The Top 20 Voice Actors: Hans Conried

top20voiceactors02

This is an entry to Mark Evanier's list of the twenty top voice actors in American animated cartoons between 1928 and 1968. For more on this list, read this. To see all the listings posted to date, click here.

Hans Conried
Hans Conried

Most Famous Role: Snidely Whiplash in the Dudley Do-Right cartoons.

Other Notable Roles: Captain Hook in Disney's Peter Pan, Professor Waldo Wigglesworth on Hoppity Hooper, parts in The Phantom Tollbooth and several animated Dr. Seuss specials and a few others.

What He Did Besides Cartoon Voices: Conried was a very prolific actor logging hundreds of radio, film and TV appearances, often appearing as himself on talk shows and game show panels. His most notable film appearance is probably his starring role in The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T and his most famous TV presence was the recurring part of Uncle Tonoose on The Danny Thomas Show (aka Make Room for Daddy) or maybe as the host of Jay Ward's Fractured Flickers. He can reportedly be seen briefly in Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator.

Why He's On This List: Hans Conried was one of those voice actors who basically had one voice but it was a great one, developed on stage and radio, including his stint as a member of Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre Company. He usually played villains and had a way of making the bad guys uncommonly human and funny. That was one of the reasons he worked so much. Another was that everyone seemed to love having him around.

Fun Fact: There's a theatrical tradition in productions of Peter Pan for Captain Hook and the father (Mr. Darling) to be played by the same actor, thereby suggesting a parallel between the two characters. In Disney's 1953 animated version, the tradition continued with Conried voicing both — which probably went unnoticed by moviegoers, especially since the characters had such different designs. Some sources claim Conried was the first actor to play both roles but that's not true. The tradition dates back to the first stage productions of Sir James Barrie's work. (Just two years earlier in 1951, Boris Karloff played both in a Broadway production starring Jean Arthur as Peter.)

Recommended Reading

An awful lot of those running for president are current or former governors and they all brag about what a great job they did managing the economy of their states. As Ben Casselman notes, some (maybe all) may not deserve as much credit as they're claiming.

Late Guys

Vanity Fair is spotlighting late night comedians, starting with a much-circulated group shot photo of Mssrs. Colbert, O'Brien, Noah, Corden, Kimmel, Oliver, Meyers, Wilmore, Fallon and Maher. The picture was probably shot in multiple places and on multiple coasts and then Photoshopped into looking like these guys were all happily in each others' presence. It does raise the question of why John Oliver, whose show airs at 8 PM, is a "late night host" but Chris Hardwick, who's on at Midnight most of the time and 11 PM at the moment, isn't.

Also, this may come as a shock to many but Carson Daly still has a show. In case anyone's amazed by this fact, he's been on since 2002.

Online are a couple of related articles — a profile of John Oliver, a Proust Questionnaire filled out by Seth Meyers and an essay by Conan O'Brien.

Today's Video Link

James Corden, like Jimmy Fallon, is someone I like though I'm not a fan of either gent's talk show. To me, Corden's show is burdened by the ambiance of every moment having to be super awesome and every guest having to be the most fabulous person in the world and aren't we having the most smashing, unbelievable time every single second and isn't that dress you're wearing the most spectacular dress in the universe?

Also, they've been sending him out on these remote segments, many of which strive to be in the Letterman tradition…but Corden is not Letterman and I don't just mean in terms of talent. James, unlike Dave, oozes a "nice guy" vibe and a desire to be liked that's in conflict with dragging unsuspecting people into his routines. They do this bit where he goes along on pizza deliveries and gives the people their choice of the pizza they ordered or another pizza which may have something unexpected in the box. Corden seems almost apologetic to be bothering the people with his little game.

When Letterman invaded someone's home, as he did in his earlier days, the segment was about his comments and interaction. With Corden, it's about how the people react to playing the game and not particularly remarkable.

They did one remote recently though that I thought was pretty good, though a bit long. It's all about Corden taking on a role for one evening in a touring company of Phantom of the Opera. He plays a rather petty, self-absorbed version of himself and it's quite a departure from his usual persona…

True or False?

