Registration ends tonight for the SITCOM ROOM. Remember, I only hold this once a year and for a maximum of twenty attendees. Trust me, this is a writing seminar unlike any one you’ve ever attended. For more info or to sign-up just go here to the SITCOM ROOM website. Thanks.From Dana King:
I stumbled across a cable show the other night that was about what a hell hole MASH was to work on, at least for the actors and crew. How McLean Stevenson actually left because he couldn't take it any more (And I always thought it was for HELLO, LARRY), and Wayne Rogers constantly battling with Fox and CBS. Without betraying confidences, how much of that is true, and how much is sour graping after the fact?
None of it is true. And it’s why I refuse to be interviewed for these shows. In order to get viewers they fabricate all this “inside dish”. Here are the facts.
Most of the MASH crew worked the entire eleven-year run of the show. If they were so miserable they would have bailed for other shows. The economy was actually good back then and there were other shows to go to.
McLean was frustrated playing a supporting role and was receiving all these offers to star in his own series. So he left but not before serving the length of his contract. When people are really unhappy they want out right NOW. That wasn’t the case. And I know McLean was devastated upon learning his character was being killed off. I imagine he thought there might be some way for him to guest on future episodes somewhere down the line.
Wayne Rogers was also frustrated. Hawkeye and Trapper were supposed to be equal characters (Wayne was actually hired first) but Alan emerged as the star. Don’t blame the producers. Blame America. Wayne went off seeking starring roles. He also had issues with the studio over certain deal points and objectionable clauses in his contract. There is another facet of Wayne and that is he's a brilliant businessman. His investments and financial endeavors have earned him far more than he was making as an actor – even on MASH.
Wayne still participates in MASH retrospectives and even said if he had known the show was going to stay on eleven years, “I probably would have kept my mouth shut and stayed put."
MASH was a very happy set. But if the documentary showed that for an hour no one would watch. Better to just keep showing Kristy McNicols having drug problems.
And Joe asks:
How can you tell (or at least improve your odds) when an actor or actress will devolve into a complete PITA?
By PITA I assume you mean monster and not the bread. When casting parts you try to do your homework. Ask people who have worked with the actor before. In television there’s a pretty good grapevine. Nightmarish behavior gets around at the speed of “Send”. So heed the actor’s reputation.
Sometimes you’re in a pickle because you know the actor can be difficult but they’re also brilliant and no one else is as perfect for the part. Then you have to make the “Is this person worth it?” decision… otherwise known as the “Mandy Patinkin” decision . Often times you make a Faustian deal with the devil. Lots of people got rich thanks to Brett Butler and GRACE UNDER FIRE but half of them are spending it all on 24-hour care at the drooling academy.
If the actor doesn’t have a reputation and you just meet them it’s very hard to tell if they’re going to become a major problem. Actors can be incredibly charming when they want to be. But that’s the result of good acting.
At this point, I need to make a distinction here. There is a big difference between an actor who is a pain in the ass and one is just high maintenance. The latter has a slower process but he’s genuinely working hard to give you the best possible performance on show night. The pain in the ass is a primadonna, unreliable, disruptive force who makes everyone’s life miserable, and worse, doesn’t give a shit. He's also a justification for waterboarding.
I must say however, that these bad seeds are very rare. The overwhelming majority of actors are fabulous people who treat those around them with respect and kindness. I have even had actors in my home.
What’s your question?
And just to be anally retentive about it: MacLean wouldn't have been leaving M*A*S*H for Hello, Larry, as that wasn't his first series after leaving. In fact, it was his third.
ReplyDeleteWV: "shiess" - the female form of "she".
"The economy was actually good back then"?
ReplyDeleteMaybe for people working on a TV show, but, if I recall, the 70s had two horrible recessions, and by the end of the decade, there was stagflation--high unemployment and high inflation--which wasn't supposed to happen.
Second what Larry said ("Hello, Larry"). I got out of college in the spring of '80 with an honors degree and three years of pro radio experience. Had to work my way through college eating broken taco shells (25 cents a bag from Taco Inn) and house brand refried beans. Only job I could find was minimum wage record store clerk. This was supposed to be the worst recession since the '30s, but I'm living like a king now, compared to the late '70s economy.
ReplyDeleteHi Ken-
ReplyDeleteI recently (this week) attended a taping of a new sitcom and noticed that several of the writers were not in their thirties, nor forties, but fifties, really. There were several young ones on staff, but I counted at least three middle aged, contributing writers on set. And by the way, I worked on a sitcom and know what to look for as far as identifying a working writer.
