Writers are getting royally screwed... AGAIN

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

PAPER PARTNERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop Paper Partners.  Young writers deserve better.  

Movies with great beginnings and disappointing middle and endings

A re-post from many years ago...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, so help me add to the list.

Fred & Ginger never did THIS

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

Adele is funny too

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

(Black) Friday Questions

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

Wendy M. Grossman begins:

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

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

Buzz and marketing are now more important than ever.

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

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

From Paul:

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

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

cadavra asks:

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

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

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

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

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

And finally, from Mitchell Hundred:

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

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

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

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

What’s your Friday Question? Happy holiday weekend.

THANKS

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

Ken

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

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

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

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

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

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

He laughed and said I was probably right.

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

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

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

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

Learn the basics.

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

Best of luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watching UNDATEABLE LIVE live

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

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

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

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

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

Me and Bill Lawrence

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

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

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

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

Me and Phill Lewis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Of: 2013 -- The Kickstarter controversy

As we march towards this blog's tenth anniversary, reprising a post a year, there can be only one for 2013.  When I wrote this on May 7, 2013 taking Zach Braff to task for using Kickstarter to fund his new movie I received LITERALLY one million hits that day.  Talk about going viral.  Yikes.   Hopefully today I'll get eleven.  

NOTE: Later today I will post my account of watching UNDATEABLE LIVE, ironically from Bill Lawrence who also did SCRUBS, which starred you-know-who.   It's amazing how this all ties together.  Please check back. 

Zach Braff is trying to raise money on Kickstarter to fund a movie he wants to make. Zach Braff is a good actor and a fine filmmaker. GARDEN STATE was a terrific movie. But I wouldn’t give him a dime.

Why?

Because it defeats the whole purpose of Kickstarter.

The idea – and it’s a great one – is that Kickstarter allows filmmakers who otherwise would have NO access to Hollywood and NO access to serious investors to scrounge up enough money to make their movies. Zach Braff has contacts. Zach Braff has a name. Zach Braff has a track record. Zach Braff has residuals.  He can get in a room with money people. He is represented by a major talent agency. But the poor schmoe in Mobile, Alabama or Walla Walla, Washington has none of those advantages.

So someone who otherwise might have funded the Mobile kid instead will toss his coins to Zach Braff because he figures it’s a better bet and he gets to rub shoulders with show business.

Yes, it might take Zach Braff a year of knocking on doors to get his money, so now he figures, hey, just show up, sit back, and let the cash come to me. This is not an option Walla Walla kid has. I’m throwing my support to those who really NEED it.

Recently, Kickstarter was used to fund a new VERONICA MARS movie. This is obscene to me. It’s a known television series distributed by a major studio. Are you a big fan of VERONICA MARS? Want to support it? Great. Buy ten tickets and see the movie ten times.

This is what Hollywood does, dear reader. It sees an opportunity for exploitation and takes it. The Sundance Film Festival is another prime example. At one time it showcased modest little movies by unknown filmmakers. Kevin Smith made CLERKS – a grimy black and white film starring all unknowns. The result was discovered talent. Now look at the festival. Every entry features major Hollywood stars. During the festival they all descend upon Park City, along with Harvey Weinstein, reps from every major studio, and a thousand CAA and William Morris agents. Any hint of the original purpose of the film festival has long since vanished.

If Will Ferrell or Brad Pitt – just to name two random examples – are in an independent film, do they really need a film festival to get Harvey Weinstein to screen their film? The chubby nerd from New Jersey who maxed out his credit cards to make a film about a local convenience store couldn’t. He needed a film festival. He needed an audience to appreciate his effort before he could be recognized. And now today’s equivalent of a young Kevin Smith can’t even get his movie into a festival much less Harvey Weinstein’s screening room.

Sundance is a lost cause. But Kickstarter isn’t. Not if we put a stop to this now. If you only have so much money to give to charity, give it to cancer research and not to help redecorate Beyonce’s plane. Support young hungry filmmakers. The next Kevin Smith is out there… somewhere. He (or she) just needs a break, which is what Kickstarter is supposed to provide. Zach Braff can find his money elsewhere. He did once before. He’ll make his movie. And if it’s half as good as GARDEN STATE I will praise it to the heavens in this blog and urge you to go spend your money to check it out.

When I used to broadcast for the Orioles one of my partners was the legendary Chuck Thompson. Most of our games were at night. Chuck was an avid golfer. He played the public courses and only on weekdays. He used to say the weekends were for the “working man.” Chuck could play any day he wanted, they could only play on Saturday and Sunday so he didn’t want to take one of their starting times. It’s a great way to live by.

Kickstarter is for the “working man,” Zach. And VERONICA. And (soon) Harvey.

