Mr. Special Effects

 This is one of my favorite all-time posts so I cart it out every five or six years.  It's certainly one of my funniest -- and I didn't even write it.  

I've talked about the need for showrunners to hold down the budget. What I didn’t mention was how difficult that can sometimes be. Hollywood is notorious for huge mark ups. Studios charging their own shows outrageous rent for their stages and facilities, etc. And if God forbid you need a special effect look out. In writing rooms whenever we propose even the smallest stunt we turn to my partner, David Isaacs, who has created a great character – Mr. Special Effects. He will then describe what is required to pull the stunt off and how much it will cost.

Here is an example, in the form of a memo. And believe me when I say this is TYPICAL.


Report from TV Special Effects Department:

RE: Frasier

Situation: In a dream sequence, Frasier is on the air and his board explodes.

Proposal---If I'm to understand correctly from our conversation you all want the entire radio board to explode in Frasier's (Mr. Gramner's) face. filling the studio room with smoke. It's quite a coincidence since my dad created the same effect for Mr. Al Ruddy for an episode of 'The Monkee's. (For your reference it's the one where the Monkees try to outfox a Russian agent played by Mr. Lloyd Bochner). The good news is that with all the advancements in explosive delivery it's a much easier effect. (The real reason you never saw Mr. Mike Nesmith at any Monkees reunion is that he had four fingers of his left hand blown off. It's certainly not true that he was sick of being a part of a third rate Beatles knockoff. That and feeling responsible for Yakima Canutt losing a testicle on "How the West was Won" haunted my father till he fell to his death rigging Mr. Demetrious 'George' Savalas for a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge in 'Kojak.)

Anyway, the effect is fairly simple, but of course we want it foolproof and safe. (within reason) First of all we will rig a series of explosive charges across the board. That will control the blast as oppossed to one big blast which is harder to control. I will set off the charges in sequence from a specially designed phaser. That should supply our explosion and still create the effect. We also set a charge inside the board so that in the case of a fire breaking out from the initial explosion (small possibility) I'll blow that charge which in turn would smother the flames. That, of course, would also preclude a second take.

Now I'm to understand that Mr. Gramner would like to do the stunt himself (concurrent with an 'Entertainment Tonight' segment profiling sitcom actors who do their own stunts.) That's fine but we will take the precaution of covering his body in an inch to an inch and a half of Vaseline Petroleum Jelly under a flame retardant herringbone suit. (It's uncomfortable but the guy works, what, twelve hours a week?) That will protect him vis a vis a mistake in explosion deployment. (Just to warn you in spite of caution it can happen---Sometimes to a serendipitous result. My dad worked for Mr. George Roy Hill on 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance KId." Liitle known fact, the boxcar being blown to smithereens was not in the script. It was what we call in the S.E. business a happy accident. Thankfully the only injury was a prosthetic arm that was mangaled up pretty good. It belonged to my dad's assistant 'Spider' who had lost his real arm and half a foot working with my dad on 'Breakfast at Tiffany's'. Long story)

So we will protect Mr. Gramner. Safety for the cameramen and crew are at your discretion. Should be a do it every day, piece of cake effect. Still it's S.O.P. for me to ask you one question that's in the order of a final safeguard. Was there originally an actor you really felt could have played Frasier in the event that Mr. Gramner was unavailable or... "a handful"? Have to ask. It many times makes a tougher call but I will remind you of 'happy accidents'.

I'm going to ball park a cost for you then come up with a final tally later. I know you have budget concerns but it's a heck of a stunt. Figuring explosives , equipment rented from the studio electrical dept., special costuming from the studio costume dept., crew, overtime, dummy board and console from studio props, studio fire chief standing by, and I figure you'll want to throw in pizza for a hard working S.E. bunch, I think I can bring the whole thing off for you, on the cheap, for about 110 thousand dollars. Again that's if we're not figuring on another take.

Loved the script by the way.

Mr. S.E.

Product placement

Here’s a FQ that became a DP (daily post).

DBenson asks:

Did you ever get asked/pressured to do a star informercial episode?

Not that specifically, but we have had our brushes with product placement, a similar animal.  

Back in the ’00’s there was a company that tried to marry writers with sponsors.  The trade off was the sponsor would pay for the show in exchange for say a scene in every episode that took place in their store.  The shows would then be offered to networks for free.  The sponsors would pay for them instead of the network, which was a great incentive.  

We were approached to create a series with this arrangement.  We passed.  They said, “All you need is to do one scene in (for example) Home Deport.”  The trouble is — what if during the week we decided the Home Depot scene didn’t work or wasn’t needed?  We’d still be obligated to do some scene in Home Deport that lasted a certain amount of time.  

That’s just bad story telling.  And we didn’t want that obligation.  It felt like a deal with the devil.

Apparently, we weren’t the only ones to pass on that opportunity.  The company never really caught hold and within a couple of years faded away.  

Our only other brush with product placement was the scene where Rita Wilson drinks a Coke in VOLUNTEERS.  But as I’ve written about several times, that scene came out of research and was written several years before Coca-Cola owned the studio that made the movie.  But boy, did we take shit.  

Weekend Post

 Who doesn't love a little visual humor?

They do charge if you want a rollaway bed for them, however.

This is for real,

If Pole Dancing becomes an Olympic Sport I see her getting the Gold.

From my friend, Russ Woody -- an actual sign in a bathroom in Russia.

Hey, it's hard to find crap that's really fresh.

Ana from 50 SHADES OF GREY -- her car.

An authentic newspaper ad.  Back when the whole family drank beer... even the kids.

Okay.  I just couldn't resist.

And finally, here's a photo I took myself.  On Ventura Blvd. in Studio City they have plaques on the sidewalk like they do in Hollywood.  But in Studio City they salute those great movies and TV shows that were filled there.  Including this one:

Friday Questions

It’s Friday already.  So let’s dive into some FQ’s, shall we?

Vincent Saia gets us going.

I know this is a highly controversial issue, but I think your views on this are important. How would you feel about a black James Bond? Or a bi-sexual James  T. Kirk (I'm sure you know William Shatner has already voiced his opinion)? Personally, I agree with Stan Lee - Once the race, gender, and/or sexual orientation of a character is established it should not be changed.

I don't think I'm being bigoted or narrow-minded. I think I'm respecting the conception of the author(s). Of course, if the author says it's okay as Sam Shepard did when he gave his (belatted) blessings to a female version of TRUE WEST, that's a different matter. I'm sure  you remember THE NEW ODD COUPLE. lol

I guess my big question is why is the character’s ethnicity or gender changed?  If it’s just to add diversity then it seems patronizing.  But if you plan on going in a different direction with the character then the change may be a huge plus.  

James Bond has always been portrayed as a proper English gentleman.  Were there African-American secret agents with Bond’s background?  If so then great.  If not, it’s just a distortion of the character.   Create a new character.  Start a new franchise that hopefully can go for fifty years.  

I never saw the all-female version of THE ODD COUPLE.  Quite honestly, it felt like a stunt and a money grab.

