Our pal Frank Ferrante is performing his show, An Evening with Groucho, this weekend at the Pasadena Playhouse. Some seats may still be available and if they are, you can order them here.
I've praised and recommended this show so many times that further comment may be unnecessary. Basically, it's just what the title says except that at the matinees, it should be called An Afternoon with Groucho. And if we really enforced truth-in-labelling laws, maybe An Evening (or Afternoon) with a Guy Who Does an Uncanny Impression of Julius "Groucho" Marx and Creates a Fantasy Where He's Still Alive and Performing and is Very Funny. Something like that.
Here's a piece in today's L.A. Times that will tell you more about Frank and how good he is. Just in case you don't believe me.
The current issue of Art in America magazine contains an article on Jack Kirby entitled, "Genius in a Box." The piece was written by Alexi Worth and an intro paragraph says…
A legend among comics fans, Jack Kirby was the gifted, overworked illustrator who made Marvel Comics possible. Two recent exhibitions reveal his artwork as an inventive "side-channel" within pictorial modernism.
I agree with all that and appreciate this appreciation of Kirby but I have a few small quibbles, one being Worth's doubt that Jack anticipated his own immortality as an artist. He's wrong. Jack, in a surprisingly non-egotistical way, talked often of how his work would outlive him…as would the work of other great comic creators. He absolutely expected it to be reprinted in editions with deluxe printing and to be exhibited in galleries.
Also, there is the assertion that Jack's new books for DC in the early seventies "flopped." They were canceled prematurely by a company that was crumbling from all corners at the time and had to be rebuilt, almost from the ground up, a few years later. New management looked at the sales figures for the books Worth says "flopped" and promptly revived and reprinted them…and they continue to reprint them over and over and to reuse the characters and concepts introduced in them. I would save the word "flop" for something that went away and was never seen again.
And I guess I oughta take issue with what Worth writes about a Hulk poster that Kirby drew and which was then redrawn somewhat by Herb Trimpe…
As his friend and biographer Mark Evanier tells it, "someone at Marvel" evidently decided that Kirby's Hulk poster was too eccentric. Another artist, Herb Trimpe, was assigned to lightly deKirbify the poster, giving the Hulk ordinary knuckles and fingernails, normal feet and recognizable pectorals.
That's not what his friend and biographer Mark Evanier said. What I said in my first book on Jack was…
…someone at Marvel decided that the proposed line [of posters] had too much Kirby in it and ordered that four of Jack's posters be replaced by the work of other artists…[they] liked the design of Jack's Hulk poster. They just felt it should be illustrated by Herb Trimpe, who was then the artist on the Hulk comic. Trimpe was told to trace Kirby's drawing, which he did, effectively just re-inking it and altering the head as per his version of the character.
I never said it was deemed too eccentric, nor was Trimpe told to change the knuckles, fingernails, etc. The alterations were almost all of the character's head and any other changes were just Trimpe doing things the way Trimpe did. Worth also deduces that the exaggerated pose related somehow to the one 3-D comic Jack had drawn more than a decade earlier — which of course it didn't. Jack's super-hero work was always filled with that kind of extreme pose, dating back to before he first drew Captain America.
I cringed at Worth's description of Kirby as a "hack" — but then I always cringe at that word, especially when applied to someone of earnest intent who was giving his employer way more than he had to in order to get the paycheck in question. It's a word that in 50-some-odd years of reading comic book reviews and essays, I have seen applied in a myriad of ways ranging from a compliment for sheer productivity to a synonym for "knowing producer of crap." I'm sure Worth wasn't using the latter definition but to Jack, during a period of his career when detractors were calling him "Jack the Hack," it was the supreme insult, condemning not only the work but the integrity of its maker.
Also: The article identifies Fantastic Four #76 as coming out in 1975. Perhaps a reprint of the story in it did but the original publication was in 1968. And I think that's about all that bothered me: Not all that much and not at all the central thesis.
I hope I'm not being too negative about a piece that I am quite glad was published where it was published. Jack's work deserves recognition from all quarters and I'm glad Worth talked about it as sequential art. Too often, people approach Jack as an illustrator and liken his individual pages and panels to works of art meant to be complete in themselves. Jack was an illustrator and yet again, he wasn't. To get the "big picture" (to use a term he used often), you have to view him as a storyteller if not a writer.
That was the only way Jack viewed his work: Not whether he'd done a good drawing but whether he'd done the right drawing. To him, if it conveyed what he wanted the panel to convey, it was a good drawing. When I spoke at the wonderful, recent exhibit of Jack's work out at Cal State Northridge, I tried to make the point that to fully appreciate and comprehend his work, you have to consider the art in the context of its intention.
