Saturday, February 23, 2019

Weekend Post

As you read this there is probably a rehearsal going on at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood for the Academy Awards. The show airs Sunday night on ABC and yes, I can see you yawning. For the third year in a row I will be reviewing them on my podcast. I will write and record it immediately after the telecast and it will drop Monday morning. Why do the review for the podcast instead of the blog? Simple. I’m trying to get MORE LISTENERS.

But this weekend is when the real production work takes place. The director fine tunes all the camera assignments. Dance numbers and song performances are rehearsed, and presenters try their luck reading the teleprompter. I should amend that to say the presenters who bother to show up read the teleprompter. Most do not.

Hopefully they’ll get all of the set malfunctions out of the way and no one will get trampled when the giant Lazy Susan stage spins the wrong way.

There will also be a dress rehearsal. Stand-ins will double for nominees. The director will run the show in its entirety. There are rehearsal envelopes, they are read, and the stand ins get up and give bullshit speeches. Sometimes these speeches are way more entertaining than the actual ones given by the winners.

They do this to get a sense of the timing. Ordinarily they have a host and one of his functions is to either move things along or fill if need be. But this year there is no host – one of the many things the Academy has bungled for this Oscarcast.

Rain is not expected so we won’t have the pleasure of seeing stars in their million dollar gowns and hoodies.

I wonder if they rehearse those Red Carpet shows. Does Jessica Holmes or Sam Rubin ask stand-ins whether they conferred with Freddie Mercury before playing him?

One year for the Emmy rehearsal the bogus envelope had David Isaacs and I winning. We lost during the actual ceremony. But they gave us the envelope. Gee thanks! So with that in mind, congratulations to all the rehearsal winners. What a moment.

See you on the podcast. By the way, the current podcast episode is filled with Oscar trivia like who never won – rehearsal or otherwise. Check it out.

Friday, February 22, 2019

Friday Questions

More exciting than the Oscars – Friday Questions.

Rock Golf is up first.

Kelsey Grammer was on The Late Late Show with James Corden and discussing a possible Frasier revival. He claimed to have been talking with "a group of writers" about getting this going.

So a two part question: Are you one of those writers? And do you think a Frasier revival would be a good thing?

I am not one of those writers. If I had an idea and called Kelsey I’m pretty sure I could be one of those writers.

Would a reboot be a good thing? It really depends on the premise and more importantly who is writing it? If the original FRASIER writers are involved then I might be optimistic. If a whole new group is coming in then I’d be very wary.

There’s a real legacy to FRASIER and those characters. I think you risk really tarnishing that legacy with a reboot that’s not as good or better than the original. I don’t think the recent revival of MURPHY BROWN did their legacy any favors.

From Bruce P:

I sometimes am amazed looking at old sitcoms / dramas that either had a short run or were on the decline in both quality and ratings. I realize the actors and crew are professionals and will do their jobs whether their shows are ranked #1 or #120. But is there a discernible difference in attitude on the set of a hit compared to the set of a soon-to-be cancelled show? I can understand disappointment on a low rated show set. But isn't there also tension on a hit show set as the writers, crew and actors feel like they have to continue to produce quality to maintain their high ratings.

No. Hit shows tend to have relaxed sets. There’s not that dread that “it isn’t working.”  There's something that's a rare commodity in show business: stability.   If anything, I’d say there’s too much confidence on some sets.

But if you’ve been in the business for any period of time you’ve undoubtedly worked on shows that were struggling, or just plain nightmares. As a result, to find yourself on a hit, most people involved – from the actors, writers, and crew – appreciate more what they have and don’t take it for granted.


This is all predicated on not having a monster for the series star. The star sets the tone and a monster, fortified with a modicum of success, will become even more insufferable and obnoxious. And that will poison everything.

Oh, and to be fair, there are monster showrunners too.

Happily, those are more the exceptions than the rule. Hit shows don’t come along often. If you’re fortunate enough to be on one I hope you enjoy every single minute of it.

Brian Phillips wonders:

In your latest podcast (the one on ageism), you say that you are working solo. Do you find when you are writing that you hear your partner's voice in your head even if you aren't working with him?

Absolutely. All the time. I’ve always trusted David Isaacs’ judgment and valued his high standards. So consciously or unconsciously I’m always thinking “Is this good enough? If we were writing this together would it get in?” (In a sense he’s helping me write even though he’s not there.)

I think the proof of this mindset (for both of us) is that on those few occasions when we split a script up and each wrote one act separately and then put them together, I swear you could never tell which of us wrote which act.

And by the way, when I write a new full-length play, the first person I give my first draft to for notes is David.

And finally, from cd1515:

One thing I see in bad shows is characters constantly calling each other by their every sentence or two. It almost feels like the writers were padding the weak script with useless words. No one talks that way. Do writers have rules or theories on that?

There’s no written rules. I can only share how I address it. Generally I’ll avoid the characters calling each other by their names. You’re right, people don’t do that.

I have two exceptions: People do call each other by name if they’re particularly mad at them. “Mary, you and I are through!”

The other time I use that convention is in pilots. I sprinkle the names in there a few times to help the audience learn their names. By week three of a series I discontinue that.

What’s your Friday Question? Remember I will be reviewing the Oscars on my podcast. You can hear it Monday morning.

Thursday, February 21, 2019

Podcast update

Apparently I was given the wrong information (i.e. alternate facts) on a couple of the actors who never won Oscars.  But the good news is you guys actually pay attention to this nonsense I transmit.  And it creates a sort of fun "Where's Waldo" game to this week's entry.  So you're invited to play along.  Find the mistakes.  You don't win anything but it will heighten your listening experience. 

Just scroll up to the big gold arrow and click.

And besides, what better way to prepare you for the Oscars than with a screw up? 

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

EP111: “And the Loser is…” Academy Award Trivia

Getting you ready for the Oscars, Ken has compiled lots of fun facts about the Academy Awards including people who never won. This interesting and fact packed episode contains many surprises! A must listen for all movie lovers!

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Comedy needs to be Cold

If you went to a taping of the DAVID LETTERMAN SHOW you noticed that the Ed Sullivan Theatre was freezing. David insisted the temperature be 60 degrees.  You could hang meat.

Why so cold?

Because cold audiences laugh. Hot audiences don’t.

Cold audiences are more alert. Warm audiences are sluggish. If you’ve got a comedy on stage and see people in the audience fanning themselves with their programs just know you are dead.

Audiences for CHEERS filmings were almost always great. The 200 people in the bleachers were thrilled to be there. They were already fans of the show, it was so exciting to see everyone in person, they were primed to laugh. If I’m being honest, there were jokes that got way better response than they deserved. But one night the air conditioning went out.

And the laughs stopped.

Even for CHEERS.

Same with the dress rehearsal for my play GOING GOING GONE at the Hudson Theatre in Hollywood. We had an invited audience and those poor souls were melting. The actors couldn’t see, there was so much sweat in their eyes. Needless to say I got no laughs. I’m just happy no one had a heat stroke. Every night during the run I made sure that the theatre was COLD. And the laughs thankfully returned.

Great attention is always paid to the lighting, set design, and sound of a production but often times the theatre temperature is taken as a given. It’s worth noting before a performance. I mean, when Sam & Diane can’t get a laugh…

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

My suggestion to save theatre as we know it

Scene from my ten-minute play, THE FUGITIVE with Penny Peyser & Andy Goldberg
It’s probably half urban legend, but the concept of Top 40 radio supposedly began when radio station owner Todd Storz was in a restaurant/bar with some friends in the mid ‘50s. There was a juke box and as new customers arrived they all seemed to play the same three songs. At the end of the night the restaurant staff was cleaning up, putting chairs on the tables, etc. and they too selected those same three songs to listen to. Now it’s one thing for the customers. They come in, hear the song once then leave. But the staff must’ve heard those same songs twenty times and yet they STILL chose to select them.

