Q&A: Chuck Lorre is a man of many sitcom hats

CBS could very well be an acronym for Chuck’s Band of Sitcoms, Chuck being Chuck Lorre, the seasoned TV show maker. The band of sitcoms are “Two and a Half Men,” “The Big Bang Theory,” “Mom” (all of which he created) and “Mike & Molly” (on which he serves as an executive producer) — half the comedies on CBS.

Lorre’s latest pride and joy, “Mom,” stars Anna Faris as a recovering alcoholic and single mother attempting to reconnect with her own recovering addict mother, played by Allison Janney (who took home an Emmy last month for the role). The comedy enters its second season on Oct. 30.

------------
FOR THE RECORD:
Chuck Lorre: Some copies of the Sunday Conversation interview with TV show creator Chuck Lorre in the Calendar section elsewhere in this edition say that the second-season premiere of his series “Mom” will air Monday. That premiere has been changed to Oct. 30. The change was announced after the section had started its press run.
------------
What was the intention behind doing a show like “Mom”? It’s not something on paper that sounds like a knee-slapper.

I wanted to do a series that tackled some real subject matter — subject matters, I guess. Plural. And I have always been intrigued by the Sisyphus-like struggles that are built into single moms. I tried it on “Grace Under Fire,” but I only did that for one season. I really felt it was unfinished, that there were a lot more stories to tell about how difficult it is to raise children and carry on with your personal life — and add on the idea of a person recovering from alcoholism and dealing with all the family baggage and the damage that was done. And then cleaning up that wreckage.

The humor gives you a glimpse of hope; that there is the potential of redemption, because, otherwise, it’s a straight drama — because it is devastating what [alcoholism] does to a family.

What was CBS’ reaction when you pitched the show?

They were enthusiastic, a little guarded, but enthusiastic. It was challenging, because you don’t want to be disrespectful. People live this, and you don’t want to be blithe about it. That’s not the way to go. But at the same time, we’re doing a comedy. So finding a comedy in the darkness — I think it’s worth doing, but it’s hard. It’s not silly. At this point, it’s really a gut check. You just have to ask yourself: “Does this feel right?” “Am I uncomfortable — in a good way or a bad way?” And just pray you’re making the right choices.

Is it almost cathartic, the subject matters you’re able to work out on this show, or any of your other shows for that matter?

No, I think working in television sends me to therapy! It’s not therapeutic in and of itself, but the actual job does require therapy to get through it.

When did you realize that you liked seeing your words come to life?

The idea of being able to make up a story and make characters and relationships, and then see it become real, early on that was amazing to me, that that could actually happen. That there were people out there who would write a check to make it happen. And then you could actually see it, if you could imagine it, within reason, you could see it. It still startles me when we walk out onto the stage.

And it’s not extravagant. These are sitcoms. There’s no “Exterior: Pacific Ocean. Battle group forms and Japanese Zeros come in over the horizon.” It’s “Interior: Living room. Couch.” — that’s the headline for a scene. Or “Interior: Kitchen. They’re drinking coffee.” That’s pretty much the extent of what we can dream up. We don’t do a lot of big stories. But the intimacy is what I think television is about.

Have you considered doing something extravagant?

Sure. I love big movies. I love to go see big movies where you sit there and go, “How on Earth did they do this? What’s real? What’s computer-generated?” How do you yell “Action!” when there are 3,000 people in front of you? How many cameras are going? What’s the logistics of telling a giant story? It’s intriguing. Maybe someday. In the meantime, it’s “Interior: living room. Two people sitting on the couch drinking coffee.”

How are you managing this upcoming season — you’ve got a relatively new show on your hands in “Mom” that needs care and attention, and you’re also walking “Two and a Half Men” out after 12 seasons.

I’ve learned to compartmentalize, otherwise I’d lose my mind. They’ve very different shows. I’m trying to wrap my head around the idea that this will be the 12th season of “Two and a Half Men.” Ending big was something I really wanted to do rather than having a season-ending episode, I was like, let’s make the entire season a finale. This story line has got a heart, and it’s also provocative.

It’s definitely provocative. It’s generated some criticism already. [A big thread this season is a gay-adoption story line involving straight characters Alan (Jon Cryer) and Walden (Ashton Kutcher).]

Good. The one thing that is most deadly is to be ignored. And the story line wasn’t meant to anger anyone. It’s like, hang on a second: any two people in the state of California can get married now. There’s nothing in that fine print that says they have to be in bed together. There’s no indication that bodily fluids have to be transmitted in order for the marriage to be valid. The marriage is a marriage because you say it’s a marriage. That’s kind of amazing when you think about it. That’s really a transition for the culture. And the fundamental motivation, I think is a good one: a man wants to raise a child, and he doesn’t want to wait for Ms. Right to come along, so he picks Jon Cryer, which is actually the worst choice in the world.

So does that alleviate some pressure for the final episode, to look at it more as a season-wide endeavor?

I’m too far away from it now to feel it. We’ve taken so much heat and criticism over the years, it’s like what are you going to say about us [now] that will hurt our feelings? I mean, it’s a little late for us to worry about ending with dignity. This show was always just, I thought, a reasonable attempt to make people laugh.

How do you look back on the experience?

By and large, it’s been a real positive experience for me. You know, the eight years we did with Charlie [Sheen], I’m proud of. I love those episodes. I’m glad they’re still running, and people watch them and seem to enjoy them. I have no reservations about what we did there. Again, the goal every week was to come up with a way to have these characters be in a situation and be in relationships that cause an audience to enjoy it and laugh at it. It wasn’t Chekhov.

Another story that’s gotten a lot of attention recently is “The Big Bang Theory” and the cast’s contract negotiations. Where do you fall in all that — how involved do you get? Or where do you stand ?

There is a big business affairs department here at Warner Bros. They’ve done this before. I’ve always felt it was very appropriate that the cast reap the benefit. And it gets attention because there’s a face to the dollars. There’s no face at Warner Bros. These faceless corporations are making extraordinary amounts of money, and if they didn’t, they wouldn’t pay. It’s that simple. And it’s well earned. It’s an extraordinary cast, and they deserve it. I couldn’t be happier for them. When really cool cars pull up in the parking lot, I know I’ve done my job.

Follow me on Twitter: @villarrealy