Category Archives: To Be Filed

What happens to someone who goes on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? and loses $225,000? Check out the sad (but in some ways, inspirational) story of Justin Peters.

As we mentioned, RadioShack is going away…so what to do if you have gift cards to redeem there? This article will tell you…and I'll add that if you're going to go in and buy something to use them up, you'd better hurry. The last few days they're in operation may not be the time because as they run out of items, they're not going to be restocking those shelves.

This is a fascinating clip from The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson and it's from 10/03/1965. Not many of the shows from that period survived.

You may know this part already. When Johnny took over the show, it was an hour and 45 minutes every night and it started twice. They would start the show at 11:15 and then go to commercial around 11:28. At 11:30, that commercial break would end and they'd do a new opening, billboarding the guests again. This was because some local stations ran a 15-minute newscast at 11 PM and some had a half-hour. The two starts were so stations could join the broadcast at either time.

Originally, Johnny did his monologue at the start of the 11:15 segment but more and more, stations then were shifting to 30-minute newscasts so fewer and fewer of them were airing that labor-intensive bit of stand-up. Around early '65, Johnny decided the first fifteen minutes had to go so he could do his monologue for everyone to open the show. For a time, he just plain refused to do the first 15 minutes of the show, insisting he was sick and leaving it to Ed McMahon and the show's bandleader, who then was Skitch Henderson.

Eventually, Johnny won. NBC agreed to get all their stations lined-up to start at 11:30 but the "first fifteen" starring Ed and Skitch continued for several months until that happened. They'd play games, chat, sometimes interview one guest, all the time reassuring the audience that Johnny Carson would be along shortly. Some nights, it was pretty grim until he showed up.

This is an excerpt from the "first fifteen." Skitch seems to have been off that night and the bandleader seems to be someone named David. I do not recognize this man but he and Ed introduce a band number spotlighting the great trumpeter, Clark Terry. Terry played in the band for most of the sixties, leaving in 1972 when Johnny moved the show from New York to Southern California. This clip appears to be from a 1965 visit that the show paid to Hollywood but Mr. Terry came along to join what was probably a band made up mostly of L.A.-based musicians.

After he left The Tonight Show, Clark Terry continued to be one of the greats of the jazz trumpet…and I seem to recall him sitting in with the band in Burbank every now and then and offering up an amazing solo. He toured and did concerts and some people say he played on more jazz recordings of his era than any other trumpet player. He passed away last Saturday at the age of 94. Here he is doing what he did as well as anyone who's ever held one of those instruments…

• Donald Trump running for President again. Not one person not on his payroll thinks he will get more electoral votes than Donald Duck.

People keep writing to ask me about the Joan Rivers "snub" from the Oscars' In Memoriam segment. The word "snub" is getting way overused on the Internet these days, its definition now being broadened to include any time you think the wrong person got selected for something. It's like when a casting director has to pick which of ten actors who were considered (or even which of fifty who were submitted) will get a part. He picks the one he'll hire and then folks say they others were "snubbed."

Sometimes, they say they were "banned." If you host Saturday Night Live only once and then Lorne Michaels decides once is enough, or you get turned down to guest with David Letterman, you're likely to wind up on a list of people who are (gasp!) "banned" from those shows.

Or even "blacklisted." That's another one. A comedian I met at a party a few years ago was complaining that he couldn't get on The Tonight Show, which of course has always been the fate of well over 99.9999999% of all people who consider themselves professional comedians. He was saying he'd been "blacklisted," likening his non-selection to the injustice done to actors and writers who were persecuted by a conspiracy involving multiple employers who did not question their ability, only their exercise of free speech and free association.

So here's the deal with the Oscars segment. Each year, a committee at the Academy — not the producers of the telecast — has to make up the roster of who's in and who's out. They start with a list of maybe 400 names — everyone in show business who died in the last twelve months and had anything to do with a movie. Probably that list isn't even complete but they have to start somewhere. Then they whittle it down to 40-50 names.

You might ask, "Why don't they cut some musical number or a commercial or two and put in more names?" Well, they'd sooner not give out Best Picture than cut a commercial but even that wouldn't solve the problem. If they put 100 dead folks on the screen, the fans and family of others on the master list would still say, "Hey, you included the caterer on a movie made in 1974 but you left out the caterer on a movie made in 1969!" The more you include, the more you lower the bar on how important a person has to be to make the reel.

