Monthly Archives: November 2011

Our pal James H. Burns sent in the following and asked that I share it with you here…

Mark, Your feeding your outside creatures may have saved a few lives, three thousand miles away! At least by way of inspiration…

I've had animals almost my entire life, but in the suburbs of New York, it's considered risky to leave food outside at night, for the raccoons here, by reputation anyway, can be a bit destructive…

Don't get me wrong. I grew up in a family where we'd leave food outside each morning, for the birds and squirrels. (How can some folks be afraid of the latter? I find it rather neat that across a few different decades, I've known squirrels so friendly that they'll actualy knock on my door, when they'd feel like a snack!)

But, inspired by your columns and accounts, I started leaving some cat food out at night, about a year-and-a-half ago. (And during those wild winter storms last year, sometimes twice an evening, particularly when pulling an all-nighter!)

If you've grown up loving animals, such an adjustment is easy, and the rewards, as you know, many. Watching a raccoon eating just a few feet away from a cat who's dining just a few feet away from a possum is simply just kind of delightful.

And I was absolutely astonishted a few weeks ago, when a mother raccoon whom I'd "known," I guess, since 2010, suddenly trusted me with her five new offspring, leaving my backyard (with me and the brood standing there) for about ten minutes, to check on another calling…

The best story, though, happened at the end of last winter, when an orange tabby I'd observed for a while (but only through a window) suddenly jumped into my arms as I was placing the evening's meal. I
wrote that, ahem, tale, up for Newsday last June, but like many newspapers, their online edition is now only available to subscribers. So I was surprised to just discover that the column is now available at
their related newspaper website, AM NY…

It seems my little friend was pregnant. And all the FIVE of us can now say, is thanks again for setting one of many good examples!

Great story. And for the benefit of those who've written to ask: Yes, I still feed the same four feral cats in my backyard. There are occasional guest appearances by other stray felines but the Big Four protect their turf and they chase interlopers off. They don't, however, mind the possums that come around from time to time.

I had raccoons until just recently. I may still have them and just not have seen them…but about two weeks ago, I spotted a New Generation: A mama raccoon and four babies. I figured that before the kids learned where to go for food, I needed to break them off so I began taking the food in at night except when I was downstairs to monitor who was getting it. Some evenings, I take my iPad down and sit on the back step and web-surf while the cats have their late night meals, then I bring in what they don't eat. The raccoons usually come late and the possums, when they show up at all, come early…so I adjust the buffets accordingly and I think I'm managing to feed cats and possums but not raccoons.

I hope the raccoons find other places to dine but in this neighborhood, it's probably just going to mean someone else's pet food dishes or trash cans. Sure wish there was some way to trap them and release them in Griffith Park or something…but after many calls to local city and humane agencies, I didn't find any real solution that didn't involve hiring someone to come in and kill them. And even that would just eliminate the current batch. If I'm going to spend money on exterminators, the pests I'm going to get rid of are zealots who come to my door and try to convert me to their religion. The raccoons are a lot less annoying.

Michael Jackson's doctor Conrad Murray was found guilty today of involuntary manslaughter in the death of the King of Pop. I have no particular opinion about the case itself but lines like this in the news coverage seem worthy of a head-shake or two…

Murray's license to practice medicine is now suspended, according to the Medical Board of California, which decides if a doctor can legally work in the state. In the light of the conviction, the board now will open an investigation to determine whether or not to fully revoke Murray's right to practice medicine in the state, spokeswoman Jennifer Simoes said.

So is this investigation just a formality? Or is there a chance that they could decide that going to prison for causing the death of a patient by supplying him with a dangerous drug and not monitoring its usage is no reason to stop a doctor from continuing to treat patients? I do know a doctor (a very good one) who lost his license over a matter that by comparison seems trivial and which did not cause anyone to die. Is there really a chance that Murray could go on being Dr. Murray?

They're in hog heaven on CNN at the moment covering three breaking stories at the same time…

• There's the new woman accusing Herman Cain not just of sexual harassment but of something more akin to sexual assault. I actually think people sometimes make the mistake of using the word "harassment" when "assault" or even "rape" is more accurate. Anyway, with even other Republicans urging Cain to "come clean" and answer charges, it looks like Herman won't be able to stick with his pledge to never again discuss any of the allegations. It also looks like he won't be the Republican candidate for the White House…but it's looked that way to most of us since he first got into the race.
• There's a verdict in the case regarding the death of Michael Jackson. It won't be read until 1 PM Pacific Time so at the moment, CNN is showing us video of the outside of the courthouse building. It's like, "Look, look! There's the building where the verdict will be read and we're across the street from it!"
• And now they're covering the allegations that long-time Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky is being accused of sexual assault on many boys, some of them horrendously young. They're showing over and over, a clip from Good Morning, America this morning in which Sandusky comes out on his front steps and declines to answer (on his attorney's advice, he says) the question, "Can you tell us if you had any inappropriate relations with young boys, sir?" When you're refusing to deny that, you're in a lot of trouble.

