On this week's Hollywood and Levine podcast, Ken’s writing partner David Isaacs returns for a lively discussion on comedy – theories, genres and romcoms. It’s a fascinating study of what it takes to evoke laughter.
Ken, I thought you might have Thoughts about this Guardian piece: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/09/sitcoms-broadway-musicals
The news that THE NANNY is to be remixed as a musical led the paper to consider the prospect of similar for six sitcoms. They like the idea of CHEERS on the Broadway stage. Personally, of your work, I'd have thought MASH was a better prospect.
Where does a joke come from? Is it consciously concocted or does it arise from that place where thoughts and emotions come from. I have a feeling it arises from your subconscious and is just there, like magic. Like if I asked you for your favorite meal in the last 6 month. You would not go one-by-one through the 100 places you ate, the top one or two meal would just appear in you head. Your subconscious knows. Funny people have a funny subconscious.
I second Lemuel's request for your thoughts on Buck Henry. I absolutely loved To Die For. Not only was his screenplay brilliant, he also gave a terrific performance as a schoolteacher.
There's a common fallacy among wannabes that a "strong" character is one surrounded by patsies who roll over for them without any serious effort on the chosen one's part. From my experience, the reason so many beginning writers devise characters with no comedic flaws is that they're actually trying to sell THEMSELVES as these lovable, flawless figures just as they want everything to be easy career-wise. I was once brought in to attempt fixing a project that had a workable premise but went right down the toilet because the author insisted the lead was based on himself and he would not tolerate any other characters challenging him. Unfortunately, the director insisted we keep his buddy in the process. The result was a conflict-free pudding in which the cast spent all their time telling this surrogate how much they admired him. The writer couldn't understand why an audience wouldn't be interested in his private ego trip.
Likewise, a romantic comedy has to be about a couple learning how to open up to each other and form a partnership under unusual circumstances. Even the trend to do comedies where some slob gets a beautiful starlet at least try to suggest the bozo has a good heart under the nacho crumbs on his T-shirt, so he's got SOMETHING to offer. For someone insecure or status-driven, however, parity is too risky. Their stories were inevitably about how one person (usually the woman) learns to submit themselves to the dominance of the humorless, emotionally stunted other. Would it come as a surprise to find that most women don't find that sort of fantasy particularly appealing? RomComs are supposed to offer an escape from that sort of miserable relationship and create the hope of a happy ending. In a traditional script, the loser who gets the female lead would be the suitor dumped in favor of an appealing rival who knows how to fill her emotional needs.
That sort of writing comes from someone who honestly can't hold two viewpoints in their head at once, but it's the contest between well-matched personalities that drives any character-driven story, just as comedy rises from the careful use of tension and release. Sounds like David's students are motivated enough to get past that initial hurdle, but not everyone is able to develop that perspective.
Dude you keep calling people "wannabes" and "losers" but you never provide any link to your work? What have you written? For who? Where is it published or aired? What experience do you have? What have you done? Your cryptic comments about your experience were great for about a year but now I'm asking you, what have you written professionally? Thank you.
Is it possible that increasing reliance on global market success is also a factor in the decline of rom-coms in go-to-the-movie-theater-movies? If it true that nowadays it's hard for even a well-written rom-com movie to be successful in overseas box office (because the characters, humor, etc. is so localized, or for whatever other reason,) then couldn't that also be a part of why fewer of those stories are done in that theatrical-movie genre, and why more are being done on streaming services where, at least for know, the economics is a bit different?)
Possible Friday Question: One recent rom-com success story folks point to is Crazy Rich Asians. It did very well in many international markets, but based on its domestic box office alone it'd certainly be considered a success. What do you think Crazy Rich Asians had going for it, that other recent modern rom-coms lack, that contributed to its success?
It's funny that practically very time I point out the common mistakes made in 99% of rejected scripts, the writer will say, "Who the hell are YOU?" instead of listening to what I'm trying to say.
We have listened (read) to what you have said for the past 3 years, a lot of constructive stuff. I'm not asking who you are, but what have you had published or filmed? Why won't you at least answer this question? If the answer is nothing that's fine, it doesn't detract from your comments.
