Monthly Archives: October 2007

Joe Conason on the Very Big Lie that's all the rage with people who want to be President or even Attorney General: "I'm not sure if waterboarding is torture." Of course, they're sure. There's no reason to do it if it isn't and if you don't think torture is desirable.

A lot of questions this morning about the Marx Brothers Cartoon Show I mentioned in an earlier post. Obviously, no such show was ever produced…but you might be amazed at the number of times it's been proposed and planned and led to pilot scripts and presentation art. I was once in a group of four other animation writers and the subject came up. All five of us, we discovered, had been approached at various times or even worked on various proposed projects featuring animated versions of the Brothers Marx. It's one of those ideas that always seem to be "in development" somewhere. In the eighties, that list also included shows about Michael Jackson, Elvira and — of all things — Wolfman Jack. I think one of the four thousand Wolfman Jack proposals actually got on the air briefly.

The last time I was approached about writing a Marx Brothers cartoon show, it was by a studio that had or thought they were about to get the rights to Harpo and Chico. A deal to include Groucho, whose likeness was controlled by a different wing of the family, had eluded these producers, though they thought it still might be obtainable. They wanted to know if I thought I could write a Marx Brothers show without him. The answer was no. Then they wanted to know: If you could write a Marx Brothers show without Groucho, would it be possible to write the pilot script so that we can show it to the Groucho People and they'll think it's wonderful and they'll want to give us the rights to him for a reasonable fee and then you can add him into that script?

Again, I told them no. But I added that I thought The Groucho People was a great idea for a show. Wouldn't you want to watch a cartoon show called The Groucho People? Better than that, wouldn't you want to be one of The Groucho People?

The first time I was approached about a Marx Brothers cartoon show, the producers had — or more likely, thought they could get — the rights to Groucho, Harpo and Chico. They asked me who they should get to supply the voice of Groucho. I told them there was only one choice: Dayton Allen. This was back in the early eighties when Mr. Allen was still alive. Dayton was, for those of you who don't know, a great comedian — a part of the old Steve Allen stock company — and he did a fair amount of cartoon voicing. He also did an uncanny Groucho. One time on the old I've Got A Secret game show, Groucho was the guest star. The panel was blindfolded and they had to guess what Groucho was doing as he answered their questions. What he was doing was sitting there, smoking a cigar while Dayton Allen answered the questions in his voice.

I told them that story and the producers said, "Great! We'll get Dayton Allen! Now, what about Chico?" I told them that the great cartoon voice actor, Paul Frees, did a killer Chico impression. The Vincent Price movie, The Abominable Dr. Phibes, had just come out and there was a place in it where Mr. Frees had dubbed in his wonderful Chico imitation. If they wanted to hear it, it was on the movie's soundtrack album.

"Terrific," they said. Whereupon one of them actually asked me, "Who could do Harpo?"

I thought the guy was kidding so I answered, "Marcel Marceau." When he wrote it down, I realized he wasn't kidding and that these people would never do a Marx Brothers show. Nor should they.

Testifying before Congress, Paul Wolfowitz famously said that the Iraq War would pay for itself. People have since mocked him for this but, come on. He was only off by 2.4 trillion dollars.

To grasp the magnitude of this bad bit of estimation, consider this. You or I could have gone before Congress in his stead. And when they asked us how much the War in Iraq was going to cost, we could have picked any number between one and about 4.7 trillion at random…and we would have been closer than Paul Wolfowitz. They later made this man president of the World Bank.

2.4 trillion is a lot but don't sweat it. It's not like we have anything better to do with the money.

Feel free to copy this banner and to post it all over the web for the next two months. If it's too large for your weblog, don't worry. I will have others available here soon.

Guess I should have expected it. I wrote about the Abbott & Costello cartoon show produced by Hanna and Barbera, and I got a lot of e-mails that said, more or less, "So what was the deal with those Laurel and Hardy cartoons they did?" The deal, as I understand it, was something that Larry Harmon — best known as the proprietor of Bozo the Clown — put together. He knew Stan Laurel and around 1961, made an arrangement with him for a cartoon based on these caricatures. News articles dated October of that year said that it would be a prime-time series on NBC and that Mr. Laurel would consult and contribute to storylines. (It is worth noting that this was one month after the first cartoon series produced for television, The Flintstones, debuted on ABC. At about the same time, Screen Gems — then the parent company of Hanna-Barbera — announced that a Marx Brothers cartoon show was in the works.)

