Oscar Mire

Yesterday, the Motion Picture Academy announced some changes in its annual broadcast including the addition of a new award for "Most Popular Film" or something like that. I made a mental note to write this morning about why all their changes are mistakes but every single other person on the Internet seems to have beaten me to the proverbial punch. And everyone's making the same arguments.

So I'll just refer you over to my buddy Ken Levine and a post which, with great restraint, he entitled The Incredibly Stupid New Oscar Rules. Oh — but I will add one other point…

Ken says "…these changes have only been instituted to improve ratings. They have nothing to do with righting wrongs or ensuring that deserving artists are given their due. This is just because they want better demographics. Period." I can think of one other reason and it's probably even stupider than just wanting to boost the Nielsens.

Hollywood, you may be shocked to learn, abounds in egos and insecurities. There are people out there who make some movie than grosses more than Portugal does in a year but feel a gaping hole in their self-esteem because their mantle has no Oscar. They have three homes, five cars and enough money to make Donald Trump care about them…but they whine about the lack of respect more than Mr. Dangerfield ever did.

They made their bucks off Black Kung Fu Hooker Teen Academy IV and it makes them mad that, that year, Best Picture went to something arty and socially-aware. They think something like, "My film reached and entertained a lot more people than that piece of pretentious crap! I'm more in tune with today's audiences!" They may even cite the ever-dwindling Oscar tune-in as proof that the Academy is sadly outta-touch with its awards.

Powerful folks are always lobbying the Academy to alter the rules to make it more likely they'll receive trophies. For a few years, I found myself semi-unwillingly on a committee at the TV Academy that was supposed to study and issue recommendations about the rules for Daytime Emmys. The committee, as far as I could tell, came to no conclusions whatsoever. The Chair just lost interest and stopped having meetings before our work was done.

But I came to two conclusions. These are mine, not the committee's since it never concluded anything. One was that just as you might find certain foods less appetizing if you witnessed how they were processed and prepared, you might have less respect for the Emmy Awards if you really knew how the choices were made.

Secondly: They have too many awards but that's because everyone's suggestion is, though they don't say it this blatantly, "There should be more of them so I have a better chance of winning one!" On that committee, I saw a lot of politicking that was kind of like if I'd proposed an Emmy category for "Best Writing by a Writer Who's 6'3" and Half-Jewish for a Cartoon Series Featuring an Orange Cat That Eats Lasagna." That kind of thing.

I've segued here from writing about the Oscars to writing about the Emmys but I'll bet it's the same deal. There have been people (and studios) who've wanted a category where their film could win an Academy Award while still containing massive special effects and monsters and violence and car chases and women with their shirts off and gross humor and other key selling points when one is maneuvering for Big Box Office. They want to be able to do that and get an Oscar without having to address deep human values and/or hire Meryl Streep.

That kind of pressure led the Academy a few years ago to up the number of nominees for Best Picture from five to ten. This time, I think it's spawned this category for "Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film" (that's the announced name of it) which is kind of insulting to the folks who make the films that do belong among the nominees for Best Picture. They might as well change the name of that award to "Best Picture That Most People Didn't Want To See."


By the way: Speaking of Ken Levine, I hope you're a frequent listener to his fine podcast. This week, his guest is Animation Voice Actor Bob Bergen. If I were trying to get into that profession, I'd not only listen to that conversation, I'd hunt down every Bob Bergen interview I could find. No one knows more about that industry and how to be a part of it than Bob does.

Today's Video Link

Readers of this site keep suggesting I link to the videos of Randy Rainbow because he does funny songs with clever rhymes. They're right…

Concentric Circles

This is for those of you interested in the San Diego Convention Center and what its on-again, off-again expansion plans might mean for the annual Comic-Con International there.  As this article explains…

A citizens' initiative seeking to expand the San Diego Convention Center and fund homeless services failed to immediately qualify for the November 2018 ballot on Wednesday, casting doubt on the future of one of Mayor Kevin Faulconer's top priorities.

