During his speech honoring Julia Louis-Dreyfus for being awarded the Mark Twain Prize For American Humor in 2018, Jerry Seinfeld makes
fun of the fact that network TV executives aren’t to blame for what he
stated were the invariably bad ideas they pitch to showrunners (aka
notes) since, vis-à-vis sitcoms, they are not funny people and aren’t
supposed to be. So, it occurs to me: why don’t the networks hire
comedians and/or comic writers who do have a solid grasp on humor? And
if these aforementioned executives are that clueless about their
purported jobs, why the hell are they employed in those positions in the
first place?
And it’s not just sitcoms: the vast majority of
classic and/or hugely successful books, movies, music and TV dramas have
a common origin story of repeated rejection by the gatekeepers who are
supposed to recognize quality or, at the very least, commercial
potential. Sure, there are variables out there: an executive or company
may pass on something because they’d rather not be associated with a
certain project due to sensitivity or tone, for instance. Which is why I
don’t blame them so much for the bad ideas they greenlight as much as I
do for passing on the ones that are obviously great and/or
blockbusters. I mean, unqualified people running key departments where
careers are made or hindered? Ridiculous.
So why is it so common? Or rather, why is it an
established part of the arts and commerce nexus? Sadly, I think it’s a
crap shoot. In other words, in the most simplistic but probably accurate
of terms, if you manage to claw your way to the top of the ladder and
get lucky with a couple of hit projects, you get to keep your job and
have those successes be the key part of your resumé. For a while, at
least. If not, like Denzel Washington in Philadelphia, can someone explain it to me, like I'm a six year old?
