JEOPARDY guest hosts so far

The fourth JEOPARDY guest host debuts tonight.  I think there's like fifteen more.  Everyone but Ozzy Osbourne, and there's still a chance for him.  

This is a matter of casting.  It's not just who can read the clues without stumbling; there are a lot of elements to it.  This host will be replacing a beloved icon in Alex Trebek.  The JEOPARDY franchise is huge and a wrong choice could "jeopardize" that.    The new permanent host probably won't be announced until the early summer.  Still time for Ozzy to apply. 

 So here are my thought so far (not that they matter one iota):

Katie Couric -- A solid pro with great warmth.  Part of the job is making the contestants feel comfortable.  Katie was great at that.  There's also a comfort level for the viewer.  They can sense if a host is struggling and JEOPARDY is a particularly difficult show to do.  Lots of moving parts, reading clues, controlling the pace, reacting to unusual occurrences.  The viewer is in good hands with Katie.   However, I never felt like she really wanted the job full-time.  It was a bucket list thing.  And she did raise money for cancer research.  I doubt if Katie will be the new permanent host.

Mike Richards -- He's the Executive Producer of JEOPARDY.  When I heard he was going to host for two weeks I thought this was a vanity call.  But I was very pleasantly surprised.  He's obviously hosted game shows before.  He was incredibly polished, really kept the pace moving, and came off extremely likeable.  My only concern was that he might've been too polished.  He was the central casting "game show host" option.  But very impressive.

Ken Jennings -- Considered he had no prior hosting experience I thought he did an incredible job.  He was warm, good with the contestants, has a sly sense of humor, and can pronounce all those foreign words.  The only drawback is that he does not have a commanding voice and that's important because you hear his voice a lot.  However, I'd be willing to overlook that for his strengths. And the one big strength he has over all the other candidates is his association with the show.  As the GOAT and 74 time champ Ken Jennings is part of the JEOPARDY family.  Every other guest host is an outsider.  To me that's an almost insurmountable obstacle the others have to face.  

So it's early yet.  Ozzy would have to learn what JEOPARDY is.  But for my money, still the one to beat is Ken Jennings.  What do you all think?  

Weekend Post

Here's a photo I found on that interweb thing the kids all talk about.  It's a 1987 photo celebrating the 75th Anniversary of Paramount Pictures.  See how many stars you can pick out.  I think I found Ted Danson, Rhea Perlman, Shelley Long, Danny DeVito, Jimmy Stewart, Gene Hackman, Burt Lancaster, Elizabeth Taylor, Fred McMurray, DeForest Kelley, Cindy Williams, Penny Marshall, Bob Hope, Charlton Heston, Bruce Dern, that idiot Scott Baio, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Don Ameche, Kevin Costner, Walter Matthau, Robin Williams, Charles Bronson, Robert Stack, Peter Graves, Penelope Ann Miller, William Shatner,  Henry Winkler, Robert DeNiro, Robert Evans, Harry Dean Stanton, Olivia deHavilland, John Travolta, Olivia Newton-John, Tim Hutton, Lou Gosset Jr., Mark Harmon, Faye Dunaway, Gregory Peck, Matthew Broderick.  Who am I missing?   

Only sorry I wasn't there for that.  

Friday Questions

How about some Friday Questions?   What’s yours?

Vincent gets us started.

I just attended a  Zoom webinar where a literary agent said flat-out that he would not work with a writer who was doing anything else but focusing on screenwriting, like writing a novel, acting, or even doing a podcast on the side. Since you have a podcast I assume not every agent feels this way, but would you say this guy's attitude was the exception of the rule vis-a-vis Hollywood literary agents.

I would say yes, that’s the exception.  Agents today tend to like clients who have large social media followings or podcasts.  It helps them stand out and potentially easier to sell.  

The agent might think the writer’s podcast could be adapted for a series as an example.  

On the other hand, I could definitely see the argument that an agent would want writer clients who are devoted strictly to writing.  

But here’s the bottom line: when an agent is considering a new client his only real focus is how that person fits HIS agenda, not the writer’s.   How hard will the writer be to sell?  Does the writer fit the agency’s need for a certain genre?  Is the writer diverse?   How old is he?  Is his style in the zeitgeist?

