In theory, a Conservative is someone who doesn't want change and a Liberal is someone who does. But as E.J. Dionne notes, it's a little backwards in the upcoming presidential election. The Republican candidates are all calling for a complete restructure of how our government operates and the way it relates to the citizens of this country. It's that Obama guy who is defending the way the U.S. traditionally functions.
Monthly Archives: December 2011
For Pete's Sake!
Some of the best times I've spent in Las Vegas have involved one of my favorite comedians, Pete Barbutti. I haven't seen Pete lately, onstage or backstage, but many years ago, I used to visit him both places. He's a great storyteller and a very funny man. One evening, I sat in his dressing room at the old Paddlewheel and heard anecdote after anecdote up to the moment when he had to go out and perform. I followed him and watched from the wings.
It was a terrible night — a rainy Sunday during one of those weeks when the town was dead. The Paddlewheel wasn't doing so well even on good nights which is why it ain't there no mo. It was sold and renamed, sold and renamed, sold and renamed, etc. Last time I looked, the building was called the Clarion but give it a few months. It'll be something else before long. Anyway, Pete went out and there were about ten people in the house and they weren't laughing at anything. I mean, nothing.
After about the tenth joke was greeted with the faint sound of slot machines out in the casino, Pete turned to the audience and said, "Excuse me for one moment." He turned, walked over to me in the wings and whispered, "I'd tell Security to throw them out but I have the feeling Security threw them in here." Then he went back out and worked a little harder…and by God, he finally got most of them laughing. An amazing comedic feat.
I've linked before to Kliph Nesteroff's interviews. He goes around and talks with comedians — some you've heard of, some you haven't — and posts these wonderful conversations. They're all worth your time but I wanted to note that he's just completed a four-parter with Mr. Barbutti. Here's a link to Part One and after you devour that, go on to Part Two, Part Three and Part Four. Then check out some of Kliph's other interrogations which you can see listed in the margins of his pages. Great stuff.
Today's Video Link
My favorite Christmas-time video is probably this commercial animated by R.O. Blechman. They don't make 'em like this anymore…
Recommended Reading
Alex Pareene, who's become one of my favorite online pundit-persons this year, provides a few pointers on how to argue with right-wing relatives who think Obama's a Socialist mole and how Christianity is close to perishing because people say "Season's Greetings." This may come in handy at some dinners this evening.
Go Read It!
Here's a review of a movie you may be glad Santa did not bring you for Christmas. It's the starring vehicle for Morey Amsterdam and Rose Marie that we've discussed on this blog in days of yore.
Some Thoughts About Joe Simon
That's a photo taken by my pal Will Murray, the first time I met Joe Simon in person. I wish I could place the year but it was a year or two after Jack Kirby died so it was '95 or '96. I'd heard so much about Joe from Jack over the years that it didn't seem like I was meeting a new friend but reuniting with an old one. There had been business-type disputes between the two former partners, Joe and Jack, in the sixties and early seventies and each had said a few things in interviews that were later regretted. But 99% of the time, both spoke with unabashed admiration and even affection for the other.
Jack didn't particularly envy the way anyone else wrote or drew comics. Respect and admire, yes…but envy, no. He was simply not competitive in that area and it didn't matter to him if someone else drew better or worse than he did. What he did envy about Simon was Joe's total command of the process of publishing comics — from making the deal in the first place to shipping the book off to the printer. Joe could write or draw or ink but a lot of guys could do that. Where he really impressed Kirby was in how he could edit and design a book, especially the covers and splash (opening) pages. Editors, as often as not in the early days of comics, were guys hired to be traffic cops and paper-shufflers. "They didn't understand the process," Jack would say. Joe understood the process. He knew how to talk to publishers or editors when he and Jack weren't the publishers or editors. He knew how to talk to printers and to the other artists, writers, letterers and colorists. I have interviewed at least two dozen writers or artists who worked for the Simon-Kirby shop. Some made better money elsewhere but that aside, all said it was the best place to work because the guys in charge were so good at what they did.
Joe was better than Jack at reading a contract, negotiating a deal and convincing a publisher or editor that Simon and Kirby knew what they were doing; that they could and should be left alone. The team got good deals because of Joe but they also — and this mattered to Jack a lot — were trusted to do their work without micro-management and often, macro-management. It usually led to good and therefore successful comics.
