Monthly Archives: March 2005

It's getting to be fun to watch those old The Name's the Same episodes on GSN. It's still a lousy game show and I still wince at some of the phony planted questions. (The other night, the panel had to guess that guest star Joan Alexander was going to display a photo of her new baby. Someone obviously told panelist Audrey Meadows to ask, "Is this something a woman would show off proudly if she'd just gotten engaged?" Ho-ho.) But the program's getting steadily more amusing thanks to the presence of hosts Bob Elliott and Ray Goulding.

For years in this country, every city had a radio station with at least one team of disc jockeys — usually the morning men — doing Bob and Ray. Sometimes, they did actual Bob and Ray material, shamelessly burgled. Other times, they just did funny interviews and soap opera parodies…though it's doubtful that all of them put together were half as funny as the genuine articles. I have about thirty hours of real Bob and Ray radio stuff on CD and it's quite brilliant, in large part thanks to a clever writer named Tom Koch. What Mssrs. Elliott and Goulding did seemed so effortless that a lot of people just assumed they ad-libbed it all. Not so. Most of it came from Mr. Koch, whose byline you may also be familiar with from decades of MAD Magazine. Not long ago, a small but overdue book came out about his career and you can purchase it here.

But to get back to Bob and Ray: Ray is no longer with us, sad to say, but I am reminded by Don Brockway that Bob Elliott will be 82 years old tomorrow. Don further reminds me that loads of vintage Bob and Ray material is available at The Official Bob and Ray Website. Moreover, he says, one can send Bob a Happy Birthday e-mail via that domain. I don't want to post the address exactly because that will cause them to receive a lot of Spam so do this: Address your e-mail to "Bob," then put an "@" sign. Then type "bobandray.com" and you'll have it. Don says all mail sent that way will be forwarded to the Birthday Boy.

I've always loved Bob and Ray. I've always thought they were good but I never realized how good. Not until I saw them actually make The Name's the Same entertaining.

Have you noticed that for about the last week or so, no matter what the latest development may be in the Terri Schiavo case, the news stories are usually headlined either,"Judge Denies Request to Reinsert Feeding Tube" or "Terri's Parents Low on Options"? For people who were low on options seven days ago, they sure seem to have found a steady supply.

I may have erred in posting anything here about this sad dispute. It prompted a flood of e-mail, some of it even from people who fully understood my position, which is that I don't fully understand my position. After hearing more about this case than I have about any number of more important issues, I've come hesitantly to a viewpoint which some will think is contradictory but, hey, that's how these things sometimes go.

To some extent, this whole debate has been about process. Terri's parents, the Schindlers, have lost petition after petition, court decision after court decision. They have lost at different levels of government and they have lost before Democratic-appointed judges and Republican-appointed ones. (One of the 11th Circuit Judges who voted against them is William Pryor, who was recently and stubbornly appointed by George W. Bush over fierce Democratic opposition.) Now, our courts are fallible and there should be a multi-level appeals process, especially when a matter of life and death is involved. But our courts also can't work if a perpetually-losing party can keep getting do-overs for all infinity, demanding endless new hearings in new venues, desperately trying to find some judge who'll see it another way. At some point, in the absence of better "new evidence" than the Schindlers seem to have, the appeals process has to end.

So I must be in favor of pulling the plug on Terri, right? Well, no. First off, I don't think it's my decision, nor is it yours. In fact, one of the things that bothers me here is the vast number of people who have injected themselves into a case that should involve the lady's immediate family and the appropriate court…and no one else. Terri Schiavo has not been helped by all these strangers weighing in, since strangers bring with them other issues, unrelated to her actual welfare. They also, as should be obvious by now, bring in a lot of bogus information and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric. What's my vote? I don't think I have a vote. I don't think I should have a vote.

