Question: Primetime Variety -
"Whatever Happened to It?"
Answer: It's Alive and Well in
the Hands of the Wrong People.

By Steve Binder

Before I attack such a difficult and complex issue, I think it's important to define what "variety" is and how it got it's name in the first place. To my knowledge, variety has always been the category where nobody could label it as anything else. It's easy to define a "drama" ,"comedy" ,"musical","documentary"… wait just a minute… on second thought, every "variety" show that I've been involved with has most of these "labels" already in the show. So if it's not that, then what is it? Well according to Mr. Webster, variety is defined as: 1. A being various or varied. 2. A different form of something, condition, etc. 3. A collection of different things. Well duh, if I was an attorney running the network, I would say variety must mean, 1. award shows 2. Talk shows (and of course) 3. A lot of car crashes and stupid human tricks. Makes a lot of sense to me. But once upon a time, there was a golden age for music and variety on television. The airwaves were filled with great performers whose talent transcended demographics. The commercial networks showcased the artistry of these entertainers not just on talk programs, but on single-star variety series and, most importantly, on lavish specials, complete with carefully designed original concepts and high production values. Today, could you even imagine coming home from your daily routine of physical labor, long hours and short pay to relax for a few hours in front of your television set to watch the talents of Berle, Como, Sullivan, Hope, Kovacs, Kaye, Moore, Burnett, Gleason, Belafonte, Garland, Minelli, Streisand, and even an Elvis, to name a few. Heck, even Michael Eisner said: "Comedy-variety-vaudeville is the Tabasco sauce of television. It's ideal family programming. It brings back the star system, and CBS built a network on that. Finally, our decision (at ABC) came down to this: TV is show business, not a numbers game and if you're in show business, be in show business." Those are brave words Mr. Eisner! Author's note: variety shows are a lot cheaper to produce than a dramatic or comedy show.

The decline of variety television started in the early '70s. After four years on Laugh In, the late Dan Rowan said "Maybe it's time for Laugh In to pass away, perhaps it's served it's purpose and it would be best for all involved if Dick and I went on to something fresh and new." Carol Burnett in 1978 was quoted in Variety at the end of her variety show after eleven years, "Ratings do not have a thing to do with my decision. They have been much lower before and CBS picked the show up for a 12th year. But it's classier to leave before you're asked to go. I'm proud of our show. Now is the time to put it to bed." TV Guide wrote: "the familiar variety acts have worn thin and few headliners have been emerging. Nobody is suggesting TV variety will die out altogether, as with the western (currently down to four), it is probably just a cyclical decline." Sorry TV Guide, but you were wrong. Variety, as we knew it, did die dead as a doornail, and has yet to comeback to anything close to those glory days of the past.

What the network buyers seem to forget or never learned was that most successful dramas and situation comedies maintain their strong loyalty to the television audience by following a basic rule: never forget the importance of strong viewer attraction and identification with characters. Successful variety shows never forgot this rule. Although the variety show presented characters within a different framework than dramas or situation comedies, the element of characters was an important factor in bringing viewers back each week. Who could ever forget Ernie Kovacs' poet Percy Dovetonsils or Red Skelton's Clem Kaddiddlehopper?

Where are the new stars, talent and material today? Well, I feel that although all elements of production are important in producing a variety show, the human talent is the most important element. How many times have you heard a director say after a successful production, "I just got out of the star's way." Personality is what people tune in to watch. Funny is funny, and nothing's old if you haven't heard it before and nothing's new if you have. When's the last time you watched an original show or special with a major star that was created for television from its inception? Yes, you can find Seinfeld or Robin Williams on HBO doing a stand-up once in awhile, or even on the networks find a concert with Garth Brooks or Celine Dion when they're "retiring" their live concert tour. But you'd have to go way back to remember "Your Show Of Shows" or "Liza with a Z". When television was in its infancy, many of its stars came from radio and vaudeville. They were already seasoned performers who had paid their dues for many years. Then as the years passed, new stars and personalities would be discovered on the late night comedy talk shows like Jack Paar and Steve Allen. Those shows became the "new" vaudeville. New faces did emerge from those shows, but today, if you're anything but a stand up comic who has an "in" to the star or the talent booker, forget being discovered by getting a shot on the late night shows. Just try and get booked without proving yourself in advance with a million-selling hit record or getting yourself on the front page of the New York Times…impossible. Carol Burnett was quoted in the New York Times stating, "Today if someone has a hit record, the networks give him a variety show. They think they can make a singer funny by writing funny sketches for him. But it doesn't work that way. You have to pay your dues. I started out in summer stock. You got up at 7a.m. and went to bed at 2 a.m. and did a different play each week." I wonder if the talent bookers on Leno even care about finding a fresh and possibly brilliant new face for the show, but rather spend their time twisting the arms of the PR reps, agents and managers who represent the "hot" already proven TVQ names. If they won't showcase the new faces, who will?

