Thursday, October 27, 2016
The current version starring Nathan Lane and John Slattery is getting lovely notices. One thing struck me in one of the reviews – it mentioned that Nathan Lane doesn’t even enter the play until two hours in. When he does he’s great, yada yada, but still – TWO HOURS? How long is this damn play? (Actually, I find that hard to believe. I wonder if Lane was in the first act but the critic just slept through it. Or showed up an hour late.)
THE FRONT PAGE is in three acts, meaning two intermissions. Now that was the style of 1928, and I suspect with radio in its infancy and TV still just a gleam in the CBS eye, a theatergoer was happy to be entertained for any length of time.
Today, of course, it’s different. We all have the attention span of a gnat. Late night shows are measured in click baits.
And the theater has had to adapt over time as well. By mid-century, plays evolved into two-acts with one intermission.
Today the trend is one long piece, no intermission, running roughly 90 minutes. There are advantages and disadvantages.
Uber Playwright, Tom Stoppard, doesn’t like intermissions. He feels it's like asking the audience, “How am I doing so far?” I must say that’s how I felt during intermissions for A OR B? when it played at the Falcon Theatre. I’d stand inconspicuously in the lobby trying to assess from the conversations whether the play was going over or not.
What I don’t get about this new trend is that theater owners seem to be all for it. You'd think they’d be unhappy giving up all the intermission concession sales. Yes, no intermission means people don’t leave halfway through, but so what are far as theatre owners are concerned? They have the customers’ money.
But it’s the trend so it’s what I’ve followed with my latest play, GOING GOING GONE (tickets available here). No act break, just a brisk 90 minutes. As a result, the storytelling changes. No longer do you build to a big crisis act break and then resolve – now you design a story to just build and build and pick up momentum leading you to your conclusion. And that’s okay. Just be aware that concessions to this new format must be made.
You’re also now obligated to keep your play in the 90 minute range. It was easier staging a longer play when the audience was given a break. But what a contrast from FRONT PAGE where one of the two main stars doesn’t enter until two hours in. (I still don’t believe that. The critic might have had amnesia.)
I can’t speak for other playwrights, and perhaps in dramas it’s different, but to me keeping your play down to 90 minutes is a good thing. The theater offers more free license (or at least it did). Your plays could be as long as you wanted. No restrictions. But sometimes restrictions are a good thing. Haven’t we all spent a brutal night (or twenty) squirming in a theater watching a play that was not only terrible but endless? There’s an old saying about musicals: “Take out twenty minutes and run two more years.”
On the other hand, especially on Broadway, audiences are paying big big money for tickets. I saw a play last summer that was a one-man show starring Jesse Tyler Ferguson (from MODERN FAMILY). He was terrific in it, but the play was like 70 minutes. I walked out saying, “I spent all that money for this?”
This debate will continue I’m sure. The ultimate answer lies, as with most things, in the bathroom. Can audiences go 90 minutes without having to go? They do for movies. In fact, a 90 minute movie is considered short. (Of course at one time long movies also had intermissions. Only Tarantino does that today but that’s because there’s not one single frame of the brilliant HATEFUL 8 that could come out.) Personally, I think the answer is yes. But not 95.
On the other hand, can we go 90 minutes without texting? Hmmm. Just to be safe my next play will be 83 minutes.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Meanwhile, here's a neat profile of me and the play from last Sunday's LA. Daily News. Come join the fun and say hi.
I like MODERN FAMILY and have watched it for years, but this year notice that ten episodes have been recorded that I haven’t watched. I decided to catch up and found myself watching the Christmas episode. I think it’s time to say goodbye to MODERN FAMILY. I notice that SHARK TANK episodes are starting to pile up. Not a good sign. THE DAILY SHOW is no longer saved daily. And Jesus, I still have some AGENT CARTER’S.
So my question today, dear readers, is what shows had you been recording that you now have discontinued? What series that once were must-see are now must-save-space-for-other-stuff? And why? Most long running shows overextend their welcome by a season or two. Even shows I loved like THE GOOD WIFE clearly gasped to the finish line. What about the shows you loved now make you say "meh?"
Having been fortunate enough to be on numerous long-running series I know it’s incredibly difficult to keep coming up with new stories, keep finding ways to make the show seem fresh, and keep the actors happy. And there’s always that shark beckoning to be jumped. So I feel for the creative team.
As a viewer I sometimes just have to get off the train.
So again, which shows do you no longer watch regularly and why? This will be a day where the comments are way more interesting than the post.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
I go to my agent’s office. Except it’s not my actual agent. It’s some new guy. Young. Very nice. Ken Jeong in a tailored shirt and tie. Always Tweeting on his cellphone.
I’m there because he had dug up a spec pilot I had written years ago and wanted to go out with it. The pilot had something to do with hockey. I’m not sure of the details because I’ve never written a pilot about hockey. Nor really understand hockey. So why I’d choose that as the subject matter since I’m a big proponent of “write what you know” I have no idea. I have no idea why I wrote a spec pilot in the first place. But all of that is beside the point.