Bob Sassone asks:

Something that bugs me about sitcoms is the fake car/driving scenes. I don't mind at all how cheesy they look, but why do they usually take out the rearview mirror? Is it just for how the shot looks? And why do so many characters still LOOK in the rearview mirror to talk to someone in the back seat when there's no mirror????

I assume you’re talking about multi-camera sitcoms where the car scenes are filmed on stage in front of an audience.

You’re right that the rearview mirror blocks camera angles.   It’s a creative license thing that most people don’t notice.  

I’m always more worried about the cheesy backgrounds.  For night scenes though someone (I believe on TAXI) created this effect with just lights that looks pretty cool.  

Boomska316 wonders:

Why are finales(season or series) so hard to get right? Is it different expectations between the viewers and the creators?

There are much greater expectations to a series finale.  So let’s concentrate on that.  

To some degree yes.  Especially if the show has set up lots of questions to be answered.  (a la LOST)  The questions better all be answered and to the audience’s satisfaction.  The more time the audience has been waiting, the higher the expectations.  

But the big reason series finales often fall short is because they're too long, sometimes waaaaay too long.  This is a network decision.  The networks want to take advantage of the larger audience they will draw to sell more advertising at higher rates.   The result is often bloated finales telling stories not worth two hours.   

When I think of my favorite sitcom finales (THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND, NEWHART) they’re all half hours.  

And finally, from YEKIMI:

Do you tend to get stuff done faster when writing with David or when writing alone?

Without question, faster when the two of us are working.  But that has developed over time.  We now have a rhythm and shorthand and experience so we go at a much faster clip than we did when we were starting out.

Originally, it would take us two weeks to write a half hour script.  Now it takes three or four days, and in some cases if we’re in a crunch — two.

Also, as partner we write head to head.  So we’re both in the room pitching at the same time.  

We also dictate the script to an assistant so that takes less time.  We can just pitch out a whole run in two minutes and then go back and clean it up, sharpen some jokes, make some trims, etc.  

And when the two of us are writing we don’t take breaks every five minutes to check email or see if there’s any breaking news on MSNBC. 

For writers thinking of transitioning into TV

 

EP216: Perfect Shows (in my opinion)

Ken answers a listener’s question and lists all the TV shows and pilots he thinks are as close to “perfect” as possible. 

Get Honey for FREE at JoinHoneycom/LEVINE

More podcasts at WAVE!

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Billy Wilder: guest blogger

I'd like to thank Billy for coming back from the Great Beyond to offer the best screenwriting tips anyone could learn, which makes sense since he's one of the best if not THE best screenwriters ever.   Thanks, Billy, I owe you one.

 

A few words about Stage Directions... with the emphasis on "few"

My all-time favorite Hollywood writer/director, Billy Wilder, was once asked if a good director should also be a good writer?  His answer:  “No.  A good director should be a good READER.”  

In other words, follow the script.  

It’s our job as writers to convey our vision as best we can.  And very often that means detailed stage directions.  

But there’s a trap in that.  If the stage direction is too long and detailed no one is going to read it.  That’s just a fact.  Whether it be film or for the stage, when a director sees a page that’s a solid block of stage direction he skips it.  

So the writer has to be incredibly concise and convey the most with the least.  And trust me, that’s hard.  Just know that there’s always more you can cut out without sacrificing your intent.  

I learned that quite a few years ago.  A screenplay of mine was going to get a public reading in New York.  The producer said he had a guy who would go through my script and make suggested trims of the stage direction.  I said I didn’t want anybody changing my screenplay.  He said these would just be suggestions sent to me privately and I could take or leave whatever I wanted.  At that point I said fine.  I was proud of the fact that I wrote sparing stage directions.  Just wait’ll this guy sees he has nothing to cut.

A week later my script arrives.  I was gobsmacked.  It looked like one of those classified reports where 80% of it was redacted.  There were cross-outs everywhere.  At first I was furious.  Who the fuck does this guy think he is?

Then I started going through them one by one, and sure enough I’d say, “Well, yeah, I don’t need that” and “That is a little redundant,” and “that is a faster way of saying that.”  Eventually I used 90% of his suggestions.   And again, I always prided myself on lean stage directions.