Can you provide any thoughts on the current television writing landscape and ageism?
A question for next Friday, perhaps:
ReplyDeleteI was in college in the 80s and had a friend at William and Mary who told a story about a classmate who wrote a spec script for M*A*S*H, submitted it and had it produced. This writer, the story went, wrote at least a few scripts while still a student at William and Mary, and eventually became a regular writer for M*A*S*H.
Is there any truth to this story, and if so is it something that could never happen now? I get the impression that it is much harder to get anyone to look at a spec script than this story made it sound.
Fred
Thanks for answering my question, Ken. I'm not sure why that show bothered me like it did. Maybe I just liked the show so much I wanted to think those making it were enjoying themselves as much as I was.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! MASH is one of my favorite shows and it's good to know that the people in front of and behind the camera were good people that worked well together.
ReplyDeleteKen;
ReplyDeleteI've just started reading your blog, and I'm back to mid-2007 so far, and I must say, it is absolutely wonderful to read the thoughts of the creative minds behind some of the shows that have provided me with hours of entertainment. I smile to myself when I am watching MASH on Hallmark channel and I see your name pop up on the end credits.
Since you so nicely asked what *my* questions were, here goes!
First, I'm a big fan of quality sit-coms, and often my first thoughts go to British shows (Royale Family, Fawtly Towers, anything with Steve Coogan in it). I've said all along that an American show has to go a long way to be as good as them, because writers/producers/actors have to create quadruple the amount of shows that they do in England.
It seems that the cable shows are drifting to this format, a smaller season, but one that can be crafted to a better finished product. I'd rather have 6 wonderful episodes of WEEDS than 22 episodes of hit-or-miss quality.
I'm not saying that there aren't shows that transcend this, but it's logical if you don't have to churn out as many shows, you can increase the quality. What's your take on that?
Second question (if you'll grant me!) is...and I'll kick myself, but I've forgotten my carefully thought out second question. Oh well, there is always another day!
Keep up the good work Ken!
I have read interviews in which McLean Stevenson talked about how 20th Century Fox treated them all in the early days, and it certainly is plausible that those objections led to better conditions. That said, I also think of Alan Alda telling how he and Larry Gelbart would drive home side-by-side in their cars, yelling ideas at each other through their windows. If you love what you do, you'll stick with it despite some setbacks.
ReplyDeleteKen, did you see the blog at Vanity Fair where they publish a speech by Larry Gelbart? Thought you'd enjoy as it's about writing.
ReplyDeleteTwo actors who had a reputation for being easy to work with, to the point where it might have hurt their chances of getting better roles: Robert Urich and Ronald Reagan.
ReplyDeleteGreat points, Ken. I have certainly worked for a diva, or two (no names) but I've also worked with some wonderful people.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Stark
Incidentally, every once in a while Wayne Rogers pops up on CNBC. (As does Frank Bank, who played "Lumpy" on Leave It To Beaver, as both of them are in the financial whiz category.)
ReplyDeleteThat's my trivia factoid du jour.
I should have asked this while Larry Gelbart was still alive, but maybe you know the answer. Gelbart worked on the first four seasons of MASH. The character of Charles Winchester, played by David Ogden Stiers, debuted in the sixth season. I'm curious about what Gelbart thought about that character, and the actor who played him.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading once that when they closed down the last real-life MASH in Korea sometimes in the 1990s, both Larry Gelbart and David Odgen Stiers showed up for the closing ceremony. I thought that was kind of nice, as both men represented two different TV MASH eras.
I think Larry Linville was at the closing of the last real Korean M*A*S*H unit. I've heard the producers say that he was one of those actors who was too decent a guy to make waves while his character was being written into a corner.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI saw an inteview where Larry Linville said that Frank Burns was basically a comic construct. Few actors made more out of a comic construct. Especially during his final season. He was hilarious.
ReplyDeleteKEN LEVINE SAID: "Most of the MASH crew worked the entire eleven-year run of the show. If they were so miserable they would have bailed for other shows. The economy was actually good back then and there were other shows to go to."
ReplyDeleteAs an impartial observer, I can vouch for everything Ken said. He was kind enough to invite me to the MASH set on several occasions and they were a wonderful and friendly group who clearly enjoyed working together.