The agent places a call to some low level executive in a production company. I can overhear both ends of the conversation. As best as I recall, it went like this:
AGENT: I’ve got a great spec pilot to send you.
AGENT: It’s by Ken Levine.
EXEC: He’s a hack.
AGENT: He wrote CHEERS.
EXEC: CHEERS is shit.
AGENT: CHEERS is a classic.
EXEC: Okay. Fine. What’s it about?
EXEC: Ken Levine can’t write that.
AGENT: Why not?
EXEC: He’s gay.
AGENT: What? Ken Levine is not gay.
EXEC: He’s gay.
AGENT: And you know this how?
EXEC: It’s all over social media. A gay guy can’t write hockey.
AGENT: He’s not gay, but even if he were, that’s ridiculous. Why can’t a gay guy write hockey?
EXEC: Hockey is not gay.
AGENT: He wrote MASH.
EXEC: MASH is gay.
AGENT: What? How is MASH gay?
EXEC: Hidden messages. Oh, and it starred a guy in a fucking dress.
I’m overhearing all of this and by now am hysterical. But the agent is getting mad.
AGENT: I’m gay.
EXEC: I love gays. But not for this.
AGENT: That’s discrimination.
AGENT: To play who, the goalie?
EXEC: Not to act. To direct.
AGENT: Julia Roberts directs now?
EXEC: I hear she wants to start. She’d be perfect for this.
AGENT: Julia Roberts directing a pilot about hockey?
EXEC: Get Julia Roberts and send over the script.
That’s when the dream ended, which is too bad because my writing partner knows Julia Roberts and I think I’d have a shot.
Monday, October 24, 2016
There’s a great example of this from theater royalty. Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne performed together on Broadway from the ‘20s to the ‘70s. They were your classic “thee-a-tuh” actors.
Way back in the ‘20s or ‘30s (believe it or not I was not around for that), they were trying out a show in Boston. Lunt got a big laugh on a line where he asked for a cup of tea. But during the New York run the laughs on that line dissipated until finally there was nothing but crickets. Lunt was perplexed. Why was the line no longer working? Fontanne had the answer. “Ask for a cup of tea, not a laugh.”
Good directors understand this.
The actors were surprised when they first performed in front of an audience that suddenly there were a ton of laughs. Think about it – Robert Redford getting guffaws? He’s not exactly Mr. Funnypants. But he was hilarious. And why?
He asked for tea.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
It’s from Carl:
But as a director, I’ve worked with kids quite often. They do present certain challenges, which must be taken into consideration.
The first one of course is stage parents. You may get an adorable talented kid but all too often Momzilla comes as part of the bargain. Cruella de Vil with notes.
There are also quite a few restrictions in place that hamper production, but that’s for a good reason. They’re all for the protection of the child. Not that Hollywood would ever take advantage of kids and work them twenty-hour days like mules and force them to take diet pills if they gained two ounces, but just to be on the safe side, kids can only work so many hours and classroom instruction is mandatory. Still, it’s a arduous day for these youngsters, many of whom would rather be playing videogames with their friends than doing planned-pick-ups.
So it means a director only has them for limited periods. We have to work around their schedules. If we’re shooting the show in front of a live audience we have to do it earlier to ensure they wrap at a decent hour. (Hey, wait a minute. That's a good thing.)
Generally, kids don’t get the rehearsal time they need. And in truth, they’re the ones who need it the most because they don’t have the experience adult actors have. Although Kaitlyn Dever can hold her own with Oscar winners.
So producers have to ask themselves – is it really worth it? More than one family comedy has opted to downplay the role of the children over time because of the obstacles.
With young kids (like the twins were at the time), it's unrealistic to ask them to memorize a lot of dialogue. So that cuts down on their screen time.
I know a number of actors who are in their 20’s and even 30’s who can still pass for teenagers. And believe me, these actors are in greater demand than Meryl Streep.
The other problem with using children is that they tend to grow up. As a director, it’s hard to tell them not to. I believe Disney Channel series usually only go three or four seasons because of this.
Of course, their aging can also be a plus. As they enter new stages of development it can open up new areas for stories. But as the fine folks of GLEE have learned, you can’t keep the same kids in high school for seven years (although they could probably get away with it on JUSTIFIED).
Some children I've worked with are a pleasure and others are world-weary fifty-year-olds trapped in the body of a ten-year-old. My heart always goes out to children actors, even the successful ones. It's tough enough dealing with peer pressure, puberty, and pimples. I can't imagine also being rejected by the producers of THE SUITE LIFE ON DECK.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
get a lot of questions about the “Bar Wars” episodes of CHEERS that my writing
partner, David Isaacs and I wrote. So here are the FAQ’s.
Did we purposely plan for the Cheers gang to lose every time?
Yes. Except for the last one. Frustration is much funnier than victory. The trick however, was to find different ways for them to lose – or screw themselves. Guess I grew up watching too many Road Runner cartoons.
What about the last Bar Wars in the final season?
Ultimately, we decided to not only let Cheers win but to demolish Gary’s Olde Towne Tavern once and for all. We’re nothing if not vengeful. Trivia note: That is the only episode of CHEERS that I appear in. I’m sitting at the bar in an early scene.
