What I didn’t have was any experience writing in Hollywood or a road map of how to go about getting such knowledge. That is what Lawrence Meyers new book, Inside the TV Writer’s Room, does; it sets one free onto an honest road of what it takes to write TV in Hollywood. The book talks directly to you from the inside out and lets you know it’s okay to be yourself. In fact, the book insist that you be yourself and guides you in finding your own voice.

From the start, you know you’re not reading another book by some hack TV writer whose credits are two episodes of Gilligan’s Island when in the introduction; Mr. Meyers challenges the reader with this opening:

…aspiring television writers are asking how to break into the television business. They are asking the wrong question. The real answer to knowing how is to ask why and what.

Chapters that follow Mr. Meyers honest opening are not only insightful but instructional as well, asking you a series of how questions not from a professorial tone, but from the answers given to Mr. Myers from his group of seasoned writers. This all leads the reader to practical advice for succeeding in TV.

What is so great about Inside the TV Writer’s Room is that it’s less a monologue of instruction from a veteran of the TV writing world as Mr. Meyers is, and more a journey of those who write in TV now and how they got there. Mr. Myers has edited the book in such a way that it gives the reader the feel of being invited to a dinner party with some of Hollywood’s top TV talent. And what a feast it is as these highly accomplished TV writers carve up not only where they came from and how they got where they are today, but also share some secrets. Writers who have credits ranging from Chicago Hope, to Star Trek, to CSI: Miami discuss writing for TV in an honest and open tone. That’s something a rookie writer trying to find his way in Hollywood will rarely get face to face. Reading the book one gets the sense these writers genuinely like not only what they do, but also each other. I found that comforting in what is widely known to be a cutthroat business.

What makes Inside the TV Writers Room fun, (and I’ve never read a book on writing that was fun like this one is) is that in each chapter Mr. Meyers gives you a short list of suggested TV episodes to watch that correspond with the chapter you are about to read. I took this instruction to heart and watched episodes from shows as diverse as The Unit written by David Mamet, Deadwood by David Milch, and an episode of Six Feet Under by Alan Ball. Viewing those shows gave me a greater point of reference and insight into what the discussion was about and how it plays out when it goes from concept, to paper to performance.

It’s in the realm of performance that Mr. Meyers really gets it when it comes to writing, because he tells you that knowing the actors process is key to crafting the written word for the actor. When Mr. Myers talks of actor/writer Frank Military he says, “Frank Military became a successful actor because of his ability to sweep the thought aside. The same is true as to how he became a successful writer.”

Sweep the thought aside. That is without a doubt the best piece of advice I have ever read when it comes to not only acting, but also writing. Not knowing what the actor goes through with the writers words is akin to trying to find your way in the dark with a flashlight that hold no batteries. As a former actor, I always found it frustrating when trying to explain to writers where I was coming from, because most of them just didn’t get it. Mr. Meyers understand this and for that reason more than once in the book he suggests that writers take acting lessons. With insight like that this book will surely sent you on the right path to writing for TV whether your spelling and grammar is proper or not.

If you want to write for TV, Inside the TV Writer’s Room is the book for you, it cares about your outcome because it doesn’t simply just tell you how, it helps you find out why and what you should be doing to get to that how.

A fun read that left me missing the Hollywood writing game.

[Ed. Note: Tomorrow and Friday we will be posting exclusive excerpts of "Inside the Tv Writer's Room"]

Hollywood has always stereotyped the South as full of ignorant rednecks and racists, and the Mason Dixie line became synonymous for Yankees like me, especially dark-skinned Latinas, as an area to avoid. Nevertheless, I met my husband forty years ago in the deepest of the South — Florida — and had an opportunity to form my own opinion. 

I learned that the N- word was routinely used by blacks and whites to describe any black and I was probably called a half-breed “spic” behind my back. That didn’t bother me, and as the years passed my in-laws grew up, so did the South.  One thing I did note was that none of the Southerners I met had any resemblance to the Hollywood boobs in the movies or on TV. They were bright, articulate and romantic. My husband reminded me that some of the best American literature is by Southerners and about the South. 

While I was never before an Olyphant fan, his character Ravlan Givens, U.S. Marshal, is the strong, silent, tough breed of man common to the West, Midwest and South and rare on the coasts, but beloved by women of all ages.

