Category Archives: Uncategorized

Terry Jones (of Python fame) says he's lost faith in Tony Blair.

Speaking of Mr. Jones, if you haven't visited his website, you've missed out on some nice articles and commentaries, including this interview.

A couple of times in the seventies, I trucked out to the Motion Picture Country Home in Woodland Hills to visit Larry Fine, the oft-mauled "middle" member of the Three Stooges. Larry was recovering from a stroke and he welcomed company and a chance to tell his anecdotes, of which he had about a dozen. No matter what you asked him, he told you the same twelve stories. In fact, the second time I was there, he told me one yarn three times. The question everyone apparently put to him was "Did you ever get injured making those movies?" and he'd developed a little five minute monologue/reply that you'd hear if you asked him what time it was.

He also introduced me to other old actors who were living out there, most notably a woman named Babe London who was "the fat girl" in countless films, including some with Buster Keaton and Laurel & Hardy. Ms. London was thrilled that I knew who she was and she'd try to hijack my visits with Larry, diverting the conversation to her dozen anecdotes, which Larry was thoroughly sick of hearing. So I'd just sit there while she tried to tell me for the third time about being falsely accused of having an affair with Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle while Larry would impatiently wait for her to finish so he could tell me for the fifth time about him getting a quill pen stuck in his forehead in one film.

Neither of them was much good for history beyond the little collection of oft-told tales. When I got to speak, which wasn't often, I'd ask something like, "What was Charley Chase like?" And since neither Babe nor Larry had a good Charley Chase story, they'd both say, "He was great." And then Babe would quickly start telling me the Fatty Arbuckle story again while Larry would try to interrupt and tell me one more time about the quill pen. Or if I asked something that actually did jog either's memory, it would suddenly turn into a scene from The Sunshine Boys…

"We had this prop man at Columbia named Tommy Blake…"

"Tommy Blake didn't work for Columbia. He was over at Republic."

"Like hell he was. I used to see him every time I drove on the lot at Columbia and I'd always say, 'Hi, Tommy!'"

"Well, I don't know who you were saying hello to at Columbia because Tommy Blake was at Republic. That's where I said hi to him."

"When did you ever work for Republic?"

In 1973, Larry's autobiography was published. It was called A Stroke of Luck and it's very rare these days. I once turned down $500 for my copy of what may well be the worst-written celebrity autobiography ever. Its other two distinctions are that (a) it probably holds the world's record for the most typographical errors ever in one volume and (b) you rarely see anyone unintentionally get so many of the details of his own life wrong.

I'll tell you how bad it is. If it was about someone else, you'd read a few pages of it and say, "Who wrote this? One of the Three Stooges?"

What's really odd about it is that as per its title, the book tries to view the story of Larry's stroke — the one that put him in a hospital for the rest of his life and took away his ability to walk — as a good thing. I can certainly understand trying to put a positive spin on bad news and can admire the tenacity involved in living with it and overcoming as much of it as can be overcome. But the book is so clumsily authored that at times, it's like Larry's saying, "Thank God I had that stroke…best thing that ever happened to me…you oughta try it."

The book is Larry's autobiography and it's written in the first person, as if by him. But the cover says "by James Carone" on it and there's an author photo of Mr. Carone on the back of the dust jacket. I don't know who Mr. Carone is or was, other than that he seemed to believe that you should never write eight words in a row without inserting at least four commas in there someplace. He even invented a whole new kind of punctuation where you put two or three commas in a row. But he took down Larry's memories and somehow managed to pry more than the usual twelve stories out of him. I suppose we should be grateful that he got as much history as he did out of the Center Stooge. Certainly, a lot of later books about the Stooges have unearthed a couple of true details of Larry's life buried somewhere amidst the errors and commas of Stroke of Luck.

There was a later biography of Larry (entitled simply Larry) by his brother, Morris "Moe" Feinberg, that compensated some for the shortcomings of Larry's book. And now, two very good authors — Stephen Cox and Jim Terry — have written a new book that I'm looking forward to. It's called One Fine Stooge: A Frizzy Life in Pictures and it looks quite well researched and exhaustive. We just may have that definitive Larry Fine biography we've all been waiting for.

