Johnny Mann, R.I.P.

Johnny Mann, who has passed away at the age of 85, was a choral leader and record producer and he was the bandleader for Joey Bishop's late night talk show and he did many other things. Two stand out for me…

One that he was an expert producer of jingles, especially for radio and for disc jockeys. He was the master of them and was responsible for thousands heard on stations all across the U.S. and Canada. If I'd been a d.j., that's how I'd have known I'd made it: When I had a jingle of the Johnny Mann Singers singing my name. Oh, sure. They'd mispronounce it but it would still be an honor.

Also, he fronted a TV show that was on for three seasons, commencing in 1971 called Johnny Mann's Stand Up and Cheer. Here's a YouTube video of a hunk of it that was edited to showcase its choreographer who appeared in a segment. It'll give you a look at Mr. Mann and a good sense of what the show was like.

It was corny at times with a lot of shallow, flag-waving patriotism…but I always found something pleasant about it. The girls were cute and the folks in charge, one of whom was Mr. Mann, supplemented their cast of young, well-scrubbed performers with one old pro. If you look, you'll spot Thurl Ravenscroft, who voiced Tony the Tiger and appeared on hundreds of records and commercials and cartoons and Disneyland rides. They usually referred to him on the show as "Pappy" but here, he's Thurl. Every so often, they gave him a great solo.

A few years later when I was writing variety shows for Sid 'n' Marty Krofft, we hired a couple of dancers who were in the cast of Stand Up and Cheer. Since most of the ladies on that program looked alike, I'm not sure if any of them are in this clip. One of them told me that Johnny Mann was great to work with if you didn't mind really long hours and really small checks. That was said with affection because she knew that it was all done in service of doing the best possible show and she liked Johnny a lot.

She said, "It was a kind of music I wouldn't have chosen to listen to for myself but he did it very, very well." In keeping with my belief that not every bit of music has to appeal to everyone, I'd count that as a compliment…

Late Night Notions

Here's an interview with Conan O'Brien who is gracious despite the interviewer hinting he should dump on Jay Leno a bit.

In the intro, the interviewer writes, "…it is hard not to feel a little badly for Conan O'Brien and the way he was set on fire several years ago when Leno grudgingly handed off the Tonight Show torch to him — and then refused to go away. NBC's unwillingness to commit to O'Brien despite his lengthy tenure in the 12:30 slot created the biggest bungle in late-night history." Personally, I and a lot of people think dumping Leno for O'Brien was the biggest bungle…but I still don't see why Leno had any obligation to "go away," which in this case would have meant turning down a huge offer from NBC and putting his staff out of work.

And NBC did "commit" to O'Brien. In fact, they shoved their biggest star aside to give O'Brien the Tonight Show. They just gave up on Conan when his ratings didn't measure up to expectations. That may have been unfair but it is something TV networks have been known to do…like all the time. (Ousting Leno for Conan in the first place was the unusual action on their part.)

Jimmy Fallon's current ratings, which are topping David Letterman and Jimmy Kimmel combined, may give us some idea of what the network's expectations were for O'Brien. But Conan even fell short of what the guy he replaced had been achieving in that time period.

I've occasionally tuned in the current shows of Mssrs. Fallon, Letterman, Meyers, Kimmel, Ferguson and O'Brien. I find Letterman and Ferguson semi-watchable when there's a guest on who the host really cares about. The other shows, I haven't enjoyed at all…but maybe I've just watched on the wrong nights. Recently though, I've received the DVDs that these shows send out to Emmy voters (I am one) to show how wonderful their programs are. When I get time, I'm going to watch the DVDs sent for Seth and the two Jimmies. I figure that's what they think was their best work so if I don't like those episodes, there's no point watching other ones.

Well, back to the soup…

Mushroom Soup Weekend

mushroomsoup145

Mushroom Soup Monday is starting a little early this week…on a Friday. I have a terrible deadline so posting will be somewhere between light and non-existent until I'm through. I'm voice-directing a Garfield cartoon on Monday and Tuesday so this condition may persist 'til then.  I will also be even worse than usual about responding to e-mails. I'm not abandoning you. Just putting paying work ahead of this.

