Monthly Archives: January 2015

This should be self-explanatory…

I thought The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore got off to a decent start last night. They've got a way to go before folks will see the show as an acceptable replacement for The Colbert Report but I can see them getting there. The opening monologue-type material was certainly in the ballpark.

I was a bit disappointed with Jon Stewart's interview with Mike Huckabee, though less so this morning when I watched the Extended Version, which was about six minutes longer. (I was also impressed with how skillfully and fairly they chopped it down for the broadcast version.)

In case you couldn't guess, I think Huckabee — another one of those Republicans I liked before he began pandering to the L.C.D. of his party — is full of it. I haven't read his book but Stewart had and he clearly felt Huckabee, upon being challenged in front of an audience that doesn't buy the theory of Conservative Victimhood, was backing off on what he'd written. Personally, I think the main way in which right-wing folks are victims these days is how folks like Mike Huckabee try to sell them on the idea that they're victims.

I suspect some who watched the interview were expecting/hoping Stewart would try to rebut Huckabee by bringing up certain incidents which suggest, or could be sold as, examples of Huckabee not being the most effective parent. That's not how Jon Stewart rolls. He challenges guests like this just enough that they'll continue to engage with him and only be uncomfy when they say things that the audience audibly does not buy. Anyway, it was a more interesting conversation in the longer version so you might want to give it a look.

Mark's taking Monday off from heavy blogging but I'll post something later. I have a script that needs finishing.

My TiVo and I are looking forward to the debut this evening of The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore. I always found Mr. Wilmore very amusing on The Daily Show and recently I saw him performing his magic act (!) at the Magic Castle up in Hollywood. The magic was fine. The patter was better.

Boomerang is running a marathon of The Garfield Show all day today. I still have no idea when that channel or its sister enterprise, Cartoon Network, will run all the episodes they have that have never been run in this country.

The first issue of Groo: Friends and Foes (#1 in a twelve-issue series) goes on sale this Wednesday. Hope everyone's as happy with it as we are.

Back later when the script's done.

I posted this here on 6/23/04. It's about I Love Lucy, though a line at the end of the second paragraph may make you think it's about The Cosby Show…

My TiVo has been recording I Love Lucy lately, whether I want it to or not. This morn, I watched three and was struck with how incredibly horrible Lucy and Ricky Ricardo were to each other in them. Yes, I know these are not supposed to be realistic portrayals of human behavior and yes, I know there are plenty of episodes which show their true affection for each other, usually with regard to forgiving mistakes. But even in the broadest fiction, two people who ostensibly love each other shouldn't ever be lying and plotting against each other and causing deliberate mental anguish. It's amazing how many times I've seen an episode of one these shows and never thought about what was really happening in the scenario.

In the first episode I watched, Lucy — based on very little evidence, including an eavesdropped partial conversation — concludes that Ricky is planning to murder her. She is so nervous that to calm her down, Ricky decides to surreptitiously slip a harmless sleeping potion in her drink…and when she sees him do this, she concludes that it's poison. Question: If you really love someone, wouldn't it take a lot to cause you to believe they were planning to kill you? Would you stay with someone about whom you could ever believe that? Or who would believe that about you? And isn't it kind of nasty to ever slip something into someone else's beverage without their knowledge?

In the second, Lucy wants to be in Ricky's new show and as usual, Ricky doesn't want her in it. She begins feigning insanity to convince Ricky that all that rejection has caused her to snap. When he finds out what she's up to, Ricky decides to teach her a lesson she'll never forget. He brings in an actor friend to play a doctor who convinces Lucy that she has an incurable disease. She suffers greatly until he reveals the hoax. Question: If you love someone, would you try to convince them you were nuts in order to get them to do something against their better judgment? Would you try to convince them they were dying and put them through that agony?

In the one on right now, Lucy and Ricky have a fight. To get her back with Ricky, Ethel decides to wrap Lucy in bandages and tell Ricky that his wife got hit by a bus. At the same time, Ricky and Fred arrange smoke bombs so they can convince Lucy the apartment is on fire and Ricky can rescue her. Question: Do people who love each other really try things like that? (While we're critiquing human behavior here: In the episode, Fred Mertz — who is the landlord, as well as Ricky's co-conspirator, is running through the halls, yelling not only that the building is on fire but that the whole thing may collapse at any moment. Is this a good thing for the landlord to be doing?)

