Another one of my rants

Hollywood motion pictures are designed for young audiences. 18-34 is the only demographic the industry believes still goes to the movies. So they churn out big budget comic book films, franchises, raunchy comedies, animation, and adaptations of board games. Any movie targeted for someone older than the Mario Brothers is banished to an art theater. There it plays alongside HITLER VS. STALIN: WHO WAS THE BETTER PAINTER? and the latest Atom Egoyan movie.

The only time Hollywood makes films for adults is in the Fall/Holiday season. And those films are not produced because studios feel they have an obligation to the 70 million baby boomers who have supported them handsomely the last fifty years – no, they make those movies to win awards.

But they also throw us a bone with a comedy or two. There are only so many BLACK SWANS we’ll stomach. So what does Hollywood think we graying Americans want to see in our comedies?

Recently I was in a theater that showed SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK so the trailers were for older viewers. Three were comedies. Here’s what they were:

THE GUILT TRIP – Set Rogen (to attract some young people) goes on a road trip with his wacky obnoxious mother, Barbra Streisand. Hilarity ensues with such big jokes in the trailer as:

Barbra: "Don’t pick up hitchhikers. They rape."

PARENTAL GUIDANCE – Billy “Botox” Crystal and Bette Midler play wacky grandparents who have to wrangle kids. Hilarious moments like Billy getting hit in the balls.

THIS IS 40 – Another Judd Apatow yuckfest with sentimental scenes sprinkled in to take the curse off the plethora of gross jokes. Paul Rudd and Apatow’s wife (who I’m sure was the funniest actress he could find) in a romp over the heartbreak of turning 40. Hilarious trailer moments like Judd's wife walking in on Paul when he was on the toilet.

So is this what Hollywood thinks we want? Bat crazy grandparents and parents? Recycled old stars? Tired premises – buddy/road pictures, babysitting pictures, midlife crisis pictures? All with predictable endings I’m sure. Seth and Barbra gain a deeper understanding for each other and work out long festering issues. Billy Crystal winds up loving his grandchildren and finally learns the meaning of parenthood. Paul Rudd and Judd Apatow’s wife fall in love all over again and reclaim their youth in each other’s eyes. In all three cases it's all about second chances. Now I haven’t seen any of these movies and probably won’t… even though in the Billy Crystal movie he’s supposed to be a minor league baseball announcer (a fact not even mentioned in the trailer). You tell me how right I was predicting these endings.

The irony is Hollywood is trotting out all these musty conventions to the one age group who has seen them the most.

So why is this? Well, most of the studio executives are younger than this audience and has no affinity for what they want to see. There are very few older screenwriters working and those that are, especially in the comedy arena, tend to still be viable because they continue to turn out reliable formula scripts. Also, it’s not a priority. A film based on Hungry Hungry Hippos is (and I’m not kidding. This is really in development).

Seth Rogen and Barbra Streisand driving across the country together? Unless there’s a 40-piece orchestra in the backseat and she’s singing every song Alan & Marilyn Bergman ever wrote, I’m keeping my twelve dollars.

The best book on improv comedy

... is now available.  IMPROV COMEDY by Andy Goldberg is once again in print.  You can get the paperback version here. 

Of all the books on improv comedy, this is the best.  I recommend it for all actors interested in comedy and writers who want to develop or sharpen their comedic skills. 

Improvisational comedy is a terrific tool, a great deal of fun, and since SNL will probably be around for another thirty years -- a great place to start on your quest to join the cast. 

My Kim Basinger metaphor

Ever see the Bruce Willis movie BLIND DATE? It’s from so long ago he still had hair. In this very funny film (written by Dale Laudner) Bruce accepts a blind date with Kim Bassinger. But she comes with a warning: if she gets drunk she becomes bat shit crazy. Still, it’s the 1987 Kim Basinger so warning be damned! What happens of course is that she does get plastered and hilarity ensues.

Why do I bring this up? Because for broadcast networks Twitter is Kim Basinger. And Facebook is her tipsy twin.

ABCNBCCBSFOX has clearly embraced social networks. They desperately need young viewers and that’s what those damn kids are preoccupied with. There are hash tags in front of show titles in the bottom of the screen, interactive online games, fan pages, and discussion groups.

And they’ve discovered social networks can be used to promote their shows for free! Series stars have Twitter accounts and are followed by millions. Even the showrunners have large numbers of followers. And the great thing is, you’re reaching the people who like your show… and I don’t just mean clicking “like”. So they’re inclined to turn on your show when reminded.

Contrast that with NBC that runs banners for WHITNEY on practically every single show all week and the numbers are still shit. America has voted, peacock!

So these are some good things. There are also mixed things. Fans Tweet observations while your show is airing. This is unprecedented. And frightening. Your show is being judged second by second. And basically, what the whole world can now read is merely all the snarky shit you used to just say in your living or dorm room. Much of this input is hurtful.

Now writers read these Tweets and generally just chalk them up to being written by fucking idiots who still collect string. But actors read them as well. And some of them take the comments very personally. Especially the “he’s fat, she’s ugly, her tits are tiny, and you suck” observations. Can you blame them? And here’s the thing: there will be haters for everybody. I’m sure the babies on GUYS WITH KIDS get ripped weekly.

Which brings me to the downside to these social networks. Now ABCNBCCBSFOX has to deal with a new phenomenon – their stars and showrunners potentially Tweeting damaging remarks or airing dirty laundry in public. This is like leaving Kim Basinger in BevMo and saying you’ll be back in an hour. Remember Dan Harmon of COMMUNITY railed against Chevy Chase earlier this year? And supposedly, David Krumholz, one of the former stars of the recently cancelled PARTNERS Tweeted: "Anybody who doesn't watch my show can 'eat a dick.'" That’s lovely, by the way. Very eloquent. (That charming post has since been deleted) and he also Tweeted:"listen, you bastards, my show is funny." Although I admire his strong support of the series, antagonizing viewers and embarrassing CBS is not the optimum way to boost ratings.

These rants put the network in an awkward position. In the case of Harmon, he was fired (although his cyber soapbox was only one of their many complaints I’m sure). And CBS can’t fire Krumholtz because they already did. But the next time he’s up for a part, the producers, studios, and/or network could think: “loose cannon. Not worth the risk.” And for what? The satisfaction of telling 99.99% of America to eat a dick? Hardly what the Man of La Mancha would call a noble quest.

Stars speaking out is not new. But there were always publicists and handlers and toadies to muzzle them. Now the only way to silence a celebrity is to tape up his or her thumbs. (Can you imagine if Bette Davis was on Twitter?  Strap yourself in for a bumpy ride!)

I don’t know how the Bind Date will eventually play itself out. Hopefully Kim Basinger can be cut off before she meets the folks. But the potential upside is so high, she is so gorgeous, that it’s worth everything just to put another # on your bed post.

The worst agent sales pitch EVER

Here’s another Hollywood agent story. I told one recently, and they are always crowd pleasers.   This is one of my personal favorites. 

It’s 1982. My writing partner, David and I are at William Morris. Several years prior we signed on with a young agent at a small tenpercentery (I love that expression), and as she moved on to bigger and better agencies we followed her. She and we were now at William Morris.

