HANGING OUT

ROBERT ALAN AURTHUR

Incredible! Almost eight years to the day—my notebook outlining a first proposal for a TV series reads London, May 5, 1966—I’m back in business with a project that with any luck, and quick network action, will grace your small screen in the Fall of ’75. A guaranteed smash hit, sure to cop the top Nielsen numbers for many seasons to come. Shamelessly I use this column, sharing the idea with all you potential Viewers out there, for two selfish reasons : one, to establish first priority in the idea itself ; and, secondly, to expose a sales hustle that will allow the three networks simultaneous and equal bidding rights, send them careening to the phones. You network buyers know who my agent is ; operators at the Sy Fischer Company will be standing by.

No more buildup; no risk of overselling here. The idea, like all great ideas, is simplicity itself : a one-hour weekly series (actually, to conform with standard network buying practice, twenty-four originals plus repeats), which in every episode will dramatize a capital crime, each hour to end with the live-on-tape execution of the criminal him-/herself, the show to be called—what else?— Execution!

Sensational idea, right?—but before going into specific detail I suppose I have to deal with and instantly dismiss possible protests from bleeding hearts and pointy heads. Face it, folks, you’re losers, in addition to which none of you ever has to watch. Most of you don’t have TV sets anyway; you just sit out there and carp. Small loss. The beauty part of Execution! is that the show has appeal to the vast majority of the American public, Viewers all, who long for the restoration of capital punishment, whose goals are mirrored by the U.S. Senate itself, which has already voted, 54 to 33, a return to the death penalty. Among the proponents were such well-known softies and liberals as Birch Bayh, Frank Church, Abe Ribicoff, Scoop Jackson (no softy but a card-carrying liberal), and, yes, Sam Ervin. Also, so far, twenty-two state legislatures, with more to come, have reimposed the death penalty since the Supreme Court’s wishy-washy five-to-four decision against. Added to that . . . but why should I be defensive in this, a sales instrument for a TV series sure to be a smash. Who needs even to touch on moral issues, none of which has ever affected the broad scope of

television anyway. Hard truth, Viewers : soon, throughout the land, there will be a resumption of hangings, electrocutions, shootings, gassings ; and, hopefully, on Execution! we may eventually introduce an American version of garroting. Yes, our show will be innovative . . . and what else? Execution! will be hard-hitting, controversial, truthful, vastly entertaining, and a powerful tool in the deterrence of capital crime.

But most of all Execution! will make a fortune for me and mine, for the network and advertisers, and that, Viewers, is the paramount reason for doing the show. I mean, a fortune. If commercial minutes on the Super Bowl, a Sunday-afternoon attraction with no sex and a minimum of violence, sell for $210,000 each, just imagine what a network can charge in prime time for Execution! So let me put the buyers on

notice: if you now pay a production company $200,000 for two airings of an hour show, Execution! will cost you $275,000, with no syndication rights, and a bonus if you demand a name cast.

I’ll be very frank. Within that figure I see about a $50,000 firsttime-around profit for me personally, but there will also be built-in costs ordinary shows like The Waltons don’t have. First of all, for p. r. purposes, I include a heavy fee paid the family of the original victim. That’s only fair. Then, of course, a fee for the Perpetrator, the Star, which will go to his surviving relatives, or, in absence of same, to a favorite charity. And, finally, another important fee for a Host, someone of such outstanding repute that we on Execution! can never be accused of trafficking in sensationalism, or, God forbid, exercising bad taste.

But let’s, in orderly form, deal

with all the necessaries for a proper presentation. This one, being written on spec, is quite brief. An expanded version will later be written, financed out of development funds from the first network to come across. All you Viewers out there who dream of selling a TV series, here’s a short course on how it’s done.

Time Slot : Execution! is a show obviously not for kiddies, at least not primarily. I see ten o’clock on a Wednesday or Thursday as the most desirable time, aiming for the eighteen-to-thirty-nine-year-old audience; i.e., maximum consumers. It’s the kind of show singles will stay home to watch, over the options of midweek bowling or hanging around in bars. Good counterprogramming will put us against a variety hour or any weak doctor/lawyer/cop show. We’ll also have a great shot at the older audience, especially if initial promotion is done through such journals as the house organ for the National Rifle Association.