Best Of: 2012 -- the creative process

Earlier today I posted a humor piece I wrote for the blog.  I followed it up with a detailed explanation of my thought process in writing it.  Here's that follow-up piece that originally was posted on Oct. 4, 2012.

Yesterday’s piece was purely for laughs. But today I want to use it for instructional purposes. The scene could easily be the opening of a pilot (albeit a premise pilot). Now that you’ve read it and (hopefully) found it amusing (one reader said it was very stereotypical. I prefer to view it as recognizable legitimate behavior. But you decide), let me walk you through my thought process on how I wrote it. 

Start with a funny premise. Give yourself a situation ripe for comedy. The Superman legend is so white bread middle-America. I thought a Jewish couple would put a good spin to it.  If the premise is funny, the ideas and jokes will easily come.  If the premise is not, you're passing kidney stones for forty pages. 

EXT. CORNFIELD – SMALLVILLE, KANSAS -- DAY (1990)

I chose 1990 so that if I want to continue this series and put Superman in the present day, this is when this scene would occur. When I settled on the year I went to Google and looked up events, movies, and TV shows of the era. The more specific the better.

A rocket hurtles out of the sky and lands with a crash, a plume of smoke trailing behind it.

A 1988 Kia comes down the road. Inside are Yetta and Morris, a middle-aged Jewish couple.

What would this couple drive? It’s just the two of them so a small car. They probably don't buy a new car every year. And of the small cars out there Kia seems the funniest.

YETTA: Morris, stop the car!

MORRIS: Why?

YETTA: What do you mean why? Didn’t you just see that?

MORRIS: Let’s not get involved.

To me this one line tells you exactly who this character is. Every line, besides being funny, needs to better inform us of who these characters are. They tell us by their attitudes, their decisions, their language.

YETTA: Stop the car or so help me I’m taping over BAYWATCH.

BAYWATCH – cheap thrills for repressed middle-aged men.  They don't even watch porn.  They watch BAYWATCH.  And this shows Yetta knows how to get to him.

MORRIS: Alright. Alright. I’ll stop the car. Leave it to you to want to examine every little object that falls out of the sky.

Mission accomplished.  But he needs to save face, hence the little dig at her.

YETTA: You know that's a terrible show, right?

He made a point of quickly changing the subject away from BAYWATCH. She gets back at him for the little dig by bringing it up again. And it suggests that they’ve discussed this topic before and perhaps he defended it, which has to be the most transparent defense in history.

MORRIS: Look, I stopped the car, okay?!

Again, he doesn’t want to talk about it. She knows how to push his buttons.

YETTA: Let's have a look.

She gets out of the car.

MORRIS: What? We're getting out of the car? Aren’t we trespassing?

It always helps to have two people with differing attitudes. So if she is gung ho to explore this, you have more to play if he doesn’t.

YETTA: Oh shut up.

He follows her across the field.

MORRIS: Who knows? Someone may come and think we did this.

You have to cover their crossing the field. He offers lame justifications for his position.

They arrive at the scene.

YETTA: It’s some sort of rocket.

MORRIS: Great. You happy now? It’s a rocket. Let’s go.

YETTA: Aren’t you even curious as to how it got here?

MORRIS: No. It’s a rocket. Who shoots rockets? Kids. Skinheads. For all we know there’s a Hitler Youth group in Smallville and it's der Fuehrer Air Power Day.

He wants nothing to do with this. His assumption is that it’s anti-Semites. And he exaggerates for comic purposes.  If the scene were today the first guess would be terrorist.  And if it was set in 1962 the suspected culprit would be Russia. 

YETTA: That’s ridiculous.

MORRIS: You haven't been to the Dairy Queen lately.

Yeah, like that's proof. 

YETTA: (examining closer) Wait a minute. Morris, I think there’s a baby inside.

MORRIS: Okay. Now we’re leaving for sure.

YETTA: I swear I'm erasing all eight episodes of BAYWATCH.

Pushing his buttons. For all his bluster, this is a woman who gets what she wants. We see the dynamic of the relationship.

MORRIS: Well then just kill me!

He gives up.

YETTA: Who do think would do such a thing?

MORRIS: I told you, the skinheads. There's probably a new chapter -- Hitler Toddlers.

The one explanation they don’t consider is that it’s a rocket from outer space. Rational people tend to consider the more logical, plausible explanations. But what if two teenagers found it? They might jump right to a UFO. So again, how characters rationalize something they don’t understand tells us who they are.

YETTA: Well, we’ve got to get the poor thing out.

MORRIS: I’ll call the Auto Club.

He doesn’t want to do it himself.

YETTA: We can’t wait forty-five minutes. Give me a hand. We’ve got to get it out ourselves.

