Monthly Archives: January 2015

The PBS series American Masters is profiling Ricky Jay in its new installment. It debuts on some stations tonight and on others later this weekend. If you aren't familiar with the work of Mr. Jay, you oughta be. Describing him as one of the greatest sleight-of-hand magicians is a serious act of missing the forest.

That's right: Two Mushroom Soup Days in one week. But keep in mind that when I'm too busy to post on this blog, I still post more than most people do on their blogs when they're not too busy to post. Or something like that.

This will interest about three people, all of them in Los Angeles. We have a cut-off low heading our way in next week's weather and the weatherfolks don't have a clue where it's going to go or what it's going to do. It could bring us a decent amount of rain on Tuesday or not a drop. It could linger into Thursday or go away immediately. Most of the time, the National Weather Service does a superior job of predicting but every so often, they get one of these storms that causes the computer models to spit out contradictory data with each run. Even as we speak, the forecasters are trying to figure out how to word their statements so as not to say, "We dunno." But the truth is they dunno.

Back later with something.

Teller (partner of Penn) gives away some secrets of magic.

The Lumberjack Song. In Italian.

Peggy Charren, a children's television activist who has been credited with revolutionizing children's programming, recently died at the age of 86. Obits like this one hail her for her impact on the medium…

Frustrated with the vapid quality and hyper-commercialization of TV programs her children watched in her Newton home the late 1960s, Peggy Charren helped found Action for Children's Television, a grass-roots organization that brought about landmark legislation and sweeping changes in programming for young viewers.

I'm getting a number of e-mails asking me to comment because if you go to her Wikipedia page, it says, "Although denounced as an advocate for censorship by her critics, including animation writers Steve Gerber and Mark Evanier, Charren has insisted she is an outspoken critic of censorship, and has cited her stance against the American Family Association's campaigns to ban various programs." Since Steve is no longer with us, I'm the one getting asked how I feel about her and her work.

I believe the Wikipedia page is wrong to suggest that either Steve or I ever singled Ms. Charren out but we were among many writers working on cartoon shows in the eighties who doubted that the "parents' groups" (which sometimes did not actually represent any parents) were doing good things or even accomplishing much of what they claimed to be accomplishing. We criticized all those crusaders, not her in particular. One of these days, I'll write a long post about all this.

November 10, 2006: Actor Jack Palance passes away and I ignore his stellar career to bring you this moment of trivia…

Sorry to hear of the passing of actor Jack Palance, a classy presence in an awful lot of movies over the years. I'm afraid I never met Mr. Palance and have absolutely no anecdotes about him.

However, I can't help but mention an interesting sidelight to the man's stellar career. In 1970, the great comic book creator Jack Kirby introduced a villain named Darkseid (pronounced "Dark-SIDE") who has since become one of the great bad guys in the history of the medium. Darkseid has appeared often in the pages of DC Comics ever since and also made it onto TV cartoons and the toy shelves.

The style and substance of this master antagonist were based on just about every power-mad tyrant Kirby had ever met or observed, with a special emphasis on Richard Milhous Nixon. Nixon was kind of the monster du jour for many in 1970 and he's still a fine template for various forms of villainy.

Beyond that kind of thing, it is not uncommon for comic artists to "cast" their creations, using someone they know or have observed as reference, and Kirby used Jack Palance as a model for Darkseid. I don't mean that he thought the other Jack had ever tried to enslave the universe…but Kirby had been impressed by one or more Palance screen appearances. They inspired some aspect of Darkseid…a look, a posture, a gesture, whatever. Most of all, it was probably a voice. When J.K. wrote dialogue for his comic book evildoer, he was "hearing" Palance in some film. (I have no idea which one. Another Kirby scholar has suggested the 1968 TV-Movie, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, with Palance in both title roles, but I don't see any points of comparison.) In the same way and in the same series, Kirby based the likeness of businessman Morgan Edge on actor Kevin McCarthy and super-heroine Big Barda on singer Lainie Kazan (right after she was in Playboy) while a villain named Glorious Godfrey was an amalgam of Billy Graham and Arthur Godfrey.

