Monthly Archives: January 2003

The lady in the above picture is Mary Tyler Moore, as seen during her pre-Petrie days, modeling for record album covers.  In the sixties, there was a store up on Hollywood Boulevard that sold "cut-out" albums, meaning that some distributor was stuck with a warehouse full of some record that nobody wanted.  At this shop, they'd unload them at the price of three for a dollar.  They had thousands of copies of some of them.  I remember a whole display window filled with The Greatest Hits of Gary Lewis and the Playboys, and I used to wonder what Gary would think if he wandered through Hollywood and spotted his "greatest hits" readily available at that price.  Anyway, the store had a zillion copies of these Mary Tyler Moore records.  No one recognized Ms. Moore so no one bought them…but collectors now pay hefty prices for them.

If you're a fan of Mary Tyler Moore, you're probably a fan of The Dick Van Dyke Show.  And if you're a fan of The Dick Van Dyke Show, check in here tomorrow for an exciting announcement.

I have decidedly-mixed feelings on this morning's decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the extension of the Sonny Bono Copyright Act — and my ambivalence is not merely because the thing is named after Sonny Bono.  Unlike many of my friends (with whom I've argued this), I am not a big fan of works lapsing into the public domain.  I do not think that writers or their heirs are greedy swine for wanting to hold onto a property that someone thinks "should" belong to all.  I think, in this materialistic world of ours, that a creation is a commodity and that society has no more right to void ownership rights than they have to say that you can't own those precious family heirlooms that Grandma left you in her will.  I also do not see the greater good that is supposedly achieved by books and movies lapsing into the public domain.  Seems to me most of what we get from that is a lot of really cheap, bad videotapes in K-Mart, and publishing houses that get to print books without having to pay an author or respect the wishes of one.

I recognize that there are cases where public domain facilitates the preservation of classic work and the creation of new art.  I just think they're the exception, not the rule.  The argument has been advanced that public domain "liberates" certain works of art, preventing copyright owners from sitting on them and keeping them from the world.  I'm not sure that's as true as some say.  I think public domain provides a disincentive for copyright owners to invest in preservation and restoration.  But if keeping great works available is our primary concern, there could be a clause in the copyright laws that said works have to be preserved and kept in print for their owners to retain custody.

I also have no great love for companies like Disney continuing to own properties like Mickey Mouse, but fear the "little guy" will get trampled by the decision that Disney has "earned enough."  In my ideal world, after the formal term of the copyright, the rights would revert to the estates of Ub Iwerks and Walt Disney, and the current company would have to go to them and reacquire the rights.

Where my feelings get mixed on this issue is that I think the Supreme Court, in saying it's okay to tack more decades onto copyrights that would otherwise have expired, is going against the Constitution.  That most imperfect of perfect documents does say something about copyrights expiring, and Congress has done all that it can to see that this never occurs.  On the one hand, I'm glad because I think copyrights should not expire, and I think that clause in the Constitution — authored at a time when it was beastly difficult to reprint anything at all — is outdated and in need of changing.  No one is talking about changing it, however; they're just doing fancy footwork to not comply.  I like the result but I don't like seeing the Constitution circumvented to arrive at it.

• Stimulus For Lawyers by Paul Krugman, New York Times
• G.O.P. Senators on the Warpath by Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times
• Governor Ryan Did the Right Thing by Rod Dreher, National Review

Speaking of Governor George Ryan of Illinois: As you probably know, he recently commuted the sentences of 157 men and women who had been sentenced to die for capital crimes. Whatever you think of this, you might want to read the speech he gave to explain why he did it.

Bravo is starting a new season of The It Factor, a 13-week "reality" series I enjoyed last year when it followed a group of aspiring New York actors around on auditions.  The new outing, which does the same thing but in Los Angeles, is just starting.  (It's already started, actually; the first two have aired but Bravo will run them several more times this week.)  This review in the L.A. Weekly is about as negative as any review ever written, but I still intend to see for myself.  Also, Penn & Teller: Bullshit! has finally turned up on my TiVo listings, where it's charmingly redubbed Penn & Teller: Bulls…!  By any name, the first one airs 1/24.

