CULTURE CURRENT-Chuck Lorre on his reign as the ‘King of Sitcoms’

Laughter, Chuck Lorre is keen to point out, is not a voluntary act. It is not something we choose, but something that happens to us, like an unexpected gift. Lorre knows something about making it happen. Dubbed the “King ​of Sitcoms,” he has spent decades making audiences laugh, from his early work as a writer on the hit comedy “Roseanne” to creating shows, including “The Big Bang Theory,” “Two and a Half Men,” “Mom,” and “Mike & ​Molly.”

In his newly released memoir, “Sitcom,” Lorre turns that comic instinct on his own life, writing candidly about his missteps, while also looking ‌back at ​the television successes and creative battles that shaped his career. Speaking with Reuters from Los Angeles, he discusses why character is key to great comedy, what he learned from getting things wrong, and why he’s optimistic about the TV industry’s future.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. The memoir is very funny despite tackling difficult subjects, from failed marriages to addiction and Scientology. What made you want to open up about them now?

From the outset, I was trying to write it as if I was having a conversation with somebody. Rather than reporting or reiterating stuff, I was trying to write it as if I ‌was talking to the audience or talking to a person; more conversational as opposed to you know, being locked up in the prose of it all. I've been talking about these crazy chapters of my life for a long time and dear friend nudged me for at least two years to start writing it down. And once I started writing it down, I was quite pleasantly surprised. I realized it was cathartic. It was it was a little bit of therapy for me.

Having finished the darned thing, what became really clear was all the missteps I've made in my life were all necessary for me to arrive at where I am, and I am deeply grateful for where I am. So the path may have been bumpy, but that's what was required. What most excites you about television right now, and what terrifies you?

There's plenty in this world that ‌is terrifying, but I wouldn't put TV in that category. Actually, I'm an optimist about how the business is changing. I've heard people complain that there's too many choices. And to me that's like, really? Does that mean when you walk into a supermarket, you complain that there's too many choices? That's got to be a good thing. When I came up in this in television, there was three ‌and a half networks. Fox was just starting. And that was it. If those three said no, it's simply not going to happen. Now there's I don't know how many platforms capable of helping a writer (or) performer create something and perhaps get it seen by a legitimate audience.

Of all the shows you’ve created, which felt most miraculous? Probably Big Bang. I mean, the first pilot was an abject failure, with the exception of (co-stars) Johnny Galecki and Jim Parsons. I had to wrap my head around the fact that it was poorly written and, when we were given another opportunity one year later, we got a chance to write a better pilot. You don't get do-overs in this business, but we did.

I didn't understand what we were creating till we created it. I didn't understand how viscerally the audience was going to connect with these outliers, these brilliant but incompetent characters. What makes a great comedy?

It's really very simple. It's about characters. Well-designed, thought out characters, portrayed by the right actor. I adored "Cheers" and "Seinfeld" and "Everybody Loves Raymond," "Archie Bunker," Norman Lear's stuff. I wasn't watching ⁠for the plot. The storytelling ​of it was secondary. It was these extraordinary characters that I loved and I wanted to see them every ⁠week. And that's how I've always approached creating television shows. Character, character, character.

I don't think I could sit here and remember one storyline for "Cheers," but I never missed an episode because I wanted to see those characters. Those characters made me laugh. And I think that's the secret sauce for comedy. Obviously, when you work in the drama world, plotting is an entirely different thing. You're watching for the adventure, the hero's journey. That's a story. But even in that world, which I know very little about, I'm ⁠thinking about character.

Going back to the importance of casting, you write about the resistance you faced casting Melissa McCarthy in “Mike & Molly,” with one network executive pushing for a slimmer actress. How much has the industry changed, and how did you learn which battles were worth fighting? Well, the good news is, because I've had some success, I don't have that many battles anymore. But it took a long time for me to fight for who I believed in as opposed to ​being a good soldier and taking direction. I learned the hard way that when you do what you're told to do by others and you fail, it's your failure. It's not theirs. At a certain point, I started to dig my heels in and I think first and most formidably (was) with Jon Cryer. I talk about how much resistance I got from CBS ⁠to cast Jon in "Two and a Half Men" and then Melissa McCarthy.

Here was a generational talent and it was "over my dead body" kind of casting. And I went, "Fine, well, produce a dead body because we're going over it." I guess what I'm trying to say is, it took me a while to find the courage to fight these fights. I didn't have it in the beginning. I was too frightened about being tossed aside and sent home. How concerned are you about AI in the writers’ room? Are the protections won in ⁠the 2023 ​writers’ strike enough?

There's plenty of reason to be concerned about this technology. Television would be the least of it, I would think. Why is that?

I just think, if we're going to prioritize our concerns, for me AI is concerning in that it could topple civilization, not take away jobs on sitcoms, not that that's not important. But creating an intelligence that so wildly surpasses human intelligence is an incredibly risky endeavor. Look what we've done as the apex predator on this planet. Imagine what would happen if there was an apex-apex predator that viewed us the way we view insects. That scares me. Do you expect to see more shows tapping into those fears?

We did an episode on "Stuart Fails to Save the Universe" with an AI overlord that has shock collars around everyone so when they get angry or contentious and asocial, they're ⁠shocked into submission. You write that good TV writing starts with reading good writing. What happens to television if people are reading less?

I really love words. I love the meaning of words, the sound of words, the music of words. And comedy, from my perspective, is really absolutely correct use of words to cause a response; to cause laughter. And laughter happens to you. Real laughter is involuntary. It ⁠should surprise the laugher. And that's a result of both words and images. I guess I could be concerned ⁠about a future where words become less relevant because they're my favorite things. Finally, some quick-fire questions. If you had to cast someone to portray you, who would you insist on?

Idris Elba. No? Maybe not. (laughs) Why would you even ask that question? Are we going to make a movie out of the book? You never know! If you could revisit one of your shows, which would it be?

"Dharma and Greg." I've always felt a profound regret for having left. There was so much more to explore, but I didn't know how. What’s your comfort watch?

I really am drawn to dramas. I like to watch what I don't do. ‌I love "Slow Horses" and "Furious." "Lucky" was another thing I saw and really ‌enjoyed. "The Diplomat" is (also) terrific.

As far as current comedies are concerned, if I want to laugh, I watch John Oliver and Jon Stewart. They absolutely know how to make me laugh out loud. The perspectives expressed in Culture ​Current are the subject’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Reuters News.

(Editing by Aurora Ellis)