Snubbed!

People keep writing to ask me about the Joan Rivers "snub" from the Oscars' In Memoriam segment. The word "snub" is getting way overused on the Internet these days, its definition now being broadened to include any time you think the wrong person got selected for something. It's like when a casting director has to pick which of ten actors who were considered (or even which of fifty who were submitted) will get a part. He picks the one he'll hire and then folks say they others were "snubbed."

Sometimes, they say they were "banned." If you host Saturday Night Live only once and then Lorne Michaels decides once is enough, or you get turned down to guest with David Letterman, you're likely to wind up on a list of people who are (gasp!) "banned" from those shows.

Or even "blacklisted." That's another one. A comedian I met at a party a few years ago was complaining that he couldn't get on The Tonight Show, which of course has always been the fate of well over 99.9999999% of all people who consider themselves professional comedians. He was saying he'd been "blacklisted," likening his non-selection to the injustice done to actors and writers who were persecuted by a conspiracy involving multiple employers who did not question their ability, only their exercise of free speech and free association.

So here's the deal with the Oscars segment. Each year, a committee at the Academy — not the producers of the telecast — has to make up the roster of who's in and who's out. They start with a list of maybe 400 names — everyone in show business who died in the last twelve months and had anything to do with a movie. Probably that list isn't even complete but they have to start somewhere. Then they whittle it down to 40-50 names.

robinwilliamsmemoriam

You might ask, "Why don't they cut some musical number or a commercial or two and put in more names?" Well, they'd sooner not give out Best Picture than cut a commercial but even that wouldn't solve the problem. If they put 100 dead folks on the screen, the fans and family of others on the master list would still say, "Hey, you included the caterer on a movie made in 1974 but you left out the caterer on a movie made in 1969!" The more you include, the more you lower the bar on how important a person has to be to make the reel.

The committee considers fame and importance. You get more points if you were nominated for an Oscar or won one, which is not to suggest they have an actual points system. They may or may not.

They used to only put up actors and an occasional director but there were too many complaints about "snubbing" other job descriptions. So now they make sure to include some writers, some make-up folks, some studio execs, some cinematographers, etc. I would guess that the one or two most important costume designers who die each year will always make the final list because it would be viewed as an insult to all costume designers if at least one wasn't included.

I am told the official Academy site says that the honor is only for actual members of the Academy but I don't believe that rule, if it exists, is followed religiously. I mean, do we think some huge star who never actually joined would be omitted for that reason? It may matter in the case of those who are on the cusp.

And then the committee decides what they decide. I would assume there is discussion of whether someone is a TV person or a stage person and whether they did enough of their careers in movies that they belong. On Shelly Goldstein's Facebook page, Bruce Vilanch posted…

it ain't the people's choice, it's the academy's choice, and they tend to choose people who actually are in the movie business, not the fashion business or the television business.

Bruce has been involved in enough Oscar telecasts to know of what he writes.

Each year, we have this controversy and folks read way too much into the decision to include A but exclude B. Sooner or later, the Academy is probably going to tell whoever constructs and designs the montage, "Look, here's a list of 423 people who died since the last Oscars. We'll give you four minutes instead of three. Get every one of these names on the screen for a few seconds, even if for some, it's just putting up a crawl or twenty names at a time with no pictures."

Then there will instead be complaints about who got a picture and who didn't, and why someone's name was on longer than someone else's, and putting up 423 names will just about guarantee that someone's is misspelled. And then we'll hear about how someone whose name wasn't on the initial list of 423 was snubbed…or maybe even banned or blacklisted.

Today on Stu's Show!

losangelestvbook1

I want to recommend today's Stu's Show and I want to recommend a recent book by Stu's guest. Joel Tator is a TV producer with a long résumé, a shelf or two full of Emmys and an extensive knowledge of Los Angeles television history. He has recently given us Los Angeles Television, an excellent book about local TV in my home town back in the fifties, sixties and seventies…you know, back when there used to be local television other than late news and dawn-to-dusk coverage of police pursuits.

The group shot on the cover gives you a good idea of the kind of people covered by this volume. On it, I see Engineer Bill, Mike Stokey, Stan Freberg, Tom Hatten, Art Linkletter, Skipper Frank and so many more. That photo's from a reunion years after most of them were vital contributors to local television but Tator's book is full of photos and history of earlier days. If you grew up where I did, you will love this book and your biggest complaint will be that it isn't long enough. So order it and listen in when Joel guests with Stu today.

