Monthly Archives: June 2007

Stan Lee is interviewed by budding filmmakers on Life After Film School, tomorrow (Monday) night on Fox Movie Channel.

Whenever I've had time to read in the last week or so, I've been back in the past with two new books: The Conviction of Richard Nixon: The Untold Story of the Frost/Nixon Interviews by James Reston Jr. and Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi. The first is Reston's account of the famed 1977 Frost/Nixon debates which are now the subject of a hit play. He was a key member of Frost's research/support team. The second is a major work by the famed Prosecuting Attorney, making the case that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of John F. Kennedy and that there was no, repeat, no conspiracy.

The Reston book covers much of the same ground as Frost's (obviously ghost-written) 1978 book, I Gave Them A Sword: Behind the Scenes of the Nixon Interviews. The main bit of "new" info is Reston explaining in some detail how he located a previously-overlooked and highly-damning conversation in a transcript of Nixon's infamous tapes. That bit of surprise evidence in the interviews helped Frost "nail" Nixon…or at least to keep him on the ropes for much of the Watergate conversation. Another interesting revelation is that Nixon's deal with Frost specified that during the taping, the ex-president could mop sweat from his face any time Frost was asking a question, and that footage of him doing this would not be included in the broadcast. All in all though, the book didn't tell me much that I didn't already know.

The main problem with the Bugliosi book is that it's unreadable. I don't mean it's badly-written. I mean it's unreadable. The book is over 1600 pages…and it's actually even longer than that suggests because it comes with a CD that includes all the endnotes and sources, plus the book is set in a rather small, uncomfortable font. I have terrific vision and I found my eyes glazing over every 10-12 pages. This is a shame because it's an important, exhaustive book…I think. I'm basing that on as much of it as I've been able to read so far.

I am of the mind that Oswald did act alone, that the single-bullet theory is solid, that Jack Ruby was exactly what Jack Ruby seemed to be, that there was no squadron of Cuban marksmen on the grassy knoll, etc. Once upon a time, I did not believe this and thought other, craftier forces had done the deed. I read many a work that claimed this or that, and even attended a small convention of the kind of folks who write such books. Continued exposure to the "buffs," as many call themselves, drove me back towards the official answer, not because it was official but because it was the only one that made any sense at all to me. The more I've read about it, the more convinced I've become.

Bugliosi spends much of his book demolishing some of those alternate theories. I met Bugliosi a few years back and we talked about the fact that there are 8,000 versions out there of who killed JFK and how…but none of them involve two or three people. You have the scenario that it was just Oswald and then all the rest involve hundreds of co-conspirators, all of whom have done a great job keeping mum about some pretty incredible things they did, like stealing Kennedy's body for surgical alteration before the autopsy or — and this may be my favorite — bringing in and then artfully removing phony trees that were placed on the grassy knoll to hide additional shooters. Without anyone noticing.

You may not want to tackle this book and I couldn't blame you if you didn't. Between the thick spine and the thin type, it can be rough going though I intend to keep trying in spurts. This also means wading through a frequent feature of any Vince Bugliosi book, which is the frequent reference to what a great prosecutor and investigator Vince Bugliosi is. The man's very smart and I agree with just about all his conclusions in as much of his book as I've been able to manage to date. I just wish he'd tone down the self-approbation, if only because without it, he might have gotten the thing down to a trim 1200 or so pages. Just for comparison, my copy of The Warren Commission Report is a little under 900 with a much larger and more legible typeface.

Here are two commercials produced by the Jay Ward studio, both for cereals I never ate — Sugar Jets and Wheat Hearts. I'm not even sure they were sold in local markets…because I was once of an age where if Bullwinkle J. Moose told me to eat Sugar Jets, I'd have been eating Sugar Jets. Anyway, here are the spots. The voices of Bullwinkle and Mr. Peabody are from Bill Scott, the voice of Rocky is June Foray and the voice of Sherman is Walter Tetley.

Steve Billnitzer writes…

Not sure exactly why you're pointing out, however accurately, that Ron Paul and the other so-called "second tier" presidential candidates won't carry a single state in the 2008 presidential elections. Is the message that we should switch our support from someone who may represent our positions but has no chance of winning to a candidate with good odds but whose positions we deplore?

Though I'm aware of the (let's call it) "Ralph Nader effect" on the 2000 elections, I could never sanction with my vote or otherwise any candidate who opposes civil rights to the extent of the Republicans or property rights to the extent of the Democrats, even if it means the greater of two evils winds up in the White House, a la the current occupant. Morally, I believe it's worse to vote strategically than to vote your conscience.

Still curious, though: What prompted the unreferenced item?