Ray
Ted Danson was interviewed yesterday by Terry Gross for Fresh Air, I just caught the podcast.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good interview, he gives Shelley Long a lot of credit for the success of Cheers, he felt he got the role of Sam Malone because he worked well with her in the audition, and he thought she was crucial in the first couple of years. Ted was working on developing that Sam Malone style of athlete's arrogance, but it didn't kick in for a couple of seasons.
Regular TV series, probably US ones more than UK, are very much written 'on the fly', as regular Ken fans will appreciate. Last-minute changes to accommodate actor problems or producer brain farts are very much the rule, as much today as ever. The point is that for all this to reach your screen, there has to be a teamwork ethos on set and location. If anybody's grandstanding, or being disruptive or over-demanding - or anybody in production just doesn't give a fuck - it marks the whole show. And contrariwise, no show gets to be a long-term hit without the majority of the people on it having the love of that show at heart. People in a show know when something is bigger than all of them put together.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Stark doesn't name names...but if you check the credits...well, let's just say, you might get a clue or two.
ReplyDeleteMy question is . . . did anyone on the MASH writing staff understand poker? I was always amazed when I watched scenes that included poker games. In one Charles was beating everyone in poker until they found out he had a tell. In the final scene, his tell shows that he's bluffing and EVERYONE calls him. Potter said "Can anyone or everyone beat (Charles's hand)?" Well EVERYONE can't win the pot so even though most of the people at the table knew the tell, they threw their money away.
ReplyDeleteAlso in most scenes the pots had no relevance. Henry once counted out his remaining monthly pay and said "That leaves me $40 to play poker with." However the pots usually were announced to be in the hundreds. $40 would last him one hand, and only if they used the "table stakes" rule like they do in Vegas which few home games use.
That was right about the time Farrah Fawcett and Suzanne Summers left their respective shows. It is rarely a good career move to walk out on a successful show.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings to mind a few more complicated cases:
ReplyDeleteWould Chevy Chase have had a more durable career if he'd not left Saturday Night Live so abruptly early in its second year? Five years later, or even 7 years later (National Lampoon's Vacation), it would have been possible to argue convincingly that he'd made a good decision - but for not much longer than that.
And also the converse, the case of David Caruso and NYPD Blue - who would have thought (after his roles in various underperforming features during 1995-2000) that he might eventually star in a series that has a chance of running as long as NYPD Blue did?
A once asked Mick Taylor if he wished he'd stayed with the Stones. He told me that if he'd stayed, he'd be dead. Staying or going, sometimes the reasons aren't clear for many years.
ReplyDeleteKen -- you're a writer; please stop using the abominable often times.
ReplyDelete[it was there somewhere near the hilarious Mandy Patinkin decision]
"often" is all about times, baby. And "often times" isn't a cute or quaint colloquialism; it's a symptom of modern prolixity.
PS Yes, I am a douchebag.
PPSS Yes, I write comments about free gift; indeed, I get a lot more animated in my objections.
thanks
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteI just watched one of my favourite Frasier episodes - "The Innkeepers." How difficult was that one to shoot, and did you get the car coming through the wall in one take?
i like the comedy movies
ReplyDeleteAny 'work' in acting leaves little if anything to WHINE about. Talk to anyone who REALLY works. IE plumbers, resraurant staff, barbers, ditch diggers, etc. etc. THOSE that WORK make up the majority of us out here. And we slave for a lot less money.
ReplyDeleteI always preferred Wayne Rogers and McLean Stevenson in the show. Year 3 (1974-1975)is considered to have achieved the highest quality in writing and directing. If you take, for example, the episode "There Is Nothing Like a Nurse", the scene where they watch the B&W film of Frank's wedding is a classic. Try to imagine Mike Farrell and/or Harry Morgan instead of Wayne Rogers and McLean Stevenson. IMO, this wouldn't have worked at all. The same argument applies to,for example,the episodes "Big Mac", "Private Charles Lamb" & "A Full Rich Day". I really disliked the later years where Mike Farrell and Harry Morgan had to go on "meaningful journeys" to understand the implications of reacting to a moral and/or ethical dilemma.
ReplyDeleteI wondered why the studio let McLean Stevenson out of his contract? I assume he signed a 5 year contract as did, say, Larry Linville. The situation appears to be similar to Barbara Bain's contract dispute with Paramount Pictures with the "Mission: Impossible" tv show in 1969. Apparently,Barbara Bain gave no indication during the hiatus about returning. The studio replaced Bain for Year 4 and then Bain sued them for breach of contract. The result was that Bain was unable to take any acting work for 2 years. This was the unfulfilled duration of the contract. Why didn't 20th Century Fox follow this procedure? Stevenson would have been legally restrained in accepting the NBC deal.
