Monthly Archives: September 2009

Just got this one from Jonathan Samuels…

I generally agree with you re: Leno's show not working. I heard that one of the reasons NBC will keep Leno on is that they have nothing else to put in that slot. If they decided they wanted to replace Leno, wouldn't it take months to produce the shows that would go in there?

NBC does have something they could plug into the 10 PM time slot quickly. They have Dateline. I doubt they'd ax Leno completely and program five nights a week of Dateline but it wouldn't shock me if they cut Jay down to three nights a week and stuck in a couple of Datelines. Maybe Leno and his crew could get the bugs out quicker if they could do fewer shows.

By the way, one correction: NBC has an owned-and-operated station in the bay area of Northern California but it's in San Jose, not San Francisco. It's watched in San Francisco but it's really based in San Jose.

We love the movie It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and have written much about it over the years. I even have a small section of this website devoted to it.

Over the years, scholars of the film — I consider myself one — have wrestled with all sorts of questions and research about this movie…but none more maddening than its running times. That's running times, plural. The movie was trimmed on one or more occasions after its original release and key scenes were discarded. There have been several different versions, none of them quite like the one that debuted on November 7, 1963 at the Pacific Cinerama Dome in Hollywood.

I once spent way too much time matching up known facts about running times and compiling a chart of the various versions and their lengths. It's posted elsewhere on this site but I'm not going to link to it. Why? Because it's probably wrong. Most, if not all of us historians who have discussed the length of this movie are probably wrong.

I have just received (and will soon be posting) a document which may help clear up The Great Running Time Mystery…and create at least as many questions as it answers. There's a bit more research to be done but I wanted to give Mad World fans a "heads up." In a week or three, I'll be sharing this document…and folks, this is gonna confuse the hell out of you. Much of what we thought we knew is wrong.

Gene Popa writes to ask…

I'm writing to you now because you mentioned something in your observation about Jay Leno's new show and I, being largely ignorant of how these things happen, am hoping you can clarify it in a future posting. Specifically, you mentioned that NBC affiliates might "start to defect or juggle their schedules to move Jay later." I don't doubt that independent affiliates have the power…what I'm wondering is, what happens after they use it?

For instance, here in Chicago, I don't see our local NBC affiliate GM saying, "Okay, let's dump Leno and start running CSI's from CBS in that slot!" It would seem to me that everything which the network offers for airing is already committed to other time slots, so if an affiliate suddenly pulls Leno out of five hours of prime time each week, what can be put into those hours to plug the hole? I can't see local news programming or infomercials bringing in any better ratings than what Leno garners, so what recourse does an affiliate have were it to opt to not air Leno?

Well, first off, the NBC station in Chicago is not an affiliate. It's what's called an "owned and operated" station, meaning that NBC owns it. NBC also owns its stations in New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Dallas/Fort Worth, Washington, Miami, San Diego and Connecticut. While it is not unprecedented for an "o and o" station to not carry the precise network feed, it's pretty unlikely. An affiliate would be a station like the one in Boston that's owned by a separate company but which contracts to carry the NBC programming. Boston, you may recall, was briefly considering not carrying the new Leno show, or maybe they just wanted to bump it to a later hour.

That would probably be the first sign that Jay's show was in serious trouble…if an NBC affiliate moved him later. The most likely way they'd do that would be to put their local news on at 10 PM and start Jay at 10:35. (Subtract one hour from those times in a marketplace where Leno now starts at 9 PM.) It's doubtful that will happen any time soon because NBC has presumably convinced all its stations to give The Jay Leno Show a decent period in which to prove its value. Still, NBC has to be worried that if and when some affiliate does reconfigure, it could trigger a ripple-effect.

"Clearances," meaning how many stations carry a show in its intended time slot, have figured big in the history of late night. NBC dominated that daypart for years because of its clearances, and CBS and ABC were long at a disadvantage because of the many affiliates that had something else — a syndicated rerun or something locally-produced — ensconced in a late night slot that the network wished to program. Before Letterman agreed to sign on at CBS, he had to be satisfied that enough CBS stations would actually carry his show at 11:35…and the few that didn't quickly fell into line when he got those huge early ratings. If the whole Leno/O'Brien/Fallon parlay at NBC crashes and burns, the lasting damage may be what it does to the network's clearance factor.