She’s clearly the person who drives their relationship. At this point we have to cover some business. We need them to open the rocket, which will take some time and preparation. How can we do that in an entertaining fashion?

MORRIS: What? Us? Are you crazy? That thing is hot. What if I order a pizza? They’ll be here in thirty minutes or less. Let the pizza boy open the rocket. I'll tip him.

YETTA: I should have married Saul Gazin.

A good tip: Go off topic. There are ways of getting him to do something without being on the nose – “You’re so lazy. You never do anything.” Etc. She’s pushing his buttons again. Guilt.

MORRIS: Oh, again with the "Saul Gazin". Mr. Perfect. He’d get the baby out. He probably has oven mitts right there in his glove compartment just for an emergency like this.

This must be a card she uses all the time. He tries to show that he’s immune to it with a sarcastic remark. Actors talk about each line having an “objective.” Whether conscious or unconscious, that’s something good for all screenwriters to keep in mind. His objective: “Oh stop throwing Saul Gazin in my face. I’m tired of it!”

YETTA: My mother and the entire congregation was right about you.

She won’t let it drop. We saw her do that before with BAYWATCH. She’s essentially saying, “I don’t care that you’re tired of it. I’m going to keep harping.” And why does she keep doing it? Because she’s a horrible person? No.  She's the one who wants to save the baby.  It’s because she knows it works.

She takes off her sweater, wraps it around her hand for protection and begins pulling at the latch. Out of guilt he wraps his jacket around his hand and joins in.

MORRIS: Move away. I’ll do this.

Sure enough. She has guilted him into it.

YETTA: Thank you. You're such a prince.

Subtext: You should have offered in the first place, asshole. 

He yanks and pulls and strains.

We’ve got to cover this activity. It’s unrealistic to think the hatch would just pop right open.

MORRIS: If my back goes out, good luck getting the Nazis to pay for my medical bills.

Call-backs – always a good comedy staple.

YETTA: Maybe if you exercised more than once every fifteen years.

She returns his volley.

MORRIS: Do YOU want to do this?

He calls her on it.

YETTA: No. Fine. Keep going.

She backs down. It’s nice to see him get a victory once in a while.

MORRIS: Stop nagging. I’ve never broken into a rocket before.

Telling the audience why it’s taking so much time. And again, all these messages are best delivered through jokes.

YETTA: Sorry… but you really do have no muscle tone.

A trait now well established – she can’t let things go.

Finally, the latch opens.

MORRIS: There!

YETTA: Oh thank God!

She sweeps the baby up into her arms.

YETTA: He is so cute.

MORRIS: He? Then that rules out China.

Another call-back. Still searching for an explanation to this. And it seems amusing that that's what he's thinking about.  A baby is pulled from a spacecraft and he's still mulling over how it got there?

YETTA: Why would anyone do this to a precious little baby?

MORRIS: You’re looking for answers? In this crazy world? Why can't they solve the Middle East? How could a thing like the Exxon Valdez oil spill happen? How did Rick Dees get a national television show? I think the real question here is what are we going to do with him? Does Protective Services have a UFO division?

Google helped here in finding specific events.  Now comes a tough turn we have to make:

YETTA: Morris, why don’t we keep him?

MORRIS: What?!

Bear in mind that characters have to react to news they weren’t expecting. It may seem like just extra lines to have characters say “What?” or “Pardon me?” but the actors need them and you need them to make your scene flow.

YETTA: We always wanted a baby.

MORRIS: Yetta, that’s insane. We also want a time share in Hawaii.

I could have ended the line with “that’s insane” but it’s an opportunity for a joke.  When you go back through your script, look for these.  I bet you find four or five... or twenty.  

YETTA: We talked about adopting. Y’know, after learning that your sperm count was low.

Again, she pushes his button, this time hitting below the belt, as it were.  

MORRIS: You gotta bring that up, don’tcha? I bet Saul Gazin could repopulate the world!

He pushes back.

YETTA: I’m just saying.

MORRIS: Look, you can pull the cable out of the wall. I’m not keeping this child.

The BAYWATCH ploy is not going to work. She’s got to come up with something else.

YETTA: Don’t you see what this is? It’s a sign from God, Morris. It’s like when Bithiah found baby Moses floating on the Nile and raised him. Change boat to guided missile and it’s the same thing. Morris, this child – I just get the sense he’s… special in some way. And there’s a reason we found him. These things are not by accident. If that had landed five minutes earlier maybe Martha and Jonathan Kent would have found him and fifteen years from now he’d be selling dope.

She appeals to his sense of fate and heritage. And the Kent joke is saying, “We’d be better parents” – appealing to his ego and sense of humanity.

