Monthly Archives: March 2004

That's my pal Dan Castellaneta above right as he appeared in the role of TV mogul Aaron Spelling last night in Behind The Camera: The Unauthorized Story of Charlie's Angels, a tv-movie that I watched mainly for Dan. He was very good, striking the perfect note between serious and parody. One of the reasons I thought the original Charlie's Angels show worked (when it worked) was that the folks behind it knew it was a lightweight put-on, even if some of those in front of the camera did not always concur. That was one of the main sources of dramatic conflict in the tv-movie: Co-star Kate Jackson and show runner Barney Rosenzweig trying to make a statement that would improve the image of women while Spelling and other execs wanted more skin 'n' jiggle. Anyway, if you could get past the utter trivia of its topic, the tv-movie was fun.

The three ladies playing Farrah, Kate and Jaclyn were uncanny facsimiles…and I think that was Orson Bean doing a good off-camera impersonation of John Forsythe's off-camera Charlie voice. There were also enough in-jokes and tongues-in-cheek to keep it interesting…though if I were Farrah, or especially her then-husband Lee Majors, I don't think I'd have enjoyed it much. As it was, I enjoyed it more than the original show, which I could never quite bring myself to watch from start to finish.

It dawned on me as I watched last night's stirring docudrama — and I know Dan won't mind me saying this — that he seemed a bit young to be playing Aaron Spelling. Mid-movie, I looked it up and discovered that Dan is only eight years younger than Spelling was when Charlie's Angels went on the air. Okay, but he seemed a lot younger. Actors often belie their actual ages, usually (but not always) skewing younger than their actual years. I worked on a pilot once where they cast two people to play a couple and once they got them together in a rehearsal hall, they realized the man looked a good twenty years older than the woman. They were actually about the same age…in fact, I think the woman was older. But even with all the make-up assistance in the world, the actor seemed more like a father than a mate, and that undermined some key aspects of the script. The producers didn't want to make the actress look older so they paid off and dismissed the guy, replacing him with someone who was actually older but looked younger, if you follow me. Real age doesn't matter on screen. It's how you come across.

Actual years aside, Dan did come across a bit young as Spelling and I wonder if that wasn't deliberate on the part of whoever cast him. It's a little unbecoming for an older man to be ordering young women to wear bikinis and act out roles that might be called "male fantasies." I don't think Mr. Spelling (for whom — full disclosure — I briefly worked) ever had anything more on his mind with Charlie's Angels than concocting something that would win its time slot. Casting a guy with a young twinkle allowed the tv-movie to be about that and not about something more lecherous. So if that's what they had in mind in hiring Castellaneta, it was a good idea. If that's not what they had in mind, then it was a good idea, anyway. The guy's terrific and it's nice to see him flexing different muscles. Some of the best actors in Hollywood have always been people known mainly for animation voicing.

Tony Hendra, formerly of National Lampoon, Spy magazine and This is Spinal Tap, writes an apology to the right wing. But not really.

Harlan Ellison's obit for Julius Schwartz has finally been posted online. It's here.

I wrote the preceding item before reading the current entry in Leonard Maltin's Journal wherein he praises the commentary on the DVD of Catch 22. Great minds think alike and so do ours.

Leonard and I and a bunch of our friends are doing something Saturday night that ought to be a lot of fun. Check back here Sunday morning and I'll tell you about it.

Just re-watched the 1970 movie version of Joseph Heller's Catch 22, directed by Mike Nichols from a screenplay by Buck Henry. I first read the novel after the film was announced but shortly before it came out and I kept wondering, "How are they going to make a movie out of this?" A group of friends and I went to see the first matinee on the first day and emerged from a theater in Westwood, utterly confused as to whether or not they'd pulled it off. The only consensus was that a movie with Paula Prentiss naked in it couldn't be all bad.

For a long time, if you'd asked me if I liked the film, I would have said, "I don't know yet." I finally decided I did, as much for the amazing cast as for the clever way Henry pared down a sprawling book while still retaining its sense of sprawl. I'm not sure if it works for those who never read Heller's book…and in a sense, if you did, you don't need to see the movie. But I decided I liked the film, and I just watched the DVD to listen to the commentary, which has Steven Soderbergh interviewing Nichols. I find a lot of DVD commentaries tedious and worthless, largely because the filmmaker doesn't have a lot to say, and it's especially awkward for some to deliver a monologue in that context. But Soderbergh's chat with Nichols was fascinating, especially when the latter pointed out little things you might otherwise never notice — like intentional "mistakes" in continuity and one place where Buck Henry does an unbilled cameo, above and beyond his credited role. It was also interesting to contrast Nichols' recollections with things that Charles Grodin wrote in his autobiography.

