Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Andy

Rick Mohr writes to ask me about a new weblog that claims to be by Andy Kaufman...

I know you are always posting about celebrities and artists who have passed away, and I enjoy your insights on their careers, but what do you think about this one? Do you think it is really Andy?

I think it's amazing (and probably a tribute to Mr. Kaufman's expertise at hoaxing) that his mortality is still the subject of discussion. Yeah, right: At the peak of his creative energy and earning power, a guy is really going to give it all up and drop out of sight for twenty years and cause enormous grief to his friends and family...and for what would be, at best, a pretty feeble joke. Put it this way: If Andy had decided to fake his death, he would have been enormously visible just before he "died." Then he would have come back within a few months...and also in a spectacular manner, not popping up with a weblog.

I mean, the way the "hoax" could have worked was that Andy died and then his friend Bob Zmuda, who took over as Tony Clifton, would have gone on appearing in that guise. I never thought Clifton was much of a joke but to the extent there was one, it was that people thought it was Andy Kaufman under the bad makeup, long after it had become Zmuda. So I can imagine Andy "dying," Zmuda continuing to perform as Clifton and it becoming common knowledge that it was Zmuda. Then, at some point, Kaufman takes over the role again and people continue to think it's Zmuda...until at one point, Tony Clifton is on Saturday Night Live (let's say) and he gets so abusive that someone breaks character and yells, "Okay, we've all had enough of this! We all know it's Bob Zmuda playing Andy Kaufman's character." And "Clifton" starts screaming that he'd not Bob Zmuda...until he finally rips off the makeup and he's revealed as Kaufman.

That would have been a helluva joke but they never set up anything like that...and even if they had, it isn't worth twenty of someone's best years. Six months, tops. Maybe it's time to finally let the guy rest in peace.

• Posted at 11:22 PM · LINK

Slipped a Mickey

The other day here, I reported on the Pacific Pioneer Broadcasters' luncheon in honor of Mickey Rooney. As I mentioned, Mr. Rooney gave a very nice speech but it included an anecdote of questionable veracity. As recounted, he was a busy kid actor when he happened to wander into an office at the movie studio and met a man named Walt Disney. Mr. Disney was about to launch a new cartoon character, Mortimer Mouse. In Mr. Rooney's telling, Walt decided to rename the character with the name of his youthful visitor. Cute story...but as Wade Sampson notes in this article, the tale doesn't stand up to much fact-checking. The dates are wrong, the details are amiss, the chronology does not match other, more credible accounts.

On the other hand, we who research show biz history often have to deal with quotes or reported quotes like this because human beings sometimes humor people or say things they don't precisely mean, especially in casual conversations. If you plow through books and old magazines that mention Jimmy Durante, you'll find at least a dozen newspapermen, authors, cartoonists or fellow performers who claim they came up with his nickname, 'The Schnozzola." And almost every one has a probably-true quote from Jimmy saying, "Yep...that's the guy who gave me that name."

Well, why not? Jimmy probably figured it didn't hurt and it made those people happy. Dean Martin did the same thing when someone claimed — as many did — to have been the person who introduced him to Jerry Lewis. He didn't remember who really had, so he figured it was easier to just give everyone the credit.

Maybe Mickey did walk in one day in 1928 when Walt was fiddling with drawings of the character he had already decided to name Mickey Mouse. Rooney's name then was Joe Yule Jr. but he was starring in the Mickey McGuire comedies and folks around the studio probably called him Mickey. Walt could easily have said, "I'm naming my new character after you," just to bring a smile to a young face. I mean, he wasn't talking to a reporter for posterity. He was talking to an eight year old boy...and the eight year old boy just happened to go on to be a major star and to remember the conversation. The details of the story as Rooney tells it are almost certainly askew but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some scrap of truth in this one...not that Walt named The Mouse after him but that he told Rooney he did.

• Posted at 9:54 PM · LINK

H-B Building Saved

Last year, we had a flurry of items (starting with this one) about a move to preserve the old Hanna-Barbera studio at 3400 Cahuenga Boulevard in Hollywood on the cusp of Burbank. Today, we have a report that the facilities will endure. Here's most of the story...

City Council members approved a plan Tuesday that would save the historic Hanna-Barbera buildings in the Cahuenga Pass but would allow development on part of the property to proceed. Joe Barbera, who sold the property years ago, had pleaded with officials to save the building where cartoons such as "Tom and Jerry" and "Yogi Bear" were developed.

It's probably nitpicking but let's note that "Tom and Jerry" started in 1939, "Yogi Bear" started in 1959, and the property in question was built in 1963. Still, it's probably good that the studio will be saved...and apparently not with our tax dollars.

• Posted at 5:50 PM · LINK

Moore is Less

Ben Varkentine (who has his own fun weblog here) writes to ask about my statement that I won't be going to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11...

I wonder if you could expand on this in the blog when you have a minute. I think I share your ambivalence about Moore, but I plan to see the film, and was wondering what if anything made up your mind.

Well, I don't get to a lot of movies at all these days. When time is short, as it always seems to be, I figure I can always see the movie later on DVD or cable...and then I don't even get around to that. But to the extent I do have time to go to a movie, I'm sure I'll be able to find something I'd prefer.

I like some of the things Moore has done and not others. His two TV shows, TV Nation and The Awful Truth, almost seemed to alternate brilliant material with things that made me cringe...and not in a good way. I think he's kind of like the Rush Limbaugh of the left in that around 50% of what he says/does is honest insight and 50% is dishonest theater. It gets attention, it prods others into action, sells tickets (or in Rush's case, gets ratings) and it maybe reinforces a lot of dubious beliefs...but ultimately, it just drives our national debate further into mud-wrestling. I guess what ruins it for me with both of them is that in each case — and this applies to others, as well — you have a real smart man who's good at entertaining, good at socking home his points...but he won't stop where the supportable facts leave off. It may not bother others but I don't want to get hooked by the good parts and then embarrassed by the excesses. I keep feeling let down by the guy, and I'd rather not risk more of that intermittment disappointment.

That's just my choice at the moment. If you see it and tell me there are wonderful moments in it, I won't be surprised. But if I see those wonderful moments and feel the same way, I'll feel I have to defend them when, as is inevitable with someone as polarizing as Moore, his enemies argue that every single syllable is a deliberate lie. And Moore just makes it too hard to defend the good parts of his work...