MORRIS: (softening) Well… I always did want a son to take over the Woolworth store. But what if his real parents do come after him? What if we see a milk carton and there is the baby or a picture of the rocket?

He’s not just going to turn on a dime. It’s too big a decision. So bring him around slowly. Let him soften. Why might he always want a son? How about to take over his business? So what business should he be in? Generally, Jews who live in non-Jewish cities own stores. I thought Woolworth’s seemed right. It was a little quirky and for irony (that no one would get), I looked up businesses that went out of business in the ‘90s. Woolworth’s was one of them. So Morris is projecting this future that won’t be there.

But he still has reservations. What if the baby's real parents show up is a question I believe they’d ask. But tag it with a joke.

YETTA: Then we’ll call Protective Services.

She has a good answer.

MORRIS: This is so nuts.

He still can’t bring himself to say yes. It’s too big a commitment.

YETTA: Morris, I won’t ask you for another thing for months. Not even a new garbage disposal that if you have a nose you know we need desperately.

She bargains now… but still has to press him on the garbage disposal. You know this is a promise she can’t keep.

He considers, then finally:

MORRIS: Alright. We’ll take him.

YETTA: Seriously?

Another one of those “character needs to react” lines.

MORRIS: Yes, because my life isn't stressful enough.

He doesn’t want to show that he’s a softy. Plus, he wants brownie points for this.

YETTA: Oh, darling. I’m so happy.

Genuine emotion.

MORRIS: What do we name him? And if the answer is "Saul" then the deal's off.

You know she got into his head by bringing up “Saul” so he can protest all he likes that it means nothing but we see that it does.

YETTA: How about Zvee? After my grandfather.

MORRIS: A perfect name for a kid growing up in Kansas. Zvee Sugarman.

Funniest, oddest name I could think of at the time.  And Sugarman for Superman.

YETTA: I love you.

MORRIS: Yeah yeah. Let’s go eat.

That’s what Jews do. They make life-changing decisions then they go eat.

Best Of: 2012 -- If I wrote the Superman legend

Our "Best Of" series is up to 2012.  Like with yesterday, today is a two-parter.  I love writing dialogue and would occasionally post scenes I would like to see.  That's what this is, first appearing on Oct. 3, 2012.   I then decided I could use the scene as a way of showing my thought process in crafting it.   So the next day I broke down the scene line by line.  Later today I'll post that.  But for now, just enjoy (hopefully) the scene.

EXT. CORNFIELD – SMALLVILLE, KANSAS -- DAY (1990)

A rocket hurtles out of the sky and lands with a crash, a plume of smoke trailing behind it.

A 1988 Kia comes down the road. Inside are Yetta and Morris, a middle-aged Jewish couple.

YETTA: Morris, stop the car!

MORRIS: Why?

YETTA: What do you mean why? Didn’t you just see that?

MORRIS: Let’s not get involved.

YETTA: Stop the car or so help me I’m taping over BAYWATCH.

MORRIS: Alright. Alright. I’ll stop the car. Leave it to you to want to examine every little object that falls out of the sky.

YETTA:  You know that's a terrible show, right?

MORRIS: Look, I stopped the car, okay?!

YETTA:  Let's have a look.

She gets out of the car.

MORRIS: What?  We're getting out of the car?  Aren’t we trespassing?

YETTA: Oh shut up.

He follows her across the field.

MORRIS: Who knows? Someone may come and think we did this.

They arrive at the scene.

YETTA: It’s some sort of rocket.

MORRIS: Great. You happy now? It’s a rocket. Let’s go.

YETTA: Aren’t you even curious as to how it got here?

MORRIS: No. It’s a rocket. Who shoots rockets? Kids. Skinheads.  For all we know there’s a Hitler Youth group in Smallville and it's der Fuehrer Air Power Day.

YETTA: That’s ridiculous.

MORRIS: You haven't been to the Dairy Queen lately.

YETTA: (examining closer) Wait a minute. Morris, I think there’s a baby inside.

MORRIS: Okay. Now we’re leaving for sure.

YETTA: I swear I'm erasing all eight episodes of BAYWATCH. 

MORRIS:  Well then just kill me!

YETTA: Who do think would do such a thing?

MORRIS: I told you, the skinheads.  There's probably a new chapter -- Hitler Toddlers.

YETTA: Well, we’ve got to get the poor thing out.

MORRIS: I’ll call the Auto Club.

YETTA: We can’t wait forty-five minutes. Give me a hand. We’ve got to get it out ourselves.

MORRIS: What? Us? Are you crazy? That thing is hot. What if I order a pizza? They’ll be here in thirty minutes or less. Let the pizza boy open the rocket.  I'll  tip him.

YETTA: I should have married Saul Gazin.

