The other night on The Late Late Show, your host Craig Ferguson did one of his more interesting monologues. It was about why he'd decided not to pile on the jokes with regard to the Britney Spears spectacle. His reasons had to do with his own alcohol problems of the past, which he discussed with a candor one does not often get from a late night host.

This link should let you watch the whole monologue, which runs a little over twelve minutes. It reminds me that I need to set the TiVo more often to catch at least Ferguson's opening remarks.

Seymour Hersh writes about how The War on Terrorism is going. His conclusion is that this country is doing much that is making the situation worse, including ramping up for attacks on Iran. Scary stuff.

Say, how about if we watch a Daffy Duck cartoon? You could always do with a Daffy Duck cartoon. This is Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur, which was released April 22, 1939. It was directed by Chuck Jones — one of his earlier efforts and the first time he ever got his hands on that crazy water fowl.

Mel Blanc, of course, supplies the voice of Daffy. His adversary, Casper Caveman, is a caricature in voice (and to some extent, manner and appearance) of Mr. Blanc's frequent employer, Jack Benny. The impression was done by an actor/announcer named Jack Lescoulie who was then on a Los Angeles-based radio series called The Grouch Club, produced by the great Nat Hiken. Lescoulie later relocated to New York where he a prominent announcer/host on NBC shows for many years. He was a regular on The Today Show from 1952 to 1967 and was a host of Tonight: America After Dark, the short-lived series that NBC attempted to launch in the 11:30 PM Monday-Friday slot in 1957 after Steve Allen left The Tonight Show. It flopped big and the network hurriedly brought back The Tonight Show and got Jack Paar to host it. Lescoulie later filled in occasionally as announcer/sidekick on The Tonight Show during both the Paar and Johnny Carson years.

Anyway, that's him doing Jack Benny. Here comes the cartoon…

Several folks have written to inform me, like I got it wrong, that if An Inconvenient Truth wins for Best Documentary, Al Gore does not receive the Oscar. It goes to the film's director, Davis Guggenheim. One could also go to one of its three producers, none of whom is Gore.

I didn't say Gore would get the statuette. The rule is that two people get to go up on stage and "win." I put that in quotes because, of course, if the film wins, all the producers win in a very real sense. But only one would get to go up and get a statuette at the ceremony and if Gore's appearance weren't an issue — say, if he'd decided not to attend — then they would have designated one of the three producers for the other slot. But they haven't. They've left it open, which is their way of making Gore eligible to go up on stage. Since he's in town and attending the festivities, everyone assumes he'll go up there. That's assuming the film wins. As I understand the rules, they have a certain number of seconds to speak (45, I think) and can apportion it however they like.

But I also didn't say that Gore would make a speech. He could just stand there looking respectful and saying nothing, or just saying, "Thank you." Some might think that was very classy of him. My point was that I suspect there were some votes for the film because people thought it would lead to Al Gore making a memorable speech. He could well disappoint them. Goodness knows, it's not like he never disappointed anyone who cast a vote for him.

And no, I don't think he will take the opportunity to announce he's running for President. First off, he may never announce that. Secondly, if he is thinking of getting in, he could easily pick a time 'n' place where he wouldn't launch his candidacy by being accused of exploiting the Oscars (and the campaign against Global Warming) for personal reasons.

My guess as to what's on Gore's mind with regard to '08 is no better than anyone else's, maybe a bit worse. But if he is open to the idea of running, he may be figuring to wait a while. Let the other contenders duke it out. Let it become clearer what the key issues will be in that election. If and when he does get in, we're going to hear very little from the Press Corps about his positions and policies. It's all going to be about how he doesn't know who he is and what his wardrobe selections tell us about the man…and by the way, he needs to lose twenty pounds. Something about Al Gore always seems to turn the reporters who cover him into Joan Rivers. If he waits eight more months to enter the race, that's eight months of that crap we don't have to endure.

In fact, as long as he doesn't announce for President, people might actually listen to what he has to say. True, they'd only be listening because they want to hear if he's going to run or not. But at least they'd be listening.

Also: A couple of folks have written to ask who I think will be honored in the "In Memoriam" montage. This weblog has had too much about death on it lately so I don't think I want to ponder that one for long. But we'll certainly see Glenn Ford, Maureen Stapleton, Don Knotts, Robert Altman, Peter Boyle, Jack Warden, Red Buttons, Joe Barbera, Carlo Ponti, Jane Wyatt, June Allyson, Betty Comden, Yvonne DeCarlo, Gordon Parks and Vincent Sherman, plus others. And I'll predict they'll either open or close with Jack Palance doing one-armed push-ups.

