What I learned from Tony Bennett

When writers start out they generally emulate someone they admire. When my partner, David Isaacs and I started out our first spec script was a pilot. To inspire us at the start of each writing session we listened to the Woody Allen stand-up album. Big surprise that our pilot came out sounding like a bad Woody Allen script.


The trap of course is to not become a clone. How many Tarantino clones are out there? Or Judd Apatow clones?

Same is true in broadcasting. Listen to minor league announcers and you hear a lot of Vin Scully mimics. In basketball, Marv Albert is the one to imitate.

But eventually you have to grow out of that and find your own voice. Take away some lessons but chart your own course.

Tony Bennett was discussing this subject recently in an interview with the Los Angeles Times and said the most fascinating thing. When he was studying singing at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts a professor told him, don’t emulate another singer – emulate an instrument. I thought that was brilliant. You get the emotion and the interpretation without the comparison of another voice. He said jazz pianist Art Tatum was one of his big influences.

Here’s Tony from that interview:

I always loved the jazz pianist Art Tatum, who would build his performance — he would move in and out of the melody — and it would create a very interesting presentation. At the time all the singers — Sinatra, Dick Haymes — would sing what I call a "sweet, straight line," so I established a style where I would change my phrasing or end with a big finish to a song and I was able to create my own style.

God bless him and happy 87th birthday, Tony.  

Writers often speak of dialogue as music. There is a rhythm and flow. There are emotions expressed that aren’t in the specific words. The goal is to understand writers, not copy them.

To this day I'll get stuck and think "What would Larry Gelbart do?"  Or "What would Jim Brooks do?"  I'm not thinking "What would they say?"  But how would they attack this problem?   They might avoid sentimentality.  They might find an unexpected attitude that is still consistent with the character but surprising.  They might search for a clever device.   But the device itself, and the attitude, and the jokes and dialogue are all mine.  The sensibility is mine.  The characters are mine.  Just the musical score is theirs. 

So to sum up:  It’s not just pictures -- Maybe notes are also worth a thousand words.

BONUS: From our "Dancin' Homer" episode of THE SIMPSONS

Read More

Trolls down through history

If we had Facebook in 1961:

Status update: “Great speech by JFK. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

27 likes. 3 Shares.

Comments:

Jeff: JFK is a dick.

Lisa: JeFF is a dick.

Jeff: Real mature.

Dan: What has Kennedy done for the country? Squt.

Lisa: It’s his first day, moron. And u can’t even spell squat.

Jeff: Well, u got a Catholic in the White House. Hope ur happy.

Lisa: What’s wrong with Catholics?

Paul: I’d fuck Jackie, that’s for sure!

Jeff: Just wait till birth control is outlawed.

Zeke: Best reason for birth control: Kennedy.

Jeff: Or you.

Zeke: Hey! I’m agreeing with you.

Jeff: Oh. Sorry.

Marcy: You’re an idiot!

Dan: Whooze an idiot?

Marcy: Jeff but you 2. Whooze?????

Craig: The Pope sucks. He’s personally responsible for the deaths of 200,000 villagers in Africa.

Marcy: Says who?

Zeke: Says whooze?

Craig: Says a guy in my typing class who knows these things.

Paul: Typing 1 or Typing 2?

Jeff: I hadn’t heard that but I believe it.

Craig: He was right about Liz Taylor being a hermaphrodite.

Dan: She’s a Jew?

Lisa: And u like who Craig -- Buddah?

Craig: If Kennedy’s got to call one religious leader yeah I’d rather have him call Buddah than the Pope.

Lisa: U mean on the phone?

Paul: I hear he’s unlisted.

Lisa: lMFAO.

Seth: Whose the first lady that you’d most wanna fuck?

Lisa: Don’t you mean whooze?

Dan: Fuck you Lisa! Did I spell that rite?

Jeff: New law: Everyone must eat fish on Friday.

Lisa: U r so ignorant! What r u? A Baptist?

Zeke: I like salmon.

Marcy: Are you saying Baptists are ignorant?

Craig: Mary Todd Lincoln. I’ve seen photos. Total MILF.

Seth: She was bat shit crazy.