MORRIS: Oh, again with the "Saul Gazin". Mr. Perfect. He’d get the baby out. He probably has oven mitts right there in his glove compartment just for an emergency like this.

YETTA: My mother and the entire congregation was right about you.

She takes off her sweater, wraps it around her hand for protection and begins pulling at the latch. Out of guilt he wraps his jacket around his hand and joins in.

MORRIS: Move away. I’ll do this.

YETTA:  Thank you. You're such a prince.

He yanks and pulls and strains.

MORRIS: If my back goes out, good luck getting the Nazis to pay for my medical bills.

YETTA: Maybe if you exercised more than once every fifteen years.

MORRIS: Do YOU want to do this?

YETTA: No. Fine. Keep going.

MORRIS: Stop nagging. I’ve never broken into a rocket before.

YETTA: Sorry… but you really do have no muscle tone.

Finally, the latch opens.

MORRIS: There!

YETTA: Oh thank God!

She sweeps the baby up into her arms.

YETTA: He is so cute.

MORRIS: He? Then that rules out China.

YETTA: Why would anyone do this to a precious little baby?

MORRIS: You’re looking for answers? In this crazy world? Why can't they solve the Middle East?  How could a thing like the Exxon Valdez oil spill happen?  How did Rick Dees get a national television show? I think the real question here is what are we going to do with him? Does Protective Services have a UFO division?

YETTA: Morris, why don’t we keep him?

MORRIS: What?!

YETTA: We always wanted a baby.

MORRIS: Yetta, that’s insane. We also want a time share in Hawaii. 

YETTA: We talked about adopting. Y’know, after learning that your sperm count was low.

MORRIS: You gotta bring that up, don’tcha? I bet Saul Gazin could repopulate the world!

YETTA: I’m just saying.

MORRIS: Look, you can pull the cable out of the wall.   I’m not keeping this child.

YETTA: Don’t you see what this is? It’s a sign from God, Morris. It’s like when Bithiah found baby Moses floating on the Nile and raised him. Change boat to guided missile and it’s the same thing. Morris, this child – I just get the sense he’s… special in some way. And there’s a reason we found him. These things are not by accident. If that had landed five minutes earlier maybe Martha and Jonathan Kent would have found him and fifteen years from now he’d be selling dope.

MORRIS: (softening) Well… I always did want a son to take over the Woolworth store. But what if his real parents do come after him? What if we see a milk carton and there is the baby or a picture of the rocket?

YETTA: Then we’ll call Protective Services.

MORRIS: This is so nuts.

YETTA: Morris, I won’t ask you for another thing for months.  Not even a new garbage disposal that if you have a nose you know we need desperately. 

He considers, then finally:

MORRIS: Alright. We’ll take him.

YETTA: Seriously?

MORRIS: Yes, because my life isn't stressful enough.

YETTA: Oh, darling. I’m so happy.

MORRIS: What do we name him?  And if the answer is "Saul" then the deal's off.

YETTA: How about Zvee? After my grandfather.

MORRIS: A perfect name for a kid growing up in Kansas.   Zvee Sugarman.

YETTA: I love you.

MORRIS: Yeah yeah. Let’s go eat.

Best Of: 2011 -- My blog war with Roseanne continued

Earlier today I posted my initial response to Roseanne's New York Magazine article.  What follows is the fallout and my response.   This appeared May 31, 2011. 

Wow! Roseanne reads my blog! Cool! In her blog she posted a rebuttal to a piece I wrote last week about her article in New York magazine. Here’s what I wrote. And on Sunday here’s what she wrote. (NOTE:  She has taken down her response.) 

It’s silly to even get into a debate. I’d say the madness and paranoia of her rant speaks for itself. My reaction to it was sadness. She’s battling enormous demons. For all of her gifts and talent, that’s a steep price to pay.

I hope someday she finds some happiness in her life.

One loose end.  In her blog post she wrote this:

I took responsibility for bad behavior, but explained that the bad behavior was during a nervous breakdown brought on by having to work in a hostile work environment, and I am pretty sure that women who have worked for you in the past (if indeed there were ANY) worked in a hostile work environment. Let me know, women writers out there--how were you treated on Ken Levine's staff?

Two women writers who worked with me and for me responded -- Robin Schiff, who was the co-creator and co-showrunner of ALMOST PERFECT with David Isaacs and I, and Linda Teverbaugh who was a producer on that show.    Also, I received a note from Laurie Gelman.  Not to stir the pot but she was the first woman producer of ROSEANNE season one.  Her account of that first year is markedly different from Roseanne's.  You decide.    My thanks to Robin, Linda, and Laurie. 

And again, Roseanne, you asked.  Let me just conclude by saying if you're reading this in Hawaii, I wish you aloha, trade winds, and anything to bring you some peace.  