Now, whenever I write something I always think of that guy.  What would he do to this paragraph?   As a result, I’m way tougher on my stage directions.   It’s a good lesson to learn.  

Another stage direction tip:  Slip in a little joke or two from time to time.  Reward the reader and give him a reason to pay attention to your instructions.   

Stage directions are vital — they’re your assembly manual.  Make sure they’re easy to read and follow. 

TOMORROW:  Billy Wilder is my guest blogger.

AMAZING drone video

 I usually don't post two videos in a row, but this you gotta see.   My guess is you'll watch it multiple times. 

This is a video done with a drone.  It's all in one shot, no CGI, no special effects.  The sound however was done in post. 

It was shot in a bowling alley in Minneapolis with a racing drone by drone-operator Jay Christensen and director Anthony Jaska.   They needed ten or twelve takes to get it just right, but their perseverance paid off.   As I was watching I wondered how they were going to end it.  They found the perfect way.  Enjoy.

Weekend Post

Pepe LePew should move to Copenhagen.  

This is going to sound like a joke, but it’s real.   There is an animated kids show in Denmark named JOHN DILLERMAND.  The premise is that John has a huge penis.  And I mean, HUGE.  It can perform rescue missions and steal ice cream.   Google this if you don’t believe me.   Or better yet..

Here’s an article about it.  

And here’s the opening: 

But wait.  It gets better.  The show is aimed at children aged 4 to 8.  No, I’m SERIOUS!

Too bad it’s not in the US so Fox News could focus on that instead of the American Rescue Plan that will bring desperately needed relief to millions of Americans.  

How has the show been received in Denmark?  Well, the Woke folks are going bat shit.  Especially in this #MeToo era, opponents believe it sets back equality, sends the wrong message, etc.   On the other hand, proponents say it’s funny, it’s silly, and children do find genitals funny.  

I’d give anything to be able to pitch it to the Hallmark Channel.   

Proponents argue the show is not about sex.  I would imagine most kids 4 to 8 don’t know about sex.  But Danish TV certainly pushes boundaries.  Apparently there’s another children’s show where the lead swears, smokes a pipe, and doesn’t bathe.  

Pepe’s looking pretty good right about now, isn’t he?  

I’m writing to Disney +.  I’ve got to see this show. 

Friday Questions

Let’s continue our March into Friday Questions.

Mark Bosselman starts us off.

Have you ever been starstruck upon meeting a celebrity either by the aura or beauty?

Natalie Wood.  She came into the MGM commissary when I had an office on the lot.  Unfortunately, she was not dressed like the above photo. 

For sheer luminous, radiant beauty — Candice Bergen when she spoke at UCLA in 1968, Suzanne Pleshette on the MTM lot in 1975, and Jacqueline Bisset at MGM in 1980.  

Then, for sheer aura, seeing John Wayne (in costume yet) at Warner Brothers and Sean Connery at the Paramount commissary.  

In baseball, seeing Joe DiMaggio.  

In theatre, meeting Stephen Sondheim.  And Al Hirschfeld.

In life, John Wooden. 

But my all-time is Vin Scully.  There was not a time I was in his presence (and I worked with him and the Dodgers for five years) that I wasn’t in complete awe.  

From Larry:

Carla was often pregnant in “Cheers”, and I know during season 3 it was because Perlman herself was pregnant (as was Shelley Long, though hers was concealed). Were any of Carla’s other pregnancies incorporated to accommodate Perlman’s real-life condition, or were some of them purely for story purposes and she wore padding?

The first season she was actually pregnant.  We saved money on padding.  

Explaining it was tricky though because she had separated from her husband.  So we had to create a “father.”  

Tammy asks:

I've been a Joss Whedon fan for 20 years, so naturally I was very disappointed to learn this week that he'd been creating toxic work environments, both on set and in the writers' room (according to Jose Molina, he would brag about making writers cry). My questions: first, how common are these bully showrunners?

I wouldn’t say it was common, but there have always been a few tyrant show runners, just as there are tyrants in charge of any operation.  

And second, is there really less tolerance for this behavior nowdays, or is it just for the cases that go public? Thanks!