Dan: Probly a Baptis.

Craig: Who gets more pussy? Buddah or the Pope?

Dan: Can Baptis fuck? I forget.

Zeke: How are they gonna get new Baptists if they don’t fuck?

Craig: So by that logic there should be no more Catholics.

Paul: It’s just the priests who can’t fuck you idiot!

Craig: Then there should be no more priests.

Paul: Sellabacy sucks!

Marcy: Jackie Kennedy looks like Liz Taylor.

Jeff: Kennedy is a mafia tool.

Lisa: How about Nixon? He was personally responsible for coupes in Peru, Bolivia, Tasmania, and one or two other South American countries. The Republican Party just hushed it up.

Zeke: Can the government really pass a law that we have to eat fish on Friday?

Jeff: Kennedy will throw out the laws. In two months the US will be a martial state. There will be checkpoints at all Catholic churches and anyone who gets out of line will be brainwashed in the country’s secret brainwashing facility in … I’ve already said too much.

Lisa: How long did it take u 2 recover from the brainwashing?

Jeff: Read a newspaper once in awhile!

Marcy: Was it the Republicans or Democrats who hushed up the secret economy collapse?

Craig: What secret economy collapse?

Zeke: What if someone is allergic to fish?

Marcy: The one in 1956.


Seth: How could the economy collapse in 1956 and no one knew about it?

Marcy: Everyone was watching the Olympics.

Paul: Who would you rather fuck – Liz Taylor or Mary Todd Lincoln?

Click here to see the next 357 comments

Read More

CBS vs. TWC

Oh no! I can’t watch UNDER THE DOME tonight on Channel 2! Oh no! I can’t watch NATIONAL LAMPOON’S ATTACK OF THE 5’ 2” WOMEN on SHOWTIME.

CBS and Time-Warner Cable are embroiled in a war over rights fees that has resulted in CBS channels and SHOWTIME channels being blacked out on TWC systems in Los Angeles, New York, Dallas, and elsewhere.

Oh, the humanity!

Where do I stand? This is one of those heavyweight prize fights you don’t care who wins but you hope goes all fifteen rounds.

It’s Goliath vs. Goliath. Or more like General Zad vs. Bane. Who do you root for – the gazillionaires at Time-Warner or Sumner Redstone's Viacom? What’s fun is watching the public cat fight.

CBS wants TWC to pay a huge increase, claiming their network is number one and viewers should pay accordingly. TWC says the increase is outrageous (600%) and they have to draw the line somewhere. CBS claims that number is fictional but hasn’t released what the real number is.

Here’s the truth:

TWC recently spent billions – that’s right, billions – on securing the rights in Los Angeles to the Lakers and Dodgers. They’re not exactly poor. And yet, good luck when your cable goes out. For all their riches they seem to have two guys in one repair truck covering all of Southern California.

The network TV model no longer works as it once did. Top rated shows commanded the biggest dollars in advertising revenue. But now those top shows aren’t getting the numbers CHEERS did when it was in last place in 1982. And with DVR’s, commercial skipping, and other portals to see your favorite shows commercial free, Don Draper isn’t shelling out the big bucks anymore for the Nielsen top ten. Networks such as CBS have to find new revenue streams.

Oh, and like most giant conglomerates – they’re both greedy. Their primary concern is profits. Their secondary concern is more profits.

So it’s hard to pick a side. And now both opponents are trying to get you to do just that. CBS has commandeered their big Jumbotron boards in Times Square to blast TWC. TWC is taking out ads painting CBS as the dastardly villain and them as innocent little Nell. TWC was telling customers how they could get CBS for free via other portals. CBS then cut broadband service to any customer trying to access CBS.COM via a TWC provider. TWC then yelled, “Hey! That’s not fair!” CBS is telling TWC that they don’t care about their subscribers and are holding them hostage by denying them CBS programming. The goal is for you to apply pressure on one side or another. 

Will CBS take a significant ratings hit being blacked out on these systems? Yes. TWC controls 19% of New York viewers and in LA – a whopping 37% (including people in the industry who don’t like to be inconvenienced). In Dallas it’s 25%. But wait! There’s more. Some TWC customers with lose CBS in Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Denver.

