Monthly Archives: September 2002

It will probably change in an hour or two but, right this minute, the headline story over at www.washingtonpost.com is that Rudy Giuliani has stopped combing his hair over.  Honest.  That's what's posted there on the site.  They have side-by-side "before" and "after" photos and an article speculating on why the former mayor of New York has decided to let his baldness show.  All I can say is, Thank God the critical stories are finally getting some attention.

Goodness knows there's nothing else going on in the world that matters more, especially since the press started shirking their grave responsibility of covering Al Gore's beard and waistline.  And in the week of the first anniversary of 9/11/01, of all the things that might be written about Rudolph Giuliani, his hairline is certainly the most significant.

The following is a message that I just posted to a discussion group. Someone was wondering if Letterman's higher-than-usual ratings the other night with Bill Clinton would have any impact on his numbers, the way the infamous Hugh Grant appearance did with Mr. Leno, and whether Dave took viewers from Nightline. In response, I wrote…

The Hugh Grant interview actually did very little for Leno. Jay's ratings were slowly gaining before it and Dave's were slowly declining. If the Hugh Grant thing had never happened, Jay would have passed Dave a few weeks later and from there on, things would have been exactly the same. Grant just sped up the process a bit.

The Clinton interview didn't get that high a rating. In the last few years, Letterman has had shows that did much better. For the most part, "event" episodes (ones where something very special occurs that triggers a bigger-than-usual tune-in) have little long-lasting impact on the ratings. As I recall, the night Dave had Hillary Clinton on, the show got a huge rating and, the next night, the numbers were right where they were before it. Sometimes, an event bolsters the numbers for a week or two.

I suspect that what's now at work in the late night competition has very little to do with the shows taking viewers away from one another, at least not on a steady basis. There's a certain segment of the population that will flit from Jay to Dave to Ted, based on which show has the best guest or topic, or the mood of the viewer — i.e., whether they're in the mood for something serious or silly.

For the most part though, viewers have all sampled the late night shows and decided which one(s) they prefer. The ratings go up and down, depending on how many of a given show's fans tune in on a given night and — perhaps as importantly — how much of the show they watch. That is, Dave has a certain audience that, when they watch late night TV, likes to watch him. On a great night, he'll get most of them to tune in and watch most of the show. On a bad night, a lesser percentage of them will tune in and a lot will change the channel or go to bed after the Top Ten List. One of the main factors in Leno's rise in the ratings was not that he was getting more viewers to tune in but that they were sticking around longer.

So my guess is that Letterman's higher-than-usual rating that evening was mostly a matter of a higher percentage of Dave fans than usual tuning in, plus a few folks who ordinarily watch other shows. But the major factor probably was that, of folks who tuned in to watch the beginning of the show, a higher-than-usual percentage of them stayed with it until the end, or at least until the musical act. (Both Jay and Dave lose a large, noticeable chunk of their audience when the guest band starts playing.)

I would have added, if I'd thought of it before sending this message, that while a lot of numeric analysis goes into the ratings, there's also a lot of guesswork. It's what I once heard someone describe as a "sorta-exact science," meaning that there's room for speculation. For all we know, people watch whichever late night host has the loudest tie.

It is time for you to read this article by Michael Kinsley.  Read it and you'll see why.

I think I've figured out my position on whether or not the U.S. should go to war against Saddam Hussein.  I think I don't know.  I furthermore think that, like many Americans, I am reacting more to the partisan volleying in our national debate than to any realistic assessment of the risks and benefits of action or inaction.  I think Bush, Cheney and their minions are making a lame, arrogant and incomplete argument for attacking Iraq…but I keep reminding myself that it is possible to make a lame, arrogant and incomplete argument for what may well be the correct course of action.  It is also possible to believe that Hussein needs to be taken out but that doing so without building an international consensus first will cause more harm than good.  If I had a vote in the matter — and we can all feel safer that I don't — I suspect I'd come down on that side of the argument…today.  Tomorrow, who knows?

Part of my problem, I suspect, has to do with the avoidance of direct debate.  Prowling the pro-attack websites and columnists, I see a lot of attempts to argue that anyone opposed to wasting ol' Saddam is a Democrat partisan (never mind the many prominent Republicans who feel that way) or a wimp (never mind the many war heroes).  I am naturally suspicious when someone is arguing a position largely by misrepresenting and mischaracterizing the opposition.  I'm also uncomfortable with how many questions have gone unasked and unanswered regarding Dick Cheney's past business dealings in the region, and with the fact that the White House can't seem to get its story straight on whether or why they think Hussein is connected to 9/11.

The other part of my problem is the vast number of ancillary issues that are clouding the debate, starting with the extent to which leaders on all sides are trying to manipulate this question for advantage in the upcoming elections.  We also have a lot of people who are raising the matter of Bush's electoral legitimacy, and even some reaching back to scratch festering sores from the Vietnam war.  This kind of stuff shouldn't be getting in the way but it is.

