Monthly Archives: January 2016

Specsavers is a British retail chain that sells glasses, contact lenses and such. Their new commercial features John Cleese as Basil Fawlty…though I'm not sure how we're supposed to know it's Basil Fawlty, as opposed to just John Cleese being a big jerk…

[UPDATE, EIGHT MINUTES LATER: Six people so far have written to me to point out that they play the Fawlty Towers theme and that Fawlty did the branch-thrashing bit in the series. Guess my mind was elsewhere and that it's been too long since I saw the show.]

The other day, North Korea claimed to have tested a hydrogen bomb. There is some question as to whether this is true and we should hope it isn't. As Daniel Larison notes, no one in our country seems to have any idea what, if anything, we should do about this.

Why do major motion pictures cost so much to make? Well, Gavin Polone thinks it's because crooked studio accounting has made profit-participants figure, "They're never going to pay me my share so why should I try to save them money?" An excellent point.

Jonathan Chait says that people are wrong if they think Marco Rubio is a moderate. He's just trying not to be as hysterical as Trump or Cruz while pushing pretty much the same far-right agenda.

Our pal Frank Ferrante is performing his show, An Evening with Groucho, this weekend at the Pasadena Playhouse. Some seats may still be available and if they are, you can order them here.

I've praised and recommended this show so many times that further comment may be unnecessary. Basically, it's just what the title says except that at the matinees, it should be called An Afternoon with Groucho. And if we really enforced truth-in-labelling laws, maybe An Evening (or Afternoon) with a Guy Who Does an Uncanny Impression of Julius "Groucho" Marx and Creates a Fantasy Where He's Still Alive and Performing and is Very Funny. Something like that.

Here's a piece in today's L.A. Times that will tell you more about Frank and how good he is. Just in case you don't believe me.

The current issue of Art in America magazine contains an article on Jack Kirby entitled, "Genius in a Box." The piece was written by Alexi Worth and an intro paragraph says…

A legend among comics fans, Jack Kirby was the gifted, overworked illustrator who made Marvel Comics possible. Two recent exhibitions reveal his artwork as an inventive "side-channel" within pictorial modernism.

I agree with all that and appreciate this appreciation of Kirby but I have a few small quibbles, one being Worth's doubt that Jack anticipated his own immortality as an artist. He's wrong. Jack, in a surprisingly non-egotistical way, talked often of how his work would outlive him…as would the work of other great comic creators. He absolutely expected it to be reprinted in editions with deluxe printing and to be exhibited in galleries.

Also, there is the assertion that Jack's new books for DC in the early seventies "flopped." They were canceled prematurely by a company that was crumbling from all corners at the time and had to be rebuilt, almost from the ground up, a few years later. New management looked at the sales figures for the books Worth says "flopped" and promptly revived and reprinted them…and they continue to reprint them over and over and to reuse the characters and concepts introduced in them. I would save the word "flop" for something that went away and was never seen again.

And I guess I oughta take issue with what Worth writes about a Hulk poster that Kirby drew and which was then redrawn somewhat by Herb Trimpe…

As his friend and biographer Mark Evanier tells it, "someone at Marvel" evidently decided that Kirby's Hulk poster was too eccentric. Another artist, Herb Trimpe, was assigned to lightly deKirbify the poster, giving the Hulk ordinary knuckles and fingernails, normal feet and recognizable pectorals.

That's not what his friend and biographer Mark Evanier said. What I said in my first book on Jack was…

…someone at Marvel decided that the proposed line [of posters] had too much Kirby in it and ordered that four of Jack's posters be replaced by the work of other artists…[they] liked the design of Jack's Hulk poster. They just felt it should be illustrated by Herb Trimpe, who was then the artist on the Hulk comic. Trimpe was told to trace Kirby's drawing, which he did, effectively just re-inking it and altering the head as per his version of the character.

I never said it was deemed too eccentric, nor was Trimpe told to change the knuckles, fingernails, etc. The alterations were almost all of the character's head and any other changes were just Trimpe doing things the way Trimpe did. Worth also deduces that the exaggerated pose related somehow to the one 3-D comic Jack had drawn more than a decade earlier — which of course it didn't. Jack's super-hero work was always filled with that kind of extreme pose, dating back to before he first drew Captain America.

