Eugene has a respectable acting resume, with decades of experience. A gifted comic actor who also won acclaim as a writer and director, Eugene Levy was born on December 17, 1946, in Hamilton, Ontario, the home of McMaster University, where he enrolled after graduating from Westdale High School in the same city. Levy studied film at McMaster, and, in 1967, became vice president of the McMaster Film Board, a student film group where he met fellow aspiring moviemaker Ivan Reitman. (Other McMaster students at the time included Martin Short and Dave Thomas.) In 1970, Reitman began work on a low-budget horror movie called Cannibal Girls and cast Levy as Clifford Sturges. One of his co-stars was a struggling actress named Andrea Martin, who would later work alongside Levy's old pals Short and Thomas -- as well as John Candy and Joe Flaherty -- on the short-lived Canadian sitcom The David Steinberg Show. Levy and Martin's paths crossed again when they were cast in the Toronto production of the musical Godspell; the cast also included Gilda Radner and Paul Shaffer, in addition to Short, Candy, and Thomas. After Godspell closed in 1973 (just in time for the long-delayed Cannibal Girls to finally hit the grind-house circuit), Levy joined the Toronto company of the famed improvisational Second City comedy troupe, in which Candy and Flaherty were already cast members.
After two years as a part of Second City, Levy, Candy, and Flaherty decided to move to California to try their luck in the States; they didn't fare well at first, but their idea for a television series about a ramshackle, low-budget television station eventually blossomed into Second City TV, or (SCTV, for short). While the show, ironically, brought Levy and his friend's back to Toronto (where it was shot), it also became a solid hit in Canada and developed a loyal cult following in the U.S., and, moreover, launched the careers of Levy, Flaherty, Thomas, Candy, Short, Martin, and Catherine O'Hara in America. (After SCTV's initial run ended in 1981, NBC brought the show back in an extended version called SCTV Network 90, which featured a higher budget, more guest stars, and ran until 1983. Levy also won two Emmy awards as a member of the show's writing staff.) Levy and Candy also created an acclaimed spin-off from the show based around their characters of polka musicians Stan and Yosh Shmenge, a 1984 cable special entitled The Last Polka. By the mid-'80s, Levy had become a familiar face on both episodic television and in movies, albeit almost always in comic supporting roles. In 1989, he began working behind the camera again, directing a special for his old partner Martin Short, and, in 1992, made his feature directorial debut with the John Candy/Jim Belushi comedy Once Upon a Crime. In 1996, however, Levy scored a bigger breakthrough when he and Christopher Guest began writing a screenplay for a mockumentary about a small town theater troupe. Waiting for Guffman became a surprise hit and gave Levy a meaty comic role as stage-struck dentist Allan Pearl. In 1999, the actor won another high-profile success with the blockbuster hit American Pie, in which he played the understanding but terminally non-hip father of hormonally charged teenager Jim (Jason Biggs); Levy reprised the role in the 2001 sequel American Pie 2 and again in 2003's American Wedding. Levy and Guest teamed up again in 2000 for the comedy, Best in Show, for which the two received a Best Screenplay nomination from the Writers Guild of America. He and Guest also co-wrote and starred in another 2003 mockumentary, A Mighty Wind, a parody about '60s folk musicians who reunite for a tribute concert several years after their heyday.
Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy: "A Mighty Wind" Reunites Old Friends
The talent behind the acclaimed films "Waiting for Guffman" and "Best in Show" are back and this time they're taking on the world of folk music.
"A Mighty Wind" is the story of a son's desire to honor the memory of his beloved folk icon father, by reuniting the most popular folk acts of the 60s. Showing up for the special one night event are Mitch & Mickey (Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara), The Folksmen (Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Harry Shearer), and The New Main Street Singers (featuring John Michael Higgins, Jane Lynch and Parker Posey).
Writer/director/actor Christopher Guest and writer/actor Eugene Levy talk about the atmosphere on the set, working with such a talented group of actors, and bringing folk music to the big screen in 2003.
Where did the idea for "A Mighty Wind" come from?
CHRISTOPHER GUEST: I played a lot of folk music as a kid in New York, where it was actually happening in the '60s, and so it was something that I knew something about. Basically that was a place to start. I wanted to do some music in a film, and so I started talking to Eugene about it, and Eugene has always been a musical person.
Why were you so interested in putting your music in a film?