From Robin Schiff:
 
I am a women writer who has worked with Ken Levine on three different occasions. Although he begged me to say nice things about him, I have to be honest and talk about my true experience.

Several (okay, many) years ago, I brought Ken and his partner David Isaacs an idea for a TV series. At the time, I didn’t have the experience (or cachet) to make it happen on my own. Ken and David loved the idea, which was about a strong, successful, likable, complex, opinionated woman trying to juggle a happening career with a satisfying lovelife. Not only did Ken and David get behind the fictional version of the woman, they instantly embraced the “real version” (me) as an equal and true partner. They were also my mentors, making sure I learned every aspect of producing. What they taught me was life-changing, giving me the tools to go on and have a career as one of a handful of female show runners. There are many sexist guys in the business, but Ken Levine is not one of them. The most sexist thing he ever did was blather on about baseball with the other men in the room despite the fact that I was visibly bored. Hardly grounds for a lynching.

One final thought. I totally agree with Roseanne that there is rampant sexism in the industry. A couple of weeks ago, the WGAw released its executive summary finding that (in addition to dismal stats for ethnically diverse or older writers), women comprise only 28% of working writers. We still make less money than men. All you have to do is look at the writers onstage accepting Emmys for late night talk shows and sitcoms to see that women comedy writers are on the endangered list.

That being said, it undermines the validity of a very real issue for all women anytime a woman explains away what might simply be fallout from her own actions by charging it up to sexism. Maybe Matt Williams should have given Roseanne a co-created-by credit for Roseanne. I can’t comment on that. But to say that this was because she was a woman doesn’t hold water since Matt Williams also took a sole created by credit on Home Improvement – which was based on Tim Allen’s stand-up act. I empathize with how unfairly Roseanne feels she was treated. But sexist? I would love to know how many female executive producers Roseanne employed on her own show. Did she foster talented women writers and empower them to become showrunners like Ken Levine and David Isaacs did with me? Just wondering…

From Linda Teverbaugh:

I hate to say it, being a great admirer of "Roseanne," the series (much of it, anyway), but Roseanne, the person, is talking out of her own asshat. She's right about one thing: She did hire standup friends as writers on the series. Tom Arnold's buddies, too. I know this because I'm a female writer from a blue-collar family who got screwed out of a job as a result. Thank you, Sister Woman. It was, however, my great good fortune to work for Ken shortly thereafter. Ken doesn't share Roseanne's fixation on "getting credit," so he'd never bring this up. But too bad, Ken, I'm going to: While Roseanne was literally farting on table drafts, throwing out scripts left and right, and as a consequence, holding all the writers' lives hostage, Ken busted his ass to keep the "Almost Perfect" room running efficiently, which meant keeping peace with the stage, the studio, the network, and all the other havoc makers who make sitcom hours exhausting or impossible. As far as I know he did not do this by threatening anyone with scissors. Instead, he made it possible for this working mother to leave work when the Paramount day-care center closed for the day, take my toddler son home and give him dinner. It meant the world to me, and, of all the female sitcom writers I know with kids, I'm one of the rare ones who ever got support like that. Sorry Roseanne, but that's fucking feminism.

And by the way, if Roseanne wanted "created by" credit, she needed to sit down with Matt Williams and help break and write the story for the pilot. That's what Drew Carey did with Bruce Helford.


And finally, from Laurie Gelman:

It didn’t take long for me to get a taste of the staggering sexism and class bigotry that would make the first season of Roseanne god-awful.

This makes me laugh every time I read it. I don’t know how she defines sexism, but she is one of the biggest perpetrators I have ever met. I was the first female writer producer on Roseanne and she absolutely refused to acknowledge me -- on stage or in the room. No eye contact. Nothing. She’s one of these women ( and I’m sure lots of your female writer friends can relate to this type) who likes to be the only woman in the room and play up to all the men. I was actually astounded by this because I expected her to be just the opposite. Now if you were below the line and kissing her tuchas to keep your job, you may have gotten another one of her many personalities, but this is a woman who is definitely threatened by smart, funny women and has to alpha dog all competitors. By the way, if the first season was so god-awful, how did we make it to number 1?

It was at the premiere party when I learned that my stories and ideas—and the
ideas of my sister and my first husband, Bill—had been stolen.

Really???? People actually broke into their minds and took them???? I was on the show from the rewriting of the pilot in New York all the way through the first season. There was never any point where Matt Williams did not include Roseanne in the creative process and actually want her input. In fact, I have never worked with an EP more inclusive or fair ( or nicer) than Matt Williams. He bent over backwards to please her. We made it a point to bring her into the room and get her take on every idea before we laid out the stories. Obviously, we also accommodated her notes on all the drafts. Additionally, Matt permitted her husband Bill Pentland to sit in on all the rewrite tables, thus giving her additional insurance that the Roseanne take on things was being adequately addressed.


