Monthly Archives: April 2003

My cynical side never believes anyone who is unreservedly pleased with any of our elected (or wanna-be elected) officials. When I hear anyone say that their guy is 100% honest, smart and moral, I think the person saying this is lying — certainly to me, maybe even to himself. Even with the candidates we decide are good enough to support, I think we wind up pretending that his flip-flop on certain issues isn't a flip-flop; that his sleazy business dealings are spic-and-span; that his fund-raising activities don't have the distinct aroma of taking bribes. When it's Our Guy, we rationalize, ignore the evidence, and find an innocent explanation for that which was a character-defining felony last week when we caught the opposition doing it.

I rarely believe that people saying George W. Bush is a great leader really believe that. I think they just think he's the guy in the position to take the country where they want it to go, so they'll back him and pretend. Some of them are probably also pretending he's taking the country where they want it to go. I have a ultra-right wing friend who for years has been lecturing me that deficits are the tool of Satan and that any public servant who runs one should be executed. When Ronald Reagan increased the National Debt, my friend developed a long, tortured explanation (it had something to do with percentages of G.N.P.) as to why that debt was not really a debt. But when I ask him about the current financial projections, he can't even come up with a rationale. He has to change the subject.

All of this is a way of recommending a very sharp piece that The Daily Show with Jon Stewart just did about George W. If you don't like Bush, you'll laugh because it confirms everything you believe about the man, and does it in a way that's hard to deny. If you do like Bush…well, you might laugh but you'll also wince. Because just as Reagan supporters had to ignore his imaginary facts and his abominable record as a family man, followers of the previous Bush had to ignore him lying about Iran-Contra and taxes, and Clinton fans had to ignore his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and fund-raising follies, supporters of the current Bush have to ignore stuff like this. (RealPlayer is, alas, required.)

Spinsanity — which is as close to the "last word" as anything you'll find on the web — has debunked the story of Tim Robbins being cut off during his appearance on The Today Show. I think we'd already figured out here that it didn't happen, but their confirmation settles it for me.

Ben Varkentine is the latest of several to ask what I think of the announcement that a new TV-Movie is to be produced of one of my favorite musicals and movies, 1776. Answer: I don't know what I think. I suppose it depends on how well it's done. The 1972 movie was apparently an utterly faithful version of the original Broadway show, and it's wonderful. But one of the great things about theater is that shows are open to reinterpretation. Ethel Merman was said to have given one of the all-time classic performances when she played Momma Rose in Gypsy, but that didn't preclude Angela Lansbury from doing a version that many preferred. Other versions have not been without value. It is certainly not inconceivable that a new version of 1776 might be wonderful on its own terms.

Which is not to say I'm over-optimistic. The whole show runs about three hours. If, as one might expect, they try to do it in a two-hour slot with commercial breaks, that will mean cutting almost half the show. I have no idea how that could be done and still keep the wonderful way in which the obstacles to the Declaration of Independence are slowly chipped away, one after the other. The casting will presumably require "names" and no star leaps to mind as ideal to play John Adams. I'd love to see Kelsey Grammer play John Dickinson but even if they could afford him and he could find the time, it's still a supporting role. Some of the Internet discussion groups that talk of musicals are already assuming it'll be Victor Garber in one of those two roles, and I would imagine he could be very good.

But who knows? Some in those groups are already writing off the whole project as a disaster before one bit of casting has even been announced. I think it would be nice if we waited until they actually make the film before we review it. I'm certainly willing to enjoy a new version.

With one caveat. Most of these TV-musicals are filmed in Canada. I really think it would be a shame if the story of how the United States of America was founded was filmed anywhere but in the good ol' U.S. of A.

Where's the best pastrami sandwich in New York? Find out here. And don't miss the audio slide show.