GUEST: Well, I've played music for 40 years and it was exciting to play in a movie live. No one ever does that. You don't hear live music in movies.
Your look in this film is hilarious. Can you talk about that?
GUEST: One of the first things Gene and I do is write the story around the actors that we know because not every actor can do this kind of work. It's a very different kind of movie. We always try to choose something that's kind of odd about our looks. Obviously, Gene's is pretty different, and I thought I would just go for this shaving the top of my head, which was difficult, in real life, to walk around like that. It's an odd thing. My daughter said, "By the time it grows back, you'll be bald."
Do you worry about the fact that all these people should be in their 60's?
GUEST: Yes, well, but we're close enough. The fact is that we talked about this very specifically and we said, "Literally, these people are 68 years old, but we're the next generation that was really just following those people in the '60s." I was playing folk music in 1966 in Greenwich Village, so I am my [character].
Are you worried about the relevance of this film?
GUEST: No. What we worry about is whether it's funny, pure and simple. If you start worrying about what kids are going to like, than that's a different business. Some other people are in that business, but Gene and I try to make each other laugh and do something that we find fun to do, and hope it works out. I think if you sit at home and start thinking about that, than we're out of our realm.
EUGENE LEVY: You narrow the scope down to the type of subject matter you may not necessarily want to do.
You do smart comedy.
GUEST: We do comedy that, again, makes us laugh. That's what makes us laugh - the kind of movies we're making.
Why can't Hollywood keep up this level of standards?
GUEST: Well, because there are a lot of different kinds of people out there that want different things. People want action movies and people want different kinds of movies. These are the kind of movies that we make. We're not trying to make the "Titanic" of comedies. These are just movies that I make.
LEVY: They're not aimed at the masses. It's not like "Airplane." It's not like these movies that are really trying to hit a vein here.
GUEST: It's not aimed, really, at anything other than that I hope these are funny and someone enjoys them. If they're successful on a certain level, than I get to keep making these movies. This isn't, suddenly, "Let's open this in 3,000 theaters." Not everyone's going to get it, but that's okay. That's just the way it is.
Do you shoot way more footage than we get to see?
GUEST: When you make a real documentary, you have the same kind of ratio. You have a lot of footage that you don't use. We had 80 hours on this film and we end up with, roughly, 90 minutes. It becomes very clear. We know what the story is because we've written a story. In a real documentary, you find the story from what you shoot. We know what the story is, we've written the story, we know what every scene accomplishes, so the scenes that don't address that are tossed away pretty quickly. They're funny, in and of themselves, they just don't help tell the story.
Did you shot this film the same way you've done the others - structured, but then improved?
GUEST: It's all improvised. There's no dialogue written down. [That] started with "Spinal Tap," which Rob Reiner directed. That was the first time, I think, that had been done, and this is a continuation. It's become more of a hybrid. They look a little bit more like conventional movies, but they're still done the same way.
The center of this movie was always Eugene's relationship with Catherine [O'Hara] because that's really the core of the whole thing, emotionally. It's very serious, if you think about it. If you stripped away all the rest of it, it's pretty serious.
LEVY: We knew that was the choice. To make that story work, we had to ride a straighter line in this thing. To be the sweethearts of the folk music world was a nice storyline, with this huge bitter divorce and then a reunion of these two people that haven't seen each other in 30 years.
There's not enough Jennifer Coolidge in this film.
GUEST: When you have a company like this and they're so gifted, there's no way to get everyone in as much as they should be in. It's a growing repertory company now and that was my one lament at the end of this. There were so many talented people, they can't all be serviced, really, so you do the best you can.
How do you get all the actors together at the same time?
GUEST: It's very lucky because the actors are so busy. Honestly, without them, there's no movie, so you have to say, "Here's what the plan is for this period of time." I let them know six months in advance and say, "I hope you're available." If one or two hadn't been available, we probably could have still gone ahead, but if it became more than that, we would have had to postpone it. The amount of shooting time is not very much, that's the other good thing. We're not asking people to commit two months of their schedule. It really ends up being that each shoot is maybe 8 or 9 days, in a period of 25 days. That is manageable and that's how I can make these movies.
These actors seem to love making these movies.
GUEST: Well, I think - and I can't speak for them - this gift that they have to improvise, you never see it anywhere else, where else can they do this? They do it so well and so it is fun. It's fun to come to these sets. People have fun watching other work. People don't go to their trailers and sit. I think people genuinely love to play with each other.
