OC Screenwriters Association

My good friend and mentor Raymond Obstfeld is one of those slashes - you know: screenwriter/producer/etc.  But Raymond's slashes go even further to NY Times best-selling author / long-time teacher / prolific fiction and non-fiction novelist / co-founder of this org and, certainly not least, husband and father.

A few years back he hooked up with NBA L.A. Laker legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to write a non-fiction book: On the Shoulders of Giants: My Journey Through the Harlem Renaissance (2007) ISBN 978-1416534884

Raymond wrote the first draft of the independent feature that is premiering tonight in Hollywood but had to decline further re-writes because of time and other professional commitment issues. 

I caught him on the phone on his way to physical therapy for his knee - he's also a cutthroat volleyball and basketball player and apparently went hard to the hoop once too many times...

OCSWA:  How did get you involved with Kareem?

RAYMOND: Deborah Morales (producer/director of the film) contacted me through (writer/instructor)  Anna Waterhouse.

OCSWA:  About a book?

RAYMOND:  No, it was initially conceived to be a film but I suggested also writing a book, which then became a New York Times best seller.

OCSWA:  But you did write a script?

RAYMOND:  Yes, a 1st draft.  I had other obligations and had to step away after that. Anna did the rewrites and did a fantastic job.

OCWSA:  Was it difficult collaborating?  With Kareem?

RAYMOND:  No, on either question.  Kareem is amazing - being a writer himself, he knew what he wanted and has encyclopedic knowledge of the subject.  He also remembers way more than I do about the book we wrote - I'm astonished when he pulls out these small facts at interviews and book signings.

OCSWA:  You have over 40 books published, dozens of scripts, have written hundreds of articles, syllabi, how-to's and you're a full-time teacher and have a family with young kids - how many hours do you actually get to write?  And when do you sleep?  Or do you?

RAYMOND:  (Laughing) I write about 4-5 hours a day.

OCSWA:  Will you be going to the premier?

RAYMOND:  The kids are sick so I'm staying home.  I really don't get too involved with that stuff anyway - I saw Kareem last week and we had a celebratory dinner.  It was enough for me.

OCSWA:  Any chance we could get you and Kareem to do a screening of the film down here and then perhaps a book signing?

RAYMOND:  Maybe.  Let me check and get back to you about it.

Can't wait!

"On The Shoulders Of Giants" premiers tonight in Hollywood and opens widely soon.  Look for it.

There's also more information on Raymond here when he was featured as an Orange County Screenwriter board member and there are also a few articles he's written for the website.  Search for his name and you'll find them. 

On a personal note, it is fitting that I should write this article about Raymond and his book because the shoulders of the giant I've stood for many years on are his.

Being a newbie screenwriter/ producer I've been in the funny/exciting/hell journey of trying to get my work greenlit. We're very close now, with the requisite director, Oscar nominated DP, acomplished rocker for the soundtrack and some minor starlets in talks to be attached... but these days it's not enough to have an exciting script, and talent attached. A new story that doesn't have a "brand" behind it is a huge risk. Today fear has it's grip over Hollywood like a Hobbit entering Mordor.

I've talked to many producers (some in good positions and some who lost their footing) and all agree. It's not the emerald city it once used to be. "If you're over 45 they won't listen to you, and if you are you better be bringing some cash". Case in point If Christopher Nolan haven't hit the it out of the ballpark with both Batman movies INCEPTION might have never seen the light of day. The concept was Nolans original screenplay from ten years ago (yeah that long). Many say the studio did it because they needed him for batmovie # 3. When the movie got going the industry mantra was "they' doing him a favor" - when it was screened they said - " Too smart for room, people won't get it" and when it was a runnaway hit the comment was "It was great but you can never tell"... But what really is scary is that Hollywood is downplaying Inception's success because its too risky. They don't want to be sweating bullets like when Inception opened months ago. They don't like it and they don't want it. Just imagine if Avatar would have failed 200 million and all -- Blood would have been on the streets.

So what have they learned? That it was a one time chance and being the fact that it is they're going back to business as usual with remake # 4 of the prequel from the idea from a comic book that was based on a toy. Look at what's ahead this summer of 2011:  a sequel to 2 sequels based on a park ride,  a prequel to a sequel that was based on a comic book, 4 comic book inspired movies and a 5th instalment of a franchise that really nobody asked for... but why is Hollywood is doing this? Because if it sold before it can be sold again and if doesn't work the executives can't be blamed since it was working before. The next batch of movies in production are a "Mousetrap" movie (based on the board game) an "Magic 8 Ball" movie based on the toy and "Stretch Armstrong" movie again based on the toy. Believe me folks, I wish I was making the stretch Armstrong thing up!

So how did it come to this? I was asking and researching and when my producer told me that my original script was OK but he could never sell it... but if I turned it into a "YOUNGER" version of my character and put teen oriented action in it he could... and I did and that is why yours truely is eating with an oscar nominated director of photography and a rockstar at some avant asian fusion restaurant in Abbot Kinney.  Turns out the only people going to movies these days are males 25 and younger. So Hollywood makes movies for young males 25 and under period! Raunchy comedies, dumb action flicks, giant robots with urinating problems, blah, blah. And they eat it all up ticket after ticket. So should we blame the marketers that run Hollywood or the executives who put the OK? - Why should we? They're just like us desperately trying to keep their $2,000 a month leased Mercedes and model/actress mistresses. Like everyone in America today they don't want to loose their jobs! especially because they greenlit a interesting story about the depression of an American Senator, that nobody went to see ( because problems of a older rich guy don't concern young males under 25). But you say what about DVD sales? Netflix, cable, T.V. sales? They're not as great as you might suggest. 

And the funny thing is we're ALL culprits here. We say ah it's too expensive, or we'll wait for the DVD and/or now redbox (who is also killing movie profits) and it's a slipery slope! I'm in my mid 30's and I've seen every "old person" movie this Christmas season to see some interesting movies but also to help the box office because it's like WWII out there - If we don't do our part the enemy will win. And the enemy is Hollywood's fear of new or good stories. One Studio head said a sad truth some years ago "We don't tell stories anymore we just sell products"...  but it's what's keeping them employed.

