EP231: Meet George Wendt, a.k.a. “Norm!”

George Wendt discusses his early days at Second City, and what it was like to be on CHEERS. And we discuss the beer.

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Behind the Attractions

Next month Disney + premieres a docuseries called “Behind the Attraction.”  Each episode will take you behind-the-scenes of one of Disneyland/World’s signature attractions like the Jungle Ride, Haunted Mansion, Small World, and more.  

First of all, I can’t imagine sitting through a documentary on “It’s a Small Small World.”  Hearing that song for a half-hour would make my head explode.  But apart from that, I’m on the fence.

On the one hand, I’m very curious.  And a lot of really creative artistry went into the making of these attractions.  It will be nice to see them get their due. But on the other, do I really want to see how the sausage is made?  Might it destroy some of the illusion?  There really aren't ghosts in the Haunted Mansion?

I might watch a few episodes and skip a few others.  There’s on the Disneyland Hotel.  Who cares?  But I’d like to see how they pulled off “Star Tours.”

What all of this reminds me of is the TV show “Disneyland” that ran on ABC in the early days of the park in the ‘50s.  Uncle Walt would host and often took you behind-the-scenes as the park was being built and improved.  I don’t have to tell you what a great advertisement this was for every child in America.  We wanted to go to Disneyland SO BAD.  There was no greater goal.  

I was one of the lucky ones.  Since I lived in LA, my parents were able to take me.  (It was everything I had hoped for and MORE.)   My heart goes out to kids in Minnesota and New Hampshire who would watch every week and could only dream about actually going to the Magic Kingdom.   I contend this is the number one reason today why Baby Boomers are in therapy.   And are sooooo screwed up.

“Behind the Attractions” premieres July 16th and is narrated by Paget Brewster, best known for co-starring in a Levine-Isaacs pilot that didn’t get on the air (through no fault of hers).   If they’re smart they won’t lead off with “Small World.” 

A bad sign for major networks

Last week NBC cancelled a show called GOOD GIRLS.  What shocked me is that it was cancelled after four seasons.  Why am I shocked?  Because I had never even heard of this show.  How can a show be on the NBC television network for four years and I’ve never heard of it?

Says something about how much I watch NBC, doesn’t it?  

NBC also cancelled these shows I’ve never heard of:  CONNECTING, DEBRIS, and MANIFEST.  These might have been great shows.  I have no idea.  I don't even know what they're about. 

ABC cancelled UNITED WE FALL, whatever that was.  

FOX cancelled something called NEXT, THE MOODYS, and FILTHY RICH.  Never heard of any of ‘em.    They renewed THE GREAT NORTH for season 3.  What’s THE GREAT NORTH?  

And the CW doesn’t count.  No one knows what’s on that network besides superhero shows.  

Even twenty years ago it would have been unthinkable to not know what shows were on the major networks.  You maybe didn’t watch them, but you were aware of their existence.  There were enough promos on the shows you did watch that they were on your radar.   

To me this is yet another sign that broadcast networks are on borrowed time.   If a show is on NBC for four years you would think it would be some sort of a hit.  It doesn’t have to win Emmys — WEBSTER and FULL HOUSE never won Emmys — but it should at least be known.  Don’t you think?  Four years?  Yikes.  

At least people heard of AfterMASH.  Wait.  That might not be a good thing.

KEVIN CAN F*** HIMSELF: My review

After watching a few episodes on AMC...

First, let me give them props.  The bad sitcom scenes are dead on.  Unlike WANDAVISION where their recreations of old sitcoms was woeful, KEVIN CAN FUCK HIMSELF (it’s easier than typing *** all the time), has it down.  Everything is pitch perfect, from casting (Eric Peterson is fantastic as Kevin) to the dopey storylines, over-the-top unfunny supporting players, rhythms and specific jokes, sets and bright lighting, and the obtrusive laugh track.   Creator Valerie Armstrong either really knows the form or surrounded herself with people who do.  But the result is an A+ representation of fifteen of those man-child and wet blanket wife idiotic multi-cam sitcoms.  

Okay, that’s the good news.

The show then changes tone and gets very dark and dramatic whenever Annie Murphy’s character (Allison) steps out of the sitcom.  It’s an intriguing idea, and the show pivots back and forth between the two styles, but…

I'm sorry but I don’t get it.

The sitcom scenes are obviously stylized and heightened, but are they some sort of representation of real?  We’re supposed to have great empathy for her, but we’re not seeing her really abused, we’re seeing her imagined version of abuse.  Unless the sitcom is reality and the dark world is her imagination.  In that case, who cares because they’re all essentially cartoon characters?   

My big question:  Why the sitcom?  Other than a knockout-punch takedown of the genre, what is the value of being stuck in a bad sitcom vs. just a bad marriage?  Why not imagine Edward Albee’s masterful play and call it VIRGINIA CAN FUCK HERSELF?  