Before I leave this topic, I feel like I should include one other memory. I mention it elsewhere on this site but one of the oddest things I ever saw on television was on the local CBS News the evening after Larry died. They hurried a camera crew over to Moe's house to get his reaction and Moe — big surprise — was just devastated. He was crying and having trouble forming words as he talked about Larry and said, "He was like a brother to me…I loved him so…he was my best friend…" And as he spoke, they cut to old footage of Moe breaking pottery over his best friend's head, running a saw across his best friend's scalp and ripping large handfuls of hair out of his best friend's skull. Now, that's friendship.

Here's a link to a video of a cat and a chicken. Go there if you'd like to see a video of a cat and a chicken. This is for those of you who like videos of a cat and a chicken.

My thanks to Carolyn Kelly for calling my attention to the video of the cat and a chicken. I've always wanted to link to a video of a cat and a chicken. Now, I can.

Our friends at TiVo have announced "narrower fourth quarter losses," which I guess is a good sign, though not as good as actually showing a profit some day might be. They've also announced a new pricing structure which would basically give you your TiVo box for free if you committed to a long-term service contract. You can do the math on this yourself and see how good a deal this is. Of greatest interest is the statement that they're doing away with the lifetime price of $299…which I guess you have to do if you want people to pay $369 for a two-year contract.

The way it worked was that you'd buy your TiVo machine and then if you paid $299, you'd have lifetime service on that machine for as long as it still ran. This was not only a good deal, it was an incentive to keep that TiVo machine up and operating as long as possible instead of purchasing a new one. When my office TiVo seemed to be wearing out, I took it to these people and they installed a new hard disk — two, actually — and extended the lifetime of the machine with lifetime service. If the option of lifetime service on a new TiVo is going away, that may make me really try to keep this one going. It may also make some people want to sign up for it in a hurry, though many may not; not with the new Series 3 TiVo machines promised for later this year.

Also, TiVo has announced a new arrangement with Verizon where if you're a Verizon subscriber, you'll be able to program your TiVo from your cell phone. This article will tell you more about it, though it omits the fact that this service will cost five bucks a month.

The Writers Guild of America, of which I am a loyal but oft-bewildered member, is on a campaign against product placement in TV shows and movies. To that end, they've been producing a number of parody videos that illuminate the problem. You might want to visit the website they've set up to tackle this, see the videos and read up on it. I personally think the WGA has more pressing concerns but I do agree that people should be made aware of how many commercials they're getting shoved down their gullets…and often in more subtle ways than they imagine.

Here's a nice article on Jeannie Schulz, widow of Charles, who now manages his legacy and a very lovely museum up in Santa Rosa.

My pal Sergio and I went there a few years ago and got the grand tour, including Jeannie taking us across the street and showing us the skating rink, which I loved. I also liked the fact that in the Schulz Museum, there are Peanuts strips printed on the tiles that ring the men's room. You're not supposed to take photos inside the building but I was alone in there.

Mainly though, I enjoyed meeting Jeannie. Charlie Brown, Lucy, Linus and all the rest couldn't be in better hands.

I'm not sure who's had a harder time of it lately: The northern spotted owl or the independent bookseller. Both seem to be teetering on the brink of extinction.

Non-chain bookstores have had a one-two punch. A few years ago, big chains like Crown Books and Brentano's began doing to them what Walmarts do to the neighborhood mom-and-pop businesses in many a town. More recently, online booksellers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble have siphoned off enough business to cause book shop after book shop to close down and be replaced by a Starbucks or a Kinko's.

And now, Dutton's Books on Laurel Canyon Boulevard in North Hollywood is closing. Dutton's offered a glorious selection of new and used books for 45 years there. They're currently having a 50% off sale on their remaining stock and when it's depleted, which should be around the end of this month, Davis Dutton is shutting the door, moving his family to another state and doing his bookselling on the Internet. The Dutton's stores in Beverly Hills and Brentwood, managed by other family members, will remain in business…but the one on Laurel Canyon was the most wonderful clutter of books and interesting patrons. I never went in there without finding a book I wanted to buy and running into someone I wanted to talk to.