The committee considers fame and importance. You get more points if you were nominated for an Oscar or won one, which is not to suggest they have an actual points system. They may or may not.

They used to only put up actors and an occasional director but there were too many complaints about "snubbing" other job descriptions. So now they make sure to include some writers, some make-up folks, some studio execs, some cinematographers, etc. I would guess that the one or two most important costume designers who die each year will always make the final list because it would be viewed as an insult to all costume designers if at least one wasn't included.

I am told the official Academy site says that the honor is only for actual members of the Academy but I don't believe that rule, if it exists, is followed religiously. I mean, do we think some huge star who never actually joined would be omitted for that reason? It may matter in the case of those who are on the cusp.

And then the committee decides what they decide. I would assume there is discussion of whether someone is a TV person or a stage person and whether they did enough of their careers in movies that they belong. On Shelly Goldstein's Facebook page, Bruce Vilanch posted…

it ain't the people's choice, it's the academy's choice, and they tend to choose people who actually are in the movie business, not the fashion business or the television business.

Bruce has been involved in enough Oscar telecasts to know of what he writes.

Each year, we have this controversy and folks read way too much into the decision to include A but exclude B. Sooner or later, the Academy is probably going to tell whoever constructs and designs the montage, "Look, here's a list of 423 people who died since the last Oscars. We'll give you four minutes instead of three. Get every one of these names on the screen for a few seconds, even if for some, it's just putting up a crawl or twenty names at a time with no pictures."

Then there will instead be complaints about who got a picture and who didn't, and why someone's name was on longer than someone else's, and putting up 423 names will just about guarantee that someone's is misspelled. And then we'll hear about how someone whose name wasn't on the initial list of 423 was snubbed…or maybe even banned or blacklisted.

I want to recommend today's Stu's Show and I want to recommend a recent book by Stu's guest. Joel Tator is a TV producer with a long résumé, a shelf or two full of Emmys and an extensive knowledge of Los Angeles television history. He has recently given us Los Angeles Television, an excellent book about local TV in my home town back in the fifties, sixties and seventies…you know, back when there used to be local television other than late news and dawn-to-dusk coverage of police pursuits.

The group shot on the cover gives you a good idea of the kind of people covered by this volume. On it, I see Engineer Bill, Mike Stokey, Stan Freberg, Tom Hatten, Art Linkletter, Skipper Frank and so many more. That photo's from a reunion years after most of them were vital contributors to local television but Tator's book is full of photos and history of earlier days. If you grew up where I did, you will love this book and your biggest complaint will be that it isn't long enough. So order it and listen in when Joel guests with Stu today.

Stu's Show can be heard live (almost) every Wednesday at the Stu's Show website and you can listen for free there. Webcasts start at 4 PM Pacific Time, 7 PM Eastern and other times in other climes. They run a minimum of two hours and sometimes go way, way longer. Whenever a show ends, it's available soon after for downloading from the Archives on that site. Downloads are a measly 99 cents each and you can get four shows for the price of three. Well worth the money.

• Bill O'Reilly just announced his next book: Killing Fact-Checkers.

Paul Waldman over in the Washington Post gives a neat summary of the case against Bill O'Reilly on this charge that he fibbed about his experiences covering combat back in his news days. I don't care a whole lot about this because like Waldman, I don't think O'Reilly's employer or audience cares.

In fact, I think a lot of those who watch O'Reilly know and don't mind that he's full of excrement on some topics. They just like the show he puts on and a lot love that he often fights dirty, up to and including distorting facts, to slap the people they want to see slapped.

What's interesting to me about O'Reilly is that, first of all, I think he's a great showman. If you just see his job as putting on a program that people will watch…well, he's really good at that. Then again, he has a huge audience for his pronouncements on what's right and wrong with the world but I don't get that anyone in his audience sees him as a wise pundit. I spend way too much of my life debating issues with right-wing friends (I have more than you may think) and they'll quote Rush or Hannity or Mark Levin or Beck or Krauthammer or someone else like that.

No one ever quotes O'Reilly and I don't think I've ever seen him cited with Rush-like reverence on a right-wing blog. He must be in some corners of the web but it doesn't seem to me to be proportionate to the audience he reaches.