So next time when you complain that Hollywood doesn't want your "spec" script or isn't making any "good" movies anymore, think back and ask yourself how many of those movies you went to the theaters to see and soon you'll be thinking...  you have nobody but yourself to blame.

I'm on my soapbox here because I'm getting screwed by yet another set of "friends" who have used my connections and abilities to create opportunities that exclude me.  They owe me, and they are not even recognizing my role in their good fortune!

Boo-hoo-hoo.  Cry me a river, as the song goes...

Hollywood sucks.  Or maybe it doesn't.  It's all about perspective and expectations - two concepts that normally kill our unrealistic desires to pursue anything let alone a film career, through self-inflicted  wounds.  I see it a lot with students and friends who batter themselves against the walls of business-as-usual in the land of LA-LA.

Because film is considered art many confuse how and why it gets made.   First and foremost, if you remember nothing else about show business it is that the word 'business' isn't an after-thought - it is the noun and the word "show" is the modifier.  Making a film costs money - lots of money - money you do not have and probably can't get yourself working parttime at Carl's Jr while you're writing that perfect script, or framing that perfect shot in your head.  So the business part comes in - hard.  Who, besides some amorphous government grant program, do you think is going to give you that money for free?  All right, so you know this, right?  You get it - someone hipped you to this a long time ago so shut up already, you're thinking.

What you don't get is that the pursuit of those sources of money is like ten-thousand starving and thirsty men and women in a race for a dinner table.  To even get close, you have to kill the competition for that meal or you won't get any.  And if you think sharing is a good idea then you've fully grasped the amazing line in "The Fly" where Jeff Goldlbum asks Gena Davis if she's ever heard of "insect politics."  She shakes her head because there is no such thing - insects eat and procreate and that's pretty much it.  Welcome to Hollywood, the subtext should say.

At any point of opportunity in this business, you're not thinking with a rational part of your brain - you're just thinking - wait, strike that - you're not thinking, not really.  You are just reacting and hoping that you don't slobber too much while you consume something you've wanted and worked for for years.

So, you get that too - you know it's competitive - you've been to the classes and seminars and heard the spiel.  But let's take it one step further - to the real world when you've reached that point where you've done everything, tried everything, worked endless hours and been a really good person to everyone and all - and you're still not getting to even sniff the meal let alone eat or drink any of it.  This is where the rubber hits the road or your chin hits the asphalt as someone else's rubber meets the road they drive away from you.

Let's run some scenarios:

SCENARIO 1: You're in a meeting that you barely managed to arrange and all your ideas have fallen as flat as an aging stripper's boobs.  You're about to be ushered back out to the lava flow where you'll be swept downstream. Suddenly, you remember your friend's great idea about a script he told you that morning and without knowing it you're pouring it out to the producer who LOVES IT!  Now what?  Do you tell your friend and take a chance he won't let you have the idea or work with you on it?  

Or do you just figure out a way to keep it yourself?  

Don't pretend to know the answer until you are there in that office.  Remember, you're a starving man or woman who is finally able to sit at the big table where the adults eat - and they like you - they really, really like you.

SCENARIO 2:  You meet a producer with bigtime connections through a friend who worked his ass off to get to that producer.  You pitch him - of course you do - who doesn't in this business (there's that word again) and he LOVES IT!  Now, do you also say to this Hollywood dude that your friend should be part of any deal you make?  Of course not.  It ain't his deal, is it?  Maybe he had something to do with shaping the idea and he did intro you but it's your idea.  The friend may have made the connection but you made the LOVE connection.  Sorta like dating a girl that your buddy is in lust with but she's digging your chili instead so you hit that one night and blame the peach brandy.  Now you need to deal with the consequences  - but you did get a little something-something and that makes it worthwhile.

SCENARIO 3:  You write a script for a friend who wants to be a independent producer and it's a really great script.  Action-packed, high-concept and all that jazz.  Another producer (a bigger one) hears about the script and wants to buy it for a lot of money.  But you've promised it to your friend - pinky swear.  You shook hands or hugged - real stuff in the world of normal people - but unless it's down on paper and been vetted by ten attorneys it is not real in Hollywood.  And even then it's subject to arbitration.  So you do what?  Sell the script and ask your friend to understand?  Or just pretend that you had a conversation that you never had?  "Dude, I told you unless you were going to move on this I was going to sell it."  "No, you didn't."  "Yes, I f*ing did!  Go to hell!"  And you walk out, head to the 10 freeway, and drive right to Big Producers' office for that story meeting, faking  righteous indignation all the way.

SCENARIO 4:  Someone takes your work, makes some money off it and never tells you about it.  You find out about it but you're understanding - hey, she needed the money.  And it didn't really get sold - just some option money which is only a few thousand dollars (that you could have really used.)  And, like, she really needed the money - so you let it go.  Again.

SCENARIO 5:  Producer to Enthusiastic Writer: I promise <fill in the blanks> so just write this and write that and do this (for free) and when we sell it we'll both be rich. And the check is in the mail, and I love you, and I promise not to c*m in your mouth. (from "To Live And Die In L.A.")

Of course,. you end up with nada but you did it because either they were a friend (or so you thought) and because, of course, you were hungry enough to believe that something good might come of it.  "Nothing ventured, nothing gained" so the saying goes - which is true.  But it's you who venture and you who gain nothing - the producer puts in what?  Semi-good intentions?  Pretty much that's it - they venture nothing and they stand to gain a lot and here's the key, Young Skywalker - they do this simultaneously with a bunch of writers because we're stupid enough to believe we're their favorite and only writer and never question stuff like that.