Another issue: One feature of these horrible family sitcoms is that the schlubby husband is married to an attractive woman way out of his league.  What about this oaf was so appealing that this woman, who could get anybody, chose to go with him?   Not looks, not charm, not money, not the way he treats her.  But since these sitcoms are so unrealistic anyway, the pairing is somewhat accepted.   However, if we’re saying this is a real life marriage, then why was she attracted to this crass jerk in the first place?   And why is she still in the marriage ten years later? 

Why can’t she just divorce him?  They conveniently have no kids.  As I understand it, the series steers in the direction of Allison wanting to murder Kevin.  That’s pretty drastic.  Just being the butt of sitcom jokes doesn’t seem enough justification to me.  No one is beating her like Tanya Harding. 

Now as the series unfolds all of these questions may be answered.  But is it worth sticking it out to see?   As great as the sitcom segments are, it’s one joke, and by episode two the device was starting to feel tiresome.  

Although the format is unique, the subject matter isn’t.  If you ever get a chance, see a movie called DIARY OF A MAD HOUSEWIFE.  It shows a woman trapped in a horrible marriage but you’re able to track every moment.  And by the end of the movie, the audience wants to kill the husband.  In the case of KEVIN CAN FUCK HIMSELF, at the worst, the audience just wants to see his show cancelled. 

Weekend Post

In my review (trashing) of THE CELEBRITY DATING GAME, I mentioned that I was a two-time contestant.  I neglected to mention I was supposed to be a three-time contestant but was thrown off the show.  I've posted about it before, and shared the story on my podcast, but for most of you (that haven't read or heard it), I thought I'd tell the story again.  

Also, someone wanted to know if any tapes of my appearances exist?  Maybe.  A few years ago I learned there was a warehouse somewhere in New Jersey that had a bunch of old DATING GAME tapes.  But none were labeled.  It was completely haphazard.  Picture the final scene in INDIANA JONES AND THE LOST RAIDERS.  I inquired and was told it was impossible to find and there was no guarantee my shows were even among the saved tapes.  So unfortunately, no, I don't have a copy of any of my appearances.  

Now to the story...

 

It was in the late 60’s, I was in high school, and someone recommended I try out. I was a wise-ass even then. So I called the show, was given an appointment to audition. The first thing I said when I got there was that my father worked for ABC radio and if that was a conflict let me know now and save us all a lot of time and trouble. They assured me that was no problem. In fact, they said members of their own staff have had to go on in emergency cases.

So I went through the audition process. They put 40 of us in a room and asked us random DATING GAME-type questions.

A week later they called and invited me to be on the show. Everyone wonders if bachelors are given a preview of the questions or get to see the girl in advance. The answer is no. They filmed three episodes at a time so nine of us reported to an assigned room. We were briefed, then ushered to the stage for a rehearsal. They walked us through it, where we sat, what to do after the girl made her selection, etc. Then it was back to this waiting room until we were called for the show.

I didn’t give a shit about winning the date. I just wanted to score. And I was lucky. Got some good questions, had some funny answers, called one of the other bachelors a blimp, just wreaked as much comic havoc as I could. Big surprise, I wasn’t selected. As a result I missed getting to go on a little cruise boat around the Newport Beach harbor with the Turtles. (I’ve since become friends with Howard Kaylan and he can’t even remember that event).

Two days after the show aired I got invited to go on again for their alumni show. Again I was apparently funny. I just remember doing an Elvis impression and trashing the institution of marriage. This girl didn’t pick me either. Instead I went home with 50 pairs of Ray-Ban sunglasses or something useless like that. I think the date I missed was to the Lancaster Date Festival. I’ve since gotten over my disappointment.

After that show aired they invited me to be on the night-time version. Now that was big stuff. Winners got trips to Europe and Hawaii, not Orange County. Oh yeah, and you’d be on national primetime television… but it was really the prizes.

Unfortunately, there was an engineers’ strike at ABC at the time and management had to man the cameras. During the rehearsal, one of the cameramen recognized me and mentioned casually that my father worked for ABC radio. Chuck Barris went ballistic. I was immediately thrown off the show. I said, “But what about when your own staff has to sub…?” Their answer was, “Get out!” So that was that. I was bumped from the show, they grabbed a guy in the audience who was wearing a suit, and he went on in my place. The selected bachelor got a trip to Paris. I got a roast beef sandwich at Arby’s.

A few years later I was working as an intern at KMPC radio in Los Angeles. Jim Lange was hired as a disc jockey. He spotted me down the hall and amazingly, remembered me. Even rattled off my blimp quip. Two days later at the station I get a call from THE DATING GAME. All was forgiven. They’d love to have me on again. I said, “Is this the night-time version?” They said no, I’d have to go back to daytime. So I told them to stick it. And thus ended my storied DATING GAME career.

Do I have regrets? Yes. I wish I had some of those sunglasses today. I could get a FORTUNE for that crap on ebay.

Friday Questions

Start your weekend with Friday Questions.

DougG. gets us rolling.