That's three episodes in a row where hoaxes or lack of trust result not just in misperceptions but life-threatening ones. I dunno about you but if I care for someone, I'd kind of like them to not believe that they're about to die.

I guess it's a tribute to the writers and performers of I Love Lucy that we accept their antics as playful, even though a lot of episodes were about this kind of thing. Lucy and Ricky just come off as so adorable and affectionate that we don't let a little thing like murder plots impact our view of them as America's Happy Couple. Hell, watching reruns, we don't even let a little thing like their real-life divorce cloud the image of Lucy and her Cuban hubby. In the same way, no one ever thinks of Ralph Kramden as a guy who was always threatening to belt his wife or Ernie Bilko as a guy who was committing fraud. Ah, such innocent times…

Speaking of those two guys as I was a few days ago here: MeTV is rerunning The Abbott & Costello Show — 52 half-hours that Bud and Lou made in 1952 and 1953 utilizing every time-tested routine they'd used in their careers. I like these shows a lot more than most of the feature films they made. With one or two exceptions, the storylines in their movies were boring things you had to sit through to get to the comedy bits. Here, it's pretty much just the comedy bits…and they don't have the over-rehearsed, edited feel they have in some of the films.

I especially like two of their co-stars. Joe Besser — aka the Third Stooge between Shemp and Curly Joe — plays this demented little person named Stinky. Besser was 45 years old at the time and they dressed him in a Little Lord Fauntleroy suit and had him act like a bratty ten-year-old…and everyone treats him like he really is that age.

There's a famous Hollywood anecdote that allegedly occurred after Abbott and Costello made their early feature, Who Done It? Character actor William Bendix was in it and stole a couple of scenes. At the premiere, Costello supposedly threw a fit and screamed at his producers, "Don't you ever put anybody in one of our movies who's funnier than me again!" I don't think I believe that story but if it's true, Lou got over it by the time they did this series. Joe Besser is funnier than Costello…and just about anyone else.

I also really like watching a gent named Sidney Fields who plays Bud and Lou's landlord and many other roles in the TV series. Fields was one of the best straight men in burlesque and he later became a top radio writer who often appeared in sketches, usually as a character named Professor Melonhead. He wrote many episodes of The Abbott & Costello Show and later went on to work for Jackie Gleason.

Here's something interesting. You've all heard Mssrs. Abbott and Costello do their "Who's on First?" routine. Well here, from a 1944 radio special, we have a performance of it by the team of Fields and Costello. Abbott was ill so Sid Fields filled in. It's not the same and it makes you realize that Abbott did more in that routine than just set his partner up to be funny…

Our pal Jerry Beck favors us with The History of the Trix Rabbit. Important stuff.

Warning: If you click the link I'm going to give you, you'll be transported to a website that plays music 24/7 and will play it upon your arrival. It's www.seeburg1000.com, a site that offers the kind of background music one hears in elevators and many stores…lots of lush instrumentals with strings, sometimes playing tunes you kinda recognize. If you're of a certain age or disposition, this may be a nice thing to have playing in the background of your life as you work or play. Or for some, it may be a valuable tool if you ever want to drive certain visitors from your home. Use it as you see fit.

This message appeared here originally on October 31, 2003…

One day back in 1967, I was home from school with the flu and to pass the time, I decided to write some letters to comic book letter pages. This, of course, was back when comic books had letter pages.

Back when they did, I sent in a lot of letters and amazingly (for a time) had about 85% of them selected for publication. I told myself with grand pride that obviously, my prose was of such wit and insight that it stood out from the piles of what must have been hundreds, even thousands of letters. That track record stopped being so amazing when I started working in comics and saw the volume and quality of the mail that was received. Even a comic selling 250,000 copies only received about 25 letters, of which maybe eight might be printable, some with judicious rewriting by the editors. The rest were in Crayola® or said nothing deeper than "I love this comic!"

