No Meaner Place

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

Filed under: Conversations With, Nagle, Pilots, Produced, Writers — Tags: , , , , — Neely Swanson @ 8:12 pm

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?”

October 14, 2009

“When you’re down & out, there’s no meaner place to live than Hollywood” – Dominick Dunne

Filed under: Conversations With, Pilots, Pilots Spec Scripts, Ross, Writers — Tags: , — Neely Swanson @ 11:37 am

Revised October 16, 2009.  See below for a CONVERSATION WITH BRIAN ROSS

God decided to take the devil to court and settle their differences once and for all. When Satan heard this, he laughed and said, “And where do you think you’re going to find a lawyer?”

Here…After by Brian Ross

What: Dead lawyers who may, at one time in life, have shown promise as human beings are given a chance to redeem themselves in a parallel universe on their way up or down where, in the bodies of their former selves at the time they “lost their way;” they will now play for the opposing team – prosecutors are now defenders, defenders now prosecutors.  Their jobs – to argue for or against second chances for humans on the cusp of finality.  Their success or failure in this new guise will dictate their ultimate “stop.”

Who: Gaby Munroe, a recently deceased 72 year old prosecutor, is perplexed but nevertheless thrilled to discover when passing a mirror that she is, once again, 26 years old and gorgeous.  Gaby, who won her first case at age 26 and continued on to win all of her cases over the next 40 years, 136 cases in all, knew that a number of the defendants were innocent but that justice would have cut into her record; everything was secondary to her career.  The beginning of her path to redemption will be her defense of Michael Chapman, a recently jilted young man whose life hangs in the balance, literally and figuratively, as he is frozen in time, about to fly off a mountain precipice on his motorcycle.  Investigating Michael Chapman’s life, Gaby discovers a long string of poor romantic choices.  Not a bad sort, but always choosing flash over substance, Michael found himself abandoned at the aisle by his fiancée; distraught, he sped off on his motorcycle.  Opposing counsel is Ewan McKattraig, 60, a law school hero of Gaby’s in her former, or should we just say “life” who is less admirable than she could have imagined, and Ronald McKattraig, 10, Ewan’s grandson and former partner.  Ronald first went astray of his potential power for justice and balance at boarding school in the 5th grade in a case involving a teacher’s missing thong underwear; it was downhill from there.  Present age notwithstanding, he is a formidable competitor.

Gaby presents an impressive defense that Michael, a physician of great promise, deserves one more chance at life in general and romance in particular.  The McKattraigs are decidedly against giving anyone so prone to poor choices another chance.  Listening to arguments and presiding at the bench is…God, who is fine with being called “Your Honor” as opposed to “Your Holiness,” which He considers a bit too papal.  If a miracle is won, it will be accompanied by trick conditions that must be fulfilled by the defense attorney, in order that the miracle not look miraculous.

No Meaner Place: I loved the sly humor and especially the overall concept of a series-long lawyer joke.  I have no idea why this script didn’t create more buzz as it is clever, well written and original (could that be why?).  Perhaps because Ross’s previous credits had been in MOWs and there is a tendency to pigeon-hole writers and not let them out of their cages (and yes the pun was intended) he didn’t get the read he deserved.  Lack of representation for a time may also have played a part, but luckily Ross now has great representation by the Rothman-Brecher Agency.  Still, this script points out another problem – that of how networks, studios and even audiences perceive the legal profession – with earth-shattering importance.  Every year one or more legal shows premier and rarely do any of them exhibit any humor.  “L.A. Law,” often delved into the quirks of the law and human foibles with magical humorous moments, something David Kelley also did with “Boston Legal.”  Kelley was often criticized for the off-the-wall situations and characters found on “Ally McBeal,” but that was the whole point; comedies, by nature (keeping in mind that “Ally McBeal” won an Emmy in the comedy category) jump the shark all the time.  When a panel of 9 lawyers, 2 scholars and a critic were asked by the ABA journal to pick the top 25 television law shows, the only comedies chosen were “Ally McBeal” and “Night Court.”  In fairness, “Harvey Birdman” a Hanna Barbera creation on Adult Swim also made the top 25; so lawyers may, actually, have a sense of humor (or they’re watching the Cartoon Network with their kids).  But seriously, doesn’t anyone remember “The Associates” created by James Brooks, Charlie Hauck, Ed Weinberger and Stan Daniels?!