Jimmy Kimmel Live! debuts two days later, on January 26 with a one-time-only Sunday episode following the Super Bowl.  ABC has set up a page for it on their website where they proudly proclaim it's "the first live nightly talk show in over 40 years!"  And I suppose that's true if we forget about the show Joan Rivers did for Fox.  Which is not a bad idea.

The movie of Chicago went through many screenplays by many writers before it hit the screen.  One of those who tackled it was the brilliant Larry Gelbart.  Here, Broadway commentator Ken Mandelbaum discusses how Gelbart's approach differed from what is now playing.

I've received a half-dozen e-mails from folks who claim they've seen (or even purchased) Mad Art in stores.  They're obviously lying since Amazon is still saying it won't be out 'til December 31, 1969.  And do you think I've milked this for about all it's worth?  Yeah, me too.

If it comes down to a choice between George W. Bush and Joe Lieberman, I'm staying home.

The splendid comic book illustrator Colleen Doran gives tips on how to make a home office work for you.  Where can you read this?  Well, right here, of course.

I am informed that a second printing of Mad Art has just been scheduled.  Not bad for a book that won't be out until 1969.

Speaking of Amazon, as I seem to be doing often lately, one of the sillier spectator sports on the Internet involves their pages selling political books, specifically the "Reader Reviews" sections.  Reader Reviews are often interesting and helpful when those folks are reporting on electronics products they purchased, and occasionally on non-political books.  But when the product or its author is the least bit controversial, the "reviews" are about as honest as those e-mails we all receive about Guaranteed Penis Enlargement.  (Uh, I'm not the only one who gets those e-mails, am I?)

It's clear that 90+% of the reviewers haven't read the book.  They're lying.  They see some author on Crossfire or The O'Reilly Factor or wherever and hate him and all that he stands for.  Needing some way to express that hatred and thinking they'll do the despised one some small amount of damage, they rush to Amazon, pretend they purchased his book and announce that they found it poorly-written, filled with lies and errors, and perhaps even printed with inks which, when inhaled, cause untreatable diseases.  Up until a few months ago, you sometimes saw these "I read this and hated it" reviews on books that wouldn't be out for a few months, but Amazon seems to have modified their software so reviews can't be posted of a book until it's actually been released.  (Of course, they have trouble figuring out when a book's actually been released, but that's another story…)

The attackers sometimes pretend to be what they're not, claiming to be on the political side of the work they're lambasting, insisting that they found it a waste of money, despite this.  Once in a while, trying to seem non-hysterical, they'll give it a 2-star rating (next to lowest) instead of 1 star.  But they never cite one example that makes you think they ever cracked a copy.  Nor do their opponents, who post raves of books they also haven't seen, hoping to endorse those authors' viewpoints or counter the detractors.  (Not too much with the political books but many of the positive "Reader Reviews" on Amazon appear to be the work of the author posting anonymously, or of the author's friends.)

Amazon also lets you rate the reviews, asking you to vote, "Did you find this review helpful?"  Since almost none of the reviews, pro or con, are the least bit helpful, this referendum allows those who don't have time to post phony reviews to have a say.  If you hate the author and/or his/her thesis, you vote that you found the negative reviews "helpful," and vice-versa.  And of course, this is also done by people who didn't read the book and, if they're negative, probably won't.

If you want to see some examples of this, look at the Reader Reviews for Eric Alterman, Paul Begala, Ann Coulter, William J. Bennett, Michael Moore, or just about anyone who turns up on the political talk shows.  I'm sure a few of those comments are legit, but most of them strike me as utterly bogus.  And they aren't even clever about it.

I'm getting reports that folks who've called Feinstein's in New York to make reservations for the big Stan Freberg show are being told it has been cancelled due to "prior commitments."  You now know as much about this as I do.  I'll let you know if I hear otherwise, but maybe you shouldn't book that chartered flight just yet.

Kevin Phillips writes the best article I've seen yet about the current White House tax proposal and why it's a colossal mistake.

In case you haven't heard, the great wartime and political cartoonist, Bill Mauldin, is ailing, and really appreciates cards and letters.  Here's a link to an article that will tell you how he is and where to write.

