Happy Father's Day

This is kind of a tough one for me since it's the first Father's Day I no longer have my father.  But I cherish the memories.  And send a special salute to my son Matt who has been a dad (and terrific one at that) for two years now. 

This is a perennial post, now updated.

Note to those wives and kids planning to celebrate: no brunches. That’s Mother’s Day stuff. Let the old man sit in front of the TV and watch the U.S. Open or the Arena football amateur draft in peace.

Or watch FIELD OF DREAMS.And now, as a public service, here are some movies NOT to watch on Father’s Day:

FEAR STRIKES OUT
CHINATOWN
SHINE
WALK THE LINE
OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
DEAD POETS SOCIETY
STAR WARS
THE GREAT SANTINI
THE SHINING

Some TV shows and telefilms NOT to watch:

THE MARVIN GAYE STORY
THE BEACH BOYS STORY
LOST
Any CBS family comedy

Some unfriendly father plays:

ALL MY SONS
DEATH OF A SALESMAN (any Arthur Miller, actually)
LONG DAY’S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT

Some books to avoid:

Any Bing Crosby biography
Any Frank Sinatra biography
Any Papa John Phillips biography 
Any Screaming Jay Hawkins biography
LOVE STORY (for so many reasons)

Records to skip:

PAPA WAS A ROLLING STONE by the Temptations
BOY NAMED SUE by Johnny Cash
MY DAD by Paul Peterson
CATS IN THE CRADLE by Harry Chapin

Any other suggestions are welcome.

Again, happy Father's Day!

At least I wasn't naked

This is not a baseball post (even though baseball is involved). It’s a real life version of that nightmare we all have. You know the one – it’s the day of your final and you were never in class and you woke up late and forgot your bluebook, etc. Or you’re on stage and know none of your lines and your costume is falling apart and your throat is parched so you can’t speak. For a baseball announcer, the equivalent would be you’re on the air, you’re totally unprepared, and you have no idea what’s going on in the game. I had that happen to me. In REAL LIFE.  And to make matters worse, it was my first game ever in the major leagues.   So this is not really a baseball story; it's a "why I'm still in therapy" story. 

Travel back to 1988. I was announcing minor league baseball for the Syracuse Chiefs. They were the AAA affiliate of the Toronto Blue Jays. I was invited to come to Toronto to announce a couple of innings on their radio network. I of course accepted. Forget that I had only a half year experience calling professional baseball at the time.

So I fly up there (in a four seat prop plane that reminded me very much of “the Spirit of St. Louis.”) to do play-by-play for a couple of innings. Their longtime announcers Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth couldn’t have been nicer or more supportive. I had done tons of prep work and knew everything there was to know about everything. I was READY. It was a quiet 1-0 game until I took over. I had a triple and busted squeeze play in the first five minutes I was on the air. Amazingly, I called them both well.

Somehow I survived the two innings and tossed it back to Tom & Jerry (yes, Tom & Jerry). A local TV station wanted to do a feature piece on me. They asked if they could interview me. I said “sure” and we went to the roof of Exhibition Stadium (this was before the Jays moved to the Skydome, or whatever the hell they call it these days). Meanwhile, the game continued on. I wasn’t following it. What did I care? My night was done.

After the interview I was invited to sit in on the Blue Jays TV broadcast with Don Chevrier and Tony Kubek. Cool, I thought. They’ll ask me about their farm club, we’ll chat about CHEERS, etc.

Instead, I get there just as a commercial break is about to end. I put on the headset mic, we all shake hands, and they go on the air. Don says, “We have a treat this inning. This is Ken Levine, who announces for our AAA team. Ken, it’s all yours. Take it away.” HOLY SHIT! They wanted me to do play-by-play?

First off, I had never done TV play-by-play. Ever. Was I supposed to watch the monitor? The field? Both? Neither?

I also had no idea what the score was, what inning it was, or who was up. Usually, I have a scorebook where I chart what each player does. I had nothing. A player would come up. I’d see his name on the screen and say, “Okay… Chili Davis batting now. So far tonight Chili has… been up before. The score is…” I’d now look around the stadium for the scoreboard. “Wow. 3-0 Blue Jays. How’d that happen?”

My big problem was the pitcher. Nowhere on the scoreboard could I find who was pitching. And even if he turned his back to me and I saw his number, I didn’t have a roster so I couldn’t identify him.  I find it's hard to discuss strategy when you don't know who's on the field.   Finally, I just copped to it. I said, “Tony, you’re the analyst. Let me ask you a real technical question. Who’s pitching right now?”

So basically I just had to completely fake my way through the inning – knowing that the Blue Jays telecast was seen throughout the country of Canada. There were literally millions of people of watching this.

I have a tape of the radio innings but not the TV inning. My guess is it was somewhat of a complete fiasco. Hopefully it was somewhat amusing the for the viewers. But I was never more terrified in my life. Like I said, it was one of those work-related nightmares come true. At least it wasn’t combined with that other standard dream – the one where you’re naked in public.

Angel announcer Al Conin gave me a terrific gift. He took his scorecard, highlight my two radio and one TV innings, and got all the players involved to autograph it for me then added a couple of photos. Thanks Al.  Yes, that's me in a beard.

Friday Questions

Welcome y’all to Friday Question Day.

Jim, UK starts us off:

What is your experience of trying to pitch films/shows that were completely different to anything you'd done before?

We tend to stay in our lane (comedy) when pitching, but there have been times we’ve been offered feature rewrites on genres we’ve never worked in.

Case in point was JEWEL OF THE NILE, which primarily was an action-adventure film. Honestly, we watched a ton of them and tried to glean what worked and what didn’t. To me that’s the best teacher. We learned more by studying GUNGA DIN than any screenwriting book.

From Janet Ybarra:

Ken, what is your opinion of TRAPPER JOHN MD? I personally never got into it because, to me, the Pernell Roberts portrayal never squared with the Trapper John we were introduced to on MASH.

They just used the name to gave the character a recognizable hook. But as portrayed in TRAPPER JOHN M.D. the character was nowhere close to either the TV or film version of Trapper. Frankly, I never watched it. It was just another formula hour doctor show back then.

I must say however that I have a hard time when characters change genres. I never could get into LOU GRANT even though I admired almost everyone associated with that show. The one hour drama Lou Grant was NOT Lou Grant. The fellow who was Mary Richard’s boss, THAT was Lou Grant.

J Lee asks:

When you were starting out on MASH, did you buttonhole any of the veteran writers who worked on the show (some with credits dating back to radio days) on how they handled script problems or how they worked with a writing partner?