Format : As noted earlier, the hour will be a dramatization of the life of the Perpetrator, with special focus on the events that led to the crime and ending with the actual on-screen execution. I see an opening teaser of the crime itself where guilt is never in doubt. Establishment of guilt is extremely important, for we must never run the risk of a single Viewer thinking we’ve executed an innocent person. Part of the Perpetrator’s deal will be an affidavit affirming guilt, copies to be sent free to Viewers on request. Following the teaser, in the normal four-act format, we will first do an extended flashback to the most dramatic events leading to the crime. If this seems too restraining, we might very well do a teaser which embodies some kind of threats or hitting, or even another related crime, as a result of which the crime becomes a later curtain scene. (Fellow writers with whom I’ve discussed the show have responded with great enthusiasm, and I already have semi-commitments with such important names as Reginald Rose, Merle Miller, David Shaw, Gore Vidal, and Murray Schisgal, the last being an artist who will handle the occasional story with comedic, or absurd, aspects.)

The curtain which comes down over the crime itself, or the apprehension of the Perpetrator, will carry us to about thirty-three minutes into the hour—significantly just past the half-hour station break to avoid

possible channel switching, not that I see much chance of that. The rest of the show will be devoted mainly to the execution itself. Short shrift will be given the trial and appeals; guilt has been firmly established in the first place, and we’ll have made sure there is no hope of last-minute commutation.

As to the manner of the execution itself, over the season we will go for a mix: i.e., a hanging will be followed by a gassing, to be followed by an electrocution, etc. Above, I mentioned garroting, a colorful means of capital punishment used in Spain and Brazil; it would be our hope to innovate, probably first in a Southern state, when Viewer demands eventually call for new and more entertaining approaches. It’s admitted that traditionally most methods of execution are cut-and-dried, if nonetheless exciting and ludibrious, but if we were able to introduce such as garroting we might very well create elements of drama—show-biz aspects— new to the game. Off the top I see the Perpetrator at some casual pursuit, not knowing the moment of his execution, perhaps sitting quietly with a book, or even asleep. Late at night, darkened corridors, the executioner slips in, his goal being to catch the Perpetrator unaware. Though the garrot would be used quickly and efficiently there would be that moment of awakening and realization. ... In close-up, a dynamite moment of television! In addition to garroting, we might also bring in the guillotine, even the block.

The show would then close with a real prison doctor confirming death, after which we would go to our Host for a solemn wrap-up, a warning that this is the fate of all murderers. In no case will any sympathy be revealed for our dead Perpetrator, since we never want to dilute the message of deterrence. Our basic purposes will always be to dramatize motive and the method of the crime, never to justify.

The Host; Other Casting: Admittedly, the lack of running characters in any other series idea would be a weakness, but by definition Execution! is an anthology, each episode with a different cast and locale. The fact that every week we execute yet another Perpetrator becomes our strength. After all, Death is our running character, Murder our consistent drama, Justice our uniform theme. And to hold it all together, a Host-Narrator whose stature is beyond question. Without hesitation I submit Ronald Reagan as first choice. While I haven’t approached Mr. Reagan, I’m sure he’s a legitimate possibility. Soon to be available, he

once performed more or less the same function on General Electric Theatre. His recent statement expressing the wish that all the poor people getting free Hearst food might also get botulism may or may not have been a slip of the tongue; nevertheless the thought came out of a solid American tradition against getting something for nothing. Ronald Reagan, at one and the same time, is all law and order and all heart.

Forced to a second choice I would suggest James Buckley, also soon to be available. Mr. Buckley’s charm is undeniable, but more than that he has irreproachable intellectual credits. In the Senate debate on restoration of the death penalty it was he who introduced the amendment, unanimously adopted, that bars the execution of pregnant women. Not only is this good, humanitarian thinking, but it leads us to a great story possibility. Given a pregnant woman Perpetrator we would undeniably go to Mr. Buckley to determine just how soon after giving birth should our subject be executed. Dramatically it might best occur just before the normal six-week checkup.

Little choice, then, between Reagan and Buckley, both splendid candidates for Host-Narrator. I hesitate to suggest a third obvious possibility, Richard Nixon, only because he would first have to clear himself of any outstanding criminal charges. I would suggest that rather than go to Mr. Nixon with a firm offer, we might wait for him to come to us, then decide.

