Category Archives: To Be Filed

Ventriloquist Paul Winchell was one of my early heroes. I had, like many guys in my age bracket, my own little Jerry Mahoney ventriloquist figure and I watched everything "Winch" did on TV, trying to learn how to do what he did. I never wanted to be a professional ventriloquist or even a performer like him. I just wanted to be able to do a vague approximation of what he did because it was so wonderful.

In Paul's last few years, I worked with him (even directed him for cartoon voices) and got to know him a bit. I think "a bit" was about as well as anyone could get to know the man and I am still a bit stunned by the contrast between two memories I have. One is sitting in my parents' living room at age six or so watching this magical person on TV operating Jerry Mahoney. The other is me as an adult, sitting in Paul's living room watching him operating Jerry Mahoney for me and a few of our friends. In the latter memory, Paul and Jerry are doing jokes that would get bleeped on The Howard Stern Show. It was one of those "Gee, I've sure grown up" moments.

Paul's bachelor apartment — this was during a period he was separated from his wife — was the usual destination after we all had dinner at a delicatessen in Encino. Paul would hold court, talking about his career and his adventures in medicine and various inventions he'd come up with…and he'd tell dirty jokes. The dirtier, the better. He would also talk at length about his lawsuit with Metromedia over the Winchell-Mahoney Time TV series he'd done from 1965-1968. Metromedia had destroyed the tapes of the 288 episodes and Paul sued, asserting that as the copyright holder and a part-owner of the show, they'd destroyed something that was of potentially great value to him. He won a judgment of over $17 million dollars which was later pared down to a lower but still impressive number.

Here's a few surviving minutes from that show which, needless to say, I watched often…

So now we have this report that Howard Stern "may" take over Jimmy Fallon's time slot if indeed Fallon gets Leno's. Who says Stern is being "groomed" for it? Insofar as I can tell, it's one representative of Howard Stern and no one else. The oddest thing about all these rumors — Leno out, Fallon up, Stern in — is how thinly-sourced they are. The initial report in Hollywood Reporter still seems to be the only report that even claims to be coming from inside and even it leaves much to be desired. Here are the first and last paragraphs from it…

Is NBC preparing to announce Jay Leno's departure from The Tonight Show? The network says categorically no, but two high-level industry sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that NBC is moving toward a May announcement that the 2013-14 television season will be the last for Leno as host of the long-running late-night show. Sources expect the network to move Jimmy Fallon from his Late Night spot into the coveted 11:35 p.m. time slot with a soft launch during the summer of 2014 before a formal fall kickoff.

A Leno rep says, "We do not speculate on rumor." Whether the network finally executes the Tonight transition plan remains to be seen. Anyone with even a passing sense of Leno's personality knows that the hardworking comic would be reluctant to leave his perch, especially before his rival at CBS, David Letterman, announces his retirement. Leno and Letterman are both signed through 2014.

Based on that, a lot of websites and news outlets have concluded that Leno's been axed and that Fallon's getting his job. And now, some are acting like Howard Stern's been signed for 12:35 even though there's no report that anyone on the NBC payroll has even considered that. (Same with reports that Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are going to take over one show or the other.)

Everyone on Leno's Tonight Show, by the way, is currently signed through September of 2014. I frankly don't understand that line about "…a soft launch during the summer of 2014 before a formal fall kickoff." Does that mean they're saying Fallon will take over in June or July but they won't really consider him as being in the job until Fall? When in the history of network television has that ever happened?

There's so much about this story that doesn't make sense including the fact that we haven't had a Bill Carter article in The New York Times saying that Leno is definitely out or in. I'd suggest no one believe anything about this until we have that…or an announcement on NBC stationery.

Yesterday, Congressman Rand Paul led a filibuster that ran close to 13 hours. Officially, it was to block the nomination of John O. Brennan's to head up the Central Intelligence Agency — a job for which he was confirmed today by a vote of 63 to 34. Unofficially, it was about Paul's demand for more information about the administration's domestic policy on imagined drone strikes against U.S. citizens. And in reality, it was probably just a stunt to get that attention and those donations. I guess it worked okay on this third count.

