Monthly Archives: February 2010

I have jested in the past here about William Shatner, who always struck me as one of those actors who doesn't know you're allowed to say no to things. Whether it's a silly commercial or a bad cameo or some overly dramatic attempt to sing and emote at the same time, he always seemed to me a clumsy presence. I've also never been a particular fan of Star Trek in any form, and I gather that those who love the franchise tend to be more forgiving of his excesses.

So in fairness, and because I always like to admit this kind of thing, I have to say I've been impressed with his talk show. Yes, he has a talk show. It's called Shatner's Raw Nerve and it runs on the Biography Channel. In each episode, he sits down for a half-hour with some prominent person and fires questions at them…good questions, asked with genuine interest. There's no studio audience. There does not seem to be the kind of pre-interviewing that puts both interviewer and interviewee on auto-pilot. The shows seem to be slightly edited but they don't feel edited. Best of all, Shatner knows how to listen and he makes each episode about the guest and not about himself. Only rarely does he reference his own career, his own life or achievements, and then only to draw out something significant about the person in the other chair.

I'm not always interested in that person in the other chair but I've TiVoed the show when I am and have decided to start recording 'em all. If you haven't given it a try because it's Shatner, you're doing yourself a disservice. Here's a link to the show's webpage which includes a schedule. If you don't get Biography Channel where you are, be patient. The network is owned by A&E, which owns several other channels (including A&E) and it would be so like them to rerun these soon on their other concerns.

A friend who's producing a documentary just phoned with a request. You may have seen newsreel-type footage of comic book burnings back in the days of Wertham — scenes of bonfires of dreaded funnybooks. Well, I've seen it too but I'll be darned if I can tell my friend where to locate such footage. Can you? Drop me a line if you can help.

From June of 1954: An article in Commentary magazine about Dr. Fredric Wertham and his campaign against comic books.

Here's the quickie review of the musical version of Mary Poppins which I saw last evening down at the Music Center here in Los Angeles: There are many moments of wonderful dancing and staging, most of which key off songs and scenes from the original, beloved movie. The cast is quite talented, especially Gavin Lee, the fellow who plays Bert the Chimney Sweep. Much of the audience loved it…and those are about all the good things I can find to say about it. Because though I went in wanting very much to have a good time, I was among those who didn't.

And now here's the longer part where I try to explain why. This may not be easy because I haven't completely figured it out yet for myself. I know it was not because they didn't follow the film slavishly. It's a classic but it's a classic of the screen, not of the stage. Alterations and additions are to be expected…but I guess I didn't expect them to remove the heart.

P.L. Travers, author of the books, famously disliked what Mr. Disney did with her property and declined all further offers for sequels. Shortly before she died in 1996, she okayed this stage production on the condition that it be done wholly by British-born talent and by no one who'd been involved in the movie. That meant that Richard and Robert Sherman, who wrote the celebrated film score, were excluded from contributing the new material. That's a shame because they might have infused the show with some of the personality that made the film work. As it stands, it's missing that vital element. This Mary Poppins doesn't twinkle. She lands with a thud…and I think I'll put up a SPOILER ALERT so I can continue this without giving away any surprises to those who may still go to see it…

There. Now that we're alone, let me elaborate. I didn't like Mary Poppins in this show. I don't mean the actress, Ashley Brown, who is quite lovely and gifted. I mean what her Mary Poppins does. She's obnoxious and not in a good way. She also does all these campy, exaggerated moves as if to say, "Ain't I quite a character?" Her premise is that she comes to a family that needs her, works her magic on them and then flies away when they no longer need her and her job there is done. That might make her a fascinating person if she actually did that.

Instead, she leaves at the end of Act One for no visible purpose other than they needed an emotional moment there. Then she comes back in Act Two for no particular reason other than that the show is named Mary Poppins so she has to come back. At the end, she leaves again — this time, for good — because her job is done there…but what did she do?

Oh, she showed two children a wonderful time and sang a lot for us and fixed broken dishes and such…but I don't get that she did any particular good for the family other than to chase away her Satanic temporary replacement. While hanging around, telling us how perfect she is, she has very little to do with the main storyline, which is about how Mr. Banks is worried about his future with the bank where he works. This is because he didn't give some investor a loan that would have paid off big for the bank. At the end, it turns out that his job is saved (and he even gets a huge raise) because that investor's business wasn't successful, after all but another loan he made — this one to a better human being — is paying off big.

That's the resolution to the central plot and Mary doesn't really make it happen. Heck, Mr. Banks barely makes it happen. To the extent he does, it's because he's a man with the wisdom to judge people as people, not as business deals…but Mary doesn't solve problems by understanding people. She solves them with magic tricks.

The big new song she sings is called "Anything Can Happen If You Let It," and that's kind of the theme of the show. I guess my problem is that I don't believe that for a minute. I think good things (not "anything") can happen if you make them happen. But if your kitchen's a mess and you're waiting for a magic nanny to come in and blink and fix it all up, your kitchen's going to stay pretty damn dirty.