When clients get shows on the air their agencies can package them. In other words, William Morris gets a piece of the action.  That's really how they make their money in television.  It's not off the ten percent commission they collect.

For this package they’re supposed to help you get the show on the air, clear paths for signing talent, etc. We had a pilot the year before that was a William Morris package and it was not a pleasant experience. The only actors we had trouble signing were Morris clients. At this point I should mention that the William Morris Agency of today is completely under new ownership, management, and not even located in the same building. So no one in the current WMA should be held accountable for the deeds from those days.

One thing about mounting a pilot, you get to meet and deal with lots of agents. And you see how they operate. Who calls you back? Who is an asshole? Who never follows up? One agent in particular really impressed us. Bob Broder. Among his clients at the time were James Burrows and the Charles Brothers. Bob was extremely helpful and frankly did more for us than our own “partners.” But we were very loyal to our specific agent so we stayed with her and William Morris. She believed in us when we were nobodies and now that we were successful we didn’t feel it was right to pull a Broadway Danny Rose on her.

But now it’s 1982. We’re on CHEERS and our agent tells us she’s getting out of that end of the business and getting into producing. She was offered a great job running a very successful film director’s production company. We were thrilled for her, but now felt no pull to stay at the agency.

Instead of just taking free expensive lunches and letting agents from all over town court us, we called Bob Broder. He was interested in representing us so we decided to make the switch.

We told the fine folks at William Morris and one of their agents – who we had dealt with from time to time – asked if he could speak with us. Could we give him one last chance to convince us to stay? Although our minds were pretty much made up, we still felt it was the honorable thing to do. And who knows? Maybe there was some reason why we really should stay.

So this agent ushers us into his office. He was in his ‘30s, part of the young new breed that the agency was hiring. I must say, I’m always fascinated by salesmen. When I go to state fairs I make a beeline to the exhibition hall where all these huckers are selling miracle mops and titanium woks. I’m a sucker for a great sales pitch. At their best, those guys are artists. The mop is pretty good by the way.

We sit down on his couch, the agent closes the door, crosses to us and yells, “You guys are fucking ASSHOLES!”

Say what?

“If you leave this fucking agency you’re fucking assholes and fucking idiots!” He goes on for five minutes to call us stupid, immature, ungrateful, dickless, only marginally talented, and how we’re making the biggest mistake of our lives not letting him guide our careers. All of this laced with more expletives than a DEADWOOD episode.

Wow! What a masterful presentation. Who wouldn’t want to re-sign after that declaration of love?

Well, as shocking as it may seem, we did leave and began a long and happy association with Bob Broder.

Meanwhile, this agent left the Morris Agency himself in 1999. So I guess in the end, he too was a “fucking ASSHOLE!” I haven’t seen him in years. I don’t know what he’s doing today. I just hope it’s not eulogies.

Do rewrites always make shows better?

As kind of a fun experiment, Earl Pomerantz, over on his fine blog, and I are both going to write today on the same topic – whether rewrites really improve a project. In our particular field – a half-hour sitcom.

The first script my partner, David Isaacs and I ever sold was for THE JEFFERSONS. We were told going in that the staff routinely did a lot of rewriting. We didn’t care. We were just thrilled to have the assignment. They were true to their word. The script they shot bore little resemblance to our draft. Personally, I still like ours better. And when the producer of MASH wanted to see a sample of our work, we gave him our draft of that JEFFERSONS episode. It proved good enough to get us a MASH assignment.

But for what THE JEFFERSONS were trying to achieve, and how their producers saw those characters, I suspect the rewritten draft was more on the money. They would claim their draft was better and even though I didn’t like it as well, maybe they were right. But in my heart of hearts, had we submitted their draft to MASH I doubt whether we would have gotten that assignment. So in this case an argument can be made for either side.

Our first staff job was on THE TONY RANDALL SHOW for MTM in 1976. It was my first experience with multi-camera shows, where you see runthroughs every day and rewrite every night. Here’s what I observed: We did pretty much the same amount of rewriting every week. If the script at the table reading was weak we fixed it. If the script was in good shape we ruined it.

I think the answer has more to do with who is doing the rewriting and what their objectives are. As a general rule, if good writers are at the helm, rewriting should in fact make a show better.

I’ve been on shows, either as a writer or freelance director, where the producers were hacks. They just tried to pump more jokes into the show – often jokes that were at the expense of the characters, so jarring they took you out of the story, or so mean you stopped rooting for the character. As Earl points out, you can make a show “funnier” but not necessarily “better.”

You can also make lateral moves. Swapping one joke for another just because you’ve heard the first joke too many times. You forget that the audience will only hear the line once. Often the new joke is not as good as the original. Rewriting did not make the show better.

There are some producers with such inflated egos that they feel they must put their own stamp on every line. I worked with one of these too. You’d pitch a joke, everyone in the room would laugh, but he would have to change one word just to make it his. And honestly, his changes were lateral at best. Many times he killed the joke. Rewriting did not improve things there.

And finally, you have network, studio, and actor notes to contend with. Changes are made for political reasons, often begrudgingly. Add another check in the rewriting does not make the script better column.

When I’m the showrunner I have a specific approach to rewriting. First, I realize that I have five full days. Everything doesn’t have to be fixed at once. The first few days my number one priority is the story. Does the story track? Do I believe all the turns and all the attitudes I’m asking the characters to play? Are all my actors being well served or is one or two being short-changed? Is the story too slow? Too rushed? Is there a better, more clever way to tell that story?

For the first day I also have the luxury of time. I can throw in a wild idea or scene and if it tanks I still have time to jettison it. But if it works it could be inspired.

If by day three the story works and all we need are jokes then I consider us in great shape.

I know I’m biased but I think these scripts get better as a result of rewriting.

And I’ll also admit that scripts we’ve done for shows where we weren’t running the room were always enhanced by the likes of the Charles Brothers, Casey, Lee, & Angell, the Steinkellners & Sutton, Chris Lloyd, Sam Simon & Ken Estin, Jim Brooks, and Larry Gelbart. There may have been a joke I missed seeing or a new line I didn’t like but overall the scripts were “better.”

Again, the key is who’s doing the rewriting?

I often thought it would be a great exercise to get the writing staffs of eight or nine shows and have them all rewrite the same episode. How different would the BIG BANG THEORY staff’s version be from the one turned in by THE MINDY PROJECT crew? Each staff would probably maintain that there’s made the show better. But depending on your sensibility, I’m guessing you’d think four made it better, two made it the same, and three fucked it up completely. And another viewer would disagree completely.

So I’m not sure even that experiment would yield us anything conclusive but wouldn’t you just LOVE to see it?

I think the bottom line is this: Freelance writers generally feel showrunners ruin their scripts (sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re not). And I say to them work hard, stay at it, play the game, and eventually you too can become a showrunner and ruin other writers’ scripts. If nothing else, it’s a lofty goal.

Decoding Hollywoodspeak

Most of the real creativity in Hollywood goes into positive spin. Here are some industry expressions and what they really mean:

“Hospitalized because the actor was simply feeling dizzy due to a medication he was taking for an ear infection” – drunk

“Hiatus” – cancelled

“Good Exit Numbers” – DOA at the boxoffice

“Highly qualified” – knows somebody

“They’re still good friends” – the ugly divorce settlement is still pending.

