Is It Time to Rethink Using Traditional Writers' Rooms?

Traditionally, television shows, especially comedies, were written by groups of (mostly) men in the same room cranking out material. To see this dramatized, check out LAUGHTER ON THE 23RD FLOOR or the classic THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, which inspired me to be a comedy writer (mostly to marry Laura Petrie).

Benefits: YOUR SHOW OF SHOW was a sketch program featuring the genius performer Sid Caesar and had one of the all-time great writing staffs, including Mel Brooks, Neil and his brother Danny Simon, Larry Gelbart, Carl Reiner, and many others.  Woody Allen worked on the follow up series with Sid.  So, bringing together an A-Team of writers to top each other and provide maximum laughs.

But Carl Reiner would go on to write DVDS's entire first season. He eventually got a writing staff and contributors. The characters, situations, and series was put on rails completely by Reiner. 

Downside: The downside of a group of writers in a room and let's call this TABLE BOUND APPROACH: 

1. Lack of a single creative voice. Yes, the head writer and/or show runner is in charge. But you've got a group creation situation.  Are lines being added because they are good or is it that person's 'turn' to get in a joke? 

2. Time killing. How productive is a 50-60 hour work week at any office? These aren't legal briefs where hours spent = $. Spending more time isn't going to make an unfunny person funny. It's okay to camp at an office in your 20s. When you've got a family and other obligations that's a price being paid. 

3. Unhealthy habits. Lack of exercise, food grazing, sitting for hours, irregular sleep. All of these have fallout on personal lives leading to ... less productivity. Mike Reiss in his wonderfully entertaining book Springfield Confidential: Jokes, Secrets, and Outright Lies from a Lifetime of writing for The Simpsons said he gained 30+ pounds in the first few years of that classic series stuck in a room eating crap all day. (Note the triple in his title, btw.)

4. Costs. Offices costs money. Housing and feeding people costs money. Travel in traffic costs time and money. If coronavirus has shown us anything, it's that Zooming works. Less risk of accidents traveling. Less risks of lawsuits over sexual harassments. Less affairs.

5. Politics. Hour after hour with a group of people there'll be office politics. You see many series tank a few seasons in as the person running errands is 'graduated' to the next level as staff writers.  Here's what really matters: FUNNY ON THE PAGE. Don't matter if someone is obnoxious, has body odor, never paid a dime of 'dues' to get there.  Can they deliver? If so, hire them and keep them. If not, don't hire them or replace them. 

The current system rewards folks that can kiss butt, be "pleasant" to be around, and suck up to the bosses. Are those skills consistent with the best writers?  Or are great writers incapable of normal human interaction?

Do these rooms negatively impact persons of color and traditionally marginalized groups? Yep. LGBTQIA marginalized by the process? Just look at the stats on minority participation on television. If they speak up are they "that loud one" or that "pushy one"? Do women face these problems as well?

What about those that are "aging out" of the business. Your career is done at 40 or so unless you've moved up to EP. People remove old credits from resumes or use headshots from 10 years ago... or 20 years ago. I've seen it. Why? Younger writers don't want to be in a room all day with their mom or dad. Of course, young people with zero life experience or skills are exactly the last people you'd want working for you but the current system lets them 'pay their dues' and move up. Good for them to catch breaks but that's inefficient.

6. Creative space. Show up to an office like a regular job and be creative on demand. That's not how creatives work. I have my best ideas swimming, walking, driving, or doing something OTHER than sitting in front of a computer writing. Comedy especially comes to you as your brain processes characters and a situation with conflict that spark comedy. PERFORMING comedy in a room may generate laughs, but doesn't mean that person can WRITE comedy. 

7. Lack of funny TV or films. Very rare these days to see a funny TV show or movie. Why? Whatever we are currently doing isn't working. So, perhaps it's time for a different approach. Yes, The Office and Community are quite funny and did the table approach. What show in the last five years is funny? Not a lot... If you're a top writer, would you rather work from home at your own pace and have a life (or time to write your other material), or go in a bunker for months at a time and never see your friends or family? Assuming you have any. 

So... maybe there's a different strategy.

What approach might it be? Well, Carl Reiner (RIP) showed the path. One person creating and then bringing in others to collaborate. I'm not sure this would work with 24 episode paced regular network TV. But for ten episode seasons on streaming?  It absolutely would.