I've been working with Michael McKean for 30 years, and I've been working with Harry [Shearer] for 25 years. There's a reason. This isn't just some coincidence that we're all working together. What's so nice about doing this is that they seem like they're genuinely having fun. People were playing music and singing. Someone would say, "Oh, you have to come and see what Fred Willard is doing," and everyone would rush in to see Fred do his thing.
LEVY: There's an amazing amount of freedom on these movies. I think Chris gives everybody the kind of latitude that you just probably wouldn't have anywhere else. I think his premise is, "You're hired for the job, come in and do what you do." His job is not to tell you what he wants you to do, you bring to the table what you bring to the table. They get an amazing amount of freedom on these movies and, it's true, an incredible amount of fun. On "Waiting for Guffman," we were shooting in Austin and we couldn't wait to all get together and watch dailies every night because everybody got such a kick out of watching everybody else's scenes. It was just great fun.
How was the final concert filmed?
GUEST: That was done at the Orpheum Theater downtown and we played live. I talked about this to everyone, and Eugene and Catherine had probably had less experience. It was a risk, obviously. And, we've done an album. We have 17 songs coming out on the Sony CD, which T-Bone Burnett had executive produced. It's a wonderful record. Eugene and Catherine's stuff on the record is just mind-boggling. They sing so well together. Gene wrote some of the songs. The cast, basically, wrote all the material.
All of your films stem from a very specific idea, correct?
GUEST: Well, you have to have a specific idea. This is not just people coming together and yapping. That's the work that Eugene and I do, in setting out a skeletal structure for what the story is. This has to be incredibly structured, but you can play within that, the same way a jazz musician would say, "You're going to improvise, but here's the melody. You're going to do ‘Stardust,' it's in the key of G." Now, you can take off, but you know there are limitations. It's not just people going crazy. So, of course, this is a craft. This is not just people goofing off. That's what people don't understand, I guess. And, it's my movie, ultimately. I'm editing this movie for close to a year. This is difficult stuff to have it come out.
How many years have you two known each other?
GUEST: I called Eugene before "Guffman." I had been a huge admirer of his work on SC-TV and I called him up and I said, "Do you want to try to write this movie?," and he said, "Okay." We got together and started making each other laugh. I think people who share a comic sensibility know immediately if it's going to work. You walk in a room and you kind of look at each other and, if you don't feel that in a few seconds, you can go home.
Why did you say, "Yes," when he phoned you?
LEVY: I thought the phone call was a prank. I've said this before, but I've been a fan of Chris' for many years, going back to "National Lampoon." Although we didn't have a relationship, I knew who he was and had seen him. To get the call, I thought, was kind of odd. Originally, I thought, "Well, he must have asked about 3 other people - friends, writers - to work on this thing with him and, for some reason, they couldn't do it and somebody may have suggested [me]." That was always my impression for many, many years, until about a year ago or less, when I said, "How did that phone call come up?" That's when Chris said, "I used to watch SCTV."
So, he was your first choice?
GUEST: (Laughing) First, 10th.
LEVY: It was pretty amazing. The most amazing thing was that pretty much on the first day that I went up there, considering I didn't know the man and he didn't know me, it was pretty much on the trip in from the airport, I figured we were going to have fun. We were laughing and seemed to be kind of in-sync.
Did you have this plot in your head back in the "Spinal Tap" days?
GUEST: Well, no, the plot wasn't in my head, but the idea was in my head - knowing that I wanted to do music and knowing that I wanted it to be about folk musicians. But, that's what Eugene and I do, we write the story.
Does the enduring popularity of "Spinal Tap" surprise you?
GUEST: I guess so. When we made the movie, we just thought, "Well, this might be fun. We'll get to play music." Michael and I had been in a band since 1967, and, "Here we go again. We'll play some live music." When it came out, it really wasn't much of anything. No one knew what it was. People said, "Why would they make a documentary about these idiots?" And now, 20 years later, it's been protected by the Library of Congress, as of two weeks ago. It's sold a lot of DVDs. We've traveled all over the world as that band, and so, sure it's surprising because, when you make a movie, you never know what's going to happen. How would you ever know? You hope for the best, but to say that you would expect it [laughs] would be a lie.
Did people think you were weird when that concept was presented back then?