There was a flurry of merchandising in anticipation of the Laurel & Hardy show…but no show. Apparently, NBC was not as committed to the project as the articles had suggested, and then there were some complications over the rights. The complications got worse when Laurel died in 1965 and there was some sort of claim on the rights by producer David Wolper. A partnership or compromise was brokered and in '66, the deal was set, not for network prime-time but for the syndicated children's market. There was only one crucial element missing: No animation studio. Harmon's, which had produced the Bozo the Clown cartoons, was no longer operative. So an arrangement was made with Hanna-Barbera to do the series.

Harmon himself supplied the voice of Stanley. Jim MacGeorge, who often impersonated Laurel in front of the camera, was engaged to voice Ollie. (Any time you see Chuck McCann playing Hardy in a sketch or commercial, it's usually Jim playing Laurel.) The usual Hanna-Barbera storymen and artists and supporting voice players were in place, and the cartoons varied wildly as to their quality and appropriateness for Laurel and Hardy. Four years earlier, H-B had produced a series of cartoons featuring two characters named Lippy the Lion and Hardy Har Har. It has been rumored that many of the scripts for the Laurel and Hardy films were either leftover Lippy & Hardy scripts or close remakes. There were also scripts in which Laurel and Hardy became super-heroes and some of these, it is said, were rewrites of scripts that had been written for an unproduced series about two clumsy crimefighters. Quality-wise, the Laurel & Hardy cartoons weren't much different from Lippy & Hardy, which of course is what was wrong with them.

Amazingly, that wasn't the last time Laurel and Hardy were animated by H-B. In 1972, the studio had this odd incarnation of the Scooby Doo franchise called The New Scooby Doo Movies. In this case, a "movie" was an hour long episode with an odd guest star or two. Among those who "met" Scooby, Shaggy and the gang were Don Knotts, The Three Stooges, Jonathan Winters, The Harlem Globetrotters, Sandy Duncan, Sonny and Cher, some other even odder selections…and Laurel and Hardy. The characters were redesigned a bit to fit in better with the Scooby style and again, Harmon and MacGeorge provided the voices. It was not Stan and Ollie's finest hour.

Here's the opening of a 1966 Laurel and Hardy cartoon…

More recently, Larry Harmon's company has repackaged the cartoons. Here's the opening they produced which combines clips from the old cartoons with a new theme song…

And while we're at it, here's three minutes of Laurel and Hardy guesting on The New Scooby Doo Movies. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

A lady on MSNBC is talking about the allegations of sexual misconduct against magician David Copperfield. Yeah, that's sure the biggest story in the nation today. Not that the fires are all that's happening but this strikes me as one of those cases where the pundits don't know enough to have opinions but, hey, it's network television. Can't let a little thing like that get in the way of a juicy topic. As Jack Germond used to say, "We aren't paid to say 'I don't know.'"

I like Copperfield as a performer and from our ever-so-brief encounters, he strikes me as a good, hard-working guy. Someone wrote to ask me if I think the charges against him are true. I don't even think they're charges yet, merely allegations, and the leaked details seem thinly-sourced and ever-changing. It sounds like it'll come down to a he said/she said dispute or maybe several…but so far, we haven't heard from he, nor do we know who she is, or they are, let alone what's being said.

I know the guy is rich and successful and handsome and that as a magician, he often projects an air of "I can do things you can't," and I can understand why some wouldn't want to miss the opportunity for a little schadenfreude at his expense. But isn't it at least a little premature? Especially since all we seem to know at this point is that someone has accused him of something? And at least going by the lady on MSNBC right now, we're not sure who or what.

I'm going to try to get this blog off the subject of the fires. This week's issue of The New Yorker includes an excerpt from Steve Martin's upcoming autobiography. That article does not seem to be available online but you can listen to about five minutes of the audiobook.

From Steve Crooks…

There's a guy at work here who says he has little sympathy for all the people losing their homes and businesses from the fires because they knew they were building/buying in areas that were known to have a higher chance of being burned someday. He compared it to people who knowingly build in a flood zone. Just to put on the icing, he also claims that since these people are losing their "2nd or 3rd multimillion dollar homes" he really doesn't shed any tears.

He even sent me this link from which he pulled out quotes showing that people had narrowly escaped previous fires (and not learned their lesson in his view), and figures showing how homes are being built on "wildfire land."

For the record, I'm not standing with him on his position. But I'm curious how you'd respond to him. I don't really have time to dig around and find sources to show him why he might be wrong, but I thought since you are much closer to the situation you might have a more accessible response at hand.