“They’re just good friends” – they’re humping nine times a day

“I want to spend more time with my family” –fired.

“I want to explore other exciting opportunities” – fired

“Creative differences” – fired

“Parting by mutual agreement” – fired

“We think the script needs a fresh eye” – the director will now destroy your screenplay

“They have a lot of respect for each other” – they despise each other

“No comment” -- he did it

“Fielding offers” – unemployed

“Projects in development” -- unemployed

“Looking into financing” – unemployed

“Tom Cruise is interested” – I’m a really bad liar

“Proactive” – active

“She’s a perfectionist” – she’s a bitch

“Entry level position” -- slave labor

“Thanks for coming by” – no sale, I hated it.

“I really liked it” – thanks for coming by.

“I really loved it!” -- it got good coverage

“He’s in a meeting” – you’re not important enough to talk to.

“Back end” – money you’ll never see

“It just needs a little polishing” -- page one rewrite

“We’re pleased with the demographics” – the ratings are shit

“Commands a great deal of respect” – he’s a fucking nightmare

“Do you have a card?” – I want to get away from you but don’t want to appear rude.

“Zitcom” – Any half hour on the Disney Channel

“Exhaustion” – overdose

“A private matter” – a public scandal

“I’ll give it a read” – I’m throwing it away

“The studio is really behind it” – it’s going straight to DVD.

“He’s taught me so much” – I’ll never work with that asshole again

“Freelance” – unemployed

“High concept” – gimmicky

“Actor’s Director” – he can’t shoot action movies

“Director’s Director” – his movies haven’t made a nickel.

“Emmy winning writer” -- blogger

TOMORROW:  An interesting experiment.  Two blogs/same topic.  

Happy Hanukah bitches

Tonight is the first night. Thought I'd show you something traditional to get you in the mood.

A handy writing tip

Just saw one of my favorite DICK VAN DYKE SHOW episodes, “100 Terrible Hours”. It’s the one where Rob was a disc jockey and had to stay on the air for 100 straight hours just before interviewing with Alan Brady for a writing job. I love that episode for many reasons but first and foremost is the structure. I imagine Carl Reiner and the staff thought it would be fun to see Rob’s initial job interview and of course it had to be a disaster. But how?

The obvious ways: he was drunk, he got in an accident and was all disheveled, he spilled something on his crotch, he had laryngitis, he had a bad cold and Alan Brady was a germ freak, he barged in at the wrong time, etc. You get the idea.

But they found a totally fresh device instead. Have him loopy because he’s sleep deprived. And concoct the best comic way to get him sleep deprived. Radio marathons were a staple of early Top 40 radio so making him a disc jockey was not only ingenious, it was also real. The best comedy always comes from reality. Plus, it gave Van Dyke a lot to play as you saw him get progressively goofier.

This is called getting “the most bang for your buck”. Find a good comic premise for a scene and then maximize the possibilities. In this case, not only was the payoff great but the set-up scenes leading up to it were terrific as well.

Give this some thought when plotting out your spec script. Once the wakeathon story was laid out I’m sure it was much easier for the writers (Sam Denoff & Bill Persky) to fill in the funny dialogue. They had so much to work with.


The hardest comedy writing in the world is when you have characters just standing around with nothing really dynamic happening. You have to manufacture jokes out of nothing. The characters start talking in forced one-liners. When viewers say that sitcoms sound predictable and bogus that’s usually what they’re referring to.

So do the heavy lifting first. Construct a story that lends itself to great comic possibilities. Easier said than done, you say? Yep, but that’s why YOUR spec might sell and the others don’t.

By the way, in the early 60s a San Bernardino radio station held one of these wakeathons. By the end the disc jockey was hallucinating, thinking that a giant Mickey Mouse was coming to eat him. I don’t know whether it was the city that had to issue a permit or the union, but somebody insisted that medical supervision be provided to lend assistance and monitor the d.j. throughout. He would be on the air for 50 minutes each hour and get ten minutes to use the bathroom, stretch his legs, eat, whatever. The medical staff would check his vital signs and ensure he was in no health danger.

A tent was set up near the broadcasting site (a store window I believe, just like in the DICK VAN DYKE SHOW). Every hour the disc jockey would disappear into it to get his examination. What the city or the union or whomever didn’t know was that the around-the-clock nurses that were hired were actually hookers. That probably kept him going another twenty-four hours.

Now if they had done that on the DICK VAN DYKE SHOW the title of the episode might have been changed to “95 Terrible Hours and 5 Great Ones”.

R.I.P. Reinhold Weege

So sorry to hear of the passing of Reinhold Weege.  He wrote for BARNEY MILLER, MASH, and created NIGHT COURT.  Very funny writer and lovely guy.  He was only 63.  Because he's been retired for some time (back then you made big money for creating a hit show) he's not as well-known as he should be.   But trust me, among writers of my generation, he was greatly admired.   The world of comedy is a little less funny now.  Reiney will be greatly missed.

Friday Questions

It’s always extra poignant being in Hawaii during Pearl Harbor Day. As the “Day of Infamy” gets further into the mist, take a moment to remember and give thanks. 

Now then – Friday Questions.

Stephen asks:

Joss Whedon tells writers, "Cut what you love", the idea being that when a story runs into trouble, be willing to remove your favorite scene for the good of the piece as a whole. Do you have any examples of when you have found this to be a useful approach?

All the time. I could give a thousand examples from my scripts alone. “Kill your babies” is another, more genteel expression that is used.

For me, the most extreme example is when the musical I co-wrote with Janet Brenner was in production at the Goodspeed Theater in Connecticut. It was playing okay but felt long.

I suggested we cut an entire production number. This was like a ten minute number with the entire cast, elaborate choreography, orchestration, lighting effects, visuals, and harmonies. It was an impressive piece. But the song was essentially a rehash of everything we had already said. The director was almost apoplectic when I suggest the radical lift but convinced him to try it for one performance. If we all missed it it could return. Losing that number elevated the entire show. And it was worth everyone in the company not speaking to me for two days.

There’s an expression in the theater: make it twenty minutes shorter and it’ll run five years longer.

It's true! 

By the way, that musical starred Andrew Rannells. Whatever happened to him?

From emd9930 (but I'm not sure if that's his real name):

Do the writers have a master map of character quirks / family names / family stories / etc. so new additions to the character's background make sense? I've been on many TV forums where people complain that the "new" writers don't recall this or that trait of a character. The obvious one is the missing oldest son from Happy Days, but other characters have gone to college for a few shows then never talked about it again (Jamie on Mad About You and Carrie on King of Queens).

It depends on the show. Some keep very detailed bibles that get updated constantly. Other shows don’t bother. Generally it’s up to the showrunner and writers who stay with a series for several of years to police that. But they’re only as effective as their memory allows.

Sometimes there’s a big switch in staffs and maybe the show gets better as a result but the continuity suffers.