GUEST: First of all, no one wanted to make the movie because there was no script. You'd say, "Give us money," and they'd say, "For what?" "Well, we're just going to go and make this movie." "Yeah, but where's the [script]?" "It'll be funny." Norman Lear was the one who said, "Okay, go."
And, Eugene, you're having quite a bit of success with "Bringing Down the House."
LEVY: I've done okay. I have no complaints, yeah.
And you've got "American Wedding" coming out soon?
Do you think that will be the end of the "American Pie" series?
LEVY: Well, you know what? Honestly, if "American Wedding" turns out the way I think it will, I would easily do a number four because this is going to be the best one.
Interview with "Dumb and Dumberer's" Eugene Levy
Known by millions of fans as ‘Jim’s Dad’ in the "American Pie" series, in “Dumb and Dumberer” Eugene Levy gets to take on a role he relishes – the role of a villain. In this interview with the multi-talented actor/writer/director, Levy provides a real insight into how he develops each of his memorable characters.
When you get a comedy script, what makes you think it might work?
It’s rare when you get a script that is brilliant. The Harrison Ford’s and the Cruise’s and such, those guys get the scripts that cost millions. You read them and you go, “This is literature.” For most scripts, there are degrees of how good they are. You look at them and you can see flaws here and there. For me, in these comedy scripts, you look for the ‘vibe’ of the script, what the vibe of the comedy is.
Even with great scripts, most of the things I do I have to rework anyway. I’ll look at the script and go, “This is great and I like this character but I’m not thrilled at the way it’s written.” But you can see how the character should work so I do a lot of rewriting to make sure the character comes through my own eyes.
What changes did you make for “Dumb and Dumberer?”
The attraction about this movie was I love 'dumb.' A lot of characters that I do - going back to SCTV - for the most part are not the sharpest pencils in the drawer. I do like that dumb quality to characters and I think the audience loves rooting for the underdog characters, the guys with the small brains and the big hearts. This was really 'dumb,' and “Dumb and Dumber” was a funny movie. I love the ‘stick your tongue on a frozen light pole’ bit. That’s funny and it makes me laugh. So the vibe of the movie I loved, and I loved how stupid it was.
I loved the fact that it was kind of cartoon-ish. It is a heightened reality to the point of - they don’t make any bones about it - you are not going to take this seriously. The story isn’t Dostievsky, it’s dumb and more dumb than that. This is where you start to build your character. This is more of a cartoon-ish thing for me and it kind of took me back to SCTV in a way. Where the characters are just a little broader and you can have that kind of fun going a little over the edge. That’s something I haven’t done in a little while.
Do you like playing a villain?
That’s also fun. I can’t remember the last time I played a bad guy, so that was kind of an appeal. I like playing villains [especially] villains that aren’t that bright. That’s always good. You experiment with a look and everything else. I’m thinking, “Okay, this is a guy that I think I can finally bring some moustaches out of the drawer.” I think I can see exactly what the look is. This is set in the mid-80s so already I’m ahead of the game. The moustache is somewhere between Hitler and Groucho. You find the line there that just gives it that look and then you just go with it.
How did you develop your scenes in "Dumb and Dumberer?"
When we got to Atlanta, we went through [the script]. Troy [Miller] was always going through the script. Even in something like this, as frivolous and campy and fun as this movie is, he still wanted to make sure that story points were as grounded as he could make it and characters were as grounded as they could be, even in the context of this heightened reality, which I admire. It’s the way I work myself. Everything’s got to be grounded no matter how stupid it is.
We did a lot of work going through the scenes and kind of cleaning them up and getting them to the point where you could say, “Okay, I can see this happening. This makes sense to me.” There wasn’t a lot of improvising and there wasn’t a lot of fooling around on the set. I think [Cheri Oteri and I] both like to know the lines that we’ve got, and we felt comfortable with the lines. I think there may have been some moments here and there where we were winging it a little bit, but it’s pretty much what’s there on the page is what you get.
How’s “American Wedding?” coming?"
I think it’s a funny movie. I haven’t seen it but I know, even from the script, that Adam Herz jammed a lot of stuff into that script. I told him when I read it, I said, “Man, this is like comedicly relentless.” These kind of - raunchy is not the word but it’s close – scenarios that he comes up with, he just keeps coming up with them. They are really funny put in the right context, incredibly funny. And this one has a lot of heart to it as well, because it’s a wedding. It’s got a nice little vein of sentimentality running through it, which is closer to the first “American Pie” to me than the second one. It could be the best one of the three; it could be the funniest one of the three.