Even if you didn't like the film, you might enjoy the commentary…so here's another link to buy it at Amazon along with my recommendation. It's a good movie, and not just because of Paula.

Let's see…Bill Clinton says that he has no interest in being John Kerry's running mate. Tom Brokaw says he's not interested in getting into politics…

John McCain, who I believe still is technically the head of the Bush campaign in Arizona, is hinting he might not say no to the job. Right-wing websites are filled with theories of how Hillary Clinton is planning to swoop in and grab it, perhaps elbowing Kerry aside while she's at it…

Pundits are tossing out names like John Edwards, Bob Graham, Dick Gephardt, Bill Nelson, Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh, Ed Rendell, Dianne Feinstein and Robert Rubin.

Logic, which often does not figure into these things, would tell us that Kerry should wait until just before the Democratic convention to make his pick. By then, there will be a lot more polling data to tell him where he may be weak and what states are still in play…and in the interim, he'll have most of those people out "auditioning" for the veep slot by campaigning for him.

On the other hand, if he waits that long, every single person in the country over the age of 35 who is not already part of the Bush administration will have been mentioned for the job. People will start saying, "What's wrong with Kerry? Can't he make a decision?" And then they'll start saying, "It's taking so long because no one wants to run with him." Which comedy series will be the first to do a sketch that parodies a current reality show with potential veeps being eliminated a la Fear Factor or Survivor? (Extra points if they actually get Donald Trump to come in and tell guys like Edwards and Nelson, "You're fired!")

So Kerry will fill out the ticket relatively soon. I'm guessing either someone from Florida or Dom DeLuise.

Martin Hutchinson offers his view of why, though the economy is coming back in certain ways, the jobs aren't.

Does John Kerry really take both sides of every issue? Here are both sides of that issue: An article that says he does and an article that says he doesn't. Take your pick.

Here's the kind of thing that amazes me. I guess it shouldn't but it does. It's the way a seemingly-intelligent human being — in this case, Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson — can leap from one position to the opposite in the blink of an eye. This is from today's episode of Crossfire on CNN, and I cut 'n' pasted this right out of the transcript. Carlson was talking about some allegations that are circling that John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airliners a few months before 9/11 because he had been tipped that terrorists had a plan to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Here's the relevant passage…

Strictly speaking, this charge is false. Ashcroft did stop flying commercial, but it was because of domestic, not terrorist threats. But it's worse than that. It is the ugliest possible conspiracy theory and it's a destructive one, too. If you don't like Ashcroft's policy, attack them, critique them. But don't accuse him or any other American of knowing about 9/11 in advance. It's just too much.

Okay, I agree with that. I don't care much for Mr. Ashcroft but that doesn't mean the charge is true. I certainly haven't heard of any evidence that would justify the charge. So good for Carlson. But then, less than 45 seconds later, he says…

…I knew a lot of perfectly decent smart people who actually became mentally ill thanks to Bill Clinton. And you're seeing the exact process happening on the other side…Paul Krugman has become so obsessed with Bush, he actually accused him of causing anti-Semitism in Malaysia. After that column, I have to say…As much as I thought he was smart once upon a time, he's gone crazy.

So much for civility in our political discourse.

George W. Bush is soon to sit down with the chairpersons of the 9/11 commission to answer questions about what occurred on that horrible day. He has stated that he will only grant them one hour of questioning and he has been criticized for this. So will he allow the questioning to go for more than an hour? Well, let's ask his press secretary and find out.

It's not finished yet but comic book fan/historian Bob Hughes is putting together a wonderful resource — a webpage that tracks the history of DC Comics. Here's what he has up so far and I'll be sending him a batch of additions and corrections (not many corrections so far). And while you're over there, you might want to check out the pages where Bob identifies the Golden and Silver Age artists who drew Superman and Batman.

I think cole slaw is one of the three-or-so most disgusting things on this planet. I have seen people eat it. I have seen them claim to enjoy it. I have never figured out who they think they're kidding or why they want to mislead me into believing the stuff is edible. If and when I become president, there will be a Constitutional Amendment requiring an immediate death penalty for the making of cole slaw.

With that in mind, this is the most horrifying thing I have seen to date on the Internet. If you're the sensitive type, don't click on it.

If you've delayed ordering the first volume of The Complete Peanuts from Fantagraphics, do so now. Shipping has been delayed (they're now saying March 31) so they've extended the offer for Free Shipping until March 15. We like Free Shipping. Free Shipping is a good thing. Go here and get Free Shipping. And thank Brandon Power for pointing out to me about the Free Shipping.

Here's an odd political thought. One of the big reasons George W. Bush is dropping in most polls (losing 52-44 in the current Gallup/CNN) is that we seem to have what they call a "jobless recovery." Jobs are simply not being created to keep up with the expanding demand for them. Here are some rough numbers as I understand them.