Here are the steps and some of these could carry over from present practices and I'm dubbing this the ROUND ROBIN APPROACH. It's actually done with animation feature films as I understand from a guy who got paid $100,000 to write jokes for one character. Nice gig!

1. Episode writer would pitch 2 or 3 ideas to the head writer and show runner (may or may not be the same person). One idea is picked. The writer will get credit for that episode. Period. No other writers (and not the show runner!) will get credit for that episode. If they can't deliver an episode, replace them.

2. Writer then does a detailed episode outline. Gets notes from head writer.  Does a revision.

3. Writer goes to script. Writes the episode.

4. Writer sends the script to a staff writer and there's a turntable going on. Each staff writer will do one pass on each script.

5. The staff writing gig can be done ANYWHERE. Need not be in Los Angeles and need not show up to any office. Just take the Final Draft file and do a punch up.

6. Script goes back to the original writer (the one getting credit) and she's got the duty to go through it and adopt whatever improvements work and ignore the rest. The collaborator of the book on the musical version of THE PRODUCERS said Mel Brooks was at his best "10% of the time."  So if the punching up involves 30 or 40 suggestions, if 3 or 4 jokes are solid keepers = great job.  If the writer bats 0.000 a couple times with suggestions, replace them.

7. Turnaround time? Give the staff writer 3-4 days to do a punch up. If it takes them 2 hours, so what? The ONLY issue is: are they funny?  Good suggestions make it funnier.

8.  The original writer goes through the suggestion. Edits and adds. Then hands it off to staff writer #2. That staff writer may be working on her own original script for that season.  A punch up may take two passes and a couple hours for a half-hour script.  But the ORIGINAL WRITER of the episode makes the call how to improve.

9. End of the turntable revisions the script goes to the head writer. If there's a problem, the head writer can go through the various revisions and see if there were good jokes not used and add them. Head writer may have to do more rewriting but does NOT step on the credit. 

10. Process is over. Move to the next script. Complete the season.

Who would hate this?

People who aren't funny. If you can't write jokes and improve the script, you're out. This exposes who is funny on the page and who is not adding anything useful. It's fairly brutal but efficient.

Who would love this?

All writers. More free time and time for family. Get sole credit. Still paid as a staff writer. EVERYONE would want to work on this show and it'd attract the best writers.  Families of writers.  Studios and producers that save money.

Shy people. Don't have to yell and scream in a room or be a performer. That's great for the socially awkward. ADD, Asperger's, irritable bowls, can't move to Los Angeles, or don't want to stay there?  Helping a sick parent in Flyover Country? Burnt out. Feet smell? Bad dental hygiene? Don't play well with others? A misfit toy?

That you? You got the gig if you deliver on the page. 

It's time to rethink the way comedy is being written. This might work. If I get the chance, I'll use it and do a post on how it works out.

How a Bad Financial Manager Led to a Classic TV Series

Watched a YouTube clip with Roy Clark. He was one of the investors in Delorean along with Johnny Carson. He says he and Carson were in several business ventures together, all of which failed.

The investment counselor to go with was Wayne Rogers -- yes Trapper John from M*A*S*H. Supposedly he began making investments in HS, and that's how he supported himself as a struggling actor when one of his roommates was Peter Falk.

Later Falk's business manager (NOT Rogers) embezzled all his money and left the country. Falk then went to Rogers for help. Rogers got him a TV deal with NBC and invested his money in NorCal wine vineyards -- he was one of the first H'wood people to do that. Smothers Bros/Coppola came later, they may even have been Rogers clients. I know Paul Newman was one. I'd always wondered why WR shows up in so many PN movies (CHL, WUSA, Pocket Money).

Donald Crisp (the coal miner father in How Green/Valley, won an Oscar) was on the board of the Bank of America, who decided what/how much to loan movie studios. And you wondered why he kept getting such great parts? But I digress.

Re Peter Falk's TV series: it was a little thing called Columbo. And we owe TV's most beloved cop to a crooked business manager.
>>

Sitcom Creation: Center and Eccentrics

One way of creating a sitcom that works is to have a "Center & Eccentrics" show. The first example of this I can think of is the ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW. Small-town sheriff Andy Taylor was the anchor character. He was the normal / eyes of the audience character and we entered the show through him. Griffith told home spun stories and the writers faced the problem that he's just not that funny a guy. By the way, folks that worked with him said, "Don't confuse Andy Griffith with Andy Taylor." His FACE IN THE CROWD character may have been more accurate than his fans would like to admit.

