Category Archives: Uncategorized

An awful lot of people enjoyed meeting Stan and Hunter Freberg at the Comic-Con in San Diego last July…and why the heck shouldn't they? He's a legendary satirist, maker of hit comedy records and funny commercials and a great cartoon voice actor. She's his spouse/helpmate and an entertainer and broadcaster herself. We like these people a lot.

If you live in Southern California and yearn to be in the same room as a couple of Frebergs, you have two upcoming opportunities. One is this coming weekend when they'll be appearing at the Hollywood Collectors Show out in Burbank. There will be other celebs in attendance whose autograph you may wish to obtain — folks like Julie Newmar and Bill Mumy and Mickey Rooney and Shelley Berman and Debbie Reynolds and even Stan's longtime co-star, June Foray. But it would be worth the trip and admission price just to meet Stan and to also get a copy of June's autobiography.

You also have an even rarer chance to see Stan and Hunter perform. The world famous Magic Castle in Hollywood is hosting a series of cabaret events and the Funny Frebergs are doing two shows — one on November 16, one on November 17, both starting at 8 PM. If you're a member, you can order tix right now on the Castle website. There's also a way for non-members to get tickets but I don't know yet where to send you for those. Details will be posted once I do…but you might want to save one of those dates. I'm sure they'll put on a great show even though Stan will not be sawing Hunter in half. At least, I don't think he will.

I'm not really back yet from Travel Mode but I wanted to mention this. When I had my brief discussion here about Roman Polanski, a couple of the e-mails I received contained presumptions about "what all of Hollywood believes." Let me tell you about "what all of Hollywood believes." All of Hollywood believes it wants to make successful movies and TV shows, that it wants the folks who deserve honors to be honored for whatever it is they've done to deserve honors, and that there's no business like show business like no business I know.

But beyond generalities like that, Hollywood doesn't speak with a single voice. Heck, all the people who work on any one movie or TV show don't speak with a single voice. I had the same agent for 27 years and we didn't even speak with a single voice. The only people I ever met in this industry who ever spoke with a single voice were Paul Winchell and Jerry Mahoney.

Bill Lentz, a reader of this site, wrote to ask me what I think of a recent article about Terry Teachout on Hollywood's reaction to the Polanski arrest. I think Mr. Teachout is using that situation to unload some long-nursed grudges about the entertainment industry. For a better, more informed view, read what Patrick Goldstein and Josh Olson have to say in this article. Unlike Teachout, when they write about what people in Hollywood think, they actually know some.

For what it's worth, I received more argumentative e-mail for my position on Joe Besser than I did for my position on Roman Polanski. Roman may have committed an unspeakable sin but at least he didn't have the audacity to try and replace Curly.

I am still traveling and too preoccupied to post much…ergo, the picture of a can of Campbell's Cream of Mushroom Soup. This, for the benefit of those new to the party, is an ancient Internet tradition I've been attempting to start without a whole lot of success. The idea is that when your blog is going into sleep mode for a day or so — or whatever would be an unnatural amount of time for you to not post — you put up a picture of a can of Campbell's Cream of Mushroom Soup, just to alert all that you may not be around the 'net as often as they've come to expect. Almost no one does this…and one person who thought they were picking up on my idea was quite unclear on the concept. He posted a picture of a can of Campbell's Chicken and Stars Soup. That's just silly.

Normal nattering will resume shortly. If you're bored, I hear somewhere on the Internet, there's something else worth reading. You may, if you look hard, even be able to find naughty pictures.

An interview/profile of cartoonist Berkeley Breathed. When his Bloom County newspaper strip first appeared, I remember feeling kinda guilty about enjoying it. It was a bit too crudely drawn and it was so obviously trying to confuse readers into thinking it was Doonesbury…and there were also the promotional interviews Breathed gave wherein he didn't show a lot of respect for his newly-selected craft. But the strip was kinda funny…

Just before I left the house on my trip, I received Volume 1 of the new Bloom County reprint series from IDW. It looks very good and I'm looking forward to actually reading it again and seeing if the strip is still kinda funny. Here's an Amazon link if you want to find out, too.

