Interview with Ed Robertson

Thirty Years of the Rockford Files: An Inside Look at America's Greatest Detective Series
Ed Robertson
iUniversity Press (2005)
ISBN 0595342442
Reviewed by Cherie Fisher for Reader Views (2/07)

Today Juanita Watson, Assistant Editor of Reader Views, is talking with nationally known author, journalist, historian, and commentator Ed Robertson.

Ed writes and speaks extensively about pop culture, entertainment, and media, and has written or co-written five books including two on the career of legendary actor James Garner including the recently released “Thirty Years of The Rockford Files: An Inside Look at America's Greatest Detective Series.” 

Juanita:  Thanks for talking with us today, Ed.  We are excited to have the opportunity to hear more about your fascinating career and your book Thirty Years of The Rockford Files: An Inside Look at America's Greatest Detective Series.

Ed: My pleasure, Juanita. Thanks for having me.
 
Juanita: Ed, you are considered a Pop Culture Critic and a Television Historian, would you tell us a little about your interest in pop culture and the entertainment industry? 

Ed: I’ve loved television for as long as I can remember. In fact, my mom said I first learned how to read by reading the log lines in TV Guide. (The “log lines” are the two or three lines in the TV listings that describe what tonight’s episode of Batman, Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie is about.) And when I think about it, that’s true. I couldn’t wait for Friday afternoon, when my mom bought the new edition of TV Guide, so that I could read the log lines of my favorite shows for the following week. I started doing that when I was four or five years old. Then, when I was in grammar school, I took it a step further by making up my own “TV listings.” I’d make up my own shows, complete with episodes, regular characters, guest stars, you name it. Then I'd write “log lines” for each show, just like the ones you’d see in TV Guide, until I ran out of ideas – at which point, I would “cancel” the show (I’d even write “Last show of the series” in brackets at the end of the final “listing”) and start all over with a new “show.”

It wasn’t exactly “See Spot run,” but it was a lot of fun, and when I look back, it was one of the first signs that my interests in TV and in writing might somehow come together.

Then in 1978, when I was 14, my folks gave me a book for Christmas called The TV Book – a collection of articles and photographs about the personalities and moments that defined the first 30 years of television. The TV Book also had this really cool timeline, which ran throughout the book, of milestone moments in television, everything from the first man on the moon to the last episode of The Fugitive.  That book was one of the best gifts my folks ever gave me, because in many ways it really fueled my interest in learning about TV history.

One of the articles in The TV Book was an homage to David Janssen written by a man named David Thorburn. Among other things, Thorburn talks about how Janssen was one of the first actors who really understood the difference between acting on television and acting for the big screen. Television, with its use of close-ups and tight shots, is a medium that rewards subtlety. Actors such as Janssen, who can often convey emotion to the audience with no more than a look, use the small screen to their advantage. Janssen did that every week on The Fugitive, and that’s what made him a star.

Though Thorburn mentions The Fugitive, his article is really about the depth of Janssen’s performance in Harry O, an offbeat private eye show that originally aired in 1974. I wasn’t interested in Harry O when it was first on in ’74, but I became very interested in that show after reading that article. About a year later, in 1979, CBS began airing reruns of Harry O at 11:30 on Monday nights. My family didn’t have a VCR at the time, so if I wanted to watch the show, I’d have to stay up till 12:30 am, then get up at 6:30 am to get ready for school.  I think that’s when I first started to drink coffee.

What I liked about Harry O was that it wasn’t so much a private eye show, but a show about an ordinary guy who happened to be a private investigator. I’ve always been reflective (even as a young kid), so I certainly liked that Harry was reflective. He mused about the sort of things that I was musing about as a teenager. I didn’t realize this until much later on, but Harry was also kind of an existential guy who thought about the choices he made and the impact his choices had on other people. He cared for people. There was a lot of humanity in that character, and that really appealed to me.