A lightbulb went on over Storz’s head. People want to hear their favorite songs over and over. So his station began playing the big hits of the day over and over, and the ratings skyrocketed.

Sure, people wanted to hear new music too, but just sprinkled in. Most of all they wanted the hits.

This applies to other forms of entertainment as well. How many cable channels are playing multiple daily episodes of MASH, I LOVE LUCY, LAW & ORDER, NCIS, and THE BIG BANG THEORY? People want to hear (and see) the hits.

Unfortunately, for us playwrights it’s the same thing in the theatre. Why take a chance with a new play by me when you can just schedule THE ODD COUPLE by Neil Simon? It makes it hard to get a new play produced if you don’t have a Tony.

And lots of theatres who do accept new material want to make sure the play has never been produced. They want the “World Premier.” It’s a big deal to them. They can ask for subsidiary rights for taking the risk of mounting your untried material. And if the play goes on to be a big hit they have bragging rights that they were the first one to discover it.

Okay, I get that. I’m not happy about it, but I can see their point.

What I don’t get is when theatres want unproduced material only for ten-minute play festivals. I submit a lot of ten-minute plays to festivals (been very lucky in some and not so much in others) and it frustrates me how many of them only want unproduced plays. Why? What’s the advantage? You can crow about a ten-minute play that goes on to other competitions? There’s no subsidiary rights. And what the artistic director and his staff are left with is a blizzard of terrible plays to go along with the few good ones. Happy sifting. Part of the reasons so many of these plays are bad is because the writer never had a chance to see and fix it once it was on its feet.

And the audience doesn’t give a shit that they’re watching a “World Premier.” In fact, brand new work might make them leery. If you think it’s tough sitting in a movie theatre watching some stink burger, imagine how much harder it is when the performance is live and the actors can watch you.

Seems to me it would be better to mount plays that have proven to be successful. If I were running a ten-minute festival I would require two things: 1) They play must have already been produced, and 2) The play must’ve WON something (“Best Play,” “Audience Favorite,” etc.)

Instead of 600 submission for ten slots I’d have 150 (and let’s get real, those are the same 150 that are really in competition even if there are 600 submission). It’s just simple logic –


Monday, February 18, 2019

Hey, Alexa!

You know how paranoid I am about Alexa. It scares me to have an open microphone in my home.  I'll walk the extra three steps to turn on the light or adjust the thermostat myself.

Of course “they” say Alexa is perfectly safe, there are firewalls galore, and your privacy is guaranteed. Alexa only responds to specific commands and knows the difference between casual conversation and a request.

And if you believe that there’s a certain real estate training university you should sign up for.

Meet Rocco the African grey parrot. He’s already somewhat infamous. He was kicked out of an animal sanctuary in the UK for swearing too much. (This, by the way, is true.) His previous owner must’ve been a writer for DEADWOOD (that is not true).

So now he’s home with his new owner, Marion Wischnewski. And when Marion is away Rocco engages in conversations with Alexa.

And orders things.

So far the parrot has ordered strawberries, watermelon, raisins, broccoli, ice cream, and (it gets better) a kite, kettle, and light bulbs. If only he’d order one of my books.

Every night Marion has to cancel all of these orders.

The point is, someone is listening. How do we know for sure it’s not just Alexa?

“Polly want a hacker.”

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Weekend Post

Writers.  Do you think ageism is a new thing?   Here's an article from 1927.  Thanks to reader Ron Rettig for sharing it. 

Friday, February 15, 2019

Friday Questions

Did you survive Valentine’s Day? Here are some FQ’s as a reward.

First question is from T.K.D. Sandberg.  And comes all the way from Sweden.

I was wondering whether you could talk about how sitcoms and certain other shows have to retain the status quo, meaning how each episode (usually) must end with nothing essential being altered even if the episode might foreshadow some possible change in character or even a location change. Is real change usually saved for "end of season?" Do you have some good examples of reasons for this and reasons why it may or may not be a good idea to make a drastic change to a show in this manner?

Several reasons. Networks like to air shows out of order on occasion (they may feel one episode is stronger than another) and they can’t do that if the show is serialized. It would be like showing reels of a movie out of order.

Also, the real endgame for sitcoms is to have enough episodes to go into syndication. If you’re planning on 100 or 200 episodes you’d be wise not to be making drastic changes constantly. People tune into these shows frankly, because they’re comfort food. When they turn on an episode of FRIENDS they don’t want to spend ten minutes trying to figure out where in the course of the series this episode lies. So in general sitcom storytelling is baby steps at best.

And yes, it does make it hard.  How many times can you tell essentially the same story in a different way?  

From Jen from Jersey:

Why aren’t networks consistent as to when they air their shows? For instance, The Good Place had a “fall finale” so it wasn’t on air during the holiday season. Then in January they only aired two episodes. The show hasn’t been on in a few weeks. How is a struggling show supposed to build an audience when they show isn’t consistently shown? Fox also did this with Last Man on Earth.

That’s the problem with short order series. In the case of THE GOOD PLACE, it was agreed upon between the network and producers to make just 13 new episodes a season. It’s a lot easier to have continuity if you have 22 or 24 episodes a year.

So it’s a scheduling dance the networks must go through to try to maintain audience interest while only having a few episodes to dole out.  Do you play them all in order, take short breaks, take long breaks?  I don't envy network schedulers these days. 

Janet Ybarra wonders:

Have politics (I don't mean office politics, but politics politics) on the part of actors ever become a serious barrier on any projects you and David have worked on?

No. In fact one of my favorite actresses to work with is Patricia Heaton and I am 180 degrees from her politically.

I’ve worked with other actors whose politics I disagree with and so far it’s never been an issue.

But I should point out those are philosophical differences. If I came across an actor who was openly racist or homophobic or wore a MAGA hat I would steer very clear of him or her. Life’s too fucking short.

And finally, from Jim S:

The process of solving story problems has always interested me.

Have you ever sweated a story logjam trying to figure out a solution, only to have someone walk in and solve the problem by saying "why don't you do X?"

Oh yes. And it’s why you have partners, and script doctors (consultants) and colleagues.

For some reason it is infinitely easier to solve other writers’ story problems than your own. Probably because you’re not as close to the story as he is. You can see the overview. You’re also more relaxed. The writer has been wrestling with this thorny problem for hours or days or weeks. You come swooping in and see other possibilities.

And remember, story problems are going to happen. If you never have story problems it means you’re not working hard enough to tell stories in an original surprising unexpected way.

What’s your Friday Question?

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

EP110: TV in the age of Ageism

Ken discusses the realities of the television industry and how he has faced and learned to cope with ageism. It’s a candid personal look into longevity in Hollywood. 

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Whatever happend to Romantic Comedies?

Tomorrow is Valentine's Day and also my birthday.  I turn 39.   America celebrates my birthday by jacking up prices at all nice restaurants.

For those not celebrating their birthday, it's supposed to be a day of romance.  And it got me thinking, whatever happened to Romantic Comedies?

Time was Hollywood made tons of them -- and they were both romantic and FUNNY.

And now the few that we still have are by-the-numbers studio formula pictures.  It's shocking to me the praise for CRAZY RICH ASIANS as a Romantic Comedy.   The celebration of a culture -- great.  But as a Romcom, a typical predictable trifle that at best was a date night movie.


Today we get these Nancy Meyers paint-by-the-numbers snooze-a-thons, or R-rated raunch-fests with unearned emotional moments tacked on.   It's sad but romantic comedies are becoming a lost art.  And there are so few of them that the bar has been so lowered that the producers of CRAZY RICH ASIANS actually thought they had an Oscar contender.

Instead of going out to some overpriced prix fix dinner, stay home with your certain someone special, watch one of those movies I listed, or the first season of CHEERS.   And you can use all that money you save on a present for me.

