Monthly Archives: January 2006

Another classic (albeit shabby) Vegas landmark will soon be history. The Stardust opened in 1958 and has been credited as the hotel that did the most to make superstar performers a fixture of the town. Other hotels had them before but the Stardust defined its identity by booking the biggies into its showroom. It was also said for a time to have the most "mob ties," though folks haven't said that for quite a while. Or gone there. Unless one wanted to catch a certain show, I can't think of a single reason you'd venture onto that property and I'm apparently not the only one. After several years of losing money, its owners have announced they'll close the place either later this year or just after New Year's, 2007. It will be torn down and replaced with — what else? — a multi-billion dollar mega-resort. That will come in handy for the people who don't want to walk all the way across the street to get to a multi-billion dollar mega-resort.

I love old Vegas but I find no emotional attachment to places like this in their present state. I walked through the Sands the week before it was demolished and could find nothing to be nostalgic about. (Quick story: They were doing a thriving business there selling souvenirs with the Sands logo on them — t-shirts, fanny packs, etc. I almost bought a Sands mug until I saw the price, which was over $20. Two weeks later — I swear this is true — I found the exact same Sands mugs at the 99-Cent Only store, priced at two for 99 cents.)

The Sands is gone. The Desert Inn, the Hacienda, the original Aladdin and the Landmark are gone. So is the Dunes. The Tropicana and the New Frontier are only awaiting the right deals before they're razed. The Boardwalk and the Westward Ho have closed. The Castaways is being torn down. The Imperial Palace has been sold to folks who have every reason to call in the wrecking ball, the Lady Luck downtown has closed for a year-long makeover…and so on. I miss the era but I don't (or won't) miss a one of those buildings. The Stardust, especially.

For years, the big headline act at the Stardust was Bobby Berosini's Orangutans. You don't see much of Bobby Berosini or his orangutans (he reportedly still has them) these days but once upon a time, they were the hottest act in Vegas and made very good money. That was before 1989 when a dancer in the Lido show secretly videotaped Berosini backstage with his apes, yelling at them and apparently beating them. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) got involved, the tapes aired on TV, protests mounted and the Stardust dropped Berosini. He made a brief reappearance in a show at the Dunes but has been virtually unemployable since, at least in Las Vegas.

Lawsuits flew and if you try to research them, you'll get a migraine following all the appeals and reversals. Berosini won a $4.2 million dollar judgment against PETA. Then it was reduced to $3.1 million. Then it was reversed altogether and suddenly, he owed them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then he didn't. Then he did and…well, I lost track. I couldn't even figure out which side to root for. We once had Mr. Berosini on a show I wrote and at least around us, he seemed to treat his animals quite well. I also visited him backstage at the Stardust once and saw him screaming at but not striking his co-stars…but of course, those were just two moments out of many. I'm a big believer in kindness to critters but PETA sometimes strikes me as doing for their cause what Dr. Strangelove did for world peace. So I don't know whether to be happy or sad at the outcome, which is that Bobby Berosini and his anthropoids no longer play Vegas. It was a funny act, though.

Backstage at the Stardust, by the way, looked nothing like it did in the movie, Showgirls. I once watched that movie at a party with a bunch of Vegas dancers and they howled at the turgid dialogue and plot situations…and especially at the fancy dressing rooms. When they saw Gina Gershon's, one former Lido dancer said, "The entire company had to dress in one room that size…and that included the orangutans."

Contrary to what I predicted in this post two years ago, The Phantom of the Opera has now passed Cats as the longest-running show in Broadway history. Back when Cats took the trophy away from A Chorus Line, there was much wailing and weeping in the theatrical community. Even folks who didn't like Chorus Line felt it was way more deserving than Cats. There was the feeling in some circles that for the feline-themed musical to have that distinction said something unflattering about Broadway or about the standards of Broadway.

I don't know that it does. It might say something about more effective marketing or advertising or discount ticket promotions. It might also be significant that none of the shows in the Top Ten were really star-dependent and therefore subject to dips when certain performers departed. I mean, the original production of The Music Man ran 1,375 performances. If Robert Preston had been willing to remain in it for twenty years, it probably would have run twenty years. For reference, here's the Top Seventeen…

1. The Phantom of the Opera (7,487 performances)
2. Cats (7,485 performances)
3. Les Misérables (6,680 performances)
4. A Chorus Line (6,137 performances)
5. Oh! Calcutta! (Revival) (5,959 performances)
6. Beauty and the Beast (4,818 performances)
7. Miss Saigon (4,097 performances)
8. Rent (4,051 performances)
9. Chicago (Revival) (3,804 performances)
10. 42nd Street (3,486 performances)
11. The Lion King (3,436 performances)
12. Grease (3,388 performances)
13. Fiddler on the Roof (3,242 performances)
14. Life With Father (3,224 performances)
15. Tobacco Road (3,182 performances)
16. Hello, Dolly! (2,844 performances)
17. My Fair Lady (2,717 performances)

Phantom will have its title for a long time. No one expects it to close soon and whenever that day comes, it's unlikely that Beauty and the Beast, which is the next show on that list still running, will be running six and a half a years after that. Which is what it would take to snatch the title away. Nor will Rent, the revival of Chicago or The Lion King — the other shows on this list that are still racking up performances — probably hang around that long.

