Monthly Archives: November 2017

They each had one line in the original 1967 film of The Producers. Hank was the stagehand who got conked on the head by Ken Mars. Bill was the jury foreman who said, "We find the defendants incredibly guilty." Georgi Mihailov was the first of many readers who wrote in with the right answer but we have some lovely parting gifts for the rest of you.

Riley the Toucan struggles to grasp the concept behind the water faucet…

I have a lot of e-mail this morning about the documentary just mentioned, and it's being debated in many crannies of Ye Olde Internet. Of those who think it was biased or unfair, about half seem to think it bent too heavily in favor of Stan Lee and about half think it leaned too far towards Jack Kirby. I'm not even sure what I think but I was greatly amused by this. A person I don't know at all, and who I suspect is hiding behind a bogus handle, wrote me angrily that I was too critical of Stan Lee. Among other things, he wrote…

Nowhere in the show do you say Stan was important. Nowhere do you admit that without both Stan and Jack, the Marvel Universe would never have existed.

It's usually a waste of time with these people but just for the heck of it, I wrote him back and, first of all, reminded him that I was interviewed for, like, forty minutes. The producers picked out which six or seven sentences of mine would get on the air out of hundreds I said in front of their cameras. "You don't know what I said that they didn't use," I told him and then I pointed out —

Near the beginning of the show, you hear an unidentified voice say, "If you didn't have Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in the right place at the right time, we wouldn't be talking about Marvel Comics today." That's me.

They lifted the audio of something I said and put it over a photo of Stan and Jack, which is fine. I thought what I wrote would cause the guy to write back to me and say something like, "Oh, sorry." Instead, what I received was…

You criticized Stan for not defending Kirby more but you didn't have the guts to say that on camera.

I am reminded of a time one of my college professors was debating some point with a student who didn't want to listen and only wanted to insist over and over again that he was right and everybody else in the whole friggin' world was wrong. The prof said, "It's like arguing with a hamster."

AMC has just debuted a new series called Robert Kirkman's Secret History of Comics, a series of documentary-style looks at that field.  Tonight is Wonder Woman and the week after is Superman.  The first show, which debuted last night and which airs repeatedly this week and thereafter, is "The Mighty Misfits Who Made Marvel," a title I do not think applies at all but maybe that's just me.  It's basically a look at the early days of Marvel with special emphasis on the eternal question of who created the smash hit comics that were first produced by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.

(I'll give you a hint: The correct answer — which Disney/Marvel now officially acknowledges and which I heard from every single person who was there including, at times, both Stan and Jack — is Stan and Jack.)

I am among those who was interviewed for it but I had nothing to do with the overall presentation or factual recital.  Winston Churchill supposedly once said "History is written by the survivors," though some say that's wrong and that what he actually said was "History is written by the victors."  I don't know which is right but I think it's hilarious that either the survivors or the victors got the history of what he said wrong.  Personally, I think in this day and age, history is written by the video editors under the supervision of the producers.

When I agreed to be a part of this project, I was unaware how much of it would be about Stan vs. Jack.  If I had been, I would have told the folks doing it that I don't think you can properly serve the Stan/Jack topic without explaining a lot more than can be squeezed into their time restraints. I'm pleased though that a video recounting of this story has finally noted that Jack Kirby was heavily involved in the writing of important comic books for which he was only paid and credited as artist. When I've said that in past documentaries, even when I've cited all the times Stan admitted it, that has always been the first thing to hit the cutting room floor.

I really, really don't like being in front of a camera and I know that however well I tell stories in print, I'm a whole lot worse on video. Still, I thank the filmmakers for including the part where I said Jack (and Steve Ditko) assumed creative control of the comics they were drawing. That was well worth my discomfort. It was also, indeed, a secret history of the comics…a poorly-kept secret, true, but it should not be a secret at all.

From April 18, 1986, here's David Letterman on Johnny Carson's show. How many of you think Dave is doing a good job of pretending he didn't know about this in advance?

