Recently, we pointed you to the trailer for the 1934 film starring Laurel and Hardy known as either Babes in Toyland or March of the Wooden Soldiers. This prompted some interesting e-mails, including two from Randy Skretvedt, who is the author of the best book on the making of The Boys' films, and one I highly recommend. In his first message, he writes…

You're right about Mr. Roach not liking Babes in Toyland. I got to do formal interviews with him twice, and on both occasions he launched into the whole grisly saga of his story versus Stan's story before I could ask him my first question — so it was still a hot issue with him. I remember as he told me his idea for the story, I smiled politely while my stomach sank and I thought, "Oh, boy, this would never have worked as a movie!" I don't know if Stan actually told him that they couldn't use his story because it wouldn't allow them to wear the derby hats (that story's in my book) — if Stan did, he was really grasping at straws for a reason to turn down Roach's idea.

As for the colorization of the film, there are two different color versions — a better one came out on DVD last year. Generally I don't like computer-colored versions of movies, but this one is pretty good, and the film certainly lends itself to being colorized. Henry Brandon told me that it was a thrill to walk onto the set every morning, because everything was painted in bright colors, like a child's storybook. And John McCabe mentioned in his liner notes to the soundtrack LP that Stan felt Babes in Toyland had more consistent entertainment values than any of their films, and his one regret was that it hadn't been made in color. Ah, well, three-strip Technicolor was still a year or so in the future in 1934.

I don't recall Mr. Roach's plot as sounding particularly unworkable when he described it to me…but then he didn't go into much detail and the plot may have changed over the years. I suppose we should just be grateful that he gave Laurel and Hardy and their writers as much freedom as he seems to have given them most of the time. Over all, he seems to have been the ideal boss for them, at least in non-monetary ways. I can forgive him the occasional exception, especially since it didn't result in a bad movie.

You make me want to check out that new "colorization" of the film. I recall not minding the first one all that much, especially since the black-and-white copies then available weren't too sharp. Actually, what I minded more in some of the past computer-colored Laurel and Hardy films was someone monkeying with the musical track.

Here's Randy's other message to me…

Just watched the Babes in Toyland trailer and had a couple of trivial notes for you. The announcer at the beginning is Ken Carpenter, who would go on to do hundreds of radio shows, memorably as a straight man for Bing Crosby on Philco Radio Time. The shot of the Town Crier all by his ownsome is unique to this trailer, as is at least one of the shots where Ollie is being "ducked" prior to his banishment to Bogeyland.

A gorgeous new transfer of the film from 35mm materials, in black and white, is now available as part of the 3-DVD MGM Holiday Classics Collection, which also includes The Bishop's Wife with David Niven, Loretta Young and Cary Grant, and Frank Capra's Pocketful of Miracles with Bette Davis and Glenn Ford. Even though it's listed in the packaging as March of the Wooden Soldiers, the actual film is entirely intact, with the original Babes in Toyland main title — and even including the MPAA Production Code title at the very start.

I shall have to pick that up…which I (or anyone) can do by clicking here. And then you can read this message from my friend, John Tebbel, commenting on my observation that a lot of people recall seeing Babes in Toyland in color when it wasn't…

Other possible explanations for the Babes in Toyland effect…

Just as you can dream in black and white, I think one's perception/memory will sometimes fill in the colors in black-and-white photography. I also think that some sort of colorization takes place when you're in the flow of a black-and-white movie; your brain knows the sky is blue and many other things and colorizes in a meta-conscious way, just trying to be helpful; you couldn't "do it" if you tried. If you "stop to think" you perceive "reality" once again. William Burroughs posits a similar effect about languages, saying we all understand them all, or some such, but we know we don't so we don't. And little kids eat ivy.

Also, Babes is the type of film that most lends itself to today's crude colorization (pace Ray Harryhausen). Someone who's not used to seeing a lot of early Technicolor might think a colorized Babes looks funny because it's deteriorated, or some such nonsense.

And there was this character in a 50's comedy who "saw movies on the back of his eyelids."

