No Meaner Place

August 11, 2010

“Here I am paying big money to you writers and what for? All you do is change the words.” – Samuel Goldwyn

“Nevermind Nirvana” by Ajay Sahgal

What: Raju Mattoo is about to get married and he has the yips about the marriage that was arranged by his mother. Brother Sunil “Sonny” Mattoo has just finished Med School and has decided he doesn’t want to be a doctor. Slow death by arsenic poisoning would be preferable to telling their parents – their father, the very accomplished Dr. Arjun Mattoo and their mother, the even more accomplished Dr. Sarita Mattoo – who are due to arrive for the wedding.

Who:  Raju Mattoo, a dentist, has committed to a marriage arranged by his mother to a woman he barely knows, Priyanka, an ObGyn from New Jersey. Having returned from his G-rated (censored and controlled by his mother) bachelor party in Las Vegas, he confesses his misgivings to his brother Sonny and best friend and dental practice partner Perry. He and Priyanka have not yet kicked the tires, so to speak. But much depends on this marriage, primarily for Sonny because, after finally finishing med school, he has decided that he cannot devote his life to something he hates. His live-in girlfriend Elizabeth, decidedly not Indian, fully supports his decision (actually she gives him a year). As yet, however, Sonny has not found a way to tell his parents of his decision; something that becomes more complicated when, unannounced, Drs. Arjun and Sarita Mattoo arrive on their doorstep, complete with manservant and boatloads of baggage, having cancelled their hotel in order to be closer to the family on the eve of the wedding..

Private space is invaded and nerves are beginning to shatter.

Int. Sonny & Elizabeth’s bedroom – Night.

Sarita enters without knocking.

Sarita: (Sotto, to Sonny) Why don’t you marry her? You have been together two years. Think of her reputation! (Then) You know we are sending Raju and his bride to Hawaii for a honeymoon.

Sonny: That’s very nice of you, but we –

Sarita: All expenses paid. A junior suite, ocean view. It will cost them nothing.

Sonny: You’re trying to bribe us into getting married?

Sarita: (To Elizabeth) I would happily send you and Sonny to Hawaii. Have you been there? Very nice.

Sonny: Ma, you can’t just make everyone do what you want them to…Go to sleep, please.

And no sooner to they get rid of Sarita than

Arjun enters wearing just his underwear, scratches his belly.

Arjun: So? Big day tomorrow?

Sonny: Maybe you should put something on.

Arjun: Govind is still unpacking my clothes. I’m not nude, you know. (To Elizabeth) In India there is a favorable bias toward the elders. Here, not so much.

Sonny: So… How’s Philadelphia? Same?

Arjun: Well, the Sixers are choking.

Sonny: (Herds him out) I haven’t been following… Well. It’s late, so…

As Arjun is ushered out, it is Elizabeth who points out

Elizabeth: Sonny, you’ll drive yourself crazy until they know.

Sonny: Let’s just get through the wedding. Okay? Please. I have a plan here. And it’s working. Everything in its time. Step one: Raju gets legally married to Priyanka, which gives my parents a reason to live. Step two: I write them a letter explaining that I’m not going to be a doctor. Step three: We move to Korea. Step four: I mail the letter from Korea. This is an airtight plan, baby. Airtight.

But of course complications ensue, as they do in all cases where every piece must interlock with every other. Priyanka, it turns out, also has the yips for the same “kicking the tires” reason as Raju. Though both parties have had numerous previous partners, it had been extremely important to both sets of parents that their relationship be consummated only after the ceremony – something that defied logic for both Priyanka and Raju because sexual compatibility was too great a question to leave unanswered. Aided by Elizabeth and Sonny, desperate for their own reasons that the wedding take place, Priyanka and Raju clandestinely consummate their relationship in the back seat of Sonny’s car – romantic only in the way illicit sex can be.

Of course it’s no surprise that the carefully constructed house of cards collapses. Having agreed to wear the traditional achkan and paggadi (white wedding suit and turban), Raju refuses to enter the ceremony on the traditional white horse. As Sarita berates Raju for his lack of decorum and inadequacy as a son, Raju reveals that Sonny is not the saint she paints him as he will not be continuing on to his residency.

The Priest, ever chanting, ties a garland of flowers around Raju and Priyanka’s hands, joining them.

Sarita: Something is wrong. This is not like you. Did you take pot?

Sonny: I didn’t take pot, ma.

Sarita: You are ruining your life! (To Arjun) He is ruining his life!

***

Raju: (Proud) You’ve still got one son who’s a doctor. That’s gotta feel good, right?

Arjun: You are not a doctor.

Raju: I am a doctor!

Sonny: Nothing wrong with not being a doctor.

Raju: I’m a doctor!

Sonny: Ma, it’s my life!

Sarita: Who told you that? I gave birth to you, you belong to me. And now your children will have to beg for food!

Sonny looks to Elizabeth for help.

Elizabeth: (Thumbs up) Airtight.

At a loss, impulsively, Sonny points to Raju.

Sonny: Raju and Priyanka had sex! Premaritally. How about that!?!

Priyanka gasps. The Priest keeps chanting. Raju looks at Priyanka’s father, who does not seem happy in the least.

Arjun: (Hits Raju) What?! Is this true?

Sonny: In a car, by the way.

Raju: (Re: Sonny) Sonny has pre-marital sex all the time.

Arjun: We will deal with Sunil, trust me. We’re talking about (pokes him) you. Have you no shame? Did you go to see the bride before it was allowed?

All eyes go to Raju.

Raju: (swallows) Yes.

For defiling the purity of the bride, a scandalized murmur moves through the crowd. Raju points accusingly at Priyanka, awkward since their hands are joined by the garland.

Raju: But it was her idea!

But parents (not all parents) will sometimes surprise you.

Arjun: (Makes sure Sarita’s gone) You made a good decision.

Sonny: (WHAT?) What?

Arjun: I didn’t work all these years in America so my eldest son would be miserable in his career. You should be happy in life. That is my goal.

Sonny: But you called me an idiot.

Arjun: For your mother’s benefit. If I said that I agreed with you, there would be war. No man wants war with his wife. Remember this. You might have a wife one day. (Winks at Elizabeth) Soon.

Sonny: Wow, Pop. That means a lot to me.

Arjun: You understand, publicly I must continue to condemn you.

No Meaner Place: Combining family relationship comedy with culture clash should have been a sure thing. Family sturm und drang has been the meat and potatoes of comedy and tragedy since the Greeks (and probably before), so no new ground is expected to be broken. But adding cultural differences to the mix is an always new and unexpected twist, and in this case, exploring Indian culture brings out the differences, but also highlights the similarities in the dynamic. The high educational and career expectations within Indian society, especially within the group that has immigrated to the U.S. for increased opportunity is very reminiscent of several other immigrant cultures, most notably the wave of Jewish immigrants who arrived on our shores at the end of the 19th century. Education was, of course, the primary path to success; a success that was judged by the final profession, usually medicine and sometimes legal. Relying on stereotype (and comedy is dependent upon it), achieving anything less than those two professions was deemed, if not failure, at least not success.  I wonder how Max and Jennie Siegelbaum felt when their son Ben (Bugsy) went into hotel management instead of education like his brothers and sisters?

We are beginning to see actors of South Asian descent represented on the small screen, notably in the comedies “The Office” and “Parks and Recreation,” as well as in dramas such as “The Good Wife.” Are we not willing to explore our similarities and differences? There is comedy to be mined (see “Bend it Like Beckham”) and that is what we need more than ever – comedy.

Life Lessons for Writers: When they say they want something out of the box, what they really want is something that will fit into a box, is about white families with a (very limited) smattering of ethnically diverse friends and neighbors, and comes tied with a ribbon – preferably one made in New Harmony and not in New Delhi.

Conversation with the Writer:

Neely: What part of your psyche did this come from? I know your family; I’ve met your parents and they are lovely people. Who were those people in the pilot???

Ajay: Those people are direct analogs to my parents and how they have behaved and reacted to certain things in my life. I think I was supposed to be a doctor. I know that from the time I was very young I always said I was going to be a doctor and that probably wasn’t something that came out of nowhere. I was probably told. My mother’s a doctor and my dad’s an engineer. There are a lot of doctors in the family. I even went to pre-med for a couple of years in college and then failed out as a result.

Neely: You were at UCLA, weren’t you?

Ajay: Yeah. There was just a lack of interest on my part. I think that the idea that I would become a writer was not, and probably still hasn’t been accepted by my parents. And then that I didn’t marry an Indian girl was, in the beginning, going to be a problem. Now they love Kelli and everything (note: Kelli Williams, one of the stars on the David Kelley series entitled “The Practice” and currently starring in “Lie to Me.”). But back then it was not a great time – including when I told them “I think this is the girl for me.” So yeah, a lot of it comes from my life – it’s autobiographical. This is how my parents behaved. These are things my parents said. I might have brightened the colors here and there, but this is them.

Neely: Do you have any siblings?

Ajay: I have a younger brother who’s a doctor.

Neely: (laughs) How much younger?

Ajay: Two years younger.

Neely: Okay, so that made it even more difficult. Did he marry an Indian girl?

Ajay: No. He was pressured even more than I was, but his way of rebelling was that he didn’t become the kind of a doctor they approved of. He became a criminal forensic psychiatrist. He doesn’t ever deal with saving lives or curing diseases or even treating people.

Neely: So it’s nothing they can explain to the folks back home.

Ajay: They cannot. He has an M.D. but that’s about it. He’s more like a legal/behavioral psychologist than a doctor; but he’s trained in medicine.

Neely: Where does he live?

Ajay: Studio City, near me. We all live in the same area. He has a kid and a wife and we’re all close.

Neely: Well, in keeping with the autobiographical elements in the script, I can definitely see the parallels to your very accepting and level-headed wife Kelli. By the way, the hilarious scene where Elizabeth was trying to wear a sari… anything like that happen the first time Kelli tried to wear one?

Ajay: I seem to recall a time when Kelli was wearing a lot of saris, right around the time we got married and she… well let me say, they’re not easy things to assemble. So I do remember something like that, but a lot of it came out of wanting a “cute” way to introduce the girl in the pilot.

Neely: I remember Kelli wearing a particularly beautiful sari to the Golden Globes one year (possibly 1998 or ’99).

Ajay: I remember that. I remember that sari. My mother was thrilled that she was wearing a sari on TV. She called all her friends to pay extra special attention.

Neely: At that point, how long had you been married?

Ajay: We got married in ’96, so a couple of years.

Neely: Right at the start of “The Practice.”

Ajay: I think we got married and then she did the pilot.

Neely: One of the things that I recall when I asked her about the sari was how appreciative she was of it and how her mother-in-law had given it to her and how thrilled she was to be wearing it. Kelli, no doubt, was extremely accommodating to your parents.

Ajay: Yes, she was.

Neely: That must have won them over.

Ajay: Yes. No offense intended, but Kelli’s, a WASP from Bel Air and didn’t have much of a culture, so I think she dove into accepting and assimilating into our Indian/American culture. The alternative was dinner at the Bel Air Country Club and that wasn’t that interesting to her.

Neely: Well, just going back over the models for this story, I can see that there’s something endless to tap into.

Ajay: I knew a lot of Indian kids, and have come to meet even more since – American kids with Indian parents, like me. All the stories are the same. Everybody who read this, auditioned for it, or came in for it in one way or another all said the same thing, “I don’t know if I’m going to get the part, but this is my family. This is great. I never see my family on television.” I imagine that it’s an immigrant story, too. It may be about Indians, and the details may be specific to Indians, but I imagine the American kid growing up in Michigan whose parents were Hmong immigrants has the same sort of stories.

Neely: It’s the same story told in “Funny in Farsi.” It was Nastaran Dibai’s story as well as that of the original author, Firoozeh Dumas. In adapting the book, Nastaran tapped into her own Iranian immigrant stories. It’s pretty universal.

Neely: There was a similar script and produced prior to this. What was it called?

Ajay: It vacillated between “Nevermind Nirvana” and “Nirvana” and “Nearly Nirvana.” They’re all kind of generally the same thing.

Neely: It was at NBC originally. Do you see the irony in NBC picking up a comedy that takes place in an outsourced Indian tech center? Could it have interfered with your casting?

Ajay: Actually we were ahead of them. Ken Kwapis, who directed that pilot, and I had a very open relationship. We kind of faced each other going, “It’s all the same actors.” But we didn’t have actors that were testing at the same time. Our actors were maybe going to go in and test for them, but we got them first. Yes, there was competition, but I think it’s an interesting area. There’s a really funny actor named Parvesh Cheena who tested for us and didn’t get it who went into that show. I think he’s going to be a big star because he’s really funny. NBC apparently wanted to do an Indian show, but I’m not sure why; maybe because India is an ascendant culture in a way.

Neely: I was a bit confused about that show. I checked the credits for the 2nd episode on Studio System and it looks like they cut a number of the Indian actors, including Cheena. Judging by what I saw, it’s now much more heavily weighted toward the Anglo actors and less about the Indians, which is sort of strange since India, besides being an ascendant culture is huge. There are a lot of Indian/Americans here. It’s not a small population in the U.S.

Ajay: That wasn’t the case when I was a kid.

Neely: What was it like? You grew up in L.A. didn’t you?

Ajay: Yeah. There was no one. We knew every Indian family in L.A; that’s how small it was. It’s huge, it’s exploded. Now everyone kind of stays within its own group, like the Gujuratis stay with the Gujuratis and the Punjabis stay with the Punjabis. But back then it was just everybody, altogether.

Neely: What are your parents?

Ajay: My parents are Punjabis.

Neely: So, who directed the pilot this time around?

Ajay: Scott Ellis. Scott is a theater director from New York (Associate Artistic Director of the Roundabout Theatre Co.) who also directs shows like “Weeds” and “Nurse Jackie” and “30 Rock.” Come to think of it, maybe he’s a TV director who also directs theater, I don’t know. He’s a very nice guy and very good with actors. The decisions about how directors get hired for pilots are opaque and crazy. I don’t know how these guys get on a list. I would have assumed they’d talk to David Schwimmer again (the director of the last pilot), but they wanted to go with Scott and I found him really nice and really great to work with. I liked the work he had done previously.

Neely: Did he get the timing?

Ajay: Yes he did. I don’t know if you’ve watched “Nurse Jackie,” but it can be a really funny show and I think that is largely to do with him executing very precise scripts very well.  So I thought that it worked.

Neely: Because, as they say, timing is everything in comedy (and in everything else).

Ajay: “Nevermind Nirvana” was a multi-camera show. Even though there are more Indian characters in shows now, especially one on the very successful multi-camera show “The Big Bang Theory,” there’s not a big tradition of Indians in this specialized field.

Neely: They’re all supposed to be doctors.

Ajay: Right! So where are you going to get them? If I was casting the part of the janitor on “Scrubs” eight years ago, I’d have end up with Neil Flynn because he was the funniest guy of the 50 guys who were funny. In my show, we didn’t have that kind of choice. We had a hard time casting it.

Neely: Did you look in England?

Ajay: We did. We got a lot of English actors auditioning. None of the men got particularly close on the guy roles; there were a couple of women that did. I suppose it’s very hard to do an American accent and concentrate on being funny.

Neely: The same thing is true for white English actors who haven’t done American before. They’re concentrating so much on their American accents that they miss the nuance.

What about the finished product? What did you think?

Ajay: To be honest, I wasn’t happy with it. I can’t point my finger in any direction. It would be very easy for me to say “This actor ruined it” or “Their notes ruined it” or the director or even myself because maybe it was the script. There’s this thing that can happen where a really good script turns into a so-so show and there’s no explanation. Sometimes the reverse is true and a so-so script turns into a really funny show with no explanation. It’s strange. I’ve spent a long time trying to figure out that math, and I’ve given up trying to figure it out. I thought that maybe there was some “magic.” If I could only tap into that well, but I can’t. I wasn’t happy with the finished product, but I still don’t know exactly why. It just didn’t turn out that funny.

Neely: I’m sorry that I didn’t get a chance to read its predecessor.

Ajay: I can send it to you. You know, this is the third time it was made.

Neely: I remember when you and David Schwimmer and a couple of other guys anted up the money on the last go round so that you could reshoot some things.

Ajay: We made the first one for NBC in a traditional way. The pilot got shot, got tested; and then they said “Let’s replace the lead. Everything else works.” The lead scored very very poorly. Easier said than done because there aren’t a lot of Indian/American actors that are funny. I had Kal Penn.

Neely: They didn’t like Kal Penn???

Ajay: No, America didn’t like Kal Penn; meaning the “testing” didn’t like Kal Penn. Kal Penn, while being very funny in the movies probably didn’t have a lot of stage experience at the time; and it was a stage show. There’s a little bit of a learning curve. Right or wrong, things get blamed on actors sometimes. Actors get fired at table readings, as if that’s the problem and not the script. We went through an exhaustive search to find someone to replace Kal Penn and we came up with a comedian. Remember, we’d already searched everywhere. Anyway, we came up with another guy, a stand up comic named Arj Barker, who ended up recurring on “Flight of the Conchords.” A very funny guy, but not an actor; he’s a stand-up. So we were shut down and then two days later I was playing the part. By this time we had spent everything but $200,000, so Schwimmer, who was directing, and everyone else, including me, kicked back our fees and we shot it in hopes of trying to sell it. We had something, but in the end the thought was that if a stand up comedian couldn’t do it, how could a writer who’s never acted do it.

Anyway, Kevin Reilly liked it sufficiently. He had always thought about it, so when he went to Fox and the circumstances were right, he said “Let’s try it again.” So, essentially, I wrote a new script; mostly the same characters with a new character added here and there. We kept a couple of the original cast members and the rest were new people because it had been six years since we had done the original. We shot it and it became like a regular pilot again. But you know the story of pilots is that they generally just stay pilots.

Neely: So there’s nothing you could think that you could redo.

Ajay: I’ve redone it so many times; I suppose I could go in and say “Let’s make some different casting choices; let’s make another director choice; let’s go back to the script draft that everyone liked.” But in performance, at table readings and run-throughs, it’s all going to get changed by the very nature of the beast. “They” demand a certain amount, no, rather they expect a certain amount of constant change. “We can beat this. We can make it better. It was funny on Tuesday; it’s not funny on Thursday – reach into your big bucket of things and put something funny in there.” For their purposes, it works sometimes. Using your example, they made “Gary Unmarried,” a script you didn’t care for, into something that was funny enough to get on the air. That churning machine is what they live by.

Neely: Let’s talk some more about the pilot development process.

Ajay: The process of making a pilot itself is like 40 people staring at a surgeon when he’s trying to do surgery, with all of them going “what if you did this.” And saying obvious things like, “Hey, we should probably not let him die.” That kind of thing. What can you do? The process is the process.

Neely: Yes, but one of the counterproductive elements in that process is that many times the least experienced development execs, the ones who’ve just been taken off an assistant’s desk, get to weigh in with equal force. Sure, they’ve read a lot of scripts in the previous few years, but they don’t have a larger context and have no history. I’m trying not to be too harsh, but that is exactly what a beginning development executive is. You have 40 people involved in the process, all of whom want to put in their two cents worth so that their bosses think that they’re really smart because they came up with something, anything…

Ajay: …that they’re engaged and they’re earning their salary. I know. It’s kind of a broken system.

Neely: But it’s especially counterproductive for funny.

Ajay: I agree.

Neely: I get the feeling that you’re not done with this story.

Ajay: If I was given the chance to make it again, I would make it again. I don’t know how, but I still think it’s worth while. I just think that it’s going to be a long time, if ever, before anyone agrees because I’ve already done it three times.

Neely: Have you given any consideration to going international? This is as much a natural for British TV as it is for Indian TV. Think of the huge potential audience on Indian TV. We always talk about thinking globally but rarely do.

Ajay: I don’t know what the economics would be and I don’t know how it would work. But the Indian TV business as I understand it, is geared toward the ladies in the villages who buy the soap and watch the…

Neely: …telenovelas.

Ajay: Exactly. I don’t know. I would love to try it but I don’t know how to get from here to there.

Neely: I think it would be worth the investigation. It really is a huge huge market. Or think about British TV. They’ve got an even larger Indian market. This would be perfect on the smaller scale that they work with – limited episodes. Two potential contacts might be Paul Lee, the new head of ABC who started BBC America and Lee Bartlett, who was just hired at Discovery Networks, and just arrived back in the States after several years heading production at ITV. I understand BBC America is interested in cross-programming, creating shows here that will work on BBC here and in Britain. British television seems like an absolute natural.

Ajay: I would have to figure out how to do it. Right now I’m in the “hangover” stage. It’s sort of like “How dead can I make this show?” So far, I’ve made it dead three times. But that is a very good idea.

Neely: There’s a show there. Maybe the U.S. is the wrong market. It may still be worth kicking this allegedly dead horse.

Ajay: You may have a point.

Neely: Let’s talk some more about your roots. Unlike me, who is first generation only on my mother’s side, you are a double first generation.

Ajay: Both of my parents came to California in the 60’s. My mother followed my father, whose work was in aerospace. In the 60s in Southern California, aerospace was a really big deal; he was an engineer, and that’s where the work was. They became citizens as soon as they were eligible. So yeah, we’re Southern Californians.

Neely: How much family do you still have in India?

Ajay: My father’s family is quite large. He had 9 brothers and sisters. My mother’s sister lives here; both of her parents, now deceased, moved here, so she doesn’t have a big family over there. But I think if I went with my family I’d have free places to stay in a few towns.

Neely: Have you been?

Ajay: The only time Kelli and I went to India was after “The Practice” pilot was shot and picked up but before it started shooting. We haven’t gone with our kids, but now our youngest is at an age where I think it would be fun to go – he’s 7. Now he’ll remember it. We didn’t want to take him when he was 3 and waste all that money and have him say “I don’t remember.”

Neely: You were a Valley boy and went to Buckley. Were you conflicted about bringing your friends home?

Ajay: No. My friends were my good friends and they knew who my parents were; it was no problem. We had to do some more intricate lying to my parents for me to get out of the house on a Saturday night and go and do the “Less than Zero” style things that we did. But we didn’t not lie to the other parents either.

Neely: As you said before, you went to UCLA.

Ajay: Like I mentioned, I failed out as a pre-med biology major. I just wasn’t interested or engaged. I went to the Dean and explained that I really wanted to be a writer and that I had started in the wrong direction and would he please give me another chance. We worked something out so that I got back in and then I was an English major in Creative Writing and did very well. It was a good change.

Neely: Any particularly inspirational teachers?

Ajay: There was a guy named Brian Moore who was a novelist, and my professor Carolyn See, the novelist and memoirist – she was great. She was highly influential and very supportive and I think she’s just fantastic. She’s just one of a kind. I mean this in the nicest way, but she was always weird, and great, and upbeat and encouraging and fought against the dominant Southern California image of writers as being there to report on a vacuous vacant land. Though I think she admired some of those people, she wasn’t going to change her approach. For her to have made the career that she has is amazing to me. Even then I knew it, but she’s still her own person.

Neely: You have to read her memoir Dreaming.

Ajay: I have it, but I haven’t yet read it. I’ve probably read some of it and then something got me away. Once I had kids, there’s been a giant gap in my reading. Now I’m back.

Neely: It’s one of the most hilariously horrific books I’ve ever read. When I put the book down, I turned to my husband and said “I’m not complaining about my mother ever again.” (I doubt whether I’ll keep that promise, but it was meaningful at the time.)

Going backwards just a bit; so it was in college that you found that you wanted to be a writer?

Ajay: Yes. Someone I knew beginning in junior high and who became a very close friend of mine in high school was Bret Ellis. He’s still one of my closest and oldest friends. Bret always knew he wanted to be a writer but what he was doing was strange and none of us really understood what it was. But he got his book published when he was 20! It opened the door for a lot of people – a lot of people who were his friends and classmates. For me it made it all possible. I couldn’t believe you could actually do that for a living. Bret was a great example that you could just do it.

Neely: How about mentors along the way? It sounds like Carolyn was one.

Ajay: Carolyn was one. She was always very supportive. Brian Moore, less so, but he was a great teacher. After I graduated as an English major, I took a year off and then went to film school at UCLA for an MFA in screenwriting. The teachers there were really good. Richard Walter, Lew Hunter, Hal Ackerman – they weren’t mentors so much, but they were people who helped. I’ve never really had mentors, but I have had some good teachers.

Neely: I just read this in an issue of “Written by” and I thought it was particularly astute. Number 88 of 101 Things I Learned in Film School by Neil Landau with Matthew Frederick was: “If you want to write, read. If you want to make films, see films.” So what are you reading right now and what have you seen recently that you liked?

Ajay: I tend to be segregated over towards kid films…

Neely: Funny thing about having kids.

Ajay: …and movies that come through the mail during screening time. That’s when I get to watch that kind of thing. So November/December is coming up and then Kelli and I can catch up on all the films that have come out.  So, movies are not a great example. But I’m reading a lot. I read a book called The Girl Who Fell from the Sky by Heidi Durrow. I was on vacation recently and read Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, and now Four Fish by Paul Greenberg which is a book I recently got on my iPad. This iPad thing, while kind of gimmicky, has increased the number of books that I read. It’s just so easy to carry around and have 10 books at once. I’m reading a book right now called The Happiness Project by Gretchen Rubin, but that’s because someone wants to make a TV show out of it and it’s a possible job.

