Monthly Archives: May 2019

Skidoo has been removed from the schedule of the Beverly Cinema, replaced in its Midnight June 29 slot by Alice's Restaurant. I'm going to guess a problem acquiring the print of Skidoo is the reason. Since I don't know how I feel about this film, I don't know how I feel about it not being shown. Perhaps it will turn up at the Bev one of these days.

Brent McKee wrote to ask…

I heard something on a podcast I was listening to today that surprised me. It was Leo Laporte's Tech Guy Podcast from May 19th. In the course of the show there was a call from a guy who had been doing radio and voice work for years and knew some of the legends including Daws Butler.

Daws apparently gave this guy some advice which was to never work in Hollywood. He also said that in the years that he worked for Hanna-Barbera, Daws was always paid daily rate. There was much tut-tutting from Leo about how important Daws was to the success of Hanna-Barbera cartoons, but it got me to wondering what the standard practice is in the industry. Because you don't need a voice man every day, you wouldn't keep them on salary, would you? Now the amount might be greater or lesser, but surely you'd only pay them for when you need them? Or am I misunderstanding what the guy was saying?

Leaving aside a voice actor who also performs some other function on a show (like Bill Scott on Rocky & Bullwinkle where he was an actor-writer-producer), the only cartoon voice performer I can think of who was ever on a weekly salary was Clarence Nash. Disney always had him around when they needed the voice of Donald Duck for practically anything including promotional recordings. They also sent him out with a Donald puppet to make personal appearances.

I can't think of any others. In his autobiography, Joe Besser bragged about being paid some huge, unrevealed weekly salary by DePatie-Freleng to do voices on their cartoons in the sixties or maybe seventies. He didn't do anywhere near enough for them to make that cost-effective so I kinda doubt that claim.

All the actors at Hanna-Barbera were paid by the job. Most received union scale — whatever the Screen Actors Guild had negotiated at that point. Some of those who had important roles or long-running successful characters or personal fame would negotiate for amounts above union scale.

Often these days and sometimes back then, a lead would get double-scale or triple-scale or scale plus $500 or something like that. Sometimes, they would also negotiate for a certain guaranteed amount of work. Joe Barbera told me that at one point, Alan Reed was holding out for a substantial raise to do another season of The Flintstones. He wanted one amount above scale for each session; H-B wanted to pay him another. They compromised somewhere in the middle and also guaranteed Mr. Reed a certain number of sessions at S.A.G. scale on some other Hanna-Barbera show…which is why he was the voice of the character Dum-Dum in the Touché Turtle cartoons.

So yes, Daws Butler was a day player.  So was Don Messick, so was John Stephenson, so was Jean Vander Pyl, etc.  They may have negotiated rates above scale and at times, certainly did.  But they did not get a weekly paycheck from the studio.  They were hired when needed and paid by the session.

At times, Daws was down on the whole process.  This is just my opinion but I think Daws did not always have the best agents.  But he also for a long time had a little school in his home where he trained young actors for the profession so I don't think he was too down about working in Hollywood.

And he charged very little for those classes so I don't think he was hard-up for money.  I would not however disagree with someone who felt that, given his value to the success of that studio and to the worth of most characters he voiced, he was grossly underpaid.  I feel the same way about most of the great cartoon voice actors that I feel about most of the great comic book writers and artists.

You know what it is. It's Skidoo, director Otto Preminger's 1968 attempt to do something that "these kids today" would relate to…or at least go see. I do not recommend viewing this film but there are certain things in this world that you oughta do just once…and Skidoo should be seen one time or less. The cast alone boggles the mind: Jackie Gleason, Carol Channing, Mickey Rooney, Burgess Meredith, Peter Lawford, George Raft, Frankie Avalon, other folks like that…and in his final motion picture appearance, Groucho Marx in the role of God. Gleason called the picture "the greatest meatball of all time" and he didn't mean that as a compliment despite his apparent love of meatballs.