I would however, pay to see a Caucasian version of SHAFT.

Ben asks:

Do you update your blog yourself? What about the podcast? Did you set it up originally or have someone else consult? Just wondering how those old jock tech skills translate to the Internet.

Everything associated with the blog I do myself.  As for the podcast, I have a host company, WAVE, that drops it weekly on its various platforms.  But I do all the production and any necessary editing.  Each week I upload a fully completed episode.  

Brandon in Virginia wonders:

About a week or two ago, I was telling someone about a series of memos Robert Reed wrote to Sherwood Schwartz criticizing "The Brady Bunch"'s writing, and how silly the show was getting. While Reed wasn't necessarily wrong - one memo talked about a hair tonic turning Greg's hair orange in 1970-something - if you had a star constantly doing this, do you give in or tell them where to stick their memos?

Footnote: I believe the plan was to kill off the Mike Brady character, but ABC canceled the show.

It depends on the actor — whether he’s worth it, and just how far apart creatively you are with him.  Also, how respectful he expresses his dissatisfaction.  

On the one hand, Robert Reed was probably right and the show often did flirt with implausibility.  On the other, it was a Sherwood Schwartz production — the guy who did GILLIGAN’S ISLAND.  So Reed had to know going in what he was in for.  It’s not like he was promised FRASIER and it turned into SILVER SPOONS.  

That said, if I were the showrunner Carol Brady would have been a widow after season one.  

And finally, from Bill Kelliher:

Ken, what are your thoughts on the Frasier reboot now that it's official? Will you be working on the new show?

I have not been asked to participate and know none of the particulars.  I don’t know the premise, don’t know the writers, the cast, or whether any of the original cast members will be involved.  

I wish them the very best.  They have some gargantuan shoes to fill.  But I think the world needs a FRASIER-esque quality sitcom again.  

What’s your Friday Question?  Get vaccinated!!!!

EP236: Meet Joe Buck Part 1

Joe Buck is the voice of sports for Fox. He’s won 7 Emmys calling numerous Super Bowls, World Series, the U.S. Open, and All-Star Games. He’s also an upcoming guest host on JEOPARDY. This week we discuss hosting JEOPARDY, his Hall-of-Fame father, sportscaster Jack Buck, breaking into the business, and calling baseball.

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

How BECKER came to be

Here's a Friday Question that warrants an entire post because the creator of BECKER, Dave Hackel was nice enough to answer this BECKER question. 

Michael had the question:

 

Do you know if BECKER was first pitched to NBC before ending up on CBS? I would have assumed NBC would have been interested in Ted Danson's first new show after CHEERS. 

Dave?


The quick answer is “no.”  

The show was only pitched to CBS.

The more detailed answer is this:  It’s difficult to remember the order of the chess moves, but at the time, now twenty-three years ago, the character of Becker was considered pretty edgy, so Paramount suggested that we try to attract an actor first.  

Also, it was known in the community that CBS had a deal with Ted but had not yet come up with a show for him. 

Paramount sent it to Ted’s representatives, they sent it to him, he read it and wanted to meet with me. Then if you remember, I put together a reading of the pilot. Ted wanted to see how it felt to be John Becker and he wanted me to see if I thought he was a good fit for the part.  Our deal was that if either of us didn’t feel it worked, we could walk away — no harm, no foul.  

We were both pleased with the way the reading went so Paramount took our “package” to CBS.  It was the perfect confluence of actor, script and timing.  Remove any one of those three elements…mainly Ted, of course…and the script would likely still be in my desk drawer.

Hi, it’s me again.

I remember that reading.  I was initially skeptical.  But Ted won me over by page 3.  He combined that one magic element — the ability to be edgy while still being lovable.  I’m still trying to achieve that.

Thanks again to Dave Hackel.  

When Broadway was BROADWAY

Here's a list of what was playing on Broadway one week in 1948.  Thanks to reader Douglas McEwan for sharing it.  As he said, and I couldn't agree more, I'd go see any one of those shows.  

WHITE LOTUS - my review

As many of you know, I love Hawaii.  Try to get there every year.   I did a show set in Hawaii and got to write off trips (although that’s not why I did the show… entirely).  I’ll watch just about any TV show or movie set in Hawaii.  I have a very low bar.  Show palm trees, the ocean, maybe a waterfall and I’m all in.  You want to throw in a tacky Don Ho song?  Doesn’t ruin it.  A Tab Hunter beach party movie?  Sure.  I even sat through the first two seasons of the awful HAWAII FIVE-O reboot.  

So when I heard there was this new limited series coming to HBO Max about a resort hotel in Hawaii set at the Four Seasons in Maui (one of my favorite haunts) I was excited.  I didn’t need Aaron Sorkin dialogue, Vince Gilligan storytelling, just a few glimpses of the pool area.  Like I said, I’m easy.

So with great anticipation I set aside last Saturday night to watch a few episodes of this new series, entitled WHITE LOTUS.  I turned it off after a half hour.   I turned it off during a scene at the pool.  

That’s how much I hated it.  

And in fact, I hate it even more.  I can’t remember the last time I hated a TV show as much.  Every character is just despicable.  This is the most cynical mean-spirited show on whatever constitutes for “television” these days.  The hotel management has utter contempt for every guest.  Every guest is so entitled and so obnoxious that Mother Teresa would give them the finger.  In particular, two teenage girls are so snotty, judgemental, and insufferable you just want to punch them in the face.  Imagine Romy & Michele as see-you-next-Tuesdays.   

Only one character is likable and we're led to believe in the first five minutes that she dies over the course of a week.  

Astoundingly, this show is billed as a “comedy.”  It’s a satire-comedy.  Such hilarity as a local Hawaiian woman so afraid of losing her job that she’s afraid to say she’s about to have a baby any minute.  Big yucks as her water breaks in the lobby and she’s still too petrified to say she’s about to give birth.  Meanwhile, things are not great with newlyweds when the husband (a hideous Matt Gaetz-type) is dissatisfied with this amazing suite they have because it’s not “the honeymoon suite.”  By the way, his parents are paying for the trip.  He further endears himself by demanding his bride give him a blowjob.  Are you laughing yet?  

The two teen c***s are staying with Connie Britton who plays a Sheryl Sandberg stereotype.  One c**t is the daughter and the other is her friend.  They also have a little brother who they make sleep in the kitchen.  And the dad is worried he has testicular cancer and we’re treated to close ups of his swollen genitals.  

The show was created, written, and directed by Mike White.

Is this where comedy is today?  We’re supposed to be amused by how hateful everyone is?   The hotel manager is the destitute man’s John Cleese, passive-aggressively screwing the guests who we can only assume overpaid for this screwing.  

And then there’s Jennifer Coolidge, who I normally like, playing a pathetic needy woman who keeps her mother’s remains in a plastic bag.  Somehow I’m missing the satire.  

What happens to these people?  How does the young newlywed bride die? I don’t give a shit.  Unless sharks eat the teenage c***s, there’s a tsunami, and the Hawaiian government seizes the property, I have no intention of watching another minute of it.  WHITE LOTUS is not the right title.  It should be called Mike WHITE LOATHE-US. 