Neely: The one thing that’s kept me from getting any of those devices, and certainly the iPad, is that it seems too much like a computer screen and it hurts my eyes to read on a computer screen.

Ajay: For me I’m the opposite. With the iPad I don’t have to wear my reading glasses; I can zoom in. When Kelli’s going to sleep, our biggest argument always starts with “will you turn off the light.” She has to go to bed and I want to read late; this way I can just read in bed. Also, I can take it with me and I’ve got 10 books on there so if I’m bored with one, I’m not forced to finish it, I can go to the next one.

Neely: What about directing?  Still interested in doing that?

Ajay: I am. I made one film in 2000 that was a longish short.

Neely: “It’s a Shame about Ray;” I went to the screening. It seemed to be about your feelings about Kelli and agonizing over worthiness.

Ajay: It was about living your life when you can live it and not waiting around. It was a good general theme for a movie. Do it while you can do it; be what you can be when you can be it and not when it’s too late.

Neely: I loved it because I spent far too many years agonizing over whether I was worthy of my husband.

Ajay: I understand…it’s not a way to live.

Neely: You’re right, it’s counterproductive. It’s one of those things where you just have to throw your hands up and say “Okay. This is the way it is, and I don’t get it, but who cares.” But that takes a lot of time or a lot of therapy.

Ajay: Letting go of preconceived notions of how you think things are going to go opens you up to how things actually go.

Neely: Sorry for the sidetrack. And directing?

Ajay: Since then I haven’t had any opportunity. I’ve been in the grind of trying to make money to feed these private school tuitions and everything else that goes on. But yes, of course I’d love to and still have those aspirations and still write things toward that end. There was one thing that I wrote for a friend who’s a producer and if it ever gets made, I’ll be able to direct it. It’s a hard road, but it’s nothing I can pursue full time right now. I have to write three pilots this year because they’re still hiring me to write pilots, so that’s what I’m going to do until they kick me out.

Neely: How did and Kelli meet.

Ajay: We knew each other because we were all part of the same circle of friends. I think the first time I met her, she came over to pick up my then-live-in girlfriend for a girls night out. A few years later, when we were both single, I invited her to my book publication party.

Neely: I didn’t know you’d written a novel.  Tell me about it.

Ajay: It’s not a very good novel; it was my first book, written when I was in my 20s. It’s called Pool and is no longer in print but you could probably find it somewhere for a penny on Amazon. It takes place on a movie set. It answers the question of what might happen if, say a huge actor like a Johnny Depp, while in the middle of filming a “Pirates of the Caribbean,” disappeared and didn’t show up to work. What machinations would take place in the movie business because this giant juggernaut is dependent on this one guy and this one guy decided that he wasn’t coming in to work that day and decided instead to go to, in this case, Vermont and hang out with some friends. Essentially they rewrite the movie, move it to Vermont and the mountain comes to Mohammed.

Neely: Actually you’re being a tad too self-deprecating. The lowest price at which it can be found is $10 and it was extremely well-reviewed. I quote The Washington Post Book world:
”A faultlessly crafted, beautifully constructed, Beckett-in-a-hot-tub, Noel-Coward-on-ludes, Hunter-Thompson-with-an-editor novel.” Have you written any more books since then?

Ajay: I’ve written a lot of short fiction and a novel, which I’m still working on but don’t think it’s publishable yet; I’ve been working on it, on and off, for 10 years. I’m also writing a work of non-fiction that’s in the experiential genre that authors do for a year. It should be done in the next couple of months.

Neely: Besides pilots, anything else? Do you have an overall?

Ajay: I wish. They don’t really make them that often anymore, and they almost always include a staffing component, which is difficult in my case since I have literally no experience working on someone else’s show. What I end up doing is I write scripts for whatever network and do it with their sister studio. Generally I pitch something that I would like to write. I’m going to pitch something today at 3:00 and if they like the idea, like me and want to work with me, well that’s kind of how it works.

Neely: I don’t want to make you late for your meeting. Thanks for taking the time today. I can’t wait to read more from you.  Please say hi to the family for me.

Neely can be reached at neely@nomeanerplace.com

August 4, 2010

“Love. Fall in love and stay in love. Write only what you love, and love what you write. The key word is love. You have to get up in the morning and write something you love, something to live for.” – Ray Bradbury

“Funny in Farsi” by Nastaran Dibai & Jeffrey B. Hodes — Based on the book: Funny in Farsi by Firoozeh Dumas.

Part II

No Meaner Place: In the previous article and conversation with the husband and wife writing team of Dibai and Hodes, we discussed the process of adapting the book written by Firoozeh Dumas and how, unfortunately, the third time was not the charm, as the pilot had been still born twice before it was finally produced.  They shared how personal the adaptation was, given the fact that Nastaran, herself, is Iranian and that Jeffrey, at this point, is an honorary Iranian, knowing and having shared so many experiences with Nastaran’s family. In discussing “Funny in Farsi” almost exclusively in the last article, I wanted to take more time and talk to Nastaran and Jeffrey about their careers. As a prelude to that continued conversation, it would be appropriate to lead off with the original cold opening/establishing shots of the pilot. Think of it as a love song to America:

Stock Shot: An Antique Map of the U.S.A.

Adult Firoozeh: (V.O.): This country was built by immigrants. We all came from somewhere else or came from someone who came from somewhere else.

As the camera zooms down into the map, the map becomes 3-D. We’re flying through a 3-D map of hills, valleys. We zip down to New York Harbor and fly around the Statue of Liberty.

Adult Firoozeh: (V.O.) And why did we all come here? Because America was a place of freedom where you could reach your full potential. Even Lady Liberty came over from France and got a job her first day here.

As we zoom back out and fly westward over the map of America, iconic landmarks pop up: the man-mad Erie Canal busts its way to the Great Lakes, the Sears Tower sprouts up on Chicago, the Arch forms itself on St. Louis. Interstates start connecting the cities on the map.

Adult Firoozeh: (V.O.) Just look at all this! It’s no accident that people came to America from every corner of the world. They needed a canvas this vast to fill with all their colors.

The camera moves past Mount Rushmore.

Adult Firoozeh: (V.O.) Like this fantastic thing? Designed and carved by the son of Danish immigrants. And it was immortalized in “North by Northwest,” a great American movie directed by a British guy and starring a Welsh guy, both of whom had to come here to make their mark in the world. You see where I’m going with this?

The camera flies past the Golden Gate Bridge, down the California coast. It flies over L.A. as the letters of the Hollywood sign rise up. We settle in on Newport Beach.

Adult Firoozeh: (V.O.) And it was in this spirit my family emigrated to the U.S. We hadn’t contributed anything great yet, but that was the cool thing about America. The field was wide open.

Life Lessons for Writers: The field is still wide open!

More Conversation with the Writers:

Neely: You both have fantastic credits, ranging from “Roc Live,” “Living Single,” “3rd Rock from the Sun,” to “The Nanny,” “According to Jim” and “Rita Rocks.”  What was your first staff job?

Jeffrey/Nastaran: “Roc” the year it was live was our first staff job.

Nastaran: We were only on it the year it was live.

Neely: I didn’t even remember that they did it live.

Jeffrey: There was one season it was live and that was our first staff gig. It gave us skills that we use to this day because we got to do live TV, which almost no one does. We learned to write fast and maintain strong structure. The scene would be over and they would say “look we need two more pages because Charles Dutton has to do a walking costume change behind the set.” You had to find a reason to extend the scene that didn’t feel artificial. It was a real trial by fire, so by the time we got our second staff gig, we were hardened criminals like Charles Dutton.

Nastaran: Don’t put that in.

Jeffrey: No. Put that in; it’s funny. He’s a great actor. His background is not a mystery.

Neely: As I just mentioned, you have great credits.

Jeffrey: Actually we don’t have great credits. I’m not saying the shows we worked on weren’t good, because they were all great learning experiences but we haven’t had the kind of credits where people think we’re really hot. No one goes “Oh my God. They were the guys on “Raymond” or “Friends.” But every show we were on taught us something, so they were all valuable and I wouldn’t trade any of those experiences; well, maybe one or two.

Neely: When did you start writing as a team?

Jeffrey: In 1990, actually 1989. We got married in 1990, so we’ve been a married writing team for …

Nastaran: You’re giving away our age.

Jeffrey: I don’t care.

Nastaran: We were 12 when we met.

Jeffrey: Okay, we were 12. When we started, we were both assistants at Grant Tinker’s old company GTG Entertainment, it was where the Culver Studios are now. As a way of hitting on Nastaran, I showed her some notes for a spec I was writing. And then we both realized we were good at different things that went together well. Four months later, I proposed.

Nastaran: While we were dating, we were writing our first spec, which is really going to date us. It was a “Murphy Brown.” And every time we got together for a date, we wrote a scene..

Neely: How does your particular team work? Do you write in the same room, talk about it at dinner, mine your child and siblings for stories?

Jeffrey: It works differently now than it did then.

Neely: How did it work then and how does it work now?

Jeffrey: Why don’t you answer this.

Nastaran: We’re not the kind of people who split up acts and go and write separately. I could not write a word without Jeffrey.

Jeffrey: Aw, that’s nice.

Nastaran: We sit there and we write every single line together. When it comes to breaking stories, we used to do everything together, but now we’ll talk about the general idea and then I’ll say let me take a stab at the outline. Then I’ll give it to Jeffrey and he’ll look at it and be a bit more objective and he’ll say, “This is where I see a hole or this is repetitive.”  And then he’ll take a stab at it. We used to work out our outlines together, but now we’ll discuss the story, we’ll break it; but then in terms of filling in the details, we go back and forth.

Jeffrey: Usually one of us will write the initial outline. Over the years I’ve acquired some of Nastaran’s skills and she’s acquired some of mine. But in general, I would say that Nastaran is the more structural thinker and I’m more the one who can make the characters walk and talk and say funny things. Nastaran has a clear sense of a framework and I’m the one who says, “You know what might move this structure forward is a moment like this.” And she’ll say, “That’s great; let’s do that.”

Nastaran: Just the other day I was going through my desk, trying to clean it out, and I found the initial notes for “Funny in Farsi.” This pilot was sold about three years ago; they bought it before the strike. We handed in a first draft the night before the strike. Anyway, I was looking over the notes to see what I initially wrote (3 years ago) – what the story should be – and it’s pretty much the story we wrote for the pilot. I’ll look at something and say to myself, I think this is the story, I think this is the shape; but then Jeffrey is unbelievable at helping me fill it in. In terms of actual sitting down to write, we literally write every line together.

Jeffrey: Every line.

Neely: Do you work at home?

Jeffrey: Yes, when we don’t have a job.

Nastaran: When we’re writing pilots, we work at home.  For the last couple of years we’ve been working at a studio. The way we work when we’re on a show is a different process. When we’re on staff, the story is usually broken in the room but then we’ll write the script together. When we’re running a show, Jeffrey and I tend not to write scripts. We like to oversee and let other people write the scripts. We’re not the kind of showrunners who have to write 6 or 10 or every episode and have our name on everything. We like to give it out to other people…

Jeffrey: …mostly because, first of all, we have enough to do when we’re running a show. Other showrunner friends of ours say that when you’re running a show every script is yours. Now that’s not literally true; there’s a writer who’s gone out and worked very hard on a draft. But it’s our job to oversee and make sure all the scripts have a consistent tone and fit in the way we want to do it. There are showrunners who can do it, and I’m going to go on record and say they’re more talented than at least I am.  I don’t know how you can run a show and write every episode. I don’t believe it happens as often as it’s advertised.

Neely: When you’re in a comedy room, and everyone’s pitching stories, are you mining your own family, your kid, your brothers and sisters?

Jeffrey: One of the ways we like to run shows efficiently is that we want the writers to go home and live and be happy to come back the next day and say, “Oh, I had a fight with my husband.” Or “My wife and I argued over blank.” And we’ll go, “Okay, great, let’s talk about what that fight is really about.”

Nastaran: That’s especially true when you’re working on a family sitcom. I can tell you that when we were on staff on “According to Jim” (we were there for the first four years), there were many many stories used or germs of stories that ended up being episodes that came from our lives or from the other writers’ lives. Someone would come in and say, “My wife just hates going to the dentist.” Then he would tell a story and we would all think about how that could be an episode. We really mined all of our lives on that show.

Jeffrey: I think all the best shows do that; the best sitcoms. I’ve heard “Everybody Loves Raymond” was like that.

Nastaran: Not that I can’t write something totally from imagination, but it always helps if I can relate to it in some level.

Neely: Have either of you written on your own since you began as a team?

Jeffrey: I have. I wrote a short humor piece for “Smoke Magazine” once – it was a cigar magazine. And I’m writing a book right now, although it’s taking forever because I’m too busy trying to get a TV show.

Nastaran: Jeffrey can operate independently of me, particularly when it comes to writing prose. I really feel like I need the other person because I can’t tell if something is good unless I have someone to bounce my ideas off of.

Neely: So how did you get staffed on “Roc?”

Jeffrey: Some things in show business never change. We knew the Executive Producer. (laughs) Now, I don’t think he would have hired us if he didn’t think we could do it because if you’re running a show you’re not going to do anybody any favors; you’ve got to hire people who are going to make you look good. We definitely did our best to deliver on the staff writer level.

Nastaran: Actually he ended up leaving the show after 3 or 4 episodes, but they kept us on for the full season.

Neely: Had you done a spec that got you hired?

Nastaran: Yes, we were hired based on a couple of specs we had written. He was a friend and he read the specs and liked them and he said, “If I ever have a show, I’ll hire you.” And he did.

Neely: Any horror stories (the names of the innocent, I mean guilty, shall be protected even thought they probably shouldn’t be) that you can discuss?

Jeffrey: Do we have horror stories?  Yes! Can we discuss them? I don’t know. I can tell two short stories without naming names or identifying the shows. On one occasion we were on a show where one of the executive producers tried to break up our team because this person felt that we weren’t both valuable even though that wasn’t really true.  That was kind of unpleasant, given that we were also married.

Nastaran: I know that teams split up all the time, but when you’re married, it’s a whole different game. We both ended up leaving that show because even though they were offering up a lot of money, we always agreed from the beginning that our marriage was more important. Then we had another experience on another show where the lead just hated us…

Jeffrey: …the two leads, whose names you’ll probably never remember so I’m not going to say them, just hated us. So after we got the show picked up for a second season, we stepped down because it wasn’t worth it to run it any more. Our lives are more important than show business.

Nastaran: Honest to God, to this day, we’re not really sure exactly what it was about us that these particular actors didn’t like, but sometimes it’s just about chemistry in this business and the chemistry just wasn’t there. I will say that we’ve never had anything but good relations with the cast on the other shows we’ve been on. We’re very intent on hearing what they have to say and making sure their concerns are being addressed. Our theory is that if an actor doesn’t like or understand something, then they’re never going to be able to play it, so let’s hear them out; short of having them tell us exactly what to write.

Jeffrey: When an actor says that something is hard for him to say, I have to try to honor that and work it out. We were sort of flummoxed on that one show because we have a reputation for being collaborative, but, you know what, those were the two worst examples. For the most part, we’ve had really great experiences and the bad experiences were educational.

Neely: Let’s talk about some good experiences and mentors.

Jeffrey: I would say Bonnie and Terry Turner on “3rd Rock from the Sun.” They were great examples to us before we became showrunners. Any time you talk to a Carsey Werner writer they talk about it like summer camp. The Turners were great people, they were really down to earth; they hired wonderful people on their staffs who were thrilled to get on “3rd Rock” and they were proof that you could have fun, be collaborative, go home and have a life and a pleasant experience.

Nastaran: Actually, when we were on “3rd Rock” the Turners weren’t there full time. But the tone that was set on that show amongst the writers, amongst the cast, everyone – it was just so positive and great. So, we really admired them because we learned you don’t have to be there until 2:00 in the morning; that you can be collaborative; everyone can be nice; it doesn’t have to be about politics – and you can still deliver a show that everyone is proud of. Anyway, that was the atmosphere on “3rd Rock.” And Bonnie and Terry were at the helm of it at the beginning so it came down from them.

Jeffrey: It did.

Nastaran: Everyone was just wonderful.

Jeffrey: I would say that “The Nanny,” although I’m not sure it’s considered “a high falutin’ writing show” like was great too. To this day, people love this show It continues to get re-sold in syndication. I have no snobbery about it; it was nothing but fun. Fran Drescher was a star and when we came on “The Nanny” it was a top 10 show, but she was a very down to earth star. And this was a situation where we learned that you don’t have to be above anybody.

Nastaran: We’re still friends with her…

Jeffrey: …we’re still friends with her and a lot of those writers.

Nastaran: And we had a very very good experience when we went to New York to run “Hope and Faith” for a year.

Jeffrey: It was the third season.

Nastaran: I have to say it was the happiest time of our lives in terms of doing a show because we were doing it in New York and we had a really wonderful cast and crew. It was like one of those periods in life where everyday I’d wake up and realize I was having a good experience. And I wanted to make sure that I was aware of this so I could look back on it and know that I truly appreciated it.

Jeffrey: A lot of writers will tell you that some of their favorite shows were not necessarily shows that were highly rated or didn’t stay on the air. Ultimately ABC cancelled “Hope and Faith.” But it doesn’t matter because we had a great experience. We ran it the way we wanted to and we had a wonderful wonderful collaboration with the cast. Kelly Ripa, Faith Ford and Ted McGinley were about the most pleasant, professional people you could hope to work with. It was too much fun.

Nastaran: And the writing staff. They were all awesome.

Jeffrey: We’ve had a lot of good mentors. You learn every step of the way. Even the bad experiences will teach you. From the time we got into this, we’ve always played the game of “What would we have done differently?” We were always in a management/showrunning frame of mind even from the time we were staff writers.

Nastaran: The other show that really helped us was “According to Jim” because the Executive Producers gave us a lot of responsibilities. They let us run rooms. We were on the floor. They were very good about letting us be involved with the show. I will to this day say that I learned more on that show than any other because they just let us do it.

Jeffrey: “According to Jim” was also great because we rotated who ran the episodes. They had like four or five hundred executive producers and we all kind of took turns running the show. So one week Nastaran would do it, one week I’d do it, another week someone else would do it. We called it “driving the bus” and the agreement was that whoever was driving the bus that week made the decisions. They had three executive producers who had created the show but they were very very generous in letting other people take the reins.

Nastaran: EPs and Co-Eps.

Jeffrey: That was educational too because then you learned to give up control. You had it for a week and then it was someone else’s to run and you had to get used to not being an overseer but being a part of the team. And that was a really great learning experience that I think more showrunners forget. Some showrunners get a show and they lose their minds and think they’re Napoleon. You have to remember that you came up through the ranks and you were part of a team so you can’t forget how a team functions. You have to keep morale up and you’ve got to treat people with respect.

Neely: What did each of you do before you started working on a show? What were your goals and what did you do before you had that first writing job?

Nastaran: I actually worked for a while as a cinematographer up in Canada, mostly shooting documentaries where I got to travel all over the world. And then I came down here and went to the American Film Institute because I got a fellowship in cinematography. But then after all that, I started to look at some people I knew who were writers and I was like “these guys are making really good money; maybe I can do that.” And I just switched over. Honestly, for me, I think it was the ignorance of what was ahead that made me take the leap. There are times now when I wish I could go back to when I wasn’t afraid. Now it’s like “that’s not going to happen” because I know how it works. But when I moved here from Canada, I didn’t know any better, so I just thought, “well I guess I could write.” I had no idea of the obstacles that were ahead of me; like just how hard it is to even get an agent. That kind of ignorance was definitely bliss.

Jeffrey: I was a classical musician.

Neely: Really?! What instrument?

Jeffrey: I was a percussionist. I went to a summer internship program with the Boston Symphony Orchestra called Tanglewood and I played concerts with Leonard Bernstein and Seiji Ozawa and studied with some great classical orchestral musicians. I played gigs; I played with the Boston Ballet occasionally and some local orchestras. But I looked around one day and said “I really love TV and movies and I don’t think I’m going to make a good living at this.” I had a really good memory for dialogue and themes for movies, even as a little kid. I’d go to see a movie and I’d come home and recite the entire movie obnoxiously to my family. I had reached a point where I knew I was a good musician but I was never really going to be great. I’m not even sure that I was that good; I was only good at some things. But I did it until I was about 22 and I played my last concert on the Boston Esplanade and I hung it up and moved out West. I worked on a dude ranch in Wyoming for a while and then I moved out here with 80 bucks in my pocket because somebody said to me “if you want to work on TV shows and movies, then you’d better go where they do it.”

Neely: Where did you both grow up and go to college?

Jeffrey: I grew up in Worcester, Mass. and went to the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston. I should have made up something like I went to M.I.T. because then you’d think I was smart, but now you just think I’m a nerd. (laughs) My family rarely comes up in our conversations but, although there is some doubt in the origins, I seem to be descended from a line of questionable Eastern Europeans who arrived in this country early in the last century.

Nastaran: When my family first came to the U.S. we lived in Ohio.  Even though my father was a practicing dentist in Iran, he got a scholarship from the Iranian government to go to Ohio State University, where he specialized in prosthodontics (dictionary note: The branch of dentistry that deals with the replacement of missing teeth and related mouth or jaw structures by bridges, dentures, or other artificial devices). This was a big opportunity for him.  Anyway, he decided to give up his practice in Iran, and just packed up the whole family and moved to Columbus, Ohio. So at the age of 38 he was a student again, living in student housing with a wife and two kids.  That was an unbelievable leap of faith on his part.  It taught me a lot.  It taught me that seeking the best place to live was worth all the bumps in the road that we had along the way.  And we did have a lot of bumps.  That’s where all the stories for “Funny in Farsi” would have come from.

After that we moved to Canada. Even though our life in the States wasn’t luxurious by any means, my father preferred living in a one-bedroom apartment and using food stamps to going back to Iran.  He tried to get work in the States, and with his specialization there were plenty of opportunities for him, but he was only here on a student visa and the U.S. government wouldn’t let him stay here legally. (At the time, this government was on very friendly terms with the Shah of Iran, the government at that time.) That’s when my father, intent on not returning to Iran, decided to apply for work in Canada.  McGill University in Montreal really wanted him badly, so they offered him a job if he could just get himself to the U.S./Canada border.  Essentially, we all escaped to Canada in an 18 hour period.  Once we got to the border McGill had arranged immigration papers for the whole family.  And my father never went back to Iran. My family is all up in Canada still.  Although, my father, who passed away last year, eventually became a Canadian citizen just like the rest of us, he remained infatuated with the United States.  He would always say, “I love Canada, but the U.S. is still the best country in the world.”   I guess you always remember your first love.

I went to high school and college, Concordia University, up in Montreal. But after Concordia, I applied for a fellowship to the American Film Institute and got in. When I graduated AFI, I went back to Canada, but I only stayed a short while. Nothing against Canada, it was just that at that point I’d been exposed to the way Americans do things – all big and shiny. And everything there seemed to be on such a small scale in comparison. So I moved back down to LA. That’s when I decided to try to pursue writing and it turned out okay I guess.

Jeffrey: We’ll see.

Neely: Where or what are you guys working on right now?

Jeffrey: We’re just getting back in development. We have a bunch of projects we’re trying to get off the ground. But it just seems silly to talk about it right now because everything is still in the nascent stage.

Neely: Are you on any kind of an Overall?

Jeffrey/Nastaran: No. We’ve never had a deal. We’re not on an Overall, which is fine…

Jeffrey: …On an Overall, they own you and can stick you on a show you don’t want to be on, so who needs that…

Nastaran: …That’s not why we’re not on one. I’d be happy to be on one…

Jeffrey: …Well, actually, we’re not on one because nobody gave us one.

Nastaran: But this year we’ve decided that no matter what we end up selling, we’ll definitely write something that’s just ours, that doesn’t go through the development process. Something that we want to write, that we just sit down and write on our own.

Jeffrey: I will go on record as saying that even though we’ve come across many good executives, the development process, inherently, doesn’t work. If it did, more shows would get on, stay on, and split a basically equal viewership in their timeslots. That’s not the case. And the truth is that it just doesn’t make the shows better. I just wish there was a little trust towards writers from the executive side. After all, when you hire someone to do something, you’re paying them for their particular voice, so let them do it. I would never give my surgeon surgery notes.

Nastaran: It’s funny, but of all the things we’ve ever written, the one that got the least amount of notes because everybody was on the same page from the beginning was “Funny in Farsi.” We handed in a draft before the strike, and they gave us notes, but very normal notes.

Jeffrey: They weren’t development notes, they were like clarifying notes, which were fine.

Nastaran: And ultimately the script they picked up to shoot was based on what we wrote. We got maybe one set of notes at the outline stage and one set of notes at the script stage. What it proves to me is that when everyone is on the same page at the beginning, forget about the fact that they didn’t pick it up to series, it turns out better.