I said a little while ago here that I wasn't sure if I'd ever seen a movie directed by Roman Polanski. I did. I saw Chinatown. It joined a good-sized list of films that I went to see, having heard the picture was sensational…and left, wondering what others saw in it. This list includes just about any critically-acclaimed movie with Jack Nicholson in it except for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

I'm not going to post much more about the Roman Polanski matter…though I suspect we're going to hear a lot more. We all seem to concur that his crime was reprehensible and those who argue that one should not be able to do that kind of thing and avoid punishment are not, in the general sense, wrong. But I don't think hauling the guy back in this particular instance is going to achieve that; not given the apparent judicial and prosecutorial misconduct on his case…and especially not given the stated desires of the victim to leave that avenue unpursued.

There are loads of essays on the web arguing each side but I thought I'd link to two. Mary Elizabeth Williams makes the case that the matter should be dropped. And Steve Lopez presents a pretty representative example from the "string 'im up" flank. The piece by Mr. Lopez is entitled, "Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim," which is rather ironic given that part of his argument is that what the true victim feels about all this is "irrelevant."

By the way: Contrary to what a couple of folks presumed in their e-mails to me, I'm not a fan of Polanski's. I'm not sure I've ever seen a film he directed and if I did, it certainly wasn't one of my faves. I actually remember thinking he was a giant, economy-size jerk in his Playboy interview, which was published not long before the crime occurred. Nor do I think he (or anyone) deserves preferential treatment for being rich and/or famous. In this matter, it would seem he's received some of that and also some of the opposite, where he's been penalized for his celebrity. Both are wrong. I suspect that all the rich 'n' famous folks who are rushing forward to support him or sign petitions are harming, not helping his cause.

I like Jay Leno. I like David Letterman, too, by the way. Those two likes are not mutually exclusive…but this is about Leno. I knew Jay very casually back when he was working the Comedy Store. I even sold him a few jokes back then and decided he was a great guy and a terrific comedian, and I've seen nothing since then to alter those views. That doesn't mean I've liked everything he's done, of course. I doubt Jay even likes everything he's done. But I admire an awful lot of things about him, including his determination to fight good fights even when he's down.

That skill may come in handy in the months to come because I don't think his new show is working. The ratings say it isn't working for the public, which watched the first week when he was a novelty with weak competition, then abandoned him the second week. Some of those folks will come back when we reach the day that he's offering new shows opposite reruns on the other channels…but I wonder how many. Even I, last week, was leaving him unwatched on my TiVo…or speed-viewing, catching the monologue and racing through the rest. The Leno Tonight Show was usually fun and this show, which closely resembles that show, is not. So what's different?

Darn near everything, I'm afraid. I've been trying to figure out an incisive reason…and I do think the 10 PM program lacks a certain sense of importance and energy. Leno's early Tonight Show, where he first took over from Johnny, suffered because he was still guest-hosting for Carson. He hadn't established a new style and identity for a new show. His newest show suffers because, again, it isn't a new show. He's still doing his old show…and since it's in a new, fancy wrapper, you open it expecting more than the same old thing. An old bit can feel like an old friend — something you're glad to see again — but it can also feel like an old bit.

Of the new elements, the "Ten at Ten" questions segment is okay, I guess, though it feels pretty scripted and rehearsed. The "Green Car Challenge," I don't get at all. When I first heard about it, I thought the idea was to pit an environmentally-friendly electric car against a petroleum guzzler in order to prove something about going green. Turns out that's not it at all. Instead, they're pitting Drew Barrymore against Bob Costas to see who can notch the best time driving around a miniature golf course. I don't know why I should care about that contest or why anyone thought I would.

So far, the things I like least about the show are the remote "correspondents'" reports where Jay completely disappears from The Jay Leno Show and the whole thing is turned over to someone else. Leno did this on Tonight and even though some have been funny, it always feels like I accidentally hit the remote, changed channels and am watching a different program. What do I like most? The monologue…though most have not been as strong as the ones he did at 11:35. I also like it when Jay has a guest he seems to really like, which usually means someone who spilled blood with him on the comedy club circuit like Jerry Seinfeld or Bill Maher.