Think John Wayne. 

Givens was created by Elmore Leonard and appeared in two of his novels, “Pronto” and “Riding the Rap.” The pilot episode of “Justified” was based on Leonard’s short story, “Fire in the Hole.” What is always intriguing about Leonard’s villains is that they usually end up being the most interesting characters in the plot. 

As I watched each episode of “Justified” I would ask, “Where did they find these actors? ” (Many of whom I was unfamiliar with.) They are so authentically Southern. Turns out they are genuine sons of the South. 

The most fascinating of all is Boyd Crowder played by Walton Goggins, born in Birmingham, Alabama. Boyd is a murderer and drug dealer who, after having a near death experience, claims to have seen the light. His flowery speech is reminiscent of Tennessee Williams and his profound utterances of Scripture leave you wondering through the rest of the season if he’s sincere or not. The season finale, “Welcome to Bulletville,” answered that question perfectly. This was by far the most satisfying season finale of any show I’ve watched in a long time and it leaves viewers panting for the show’s return. 

Other standouts are veteran actor M.C. Gainey, who plays Boyd’s evil father Bo and who hails from Jackson, Mississippi; Nick Searcy, plays Chief Deputy Art Mullen, and is from North Carolina. The women stars are from Texas and other points south, and are as tough as the pioneer women who tamed the West. 

“Justified” appears on the FX network and each episode contains a warning that the show is intended for mature audiences only. Generally this is because of politically-incorrect language and some nudity. But not to worry, there’s nothing in the show as obscene as what’s on the Bill Maher show.

The latest example of this approach by FX is the new series Justified. Produced by Graham Yost (Speed, Boomtown, The Pacific) and based on a novel by Western and crime novel master Elmore Leonard (“Three-Ten to Yuma,” Mr. Majestyk, Get Shorty, Out of Sight), Justified stars Timothy Olyphant (Deadwood) as a U.S. Marshall, Raylan Givens, exiled to his hometown area in Eastern Kentucky after his questionable killing of a mobster in Miami. 

Givens is a straightforward hero without any phony psychological complexity, which in contemporary crime dramas generally serves to undermine the heroic nature of such characters and suggest that heroism is passé, no longer possible in a world in which moral relativism is not an assumption but somehow has become a fact. This is an important point—note the show’s title. Despite any ironies that may be intended, the implication is clear: there is good, and there is evil, and we are justified in making the distinction and acting on it. That’s what Raylan Givens does.

The Leonard story on which the show was based, “Fire in the Hole,” provided the plot for the show’s pilot episode, and the adaptation followed the original novella precisely (except for the ending). There is one big difference, however: the central interest of “Fire in the Hole” is the depiction of white racist militia elements, especially self-proclaimed Christians, as a major force in the story’s rural Kentucky, setting. “Fire in the Hole” makes strong and continual connections among Christianity, far-right-wing beliefs, racism, and violence, and it emphasizes that the rural Appalachian environment generates violence, ignorance, criminality, contempt for authority, political corruption, and intense dislike for outsiders.

The pilot episode of Justified included those elements but downplayed their importance, concentrating more on the character of Givens and his relationship with childhood friend and subsequent career criminal Boyd Crowder. The latter, played with great skill by Walton Goggins (The Shield), is the leader of a self-styled Christian militia group that is clearly just an exceedingly vicious criminal gang. In the first two episodes, Yost makes sure to establish that the group’s pretensions to patriotism and religious faith are pure sham, and he makes the point much more clearly than Leonard did.

In subsequent episodes this distinction is retained and reinforced, as the villains are not predominantly white, self-professed Christian, redneck evildoers and instead are often outsiders. Thus the show’s depictions of violence and criminality suggest a wider array of motives for human evil and their manifestations than is seen in Leonard’s story.

It’s also worth noting that although there is a good deal of violence in Justified, there is also much intelligent and interesting dialogue. Each episode has at least one scene in which characters converse about fairly deep topics, and each also includes at least one scene of unusually well-written suspense. As is the convention for contemporary TV drama series, the show keeps multiple story lines going, and the writers do an excellent job of spending just enough time on them to keep them going without distracting from the unique central plot elements of each episode.