Which doesn't mean you can't hang Jack in galleries and discuss him in the same breath as guys who unquestionably belong there. It just means that in addition to looking at panels or pages, you ought to read the comic. I hope pieces like Worth's will prompt more people to do both those things.
Jeffrey Toobin says the judge in the Cosby case in Pennsylvania will probably come down to one central decision by the judge. And he explains what that decision is.
Last week here, I asked what the deal was with the social media group, LinkedIn. I've been a member of it for some time and I keep getting messages from folks — some I know, many I don't — who want to "connect" via it. I have never quite understood what that means nor has it ever been of any value to me. What, I wanted to know, am I missing?
I got a lot of responses, over 90% of which said something like, "I've been wondering that myself!" But a few told me how it had been of value to them. Here's a sampling of the flurry, starting with a message from Greg Kelly…
There's been lot of times I get e-mails "from" friends and people I know asking me to join LinkedIn. Then when I ask them about it, the people claim to not have sent an e-mail to me but then begin to extoll the benefits of LinkedIn.
I refuse to sign up for it. There isn't one instance I've heard of people I know getting work because of it. And, I'm just not sure what how beneficial it is beyond an online resume and perhaps just professional networking. But, probably one thing that turned me off to the site is the most is when I realized it can just show up in a search engine. I don't like the idea that what was once private info could be "shared" so easily. Maybe I'm out of the loop on how things work and that's why I don't get the work I should.
And, like most social networking sites, it really does seem like the users benefit as much as the company does from collecting information about the users. Every story I've ever read about LinkedIn's growth involves them acquiring a new analytics service or some company that helps them monetize their users.
That gibes with what Steve Jobs and Tim Cook end up saying about Google and others basically making the user into their products. That is none too pleasing.
And now here's Kevin Kusinitz…
There was probably a time when LinkedIn actually did what it was supposed to do — connect people in similar industries in order to find a new job. These days, it's more like Facebook for yuppies (if they're called that anymore) — just another way to grow your circle of "friends" and feel important.
I joined LinkedIn when I got laid off in August 2012, and it hasn't done a damn thing for me, other than receiving requests, mostly from strangers, to join my network. I ignore the strangers, and told at least one former colleague that joining would be OK, but it wouldn't do them any good. I don't know anyone who got a job through LinkedIn. Maybe next year, I'll close my account. At least it's been free.
But then I received this from Calvin Rydbom…
LinkedIn works really well in some professions, not so well in others. I am a writer of sorts. I'm an Archivist who occasionally produces a local history or corporate history book because of an overall bigger project, but I'm certainly not on your level. But I'd think freelance writers would be served well by LinkedIn.
For us, it works this way: "Hey, Guys! After we finish this project setting up a archive/historical database/writing a book for The Village of Burton/Cain Park/City of Twinsburg, they want a really professional exhibit. So me and my two partners look in our LinkedIn Network for a colleague who specializes in Museum Studies and Exhibitions.
Or our client wants not just oral histories, which we do quite often, but wants them videotaped. So we look in our network for our colleagues who our doing freelance cinematography work.
And So On. When I use to do programming, which is a very transient freelance field on the higher end, it wasn't that uncommon to get a "Hey Calvin, do you know any good frontline, Blah, Blah, Blahs." And to LinkedIn, I go. You're linked into people who you might hire or might get you jobs. They want to be Facebook, but if you treat it as valuable in those two ways, it's an asset.
And Jim Grey writes…
I do LinkedIn for three reasons:
1. To keep track of people I've worked with in the past: Where they are now?
2. To be able to reach out to those people to maintain my network. Some of them are not close enough contacts where I'd have their personal e-mail or phone number, and because of job changes since I last worked with them, I might not have their work e-mail or phone number either.
3. As a way to keep up with news in my industry — which companies are new, or growing, or shrinking, or dying.
I'm a software developer in Indianapolis. The software community here is surprisingly large and active, and there's tons of opportunity here. And lots of movement; I've had jobs at nine different software companies in 25 years.
And finally, let's hear from Mark Palko…
In the vast majority of cases, it really is that simple. Back when I was working as a statistical consultant, I routinely got e-mails from recruiters, at least three of which lead to lucrative contracts. The service also keeps me in touch with former supervisors and colleagues, which can be difficult when you've worked in various industries (everybody needs a statistician) and on both coasts.