I could maybe, stretching a point, buy that she has a positive influence on the Banks family because her witchcraft opens their eyes to possibilities and stimulates their imaginations…but I didn't get that out of the show. It's there in the movie. When her magical presence descends on the Banks house, that Mr. Banks becomes less stuffy and more caring and you see an actual change in the man because of his proximity to the title character. He decides there are more important things in life than running a stuffy old bank. He decides he'd rather go out and fly a kite…a true personality transformation. I didn't see any of that on stage. On stage, Mr. Banks is a whiny jerk from start to finish. He just becomes a financially-secure whiny jerk for reasons that have little to do with Mary Poppins.

There's a moment at the very end that really sums up how I felt about the show. Mary Poppins flies out over the audience and up into the heavens (i.e., the ceiling of the Ahmanson Theater) and she even came pretty darn close to where we were sitting, in the second row of the lower balcony.

Now, this is not a new stage trick. For the last few decades, it's been pretty standard in big productions of Peter Pan for Peter to take his/her final bow by flying out over the house and throwing fairy dust over us all…and call me a sap if you must but that's always a thrill. It always gives me a little tingle. It did when Sandy Duncan did it in her version of Peter Pan. It did the several times I saw Cathy Rigby do it in hers, and in one I saw with an unknown actress. For a few seconds there, the wires didn't matter because it was Peter Pan and not only could he actually fly but he was connecting with us, showering us with his magic the way he'd showered Wendy, Michael and John.

I didn't feel that way last night as Ashley Brown was hovering near us. I thought, "Oh, look. There's a pretty lady on two very visible wires." Try as I might, I couldn't make the wires go away, even for twenty seconds.

I do not feel good about not liking the show…and I emphasize that an awful lot of the audience was standing and cheering at the end. I don't know what they all got out of it but I applauded for the effort and the energy. I wish I could have applauded for something more than that.

Director James Cameron is complaining that the Motion Picture Academy did not consider the stars of Avatar for awards in the acting categories. There is already some arguing going about as to what extent the film should be considered an animated motion picture…and I have no opinion on that because, first of all, I haven't seen it. I may not, in fact, because folks keep telling me, "You simply have to see it in 3-D to get the full impact," and the hypnotic power of 3-D puts me to sleep. I also think the argument of whether that process is animation or not is one of those semantic battles that hinges on everyone's particular definitions.

What I wanted to point out though was that the Oscar folks have a long history of ignoring acting performances that seem to be heavily-assisted. If an actress is dubbed or an actor is heavily stunt-doubled, that loses them points. If heavy make-up or special effects seem to be doing a lot of the acting, they lose points for that, too. There are exceptions to this but generally, Best Acting awards go to actors who seem to have kinda earned them, all by themselves. This is one reason why action and fantasy films don't garner a lot of trophies. It's because those roles are often full of stunt-doubling and camera trickery that contribute to the performance.

There may be a solid argument that in Avatar, Sigourney Weaver is "acting" her role just as certainly as she acts any roles she plays. But you can't argue that when we see her performance, we're only looking at the work of Ms. Weaver with the guidance of Mr. Cameron. There are a lot of other people making that character like that…enough to make it feel inappropriate for an award that honors individual achievement. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. But I think that's how it is.

I just went to check the weather forecast for Los Angeles at Weather Underground and did a double-take that would have been considered "overacting" on The Benny Hill Show. They post the National Weather Service forecasts and the real one for the next few days calls for temps in the fifties and sixties and about a 50% chance of rain. That's what it says in the text on that page but their little graphic display says it's going to get down near freezing and there's a decent chance of snow. The software is aglitch.

I have lived in this city for all of my 57.8 years and the total amount of snow that has fallen where I dwell is about nine flakes. Amazingly, several were identical to one another but that's another matter. The point is it doesn't snow here. I sometimes hear locals muse how wonderful it would be if it did…just once or twice, just for twenty minutes. I don't wish that. For one thing, it would eliminate the hope that all those who warn of Climate Change are wrong.

I have an odd fascination with the operation of restaurants, especially chain restaurants. I watch them the way some folks follow a favorite sports team, noting what those in charge do to win and how they lose. Lately, I feel like Koo Koo Roo — a chain in Southern California that I used to like a lot — seems to be going the way of the Washington Nationals. I haven't seen any profit/loss statements but stores keep closing and when I walk into one of the ones that are left, they just feel like they're not long for the world. The food hasn't been as good as it used to be, either…which is why I'm not walking into the ones they have left very often.

I also, of course, follow the Souplantation and Sweet Tomatoes chain. They usually have my favorite, their Creamy Tomato Soup, for the month of March. I'm waiting to see if they uphold this sacred tradition. I'm also waiting to see if they send me a lot of free coupons as they usually do for mentioning that soup on this site. Hint, hint, hint.

Watching the Sizzler operation is another grand spectator sport. It goes up. It goes down. It reinvents itself. I gather it's on a bit of an uptick now. With the economy as rotten as it is, a lot of folks are skipping the expensive eateries and chowing down at places like Sizzler.

There's a Sizzler near me and once upon a time, it was a great place for lunch or a quick supper. Sergio and I used to often plot Groo stories there and the staff somehow knew who we were and gave us a 20% discount. (Don't mock it. That's the biggest perk I've received in 28 years of doing that comic.) But over the years, the service got bad and the food got worse…and I stopped going there.

