That Time I got the Jennifer Aniston Name Drop


No one wants to see Jennifer Aniston die at the end.

All this talk in the news of a Friends reunion reminds me of an experience I had at a reading of an early version of One Bear Lake. This was a few months ago, and I had reworked the opening scene into a 10-minute play format.  After the reading, I was approached by a man who identified himself as an agent. My ears perked up because I assumed he meant theatrical agent since we were at a playwright’s workshop. I have a literary agent that represents my work in the world of publishing and film, and I have no interest in changing horses midstream, but theater is a different stream, so I was very interested in hearing what he had to say.

Well, it became apparent very early in the conversation that he represented screenwriters, and while I was flattered that he would approach me, I tried to look for an opening in his pitch to tell him I wasn’t interested. I didn’t want to waste his time. Just as I was about to engage thrusters and get out of the conversation he said two words that intrigued me. He said Jennifer Aniston.  Now I had to hear him out. For one simple reason. He had just dropped a major name, and I sensed this man was about to give me some excellent material I could one day write about.  Here is the gist of that conversation:

AGENT: Hi. I just wanted to tell you I really loved your piece.

ME: Oh, well thanks. That’s very kind –

AGENT: Let me ask you, does the lead have to die?

ME: Well, she doesn’t actually die –

AGENT: The reason I ask is because I’m an agent. (Hands me his card)

ME: Oh, you work with playwrights?

AGENT: (Ignores my question) Like I said, I loved your play. I just – I’m concerned about the lead dying.

ME: She doesn’t die –

AGENT: That is a hard sell if you want to get an A-List actress to play the role. Does she have to die?

ME: She doesn’t –

AGENT: And I’m little concerned that she has cancer. You’re going to have to show her going through chemo, and it’s just going to be very hard for the audience to take.

ME: The entire play just covers a few days. You don’t actually see any of the treatments –

AGENT: The lead will have to lose weight over the course of filming to make it realistic.

ME: Filming? I don’t understand. Do you work in theater?

AGENT: No, no, no – I represent screenwriters.

ME: Oh, well this – I have –

AGENT: I think this would be perfect for Jennifer.

ME: Jennifer?

AGENT: Aniston. I could really see her doing the lead. She’d be perfect. The audience wouldn’t want to see her die though. She can’t die at the end.

ME: As I said, she doesn’t die – That is to say the character doesn’t –

AGENT: And no one wants to see Jennifer Aniston look sickly and going through chemo.

ME: No, no one wants to see Jennifer Aniston go through chemo I agree. That would be horrible. But if it was just a part she was playing – A character – But beyond that issue, no one dies from cancer or goes through chemo in my play –

AGENT: Do you have more than what I saw here tonight?

ME: I’ve got a second scene. I’m planning on making a full-length version –

AGENT: Good. Send it to me when you’re done, and I’ll get it to Jennifer’s people. Remember, rethink the cancer. Or if you have to give her cancer, make sure she gets cured at the end. No one wants to see Jennifer Aniston die. (Walks away).

ME: She doesn’t die. – I mean the lead character doesn’t die at the end – the play only covers a couple of days. This isn’t – No one goes through – You understand this is a stage play, right?

The agent walks out of earshot.

Now, the guy was super nice to come up to me and compliment my work, and I appreciate him doing so, but I thought it was comical that I couldn’t get him off the notion that Jennifer Aniston was going to die at the end of my movie, when, A – It’s not a movie, and B – The lead doesn’t die at the end of the story, regardless if it’s Jennifer Aniston playing the part or not. He was fixated on letting me know that he could get Jennifer Aniston to play the role if I changed the play he loved. He’s probably very good at what he does because by the time he walked away I was convinced Jennifer Aniston was going to have me fired from my own movie that I didn’t write. Why did I have to give her cancer and have her die at the end?

BTW – I should clarify that he never claimed to know Jennifer Aniston. He was just confidant he could get the material to her people.

One Bear Lake -The Reading, The Fun, The Carrot Cake

obl-posterWe did the semi-staged reading of my play One Bear Lake last night. I say semi-staged reading because it was literally the first complete read-through of the material, and only one of the actors had seen the play in its entirety before hand. A few of the others had seen and performed bits and pieces here and there in various workshop environments. Thankfully, they’re all super talented, and they settled into the material from the opening bell. It was so much fun watching them bring their own little touches to their individual characters. I’ll list them below so they can take their much-deserved bows.

The storyline features three siblings and their spouses, which means beyond being able to competently read and deliver lines, there has to be a chemistry between all the characters in order to make the material believable. I was fortunate to have that kind of group because the overwhelming response from the audience was “this reminds me so much of my family,” or “I could totally see this happening with my family.”  Which, given how outrageous and rare the concept of the story is, says a lot about the folks doing the reading. Many thanks to them for lending their talents to my work.