Where Joe envied Jack was at the drawing table. Joe was a pretty good artist on his own but all too aware he could not compete with his partner for quality or even quantity. Often but not always, Jack penciled and Joe inked. Most of those who inked Jack's pencil art over the years felt they did it best; that they knew better than anyone how to "plus" every single thing Jack put on a page and add to it. Joe especially felt that way though much of the time, he was too busy with editorial and writing so it was necessary to engage others to ink Kirby pencils. Invariably, when the inked-by-someone-else Kirby pages crossed Joe's desk for editorial processing, he couldn't resist grabbing up a brush and adding a little something here, some texture there. It probably made the work a tad better but the main reason for it was that it made Joe feel better…made it all the more "Simon and Kirby" work.
Simon and Kirby split up in the late fifties when there was no available work for them as a team and contact after that was minimal, confined mostly to when one was involved with some project that required that they readdress the terms of the divorce. Finally in the early seventies, they got together at a New York comic convention for what was supposed to just be a brief dinner. It was cordial and a few outstanding points of contention were settled, though not nearly enough. There just wasn't time to talk it all out before Joe had to get back to Long Island or wherever the Simons were then residing. As it turned out, when Joe left the convention at 10 PM to head home, he found he'd parked in a lot that closed at 9. It was locked tight 'til morning and his car was penned inside. So he returned to the convention hotel where, as luck would have it, Kirby's room had a spare bed. They spent all night talking about the old days, discussing that which had earlier gone undiscussed and they became friends again. Still, they were friends who didn't communicate very often.
The last project they did together was not, as some obits on Joe reported, the 1975 Sandman series. They just did the first issue, which was released in 1974 as a special. Simon had been editing a few comics for DC then, most notably Prez, a witty and fresh title that I think would have succeeded if it had been allowed to run longer and perhaps if it had had a different style of artwork. Sales at DC then were in general freefall and almost all new titles were axed after only a few issues — in some cases at the slightest hint of weak sales. This is one of those theories that no one can ever prove right or wrong but I believe several of the many comics DC started and quickly stopped during this period would have caught on if they'd been given more time on the newsstands. Sometimes, it just takes time for something new to get noticed and appreciated. If Marvel had been as hasty to cancel new titles as DC during this period, Conan the Barbarian would have been declared a flop and cancelled as of issue #6. DC was axing books that sold better than Conan did at first.
Joe was understandably frustrated that everything he was coming up with for DC was meeting an almost immediate demise. As something of a last attempt, he proposed a new hero with the same name as a hero he and Jack had done back in the forties, Sandman. Jerry Grandenetti, who drew most of Joe's books of this period, was assigned to draw the pilot issue…and I'm not sure if he got all the way through the story or if he was stopped after a few pages but whatever he drew, it did not meet with favor in the DC offices. The project was aborted.
But then someone got the idea of reteaming Simon and Kirby. Hey, what about having Jack draw it?
Jack said no…and it was nothing against his former partner. For a myriad of reasons, Jack just plain didn't want to work with other writers then. But the publisher exerted pressure and Kirby finally gave in and began drawing the same story Grandenetti had at least started on. One piece of what Grandenetti did made it into the book — an Eisner-like rendering of the hero's name on page two was cut-and-pasted into Jack's pages.
Kirby, who was officially the editor of the book, did some rewrites on Joe's script. When the issue was handed in, all lettered and inked by Mike Royer, Joe and/or someone else in New York changed a few things back Simon's way without telling Jack. Still, Joe was genuinely thrilled with what Jack had done. DC Management thought the book would flop so instead of starting on a second issue, they put out the Simon-Kirby issue as a one-shot. It was a pretty good comic and when it sold well above expectations, they hastily scheduled a regular bi-monthly series.
By this point, Simon had fallen into general disfavor at DC and had gone elsewhere and Kirby wanted to go back to writing his own material and didn't like the first script that was produced by the writer the firm had engaged to replace Joe. DC published the new comic anyway — edited, written and drawn by different folks who'd done the issue that had sold so well. Jack did agree to do the covers and they put the name "JACK KIRBY" on them in uncommonly large letters, which I suspect was a mistake. If you splash Jack Kirby's name big on the cover and then offer a Kirby imitator inside, readers feel baited and switched…or at least they did then. In any case, the book did not sell. Kirby was practically ordered to begin drawing the insides along with the covers…which he did as of #4, hating every minute of the assignment. His ordeal didn't last long. Sales had been disastrous on the first three and when the numbers began to trickle in on #4 showing only a modest bump, the distributor insisted on killing the title.
Kirby found himself blamed for the failure…and oddly enough, Simon did as well, though he was nowhere near the premises when the poor-selling issues were published. One of the ways in which Joe and I bonded the day we met in person was via a discussion of this scapegoating. The day before in the DC offices, I'd gotten into one of my frequent (like, every time we were in the same room) arguments with a man named Sol Harrison who had been DC's Production Manager and later became its President. Sol had many fine accomplishments to his name but he tended to believe that anything done in the DC offices by folks on staff was magnificent and that if a comic flopped, it had to be because those fallible outsiders had screwed up. Simon and Kirby, he insisted to me, had screwed up on Sandman.