The pilot was screened, and I saw the opening credits for the first time, which included this: CREATED BY MATT WILLIAMS. I was devastated and felt so betrayed that I stood up and left the party.

Great. More food for us.

Best Of: 2011 -- My blog war with Roseanne

Leading up to my ten year anniversary I'm re-posting a piece from one of the years.  Actually, today I'm going to post two.   Realizing I might be poking a hornet's nest, nevertheless I'm going to reprise my exchange with Roseanne.  I do so because it started a blog war that caught the attention of the national media.  Before long, there were newspaper articles and TV interviews.   

This is part one -- my initial reaction to her New York Magazine article.  She then ripped the shit out of me in her blog.   What follows later today is my response to that so you get the whole story.    Hopefully, this won't stir up the controversy again because there is nothing new to add, but in terms of any impact my blog has had, this episode certainly put me on the map.  
 
It first appeared on May 23, 2011. 

NOTE:  On Monday I will report on seeing last night's UNDATEABLE LIVE broadcasts.  So if you haven't seen it yet and have DVR'd, you have until Monday.  Now to today's hornet's nest: 

Roseanne Barr (or Arnold or whatever she calls herself these days) recently wrote an article for New York Magazine. You can read it here. In the article she states “her” side of the story. Here’s my reaction:

But first, some disclaimers:

I greatly admire her show, ROSEANNE. It truly was one of the few groundbreaking sitcoms.

And much of the credit goes to her. She was the creative voice.

I have never personally worked for or with her. So my observations come from an outsider, albeit an outsider who has been in the trenches for over thirty years.

I've met Matt Williams only a couple of times, but only briefly.   So it's not like we're BFF.

What else? Let’s see. She hasn’t sold guns to terrorists. To my knowledge.

Okay.

Now...

In the article, she attempts to portray herself as a victim and a martyr. She is neither. She is an enormously talented woman who has enough psychological problems to keep the industry in business for the next two hundred years. I’ve always believed that fame and money and power just make you more of what you really are. And if that’s the case, than Roseanne is a monster. No amount of spinning on her part is going to change that. No amount of “woe is me”, “no one understands me”, “I’m the only one who cares” laments are going to change the fact that she treated people like shit. Routinely. Constantly. Knowingly.

For that alone, I have no use for her.
 
Let’s break down the article, shall we? She is mortally wounded upon learning that she didn’t get creator credit for her series. Okay, there may be some injustice there, but that’s more the fault of her handlers, not the writer, Matt Williams. And when she claims he stole her life, uh, that’s not entirely true. If he had taken all her ideas, written a script, told the press it was his life story, and then hired Camryn Manheim to star in the show, then yes, I’d say we have a major case of identity theft. But everyone KNOWS the show is based on Roseanne and her material. Matt even said as much in articles back then. The name of the fucking show is ROSEANNE for Chrissakes! All she really is being gypped out of is royalties. And I think she more than made up for that in her salary and ownership position.

And it takes skill and experience to turn fragments of a stand-up routine into a cohesive television series.  Matt Williams does deserve some recognition.    He was not just the proverbial mouse on the elephant.   

Yet, it’s this betrayal that she uses to justify making everyone’s life a living hell. The tone of a set is established by its star. When the star begins reading THE ART OF WAR and keeps a list of who she’ll fire, she’s in a very real sense creating a poisonous atmosphere.

Her contempt for writers is so deep-seated that she can’t even hide it in the article. This what she says, and I quote:

Male writers have zero interest in being nice to women, including their own assistants, few of whom are ever promoted to the rank of “writer,” even though they do all the work while the guys sit on their asses taking the credit.

Oh really? As a male writer I find that insulting. As a male I find that insulting. And so misguided and ridiculous that it doesn’t even warrant a rebuttal.

I love how she portrays Matt Williams as such an ogre and mentions that he went on to create HOME IMPROVEMENT for Tim Allen and neglects to add that Tim Allen never had the same issues with Matt that she did. Matt & Tim seemed to get along just peachy. Later she references Chuck Lorre and how he has since hired most of her crew and supporting actors. If he were so terrible why would they agree to work for him again? He’s not the only producer in town (although it seems like it). How many of those same crew people would ever consent to work for her again? Three?  Maybe.  If their kids were being held for ransom.  And even then, I don't know that all three would comply. 