I don't think you have to know those areas or people who live there, as I do, nor do you need detailed stats to prove he's got this wrong. You just have to look at the staggering number of people who've been evacuated and whose homes are gone or threatened. If the totals were 5% of what they are, he might be right. There are folks who buy and build in areas where this kind of thing is a little more possible than it is in other areas. I don't agree that they are undeserving of sympathy and assistance but even if they are, they're a tiny fraction of all those who are impacted. Over half a million people have been evacuated just in San Diego County. These people were not all living in places where they shouldn't, and I'd be surprised if more than a few hundred were losing their second, let alone their third homes.

There are also other dangers in life. Often, to live in an area where there's a low probability of fire means to live where there's a higher chance of flash flooding or quakes or other disasters. After the big Northridge earthquake, one writer I knew who lived out in Valley decided to move to Virginia…where he got hit by a hurricane. There probably is a place in this country where where there's little chance of disaster but we can't all live on that block, wherever it is.

I was amazed to read the article he sent you. He really had to scour to find some scant indicators in it that the people losing their homes are living in fire-prone areas or that they have multiple residences. It made me wonder why anyone would try so hard to feel some reason not to have any compassion or caring about so many people whose lives have been devastated…and then I remembered something that a friend of mine once said. "Some people," he remarked, "are just assholes."

The fires raging through Southern California continue to horrify. Those of us who are nowhere near the flames can only watch and mutter inadequate words. I have a number of friends who I think have lost their homes…or are probably waiting somewhere in a motel to find out if they have.

I keep getting e-mails asking me if people in the comic book community are okay. I know of one person involved with the Comic-Con International whose home is gone, and a couple of creators who are nervously watching the news or perhaps being evacuated. Whether those people would want their names mentioned here, I don't know so I won't. They don't need any more problems right now.

The news coverage is uneven, as I guess it always is in situations like this. Years ago, I heard a TV News Exec say that in covering catastrophes, there were four categories of stories — and I hope I remember them correctly. They were Service, Strategy, Superheroes and Suffering. Service refers to the plain, important facts that the public needs to know…in this case, where the fire is, what is likely to happen, where to go for help, how to help, etc. Strategy is the nuts 'n' bolts of how the responders are responding…in a situation like this, explaining about water drops and backfires and such. Superheroes would be the human (or superhuman) side of the responders, focusing on their challenge and how they're meeting it, and Suffering would be all the shots of homes burning.

I understand how the Suffering part is the most dramatic footage and also the easiest to present, so we get an excess of that. At times though, it feels like someone thinks we're tuning in to enjoy watching lives being destroyed. In the new era of split-screen news coverage, when they like to put little boxes on the screen, some channels seem to think one must always contain flames, even if it means endlessly repeating the same tape. Couldn't that space on my screen be used for a little more Service and Strategy?

And couldn't we have less of one other "S" word, Stroking? Right now on KNBC, we have a lot of politicians commending the fire fighters and each other on the fine job they're doing. That job seems to consist of getting in front of news cameras and commending the fire fighters and each other for the fine job they're doing. My city councilman is standing next to Governor Schwarzenegger, waiting (I guess) for his chance to get to the press microphone and add his commendations for the fire fighters and each other for the fine job they're doing. He probably thinks this will cause his constitutents to note that he's on the job and contributing. I think I'll drop him a letter and tell him it makes me think he's not.

You all know Alan Young as the Horse Whisperer, Wilbur Post, on the classic TV series, Mr. Ed. It was such a great role that people forget that Young was a successful comic actor before that, and that he's done plenty of great non-equine work since. Years ago in Las Vegas, I saw him do a superb job in the lead role in a very slipshod production of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. Everything about it was a mess except that Young was so good, he made it all work. I've also been honored to have him perform in a number of cartoon shows I've written (where I hope he didn't have to pull off the same kind of miracle) and to chat with him from time to time. He's a very nice man who's very serious about acting.

He'll be talking about his incredible career when he appears on today's live broadcast of Stu's Show, the cornerstone program of Shokus Internet Radio. He'll be on with Stuart Shostak from 4 PM to 6 PM, Pacific time, which is 7 PM to 9 PM on the right-hand coast. I'm sure they'll talk a lot about Mr. Ed but I hope they also discuss Alan's radio stardom, his earlier TV roles, his movies, his theater work, his cartoon voiceovers (he's the voice of Scrooge McDuck for Disney) and everything else. I may try to call in and ask a question or three, myself.

You can probably listen to the show on the computer you're using to browse this very web page. Just go to this web page at the proper hour and select an audio browser. It's a rare opportunity to hear a great performer discourse on his life and career…kinda like Inside the Actors Studio except that the host isn't as pompous and interested in talking about himself.