No. We didn’t know any of them then. We met with Gene Reynolds to work out the story but we were on our own when writing our first draft. Later of course we worked with Fritzell & Greenbaum and Larry Gelbart, but at the time we started as freelance writers, we were in a vacuum.

What we did instead was load up on Gelbart scripts and study them for rhythm, tone, joke construction, everything. The only thing they didn’t teach us was how to be as brilliant as him.

And finally, from Michael:

How do you think the trend of Netflix and others to release all episodes simultaneously has changed day-to-day life in the writers' room?

Do writers have more time or less? Are more episodes complete before shooting begins? What about the lack of audience feedback and network input based on week-to-week viewing numbers?

The length of time devoted to producing these series depends on a lot of factors. What is the order? How much time have you been given? Does the platform need it right away or whenever you turn it in? What are the production requirements? How hard will it be to produce? Are there any restrictions on the actors’ availability? Do you lose your star to a movie in four months?

But all things considered, it’s certainly easier to make 13 a year as opposed to 22. You generally do have more time to really polish those 13 episodes. When you’re making 22 or more a season you’re just happy if you can knock ‘em all out on time.

The downside of course is often writers get paid by the episode. So 22 means a lot more moolah than a leisurely 8.

As for producing all episodes before they’re aired, yes, that can be a big problem if an audience doesn’t respond to a major character or story arc and you’re powerless to make mid-course corrections. That can positively kill a series.

Likewise, the audience can tell you which character will be the breakout hit, but if you can’t take advantage of that and suddenly steer towards “the Fonz” you’re killing a potential golden goose.

Again, that’s why I’m such a fan of multi-camera shows. You’re held accountable and you can learn the night of the filming whether an audience responds or not. You don’t have to wait a year until the series airs to learn you went in the wrong direction.

What’s your FQ?

Another Opening Another show

If you're anywhere near Grand Rapids tonight and tomorrow, my full-length comedy OUR TIME is playing.  I'll be there both nights.  Swing by.  Say hi and laugh.  Here's where you go for details. 

John Mulaney vs. Amy Schumer

Today’s post concerns television specials you might not be able to see. If you have Netflix you’re golden. But even if you don’t, you’ll be able to get the gist. And I’m sure you’ve seen similar TV specials in other places.

The ones I want to focus on are the stand-up comedy specials. Usually about an hour, a big name comic performs in a huge packed auditorium to delirious fans who laugh at everything they say, even if it’s Kevin James doing tired airport people mover jokes. Generally the comics will record two or three shows and cobble together the best performances or reaction (should anyone pee in their pants over airport people mover jokes).

I enjoy watching them. A few big name stand-ups who were comedy darlings at one time are starting to seem a little creaky. Their best specials are behind them. But there are usually flashes of what made them great so it’s time well-spent.

I used to be a big fan of Amy Schumer. Loved her Comedy Central show, thought her early specials were terrific. Then last year I saw her “Leather” special on Netflix. It was atrocious. Lazy, unfunny, just an endless collection of raunchy sex jokes – the kind you hear in frat houses just before everyone pukes. My position on sex jokes is the same as Carl Reiner’s: I don’t mind a sex joke, no matter how raunchy, as long as it’s FUNNY. But sex jokes just for the supposed shock value leaves me flat. And apparently, the Netflix audience agreed. It’s gotten horrible reviews and very few stars in the rating system.

I go back to the “lazy” factor. The entire routine seemed slapped together. Some comics reach a sweet spot where audiences laugh at everything. They don’t have to earn the laughs. You listen to some of Steve Martin’s old comedy albums and if you’re too young to get his tongue-in-cheek persona, you very well may be saying, “What the hell are they laughing at? A guy saying ‘Excuuuuuuuse me’ brings down the house? What the fuck?” Amy must’ve felt she had arrived at that pinnacle and just doing slut jokes and obvious blowjob jokes were enough to keep the flock fed.

But the material was so bad that even many diehards were turned off. And I say that fully expecting a flurry of angry commenters saying “She was fucking hilarious and you don’t know shit!” If you thought the “Leather Special” was great, I’m happy for you and glad you were entertained for an hour. But I bring up the “Leather” special to make a point.

Compare that to the latest John Mulaney Netflix special, “Kid Gorgeous.” He’s had others but I’m choosing that one because it’s a better equivalent in terms of where he and Amy are in their careers. The thing that struck me about this special is that it is packed, every second with good material. You can see how well-crafted it is. Filmed at Radio City in February, he had spent the better part of last year touring. And it shows. I’m guessing that for the hour of material that made it there was probably an hour that didn’t.

It was also refreshing to see that he wrote everything himself. There were some big laughs and wonderfully astute observations. Was it the funniest comedy special of all-time? No. But it was pretty great and one has to admire his professionalism. Is John Mulaney at the point in his career where he doesn’t have to earn every laugh? Considering he filled Radio City Music Hall I’d say he’s getting there. But the fact that he earned them anyway made him all the more impressive.

There are a gazillion stand-up comics out there. The night I did my one (and only) open mic night there were probably forty on that bill alone. Everyone got only five minutes. And I was shocked by how sloppy and lazy most of these young hopefuls were. Jesus. Five minutes. If they can’t do a tight very funny five minutes how do they ever expect to have a career in comedy? They should be studying Mulaney. But his comedy takes a lot of work and effort. My guess is they’re studying Schumer. And my other guess is you’ll never see a Netflix special starring one of them.

EP76: The Worst of Levine & Isaacs

Ken Levine discusses AfterMASH and MANNEQUIN 2, two of his least

successful projects. You’ll learn what went wrong, how he dealt with it, and ways to find the good in bad situations. There’s also a great karma story you will love.

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Yet more praise for Ted Danson

Okay, here's another one of those ten year old Friday Questions re-post.  Resurfaced  because readers rarely go back through the archives (especially posts from many years ago) and I'm preparing for nine play productions.  My guess is this post is new to you.  Enjoy.

It’s Friday Question Day – my most popular feature, even if it’s my only feature. Leave your questions in the Comments section. Thanks.
Brian Phillips starts us off:

I recently heard the "Fresh Air" interview on NPR with Terry Gross. Ted Danson said that it took him over a year to play Sam properly. Within that year, I would argue, Sam and Diane worked well off of each other. On the shows you have worked on do you find that the cast "chemistry" is something that is pretty much in place near the beginning of the show ("Friends" creators felt this way about their cast) or does it tend to develop over time?

I found it’s often more rare that the chemistry is present right from the beginning. Usually both the acting and the writing evolves as everyone gropes to find that perfect formula for success. Frequently series will need one or even two years before they really hit their stride. I felt that about THE OFFICE and BIG BANG THEORY.

It sometimes is a trial-and-error process in the early going. Eventually you sift through and find the gold (hopefully).