Aloha forever. 

Should LeVar Burton be the new host of JEOPARDY?

Well now, here we are, almost at the finish line of JEOPARDY guest hosts.  This week it’s David Faber and next week, to round it out, Joe Buck.  By the way, Joe will be my podcast guest this week, dropping 9 pm PDT on Wednesday.  He really walks us through the process.  He’s a great guest so I hope you’ll tune in.  

LeVar Burton just finished his audition week.  Of all the candidates he’s the only one who really campaigned for the job.  He pretty much did everything but skywriting.  He also has a large legion of fans who remember him fondly from READING RAINBOW.  Personally, I like him very much.  I had the chance to direct him once on BECKER.  Great guy and a very talented actor.  Going in I would have been very pleased to see him get the JEOPARDY gig.

But after watching his week-long audition, he’s not the guy.  Sorry.  But he’s just not.  

He was too hyper, screwed up way more than the others, and basically just doesn’t have a feel for the rhythm of the game.  

Alex always maintained that the contestants were the star, but LeVar managed to place all the emphasis on himself.  He was very overbearing and had very little connection to the contestants.  On his first show one of the contestants was completely overwhelmed.  He set a record for the worst one-day showing.  The only acknowledgement from LeVar was “You won’t be joining us for Final Jeopardy.”   I recall a few years ago a woman contestant also struggled and Alex went out of his way to console her throughout and cushion the blow of being humiliated on national television.  He said something like, “this just wasn’t your day” implying on another day with other categories she might’ve done much better.   LeVar just cast the contestant aside.  

Now, I’m sure in part that’s because he didn’t realize this contestant was digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself.  And without question, there are a lot of moving parts the host must negotiate at one time, but constantly taking the temperature of the room, making each contestant feel comfortable is a big part of the gig.  He was overly excited when someone got an answer right, often screaming “YES!” as if they had won a million dollars instead of $400, and a curt “no” if someone answered incorrectly.  

Could he get better over time?  I’m sure.  But there were other guest hosts who just felt it in their bones.  They were comfortable, engaging with the contestants, quick-witted, at ease with the teleprompter, and in confident control of the game.  With LeVar you would have to land the plane by radar.  He would need months of notes and adjustments.  A half-dozen other candidates could just step right in.  It’s like some musicians just feel the groove.  You can teach anyone to play an instrument but some just have that innate groove.  

There’s another part of the job that’s hidden.  How do you deal with unexpected circumstances?   Things are going to come up.  A contestant had a mild stroke once during a game.  The board and clues don’t match on occasion, a contestant freezes up, the board malfunctions, whatever.  You need a PRO when this happens.  Alex was amazing at this.  It stemmed from his natural talent and decades of experience as a broadcaster.   LeVar Burton would be a deer in the headlights.  Aaron Rogers wouldn’t have a clue.  Dr. Oz — well, he was so terrible at everything it’s not worth mentioning.  

The fan verdict on LeVar falls right along the line of who watched READING RAINBOW and who didn’t.  Those that did have great affection for him.  Those that didn’t are very underwhelmed by his performance.   Some newspapers and websites are taking polls and LeVar shows up high, but remember, he’s campaigning.  His fans are actively participating.  There’s no worldwide Buzzy Cohen fan club.  And even then, LeVar is not blowing away the competition.  

Sorry, but he’s not the guy.  

My picks?  I loved Mayim Bialik.  She brought a fun infectious attitude, and has a great feel for the game.  Her diction was also terrific.  I was surprised by how good Robin Roberts was.  I shouldn’t be.  She’s a seasoned pro and her years at Sportscenter really prepared her for spitting out those clues.  But she was warm and excelled way beyond my expectations.  

Ken Jennings is also a favorite.  He certainly has a connection to the game.  My only concern with Ken is his voice is a little weak.  Buzzy Cohen also did a great job, in my opinion, although he was a little hyper and would need some adjustments.  

And my other pick is Mike Richards.  I doubt they’ll go in that direction, but as the executive producer he handled the game and contestants beautifully.  You know you’re in good hands.

I noted previously how smooth and polished Anderson Cooper was.  But he's a CNN guy so enough people probably hate him to cause producers to shy away... which is a shame.

Let’s see how David Faber and Joe Buck do.  But a decision needs to be made soon, and I have a feeling the producers are close to making one.  

And now I’ll throw it open to you.  Who would you like to see get the job permanently?  Ground rules: you must leave a name and you must honor other readers’ choices.  No name calling.  No attacking.  Even if they think Dr. Oz should get the job.   The comment section is open.  And I’ll be looking up to see if there’s skywriting. 

Weekend Post

Sometimes writers have to hold their ground.

Remember an episode of CHEERS called Rat Girl?   Lilith's pet lab rat dies and she couldn't part with it so she kept it in her purse. It's a heartwarming tale.  My writing partner, David Isaacs and I wrote that episode and won the WGA award for Best Comedy Script that year (beating out Larry David who brings it up every time I see him. I've offered to give it to him for only .00001% of SEINFELD and so far the award remains in my office.).

But the point is it was a pretty well-received episode.  You can see it here.

But the whole show almost blew up. Over one little note.

Bebe Neuwirth, who plays Lilith and I dearly love, announced on the second day of rehearsal that she had a problem.

Lilith didn't carry a purse. Well, okay.  We asked her to make an exception this week for the story.  But she said it wasn't consistent with her character.  She explained that Lilith is a scientist and scientists don't carry purses.

Oh really? NO scientist? Ever?

Again, the whole writing staff asked if she'd graciously overlook that TINY inconsistency and please have a purse?

Were there alternatives?  

One thought was that she could keep the rat in her pocket (do scientists have pockets?) but that seemed even too creepy for Lilith, and it was important that the gang in the bar discovered the critter while she was out of the room.  We needed Frasier to explain away her rather bizarre behavior.  Our primary concern was that Lilith didn't come off like a complete loon. 

I do admire that actors take great care in wanting to be as true to their characters as possible, and details that are seemingly unimportant to us are very meaningful to their defining their roles. But sometimes, Jesus! As the great David Lloyd used to say, "It's just pretend!".

To her credit, Bebe backed down.  Most of the time (practically ALL of the time) writers make adjustments to accommodate the actors.  Sometimes we have to stand our ground.   In this case, the entire episode depended on it.   Bebe was a team player.   She embraced the purse and the episode went off as planned.

Ironically, we did expect a note, but it wasn't from Bebe and we never got flagged for it.  At one point in the script the guys around the bar get out junk food.   When David and I were writing it we wondered out loud if anyone could eat a Hostess Snowball in one gulp?   So how best to settle it?  We made Woody do it.   His favorite food was Hostess Snowballs because they were "bite size."   God love, Mr. Harrelson, he downed one of those babies in one bite.  Excuse me, but THAT'S acting! 

Happy to say that in all these years and all the many airings of Rat Girl, not once have we received a protest from a scientist.   Or Hostess bakeries. 

