Monthly Archives: December 2010

Roger Ebert on the MPAA system of rating movies. What he writes makes a lot of sense but I doubt the folks who administer the system and confer the mantles of X and PG-13 see any reason to change. And won't unless there's evidence it's costing the movie studios income.

Some highlights from yesterday's very, very long speech by Senator Bernie Sanders.

And here's the explanation on why what he was doing was not technically a "filibuster."

Following a routine doctor's appointment this morning, my mother wanted to go to IHOP and eat. Okay, fine. Of all the restaurants I've been to of that quick coffee shop variety (Norm's, Denny's, Bob Evans, etc.) IHOP has always struck me as about the best or at least not the worst. It is not, however, renowned as a great place to eat healthy. I can't go past one without recalling Lewis Black's line about how when you go into an IHOP, no matter how much you weigh, you will always see a customer who weighs 350 pounds more than you do.

Everyone there was very nice and my mother enjoyed her French Toast and Sausage. I had the Senior Pot Roast Plate (you have to be 55 or over and I am) which consisted of pot roast, corn, mashed potatoes and a piece of garlic bread about the size of poker chip. The menu said it contained 660 calories and while I didn't pick it primarily for that reason, it did seem to be about my best option, calorie-wise, given how many other things there I can't eat due to food allergies or just plain don't like. It was pleasantly edible, which is about the best you dare expect in a place like that.

I knew it had 660 calories because the menu said so. Every item on the menu had its calorie count listed, and while I've noticed that before on other menus, I don't recall seeing the counts so prominently displayed…and in a restaurant where I don't think people go, looking for a low-cal meal.

And I got to wondering…wondering if, since they started giving us that information before we order, buying patterns have changed. Are they selling less of the high-calorie items and more of the lower ones? I'm guessing it's not working the other way but maybe it hasn't changed at all. Are people ordering less of the Big Country Breakfast because they now see it has 1790 calories…and if you add in the Chicken Fried Steak option and a large orange juice, you bring it up to 2680? I'm curious. If you see an article anywhere about how divulging nutritional info has or has not changed the ordering traits in chain restaurants, would you point me towards it?

Another thing I ponder: They say the meal I had was 660 calories. I assume that's based on an average serving but there must be some fluctuation. The chef doesn't scoop exactly the same number of kernels of corn onto each plate. The size of a scoop of mashed taters can vary a bit and so on. It would not horrify me nor would I call a cop if I learned that what I was served today would have meant 680 calories if I'd eaten it all…or 690. What's the margin of error on something like this?

There's a story you may have heard about a soda fountain somewhere that used to advertise that it had developed a special formula for milk shakes. Theirs was a clone (in size and taste) of the 32 ounce Chocolate Milk Shake served at Baskin-Robbins…but the Baskin-Robbins one contains 1100 calories and theirs contained 250. When people found out that it really did taste pretty much the same, they flooded this soda fountain with business. This went on until someone ratted or someone did a nutritional analysis or…well, it turned out the soda fountain was simply lying. Their shakes contained just as many calories as Baskin-Robbins if not more. The owner was arrested…or so the tale goes. I have no idea if this actually happened.

But what I want to know is how much can an advertised calorie count be off? By 2%? 5%? How far off can they be and still be considered basically accurate? Is there some law that governs this? Someone reading this will know.

Even sixteen years after his death, Richard M. Nixon can't catch a break. Just when the Republican party is charging to the right, thereby making him look sane by comparison, more of this crap has to come out…more tapes that show Nixon's innate distrust of minorities. Even while the man was alive, everyone knew he was like that but his supporters could deny it to others and maybe even to themselves. Only a little of it had made it into the public sector.

Nixon's most prominent supporter, at least during the Watergate mess, was a rabbi named Baruch Korff, a man of sterling reputation and sincerity, though he was largely clueless about Washington and the president he backed. Given Nixon's power and '72 landslide, you would have thought his chief public defender would have been some G.O.P. biggie — a senator or governor but no. All those guys dove under their desks when evidence of Nixonian lawlessness began to leak, especially when it was revealed that endless hours of private Nixon conversations might become public. Rabbi Korff rode in and filled the position nobody else wanted. Some nights, when newsmen had to report the latest bad news for Nixon and they looked around for a spokesperson who could defend the then-president, Korff was often the only human being willing to go on camera in that role. That was a big part of what doomed Nixon: Few Republicans wanted to tether their futures to his…and Rabbi Korff, who wound up making the public case for R.M.N. was a thoroughly inept advocate.