Stu's Show can be heard live (almost) every Wednesday at the Stu's Show website and you can listen for free there. Webcasts start at 4 PM Pacific Time, 7 PM Eastern and other times in other climes. They run a minimum of two hours and sometimes go way, way longer. Whenever a show ends, it's available soon after for downloading from the Archives on that site. Downloads are a measly 99 cents each and you can get four shows for the price of three. Well worth the money.

My Latest Tweet

  • Bill O'Reilly just announced his next book: Killing Fact-Checkers.

Oh, Really?

Paul Waldman over in the Washington Post gives a neat summary of the case against Bill O'Reilly on this charge that he fibbed about his experiences covering combat back in his news days. I don't care a whole lot about this because like Waldman, I don't think O'Reilly's employer or audience cares.

In fact, I think a lot of those who watch O'Reilly know and don't mind that he's full of excrement on some topics. They just like the show he puts on and a lot love that he often fights dirty, up to and including distorting facts, to slap the people they want to see slapped.

What's interesting to me about O'Reilly is that, first of all, I think he's a great showman. If you just see his job as putting on a program that people will watch…well, he's really good at that. Then again, he has a huge audience for his pronouncements on what's right and wrong with the world but I don't get that anyone in his audience sees him as a wise pundit. I spend way too much of my life debating issues with right-wing friends (I have more than you may think) and they'll quote Rush or Hannity or Mark Levin or Beck or Krauthammer or someone else like that.

No one ever quotes O'Reilly and I don't think I've ever seen him cited with Rush-like reverence on a right-wing blog. He must be in some corners of the web but it doesn't seem to me to be proportionate to the audience he reaches.

Last night, Jon Stewart — who had much on his plate upon returning from a vacation — did a pretty fine job of making Rudy Giuliani look like a remarkable hypocrite and exploiter of 9/11 for selfish partisan reasons. Okay, so he had a lot to work with. Giuliani's not doing very well as he tries to back off his Obama slam without offending anyone who loved his Obama slam.

I'm guessing Stewart — who actually seems to be in a mutual-admiration society with Bill-O — will get to O'Reilly tonight or tomorrow night. I'm further guessing his message will be, "Hey, Bill. Just accept the fact that you got caught in a lie and be thankful that you work at a company that doesn't mind that kind of thing." But maybe not. Mr. Stewart has surprised me in the past with his take on some controversies.

Today's Video Link

Last Friday, I went to lunch at the Magic Castle in Hollywood with my friend Bob Elisberg, whose blog you should be visiting…but only after you read mine ten times a day. One of my favorite magicians, Richard Turner, was performing.

Richard isn't exactly a magician. He describes himself sometimes as a Card Mechanic — a guy who can fix a card game. He is the best "card cheat" I've ever seen and it's stunning to see in person. You watch him. You study him. You never take your eyes off his hands or the cards. But you can't catch him dealing off the bottom of the deck or out of the middle or whatever he does so you wind up with a pair of threes and he has a surplus of aces. Really amazing.

And, oh yeah: He's blind. What he does would be astounding even if he could see but he can't so…

This video is from (I'm guessing) 15-20 years ago when his vision was a tiny bit better than it is now and he sometimes didn't tell audiences he couldn't always make out the cards. Today, he has to ask his "volunteers" for help making sure that the ones he gathers up after a feat are all face-down. But he can still do everything he did in this performance and then some…

Casting About

Jason Jones has announced he's leaving The Daily Show to star in a new series for TBS. It'll be exec-produced by him and his wife Samantha Bee but there's no announcement yet as to whether she's staying or going. The timing of this is curious. This is not a deal that was hurriedly put together since Jon Stewart announced he was abdicating. One wonders if Mr. Jones is regretting his decision to leave or if he left because he knew he was not in line for Stewart's job whenever it came open.

Whatever the reason, this suggests The Daily Show under its new host may be even more different than some of us have been thinking. Several friends and I have been discussing whether Comedy Central would try having Jones and Bee co-anchor as per one of those male/female teams that are standard in news reporting these days. Guess not.