Friday Questions

The summer is whizzing by… for those who are vaccinated.  Here are this week’s FQ’s.

cd1515 starts us off.

Ken, how much bigger a deal we’re the Emmys in the Cheers/MASH days?
Did people working on those shows genuinely care?

As a viewer I’ve never cared and would have no idea who won what in what year.  I suspect most of America agrees.

Look, if you’re nominated ANY year you care deeply. But in past decades Emmys had more meaning because a larger percentage of the viewing public knew the shows and had a rooting interest.   

Also, an Emmy win could save a show from cancellation.  CHEERS received a big bump in audience after it won the Emmy the first season.   

Networks might also keep shows on the air that weren’t getting great ratings but were getting recognition.  Having Emmy-winning shows on your network was a huge source of pride “back in the day.”  Now it seems the broadcast networks have just given up in that regard.  

Brian Phillips wonders:

Earlier in the blog, you mentioned that you and David Isaacs spoke to people that served during the Korean War to write stories for MASH. Did you or any of the writing staff interview any blind people for "Becker" storylines?

I don’t know if others did on BECKER, but I did not.

However, when David Isaacs and I were writing our first episode of MASH — the one where Hawkeye is temporarily blind — we did consult experts and even walked around with a blindfold to try to simulate the experience.  That was scary on Beverly Glen.

From Janet:

Ken, your discussion about family sitcoms got me thinking about the old 70s series FAMILY.

It wasn't a sitcom, to be sure, but I was curious as to your thoughts.

I've been watching episodes on streaming, and to me, it just seemed terribly morose. There seemed to be precious little joy in that family. But maybe that's what was "edgy" in the mid 70s.

I didn’t watch it too often.  It was a little sappy for my taste.  But they filmed it on the 20th Century lot where we were doing MASH.    So I would see Kristy McNichol and other cast members around the campus.

My one real FAMILY memory is being in the 20th commissary and there was little Quinn Cummings, who was probably 9 or 10 at the time, screaming at her agent near the host stand.  Yikes.

And finally, from Philly Cinephile:

I've often noticed that people on TV shows clearly have no idea how to work with food. I'm obsessing over CHEERS these days and noticed that, when working with lemons, Ted Danson appears to be hollowing them out, rather than slicing, wedging, or zesting them. Eric McCormack on WILL & GRACE was often shown preparing food, but he clearly had no idea how to use a cheese grater or a Pyrex measuring cup. (I'm surprised that no one took a moment to teach him how to pick up the cup by the handle...) Do directors usually leave actors to their own devices when they work with food? Do shows ever use consultants to teach actors the correct way to work with it?

We generally don’t have chef consultants.  Dealing with food is usually an excuse for actors to have some business — something they’re doing besides just standing like a statue while they deliver their lines.  And most directors are way more interested in the text than the business.  

That’s how I am as a director.  My feeling is if the viewer is paying more attention to the cheese grater than the content of the scene I’m in big trouble.  

What’s your Friday Question? 

EP235: The Golden Age of TV Comedy

The early ‘70s gave us amazing comedy shows — ALL IN THE FAMILY, MASH, THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, THE BOB NEWHART SHOW, THE CAROL BURNET SHOW… and one year they were all on the same night on the same network. They were all very different shows but had one key thing in common. It’s that common denominator that is missing today. What is it and why is it important? Ken fills you in.

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

In & Out (not the hamburger chain)

So instead of the Olympics Opening Ceremony I re-watched IN & OUT (recorded off of TCM).  This is a comedy from almost 25 years ago written by the great Paul Rudnick and directed wonderfully by Frank Oz. 

It stars Kevin Kline as a high school English teacher in rural Indiana who is days away from marrying Joan Cusack and is outed on national television when a former students wins an Oscar, thanks him, and mentions that he’s gay. 

At this point the movie’s “1997” starts to show as the whole town is horrified.  I’d like to think that today a certain number of students and townies would be a little more enlightened.  Not all certainly.  Indiana is still a red state.  But some. 

Of course by the end of the film everyone accepts him, but it’s a Hollywood studio film so of course the ending is happy and touching and lessons are learned. 

But along the way, much of the film’s message still holds true.  And the comedy still holds up.  Way better than I thought it would.   Paul Rudnick is wickedly funny and whether there are set pieces like Kevin Kline listening to a cassette that is supposed to help you determine whether you’re gay, Joan Cusack’s hilarious and heartbreaking speech after being dumped on her wedding day, and a plethora of very funny lines.  The running joke about Kline’s appreciation for Barbra Streisand provides laugh-of-loud moments throughout. 

The casting is pitch-perfect.  Kline, as always, is wonderful.  Joan Cusack crushes it.  And supporting characters like Bob Newhart, Matt Dillon, Debbie Reynolds, Wilford Brimley, Shalom Harlow (what a great name that is) and even Tom Selleck get every laugh they’re given. 

Oh, for the days when major studios put out smart comedies and they were successful.  They would lead the box-office.  Today, no studio would make this film.  You’d be lucky if Netflix did.  Comedies are all “TV movies” now.  Studios have all but abandoned them.  They’re not going to win awards.  They’re not going to attract eleven-year-old boys.

Thank goodness for TCM and the fact that funny is funny. 

Back when the Olympics were fun

In contrast to this year’s Olympic Spreader Event, 1984 was a magical year.  The games were held in my hometown of Los Angeles. 

For months it had been predicted that the tidal wave of tourists would turn our beloved freeways into parking lots.  But as a result of that fear, locals were so afraid to get in their cars that traffic was a light as it’s ever been. 

From start to finish it was a celebration — a three-week party.  The athletes were housed in the UCLA dorms (Olympic Village).  Living close to UCLA I would walk to the area around the student store and there were these athletes just hanging out.  I met kids from Korea and Chile and places I’ve only heard of because of JEOPARDY.  Very informal.  Everyone was having fun.  Vendors were selling food and drink and commemorative pins.  Those pins were a big collector’s item during the games. 

The Soviet Union boycotted that year, but that’s like Republicans not participating in the Congressional Investigation of January 6.  Who needs ‘em? 

I went to a day of track and field events at the Memorial Coliseum.  Unlike this year where only 50 spectators are allowed to each venue, 100,000 people filled the Coliseum to watch Carl Lewis and Edwin Moses  perform their heroics.  Buses provided transportation so the party libations came out before 10 am.  Our seats weren’t great, but who cares?  We were there.  It was a once-in-a-lifetime event and I didn’t have to park my car in a bad neighborhood. 

We also got tickets to see the women’s gymnastics at Pauley Pavilion on the UCLA campus.  No traffic problems there either.  We walked to the venue. 

Four or five events were going on at once and there was no real scoreboard.  I had purchased a portable TV that looked like a big walkie-talkie.  Through that I was able to follow the scores.  But it didn’t take any assistance to see that Mary Lou Retton was crushing it.  I was there the night she won all her various medals.  It was truly thrilling. 