Ironically, I thought Ted played Sam the best that first season. Part of it is our (writers collectively) fault. I think at times in the course of the run we made Sam too dumb. Granted, that made it easier to mine comedy from the character but I love how cool and together Sam Malone was in those early episodes. But that could just be me.

HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER is another example of a show I believe had sensational chemistry right from the pilot.

From Fred:

I was in college in the 80s and had a friend at William and Mary who told a story about a classmate who wrote a spec script for M*A*S*H, submitted it and had it produced. This writer, the story went, wrote at least a few scripts while still a student at William and Mary, and eventually became a regular writer for M*A*S*H.

Is there any truth to this story, and if so is it something that could never happen now?

No truth to that story. Sorry. Of course, I've known of guys who happen to share my name who have taken credit for writing my shows. When someone says they wrote for a hit show ask to see a residual check.

It could happen that you sell a spec but it’s highly unlikely. If your script gets you meetings or an agent or an assignment then you've hit it out of the park.

But there are, from time to time, instances when a show will buy a spec script and produce it. That’s what happened to Sam Simon and TAXI. It’s very rare, but who knows? Producers are always scrambling for good stories.

John queries:

Ken have there been any shows you've written for/been employed by and have left that you looked at in their ensuing episodes/seasons and wondered "Why are they doing that?" or "Why are they taking the show in that direction?"

Yes. But there have also been times when I’d see a future episode of a series I worked on and think, “Damn! That’s a great story. Why didn’t we think of that?”

Gottacook wonders:

Do you see any hope for the return of the anthology series?

Probably not but you never know. Anthologies are very expensive to produce. You need a new cast every week, new sets, new stories. In this economy especially, I don’t think networks are looking to take on that kind of ambitious project.

Plus, audiences become attached to characters. Anthologies introduce you to new ones every week. You have to figure out who they are, whether you like them – that’s way too much work for most people. Much easier to just turn on the TV, there’s Monk, he’s afraid of germs again, I’m happy.

There have been variations of anthologies. One is to have one leading character anchoring the series. QUANTUM LEAP and THE FUGITIVE are examples. The series star meets new people and finds himself in new situations but still, the show is centered around him. To some degree MY NAME IS EARL is structured along those lines (but that show had several recurring characters).

And finally, from Joey:

Episodes are edited for syndication or cable to allow more commercial time than when they were first run. Do writers anticipate this and write scenes that are not crucial to the A story that are, in effect, designed to be edited out.

Generally not. If there’s a free floating tag, that’s easily removed. But here’s the thing – even if we wrote scenes that could clearly be lifted, whoever is editing the shows for syndication would select something else. Some MASH episodes are hacked up so poorly that the stories no longer make sense. Or invariably editors will cut out the best jokes of the show. They have a sixth sense for that.

Conceptual Blending

Heard a great term recently. Conceptual Blending.

It means borrowing from one creative property to another.

Another term that is similarly used is Homage.  Paying tribute to a former work by copying it. 

In music there’s the term Sampling. Sampling is when a rap musician lifts an existing part of a previous record and weaves it into his song.

I have another term. STEALING.

It is not an homage to take a story or style from one show and re-use it as your own. It is not conceptual blending to rip off someone else’s jokes in your stand-up routine. Nor is it sampling to use Motown tracks in your hip hop song.

There's a term called permission.  You need permission to use someone else’s material. And if you don’t receive it and use the material anyway you are liable for damages. Good luck to the defense attorney who argues to a jury on behalf of conceptual blending.

We now live in an age of spin, of Alternate Facts. But there’s one term that never seems to need a pretty euphemism:

BULLSHIT.

That’s the term that exists in my vocabulary, especially when referring to these others.  

The MEAN GIRLS musical

Greetings from Gotham.  Congrats to THE BAND'S VISIT, which was the big Tony musical winner last night.   I saw it and thought it was the right choice.

I also saw, with great anticipation, the new MEAN GIRLS musical, which was nominated for 12 Tony Awards and I believe came away with nothing or next to nothing.   And it pains me to say this because I love Tina Fey, but how did they even get all those nominations?

At this point I should post a disclaimer -- young women in the audience were orgasmic over every mediocre song and moment.   If you were just watching the audience and not the show you'd think it was the biggest hit in the history of Broadway.   But especially when compared with a musical that had some depth, way better music and songs, and storytelling that depended on emotion and not glitzy video screens and razzle dazzle, it paled.

And both were adapted from movies.

The MEAN GIRL movie is a classic.  So sharp, so funny, so deliciously twisted.  Tina Fey's screenplay is comedy gold.   Very little of that brilliance made it to the footlights.

Instead we had forgettable songs, one after the other after the other.  They didn't move the story forward.  They just expressed the moment at hand.   And there were so many there was very little time for Tiina Fey's book.   So the book essentially consisted of twelve of the best one-liners from the movie.  A number of reviewers pointed out the same thing.

So why weren't some songs cut (it was a long show)?  Well, the composer was Tina's husband.    Anyone who's been in a marriage suddenly understands.

Was the show bad?  No.  It had its moments and even its good songs ("Stop" was wonderful).  The visuals were dazzling and the energetic young cast danced their guts out.  It's just that... well, I had higher expectations.   I love Tina Fey and I love MEAN GIRLS -- what could go wrong? 

Adding songs to a non-musical narrative (i.e. a movie) comes with a risk.  Story turns need to be abbreviated, characters need to be less complex -- something has to go to allow for all the singing and production numbers.   And all that is fine if the music adds another layer.   But in this case it didn't.  And the lyrics were not nearly as clever as Tina Fey's dialogue (understandably a tall order for any lyricist).   So the end result just feels like another Broadway cash grab that redresses an existing franchise to draw in paying customers.   Disney has done this with everything they've made except PERRI, THE FLYING SQUIRREL.

I suspect MEAN GIRLS will run longer than THE BAND'S VISIT despite losing all the Tony's to it.  And if you're in the target age group, save your allowance (for months) and fly your freak flag.   But for my money this was not Tina Fey's best work... although I will be first in line to see whatever she comes up with next. 

The very first CHEERS promo

I remember when NBC proudly showed us this we all said, "Huh?"

Stage Direction -- cut it

A few years ago I participated in a screenplay reading. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, readings are a terrific way to really access your screenplay (or play or pilot or whatever). There’s nothing like actually hearing it. You’ll get a great sense of what works and what still needs work.