Beneath all that, there may be a sound case for us going to war against Iraq.  I hope we all get to hear it before we do.

Not that the "late night wars" are even remotely as important as the real wars being discussed yesterday…but I thought someone might be interested in how Jay and Dave fared with their 9/11 shows.  The fast overnights give Leno (with lead guest John McCain, followed by an outraged and interesting James Woods) a 4.2/11.  Letterman, with Bill Clinton (and a late start in some time zones), got a 4.6/12.  Nightline had a 3.8/9.

My current favorite super-guy comic (and almost the only one I read, these days) is The Savage Dragon, which is written and drawn by Erik Larsen.  It has now been written and drawn by Erik Larsen for a hundred issues, which sets all kinds of records.  In the old days, creators stayed on comics forever…or would have, had their editors kept them on the same assignment.  These days, it's rare to stay in one place for more than a few issues.  Fortunately, Erik is the head honcho on his creation and has remained on it because it's the comic he really wants to do.  I think the passion shows, not only in his dedication to doing it every month but doing it so well.

Lewis J. Stadlen, an actor I've loved in everything I've seen him in, is starring as Max Bialystock in the touring company of The Producers.  Here's a link to a good but short interview with him about how he came to the job and what he intends to do with it.

Do you like Beetle Bailey?  Can you handle a bit of simple, straightforward flag-waving?  Most important, can your computer run Shockwave animation files?  If the answer to all of these is yes, then click here to see a little Shockwave Beetle Bailey flag-waving.  And on your way out, stop by www.mortwalker.com.

I will say, however, that David Letterman had a first-rate interview the other night with Bill Clinton.  Part of it was because Clinton is, as even most of his foes admit, a terrific public speaker.  But part of it was because Dave rose to the challenge of the guest and the occasion.

Lately, I've felt both Letterman and Leno were spectacularly uninterested in their own shows.  Word from inside both operations is that the shows are relying heavily (too heavily, everyone seems to think) on ratings reports that break down the audience tune-in and tune-out for certain segments and certain kinds of segments.  This has caused both Dave and Jay to minimize or dump outright some spots they like, and to increase — for example — features like Jay's "Jaywalking" and Dave's remotes in Rupert's Deli.  Darn near everyone who works on both shows, hosts probably included, thinks those segments have long since outworn their welcomes.  Still, the ratings indicate that viewers take to those bits better than some of the wittier prepared material…so "Jaywalking" and Rupert's Deli remain.  This may help Act II keep its viewership up but I wonder if this attitude hasn't taken a bite out of Dave's and Jay's spirits.

Letterman asked good questions last night and Clinton, of course, had good answers.  Dave probably got more out of his guest in 30 minutes than Larry King could have in an hour.  I'm not sure I agreed with most of what our former president said, and I wish one politician in this world could answer a question without itemizing his accomplishments.  But Clinton's a great talker and it's a shame he's not doing that rumored talk show.

A number of people wrote to thank me for not writing anything about 9/11 here yesterday.  Matter of fact, you know how we subtly nag you to donate cash to this site?  Well, yesterday I had my highest-to-date level of donations, much of it from folks who said it was because they were as sick of the topic as I was.  I'll steer clear of the topic again today and see what it gets me.

There is nothing today about the anniversary we're observing.  This is just in case you're as sick of it as I am.

I've never watched Farscape, but a lot of folks I like and respect seem to love it and are up in arms over its cancellation.  A couple asked that I direct your attention to this website which is trying to keep the show alive.  So if you adore the show as many seem to, hop over there and see what you can do.

Robert B. Weide is a respected producer whose credits include the fine documentary, The Marx Brothers in a Nutshell.  Recently, he decided to pony up megabucks to purchase a harp that had allegedly belonged to Harpo Marx.  What he went through will serve as a fine object lesson that not all movie memorabilia is precisely what it is purported to be.  Mr. Weide lays out the whole sad tale over at his website.  And while you're there, have a look around.  There are a number of interesting things to read.

A number of you, all of whom can count better than I can, sent me messages like this one from Oliver King.  This is about the previous item about the stamps…

You can permute the three rows any way you like, and still preserve the three pairings.  There are six ways to do this.  Then for each row you can swap the stamp on the left with the stamp on the right while still preserving the pairings.  There are 8 ways to do this.  Thus of the 720 different ways to arrange the six stamps, 6*8 = 48 of them (or 1/15th of them) preserve the three pairings.  Or half that many, if you require that Hart look at Rodgers and Hammerstein rather than off into space.

He's right, of course.  But I'm still right that they don't make Broadway composers like they used to…or maybe they do, but there's insufficient chance for them to show what they can do.  Either way, it would be hard to fill six stamps with recent guys.