Lastly, we have this from Jim Hanley…

I don't know if I ever mentioned this, in response to past mentions of Babes in Toyland on your site, but I was at the Sons of the Desert International Convention in 1986. There, I was at the same table with [cast member] Felix Knight for one of the dinners. After the meal was over, another Son came up to Mr. Knight and told of seeing Babes in Toyland, during its initial release. He asked if he had imagined a scene in a school house. Mr. Knight though for a second and said, "Of course! It was the 'I Can Do That Sum' number. They must have cut that when the film went into wide release."

When asked more about the scene, he said that Stan and Ollie sang the song with some of the Our Gang kids. Have you ever heard of that footage still existing (other than possible mentions I've made in the past)? One of the Founding Tent officers of the time said that he believed that the Roach Studio had all sorts of footage in their vaults that they hoarded, waiting for an opportune moment to release it for maximum financial gain. That's led me to hold out hope for two decades, now. What do you think?

I think that if they have unseen footage and haven't released it, it's probably because they don't know they have it. Any historians who've dealt with almost any company in the home video business have been stunned at how often companies don't know what's in their own vaults and, even when there's serious money to be made off it, aren't all that interested in finding out.

The release of Laurel and Hardy movies on DVD has generally been handled poorly and has led to the erroneous (I think) belief that there's no market out there for their films. And that, in turn, I'm sure has led to not a lot of dollars being expended on searching for lost treasures. I don't know about the missing scene you describe but it wouldn't surprise me if it was filmed. It would surprise me a little if it was still in existence. And it would surprise me a lot if anyone soon made use of it to put together a deluxe, collectors edition DVD of the film with other appropriate extras. Maybe we can start rattling the bars a little here for someone to at least investigate.

I appreciate that a lot of you want to share my Mel Tormé story with the readers of your blogs. But Internet Etiquette is that you link to my page, not that you copy all or most of the text and put it on your page.

Today, we have another Little Audrey cartoon. This is Goofy Goofy Gander, which was released August 18 of 1950. The cast is kind of a "Who's Who" of performers who were heard in Paramount/Famous Studios cartoons: Mae Questel (who was most famous for playing Olive Oyl and Betty Boop), Jack Mercer (the main voice of Popeye), Sid Raymond (who voiced Baby Huey) and Gwen Davies (who was one of several voices of Casper). There are also a few unidentified singers in this film, which was directed by Bill Tytla.

Mr. Tytla was a great Disney animator who went on to become a director for other studios with less distinction. For Walt D., he handled several of the dwarfs in Snow White (especially Grumpy). He did some key scenes of the title character in Dumbo and also Stromboli the Puppet Master in Pinocchio. He animated Chernobog the devil figure in Fantasia and the old magician character in that film's "Sorceror's Apprentice" sequence. And he did other key animating which today is avidly studied by students of cartoons. He was one of Disney's star artists until he joined the 1941 strike at the studio. After it was settled, he returned to work but things weren't the same and he came to believe he was being handed assignments of less and less importance and personal challenge. That, along with a desire to return to his former climate (Connecticut and New York) caused him to head east in 1943. There, he worked for Terrytoons (where he'd worked before being lured to Hollywood to work at Disney) and at Famous Studios.

He later returned to Hollywood and worked here and there, though worsening eyesight limited his options. His last major animating — and it is said he required a lot of assistance from friends — was some work on The Incredible Mr. Limpet in 1964. He passed away in '68. As you can see from this example, his films were nicely directed, though sometimes limited by weak material and weaker characters. This one, I think, is one of the better ones.

You can lose your job for posting a Dilbert comic strip in the office.

Our dear friends at the AMPTP put out another of their lovely press releases yesterday. As you may recall, they walked out of negotiations with the Writers Guild on December 7 and promptly issued a list of six demands that, they said, had to be met before they'd speak with us again. There have been no talks since then, and as far as we know there have been no talks about resuming talks.

Yesterday's press release sort of reaffirms their position but it only mentions three of the six demands. It doesn't say they're withdrawing the other three. What it says is…well, here. You don't need me to summarize. Read it for yourself. Then come back and we'll discuss one paragraph in particular which I think is especially disingenuous.

