Why did I watch a show every week I didn't really like?

BRAINDEAD has concluded its summer run. I ended up watching the whole thing. But the suspense for me was not wondering what was going to happen, it was whether or not I figured out why I just couldn’t get into this show. I felt like Dr. House wrestling with why a patient suddenly spoke French and his thumbs turned into ping-pong paddles.

I certainly give the show props for being ambitious. Trying to be a comedy/drama/satire/romance/political/sci-fi/farce/procedural/titillating/horror/thriller is not easy. The creators are Robert & Michelle King who will forever be in the TV writers’ Hall of Fame (as if there was such a thing) for THE GOOD WIFE alone. (Did Kirk Gibson ever have to do more than hit that dramatic home run in the 1988 World Series? Or Sharon Stone having to… you know … in BASIC INSTINCT?)

There were moments when BRAINDEAD was inspired fun. Unfortunately, the show was an hour.

So what went wrong? Or what went right but didn’t last?

I don’t have any definitive answers, just some theories. But here goes.

I think the show needed to declare just what it was. THE GOOD WIFE was clearly a drama with touches of comedy sprinkled in from time to time. But comedy did not have do any heavy lifting. MASH was a comedy with dramatic underpinnings. For hour comedies, I dunno, maybe ALLY MCBEAL?

The tone would shift on BRAINDEAD from moment to moment and you just had no idea what you were watching.

For me, the best part of the show (by a mile) was the musical recaps by singer-songwriter Jonathan Coulton. They were hilarious. During one episode he also did a recap of a GUNSMOKE episode. This device clearly tells you you’re watching a quirky comedy. Then the show begins and there’s long discussions about senate appropriation bills and a hidden plan to install internment camps. Huh? For several weeks the thrust of episodes would be swarms of alien ants entering peoples’ brains in delicious horror flick fashion. Then the last few episodes someone must’ve discovered RAID because that storyline disappeared.

Now it’s not unusual for a show to find its groove several episodes in. The producers see what works and steer towards that. Part of why I stick with BRAINDEAD is that I feel sooner or later they will. It’s uneven now but they’ll find the right direction.

Another issue, the characters aren’t in the same show. Tony Shalhoub is clearly in a comedy. And it’s soooo obvious he’s having a ball playing this deranged senator. Series star Mary Elizabeth Winstead is in a drama. I find her lovely and real, but Mary Liz is not naturally funny. Or so it seems from this show. What’s developed is that the characters who are infiltrated by the ants are in a comedy and the ones who are ant-free are in a drama. And the scenes between them tend to be awkward.

Also, the main character isn’t very active. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is primarily a reactor. People say weird things to her or act out in strange ways and she’s required to give them a look of “Okay, THAT was unexpected.” You could play a drinking game with how many times she's asked to do that during the course of one episode. Yes, she’s trying to get to the bottom of this conspir-ant-cy, but most of the time she is content to sit at her desk and wait for the next crisis to rear its evil antennae.

The visual tone is also a little schitzo. This too is understandable. Different directors come in and bring different strengths. At its best, the show tries to be somewhat Coen Brothers-esque. Odd angles, push ins and push outs, actors looking directly into the camera. Some directors pull it off better than others. On movies you have the advantage of one director with a consistent vision. Not so in TV, which is why networks want to hire movie directors to direct pilots. They establish a look and tone and hopefully the series directors can copy it. I suspect BRAINDEAD is hard on directors for all the problems I have with the show. Is this scene dramatic or tongue-in-cheek? Do bizarre angles enhance or detract from this moment?

I hope BRAINDEAD figures it out (assuming it comes back – a big assumption). Creatively, they’re walking a real tightrope that few can maneuver. I think of DR. STRANGELOVE as being one vehicle that did masterfully. But all of the characters, although deadly serious, had wacky points-of-view, and despite its extremely dramatic subject matter, the satire and absurdity of the situation hung over everything. As directed by Stanley Kubrick, DR. STRANGELOVE was definitely a comedy. Every so often the Coen Brothers can also strike a perfect “Fargo” balance.

So that's why I hung in there until the bitter end.  And if it ever resurfaces I'll give it another chance.  Maybe they'll figure it out.  Personally, I hope they veer more towards comedy, if for no other reason than to keep doing  the Jonathan Coulton recaps.

9-11 and David & Lynn Angell

I re-post this every year on this date and always will. 

9/11 affected us all, profoundly and in many cases personally. Two of my dear friends were on flight 11. David and Lynn Angell. There hasn’t been a day I haven’t thought of them, missed them, and not felt grateful that they were in my life.

David and I worked together on CHEERS, WINGS, and FRASIER (the latter two he co-created). We used to call him the “dean”. In his quiet way he was the one we always looked to for final approval of a line or a story direction. He brought a warmth and humanity to his writing that hopefully rubbed off on the rest of us “schickmeisters”. And he could be funny – sneaky funny. During long rewrite sessions he tended to be quiet. Maybe two or three times a night he’d pitch a joke – but they were always the funniest jokes of the script.

For those of you hoping to become comedy writers yourselves, let David Angell be your inspiration. Before breaking in he worked in the U.S. Army, the Pentagon, an insurance firm, an engineering company, and then when he finally moved out to L.A. he did “virtually every temp job known to man” for five years. Sometimes even the greatest talents take awhile to be recognized.

I first met David the first season of CHEERS. He came in to pitch some stories. He had been recommended after writing a good NEWHART episode. This shy quiet man who looked more like a quantum physics professor than a comedy writer, slinked into the room, mumbled through his story pitches, and we all thought, “is this the right guy? He sure doesn’t seem funny.” Still, he was given an assignment (“Pick a con…any con”) and when the script came back everyone was just blown away. He was quickly given a second assignment (“Someone single, someone blue”) and that draft came back even better. I think the first order of business for the next season was to hire David Angell on staff.

After 9/11, David’s partners Peter Casey & David Lee called me and my partner into their office. There was a FRASIER script David Angell was about to write. (It was the one where Lilith’s brother arrived in a wheelchair and became an evangelist. Michael Keaton played the part.) Peter & David asked if we would write it and for me that was a greater honor than even winning an Emmy.

David’s wife, Lynn, was also an inspiration. She devoted her life to helping others – tirelessly working on creating a children’s library and a center that serves abused children.

My heart goes out to their families. To all of the families.

I still can’t wrap my mind around it.

So tragic, so senseless, and even fifteen years later, so inconceivable.

My favorite comedy screenplays

Someone asked me to list my top ten favorite comedy screenplays. Fine, as long as I don’t have to do it in order and don’t have to limit myself to ten. These are my favorites, which means these are the movies I wish I had written.

ALL ABOUT EVE – Joseph Mankiewicz. Sharpest dialogue I’ve ever heard. The film is 60 years old and still crackles. Saw it again recently. What a pleasure to watch, especially now during the dumbing down of America.

SOME LIKE IT HOT – Billy Wilder & IAL Diamond. Disproves its classic last lane. Somebody IS perfect.