E. Yarber: "Who the hell are YOU?" is a legitimate question. If someone sets themself up as an expert, it's well within reason to ask what their credentials are. For all your endless references to the important projects you've saved with your expert advice--or would have saved if they had only listened to you, you've never given us anything verifiably real that would give any legitimacy to your advice. Not one movie or TV title. Not one episode title. Everything conveniently cryptic. We listen to Ken because he's open with us. We know his credits. We know we have reason to believe he knows what he's talking about. You? You may be for real or you may be just another guy living out a fantasy life via the internet. We'll never know because you'll never give us anything factual that'll give us reason to think you know from experience what you're talking about.
The funny thing is that I've been commenting here less and less lately because I've been busy getting back into the studio system, and the people there really seem to like my work. I haven't gotten so much encouragement and compliments in years. Looks like I overstayed my welcome here, but at least when I pontificate elsewhere there'll be a check for it. And no, that stuff won't be posted publicly. These jobs are strictly internal affairs.
Stephen Marks said... E. Yarber. Thank you for commenting. Any chance you can enlighten us as to which commercial endeavors you've been involved with?
Stephen Marks said... E. Yarber. Execellent, thanks. One more thing, it seems from what I've read there are two scripts that are considered the best ever writren, miles ahead of all the others, "Chinatown" and "Shawshank Redemption", this coming from actors, producers, writers, etc. What's your opinion?
Hey Stephen, so cool of you to dump on Yarber after he answered a couple of your questions a few months back. Please tell us what hit films YOU have spotted in advance, and please convince us you have serious experience in the film industry and are not just some shifty "wannabe" who comments online with no real life experience in the business. We want your qualifications too, Lynn and Bob! You obviously know what you're talking about! Thank you.
Lynn, aren't you the one who suggested that Ken could bypass the evil studio system by financing movies with his own immense wealth? You are so insightful.
16 comments :
I know it's too late for this podcast, but will have some impressions of the recently passed Buck Henry? He was a comedy giant for me.
Ken, I thought you might have Thoughts about this Guardian piece: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/09/sitcoms-broadway-musicals
The news that THE NANNY is to be remixed as a musical led the paper to consider the prospect of similar for six sitcoms. They like the idea of CHEERS on the Broadway stage. Personally, of your work, I'd have thought MASH was a better prospect.
wg
Where does a joke come from?
Is it consciously concocted or does it arise from that place where thoughts and emotions come from. I have a feeling it arises from your subconscious and is just there, like magic.
Like if I asked you for your favorite meal in the last 6 month. You would not go one-by-one through the 100 places you ate, the top one or two meal would just appear in you head. Your subconscious knows.
Funny people have a funny subconscious.
I second Lemuel's request for your thoughts on Buck Henry. I absolutely loved To Die For. Not only was his screenplay brilliant, he also gave a terrific performance as a schoolteacher.
There's a common fallacy among wannabes that a "strong" character is one surrounded by patsies who roll over for them without any serious effort on the chosen one's part. From my experience, the reason so many beginning writers devise characters with no comedic flaws is that they're actually trying to sell THEMSELVES as these lovable, flawless figures just as they want everything to be easy career-wise. I was once brought in to attempt fixing a project that had a workable premise but went right down the toilet because the author insisted the lead was based on himself and he would not tolerate any other characters challenging him. Unfortunately, the director insisted we keep his buddy in the process. The result was a conflict-free pudding in which the cast spent all their time telling this surrogate how much they admired him. The writer couldn't understand why an audience wouldn't be interested in his private ego trip.
Likewise, a romantic comedy has to be about a couple learning how to open up to each other and form a partnership under unusual circumstances. Even the trend to do comedies where some slob gets a beautiful starlet at least try to suggest the bozo has a good heart under the nacho crumbs on his T-shirt, so he's got SOMETHING to offer. For someone insecure or status-driven, however, parity is too risky. Their stories were inevitably about how one person (usually the woman) learns to submit themselves to the dominance of the humorless, emotionally stunted other. Would it come as a surprise to find that most women don't find that sort of fantasy particularly appealing? RomComs are supposed to offer an escape from that sort of miserable relationship and create the hope of a happy ending. In a traditional script, the loser who gets the female lead would be the suitor dumped in favor of an appealing rival who knows how to fill her emotional needs.
