Larry Flynt remembers his good friend, Jerry Falwell. This is the only pro-Falwell memorial piece I've seen that was written by someone who knew the man and didn't have a politicial and financial incentive to prop up his reputation.
I don't find it so incredible that those two guys were pals. They had a lot in common…two chubby guys who learned you could make a helluva lot of money exploiting the more tasteless corners of the First Amendment.
This is a clip from some Steve Allen Show or other. In the forties or fifties, any comedian who utilized music in his act was legally required to savage the tune, "Cocktails For Two" at some point. Here, we see one of the milder (but still fun) maulings of the song, introduced by Mr. Allen and featuring Jo Stafford, Tony Randall, Don Knotts, Pat Harrington Jr, Louis Nye and Gabe Dell. Ms. Stafford had a nice career as a top female vocalist under her own name and also released a series of parody albums which she recorded with her husband, Paul Weston. In them, they assumed the identities of Darlene and Jonathan Edwards, singing and playing outrageously off-key. In this clip, Ms. Stafford seems to be forgetting she's supposed to sound like Jo and not Darlene…
I did something this evening I haven't done in a long time. I went to a bookstore.
There was a time when I rarely went three days without being in one of those places but since the advent of Amazon, that doesn't happen so often. I hear or read about a book I want and instead of making a mental note to pick it up next time I'm in a bookstore, I do a couple of immediate clicks and order it…and then I don't go to the bookstore because I already have all the new books I want. (I'm also buying fewer books then I once did owing to a lack of space and the fact that I'm on a lot of Review Copy lists so I get 'em free.)
A couple of brief observations from tonight's expedition…
At the 1972 Democratic Convention, there were a number of heartbreaking moments — in every sense that the heart can break — but one that I recall especially was a big, phony salute to Hubert Humphrey. It was not phony in that the people saluting him didn't like or admire the guy. What was phony were the words used and the evasion of what everyone knew it was all about. Ostensibly, it was just a salute to Hubert H. and a thanks for all he'd done for his country and party, not necessarily in that order. But everyone knew what it was about. George McGovern was getting the nomination, Humphrey wasn't, and Hubert would be too old to run next time.
Actually, Humphrey wasn't that old. He was 61 in 1972 so if he'd run in '76, he would have been 65. That was the same age as James Buchanan when he was elected but he was one of our worst presidents ever…and anyway, that was in quite another era. Humphrey, due in whole or part to illness, was an old 61. He died in early '78. A few years later, Ronald Reagan was elected to the presidency at the age of 69 but he didn't seem that old…at least, not until near the end. I suspect even some people who loved Reagan in that job would now say he was too old, at least for two terms.
The '72 salute to Humphrey had as its unspoken message that he always seemed to his fans as a man who was destined to be president, like he'd almost earned the job/honor in every way save for being elected — and even then, he came darn close to that in '68. The whole tribute to him had the air of a consolation prize; like the party was saying, "Thanks for all your hard work, Hubert. We all agree you should have been president but somehow it just didn't work out that way."
I bring this up now for a reason…
I don't think John McCain is going to get the Republican nomination. Granted, it's not impossible but it sure doesn't look to be going his way.
McCain is 71. If he won, he'd be the oldest president we've ever had. I don't think that disqualifies him from the job but it almost certainly means that if he doesn't get it this time, he ain't never going to get it. To a lot of people, including many who won't vote for him, he looks like a guy who's earned the job the way Humphrey had earned it. Think what you will of the guy (and I'm sure disappointed by him in many ways), McCain has worked his ass off in public life and probably foregone much more lucrative opportunities in the private sector. That's above and beyond being a war hero and a man who, at various points, was widely respected even by his opponents. Unlike Humphrey though, he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to bow out gracefully and vanish into obscurity.
This is not so much a prediction as a vague feeling. Looking at those ten G.O.P. hopefuls in the debate the other night, I couldn't help thinking that one of these things is not like the others. Four or five of those guys have about as much chance at the nomination this year as I do and can't seriously be thinking they have a real shot at it. All but one of them have to be thinking that at worst, they're laying groundwork for a run in 2012, which might even be a much better year to be a Republican candidate for President. For the one — McCain — it's now or never.
You have to wonder if he'll support someone else as the Republican nominee or even go quietly into the night. Lately, there have been news stories (like this one) of the fabled McCain temper flaring up. It's not hard to imagine him blasting the G.O.P. establishment and/or maybe mounting a third-party effort. He sure doesn't strike me as a guy who's happy with some of the things he's had to say lately, kissing the butt of the right-wing base to try and get their support. And the worst part of that is that it doesn't even seem to be working.