Jeffrey: When everyone is going in the same direction.

Nastaran: Exactly.

Jeffrey: But when you bring something in and everyone is picking it apart, and going “this character isn’t likeable;” it’s our job to know the structure and how to make it work. If we can’t do that then they shouldn’t be hiring us or anybody.

Nastaran: I’m of a slightly different mind than Jeffrey about that process because I do think notes can help. I just think it’s more productive when everyone is going in the same direction, because with every set of notes you’re refining and making things sharper. But sometimes you hand in an outline or a script and they turn around and say, “what if it’s not about this but it’s about this?” and it’s a completely different concept. That’s when everything starts to fall apart. And we’ve had that happen, too. Thankfully it didn’t happen with “Funny in Farsi” and I think the script benefited from that.

Neely: The art of giving and receiving notes is very tricky territory.  As referenced as few weeks ago, Peter Lefcourt, who is famously prickly about the receipt of such, wrote an interesting and amusing article about the subject in “Written By” magazine. (http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=36445&31&p=21)

My wish for you on this topic would be a variation on the Irish Blessing:

May the road rise up to meet you.

May the wind always be at your back.

May your writing be beloved and appreciated.

May the notes be clarifying and contributing.

And may those who don’t get it be struck mute so that their useless thoughts are never heard.

Thanks for spending so much time with me.

Coming Soon: “Nevermind Nirvana” by Ajay Sahgal.

Contact Neely at neely@nomeanerplace.com

July 28, 2010

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” – Emma Lazarus

“Funny in Farsi” by Nastaran Dibai & Jeffrey B. Hodes  (Based on the book: Funny in Farsi by Firoozeh Dumas)

What: Mohammed Sayed Kazem Jazayeri has taken a job with an oil company and moved his entire family from Tehran to Newport Beach, CA. This fish has jumped out of the water!

Who: Looking back, daughter Firoozeh, age 13 at the time, was resourceful and observant:

Adult Firoozeh: (V.O.) Look at us. In a town where everyone was blond and sailed, we stood out like a living oil spill.

Eager to assimilate, out of necessity each family member (with the exception of Firoozeh) Americanizes his or her first name. Father Mohammed Sayed Kazem becomes Kaz; mother Nazireh became Nancy after a brief disastrous trial as Nazi; and teenage brother Farshid, the football team’s equipment manager, became Chip as soon as he realized how many bodily functions could be made to sound like Farshid.

Television and fast food were the touchstones of the Jazayeri family’s understanding of America.

Nancy: Please set up the trays. You know it’s Bowling for Bucks night and your father will be home any minute.

Firoozeh takes five TV trays from a closet and puts them in a row in front of the television. As she sets them:

Adult Firoozeh: (V.O.) TV was my family’s campfire. Every night we’d bask in its comforting glow. And with each game show, sitcom, and bologna commercial, we understood America just a little more.

SFX: The refrigerator shudders and groans loudly.

Chip: What’s wrong with the refrigerator?

Nancy: Same thing that is wrong with the washing machine and the vacuum cleaner. Your father refuses to buy anything new. It’s all second-hand junk from garage sales…Sometimes I think your father would be happier if he’d bought me half price from a family that was about to move.

Kaz and his jovial younger brother, Uncle Mansoor (early 30’s), enter with a bucket of KFC and all the fixins.

Kaz: Look what your Uncle Mo and I brought. Kentucky Fried Chicken!

Uncle Mo: Yes sir. They say it is licking finger good and they do not lie.

Adult Firoozeh: (V.O.) That’s my Uncle Mansoor, Uncle Mo. He came for a three-week visit. Six months ago.

Nancy: But we just had fried chicken on Sonny and Cher night.

Uncle Mo: That was the Colonel’s Original recipe. This is extra crispy, (like commercial) with fourteen secret herbs and spices cooked to crispy perfection.

And though each member of the family had his or her own favorite television program – from “Happy Days,” “Hawaii 5-0,” “The Six Million Dollar Man” to “The Carol Burnett Show,” nothing quite resonated like “Bowling for Bucks,” as it was Kaz’s Holy Grail to be chosen as a contestant – his bowling team didn’t call him Kaz the Jazz for nothing!

Disaster struck, as it was destined to do with garage sale merchandise, and the television finally blew up.

Adult Firoozeh: (V.O.) TV was our link to American culture, our Rosetta Stone. There was more sadness that night than back in Iran when my Mom’s third cousin got dragged away by the secret police.

Kaz: Don’t worry. This weekend, Uncle Mo and I will go to garage sales until we find a brand new used TV.

The family rebelled against Kaz and demanded a brand new television – a Zenith like that owned by their next door neighbors the Applebys. Kaz, however, dug in his heels for he was, after all, the king of this realm and he swore never to buy retail.

Nancy: No!

Everyone reacts. This open defiance is unusual for Nancy.

Kaz: What do you mean, “no”?

Nancy: I mean no more used anything. Everyone says, “You pay for what you get.”

Chip: It’s “You get what you pay for.”

Nancy: That also makes sense. Let’s do that.

Kaz: I will never pay retail. Never.

Nancy: But you have a good job. You can afford it.

Kaz: I can afford it because I save for the days that rain. What if I can’t work any more because my arms and legs suddenly fall off?

Nancy: Why? Did you buy them at a garage sale?

Kaz: Listen, I once built my own radio and it only cost me twenty-five cents. A new TV probably costs ten dollars to make, but they charge an arm and a leg –

Firoozeh: Which might fall off.

Nancy: But the used junk doesn’t work! (waves TV Guide) And this is the week Mr. Grant moves into Rhoda’s old apartment. We are getting a new TV.

And with the demise of the used television came the dawning of a whole new era; one that saw the blossoming of Nancy into a more independent woman, one whose sewing talent is instantly recognized at The House of Cloth fabric store.

Candice Smiley: I hope you don’t think I was eavesdropping, but I was. Are you a professional seamstress?

Nancy: Not really. I learned to sew back in my country.

Candice Smiley: And where are you from?

Nancy: Iran.

Candice Smiley: Hmm. Never heard of it.

Nancy: It’s between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Candice Smiley: Hmm. Never heard of them.

Nancy: You make a left turn at Asia.

Candice Smiley: Oh. Listen, I want to lay it all out. Straight up, thimbles off. I’m Candice Smiley, the manager. You obviously have a gift and I’d like you to unwrap it right here.

It’s a brave new world in the Jazayeri household for now Nancy will have the means to buy the family a brand new TV.

Kaz: How could you take a job without consulting me? What is happening? Where is the woman I married?

Nancy: She’s in America now. And here women work.

Kaz: This is all Mary Tyler Moore’s fault!

Nancy: You should be happy. Now I can buy a new TV with my money.

Kaz: If anyone is going to provide a new TV for this family, it will be me. I’m the man of the house.

Nancy: Okay. Then go buy a new TV.

Kaz: No. Only I can tell me what to do. And I’m telling me not to listen to you. You know what this is? This is the battle of the sexes. I am Bobby Riggs and you are Billie Jean King.

Firoozeh: You do know Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs, right?

Kaz: We’ll just see about that!

But history does repeat itself and eventually the family does get that brand new TV when Kaz learns from his sophisticated neighbor, Paul Appleby, that Big Jimmy’s Appliance Barn has an after 4th of July half price sale on TVs, including the Zenith model his family so craves.  Life is good in America, especially on Independence Day when Kaz learned that “Americans honor their country by slashing prices.”

No Meaner Place: One of the two or three best half hours written for this season, “Funny in Farsi” landed at the network that hit the bulls eye last year with “Modern Family” and “The Middle;” both family friendly comedies.  “Funny in Farsi” should have fit right in – a slightly off- kilter family values experience celebrating what it’s like to be American. Rather than lead with strength and what could have been a brand in family entertainment, ABC chose to go the route of the rom-com singles relationship comedy – choosing what I consider to be inferior product.  I wonder how that’s going to work out for them (and in case you missed the tone, I’m dripping with sarcasm)?  Dibai and Hodes have written a laugh-out-loud classic. This is the immigrant’s story at its best – in the tradition of Leo Rosten’s famous New Yorker short stories about Hyman Kaplan.  Sharp dialogue, unusually deep character development and 100s of stories.  Someone really goofed on this and it wasn’t Dibai and Hodes.

Life Lessons for Writers: “We may never meet again, on that bumpy road to love but I’ll always keep the memory of the way your smile just beams; the way you sing off key; the way you haunt my dreams. No they can’t take that away from me.”

Conversation with the writers:

Neely: Clearly I’m a fan.  How did you come across the underlying work?

Nastaran: I’m Iranian and one of my cousins told me I had to read the book. And when I read it, it was like reading about my own life and family. I moved here in the 70s just like the author of the book, Firoozeh Dumas, and the father in the book was literally my Dad. Jeffrey related to it mainly because he had heard all of my stories. Am I right about that?

Jeffrey: Nastaran and I have been married for 20 years now and her family is my family. So, I was there for some family history and some of these things I had heard through family stories; but it’s still the classic immigrant tale.

Neely: That it is. I’m going to have to read the book.

Jeffrey: I highly recommend it…

Nastaran: …It’s a really great book. Anyway, Jeffrey had not only heard my stories but when he read the book he kept saying, “Oh my God! This is your Dad!” Just like Kazem in the book, my Dad was deeply patriotic and unbelievably cheap. My Dad was a guy who would take us on road trips and stop at every rest area just to marvel at the fact that they’d built a rest stop for weary travelers. And he would exclaim how any country that would do that for its citizens was a great country. It’s not like he didn’t appreciate the great achievements like the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building, but it was the simple things that amazed him. Like going to a department store and getting excited because they had everything in one store, or the fact that public places like restaurants and gas stations had clean bathrooms, or that Johnny Carson could tell jokes about the president every night and no one would drag him away and torture him.

Neely: Who owns the option?

Jeffrey: The book was originally optioned by ABC, specifically at the request of Samie Falvey who’s Senior Vice President of comedy. She had come across the book and snatched up the rights…

Nastaran: …Samie didn’t snatch up the rights; she liked the book and wanted to snatch up the rights.

Jeffrey: …Well ultimately they had the rights. At that point, Firoozeh Dumas, the author, had been approached by several different writing entities but when Nastaran and I were set up to meet with her, we all hit it off because of Nastaran’s background and my familiarity with it; we also hit it off personally and are still friends to this day. That’s when we moved forward with it.

Neely: How did the finished pilot look? Was there anything you would have changed? How satisfied with it were you?

Nastaran: Honestly, I think I’ll be able to answer this more objectively a year from now, once we’ve had some time away from it. Right now we’re still reeling a bit. I would say that it looks different from anything you’ve seen on TV. It was directed by Barry Sonnenfeld, so it has a visual style all its own – that has everything to do with Barry and little to do with us. Also, it’s a period piece, which isn’t something you see a lot of on TV – unless you’re on AMC and you’re “Mad Men” (which is a show that we love and admire). Add to that the fact that it’s a cast of foreigners speaking in accents, and it’s not the most likely candidate to get on network TV. We always knew it was a long shot.

Jeffrey: You know most writers have horror stories about their pilots. They got noted to death until the script disintegrated or they didn’t get along with the director or they weren’t on the same page with the network about casting. But even at this point, we’re able to look at it objectively and say – it’s not perfect but it’s what we wrote, it’s what we meant, and it definitely has the feel that we were shooting for. So it’s boring to say, but it was a very happy experience and I think it shows in the final product.

Nastaran:  We liked it. But look, are there things we would change? Absolutely. We were just talking about this today. It would have been great to have another day to shoot so that we had had more material to choose from in editing. Also we had a huge challenge in terms of casting. On a regular pilot you have a large casting pool and audition for weeks. We wanted to try to get Iranian actors for the parts, but we ran through all of those in about an hour. So we had to start seeing other ethnicities, but it’s a challenge to find someone who can handle a regular series role when their experience has mostly been playing Terrorist #1 and Terrorist #2. I will say that we were very lucky with our leads, because I think we got the two best actors for the part and they were actually Iranian. Maz Jobrani, who played Kaz, the dad, is not only a great comedian, but a skilled comic actor. And I think everyone at ABC recognized that from the start. We found an actress in New York, Marjan Neshat, who was wonderful and played the mother. But casting the kids and the uncle was a challenge because we were casting from a very shallow pool. Right now you’re hearing about all these pilots that are reshooting and recasting. I’m not really sure they could have done that with ours because let’s say they didn’t like some of the casting, this was all we had. We brought the best we saw. I’m specifically talking about the supporting cast — there just weren’t a lot of different ways to go for us. I must say again that the two leads were awesome.

Neely: That’s fair and quite complimentary of everyone.  Did you shoot single camera or multi?

Nastaran/Jeffrey: Single.

Neely: There is quite a long tradition in comic writing about the immigrant experience.  Were there other similar works out there (either books, film or television) that helped shape this for you?

Jeffrey: One of the reasons that ABC was interested in bringing us in was that we had worked on ABC shows before, so they knew us and they knew Nastaran was Iranian. Also, we had previously written a spec pilot called “My America” based on Nastaran’s experiences. We had no knowledge of the book at that point; we just felt that the immigrant experience was something that hadn’t really been written about for TV.

Nastaran: You know, to this day, I’m not sure that ABC ever read that spec pilot, but there were many things in “Funny in Farsi” that we used from it. The story of Nancy (the mother) getting a job and Kaz (the father) not being okay with it was from that spec pilot. We used bits and pieces of material from the book but in order to bring it together and form this family we had to bring in other elements. For example, in the book the mother character is almost non-existent. Firoozeh wrote mainly about her father.  So, for the purposes of doing a series, we had to create a strong female character who could go up against this outsized male character week after week. We decided to base her on my Mom. I mean, Nancy works at a fabric store – my Mom came here and got a job at a fabric store. Nancy starts to find her voice and place in America and the same thing happened with my mother. Even though my dad was always the loudest, we all knew my mother was the one with the real power. It was the quiet dignity. So, the husband/wife dynamic came mostly from my parents, but the book had a lot of moments that are in the pilot that I think give the pilot its depth. If anything helped us it was that we had already tried to write this before and we had some personal material to draw on. It was just fortuitous that so many of my past experiences were similar to Firoozeh’s.

Neely: I could really identify with the characters.  My experience as part of a first generation (my mother was Romanian raised in Paris) has informed much of what I’ve done as a parent – trying to make sure that I didn’t make the same mistakes.  You would have thought that growing up in Paris might have shaped my mother’s fashion sense in a positive way, but I’m here to tell you that her choices for me screamed Romanian and not Parisian; although I must admit that she was 30 years ahead of her time when she squeezed my pear shaped little body into black stretch pants. Nastaran, I can only imagine, but your mother’s choices must have been shaped by what she knew from the old country.

Nastaran: Yeah. It’s funny because my mom’s been here for a long, long time now, but essentially she’s still the same person she was when we first moved here. A lot of the things we used in the pilot, the malapropisms, they’re all out of my parents’ mouths. To this day, my sister and I will tell her, “Mom, that’s not how you say it.” And she gets mad at us because we’re always correcting her. I think teenagers are always embarrassed by their parents anyway; but that’s particularly true when you’re from an immigrant family.  You just want to fit in with the “regular” people. I longed to be like my blond friend who had the perfect American family and lived across the street in a nice house that wasn’t cluttered with a mishmash of garage sale stuff. All I ever wanted was that; but no matter what we did, we always stood out. We stood out like a living oil spill.

Neely: To be fair to Jeffrey, every child, including your perfect neighbor across the street, has that  very same feeling about sticking out and being embarrassed by their parents. How about you Jeffrey?

Jeffrey: Listen, if I came from a healthy, functional family, I wouldn’t be doing this for a living. I always envied people who worked in banks. I imagined they must have had much happier families than I did because they didn’t feel the need to go into show business.

Neely: Very well put.  You’ve shared some of the experiences without even changing the names to protect the innocent. Want to share a couple of more experiences growing up that you would eventually have put in the series?

Nastaran: Like the shortening of the family’s names in the pilot; we did it because we didn’t want the American audience to have to learn these really complicated names, but it happened in my family. My sister, for example, her name was Nazila. One day she came home from school and announced that she shortened her name to Nazi. She was five so she totally did not know what a Nazi was; but after a couple of years of going by that name, she announced that she was changing her name again. “What are you talking about?” we asked her.  “Everybody tells me that this is a bad name.” It so happened that Firoozeh’s mother’s name was Nazireh, so it just fit in perfectly with my experience. And in the book, Firoozeh had a whole chapter about shortening names. I believe that’s a common immigrant thing – another way of trying to assimilate. One of the things Firoozeh noted when she read our first draft was that even though we didn’t use the book exclusively, we captured the feeling of her book. She had heard that once you give up your book for adaptation, be prepared to have it raped. But I believe she’s still very happy with what we did because we captured the essence of her work.

Jeffrey: I think that when you’re adapting a book, capturing the essence really is key. The details from the book are important, but just as important is conveying the tone; we really tried to find the heart of those universal immigrant experiences. We actually broke six episodes in case we got on the air and some of those stories were inspired by tidbits from the book. That proved to Nastaran and me that we could take the spirit of the book and move forward with it.

Neely: I’ve had some pretty heated discussions about adaptations but I’ve got to tell you that I still believe that adaptation is a delicate art.

Jeffrey: It’s about being able to read the mind of the book you’re adapting. There’s a great example in the film adaptation of John Irving’s “The World According to Garp.” In the movie there’s a scene that doesn’t exist in the book where a plane flies into a house that Garp and his wife are looking at buying. The plane destroys the house and Garp says, “The chances of another plane hitting this house are astronomical. It’s been pre-disastered. We’re safe here.” It’s not in the book but really captures the book’s mood of hopefulness and disaster being so close together. I feel that when you’re adapting a book it’s not about being a slave to it, it’s about expanding its spirit.

Neely: I think that often times you’re hampered by the original material because you have to find a way to be true to the spirit but at the same time you have to find a new way in and a way out so that you can continue with that 100 episodes.

Jeffrey: Well, you should always build a pilot so it can go 100 episodes. A lot of pilots seem very self-contained, and when you see them, you think: “That’s great. What the hell is episode four?” But in the end, adaptation is about what to leave in and what to leave out. If nobody Iranian had been involved, it probably wouldn’t have been as faithful to the tone. We really had a lot to draw on from Nastaran’s experiences.

Nastaran: In some ways it was hard and in some ways it was easy because if you read the book, it’s a series of short stories. As a TV writer you’re tempted to think that every one of the stories is an episode, but they’re not really. They’re more like scenes or moments that can inspire a whole story. For example, in the book there’s a chapter about the father, who fancies himself an expert bowler because he’s been watching it on TV, going on “Bowling for Dollars.” But he chokes and only ends up winning a dollar. That story always stood out for me because every immigrant I know, whether they’re Iranian or Indian or whatever, comes here and the first thing they think about is going on a game show. My Mom has been sending postcards into “The Price is Right” for over 40 years now. It’s a totally American phenomenon – you can go on a game show and win all this money just by using certain skills, or sometimes no skills. It’s the epitome of what this country symbolizes – Easy money.

Jeffrey: And that’s why there’s a line in the pilot where Kaz, the father, says “I tell you, game shows are the solution to all our problems.” This is a very American thing. We’re in a major recession and lottery ticket sales have never been higher. I hope we took that idea and nailed it – the desire to get rich quick with very little effort.

Nastaran: We read the book, then we went through it and looked for the things that really jumped out at us as memorable. Jeffrey and I thought we might only have the pilot, so we tried to figure out how many of these memorable moments we could fit into the pilot and still keep it a cohesive story. The Bowling for Bucks story was in the book, and a lot of other little things. Also, everything about the uncle was from the book. In the book, the uncle character really stood out because he was the ultimate consumer. And every time we went to a meeting everyone always commented on how funny the uncle character was.

Jeffrey: I’m not really sure we captured that on film as well as we could have, to be quite honest…

Nastaran: …yeah, I think we had a bit of miscasting, not because of the actor who played the part, because he was really good, but because it was really a part that was written for a roly-poly tag along. But we cast this guy who, in reality, is not fat and is pretty good looking. He was very committed, so he put on weight before we started shooting, but I’m not sure his character landed the way it did in the book.

Jeffrey: That was an element in the book that I don’t think we captured successfully.

Neely: In so many ways, I felt you were channeling the late great Jean Shepherd at times.  Not just from “Christmas Story” based on his book In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash, but also “The Great American Fourth of July and other disasters.” The father isn’t an immigrant but it certainly falls into the category of all parents are “alien” in one way or another.

Jeffrey: Well, we think of immigrants as being aliens in this country, but whether we like it or not, they are us and they have been from the start. The country literally was built by immigrants; our most iconic landmarks, our greatest public works. We’re in an ideological civil war right now where everyone seems to be arguing about who’s more American; who’s got America’s best interests at heart; who’s a real patriot. It’s bullshit. I still believe the best things about America are the melting pot ingredients: our differences are a richness we’re not exploiting enough for the greater good. So, one of the things we were hoping to convey if this had gone to series is that the immigrant experience is part of the deep fabric of the country. Immigrants love, love, love this country and they see it with an outsider’s eye. So they see it more clearly. They love it for what it is.

Nastaran: That’s another thing we really really liked about the book: it was neither political nor religious. We wanted to do a show about an immigrant family – specifically a Middle Eastern family — that had nothing to do with religion or politics. That was one of the main reasons we set it in the 70s. Back then, this country was pretty innocent regarding the Middle East. At least that was my experience and I believe it was Firoozeh’s as well.

Neely: I’m not sure I completely agree with what you thought was the view of the Middle East at the time because America was well aware of the Arab-Israeli conflicts -  the 7 days war in 1967, the Yom Kippur War in ’73; the 1973 Arab oil embargo. I would agree we were very “innocent” and naïve about the Shah of Iran since the press always seemed so favorable and he was so pro-American. We were, I must admit, pretty sheltered from the reports of torture and human rights abuses that were such a big part of his regime.

Nastaran: But I really felt when we moved here that people were kind and open. A couple of years ago my sister said something to me that really hit home. She said, “Don’t you wish we could go back to when we first moved here and no one knew where Iran was?” That’s why there’s a line in the pilot where Nancy tries to explain where Iran is and the woman (Candice Smiley) has no idea… we got that all the time. “Is that a new country?” “Where is that?” That was back in the 70s; people weren’t necessarily stupid, they were curious. We wanted to capture a time when people were more embracing; and our characters were embracing the country in return. That was the essence of what we wanted to capture.

Neely: Just an aside – yes, you captured that but, yes, people were stupid and they still are.

Nastaran: (Gasp!)

Jeffrey: Let me be more specific about the way the Americans are portrayed in the show. For too long, Americans didn’t care or even know about other places, other cultures. They don’t really know their geography; they should know where the Middle East is. But in not knowing, they were also very open and welcoming and curious. “Oh really! What’s that about? That’s so interesting! How do you pronounce that? Tell me about your country.” Now they think eating bratwurst at Epcot is a cultural education.

Nastaran: But also, remember the pilot is told from the point of view of a 12-year old. That was my experience; it wouldn’t necessarily have been my experience if I had been 18. I can tell you that what we wanted to do if the show had gone to series and lasted at least four years (yeah, I’m still an immigrant with big grandiose dreams). We wanted to portray what happened after the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis because that’s when everything changed. Then it was like “You’re Iranian. Go home. You’re a dirty Arab.” I think we could have done that if we’d had four years of an audience getting to know the characters. I agree with you that people are stupid but I also think, and maybe this is just the immigrant in me, that this is still one of the greatest countries in the world. My father, who passed away last year, just loved, loved, loved this country. And even though at one point we moved to Canada because of his job (he was a professor at McGill University), all he would talk about was America, America, America. I get that because now I look at what’s going on in Iran and think “Thank God my parents got me out of there.” Thank God I got to come here and pursue what I want. Who knows where I would be if we’d stayed in Iran.

Jeffrey: You’d be in jail. Or worse.

Neely: I think so too. Elaborating a bit on my gasp-inducing statement, but basically being ignorant is not okay, it can be funny, but it’s still not okay. There was that ignorance from the man on the street because Americans have always been fairly isolationist – but you can bet your bottom dollar that they could find Viet Nam on a map (even if they didn’t know where it was in the early 60s). The attitude has always been, if it doesn’t have anything to do with America, why should we bother learning about it. You may be romanticizing the time period a bit because it wasn’t a lot different than it is now. It was a time of American flag pins and slogans like “America. Love it or leave it.”

Jeffrey: We knew that but again, as Nastaran said, the pilot was told from a 12 year-old’s point of view, which is inherently more innocent. And again, we had a long-term plan for showing how the Americans’ attitudes would’ve changed in the 3rd or 4th seasons and how our family would’ve felt about it. Nastaran and I had a series plan; we never just make or write a pilot without looking down the road. We always go in with “this is how we’re going to do 100 episodes.” But up front, it was important to show how kind and open hearted Americans were; we really wanted to portray that.