But the one problem with screenplay readings in particular is that so much of a movie is visual, which means a lot of stage direction. That’s fine for reading silently but it becomes very cumbersome when the directions are read aloud. You really kill the flow when you take two minutes to describe something that will happen on the screen for two seconds. I read the stage directions for this particular screenplay and the writer (a seasoned veteran) knew to cut the direction down to the bare minimum. (I can also now say that I worked with the late James Gandolfini, who had the lead role in the reading. He was very good, by the way.  It's such a tragedy he's gone.)

But the focus of my post today is on stage directions.

A number of years ago there was an organization in New York that held weekly screenplay readings. Writers submitted their drafts and if yours was selected they provided a venue, an audio tape of your reading, publicity, and help with the casting. I entered a screenplay and it was selected.

One of the services they provided was a guy who would go through your screenplay and thin out stage directions. Now I was a little offended at that. I prided myself on being very spare with my stage directions. I didn’t want some skeesix trimming my direction. They said that his cuts were only suggestions and I could use any or all or none of them.

In that case, I said “fine.” I thought, “Good luck to this guy finding trims. There’s not an excess word.”

A week later a script arrived and I was floored. With a black sharpie he hacked and slashed and must’ve cut at least half of my stage direction. I was now pissed. Who the fuck does this clown think he is?

Then I started going through his suggested cuts. Yeah, that’s a good trim… right, I don’t really need that… uh huh, that is somewhat redundant… etc. When I got to the end of the script I realized I had kept 90% of his changes.

It was a humbling but very important lesson. Now when I write screenplays I try to be super economical when writing stage directions. And then I go back and take what I call my Edward Scissorhands pass and cut out a lot more.

For that New York screenplay reading I got the great Dan Ingram (longtime DJ on WABC and voice of a trillion national commercials) to read the stage directions. And for me it was the best part of the reading. There were times I wasn’t even paying that much attention to the dialog. I kept thinking, “Oh wow! Dan Ingram is reading my words!” Great words like “he enters” and “Interior: Hotel Room – Day” but still!

You may be saying, “Yeah, making all those cuts are fine when someone has to read everything aloud, but what about when someone is just reading the script? Wouldn’t more detail and description help convey your visuals? No, and here’s why: People hate to read stage direction. Especially a lot of it. So the less you have the better your chances that the reader will read it at all. You want to be descriptive? Write a novel.

Just think of the Academy Awards and what it’s like when they stop to read the Price-Waterhouse vote tabulation disclaimer. Now imagine them doing that after every presenter. That’s a screenplay reading with too much stage direction.

Again, I appreciate that for the reading I participated in the narration was cut way back. Seriously, who would you rather hear for an hour? Me or James Gandolfini?

Friday Questions

FQ’s are ready. Come get ‘em while they’re hot.

McAlvie starts us off.

I hate it when they colorize original b&w movies, because something I can't put my finger on what gets lost. I think its because they actually used the "limitations" of b&w film somehow, and that something gets lost in translation; but I don't pretend to understand the technicalities. Not that you were around then, Ken, but you know the industry, and the people. I would enjoy getting an insiders take on this.

A lot has to do with the lighting. Those movies were lit specifically for black and white. The shadows and contrasts were carefully constructed to evoke moods. All of that gets obliterated when B&W films are colorized.

And then of course is the technical issue that the skin tones and colors in general still look weird.

The only time I will watch a colorized show is when CBS shows “new” versions of THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW. And they’re always creepy.

Dave Wrighteous asks:

Since Hollywood is always crying poor, and since streaming technology has gotten so good, why don't Hollywood studios offer an "on demand" version of their catalog's? Think of it as a "movie jukebox". The studios would make bank on films they already paid for/made theatrical dough on, and struggling theaters could show say, Raiders of the Lost Ark on a Friday night and pack the house (that'd probably make more $ than the newest crappy, unfunny rom-com). Win/win, am I right?!?

The real reason Disney wants to buy 20th Century Fox is to get their film library. Studios realize that to make money in this streaming age they need content. I expect all kinds of On Demand and pay walls to sprout up.

But to re-release some of them theatrically would not be feasible.  The target moviegoer is in his or her early 20’s and will opt for the newest crappy unfunny romcom. And quite frankly, I understand that. They’d rather see movies made for them.

From Bryan Price:

Ken - I was curious about your baseball announcing in the minors. Seems like it took you a couple of years prior in the stands at Dodger Stadium and then but a few in the minors before you were hired by the Orioles. I'm guessing that is considered a fast route? How did you do it?

LUCK. I was told major league teams preferred to hear major league game audition tapes so after my third season in the minors (which ended on Labor Day) I went to Anaheim Stadium to record a demo. There I met Jon Miller who was calling Orioles games. I gave him a tape and asked if he would graciously critique it.

A couple of months later he called to say that he loved the tape and that the Orioles had an opening and suggested I apply. I did and amazingly got the job. So a lot of things had to fall into place. Of course it also helped that by that time I had had 20 years of radio experience in major markets. So even though I had only done baseball for three years I was already a very polished broadcaster.

But experience and talent without luck will only get you so far. I was verrrrry fortunate.

And James wonders:

In the past you complained about how difficult it could be to write the teasers for Cheers. How difficult was it writing the silent piece that played under the closing theme and credits to Frasier? I often thought those were very clever and often the best part of the episode.

Thanks. Those tags were way easier to write than teasers because we had something to draw from. The tags always related to something that happened in the episode. They weren’t free floating. Plus, they were only 30 seconds and silent.

Some were harder than others but for the most part they were fairly easy to come up with.

What’s your Friday Question? Please leave it in the comments section. Muchas gracias.

Counting laughs

I have a good friend who is a terrific playwright. Mostly dramas. She writes very moving plays that usually touch on important social issues and often have gut-wrenching moments.

And I always kid her that she has it easy.

She doesn’t have to get laughs.

Meanwhile, she’s always needling me about counting laughs. Which I do.

It’s akin to self-torture, but I can’t help it. I don’t know whether it’s the curse of writing comedies or just my own neurosis, but I try to fill my plays with laughs. Underneath are always serious stories, characters are grappling with major issues, and the themes are weighty – but beyond that I want to hear near constant laughter.

A comedy should be FUNNY, damn it!

So it is nerve wracking because not every joke will work, and from night to night different lines get different reactions. Yet I want every joke to land, as unrealistic and utterly insane as that might be.

Meanwhile, for my friend to enjoy a performance of one of her plays, as long as people don’t text, snore, or walk out, she’s golden. The length of a comedy play expands if there’s a good laugh spread. Is there a sniffle spread that elongates dramatic plays?

I’m sure a lot of comedy playwrights say if their play got ten or fifteen good laughs they’re happy. Not me. I shoot for a few hundred.

And there are times I get them – times when everything is working just great, the air conditioning is on, the cast is on its game, and the audience is rocking. I can’t think of a greater high (that doesn’t involve stimulants or someone else’s consent).