If it's true that today's audiences are more sophisticated than before, then why are the buyers getting dumber? Are our variety stars of today really Jerry Springer, Howard Stern and Sally Jesse Raphael (just to name a few)? Is that all the talent that's out there? I don't think so. Today, when I talk to my contemporaries and my peers, I find that buyers aren't ordering anything new that would give performers a chance to show off their talents in the variety field. Recently I was told by a network executive that even if they did buy a variety special there would be no incentive to advertise or promote it like they do for their dramas or sitcoms. At least this executive was being honest with me. Most studio executives agree that the public "tunes out" when music begins.

An entire generation of future variety stars, producers, directors, choreographers and writers are out there chomping at the bit to get some opportunities, but somebody is going to have to open the door again. Yes, the kids say they want their MTV, but how many times can you watch a music video that has a thousand and one edits in a two-minute time span? No wonder kids have a tough time sitting still or concentrating on anything of length these days.

I've heard it said on several occasions that television is nothing more than a reflection of today's society, and that's why news programs, in general, are sensationalized to the point of gossip and violence in the extremes. That must be why variety shows are now comprised of "the world's greatest" car crashes, and dare-devil, death-defying stunts that would make even P.T. Barnum turn over in his grave. Or revealing carefully kept (for generations) magician's secrets, giving away lots of money (greed always works), stupid pet and human tricks, and parading a host of poor souls and their friends and families to show how degrading their lives are so we can feel good about our own lives. It doesn't take a genius to know that we're being short changed by a group of programmers and buyers who don't see the "show" in the words "show business" but rather see the color green in the words "tasteless and exploitative". After all, people do slow down to see a traffic accident and say, "Thank God it wasn't me but some other poor soul." I don't want to sound like I'm just blaming the demise of variety television on the network programmers and their experts who research what the public wants to see. I might mention the complicity of agents, managers and public relations representatives who greedily convince their talent that they could be "over-exposed" by being on television too much, and that it might hurt their live gate receipts. Why should performers spend their money developing an original idea, if the networks will buy their stand up concert performance at the end of the run for the same money they would receive to do an "original" show? In this way, they can keep all of the money given to them without spending a dime. After all, isn't the name of the game "money and ratings"? As I said before, makes a lot of sense to me.

I can't even remember the last time I sat down in a room with my entire creative staff of writers, art directors, costume designers, choreographers, musical directors etc., alone, in order to have a creative "think session" before the special or show was even started. Today you can't have a meeting without ten studio executives inviting themselves in to make some helpful "suggestions," and being told you can't bring any of your creative staff in early just to "think" because first of al,l it's not important, and oh, yeah secondly, we'll have to pay them!...And that's only the beginning of the process.

Believe it or not, there was a time in television where producers, directors and writers created and executed a show without network interference of any kind. Often, I was told to go do the show and bring it in for them to see after was finished. Hard to imagine that happening in today's climate.

I hope that I haven't sounded too cynical just because I have a longing to return to the good old days. That is definitely not my intent. These are "the good old days"! New technology is opening doors every day for aspiring talent who see the Internet as the wave of the future. And there will always be a handful of comedians who cross over from stand-up to sitcoms and a very few who make it on the big screen. But by and large, in my opinion, talented and dedicated singers, dancers and comedy actors are having a hard time finding work and getting anyone to showcase them so they will at least have a chance of being discovered.

In summation, where is our own conscience? Yes, the cheapest and most sensational form of variety will attract viewers and get ratings and sponsors (like documentaries do with programs like Cops or The World's Biggest Explosions), but don't we as television executives and talent want to passionately love what we do? Don't we want to go to bed at night thinking we've helped make people's lives a little better and therefore contributed to the world as a whole? I think so! And finally, what about the award shows. When the Television Academy of Arts and Sciences and it's membership pay the highest tribute it can in the variety genre to award shows themselves, late night talk shows, and little else, it speaks volumes.

Steve Binder's long and distinguished career includes multiple Emmy® and ACE awards in both television and film. His highly acclaimed production of "Pee Wee's Playhouse" earned a record 16 Emmy nominations in one season.