We debated that to no resolution but someone had told Joe what I'd said and we chuckled over it. I reminded him of the old Jackie Mason routine where he took stage and said, "Last week I played a club and the girl singer who was on before me was so bad that right in the middle of my act, they started booing her. They couldn't forget how lousy she was. Do you know that some people walked out on her while I was still performing?" Joe laughed and from that moment on, we were friends. He was a guy with pretty thick skin but the failure of Sandman had been a real emotional thing for him since it represented the finale of the Simon-Kirby team. And Joe was very proud of the Simon-Kirby team.
I visited him every time I went to New York after that. We'd usually meet for lunch at the Ben Ash delicatessen, which is across the street from the Carnegie — pretty much the same food but not as crowded. Once when I told him my lady friend would be joining us, he arrived with flowers for her. To this day, she often reminds me that Joe Simon brought her flowers and that I never do. My defense is that I'm just not as classy as Joe Simon. Which is true. Odds are you aren't as classy as Joe Simon, either.
There were other things I learned or could still stand to learn from Joe. He was always thinking of new ideas and new ventures. He was shrewd. He was not afraid to do battle.
People thought he was litigious and he did file a number of lawsuits during his lifetime…but he entered into them judiciously, usually winning and/or settling for fair amounts. He did not initiate them blindly out of anger as some do. At one point, he wanted me to help him sue a publisher he felt had wronged him but ultimately decided against it. "I'd win in a second but never collect a nickel from the guy," he said and later developments proved him almost certainly correct about the money end. Just after the great caricaturist Al Hirschfeld died, Joe told me how much he admired him.
"Because he drew so well or because he lived to be almost a hundred?" I asked.
"Neither," Joe replied. "Because when he was 95 years old, he sued his agent."
That was Joe Simon…who when he was almost the same age sued Marvel Comics and collected a modest (but worth the effort) settlement. He was a smart guy right up to the end and in case it isn't obvious, someone I really, really liked. His recent death at the age of 98 did not of course come as a shock but the point is it was his body that was 98. Inside that, he was younger than most of us. And probably a lot smarter.
Great Photos of Stan Laurel and/or Oliver Hardy
Number one hundred in a series…
Good Blogkeeping
In a little more than a week from now, this weblog will receive a makeover…and it may just be in time. The software I've been running it on has become hopelessly outdated and has started to malfunction in small ways. To upgrade it would involve at least as much labor as starting from scratch so I've designed a new site with different software (WordPress) and I've been testing it offline. I plan to switch it online around New Year's Eve, give or take a day. Prior to that, you may see odd things pop up here…well, let's say "odder than usual." Last night, in a semi-homophobic gesture, it decided to insert the letter "s" a couple of extra times in the post of the Gay Men's Chorus of Los Angeles. That was not me effecting the lisp. It was the software. Honest.
The page design here will change a bit. On the date I switch over, the weblog will only go back for about ten days. Older postings will be viewable via a separate link but they may be offline for a few weeks before that part is configured.
I will warn you all in advance that the new site may not work well with real old browsers. In the past, I snapped to attention and tried to fix things when someone wrote in and said the page looked funny on Internet Explorer 2.0 or some browser of long-defunct origin. My new policy is that if it's okay on the current Firefox, Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Safari and Opera, then any problems are on your end. I have one oft-complaining reader who seems determined to not take the two minutes it would take to upgrade what he's using. I think he's viewing this site on an Etch-a-Sketch.
One feature of the new page will involve me making a series of seemingly-impossible judgment calls and assigning categories to the posts here. This will enable you to search for only the messages about Comics, only the messages about Theater, only the messages about Laurel & Hardy, etc. The item you're reading at this moment will go into a category called Blogkeeping.
The new filing system will enable you to only read the messages about Current Events (e.g., politics) but it will not enable you to read everything but them unless you just search for every other category. I'm really tired of folks who can't cope with a page that contains an opinion with which they disagree — and this includes the Etch-a-Sketch guy — and it bothers them so much, they can't even move their eyes past it to the next item. I wonder how these people survive on an Internet where there are sites that compare George W. Bush to simians or seek to prove Barack Obama is a white guy from Kenya…or worse.
Today's Video Link
Tom Lehrer's Chanukah song as performed by the Gay Men's Chorus of Los Angeles. But of course…
From the E-Mailbag…
Justin Alexander joins in the discussion of how rows are numbered in theaters…
I have never encountered all three of those features in the same venue, but I have encountered them separately while working as an usher. Or, more commonly, what happens when the venue doesn't do it.
