VINTERFICATION: Script vs. Screen - SIX FEET UNDER Pilot Episode

Welcome to out first “Vinterfication” episode! 

Vin-I-fication is what a winemaker does - all the decisions he or she makes - to transform grapes, the raw materials, into a final wine. 

And so Vin-TER-fication is when we compare the raw materials of a work of entertanment - the script of a tv episode, movie, or comic - and compare it to the final produced thing.

Today we tackle one of the TV shows that helped launch America’s “Golden Age” of television - SIX FEET UNDER. And tell you what to pair with each, whether you're reading the script, or watching the aired episode.

The Wines mentioned in this episode (more information can be found on our Substack VintertainmentStudios.com)

2007 Bodegas Navalon Anciano 'Aged 10 Years' Gran Reserva Tempranillo

Bodega Dehesa de los Canonigos Clarete Luzianilla, Ribera del Duero, Spain 2021

Haus Marke S-22 Solera Red Blend, Burgenland, Austria (93 Points, James Suckling)

Chapters

• 2:15 What the Hell is "Vinterfication"?
• 8:32 Six Feet Under - Let's Travel Back to the Aughts
• 15:37 Our Wines For and Thoughts On the Script
• 34:07 Making of the Episode
• 41:08 Thoguhts on the Episode vs. the Script
• 57:43 Lawsuit - PSA for Writers Everywhere
• 1:01:26 The "Commercials" in the Episode
• 1:07:53 The Differences Between the Endings
• 1:19:36 Our Wines for the Episode

Transcript

0:05

Are you not entertained? Yes, Real good time! He's Dave, and I'm Dallas, and this is Ventertainment. We have opinions on just about everything. Sometimes those opinions are spot on. Sometimes they go down easier with a glass of wine. This is entertainment. The wine and entertainment pairing podcast. Welcome back to another wine and entertainment pairing for your Vintertainment. This is the podcast where we delude ourselves into thinking you want to hear what we have to say about different pieces of pop culture and art, but know for a fact that you need to hear what we have to say about wine because man, wine is complicated. We know what we like, but we rarely know why. So what better way to learn about that than by comparing different wines to different types of entertainment and compare how they both hit us and affect us the way that they do. I'm Dave, WSET Level 3 Certified Wine Professional. And I'm Dallas, a professional writer and world builder. And together we discuss wine in terms of structure, flavor profile, and the stories behind them, all couched in terms of how well they may or may not go with certain kinds of entertainment. And we also discuss creative works in terms of mood, theme, artistic intention, poetic notion, all couched in terms of how well they may or may not pair with specific wine. Because whether you're talking about wine or entertainment, you get the most out of either when you have an adventurous spirit, an open mind, explore different corners of what an art form has to offer. Wine itself is an art form, it's history and culture in a glass, and in most cases, a winemaker's passion, just as entertainment is history, culture, and an artist's passion on a page, screen, or record, which is why they go so damn well together. So today, everybody, this is our first Vinterfication episode. Now, Vinterfication episode final. It's To explain that bit of insane nerdiness, vinification is the process of turning grapes into a final bottled wine, taking the raw materials and then making all the decisions that result in the final product. Basically everything you do in the cellar. after you pick those grapes off the vine. That is vinification. So, vin-ter-ification is where we look at the raw materials of a work of entertainment. For example, the script of a TV pilot or the script of a feature film, the script of a comic book or graphic novel, perhaps demos uh of a music album, and then compare it to the final product. That's right, and today we're focusing on the foundational building block of the television and film medium, the screenplay. At its best, the screenplay should be both literature and the blueprint for a pilot or film. It should be able to stand on its own, in my opinion at least, as a functional piece of literature that leaves the reader squarely in the world that is to become a film. And then it must also act as the guide or blueprint of the film, which is how it is traditionally viewed and seen. Yes, this is in direct contrast to say a comic book script, which unless your name is Alan Moore is never meant to be read as a stand alone work of literature. The comic book scripts are known to be like they're boring as century because you're directing an artist very carefully and also trying to leave things open for the artist to have their own contributions. Comic book scripts are believe me, I've read a lot of them. It's like. They're not entertaining in their own right often, unlike a film script, which you are trying to convince executives, you're trying to convince agents, you're trying to like, I'm a good writer, pick me up, you can see the film, the agent has to see the film, then your manager has to see the film, the executive has to see the film, directors have to see the film. So you're really trying to make a film or TV script read on the page, like you want them entertained and being able to visualize this film, whereas comic scripts, it's much more collaborative as a script versus just that piece of literature that later there's something called the shooting script in film and TV and that becomes more like a comic breakdown script where it's like you're breaking down what are the shots how are we doing this how are we putting this together and that's what a comic script is originally originally anyways tells And curiously, mentioned that Dave, we'll get into this briefly. ah What's happened, I guess, in the last 20 or so years, which is kind of how we got our start in our former business. ah The idea of the pitch is so daunting to so many people and has been particularly on the studio side. uh A big complaint you'll find with writers is that people who make the decisions, the gatekeepers, can't visualize. screenplays, it seems they can't feel the energy, the momentum. And so what has happened is in a lot of these pitches, people have been using comic books, ash cans, the imagery of comic books, the sort of as an active query board uh to sort of make the task of putting the imagery in the mind of the gatekeeper a bit less daunting. And it has been effective in many, many, many cases. As a matter of fact, I like I said earlier, that's kind of how we, you know, got our foots, our feet in the door, foots in the door, fantastic. Our feet in the door. you know, definitely distinctive, distinct mediums, but there is so much sort of overlap there and it's a great space to play in. But like you're right, if you're not Alan Moore, then good luck. having anyone really want to read your work. uh where were we? So, we are reading the pilot for six feet under and then we are watching the aired pilot episode in order to compare and contrast the two. Absolutely, but before we get started as always please be sure to hit that follow or subscribe button if you have not done so already that does sincerely help this podcast grow also, especially if you're already a subscriber and so completely useless to us in that regard do this instead recommend us to a friend or family member anyone you think will like deep dives into movies TV books comics and or music or something like we're doing today ventrification where we're comparing the script to the final pilot and of course pairing wonderful wines with both Either you're going to find out. That's right. All matched. Yeah. With wine and wine education. So um don't just follow this podcast. Also follow us on Substack. By the way, we are on Substack. entertainmentstudios.com our glorified vanity URL, which will take you to a Substack. That's where you'll find all our podcast episodes broken down by subject matter, articles on wine and entertainment, bonus pairings, interactive polls, chats. and pairing directories covering all the wine and entertainment pairings we have ever done. Once again, broken down by subject matter and updated weekly. Now, some of this is only available to paid subscribers of the sub stack. The entertainment pairing directories, the best part. we've made it as easy as possible to support us and gain access to everything we do by pricing these subscriptions at only two bucks, two USD a month. or $19.60 per year annually. We know that if you're the kind of person who supports independent voices online, that there are too damn many good problems to have, but so many writers, artists, filmmakers, there are projects on crowdfunding platforms. We know it's hard to support everyone you want to support. So if we happen to be one of those people, now you can spread your money a little further with a subscription to entertainment being only two bucks per month. We hope to see you there even believe it or not if you don't throw money at us like the cheap hookers we are. Okay, let's get to six feet under the ventrification discussion. Take it away D daddy. Alright, insert dramatic music here. Remember the glory days of dynamic storytelling on TV. The days of prestige cable TV, of course. You might be biased, because you old, but they technically consider the recent pre-strike streaming era the yet glir-ier days of TV, but you know, continue. Well, they are wrong. Back in a time we call the between time between the ubiquity and banality of atrophying network TV of the 90s and the oversaturated never ending dopamine drip of the content streamers to come. A time when cable networks realized their position and took the lead to become the greatest source of serial television in the history of the medium. A time when shows were given the resources of film, creative teams led by auteurs and the rollouts of studio tent poles. Yes. I speak of the early aughts. Search the annals of your mind and recall all those what the fuck water cooler moments from marquee shows like The Sopranos, The Wire, Sex and the City, The Shield, Deadwood, Carnival, Battlestar Galactica, Nip Tuck and Dexter, just to name a few. These shows rose to prominence around the chaos of 9-11 and seemed to offer a place to process the existential dread that was sweeping the world and because the distribution system was rooted, still rooted in the weekly episode model. It gave audiences time to