Category Archives: To Be Filed

So what's ahead for Broadway? 27 shows have been announced for the coming season with what seem to be firm opening dates…which is a lot when you consider that in the season that just ended, there were 37 openings in total.

How many more than 27 there will be will depend to some extent, of course, on how well those 27 shows and the holdovers fare. Shows can't open unless they have a theater and you don't get a theater until something else closes. You may recall when Jerry Lewis was making those announcements of his Nutty Professor musical opening on Broadway, no one took them seriously because it never had a theater booked and when he gave dates, they never seemed to coincide with when some theater might be available. Almost needless to say, The Nutty Professor musical is not among the 27 that look firm for this season. (Even Jerry seems to have given up on that ever happening.)

The list of 27 includes a number of revivals including She Loves Me, Noises Off, The Color Purple, Falsettos, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas and, of course, the biennial revival of Fiddler on the Roof. I'm confused because I thought revivals of Fiddler were supposed to alternate with revivals of Gypsy. There are also a lot of other revivals and some new shows that sound…well, interesting. Here's an article that gives the whole list.

I really liked the Jeff Ross special last night on Comedy Central. If you missed it, Ross — who bills himself as the Roastmaster General — went to Brazos County Jail, a maximum security facility in Texas, and did three shows for the convicts, two for men and one for women. Most of it involved "roasting" (i.e., insulting) them though there was clearly enough understanding and even a bit of affection coming from the guy that the convicts, at least in the show as edited, seemed to really like him. Before that, he mingled with some of them, ate as they did and talked with a number of them. He wrote up some of his observations here.

This may have been the first time some viewers got a glimpse of men and women in prison…at least, viewers who don't have MSNBC, which goes through periods of airing more about bad people in prison than they do about bad people in the Republican Party. I'm personally waiting for the moment that some Congressman whose improprieties are discussed on The Rachel Maddow Show winds up in one of the channel's "behind bars" documentaries.

I suspect a lot of people look at most prisoners and do not think, "There are human lives who could be rehabilitated and perhaps are even being over-punished by the inhuman living conditions." I suspect a lot think, "Good! Keep that walking trash in there where it can't hurt anybody." A condition of attending Ross's show was that an inmate had to have spotless behavior for the month before. I wonder how many prisoners were therefore excluded and if they were seen anywhere during the program.

Like you probably, I don't know a lot about prison conditions. Given how many convicts have been sprung from Death Row thanks to DNA evidence, I wonder how many people who were convicted of crimes other than murder by the same judicial system are also innocent. There must be some but no one cares. I have seen people who don't care how many bodies are tossed in the slammer, or how awful they have it in there, as long as the bodies we're talking about are poor and/or not white. And if you told them those guys might be innocent, the rationale would be, "Even if they're technically innocent of what they got busted for, they're surely guilty of something."

I'm glad Jeff Ross went on this adventure. I've always liked the guy. He's a gutsy comic who does insults with style and wit, and who makes bad taste work by making it really, really funny. His special is not currently scheduled for rerunning in the next few weeks and I'm wondering if there's a longer, unbleeped DVD on the way. If so, I'll let you know so you can order it…after I do.

CBS has pulled all clips of Late Show with David Letterman from its own website and from YouTube. This has prompted several furious postings on the Internet as well as a couple of complaints to me about how those ungrateful assholes at CBS have no respect for Dave's contribution or the devotion of his fans or something. One person wrote, "The second he's not making money for them, they couldn't care less about his work, those bastards."

Well, guess what. Everyone who thinks that way owes CBS an apology. CBS took the work down because they no longer control it. Their deal is over and Letterman's company Worldwide Pants now controls the digital rights to that material.

About once a year with some friend or acquaintance, I find myself in the awkward position of defending a big TV network that has been falsely accused. I have no love for those folks but I do not find them consistently evil or greedy or insensitive. Sometimes, sure. But sometimes when you think they've done something crappy to your favorite star or show, all they've done is abide by the contract with the star or show.

