Monday Evening

I watched the debate about a half-hour behind real time. I kept thinking of another "safe" prediction I should have made; that even if one person clearly "won," it would not be such a rout that the other side couldn't claim victory. Anyone thinking tonight would knock one candidate clean out of the race was destined to be disappointed.

For whatever it's worth, I thought Trump did poorly, if only because he didn't show any positive side of him we all hadn't seen. If you thought he was a blustery racist-leaning demagogue who lies a lot, you probably just went, "Yep!" If you were on the fence about voting for the guy, I think you're less likely to leap over to his side.

Hillary seemed calm, unflappable and in command of the issues. I think she may have buried the idea that she doesn't have the stamina to do the job, especially since Trump was sniffing enough to start up Internet Speculation about a massive cocaine problem. There's no evidence of that of course but if it had been Hillary doing it, she'd be Cokehead Clinton on a thousand websites by now.

What this will do to the polls is anyone's guess. I can't see a lot of Trump supporters jumping ship, though some of them are probably mad that he didn't deliver on the Hillary-shredding they've long awaited. I just noticed this Tweet from Noah Rothman, who's the very Conservative editor of Commentary

Trump fans are attacking the moderator. Think everyone knows what that means.

And just as I typed that, I see Rudy Giuliani on my TV, saying Trump did great but the moderator was biased so Trump should skip the other two debates. He must've been promised a helluva job in the Trump Administration.

Today's Video Link

Here's an interview with Eric Idle and John Cleese from when they were touring Australia. This obviously was done before the announcement that their colleague Terry Jones is suffering from a form of dementia…

Monday Morning

I doubt anyone is coming to this site today just to read what I think is going to happen in tonight's first debate between Hillary Clinton and You-Know-Who.  If you are such a person, you're not going to find anything meaningful here and I doubt you'll find it anywhere.  I have two predictions….

  1. This will be the most-watched Presidential Debate ever.
  2. Anything else can happen.

This whole election has been one unprecedented occurrence after another.  Pundits can sit there and say, "Well, in eight of the last twelve debates, the candidate with the reddest tie has gained a 1.7% bump in the polls" but clearly when so much is happening that's never happened before, all bets are off.

Well, maybe I can eke out two more predictions…

  1. An awful lot of America is going to sit there, mimicking the facial expressions of opening night audience at Springtime for Hitler and thinking, "I can't believe anyone would vote for that person."
  2. An awful lot of America is going to sit there, mimicking the facial expressions of opening night audience at Springtime for Hitler and thinking, "I can't believe anyone would vote for either of those two people."

And I suppose there will be a lot about lying and fact-checking and who's tougher.  As I've said here, I think "talking tough" is a false value, especially since it's so often unconnected to doing anything in particular or actually being tough.  But a lot of folks out there don't care what a candidate says he or she will do.  They just want someone in the Oval Office they can pretend is Daddy or maybe even Mommy.

I'm not sure if I'll watch live or if I'll wait 'til it's over.  Sometimes, watching after makes it easier because it gives you a little emotional detachment.  You're not sitting there wondering if the stage will blow up within the next ten seconds.  Then again, you miss out on real-time Tweeting and blogging…and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.  I'll see how I feel.

I already know one thing about this election that's real depressing, which is that even if Trump loses, Trumpism ain't going away.  He'll get enough votes that his supporters will say, "We came close!  All we need next time is to find a guy with the same views who doesn't lie so blatantly and doesn't come across as quite as much of a misogynist." A few months ago, some of us could imagine an outcome where Hillary not only won but did so by a wide-enough margin that the saner Republicans could seize control of their party.  Now, it's getting harder to be confident of her winning at all.

Oh, I just thought of one more fairly-safe prediction…

  1. No matter who says what, after it's over (or even before it is), both sides will be out there saying their guy or gal won a smashing victory and totally humiliated their opponent.

