(That’s just an
eye-catching title. I will not be talking
about that. Though I shall remain
identifiably in the neighborhood. There was
in fact an actor on one of my shows who continually pestered me, not for more
money, but for more lines. He was
eleven. At the time, it did not cross my
mind to wish I had written an animated version of the show. I did, however, have regrets about
giving the protagonist and his wife on that series children.)
A while back, I had mentioned a situation on Major Dad, which took place after my
full time participation on the show ended, though I remained on board peripherally
as a consultant.
After I left, the show’s star (and contractual Executive
Producer) began to exert an increased influence on my replacement, the result
being that, instead of the once carefully calibrated adversarialism I had
crafted into the series’ concept (between the no-nonsense Major and his
progressive-thinking new wife), a structural imbalance had developed, wherein
the Major’s character began to noticeably (and deleteriously to the concept’s assiduous
duality) dominate. This deviate from the
original template led to a meeting which I was invited to attend, during which
the actress portraying the wife on the series complained,
“What happened to my character?”
My point today is:
A confrontation of this nature can never occur when
characters on the series are animated.
Think about the things… wait. One more thing about Major Dad. This
recollection just popped into my mind.
This is not a criticism; it appears to be human nature. The star of the show, in this case an actor
portraying a Major in the Marine Corps, begins to believe that, more than just playing
a role in a sitcom, he is the personal standard bearer for “Macho Mankind Throughout
the Ages.”
This metamorphosis is set off when it gets back to the star
of the show (as it did via well-meaning troublemakers) that simply by permitting
an equality demanded in the show’s concept, he is “allowing that woman to walk
all over you.” Such howling critiques behooves
the star of the show to take ameliorative action, in the form of a demand
(either hinted or overt) that his character inevitably comes out on top and is
never required to listen.
I am sure this happens with female stars of the show as well.
(Rosanne, Grace Under Fire and Cybil spring
readily to mind.) “Throwing your weight
around” is hardly “gender specific.” But
the behavior seemed, at least when I
was working, to occur more frequently with men.
They want to continually appear manly.
It is possible that this is not a concern for them
personally. But they go to a party or a
bar, and they hear, “You’re a big ‘girly-man’ on that show”, and you can bet,
there will be a subsequent meeting and, backed by belligerence, “juice” and/or
muscle, an adjustment.
And from there on, they’re Superman.
Animated characters, by contrast, can be anything the
writers want them to be. Why? Because they are too non-existent to fight
back. As a result, and to the liberation
of the writers, barring the intrusions of the censors, the sky is creatively the
limit.
This, for me, explains why I have gotten more big laughs out
of Family Guy than I have from any
live action comedy series. With the
notable exception of Seinfeld,
wherein, unlike other comedies populated by human beings, the actors (ostensibly
following the lead of the show’s co-creator Larry David) appear to be willing
to say anything.
(NOTE: See
also yesterday’s post wherein I argue that certain behaviors – and let me now add
attitudes – are more acceptable coming from drawn characters than from real life
human beings.)
I don’t know if you know Family
Guy. Or The Simpsons, in which the male lead character is virtually
identical. But imagine either of them
demanding a meeting with the show runner, at which they angrily complain,
“I do not want to be stupid anymore. I want to be drawn taller, thinner, and with
more hair. I want some legitimate
accomplishments, to be a role model my children on the show can look up to. I want to be respected by men and attractive
to beautiful women. And I refuse to any
longer be sexist, racist or have the reasoning power of a mosquito. Oh, yeah, and I want more money.
“These are my demands.
And if they are not met, I’m walking.”
You know what would happen if they did that? This is not my idea. I vaguely recall it from a cartoon in which, in
an anthropomorphic switcheroo, Daffy Duck or someone of equal animated
loftiness stomps into his boss’s office to complain.
“No more thpeech impedimenths!” or some such demand.
At the end of his tirade, I recall an unseen “Authority
Figure” wielding an enormous eraser and, little by little, he erases the suddenly
mortified and remorseful – Daffy Duck into oblivion.
It may be mean-spirited, but that image of a demanding actor
being rubbed off the page up to his beak – and perhaps even further – brings an
appreciative upcurl to the corners of my mouth.
It is so much easier when your personal irritants are
erasable.
3 comments:
I think the scene you're thinking of is at the beginning of WH FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? , where the animated baby finishes his scene, whips out a cigar, bitches a bunch about his pay and working conditions, and stomps off to his trailer.
wg
No, it was Daffy doing the complaining, and in the end, when we pull out from the scene of the hand wielding the pencil that is erasing him, we see the artist is Bugs Bunny. I remember it well
Stef is correct, it is Daffy complaining and Bugs turns out to be the artist. The cartoon is "Duck Amuck."
Post a Comment