Category Archives: Uncategorized

The L.A. Times obit [reg. req.] for Hamilton Camp is up. It says the cause of death is still to be determined but that he fell on Sunday. I was told it was a heart attack but perhaps that is not so.

Whatever it was, it robbed us of a very talented man. A lot of you have written me to recall your favorite Hamilton Camp TV role — like the short guy who tried to date Mary Richards on The Mary Tyler Moore Show or the stereo store owner who got robbed on WKRP in Cincinnati. Hamilton played an amazing number of memorable roles on popular shows.

The L.A. Times [register, baby] has an article about the closing of Book City, a wonderful clutter of old volumes located up on Hollywood Boulevard.

The piece blames the changing nature of the neighborhood, and that may be a factor, but I think they're missing the real cause here. Old book shops have been in steady decline the last 20+ years in all neighborhoods everywhere. There are one or two areas, like out on the Golden Mall in Burbank, where a few stores have found cheaper rent and have congregated to create a little shopping mall of antiquarian booksellers. But apart from that kind of huddling, I don't think you can find a single neighborhood in California that doesn't have fewer of those establishments than it did in the seventies. Many now have none.

It's not geography. It's not location. It's that second-hand book stores are a dying industry. To the extent some survive, it's mostly been by becoming online merchants, selling on eBay and through services like abebooks. To do that, you don't need the overhead and expense of operating a retail store in a commercial area. You can do it out of someone's garage.

Once upon a time, I was the biggest patron of old book stores you've ever seen. I went to every one in Los Angeles and I went often. I can't tell you how much cash I spent at the Book City on Hollywood Boulevard and I also patronized their old second location over on Lankershim. But I haven't visited Book City or any such establishment in years. When I buy now, I buy online.

Yes, you lose the fun of browsing the actual books but the trade-off, which I find more than acceptable, is that you get a much wider range of choices and prices. A few weeks ago, I wanted to find a certain book and if I'd gone to Book City, it would have taken me an hour or two and I might (might!) have found one copy and it would have been priced on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I might also have wasted the trip either because they didn't have a copy or because I didn't like the price or condition of the one they had. Searching online, it took under a minute to find 40 or 50 copies — different editions, different conditions, different prices, etc., and after a couple of clicks, one was en route to me. I feel bad about Book City closing because it once did so much for me, but I've gotta admit: I don't feel so bad about these places closing that I'll forego the ease and comfort of no longer going to old book stores.

Actor Nicolas Cage and his wife Alice have named their new child Kal-el, which is Superman's birth name, which is of course their right.

But don't I remember a sketch that Nicholas Cage did when he hosted Saturday Night Live back in 1992? He played a man arguing with his pregnant wife (portrayed by Julia Sweeney) about what to name their kid. The premise was that she kept suggesting names like John and George and he kept rejecting each one, explaining how it would cause their son to be ridiculed and beaten up. The punchline was that it turned out he was so sensitive to the issue because his name was Asswipe.

I'm not sure what point I'm making here. It's just that every time I hear of someone saddling their child with an odd given name, I think of Nicolas Cage and that sketch. And now, here he is…

Oh, well. Guess I'll forget about that and just wait for today's Tom DeLay indictment. Then again, if I miss it, there's always tomorrow's.

Damn…another obit. This one's for the "Poet Laureate of Television," Nipsey Russell, who was probably best known for his countless game show appearances. I met him only once — backstage at the game show called Rhyme and Reason that was more or less invented to have him on its panel. He was cheery, he was funny, he was happy to meet everyone. If being around a guy for fifteen minutes makes you qualified to have an opinion about him, then I'd say Nipsey Russell was a hardworking guy who was very happy to have that work, and that he earned every bit of fame and success he enjoyed.

He sure was around for a long time. I don't know much more about him than is mentioned in the obits now appearing (like this one) although they don't seem to be noting all the decades he spent working dives and clubs, many in the so-called "Negro Circuit," before joining the thin ranks of performers who broke out of that show business ghetto. He was among the regulars on the 1961 sitcom, Car 54, Where Are You?, and even before that, an occasional performer on Ed Sullivan's popular variety hour. He played Vegas often — one time, doing Pseudolus in a production of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. I wish I could have seen that or, even better, his regular act. Because he always made me laugh.