Have you ever directed an episode of a tv show that you (or you and David Isaacs) also wrote? If not, was that just luck (good or bad?) or did you want someone other than you to direct your work? Or did the showrunners that you worked with not want writers directing their own episodes or episodes they co-wrote?

As you can see from the above screen shot, I have directed shows I’ve written (that one was from BECKER).  I’ve also directed shows I’ve written with David Isaacs along with shows I’ve written with David Isaacs & Robin Schiff.  

A bigger thrill was directing two shows that my daughter, Annie Levine wrote with her partner, Jonathan Emerson.  

I love directing my own stuff.  But I always have to tell the actors beforehand to think of me as your director so if something in the script bothers you you’re as welcome to tell me as if someone else had written it.  And as it happens, that was never a problem for them. 

Daniel asks:

My favorite TV series is Frasier. Do you think the series would have worked if it had been a single-camera show with no studio audience (and no laughter on the soundtrack) and maybe more cinematic lighting and camera placement? Same scripts, same interstitial title cards between scenes, same cast, same basic sets (except with the addition of the fourth wall). I guess my question is: How important was the studio audience and the three-camera style/aesthetic to the creative success of the series? Would it have played the same way without the audience's presence?

Interesting question I had never thought about.  

I think FRASIER would lose a lot not being done as a multi-camera show.  FRASIER was a weekly one-act play that could’ve played Broadway.  The stories, dialogue, tone all lean towards a theatrical production.  

FRASIER is enhanced by a studio audience.  I also think the actors feed off the energy of the audience, which elevates their performances.  

And bear in mind, the audience laughter you hear on FRASIER is real.   I don’t see any way the series could have been enhanced by not shooting it multi-camera.

From Philly Cinephile:

Any thoughts on the "We're going to Las Vegas!" episodes that so many sitcoms do? Are they mandated by the networks? I find that they tend to be among the weaker episodes of a series -- contrived and usually lacking the overall flavor of the series. I've often imagined them as a rite of passage for the writing staff of a show -- the dreaded "send them to Vegas" memo from the network.

Well, the simple answer is they run out of ideas.  

But Vegas does provide you with lots of new stories your series wouldn’t have otherwise.  Characters impulsively off to get married, characters having gambling problems, characters just going wild, etc.  

There’s so much gaudiness in Las Vegas, so many things to poke fun at, that it’s somewhat of an easy target.   How else are you going to work in Elvis impersonators?  

And finally, from Paul:

One of the things I have been doing to keep sane in this insane world is to watch all 11 seasons of Cheers.  I am now on Season 9 and last week saw episodes 8 and 9, the 200th anniversary episodes.  My first question is this:  how is that John McLaughlin ended up the host of the show?  It seems an…unlikely choice.  Second, was it difficult to get Shelley Long to return for this show?   Is there a story behind that?

At some point, long-running series are asked to do a clip show (highlights of their many seasons).  Let me tell you from personal experience, those are a giant pain in the ass. 

The trick is to find a novel way to do it.  CHEERS thought a panel discussion would be interesting.  I loved the idea because it meant the Charles Brothers and Jim Burrows would finally get some screen time.  

Not sure who came up with the idea of John McLaughlin, but he did lend a certain gravitas to the show.  And he certainly was not someone you’d expect.

As for Shelley’s return, there was no difficulty at all.  Remember, Shelley left the show on good terms.  They were happy to invite her and she was happy to accept.  

Shelley also did the final episode and two episodes of FRASIER — one (that David Issacs and I wrote) was just a ten second cameo and she still agreed to do it.   And may I say, thank you, Shelley.  That was a great joke thanks to you.

What’s your Friday Question?

EP230: Sportscaster Jason Benetti, Part 2

More with ESPN/NBC/Chicago White Sox announcer, Jason Benetti. Topics this week include working with partners (like Bill Walton), social media criticism, and not letting Cerebral Palsy prevent you from achieving your dreams.

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

The Celebrity Dating Game

 

WARNING: SNARK REVIEW AHEAD. 

Just when you thought broadcast television could not get any more insipid, along comes the CELEBRITY DATING GAME.   All of ABC’s “celebrity” game show remakes are abominable, but this one might just be the worst.  So congratulations to them.  It take a lot to be worse than a show starring Anthony Anderson's mother.

The original DATING GAME had its charm.  There were stupid questions and answers (I know.  I was a two-time contestant), but this was the 1960’s before single bars, matchmaking services, Tinder.  And the couples went on actual dates.  More about that later.

Jim Lange hosted the original with poise and gravitas.  This new version, for unfathomable reasons, is hosted by Zoey Deshanel and even more mystifying, co-hosted by Michael Bolton.   Imagine Alex Trebek being replaced on JEOPARDY by Paris Hilton.  Zoey’s not even adorkable anymore.  She's just.. out of place and with zero hosting skills. And Bolton has become Lurch of THE ADDAMS FAMILY. 