That sort of writing comes from someone who honestly can't hold two viewpoints in their head at once, but it's the contest between well-matched personalities that drives any character-driven story, just as comedy rises from the careful use of tension and release. Sounds like David's students are motivated enough to get past that initial hurdle, but not everyone is able to develop that perspective.
E. Yarber: Where can we go to see an example of your writing or of the movies or TV shows that you've contributed to?
Stephen
E. Yarber:
Dude you keep calling people "wannabes" and "losers" but you never provide any link to your work? What have you written? For who? Where is it published or aired? What experience do you have? What have you done? Your cryptic comments about your experience were great for about a year but now I'm asking you, what have you written professionally? Thank you.
Others beat me to it. I'd love to hear your reminiscences of Buck Henry.
Is it possible that increasing reliance on global market success is also a factor in the decline of rom-coms in go-to-the-movie-theater-movies? If it true that nowadays it's hard for even a well-written rom-com movie to be successful in overseas box office (because the characters, humor, etc. is so localized, or for whatever other reason,) then couldn't that also be a part of why fewer of those stories are done in that theatrical-movie genre, and why more are being done on streaming services where, at least for know, the economics is a bit different?)
Possible Friday Question: One recent rom-com success story folks point to is Crazy Rich Asians. It did very well in many international markets, but based on its domestic box office alone it'd certainly be considered a success. What do you think Crazy Rich Asians had going for it, that other recent modern rom-coms lack, that contributed to its success?
It's funny that practically very time I point out the common mistakes made in 99% of rejected scripts, the writer will say, "Who the hell are YOU?" instead of listening to what I'm trying to say.
E. Yarber
We have listened (read) to what you have said for the past 3 years, a lot of constructive stuff. I'm not asking who you are, but what have you had published or filmed? Why won't you at least answer this question? If the answer is nothing that's fine, it doesn't detract from your comments.
E. Yarber: "Who the hell are YOU?" is a legitimate question. If someone sets themself up as an expert, it's well within reason to ask what their credentials are. For all your endless references to the important projects you've saved with your expert advice--or would have saved if they had only listened to you, you've never given us anything verifiably real that would give any legitimacy to your advice. Not one movie or TV title. Not one episode title. Everything conveniently cryptic. We listen to Ken because he's open with us. We know his credits. We know we have reason to believe he knows what he's talking about. You? You may be for real or you may be just another guy living out a fantasy life via the internet. We'll never know because you'll never give us anything factual that'll give us reason to think you know from experience what you're talking about.
Lynn,
Well said, you did that a lot better then I did, thank you.
The funny thing is that I've been commenting here less and less lately because I've been busy getting back into the studio system, and the people there really seem to like my work. I haven't gotten so much encouragement and compliments in years. Looks like I overstayed my welcome here, but at least when I pontificate elsewhere there'll be a check for it. And no, that stuff won't be posted publicly. These jobs are strictly internal affairs.
Stephen Marks said...
E. Yarber. Thank you for commenting. Any chance you can enlighten us as to which commercial endeavors you've been involved with?
Stephen Marks said...
E. Yarber. Execellent, thanks. One more thing, it seems from what I've read there are two scripts that are considered the best ever writren, miles ahead of all the others, "Chinatown" and "Shawshank Redemption", this coming from actors, producers, writers, etc. What's your opinion?
Hey Stephen, so cool of you to dump on Yarber after he answered a couple of your questions a few months back. Please tell us what hit films YOU have spotted in advance, and please convince us you have serious experience in the film industry and are not just some shifty "wannabe" who comments online with no real life experience in the business. We want your qualifications too, Lynn and Bob! You obviously know what you're talking about! Thank you.
Lynn, aren't you the one who suggested that Ken could bypass the evil studio system by financing movies with his own immense wealth? You are so insightful.
Post a Comment