Andy Candy

Someone wrote to ask me about this post, which was placed here on 3/25/07 and I figured I might as well rerun it here…

encore02

So about forty minutes ago, I'm in my friendly neighborhood CVS Pharmacy and a lady shopper comes up to me. She says her "favorite actor in the whole world" is over in the next aisle…and I guess she's so excited about it that she has to tell someone. So she tells me and naturally, I ask, "And who might that be?"

She says, "John Candy," and my immediate thought is just what yours would be in this situation: "I don't think so." As I'm thinking that, she's telling me how much she loved him in Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

Let's leave aside the question of how someone could be your "favorite actor in the whole world" and yet you're unaware they died thirteen years ago. Let's just focus on what I should do. Should I tell this young woman (she's about forty, I'd guess) that she didn't just spot John Candy in the Toothpaste Section, across from where they sell the Just For Men hair color? Or should I let her keep her little fantasy of having seen her fave in person? She'll probably find out one of these days…but is it my business to shatter her happiness?

Just then, she points to a gap in the aisles and says, "There he is," and I can see the person she thinks is John Candy. There, wearing a green t-shirt and shorts, is Andy Richter. "Do you think it would be okay if I went up to him and asked for an autograph?" she asks me.

I think to myself, "Hmm…I wonder if Andy Richter would enjoy being mistaken for John Candy. He might get a great anecdote out of it, one he could tell on his next talk show appearance. Or he might just feel insulted…I don't know." I decide to save the lady the embarrassment and I break it to her, as kindly as I can, that John Candy passed away some time ago.

She asks me, "Are you sure?"

I tell her I'm sure.

She turns and walks off, looking very sad indeed. I don't know if she's sad just because her "favorite actor in the whole world" is dead or if she's sad because she feels humiliated by her mistake. Either way, it sure doesn't feel like I've done this woman a favor. I should have let her go up and tell Andy Richter how good he was in Planes, Trains and Automobiles. If he was insulted, too bad. He could handle it.

Coke Is It!

howarddean01

This election frequently presents some of us with a great dilemma: When, if ever, is it okay to stoop to the other side's low standards? We now have Howard Dean — who let's remember was a doctor before he was a politician — is out there suggesting that Donald Trump's sniffling during the debate "might" be an indicator of a bad cocaine habit. Now, before I decide what I think about that, I have a few things to consider…

  • I've always thought it was unseemly to try and do a medical diagnosis on a person from afar. It's unfair when a layman does it and much worse (and maybe unethical) when it's done by someone who's entitled to put "Doctor" before his or her name. Back when a woman named Terry Schiavo was on life support and this whole country took an abnormal interest in her situation, the Republican Senate majority leader was a man named Bill Frist, who was also a heart surgeon. He started spouting off medical opinions about her condition based on a few videotapes he'd seen of this woman he'd never examined. I thought that was very wrong — wrong for a leader to do that and wrong for a doctor to do that.
  • I felt the same way when Hillary's enemies were recently out there claiming they had incontrovertible proof that her medical problem was not pneumonia but Parkinson's Disease. They did not have proof of that, no matter how desperately they wanted to believe that and make others believe it. They had unnamed sources and wild speculation.
  • It also bothers me when people make an accusation without accepting responsibility for it. Trump does that a lot. It would be one thing if he said, "I believe my opponent kills puppies." It's more his style to say "Some people are saying my opponent kills puppies" without ever saying who those people are or why their accusation is worthy of considering. I mean, thanks to the Internet, we can find "some people" who think Elvis is living on Neptune with Hitler. That doesn't mean that needs to be part of a public discussion.

So there are two possible reactions to Howard Dean suggesting Trump is a coke freak and that someone should look into that. One is that it's just plain wrong the same way the Parkinson's thing was wrong and it's craven to hide behind "I'm not saying it's true…I'm just asking questions." That's another weasely Trump trick.

And the other, of course, is that it's nice to see Trump getting a dose of his own medicine. It's turnabout, it's fair play, it's fighting fire with fire. And it exposes hypocrisy when he screams "Foul!" about his own tactics being used against him.

I'm sorry. I don't like it. I understand it but I don't like it. There's an awful lot in this election I understand but I don't like…to say nothing of all the things I don't understand and don't like. It scares me that this might be what Politics will be like for the rest of my life.

Recommended Reading

In case you're one of those rare Americans who cares about the issues in this election — as opposed to the real issue of who can look tougher — here's a nice rundown of where Clinton and Trump stand on most of the key topics. I say "most" because there's nothing in there about what each would do about protecting me from cole slaw.

Today's Video Link

This video is wrong. You can vote naked. You just have to do it absentee…

Instant Replay

National Public Radio has posted a transcript of the entire debate — with fact-checking and annotations. Give it a read.

Recommended Reading

Matthew Yglesias explains that even in the areas where he's supposed to be an expert, Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

The Morning After

I awoke to find Donald J. Trump making the rounds, yelling insults at a Hispanic woman who once won his stupid Miss Universe pageant. Clever of Hillary Clinton to bring up an issue where Trump's behavior will remind both women and Hispanics why they don't like the man.

Last night, Trump said Lester Holt did a great job as moderator. Today, he and his surrogates are out there saying Holt was hostile and biased. Make up your mind, Donald. Also, he's complaining his microphone was defective. Was there anyone who couldn't hear this guy? I not only heard him every time he was talking, I heard him every time anyone else was talking.

I'm thinking that one of the things that really hurt Trump was his insistence that he never said that Global Warming was a hoax concocted by the Chinese. It was real easy for everyone to find that Tweet where he said exactly that. Sometimes, there's wiggle room where you can say, "Well, I didn't say exactly that." Not this time. His supporters have been able to deny or rationalize a lot of fibs but there's no way around this one.

In the debate, I don't believe an important topic was mentioned and it certainly wasn't discussed. That would be the Supreme Court. Jeffrey Toobin reminds us what's at stake there.

Anyone expecting a massive jump in Hillary's poll numbers will probably be quite disappointed. Numbers don't move that fast anymore. But last night sure changed the dynamic of this election.

Live From New York…

I liked Stephen Colbert's live show that followed the Great Debate…and I'm wondering how much of it was actually done live. The cold opening certainly wasn't but after that, it seemed like it was all in real time. When he did those "live" shows following the conventions, a lot of the interviews were recorded earlier in the evening. This one was pretty good, though I am still not enjoying Colbert's Late Show as much as I should or even as much as I did his first few months on the air.

By the way: Two different people wrote me in the last few days to ask who the new female announcer is. One wrote, "And why doesn't she get her name in the end credit?" Well, she does but as one of the writers. It's Jen Spyra, who also has a nice career as a performer and who also does the voice of the cartoon Hillary Clinton who sometimes appears on the program.

Monday Evening

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's Video Link

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

Monday Morning

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

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

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

Well, maybe I can eke out two more predictions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy the show.

Rejection, Part 16

rejection

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evening, Squire!

terryjones01

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

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

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

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

terryjones02

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

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

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

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