But I didn't know that back in '67. I just knew it was fun to open up a comic book and see your words — and better still, your name — staring back at you. So in a moment of fever-induced inspiration, I wrote the following letter and sent it off to Stan Lee. Months later, I was surprised to find it not in the letter page of one Marvel Comic but in Stan's Bullpen Bulletins page, which meant it ran in every Marvel that month. You can click on the image below and see a scan of the printed page or you can just read the transcript that follows it…

STAN'S SOAPBOX!
While we're waiting for your letters telling what you'd like us to editorialize about, we thought you'd get a charge out of this note which we just received:

Dear Bullpen: Enough! I have sat idle too long! I have watched the M.M.M.S. turn into disorganized chaos. (And that's the worst kind!) As a solution, I suggest we have some officers. By buying his first Marvel mag, a fan is automatically entitled to the rank of RFO (Real Frantic One). His first published letter elevates him to QNS (Quite 'Nuff Sayer). A no-prize raises him to TB (True Believer). Each additional no-prize raises one level: From JHC (Junior Howling Commando) to RH (Resident Hulk) to AAT (Associate Assistant Thing) and finally to the penultimate, the utmost status a fan can attain: MM (Marvelite Maximus)! Naturally, the artists all have the rank of DDD (Definitely Dizzy Doodlers), the editorial assistants are IPR (Illiterate Proof-Readers), art associates are VOD (Victims of Doodlers), the letterers are IWP (Indefatigable Word Placers), and Stan himself is at the summit – MEO (Marvel's Earthbound Odin). Each person would use his title at the start of his name – as I've done. (Signed –) RFO Mark Evanier

Y'know something, gang – we kinda dig Mark's idea. Let us know how it hits you and maybe we can really get the thing rolling! Fair ‘nuff?

And sure enough, they modified my titles a bit but soon, there were official ranks of Marveldom. To this day, when I run into Stan Lee, he rarely fails to mention that I came up with that and he treats it like it's the only important thing I've done in my life. Which it may well be. (The letter, by the way, was somewhat edited…as were most letters I had printed in comics back then. I don't believe I even knew the word "penultimate" at age 15. One of the reasons I stopped writing letters to comic books was that they were often rewritten, sometimes to the point of significantly altering my intended message.)

But it was not to be my only time in the Bullpen Bulletins. In 1970, I worked for a while for an outfit called Marvelmania International, which was selling posters and decals and other merchandise of the Marvel characters. Well, let me amend that: The mail order firm, which was disguised as a fan club, was taking orders for such items and cashing the checks, and once in a rare while, they'd actually produce an item and ship it out. But a lot of kids were shamelessly ripped-off and when it became apparent that this was happening, I quit, as did my friend Steve Sherman, who was also working there. A few months later, the guy who owned and operated the company upped and vanished to avoid a legion of creditors, and has not been seen since.

Before that happened, back when we and everyone still thought the company was legit and functioning, Steve and I paid a visit to New York City and spent a few days hanging around the Marvel offices, meeting everyone and gathering material for the "club" magazine. This was in July of '70 and even though we, like everyone else who ventured near Marvelmania, never got paid what we were owed, there were certain perks to our association with it…not a lot but, hey, you take what you can get.

One was that we spent a few hours with Stan Lee and he stuck a little notice in the Marvel Bullpen Bulletins, which appeared in every Marvel title each month. Some of the later Bullpen pages were written by others imitating Stan but he wrote this one, which ran in comics dated January, '71. I know because I saw him sit down at the typewriter and begin banging it out in his inimitable style, which included forced nicknames and chatty familiarity. No one ever called Steve "Stevey" and no one else thought we were young, zingy with-it guys but, hey, he's Stan Lee. If he says you're young, zingy and/or with-it, you don't ask questions. Here's the way it appeared in all the Marvel books a few months later. And whether you click on the image to see the scan or read the transcript that follows, take note of the item after the one about Steve and me…

ITEM! Just thought you'd like to know – the outspoken young fan who gave us the idea for the Ranks of Marveldom a few years ago (R.F.O.'s, F.F.F.'s, etc.) is now a full-fledged editor, turning out possibly the greatest fan mag of all for our own MARVELMANIA INTERNATIONAL! His name's MARK EVANIER, and he and his assistant editor, STURDY STEVEY SHERMAN, came to visit us the other day from sunny California where Marvelmania has its headquarters. They're a couple of young, zingy, with-it guys, and after yakkin' it up with ‘em for a while it's easy to see why MARVELMANIA has become the toast of fandom! They were in town to attend the famous ComicCon '70, and speaking of conventions —