It was also a gutsy store, dedicated solidly to the right of authors to write and have their books sold. When Iran issued a fatwa against author Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses, Dutton and his staff posed for a photo that ran in The Los Angeles Times. It showed them selling the book and the accompanying story said they would continue to do so, no matter what. It was also a store that loved to host author signings, no matter what the book, no matter how small the potential turnout. A writer friend of mine was once unable to get his publisher to set up any events. He picked up the phone, called Dutton's and they immediately agreed to a signing party.

I feel guilty that places like this are going away. I rarely go into bookstores since Amazon is just so easy. But I should…before any more of them disappear. We all should.

Gore Vidal is one of those people I don't always agree with. I sometimes quite disagree with him, in fact. But I always find him interesting to read or to listen to. Here's part one of an interview with him and when you finish with that, here's part two.

The fine comedy writer Ken Levine agrees with me about Jon Stewart.

A lovely human being named Bridget Holloman was found dead in her apartment this afternoon, having apparently died in her sleep a day or two ago. The cause of death is not yet known but she had been complaining to friends of headaches for a week or so.

Bridget was an actress, a model, a dancer, a choreographer, a make-up expert, a magician's assistant, a teacher of dance and exercise, and a businesswoman. In this last profession, she opened and operated an antique clothing business, exhibiting at Los Angeles fashion expos. She had also costumed and done make-up for hundreds of films, commercials and print campaigns.

Bridget hailed from Albuquerque, New Mexico where her mother — the acclaimed choreographer, Suzanne Moore Johnston — is the known center of the dance world. Bridget moved to Los Angeles in 1975 where she was immediately cast in Slumber Party '57, a dreadful teen comedy that is remembered only because its cast also included a then-unknown Debra Winger. She worked often as a dancer, often on the variety shows of Sid and Marty Krofft, which is where I met her, and racked up dozens of TV and movie roles and commercials. She had recurring roles on Days of Our Lives and a short-lived Tim Conway sitcom called Ace Crawford, Private Eye, and was seen in The Goodbye Girl, Stoogemania, Evils of the Night and about a half-dozen other films. For about two years, she had to dye her lovely blonde hair to red as she appeared in a series of print ads and commercials for Nexxus Hair Care products.

She was an industrious, talented lady who, in all the years I knew her, never had a mean or selfish thought about anyone or anything. Tonight, everyone who knew her is stunned and shocked and wondering aloud why someone like that has to die so young. Especially when so many more deserving candidates walk the planet.

A friend of mine who attended the Academy Awards sent the following note and asked me to post it here…

Right on that one difference between Ebert's review of Jon Stewart and Tom Shales', beyond the fact that Shales has never known what he's talking about, is that Ebert was there. Most people who were there loved Stewart. He got plenty of laughs, certainly more than Steve Martin the last time he hosted. If it didn't sound that way at home, that's not his fault. I watched a little of it on TiVo when I got home and the audience didn't seem as loud as it did if you were sitting there.

Also wrong to judge how a host is doing by the expressions of the stars sitting in the first ten rows. Those are people who are sitting there with cameras in their faces and they're nervous about being singled out and distracted because they have a lot riding on the evening. Where I sat, we were all howling at Stewart. They liked the monologues. They really liked the lines he did later in the show that seemed improvised because they were mostly commenting on things that had just happened and you should have heard some of the things that went on during the commercial breaks.

After reading some of the reviews that said no one was laughing, I went back and — also through the miracle of TiVo — watched Stewart's monologue again. People were laughing just fine at all but a joke or two, which is all you could ask for. But you're right that the audio on the audience could have been increased a bit.

I get the impression there was a slow bounceback on the laughter in the Kodak Theater. That's when the nature of the room, in part but not wholly due to its size, adds a fraction of a second delay to the time it takes the audience to hear the funny line and also to the time it takes the comedian to hear them laughing. When Victor Borge used to play large amphitheaters, he'd explain the problem to the audience — especially the folks way in the back — and ask them to please laugh a second or two before he said anything funny or it would throw off his timing.