The In-n-Out Burger chain has outlets in California, Nevada, Arizona, parts of Utah and nowhere else. Folks from other states who visit one of those have been known to plan a visit to In-n-Out as a vital element of their vacations…and it's easy to understand. In-n-Out Burgers are pretty good.

They are not, however, my favorite fast food burgers anymore. Part of that is because every time I've eaten at In-n-Out the last couple years, I've enjoyed it a bit less than the time before. This may be that their product is sliding downhill…but since I haven't seen one other person anywhere say this, I'm inclined to think that ain't it. It also may be that I've had Bad Burger Luck lately. Any restaurant can occasionally serve you a meal that's not up to their standards. Maybe I've just gotten some of those. That could happen.

Another possibility is that I've changed. I gave up carbonated beverages in February of '06. In January of '08, I gave up sugar to the extent that one can give up sugar. I get it in small doses in some things I eat but I lost my sweet tooth and no longer have any interest in candy, ice cream, pastry, Krispy Kreme donuts, etc. My taste buds have changed and maybe that has something to do with the reason that In-n-Out no longer thrills me as it once did.

All these reasons are possible but I know one reason that In-n-Out is no longer my favorite cheap/fast place to get a burger. I've discovered Five Guys. I think Five Guys makes the best fast food burger in all the land.

I wish I didn't feel that way because there's no Five Guys convenient to where I live. There are plenty of In-n-Outs but the nearest Five Guys is twenty miles from me…in an area where I have no reason to ever venture. Fortunately, they have 'em all over Ohio and since I'm in Ohio, guess where I went for lunch today. What's more, I brought back burgers and fries for several friends at the con and even passed out fries to the attendees at one of my panels. Boy, their food is good. If they also served the Creamy Tomato Soup from Souplantation, I'd probably move to within walking distance of one and never eat anywhere else again.

I moan a lot here about airlines but I have to tell ya: The two flights we took to get here Friday ("here" being Columbus, Ohio) couldn't have gone much smoother. I still don't like the fight-for-your-seat policy at Southwest Airlines but the planes both took off on time, both landed early and both were staffed with pleasant, helpful folks. What's more, our luggage even showed up where and when it was supposed to show up. Can't do much better than that.

Carolyn and I flew in with our friends Gregg Berger, Len Wein and Marv Wolfman and today, we spent a fun day at Mid-Ohio-Con. I did three panels, signed a mess o' comics and answered a lot of questions, some of which weren't even about Jack Kirby. I'll write more of the con when I'm not about to go off to dinner but I did get to chat with Herb Trimpe, Joe Rubinstein, Dick Ayers, Joe Jusko, Billy Tucci, Thom Zahler, Tony Isabella, Bob Ingersoll, Gary Friedrich, Maggie Thompson, Brian Kane, Ron Frenz, Fred Hembeck and I know I'm forgetting a lot of names. I'll get them tomorrow. The Mongolian barbecue awaits!

In April of '08, many of you followed my exploits here as I attempted — without much success for a long time — to trap a pregnant feral cat that I've been feeding in my backyard. The first post on the subject was here and then I kept you and the world updated as I schemed and plotted to catch said pussycat and haul her off to a vet to be unpregnanted…and to make sure she stayed that way. If you read forward for a week or two, you'll see how I finally (finally!) succeeded.

Every now and then, someone writes to ask of Lydia and to see if she still comes 'round every night to be fed here. Yes, she does. The above photo was taken not two hours ago. Lydia is one of four strays (plus occasional guest stars) who dine nightly on my back step and occasionally turn up during the day. She's very nervous…as I guess I'd be if someone had done to me what I did to her. But she seems very happy and if you don't make any sudden moves, quite affectionate.

That's about all I have to report…but since folks ask, I thought I'd report what I had to report.