Meanwhile, when I was in high school and college during the ’80s, television history as a sort of “genre” really began to take off. We started seeing more and more titles like TV Book, Watching Television by Harry Castleman and Wally Podrazik, The Columbo Phile by Mark Dawidziak, and The I Love Lucy Book by Bart Andrews – books that were not just about TV in general, but which also focused on certain shows, or certain kinds of shows, that continue to have an important impact on our culture. I was excited to see that, because it was exactly the kind of writing I wanted to do. I had a passion for television, and a passion for writing, and books like these showed me that there was a way that I could channel both.

Then around 1989, I discovered a book called Murder on the Air by Ric Meyers, a comprehensive history of private eye shows on television. Meyers had an entire chapter devoted to Janssen and Harry O – which for me, was like a dream come true. Not only was it the first extensive treatment of my favorite actor, it also validated my belief that Harry O was an important show. That book, along with The Columbo Phile, were the two books that really showed me how to approach TV history from a kind of “investigative journalistic” approach. 

I started putting together a proposal for a book on Janssen that eventually morphed into the proposal for my first book, The Fugitive Recaptured (Pomegranate Press, 1993). It was around this time that A&E bought the rights to The Fugitive, and it became this huge hit on cable. All of a sudden, people who had never seen the show before were discovering it for the first time. The Fugitive was one of television’s milestone shows, but beyond a few mentions in reference books, nothing extensive had been written about it. I knew that people who loved television would want to know more about it. So I put together a book proposal for The Fugitive Recaptured, made a deal with a publisher, and got the book published. I’ve been writing about pop culture, media, and entertainment ever since.

A friend of mine recently said to me, “How lucky you are to do something you love.” I not only agreed with her, but told her I consider myself “extra lucky,” considering how much I love television. With my books especially, as well with my work on Share-a-Vision Radio, I get to talk to the people who helped create so many memories for me as a kid.    

Juanita:  A strong focus of your work is on television, and in particular classic episodic television. What shows are you particularly interested in, and what makes these shows stand out for you?

Ed: I’ve always believed that you really can learn something from watching television – that it’s not a totally passive activity. Sure, there are a lot of shows that are pure “check your brains at the door” entertainment, and I enjoy watching my share of them. But at the same time there have always been television shows that engage you in the same way a good book will engage you... shows like Star Trek, The Twilight Zone, The Prisoner... shows that not only entertain us, but which, more often than not, have something to say about the human condition. And when you go through the history of television, there are certain shows that stand out precisely because they changed the medium... shows like The Fugitive, All in the Family, M*A*S*H, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Rockford Files, and many, many more. Those are the kind of shows I especially like to write about (or, in the case of radio, talk about) because of their impact on television.

Juanita: Would you tell us about your interest in legendary actor James Garner? You’ve written two books about his career so far, why?

Ed: Garner, like David Janssen, like Lucille Ball, like Andy Griffith, like Dick Van Dyke, like Bob Newhart, is a bona fide television icon. He’s one of the few actors whose audience spans three different generations. Baby Boomers remember him as Bret Maverick. People who grew up in the ’70s and ’80s know him as Jim Rockford. Young people today know him as Grandpa Jim on 8 Simple Rules. To enjoy that kind of longevity in an industry as fickle as television is a pretty remarkable thing. Plus, there have been thousands and thousands of shows in the history of television, but only a few great television characters. Bret Maverick and Jim Rockford are among that handful of great TV characters, and the reasons we remember them begin with James Garner.

Juanita: What can readers expect from Thirty Years of The Rockford Files?

Ed: Thirty Years of The Rockford Files tells the inside story of The Rockford Files, from its original network run on NBC in the ’70s, to its return to television on CBS in the ’90s, to its ongoing influence on television today. The Rockford Files was the first show to bring humor into the cop show/private eye show genre; Rockford’s whimsical sense of humor paved the way for other quirky detective shows like Magnum, p.i., Simon & Simon, Monk and The Closer. Rockford was also the show that put Stephen J. Cannell and David Chase on the map; in fact, a character Chase introduced in one of his episodes for The Rockford Files later served as the inspiration for Tony Soprano, the central character of Chase’s hit series The Sopranos.