I've been on the losing end of all these scenarios or combinations of them many times.  Harsh, you think.  Yeah, it is.  It's also what I asked for because I wanted to be in this business.  "There are no victims, just volunteers" one friend told me.  Another said "Well who told you you had to be in this business."  Another said, "Business is business and love is bullshit!"  (Damn, I really wish my mom would lighten up sometimes.)

Yeah, I've got some hard-assed friends who make perfectly valid points.  I either get tough or get out because that's the way this "business" of film is - it's eat your babies, your friend's babies, and then look around for strollers and sippy cups at the park for more.

That's not to say that I haven't met some really decent, honorable people on this journey.  My friend C comes to mind immediately and some of the people who I've met through the Orange County Screenwriters Association.  I won't mention names because I don't want to have to change this article when they screw me (kidding, I kid!)  But, as decent as they are, they've exhibited at times those same traits as the producers and other writers I've met.  

And really, what does anyone owe me?  Do bankers expect other bankers not to try to get clients - each others' client's in fact?  Does a stockbroker worry much about the fact that when he makes a sh*tload of money, he's probably killing someone else's portfolio?  Does even Christo, that artist dude who drapes everything (someone needs to get him some serious therapy) worry about the tens of thousands of insect and animal lives he's destroying when he covers a rainforest with pink silk charmeuse?  

So you seriously think art of any kind is a pretty business?

It can't be this bad, you're thinking.  It can't be this cutthroat.  It simply cannot be this horrifyingly competitive....

Yeah, you're right.  It can't be...

And -

I love you.   The check's in the mail.   I won't c*m in your mouth.

Yes, Matthew Perry is still very funny in case you're wondering.  I was - that's why I tuned into "Mr. Sunshine." How would the schtick from "Friends" and a few uneven movies travel?  Well, it seems.  It does and he is still a very compelling character actor who always seems on the verge  of either a nervous breakdown or a smart-assed quip with a face that is as comedically expressive as any actor working today.  

Premise:  a manager of a large-venue sports arena has to cope with his advancing middle-age, his insane (and very funny) boss, and various oddities of people, places and things - like roving elephants and a posse of clowns.

The pilot wasn't laugh aloud funny but it was clever in parts, fast-paced, and never had me wondering what else was on my Tivo.  Perry is listed as a multi-slash on this one (writer/producer/etc.) and it did seem to posses some of his fey sense of humor.  Which is why it works and why it won't probably won't last.

Comedies like this - oddball, arrhythmic, and tonally unique aren't normally on ABC but rather usually run on Fox for 13 episodes and then you're left wondering what happened to it after it's canceled and why there can't be a channel dedicated to just these types of shows - or maybe now IFC is that channel.

So once this show is given the hook The Slash can trot it over to IFC where it probably truly belongs with reruns of "Freaks and Geeks" and new offerings "Onion News Network" and "Portlandia" - two very funny shows that don't seem to fit anywhere else.

Allison Janney plays Perry's boss - a woman who composes songs that start "Hello, all you black kids..." or words to that effect and arranges to give herself a trophy while promoting child issues.  "Why do I like kids so much," she muses to the assembled.  "Maybe it's because I never had any."  This while her son (the very funny Nate Torrance) is sitting in the audience with burned hands from his recent disastrous kitchen experience rolling meatballs.

Janney can do physical comedy too.  When some clowns, who Perry enlists to chop up the ice in the arena that won't melt, come through the door during the award ceremony, Janney grabs a kid and uses him like a shield (and club) to thwart the threat - see, she is afraid of clowns (who isn't?) and these clowns have ice axes.  Janney is really fantastic in the role - her "West Wing" days long behind her, this is perhaps the best I've seen her since.

There are other, various actors to be enjoyed, including James Lesure, Portia Doubleday, and Andrea Anders - don't worry, you'll probably know them when you see them even if you don't recognize their names.  There's also a quick and funny turn by Jorge Garcia (the heavy dude from "Lost") who plays a maintenance man - not sure if he's a regular or not.

A weakness of the show is the lack of characters beyond Perry and Janney who are funny or odd.  "Friends" had six talented comedic actors - "Modern Family" is chock-a-block with genius characters and actors.  This show, so far, only showcases two.  Pushing the other characters harder could certainly elevate the episodes every week.

ABC is banging the show hard - the pilot was slotted in right after "Modern Family" - still the funniest show out there.  So, I'm gonna watch it for as long as it lasts.  And I'll certainly enjoy it again when it shows up on IFC in reruns soon. 

We don't normally allow ads but this is industry related.  Victor Phan is a board member and an amazing filmmaker.  This is a great idea for those who have scripts that would be easier digested as a comic.  