Okay, here's that paragraph. It's the one about how they want us to withdraw our demand relating to the representation of those who write animation…

The WGA seeks to obtain, once again by top-down organizing tactics, jurisdiction over animation writers who traditionally fall under IATSE's jurisdiction, and to deprive those writers of their free choice to elect union coverage under the voting system administered by the National Labor Relations Board. The AMPTP has asked the WGA to withdraw this demand.

Okay, let's unpack that. I'm not entirely sure what they mean by "top-down organizating tactics" but one assumes they think we should be going via some opposite route…say, "bottom-up?" The phrase "…traditionally fall under IATSE's jurisdiction" is extremely misleading. First of all, the WGA has already organized some Animation Writers so this alleged tradition already has loopholes aplenty in it. Secondly, the immediate focus of the WGA's organizing in the area of Animation Writing is to cover studios and projects that are not covered by Local 839 of IATSE. So that's the relevant tradition here.

Then we get to the part about depriving "…those writers of their free choice to elect union coverage under the voting system administered by the National Labor Relations Board." Hey, if that's the case, we can settle this in no time. Let's have an election! Ask folks who write cartoons if they'd like the WGA to represent them. If all the AMPTP is trying to do is protect those writers' right to vote, great. Let's vote.

But of course, they won't go for that. The AMPTP is trying to prevent such votes…and by the way, to the extent the above suggests the WGA is trying to gain jurisdiction without that kind of election, that's a lie, too. The Guild couldn't win representation of these people without winning an election. What the WGA is trying to do is to get some language removed from the WGA-AMPTP contract that defines a "television motion picture" and a "theatrical motion picture," expanding it to include animation. That would give the WGA a clearer path to organize (which would mean a "bottom-up" campaign and seeking elections) at companies whose writers are not covered by IATSE.

So what the AMPTP has been doing all along is trying to block us from doing traditional labor organizing in that area and having elections…and they're saying, "We won't change the contract language in question because if you want to organize in this area, you have to do traditional labor organizing and have elections."

I know there are some people out there who are saying that the WGA should drop its demands relating to Animation and also to so-called "Reality" programming in order to get back to the bargaining table. I think that's foolish for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that it won't get us a quarter-inch closer to a contract. The Alliance has listed six demands they say we must comply with before they'll bargain again. Now they're saying, "Drop these three" without saying the other three no longer matter. So if we do drop these three, they'll say, "Great. Now, drop the other three — especially that stuff about Distributor's Gross — and we'll schedule more talks."

And even then, there's no guarantee that those talks will move us any closer to a deal than did the earlier talks. They could just sit with us for two days, discuss the weather, make trivial and cosmetic improvements on their old deal points, and then throw us out with another list of ultimatums. That's certainly been the modus operandi so far.

There's compromise language possible in the area of Animation and also in "Reality" (which, you may notice, I always put in quotes. I've worked in "Reality" programming). In Animation, let us do the traditional kind of labor organizing, elections included, which the above statement claims they're trying to defend. In "Reality," do much the same thing. Allow the unrepresented to decide they want representation and let traditional union organizing, which the AMPTP claims to be defending, proceed.

By the way: One of the reasons that WGA representation of Animation is becoming a more and more relevant issue is that more and more movies are blurring the line between live-action and animation. Thanks to Motion Capture and other new technologies, it's getting difficult to tell on some projects where one leaves off and the other begins. I think it's safe to assume that if live-action is covered by union representation and animation isn't, the studio producing a film that's in any way arguable will be arguing the non-union side of things. Which poses a problem for the Writer because that quarrel has to take place before the movie is made, before you can look at a frame of film and even discuss whether it's live-action or animation.

It's hard enough now to determine which Polar Express was, so you can only imagine that debate when the whole endeavor was just a verbal idea. One of the reasons that Animation Writers overwhelmingly would like to be in the WGA is that they want to avoid the old bait-and-switch: They're asked to write what they're told will be an animated film and since it ain't live-action, it will have to be done without a WGA contract. But once it's done, the producers start talking about Motion Capture and inserting live actors into the proceedings…and suddenly, the Writer wakes up and he or she has written a movie that should have been done (and wasn't) under a WGA contract. It would be so much neater if they all were.