ruminate on and discuss those moments and something that mirrored collective experience. And today, our topic yet again, fits right into that list of great shows. It is the quirky and atonal, simultaneously unsettling yet hopeful pilot of the HBO Allen Ball written and directed series Six Feet Under. And can I just say though, real quick in defense of the just recent previous streaming era, like we're talking that list of shows, we get that now in one year. You're talking about like a decade's worth of shows. And so I'm like, I get it. get it. The back in the day when getting one incredible, truly well dramatized narrative TV show in America was like, It's the golden age. We got one. And I'm like, yeah. But our TV sucked so bad before this era. was so bad. Sitcoms were good. That was the only thing we were going to Game shows and sitcoms. That's what we did well. And of course, daytime soaps. If you're a daytime soaps person like that. That's true and then we hit like, you know turn of the century and shit started getting real interesting Can I just say as someone who watched anime and that was that blew my pee-pee in mine because I'm like wait cartoons can have a narrative like not purely episodic then I started watching a foreign TV shows European TV shows and that also blew my mind so I'm like oh They have a coherent like episode to episode continues the story this was unheard of in American TV before this quote-unquote golden era of HBO and just to put things a little bit into perspective, Six Feet Under was like the third HBO show of this era. They had only done Oz, which had some splash, but minimal splash. started in 90 yeah 97. Okay, 97. Sopranos was 98. That feels right, yeah. OK, 98, 99. And then six feet under was 2001. And then right after six feet under, they dropped the wire. And that was like the beginning of everything. But this show was early days of this stuff. Oz was not a huge hit. Sopranos was a huge hit. And then six feet under and the wire was a huge hit when that finally dropped. I feel like HBO was still really finding its legs into like what this new era was. This was all new to American TV. Anyways, go ahead, Dallas. It was, yeah, you're so right. It was all new to American TV. And it was, like I said, it's sort of sandwiched right between those two things. They had nothing but space to play with. It seemed as though they were and I'm familiar with Carol. We'll talk about Carolyn. I uh forget her last name later. uh But Strauss, uh but that whole era, they were just doing some interesting work and trying shit and going back to the drawing board and saying, hey, just take us there. Take us someplace new. It's so weird thinking like four TV shows over the course of like, what, six, seven years? And like now that's almost like, like, that's why when you're like Oz was like 96 or 97, I'm like, no, that leaves years of gap between that and the next show. I'm like, that can't be right. And then I'm like, oh, right. Things were that slow once upon a time. We were not churning out content the way we do today. Yeah. Amazing when you look at, because that's one of my favorite things to do. I don't know why, but those shows I really enjoyed in my youth or years ago, I remember the year roll around when the next season would launch and you see the roll out dates and they are June 3rd, 1997, June 4th, 1998 consistently. That shit is unheard of. waited for that next season. had no choice. Yeah, there was was nothing and this was the era by the 90s and into the O's. had DVD collections of these shows and things like that. But I mean, it was it was just a different world, man. It was such a different world. It's weird that it's not. It doesn't feel like that long ago. And yet when you think about it, it's it's like we've moved to a different planet. Completely, completely. Just and just to be fair, this is what shocked me revisiting the show. As Dave knows, I don't really enjoy uh rewatching things that I really liked. ah And this is one of those shows that I really enjoyed, particularly the pilot when I first saw it. And so I haven't seen it since I saw it originally. And, you know, I also don't necessarily keep track of time in any significant way. So In any normal human way. Right and having to go back and see that this show was released in 2001 and realize that that has been 24 years. Blew my mind. They blew my mind. That's me. That is two decades and a half. It doesn't feel like I've been alive for two decades and a half, much less to have been an adult and enjoy the show. You're gonna live almost twice that, buddy. Alright buddy calm down I have not been alive almost twice that. oh twice that. Almost. Absolutely not. I see it on this camera. I got deeper circles under my eyes than you, so yeah, you're doing okay. All right. All right. Okay, shit. Where were we? um So brief discussion. um I'm curious as to what wines you were thinking about when you were reading this, if you were, mean, you know, we kind of discussed that a bit. But ah if you consider the script the way you would like the first few sips of a new glass of wine, what were you what was your read on? I guess any note stuck out that were jarring was it smooth that did not come together smooth. There's not come together for you. What about was pretty blank when I first started reading this. it didn't have it. This was brand new to me. So I'd never seen Six Feet Under. I didn't really know what it was about outside of death. Obviously, it's called Six Feet Under. I knew it was a comedy ostensibly like I but I didn't know how much of a comedy I didn't know how broad I didn't know. Like, uh when Dallas first said Six Feet Under, I actually got it confused with weeds, right? Which is much more of a comedy comedy versus versus the dramedy that this is, like dark comedy drama that we get with Six Feet Under. But I didn't know exactly what to expect. um I missed this. This was during my time. This came out during my just post college years. Almost twice, two decades and a half. My just post college years. And like, I was not watching TV. So I missed this. I've never seen The Sopranos. I've never seen Oz. I've never seen this. I have seen parts of The Wire since on streaming and things like that. That's one I've. I've only seen episodes, I've never watched it, watched it, I need to. um But ah yet these shows and this whole art, the arts, we've mentioned this on the podcast before this. This was like it's we did not we were dead to pop culture. in the odds. Like I didn't listen to music then. I wasn't watching TV. I was barely watching movies. I was barely reading. I was reading comics. But even by the end of the odds, I was I finally was like getting sick of Marvel, DC and things like that. So this is kind of a lost decade for me pop culture wise. And Six Feet Under is definitely one of those things where I was like, I had no idea what to expect. I did not know Alan Ball. I was like, familiar name. beforehand. So I was like, let's read this first, then I'll look up who this guy is. And of course, American beauty guy. So I'm like, okay, got it, got it, got it. Right. So reading this, it was, it took me a little while to get my sea legs on it to but when I was reading it, I'm like, okay, this isn't funny, funny. Got it? Like does not no one's trying to make me laugh out loud really outside of rare moments. This is this is funny smirk. Yeah, not funny. Haha. Right. This is funny Ry smile at best. um And reading this script, the things that stood out, the notes that I was having in my head is dark meets lighthearted, right? Dark comedy. They're trying to make lighthearted elements out of something very serious, which is death and grief, which are normally very serious themes, but this was, okay, we're gonna have a kind of fun. with it and be blackly humorous. So I'm like, OK, light meets dark. Got it. Light hearted, but still dark. And then awkward. Even the script itself. Now, I know there's an element of awkwardness to this show that was baked or either baked into it or found that becomes from what I've read about the show and people's responses to the show. They like this awkwardness to it. And I can see that. I do think the pilot is a little unintentionally awkward. in a lot of places. It read very, I was like, this guy's finding his way into this show and it's not there yet. Like this is, this is not quite working. And I will say though, I did like, I did ultimately, we'll talk more about this in a minute, but the script I thought fared better than the actual filmed pilot in the ultimate end. Interesting, interesting. Okay. All All right. I can see that. um wine wise, I'll just say I'm not going to reveal my wine quite yet because it is the same wine for both the script and the pilot episode. did not switch between them. um There are differences between them, but not huge. He really, because the writer got to direct the episode in the ultimate end, uh in my opinion, too little changed. I'm between them. uh And it was and the pilot actually, and it was his directorial debut. It was doing this as well. So I feel like he had a lot of growth ahead of him. And this was just a I'm shocked this show took off because, man, that pilot is rough. Interesting. ah Yeah, I think as a whole, the pilot is rough, but I also think the thing that sold the actors, the studio is sort of the margins, which is what he's really skilled at. If you look at the script for American Beauty, ah another great idea, uh sort of concept in which it's clearly a dramatic film, but there's so much smirkish comedy. written between the lines that uh as a whole it kind of sells the idea anyway. ah I do think again the script leaves a lot of emotional margin in the space which is sort of his claim to fame it seems to be a pretty consistent thing in his body of work so I. what do mean by that? I'm not sure I understand the phrase. Okay. margin. uh So one thing we have, I'll give you, for example, with the characters, right? ah There's a lot that happens in the actual filmed pilot ah that you don't get in the screenplay. And that's not uncommon, but he does it so consistently. ah It's interesting, I would have said the opposite. I got more out of the script and then it was all missing from the pilot. Oh, interesting. No, no, no, it's it's the exact opposite for me. But he does leave some emotional margin in space, meaning the characters have this sort of unresolved nature to most of their