Sometimes too, they play Bad Cop for powerful stars or producers. A friend of mine was working on a show when suddenly, they were told, the network was demanding a major staff overhaul. A dozen or more people including my friend were suddenly terminated and told they had an hour or so to pack their belongings, pick up their final checks and leave the premises. It was very painful and, they felt, quite unfair. The Exec Producer — who was not among the ousted — agreed. He screamed about those slimeballs upstairs at the network, vowed to fight the decision…but ultimately, sadly, had to admit defeat.

Later, of course, my friend found out it was the Exec Producer who'd ordered the firings and gotten the network to take the blame for them. That kind of thing happens more often than you might think…though of course, networks folks are quite capable of being slimeballs on their own initiative.

I'm taking today off to tend to the few things in life more important than blogging. I do have lots more to say about the Jerry Seinfeld matter but that'll have to wait. (I want to talk about — among other aspects of this tepid controversy — how a lot of this is not an argument about taste or Free Speech but economics.) I also have a bunch of questions from folks about how residuals are figured and tracked and such.

We continue to prep for Comic-Con. Also, there seems to be a new flurry of articles from folks who are convinced Comic-Con will, should or must move from San Diego to some other city. I stand by my prediction that it won't unless someone on the business side of the Convention Center down there does something really, really stupid. Yes, there are convention centers that hold more people but except maybe for Vegas, none of them come with as much hotel room availability. Las Vegas has its own set of problems starting with the July weather and the fact that we could never be one-one-hundredth as important to that city as we are to San Diego.

Of possible interest to late night followers is this article which says that the folks who used to watch Mr. Letterman have not migrated to a Jimmy. They seem to have stopped watching late night talk shows. Assuming they don't all scurry back to watch Colbert, it wouldn't surprise me to see some channel other than CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox start thinking about a late night show for that audience. There are channels like MeTV that cultivate an older audience. The folks who sell Rascal scooters and "I've fallen and I can't get up" buttons need somewhere to advertise. It would be a lower-budget situation than what the big boys have but I'll betcha someone could make the math work on it.

Back tomorrow. Or sooner if I have to post a damned obit for someone.

One of the best shows I ever saw on Broadway was the 1997 revival of the musical, 1776. In fact, I saw it twice. The first time, it was not long after it opened and if memory serves me, I believe I took Catherine Gruenwald, the widow of my old pal, Marvel editor Mark Gruenwald. The theater was mobbed outside that night because some sort of celebration was being held with a marching band in colonial garb, and then the start of the show was delayed ten minutes so then-mayor Rudy Giuliani could give a speech. I have no idea what he was talking about and I didn't that evening, either.

Still, the show was quite excellent. Brent Spiner was John Adams, Pat Hingle was Benjamin Franklin, Merwin Foard was Richard Henry Lee, Dashiell Eaves was the courier who sings "Mama Look Sharp," Michael Cumpsty was John Dickinson and Gregg Edelman was Rutledge. They were all terrific and I was especially impressed at how Mr. Foard stopped the show with the "Lees of Old Virginia" number. On a later trip, I saw him do the male lead in a revival of Kiss Me, Kate, wrote on some Internet forum that he was terrific in that too, and got a nice e-mailed note of thanks from him.

Everyone in it was very good and I recall the mounting feeling throughout the play that we didn't really know the ending and that it would turn out that they failed to pass the Declaration of Independence and birth the United States of America. The storytelling was that good.

A few months later, I was back in New York with my friend Carolyn and I took her to see it because I knew she'd enjoy it and I'd enjoy it again. Spiner had been replaced by Michael McCormick and Hingle by David Huddleston. The show was still great and again at intermission, I had the ominous feeling that the Declaration of Independence would never get adopted and there'd never be an America. Whenever I watch the movie, which is often, I'm still surprised when they pull it off.

So here's a reel of brief clips from some of the musical numbers starring the first cast. The video quality isn't great but trust me: The show was.

A few years ago, Dick Van Dyke wrote a great autobiography called My Lucky Life In And Out Of Show Business. It's worth having just to read…but for a limited time (probably very limited), you can get an autographed copy of it for forty bucks. These are legit and boy, is that a bargain. When Dick did the Hollywood Show recently, his autograph alone was going for $75.00. If you want one, go here right away.

While you're over there: If you want Dick's autograph, you probably want Carl Reiner's, too. Carl has two recent books he's signing: What I Forgot To Remember and I Just Remembered. They're twenty-five bucks each, which is less than the going price for his signature. Plus, you get it in a real good book. If you order both, ask him to sign one "Alan Brady." He'll probably write that you should shut up.