Neely: I’m sorry you didn’t get a chance with this one; maybe the next one.

Jeffrey: That’s show business.

Neely: Besides “Funny in Farsi,” what got away from you that still seems to need a finish?

Nastaran: We’ve written a bunch of pilots over the years; pilots that we’ve always felt some kind of connection to. There were a couple of pilots that we’ve written about our relationship that I wish we could revive because there’s such a personal connection. But actually, after doing all of that and doing “Funny in Farsi” which was very personal, I said to Jeffrey “No more trying to do things that we connect to!” Maybe we should do something that we don’t connect to at all and maybe that will work for us. There couldn’t have been anything more personal than “Funny in Farsi.” Except maybe this pilot we wrote a few years ago called “Two Percent Marriage.”

Jeffrey: It was kind of about our marriage but it wasn’t about a writing team because nobody wants to see writers so they were architects. But they were living our life. They are a couple that works together; they’re trying to negotiate the work versus relationship part of that. They have a disabled father, like we did, because Nastaran’s dad was in a wheelchair and they have a special needs child, which we do. We were trying mine the comedy of all that, not the heartbreak of it; just show this couple. We called it “Two Percent Marriage” because I’d say to Nastaran that when the shit’s flying at us from every direction, we have maybe two percent of our marriage left to focus on but I’m going to defend it with my life. So these very personal projects are really viable scripts that are just sitting on a shelf that I still think would be shows people would hopefully find entertaining and relatable. I don’t really know.

Neely: In terms of  Funny in Farsi, who owns the rights to the material?

Nastaran: ABC owns the rights because they renewed the option last November; probably because they had the intention of picking it up to pilot at the time. I believe they own it for another year – maybe until this November or a year after the pilot was completed, not sure. They definitely own this script, though. The author of the book has really encouraged us to write a screenplay based on the book and she wants to do it with us, but we can’t really touch the material until the option expires. And I don’t think ABC is going to give it up earlier.

Neely: That definitely answers my question. It would make a very good Indie but I think it would actually make a better stage play.

Jeffrey: Maybe.

Nastaran: She’s mentioned that, too. But right now we can’t really touch it and certainly we can’t use anything that’s in the script because ABC owns that.

Jeffrey: A lot of people have asked us if we’re going to redevelop it but we’re sort of done with it for now.

Nastaran: It’s so funny but before the pilot was out — and we didn’t have anything to do with this — somebody started a Facebook page of “Funny in Farsi” the TV show. You would not believe the support. Within a month it had over 10,000 fans.

Jeffrey: More than some shows currently on the air.

Nastaran: And we were saying to our representatives that they should let ABC know this; and I think they did. I mean there was already this big built-in audience. The book isn’t just for Iranians. Firoozeh Dumas speaks all over the country and the book is used in many high schools. Anyway, she said when she speaks, it’s not just Iranians who come to see her, it’s all ethnicities. She said everyone always asked her if it was going to be a TV show. And as soon as it was picked up to pilot and a Facebook page was created, it just exploded. Even if you go on the page now, people are just ranting about the fact that the show wasn’t picked up to series and how they wanted to see the finished pilot. Of course we can’t post it, but it had a huge built-in audience and that, in itself, I thought was worth something, but apparently it wasn’t.

Neely: I’m still a great believer of hope springing eternal. Keep that Facebook page alive. I understand why everyone comes to see it because  we are all immigrants, one way or another. There are the so-called 400 whose relatives may have come over on the Mayflower and may not be immigrants the way we now define the word, but they’ve probably married immigrants.

Nastaran: I actually think that you have the table draft script. In the original script, we had this opening that was setting a bigger stage for what we were about to see. It started out with a narrator saying we’re all immigrants; we all came from someone who came from somewhere else. It was a CGI opening where the camera was flying across the country and pointing out all the things that were built by immigrants – and then it finally landed on our family on the beach in Newport Beach. Anyway, we were trying to help ABC Studios cut some costs so we agreed to take that opening page and a half out. But the night before we were about to deliver a cut to the network, they called us up and said we had to do something at the beginning. They felt that the show started too abruptly with the family on the beach and that the audience wouldn’t know why we’re telling this family’s story. And they weren’t wrong to be missing it because it used to be there. So, we scrambled with our awesome post-production team and in one nigh we put together a bunch of stock footage using some of the same narration from the original script. We had that in the pilot we delivered, but it was very rough – just a placeholder. We would have redone it if it had gone to series.

Neely: Any other notes?

Jeffrey: We did have notes that helped us clarify, but thankfully we didn’t have to go through a painful development process with this script. We pretty much just wrote what we sold. And look how that turned out.

Neely: Do you want to say anything complimentary about any development executives at ABC that helped shepherd this even though it didn’t go anywhere?

Jeffrey: Absolutely. Samie Falvey championed this project from the beginning. She didn’t let go of it; she was behind it all the way. I think she really saw what it could do for ABC, that it was an unlikely but relatable family show. She saw the possibilities for a greater audience, and I have to say that Steve McPherson rolled the dice on the making of a very very unlikely pilot.

Nastaran: Actually, everyone at ABC and ABC Studios seemed to have very warm feelings toward this project, but I think if anyone deserves credit for sticking with it from the beginning, it’s Samie.  Maybe she’ll never buy anything from us again, maybe she will, but when it came down to this project, she got it, she championed it and she loved it; she loved it as much as we did. She also comes from an immigrant family and I think there was something that she saw in the book that resonated for her. I think that’s one of the reasons she thought it had a universal appeal beyond just Iranians.

Jeffrey: And honestly, our manager Aaron Kaplan and our agent Cori Wellins were devoted to it; this was a passion project for them. This wasn’t just a “we’ve got to get Jeffrey and Nastaran some money from whatever gig.” Aaron Kaplan called me with Cori after the first time ABC killed it. (We were actually in preproduction once before when we lost Barry Sonnenfeld to a prior obligation to Sony and Steve McPherson said “let’s put it on hold.”) Anyway, Aaron and Cori called us up and said “I’m telling you guys you’re going to, at the very least, get this pilot made.” And they had a lot of passion for it; it really wasn’t just another script…

Nastaran: …because they’d represented us before on other things and it’s not that they didn’t like them or weren’t supportive, but when the projects didn’t go, they knew how to move on. If something got passed on they would say “okay, that didn’t go, how about this?” With this, they were like a couple of dogs with bones (I mean that in the most complimentary way). They were really passionate and hooked into the material and just kept saying to us “we’re going to make this happen.”

Jeffrey: That this pilot even got made at all is really something. It had a lot of angels on its shoulders and it would never have been produced if there hadn’t been so many people who believed in it and what kind of show it could introduce to the networks. Believe me, Nastaran and I weren’t the only part of this equation. Of course, it didn’t go the distance, but it’s not for lack of effort on many people’s parts.

Neely: I did mention in the blog I write for Studio System (where I don’t have to be nice) that as far as I was concerned, ABC left the two best half hours on the table.

Nastaran: Are you talking about “It Takes a Village?”

Neely: Yeah.

Nastaran: That’s the only other pilot I read that I thought was good.

Jeffrey: We were really rooting for that one. We even met on it.

Neely: Something I was discussing with my husband last night was that ABC had this wonderful opportunity to be branded as the Family Comedy Network. They already have “Modern Family” and “The Middle” from last year; they then had these two fabulous new family comedies in “Funny in Farsi” and “It Takes a Village.” But instead they went the same route that everyone else did by going in the Rom-Com direction with singles relationship “comedy,” most of which were at varying stages of awful.

Nastaran: I read all of them – not just ABC’s — and I couldn’t tell the difference between the characters.

Neely: Well there wasn’t any. That’s what astonished me. Maybe some of them will have improved in the shooting or with a special cast, but I’m not very optimistic. It can happen.  I remember three pilot scripts from a few years ago and liked two of them and really hated the third. Once they were shot, the two that I liked were totally botched and the one that I hated turned out very well, almost watchable; it made it two seasons.

Jeffrey: Casting can be everything. You really don’t know what you have until you’re finished shooting.

Nastaran: You might also watch “Funny in Farsi” and think this is not at all what I thought it would be.

Jeffrey: You might watch the pilot and think it wasn’t any good.

Nastaran: Again, I think when we look at it a year from now we might be able to see what went wrong.

Neely: Keep in mind that maybe nothing went wrong.

Jeffrey: Like William Goldman says, “Nobody knows anything.” That includes us.

Neely: I wanted a different ending for “Funny in Farsi;” one where we continue to follow the adventures of the Jazayeri family. I like to feel, at least in my dreams, that it’s still not dead.

Nastaran: I was actually hoping for the same thing the first time the pilot was put on hold. but when it got picked up the second time, was shot, and didn’t go to series, I realized that I had to let it go.

Jeffrey: I appreciate the fact that you appreciate it.

Neely: I still have so many more questions for the two of you. Let’s extend this conversation and continue it next week.  Until then, thanks for spending the time.

June 1, 2010

“You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don’t ever count on having both at once.” Robert A. Heinlein

“Them” by John McNamara & David Eick

Based on the Graphic Novel Six by Michael Oeming & Daniel Berman

What: They’ve landed; they’ve assumed our form; they’re taking over.

Who: The handsome Cain Johnson is a keen observer and an enforcer. His latest case is that of twenty-something Adam Laurie who, according to his therapist Ezekial Smits, may have gone over to the other side, something that will endanger the very structural fabric of the Central Command.  When Adam walks into the local television station and begins firing his revolver and ranting into the camera all hell breaks loose.

Adam: I have an important message… for the people of Earth…

Several terrified studio workers react – God, no, that kind of lunatic…

Adam: (into the studio cameras) …I’m… from another world. Another plane of existence. (moving closer to one camera) We’ve made ourselves look like you, sound like you. Home, we have no bodies. We’re energy… light… no tactile or emotional sensation. For us, there is no such thing as touch or feeling… no difference between this –

–he kisses the anchorwoman, startling her –

–and this –

– then SHOOTS the Anchorwoman in the leg, sending her into a seizure of agony and the studio into PANDEMONIUM.

Cain must do everything in his power to eliminate him, not because he is crazy, but because the truth of what he says threatens the very existence of their group, for they are, indeed, aliens; and Adam has broken the fundamental rule – he fell in love and learned to feel human emotions.

Cain’s inability to capture Adam brings the wrath of his other world in the form of a Sector Chief from Central Command.  As the Sector Chief gradually assumes human form, he instructs Cain that now, instead of killing Adam, Cain, the enforcer, must bring Adam to him for a “debriefing,” a “debriefing” that will be as terrifying as it will be painful.  Their bodies are almost indestructible; unless the injury is “sudden and catastrophic” triggering the “self destruct  gene,” the body will heal instantaneously. But, in an effort to assimilate human traits, injuries will result in extraordinary pain.  When Cain succeeds in capturing Adam, Adam is rescued by unknown hijackers.  Even more infuriated, Uriah Selleck, the newly created human version of the Sector Chief, proclaims that Adam, when ultimately captured, will not be immune to the torture inflicted on him and will, Selleck assures them, reveal his comrades in the nascent rebel group.

Each cog in the wheel of the Central Command is given only enough information to do its job. They are brought to the doorway which, in Cain’s words are

Cain’s Log: (V.O.) Where we cross over. Where life on our home world ends… and life here begins… A life where we receive orders. Obey without question. And know almost nothing about how many of us are here, what we’re doing or why. So when things go wrong, it’s difficult to know how to respond.

A lack of knowledge that is illustrated further by Uriah, the newly created human.

Uriah: Do you know why we’re here on this planet, Cain?

Cain: To help its people.

Uriah: And how are we doing that?

Cain: I don’t know.

Uriah: (to Paul) How many other cells are there?

Paul: I don’t know, sir.

Uriah: Abigail Denver, how long have we been here, what goals have we achieved in the overall operation?

Abigail: I don’t know sir.

Uriah: Exactly. You know what you need to know. A single Rogue won’t stop us. He can’t. He doesn’t know enough. Which is precisely the point.

But Adam isn’t a single rogue; he knows that they aren’t there to “help” earth; and he also knows more of the Central Command mission than they believe is possible. Others in the rebel group now also know, but will it be too late to stop the Central Command?

No Meaner Place: It’s difficult to dissect all the layers present in this piece.  Eick and McNamara have carefully constructed a classic 50’s horror play in the vein of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” that keys in on the psychological paranoia subtext while at the same time slyly and subtly referencing controlling cult religions such as Scientology and the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon. And yet on another level, or maybe on the same one, this is the Cheney/Bush administration where our phone records and internet messages were secretly read, where government was no longer transparent and we were told that access was denied for reasons of national security; where torture was used in defiance of the Geneva Convention; and no one division of the government knew what the other division was doing; and all of it was for the good of the people.

Yet within this paranoid other worldly Sci/Fi drama is infused humor and especially one humorous thread that runs throughout the pilot and will, presumably, through out the series.  Recall that Uriah, the Sector Chief appeared out of nothingness before he assumed human shape, since the aliens have no form other than light and air on their home planet.  Upon assuming human form, there is a naming process for each new alien:

Uriah studies himself. Arms. Hands. Chest. Abigail moves to him with a leather-bound book.

Abigail: Welcome , sir. I’ll choose a name for you.

Naked Man: I’ll choose my own.

Silently affronted, Abigail hands him the book.  Cain watches the Naked Man take it and stab a finger at random into a page.

Naked Man: (reading) “Uriah”

Ezekial writes this down as the Naked Man casts aside the leather book – which we now recognize as a BIBLE – and moves to a table.  On it, magazines, hundreds of them, all the same – TV GUIDE. He chooses an issue at random, opens it and says the first surname he sees there –

Naked Man: “Selleck.”

Ezekial: Uriah Selleck. Excellent choice.

Uriah: One old book that never changes and an infinity of periodicals that never stop. What a world.

Life Lessons for Writers:  “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.” And is there anyone more paranoid than a network executive?

Conversation with the Writer:

Neely: I’m so sorry we weren’t able to coordinate with John on this, but I know you’ll be able to give his perspective.

David: John, I call him Mac, has a very unique perspective, so I hope I’ll be able to approximate it one way or the other.

Neely: You and John have known each other a very long time.

David: Yes we have. As a matter of fact, my boys are now getting old enough that I can show them my crappy old TV shows and I was showing them the first thing Mac and I did together on a show called “Spy Game” for ABC.  They seemed to like it. They’ll understand later that they should not have enjoyed it.

Neely: But this only goes to prove, you have to show it to the audience it’s intended for in order to get the true perspective of how it works. How old are your boys?

David: It’s probably true that “Spy Game” was intended for people 10 and under.

Neely: Okay, I see your point. That is a demographic that is not valued a great deal, at least in mainstream television – Nickelodeon, maybe, ABC, probably not.

“Them” was based on the Graphic Novel Six by Michael Oeming & Daniel Berman, but how did the two of you come to collaborate on it?

David: Mac and I went to dinner at La Loggia (Note: this is the same restaurant where Legan and Wilding came up with “The Cell”) and we were just talking and he sprung it on me. He said he was looking for something to do for a pilot and he had gotten a hold of this graphic novel from David Engel, a manager at Circle of Confusion. He’d gotten it into his head that we should write this together. This really shocked me because all I had written up to that time were two stories and one story and teleplay for “Battlestar Galactica.” And here was Mac coming to me and asking me to cowrite a network pilot with him. I was very flattered. We actually pitched this on the phone to Craig Erwich in broad terms and described how we would adapt it; Craig just loved it. I think he just loved the graphic novel. Our whole thing was that we were going to use it as an allegory for this new, present day cold war-esque neighborhood fear; what everyone was feeling – not knowing if those guys down the street were terrorists. I think Craig was literally giddy about that as a metaphor or prism for a sci-fi show that the rest of it, including that I was co-writing it, didn’t matter to him.

That being said, I have to admit that if you were going to take a flyer on someone who hadn’t done a lot of writing and what you wanted to do was a post 9/11 metaphorical sci-fi piece, certainly having done “Battlestar Galactica” gave me street cred.

Neely: I loved the sophistication but this could also be taken at a literal level.  Did they get it or did you have to explain it? You’ve already alluded to the answer, in that Craig loved it at the pitch and was enthusiastic about the allegory possibilities. But how much did you have to explain what you wanted to do?

David: I understand why you’re asking because there’s a possible version of this scenario where maybe we went in and pitched a kind of “My Favorite Martian” television show and then sneakily and underhandedly made it a metaphor for post 9/11 paranoia. But the truth is, we wrote what we pitched. We were very excited about the idea that this thing could be addressed as an alien culture that was sent to take over Earth and conduct some sort of clandestine assignment and found themselves, nevertheless, inexplicably falling victim to the creature comforts of our culture. This seemed so amazingly appropriate, timely and exciting for what was happening in the real culture that I think that everybody (meaning Mac and Craig and the people at the network) was just thrilled. That was the objective and that’s what we did.

Neely: That’s a really interesting aside because it dovetails so nicely with the script that was recently featured on the blog entitled “The Cell” which was a satirical look at a cell of terrorists sent to Chicago to blow up a power plant and instead end up so loving the social environment that they become totally integrated into society and have no intention of doing any harm to their new found land.

David: Interesting parallel.

Neely: David, you are a true lover of Sci/Fi and most of what you have written or worked on is in that genre.  Isn’t that correct?

David: It’s not correct as regards to where I come from or why I got into the business in the first place, but it is correct that it is the pigeon hole I seem to have been placed in. And as I sit here in my home office surrounded by movie posters from Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese and Bob Fosse films, it’s ironic that science fiction is the thing I’m known for.

Neely: What draws you to the genre? What can you do in Sci/Fi that you can’t do in other genres?

David: If you look at “Battlestar Galactica” or the things I was doing when I was running Sam Raimi’s company, which wasn’t hardcore sci-fi but more cult fantasy with “Xena” or horror with “American Gothic,” or action adventure with “Spy Game,” or some of the other goofy stuff we did, none of it was “CSI” or westerns. It was all pretty much in the vanguard of comic book fare. I think the leap from comic book fantasy and horror to science fiction was easy for the people who came to me with the “Battlestar Galactica” title because it seemed like science fiction and fantasy worked together. I was looking at the opportunity of “Battlestar Galactica” as a chance to make the kind of science fiction that I liked which was not the kind of science fiction that was being made on television. I couldn’t get through an episode of “Star Trek;” I never watched “Andromeda” or “Stargate” and to tell the truth I can’t even name all the sci-fi shows that were on TV; and while I enjoyed science fiction movies like anybody, the big flashy popcorn action films like “Men in Black,” they weren’t really science fiction to me. I wanted to do with “Battlestar” what I had enjoyed about “Blade Runner,” which nobody went to see, or some of the novels I read by Heinlein and Azimoff and Philip K. Dick. It was really an opportunity to use the genre to tell allegorical fiction about our time. This was not a new idea; please, this is an old idea but I didn’t see it happening any more in the genre.

Neely: You mentioned westerns earlier, and I’ve always viewed a lot of these sci-fi shows, even some of the books, as westerns far in the future because oftentimes they have the same characters and same dilemmas. I think if you tear sci-fi down to its roots you will find a western by a different name. They are both, in their own ways, morality plays; sci-fi is generally just a bit more allegorical or certainly more metaphysical. And even though I profess not to be a particular fan of the genre, one of the things that’s especially appealing to me in sci-fi is the portrayal of women, even though it seems to be such a testosterone-driven genre. The female characters are usually exceptionally strong, much stronger than in other contemporary storytelling.

David: I find that to be especially true in “Battlestar” and in “Them,” both of which were born out of partnerships. From my own perspective, I was raised by a single mom and I am eternally fascinated by the female perspective in drama, so when you give me something that is considered to be a sort of muscley genre like science fiction, it’s always been fascinating to me to see what would happen if you plant women in traditionally male roles. That being said, it was Ron Moore’s idea to make Starbuck a female and to make the president of the colonies a woman. But certainly they were among my favorite characters to write when I began writing on the show. And when Mac and I got together on “Them” I probably put in on myself to ask if we wanted to put some focus on the female characters. Mac is like Lee Marvin in a writer’s body, he’s a dude who’s going to write men and they’re going to be really strong and really cool. And I knew I was never going to be able to compete with that, but maybe what I could bring to the table was a view of the other half. So for sure, women are something I’m deeply fascinated with within the genre.

Neely: You mentioned that you took it to Craig Erwich at Fox. Did you take it to anyone else before that or did you have a deal there?

David: No. In fact, much of this had already been teed up before I was even brought into it. Someone, either Mac or Dave Engle from Circle of Confusion, had had these preliminary conversations with Craig prior to our pitch. Craig had read the graphic novel by the time we got on the phone with him; so he knew what it was. He’d read it, he loved it, he knew the players, he knew the officers, he got it. It was an extraordinarily simple pitch.

Neely: In the graphic novel, is the subtext there? Or did you bring the subtext to it?

David: I’ve done a number of adaptations – “Battlestar” was one, “Bionic Woman” was one (in its own way), and I wrote an adaptation of the novel of “Children of Men” for television (which was also adapted as a movie); adaptations are funny animals. I’m doing one right now for HBO based on a graphic novel and I tend to barely glance at the book.  I want to know names, I want to get a sense of the structure, I want to know what the big idea is, but I get away from it as fast as I can because I don’t want to be overly affected by it. In the case of “Battlestar” I never actually watched any of the old shows. I had no idea what the old show was.

Neely: I don’t think anyone else did either.

David: As far as the subtext, I don’t know. I tend to think the book wasn’t as intent on telling a metaphorical story about terror cells. I could be wrong about that. I just read it as quickly as I could, got a sense of the big picture ideas and then fleshed it out with Mac without any evidence of the graphic novel in the room or nearby.

Neely: The pilot got made, didn’t it?

David: Yes it did.

Neely: Were you happy with the cast? With the director?

David: I loved the director, Jonathan Mostow. At the time I was doing another pilot for NBC that I didn’t write but that I had put together as a producer and I was not happy at all with the creative gathering that was taking place on that one. I was going between Universal and CBS Radford and every time I got to Radford, I was like Dorothy opening the door and everything was in color. I would feel so happy and so at home and everything was awesome. Jonathan directed this like a 1960s paranoia Frankenheimer thriller like “Manchurian Candidate” or “The Seven Days in May.” There was a point at which we were arguing with the studio about the set and the cost of building the set was higher than normal because we needed to have a ceiling. The studio couldn’t understand why we needed a ceiling because no one ever used a ceiling; and the answer was that in order to create the kind of paranoid mood Jonathan wanted he needed cameras to be very low to the ground and they needed to use very wide angle lenses – meaning you were going to see the ceiling.

Neely: Very claustrophobic.

David: Exactly. I was so happy to work with a director who had a vision, who had a film language reference that was very deep and varied. I did feel our cast was very strong, but as I look back, I don’t thing we really nailed it. I think we may have come off as a little too cold, too sterile and distant, and a bit too much of an odd “think” piece. In a way, kind of like the graphic novel was. The allegorical nature didn’t poke through as much as it should have. It wasn’t the kind of scary “Oh my god, they’re talking about terrorists, not aliens.” There were some things that didn’t come through and I don’t think it was directing and I sure hope it wasn’t the script. I think we probably needed to cast it a little differently.

Neely: Did this get close to getting picked up?

David: It was terribly close. We had Craig saying “As God is my witness, this is going to be on the schedule.” I think he meant it, I don’t think he was bullshitting. There was a tremendous amount of support for it; it was back and forth and back and forth and back and forth; it got recut and recut and recut trying to get better picks. I know that it was just one of those things where the people at the network who had been involved in its development were terribly in support of it and willing to throw themselves on grenades to get it done. Those who had not been involved in its development but knew about it were kind of going “What the hell is wrong with you people?” They thought it was just weird. In television sometimes you get on the schedule anyway because they’re willing to take a flyer – and sometimes not. I know that at that time they were in discussions about Peter Liguouri moving upstairs and Kevin Reilly coming over. There were internal discussions obviously taking place about management shifts and maybe if that hadn’t been happening we might have gotten on. In that unstable atmosphere I don’t think they were going to take a flyer on something they thought was so obscure.

Neely: I looked up what Fox put on the air in the 2007-2008 broadcast season, and they premiered 2 dramas – “Prison Break,” which was a hit and “K-Ville,” which wasn’t. Pity.

Digressing for a moment into something trivial – Ezekial is always eating pie.  What is that supposed to reveal or indicate?  Is it a humorous reference to “eating to forget,” “eating because you’re depressed,” “eating because you’re happy,” “eating because you’re bored” (as you can see I’m an expert on this topic) or he just likes pie?

David: Mac might have had different perspective on this one, but as I recall, and it may have actually been in the graphic novel, it was just to have a random addiction – the more random the better in order to make the point that it wasn’t necessarily to be about any particular idea. It was just to be the notion that we have things on Planet Earth that are yummy and good and fun and if you didn’t have the mechanism to control yourself you might become addicted to that. Pie was just silly and arbitrary and worked.

