comes. There are meta lines where they occasionally break character and take shots at each others' career, and producers will sometimes give an actor a line intended to throw off another actor, but it’s clear viewers are watching the making of a television show; they’re not suspending belief and pretending there is a reality to the setting and situation. That’s the trade off, but again, what the hell? Their primary goal is to entertain so why not use all the tricks at their disposal?

Interaction is the key. They even give out a phone number and cast members have been known to talk to viewers during the broadcast. If only I could have called the Bionic Woman and asked her out.

The half-hour warm up is streamed on Periscope. Show runner Bill Lawrence also interacts with fans. Ironically, years ago only union photographers were allowed to take pictures on a sound stage. And now everyone including the dog is snapping photos and selfies.

Because of the looseness of the format and storytelling, scripts are only about 22 pages long. CHEERS scripts used to be almost double that. (Of course we also had more program time and no musical guests... except the Righteous Brothers).

Me and Phill Lewis

Unlike normal multi-camera shows where you have four cameras; UNDATEABLE LIVE has nine (eight standard cameras on rolling tripods and a hand-held). Credit to director Phill Lewis who can wrangle all of that and not emerge like Ozzie Osbourne after New Years Eve at a frat house. As a director myself, I can honestly say – a live sitcom is like working in the Hurt Locker but with more pressure.

During the show the writers all Tweet. The goal is to get the show trending. I remember Desi was very big on this during I LOVE LUCY’S heyday.

There is a running time that shows how many seconds or minutes they are over or under. During commercial breaks, Bill Lawrence goes out on the stage and makes cuts on the fly.

During the show it’s organized chaos. After the first scene they moved the bandstand and sixty people had to clear out. To my knowledge, no one was trampled. Even the network executives were forewarned. 

The show seems to go by like a shot. Of course, we’re not seeing the endless parade of commercials.

For the second show, they made cuts and added some new fun schtick designed to throw off the cast. Guest star Christa Miller (Bill Lawrence’s wife) grabs Chris D’Elia’s crotch. And Bianca Kajlich notes that when Christa was on THE DREW CAREY SHOW she was only five. (Christa was a good sport... and very funny.  It's not easy for a guest actor to join this insanity.)

I then went home and watched the West Coast version. It captures some of the craziness but not all. It’s obviously more of a delightful surprise when an actor says a line you know is an ad lib. Or when an actor does something physical that improves upon what he did in the first show. I imagine watching the Presicope pre-game and following the live-Tweets helps the home viewer feel like he’s part of the inner circle.

I love how experimental the show is, and wonder if I could make a suggestion? This occurred to me after watching the show on the air. I wonder, if one time, the audience could be told beforehand what tricks the writers have planned for the actors? The actors are off behind stage and Bill Lawrence or whoever takes fifteen seconds and tells the audience someone is going to grab Chris D’Elia’s crotch and Bianca and Bridget will be put on the spot. On the one hand you spoil the surprise, but on the other you have the fun that the audience is ahead of the actors. The audience might be more invested if they’re watching for these moments. I dunno. Could be a horrible idea.

Unfortunately, for UNDATEABLE it airs on a bad night and has an awful show that follows it. The audience for UNDATEABLE is out dating on Friday night. And 8:00 is a little early for some of the humor. The ratings have been bad, but what can you expect? What I’d like to see is NBC airing it one night after THE VOICE to really give the show a chance to prove itself. I don’t think NBC could get numbers Friday night at 8:00 with Kardashian sex tapes.

Thanks to Chris Luccy, the staff, and Bill Lawrence for letting me hang out. Usually you never like to look behind the curtain, but in this case, I wish everyone could. You need enormously skilled people to pull off a live sitcom – from the actors who get thrown new lines at the last minute, to the director who must adjust to changes live on the air, to the cameramen who have no second chances if they blow a shot – everyone is a tightrope artist and yet somehow they make it seem easy. The behind-the-show is awesome, and the show itself is getting there.