Friday evening, I attended a screening of the new documentary, Gilbert, which is all about the noted comedian Gilbert Gottfried. I enjoyed the film tremendously, in part because I've always enjoyed Gilbert Gottfried tremendously. If you haven't…well, there's a chance this film will change your mind about him but I'd say it's only about a 10-20% chance.

The film has basically three themes which intersect in many ways. Theme One is that Gilbert was this shy loner who was very private and guarded about letting anyone into his life. His friends were all sure he'd die alone and unwed because he seemed to live in his own private little world and let no one in.

Then one day to the amazement of all, he was suddenly engaged to be married. Not only that but he was engaged to be married to a very lovely, intelligent woman who seemed to love him dearly. Not only that but he was engaged to a very lovely, intelligent woman who seemed to love him dearly and who was carrying what would turn out to be the first of their two (so far) children! That that relationship exists and that it's transformed this sullen loner into a good husband and father is amazing and that's basically Theme One.

Theme Two is Gilbert's relationship with his two sisters, especially Arlene who is a brilliant photographer. Actually, I should say "was" because she passed away after being interviewed for the documentary. There is a lot in it about Gilbert helping her cope with cancer and before that, with the loss of their mother. It's all very humanizing of a guy who doesn't always come off as that human on TV.

And then there's Theme Three which is about Gilbert's career as a teller of what some would call very dirty and often-offensive jokes. The film deals with the rise of his career and the intermittent fallout because of this joke or that one.

It also deglamorizes the life of a standup comedian on the road and there's a very funny sequence where Gilbert is booked into some venue where he can't help but intermingle with a convention of folks dressed in the garb of past wars including a lot of guys dressed as Nazi soldiers. One says he's a big, big fan and apologizes for the uniform. All of this makes for a very entertaining and surprisingly personal look at its subject.

The screening we attended was packed with people I knew and it included a Q-and-A hosted by Paul Provenza. Q'ed were Gilbert, his wife Dara and the filmmaker, Neil Berkeley. Mr. Berkeley shot this entire film with no distribution deal or even Gilbert's formal legal consent, though Gilbert gave him way more access and cooperation than anyone who knew G.G. would have expected. It's very nice to see that it's coming out and already getting so many good reviews and good reaction.

Gilbert seemed tired at the Q-and-A. He'd just come from another screening in Santa Monica where he was interviewed by Howie Mandel — and he didn't say as much as the audience might have liked. Asked about the Louis C.K. matter though, he did remark "I'm kind of an old-fashioned guy. I prefer to do my masturbation in private." Afterward, there was a lot of milling and meeting and Gilbert obliged about half the audience in posing for selfies.

There were two folks in the audience who were past guests on Gilbert Gottfried's Amazing Colossal Podcast, which I hope you all listen to as it's very funny. One of those past guests who were present was Hank Garrett, who is probably best known for his role on Car 54, Where Are You? and the other one was Bill Macy, who is probably best known for his role on Maude. I was probably the only person present who immediately realized what else they had in common. (Do you know what it is? I'll post the answer here later today.)

I am a future guest. We were supposed to record one of Gilbert's podcasts during my recent New York trip but he was called unexpectedly outta-town to do some publicity for this fine documentary so we're rescheduling. I'll let you know when that happens. I may need to brush up on my Cesar Romero and Danny Thomas anecdotes first.

Anyway, the documentary is called Gilbert and it drops, as they say, on iTunes on Tuesday. If you've ever liked its subject or want to take the 10-20% chance that this will cause you to like him, check it out.

• I had a dream last night. There was a rally of American Nazis and they were chanting, "Jews will not replace us! But Christopher Plummer will!"

The Broadway musical Something Rotten! opens in Los Angeles at the Ahmanson Theater ten days from now. I have a pair of great seats for the 8 PM performance on Tuesday, November 28 that I cannot use. I bought them and now, another event has come up on that date and I feel I should be there instead.

Ergo, I bought seats for another performance and want to sell my 11/28 tix. If you want to see where they are, find a seating chart (here — I'll save you the trouble) and check out C-27 and C-28 in the orchestra. I'll let them go for what I paid for them — with tax and fees, $218. E-mail me if you want 'em.