As the competition continued, a few of the winning athletes would show up at the student store with their medals around their necks.  If my Emmy wasn’t so bulky I would have done the same thing. 

This year the Olympic Village is in somewhat of a bubble, although that’s a joke since athletes themselves are spreading the virus.  The athletes can’t go out and sight-see, which is always one of the perks.  They can’t mingle with adoring fans.  They play in empty stadiums.  And if they are on TV, NBC might have farmed out their event to cable channels no one’s ever heard of.   In many cases the announcers are not on-site, they’re in Secaucus, New Jersey calling the events off a monitor.   If only the athletes could be in Secaucus. 

The LA Olympics were a blast.  That’s the way they’re supposed to be.  And hopefully will be again.  

The Olympics Opening Ceremony, which I skipped

I think for the first time ever I didn’t watch the Olympics Opening Ceremony.  I love the pageantry of all the athletes from all the countries entering the stadium, generally followed by the world’s biggest and gaudiest Orange Bowl halftime show.  

Instead I watched a rerun of IN & OUT.

I’m usually transfixed by the Olympics, no matter the event.  Skateboarding, the way the Greeks did it way back when.  There are always great human interest stories, records are broken, and stars are born (for fifteen minutes).  As a sports fan it's porn.  In 1984 they were held in Los Angeles and I was really immersed.  (More on that in tomorrow’s post.)  

But this year I have zero interest.  None. This year it’s just a big money grab.  And many lives will be needlessly put into COVID jeopardy because organizers don’t want to cancel and give up all that broadcast rights money.  

Cities spend fortunes to construct spiffy new Olympic venues, generally bankrupting their budgets for a three-week event.  But the influx of tourism and the income that generates makes it worth the process.  Not to mention the pride of showing off your gleaming city to the world.  

But this year, because of COVID, spectators aren’t allowed.  The 40,000 seat venues will have 50 people watching.  

80% of Japan’s population is against holding the games there this year.  How do you ignore 80% of the population?  Oh, right. Money is involved. 

Not all athletes are vaccinated.  Not all nations can provide it.  Suspense should be whether these strapping your people win gold medals, not whether they avoid ventilators.  

Already, some of the top athletes have tested positive and can’t compete.   So in some cases you’re not even watching the best of the best. 

I find the whole event irresponsible.  People are getting sick so we can have a TV event to watch.  

And then I see people in America getting sick and dying simply because they won’t get vaccinated, even though the vaccine is free, safe, and available.  Yet certain athletes from certain countries who would do anything for the vaccine can’t get it and might have to pay a horrible price just to compete in these hollow games.  I don’t need to be reminded of it.  I don’t need to get angry all over again because of the sheer stupidity of some people.  

Ratings for the Opening Ceremony were way down from 2016 in Rio.  Hey, maybe I’m not alone in my feelings.  

I’ll watch again next time when hopefully it’ll be the Olympic Games and not the Hunger Games.  

IN & OUT was really funny, by the way.  (More on that this week too.) 

Weekend Post

Is there a language course waiters are required to take these days? Must they pass Waiter-speak before being hired? Who started this current trend where waiters are no longer allowed to converse like normal people? If it were one or two I’d say it was an affectation but they all talk like this now – as if there were a handbook. Maybe this is just an L.A. phenomenon, you tell me. And if you are one of these waiters, would you let me know your side of things? Perfect!

Whatever you ask for now is “perfect!” Salt, a cheeseburger with onions, a cheeseburger without onions. “I just stabbed my date to death and need another knife. “Perfect!”

There’s a formality that is now the standard.

A waitress will take my companion’s drink order then turn to me and say: “And for yourself?” I then must say: “Get myself a beer please.”

No longer can a waiter ask, “Ready to order?” Now it’s “Have we decided?” “Yes, I’ll have what you’re having.”

They use “we” a lot.

The variation is: “So what are we thinking?” “You need your teeth fixed before you go out on more auditions. I’ll have the halibut.”

The only time they don’t say “we” is when they’re reading the specials and then it seems like they own the restaurant and are the chef as well because they’ll say, “Tonight I’m featuring…” Sometimes they do this in a fake accent. You can just picture their headshots and resumes. Special skills: foreign accents, baton twirling, yodeling.

They’re forbidden to ask how you want something cooked. Instead: “What temperature would you like?” “Gee, I’m not sure. 423 degrees or 425?” “Perfect!”

When serving they are now required to say, “Please excuse my reach.” In some places, like Tilted Kilts, that's the only reason you do order food.

And this is a relatively new thing that has caught on quickly: “Are we enjoying the first few bites?” Who started that? And woe be the maverick waiter who asks: “Is everything okay?” Now it’s “Is everything outstanding?” Imagine asking that question with a straight face at the Olive Garden?

When they want to be specific waiters now inquire: “Is the veal to your liking?” It’s as if Boyd Crowder wrote the handbook.

After the meal there are two options. “Did we save some room for dessert?” or “Can we tempt you with something sweet?” Either way you want to trip them so they'll fall into a pie.

The bottom line: real people don’t talk like that! But it's great if you're a screenwriter.  As a writer I’m forever fascinated by dialogue. And in crafting a script, giving a character a certain turn of phrase can greatly help the actor define him. Good writers are great listeners. “Thanks and you have a lovely rest of the day.”

 

Friday Questions

It must be Friday.  You know what that means?

maxdebryn has a question that I receive often. 

What is the deal with all the producers listed in the credits on many tee-wee shows ? In olden days (when I was a lad), you'd see one or two producers listed, but now there are usually more than a dozen or more. Executive producer/ associate producer/co-executive producer ?? Do these producers actually do anything, or is it just a vanity thing ? A lot of actors are now listed as producers on their own shows, too. Do that get paid extra for that ?

Most of those “producers” are writers.  They move up in the hierarchy and in pay grade by going from co-producer to producer, supervising producer, co-executive producer, executive producer.  Sometimes there’s a consulting producer thrown in there somewhere.  As staffs grow, so grow the titles.

The exceptions:  When you see “produced by” that means it’s the line producer who handles everything on the set.  Associate producers usually deal with post-production.  

Actors do take them for more money and vanity, and in some cases, more creative control.  Most of the time they're "producers" in name only.

Derek asks:

On single-camera shows, there seems to be a lot of opportunity for the director to get creative with camera angles, long-shots, close ups, special effects, etc. Some shows (eg, Breaking Bad) do this a lot. But for multi-camera shows it appears there would be far less opportunity for the director to get creative in this way. Are there things that I haven't noticed that a multi-camera director can do to "show off" his or her talents? Do you sometimes watch a show and notice that the multi-cam director has done something novel that the average viewer might not appreciate? Thanks.

If the shot is too weird it might throw the audience off.  But I do appreciate when others directors find interesting shots, and I experiment a little myself.  Usually on the fly.

If I have a pick-up that I need from one camera, I’ll have all four running and I’ll go up to each cameraman and improvise.  I’ll say, “Can you get me a raking master?”  “Can you get me a shot of Kelsey with just the two big noses on either side of him?”  “Can you get me a shot looking through the fishbowl?”   