Korff had an impossible job. It was bad enough that he had to explain "Nixon's side" of so many revelations without knowing what it was…or would be. (Nixon's strategy seemed to be to let all the bad stuff come out, then try to weave an innocent, self-exonerating explanation.) What made the Rabbi's chore even harder was that as Oval Office conversations leaked or were officially released, so was all that presidential anti-semitism. Korff discounted it, explaining it couldn't be so — never mind what Nixon actually said — because of the president's strong support of Israel. That was a weak defense — the "some of my best friends" gambit. And now we have these new tapes showing how Nixon admired Israeli Jews and distrusted their American counterparts. Exactly what you would have expected of the man. It's amazing how "readable" he was in these regards, just as it's amazing how Rabbi Korff turned out to be wrong about darn near everything.

As I understand it, what Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) did today was not exactly a filibuster. He spoke with limited interruption for what various press sources will tell you was eight hours, eight-and-a-half hours, nine hours or some other total…but it was not technically a filibuster because he was not delaying a specific vote or act of the Senate. So just call it a long speech and maybe a stunt, as well. I thought it was great. I didn't listen to more than about a half-hour of it and I'm not sure what 90% of what it was about. But hey, isn't it a lot more interesting than 8-9 hours of pointless, self-serving speeches that no one ever cares about?

I note some right-wing websites are admiring the Senator's spunk and determination, even if they say they disagree with his every syllable. And they're wrong about that last part. I don't care what your political beliefs are. Someone could type up a transcript of the whole thing and then find a couple of pages that, if you didn't know the identity of the speaker, would cause you to yell, "Right on!" I heard about five minutes about how the government often wastes money on stupid mistakes…five minutes that, as the song says, nobody can deny. There were other chunks that sounded like some guy addressing a Tea Party rally to resounding cheers.

Is it going to change the bill he's protesting? Probably not. Did he even achieve his stated goals, laid out in his opening paragraphs where he said, "I am simply here today to take as long as I can to explain to the American people the fact that we have got to do a lot better than this agreement provides."? I dunno. You can't explain something to someone who isn't listening and even if some of us peeked in at C-SPAN to watch a bit of the marathon, even the Senator's own family probably didn't catch a whole lot of the oration. But I guess he got himself some attention and got a few more folks talking about some issues. That ain't bad. It's about as much as any of those speeches ever achieve. Good for him…and I hope when I'm 69 years old, I have that kind of energy.

I spent most of last evening out in Santa Monica not celebrating Hanukkah but at a store called The Hundreds. It's misnamed: "Thousands" is more like it. They were having a party to celebrate a new line of Garfield goodies (mainly t-shirts, skateboards and original Garfield-themed works of art) and the place was packed. The photos over on this page make it look crowded but they're nowhere near as peopled as it got there. I wish it had only been that crowded. Those pics are from early in the proceedings. By around 9 PM, folks were jammed in there like Bubbie's Pickles in a jar. Gregg Berger (the voice of Odie) and I took to texting one another on our cellphones when we had to communicate about something. We were about six yards apart but between us were three hundred people so for me to go over to Gregg or for him to get to me was physically impossible. And outside, there was a line-to-get-in that stretched to Davenport, Iowa.

Inside, there were masses talking and drinking and eating lasagna and many of them, though not as many as wanted to, got to meet Jim Davis and get something signed. I kept getting dragged into photo ops and introduced to musicians and actors I probably should have known…but I'm not all that up on the current crop and it was way too noisy in there. So what would happen is that someone would introduce me to a person who was obviously a huge celeb to some and they'd say, "Mark, I want you to meet Rzlfrz Grekswxdd!" I couldn't make out the name but suddenly, there I'd be trying to have a conversation with someone who was apparently so famous that I felt I couldn't say, "Who are you again?" (The only one I knew for sure was Ashlee Simpson.) At one point, straining to be heard by one gent who was apparently a rock musician of some note, I gave up and just muttered something in double-talk jibberish. I think I said, "Krelmfine on the frizzit and voiner freem" and since he couldn't understand me either, he yelled back, "For sure, my man."

Much of the voice cast from the cartoon show was present…at least, the ones who were able to fight their way through the wall of humanity with a machete. I'm still kinda amazed I got out. Jim Davis and his wonderful wife/partner Jill stayed way longer than they'd intended. Matter of fact, they stayed way longer than I did but the line of folks who wanted Jim's signature was endless so long after I got the heck outta there, he was still there trying to disappoint as few of them as would be necessary. For all I know, he's still there.

I am told by a source close to Dick Van Dyke that the problem really is an Achilles injury. That's good to hear…not that he's injured but that it isn't something more serious. Mr. Van Dyke will be 85 on Monday.