HEARTBREAK KID – Neil Simon (although the hand of director Elaine May is clearly evident). Jewish men generally love this movie, Jewish women hate it. A young Charles Grodin gives the comic performance of his career. And Eddie Albert (yes, Eddie Albert) will make you laugh out loud. Ignore the remake.

THE LADY EVE – Preston Sturgess, story by Monckton Hoffe & Preston Sturgess. Screwball comedy at its funniest and most sophisticated. Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda – not who you naturally think of as a comedy team but they pull it off with ease.

HIS GIRL FRIDAY – Screenplay by Charles Lederer, based on the play by Ben Hecht & Charles MacArthur. Cary Grant & Rosalind Russell trade quips at a pace that makes THE NEWSROOM seem slow. And every word out of their mouths is a gem.

ARTHUR -- Steve Gordon's masterpiece. For more info on Steve and scenes that were cut from his original draft, check out my archives.

TOOTSIE – Larry Gelbart (although fifteen other writers also had a hand in it). If there seems to be a pattern in the comedies I like its men posing as women or “Eve” in the title.

TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN – Woody Allen. This movie was a revelation, especially when you consider that at the time (late 60’s) most “comedies” were lame Doris Day type films.

YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN – Mel Brooks & Gene Wilder. “Putting on the Ritz” scene alone puts this in my top ten.

ANNIE HALL -- Woody Allen & Marshall Brickman. For my money the perfect romantic comedy. (How could the same guy write HOLLYWOOD ENDING?)

MOONSTRUCK – John Patrick Shanley. Okay, so there are two perfect romantic comedies.

CHASING AMY – Kevin Smith. Funny, real, pitch perfect.  One perk of doing his podcast earlier this year was being able to tell him that.  

AMERICAN GRAFFITI – George Lucas and Gloria Katz & Willard Huyck. A consistently funny movie that doesn’t even try to be a comedy. And what a soundtrack!

DR. STRANGELOVE – Stanley Kubrick and Peter George and Terry Southern. The perfect black comedy. And there are no other perfect black comedies.

THE PRODUCERS – Mel Brooks. The movie not the movie of the musical based on the movie. That was dreadful.

LA CAGE AUX FOLLES – Jean Poiret, Francis Veber, Edouard Molinaro, Marcello Damon. Even the subtitles were funny.

FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL -- Richard Curtis. Even Andie McDowell couldn't kill this English confection. But boy did she try.

SHOWGIRLS – Joe Eszterhas. So unspeakably terrible on every level that you can’t help but laugh throughout. (Okay, so that’s one I’m glad I didn’t write). It's a tribute to Elizabeth Berkley's talent that after starring in this movie she still has a career.

Everyone is invited to list your favorites. Including VOLUNTEERS is not mandatory.

Wow! I now even have a Facebook page!

Dedicated to my new play, GOING GOING GONE!  Feel free to click here to go there.   And "like" if you're so inclined.  Or book even!   It's a small theatre and seats are limited. 

All I know is Eugene O'Neill said the only reason he wrote plays was to get dedicated Facebook pages for them, so I'm in good company. 

Friday Questions

Make a hole. Friday Questions coming through.

Andrew is up first with a question sparked but something I said recently in a post.

" (Robert) DeNiro was in for five minutes but he bailed (probably to take DIRTY GRANDPA or some other truly terrible role)."

Friday question: Why do great actors do this? Why does DeNiro keep appearing in one movie after another that's far beneath him? It's like he's trying to sabotage his reputation. He could star in any movie he wants to. Why choose such dreck at the end of his career? Why not rather retire on a high note?

Several reasons. Actors sometimes want to be in big commercial movies, or get a big payday.

There are some actors who are a bad judge of material.

And there are actors who get bad advice from agents and managers and girlfriends.

Robert DeNiro is one of our greatest living screen actors. But comedy is not his strong suit. And unless he’s got a really good script and really fine director who can keep him in check he is awful at comedy. See him in the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie. He is staggeringly bad. And worse, he thinks he’s killing.

On the other hand, Robert Redford always seems to have good judgment when it comes to material. His movies may not all be great, but most are reasonably intelligent and worth watching. I can’t think of an instance where I saw Redford really terrible. He has a great sense of what works for his persona and range.

The Rocky and Bullwinkle movie was so bad I’m surprised even the cartoon characters agreed to be in it.

From ally:

If you could do a two-hour radio show as a special guest (say, on any Sirius channel), what would the format be? Would you play music, or have the equivalent of a podcast? If you played music, what would you choose and what would be your bumps in/out? If you had more of a podcast, what would you talk about?

I would mostly do a comedy show. I would ideally have a guest or two I could interview, maybe a few prepared sketches, and I would definitely play music (primarily from the ‘60s) and I would talk right up to the vocals.

It would essentially be a fun “morning show” with a lot of goofiness.

Siriux/XM, if you’re reading this – a two-hour show a week sounds super cool. Feel free to ask me to do one.

NickL wonders:

With all this talk about Garry Marshall being such a nice person in addition to being a talent and a visionary, it got me thinking...

Who would you rather work with (or for): a person who has the reputation for being an unbelievably nice person but whose talent is questionable, or someone who is openly an asshole/bitch but is enormously talented?

In a perfect world, you'd want to work with another Garry Marshall, with him being nice and talented. But I guess he was one in a billion. And that's kind of sad.

Thank you!

Early in your career it might (I say “might”) be worth it to work for a tyrant who can really teach you and turn you into a better writer. And if he's running a hot show that looks good for your resume. 

But there reaches a point where “life is too short.” (For me that’s like an hour.) I’d rather work for the mensch. What good are Emmys and lots of money if you’re in ICU?

And finally, from Andy Rose:

As a showrunner, how important is it to you to allow your staffers to have a home life? Modern Family has a reputation for having one of the most predictable production schedules in LA. Writers aren't expected to put in all-nighters at the office. There are no shoots going to 3am because of demanding directors or last-minute rewrites that keep everybody waiting on set for pages. Megan Ganz wrote two episodes of Community that mercilessly made fun of the sitcom-umentary style, but ironically she left that show to join Modern Family. She admitted her move was mostly because she wanted to live a normal life and not spend 18 hours a day on the lot.

This depends on two primary factors. The biggest is the showrunner. If he likes to work at night, if he’s very slow at making decisions, or changes his mind a lot, if he’s very unorganized so everything is done last minute, or he’s recently divorced and lonely you can expect to work all hours and weekends.

If the showrunner has a life, if he has a family he wants to see then you stand a much better shot at leading a normal life.

The other factor is the show itself. Are there creative issues? Is the network throwing out stories and scripts and forcing you to go back to the drawing board every week? Is there a star who hates everything and has the power to make the writers rewrite endlessly night after night? Is the staff burning out so things are taking longer? Usually shows like this don’t last long and you’re put out of your misery.  But shows with slow showrunners or insane showrunners can make your life a living  hell for many seasons to come.