On tonight's show, Jay Leno had one of those "Act Two correspondents" segments which I think are dragging his program down. They involve sending someone (a comedian, one of their "Jaywalking" dummies, or a gay intern) and a camera crew to cover some interesting event, often by asking people awkward, silly questions. Some of the comedians who do these are good ones, and some of the remotes are funny, but they have nothing to do with Leno or The Tonight Show. It's like the program you're watching stops and you're suddenly subjected to five minutes of something else because Jay — who'd be better than any of those correspondents — was too busy doing stand-up in Vegas to tape a spot for his own show.

For tonight's, they dispatched comedian Harland Williams to cover a wedding that took place at last week's Ventriloquist Convention in Las Vegas. The bride was Eyvonne Dee Carter and the groom was my pal Valentine Vox, a fine performer and historian of the art. Both walked down the aisle with their puppets and I assume (I wasn't there) didn't move their lips when they said, "I do." If you looked quickly at the segment on The Tonight Show, you caught a fast glimpse of Maid-of-Honor Mallory Lewis, who was carrying Lamb Chop, the wonderful character she inherited from her mother, Shari Lewis. The Best Man was another pal of mine, Ronn Lucas, but I had to still-frame my TiVo to see him standing there with his puppet, Scorch. There was also a brief interview with Nancy Wible, a name well-known to those of us who know everyone who ever did cartoon voices.

As a fan of ventriloquists, I enjoyed the segment but…come on, Jay. People tune in to see you, and you get the biggest check. Let guys like Harland Williams do their stand-up on the show, and do the remote segments yourself. And Valentine…congrats on your marriage!

We have our work cut out for us. The Missouri Senate is mulling a proposal to tax — and I quote from this article: "bestiality, masturbation and sadistic or masochistic abuse." Another proposal would add lap dances to the "adult services" that would be taxed.

I don't believe they really mean this. I think they were watching late night TV and said, "Gee, the monologues are getting kinda thin. Let's come up with something Jay and Dave can milk for a few weeks."

A tariff on sadistic or masochistic abuse? Geez. I knew taxes were supposed to hurt but I didn't know you were supposed to enjoy it…

If, like me, you have a childish interest in the true identity of the infamous Woodward-Bernstein garage-haunting source, "Deep Throat," here's a link for you. Timothy Noah says the case is very strong for Fred Fielding. And the way he puts it, it sure is.

More on this when I have more time.

Several folks have written me to note that Drudge has also been attacking Hillary Clinton's autobiography, spreading the story that it was nowhere near completed and would never come out in June, as planned. It is, of course, already being printed for a June 9 release.

And someone else suggested we all visit The Drudge Report Headline Generator. Fun stuff.

Sidney Blumenthal's as-yet-unreleased book is presently at #4 on the Amazon Hit Parade.

The late Los Angeles Herald Express was quite a newspaper. The Hearst folks put out the Los Angeles Examiner (a slightly classier publication) in the morning and the Herald Express in the afternoon. In the meantime, the Times-Mirror people had the Los Angeles Times in the AM and the Los Angeles Mirror in the PM. The Mirror was a little trashier than the Times but nowhere near as bad as the Herald Express. On Sundays, both companies published only their morning papers, but folded in certain features (including comic strips) from their afternoon papers.

Then in 1961, a deal was made. The Chandlers, who owned the Times-Mirror operation, agreed to drop their afternoon edition if the Hearst people would stop competing in the morning. One day, the Examiner and the Mirror went away. (The Hearsts retitled their surviving paper as the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. The Chandlers dropped the Mirror name altogether.)

For us comic strip fans, it was disorienting. The Times took a few strips from the Mirror (Pogo was one) but cast the others adrift. The Herald-Examiner briefly ran two full pages of comics but eventually whittled it down to one. (A few of the strips that failed to make the cut, like the daily of Popeye, continued to run on Sundays.) I suspect some adults were similarly disappointed since the afternoon Hearst paper cleaned up its act and ran less of what we now call "tabloid" material: Fewer crime stories, fewer tearful victims of catastrophes, and such.

I was reminded of the old Herald Express when Buzz Dixon (thanks, Buzz) called my attention to this site which features — and I quote: "Tabloid Pictures from the Los Angeles Herald Express." It's a gallery of photographs that ran in that paper. A few are a bit graphic, though not by today's standard. And what's especially interesting is that this is part of an exhibition for the Los Angeles Public Library. That's almost respectable.

