Monthly Archives: March 2013

Hello. Sorry I didn't post more today. I spent most of the time in a recording studio pretending to be a director. Hint: If you act like you know what you're doing, people will think you do.

A lot of folks have written me to say the offer of a free mattress from Sit 'n Sleep is even hollower than I made it out to be. Said many, the offer only applies if you can find a lower advertised price on the exact same mattress elsewhere…and most Sit 'n Sleep mattresses are special models sold only in their stores. I would not be surprised if this is so.

I'm not happy to hear that Jon Stewart is taking a three-month leave o' absence from The Daily Show, though I am curious to see if the level of writing will remain as strong without him on the premises. As for the on-camera part of the job: John Oliver, who'll be sitting in for Stewart for that period, is a very funny guy but it feels to me like they're installing a Costello in a job that calls for an Abbott.

Lastly for now: Tomorrow, Stu Shostak is welcoming TV Critics/Historians Steve Beverly and Wesley Hyatt to his 'net radio show Stu's Show for a discussion of what's going on with the networks. I'll be joining the fray after 5:30 PM (Pacific Time) when they turn to the topic of the Leno/Fallon rumors. Click here to get in on the fun.

Very busy today so I won't be posting until later tonight. I'm hearing all sorts of things about the Leno/Fallon matter, including a couple of folks noting something I hadn't; that this story came out right after Jay did his last show before taking a week off. That kinda means its release was deliberately timed so it could spread when Leno wasn't on the air to deny it. A wizened agent once told me, "When a big news story in the entertainment industry gets released, always ask yourself who could have released it and why."

It is worth noting that this story began life in the Hollywood Reporter and many who have picked up on it seem to assume those sources are within NBC. But the Hollywood Reporter didn't say that. They said, "…two high-level industry sources tell the Hollywood Reporter that NBC is moving toward a May announcement that the 2013-14 television season will be the last for Leno as host of the long-running late-night show." Let's see if and when anyone high up in NBC says that.

Over the weekend, that story about Jimmy Fallon replacing Jay Leno got a surprising amount of traction considering (a) it was completely unsourced, (b) it's the exact same rumor that proved untrue — or at least, way premature — just a few months ago and (c) it is, after all, a report about a network that wants to win the time slot getting rid of the guy who's pretty consistently won the time slot…and is still doing so. That's not to say they wouldn't do it again but it's not the most normal tactic for a network, especially since the last time they did that, they ended up having to reverse the decision.

Still, I see no official denial today from NBC…no statement of strong support for Jay. So maybe there's something to it. Or maybe someone at NBC is hoping there will soon be something to it.

This article by Jeff Bercovici insists NBC should dump Leno for Fallon and tries to prove it with their respective "Q" ratings. I don't think that's much of an argument, given how fuzzy "Q" scores can be. They ostensibly measure how much the public likes a performer but a high "Q" doesn't mean they'll watch him…or will watch him in any kind of show or time slot. As I recall, Simon Cowell has or had a pretty low one but that wasn't an indicator that American Idol would have fared better without him. More relevant is that I believe the sole reason Fox once tried to give Chevy Chase a late night talk show was because of how high his "Q" rating was.

Really, the networks wish it was as simple as comparing "Q" scores. If that was a reliable barometer for success, they'd never have to cancel anything instead of having to cancel almost everything.

Just now noticing this lovely piece that Eric Idle wrote recently about his relationship with John Cleese.

In a teevee interview the other day, Mitt Romney said that if he'd been elected president, he could have and would have prevented the sequester. Well, sure. And if Democrats had won the House, Barack Obama could have prevented it, too. Romney would have prevented the sequester by giving Republicans everything they wanted. Not a difficult achievement when the Senate can't pass anything and you hold the House and White House.

Peter Beinart says Romney still doesn't get why he lost. Justin Green says Beinart's wrong and then proceeds to give other reasons. I think both men are right and they also both omit one other biggie. I think part of Romney's loss was because with the flippin' and floppin' and the big, phony smile, a lot of people just had no idea what he believed in.