I don't think the Reiner books are as limited as the Van Dyke book but if you're interested in any of 'em, act now. They're sure not going to get any cheaper.

Craig (no last name given) sent me a link to this interview with David Letterman. It's in an Indiana newspaper and it's mostly about Indiana.

A very old commercial by Jim Henson. In it, you'll see a bunch of characters made out of cloth selling stretch and shrink control for cotton fabrics…

Jon Basil Utley lists "12 Reasons America Doesn't Win Its Wars." Most of them come down to someone making a load of money off us being at war and not wanting the windfall to end. So just how much did Dick Cheney and Halliburton make off that little military action with casualties in Iraq?

I have a lot of messages in my inbox asking me what I think about Jerry Seinfeld's complaints about "a creepy P.C. thing" that makes him not want to perform at colleges. What I think is that this is a non-issue which, since it's an exploitable topic, will probably fill zillions of Internet bytes to no constructive outcome.

I also think Seinfeld's complaints are too vague, anecdotal and hypothetical to discuss with any seriousness, not that this will stop anyone, myself included.

On Seth Meyers' show, he told a joke that referred to a "gay French king" that had gotten not laughter but a weird, critical reaction from one audience. Seth's audience laughed at it but not some other audience somewhere. This seems to me like too isolated an incident on which to build any kind of discussion. It's like "Oh, my God! Jerry didn't like the way one audience reacted once to one of his jokes." He complained about how he'd heard (not experienced himself but heard) that on college campuses, audiences are too quick to judge comedy and say "That's racist!" or "That's sexist!" But he didn't say it had happened to him.

We have a controversy based on that?

I don't think there has ever been a time when stand-up comedians enjoyed more unrestricted speech. There might be a valid case that some motion picture studios are getting timid about humor that might be branded racist or sexist. I hear people say that Warner Brothers would never make Blazing Saddles today and that might be so…but I'm not sure someone wouldn't. The thing with movies though is that they cost zillions of dollars to make so there are extra worries about crossing some line with (only) certain kinds of humor. There are huge investments involved and huge investments always make people nervous.

This financial concern doesn't really apply to stand-ups…or doesn't apply any more than it ever did. Those who book comics always fret about booking guys who won't bring in the audiences or will send them out prematurely. Nothing's changed there except what always changes: What audiences will pay to see.

Jerry Seinfeld may be right to shy from college-age audiences, not because they'll think his routines aren't "politically correct" but because some might think he's of the wrong generation. And again, this is nothing new. When I was at U.C.L.A. in 1970, I don't think anyone would have brought in Norm Crosby or Buddy Hackett to entertain the students. Those are two guys who killed in Vegas, killed in Miami, killed anywhere they had an audience in "their" age bracket. They just didn't seem to speak to people under the age of thirty. I think the subtext of Seinfeld's problem — and this is sure not a big one for a guy who can still charge $125 a seat in Vegas and fill the hall — is that he's starting to become Alan King for audiences of a certain age.

They used to say that Seinfeld's sitcom was about nothing. I'm not sure what he's complaining about is about anything, either. But if it is, it's about that.

One other point I want to make…

Once upon a time in comedy, it was hard to not get a laugh by dropping your pants. Now, it's hard to not get one by mentioning anal sex or using those words that George Carlin said you could never use on television but now in some places, you can. Still, bad comedians have managed both.

The thing that bothers me about Seinfeld's complaints is that too many comics blame the audience when the act doesn't evoke hysterical laughter. This "creepy P.C. thing" Seinfeld mentions may be so on some campuses, especially at places like Bob Jones University or the diploma mill that Jerry Falwell set up. But it sounds to me more like an excuse comics give when either their routine isn't good enough or they've simply misjudged the house and done the wrong kind of material for the occasion. Some comics these days who learn how to work one kind of comedy club don't have the material or chops to play before more than one kind of audience.

But let's get back to "not good enough" because comics are like pizzerias. A lot of them aren't all that good. I was around stand-up comedians a lot in the seventies and eighties. I saw great ones and lousy ones and I heard a lot of the latter kind blame the audience when things didn't go as desired. One guy used to say when he bombed, "It's my job to be funny and their job to laugh and they aren't doing their job." He was not being funny, either when he said that or when he went on stage.