You're probably wondering what the deal is with this David Letterman scandal. This article seems to have the most complete info on it.

Do we think this will hurt Mr. Letterman's career any? Not one bit. Not unless one of the staff members in question charges non-consensual relations or job-related pressuring or something really, really kinky. What it will do to Dave's personal life is anybody's guess and nobody's business.

Is this kind of thing — the star of a TV show sleeping with members of his staff — unusual? No…though I'm not sure it's any more prevalent than the boss in a non-show-biz operation consorting with underlings. What's unusual is us finding out about it. Usually, such goings-on are pretty well hidden or overlooked when they go on. An actress friend of mine used to claim — and I absolutely believed her — that she once had a string of six consecutive auditions that included six consecutive sexual advances, many involving grabbing, from six very big stars with six very wholesome reputations. She developed a theory that the more a star marketed himself as a faithful husband and family man, the more likely he was to ask her to impersonate Linda Lovelace.

Anyway, as I Twittered, it looks like Dave won't be doing a lot of jokes in the future about congressmen who cheat on their wives. Or presidents who cheat with interns.

A letter from Groucho Marx to T.S. Eliot. Thanks to Seth Rosenblatt for the referral.

As mentioned back here, there is plenty of evidence that Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas in 2001 for (they said) starting a house fire that killed his three children, was innocent. As I said then and have said elsewhere here, it's tough to prove conclusively that a wrongful execution occurs. Once the state kills a guy, they do everything they can to make sure no one can prove the guy was innocent.

Now, Governor Rick Perry — on whose watch Willingham was terminated — seems to be doing everything he can to make sure no one proves the guy was innocent. Barry Scheck, co-director of the New York-based Innocence Project and man I'd really respect if he hadn't worked for O.J., compared the move to Nixon's infamous Saturday Night Massacre. One hopes Perry's move will be just as effective as Nixon's was.

Just got this one from Jonathan Samuels…

I generally agree with you re: Leno's show not working. I heard that one of the reasons NBC will keep Leno on is that they have nothing else to put in that slot. If they decided they wanted to replace Leno, wouldn't it take months to produce the shows that would go in there?

NBC does have something they could plug into the 10 PM time slot quickly. They have Dateline. I doubt they'd ax Leno completely and program five nights a week of Dateline but it wouldn't shock me if they cut Jay down to three nights a week and stuck in a couple of Datelines. Maybe Leno and his crew could get the bugs out quicker if they could do fewer shows.

By the way, one correction: NBC has an owned-and-operated station in the bay area of Northern California but it's in San Jose, not San Francisco. It's watched in San Francisco but it's really based in San Jose.

We love the movie It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and have written much about it over the years. I even have a small section of this website devoted to it.

Over the years, scholars of the film — I consider myself one — have wrestled with all sorts of questions and research about this movie…but none more maddening than its running times. That's running times, plural. The movie was trimmed on one or more occasions after its original release and key scenes were discarded. There have been several different versions, none of them quite like the one that debuted on November 7, 1963 at the Pacific Cinerama Dome in Hollywood.

I once spent way too much time matching up known facts about running times and compiling a chart of the various versions and their lengths. It's posted elsewhere on this site but I'm not going to link to it. Why? Because it's probably wrong. Most, if not all of us historians who have discussed the length of this movie are probably wrong.

I have just received (and will soon be posting) a document which may help clear up The Great Running Time Mystery…and create at least as many questions as it answers. There's a bit more research to be done but I wanted to give Mad World fans a "heads up." In a week or three, I'll be sharing this document…and folks, this is gonna confuse the hell out of you. Much of what we thought we knew is wrong.

Gene Popa writes to ask…

I'm writing to you now because you mentioned something in your observation about Jay Leno's new show and I, being largely ignorant of how these things happen, am hoping you can clarify it in a future posting. Specifically, you mentioned that NBC affiliates might "start to defect or juggle their schedules to move Jay later." I don't doubt that independent affiliates have the power…what I'm wondering is, what happens after they use it?

