If I've configured this properly — and I'd say there's about a one in ten chance of that — the player below will show you the entire documentary by Jonathan Ross, In Search of Steve Ditko. I enjoyed it, in part because Jonathan's perceptive and involved narrative is so irresistible. I'd quibble with a few facts and a lot of judgments...but that's to be expected and some of what's in here has caused me to reconsider some of my own views of the material and the folks who did it. That's always good, even if that consideration takes you back close to where you were before. I also admire the style via which Ross takes us on a quest to find Ditko...and then at the end, he "finds" Ditko (right where he could have found him at the outset) and basically keeps him for himself, informing us that he will respect Ditko's desire for privacy and not share what he learned. (Of course, he does tell us this right after a shot which gives away the address of Ditko's office...)
Anyway, I enjoyed it and will write more about it when I have more time. Here's your chance to enjoy it now...
UPDATE: A lot of folks seem to be puzzled so let me explain: The whole documentary runs 58 minutes and 56 seconds. It's been uploaded to YouTube by someone in chunks of under ten minutes because YouTube only allows longer clips in special circumstances. I've configured a player that should run one part after another in sequence if you click on the arrow at the center. The little arrows on the left and right of the screen will let you jump to the previous part or the following part. And if you place your cursor in the screen, it should show you a little menu of all the parts. But if you just want to watch the thing from start to finish, click the center arrow, sit back and watch for an hour.
I'm finishing up my book on Jack Kirby and I need a couple more things. One is to find someone who has (a) a good scanner and (b) a great condition copy of Fantastic Four #1. Oh, and it would also help if you knew how to use the scanner, had a willingness to help me with my book in exchange for a "thank you" in it, and didn't have your F.F. #1 sealed in a slab of plastic. Drop me an e-mail if this applies to you.
And while we're at it, I could also use decent scans of the covers of Silver Star #1, Captain Glory #1 and Young Romance #1. I either can't find my copies or they're not in perfect condition. But drop me a note before you spend any time scanning so I can tell you the specifications. Thanks.
Hey, I finally watched most of the Emmy Awards telecast...and by "most," I mean that I TiVoed the sucker and fast-forwarded through it, which brought the three hours down to about thirty-five minutes. This is the new technology, people, and it was designed to get us through long awards programs. If you watch without it and you're bored for three hours, you have no one to blame but yourself.
People complain it's three hours. This, to me, is like bitching that an episode of 60 Minutes lasts an entire hour. The Emmy Awards telecast is all about handing out a very long list of awards. If you give out X number of statuettes and each presentation — introducing the presenters, a bit of banter, reading the nominees, opening the envelope, bringing the winner(s) to the stage, acceptance speech — takes Y minutes...well, just do the math. The show's going to be X times Y minutes long, plus there will also be musical numbers, comedy spots, monologues, The Death Montage, etc.
What do you want them to cut? The entertainment interludes? That would be like PBS cancelling the show you want to watch but retaining the pledge breaks...or something like that.
They've already cut the majority of the Emmy Awards from the Emmy Awards broadcast. They don't reduce the total number. In fact, every year they give out more of them than ever before. They never cut the number because the Academy, let's remember, is made up of people who want to win Emmys. The more they give out, the better your chance of snagging one. So to streamline the telecast, they give out more and more of the awards at the non-televised event a few days earlier. The problem with that is as follows: As they move more and more of the "less important" awards to the other ceremony, the televised one becomes more and more about the biggest stars and the biggest shows. This makes that telecast all the more about Big Multi-Millionaire Stars congratulating one another.
To me, if there's anything interesting about an awards show, it's about when the award alters someone's life or career. Lorne Michaels winning his eleventh Emmy isn't going to make him any richer or more successful or powerful or anything. The Emmy for Outstanding Achievement in Art Direction For a Multi-Camera Series is probably life-changing for its recipient. It's a shame that the show is no longer about any of that.
Leaving that aside, what was right and wrong with the broadcast? Well, I seem to be the only one on the Internet but I really liked the "in the round" set...and admired the technical expertise that must have been necessary to pull that one off. I wasn't at the Shrine Auditorium (I think that's where they did it) but I wonder if that format caused more celebs to stay in their seats and feel involved in the show. Usually, a lot of your biggies are out in the lobby schmoozing for most of the show because...well, I wouldn't want to sit there for three hours, either. It certainly felt like the audience wasn't all out in the lobby.
What I didn't like: I felt sorry for Ryan Seacrest. He's probably fine on his own show (which I don't watch) but he lacked the sense of importance to preside over the Emmy Awards. He was not capable of coming out and doing a decent monologue so they hustled Ray Romano out there to do one. Romano can do a decent monologue but unfortunately, he didn't have one that had anything to do with television so it further knocked things off-kilter. What Lewis Black did later in the show would have worked up front. In fact, Lewis Black would have been a fine host but the Emmys were on Fox and he isn't the star of a series on Fox so forget that idea. Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Steve Carrell were all very good too, but they aren't on Fox, either. Too bad the Emmys will never be on Comedy Central.
In case you missed it, here's a video of Lewis Black. I liked this a lot and it seems like the audience did, too...
September 22, 2007