For you (well-established with an excellent social network in a fairly tight-knit field), LinkedIn doesn't make much sense, but yours is a relatively unusual situation.
Yeah, I think I get that now…though if the responses I received are any indication, it's not that unusual. I am pretty easy to contact on the Internet whereas many people are not. I also get hired for more selective reasons. It's good to hear that the system works for some people…but that at least in my case, it doesn't seem to matter how I respond to all those requests to connect. Thanks to all of you who wrote me about your experiences. I would endorse you all if I had the slightest idea how to do that.
We were talking here recently about The Day the Clown Cried, the unseen Jerry Lewis film. Recently, Jewish comedian David Schneider produced a one-hour radio documentary about its making and a half-hour video. I'll try and have a link to the audio up shortly here but right now, I can send you to this page to view the video.
The video is filled with never-before-seen stills from the set as well as interviews with people who knew people who were involved with the picture. There's a lot of speculative analysis and some fretting about whether comedy can or should be done about the Holocaust. If you're interested in the most famous movie nobody's ever seen, you'll want to watch the whole thing.
Years ago, I went to see a screening of Citizen Kane. Just before it started, I was talking to the gent who'd arranged the screening and he was nervous about it because (apparently) so many folks in the audience were seeing it for the first time. Said he, "I worry that this movie could not possibly be so wonderful that it will live up to its reputation." I've been thinking that when The Day the Clown Cried is finally screened for the public, someone will be afraid that it won't be so awful that it will live down to its reputation.
Big fan of the site and have been catching up on posts when I saw one regarding the recent arrest of Bill Cosby, in which you said this: "You'll probably see posts here about Cosby because I write about most of what's on my mind and I won't be able to completely turn away from the trainwreck that was once one of the world's great comedians."
"…once one of the world's great comedians"?
At what point does someone's work become invalid, due to their actions/behaviour? Unpalatable? Perhaps. But should said work be thrown out and unenjoyable?
Don't get me wrong, I think his actions are truly despicable and the work of a horrible human being, but Wonderfulness is still a hilarious LP.
Maybe I'm just good at separation, I don't know. Bill is/was(?) my all time favorite stand-up and I don't know what to think now. It's like being told the parents that raised, fed, clothed, and loved you were secretly slave traders.
Anyway, just wondering your thoughts on the matter.
What I meant was that he was once one of the world's greatest working comedians…and this mess has kind of killed the "working" part…and not everyone is all that good at what you call "separation." I also suspect there are routines and lines that take on a very different meaning now. Obviously, it's up to everyone to decide how much they can put aside…
Oh, wait. I was going to try to not write so much about Cosby. I'll just stop here. Good point though, Dave.
Matthew Yglesias — hey, I haven't linked to one of his pieces in a long time — answers the question of why really, really rich people don't love Barack Obama. Answer: Their taxes went up. One wonders if there's any other reason besides that or if there could be.
Sarah Silverman is on James Corden's show tonight, not tomorrow night. This is the old mental block I've developed from thinking of shows by their TiVo dates. I saw she was on his Tuesday show and I forgot that since his show starts after midnight, his Tuesday show is tonight. You have seen me make this mistake before.
Thanks to about three dozen of you who wrote to correct me on this. Apparently, the readership of this blog includes a lot of people who like to catch her when she's on.
Every so often, an encounter with someone will make you realize something you meant to do and haven't done. A couple years ago, the performer Sarah Silverman did an HBO special which caused a critic for Variety to write that she seemed "…determined to prove she can be as dirty and distasteful as the boys." Even before I saw the show in question, that struck me as a silly review and I said so.
I can understand how someone might think some comedians have gone too far but if that's the case, they shouldn't be watching HBO stand-up specials. And they should remember that comedians do that because audiences love it…and if audiences love something, they're going to get it. (I believe this critic in another piece praised one comedian highly for not stooping to "dirty" material: Bill Cosby. Hey now, there's someone you should emulate.)
In any case, if you're upset at the trend in comedy overall, that's no reason to pick on Sarah Silverman…unless, of course, she's not funny. But then I saw the show and it was very funny. She usually is.
I wrote then that one of these days, I'd do a post explaining how much I like her as a performer…and then it went onto the long, long list of things I say I'm going to cover on this blog and never get around to. Last evening though, I was at a small dinner party and Sarah Silverman walked in with her friend, Michael Sheen.
I'd met her twice before — once on the set of The Larry Sanders Show and once at a screening and panel discussion of the film, The Aristocrats. In neither case was there a moment when it would have been non-awkward to tell her to her face what I like about her. I didn't really find an opening at the dinner last night either but I did talk with her and listen. She's very smart and very funny and most of all, she has as much courage as any comedian who ever lived and more than roughly 95% of 'em.