The other day here, I linked to an article that claimed that in China, if a motorist accidentally injures a pedestrian, that motorist will often then try to kill the pedestrian because there's less penalty that way. Pretty horrifying, huh? If it's true, it sure is. Some questions have been raised as to how true it is and since I linked to the original piece, I thought I should link to this discussion of the article's veracity.

Recommended Reading

Matthew Yglesias analyzes Jeb Bush's proposed tax plan and — surprise, surprise — it turns out to be a more intense version of his brother's plan to slash taxes for the wealthiest Americans. We all saw how well that worked for everyone except the wealthiest Americans.

The Best Is Yet To Come…

besttimeever01

Beth Slick (Hi, Beth!) wrote to ask me if I have any thoughts on Neil Patrick Harris's new show, which debuts on NBC on Tuesday night. It's called Best Time Ever with Neil Patrick Harris and here's how the network is describing it…

Five Emmy Awards and a Tony Award make multi-talented Neil Patrick Harris the perfect star for this live one-hour show that is unlike any other on American television. Anything can happen on Best Time Ever with Neil Patrick Harris, which will feature appearances by A-list stars, stunts, comedy skits, incredible performances, mini game shows, audience giveaways and hidden camera pranks.

Well, I think N.P.H. is one of the most talented people in show biz today so obviously, I'm going to watch…so that's a big plus. I like the idea of live TV where "anything can happen" and that sounds great, though I have one worry there. On most so-called "reality" shows these days, "anything can happen" works like this. The player can pick A or B. If he picks A, one pre-planned, mostly-scripted option happens and if he picks B, a different pre-planned, mostly-scripted option transpires.

To me, "anything can happen" oughta include contingencies that the host and producer could not have expected and therefore could not rehearse. If they really mean "anything can happen," great. If they mean it's all like a pre-written "which way" game, not as great.

Okay, what else is in there? A-list stars? Fine. Stunts? Depends what they are. I used to hate the old Beat the Clock style of game show where someone has to balance a prune on a spoon held in their mouth while they kick over bowling pins while wearing frogmen flippers. I don't like stunts designed to make the stunt performer look stupid. But if they're actually feats of dexterity or strategy, great.

Comedy skits? Fine if they're funny. Incredible performances? Who could have anything against incredible performances? Mini game shows? There are good game shows and bad game shows so I guess there are good mini game shows and bad mini game shows.

Audience giveaways? Nothing wrong with audience giveaways, especially if you're in the audience. So it all sounds somewhat promising and I'll be watching and —

Oh, wait. I missed one: Hidden camera pranks. Okay, we have a problem here and I have to own up to a prejudice…

I hate hidden camera pranks. Matter of fact, since about the age of thirty, I've hated pranks of any kind. I am guardedly proud of my involvement in one or two years ago that I'll tell you about some time. They were really, really clever and they actually made a legit point, the kind you might make with a deftly-presented argument.

But I've outgrown even that and it's been a long time since I saw anything called a "prank" which I didn't think was a case of the prankster being an enormous dick. Even when the person being pranked laughs about it and seems to love the experience, I often think either they're faking great sportsmanship or — in the case of TV pranks — that the show pranked a dozen people and threw out the video of the eleven who didn't think it was all great fun. Most of those being pranked on Best Time Ever will be those A-list stars so the latter will probably not apply here.

And I have one more reservation. They're billing this as a resurrection of variety shows on television. This isn't a variety show; not in the tradition of Carol Burnett, Dean Martin, Andy Williams, etc. This sounds like every program Howie Mandel has been on in the last ten years rolled into one.

Best Time Ever could well be a great show but it doesn't sound to me like a great variety show. And, hey, you know who's around these days who really does have all the necessary talents to do a great variety show? Neil Patrick Harris! I'd like to see him try one someday.

Today's Political Comments

When it was announced that Rick Perry was "suspending" (i.e., ending) his campaign for the White House, Rand Paul put up an interesting tweet. Paul wrote, "What does it say about Republicans when a three-and-a-half-term governor with a successful record of creating jobs bows out, as a reality star leads in the polls?"