The celebrities are the ones looking for dates.  Huge celebrities like Hannah Brown.  The bachelors have to guess who she is.  Hint:  It’s not Taylor Swift.  One moron said Taylor Swift. I saw this on THE MASKED SINGER too where knothead judge, Jenny McCarthy thought one of the singers was Taylor Swift.  News flash:  TAYLOR SWIFT IS NOT GOING TO DO ONE OF THESE STUPID SHOWS.  A better guess is one of the extras on GLADIATOR. 

Some game shows age well.  Others don’t.  Since we’re now in the #MeToo era, the flirting and clumsy seduction that goes on feels really creepy.  It’s from a different era.   Who’s nostalgic for lounge lizards?

Most of the CELEBRITY DATING GAME is filler.  There are three rounds of idiotic questions, not just one.  The vapid co-hosts toss in inane comments.  The bachelors are all central casting frat boys or braindead models.  Michael Bolton sings a song.  Again, what the hell is he doing on this thing?  

Everybody dances around, trying to generate this horrible fake party atmosphere.  And after watching a half-hour of this drivel, a winner is selected, and the show ends.  Hey, what about the fucking DATE?   They don’t even have a planned date.  My guess is the "celebrities" said "I don't want to be obligated to go on a date with one of these idiots."

But if that's the case, just what the hell is the point?  What are we watching?  Why on every level does this nonsense even exist?

Let me end by giving this show a big DATING GAME kiss… off. 

IN THE HEIGHTS and WEST SIDE STORY

Hollywood is scratching its head.  All indications were that IN THE HEIGHTS was supposed to be a blockbuster hit.  Surveys showed it was the one movie that would actually get people back into their local cineplex.  Its creative force was golden boy, Lin-Manuel Miranda.  

And then it opened… to meh.  

It underperformed in both theaters and on HBO Max. Prospects for a rebound are slim.  

So now comes the blame game.  There was no recognizable star.  The musical wasn’t well-known enough.  COVID.  Wrong weekend to open.  Mercury in retrograde.

But there was one factor they didn’t list, and I suspect it’s because of how PC-charged the world is now.  Could it be that a certain portion of the audience just didn’t want to see it?  A musical about inclusion set in New York — in these here Divided States of America, is not a big attraction for everyone.  

I did want to see it.  And I have to say I was disappointed.  It’s waaaaaaay too long.  I also had story problems. There were some high points certainly and a few great songs, but in general it was just a slog.  That’s just me.  Your results may vary.  But maybe that’s a factor Hollywood should also consider — not everyone loved it.  And in this social media universe, negative feedback is available to all from all.  

Finally, there is the stupid controversy.  The skin shades are not accurate enough for some vocal groups.  Things have gotten so absurd that even Lin-Manuel Miranda, who created HAMILTON casting African-American and Latinx actors as our founding fathers, gets accused of being insensitive.  So now you have a film that some people feel is too inclusive and others who claim it’s not inclusive enough.  Where does this madness end?  

We’re talking a musical here.  Giant production numbers with huge crowds dancing in unison on the streets and in a public pool — that’s not an accurate portrayal of Washington Heights either… if you want to nit pick.  Nor is unseen orchestras and dancers defying gravity by dancing on building walls.  But I don’t see any scientists who are outraged.  

Repeat after me:  It’s a MUSICAL.  

I’ll be interested to see how the upcoming new WEST SIDE STORY, directed by Steven Spielberg does.  It is a well-known musical although will kids care about seeing a 60 year-old musical?  Will the songs play as classics or anachronistic?   No big stars in this reboot.  Yeah, in the original Natalie Wood couldn’t sing but she was Natalie Wood.  Looking at the trailers of WEST SIDE STORY and IN THE HEIGHTS, they look very similar.  WEST SIDE STORY has more depth but also more cobwebs.   Time will tell, but if I were Spielberg I’d be saying, “Is there time to do some additional filming and add ET?”   Of course, now there would be groups saying ET wasn’t tall enough and the movie should be pulled.  

REMINDER:  No Anonymous or Unknown listed comments will be posted.

What the theatre needs to do to survive (in my humble opinion)

Under normal circumstances this wouldn’t be a controversial post.  But in today’s woke world it is.  So be it.  

Like many other industries legitimate theatre has really been thrown for a loop due to the pandemic.  Most theatres, from Broadway to small Community barely hang on in good times.  Lots of people lose money.  I’m pretty sure that’s always the way it’s been.  And theatres close.  One or two bad seasons is enough to sink a theatre.  Okay, that’s background.  

Most theatres are being allowed to re-open after more than a year of the pandemic, and as you can imagine, they’re reeling.  If they have trouble making ends meet if only half the seats are filled, imagine 18 months of no one in the seats.  

So here’s my radical, controversial, hot-button suggestion:  Schedule COMEDIES.  Lots and lots of COMEDIES.  

Why is that so controversial?  Because theatres are under enormous pressure to present material more inclusive, more socially relevant, unheard voices, challenging work, etc.  And that’s great, and theatres should embrace those areas; in some cases they are areas too long ignored.  