Both the absurdity and humor of lawyers condemned to Purgatory in arguing against their nature is hilarious with Greek Sisyphean overtones; that God is the judge makes it juicier and brings to mind the delightful interchange about God between Dudley Moore’s Stanley and Peter Cook’s George Spiggot aka Beelzebub in “Bedazzled.”

Stanley Moon: Apart from the way He moves, what’s God really like? I mean, what colour is He?
George Spiggott: He’s all colours of the rainbow, many-hued.
Stanley Moon: But He is English, isn’t He?
George Spiggott: Oh yes. Very upper class.

Of course God might be a She.

Life Lessons for Writers:  Lawyer jokes are more popular than Legal Shows, but apparently lawyer jokes don’t sell advertising.

Conversation with the Writer:

Neely: Where on earth, or whatever, did this come from?

Brian: The genesis was a call I got from my agent at the time saying one of the networks wanted to do a series on miracles, and still hadn’t found it.  I remember hanging up the phone and thinking, yuck, not another earnest show about angels and providence and other general sappiness.  And then I thought of twelfth grade and my English teacher putting “corn” on the board as a homework essay topic.  There were a lot of pages handed in about golden sheaves waving on the prairies, but only mine on this robust grain’s journey through the digestive tract.  So what if I absolutely had to come up with a show on miracles?  What would it be?  My favorite show at the time (and still one of my all time favorites) was Boston Legal. I really admired the combination of genuine substance and import surrounded by the most outrageous irreverence.  I wondered if I could do the same sort of thing for miracles, and create an anti-sappy show about divine providence that would leave people both thinking and laughing (or at least goofily smiling) at the end.  I came up with a pitch that my agency really liked and we took it straight to the network.

Neely: What was the reaction?  What kind of comments did you get?

Brian: The pitch went great–the execs got it, laughed and asked all the right questions–but in the end they said it was just too out-there for them at that time.   We pitched it to a second network, whose wheelhouse we also thought it was in, and got basically the same reaction.

Neely: So how did you come to actually write the pilot?

Brian: Around the same time, a friend who heads up drama at one of the studios was encouraging me to write something original, without a sale in mind, just something to introduce my work to drama execs who didn’t know me yet.  As these characters were now living and breathing in my head, and I was constantly getting excited about directions the series could go in, it was really the only thing I wanted to write, and so I did.

Neely: And how was the reaction to that?

Brian: The initial response was very positive and gratifying (but that doesn’t however, put any food on the table!).  I was really glad that I had written it and that people out of the MOW world were becoming familiar with something that was purely my voice.  There were a few of the vague “liked the writing, but not for us” comments, but most–after claims of looking for really original, out-of-the-box stuff–were of the “we want something more grounded” variety.  I remember one exec thought there should have been more “law”, i.e., time spent in the courtroom, and less “character stuff” (I never quite got that one for a series, unless it was an attempt to make it a more traditional legal-procedural), while another suggested just the opposite.  And then there was the exec who liked the premise, but didn’t feel the script was the right “approach” to it.  When pushed for what that might be, however, we never got anything concrete.

Neely: And what’s happening with the script now?

Brian: Well, it’s interesting that you ask.  In this climate of cost-cutting, there’s been a lot of interest in international co-productions, and as I’m both Canadian and British, and as the script deals with a type of universal law not tied to any particular country, there have been some recent inquiries.  I don’t want to jinx anything, so I’ll have to keep you posted.

I’d love to have your comments.

Next up: “The Eastmans”

October 7, 2009

“When you’re down & out, there’s no meaner place to live than Hollywood” – Dominick Dunne

Filed under: Pilots, Pilots not produced, Sherman, Writers — Tags: — Neely Swanson @ 10:33 am

When new or unusual ideas are presented they can often be met with jaw-dropping disbelief.  Today’s pilot is such a case.