Roseanne makes a big issue over a particular punch line that she found offensive. And according to her, Matt dug in and there was an ugly standoff. I agree with her that the line was bad and needed to be replaced. But I guarantee that if she weren’t so relentlessly combative, the showrunner (ANY showrunner) would have been happy to find another joke. In this case, it wasn’t just a joke, it was the  “line” in the sand. I’ve had actors object to lines and there’s never been a problem. I’m never going to force an actor to say something he hates. But I also expect the actor to present his objection is a respectful way. Things on that set would have been different if the book Roseanne read was THE ART OF COLLABORATION.

So she fires everyone and we’re supposed to cheer. The next wave of writers was (as she says) “old guys”. One of them, Jeff Harris, took out a full-page ad in the trades when he decided to quit – an open letter to the cast and crew that said, "My wife and I have decided to share a vacation in the peace and quiet of Beirut.”

Next she hires comics and assistants to write her show. Translation: people she can control. So began the revolving door. And how about this for humiliation? Since there was so much turnover in the writing staff and she had no desire to learn anyone's names, she made them each wear numbers around their necks during runthroughs.

She concludes the article by saying she’s not bitter. (Oh really???)  She takes comfort in being such a champion for integrity, dignity, and women’s rights. Sure wish I had a picture of her women writers during runthrough wearing numbers around their necks.

Best Of: 2010 -- Guest blogger: Aaron Sorkin

Friday Questions return next week.  This is a special ten day look back at my favorite blog postings -- one from every year. 

In 2010 SOCIAL NETWORK came out.  I reviewed it and a reader, Tarazza, posed a question to screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin in the comments section.  Much to my shock and delight, Aaron offered to respond.   This ran on October 10, 2010.  Again, my sincere thanks to Aaron Sorkin.  It's not often I get an Oscar winner to be a guest blogger.   Or even know who I am.   First I posted Tarazza's comment followed by Aaron's response.   

Tarazza


I love your blog!!


I also loved The Social Network, except for one thing-- the lack of a decent portrayal of women. With the exception of 1 or 2 of them (Rashida Jones included), they were basically sex objects/stupid groupies. Even what you say here:
Jesse Eisenberg is what Michael Cera aspires to be. Justin Timberlake continues to be the most talented STAR SEARCH winner ever, And Rashida Jones is just great to look at.


... kinda makes me think that Aaron Sorkin (though I love his writing) failed the women in this script. Kind of a shame considering he's written great women characters like C.J. Cregg!


This is Aaron Sorkin and I wanted to address Taraza's comment. (Ken, I'll get to you in and your very generous blog post in just a moment.

Tarazza--believe me, I get it. It's not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about. Women are both prizes an equal. Mark's blogging that we hear in voiceover as he drinks, hacks, creates Facemash and dreams of the kind of party he's sure he's missing, came directly from Mark's blog. With the exception of doing some cuts and tightening (and I can promise you that nothing that I cut would have changed your perception of the people or the trajectory of the story by even an inch) I used Mark's blog verbatim. Mark said, "Erica Albright's a bitch" (Erica isn't her real name--I changed three names in the movie when there was no need to embarrass anyone further), "Do you think that's because all B.U. girls are bitches?" Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny. The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them. It was a revenge stunt, aimed first at the woman who'd most recently broke his heart (who should get some kind of medal for not breaking his head) and then at the entire female population of Harvard.

More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren't the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80's. They're very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren't women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)

And this very disturbing attitude toward women isn't just confined to the guys who can't get dates.

I didn't invent the "F--k Truck", it's real--and the men (boys) at the final clubs think it's what they deserve for being who they are. (It's only fair to note that the women--bussed in from other schools for the "hot" parties, wait on line to get on that bus without anyone pointing guns at their heads.)

These women--whether it's the girls who are happy to take their clothes off and dance for the boys or Eduardo's psycho-girlfriend are real. I mean REALLY real. (In the case of Christy, Eduardo's girlfriend so beautifully played by Brenda Song, I conflated two characters--again I hope you'll trust me that doing that did nothing to alter our take on the events. Christy was the second of three characters whose name I changed.)

I invented two characters--one was Rashida Jones's "Marylin", the youngest lawyer on the team and a far cry from the other women we see in the movie. She's plainly serious, competent and, when asked, has no problem speaking the truth as she sees it to Mark. The other was Gretchen, Eduardo's lawyer (in reality there was a large team of litigators who all took turns deposing witnesses but I wanted us to become familiar with just one person--a woman, who, again, is nobody's trophy.

And Rooney Mara's Erica's a class act.

I wish I could go door to door and make this explanation/apology to any woman offended by the things you've pointed out but obviously that's unrealistic so I thought the least I could do was speak directly to you.

Ken--Thanks for your really nice words and for giving me a chance to apologize again for my remarks back in 2005. Obviously a star writer on one of the best comedies of all time doesn't need to prove his credentials as a "real" comedy writer.

Aaron Sorkin