Okay…so Oliver is out. Colbert, of course, is out. Wilmore is saying he's happy right where he is so he's probably out. Bee is probably out. Williams says she's out. I'm not feeling like the other correspondents — Klepper, Mandvi, Hodgman, Madrigal, etc. — have been treated like folks with a bigger future at that network.

Maybe Klepper but it's starting to look like someone from outside. A reader of this site wrote me to speculate they'd grab up Craig Ferguson. I'd bet serious money he isn't even under discussion. I can imagine Comedy Central offering Craig Ferguson The Craig Ferguson Show but not The Daily Show since he'd only turn it into The Craig Ferguson Show. I'm now thinking it'll be someone like James Corden — i.e., someone whose name isn't on any of the short lists circulating outside the network.

Too often, these things turn out like a really bad murder mystery…you know, the kind where when they reveal whodunnit, it's someone you never would have thought of because there were, like, no clues. I remember reading one once where the murderer turned out to be a person who had never been mentioned before in the book. This may be like that. Brace yourself, fellow speculators.

A Brief Exchange

The other day, I was walking into a store when I was approached by a homeless-type person who gave off the distinct odor of being a homeless-type person. He said to me, "Excuse me but do you have a cigarette?"

I said, "Sorry…I have never in my life had a cigarette."

He said, "Don't apologize. I wish I could say that."

Marxes on the Move

marxbros06

Before the Marx Brothers filmed A Night at the Opera, they went on tour with a vaudeville-style version of the script. The idea was to "test out" the comedy material before live audiences and to rewrite and refine it before committing it to film. This article talks about the stop they made with this act in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The piece says that the big change in their movies as of A Night at the Opera was the inclusion of a plot because they'd never had one before. I don't know about that. There was more attention given to a romantic subplot, true. There was also more time and money spent on their movies once they moved to MGM and there was no Zeppo, which sure didn't hurt. But they had had plots — even romantic subplots — before. They just didn't worry too much about developing and resolving them in a satisfying manner.

I have friends who love the Marx Brothers but don't like any film after Duck Soup…which means they only like five of the dozen movies with three or more Marxes in non-cameo roles. Less than half. I don't deny the last few were pretty grim but there's enough Marxian joy in A Night at the Opera, A Day at the Races, At the Circus and Go West to make me very happy. Of those four, the weakest was At the Circus and it may not be a coincidence that it was the only one that didn't go out on one of those "test the material" tours.

Today's Video Link

Okay, I lied. I'm going to plug one more Kickstarter campaign here. Robert Weide is seeking funding to complete a documentary on Kurt Vonnegut that's been in the works for something like 25 years. Vonnegut was alive for much of that time and cooperating and being interviewed and I for one would love to see the footage of him.

Mr. Weide is a fine documentarian and producer and director. He helmed some great documentaries about funny folks like the Brothers Marx, W.C. Fields and Woody Allen. In fact, he's the gent who wrote the much-read defense of Mr. Allen from the charges that he'd molested one of Mia Farrow's daughters. (You may recall I was once on the fence about whether those allegations were true. Several friends have since convinced me they are not.)

Vonnegut is one of my favorite authors and also a person I love hearing just talk about his work and the world so I am pleased to back and promote this Kickstarter and to give you this link if you want to get in on it. If you're not convinced, listen to what Bob Weide has to say…

Old Business

It has been confirmed that the Denny Dillon piece was a hoax…and I hear she's quite upset about it. Of course, now that I know it's a joke, that seems obvious to me and I feel a bit dumb for not having caught it right away. I need to stop blogging when I'm half-asleep.

More reaction to the Oscars last night. To some, the omission of Joan Rivers from the In Memoriam reel is and will forever be the social injustice of our times. I could certainly make the case either way and I'd also note quite a few others who weren't included: Carla Laemmle, Richard Kiel, Dickie Jones, Jan Hooks, Elaine Stritch, etc. And those are just actors. There are probably hundreds of behind-the-camera folks whose families were disappointed that their departed loved one was not included. (An awful lot of the articles online today also mention Harold Ramis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Shirley Temple and others as having been "snubbed" but those folks were all in last year's reel.)

Given the inevitably of some arguable selections being excluded, I can't get too worked-up over not including Joan. They should have put her in just so we didn't have this silly controversy. Frankly, I think she would have loved it. Nobody, not even Sarah Palin, played the Victim Card to such good advantage as Joan Rivers. And no one ever cared less about hurting the feelings of stars of her magnitude.