It's official. The Broadway run of The Producers will close on April 22 after a run of 33 previews and 2,502 regular performances. That's a lot, of course…more than South Pacific, Oklahoma!, Man of La Mancha or Annie. Still, I think a lot of people in the theatrical community are surprised it wasn't more.

The original Hello, Dolly! ran a little longer — 2,844 performances — by continually bringing in new stars. After Carol Channing left, producer David Merrick hired some pretty big names to fill the role of Dolly Levi: Ginger Rogers, Martha Raye, Betty Grable, Dorothy Lamour, Ethel Merman, etc. Ethel Merman was a huge star then, at least on Broadway. At one point, he had the whole thing restaged with a black cast toplined by Pearl Bailey and that added another year or two to its New York run.

By contrast, after Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick left The Producers, the only big names brought in to replace them were…Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. They came back for a reported $100,000 each per week for a return engagement. You'd think that if it was cost-efficient to pay them that, the show could have afforded some other huge stars…but that never happened. There were rumors of John Goodman and others being wooed. Jason Alexander and Martin Short starred in a West Coast production and everyone assumed one or both would go to New York. Never happened. Tony Danza is currently in the version at the St. James Theater in Manhattan and he's as close to a "big name" as was ever engaged.

I guess I'm curious why more wasn't done to sell tickets and keep the show running. Was it just that there weren't any stars available they thought would make a difference? Did they think the show was destined to run out at a certain point regardless of who was on the stage? Or are they just so in need of an empty theater — in which to open the forthcoming Young Frankenstein musical — that they decided to let The Producers expire prematurely? Just wondering.

And wouldn't it be neat if without advance fanfare, just to surprise and delight those who buy tix to the last performance, Nathan and Matthew suddenly reappeared in the roles? It won't happen but wouldn't that be neat?

I seem to have just gotten a new, unexpected channel on my DirecTV satellite dish. In fact, it's so new, it doesn't even have any shows on it yet.

Something called "Chiller" is now on channel 257. Looking ahead, I see it starts early Thursday morning with episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, followed by Night Gallery, then the Friday the 13th TV show, then more Alfred Hitchcock Presents, then Tales from the Crypt, then more Hitchcock, then more Tales from the Crypt. Then at some point Thursday, they run the movie, The Shining, followed by more Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Further down the line, I see episodes of Twin Peaks, plus they're running other scary movies including all the ones in which Abbott and Costello met monsters.

Sounds like Universal to me. I think I'll do a Google search and see if I can find out more about this channel. Here — you watch this video clip of one of my favorite moments from David Letterman's old NBC show. While you do, I'll have me a look around and then I'll report back.

Okay, I'm back. I found the Chiller TV website but there's nothing much on it yet except to say the new channel launches on March 1 and they dare us to watch. Also found this article from last month telling about the new channel and, yes, it's from Universal. Interesting to know. I may even TiVo a few of those Alfred Hitchcock shows.

All right…so we have Sleuth rerunning old detective shows and Chiller rerunning old spooky shows. Don't we need a couple more old sitcom channels? No one's rerunning Bilko or Car 54 or McHale's Navy or Dobie Gillis. Wouldn't it be great to have a network that ran those and even lesser-known shows like He and She or The Good Guys or Good Morning, World or The Bill Dana Show or I'm Dickens, He's Fenster or The Danny Thomas Show or Hennessey or —

Well, you get the idea. You could probably add to that list, too. I don't think anyone's planning such a channel…but then, I didn't know about Chiller until about twenty minutes ago. Maybe one of these days…

B. Baker corrects me. Tales of Manhattan wasn't the final screen appearance of W.C. Fields. He had cameos as himself in Follow the Boys, Song of the Open Road and Sensations of 1945, all of which came out in 1944. I knew that but made the mistake of cross-checking my memory with his listing at The Internet Movie Database, saw they had Tales of Manhattan listed as his final film, and assumed I was confused.

I should have known better. The I.M.D.B. has recently been reformatted and now they credit someone's appearances as an actor (where they played characters) separately from appearances where they played themselves. Fields played himself in the last three films.

I don't know why they're making this distinction and certainly many of these assignments are arguable. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were apparently actors in their films even though they played Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. Jerry Lewis is listed as an actor in Mr. Saturday Night even though he played the great screen comedian, Jerry Lewis. But in Defending Your Life, Shirley MacLaine played herself.

Anyway, B. Baker also disagrees with me that the Fields chapter in Tales of Manhattan is the best one in the film and favors the Edward G. Robinson vignette. I don't think so but I wouldn't argue the point. It's a pretty good piece of film.

The folks who bring you The Price is Right are still looking for someone to take over when Bob Barker retires in June. We told you here that they were doing a non-broadcast taping to try out three potential replacements — Doug Davidson, Todd Newton and John O'Hurley.