Like I said, this isn't a prediction. It's just kind of a subtext I'm watching. If and when the nomination is out of McCain's grasp, will he explode? If not, what's to stop him? Is he going to support a nominee who advocates "enhanced interrogation techniques" and other fancy euphemisms for torture? Is there a role the Republicans can find for him that will keep him and his supporters in the fold? McCain's whole stature in politics for some time has been based on the fact that he was perceived as a highly-possible occupant of the Oval Office. Once that's taken away from him, he becomes highly irrelevant and I somehow don't see him accepting that; not without a fight. Do you?
What shall I link to today? What shall I link to? Hey, I have an idea! How about this commercial for Kellogg's Apple Jacks, a cereal that I used to like even if I could never connect its flavor in any way to that of an apple? Yeah, that'll work.
That's Paul Frees doing the voice of the guy with the apple for a head, and I think Paul is also one of the bullies. The other bully voices sound like Mel Blanc, which I don't understand. Why hire Mel Blanc for two lines when Paul could have done them? Anyway, here's the commercial…
Not long ago here, we had a discussion about newspaper strips that are passed on from their creator to the creator's child or children. Could it be that one of the world's most popular strips is about to undergo a change of management, going from its second generation to its third?
I spent yesterday afternoon at a luncheon held by the Pacific Pioneer Broadcasters, a club for folks who've been in broadcasting for at least twenty years. Among its other activities, it holds these events to honor people who've made important contributions to TV and radio, and today's celebration was all about my pal, Leonard Maltin. There was an impressive turnout of people who cared about Leonard to eat the rotten food that's served at the Sportsmen's Lodge in Studio City.
The dais of speakers was quite impressive. It included Norman Corwin, Bea Wain, June Foray, Margaret O'Brien, Hal Kanter, Stan Freberg, Art Gilmore, A.C. Lyles, Tom Hatten and Daryl Hickman. All spoke of Leonard's vast knowledge of movies, his diligence in researching and documenting history, and his unsquelchable enthusiasm for film. A few razzed him because they felt insufficiently mentioned in some book of his but all praised his fairness as a reviewer and there was a lot of mutual affection up there on the stage.
I don't have much else to report. Did I mention how terrible the food is at the Sportsmen's Lodge? Yeah, I did. The Sportsmen's Lodge is a hotel/restaurant in the Valley that has a wide array of banquet rooms and also outdoor "party" sites. On any given day, it's a veritable strip mall of weddings, luncheons, banquets, Bar Mitzvah receptions, memorial services, business conventions, etc. I keep attending functions there…and it does have a comfy, friendly atmosphere to the grounds. But the food is dreadful and overpriced…and I don't mean it's dreadful and overpriced the way banquet food is always a little dreadful and overpriced. I understand that the logistics and costs involved in such events prevent great cuisine and great value. It's just that the Sportsmen's Lodge goes the extra distance of making you feel personally abused and this doesn't really having anything to do with Leonard, does it? Sorry.
I've known Leonard since shortly before he joined Entertainment Tonight, around a quarter-century ago. The show keeps changing on-screen personnel but he remains since, after all, they need someone there with his expertise. The first time I visited the office, I was waiting for Leonard and someone asked someone else about researching some facts for a story. I heard the line, "We don't need a reference library here. We have Leonard." That's the least of his value to that operation.
Anyway, it was a good luncheon. I'd give it three stars. If I hadn't eaten the salmon, it would be four. Sorry, Leonard.
Varese Sarabande has just reissued Shelley Berman Live at the Improv, a very funny comedy CD that was recorded Guess Where on February 9, 1995 and which received scant distribution at the time. If you're a fan of Mr. Berman's monology (Is that a word? Well, it is now) then I highly recommend it. I was in the audience for the recording and I laughed myself silly…something I wish I could do more often. Way back in this item in 2003, we lamented its unavailability and now you can order a copy so do so. Here's a link.
I cribbed today's video link from Glenn Haumann over at ComicMix but it's too good to not include here…
Seventeen years ago, a lovely and brilliant man named Jim Henson left us. He'd been feeling ill for days and finally was persuaded to go to a hospital. He walked in and never walked out. (The cause was given as "Bacterial Pneumonia.")
A few months later, CBS ran a tribute hour called The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson which didn't get nearly enough publicity or notice. Today's clip is the close of that special, and I need to set it up for you. The Muppets — all but Kermit, who ain't around — have spent most of the hour planning a salute to someone named Jim Henson. Kermit asked them to do this and they've been working on it, even though they're not quite sure who this "Jim Henson" person is.