Sometimes, I think that's the most depressing thing about these events — the fact that grown men and women will say anything in support of their candidate, hoping someone out there is stupid enough to believe it. There will be people out there lying about how the opposition candidate was lying. And then there will be lying about the lying about the lying…and lying about the lying about the lying about the lying about the lying…

Enjoy the show.

Rejection, Part 16

rejection

This is a series of articles I've written about writing, specifically about the problems faced by (a) the new writer who isn't selling enough work yet to make a living or (b) the older writer who isn't selling as much as they used to. To read other installments, click here.


Here's another column about writing on spec and why you shouldn't do that very often. Hey, what do you say we start with an excerpt from a message I received from a young writer who has very few credits, at least of the kind he hopes to amass? You may understand why he asked me to omit his name…

Your story about being asked to write a Popeye script on spec struck a note with me. Most of what I write these days is fan-oriented reporting for websites that as you might imagine do not pay well or at all and even if they did, that is not the kind of writing I hope to do. About eighteen months ago, I interviewed a producer of low-budget horror films and he happened to mention that he was securing the right to adapt a very famous horror novel into a movie. I was very familiar with the novel and couldn't resist hinting strongly to him that he ought to give me a crack at doing the screenplay.

He said that once he closed the deal for the book, the people financing this project would give him the money to hire a top screenwriter and he had several in mind. He told me it might be a month or two before that happened and told me that if I wanted to take a crack at a screenplay (on spec), he would certainly read it and if it was good enough, he would push for it to be used for the movie. This struck me as a great opportunity and I rushed home and went to work on it.

You would probably tell me I was crazy to do this but I figured it was my only chance to get a gig like this. If I'm going to break in to what I want to do, I'm going to have to take some gambles, right? If I waited until the contracts were all signed, one of those top screenwriters would be hired and I would be completely out of the running.

I spent the next month or so writing the screenplay and when I turned it in to him, he read it, told me he liked it and then you can probably guess what happened next. A few days later, he called to tell me he hadn't been able to make a deal for the rights to the novel so the whole thing was off.

Since I had this script I'd written, I tried contacting the agent for the novelist who wrote the book to see if there was anything there. I wrote to him several times at two different addresses and finally got back a note saying that they had not sold the book for a movie yet and if they did, the novelist was going to insist on doing the screenplay himself. He emphasized that they had not and would not read my script and he sort of threatened me that I should not be circulating it since I did not own the plot or characters.

I felt foolish but I do not think it was a total waste of my time for three reasons. One reason is that it was a good learning experience for me. I think I learned a lot about how to condense scenes and add action and especially how to cut a very long novel down to size for a screenplay. The other reason I don't think it was a total waste of my time is that —

Okay, this is m.e. again and I'm going to interrupt here and comment on the story so far. I won't tell you you're crazy but I will suggest you're kidding yourself if you thought you had a real shot at writing a movie this way. A tiny shot, maybe…and yes, I can understand that when you have no prospects, you may want to seize on a remote chance as better than nothing.

But this is probably a matter of wrongly assessing the odds. If it was like a one-in-four chance of getting hired, maybe it was a good gamble. I would tend to be more suspicious that the producer was likely to get the rights; not if it was going to take him a month or two to close the deal with sufficient finality that a "top screenwriter" (i.e., someone getting way more than Writers Guild scale) could be hired.

Not knowing the producer or much about him, I'm guesstimating from afar here but low-budget producers don't usually hire top screenwriters. Many low-budget producers are not even Writers Guild signatories and their access to top screenwriters is limited. So maybe all he told you was just talk and not much more. Or maybe he thought that if had a decent screenplay adapting the book, he could use that to help him get the rights, either by showing it to some financier who'd put up the necessary bucks or to whoever controlled the rights to the book.

By coaxing you to write a whole screenplay on spec, he was getting a lot of work for no money and zero risk. If he somehow did get the rights, he was off to a good start with no investment and no commitment to you. One of the reasons spec work is bad is because you're dealing with people who have nothing to lose when you spend weeks or months writing something for them.