For instance, here in Chicago, I don't see our local NBC affiliate GM saying, "Okay, let's dump Leno and start running CSI's from CBS in that slot!" It would seem to me that everything which the network offers for airing is already committed to other time slots, so if an affiliate suddenly pulls Leno out of five hours of prime time each week, what can be put into those hours to plug the hole? I can't see local news programming or infomercials bringing in any better ratings than what Leno garners, so what recourse does an affiliate have were it to opt to not air Leno?

Well, first off, the NBC station in Chicago is not an affiliate. It's what's called an "owned and operated" station, meaning that NBC owns it. NBC also owns its stations in New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Dallas/Fort Worth, Washington, Miami, San Diego and Connecticut. While it is not unprecedented for an "o and o" station to not carry the precise network feed, it's pretty unlikely. An affiliate would be a station like the one in Boston that's owned by a separate company but which contracts to carry the NBC programming. Boston, you may recall, was briefly considering not carrying the new Leno show, or maybe they just wanted to bump it to a later hour.

That would probably be the first sign that Jay's show was in serious trouble…if an NBC affiliate moved him later. The most likely way they'd do that would be to put their local news on at 10 PM and start Jay at 10:35. (Subtract one hour from those times in a marketplace where Leno now starts at 9 PM.) It's doubtful that will happen any time soon because NBC has presumably convinced all its stations to give The Jay Leno Show a decent period in which to prove its value. Still, NBC has to be worried that if and when some affiliate does reconfigure, it could trigger a ripple-effect.

"Clearances," meaning how many stations carry a show in its intended time slot, have figured big in the history of late night. NBC dominated that daypart for years because of its clearances, and CBS and ABC were long at a disadvantage because of the many affiliates that had something else — a syndicated rerun or something locally-produced — ensconced in a late night slot that the network wished to program. Before Letterman agreed to sign on at CBS, he had to be satisfied that enough CBS stations would actually carry his show at 11:35…and the few that didn't quickly fell into line when he got those huge early ratings. If the whole Leno/O'Brien/Fallon parlay at NBC crashes and burns, the lasting damage may be what it does to the network's clearance factor.

I said a little while ago here that I wasn't sure if I'd ever seen a movie directed by Roman Polanski. I did. I saw Chinatown. It joined a good-sized list of films that I went to see, having heard the picture was sensational…and left, wondering what others saw in it. This list includes just about any critically-acclaimed movie with Jack Nicholson in it except for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

I'm not going to post much more about the Roman Polanski matter…though I suspect we're going to hear a lot more. We all seem to concur that his crime was reprehensible and those who argue that one should not be able to do that kind of thing and avoid punishment are not, in the general sense, wrong. But I don't think hauling the guy back in this particular instance is going to achieve that; not given the apparent judicial and prosecutorial misconduct on his case…and especially not given the stated desires of the victim to leave that avenue unpursued.

There are loads of essays on the web arguing each side but I thought I'd link to two. Mary Elizabeth Williams makes the case that the matter should be dropped. And Steve Lopez presents a pretty representative example from the "string 'im up" flank. The piece by Mr. Lopez is entitled, "Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim," which is rather ironic given that part of his argument is that what the true victim feels about all this is "irrelevant."

By the way: Contrary to what a couple of folks presumed in their e-mails to me, I'm not a fan of Polanski's. I'm not sure I've ever seen a film he directed and if I did, it certainly wasn't one of my faves. I actually remember thinking he was a giant, economy-size jerk in his Playboy interview, which was published not long before the crime occurred. Nor do I think he (or anyone) deserves preferential treatment for being rich and/or famous. In this matter, it would seem he's received some of that and also some of the opposite, where he's been penalized for his celebrity. Both are wrong. I suspect that all the rich 'n' famous folks who are rushing forward to support him or sign petitions are harming, not helping his cause.