And since it did, we will probably see more of them. I would like to throw out a suggestion…

Next time someone does one of these, I think Comedy Central should interrupt its regular programming at the same time and send Jon Stewart and the correspondents on the Daily Show out to see if they can filibuster longer than the folks then doing it in Congress. If Mr. Stewart is off at his day job as a movie director, then Stephen Colbert. But just keep it going as long as — preferably a few minutes longer that — the one in Washington.

It would be enormously entertaining, plus we'll see if anyone can tell the difference between the elected officials and the comedians.

Just watch this…

I've been talking about the famed audience member "Mrs. Miller" here and it turns out I have her name wrong. It was actually Miss Miller. According to WikiPedia, which as we all know is never wrong about anything, her full name was Lillian Miller and she was born in 1897 and died in 1990 in Los Angeles. She began sitting in audiences back in 1940 in the days of radio and was on so many radio and TV programs that she eventually had to join AFTRA.

I seem to recall that when Merv Griffin launched either his CBS late night show or the syndicated series that followed that, Miss Miller was in all the commercials heralding his arrival. She really did become something of a celebrity.

My longtime pal Marc Wielage, who works in video production, wrote me to say…

Way back around 1982-1983, I actually worked for Merv Griffin for a couple of years when he owned Trans-American Video on Vine Street (located in the Merv Griffin Theater).

One time, I was standing out on Vine waiting for my partner Rod to pick me up from work, and an elderly woman came out, walking very slowly and standing at the curb. A car with another old woman rolled up, and the first elderly woman began berating her for being late, complaining about the weather, angry about her seat in the theater, and all that stuff… and of course, it was Mrs. Miller. Who knew she was a diva? Very angry woman.

The guys at TAV told me that Merv always made sure they saved a seat for her in every performance, though she only turned up 2 or 3 times a week. For some reason, Merv had a soft spot for her. I dunno what happened to her after Merv ended the show in 1986. Maybe switched over to Carson?

To me, the interesting question would be: Did she move out to Los Angeles when Merv did? Or did he move her? Or did she just decide that television production in New York was dying out so if she wanted to keep sitting in audiences, she had to go west?

I just received about eight messages at once telling me something I should have noticed: That given its date, the clip in the previous item couldn't have been from Jack Paar's Tonight Show. It's from his Friday night series.

Also, someone wrote to ask if this Mrs. Miller was the same Mrs. Miller who briefly had a recording career singing hit songs in an awkward, un-hip manner. Nope. Different Mrs. Miller.

Here's another of the few surviving clips from Jack Paar's era of The Tonight Show prime-time series that followed his run on The Tonight Show. The guests are comedian Milt Kamen and author Mary McCarthy. If you stay through to the end credits, you'll see the names of a few folks like Hal Gurnee and Pete Fatovich who much later worked on David Letterman's NBC show in, I believe, the same studio.

Seated with Paar at the outset is a woman known as Mrs. Miller, who gained a surprising fame for a time considering what she did. She went to taping and live broadcasts of TV shows. She reportedly just went from one to another — as she could — all day and all night. All the talk and game show hosts knew her and would point her out and sometimes involve her in the proceedings. Here, Paar brought her up on stage, probably on the pretext that the pages couldn't find a seat for her in the audience.

Don't get too enamored of these Paar clips. There aren't that many of them around. This is from 11/29/63, probably one of the first shows back from being off-the-air due to the Kennedy assassination…

Hello. Sorry I didn't post more today. I spent most of the time in a recording studio pretending to be a director. Hint: If you act like you know what you're doing, people will think you do.

A lot of folks have written me to say the offer of a free mattress from Sit 'n Sleep is even hollower than I made it out to be. Said many, the offer only applies if you can find a lower advertised price on the exact same mattress elsewhere…and most Sit 'n Sleep mattresses are special models sold only in their stores. I would not be surprised if this is so.