So I shall continue to count and make myself unnecessarily nuts.  If only I could think of a good tragedy...

I'm in New York to see my one act play, WHEN ROMCOMS GO BAD as part of the Gallery Theatre Festival in Brooklyn this weekend.  Then next weekend I'm off to Grand Rapids, Michigan to see a production of my full-length play, OUR TIME.   If you're in either of those areas, stop by.  

EP75: Mark Evanier: The art of cartoon voice work and the variety show from Mars

In part two of Ken’s conversation with the multi-talented Mark

Evanier they discuss voice over work for animation, how to break in, what they’re looking for and not looking for, and other various tips. He also talks about producing a truly bizarre TV variety show called PINK LADY AND JEFF. You won’t believe this Hollywood/Tokyo story.

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Smoke gets in the CBS eye

Here’s a Friday Question that became a whole post with a special guest to answer it. Because if I don’t know the answer I often try to flag down the person who does.

Dave Wrighteous has the question.

Hey Ken! Never saw it while it was on, but I've been watching Becker in reruns and am LOVING IT! It's hilarious and Ted Danson is terrific! Anyway, my question is: did creator Dave Hackel or you or the network ever get complaints about Becker's smoking? You hardly ever see that on TV anymore, and I heard that NBC's late, great show Constantine had constant network battles about the smoking of the lead character.

Thanks and best wishes.

I went to Dave Hackel who graciously provided the answer.

Before we started shooting “Becker,” I asked for a meeting with Les Moonves so that I could get his thoughts about the tone of the show. Specifically, I wanted to see if I might get some sort of assurance that, once past the pilot, CBS wouldn’t suddenly start giving us notes aimed at softening the character to make Becker more traditionally television friendly. I thought it best to at least start by being on the same page with the head of the network.

Moonves was great. He’d read the script again before we met and assured me that he was willing to let us go for it.

But he did have one concern: Becker’s smoking. He didn’t ask me to take it out, but he wanted my assurance that we wouldn’t glamorize it in any way.

Not a problem, I promised. In fact I told him that my plan was to constantly have other characters tell Becker how disgusting his habit was. Also we did things like showing his own doctor admonishing him about smoking, depicted him unable to exercise because of his habit, had him wrestle with trying to quit and even had him start a fire by flicking a lit cigarette on the ground.

In my opinion, the show was able to send a far better anti-smoking message by having our main character smoke than had we not. And, to his credit, Les kept his word.

We continued to speak negatively about smoking and CBS allowed us to have the character behave as conceived. If the network or studio received complaints about Becker smoking cigarettes they handled them without getting me or the staff involved.

Again, my thanks to Dave Hackel. And Les Moonves.

Why Howard Stern became the King of All Media and not me

Readers of this blog know I’m a fan of Howard Stern. Not because he’s so hilariously funny, although he often makes me laugh – but because the guy is so SMART. Recently I caught the interview he did with David Letterman on Dave’s new Netflix show GABBY HAYES INTERVIEWS PEOPLE.

As with his radio show, Howard spoke very candidly and openly about his life.

He and I began our radio careers at roughly the same time. In fact, at one time I think we might have overlapped working in Detroit – me at WDRQ and he at WWWW. We both listened to the radio in our teens and had a desire to be on the air. We both wanted to be funny, and we both realized that we needed something distinctive to stand out. And we both had role models of radio performers we admired and wanted to emulate in some form.

I chose disc jockeys who were masters at humor. Dan Ingram, Robert W. Morgan, Lohman & Barkley, Dick Whittington, Gary Owens, Don McKinnon, Bob Hudson, Dale Dorman. Howard gravitated towardds bombastic talk show host, Bob Grant. (Ironically, I knew Bob Grant. Before his success in New York he did a stint at KABC, Los Angeles when my dad was a salesman there. That’s another thing – Howard and I both had fathers who worked in radio but not on the air. His was an engineer.)

Bob Grant was very refreshing. He was blunt, opinionated, and always honest. It was that honesty more than anything else that Howard responded to. But with originality comes a big risk.

Here again, Howard and I took different paths. I tried to be funny within the system. I felt if I could sound up and fun on a Top 40 station and slip in outrageous comments that I could attract both the listener paying attention and the casual listener. It worked to a certain agree. I got great ratings wherever I went, but because I was distinctive and didn’t have the classic DJ voice I was always hired on the “other” station. So my station was always getting beat in the ratings so there was always upheaval, which is radio-code for mass firings.

Howard steered more towards album-oriented stations where the format was somewhat relaxed. But by being totally different he was really leading with his chin, constantly inviting termination in an industry where security was as rare as diamond rings in Crackerjack boxes. Trust me, as someone who was also in the trenches, what he did took COURAGE. But he had the enormous talent and conviction to stick it out. And it obviously paid off. I got out of radio the minute I could (which proved to be a very wise decision on my part).

In Stern’s interview with Karl Marx he also talks about he conscious decision to evolve over time as he himself has matured. Some fans were not happy and moved on, but it was worth it to Howard to remain honest to who he is. The result is a show as fresh and timely as it was twenty and thirty years ago. Contrast that with Rush Limbaugh. He’s still doing the same tired act and his audience and influence is now minuscule to what it once was.

Will there be another Howard Stern? I don’t think so. What kid today in his right mind would want to go into radio? That’s like wanting to start an Osmonds tribute band. But if you want to use a radio personality as a role model for whatever industry you hope to conquer and you choose Howard, don’t focus on his inflections or the content of his program or the sunglasses, focus on his SMARTS. In that regard he is the King of all Media.

I hate telemarketers

I’ve had a landline for thirty years. Don’t call it. I won’t answer. You can leave a message, but don’t expect a speedy reply. I check the messages maybe once a week.

I’m guessing you know why. You probably don’t answer your phone either. It seems like 90% of calls to my landline are spam, asinine telemarketers. And now they’ve invaded cellphones.

So if I get a call on my cell from a number I’m not familiar with I let it go to voicemail. And this is becoming more and more frequent.

Here’s the thing I don’t understand – who in their right mind is going to listen to a sales pitch and buy something in 2018 from a stranger calling on the phone?  Right.  Idiots. 

I know there’s that theory if a guy goes up to a hundred women and says “Hey, you wanna fuck?” he’s going to get slapped 99 times and then get laid. But this is like getting slapped one billion times before getting lucky. Even Quasimodo could get better odds.