interactions. For example, the character of the mother, which, by the way, I know we're going to get to all this. She's so good. She's so good. She is very good. do think her character is terribly written in the pilot episode. I feel so bad for that actress. She did the job with what she was given. thing as from an actor standpoint, that is the meat. so when you're you know, if you if you go back and maybe you already have when you hear the actors talking about the roles, uh a lot of it is about the dissonance is about what wasn't on the page. It's about the sort of confusion in the character and having to know. Yeah, missing on the page a lot of that. I did watch the first 10 minutes of episode two after the pilot just to kind of see, know, one we'll get to the differences between the pilot script and the episode because the ending is what's different. Like they filmed a completely different ending than what's in the script and bumped the original ending of the script into its own episode, which is episode two. So I was like, oh, curious. But I went into episode two and there is already just like all TV shows. Already the cast seems more natural, more relaxed, more like they know what they're doing better than in the pilot episode. So right away you immediately start to feel like, so starting to already come together better than what I was feeling all through the pilot. And this is not shade just on Six Feet Under because pilots are infamous, right? Especially once you've watched the whole show and you've come to know these characters and you've seen the show firing at its best. when it's all just like they've been doing it for one to two seasons and now it's at its apex. And then you go back to the pilot and you're like, holy shit, this is awkward. Like, cause no one knows what they're doing yet with it. They really are feeling their way through. all pilots, almost all pilots suffer this to some degree or another. But this one in particular, because, and so I can see how awkwardness becomes a thing in this show, but I think the awkwardness here isn't that version yet. It isn't that thing that sings. isn't that version where you're like, I love how awkward this is. This one, the awkwardness is more unintentional. I mean, there's some awkwardness that's baked into what's happening and baked into the script 100%. But, and I don't know if Alan Ball, this was his directorial debut. One of the things that I think he was actually weird, he's a writer predominantly at this point. You can see, I think he took a lot of... hints and cues and tips from Sam Mendes directing his American Beauty because American Beauty absolutely. So American Beauty was the closest thing to this kind of writing that Alan Ball had done to date because he was mostly a network TV guy, right? Mostly sitcoms and things like that. And writing Six Feet Under was really his like breaking away from network TV. And like he you're going to get to this. But, you know, basically the only thing the HBO had to tell him to do was like, No, no, no. Stop playing it safe. Make it more fucked up. That's right. Right. And he's like, which he was happy to do. He's like, yes, I need to get past this wall in my mind. That's like keeping me in network TV. I don't even want to be in network TV territory anymore. And American Beauty was the first time that he was like, I'm to make something a little fucked up and write this. And then here's Sam Mendes directing it pretty brilliantly for what that script was. I mean, if won the Academy Award, you know, it was it was a it left a mark at the time. And you can see so much of Alan Ball's approach to his very first time directing as like, I think I need to do what Sam Mendes did to my script in American Beauty. And it sometimes works and it sometimes doesn't in this particular script, because it's the pacing. And I don't mean the pacing of the plot. I mean the pacing of like the comedic timing and the scene, like one scene, the scene itself, the pacing within that scene. It's not there yet. Like the pacing doesn't quite work. The way these characters are delivering the beats and their, you know, their moments of anger versus sadness versus um wry comedy. I'm like, God, this does not flow. And it flowed better. I could see it. Like I'm reading the script and I'm like, this is gonna be hard to pull off, but I can see it. You just gotta get the right actors and whatnot. And then you watch the pilot and you're like, yeah, nope. These are just awkward moments. They're not. A lot of these moments are not being pulled off. Yeah, I think they are doing what, for the most part, he intended them to do. Yes. Those moments to be moments of dissonance. think they're meant to be moments of confusion. They're meant to be moments of interdimensionality. know, also we can't understate the idea that this is a pilot, right? And so the heavy lifting of a pilot is to introduce us to the momentum of the world, the set pieces. ah you know, the tension and that's a lot because what they're doing, what he's doing in this pilot of course is kind of treating all primary four characters as main characters. That's the other thing that's happening in this pilot. ah So I do think it is sort of an embarrassment of riches to a certain degree because he has so much to play with and such sort of free reign. He is the writer, he's the director. You know, he's a guy who plays in the margins when you look at that script for American Beauty. There is, you know, so much that's kind of left to interpretation potentially. ah And he does it here as well. And I do think the Allen ball, I mean, Sam Mendes uh experience definitely. are Mendez, I never know. I always hear Mendez, Yeah. Anyway. um I've always heard Mendes, uh right, actually, I said Mendez, you're right. um So yeah, I think it is an embarrassment of riches, but I'm the kind of guy who looks at that and goes, okay, yeah, there's so much meat on the bone here, even though it doesn't necessarily cut the pilot itself doesn't the film pilot doesn't necessarily come together as a distinct and flawless jewel. I think it does everything it needs to do. So right. Anyway, we'll get into that later. So I chose to ah chew on something that counteracted the sparseness of the script and I went with a Tempranillo, the 2007 Bodegas Anciano, which is aged 10 years. a Grand Reserve uh Spanish grape, of course. ah Dave, you've got some notes on the... uh on this wine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So this is officially full, full name for anyone. Google searching this. I'm sure we'll have a clickable link down below, but it is the 2000 or on our sub stack. Actually, that's right. I don't put, I don't put the links on the description of the podcast as much anymore, though I might. But yeah, go to the sub stack because that's where all the links are. We, but anyway, 2007 bodegas Navarone Anciano age 10 years in quotes, Grand Reserva Tempranillo. Now, Gran Reserva, that is a Spanish term. You've got the Reserva and the Gran Reserva, and it means they're aged for longer before being released to the public. They're holding it back and aging it longer in barrel and then even longer in bottle before they release it to the public. That's why this is a 2007. This is not that old in terms of it being the Gran Reserva, right? This would have been at released at the earliest in 2017, right? So this is not actually a released in a 2007 would normally be released in like 2009 or something like that. But this would have been held back for that age 10 years, possibly possibly longer in bottle, who knows. But this is part if you've ever had a Rioja, they always come in the classical or Hoven style, which is the youngest than the Reserva, which is probably like closer to five years and then the Grand Reserva, which is that 10 year. element. I'm going to forget the exact years that but there are legally they have to say your reserve or ground reserve or their Specific definition, yeah. Yes. And Riojas are also usually Tempranillo based. This is very much a Spanish thing. Tempranillo is also going to be the primary grape out in the Ribeiro del Duero. So you're going to get mostly Tempranillo and Ribeiro del Duero. Rioja. Now this is from the Valdepenas area of the Castilla La Mancha region of Spain. That is far more southern than Rioja or Ribeiro del Duero. So this is hot. This is a much warmer climate. This is closer to this is fairly close to the coast. that they share with Africa. it's not too, it's inland, it's not at the coast, don't get me wrong, but it's like closer down there. So this is a very hot area. This is historically known more for its bulk wine than its fine wine. um And bulk wine, grapes to make bulk wine and spirits. most predominantly, historically, it's been this grape called Airen, A-I-R-E-N, which is made use Spanish brandy. And in recent years, they've been turning the La Mancha region. It's a lot of flat land. It's very warm. This is all not ideal for grape growing. You usually need slopes and you need cooling elements to like kind of keep acidity in the grape to make it more balanced. You need better drainage in the soil in order for the vines to really thrive. um Too much water for vines is a bad thing. They get really weak. They grow really weak flavored grapes. They get waterlogged. They don't struggle to survive and therefore they're not very robust. So this has not been historically a fine wine region, but they've been changing their practices recently to become more and more of a fine wine region. But nevertheless, this is going to be a riper, more robust version of Tempranillo than you're going to get in like Rioja or Rivero Del Duero. This 10, this will be jamier. It'll probably be quote unquote softer because the acidity won't be there as much. So it'll be a more pleasant version. Now it's interesting because Dallas temper Neo, you are often you often describe this as a robust or or rough like you give it a lot of like punchy, aggressive. It's funny because I never think of temporary or those in that way. It never hits me that way. Yeah. Yeah. It's like temporary. To me, like Rio has are usually very mild in the I haven't had a Rioja in a while, now that you say that. I would love a good Rioja. I haven't had a solid Rioja. I mean, it's more northerly, but Rio has to I almost think of Rio has is like the Spanish Chianti, right? Where it's like, yeah, it's like it's got that. It's just that very