The Rockford Files is an important show in the annals of television history. Thirty Years of The Rockford Files is a comprehensive history of this important show. The book tells the story of how The Rockford Files got on the air; how Jim Rockford would have been a much different character if James Garner didn’t play him; how Rockford overcame many obstacles behind-the-scenes to win five Emmy Awards; how Rockford returned to network television in 1994 as a popular series of TV-movies; plus interviews with many of the key people who made The Rockford Files, including “Rockford” himself, James Garner.  There are also over 100 behind-the-scenes photographs, many of which have never been published before, as well interesting details and entertaining anecdotes for the original NBC series and all eight CBS movies.

Thirty Years of The Rockford Files takes you behind the scenes of the production of the show. But it also gives you a peek inside the lives of the people who made the show – people such as James Garner. For instance, Jim is no different than you or me, in that family is very important to him. That goes for his professional family as well. Jim not only starred in The Rockford Files, he produced the show, as well as owned a piece of it. He hired many of the people on the staff and crew that put the show together, but he was also smart enough to give the people he hired the room to do their jobs. He knows the importance of creating an environment that’s fun as well as productive, and that sense of “family” permeated throughout the set. In fact, among the highlights of Thirty Years of The Rockford Files are the rare, never-before-published photographs of Jim laughing and relaxing with his cast and crew. It’s a side of this great actor that we just don’t often see.

Juanita: What inspired you to write this definitive retrospective on Rockford?

Ed: I wrote a book in 1994 called Maverick: Legend of the West, a history of Maverick on television. I spent hundreds of hours watching Garner on film, as well as talking to some of the key people who made Maverick, including the show’s creator/producer, Roy Huggins. The histories of Maverick and The Rockford Files are very closely tied together. Not only do you have the two principals (Garner and Huggins) involved in both shows, but Jim Rockford in many respects is Bret Maverick reincarnated. He may be a private eye in the 1970s instead of a gambler in the 1870s, but other than that, the attitudes and the character are identical. After covering the history of Maverick, it seemed logical to cover the history of Rockford. So I pitched the idea of a Rockford book. Fortunately, my publisher agreed (though I’m sure it helped that her husband also happened to be a huge fan of The Rockford Files), and she green-lighted the book.  

Juanita: When did you release the original version of this book, and what is different in the new edition?

Ed: The book was originally published in 1995 under the title This is Jim Rockford, and included information on the original NBC series and the first two CBS movies (the other six CBS movies hadn’t been made yet). A lot has happened since the original book came out, not only in terms of The Rockford Files but also the career of James Garner. This calendar year, 2007, marks the 30th anniversary of the show’s Emmy Award-winning season, so it was the perfect time to update the book. 

The new edition, Thirty Years of The Rockford Files, is 497 pages long (the original book was 208 pages), so there’s nearly 300 pages of new material. Besides a look at all eight CBS movies, there are additional interviews with Garner and other cast members, a review of the two original Rockford Files novels by Stuart Kaminsky (originally published in 1996 and 1998, respectively), new information about the original NBC series (including a detailed chapter on Rockford’s famous Pontiac Firebird), an index, several appendices, plus other material that was not included in the original book for reasons of space. The new edition also features over 100 photographs (many of which were not included in the original edition), plus original artwork from graphic artist Darin Bristow, rare, behind-the-scenes photos from Rockford insider Rob Howe, and much, much more. In many ways, Thirty Years of The Rockford Files really is a brand new book. 

Juanita: What did your research process look like – for both the original version, as well as the new information you present in this latest edition?