Why am I telling you this now? Not to get you to order the DVD…and My God, they've also put it out on Blu-ray! But you can if you want. I mean, I won't stop you.

No, I'm here to alert folks in the Los Angeles area that the Beverly Cinema — the movie theater near Beverly and La Brea that's either owned or somehow controlled by Quentin Tarantino — is running a Technicolor print of the thing as a Midnight Movie on June 29. Here's your chance to be part of an audience that will look exactly like the folks watching the "Springtime for Hitler" number in The Producers except they won't start laughing and declare it a hit. I will either be at this screening or not be at this screening. In a way, neither is a great choice.

(Hey, I just realized: The Producers was released on November 10, 1968 and Skidoo had its world premiere on December 2, 1968. That's probably significant in some deep way but I have no idea what it is.)

If this film fascinates you, know that it's been discussed a lot on this blog starting with this post. If that whets your appetite to read more about it, go to our search box and slap in that name. Here, once again, is the trailer — and the movie is even weirder than this…

• I know how to get Donald Trump out of the White House! Hang photos of John McCain all over the place!

Just got this from Brian Trester…

I had a few questions about the writers guild and your thoughts on strikes and non union workers being called in.

I know that in the past you have stated you do not like them and listed a good number of reasons why. I am just wondering if you could ever defend a reason for crossing the picket line. An example may be a new writer seeing it as his chance to finally get some work sold or turned in. They may see this as a break and their only chance to land a big time deal (big for them) and maybe launching their career.

The second reason could be what if I am happy with my current deal and feel the company I am working for or producer has been more than fair with me. I may have signed a contract saying I will do so many shows for X amount of money. If the strike begins while I am under a contract do I honor my contract and be called a scab or do I join the strike and thus break a deal I had agreed to. To me I feel if I agree to a deal I should stick it out until the end. then when its met I can join the strike as my commitment is done. I do not know the rules about this so it may already be addressed.

I know writers especially in the past were treated very poorly paid poorly in comparison to say the actors and other members of the production team and often were not given credit for work done. I believe late night shows are still like this as I do not remember them giving credit to writers for what they did on the show.

I guess I am just curious as to your thoughts if its ever ok to cross a line or continue work if a strike is called and if so what would you think would be a good exception.

I can't think of a scenario I would consider a good exception. To me, the two scenarios you mention are certainly not.

I'm sure when the WGA goes on strike, every wanna-be writer in the world wonders if this could be their chance. It really isn't. First of all, most producers don't want someone whose work is only "good enough" when the real pros aren't available. This is why when the guild does go on strike, very few scab scripts are bought.

Most shows do shut down because the folks in charge don't want to stay in production with the kind of scripts they can get. Usually, the soap operas manage to keep going and they're usually unhappy with what winds up going on the air…and how the temps screw up the long-range continuity of the series.

Secondly on that or any scenario: It's kind of weasely to cross that picket line. You want the great salary and other benefits that have been won by past strikes but you're not willing to support the system that won them? Even I, gentleman that I am, might not be polite enough to not tell you what I think of you. I sure don't see "But it could be my big break" as even the tiniest justification for that.

As for the other scenario: Yes, you might be quite happy with the current deal you have. So are most of the writers who walk out when there's a strike. But there are specific issues to any strike, most of which could affect your next deal or the right of the guild to police any deal. You have to look at the long game here. If the guild is weakened, that's not good for you. Your pension and health benefits could get cut back. Your residuals could get lowered. Their ability to fight for your rights can be impaired. Those are just a few examples in a long, long list.

If you're working on a Guild-covered project for a company that's a signatory to the Guild, you're working under the Guild's Minimum Basic Agreement. That's the deal they make on behalf of their membership with the AMPTP (these guys). Your own personal contract is kind of like an add-on to that. It may just say the terms of your employment will be the terms of the MBA or it may say that plus specify certain terms and compensation you receive above and beyond the MBA.

Either way, when the Guild calls a strike, it's because the MBA has expired and the WGA and the AMPTP have been unable to agree on a new one. So if the WGA doesn't have a contract, you don't have a contract.

