Thursday, July 20, 2017

Why become a stand-up

So revealed to the world on this week’s podcast is my attempt at stand-up comedy. (You can listen by just clicking the big gold arrow under the masthead or by clicking here) It was quite an experience, and I talk about that as well in this episode.

But what the exercise didn’t explain is a question I’ve wrestled with for years – of all the forms of comedy, who do some people gravitate towards stand-up?

Yes, it’s intoxicating to get laughs, but you don’t have to be standing all alone on a tiny stage surrounded by potential hostile drunk people to get the joy of producing laughs. As a writer, I get that feeling every time a play or show of mine gets laughs from an appreciative audience. Actors get the same rush when comedies they’re acting in work. Maybe they didn’t write them, but their talent and ability to deliver is what sold the material.

When I’m doing improv I have the safety net that I’m working with other performers (the comedy burden is not entirely on me thank God) and the audience understands that this is stuff being made up on the spot. So they give you a little more leeway (not much but a little).

And doing comedy on the radio is unique because you know going in you’re never going to hear laughter. You just have to assume you’re making the audience laugh. But you don’t hear that deafening silence if you’re not. Radio also affords you a certain level of anonymity. No one sees you. No one is judging you on your appearance.  They can't see you sweat. 

So why choose stand-up? Why subject yourself to hecklers, angry patrons, people who look at you with pity? Why risk embarrassing yourself in front of strangers?

Sure, there are funny people who grow up admiring certain stand-up comedians and want to follow in their footsteps. Their love of comedy stems from these comedians.

But what about the more general person who thinks he’s funny and just wants to express himself? Why take this particular path?

Here’s the reason I came up with – and this is based on nothing substantial at all – this is just my hare-brained theory.

Stand-up comedy is the most accessible.

Anyone can sign up for an open-mic night. If they bomb they can sign up again or sign up elsewhere. No one has to hire you. If you’re an actor someone has to hire you to be in a play or on a show. Same with radio. There are only so many openings and you have to beat out lots of people to get one. At five minutes a set, over fifty comics can sign up for an open mic night. And that’s one club, one night. Here in Los Angeles there are dozens of clubs. You can sign up for four open mics on one night.

You could always write and produce your own material and put it up on YouTube but that costs money and enlisting others' help.  No one pays you for open-mics but they don't cost you either.  

Obviously the goal is to get hired as a comedian, but at least you have a way in. You can showcase yourself. You can gain experience. You can fail.

And you can do it yourself. You don’t need to be part of a group. You can generate your own material. And get immediate feedback. One major frustration with writing spec scripts is you send them out and often times hear nothing back. Or just a rejection. You don’t know why. You don’t know what didn’t work. When you’re on stage you get your answers (whether you like them or not).

So there’s that immediate rush and opportunity to continue improving your craft. And as a bonus, there’s camaraderie. You’re alone on stage, but you’re not alone with your dream. Understanding that they’re also your competitors, these other stand-up wannabes are your support system. They get it. They probably have the same neuroses.

Okay, that’s my theory. What do you think? Now spoken from a fellow stand-up who has five whole minutes of experience.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Episode 29: My Stand-Up Comedy Debut

Ken throws caution to the wind and does his very first stand-up routine at an open mic night. You’ll hear the whole set. How did he do? You decide. He’ll also take you behind-the-scenes, before and after. It’s an exercise in either courage or stupidity depending upon how you look at it.

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

The GAME OF THRONES season premiere

Wow! The GAME OF THRONES season premiere Sunday night shattered records for HBO, drawing a staggering 10.1 million viewers and another 6 million via same day DVR playback and streaming. That obliterated broadcast network fare. Even I couldn’t help them on CNN. I was not included in THE NINETIES episode profiling Clinton (although I’m sure some of my commentary relating to THE SIMPSONS could have just been used out of context).

But what this record-breaking performance tells me is this:

For all the options viewers now have, if you offer a show people really want to watch you can still draw big numbers.

GAME OF THRONES did a lot better than TWIN PEAKS. Is TWIN PEAKS even still on?

GAME OF THRONES was not eligible for Emmys this year but next year look out.  No reason for HAWAII FIVE-O to even send out screeners. 

People, it seems, like watching a program with no commercials.  Who knew?

Those were just the first night numbers. Expect them to grow considerably over the week.

Broadcast networks will dismiss the numbers because it’s the summer. Sure. ABC’s TO TELL THE TRUTH would have made a huge dent if this were the fall.

ABC won the night among the Big Four but still had less than a third of GAME OF THRONE’S totals.

Broadcast networks used to claim that cable was no real competition. Remember that terrestrial radio when satellite, internet, and podcast programming swallows you whole.

Viewers still like opening titles.  Also, who knew? 