Who played Gary?
The answer is: which time? We had two actors who played Gary, in no particular order. The first time the character appeared, Joe Polis played him in a 1985 episode called “From Beer to Eternity”. When we wrote the first Bar Wars episode Joe wasn’t available. It was the very end of the season. We had no other scripts so we just had to recast. Robert Desiderio became Gary. For Bar Wars II we went back to Joel Polis and used him one other time. Otherwise, it was Robert Desiderio. Confusing? I don’t understand why we did it either. Hopefully this mystery will be tackled in the sequel to the DA VINCI CODE.
What is your favorite Bar Wars episode?
Bar Wars V. My partner came up with this idea. Sam’s prank kills Gary. Or at least that’s what Sam thinks. If you can’t get laughs with a man digging up a grave you’re not a comedy writer.
What is your least favorite Bar Wars episode?
Bar Wars VI. The gang thinks a wise guy buys Gary’s bar so a prank unleashes the Mafia after them. We were reaching. And sometimes too clever for our own good. In Bar Wars II, there’s a Bloody Mary contest. I mentioned this last Thursday. We had too many twists and turns. By the end I think there were maybe six too many. It was the BIG SLEEP of Bar Wars episodes – no one alive can tell you exactly what happened.
Was it hard to plot these episodes?
Yes. Very. These episodes were a bitch to conceive and then hard to write because there was always so much story. By nature, exposition and set ups are not inherently funny and entertaining. We had to pull a lot of jokes out of nowhere.
What was your favorite gag?
Filling Rebecca’s office with sheep. That’s the power of being a writer. You come up with a goofy idea. And voila, there are fifty sheep being herded onto the set. I’m sure the guy who came up with snakes on the plane had the same heady feeling.
There are some Bar Wars type episodes not called Bar Wars. How come?
Those were episodes not originally designed to be bar wars but evolved into them. Or they were competitions not practical joke wars, per se. In other words, I dunno. I’m still trying to figure out BAR WARS II.
And finally, are you that diabolical?
Let’s just say I hope you’re not allergic to sheep.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Okay, let me stop plugging my play for five minutes to answer some Friday Questions. Leave yours in the comments section. Many thanks.
Mike Barer starts us off:
Ken, have you ever been on stage? I know many producers and directors insert themselves into a show.
Not really. On a few of the sitcoms that David Isaacs and I have written freelance episodes for we’ve inserted ourselves in the shows, but only for a cameo and a line or two.
Here’s my feeling about that: Yes, as a producer I could insert myself into as many shows as I want, but I’m not an actor and by playing a part myself I’m taking money away from a real actor; someone who is trying to make a living or even support a family on the income he makes acting. So I gladly put my ego aside and let someone way more qualified take the role.
About ten years when I co-wrote a musical that was being produced at the Goodspeed Theatre in Connecticut, I was standing on the stage during one of the final rehearsals with Andrew Rannells, who was starring in the show.
I asked him what was it like to be on stage, to feed off the energy of a big audience? He said, “Why don’t you just write yourself into the show and see for yourself.” I nodded and said, “That’s a great idea except for one thing: I can’t act, I can’t sing, and I can’t dance. What the hell am I gonna do?” He agreed that might be a problem.
You recently joked about Thomas Gibson's dismissal being mood lifting for the writers room on Criminal Minds. But it occurred to me you did include in him your list of actors who where good to work with. Was he better on the set of Dharma & Greg?
I have no idea what his issues were with CRIMINAL MINDS, what tensions existed, what creative differences there were, or what other shit was going on in his personal life. But apparently his violent outburst at a writer was not his first.
Still, I maintain my experience with him was a pleasure.
Are there any "written-word" comedy writers (novelists, essayists, etc.) you particularly enjoy?
A number of them. My favorite currently is Paul Rudnick. His humor pieces in THE NEW YORKER are brilliant. He’s also a hilarious playwright and screenwriter. There are several books that are compilations of his humor pieces. I recommend them.
Political satirist Andy Borowitz is also a personal fave. Dave Barry still makes me smile. And if you want to go back into ancient times – Dorothy Parker, S.J. Perelman, Woody Allen (when he was young and funny), and P.G. Wodehouse.
A few comic authors I thoroughly enjoy are Carl Hiassen, Douglas McEwan, and the late John Kennedy Toole who wrote my all-time favorite comic novel, CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES.
Doug McEwan has a new book coming out soon. Can’t wait.
And finally, from Jahn Ghalt:
Ken wrote: the amount of time it took to write (The Me Generation) vs. the sales didn’t propel me to just jump right in and begin the next decade. Too bad, because lots of neat stuff happened in the ‘70s.
and Carol wrote: What about writing a play based on your memoir? I can imagine a good 'coming of age in the 60's' story working as a play
Carol almost took the words out of my mouth: How about a play based on your 70s careers? Radio, the Army(?), writers room for M*A*S*H?
That’s sort of what I am doing now. The play is very loosely autobiographical about the inspiring world of comedy in the mid ‘70s. And to circle back to the first question – no, I will not be playing a part in it.