—–

Exemplifying the show’s variety of crimes and criminals, in episode three, “The Fixer,” the title character, a bookmaker and confidential informant for the Marshalls’ Bureau, is a sneaky manipulator from Brooklyn who can’t stand Kentucky, and a vicious debt-collector and killer he employs is from Detroit. The main homegrown villain is a spoiled rich man who has squandered his parents’ money and is looking to make a big score.

In this as in subsequent episodes, the crooks frequently betray one another. That’s a staple from Leonard’s novels.

Episode four, “Long in the Tooth,” exemplifies this. It takes place in Los Angeles, with a strong contrast between a low-income Latina mother, who is shown expressing gratitude to her dentist for allowing her extra time to make her payments, and an apparently well-off and obviously spoiled twenty-something who wants the dentist to fire his receptionist because she can’t persuade his insurance company to pay for his “semi-elective procedures: my caps and gold crowns.”

In the main storyline, Givens and his partner are trying to find a former mob accountant who is on the run after blowing his witness-protection cover, before his former employers can catch up to him and kill him. In addition, the same mob wants to kill Givens in revenge for the killing in Miami in the first episode of the series. In a particularly effective scene, Givens surprises the two mob hitmen in their car and nonchalantly outlines their options, most of which involve him killing them—very reminiscent of Eastwood’s Dirty Harry Callahan in his prime.

Eventually, confronted by the hitmen in the desert, Givens tells the leader of the pair, “You take one more step, and I’ll shoot you.” The mobster does, and Givens shoots him, as promised. The other hitman gets himself shot as well. “I warned you—twice,” says Givens to the dying man. Later, during his escape attempt, Rollie, the former mob accountant, ends up killing a would-be murderer and rapist “coyote.” Rollie ultimately sacrifices his life to save those of girlfriend Mindy and Marshall Givens. As that choice suggests, the characters and their motives are more complex than those of most TV crime drama characters.

Episode five, “The Lord of War and Thunder,” likewise shows a variety of villains and motives. An escaped con Givens is assigned to catch is a local, though not a member of the militia group, and Givens’s elderly father—a career criminal and ne’er-do-well—is presented as both charmingly raffish and frighteningly violent. Another evildoer, small-time drug dealer Perkins, is a transplant from some unnamed urban area who hates Harlan County and the people who live there.

Episode six, “The Collection,” takes place in Cincinnati, where Givens and his boss have been sent to seize the assets of a wealthy art collector who has several paintings allegedly painted by Adolph Hitler but are fakes. The paintings are actually part of a scheme, concocted by the man’s wife, that leads to murder. The main action of the story takes place at the man’s large, expensive house and horse farm. In this episode, Givens very smartly talks himself out of a dangerous situation in which a murderer has a hidden gun aimed at him. Givens also finds out that Crowder has undergone a supposed religious conversion in prison, which Givens is certain is insincere despite the prisoner’s persistent attempts to persuade him.

In “Blind Spot,” once again the worst villains are not lower-class locals. One is a sheriff’s deputy, and the other is a hitman from out of town who expresses open contempt for the locals. The miscreant in “Blowback” is likewise not a local but instead a prisoner in transport who has taken two guards hostage in the Marshalls’ Lexington office. The depiction of this character is quite sophisticated, allowing the viewer to understand his attitudes without condoning his behavior. The episode also visits an ongoing storyline in which the husband of Givens’s ex-wife is in danger from local gangsters of a non-militia, non-redneck variety. This is the main storyline of  the subsequent episode, “Hatless.”

Through all of these stories, Givens dispenses justice with a strong hand and fast gun, emanating a powerful Dirty Harry vibe thanks in good part to Olyphant’s soft, Eastwood-like voice and the casual, confident posture of his lanky frame. Olyphant also adds something of his own to the Eastwood style: a ready and disarming smile, rather reminiscent of John Wayne, in fact.

Also as in the Eastwood tradition, Givens finds himself continually in hot water from his superiors. Unlike the Dirty Harry films, however, in which the tough cop hardly has any life outside his work, Given’s problems in Justified result largely from problems in his personal life, such as a romance with a woman whom he’s supposed to be guarding from killers. That’s typical of contemporary crime dramas, butJustified is distinguished by its unsentimental and realistic depiction of the consequences of those choices.