Recommended Reading

I agree with this column about Dick Cheney. Every time he opens his mouth, he reminds America how inept and dishonest the Bush Administration was about the war in Iraq. They got darn near everything wrong and now Cheney's doubling-down and even tripling-down on perhaps this nation's greatest-ever military screw-up. The best thing you can say about them is that they weren't solely culpable; that they got a lot of Democrats and most of the press to go along with them.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will ultimately have cost this country over $6 trillion dollars and 4500 American deaths, plus more than 32,000 wounded. Counting the other damages done to this country and the deaths in Iraq is more difficult but those are surely staggering numbers.

Oh, well. At least Halliburton made good money off it.

From the E-Mailbag…

Johnny Clifford writes, from "somewhere in England"…

Mark, I think you should remember that the Python team are British (yes, that includes Terry G — he's been living here for the past fifty-odd years). Most of us Brits are uncomfortable telling people how much we actually like them, so, instead, we "take the piss." We are also uncomfortable with the American style of gushing with praise for everything, so instead we offer compliments in an ironic manner. I refer you to a passage in the book The Name of the Rose, written by an Italian, where the German narrator sums up the main character (an English man) as being impossible to read because he always appears to do the opposite of what he means. The Python team are (overwhelmingly) a product of the English "public" school system. That they praise each other using a system of insults is no surprise to anybody on this side of the pond.

As to how they "allow" this to spread over the press or the internet — please tell me how they could actually stop this from happening. Could you? Also, why on earth should they want to?

Well, I may be making too much of this…so I'll just say that some of their published/quoted remarks about one another have not struck me as "compliments in an ironic manner." They've struck me as anger and hostility, which I'm sure also exist somewhere in the British style. Maybe I'm just not on the proper wavelength but if I interpret it that way, others probably do, too.

How could they stop this from spreading over the Internet? By not saying such things in venues where they're sure to be quoted, including their own tweets and postings.

Why would they want to? I dunno…maybe because it can be awkward to call someone names and then work with them? Or to have such quotes live on long after the anger has abated?

I'm not saying people who get pissed at one another should never say so. I just sometimes wonder if some of these disagreements are best handled by flaunting them in public. If I call someone a jerk in person or on the phone, we can kiss and make up and the remark will be forgotten. When you call someone a jerk on the Internet, that lives on forever and may well be taken as more serious (and current) than you intend it, if not at the time then certainly later.

Today's Video Link

This song is sung about as well as it can be sung and the orchestrations are perfect…but, gosh darn it, it somehow seems wrong to perform it when you're wearing a tux…

From the E-Mailbag…

Ted Herrmann writes to me about the O.J. Simpson case…

The footprints point to his guilt…his past actions point to his guilt…the Bronco chase points to his guilt…the DNA evidence is too technical for me, but let's assume it points to his guilt…

… but, weren't you even the least bit suspicious when the glove was discovered by the biggest racist in the entire city? To me, that trumps guilt and sets him free, no matter how guilty he appears to be.

Well, I don't agree Mark Fuhrman was "the biggest racist in the entire city." That would probably be someone who'd beaten up or even killed minorities, denied them civil rights, donned Klan robes and lobbied for White Supremacy, etc. There's no evidence Fuhrman ever did any of that and I kinda suspect the O.J. legal team searched high and low for such examples and couldn't find any. They couldn't even find any complaints among the hundreds of suspects Fuhrman had arrested over the years…and often when minorities are arrested, they charge that, just in the hope it will put the arresting officer on the defensive.

What O.J.'s investigators did find were tapes of Fuhrman using the "n" word…and they came up with these after he swore he never had. That's despicable but it doesn't quite rise to the level of racial violence.

However, even if Fuhrman was all that, I wouldn't buy that it made O.J. not guilty. The glove was just one thing and I think the suggestion that Fuhrman planted it is ridiculous. The theory is that he arrived at the murder scene, found the second glove there and decided to hide it on his person and move it to O.J.'s home. Other officers had been searching the area for more than an hour before Fuhrman got there so he'd either have to be certain none of them had seen it or enlist all the other cops in his scheme.