The Compleat Pratt by Jon Sherman

What: Settling into his favorite stall in the men’s room and opening the plumbing access panel where he keeps his crossword puzzle book, Avery Pratt jumps five feet off his seat when a squirrel leaps out at him.  Not even someone as lacking in ambition and curiosity as Avery could resist crawling through the passage to see where the squirrel could have come from.  Moments later Avery finds himself naked, on the ground in the English Countryside, having fallen out of a large hole at the base of a giant oak tree.  Taking cover behind the tree when he hears the approach of horses, he witnesses a beautiful woman being pursued by a nobleman and his two lackeys.  All four look very familiar to him, except they are outfitted in 16th century regalia.

Who: Pratt soon finds himself recounting his dilemma to two disbelieving traveling thespians – Peter Carbunkle and Claudius Hollyband, the former as dirty and scruffy as the latter is meticulous.  Soon they have clothed him and taken him under their wing, primarily for their own theatrical use.  Pratt finds himself on his way to Bristol, England via the village of Swansdork (I kid thee not) where Carbunkle and Hollyband try to pass Pratt off to the local innkeeper as the King of Sweden in order to obtain free food, drink, wenches and lodging.  It is here that they again encounter the Nobleman, Baron MacBlackman, and his young ward, Olivia, and meet Roger the Foul-Mouthed Fool, a traveling minstrel whose gift for limerick is unsurpassed, at least outside Nantucket (“I wish I were a seaman…Whose ship had hit a rock…For as I drowned, Was sinking down, A mermaid could suck my—“).

Pratt explains that he has seen (as have we) all of these people before under different circumstances – in his 21st century life as a low level sales associate at Amalgamated Adhesives in New Bristol, Connecticut.  Manfred MacBlackman, president of Amalgamated Adhesives, has him trapped in a thankless sales position and has also recently thwarted his attempt to invite Olivia, MacBlackman’s assistant, on a date.  Disappointed that he was unable to escort Olivia, he instead invited his best friend Roger…to the local Renaissance Faire; Roger, appalled to discover that Avery actually owns his own costume, assured him that he was lucky Olivia was otherwise engaged.  It was at the Faire that he first encountered Claudius and Peter, actors performing “the entire works of William Shakespeare…except for the sonnets. With but two persons…in under seven minutes!”  Plucking Avery from the audience, Claudius and Peter attempted to make him part of their act.  Horrified at the prospect of acting in front of strangers, Avery fled the scene and found himself in the fortune-telling tent of a short, pushy old crone with frizzy hair and an eye patch – uncannily resembling his mother in too many ways.  Something in this final encounter is responsible for his foray into not-so-jolly Olde England and the 16th century.  Peter and Claudius must help Avery find a way back home without any of them dying at the end of Baron MacBlackman’s sword or at the end of a rope swung by an angry mob.

No Meaner Place: Sherman, whose impressive credits include a long stint on “Frasier,” among many others, knows his way around comedy.  Asked by a network development executive to “think outside the box,” he came up with this idea.  But let me quote Jon about the results of this pitch session:

“After devising the idea, I returned and pitched it to the executive.  He looked at me as though I’d not only thought outside the box, but had jumped up and down on it, set fire to it, peed on it, and thrown it in the river.  I had destroyed the box, and he was horrified.  This was network television, after all, and so while thinking outside the box was okay, eliminating it entirely was not.  Somewhere, there still had to be a box.”

This was not the first time anyone in television suffered from a lack of vision, and certainly won’t be the last.

Formatted as a one hour, it could easily be made into a single camera half hour instead; Sherman’s reluctance to do so stems from the lack of success in half hour comedy for “period” pieces.  Although not an expert in production costs, this would certainly be a great deal less expensive than the new network shows that are orchestrated to helicopter crashes and CGI metropolitan demolition.

“The Compleat Pratt” has its roots in “Black Adder,” the British television series, “The Visitors,” the French film (and not the American remake), and Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.  And lying beneath this 16th Century farce is a hilarious and subversive indictment of corporate structure as a feudal society.  Surely someone, somewhere, if not on network (highly unlikely) then on cable, understands this premise, sees the humor and understands how to deconstruct a box.  We can only hope.  I WANT TO SEE THIS SHOW!

Life Lessons for Writers:  Keep thinking outside the box. Ultimately it will keep you sane, although probably not rich.

Next up – “Here…After” by Brian Ross

Powered by WordPress