it takes a lot to get a really robust Chianti in San Giovanni. That is a grape that is less robust than the temporary neo temporary neo tends to get jammy or thicker skins. You get more tannins. But still, I feel like this is more temporary. It was always more balanced in medium body or medium high body, but not high. It's not like the big, bold, punchy stuff. Differentio is always what I go for when I want something a little more mild uh than your big bold red wine. So it's always interesting that they hit you that way. they do. I think it's a combination of the tannin and that acidity. it's just something about the interplay of those two generally. just I walk away feeling, this is this just kicked me in the mouth. Okay. All right. I mean, they do have thick skins. can't deny that. They do have decent tannins depending on how they're made. um But that's also why the Gran Reserva should really mellow those tannins out, which is, Tempranillo does well with that. Back in 2000, Allen Ball had a sitcom on TV that was on the bubble. And for anyone who doesn't know, being on the bubble means that you are waiting with bated breath to see whether or not your show got picked up or whether it dies on the vine, so to speak. ah And it is a notoriously stressful time for anyone associated with a show here in Hollywood. at the time you met with, go ahead. It's it's I was gonna say it's like it's the tension of the bubble like whether it's burst whether it's not like that is why on the bubble it's like is it gonna pop am I falling through am I still here am I working on this show next year or and or am I out of work am I am I am I unemployed and now I've got a struggle to find or I've got a scramble to find what my next thing is anyways go ahead. Correct. And he ended up meeting with uh HBO head Carolyn Strauss, who pitched a soft idea about a series centering on a family-run funeral home. By the way, listeners, there's a lawsuit about the origins of this IP that's coming a bit later, so stay tuned. Fun story. And why? Because there's always a lawsuit in Hollywood. Always. Always. The idea clicked for Bell, who had spent some time in funeral homes as a child, so he went to work on a script. After the first studio readings of the script, the brass had one primary note that the script all felt a bit too safe. And in uncommon fashion, the studio asked him to dirty it up. And he did just that in order to fit into the truly ballsy television space that HBO had been carving out, as we spoke about earlier. Eventually, as the motor began to rev up on the production, the studio asked him whom he'd wanted to direct. And Ball, betting on himself, said, I think I'd like to direct it. Shockingly, yes, I said shockingly, the studio agreed. And now Dave's going to tell you why that he thinks that's not. I don't know about shocking. Ball has had just won an Academy Award for American Beauty in 1999, not for directing, admittedly, but still being able to say your new TV show was written and was the directorial debut of an Oscar winner. That's a little far from shocking anyway. and it should also be noted that Ball was, in his own words, tired of the network television grind and style. So it took a while for him to unclench and write a script that was more quote unquote fucked up. But I read in another interview elsewhere where he said the studio, the words the studio used when he turned in the first draft was if he could make the script more fucked up quote unquote, a bit too safe. So can you make it more fucked up? To which he said, absolutely yes. And was happy to break down this mental block in his head and leave network TV cleanliness behind him. Now Dallas. Work TV cleanliness. Yeah. Here's one question for you about the screenplay in particular. What did you think of it as a so-called, you love to call them pieces of literature? oh not all they aren't all but they can. How did this one work as a piece of literature to you? I think it worked well as a sort of perfect hybrid of the two. Remember, so later I'm going to get into, you know, the idea of the blueprint. Maybe we discussed it earlier. I introduced the idea of the screenplay being a blueprint versus being a piece of literature. And this, think, is sort of the perfect hybrid between the two because, uh you know, when you're reading a screenplay, there are different ways to pull yourself into the world. I'm the kind of reader who, when I'm reading, I'm imagining the uh being behind the camera. So I'm imagining being behind the camera and you're following the action. You're following the character, the interplay. So that's generally a shorthand of how to read a screenplay and see and visualize the world. So it was very easy to sort of follow the action, follow the inertia, the momentum. uh And I think as a piece of literature, it was a good read because I am a person who reads screenplays for the subtext when I'm reading. I'm reading the subtext because that's as a writer. That's kind of where you exist, you know. Otherwise, you're just writing a manual. ah And I think it does a very good job. He does a very good job. making you curious about the characters, their relationships, their potential for growth, their tensions, ah all the sort of muck of their lives that is clearly going to impede their success, their growth. So I think he does a very good job of writing in that space and allowing you to kind of see the potential, both negatively and positively for all the characters and the set pieces that he set up. So... uh And ah I had, you know, I'd watch the show. Curiously enough, I never watched the final season. uh And so at some point, I've already decided I'm going to go back and watch the show all the way through again. ah But the first season, I think, is easily some of the best television ah ever. ah You know, he delivers on that premise, a promise and the premise that he's set up in. the pilot episode, even though the pilot episode, as I said, doesn't necessarily uh turn into a solid, perfect jewel on its own. As a pilot, I think it is perfection in terms of setting up the momentum and energy of the world. Anyway, so now let's move on to talking about the finished pilot episode. And we have to begin, of course, with casting. Originally, couldn't decide if Peter Krause was right for the role of David or Nate, and eventually cemented his two leads when Michael C. Hall came across the desk, who at the time had just taken a job as the lead in his first Broadway show, Cabaret, which coincidentally was being directed by the great Sam Mendes, who, of course, directed Alan Ball's script American Beauty years earlier. The pilot was filmed in and around Los Angeles and interiors filmed on studio lots in the city. The home used for the Fisher and Sons funeral home has taken on quite a tourist second life for fans and devotees of all things Six Feet Under and The Macabre. The pilot hits screens on June 3rd, 2001 and is consistently ranked as one of the best written series in the history of the medium. uh It would go on to secure Golden Globe noms and wins for much of the cast with wins. specific to best series, best actress, and best supporting actress. This is something that it's interesting because this is one of the, probably the hardest parts about reading a script before watching a movie or a final thing. I mean, Michael C. Hall perfectly cast, yes, I cannot fault that. Perfect casting. Perfectly cast. I will also say, I'm gonna forget who the actor is, but Michael C. Hall and the only other person that I feel like was got. what this show was and what the tone was probably going forward. Like I think everyone else needed to find it a little bit, but whoever plays Rico. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Rico's great. Rico's great. Actually, a side note, uh Alan Ball cast him because Alan Ball used him in a show, I think it was a show that was on the bubble or one prior to that. It was one of the sitcoms and apparently Ball called him and said, I've written this role for you, which is kind of what you want as an actor in this town. yeah, Rico's cast great. As a matter of fact, that storyline with Rico's family ends up being lauded as this. I'm amazing sort of representation of Latin American household as a Well, because it's not specific to Latin America. Like they show them as just another family rather than it being like, this is about how distinct a Latin American family is to any other family. It's like, no, they're just they are a Latin American family. They're authentic. But it's not about the fact that they're Latin American. So people really appreciated that. But I will say. Everyone else. Almost everyone else. Frances Conroy, I actually know. um She was, she is perfect. I don't like how her character is written in the pilot. I feel like Alan Ball had not figured her out yet or what he was trying for. I think I get what he was trying for and I'm like, yes, that's a good idea. That's going to be a good character, but you haven't figured out how to write her yet. um And you're giving her too... I don't know, there's the script in this. When I was reading the script, there were so many moments where I'm like, these are the wrong beats. This is not going to read well as portrayed on screen. Then I watched the pilot. All those moments were the worst moments in the pilot, where I'm just like, yeah, it's awkward. But not in a good way, not in a fun, entertaining way, not in a, I love that this is awkward, just in a, no, these beats just don't work. They're not happening correctly. So for instance, I knew the Francis Conroy's character when he had her hear the phone and just throw the phone and start throwing everything off the counter. And I'm like, no, I get what you're going for there, but it's happening too quickly. It's happening too suddenly and it's not, and then she's just gonna be on the floor. And like, there were things that needed more beats. It needed more beats to fully come across as a real person with these quirks. And then there was a moment, like the moment I loved, I thought as written, I'm like, this could be one of the best moments of the pilot in the grocery store. When she like throws the cantaloupe down, then just collapses onto her brother. And then the guy comes like, you got to pay for the count. And she's like, fuck off. And I was just like, yes, this could be brilliant. But all the comedy, all the timing in that scene is off. Like almost