Why would police officers do such a thing? I can imagine maybe framing a two-bit thug no one cares about…but it is a crime to falsify evidence like that. In the state of California, it could lead to life imprisonment or even the death penalty and if accused, they had to know that Simpson would mount (and could afford) the best lawyers in town, the kind who would scour every square inch of the case against their client.

And Fuhrman and any accomplices would have had to decide to frame O.J. almost at the start of the investigation before they knew what kind of evidence would turn up. Maybe there would be solid evidence implicating him, in which case there was no need to break the law and take that risk.

Or maybe there would be incontrovertible evidence that Simpson was innocent, in which case hard questions would be asked as to how that bloody glove got there. And who would have been Suspect Numero Uno? The guy who found it, Mark Fuhrman.

At that moment early in the morning after the bodies were found, the cops did not yet have a firm reading on the time of death and they had no idea where Simpson was at that moment. Suppose Fuhrman planted evidence and then it turned out O.J. was in New York at the time, surrounded by credible witnesses?

The police had not yet gone around knocking on doors in the neighborhood, asking if anyone had seen or heard anything. Suppose they found witnesses who identified fleeing suspects who were definitely not O.J.?

Suppose all the blood at the murder scene, which had not yet been typed, turned out to not be Simpson's but it led them to another suspect? Suppose other clues were found which exonerated O.J.? A lot of murders are solved because the killer walks into the police station the next day and confesses or a friend or relative turns them in. What if that had happened?

Fuhrman may have had racist views but no one ever thought he was stupid. He was way too smart to set up a frame and then hope that O.J. didn't have a good alibi, hope that O.J. showed up with cuts on his hands, hope that the killer's footprints found at the scene turned out to be the same size as Simpson's feet, hope that blood samples found at the scene didn't rule O.J. out, hope that no other evidence or witnesses turned up that proved Simpson didn't do it, etc. (Another point: Fuhrman went inside O.J.'s home at the time to look around. If he was out to frame Simpson by planting a bloody glove, why didn't he plant it inside the house, instead of outside where it wasn't tied as closely to the guy he was framing?)

There are other reasons to not believe the "planted glove" theory but I'm doing this from memory and I've blanked a lot of that stuff out of my cranium.

Oh, yeah: And Fuhrman would also have known that the bloody glove he found on Simpson's property would never have been sufficient to get a conviction if not for all the other evidence that pointed to Simpson. Why risk going to prison to try and frame a guy who might turn out to be inarguably innocent…or might be convicted without your fake evidence?

And finally, there are the two most important questions of all which is why, twenty years after the fact, I still remember most of this stuff? And why am I still debating this with someone?

Today's Bonus Video Link

Another Letterman clip. With special guest Casey Kasem…

VIDEO MISSING

Star Struck

The Walk of Fame Selection Committee of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce has selected thirty individuals to receive stars in the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2015. Here's the list…

MOTION PICTURES: Raymond Chandler (posthumous), Eugenio Derbez, Will Ferrell, Jennifer Garner, Peter Jackson, Bob Kane (posthumous), Daniel Radcliffe, Paul Rudd, Snoopy, Melissa McCarthy and Christoph Waltz.

TELEVISION: James L. Brooks, Ken Ehrlich, Bobby Flay, Seth MacFarlane, Julianna Margulies, Chris O'Donnell, Jim Parsons, Amy Poehler, Kelly Ripa and Sofia Vergara.

RECORDING: Lukasz "Dr. Luke" Gottwald, Kool & The Gang, Pitbull, Al Schmitt and Pharrell Williams.

RADIO: Larry Elder.

LIVE THEATRE/LIVE PERFORMANCE: Kristin Chenoweth, Dick Gregory and Ennio Morricone.

Well, that's not a bad list. I think Larry Elder's one of those guys who makes Libertarianism sound like a philosophical cover for not caring about anyone in the world but yourself, and it does bother me a bit when they honor fictional characters. How many human beings in the entertainment industry who deserve but will never get that kind of recognition will look down on the sidewalk, see the name of Snoopy and think, "They could give a star to a cartoon dog and not to me?" But it's not a bad list and —

Hey! I just noticed! They're giving one to Bob Kane? Bob Kane, the contractual sole creator of Batman?