The Wachowski Brothers famously turned the script of "The Matrix" into a comic book to make it easier for producers to understand it.  And they sold it.  So check it.

~~~

At Torture Chamber Productions, our core business revolves around creating comic books from original screenplays for producers or screenwriters to either use as marketing tools to shop around to financiers/production companies, or to sell to publishers/distributors for their own financial gain.  

Our team is made up of enthusiastic pencilers, inkers, colorists, and letterers whom turn out a quality product keeping your budget in mind.  We are equipped to do short comics, full 22-page comics, and entire graphic novels, in black-and-white or in full color, whatever your budget allows.  

We are proud of the comic books we have created for our clients and believe they act as the perfect middle ground between screenplay to completed film.  

Please check out our work at www.torturechamberproductions.com or contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

PBS, an occasional target of political groups for the perception of bias, is perhaps one of our greatest national and cultural treasures.  The original programming like "Nature," "Nova," "Frontline," and even "Antiques Roadshow" fills the airwaves with intelligent, articulate television fare.

The "Pioneers of Television" is the latest contribution to that pantheon of broadcast goodness.

Following another PBS' hit series  "The Pioneers of Primetime" in 2005, this series focuses on the big genres that made up television in the 50's, 60's and 70's and shaped the landscape of broadcast TV forever by stumbling upon the formats what would become our evening's standard fare.  Although television has exploded out of the Big Three network formats, sitcoms like "Modern Family" and speculative dramas like "X-Files" still owe much to those intrepid entertainment explorers who created shows that are now bespoken of as legendary. 

The 1st episode which dealt with science fiction shows like "Star Trek," "Lost In Space," "Twilight Zone" and others details the path to becoming almost folkloric in nature.  It talks of the behind-the-scenes pressures and creative angst that propelled men like Gene Roddenberry ("Star Trek") to want to escape into outer space to be able to tell his tales of morality that "normal" dramas wouldn't touch.  Frustrated by the lack of network support for shows he had created previously, Roddenberry looked to the stars to deal with such hot button topics as prejudice, sexuality, and the arms race at a time when none of these issues were being discussed on the airwaves by entertainment entities.

The format of the episodes is standard and straightforward - a narrator brings a storyline to the fore interspersed with interviews from the actual stars of these shows and clips from the original programming with behind-the-scenes stills peppering the visuals.

The 2nd episode delves into the westerns that once dominated the primetime television airwaves.  

Shows like "Big Valley," "Bonanza," "High Chaparral" and "Maverick" are examined and dissected, while not in great detail certainly deeply enough to give you a sense of what drove them and the men and women who created them.

Many of us who hadn't seen these shows in first run can begin to better to understand the culture of the time that shaped these shows and appreciate the present day given the perspective of those who came before.  

For example, "Davy Crockett," which became an instant and huge hit for Disney, made enough money for Walt's still-young company to enable him to build Disneyland;  "High Chaparral" features an ahead-of-his time Mexican character in a lead role who wasn't a taco-based cliche and also a strong, independent woman (Barbara Stanwyck) in charge of a huge ranch; the odd-ball and the schlocky "Lost In Space" chosen by CBS-TV instead of "Star Trek" made Irwin Allen the biggest television producer of the time challenging what was possible in terms of TV success 

There is also a wonderful story of how William Shatner forced fearful producers to use TV's first interracial kiss (between Kirk and Uhura) in the 1968 Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren" by just crossing his eyes.  

And as mentioned, there are interesting tales about  Roddenberry's quest to show material that reflected the shifting culture of the nascent civil rights movement by using the Starship Enterprise as a metaphoric model.  It's no accident that the bridge of the Enterprise featured white men and black women (the first time that a black woman was given such a major role,) aliens and humans, and Russians, Asians, and Scots.  Or that Kirk tried to negotiate first and shoot only when negotiations proved untenable.  Roddenberry's Universe was more benign than the space fare that had come before because mankind, in the 23rd Century, was considerably more enlightened.

Watching this series bring into close focus that television did much more than reflect the times - it, in some measure, created them. It seems silly to talk about an "interracial kiss" in today's world but once-upon-a-time it was not done on television - at all.  Some of the point of watching this show is to remind us of what was and what wasn't until these trailblazers put their imprimatur on the television of the time and actually changed the status quo.

Nearly 100 silver age stars will be interviewed by the time the series is finished, most in HD, with many of the clips remastered in HD.

Anyone with any interest in the incredibly creative and frustrating medium of television will find a lot of very interesting and valuable material here. 

Check the website for complete programming information.  Future episodes will include:

"Crime Dramas" - Air Date Tuesday, 02/02/11

Pioneers of TV crime dramas, including Jack Webb ("Dragnet"), Desi Arnaz ("The Untouchables"), Bruce Geller ("Mannix" and "Mission: Impossible"), Bill Cosby, Angie Dickinson, Barbara Bain, Martin Landau and James Garner.

“Late Night” – Air Date 02/15/11

The stories of Steve Allen, Jack Paar and Johnny Carson headline this episode about the formative years of late-night television. Merv Griffin also emerges as a key player on the late-night scene. (His interview for Pioneers was his last before he died.) Regis Philbin offers revelations about his years as a late-night sidekick (to Joey Bishop). Dick Cavett and Arsenio Hall also discuss their years in the mix, and Sigourney Weaver offers personal details about her father, Pat — the creator of “Tonight.” The episode is peppered with dozens of never-before-seen clips, including Johnny Carson performing in his early 20s.

“Sitcoms” – Air Date 02/22/11

This episode focuses on five key sitcoms: “I Love Lucy,” “The Honeymooners,” “Make Room for Daddy,” “The Andy Griffith Show” and “The Dick Van Dyke Show.” The last remaining Honeymooner, Joyce Randolph, offers surprising insights into the mind of Jackie Gleason. Similarly, Marlo Thomas speaks candidly about her father, Danny. Andy Griffith offers forceful opinions about the people and techniques that made his show work. In a rare occurrence, both Mary Tyler Moore and Dick Van Dyke recount their years on “The Dick Van Dyke Show.” Hundreds of episodes were culled for the most entertaining clips — including one particularly side-splitting bit by Don Knotts.


“Variety” – 

This episode begins with Ed Sullivan’s “Toast of the Town” and Milton Berle’s “Texaco Star Theater” and progresses through “The Carol Burnett Show,” “Smothers Brothers” and “Laugh-In,” among others. Tim Conway and Jonathan Winters tell hilarious stories about their variety show years. Conversely, Pat Boone offers chilling insight into early TV’s unspoken racism, and Tommy Smothers details the compelling behind-the-scenes story of his landmark show. Tony Orlando wraps up the era with especially insightful comments about the genre. The episode includes fresh bites from Pioneers’ earlier interviews with Milton Berle, Red Skelton and Sid Caesar. There’s no shortage of great clips for this episode; standouts include Flip Wilson in a hilarious turn as Geraldine.

“Game Shows” –

This episode traces one of broadcasting’s strongest genres — from its beginnings in radio through its heyday in the late 60s. Bob Barker talks about his earliest work, and Merv Griffin details his creation of “Wheel of Fortune” and “Jeopardy.” Monty Hall recounts his compelling rags-to-riches story, and Betty White remembers her role as the first female emcee. Clips for this episode are wide-ranging and include Phyllis Diller’s very first TV appearance — as a painfully shy contestant on Groucho Marx’s “You Bet Your Life."
 

Did you think Ricky Gervais was mean in his delivery on the recent Golden Globe Awards?  Trust me, Gervais was a Jonas Brother compared to the Onion News Network.

Having been a long-time fan of The Onion, I hoped for the best and was amply rewarded with the Onion's long-standing tradition of absurd and incisive satire deftly in play here.

Clearly aiming to lampoon CNN, MSNBC and FOXNews and their continuing race downward to journalistic vacuousness and stunning reportage stupidity, ONN puts big news on trial, finds them guilty and then executes them with the mercy of a ravenous praying mantid.

The anchor in charge of  "The Fact Zone," Brooke Alvarez, is played to blond-coiffed perfection by Suzanne Sena who was actually a former Fox News Channel anchor.  Her deliberate condescension and constant dismissal of everything on which she is reporting on merges with her pitch-perfect, self-absorbed delivery.  

She flatout looks, dresses and sounds like one of these beauty-queen anchors and that makes the ridiculousness of what's she saying even more insanely funny.

ONN doesn't hit (yet) specific political targets like John Stewart and Steven Colbert do on their satirical shows but rather keeps to generically-generated topics like:

• A young, white teen who stabs another white teen is told by the judge that she will tried as a black man.  She subsequently is killed by white supremacists who shout "that's what you get for killing a white girl."
• The history of the handjob and the man who "invented" it.
• A recognition that one of the ONN correspondents took 2nd place in the "Touch Screen Awards" (because he superciliously uses one to show the most vacuous material just like they do on the big new networks.)
• A report on an attractive correspondent who has been kidnapped by terrorists - and both ONN anchors are horrified that her hair is "so flat."  They even draw a diagram to show the flatness.
• A report on an FDA Official who tells America to "Just Eat A Goddamn Vegetable.

The show reminds me of the best of the crazed comedy writers from the groundbreaking "National Lampoon" magazine who displayed a cover where they were going to kill a dog if you didn't buy a magazine, and the fact that if you hold a hamster upside down by its legs, its eyes fall out; and that if you fart, burp, and sneeze at the same time, you die.

The humor is also somewhat reminiscent of  the brilliant and ahead-of-its- time madmen at The Firesign Theater.  (Oh yeah - and "The Onion.")

Profane, insane and at times inane.   The Onion News Network went right to a Season Pass on my Tivo and will stay there are long as they continue to deliver such wacky and wicked comedy.

Fridays at 10/9c IFC Channel

