A lot of us have wondered for many years just what it was that George W. Bush and his crew thought they were going to accomplish in Iraq. What would be achieved that would make it worth all the deaths, all the shattered lives and limbs, all the money?
In an interview recorded for Japanese TV today, Bush said the Iraq War was a "success" and that he was "very pleased" with what's happening there. So apparently, that's the answer. We did it all to get what we're going to get.
It's just been announced that Young Frankenstein will close on Broadway as of the January 4th performance. There had been rumors that its producers were negotiating with Cloris Leachman to come in and recreate her film role as Frau Blucher (click here for horse whinny) but either those rumors were false or they couldn't come to terms...or maybe grosses are so low that the producers decided it wouldn't be cost effective.
Exactly what the show has grossed is a mystery because in a break with Broadway precedent, the backers of Young Frankenstein are keeping that information a secret. Given the show's constant availability at the TKTS booth and reports of empty seats, the run has to be disappointing, especially when one remembers the huge budget, the advance hype and how they once asked sky-high fees for "premium" tickets.
When Young Frankenstein closes, it will have run 484 performances. By contrast, the previous Mel Brooks musical — The Producers — ran 2502 performances.
I enjoyed Young Frankenstein when I saw it a little more than a year ago but it did strike me as a flawed product, especially the ending. Had it not come in with so much advance hype, as well as the expectation of matching The Producers, I think it would have done better. A national tour is supposed to launch in September of '09 and that presumably means a simpler production with less grandiose sets and special effects. Oddly enough, that might help.
January's going to be a big month for shows closing in New York. Hairspray and 13 close the same day, Spamalot ends a week later and the week after that, Spring Awakening goes to sleep. Three of those four shows won the Tony for Best New Musical in the years they opened.
Are you watching the late night black-and-white game show reruns on GSN? On the What's My Line? that runs tonight (or tomorrow morning, actually), they're running one from September 29 of 1957 — the only episode of that show's original run with a guest host. John Daly was away on a news assignment so panelist Bennett Cerf filled in for him...and didn't do a very good job, I'm afraid. (There are two mystery guests...singer Julie London and industrialist Henry Kaiser.)
Meanwhile, right after What's My Line? each night/morning, GSN has been running an episode of The Name's the Same. They recently completed the short run where Bob and Ray served as hosts and they're now into a series of shows hosted by Clifton Fadiman. Of special interest is the episode that will run Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. The special guest is Chico Marx.
Thursday night, they're running a Thanksgiving-themed I've Got a Secret from 1964 in that second time slot. Then next Monday night, they run the last episode of The Name's the Same and on Tuesday, December 2, they begin again with reruns of To Tell the Truth, starting way back in 1957.
Candace Gingrich, sister of Newt, spanks her brother for his opposition to Gay Marriage.
The subtext of this piece is rather interesting. I've always had the impression that many politicos who inveigh against Same Sex Wedlock really don't care about it but do see it as an issue that can fire up "the base." And of course, once you fire up "the base" and get its support, you get a certain empowerment that you can redirect into the issues that you do care about...usually tax cuts and goverment handouts to your friends. Newt Gingrich always struck me as one such politician. And his sister, without saying that, seems to be arguing her cause with that in mind. She's not so much telling him not that he's on the wrong side from a moral standpoint — which he is — but that he's on the wrong side because that trick won't work much longer for him.
This is another one of those books I'm recommending to anyone who has the slightest interest in the subject matter. In this case, the subject matter is Joe Kubert, one of the most respected and popular comic book artists of all time. That's Joe you see in the photo at above right, posing with someone named Sergio Aragonés.
Joe got into comics when he was barely a teenager and he was soon hailed as a wunderkind — a guy whose drawing ability left his alleged peers openmouthed with amazement. Alex Toth, on whom many of the same things were said, once remarked, "It was impressive for an artist to be that fast or that good. To be both at the same time just made others red with jealousy." For a long time, Kubert was typed as a "war comics artist," mainly for his work on strips like Sgt. Rock and Enemy Ace, but over the years he drew every kind of adventure comic...with an emphasis on heavy testosterone. He also founded a very successful school for comic artists which can boast a high number of graduates who currently work in the industry.
