Monthly Archives: July 2004

Several folks have written to tell me their complaints about this year's Comic-Con International. Almost all of them spin off the premise that the convention is just too big, and many lament that a certain something is absent that was there in 1977 or 1986 or whenever. The best thing I can say to the latter is that time moves in but one direction and that the con is not going back to the El Cortez Hotel and a 3000 turnout. There are a number of conventions around the country that still have that "small" (or at least, "smaller") convention feeling. Last evening, I dined with a group of friends that included Roger Price, who runs the Mid-Ohio Con every Thanksgiving weekend in Columbus, Ohio. This is not a small con — attendance is in the 4000-5000 range, I believe — but the ones I've attended have had that friendly, unfrazzled ambiance. And the next Wondercon will be February 18-20 in San Francisco. Though operated by the same crew that runs Comic-Con International, it also lacks the overwhelming quality that disturbs some about its big brother. There are others…you just have to look.

As for the Comic-Con International being too big…yes, of course it is. As complaints go, I think that's a lot like buying front row seats for a Gallagher performance and complaining that you got splattered with watermelon juice. The convention has become what the convention has become. What I find so appealing about it is the diversity. Again, you can find the convention you want to attend in there somewhere…you just have to look. A smaller con now would only be less diverse.

In any case, telling me your complaints about the Comic-Con will not do a bit of good. I'm not on the committee. I just run thousands of panels there. You may get a response or some action if you direct your suggestions to the folks who actually run the thing. The address is Comic-Con International, P.O. Box 128458, San Diego, CA 92112-8458, and it's been my experience that the committee members take input seriously. I wouldn't waste time writing to ask that they downsize the convention to what it was twenty years ago…but if you have some idea how they can make this con more enjoyable, I'm sure they'd love to hear it.

Want to hear your vice-president speak? Well, you'll need to sign a loyalty oath. (Thanks to Alan Light for the pointer.)

Sad to hear of the passing of a darn good actor named Eugene Roche, who died last Wednesday at age 75. Frequently recognized but never enough of a star that everyone knew him by name, he still managed to work constantly and to be widely respected by his peers. He was a regular or semi-regular on a wide list of TV shows including All in the Family, Webster, Soap, Dave's World and Magnum, P.I., and turned up in an awful lot of movies, too. People often recalled him from his role in Slaughterhouse Five but I always think of how good he was in the Art Carney starrer, The Late Show. I can't recall ever seeing him in anything where he wasn't good.

I had the honor of meeting him a few times and almost working with him once. He impressed me as one of those actors who loved acting and gave it just as much seriousness as it deserves. I was looking forward to seeing him again at the Hollywood Collectors Show in October and am sorry than none of us will have that pleasure.

Speaking of Laurel and Hardy, as we love to do here, several folks have recommended to me a new BBC radio play, about 30 minutes in length, called Stan, by Neil Brand. It's a touching — some might say overly-sentimental — supposition of the last meeting of Stan and Ollie as Ollie was dying. That moment has been dramatized a few times by alleged historians (there was once a TV special hosted by Dom DeLuise that stated, wrongly, that Laurel was at Hardy's bedside holding his hand when the latter passed) but this is the first time I know of where it's been the subject of dramatic speculation.

The author seems to know his history though, and the Stan impersonation by Tom Courtenay is pretty good. You should be able to access it on Real Player by clicking here but if that link doesn't work, go to this page and find the link to listen to last Friday's show.

A couple of quick notes if you're going to do this: First, the bandwidth there seems to be stretched thin so if you try during peak hours, you may experience pauses and delays. Secondly, the "broadcast" starts with some other material and Stan doesn't commence until a few minutes in. Lastly, the link may only be up for a few more days so if you want to listen, listen now.