all of it. Yeah, I'm not going to disagree with the fact that those moments specifically, because those those moments do stand out. And I think those I mean, they were intentional, clearly. Although there is a part of me that thinks so much. I often wish we could get directors cuts of pilots, you know I mean? Because I'm pretty sure that what he did with Francis Canter, his Conroy's character in that moment was an attempt to cement her sort of baseline emotional profile, right? You know, she's very generally very metered, very controlled, has been repressed and repressive her entire life. And then in this one moment, she has this sort of, you know, just aggressive sort of spew of emotion. But unfortunately, I can't disagree with you that in that scene, it does not seem well earned. It doesn't really register. doesn't come across like you're like it's happening you get it, but it's like it what could be I mean this should be like a momentous moment in this show in this particular episode and But it just happened so quickly and it happened. So like it just happens. Yeah it's the first five seconds of the phone call and she immediately goes there so it doesn't feel earned in terms of the character you know i can't agree can't disagree with you for that with that Well, and in the scene itself, because yes, this is all happening fast to some degree. It's the thing that opens the whole scene. So it's not quite that it's the scene itself needed more beats. And in the screenplay, I could tell it didn't have the beats. could tell that he was because he is like, like she listened to the phone, throws it throws everything off thing, then says my pot roast is ruined. And I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is this does not breathe. Yeah. uh Right, even as a comedic, even for the dark humor of it, because there is dark humor there. The pot roast is ruined, dark humor. The fact that she's flipping out the way she is, that's dark humor. But I'm like, this needs to breathe. There are moments that need to be moments for it all to come together into this properly humorous moment that is also sincere. um I think in that moment, as the right of heart of my brain, of course, is like, how would I have rewritten that or added something to that in order to kind of get to that point? And I think what was missing for me is she didn't necessarily have a point of reflection, meaning, right. She had this. You got anything? Yeah, because I did. I found it humorous, but I did find it humorous for the absurdity of the moment. I was like, OK, that's just silly. You know, I was like, OK. silly. She went from zero to 100, you know, getting this new she didn't question it. It was all very, you know, just sort of seamless in that sense. But it just didn't seem earned. And I wanted something else to happen, like something needed to either frighten her in moment or something she needed to look at something walk into the room, something that peak that sort of was a catalyst for the reaction because that news isn't a catalyst for the reaction in that way. It just isn't because it wasn't I disagree. I disagree. The news is all the all the catalysts you need. What you needed, though, was the explosiveness needs to be a re a proper. Like she listens, she hears the news, right? Then maybe something like she looks at the phone, throws it away, then picks up her cooking things just to keep making the dinner, because it's almost like that attempt to deny it. Then you pick up the spoon to keep making the dinner, whatever. throw that away. Then you throw something out, then you start throwing everything off the counter. But like that slow build up would have been like, that's the reason that because it has to like go into your nervous system. And then it's like you want to repress it and it just bubbles out and boom, you're done. And there was no bubbling. There was no attempt at suppressing it and then no bubbling out there. It was just zero to 60. And I'm like, yeah, that doesn't work. It needs a And it doesn't even need to be long. what I just described could have taken five seconds versus two, right? Or like six or eight seconds. it could have been very, but again, I could tell from reading the script that was not what Paul was imagining. Like he was envisioning this to be sudden. And I'm like, I can't buy that. And it's amazing because that is one of the, it's honestly in terms of watching me at the complete pilot, that's one of my favorite passages, favorite scenes, because it's so silly and it seems so intentional. And I do think that was his goal was for it to be jarring and atonal in that moment. so it works for me, but it doesn't work necessarily in a standardized kind of storytelling. just doesn't work. Even in the context of this pilot, even in the context of this show and this pilot and what it's trying for, it for me does not work. It doesn't fit what he's going for. It's a failed stab at what he's going for. it works wonderfully for me because it is another glimpse into that sort of dark, atonal comedy, that absurdity. uh I get it, get it, I get it. But again, you can't just call things dark and atonal as a get out of jail free card for anything. You can say, well, it's atonal, that's what it's meant to be. And I'm like, no, no, no, there's still atonal that works and there's atonal that doesn't. And you keep going back to those words as though it's like, that allows it to be different and then work regardless of the criticism. Right, but that's a matter of perspective. I'm just saying though, the fact that it's a total If I think that is atonal, right? If I think it is intentional. successfully in the right way. I'm just saying the word itself is not a get out of jail free card, I'm not using it as a get out of jail free card. Again, that's another matter of perspective. I'm saying this scene works because of his already illustrated ability to kind of imbue these moments with a sort of comedy, a sort of tension, a sort of dissonance. And this was a choice. He could have done exactly what you're saying, right? And I it a success. I'm aware it's a choice, it's just a bad choice that doesn't work. It's a good choice and it works. It's a good choice and it works. This one, the kitchen scene, the other one that again, the grocery store scene, Peter Krause or Krause? Krause. Actually, what's crazy is I've been saying Krause since I first came across this fucking show and I finally went and watched an interview and he's like, it's Krause. It's okay, fine. right. Okay. be German, you asshole. Fine. Krause or Austrian. I actually have no idea. Anyway, Peter Krause, like I feel like he was the weakest link for me in the pilot episode. I feel like he wasn't that he didn't have a grip, like even when he explodes in the growth, like uh I feel like he did not have a grip on Alan Ball's wanting. And again, I feel like the kitchen scene doesn't work for me personally either, but even less so. Whenever Krause had to go from wry and chilled to a tiny bit angry or explosive, it always read false. It was always like, and now Ball's like, and now you shout this line. And I'm like, yeah, but that, like, no. I feel like this, again, these characters weren't reading. So many outside of Michael C. Hall and Rico, the characters just weren't reading right yet for me. They were all like, could see the direction. I could see the script demanding things that didn't have the beats they needed to deliver it and to convince me that they were doing it in a way that was, um I wanna get past things like just good and bad, but um holistic in the vision of what this show is supposed to be like just wasn't there yet. And everyone was just like, now I say it quietly, now I say it. Riley. Now I say it angrily. And I'm just like, gah, gah, This isn't quite happening. That is one of my, uh how to say that. I actually think it might've been Ball's network background. This might've been a little bit, he was still needed to find ways to shed. I can't disagree with that because- sitcom deliveries, right? And so they're very, they're very like, and now I'm angry. Exactly. No, I do it, I'm not here. And I'm like, ooh, maybe he needed a little time to get it two types of expression. Right. And the timing of how to deliver these changes in emotion. in a way that was going, or maybe the actors just needed to get comfortable enough to find their own way through and not just take Alan Ball's direction. Whatever it was, as a pilot, there was so much where I'm like, everything's a little, it's weird because the show wants to be subdued. And like you say, atonal. And yet the histrionic elements of it just weren't, and I imagine there is a way in the very near future where they're going to find that intersection and make it work. But this episode, just had, they hadn't yet. And maybe Rico reads well to me because he didn't have any real emotional element yet. He didn't have to do that in this show, so he got to get the tone. But I feel like the actor who played Rico was like, I know what this is. And he like, he got the show and everyone else is still kind of, and Michael C. Hall got to be this very, I will say his boyfriend was well cast too and he was delivering everything just right um as well. um One difference between the screenplay and the show that I found interesting is that they didn't make it about jumping each other's bones in the passionate scene. They dialed back that. was like, okay, curious, interesting. oh I'm going going to a bit of a departure here. So one thing about that relationship is, you know, they've gone on record as saying, know, ball himself is gay, of course. And the relationship between Michael and his boyfriend or David and his partner, they actually treated it like the primary romantic relationship. And in fact, the studio gave notes to ball to say that they needed. what's his names, that Peter Krause is relationship to be as sexy ah as David's relationship, because their relationship is very sensual. So you know, unquote, sexy. That's what you know, that's what the student right to sexy, of course. um And you know, the show won lots of awards from GLAAD media and sort of the treatment of this relationship being gay as a primary sort of, you know, stable relationship. And uh it's very curious. I was I was glad to see how that played out over uh the series. But back to your notes about Peter Krause and the presentation in this pilot, I cannot disagree that