Back to the series creation, facing a fairly dull lead they surrounded Andy Taylor with a list of oddballs. Each of them had a defining characteristic. Don Knotts at the deputy was overeager. Otis was the town drunk. Jim Nabors played the dense mechanic. Floyd the barber was.... deliberate. Think of Andy in the center of this solar system of characters with the loons orbiting. And Aunt Bee was the sun.

Mary Tyler Moore was a talented comedic actress but she likewise was a "normie." So for the MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW they surrounded her with very sharply defined characters. The dense Ted Baxter was one of the all-time great sitcom characters, played wonderfully by Ted Knight, and again the formula worked. Lou Grant was the gruff boss. Murray the friend who loved to insult Ted. Rhoda the perpetually single. Phyllis provided a mirror character to Mary as she was married to a dentist and miserable.

TAXI had Alex Reiger in the anchor role surrounded by not one but two of the all-time great eccentric characters: Andy Kaufman at Latka and Christopher Lloyd as Reverand Jim. The crazies basically took over that series and account for the best episodes of the series.

CHEERS had Sam Malone as the center character. Around him were the "dumb guy" characters of Coach and later Woody. Cliff Claven was Mr. Factoid, most of which were inaccurate. Norm was the bar guy everyone liked. Frasier the intellectual. Diane the love interest who aspired to be an intellectual but found herself attracted to Sam in a HIS GIRL FRIDAY-style romance. Great series.

This is one approach if you're creating series pilot. Create a layered main character and then toss in the supporting characters to provide the laughs.

Fiverr for Script Coverage

I've got a link that gives both me and the person that uses it a discount for Fiverr. Great providers (just look for the top rated) for script coverage, editing, etc. etc.

Check it out. Thanks.

http://www.fiverr.com/s2/3c0776a4ca

Rare Veronica Lake Photo

SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS is one of my top 5 films and I came across this unique autographed photo of Veronica Lake on eBay last month - way out of my price range but I saved the image.

It must have been to someone she knew (family or a friend pre-stardom) as she signed "Connie" (her real name was Constance Ockelman) under her stage name.

Sadly, Lake would die young at 51 after struggling for years with alcoholism.

NORTH HOLLYWOOD: Unaired Judd Apatow TV Pilot

Posted on YouTube (and likely soon to be removed) is an unaired pilot for a Judd Apatow-created series. Get this cast: Jason Segel, Amy Poehler, Kevin Hart, and January Jones!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTS6fGiYCL0

WATCH ABOVE FIRST AS ARTICLE CONTAINS SPOILERS.

Okay. Now that you're back. Judd has a great eye for talent. His series FREAKS & GEEKS launched a generation of comic performers and likewise this is a stellar cast. Traditionally, it's said to be a bad idea to do a show or film about the industry. Whereas a show like ENTOURAGE engaged in wish fulfillment, NORTH HOLLYWOOD is about the lower-level wannabe side. There's real chemistry among the characters, especially in a scene ten minutes in where Amy and Kevin encourage Jason to try out for a film role.

The premise of NORTH HOLLYWOOD is a struggling group of actors and comics form a friendship while searching for their big break. Opening with the struggling actor Segel playing Frankenstein at a kids' park is funny but I'm sure the network objected to the main character being a loser or unlikeable (ugh) because he scares a kid. And, yes, he should be referred to as Frankenstein's monster and screw you for reading books.

Poehler plays an assistant to actor Judge Reinhold. Judge does a good-natured turn playing off his film roles and working out a plot to BEVERY HILLS COP 4 with Kevin Hart's character. A laughable suggestion that Kevin (who smartly uses his own name on the show) takeover the lead to the series as Eddie Murphy's cousin doesn't seem so absurd in 2020.

The pilot clocks in at 35 minutes. Most TV shows on network at the time were 22 minutes. These days the show could have found a home on streaming and all ten episodes dropped at once online. But it was a difficult sell with the network. The now stars were relative unknowns and it may have been viewed as too 'insider' to appeal to a mass audience.

Interestingly the four members of the ensemble met at an acting class. BARRY successfully set a series at a Hollywood acting class decades later. Another show exploring the wannabe side of stardom is the amusing PARTY DOWN.

Give it a watch while it's available as the show is an important step in Apatow's development before he would dominate comedy in the 2000s. The exploration of outcasts, wannabes, losers, and comedy based on real life painful events were all part of this pilot.