Happy Valentine's Day, everybody. 

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

My Fair Laura

When I was in New York I saw the recent revival of MY FAIR LADY. It’s my all-time favorite musical. I just think the music is spectacular beyond belief. If a musical has one song that ultimately rises to the pantheon of American Standard it’s considered a triumph. MY FAIR LADY has like six.

And the truth is I had never seen a really first-rate production of it. Jane Powell at the Valley Music Theatre in Woodland Hills, California done on a stage the size of a manhole cover didn’t really cut it. But even then, if you can get people who can sing and an orchestra that’s a grade above middle school the magic is still there.

The current production at Lincoln Center is gorgeous with all the Broadway bells and whistles you now come to expect when tickets cost what you paid for your first house. Rotating stages, elaborate sets, terrific cast, a multitude of dancers, and in the case of MY FAIR LADY — street lamps.

But the highlight was seeing Laura Benanti star as Eliza. One of the true thrills of live theatre is seeing an extraordinary performance, one you remember, and that’s what this production offers with Laura Benanti. (If you’re unfamiliar with her, she’s a Broadway mainstay, has done a lot of television — was Supergirl’s mom for one — and appears frequently on COLBERT as Melania Trump.).

My only problem with the show was that they changed the ending. I’m not going to spoil it but will just say it’s more in line with current sensibilities. And although I agree with those sensibilities I don’t see the need to alter something that was of its time so it could be more PC today. And looking around at the audience, I was probably the youngest person there. I submit that 90% or more of the audience knew the story and knew the ending. No one had a problem with the original ending going in. And to accomplish this they had to adjust Henry Higgin’s character, making him a little less sympathetic. To me it was a case of don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.   Yes, this was the original ending in Shaw's play PYGMALION, but it's not Lerner & Lowe's vision and MY FAIR LADY is their take. 

Fortunately, no one leaves a theatre humming the ending. And as long as they didn’t mess with the songs (which they didn’t — no “I’ve Grown Accustomed to her Facebook”) I can heartily recommend you see MY FAIR LADY if you’re in New York. Who knew Melania Trump could sing so well?

Monday, February 11, 2019

Why I didn't watch the Grammys

People always ask why I don’t review the Grammys. Well, mainly because I don’t watch them. I know my “hip factor” is going to take a hit here, but the problem is I don’t know most of these acts.

At one time I was a rock n’ roll D.J. and I knew everybody. I followed the trends, who were the hot new bands, what were the latest underground movements, etc. Which group used which drug -- that sort of informed thing.  The Grammys were must-see. I was even rooting for people in various categories. I knew all the performers and loved hearing them do live versions of their hit songs. Whitney Houston – Wow. Aretha Franklin stepping in and doing opera – WOW.

But as I got older I found it harder and harder to stay current. I would really make the effort. I’d listen to the hot rock stations and try to familiarize myself with the new artists. I watched MTV when they actually played music.   Eventually it got to be too much work, and I had a realization. None of these songs resonated with me. And that’s because none of them were meant to. They were geared to a younger generation – which is how it should be. But at that point I got off the train.

Now I like what I like, regardless of era or style, and am just fine with that. And if there’s a contemporary singer that knocks me out – like the year of Adele – I watched. Otherwise, I have no idea who most of these artists are. Also, (my “hip factor” is about to take another huge ding), I don’t enjoy Hip Hop. Yes, some of it is very clever poetry, but give me Otis Redding and Darlene Love.

About fifteen years ago I was doing research for a project on the music industry and got to attend Dick Clark’s AMERICAN MUSIC AWARDS. Afterwards I was invited to the post-show party. Most (not all but most) of these artists were incredibly full of themselves and arrogant. I remember thinking at the time, “Who the fuck are you? In another year you’ll be out of the business and completely forgotten.” Sure enough, that’s what happened to 90% of them. Even the winners.

Another thing I noticed about the Grammys – every year there seems to be an artist or group that is the Academy’s darling and they win nine Grammys. Two years later they’re often an afterthought.

So I didn’t watch last night. If there were memorable moments – if Miley Cyrus twerked with Ringo Starr I’ll see it on YouTube. But truthfully, I still can’t get the image of last week's horrific Super Bowl halftime show out of my mind and figure the Grammys could be three hours of this. Better to use the time writing about it rather than watching it.

Oh, and congratulations to all the winners, whoever you are.

Saturday, February 09, 2019

Weekend Post: RIP Frank Robinson

So sorry to hear of baseball great, Frank Robinson’s passing this week. He was 83. There are lots of tributes to Frank on the net, praising his many on-field accomplishments and the barriers that he broke. I want to talk more about Frank Robinson as a person.

Frank was the manager of the Baltimore Orioles when I joined the team as one of their announcers. I had heard that Frank could be, uh… prickly. I had only met him once before. When I got the job I flew back to Baltimore for a press conference and had dinner with him and a few other Orioles officials. He was very pleasant, somewhat low-key. Hardly a volatile figure.

One of my responsibilities was hosting the manager segment of the daily pre-game show. I would huddle with the manager and lob questions for five minutes. It was early in spring training, maybe the third or fourth day. We were in Dunedin to play the Blue Jays. I wandered into his office about two hours before game time with my trusty tape recorder. The door was open, he was finishing up a conversation about hockey with some people I didn’t know. I sat patiently on the couch and waited until they finished their conversation and left and said to Frank, “Hi, wanna do the manager’s show?”

At that point he exploded. “You’re so pushy!” he yelled at me. “Joe Angel (my predecessor) was never that pushy! What’s so goddamn important that I’m keeping you from that we have to do this NOW?” I said, “Lunch.” He instantly dropped the anger and then said, “Oh, then let’s do this.” Clearly, he was just testing the rookie. I guess three years in the minor leagues taught me not to be intimidated by players and managers.

From that point on we got along great. A few weeks later, on Opening Day in Baltimore I arrived at the park way early to get the manager’s show. I knew it would be a media circus. And I was right. We did the interview, I brought it up to the booth, and got the bad news about an hour later that something had gone wrong with the recording. It was unusable. I had to go back down and re-do the manager’s show. Now understand that Frank didn’t love doing the manager’s show in the first place. I thought, “He’s going to kill me.” But nope, he couldn’t have been nicer and even pushed off some other interviews to do mine.

And those manager’s shows were always good because Frank was very candid. I could ask him any question and he’d answer honestly. And this was during a period where the club was terrible and fans were lobbying for his head. He would take the blame for mistakes and not sugar-coat the club’s performance. Most managers would just deflect and speak in a series of clich├ęs. Not Frank Robinson.

One reason Frank and I got along was our shared sense of humor. A side of Frank that most people didn’t know was that he could be very funny. He had a terrific dry wit. So just shooting the shit with him was very entertaining. (By the way, one night he and I went to dinner on the road, he paid for the meal with his credit card, and I said to him “You realize your signature on the slip is worth more than the cost of the meal?”)

Another thing you didn’t know (unless of course you read my book, IT’S GONE… NO, WAIT A MINUTE! – available on Amazon for like one cent), Frank was antsy on flights. So to kill time he would become essentially a flight attendant. He would go up and down the aisle and ask if you wanted anything to eat or drink. Just imagine, the great Frank Robinson, Hall of Famer, MVP in both leagues, was bringing me a Coke and sandwich.

A couple of months into the season Frank was fired as manager but hired to work in the front office. I’m not sure what his responsibilities were, but let’s just say he had a lot of time on his hands. My family was still back in LA (they moved out later in the summer) so I had nothing to do all day when the team was home. One day I decided to get to the park real early and noticed that Frank was in his office. I popped my head in to say hello and he invited me in. We talked baseball for about an hour before I had to go. He said “Stop by anytime,” and to make a long story short – for the next month or so I stopped by practically every day. I can’t begin to tell you how much I learned during those sessions or how fascinating it was to hear his war stories. And a day didn’t go by when I didn’t think to myself, “Holy shit! I’m sitting here talking to Frank Robinson.”