The show has done well in the ratings, and FX renewed it for a second season last week. Given its intelligent writing, sound values, and smart mixture of appealing elements from previous popular crime drama series, that success is well justified.

—–

The title of the show stems from a shooting in the first episode where Marshall Givens smoked a criminal in Miami who had done him wrong. The shooting was deemed “justified”, but it gets Raylan reassigned to his home state of Kentucky where he becomes reacquainted with old friends, foes and kin. The state seems very lush and beautiful on the show, full of old towns and houses, but also full of ornery natives or the occasional Yankee who’s living there in exile and dreaming of “civilization.”

Justified has a feel that plays very true to Elmore Leonard’s style which usually involves introducing some quirky losers and a hero of some kind, and then throws them into a situation involving money that they all end up fighting over. Having read all of his books, the series makes me feel like I am watching one of his stories come to life.

Leonard started out as a western writer before turning to crime fiction. Many of his books have been made into films over the years such as 3:10 to Yuma, Joe Kidd, Mr. Majestic, Get Shorty, Jackie Brown, or the recent Killshot. Like Steven King, translating Leonard to film doesn’t always pan out. But this time it definitely does. The show has a nice pace and rhythm with colorful Southerners to give it some flavor.

The cast is filled out with Shield alum Walton Goggins as Boyd Crowder an old work buddy of Raylan turned sometime nemesis. Nick Searcy as Raylan’s boss, Art Mullen. Joelle Carter as his hot-to-trot ex-girlfriend who has trouble written all over her.

Olyphant has landed a role tailor made for him, perhaps even better than his Sheriff Bullock character in Deadwood. Olyphant’s lanky, Clint Eastwood-eqsue presence makes a nice change of pace from all those bland, product enhanced mannikin’s on other networks. Besides some strong thespian chops, Olyphant has a trademark carriage and method that will serve him very well as his acting star rises.

I’ve seen the first five episodes and every one has been solid. Each is self contained and delivers the goods. If you like westerns, cop shows, guy shows like Burn Notice, you can’t do wrong here.

Justified airs on FX every Tuesday night at 10PM.

On my Facebook profile page, I dutifully filled out my personal interests. Under favorite movies I listed “anything Quentin Tarantino”; under novels I listed “anything Elmore Leonard.” What I left out under “movies” was “anything Elmore Leonard which seem like Quentin Tarantino” and vice versa. To me, they are almost indistinguishable. I have read virtually all of Leonard’s books. I just purchased today his latest, “Road Dogs.” I have seen nearly all of Tarantino’s movies. I have read or seen many of their works multiple times. I still get surprised by a Leonard movie from time to time. I recently saw “3:10 from Yuma” on TV. There was something rivetingly familiar about it. It turns out it was adapted from a 15 page short story by Leonard that I had never read.

The first Elmore Leonard novel I read was “Rum Punch.” I was vacationing in St. Martin with my family in 1995 and we had rented a house. I just picked up a book at random on one of the shelves and began to read. I remember two things clearly. I kept having to reread these short, seemingly simple, sentences to understand them. This fits with what I have subsequently learned to be a rule of Leonard’s; “if it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.” The second thing I remember is that the characters were shockingly amoral. It was almost frightening. But not so frightening to prevent me from reading the other Leonard book in the house, “Freaky Deaky.”

It is still amazing to me to that “Rum Punch” was the only collaboration Leonard and Tarantino have had in films. “Rum Punch,” of course, became the 1997 hit film, “Jackie Brown.” There have always been rumors about other films. At various times, Leonard novels, “40 Lashes less One,” “Killshot,” and “Freaky Deaky” were all rumored to become Tarantino movies. “Killshot” has already been made without Tarantino.  Some movies which Tarantino directed seem like they were written by Leonard (“True Romance,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs” in particular, even “Kill Bill: Volume 1″) and some Leonard novels which became movies seem like they were produced or directed by Tarantino (“Be Cool,” “Get Shorty”–I have not yet seen “Killshot”).