I cringed at Worth's description of Kirby as a "hack" — but then I always cringe at that word, especially when applied to someone of earnest intent who was giving his employer way more than he had to in order to get the paycheck in question. It's a word that in 50-some-odd years of reading comic book reviews and essays, I have seen applied in a myriad of ways ranging from a compliment for sheer productivity to a synonym for "knowing producer of crap." I'm sure Worth wasn't using the latter definition but to Jack, during a period of his career when detractors were calling him "Jack the Hack," it was the supreme insult, condemning not only the work but the integrity of its maker.

Also: The article identifies Fantastic Four #76 as coming out in 1975. Perhaps a reprint of the story in it did but the original publication was in 1968. And I think that's about all that bothered me: Not all that much and not at all the central thesis.

I hope I'm not being too negative about a piece that I am quite glad was published where it was published. Jack's work deserves recognition from all quarters and I'm glad Worth talked about it as sequential art. Too often, people approach Jack as an illustrator and liken his individual pages and panels to works of art meant to be complete in themselves. Jack was an illustrator and yet again, he wasn't. To get the "big picture" (to use a term he used often), you have to view him as a storyteller if not a writer.

That was the only way Jack viewed his work: Not whether he'd done a good drawing but whether he'd done the right drawing. To him, if it conveyed what he wanted the panel to convey, it was a good drawing. When I spoke at the wonderful, recent exhibit of Jack's work out at Cal State Northridge, I tried to make the point that to fully appreciate and comprehend his work, you have to consider the art in the context of its intention.

Which doesn't mean you can't hang Jack in galleries and discuss him in the same breath as guys who unquestionably belong there. It just means that in addition to looking at panels or pages, you ought to read the comic. I hope pieces like Worth's will prompt more people to do both those things.

From 1979: Excerpts from an interview that Merv Griffin did with Gene Wilder…

Jeffrey Toobin says the judge in the Cosby case in Pennsylvania will probably come down to one central decision by the judge. And he explains what that decision is.

Ezra Klein explains how he thinks Donald Trump will lose. He's not sure Trump will lose but if he does, this is how it may go.

Last week here, I asked what the deal was with the social media group, LinkedIn. I've been a member of it for some time and I keep getting messages from folks — some I know, many I don't — who want to "connect" via it. I have never quite understood what that means nor has it ever been of any value to me. What, I wanted to know, am I missing?

I got a lot of responses, over 90% of which said something like, "I've been wondering that myself!" But a few told me how it had been of value to them. Here's a sampling of the flurry, starting with a message from Greg Kelly…

There's been lot of times I get e-mails "from" friends and people I know asking me to join LinkedIn. Then when I ask them about it, the people claim to not have sent an e-mail to me but then begin to extoll the benefits of LinkedIn.

I refuse to sign up for it. There isn't one instance I've heard of people I know getting work because of it. And, I'm just not sure what how beneficial it is beyond an online resume and perhaps just professional networking. But, probably one thing that turned me off to the site is the most is when I realized it can just show up in a search engine. I don't like the idea that what was once private info could be "shared" so easily. Maybe I'm out of the loop on how things work and that's why I don't get the work I should.

And, like most social networking sites, it really does seem like the users benefit as much as the company does from collecting information about the users. Every story I've ever read about LinkedIn's growth involves them acquiring a new analytics service or some company that helps them monetize their users.

That gibes with what Steve Jobs and Tim Cook end up saying about Google and others basically making the user into their products. That is none too pleasing.

And now here's Kevin Kusinitz…

There was probably a time when LinkedIn actually did what it was supposed to do — connect people in similar industries in order to find a new job. These days, it's more like Facebook for yuppies (if they're called that anymore) — just another way to grow your circle of "friends" and feel important.

I joined LinkedIn when I got laid off in August 2012, and it hasn't done a damn thing for me, other than receiving requests, mostly from strangers, to join my network. I ignore the strangers, and told at least one former colleague that joining would be OK, but it wouldn't do them any good. I don't know anyone who got a job through LinkedIn. Maybe next year, I'll close my account. At least it's been free.

But then I received this from Calvin Rydbom…

LinkedIn works really well in some professions, not so well in others. I am a writer of sorts. I'm an Archivist who occasionally produces a local history or corporate history book because of an overall bigger project, but I'm certainly not on your level. But I'd think freelance writers would be served well by LinkedIn.

For us, it works this way: "Hey, Guys! After we finish this project setting up a archive/historical database/writing a book for The Village of Burton/Cain Park/City of Twinsburg, they want a really professional exhibit. So me and my two partners look in our LinkedIn Network for a colleague who specializes in Museum Studies and Exhibitions.