ReplyDeleteI was watching “M*A*S*H Memories” (1990) which is a documentary where they interviewed all the main actors separately. IIRC, they showed a clip where Radar gives a horse to Potter and the actor/character starts crying. What??!! It’s a horse. He cries because he gets a horse as a gift. BTW, the show is “Dear Mildred” in Year 4. This is where the series started to get a bit weird. The actor/character goes a bit extreme in terms of emotion to an act that is a bit trivial. I suppose this is where nearly all the other actor/characters began to “share meaningful moments”, which I found to be a bit too intense and over wrought. The cloying sentiment didn’t really belong in the show.
ReplyDeleteIn the year 3 "Love & Marriage" episode there is a scene that epitomises the tone and style of years 1-3. Radar says "It sure would be lovely if we could get the mummy and daddy back together with their baby" and Blake replies "Will you cut it out?!" A bit later Trapper says "Isn't there something we can do for them?" This is exactly right. They're just being practical. If Mike Farrell and Harry Morgan were there instead, there would have been endless crying and droning on about how "war is very bad." Which version would anyone prefer?
ReplyDeleteI loved MASH. Initially I really didnt like the first 3 seasons because they seemed trite and without substance. I watched them again recently, in addition to the later seasons. Yes, there's some real duds, but overall they all worked. The show was taking on a new depth, that Henry Blake nor Trappers John ever showed much. It was good the actors left. I loved BJ Honour - moral, ethical, and human. Sometimes very funny. Col. Potter was a wonderful father figure for the whole unit. He was the ideal "Dad". And then there's Hawkeye. He was funny, had causes, and was one of the craziest and bravest people I have seen. Hawkeye is my hero. And I have tremendous respect and love for Alan Alda. The show was tremendously funny yet had incredible depth, especially when it came to humanity and compassion - things that our world now is sorely in need of. My heartfelt thanks goes out to the whole team for M*A*S*H - the actors, the creators, the writers, the producers, and all the other ones that put the shows together. I was too young to see the show while it was running, but I've watched it many times in syndication and on DVD since I was a teenager. It has had a large impact on my life and how I see the world, and I am very grateful. Good night and good luck and God bless.
ReplyDeleteTrapper John and BJ Honnicut that is.
ReplyDeleteLArry Linville was the real comedic Star of MASH--when he left-it stopped being funny and got serious. Likewise the show went on for too long--in the The Late Capatin Pierce takes place in Dece 1952-and the real war only lasted for 7 months after that! The show whould have just ended in the 4th season with the following Swain Songs--Houlihan flies off to Tokyo to get married; a defferent ending for "Souveniors" has Frank burns under arrest for possession of a Koren National treasure; and as for HAwkeye Pierce "The Late Captain Pierce" He just goes home-pronto; if there was a spin off it would be 20 years after the War when McClean Stevenson comes home after being shipwrecked on a desert island and becomes his normal drunken slob as usual....
ReplyDeleteI noticed in Years 4 – 8 that Radar gradually seemed to became more “naive” and “juvenile”, which is just bizarre. In Year 3, for example, Radar could be seen to be sly and devious in some circumstances. In the interaction with Henry Blake, Radar could manipulate Blake to achieve a resolution for some injustice. This makes Radar a more complex and believable character. I got the impression when Potter/Morgan came in that Radar had to become a more simplistic character so that Potter/Morgan could do the “war weary veteran” routine. This “routine” goes something like “You know, son, war is very bad but you and I have gone on a meaningful journey........etc”. This reduces Radar to a “construct” to accommodate the “war weary veteran”, which was a cliche/stereotype even before Potter/Morgan came in to the show.
ReplyDeleteIn the Year 2 “Dear Dad...3” episode there is a funny, warm and touching scene with Blake, Pierce & McIntyre. It’s the scene where they’re watching Blake’s recent home movie. McLean Stevenson gives a beautifully understated performance in this scene. Henry Blake gets slightly tearful and has a sad, wistful smile when viewing one of the final scenes but that’s it. Just excellent. Unfortunately, they used the same idea for Farrell/Hunnicutt and the result is very different. This actor/character’s reaction is to launch into “insane crying” mode. All this does is to render the emotional impact of the scene as less effective.