Distinctive MTM Laugh

If you watch MTM produced shows (MTMS, TAXI, etc.) you'll hear a distinctive "Haw!" laugh. Ken Levine's blog (Hollywood & Levine) verifies that the laugh is that of James L. Brooks. One of the times I had an opportunity to speak to Brooks I asked about it and his friends laughed knowing it was him. Brooks said, "What crazy laugh?!"

I'd read they had brought in a guy to TAXI who had a distinctive laugh or it might be Lorenzo Music (another producer). (See below.) Why do that? We know the "laugh tracks" that television shows use to tell the audience: Laugh here! Cavett discusses a man who did this who brought in a 'magic box' and played the laughs like keys on a piano -- a guffaw here, tittle there, and large laugh there.

The psychology is this: People are embarrassed by their laughs. Laughing is something we give into and people have distinct laughs. Some are high pitched, strange, and everyone has a bit of self-conscious about laughing. With one person in an audience giving in to enjoying a laugh. The signal is: "Enjoy this. No matter how crazy you think your laugh is I got ya beat." Even the laugh itself is a reason to laugh if it's very distinct.

A truly funny movie (Marx Brothers at their best) will make me laugh even if I'm alone. But there's an effect of an audience enjoying a comedy as a group that's especially enjoyable. The largest laughs I've been a part of in the movie theater were screenings of BLAZING SADDLES, AIRPLANE! and SOMETHING AOBUT MARY. All three had my audience (and me) falling out of their chairs laughing.


Sources for more info:

http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2009/08/who-is-that-guy-with-weird-laugh.html

https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-244727.html

The Associates -- Television Series

A few episodes from THE ASSOCIATES are on YouTube. The 1979-1980 series from the illustrious team behind TAXI is set at a Wall Street law firm. The ensemble cast includes a young Martin Short. Despite the thirteen-episode order, only nine ever aired.

Despite the constant parade of legal drams on television, there haven't been many law office-set series. I co-wrote a comedy pilot and we opted to set it in a low rent, one-horse law firm because... write what you know.

Back to THE ASSOCIATES. Martin Short is one of our great sketch comedians and has created some iconic characters. However, playing a normal town "real world" person he seems ill at ease. Here he plays Tucker Kerwin a fresh out of Harvard Law associate. Several other great comedians struggled in this manner: Sid Caesar, Jonathan Winters. Short gets better as the episodes go on but he's a bit 'hot' in the cool medium of television.

Jim Brooks, Stan Daniels, Ed. Weinberger, and Charlie Hauck are credited as creators. James Burrows directed the pilot. David Lloyd, perhaps the greatest of all sitcom writers, wrote seven of the thirteen episodes. Two episodes received Emmy nominations and the complete 13 ran on the BBC and Comedy Central in the 1990s. (Thanks Wiki.) B.B. King performed the theme, "Wall Street Blues" and it gives you a hint of the problem to come, "You're young. You've got money..." Not the blues and not indicative of comedy.

Why doesn't the show work? Making the lead character (Short) a Harvard-grad at a prestigious Wall Street firm was an error. The average American hates lawyers and hates Wall Street and a rich, well-heeled firm servicing the 1%-ers creates instant hostility. Why are we rooting for these people? It'd be like setting MTMS in a top-dollar Los Angeles market with a super-competent news staff. It doesn't work. We root for underdogs; these are overdogs.

One of the series creators was John Jay Osborn, Jr. author of THE PAPERCHASE. Likely how we started with Harvard and Wall Street. That's the world the writer knew.

Characters on the show include:

Shelly Smith as Sara James. A fellow associate with supermodel looks. Indeed, the actress had earlier appeared on national magazine covers as part of her modeling career. Short's character strikes out with her in the second episode.

Alley Mills as Leslie Dunn. A fellow associate who plays the smart girl the boys ignore. She'd later play the mom on WONDER YEARS.

Wilfrid Hyde-White (to movie fans: Colonel Pickering from MY FAIR LADY) as Emerson Marshall. Elderly law firm founder who has some funny moments in the episodes.

Joe Regalbuto as Eliot Streeter a young partner in the firm. Joe would later win an Emmy for a recurring role on MURPHY BROWN.

Tim Thomerson as Johnny Danko the mailroom guy clueless male model-type.