Why did they do a third one?
If you have a film that makes it, that has a great opening weekend, then you know that Monday morning there are people getting together talking about, “Let’s get some people together and figure out a scenario for the next one." That’s just the way it works, I think. I didn’t know what was going on with “American Pie.” I knew when the second one did well... It just had a huge opening and did much better business than the first one. Although personally I liked the first one better, I didn’t like the second one as much, but at some point I heard that they’d hired Adam to work on a script and that’s always a good sign. Bringing somebody else in to write the script you know you’re going to be in trouble because this kid, I don’t know how he does it, but he really has a handle on these characters. He loves them.
Was Jim’s Dad a character you had to rework for yourself?
From top to bottom, every scene. The part was really a much smaller part and there was something about the character. It was too nudge-nudge-wink-wink. I didn’t like it. Paul and Chris Weisz said, “What do you want to do? What do you want to change?” I said, “I want to change it completely.” They said, “Go ahead. Why don’t you come in one day and we’ll just kind of improvise? We’ll go through the scenes.” Which is what we did.
My thing was I wanted the guy to be a good guy. I wanted him to be totally supportive of this kid and feeling guilty that his son’s sexual peccadillo – he’s humping a cake – that he would take it upon himself as guilt for not having laid out the birds and the bees thing properly to his kid. They allowed me to do that. We went through all the scenes. They became funny, and they expanded a little bit. Because it seemed to be working so well in the movie, they added a couple of things later on in the movie. That’s how it turned out.
Eugene Levy: "American Pie 2"
EUGENE LEVY (Jim's Dad)
What's it like to have the funniest line in the entire movie?
I've heard that before. You know why it's so great? It was kind of a line that was thrown in on the day. It was one of those last second things.
Was it your line?
Yes, it was my line.
Some of the other cast members have referred to you as the King of Improv. Was there a lot of improv?
The first "American Pie," they let me go through all the scenes and improvise them and change them, in order to change the character a little bit. So that was great. This one I didn't so much - we did our improvising in rehearsal for the first one. This one, I asked them for the same flexibility in my scenes to be able to tweak and change, and they were gracious enough to say whatever you want, whatever works for you. I did a lot of changing in my own scenes; I would adapt them, not so much improvising as rewriting. Then when I got on the set with Jason (Biggs), we would change some things. I would suggest something, I would say "Jason, what if you said this, what if I said this" etc. If it worked, great, if it didn't, we'd try something else.
Do you feel like you are at the peak of your acting ability? In the sense that you have utter confidence - your performances are very smooth.
It's called acting. No, I don't feel - maybe I feel a bit more confident than I did 10 years ago, I guess, as a performer. But I spend too much time trying to do well. Do you know what I mean? The work process is just not something I toss off as "Well, this is a piece of cake." It's always kind of work, and I'm always thinking, I'm always trying to think of another line. I'm always trying to think is this working - more importantly, is it real? Is it honest? I'm always kind of working. I'm glad it looks that way (smooth) but there's never a minute where I sit back and say, "Boy I got that - now the next few takes are cake walk."
Did you ever come up with a backstory for this character? Like what might he have gotten himself into when he was Jim's age?
No, I'm not that good an actor. No, I didn't go that deep with it. I think in the beginning when I met with the Weitz Brothers (Chris and Paul) and I had a few concerns about the character, the way it was written in the first script given to me. The character was in a more "nudge nudge/wink wink" kind of relationship with his son. It was a touch on the sleazy side - the father. I wanted him to be a meaning well father - a father who really cared about his son and was there for support, and that's why we kind of went through these improvisations. I think that during those improvisations, the character kind of evolved in a very kind of low-key approach. There was not a lot of pre-thought that went into who is this guy going to be, and what is he going to sound like. It's just the way it came out in the improvs - almost like instantaneous. It seemed like it was working and it seemed very comfortable.
If they do "American Pie 3," would you be ready to play Jim's dad again?