Apparently, none of those three nailed the job. On March 12, they're doing another non-broadcast taping to try three hosts. One is Mario Lopez from Dancing with the Stars. One is Mike Richards, former host of the reality show, Beauty and the Geek. And one is George Hamilton. That's right. George Hamilton. The guy with the tan.

Hamilton is a surprising choice even for an audition. He's 68 years old and you'd think CBS would want someone much younger for two reasons. One is so there's a chance that the new host might do the show for a long time. The other is that advertisers — even daytime advertisers — are supposed to yearn for younger viewers, the kind who might be attracted by a younger host. (Bob Barker was 49 when he took over The Price is Right, and the trend for younger demographics has only gotten worse since 1972.)

But good for him, good for them. I still think The Price is Right in its present form won't survive the loss of Barker but it's nice to see they're at least considering someone older than the show.

Rolling Stone has a gushy profile up of Keith Olbermann. They also have a page that has video clips of five of Olbermann's hairier "Special Comments."

In 1942, Twentieth-Century Fox released an anthology film called Tales of Manhattan featuring four or five stories, all about the same black tuxedo as it passes through different lives.

The discrepancy between four and five is because five vignettes were filmed but one was trimmed from most prints for reasons of time. Oddly, the sometimes-missing one was easily the best and it starred W.C. Fields in his final screen appearance. [Correction.] It was absent when the film was released in America but turns up on most home video versions. Our clip today is a little less than three minutes from it.

It's not particularly funny but it's worth seeing just to witness the on-screen meeting of two of the all-time great comic actors of film. Cast as the clothing salesman who sells Fields a coat was a then-new comedian named Phil Silvers. That's him with the bad wig on.

Phil Silvers and W.C. Fields in the same scene. How great is that?

When I interviewed Silvers, he told me a story about working with Fields. Though he was quite ill at the time, Fields kept drinking. The film's producers pleaded with him not to and offered to take him on the drunk of his life after shooting was completed. Fields swore he wasn't drinking but they caught him taking nips from a thermos bottle he'd brought to the set. "We thought you said you weren't drinking," they scolded him.

Fields pointed to the thermos and said it didn't contain booze. "It's just a little lemonade to soothe a stomach condition that's been ailing me." Then he turned to Silvers, handed him the thermos and said, "Sir, if you please. Take a sip of this and tell these gentlemen what it is."

Silvers took a sip and tasted straight gin. "It's lemonade," he told the producers. "I'm as surprised as you are but it's lemonade." The producers shrugged and walked off.

According to Silvers, he and Fields were the best of friends after that. Here they are in the scene. Forgive the foreign subtitles.

Who's going to win what on Oscar night? No one knows. But I do know that there's never one reason for any award. After Joe Shlabotnik wins as Best Supporting Actor, pundits say things like, "They gave it to him because they felt he got robbed two years ago when he was beaten by a guy in a pigeon costume." Or "they gave it to him to show their support for the fine charity work he's doing, trying to equip the world's kangaroos with pocket protectors."

But "they" are a disparate bunch of strangers about whose past motives, nothing is really known. There's no exit polling, there are no "why did you vote that way?" questionnaires…there is no meaningful data for analysis. After a political election, we can say with some level of certainty that Candidate X captured 71.3% of the vote from Caucasians under the age of 65 who rank Social Security as their most important concern. But about any given vote at the Oscars, we know zip. We don't even know if someone won unanimously or it was close to a five-way tie. You could say, "They all voted for Clint Eastwood because they loved the appearance he once made on Mr. Ed," and nothing could ever prove you wrong.

So my point is that there isn't one reason…and even if there were, we'd have no way of knowing it.

That said, I'm going to go against my own, absolutely valid point and suggest a couple of simple reasons, not because I think they're right but because no one can prove me wrong. If you insist on viewing the voting mass as a homogenous body acting of one mind, here's what may be on that mind…

One thing is that sometimes, it seems like some voters want to reward someone for a little career gamble, taking on a project that looked like anything but a guaranteed money maker…something that might actually damage a career if it didn't turn out well. If you made a zany sex comedy or a big, special effects action thriller, you might entertain the masses but you wouldn't have really risked a whole lot. A small, sensitive film that tackles a controversial subject and/or pays scale is deemed more deserving of an award. When it works, at least.