And along the same (land)lines – pop up ads. They’re annoying and infuriating and the result is not a sale but hating the product. So who thinks that’s a great strategy? Have you ever bought anything based on a pop up ad? And it’s gotten to the point where there are now websites I just won’t go to anymore because I know I’ll be bombarded by pop up ads. So not only does the product lose out, the greedy website that accepts their sponsorship does too. Some sites won't let you enter if you've blocked pop up ads.  Great marketing all around.

The most mystifying thing to me is that the telemarketers KNOW we hate them and do it anyway. They have thousands of numbers so if you block one they keep coming. Wouldn’t you think that if I blocked your number I am not a good lead to buy your stupid land or insurance or whatever?

Anyway, I bring this up today because primaries are coming in many states and it’s a time you would like to cold call people and remind them to vote. You would like to reach undecided people and state the case for sanity. But again, who answers cold calls? The idiots.

Technology has made it that much harder to reach people who don’t own swampland in Florida. Oh well, at least I get in my 10,000 steps by going door-to-door.

Real Housewives of Thailand

Among the many things we learned on MASH was the value of research. Gene Reynolds, the showrunner, loaded us down with transcripts, articles, books, and even maps. The more authentic, the more real you can make your world, the richer and more interesting it will be. During our time on MASH we conducted numerous interviews with doctors, corpsmen, nurses, and soldiers who had served in Korea. And there were five years of interviews before us. Gene and series creator, Larry Gelbart, even took a trip to Korea. Many of the stories we used came right out of the research.  In some cases we had to tone them down.  The real stories were too absurd to be believed.

On staff we had a medical adviser, a technical adviser, and a military adviser. We had no fashion consultant for Klinger however. The budget was only so large.

But my partner, David Isaacs and I continued to do our homework on future projects. Hey, Paddy Chayefsky used to do extensive research and so does James L. Brooks (although Brooks got it from Gene Reynolds as did we) so you know there's value in it. 

Over the last 12 ½ years of this blog I might have mentioned once, twice at the most, that we wrote the Tom Hanks/John Candy movie VOLUNTEERS. If I didn’t mention it, now you know. The bulk of the film was set in Thailand in 1962. Tom’s character joins the Peace Corps to avoid a gambling debt. So we wanted to know about the Thai culture – what their lives were like, their food, their homes, customs, religion, concerns, etc.

Our producer, Walter, said he knew someone from Thailand who was living out here now. We arranged a dinner with him.

The gentleman, whose name was At (that’s a name we used in the movie) selected the meeting place – the most expensive Thai restaurant in Los Angeles if not the world.

At apparently was a relative of the royal family. He ordered for us. Every dish was scrumptious, but hugely rich. Lobster sauce, and filet mignon, and exotic noodle dishes. We asked what the common folks ate. “This,” At answered. “Really?” I said, “Jungle Curry Pork Ribs, Ginger Whole Seabass, and Crab Meat Noodles?” Yep, he insisted. That’s how the peasants ate.

Except, according to At, there were no peasants. Everyone in Thailand lived in nice homes. I guess the real unfortunate ones didn’t have a view.

We asked how the general population in outlying areas filled their days. Working in rice fields? Taking shelter from the monsoons?   Oh no. They played a lot of sports.

We of course used none of this nonsense in the film but stayed late into the evening asking more questions because we were highly entertained.  Had we used his stuff our movie would have become REAL HOUSEWIVES OF THAILAND.

I’d like to think he was bullshitting us and didn’t actually believe any of the balloon juice he expounded. According to At -- there were no communists or warlords. Many huts had TV (in 1962). Recreational opium was the perfect nightcap after a feast of Lamb with Spicy Lime or Roast Duck with Mint Leaves.

Research is great… as long as its valid. I don’t know whatever happened to At. I do hope he wrote the Thailand page on Wikipedia.

Why is poker night like rewrite night?

Got invited to a poker game recently. A friend plays in a regular game and needed an extra body. Poker is an ingenious game. It involves both skill and luck. If only I had either.

I hadn’t played poker in probably fifteen years so I pretty much had forgotten everything other than I always lose.

Still, I enjoyed myself.  The players were usually a group of comedy writers or improv chums so there were always more laughs than chips (especially in front of me). I likened it to a rewrite night where you didn’t have to address network notes.

This time the only person I knew going in was my friend. But it was a low stakes game so I figured what the hell? The guys all turned out to be fun, and they all came from other branches of the industry so I got to hear all-new horror stories. Nothing breaks the ice like getting fucked over in Hollywood.

I was worried that these dudes would hate me. Since I didn’t know what I was doing I would surely test their patience. And if I won they’d really despise me. Fortunately, they were tolerant, and fortunately they took all my money. So my fears were for naught.

I needed one of those little cheat sheets that told you that a royal flush beats a pair of threes. I thought, wouldn’t it be great to watch an episode of THE WORLD SERIES OF POKER and one of the finalists has the same cheat sheet next to his chips?

Remembering what beats what is hard enough for someone who needs a cheat sheet to retrieve his messages from voicemail, but we rotated dealing and the dealer got to select the game. Holy shit!

Seven card night baseball with the next card after a queen is a wild card

Hi-lo – 5 ½ or 21

Three chip buy-in pass your garbage

Seven card elevator (not to be confused with seven card crisscross)

Seven card Texas hold ‘em, 3’s are wild and 4's entitled you to buy another card if you wanted

On and on. They know you’re not a savvy player when it’s your turn and they say, “What are we playin’?” and you begin your answer with “What’s the one where…?” As the deal was going around the table I was getting progressively more anxious. What to do when it came to me?

Finally, I was up. I decided to just fake it. “Okay, five card double-draw hi-lo Taj Mahal, pig fives are wild, threes are sevens, sevens are tens, face cards are a half, and Jews get six cards instead of five.” Everyone laughed, but one guy who asked what Taj Mahal was.

The night moved along but required a lot of concentration. More than I could muster after a couple of hours. Again, it was like a rewrite night where you just zone out. “What page are we on again?” “Who’s asking who to stop doing what when?” “Has the food arrived yet?”

The food was another reason poker night is like rewrite night. Delivered pizza that you eat off of paper plates while standing . All we needed were Red Vines for me to feel really nostalgic.

You’d think as the night went along I’d get better. But actually, I got worse. I knew I was in trouble when I won a pot with nothing in my hand. Everyone complimented me on how well I bluffed. But I wasn’t bluffing. I actually thought I had a winning hand.

They should also have a cheat sheet for poker slang. Clubs were puppy paws. Pocket aces were American Airlines. Full houses are full boats. If you have a nine and a five that’s a Dolly Parton. But why do they call kings “cowboys?” When I think of cowboys I rarely imagine Richard Burton.