Neely: Are there any other plans for this brilliant script?  Do you have the rights to make a feature, because it would make a fabulous feature? Could you interest Fox in giving you back those rights or working with you on a feature project?

David: We actually haven’t discussed this. Mac went off to do “In Plain Sight” and I went off to “Caprica,” and neither of us has even had two minutes to think about what new we might do next or when or if we’ll work together again; I like to think that Mac and I will. I hadn’t really thought much about the pilot until you called me wanting to talk about “Them.” It reminded me that it got a lot of people’s attention and that doesn’t happen very often. Maybe it is worth kicking the tires again whether it’s remaking the pilot or trying to get the right topic for a feature.

Neely: Well, of course, one of the primary reasons I started the blog was how frustrated I am that you can write something fantastic and if it doesn’t get on the air that year it’s dead forever, unlike the situation in feature films.  You worked on “The Philanthropist” which NBC touted as the first (of what was supposed to be many) international co-financed co-production.  “Them” seems like the perfect international co-production. If you can’t get it back on the air here, go to the rights holder and say “Hey, let’s set this up with an international partner, either with German television (they’re wild about sci-fi) or even British TV – do this over there and make it a hit over there as an English language production and bring it back. Or do it as a co-production in New Zealand or Australia (and then you could hire Cliff Curtis as Cain who was so ill-used on “Trauma”).

David: It’s so funny that you mention Cliff Curtis. When I was working for Sam Raimi we saw a New Zealand movie called “Once Were Warriors” starring Cliff Curtis and from that film we cast him as a Centaur in “Hercules,” which we were filming in New Zealand. And he was magnificent, if you can imagine using that word when referring to “Hercules” – but he was it. Anyway, one of the reasons that really prevented us from pursuing Fox was because Kevin Reilly was the guy who came in and ultimately made the decision not to pick up “Them.” So it’s sort of feels like a well we’ve already been to. I kind of feel that we’re going to need a different regime at Fox or do a feature or take it to a different network. Going back to Fox would be a non-starter. There were a brief series of meetings with Kevin and his new team to talk about remaking the pilot, and Mac did a rewrite to try to accommodate their notes but it just withered and died. So, that’s why not Fox. But somewhere else…sure.

Neely: You probably have to go to Fox first because they produced the pilot and own all of the rights, but go to them and say “here’s what we want to do; we want to take it someplace else, you’ll have an ownership interest, it won’t reflect on you if it fails and it will reflect on you if it succeeds. Why don’t you let us try this; let us do something different here.”

David: I think that at the times when Mac and I could have brought it up we were just too crazy busy to get into a deeper conversation. Mac is steelier and more inclined to say “No, dammit, we failed so let’s take our failure like men. Don’t go sniveling backwards and begging them to give you another chance to fail again.” Whereas I’m much more pathetic. I’m more inclined to say “Oh come on, let’s just ask one more time. Are you sure you don’t want this?”

Neely: But it wasn’t a failure. It just wasn’t the new team’s vision. That happens with features all the time. But in any case, NBC’s idea of co-financing co-productions with an international company was a good idea; they just didn’t know how to do it, or they picked the wrong project. At the root, it’s a very good idea. Present this idea to your agent, Paul Haas; he’s one of the best in the biz. Let him sell it.

David: When Mac comes up for air, I’m sure this will be one of the first conversations we have.

Neely: How did you get started in TV and what propelled you to the next level?

David: Two key things happened. First I got a job as an assistant to Richard Lindheim who was the number two executive at Universal Network TV back in 1990. This was during Kerry McCluggage’s regime. I got to go to all the meetings and meet everybody and second, two of the people I got to meet were Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert who had just done this movie called “Darkman” which the TV side of Universal thought could invoke a television sensibility so they signed Sam and Rob to a TV deal. Soon after, Kerry and Dick, my boss departed for Paramount and Dick sort of left me on Sam and Rob’s doorstep on the way out. Sam and Rob knew me and they had this new TV deal and they agreed to let me spearhead launching a new company. All of a sudden I was thrown in the deep end of the Sam Raimi pool and that was the next key thing that happened to me. From there, 6 years later, I left to do a Kamakazi experiment and run development for USA Network and the SciFi Channel under Steven Chao and Barry Diller. But in that 6 year period with Sam and Rob we put 6 shows on the air. So before I became an executive, I’d had a lot of producing experience under my belt thanks to Sam and Rob. I was an executive for about 2 ½ years and hated it and went back to producing. That was when David Kissinger talked to me about “Battlestar Galactica”

Neely: You mean you started as an assistant and moved from there to running Sam Raimi’s company?

David: Sam and Rob were Indie filmmakers and they didn’t know the bureaucracy. Where they came from in Detroit, if you wanted to be a producer you produced. You don’t spend 7 years getting coffee, you just do it. So their philosophy to me was “If you want to do it, then do it. Go out find something, get something together and we’ll produce it.” So I did. I find it a shame that the entrepreneurial spirit of that environment doesn’t exist more often. I suppose there’s a place for hierarchy and NBC pages and PAs, but there’s something to be said about being shoved into an editing room and being told you can’t come out until you make the pilot work. It was a great opportunity, a great experience. We got a lot of stuff on, not all of it good, but we got stuff on and I learned how to be a producer while I was being a producer.

Neely: David Kissinger gave you “Battlestar.” Was that as a production executive or as a writer?

David: I had just left USA and SciFi as an executive, and in planning to leave I spoke to David and told him my intentions. Having known me as a producer long before I became an exec, he very kindly helped orchestrate the transition of my exec deal back into a producing deal. But the pilot I did with Shawn Cassidy didn’t end up on the air. So here I was, out of a job and the phone rang and it was David. He said, “Someday you’ll look back on this conversation and remember that it got you your house in the south of France.” I didn’t know what he was talking about and he proceeded to tell me that they had had this crash and burn experience with Bryan Singer at Fox where they had tried to do an update of “Battlestar Galactica.” There was a script but that Gail (Berman) didn’t like it, and Bryan had to leave the project and go do “X-Men 2.” Was I interested in taking it over?” I said “Yes and no. Yes I’d like to take over developing the title and no I’m not interested in that script.” And he said, “Fine, I don’t care. We’ll do it in house, move it to SciFi instead of Fox. Gail let it go, so have at it.” And so I set about looking for a writer and the rest is history. That was a great opportunity.

Neely: At what point did you decide you wanted to write?

David: I had developed a couple of pilots, but I always felt it was my obligation as an executive and producer that when I got a writer in the room I needed to have an idea, a property, or something that I could pitch to the writer, not the other way around. I was always looking through magazine articles, personality profiles, newspaper stories and I would hire writers; but I found that they just didn’t do it or want to do it the way I wanted to do it. At a certain point my agent Paul called me and said “Dude, you’ve got to stop bitching and moaning. If you want to be that specific or that exacting about how you want to do something, then do it yourself.” I spoke to my partner Ron Moore and said I wanted to write an episode and we agreed that probably the best way to approach it was for me to write a story first and have someone else do the teleplay. I did that the first year of “Battlestar” and the next year I wrote a full episode, and then the next year another one. I developed “Bionic Woman” and wrote one of those; and then I co-wrote “Them” with Mac.

Neely: What an unusual journey. Why did you want to be in this crazy business in the first place?

David: I saw “Dirty Harry” when I was 7 years old and it completely traumatized me. The only way my Mom was able to calm me down was to explain that they were just pretending; and something about the idea that you could pretend for a living was like shooting a bullet into my forehead. From there I became an actor and I directed theater in college.  I graduated from the University of Redlands which was the only school in Southern California I could get into. My first job, as I mentioned previously, was with Dick Lenheim at Universal TV. I knew a lot about theater and a lot about films, but I didn’t know shit about TV. But he hired me anyway and that was my break.

Neely: Now you’re on “Caprica,” correct?

David: Yeah, my new show is “Caprica” the prequel to “Battlestar.” They’ve aired the first half and will air the second half sometime in the Fall or in the Winter; we don’t know yet. There’s much discussion about season 2.

Neely: Are you showrunning “Caprica”?

David: Yes, but I’m not the head writer. When “Caprica” was starting up, I was the head writer/showrunner of “The Philanthropist.” Katherine (Pope), who had brought me on to replace Tom Fontana, was then replaced (actually re-replaced) by Angela Bromstad who was the exec who had originally bought the show from Tom. Angela came to me and said “Look, you’ve got your own show on the air and Tom’s got his show, which you are doing, why don’t you just go and do your show and let Tom come back and do his show.” And I said fine. I’m on a deal here so it kind of doesn’t matter which show I’m working on. It made sense for me to do my own show as opposed to an inherited one. Tom came back to “The Philanthropist” and I went back to “Caprica”…

Neely: And you got the better deal.

David: And on “Caprica” we already had a writing apparatus in place.

Neely: Is Ron Moore also on “Caprica”?

David: He is. He has been busy lately writing movies so we didn’t work together in quite the same way as we did on “Battlestar.” The important thing was that he was there at the beginning, co-wrote the pilot with Remi Aubuchon, and directed one of the early episodes. Ron was very involved in the genesis.

Neely: What are you working on now?

David: I’m working on another pilot called “Awakening” for HBO. Guillermo del Toro and I are co-writing the story and I’m going to write the teleplay.

Neely: David, I really appreciate you taking the time with me. I know that you worked hard to fit me into your schedule and please thank you assistant Tara for helping to make it happen.  Good luck on your pilot and please give John my best regards.

April 21, 2010

“If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun.” – Katharine Hepburn

Filed under: Conversations With, Feature Films, Meyer, Produced, Producers — Tags: , , , — Neely Swanson @ 10:20 am

Preserving Our Cultural Heritage:

“The African Queen,” screenplay by James Agee and John Huston, directed by John Huston

“Embracing Chaos: The Making of ‘The African Queen,’” produced by Nicholas Meyer, directed by Eric Young.

What: Expanding on the mission of No Meaner Place, sometimes passion projects gestate for years but finally are born.  You may be attacked from different creative, legal and financial fronts, but sometimes…just sometimes, you succeed, even when you don’t get everything you wanted.  “The African Queen” has finally been restored to its full Technicolor glory and it was a long time coming.

No Meaner Place: “The African Queen,” first a book by C.S. Forester in 1935 and then a film by John Huston in 1951, is deservedly famous on a number of different levels – the script by the poet and genius of literary criticism, James Agee; the on-location Technicolor cinematography by Jack Cardiff of “Red Shoes” fame; the Academy Award-winning performance of a mature Humphrey Bogart; the pairing of Bogart and Katharine Hepburn for the first and only time; and the brilliance of John Huston’s direction as well as his infamous on-location adventures.

“The African Queen,” filmed in the Belgium Congo (now Zaire) and the part of British East Africa now known as Uganda, is the unlikely love story of spinster missionary Rose and gin-guzzling riverboat captain Charlie, forced to live together within the claustrophobic confines of the 30 foot scow lovingly dubbed “The African Queen” when Charlie rescues her from her mission in German East Africa after the Germans burn the village to the ground at the start of World War I.  Almost more remarkable than the film is the story of how it got made; and then how it got saved before the original print turned to dust.

“The African Queen” was reputedly the only film on AFI’s list of “The One Hundred Greatest American Films” that had never been released on DVD in the United States, let alone on Blu-Ray. Originally produced by Sam Spiegel and Romulus Films, a British entity comprised of the two Woolf brothers, John and James, and distributed by United Artists, the rights eventually fell to Paramount where they languished.  Embarking on a passionate crusade six years ago, Nicholas Meyer began a letter writing campaign aimed at getting Paramount to restore the film to its original glory and release it on DVD. This is the story of that crusade and the resultant documentary entitled “Embracing Chaos: The Making of ‘The African Queen’.”

Life Lessons: “I don’t try to guess what a million people will like, it’s hard enough to know what I like.” – John Huston

Conversation with Nicholas Meyer, producer of “Embracing Chaos: The Making of ‘The African Queen.’”

Neely: Nick, I have to say, prior to seeing the restored version of the film and the excellent documentary this past weekend at a special screening at USC, I had never been that much of a fan.  Now that I’ve seen it again, I can’t even imagine why I felt that way in the first place.  It’s really just two people in a boat – but what two people and what a boat! I don’t think that at any time do you realize that it’s just two people talking, arguing, connecting – and the sexual tension is so palpable. What is it that drew you to this film in the first place?

Nick: I think I fell in love with the film before I ever saw it, from listening to my father tell me about it.   His own infatuation was contagious and for reasons not too hard to fathom, I still associate his affection with it.   I know it occurred to me how pleased he’d be to learn the thing was so wonderfully brought back from the dead and that I played some part in its resurrection.  (Of course, he died in ‘88 and didn’t even realize what DVDs were, let alone that “AQ” wasn’t on one!)

Neely: Where did you see it the first time and what stayed in your mind after the first time you saw the film?

Nick: I can’t really remember. I’m betting that the first time I saw “The African Queen” was not in a theater but on television. Whereas I can remember “Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea,” “Oklahoma,” “Guys and Dolls,” “Around the World in 80 Days,” “Spartacus,” “Lawrence of Arabia” – I can tell you all of those and even “Casablanca” which I did see on a big screen the first time, but when you see something for the first time on TV it may be more problematic to remember.  When I asked Marty Scorsese in the documentary if he remembered when he first saw “The African Queen,” he had absolutely no hesitation: “Yes, it was at the Loew’s on 6th St. and 2nd Avenue…my father took me” (a father again) “and it was a full house and the audience loved it.” But I don’t have that. It’s the same thing with “The Wizard of Oz.” I first saw it on television and I can’t even remember if the television I first saw it on even had any color.

It’s interesting when you think of seeing movies on television or under less than ideal circumstances and what it is when you see them properly, projected on a big screen. My Dad said watching movies on television is like being kissed over the telephone.

Neely: My first experience with most classic films of the 30s, 40s and 50s, with the exception of “Gone with the Wind”, was on television and I don’t think you know the difference until the first time you see them on the big screen. If you loved it on TV you’re not going to lose that love when you see it at the movies, it’s only going to enhance the experience. I’d seen and laughed at “A Night at the Opera” many times on TV before I ever saw it in a theater, but when I saw it in a theater, I laughed til tears rolled down my cheeks.

Nick: This is the next point I was going to make. It’s true that you can discover them on a little black and white TV. They’re really so good that they exert a grip of iron on your imagination and never lets go – cut up, panned and scanned, with commercials slotted in…it just doesn’t matter.  But what a revelation seeing these movies properly projected and, if necessary, restored can be.

We’re calling these films “classics”, but growing up they were never in any categories for me – no highbrow distinctions. What did Mark Twain say? “A classic is a book that everyone knows, but no one has read.”  No one had to break it down and tell me I had to watch something because it was a classic. For me, it was much more self indulgent – it was “Where’s the popcorn?”

Neely: When did you become aware that “The African Queen” hadn’t been released on DVD?

Nick: It started as something much more elementary because for many years I didn’t even know what DVDs were. I had a VCR and thought that was enough and I wasn’t going to start another collection.  Then one year my brother-in-law, Roger Spottiswoode, gave me a machine for Christmas.  Someone, in years previous, had given me a DVD of “Fizcaraldo,” so finally I opened the disc and watched it and was so stunned by how different it was from VHS. And although I had no inclination to start a new collection, serendipitously I got a call from Lynn O’Leary at Paramount. She explained that she produced the DVDs at Paramount and wanted to know if I might consider being interviewed for the DVD of “Fatal Attraction.” This was the beginning of my education about these fascinating “extras” they put on the discs. I have no idea how “Extras” got started – maybe they just discovered they had lots of extra space to fill. I don’t know, but it got increasingly more interesting for me when I started doing these DVD commentaries on films, some of which I had worked on and some of which I hadn’t. There was no payment, but in exchange I would get DVDs; and that was how my collection was built. Soon I started making lists of DVDs I’d like for my collection.

Deviating just a bit, I’ve got an aside on the history of “extras.” I was interviewed for the DVD of “Star Trek II” and I told, without embellishment or self censorship, the story of how the screenplay came to be written (you can read about it in my book, A View from the Bridge: Memories of Star Trek and a Life in Hollywood).  But then I got a call from Lynn (O’Leary) saying that their lawyers had told her they couldn’t use any of my interview. The end result and outcome of my “banned” interview is that now there’s always a title card that says “the views and opinions expressed on this DVD are solely those of the person saying them and do not have anything to do with __________ (fill in the studio) or any of its affiliates…blah blah”.  And what that ingenious little rule did was open the flood gates of oral histories that were not puff pieces. While DVDs were enjoying their heyday, there was a tremendous amount of oral scholarship, for lack of a better phrase, that was incorporated into them.

Anyway, as I said, I started making lists of DVDs I wanted and of course those lists included “The African Queen.” I’m not sure how long it took me before I realized that there was no “African Queen” DVD. When you come down to it, my participation was prompted by nothing more complicated than me wanting to have a DVD of “The African Queen” for my collection. And the more time went by, the more obsessive I became and the more crown jewel-like aura the film gained.

Neely: Do you remember when you became aware that it wasn’t available?

Nick: I think it was sometime around 2003 or 2004 that my serious campaign began because this was about a 6 year process, start to finish. I asked Lynn why there wasn’t an “AQ” DVD and she replied “Good question.” So I started nudging her and she told me that she thought that Paramount was in the process of trying to come to an agreement with Romulus Films which controlled the negative to license it in order to do it; but they hadn’t quite gotten around to doing it and…  It didn’t preoccupy all of my time, but about every six weeks I’d wake up and go “Where are we with this thing, anyway?” And then I’d write Lynn a letter. One time Lynn showed me a piece of test footage that they had done where they were trying to get rid of the green screen phosphorescence behind Katharine Hepburn and the rapids – and that was very exciting. But then another year went by – I should have been chronicling this whole thing – and finally they had a deal but they had to get their hands on the negative. Then we found out that Romulus wouldn’t let us get our hands on the negative.

Neely: What do you think were the biggest issues – technical, licensing, legal, expense?

Nick: All of the above?  My entire affiliation with this thing was really ex-officio. I just worked with Lynn trying to figure out how to get this done. I never met with the people to whom Lynn reported; news would just trickle down. She was great at keeping me patient and encouraged me even when she was discouraged. And there were times when it just looked like it was never going to happen at all.

I think that the restoration itself was still less onerous than the legal and contractual labyrinth that had to be navigated. Ultimately, because Romulus refused to let the negative out of the UK, we had to become more inventive, crossing a technological boundary that had never before been breached that led to something pretty ingenious. We actually had to scan the negative and then email it on a secure server to Ron Smith at the Warner Brothers Motion Picture Imaging Facility on the Warner Brothers lot; and at the end of the day you can’t tell the difference.

Neely: I’m intrigued by the scanning process. How do you email a print?

Nick: Well you have to upload it onto something that has a hell of a lot of memory. Remember, I don’t think they emailed it all at once – they would have done it a reel at a time. I wasn’t there at the time, but you might want to interview Ron Smith about that. He’s very knowledgeable.

You have to understand that the actual restoration of the negative involved the restoration of three negatives because Technicolor is comprised of three pieces of film that run through the camera simultaneously. Those negatives were not in great shape so they had to be scanned, reel by reel. It was a 6 or 8 month process.  They’d finish a reel and then email it over and it would be looked at and Ron would say okay; and then on to the next reel. It was like Chinese water torture…drip…drip…drip. Then when it was time to go to work on the negative there were three aspects – one had to do with cleaning up the negative, taking off the scratches and the dirt and god knows what else from the images; the second part is lining it up with the other two negatives – something computers can do much more precisely now than originally.  For some movies this can be better or worse. For “The African Queen,” this was definitely better, the more detail revealed in a realistic (i.e., location-based) film, the better!  And finally, color correction (I’m putting sound off to one side). Ron Smith and those guys working on the Warner’s lot were very very fortunate because when Jack Cardiff, the cinematographer, was quite elderly he watched a print of “The African Queen” and he went scene by scene and described what the color was supposed to look like. Ron and his team had already started on color correcting the way they thought it should be when this tape of Cardiff was unearthed and they had to begin again, working from Cardiff’s notes.

We have great clips of Cardiff in the documentary that came from a documentary that had been made about him by Craig McCall, a filmmaker in the UK.  You could see what a charming and articulate guy he was. I always found it interesting how he downplays his contribution to “The African Queen” compared to “The Red Shoes” and “Black Narcissus” because he had brought only two lamps on location as supplementary lighting.  He calls it “a perfectly ordinary piece of photography”; but if you watch the movie, it’s anything but ordinary.

Neely: But why use Technicolor in Africa? Filming in Technicolor made this very unwieldy, (the camera rig weighed five hundred pounds!) what with the huge camera necessary for the 3 strips of film. Was there another process they could have used?

Nick: There was. As a matter of fact there was another color film that was shot in Africa before “The African Queen.” “King Solomon’s Mines” was shot in 2-strip color, which involved a much smaller, comparatively speaking, rig; but the color wasn’t as lush.

Despite all the difficulties in cleaning up the 3 strip negative, it’s a shame Cardiff did not live to see this fully aligned. I’ve often said that it’s not always great to see a film fully aligned. You take some older movies and line them up and suddenly you see that Judy Garland has acne in “The Wizard of Oz” when she sings “Over the Rainbow.” It’s in sepia but it’s still three pieces of film. They could have compensated for this on the restoration because the technology exists, developed for just such problems, but for some reason they didn’t.

Neely: How long did it take between the time they got the scanned print and the final restoration?

Nick: A long, long time because the elements that you could hold in your hands were not in good shape. The colors had faded, the film had shrunk, trying to align the film was almost impossible because of the shrinkage, so this went on month after month, frame by frame.  Have you seen the restoration segment that we posted on YouTube?

Neely: Yes I have; here’s the link to the 8 minute short produced by Eric Young:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM0XcZZxhsg

Nick: Eric Young did that.  When we finally saw the restoration we thought we really ought to do a piece on the restoration, but by that time there was no more money and there was no space left on the disc. My recollection is that Eric did it for free. It was a total labor of love.  He just got his equipment and went in to interview these people who typically are not in front of a camera. And he asked, “How does this work? What does this do?” and then he designed some visuals to illustrate it.  It’s a terrific piece and really deserved to be on the DVD.

Neely: How much of the process were you involved in?

Nick: Not in the technical process, but I certainly immersed myself in what was going on.  During the restoration, it occurred to me that we should make a documentary to go along with this, something to put in context the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the creation of this masterpiece.

Neely: “Embracing Chaos: The Making of “The African Queen.” You produced it, Eric Young directed it; the interviews are excellent and the quality of the documentary is first rate. Finding the people who were still alive and able to talk about it must have been difficult.

Nick: Well that was an interesting proposition. Huston is dead, Bogie and Hepburn are dead, Lauren Bacall didn’t want to talk to us. The script supervisor, Angela Allen is still alive; also Guy Hamilton…

Neely: Didn’t he do the early James Bond films?

Nick: Yes. He was the first Assistant Director on the film. Several of the crew went on to directing careers themselves.  With so many people gone, we had to turn our weakness into our strength somehow and get interviews from other places that had already been done, then pull them together to make something new.  A lot of folks, including Hepburn, wrote memoirs about the experience, and screenwriter Peter Viertel (who came in towards the end), turned it into his best novel, White Hunter, Black Heart.

Neely: What did you learn about John Huston?  Much has been said and written of Huston’s penchant for “off road” adventure. How true do you think it was that he decided to shoot this film in Africa because he wanted to go big game hunting?

Nick: There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that it’s true, but it wasn’t big game hunting, it was shooting an elephant. Now whether he made the movie in order to shoot an elephant, which by the way, he never did, is somewhat debatable. But at one point in the documentary, his biographer, Lawrence Grobel, said “this is a man who refused to be bored.” Toward the end of movies, he’d get bored; he’d start thinking about the next film.  He’d leave things unfinished. I think that the fact he was in Africa prevented a lot of that from happening.

Neely: Well according to the documentary, he left every morning to go hunting.

Nick: Yes, but it was rumored that he couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. He was a guy who was very preoccupied with sartorial matters. He was very obsessed with clothes and armaments, his gun collection- going to Purdy’s, the renowned London gun and rifle maker, etc., before leaving and buying the very best, something that was very important to him. He was an outdoorsman, that’s for sure; and he was a superb horseman. He had ridden in his youth with the Mexican cavalry; he was a boxer, the lightweight champion of California at one point. But I don’t think he was a marksman.

Neely: Which may account for his inability to shoot an elephant, using the broad side of a barn analogy. But perhaps something else was going on; perhaps he couldn’t bring himself to kill such a beautiful beast.

Nick: Viertel quotes Huston in his book, and Huston’s son Tony confirms in the documentary, that to kill an elephant is worse than a crime, it’s a sin.  Huston wanted to experience sin.

Neely: Many of the screenplays you’ve written have been book adaptations, including an adaptation of your own novel, The Seven Percent Solution. Had you ever read the Forester novel? What liberties did Agee and Huston take in order to bring it to the screen?