How’s NBC lookin' with that big Megyn Kelly deal? Her show drew a paltry 3.1 million. Forget GAME OF THRONES. CANDY CRUSH kicked her ass (and it was down from last week).

There will be two GAME OF THRONES-knock offs in development this year by the broadcast networks (or maybe four). Except they’ll say to the producers, “Can you keep the budget down to like a million an episode?” “What if they never left the castle?” “We need more little people on our shows!”

Imagine how much greater still GAME OF THRONES numbers would be if Steve Harvey was in it somehow.

And finally, I guess I should try again to watch GAME OF THRONES.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Let's talk laugh tracks

I get many Friday Questions about laugh tracks, so I thought I would devote an entire post to the subject. Here’s the latest question:

From Homesick Canadian in Taiwan:

Many of your posts are about the importance of getting authentic laughs from the studio audience. If a joke doesn't get laughs, it's cut or re-worked, etc.

However, I don't quite get how this works. It's well known from blooper reels that actors often flub lines and have to re-shoot. How does an audience give an uproarious response to a joke they're hearing for a second, third, or fourth time? My understanding is that this is what laugh-tracks are for. It's also been part of common knowledge in TV culture that producers just add a laugh-track when jokes don't get a response -- for situations like you've written about when an audience is comprised of a busload of Japanese tourists who don't understand English but want to see a taping of a hit American show. Or simply because a joke falls flat and the director thinks the home viewer will be amused if they hear the canned laughter.

The goal is to use as much of the actual audience laughter as possible. Yes, when we re-shoot a scene the response to a joke the second or fourth time is not as strong as the first and if we use that later take we’ll insert the laugh from the first take.

But sometimes it’s weird – the same joke will get a bigger reaction the second time. Maybe they just heard it better, or the actor delivered it better, or the air conditioning was working better,  In any event, we just thank the Gods of comedy and move on.

So yes, there is some jockeying with the laugh track, but the canned laughs are all from our audience not I LOVE LUCY.

Occasionally, you have a really bad audience or one comprised of tourists who can’t speak English, and you do have to fudge a little. But in those cases we try to be very judicious and sprinkle in just enough laughs so that the show doesn’t seem flat but not to where they’re intrusive.   In my mind, once the audience is aware of canned laughter you're in trouble. 

Part of the problem with many multi-cam shows is that the producers crank up the laugh track to where it’s ridiculous. I talked about this before, viewers now feel insulted. “Do these producers think I’m that stupid that I would laugh at this truly unfunny joke just because the familiar laugh track is going crazy?”  They have a right to feel insulted.  Sitcoms have been playing this shell game for sixty years now. 

Here’s an interesting thing – audiences respond way better to things they see live actors do rather than watching finished pre-records. In other words, let’s say I’m directing an episode with a car scene. I will pre-shoot it.

The editor will put it together that night and the following night when we shoot the show in front of 250 people we’ll have the ability to play it back for them and record their laughter.

However, when I direct, instead of showing that finished scene I bring out the actors involved, place them in two chairs, explain to the audience that they’re in a car driving, and have the actors do the scene live. I record the audio and even though the audience has to now imagine the scene, they laugh much louder having real actors performing the scene.

It all goes back to why some shows are filmed in front of an audience in the first place – there’s a real energy the cast derives from a live audience.  They feed off their laughter.  Their performances go up and if the writing is good the whole show rises. It’s intangible but the home viewer can sense it.

Getting back to that car scene, I wonder what would happen if we just aired the scene of the two actors on chairs instead of the real one with them in an actual car.  I don't think the home audience would be thinking about the laugh track at that moment. 

Monday, July 17, 2017

My thoughts on the Emmy nominations

Now that the Emmy nominations are in and Hollywood has had the weekend to crow or grouse about them, I think I would offer my perspective.

Here’s the main thing you need to know: These nominations are not based on quality. They’re based on zeitgeist and who the Academy likes and doesn’t like. It’s as simple as that.

Especially now when there is so much content out there.

THE GOOD FIGHT got nothing. It was every bit as good as THE GOOD WIFE, a show that did get some Emmy love. Why? No one saw THE GOOD FIGHT. THE GOOD WIFE was on CBS. THE GOOD FIGHT is on CBS Access. So without an enormous amount of buzz it toiled in relative obscurity.

The other thing to remember: There is a big disconnect between Academy voters and the general public. Shows are getting nominated that 90% of the population has never heard of. Shows people do watch are ignored.

But I’d say the biggest factor is zeitgeist. And boy is that fickle. How hot was TRANSPARENT just a couple of years ago? How hot was EMPIRE? Not to mention GIRLS. People claim this was a good season for GIRLS. Makes no difference. It’s over. Done. Is that unfair? Maybe. Was it unfair when Lena Dunham was being nominated for everything even when other contenders may have been more worthy?

That’s the playing field, folks.