Most of the time those shots aren’t used, but every so often one sneaks through, and I imagine other directors going “How did he think of that shot?”  

From Mike Bloodworth:

Had you ever considered writing an APRIL FOOLS episode for any of the series for which you wrote? I don't mean an episode where the characters play tricks on each other. I mean an episode, using "Frasier" as an example, where the characters are in a completely different situation. Working in a restaurant maybe. Or an entirely different cast at the radio station, etc. I suppose it wouldn't make much sense of the episodes didn't air on April Fools Day.

No.  We’ve certainly done shows where characters play pranks on other characters but not on the audience.  

As you said, the show has to air on April Fool’s Day.  And any other time you air it it wouldn’t make sense.  Since studios make their money on reruns and syndication, they don’t want you to do an episode that can only be run once.

And finally, from Ron Havens:

Who was your favorite cast addition to any show you wrote for?

That’s an easy one.  David Ogden Stiers as Charles Winchester on MASH.  Great actor, great character, and it added even more depth to the series.

I always loved writing Charles.

What’s your Friday Question?

EP234: Mike Nichols: A Director

More with author, Mark Harris who wrote the book MIKE NICHOLS: A LIFE. In this episode we delve into Nichols’ directing career — his approach, process, hits and misses, theatre and films, and how Jackie Kennedy helped get one of his movies released.

Get Honey for FREE at https://joinhoney.com/LEVINE

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

The dumbest kidnappers EVER

On December 8, 1963 Frank Sinatra Jr. was kidnapped.  As you can imagine, this was quite the story. Reader Ron Havens asked an FQ about it.  

You lived in LA at the time. What do you remember about this incident? Was it as big a story?

Yes, it was a HUGE story.  It was the stuff of tabloids.  And it was a welcome distraction from the mourning the country was going through following the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22nd.  

In my memoir, THE ME GENERATION… BY ME — GROWING UP IN THE ‘60s (available on Amazon, hint hint), I write about the incident.  These were my thoughts:

The only story I was really following was the Frank Sinatra Jr. kidnapping case. Imagine someone trying to get back at the Corleone family by abducting Fredo. 

The three nimrods who pulled off this harebrain scheme were found guilty by a federal jury and sentenced to life plus 75 years, which is still getting off easier than if Frank had doled out justice his way. 

My interest was really sparked because the buffoons’ hideout was just a few blocks from my house. It’s the kind of national attention new tract housing developments could only dream about.

Friday Questions from the Way Back Machine

 

One of the most popular features of the blog is Friday Questions.  So once a month or so I've started reposting Friday Questions from ten or more years ago (since no one goes back in the archives that far and there's some good information hidden within those posts).  This was from Friday, July 29, 2011.  Were we all even alive back then?  Enjoy.   Oh... and a reminder, no anonymous or unknown comments will be posted. 

Brian gets us started.

Ken, you have mentioned several times that you got your first writing assignment on THE JEFFERSONS. What was the story line and how did you come up with it?

A new cleaners moves in across the street and George begins losing his confidence. The episode was called “Movin’ on Down”. I can’t remember exactly what led us to it. But I do recall we came up with the idea in a booth at Mario’s restaurant in Westwood late one Saturday night.   That very spot is now Table 17 at the California Pizza Kitchen. 

Tyler K. wonders:

Do TV writers have a harder time writing enough material to fill the required episode time, or cutting material down to do the same? Also, how short do you see TV episodes getting as time goes on? We've gone from 25-minute episodes of Cheers and Mash to 22-minute episodes of Frasier and Friends to some current shows being less than 20 minutes.

Surprisingly, it’s MUCH harder to write a 20 minute show than a 25 minute show. You’d think it would be easier because you had less to write. But it’s much tougher telling a good story in only 20 minutes. Everything has to be so truncated. And if you have a series where you do A and B stories, it makes things especially difficult. Imagine if FRIENDS were still around today. Or MASH.

Stories are more layered, more nuanced, more emotional when you have more time. Why more emotional? Because the emotion has to be earned. And that’s harder to do when characters have to make quick turns.

Michael writes in:

I recently saw a couple episodes of "The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show" on AntennaTv. 5 or 6 writers shared the writing credit for both shows I saw - I assume they were the show's entire writing staff. Are there union rules that would prevent that from happening today?

Yes. For a sitcom today only two writers or two teams of writers can share teleplay credit on an episode. So if this week’s show is written by Ken Levine & David Isaacs, we each get half. If the show is written by say Earl Pomerantz and Ken Levine & David Isaacs then Earl gets half and David and I split the other half.

You can ask the Guild for a waiver, however. That’s what we did on ALMOST PERFECT. Quite a few scripts were written by David and I and our co-creator, Robin Schiff. But it wasn’t fair that she should get half and we each got a quarter so we asked for a waiver. The Guild said okay as long as all three of us got the equivalent of half – meaning the studio essentially paid for a script and a half. Still with me?

Now things get really complicated when shows are room written like THE BIG BANG THEORY or TWO AND A HALF MEN. Because you can also assign story credit, which pays less than teleplay but at least is something. So if you’ll notice BIG BANG THEORY writing credits, there are usually five or six names. Some get shared story credit, others get shared teleplay credit.

It's a joke because the names on the screen have no relation whatsoever to who actually wrote what. Credits are just divvied up. To me that defeats the purpose of credits. 


From Bob Summers:

Why did the TV seasons of the 70s and into the 80s used to end in March, and why and when did that change to May? I think I have an answer, but I'd like an insider/expert opinion.

This changed when May sweeps were introduced. Most major agencies base their network advertising buys on sweep period ratings. So networks hold back original episodes and sprinkle in stunt programming to inflate their sweeps numbers as much as possible.  Was that what you were thinking, Bob?

And finally, LaprGuy has a question about announcing baseball:

How much does the highlight package (and, maybe moreso, the demo reel) come into play when you are announcing a game?

I don’t think about it at all. As for highlights, I’m just trying to capture the drama of the moment and be accurate. I have no catch phrases.

Re: demo reels, I don’t think about that either. I just try to stay in the moment. Over the course of a season I figure there will be one or two demo-worthy innings somewhere along the way. But my main focus is on the listener and the game at hand. I’m trying to do an informative, entertaining, and descriptive broadcast, not impress. 

Debunking another MASH rumor

One nice thing about having a blog is being able to set the record straight when there are articles about the shows and people I’ve worked with that are not accurate. 

There’s a rumor going around that there was some tension between Alan Alda and Mike Farrell on MASH.  A recent article suggests this.   I’m here to tell you it’s not true.

They point to a specific episode, “Preventative Medicine,” from one of our years (season 7).  I’ve written about this before — how I discovered they already had done that story in year three and how mortified I was.

A recent article uses the debate Alan and Mike had over the ethics of whether a doctor would remove a perfectly good appendix to keep a company commander off the front lines where he was notorious for volunteering for combat and putting his men needlessly in harm's way.  It was a story we got from research.