Word from inside NBC is that they're committed to this as a long-term deal. I suspect that will change if affiliates start to defect or juggle their schedules to move Jay later. For now though, it looks like they're going to tough it out, hope the affiliates don't panic, and wait and see what happens when Jay has new shows opposite reruns. Leno and his staff are reportedly working hard to beef up the comedy…and that may help a little. But they're dealing with a basic conceptual problem: The premise of this show is to do The Tonight Show without having it be The Tonight Show. That's a pretty shaky foundation on which to build five hours of NBC's weekly prime time schedule. I don't think little fixes are going to save it. I think they're going to have to raze the place and rebuild from the ground up.

This coming Friday, Turner Classic Movies is running a Marxian festival commencing in the early morn: A Night at the Opera, A Day at the Races, Room Service, Go West, A Night in Casablanca, Double Dynamite and A Girl in Every Port. Those are more or less in order of best to worst. The last two are Groucho only. The rest have him, Harpo and Chico but no Zeppo.

Then early Saturday morning, you can watch a half-hour short called Perversion for Profit, a 1965 documentary that was financed by that fine guardian of morality, Charles Keating. The thesis is that the spread of pornography (defined by a pretty low bar, even for '65) will lead to the downfall of America and a complete Communist takeover. A lot of folks love this film because it's (a) so campy and over the top and/or (b) full of naughty pictures. It's also a nice record of Los Angeles newsman George Putnam, who could sound like he was lecturing you on morality when he announced a freeway closure.

On Monday, they have a bunch of Whistler films starring Richard Dix, followed by Red Skelton's three "whistling" comedies — Whistling in the Dark, Whistling in Dixie and Whistling in Brooklyn. The Skeltons are in order of weakest to strongest, though they're all pretty much the same movie. If you like Red (and Ann Rutherford), you'll enjoy 'em.

As I've occasionally mentioned here, we're currently in production on the second season of The Garfield Show — and be careful if you click on that link because loud audio may start automatically once you get there. This is a new animated series that is airing in many countries around the world. I am assured that this one, soon, will be among them. Today I was in a recording studio for much of the day playing Voice Director, mostly on scripts I wrote for said series. Here's who we had in today doing the voices I was directing…

Back row, left to right: Frank Welker (voice of Garfield and darn near everything else on this planet), me (looking like I didn't get much sleep the night before), Laura Summer (enchanting voice actress) and Wally Wingert (voice of Garfield's owner, Jon). Wally, by the way, is the announcer on The Jay Leno Show.

Front row, left to right: June Foray (legendary voice of Rocky the Flying Squirrel, among zillions of other credits), Stan Freberg (master satirist, cartoon voice and personal hero), Jason Marsden (fine actor and the voice of Nermal on our show) and Gregg Berger (yet another fine actor who, among his many credits, barks for Odie.) Gregg, by the way, will be a guest this weekend at the Mid-Ohio-Con in Columbus, Ohio and he and I are doing a panel on cartoon voice work on Sunday.

And may I just say what a personal thrill it is to work with June Foray and Stan Freberg? If you're anywhere near my age — physically, 57; emotionally, 12 — you may have some sense of how important these two folks were to many a childhood, especially one like mine. I've worked with them individually before many times. But between takes when they started lapsing into dialogue from St. George and the Dragonet, a record they did that I've played eighty thousand times in my life…well, that's not something you can ever get jaded about. I hope.

Eight people wrote me in response to this musing I posted about Roman Polanski's situation. Oddly enough, seven of the eight opened their correspondence by saying something like, "I'm sure you've received a million messages about this by now." But I only got the eight. If I post here that I like one late night host more than another, I get at least thirty.

One person thought I'd written that there was really nothing wrong with statutory rape. This proves an old saying that I just made up, which is that one out of every eight people on the Internet cannot read. Half of the eight agreed with me, including two who identified themselves as one-time rape victims and one who said he was the father of one.