If a tyrant is getting good ratings or bringing in big money, Hollywood tends to look the other way.  Sadly, I would submit that bad behavior is tolerated more in the entertainment industry.   But yes, now there is much less tolerance and awful people who have gotten away with despicable behavior in the past are now getting their comeuppance.  And I can’t say I’m at all upset about it.  

And finally, from Powers:

If you could have written for any of the notable movie comedy teams, who would you have enjoyed writing for?

There are not that many to choose from.

I would have to go waaaaaay back.  First and foremost, Laurel & Hardy (although Stan Laurel wrote all of their material himself).  To this day they make me laugh.  Their physical comedy, reactions, and overall timing is just pitch-perfect.

I would have enjoyed writing a “Road Picture” for Bob Hope & Bing Crosby.  There was a lot of fun banter and great zingers between those two.  

I’d be less enthusiastic about Abbott & Costello.  I loved Lou Costello but thought Bud Abbott was always so mean to Lou Costello I never warmed to him.  

More recently, I’d like to write for Jay & Silent Bob… although no one writes Kevin Smith stuff better than Kevin Smith.  

What’s your Friday Question? 

EP215: Mike Scully’s sitcom writer journey continues

Comedy veteran Mike Scully discusses the change that saved Parks & Rec, working on Everybody Loves Raymond, and the animation process used to make the show he co-created with his wife, Julie — Duncanville. Amy Poehler fans, in particular, will love this episode.

Find out how Upstart can lower your monthly payments today!
https://upstart.com/HOLLYWOOD 

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

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Final thoughts on WANDAVISION

Okay, I stuck with WANDAVISION until the very end.  All nine episodes.  As some of you know I reviewed it after the first few episodes.  Again, I know I’m not the target audience.  But it seemed to me they took a story that could have been a 90 minute movie and stretched it out to 4 1/2 hours (9 half hour episodes).  To me it was just a confusing mess.  When Kathryn Hahn turned into a witch I should have bailed.  Or when storytelling simply became Wanda shooting red energy bolts into the witch’s purple energy bolts.  

At what point do “epic” air battles between superheroes become boring, even to Marvel Universe fans?   How much suspense can there really be when characters can solve problems with magic?   Or the writers make up bizarre technical gibberish to explain away absurd phenomena?   

I won’t spoil the end except to say the whole series felt like one big shaggy dog story.  

For those who haven’t been following WANDAVISION on Disney +, a Marvel character imagines she’s living sitcoms, and through the course of the series they move from the 50’s-00’s.  And the show reflects the style and dialogue of each era.  So the first two episodes are in black and white.  And there are theme opening titles that reflect each era (which frankly are the best part of the whole series).  The first three episodes are pretty much just these recreated sitcoms.  

We finally learn that it’s all in Wanda’s mind.  And then let the convoluted plot with tanks and force fields and flashbacks to Salem witch trials begin.  Here’s a storytelling tip:  When setting up a fight, let the audience know what they’re fighting for.  But I imagine the thinking was: as long as it doesn’t get in the way of the cool CGI effects, who gives a shit?  

Mike Reiss is a longtime writer/producer of THE SIMPSONS.  To me, his recent tweet summed up WANDAVISION perfectly. 

Hanging out with Queen Elizabeth

 

In light of Meghan & Harry's interview that is stirring up a hornet's nest in Buckingham Palace, I thought I would share my personal brush with the Queen of England. 

In 1991 I was a rookie play-by-play announcer for the Baltimore Orioles. I kept a daily journal that year and sold it as a book. "It's Gone!...No, wait a minute"(my classic home run call unfortunately) was published by Villard and released in ’93. It’s available on Amazon or on a remainder table near you. Thirty years ago this is what happened:

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1991, BALTIMORE

A typical day really, except that the queen of England and the president of the United States attended the game. They saw the A’s win 6-3, although Randy Milligan hit his first home run of the year and then his second.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness Prince Philip are visiting the United States and wanted to view something that represented the “epitome of America”. That meant either the Shopping Channel or baseball. So our little ol’ ballpark on Thirty-third Street got the nod. The weather was glorious, the traffic horrendous, and the crowd merely moderate (32,501) to see this historic occasion (The queen was not as big a draw as free wristbands.)

