Martha Nochimson’s Moonlighting Book Review

REVIEW by Martha P. Nochimson of  Moonlighting, An Oral History, by Scott Ryan.  Fayetteville Mafia Press, 2021.  

Author of Screen Couple Chemistry: The Power of 2, Television Rewired.

Everyone knows—and says—that television is a collaborative medium.  But let’s be honest, folks.  We experience, talk about, and remember that most collaborative of television entertainments, the serial, as if it were as unified in nature as the novel, the closest we ever get to a fictional world that emerges from a single imagination.  Getting beyond the cliché to a meaningful encounter with the many individuals it takes to produce a series requires a vivid, engaging, comprehensive production history, and, alas, they are rare.  Writing such a production history demands a singular talent for detail, an even more unique ability to stand back and let the facts speak for themselves, and that wild, almost mythic, unicorn:  ACCESS.  Access.  It is essential to locate and speak with a very large sampling of the members of the series production team.  Happily, all these requisites grace Scott Ryan’s Moonlighting, An Oral History

Ryan has put together a rich collection of witnesses to the five season saga that was the ABC television series Moonlighting (1985-1989), no mean feat, since as with most production histories, this one has come into existence long after the show stopped producing new episodes.  Not only has he located members of the cast and crew, now dispersed to the four corners of the world, but, out of the totality of the production team, which after many years of creative collaboration was the size of a small country, he has had the talent and good luck to have corralled the select citizens who have actual, first hand juicy knowledge.  In his oral history, you will encounter the memories of the creator, the stars, and the many key collaborators who are responsible for one of the benchmarks of television history.  Against all odds, after almost three decades, they remember.  And Ryan has asked all the right questions.

Either you have memories of Moonlighting, or you should learn about it now.  It is crucial television.  The madcap saga of Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) and David Addison (Bruce Willis), created by wild and unconventional Glenn Gordon Caron; it was both an against-all-odds raging success and one of the most troubled productions ever to blaze a shimmering the path through the television heavens.  Dazzlingly imaginative, it not only rode the cresting wave of mid-1980’s feminism, it gave it intensity and direction.  Some of us remember that once upon a time the mass media were unable to conceive of a woman who was competent, strong, and sexual all at the same time.  Moonlighting supplied a new template.  Maddie, played by the dream girl of the era, Cybill Shepherd, was all that and a bag of chips.  Topped by a cloud of golden hair, she was no dumb blonde. She was a powerhouse.  Some of us also remember the days when Bruce Willis was an uncredited extra in short movies and an episode of Miami Vice.  Moonlighting made his career take flight; David Addison was his breakout role.  It established him as a major presence in the media and his fearless, wiseguy persona as a new masculine model.  

Moonlighting also had a new take on the attraction of opposites.  Neither the story of the female ditz and the serious guy, as in Born Yesterday, nor the combustion of liberal woman colliding with conservative man, as in Adam’s Rib; Moonlighting was the erratic, erotic two step of gendered power.  Maddie was a sophisticated, elegant and successful former model whose business manager had absconded with her fortune leaving her with only her tax write off, a down at heels detective agency with which she had no previous acquaintance.  David was the somewhat mangy agency detective, street smart and wise cracking, a complete stranger.  In Maddie’s eyes, very strange indeed.  Their accidental meeting made them into a heterosexual buddy pair; an affirmation of the ordinary savvy guy and the exceptional woman.  The series was filled with electricity, fun, witty dialogue, and sexual tension.  

The chorus of voices that sing from the pages of Ryan’s oral history capture the initial excitement, often amounting to delirium, of the people making the incandescent series, and the pain and sorrow of the jagged creative and personal discord that tore it apart and doomed it.  Ryan makes it possible for us to hear from Caron, Willis, and Shepherd, many key writers and directors, and Allyce Beasley and Curtis Armstrong, two sweetly creative mainstays of the supporting cast.  I will trust you to get this wonderful book, and delve into its pages to discover from multiple perspectives the ironic details of the behind the scenes machismo of this onscreen feminist fantasy.  It will make you privy to the details of the early hopes and elation when the series began; the mutiny that ejected Caron from his elevated position of showrunner when the seas got very turbulent;  and the courage, dedication, and bewilderment of those who kept the show lively and afloat through its very stormy voyage.  It’s a three dimensional, surround sound experience.  