My guess here is that when they sit down in a few months to discuss who'll host the 2007 Oscars, Jon Stewart will be among those considered. Steve Martin and Billy Crystal, if they'll do it, might be ahead of him but he'll be on the list. Unless some promising new contender emerges, we may well see Stewart again next year. Maybe they can crank up the audio on the audience for him.

If you know what's good for you, do not — I repeat — DO NOT click on this link.

Fred Kaplan thinks Bush gave away the farm in his nuclear pact with India.

The reviews might make you think there were two separate Oscar telecasts last night. Some folks, like Tom Shales, saw the one "hosted with a smug humorlessness by comic Jon Stewart, a sad and pale shadow of great hosts gone by." Others, like Roger Ebert, saw the one where…well, here. I'll quote him in a separate paragraph since he's the one I think is closer to right…

After all of the speculation about the selection of Stewart as a host, his performance deserves perhaps the highest tribute: He was as relaxed, amusing and at home as Johnny Carson. The assignment is his again in future years, and in one night he positioned himself as the likely heir of a major late-night network talk slot.

The above variance of opinion may represent more than the fact that Ebert has always been a far more perceptive critic than Shales. It may reflect the fact that Ebert was actually at the ceremony, seeing how Stewart went over with the live audience, whereas Shales was far, far away, pouting as he so often does that what was on his TV set failed to please Tom Shales. (Shales also thought that Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep must have taken "weeks" to master the banter they performed to introduce Robert Altman. These are two of the best actresses alive and I'll bet it took well under a half-hour.)

I think what some folks don't get is that the Oscars are the Oscars. The movies of '05 were not the kind that generated vast amounts of dramatic tension as to who'd win and who wouldn't. They were probably good films, by and large, but well before the ceremony, America didn't care that much if it was Reese Witherspoon or Felicity Huffman. Most people didn't see either of their films, nor was there any special reason to feel that one was so much more deserving than the other. And if the underlying show doesn't matter to us, there's only so much the host can do. I thought Jon Stewart did just fine.

Also this morning, a lot of people are asking if Brokeback Mountain was snubbed and if so, what does that mean? Was the Academy afraid of being seen as too Liberal or too gay? Did they flee from controversy or what?

The problem with these discussions is that there is zero data on how people ever vote or why. You can look at a race for governor and say that there was a swing of Hispanic voters in the 18-49 age bracket who identify health care as the most pressing issue. There's polling and there are studies and there are breakdowns of how different precincts voted. About the Oscar voting, there is darn near nothing. If I declare that people voted for the films they viewed on weekends and passed over the ones they caught on weekdays, there isn't a shred of empirical evidence to argue against me. It's also highly unlikely that there was any one reason for how everyone voted.

It may be that some people thought Brokeback Mountain, whatever its merits, has received enough attention and that Crash had gone unfairly unnoticed. It may be that the local campaign for Crash — they mailed a DVD to just about everyone in Hollywood — paid off. It may be that all the Academy voters this year played Rock/Paper/Scissors to determine their votes and all across Southern California, Scissors won. It may be that…oh, just make up any silly reason. No one can prove it's wrong. Maybe Brokeback lost in certain categories by a single vote because one guy just plain didn't like the movie as much as he liked some others…or see it.

These are the Oscars, people. They matter to agents and actors and technicians and people in the movie industry whose incomes are pegged to how many tickets or DVDs get sold. They shouldn't matter that much to anyone else. I wish some of my friends spent less time caring about who wins Best Supporting Actor and more time worrying about who wins President of the United States of America. Personally, I think we'd be better off in both cases with Paul Giamatti.

I am informed by several folks that the Academy has a February 1 cut-off for each year's "In Memoriam" reel. I'm not sure how long they've had this, and I suspect they'd violate it for a big enough star. But that's the reason Don Knotts, Darren McGavin and Jack Wild weren't in this year's montage. As I look over the list of movie people who passed away during the applicable period, I don't see any glaring omissions.