He was a brilliant, fearless, complex, passionate, kind, and funny. He was a gifted athlete. He was the ultimate competitor. And if I ever needed honey roasted peanuts on a flight I could always count on him.

RIP Frank Robinson, although I prefer to forever think of him as MVP Frank Robinson.

Friday, February 08, 2019

Friday Questions

Friday Questions anybody?

J Lee has the first one.

Since you've just gotten back from New York, anything that stuck out for you about the logistics of staging a play (or for that matter, a TV show) in New York, versus doing the same thing in Los Angeles?

There’s not much difference staging plays. Some union rules are different but the process is pretty much the same.

However, doing a multi-camera sitcom in front of a studio audience in New York is like reinventing the wheel. I’ve talked about this before in posts about my time directing the Al Franken sitcom LATELINE in Astoria-Queens.

Camera crews are not used to working multi-camera shows. The crew I had worked Mets baseball for WOR, Channel 9. They would whip the cameras around as if following a shortstop. That took adjusting.

As did construction crews striking sets during rehearsal. In LA all of that is done in the middle of the night before the next day’s rehearsal. Not so in Gotham. These were all lovely people, by the way – they just weren’t used to this format.

From J. Lee to Leen:

What I was wondering is if you have ever worked with Craig T Nelson. I loved him in Coach and re-watch it all the time on Antenna TV. He seems like such a nice guy and would be an awesome person to talk to. Thanks!

Nope. Never worked with him. He was also great as the voice of Mr. Incredible.

Interesting factoid you might not have known:  Early on in his career he did improv with the Groundlings in Los Angeles and formed a comedy team with now-director Barry Levinson.

Bob Gassel is next.

More of a Friday "comment" than question...would love to your thoughts: I fear we will soon arrive at the day when no quality shows have seasons longer than 10-13 episodes. So many great moments and supporting character explorations come when they need to do 22.

Networks need product and if they have a hit show they need as many episodes as they can get. So I suspect we’ll be seeing 22 episodes or more for some time now.

Yes, they’re harder to do, but you get paid a lot more money. Trust me, it’s worth it.

Also, the more episodes you amass the better the syndication deal you can make.  And syndication is really the Clampetts hitting oil

Finally, Dhruv has a question for me and my writing partner, David Isaacs:

Did you guys think of creating an animated series like The Simpsons?

No. For me the fun of television is serving it while it’s hot. Even the best run animated shows take months and months to produce the final product.

That said, I love animated shows. My daughter and her husband are working on one for Apple TV and it seems very exciting.

But I like dealing with actors and seeing my words come to life on a stage. And most of all, hearing a live audience respond. Laughter is a big reward for me. (Not as big as money but still very close.)

What’s your Friday Question? You can leave it in the comments section. Thanks.

Wednesday, February 06, 2019

EP109: The Art of Magic, w/ Bruce Kalver

Ken talks to master magician Bruce Kalver. Learn about the world of magic and how to get out of handcuffs. It’s a fascinating and fun look at the artists who amaze and delight us. No rabbits or doves were harmed during this interview.

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Duking it with Earl

If you’re not reading Earl Pomerantz’s blog, you should. Earl is a terrific comedy writer who views the world with a fresh, often hilarious, perspective. He was a guest on my podcast last year and it’s an episode well worth checking out.

On January 29th I posted a rant about multi-camera sitcoms – how recent ones were not funny and worse, were pumped full of canned laughter. On February 1st Earl weighed in, contesting some of my points. This is his piece.

What you’re seeing here is very unique – two people who disagree on something but still manage to carry on a civilized discussion while never personally attacking the other person or those who have similar beliefs. In fact, this might be the only such debate you’ll find on the internet dated after 2015.

Earl maintains, if I’m paraphrasing him correctly, that the heightened laughter from studio audiences is more genuine because they are fans of the show and are thrilled to be there. And that is certainly valid. (Seriously, if you’re looking for mud slinging this isn’t the place.) I always maintained the latter years of CHEERS we didn’t have to earn the laughs because the studio audience was so crazy excited to be there they laughed at safety instructions.

Add to that a warm up guy who TELLS you to laugh and react. Ironically, both Earl and I did the warm-up for CHEERS during various seasons. So the heightened laughter might be real but it’s somewhat artificial.

And I can tell you, as a freelance director, I worked a lot of different shows – not all of them beloved hits. And whereas there is the novelty factor of attending a TV taping that wears off in a half hour. The freebie laughs stop. And that’s where the rubber meets the road. That’s when you have to really earn the laughs. And I contend that most of today’s multi-camera shows don’t. Instead they rely on the laugh machine. And news flash: they’re fooling NOBODY.

Earl claims that sex jokes almost always work with studio audiences but less so with home audiences. I totally agree. And there’s a real danger to try to please the studio audience first as opposed to the nebulous home audience. But that’s catering to 200 people at the expense of several million. I’m a firm believer in jokes that come out of characters and behavior and that might make it harder to coax laughs from the studio audience but to me it’s worth it. Shows like 2 BROKE GIRLS or TWO AND A HALF MEN would disagree.

Earl points out something else that’s very true. Just because a studio audience goes wild over an episode doesn’t mean it’s automatically good when all assembled. And by the same token, shows that might play a little flat to the audience turn out to be terrific shows at times.

You’d like to think you’re a genius when the audience is in convulsions but there have been times I’ve watched the first edit of one of these love fests and said, “What the hell are they laughing at? This is not very good.” And other times the performances are fabulous but maybe too subtle for folks in the bleachers but at home they really emerge. Now in those cases the showrunner has a dilemma. Clearly the episode is funnier than the audience reaction would lead you to believe. Do you boost the laughter with the machine? Personally I don’t. I’d rather the audience appreciate the show and maybe feel they’re smarter than the tepid audience.

Ultimately Earl says it’s less important what veteran sitcom writers think about today’s crop of sitcoms than what young audiences think. These shows, after all, are meant for them. I would agree with that too. But how do we measure? Ratings are down for these shows but is it because they’re bad or just that Millennials have way more choices and being on CBS is no more an incentive than being on epix!

The way to find out is for someone to do a really GOOD multi-camera sitcom and see if the numbers go up. I think Earl and I would agree that at least we’d be watching.

Tuesday, February 05, 2019

FYRE in the hole

I can’t think of a sitcom or recent comedy movie that made me laugh as much and as hard as FYRE: THE GREATEST PARTY THAT NEVER HAPPENED. I saw it on Netflix. There's a competing one on Hulu.  It is more of an examination of the organizer and the scams he ran.  Well worth watching.  I just found the Netflix one more fun and dealt more with the actual event.  

Anyway, here’s the scoop:

A slick charismatic sleazeball named Billy McFarland decided to stage a Woodstock-like music festival/fantasy/wet dream for rich entitled Millennials. He was going to secure a private island in the Bahamas, put everyone up in luxury beach villas, fly them all there on private jets, provide top chefs to feed them, top shelf booze to lubricate them, and hear such super groups as, uh, Blink 182. All for only $12,000 a person. But hey, it was a way to kill a weekend.

Billy (short for Bilko I believe) and his in-groovy organizers put together a promotional video filled with super models and all the excess one one-per-center would want. These guys knew how to exploit social media and completely sold out within days.

Now all Billy and the gang had to do was deliver. And that’s when the fun began. Everything that could go wrong did. They were kicked off the island, had to scramble to find another one, the luxury villas were hurricane tents, the caterer quit, music acts pulled out, super models were nowhere to be found, and Billy was going through money like water, working around the clock to mount this boondoggle.

Speaking of water, they had shipped over truckloads of Perrier but they were held up in customs. So Billy asked one of the gay organizers if he could take one for the team and blow the customs guy to get their water. And he agreed to do it.

