Category Archives: Uncategorized

Watching Brad Garrett playing Jackie Gleason in last night's TV-movie, I was struck by a rather basic thought: These things never work for me.  When someone famous is being portrayed — someone whose real face and voice are embedded in my mind — I can never shake the sense that I'm watching an imitation.  Moreover, it's always an imitation that's gone on way too long.  Most impressionists learn never not to do that because, invariably, they reach the stage where they really don't look or sound like the target.  An entire movie is always too long.

I remember that film where Rod Steiger played W.C. Fields.  Visually, he was like one of those flicker-rings that shows you a different image when you move it slightly.  Steiger would look like Fields, then he'd turn a bit and look like Rod Steiger, then he'd turn a little more and look like Fields again…and of course, throughout, he managed to sound like Rod Steiger doing a bad W.C. Fields impression.  It was a stunt, not a performance, and you watched it instead of the picture.  It was like watching a marionette show where the strings are just too blatant to allow you to pretend the puppets are alive.

Brad Garrett probably played Gleason about as well as anyone could, this side of Nathan Lane…but not for one moment did he stop being Brad Garrett for me.  (Actually, I take that back: In the scenes where they slapped appliances on his face to add weight, he stopped being Brad Garrett and started being Mr. Creosote from the Monty Python film.)  Mostly though, I'm sitting there thinking, "Hey, from this angle, Brad Garrett looks a little like Gleason…oh, Brad Garrett didn't deliver that line the way Gleason would have…hmm, Brad Garrett almost caught Gleason's body language there…"  Overall, he didn't convince me he was Gleason, nor did he convince me the guy he was playing was a performer talented enough to be called "The Great One."  I don't think he even convinced me he wasn't 6'8" tall.

But I'm not sure any of that was Garrett's fault.  Like I said, these things never work for me.  I wonder if they work for anyone.

Yep, you're looking at a picture of a new Blues Brothers slot machine currently being unveiled in Las Vegas.  It's one of several themed around Saturday Night Live and they feature, according to the press release, images of John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Mike Myers, Dana Carvey, Adam Sandler, Gilda Radner, Chris Farley, Jane Curtin, Phil Hartman, Norm McDonald, Jon Lovitz, David Spade, Kevin Nealon, Joe Piscopo and others.  I especially like the Belushi and Farley machines.  When I'm gambling, I always like to think about guys who died of drug overdoses and doing other self-destructive things to excess.  Also, the Joe Piscopo machine is fun because, if you need change, Joe Piscopo himself brings it to you.  And there's even a Church Lady slot where you can lose your money while being scolded about the evils of gambling.

For a few years now, Frank Ferrante has been touring in two different shows in which he plays Groucho Marx.  Groucho: A Life in Revue is more of a play, involving a cast of four.  An Evening With Groucho is a one-man performance (actually, one man plus a pianist) of Marxist songs and anecdotes.  Those of you in Southern California can catch the latter for two weeks at the Hermosa Beach Playhouse, beginning October 29.  Click here for more info.  Mr. Ferrante also has a one-man show wherein he plays George S. Kaufman and I'd love to see it, but it doesn't seem to be scheduled at the moment.

• Revolving Door Monsters by Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times
• The Ironic Implication of the New Jersey Imbroglio by Ted Rall, Universal Press Syndicate
• A Role Model for Ruined Politicians by Mark Lawson, The Guardian
• If Congress Said No by William F. Buckley, Jr.
• It's the War, Stupid by Frank Rich, New York Times

A half-dozen of you have written to ask or correct me about my use of the word "lede" in a recent item here. No, it's not a typo. Many journalism teachers tell you that the part of a story that contains the key info is the "lede," pronounced to rhyme with "bead" or "seed." Usually, it's the opening paragraph and when a reporter doesn't open with that info in some manner, he's said to be "burying the lede."

Now, obviously, the word should be spelled "lead." According to legend, it was…but there was some confusion in pressrooms with the word "lead" (denoting the metal). A lot of the type was fashioned out of the metal and both editors and pressmen often had to write memos about changing the "leading" (i.e., spacing) on a headline. At some point, it reportedly became simpler to change the spelling of the word when referring to the main section of a story.

At least, that's the way it was explained to me when I learned to spell the word in its journalistic context. Since "lead" (the metal) no longer figures into the life of most folks in the news business, the old spelling seems to be returning. So either is correct.

Just look at that face. Is there anyone funnier in the world than John Cleese?  I've been watching the DVD set of Fawlty Towers lately and occasionally catching an old Monty Python extravaganza, and Mr. Cleese never fails to make me laugh.  He doesn't even have to do anything.  I just look at the guy with that rubbery puss and its wide array of outraged expressions and I get to giggling.  Don't you?  Just look at him and see if —

Oh, wait.  That isn't a picture of John Cleese.  That's professional John Cleese impersonator John Parkin.  Sorry.