To the best of my knowledge, Jack Palance was unaware that one of his screen images was purloined for a comic book baddie, and no one seems to have thought of voicecasting him for any of Darkseid's animated appearances. And I want to emphasize that Kirby had no negative thoughts whatsoever about the actor. Quite the contrary, he thought Palance had a great screen presence, giving off a power that was worth putting to use in a comic book.

Also to the best of my knowledge, whenever Darkseid scored a triumph, he never dropped to the floor and did one-handed push-ups. But if I'd written more of his adventures, he probably would have.

Much to do today so you get the soup can…but I'll be back later with a Golden Oldie or something. (Hey, if you're browsing older messages in the Archives on this site, do me a small favor. If you come across one where there's a big hole because an illustration is missing, drop me a note and let me know. I keep finding those and fixing them.)

The most interesting thing to me about the second Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore was how totally the host has given up on Bill Cosby. (So has Jay Leno.) I think that's becoming the default position. Just as all mentions of O.J. Simpson in the media kinda presume we all think he killed those two people, all mentions of Bill Cosby will assume we all agree that most if not all of his accusers are speaking the truth.

Wilmore's stance is significant because it's a major black comedian willing to say it…and a guy who has an important forum. Leno's obviously matters less but it would matter a lot if he still had that nightly monologue in front of all of America.

I have to run to an appointment. More posting later tonight or maybe tomorrow morn.

The official creator credit for Batman goes contractually to Bob Kane. I don't know anyone outside Kane's family who doesn't think a man named Bill Finger is as deserving, if not more so, of that recognition.

Finger died in 1974. Some years later, Kane wrote that he wished he'd put his former collaborator's name on the feature but that never happened. Kane died in 1998 and since then, Kane has continued to be credited as sole creator and his reputation has plunged. It seems to me he's now more often mentioned as a guy who screwed over his partner than as a guy who gave the world one of its great fantasy characters.

Last Comic-Con, I had the pleasure to meet and appear with Athena Finger, the granddaughter of Bill Finger. She's fighting for her grandpa's honor, assisted by many of us. Here's an article about her and that fight.

I posted this on 8/11/02 right after watching columnist Robert Novak on the CNN series, Crossfire. Mr. Novak died in 2009. Crossfire was canceled in 2005, came back in 2013 and was canceled again in 2014. You'll notice I say in the piece that 20% to 30% of Americans smoke. Those are 2002 numbers. The current number (for 2012, the most recent year for which data is available) is 18%. That's according to the American Cancer Society…

I don't smoke. I've never smoked. Not a puff, at least not directly. I have, however, ingested enough second-hand smoke to, in the opinion of a leading respiratory physician, do some serious damage to my nostrils. But I, myself, have never smoked.

I've never smoked for pretty much the same reason I've never taken a ball peen hammer and hit myself repeatedly over the head. Both seem like enormously unappealing, self-destructive things to do to one's self. Logically, of course, I know that so many intelligent people have smoked and/or continue to smoke that it must have some positive reward but I just don't understand it. Actually, most of the smokers I know seem to regret they ever started.

Anyway, the point is that I don't smoke and I hate being around smoke. When people around me insist that they have the right to smoke around me, I used to insist that — in that case — I had the same right to vomit on them. One time, years ago, I actually did. I have a hunch that, thereafter, that smoker was a little more prudent about where he lit up.

All of this said, I find myself in this curious conundrum: I more or less agree with those who oppose a ban on smoking in certain public places, such as restaurants. Yesterday watching Crossfire, I found myself in general accord with Robert Novak and those who are arguing against New York's pending law that would forbid all smoking in eateries. I don't want to be sitting in the Carnegie Deli, partaking of a side of Marlboro aroma along with my corned beef sandwich…but I feel the greater damage may lie in allowing government to get this deep into what could and should be a market-determined decision.