But it never fails.  The minute any six guys sit down to play poker they all start talking like they're in GUYS AND DOLLS.    The Pope and his cardinals get together and the Pope is dealing saying, "No help. crabs, Kojak, bitch in the bleachers.  Pony up gents."

All in all, it was a fun night, I made some new friends, now am aware of more industry shitheads, and I think after all this time I finally figured out how to win at poker. Have Jennifer Tilly play for me while I drive around for four hours picking up the pizza. 

Friday Questions

Wow. It’s June already. Let’s celebrate with Friday Questions.

Bruce starts us off.

Did you or David Isaacs or Larry Gelbart ever think about doing a MASH sequel set in "real time"?

For example, 15 years after Korea and 15 years after it went off the air, Hawkeye and BJ are physicians at a Free Clinic in the Bay Area.

David and I never did. And I suspect Larry never did either. However, 20th Century Fox did mount a one-hour “Trapper John M.D.” series in the late ‘70s that was essentially what you pitched. It starred Pernell Roberts and was essentially a drama. By the way, one of the producers was Don Brinkley. You may have heard of his daughter, Christie.

From -30-

I recently came across your ex-partner Jon Miller's impression of Vin Scully. Pitch perfect, so to speak. And Miller does Vinny doing a Farmer John commercial in Spanish. Ole my gosh!

Did Vin like people doing him? Famous people can be a little thin skinned about that sort of thing. I know Carson didn't like Rich Little too-accurate version of Johnny.

I never asked Vin, but I get the feeling he did like Jon’s impression because it was so good and so affectionate.

At one time when my partner, David Isaacs and I had an office at Paramount I got Jon to record our voicemail greeting as Vin Scully. It was hilarious.

One day I’m listening back to the messages, I hear a little laugh and then “You’ll hear from my lawyers.” It was obviously Vin who clearly was a good sport about it.

Mike Bloodworth asks:

As a writer, how do you feel about the movies that tout that their actors IMPROVISE many of their lines? Judd Apatow is one example. Do you think its because the writer's aren't up to the task of writing enough funny lines to fill an entire script? Do they honestly believe the product is better because of the improvisation?

Based on the "deleted scenes" and "outtakes" I've seen that's not necessarily the case. My personal peeve is that a lot of these actors aren't trained in improv. It kind of cheapens what we do. Just curious.

It does cheapen what writers do. Does anyone believe that Billy Wilder & I.A.L. Diamond’s SOME LIKE IT HOT would be better if Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis were allowed to improvise?

That said, I come from a different era where we took pride in making our screenplays as polished and funny as we could make them. Actors were hired because they were the best ACTORS, not because they also spent time in the Groundlings.

But now screenplays are just blueprints, and directors like Judd Apatow allow actors to improvise and sometimes that results in magic. Sometimes the improvisation adds a sparkle the screenplay didn’t have. But it also results in loose narratives and it’s not a coincidence that Apatow’s movies, although generally very funny, are always too long. And the length (at least to me) cancels out the benefits of the better improvised lines.

And finally, from Mike Miller:

Another question for you-what did you think of "Brockmire"?

I love BROCKMIRE. I’m enjoying season two even more than season one. Of course it helps that I know guys like Brockmire. And Hank Azaria’s portrayal is scary dead-on.

What’s your Friday Question?

My feud with Roseanne -- a look back

Since a number of you referenced this, and at the time it actually made all the papers, I thought I would re-post my celebrated blog fight with Roseanne.  This was from May 2011.  Links are provided to previous articles.  Thanks to reader Kris for finding Roseanne's rebuttal.  Also read some of the comments her readers posted.   

To get you up to speed if you're not familiar with the story, she wrote (or someone ghost wrote) an article for NEW YORK magazine in which she claimed her life story was "stolen" from her, she was mistreated on the set because she's a woman, the show's creator didn't deserve credit -- in short she was a tragic victim.   Many readers asked me to comment, which I did.  You can link to my original article.  Roseanne then countered with a barrage of personal insults.  What follows is my response.  

This is what ABC was buying and they knew it going in.  But the potential upside was huge.   I suspect their hope was they could get in a couple of years before the inevitable implosion.   But unchecked craziness doesn't get better over time; it gets worse.  So let's go back to simpler days when I was called an "Asshat" and she was crazy but not harmful. 

Wow! Roseanne reads my blog! Cool! In her blog she posted a rebuttal to a piece I wrote last week about her article in New York magazine. Here’s what I wrote. And on Sunday she offered her rebuttal.  You can find that here.

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

I hope someday she finds some happiness in her life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Linda Teverbaugh:

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

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


And finally, from Laurie Gelman:

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

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

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

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


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

Great. More food for us.

EP74: Mark Evanier - Marvel and DC Comic Book Universe

On this week's show, Ken interviews the fascinating Mark Evanier in a 2 part series. In part one, Mark discusses the world of comic books and Jack Kirby who created many of your favorite Marvel & DC superheroes. It’s a Comic-Con convention for your ears. Also, we delve into Mark’s TV writing career, both live-action and animation. 

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

My thoughts on ROSEANNE being cancelled

I don’t mean to gloat but TOLDJA! It was so clear from the get-go that the ROSEANNE reboot would implode.  I said so on the Kevin Smith podcast last year. What I didn’t know was how immediate and spectacular the implosion would be. The woman is bat-shit crazy. These are not the first abhorrent racist comments she’s made. Just the latest and most blatant.

The most heartening aspect of this bizarre episode is the swift, courageous, and correct response by ABC – cancelling her show. And it’s hard to put into words how unprecedented this is. A broadcast network axes its most successful show – THE most successful show of the season? Wow. Again, I can’t applaud ABC enough.

All of the cable networks that had aired the original run of her sitcom have also pulled them. And her agency, ICM has dropped her. Kudos all around.

I would like to think that even fans of her show would say that she crossed a line, but considering the number of idiots out there, I suspect there will be backlash. They’ll make this a “free speech” issue. But seriously, how do you defend Roseanne and not then condone what she said? Still, the Trump supporters will be up in arms over this. They’ll boycott ABC (until the NBA Finals tomorrow). And next week when there’s another school shooting or a video is released of Trump having sex with the stars of THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER K.Y. this little tempest will all blow over.

Readers of this blog already know I am not a fan of Roseanne. And judging by her barrage of personal idiotic insults aimed directly at me, the feeling is mutual. So you’ll please allow me a moment to bask in this. She’s a hateful unstable woman and she’s getting exactly what she deserves.