If you’re interviewing for a job, check to see if there are family photos on the showrunner’s desk. If there are just the kids you’re in trouble.

Who was Ted Baxter really modeled after?

If someone asks me a Friday Question that I don't know the answer to but do know someone who DOES I try to get that person to graciously share the information with all of you.  Today is one of those times.   Here's a Friday Question that became an entire post.  And to answer it, please welcome Arlen Peters.   He'll explain who he is.   Thanks, Arlen!


The question, by -30-, is this:

You worked with Mary Tyler Moore. Maybe you know the answer to this.

I am reading Jeffrey Toobin's new book about Patty Hearst and the SLA. In it he says that KNXT became the prototype of local news because MTM's aunt "worked as the business manager of the station and she shared tales...of anchor Jerry Dunphy--who served as the model for the hapless Ted Baxter." I also thought Baxter was based more on local newsman George Putnam. I never saw Dunphy as Baxter-like.

Do you know the real story?

I’m not Ken, but I do know the “real story” to your question. A little background for you. From ’68-’75, I worked for the CBS Radio Network writing and directing features. One of the people I wrote for was Jerry Dunphy, who, at that time, was the respected anchorman for the local CBS TV station, KNXT, in Los Angeles. Jerry had a celebrity interview show. Each week I would interview a celebrity, edit the interviews, write a “wrap-around” and Dunphy would come in and record the shows each week. More to come on this.

It’s true that Mary’s aunt worked for the station and Jim Brooks, Allan Burns and the writing staff spent time in the newsroom observing what when on, watched reporters, etc. to gather background for the show which was being developed.

Obviously the show went on to be one of great sitcoms in TV history.  One of its characters was the pompous, gray-haired anchorman, Ted Baxter, played superbly by Ted Knight. Since CBS had a fine group of shows in those years (MASH/NEWHART/MTM/CAROL BURNETT), I was always asked to interview talent on those shows and was happy to do it. I never consulted with Dunphy on who I was going to book and interview. I just handed him the scripts, he read them and that was it.

Until …

I had already interviewed Mary, and when I went to interview Ted, the first thing he said was “I’m stunned you want to talk to me!” He went on to tell me that Jerry Dunphy hated him because he felt that Ted was humiliating him each week by playing Dunphy as a pompous buffoon. When I asked Ted if it was true, he said yes, there was a lot of Dunphy in his portrayal but also a big helping of another famed Los Angeles anchorman during this same time by the name of George Putnam.

Since I was there, Ted and I agreed to do the interview and it turned out to be a delight. He was a rare performer who was witty and funny and charming, loaded with stories and anecdotes … and it came so effortlessly to him! I went back to the station, went through my interviews that week, wrote my pieces, and with scripts and tape cuts in hand, entered the studio and handed Dunphy his scripts. And it was fine … until …

Jerry came to the Ted script … looked up at me with an ice-cold-looks-can-kill look and said “Are you fucking crazy? Why would you give one second of time to someone who makes fun of me to all of America each week.” I kind of thought I would get that type of reaction, but the interview was great and I wanted to use it. So at this point I went into what I would consider an Emmy/Oscar winning performance of my own. “What’s the problem Jerry? I asked, as if I didn’t know. Dunphy went on and on haranguing me and I let him vent … and then uttered my retort, with the utmost sincerity … “Ted said he was doing Putnam, never you.” What followed was an incredulous look from Dunphy. “So he’s doing Putnam?” “Putnam all the way Jerry. Ted loves you.” With those words and my sincere delivery, I expected my statuette to be handed to me … but it was good enough that Jerry accepted the explanation and taped the piece … and as he was leaving, he once again muttered “Putnam huh?” sounding just like Ted, then ambling down the CBS hallway with that same Ted Baxter strut!

And that’s the REAL story!

Thanks again, Arlen.  I bet George Putnam hated Ted too.  

JEWEL OF THE NILE and why I will be forever haunted by it

Here is a Friday Question that became an entire post. It’s very hard for me to write this (as you will see). There is no humor in today’s post. If anything it is heartbreaking and I cannot even think of this story without tearing up.

Do You Have Any Wings? Asked this question about a film that David Isaacs and I rewrote, JEWEL OF THE NILE.

Kathleen Turner recently did a Q&A which featured this comment; "The only sequel I ever made was Jewel of the Nile. I'd made a contractual commitment when we did Romancing. And that almost destroyed my friendship with Michael. At first I refused to do the first script that they sent me of jewel. It simply wasn't the same quality in terms of the writing.  But we worked it out, but not before they sued me for $25m dollars. Michael agreed to get the original writer back so we could continue."

Was that why you were brought in?

Diane Thomas wrote ROMANCING THE STONE and did a spectacular job. Practically everything you saw up on the screen – the humor, suspense, warmth, vivid imagination, that was all Diane.

She of course was approached to write the sequel but was tied up writing a movie for Steven Spielberg. So Michael hired the team of Mark Rosenthal & Lawrence Konner to do the screenplay of JEWEL OF THE NILE.

That was the draft Kathleen Turner had trouble with, as did Michael Douglas.

At this point David and I were brought on to do a rewrite. We did a rather extensive one, primarily trying to make sense of the story.

We also had a time crunch. In order to start filming in Morocco, their government had to approve the script. And the script needed to be translated into French, which would take a few more days. Additionally, there was the threat of a Writers Guild strike so we were pushed pretty hard to finish the rewrite quickly.

The hardest part of the script was the first act. In ROMANCING THE STONE, Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner) learns right away that her sister has been kidnapped and she has to go rescue her. The story is off and running.

Remember the end of ROMANCING THE STONE? Jack (Michael Douglas) buys a boat and as a grand gesture presents it to her in Manhattan and the take-away is that they’re going to sail around the world together and live happily ever after.

So now we pick them up in the sequel. They’re tan, they’re sipping champagne, they’re livin’ the life. No more adventures for these two. They’ve got it made.

Except we need an adventure. And a reason for them to abandon the good life and once again throw themselves in harm’s way. Not an easy task.

We could say that they’re just bored, but that’s a tough sell to an audience that would give anything to trade places with them.

Anyway, we did the best we could in the time frame allotted and turned it in. Michael loved our rewrite but still had trouble with act one. Don’t blame him. So did we.

He called me at home from Paris on a Friday night to say he did something not entirely kosher (but producers do what they have to do to get movies made). He had called Diane Thomas and asked if she’d work with us on the first act. Were we okay with that? We were thrilled. These were Diane’s characters. Who knew them better than she did?

She was only available that weekend, which meant working Saturday and Sunday. We didn’t care.

Diane was an absolute delight. So smart, so inventive, so kind. We meshed instantly. It was a wonderful weekend and I was proud of the results. So was Michael and off the script went to be translated.

The Moroccan government approved it and plans were made to start filming in the late spring.

We moved on and accepted an offer to create a new sitcom for Mary Tyler Moore.