Who is the center of the series? The formula as old as THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW is to have a normal dude or dudette and surround them with crazies. This works on TAXI with Alex Reiger who gets the occasional laugh but is the reasonable (audience) entry into the world of zanies. The zanies (Jim and Latka) took over that series as it went on providing the best episodes.

There's no true center in THE ASSOCIATES. There's no Alex. They can't do humor from the incompetence of the lawyers as these are the highest paid in the country from the most prestigious schools. Had it been a play the show would have closed in Philadelphia. Despite the all-star team behind THE ASSOCIATES it was dead in the water from the pilot.

NIGHT COURT was a low-rent legal series that was amusing and lasted for years. It had Harry Anderson as the center. John Laroquette won many Emmys for his supporting role. Markie Post played a memorable public defender. Richard Moll and Selma Diamond as bailiffs. Low rent, late night zany cases and defendants, and a talented cast. This was far from Wall Street and it worked.

Following cancellation, THE ASSOCIATES was nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Comedy Series of 1980. Must've been an off year.

Footnote: Decades ago we did laugh at young rich people in the amusing world of Screwball Comedies. See, for example, THE LADY EVE. Submit your paper as to why we don't do so now.

Second Footnote: A joke from my co-penned though never produced legal set pilot (which I'll resurrect one day perhaps): "Yes, your word is good enough for me. I just want your word in writing."

Talk Show Hosts

Letterman on NBC in the '80s was the greatest late-night show -- as far as comedy is concerned. He watched Steve Allen, Kovacs, Bob & Ray, etc and took notes.

But he had a Sid Caesar-like neurosis when it came to interviewing. Did he not want to be seen as getting personal with someone on TV? Whatever the reason, his interviews come off as "I HAVE to be here, even though I have better things to do." Steve Allen liked to claim anyone could host a talk show since everyone has conversations.

Letterman seemed to challenge that belief.

Carson's greatest gift was that he let the guest define the segment. With Brooks or Rickles he could sit back, feed an occasional straight line, but let them carry the load. (Ever see him "interview" Rodney Dangerfield? Just an occasional straight line: "Yes, as long as you've got your health..." He'd barely get a word in edgewise) But with others, he'd go Paar and carry on a conversation.

Carson fans should check out the Carson Podcast, which features a number of enjoyable interviews:

https://carsonpodcast.com


And now a brief commercial interlude:

I'm a user of this grammar checker: GRAMMARLY. There's a free version for browsers and one you can also purchase with more features. (Note and disclosure: I get a small amount of cash deposited into a Swiss account if you happen to purchase it using the link provided below.)

The World's Best Grammar Checker

Natalie Wood's Injury

The only two pics I've ever seen of Natalie Wood's unadorned left
wrist, which she always tried to hide w/a bracelet or band:






This resulted from an accident when she was ten, on a movie set where
she was on a bridge that collapsed and she fell into the rushing water
below (cue Twilight Zone theme). Her injury wasn't treated -- stage
mother didn't want to rock the boat w/the H'wood studios -- and it
didn't heal properly.

The movie she was making was produced by Glenn McCarthy, the Texas oil
wildcatter and real-life inspiration for the character of Jett Rink,
played by... Jim Stark.

The film was THE GREEN PROMISE.

The Billion Dollar Idea

I keep hearing "ideas are worthless" when it comes to screewriting.

Not true!

Obviously, you have to execute the idea into the form of a teleplay or screenplay to be able to copyright the work and to have something to sell. But there are certainly million (billion) dollar ideas.

For example...

The late author Michael Crichton did two major hits with one concept:

An amusement park does scientific advances only to have the advanced creatures from the park go out of control and kill the park visitors.

That one idea lead to

WESTWORLD

and

JURRASIC PARK

I'd call that a billion-dollar idea!

Got an idea for a third park? If so, you might be on your way...

How about the film DIE HARD?

It has led to countless films using it as a template. My former mentor Chris Soth sold the script for FIRESTORM for $750,000 and it tracks DIE HARD story beat for beat (mini-movie for mini-movie).

The 'DIE HARD in a ___' is still making big money for writers decades later. They had not one but two 'Die Hard in the White House' movies out a couple years ago (WHITE HOUSE DOWN and OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN).

Then they did 'DIE HARD in a shopping mall played for laughs' -- PAUL BLART, MALL COP.

Amazing the shelf life of that setup. I met the writer of the screenplay, Jeb Stuart, a few years ago. He spoke at BR Community College. "Did you ever get a check for all of the DIE HARD knockoffs?" "I wish!"