You can just hear the producers at CNN debating which story to go to for how long in rotation. Glad they're having a good time.

As anyone who'd come to this blog knows, Alan Reed was the voice of Fred Flintstone. He performed the role from the show's debut in 1960 until he passed away in 1977. Thereafter, the role was assumed by Henry Corden, who had sometimes supplied Fred's singing voice or filled in for Reed on kids' records and educational projects. I liked Henry and thought he did as fine a job as could have been done by anyone who wasn't Alan Reed. Unfortunately, he wasn't Alan Reed.

Mr. Reed did a lot of other things in his career besides holler, "Yabba Dabba Doo!" He wrote about his entire life in a autobiography that he hadn't finished at the time of his death. A few years ago, it was finished and published by Ben Ohmart, who's the man behind BearManor Media, publishers of many fine books on topics that interest people like you and me. Here's a link if you didn't get a copy and yearn for one.

Or if you don't feel like reading, someone will read it to you. You can now buy it as an audiobook read by veteran radio-theater producer Joe Bevilacqua and Alan Reed Jr. As the press release notes, "This 5-hour unabridged audiobook is enhanced with rare interviews with Alan Reed himself, an interview with Joe Barbera, and clips from Reed's radio, TV, and film career, including The Fred Allen Show, The Shadow, The Life of Riley, Life with Luigi, Duffy's Tavern, The Postman Always Rings Twice, Viva Zapata, Breakfast at Tiffany's and The Flintstones.

Sound good to you? Sounds good to me. You can order your own copy here. Go grab one while they have them in stock.

Hey, let's all go look at some photos of the construction of Disneyland!

I seem to have confused a few folks with my phraseology. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy appeared in around 32 silent shorts for the Hal Roach Studio. The number is a bit arguable since there were a couple in which they were on-screen for less than thirty seconds and since a few later ones were made in both sound and silent versions.

The second Roach film in which both appeared was Duck Soup and it's the first film you could claim was "A Laurel and Hardy film" as opposed to a comedy in which the two men both happened to have roles. But then the next few films to contain both men are in the latter category. They're just two unteamed actors in a movie and in some, they don't even have scenes together.

Then the eighth Roach film to house both guys — Do Detectives Think? — really looks like what we think of as a Laurel and Hardy movie. If you see it, you think, "Aha! The studio finally realized that those two guys should be starring as partners!" But then their ninth film and several thereafter are back in the "two guys in the same film" category. Their eleventh joint Roach job — The Second Hundred Years — has them teamed…and thereafter, but for one or two missteps, they were.

Douglas McEwan writes to remind me why Putting Pants on Philip, which was made after all of these, is often referred to as the first official Laurel and Hardy movie…

The reason Putting Pants on Philip is sometimes called "The First Laurel & Hardy" movie is because Stan Laurel called it such to John McCabe, apparently repeatedly. McCabe quotes Stan's assertion that Putting Pants on Philip is The First Official Laurel & Hardy in both Mr. Laurel & Mr. Hardy and in Babe. He probably quotes it in his The Comedy World of Stan Laurel also, though I haven't read that one, so I can't state it. I reread Babe last week, and in that McCabe expresses skeptism about whether Putting Pants deserves this appelation or not, but he does repeat once more that Stan felt it was the first. Now, as to why Stan thought of it as such, I have no idea, but Stan's widely-published assertion is the reason others do.

You're right…and it points up how maddening it can sometimes be to chronicle film history since you'd think Stan Laurel would be an unimpeachable source as to what the first Laurel and Hardy movie was. I suppose he was recalling some burst of special promotion on Putting Pants on Philip which made it seem in his mind like their first official film together. But he did tell that to John McCabe who printed it in Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy, which was for a long time the definitive book on The Boys — mainly because it was the only one. I just checked my copy of McCabe's The Comedy World of Stan Laurel and Putting Pants on Philip does not seem to be mentioned in there.