Nick: I had read the novel quite some time ago, but read it again when we were working on this. There were two things about the book that were significant. In the UK edition of the book, Rosie and Charlie drowned trying to sink the Königin Louise. The American publisher asked for a nicer ending, so Forster made them live and they get to shore, something like that – it felt very pasted on.  It’s like two pages where you can hear Forster saying – okay, this is what they want so here it is.

Neely: That’s in the book?

Nick: In the American edition of “The African Queen.”  The other change, in a way, is more interesting…a stylistic change, you might say, because it ultimately compelled a different ending for the film.

I don’t think anybody who went to Africa to shoot this movie really understood that it was a comedy.  Maybe on paper it wasn’t, but when you put Bogart and Katharine Hepburn together on this boat and had this interplay with them – which is all the movie is really about, two people on a boat talking – Huston must have looked at it and said to himself:  “I’m going to kill these people at the end? People are going to throw things at the screen.”

Neely: Do you think Agee based his ending on the English version of the book?

Nick: Well I don’t think Agee even wrote an ending. I mean he may have written some version of the ending but the biggest thing is not that Rosie and Charlie survive; Forster himself wrote a version of that, but that they succeed in sinking the Königin Louise. This was a major alteration, and I’m guessing here, but I think this was largely supplied by Peter Viertel. I think Huston left for Africa knowing that the script was not finished, that they were sort of in limbo about what they were going to do about it. And I think that it remained in limbo until Huston started watching what was going on between his stars. Viertel, who came to Africa to work on this with Huston, a relationship he chronicled in the previously mentioned White Hunter, Black Heart about a “fictional” director who wants to shoot an elephant while he’s filming in Africa (Eastwood made and starred in this film in 1990).

We talked about endings a bit in your class last week. What are the dynamics of drama as opposed to the dynamics of literature? In literature you don’t have to sink the ship, but in the movie, even though you want to preserve the theme, (if there is one), you want to have your cake and eat it too. The idea of sending someone on a mission and they don’t fulfill the mission?  In a book, perhaps, but not in a film.  You’ve got to find a way, no matter how convoluted it turns out to be, that they fulfill it. I think that’s what Huston and Viertel were figuring out. “We’re sending these people all the way down this river to blow up this ship, and they ain’t gonna blow up the ship?” Maybe they get into a storm and their boat sinks…that’s not only in the book, but it’s good stuff. So how, HOW are they going to make this happen?  Well, there’s this marvelous cut where you see the African Queen, sunk in the tempest, now floating back to the surface, upside down with these two torpedoes sticking out and the “Louisa” (as Charlie calls her), heading right for it.  It might have been completely fanciful, but I don’t think people complained too deeply about it.

Neely: So Paramount funded the documentary?  What did you do – present it in a pitch and they said they’d go for it?

Nick: Yeah, pretty much. The way I tried to sell it was to point out that this was the 60th anniversary restoration and DVD premiere of this famous never-seen-on-DVD movie. “Don’t you want to blow the trumpet and bang the drum on this?”  And they did!  Until it was all done and they decided that DVDs were now finished as a format; so they weren’t going to make it the kind of event that happened around the restoration of “The Red Shoes” 6 or 8 month earlier. They played “The Red Shoes” in New York in a theater – we were going to play “The African Queen” in theaters and then the plug just got pulled on it.

Neely: This seemed to have been a collaboration between Paramount and Warner Brothers restoration department. The UCLA film archive department is very actively involved in so many restorations, in conjunction with Martin Scorsese, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Nick: I should point out that Paramount was the last of the studios to get into DVDs. They came very late to the party and finally they decided to make their own archives. This was fairly recent, maybe the past three or four years. They decided they wanted to have archives that rivaled Criterion.  A man named Chris Carey is in charge of that.  Ron Smith and his team work on the Warners lot but are Paramount employees. Before “The African Queen”, they restored “Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan”, also for Paramount.  They’re doing “The Ten Commandments” now.

Neely: I see you rolling your eyes, but this was a Spectacle with a capital S.

Nick: You’re right…it is a spectacle; and this isn’t CGI. They actually did go to Egypt. In any case, they’re also doing this for Paramount.

Neely: What about marketing?  Other than a few isolated reviews of the remastered DVD, I haven’t seen any advertising announcing the release; with the exception of a short article you wrote that appeared on “The Wrap” – “The African Queen makes its restored debut at long last”.  Here they spent a fortune for the restoration and making this marvelous documentary and now there’s no money for the marketing. They’ve just sent everything into the wind – how is that possible?

Nick: Well…they allowed themselves to be pushed into a corner. As I understand it, Romulus Films wanted to unveil the restoration of “The African Queen” at the Cannes Film Festival in May. May, according to the DVD people with whom I have spoken, is the worst month to sell a DVD.

Neely: Who are these people?

Nick: …people who sell DVDs? So Paramount said they weren’t waiting for May; and plans were made for putting the film in theaters in America for a week and make a big fuss.  The Romulus people took issue with this, as in “you’re going to be stealing our thunder and we don’t want you to do that.” It’s not clear to me why Paramount had to knuckle under but they did. So instead, they held little screenings for 25 people at a time, journalists who had little else to do that afternoon; and thus they turned what should have been a major outing into a non-event.

Here was this movie, the only film on the AFI 100 that hadn’t been on DVD, a movie that was adored and someone at Paramount just pulled the plug saying they didn’t need to spend the money to make back the kind of money they thought DVDs, at this point, were capable of making.

Neely: But they were passing up an priceless opportunity to present themselves as a purveyor of taste and savior of some of our heritage – this would have been invaluable. This was an incredible chance for them to promote themselves with very little outlay.

Nick: You’d think.

Neely: The documentary is actually a great stand-alone piece.  So once again…that’s it???

Nick: We tried to get TCM interested in it. I wrote to Robert Osborne but I never heard back from him.

Neely: I just don’t understand any of this. There’s going to be a TCM Classic Film Festival as part of this year’s Los Angeles Film Festival and ironically the Huston family legacy is going to be honored.  How could it not occur to anyone at TCM that the 60th anniversary and restoration of “The African Queen” as well as the documentary was a perfect fit for a festival that was honoring the Huston family? What am I missing??

Nick: I didn’t know anything about that. I just don’t know. I don’t even think Brad Grey (CEO of Paramount Motion Picture Group) knows about this documentary.

Neely: Consider the historical context of Huston and Bogart. This was the third film on which Bogart and Huston worked together, and each was responsible for the other’s break out in the business as “The Maltese Falcon” was the first film Huston directed, having previously worked as a screenwriter on “Juarez,” “Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet” (one of my all time Eddie G favorites in which he plays the future Nobel Prize winning scientist Paul Ehrlich) and “High Sierra,” Bogie’s first true star turn, which was then followed by “The Maltese Falcon,” where he solidified his star status. Huston directed Bogie to his only Oscar; but he also directed Claire Trevor (in “Key Largo”), and both his father, Walter (in “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”) and daughter, Angelica (in “Prizzi’s Honor”) to Oscars.

There must be a way for this documentary to be presented as a stand alone film. Maybe on the festival circuit? Would either you or Eric have the time to do that?

Nick: I would definitely love to have it done that way, but I have no idea of how to go about it. I have never done anything like that in my life. Eric probably knows how to do that. We’re having lunch next week, so we’ll probably lick our wounds and talk about it.

Neely: Obviously there’s very little, if any, financial market for a short film, but it’s certainly one way to drum up some publicity for the film. It just seems that entry into some of the more prestigious festivals like Sundance and Telluride would be in Paramount’s best interest to support. As you say, people’s best interest is so subjective; they didn’t see the enhanced value to themselves. They could see the enhanced value of “extras” on a DVD, perhaps in financial terms as an inducement to buy the disc, but not the enhanced value to Paramount, the company, of a quality product.

Nick: I think I may have said this to you when you went to the screening at USC, but half the movies ever made no longer exist. This is about preserving our history, preserving our culture, or simply preserving things that are just so wonderful, memorable. What really makes me sad is that when you get up to a certain period of time, people are no longer in the movie business – they’re just in the money business. It used to be that movies were made for two reasons – to make movies, and to make money. Now we’re only interested in the money. So, from a corporate standpoint, these things might as well be cat food. And the idea that they are “old” they cannot therefore be good or wonderful or memorable or fun or sensational or fantastic. It’s a shame.

What was very interesting to me the night of that USC screening was the age of the people there. These were young people. For them, for whatever reason, the movie played like gangbusters. It’s not that people don’t like older movies, they just can’t be cajoled or corralled into seeing them. But if you get them there… I was talking to someone the other day who said she had never seen Charlie Chaplin; so I showed her one of his films and she sat there and was completely floored.  It was like discovering the Bach B minor Mass, (only played for laughs). It’s a part of our civilization – we did this, we achieved this, there were geniuses, and the work of geniuses should not be allowed to disappear. All great art has one thing in common – the “great” part. The idea that “The African Queen” should have vanished, as it was on the point of doing, is criminal.

Neely: I couldn’t agree with you more. Movies have been an extremely important part of my life since an early age.

Nick: They imprint us when we behold them young, like a duck with its mother.

Neely: What should be the next Paramount restoration project and will you be involved?

Nick: My partner in the documentary, Eric Young, has been working on Paramount to do other restorations. Have you seen that collection, “John Ford at Fox”? Well we’d like to do “Wilder at Paramount.” The problem is that Paramount sold part of its library to Universal so we’d have to license it back under conditions that would just be about this Box Set. As always, it’s complicated.

Neely: I’d love to see Paramount do a Mae West collection.

Nick: We’ll add Mae West to our hopper.  Did you know she was Wilder’s original choice for Norma Desmond in “Sunset Boulevard?” But she wanted to write her own dialogue and Wilder said no.   I always use this as a great example that sometimes you’re lucky not to get your first choice.

April 7, 2010

“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life. “ – Albert Camus

Filed under: Conversations With, Pilots, Produced — Tags: , , — Neely Swanson @ 9:52 am

“Back” by Dean Widenmann

What: Richard Miles left for work on Sept. 11, 2001 and returned home exactly 8 years later to the day.

Who: Richard Miles is puzzled to see the name “Miles-Barnes” on the mailbox next to his driveway, but he’s even more surprised by the hysteria that greets him when he walks in the living room and sees his wife Cheryl, daughter Shannon, and son Michael.  Richard, an accountant with the firm of Gorman & Shaw, housed on the eightieth floor of the World Trade Center, was presumed dead on September 11, 2001; none of the 23 employees on that floor survived the terrorist attack.  Yet, despite it all, there stands Richard staring at his haggard wife, his unrecognizable daughter, and his now non-verbal son.  Much has changed in his absence. Cheryl is remarried to a local firefighter, Tom Barnes; Shannon, now 17, tattooed and pierced, has become a self destructive promiscuous denizen of the night; and Michael, 13, rarely speaks and has only a tenuous hold on reality. Everyone has aged but Richard who, eerily, has no gray hair, no wrinkles and is wearing the same suit he wore the day he left the house 8 years ago.

Everyone is suspicious of Richard, not the least of who are the police, convinced somehow of nefarious motives on the part of Richard; but an interview with a psychiatrist seems to indicate that Richard has no ulterior motives. The psychiatrist believes that with time and therapy, Richard will be able to reveal what has happened to him; Richard, who should be rent with anxiety, has a coolly calming influence on the psychiatrist, helping him to unburden and become more at ease with his own surroundings and anxieties.

Dr. Stern: So what do you remember about two-thousand one?

Richard thinks, looks out the window.

His POV – A gas station, where the posted price for a gallon of economy unleaded is $4.05.

Richard: I remember that gas was a dollar seventy-one a gallon. (flashes a weak smile) That the Yankees were the defending World Series champs, having beaten the Mets in the Subway Series in two-thousand. Derek Jeter was the series MVP. Was looking forward to a repeat in two-thousand one.

Dr. Stern: Yanks lost to the Arizona Diamondbacks in seven games.

Richard: Arizona? You kidding me?

Dr. Stern: Wouldn’t kid about a thing like that. What else?

Richard: (emotions rise as he looks into his memories) I remember that Shannon had joined the Girl Scouts. She was nervous about it for some reason. And that Michael was in kindergarten and having a difficult time with his multiplication tables. (shakes his head) He didn’t like math. And his dad was an accountant. (smile fades) And I remember Cheryl and I were having problems. More than usual. Had been for a while. Money was tight. She’d started drinking.

Dr. Stern: In some ways you’re lucky, you know – I mean you’re not, you’ve lost so much. But the pain from that day, eight years ago, was and remains so great. It affected so many. Still does. The world was changed. We were changed. All of us. And surely not for the better.

Dr. Stern seems to wilt a little with those words.

Richard now observes Dr. Stern. We notice a subtle shift in Richard’s expression: calm, compassion, and a certain control.

Richard: You counsel victims, relatives of victims. You’re a grief counselor. To this very day.

Dr. Stern: (how did he know that?) Yes, I am.

Richard: You’ve absorbed all their anguish, pain and anger. It’s there within you like a tumor. And you’ve never been able to let it go.

And with that, Richard comforts the doctor whose role was to comfort him.

Richard: …But I do know this. That you’ve been trying desperately to hold these people’s lives together. At the expense of your own. But you can’t. You can’t save everybody. Some things are just meant to fall apart. You do your best. Then you have to let go. (beat) So you can grieve. Because you never have.

In some other worldly way, Richard is able to absorb Dr. Stern’s pain and free him, much like he will do with others around him, lifting the weight holding them down – Cheryl, a local firefighter who lost his brother in Afghanistan, even Shannon who he rescues from an assault.

No Meaner Place: To some extent, Widenmann has created a Sci Fi/Spiritual hybrid. Unlike the character in “The Return of Martin Guerre” (or its American remake “Sommersby”), this is not a case of an imposter reclaiming a life he left long ago. Richard is the living breathing embodiment of what was lost – both the good and bad that he represented in his former life, and the possible redemption in the future – the good that he can do in his new life. Simplistically, I suppose, this is “Touched by an Angel Who Wasn’t an Angel then but Is Now.” Not a huge fan (well not even a small fan) of the spiritual genre, I am especially intrigued by the Sci Fi elements (and who knew I would be drawn to that genre!).  It also seems to be a riff on “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” because he must be a “pod” because the real body died 8 years ago.  “Back” functions on several different levels, most involving the seeking, attaining or giving of redemption.

Widenmann’s strength is certainly in creating credible characters of great depth out of an incredible premise and allowing the audience to travel there with him.  “Back” also has the makings of an interesting Greek Tragedy, complete with the neighborhood Greek chorus.

Various Neighbors in the crowd react to the sight of him with an unexpected air of contempt:

Neighbor #1: Is it really him?

Neighbor #2: Seeing is believing.

Neighbor #1: I thought he was dead.

Neighbor #3: Jesus, eight years…

Neighbor #4: To the day.

Neighbor #3: Where’s he been?

Neighbor #1: Musta been a scam. That’d be like Richard.

Neighbor #2: Yeah. Never liked that guy.

Neighbor #1: Who did?

Neighbor #2: Poor Cheryl.

Neighbor #3: God, it looks just like him.

Neighbor #4: Because it is him.

They’ve told us everything we need to know about who Richard was – no less, no more.

Life Lessons for Writers:  “Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live.” –   Norman Cousins.

CONVERSATION WITH THE WRITER:

Neely: Why this story? Why that date?

Dean: I actually dreamt this whole thing. I dream a lot of stories but this one came to me over a couple of nights and it didn’t occur anytime near 9/11. I just couldn’t get it out of my head so I had to write it. I started at first to outline it, but after about a page and a half I realized that I just had to write it. Four days later I had a script. I put it down for a few days, which is what I always do in order to try to be objective and get some perspective on what I’ve written; I corrected some typos, but it really didn’t change until it went out.

I wasn’t sure what I had until others started reading it. My agents were blown away and people were moved by it in important ways. This was about faith but not about religion. I didn’t see it fitting into any kind of genre. It was about hope, healing and second chances. Maybe these were things that were resonating in my life at the time; they seemed to be to be the thematic backbone of the story.

Neely: Any literary or filmic influences on this idea?

Dean: Not really. I watch lots of movies, see a lot of TV and I read all the time. This was just one of those original things. I didn’t follow any rules. I listened to my imagination and I trusted it.

Neely: Written from pitch or on spec?

Dean: Well, as I mentioned before, I just wrote it; so, yes, it was written on spec. I write all the time. I started doing this later in life so I just write and write and write. I wrote 5 spec pilots during the strike.

Neely: I know that CBS picked up this pilot to production and then…

Dean: CBS was the first place I took it. I pitched it before showing them the script and they loved the pitch and bought it right away. I didn’t have the chance to take it any place else. My experience with them was great. I was involved in everything from casting to working with the director. Our director was Mark Pellington, a features guy, and he really got the material; he was a great partner.

We were going to film this in New York and Toronto and it even got weirder when we were out scouting locations and I saw some of the things that had been in my dreams. In the casting process, so many of the people who came in to read had had 9/11 stories of their own, which made me feel this was an important mission we were on. The finished pilot was just beautiful – beautiful and emotional. It was CBS’s highest testing pilot. The Friday before decisions were to be made, I was told to relax and not worry. Then Monday came and went and it wasn’t picked up. CBS picked up “NCIS-Los Angeles” and “Miami Trauma” and a couple of other standard procedurals/medical shows.  All they would say about not picking us up was “things happen.”

Neely: What kind of notes did you get from the network?  Any speculation on why it didn’t go?  Any foreseen or unforeseen difficulties during the shoot?

Dean: The network notes were great; they really left me alone with my vision knowing that I didn’t want to go anywhere near “Touched by an Angel.” The studio producing the pilot was another story. There seemed to be a slight disconnect between the studio and the network and their notes often contradicted one another.

Almost all our unforeseen difficulties related to the weather. We were trying to make it look like a lovely warm Fall day and it was cold and stormy a lot of the time in Toronto and New York where we were filming.

Neely: What direction would you have taken this? As I mentioned earlier, I’m not big (or even little) on spiritual/religious shows, although I’m considered the religious fanatic in my family because I’m Agnostic (not much of a believer in anything other than hedging my bets). It would have been very easy to fall into that “Touched by an Angel” trap.

Dean: First and foremost, it had to be real. The trauma had to be honest – the emotions had to be raw. There were mythologies involved, as well as the coming to grips with Richard’s awakening to a new, radically altered post-9-11 world, and rebuilding relations with his family. It’s about people who have secrets and have guilt and the terrible things that prevent them from living their lives. Richard was going to heal and he was going to intersect with people who had lost people. These were going to be stories wrapped around powerful, relatable emotions.

While we were casting the part of Tom Barnes, Cheryl’s new husband, a firefighter, our New York casting director, Rosalie Joseph told me her 9/11 story. She lives in Manhattan, near Battery Park, and had been saved by someone who had pushed her onto a boat that morning; when she looked up, no one was there. After that experience she became a grief counselor, which she continues to be up to this day. When she read the script, she had a dream about the Dr. Stern scene and woke up crying; prior to that she had never cried or released her own anguish. That was a pretty validating thing for me.

The character of Richard will give to others what he himself is seeking. They will all deal with the trauma of the time.

Neely: I can usually figure out a way to repurpose material but I can only envision this as television.  Can you think of a way that this could turn into a feature with a satisfactory resolution at the end of two hours? The only thing that comes to mind is the framework used by Rogers and Hammerstein in “Carousel” where the dead father, Billy Bigelow, comes back to make sure his daughter takes the right path, the one he didn’t follow, and then he can finally rest.

Dean: Absolutely. I just finished the draft of the feature a week ago. In my original dream I actually dreamt the last episode (it’s a very powerful ending). Richard makes a difference in the lives of those he loves and he finds peace. There are definitely parallels with “Carousel,” especially with Richard’s daughter. At the end of the day, he makes a difference.

Neely: I was interested to see that your television credits have all been on procedurals – something that I wouldn’t think was a very good fit for you.  How did you adjust what I see to be a very character-oriented style to a show like “Bones” or “CSI Miami”?

Dean: Most of the shows on the air are procedurals and you need to get experience where you can. Anne Donahue took me on as her character guy on “CSI-Miami” and taught me how to produce, how to be a showrunner. The experience was invaluable.

Neely: It would appear that you lean toward the supernatural when you write. Who are your favorite writers in any genre and what influence have they had on your own writing?

Dean: Supernatural? Well I suppose to a degree. I like a lot of stuff, including Sci/Fi; I especially loved to read it as a kid. It’s certainly some place my mind likes to wander.

Writers? I love novelists. I read a book a week; I love reading. It’s how I turn off my day, by reading someone else’s story. For the most part, my favorite authors fall into the popular category of crime fiction; guys like James Lee Burke, Martin Cruz Smith, Ian Rankin, and Michael Connelly. All their characters have a wounded nobility. I think my favorite book of all time is Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett, but overall, James Lee Burke is my favorite author.

Neely: As I just mentioned, you’ve written other things within the Sci Fi genre, including a feature that has been in development for several years.  Has there been any forward movement on the film?

Dean: That would be “Point Thunder” and it’s still being worked on. It’s actually been a casualty of both the writer’s strike and the tsunami in Thailand. Al Ruddy was on board to produce; he was going to do it after he finished “Million Dollar Baby.” We had $65 million in financing in place; an A-list actress on board; and an A-list director who was just finishing up a film in Hong Kong. I even went to Hong Kong to work with the director on the screenplay. But our financier was in Thailand and died in the tsunami – and so did our $65 million. Such are the fates in Hollywood. When the money disappeared, so did the actor and director. Momentum was lost and now there’s a different producer. Other paws have touched the script and I hear that it might be close – but who knows?

Neely: What’s it about?

Dean: “Point Thunder” is a Sci/Fi underwater adventure.

Neely: What brought you out to Los Angeles and started you on this path?

Dean: I came out “chasing the dream.” This is my fourth career. I started in technical sales and ran a technical sales company. Then I was a small business turn-around consultant; and then a partner in a successful advertising agency – all in Boston.

I was always creative – drawing, painting, writing stories. Practical reality just definitely got in the way. Any dreams I had about Hollywood seemed like interplanetary travel. I thought the ad agency would scratch my creative itch, but it didn’t. The itch wouldn’t go away. I then thought animation would be a way to package all my skills, so I created an animated TV show in my studio at night. I did some research and sent it off to the 10 agencies in LA that seemed to represent this medium and 8 of them responded right away. I spoke with all of them and I really liked two of them. I flew out and put myself up in Beverly Hills, all on my own dime, and met with the two agencies and basically said – whoever got me the most productive meetings then we’d do business together. One of the agencies got me 8 appointments, so I extended my stay. The meetings were great. I flew back and realized I couldn’t do this long distance. I exercised my buy/sell in the agency, told my fiancée we were moving, sold my 250 year old house (that I’d restored myself), stored my sports car and furniture, resigned from the country club and drove across the country and started over.

The animated series got optioned but didn’t go anywhere; and in short order I optioned four more animated series. But I wasn’t finding Saturday morning programming to be very satisfying so I quit.  I had a feature idea and wrote it. Then I bought the “Hollywood Creative Directory” and started calling and writing letters to everyone; when I got to the “T’s”, Triumph Pictures optioned it. It didn’t ultimately get produced, but they hired me to do treatments and eventually to run development for them. I did that for about a year and a half during the day and then at night I wrote my own stuff.

I’d made enough contacts in the feature world to get some feature re-write work. I didn’t have an agent but I knew lots of producers. I still had lots of TV ideas and I was able to get a meeting at Regency Television where they told me I could have 20 minutes to pitch to them; two hours later they told me I was the real deal and they got me an agent. Not too long after that I landed a job on an NBC show called “Hawaii.”

Neely: And the fiancée?

Dean: I suppose you could say she was collateral damage. She never really adjusted and kept trying to get me to quit and go back to the life we had in Boston and the lovely house we shared on the seacoast of New Hampshire. Eventually she went back to her old life.

Neely: What do you see as your strengths as a writer?  Weaknesses and what you need to do to improve them?

Dean: I think my biggest strength is my work ethic. I love to write, and because I have some real life experience behind me, I get up everyday and attack it. I work fast and have a prolific imagination. As to weaknesses, I’m less than tolerant of the eccentricities that are inherent in this business than I should be. I know you have to put up with it, so I’m trying. You know a lot of money and power is put into people’s hands to run a small company, and that’s what a TV show is – a small company. Many of the people running them have no management experience whatsoever and this can cause inefficiencies and unnecessary problems. I hope someday I get a chance to do it because I hope to do it somewhat differently and, I hope, a bit better.

Neely: I noticed that you weren’t staffed this past season. What are you looking for this staffing season?

Dean: I’m hoping to staff on a cable show so that I’ll also be able to develop my own stuff. This is something the broadcast networks won’t let you do. That’s my dream of dreams right now.

Neely: Are you in the process of developing any other pilots or anything you can tell us about?  At what stage are they?

Dean: I’ve got a couple of other features I’m working on now; and I’m working on a couple of other TV ideas. I have a couple of script deals – one with Chernin Entertainment for Fox, and one with Berman/Braun for NBC. My agents are trying to get me to do some more traditional things. They want me to develop my own show. I have a number of real cool ideas for this season. Paradigm, my agents, have been great for me.