So my question is: it’s getting pretty ugly. Just how ugly can it get? I must say I find it fascinating watching two titans play hardball with each other. We’ve had PR volleys. We’ve had a blackout. We’ve had Times Square propaganda. At what point are there riots in the streets because folks can’t see their RAY DONAVON? When will we see a million angry people at the Washington Monument all chanting: “WE WANT OUR JULIE CHEN?”

But here’s what I really don’t understand. Why have the blackout now? Why not wait a month? If CBS can’t rollout their new fall schedule that’s a huge blow. Big advantage to TWC there. But once September rolls around the NFL is back. If customers can’t see their NFL games on Sunday they’ll go berserk. Advantage: CBS. Either way, the stakes are raised. This reminds me of Writers Guild strikes in years past that would begin in March. The TV season ended in March. We’d be on strike for four months before producers even knew we were out. The last WGA strike was right in the middle of the production season. You can argue whether the strike was successful or not, but at least it got Hollywood’s attention. We’re missing reruns.

There were no negotiations all weekend and none were scheduled. But that can change quickly. And when forces are motivated to move they can react very quickly. We could go from impasse to settlement in one hour. Or this could drag on. The deciding factor will be money, not us customers (despite all the spin). We’re just pawns. And eventually, things will be back to normal – lousy cable service and 2 BROKE GIRLS. Except however it shakes out, we’ll be paying more.

Read More

Because I love LA absurdity

What better place to grow up with an appreciation for the absurd than Los Angeles? There is goofiness everywhere. For example:

An actual home in Beverly Hills:
And this is a Japanese restaurant.
No wonder comedy writers gravitate here. It's one sprawling funhouse.

What caught my eye recently were some VERBATIM headlines I read in HuffingtonPost.com. Clearly, they were meant for the 310 area code crowd. They're supposed to be taken seriously. And I'm sure for anyone who has had too much Botox they were. But for you and me, you can't make up these punchlines.

She Was Born With A Tail?

How Hollywood Helped Hitler

Producer Bashes 'That Little Prick' Bieber

Naya Rivera's Abs Are Unreal

Great News! Lindsay Gets OK Review

Take The Catholic Church Gay Art Tour!

Simon Cowell Allegedly Expecting Baby with Friend’s Wife

Why the Drag Queen’s Mouth Was Literally Sewn Shut

The Many Faces Of Hemingway Look-Alikes

No, She Isn't A Vampire...

Guess Who’s Doing Another Muscian…

10,000 Tiny Rabbits Are Hiding In Cities Near You

Justin Bieber Rubs His Junk All Over Fan's iPhone

Watch Robert Downey Jr. Sing A Police Song

Renown Satanist Looks A Whole Lot Like ...

The Most 'Cheat-Worthy' Celeb Is ...

WATCH: Tom Hanks Peeing.

Read More

My thoughts on your thoughts on yesterday's post

I love how some posts will spark heated debate. Yesterday’s was certainly one of those. A number of people defended SAVE THE CAT and others maintained that it’s unfair to blame a bad movie on the script. So much more goes into a finished motion picture. Instead of commenting on your comments six times yesterday I thought I’d do it all at once today. As always, feel free to weigh in, rebut, or buy my book (Sorry. Had to slip that in there.)

If you read yesterday’s article carefully you’ll see I don’t disagree with the CAT defenders as much as you think. I never said you should avoid the book. You should read books on structure and learn from them. My problem is that when people slavishly follow the steps their movies can become very formulaic. Author Snyder gives the disclaimer that his fifteen steps are merely to be taken as suggestion, but let’s face it – that’s not how most readers see it. There’s a magic formula. Follow it to riches and an invite to Spielberg’s Oscar party.

Reader Stephanie Palmer linked to her rebuttal and made some excellent points. The script is merely one part of the process. So many other things can go wrong. And Ms. Palmer was a studio executive so she knows of what she speaks.

But I would add this, with all due respect, the process has become harder because screenwriters have to address studio notes. And many of those notes are counterproductive. Why? Several reasons. Often the executive giving the notes is not qualified to do so. They’ve never written anything, they lack experience, and their knowledge stems from the books they’ve read, the movies they’ve seen, and the courses they’ve attended.

