sP0NsoR - XMission

Paul Winchell
as Farnum.
(@ 1991 Capital
Cities/ABC, lnc.l
EPISODE 59:
Up
..AND
NOW E WORD FROM OUR
sP0NsoR"
The Bradys go to the supermarket and become TV stars ...
almost. Actually, soap magnate Skip Farnum (played by Paul
rVinchell-the Jerry Mahoney,Knucklehead Smith guy) sees 'em
An lnsider's
6uide to "The
out shopping and decides that they'd be the perfecz real-life family
Brady for his soap commercial.
'l'hc llratlys rlrc at first skcptic'ul, thor thlillcrl, tlrcrr lir-erl lrfio'
(llttrrl's:tsltirittg-ltr'l
lc'ss ll-icrrrl Myrn:r (prorrorrrrtrl "Mt't'c'r't'r-rur")
220
rowins
Brady Bunch"
221
lr
givcs thc:rtr sorrtc lxlr-r-c'rrtlous lrclvitc itlx)u( "M('l l)<xl rrt't irrg." Mikr'
and Carol overact terribly, tlrc kicls show up lilthy bccausc thcy
know Safe soap will get them clean, and Alice shows u1r in gaudy
pincuds because "Safe soap makes doing the laundry so easy, I had
plenry of time to do my hair."
Needless to say, corny hippy-clich6 Farnum gets one gander at
the Bradys' Stanislavskian disaster and gives 'em the boot.
\flRITER: Albert E. Lewin
DIRECTOR: Peter Baldwin
.Robert Reed hated this episode so much that he took typewriter in hand, and hunted and pecked out the following memo.
NOTES:"And Now a Word from Our Sponsor" Brady Bunch,
August 25,
l97l
0nce again, "The Brady Bunch" takes an inconsistent literary
leap from semi-real situation comedy into thinly motivated farce
bordering on slapstick.
It's the old 1930's "Movies enter the lives of Mr. and Mrs.
Average America" plot in which our loveable, down-to-earth family is unwittingly hit by a tidal wave of Hollywood lunacy-nearly
torn from their middle-class moorings, but thanks to their good
humour, stability and unflagging good sense, not only withstand
the barage, but emerge high, dry and unsullied in their victory.
Morale: Mr. Average American Man is really the National Hero.
(Warm embrace, chuckles and ... we fade out.)
It's been done a thousand times, and if well written, could
probably work again, at least in a dated sense. "And Now A Word
From 0ur Sponsor" is notwellwritten.
Growing Up
Brady
222
Sc.13
1. ln order to elicit some conflict, the author has given Mike an
arbitrary skepticism unmotivated by the amount of information he
has been given. Carol has had the first-hand experience and
would more probably have cause to doubt Farnum's veracity. The
scene would work just as well that way, and the phone call could
still be made by Mike.
2. Carol's lines "phony-sincere; sincere-sincere" are ninny lines.
3. Mike's expository speech "Art Emhoff works in one of the
biggest advertising agencies in town, etc." is typical of constantly
overdone exposition. Cut out the everlasting appositives. Should
read, "Art Emhoff is in advertising, and if anybody knows about...
Skip Farnum, it'll be Art." Over-exposition and appositives almost
always create incredulity of character.
4. Miko's pltorrc r:onvr)r:;irlron ltits tttt pltatrc cotturrrtrrrorr lrr rl
i.e., normal ovcryrl;ry rlrirlot;" llo, Art. has beerr establislrod as a
friend. You don'L call a lricnd out of the blue, and go right to the
problem without, "How've you been," or "How's your golf game,"
or "How's your wife," and you don't hang up without the same
th i ng.
Again, this is seemingly small, but it is typical of careless dialog
sans transitions. The consequence of which is, we as actors have
to spend time on the set searching for something and abandoning
time for perfecting performance for which there is no time anyway. This is writing at lts simplest level, we have a rightto expect
someone to know enough or care enough to have it done.
Sc.
14
1. Mike's response to Farnum. "Kooky" is an inapt term. "0ddball," maybe or "Nuts"; "Laughable"; "Ridiculous"; "Cliche," but
not "Kooky."
Sc. 16
1. Typical weak scene ending with a limp gag-line.
Sc. 17
1. Needs qualification. The decision to give them money is too
easy and unconsidered. Weakens family sense of prudence and
responsibility.
Sc.22
1. Mike:
"l
can't make heads or tails of this legal double-talk,
etc." Nonsense, Mike is an adult in business and capable of
understanding contracts.
2. The soap sequence. Carol should introduce the conflict.
Again. she has the information, n0t Mike. To have her overlookthe
fact that we don't use the product. or to have her say nothing
about it, makes her seem thoughtless, careless or stupid.
3. All the soaps are one-syllable names. Sounds phony and is
an obvious author's device.
4. The whole soap sequence, i.e., "Help," "Champ," "Best,"
"Safe" etc. allows Carol to become unreal and cutesy-pooh to no
avail. The limpest sort of gag sequence.
5. Mike's speech should read: "Probably not, but lthink they
should and I think we should. Otherwise, we're frauds."
6. The end of the scene offers too definite and over-positive a
course change. Needs qualifying. "l think I ought to call Farnum,
etc.," and "l'll talklo thcm in the morninq."
7. The cnrl r;irr; is rrrtplayable. Tcaringl thc conlritcl is rlul rrl
An lrrsirlrrr':;
G
rrirlr: lo " I lrc
Br;rrly llrrrrr:lr"
cha ra cter
a
nd
un
motivated-another
a
uthor's devic e-
B. ln order to make pieces 0f a contract small en0ugh to flutter
like confetti, the business would take far too long and consequently leave a hole as well as place too strong an emphasis on a
decision that is not that pressingly important.
Sc. 34-37
1. Desperately needs qualification. lt is totally unbelievable that
parents would deliberately turn ohildren loose to their own
unmonitored devices to purposely dirty and probably damage
clothes, if not themselves. Not in a family of nine with some sense
of frugality, if not caution. Every middle-class viewer with children
would scoff in disbelief. To laugh at a situation is one thing, to
laugh at it and believe it could happen is something far more
desireable. The things the kids do could happen, but not believable the way its been given to happen.
Sc. 40-41
1. Alice's forgetting which pile is which is unbelievable and
forces the following scene to become painfully anti-climatic'
Should be compressed into one scene.
Sc.45
1. Mike's line: "We don't know much about acting" is like referring to "movies" rn the movies. lt brings the audience out of the
fantasy. Never remind them what they're seeing isn't the truth.
Could read: "We've never done this before."
Sc.49
Myrna is the exact antithesis of the author's description. No
method actress would spout dialogue like "lots of energy," "bigger than life," etc.
l.
Sc. 50
1. Ludicrous. My God, if Alice has been mopping the floor, as
indicated,the mop is wet!Yet, she "clasps it" to her breast, "kisses it," etc. Nothing is made of it at all. This is an unfortunate but
typical example of how scenes too often get to final with ridiculous inconsistencies or impossiblities.
Sc. 57-etc.
irowing Up
Brady
x)4
1. Unlustified strain of believability that our "director," when
met with failure in one "scene," can immediately without preparation go to another. Should there be a dissolve or a flip or sotne iustification in dialog?
Sc.63
1. Mike's line should read: "This rs my
of sarcasm off.
house,"-take the edge
Sc. 64
1. Carol: "l guess we'll just have to wait until Mr. Brady gets
home, etc." Ninnyism. 0nce again, Carol becomes a nincompoop.
lf Carol can read a grocery list, she can look up a given reference.
The Character of Skip Farnum
Skip Farnum, our foil, is a paper thin, one-dimensional version
of the old pot-boiling cliche of the Hollywood director, updated by
someone's version of the'mod'dialect. In 45 speeches, he has
been given almost as many cliches ranging from "like real," "rap"
(twice), "flip" (twice), "lay it on," "cool it," "squares," "gig," and
the inevitable theatrical labeler of the au courant young,-"dig"
(twice).
The theory seems
to be, if a little bit of character dialog will
help the character, a whole lot will make him.
An old tenet of the theater is that comedy character is based
upon behavior aided by plot involvement and sometimes, though
not always, dialog.
This performance will entirely depend on what the actor and
director can bring to it, while being severely hampered by dialog
and aided by no behaviour at all, with the exception of framing a
scene through his hands.
We are led to believe he is "one of the biggest directors in TV
commercials," and yet, we never see him really direct. What a
disappointment! ln his big scenes, he does little but react to us
and respond with one-liners. Meanwhile, the comedy-burden of
the scene is left to us, the family, and in the case of Mike and
Carol, by severely over-acting which if done to the height it is
written will cause suspension of belief and character. We are not
that dumb.
Think of the funnier, or at least more real and consistent situations we could have been given.
Myrna is written as "definitely a method actress." Mike and
Carol under tutelege could end up doing a "method" approach to
commercials, or even improvising, or trying to. This could be far
funnier, less predictable and certainly more consistent with the
character.
Farnum says he wants us "natural" "unrehearsed" and yet he
gives rrs scripls lo lcarn arrd wr: are seen to go through it three
lirncs willrorrl vtrr r;rlrorr cxr;cqrl lrciqlrterrrirtq of the "Ham." lt's too
An lnsider's
Guide to "The
Brady Bunch"
225
much. We can only get broader which ls no surprise by the third
lime, and endangers the believability of our characters. lf he gives
us no scripts at all, and we have to make it up, then it falls right in
with Myrna's approach, improvisation and ultimate conflict with
what he sees as "realistic"-which obviously isn't.
This way Farnum could actually direct us, show us how he
wants it, do itfor us. He's the broad character, give him a chance
to use it instead of just saying it.
ln short, it seems t0 me, the problem with this script is not in
the plot situations. lt could all happen. Where the rub comes is in
how il is brought about. The troubles are: totally unmotivated
behavior; as ever-weak dialog; and over-written cliched characters. The script reads as if it were put together by a commitee,
with each guy responsible for a different area ...
ROBERT REED