And the Academy has its favorites. Movie stars doing TV series are generally given a big boost. Jane Fonda is an actress I totally admire, and she has turned in some phenomenal performances. But I’m sorry, she’s not funny. She’s just not. Yet, she was nominated for Best Actress in a Comedy. Robert DeNiro got a nomination. You know that was a lock.

Carrie Fisher got a posthumous nomination for CATASTROPHE.  Would she have gotten it anyway?  Your guess is as good as mine.   

If THE MIDDLE, a wonderful show completely ignored by the Academy, changed not a moment of content but just added the following: “From Executive Producer Ryan Murphy” it would receive nine nominations.

The Academy hates Chuck Lorre. It’s not too fond of Dick Wolf either. Once you become your own empire there is Emmy backlash. If you have a “land” after your first name you are not winning Emmy hearts.

And then there’s the backlash when one-time darlings start believing their own press clippings and start thinking they are really geniuses. Jill Soloway leaps to mind. TRANSPARENT is now out and apparently voters didn’t LOVE DICK.

Favorites can extend to delivery systems. HBO and NETFLIX are in. The CW is out.
Another clear theme this year is anti-Trump. Colbert is in; Fallon is out. SNL got more nominations than they’ve had in years -- a staggering 22. And the zeitgeist comes back into play, which is why Trevor Noah didn’t make the cut.

It’s all a high school popularity contest.

Industry people are upset over the snubs. In particular THE LEFTOVERS and THE AMERICANS. On the other hand, back in the day when there were just three networks the big complaint was that the same shows got nominated year after year after year. That is certainly no longer a problem.

Congratulations to all the nominees. I hope to review the Emmycast. It airs on September 17th on CBS with Stephen Colbert hosting. So expect some angry presidential tweets the next morning (if he’s still president).

Sunday, July 16, 2017

The Comedy "Rule of 3's

This has been one of the staple of comedy for years. (It’s also been called the Comic Triple, which is different from when Prince Fielder gets a three-base-hit, like he miraculously did in the All-Star Game).

But how does it work?

The Rule-of-Threes establishes a pattern and then ends with something unexpected.

Lame example: “We serve lasagna, spaghetti, and poi.”

Usually two items are sufficient to establish the pattern. Three is overkill.

“We serve lasagna, spaghetti, linguini, and poi.” 

We get it with two. And we’re now so conditioned to the rhythm of threes that anything more seems wrong.

But there are some traps.

You must be very careful that the two first items clearly establishes the pattern you’re setting up. You don’t want the audience to have to work to make the connection.

Lame bad example: “The Giants, Detroit, and the Teamsters.”

Better would be “The Giants, the Tigers, and the Teamsters.”

In both cases you’re setting up major league baseball teams but the second version is clearer.

Another lame bad example: “The Reds, the Blues, and the Teamsters.”

Reds and Blues could be referring to how states line up politically, they could be two professional sports teams, they could be two drugs. Eliminate any confusion.

You hurt the punchline if one of the setups is funny.

“Linda, Moon Unit, and Mother Teresa.”

Some call that a joke-on-a-joke and while proponents argue it’s a laugh-on-a-laugh, more often the two jokes cancel each other out. It’s okay that the set up be straight. Save the funny for the payoff.

"Larry, Moe, and Shemp."
Don’t make your set up too convoluted.

“Women who work as nannies for children 10 years of age or younger on the Upper East during Tuesday mornings, men who lost their jobs in the recession and must get part time jobs teaching children 10 years of age or younger, and astronauts.”

By the time you get to the punchline our audience is putting in a Blu-Ray.

Think rhythm, think timing.   This is comedy.

Okay, the set up is right, now for the punchline.

The payoff has to break the pattern but not so much so that it’s a non-sequitor.

“The Giants, the Tigers, and poi.”

Huh? At least the Teamsters were a group of some kind. The punchline has to connect to the pattern. It’s not that it doesn’t belong, it’s that you don't expect it.  But something has to tie together.

Comedy writer Bob Ellison was in a late night rewrite once and pitched a joke. The showrunner said, “Too corny, too obvious” and Bob replied, tapping his wristwatch, “Two thirty.

The list doesn't have to be objects or names.  It can be words... like two.

The danger with the Rule-of-Threes is that it’s such a familiar form that audiences see it coming. Blame cavemen comedians.  They overused the device to death.  So extra pressure is now placed on your punchline. Try to find the best version of your payoff.

What’s funnier? “Our fresh fish today is halibut, salmon, or canned tuna” or “Our fresh fish today is halibut, salmon, and gefilte.” Gefilte is a funny word, and it’s not really a fish at all – it’s a jumble of different fish.

The more specific in comedy the better.