Trust me, writers know in two seconds whether you’re one of these executives. You’ll use catch-phrases and refer to tropes and we know instantly you just got back from a Robert McKee seminar or a cat is still alive because of you.

Another reason: since no one knows why certain movies click while others don’t studios naturally try to duplicate success. Why do you think every comic book character except Little Lulu has their own blockbuster? Why is there another DIE HARD with AARP member, Bruce Willis? Writers are often steered away from originality and more towards what is deemed commercially successful. Hollywood spends a lot of money to make these movies.  It only stands to reason they want to hedge their bets. 

And third: Writers are given notes that have nothing to do with strengthening the dramatic narrative. They’re told to do at least five block comedy scenes. They’re told to provide more trailer moments. They’re told to put a scene in a certain location because a product placement deal has been made. They're told to rewrite the character to accommodate Rebel Wilson because she's a hot property and they want her in the movie. 

Yes, good movies are hard to make – but these elements just make it harder.

So I’m going to end today pretty much just rephrasing what I said yesterday. Story structure is vitally important. Read these books. Use them as a tool. Use their guidelines as a starting point. But don’t let them clip your wings. If there was a computer program that could spit out a salable screenplay Hollywood would never call you again. But there isn’t. Screenplay writing is art. It’s a celebration of imagination.

And if you’re going to read books, don’t just concentrate on structure. Read books about character development. For my money, THAT’S your real starting point. Good, fresh, original, compelling characters.

Actors get movies made and no actor ever signed on to a project because the story beats were in the correct order. CATS are fine. CHARACTERS are better.

Read More

Should we Save the Cat?

Here’s a Friday Question that warrants an entire post.

It’s from Tastes Like Chicken:

Could you comment on this story from Slate.com about why so many Hollywood movies these days (like it never happened in the past, but still ...) seem to resemble each other? His argument is that it's because everybody these days is using the same 15-beat structure from the book "Save the Cat, by Blake Snyder. True?

There have always been books that propose templates for structuring screenplays. And that’s not a bad thing, per se.

One common mistake would-be screenwriters make is they just start writing their script without a good outline. And more often than not they find themselves going in circles, painting themselves into corners, or realize they’re on page 150 already and have yet to introduce the love interest – and it's a romantic comedy.

You need dramatic structure. You need a beginning, middle, and end.  You need things to happen.  You need conflict.  You need a theme. You need character development. A number of these books provide it. Syd Field’s is the de facto standard.

But the danger is turning every original idea into a paint-by-the-numbers landscape.

And the greater danger is that producers and studios rely on these templates as if they were the Ten Commandments. Why? Because most of them can’t write themselves. Yet once they read these books or go to Robert McKee’s seminar they think they’re experts in story structure. There’s nothing more dangerous than an executive who knows nothing about writing but thinks he/she is an expert.

A moment on Robert McKee: This is a very charismatic self-proclaimed screenwriting guru who has made a fortune by staging weekend seminars where he drills into your head his story structure format. You pay a lot of money to sit in a ballroom for two days and hear him do his Billy Graham act. It’s very theatrical and authoritative, and for a time every Hollywood D-Girl prayed at his altar.

And every note tried to turn every screenplay into CASABLANCA (McKee spends an entire day breaking down CASABLANCA – one of his signature schticks).

Now I have nothing against writing seminars. I hold one myself. But mine is hands-on not two days of lectures, and my students are encouraged to be creative, not follow a set of rules.

The new rage is this SAVE THE CAT book. And here the author, Blake Snyder, takes story structure to a new level. Instead of just three acts, and mid-points, etc. he has fifteen specific beats that must occur in the exact order. Each beat has a purpose (i.e. state the theme) and the book even goes so far as to tell you what page in your screenplay each beat must occur.

Lots of Hollywood movies follow this and the result is you, the audience, get a subliminal feeling that you’ve seen the movie already even though you haven’t. From GANGSTER SQUAD to the new STAR TREK this template is being slavishly followed. So to answer your question -- true.