When talking films came in, the movie studios had a problem: How to market their product overseas. In the past, it had just been a matter of redoing the title cards in another language. Later on, the equipment would be developed to redub the soundtrack in a foreign tongue. But for a number of years there, an oft-employed solution was to actually film one or more alternate versions. A number of early Laurel and Hardy movies received this treatment. After the standard American version was completed, the crew would go back and film the movie (or at least, the talking scenes) again in French and/or Spanish and/or German. Stan and Oliver would repeat their roles, reading phonetic translations of their dialogue from an off-camera blackboard. Sometimes, their American co-stars would do likewise but more often, other actors would be brought in to play opposite them. Boris Karloff was never in one of their American films but he has a key role in the French version of Pardon Us.

Of special interest to Laurel and Hardy fans is that most of the foreign editions contain scenes that either were never filmed in English or filmed and discarded. This is especially the case when the overseas films were patchwork features, as some were, created by stitching two or more shorts together. New scenes with The Boys were written and filmed to connect and/or expand the shorts…and in some cases, rather elaborate extra scenes incorporated. A film called Politiquerias, for example, is the Spanish version of the American Laurel and Hardy short, Chickens Come Home. A number of popular Spanish variety performers were incorporated into the plot, performing their acts and padding a two-reel short (in English) to more than twice that length.

A few of the French and Spanish films exist but until recently, there were no known prints of any of the movies Laurel and Hardy made for Germany…so it's good news that one has been found. Spuk um Mitternacht was made by uniting Berth Marks (1929) and The Laurel and Hardy Murder Case (1930). In the latter, Stan and Ollie show up at the mansion of Stan's late uncle Ebenezer for the reading of his will. The former is all about them trying to get to sleep in one upper berth on a train…so in the connected version, the idea is that they're travelling on the train to the reading of the will and new dialogue presumably establishes this.

Some reports say that this newly-found treasure may not be complete. The film library that is soon to exhibit it at screenings says it's around 30 minutes, whereas records say the original release was closer to 40. (Berth Marks and Murder Case are each about 20.) Still, any unseen Laurel and Hardy is better than nothing. Heck, any Laurel and Hardy at all is better than nothing. Even when they're speaking German.

I watched a few more speeches and wasn't too impressed. Yet another of the things that has made political conventions boring is the idea that everyone must stay "on message" and hew to the current campaign strategy. Apart from the personal references, 90% of the speakers up there could have given each others' speeches…and in some ways, did. Wesley Clark's, which drew raves from some bloggers, didn't impress me at all. It occurs to me that the Democrats trotting out all these military guys is a lot like the Republicans strategically placing minority delegates to counter the party image.

Leno had Michael Moore on last night for one of the least-interesting interviews either of them has ever done. I did laugh out loud when Moore said that if he wins an Oscar for Fahrenheit 9/11, he's not going to make a controversial acceptance speech. He said, "I'll just thank my wardrobe people and sit down." Other than that, there was nothing quotable. Leno was playing it too down-the-middle and Moore was trying too hard not to come across as a bomb-hurler.

I don't have a feel for who I think is going to win this election. I still think it's going to turn on events that have not yet occurred, issues that have not yet been raised. About all I'm sure of is that it's going to get a lot dirtier and that by November, people on all sides are going to think that the future of mankind hinges on the victory of Their Guy. And they'll have an increasingly difficult time convincing themselves that he's as good as they want him to be.

Forgot to post this yesterday: Happy 90th birthday to "Professor" Irwin Corey who's currently appearing on Broadway in the revival of Larry Gelbart's Sly Fox and everyone who's seen it tells me he's the funniest thing on the stage. This is easy to believe about one of the funniest comedians around…a man who has raised the bar for incoherent muttering and elevated rambling to a high art. How this man didn't wind up in politics, I'll never know. Years ago on the old Steve Allen Show, the Professor often managed to bring utter chaos to the festivities…you could tell Steve didn't know where things were going and neither did Corey.

That and his age probably disqualify Irwin Corey from gracing the guest chair next to any of the current talk show hosts…but I sure wish one of them would go against current trends and book the guy.

I thought it was pretty good. Liked the first part more than the end, and I'm sorry he felt he had to load it with so many promises to not fulfill the Republican stereotype of a Democrat (soft on religion and national defense, big on taxes). But he looked presidential and passionate, and I don't think he could have made a much stronger appeal to swing voters…that is, if any of them were watching.