Mayor Faulconer is exploring other ways to get the initiative on the ballot (or some future ballot) but at the moment, it doesn't look like it's going to happen. There seems to be some pretty firm opposition out there from folks who feel this particular proposal will do more for the local merchants and hotels than it will for the city. It has been charged that the Mayor — a Republican who is pretty clearly seeking higher office — is backing something that will greatly help his own future.

Comic-Con is currently contracted to remain in San Diego through 2021. The folks behind the convention are hopeful for a larger facility there but they do not specifically endorse (or not endorse) the plan that just failed to make the ballot.

It's a Wednesday Trump Dump

The latest thing I'm tired of: Trump supporters saying "We've got to unite and function as one!" That would be a nice sentiment if their idea of uniting wasn't that Trump gets to do everything he wants and no one criticizes or investigates him. It's like folks who think the word "compromise" means "We get 100%, you get zero!" Here are some links…

  • Daniel Larison explains why Trump's campaign against Iran makes absolutely no sense except that our prez staked out a ridiculous position there and now doesn't know how to back down from it.
  • Kevin Drum looks at the numbers and notes that for all the pain and ill will Trump's border crossing policies have caused, they still haven't diminished the number of people who come here illegally from Mexico.
  • Mr. Drum also has some interesting thoughts on How to Fight Climate Change and he is now making the point repeatedly that people are taking Trump's tweets way too seriously; that they're just blather to keep his base aroused and that they have little to do with his actual actions.  Well, they might be an indicator of an increasingly unstable mind…
  • Trump keeps saying, "U.S. Steel just announced that they are building six new steel mills." Sometimes, he says it's seven or eight. The truth is they're opening no new steel mills but, hey, isn't all that matters is that his supporters cheer him at rallies and believe they're winning?
  • I don't have any real firm opinions about the ousting of Alex Jones from certain social media apart from the conclusion that Jones has mastered a tricky duality: He is insane enough to get a certain kind of person to watch him but still sane enough to exploit that attention for big bucks. Anyway, here's Matt Taibbi with some thoughts of the matter of yanking Jones and his Infowars garbage off Facebook, Spotify and other international forums. Me, I haven't quite made up my mind what kind of precedent is being set here and how it might boomerang.
  • Charles P. Pierce says that the one constant train of thought in the Trump Administration is that whatever Barack Obama did must be undone…not because it's wrong but because it was his. We may be only weeks from them bringing Osama bin Laden back to life.

Lastly: Just in the ten minutes it took to compose this, I became tired of another thing. It's people who think that there's any meaningful lineage between today's Democrats or Republicans and the parties by those names of long ago. You don't get credit for what people with the same nominal party affiliation did or did not do about slavery or civil rights in a previous century; not if you aren't even consistent with the positions of your party twenty years ago. "My party fought for equality long ago" does not mean you can't be undermining that fight today.

My Latest Tweet

  • How come people keep throwing other people under the bus? Why doesn't anyone ever throw anyone under a truck? Why is it always a bus? If I ever decide to betray an ally, I'd think throwing them under one of those big eighteen-wheeler tankers would do just fine.

Today's Political Comment

We have here an example of the thing that bothers a lot of us greatly about politics these days…and it isn't just Trump. I'll quote an abbreviated version of this article

Vice President Mike Pence has drastically lowered his moral standard for a President since Bill Clinton was in office, according to a Monday CNN report. In the late 1990s, he reportedly wrote two columns titled "The Two Schools of Thought on Clinton" and "Why Clinton Must Resign or Be Impeached," both outlining how Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and subsequent lies about it disqualified him from serving as President.

[He wrote] "In a day when reckless extramarital sexual activity is manifesting itself in our staggering rates of illegitimacy and divorce, now more than ever, America needs to be able to look to her First Family as role models of all that we have been and can be again." He reportedly added that it was Republicans' responsibility to remove Clinton from office, even if it cost them politically.