One night at the Comedy Store, my date dragged me to see a comic who her sister knew and the guy was just awful. I never saw him again anywhere but that night, I saw enough to last me a lifetime. He was living proof of an old adage I made up during his act that scatalogical humor is not always funny. The act was just terrible and the less people laughed (or stayed), the more he dragged out the poop jokes…to no avail. After, when we saw him outside, he was railing against the "square, uptight" audience.

Yeah, but they'd laughed their asses off at the guy before him, who was Sam Kinison. Maybe the audience wasn't the problem.

Saturday night, TBS is running the AFI Lifetime Achievement Salute to Steve Martin. A friend who was there for the event told me it was a gloriously funny evening and one hopes the recorded, edited version of it will be, as well.

While you're at it, you might want to check your D.V.R. settings for Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, a series I would hope you're all watching. What he's doing with F.I.F.A. officials is gutsy and hilarious and the only thing I don't like about this program is that it exists, thereby making him unavailable to succeed Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. Anyway, the next few weeks, the first telecast of the show is not at 8:00. It's like 8:01 or 8:06 or some odd number that could present a problem for some recording set-ups.

Sunday afternoon, Turner Classic Movies is running an interesting back-to-back combo: Mr. Bug Goes to Town followed by Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. What do these two films have in common? Well, in each, someone goes to town. That's about it.

If you're never seen the old sitcom Car 54, Where Are You? and you get MeTV on your cable or satellite, set your D.V.R. to record the first of the two episodes they're running very early this coming Sunday morning, then watch it when you have time. If you don't like that installment, don't bother trying any others. (It's the one where comedian Jan Murray is judging a barbershop quartet contest. One of the funniest sitcom episodes I've ever seen.)

Two new "oldies" TV channels have just been launched, neither of which are currently being carried on my cable provider. They're broadcast over the air in L.A. so if I went to the trouble to hook up my old roof antenna which I suppose still works, I could get them but I'm not that industrious these days. One, Decades, is running a lot of the old TV shows that others have run, interspersed with news documentaries intended to evoke certain time periods in both news and entertainment. The other, Buzzr, is like Game Show Network used to be running old episodes of Family Feud and Let's Make a Deal, and they're running ancient episodes of I've Got A Secret, To Tell the Truth and What's My Line? in the wee small hours, too.

I expect both will show up on my Time-Warner Cable eventually. It may depend on who winds up acquiring it. The F.C.C. stopped the merger with Comcast. There's a new one provisionally arranged with Charter. If the F.C.C. stops this one, I hope we see Time-Warner try merging with the Five Guys chain. It may not lead to better service but at least there'll be good burgers and fries.

Tomorrow, MAD magazine is vacating its offices on Broadway in New York for new digs. Here from a year or two ago is a brief tour of the old offices conducted by Dick DeBartolo, who's been writing for MAD since Al Jaffee had to do his fold-ins as cave paintings. Dick is also, as you may be aware, a frequent on-air contributor to whatever the heck TV show this is.

Once upon a time at its first location, the MAD offices were pretty dull. They didn't look that much different from the place in which a publication about preventive maintenance might be assembled. Visitors were therefore disappointed and the publisher, Bill Gaines, decided they had to decorate the walls with silly pictures and gags. The hallways at their office on Broadway were similarly colorful and right now, the crew is probably trying to make their new workplace funny. Here's where they're moving out of…

Scott Walker has said that if the Supreme Court makes Gay Marriage the law of the land, he'll champion a constitutional amendment to undo that decision. But of course he won't. There won't be a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, either. In this country, when you promise to ram through a constitutional amendment, you've lost but you're trying to impress your followers as an "I never give up" guy.

I would guess that if you tallied up all the vows to change things via a constitutional amendment, you'd find that less than 1% of the folks making those vows even took the first steps towards making that amendment happen. Why not? Well, for one thing because they know they're never going to get two-thirds of Congress behind it, let alone get 38 states to ratify.

Quick: When did this country pass its last constitutional amendment and how long was it from the time it was sent to the states for ratification and the time it was finally passed?