I'm not happy to hear that Jon Stewart is taking a three-month leave o' absence from The Daily Show, though I am curious to see if the level of writing will remain as strong without him on the premises. As for the on-camera part of the job: John Oliver, who'll be sitting in for Stewart for that period, is a very funny guy but it feels to me like they're installing a Costello in a job that calls for an Abbott.

Lastly for now: Tomorrow, Stu Shostak is welcoming TV Critics/Historians Steve Beverly and Wesley Hyatt to his 'net radio show Stu's Show for a discussion of what's going on with the networks. I'll be joining the fray after 5:30 PM (Pacific Time) when they turn to the topic of the Leno/Fallon rumors. Click here to get in on the fun.

Very busy today so I won't be posting until later tonight. I'm hearing all sorts of things about the Leno/Fallon matter, including a couple of folks noting something I hadn't; that this story came out right after Jay did his last show before taking a week off. That kinda means its release was deliberately timed so it could spread when Leno wasn't on the air to deny it. A wizened agent once told me, "When a big news story in the entertainment industry gets released, always ask yourself who could have released it and why."

It is worth noting that this story began life in the Hollywood Reporter and many who have picked up on it seem to assume those sources are within NBC. But the Hollywood Reporter didn't say that. They said, "…two high-level industry sources tell the Hollywood Reporter that NBC is moving toward a May announcement that the 2013-14 television season will be the last for Leno as host of the long-running late-night show." Let's see if and when anyone high up in NBC says that.

Over the weekend, that story about Jimmy Fallon replacing Jay Leno got a surprising amount of traction considering (a) it was completely unsourced, (b) it's the exact same rumor that proved untrue — or at least, way premature — just a few months ago and (c) it is, after all, a report about a network that wants to win the time slot getting rid of the guy who's pretty consistently won the time slot…and is still doing so. That's not to say they wouldn't do it again but it's not the most normal tactic for a network, especially since the last time they did that, they ended up having to reverse the decision.

Still, I see no official denial today from NBC…no statement of strong support for Jay. So maybe there's something to it. Or maybe someone at NBC is hoping there will soon be something to it.

This article by Jeff Bercovici insists NBC should dump Leno for Fallon and tries to prove it with their respective "Q" ratings. I don't think that's much of an argument, given how fuzzy "Q" scores can be. They ostensibly measure how much the public likes a performer but a high "Q" doesn't mean they'll watch him…or will watch him in any kind of show or time slot. As I recall, Simon Cowell has or had a pretty low one but that wasn't an indicator that American Idol would have fared better without him. More relevant is that I believe the sole reason Fox once tried to give Chevy Chase a late night talk show was because of how high his "Q" rating was.

Really, the networks wish it was as simple as comparing "Q" scores. If that was a reliable barometer for success, they'd never have to cancel anything instead of having to cancel almost everything.

Just now noticing this lovely piece that Eric Idle wrote recently about his relationship with John Cleese.

In a teevee interview the other day, Mitt Romney said that if he'd been elected president, he could have and would have prevented the sequester. Well, sure. And if Democrats had won the House, Barack Obama could have prevented it, too. Romney would have prevented the sequester by giving Republicans everything they wanted. Not a difficult achievement when the Senate can't pass anything and you hold the House and White House.

Peter Beinart says Romney still doesn't get why he lost. Justin Green says Beinart's wrong and then proceeds to give other reasons. I think both men are right and they also both omit one other biggie. I think part of Romney's loss was because with the flippin' and floppin' and the big, phony smile, a lot of people just had no idea what he believed in.

It's a consideration that political analysts often overlook because it's tacky and hard to quantify. But a lot of voters look at a slate of candidates and vote for the one who strikes them as the lesser asshole. I have Republican friends who more or less shared what some thought were Mitt Romney's values…but they weren't entirely sure that Mitt Romney shared them. They were bothered by that quote from Grover Norquist about how it didn't really matter which Republican was elected president because all he was going to do was rubber-stamp whatever the Republican leaders in Congress decided.

And also, Mitt, you lost because your campaign was managed by people who understood the country so well they were certain you were going to win Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Minnesota.