If I did, I'm not sure what I'd do. Against my own logic, something about ending Terri Schiavo's life feels wrong. When those who stand with her parents (including both Bushes) say they believe in compassion and erring on the side of life, they almost convince me. Where they lose me, I guess, is when they try equating this with pure murder and dragging in inadmissible religious arguments. I also don't see them "erring on the side of life" regarding so many other people in this world — many of them, more "alive" than Terri Schiavo will ever be and perhaps a better investment of our limited national compassion. Which is another reason I don't think I should have a vote on Terri's fate. I don't know what it would be. but it would probably be something impractical like, "I vote to feed Terri Schiavo if we don't stop there. Let's pass a law that we feed everyone who's in danger of starving to death."

Three things interest me about this case. One is watching how dysfunctional the public debate has become, littered as it is with grandstand plays, questionable data and people arguing against the positions they press for on non-Terri matters. The most meaningful medical care Ms. Schiavo has received was funded by a large medical malpractice award and by Medicare. Now, we see people who have always opposed large medical malpractice awards and who wish to slash Medicare arguing that everything possible must be done to keep this woman alive.

The second aspect that interests me is the Strange Bedfellows factor. Positions have not divided on a straight Right/Left axis so, for example, you have people who have always loathed Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson now welcoming their support. This kind of thing is always amusing.

Lastly, we have yet another example of folks who attempt to use a situation for political advantage probably achieving the opposite of their goal. Some of the loudest voices in this argument have come from those who want to roll back or eliminate the "right to die." As a result of their efforts, millions of Americans are scurrying to write Living Wills and to declare inarguably to their mates and friends that they want the plug pulled if they ever get anywhere near Terri Schiavo's condition. I'm specifying that I want my breathing terminated if my continued existence ever becomes a topic on Hannity and Colmes. Once a matter of life and death gets to those forums, there's zero chance of a decision that will focus on what's best for me. Just as we long since passed the stage where the Schiavo case is about what's best for that poor woman in Florida.

An article in the New York Times by Brent Staples raises the old question of how much of the credit Stan Lee deserves for the Marvel Superheroes…but doesn't supply much of an answer. Mine, as you may know, is that the characters should be described as co-creations.

That crazed Liberal, William F. Buckley, weighs in on the Terri Schiavo matter.

Michael Palin is sitting on top of the world. [Los Angeles Times, registration needed]

Frank Rich on those who exploit religion to pander to what is really a rather small chunk of the American electorate.

For those of you who are not sick of the Terri Schiavo matter, here's a link to an interesting FAQ which seeks to dismiss some of the myths and misunderstandings of the case.

And here's Andrew Sullivan writing about the matter, but more importantly about the contradictions he sees in the present-day Conservative movement.

Neil Gaiman wrote me last night asking me to explain what's going on with the current rift between the Writers Guild of America, West (hereafter referred to as WGAw) and its Right Coast counterpart (WGAe). That's right, Neil. Give me the impossible assignment. I'm almost afraid to tackle it because the dispute sounds so petty and childish, but it may explain why these affiliated organizations do not achieve more for their members, and why some of us have opted to excuse ourselves from Guild politics. I did my time, thank you, and this is yet another example of why I don't go back.

As briefly as I can tell it: The two Guilds have existed for decades as parallel, largely-united entities. They are closer than sister organizations but not quite Siamese Twins. They negotiate together, they do many things as one…but they have separate leaderships. They also fight a lot. No matter who's running the WGAw, they always seem to be fighting the same battles with WGAe and forming uneasy compacts when the two must link arms in some crusade.

The dividing line, by the way is the Mississippi River. If you're on this side and you write TV or movies, you're under the jurisdiction of the WGAw. If you're on the other side, you're WGAe and proud of it. But of course, some writers are bi-coastal. Some productions go back and forth. And there are many services, especially in the area of screenwriting, which the smaller WGAe is unable to provide…so the WGAw provides them for all. The constitutions of both organizations require a screenwriter living in the east to join the WGAw and specifies that half of those folks' dues will go to WGAw. If I understand my history correctly, this was the practice until some time in the seventies when it stopped.