All of those who took issue with my view (all three of them) asked how, in my opinion, Polanski had "suffered" for what he did. Well, as I understand it, he did spend 42 days in prison. He did pay more than a million bucks to his lawyers and an undisclosed — but probably hefty — amount to the victim. He did effectively ban himself from this country. He did do considerable damage to his career. And he sure did an awful lot of damage to his name. People who can't name one movie he ever made can tell you, "Oh, yeah…he's the creep who raped an underage girl."

That may not all add up to a proper punishment for what he did but it's also not nothing. Moreover: At one point, both the judge in the case and the victim's family were quite willing to settle for even less. There was a plea bargain agreement for him to get off for just an apology and the time he'd already served. The judge signed off on it. The victim's reps signed off on it. Then the judge appeared to be reneging and that's when Polanski fled the country. (That judge has since passed away but the prevailing wisdom seems to be that he was seized with a desire for the attention that would come from presiding over a big, showy celebrity-laced trial.)

Two of the three who disagreed with me said that it was irrelevant that the victim — now, of course, a grown woman with a family — did not want Polanski prosecuted. "The victim doesn't get to decide," one wrote. Maybe not but her feelings are also not irrelevant, especially when she says that to pursue this matter would cause her and her loved ones greater discomfort than if we all put it behind us. Her name, by the way, is Samantha Geimer and she has written a couple of articles about the matter, urging everyone to just let it go. Here's one she wrote back when Polanski was nominated for an Oscar — which he later won — for The Pianist.

I've probably reached the extent of my interest in this matter except for the following suspicion. I think those who are rooting for Polanski to be dragged back here, treated like a common rapist and sent back to his old cell at Chino have false expectations. Between the victim's expressed wishes, the time that has passed, the judicial and prosecutorial misconduct alleged in the original case and the international outrage, I doubt Mr. Polanski will do any additional time. That is, if he's even extradited. All that will happen is that the state will spend a ton of money that could be put to more pressing matters, Ms. Geimer will have an old wound reopened and Polanski will look like a victim. I don't think any of those are things that ought to happen, especially that last one.

(Now, watch: I'm going to get sixteen more e-mails, two of which will think I'm trivializing the crime of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl…)

Before the corporate takeovers, hotels in Vegas were owned 'n' operated by an array of colorful, seat-of-the-pants kinda guys. One of the last died on Friday. His name was Bob Stupak and while I never met him, I played at his casino (won, too) and followed his exploits in the press. Here's the official obit for him and here's a remembrance from a reporter who often wrote about him.

Stupak is the guy who, it is said, once acted on a sudden whim and signed the team of Marty Allen and Steve Rossi to a lifetime contract to play his hotel, Vegas World. It was an impulse that occurred over dinner with them and he put it in writing…on a napkin. This probably would have been an unwise move even back during the month or so when Allen & Rossi were the hottest comedy team in show biz…but Stupak made the offer and it was accepted in 1990 when the two had split up and neither was working much. As it turned out, the "lifetime contract" was good for about four years. Then for a while, Rossi played the showroom without Allen. Given that crowds weren't flocking to see Rossi with Allen, you could imagine how much business he did as a solo.

That was at Vegas World, a charming dump of a hotel which was later cleaned up and refurbished into the Stratosphere. When it was Vegas World, it had the most garish, mind-numbing interior decor you ever saw in your life — a lot of bad science-fiction imagery (robots, starships) covered with sequins. The dealers all wore ties that said, "Kiss me…I'm Polish," even if they were Asian. I once chatted with a black lady while she was dealing me some pretty good Blackjack hands and she said the hardest part of her job was dealing with remarks about the tie…and drunks who wanted to act upon its suggestion.

Stupak is credited with inventing "Double Exposure 21," a variation on Blackjack where all the cards, including the dealer's, are dealt face-up. Gullible gamblers think that's great; that they can't lose if they can see the dealer's hole card. But of course, the rules and payoffs have been adjusted so that the odds are even worse than plain vanilla Blackjack. That he created it tells you a lot about him and that people play it tells you a lot about gamblers.

That's about all I have to say about the man. Just couldn't let his passing go unmentioned. Vegas wasn't as classy and fancy back when it was run by people like Bob Stupak. But it was a lot more fun…and a lot cheaper.