it feels like the moments of dissonance, the moments of WTF, the moments of wait, what? Why that choice are squarely an issue of direction. I think it's just like we were talking about earlier him finding his seed legs, truly, truly finding he's had some great choices. And I think they will open they do open up later on. But you're right in the pilot. Some of them just don't. They don't congeal they don't come together. They don't they aren't earned. I mean, that's what it is. That's actually what ultimately what it is they aren't earned in the scene. And certain terms of the structure and the math of the scenes. ah But They are fun, passively fun. Particularly that kitchen scene for me. I love that shit though. I'm like, all right, that's delusional. It's too that like this is a show because it was such a formative show for American television coming into its premium television years, like coming to it now after all this premium television has just inundated us to the point where you can't even keep up with it anymore. Like this show just feels like an artifact a little bit um where I'm just like, huh, all right. I mean, like, yeah, that's kind of where we were in the late 90s, early 00s. I can see this. But is it working working for me at least in the pilot? Not yet. Yeah, yeah, I get that. Alright, we are up to. Oh yeah, let's um, let's do let's get a bit of information on the lawsuit here real quick Dave. Yeah, this is just a fun fact. But one thing that I when I'm looking up this show, because again, I've never seen the show, I knew nothing about it. So looking it up, I did want to mention that there was uh after Six Feet Under aired its pilot episode and immediate copyright infringement case followed suit. So plaintiff Gwen O'Donnell in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles against Time Warner Entertainment claims she wrote a screenplay titled The Funk Parlor, which great title. which she registered with the WGA in February 1998, plaintiff Funky Films made the screenplay into an indie feature that at the time was in the final stages of post-production. According to the complaint, Chris Albrecht, then HBO's head of original programming, had access to O'Donnell's script in the summer of 1999. Within months, HBO approached Alan Ball about creating a show set in a funeral parlor. The complain alleges that Six Feet Under is a blatant ripoff of the funk parlor in addition to claiming that the setting, characters, and themes are similar. Here's kind of the worst part. It enumerates numerous specific similarities. They include that the family lives in the funeral home. The story begins with the untimely death of the family patriarch. The younger brother is gay. The father leaves the brothers the business. There is a younger, smart-mouthed female teenager in the family. It's about the prodigal son coming home and reclaiming his peace to that. Whew. I mean, it is the entire structure of this fucking pilot. It's a little wow. So the judge ruled in favor of the producers. But I did want to notice, I did want to note that from an article in the Harvard Law Blog, quote, it's possible to borrow a lot of elements from another work and still avoid infringement. Both shows involve family run funeral parlors where the father dies and a strange brother returns home to run and save the business. However, the specifics of how the two works were adapted and implemented these plot elements diverged wildly and thus prevented six feet under from infringing. However, what I did want to point out here is that according to Alan Ball at one point, he did say that of course, Carolyn Strauss, the HBO producer approached him and was like, I've always had this idea to do a show set in a funeral home. The fact that all these other elements are so similar makes it really does seem like they probably the executives at HBO probably spoon fed Alan Ball the structure of this family. Allegedly, but likely they were like, want characters like A, B and C. And I'm sure Alan Ball is like, OK, yeah, cool, cool, cool. And then when and of course, he wrote his own version of all of that because Alan Ball had never read the Funk Parlor. He had never read that screenplay. But the executives essentially spoon feeding him everything the screenplay was just someone else write it. And just to just for everyone to know that this does not constitute infringement. So be careful out there. Someone can take and your idea is never going to be original enough. Here's the key, guys. That's so true, Dave. Your idea is never going to be the thing that wins you the lawsuit. Your execution will. the but even worse, like even the like I created a family of six different characters. They can take the archetypes of all six of those characters, put it in the same fucking idea. And even that's not specific enough if they just write another script from scratch based on that. So an interesting thing to note. That's all I wanted to say on. Okay, sweet. All right, so let's veer into some real quick moments and key scenes, just three or so, and get some hot takes. uh The first is the actual very first scene of the script. It's a device that reappears. It's peppered throughout. And actually it becomes, I will say, the use in the pilot episode is not fully baked, but further on in the series, they are. Just some of those are just phenomenal the way they use it. Another thing you'll see as you watch this series is the first the beginning of each episode involves the death of a subject who's being buried in the funeral home that day. And so those scenes get so wonderfully created like I'm telling you some of the best work of this entire series is done in those introductory scenes that follow in this series. So real quick Dave, what did you think of? uh And just to sort of reacquaint everybody with what I'm talking about, ah the very first scene is basically a hyper stylized television commercial for a showroom new hearse model. Of course, it's targeted directly towards those in the funeral home business. On one hand, the product is a necessary item for the most vulnerable and emotional times in our lives, but it's also a sleek and sexy new item from the perspective of people in the actual business, which again, as we said, is sort of a device that reappears. So I'm curious, Dave, what did you think about that device? ah How it was executed how it was used was it annoying? What about? Hated it, hated it, it, hated it. Because it's such an easy go-to device for satire and black comedy. It's that thing of like, it's an easy dig on capitalism. It's an easy dig without really saying anything that interesting about it. Now, the show is a lot about how our, one of the things the pilot, my favorite part of the pilot actually. is how it tries to show how Americans in specific have a terrible relationship with death and grief. And that is true. I like that. I get why these devices are there, but they're a little cheap and easy and lazy, a little mostly unnecessary. I feel like at least in this episode and maybe this continues throughout the the series, I don't know. But if they do, maybe they find a better way to connect them to the events in the episode. These are really not terribly connected too much. The hearse a little bit, but for the most part, yeah, it's one of those things like it's the same thing you'd expect to see in any dystopian satire type type story or whatever. And I don't know. And again, this was bad. This is way the fuck back in the 90s. No, it was maybe maybe by now. I'm just like, oh, my God. Yeah, that's like maybe back then it was a little more a little more interesting, a little more unique. I can I'd really have to dig through the history of how often we've used and abused this type of device. But watching it now in twenty twenty five, I was like it was a little bit of a eye roll for me. Alright, alright. And what do you have? Do you have the same feeling about the second time it's used when they use the sand shaker? You the dust dirt to dirt. And I know I know as they go on they get more and more outlandish into like dancing and like a whole song But again, I'm like it's so on the nose and it's such a overused device to be on the nose about these things to show that you're satirical and funny and maybe even back then audiences needed those breaks as well for the subject matter and things like that so the shows about like we don't talk about death we don't have a good relationship with it the way we do funerals are if you really think about it is dysfunctional and not a commentary on Americans' relationship to death, like truly. I appreciate everything the show wants to be and apparently achieves and becomes. I hold out, I reserve all judgment of the show on the whole, because I haven't watched it yet. um And again, pilots are often not the best representation of anything. Going back to, even if you liked it the first time, when you go back to it after loving the show all the way through, you go back to the pilot and you're like, wait, I liked this? Holy shit, it's bad. And, but I feel like this one for me, I'm like, no. I it's bad from the get-go. I'm seeing it as bad right from the get-go. But at the same time, I like everything the show wants to be and is trying to be. I think it's all a very good idea and a very good message and topic and blah, And the next scene, the next scene is the viewing of the body scene. Now, this scene is a turning point for the characters as it's the first time we see them living out this sort of hellish existence of being both the funeral directors and the grieving family in the same moment, you know, in their own home, having to receive empty emotions, strangers, relations, blah, blah, blah. This, if I'm honest, is a nightmare fucking scenario for me. It's also hilarious because it's so uncomfortable. You are Michael Seehall. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Alright, okay, yeah, no, you're right. You're right. Yeah, no, in terms of like you would not want to show any emotion. You would give yourself any excuse not to show any emotion even no matter how much you were feeling. Okay, fine, whatever. uh And uh next, I'm curious about the final scene. Do have any thoughts on that final scene? uh Nate Jr. basically stands at a bus stop as the ghost of his father boards a bus. That's the whole, you know, wrap up of the emotional arc. Okay, yes, his father boarding the bus and waving, I thought was great. And then, here's the thing, here's the thing, that part I liked, then it goes full American beauty, with him staring into the eyes of everyone that passes him. I fucking hated that. I was like, this is so unnecessary, means nothing, I'm not even sure what it's trying to do. It's so American So American Beauty that I'm like I'm like, okay This is this is the stuff that hasn't aged well in American Beauty and now it's here and it isn't aging well either um So I hated that part. I when it comes to the end the differences in the ending to Where his mom's just like why don't you hang around for a little while and then he just does and then he and Brenda are suddenly an item he did they don't have to go like prove anything else to themselves as Like so much about the way they change the ending. You can tell it happened a little too last minute and they couldn't come up with good enough ways to make it happen. That. Yeah, I did not. The script was far superior in giving re motivations and reasons and leaving these characters in a place where there was more to come. And this was such a tidy little fucking bow that doesn't even make sense in how it becomes a tidy bow. It just they're just like Uh, okay. Type type type type type new line for you. Say you're staying for no reason whatsoever. Cool. Now now it's done in a nice tidy bow. And I'm like, wow. It's so funny you say that because in so many, uh again, this has been 24 years now and like around 15 year mark and the 20 year mark, everybody does retrospectives. And so I went back and watched a bunch of the old retrospectives and uh a number of people from the cast and crew and production teams say the same thing when they read the script and watch the pilot for the first time. Coincidentally, they thought it felt like a very nice little short film and I can, I get that, but it has a lot to do with that nice, tidy bow at the end for me. It's like, okay, all right. I really did feel like I did not have to come back and watch episode two. And that's a bit of that. That was a bit of a dumb thing, I think, for a TV, a serialized TV show to do. Like, what? Why? um And the only reason I jumped into episode two is because I knew what the ending of the script was. And so I'm like, and then I saw the title of episode two was like the will or last will and testament or something like that. I'm like, OK, well, that's they obviously bumped it to that. But the reading of the will is what makes Nate stay. So what I would have liked is that Nate's planning to leave after the reading of the will. That'll be tomorrow. know, him and Brenda are still like, he's not sure what he's going to do because he's not sticking around. Like, leave it on like leave things open a little bit. Like it was weird the way what they how they chose to change things. That might have been the only like I could see this executive note. Like for some reason, executives were like, we need this to because maybe it's because it's about death. We can't leave people on a negative note. It's all gotta be a happy ending. Maybe, yeah, that's the only thing I can think of, because I'm like, why this change? This is weird, because it's a pilot. You know it's gonna continue. Like, why the tiny bow? This is bizarre. And it doesn't make any sense. I agree. And I will say my last my last actual sort of note. ah Because I've seen the first the I guess I should talk about the whole of the first season because I've seen the entire first season and every season until the fifth season. The relationship between Brenda and Nate in the pilot irks the absolute. Did you like it better in the script? Because I liked it better in the script, I did not enjoy it as much in the actual episode. You know, I definitely liked it more in the script and I think it has a lot to do. We go back to this. It's the direction, the way Nate's character, particularly the scene. If you remember the scene after the funeral where they're walking through the cemetery and she gives him his number, uh his performance direction, you know, the subtext, which I look forward to the stuff that's not on the page, stuff that the actor gives you on celluloid. It is so... It is antithetical to any fucking thing that should be happening in that moment. just drives me crazy. Every time I... I do think I really liked the Brenda Nate relationship as an idea in the script. I like how it started. I like how it kinda kept going at first. But I do think that this was something, even in writing it, Ball did not have a grip on how to write a relationship like this or how to write it happening, how to write it for these two people to come together and then come back together. Some of the dialogue and the way they got quirky with each other just didn't ring true. It was just like, uh is there is no actually goes back to what you're talking about what we were talking about earlier about those moments when the grocery store and I would add this one to that actually that list and the mom's moment in the kitchen. It is another moment that none of the emotional reaction necessarily feels earned at all. Yeah. At the in the moment. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I agree with you in that I had big problems with her. I liked the idea of it. It was my it was my favorite part of the script, technically in a way, because I'm like, I want to see because even though you say there's these are four protagonists, the pilot script does have Nate as the protagonist more than the others. Still, it's really zeroing in on. Yeah. That's for sure. um I mean, even in the pilot, like he's plainly our anchor. He's our every man and supposedly, you know, for lack of anyone else. And they're spending more time with him than anyone else on their own. Like we see more of him on the sidelines, whereas everyone else, it's only in the plot moving moments that we get to spend any time with them. A little bit of Michael C. Hall in this one, but not as much. I'm assuming yes, as the show goes on, obviously everyone gets more time. uh to shine and to stand on their own and have their episodes and things like that. But this episode, it was Nate. And so his relationship with Brenda, I'm not saying I like it. I'm just saying it was it was like what was plainly being offered. And so the relationship between Brenda and Nate, I'm like, this is our romance. And I don't know what it is. I'm definitely in a. in my like in the fall guy the romance was the thing that really like I'm like I'm like I'm getting teary-eyed like I love the romance stories right now I'm all like I'm dialing into them I feel like that's not something I do 24-7 all the time all my life but I'm in a phase right now where the romance and any given like even the romance with Michael C Hall and his boyfriend I was like yeah yeah okay I'm here for it we just don't get that much of it you know in the screenplay um but we get a lot more Brenda and Nate. And so I really wanted to, like, I care, but then every interaction with them was just off. It seems they felt force. Yeah. All of it. In the writing it was forced. So it's like, don't blame the I mean, again, I feel like the actors were finding their way in this pilot script. So they're not there yet. I read interviews with Rachel Griffith, the lady who plays Brenda. Yeah. And she was like, at the time, she's like, I had such a crush on Peter Krause that like I was nervous around him. and she's Australian. So she's not even doing this in her in her. She's the girl from Muriel's wedding. Yeah. So she's not doing this in her native accent. She's nervous around her co-star. Had a big crush on him. She's like, she's like, initially, I just kept blushing every time we had to do a scene together. But then there's these lines where she has she's playing it weirdly cool, yet weirdly interested, yet weirdly this. Again, I feel like Ball was still trying to find like all these characters are like that atonal thing is like They're characters of contradictions. They're characters trying to be more than one thing in every single moment. And I feel like everyone just needs more time to figure out how that's really supposed to work. And this pilot, they're just not there yet. And it's just being like, I see what you're going for. I think I truly do. I'm just not feeling it in this pilot. Yeah. Yeah, sweet, fantastic. so overall, which one did you? You preferred the script, right? You prefer. You prefer the script. The script had more potential and the pilot I felt left unrealized too many things that I felt that I could tell. I'm like, ooh, this is gonna be a tough scene. If they just do it the way the script is doing it, almost like to the beat the script has, it's not gonna work. And scene for scene, Allen Ball got to do exactly what he wrote because it was his script and plainly this is what he was envisioning. And I'm like, this is where I know Allen Ball at one point said this was like, the development of the script was a charmed or blessed or I forget the word he used, And I'm like, no, he needed notes, man. He needed someone to actually give him notes. think he eventually gets them. Get some. He definitely eventually get some. But I preferred the pilot even though I the script was a great. It was a good script. It's a good script. It's a good script. It's you know there's great shit on the volume is great stuff to play with. There's great margins. There's good characters, good intent, good themes, great set pieces backdrops, all the ticks the boxes. I think what the. pilot does is sort of expand those notions and give us kind of a baseline to imagine where this could go. Because I enjoy those dissonant moments. I enjoy that confusion. I enjoy the things that don't necessarily resolve. ah I just got so much more of that from the script itself. Hmm, yeah, I got it from the script as well. But seeing what some of the characters, the choices in the moment, even the directorial style, like seeing Alan Ball kind of, you know, then I didn't necessarily know that he was finding his sea legs, but everything did seem then feel everything did sort of feel very new isn't the right word. But it was like, okay, I'm in this thing with this guy. You know what I mean? Like, okay, let's see what And again, it was very new for the time for that. That's actually true. That's actually true. You're right. true. It was new for him. It was new for this. Yeah, you're right. That's actually true. New for American public. mean, this