He has an autobiography that is allegedly supposed to come out around next April. One hopes he will be in good enough shape to make the rounds, selling and signing copies.

Anyway, moral of the story: Don't trip over footstools. It catches up with you later in life. And while you're at it, it might be a good idea to never do The Twizzle.

I've mentioned here that Dick Van Dyke was doing a new almost-one-man-show at the Geffen Playhouse in Westwood. It had its first preview last night and our friend Shelly Goldstein was in the audience. She reports it was a wonderful evening; that Mr. Van Dyke forgot a few lines and got a tiny bit confused during a dance number but that the audience loved every minute they got to spend with him.

I was looking forward to seeing it this Saturday. My friends Vince Waldron (author of the best book on The Dick Van Dyke Show) and Dan Castellaneta (who claims to be on some cartoon show on Fox) and I bought out the front row for the matinee. Now, it turns out Shelly may be among the few to ever see this show. The Geffen Playhouse website now announces…

We are incredibly disappointed to share that due to an achilles injury beyond anyone's control, Dick Van Dyke will be unable to perform in his upcoming show Dick Van Dyke – Step in Time! – A Musical Memoir at the Geffen Playhouse. Obviously the Geffen Playhouse's top priority is to do what's best for Mr. Van Dyke who is a longtime friend and supporter of the theater, and as such, we have no choice but to cancel the production.

"I very much wish that circumstances allowed me to share my stories at the Geffen this winter," said Dick Van Dyke. "Unfortunately, this injury is forcing me to be off my feet for a while. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to revisit this sometime in the future, but in the meantime, I thank everyone for their understanding and support."

The Geffen Playhouse will be offering refunds to all patrons ticketed to the event as well as options to exchange into Broadway Holiday or a season subscription at no extra cost.

Boy, I hope this isn't a cover story for something worse. Let's assume it isn't.

45 years ago tonight, A Charlie Brown Christmas debuted on CBS. Execs at the network thought they had a flop on their hands but half of America tuned in and Mr. Schulz's little comic strip, which was already somewhat popular, became an American institution. I can't think of another half-hour of film that has ever been so loved and rerun and loved and rerun and loved and rerun…

Each December, I'm reminded and fascinated by one aspect of the show…and I think this speaks to its importance…

You're in a store. You're shopping. You hear instrumental Christmas music — i.e., Christmas music with no words. Okay, what makes it Christmas music? Why does this particular tune connect you with Christmas? There are three possible reasons…

1. It's full of jingle bell sounds. Jingling bells denote Christmas. You could play the melody for "Inna Gadda Da Vida" and if you had bells jingling, it would not be out of place in a holiday medley.
2. The tune reminds you of lyrics and the lyrics are about Christmas. If you hear them playing "White Christmas," your brain fills in the absent words and those words are about Christmas. So it makes you think of Christmas.
3. The tune reminds you of a great Christmas special.

That last one demonstrates the power of A Charlie Brown Christmas and if you don't believe me, just listen. Some time between now and 12/25, you'll be in a public place and they'll be playing Christmas music and you'll hear "Linus and Lucy," the most popular tune from that special. It won't remind you of Christmas because they play it with jingling bells because they don't. And it won't remind you of Christmas because you'll be recalling the lyrics which mention Christmas because there are no lyrics…

It will remind you of Christmas because it will remind you of A Charlie Brown Christmas. The folks who put together music lists that get played in public know that.

I can't think of another wordless song that reminds you of Christmas because it makes you think of a beloved Christmas special. There are some good holiday tunes that have come from other Christmas specials…songs like "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" and "Holly Jolly Christmas" and "The Lord's Bright Blessing" but those all have words about the Yuletide. While hearing an instrumental version of one of them might make you think of the TV show, I submit you're thinking of the words before or at the same time you think, as you might regarding the last of those, "Hey, that's from Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol." Only "Linus and Lucy" is a Christmas song because the melody alone connects you to the show. Great work, Vince Guaraldi.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about the show now except to link you to a great article about the special and its Executive Producer, my friend and occasional employer Lee Mendelson. If you know me, you occasionally hear me complain about crooked and/or idiot producers. You have never heard me say anything bad about Lee and you never will.

Speaking of John Lennon, as everyone was yesterday: Did you ever read the long interview he and Yoko Ono did for Playboy for its January 1981 issue? It's here if you need it.

If you're not thoroughly disgusted at John McCain on topic of "Don't ask, don't tell," you might want to read what Matt Welch has to say.