I'll tell you what it says. It says that at the moment, the Republicans who are responding to opinion polls — who may or may not reflect the ones who'll actually go to the real polls whenever we get to that stage of this election — really want to win. They want to look at the Oval Office and see Their Guy, no matter who Their Guy is.

They have plenty of time before the actual voting to decide who might actually do a good job running the country. Right now, they can say anyone for any reason.

The Senator from Kentucky might have also noted that not only is a reality star leading in the polls but the runner-up at the moment is another guy who's never served one day in any elected office. I can't even begin to explain Ben Carson's popularity except maybe that within the "We'll take anyone who isn't a traditional politician" mob, there's a large group of folks who think, "We'll take anyone who isn't a traditional politician but we draw the line at Trump."

And I have no particular feeling about whether I do or do not want to see Joe Biden enter the race…or whether he will or not. I do have one acquaintance who I think would love it because deep down, what he really wants is the Barack Obama administration but from a leader who's old, white and male.

Today's Video Link

One of these guys flew 3,000 miles to tape these network promos that were not used…

Extra Dense Black

I mentioned this before but it's too good not to remind you again and maybe again…

When one of my favorite comedians Lewis Black tours, he does his show and then he does an extra show that is broadcast over the Internet. It's a video podcast that runs 20-30 minutes and some weeks, he has three different ones up on his website, The Rant Is Due. This seems to be the only place you can see them at the moment.

You can watch live but that's not easy since the start time can vary depending on when he finishes his regular performance. Then a day or two later, the recorded shows are available on the site and they remain up there for a few weeks before they're deleted. I have no idea if they'll ever be available again.

Usually, it's just Mr. Black answering questions submitted over the Internet or by the live audience but the newest one, which is there right now, is a 27 minute conversation with Tommy Smothers. You might want to give it a watch.

Go Read It!

A lot of Mike Nichols' very famous friends talk about Mike Nichols.

Rejection, Part 1

rejection

As you must know by now, my father worked for the Internal Revenue Service. He hated the job but he needed that weekly paycheck and never thought he could find a situation where he'd get one doing something he liked better. I'm not sure he was wrong about that. He was a lovely, kind, compassionate man but he didn't seem to have any particularly marketable skills. So he spent his life in a job, not a career.

Here's how I'm differentiating those two nouns for the purpose of this article and its sequels to come. A career is something that fits into this sentence: "When I grow up, I want to be a ____." A job is what you do to pay rent and buy groceries if and when you aren't able to become whatever noun you ever seriously put into that sentence.

There are people who are very happy in jobs, especially but not limited to folks who never really put any occupation into that blank. I even know people who had long dreamed-of careers and gave them up for jobs because the careers didn't turn out to be as ideal as they'd seemed from afar.

I have heard people with what I call careers envy people with what I call jobs. Because life can be a lot different if you care passionately about having one particular profession, especially one where the competition is fierce, the hiring is overly subjective and you probably can't work in one place for very long.

My father wanted on and off in his youth to be a writer. He had a few other dreams — like professional singer and professional baseball player — for which he clearly lacked the physical requirements. Eventually, he came to realize that the only one that might at all be attainable was writing. (I do not, by the way, think that was a bad decision on his part. It was probably a very good decision. Dreams are fine but in this world, you have to have at least a little idea of what you can't do well. I have a very long list that could basically be summarized as "Almost everything except writing.")

I don't know if my father had the talent for writing but he sure lacked the thickness of skin and the ability to cope with rejection that the career requires. He could not get past the obstacle of someone in a position of authority telling him his work wasn't good enough. So he spent most of his adult life at the I.R.S. where every day, he came home bruised and nursing an ulcer because of superiors telling him his work wasn't good enough.

Around age six, I began declaring that I wanted to be a writer when I grew up. I had no second choices or alternative dreams. A writer. That was it. My father greeted this news with mixed emotions.

He was thrilled at the possibility that his son — his only child, remember — might succeed in that field that had seemed so unachievable to him. But he feared that I was in for the same kind of heartbreak and feelings of failure that stopped him cold.