And all that is just the set up. The real comic payoff comes when the hipster partygoers arrived. The world’s greatest exclusive party became LORD OF THE FLIES. Also invited were “Influencers.” Is anyone more insufferable than an “Influencer?” Just too cool for school. To see them inconvenienced is worth the time to see this documentary. 

I suppose if I were a better person my heart would go out more to the festivalgoers who paid a fortune only to get royally fucked over. But these are the people who get into clubs while you wait in lines behind a rope. These are the Donald Trump Juniors of the world. As comedian Rob Fuches says while guesting on CONAN, “If you paid thousands of dollars to go on a trip to see Blink 182, that’s on you. That is Darwinism at its finest.”

Since every attendee had iPhones there is video of everything and like I said, it’s a Schadenfreude extravaganza. Check it out. You’ll probably see the 24 year-old asshole who cut you off last week with his Tesla.  And again, the Hulu documentary is also excellent.  It's more like young Donald Trump if he had been caught. 

Monday, February 04, 2019


The NFL has registered trademarks on SUPER BOWL and SUPER SUNDAY so no one is allowed to use those terms without permission. That’s why ads for TV’s boasted “you’ll be ready for THE BIG GAME.” Adhering to the law I shall resort to euphemisms.

This is a review of the 2019 BIG SLEEP.

In all the LICCXXILICCIXC years they’ve been playing THE BEER COMMERCIAL BOWL there’s never been one as boring. And that goes for the commercials and halftime show. It was like six hours of THE ENGLISH PATIENT.

The highlight was clearly Gladys Knight singing the National Anthem. They should have let her do the halftime show as well. And run the Rams’ offense. I’m only sorry though she didn’t come out in the Bee outfit she wears on THE MASKED SINGER.

Highlight number two: The Washington Post commercial heralding the value of journalism. I’m sure the person who needed to hear that message the most had his head buried in his fourth KFC bucket of extra crispy.

Highlight number three: There was no highlight number three.

CBS covered the game this year, which meant Jim Nantz & Tony Romo. Nance is always solid (although he made a few bobbles along the way) and I’m always impressed by how observant he is. More than Michaels or Buck he seems to see little things on the field. And Tony Romo is just a breath of fresh air. Even though I have no idea what he’s talking about half the time, his enthusiasm and uncanny ability to predict what is going to happen next makes him the MVP of the booth.

Is it just that the commercials were uninspired and derivative this year or after XXLLICCLXIII years of the TITANIC TILT it’s just not a “thing” anymore?

Sponsors spend millions on overblown excess commercials that are not funny for a second. Why not take $100,000 of that and hire comedy writers who know what they’re doing?

Stop with the robot ads! People hate them. You’ll notice that among all the many reboots these days no one is bringing back SMALL WONDER.

Notice all the NFL “We believe in Social Justice” and “Look how community minded our players are” spots there were? Heavy spinning to sweep under the rug all the player arrests. This year alone (and we’re only one month in): Trevor Bates for assault, De’Anthony Thomas for drugs, and P.J. Williams for a DUI. Among the charges NFL players were arrested for last year were domestic violence, eluding police, trespassing, insider trading, battery, public intoxication, injury to the elderly, vandalism, sexual assault, and a bomb threat. Yes, you want the NFL in your community.

Wow. Harrison Ford is doing Amazon commercials. To me that is a lot sadder than Han Solo getting killed.

I did like the Bud Light corn syrup spot. And their GAME OF THRONES crossover. But seeing that flying dragon really made me miss the Budweiser lizard. Am I alone in that? Hello? Dilly dilly?

This is the first year that the singing of “America” took longer than the first half highlights.

I’m sorry but that Planters Peanut car, with the ridges along the side – suggested uh… “another image.”

The halftime show was like if the Orange Bowl halftime had been planned by arsonists. Flames were shooting everywhere. For no reason whatsoever. And I know this is going to make me seem like 100 years old but Maroon 5 sucked. They’ve officially become Nickelback.

CBS took such flack when the wardrobe malfunction revealed Janet Jackson’s nipple for a tenth of a nano second, and yet Adam Levine was allowed to take off his shirt and preen around with all those hideous tattoos. Jews are forbidden from getting tattoos and one of the reasons is so they don’t look like entitled white boys trying to pass for street and hip.

And then there was Big Boi in his giant fur coat. He’ll be getting a call from PETA. And he can’t claim he needed it because it was cold. 37 booster rockets were taking off while he – it wasn’t singing – while he strung nonsense words together so fast that nobody could understand what he was spewing. If you slowed down the tape he might’ve been saying, “If you like this look, watch THE DEUCE on HBO.”

You know it’s a bad game when Jim Nantz, tongue-in-cheek, goes crazy when a 65 yard punt broke an EXCUSE TO DRINK IN THE AFTERNOON BOWL record… even though the ball bounced for 27 yards. Jim displayed a rare flash of humor when he then announced, “It’s going to get exciting now!” Alas, he was wrong.

I did think the Shoppers Assurance commercial was funny. All the levels of hell – middle seats on airplanes, “the talk” from your dad, etc. And now you could add to that: having to sit through a replay of this game.

The INSOMNIA CURE BOWL was so boring that Tony Romo had to continually remind viewers in the second half that the game was tied.

I know Rams fans are disappointed but cheer up, MAN WITH A PLAN returns Monday night to CBS!

Really? Someone spent millions of dollars to advertise better water bowls for your dog?

And Olay needed a horror-themed commercial to sell moisturizer? With Sarah Michelle Geller who has skin so perfect she could wash her face with Lava?

Even the winning touchdown was boring.

The only thing that could have made this game worse was if the MNF crew had called it.

And at least the Rams don’t have to go to the White House. So in a sense, they won.

When do pitchers and catchers report?

Saturday, February 02, 2019

Weekend Post (and Blog Tradition)

This is a yearly tradition.

For several years I had been talking about the "Lost" CHEERS scene. David and I wrote it for the 1983 Super Bowl Pre-game show to promote our fledgling series. They ran it just before game time and it was seen by 80,000,000 people. Nothing we've ever written before or since has been seen by that many eyeballs at one time. But the scene was never repeated. It never appeared on any DVD's. It just disappeared.

Until a few years ago.

Sportswriter supreme, Joe Resnick had taped every Super Bowl including that one. And since the scene aired so close to the game, it was on the tape.  Sadly, Joe passed away a few years ago.   You can read my tribute to him here.

Thanks to friend of the blog, Howard Hoffman, he was able to digitize it and post it on YouTube.  Here's the text of the scene.

So here it is. The Super Bowl is Sunday.


Friday, February 01, 2019

Friday Questions

Welcome to February. What better way to kick off a month than with Friday Questions?

Donald Benson gets us started.

Recalling an interview with Gene Wilder. When Mel Brooks came aboard "Young Frankenstein" as director, he not only co-wrote the script with Wilder but made him sit in on the editing. Brooks was emphatic that Wilder needed to learn this stuff, because sooner or later he'd want to direct to protect what he'd written.

Was your own interest in directing driven by some of that thinking?

I’ve talked about this before, protecting my work was certainly a factor but not the primary one.

I was just looking to have more fun and better enjoy the process. Being on the stage, playing with the actors and crew was more fun than sitting in writing rooms till 3 AM at that point in my career.

Not that directing doesn’t pose its own challenges, but I thoroughly enjoy it. And so far no actor has locked himself in his trailer.

Next challenge is directing a full-length play. I’ve directed one acts and studied terrific theatre directors. I’m probably ready. Anybody need a guy to stage ANGELS IN AMERICA for you?

DyHrdMET asks:

I'm watching the first season of CHEERS on Netflix (I feel like you once recommended it). How do you and the other writers write a uniquely funny character like Coach? It feels like only a certain type of joke would work on Coach, and those jokes wouldn't work on anyone else (such as "they called me 'Red' because I once read a book"). Was it difficult to continually come up good lines for him?