Michael called and asked if we could be on the set during production. Normally we would have said “sure.” Morocco wasn’t a picnic, but there was also the South of France. Plus, what a cool experience. But we were locked in to the MTM project and had to pass.

So Michael did what I thought was a strange thing. He hired the original writers, Rosenthal & Konner to be there for production. So what did they do? They tossed out most of our script and put their original material back in. I defy anyone to explain the plot of JEWEL OF THE NILE.

Okay, here comes the truly horrible part. For helping Michael out that weekend he bought Diane a Porsche. A few months later, with her boyfriend driving that Porsche at 80 mph on rain-slicked Pacific Coast Highway, the car lost control and crashed. Diane Thomas and another friend were killed. Diane was 39.

That was 31 years ago and I will be forever haunted by it. I can’t drive PCH without thinking about her, I can’t see a Porsche without thinking about her, I can’t see a Michael Douglas or Kathleen Turner movie without thinking about her. I certainly can’t watch ROMANCING THE STONE or JEWEL OF THE NILE without thinking about her. And maybe now, if you do any of those things you’ll think about her too.

As a proud faculty member of UCLA I’m happy to say that the UCLA Extension Writers’ Program created the Diane Thomas Screenwriting Award in her honor.

You can understand now why I can't tell that story without tears in my eyes.  And why I'm going to end it here. 

Pulling back the curtain

Rehearsals continue for my new play, GOING GOING GONE that opens Oct. 1 (with two previews beforehand) at the Hudson Theatre in Hollywood.

As we stagger through the various steps leading up to Opening Night,  I want to pull back the curtain and share the process with you.  Larry Gelbart once said his wish for Hitler was that he had a show out of town.  This isn't an elaborate musical ticketed for Broadway; it's a modest four-character comedy headed for a small theatre in Hollywood.  But the process is the process.  

We’ve just had the “Table Work” phase.

Directing in half-hour television where everything has to move FAST, I never get the chance to do this.

Table Work is the part of the process where the actors and director sit around a table for several days and really examine the script. In some cases going line by line. What is this character actually saying? Why is he saying it? How does this argument track? Is the play’s theme being served? In my case, do any of these jokes work?

As the playwright, my feet are really held to the fire. I have to be able to justify every line. And sure enough, there were speeches that were a little confusing, thoughts that could be taken two ways, etc. I’ve since gone back and addressed them. Or clarified things that stuck out to me. And changed a few jokes I could just tell weren’t up to snuff.

At times it’s not pleasant but writers should be put to that level of scrutiny. Every line should have a distinct purpose. I know it’s a cliché when actors say, “What is my motivation?” but that’s a valid question that deserves an answer.

The other purpose of Table Work is to give the actors a chance to think about the piece, their characters, and relationships as they relate to the big picture. What is the play about? What is its arc? Just who are these characters and where do they fit in? What does that insane playwright hope to achieve?

Serious playwrights I know say that when their dramas first go into rehearsal the director and cast will take a few days to “investigate” the piece and their characters. That sounds a little scary to me, but to tackle that kind of material and really get to the emotional truth I can see where that makes perfect sense. Maybe it’s because my plays have serious themes but are dealt with comedically that I like to think I did all the “investigating” for them already.

Still, I’m forever amazed at how actors can process ninety-minutes of complex material, memorize it, and make it feel their own. The talent, desire, and discipline required is way more than this humble blogger is capable of. Hell, I get voted off the island just on the “talent” front.

The Table Work has gone fine.  Now for the next test:   Blocking and staging. Stay tuned.

For tickets, you can go here. Looking forward to meeting all my readers who support my insanity.

I miss Jerry

The Labor Day weekend just isn't the same without Jerry Lewis hosting the telethon.   I unabashedly loved that show. I looked  forward to it every year…for both the right and wrong reasons.

It does benefit a very worthy cause, the Muscular Dystrophy Association. The videos of the kids are both heartbreaking and inspiring. Let’s hope someday there’s a cure.

But the JERRY LEWIS TELETHON was the absolute height of entertainment cheese, a time warp to a Las Vegas scene that everyone but Jerry realized has long since passed, and was the home of the most insincere sincerity that only show business can create. The treacle just oozeed out of your speakers. Born in the swinging 60s (which you can read about here), nurtured by Sammy Davis Jr. (combining over-concern, hipness, gross sentimentality, and jewelry), this style was perfected by Jerry Lewis who added his own special touches. No one could beg with such passion while sticking a cigarette in his ear. No one could deliver a biblical sermon, break down crying, then go into his spastic retard character for comic relief.

The Frech call him Le Roi du Crazy. They still shortchange him. Since his auteur movie days he has developed his own unique and delicious blend of condescension and humility. Every year I knew what I was going to get and was always richly rewarded.

Nowhere did superlatives fly like the JERRY LEWIS TELETHON. In only one half hour I caught “infamously wonderful”, “exceptional talent”, “most talented”, “most amazing”, “most exciting”, “unmatched”, “extraordinary”, “a true legend”, and “a treasure in every sense of the word.” On the other hand, Jerry described guest David Cassidy as “that little cocker”. He’s probably right but still!

And then there was Ed McMahon. For sixty years America wondered – just what IS this guy’s talent? Say what you will, the man made a wildly successful career for himself by playing the toady to the host.

The telethon was a throwback to a better Vegas, a classier Vegas – where all performers dressed, dyed their hair, and drank. It was elegance as only the mob could imagine it. There were dinner shows and late night lounge shows, and no gift shops right outside the showrooms. You couldn’t buy Keely Smith t-shirts, Rosemary Clooney refrigerator magnets, or Frank Sinatra lunch pails.

I miss it all, but most of all Jerry.  I'll never be able to hear "Rock-a-bye Your Baby With a Dixie Melody" again without crying.   Fortunately, when the hell will I ever hear that song again?

Some of my most asked Friday Questions

But always worth answering again (especially on a holiday weekend when I'm in rehearsal for my new play). 

kermit is the latest to ask this one:

If I'm a writer who's written for broadcast and print but has no background in show business, and I've written an original script(not a spec)that I think is pretty good...where do I go from here? Is there someone who can look it over and tell me if it's good, or not, or where it might need a nip and tuck? Would an agent ever read anything cold-mailed to him/her, or would the agent send it back unopened?

I would enroll in a writing class at a local university. Most have nighttime extension programs. Between the instructor and your classmates, you will get feedback. Here’s what I wouldn’t do: There are “writers” out there who advertise their consulting services. You pay them a thousand dollars; they read and critique your script. There may be exceptions, but those are a rip-off. You’re paying big money with no idea if the reader is any good. At least a college course is reasonable, the instructor is somewhat credible, and you’ll be introduced to other hopefuls like yourself and can create a network and support system.

You can enter your script in screenplay contests.  If well-received, that will give a leg up when trying to land representation.  