I don't cook much. I like the sense of accomplishment that comes with preparing something…but then I also like the sense of accomplishment that comes with coming upstairs here and writing a script, and the script usually pays better and endures longer. So the things I cook are the ones that take almost no time.

The other day, I came across one of the simplest things in the world to cook. While shopping Costco recently, I purchased a three-pound Bill Bailey's Irish Brand Corned Beef. At 2:45 in the morning a few days ago, I took the thing out of its wrapper, stuck it in my Rival Crockpot Cooker (also purchased at Costco), added water to cover the beef, set the timer to cook for eight hours on "low," then went to bed. The next morning, I had a hot, fresh, corned beef that was as good as any I've had in any delicatessen…and a lot cheaper. I've been carving hunks off it since then and given how little I eat these days, it could last me well into next week.

I suppose one could add all sorts of spices and veggies for flavor to the crockpot…but what came out was so good, I'm disinclined to fiddle with the process. I also like the idea of keeping it simple. It couldn't have been easier.

A little while ago, I tuned in to CNN and saw Wolf Blitzer interviewing someone, and there were two smaller boxes on the screen. In one, they just had footage of raging fires consuming homes in Southern California. There was no information about this being given. The box was just for people who wanted to see homes burning down.

The second box was promoting Anderson Cooper's upcoming special on Global Warming. It was filled with shots of glaciers melting, water rising, drought-stricken land, etc.

In the main scene, Blitzer was discussing the War in Iraq and the latest casualty figures for American troops and Iraqi civilians.

And then along the bottom, there was a crawl telling us that portions of New Orleans that had been rebuilt since Katrina have been destroyed by the latest flooding.

I watched it all for about three minutes and then came to the following conclusion: The greatest threat facing us today is that Barack Obama doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin.

Stephen Colbert is breaking the law.

For some reason, I get a lot of questions about the Abbott & Costello cartoon series that Hanna-Barbera made in 1967. There were 156 5-minute cartoons made in a matter of months. The films went out into the syndication marketplace, didn't do too well and received only limited exhibition thereafter. Someone apparently lost a pile of cash on the deal but as I understand it, it wasn't Hanna-Barbera. I once asked Joe Barbera about the show and his answer went something like this: "The agents came to me one day and said, 'We've got this offer to do all these Abbott and Costello cartoons if we can do them for X dollars.' We had a lot of writers and artists sitting around with nothing to do at the moment so we grabbed it and we did them and I got to meet and work with Bud Abbott."

That was all he remembered and there may not have been much more to it than that. The cartoons were H-B standard, which at the time was roughly equal to Abbott and Costello standard. A year earlier, H-B had done 156 Laurel & Hardy cartoons that, to put it charitably, were not worthy of their subjects and which were criticized as such. No one seems to have been as offended by Bud and Lou being Hanna-Barbera-ized, partly because it was Abbott and Costello and partly because Bud himself participated. The best thing you can say about the series is that we got to hear him again, and Bud — who was hard up for money at the time — made enough of it to last him for the rest of his life and not feel like a charity case. (He died in 1974. I met him briefly out at the Motion Picture Country Home on one of my visits out there to see Larry Fine, but all I got to do was shake hands and lay a few nice words on the guy. He wasn't in the mood or health for any sort of conversation. Oddly enough, though he and Larry had similar backgrounds and many mutual acquaintances, neither seemed aware or interested that the other was there.)

Due to some combination of age and disinterest in the material, Abbott's vocal performances in the cartoons were generally uninspired. Still, it was nice to hear him, and there were moments when you heard traces of the old magic as he bantered with Stan Erwin, who provided the voice of Lou Costello. Erwin was a former performer who was then working as the Entertainment Director for the Sahara Hotel in Las Vegas. In fact, in that capacity, he'd booked Abbott and Costello, and later booked Costello as a solo after the team split up. Legend has it that he got the cartoon job because someone at H-B asked Abbott who did the best Costello impression he'd heard and he mentioned Erwin.

Whatever the cartoons' financiers lost in syndication, they may have made up in merchandising. There was a fair amount of it featuring the animation models of Bud and Lou. The best thing — and it was a lot funnier than the cartoons — was an Abbott & Costello comic book published by Charlton Comics. The early issues were written by Steve Skeates and drawn by Henry Scarpelli, and they were pretty good. If the show had been that clever, it might have been a hit.

And that's just about everything I know about it. Here's the opening…

If you're interested in what's up with the fires in Southern California, this weblog seems to have better information than any of the so-called mainstream press sources.