ReplyDeleteHi Ken, so glad MASH is now on Netflix. I've watched it habitually over the past few months. Much thanks to you for your contributions in writing on this show. In the 80's watching reruns of MASH was my favorite pastime. It still is. This show helped me understand the world as a teenager and continues to resonate with me today.
ReplyDeleteI watched the Year 2 “Hotlips & Empty Arms” *episode and would say that this is one of the best episodes of Year 2, along with the classic “Deal Me Out” episode. The script for this *episode is very clever. It’s difficult to explain but the script sort of “reverses” the established character dynamics and reveals different “aspects” of the main characters. For example, in the scene where Loretta Swit and McLean Stevenson are discussing the transfer request, their respective characters’ reactions reveal a depth of concern and respect you would rarely see between Hotlips and Henry Blake. The direction of this is just brilliant. The director Jackie Cooper really brings this to life. There’s another scene where Blake orders Pierce & McIntyre to take care of Hotlips and then asks them politely and they all start laughing. This looks spontaneous, like an ad-lib. It’s another example of attention to continuity and detail.
ReplyDeletedime, I'M not sure which episode you're referring to near the end there,but I'll assume you know that Jackie Cooper was long gone after the' 74 season and agree W/ everything you said .the scene between Potter and Houlihan was special,and you can't help but compare the 2 commanders.one was the reluctant Col.of what the first Gen. called a 'nut farm'.Potter ran an outfit that often resembled a nut farm. but we can't expect Potter to tell Klinger(as did Blake)" Klinger it's after 3 and you're still in a house coat? put on a dress for cryin' out loud" i'VE read the shit talkin' that Jackie Cooper did about the cast OF M*A*S*H,and it seems to me he was a bit rough, a bit backward, but very talented. he actually asked Alan Alda to do a newsreel to support the boys in VIET NAM. THIS WAS IN '73 & '74 THAT JC was there.by this time you couldn't find anyone who still believed that this shitty quagmire of a War was worth American lives.the whole point of the show was in contrast to that sentiment. he rightly told JC," I won't encourage those kids to prolong this war."sorry ,folks ,but 35,000 or so Americans died in Korea,and it was so damn obvious that it was prequel to VIET NAM .we now have a maniacal NORTH KOREAN dictator w/ an ICBM. WHAT A WASTE.
ReplyDeleteObviously, MASH has become a classic television show. I have my favorite characters. Much preferred Trapper (Wayne Rogers) over BJ (Mike Farrell). Actually, I prefer all of the original characters. But I will also say that I think Maj. Winchester (David Ogden Stiers) and Col. Potter (Harry Morgan) stepped right in and didn't diminish the program AT ALL. They just provided new characters for different storylines. I will also say that after Wayne and Henry and Frank left I think the show took more of a turn away from zany humor and went more in a direction of making moral and social and political statements. Which was fine. I guess you could say the program became more sophisticated in its approach to humor. But I still like that original crew. And that original zaniness.
ReplyDeleteI preferred Henry Blake to Sherman Potter, and I thought Trapper was a better character than B.J Hunnicutt. Frankly, I thought Hunnicutt was rather sarcastic and even condescending. I really couldn't stand the character. However, if I had to choose between Hunnicutt and Potter, I would choose Potter who was a good character but Henry was better.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThough this thread about M*A*S*H has been up for a long time, I want to add that the show was top of the mark for its entire 11 year run. The new characters like Winchester, B.J and Potter added their own unique stamps and the show was always funny and relevant. I loved Henry Blake. Though he seemed incompetent as a rule, he always rose to the occasion in a crisis. My affection for Hawkeye has waned over the years but the writing is so good, I enjoy watching every episode no matter how many times I have seen them. I think that the Radar character was more significant than many realize and Gary Burgoff's talent in bring Radar to life was admirable. Loretta Swit showed good range playing Margaret, a force of nature. She could be a scold, an enemy, a friend or dead sexy as the scripts demanded. Good on her for insisting that her character evolve and grow over 11 years. Ultimately, I never liked the choice to send Hawkeye to a sanitarium for a time during the the two hour, final episode. Having used his devastating wit as a survival mechanism, it just didn't seem right for him to hit a psychological wall at the end. I still chuckle when Hawkeye is holding a too large home made sweater from his sister when he was presented as being an only child otherwise. In the end, M*A*S*H is a clinic on writing and we are now in a world where "Friends" is considered to be classic TV. The mind boggles.