And here’s the sad double-standard. When you’re on staff writing the show, those details don’t really matter.  Sure, you like to have them right, but other than a few diehard fans, who’s going to know? You can find a thousand inconsistencies in MASH (and indeed some authors have).

Shows will go so far as to bring back actors as different characters. We did that with Harry Morgan on MASH. It was done with Tony Shaloub on WINGS.

And sometimes we ignore previous episodes on purpose. When characters get “sent off to college” they generally disappear entirely from the show’s timeline. In the second episode of CHEERS we make reference to and show Sam’s ex-wife. Then she’s never brought up again for eleven years. As a show moves in a creative direction sometimes you have to alter history.

But…

If you’re writing a spec script, continuity is crucial. Saying a character has a brother back home when he doesn’t or that she loves ice cream when it’s been established that she doesn’t can kill you. The astute reader will accuse you of not really knowing the show. And it becomes doubly tough when you do your due diligence and you discover an inconsistency. What to use? She likes ice cream or she doesn’t? It can be a trap.

Emily Blake queries:

I don't know if this affects comedy as much, but can you talk about how constantly not knowing how many episodes you'll get affects your story telling?

Especially starting out you can’t build a big overall arc. But generally, when you’re a new show you want to leave yourself open to see what works and what doesn’t. You just hope you find the sweet spot in time.

Once you’re established then you have the luxury of being able to map out a season. And having an overall arc helps you in planning stories. You’re not just starting from square one every week.

On the other hand, story arcs can sometimes be dangerous. If the audience doesn’t like a certain creative direction you’ve taken and you’ve got seven more stories in that arc you can really sink yourself. You have to be prepared to abort story arcs, which means double work. You must throw out the episodes you’ve written and quickly write whole new episodes.

THE GOOD WIFE faced that problem this season. No one (myself included) liked the Kalinda/asshole husband storyline. The producers apparently cut it short as a result. I can only imagine the number of late nights and weekends that caused. But for the sake of their show they were willing to “kill their babies.” See how these questions all tie into each other? It’s a beautiful thing.

And sometimes when an arc doesn’t work a character is dropped and never mentioned again and that affects the continuity. Amazing how this all wraps up!

What’s your question that coincidentally will tie in with other questions? Leave it in the comments section. Mahalo.

KILLER KARAOKE -- amusing or the Apocalypse?

As you know I like to surf my channel guide in search of the worst, cheesiest, most appalling reality shows on television. The more insipid, the more ill-conceived, the more Hugh Hefner the better. From PREGNANT IN HEELS hosted by Rosie, a woman who can’t talk to Paris Hilton & Nicole Richie giving enemas to participants of a fat camp – I scour the globe hunting down these atrocities.

Recently on something called TruTV a new singing competition premiered -- KILLER KARAOKE. I figured – how perfect! Idiots have to sing karaoke while lowered into pools of ice water filled with snakes or while an involuntary body wax is being performed on them. A sure sign of the end of the world? You betcha, I'll pull up a chair. 

So I grabbed my notepad, put on KILLER KARAOKE, and a strange thing happened. I started laughing not because the show was so wretched but because I was actually being entertained. Yes, KILLER KARAOKE is a showcase for utterly brainless buffoons, much like WIPE OUT but it is more. I don’t know any of the people involved so this is just speculation based on what I saw but KILLER KAROKE is also a brilliant parody. It’s a spoof on the relentless inanity of the genre, and like all good spoofs it doesn’t give itself away. They play it straight. And 90% of the morons who watch the show believe it’s straight. But there were certain tip offs to me to suggest there was something else going on here. Kinda like the old Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons. Kids enjoyed them at face value but there were lots of adult gags that went right over the little tykes’ heads. Same with the Phil Hendrie radio show. 

Here was my first clue: The host is Steve-O from JACKASS fame. Not exactly Alex Trebeck. He introduced himself by saying, “I can’t sing, I can’t dance, but boy can I do destruction.” I sensed a little tongue-in-cheek.

Then he brought on his first contestant, Melissa, who said she sang in prisons. Steve-O asked her: “Did you ever sing for prisons in Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, or California?” When she said no he replied: “So I didn’t get a chance to catch any of your shows.” Okay, I laughed.

Since the beginning of television there have been game shows where contestants have had to do ridiculous stunts. BEAT THE CLOCK and TRUTH OF CONSEQUENCES to name just two. Goofballs would have to hop through obstacle courses with a fish in their pants, hilarity like that. KK just ups the ante. And then having the contestants sing while bombarded by cream pies and live scorpions, well who wouldn’t laugh at a heartfelt rendition of “You Are So Beautiful” punctuated by screams?

Some of the stunts were clearly dreamed up by sick comic minds. In one a contestant had to be a waiter in a Mexican restaurant. On one side of the stage were items to be served, on the other was Steve-O at a table. And all the while the singing waiter was getting shocked periodically. Enough to lose his bearings, drop his items, etc. The items were trays of cocktails, dishes of beans, stacks of tortillas… and watching someone try to sing “I Was Born a Traveling Man” while drinks went flying was funny. I can just imagine the writers saying, “Okay, how can we get the most bang for our buck? What are the funniest things we can have him serve?”

My other favorite stunt involved some skeesix with balloons attached to his entire body, head to toe. He was given goggles to obscure his vision and sent on a path to get from one end of the stage to the other. Except the course was filled with cacti. He’s stumbling through this maze, balloons are popping, he’s yelping, things are crashing around him, and I found it just so surreally bizarre that I laughed out loud.

Other stunts were less successful. The body waxing stopped being funny real quick and the guy stepping into maggots, or whatever those were lost its charm.

I think a big mistake is that the show is an hour, not a half-hour. The joke becomes repetitious. And of course you hate yourself for laughing – for whatever reason you laughed.

The irony of course is that they try to terrorize contestants while they sing karaoke. There are a lot of people I know who would be scared shitless just to sing karaoke – even if it wa just on a stage for four drunks. You don’t need snakes to traumatize them for the rest of their lives. Just the track for “My Heart Will Go On.”

KILLER KARAOKE is on Friday nights on this TruTV (whatever that is). I hope the show goes long enough that they can have a CELEBRITY KILLER KARAOKE edition. God, I would love to hear Rosie from PREGNANT IN HEELS have to sing “Rolling In the Deep” while hanging upside down in a cage filled with birds.

Casting against type

But first a word from our sponsor -- me.  For the holidays I have just reduced the price of my book, THE ME GENERATION... BY ME.   Paperback was $14.99, now just $12.10.  Kindle version was $6.99, now only $4.99.   

It's the perfect gift, especially for someone who's a baby boomer (like your parents)or can read, and it's a great way to support this blog.  Also, put it on your wish list and let someone buy it for you.   Thanks much.   Okay... now back to today's post.

TV critic extraordinaire, Alan Sepinwall engaged in a Twitter discussion recently about actor David Morse. Morse is known for playing heavies and dark brooding characters and a reader wanted to know if he had ever played a light character. Alan (bless him) referred the reader to BIG WAVE DAVE’S, a short-lived series my partner David Isaacs and I created for CBS back in 1993.  The Big Wave Dave of BIG WAVE DAVE'S was Dave.  