No, it was easy. In most cases you don’t write these characters “dumb,” it’s just that they take everything literally.

I loved writing the Coach. Nick was an absolute master at comic timing. There’s a true art to playing “dumb.” You'd swear he never saw the joke coming. 

Michael has a question about my first book.

I read this book years ago from the library and my wife bought it for me for Christmas. It's called "It's Gone ... No, Wait a Minute." I enjoyed it then and enjoyed it now. But I wondered: since you were still broadcasting when it came out, did you get any reaction, pro or con, from anyone, especially the people in it?

At the time I wrote it, during the ’91 Orioles season, I didn’t tell anyone I was preparing a book. I didn’t want anyone treating me differently (or stuffing me in a locker) as a result.

When the book came out I never caught any flack from the players, coaching staff, or fellow broadcasters. If anyone was pissed they never told me. And I’m still friends with many of the folks in the book including my partner Jon Miller. I don’t think anyone from Shamrock Airlines is my biggest fan though.

I did get a nice note from Johnny Unitas saying how much he enjoyed the book – and it was worth writing it just for that.

And finally, from Jen from Jersey:

What is your opinion about sitcoms and dramas that add topical references to the show? Any show that uses Trump jokes will seem dated in 20 years. The old and new Murphy Brown used topical political humor and it doesn’t stand the test of time.

Yes, you do topical humor at your own risk because it does date the show and reduces its value in syndication.

But it depends on the premise of the series. A show like MURPHY BROWN is set in the world of current events. They're almost obligated to deal with real life people and events. 

I had more of an issue with the topical jokes themselves. As you know I loathe Trump with every fiber of my being. But the Trump jokes on the new MURPHY BROWN were so blatant and relentless that they got old. Obviously he’s an easy target, but that made for easy jokes. And Trump became the only target for topical humor. I think even the most rabid Trump-haters said, “Okay! We get it!”

In my new play, which has a character who’s a journalist, there are a few references sprinkled in about the current state of the administration. A fellow playwright said, “What happens when he leaves office?” I said, “Nothing would please me more than to rewrite.”

What’s your Friday Question?

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

EP108: What’s it like to be an Extra in Hollywood?

A great entry-level job in the industry is becoming an extra – the background people you see in movies and TV shows.  Ken explores that world, the requirements, pay, future, how to get one of those jobs along with some stories including who was “that girl” on the MASH opening credits?

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

North American Freeze-out

My heart goes out to everyone in the Midwest and East suffering through the latest arctic blast. (But of course, there’s no Global Warming. May everyone who doubts it get frostbite today.)

I got out of the East just in time although I was in New York for the huge cold snap last week. Understand that I’m from Southern California where there are frost warnings when the temperature dips below 50.

Last Monday the temp in Manhattan was 0 degrees with a -19 degree wind chill factor. By the way, what’s the real difference? If it feels like -19 degrees it IS -19 degrees!

I watched the local weather forecasts on Channel 2 and 7 and it was like those scenes in every James Bond movie where the super villain tells Bond his doomsday scheme in delicious intricate detail. “You see this big pink blob on the map, Mr. Bond? By 4 PM it will be over Manhattan and all life as we know it will cease. But by the weekend we should warm up.” And I kid you not, one of the WABC-TV weather reporters is named Amy Freeze.

I’m normally traumatized when I can see my own breath so last Monday was an adventure. I needed to go outside a couple of times (once to lunch and once to Brooklyn for a rehearsal) so I made sure I dressed warmly. And by that I mean Under Armour, layers of shirts, a ski sweater, heavy parka, scarf, gloves, and hat. God forbid I needed to go to the bathroom. I looked like a blue Michelin Man. But I figured I was suitably protected against the elements. And maybe someone with actual blood would have been.

I walked outside and that wind went right through me. GAAAAA! For lunch I ducked into the first restaurant I saw. Thank God it wasn’t White Castle.

My other fear was ice, which there was plenty of because it had rained the day before. That’s the other thing: the temp dropped from 50 to 0 in just a few hours. (I really hope climate change non-believers all meet for a picnic today in Grant Park.) I was told how to walk – like a penguin taking tiny steps and keeping my weight above my feet at all times. Tis' the season of broken hips so I was super careful walking.

Again, please be safe and cautious and stay warm. And for God sakes, don’t worry about getting in your 10,000 steps today.

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

My latest multi-camera rant

As you know I’m a big proponent of multi-camera sitcoms. I’ve always maintained that they force you to be held accountable. An audience will tell you whether something is actually funny so you really have to up your game to make sure them laugh. And I’ve proudly been associated with several series that lived up that — and still are funny to this day.

The criticism often leveled at multi-camera shows is that the laughter is not genuine. It’s sweetened with a laugh machine.

For the past number of years I’ve been writing plays and those are even tougher to get people to laugh. Not only is there no laugh track, there’s no warm-up guy, and the audience isn’t familiar with the premise or characters like they would be with a popular sitcom. Laughs have to really be earned.

But that’s part of the challenge and when I do make audiences laugh it’s that much more rewarding. And it seems a worthy goal as a writer to push yourself and continue to raise your standards.

That said, I recently watched some current multi-camera shows. And I was appalled. The jokes were terrible and yet the laugh machine was orgasmic. The most obvious lines, the lamest quips were met with explosive laughter. Half the time I was saying, “What are they laughing at?” I’ve been in multi-cam long enough to know the difference between real audience laughter and the machine. And these shows, some highly regarded, were drenched in canned laughter.

I can only assume the studio audience didn’t laugh (and why would they?) so the show runner sweetened the shit out of the show. But that defeats the purpose of the audience. If you’re presenting subpar material you’ve got to circle the wagons. You’re not trying hard enough, you’re settling, you’re fooling yourself, or you have the wrong writers.

Again, as someone who believes in the form, please step it up. I can’t believe that show runners and writing staffs can objectively look at the final product they’re turning out and not say, “this is unacceptable. We’re better than this.”

Imagine you can’t use the laugh machine one week. Imagine every laugh has to be earned. I guarantee you’ll turn out a better show. You might stay up later rewriting. You might have to throw out a whole scene or subplot. But as a comedy writer, if you don’t believe you can write something that will make strangers laugh out loud you shouldn’t be on staff. If nothing else, have some pride. Your names are on these damn shows.

Monday, January 28, 2019

What's better -- first or last?

Casting calls are always stressful for actors – especially if they find they have to go either first or last. There are disadvantages to either but actors always wonder which is worse? I can tell you my impressions from sitting on the other side of the room as a producer.

First off, if you don’t give a good audition it makes no difference where in the line up you are. You won’t get the job. So for now I’m assuming you are good, even good enough to land the part.

And it goes without saying that if you absolutely hit it out of the park it makes no difference when you come in.

Okay, enough disclaimers…


Generally there are expectations that we are going to see good people. They’ve been hand-picked by the casting director so the quality should be somewhat high.

But that means if you give a terrific audition we might think, “Promising. If that’s just the first person there will probably be others who are better.” So you’re somewhat penalized. But you’re now the yardstick. Can the subsequent actors beat you? It’s not an enviable position.

However, if you’re first and you tank then we producers get worried. Are the rest of the hopefuls this bad? The good news for actors is that we then subconsciously lower our expectations. So if you come in later and do a terrific job it’s elevated in our eyes. There’s also a sense of relief. “Oh good. At least we now have ONE person we can go to if need be.”


The big problem here is if others have already impressed us our minds might be made up before you walk in the door. And then to win the part you have to blow us away.

The other problem is that we’ve now heard the same scene numerous times and we’re tired of hearing it (especially since half the time we hear it performed poorly).

The advantage of going last is that if we haven’t found someone by the time you enter we sooooooo want you to nail it. Even an okay audition gets elevated.