I didn't mention the tribute to The Sound of Music. That's not a movie I especially loved but I do love surprise appearances and bringing Julie Andrews on at the end was a great moment. Many today are praising Lady Gaga's singing and saying that she proved she is a performer who should be taken seriously. Fine. She was great. But I always thought that by dressing the way she usually does and calling herself "Lady Gaga," she was trying real hard to not be taken seriously.

In non-Oscar news — yes, there is some — I think we need to declare an end to politicians declaring they know what's in each others' hearts and when someone is not really of the religion they claim. Talk about what these people do, not what you'd like to make voters think they are.

I have a new theory (I don't think I've said this before) that when a politician says something outrageous and in questionable taste, it's sometimes to please a very tiny, well-heeled audience. The person goes to someone like Sheldon Adelson or a Koch Brother or even Warren Buffett seeking financial backing either for a candidacy or, as more likely with Rudy Giuliani, a business deal. The rich guys says, "Well, I like you and your ideas…but I haven't seen you get out there and tell the world that the president dresses in women's lingerie. That's a fact, you know."

And then the politician says, "Oh, I've said that many times. In fact, it's already in the speech I'm giving tomorrow afternoon!" And then they rush to write it in and say it because, you know, you never argue with someone who could write you a check with a whole lot of numbers on it. Plus, you can always walk it back later or, as Giuliani has been doing, deny you said what you said or meant it the way you knew everyone would take it. The rich person probably doesn't mind the walkback because he understands that to be effective for his purposes, you need to do that and he's gotten what he wanted.

Hey, as I was writing this message, I received an e-mail from Denny Dillon asking me to remove the fake blog from my site. I'm going to go write her back that I already did and repeat to her my apology for not realizing it sooner. See you later.

Sunset on the Strip

Another old Vegas institution is about to go bye-bye. The Riviera — the oldest hotel-casino on the Strip — has been purchased by, of all parties, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. They're the folks who run the convention center there. The Riviera will close May 4 and be torn down so that the convention center (already one of the biggest in the country) can be expanded and extended to Las Vegas Boulevard. It will be huge and it will be awesome but unless they move it to another city, it would still be a terrible place to hold Comic-Con International.

The Oscars

nphoscars

Just finished watching the Oscars my way, which is to fast-forward through a lot of the festivities. To those of you complaining the show was long: It's supposed to be long. Commercial rates are astronomical and the network and Academy want to sell a lot of them. Next year, try watching it the way I do.

Neil Patrick Harris did fine, I thought…though at the moment all anyone on the 'net seems to be discussing is the bit with him in his underwear. That's a tough room joke-wise and I doubt anyone else could have done much better in that capacity. The opening number was fine, considering there's never anything to say in those things besides, "Hey, movies are great!" (Wanna read the lyrics to the tune, which was written by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, who did the songs for Frozen? Here they are.)

I liked his magic trick — the predictions in the briefcase — and I think I've figured out how it was done. But I'm not 100% certain…and no, I won't tell you my theory.

I made three predictions myself and got five right…though some were pretty obvious. So was the reason Michael Keaton didn't win. They disqualified him because every time he was on camera, he was chewing gum.

Also, I correctly predicted that there would be jokes about the whiteness of the nominees (again, obvious) and I guess I predicted that Idina Menzel would come out and maul John Travolta's name. Again, there weren't a lot of surprises. And oh, yeah: People on the web are complaining that Joan Rivers (who didn't make very many movies) didn't make the obit reel. Neither did Carla Laemmle, which surprised me more. I suppose the tribute to Joan was all the bitchy comments on Twitter about what everyone was wearing.

I thought he'd try something to out-Tweet the star-studded selfie pic that Ellen DeGeneres took last year. After I wrote that, I saw a couple of online articles that said something of the sort was planned. Either the articles were wrong or it got dropped. I was thinking it would be neat to pass a special Smartphone around during the show and give everyone in the first ten rows a chance to take one of themselves and have it instantly posted to some Twitter account.

All in all, a decent show. I've already seen some reviews saying it was a disaster and I think these people are expecting the Academy Awards to be something it can never be. Some were complaining about who won as if the producers of the telecast could have arranged for different names in the envelopes or more interesting songs to be nominated. There were a lot of good films this year but I didn't get that any performers were sentimental or emotional favorites. Again, not the fault of the producers of the program…but for some viewers, it seems like the best thing about the Oscars is complaining about them.