We opted to cast against type and were thrilled with the results. To see David in our show just go here.

I feel bad for actors in that they easily get pigeonholed. Play a good villain and those are the only roles you’re offered. Make a name for yourself in comedy and you’re deemed too “light” for hard drama. Producers and networks are often short-sighted and just see actors one way.

And yet, casting against type pays off time and time again. I’ve found that interesting villains generally can play comedy. Ed Asner was a heavy his entire career until landing the Lou Grant role on THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW. Nick Colsanto played mob guys and thugs in many movies including RAGING BULL and I think you’d agree he did an okay job as the Coach on CHEERS. (And while we’re on the subject of CHEERS, could you ever picture Woody Harrelson playing scary guys so convincingly?)

When I saw ROBOCOP I was particularly impressed with one of the bad guys. I had never seen him before but he was so compelling. I thought to myself, “I want to work with that guy someday.” That guy was Kurtwood Smith and in fact I did work him. Going against type we also cast him in BIG WAVE DAVE’S. Kurtwood went on to play the father in THAT ‘70s SHOW.

David Clennon is best remembered for the very button-down character he played in THIRTYSOMETHING. We cast him as a complete bizarro in ALMOST PERFECT. You can see an example here. Tell me he didn’t hit it out of the park.

As a producer you have to be willing to stick your neck out. You may be asking an actor to do something out of his comfort zone and you may be asking the audience to put aside preconceived opinions (even if those opinions were favorable). But when it works the payoffs are HUGE.

Look at Mandy Patinkin in HOMELAND. Usually there’s not a set he doesn’t leave teeth marks on. But in this show he plays a wonderfully controlled character and is far more spellbinding than he ever was playing to the last row.

Perhaps the producer who casts against type the best is Graham Yost of JUSTIFIED. Longtime sitcom veteran Jere Burns as a bad guy/weasel was inspired. And in the casting coup of the decade – Margo Martindale as the evil matriarch who ran the county was a revelation. No one played more sweet, nurturing, lovable moms and aunts and kindergarten teachers than Margo Martindale. And she was always great in every role. But on JUSTIFIED she rose to a completely different level. I was a longtime fan and still I kept saying, “Who knew?”

My point is this: how many actors working today would surprise and delight you in roles you’d never expect if they only got the chance? Wondrous Jennifer Lawrence played a kid on the middling sitcom, THE BILL ENGVALL SHOW. I invite producers, studios, networks, playwrights, film directors – anyone – to keep an open mind. The person you least expect could be the person who steals your show.

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK: My review

David O. Russell is one of those filmmakers who is capable of making an extraordinary movie or a giant piece of shit. You wonder how the same guy could make FLIRTING WITH DISASTER, THE FIGHTER, and also I HEART HUCKABEES. He’s one of those artistes who thinks a lot of himself. I saw him at a Q & A at the DGA after HUCKABEES screened and let’s just say Orson Welles was more humble. (Maybe the O. stands for Orson?)

So I went into his latest effort, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK holding my breath. The reviews have been excellent but so were the reviews for FLIGHT so those mean nothing. But happy to say I thought SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK lived up to its billing. David O. pulled it off. This is one of his good ones -- his very good ones.

There are some films you love from the Universal logo and others you need time to warm up to. The latter was the case for me. It’s a little long and we get that the lead character (played beautifully by Bradley Cooper) is bi-polar. Six meltdowns instead of twelve would have sufficed. But once the movie gets going it reels you in.

And why? Because Jennifer Lawrence is spectacular!

I know this sounds weird to say because she’s not that old herself, but Jennifer Lawrence is the young Claire Danes. She is only 22 and already has achieved the impossible – salvaged an acting career after being a series regular of the BILL ENGVALL SHOW. Her Oscar nomination for WINTER’S BONE was not a fluke. I expect her to get another this year and quite possibly a win.

Also, credit to David O. for writing her such a killer part. (I should mention at this point that the film was adapted from the novel by Matthew Quick.) I always tell young scribes that when they write their great American spec screenplays always think of the actors. You’re never going to sell your spec regardless of how uber clever of is unless you have created exciting, memorable, original characters. And this film is bursting with them. Jennifer's, in particular, stands out. But so does Robert De Niro’s.

This was the best performance I’ve seen De Niro give in probably ten years. When you watch him do crap like LITTLE FOCKERS and ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE you forget that he’s one of America’s premiere actors. This film returns him to fine form.

Oh... and honorable mention to Chris Tucker.  He's what Tracy Morgan thinks he is but isn't in the same galaxy.  

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK manages to juggle football, ballroom dancing, mental illness, romance, obsession, and Raisin Bran into one well-constructed satisfying motion picture. I heartily recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good holiday love affair between two highly damaged individuals. And let’s face it, who doesn’t? The movie is billed as a comedy, and although it had more laughs than the Judd Apatow trailer, I would consider it much more a drama with some comedic overtones.

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is a terrific movie. Just don’t tell David O. Russell. If you think he was hard to live with before... 

I know it's playing in Los Angeles and New York.  Hopefully, it's in your town or will be soon.  Here on Maui I expect it to open in 2014. 

Oscar campaigns

We have officially entered Oscar season. This is the time of year Harvey Weinstein, Steven Spielberg, and Will Smith live for. Studios will spend big bucks on campaigns – all designed to cop those coveted Oscar nominations. You'll see posters, full-page ads, DVD’s, private screenings, and appearances. Hell, if you’re an Academy member Steven Spielberg will come to your house personally and help you clean your storm drains. He wants them statuettes!

But what of those other poor deserving films that can’t afford a splashy billion-dollar campaign? Shouldn’t they get a chance to sing their own praises too? I say yes, and so as a public service, here are some movies and achievements that deserve your consideration this Oscar season.

KATY PERRY’S PART OF ME: 3D
“Katy Perry cements her place as America’s finest actress in this riveting and haunting tale.” -- Bert Schmeldenbaucher, Mojavie World Telegram.
“Best movie of the year!” -- Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

EXPENDABLES 2
“After seeing Arnold in this film, movie lovers are all saying, ‘where have you been?’” -- Betsy Dorkuspig, Utica Tattler
“Now these are action stars!” – Titus Wigglebottom, Octogenarian Yearly
“Best movie of the year!” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

ATM
“Finally! A slasher movie that also tackles personal finances!” – Yetta Pimskotch, MyCrazyAunt.com
“Alice Eve makes you forget about Fernanda Andrade.” – Ollie Putz, Buttonwillow Daily Recycler
“Best movie of the year!” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

ODD LIFE OF TIMOTHY GREEN
“Best child-as-plant film since LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS” – Medla Markanheimer-Wong, her podcast
“You’ll cry so much you can water your lawn” – Phoebe Stegmata, Aetna Insurance, inter-office memo
“Best movie of the year!” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

THE DEVIL INSIDE
“Groundbreaking filmmaking. It has no ending. Either that or I missed a reel.” – Zena Fitzwilly, Gratiot World-Gazette
“Greatest ending of the year!” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