I would think going first is preferable. At least we’re fresh and hopeful. And by going first you know you’ll really be considered. Like I said, if you go last often times the decision has already been made and now you and we are just going through the motions. You have to really pull a Hail Mary.

By the way, sometimes an actor who knows he’s scheduled first will come in late so he has to go later. Don’t pull that. We know what you’re doing, and if nothing else your tardiness sends a message you're unreliable. Wherever your scheduled, just do the best job you can. Remember, a truly great audition will get you the job whether you’re first, third, eighth, or last.

My heart goes out to all you actors. Auditions are brutal. It’s not enough how good you are but where you are in the day’s call sheet. But remember one thing, ultimately we want you to do well. We want you to crush it. And we’re thrilled when you do.

As always, the very best of luck. 

Saturday, January 26, 2019

Weekend Post

The thing about living in Los Angeles – today’s waiter could well be tomorrow’s super star.
Lots of actors starting out taking jobs as waiters or bartenders. The hours can be flexible and you can get night shifts, which allow you to audition for parts and take classes during the day.

Among the actors who once took your order were Jon Hamm, Megan Fox, Chris Rock, Sarah Silverman, Rene Zellweger, Kathy Bates, Jon Hamm, Amanda Seyfried, Marisa Tomei (at Tony Roma’s), Kristen Wiig, Chris Pratt, Julianne Moore, Jennifer Aniston, Russell Crowe (he probably beat the shit out of diners who didn’t tip well enough), Sandra Bullock, and Amy Adams (who worked at Hooters). Julianna Margulies was one of the smartest. She knew to work in a high end restaurant because the tips were better.

The point is when you dine in LA there’s a very good chance your waiter is an aspiring actor or writer or director. And usually you can tell. They emote when reading the specials.

I’ve always said that my heart goes out to young wannabes. There’s no guarantees, there’s lots of rejection and frustration, and customers who eat half their meals then complain and want whole new orders.

I must say that on a few occasions I’ve learned that my waiter is an actor and have arranged for them to read on projects. And in a couple of cases even hired them. So take heart. It does happen. Not often, but it does.

My only truly awkward experience was one time when casting for a guest star role I rejected a certain actor and two hours later he was my waiter. God knows if he spit in my food. Although if his aim was as good as his reading I was pretty safe.

But if you’re a waiter I hope you make it. And if by chance Sarah Silverman was once my server I think you forgot the side of toast.


Last two performances of UPFRONTS & PERSONAL at the Gallery Players Theatre in picturesque Brooklyn, NY.  7:30 Saturday and 3:00 Sunday.  After Sunday's final performance I will be doing a talkback.  Join the fun.  Here's where you go for tickets. Thanks. 

Friday, January 25, 2019

Friday Questions

Hello from Brooklyn, NY where my play UPFRONTS & PERSONAL runs this weekend. If you’re east of St. Louis, come see it. Info here.

But no matter what’s happening in my life I always make time for Friday Questions.

Julie Burlington has the first question.

I love vintage sitcoms. (Rediscovering) so many old shows on Antenna TV, plus all of the shows I've watched over the years, I've watched so many main female characters get arrested mistakenly for prostitution, so many characters get locked or stuck together in storerooms or elevators, or have a ghost of Christmas past visit in a dream, or have an item donated in error to a charity sale that contains that envelope of money ... What do you think has been the most overused story premise in sitcoms?

I would have to say “the dinner party to impress someone and everything goes wrong.” And if I’m being honest, I’ve gone to that trope myself. (No, not on MASH.)

Mark Solomon asks:

Margaret Houlihan became a much more interesting, three-dimensional and nuanced character once she was no longer comedically linked to Frank Burns.

Ken, was that a conscious decision of the MASH braintrust to humanize Hot Lips at about the same time that the much more estimable Charles Winchester character effectively filled the vacancy left by Larry Linville’s departure from the show?

Yes, there was a conscious decision.

The tipping point was an episode called “The Nurses” written by Linda Bloodworth & Mary Kay Place and directed by Joan Darling (who also directed the famous “Chuckles Bites the Dust” episode of THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW).

There’s a famous scene where Margaret pours her heart out to the other nurses that really took her character in a new direction. Here’s Loretta describing it.

YEKIMI wonders:

Do you think it was easier to make a show [less network interference, not as many crew members, etc.] in the earlier days of TV as compared to today or maybe 30 years ago?

GOD YES! The interference is maddening, but that’s a given. (You can probably find fifteen rants about that in the archives.) Having to put everything in writing to be approved by seven different people and then having to wait until you hear back from everyone and often repeating the steps three or four times before you can move on is really what kills momentum, not to mention morale.

On MASH and CHEERS (at the beginning) we had very small staffs. But the work was much more efficient. We didn’t waste weeks going up blind alleys. We knew what we were doing and we did it.

You could argue the value of all this current interference if it meant the ultimate product was better, but it’s not. In most cases it’s worse.

Now it's just layer after layer of suits trying to justify their jobs.  And if they were all swept away the shows would all continue to be produced and aired.  So if someone is not integral to the process, why keep them?  But that's the TV world we live in today.  And why we look back fondly at the "Good Old Days."  

And finally, from Oliver:

How do you shoot reveal gags on sitcoms that are recorded live in front of an audience?

If you want the audience surprised, you generally pre-shoot those gags the day before and show that scene (or that part of the scene) to the audience the night of filming.

Sometimes there are sets you don’t want revealed. Usually rolling screens are set up to block off that set to the audience and they’re not removed until just before you’re ready to shoot.

Hope to see you at the Gallery Players this weekend.  After the Sunday matinee I'm going to do a talk-back.  What’s your Friday Question? Just leave it in the comments section. Thanks.

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

EP107: More with writing partner, David Isaacs

Ken and David share lessons they learned in comedy writing, both good and bad – along with discussions on casting, directing, the series they developed for Mary Tyler Moore, and David’s year working on MAD MEN

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Come see my play... FINALLY

One of the reasons I got into playwriting was that I was frustrated that it took sometimes years for screenplays to actually become movies (assuming they get made at all). With a play, you write it, get some actors together, find a barn, and you can do it. And sell concessions. 

Well, I’m proud to announce that my play UPFRONTS & PERSONAL opens tomorrow night at the Gallery Players Theatre in Brooklyn and gets its world premiere.

After 18 years.

Okay, some backstory. I made a BIG rookie mistake. I had a cast of eight. When I finished the draft I sent it to Garry Marshall who had his own theatre in Burbank. He called me a week later and said, “Verrrry funny!” I said, “Great. Can we do something at the Falcon (his theatre) with this?” “TOO MANY PEOPLE!” he replied.

Apparently with costs, etc. it’s now pretty much understood that plays shouldn’t have more than four people in the cast, and fewer if possible.  (The ideal cast size is none.)

FACTOID: My next play did get produced at the Falcon Theatre. The cast size was two.

Again, I was a novice. Who knew? I was used to all plays having large casts – even ones you don’t think of. Look at the ODD COUPLE. Yes, it’s primarily Felix & Oscar but there are seven people in that cast. And as funny as that play is, it wouldn’t nearly be as good without the poker players and the Pigeon sisters.  Big casts are a good thing -- and give more actors work. 

UPFRONTS has eight roles and they can’t be combined. So I had a few all-star readings (that all went great), just kept rewriting and updating, and leaving the candle in the window. I’ve always felt it was a terrifically funny play and deserved a shot. My eternal thanks to the Gallery Players Theatre for finally giving it a production. Also thanks to my wonderful director, Scotty Watson and awesome cast: Timothy Paul Jobe, Mark Hudson, Rachael Schefrin, Michelle Conti, Mike Sause, Jared Wilder, and Logan Hurd.

I’m in New York for the performances and have been here a week for final rehearsals. It’s so exciting to finally see it come to life (although it was 0 degrees here in Gotham last Sunday night).