was uh the beginning, still the early days of this whole new wave of TV. uh yeah, in context, I can see why this show is going to take off. And I imagine it's going to get a lot, uh it's going to come together so much better, like all TV shows do. That's true. But in this one, I saw more potential on the page than what was ultimately shot and performed. I just want to see that get better. Whereas the script, I'm like, this needs the right performances. It's got flaws. But um yeah, the the ventrification, the choice, the winemaking choices in this show, I'm like, it needed more hands on choices. And I feel like he let it ride. It needed an old and older wise vintner to come in and say, there young kid, let me show you a few things here. someone who was a grape grower who was so in love with the grapes he grew. He was like, make a natural wine, just let it ride. And it's like, no, a few more hands on decisions could have been better. Let's some structure to this this beautiful sort of raw thing you got here buddy. Anyway, so to wrap up real quick, uh I think what this illustrates almost as well as any pilot I've ever read is the difference between blueprint and the finished product. How on the page it doesn't there is necessarily seeing or paint vivid pictures. But on screen when life is given to the space between the margins, it kind of blossoms comes to life and gives you. sense of where it could go and ultimately my pairing changes slightly from the pure temp and I chose the bodega de Hassa de los con amigos Claret from the Del Duero Spain region 2021 at its core. is a temp. I think it's a I think it is a 4060 blend. 4060. It's usually a 30. should, the Claret should hover around 30 generally. Okay. m And what's a Claret? So the Claret is basically it's you're to get a blend or Claret. Claret they say this is a Spanish blend. You're going to get a blend between the white grapes and your red grapes. uh Generally the tradition is in Spain you get a glut of white grapes uh or sorry a what is it get a short of white grapes and then you have to stretch that with some of your red grapes and you end up getting this sort of blend, which is kind of close to a rose in many ways. uh Generally, that's how they're thought of. uh And yeah, it's it's tasty. The tannins are uh curiously smooth. Is that how I made it? a lot of white grape in there. So that's going to give that's going to really lighten that sort of the dark of the tempera neo, the tannic structure of the tempera neo. then that especially if it's 60 40, that's 40 % white wine, which has no tannic structure to speak of. So that's going to truly lighten it because white wine has no skin contact, right? And all the tannins come from the skins. And this is apparently from what I could find on this wine. This is the there's only one white grape used in this wine, which is the a bio mayor. Right. And the Abio Mayor was the very first white grape to be approved of use in the Rivero del Duero DO. So and it's not it's a hybrid of they've done DNA testing. found one grape that parented it. They can't find the other one. They can't figure out what the other one is. But it is in Spain and it's not anywhere else. So it is a so presumably a crossing of a grape called Heben H-E-B-E-N. and an unknown variety and native even this crossing is native to Spain, believe so that that is temper Neo and a bio mayor. Check out some Clarets, guys. Amen. All right. So for me, I did and in that similar light versus dark, right. That was really where my brain was. I mentioned that earlier how I'm like, this is they're injecting light, a kind of light heartedness into very serious, very, you know, dark subject matter. So I did a wine that is, uh you know, kind of like a Claret where a true blue, red and white blend is not something you find that often these days anymore. Even things that call themselves Claret are not actually better. They're the white. If you ever get like an old school because like Chianti's used to be white and red together. They've now outlawed white wine being blended into counties anymore. So you find these less and less, which is I think dumb because they're so good. Absolutely. You get a true blue Claret like white wine blend, man. They work magic. um But I did not do one. that's a Claret, but I did do something else that's kind of rare to find. So this wine here, this is the Halsmark S22 Solera Red Blend. All right, from Bergenland, Austria. Now you'll see this is the S22, and then it's got all these other dates. These are all the years that are in the Solera on this one bottle of wine. So this says it's the S22, 21, 20. 1918, 17, 16, 14, and 12. So no 13, no 15, but all the other years are together. in the range. was yes, a 10 year range, 2012. 22 to 12. So but obviously it began in 2012. Right. And then probably they skipped the 13 because they were that first year was still aging. That was the youngest, right? Maybe they didn't even know they were going to make a solaris style wine at that point. So they're like they waited. And then they're like, No, this needs something else dumped to the 14 in there. you know, kind of a thing. Then waited and skipped the 15 and then dumped the 16 in there and so on and so forth. Now, the way a Solera system works, Solera is something that you will find with, there are some styles of wine that always use Solera, like Sherry. And then I believe Madeira as well is also a Solera style wine. And what Solera is, it's what we would call non-vintage because it's not a single vintage of wine. But the reason you called Solera rather than non-vintage is because there's so many vintages and you keep adding the the latest vintage. You never stop. So how it works, it's crazy. So how it works, you have these like tiers of barrels and you start with one barrel and it's like, this is our first year, 2012, right? Then you drain half that barrel into another row of barrels and fill the remit, the previous barrels back up to the top with the new vintage. And then you continue to do this. You keep dropping and dropping and dropping until you have like three, usually three tiers of barrels. And the oldest wine is on the bottom and the youngest is on the top. And then you drain half of the bottom row of barrels to bottle every year. Then drain the middle stuff into the lower tier that still has half of the oldest still in them. And then the top you drain into the middle, half of it. And then you fill the, then the youngest, this year's wine, you put in top off that top one. So you're all, mixing and matching and mixing and matching and mixing and matching. And then that bottom part, whatever's in that bottom part given you always drain half and then leave the other half. So you're always, there's always that oldest part hanging around in that solaris system. This may not work forever. It does work forever in oxidized wine, like Sherry and Madeira. Because that stuff, it's just the old stuff. There are solar systems that started in the 1920s, some of them in the 1800s, still going to this day. And it's never stopped. It's still- To any sort of, you know, macro home wine uh making, it would probably just be something like that. I'd have my own- ...room. Weird stacks. And if you can't picture what I'm talking about in the solar system with the tiers, go Google that and you'll get a diagram. It's hard. It's hard to picture. But this one, this is actually a dry, not a dessert wine. It's not oxidized. It's just a dry, fine red wine. So this is a rare thing. You do not see Solera in just a dry, whiter red wine, pretty much ever. So this was an interesting one, but it's got the depth and age and that those old dark, the raisiny flavors, the leathery, tobacco, woodsy, earthy flavors of older wine. This is 10-year-old wine, but then lifted by that youthful wine that keeps going in there. And now technically, acidity doesn't go anywhere when you age. Acidity is acidity. It's always the same no matter how old the wine gets. But nevertheless, so you're not being lifted technically by acidity. you're getting vintage. Each year, the vintage is going to be a little different. So maybe some of yours more acidic than others. Some of yours were more jammy than others. It's all coming together in this in this blend. And then that age is going to mellow certain parts of it. But then the youthful wine gets in there and gives it that bigger again, gives it that roughness gives it a touch of roughness then blended with that smoothness. then the smoothness is also going to be that maturity and that but then you also have the younger stuff, which is just loud mouthed and sharp. and you know, but also fruity and lively. And so it's that perfect blend of those two things just constantly churning through. And that's why I had to do the Solera on this because this is a show and a story where that's what it's about is blending all these different contradictions together and making it the same. Yeah, I like that choice. I'm going have to go and try that. Yes. and it's a blend, by the way, of Blau-Frankish Rotberger and Blau-Burgunder, which is Quinoa. In Austria, that's what they call it. Blau-Burgunder. Alright folks! Thank you or Austrian or Austrian because there's another name for Pinot noir in German I'm gonna forget it now, but um Anyway, that's what makes wine fun guys different name for every grape in every country. Yay Sometimes just different sections of the same country like Italy. They have different names for the same grape in different parts of Italy Fuck those guys anyway Okay. This has been the very first episode of Vintrification where we compare the pilot script of Six Feet Under to the finished pilot episode. Go watch it. It is on HBO Max. You can watch it at any time if you subscribe to Max. And I will probably check out more of the show as we go. I'm curious about it. It's definitely been a show that's been on my radar for a long time. But in any event. Thanks for listening, we'll be back in one week with another wine and entertainment pairing. Poyol of entertainment! Ciao for now, drink something nice, watch something nice, read something nice, listen to something nice. Life is short man, so get out there, experience. Ciao ciao! the world's ending to argue it, but there may be a disagreement, Dave. Note that, guys. You know what he just said? We'll have to argue this later. Either now or later is what I'm saying. We'll have to later if we don't do it now, but-