They don't lose anything if they drop or lose the project. You were told, "Sorry, I couldn't get the rights" but you could also have been told, "Sorry, but I have another project that I've decided is better for me so I've dropped this one." Projects fall through or are abandoned all the time for all sorts of reasons but if you're guaranteed money, at least you're guaranteed money.

This also might have ended with him telling you, "I got the rights but the novelist is going to do the screenplay." There are just so many ways a situation like this can go wrong for the spec writer. Again, I'm guessing here but this one sure sounds to me like way worse than a hundred-to-one shot.

Your first reason — writing the script was a good learning experience — isn't totally wrong but it also would have been a good learning experience to take that time and write an original screenplay…something you could now show around more freely, something you might even be able to sell. And as a sample script to show agents or producers, an original would be way more impressive because it would show you could invent characters and situations, rather than merely repurpose someone else's.

Okay — enough about the first reason. Let's move on to the second…

The second reason I don't think it was a total waste of my time is that it gave me something to tell people I was doing. Instead of saying I'm writing articles for $35 for a website they never heard of, I could tell my friends and family I was writing a screenplay for a producer, based on a book they may have heard of. That was true for a month there. I didn't tell them the spec part but what I said was the absolute truth and I felt better because I didn't have to say I had no prospects to get an actual writing job.

Okay, m.e. again. I don't think this is a very good reason to waste weeks of your time. It may make you feel good now but what happens six months from now when all those folks ask you, "Hey, whatever happened to that screenplay you were hired to write based on that book?" You're probably going to have to fib a little and that won't feel great. At least, it shouldn't.

What will make you feel real good in a legit way is when you can tell them truthfully that you have a real writing job. Wasting time on a project that was never going to happen is just a way of delaying the moment you get a real writing job. Which brings us to your third and final reason…

My third and final reason is that the producer said he was going to read the script I wrote and he did and he liked it. Even if he never makes a movie of that book, he is going to produce other films and now he knows I am a good writer. I figure that can't hurt me.

No, but it may not help you. Again, I may be wrong about this producer I've never met but I would think most people in his position would tell you that what you gave them was wonderful, regardless of how they actually felt about it. What would he gain by telling you he thought it was lousy? You've already proven a willingness to do a lot of writing for no money and if he's a low-budget producer, he could probably use a writer like that…and I mean "use" in the negative sense.

Yeah, I'm being cynical here. He might have thought it showed real talent and the next time he needs to hire and actually pay a writer, he might think of you. This is not sarcasm because I recognize that a lot of things occur in Show Business that are neither logical nor predictable. Thousand-to-one shots do occur. That's one of the fun things about the industry. Good advice in this field is like playing Blackjack and being told never to split fives. That's the right thing to do most of the time but every so often, you do go against the odds and it works out for you.

And I could be wrong because you know this producer and I don't, and maybe you had a good feeling about him. But the guy encouraged you to spend weeks writing something for him which he knew he might not be able to use and for which you would not be paid. So color me skeptical.

As I've been saying here, one of the skills a writer needs to develop is the ability to know which "offers" might be real and which ones have little chance of actually happening. I did not have a lot of that skill when I was first starting out and while I'm certainly not infallible now, I'm better than I used to be. Part of that comes with some actual, paying experience as a writer. I am no longer desperate to make some sales (to establish that I get paid for what I write) or to get some credits (to establish that I am indeed a professional writer) and I've also been burned enough to know some of the warning signs.

When you're starting out, it's easy to yearn so mightily for success that you can convince yourself that almost any opportunity is the gateway. I can now look back on a number of things I wrote way back when and think, "You know, that had no chance of going anyplace, no matter how good a job I did on it." In some cases, the person who convinced me to write on spec was a grand, smooth talker who really believed that if he got a good script and talked enough other people into gambling, he could put it all together. But of course, we all had to work for no guaranteed pay because he either didn't have any money or if he did, he wasn't about to risk it on his own "sure thing."