The pool of new people seeking employment is said to expand at the rate of about 150,000 per month. Now, there seems to be some disagreement over how much the job market has to expand to accommodate all those new potential workers. There's a thing called a "mobility factor" which means that you need more than 150,000 jobs created to serve 150,000 people. This is because the jobs do not always appear where the workers are. An availability of new minimum wage jobs in Maine doesn't help the people looking for work in California. Some say we need at least 200,000 new jobs a month just to keep pace and of course, we need a lot more than that if we're going to reduce unemployment. Whatever the number, we're falling far short of it.

Every month, the administration predicts more jobs will be created and every month, their projections are spectacularly wrong. In February, for example, they forecast 130,000 and the total growth was only 21,000. What's worse is that all 21,000 were in the public sector, meaning only that the government hired more people. Conservatives are supposed to hate the whole notion of more folks on Uncle Sam's payroll, and the Bush tax cuts were supposed to spur private industry to create more jobs.

Clearly, that's not happening. Today in Dallas, Bush bragged, "We've added more than 350,000 new jobs over the last six months. The tax relief we passed is working." 350,000 in six months is pretty far short of what the country needs just to stay even, and even that number will probably, like most recent reports, be revised downward. The announced January gain of 112,000, for instance, has recently been restated as 97,000. So clearly, the principle that you cut taxes for the wealthy so they'll create more jobs for the rest of us is becoming increasingly hard to argue.

Now, here's where we come to my weird thought of the day…

Let's say you run a big company. Let's say you're part of the top management of Walmart. Well, you have to love the Bush administration. You're pocketing $20 billion per month and even if you pay honestly, you're paying one of the lowest corporate tax rates in American history, to say nothing of all the other perks you derive from a business-friendly government. Walmart has already donated a million bucks to G.O.P. candidates and its top execs are making personal donations, as well. So why not, around October of this year, start hiring like crazy?

Walmart employs 1.2 million Americans. An average employee makes around $1,000 per month. If they suddenly decided to add 100,000 employees in October, kept them through the Christmas rush and fired them all January 1, it would cost around $300 million. (These are obviously very rough numbers. All I'm presenting here is the principle.) Now, they may not need 100,000 more workers now but through Christmas, they'll need some increase, and every company has short-term work that can be done, so it's not like that $300 million wouldn't give them some useful service. They could even cut back on the hours of some current workers, keeping them technically employed but passing some of their work on to others who would now also be counted as employed.

What I'm getting at is that Walmart could easily hype the employment numbers just before the election. It might cost them some bucks but it also might cost them less than John Kerry as president. If Target, Sears, K-Mart and a few dozen others all made a point of putting on extra workers in October, they could enable the Bush administration to say, "The jobs are coming back," and there would be no real way to prove they were only temporary.

This would be more than a matter of keeping Bush in office. A lot of wealthy folks in this country have a lot riding on the proposition that slashing taxes for the rich will ultimately benefit all. The premise has always been arguable and G.W.B. is certainly making it harder to defend. If a backlash against that supposition merely raised the maximum corporate tax rate from 35% to, say, 38%…well, someone else will have to do the math but it seems to me that would cost Walmart a lot more than hiring some extra workers for a few months.

Yesterday morning, my friend Carolyn and I walked a few blocks from my house to watch some of the L.A. Marathon. Our vantage point was around mile 17 of the 26 mile competition, so the runners we cheered on were getting weary but were, for the most part, still pretty strong. They seemed appreciative of the huge crowds that turned out to line the streets, and even more appreciative of the volunteers handing out oranges and bottles of water.

It was a colorful, if sweaty crowd. There were a couple of folks in clown make-up and one wearing one of those full-face masks that Mexican wrestlers favor. There was one runner pushing a stroller containing an infant jogger-of-tomorrow. My unscientific survey of those who passed us showed a pretty hefty percentage of New Balance shoes, my footwear of choice. I did not spot animation expert Amid Amidi who, I see from his weblog, was somewhere among the 24,000 starters…but he may have passed us while I was studying running shoes. (Amid, you and all those who ran have my respect. I could barely make it down to watch you.)

The whole mood was very festive. There was a rock band playing near where we were, and they were good even if every third song was "Roll Over, Beethoven." Some spectators were dancing right in front of the bandstand and every so often, a runner would detour out of the lane to join them in a few steps. A lot of onlookers held up signs that read, "Go, [name of some runner]." On the way down, I spotted a lady who was walking away from the site with one that said, "Go, Donny!" Donny, apparently, had already passed so her work was done. A couple on their way to the route stopped her and apparently said, "Hey, we're going down to cheer on someone named Donny. Could we have your sign?" And she gladly handed it over. I don't know why but I liked that. I liked the whole brief trip to watch the runners. Especially because I wasn't one.