A year or three ago, the U.S. Postal Service came out with these six stamps honoring great Broadway composers.  Someone recently gave me a pane of them and they got me thinking.  These men all did their major work in a 40 year period (30 if you leave out the Gershwins) and they hardly had the field to themselves.  If the U.S.P.S. had done six or even ten more stamps, they'd have had no trouble finding worthy candidates: Jule Styne, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, etc.  If they tried to do stamps covering the last 30-40 years, they'd be hard-pressed to find six.  Sondheim, certainly.  Jerry Herman, I would imagine.

And then the next stop after that is Andrew Lloyd Webber.  At that point, it would cease to be much of an honor.  It is also worth noting that, in my last few trips to New York, the musical shows I've attended have, as often as not, been shows written by the guys on the stamps above.

Another thought I had about these stamps is that whoever decided what stamps would be on the same row was trying to make a small historical statement.  The Gershwins are on the same tier as Lerner and Loewe, which is vaguely symbolic.  A lot of critics hailed the latter as the successor to the former.  (Also, Lerner won an Academy Award — a major turning point in his career — for adapting the Gershwin's work into the movie, An American in Paris.)

The second row of stamps has Lorenz Hart on the left, Rodgers & Hammerstein to the right.  Rodgers and Hart, of course, were a team and due to Hart's drinking and decaying work habits, Rodgers finally left him and began collaborating, with greater success, with Hammerstein.  Don't those two stamps, viewed as a unit, look like Hart is looking with mixed emotion at his former collaborator who has not only left their partnership but his stamp, as well?

Lastly, we have the pairing of Meredith Willson and Frank Loesser.  The connect here is that Willson's best works were published by Loesser's music company, done under his encouragement…and have always been dogged by rumors that Loesser ghost-wrote or ghost-rewrote certain key numbers.

This may seem like I'm projecting history where none was intended…but there are 720 different ways to arrange six stamps and this is the only one where the honorees on each tier have anything in common with one another.

When Phil Silvers was in the Broadway show, High Button Shoes, one of its producers, Joe Kipness, noticed that his star seemed dejected and not at his best. He asked Silvers what the problem was and Silvers explained he was on a tremendous losing streak as a gambler. Every bet he made, he lost…one after the other. No matter what it was, Silvers bet and Silvers lost.

Kipness came up with a way to help Silvers get his old spirit back and most of his money, as well. He found out about a prize fight that was fixed and he told Silvers, "Bet everything you can on the kid in the black trunks. Hock your car, borrow against your life insurance, rob your mother if you have to. Just put it all on the kid in the black trunks." Silvers thanked him and rushed off to do so.

The kid in the black trunks won in a major upset, as planned. The next day, when Kipness went to see if his star had his old energy back, he found Silvers more depressed than ever. "What's wrong, Phil?" he asked. "Couldn't you raise any money to bet?"

The actor said he'd raised thousands of dollars and bet it with his local bookie. "So," Kipness asked, "why are you so dejected?"

Silvers looked up at him with sad eyes and said, "I liked the kid in the white trunks."

Whatever happened to Richard Lamparski?  I'm serious.  It's been more than ten years since he issued one of his entertaining Whatever Happened To..? books.  Anyone know what became of him?

If you use Microsoft read the warning over at the Gibson Research website.  This is a good place for everyone to occasionally peruse.  Steve Gibson has proven to be the Internet's most adept, independent watchdog of major security breaches.

Can you spare 90 minutes?  That's how long it'll take you to watch a pretty good interview of Stephen Sondheim over on the Lincoln Center website.  New York Times critic Frank Rich asks the questions and you'll need RealPlayer installed.  While you watch, browse the site and see how many places you can find where they've spelled their honoree's name "Sondhiem."  (When it first went up, there were more but they've fixed some of them.)  Here's your link.

The truest thing I've seen or heard a public figure say this week:  I'm watching the show Biography and they're covering Raymond Burr.  I just heard the following quote from famed attorney Alan Dershowitz…

Perry Mason was my dream and then my nightmare.  He started as my dream.  I wanted to be Perry Mason.  I dreamed of the courtroom battles that Perry Mason had fought.  But then he became my nightmare because I learned that the clients that Perry Mason represented don't exist in real life.  Most of my clients were guilty.

Mr. Dershowitz's most famous client was Orenthal James Simpson.

The dumbest thing I've seen or heard a public figure say lately…

Since this year's measure qualified for the ballot, Asa Hutchinson and John Walters, heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, have visited to warn that legalizing pot would turn Nevada into a drug tourist spot.  "You're going to have a much more permissive environment," Hutchinson says.  "People will be coming from other states to visit their relatives so they can use marijuana."

Yeah, wouldn't it be a shame if a state with legalized gambling and prostitution descended into a more permissive environment? (Here's the text of the entire article.)