Ed: As I did with the Maverick book, I watched hours and hours of film – all 118 episodes of the NBC series, plus the pilot, plus the eight two-hour CBS movies, plus assorted interviews of Garner from various television shows – and put together about 200 pages worth of notes. These notes, plus information I gathered from archived articles from newspapers, magazines, and trade publications, provided the basis for my interviews with Garner and other series personnel. I made several trips to Los Angeles to interview people like Roy Huggins and Stephen J. Cannell, as well as to research production files and other records related to the show. I also conducted about 20 phone interviews, including two with James Garner. All of this was done in preparation of the original book. After the book was published in 1995, I continued to gather information about The Rockford Files, particularly the six CBS movies that aired after the book went to press. I wasn’t sure if I’d ever actually use this material, but I figured if the opportunity presented itself, I’d have it on hand. As it happens, I’m glad I kept all that material, because when the time came to start updating the book, I had the basis for several new sections. I also took another look at the pilot and most of the episodes, plus conducted several new interviews (including additional comments from Garner), and compiled all that new material into the updated edition, Thirty Years of The Rockford Files.

Juanita:  What made James Garner such a great television icon?  And, why was he such a perfect fit for his character Jim Rockford?

Ed: Rockford Files was a perfect fit for Jim because he understood the character so well. Roy Huggins originally developed Rockford as a modern-day version of Maverick. Roy was one of the first, if not the first, to recognize that Jim has a knack for playing wry, understated, deadpan humor – humor that’s based in character. Jim can take an ordinary line and make it sound funnier than actually it is, because he puts a spin on it that makes you laugh out loud. Bob Newhart does that all the time. Patrick Warburton, from Seinfeld and Rules of Engagement, also has a knack for doing that. Roy discovered that about Jim when they were both under contract at Warner Bros. in the ’50s. Roy wanted to develop a television Western with humor, one that poked fun at all the standard Western clichés. Bret Maverick, Jim’s character, was a reluctant hero: he was more interested in making a quick buck than in saving Dodge City from ruin, but if push came to shove, he’d do the right thing. Maverick made Jim a big star in the ’50s. Twenty years later, Jim decided to try television again, and he asked Roy to develop something for him. Roy knew that audiences loved Jim as that Maverick character, the reluctant hero. He figured what worked once before in the’50s, might work again in the ’70s. Jim Rockford, like Maverick, didn’t like trouble, and had no qualms about quitting a case if things got too dangerous. Rockford Files brought humor into private eye shows, just as Maverick had brought humor into Westerns. Jim is one of the few actors who can pull off that kind of humor, and that’s why the show took off.

There is also something “uniquely American” about James Garner, and Rockford Files definitely tapped into that. While Rockford stayed true to the original premise (Maverick as a private eye) throughout the entire series, in later seasons the character morphed into a sort of Everyman – a lone voice of common sense in a world of increasing absurdity. That’s really when the show’s writers (Stephen J. Cannell, Juanita Bartlett, and David Chase, especially) began to exploit Garner’s strengths as a performer and as a personality. Jim is one of the great reactors in film and TV history – a lot of times, he never has to say a word to get a laugh or trigger an emotion. That’s a rare talent among performers. Rockford tapped into that by contrasting Rockford with offbeat characters, or by putting Jim in situations where he, as Rockford, more or less had to react. Those scenes always worked because we knew what Rockford was thinking just by the look on Jim’s face.

Audiences also like Garner because they know he’s a fighter. He has shown many times that he’s not afraid to stand up for himself when he knows he has been wronged.  He did that at great risk early in his career, when he took on Warner Bros. in 1960 for violating his contract, and he did that again in the ’80s, when he sued in Universal over his share of profits from The Rockford Files.  Jim would never say this, but in many respects he really does share some of the heroic qualities of the characters he plays on film and TV. That’s why movie makers and movie goers alike have admired him for over 50 years.

Juanita:  What years did the original Rockford series run, and what did the ratings look like?  What awards did it win over the years? 

Ed: The original Rockford Files aired on NBC from September 1974 through January 1980. It was a Top 10 hit during its first season, when Roy Huggins was its primary producer. Roy left at the end of the first year, and Stephen J. Cannell took over the show. The show lost its footing early on under Steve’s leadership, and the ratings reflected that, but Cannell steered the show back on course by the end of the second season, and kept the show on course for the rest of its network run. Rockford was never a Top 10 hit again, but it remained a steady performer for NBC on Friday nights. It was also under Cannell’s leadership that the show won five Emmy Awards, including Best Dramatic Series (for the 1977-1978 season) and Best Dramatic Actor (Garner, for the 1976-1977 season).