I just received an e-mail from Robert Spina.  It's dated January 1, 1970 and it reads as follows:

Just a note to let you know your new book came out yesterday.  It was a great read and actually took my mind off the Beatles breakup.

Best,
Robert

This is getting scary.  My book, Mad Art, contains an overview of everyone who has drawn for MAD in fifty years.  If it's really coming out in '69 though, I should go back and cut out everyone who's worked for them in the last 32 years.  That would be everyone from Angelo Torres on.

By the way: The book is out and, for those of you scoring at home…

• Barnes and Noble now says the book came out this month but that they're out of stock and won't have more for 1-2 weeks.
• AlphaCraze has it "currently on backorder," which means 2-4 weeks.
• Amazon.ca (their Canadian outlet) says, "Usually ships in 3 to 5 weeks."
• Booksamillion merely says, "Sorry: This title is not currently available."
• Chapters says it came out in November of 2002 but is "Temporarily unavailable to order."
• Amazon.uk (their British wing) says, "Usually dispatched within 4 to 6 weeks. Please note that titles occasionally go out of print or publishers run out of stock."
• And Powell's Books never even heard of the damn thing.  Good for them.

In the meantime, we've jumped up another 1000+ places at Amazon in the U.S. and Mad Art is presently #54031.  But Comic Books and Other Necessities of Life (the book you can order) has dropped to #92275.  If only I could get them to list it as unavailable, I could maybe have two best-sellers…

Rarely having time to cook, I love pre-packaged, instant, so-simple-a-chowderhead-could-do-it products.  Mostly, it's a matter of scheduling.  When I decide it's time to eat, I don't want to start cooking then; I want the food done and ready to devour.  This is why I like Express Bake PotatOH!s.  These are pre-scrubbed taters that come sealed in plastic.  You just stick them in your microwave for 7-8 minutes.  By the time you set the table and wash your mitts, the thing is edible.  But that's not the main thing I like about them.  I like one line in the teeny instruction manual that comes with each one.  It says — and this is a direct quote — "PotatOH! may whistle in microwave."

Wouldn't that be wonderful?  Wouldn't you love to have your potato whistle a happy little tune while it's baking?  Maybe a chorus of, "I Only Have Eyes For You."  So far, none of the ones I've microwaved have whistled for me but I'm going to keep cooking them until one does.

Shooting up the charts   Mad Art has jumped another 12,000 places at Amazon — this, during a 24 hour period where it's been listed as not coming out until 1969.  It's currently at #55,256.

But with my luck, it won't last.  Any day now, they'll list it as Available.  Then watch my sales plummet.

For some time, Warner Brothers has had the following unofficial policy regarding the casting of voices for the classic characters they own.  To the extent possible, they try to hire the originator of the voice.  When that person becomes unavailable — usually, because they've died — the role is up for grabs, and various crannies of Time-Warner have cast various folks for various projects.  At least eight different actors have spoken for Bugs Bunny since Mel Blanc passed away, and it has not been uncommon for one guy to be doing that Wascally Wabbit for a TV cartoon while someone else is doing him for a commercial and someone else is doing him for a videogame.  To make matters more complicated, some of those actors have more than one interpretation of the same voice.  One of the many performers who plays Daffy Duck has had to develop four different approaches — one based on the early, screwy Daffy; one based on the greedy Daffy of the "Duck Season/Rabbit Season" era; one more like what Mel did in the sixties, and one that more or less splits these differences to create an amalgam.  "When I work for one division, they want Version A," he explains.  "Another division insists that Version B is the way The Duck ought to sound, and so on."

Sources inside WB tell me that this practice is ending; that they're in the process of zeroing in on a "one character, one voice" actor policy.  Until they get it perfected, the classic WB and Hanna-Barbera characters will continue to be played by a wider list of actors than has tackled Macbeth.

At least three men have provided the sounds of Scooby Doo since his original voice, Don Messick, died in 1997.  The recent theatrical feature had the pooch done by an Australian actor named Neil Fanning, about whom I know nothing.  The current TV series has a Scooby voiced by Frank Welker, who has also been the voice of Fred since the first Scooby Doo show in 1969.  Most of the mutt's other appearances have come to us through the vocal cords of a Louisiana-based disc jockey, Scott Innes.