At the table reading Mike objected that his character wouldn’t do it.   In the piece they claim that this caused a real (but temporary) rift in Alan & Mike’s relationship. 

It made it seem like they were really fighting.

Here’s the true story from someone who was right in the middle of it:

Mike did bring up his objections at the table reading, and Alan did disagree.  They debated the issue for about a half hour.  And it was truly a debate.  No one raised their voice, no one said anything personal, and the argument stayed on point.  It didn’t drift into other grievances.  

At the end of the discussion it was agreed that some of this debate would be good for the episode.  So we went back to the office to write it.  We knew it would be a long night.

But here’s the thing:  Alan joined us for the rewrite.   He didn’t have to, especially since he disagreed with Mike’s reasoning.  But not only did he help rewrite it, he was super positive and excited about incorporating this new argument.  It gave the script a shot of adrenaline.  

And ultimately we were extremely happy with the final product. 

It seems like every couple of months I have to debunk an Alan Alda rumor, and in this case I can assure you there was no friction between he and Mike Farrell.  My writing partner, David Isaacs, and I have fought way more (and louder) than those two happy fellas. 

Don’t believe everything you read, except when you’re reading me.  

Weekend Post - RIP Chuck Blore

One of my radio idols has passed away.  Chuck Blore.  Quite simply he was a creative genius.  He was the architect of KFWB Color Radio in 1958 that took Los Angeles by storm.  There had been Top 40 stations in LA but nothing like KFWB.  Anyone who lived in Los Angeles from 1958-1964 can sing the KFWB Channel 98 jingle.   They were getting 50 share ratings.  Successful stations in LA today get 3 shares.

Chuck Blore was a showman and every moment you listened to KFWB was filled with excitement, personality, and fun.  Each disc jockey had a distinctive style.  Elliott Field (who God bless him, is still with us), Bill Ballance, B. Mitchell Reed, Gary Owens, Wink Martindale (also still here), Don McKinnon, Jim Hawthorne, Ted Quillan, Gene Weed, Joe Yokum — these were just a few of the larger-than-life DJ’s on KFWB.  

As a kid I was mesmerized by the station.  You never knew what was going to happen next and you didn’t want to miss a minute.  The promotions were wild, the jocks were hilarious, oh… and the music was good too.  

The meteoric success of the station was all built on ideas.  And they were Chuck Blore’s ideas.  

When Chuck left KFWB he started an ad agency designed to create novel campaigns meant to get your attention, sell the product, and of course — entertain.  You would go up to his offices and every square inch of wall space was covered with awards.  He must’ve won thousands of them.  

Ideas.

But he was also a true gentleman.  Very kind, very supportive, and one of those few people in your life who actually inspires you.   Chuck had this infectious energy — he made you feel good about whatever his latest idea was, and he made you feel good about yourself.   

I had the pleasure of knowing him the last thirty years of his life.  We’d go to lunch and he’d tell me amazing stories, all the while teaching me how to think creatively.  We’d email back and forth. At one time we considered doing a project together.  I cherish those emails.

There are very few times in your life when you know you’re in the presence of greatness.  I felt that way about Chuck Blore.  It was hard not to be in awe sitting across the table at Off Vine from Chuck.  And yet, he made you feel so comfortable and was so genuinely interested in what you what were doing, that you couldn’t believe he was talking to you.  

He lived a long life and brought joy to hundreds of thousands of people.  I am so blessed that I was one of them.  I hope to continue in his tradition.  He lived to be 92.  He should have lived to be 98.

Friday Questions

Mid-summer FQ’s coming attacha.

71dude is up first.

What are familiar, long-running shows that you've never seen (disinterest, don't like the star, never got around to it, etc.)?

Never seen an episode of NCIS.  (How can there be so many murders in the Navy?)  I tend not to watch franchise spin-off shows.  All the CHICAGO shows — CHICAGO FIRE, CHICAGO CROSSING GUARDS, etc.

Never watched WALKING DEAD.  I just don’t like zombie shows.  And with the exception of one episode (that confused the crap out of me), I never watched GAME OF THRONES.  Fantasy shows are not my thing.

Brian  asks:

Were there any sets that were logistically challenging? I'm not speaking about difficult actor, just sets.

You’ll notice in living room sets the couch is always in the middle facing out.  Especially in multi-camera shows shot in front of an audience.  There’s a reason for that.

I directed a show on Fox called ASK HARRIET early in my directing career (when I took anything I could get).  They wanted to be “different” so instead of the couch being horizontal it was vertical.  Only one problem:  You couldn’t shoot it.  

A couch that faces out allows cameramen to get on either side and shoot the actors talking.  But if the couch is vertical you can’t shoot the actor on the downstage side unless you brought a camera up into the set.  And of course the camera shooting the upstage actor would see the other camera.  

What an ill-conceived set.  Needless to say, I never had an actor sit on the couch.  It was just this useless piece of furniture that took up half the set.  

I’ve had other unwieldy sets where it was hard to get one angle or another, but nothing like that.  

From Kevin from VA, who has a question after reading my rant on Mike Myers.

Some of the blowback to your post today on your dislike of Mike Myers has me curious. Have negative comments by your readers ever caused you to regret or reevaluate a post of yours? Just how much do the comments "stay with you", the good and the bad? Are there any posts that in hindsight you now wish you'd never published due to your reader's comments?

Yes, there are times when readers will offer a perspective I hadn’t considered and I will thus alter my position.   Occasionally, I’ll either add on to the original post or change the original post.  

As for regrets, over the last sixteen years I think I have deleted one or two posts, but I can’t recall the specifics.   And those were cases where I felt I inadvertently hurt someone’s feelings.  I try not to do that.  

And finally, from John G:

Would you prefer the challenges of writing the early seasons of a show or the later seasons?

I’d much rather write a show in the early stage of its run.  There’s still a sense of discovery, not to mention you have more available stories.  When you get into the later years the characters can’t surprise you anymore.  You pretty much know how they’re going to react in any given situation.  

The one exception for me was CHEERS.  I co-wrote 40 episodes and never got tired of writing that show or those characters.  

What’s your Friday Question? 

EP233: Mike Nichols: A Life

Ken talks with Mark Harris, author of the best-seller, “Mike Nichols: A Life” — a fascinating look into this complex giant of the entertainment industry. This week: His early life, influences, and relationship with Elaine May, which spawned the hugely successful comedy team, Nichols & May.

More podcasts at WAVE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/wave-podcast-network/1437831426

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

73rd Emmy Nominations

Some of the Emmy nominations announced yesterday actually look interesting this year.  I think there will be a race between THE CROWN, THE MANDALORIAN, and BRIDGERTON.  

For comedy it’s TED LASSO all the way.  HACKS should get some wins, certainly for Jean Smart and hopefully Hannah Einbinder.  It seems stupid to me that actors on sketch shows like SNL are lumped in the same category as sitcom actors, but categories are such a joke these days that who cares?  