So now we have Trump with his many extra-marital affairs…and I guess someone might say, "Well, his aren't proven yet" but (a) they're as "proven" as Clinton's were when Republicans started calling for his resignation, (b) Clinton's didn't involve possible illegal payments of hush money and (c) we all know that Pence will never ever say Trump should resign or be impeached, no matter what.  Even though that would make him the Most Powerful Man in the Free World, he won't say that.

What we have now is a climate in which principles matter most when you can weaponize them to use against their opponents. Obama foes were outraged one time when that president wore a tan suit. Trump could show up dressed like a giant otter and they'd overlook it or even say it showed great presidential concern for the environment or something. That's all moral outrage has become — a way to hammer the opposition. There are only three possibilities here…

  1. Pence never really thought it was immoral for the President of the United States to have an affair and lie about it. He just said that to try and harm a Democrat.
  2. Pence thinks it is immoral for the President of the United States to have an affair and lie about it but he'll keep quiet about it because his party's interests are more important. Or…
  3. Pence's views on this have evolved and he now doesn't think it matters if the President of the United States has an affair and lies about it. In which case, he should say so and apologize to Bill Clinton.

Have I missed any possibilities? I don't think so.  And, true, this "selective morality" has long been a part of politics but it's never been this bad or this obvious before.

Cavett

Here's an interesting (to me, at least) article about Dick Cavett. Actually, there are two of them. Read this one and then read this one.

The first one, I think, makes the error of sounding like Cavett's late night show for ABC was all 90-minute interviews with Orson Welles and Katharine Hepburn. I was a pretty staunch follower and there were nights when his guest list was no more "intellectual" than Mr. Carson's opposite him. What's more, Cavett was pretty good at doing Johnny's kind of show…certainly better than Carson would have been at doing what we now come to think of as Cavett's.

I always felt that Cavett was sabotaged a bit by that "intellectual" label…and by the fact that this show was on (and was therefore promoted on) ABC when it had almost nothing else on its schedule that appealed to folks who wouldn't be scared off by that descriptor. And if the reaction of a few of my friends was typical, I think it wasn't that the show was too smart for them so much as that it had a lot of alien references. Someone was always citing an author they'd (or I'd) never heard of or mentioning a book we'd never read.

Also, there was the time slot. My father loved discussions of current events but one night when Cavett and his guests were debating the Vietnam War, the talk got my father so emotionally aroused that he couldn't sleep all night. If we'd had time-shifting DVRs back then, he'd have always watched Cavett — but a day or two later at an earlier hour. Since we didn't, he stopped watching most nights, opting for Johnny or other shows that were more soothing, pre-bedtime.

Despite all this, Cavett got fairly decent ratings — better for the most part than his predecessor in the time slot, Joey Bishop. The show was profitable with numbers that were probably about as good as anyone or anything was going to do against The Mighty Carson then. Sad to say, ABC decided a respectable second-place finish wasn't all that respectable. They began tampering, sticking Cavett into a dreadful rotation with other shows that had less appeal. Until they decided to hand the hour over to the news division, everything they stuck there did worse. TV often makes that error though, these days, not as often as it did then.

Nice to read that Mr. Cavett is serene, financially fine and still gloriously snide about all the things that one should be snide about. Follow his Twitter feed if you don't already. What he posts reads better if you can "hear it" with his delivery.

My Latest Tweet

  • Trump wants to sit for an interview with Robert Mueller and is unafraid of walking into a "perjury trap." Hey, all Mueller would have to do to set one is to ask, "How large was the turnout for your inauguration?"

Second Greatest

This originally ran here on 3/23/11 but I have edited in an excerpt from a post from 8/12/07. The last line is inoperative because not long after it ran, I got my mitts on a DVD of a VHS of a performance of the show. While it was of course diminished by being on video — and a mediocre-quality video of it at that — it was still jaw-droppingly brilliant. And don't ask for a copy because I promised not to make any.