In 1988 when the WGA went on strike, I was writing a screenplay for one of the bigger studios. I believe I started on it the second week of February and my first draft was due some time in April. But then the Guild went out the first week of March and I stopped writing. That's how it works. I was not in violation of my contract. Even though it paid me more than WGA minimum, my contract was under the MBA so when there was no MBA in place, time stood still on my deal. Only when the new MBA was signed months later did work resume.

As it turned out, the script I wrote was never made. By the time I handed it in, the folks at the studio who'd commissioned it had been replaced and their successors didn't want to make anything approved by the folks who'd been fired. That kind of thing happens all the time in Hollywood even when there is no strike.

Would it have been made if I'd finished it as per the original schedule? Would it have been a big hit that would have boosted my income and career? Those are two questions no one can ever answer with any certainty but there's a very slim chance there of two yeses. And if you spend any time as a professional writer, you'll have an endless supply of that kind of question. They'll spring from every offer you turn down, every project that for any reason doesn't happen. You can't run your career or even your life — in the unlikely event you view those as two separate things — based on what might have happened.

You have to look at the bigger picture. In about three weeks, I will have been a professional writer for half a friggin' century. I have worked for producers less rooted in morals than Harvey Weinstein and publishers less ethical than the guy on the cover of Trump Magazine. I have also worked for very good, honest people and companies in both categories, including some I respect greatly.

If I have learned nothing else in over 18,000 days (My God!!!) in my chosen profession, I have learned the difference between being treated well and treated poorly. There's a reason I would never do anything to undermine the Writers Guild of America.

Forgive the long speech, Brian. It's what happens when you poke a sensitive area and you stumbled across one of mine.

And we not only have the latest Randy Rainbow video but also this link to a profile of the man. Just remember that if you follow Randy Rainbow, it will lead you to a pot o' gold…

I assume you've heard about or even actually heard the statement this morning by retiring special counsel Robert Mueller. If not, here's a transcript of it and here's what seems to me like a pretty fair analysis of it by Andrew Prokop.

Mr. Mueller clearly wants his report to be his final word on the matter and to not testify or participate in any way in whatever results from that report. The problems of course are…

1. Much in the report has been redacted by an Attorney General who behaves like he wouldn't act if Trump really did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.  Also, the A.G. controls access to the supporting evidence that Mueller's team amassed.  So Congress is expected to act on the report without all of the report.
2. We live in an era of Total Spin; where Mueller can write that his report "does not exonerate" Trump and then Trump and his aides can say, "See?  He exonerated Trump" and then Trump's supporters, including the Republican Senate, can proceed as if that's what it said and insist the matter is over.

So what's going to happen here?  It feels like the Democrats need to launch an impeachment inquiry and hold hearings…but not actually get to the point of voting to impeach and hand it over to the Senate for a trial.  Mitch McConnell has pretty much said that if they got such a vote at 2 PM, at 2:01, no matter what was in it, they'd vote "Not Guilty" and rush to the microphones to declare that now that that nonsense is over, there can be no further investigations or prosecutions over anything the Trump Administration does.

Is Trump going to be the first sitting U.S. President to run for re-election while he is the subject of a Congressional Impeachment Inquiry?  That would be fun.

And isn't it just what ol' Mitch would have done if they could have with Obama?  Kevin Drum wrote a good piece on McConnell.  Here's an excerpt…

McConnell has practically built his entire career on hypocrisy, and he's never really tried to hide it. He just shrugs, says what he needs to say, and moves on. I don't think he really expects or cares if anyone takes him seriously, but treats public explanations as mere tedious parts of his job. In reality, he believes that whoever's in power should do whatever they can to get their way, and it's naive to think there are any other considerations. He doesn't need anyone's defense on this score.

So here's my question: A key point of the Mueller Report is that he and his team concluded that they could not charge a sitting President with a crime. There are experts who disagree but that's what Mueller concluded. It is not so much a formal law and it is a Justice Department policy.