Never send an agent anything that isn’t your very best work. You get one shot at making an impression. You’re not looking at an agent to critique your script; you’re looking at him to represent you. You need to impress him.  Best of luck.

unkystan asks:

When there is a spin-off of a continuing series, is the spin-off cast contractually obligated to do it? I read somewhere that Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were very upset when "The Ropers" was quickly cancelled and they couldn't go back to "Three's Company". Same with Polly Holliday ("Flo"). What if they refuse to do it?

When characters are spun-off into their own series they strike new deals, usually for a lot more money. Sometimes there might be a clause allowing them to either guest on their original series or return to it if the spin-off tanks.

But often times once you leave the nest you’re out. The original series moves on and your character might no longer fit in. That’s the risk you take.

My favorite spin-off story is from SANFORD & SON. It became THE SANFORD ARMS. Neither Redd Fox or Demond Wilson were in it. As someone said, “NBC just renewed the set.”

Brian has a MASH question:

Ken- The show jumps around in time quite a bit. There were episodes where Eisenhower was president and then a few years later Truman is president. There are other examples too. When you and David were working on the show, was there any direction as far as a timeline?

The big cheat on that show was that it lasted 3 1/2 times longer the Korean War. During our years we tread that lightly. After we had left they did an episode that took place over an entire year. It was a clever idea and good episode, but to me it just pointed out the enormous conceit we were asking the public to buy. Not to mention how it screwed with the show’s timeline. Since the episode focused on 1951 that meant that the whole Trapper, Henry Blake, Radar, Frank Burns era (8 or 9 seasons of the show) all took place during a roughly one year period.

But let's face it, by that point in the series run MASH was bulletproof. They could have done a show where the Starship Enterprise landed on the chopper pad and they’d get away with it.  And if the show had gone another two years I bet that idea might have started looking pretty good.  

And finally, from Mike:

I just saw a commercial for a film that gave away one of the funnier bits in the film. Did you ever have a promo for one of your shows that gave away too much and ruined the joke or the show for the viewer?

That was a constant battle with network promo people. My big concern wasn’t spoiling jokes. It was giving away key plot twists.

Now then, movie trailers. I never care if they use the best jokes. For whatever reason, when audiences eventually watch the movie and those jokes arrive they still laugh, sometimes harder. I don’t really know why. I guess that’s my Friday Question.

You can leave your Friday Questions in the comments sections. Muchas thanks, and enjoy the last official weekend of summer.  Christmas ads begin Tuesday.  

Book recommendation

As I prepare to teach again this fall at UCLA (Go Bruins!) I came across an excellent new screenwriting book.  Aaron Mendelsohn's THE ELEVEN FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS.   If you're writing a screenplay, pilot, or play, THESE are the questions you need to answer.  It's an easy read, only in ebook form (so it's much easier to lug to class). 

Here's an example of one of the questions.

And I'm told you can even get a discount this weekend.  Here's where you go for more info and to order.   And just so you know, I've never met Aaron Mendelsohn.  So no kickbacks unfortunately. 

The truth about premise pilots

With networks buying pilot pitches, I thought I’d take this Friday Question from Jill Pinnella Corso and devote an entire post to it.  The question:

Do you think premise pilots are a trend right now or are they always the default? It strikes me that it's easier to tell a story from the beginning, but if the pilot is too different from what the series will be, the audience could be confused or stop watching after the second episode. Do you have a preference for premise pilot vs. regular episode pilot?

Most pilots are premise-based these days. (Kevin James decides to spend more time with his kids and finds they're more of a handful than he thought, Matt LeBlanc decides to spend more time with his kids and finds they're more of a handful than he thought) It’s way easier to tell the story in a premise pilot. Otherwise, you’re doing a lot of backstory exposition. (“Remember when we were unhappy and I saw a cute baby in the market and thought maybe we should get one too?”)

On the other hand, premise pilots can be deceiving. Will there ever be a bigger moment on BEWITCHED than Darrin discovering that Samantha’s a witch?  (Sorry.  SPOILER ALERT)

It’s also so much easier to introduce the characters in a premise pilot. Your lead gets a job. She (and the audience) meet all her co-workers one at a time.  As opposed to just being dropped in the middle of the office situation and having to figure out who everyone is on the fly. 

The problem is that premise pilots are not representative of what the show will be every week. And the testing is skewed.

For a number of years in the ‘70s and ‘80s networks didn’t want premise pilots.  But the problems that created (imagine jumping in the middle of BREAKING BAD and having to weave in the premise while just telling a typical episode) were worse so the nets went back to the premise model.

Premise pilots are also more in vogue today because networks currently favor high concept ideas. You need a big hook. So to not exploit that in the pilot is defeating the purpose.

Pilot premises are way easier to write. My partner, David and I had a pilot once for NBC about a guy and girl improv performer who decide to team up (a la Nichols & May for the nine people who get that reference).

Now the obvious way to tell that story is you see an improv class, you see the leads do a scene together and the chemistry really clicks, then you see them decide to become a team.

The idiot NBC exec said we couldn’t open at the improv class. Why? Because Fred Silverman (who ran NBC at the time) hates premise pilots. So we had to open in the girl’s apartment. Now imagine trying to explain to viewers (a) the concept of improvisational comedy, (b) the notion of a improv team, (c) just what it is about the two of them that is so magic, (d) who they are, (e) what their career status is, and (f) what their personal lives are like. All in an apartment.

It took us forever to write the first draft. The reaction was lukewarm at best. We met with Brandon Tartikoff to get our notes. This was the first time Brandon had been involved in the project. He started the meeting by saying, “Why did you guys start the show in her apartment and not the theater?” We explained that the moron before him told us we had to. Brandon said, ”that’s ridiculous.” That was his only note.

We went home, re-wrote the script in two hours, turned it in shortly thereafter, and quickly got a pick-up to make the pilot. I bumped into the buffoon executive in the NBC hallway who congratulated us and said, “Wow! I don’t know what you guys did, but you really turned this thing around.”

Happy to say this cretin has been long-gone from the television industry. He's probably selling fruit at freeway offramps although that job might be too mentally taxing for him. 

But like I said, one problem with premise pilots is that they sometimes don’t give you a sense what the series will be each week. I was helping out a writer friend on his premise pilot once. We were rewriting after a listless runthrough. There were probably six or seven of us struggling to make this show work. The hours went by. Sometime after midnight I asked: “What’s the second episode of this show?” to which he blurted out, “There IS no second episode! This piece of shit will never get on the air.”

He was right. But when you’re initially pitching your pilot to the network (as writers are doing right this very minute in various offices) you don’t give a shit about that. Just make the sale! And the best way is with a premise pilot.  Preferably to an executive like Brandon Tartikoff.

Friday Questions

Getting you prepared for Labor Day Weekend with Friday Questions.

Jerod Butt is up first.

Does the addition of networks like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon increase the possibility of better sitcoms?

Absolutely. The more venues the better. Especially now that the networks have assumed almost total creative control over all of their pilots. Writer/creators are really handcuffed.