So there's yet another reason — I have more, believe me — why Animation should be covered by the WGA. If that demand and the one about "Reality" are impediments to a new contract, okay. Put them aside for now and negotiate the other main points, such as sharing revenues for Internet delivery and adjusting the compensation on DVDs. We'll have to get through those topics eventually. Why not now?

Joe Conason on how the right-wing suddenly (and temporarily) seems to love Barack Obama. This is a Salon link so you may be in for some ad-watching if you want to read it.

A number of comic book websites were wishing a happy 86th birthday yesterday to John Severin, the great comic book artist. And they were right to want to salute this veteran illustrator, whose career highlights have included drawing for EC Comics, including the first few issues of MAD; a long stint as the star artist for Cracked, plus hundreds and hundreds of magnificent war and western comics for DC, Marvel and several other publishers. He's currently drawing a Bat Lash mini-series for DC and showing the world that he's still got it, still doing superior work.

So they were all right to want to salute him on his birthday but they were a little early. I don't care what Wikipedia says, guys. John Severin's birthday is the day after Christmas, December 26.

In the holiday spirit, we bring you the trailer to Laurel and Hardy's 1934 version of Babes in Toyland, which is sometimes also known as March of the Wooden Soldiers. It was one of their better films…and a very colorful one, despite the fact that it was filmed in black-and-white. A decade or so ago when a home video company colorized it, someone who worked for the outfit described an interesting bit of mass delusion. He told me that he'd encountered an amazing number of people who swore that the movie must have been originally made in color because they vividly recalled seeing it that way. At the time, they couldn't have…and I guess that says something for how effective the movie is. (You can also realize that by comparing it to the 1961 Disney remake.)

The only person I ever met who didn't much like this film was its producer, Hal Roach. As Mr. Roach told it to me, he had the idea and he wrote a much better plot outline which Stan Laurel refused to follow. They bickered over it for several months until Roach, fearing the movie would not get made in time for its desired release date, threw up his hands and told Laurel to do whatever he wanted. Hal didn't seem to think too much of what resulted but most people find it quite wonderful. Here's a few minutes of it…

Some WGA members are disappointed that the late night hosts are going back to work despite our strike. I think it hurts the strike effort but only a little. The networks still cannot produce most of their prime-time shows. The movie studios still cannot deliver most of the desired product to their marketplace.

One upside to Dave, Jay, Conan, Jimmy, Craig, Jon and Stephen restarting their shows is that the news coverage in their country will be less impaired. Earlier today, I was talking to a friend of mine who I'd consider well-versed in what's going on in the world. He had not heard of the recent embarrassment where Mitt Romney was found to have fabricated a tale he's been telling for years about watching his father march with Dr. Martin Luther King. Romney's staff has admitted it's not true — one spokesperson said "He was speaking figuratively, not literally" — which sure doesn't square with the actual quotes.

A candidate for public office lying? I have a feeling it's not the first time. But Mitt is lucky that Dave, Jay, Conan (etc.) aren't on to make it into the week's running gag. Not all that long ago, Al Gore said a few things that were not really lies but could be viewed as such if you were out to slam the guy. His opponents did a good job of selling the idea that the alleged fibs proved not just that Gore said something untrue but that they were proof that he was a congenital liar, incapable of speaking the truth…someone not to be believed if he just told you what time it was.

And now here we have Romney getting caught telling a truly untrue tale and repeating it on many occasions…and he may get a pass on it because the late night hosts aren't taping. People aren't hearing about it the way they'd hear about it if The Daily Show was current. Hillary Clinton and her husband have said some embarrassing things lately in besmirching her opposition and they're not paying much of a price for it, either.

So while I'm disappointed those hosts are coming back, there is this. Maybe now more people will know what's going on in the world.

Wade Sampson reminds us that today is the seventieth anniversary of the opening of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the movie that changed animation (and maybe more than that) forever. It debuted on December 21, 1937 at the Fox Carthay Circle Theater in Los Angeles. Like most of you, I first saw the film after seeing several of Mr. Disney's later (and probably, better) animated features so I didn't appreciate how revolutionary Snow White was at the time of its debut; not until the early seventies when I attended a screening hosted by, of all people, Chuck Jones.