BATTLESHIP
“I didn’t want it to end. Someone should invent a board game of this.” – Lally Agamemnon, French Lick Keen Observer
“A masterclass in imitating Michael Bay” – F.X. Stottlemeyer, Film as Art magazine
"Rihanna and Brooklyn Decker prove that acting is more important than special effects" -- Darvy Dalrimple, Tea Party Telegram
“Best movie of the year” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

ROCK OF AGES
“What LES MISERABLES should have been” – Lisa Freep, President of the Tom Cruise fan club
“It was liking having your favorite actors join you for Karaoke night” – Burford Bozelboof, Mercenary Life magazine
“Best movie of the year” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

ONE FOR THE MONEY
“Step aside Meryl Streep. Katherine Heigl rises to the level of national treasure in this uproarious comedy.” – Fawn Ipskow, Roswell Forever newsletter
“Four stars and all of them are Katherine Heigl” – Mary Beth Margaret Rose St. Swithens, Jewish Journal
“And you didn’t think she could top herself after ZYZZYX ROAD but by God Katherine Heigl is that good! – J.R. Junior Jr., critic, Channel 64, Public Access, Apopka, Florida
“Didn’t like it. I don’t get Katherine Heigl.” – Jeffrey Lyons, syndicated film critic

If any of these wins an Academy Award I want to be thanked. Best of luck to them all.

How to recognize a bad sitcom

Charlie Hauck is a terrific comedy writer (FRASIER, MAUDE, etc.) and a hilarious author. His comic novel about a writing team launching a sitcom starring the diva from hell is both hilarious and all-too-real. The book is called ARTISTIC DIFFERENCES and well worth reading.

On one page he explains how you can tell a bad sitcom. Simple rules, worth repeating here.

1. Any show in which any character at any time during the life of the series says the words “Ta da!” is a bad sitcom.

2. Any show in which one character says to another, “What are friends for?” is a bad sitcom.

3. Any show in which a character says “Bingo!” in the sense of “Eureka!” is a bad sitcom.

4. Any show in which an actor or actress under the age of seven says cute things in close-up is a bad sitcom.

5. Any show in which an actor or actress over the age of seventy-five says vulgar things in close-up is a bad sitcom.

6. Any show that resorts to the use of Dr. Zarkov dialogue (named for the villain in the FLASH GORGON series, where one character tells another character something they both already know, for the benefit of the audience) is a bad sitcom.

7. Any show in which a character, in the closing minutes, says, “I guess we’ve all learned a lesson,” and then goes on to explain what that lesson is, is a bad sitcom.

And if I may add a few of my own:

8. Any show where the studio audience says “Awwwwww” and the producers leave it in is a bad sitcom.

9. Any show that makes a Kim Kardashian joke is a bad sitcom.

10. Any show with Fran Drescher is a bad sitcom.

The CHEERS script that could have ruined us

Happily, there's no writers strike this year (it being leap year).  One byproduct of a writers strike is that studios may shoot existing scripts but may not change them. So jokes can’t be fixed, lines can’t be tailored to actors, locations can’t be changed (too bad if an exterior gets rained out – you can’t move inside to a new location), and special effects have to be executed just as described (whether they’re possible or not).

In 1985 there was the possibility of a work stoppage. Back then our contract ran out March 1st, which was idiotic. We’d strike right as the TV season ended. So we’d be out for four months before the producers even knew it. All signs pointed to a peaceful resolution so life went on as planned. NBC asked for a last minute additional episode of CHEERS and David Isaacs and I were asked to write it. There was a big time crunch, the show needed to start filming the following week, so we had three days to write the script. The idea was we’d bang out a draft, turn it in on Friday, we’d all polish it on Monday and Tuesday, and on Wednesday it went into production.

We turned in the script on Friday afternoon and on Saturday negotiations blew apart. An immediate strike was announced.

So now they had to film our very first draft, as is, no changes. This was the first BAR WARS episode. Needless to say, show night was one of the most terrifying nights of my life. I thought, “this is where we’re discovered as frauds”. Amazingly, the show played well. Not as well as it could have, don’t get me wrong. There were plenty of places where jokes could be improved and turns could be better finessed. But on the whole the show worked and there was no noticeable drop in quality.

And there was a silver lining -- for maybe the only time in your career, the actors had HAD TO say our words, as written. It’s almost worth taking the assignment just for that.

Friday Questions

Aloha from Wailea, Maui.  If you have any restaurant suggestions, please pass 'em along.  Mahlo, y'all.   Even in paradise I never stand down from my Friday Question watch. What’s yours?

Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Kveller (what a name) starts us off:

The mention of the awful series finale for Mad About You brings me to a Friday question - series finales. How does a good show go bad with its series finale?

I'm sure it has something to do with the pressure to do something "special" to end the series, but, still, why do these people who have just spent seven years successfully separating good ideas from bad ones suddenly lose that ability when they hit that finale?

As opposed to movies, the overall “story” of a TV series moves very slowly.  Like a glacier but not as speedy.  There may be little changes along the way but by and large it’s the same people in the same situation week after week. Now suddenly you feel compelled to make a big story turn. The audience is expecting some sort of closure. You want to satisfy them while also doing it in a fresh way. That involves a risk. Sometimes the risk doesn't pay off.

Also, how much closure? Is it just getting two people married or is it like LOST where you have 50,000 loose ends? Are you going to wrap up the storyline for two characters or eight? It can get complicated. Plus, it’s the natural tendency to want to be extra grand and special. After all, you know you’ll be getting a huge audience.

And networks want you to do longer last shows so they can sell more advertising. This takes you out of the rhythm of your show. MASH for example works best as a half-four. The lines come at you so quick. And for one 30-minute chunk that’s fine.  But once it goes for an hour or more the pace gets tedious.  The last MASH was 2 1/2 hours.  Goodbye already! 

My three all-time favorite final episodes were THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, NEWHART, and EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND. All three were just a half-hour.

I mentioned this before but had we known we were going to do a last episode of our series, ALMOST PERFECT, we would have brought back the characters from our two previous series (MARY and BIG WAVE DAVE'S) and wrapped up all three at once. 

From Iron Fist:

Can somebody more experienced answer this question: Let's say you're in season 2. Do the network and cable executives personally approve the script of each episode or they trust the showrunner?

In most cases, yes. I remember talking to the showrunners of HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER during (I believe) their third season and they were still having to get stories and scripts approved. And by then their show was already a big hit.

Eventually they leave you alone but first year shows – unless they’re run by Aaron Sorkin, Chuck Lorre, or David Kelley – have to deal with it.

Talk about the good old days – when the Fox network began they asked James L. Brooks to do a show. He said he would (the result was THE TRACEY ULLMAN SHOW) but that not only was the network never to give notes, they weren’t even allowed to come to the tapings of the show. Oh, I miss those days.

Jeff Hysen asks:

In his latest podcast, Alan Sepinwall said that Sam Malone "devolved" from smart to stupid as the show went from Shelly Long to Kristie Alley. Do you agree?

Absolutely. This was always my pet peeve. The general feeling was that they needed to make Sam dumber to get comedy out of the character. The original cool/street-smarts Sam was hard to write for – especially without Diane to play off of. I don’t agree. I liked that original version of Sam – maybe because it so mirrored me. Hey, stop laughing.