Other venues offer greater freedom. (Not all but some) The downside is that the money is not usually as good and your audience will be smaller. But most writers I know (myself certainly included) would cheerfully make that trade for a chance to fuller realize our vision.

What’s interesting though is this, and I’ve seen it frequently: Cable networks or other delivery systems start by allowing writers a great deal of freedom. But then as the venue becomes successful they morph into network patterns. You can get as many or more notes from a cable network than you can from a broadcast network. So now you’re getting less money, a smaller audience, and interference up the yin-yang. 

I hope Netflix and Amazon and some of the other streaming services don’t fall into this trap.

Joe asks:

I know when you and your partner were the head writers at "MASH" that Gary Burghoff had cut down on his workload to where he was absent in probably a third of the episodes. Did you tell writers to try to write Radar-less episodes, or would someone submit an idea with an A-story on Hawkeye and a B-story on Charles and you'd say, "OK, we can do this without Radar. Write him out."

None of the above. David Isaacs and I broke all the stories. Some had Radar and others did not. Gary’s contract that year was for something like 16 of 25 episodes.

We would bring in a freelance writer and just give him the outline, talking through it with him. It was the easiest “story” money any freelancer ever made.

Personally, I thought the show suffered whenever Gary was not in it.

From Patrick:

With all the amazingly talented writers out there who are trying to make it into the business - how is it that there are still sitcoms out there that are painful to watch? Jokes you can see from a mile away - one liners that hurt to listen to - characters that are stereotypes ect...Is it the network that is looking for the lowest common denominator or is this really the best they can do? I long for the 90s in terms of smart multi camera shows that actually made me laugh out loud...

Because a lot of writers are hired not for their actual ability. The ones who do get hired bow easily to network pressure, they fill the need for diversity, they’re personal friends of the showrunner, they have deals that the studio is trying to work off, and in one case, years ago, they ran the weekly studio NFL football pool.

Lots of really good writers are out of work because they’re too old, too Caucasian, stand up to notes, or are on networks unofficial blacklists, have bad agents who don’t submit them for things, and never did UCB.

Stephen Marks wonders:

Did Siskel and Ebert ever review any movies you and Mr. Issacs worked on and if so did their opinion mean anything to you guys. Do movie and TV critics have any influence in Hollywood?

They reviewed VOLUNTEERS. Thumbs up for Siskel, thumbs down for Ebert.  I liked Sisel's take better. 

There are some critics whose opinions I really value. And there have been reviews that have been critical that I agree with. The key is to put them in perspective – even the raves. You’re not a genius no matter what some reviewer says, and you’re also not a steaming pile of shit because some other reviewer was convinced you were.

Movie critics have more influence than TV critics, but I think these days neither have as much as they once had. Critics despised SUICIDE SQUAD and the public flocked to see it.

Critical acclaim can certainly help keep a network television show on the air, but only for so long. Eventually they need ratings. However, if you’re on a premium cable or streaming service, ratings are less important than positive buzz. So critics have a much more pivotal role. Nobody (but NOBODY) watches GIRLS anymore yet it's still on HBO. 

What’s your Friday Question? Happy Labor Day Weekend. Drive safe out there.

Forgotten sitcoms

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post, it occurred to me that there are a lot of long-running sitcoms that, for whatever reason, you never see anymore. Or if you do, they’re on some obscure channel that only Indiana Jones can find.

And I’m not talking about short-lived programs that lasted a year or less. I’m talking about network stalwarts that lasted years. And yet, they’ve slipped under the radar.

Meanwhile, other shows like REBA air seventeen times a day.

Here’s a partial list. And to be fair I’m only starting at 1980. No, you don’t see THAT GIRL much anymore but it had its day. A bunch of these shows were in syndication for a while and now are on the shelf. And you won’t find THE COSBY SHOW anymore, but that’s because the son of a bitch deserves to be in jail.

Also, I’m not suggesting these were all masterpieces. Some I’m happy to not ever see again. But they all did have large fan bases for a long time. And some I would like to revisit.

Okay, so from memory (a very dubious source), here are some forgotten former hits. Feel free to add to the list.

MURPHY BROWN
ALICE
DAVE’S WORLD
BECKER
CAROLINE IN THE CITY
TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT
NEWHART
CYBILL
KATE & ALLIE
EVENING SHADE
GROWING PAINS
NIGHT COURT
DEAR JOHN
WEBSTER
ALF
WHO’S THE BOSS?
WELCOME BACK KOTTER
EMPTY NEST
LOVE AND WAR
MAJOR DAD
HEAD OF THE CLASS
ELLEN
THE NAKED TRUTH
THE DREW CAREY SHOW
MAD ABOUT YOU
NEWSRADIO
SUDDENLY SUSAN
SPIN CITY
STEP BY STEP
JUST SHOOT ME
NED AND STACEY
VERONICA’S CLOSET
YES DEAR

the shelf life of sitcoms

Here’s a Friday Question that became a full post.

It's from Joe Stevens.

What is the shelf life of a hit sitcom or how many people watch pre-1978 sitcoms regularly? I chose that date as Taxi and WKRP came out that year.

It depends on many factors. How beloved was the show? How dated has the show become?  How universal are the situations and characters? Is the show still relevant on some level? Is the appeal strictly nostalgia?

Certainly as generations pass on, the shows from their era tend to fade into the mist. But not always. I LOVE LUCY is still around. So is THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW and THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW. And if you look hard enough, THE PHIL SILVERS SHOW and THE HONEYMOONERS are still on TV somewhere. If I’m not mistaken, a local New York broadcast station still airs THE HONEYMOONERS on a regular basis.

Some series seem timeless like MASH and GOLDEN GIRLS and CHEERS and I suspect they’ll still be around when the Jetsons are alive.

Others like MURPHY BROWN with it’s political references and most of today’s sitcoms that rely so heavily on pop culture references will have very short shelf lives.

And then there are the series that for whatever inexplicable reason still has a following – shows like GILLIGAN’S ISLAND and THE BRADY BUNCH. You explain it.  I can't. 

I’m a little surprised that TAXI didn’t fare well in syndication. Maybe it’s just that audiences didn’t like the setting – a taxi garage was grimy and uninviting. But the writing and characters were top notch. THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW also did not have a great afterlife. It could be that the sets today look chintzy. I dunno. A better written show from any era you will not find.

It used to be that independent TV stations needed programming to fill so they bought off-network syndicated programs. CHEERS might be on at 11 at night for several years, eventually replaced by SEINFELD, etc. Shows would have their day and eventually disappear. But now that there are so many more platforms and ways to see old series, shows like FRASIER and ALL IN THE FAMILY and even SAVED BY THE BELL will be available to watch somewhere. This is why I’m particularly pissed that our series, ALMOST PERFECT is not available. Or should I say, not available in America? ALMOST PERFECT is available on Netflix in Europe. But not here. Isn’t that crazy? If they’ve gone to the trouble to digitize and catalog all 34 episodes, why not make them available in the US?