Why did it stop? No one seems able to explain, but things have been pretty volatile in the WGAw since that approximate time. We've spent a lot of time and energy battling with the Producers…and when we're not battling the Producers, we attack each other. Every so often, someone out here has tired of fighting Management or Ourselves, and they raise the issue of the WGAe allegedly not living up to the agreement. Nothing has ever been resolved or seriously pursued until just recently when the current WGAw board made a major issue of it and things got very nasty. Let's see if I can fairly summarize both sides…

The WGAw contends that the WGAe is waaaay in arrears on paying bucks to the WGAw for services and that a lot of its screenwriter members were long ago supposed to join WGAw and that all this needs to be mopped up. The WGAw maintains that this is all spelled out unambiguously in the similar (but not identical) constitutions of the two organizations.

The WGAe responds that, first of all, the wording ain't that clear — there are questions — and that those parts of the constitution haven't been enforced in 30-some-odd years so why start now? The WGAe is currently involved in an important negotiation regarding newswriters and in an election dispute. They say that even if the WGAw is right (which they aren't conceding), the WGAw has picked the worst possible time to raise these issues and is doing so to harm the WGAe.

The WGAw has replies to all that, but the important thing is that there is an arbitration process, described in both Guild's constitutions, that can bring in a neutral party to play Solomon and carve up the baby. The WGAw invoked the clause that triggers this process and it specifies that the arbitration must commence in 60 days, which in this case means April 10. First order of business is for the two sides to agree on an arbitrator. After some delay and an accusation of stalling tactics, they agreed on a Justice Joseph Grodin…though the WGAe told the WGAw not to contact him until there was further communication. Then there was no further communication.

Worried that the 60 days was being frittered away, WGAw President Daniel Petrie composed a letter over both his signature and that of WGAe President Herb Sargent. Addressed to Justice Grodin, it merely asked if he was available to serve as mediator. Petrie sent it to Sargent and said, in effect, "if you have no objection, I'm going to send this." There was no reply so Petrie sent it. Sargent became furious that it was sent at all, but also that it was sent with his signature since, for one thing, he hadn't written or okayed it. The WGAe therefore withdrew its approval of Grodin as mediator. A new one has been selected and since I haven't heard anything in a week or so, I assume things are on track for the arbitration to begin…but that something will soon arise to get everything off-track again. Betting on WGA discord is like laying money that the Milwaukee Brewers won't be in the World Series.

So what's really going on here? My expert analysis, which is worth about a dime on the open market, is that it all goes to the defensive posture of the WGAe, seeking to maintain its independence. It's a much smaller entity and given the way Show Business has migrated steadily west over the years, it will only get smaller. There are a lot of folks who have suggested that the WGAw go all-out to absorb the WGAe, and the WGAe probably sees all this as laying groundwork for such a takeover. I don't know if that would be better or worse for writers as a whole but I can certainly understand how some WGAe members fear getting lost in a bigger labor organization. The WGAw expends its best efforts on screenwriting and whatever kind of prime-time TV is currently hot. The last 30-or-so years, WGAw members who write game shows or variety shows, to name two categories that don't have big constituencies, have felt that their Guild does not pay enough attention to those areas. It's easy to imagine that the localized concerns of WGAe members could get the shortest kind of shrift if, officially or unofficially, they become a subset of the WGAw. On the other hand, there are those out here who think a merger or takeover would end the squabbling and help writers on both coasts, and that the primary obstacle is that the WGAe's paid staff enjoys high salaries and wants to keep enjoying them.

How this will all play out, I dunno, but I doubt it'll be healthy in the long run. In the short run, it may just be a temporary Cease Fire, which is sometimes all you can hope for in Guild disputes. The expectation seems to be that the arbitrator will work out a compromise that will say neither side is wholly in the wrong. That's kind of what arbitrators do, especially in a case like this.

The WGA, when it works the way it's supposed to, is a grand and vital organization that has made it possible for creative folks to swim with sharks and not get too badly mauled. Even when it doesn't work, it's preferable to no representation at all…and I say that as someone who has written loads of teevee shows with WGA coverage and without. The "without" jobs have been animation projects. Cartoons were once wholly outside the WGA's purview but they're slowly-but-thankfully moving under Guild protection. There's a reason that darn near every single person who has written animation the last thirty years wants that to happen.