But this year, it’s less a matter of artistic choice and more a matter of survival.  Theatres need people in the seats.  Lots of people.  Every performance.  And the surest way to do that is to schedule COMEDIES.  

I believe that in this moment of time, audiences want to escape.  They’re still going to be a little shaky sitting indoors with a crowd of people.  They’re not going to do it unless they feel they’re going to be entertained.   Audiences have to want to be challenged, open to new ideas and voices.  If they’re not, they just don’t come.  

Certainly a theatre season should include one such play.  I think theatre has an obligation to introduce people to new ideas and worlds.  But in 2021 their primary need is self-preservation.  And the way to achieve that is through COMEDIES.  

Yes, this might sound a little self-serving since I write comedy plays and am always trying to land as many productions as I can.  But theatres have other fine options.  Chris Durang, Paul Rudnick, Alan Ayckbourn, Tom Stoppard, Terrence McNally, Michael Frayn, Neil Simon (of course), and many others.  Oh, and that Shakespeare guy.   So it’s not about me (entirely).  

I think there will always be a place for comedy on the stage.  But for now there is a huge appetite for it.  In two years, things may be very different.  Going to the theatre to be thrilled and challenged and shaken to the core might be the number one trend, but for the moment — TRAGEDY TOMORROW, COMEDY TONIGHT. 

Happy Fathers Day

Happy Fathers Day to all you daddios. 

Here's me and my dad.  I had just questioned the validity of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. 

 

Weekend Post

 

Lots of discussion about multi-cam shows this week.  So why not one more?

When you do a show multi-camera in front of an audience you always run the risk that unforeseen circumstances will affect the crowd’s reactions.

There have been a number of times in my erstwhile career when shows that should have played through the roof played through the floor. Here’s why.

The most common enemy of all multi-cam shows: the air conditioning going out. I've have had this happen a number of times. And with all the blazing hot lights and no cross-ventilation a sound stage becomes Satan's rumpus room in ten minutes. Comedy evaporates at 80 degrees.

Power failures can also curtail things. I’ve found that audiences do not enjoy sitting in pitch-black darkness. Who knew???   Generally generators restore the electricity pretty quickly, but the audience is still unnerved. Anxiety is not the best warm up for promoting laughter.

And when the power goes out, so does the air conditioning. See paragraph three.

Rain is a problem. Usually an audience is asked to line up outside the stage before being let in. There are no retractable roofs over movie studios. Sometimes you can find shelter for the two hundred brave souls or let them in earlier, but more times than not they’re exposed to the elements. It’s hard to really yuck it up when your sweater smells like a dead raccoon and your socks are soaked.

There are companies that help fill audiences, especially for new shows. Once a show is a hit there’s a big demand for tickets. (FRIENDS used to have two audiences for every taping. They took forever to do that show. The first audience would come in at about 4:00. By 8:00 they were burned out and the show was only half done. So they were mercifully released and a new audience took their place. Fans were just so excited to be at a FRIENDS taping they didn’t care. Good luck pulling that on a new show that hasn’t even premiered.) These companies arrange for buses and in some cases even pay people to attend the tapings. (Considering some of the shows I’ve seen lately that’s a hard way to earn a buck.) They are not always conscientious when it comes to selecting groups for specific shows. Imagine a hundred 80 year-olds attending a UNITED STATES OF AL taping.

One time we had a group of convicts. Who did they kill in the yard to warrant that punishment? Again, there’s that unnerving factor for the rest of the audience seeing armed prison guards. And then at 9:00 they were herded out – right in the middle of a scene. Then we were left with a half-empty house. 

I’ve told this story before but a script my partner David and I thought was very solid died on the stage. And only later did we learn that half the audience couldn’t speak English. 

But the worst audience I ever had was for an episode of the Mary Tyler Moore comeback show David and I created. And this was no one’s fault but ours. We had a terrific show. One of our funniest. We were very excited.

And then the morning of the filming the Challenger disaster occurred. Seven brave astronauts perished. Our first instinct was to cancel the filming, but the studio (protecting its investment) argued that we should film anyway. Their reasoning: after a full day of inescapable sorrow, people would gladly welcome the diversion. They would love the opportunity to just laugh for a few hours.

So we gave in. After all, we had a good episode. Sometimes the release of laughter is a Godsend in times of grief and this show was funny.

We filmed as planned. And the show absolutely died. Silence. Crickets. Tumbleweeds. DEATH. I don’t think there were three laughs the entire night. Even the audience that couldn’t speak English laughed at a few things. Not this group. If someone dropped a coin on the floor you could tell by the sound whether it was a quarter or dime – that’s how quiet it was.

As they were filing out I happened to glance at the set and suddenly it all made sense. This was a large newspaper bullpen set along the wall most prominent to the audience was photos of current events. Right in the middle, in plain view of everyone, was a photo of the Challenger.

Oops.

Still, part of the fun of shooting in front of a live studio audience is the unpredictability. Each filming night is different. And the pros outweigh the cons. Plus, the cons leave at 9.