Less specific is my thinking on other casting, except to say that ours should be a no-big-name philosophy. In the dramatized sequences we must have an actor assume the character of the Perpetrator right up to the final scenes, of course ; and the actor should look as much like the Perpetrator as possible, thus militating against using familiar faces. And, since the execution itself is real, we must establish a total sense of reality throughout; unknown actors will help in this area. Wherever possible real people will play guards, witnesses, doctor, and the executioner himself. I am totally and irrevocably committed to a policy of using unknown actors. If, however, the network thinks star names will build rating....

T\he Pilot Episode: Yes, we should shoot a pilot, and in keeping with network practices of running pilots as specials on movie nights, we can plan the first episode as either a ninetyminute or two-hour show. Naturally, I will write the first script; I expect

to establish style and format, which no one knows better than I. Also good taste. For instance, as producerwriter I will be able to insist that in the actual moment of execution we will shoot no wider than a headshoulder shot. Research indicates that disgusting things happen, bodywastewise, at the moment of death, and we cannot risk repelling sensitive Viewers. Be assured, too, that sex scenes will be kept at a minimum, even when dramatizing crimes of passion, and there will never be nudity. On no level will we ever be attacked for appealing to prurient values. Execution! is a show about Justice and the deterrence of murder. As such, it will always be in good taste.

Until given a network go-ahead I cannot submit the name of our pilot Perpetrator or the circumstances of his crime, but I can indicate guidelines. Note first that we will shoot on tape and entirely on location, both standards that establish reality. For pilot purposes we will not choose a Perpetrator who is a member of any minority group. Nor a female, nor a youth. The crime will be one universally accepted as heinous, and the criminal, while perhaps sorry he was apprehended, will not be at all repentant. Ideally, then, we will find a mid-American WASP, male, about thirty, a cop-killer who screams defiantly on the way to chair or noose. (Actually, we can protect ourselves on this last by shooting the execution sequence without sound and postsynching any dialogue we want, defiancewise. Needless to say, by so doing we also minimize the risk of possible last-minute profanities.)

The killing of the cop would not be motivated by anything political or simple hatred of authority, which might find sympathy among a minority of Viewers. No, I see the murder committed during a felony, say a bank robbery, where the Perpetrator plans and carries out armed robbery, then shoots a police officer. If, hopefully, he has a record of prior felonies he will be an ideal pilot subject. I see even a scene where his mother admits, “I tried. I really did. But he’s always been a bad kid, ever since his daddy left us, and he’s caused nothing but misery to everyone he’s ever touched. I see no purpose in commuting his sentence. The world will be better off without him.” Admittedly I’m winging dialogue here, but something like that from the mother would make a hell of a curtain just before the execution sequence.

Again, for pilot purposes I see our Perpetrator as having been married, but there are no kids. An embittered wife whom he abandoned, probably

often beat up, even when sober. He has a dishonorable discharge from the Coast Guard. In the slammer on several previous occasions, he was back on the street as a result of bleeding-heart judges and pointyhead parole boards.

Of course, we will have to find those moments to dramatize that, if not humanizing, at least make our Perpetrator understandable. Perhaps he has a dog. He should have a philosophy that falsely equates big crime with big business. Maybe he’s even flirted with communism.

No, strike the last. Later in the series we can get into political murders, such as those resulting from things like skyjacking and black radical groups. We can also, later in the series, execute women and younger people. For once Execution! hits its stride, becomes Number One, establishes itself as must weekly viewing in homes all over America, then the possibilities will be limitless. Yes, in the third or fourth season I can even envision guest executioners, from big stars to ordinary folk who have won nationwide Throw That Switch contests. Our only problem will be a flood of applications from prominent politicians, like McClellan of Arkansas and Hruska of Nebraska, cosponsors of the Senate bill to restore the death penalty. But surely this will be a happy problem easily handled.

Yes, my notebook first outlining the show is dated May 5, 1966. Clearly I was ahead of my time. Much has happened since. Filling a void created by the absence from home screens of the Vietnam war, Execution! will answer a great need. Execution! will be the most exciting and rewarding addition to network programming since Monday Night Football. Execution! is a television idea whose time is now !