For what it's worth, I'm surprised by George W. Bush's selection of Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court nominee. Point One: She has no judicial experience and while that may not be a disqualifier in and of itself, you'd think this would not be the time Bush would want to have the accusation that he's appointing an inexperienced crony to a position of great responsibility. Point Two: She's sixty years old. There's been a lot of talk that Bush (and Karl Rove) wanted to reshape the government their way for as close to "forever" as they could manage. That would have suggested a nominee in his or her forties.

Point Three: She's not the slam dunk Roe-reversing, pull-the-court-to-the-right vote that many Bush supporters were craving and which some even felt was owed to them. She may turn out to be that but an awful lot of Conservative voices are outraged now, at a time when Bush seems to need their support more than ever. Over at the Liberal blog, Eschaton, the legendary Atrios makes the following point which I think is correct, especially the part about how we really don't know how she'll impact the court…

I have no idea what kind of judge Miers will be and nor probably does anyone else in the commentariat. We probably won't know for a few years either way (assuming for the moment that she's confirmed) unless the nice people in the press do some digging to try to find out. All we do know is she's a reliable Bush fixer.

Wingnuttia is rather angry at the choice. I don't think this is because they're really concerned that she's not conservative enough for their tastes, although that's part of it. They're angry because this was supposed to be their nomination. This is was their moment. They didn't just want a stealth victory, they wanted parades and fireworks. They wanted Bush to find the wingnuttiest wingnut on the planet, fully clothed and accessorized in all the latest wingnut fashions, not just to give them their desired Court rulings, but also to publicly validate their influence and power. They didn't just want substantive results, what they wanted even more were symbolic ones. They wanted Bush to extend a giant middle finger to everyone to the left of John Ashcroft. They wanted to watch Democrats howl and scream and then ultimately lose a nasty confirmation battle. They wanted this to be their "WE RUN THE COUNTRY AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT" moment.

Whatever kind of judge she would be, she doesn't provide them with that.

I think it's kinda nice when the extreme right doesn't get what they want, especially with regard to something as important and lasting as a Supreme Court appointment. It will be nice the next time the extreme left is disappointed in some Democratic nomination, as well. I guess my idea of the ideal Supreme Court would be nine potential swing votes, none of them as unashamedly predictable as some have been. This will never happen but it's still nice to imagine.

Another talented, wonderful performer has left us. Hamilton Camp (aka Bob Camp and Hamid Hamilton Camp) died yesterday from a heart attack. He was 70.

He was probably best known for his role as the handyman, Andrew Hummell, on the short-lived 1967 sitcom, He and She, which starred Richard Benjamin and Paula Prentiss, but he appeared in hundreds of TV shows, including guest roles on all the major programs. He was also a regular on two other series which, he almost bragged, were two of the quickest cancellations in TV history — Turn-On (1969) and Co-Ed Fever (1979), each cancelled after only one episode aired. His extensive list of motion picture credits started when he was a child and later included Dick Tracy, Heaven Can Wait, S.O.B., Eating Raoul, Bird and Under Fire. He was much-admired in the field of improv comedy, having worked with both Second City and The Committee back when all the great practitioners of the art were in one or the other.

He was also a giant in the world of folk singing, commencing in 1961 with the album, Gibson and Camp at the Gate of Horn, done back when he was Bob Camp and teamed with Bob Gibson. He recorded at least seven albums. The title song from his 1967 Here's To You was a modest hit and it's a tune I included on a little CD of favorite records that I play in my car all the time. (You can learn more about his career over at his website.)

In addition to all that, he was a much sought-after performer in commercials and voiceovers, and I was pleased to work with him several times on cartoon shows. He was a lovely man and the news today comes as a shocker to all of us who knew him. Here's to you, Hamilton.

Here's a website that has posted this past weekend's Frank Rich column.

If you are a fan of the great writer-performer of silly songs, Professor Tom Lehrer, you might be interested in hearing some of his earliest work that never made it to any record. You can do this at this site.

One of my regular correspondents, Ray Arthur, sends the following note…

Actress June Allyson will be celebrating her 88th birthday on Friday. June is not in the best health and I'm sure she would enjoy any birthday greetings from fans. If you feel so inclined, please e-mail them through me at, and I will forward them to her.