When I first saw “Pulp Fiction” (on video, a year or two after its release), I assumed Leonard had to be involved. “Pulp Fiction” is one of my top 5 movies of all time. I still see new things when I watch it. To this day, I could swear I read in the movie credits that Leonard advised on “Pulp Fiction”; but he had nothing to do with it. In my memory, before writing this essay, I actually thought “Be Cool” and “Get Shorty” were Tarantino movies. But of course they are not. And I now remember being surprised back then they were not! I did not even see “Reservoir Dogs” until last year on DVD and, at first, thought it might have been a Leonard novel I missed. It was not, obviously. Interestingly, there are some crossover actors/producers in both sets of films, as well as in their one common film, which helps contribute to my illusion. They include; John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, James Gandolfini,  Danny DeVito (a producer of “Pulp Fiction” and “Get Shorty”), and probably some others.

It turns out there is a pretty strong link between Tarantino and Leonard besides just my own imagination. Charlie Rose interviewed Tarantino in 1994, the year “Pulp Fiction” was released. To quote Tarantino;

QUENTIN TARANTINO: Oh, I love Elmore Leonard. In fact, to me True Romance is basically like an Elmore Leonard movie–

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.

QUENTIN TARANTINO: -that he didn’t write, you know. And like, actually, I actually owe a big debt to like kind of figuring out my style from Elmore Leonard because, you know, he was the first writer I’d ever read……

What they both have in common is an ability to tell a compelling story. The characters are completely amoral, yet can still be appealing. They retain, usually, some moral code, even if self designed. They are not evil, but certainly do not follow traditional morality either. Somehow, we still want to find the protagonist and root for them. Clearly, they are tapping into something beneath the surface of our conscious minds which we somehow find “freeing,” at least during the fantasy of reading their books or watching their movies. In a moral world, can we justify such fantasies? I really have no idea, but they provide some “great escapes.”

I am also quite lucky. I have both a new Leonard book and a new Tarantino movie to look forward to. Perhaps if they collaborated more, there would be only one.

Something must be seriously wrong with “Killshot,” the straight-to-video flick starring the resurgent Mickey Rourke. The movie features not just Rourke, but rising star Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Diane Lane, Rosario Dawson and Thomas Jane – reputable actors, all.

And it’s under the direction of John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”), working from an Elmore Leonard story. And it still rocketed past every movie theater save one in Arizona earlier this year, netting a measly $18,000?

The film, heading to DVD May 26, deserved a better fate.

Sure, it’s not as snarky as a great Leonard adaptation like “Get Shorty,” but it’s vigorously entertaining and another sign Rourke’s artistic rebound is the real deal – even if the film was shot before the actor’s comeback saga started.

The ex-”Wrestler” plays Blackbird, a killer for hire who shot one too many people on his latest assignment. Now, it’s his turn to run, but a chance encounter with a puffed-up thug named Richie (Gordon Levitt) stops him cold. The kid reminds him of his own little brother who died during a botched hit when he didn’t follow his older brother’s professional code.

Hit men take said codes very seriously.

Richie is all mouth and attitude, but he touches something inside the hardnosed hit man.

Their paths end up crossing a separated couple (Diane Lane and Thomas Jane) trying to see if their marriage deserves a second chance.

The storylines here need more room to breathe, but they aren’t the main attraction in “Killshot.” It’s the fine cast, an eclectic assortment of stars who rise above the narrative gaps. The weakest link might be Gordon Levitt, working so hard against type the cords stand out in his neck. Yet somehow the performance still clicks, mostly because he shares his scenes with Rourke.

The former ’80s mainstay finds another role uniquely suited to his battered visage. He’s playing Hollywood’s latest cliché, the conflicted hit man, but Rourke finds the humanity – and danger – lurking within the stale concept.

“Killshot” sounds like a grade-B thriller right down to its cheesy title, and its DVD debut only reinforces that impression. But the format’s lower expectations, and a cast worthy of a theatrical release, provide some unexpected rewards.

“The Informers,” a drama with a similar grade of actors, earned a wide theatrical release last month. So why couldn’t the far superior “Killshot” get the same level of respect?

Christian Toto is a contributing reporter for The Washington Times, MovieMaker Magazine and The Denver Post. He blogs about film at whatwouldtotowatch.com