It's a consideration that political analysts often overlook because it's tacky and hard to quantify. But a lot of voters look at a slate of candidates and vote for the one who strikes them as the lesser asshole. I have Republican friends who more or less shared what some thought were Mitt Romney's values…but they weren't entirely sure that Mitt Romney shared them. They were bothered by that quote from Grover Norquist about how it didn't really matter which Republican was elected president because all he was going to do was rubber-stamp whatever the Republican leaders in Congress decided.

And also, Mitt, you lost because your campaign was managed by people who understood the country so well they were certain you were going to win Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Minnesota.

Not being completely "up" on who's writing and drawing what in comics these days, I'm startled — in a kind of Tex Avery "take" way — to hear that Jerry Ordway is not getting nearly enough work. I could understand that of some folks of his experience. There are talents in this business who get steady work for a time…and then maybe their work atrophies or they stop growing or maybe they just plain aren't as good as most of the new entrants. But then there are also folks like Jerry who have done consistently fine work and always been professional about it…and when one of them isn't turning down assignments, something is wrong.

Is it ageism? Could be. There are those in power not just in comics who are told they have to lure in younger customers…and they really don't have a clue how to do that. Really don't. So they opt for engaging younger talent, which isn't really a solution but it kinda looks like one. In fact, it looks enough like one that they won't get blamed too much if it doesn't work.

Over the years, I became friendly with — or at least interviewed — most of the comic book writers and artists whose careers predated or coincided with mine. Some managed to remain "in demand" as long as they were able to write or draw or wanted to work. Others hit a wall they'd never expected — one they'd once been more-or-less promised would never be there. A number of very fine, experienced creators in the last decade or two have been told things like, "I'd love to give you work but they tell me here I have to look for the new, young 'hot' artist."

Usually, it isn't that nakedly admitted but sometimes it is. Not that long ago, a veteran artist came to me and asked if I could help him get work…which he needed the way anyone might need work. I knew of a comic that a major company was about to launch and phoned up its editor to suggest the older guy would be perfect for it. The editor replied, "You're right. He would be. I wish I could use him." I swear: "I wish I could use him" is a verbatim quote.

I could almost forgive this attitude if it did yield a significant sales advantage. Some editors will quietly admit to you that, no, it really doesn't. In this particular case, they found a new kid, he drew the book…and it was a rapid cancellation. It wouldn't have sold any worse with the veteran — and might have sold better as he was a much better artist.

There's no question that some of the newer writers and artists are very good and that their work is commercial and popular. No one is saying they shouldn't be engaged and given every opportunity; just that the Jerry Ordways of the world deserve the same. I don't know the particulars of why Jerry isn't working, above and beyond what he states in his courageous essay. I'd guess it has something to do with disappointing sales on a Shazam! series he did not that long ago. The property has never really sold no matter who did it and this business does have a tendency to blame talent for not being able to resurrect the dead.

I'm not too worried about Jerry. He's very good and some smart editor (there are such people) will snap him up one of these days. I am worried when the industry seems too quick to dispose of talented folks and it becomes impossible or even just difficult to make a long-term living in comics. I think that would be very bad for the business. When good people come along, you don't want them to think of their time writing or drawing comics as temp work that will only last until someone younger comes along with impressive samples and no grey hair. If today I was considering a career in comics, I don't think I'd expect it to be a very long, stable one.

Here's a 1952 commercial for the Kellogg's Variety Pak starring a Jimmy Durante marionette. I don't know why it stars a Jimmy Durante marionette but it does. I think the father in this is Herb Vigran…

I don't know what other cities it runs in but out here, you can't turn on the TV without seeing a commercial for Sit 'n Sleep, a business that sells beds and other furnishings. In every one of their ads, you hear their slogan: "Sit 'n Sleep will beat anyone's advertised price or your mattress is free!"

Today, my friend Michele Hart stopped in and she pointed out something that hadn't occurred to me the eighty-seven million times I've heard that sales pitch. It's that it doesn't make sense. They would never give a mattress away free.

Think of it this way: Sit 'n Sleep is selling the Sealy Posturpedic for $1700. You find an ad someplace that offers the same mattress for $1680. You bring that ad into Sit 'n Sleep and show it to them. Which of these two things do you think would happen?

1. They sell you the Sealy Posturpedic for $1679.
2. They say they can't afford to sell you the Sealy Posturpedic for $1679 so they give it to you free.