But what about the enablers? What about the Carsey-Werner Company? For years they’ve built an empire on stars who were monsters and just threw money at the problems and went home while showrunners and writers were pummeled on a daily basis. ROSEANNE, COSBY, CYBILL, GRACE UNDER FIRE (starring another loose cannon, Bret Butler). Writers were sent into a wood chipper. Carsey & Werner just threw a lot of money at them and a lot of money at the ones who replaced them when they just couldn’t take it anymore. The stories are legendary. These monsters (stars) got away with everything. So now if the COSBY show is pulled forever and ROSEANNE is yanked from schedules, you’ll pardon me if I don’t shed a tear for the poor production company that will no longer see syndication blood money. We all got into this business to be writers, not wranglers.

So a toast to ABC and every other organization that took swift action. If you’re looking for something to watch tonight now that ROSEANNE is gone, might I recommend the movie A FACE IN THE CROWD?

Here's to the losers!

As I mentioned last week, I saw SUNSET BOULEVARD recently, Billy Wilder’s classic from 1950. You would think it won the Academy Award for Best Picture. It didn’t. Another worthy film, ALL ABOUT EVE did although I think the test-of-time might flip them.

But it got me thinking about other great movies, TV shows, and Broadway plays and musicals that did not win, and it’s a rather startling list.

Among the movies that lost for Best Picture: THE WIZARD OF OZ, CITIZEN KANE, STAGECOACH, MALTESE FALCON, DOUBLE INDEMNITY, IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, HIGH NOON, TEN COMMANDMENTS, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, DR. STRANGELOVE, MARY POPPINS, WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, THE VERDICT, GOODFELLAS, THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE GRADUATE, BONNIE & CLYDE, BUTCH CASSIDY & THE SUNDANCE KID, CHINATOWN, CLOCKWORK ORANGE, ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, NETWORK, STAR WARS, RAGING BULL, E.T., TOOTSIE, FARGO, and AVATAR.

Not saying the movies that did win didn’t deserve to, but Jesus! And there are some examples of movies that won that will be soon forgotten (if they aren’t already). Not sure THE ARTIST will become a classic. Or CRASH. Or OUT OF AFRICA. Unless you have grey hair, do you even remember an Oscar winner named TOM JONES? You might, however remember CLEOPATRA from that same year (1965).

I think we can all agree that WICKED is one of the most popular musicals of all-time, right? It lost the Tony to AVENUE Q? Can you say that AVENUE Q. (although quite hilarious) will become a classic? Other Broadway musicals that failed to grab the gold: WEST SIDE STORY, GYPSY, OLIVER, FUNNY GIRL, SWEET CHARITY, HAIR, PIPPIN, CHICAGO, DREAMGIRLS, BEAUTIFUL, MISS SAIGON, and INTO THE WOODS.

Plays have a similar roster of classic losers. RAISIN IN THE SUN, NIGHT OF THE IGUANA, THOUSAND CLOWNS, THE ODD COUPLE, THE PRICE, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, and NOISES OFF to name a few (I wish I had written).

And in television, just concentrating on comedy (because this post is long enough), how about THE HONEYMOONERS? The classic 39 episodes of the HONEYMOONERS all aired in one season. And that year THE HONEYMOONERS was not even nominated. Unbelievable.

Next to I LOVE LUCY, MASH has become the most successful syndicated comedy of all-time. I’m sure it’s playing this moment on several channels wherever you are in the world (hopefully one of my episodes). In eleven seasons MASH won the Best Comedy Emmy once (season two). FRIENDS only won once (and the year before wasn’t even nominated). CHEERS only won four times in eleven years. And THE OFFICE, THE BOB NEWHART SHOW, and BIG BANG THEORY never won (in the case of the latter, the Academy just hates Chuck Lorre. He’s crying all the way to the bank.)

And don’t get me started on AMERICAN IDOL losers.

The point of course is that we ultimately determine the real winners, not academies. And I’m sure if Billy Wilder were here right now he would say, “Yeah, well, fuck that. SUNSET BOULEVARD was robbed.”

Memorial Day 2018

It always seems weird to say “Happy Memorial Day.” That’s like saying, “Have fun at the funeral.” The point of the day is to remember and give thanks to those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom. Memorial Day is more than just the beginning of BBQ season.

And it’s particularly gut-wrenching this year when I see the sad state of our country. I won’t turn this into a political rant, but you know what I’m getting at. I’ll just say that those who died on our behalf deserve more.

I live near a veterans’ cemetery and every year American flags are placed on the tombstones. There are endless rows of them. It always brings home the reality.

I long for the day I can once again drive by that cemetery and not feel a certain amount of shame.

Have a reflective Memorial Day.

What is one of my proudest moments in television?

The actual answer is "What is a Zamboni Machine?" but considering one of our episodes became a JEOPARDY question, the subject line could also qualify as a right answer. 

Determining credits

Credits seem to be a popular Friday Question topic. Here's one that became an entire post. 

Terry asks:

A show I saw the other day had a credit for "story by" and for "teleplay by" on one of its episodes. What prompts an unusual situation such as that?

If a writer does an outline and the actual script is assigned to another writer, the first writer gets story credit and the second receives teleplay.

When the show reruns and a residual payment is issued, the various credited writers split it, but the teleplay writer receives more.

Back when David Isaacs and I were the head writers of MASH we wrote every outline. It was easier for us to just break the story and write the outline ourselves than explain to the writer what our complicated format was. But we never took story credit. We believed that providing the outline was part of our responsibility as staff writers and the freelance guys shouldn’t get jobbed out of some money and residuals. MTM shows also adhered to that policy. Other shows, like BARNEY MILLER, did not. But I could have had my name of close to fifty more MASH episodes. Still, I don’t regret it. I think it was the right thing to do.

Now the teleplay and story credits on Chuck Lorre shows are essentially a joke. Every episode is room written by the entire staff. There is no outline and no writers’ draft. So credit is just assigned to people and rotated. The names you see on any single episode of one of these shows mean nothing. But the WGA limits the numbers of writers who can receive credit so in fairness to the staff, they take turns receiving credit.

And that’s fine until it comes time for awards. Ethically, you’re not allowed to submit a script with your name on it if you didn’t significantly write that script. I don’t think many Chuck Lorre show scripts do get submitted for that reason, even though their scripts are often way better than the shows that do get nominated.

Where things get real sticky is when different writers are assigned on pilots. The writer who ultimately gets teleplay credit may make more money, but the writer who gets story credit gets at least a shared "created by" credit, and that comes with a weekly royalty. So the arbitration fights are generally over story credit. I’ve been involved in arbitrations where there were as many as five writers. Deciding who is entitled to what can make your head explode. (By the way, the WGA provides a credit manual that clearly defines each credit category. But every script is different and murky.)

Credits provide the only recognition for writers. So it’s important that they be correct and represent each participant’s true contribution. It’s not just me who reads the writing credits on every show. There are at least six of us.