Friday Questions

Ready for some Friday Questions?

Joel Keller starts us off:

Here's a Friday Question for you, Ken, something that has had me curious for almost 40 years (I saw these episodes in reruns):

Did Mike Farrell grow a mustache on his own between seasons 6 and 7 or did you and David ask him to do it? It seems to have come with a change in BJ's character, where the clean-cut guy from Mill Valley is showing cracks in the armor due to all the horrors he's seen since he came to Korea. So it could have been part of a purposeful shift in his character.

Or he grew the 'stache over the break, didn't want to shave it, and you and the staff found an opportunity there. The irony is that Mike was stuck with the lip hair until the end of the series, even though it got fainter and shorter as time went on.

He was requested to grow the ‘stache to give him a different look.  We had read in research that lots of folks in MASH units grew mustaches and beards out of boredom.  And you're right, since Mike was so clean-cut, we all thought it might be fun.  And he could cut it at any time. 

But like I said, it was just a request.  Mike could have said no and the issue would have been dropped.   As always, Mike was a good sport.   And it looked good on him.

From Steve:

Is there a point in a series where lead actors/actresses are expected to take control of their characters? (For example, whether their character would say—or react to—something as written in the script.) Is it a source of frustration when they start exerting that control? Conversely, are there situations where showrunners / writing staff feel the need to encourage feedback from an actor to ensure they are capturing the essence of the character properly?

Steven Bochco used to say, “The first year the actors work for you, the second year you work together, and the third year you work for them.”  

The actual answer is it depends on the actor and the character.  I’ve mostly been very lucky in that I’ve worked in collaborative environments.  The actors’ input is invaluable.  They’re the ones playing the character, they generally gave way more thought to them.  Good actors can bring things to the characters and their lines that you never thought of.  On the other hand, characters are the vision of the writer.  

But with mutual respect you can usually come up with a script that incorporates the best of both camps.   Again, I’ve been verrrry lucky.  There are a lot of contentious actor-writer situations.  I've been in very few. 

Brian asks:

Have you ever written or thought about writing a play for radio?

No.  Very few radio plays are performed in front of an audience and since I write comedies, I prefer to hear the laughter.  I have featured some of my plays on my podcast, and a number of my short plays could easily be adapted to radio (they’re very dialogue heavy), but I’ve never set out to write a “radio” play.   

I wish there were more done here (with an audience).  This still seems to be a viable in the UK.  And of course, longtime readers know I love all forms of radio.  

And finally, from jcs:

I recently watched a blooper reel from "THAT '70S SHOW". Ashton Kutcher was shown having several small onstage accidents. Kutcher - to his credit - ignored the pain, stayed in character and played right through them.

Did you ever a witness an unforseen event onstage that resulted in a decent take which was later aired?

When I was directing LATELINE, starring Al Franken we had a scene we shot in Griffith Park where Al and Robert Foxworth ride horses.  It was one shot, they each had a couple of lines.  

Robert had been in Westerns and was very adept at riding.  Al, to be charitable, was not.

We rehearsed the scene a couple of times then shot it.  

On the first take, just after he got out of camera range, Foxworth screamed.  His back went out on him.  We had to have paramedics physically lift him off the horse onto a gurney.  

Fortunately we got the shot because there was no way we’d ever get a retake.

What’s your Friday Question?

EP229: Meet ESPN/NBC’s Jason Benetti

Jason Benetti is a rising sportscasting star. He calls baseball, football, and basketball for ESPN, is the TV voice of the Chicago White Sox, and will be calling Olympic baseball this summer for NBC. But more than that, he announced Korean League Baseball last summer on ESPN — from his apartment… during a riot. He and Ken swap crazy stories.

Get Honey for FREE at https://joinhoney.com/LEVINE

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Oh no! Mike Myers is back.

Is it just me?  

I find Mike Myers incredibly unfunny.  And what’s worse is, HE thinks everything he does is pulverizingly funny.  The disconnect is Grand Canyon-wide.  

He’s had enough flops like THE LOVE GURU that we’ve been mercifully spared Mike Myers for the last few years.  

But now comes word that he’s making a new Netflix “comedy” series.  As if that wasn’t enough to make me almost cancel my subscription, he plays seven parts.  

“NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!”

So we get seven un-funny cartoonish characters probably in ridiculous make-up.   Gallagher is more subtle.

I think back to the plot of THE PRODUCERS when they were intentionally trying to make the worst musical ever so the show would flop and investors would be be screwed.  Thus “Springtime for Hitler.”   In that case it backfired.  With this project they’re taking no chances.

Because to ensure this show will be unfunny they’ve now hired Ken Jeong to be in it.  Why not just give Mike Pence a stand-up comedy special?  

Hopefully, this is like the Mister Mxyzptlk storyline in Superman where every six months he appears and Superman has to get rid of him.  This new sitcom could be another LOVE GURU and Mike Myerszptlk goes away for six more years.  One can only hope. 