Still, the WGAw is too often a dysfunctional organization that splinters along a wide array of party lines — haves versus have-nots, militants versus statesmen, young versus old, hyphenates (writer-directors or writer-producers) versus full-time writers, etc. It's an enormously democratic institution but at times, letting everyone have their say can be quite immobilizing. Most committees are "open," meaning that any members can be on them, and I once chaired what I think was the largest Guild committee ever. It proved rather tidily that when you get enough opinionated people in a room and they all get to speak and vote, nothing can ever get done. As more than one WGA member has commented, "Management doesn't have to try and divide us. We do a fine job of that, ourselves." The current WGAw/WGAe dust-up is yet another chapter and the end of the book is nowhere in sight.

I dunno the release date yet but Warner Home Video is preparing DVD sets of the first seasons of The Huckleberry Hound Show from 1959 and The Yogi Bear Show from 1961. That is to say, one set of Huck, one set of Yogi. These are some of my all-time favorite cartoons, especially due to the superior vocal performances of Daws Butler, but also because the timing and gags are often quite wonderful. So I was delighted that they asked me to appear for an interview that will be part of a documentary for the Yogi set. Also appearing in supplementary material on one or both will be Earl Kress, Nancy Cartwright, Charlie Adler, Corey Burton and Tom Kenny, plus some other folks. That's what I did today: Drove through pouring rain to be videotaped for this project.

(Confidential to Fred Hembeck: Tom "Spongebob Squarepants" Kenny told me to tell the world that your review of the songs he co-authored for the Spongebob movie and/or CD — the review is somewhere on this archived page — was uncanny in that you nailed all the "in" references. Nice job, Hembeck.)

I have another public appeal to animation buffs here. As you might just recall, The Huckleberry Hound Show and The Yogi Bear Show once featured little segments (they call them "interstitials") of Huck and Yogi and everyone before, between and after the cartoons. They were discarded later when the cartoons were repackaged a dozen different ways for syndication…but when they were part of these half-hour shows, these short segments were part of the experience.

Warner Home Video would like to include as many of these bridges as possible on their forthcoming DVD sets of those programs. Problem: They can't find all the interstitials. Even as I blog, grown men are combing through warehouses for this footage which hasn't been broadcast in umpteen years. They've found a number of them…and in a few cases, they've located the audio but not the video of one, or the video but not the audio. Anyway, this is a real longshot but does anyone reading this have any old 16mm prints or VHS tapes of whole episodes of The Yogi Bear Show with the interstititials? They've located all or most from ol' Huck's show but some of the Yogi spots are missing in whole or part. Even if you just have a bad quality videotape, the audio may be usable to dub over footage that is lacking a soundtrack. If you have anything of this sort, please drop me a line and I'll forward it on to the appropriate folks…but hurry. There isn't much time before the DVDs have to be finalized. Thanks — and if you're on an animation discussion board, please copy this paragraph and the one before and post it, or just direct people to this item.

Came home from something I'll describe in the next posting to find no less than fourteen messages reminding me (or asking me if I knew) that Ross Bagdasarian (aka David Seville) had a nice role in Mr. Hitchcock's esteemed Rear Window — playing a songwriter, no less. Yes, indeed.

A couple of folks wrote to ask if I was kidding when I said that "David Seville" created Alvin and the Chipmunks. One wrote, "He was a cartoon character, wasn't it?" Well, yes, he was…but he was the alter ego of Ross Bagdasarian, the songwriter-singer responsible for the Chipmunks records. Even before Alvin squeaked into existence, Bagdasarian had hits (like "Witch Doctor") under the Seville name. He used the two monikers rather interchangeably — I have an autographed Chipmunks album he signed as D.S. — and that's how I was using them. So, no, I wasn't making a joke…and yes, he was also Ross Bagdasarian…and, hey, isn't it about time for a CD of his non-Chipmunk recordings?