Just watching a story on MSNBC (I think it was) that showed Ron Paul mobbed by supporters and made it sound like he has a huge groundswell of support. The guy's still polling at around 2% in polls with a margin of error of 3% so I thought the piece was misleading. One of the many downsides of this long, long primary season is that reporters have to gin up a lot of stories where there aren't any. In Paul's case, I think it's great that he's out there, saying things that will never pass the lips of anyone who thinks they have a shot at getting elected. But let's not pretend he's going anywhere. What little support he has is mostly for representing "None of the above."

I would never suggest anyone vote for a candidate whose positions they deplored. On the other hand, there's something to be said for the lesser of two evils. There'd better be because that seems to be all I can do. I'd love to vote my conscience but I haven't seen it on any ballot. Maybe I should put it down as a write-in vote.

BBC Radio 4 is doing a series of shows called U.S. Comics Confidential that profile/interview great American comedians more in the area of serious biography than entertainment. I think this link will allow you to listen to an excellent 30-minute broadcast about Jonathan Winters discussing, among other things, his bi-polar disposition. The link may not work forever so don't delay. The next broadcast, which is June 28, will be about Phyllis Diller and I'll try to link to that once it's online.

Last night, I posted this item with a photo from a new book about Chevy Chase. The photo, taken allegedly at a 1989 fund-raising event, identified a man with Chevy Chase as Marty Feldman. I asked, "What is wrong with this picture?"

As over 200 of you so far have noted, it is not Marty Feldman in the photo. It is Marty Ingels. It would have been difficult for Marty Feldman to show up at a 1989 fund-raising event since he died in 1982. (He was killed by the famed cartoonist Sergio Aragonés but that's another story.)

Of the 200, about 75 missed the headline on my posting and seemed to think I didn't know that was Marty Ingels. Of course I know it's Marty Ingels, who is probably best known for, in no particular order: Being married to Shirley Jones, appearing on The Dick Van Dyke Show, voicing the cartoon character of Pac-Man, appearing at various Hollywood-related functions, and starring in the 1962 situation comedy, I'm Dickens, He's Fenster. He was Fenster.

That was a very funny series which, alas, has not been rerun much. A DVD release is said to be imminent but I've yet to see an official announcement. When it does come out, you may be pleasantly surprised as to how good it was. I saw one recently…and while a lot of my once-favorite shows wither against the Test o' Time, this one did not disappoint at all. I still think someone is missing a big opportunity by not starting The Largely-Forgotten Sitcom Channel and programming shows like that and He and She and Car 54 and Captain Nice and The Governor and J.J. and The Danny Thomas Show. (I'm told that some of the major companies have tied up the rights to enough of those shows to prevent an independent from doing this. What I don't know is why those major companies don't do it. Yes, the demographics might skew old…but there's a place on cable for that. The folks who make Rascal Scooters have to advertise somewhere.)

Above are the covers to the two issues Dell Comics put out of I'm Dickens, He's Fenster in funnybook form. If I had more time, I would have photoshopped Marty Feldman into one of them.

Longtime followers of this here blog will recall discussions of Otto Preminger's utterly gonzo 1968 movie, Skidoo, which starred (to their eternal shame) Jackie Gleason, Mickey Rooney, Peter Lawford, Carol Channing, Frankie Avalon, most of the actors who played recurring villains on Batman, George Raft and — in his final screen appearance — Groucho Marx in the role of God. I will not claim this movie is good or bad or even that it's so bad it's good. It's just very, very strange. To watch it is to have your jaw at half-mast and to wonder aloud, "What the hell were they thinking?"

Skidoo has never been released officially on home video. Bootlegs abound but the Preminger Estate, which apparently controls the rights, seems to be trying to salvage a little of Otto's reputation by denying it a formal release. It is still eligible for theatrical exhibition however, and those of you in Los Angeles will have two opportunities next month to view it in 35mm on a big screen and with a live audience that will doubtlessly replicate the best scene in The Producers. It's all part of The Mods & Rockers Film Festival which ricochets between the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood and the Aero Theater in Santa Monica. As you'll see, they're showing a lot of odd movies. Skidoo is July 14 at the Egyptian and then on July 29, it's part of a double-bill at the Aero along with The Party, starring Peter Sellers. Blake Edwards, who directed The Party, will be present for that event.

As it happens, I won't be able to attend either screening but if you do, I'd welcome a report…especially on the audience response. My thanks to Peter Avellino, Scott Lovrine and Will Harris, all of whom wrote to alert me to this rare opportunity.

Wait a minute. What's that you say? You can't believe Skidoo is as bizarre as I say? Then just watch this scene — in which Jackie Gleason takes an L.S.D. trip — and tell me that again. This'll teach you not to doubt me.