So don't devalue ideas. Be sure you execute the screenplay or pilot as best you can but some ideas are golden.

Rejecting Script Advice

It's your script. It's your story. The final choices are yours -- unless you sell it and then you may be replaced at some point.

I've noticed, however, over the past year a few situations that puzzled me.

1. A produced writer with major success (global brand level success) advised a young writer a title change to give the project more of a hook. "No. This is my title. Sorry."

Okay...

First, this told the writer/producer, "Stop talking to me. I'm not open to ideas and don't want your help. I have no clue how things work." Second, never completely reject an idea. "That's interesting and let me think about it." Why go immediately to the extreme negation of someone just pitching ideas?

Finally, the new title? You guessed it.... >> existing title. So there's that.

2. A young writer working on a project with a major hook (suggested by the title) is workshopping the series pilot. To maintain anonymity, let's just say the 'hook' was mermaids. "It's 90210...but with mermaids!" The title of the series: HIGH SCHOOL MERMAIDS. Discussing the project we find out there are no mermaids in the pilot! They're just suggested and the audience will see them later.

Huh?

You promise something with your premise and in your title and ... we don't see it? Why not?

"It's my story and I'll tell it how I want."

Yes, but...

We are here trying to give you the advice to avoid rejection. The entire hook for this project is this high concept thing but you don't want to include it?

How is your project unique? What does it have we haven't seen before? Or what does it have we have never seen before in this specific way (fusion of two concepts)?

SHOW THAT!

Show what is unique in the pilot or we have tuned out. We might tune out halfway through reading the pilot if there's no delivery on the promise of the premise.

3. Another young writer workshopping an idea had a concept that involved kings and queens and fantasy elements. But it wasn't based on existing IP.

IP = intellectual property. For example, Game of Thrones was a successful series of books with a long history and existing fanbase.

Elliot and Rossio (Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc.) have something they call "MENTAL REAL ESTATE." This is broader than IP and includes things that occupy mental space in our minds from years of hearing or learning about it. Could be a toy (slinky) or a myth or fairy tale.

I suggested taking the unique king and queen story and combining it with an existing myth or fairy tale. "But that's not my story!" "But this is a story that ... you could sell. You'd be pitching something based on something that already exists, that's public domain, but it'd have your unique take on it."

"Meh."

Okay...

People are trying to do the best they can and, presumably, want to get paid for their work. Bad path to follow rejecting good advice and writing something that's D.O.A. Over the years I've learned that many folks are writing just for fun, personal development, because they think screenwriting is easier than novel writing, and just don't want to hear advice that can take a decent idea to the next level of something that can sell.

Stay open to ideas and look at things that have already sold. What's the reference point for your project? If it's totally unlike anything in terms of the story topic, storytelling style, and title, you likely have a 'practice script' and not something that'll ever sell. Which is okay - we all need practice - unless you're on the 20th practice script (or 50th draft after five years) and learned nothing...

John Warren's Free Online Course

John Warren is a screenwriting professor at NYU. This film school has many famous graduates, including Spike Lee, and the course is FREE. Check it out at https://youngscreenwriters.teachable.com

John answered a question of mine at one of his Friday chats. The question was, "You've taught many young screenwriters over the years. What separates those that made it and those that did not?"

His answer: WORK. He spoke a few months earlier with a former student that had loads of talent. "What are you writing?" "Well, nothing right. I'm waiting for inspiration." John said he had a chance to speak with screenwriting legend William Goldman (Butch Cassidy; Misery; and many others) and asked him his 'secret.' Work every day. "I'm in my office at nine a.m. and don't leave it until five p.m."

It's a challenge, yes, but for those waiting for the muse, inspiration, etc., it's a message to just sit ass in chair and write.

The Stan Daniels Turn

Stan Daniels passed away in 2007.   He was best known for winning 8 Emmys on THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW and TAXI (which he co-created).  He wrote a musical based on the Carl Reiner novel ENTER LAUGHING and was a great talent.

My book on comedy writing referred to a specific type of joke as an "immediate reverse."   Further study reveals it was first dubbed the "Stan Daniels turn" years ago.

From his website (maintained by his family as a tribute:

"Stan was credited with introducing a particular type of joke that’s come to be known as “the Stan Daniels turn.” When a character says something and then unintentionally and unconsciously contradicts himself a moment later, the humor results from the character’s lack of awareness of the contradiction."