David Brooks, who does a column for the New York Times, is the Conservative that Liberals most often cite when they want to prove they're fair-minded enough to not write off everything any Conservative says, just because he's across the aisle. I'm not sure who the Liberal is that Conservatives would cite as fair-minded. Some, of course, would argue it's an oxymoron.

Brooks, of course, occasionally inflames The Left with things he writes but they seem to be cheering this column, which is about the nasty (and lucrative) ways The Right has co-mingled lobbying and governing. Worth a read.

Warner Home Video has finally issued a DVD of the 1960 movie version of Bells Are Ringing, starring Judy Holliday and Dean Martin, complete with a glorious hunk of bonus material. There's a short "making of…" documentary, there are cut numbers and alternate takes…and if you have any fondness for this film adaptation of a hit Broadway show, you'll want to order it, which you can do from Amazon by clicking here. I always found the film quite entertaining, if only because it captured the wonderful performance of Ms. Holliday. I never got to see her on stage but there was something so delightful about her screen appearances that I'm sure I missed out on something.

I have two special interests in this movie. One is purely nostalgic: In 1960, I was eight years old and my mother took me on a two-week trip to New York, Hartford and Boston — the first two towns were because I had relatives to meet. In Manhattan, we stayed at the Taft Hotel, went to the Statue of Liberty, attended a live broadcast of the game show, Concentration…and took in two movies. One, which bored me silly, was The Nun's Story. I think my mother didn't like it either, and we walked out on it. The other, which I enjoyed, was Bells Are Ringing, which we saw at the Radio City Music Hall. I liked the film and I liked the fact that there were scenes of walking around New York City, and then when the movie ended, we went out and walked around New York City. When you're eight, as I was, that kind of thing can impress you.

I'm also, as you can see from this site, fascinated by the contribution of great voiceover actors, and Bells Are Ringing has fine, uncredited performances by June Foray, Paul Frees and Shepard Menken. You all know June and Paul from their many appearances, most notably in the Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons, but the late Mr. Menken was equally ubiquitous. (He did almost all the extra voices on The Alvin Show, including the great inventor, Clyde Crashcup.) In Bells Are Ringing, Shep was the announcer in the opening fake commercial, and he's heard in a few other spots. Paul and June provided most of the voices that are heard in phone calls, of which there are many in the film. In the "Drop That Name" musical number, there's one point where two on-camera actors are dubbed by Paul and one actress is dubbed by June. This may not matter to you but when you're fifty-three, as I am, that kind of thing can impress you.

At least, we hope Stephen Sondheim is both on this, his 75th birthday. He should be. I mean, he's only our greatest living Broadway composer, and a lot of people think he's the best ever. He probably won't read this but maybe, if we all think good thoughts in his direction, he'll sense them, enjoy the day…and then go back to writing his next show. We can't get enough out of this man.

Just wanted to note the passing of two great musicians who probably never played the same room…

Bobby Short was the King of Cabaret Performers, logging four decades at the Cafe Carlyle in New York. I once had the pleasure of enjoying his smooth blend of jazz, old standards and show tunes, and it was a fine (if pricey) evening. There was something very beautiful about the sight and sound of Mr. Short in his tux at the piano. It was just so…right. Here's a link to a piece about him in the New York Times.

Lalo Guerrero was a fine singer-writer of Mexican-American tunes, many of them glorious parodies like "There's No Tortillas," which he composed to the tune of "There's No Tomorrow." His biggest hit was probably "Pancho Lopez," a parody of "The Ballad of Davy Crockett." (The New York Times obit errs and gives its name as "Pancho Sanchez.") And Guerrero was not only the Allan Sherman of Mexico. He had a line of kids' records starring "Las Ardillitas," a band of squirrels who sang with sped voices. If that sounds to you like The Chipmunks…well, Mr. Seville, the creator of Alvin and the Chipmunks, thought so, too. He sued…but Guerrero managed to convince a judge that he'd been making the records before Seville started his series. I never got to see him perform but just last year, I attended a play based on his life and music. He was a very talented man and an important voice for his countryfolks.