Earl B sez: That guy's attitude toward structure reminds me of an interview I saw years ago on Canadian TV: Ken Finkleman had just returned to the Great White North after working in Hollywood, where studios were obsessed with unimportant things like plotting, story beats, character arcs, and would ask stupid questions like "What does the hero learn?". Naturally, he couldn't work with such people, so he left.
BTW: the last two things he did in Hollywood before leaving were Airplane 2 and Grease 2.
I was very engaged in this edition. The input by the guy who taught at a community college reminded me of the line in Annie Hall about those who can and those "who can't...teach gym." The idea of always keeping the audience in mind reminded me of the thing you said about giving female characters names like 'Sam' or 'Frankie'. It could confuse a viewer or reader. When you spoke about exposition I envisioned Cheers before you mentioned it. Mary Tyler Moore Show was also good at that. Neil Simon was good at writing funny exposition. Barefoot in the Park and The Odd Couple are good examples.
Another great podcast, Ken. Very helpful. Thanks. On the subject of exposition, here is the opening sequence of UFO, a 70s syfy show. I think it's very clever in that it shows all the exposition a viewer watching the show for the first time would need, not that there are opening credits anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qDy4OMAkgY
I watched Sherwood Schwartz's interview for the Archive of American Television. For Gilligan's Island, he was concerned about explaining the story of the castaways every week, so the detailed and catchy theme song took care of that. A first time viewer wold get the pipe in the intro. Same for the Brady Bunch and its memorable theme song. Very clever.
I was already writing professionally when I entered college. While I took classes I continued getting stuff published and had a play produced. You can imagine my reaction when I had to sit through endless pretentious discussions about the Higher Nature of Artistic Creation. If anything, the fact that I was actually writing for an audience (and getting paid for it) made me look pandering and second-rate to the brilliant theorists around me. "No one should ever do ANYTHING for money," I was told. Of course, no one in their right mind would pay for the brittle, self-important insular stuff those paragons were waving around. Personally, I think it was backward logic, tailoring their arguments to make their shortcomings seem like virtues, but what do I know? I was just trying to entertain because that's the JOB.
The basic rules of composition are actually as basic as it comes. If it's a comedy, people have to laugh. If it's a drama, they have to need to know what happens next. No matter what, your characters have to interest them. These are simple rules, but not EASY ones to accomplish. Nothing says "beginner" faster to me than someone who announces that they're above these peasant notions and will invent a brand-new system that will dazzle the world with their genius. Try learning to tie your shoes first. If you need to attend every performance of your work to scold the audience about why they're failing to appreciate your innovations, they're not going to say "Oh, I'm sorry I failed the writer," but "This writing stinks."
Thanks. Started thinking of the shows of my youth. Many of them used the opening credits to explain the premise- thinking of I Dream of Jeannie and the Prisoner. The clumsiest example you can find on youtube in the premiere of the incredibly short-lived Tammy Grimes Show where Tammy and her Uncle tell each other stuff they already know: "Your brother works under me! At the Bank!" "Way under you! He is the 11th VP- and you are the President!".
7 comments :
Earl B sez: That guy's attitude toward structure reminds me of an interview I saw years ago on Canadian TV: Ken Finkleman had just returned to the Great White North after working in Hollywood, where studios were obsessed with unimportant things like plotting, story beats, character arcs, and would ask stupid questions like "What does the hero learn?". Naturally, he couldn't work with such people, so he left.
BTW: the last two things he did in Hollywood before leaving were Airplane 2 and Grease 2.
I was very engaged in this edition. The input by the guy who taught at a community college reminded me of the line in Annie Hall about those who can and those "who can't...teach gym." The idea of always keeping the audience in mind reminded me of the thing you said about giving female characters names like 'Sam' or 'Frankie'. It could confuse a viewer or reader. When you spoke about exposition I envisioned Cheers before you mentioned it. Mary Tyler Moore Show was also good at that. Neil Simon was good at writing funny exposition. Barefoot in the Park and The Odd Couple are good examples.
Another great podcast, Ken. Very helpful. Thanks. On the subject of exposition, here is the opening sequence of UFO, a 70s syfy show. I think it's very clever in that it shows all the exposition a viewer watching the show for the first time would need, not that there are opening credits anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qDy4OMAkgY
I watched Sherwood Schwartz's interview for the Archive of American Television. For Gilligan's Island, he was concerned about explaining the story of the castaways every week, so the detailed and catchy theme song took care of that. A first time viewer wold get the pipe in the intro. Same for the Brady Bunch and its memorable theme song. Very clever.
Comment #2 So an actress with a few minor credits walks off the show after a few episodes due to the minor part?
Rant for Rant:
I was already writing professionally when I entered college. While I took classes I continued getting stuff published and had a play produced. You can imagine my reaction when I had to sit through endless pretentious discussions about the Higher Nature of Artistic Creation. If anything, the fact that I was actually writing for an audience (and getting paid for it) made me look pandering and second-rate to the brilliant theorists around me. "No one should ever do ANYTHING for money," I was told. Of course, no one in their right mind would pay for the brittle, self-important insular stuff those paragons were waving around. Personally, I think it was backward logic, tailoring their arguments to make their shortcomings seem like virtues, but what do I know? I was just trying to entertain because that's the JOB.
The basic rules of composition are actually as basic as it comes. If it's a comedy, people have to laugh. If it's a drama, they have to need to know what happens next. No matter what, your characters have to interest them. These are simple rules, but not EASY ones to accomplish. Nothing says "beginner" faster to me than someone who announces that they're above these peasant notions and will invent a brand-new system that will dazzle the world with their genius. Try learning to tie your shoes first. If you need to attend every performance of your work to scold the audience about why they're failing to appreciate your innovations, they're not going to say "Oh, I'm sorry I failed the writer," but "This writing stinks."
Thanks. Started thinking of the shows of my youth. Many of them used the opening credits to explain the premise- thinking of I Dream of Jeannie and the Prisoner. The clumsiest example you can find on youtube in the premiere of the incredibly short-lived Tammy Grimes Show where Tammy and her Uncle tell each other stuff they already know: "Your brother works under me! At the Bank!" "Way under you! He is the 11th VP- and you are the President!".
Post a Comment