A Chicago-based store called Atlas Comics has a couple of interesting lists over on their website. One gives their picks of The 100 Greatest Comic Artists. Another itemizes their choices for The 20 Greatest Inkers for American Comic Books. Yet another section features what they think are The 25 All-Time Greatest Covers of American Comic Books, as well as The 12 Dumbest.

Needless to say, I don't agree in full with any of these lists, and you won't either. Lists of this sort are just the opinion of one guy or one small group of guys, and any list you decide to compile will probably be just as valid. No point in getting into specifics but they have artists on their "100 Best" list who wouldn't make my "400 Best" list and vice-versa.

Well, I'll mention one slight specific: They have Carl Barks at #4. Now, even given their stated criteria, I'm not sure I understand a competition that pits Mr. Barks's work against that of Will Eisner and Joe Kubert and "Ghastly" Graham Ingels. But leaving that aside, Barks is the only "funny animal" guy on the whole list. Sheldon Mayer is on it and way, way down (I'd put him much higher) and so is Sergio Aragonés (likewise) but neither is on it for work on that kind of comic. They have John Stanley, who worked on Little Lulu, at #42 and I'm not sure they don't have him confused with Irving Tripp, who did the finished art on most of those comics. But that's it: No Walt Kelly, no Paul Murry, no Harvey Eisenberg, no Warren Kremer, no Frank McSavage, no Owen Fitzgerald, no Jim "Fox & Crow" Davis, no Al Hubbard, no Pete Alvarado, et cetera, et cetera. They don't even include any teen-comic artists like Dan DeCarlo. Are these guys not on the list because someone thought they weren't as good as Dan Adkins? Or is it maybe that the list's compiler(s) wasn't/weren't that familiar with some of those funny artists?

Which would be okay. No one's expected to know everyone and everything. There are probably some great artists I don't know or wouldn't think of if pressed to make up a list. I just mention this because these lists by the Atlas Comics people, while fun, seem to have gotten a number of Internet browsing-folks upset. People look at these lists, forget how subjective they are, and begin debating as if factual errors have been made. The context of a "10 Best" or "100 Best" list seems to bring that out in people. They forget it's just opinions, and that they should enjoy the list on that basis, which is what I did. I sure didn't expect it to match my tastes.

Except, you know, Nick Cardy really ought to be higher.

I'm talking about Augie DeBlieck Jr., who has a good review posted of my book, Comic Books and Other Necessities of Life. And who am I to argue with a wise person?

As mentioned here a few days ago, acclaimed photographer David Baker has created an awesome photo mosaic of Mad/Groo cartoonist Sergio Aragonés. Well, here's your chance to own your very own copy. Sergio was photographed in his soon-to-be-vacated studio and then David fashioned over 90 of those photos into an 18" by 24" mosaic poster. From afar, it looks like a picture of Sergio's face. Up close, you see the images of him posing in his unnatural habitat. (Click here to see the whole poster.)

Only 200 prints have been made and many are already gone or spoken-for. Each poster is numbered, embossed with an authenticity stamp by the photographer, and then personally signed by Sergio. The price? Only $75.00. Shipping is included on U.S. orders. For foreign sales, inquire of Dave at david@ojaiimages.com. That's also the PayPal address if you'd like to pay that way, or send your check or money order to David Baker, 300 Running Ridge Trail, Ojai, CA 93023.

Sidney Blumenthal's forthcoming book is #9 in the sales rankings at Amazon.

Harry Knowles has just posted that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby will receive a creator credit on the upcoming Incredible Hulk movie. He spoke with Avi Arad, who currently runs Marvel, and says the credit will probably read, "Based on the Marvel Characters as created by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby." Very good news.

Here's another, more detailed article on the battle to save the old Hanna-Barbera building. I still don't know who owns the place and I wonder why this highly-relevant information seems to be excluded from the discussion.