Here are some articles you might want to peruse today…

• Jesse Green in The New York Times addresses a topic that we've addressed here: The fact that Las Vegas can make and is making Broadway shows a better offer than they can get in Manhattan.
• And speaking of alternative venues for Broadway shows, this article details how playwrights and composers, starting with S. Sondheim, are allowing youth groups and schools to edit/rewrite their shows so they can be performed by young actors.
• Andrew Sullivan profiles Army Captain Ian Fishback, who has been something of a whistle blower on torture by U.S. soldiers.
• Here's an L.A. Times article [registration may be necessary] headlined, "U.S. Generals Now See Virtues of a Smaller Troop Presence in Iraq." I gather that one or more of the generals quoted herein has (have?) since backed-off on some of the quotes but it's interesting that they're even willing to even suggest that "staying the course" and escalation are not the only options they see.
• And here's a profile of Jon Stewart in the weekend edition of The Guardian.

I've heard from three different folks who went to the NecroComicon yesterday — one as a guest, two as attendees — that the thing kind of turned into The O.J. Simpson Convention. Simultaneously this weekend, there's a Hollywood Collectors Show in progress at the Burbank Hilton and at least two guests advertised for the NecroComicon (Kevin McCarthy and Priscilla Barnes) are now listed for the H.C.S. As one of the attendees wrote me…

I guess if he was supposed to bring in crowds, he accomplished that. But I'm not sure how many of those people were paying attendees and how many were reporters. I don't think very many of them were interested in horror movies and memorabilia, which is what the convention was supposed to be all about. I guess the fires kept some people away, too. A lot of the guests seemed pretty uncomfortable with the whole situation and some either left early or never showed up at all.

Incidentally, a gent named Michael Kilgore who reads this site pointed out something that I hadn't realized even though I read just about everything one could read about the various Simpson trials. In the civil trial, O.J. was not found liable in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. That's how it was generally reported and even folks who should have known better said that. Technically, he was found liable in the battery of Nicole Brown Simpson and in the death and battery of Ronald Goldman. This very old section of the CNN website details the precise verdicts.

The distinction is, of course, minor and I still have no problem with referring to the guy as a murderer of two human beings. And let's note that it has now been ten years since the first verdict and not only has O.J. not found (or even conspicuously tried to find) "the real killers" as he once vowed…but not a single piece of credible evidence has popped up to point to anyone else as the culprit. I would have thought that one of those guys on his Dream Team — Cochran, Bailey or even an associate — would have written a major book purporting to prove that those Colombian Drug Lords did it or that Mark Fuhrman was the mastermind..but nope. Lots of other damning evidence, including the infamous photos of O.J. in the Bruno Magli shoes, turned up after the trial…but not one bit of exculpatory (to Simpson) data.

A week ago, a panel discussion at the Juilliard School of Music featured, among its participants, the odd match-up of Stephen Sondheim and Antonin Scalia debating government funding of the arts. What I find even odder is that I think I agree with Scalia. Here's a quote — I think this constitutes "fair use" — of an article that may have now disappeared into the "pay" section of The New York Times…

"The First Amendment has not repealed the basic rule of life, that he who pays the piper calls the tune," Justice Scalia said. "When you place the government in charge of funding art, just as when you place the government in charge of providing education, somebody has to pick the content of what art is going to be funded, what subjects are going to be taught. The only way to eliminate any government choice on what art is worthwhile, what art isn't worthwhile, is to get the government totally out of the business of funding," he said.

I disagree with the implied message there that the government ought to get out of providing education…and actually, I don't think Scalia is against government paying for education, just with controlling its content. But I do think the government has no business deciding what art is worthwhile. (Before you write me the same angry e-mails I got the last time I said this: I am not in favor of yanking all PBS funding tomorrow. I think there might even be ways that tax incentives could encourage private individuals and corporations to donate more to the arts. But I don't think Senators and Congresspeople should be deciding to spend our tax money on some works of art and not others, and of course they can't fund any of it without making those decisions.)

I also disagree with one other thing Scalia is quoted as saying in the Times coverage, and this is a good day to disagree with it…

They [Scalia and Sondheim] even parted ways in a discussion of the definition of art. Mr. Sondheim said one element was a work's ability to endure. Justice Scalia said that the Abbott and Costello routine "Who's on First?" would certainly last a long time. But "it will never be art!" he said. The composer took issue with the example, saying it was not that old and that half the people in the theater probably did not even know it. Justice Scalia called for a show of hands, and many shot up. "Ask anybody under 30," Mr. Sondheim said. "They won't know."