One performer of many who always interested me is/was the late Dick Shawn. Shawn was in two of my favorite movies — It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and The Producers — and almost starred in the original Broadway production of one of my favorite musicals, Li'l Abner. He was actually cast in the role of Abner, not because the show's creators thought he was ideal for the part but because they were set to start rehearsals and they couldn't find anyone who was. Then they found Peter Palmer. A not-dissimilar attitude seems to have accompanied his hiring for Mad World. Because of its size, the role of Sylvester Marcus should have been played by a major, established comedian…which Shawn was not at the time. He was nowhere near big enough to share a screen and billing with Sid Caesar, Milton Berle and Phil Silvers. Fortunately for Shawn, neither was anyone else who was the right age, a bit muscular and convincing when playing a maniac. So he got the job and in this case, they didn't find anyone preferable.

Even his participation in The Producers is a bit odd. He played a hippie named L.S.D. who was essential to the plot of the film but easily and effectively jettisoned later for the musical version. "The character never quite fit in," writer-director Mel Brooks said when asked about the deletion…and I get the feeling that Dick Shawn, in shaping that character, contributed mightily to that disconnect. Mel was right: L.S.D. doesn't really blend seamlessly with the rest of his wonderful movie. It almost feels like he was filmed for some other picture and then edited into this one. That may in part be because there isn't one shot where you see Shawn in the same frame with the stars, Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder. I once asked Brooks if he was even on the set at the same time as the two leads and he said "Sure" and seemed surprised when I mentioned that you never see them together. You don't. I don't think I've ever even seen a still of Shawn with either of them.

Since Shawn died spontaneously in 1987, he's probably been best-remembered for how he died. It happened on stage during a performance of a one-man show he wrote for himself called The Second Greatest Entertainer in the Whole Wide World. As I'll explain in a moment, the vehicle was just the kind of thing that might have ended with the star faking his death on-stage and indeed, many audience members that night left wondering if they actually had seen Dick Shawn drop dead or if it was all an elaborate, unfunny joke. Andy Kaufman was probably very jealous.

All of that upstages something that is too often unsaid about that show. At least when I saw it (twice) and its star didn't croak, it was truly one of the most brilliant, memorable evenings you could ever spend in a theater. It was the kind of show you cheered and gave a couple of rousing standing ovations, then went outside and gasped for air, aware you'd witnessed something you'd never forget.

My first was in 1978, I believe, at what was then called the Solari Theater. A well-respected acting teacher named Rudy Solari had taken over a theater in Beverly Hills and renamed it, he said, in memory of his father. I recall he took a fair amount of criticism for that…people feeling he'd named it to honor himself and was using the old man as a shield. He didn't deserve any such grief because he ran a fine operation which took in a lot of wonderful, often-experimental shows and gave them a place to live — and not in some converted welding shop in a bad neighborhood but in a wonderful, comfortable room in a classy area.

When we arrived that night, the house was closed and the audience was all crammed into the lobby, waiting awkwardly to be let into the theater. We finally were, just minutes before showtime and we would soon learn the reason for the delay, which I guess occurred at every performance.

There was no curtain. The stage was a replica of a seedy apartment — a flophouse wherein a derelict with a few bucks might dwell — and the floor was covered with hundreds of pieces of crumpled newspaper. We did not know that Dick Shawn was under all that newspaper and the delay in seating us was to minimize the amount of time he would have to be there.

The show began with a recording of a female chorus singing a little song called "Hail to the Audience." They then played it again. And again. And I think again. At some point, Shawn emerged from under the debris. He'd been on stage all that time and would not leave it until the conclusion of the show.

He then began a stream of consciousness monologue/rant about his life. He was playing a drunk, has-been/never-was entertainer whose life was in ruins because his genius had never been recognized. Everything he did was either over the heads of the audience or under their crotches — too high or too low, never just right. Had that ever been said about Dick Shawn? I'll bet it had. The topics covered ran the field…some about show business; others about life and relationships and how so little in the world made sense to him. It was, probably deliberately, hard to tell if it was Dick Shawn or the character talking…or if either one of them utterly craved or totally rejected our sympathy.