Z -> NN: People see "AA" on their ticket and they think "A = 1 = I'm sitting in the front row." Then, when they get to the theater and discover that this is not the case, they argue about it. You'd think the NN thing would cause the same problem if they thought they were sitting in row 14 only to discover they're in row 27, but apparently people don't get that emotionally invested in the idea of being "14 rows back."
I haven't actually seen a venue that skipped I or O, but I have had patrons tell me they can't find row I. Instead they'll say, "Here's H1, here's J1, and between them is seat 11." So while I think it would be exciting to sit in seat OO7, I suspect this is why they eliminated those rows.
With that being said, it probably backfires more often than not. When I worked in a venue which skipped a row letter in one section for completely unrelated reasons (because of how the seats were laid out), it would frequently result in people sitting in the wrong row because they predicted their row from a distance ("this is H, so four rows up should be L") and would end up one row off.
I often find it hard to find my row in a theater because the rows are so poorly labelled — microscopic placards that have sometimes been there for 50+ years and have faded over time. So if I'm heading for (let's say) Row "G" and I can read the label on row "M," I start counting from there. It occasionally gets me into the wrong row but only because the label on my row is illegible or the person in the aisle seat has his coat over it or something.
This Old Chestnut Again
This is the time of year when carolers carol, sidewalk Santas go "ho ho ho" and folks on the 'net link to my Mel Tormé article.
Some actually don't link. Last year, quite a few just stole it, reposting it in full on their blogs or pages, sometimes without even crediting it to me. Over the years, at least a dozen sites have reposted it in a way that made it seem like the webmaster was telling a story that has happened to him. Most have seemed like innocent errors but last year, a right-wing blogger — on an "Impeach the Kenyan Socialist in the White House" blog that now seems to be defunct — posted it in full and claimed he was its author. I wrote to the guy and got back a message that basically said that since my site was so full of Godless Commie "hate America" propaganda and I was going to spend all eternity in Hell anyway, he had no qualms about stealing from me. Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Man.
It's the most-read piece of writing I have on the Internet and it even brought me nice messages from two of Mr. Tormé's kids, one telling me they'd heard him excitedly tell his side of the story and were glad to read my account. That alone makes me happier about it than all the other hits and links.
Great Photos of Stan Laurel, John Wayne and/or Oliver Hardy
Number ninety-nine in a series…
Today's Political Follow-Up
A couple of Ron Paul followers have written to take exception with my statement that Dr. Paul has not disavowed the racist (and otherwise stupid) remarks in his old newsletters. They say he has…and they may be right, especially considering the last 24 hours or thereabouts. So let me amend what I said…
He has not disavowed them convincingly. I don't think most voters will buy that you put out a newsletter under your name for years and that you cashed big checks from its success and that there were unsigned writings in it that seemed to be from you…but you never read the thing or corrected in print assumptions that you'd written some of the things from which you'd want to distance yourself if you were ever, say, running for president. There are also things he's inarguably said or written that correspond closely to the in-print stuff he later said wasn't by him.
Ron Paul seems like a nice man when he speaks these days…and even folks who would never vote for him admire his consistency. That seems especially admirable in comparison to the flip-floppers at the other podiums in the G.O.P. debates, as does his refusal to speak in lockstep with them on some issues. So the narrative on Paul has become "man of principles, even if they're wrong" and he hasn't really gotten a lot of tough questions or scrutiny. You can do that before there are polls showing you with a chance of winning your party's presidential nomination. But now that he's turned from colorful contender to a guy with a shot at it, all this stuff that's been lying around for years is suddenly headline news again. Frankly, I'd like to hear him respond to more serious questioning on the ramifications of rolling back many aspects of government including many that come under the heading of "Social Safety Net." I actually agree with some of his goals in theory but would like to know more about how he thinks things would work. I get the feeling he doesn't have a lot of answers in this area.
PAC Man
Are you following what Stephen Colbert's been up to in South Carolina? It's a bit complicated but this article explains a little about his offer to have his Super PAC underwrite the Republican presidential primary there. All he wants in return is naming rights (i.e., his name on it) and the inclusion of a certain non-binding referendum question. The battle goes on with this Guest Editorial that appeared with Colbert's byline in a leading South Carolina newspaper yesterday.
Today's Video Link
This is this year's obit reel from Turner Classic Movies. They always do a classy job on these, in part because they include many folks who aren't well enough known to make the reel they'll show in a couple months at the Oscars. But TCM also does theirs a few weeks before the year ends so they go back later and edit in anyone who passes away in the last few weeks of December. Let's see how this one changes…