We're talking about Bob Kane, the man who in his autobiography, regretted that he never put the name of his collaborator Bill Finger on the comics…but who never somehow got around to rectifying that and allowing it.

Hmm. Someone has to put up the $30,000 fee and do a lot of lobbying to get someone a star. Usually, it's done by a studio's public relations people…like maybe Time-Warner pressed to get Kane this star so they could stage a media event and promote some new Batman project. (The dedication ceremony will take place some time in 2015 but on a date of mutual agreement. This helps it to be timed in order to publicize some opening or release.)

Did Time-Warner get Kane this star? Or did Mr. Kane's family put up the money and crusade for it?

And will there be protesters at the dedication ceremony with big signs that say WHAT ABOUT BILL FINGER? It wouldn't surprise me.

Now Go Away Or I Shall Taunt You A Second Time!

My buddy Kim "Howard" Johnson knows the Monty Python guys about as well as anyone could, having worked for them and served as a historian of the enterprise. Here, he addresses some of my remarks here from the other day.

I believe him when he says the July shows in Great Britain will be the absolute last Python Reunion ever. I also believe him when he admits that anything can happen.

I also believe him when he tells me the Python Boys get along better than it may sometimes seem in print. I don't doubt that at all. I'm just kinda mystified why they allow the negative comments to get into the public record.

I have arguments and difficulties with people in my job…not many, as I've been fortunate to work with good people. Sergio Aragonés and I have been collaborating since around 1982 and I think we've had around three strong disagreements in that time, each of which was settled and forgotten in under five minutes. As mentioned a moment ago here, I've worked with Jim Davis since '87 and I don't recall any problems — disagreements, sure but nothing that would ever yield an angry remark, even in jest.

In other relationships, yeah, there have been spats. But the thing is that once you say something in public, especially in the Age of the Internet, it lives on forever, long after you've kissed and made up. So if you want to bury ill feelings, you keep them from strangers. Then the remarks don't get read and requoted long after the matter is history.

The men who are Monty Python are very, very smart people — all of them. I don't understand why they (and other smart people) let this stuff get into print and pixels. They're also guys who are really expert at being funny so when a nasty remark doesn't come off as humorous, I guess I assume it wasn't meant to be.

Happy Garfield Day!

garfield07
The cat when he first appeared.

Today marks 36 years since a certain lasagna-loving cat first appeared on the funny pages in not-very-many newspapers. I didn't see it because the L.A. Times was not among them. I didn't become aware of Jim Davis's creation until the first paperback collection came out a year or two later, by which time a few hundred other newspapers had picked it up.

The L.A. Times was still not among them but I had that first collection and then another and another. I thought it was a cute strip and in 1987 when I was asked to get involved in writing the character for television, I said, "Sure." I've been involved ever since. In fact, I have to stop posting stuff here today and instead work on a script that we're recording next Monday.

This job has put me in a great position to understand how beloved Garfield is around the world. He really is. Here are 36 of the best things he's said. None of these came from me.

And The Award Goes To…

jayleno09

We have complained here about the picks for the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor given out each year at the Kennedy Center. It has often looked to me like the bestowers were more interested in selling tickets than in honoring the right person. Here is how they describe the award on their website…

The Mark Twain Prize recognizes people who have had an impact on American society in ways similar to the distinguished 19th century novelist and essayist best known as Mark Twain. As a social commentator, satirist and creator of characters, Samuel Clemens was a fearless observer of society, who startled many while delighting and informing many more with his uncompromising perspective of social injustice and personal folly. He revealed the great truth of humor when he said "against the assault of laughter nothing can stand."

But they have honored no novelists and essayists. The only real writer to pick one up has been Neil Simon, who did not write prose like Mr. Clemens. And a lot of their honorees seem like they haven't been in the field quite long enough to have a track record worthy of such an honor.