That's a bit complex, but let's see a classic example. I'm not sure if Stan wrote this joke personally but it's a great joke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUtshfek8R4&feature=youtu.be&t=784


This joke - perfectly delivered by Ted Knight - has a strong assertion by the character. Then, new information. Then, immediate reverse. Classic.


As a final tribute in this blog post to Stan, here he is doing the warm-up for the MTMS audience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUPWMBZIU0w


Stan was a great talent and will be missed.

The PSYCHO Protagonist?

Who becomes the protagonist of PSYCHO after Marion Crane is killed?

Robert McKee in STORY states that there's a joint protagonist of the sister (Lila Crane played by Vera Miles) and Detective Arbogast (played by Martin Balsam).

I, however, believe that the protagonist becomes... Norman Bates.

Marion's death is a shock as we'd never seen the protagonist killed in a film.  The shocking murder was all the more shocking as the leading lady was killed before our eyes.   Following that, Norman discovers what "Mother" has done and he's forced to clean up the mess.  We sympathize with Norman and even root for Marion's car to completely submerge as he covers up the crime.

As the Detective/sister team investigates and closes in on the mystery of Marion's disappearance, our sympathy is with Norman.  He's a good son with a crazy Mother doing what can to stop her while protecting her.  Look, for example, at the scene where Detective Arbogast finds Marion's signature and points it out with Norman.  Are we rooting for the Detective in that scene?  I'd say, "No."

This makes the Mother skeleton scene all the more shocking.  Lila Crane tries to warn Mrs. Bates and we see that she's been long dead.  Then Norman/Mother attacks and we add it all up.  The protagonist we'd been rooting for is, in fact, the killer -- the Pyscho.   That's TWO amazing reversals in one film.

The regrettable denouement psychiatrist exposition scene wasn't needed.   It did, however, give us that final Norman smile/skeleton shot.  A great film.  

Look also for the 2015 documentary on the impact of the Hitchcock/Truffaut interview book with the filmmakers it influenced.



 

The Casting of Blazing Saddles Waco Kid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gig_Young

https://youtu.be/D5tZJ6IQj6E?t=232

Check out the posts above and then come back to read this blog...

These claims Young was only up for the role. However, in a bio of Young, his agent claimed that casting Young was part of the deal with Warners and Brooks was forced to accept him. He was definitely cast in the role, as photos exist of him on the set in costume. They are impossible to find online -- I saw them in an E channel tabloid show about Hollywood scandals. But I can't find the Young episode on the net.

Then, old-time star Dan Dailey was offered the part (some claim Dailey was pre-Young, but I think that's wrong). DD accepted, then dropped out the next day. (Like Young, he was a serious drunk). Then Wilder.

I can't understand why people don't see Wilder was miscast. Why not cast Don Rickles in the Slim Pickens role? (actually, that sounds like a much funnier idea than Wilder as the Waco Kid). There were dozens if not hundreds of better fits for the role. All the old western actors: Neville Brand, Richard Boone, Chuck Connors, Clint Walker (who actually showed some comic ability in a few roles), Ben Johnson (then enjoying a career revival thanks to Last Picture Show), etc... Or maybe even my dream choice:

Roy Rogers.

He was willing to spoof himself (Son on Paleface) but of course, BS was far too raunchy for his public image. (He turned down the offer to close out Woodstock by singing "Happy Trails" after Hendrix. No, I am not kidding. He was worried how being associated with the counterculture would affect public perception, as well as fearing that the hippies might even boo him. He didn't realize how beloved he was with baby boomers).  He even refused to do a guest shot on 'Wonder Woman' unless Lynda Carter wore a less revealing costume. So she was forced to wear a solid blouse for that one episode only.  (See the above pic.)

All this is in stark contrast to Roy's offstage rep as having banged half the women in the country music biz (there's a 'WW' publicity photo where he does the ol' sneaky wraparound w/Lynda).  In fact, bringing us full circle from Gig Young, one of his sidepieces would lead to murder:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spade_Cooley

Wilder was contacted by Brooks who was panicking and agreed to take the part. Brooks may also have felt that playing the role completely straight (like ZAZ would later do) might be too subtle for audiences. Blazing Saddle remains a classic and it's fun to consider the casting alternatives, including Richard Pryor as the Sheriff. Brooks' original intent is understandable and far riskier than the eventual film.