Bzzzz! Time's up! The correct answer is that the 27th amendment was sent to states to ratify on September 25, 1789 and finally ratified 202 years and 7 months later in 1992. And that wasn't even that controversial an issue. It was to say that when Congress votes itself a pay raise, that raise doesn't take effect until after the next election.

We don't change this country through constitutional amendments. On the very rare occasions when we pass one, it's for a matter where everyone is pretty much on the same page. This is never going to happen with Gay Marriage or Citizens United. The only thing that totally undoes a Supreme Court decision is another Supreme Court decision.

In the absence of one of them — and they're pretty absent or long in coming — we pass workaround laws, chipping away at the decision via loopholes and dogged legislation. Ever since Roe v. Wade, we've been hearing vows of constitutional amendments to overturn that decision and ban abortion. There, of course, has not been one nor have advocates for that cause come within fifty miles of getting one sent out for ratification. Instead, they've nibbled away at legal abortion by passing laws that close clinics or hamper the process. They can't make abortion illegal but they somehow seem able to make it very, very difficult for some women to get one.

That's why I don't think anyone should waste their time trying to ban assault weapons. They should be passing laws that say that to obtain one, you have to go to another state, be lectured that you'll be taking another human life and then undergo serious anal probing before you get your rifle. (No, wait. Some people might enjoy that…)

I have no idea how the Supreme Court is going to rule. People who get paid to cover that court do not have a great track record of predicting swing votes lately. They can usually nail how five or six of the justices will vote but they're not good at the last few nor do they always foresee the details. If I had to guess — and I'm glad I don't have to — I'd say the high court will make Gay Marriage legal but that the wording of the decision will leave all sorts of openings for laws that can chip away at the practice.

It'll be legal but there may be wiggle room for clergymen to not perform the ceremonies or for cake makers to not make the cakes, etc. Some federal or state legislator will then try for a law that says, yes, Gay Marriage is legal but in order to marry, any couple must demonstrate that they possess one penis and one vagina, preferably not on the same person…or something like that. Lawyers will go without sleep for days trying to come up with "It's legal but…" contrivances.

But that's just a guess. What I am sure about it is that there won't be a constitutional amendment either way. Or if there is, it will take 202 years and 7 months to make it a reality. By that time, no one will care about Gay Marriage. They'll be arguing whether it's legal for differing alien life forms to wed. And whichever side loses will vow to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.

Hard to believe but it's less than a month before Comic-Con International convenes down in San Diego so…

• No, I don't know where you can find a hotel room and no, you can't crash in mine.
• No, I can't help you get a badge no matter how many dying children you have with just this on their bucket lists.
• And no, I especially can't help you arrange a panel to promote your new project. The programming schedule was locked a long time ago, fella.

Speaking of that schedule: I'm goofing off this year and only hosting eight panels, down from a career high of (I think) fourteen. I'm not supposed to announce them until the official list is released, which should happen two weeks before the con kicks off. Preview night is Wednesday, July 8 and then the non-preview part runs Thursday, July 9 through Sunday, July 12. So they should start posting the programming schedule on June 24.

But I will tell you that I'll be doing all of your old faves (Quick Draw!, The Sergio & Mark Show, Cover Story, the Jack Kirby Tribute Panel and so on) and that I'm especially excited about the Cartoon Voice panels where you'll meet the voices of Avengers, Turtles, Justice Leaguers, Rugrats, Jedi Knights and a recently-retired Gay Robot Skeleton. Also on Sunday, we have this panel I do each year called The Business of Cartoon Voices, which is a serious attempt to give sound, pragmatic and free advice to folks who aspire to become voiceover performers. One of our guests on the panel this year is a gent I've been trying to land for years…one of the best agents that field has ever seen. Gonna be quite a panel.

I'll post some convention-going tips here shortly but a big one is to keep your eye on the convention website. It's really good and at least half the questions people call or write me to ask can be found there with just a mouse-click or two. And when the programming schedule is posted, study it carefully. You might even find an event there that's worth attending even though it's not hosted by me.

I just realized what this blog has been missing lately: Baby panda videos. Here's footage of a baby panda who was taken from his mother at birth and placed in an incubator. You're about to see them reunited…