Not being completely "up" on who's writing and drawing what in comics these days, I'm startled — in a kind of Tex Avery "take" way — to hear that Jerry Ordway is not getting nearly enough work. I could understand that of some folks of his experience. There are talents in this business who get steady work for a time…and then maybe their work atrophies or they stop growing or maybe they just plain aren't as good as most of the new entrants. But then there are also folks like Jerry who have done consistently fine work and always been professional about it…and when one of them isn't turning down assignments, something is wrong.

Is it ageism? Could be. There are those in power not just in comics who are told they have to lure in younger customers…and they really don't have a clue how to do that. Really don't. So they opt for engaging younger talent, which isn't really a solution but it kinda looks like one. In fact, it looks enough like one that they won't get blamed too much if it doesn't work.

Over the years, I became friendly with — or at least interviewed — most of the comic book writers and artists whose careers predated or coincided with mine. Some managed to remain "in demand" as long as they were able to write or draw or wanted to work. Others hit a wall they'd never expected — one they'd once been more-or-less promised would never be there. A number of very fine, experienced creators in the last decade or two have been told things like, "I'd love to give you work but they tell me here I have to look for the new, young 'hot' artist."

Usually, it isn't that nakedly admitted but sometimes it is. Not that long ago, a veteran artist came to me and asked if I could help him get work…which he needed the way anyone might need work. I knew of a comic that a major company was about to launch and phoned up its editor to suggest the older guy would be perfect for it. The editor replied, "You're right. He would be. I wish I could use him." I swear: "I wish I could use him" is a verbatim quote.

I could almost forgive this attitude if it did yield a significant sales advantage. Some editors will quietly admit to you that, no, it really doesn't. In this particular case, they found a new kid, he drew the book…and it was a rapid cancellation. It wouldn't have sold any worse with the veteran — and might have sold better as he was a much better artist.

There's no question that some of the newer writers and artists are very good and that their work is commercial and popular. No one is saying they shouldn't be engaged and given every opportunity; just that the Jerry Ordways of the world deserve the same. I don't know the particulars of why Jerry isn't working, above and beyond what he states in his courageous essay. I'd guess it has something to do with disappointing sales on a Shazam! series he did not that long ago. The property has never really sold no matter who did it and this business does have a tendency to blame talent for not being able to resurrect the dead.

I'm not too worried about Jerry. He's very good and some smart editor (there are such people) will snap him up one of these days. I am worried when the industry seems too quick to dispose of talented folks and it becomes impossible or even just difficult to make a long-term living in comics. I think that would be very bad for the business. When good people come along, you don't want them to think of their time writing or drawing comics as temp work that will only last until someone younger comes along with impressive samples and no grey hair. If today I was considering a career in comics, I don't think I'd expect it to be a very long, stable one.

Here's a 1952 commercial for the Kellogg's Variety Pak starring a Jimmy Durante marionette. I don't know why it stars a Jimmy Durante marionette but it does. I think the father in this is Herb Vigran…

I don't know what other cities it runs in but out here, you can't turn on the TV without seeing a commercial for Sit 'n Sleep, a business that sells beds and other furnishings. In every one of their ads, you hear their slogan: "Sit 'n Sleep will beat anyone's advertised price or your mattress is free!"

Today, my friend Michele Hart stopped in and she pointed out something that hadn't occurred to me the eighty-seven million times I've heard that sales pitch. It's that it doesn't make sense. They would never give a mattress away free.

Think of it this way: Sit 'n Sleep is selling the Sealy Posturpedic for $1700. You find an ad someplace that offers the same mattress for $1680. You bring that ad into Sit 'n Sleep and show it to them. Which of these two things do you think would happen?

1. They sell you the Sealy Posturpedic for $1679.
2. They say they can't afford to sell you the Sealy Posturpedic for $1679 so they give it to you free.

Their pledge is not worthless. It is a way of saying they'll beat anyone's advertised price and I assume that's so. It just didn't dawn on me until Michele mentioned it that it couldn't possibly result in any free mattresses. And boy, do I feel dumb for not picking up on that before. I wonder how many people do.