Juanita:  What was the response to later Rockford movies in the 90’s?

Ed: Rockford came back to television in 1994 (this time, on CBS) as a series of two-hour movies. Jim made eight movies in all, which aired between 1994 and 2001. The first CBS movie finished in the Top Five, the final movie finished in the Top 20, while the rest as a whole performed well in the ratings. So overall, I’d say the audience response to the CBS movies was positive.

Juanita: Ed, how has entertainment TV changed over the last 30 years?  What do you see as the current trends in television programming?

Ed: Well, one obvious shift, especially over the past 10 years, came about with the emergence of so-called “reality” shows like Survivor and American Idol –shows that are not traditionally scripted like Rockford Files, but in which the drama each week plays out more or less “unscripted” (and in many cases, in real time). I say “so-called” because while there is certainly a random or “unscripted” element to reality shows, many of these shows are, if not partially “scripted,” at least more structured than they would have us believe. There are a number of reasons for this, but I’m afraid we don’t have enough time to get into that. Let’s just say that, for better or for worse, reality shows have changed the landscape of television, and they’re probably here to stay.

It’s interesting to watch how network television continues to deal with the emergence of new media. Today it’s possible to watch your favorite television shows, whether they’re current shows like Lost or Heroes or classic shows like Rockford, without even owning a television set. You can watch entire episodes on the Internet, or through your cell phone or PDA. So the very concept of “watching television” is way different than it was when you and I were young.

Which kind of dovetails into another interesting topic... the changing face of “video on demand.” Once upon a time, long before VCRs, watching television was very much an event. You only had one chance to watch this week’s episode of your favorite show, and if you weren’t home that night or otherwise missed it, you were pretty much out of luck. And when it came to certain shows like I Love Lucy or The Fugitive or The Rockford Files – all of which were “must see TV” shows before that phrase was even coined – you’d have entire bowling leagues or weekly poker games moved to another night so that members could be home to watch those particular shows.

VCRs (and later, TiVo and DVRs) changed that – if you weren’t home, you could at least tape the show and watch it later on your own time. Then again, if you forgot to set your machine to the right day and time, or forgot to change the clock on the machine because of Daylight Savings Time, you had to wait till the show was repeated, if it was repeated at all, before you could see it again.

Cable networks like HBO and FX began changing that with multiple airings. If you missed The Sopranos on Sunday night, you have two or three more chances to catch the same episode later in the week, so you can still watch it on your own time. With so many choices on television, but only so many hours in the day and week, and only so much room on your DVR, viewers like having multiple chances to watch a show on their time schedule, instead of the network’s. Cable TV has been doing that successfully over the last couple of decades, and the networks are beginning to come around to that way of thinking.

Another network trend that stemmed from cable is the concept of serialized dramas. Up until about 10 years ago, the episodes of most network dramas were self-contained. Except for shows like Dallas or Hill Street Blues, which were deliberately written so that storylines played out over several weeks, the stories on most weekly dramas were resolved by the end of the hour. There wouldn’t be any reference to a particular plotline or character from last week’s show that you had to know about in order to follow this week’s show. So if you missed last week’s episode of Rockford Files, you could watch this week’s episode and not feel as though you missed anything.

That changed with the impact of shows like The Sopranos, which take a more “novelistic” approach to television. With shows like The Sopranos, the episodes are not self-contained, but rather like chapters in a novel, where you have to know what happens in Chapter 1 to follow what happens in Chapter 2. That’s the way shows like 24 and Lost are structured: they tell one story over the course of 22 episodes. With the success of 24 and Lost, other network shows tried to do the same thing, and before you knew it, we had this whole glut of serialized shows, especially this current television season.