Groucho Marx Intervewed by David Steinberg

Rare American TV show (posted by a German fan).   The musical appearances were removed and cut down to all Groucho.   Worth a watch.  Pre-stroke Groucho was still quickwitted.

From here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gby5cQuC5Wk&feature=youtu.be

MasterClass Full Pass!

Re-posting this to update.  Last year, I became an affiliate for MasterClass.   The "Full Pass" allows access to a dozen classes on screenwriting, novel writing, filmmaking, film scoring, etc. etc.

Now's the time to sign up and learn as you stay home in the weeks ahead.   Stay safe!

About a month or so ago I purchased an all-access pass to MasterClass. I'd taken the James Paterson (best-selling thriller novelist) course last year. It was $90 and informative.

When I found out I could take a dozen classes on my wish list for one fee, I signed up.

Steve Martin's course on comedy discusses creating a stand-up act ... Ron Howard discusses filmmaking and breaks down shooting a scene ... Marin Scorsese discusses filmmaking with stories from his great films ... Werner Herzog (filmmaking) ... Hans Zimmer (film scoring) ... Oh, Oscar-winner Aaron Sorkin has a series on screenwriting. Emmy-winning Shonda Rhimes discusses creating a TV series, breaking down a TV episode, show running.

Judd Apatow has an upcoming course on comedy writing. Spike Lee has one coming soon on filmmaking.

The annual pass is the way to go.

You get EVERYTHING (even series on cooking, chess, tennis, and basketball) from top pros in each field. Great way to learn.

DISCLOSURE: I liked it so much I became a paid affiliate for MasterClass and I can support this blog if a few sales result from the following link. Thanks for looking:

MasterClass All-Access Pass

YOU DON’T START AT ZERO

Script readers go through stacks of scripts and they’re expecting your script to be terrible.  You don’t start at zero.  You start with a -10 on the Script-O-Meter.  You have to prove quickly that you can write.  You have to work your way off the -10 start to a zero.  “Pretty good but… meh.”   Then make your way to the' consider' and finally 'recommend' heights.   That’s 1-2% of scripts that are executed at that level.

How long before a reader decides if they’ve got a good script?  Does that take ten pages?   Sadly, no.  Some readers say they know a page or two in if the script is pro level.  Beyond basic script format, newer writers struggle to handle exposition.  Establishing who the characters are quickly is difficult.   William Goldman suggests putting the characters in conflict and used the exposition as ammunition.  Instead of reciting facts the characters already know about each other the information is relayed as the characters argue.   

When are you starting your story?   I’ve seen major feature films that begin with backstory.  Backstory is what happens before the actual story starts.  Some warning flags are scripts that have large time jumps in the first ten to twenty pages.   

Why are we starting the story on this day?   Why this day?  “Well, we needed to know that about her childhood because…”. Work it into the story at the moment we need to see it.  For example, look at the flashback to Paris in Casablanca.  The film doesn’t open with it.  Rather, it’s used at that time in the story where the audience’s curiosity is at its peak and is needed to advance the narrative.

An overused method to hook readers/viewers early is the major action event followed by “48 hours earlier” chyron and then the story starts.   This was used by J.J. Abrams often in his projects and even the great series Breaking Bad opened with the device.  Unfortunately, it’s been overused to the point of cliché’.  It’s also a likely sign that rather having a clearly compelling opening, the writer has to create a hook from another point of the script.  Because of overuse, I’d avoid it but ... your script and your call.

Avoiding “sit and talk” scenes can also be challenging.   Our minds process visual information quickly and two characters sitting and talking is dull to see.  Aaron Sorkin uses “walk and talk” scenes, used extensively in The West Wing.  Characters are moving, interacting with others, and it gives scenes a sense of momentum.   Game of Thrones employed “sexposition” where characters relay important story information during and after sex scenes.   Story momentum maintained.  

Look through the first ten pages of your script.  It’s difficult asking anyone to take the time to read anything.   People just don’t have the time or attention span.  Ask people to read only your first ten.  This is easier for them to do and if they aren’t prompted to read more go back and rewrite.  Were they hooked to continue reading or not?   If not, chances are the production company reader will have tuned out as well.

Robert McKee says that a writer is at top form perhaps ten percent of the time.  More to the point, Ernest Hemingway said, “The first draft of anything is shit.”  Hemingway wrote forty- seven endings to A Farewell to Arms.  Writing is rewriting.  It may take ten, twenty, or thirty drafts to get your script in shape.  Pros go the distance.   Keep at it!