The entourage arrived at 6:30 via motorcade and were whisked into a private reception hosted by club owner Eli S. Jacobs (whom I have yet to meet, by the way). The VIP party, which also included Mr. Bush, baseball commish Fay Vincent (who told me before the game that the role of the commissioner in affairs such as these is “to be seen and then leave”), Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, Mrs. Secretary of Defense, the Governor of Maryland, the British Foreign Secretary, and a number of the queen’s personal valets, secretaries, and foot stools. They all dined on crab cakes and hot dogs. (What, no crumpets and nachos??).

Everyone lingered over dinner for fifteen minutes, and then the royal party moved on to the Orioles dugout to greet the players of both teams.

I did not get to meet the queen. Jon Miller and I were on the air describing the proceedings. At 7:20 a receiving line of players was rushed through (viewed by the crowd on DiamondVision), and to the horror of the Secret Service, the president escorted Queen Elizabeth (or “Sausage” as Prince Philip calls her) up the top step into the on-deck area in full view of the masses. Personally, I feel Harold Baines would be in greater danger than the queen, but the Secret Service men held their breath just the same. The crowd roared its approval.

From there the royal party repaired back to Mr. Jacobs’ sky box on the mezzanine level just to the left of the press box. They sat comfortably behind bulletproof glass as a high school chorus mangled “God Save the Queen” and “The Star-Spangled Banner” over a sound system wracked by feedback.

They stayed for two whole innings, and I sort of felt bad because they were two very boring innings. Five walks, little action. Really, Your Highness, baseball is not that dull! I wanted her to stay longer, but by 8:45 the motorcade had shuttled her away. I also was hoping to have her stop by our booth and possibly read the “Esskay Meats Out-of-Town Scoreboard,” but that was not to be. See if I vote for her in the next election!

All in all it was a very exciting night. In three previous years in the minors the most important dignitary I ever saw attend a game was the Phillie Phanatic.

The Meghan & Harry Interview

It’s always hard for TV writers to write about how hard it is being a TV writer.  Long grueling hours, endless notes, enormous pressure, pushback from actors, etc.  The reason it’s hard is because most people would see this and go “boo hoo.”   They see that TV writers are well compensated, are in a glamorous business, and most people would trade places with them in a second.  So it’s hard to generate any real sympathy for the plight of a TV writer who drives a BMW and lives in Bel Air.  

I was reminded of that last night while watching the Oprah interview with Prince Harry and princess/SUITS’ star, Meghan Markle.   They both seemed lovely enough, and their life in a fishbowl, trapped in an oppressive lifestyle with tabloids ripping you on a daily basis sounds like hell.  Clearly, it’s taken a heavy toll, especially on Meghan.   And now they’ve given up the royal life to live as simple folks on a giant estate in Montecito, California, one of the most exclusive conclaves in the country.   When Oprah Winfrey is your neighbor you’re not living in row houses.  

So of the millions who watched last night (and I sheepishly admit to being one of them), how many were saying, “I’ll trade ya and when can I be trapped in that castle?”  

I suspect a large number.  

But I also imagine an even larger portion of the audience did care.  There’s something so intriguing about royalty, and privilege, and palace dish.   They’re the real-life Ewings and Carirngtons.   It’s a living soap opera.  Fairy tale weddings and family in-fighting, tragedy, scandals, old world protocol, ceremony, and mini-series.

I’m not sure why I watched.  I mean, I liked her on SUITS, but after weathering four years of Trump trauma on a daily basis, whether Meaghan actually once made Kate cry is of zero importance to me.  Theirs was not a story I followed closely, being more concerned that that deranged psychopath didn’t destroy our country.  

Perhaps what drew me was knowing this was one of the few remaining shared experiences we as a country would have.   This was an event.  As such, people felt compelled to watch it live.  And I bet there’s a lot of talk today about it.  If the CDC would let us gather around the water cooler this is what the topic of discussion would be.   So I wanted to be a part of that.   The reality is — for me and you — Harry and Meghan’s lives do not effect me one iota.   They can be in California or England, have two kids or six kids, feed chickens or go over to Oprah’s for a BBQ.  I don’t give a shit.