However, I will caution you that you need to know your audience. If you’re not Jewish you might never have heard of gefilte fish. First off, you’re lucky, but secondly, it’s a fallacy that funny words alone are enough to get a laugh. They may in some cases but don’t rely it.

And finally, I’ll leave you with a variation of the Rule-of-Threes. It’s the Stan Daniels’ Turn. Stan Daniels was a longtime writer on the MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, TAXI, and at least a thousand others. He would pitch a form of joke so often that it stuck to him like an “Arnold Palmer.” His thing was that the punchline was the exact opposite of the first two.

“She’s hateful, she’s despicable, I’m in love.”

 Yes, it's formula, and it often works, but I'd avoid it. 

So that's the Rule-of-Threes in comedy.  There’s also a “Rules-of-Threes” for survival, photography, and celebrity deaths, but those are for later posts. (See what I did there? I also could have used thoracic spines but went with celebrity deaths.)

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Worth checking out...

This is another plug for this week's Hollywood & Levine podcast.  It's the making of WICKED, and my guest, Winnie Holzman (who wrote the libretto) is truly fascinating as she explains the process and pitfalls of that juggernaut musical.  If you have any interest in the theater or just the creative process in general, this episode is for you.   Click on the big gold arrow above or this link.   Thanks.

One toke over the line

First off, my thanks to Paul Pape for alerting me to this.

Back in the early days of television up until the early '70a, ABC featured THE LAWRENCE WELK SHOW.  This was a wholesome variety show aimed at anyone born in the 19th Century.   Lawrence Welk was an old band leader with a strange accent who had trouble reading cue cards.  One time he announced:  "And now a medley of songs from World War Eye."

Anyway, they tried on rare occasion to do contemporary songs.  In this clip they do the Brewer & Shipley hit, "One Toke Over the Line."  Because Jesus is mentioned I guess they think it's a spiritual tune.   But clearly it's a marijuana song.   The FCC even banned it briefly.   So that makes this rendition even funnier.   Pass the doobie, take a toke, and enjoy this ode to drugs. 

Friday, July 14, 2017

Friday Questions

How many different ways can I say it’s time for Friday Questions? I think I’ve exhausted them.

Michael gets us started this week.

Do you think if the CHEERS producers knew earlier that FRASIER was going to be spun off that they would have dropped the storyline of Frasier and Lilith having a baby? As much as I enjoyed FRASIER and understood the show creators desire to have FRASIER set far away from Boston, I always felt it reflected badly on the character that he moved all the way across the country and had very limited contact with his son.

Obviously, it would have been easier and cleaner if Frasier and Lilith were childless, but the decision was made to give them a baby years before a spinoff was even a twinkle in Charles/Burrows/Charles and NBC’s eye.

Lots of divorced couples with children live miles apart, and it’s a heartache for all involved. I think the producers of FRASIER dealt with that issue on several occasions in their usual elegant and sensitive way.

But for my money, ANY time you introduce a baby into a series you run the risk of damaging the premise. Babies need attention so characters are suddenly obligated to provide that attention. Certainly in a romantic comedy that can deflate the soufflé.

Buttermilk Sky asks:

On MASH characters often rhapsodized about their home towns -- Crabapple Cove, Mill Valley, Ottumwa, Boston. Only Toledo was characterized in a consistently negative light. My favorite joke:

Klinger: Toledo is crying out for another four-star restaurant.

BJ: The last one closed when all the pin boys quit.

Did you ever get complaints from the Chamber of Commerce, or from individual Toledans?

No. They loved the attention. We also promoted Toledo landmarks like Paco’s Hot Dogs… although I do have to admit I’m pissed at them. In the late ‘80s when I was calling minor league baseball, we went into Toledo to play the Mud Hens (yes, that really is the name of their team – still is). So I went to the famous Paco’s. On the walls they had hotdog buns signed by celebrities. I introduced myself to the manager, said I was the person who wrote a lot of the episodes Paco’s was mentioned in and I’d be happy to sign a bun. He said he wasn’t interested. So screw you, Paco’s Hotdogs. How much business have you gotten over the years thanks to my plugs on a national TV show? And besides, I had never even heard of half these celebrities you did have sign your stupid buns.

But I'm not bitter. 

From Emma getting ready for some summer beach reading.

Who according to you depicted Hollywood screw-ups better in their novels? Harold Robbins?

Well, can I immodestly say me? My comic novel, MUST KILL TV does a pretty fair job of exposing all that Hollywood bullshit. Please check it out.

Also, ARTISTIC DIFFERENCES by Charlie Hauck. Very funny and unfortunately, very true.

And finally, Stoney has a disc jockey question for the old Bossjock:

What record was the hardest one to stick? For me it was Billy Joel's "It's Still Rock And Roll To Me". Knew the intro time but could rarely get it right because it was the same note repeating.

“It’s a Beautiful Morning” by the Rascals.   Ugh! You try it.