When I heard about "American Pie 2," I thought it was a scary thing when you talk about sequels. I think this is a great group of people. I think the creative people involved from Adam Herz, the Weitz Brothers, and J.B. working on this one, the cast - I think it's a really bright, amazingly talented group of people. If the approach is the same on another movie, I mean I don't see this as a sequel as much as an extension of the first one. It's the same movie, the characters just kind of move on. Sequel is kind of a strange word. I just find this an extension of where we were in the first one. If we went into an "American Pie 3," it's a bizarre kind of concept to think about. But the group is so good, these kids have created characters that are so great, characters that people want to see, that I can kind of see scenarios of somebody getting married, and everyone coming back for the wedding, and where they are in another two years. It's a less scary thought to think about "American Pie 3" than it was to think about "American Pie 2."
What if they called it "American Pie 3: Jim's Dad?"
Well, you know, sounds catchy.
Does Jim's dad have a first name?
There's no name. When I first read the script, way back when I got "American Pie" and I was going through it, and of course I thought - the guy doesn't even have a name. It's like playing "the salesman." Now, I'm very pleased with the way the character has kind of hit. I haven't heard one negative thing about the character since the first movie came out. Whatever the dad has been doing, I'm kind of proud to carry the moniker of "Jim's Dad" now.
Do you see yourself in that character? It seems like so many dads.
Who you hope to be. I find myself actually picking up some things from the character. Just in terms of trying to stay on an even keel and don't overreact to things, and it's a great way to be as a parent. Of course, in real life, things just aren't the way the way they are in the movie. People do lose their tempers. I've actually tried to adapt a few personality traits from the character. And he is a great character and the reason is, I think he truly means well. And he wants to do well, and he wants to be there for his son. He wants to be there, to be totally supportive of his son. That's just such a great character trait in a father that you are kind of proud to play a guy like that. The goofiness and everything else is just stuff I like to play - that's the fertile field of comedy there - but as a character, I just think the guy's a great guy.
Do you ever get people who come up to you in public recognizing you as Jim's dad?
It happens more like, "American Pie rules!" I'm getting more of that. I was in a store on my way up here yesterday - I stopped in to get my daughter some batteries - and stopped in at a Ralphs in Malibu. It was 8 in the morning and there wasn't anybody in the store but the store clerk, and he looked over and said, "Oh my God, Jim's Dad!" And I kind of went, "Oh boy, does that sound odd." "Jim's Dad" - like "The Salesman." But it actually now is like a name. They are putting it on posters now, like Stifler's mom.
Does it make you cool with your kids?
I don't know if I'll ever be cool with my kids. It's one of those odds things. In real life, parents are really just never that cool with their kids. I think it's fun, my daughter is here hanging around the junket, but not because I'm here. It's because the kids are here, and Penelope Cruz is around the corner. I think that "American Pie" is the first project that I was involved with that was important to their friends, their peers, and it's their friends talking about it that kind of gives them a "Yeah, that's my dad" thing. But it never really comes back to me.
What happened to "Greg the Bunny" (TV series)? Everyone was so excited about that. Is it on hold for mid-season?
Yes, mid-season. I think it didn't make the Fall schedule because they were not entirely sure, and I think it's a good thing that it didn't, quite honestly. "Greg the Bunny" is an unusual show. It's got puppets, and live action, and a very adult theme to it. You might think it's kind of a kid show - it might appeal to kids because the puppets that are involved - but it's really not. By the time they finished their testing - it was testing because we'd heard that we were coming on after "The Simpsons," the old "Malcolm and the Middle" spot, Sundays at 8:30, and because it was 8:30 we were dealing with the 8-9pm "what you can do and can't do thing," and we found that all this edge that this script was supposed to have, these corners were being rounded because it's still an 8-9 thing so you can't say this, and this is a too mature thing. We were all getting nervous, with "Wait a minute, what's happening to the show here," and by the time they tested it, they realized that it was not testing for kids - that it's not a kids show - and probably should not be on an 8-9 schedule. So instead of just of putting it out there, they pulled it back to say that the show should now be geared to a more adult audience. It's going to be in the next batch of shows that are starting in September; there's going to be more emphasis in the writing about going forward with an edgier, more mature kind of show. Again, between September and January, because it is a very odd, unusual show, they can promote it very carefully for mid-season. And, they've had great success in mid-season shows coming out. Even "The Simpsons" came out in January. They will then focus solely on "Greg the Bunny" when this thing comes out in January. I think it's a great thing that, number one, we get a chance to finally deal with the show the way it's supposed to be dealt with, and the fact that they can actually have the time to promote it properly and know exactly who they are promoting it for - what the market is.