~~~

And now for something completely different...

"Portlandia"  I did not expect to really like - the teasers looked flat and somewhat masturbatory.  Fred Arminsen is certainly a funny man and quite creative. Some of his SNL skits are terrifically funny (I love the testosterone-driven, clueless producer who steps in for the female therapist on her talk show) - but not everything hits with accuracy.  He fails more than succeeds but when he succeeds, he does it large.

"Portlandia" certainly could be one of those massive successes.  If you like wacky, and at times weird, understated sketch comedy

Arminsen, and his partner on the show, vocalist/guitarist Carrie Brownstein (Sleater-Kinney,) act out the most outrageous and goofy portrayals of people of Portland where, as it's mentioned in the pilot. the silly, slacker 90's still live.  A place where you can still want to do nothing except eat organic tofu and ride a bicycle to work.

Sketch comedy is usually uneven and this is no exception.  But in the finest tradition of the classic "SCTV" the sketches almost always at least amuse and do cause chuckles and a few real guffaws of joy.  

Arminsen is nothing if not comedically watchable with his plastic face and infectious, slapstick enthusiasm for his characters; and Brownstein plays her roles with a personal truth that is hard to imagine given how different they all are.  In other words, she's a damned good comedic actress - and fun to watch.

In perhaps the funniest sketch of the show, producer/director/actor and HBO rising star Steve Buscemi ("Boardwalk Empire") plays a frustrated customer who only wants to use the bathroom in a shop that sells - hell, I'm not really sure - but the results are fun-ny as the dimwitted, unaware clerks continually unconsciously thwart him even as they indict him for his sexist and unenlightened attitude.

In another, continuing sketch, Arminsen and Brownstein visit a cultish organic farm before they order a chicken dish to make sure the chicken had a lovely life before it was put on the menu.  

The show is (so far) six-episodes and certainly funny and absurd enough to keep me wanting to see them all.

Imagine, perhaps, if you had been able to see "Fawlty Towers" first run.  That's the kind of show this could become given the promise of the first episode.

Jonathan Krisel also is listed as one of the creators.  Even at a fairly  young age, Krisel has a ton of great comedy cred including SNL and some of their digital shorts.

Upcoming, this is from the IFC website:
An assortment of guest stars inhabit PORTLANDIA, including Kyle MacLachlan (Twin Peaks, Sex & The City), Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation), Selma Blair (Legally Blonde, Hellboy), Heather Graham (The Hangover), Edie McClurg (Ferris Bueller's Day Off), Kumail Nanjiani (Michael & Michael Have Issues), Jason Sudeikis (SNL, The Cleveland Show), and Gus Van Sant (Milk). Singer/songwriter Aimee Mann also guest stars, alongside James Mercer (The Shins), and local Portland musicians Jenny Conlee and Colin Meloy (The Decemberists) and Corin Tucker (Sleater-Kinney).
 

Fridays, 10:30/9:30c IFC Channel

If you're in the City of Angels and you walk down any street, chances are you're near the site of a previous crime scene.  

If you're walking with crime author James Ellroy, he could certainly tell you the specifics of those crime scenes in gruesome detail. This is the premise of Ellroy's new weekly show.

But James Ellroy's L.A.: City of Demons should be called City of My Demons because the city has shaped Ellroy in every way imaginable.  The first episode of his new ID Network show makes that clear in abundant fashion.

If you're an Ellroy fan/follower you certainly know about his obsession with the Black Dahlia case which formed one of the novels of his L.A. crime quadrilogy.  And since the 1st episode of this series is called Dead Women Own Me you sorta know what you're gonna get.  