But I digress…

WKRP IN CINCINNATI feels very dated. And on the DVD’s the music is replaced because of rights issues. So you’re watching a knock-off of the original program.

All of this can be said for movies too. Yes, most movies made in the ‘30s and ‘40s have disappeared forever. But not all. And with movie channels like TCM, some of these oldies but goodies can still draw an audience. People will be watching Billy Wilder movies long after they’re watching Seth Rogen movies.

I personally consider myself very lucky. Lots of TV writers toil for years on shows that disappear into the ether. Having done many episodes of MASH, CHEERS, FRASIER, and THE SIMPSONS – I’m eternally grateful that people today can still enjoy my efforts. That YOU can still watch my shows.

Now if I could just get Netlix to run ALMOST PERFECT…

Happy Birthday, Annie!

First off I want to wish the happiest of Happy Birthdays to my fabulous, funny, phenomenal daughter, Annie.  You make me proud everyday.  And you make me laugh everyday.  Could a father ever ask for more?  I love you, kiddo. 

Okay, the rest of you can now scroll down to today's post.  Thanks. 

My favorite celebrity sighting experience

How’s this for one of those cool Hollywood stories? And I swear it’s true.

It’s the summer of either 1969 or 1970 (I’ve narrowed it down to those two). I’m a sports intern at KMPC radio in Los Angeles. KMPC was the big full-service radio station in town. They had star disc jockeys like Gary Owens (from LAUGH IN), Wink Martindale, Jim Lange, Geoff Edwards (all your favorite game show hosts), Roger Carroll (announcer of THE SMOTHERS BROTHERS SHOW and many others), and occasionally Bob Crane (HOGAN’S HEROES). The morning man, Dick Whittinghill, was an LA institution.

And when the station wasn’t playing Sinatra or Streisand, it was airing sports. KMPC was the home of the Rams (I’m so glad they’re back), the Angels, and UCLA football and basketball. Dick Enberg and Dave Niehaus were among their play-by-play men. We’re talking “high rent district.”

KMPC had their own planes and helicopters and even a news reporter in a trench coat who was a character right out of Raymond Chandler named Donn Reed who cruised around the city at night filing reports of hold ups and hostage situations. “Donn Reed – nightside.”

My job that summer (whichever summer it was) was to write up sports reports every half hour for the newscasts, change the ticker tape ribbon (my fingers are still purple), and keep track of the police scanners should a liquor store robbery break out. For this I was paid minimum wage. But I didn’t care. I LOVED it. On the side I was writing comedy bits for Gary Owens and interning for Dick Enberg at Rams’ games at the Coliseum. I also got as many Angel tickets as I wanted, but who the hell wanted to schlep out to fucking Anaheim in late afternoon traffic?

Anyway...

One morning I’m at my desk in the newsroom and Stanley Spero, the General Manager comes in. He asks if I’d do him a favor. There’s going to be a movie about a radio station that will soon go into production and one of the people from the film wanted to spend a couple of days just hanging around a radio station, soaking up the atmosphere. Would I mind spending the next two days with this person, showing him around, answering any of his questions, etc.? I said, “Sure.” (Like I’m going to tell the boss “No.”) So he said great and left. A few minutes later he returned with the person.

Paul Newman.

And this was the 1969 (or '70) Paul Newman. The Butch Cassidy Paul Newman. I imagine many of you women readers are now swooning. (Note: If there are readers who don’t know who Paul Newman is please do not tell me. I will be depressed for weeks.)

The movie was WUSA.

So for the next two days me and Paul Newman were BFF’s. I’m happy to report that he could not have been nicer and more down-to-earth. He was gracious with everyone. I thought to myself, “Oh why can’t iPhones with cameras be invented fifty years sooner?” Like an idiot, I didn’t get a photo with him or even his autograph. I was “too cool” for that. Moron.

When the movie came out I was the first one to see it. Looking back, I was the ONLY one to see it. But those two days together were amazing. I felt guilty taking KMPC’s $1.25 an hour. I went from Newsroom Kid to Sundance Kid.

R.I.P. Gene Wilder

So sorry to hear today of the passing of Gene Wilder.  He was 83.  What a truly talented, funny, and from what I've always heard -- lovely man.   I didn't know him personally.  Sitting in a movie theater once with him doesn't count.  But I know someone who did know him -- and worked with him.   Tom Straw, a terrific writer and dear friend.  So I reached out to Tom who graciously agreed to share some personal memories of Gene Wilder with my readers.   Tom, I can't thank you enough, especially now during your time of loss.  This is a wonderful profile that really gives you a feel of who Gene Wilder really was.  R.I.P. "Genedy." 

“Some Memories of the Great Gene Wilder”

Gene Wilder was much loved, and, for anyone reading this who wonders, your affection is well-placed.

My first memory of Gene was when I was a disc jockey in San Diego with a certain Ken Levine, going to see Blazing Saddles, laughing our asses off.

Flash forward to the year 1999. I’m living in Connecticut and a mutual friend from LA is visiting, staying at Gene and Karen’s house in Stamford, and asks if my family would like to come over for brunch the next day. It would be my first meeting with Gene, and it was memorable. My kids were quite young, and, at brunch, conversation went to which of his films would be appropriate for them to see. Someone said, “Young Frankenstein.” Gene and I made eye contact, and in unison said, “Fronckensteen, please.” A fan crush became a friendship.

The next week, I got a call from Gene. He was writing the second of a TV movie series he was also starring in, and felt stalled. He asked if I would mind reading his pages and offer any thoughts. It’s one of those reality-check occasions where you stare at the phone and then say, “Well, um, sure…” I don’t need to say that his writing was terrific. As an actor he had a writer’s ear and a director’s eye. But I did offer a few suggestions (I would never have presumed to give him notes). He listened graciously and incorporated them, for the most part, but beyond that, my agent got a call a few days later. Gene Wilder had an idea for a movie, and would I write the screenplay with him? Fuck yeah.

Our routine was to write a few days a week at his house. The work went very well, and man, did we laugh. One of the true joys was reading finished pages back and forth. Once, I read a line of dialogue and he busted up. I said, “What do you know, my reading made Gene Wilder laugh.” He nodded and said sagely, “The trick is, Tomedy, can you do it seventy five times, the same way, for each take?” That’s when he started calling me Tomedy.

Our phone calls always began, “Hello, Tomedy?” And I’d reply, “Yes. Genedy?”

In downtime, I would pump him about directing and an actor’s private work. I was especially keen to know about his maniacal “Live! Liiiiive!” from Young Frankenstein. He grew very serious and said that when he did that scene, he wasn’t thinking of comedy, but tapping into the deep anguish he had once felt about someone he cared about who’d been at death’s door. And yet, we all laugh.

He told me that the best way to judge a good director was to watch the movie with the sound off, like on an airplane. The storytelling would carry. Or not.

Gene was a talented artist in other ways, too. He was a fine watercolorist. I do oils and acrylics, but when the screenplay work was done, he invited me to join him and his wife Karen for a few hours of watercolor painting together. A memory I’ll always treasure.