ITEM! We just have to tell you that our first open meeting of the ACADEMY OF COMIC-BOOKS ARTS, held during the summer, was really somethin' else! One of the cleverest entertainers of our time, none other than WILL JORDAN, the great monologist and impressionist (you've seen him break up the Ed Sullivan show a zillion times), provided some of the most hilarious routines we've ever howled at. Our most heartfelt thanks to Will, and to all the panelists and guests who made it such a memorable and meaningful affair.

Most of the comics Stan worked on in the sixties have been praised to Asgardian proportion and I certainly agree there was wonderment aplenty in there. But I also really liked the friendly editorial "voice" he established in his letter columns, house ads and especially in the Bullpen Bulletins. He put himself on a first-name basis with the readership at a time when the rival DC editors generally came across not only as adults but stodgy adults. He simultaneously bragged about the greatness of Marvel and expressed such humility that when they screwed up, as they occasionally did, you were willing to cut them a lot of slack. I will never forget the issue of Tales to Astonish where in the letter page, Stan admitted that the Giant-Man story had been done in such a rush that he wasn't sure it made a lot of sense (it didn't), nor will I forget the way he made it sound like he and the Mighty Marvel Bullpen lived to serve us 14-year-old consumers.

And there's a reason I included the item after the item about me. While I was in Stan's office that day in 1970, he got a call from Jim Warren, publisher of Creepy and Eerie. They were on the planning committee for the Academy of Comic Book Arts, a group that was then trying to elevate the form in cursory ways. Warren was calling to say he'd arranged for Will Jordan to entertain at the upcoming meeting and Stan replied, "That's great! He'll be terrific! Good work, Jim!" Then Stan hung up the phone, turned to me and asked, "Who's Will Jordan?"

I explained that Will Jordan was a comedian-impressionist who was best known for his appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show, and Stan proceeded to write the entry you see above, talking about how great Will Jordan was, and how great he'd been at the meeting…which took place after this page went to the printer. Some would call this a bit of trickery but I thought it was a fine example of Stan's imaginative writing. Anyone can write a report on an event after it happens…

Today is Betty White's 93rd birthday. Yesterday, as she arrived at the stage where her show is taped, she found a little surprise waiting for her. (Thanks, Randy West, for telling me about this.)

Regarding the news that the Supreme Court will weigh in on a possible Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage: I refuse to think I "know" how this will go and I'm worried it will go the wrong way and empower a movement (the folks who want to ban it) that was just about throwing in the towel. But I will say that browsing the web, the folks who are for full legalization of Gay Wedlock are a lot more optimistic and happy about this looming decision than the folks who want to stamp it out. Here's an example of the former.

Here's an interview with my pal Dave Goelz, better known to you as Gonzo from The Muppets. I met Dave years ago when I taught a class in Cartoon Voice Work at a school in San Francisco and he signed up to learn what he could. I didn't have the students' last names in front of me so it took me a while to realize that "Dave" was Dave Goelz. Very talented, wonderful man.

A real good actor named Rod Taylor passed away recently. On the 29th of this month, Turner Classic Movies will be saluting him by showing five of his best films: The Time Machine, The Birds, Sunday in New York, Young Cassidy and The Glass Bottom Boat.

To be honest, I wouldn't rank The Glass Bottom Boat as one of his best. It's a rather silly Doris Day comedy and, well, there's something wrong with a movie that has Paul Lynde in drag and still isn't funny. Animation students might be interested to watch how its director, Frank Tashlin, tries to do with human beings some of the kinds of gags he did in Warner Brothers cartoons when he directed them.

The film I wish they'd run — and I know people from T.C.M. read this site — is a really, really strange 1970 British comedy Mr. Taylor starred in called The Man Who Had Power Over Women. Taylor plays an assholy talent agent who doesn't let ethics or morality interfere with his lustings for money and women, not necessarily in that order.