Scott is an amazing talent and, as I say in the foreword to his autobiography, he does an uncanny facsimile of Mr. Messick's mutterings.  He has also occasionally done the voice of Shaggy when its originator, Casey Kasem, couldn't or wouldn't.  (The story is that Mr. Kasem, a firm vegetarian, declined to venture near Shaggy during the time the character was appearing in commercials for Burger King.  Casey is back on the new series.)  Scott also did the voice of Scrappy Doo in the Scooby Doo feature, deftly bridging the gap between Scrappy's two voices (by Lennie Weinrib and then Messick).  Most of the time, being in another state would disqualify a voice actor from working for the Hollywood studios, but Innes is that good.

Anyway, this is a plug for that autobiography.  It's a slim, easy-to-read volume, profusely illustrated, that will answer many of the basic questions about what it's like to be a voice actor (and a disc jockey).  At the moment, it's available only at www.scottinnes.com, but that's okay because if you buy it there, Scott will autograph your copy.  And while you're there, browse around, look at the pictures, even listen to some clips from his radio show.  I like Scott, if for no other reason than that he restores my faith in America.  It's a great country where any young man can grow up to be a Great Dane…

Take a look at this article in today's New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof.  It's called "The Secret War on Condoms" and here's the premise: Our government is increasingly taking the position that condoms are not foolproof and therefore should not be used.  This somewhat ties in with the Joe Bob Briggs article to which I linked a few days ago.  What is it with people who think you can legislate the horniness right out of other people…or at least get them to pretend they're celibate?  (Years ago, we had a right-wing state senator in California who used to insist celibacy was easy — after all, he noted, priests practice it.  Somehow, I don't think that example would work these days…)  Also relevant may be this article in today's Los Angeles Times, which describes an epidemic of sexually-transmitted diseases — including The Big A — in the adult film industry.

Kenneth Plume is a terrific interviewer and a fine, perceptive media critic, as you well know if you frequent IGN FilmForce.  I appreciate his enthusiastic recommendation of Mad Art (on this page) but I don't know why he's pushing a book that won't be out until the end of 1969.

In the meantime, reader Tim Madigan writes to tell me, "I have indeed ordered your book but I'm now worried that when it arrives I'll only be 7 years old and unable to understand it."  The way I write, Tim, that's never a concern.

For some reason, among websites devoted to classic comedians, some of the best and most industrious ones seem to be those devoted to The Three Stooges.  I was thinking this as I was fiddling around with www.stoogeworld.com, which is still a work-in-progress but has much to recommend it.  I've often felt that we like most timeless clowns because of their films and — assuming we like the Stooges — we like the Stooges almost in spite of their films.  As I grow older, I am more aware of the craft and care that went into the making of the works of Laurel and Hardy, Keaton, the Brothers Marx, etc.

And I am more aware of how all-fired cheap most of the Stooges' shorts were, especially the later ones which relied on reused footage.  A lot of them were, literally, a case of filming just enough footage so that the producers could edit it into an old short and pass the result off as new.  This way, they saved enough funds to occasionally do something wholly original…but not very.  You can also save money on writing by recycling old material.

Back when I watched them on Channel 11 in the early sixties, the prints were bad and the films were often hacked into near-incoherence so that two could be fit in a half-hour, along with the host's segments, plus endless commercials for Maggio-brand carrots, Bosco chocolate syrup and Mr. Bubble bubble bath — a tasty combination, by the way.  A couple times, without (I assume) realizing it, Channel 11 ran a double-feature of two Stooges shorts, one of which was a close remake of the other.  It was like sitting through the same film twice but with a change of Third Stooge.

I guess I just kind of assumed that the cheapness of the proceedings and the endless repetitions and the bad, splice-filled prints were not the Stooges' fault.  My assumption was that Stan and Ollie were actors playing dumb but that Moe, Larry and Curly [or Shemp or Joe Besser] really were a band of knuckleheads.  As such, it was almost like, "Well, the Stooges weren't smart enough to have been responsible."  So even when their films were crummy, we liked them — enough to keep their names and fame alive today, even on the Internet.  How ironic that the lowest-I.Q. comics of them all should be so well represented on a computer network.