Blogkeeping Note

Earlier today, I posted to a link to a piece purportedly written by Denny Dillon of the 1980 Saturday Night Live cast about her experiences at the SNL40 broadcast and afterparty. I have taken down the link for now (and maybe forever) because questions have arisen as to whether it's legit or maybe someone's parody of other such pieces. It is on a Denny Dillon blog that has only one post and which was started just the other day on a free service…so that's suspicious. Also, I am told that some virus checkers are flagging it as dangerous, though mine is not.

Anyway, I've removed the link for now. My apologies to Ms. Dillon if it turns out to be bogus. If anyone has any information, lemme know.

Tales of My Childhood #12

talesofmychildhood

childhood04
Let me tell you about the photograph you see before you. It was taken in the backyard of the home in which I lived with my parents from age 1 to about 22. I'll guess I was about seven, maybe eight in this picture. The little girl was named either Roxy or Lee.

The reason I'm not certain is that Roxy and Lee were identical twins — and I mean identical. Their grandmother, who lived next door to us, could not tell them apart and she claimed that even their parents had trouble. Roxy and Lee liked this and encouraged their folks to dress them alike. When their folks didn't, they were known to swap outfits, just to keep everyone guessing. They would also sometimes claim to be each other. If you took a guess, they'd usually tell you you were wrong, even if you were right.

Every week or three, Roxy and Lee would come stay with their grandmother for a few days and when they did, we'd play games and I would make up little adventure stories for us to act out. Once, we put on a show in that backyard for my parents, their grandma and as many of the neighbors as we could bring there under duress. We opened with a magic act that utterly baffled the three people there who didn't know that my assistant had a twin. For a few seconds there, they actually thought I'd magically transported her from one big cardboard box to another.

The other seven people in our audience laughed because they knew the secret. Then we intentionally gave it away to the other three so Roxy and Lee could both be in the rest of the show together. They sang and danced to a record I played there in the yard thanks to a phonograph and an ungodly-long chain of extension cords. I did other magic tricks and a ventriloquism act that did not have Paul Winchell sweating the competition.

I liked Roxy and Lee a lot. One day, we learned that their grandmother was moving away. Actually, everyone in the small apartment complex next door was moving away.  It was being demolished to be replaced by a large apartment building.  I was quite sad because it meant the end of my friendship with Roxy and Lee.  I never even got to see them for a "last time."

In the above photo, one of them and I seem to be running some kind of mobile exhibit of rocks we'd found or something. I have no idea what we were doing but I do remember that wagon which served me well. It was at different times, a spaceship and a stagecoach and an ice cream truck and a door-to-door lemonade stand and I believe I even won the Indianapolis 500 in it a few times. Finally in my teen years, I gave it to a younger boy who lived down the street and he too found all sorts of imaginative uses for it.  He may even have used it as a wagon.

The main thing I would call your attention to in the photo is that little house we had in our yard. It was there when we moved in and I'm not sure of its original purpose. It had no plumbing or electricity, which suggested it was built as a tool and storage shed. But it also had big windows all around it which suggested people were expected to be inside it. Here's another photo where you can see it…

childhood05

I don't know what caused me to make that face. Usually when I'm around females, they're the one making that face.

For a time, I used the little house cautiously as a playhouse — cautiously because many of the windows were broken, the floor had weak spots on it, there were portions of the ceiling that looked like they might come down at any minute, and there were a great many rusty nails in its walls. My Uncle Nathan, who was marginally handy with tools, occasionally went in and tried to remove some of the greater hazards but it finally came down to a simple decision: My father would either have to spend a lot of money to have someone come in and fix it up or it would have to be demolished.

A neighbor recommended a carpenter who came by and quoted a price to make it safe and inhabitable. The amount was clearly out of the question so my father asked, "How much to tear it down and haul everything away?" That fee was less but also more than he could spend at that time. Uncle Nathan boarded up the windows and the one door…and the little house just sat there for a year or two looking sad and maybe haunted.

During that time, the apartment complex next door was razed and a new, modern building took its place. As you might expect, we began finding termite droppings in our home. A bunch of them probably came in when they lost their residence next door and another wave probably arrived with all the lumber that was trucked in to build the new building.