As a couple of my friends have not noticed, I have not shown much enthusiasm here for Mr. Kerry. I have such a history of feeling disappointed by politicians that I'm reticent to make that emotional commitment. It's easier to deal with them letting you down if you never thought they were that wonderful to begin with. I'm sure Kerry has the capacity to turn into Michael Dukakis or worse on us…but so far, so good.

One hopes someone will tell Kerry, "Fine, we all know you were in Vietnam. You can stop mentioning it." I understand why it's up front and center. If Bush had Kerry's history and vice-versa, Republicans would be arguing that the guy with the medals was inarguably the better human being than the guy with the massive hole in his National Guard record. But I think it would be classier, and show that there's a better argument for Kerry than what he did several decades ago, if he reduced it to an aside.

I'm just watching the end of the C-Span coverage right now. A chaplain is trying to deliver the closing benediction with confetti and late-arriving balloons still cascading down from the rafters. A lot of what he's saying ("Send me…") sounds like replays of campaign-type speeches we've heard the last few days. I like my politics with as little religion as possible but I guess, when you're running for office these days, you need to cover your butt on such matters.

Here are two photos of the late Jackson Beck in roles he played on radio. At left, he has the title role in Philo Vance, Detective, which ran from 1948 through 1950.  At right, he's The Cisco Kid from the radio show of the same name, which aired from 1942 through 1945. (Two years later, it came back with a different cast.) Mr. Beck was about as Hispanic as Miracle Whip but in those days, no one gave much thought to such matters.  The few hundred episodes he recorded for these two shows represent a tiny fraction of all that Beck did in radio. And his radio work represents a tiny fraction of all that he did before microphones. [Thanks to his pal Anthony Tollin for the Cisco photo.]

Here's a short film/political ad starring Will Ferrell as George W. Bush.

Here's an odd article by Tom Junod that makes a case for George W. Bush. It's kind of a weird, not-entirely-flattering case, but it's a different way of looking at Bush that is worth perusing.

If you are repulsed at the sight and/or sound of Michael Moore, skip this item. But if, like me, you enjoy some of what he does, you may enjoy a 43-minute speech which is currently up on the C-Span page. It's an address he made in the last day or three to some delegates at the convention and it's very passionate and at some points, very funny. Defenders of George W. Bush are fond of saying that even if what Bush says is erroneous, he can be forgiven because he truly believes what he says and has only honorable intentions. I don't really buy that and if a Democratic president got caught saying something that turned out to be untrue, I don't think they'd cut him any slack. Nor should they, especially if the inaccuracy relates to something as serious as sending this nation into war.

I am a tad more positive about Moore since I realized how silly it is to fault an op-ed filmmaker for skewing facts when we're going to let the Commander-in-Chief get away with telling us "We found the weapons of mass destruction" and other statements his own administration no longer stands behind. In the best of all public discourses, of course, everyone is accurate and they retract when it turns out they aren't. In terms of distorting reality to make one's case, Bush and Moore may have a lot more in common than either of them would ever recognize…and Moore, since he isn't an elected official sending soldiers into battle, has more excuse for his excesses. He's certainly single-minded and passionate, even when he's been misled as to the facts.

As I said, the Moore speech is 43 minutes and it's up on the C-Span website in Real Player format, at least for a few days. It's difficult to link directly to a clip on that site. This link might do it for some browsers but most of you will have to go to the site and look around to find it. I don't vouch for all the factual claims in it (there aren't very many…it's mostly opinion) but I think it shows Moore at his best and goes a long way to explaining why he's come so far.

Here's the first online newspaper obit I've found for Jackson Beck. I've corrected a few minor errors in what I posted earlier about him.

Watching the roll call of the states casting their votes. Wonder who will win.

Al Sharpton used to be a publicity-seeking scam artist of questionable integrity and zero experience in government, and there are a hundred self-proclaimed candidates I'd vote for before I put an "X" next to his name. A hundred and one if you count Alfred E. Neuman.

That said, he's also a helluva speaker. I hope someday we see some of that from someone who belongs in elected office.