If I had to guess, I'd bet that Chicago would have the best shot at toppling Phantom but that's unlikely. Let's imagine Phantom runs three more years, which is a reasonable prediction, I think. Not only would Chicago have to also stay open for those three years but it would then have to run until around Christmas of 2017 to move into first place. The Producers, which has had around 1,968 performances, would have to run until April of 2025. So for the rest of our lives, Phantom of the Opera may be the longest-running show in Broadway history. I wish I knew more than a few people who liked it.

He doesn't seem to need them but we're sending "get well" wishes anyway to the Amazing Carl Ballantine, a great comic actor and the uncontested king of funny magic. Carl was recently hospitalized and a few Internet forums erupted with dire word about his health. What's the matter with you people? The guy's only 83 years old, after all. It's not like he's an old man. (And I'm only half-kidding. I have lunch with Carl every so often. Wish I had half his energy.) They slapped some sort of pacemaker in him the other day and sent him right home. That's where he is right now, figuring out when he can next get to the racetrack or to his favorite dining establishment, In-n-Out Burger.

Carl's one of the most wonderful comic talents I've ever had the honor to work with. I hired him a couple times to do voices on the Garfield cartoon show and boy, did he make me look like I knew what I was doing. Everyone adored him. I wish he was on television more often because there's no one who's funnier.

Number one in a series.

This Robert Novak column is interesting, not so much because of what it says but because he's saying it. A lot of Republicans are probably mulling over when they're going to distance themselves from George W. Bush and over which issues. The new Medicare prescription plan, which almost no one is willing to defend, is a good starting point. Novak is the kind of columnist who pretty much just takes dictation from some powerful Republican with a story to plant. Wonder who dictated this one.

Edward Jay Epstein on why Blockbuster Video is not long for this world.

Sometimes, your brain goes North and your typing fingers head South. I just got a couple of messages from folks asking me to tell more about the Boondocks pilot I worked on. I thought to myself, "That's odd. I never worked on a Boondocks pilot." Then I realized what I'd done. In the piece I wrote about Lou Rawls, I meant to type the name of Jump Start, which is another fine newspaper strip. Some years back, I voice-directed little five-minute animated pilots for a number of strips and Lou Rawls was in the one we did of Jump Start. Only I didn't type Jump Start. For some reason, I typed Boondocks. Very dumb of me.

Every so often — not as often as I'd like, of course — I allow myself an In-n-Out Burger. In case you live outside the few states where one can get such a thing, In-n-Out Burger is a chain of fast food burger shrines that does a small menu but does it right. It's hamburgers, fries, soft drinks, milk shakes, milk, coffee and nothing else. No turkey burgers, no chicken sandwiches or nuggets, no salads…you can't even get hot tea at an In-n-Out. What you can get is a hamburger done right. The beef is never frozen, the potatoes for the fries are cut fresh on the premises (you can watch them do this) and everything is done with more expertise than you see in a place that hires minimum-wage teens to crank out pre-fab food. There's something almost inspirational to see that it's possible to build a business without anything artificial and still make a real profit.

One reason for the quality control is that In-n-Out does not franchise — every one is company-owned, company-operated — and they do not expand too fast. So it's unnerving to hear that there is strife and open warfare within the family that owns this fine chain and that it may lead to serious expansion. According to this article in the L.A. Times (which may make you register), a power struggle is in progress and those never end well. The folks who will probably win it sooner or later want to bring in new management that will grow the chain and maximize income…something the old management has never done since the first stand was opened in 1948.

Is this beginning of the end for In-n-Out Burger? Probably not. Fatburger went from a couple of outlets to many without seriously compromising their product. Of course, I do recall that a brief attempt some years ago to expand my once-favorite local burger joint, Cassell's, into a chain was a disaster. All the new ones they opened closed rapidly because as was quite evident to all of those who flocked to them, they'd abandoned the basic principles and standards that had made the first one work. Today, only that first, original outlet of Cassell's remains…with new ownership and reduced quality. So I'm just the tiniest bit worried.

Johnny Depp as Sweeney Todd? I hate to prejudge a movie, especially long before it's even made. But gee, that sounds wrong to me.

That's right: Two for the price of one! Not only is today the 80th birthday of Soupy Sales but Larry Storch is 83 years old today…or maybe tomorrow. Depending on which source you consult, the star of TV's F Troop was born either January 8 or 9. There's no doubt though that he's one of the funniest comic actors to ever work in television…and did you know he also did a lot of cartoon voice work in the sixties? He was on Tennessee Tuxedo and The Groovie Goolies and a whole batch of other shows. I even brought him in once to do some voices on Garfield and Friends, partly because I thought he'd be great (he was) and partly because I just wanted to meet him and tell him how terrific I always thought he was in everything.