The horrifying, beyond-brutal death of Elizabeth Short, a beautiful L.A. party girl in 1947 captured young Ellroy's mind when he was given a book by his father written by Jack Web of early T.V.'s Dragnet fame. Ellroy says that he linked Short with the murder of his own mother, Jean Hilliker, who was found strangled and possible sexually assaulted when Ellroy was 10-yrs-old.  Several of Ellroy's recent books mention this linkage in one form or another including his latest, The Hilliker Curse.

Always painfully honest and with this seemingly obsessive need for self-confession, possibly to exorcise the demons who are his constant companion, Ellroy talks endlessly about his love and lust for his lost mother and the unhealthy link to Elizabeth Short.   So two of the three cases in the 1st episode have some nearly direct connection to Ellroy's life and interior world.

But it's the third case discussed on the episode, the case of 16-yr-old Stephanie Gorman, a promising young actress, who was raped and murdered in 1965 that brings the idea of Ellroy linking crimes that take place here in L.A. with his own world into sharp focus.

Ellroy sees a clear parallel with this young girl's murder and the 2009 murder of Lily Burke, the 17-year-old daughter of two of Ellroy's friends.  Whether for the show's purposes, purposes of a literary nature, or as a true (if bizarre) linkage in his mind, you begin to see that murder in Los Angeles, especially murder of the sexual kind, holds a deep and abiding meaning for Ellroy.  It's almost as if he believes that there is a true demonic presence in the city that transcends time and to which he is intimately connected, perhaps even feeding from, for his prose.

Three stories, three personal tales in this first episode.  Compelling?  Certainly at times, especially if you were being exposed to Ellroy for the first time.  His affected delivery of the prose narrative he certainly must have written for the show, the intense but flat nature of his dead-eyed delivery, and the stories and details of those stories are certain to evoke some sort of visceral response. But if you had prior knowledge of any of the cases that Ellroy discussed, the first episode was perhaps a bit of a disappointment because it covered no really new ground.

Ellroy is Ellroy is Ellroy.  Whether listening to him at a talk (link), reading his prose or watching him on television, you're gonna get Ellroy.  He's not an actor; he has no pretense or artiface.  You like him or you don't.  I don't know what I expected but I didn't expect the show's 1st ep to be so close to him.  Understanding a little of who Ellroy is, I should not have expected anything different.  His ex-wife and a bizarre, animated dog of his named Barko (which is now deceased) take up some of the screen time.  Personal indeed.

I'm not saying any this is good or bad - just that it is Ellroy with all his warts and pimples.  Are people ready to have this man and his amazing crime vocabulary derived of years of obsessive study delivered into their living rooms?  We will certainly find out as the series unfolds.

I'm curious to see what the 2nd episode will involve.  How many crimes will Ellroy be able to link to himself?  Or will that even be part of the show going forward?  I hope they break that linkage and just deliver some of this material straight up with only a bit of an Ellroy chaser.  I'm not sure the show benefits from that much of the intensely personal, confessional-style narrative - and the dog he can lose anytime without, I suspect, anyone missing it much.

From a Discovery statement by Ellroy: "Crime is a palpitatingly perennial gas - and L.A. crime is the craaaazy creme-de-la-crime," Ellroy states. "Viewers are terribly tired of the trailer trash tragedies that caustically contaminate documentary TV. They wantonly want to groove, grok, gravitate and glide toward glamorous crime - and L.A. is where all that shimmering sh...stuff...pervertedly percolates. This show will be serious, satirical and great fun."

So far, that's pretty much right.

JAMES ELLROY'S LA: CITY OF DEMONS is on Wednesdays at 10 PM (ET) on Investigation Discovery.  

"I've come to hire you, Marshall Cogburn, because people say you have true grit" - Mattie Ross.

Very few lines in a movie contains so much of what we movie goers come to expect when seeing a movie and in TRUE GRIT the expectations are well met.

Westerns are the fading genre,  hopeful stories of redemption and good vs. evil that capture in essence what is the real America (or United States for the rest of the world). Forget the economy, Obama and tea parties. These people are what started and made America great. Those rugged pioneers that traversed the wilds of indian infested frontiers in tarp covered wagons without Thera-flu to combat those hard winters or a Starbucks close by to contemplate on their existence. People forged by rough working conditions, hard liquor and guns. Yes, guns. Because without the firearms the west wouldn't have been "wild" at all.

Being able to survive these conditions made you tough, but also made you a self relying society destined for great things.

In those days your word and name was the only thing a man really had. Having "true grit" or unfaltering courage is what made you survive. But also is a lesson in values that many people have just forgotten these days because they don't need it anymore to live. The commitment to do something because it's right and not convenient is the whole notion of this film. One that the Coen brothers followed to the " t " in this remake. 

Now forget about the 1969 loved version with John Wayne. As great as the "dukes" performace was in that version this one guides itself closer to the book by Charles Portis. The Coen's get it right from almost every angle from staging, casting and tone. The Coen's have a long love affair with american culture and always do their stories right by historical and social commentary.

Where to start is very confusing because all parts that make this movie are equally good. But I would like to make our jump first into the visual. Cinematography makes or breaks a film. Period. You can have the greatest actors and script in the world but if the images you see don't mesh with the tone or the feel you've lost already. The scenery in this movie just does the simple thing of telling the story. You see the town - rough and busy and when you go into the unknown, in this case the indian infested territories or as known in screenwriting as "the underworld" you get a clear sense that you're not in Kansas anymore. The terrain you see is as cold and rough as the story it is telling. Brilliant work done here.

Now the choice of Jeff Bridges as Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn is good casting. You can appreciate his complete physical transformation. One look at this guy and you don't want him mad or offended or even drunk when crossing him (which he's always two of the three). Bridges portrayal of Cogburn is done in the right measure of experienced lawman, nostalgic crusader and all around loud mouth. His love for the bottle also makes one think that his glory days are forever gone, something we recognize at the end as just another ruse by the "rooster".