Neely: I’ll be interested in seeing what happens next for you.

My new article for Baseline Research just posted at http://www.blssresearch.com/research-wrap?detail/C7/more_stars_than_there_are_in_the_heavens

Contact Neely at neely@nomeanerplace.com

December 14, 2009

“If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion.” – L. Ron Hubbard

Filed under: Conversations With, Meyer, Pilots, Produced, Writers — Tags: , , , — Neely Swanson @ 5:09 pm

“I’ve been dead before”  – Spock  (”Star Trek VI”)

Orpheus by Nicholas Meyer

What: A college student, on a road trip to find himself, instead finds himself robbed of all possessions after an acid-laced rock concert and stranded in a small town in the middle of nowhere until he meets a mysterious girl who takes an intense interest in him.

Who: Guy Lawrence wakes up after a rock concert to find the field empty and all his possessions missing.  Making his way to a neighboring town, Guy meets the beautiful Sue Ellen, waitress at the local café, who kindly feeds and beds him.  He is entranced and decides to stay with Sue Ellen, abandoning the summer internship that had set up for him in Los Angeles prior to his return to Yale for his sophomore year.  Receiving word of his change in schedule worries his parents in New York.  Sue Ellen and Guy move to Seattle, where she begins to reveal her devotion to the “Temple of Grand Design” led by “Brother.”  Much of what Brother proselytizes makes a great deal of sense to Guy.

“There is no Grand Design – except the one you make of your own life.”

“There are no rules.  They’re just observations.  You either buy into them or you don’t.  It’s a free country – more or less.”

Although admonished to stay away from Galateans (the uninitiated), Sue Ellen is smitten and explains more of Grand Design to Guy.  Brother is known simply as Brother and Father, the leader, is known simply as Father; Grand Design is modeled on the idea of family.

Guy: This all sounds like…some kind of cult…

Sue Ellen: It’s a philosophy.  Anyway, what’s the difference between a cult and a religion…? I’ll tell you: numbers.  If twelve people believe something, they’re a cult; but if a hundred million believe the same thing, they’re a religion.

Guy: It just sounds so programmed…

Sue Ellen: We’re all programmed – from birth.  The trick is to write you own program.

Guy looks at her; she’s spoken the truth.

Or at least what the truth looks like to a 19 year old.  Recalled to NY on a ruse by his parents, Guy begins his year at Yale, but quits abruptly when he realizes that no one around him understands his new awareness.  His friend Barry who, in Guy’s view, had abandoned him during the summer picks up Guy’s copy of The Grand Design and begins to read.

Barry: “Nothing is important unless you SAY it’s important.”  What’s that supposed to mean?

Guy: You ever really watch TV?  It’s like a big mirror of the whole country.  We’re not citizens, we’re just consumers.  Our only culture is POP culture.  It’s all me-me-me-

Guy no longer sees himself in this Ivy League world and heads back to find Sue Ellen and join her at Grand Design.  As he attempts to make his way through the levels of GD consciousness, Sue Ellen’s rival, Karen, also has her eye on Guy; Brother turns on the charm and makes Guy a special project, advancing him quickly through several ranks.  Guy is being drawn further and further into the labyrinth. Guy’s brother Greg arrives to try to get him to return but their confrontation only serves to solidify Guy’s resolve even as he begins to have doubts.

No Meaner Place: “Orpheus” builds slowly, building character and background subtly and effectively.  In its way it is much like the celebrated but long forgotten short story by James Clavell entitled “The Children’s Story” in which a young teacher sent by the new Soviet captors has replaced the old classroom teacher and slowly but methodically, in the course of a very short morning, wins the hearts of her students and disables all their previously held, but not entirely understood, beliefs.  Vulnerability exists in all of us and within the right context our core beliefs can be shaken and sometimes dismantled.  This is the setting and premise of “Orpheus,” a thinly disguised Scientology society, but one that could be at the heart of any orthodoxy.

Guy is the perfect foil as he is intelligent, well-raised, thoughtful and at a stage in life where he questions everything. Meyer has set the stage for a “Manchurian Candidate” style brainwashing as Guy initially finds himself hungry, disoriented, abandoned, alone and in a strange place where he is seemingly offered unconditional love and comfort by a beautiful stranger.

There are so many possibilities here that the stories can go off in multiple directions. The philosophical basis of religion as personified by a society claiming to be anything but a religion and the hypocrisy of the leaders of this society that mirrors so many of the scandals of present day religious organizations will be microscopically examined.  Vulnerability, belief structure, rebellion, hypocrisy, roads taken and not taken – so many complex issues and so much to discover.

Alas, none of us will be able to discover any of these paths because this pilot was never picked up to series.  The filmed version, whether because of casting choices, directing choices, or network notes, was bland.  There was no edge, there was no sinister feeling, there was no tension; hence, there were no stakes and therefore very little story left.  Certainly the topic was always risky and the network should never have been in doubt about what the premise and long range plans were.  Something, however, happened along the way to make them lose faith in the intelligence of the project and the challenge to the audience – an audience that is almost always up for a challenge and hardly ever given one.  Meyer is such a gifted writer with such a diverse literary background that it is a major loss to have been denied his voice and vision.

Life Lessons for Writers:  As in polite society, stay away from religion and politics unless, of course, you’re writing a comedy, in which case stay away from religion and politics.  “Let them eat static” – Khan  (”Star Trek II”)

Conversation with Nick Meyer:

Neely: I’ve been a big fan of your work since seeing “The Seven-Per-Cent Solution,” the most interesting take on Sherlock Holmes yet produced; and I don’t expect the new version to overtake it, no matter what the hook.  You were the sole credited writer on your adaptation, with a director at the height of his career, Herbert Ross, and a cast that included Nicol Williamson, Robert Duvall, Laurence Olivier, Vanessa Redgrave and Alan Arkin as Freud.  I think there’s a good argument to be made that Nicol Williamson and Robert Duvall were the best pairing since Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Did your involvement end with handing over the script or were you able to participate in the project once it started production?  Anyway you look at it, it was pretty heady stuff for someone so young.

Nick: It was like I was dreaming the whole time.  When Herbert Ross asked “what do you think of Olivier as Moriarity?” I had to sit and look normal. Olivier was my hero.  This is the only business where you get to shake hands with your dreams.  Six months later at Pinewood it all came to be.  I grew up idolizing him and seeing everything he had ever done.  In 1971, when I first came out to LA to try and write for a living, I saw the film he made of Chekov’s “Three Sisters”  and I wrote to him and told him how I much his work had meant to me over the years and to thank him for it. I offered to send him a copy of my forthcoming book (The Seven-Per-Cent Solution), quoting from The Taming of the Shrew, “too little payment for so great a debt.” I actually got a letter from him in return. I had the letter framed and still have it.  When I met him on set I reminded him of the letter but he didn’t remember.  I’ve found that it’s often more important to tell a person you admire them than for them to hear it.

I was invited to go to Pinewood and Vienna with the film.  I knew I wanted to direct and thought I’d learn by watching the production take shape.  Herb Ross was very courteous and gracious.  Because the dialogue of the script was so stylized and of the period Ross wanted me there for tweaks.  I watched everything and became a better screenwriter after I became a director.  I saw that “The Seven-Per-Cent Solution” movie had too many words and that, (to paraphrase Hilary Clinton, “knowing what I now know…”) I was in the editing room with Ross begging him to cut dialogue, which he wouldn’t do.  Can you imagine the writer begging the director to trim his script??

This was a very different situation than when I was working on “The Human Stain.”  I was completely shut out of the production.  Robert Benton, the director, didn’t want me there as he later explained, because he didn’t want to fight with me since he was making a different movie than the one I envisioned.

Neely: Following in the footsteps of other writers who wanted more control over their scripts, you were able to parlay your success into a writing/directing gig on the Sci Fi/Fantasy classic “Time After Time,” following it up by writing and directing what most people, myself included, consider to be the best Star Trek movie ever – “Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan.”  It’s another classic example of everything starts with a good script.  Can you give us some memorable details from that experience?  Actually, how did you get that assignment?

Nick: I’m really not a Sci/Fi fantasy guy but I have always been a fan of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells.  Movies are eye candy that Sci Fi promotes and you have to remember that candy isn’t good for you so you need to provide some nourishment.  I got assigned to direct Star Trek II after I met with Harve Bennett.  Five different scripts had been turned in for a second Star Trek feature and none of them did the trick.  After reading all five, I felt that there were some good elements in each and offered to try to cobble something together taking the best, most workable parts from each.  Harve  and his partner Bob Sallin were very enthusiastic but worried that unless we had a script within 12 days, ILM (George Lucas’ special FX house contracted to manufacture shots for the film) couldn’t guarantee delivery of said shots in time to for the film’s June opening.  I was so naïve that I didn’t realize that movies that had yet to be produced might already have opening dates slotted.  Somehow I got it done and we got started.

Working on that script I was inspired by the C.S. Forester Captain Hornblower novels, which chronicled the picaresque adventures of British navy captain during the Napoleonic Wars.   This would be Hornblower in outer space.  It was decided that Spock would be killed but when Paramount realized that there might actually be more life in this series, they made us change the ending in order to allow for Spock’s return.  When it came time for “Star Trek III” I didn’t do it because I don’t know how to do resurrections.  Harve came to me for help on “Star Trek IV” and they were my friends so I agreed.  Again there were script problems and it was four weeks before prep was to start.  It was going to have a “Time After Time” feel to it so Harve wrote the space parts and I wrote the earth parts.  I was unavailable for “Star Trek V” but was willing to do VI, which remains my favorite.  Because I had had a bad experience on my previous film, “Company Business,” I wanted to go where I liked everyone and get the bad taste out of my mouth.  Besides, I was told VI was going to be the last they would ever produce with the original cast.

The Aero in Santa Monica recently showed “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” and I was asked to speak.  The theater was packed and you feel like you’re with kids who like to hear the same story told over and over. I joshed with them: – “I told you on the DVD! I told you on the Special Edition!  I’ve told you on the Blu-Ray!” Like a prisoner under hot lights, the temptation to invent stories is enormous at that point.  Because eye witnesses are the least reliable witnesses, (according to cops and lawyers), I’m always afraid I’m going to wander off into something like “Rashomon,” where the same event is embroidered from several differing points of view. After all those repetitions, the temptation to vary the facts as I recall them and start imagining things instead of remembering them is very great.

Neely: I’m especially intrigued by a Merchant Ivory picture that you directed entitled “The Deceivers,” one of Pierce Brosnan’s first post “Remington Steele” starring roles. I have to confess that I’d never heard of it and even more intriguing is that I was under the impression that the Merchant Ivory group kept everything in house – directing, writing and producing.  How did that come about and what happened to that film?

Nick: Most of the time they kept everything in house but “The Deceivers” was intended to help them branch out from the drawing room films they were famous for.  The book was by John Masters, considered the poet laureate of the Indian Army.  Masters took historical events and incidents and turned them into a series of novels about Anglo-India, among them Bhowani Junction (also filmed) and The Nightrunners of Bengal.  My agent got me the job and it was going to be India and a cavalry charge – how could I say no?  It’s about a man who goes searching for the worst thing in the world and discovers he’s actually carrying it in his back pack.  Pierce Brosnan gives a great self-effacing performance.  He was fabulous.  He played an Englishman trying to infiltrate the Thug (Deceiver) Cult.  The film came and went.  I don’t know why.  Sometimes it’s the lack of money, like in the case of “Elegy,” and sometimes they just fail.  It’s too easy to blame marketing every time your film tanks.

Neely: And of course those were some of your earliest films. You also have the distinction of writing and producing one of the last films starring the Governator, “Collateral Damage.”

Nick: This is an interesting story.  My closest friend and editor, Ronald Roose, came up with the idea and wrote a script called “Prey” about a computer scientist who goes to the airport to pick up his wife and daughter, only to discover that their plane had been bombed by terrorists.  When he realizes our government is going to do nothing, he turns himself from a mild computer geek (think Tom Hanks), into this lethal character and makes his way to Libya to avenge them.  When we pitched it we said, “Remember, this isn’t Arnold Schwarzenegger.”  Five years later…it was.

Neely: I find it especially interesting that your career started by adapting your own novel and then writing several original screenplays.  But throughout your career you have written some marvelous adaptations – “Sommersby” (from the French film “The Return of Martin Guerre”), and most recently “The Human Stain” and “Elegy” both based on Philip Roth novels.  I’m intrigued that you seem to have become the go-to guy for Philip Roth adaptations.  As a matter of fact, the evening before this interview (by phone while I was in New York), my husband and I were eating in a tiny Italian restaurant near our hotel and who should walk in but Philip Roth! I went to his booth (so uncool but irresistible since he was alone) and told him I was a fan and that I was interviewing you, the screenplay adapter of two of his more recent books, the next day.  He was very polite and we shook hands and he didn’t flee the restaurant, so I guess it might come under the category of the fan needing to say it more than the artist needing to hear it.  So how did these adaptations come up?

Nick: My former agent Gary Lucchesi is now at Lakeshore Entertainment and he thought of me when Tom Rosenberg, who owns Lakeshore, decided to do The Human Stain.  They loved the original script which bears little resemblance to the finished product by the way.  Tom also wanted to do The Dying Animal, which stayed much closer to the script.  Using my “Saturday date night” gauge I was pretty sure we weren’t going to draw a lot of couples to a movie called The Dying Animal and suggested we change the title to “Elegy.”

Neely: I just read Roth’s Indignation and it’s right up your alley.  It explores some of the same themes you explored in “Orpheus.”  It’s an absolute natural for you.  Is there a different skill set involved in adaptation?  Do you have a preference?

Nick:  It’s very rare that I get an original idea that I really like, although occasionally I do get one that’s a doozy.  I’ve discovered that I’m a born recycler, not just of paper and garbage.  I like working material like it’s a Rubik’s cube – reworking, rethinking, redoing.  It’s what you owe to a great novel, story or play.  It’s also interesting what you can do with a bad one where you owe much less.  Handel was once accused of stealing someone’s tune and his answer was, “It’s true; he did not know what to do with it; I showed him.” Adapting material is a vastly different mental and aesthetic procedure.  You need to end up with “cinema.”  You want the viewer to understand it without having already read the book.  Think of the first “Harry Potter” movie versus “The Manchurian Candidate.”  The first Potter film doesn’t really make sense if you haven’t read the book but Manchurian Candidate thrills those who have never read the Condon novel on which it is based.  It is the desideratum. I felt this way the first time I saw David Lean’s “Oliver Twist.”  I loved it and it made me want to read the book.

Neely: You have quite a few interesting projects in development.  Are they all in development hell or do some have a chance of being greenlit?  Which of those projects is closest to your heart and what is it about?

Nick: “The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt” – Taylor Hackford has indicated an interest in directing it; also “Crook Factory” which was written for Johnny Depp; and a film about George Washington.  Unfortunately they’re about people and they’re dramas and the studios no longer do people and they don’t do dramas.  The business changed in 1974 with “The Godfather” and “Jaws.”  All of a sudden you could make huge profits from films and corporations began taking over the studios looking for those profits.  As the late Senator Everett Dirksen said, “A million here, a million there, and all of a sudden you’re talking real money”!

Neely: You have worked sporadically in television over the years, having done some MOWs and mini-series, including the iconic “The Day After.” But within the last few years you have written several scripts for series television, two of which were written for Scott Free, Ridley and Tony Scott’s company.  How did that collaboration come about?

Nick: I met David Zucker from Scott Free.  He’s absolutely brilliant at developing for television and we started working together.

Neely: I also noticed that of your four prospective series, three were about lawyers and the fourth, “Orpheus” has lawyers in the background, notably the family from whom Guy is trying to distance himself.  So what is it with all the lawyers?

Nick: Basically all one hour television is about cops, lawyers or doctors.  I couldn’t even begin to write about medicine but I thought I might be able to fake lawyering.

Neely: Which brings us to the topic at hand – “Orpheus.”  I fell in love with all the possibilities of what it could be, all the while recognizing how risky that would be.  Since this was under the “Scott Free” banner, how did they feel about the story and series possibilities?

Nick: Well, they got it.  We did a Bible of the story arcs and they commissioned me to write a second episode.  “Orpheus” was supposed to get stranger and more angular; instead it ended up very flat when filmed.  This was a cautionary tale of being careful of the directors you choose.  Being a good director isn’t the same as being congruent with the material.  I have enormous regard for the talent of Bruce Beresford, but like Benton, he didn’t get what I’d written (or intended).

Neely: Since Scott Free’s deal was with CBS, you were locked to that network.  Was there ever any consideration for taking it to cable?  Today it would seem to fit into what Showtime is trying to do.  What kind of notes did you get from CBS?

Nick: David (Zucker) still believes in it and is trying to sell it overseas or trying to find someone who’s interested enough to have it redone.  He’s never lost interest and still champions it.  I have to say that CBS was very supportive at the writing stage.  They saw it as a weird romantic story and they also wanted to do a story about a cult.  You mentioned Scientology in your analysis but this wasn’t intended to be any specific group or ideology.  I had read a book by Anthony Storr entitled Feet of Clay about gurus and guru worshippers and I was intrigued by the idea that when gurus end up leaving, it’s usually with a vengeance – think Freud and Jung or Jesus and Judas.

Neely: Do you think things would have turned out differently if you had directed it yourself?

Nick: I wanted to direct it but…would it have been more credible or successful?  Who knows?  I had stopped directing following the death of my wife in 1993.  I had small children to raise and could no longer direct because of being responsible for them.  When I was ready to go back, I’d been away too long.

Neely: As I said earlier, when I was reading the script again I was reminded of the recent Philip Roth novel entitled Indignation.  It’s about the choices made by a young man, the same age as Guy, (the central figure in “Orpheus”), and the consequences of those choices.  In some ways it’s also about the rigidity and righteousness of youth – something you hope your own kids will survive, as this rigidity, righteousness and the consequences are a rite of passage for all of us.  Guy has placed himself in a quagmire, vacillating between the hardness of a true believer and the doubts of a rational man.  What do you think happens to true believers who begin to doubt the organization that has “love bombed” them?  Do you know where Guy was ultimately headed?

Nick: Well, at the end of the pilot, Guy is being chased through the jungle by men with guns!

Neely: Are you definitively through with this project or could you reimagine it in either feature film or novel format?  It would make a hell of a read.

Nick: No, but I will now.

Neely: So what’s up next?

Nick: Six months from now?  Right now I’m working with some writers on a series based on “Time After Time;” and I’m thinking about The 7% Solution as a series; and there are other movie projects.

Neely: Any more novels?

Nick: Novel writing doesn’t pay the bills.  I wrote The Seven-Per-Cent Solution during the writers’ strike of 1972 and The View From the Bridge: Memories of Star Trek and a Life in Hollywood” during the WGA strike in January of 2009.

Neely: I just finished reading The View From the Bridge: Memories of Star Trek and a Life in Hollywood and highly recommend it to anyone interested in the film making process, “Star Trek” and your own voyage.  You’ve had a great career with more to come.  Any other thoughts?

Nick: Perseverance counts for a lot.  When people ask me for tips about penetrating this business I always tell them: Be prepared to put in a decade.  I am also reminded of a great Napoleon quote.  A general was once recommended to Napoleon who replied “I know he’s good, but is he lucky?”  I’ve also been lucky.

November 18, 2009

Given a choice between charging elephants and development season, I’ll still choose No Meaner Place.

Filed under: Conversations With, Pilots, Produced, Todd, Writers — Tags: , , , — Neely Swanson @ 9:10 am

What if the Buddies are girls?

“Soccer Moms” by Donald Todd

What: An upscale neighborhood is being systematically robbed; the disappearance of an illegal maid threatens to upend the campaign of a local politician; and a “June Cleaver” soccer mom has too much time on her hands.

Who: Brooke Benning, the perfect suburban mom we all wanted as kids and hate as adults, was running her own one-woman neighborhood watch even before her neighbors were being robbed blind in a series of daring daylight robberies.  Curious, some would say nosey, by nature, Brooke takes a walk each evening, strolling the neighborhood, a habit her husband calls spying.

Ed: …you’re one step from turning into Mrs. Kravitz from “Bewitched”.

Brooke: To be fair to Mrs. Kravitz, there was a witch next door.  And Darrin did turn into a monkey.

This particular evening she spies a beat up Volvo that doesn’t belong in the area.  Taking things into her own hands she harasses its inhabitants – Dana, a mom, and her two kids, Jack and Molly.  Not only does Brooke force them to leave but she also reports the license to the police.  Imagine her chagrin the next day at the local elementary school when Dana, a fellow mother at the school, confronts her.  Dana, an ex-cop whose husband is in jail for fraud, is now a private investigator and Brooke had interrupted her stake-out, her livelihood.  Furthermore, because Brooke had reported Dana’s car, Dana is no longer able to enter the neighborhood and finish her job.

Brooke: You were on a job?  Who were you watching?

Dana: (showing her card) See the “private” in “private investigator?” That stands for “private.”

At this point, both worlds collide as Dana’s son runs up to her and reminds her that she forgot to make him a lunch.

Brooke: Here – I made an extra lunch, he can have that.

Dana: …What do you mean, you made an “extra” lunch?  Who packs a spare lunch, that doesn’t even make sense.

Very remorseful, and extremely intrigued, Brooke offers to lend her the family van and takes care of Dana’s children while she works.  Unable to resist the call of the gumshoe, Brooke visits Dana on her stakeout (bringing a plate of dinner and calling attention to herself yet again).

Brooke: Okay, you’re watching the meeting, so whoever you’re sitting on must be inside, am I right?  I bet I can guess.  Is it Daniel Haven?  Because I always thought there was something funny about how he suddenly “came into” the money to put in that pool.

Dana: I’m sorry, did you say “sitting on?”

Brooke: I know the lingo.  So who’s the mark?

Dana: (laughs; tough talk) The mark? No can do, sister – I rat out the mark, they’ll lam it outta here toot suite.

Brooke: (embarrassed) Never mind. (They sit in silence, as Dana eats.  Beat.)  Okay, I’m already bored.  How do you do this?  And where do you go to the bathroom?

If Oscar and Felix of “The Odd Couple” were women, they would be Brooke and Dana, although unlike Felix, and potentially more annoying, Brooke is preternaturally perky; but even though we all hate perky, it’s impossible not to like Brooke.

Dana: Oh, god, don’t tell me – you’re one of those families that eat around the table every night.

Brooke: Yes, we are.  I think a family should all talk to one another at dinner.

Dana: Then how do you hear the TV?

Brooke soon finds a new case for Dana, one which Dana, when she sees the $2,000 retainer, is unable to refuse.  Dana, grateful, falls into that syrupy trap of “be careful what you wish for.”  Enormously pleased with herself, Brooke soon insinuates herself into the case and Dana’s life.

No Meaner Place: Again, this wonderful script was produced as a pilot…over and out.  I have no idea what happened, but whatever it was, it wasn’t the writing.  Crisp, funny, with clearly defined and visualized characters (Shelly Long and Bette Midler played similar characters to perfection in “Outrageous Fortune” in 1987); a male-dominated genre written perfectly with originality for women with the potential for endless stories told humorously.  For any woman who has ever had to find her fulfillment as a suburban soccer mom, this is Walter Middy-land with that sexy bit of danger.  To a certain extent, each of us wants the potential excitement of Dana’s life and some (god knows not all) the perfection of Brooke.  There are those of you out there (you know who you are) who always brought extra orange sections to the games in case, god forbid, that week’s soccer mom brought apple slices instead.

Todd is skilled at understanding the vulnerabilities and traps into which middle class women often find themselves.  He has always written interesting female characters, most recently on “Samantha Who?” and “Ugly Betty;” as well as another unproduced pilot entitled “Robin’s Nest.”

I could care less if a network or studio stays ahead of the curve or behind it.  It’s useless to anticipate what the audience will want.  Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue (that would have to be on cable), but do it well and let the audience decide.  The audience will often surprise you.  Why program for 14 year old boys?  This isn’t the tentpole business where you only need two weekends and a lot of noise and special effects; 14 year old boys aren’t watching TV and “Knight Rider” didn’t bring them back.  I’m watching TV and eventually advertisers will learn, if they haven’t already, that brand loyalty is a thing of the past and they should aim for that part of the audience that still has money to spend. This is a show I want to see and if the first pilot didn’t work, for whatever reason, do it over!

Life Lessons for Writers:  Beware the Upset Price and negotiate your separated rights (it can’t be said too many times) because as near as I can calculate, if they still exist those rights to “Soccer Moms” should be reverting any day now, allowing for a return to the market.

Conversation with the Writer:

Neely: I have been a big fan for a long time.  Everyone I’ve talked to absolutely loves you, something that is rare in this business.

Don: Keep digging, you’ll find plenty of detractors.  It’s always that way, some people love you, some people don’t.

Neely: Your comedy bona fides are incredible dating back to “Alf.”  You’ve come a long way – please tell us how you got started in the serious business of comedy.