He seemed like an odd choice since Jones had not worked on Snow White. (His total experience at Disney was many years after it was made…a few months spent working on Sleeping Beauty.) This wisdom of his selection as speaker became apparent when he delivered a little talk after the film — a talk that could have been titled, "What Walt Disney Could Do That We At Warner Brothers Could Not." Much of it had to do with slow, subtle character animation and a wider, muted color pallette. He cited moments in Snow White that could never have been done in one of his seven-minute Looney Tunes extavaganzas. The budgets at Warner's did not allow an animator to spend as much time on a sequence as Walt allowed his crew…and the need to tell a story in seven minutes necessitated much swifter, broader action.

Anyway, I wish I had a recording of Chuck's speech because it contained a lot of fascinating observations — with admitted jealousy, a great creator of animation was discussing a cartoon from the standpoint of an onlooker. I came away with a new appreciation of the film.

Wade mentions the Carthay Circle in his article. It was a great place that in the fifties and sixties, alternated between housing live shows and movies. My parents must have taken me to a half-dozen films there. Situated in what was largely a residential area, it had impossible parking, which was probably what caused it to close. In fact, it became rather well-known as a theater to avoid because it had 1,500 seats and about a tenth as many places to leave your vehicle. Still, if you got there, it seemed worth the ordeal. It was a palace and just being in it was an experience, regardless of what was showing. (I seem to recall seeing Around the World in 80 Days there. I was four and a half when that movie was first released, but perhaps what we saw there was a reissue.) The place was intermittently open and closed in the late sixties and then finally demolished around 1969

In fact, they not only razed the theater but they plowed through many of the surrounding streets. The name "Carthay Circle" referred to an area with several circular avenues with the theater at the approximate center. The city decided to straighten things out so they connected this to that and that to this and now you can drive through that area and watch some streets change names inexplicably from block to block…but there's no trace of the Carthay Circle Theater or even of the circular topography in which it was situated. Kind of a shame.

Fortune Magazine picks the 101 Dumbest Moments in Business for the year. Fortunately, none of them involve hiring me.

Here's a little Christmas music for you…

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will return to the air with new shows on January 7, sans writing staffs. What are they going to do? Probably a lot more interviews, some rerun segments and a seriously reduced capacity to do new material. There's kind of a gray, arguable distinction over when a writer-performer's words are the work of his writer side, and there will be pressure on Stewart and Colbert (as there will be on Leno, O'Brien and the others) to expand the definition in favor of their performer functions. They'll also all probably spend a little time on each broadcast trashing Management for not making a deal. That maybe in apology to their guild for going back but it will also apparently also reflect these folks' true feelings.

By the way: A number of articles about this have made the assertion that Johnny Carson was able to return to work, when he did in '88, because he was not a member of the Writers Guild. I don't think that's true. I don't know it for a fact but I believe Johnny was a member.

The question I'd like to see someone put to Jon Stewart would have to do with his intentions regarding the Academy Awards, which he's supposed to host on 2/24/08. I would guess that if the strike isn't over by then — or isn't over in time for him to adequately prep for that date — he won't wanna. I would further guess that if the strike is not over, the Powers That Are might be afraid of giving him that bully pulpit. It all adds up to just another reason the AMPTP would be wise to get this thing settled well before then.

This is the time of year when I get a lot of e-mails asking me to post my Mel Tormé Christmas story. It's right here year 'round and it's the "most hit" page of my website.

Also, every year I point you to some wonderful online animation over at the ICQ site involving Santa and his reindeer. They used to do a new one of these each Christmas but they seem to have discontinued the tradition. The old installments are still available here, however. [WARNING: Music may begin the second you go to that page. And make sure you check out all four cartoons.]

And I really like Garfield's 12 Days of Christmas Advent Calendar. Check it out every day between now and December 25. (Full disclosure: I work with the Garfield company but I had nothing to do with this.)

Fred Kaplan on why the Democrats in the Senate keep opposing the Iraq War but meeting Bush's demands for more $$$ to keep it going.