I enjoyed interviewing Joe a few months ago at Mid-Ohio Con but we only had an hour and many questions went unasked or answered. Fortunately, they're all addressed in a new biography of Joe...Man of Rock by Bill Schelly. Bill, a fine artist himself, is a historian of comics and comic fandom and he has assembled a book worthy of its subject. Above and beyond the factual recital of Joe's long, impressive career, there's a keen understanding of the challenges and changes of the form. It's really an excellent portrait not just of Joe Kubert but of that generation of comic creator and what it took to produce excellent, innovative work over so many decades.
This is one of the best books of its kind and, like I said, if you have the slightest interest in what it's about, you need a copy. You can order one from Amazon by clicking right here.
The Screen Actors Guild has announced it will ask its 120,000 members to authorize a strike vote.
Here, in a nutshell, is what brought us to this moment: The AMPTP, which represents TV and motion picture producers, has been trying to not pay much, if anything, for the reuse of old shows and film as well as the production of new material for "new media." In this case, that term applies primarily to distribution via Internet but can and will encompass a number of other forms. This is more than a matter of not wanting to share newly-found revenues. Actors make a large part of their incomes from residuals when their work is reused in so-called "traditional" venues, like when a TV network reruns a show. The studios are trying to take the position that as they shift such reruns from the traditional venues to new ones, the old residual payments will be replaced by little or nothing.
There are other issues but that's the biggie. It was a biggie in the lengthy Writers Guild strike of not that many months ago, and we wound up with an okay deal, as did the Directors Guild. The AMPTP has offered what they claim is a similar concession to actors...but the SAG leadership feels it's not comparable and not enough.
Most years, SAG negotiates its contracts in lockstep with a sister union, AFTRA — The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. This year, that alliance splintered and AFTRA leadership, which was much more reticent to strike, went in on its own and made what SAG's leadership and many onlookers consider a tepid and insufficient deal. The Producers then said, in effect, "SAG can have the exact same deal or they can go to hell. We're not negotiating any more." And while the two sides have met repeatedly since AFTRA settled in May, the AMPTP hasn't notably improved the offer. Which is why SAG is now asking its members to authorize a strike.
In my opinion, SAG is correct that they're being forced to accept a crummy deal. In an ordinary year, it would be all-out war, and an actors' strike would be so thorough and militant that the AMPTP would scurry to make a better offer. But this is no ordinary year; not with the AFTRA split and undercut and not with the economy turning rancid on everyone. I hope I'm wrong but SAG seems divided, dispirited and full of internal strife with competing factions blaming one another for the mess they're in. The studios probably feel they can sit on their "final offer" and wait for the union to crawl back and accept it.
At the moment, the timetable for a strike is unknown. SAG's intention to take a strike vote was announced yesterday. That can take 30-40 days and in this case, the ballots will probably not go out until the union has a chance to prepare an extensive informational campaign to rally its membership. So we could be looking at some time in late January for a walkout, which means we may once again see awards shows like the Golden Globes and the Oscars held hostage.
That's if they vote to strike. SAG's bylaws require a 75% strike authorization from its members in order to go out. In the current climate, that may not be attainable. If they do get it and do walk, they will not shut down all production because some TV shows are covered by AFTRA and can therefore continue.
As you may be able to tell, I don't have a good feeling about this. Stay tuned.
Here's a short interview from 1964 with Buster Keaton. In the first part, he talks about a movie he tried unsuccessfully to get made at MGM — an all-star parody of that studio's blockbuster, Grand Hotel. At the time he proposed it, Keaton was considered unreliable, unbankable and unable to refrain from alcohol...so for those reasons alone, the movie was never made. (In case anyone's puzzled about the reference to "Babe Hardy," that was Oliver Hardy's offscreen nickname.)
Then Keaton talks about the decline of comedy films...and the reasons he gives are probably valid, though in his case, it probably also had a lot to do with drinking. Anyway, it's interesting to hear him talk about those days...
November 22, 2008