But didn't Leon Jaworski name sitting president Richard Nixon an "unindicted co-conspirator" in some of the crimes of Watergate? And when Ken Starr filed his report on sitting president Bill Clinton, didn't he go a lot farther than just saying "We're not allowed to decide"? Do these guidelines say they only apply to Republican sitting presidents?

Here's a clip from a recent episode of Pawn Stars in which a lady comes in to sell her copy of MAD #1.  I liked this show when it first went on but it increasingly came to feel scripted and phony, and it became way too obvious that we were not watching actual transactions.  There were occasionally neat variations but too often, the formula went like this…

1. Potential Seller brings in an item with some possible historical value.
2. Pawn Shop Staffer rattles off, as if they know this stuff by heart, interesting facts about the item that sound like they're being read off a Wikipedia page, then asks, "How much were you looking to get out of it?"
3. Potential Seller names a probably-too-high price for it.
4. Pawn Shop Staffer confesses he doesn't know if that's a fair price but says something like, "I've got a buddy who knows all about these things.  Would you mind if I got him down here to take a look?"
5. Potential Seller is delighted by this; has not the slightest suspicion that the potential buyer's buddy might undervalue the item or find fault with it in order to help his buddy acquire it at a low price.
6. Expert arrives promptly because Expert is always available to drop everything and race down to the Gold and Silver Pawn Shop to offer expertise, apparently without compensation.
7. Expert occasionally says item is worthless, more often cites a value that's a lot less than the potential seller hoped, then leaves.
8. Potential Seller asks for the amount cited by Expert.
9. Pawn Shop Staffer patiently explains that "There's no money in it for us" if they buy it at that price.  That's the price for which they'd try to sell it and they have to make money.  Pawn Shop Staffer offers 50% of the Expert's estimate.
10. Potential Seller counters at 75%.
11. Pawn Shop Staffer tries to hold firm at 50% but to show what a great guy he is, he offers 60% — take it or leave it.
12. Potential Seller takes or leaves it, usually takes it.

In the case of the MAD #1 in this clip, the Potential Seller leaves it, turning down an offer of $1400 for a book that the Expert said was in a "6.5 or 7" condition and so worth maybe $2000.   I just took a look at recent sales at Heritage Auctions and $1400 is pretty squarely in the ballpark.

What isn't right in this segment is some history.  The on-screen caption, Rick the Buyer and his Expert all say that MAD was turned from a comic book into a magazine to escape the Comics Code, which would have stifled or banned it contents.  Looking at the history, that's kind of an obvious conclusion but it's not so.

MAD's publisher William M. Gaines was a beloved figure to many but not all. He had some notions about how to run his company that even he admitted were rather odd…for instance, he was very much afraid of adding new people to his "little family." He liked running a small business and was terrified of it getting much larger because then his office would be full of (choke!) strangers.

When MAD first became an unlikely success, Gaines was convinced that it was because of the genius of its founding editor, Harvey Kurtzman. That was certainly true to a vast extent. A bit more arguable was Gaines' belief that Kurtzman, who also wrote almost all of the book and sometimes drew for it, was utterly irreplaceable; that if Harvey ever left, that would be the end of MAD.

Trouble was, Kurtzman wanted to work for some bigger company, preferably one that would issue him bigger checks and not print his work on the cheapest possible paper and sell it at the lowest possible price. He also yearned to be free from the embarrassment of telling people how he made his living.  In 1955, some of those who worked in comics felt that way and Harvey really felt that way.  It was a time when plenty of prominent people were condemning comic books as trash…and as trash that was harmful to children.  The other comics Gaines published — the ones containing severed heads and mutilation, the ones Harvey didn't work on — were especially condemned.

Harvey got an offer to go work for Pageant, which was then a successful magazine that had the prestige of being a slick magazine and not a comic book. Harvey told Gaines he was going to leave and take that offer. Gaines — who as we've noted thought MAD would die sans Harvey — offered to turn MAD into a slick magazine if only Kurtzman would stay. Kurtzman stayed, MAD became a magazine and not long after, Kurtzman left to do a better paying, potentially-classier magazine for Hugh Hefner. As it turned out, Harvey wasn't as irreplaceable as Gaines had feared.