Several times, he sat me down and without telling me to change my mind about my goal, he cautioned me that it's a rough game full of shattered dreams and disappointment and people who say terrible, terrible things about what you've done. Once in a while, he told me the tale of the one time he and a friend had submitted writing samples to try out for a job at a radio station. He trembled as he told of the know-nothing boss who had told them their work was amateurish and to forget about ever earning a buck that way.

He pretty much did, especially after a friend who knew a bit about the writing business reminded him of something: Rejection for a writer is never a one-time experience. If the guy at the radio station had said yes, that wouldn't mean my father would have become a writer for the rest of his life. It meant he and his partner would have had a few weeks of work. Then they would have been back submitting their work to other bosses, possibly of the know-nothing variety.

That was a chilling thing to consider, especially during the Depression when too much of the population was without employment. It felt then like the most important thing a man could have was something steady — especially if he had the mad, impetuous idea of having a wife and children. Writing, he well knew, would never be steady.

That one rejection was so devastating that while he thereafter toyed at times with writing this or that, he never again put himself in a position where someone could hurt him like that again. Which means, of course, that he never again put himself in a position where he could succeed as a writer. Given his gentle nature, that may have been for the better.

No writer takes rejection well…and of course, when the publishers or producers do accept it and it's published or produced, you face an even more certain moment of rejection. Someone's going to say it stinks…maybe multiple someones. It might be a reviewer in a newspaper or some cluck with a blog or some acquaintance lacking in social skills and/or oozing envy. But someone's going to not like it and they well may wonder aloud how such an obvious incompetent like you isn't running the deep fryer at Hardee's for a living because you obviously lack any talent whatsoever for writing.

This is the first in a series of essays I'll be posting on this blog — one every week or three — about the two kinds of rejection a writer must face: Rejection by the person or persons who hire and rejection by the intended audience. I don't know how many installments there'll be but there will probably be a lot of them. I have a lot to say on these topics.

Please be kind. I have learned how to handle rejection when it happens with everything else I've written. I'm not sure I can handle rejection of articles about rejection. Thank you.

Set the TiVo!

And you can even set a non-TiVo brand Digital Video Recorder or even a VCR. Heck, if you're really primeval, you can just watch live…

The PBS series American Experience has produced a lengthy look at the life of Walt Disney and it airs in two parts beginning Monday night in most areas. Part One is Monday, Part Two is Tuesday.

I've only seen pieces but a few folks who've viewed the whole thing tell me it's kind of shallow and that it misses a lot of important details — as might be expected in a documentary about Disney that runs under around nine hours. One friend complained it perpetuates the "Walt did everything" myth.

One of the main problems with shows like this is often that they're made at least twenty years too late. The very first thing in this one is a brief snippet of a recent interview with Floyd Norman and this is followed by a brief recent comment by Richard Sherman. That's almost to be expected as Walt died almost a half-century ago…which yields a certain shortage of people who worked closely with him and are still around to be interviewed. The project still may be an enlightening endeavor but if and when they get into what kind of man Walt Disney was, my skepticism will go up with each analysis by someone who never met him.

As an intro to the show, Neal Gabler has a piece in The New York Times and Mr. Gabler was apparently involved a lot or consulted or was interviewed for American Experience. I thought his long biography of Disney some years back, though filled with useful historical information, tried a bit too hard to view him as a dark, troubled individual.

Having never gotten any closer to Walt than watching him introduce Davy Crockett episodes, I can't say that portrait was wrong but I'm also not sure there's enough evidence around to say that it was correct. Let's see what this take on Mr. Disney has to say.

Also debuting the same night on PBS is a new episode of the biographical series, In Their Own Words, this one about Jim Henson. This appears to be creative scheduling intended to make a statement or draw a parallel or something. I have my TiVo set for it, as well.

Today's Video Link

Writing tips from Stephen King…

Vital Information of the Day

Is it really okay to eat food that's fallen onto the floor? Even if you pick it up in under five seconds? Someone actually did a study on this and here are the results. (SPOILER ALERT: It depends how dirty your floor is.)