Writing can’t be programmed into a computer. There is no fifteen point magic formula for turning out art. Screenwriters should familiarize themselves with these methods and use them as a good starting point, but then allow yourself the freedom to deviate, to challenge yourself to be original and surprising.

What do producers and studio executives tell young writers they’re looking for most when they read spec screenplays? A fresh, unique, exciting voice. Something distinctive that separates your script from the others. Well, how do you do that when your primary concern is structuring your script just like everyone else’s?

Besides, for my money, the key to a great screenplay is not plot it’s character. Find an amazing character. Give him a wondrous journey or a herculean task. Put him in a world we haven’t seen. Fill it with fifteen great ideas, not fifteen beats. Or twenty great ideas… or nine. The number isn’t important. You’re not solving an Algebra problem.

KILL THE CAT. SAVE YOURSELF.

Read More

How do you know if a joke's gone 2 far?

Here’s a Friday Question that became an entire post.

Mitchell Hundred asks:

How do you keep a joke from going too far (e.g. offending too many people, clashing with the tone of the show, having all the humor beaten out of it, etc.)?

There’s no concrete answer to this. It’s a judgment call. On the one hand you want to be edgy but on the other you don’t want to cross a line of bad taste.

Know your audience is my first suggestion. Andrew Dice Clay should never work a church banquet.

GIRLS has a pretty young hip audience. Lena Dunham can get away with a lot. But even there, in an attempt to really push the envelope there are those who feel she goes too far. And others who find painful anal sex funny.

The trouble is you run the risk of alienating your audience and possibly chasing them away. For good. So you have to decide – is this joke potentially funny enough or audacious enough that you’re willing to gamble that it won’t cost you viewers? That’s way different from a joke that maybe just won’t get a laugh.

But sex jokes that are perfectly acceptable on TWO AND A HALF MEN would be jarring on MODERN FAMILY.

Personally, I tend to err on the side of caution. I prefer to take the high road. I like jokes that are more elegant. But that’s for the script. For the room I may pitch a joke that in any other work environment would get me jailed.

And it’s generally an either/or situation. Watering down jokes to make them more acceptable rarely works. You end up with a tepid joke that’s not nearly as funny. So either stick your chin out there and do the controversial joke or just find something else.

The problem with shock humor for me is that (a) anyone can do it (whereas I want people reading my scripts saying, I wish I could do that), and (b) you’re almost obligated to keep topping yourself so you wind up almost always crossing the line. GIRLS is an example of that. FAMILY GUY is another. For the first few years I loved FAMILY GUY. Now I go “Yikes” and never watch it.

But again, it’s all in the context. Mel Brooks does Hitler and is a riot. But I don’t think he’d be the right guy to showrun a sitcom on THE DISNEY CHANNEL. In my stage play, one of the biggest laughs comes from a reference to the C-word. I’d never pitch that on FRASIER.

In terms of personal parameters: I try not to take gratuitous shots at people (although we did once on CHEERS. We took a cheap shot at an old borscht belt comedian, felt terrible the night it aired, and then the comedian sent us a note thanking us). And I try not to dwell on physical appearances. If the person can’t do anything about the reason for the joke it seems cruel to do it. A guy is a pompous ass? Fair game. An actress is in love with herself? Let the insults fly. But if a girl is 20 and looks like Eleanor Roosevelt at 60 I give her a pass.

Take into consideration that real human beings have to say these lines. If actors are uncomfortable they’ll either balk or not do the line justice. You do yourself no favors in establishing trust with actors when you give them objectionable material to say or perform. So how important are your relationships with these actors?  That's up to you.

And finally, I say always preserve the tone of your show and the dignity of your characters. When you give a character a particularly crass line just know you can never go back again. You’re permanently defining that character as racist or stupid or a skank or Tea Party member or whatever. Is that really what you want? Is that joke so important and so hilarious that you’d be willing to sacrifice your character’s dignity for all subsequent episodes? For me, it’s easier to just look for another joke.

There’s no hard and fast rule here but part of what you, as a professional comedy writer, are getting paid for is making these types of determinations. They can be tricky and tough. Or you could work on 2 BROKE GIRLS and just do anything.

Read More