I don't know if this show was ever properly videotaped or otherwise recorded. I hope it was, not only because I'd love to see it again but because there's no way anyone could adequately explain it to anyone who didn't see it. I'm not even sure you could explain it to someone who did see it and I'm not the only one who felt that way. Charles Champlin, the roving critic of the L.A. Times wrote…

What Shawn did was not easy to describe. It was a seemingly free-associative skein of bits, thoughts and actions. It was a comedy about comedy, a performance about performance and the performer's peculiar relationship with his audiences. And it was, finally, a kind of acted-out speculation on the reality of the absurd and the absurdity of much of what we think of as reality.

See? He couldn't tell you, either.

Act One ended with Shawn (or maybe his alter-ego) collapsing on the floor…and during intermission, that's where he remained. He was just lying there while the crew cleared the stage around him of all that crumpled newspaper. I think the premise was that the character was stricken with a heart attack or something of the sort, and that Act Two was all a fantasy that raced through his mind in its final minutes. What I know for sure is that in the second half, we saw the character's fully-realized nightclub-type act and I also know that the transition to it was one of the most stunning, I-can't-believe-he-just-did-that moments I ever witnessed in a theater.

Okay now, picture this. The stage still looked like a crappy apartment. Dick Shawn was lying on the floor in shabby clothes. The whole visual screamed failure, failure, failure. Then suddenly there was recorded music (all the music in the show, and there was a lot of it, was on tape) and there was a timpani drum roll as the Big Star was introduced…

…and then the stage went black…

…and then, after what seemed like only three or so seconds, the lights came back in full-force and everything was different. Dick Shawn was on his feet wearing a glittery tux, singing into a microphone and looking for all the world like a stellar Vegas headliner. The filthy apartment was gone and all around were curtains and sequins and sparkles, and behind him was a full orchestra — of mannequins, similarly attired.

All of us in the audience had a brief moment of whiplash. It even surprised me the second time I saw it when I knew what was coming. A friend of mine described it as the best example he'd ever seen of live theater achieving an impact you could never in a million years replicate on movies or television. In film, professorial folks sometimes speak of something called a "smash cut," in which you leap from one locale or action to another in a manner that is so jarring that you are conscious of the editing, utterly aware they just went from something shot in one place at one time to something shot somewhere else at another time. Dick Shawn did a "smash cut" live before our eyes.

He then performed the entertainer's act — Mr. Fabulously Fantastic Jr., singing and dancing and juggling oranges and expanding on topics covered in the first act. It probably lasted thirty to forty minutes and you simply could not take your eyes off that incredible person up there with so much energy and so much unpredictability. There was never a moment when you knew what he was going to do next. He must have in some way because of the intricate light and music cues but he never let you think you knew where he was heading. I gather the stage crew was aware he would hit certain marks and give certain cues but only he knew, and I'll bet it changed from night to night, how he was going to get to them and in what order.

At the end of Mr. Fantastic Jr.'s performance, there was some sort of audio explosion and he collapsed again. You blinked and he was somehow back in the bad apartment with crumpled newspaper raining down on him from above. There were also bananas on wires dangling over the audience. (Bananas were a recurring theme throughout the show as some sort of link between apes and comedians.) I do not recall how he closed after that but I remember endless standing ovations, and Shawn coming fully out of character to give a long post-show speech, mainly introducing friends of his in the audience.

The second time I went, my friend Bridget and I were seated next to Merv Griffin and Eva Gabor. During the first act, Eva sat next to me and obviously didn't understand one word of Shawn's odd stream of onstage consciousness. After intermission, they switched seats and I sat next to a man who laughed harder than I've ever seen a human being laugh. During the few moments when he wasn't convulsed, he was whispering to me and everyone around him, "Isn't this marvelous?" He sounded just like Rick Moranis doing Merv Griffin, except more unctuous.