You're absolutely right that a new writer has to gamble. So, at times, does an experienced one…but hopefully, the experienced one has learned something about how to separate the good gambles from the bad ones. If you'd written an original screenplay, you could shop it around to many places and many producers. By writing that adaptation, you pretty much put all your chips on one producer being able to make one deal…and then if he got the rights and got some financing, you'd then be gambling that he could get the other folks who'd then be involved to go with your script.

I'm not saying that never pays off. It sometimes does…but so does splitting fives in Blackjack. That doesn't make it the smart thing to do.

Evening, Squire!

terryjones01

We are all, of course, saddened by what we've heard about the health of Monty Python member Terry Jones. His colleague and writing partner Michael Palin posted a touching message about it to Facebook, complete with a recent photo taken by our pal Howard Johnson, whose own thoughts about the situation I linked to here. In case that link goes away, I'm going to quote part of what he wrote here…

Terry J has been my close friend and workmate for over fifty years. The progress of his dementia has been painful to watch and the news announced yesterday that he has a type of aphasia which is gradually depriving him of the ability to speak is about the cruellest thing that could befall someone to whom words, ideas, arguments, jokes and stories were once the stuff of life.

I've known people who went through approximately this…and for some whose value to the world and society lies in their ability to communicate, it can be even more painful than death. And I mean not just for them but for all those who care about them.

In the meantime, my pal Bob Claster has a lovely thought. Jones has written a several fine books for younger readers including the first two parts of a medieval adventure trilogy. They're not expensive and you might want to go order a copy of The Knight and the Squire or The Lady and the Squire…or better still, both. They're both out of print so those links take you to an Amazon page where you can find a good used copy of each for about four bucks.

terryjones02

But that's two out of three parts. What about the last one?

Turns out its publication is now being crowd-funded. As Bob wrote me, "They've still got a ways to go. It's a good opportunity to get a nice book, and perhaps give Terry the chance to see the publication of his trilogy completed." That would be a nice gift to a man who gave us all a lot of happy moments on the TV and movie screen. You can find out about it in the video below or go straight to the funding page here.

By the way: Bob Claster used to have a great radio show on which he interviewed just about everyone who ever mattered in comedy and was able to talk at the time. His website, which I've mentioned here before, is full of recordings from that show, including a fine one with Terry Jones.

WARNING: If you go over there, you're going to find a lot that you want to listen to and he's recently come across more recordings from his show and has been putting them up there…with more to come. You could spend an awful lot of time there, as I have.

The Meek Shall Inherit

Just a few years ago, a theater group called the Cupcake Theater opened up on Hollywood Boulevard in, a friend told me, a building that was obviously designed for anything except putting on plays. I never got there but I heard from many that the shows were great and the theater itself was dreadful. Happily, not all that long ago, they relocated to a much better performing space out in North Hollywood. It's on Magnolia right across from the TV Academy. Recently — ending today in fact — they had an acclaimed production of Avenue Q and I didn't get out there to see that, either.

Last evening, I did take in their newest production, which is the musical version of Little Shop of Horrors, a show I've experienced many times, including the first Los Angeles production with most of the original cast. The version Cupcake is offering through October 30 is very good — one of the best I've seen. The direction by Ezra Weisz is sharp with a clear understanding of what the play is about and where the laughs are, and the cast also seems well aware.

cupcaketheater01
Thomas Polk, David Callander and Rhonda Karson

Thomas Adoue Polk hit all the right notes, musical and emotional, for Seymour Krelbourn without descending as so many do into a stock nerd caricature. Rhonda Karson was lovely and vulnerable and funny as Audrey and she sang that character's key tune, "Somewhere That's Green," about as well as it can be sung. David Callander was quite amusing as Mr. Mushnick as was Matt Merchant as The Dentist. I hope Mr. Merchant is flattered that I couldn't watch him without thinking, "That's kinda what Dick Shawn in his prime would have done with this part." I wasn't familiar with any of the performers before but I'll bet someday, one or more are in something big that causes fans of that to Google their names and find this page.