Exactly what did George W. Bush do on 9/11/01?  I'm not sure I endorse all the research involved, but this piece lays out his day in comic strip format.  And it sure is an effective way of summarizing the facts.

I think I've decided what bothers me about this whole "going to war" business…I mean, besides the fact that we may be going to war.  It's that the public debate has a certain air of Disconnect about it.  Those opposing Bush's plan are making some valid points which are not being refuted or addressed.  The modus operandi seems to be that when someone raises a fact that contradicts their worldview, they simply ignore it.  They figure they've got the votes so they don't have to refute it or even acknowledge it.  They can merely change the subject.  At most, they pause to impugn the patriotism or motives of the person who asks the questions they don't want to address.

An example?  Of course.  The Los Angeles Times is reporting (as are other papers) that much of the info we're being given by the White House contradicts what the Central Intelligence Agency believes.  Here's the lede…

Senior Bush administration officials are pressuring CIA analysts to tailor their assessments of the Iraqi threat to help build a case against Saddam Hussein, intelligence and congressional sources said.  In what sources described as an escalating "war," top officials at the Pentagon and elsewhere have bombarded CIA analysts with criticism and calls for revisions on such key questions as whether Iraq has ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network, sources said.  [Here's a link to the entire article.]

Now, since the CIA has not denied these reports, I presume it's true that such a rift exists.  That means that the only two other possibilities are that (a) our nation's chief intelligence system is wrong or (b) the White House is lying to us.  Those are both pretty frightening possibilities, and I don't know that America can truly get behind a war until these disparate views are reconciled, especially if the war doesn't turn out to be a slam-dunk or if it has some sort of ripple effect, destabilizing relations elsewhere.  Way too many intelligent people, including many of our nation's leaders in past military actions, don't seem to be on the same page as George W. on this one.  Some pretty experienced folks are saying Hussein isn't that big a threat, or that he'll be a bigger threat if we attack, or that there are ancillary consequences.  The response from the Oval Office is to snub or dismiss the criticisms, not to address them.  The Johnson Administration made that mistake with Vietnam and eventually lost the trust of the nation.

So that's why I'm uneasy about what the White House is doing.  But the Democrats, especially in the Senate, are also not connecting with the reality of a war.  The prevailing motive of those who voted "yea" seems to be to not to be on record against a war which just might prove successful.  The votes in favor of granting Bush carte blanche to drop bombs on our behalf seem uncertain and timid, and some are even hedged with the rationale that they're votes against killing; that giving G.W.B. this strong vote of confidence will stampede Hussein to concessions that will make bloodshed unnecessary.  Maybe.  The statement of one of my senators, Dianne Feinstein, pretty much boiled down to, "I'm voting to authorize a war in order to scare Hussein, but if he won't be scared, then I don't think we should go to war like I just voted to authorize."  At least, that's what it sounded like to me.  She seems to think that War With Iraq comes with a free, ten-day home trial and that, if it looks like it's actually going to happen, she can retract her vote.

I don't know which side is right or even if any side is right.  I just know this is a pretty sloppy way to go to war.

And while you're surfing, go read this article by Terry Jones.  (Yes, this is the same Terry Jones from Monty Python.)  The Cliff Notes version of this one is that Tony Blair is extremely unpopular in Great Britain and has turned himself into a puppet of George W., ramming through an unpopular position.

You know, I get the feeling that there's a decent, coherent argument for why we should attack Hussein, but we're not getting it.  I also feel like a certain segment of the population is dying for the U.S. to go beat up somebody, and would almost prefer that we don't waste time with logical explanations.

Another must-read by Michael Kinsley column has just been posted here.  For those of you without the time for another click, I'll summarize: George W. Bush's explanation of why we must go to war against Iraq is disingenuous, ambiguous and full of holes.  This may all be moot since Congress seems to be caving on the issue.  But you'd think if we'd learned nothing else from Vietnam, it would have been that when you go to war, the Chief Exec ought to be able to give you a solid explanation of why.

Forgive me for dwelling on this but I find this story amazing.  Here's the latest development (possibly, the final one) in the matter of Bill Simon's accusation against his opponent, California governor Gray Davis…

A group that accused Gov. Gray Davis of illegal fund-raising has retracted the allegation, which Republican opponent Bill Simon briefly made an issue in his campaign then conceded was incorrect.  "It now appears that our original belief was erroneous," the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs said in a statement late Wednesday.