And yet I watched.  And I’m offering opinions.   But hey, it was just nice to take a break from Mitch McConnell, COVID variants, QAnon, anti-vaxers, moron governors in Texas and Mississippi and hear about squabbles over flower girl dresses.   And as always, Oprah was a master interviewer.  I devoted a lot of my focus to the questions she asked, how she framed them, how she followed up, how she made Meg & Har feel comfortable enough to be truly candid, and how impeccably prepared she was.   No one does it better.  

And if after watching (because I bet you did), your heart can go out to the royal couple for the ordeal “the firm” put them through, we TV writers really do put in insane hours often doing soul-crushing work.  And the BMW is in the shop half the time.  Show us some love. 

Looking for something fun to do this weekend?

Especially at home?  Joely Fisher & Tim Daly are AMERICA'S SEXIEST COUPLE in the Zoom reading of my romantic comedy play.  It's getting rave reviews and is waaaaay more fun than watching dreary Oscar contenders.  Enjoy.

Weekend Post

 Villains are far more interesting than heroes. Just ask Heath Ledger (if you could). Without Lex Luthor Superman is just another boring jock on steroids.

There are villains you love to hate. And then there is Linda Fiorentino in THE LAST SEDUCTION. If I may coin a word, she is a VILF!

THE LAST SEDUCTION is a 1995 film noir treat, written by Steve Barancik and directed by John Dahl (who sadly has been relegated to television while Michael Bay continues to make features). It's probably available on some streaming service. Linda is the ultimate femme fatale, absconding her husband’s drug money (Bill Pullman as Ralph Bellamy) and disappearing into this small town where she turns Peter Berg into her boy toy for utter amusement. In true noir fashion she lures him into committing murder and the twists and turns come fast and furious.

And all the while you love her sultry voice, her chutzpah, smarts, and delicious wickedness. It’s DOUBLE INDEMNITY meets GOODBYE COLUMBUS.

Oh, and it’s one of the sexiest movies this side of first half of BODY HEAT before it dissolved into a jumbled mess.

THE LAST SEDUCTION and Linda should have been up for a gaggle of Academy Awards but due to a technicality (the movie played first on HBO) it wasn’t eligible. But it did win all kinds of Indie Spirit Awards, which everyone knows is far more prestigious.

THE LAST SEDUCTION. See it with someone you want to have sex with or kill.

Friday Questions

It’s Friday Question time.  What’s yours?

Michael starts us off.

When you direct an episode on a show you haven't worked on before, does the showrunner first give you a heads-up on any unusual on-set dynamics such as 2 co-stars who don't get along or an actor who is overly sensitive to feedback?

Yes, although if there’s bad behavior on the set it’s generally well known around town.  I’ve never personally encountered that in all the shows I’ve directed.  Of course I told my agent don’t put me up for ROSEANNE or CYBILL or GRACE UNDER FIRE because who needs the headaches?  

But I like to meet with the showrunner beforehand and find out when he likes runthroughs, what he expects of the cast and me, whether I have the freedom to toss in a joke, how hard the cast likes to rehearse, and maybe a heads-up on an actor who will ask a lot of questions.  By the way, I don’t mind if an actor asks a lot of questions.  That’s his process and that’s my job to answer them.  My goal is to get every actor to peak performance when the cameras are rolling.  

sueK2001 queries:

What are your thoughts on Disney Plus (or any streaming service) putting an "offensive content" label on The Muppets or any retro comedy? 

I think it’s utterly ridiculous.

Children are going to be scarred emotionally by something on THE MUPPET SHOW, but Disney + is fine with kids being turned into donkeys in PINOCCHIO, or Bambi’s mother dying, or Dumbo’s mother being locked up, or the witch in SNOW WHITE scaring the shit out of everybody with the poison apple?  

Let the Snowflakes watch the Hallmark Channel.  

From 71dude:

You said you never worked on any family shows, but do writers generally ask the child actors or their parents before they hand them a potentially embarrassing or puberty-related storyline?

Absolutely!   The parents, the network, the studio, standards & practices, and the child.    There are all kinds of guidelines in place for the protection of minors.  

And finally, Mike Bloodworth has a MASH-related FQ.