Their pledge is not worthless. It is a way of saying they'll beat anyone's advertised price and I assume that's so. It just didn't dawn on me until Michele mentioned it that it couldn't possibly result in any free mattresses. And boy, do I feel dumb for not picking up on that before. I wonder how many people do.

Medical reporter Charles Ornstein writes about the agonies and indecisions surrounding his mother's end-of-life-care and passing. In my own case, I was quite prepared to make the critical decision and indeed, was standing by and thinking it was imminent on several occasions. And the reason I was prepared was that my mother had explicitly told me, over and over, that she didn't want to be kept alive on a technicality. One way she said it was, "If all I'm able to do is breathe, I don't want to be breathing."

That helped me know what to do. So did a conversation I stumbled into one day with my own doctor, a very wise man and not just about things of a medical nature. He said, approximately…

I've seen it time and again. The patient's case is hopeless. They have zero chance of living anything other than a life in a nursing home strapped to a machine, barely or wholly unaware of where they are. They've made it very clear that they don't want to be kept "alive" that way and all the proper forms have been signed that give the Loved One the power to say, "Discontinue treatment."

But the Loved One doesn't do that. They think they're overriding the patient's wishes out of love for them but actually they're putting their own wishes ahead of the patient's. They're afraid that they won't be able to live with the decision or that others will criticize them for killing their mother or father. If they stand to inherit a lot of money, they worry that the police will start investigating. Often, they're emotionally unable to deal with the medical realities and they insist, "No, no, I have a hunch" or sometimes it's a message from God or a belief that ending a life, even the kind of life the patient didn't want, is murder. There are also some people who just plain have trouble making any kind of important decision in their lives and this one seems too important for them to make.

So they ignore the realities and the patient's wishes and they tell themselves they're doing so "for them." But they're actually doing it for themselves.

Mr. Ornstein's article has a lot to do with the costs of keeping people arguably alive past the point of hopelessness…and that is a concern. My father, when he had his penultimate heart attack, was worried sick (let's say "worried sicker") about what taking care of him would do to his wife, personally and financially. He'd had to witness what happened with a pair of neighbors who I think I've written about here at some point. They were as nice and ideal a couple as you could ever find but when the man went utterly senile, taking care of him pretty much wiped out the family savings and the physical labor and exertion pretty much killed his beloved spouse. My father thought, as did we all: What a horrifying thing to do to the person you love most in the world…to essentially make them destroy their life taking care of you when you oughta be dead. I will always believe my father to some extent willed himself to die rather than do the same thing to my mother.

He was not so much worried about the cost of hospitalization. He had great insurance…a plan so good you couldn't get it today. He just thought what a pain it would be to take care of him when he couldn't take care of himself, and how expensive it would be to hire caregivers, remodel the house to accommodate his new needs, etc. I don't think he could possibly have gotten any better if he'd felt it was at the expense of his wife's health and monetary security.

Some of you may remember the Terri Schiavo matter of not long ago. A lot of those who thought the most important issue in the nation was to keep that woman alive — even ignoring others in similar or more "saveable" conditions — would like to forget it. What struck me at the time was how little the controversy had to do with Ms. Schiavo; how she'd merely become a prop in whatever remained of her alleged life. It was all about what was good for those around her, either in terms of their own lives or in how they could use her to demagogue some issue.

I suppose I was fortunate that I didn't have to make The Ultimate Decision, though I came close and was quite prepared. I'd decided that it was too simple to just say, "It's not about me. It's about what she wants." It wasn't even, "It's not about me. It's about what she wants, assuming I'm satisfied she would still want it when she's unable to rescind that wish." It was, I came to believe, at least a little about me in that what she least wanted (and would have hated more than anything) was to be a crippling burden on my life. She had reached the stage where she didn't want to live and felt that having birthed and reared me, she was now a destructive presence in my life and ashamed to be that. I have the feeling that when she realized she was dying, among her last thoughts was, "Good. Now, Mark won't have to tell them to turn off the machines." That's a great mother for you.

Let's go back a few years and catch one of the oddest magic acts…Tom Mullica, who did bizarre things with cigarettes. I don't think anyone's doing this kind of thing today and with good reason. Audiences wouldn't tolerate being in the same room with all that smoke.