Don:  It was like the Butterfly Effect – how small actions on one side of the globe create huge changes on the other.  In my case, I was cold one night. I was a staff writer on a show called “Misfits of Science” that was filming out by Magic Mountain.  Staff writer, but more, because we all did everything.  The hours were incredibly long: 16 hours a day; a lot of the filming was outdoors and it was freezing.  One day when we were waiting for Magic Hour (finding just the right lighting for the shot we needed), and all of us cold as hell, I was talking to Burt Brinkerhoff, one of our directors, and he said, “You know, there are jobs where you work indoors all the time.”  I landed the job on “Alf” and didn’t look back.

Neely: Almost all of your credits were in half hour and then you transitioned to one hour.  How did that come about?

Don: Multi-camera shows never alter.  Table read, rehearsal, film in front of an audience; repeat.  It all felt the same and I needed a change.  I was working on “The Hugleys” and realized that I no longer enjoyed the process.  I wondered if it was the show, and would it be any different if I were working on “Friends,” and I realized that it was the format.  So, I wrote a drama spec pilot to show that I could work in one hour and made the jump.  I was lucky enough to write a pilot for Greer Shepherd and Mike Robin entitled “The Boneyard” about an obituary writer. Working with them was a great experience, and by shifting to drama right before the comedy business collapsed, I felt like a stunt man who jumped over the speeding car.  The strategy worked so well, that during the press tour for “Samantha Who?” a critic asked me how a drama writer like myself could hope to write a comedy.

Neely: Any favorite experiences outside of the shows you created?

Don: This is going to sound strange, but one of my best experiences was getting fired off a show.  I created something with Danny Jacobson for the WB called “Simon.”  You never want to get fired, but being sent home and then paid off for the rest of the season is a great job.  I got to spend time with the woman I’d started dating who eventually became my wife.  She was a dancer and I was able to travel with her.  So I owe my life and family to the WB.  “Thanks, WB, sorry you’re dead now.”  I also really liked working on “Dave’s World.”  It was a great writing experience.  Some of the best scripts I ever wrote were written for that show.   Oh and then there was the time Farrah Fawcett handed me a tennis ball.  I was working on “Good Grief” and my bungalow was next to the bungalow of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O’Neal who were also working on the lot. I watched them batting around a tennis ball and when they were called to set, Farrah turned to me, smiled and tossed me the tennis ball.  And when I was working on “Brother’s Keeper” I got to put Jack Klugman and Tony Randall together for the first time since they did “The Odd Couple.”  We basically cast them as the odd couple.

Neely: You have a gift for writing women.  Any comments or explanations?

Don: Three marriages, maybe.  The “women’s voice” is not  a problem – it’s getting them out that’s the challenge. I started out writing male buddy comedies and then just started writing women because I enjoyed it more.  I really enjoy working with female stars.  I have to say no writer could ever ask for more than to have Christina Applegate and Jean Smart say their lines.  To paraphrase Jim Brooks, “They make me want to be a better writer.” Those two could sell anything, but if the scene isn’t working, it isn’t because of them.

Neely: Let’s talk a bit about “Soccer Moms.”  How did you pitch it and to whom (i.e., did the studios get it, were you under an overall, was there any kind of competition to produce this)?

Don: The idea was pitched by Rick Copp who has written several mystery novels.  Marla Ginsberg got on board and took it to Francie Calfo at ABC. I met with Marla and Francie and liked the idea and wrote the pilot.  Francie was a big supporter of mine.  Like “Soccer Moms,” the idea for “Samantha Who?” also came from a novelist.

Neely: At the studio level, what kind of notes did you get?

Don: It must have been a cooperative experience because I really don’t recall.

Neely: How about at the network level?

Don: I was working on “life as we know it” which was filming in Canada, so the whole development process was over the phone.  And in Canadian, which made it tough.

Neely: In terms of production, how involved were you at the various levels?  Did you have a say in choosing the director?  How about the cast?  How much time did you spend on set?

Don: As the showrunner, I was fully involved.  I spent a lot of time on set, I was there every second — to the extent that it might have even hurt my other project, “Testing Bob” starring Peter Dinklage.  “Soccer Moms” was a satisfying experience all the way up to production; the product didn’t come out right.  Eventually the network wanted to see a very cut down version just to see cast chemistry.  Then I think Steve McPherson accidentally taped the Super Bowl over it.

Neely: Did what happened on this show influence you when you worked on “Samantha Who?”

Don: Any showrunning experience should inform and improve the next one and the bad experiences inform the most.  I learned that I don’t have an interest in working with difficult stars.

Neely: I so love “Soccer Moms” and would still love to see it.  Who owns the rights? If ABC was willing to redo “Eastwick” (and that’s all I’m going to say about that show), do you think there’s any way to convince them to retry this one?

Don: If the network loves a project, then they’ll run with it again.  I’d really hesitate to do “Soccer Moms” at this point.  I have kids and I realized something: if the character has kids in school or at home you can’t put the Mom in real danger and because of that you immediately take away the drama.  If I redid “Soccer Moms” it would have to be very light and no one could carry guns.

Neely: What’s the pilot process like?

Don: The wonderful thing about doing pilots is it’s great for the ego.  During casting, you have people coming in all day telling you how great you are.

Neely: Well onward and upward.  Can you tell me what you’re working on now?

Don: I have two pilots in the works, one for CBS and the other for ABC.  The ABC pilot was my assistant Correne’s idea.  She was a lawyer before trying her hand at writing and she’s co-writing the story; I’ll write the teleplay.  It’s a half hour comedy about Millenials (the 20-26ers).  These are the Trophy Kids the ones who got trophies for anything they did – you know, the “everyone’s a winner” kids.  What happens when these entitled but very happy kids, the largest generation, hits the work place?  The CBS pilot is a domestic comedy about the many versions of me – I’ve been single, married, divorced, married, divorced, married, a stepfather, an adoptive father, a biological father, and so on.

Neely: I’ll look forward to reading and seeing those shows.

October 28, 2009

A woman goes into a bar and asks for a “double entendre”. So the bartender gave her one.

Filed under: Conversations With, Lacopo, Pilots, Produced, Writers — Tags: , , — Neely Swanson @ 2:32 pm

Announced as part of NBC’s Fall line-up…but nowhere to be seen.

“The Man of Your Dreams” by Jay Lacopo

What: Larry Ackerman, bartender at Cicero’s, is too good to be true; true of heart anyway.  A line so smooth that no woman can resist; until he’s set up by the girl friends of the woman he’s dating, who are also friends with the woman he lives with; make that past tense, as in lived with..

Who: Larry, forced to move in with his divorced sister Liza and her 16 year old daughter, Maia, stumbles into Liza’s knit ‘n bitch circle of single friends one evening.  As he starts to exit, one of the women asks Larry’s relationship advice on behalf of one of the other women.  Listening attentively and asking appropriate questions, he analyzes the woman’s most recent flirtatious encounter and comes to the conclusion that she made a number of fatal mistakes:

“Well, you did three things wrong.  Your energy, your eye contact and if you said it [hello] anything like how you just said it to me I think there was probably some emotional inequity in there…The thing is, in all three of these areas, when you meet a guy, you never want to give him any more than he gives you.”

Larry has hit the jackpot.  The women, with the exception Liza, are entranced and, recognizing that they are all prone to repeatedly making the same relationship mistakes, beg Larry to become their dating guru.  Using his gift for good, not ill, he takes them in hand and promises to unlock the secrets of the male mind so that they can attract rather than repel the opposite sex.  Larry has finally found his calling.

No Meaner Place: Like “Captain Cook’s Extraordinary Atlas,” I picked “The Man of Your Dreams” as a hit (sort of shows you what my track record at a network would have been).  Warm, compassionate, funny, with well drawn characters and an interesting premise – what could go wrong?  This is Sam Malone (“Cheers”) trading the superficiality of his good looks and charm for analysis and the good of someone other than himself.  A few years ago this would hve been the perfect fit at NBC when they were looking for a successor to “Friends.”  Still more perplexing is that this show was always mentioned as a sure thing for the 09-10 schedule.  Not having seen the finished pilot, I just don’t know what happened; but on the page, this script had (still has) everything and I would still love to see it.   This was certainly in the vein that NBC claimed to be looking for – a successor in the tradition of the “must see” NBC comedies.   Lacopo, primarily a features writer, has strengths in all areas – character, structure, story, and dialogue.  Straight out of The Total Woman (a reference for those of a “certain age”) or The Rules (for everyone else), Lacopo’s dialogue is sharp, funny and incisive.  The journey would have been lots of fun as Larry would have taken the women down his seven stages of a relationship, turning the Kubler Ross seven stages of mourning upside down:

“Now, I’ve broken every relationship down into seven stages; The Courtship, The Romance, The Reality, The Struggle For Power, Re-evaluating The Relationship or what I call “I think I like your best friend,” and the final two: Re-Awakening and Acceptance.”

Have we come to a place where sitcoms can only be “joke, joke, punchline?”  “Modern Family,” is showing that there is room on television for character in the business of funny.  “The Man of Your Dreams” takes stereotypic characters – the angry single woman, the needy single woman, the stoic mom, the satyr behind the bar, among others – and gives them personality, depth, compassion and pratfalls.  I love banana peels, comeuppance, and a good joke.  Anyone else?

Life Lessons for Writers:  There are no sure things, but there are sure-fire scripts. It’s been said before (actually everything has been said before) but “Let there be (more) Life.”  Or was it Light?

Conversation with the Writer:

Neely: “The Man of Your Dreams” was always on NBC’s Fall schedule and much ballyhooed in the Trades.  At what point did you find out that it wasn’t on the schedule and how did you find out?

Jay: There was a single moment about three quarters of the way through my experience with “The Man Of Your Dreams” when I knew we weren’t getting on the air.  We had just tested the show and the test results came back pretty favorably (particularly for a comedy).  A lot of people were excited about how we’d done and between the test results, the interest from the foreign markets, the diversity of the cast and the contract the show already had with Anheuser Busch, we were all pretty optimistic.  And somewhere around the time many of us were dancing in the streets someone, somewhere had a conversation with the head of the network where he said the words (I’m paraphrasing) “No. No. No.  I love it too.  We just need to change it.”  Having done this for a while, I knew, even with a script order and with all the champions we had at the network and the studio, we were pretty much dead from that point on.

Neely: Uh oh!  Any idea how he wanted to change it – or is that code for dead in the water?

Jay: The words “more of a sex romp” were used at some point, but I think ultimately it as a difference in sensibility between myself and the head of the network at the time.  We just found different things funny and that’s tough to get past.

Neely: Was the show presented at the upfronts?

Jay: Nope.

Neely: Going back in time when this was the network’s baby, who were your champions; who shepherded the show through development?  What kind of notes did you get?

Jay: Vernon Sanders, Renate Radford, Erin Gough, Jane Wiseman, Katherine Pope, Jeff Ingold and I’m sure I’ve missed a few supportive and collaborative players.  It was the one of the best development experiences I’ve had, due in no small part to my producers at Conaco: David Kissinger and Richard Schwartz.  I felt they were all incredibly respectful of the process (producers, studio and network) and when I took a wrong turn (and there was a draft that did) they were smart enough to put me back on track.

Neely: I’m really confused though.  This was an NBC Universal production for NBC network through Conan O’Brien’s production company.  Unlike so many other shows that fit the new cable paradigm, this was meant for network – a rarity now-a-days.  Not only did they screw themselves in terms of potential company profits (vertical integration at its best, or in this case its mismanagement) but they also probably pissed off Conan at a time that they should have been doing him favors (especially given that they cut off his legs when they put Leno on ahead of him).

Jay: I do not disagree.

Neely: Is there a second bite on this show?

Jay: There was some clammering.  There’s always clammering, but at the time (and currently) it is out of my control.  So I choose to invest my energy elsewhere.  Too many stories to tell.

Neely: I think I’ll play my hand a bit, but I adore Constance Zimmer – she worked on “Boston Legal” and was fabulous; and I’m a huge fan of Christina Chang, who worked with us on a short-lived show entitled “girls club.”  She’s a hidden treasure.  Also, I’m a big fan of Jason Ensler.  So after stacking the deck, how do you think the pilot turned out?

Jay: I told Jason (who I look forward to working with again in the not too distant future) when we were having a discussion after a long stretch in the editing bay that this pilot was a little over eighty percent of what I wanted it to be.  In some ways it surpassed my expectations and in others it fell a little short, but as a creator, with all those sensibilities and all those pieces that have to fall into place, 83 percent is pretty amazing.   I feel that that pilot accurately reflected what I put on the page and who I am as a half-hour television writer and I can’t ask for more than that.

I loved this cast.  Michael Trucco (Battlestar Gallactica) played Larry.  He was the only guy for the role and from the moment he went on tape in Vancouver there was no one else for the job.  There were times in the editing bay when I was watching his performance (over and over again) and I would forget that I had written what he was saying.  Constance- the same thing.  Her performance was effortless (even at the end of the longest days) and she never missed a single note.  She is, in the best sense of the word, a “Pro.”  Rebecca McFarland was our last piece of casting as Sally and from the moment she opened her mouth she was cast.  Christina so surprised me at her audition for Melinda.  So quirky.  So much good stuff going on between the lines and she only got better.  Justina Machado was pitch perfect as Violet.  So many great choices as an actress and, as Violet, she stole our hearts.  RonReaco Lee played Mitch and there is no one else like him.  He makes greatness where there is nothing on the page and he can make what is on the page even better than you imagined.

Neely: Where or how did you come up with the idea for the show?  Are you a cad with the ladies?

Jay: First of all, how dare you.  I had a blind script at NBC and went into Vernon Sanders office to pitch him an idea he passed on.  He then proceeded to tell me the kind of show NBC might be looking for: a character with a really strong point of view at the center of the show and a cast of characters that that character might set out to change or help in some way.   Kind of a “My Name Is Earl” without the need for guest stars.   I cannot tell you how valuable it is, at least for me, to be given a bull’s eye to hit and Vernon gave me a bull’s eye.

David Kissinger, Richard Schwartz and I had a conversation, I think at our first meeting, where the idea of men and woman and relationships was brought up.  When this idea started coming together in my head I loved the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other-quality this idea had.  I felt that every frame of this show would bring a smile to the audience’s face and I felt that it would be difficult to find a subject more universal than men and women struggling to understand each other.  Somehow this notion, combined with my fascination with human behavior and my love of writing a possibly decent monologue came together in this character and this idea.

Comedy aside, I felt that women would watch if for no other reason then they were getting some fairly decent advice on men and men would watch because they couldn’t believe this guy was getting away with saying what he was saying to these women.

Cad?  Nay.  I’m a fan of the ladies.  I find them fascinating and endlessly entertaining.  I hope that comes across in my writing.  Next question.

Neely: Do you know such a “Larry”?

Jay: Maybe I do and maybe I don’t.

Neely: How involved were you in the different stages of production, including casting and crewing up?  Do you feel that your ideas during those stages were given careful attention?  Any significant differences of opinion?

Jay: I was very involved.  I felt valued and respected throughout the entire process (or at least until the powers that be did not pick us up).  I also tried to make sure others had the same experience: allowing talented people to do what they have a talent for.   I think hiring someone as talented as Jason (once you’ve made sure you share a similar sensibility) and then putting your thumb on top of them, so that the pilot can only be as good as YOU imagine it to be, is a mistake.  I’ve had that experience on other projects and it makes people miserable and the product rarely turns out well.  There were constant differences of opinion and many of them felt like they would make or break the creative success of the pilot, but if you are told you are not getting your way, you move on and you set out to beat the actor or the scene or the song you felt you could not live without.

Neely: Well onward and upward.  Can you tell me what you’re working on now?

Jay: I’m currently working on a spec feature, which will most likely be the most successful motion picture in the history of time, and I’m looking forward to worthwhile collaborations in the television world.

Neely: I’ll look forward to reading and seeing your next project.

Note on “What’s Your Story” by Jack Bernstein. This project is still alive and I hope I never have to write about it.

Next Up:  My trip to Africa (seriously, I’m going to Africa) but when I return…”Soccer Moms” by Donald Todd

Neely can be reached at neely@nomeanerplace.com

October 21, 2009

“What family doesn’t have its ups and downs?” – Eleanor of Aquitaine

Sometimes something comes along that is well written, beautifully cast, well directed and it…doesn’t get on the air.

The Eastmans by Margaret Nagle

What: The Eastman Institute, long a landmark in this mid-sized city, is thought to be the best facility for cardiac surgery in the world, or at least in the United States, according to the stuck up French surgeons at the Georges Pompidou Hospital.  Cutting edge techniques and skill are the stock in trade.

Who: Dr. Charles Eastman, grandson of the founder and present-day leader of the medical staff, all of whom are his children, has recently won the St. Andrews Genius grant for his pioneering heart stent, invented over twenty years ago.  The only question in his mind is why did it take so long?  While being interviewed by an extremely attractive journalist 30 years his junior, he decides to show his power and the loyalty of his family by paging them to his side.  Receiving the doomsday page, each of the Eastmans, with the exception of Charles’ wife Emma, a nurse at the adjacent hospital, drop everything and come running – Peter, a cardiac surgeon in the operating room ready to commence surgery on the Vice Chancellor of England; Anna, a pediatric neurologist, in the middle of counseling anxious parents convinced that their normal child is suffering from developmental delays; Seth, the bad boy surgeon now chiropractor who is on a medical board-mandated “hiatus” because of his past prescription drug habit and rehab stay; James, a cardiac surgeon at a command performance with his wife and a couples therapist trying to save his marriage; and Sally, a pathologist and Seth’s twin, all of whose “patients” can wait, on ice, until she returns.  Each, arriving quickly, is definitely annoyed by yet another narcissistic power play by their controlling father; more so because their mother was able to discern that this was no emergency.

There is, however, trouble in paradise.  The marriage of James and his wife Maddie is on the rocks, and unbeknownst to James, one of the reasons is an affair between Maddie and Peter; Anna’s marriage to Rick is collapsing under the weight of their son Tommy’s autism, a disease that Charles refuses to acknowledge; Sally has created a cocoon of isolation in her pathology lab; Seth is not sure he wants to resume his practice once the ban has been lifted; and Emma, soon to celebrate her 40th anniversary with Charles, weary of the daily battles with her husband’s oversized ego, may be about to leave him for a man 25 years her junior, Jack O’Brien, a paramedic and childhood friend of Peter.

And there are always the patients, one of whom ends up being Charles.  Burned earlier in the day with a fake doomsday page, none of the younger Eastmans respond to the real thing; only Emma, who was in the middle of a tryst with her paramedic lover, recognized the page for the actual emergency it was.  Rushed to his Institute in Jack’s surprisingly “at-the-ready” ambulance, Charles is diagnosed with an abdominal aortic aneurism (the Triple A).  All take a hand in saving him. It is medicine that brings them together and medicine that tears them apart.

No Meaner Place: At its heart, and it is an oversized one, “The Eastmans” is a medical soap opera about an overachieving but wonderfully dysfunctional family (in the same way that “The Sopranos” was a soap about the mob).  The characters have depth, the medical situations have promise, and the conflict is already built in; Nagle is a very accomplished writer who injects substance into what, in the hands of someone less accomplished, is a hoary medium.

In most cases I don’t have the opportunity to see the produced pilot, but I was lucky enough to see this one.  It was well directed by Jason Ensler, one of television’s most accomplished pilot directors; and the cast was stellar.  Led by Donald Sutherland, capable of turning a flash of anger into a twinkle in his eye in a heart beat (I am never able to avoid the bleeding obvious), and Jackie Bisset who has been given one her best roles in years and devours it deliciously; the younger members of the cast are also quite good, allowing Saffron Burrows another chance to show the character complexity she demonstrated in “The Bank Job.”.

What led CBS to pick up “Three Rivers” instead of “The Eastmans”?  Realistically, the issue at hand is not about content, it’s probably about economics; in other words, vertical integration.  CBS Studios produced “Three Rivers”; Warner Brothers produced “The Eastmans”.  All new television shows are a crapshoot; there are no sure things, so, in this case they went with what they owned, (and in the unlikely event it succeeds, they will profit more) rather than with what they didn’t. Knowing that the biggest hit on CBS is the CSI franchise and that CBS obtained this good fortune due to the shortsightedness of some execs at ABC where it was developed, obviously CBS would never like to be the dog in that kennel.  Still, if they’re not going to use it, why can’t someone else.  Maintaining an ownership position could help offset any embarrassment they would face if “The Eastmans” became another network’s “Gray’s Anatomy.”

Life Lessons for Writers:  Pray for a second bite and, in an isolated negative thought, the demise of a lesser show.  A second bite, where the actors are all held loosely under contract for an additional 6 months in case the show comes back to life, allows the powers-that-be to think again on a project they might otherwise have killed (or in this case allowed to bleed to death).

Conversation with the Writer:

Neely: Margaret Nagle just finished working in the LA writers’ room for HBO’s new series “Boardwalk Empire.”  She is currently writing a sequel of her Emmy winning movie “Warm Springs” called “The Defining Moment.”  Her feature script “The Goree Girls” begins shooting in January.

Margaret, tell us about “The Eastmans.”

Margaret: This one was a heartbreak. The idea was that I wanted to write “The Royal Tenenbaums” CBS style. “The Lion in Winter,” “King Lear” were also inspirations. An intimate epic about a crazy but brilliant family.

Neely: I definitely see parallels. As the character of Eleanor of Aquitaine said in “The Lion in Winter,” “What family doesn’t have its ups and downs?”  I’d like to know about you and your experience.  Do you come from an overachieving family with a domineering patriarch?  In other words, where did this come from?

Margaret: My grandfather was a very prominent neurologist and had five children. He was brilliant and wanted his children to succeed no matter what. He was worshiped and feared by his family and loved by his patients and colleagues.  All three of his sons became talented doctors in their own right.  He was my inspiration for this.  Doctors deal with death every day yet they still fear their own.  And medicine is an ever evolving science so one generation may practice quite differently than another. There is inherent conflict there.

Neely: What was the Network’s reaction to the script?  What kind of notes did you get?

Margaret: The studio (Warner’s) had me do a rewrite of my first draft before it went to the network. They had very specific notes.  TV is so different from film. Particularly network TV.  I needed to raise the stakes. They pushed me and I’m glad they did.

The network was fantastic.  The CBS notes were about Anna and her character’s struggle with her autistic son, her career, her marriage. They wanted me to go farther with her struggle.  The development team understood what the show was. That is always a huge victory with a network and studio if everyone wants to make the same show.

Neely: How involved were you in the casting and production?  What did you think of Jason Ensler as the director of the pilot?  What was the Network’s reaction to the produced pilot?

Margaret: I was the sole exec producer so I hired practically everyone. I had a team of designers I had worked with before on a previous show I created. I also used the costume designer from a movie I wrote.  I knew how I wanted this to look and to sound.

Jason Ensler, our director, and I had a unique connection from the minute we said hello. We clicked creatively right away on a deep level. Colors, lenses, music, editing, casting… we agreed.  People thought we had known one another forever. But it was creative kismet. I loved his work on the finished pilot. He is so talented with music and editing as well…  he just brought his whole game to this piece. He understood it on a deep emotional level. The actors loved him.  I am forever grateful to him and I just hope we get to work together again soon.

Casting was a long process. I hate casting because as a former actor it makes me deeply uncomfortable to watch actors audition. That said, our casting directors were amazing and we got a terrific cast. Actors really responded well to the script. Gaby Hoffman and Jesse Bradford were absolutely terrific. Donald was heartbreakingly funny and warm.  He did remarkable work. Jacqueline Bisset was so captivating. The camera just loves her. She is like a powder keg on screen. The actors brought so much to this. It was very exciting to see their work onscreen.

The network’s initial reaction to the finished product was fantastic. Love. Joy. Total enthusiasm.

Neely: You may not be aware of this, but I read your script because of a comment one of the readers made on the site.  I quote: “You must watch THE EASTMANS (CBS) at some point. Incredible pilot and script. Beautifully directed. Tested through the roof. Quotable. Well acted. I could have seen some recasting for series. Women loved it. Several characters tested through the roof. Like “House” numbers.”  The reader then went on to speculate on why “Three Rivers” got on the air instead.  So what do you think happened?

Margaret: I just don’t know. So many people have wanted to see this show succeed. It strikes a chord.

Neely: “The Eastmans” is that dying breed of beautifully drawn, character-driven drama; pure and not so very simple.

Margaret: You can never underestimate an audience’s response to watching an adult depiction of family. We all have parents and brothers and sisters and stories. It is why we are who we are.

Neely: Is there a second bite?  Could CBS conceivably pick this up for midseason?

Margaret: I honestly don’t know.

Neely: You know, in the end, cable may be the right place for this, say on TNT. TNT has spent freely for big stars but have nothing on right now with this level of writing, with the possible exception of “The Closer.”.  Many actors who have refused series roles on network television are willing to do the limited episodes shot for cable.  I think anyone who has read the script and/or seen the pilot would agree that this deserves to be on the air.

Next up – “What’s Your Story?”

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress