Robert Reed's Memo to Sherwood Schwartz

[Brian Damage]

We all know that Robert Reed wasn't a big fan of the show's scripts. In fact, he had battles with the producers on the show many times and even refused to be in a couple of episodes because of the plot and/or his arguments with the people in charge of the show.

And it wasn't just verbal arguments. Reed actually took the time to send memos to the producers explaining why a certain plot point/line/scene didn't make sense. Reed was a veteran TV (The Defenders) and stage actor and often referred to Shakespeare in his memos. This site has one of the memos, and after the jump is the full text of the memo (it's about the classic episode where Greg's hair turns green because of some shampoo Bobby sold him)...

[Brian Damage]

To Sherwood Schwartz et al.

Notes: Robert Reed

There is a fundamental difference in theatre between:

1.Melodrama
2.Drama
3.Comedy
4.Farce
5.Slapstick
6.Satire &
7.Fantasy

They require not only a difference in terms of construction, but also in presentation and, most explicitly, styles of acting. Their dramatis peronsae are noninterchangable. For example, Hamlet, archtypical of the dramatic character, could not be written into Midsummer Night's Dream and still retain his identity. Ophelia could not play a scene with Titania; Richard II could not be found in Twelfth Night. In other words, a character indigenous to one style of the theatre cannot function in any of the other styles. Obviously, the precept holds true for any period. Andy Hardy could not suddenly appear in Citizen Kane, or even closer in style, Andy Hardy could not appear in a Laurel and Hardy film. Andy Hardy is a "comedic" character, Laurel and Hardy are of the purest slapstick. The boundaries are rigid, and within the confines of one theatric piece the style must remain constant.

Why? It is a long since proven theorem in the theatre that an audience will adjust its suspension of belief to the degree that the opening of the presentation leads them. When a curtain rises on two French maids in a farce set discussing the peccadilloes of their master, the audience is now set for an evening of theatre in a certain style, and are prepared to accept having excluded certain levels of reality. And that is the price difference in the styles of theatre, both for the actor and the writer--the degree of reality inherent. Pure drama and comedy are closest to core realism, slapstick and fantasy the farthest removed. It is also part of that theorem that one cannot change styles midstream. How often do we read damning critical reviews of, let's say, a drama in which a character has "hammed" or in stricter terms become melodramatic. How often have we criticized the "mumble and scratch" approach to Shakespearean melodrama, because ultra-realism is out of place when another style is required. And yet, any of these attacks could draw plaudits when played in the appropriate genre.

Television falls under exactly the same principle. What the networks in their oversimplification call "sitcoms" actually are quite diverse styles except where bastardized by careless writing or performing. For instance:

M*A*S*H....comedy
The Paul Lynde Show....Farce
Beverly Hillbillies.....Slapstick
Batman......Satire
I dream of Jeannie....Fantasy

And the same rules hold just as true. Imagine a scene in M*A*S*H in which Arthur Hill appears playing his "Owen Marshall" role, or Archie Bunker suddenly landing on "Gilligan's Island" , or Dom Deluise and his mother in " Mannix." Of course, any of these actors could play in any of the series in different roles predicated on the appropriate style of acting. But the maxim implicit in all this is: when the first-act curtain rises on a comedy, the second act curtain has to rise on the same thing, with the actors playing in commensurate styles.

If it isn't already clear, not only does the audience accept a certain level of belief, but so must the actor in order to function at all. His consciousness opens like an iris to allow the proper amount of reality into his acting subtext. And all of the actors in the same piece must deal with the same level, or the audience will not know to whom to adjust and will often empathize with the character with the most credibility--total reality eliciting the most complete empathic response. Example: We are in the operating room in M*A*S*H, with the usual pan shot across a myriad of operating tables filled with surgical teams at work. The leads are sweating away at their work, and at the same time engaged in banter with the head nurse. Suddenly, the doors fly open and Batman appears! Now the scene cannot go on. The M*A*S*H characters, dealing with their own level of quasi-comic reality, having subtext pertinent to the scene, cannot accept as real in their own terms this other character. Oh yes, they could make fast adjustments. He is a deranged member of some battle-fatigued platoon and somehow came upon a Batman suit. But the Batman character cannot then play his intended character true to his own series. Even if it were possible to mix both styles, it would have to be dealt with by the characters, not just abruptly accepted. Meanwhile, the audience will stick with that level of reality to which they have been introduced, and unless the added character quickly adjusts, will reject him.