Last evening, I was out for a walk and a think. Finding myself near the place and a bit peckish, I decided to stop in…but not for meat. I was going to just graze at the Soup-and-Salad Bar, plus I thought a baked potato might be nice. I recalled that years ago, someone told me that if you're getting the Soup-and-Salad Bar at Sizzler and you ask for a baked potato, they'll bring you one, no extra charge.

So I went in and asked about this. The fellow behind the counter said, "I think they used to do that but we don't now." The Soup-and-Salad Bar at dinnertime is $9.95 and he said it would cost me an extra $2.99 for a baked potato. Then he added, "Of course, you can get the Salad Bar and a baked potato with one of our Value Meals for the same price."

He pointed to the menu on the wall. Sure enough, you can get a six-ounce steak (or six fried shrimp or the Malibu Chicken) for the same $9.95 and that includes a baked potato (or rice or fries or veggies), a piece of cheese bread and, yes, unlimited trips to the Soup-and-Salad Bar. So I ordered that. I almost said, "I'll have the steak dinner…hold the steak" but I figured I could at least taste it and see if it was any better than the ones that made me give up the Sizzler. It was, a little. At least, I've had worse in fancy places.

But doesn't this strike you as a little odd, pricing-wise? If you want the Salad Bar and a baked potato, that's $12.94. But the exact same thing plus a steak is $9.95. (I think they give you the cheese bread either way.)

Seems to me the Sizzler folks are missing a great advertising pitch in these rough economic times: "Buy the Soup-and-Salad Bar and get a free steak dinner, including a baked potato!" And for free, that steak's pretty darn good.

Fred Kaplan reads the new defense budget so you don't have to. Bottom line: We're spending more than ever, but at least we're being more honest about it.

The nation's top uniformed officer testified this morning that he supports allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Admiral Michael G. Mullen is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If he'd said the opposite — if he'd said it would be wrong and detrimental to our military, those who oppose Gay Rights would now be arguing that his word was definitive; that if he says that, no one else's opinion matters. Since he said what he actually did say, you can tour the right-wing message boards and see him being trashed as a sell-out, an idiot who's out of touch with his own troops, and maybe even a closet fairy, himself. They're outraged because they know it's over and that we will soon see the day when the policy is amended. (An amazing number of them, by the way, think it was a ban on homosexuals serving in the military. No, it wasn't. It was just a ban on being honest about it.)

According to the Gallup Poll, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is favored by 69% of the country. It's favored by 86% of Liberals but even by 58% of Conservatives. It passes by 60% of those who say they attend church on a weekly basis. America has not been in favor of this discriminatory policy for a long time. We should have gotten rid of it years ago.

Wednesday is the 85th birthday of the great comedian and actor, Shelley Berman. (Wikipedia says he'll be 84. That'll teach you to listen to Wikipedia. Shelley will be 85 tomorrow.)

Shelley came out of improvisational comedy and revolutionized stand-up comedy. In his case, it was usually sit-down comedy. He'd park himself on a stool and engage the audience with sharp observations and engrossing scenes. His first record album, Inside Shelley Berman, is one of the best comedy recordings ever done and he spawned a legion of imitators, not a one of whom came close to being as funny or incisive. And amazingly, at his age, he's still funny and incisive, which may explains why he's still working all the time.

I've had the honor to work with Shelley once and to get to know him a little as part of a group to which I belong, a social group of comedians and comedy writers called Yarmy's Army. I've been meaning to write a little about Yarmy's Army and I will, one of these days soon. But among the perks of being a member is just being around Shelley. At our last meeting, he held the room riveted as he discussed his recent trip back to Chicago to participate in a reunion of his comedy alma mater, Second City.

Do you share my admiration for this man? Of course you do. Well, let's wish him a happy 85. If you're on Facebook, go to The Official Shelley Berman Facebook Page and post a birthday greeting to the man. I am assured he'll be reading the page this week and it would be great to fill it with well wishes, thereby bringing a smile to guy who's made so many smile…and laugh out loud.

Want an example? Here, courtesy of Shelley's webmaster of Shelley's website (where you'll find lots of great info about him and photos) is a clip of Shelley on an episode of Hollywood Palace that aired on November 21, 1964. He's introduced by Arthur Godfrey and he performs one of my favorite routines from Inside Shelley Berman. I've heard/seen this a couple hundred times and it still makes me laugh. See if it doesn't make you laugh…

At some point soon, we're going to get a decision in the trial of California's Proposition 8, the one that banned Gay Marriage in the state. The judge may or may not rule that it violates the U.S. Constitution…and no matter how he rules, this one is presumably heading for higher venues. William N. Eskridge Jr. and Darren Spedale summarize the legal issues involved and say that His Honor could go either way, no pun intended. I, of course, think it's absurd that gay folks are discriminated against in any way and hope that kind of thing goes away as rapidly as possible. But I'm still not convinced same-sex wedlock wouldn't become legal and commonly accepted sooner via a decision at the ballot box instead of in a courtroom.