Please note: This is the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs that accused the governor of a crime based on faulty evidence.  It would be bad enough if a bunch of Krispy Kreme donut makers did it but this is a law enforcement organization that was out peddling bogus "proof" of a crime.  And though they were about to accuse the most powerful elected official in the state, they didn't bother with the relatively-easy step of finding out where and when the alleged crime was committed.  (The governor's calendar is hardly classified information.)

So how much care do we think our lawmen are taking when they build a case against, say, an unemployed kid who lives in East L.A.?  Do we think the same sloppy standard prevails?  Or that maybe they're even less responsible there?  One of the reasons O.J. Simpson is out on the golf course today is that it's very, very easy to convince folks in California that the police are inept at handling evidence and are not above doctoring or inventing it.  Is anyone wondering why people think that?

I received a call this evening from a friend of mine who used to write comic books. As you may know, the business has undergone some downsizing (to put it mildly) and a lot of folks who used to get all the work they wanted have found themselves unable to get any sort of job in comics. The friend who called this evening is so far out of the industry, he isn't even suing Todd McFarlane.

At first, he says, he felt great anger and frustration, and had no idea what he could do in lieu of writing comics. But he said to tell everyone who reads my site that once he did find something, life got better in a hurry. "The trick was to turn loose of comics and burn that emotional bridge. Once I managed that, I was able to get a new and better career going."

So consider yourself told.

George S. Kaufman wrote or co-wrote a staggering number of successful plays. After almost every one, some failed playwright would crawl out of the woodwork and sue Kaufman for plagiarism, charging that somehow Kaufman had seen and purloined their unproduced work.

In each case, the claimant was so lacking in funds that Kaufman could have had his lawyer maneuver to run up the court costs, thereby forcing the plaintiff to drop the suit for lack of funds. This, Kaufman refused to do. He knew he was innocent and wanted to have a court say so. So no such tricks were employed and every time he went to court, he won on the merits of his case.

But of course, he was annoyed at having to go through the suits at all, and his annoyance led to a fantasy. It was to invite all the litigants to a gourmet dinner. Around a huge table, he would serve them fine food and fine wine. Then, when the dishes were cleared away, he would stand and proclaim, "I asked you all here tonight because I would like to ask each of you a question."

He would point to the first person and ask, "You say you wrote Of Thee I Sing. What else have you written?"

Then he'd look at the second and ask, "You say you wrote The Man Who Came to Dinner. What else have you written?"

Then the third: "You say you wrote Stage Door. What else have you written?"

And on and on around the table…

The photo above shows you what our old pal Garfield the Cat's been up to, lately.  He's been lounging on the beach at Cannes, tanning his stripes and waiting for lasagna to wash up on shore.  I guess when you have that kind of money, you can take it easy.  If he's waiting for Edy Williams though, he's going to have a long wait.  She doesn't turn up at Cannes any more.

Actually, this picture appeared on the front page of today's Hollywood Reporter with the following caption:

Comic strip star 'Garfield' poses for photographers for the launch of a television special Garfield 25th Anniversary, an animated series Garfield & Friends and Garfield primetime specials, during the MIPCOM 2002 (International Film and Programme market for TV, video, cable and satellite), Monday Oct. 7, 2002, in Cannes, southeastern France.

This has prompted a whole mess of e-mailed questions to me.  The answers to these questions are (a) yes, I'm involved with these new projects and (b) it's way too early to talk about when they'll appear or who else will be involved.  The minute either of these things changes, I'll post something here.

Could Bill Simon possibly be doing a worse job as a gubernatorial candidate?  The latest is that he accused his opponent, incumbent Gray Davis, of accepting a campaign contribution in his government office, which is illegal.  To "substantiate" this, Simon released a photo taken of Davis receiving the check and…oops.  Turns out, it was easily proven that the photo wasn't taken where Simon said it was taken.  He was reduced to saying, "Whether or not it's the lieutenant governor's office, it may or may not be.  That can be determined. That's not my job to determine that."  This came a day after he said the picture was taken in the lieutenant governor's office and therefore "proved wrongdoing."

I've long had a pretty low opinion of Gray Davis and was prepared to vote for just about anybody else.  But the Blooper Reel that passes for Simon's campaign has me ready to punch the chad next to Davis's name.  Maybe it's not too late for the Republicans to get Simon out of the race and substitute Robert Torricelli…

While we're at it: Dark Horse has released the Groo PVC set — a nice, long box that contains seven (7) little statuettes of characters from that fabulous funnybook.  I received mine yesterday and they're quite delightful.  Sergio did the designs, though someone else (whose identity unknown to us) did the sculptures and if you love or even tolerate the comic, you probably can't live without a set of these.  Some of us need two: One to display, one to fondle.  You can get a set or two from a fine company called Things From Another World.  Here's a link to the page of their website where you can see the whole magilla and place an order.  I'm sure you all want to do this immediately.