For those of you who’ve never attended a reading before, do it at least once in your life. I go to as many as I can. I find it one of the coolest artistic events ever. It’s a play in its rawest form, and the audience gets to participate in the development of the work. I didn’t get an official count, but I’m guessing we had close to 30 people, counting the cast, at the reading. If you’ve ever seen a behind the scenes show about a sitcom or television drama, you’re probably familiar with the table-read, where the cast and crew sits around and reads the script for an upcoming episode. That’s very much what this is like.  After the reading, everyone gives their feedback.  You get comments on what worked, and what needs tweaking. People will comment on structure and character. Some in attendance are just fans of theater while others are involved in theater production, so you get a great variety of perspectives on all aspects of the material.  I’ve been writing in some capacity for 30-years and this is by far the most rewarding and collaborative writing medium. If you’re a writer, my advice to you is to get involved in a theater/playwright group. You’ll never have more fun putting words to paper.

What I learned from last night’s reading is that the family dynamic of the play works. The humor works. The few dramatic scenes were received well. In fact, it was suggested that I go to the drama a little sooner in the story to give it more balance. Right now, it’s frontloaded with humor and the tearjerker material comes in the last third of the play. The puzzling part about readings is you will get competing opinions. I had a few audience members who told me privately that they liked the current balance between humor and drama, so my job now is to engage my spidey-senses and rewrite accordingly. Frankly, I think it does need an “almost dramatic” scene earlier in the play, for no other reason than to let the audience know that you are going to dive deeper at some point in the story.

My goal was to tell a story that reflects the reality that even though they’re raised in the same family, each sibling goes through their own shit, and they come out of it with completely different childhoods. Thanks to last night’s reading, I know I’m just a few tweaks away from achieving that goal.

The Talented Cast (in order of appearance):

Lily – Blair Cadden

Paul – Ian Bonner

Freddy – Jason Olson

Rachel – Kate Tooley

Tom – Robert Frank

Gayle – Sarah Daniels

And let us not forget the very lovely and talented Mia Ridley reading stage directions impeccably.

Many thanks to all those who braved the cold and attended, and a special thanks to 5th Wall Productions for hosting and facilitating the reading. If you’re in the Charleston area, they have a new play opening on February 19 called Like Drowning by Brian Petti. It was first featured in their Rough Draft Readings program, so when I say “new,” I mean new as in debut. How exciting is that?

BTW – I also got reports that the carrot cake was delicious, so thanks to Publix for their baking skills.


How to laugh about cancer

readingI wrote a new play. It’s a comedy called One Bear Lake, and it started out as a ten minute play that I developed with the help of the good folks at South of Broadway in Park Circle through their Second Sundays at Seven playwright workshop, and it blossomed into a full-length play with the guidance of my friends at 5th Wall Productions  in West Ashley via their monthly Writer’s Bloc meetings. Writers helping writers. It’s a beautiful thing.

If you are in the Charleston area, and you will be around this Sunday, I invite you to come to our first public reading of the play at 5th Wall Productions at 6:00 PM. What’s the play about? It’s a comedy about two things that aren’t usually associated with laughs, cancer and carrot cake. Contact me on Facebook for directions and details.

First Rewrite Leads to Major Change – Poll

OPINION.POLL_The Pearl of Justice is about to undergo some changes, and chief among them is it won’t be called The Pearl of Justice anymore, and I need your help in figuring out what it will be called. More on that later.

I got a new editor just before Christmas, and she took the holiday break to read over my manuscript. I was, to say the least, apprehensive. In my mind, there was a distinct possibility she would hate the book, and my hopes and dreams would be bludgeoned to death by Lady Luck once again. As you can see, we writers are filled with gobs of self-doubt.

Fortunately, she not only didn’t hate it, she completely understood the tone and style I was going for. In fact, she felt like the series title, The Pearl of Justice, didn’t represent the gritty nature of the story, and she is right. It is much too soft for Dani, Step, and Kenny.

The problem isn’t just the title. The problem is also with Dani’s last name. Pearl boxed us in, so I made the terrifying decision to change it with the hope that by doing so I would open up our options for a new series title. I literally took a couple of hours and typed out Dani’s professional title (Deputy) and first name with a slew of last names until I could find something that accurately represented the tone of the series.

It wasn’t easy, but the winner is – Deputy Dani Savage, and the title of the first book is Savage Reckoning.  See how that works? Now I need to decide on a new series title, and this is where you come in. This is a one day poll because they want to start working on the artwork for the cover ASAP. HOW COOL IS THAT? Vote now!

