A well-constructed, colorful Audrey II was expertly brought to life by Nathan Stephenson (puppetry) and Jökull Jónsson (voice).  And the three ubiquitous singers — Ronette, Crystal and Chiffon — were delightfully portrayed by three ladies with big voices and big command of the stage: Shayla Hudson-Williams, Desi Dennis-Dylan and Dominique Kent.  An actor named Adam Conn deserves special compliments for playing everyone else on stage, no matter how fast he had to change costumes to do it.

My only criticisms? The building needs a better sound system and someone needs to either dial the orchestra down a tad or dial the actors up two tads. But everything everyone did on stage was jes' fine.

Volume aside, the theater's producer and artistic director, Michael Pettenato has a great little operation going there.  He announced they're going to be doing Hairspray next and that oughta be well worth seeing.  Tickets for Little Shop can be procured here — and if you can't afford even those modest prices, seats are also sometimes available on Groupon.  But spend full price if you can because theaters like this one need as much financial support as you can give them.

I've always liked this show…and by the way, it's a fine gateway musical with which to introduce a child (one who's old enough to handle the campy bloodshed) to live theater. Glad to see it done right because I have seen it done wrong. Howard Ashman and Alan Menken did a lot of good things after this show put them on the map and Menken still does…but I don't think I like any of it as much as I like this show.

Afterwards, we weren't the only audience members who strolled across the street to an Italian restaurant called Spumante and sang "Feed me!" I had a terrific plate of Penne Bolognese and everyone in our party loved what they had, too. If you're anywhere near North Hollywood and looking for a good, not-expensive dinner/show combo, you couldn't do much better than this.

Today's Video Link

Hey, let's hear a little something about Carl Reiner from…well, how about from Carl Reiner?

Coming Attractions

Tomorrow on this page: Another installment of my "Rejection" series, telling writers what little I've learned about making a living as a writer. Please remember that I'm really writing these so that whenever my career tanks — and I'm hoping to at least make it to the end of September — I can go back, read them all again and maybe learn something.

Today's "Trump is a Monster" Post

The New York Times lists 31 lies and gross exaggerations uttered by Donald Trump. And this (no kidding) is just from the past week.

So which do we think is the case here?

  1. He thinks people are so stupid they won't realize that he's lying to them.
  2. He thinks people are so distrusting of the press that they'll assume he's right and all those fact checkers are lying.
  3. He thinks he's hitting enough hot buttons — getting people so worried about minorities and terrorists and such — that they'll overlook the lies or maybe excuse him on the assumption that every politician lies like this (especially That Woman) and he has to play the game to get elected and save them.
  4. He thinks he's such a good, charismatic speaker that he looks good even when the facts are dubious.
  5. He doesn't think. It's something pathological and since it seems to be working, he's not about to change.
  6. Other. I'm trying to think what that might be.

I really don't know which of these is the case…maybe all of them to some extent.  I do have a certain frightened admiration that he can do this and at the same time sell the idea that his opponent is the one who doesn't tell the truth.

Wilder and Wilder

genewilder02

On Thursday evening, Turner Classic Movies is running a tribute to Gene Wilder with Young Frankenstein, Start the Revolution Without Me and The Frisco Kid. If I had to pick three, they'd be Young Frankenstein, The Producers and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Or better still, I'd have The Producers, Willy Wonka and Start the Revolution since they're running Young Frankenstein on Tuesday evening and The Frisco Kid real early Wednesday morning. But, hey, anything with Gene Wilder in it is worth running…and running more than once.

But even better is that on Thursday evening, they'll have two showings of Role Model, which was a 2008 documentary that I gather was a pilot for a series of interview shows with Alec Baldwin chatting with actors he admired. I think this one with Mr. Wilder was the only episode made and I don't know why because it was a terrific 75 minutes which I recommended to you back here. Baldwin was a good host and Wilder was a good guest and this is not something you should miss if you care about Gene Wilder. On my set, it airs at 5 PM and again at 8:15 PM but check your schedule.

More About Terry Jones

Our pal Kim "Howard" Johnson has this to say about Monty Python's Terry Jones.