The problem is, it takes a certain investment, both in terms of time and emotional investment, to follow a serialized show. There are only so many hours in the week, and only so many shows you can watch, and only so much room on your DVR to record the shows you don’t have time to watch. As much as I love television, I have a life, I have a family, I have other things to do with my time besides watch TV. And you know what? So do most other people. Consequently, most of the serialized dramas that premiered this year – even “buzz” shows like The Nine and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip – failed to catch on. They’ve already been canceled.

Juanita:  Do you think popular current day television shows will still be talked about 10, 20, 30 years from now? 

Ed: We’ll still talk about shows like Survivor and American Idol, because the impact they had on the medium. They are the benchmark shows as far as network reality shows are concerned, and for that reason, they’ll be remembered. We’ll still talk about The Sopranos and Sex and the City because of the roles they played in making cable television, especially premium channels like HBO, a major player in the television landscape. We’ll remember CSI and Law and Order for ushering in the current wave of police procedurals that have dominated television throughout the ’90s and into the 2000s.

We’ll also remember The Sopranos because of its timeless element. Take away the mob, the guns, the four-letter words, and the gratuitous shots of the Bing Girls, and The Sopranos is essentially a show about family. For that reason, it’ll still play well 10 or 20 years from now.

Juanita: Ed, of course I have to ask, how much television do you watch?  And, how do you retain such a large amount information, you must have an incredible memory?

Ed: That’s very flattering, Juanita, thank you. Let’s just say that, like most experts in any given field, there are certain things I’ve come to know about television through studying it; through reading about it in books like Watching TV and The Columbo Phile, as well as through newspapers and trade publications; through talking to people like Roy Huggins and James Garner, who worked in the industry, and who helped me understand how the industry works; and by continuing to write about it and talk about it for my books, articles, and radio show. When I talk to people like you, certain things about television will always come to mind, because this is what I do. And if I don’t know or don’t remember something off hand, I know where I can find the answer. That’s also part of being an expert.

As for how much television I watch... There are certain shows I watch regularly for enjoyment, while there are some I follow occasionally to keep track of a particular genre or trend. But remember, for someone like me, “watching television” is something that entails more than just the act of sitting down in front of the TV set, or in front of the computer screen, and watching x-number of shows. It also means writing about television, talking about television, studying it, and continuing to learn about it. And that’s something I do all the time.

Juanita:  Ed, do you have any projects in the works?  How can readers find out more about you and your endeavors?

Ed: Yes, I do, Juanita. I have two book projects that I’m shopping around, including a proposal for a film biography. I’m also in talks regarding a possible collaborative project, but because we’re still in the discussion stage, I can’t go into more details about it at the moment. I also write for publications like The Wave Magazine, for which I recently interviewed Michael Emerson, who plays the leader of “the Others” on Lost. He’s a very interesting man, by the way, not to mention a very nice man.

In addition, I appear regularly on Talking Television with Dave White, a weekly 90-minute call-in show heard through global radio station www.KSAV.org. I produce, along with my broadcast partners Dave White and Frankie Montiforte, a weekly 10-minute report on current DVD releases (particularly, DVD releases of classic television series). In addition, I write, produce, and host full-length programs on a variety of topics related to television. In recent weeks, for example, we paid tribute to the career of David Janssen, Leonard Goldenson (founding president of the ABC television network), and the classic Darren McGavin series, Kolchak: The Night Stalker. You can hear archives of those shows, as well as learn about my other projects related to television, by visiting my websites, www.edrobertson.com and www.doctorrerun.com.

Juanita:  Ed, thanks for the great interview.  It has been a pleasure hearing about your diverse career, as well as your book Thirty Years of The Rockford Files.  We hope you have much success with all of your pursuits, and encourage readers to check out your book as well as your entertaining website.  Before we depart, do you have any last thoughts today?

Ed: Only to say thank you again, Juanita, for having me with you. It was a pleasure for me as well.

Read Review of Thirty Years of the Rockford Files
Make Comments on weblog

Social Media Network

follow us on Twitter