And it has a point.  Scott Ryan achieves a critical breakthrough as a result of all the behind the camera information he has amassed.   His work mounts a challenge to the false public discourse about the problems that haunted the saga of Maddie and David, providing a map and a flashlight to guide us past some very hasty and flawed conclusions.  The brotherhood of entertainment journalists of the time—and it was a boys’ club–proclaimed that the reason Moonlighting was cancelled prematurely had to do with the mismanagement of the sexual tension built up between odd couple David and Maddie.  The group wisdom became that it was a strategic miscalculation for Caron to give the audience a literal climax to David and Maddie’s mutual desire in a rip roaring sex scene that propelled them wildly down a staircase.  According to the brotherhood, Caron should have prolonged the longing ad infinitum. Never mind that Shepherd and Willis had given America the fourth of July moment it was waiting for.  Never mind that the moment met all expectations and then some.  (There’s some interesting information in the oral history about how dangerous the scene proved to be for Willis and Shepherd, if you want to know.)  

The critics simply decided that they knew best.  Well, it was true that immediately after Maddie and David’s high high, the couple separated, which was indeed inexplicable to the audience—and disappointing.  However, when the critical chorus coined a catchy phrase, “the Moonlighting curse,” it needlessly led to decades of show creators living in fear of writing marriages into their episodes or even their versions of “the big bang” lest their shows immediately tank, while the public nodded sagely, in misinformed agreement.   Ryan’s oral history shows that there was no solid basis for any certainty that the flatness of the morning after, so to speak, arose from gratifying the desires of Maddie, David, and the audience.  

In fact, what the oral history does make clear is that the wild abandon of the big night was not the problem.  The many articles blaming the sex scene for the show’s demise constitute a case of the post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy.    In English this means that just because an incident occurs before a disaster it doesn’t mean that it is the cause of the disaster.  Evidence of a connection is needed.  Ryan has provided the evidence that there was little or no connection.  From the interviews he conducted, we can see that the show had already been irreparably destabilized by anger and unresolved feuds.  We can also see that creatively, the main arc of the series was right on track with its funny, sexy, unique night of passion.  It was a bright light in the midst of the dark production chaos. The writers had plans that would have cleared a path for many more years of Maddie and David if personal and creative issues had not stymied them.  You will want to read Ryan’s clear and convincing argument that the wrong lessons were learned from the collapse of the once delectable Moonlighting.

I loved the Maddie and David shenanigans.  The spirited onscreen rapport of the actors was infectious and the episodes were filled with too many wonderful inventions to mention in this brief review.   “The Dream Sequence Always Rings Twice,” giving Maddie’s and David’s different perspectives filmed in black and white in a 1940’s style, and “Atomic Shakespeare” in which the entire episode parodies Shakespeare’s play The Taming of the Shrew in iambic pentameter are two of the most delightful innovations, but there are many more.  Have those happy memories been clouded by this fraught production history?  No, no, and no.  Rather, it has reminded me of the wonderful evenings of long ago that I spent watching Moonlighting and given them back to me with new depth and insight.

Order Moonlighting, An Oral History, by Scott Ryan. 

Also by Scott Ryan Last Days of Letterman, thirtysomething at thirty, But, Couldn’t I Do That, The Women of Lynch, The Women of Amy Sherman-Palladino, Scott Luck Stories, or preorder next year’s Fire Walk With Me: Your Laura Disappeared.

Listen to Scott interview Martha about her book on the Red Room Podcast as they have a great conversation about Twin Peaks: The Return.

Debunking The Moonlighting Curse

Written by Scott Ryan, Author of Moonlighting: An Oral History. Preorder now.

If you have ever read an article about Bones, Castle, Friends or How I Met Your Mother, chances are you have heard of something called the Moonlighting curse. At least once a year I read a blurb in the Entertainment Weekly that quotes some producer saying he doesn’t want to get his “Dave” and “Maddie” together because he doesn’t want to be Moonlighting.

Network executives fear that what happened once Dave and Maddie finally made the leap in March 1987, in an episode called “I am Curious….Maddie,” will happen to their series. That episode, by the way, was its highest rated episode. I remember being thrilled with this 4 part story arc that ended with what we had been waiting for 2 years. “Be My Baby” played and so did our favorite characters.

After that episode, Moonlighting never drew that kind of audience again and two years later the show went off in a ratings whimper. So doesn’t that mean that the executives were correct? Getting your two main characters together is the kiss of death ratings wise and creatively? Of course that isn’t what it means; otherwise, I wouldn’t have anything to write about.