Last night, Jon Stewart — who had much on his plate upon returning from a vacation — did a pretty fine job of making Rudy Giuliani look like a remarkable hypocrite and exploiter of 9/11 for selfish partisan reasons. Okay, so he had a lot to work with. Giuliani's not doing very well as he tries to back off his Obama slam without offending anyone who loved his Obama slam.

I'm guessing Stewart — who actually seems to be in a mutual-admiration society with Bill-O — will get to O'Reilly tonight or tomorrow night. I'm further guessing his message will be, "Hey, Bill. Just accept the fact that you got caught in a lie and be thankful that you work at a company that doesn't mind that kind of thing." But maybe not. Mr. Stewart has surprised me in the past with his take on some controversies.

Today is Abe Vigoda's 94th birthday! Let's celebrate by going to see if he's still alive.

Last Friday, I went to lunch at the Magic Castle in Hollywood with my friend Bob Elisberg, whose blog you should be visiting…but only after you read mine ten times a day. One of my favorite magicians, Richard Turner, was performing.

Richard isn't exactly a magician. He describes himself sometimes as a Card Mechanic — a guy who can fix a card game. He is the best "card cheat" I've ever seen and it's stunning to see in person. You watch him. You study him. You never take your eyes off his hands or the cards. But you can't catch him dealing off the bottom of the deck or out of the middle or whatever he does so you wind up with a pair of threes and he has a surplus of aces. Really amazing.

And, oh yeah: He's blind. What he does would be astounding even if he could see but he can't so…

This video is from (I'm guessing) 15-20 years ago when his vision was a tiny bit better than it is now and he sometimes didn't tell audiences he couldn't always make out the cards. Today, he has to ask his "volunteers" for help making sure that the ones he gathers up after a feat are all face-down. But he can still do everything he did in this performance and then some…

Jason Jones has announced he's leaving The Daily Show to star in a new series for TBS. It'll be exec-produced by him and his wife Samantha Bee but there's no announcement yet as to whether she's staying or going. The timing of this is curious. This is not a deal that was hurriedly put together since Jon Stewart announced he was abdicating. One wonders if Mr. Jones is regretting his decision to leave or if he left because he knew he was not in line for Stewart's job whenever it came open.

Whatever the reason, this suggests The Daily Show under its new host may be even more different than some of us have been thinking. Several friends and I have been discussing whether Comedy Central would try having Jones and Bee co-anchor as per one of those male/female teams that are standard in news reporting these days. Guess not.

Okay…so Oliver is out. Colbert, of course, is out. Wilmore is saying he's happy right where he is so he's probably out. Bee is probably out. Williams says she's out. I'm not feeling like the other correspondents — Klepper, Mandvi, Hodgman, Madrigal, etc. — have been treated like folks with a bigger future at that network.

Maybe Klepper but it's starting to look like someone from outside. A reader of this site wrote me to speculate they'd grab up Craig Ferguson. I'd bet serious money he isn't even under discussion. I can imagine Comedy Central offering Craig Ferguson The Craig Ferguson Show but not The Daily Show since he'd only turn it into The Craig Ferguson Show. I'm now thinking it'll be someone like James Corden — i.e., someone whose name isn't on any of the short lists circulating outside the network.

Too often, these things turn out like a really bad murder mystery…you know, the kind where when they reveal whodunnit, it's someone you never would have thought of because there were, like, no clues. I remember reading one once where the murderer turned out to be a person who had never been mentioned before in the book. This may be like that. Brace yourself, fellow speculators.

The other day, I was walking into a store when I was approached by a homeless-type person who gave off the distinct odor of being a homeless-type person. He said to me, "Excuse me but do you have a cigarette?"

I said, "Sorry…I have never in my life had a cigarette."

He said, "Don't apologize. I wish I could say that."

Before the Marx Brothers filmed A Night at the Opera, they went on tour with a vaudeville-style version of the script. The idea was to "test out" the comedy material before live audiences and to rewrite and refine it before committing it to film. This article talks about the stop they made with this act in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The piece says that the big change in their movies as of A Night at the Opera was the inclusion of a plot because they'd never had one before. I don't know about that. There was more attention given to a romantic subplot, true. There was also more time and money spent on their movies once they moved to MGM and there was no Zeppo, which sure didn't hurt. But they had had plots — even romantic subplots — before. They just didn't worry too much about developing and resolving them in a satisfying manner.