An exterminator gave us a price to have our house tented and fumigated but, he said, there was no point in doing that as long as that little house was in the backyard. It was swarming with the little beasts and would re-attract them after any "kill."  He gave my father an estimate on what it would cost to rip the place down now. It was $300, which seemed like a lot at the time. My father thought about it for a few days and finally decided he had no choice but to pay it.

Then my mother had a thought. She asked our gardener Felipe what he would charge to do it. He said he didn't do that kind of work. Then she asked him, "If someone else tore the building down, what would you charge to haul away all the old wood and broken glass?" That, he said, he would do — for $40.

She came to me and said, "How'd you like to make $130?" That was half of what would be left if she and I tore it down and Felipe cleaned up after us.

I think I was ten at the time and $130 seemed like…well, less than a million dollars but not by much. The primary expenditure in my life was the purchase of comic books, most of which I bought at used book shops where I could get six for 25 cents. I did some instant arithmetic. $130 was 3,120 comic books.

But not really. There were many current comic books on the newsstand that looked so wonderful that I couldn't resist paying full cover price, which then was a dime. So maybe it was more like 2,000 comics. I remember thinking, "Gee, it's too bad I won't have a little house in the backyard to store them in."

My mother then said, "Now, don't think I'm going to let you spend the $130 all on comic books. Some of it's going to have to go for clothes and other expenses."

I asked, "Could I buy a pair of socks and spend the rest on comic books?" She said no. I could spend $30 on comics and then the remaining $100 would go towards, as she put it, "Necessities of Life." I tried to argue that Detective Comics was one but all she said was, "Nice try, kid. Nice try." I never could put one over on my mother. My father, yes…but not my mother.

Still, I took the offer. Thirty bucks worth of comic books was, after all, thirty bucks worth of comic books. Even at twelve cents apiece, that was a lot.

She presented the proposition to my father: "Give us the money and Mark and I will tear down the little house." He was skeptical but obviously, there was a value to keeping the dough within the family. "You've got a deal," he told us. "But for God's sake, be careful."

We were…and it was, up to a point, enormous fun. The little house was built like a real house but without a concrete foundation. We bought tools so I had safety goggles and gloves and a sledge hammer that was appropriate to my size and a big crowbar that I used to pry the shingles off the exterior. Once I did that, some of the walls beneath them could be knocked down with the sledge hammer, even by a ten-year-old boy. The little house turned out to be in even worse shape than we'd thought, plus we also had a big assist from those termites.

When we got the place down to the framework, Uncle Nathan decided to get in on the action. He went someplace and rented a gasoline-fueled power saw and then came over and cut down some of the upright beams, collapsing the roof. Boy, that was exciting. Many years later, I was outside the Hacienda Hotel in Las Vegas the night it was imploded with thousands of gallons of liquid explosives. Watching the little house come down was more memorable and astonishing.

Then Uncle Nathan sawed the roof and interior paneling into smaller chunks that Felipe the Gardener could fit into his truck. When the house was almost down, we paid Felipe to dig up the wooden frame that had formed the foundation. He then hauled the wreckage away and we were done.

My father was amazed. Absolutely amazed. He stood out in the backyard, staring at the plot where the little house had been and he said over and over, "I can't believe you did it! I cannot believe it!"

Between that extra cost of Felipe's excavation and what we spent on tools, we didn't clear $260. It was more like $200 but I still put aside $30 from my share for comic books and the rest went for clothes, shoes and some new shelving for my bedroom. I had to have a place to put all those comic books, after all. That was a Necessity of Life.

Only days after the little house was gone, we had to spend two nights at a nearby motel while our big house was covered with a tent. It was then filled with poison gas…which, the exterminator swore to me on the life of his children, would not harm my beloved comic book collection. As we were checking into the motel, the clerk noted that the address my father wrote on the registration card was less than a mile away. "You're not from out of town, I see. Might I ask the reason you'll be staying with us?"

My father was still reeling with astonishment at our demolition work. I guess it was partly that and partly to make a joke that he told the man, "My son here tore down our house."

The clerk gave me a look of incredulity and he asked, "Did you really do that?"

I said, "Yes." And motioning to the little suitcase I was holding, I added, "I packed my sledge hammer and my crowbar! If the TV in our room doesn't work, this place will be a parking lot by morning!"