Gene got very ill during our time working together. He made me swear to tell nobody. Now that he’s gone, I suppose I am released and can tell two stories about that. I was also working then as Executive Producer of COSBY, which also starred Madeline Kahn. She came to me one day to break the news that she had cancer. She said, “I know Gene is a friend of yours. Will you promise-promise you will not tell him?” I agreed. And kept my word to both, feeling so strange to be in that sad triangulation.

Happily, Gene pulled through, but there’s one other thing that bears mentioning. During that illness years ago, Mel Brooks and Charles Grodin were not only visitors to Gene. They were constant visitors, staying with him for hours at a time over weeks and months to bolster him. Nobody better ever say anything bad to me about those two after what they did for Gene.

Of course, they did it for Gene Wilder, who was a mensch. From the day we met 17 years ago he was always a joy. Honest, brave, caring, smart, talented… and so damned funny. I remember once we took a break from that screenplay and were having lunch in his kitchen. From the basement, Karen called out there was a dead mouse. He paused and gave me that signature Gene look. I said, “It’s your house, buddy.” Resigned, he got up and went to the basement. One minute later—perfect, perfect timing—I hear him at the top of his lungs, “Live! Liiiiiive!"

I’m kinda saying the same thing now in my head. He always will.

UnReal

This is one of those posts where I really want your input.

In 1982 there was a popular movie released called VICTOR/VICTORIA by comedy stalwart Blake Edwards. I went to see it in a full theater and the movie was getting tons of laughs. But none from me. And it really worried me. I’m supposed to be making my living by knowing what’s funny and what makes people laugh and yet here was this big crowd in hysterics and I didn’t know why. Was I completely out of touch? Was I former Yankee second baseman Chuck Knoblauch who suddenly one day couldn’t throw the ball to first?

That’s the way I feel about UNREAL.

First, let me back up, my TV mentors were Larry Gelbart, Gene Reynolds, and James L. Brooks. I learned from them that writing becomes richer and deeper if you strive to celebrate the human spirit, not just load up your script with jokes.

Now times change and styles change and I’m willing to concede that this approach might be deemed out-of-fashion, passé, or naïve to today’s hardened audience.

And that brings me to UNREAL.

I had never seen the show. It’s on Lifetime. For a long time I didn’t know it even existed. But I started hearing good buzz. And the creator is Marti Noxon who I greatly admire. The reviews were sensational. The show even won a Peabody Award. So I grabbed my TV Academy screener discs and eagerly looked forward to discovering this hidden gem.

The premise of the show is this: It’s a fictional behind-the-scenes look at a reality competition show like THE BACHELOR – warts and all. I like shows that pull back the curtain. So premise-wise I was all in.  And I understand that it's not a "comedy." 

After two episodes I felt the same dread as when watching VICTOR/VICTORIA. To me this was one of the most cynical TV series I had ever seen. The fictional crew making the show (EVERLASTING) had utter disregard and contempt for any of the contestants. Their only goal was to make flashy television, no matter how deceitful or hurtful they had to be to achieve it. And the contestants were all portrayed as narcissistic golddigging airheads.

Now I’m sure that’s EXACTLY the way it is in real life. I believe Ms. Noxon worked on one of these shows. Authenticity is not an issue.

I know it’s a cliché to say you must have someone to root for. And agree it's not absolutely necessary.  I like HOUSE OF CARDS and Frank & Claire Underwood are reprehensible but it’s set in a arena where the entire world hangs in the balance, and ultimately I hope they’re led out of the White House in handcuffs.

But UNREAL is about a cheesy reality show -- an easy target.  Full disclosure: I don’t watch shows like THE BACHELOR. I’m sure if I did I would be more invested. But from where I sit this series is very mean-spirited. And I just find it uncomfortable.

So I ask you readers – what am I missing? Is it mean-spirited but that’s the fun of it? Is that considered “edgy?” Is there humanity that I’m just missing?  Is this just the current style?  Are moral characters now uninteresting?  Are we just now desensitized to human suffering?  

As a writer, I was always taught to love my characters – even the antagonists. It doesn’t feel to me that the writers of UNREAL love their characters. In some cases it seems they loathe them. But again, that might be the point. That might be the hook. I’m sincerely asking because I would love to perhaps view this show from a different perspective and give it another try. I hate being out of step, especially in my own industry. So is it a generation thing? A sensibility thing? Or something else I’m just missing entirely?

Or, as a last resort, you agree with me?  

Let me know what you think. I'm really curious.  Thanks in advance. 

I hate Power Point

Imagine you had to give a presentation to a fairly large group. The topic is something you know something about. The quarterly report. The latest advances in merkins. Whatever.  And while you're delivering this presentation you also have to put on rock climbing gear. Bulky jacket,boots, lacing up the heavy boots, attaching one or two harnesses, stocking up on flares and picks. All this while you're analyzing T.S. Eliot poetry.

Well for the most part, that's what it's like when you do a presentation with PowerPoint. Ive been to a number of conferences lately where good speakers with interesting topics were derailed by PowerPoint presentations. They spent half their talks fumbling around with slides. At first the audience is patient and has a little empathy. But after five minutes you want to scream, "Hey, numnuts! They're friggin' bullet points. Who gives a shit?! Just talk!".

PowerPoint and similar programs kill more lectures than they help. Yes, if you need visuals, fine. Let's say you're explaining how Facebook works or just "what is pornography?"  Slides would help -- in some cases the bigger, the better.

But now you can easily make graphs and graphics to just underscore the text of your talk. 68% of homeowners have spice racks.  "I don't believe you. Oh wait, I'm now looking at a slide of a spice rack and underneath it says 68% of homeowners have these. Okay, you sold me!".

The truth is speakers now use PowerPoint as a crutch. They think the can jazz up their presentations with visual aids. All too often though this results in technical snafus, fumbling around, the wrong slides, and takes the speaker right out of any rhythm. And most of the time the slides are boring, hard to read, and unnecessary.

Some people think if they don't arm themselves with PowerPoint that the audience will think they're unprepared. That's bullshit!

As a speaker, your job is to communicate. Talk to us. Share ideas, if it's a topic you're excited about let us see that.  You don't have to be the worlds greatest speaker. But your genuine enthusiasm will sell your message. Not a dizzying display of pie charts.

A helpful tip that will mean more than a slide proclaiming "4 warning signs of gum decay" is to start your talk with a story. People love stories and it puts them at ease. People think you have to begin with a joke -- the great woody Allen intro: " I'm reminded of the incestuous farmer's daughter...". No. You don't have to do that. If you got a great joke and you're good at delivering jokes then yeah, kill 'em. But a brief story, preferably personal, will achieve the same goal of disarming your crowd.

Speak with passion. Again, you don't have to be Billy Graham or Zig Zigler. But make us understand why the topic is interesting to you. In this case, a well placed word is worth a thousand pictures.