One thing to remember when you hear Ron Paul or any of these "new, different" candidates for the presidency speaking and being mobbed by admirers and rising all the way from 1% in the polls to 2%…

These people are going to get the same number of electoral votes as you.

Douglas Wolk has an essay up at Salon about "graphic novels" (as opposed to "comic books") that's in the category of "I'm glad he wrote this so I don't have to."

Another article I hope someone will write so I don't have to is about how the word "comics" is evolving, as a Mr. Jack Kirby always predicted it would. Jack always said it would transcend things printed on paper and become a term for an entire approach to fiction and communication. Movies would be comics and vice-versa, he said. For me, the Comic-Con International has become a stark example of this. So many things in that exhibit hall — not only movies but games and Internet projects and multimedia presentations — are "comics" by association and lineage. Yes, the convention has expanded amazingly over the years…but so has the world of "comics."

An author named Rena Fruchter has recently published I'm Chevy Chase And You're Not, a biography of Guess Who, written with his cooperation and participation. I just got a copy and haven't read it yet…but just paging through it, I couldn't help but notice two things. One is that the book is a glowing, flattering portrait of Mr. Chase, who has not exactly been flattered by some books in the past. I also noticed the above photo and caption. What is wrong with this picture?

Getting work done? Want to become less productive? Then close the window containing that important assignment and open a window on WordBreaker, The Game of Guessing Words.

Fred Kaplan on why Rudy Giuliani quit the Iraq Study Group. The press has done a pretty good job of keeping this whole matter secret.

You know what we need? A good Simon & Garfunkel medley performed by Julie Andrews and Mama Cass…

The approval rating of George W. Bush is now down to 26% in one major poll. This is amazingly low. I mean, I think the guy is a terrible president in ways that have long been obvious to all, but I would have bet cash money that he'd have to have been indicted for killing a nun before he'd get down near that level.

But now here's my question…and yes, I know this will bring another rash of e-mails from folks who accuse me of pathological "Bush-bashing." These people obviously haven't surfed the 'net much because there are hundreds of thousands of sites out there that compare Bush to a chimp, fantasize about his imprisonment or execution, etc. I'm one of the more moderate voices. I'm also, at least on this, in sync with Mainstream America.

So here's what I'm wondering. I'm wondering what his approval rating really is…because it's got to be lower than that.

Follow me for a second on this. Pollsters ask their little questions and people answer them, and I can't imagine a reason why someone who thought well of Bush would answer that they disapproved of the job he's doing. But I can think of plenty why people who wish he would just disappear would tell pollsters they approve of the job he's doing.

One is that we're at war, and a lot of people think that in a time of war, you have to back your Commander-in-Chief. I don't buy the idea that it's betraying our troops to suggest that their leaders have sent them on the wrong mission or that the war has been run ineptly. But there are folks who think that way so no matter how much they privately think Bush has botched things and that "mistakes have been made," they'll tell everyone, pollsters included, that they're behind this war effort…and therefore, behind Bush.

We also have folks who may think Bush is a disaster but they like what he stands for…or at least what they thought he stood for when they punched out the chads by his name. To them, the fall of Bush is a victory for those who want to allow gay marriage, keep abortion legal, restrict gun ownership, etc. — so they won't say they disapprove of him even though they do. (I heard a guy on C-Span the other day who seemed to think that if Bush's approval rating gets low enough, John Kerry gets to finish out his term.)

And then you just have people who figure we're stuck with Bush so there's no point in giving up on him now. It's like if you were in a plane and there was reason to suspect the pilot didn't know where he was going. It might be emotionally preferable to tell yourself, "He'll figure it out," rather than admit how bad off you were.

There are probably other reasons to tell pollsters you approve of a president when you don't…and I'm not saying everyone who says they approve of Bush is lying or disingenuous or anything. But I also don't think most people who say they like him really like him. I don't think most of them liked him when they elected him, just as most people who voted for Kerry wished there was someone better to vote for. It always seems to come down to pretending that the lesser of two bad choices is a good choice. Bush's low ratings these days are not because so many people who voted for him have decided he's not a great president. It's because so many of them have decided to stop pretending.

Paul Goebel, AKA "The King of TV," is video-blogging these days and his comments are worthy of your attention. Paul knows TV backwards, forwards and from the inside out.

If you scroll through his page, somewhere you'll find his commentary on who's going to replace Bob Barker on The Price is Right and why it won't be Rosie O'Donnell. I agree it won't be Rosie…or anyone else who might upstage the show itself. But I'm wondering if anyone at CBS has had this thought: Why not make the selection into a reality show? They could call it Who Wants to Replace Bob Barker? or something like that. Let John O'Hurley and George Hamilton and all the other names that have been rumored compete for the job on camera and let America call in and vote. I'm a little more than half-serious about this.