Another remarkable acting job is for newcomer Hailee Steinfield who plays the young Maddie Ross the girl that hires Cogburn to track down Cheney, the killer of her father. The performance is tuned in just rightly so that, in the hands of less experienced directors,  would had come off as a just a pesky brat. Also Matt Damon as Labeouf the Texas ranger that helps our heros and Josh Brolin as the outlaw Chaney do their part in supporting the movie. I might contest that the weakest link here is Brolin. Not that he did a bad job but just didn't come off as the menacing type you would think, maybe it was his intention but who knows. Also props to the rest of the cast who all in small and fun ways gave a great texture of western archetypes that well reflected society in those days. Not one drop of bad casting here... I tip my stetson to that.

The script keeps the pace well rounded and although if you've seen the pages of the shooting script some dialogue seemed a bit long at first glance, but it was very well delivered by the actors and again well paced by the directors. For those of the school of less dialogue is better go ahead, but in my opinion, where dialogue should be the length it needs to be to give the right idea or premise it works well here and again if done right doesn't bog down a film.

For everyone who laments the "newer" movies being made with cheesy special effects, lame cop comedies or absurd story lines TRUE GRIT is a little piece of "country" that gives faith to the movie making business today. I'm grateful studio execs didn't butcher this movie or requested a role for Justin Beiber and let an expirienced duo like the Coens do their thing. Hopefully after seeing this movie it might inspire all of us to tune into our own little pieces of "true grit" and maybe, just maybe make us become a little bit better.

What makes a show a hit?

“Modern Family,” “Sopranos,” “Rescue Me,” “Law and Order (all versions),” “L.A. Law,” “West Wing,” “Friends” - what do all these shows have in common - besides being legendary hits for their respective networks?

Let’s use the example of a new hit - “Glee” to walk through some common factors.

“Glee,” the show about the ebb and flow of high school set against a glee club, is in the middle of its 2nd season. I’m late to the party so I’m just four eps into Season 2 but if Season 1 is any indication this show could last a long time before it loses its relevance

“Glee” started as a feature that was shopped around Hollywood for a few years. Created by Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchuk and Ian Brennan, various circumstances transformed it into a weekly series pilot.  It’s now a solid hit with the cast doing stage shows and iTunes and YouTube overrun with its imaginative covers of songs that range from the classic to the bizarre.

How?  Why does something go from promise to the nirvana of TV hit?  Let's examine some of the elements that in general make all successful shows the hits they become.

The Big Metaphor - "Glee" like most great series is a microcosmic reflection of society.  Set in little Lima, Ohio it shows how so-called "winners" and "losers" interact.  It tells of the stratification of the have's and have nots - except that the have nots have real value, depth and strength and haves aren't always in the exalted positions we perceive them to be.  The glee club is run by a nice-guy "failure" who is teaching glee rather than living his dream of being a Broadway performer. His enemy?  The uber successful, hard-nosed teacher of the cheerleaders.  Their personalities, styles and just about everything else clash to great metaphoric effect.  Metaphors of this type abound.  Television, even more than movies, reflect our world.  The solid hit series understand and take advantage of this. 

The “Conceit”  - All series have what I call the conceit - in other words, what is the world that this series presents, and the one thing this show does that others don’t?  What will this show ask you to accept? That there’s a psychopathic mobster in New Jersey who is in therapy, or that crimes are solved by cutting edge forensic science in 44 minutes each and every week?

The conceit, the “high concept” is in a word - musical performance, both song and dance. If you like musical theater or anything similar you have to love “Glee” which features at least 4-5 performances per episode. These are always meticulously and creatively arranged and choreographed numbers that might skew from 40's pop to 2k hits like “Telephone” by Lady Gaga.

An article I read said that an episode might take between 3-4 weeks to finish depending on the amount of musical production - that’s unheard of and part of the reason “Glee” works so well. The cast is asked not only to do compelling drama and hilarious comedy but also to knock us flat musically. And all of that happens each and every week. Quite an accomplishment and the one thing that separates this series from all others which is what any successful series has to do.

Terrific Writing  - This is a bit like the old Steve Martin routine "How To Be A Millionaire.  1st, get a million dollars."  Great writing.  Sure - just do that.  But in the case of “Glee” the creators drew both on personal experience and solid writing chops from other work to create a compelling hour of fun.  None of the three is a beginner and all have worked hard over many years honing their craft.  So yeah - great writing.  It's not accidental.

The pilot they wrote sold in record time after it was adapted from its feature-length incarnation. Fox saw great potential in the unique perspective the concept presented but the sly and clever writing also had a lot to do with the sale.  "Glee" like all great series, is filled with memorable lines and moments.  But it's filtered through a unique perspective.

“Freaks and Geeks” and others had similar polarized camps of high schoolers but I don’t remember any scene where the football players gathered outside the dumpster to play toss the geek into the trash. And before they do, the jocks accede to his wishes to take off his coat which is part of the new “Marc Jacobs collection" before they make him part of the morning garbage. Funny and sorta scary at the same time.

The characters fall into comfortable types but they have nuances and internal pain that elevate them to other than just stereotypes. They become almost archetypal in their quest for relevance. The football player who loves to sing (Cory Monteith); the talented and driven diva (Lea Michele) with two gay dads; the BBW songstress (Amber Riley) who hates taking a secondary role in the performances because she’s not rail-thin; the wheelchair-bound gleester (Kevin McHale) who wants nothing but to be able to dance. Nothing startling, perhaps, but all handled well and soundly with the more-than-occasional flash of brilliance.

Great Villains - All great productions, film or TV have great villains.  "Glee" has them in droves.  From the angry and lovestruck football coach to the insanely well-written and unique Sue Slyvester, the superstar coach of the "Cheerios" (the cheer squad who send their uniforms to Europe to be dry cleaned.)  Plenty of student villains too - in fact, they oft-times toss big gulp slushies on the gleek's faces and then also on the football players and cheerleaders who go over to the glee club.  Then there's Vocal Adrenalin, the supremely talented and snarky glee club from another school and of course, the internal demons that all the characters posses and the various students themselves who cause a never-ending supply of fear-driven angst.  