After the play, Shawn did an extended chat with the audience that included introducing many celebrities in the audience. He pointed out Merv, who stood to great applause. Shawn asked him who he'd brought as his date and Merv got a huge laugh by gesturing absent-mindedly to me. I stood up, started to embrace him…and then acted hurt when he corrected himself and introduced Eva. On the way out, people were telling Bridget, "He's better off with you" and I kept saying, "Yeah, but do you know how much money Merv has?"

That second time was in 1985 in the same building, which was now the Canon Theater — named not after anyone's father but after the street on which it was located. Shawn's first stay had been a short-run tryout. A full seven years later, he brought it back for what turned out to be a long, smash run. I'll bet a lot of those who rushed to buy tickets were, like me, folks who'd seen it the first time and were eager to see it again and to treat a friend to the same experience. Bridget raved about it for years after and thanked me not only for taking her but for not telling her anything in advance about what we were going to see.

It was two years later that Shawn passed away during a performance of Second Greatest Entertainer in San Diego. I have read or heard several different accounts but they all say that he collapsed on stage, apparently at the end of Act One where the script called for him to collapse…and then he just plain never got up.

After the intermission, he continued to lie there and the audience, which had returned to its seats, eventually began to giggle. After a longer while, the stage crew began to realize the pause was running much, much longer than it ever had. Defying Shawn's instructions to never interfere no matter what occurred on stage, someone went out to check on the star (some reports say it was his son) and the audience thought it was part of the script. When he asked for a doctor, they thought that was part of the show, too. And when an ambulance was called and the audience was asked to leave, some of the playgoers still thought that was all part of the show, as well. Forty-five minutes later in a nearby hospital, Dick Shawn was pronounced dead from a heart attack at the age of 63. Maybe then they all believed it was true.

Boy, I wish you could have seen this show…and never mind you. I wish I could see it again. More than a quarter-century later, I still think about it.

Recommended Reading

Frank Rich has a stunning essay up on the following contradiction: Though the economy is good and we are in no major wars, the mood of this country has never been worse. And no, he does not blame that on Donald Trump.

Charlotte Rae, R.I.P.

Not too many performers have as long a career as Charlotte Rae, who died today at the age of 92.  She was best known (of course) for playing the not-altogether-there housekeeper Edna Garrett on the sitcom Diff'rent Strokes, followed by its spin-off, The Facts of Life. Between just those two shows she will live on in reruns forever but she was on a lot of shows before and after, including quite a few on the Broadway stage.

I didn't know Charlotte well but we had some wonderful conversations at parties and such, most of them via the good offices (parties) of our mutual friends, Jim Brochu and Steve Schalchlin. The most recent was last October when they threw a bash that was more or less in her honor. She was, as always, bright and funny and she reminded me a lot of that wonderful character actress, Charlotte Rae.

When I was with her, we never spoke of her two long-running sitcoms. That's probably because I never saw either of them. We talked instead about two things, one being her role as Mammy Yokum (the first one) in the Broadway play of Li'l Abner. I never saw that either but I've read so much about it and talked to so many cast members, I feel like I did. Several times, I heard her tell a very funny story about being chased around backstage by Al Capp. The cast of the show included many tall, lovely ladies including Julie Newmar and Charlotte couldn't understand why any man would be after her unless he'd, as she put it, "exhausted every possible alternative."

The other thing we talked about was her recurring role as Sylvia Schnauzer on one of my all-time favorite TV comedies, Car 54, Where Are You? With her passing, I believe the only surviving member of that show's cast is my buddy Hank Garrett.

She was delightful…and very honest. Some women would not want to speak only of a long, finally-cured problem with alcohol…or with discovering and coming to terms with her husband's bisexuality but no topic was off limits around Charlotte. (That husband, by the way, was John Strauss who with series creator Nat Hiken composed the Car 54 theme which you've probably sung.) Anyway, I liked her a lot and had to tell you that, though it was probably unnecessary. If you ever saw her perform, you probably guessed she was a very nice, funny lady.