The most generic problem to date in "The Brady Bunch" has been this almost constant scripted inner transposition of styles.

1. A pie-throwing sequence tacked unceremoniously onto the end of a weak script.
2. The youngest daughter in a matter of a few unexplained hours managing to look and dance like Shirley Temple.
3. The middle boy happening to run into a look-alike in the halls of his school, with so exact a resemblance he fools his parents [Rowe: what that's never happened to you?].

And the list goes on.

Once again, we are infused with the slapstick. The oldest boy's hair turns bright orange in a twinkling of the writer's eye, having been doused with a non-FDA-approved hair tonic. (Why any boy of Bobby's age, or any age, would be investing in something as outmoded and unidentifiable as "hair tonic" remains to be explained. As any kid on the show could tell the writer, the old hair-tonic routine is right out of "Our Gang." Let's face it, we're long since past the "little dab'll do ya" era.)

Without belaboring the inequities of the script, which are varied and numerous, the major point to all this is: Once an actor has geared himself to play a given style with its prescribed level of belief, he cannot react to or accept within the same confines of the piece, a different style.

When the kid's hair turns red, it is Batman in the operating room.

I can't play it.

http://www.boingboing.net/

[Scoobiedoo30]

How many fight did Robert and Sherwood have

[Waterston_Fan]

Originally Posted by Scoobiedoo30

How many fight did Robert and Sherwood have

So many that Sherwood and his company were glad the show ended...

It had been said that if 'The Bradys' were successful that Reed would be killed off and even if the sixth season went on, Reed would be replaced or something like that..

[Sterling Holobyte]

That was a memo?? It was more like a thesis.

I hate when actors try to be uppity about the shows they are on. It was the same thing with Tina Louise on Gilligan's Island.

I think Sherwood Schwartz knew what he was doing. Obviously.

[catlover79]

Originally Posted by Sterling Holobyte

That was a memo?? It was more like a thesis.

I hate when actors try to be uppity about the shows they are on. It was the same thing with Tina Louise on Gilligan's Island.

I think Sherwood Schwartz knew what he was doing. Obviously.

I couldn't agree more. You're getting paid to do this and you're under contract. SUCK IT UP!!!

[Waterston_Fan]

Originally Posted by catlover79

I couldn't agree more. You're getting paid to do this and you're under contract. SUCK IT UP!!!

Well.. I don't know...

Not sure how I'd feel if I was like 12 years old and having to dress like Shirley Temple or beg like a dog...

[kooky12]

Originally Posted by Waterston_Fan

Well.. I don't know...

Not sure how I'd feel if I was like 12 years old and having to dress like Shirley Temple or beg like a dog...

Too bad the contract didn't have provisions for writing not beffitting the cast. The Shirly Temple stuff may have worked at the beginning of the show's run, but they were way too old for that when it was made.

[OH Nuts!]

The show worked so RR didn't need to fix it. If he didn't like the way the BB was written, he should have left. They could have made some kind of clever story line chg to adjust for this &/or introduce new cast member(s)--hopefully who would appreciate the opportunity.

[HugeTVFan]

Originally Posted by rich p

The show worked so RR didn't need to fix it. If he didn't like the way the BB was written, he should have left. They could have made some kind of clever story line chg to adjust for this &/or introduce new cast member(s)--hopefully who would appreciate the opportunity.