[UPDATE: They're sold!]

John Green is probably my favorite author whose work I've never read. He writes novels for a somewhat-targeted audience that does not include me and it's been quite a while since I've read any novels, even ones aimed at my demographic. But I like the way he talks and thinks and maybe someday, they'll add a few more days to the week and I'll read something he's written. He is just completing a promotional tour for his latest book, Turtles All The Way Down. He has also recently been promoting a thing called Pizzamas, which is a holiday week that he and his brother Hank invented.

John and Hank make several videos each week, talking to each other for our benefit. Take three minutes and watch this one that John released a day or three ago. Kind of an interesting story…

This is from David Corn…

CIA chief Mike Pompeo: Putin attacked 2016 election.
DNI Dan Coats: Putin attacked 2016 election.
FBI director Christopher Wray: Putin attacked 2016 election.
NSA head Mike Rogers: Putin attacked 2016 election.
Putin: I did not attack 2016 election.
Trump: I believe Putin.

What has always bothered me about Judge Roy Moore is his disinterest in enforcing laws he doesn't like. That's not what judges are supposed to do. The whole idea of The Law is that we agree on what's illegal in the same way we all agree on who's going to occupy political office. Sometimes, we decide by direct vote. Sometimes, the decisions are made by those we choose by direct vote.

A police officer doesn't get to decide that there ought to be a law that says you have to speak English and then arrest you if you don't. A judge doesn't get to say there shouldn't be a law against selling cocaine and then turn any cocaine dealer free. The fact that some people think God would want something else done is not a part of our legal system. But Moore thinks it is and that he (he, Roy Moore…not He, God) is the spokesperson for what God would want.

So I don't like the guy and let's be honest — I am more inclined than some to believe the allegations against him are true. That's because I have long seen him as a person who believes his judgments of what's proper supersede actual laws. If a bunch of bank tellers swore he'd robbed their bank, I'd probably figure yeah, he probably did and he can probably cite something in the Bible as proof that God wanted him to do it.

I also caught his big denial interview the other night with Sean Hannity and thought he was evasive and contradictory. The Washington Post, which broke the whole story in the first place, has posted the text of that interview with annotations that point up the contradictions.

I am also of the mind that if you have the truth on your side and you want to present your defense, you go on with someone who's going to ask tough questions, not a guy like Hannity who's eager to make you look good. Moore might as well have been interviewed by one of his political cronies who are out there now, saying Moore's accusers should be prosecuted. Want to understand why some women are so hesitant to report abuse? There it is, people.

If you can spare eighteen minutes, my friend Paul Harris did an excellent segment on his radio program about Roy Moore and you can hear it here. I'm not so sure those who want Moore's political stance to triumph can be dissuaded from voting for the guy. We're so polarized in this country now that there are those on both the right and left who would vote for Hitler over a guy of the opposition party…but I would hope they would at least understand the choice they're making.

Last Monday evening, Paul and I discussed some of this in person, across a table on which each of us was devouring chicken parmesan. He was in town and as he mentioned here on his blog, I took him to see The Black Version, a local improv troupe which I have repeatedly recommended on my blog. Paul, as you'll read on his, was equally impressed.

Included in our evening were two other folks — my lovely friend Amber and my not-quite-as-lovely-as-Amber-but-still-lovely-in-a-different-way friend Howard Green, who works at Disney and who was one of the other folks behind the June Foray Tribute at the Motion Picture Academy in September. They both loved the show, too. The Black Version will next perform on Saturday evening, January 6 and my God, can you imagine? The year's almost over and I'm booking 2018 already. If you're geographically able to be there on 1/6/18, you can get tickets (as I have) at this webpage.

Also, mentioning Amber makes me think I should say one more thing here…

All this talk about Sexual Harassment is a very good thing, I believe. Yes, there is the potential for false or unwarranted allegations but I still see that as a small, unavoidable downside in correcting what has long been a massive injustice in our society, not only against women but sometimes even men. No one, because they are not as powerful or not as strong or not as able to control a situation, should be forced into sexual relations against their wishes. That is one grave wrong. Another is when minors under the age of consent are involved in sexual relations even with their consent. We all know this. We just need to do a better job of policing it and that starts with identifying it when it happens.