Tom is still around and still performing…but not this kind of thing. Some years ago, he abandoned cigarettes and began starring in a tribute act for his late friend, Red Skelton. He plays Branson much of the year and tours when he's not in Branson. Word of mouth and the clips I've seen suggest he does a very fine show and I hope to see it some day.

Here's his cigarette routine. Before you decide you'd like to do something like this, you should know something. Tom is now (happily) back at work after spending some time fighting leukemia and seeing it go into remission. They say that smoking cigarettes can raise your risk of getting this disease by 30% or more. I wonder what the odds are when you smoke them twelve at a time…

To follow up on this earlier posting…

I accepted an offer yesterday to sell the house I grew up in. I lived there from age 2 until about 23 and it's one of only four homes I've ever had. The first was before I was two and I have no memories of that dwelling. The one before the home I'm currently in was an apartment on Croft Avenue here in Los Angeles. I was living there when I started working for Sid and Marty Krofft and that occasionally caused confusion. Once, for instance, I had a friend who was either going to meet me at home or at the office and he phoned and left a voicemail that said, "I'll meet you at Croft [or maybe Krofft] at 2 PM." Uhh…

There was another odd coincidence to that apartment. They've since moved it elsewhere in town but Dark Horse Comics used to have a small office in a building at Croft Ave. and 3rd Street — and publisher Mike Richardson had a view out his window of my old apartment. That was the apartment in which Sergio Aragonés and I began doing Groo the Wanderer, which is now published by Dark Horse.

Anyway, the house I grew up in — the one my father bought for a bit over $17,000 in 1953, the one my mother lived in until she passed away last October — will belong to strangers following a 45-day escrow. In that span, I need to get out the last items that I want, distribute furnishings to friends who may want them, clean the place out and have it fumigated and retrofitted. There's a very old O'Keefe and Merritt stove in the kitchen and I'm told that if I find the right expert, he'll come in, pay me a few thousand bucks for it, then restore it and sell it for five times what he pays me. I need to find that expert. There's also a rug in the living room that my mother used to tell me was very valuable and that when I inherited the house and sold it, I should get someone in who'd pay me properly for it. We'll see if she was right.

And then I have this other goal: I want to see if I can get Time-Warner to stop sending me bills for the disconnected cable TV service there before escrow closes. Wish me luck.

Every realtor I spoke to about selling the house asked me if I had any emotional attachment to it. Nope. None. I had plenty to the lady who lived there but without her, it's just a house I happen to own. Sure, there are lots of happy memories but I can still have those without owning a house I don't need.

It sold quickly. The realtor predicted a five-day sale and it took a bit longer than that…but I was in no hurry so it's fine. I thought the buyers, whoever they might be, would either tear it down or build it way up but the high bidders say neither. They intend to move in, fix only what needs to be fixed right away, and live there. I hope they're even half as happy in it as my family was.

There's a PBS special called An Evening with Jerry Lewis that's debuting this weekend — tonight, in some towns. It was taped last November at the Orleans Hotel in Vegas and it's supposed to be Jerry singing and telling stories and mostly doing a Q-and-A with the audience. I am told that Jer loves the Q-and-A segments more than anything he does professionally and that he would not do a show without an extended one.

I've seen a few of them, live and on video, and they're…odd. He seems to like playing the non-nutty professor…likes to hold court on lofty topics. If someone asks him if he and Dean liked to hang out, he turns it into a five minute discourse on trust and caring and the bond of two men, and much of what he says is incoherent and rambling. Sometimes, he doesn't even wander away from the topic. He just starts a mile away from it and keeps going in all directions. I assume the PBS special will be edited judiciously to make it appear as if he is actually addressing the questions that are asked.

He is beloved and honored these days — less, I suspect, for anything he's done than for what he is: A survivor and a relic of another time. I don't think people love him for his movies or TV shows so much as they love him for just being Jerry Lewis all these years and not dying or going away on us as so many of his contemporaries have. When he does go away, it'll be sad…because he'll be taking an entire era of show business with him when he goes.

Here's a little preview of the special in which, as you can see, he does the Typewriter Routine for about the three hundred thousandth time…

As Joe Brancatelli informs us, all those points you've accumulated in your hotel loyalty program may be worth a lot less soon than you thought.