Greg wonders:

A lot of your work, particularly MASH and Cheers, have been parodied a lot in pop culture. Any of those parodies you found particularly amusing?

As a kid I idolized MAD magazine. And when they did a parody of MASH and used one of our episodes, it was like one of the greatest moments of my life.

And finally, a radio question from Bert:

It seems like an increasing number of FM radio stations are turning to a sports format, and some of these (for example KGMZ in the San Francisco area) broadcast major league baseball games.

My question concerns the FM sound quality of a major league broadcast. Having been raised on Vin Scully on KFI, KABC, etc, it sounds strange to hear the much more clear FM sound. Because the fidelity is so much better, it oddly sounds to me less like a professional broadcast.

What are your thoughts?

Here’s what you miss on FM – on AM the station generally compresses the signal to make it sound fuller. As a result, the crowd noise is raised and you have that bigger sound. FM is cleaner and with better fidelity but if you’ve listened to games on AM your whole life it just doesn’t sound right.

I still say the best way to listen to sports play-by-play is on a transistor radio under your pillow at night.

My review of LINCOLN

Director Steven Spielberg was very disappointed in the outcome of his movie last year, WAR HORSE. Not because it bombed at the boxoffice but because it didn’t win any awards. When a Steven Spielberg movie comes out in the Fall it’s all about Oscars. And if millions of theatergoers happen to like it, well that’s just a plus. When he wants big boxoffice numbers he goes off and makes JURASSIC PARK 7 or RAIDERS OF THE LOST AARP. Now you may be saying, “Yeah, but he’s already won a bunch of Oscars. What about SCHINDLER’S LIST?” Very true but it's sort of a gimme.  Can he do it without the subject matter being Jews?

His latest effort, LINCOLN, clearly is another shot at the brass ring. While watching the movie you can almost see a running banner at the bottom of the screen saying: FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION… REMEMBER, I’M ALSO A SERIOUS ARTIST… I GOT JOBBED ON ‘SAVING PRIVATE RYAN’, YOU OWE ME…”

I wanted to love LINCOLN. I was certainly told to love LINCOLN. But I didn’t. I’m sorry, Steven. It was okay. Certain things I liked very much (more on that later). But on the whole, the message it conveyed (to me at least) was…

This movie is IMPORTANT. That’s a lot different from “this movie is totally engrossing and resonates so much that it happens to stay with you.”

LINCOLN is very manipulative. You start with the most sympathetic character in American history, center on a feel-good social story, add the usual John Williams soaring score, cast big name actors, compose each shot beautifully and artistically so that every frame looks like a painting, hire a Tony Award winning writer, show the obligatory carnage, and of course – have the cutest little boy you’ve ever seen play Lincoln’s son and establish a warm fuzzy father-son relationship that would bring a tear to a glass eye. Without spoiling the moment, there’s a key shot near the end where I wanted to yell, “Jesus, Steven, why not just splice in 5,000 frames from ET?”

The movie opens with black soldiers reciting back the Gettysburg Address to Lincoln. One of those Hollywood moments designed to make you sigh “Awwww,” or in my case: “I'm being played!”

I attended a screening of the movie and was handed a handsome program that featured credits of the filmmakers (i.e. all their awards and nominations – nowhere did it mention Spielberg directed THE TERMINAL, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, HOOK, or 1941), stunning photos, a history lesson, and pictures of the 35 actors in the movie. IM-POR-TANT.

There was a lot of acting in this film. And posturing. Daniel Day-Lewis was magnificent as Lincoln and will probably win Best Actor. (I mean, he was the best actor in a movie with every other good actor.) Tommy Lee Jones will definitely win Best Supporting Actor. Everyone else was fine except for Sally Field. GIDGET GOES NUTS. Does borderline crazy mean shrill, annoying, and over-the-top? Sally is a much better actress than that. It felt like she was pushing for Oscar number three.

The screenplay by playwright supreme, Tony Kushner was lyrical and verbose and there were some great lines along the way. But it was showy – in that way that you’re supposed to take notice and vote for it. IM-POR-TANT.

The film runs about two-and-a-half hours. IM-POR-TANT. They could easily cut a half hour.

Without a doubt LINCOLN will be nominated for a ton of Oscars. And it even might win the big ones. Let’s see how LES MISERABLES is along with a few other late contenders. And LINCOLN wouldn’t be the worst picture to win Best Picture. But just because a film is crowned Best Picture doesn’t necessarily make it a Great Picture. And if told his movie could be deemed one or the other, which do you think Steven Spielberg would pick?

Angus T. Jones -- holy shit!

So Angus T. Jones has found religion and publicly told America to not watch his show, TWO AND A HALF MEN, because it’s “filth.”

Just so I have this straight – he was fine doing the show all the previous years? The subject matter of the show was not a surprise to him? It’s not like he signed up for one thing but it became something else? He’s made a ton of money over this period? He’s currently earning $300,000 an episode? And during the run of the show the producers, studio, and network have taken good care of him? He received all the (free) education he was entitled to as a minor? No labor laws were broken? He was never forced to work 20-hour days or put himself in danger at any time? Chuck Lorre never made him wash his car?

I’m not getting anything here that would sway me to take his side. No. What I see is an incredibly ungrateful confused young man who has just committed career suicide and left himself open for major lawsuits.

I guarantee that in a year, or two, or five he will look back at this in horror and say, “What the fuck did I do?” Yes, he will use the word fuck, for even if he remains a devoutly religious man he will realize that he made the biggest most costly mistake of his life. By then it will be way too late. The next time you will see him is on an E! TRUE HOLLYWOOD STORY or THE CELEBRITY FIT CLUB.

And my feeling? As someone who has been a producer and showrunner, I would feel bad that this once-good kid has had his head so turned around that he would do something idiotic like this, but I would write him out of the show immediately and send him on his holy way. His character is now in the army anyway. Time to ship out, soldier!

Now you could argue that he’s being fired for expressing his religious beliefs. I would argue that we are graciously giving someone his freedom who didn’t want to be there. Personally, I don’t care what religion he believes in, but I am asking him to believe in my show. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.

For a wildly successful series, TWO AND A HALF MEN has been snake-bit. One and a half men have become PR nightmares. I think the tealeaves are saying it’s time to end this show already.

This is a classic case of biting the hand that feeds you, but at the end of the day I find the whole affair just sad. Charlie Sheen is one thing. He’s supposedly an adult. But Angus T. Jones is just 19. He’s still a kid. Who hasn’t done really dumb things when they were 19? Not this dumb but still!

If I may quote what I think is the Bible:

It is better to remain silent than to speak the truth ill-humoredly, and spoil an excellent dish by covering it with bad sauce.
--St. Francis De Sales

#LizAndDick: My review

Oh my fucking God!

I only hope that when they do the Lindsay Lohan TV biopic – and they will – that it’s as jaw droppingly atrocious as LIZ AND DICK. They will need to find the worst actress in America to play Lindsay, if only to do the same justice to her as she did to Ms. Taylor. Although I don’t know if a worse actress can be found. Lindsay might have to play herself – assuming she’s still with us and not locked up somewhere.