Recommended Reading

Adam Davidson on the ever-shifting story of That Meeting in Trump Tower. It's now evolved to the tale that Trump formerly said was a dirty lie. As Davidson notes, we now know these four things…

  • The President's son and top advisers knowingly met with individuals connected to the Russian government, hoping to obtain dirt on their political opponent.
  • Documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee and members of the Clinton campaign were later used in an overt effort to sway the election.
  • When the Trump Tower meeting was uncovered, the President instructed his son and staff to lie about the meeting, and told them precisely which lies to use.
  • The President is attempting to end the investigation into this meeting and other instances of attempted collusion between his campaign staff and representatives of the Russian government.

And Trump is also insisting that all of this stuff — which he and his people denied for so long — was or is legal. Can't wait to see what else he's been denying and trying to hide was legal, too.

My Latest Tweet

  • I'm so embarrassed. I've had this lovely woman cleaning my home for the past 25 years. She's 5' tall and from El Salvador and I just found out she's actually Sacha Baron Cohen.

My Latest Tweet

  • "Over time, facts develop." That's the new way of saying, "Over time, lies unravel."

From the E-Mailbag…

This is from Steve Bacher…

OK, I'll buy that there is no deliberate conspiracy on the part of Hollywood professionals to not hire some particular actor based on political views. But isn't it possible that a number of separate, individual Hollywood professionals, who happen to have similar political views to one another, independently each decide to avoid hiring a particular actor based on personal political biases?

Something similar to how Colin Kaepernick just happened to be unable to get drafted by any major sports team. Probably not a conspiracy, but just a lot of team owners thinking along parallel lines.

There is no human being in the country over the age of five who knows less about football than I do so my ability to discuss the Colin Kaepernick matter is limited. All I know is he was one of the more vocal defenders of players "taking a knee" during the National Anthem, which he did. It would not be a conspiracy or blacklisting if everyone decided individually not to hire him. It might be a form of discrimination but — as you know — to have a conspiracy, people have to conspire.

If the wielders of power got together and said "Let's punish this guy" and that could be proved, he could have a helluva case. I would imagine it would turn on what evidence there was they did that, whether there were other possible reasons to pass on Kaepernick, whether others of like political persuasion were so targeted, etc. I'm not qualified to judge that.

The answer to the question in your first paragraph is, yeah, it's possible someone could decline to hire someone because of their politics but why? There are Conservatives in the film community and one might be the best possible choice for a certain role. The only situation that I can imagine is if we were producing a movie with a strong political message — say, a drama about what a horrible person Donald Trump is — we just might not want a Trump-lover playing a key role, expecting him to deliver lines he thought were bullshit. I don't think the charges of blacklisting are about that.

By the way: I think there are a lot more Conservatives in show business than most people do, especially in executive-type positions. I've always thought that's so but that they keep a low profile in large part because in this industry, most people want to be seen as one of the cool kids, and most of the cool kids of show biz are Liberal. If you were an actor, would you rather be in a group shot with George Clooney, Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep or Kelsey Grammer, James Woods and Scott Baio?

And I suspect they're keeping an even lower profile than ever in the era of Trump. It must be difficult to be in favor of the direction in which Republicans are trying to take America without being put on the spot to defend Donald's rudenesses, lies, personal dealings, stories that change on the fly, sexual conduct, etc. None of my right-wing pals even want to discuss that stuff but if they're going to say "I'm glad Trump's in the White House," it's hard to avoid it.

Look at what an impossible job Rudy Giuliani has. Right now, he has to go out and tap dance his way around the fact that the story used to be that the infamous Trump Tower meeting with those Russians was definitely not about getting dirt on Hillary Clinton and that it was only the lying press that said it was. Now, Trump's admitting it was just what was reported. How would you like the job of spinning that? You'd have an easier time trying to spin the Astrodome.