Around 1994, my friends and I started to notice her a lot, popping up on this show or that one. She was so visible that she aroused the ire of a comedian I know — a guy who habitually pronounces every new comic as (a) not funny and (b) going nowhere. I think this guy believes there's a finite number of laughs in the world and if a new comedian comes along and starts getting some, that's fewer laughs that are left for him. In her case though, there was a bit of misogyny in play because he added (c) "People won't like her because if a woman's going to be that outspoken, she's got to be fat, ugly or probably lesbian."
When he said words to that effect, I did a double…maybe a triple take. Once upon a time in a land not so far in the past, the only way a woman could get accepted as a stand-up was to get up there and ridicule her own appearance…and the worse her appearance was, the more material she had to work with.
Really, there were three main ones — Phyllis Diller, Totie Fields and Joan Rivers — and their acts were all about how sexless they were, how their husbands wouldn't touch them, how men thought they were homely, etc. I didn't think Joan was bad-looking but that was a key premise of her act. And while I don't know if she ever uglied herself up for an appearance, it wasn't until she was much older and well-established that she tried for a bit of glamour. It's like someone said, "We'll let women do stand-up comedy as long as it's all self-deprecation and not really about important topics."
Comedy has evolved since then…in what I think is a good way in spite of what that guy in Variety might say. There have been a lot of good female comedians but I've never seen one who more proves that that comedian I know was wrong. And even he eventually thought so about Sarah.
She won him over with many things but the killer stroke was the short film she did a few years back about how world hunger could be solved if only we could sell the Vatican. I linked to it back then but the link went bad so here it is again…
I think it's hilarious and very, very brave. That comedian did too, though he insisted on saying it showed she "has balls" — which reminds me: How long is it going to be before folks stop praising a woman by awarding her honorary male body parts? Might it not be possible that women can just be brave and clever as women…or better still, as people?
Sure it is…and Sarah Silverman is the best example I've seen. She does things that are powerful and which say important things about the world and how it maybe oughta be. Somehow, just sitting across a dinner table from her last night, hearing her talk and remembering some of the fine work she's done, I was impressed more than ever.
She's going to be on with James Corden on Tuesday night tonight and then on Thursday morning, Bravo is running an Inside the Actors Studio with her discussing her new film which I hear is wonderful. When my knee heals, I hope to get out and see it…but in the meantime, I've decided to start alerting you to upcoming TV appearances, as I do with other comedians I like. This dawned on me last evening somewhere between the Calamari appetizers and the arrival of our entrees. I'm sorry it took me so long.
We've been writing here about the Johnny Carson reruns that have just started on Antenna TV. This of course has led to a lot of e-mails in my box from folks who can't get Antenna TV where they live.
Antenna TV is what is called a digital multicast television network. In many cities, it's an extension of a regular, over-the-air TV channel airing on one of their sub-channels. It may or may not be carried by one of them in your market and it may or may not be carried by your local cable provider. Here's a map to show you where it is and where it isn't.
These shows did not come cheap and I would guess that Tribune Media, which owns the channel, ponied up the bucks after a conversation that went something like this…
Exec #1: We need to get more cities to carry Antenna TV. How do we do this?
Exec #2: I've been looking at our lineup. We're running old episodes of All in the Family, Mister Ed, Newhart, Three's Company, Maude, The Partridge Family…these are not shows that have ever been scarce. You can watch a lot of them on other channels or on the Internet. I'm thinking we need to get some show that everyone remembers but which has never been on MeTV, Get TV, TV Land and all the others.
Exec #1: Exactly! We'll find some show that's a classic that has never been rerun but which we can air exclusively. Only then will people phone their cable companies and local stations and demand they pick up our channel!
And then I'm guessing they did some research and realized that old Carson shows were their best bet. I'm not sure what the second choice would have been. Maybe Letterman from his NBC days.
So if you can't get Antenna TV where you are, maybe it's worth your time to call your cable company. A few years ago, I met a guy at Comic-Con who worked for a cable provider. He told me that what worked best at his place of business was when someone called up the number to order a new installation and demanded that certain channel. Such a call would go something like this…
CALLER: Hello! I'm interested in getting cable TV installed in my home.
SALESPERSON: Excellent! I can help you with that and we have many fine packages of channels from which you can select.
CALLER: I know just the one I want! The one that includes Antenna TV!