I am not saying this is a great movie but it's rather fascinating as one of those films that studios were making then, trying to be hip and commercial and racy. 1968-1972 was a weird time for movies as the big studios struggled with how to grab the youth audience without getting too anti-establishment and it gave us weird pictures like Myra Breckenridge, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Three in the Attic, Pretty Maids All in a Row and, yes, even Skidoo.

The Man Who Had Power Over Women has never had an official DVD release. I doubt it would sell a lot of copies but I think a lot of people would be fascinated to see it…once. Maybe T.C.M. can make that happen.

Here are some clips of Stephen Sondheim talking about the new movie of Into the Woods. This is for a video press kit…

So: "The U.S. Supreme Court decided Friday it will tackle the issue of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, or whether states are allowed to ban gay marriage." I don't know what they're going to do so I'll settle for pointing out that lately, "experts" who've predicted how the Supreme Court will rule on important issues have had a pretty bad track record for accurate predictions.

Also, I'll predict that whatever side loses this decision will immediately announce, as if it's as certain as the tide going out, a Constitutional Amendment that will overturn that decision. And then that amendment will never get to first base.

I wonder: If states were allowed to ban gay marriage, how many of the 36 that currently allow it would. I'll bet it would be less than its opponents think, especially if those states were still required to recognize existing gay marriages and new ones performed in states where it remained legal.

In other news: "The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists." Somewhere out there, there's a guy who teaches Science at some middle school who'll say, "That's not possible. I distinctly remember buying a new Winter coat last November because it was so cold." And a certain number of folks out there will look at those two statements, decide they somehow cancel each other out and say, "The science on this is not settled."

[NOTE: I revised this post at 3:23 PM to clarify some clumsy verbiage.]

Word has it the Norms Restaurant on La Cienega Boulevard in West Hollywood may be heading for demolition. No date has been announced and its owners say they have no such plans. But they have obtained a permit to level the place so campaigns to save it are springing up.

Norms is a chain of coffee shops that are open 24 hours and offer food that's a notch (well, maybe half a notch) above what you'd expect for their low prices. People seem to love them mainly for breakfasts or for a late-night meal when most everything else is closed. A Norms is better than a Denny's but not by much. A lot of affection for the place seems to flow from the classic architecture and that sense of "It's been a part of Southern California as long as I can remember." We don't like to see places like that go away.

I've never dined at that particular Norms. When I want the kind of meal I'd get from there, I go instead to Canter's Delicatessen, which is also open 'round the clock and has, I think, pretty good chow. I have eaten at other Normses and it's like, "Hey, this ain't a bad steak for eight bucks." I'm glad there are places like that.

As with the matter of Ray Bradbury's house, this topic forces us to balance two possibly-competing interests. One is that of the property owners to maximize their income from what they own. The other is community concern: A lot of people would like the property to remain as it is for historical and sentimental reasons. Usually, to preserve whatever the latter wishes to preserve, someone has to come up with a plan where the owners can make a comparable amount not tearing the place down.

This article talks about a crusade to declare Norms a historic-cultural monument and says, "This would put the restaurant in the same category as famous L.A. landmarks like the Capitol Records building, the Griffith Observatory, the Hollywood sign and Johnie's Coffee Shop, which is seen frequently in films."

Johnie's is indeed seen frequently in films and that's its only function. It is no longer a working restaurant and its interior is not open to the public. They just rent it out as a location. There obviously isn't enough else happening right around there to make it profitable to operate a working restaurant. (A Johnny Rocket's that was across the street just closed and a year or two ago, so did a Sizzler that was a few doors away.)

Inside actually, Johnie's is pretty shabby and film crews that come in have to redress it and spruce it up for their purposes. It's been "saved" but it sure looks sad. So does that whole block, which is filled with empty or failing businesses, including that abandoned and empty Sizzler. I suspect the owners are trying to put together a deal to redevelop that whole area with new construction and tenants. The Los Angeles subway is being extended in that direction and there's supposed to be a station at that corner.

When that happens, one assumes that Johnie's — since it does have its landmark status — would be refurbished and reopened to serve the folks shopping at the new enterprises nearby or getting on and off the subway. At least, I hope that would happen. Maybe the same kind of redevelopment deal could save that Norms. Or better still, maybe the campaign to save it will give it more attention and business so the owners will decide their best option is to just leave it where it is, serving cheap steaks and pie to the masses.