Before I get into defending the decision, let’s just take a look at how much television has changed since 1987. Moonlighting only waited 2 years or 38 episodes until the great Glenn Gordon Caron, executive producer, decided to get the couple together. Heck, I bet Bones and Booth didn’t even hug in the first 38 episodes of Bones. Now, writers put it off and off and off until the realtionship is totally fake and we, the viewers, are over caring about the couples. I just love the naivety of the time that they thought, “Hmm, its been 38 Episodes we better get them together.” I think one of the reasons I love Battlestar Galactica and The Wire, is they move the characters and the story. A true writer isn’t intimidated by the characters changing and growing; they are inspired by it. Executives and business men want stability and no changes; writers and artists want risks and growth.

The part of the story that is left out of every article written about the so-called Moonlighting curse is that Cybill Sheperd was bed ridden during her pregnancy with twins. Bruce Willis went off to make Die Hard and injured his leg in a skiing accident. In fact, when they filmed their famous sex scene, Cybill was pregnant so they filmed the scene standing up. The set designer built a sheet on the wall to make it appear as though they were laying in bed. After filming this episode, they had to let Cybill leave the series for a bit. Even the great writers of the world could not continue that show without either actor available to film. So, the front half of Season 4 is full of episodes that Bruce and Cybill are not in together. They filmed all of Cybill’s scenes during the summer hiatus before she was bed ridden and then worked those scenes in.

Separating the stars from each other never creates appointment television. This idea didn’t work in Three’s Company when they had Suzanne Summers phone in her scenes to Jack and Janet and it didn’t work in Moonlighting. We don’t want to watch our characters call each other. This meant that in March, they had sex and the audience had to wait till the next February until the characters were together again. Today, waiting that long isn’t without precedence. So, the writers made a huge mistake. They tried to do the show with David not having a partner. I believe if they would have brought in someone to take Cybill’s place for a half season story arc, Moonlighting would have been fine. Even more so, whether Dave and Maddie did it or not, the show would not have kept the ratings high missing half of the duo. So, the true curse has nothing to do with the characters getting together and everything to do with making creative choices and using your cast well.

I believe that once Cybill returned from maternity leave and Bruce returned from Yippee Ki-Aying, the show went back to what it was. I would match Season 4 and 5 episodes: Track Of My Tears, Maddie Hayes Got Married, A Womb With A View, Shirts & Skins and Lunar Eclipse with any of the episodes of its apex. The show didn’t know how to react to not having its stars. You can’t blame the writers for that. ABC should have closed down production until they could both be back.I know that idea is funnier than a David Addison one liner because no network cares if quality stays up, just money. And in defense of season 4, I think “Cool Hand Dave Part 2,” is one of the most creative hours of television ever. Had they filled those first 9 episodes of Season 4 with creativity like that, Moonlighting would have kept the ratings. Part of it is adapting and part of it is network pressure. It would be interesting to know what really went on behind closed doors. I would love for this to be my next book.
Let’s take a look at what happens when you don’t consummate your characters when the time is correct. I would bet that everyone who loves Friends, remembers when Phoebe says, that Ross is Rachel’s Lobster in the season 2 episode The One With The Prom Video. But who really remembers how they got together in the final episode? I mean they already had a kid and now we are supposed to care? It just isn’t true to the characters. By the end of Friends, Ross had become such a shell of what his character started out as that you couldn’t possibly think he should have ended up with Rachel. I actually bought Rachel and Joey more.

That is something I never would have thought after watching that Season 2 episode where Jennifer Aniston crosses the room to kiss David Schwimmer. The audience screamed and everyone at home swelled. By Season 10, you were more interested in other characters. In fact, I would say Monica and Chandler are the true couple to care about in Friends and they broke all the rules of what producers are doing. They got together behind our backs and the show only improved after they coupled it up. We watched them date, marry and have kids just like we do with our real friends. The idea that a character like David Addison would pursue someone for years and years and never succeed takes away his cool factor and turns him into . . . well someone like Ross.

So, the next time you read an article that tells you that the producers are trying to avoid the Moonlighting Curse, remember that means they are trying to stop their lead actress from getting pregnant, their lead actor from landing the best action movie role ever, and their writers from using life circumstances to enhance their show. Two characters should get together when the story dictates, not when ratings do and that is exactly what Glenn Gordon Caron did.

Listen to Scott Interview Glenn Gordon Caron.

Order the new book about Moonlighting.

SCOTT RYAN IS THE AUTHOR OF THIRTYSOMETHING AT THIRTY:AN ORAL HISTORY, THE MANAGING EDITOR OF THE BLUE ROSE MAGAZINE, and the author of Moonlighting: An Oral History. FOR MORE INFORMATION CLICK HERE.