I'm not sure Sondheim is correct that no one under thirty knows the routine or that, if they don't, funding for the arts would do anything to change that. But I'm sure Scalia is wrong that it will never be art. It already is…plus, it makes a lot more sense than George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.

October 2 may also have been the birthdate of the greatest "straight man" of them all, William Alexander "Bud" Abbott. His official bio always gave October 2, 1895 as the date but a website operated by his family (and Lou Costello's) says on its opening page that it was October 2, 1897 and on their biography page that it was October 6, 1897. If you don't like any of those dates, browse some other sources and you'll find more choices.

There was a time, around age 11, when I liked everything Abbott and Costello did. Even then, I knew they weren't quite in the same league as the other old-time comedians I liked — Laurel and Hardy, Keaton, the Marxes, etc. — but I still liked them. As I got older, I found it increasingly difficult to sit through their lesser films and I decided that more and more of what they'd done were lesser films. I still love Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein and a half-dozen others, and I especially like the TV series they did from 1952 to 1953. The TV shows were done on a shoestring budget but they're crammed full of vintage Abbott and Costello routines and, happily, nothing else. No contrived storylines, no romantic subplots…just Bud and Lou being Bud and Lou.

Costello was the majority stockholder in the act, demanding more money than his partner, clearly believing the popular line that Bud was expendable. I don't think so. Without Abbott to rein him in and give him something to bounce off of, Lou would have been repetitive and untethered. His screen character, when it worked, was defined by his relationship to Bud. In their live appearances, especially on radio, you can spot the moments when Abbott decides Costello's going on too long, taking a bit too far and chopping him off. Lou was more adorable and endearing but Bud was the one who knew how to work an audience.

Comedy Straight Man is one of those job descriptions that you just don't see much anymore. But it was a vital, if often unnoticed, show business skill and no one did it better than Bud Abbott. So happy birthday, Bud…unless, of course, this isn't your birthday.

Well, at least most scholars of such matters think it was 115 years ago today that a woman named Minnie Marx gave birth to a son named Julius. Julius tended to give out different birthdates from time to time but 10/2/1890 seems like the right one.

It was years later, after Julius and some of his brothers had gotten into the hardscrabble end of show business, that they met a man named Art Fisher. Mr. Fisher was a monologist — what we would now call a stand-up comedian — and he also drew a newspaper strip filled with characters whose names ended in "o," like Knocko the Monk or Sherlocko the Great. During a poker game with the Brothers Marx, he gave them nicknames in his fashion. Adolph Marx became Harpo because he played the harp. Leonard Marx became Chico (pronounced "chicko," not "cheeko") because he liked the chicks. Milton Marx became Gummo because he wore gum-soled shoes. And Julius Marx became Groucho because…

Well, isn't it obvious?

Groucho Marx went on to become one of the world's greatest comedians and I thought it was important to note this day. I couldn't decide whether to put up a picture of the Movie Groucho, the Radio/TV Groucho or the Older Groucho, so I'm giving you all three. And now I'll point you to this article I wrote about Guess Who and then I'll go to bed. I have seen all the Marx Brothers movies so many times I can see them in my sleep and tonight, I'll probably dream one. My luck, it'll be Love Happy.

Tracey Weiss writes…

I love your site and read it daily. However, as much as I dislike O.J. Simpson and am pretty sure he's a murderer, he was found not guilty in a court of law. That means that, as a journalist, it would be more correct for you to refer to him as, well, I'm not sure what the term would be but calling him a murderer is your opinion, not a correct statement. (Frankly, it's my opinion too, but after your long post about Steve Ditko and Stan Lee, I thought this was something that should be brought to your attention.)

I'm not a journalist, Tracey. I write Groo the Wanderer.

Seriously, if this were the Times, you might have a point. But this is a weblog of my views. More to the point, everyone understands the rhetoric and the reference so I don't have to refer to him as "O.J. Simpson, whom I and most Americans believe to be a murderer despite a trial that found him Not Guilty (and who was found to be responsible for two murders in a subsequent civil trial)." By contrast, an awful lot of folks don't know of Steve Ditko or are unaware that he co-created Spider-Man…so we need to clarify and correct that. It's also a matter of respect for Mr. Ditko and making sure that he is not robbed of a credit that has some value to him. I'm not worried about disrespecting O.J. Simpson.