Now, here's where I part company with some people…

Some people are conflating those two wrongs with the situation where an older man is involved with a much younger woman…and I suppose they'd also think an older woman/much younger man match-up was wrong too, though I never hear that. My view is that if the adults are consenting and the adults are adults, it's nobody's business but theirs. This applies to boy/girl, boy/boy or girl/girl and there is no "slippery slope" to fear there. It does not inevitably lead to boy/ostrich or girl/girl/boy/camel.

My last lady friend — the one I was with for twenty years, the one who died last April — was six years older than me. My current lady friend is four decades younger, though of course old enough to drink (though she doesn't), vote (that she does) and get involved with a 65-year-old writer (and I can't fathom why but she does that too). In the past, I have been involved with women both younger than me and older and it has never mattered to me or whoever the lady was at the time. Not in the slightest. If we're adults and we're consenting, it should never matter to anyone else.

Had lunch today with this very talented gentleman. We discovered, among other things, that he worked as an apprentice artist for Hanna-Barbera back during the time I was working there. In fact, since he was working partly for the great artist-producer Doug Wildey, and my office was next to Doug's then, we probably met briefly there. In any case, he does a great impression of Doug, as perfect as any of the ones he does in this video…

A busy day ahead…but hey, isn't there something a wee bit refreshing about Louis C.K. accepting some responsibility for his own sordid actions? He not only said he did it, he seems to have even had a little actual understanding of why he did it and why it was wrong…and it didn't look like he was setting himself up to take a two-week sensitivity course and then proclaim himself healed and redeemed. My respect for the guy has gone up in some ways, down in others.

I have no idea what the scandal in the Roy Moore case is going to do about his chances of victory. Some are saying it'll help him. Some are saying it'll hurt him. I don't think anyone knows. After the Trump victory, I'm less inclined than ever to think we can look at the old standards of what would kill a candidate's chances and project what it'll mean in the next situation. All I know is that a lot of people who want him to win are willing to overlook any damn thing he does but still try to claim the moral high ground. There's way more honesty on display in the Louis C.K. case.

Steve Bacher has this to say and ask…

Your item about the forthcoming Colbert Trump spinoff show reminds me of something that has always annoyed me about the show. (And no, it's not the fact that Colbert doesn't seem to know how to comfortably bring an interview to a close. He always sounds like his guests are just getting into the groove when he thanks them and cuts to commercial. But that's another annoyance.)

The Late Show has numerous talented contributors who make the comedy bits stand out, including the fellow who voices the animated Trump and the animated God, but they've never received any credit and to this day I still have no idea what their names are. I think this is tremendously unfair to the performers. When you think about how many successful careers have been spawned by The Daily Show, for example, imagine if those men and women had never had their names put out there during the show.

My main annoyance with Mr. Colbert's show is how clearly (and sometimes, heavily) it's edited and I think that's one of the reasons his interviews often have awkward endings. It's like they consciously over-record and then cut, which makes it not feel organic. I still like the show — it's the only one of those shows I TiVo every night — but I wish the interviews weren't so choppy and, sometimes, hurried.

The other night, he had Gilbert Gottfried on and (a) the spot was too short to get anything going and (b) I've never seen two funny men who fit together worse. Gottfried on a talk show is usually about making the host feel uncomfortable and I don't think there's anything anyone could do in Colbert's guest chair that would make the host uncomfortable.

I believe the voices of the animated Trump on Colbert's show and also of God are done by a member of his writing staff named Brian Stack. He's the guy with the red hair who is nearly always involved in the cold opening blackout. He was a writer for Conan O'Brien both in New York and Los Angeles and often turned up on those shows in sketches — like he was the ghostly crooner, the traveling salesman, a member of the Slip-Nuts, the Interruptor and many more. Funny guy. Colbert ought to bring him out as Brian Stack occasionally even if he doesn't have something to plug.

Today, we bring you another nice Disney medley from the folks at Voctave…