I have friends who love the Marx Brothers but don't like any film after Duck Soup…which means they only like five of the dozen movies with three or more Marxes in non-cameo roles. Less than half. I don't deny the last few were pretty grim but there's enough Marxian joy in A Night at the Opera, A Day at the Races, At the Circus and Go West to make me very happy. Of those four, the weakest was At the Circus and it may not be a coincidence that it was the only one that didn't go out on one of those "test the material" tours.

Okay, I lied. I'm going to plug one more Kickstarter campaign here. Robert Weide is seeking funding to complete a documentary on Kurt Vonnegut that's been in the works for something like 25 years. Vonnegut was alive for much of that time and cooperating and being interviewed and I for one would love to see the footage of him.

Mr. Weide is a fine documentarian and producer and director. He helmed some great documentaries about funny folks like the Brothers Marx, W.C. Fields and Woody Allen. In fact, he's the gent who wrote the much-read defense of Mr. Allen from the charges that he'd molested one of Mia Farrow's daughters. (You may recall I was once on the fence about whether those allegations were true. Several friends have since convinced me they are not.)

Vonnegut is one of my favorite authors and also a person I love hearing just talk about his work and the world so I am pleased to back and promote this Kickstarter and to give you this link if you want to get in on it. If you're not convinced, listen to what Bob Weide has to say…

It has been confirmed that the Denny Dillon piece was a hoax…and I hear she's quite upset about it. Of course, now that I know it's a joke, that seems obvious to me and I feel a bit dumb for not having caught it right away. I need to stop blogging when I'm half-asleep.

More reaction to the Oscars last night. To some, the omission of Joan Rivers from the In Memoriam reel is and will forever be the social injustice of our times. I could certainly make the case either way and I'd also note quite a few others who weren't included: Carla Laemmle, Richard Kiel, Dickie Jones, Jan Hooks, Elaine Stritch, etc. And those are just actors. There are probably hundreds of behind-the-camera folks whose families were disappointed that their departed loved one was not included. (An awful lot of the articles online today also mention Harold Ramis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Shirley Temple and others as having been "snubbed" but those folks were all in last year's reel.)

Given the inevitably of some arguable selections being excluded, I can't get too worked-up over not including Joan. They should have put her in just so we didn't have this silly controversy. Frankly, I think she would have loved it. Nobody, not even Sarah Palin, played the Victim Card to such good advantage as Joan Rivers. And no one ever cared less about hurting the feelings of stars of her magnitude.

I didn't mention the tribute to The Sound of Music. That's not a movie I especially loved but I do love surprise appearances and bringing Julie Andrews on at the end was a great moment. Many today are praising Lady Gaga's singing and saying that she proved she is a performer who should be taken seriously. Fine. She was great. But I always thought that by dressing the way she usually does and calling herself "Lady Gaga," she was trying real hard to not be taken seriously.

In non-Oscar news — yes, there is some — I think we need to declare an end to politicians declaring they know what's in each others' hearts and when someone is not really of the religion they claim. Talk about what these people do, not what you'd like to make voters think they are.

I have a new theory (I don't think I've said this before) that when a politician says something outrageous and in questionable taste, it's sometimes to please a very tiny, well-heeled audience. The person goes to someone like Sheldon Adelson or a Koch Brother or even Warren Buffett seeking financial backing either for a candidacy or, as more likely with Rudy Giuliani, a business deal. The rich guys says, "Well, I like you and your ideas…but I haven't seen you get out there and tell the world that the president dresses in women's lingerie. That's a fact, you know."

And then the politician says, "Oh, I've said that many times. In fact, it's already in the speech I'm giving tomorrow afternoon!" And then they rush to write it in and say it because, you know, you never argue with someone who could write you a check with a whole lot of numbers on it. Plus, you can always walk it back later or, as Giuliani has been doing, deny you said what you said or meant it the way you knew everyone would take it. The rich person probably doesn't mind the walkback because he understands that to be effective for his purposes, you need to do that and he's gotten what he wanted.

Hey, as I was writing this message, I received an e-mail from Denny Dillon asking me to remove the fake blog from my site. I'm going to go write her back that I already did and repeat to her my apology for not realizing it sooner. See you later.