[tdr]

While Reed made some good points, it's plain he took the show far too seriously. To equate Greg's hair turning orange to Batman suddenly appearing in the operating room on MASH is nonsense; the Bradys' domestic problems were not on the level of patching up critically wounded soldiers. And selling hair tonic that is expectedly no good may be largely out of its timeframe in the 70's, but not completely. In the 80's I was working in a factory where most of my coworkers were older women (I was a guy, mid-20's), and two of them told how a couple of door-to-door sales people came to their houses and demonstrated a cleaner which worked very well, so she bought some. When she tried to use it, it did nothing; she smelled it and it had no scent-- it was just colored water. She got a number for the company from somewhere, which was answered, and she began, "I want to talk to you about this ___ Cleaner that your salesman sold me..." The person on the line just said, "Sorry," and hung up, and within a day they had changed the number. So running an ad telling kids how they could make money selling a product is not that far-fetched. And besides, even in that ep it was true that people wouldn't buy the stuff and knew it wouldn't be any good; Greg just bought it to help their confidence a little.

As to a show not changing its level of disbelief, I think he is essentially right, at least for most shows, but it's not as rigidly separated as he wants to imply. Happy Days for instance started just at the time TBB was on its last legs, and that show frequently changed those 'gears' from comedy-- the straight guy, Richie, going to great lengths to get a girl-- to farce-- Fonzie being a sort of superman to whom girls jumped at the snap of his fingers and who could start the jukebox with a tap from his fist-- to slapstick-- going into a haunted house or meeting Mork from Ork-- to occasionally melodrama-- when Richie is in a coma and nearly killed, or when Fonzie goes blind for a few days.

So I think he's wrong that TBB's audience would reject such changes from domestic comedy to farce or slapstick-- supposing that's what he meant. That could have been just his justification for nothing but his own rejections because he wanted to be more serious in his approach. But was he really misled as to what TBB was about and its "level" of comedy? Or is that another justification for his attitude?

Incidentally, quite a few shows on the level of serious comedy do sometimes end up in 'slapstick.' The Dick Van Dyke Show, [the walnuts; Rob missing his wedding,...] All in the Family [when Archie is missing for a few eps; when Archie pays Jefferson a counterfeit bill and everybody owes everybody something at the end; when Archie pushed Mike's face into the cake], and Bob Newhart [crazy group therapy sessions]. Three's Company was constantly shifting from its 'comedy of misunderstanding' to slapstick and farce, and occasionally, if only for a moment, drama.

[Lee G]

I think the problems with Robert Reed were definitely a factor in the show being pulled after season five. Whatever his issues were, maybe he was simply growing weary of the series and ready to move on. Perhaps the others felt the same way also.

Did Robert Reed also have complaints about The Brady Bunch Variety Hour? I'd be surprised if he didn't have issues with it, THAT was a bad show.

[catlover79]

Originally Posted by Lee G

I think the problems with Robert Reed were definitely a factor in the show being pulled after season five. Whatever his issues were, maybe he was simply growing weary of the series and ready to move on. Perhaps the others felt the same way also.

Did Robert Reed also have complaints about The Brady Bunch Variety Hour? I'd be surprised if he didn't have issues with it, THAT was a bad show.

He actually really ENJOYED being on the Brady Variety Hour, according to Barry Williams' book, Growing Up Brady. Part of the reason may have been that Sherwood and Lloyd Schwartz were not involved with that show (Sid & Marty Krofft were).

[Lee G]

Originally Posted by catlover79

He actually really ENJOYED being on the Brady Variety Hour, according to Barry Williams' book, Growing Up Brady. Part of the reason may have been that Sherwood and Lloyd Schwartz were not involved with that show (Sid & Marty Krofft were).

Yea, this was a different type of show, a variety show on stage, I think Reed always considered himself a stage actor. Reed may have been more in his element here, but still, the variety show was really bad. 70's cheese at it's absolute worst. It's shows like the BB variety hour that killed off the variety show format once and for all.

[catlover79]

Originally Posted by Lee G

Yea, this was a different type of show, a variety show on stage, I think Reed always considered himself a stage actor. Reed may have been more in his element here, but still, the variety show was really bad. 70's cheese at it's absolute worst. It's shows like the BB variety hour that killed off the variety show format once and for all.

I've seen a couple of episodes of the Brady Variety Hour and it is indeed TERRIBLE. That said, I think Pink Lady & Jeff is even worse. THAT was the last straw for variety shows.