LIZ AND DICK (by the way, never, not once are they referred to as Liz and Dick in the movie – it’s always Elizabeth and Richard) is the cheese-rich schlock film of the year. Imagine Ed Wood directing a screenplay by a 7th grader and starring, well… Lindsay Lohan.

The only question was: yeah, it’s fun watching a trainwreck for awhile. But could I stick it out until the very end? So I wrote this review in real time knowing that at any point I might just have to shut it off and plunge an ice pick in my head.   These were my impressions as the movie unraveled. 

Oh… SPOILER ALERT. I spoil everything. So if you don’t want to know what happens, I’ll see you tomorrow. But I believe in this case you’re going to want to know what happened. Either you’re not going to see this tripe anyway or once you read this you'll be compelled to see it because you think I’m making all this up.   Further WARNING – this is the type of movie that brings out the snark in me in a big big way. Ready? Here goes:

This guy is Richard Burton? He’s like Jim from THE OFFICE with a phony accent. (Grant Bowler is his name. He should fire his agent.)

When was Richard Burton blonde?  Or am I just being too picky about minor details?  

We start with Richard’s last day alive. Adventures in bad make up. He's gray.  This is like when Jr. High kids play the Ezio Pinza part in SOUTH PACIFIC.

On the set of CLEOPATRA. Lindsay’s make up is laughable. What’s with that eyeliner? The movie should be called PEE WEE AND DICK.

First Richard Burton drunk scene. First of many I suspect. Foster Brooks was more subtle.

Zero chemistry between Liz and Dick. More romantic sparks would fly with Barbara Bush and Jon Lovitz.

I don’t understand. Suddenly there’s this convention where they’re both being interviewed. Where did that come from?  And at what point in their relationship was it supposed to be?

And seriously, why is he blonde? Oh wait.  I bet they just got Richard Burton mixed up with Peter O'Toole.  Common mistake. 

Someone says to Liz: “You’ve just ended your fourth marriage!” to which Liz defiantly replies, “Who’s counting?”  What a withering zinger!

It’s 0:17. I pretty much got the gist. Nah, I’ll stick it out a little longer.

Glad I did. Richard now says: “I don’t need a pool. I’ve got a whole ocean in you.” Smooooth.

This is the suicide segment. First Sybil Burton tries it unsuccessfully, and that guilts Richard into breaking up with Liz. Two seconds after hearing this news she runs to her room, downs a bottle of sleeping pills, and chug-a-lugs a half bottle of Vodka. Maybe it’s me, but if you find yourself laughing at a suicide scene then it doesn’t have the emotional wallop the filmmakers intended. That’s at 0:29. Okay, I’ll give it one more segment.

Richard: “My heart is broken and you have the smashed pieced!” Not since THE LADY EVE has there been such crackling dialogue.

Ooooh. At the 0:31 mark Lindsay cries. She’s truly awful at it. And you’d think she’d have all that practice in court.

Elizabeth has a different fur in every scene.

They’re making THE V.I.P.’s now. This oughtta be good.

0:54 – Liz is trying to seduce Dick. Vamp music plays. She’s in a sexy teddy. Instead of Richard Burton I kept picturing Lindsay’s parole officer.

Richard: “What if your little songbird Eddie decides to drag things out for months?” Since when did he become Sam Spade?  We hit the hour mark.

At 1:07 they get married, pressured by the Pope. Yes, that Pope.

Are they ever going back to Richard’s last day? What’s the point of that?

No mention of the suicide either. I guess that was just a one-time kookoo thing and now she’s the picture of mental health.

Richard: “Happy?” Elizabeth: “More than.” Tony Kushner, eat your heart out!

I was just about to turn it off at the 1:09 mark when Richard takes a bow for his HAMLET and brings Elizabeth on stage with him. She takes a bow for a play she wasn’t in.

This is now the SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER of TV biopics.

Big crisis: Richard loses an Academy Award to Lee Marvin. He doesn’t handle it well the way most husbands do and it puts a big strain on their marriage. Maybe a drink or thirty would help.

At 1:11 comes my favorite line in the movie. Richard and Elizabeth are staging a mock fight for writer Ernest Lehman to show they’re right for the film version of WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? Elizabeth has the topper with: “Mellifluous. Was he some Roman homosexual that you buttered?”

The recreation of Richard and Elizabeth in VIRGINIA WOOLF looked like a bad SNL sketch. But that’s not the good part. Richard and Elizabeth are in a theater watching it. On the screen Liz says, “You make me puke!” They then cut to the audience where a viewer turns to Liz and says, “You were fantastic!” Okay, now they’re trying for laughs, right? I mean, seriously? Complimenting Elizabeth Taylor on the reading of her vomit line?

The interview is back. Where was it the last half hour? And why is it even there at all? Ask him why he's blonde.

At this point they fight, make up, fight, make up again. In the Lindsay biopic they can re-film the same scenes just substituting Lindsay’s mother for Richard Burton.

Now they have money problems. But wait, after their accountant tells them they’re broke they buy a giant yacht, a private plane, and a diamond the size of a water tumbler. This last purchase comes after Elizabeth says: “I need a ring. A big ring.” We’re at 1:26. I am sooo close to switching to Sportscenter.

I should have. At the 1:40 mark there’s an elaborate 40th birthday party for Liz (I thought they had money woes?) with waiters dressed like Cleopatra’s slaves or those buttered Roman homosexuals and Liz overhears a guest saying, “She still thinks she’s a movie star.”

This sends our fragile heroine into a tizzy and she runs to her room. How come no suicide attempt?  Instead she begins the single worst crying scene in the history of cinema. Lindsay must’ve been channeling a caterwauling baby and Lucy. I’m guessing if she cried like that before a judge that’s why she was sentenced to jail time. Painful to watch and torture to hear.

Liz correctly says, “I’m a joke!” and consoling Richard says, “No, no. You’re my love.” I'm about to down a bottle of pills. 

Okay, from this point I just skimmed the rest. I couldn’t stand it. They finally go back to his last day. Hooray. Always good storytelling to set something up and return it to promptly two hours later. But now that we’ve seen his life, what insights does he have as a result? What new perspective does he have? Has he reached any conclusion about his life and his actions? When we last left him he was saying to somebody, “I’m tired.” Now we pick him up walking into the next room, lying down on the bed for a nap, and that’s it. He dies. Wow. What a sequence! I skipped through Liz fainting (another great acting moment worthy of a sack of flour) and went right to her visiting his grave. As they showed her at the tombstone they flashed the watermark:  #LizAndDick. Perfect time to troll for Twitter action.

Then they went back to the interview. Huh? Isn’t he dead? Oh wait. Maybe they recorded this interview in heaven after they both died?

End the fucking movie already! Please! I’ll watch an episode of AMERICA’S SUPERNANNY. Just make it stop!

Mercifully, they do. With one final great touch. They end by proving unequivocally that Liz really did love Richard. Here’s what they flashed on the screen:

ELIZABETH TAYLOR KEPT RICHARD BURTON’S LETTERS FOR THE REMAINDER OF HER LIFE.

Well, I guess that nails it.

According to one biography, Richard Burton slept with 2500 women in his lifetime.  Just think of the sequel possibilities!