At the end of the day, the shows that have gotten the most buzz, like QUEEN’S GAMBIT, MARE OF EASTTOWN, and POSE will likely receive some Emmy love.  And when I say “buzz” I mean LA because I suspect there’s been little or no buzz about any of these shows anywhere else in America.

Also nominated but now on the wrong side of the zeitgeist are THIS IS US, THE HANDMAID’S TALE, KOMINSKY METHOD (plus there’s the Chuck Lorre factor - the Academy hates his enormous success), and BLACK-ISH (and there are waaaay more deserving shows than the later years of BLACK-ISH).  

As always, Colbert and Kimmell got nominated. Fallon did not.  The Academy got it right.

If your favorite drama isn’t recognized that’s probably because it’s from another country, you watched it on Netflix and were blown away, but it’s a three year old Danish series.  And yes, it is better than most of the series that did get nominated.

Best Comedy has now been reduced to which show made you laugh occasionally but was very pleasant over ten episodes.  We’ve come a long way since ALL IN THE FAMILY battled THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW and MASH.  

And finally, with all award shows now, most people will not have heard of half of the shows that are nominated.  And a large portion of the population doesn’t subscribe to the platforms they’re on.  So expect national interest to be way lower than the NFL draft, or maybe even the MLB draft.  

I had to laugh when a Deadline Hollywood article on snubs listed THE MASKED SINGER.  Um, aren’t the Emmys supposed to celebrate excellence in television?  THE MASKED SINGER?  Really?    

Congratulations to all the nominees.  Best of luck.  Offhand, I don't know when the ceremony is on (I certainly won't be reviewing it)  or who's televising it.  All I know is it will be one of the major broadcast networks with very few nominations. 

For those not yet vaccinated

Hi there.  I want to speak to all my good friends in the Red States.  I have solved your pandemic problems!

Instead of getting free vaccination shots that protect you against all current COVID variants and allow you to rejoin the world and reclaim all the freedom you've lost over the last year-and-a-half, you could always wear this.  The good news is it's not one of those flimsy masks.  Those are so annoying.  And look how great it goes with a suit and tie!  You'd be rocking the next QAnon meeting with one of these beauties on your skull. 

The truth is you still get more protection from the vaccines but hey, these are soooo attractive.  They might be a tad warm if you're in the deep south, but I expect most customers for these handsome helmets will come from the south.  Eating might be a problem, you can't apparently hear anything, glasses might be unwieldy, and you might be a tad easier to identify in a police lineup, but you won't have that annoying 24 hours of discomfort that you might (no guarantees) get with one of those vaccines.  Aren't you the smart one?   

Oh, I wouldn't go swimming with one of these on either.  

The choice is yours. 

FOLLOW UP BASED ON SOME COMMENTS.

It has been well documented that states with high vaccination totals mirror blue states that voted for Biden.  States with low vaccination totals voted for Trump.  I'm not just making it up.  I agree that this shouldn't be about politics.  The virus is as bi-partisan as they come.  You would think intelligent caring people of all parties would take advantage of this remarkable opportunity.  But apparently not.

Some readers claim it's not politics, it's "misinformation."  When people believe obvious nonsense -- like the "Big Lie" or there was no insurrection, despite all the tangible evidence I have no empathy.  And when this "misinformation" threatens the very core of Democracy, the emotion I feel is anger.  And when over 99% of the people getting COVID now are not vaccinated, and deaths have plummeted since vaccination, my heart doesn't go out to them either.  Sorry.  

One reader says anti-vaxers don't affect me.  If they want to get sick and die it's their business.  Actually, it's not. Because there are people with compromised immune systems and children who can't get vaccinated and they're put at risk because of these "misinformed" people.   

And finally, I'm very sorry if you're offended by my posting a political viewpoint.  My point is not to convince you to become a Democrat, it's to get vaccinated and save your life, regain your way of life, and prevent others from getting sick. 

NOTE:  This is from one of the most insane (and beloved) episodes of THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN. 

The History of the Sitcom

Saw the first two episodes of CNN’S new docuseries, THE HISTORY OF THE SITCOM last night.  I was soooo looking forward to this.  After watching the first two all I can say is I hope it gets better.  

First off, let me acknowledge that there’s no way to do a comprehensive look at 70 years of sitcoms in eight hours (and considering all the commercials, I bet it’s more like six hours).  There will be many omissions.  Add to that, some shows will get more weight and screen time than they deserve.  That’s to be expected.  I’m sure if they had nine hours, BIG WAVE DAVE’S would have had a whole segment devoted to it.  

Another point that’s not the fault of the producers:  I found it sad seeing some of these sitcom stars from the past today.  Some did not age well.  And was I the only one saying, “bad plastic surgery,” “good plastic surgery?”

The series is broken down into general topics.  

Part One was families.  The first half walked you through the ‘50s up through more contemporary shows.  The second half could be entitled, “Look How Inclusive We Are.”  Inclusive except for Jews.  Not a single mention.  Not a frame of THE GOLDBERGS (either version) or RHODA.  

And if you want to devote a large segment of the show to African-American representation and their impact on society, how can you ignore AMOS & ANDY?  Feel free to say evolving society found it offensive and took it off the air.  But it was a very popular show in its day and featured an all African-American cast.  It's like doing a history of baseball and conveniently ignoring the 1919 Black Sox Scandal.

Part Two was about sex.  Maybe 30% on heterosexual sex, and 70% on LGBTQ sex.  Included in the heterosexual section was I DREAM OF JEANIE.  It was broken down in two categories — shows that weren’t allowed to address sex (I LOVE LUCY, THAT GIRL, etc.) and those where everybody has sex (SEX IN THE CITY, FLEABAG, GIRLS).   Gee, times have changed is the obvious conclusion.

But that section all felt like an afterthought.  The LGBTQ section took over most of the show. Yes, it was groundbreaking, and yes there are moments that helped change peoples’ opinions to become more accepting.   But there’s way more to seventy years of sex.

For starters, how about sexual tension?  How do you do an hour on sex and not even make reference to Sam & Diane in CHEERS?   Or MOONLIGHTING, or the early years of MASH?  Or TWO AND A HALF MEN?  Several classic sex farces were done to perfection on FRASIER.  And you can throw in CALIFORNICATION.  You can also go way to the ‘50s for LOVE THAT BOB and DOBIE GILLIS.   Like I said, straight sex was an afterthought.  

My point on both parts, -- they were less history lessons and more civics lessons.  

Other than Norman Lear, Steve Levitan, and Darren Starr, no writers were mentioned.  They spent a ton of time on FRESH OFF THE BOAT.  You would think it’s one of the five greatest sitcoms in history.  Who wrote it?  At one point some talking head said that black shows started finally being written by black writers.  Who?  Wouldn’t that be more informative than a fan coming up to Constance Wu (who tried desperately to get out of FRESH OFF THE BOAT) and telling her how meaningful her show was to her?   FAMILY TIES gets a nice long segment and not a word about its creator, Gary David Goldberg.  

Again, I hope the other chapters are better.  So far it's very much a documentary with an agenda.  What did you guys think?   Remember: Anonymous and Unknown comments won't be posted.