Well, this year they've picked Jay Leno for the trophy and I don't think that's a bad choice. Leno may just hold the current world's record for uttering the most jokes about current events and What's Going On In The World. I would think Jon Stewart would come closer in terms of having "an impact on American society in ways similar to the distinguished 19th century novelist…" but Jay comes closer than any number of recent recipients and Stewart ain't goin' anywhere. He'll still be having all that influence next year, whereas we do seem to be at the moment when Jay's career and influence have peaked.

I'd still rather see them honor some older folks while they're still around to accept…folks like Mort Sahl, Robert Klein, Dick Van Dyke, Stan Freberg, Shelley Berman and Woody Allen. One does wonder if Mr. Allen was considered but rejected because they figured he'd never show up for the ceremony or that protesters would. Still, Leno ain't a bad choice. And maybe someday, they'll give it to a person who does what Mark Twain actually did for a living.

Today's Video Link

Let's watch six minutes and 43 seconds of David Letterman on a Canadian talk show in 1978. The host is Carole Taylor and you can see that Dave does not think her questions are particularly inspiring. The other guest is film director Otto Preminger, the man who gave us Skidoo and also some movies that people actually liked.

This is from when Dave was starting out. He talks about hosting a game show pilot and working the Comedy Store. A little over two years after that, NBC gave him a morning talk show which failed but somehow led into his late night series and the rest is, as they say, history…

VIDEO MISSING

From the E-Mailbag…

Douglas McEwan writes…

You might want to add an addendum to your post today on Monty Python's last show to the effect that their final performance is being broadcast live to theaters all over the world. (Which, basically, is their international tour). Tickets are available from Fathom Events. Because it is live, that means that here in California, it will be seen at 10:15 AM on July 20. I already have my ticket.

It's certainly not the same as seeing them in person, as I did when I was in the live audience at Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl back in 1979. One can't go backstage afterwards and meet them, as I did back then, but it's better than not seeing at all what may well be (or may not be) their final performance together ever.

Speaking of which, Barry Humphries will be bringing his final tour [as Dame Edna] to the Ahmanson for six weeks beginning the last week of January, 2015. I'm very, very sure that will be our last opportunity to see Barry perform live onstage in Los Angeles ever. He'll be onstage at the Ahmanson on his 81st birthday.

As big a fan as I am of Python, I really have no desire to go to a theater — especially on a Sunday morning — and see a live feed of their show. If anyone reading this does, here's a link to find out where it'll be and to purchase tix.

Like you, I was at the Hollywood Bowl and it was exciting to see them in person…but really, that's the whole point of this kind of performance. It's so you can say, "I saw John Cleese and Michael Palin do the parrot sketch in person." The excitement is not about seeing the material since we know it all and have seen them do it many times, usually much better and without audience participation. It's about Being There.

montypythonlive01

I assume whatever is broadcast in the theater that morn will be available soon for purchase on a disc. No disrespect to the Python guys but it doesn't look like they ever turn down anything that would wring another dollar out of the same material. A friend of mine who has purchased all the home video releases, starting on Beta and progressing through VHS, Laserdisc, DVD and Blu-ray, claims he has now paid for "Nudge, Nudge" more than one hundred times. "Are you selling something?"

I am, however, all for seeing Mr. Humphries in his final go-round as Dame Edna Everage. Here's the schedule so far which only includes Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palm Desert, Toronto and Washington, D.C. If you've never seen him/her, it's a great evening and unlike Python, it's not just about seeing it live…though there is that.

One last thought about the Python show. In the interviews I linked to, several of the fellows said that they'd be doing the Spanish Inquisition sketch on stage for the first time. I wish they hadn't revealed that. Now, everyone expects the Spanish Inquisition.

The Guy In Charge

MeTV has lately been running episodes of Welcome Back, Kotter which I worked on in 1976 and 1977, several lifetimes ago. I have had a request to tell a story about one which I've told at conventions but never told here. The episode in question ran last week.

My then-partner Dennis Palumbo and I were on staff, which meant we did a lot of rewriting and adding jokes and rewriting the rewrites of the previous rewrites. At the same time, I was asked to take over the scripting of the Welcome Back, Kotter comic book which DC Comics was then publishing. I really didn't have time for it but (a) I had stopped writing comics while working on the TV show and I missed it and (b) I thought it might be fun to write Kotter without arguing over every line with the producers, the other writers, the network and the actors.