Or our client wants not just oral histories, which we do quite often, but wants them videotaped. So we look in our network for our colleagues who our doing freelance cinematography work.

And So On. When I use to do programming, which is a very transient freelance field on the higher end, it wasn't that uncommon to get a "Hey Calvin, do you know any good frontline, Blah, Blah, Blahs." And to LinkedIn, I go. You're linked into people who you might hire or might get you jobs. They want to be Facebook, but if you treat it as valuable in those two ways, it's an asset.

And Jim Grey writes…

I do LinkedIn for three reasons:

1. To keep track of people I've worked with in the past: Where they are now?

2. To be able to reach out to those people to maintain my network. Some of them are not close enough contacts where I'd have their personal e-mail or phone number, and because of job changes since I last worked with them, I might not have their work e-mail or phone number either.

3. As a way to keep up with news in my industry — which companies are new, or growing, or shrinking, or dying.

I'm a software developer in Indianapolis. The software community here is surprisingly large and active, and there's tons of opportunity here. And lots of movement; I've had jobs at nine different software companies in 25 years.

And finally, let's hear from Mark Palko…

In the vast majority of cases, it really is that simple. Back when I was working as a statistical consultant, I routinely got e-mails from recruiters, at least three of which lead to lucrative contracts. The service also keeps me in touch with former supervisors and colleagues, which can be difficult when you've worked in various industries (everybody needs a statistician) and on both coasts.

For you (well-established with an excellent social network in a fairly tight-knit field), LinkedIn doesn't make much sense, but yours is a relatively unusual situation.

Yeah, I think I get that now…though if the responses I received are any indication, it's not that unusual. I am pretty easy to contact on the Internet whereas many people are not. I also get hired for more selective reasons. It's good to hear that the system works for some people…but that at least in my case, it doesn't seem to matter how I respond to all those requests to connect. Thanks to all of you who wrote me about your experiences. I would endorse you all if I had the slightest idea how to do that.

We were talking here recently about The Day the Clown Cried, the unseen Jerry Lewis film. Recently, Jewish comedian David Schneider produced a one-hour radio documentary about its making and a half-hour video. I'll try and have a link to the audio up shortly here but right now, I can send you to this page to view the video.

The video is filled with never-before-seen stills from the set as well as interviews with people who knew people who were involved with the picture. There's a lot of speculative analysis and some fretting about whether comedy can or should be done about the Holocaust. If you're interested in the most famous movie nobody's ever seen, you'll want to watch the whole thing.

Years ago, I went to see a screening of Citizen Kane. Just before it started, I was talking to the gent who'd arranged the screening and he was nervous about it because (apparently) so many folks in the audience were seeing it for the first time. Said he, "I worry that this movie could not possibly be so wonderful that it will live up to its reputation." I've been thinking that when The Day the Clown Cried is finally screened for the public, someone will be afraid that it won't be so awful that it will live down to its reputation.

Here's a real fast trick from one of my favorite magicians, Pop Haydn…

Dave Wrighteous wrote to say…

Big fan of the site and have been catching up on posts when I saw one regarding the recent arrest of Bill Cosby, in which you said this: "You'll probably see posts here about Cosby because I write about most of what's on my mind and I won't be able to completely turn away from the trainwreck that was once one of the world's great comedians."

"…once one of the world's great comedians"?

At what point does someone's work become invalid, due to their actions/behaviour? Unpalatable? Perhaps. But should said work be thrown out and unenjoyable?

Don't get me wrong, I think his actions are truly despicable and the work of a horrible human being, but Wonderfulness is still a hilarious LP.

Maybe I'm just good at separation, I don't know. Bill is/was(?) my all time favorite stand-up and I don't know what to think now. It's like being told the parents that raised, fed, clothed, and loved you were secretly slave traders.

Anyway, just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

What I meant was that he was once one of the world's greatest working comedians…and this mess has kind of killed the "working" part…and not everyone is all that good at what you call "separation." I also suspect there are routines and lines that take on a very different meaning now. Obviously, it's up to everyone to decide how much they can put aside…

Oh, wait. I was going to try to not write so much about Cosby. I'll just stop here. Good point though, Dave.

Matthew Yglesias — hey, I haven't linked to one of his pieces in a long time — answers the question of why really, really rich people don't love Barack Obama. Answer: Their taxes went up. One wonders if there's any other reason besides that or if there could be.

We are eager for the return of John Oliver's show. Here's something to tide us over…