Here’s the synopsis: The process of getting a TV show on a network schedule is examined as one studio attempts to place two sitcoms on the Fall line-up. How far will everybody have to go, what compromises must they make, which ethics will they have to abandon? And yes, it's a comedy. Really. It is.  And loosely autobiographical.  "What doesn't kill you only makes for good story material."

If you’re in the area, the play is very funny, the theatre is heated, and for your money you get to see eight actors instead of two. And I’ll be there to apologize for anything that doesn’t work.  Here's where you go for tickets.  If you come Thursday night enter the promo code BOX10 and all seats are $10.

And by the way, 18 years is still faster than some of my screenplays.

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Stan & Ollie

I loved the new movie, STAN & OLLIE about the longtime comedy team of Laurel & Hardy. In the '30s and '40s they were the biggest comedy movie stars in the world.  Steve Coogan was amazing as Stan Laurel and John C. Reilly did a nice job capturing Oliver Hardy. The two recreated some of Laurel & Hardy’s classic bits and I found myself laughing out loud.

But the movie also made me very sad.

Why? Because I figure that 99% of people under 40 have no idea who Laurel & Hardy were. Not that I blame them. You rarely see their movies or shorts on TV anymore. And practically everything they did was in black-and-white and good luck getting a Millennial to watch something in black-and-white.

And it’s a shame because Laurel & Hardy were really funny. Yes, it was slapstick but the attitudes and timing was just priceless. And it was all Stan who wrote their material, essentially directed, and edited the films. Hardy would play golf and come in when Stan said they were ready to shoot. Both gentlemen made me laugh but Hardy was my favorite. His slow burn kills me. And his attempt at all times to preserve his dignity in the face of utter humiliation made him the perfect comic foil.

So I recommend the movie. But more than that, I recommend you see the real thing first. Even if you are loathe to watch black-and—white, if you are a serious student of comedy or even just someone who loves to laugh, I implore you to watch the following video and be introduced to Laurel & Hardy.

The short I'm featuring is famous. It won an Oscar. Please treat yourself to the Music Box by Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy. Set aside a half-hour and enjoy.

Monday, January 21, 2019

My approach to writing movie reviews

There are college courses on film criticism. I never took one. If I did, I think I’d fail it. Having to write a long analysis of a movie, comparing it to Russian speculation fiction films and uncovering all the symbolism and providing overview and perspective and literary references is not what I do. God bless those who can.

I read some of these reviews and tip my hat while also saying, “What a bunch of shit?”

Reviews can get pretentious. Reviews can get precious. Reviews can be self-indulgent.

There are a few reviewers however, that I admire (even if I don’t always agree with them). Anthony Lane in THE NEW YORKER is one. He’s occasionally very droll and funny, and it’s clear he puts a lot of thought and effort and research into his weekly reviews.

Way more than I ever do. Or ever would.

Now that we’re in award season (God help us), I’ve been reviewing more movies for this blog. (Thank you studios for the screeners.) But I’m not a professional reviewer. (That’s probably clear by simply reading one of my reviews.)

So to better understand my reviews (for you to decide whether to give my opinions any credence at all), I thought you should know my approach.

It’s more a “take.” It’s more of a “reaction” to what I’m seeing. Did I like the damn movie? Yay or nay and why? How were the actors, director, writers, explosions? Would I recommend the movie to you and why?

But I try to write in broad strokes, with some laughs along the way. I have very definite tastes and generally will not see a movie I have no interest in just because it’s a “contender.” Life’s too fucking short. You could make the world greatest horror film. I’ll never review it because I’ll never see it. Sorry.

When I was young I felt almost an obligation to see every movie that came out. It was homework I needed to do. Now? If it looks like something that will bore the crap out of me I give it a pass. Will I miss seeing some good movies that I am stupidly avoiding? Sure. But so what? The good news is if I’m reviewing your movie it’s because I’m expecting to like it. The bad news is if I don’t, watch out.

But in any event, a few paragraphs should cover it. I read three page reviews for movies that can be distilled down to “formula comedy” or “avoid.” You should get the idea by paragraph three what my take is. I try to write them as soon as I can so the film is still fresh in my mind. And sometimes that’s 2:00 in the morning so factor that in.

My hope is that my reviews are somewhat unique in that they’re in my voice and style (if it turns out I happen to even have one – the jury’s still out). And they’re also an excuse to invite you to weigh in on your opinion. So this isn’t film criticism; it’s a cyber water cooler.

Thumbs up.

Saturday, January 19, 2019

Weekend Post

This video made me laugh really hard.  A woman tries to put gas in a Tesla. 

Also, this video shows the value of some sort of laugh track.  When you watch the first time keep the sound on.  The guys' laughter is infectious.  Then watch it again on mute.  Not nearly as funny, is it?

I hate a laugh track as much as anybody, but I do have to concede the point that hearing laughter promotes laughter.



Rehearsals are going well on my play, UPFRONTS & PERSONAL that opens Thursday night at the Gallery Players Theatre in fabulous Brooklyn. I'll be there all weekend. Come for laughs and stay to say hi. After the show next Sunday there's a talkback where you can heckle. Here's where you go for info and tickets. Thanks. Hope to see you there.

Friday, January 18, 2019

Friday Questions

Hello from New York.  I'm very excited to announce that my first play gets a production next weekend in Brooklyn.  It's called UPFRONTS & PERSONAL is about the process of getting TV shows on network schedules.  (Right.  What do I know about that?)   Anyway, it's very funny and I'll be there to say hi (if you like it).   Here's where you go for info.   Please come.  It's one of my better efforts. 

But just 'cause I'm out of town doesn't mean the Friday Questions stop.  No sir.  Here they are.

Jen from Jersey has a question about the FRASIER set:

Did you make any changes to the set as the show progressed? I noticed that the lighting in the radio studio was much darker during season 1.

The Director of Photography (cinematographer) is always tweaking. FRASIER stayed pretty consistent.

On the other hand, look at CHEERS. Notice how different the bar looked on the pilot to later seasons. Lighting can really change a set’s appearance.

The problem with lighting multi-camera shows is that they have to accommodate actors walking all around the set so everything needs to be lit well enough that actors don’t disappear in shadows.

Boomska316 asks:

I was wondering if you were a fan of old fashioned radio and if so what some of your favorites were? I'm partial to the old Sherlock Holmes shows starring Rathbone.

First let me establish that old time radio was before my time.

I did love the comedies. THE JACK BENNY SHOW and THE FRED ALLEN SHOW. EDGAR BERGEN (Candice’s dad) & CHARLIE MCCARTHY were also funny, although how bizarre to have a ventriloquist on the radio? That’s like a magician hosting a radio show doing card tricks. Oh, and it’s not PC anymore but the old AMOS & ANDY SHOW always made me laugh.

As for the dramas, I liked old episodes of THE SHADOW. And SUPERMAN.

Michael has another FRASIER question.

Do you know why Daphne's psychic abilities were dropped on FRASIER? Was it based on network or audience feedback or just something the writers decided to discontinue on their own?

The writers decided the bit had pretty much run its course. And they were always trying to give the characters more dimension – and it’s one of the reasons FRASIER was such a cut above – instead of just going to the same well over and over they sought to find other aspects of her character to explore.

And finally, from Matt:

You said it is easier to find jokes now than when you were younger. Do you ever go back to your earlier work and think to yourself, “what idiot wrote that?” Do you think your comedy style has changed as you have aged?

ALL the time.

I can only watch maybe three of the MASH episodes I wrote. As for the rest, just give me one more day to rewrite each one of them. There are better jokes, story turns, speeches, etc.

I don’t know if my comedy style has changed per se but I think I’ve honed it. I’m more skilled and write with more assurance. So the improvement is more a matter of craft.

What’s your Friday Question?