A little later when the Comics Codes was formed, MAD's transformation from comic book to magazine did save it from undergoing the scrutiny and castration of the Comics Code Authority. But that was a fortunate side effect of the changeover. It was not why they did it.

Also: The Pawn Stars segment would leave you with the impression that the infamous Dr. Wertham got the Senate to hold its fabled hearings into whether comic books were bad for children. Dr. Wertham did testify but he did not directly cause the hearings to be convened. You might also come away believing that the Comics Code was formed by the government and imposed on the publishers. Actually, the Code was instituted by an associations of most of the major publishers. They feared if they didn't do it, the government might — and even if the government didn't, wholesalers and retailers might stop carrying their wares.

Here's the Pawn Stars segment that gets so much of this wrong…

Bernard Duggan writes…

I watched the the Stan & Ollie movie and really liked it. I have never really watched any of their films. Can you recommend one to start with?

Also, I never really watched any of the Marx Bros. films. Can you also recommend one of their movies?

Well, I really didn't like the Stan & Ollie movie so maybe you don't want to take recommendations from me. But in case you do, a good starting point for Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy would be one of these features: Sons of the Desert, Way Out West, The Devil's Brother, The Flying Deuces or Our Relations. If you don't love those, there's little point in proceeding any further.

If you do proceed further, put anything they made in 1941 or later at the bottom of the pile. Those films are not without wonderful moments but save them until you get tired of the earlier films. Their other pre-1941 features and all of the shorts they made with sound are worthy of your attention, though a good filmography (here's one) will alert you to the ones where they only make brief (sometimes, very brief) cameo appearances.

Their silent shorts are mostly wonderful. You need to be charitable about some of the early ones where they're still figuring out their screen characters and maybe not functioning as a duo.

For the Marx Brothers, A Night at the Opera is a really good film to see first. It's not their funniest or zaniest but it's a good, solid work and the romantic sub-plot isn't too agonizing to sit through. Then go on to the films they made earlier for Paramount and I would say their three best for that company would be — in order of merit — Duck Soup, Horse Feathers and Monkey Business.

Then go on to the others but again, don't mess with anything they made in 1941 or later until you've exhausted the better stuff. (They made Room Service in 1938 but I'd put it in with the 1941-or-later efforts.)

Now, here's a Big However to both teams' work: All of these films are best seen on a big screen in an actual movie theater with a good audience. If you find a showing of any of the pre-'41 films in those circumstances, go.

I have this lovely friend named Amber who has never seen Stan or Ollie or Groucho or Chico or Harpo or even Zeppo. I have every decent film these guys made (and, yes, most of the lesser ones) on my DVD shelf and could introduce her to any of them at any time that way…but I haven't. I'm waiting for a good public screening of the best of either team because I want her to first experience them that way. If you can, do that. It can really make a difference in how you appreciate these great comedians forever after.

Pop Haydn, under whom I once studied magic, demonstrates the old "coin-in-the-bottle" trick…

Ah, what would Memorial Day be without Trump using the occasion to talk only minimally about Those Who Served and primarily about the greatness of his own administration? Because no matter what it's about, it's only really about Trump.

And few will be surprised that he claimed credit for things the Obama administration did to better the lot of veterans. I can't wait to hear how it was Trump who commanded the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Jon Voight thinks Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln. He probably also thinks Donald freed the slaves.

Memorial Day is meant to honor those who have died in the military service of the United States. That seems to get blurred by some into a general "thank you" to anyone who has ever served, including those who didn't die but that's okay. It wouldn't be so horrible if we just had two Veterans Days a year. It wouldn't even be a bad thing if we thought about those folks and honored them year-round so we didn't need a holiday to remind us of what we owe them.