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































The ‘Ferguson’ Play: A Denial of Bias


Phelim McAleer is unapologetic about his play’s message

I should start by saying I haven’t read Phelim McAleer’s play titled Ferguson. In all candor, I wouldn’t have any interest in reading it if not for the controversy that surrounds it. For those of you who don’t know, Ferguson is about the Michael Brown killing by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. More accurately, it focuses on the transcripts from the grand jury testimony in 2015 that led to the decision to not bring charges against the police officer. McAleer claims that his dialogue is pulled verbatim from the transcripts. I can’t testify to that fact because as I said, I haven’t read the play nor have I read the transcripts.

What I do know is that a number of actors chosen to do a staged reading of the play quit rather abruptly after the first read through because they felt it supported the officer’s version of the shooting while ignoring the community’s version. They believe McAleer cherry picked testimony in order to paint the police officer in a positive light. They are basing their belief partly on the fact that McAleer is a known Conservative activist who has produced a number of projects that support a right wing agenda. The playwright has stated that the testimony is the testimony, and he won’t cater to what he perceives as liberal bias to appease the actors.

Here’s what I think. McAleer’s play most likely has been crafted to support his point of view that the grand jury got it right when it exonerated the police officer.  He probably shouldn’t be selling it as an unbiased piece but their’s no law that says he can’t.  For the record, he doesn’t think he’s being biased, just factual. He’s either lying to himself or being willfully obtuse in order to give his play more credibility as the true version of events.

The truth is that a number of legal experts were critical of the prosecution’s lackluster case against the police officer. There’s the belief that the relationship between the district attorney’s office and the local police department created a conflict of interest that influenced the prosecution’s will (or lack there of) to mount a convincing argument that the officer was indeed guilty. That narrative doesn’t seem to be a part of McAleer’s script, and in my mind, it needs to be present, if only in passing, if he wants to truly present an unbiased story.

McAleer has every right to move forward with the production of this play as written.  In fact, he’s received a  number of online contributions to do just that, and from what I’ve seen, it’s more than enough money to do so. He wants to have runs in New York and Ferguson. I can think of only one reason he’d want to take it to Ferguson, and it has to do with his right leaning politics. It’s a dick move, and I hope he reconsiders.

I strongly disagree with McAleer’s views, and I really think he’s not being truthful about the unbiased nature of the play, but it is what it is. Looking ahead, actors and theaters are going to have to decide if they want to be associated with McAleer’s agenda, and audience members are going to have to decide if they want to pay to see a play that is most likely one-sided.

I fear that an attempted boycott is in the offing should the play ever reach the stage. It’s a fear for two reason. One, boycotts are antithetical to what theater is about. There has to be room for material of all political stripes. If we shut one point of view down because we find it offensive, we then are the ones committing an offense.  Two, boycotts don’t work. They never have. They always draw attention and supporters and end up backfiring. McAleer’s play will receive much more attention and praise if it is boycotted.

Let McAleer have the stage. Let audiences hear him out. Let the critics have their say. And then let the curtains close.  If we do this, I’m guessing Ferguson the play will come and go without leaving much of a stain on the stage.

For details on the walk-out and reading, here’s a link to an LA Times piece: Controversial ‘Ferguson’ play survives premiere with a brand-new cast

The Meh Revolution


It’s funny because it’s true.

A lot of my progressive brethren are upset that the media isn’t providing wall-to-wall coverage of the armed Bundy clan  who oafishly seized and now occupy a unmanned federal bird sanctuary in Oregon.  They’ve promised to stay there for years and will answer violence with violence. They aspire to die for their cause. The chief complaint among civilized society is that the 24-hour  newsers have yet to label these clowns as terrorists.

Honestly, I’m glad the news is ignoring them. The Bundy bruhs are throwing a revolution and nobody cares. They aren’t labeled terrorists because they don’t elicit terror. If anything, they should be called clownists or possibly the Cleveland Browns because both names represent comic futility.

Here’s what I know beyond a shadow of a doubt. These idiots will not be there for years. They are dozens of emotionally unstable white hicks with more bullets than sense. They will quickly fracture and fall apart. It will start with a trickle and end with a mass exodus. The Bundys will get some friendly pats on the back from the folks at FOX News, and the right wing blogsmear. I’m sure Alex Jones has had an erection since news of the armed band of dimwits capturing an empty building first broke.  But beyond that, no one cares. The lack of attention will eventually take the fun out of their patriot games, and they’ll start to bore even themselves.

Is the media being hypocritical? Yes. Should that bother rational human beings? Yes. These clownists are not protesters. Protesters don’t show up armed and threaten violence. Criminals do that. They should go to jail for attempting to mount a terrorist organization to overthrow the federal government, but we shouldn’t give them the attention they want. They don’t deserve it.  They deserve to be, at most, laughed at and at best, ignored.