Throughout the show, there have been little segments on Henson's life and there have been people talking about him…but Fozzie, Gonzo and the others are still fuzzy on the subject. Then they come across a pile of fan letters that were written after Henson's passing…and as the clip begins, they're reading them aloud.
There are two things to note in this clip. The song they sing is "Just One Person," which was the closing tune in Snoopy: The Musical, the little-seen sequel to the musical, You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown. It was apparently a favorite of Henson's and at his memorial service, all the Muppeteers performed it as the closing number. I have a video of the event and while the whole ceremony was touching and (at times) quite funny, the closing — with all those puppeteers coming out and having their characters join in — could make Darkseid weep.
Also, there's an important moment in this clip. As the Muppets are singing, Kermit shows up, making his first appearance in the show. This was, I believe, the "debut" of Kermit as performed by Steve Whitmire, Henson's choice to assume the character. It's a poignant and meaningful way to say that though Jim is gone, Kermit will live on. And so he has.
Have a hankie ready before you click. Here's the clip…
KNBC Channel 4 here in Los Angeles has a reporter named Joel Grover who does something I like. Every so often, they send him out with hidden cameras to take a car to various mechanics and document the rip-offs. In his latest expedition, he went to ten outlets of the EZ Lube chain and six of them prescribed unnecessary repairs and/or charged him for repairs they didn't perform. What's interesting about this is that is the second time Glover has had this experience at EZ Lube outlets. In fact, at one, he encountered a manager who was one of the guys who swindled him the last time he did this kind of survey. Here's a link to a video report.
Again, let us review: Several of you alerted me to a drawing currently being sold on eBay and represented by its seller as an original sketch by Sergio Aragonés. It is not. It's a forgery and a pretty bad one. As explained here, I wrote to the seller and told him as much.
Now, here's the update. He wrote back to me and said…
You are entitled to your opinion. I stand behind each and every autograph and drawing from my collection. I acquired this and various other Mad drawings years ago while into my Mad phase. I have no doubt about the authenticity of this item or anything else I sell. I stand behind it with a 100% moneyback guarantee! I am not here to make enemies with you or anyone else but I am not going to pull any of my items because someone doesn't like them.
So now I've just sent the following to him…
It's me again, Mark Evanier, partner of Sergio Aragonés. Sergio says the drawing you're selling as one of his is a fake and I think he's going to notify eBay of this. He's also had me put up an announcement on his website at www.sergioaragones.com to beware of fake sketches on eBay. Do you still have no doubt about the authenticity of this item or anything else you sell?
I'll let you know what the guy says…but I suspect the auction will disappear and if I get a response at all, it'll be along the lines of, "My Goodness! For the first time in my many years as an autograph dealer, I've been hoodwinked by a fake!" This has been the result in the past when I've called sellers on forgeries…which I only do about half a percent of the time I see them.
This morning, the weblog for The Comics Journal took brief note of my little crusade here. I'd like to suggest that it would be a valuable service — for them or any news outlet that covers the comic and cartoon market — to at least follow up on this, if not to start some sort of Consumer Watchdog column or something. I'll gladly furnish any reporter with the contact info for the eBay vendor in this case. He's a major seller with a whole website of other allegedly authentic sketches and autographs. He claims in his e-mail to me to have "the world's largest autograph, cartoonist and fine art drawing collection in the world." (It must be big. It has a world on either end.)
But the point is that this is not a unique situation. This kind of thing goes on a lot with comic art and especially with animation cels. eBay polices their auctions to a limited extent but if someone offers a bogus "Charles Schulz" sketch — as happens quite often there — eBay doesn't notice that and couldn't verify it if they did. Generally, the worst that happens to the seller is that he cancels one auction. I don't think it would hurt for there to be a little more publicity and attention paid to this chicanery. Folks need to be reminded that the verified, authenticated Walt Disney sketch that comes with a money back guarantee from a reputable seller may have been drawn in the last few months.
Lots of e-mail this morning on the opening I linked to from The Odd Couple. Quite a few reminded me that when The Mary Tyler Moore Show was being first assembled, there was the worry at CBS not just that people would think Mary was a bad person for having been divorced but that they'd think she'd divorced Dick Van Dyke! Guess that's why a few years earlier, when Lucille Ball came back to CBS in her first sitcom since I Love Lucy, she played a widow. They didn't want people to think Lucy had divorced Desi Arnaz…which, of course, she had.