I suppose in some ways, Memorial Day is also for the surviving friends and loved ones of those who died in uniform. The friends and loved ones especially had to cope with those deaths. A woman I know lost her husband in the Iraq War and suffered greatly. She's still suffering so don't tell me we don't owe her too.

I don't have anything that eloquent to say here except that I think the best way to honor those who have died or suffered because of military service is to create fewer of them in the future. There is a mindset out there that does not seem to put that high a value on the lives of American servicemen and servicewomen when there's talk of sending them into combat.

The most powerful piece I've read about this topic is this article by retired U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen and I urge you to experience it. If you don't have time to read the whole thing, at least read this paragraph…

Do me a favor this year: question the foundation and purpose of America's wars for the Greater Middle East. Weigh the tangible costs in blood and treasure against any benefits to the nation or the world — if there are any! Ask how this country's political system morphed in such a way that Congress no longer declares, and presidents turned emperors unilaterally wage endless wars in distant locales. Ask yourself how much of this combat and death is connected — if at all — to the 9/11 attacks; why the over-adulated U.S. military mainly fights groups that didn't even exist in 2001.

Not much I can add to that. Like many of you, I did not serve in the military but like all of you (I hope) I am awfully appreciative of those that have…and those that do.

Dan Rather does a show called The Big Interview that runs on AXS TV. Like you, I've never watched the show or the channel but I just set my DVR to record this Tuesday's episode which runs at 5 PM where I am. If you want to record or watch it, find out what time it's on where you are.

Why You Might Want To Watch It: Rather's guests are Carl and Rob Reiner discussing their careers and, I have a hunch, their political activism and father-son dislike of Donald Trump. AXS TV seems to run every show they produce about seventy-nine million times so if you miss it this time, you can catch one of the other 78,999,999 times it airs. Here's a little sample…

I just read a quote online attributed to Archbishop Charles Joseph Chaput of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  He supposedly said, "A real man is one who will bring his wife to Christ, rather than to orgasm."

And I thought, "If he brings her to orgasm, she'll have a better time and she'll still be calling out God's name."

Says here that Julie Ann Rainbird is pleading Not Guilty to all charges. Ms. Rainbird is the woman who drove a stolen RV wildly all over the valley the other day, crashing into cars, injuring several people and terrifying two dogs she had that apparently did not belong to her either. If the link's still good, you can see what she did by checking out this post.

The reporters who cover such news stories live have one of the most difficult jobs in the world.  Not only do they have to do it from a helicopter with very little idea what will happen in the next five seconds…not only do they have to suppress a certain amount of emotion and boiling adrenaline…but they have to beware of the impropriety of showing something gruesome that could happen at every moment and (boldface "and") they have to ad-lib madly without stumbling into prejudicial language.

It's a suspect we see committing crimes before our very eyes.  What we're witnessing is alleged.  Covering this one, I heard one reporter refer to "the alleged driver" of the vehicle we saw plowing into things.  Well, who was at the wheel if it wasn't the driver?

I understand the need to phrase things that way.  We have no law and order in this country if we don't have the fairest trials possible.  I'm just struck by the contrast.  One of the intriguing things about these televised car chases is that we are actually watching crimes being committed as they happen — unedited and in real time.

On Facebook, I saw some folks who were incredulous that a woman we had witnessed driving her vehicle recklessly into other vehicles would have the gall to plead Not Guilty.  "Why would she believe she could prove her innocence?" a couple of them asked.  The question is interesting and I wrote back to one, "Why would she believe she could get away from the cops and helicopters speeding madly through intersections and not hurt someone, including possibly herself?"  The woman did one of the most irrational, insane things you ever witnessed and you expect logic and sanity from her now?"

And of course the other answer would be an attorney who thinks he can get her a lighter sentence by starting with Not Guilty and plea-bargaining down to something less than the 14 years in prison she could serve if convicted on all charges.  That might seem like a wild longshot but when there's actual videotape of you committing the crimes, you might just take a wild longshot.  What else have you got going for you?