This preponderance of villains and villainy creates some of the most delicious conflict you've ever been exposed to.  Check out "Rescue Me" if you want anything close to what these writers squeeze out of every episode.

What really astounds me about this show is the ability of the creators to continually shift our allegiance from one villain to another. From one set of emotions about those villains to something totally different. How in the world do you end up liking someone as conniving and evil as Sue Sylvester played brilliantly by comedic actress Jane Lynch? How does the blatantly horrible and seemingly shallow head cheerleader (the gorgeous and talented Dianna Agron ) make us ultimately feel sorry for her? The tap dance (pun intended) that the writers do with these characters and the plot dynamics is truly remarkable.

Freshness - Probably the one thing I most admire about this series is the settings of the production numbers. Understanding that as terrific as the music and dancing can be, people will tune you out eventually if you don’t push the settings into different areas.

Besides the glee classroom, where there are instruments and a seemingly always ready band, and the school theater, the nature habitat of any performing group, the producers have set numbers in a wedding dress shop, a mall (with a real flash mob,) a football field during a game, the high school’s open-air quad (a really great season 2 opening number,) walking in the hallways, montages that shift from locale to locale with different verses and different people singing, various rooms in various homes, and dozens of other unique set pieces that keep the material fresh. This is an essential part of any successful piece of television or film writing since these mediums are visual mediums. Talking is important but seeing is essential.

Theme - without getting all ABC After School Special on us, “Glee” manages to deal with teen sex, teen pregnancy, betrayal, peer pressure, fear of failure, being gay and being geek, and so on. Each episode, while funny and at times poignant, is also teaching valuable lessons that no matter your age can hit you with relevance. The adults in the show have at least as many issues as the kids which shows us that pain and inadequacy don’t go away just because we graduate. And joy is indeed universal as we celebrate vicariously each of these characters’ successes.  

The songs are teamed to the theme but not in a such a way that you’d be put off by it. For example, an episode called Redemption featured a song by artist Vanilla Ice ( “Ice, Ice, Baby.”) One student quips that the song should be arrested for the crime of sucking. Another says “it’s whack.” The glee teacher, Will Shuester character ( Matthew Morrison) proves them wrong by performing it and getting them all involved in the number, and then tells them that the song got a “bad rap” for various reasons but it’s really a good song. Agree or disagree you’ve got to admire the courage of the writers to try. The entire episode was about getting street cred, good or bad, and surely Vanilla’s song would have never gotten the good kind - until Mr. Shue danced it out for them and the song was redeemed. All right, so the song still kinda sucks but you get the idea.

A Willingness To Fail - All commercial success share a common thread - they suck at times too. Not that “Glee” fails much but when it does, it does greatly. And when it succeeds it does so because of the failures not despite them.

The song “The Thong Song” put into an episode about mashups wasn’t a high point. And although a subsequent number set in the dress shop was fine most of the time, there was some truly unfortunate camera work that was cringe-worthy. Likewise, a number between Mr Shue and guest-gleek Neil Patrick Harris featured the song “Dream On” done like a vocal challenge - and yuck.

But listen to “Defying Gravity” or the cool little bathroom version of “Telephone” featuring glee star Rachael and the massively talented young and coming star Charice in a guest appearance and all is forgiven. Even the weird Britney Spears ep, which took some large chances, worked. Not so much the Olivia Newton John guest shot. But hey, at least they’re not recycling the same crap week after week. They try, they succeed and they fail. But the producers never stop trying to push the boundaries of their world and that’s a really good thing for any series.

Other factors -

1) Great series make stars of the cast.  "Glee" features some supremely talented Broadway performers and has created stars out of others like Chris Colfer and Amber Riley.  Newcomers like Brittany Pierce who was a side member (and a incredible professional dancer) have raised their "Q" status (she was made a regular in Season 2 because of her amazing deadpan delivery of funny one-liners.)   Until this show, a lot of the cast was unknown - no more.  They will all benefit from the exposure of the show.

2) Sex and sexiness sell.  It works here in great measure.  There are gorgeous men and women running around, some with very short skirts on (the fabulous cheerleaders) and others with bodies that won't quit.  It ain't bad to be pleased by the eye-candy while you're watching.

3)  Drama in the humor and humor in the drama.  Yep, you get the gamut of emotions in almost every ep of this show.  The best shows are fun and serious in equal measure.  The show creators know this and do it well.
 

In Conclusion

All television shows (if they last long enough) seem to eventually “jump the shark” - i.e. outlive their relevance. Some of them do stop before that happens, some go on a bit longer than they should, and some overstay their welcome by years.

 “Glee” is a joyful, fabulously entertaining hour of fun. The 1st season was nominated for nineteen Emmy Awards, four Golden Globe Awards, six Satellite Awards and fifty-seven other awards, with wins including the 2010 Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series - Musical or Comedy with Emmy awards for Jane Lynch, guest-star Neil Patrick Harris and Ryan Murphy's direction of the pilot episode. 

The second season has currently been nominated for five Golden Globes including Best Television Series in a Comedy and as well as nominations for Matthew Morrison, Jane Lynch, Lea Michele and Chris Colfer.)

There are clubs, "gleeks," live performances, MP3's of the songs and so on.

  Like all truly unique and ground-breaking series, there are many factors that go into its success. Some of which are easy to define and some which are not. There’s a magic to something that works this well - a cast/creators/crew melange of secret spices that produce a dish that you can’t get enough of at times. But, like all series, as mentioned, I do expect it to fail; for the creative energy to peter out. It’s inevitable - look at “West Wing,” “Sopranos,” “Friends,” etc.

Hopefully before then we’ll have enough seasons to be able to visit them fondly when they are no longer making them. “Glee” is already a wild success - anything beyond this is just gravy.