I don't think anyone has mentioned this in e-mail yet but someone will. It dawned on me that the reason they put that line in the Odd Couple intro about Felix wanting to return to his wife was that they were concerned America would think that Felix really, really liked the idea of living with another man. I seem to remember an article around the time that claimed that ABC was worried that viewers would think Oscar and Felix were light, as they say, in the loafers and that they were keeping an eye on scripts to make sure everyone knew that the roommates liked the ladies.
Also: Apparently, there were more episodes than I recalled in which Tony Randall expressed a yearning to return to his wife and in the last episode of the series, he did. That feels a bit contrived to me and I'll bet if they were doing that show today — and sooner or later, Paramount is bound to bring us The New, New Odd Couple — it would just be about two guys who were irrevocably divorced.
Off and on here, I'm going to link to videos of openings I liked for TV shows. In some cases, I didn't like the show but I liked the opening.
This is the original opening for The Odd Couple with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall. The voiceover is done by Bill Woodson, a charming and witty man who has been doing commercials and announcing for decades. I always thought it was odd that the text makes a point of saying that though Felix's wife had thrown him out, he knew in his heart that one day he would return to her. Why did they say that?
First of all, is it even true? I don't recall any such sentiment on the part of Felix in the Neil Simon play, the movie based on it or the series. In the play and movie, the idea was that Felix had to accept the notion that his marriage was over and that he had to begin building a new life for himself. In the series, it seemed like the roommate situation was a permanent condition except for one episode here and there. So I'm wondering why they felt they had to say he'd return to the woman who'd thrown him out.
The same season that The Odd Couple debuted, The Mary Tyler Moore Show premiered on another network. As has been oft-reported, its writers originally intended that Mary be starting a new life following a divorce. The CBS folks objected, saying that America wouldn't like her; that despite the high separation rate in America, the nation still preferred to think of marriage as the natural state of all decent people. So Mary Richards became a woman who'd never married. Was the same concern at work over on ABC with The Odd Couple? Obviously, given the source material and premise, they couldn't say that Oscar and Felix hadn't been divorced. But it's easy to imagine a meeting in which concern is voiced in this direction and someone says as a compromise/concession, "Don't worry…we'll put something in the opening titles that says that even though Felix left his wife, they'll eventually get back together."
Garry Marshall, who was one of the producers, often tells the story of when they filmed this opening and other exterior shots around New York. They had a limousine to transport Klugman and Randall around and for them to wait in while shots were set up. Unfortunately, they only had the one limo and Klugman — as yet unaware of what it would do to his voice — was smoking constantly. Randall was a militant non-smoker and kept complaining that Klugman was rendering the interior of the car uninhabitable. This was early in the association and so Jack and Tony got their new partnership off to a fitting start by arguing incessantly. It was a good training ground for the series which opened like this…
Here's the question I think should be asked of all the Republican candidates in their next debate…
The questions in this round will be premised on a fictional, but we think plausible scenario involving terrorism and the response to it. Here is the premise: Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time but that they can prevent it if you will only vote for wealthy Americans to shoulder at least the same tax burden as lower and middle-class citizens. What would you do?
My guess is that we could say bye-bye to that fourth shopping center.
Let us review…
In February of 2006, in this posting, we noted that the Old Spaghetti Factory — a classy/campy restaurant up on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood — was soon to close.
Then in July, we received the happy news that the business had received a reprieve of indeterminate length. And last November, an executive in the Old Spaghetti Factory company e-mailed me that the Sunset Boulevard location would be open for at least two more years.
It turns out to have been a pretty short two years…a little less than seven months, actually. There are signs up now at that location (and a notice on the chain's website) saying that its last day of operations will be June 19. And just to show that they mean it this time, an auction of the fixtures, furnishings and restaurant equipment will take place on June 23. Shortly after, the rear section of the building will be demolished and the front section will be incorporated into a new 23-story residential tower with 301 for-sale condominiums, 40,000-sq.ft. of "creative office space," 13,500-sq.ft. of ground floor retail space, 508 parking spaces and a new half-acre public park.
So it looks like that's it for that outlet of the Old Spaghetti Factory. The posted signs urge its patrons to visit other Old Spaghetti Factory locations in Southern California. The nearest would be the one in Duarte, which is twenty miles away and also requires that you visit Duarte.
Guess I'd better get up there to Sunset in the next couple of weeks for a farewell lunch. I'll take my camera and snap some pics to post here.