Legend has it that Storch's big break came when he got a role on a radio show starring Frank Morgan, who was best known for playing The Wizard of Oz in The Wizard of Oz. Morgan, the story goes, lost his reading glasses during a rehearsal — or in some accounts, just before going on the air live. Storch, who was a fine mimic, came to the rescue and not only did his own role but also read Morgan's lines in a perfect imitation. (That was his Frank Morgan impression you heard when he voiced Professor Phineas Whoopee on Tennessee Tuxedo.) He went on to a grand career on stage, in clubs, on TV and in the movies. He's still performing, mostly in theater…so happy returns of the day, Larry Storch. Either today or tomorrow.

Frank Rich on the whole Wiretaps Without Warrants matter. And for what it's worth, I think Rich misses the point on one matter. He writes…

If fictional terrorists concocted by Hollywood can figure out that the National Security Agency is listening to their every call, guess what? Real-life terrorists know this, too. So when a hyperventilating President Bush rants that the exposure of his warrant-free wiretapping in a newspaper is shameful and puts "our citizens at risk" by revealing our espionage playbook, you have to wonder what he is really trying to hide. Our enemies, as America has learned the hard way, are not morons. Even if Al Qaeda hasn't seen "Sleeper Cell" because it refuses to spring for pay cable, it has surely assumed from the get-go that the White House would ignore legal restraints on eavesdropping, just as it has on detainee jurisprudence and torture.

It isn't that the terrorists on whom our nation eavesdrops would assume the White House would ignore legal restraints. It's that it doesn't matter. The warrants that the administration should be getting under the NSA act are secret warrants. The terrorists couldn't possibly know or care if procedure is followed or not.

Eighty years ago today, a baby was born in North Carolina who was destined to become a TV superstar…and also to get hit in the face with tens of thousands of shaving cream pies. Kids today have no one on television — absolutely no one — they could possibly feel as close to as my friends and I did to Soupy Sales during the years he lit up Los Angeles television. And kids who were the proper age when he worked in Detroit and New York feel the same way, I know. It wasn't just that he did one of those all-too-rare shows that though ostensibly for children held just as much delight for grown-ups. And it wasn't just that he did it without writers or much of a budget or even (much of the time) more than one person in his supporting cast. Soupy was just plain the most fun person to watch on TV when I was eight. He was also, for my classmates and me, a huge influence. We never talked to big dogs or wiseguy salesmen who hurled meringue our way but we did repeat his jokes and even, in our everyday speech, made feeble attempts to repeat his timing. Soupy "connected" with us like no one else I've ever seen on the screen.

Some time back, I wrote this article about him which was reprinted (with my permission, natch) in his autobiography. Beyond that, there isn't much I can say except to wish Soupy a happy 80th. I hear he's bouncing back from some health problems, which is great news. Here's hoping he has a great big cake today and that nobody throws it at him.

The lovely Carolyn Kelly and I are back from the debut performance of Scott Shaw!'s Oddball Comics presentation at the Acme Comedy Theater in Hollywood. First of all, here are the details on how you can attend. Secondly, attend. If you are anywhere near Los Angeles, get thee to the Acme next Saturday night or a Saturday night not long after. For at least the next few weeks, Scott will be doing his show Saturday night at ten there and those who show up will have a very good time. I laughed a lot and so did everyone around me as Scott displayed bizarre comic book covers from his bizarre collection and delivered incisive, clever commentary. Four stars, two thumbs up, three cheers and tiger for me. End of plug.

On December 28, the Rasmussen Poll announced that it had recently surveyed Americans and determined that…

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Today, results were released of an AP-Ipsos poll that said…

A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows. 56 percent of respondents…said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

Now, let's assume for the moment that both these polls are correct — a small assumption with the AP one, a larger one with Rasmussen but still, in both cases, an assumption. These two polls are not mutually exclusive. If I believe the Bush administration should be allowed to snoop on the phone calls of terrorist suspects but should do so only with warrants and judicial oversight, I'd be with the majority in both polls. The thing is: Neither poll reflects the actual situation. Neither is really asking about the law as it currently stands.

The NSA law allows the administration to eavesdrop on just about anybody it wants. They're supposed to get a warrant before they do it but if they feel time is of the essence, they can do it immediately and then they have 72 hours to secure the warrant afterwards. Some people don't seem to know about this last part. A lot of Bush defenders are arguing for his position as if complying with the law as written means that they have to go to a judge beforehand and therefore can't act swiftly. Not so. They just have to let this secret court that was set up to keep an eye on wiretaps know what they're doing.

The controversy is not about whether if Osama bin Laden phones you, the government should be listening in. It's about whether the Bush administration can overlook a law that was set up to govern how wiretaps would be done, and can conduct them without any oversight, either before or after the fact. How come nobody's polling on how we feel about that?

Glenn Greenwald refutes the argument that it harmed National Security for the New York Times to reveal that our government spies on phone calls without obtaining warrants. I think he's right. They didn't aid terrorists in any way. All they did was to point out that the Bush administration may be violating the law.