Setting the record straight

Since we seem to be on the subject of multi-camera sitcoms this week....

No one hates phony laugh tracks more than me.   Longtime readers of this blog (all six of them) know this.  But I must set the record straight.

Number one:  There is a big difference between genuine audience laughter and the phony canned laughter you so often hear, which to me is like taking a new car and tagging it. 

A reader recently commented on a sitcom being given the “Charley Douglass treatment.”  Charley was the man with the laugh box.   Many of the laughs in that box were compiled from shows as far back as the ‘50s.  There are people laughing on your television who have been dead for 30/40 years (talk about getting the last laugh).  Some tracks have been used so frequently on so many shows that they’re actually identifiable. 

But here’s the thing —

There is no “Charley Douglass treatment.” 

Let me be very clear. 

It is the show runner or someone representing the show that makes all the decisions.  They’re the ones who determine when there should be a laugh, how big a laugh, whether to go with the dead woman’s guffaw.  Charley just pushed the buttons. 

So when you watch a show and cringe at how the laugh track is going crazy for every stupid lame line, don’t blame the box.  Blame the insecure or deluded show representative who felt the need to create bogus hysterical laughter where none was justified. 

I watched an episode of TAXI recently and was struck by the fact that several jokes didn’t work.  And there was no effort made to hide that with fake laughter.  You’d hear the line clank and then silence for a beat until the next line was spoken.  It was so refreshing.  And it made the lines that did get laughs seem funnier and more genuine. 

As we ease out of the pandemic, multi-camera shows will again start filming in front of live audiences.  Let’s hope producers write funny enough shows that no “Charley Douglass treatment” is ever needed.  

Kevin Can Go F*** Himself

 THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN UPDATED

There’s a new show on AMC and AMC + (I didn’t know there was such a thing as AMC +) called KEVIN CAN GO F*** HIMSELF.  (Is there anyone on the planet who does NOT know what the F*** stands for?  If so, they’re pretty FUCKing dumb.)  

The title is a send up of KEVIN CAN WAIT, the ill-fated Kevin James CBS show that went from highest rated new comedy in year one to cancelled in year two (a nifty trick indeed).  In the typical family sitcom set up, Kevin was the buffoon husband and Erinn Hayes had the unenviable job of playing his tolerant wife.  Eventually her character was unceremoniously killed after the first season (which some might argue was a little hostile and harsh for no reason).  Guess who made the decision to explain away her departure with death?  (Hint: He can go F*** himself.)  

Playing the wife of a typical dufus sitcom husband (Tim Allen, Kevin James, Ray Romano, Bill Engvall, Sherman Hemsley, Jackie Gleason, Patrick Warburton, Jim Belushi, Drew Carey, Matt LeBlanc, Mark Addy, Anthony Anderson, and dozens more) is the world’s most thankless role.   You’re either the wet blanket always scolding the star for wanting to sell their children for whiskey, or you go along bemused thus looking like an idiot yourself.   

And rarely do you get to be funny.  With the possible exception of Audrey Meadows’ Alice Kramden, the “voice of reason” is not funny.  

My heart goes out to Erinn Hayes, and Nancy Travis, Jamie Gertz, Patricia Richardson, Patty Heaton, Courtney Thorne-Smith, Megyn Price, and all the others.  

This new series is seen through the eyes of Allison McRoberts, as played by SCHITT’S CREEK Emmy winner, Annie Murphy.  She’s the mom on a witless multi-cam sitcom starring “Kevin” (Eric Peterson).  And she loathes it.  But that supposedly is either a fantasy or alternate world because the other half of the show is apparently her real life marriage to Kevin, which is also a nightmare.  Those scenes are played very dark. 

The show is shot two ways — multi-cam when you’re watching the actual sitcom, and single-camera when the red light is off.  So it’s a meta behind-the-scenes look at sitcoms and an exploration of a woman trapped in a horrible marriage.  I haven’t seen it.  Obviously, I’m curious and will give it a look. 

It seems intriguing and odd.  Will the sitcom scenes seem like a bit that wears out its welcome?  And is there escape from either nightmare?  There certainly is for the sitcom actress. She takes her money, quits the show, and does something else.  Even if she sticks it out, it's only for a few years.  Extricating yourself from a real abusive marriage is something else. 

The premise is ambitious and I'm anxious to see it.  I'm sure it'll be an interesting follow-up when I do. 

Weekend Post

 

Here’s one of those questions worthy of a Weekend Post.

It’s from Nancy Knechtel:

You have captured the history of the studios you have worked at so well - Did you ever find out who occupied your offices at the studios in the past? Rumor has it that some writers have worked in Shirley Temple's old dressing room bungalow at Fox. Were your offices old dressing rooms or writers buildings? Any great writers occupy your space before you?

For history you can’t beat the Fox lot on Pico. I never had an office in the building that was Shirley Temple’s dressing room, but I was in it frequently since at one time it served as the headquarters for THE TRACEY ULLMAN SHOW and my partner David and I wrote several episodes.  Shirley had nice digs for a six-year-old. 