Today's Video Link

Here's another one of those videos in which the Mad Scientist of Cooking, Alton Brown, finds the most expensive, difficult way to make something. If I want pizza, I can call my favorite place that delivers and they'll have a perfect pie here in about thirty minutes. Or I could clear a room in my house, build a giant Easy-Bake Oven and stand there at a captain's wheel the whole time the pizza is cooking. Hmm — such a difficult decision…

Sad News

And it's very sad to hear that Terry Jones is suffering from primary progressive aphasia, which does bad things to one's ability to speak. I guess that means that the farewell performances of the Monty Python guys really were the farewell performances. I was always impressed not just with how funny those men were as performers and writers but how smart they all seemed to be. Jones authored some brilliant articles and books, and it's always painful to hear that a brain like that is functioning at reduced capacity.

The news reports (like this one) identify him as "one of the founding members of comedy troupe Monty Python." There have been, of course, no non-founding members of the comedy troupe Monty Python. They never admitted anyone else and they never admitted women or racial minorities. I always thought that if I was ever asked to interview any of them, I was going to ask about their apparent bigotry in that regard and say something like, "Even when you have roles for such people, you instead have a white guy put on a dress or even blackface rather than admit a qualified female or non-Caucasian."

And I sure would have hoped they understood I was kidding…

Da Bait

Part of me is dreading the Presidential Debate on Monday night. It's the part that watches these things get scored like demented boxing matches with the pundits and pollsters as judges. Really all that matters is how the polls move over the following week or two…but we have to hear from the Trump campaign about how their boy flattened Hillary and the election is over; from the Clinton campaign how Hillary devastated The Donald and reduced him to a quivering mound of orange Jell-o; how whoever any pundit favors, he or she won in a walk…and, of course, how the moderator, Lester Holt, was so blatantly unfair and/or inept to ask this but not that.

For a lot of folks, the main issue is not what either candidate would do to and for America but do they speak the truth? So Trump will say something like "Sacramento is the capital of Oregon" and if the moderator corrects him, that shows bias against Trump, and if the moderator doesn't correct him, that shows journalistic ineptness and/or a bias against Hillary. And we'll have Trump partisans out there saying that no matter what anyone says, Sacramento is the capital of Oregon and that's that.

We'll also have analysts making a big deal out of the candidates' body language, facial expressions, whether they seemed to be paying attention, wardrobe selection, etc. And someone will claim that the debates were rigged because someone got the questions in advance, someone had a hidden earpiece feeding them zingers, someone planted folks in the audience to cheer or boo, etc.

So I guess it isn't that I don't like the debates. I don't like the scoring and the spin. Even the post-debate polls, which will say who "won" the proceedings will have a lot of votes cast for the respondents' preference, regardless of how he or she actually fared in the telecast. And like I said, all that really matters is how the actual polling of the country as a whole and the individual state races go in the days that follow.

I expect Hillary will do well in terms of facts and policies and explaining her positions. I expect Donald will do well in terms of theatrics and quotable lines. I expect Lester Holt will do well in terms of not making the mistakes of Matt Lauer. And I expect this will be the most-watched Presidential Debate in history. Until the first rematch.

Today's Video Link

I kinda like watching Alton Brown's cooking demonstrations for two reasons. One is that there's a lot of science in most of them and I do like understanding whatever I can understand in that area. The second is that he makes preparing every food dish so complicated and steeped in Chemistry and Physics that he convinces me I am way too uneducated to make even a tuna salad sandwich. Thus, I feel no guilt when I call my favorite Chinese restaurant and tell them to send over an order of Sesame Chicken.

In this video, he makes homemade ice cream in the most complicated, time-consuming, expensive (and possibly dangerous) manner. Back before I gave up ice cream and other desserts, I had a little machine I bought at Costco for thirty bucks that made wonderful ice cream in about twenty minutes — including set-up and clean-up — on my kitchen counter with no possibility of explosions or frostbite, plus I didn't have to build anything or put on protective gear. Maybe his ice cream is better but I doubt it's that much better…