I sent in my first script and then I got a message that the editor had "a few problems" with it and wanted me to call him to discuss them. I decided to phone from the studio from their WATS line. I don't think they have them anymore but a WATS line was a special kind of phone service a business could purchase that gave them all their long-distance calling at a flat rate. Calling the other side of the country was costly then so I opted for the ABC WATS line and I called from the reception area at the studio, just outside our rehearsal hall.

The editor told me a few minor things in my script that he thought needed fixing. They were reasonable notes, easily rectified. Then we got to one line he really didn't like.

kotterknievel

At the time, a man named Evel Knievel was in the news often for his daring motorcycle leaps. Every time you turned around, he was either vaulting his bike across some famous landmark or over a new world's record number of Buicks or something. He was also promising he would one day conquer the Grand Canyon that way. So in my script for the comic book, there was a scene where some loud individual says something outta-line to the character Arnold Horshack, whereupon Horshack turns to him and says, "Hey, Evel Knievel just called. He wants to know if he can jump your mouth!"

Not the funniest line I ever wrote — I would hope — but, hey, it's just one line in one panel of comic book, right? Well, the editor wanted it out because according to him, "Horshack wouldn't say that."

I said, "Of course, Horshack would say that," and I reminded him that I was a story editor of the TV show. Part of my job description was writing lines for Horshack. The editor said, "No, that's out of character for him. I've seen the show and Horshack is a sweet little guy who is never mean."

I thought but did not say, "No, no…you have your TV on CBS instead of ABC. The show you're watching is The Waltons!" We argued a bit and were soon trapped in one of those endless loops. I kept reminding him that I was writing the TV show. He kept saying, "Horshack would never say that."

Just then, Ron Palillo was walking through the reception area. Ron, of course, played Horshack. I asked the editor to wait a minute and I called out, "Hey, Ron! Would Horshack say this line?" and I told him the line. Ron said, "Oh, that's great! I love that! Could we use that in the scene we're rehearsing right now?"

I realized it would fit in fine so I said, "Sure," then I told the editor in New York, "Okay, I'll cut it out of the script." I did. It was on the show, it got a tremendous laugh and the network used it in the promos for that episode so it ran dozens of times on TV that week. But it wasn't in the comic book because, you know, Horshack would never say that.

I do not tell this tale to embarrass the editor in question, who was beloved by many who worked for and with him. I'm sure when I've been in an editorial position, I've made miscalls of far greater magnitude and density. But the incident stuck with me a long time and shaped my unique view of editors and producers, which is that they're human beings.

Yeah, I could tell you stories of a few where that seemed arguable. Every so often, you run into one who for reasons of rampant megalomania and/or paranoid insecurity — usually both — feel they have to be right all the time even when they aren't; the kind who corrects you on subjective issues the way a third grade teacher tells you that no, Johnny, three plus three does not equal nineteen. Such bosses are few, far between and usually don't remain bosses for very long.

The guy in charge is just the guy in charge. He's infallible the way baseball umpires are infallible: Because even when he's wrong, he can throw you out of the game for arguing too much with him.

I have this one friend who writes and draws comics and he follows a simple pattern: He does a job. He calls me to complain about the idiot editor. He does another job. He calls me to complain more about the idiot editor. He does a job for someone else. He calls me to complain about how that idiot editor is even worse than the other idiot editor. And so on and so on…

I keep telling him that, yes, the editors may be wrong in each and every instance. Maybe, maybe not. Even the most inept editor I've ever had would occasionally say something to me like, "Hey, how come this character is named Joe on page eight and Jason on page twelve?" and I'd go, "Uhhh…" And sometimes, what editors contribute can vary wildly from active particpation to benevolent neglect.

But whether you're the editor of your own work or someone else is, there has to be a person to make the call, just as there has to be that person, blind though he may be, to say what's a ball and what's a strike. Don't get too crazed about it when it's someone else and you think they're wrong. Eventually, if all goes well, your work will be judged by a higher authority — the buying public. And you know something? They aren't right all the time, either…and sometimes, they remind you that you're the same way.