Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Another iPhone iTem

I'm reading a lot of articles on the web like this one saying the iPhone stinks, that it drops calls the way an outfielder for the San Diego Padres drops fly balls, that it's worth paying any kind of megabuck penalty to get away from the iPhone and A.T.&T., etc. Most of these pieces seem to come from folks in or around New York and I have no doubt they're reporting accurately.

But here in Los Angeles...well, I've had A.T.&T. for around ten years now and while I find their billing plans a little confusing, I've been generally satisfied with their service. There are one or two places where calls often drop — like driving down Olympic Boulevard through Century City — but I assume every carrier has a few of those. So far, my new iPhone is proving just as reliable as my old Blackberry, which was on the same A.T.&T. contract. In the month I've had it, I've made or received about fifty calls. Only two have dropped and in each case, the problem may have been on the other end.

Seems like a lot of it depends on where you are...and also when you call. I'm rarely out, and therefore rarely on my cellphone, at rush hour. Make of this what you will.

• Posted at 9:04 PM · LINK

Quick Comment

Every news channel I turn on today has a discussion about what, in light of the recent terrorist attempt, we can do to make air travel safer. The emerging consensus seems to be that doing things that don't work at all is a lot better than doing nothing.

• Posted at 4:28 PM · LINK

For Pete's Sake!

This will be of special interest for folks who are into "funny animal" comic books and the indexing and/or collecting, thereof. One of the frustrating things about caring about this stuff (or amassing it) is that so much of the fine work that's been done in the genre has been uncredited and unsigned. There were no artists' names on comics published for years by Dell Publishing, Gold Key, Archie, Harvey and a few other companies. Many of the artists have been identified...but some have not and many of the identifications are just plain wrong. (The writers are even more difficult to identify.)

My unscientific survey suggests that the most mis-identified artist is probably Pete Alvarado. Pete, who passed away in 2004 (obit here) was one of the most prolific comic illustrators who ever lived. He drew thousands and thousands of pages for Western Publishing Company which were printed in comics bearing the Dell or Gold Key insignias. But — news flash! — he didn't draw everything they published.

Over and over again, I see comics — especially of the Disney or Warner Brothers varieties — wrongly credited to Pete Alvarado. It seems that every time an indexer or art dealer has to list the artist of an issue of one of those books and doesn't know who dunnit, they say it was Pete. Sometimes, since the man drew so many books, they're right, if only by pure luck. But often, they're wrong. And if, as usual, they say Pete pencilled and inked the art in question, they're almost certainly at least half-wrong. Pete hated to ink and wasn't that skilled at it...so at least 95% of his work was inked by others...and if anything, that number's low.

A lot of great artists worked on those comics — men like Harvey Eisenberg, Phil DeLara, Kay Wright, Roger Armstrong, Bob Gregory, John Carey, Gil Turner, Joe Messerli, Cliff Voorhees, Paul Murry, Jack Bradbury, Jack Manning and so many more. I've seen art by most of these gents wrongly listed as being by Pete Alvarado. And by the way, the question of "who drew this?" is not always answerable. Though I am one of the more knowledgeable "experts" on these comics, there are a number of artists whose work I can't identify at all. Some guys did a few stories, then stopped and their names were lost to history. It's frustrating but it's one of those sad facts we have to face.

And there's one other thing I should mention about Pete's work: A number of pieces of original art from comics he drew have turned up on the original market lately. It may be of interest to either the buyers or sellers to know that it's highly unlikely that the hands of Mr. Peter Alvarado ever touched the physical piece of art being sold.

Pete, like many of those who've drawn animation-style comics, worked on tissues. He would draw a page on whatever kind of paper he liked, working in a rough, sketchy manner. Then he'd put a piece of tracing paper over his rough drawings and trace a clean, tight rendering of the art. The sketchy page would be discarded and he'd hand in the pencil art on tracing paper.

The letterer would take a clean piece of art paper and tape Pete's tissue to the back of the page. Then he would letter in the captions and balloons on the front of the paper. Then the page would go to the inker who would work on a light table. The inker would trace, in ink, Pete's pencil drawings onto the front of the paper. Then Pete's sheets of tracing paper would be discarded...except that when I worked with Pete, I always tried to get hold of 'em. The illustration above was scanned from one of his tissues for a comic I wrote and edited.

So for original art collectors and dealers, this raises an interesting question: Is it Pete Alvarado original artwork if Pete never worked on that piece o' paper? A similar imponderable exists with original art to the comic strip Doonesbury, which is drawn much the same way, inked on a light table by someone other than Garry Trudeau, and there are other comics where this has been the modus operandi. I'm not sure how to answer this question but I thought somebody ought to ask it. And also point out that Pete Alvarado, as wonderful as he was, didn't draw a lot of the stuff that gets credited to him.

• Posted at 2:40 AM · LINK

Today's Video Link

This may be my favorite Buster Keaton short. It's Cops, filmed in 1922. Some have suggested that this was Keaton's answer to the then-current scandal involving his friend, Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. The suggesters see an analogy in the idea of a guy who's done nothing wrong but is pursued relentlessly by the law for no real reason. Well, okay. If you want to view it that way, be my guest. I don't quite see it. I just think it's a clever, funny film.

Some of that clever, funny film, by the way, was filmed on the streets of Hollywood. 15 minutes and 30 seconds in, there's a scene where Buster runs out of an alley and grabs onto a passing car. That alley was (and still is) on Cahuenga Boulevard, just south of Hollywood Boulevard. It's right next to the big newsstand there...and it doesn't look all that different these days.

• Posted at 12:59 AM · LINK

December 28, 2009 • Current • December 30, 2009