I think the law should be not that smoking is banned in restaurants (as it is in many cities) but that those that did allow it would have to post a conspicuous "Smoking Allowed" sign out front and perhaps mention it in all advertising larger than a certain size. Folks who smoke could go to these places. Folks like me could avoid them. Eventually, as business thrived or suffered, restaurants would configure their policies to serve the public in proper proportion. Surveys suggest that anywhere from 20% to 30% of Americans enjoy (if enjoyment, it be) the occasional smoke. I suspect that if what I propose were to be enacted, most neighborhoods would wind up with 10% to 15% "Smoking Restaurants." The reason the percentage would be lower would be because (a) even many smokers prefer not to eat around it and (b) when a non-smoker and a smoker dined together, it would have to be at a non-smoking establishment.

Now, I already know some of the objections and will attempt to answer them here…

It's unfair to waiters and other employees to make them inhale all that second-hand smoke.

Absolutely. And I am not suggesting that a restaurant that is now non-smoking should be allowed to suddenly let everyone light up Marlboros. I think the default would be non-smoking and that an establishment would have to give its patrons and employees ample notice before allowing it. Since waiting tables is largely a transitory existence, that would give employees time to find employment elsewhere. It's like if a vegan restaurant were to decide to start serving Prime Rib. The staff in such places is usually anti-meat, and they have every right to be anti-meat. They just shouldn't be able to prevent the owner from changing his cuisine.

This kind of thing has been tried with "smoking airlines" and other establishments that went bust, and even a non-smoking casino in Las Vegas that went bankrupt.

The casino was already in deep financial trouble before they tried that policy and the airlines that have tried it have been marginal, as well. But even if every business that permits smoking goes broke and no "smoking" businesses remain, fine. Let that be determined by market demand, not by government oversight.

Restaurants in some cities tried having smoking areas and it didn't work. The smoke kept drifting into the non-smoking area.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. A restaurant would have to be one or the other and could not try splitting one business into two so they could have it both ways. Hotels, let's note, seem to be doing okay with smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms on separate floors…and occasionally they convert one into the other, depending on what their customers seem to demand. Why couldn't restaurants be one or the other?

If your favorite restaurant went smoking, you wouldn't be able to go to it.

True. It would cease to be my favorite restaurant. It would also cease if it purged its menu of everything but cole slaw. But so what? They have the right to do that and I can find another favorite restaurant. Should the government step in and insist they keep my favorite items on the menu?

But this is different. This is about protecting the health of people.

Which people? Non-smokers? I'm all for protecting their health, especially since I am one. But if we have clearly-labelled smoking restaurants and they go in, isn't that the same as if they go to a hotel and ask for a smoking room? Should we be protecting them from that? As for protecting the health of smokers, what difference does it make if they can smoke in a restaurant when they can go outside and smoke, smoke at home, smoke in their cars, etc.?

As I keep saying, I hate smoke. But I think it's important to be consistent to one's principles and one of mine is that people have the right to do whatever they want to themselves as long as it doesn't harm others. I think you have the right to ingest alcohol or drugs, so long as you don't go out and drive. I think you have the right to kill yourself. And I certainly think you have the right to smoke so we shouldn't enact unnecessary laws to make you a social pariah, especially when folks like me can avoid the smoke with minimal effort. I really feel strongly about this.

On the other hand, any time I find myself agreeing with Robert Novak, I figure my opinion is at least a little suspect.

I want to get one of these and use it to turn the pages of a book about Rube Goldberg. (Thanks, Shelly Goldstein…)

We're in for a new round of speculation on whether Comic-Con International will stay in San Diego or whether it will relocate in some other city. Under the current contract, they would be there for 2016 and then…

Well, I think they'll stay. The only way the con would move is if the folks they dicker with in San Diego don't come up with a competitive offer. If that's the case, I can see the convention moving to Anaheim. I don't think it would be a good idea but I can see it as possible. I think a move to Los Angeles would be a disaster. The convention center here is terrible and accommodations are worse.

This article notes that Anaheim has more than 13,000 hotel rooms within a mile of the convention center, whereas San Diego has about 11,000 rooms close by. Ah, but as the article doesn't point out, in this case 11,000 is a lot more than 13,000 because the 13,000 rooms in Anaheim are full of families going to Disneyland and other local amusements. That's especially true in July, which is when Comic-Con is traditionally held.