Was having only Asian actors play Asian characters a conscious decision on the part of the creators/producers? Was it just coincidence? Had they ever considered using a big name, white guest star in Asian makeup?

It was a conscious decision.  We tried to be as accurate as possible.  And it was nice to give these Asian actors roles because there weren’t too many of them at the time.  

We never once considered putting a non-Asian actor in make up.  Even back then in the writers room we made fun of John Wayne as Genghis Khan in THE CONQUEROR. 

What was fun was meeting veteran actors like Keye Luke who had been in tons of movies and shows.  Imdb lists him in 226 different projects.  He had amazing stories. 

EP214: Meet SIMPSONS writer Mike Scully

Go inside The Simpsons writing room with Mike Scully and hear how the show has evolved over the last 175 years. Mike has also been with other shows including Everybody Loves Raymond and Parks & Rec.

More podcasts on WAVE!

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Allen v. Farrow

Purely out of curiosity, I watched the first episode of the new HBO documentary, ALLEN V. FARROW, which is basically the Woody Allen sex abuse allegations.  Apparently I wasn't alone.  It got a huge rating for HBO upon its premier.  

I will not be watching another installment.  I'll be curious to see if the numbers remain high or if most people, like me, say "one and done."  

The documentary makes a very compelling case that Woody Allen acted inappropriately with his young daughter.  But I don't want to watch it.  The whole thing is just so creepy.  And weird.

God knows what quirks and fetishes he has.  Allen has been able to live a charmed life pretty much doing whatever he's wanted.  We know he married his stepdaughter and that Mia Farrow found nude photos of her in Allen's apartment.  But Mia is also supposed to be rather whacko.  

The documentary portrays her as this loving mother tending to the needs of all these adopted and birth children.  Other accounts by some of the kids say it was a nightmare.  

But as I was watching the first episode, filled with home movies and endless shots of Mia's Connecticut home, I thought to myself: Why do I care?  It's sad, he probably did it, maybe now more will come to light, but why I do need to devote hours and hours to see this?   I wanted to shower after the first episode.  For the photo for this post I didn't even want to show their faces. 

These celebrity expose documentaries seem to be the rage.   There was lots of buzz on the Michael Jackson bizarre sordid story.  But does anything change as a result?   Michael Jackson songs are still selling and still on the radio.  Woody Allen movies are still going to air on TCM.  Will this derail Allen's directing career?  The man is 85.  How many more movies is he going to make?   And for all the rumors, bad press, and scandals, Woody Allen has still managed to find backers and make his movies uninterrupted.   So unless he goes to prison, what's the point?  Other than ratings.  And appealing to our more lascivious nature.  

So for me, not only will I not watch any subsequent episodes, I'm mad at myself for even watching the first one.   Yuch! 

A follow-up to yesteday's post

Several readers brought up other improvised projects, notably "the Interview" episode of MASH and the series CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM, and wondered my thoughts on them.  When have I ever been shy about offering opinions (even if I had no idea what I was talking about)? 

"The Interview" segment of MASH was from season 4 and many consider to be the best single episode of the series.  I can't disagree.  Breaking the format, we're watching a documentary with a TV journalist asking questions to members of the 4077 about the war and their perspectives.  Each actor was given the questions and recorded their improvised answers into a tape recorder.   Those recordings were transcribed.

But then Larry Gelbart rewrote them.  He added things, cut things, inserted some jokes, re-phrased some thoughts, etc.  At that point an actual script was printed.   The actors then performed the written text.  So improvisation was just an early part of the process.   That said, what remained of the improv was pure gold.

 CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM works off a detailed outline.  Scenes are improvised and refined during rehearsal.   Larry David also tries to surround himself with actors who are adept at improvisation.  

For my money the results have been mixed.  There are some absolutely HYSTERICAL episodes -- fall-on-the-floor funny.  I could watch them on a loop.  But there are a lot of other episodes that are very uneven, arguments and scenes that feel forced or scenes that wander and get repetitive.  

Improv can be a very useful tool.  I've been doing improv myself for many many years. And if you get a master of it, like Fred Willard in BEST IN SHOW you can produce something absolutely magical.  But I think relying on it can be a trap.  Actors are better at acting and writers are better at writing.  Why not take advantage of the best of both?