But for years on MASH and AfterMASH David and I had offices in the Old Writers Building (back before we were old writers). It’s a gorgeous Swiss chalet, and to this day it was my favorite office.

You’ve seen it in many movies and TV shows. BABES IN TOYLAND with Laurel & Hardy for one. Could you ask for better ghosts when trying to create comedy than Stan & Ollie?

They were always filming CHARLIE’S ANGELS and STARSKY & HUTCH outside our office. It was always fun to look out the window and see either Jackie Smith in a tight jumpsuit or a drug dealer being gunned down in a hail of bullets.

In our time there we had three offices. The first was supposedly once F. Scott Fitzgerald’s. We found a few of Zelda’s empty gin bottles behind the couch so we have confirmation.

More impressive to me was when we became head writers of MASH and moved into Larry Gelbart’s old office. That was like having Babe Ruth’s locker.

We used that as our main writers room and one afternoon I noticed several people in the nearby apartment building looking in at us. I didn’t think four guys sitting around a table writing a Radar speech was much of a show but who knows? Later I learned that the Hello Dolly New York set was on fire across the lot. That’s what the apartment dwellers were looking at. Now I feel like an schmuck for waving at them.

Both of those offices were on the second floor. For AfterMASH we took over the entire first floor. Larry Gelbart didn’t have an office but we said whenever he was there he could use ours. The only thing better than having Larry Gelbart’s old office was actually SHARING an office with Larry Gelbart. Babe Ruth using your locker.

Back in the MASH days we parked behind the building and the old Western town from BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID was still up. My spot was right in front of the saloon (which explains why I was often late).

For several years we had a development deal at Fox and this was our office. Since it fronts a street it is always used as a location. I’ve seen it at least two dozen times on shows. And I’m always yelling, “Hey, get the fuck out of my office!”

Friday Questions

If you haven’t already, this is the time to get vaccinated.  Our president and the CDC is being very diplomatic, but let me just say if you’re not getting vaccinated you’re just stupid.  And maybe in needless danger of your life.   And with that public service announcement, here are this week’s Friday Questions.

An unknown reader (who submitted this before I banned unknown and anonymous readers) asks:

How do you feel about studio audiences that go "Awwww!" when something sweet happens, or "Woooo!" when one character insults another or a hot woman walks in? Do any warmup guys try to discourage such behavior?

I hate it and will eliminate it from the audience track.  Emotions need to be earned, not prodded by the audience.  “Wooo’s” are distracting and in some cases rude.

I do tell my warm up people to ask the audience not to do that.  

I also hate applause when actors make their first appearance.  It takes the audience out of the show and it’s self-congratulatory.  

Personal bias but I go to great lengths to avoid any hint of self-congratulations.   Like I said, everything has to be earned.  YOU decide whether the show is good. 

DougG. wonders:

Would you like to have been a writer for Johnny Carson on THE TONIGHT SHOW?

No.  I never had any desire to do that and never applied.

I like writing stories and having my humor come out of characters and attitudes.  I don’t enjoy just writing “jokes.”  

Having to sit in a room and bang out fifty one-liners hoping I get one in is not why I became a writer.  

My first "writing" job was coming up with jokes for Joan Rivers.  I think I got $5 for every one she used.  So basically $5 for every twenty jokes. 

Not for me.  

Mike Reiss, on my podcast, also said that THE TONIGHT SHOW was a revolving door, and that it was not uncommon to get fired once or maybe twice.  

Not for me.

That said, there were some brilliant comedy writers who did work on THE TONIGHT SHOW, several who are friends.  I greatly admire what they did.  It just wasn’t my strength.  Or interest.  

From Yakimi:

A radio question: In all your radio travels, did you ever work at a station that had horribly outdated equipment? I mean, consoles that Fred Flintstone would have been using long before you got there?

Oh yes.  My first job in radio.  KERN, Bakersfield.  I think it said “Hail to the Kaiser!” on the transmitter.  

But here’s the irony: The station also had the best Chief Engineer in John Barcroft.  So even though everything was old and outdated, the station ran like a top.   And it sounded fantastic on the air.  

I’ll take that over new state-of-the-art equipment that breaks down, needs to be rebooted, has glitches, and sounds lousy.  

And finally, from Buttermilk Sky:

Friday question: Commercials. As someone who has written for movies and stage as well as TV, do you find it difficult to remember to break down scripts into ten-minute segments because of the ads? Or does it help you to structure the show?

It helps to structure the show.  When I construct a story I’m always mindful of act breaks and the best, most suspenseful way of telling the story.   Even if I did a show for a streaming platform with no commercials I would still create my own act breaks.

What’s your Friday Question? 

EP228: Another Free-Association Episode

Ken riffs from topic to topic; everything from Jean Smart’s new show “Hacks,” to Toronto, Kurtwood Smith, Gal Gadot, a power failure, making Claire Danes laugh, advice from Red Barber, and getting smacked by Wayne Newton.

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!