In San Diego, we're the biggest thing they have and the entire city is built around making us feel welcome. In Anaheim or L.A., we wouldn't be the most important thing. We might not even be in the Top Ten. And the traffic? Oy.

For years I've done this joke here sometime between January and May. It's that if you need a parking space for Comic-Con in July, leave now. If Comic-Con does move to Anaheim in 2017 and you're going to need a parking space, I would leave now.

Here, illustrated nicely with clips from his films, is a 1962 interview with one of America's great comic actors and filmmakers, Buster Keaton. The interviewer is one of my favorite authors, Studs Terkel…

Jack Paar hosted his last Tonight Show on March 29, 1962 and Johnny Carson hosted his first on October 1st of that year.

Why the gap? Carson still had several months on his contract to host the afternoon game show Who Do You Trust? on ABC. It was commonly reported that the network refused to let him out early but as I understand it, it never really got to the point of ABC saying yes or no. Don Fedderson, who produced Who Do You Trust?, didn't want to let Johnny go before he had to…so that was that. By some accounts, ABC told Johnny, "If it were up to us, we'd be glad to let you go," which of course doesn't mean they really would have.

So how did NBC fill those twenty-six weeks? With guest hosts. The program was hosted during that period by Art Linkletter (4 weeks), Merv Griffin (4 weeks), Hugh Downs (2 weeks), Joey Bishop (2 weeks), Bob Cummings, Jack Carter, Jan Murray, Peter Lind Hayes, Soupy Sales, Mort Sahl, Steve Lawrence, Jerry Lewis, Jimmy Dean, Arlene Francis, Jack E. Leonard, Groucho Marx, Hal March and Donald O'Connor.

Those shows are apparently lost. I saw one of them. My parents let me stay up late on the Friday night that concluded Soupy Sales's week and I recall being disappointed that it was not my Soupy. He did it in a suit without puppets, pies or his signature routines.

The 26 weeks of fill-in hosts reportedly disappointed most folks. Merv Griffin and Jerry Lewis both did well enough with theirs to get offers to do their own talk shows but extant reviews and memories suggest most of the hosts didn't make much effort to do anything more than plug — in some cases, relentlessly — their other gigs. Carson was reportedly so distressed at what he saw when he tuned in that he repeatedly called NBC and warned them those hosts were killing the time slot he was about to inherit by filling it with commercials instead of entertainment.

Why do I bring this up now? Well, I'm watching with some fascination the fill-in hosts of The Late Late Show on CBS while it awaits the arrival of its new host, James Corden. Drew Carey hosted the first week and he did talk a lot about The Price is Right — and brought along his announcer from that show, George Gray, who contributed a couple of great quips. Carey had some sharp monologues but the rest of the program, he acted like he had someone waiting for him in a restaurant across the street and was in a hurry to get to them.

Mr. Carey, of course, is not auditioning for much of anything else. Monday and Tuesday this week, Jim Gaffigan hosted and he brought along his whole family. His wife co-hosted and he had his five children involved. His guests Monday were the stars of his upcoming sitcom on TV Land and they spent most of the time plugging that enterprise. I generally like Gaffigan as a stand-up but if I were James Corden, I would have made one of those calls like Johnny did.

Last night, the Gaffigan family turned to other topics and delivered a decent show, mostly due to funny contributions from their lead guest, Sarah Silverman. Tonight, they have on Adam Goldberg, David Koechner and Tig Notaro, and the rest of the week is hosted by Judd Apatow, probably with none of his relatives assisting.

In the meantime, CBS seems to be swapping hosts around madly. The taping schedule said that Billy Gardell was hosting two shows taping next Monday and Tuesday, while Kunal Nayaar was to host three shows taping Wednesday through Friday. But the current broadcast schedule says Monday and Tuesday are hosted by Regis Philbin, Wednesday and Thursday are Whitney Cummings and Friday is Adam Pally. Up until yesterday, the announced schedule said Philbin on Monday and the rest of the week, TBD.