SALESPERSON (after scouring a list:) I'm sorry but I don't see that we carry Antenna TV in any of our packages.
CALLER (with outrage:) What!? Well in that case, forget the whole thing! [CLICK!]
I don't know if they track such non-sales at your cable company but the gent I met at the con said his sure did. And he even pointed out that you could do this if you were already a subscriber. Just don't give them your name before you demand the channel you crave. The trick, he said, was for them to get a bunch of these. You can round up friends to call or if you're good at disguising your voice different ways, that works too. (Isn't this how Lucy Ricardo got Ricky hired back when he lost his job at the Club Tropicana?)
Last night, they ran a 90-minute show from January 1, 1975 with Foster Brooks, Victor Buono, author Adela Rogers St. Johns and Joan Embery from the San Diego Zoo. The animal segment and Victor Buono's spot were great and Johnny's monologue was okay. Ms. Rogers telling of her friendship with Amelia Earhart was of great historical interest but it was the kind of slow conversation that just doesn't fly on a talk show these days. When Johnny cut his show from 90 minutes to an hour in 1980, it was in part to get rid of spots like this.
Foster Brooks
I can well imagine someone young watching Foster Brooks on this show and wondering how this man had a career. Playing inebriated is kind of passé these days and even when it was in vogue, it was the sort of act that was good for about five minutes. A writer I knew who worked with him told me that when Brooks started playing Vegas, he went out with old jokes cribbed from magazines and joke books and got a decent-enough response but everyone advised him he needed better material. So he invested money hiring top comedy writers and got some great stories to tell…and when he went out with his new act, the result was exactly the same. People weren't listening to what he said. They were just laughing at his delivery.
I saw what must have been one of his last Vegas appearances before he passed in 2001. He was on the dais of a "roast" for Sid Caesar and he did 10-15 minutes of what sounded like (and may actually have been) old Playboy Party Jokes. He got an awful lot of laughs with material that if performed by anyone else would have evoked naught but silence sprinkled with a few groans.
The interesting thing about him — to me, anyway — was that he had been an unknown character actor for years doing small parts (and not a lot of them) on TV shows. Then someone found out about this great drunk he could do and he was booked, first on one of Steve Allen's talk shows and later on Carson's. In both cases, they brought him on as a serious guest — Carson introduced him as the Mayor of Burbank — and he got increasingly plastered as he talked and sipped from a cup.
Suddenly, he was an overnight sensation booked all over the country and it wouldn't surprise me if his income increased a thousand-fold. His fame sure did…and he was well over 65 when it happened. I didn't like his act that much but I love stories of late success.
But for me, the highlight of last night's Carson replay was a sketch they did after the monologue. For several years running, Johnny's first show of a new year would be an interview with a diapered adult playing the New Year's Baby. Sometimes, it was Johnny in the diaper being interviewed by Ed McMahon. Sometimes, as with this show, it was writer Pat McCormick. It was funnier with Pat who was 6'7", rather flabby and notably crazier than Carson.
Pat, who I wrote about here, here and here, was one of those rare comedy writers who was as funny as what he wrote. The diaper was not the least amount of clothing Pat wore on Johnny's show. During the week that "streaking" was all the rage in this country, Pat interrupted Carson's monologue with a nude sprint. Everyone who knew him well has great, more outrageous stories.
I always thought those New Year's Baby sketches made an interesting point about Johnny Carson. A lot of performers can be Bud Abbott or Lou Costello — one or the other. Few can switch roles but Johnny could be interviewer or interviewee. He exhibited the same skill as a talk show host. If he had a Buddy Hackett or a Don Rickles in his guest chair, he generally played straight for them, letting them be the funny one. When he had a non-comedic actor or author, Johnny could effortlessly become the funny one. He was also willing to put on the diaper, something most talk show hosts would never do. Some years, he would also appear on the last show of the year playing the old year giving its exit interview.
Anyway, I enjoyed last night's rerun a lot. I hope you're getting them where you live. If you do and you're trying to find them on your DVR guide, remember that the name of the program is Johnny Carson, not The Tonight Show. They're pretty entertaining, if not for the comedy then at least for all that Show Business History.
If this poll is indicative of America today — and I fear it is — it's disheartening. Basically, it says that there are a lot of people out there who support "religious freedom" but really only for their religion. Others, they feel, are less deserving of protection. That isn't how this country is supposed to work.
But then when I hear a lot of the angrier people demanding "religious freedom," it sounds to me like they're saying this: That they have a right to live in a country where no one of another religion does anything that runs counter to theirs. That's not how it's supposed to work either.