Doug also wrote to thank me for cautioning folks against believing what Jerry Lewis says on that new DVD set. Mr. Lewis seems to believe — and I can't imagine where he got this — that Hardy was an unemployed stagehand at the Roach studio when someone got the idea to star him with Laurel. Uh, Jerry, Oliver "Babe" Hardy had appeared in dozens of movies (a lot more than Stan, many of them for Roach) before teaming up with Laurel. Hardy was actually one of the workingest actors in silent movies before being paired with Laurel. I'll betcha the folks who shot Lewis for that DVD knew the truth but feared making him angry if they corrected him.

It's amazing how wrong some folks are on what is readily-available film history. Some years ago, there was a Laurel and Hardy documentary hosted by Dom DeLuise in which Dom solemnly told the spurious tale of Laurel sitting at Hardy's bedside and holding his hand as Hardy died. Didn't happen. Stan was not there and I can't imagine how anyone could do enough research to write any narration about Laurel and Hardy and not know that. It's pretty clear in McCabe's first book and it makes you want to do one of those exasperated Oliver Hardy looks towards the camera.

This evening, Turner Classic Movies is running four silent Laurel and Hardy shorts. They start at 9 PM on my satellite dish but check your listings for the proper time where you are. They are, in order, Do Detectives Think?, Putting Pants on Philip, You're Darn Tootin' and Two Tars.

Do Detectives Think? was the eighth Hal Roach comedy in which both Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy appeared. It was not billed as a Laurel and Hardy film back in 1927. There were no such films at the time. It was just another episode of a series called "Hal Roach's Comedy All-Stars" which basically consisted of short comedies starring some selection of comedians who were then under contract to the Roach studio. In some of these, Stan and Ollie were not really a team. In fact, in some of them, they didn't even have any scenes together.

The second Roach film in which they both appeared, Duck Soup, almost looks like a Laurel and Hardy comedy. Do Detectives Think? truly does. They're a team and they're even wearing derbies. They aren't quite the guys we know and love — both a little too aggressive — and Jimmy Finlayson (who would later support them so well in bonafide L&H films) has about as much screen time as they do. Oh, yeah — and they're also called Ferdinand Finkleberry and Sherlock Pinkham instead of Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy. But this was reportedly the film which first got folks on the lot thinking these guys should be a team.

Putting Pants on Philip is sometimes referred to in histories as the first Laurel and Hardy film. I'm not sure why. They aren't a team, they aren't in their soon-familiar characters…and Laurel is in a kilt, playing not Hardy's friend but his silly, lust-crazed nephew. It's a funny, broad comedy about having to get Philip's (Stan's) inseam measured so he can get trousers, and Hal Roach used to cite it as one of his favorites.

You're Darn Tootin' is one of The Boys' "fight" pictures that build to a huge brawl. In this one, it's people on the street kicking each other in the shin and ripping off each others' pants. In Two Tars, it's drivers in a traffic jam all ripping off pieces of each others' cars. I like the scenes before the battles more than I like the battles but all of these films are well worth your attention. So are the others TCM is showing later in the month.

I get about three e-mails a week asking when I — or Sergio Aragonés and I — or sometimes just Sergio — will be at a convention near the person writing to ask. Sergio will be in Savannah, Georgia next weekend for…well, it isn't a convention. It's kind of a three-day event celebrating MAD magazine and quite a few members of The Usual Gang of Idiots will be present including Al Jaffee, Jack Davis, Paul Coker, Sam Viviano, Nick Meglin and Tom Richmond. More info can be found here.

Sergio doesn't recall any other commitments before WonderCon, which is March 16-18 in Anaheim, California. I'll be a Special Guest at WonderCon, too…and that's the only convention on my schedule until Comic-Con next July. After 40+ years of attending comic and science-fiction conventions, I've pretty much burned out on such gatherings, especially if all they have for me to do is sit behind a table and write my name on comics and books I've written. The next year or three, I'll be very surprised if I find myself at any convention other than WonderCon and Comic-Con.

Each year, the Animation Writers Caucus of the Writers Guild of America, West presents a trophy called the WGAW-AWC Animation Writing Award. It's kind of a "life achievement" award and this year, there will be two, both presented posthumously. In a ceremony on November 17, the late Dwayne McDuffie and the late Earl Kress will be honored for their careers and accomplishments. I will be making the presentation for Earl, which will be accepted by his wife Denise. If you're a member of the caucus, you should have received your invite by now.