The broadcast schedule says that Nayaar is hosting February 23, 26 and 27 while Gardell is hosting February 24 and 25. Drew Carey returns March 2 through 6 and they already have three shows with him they taped last week. It's very confusing and I'm wondering if they're really changing things around on the fly like this or if the announced schedules have just been premature and inaccurate.

As a longtime fan of talk shows, I'm curious as to what all these different folks will do with the opportunity. I'm guessing Regis isn't auditioning for anything. I also note that he isn't taking any chances, guest-wise. Monday, he has Martin Short, Alan Alda, Tony Danza and Susan Sarandon. A rhesus monkey could host a decent talk show with just the first two of those folks as guests, let alone all four. (Mr. Apatow is taking out the same kind of insurance. Thursday night, he has Adam Sandler, Lena Dunham and Maria Bamford; Friday night is Garry Shandling, Jeff Goldblum and Ryan Adams. In ten years, Craig Ferguson never had lineups like these.)

But Regis aside, some of the other hosts doubtlessly see this as a chance to show what they might do with a regular show of this kind…or even this one if Mr. Corden crashes and explodes. I wonder if any of them have the power to reshape the show for a night or two into something different or if the people in charge are demanding consistency.

That would be a shame because the Talk Show World really needs someone to come in and do a show that isn't just a guy behind a desk turning to someone in the guest chair and saying, "So, tell me about your new movie." I hope James Corden will be that but it would be nice to see someone before him seize that opportunity.

The folks at Politifact annotate and fact-check the President's State of the Union Address.

I thought it was a pretty good speech. Obviously, the Republicans didn't. I don't think they did themselves a lot of favor with swing voters by sitting there, scowling and refusing to clap for radical ideas like women getting paid the same as men for equal work. But then I get the feeling Republicans aren't going to worry about swing voters until a week or so after they nominate a candidate…which is about the time Democrats will start forgetting about them.

I've given up all beverages except for water and water flavored with this stuff…but when I was a kid, I drank tons of soda and kids' drinks. I already told you about what Flav-R Straws did to milk. Let's discuss what Fizzie's tablets did to H2O. This originally ran here on 2/25/02…

Let's have a Happy Fizzies party! No, on second thought, let's save our DNA and stomachs and not have a Happy Fizzies Party! I just came across these rather old pictures of a product I always felt should have, "Not to be taken internally" stamped on the outside. Back when I was a kid, a Fizzies drink was fun to make. You dropped a tablet into a glass of H2O and it bubbled like Alka-Seltzer, turning the water — and if you touched the tablet, your fingers, as well — orange or red or whatever the operative, alleged flavor was. The fun, however, stopped when the tablet finishing dissolving and you sorta, kinda had to drink the stuff.

That was the part I didn't like. I'm not sure I ever finished an entire tumbler, even of the "Imitation Orange Flavor" variety…and that was my favorite. As it turned out, this was a good thing. Later in life, I was diagnosed as having a very bad reaction to any kind of artificial sweetener. Had Fizzies been more tasty, I might have ingested more of them and done God-knows-what to my body. A "Happy Fizzies Party" — as the commercials kept urging us to have — could have been like some sort of 5th grade mutual suicide pact.

That was back when the product contained — as per the package depicted here — sucaryl and saccharin, and we thought those were oh-so-much better for you than nasty ol' sugar or corn syrup sweetener. Today, they still make Fizzies and the key ingredient is Nutrasweet, which has about the same effect on me as hemlock did on Socrates, only it probably doesn't taste as good.

It's odd that I have such fond memories of something that tasted so awful. I especially enjoyed the time I took about 20 Fizzies tablets and hid them in the pockets of my friend Sidney Passey's swimming trunks. Sidney put on the trunks, jumped in the pool and his shorts suddenly began to foam, as a rainbow of colors emanated from his crotch area. He later thanked me and said it gave him his first erection. Now, that was a Happy Fizzies Party!