And in some categories, I think people vote a certain way because they think it will result in a great acceptance speech. This brings us to the question of who'll win on Sunday night. I didn't see the film Peter O'Toole is up for and I have no idea if his performance deserves the Oscar or not. But I think I'd like to hear that speech. Of the five nominees, I think he'd give us the most interesting turn at the podium. He'd act a little drunk, whether he was or not. He'd be overcome with emotion because he's made so many movies without this kind of recognition and this could be his last shot at one of these. He'd say something wickedly charming and the audience would just love him. And I'll bet the broadcast's director would let him ramble on for some extra time before cuing the orchestra to begin playing the "hurry up and get off" music.

So I'll say a lot of people voted for him because they want to hear that speech.

Of those up for Best Supporting Actor, I think Eddie Murphy would give us the most captivating Oscar moment…and also, some people might think he took a bit of a career gamble to do a supporting role like that. You and I know it wasn't risking anything but I suspect some voters will think it was. I'll also predict that if he loses, pundits will say he soured Academy members on him with that Norbit movie he has out now. That's a good, succinct reason that no one can disprove.

I don't know about Best Actress. Everyone seems to think Helen Mirren so I'll guess Helen Mirren. I don't see any clear winner in that category if one applies the "who'll give the most interesting speech?" standard. They might just have to give it to whoever gave the best performance and people are saying it's her.

Best Supporting Actress might be Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls or Abigail Breslin for Little Miss Sunshine. Either one is the kind of Cinderella story that makes for a great acceptance speech moment.

And of course, it's about time — it's long past time — for Martin Scorcese to win for Best Director. Some years, that would work against him. Some years, it feels like the voters are saying, "Everyone thinks we have to give it to Scorcese. Well, we'll show them! We'll give it to Kevin Costner or Clint Eastwood instead!" This time, I think they'll decide they've proven their independence on Scorcese and he'd give the most interesting speech — kind of a Susan Lucci experience — so there's no reason not to give it to him.

Best Picture, I have no idea about. I don't think the "most interesting acceptance speech" rule applies to this one, at least not this year. Which of the five made the most money?

And Best Documentary? For reasons I should explain here some day, I don't think Hollywood is as overwhelmingly Liberal as many people think. I think there are a lot more local denizens in the Bruce Willis/Charlton Heston/James Woods political wing than it seems. Still, I don't think politics is what will cause the Academy to give the award to An Inconvenient Truth. I think there will be three dynamics in play. One is that everyone who cares what wins for Best Documentary likes the idea of one of those films making some actual money. That's a dream that every documentary filmmaker, regardless of his or her politics, has so they'll reward a film that accomplishes that. A documentary that makes serious cash empowers everyone out there who has a non-fiction film in need of financing.

Secondly, everyone who cares about documentaries likes the idea that a movie can have some impact and actually change the world. That's another dream they all have. We don't know what members of the Academy think about a whole raft of issues (including Global Warming) but I think it's safe to say that they believe in The Power of Film. In fact, five bucks says that phrase is used by either a presenter or winner in this category Sunday night. An Inconvenient Truth is making a difference, reinforcing the notion that the world's problems can be changed by someone making a movie. Even some people who would argue the message of Al Gore's film like that idea.

And lastly, we return to our thesis: They want to hear the acceptance speech. They want to hear Gore get up there and make a quick self-deprecating remark about how great it was that this vote wasn't counted in Florida or however he'll put it, then segue into a fast pitch to save the planet. I haven't seen any of the other nominees — I haven't even seen Gore's film — but I don't think anyone expects an important, headline-making event at the podium if one of the others wins. Just thinking like the producer of the Oscar telecast, it'll make for a better show if An Inconvenient Truth wins. Which is why it probably will.

If the voters apply my "who'll give the best speech?" theory, we could be in for quite a show. On the other hand, rumor has it that Ellen DeGeneres will kick things off by dancing with a line of CGI animated penguins and that there are other "musical surprises" planned. Better pad that TiVo recording by another hour. It could be an interesting evening but it could also be a very long night.

Christopher Cook just sent me an e-mail pointing out who did the voiceover for the Matty's Funday Funnies clips I just posted. It's Johnny Olson, who was most famous for shouting "Come on down!" on The Price is Right. Just thought someone would like to know that.

In 1959, the Mattel toy folks put a show on ABC called Matty's Funday Funnies — a half hour of old Paramount cartoons and new commercials for Mattel toys. The name came from the fact that the show was supposed to run on Sunday afternoons but they didn't change it when ABC decided to move it to Friday nights and then Saturdays.

In 1962, they dumped the Paramount cartoons and replaced them with newly-animated exploits of Bob Clampett's Beany and Cecil.

Our clip today is actually four clips from the Paramount period — two promos for the show, two vintage Mattel ads. You will enjoy them all but you'll especially enjoy the toy spots. And you'll wish you still owned your old Popeye ukulele.

New, lower TiVo service rates. For those of you who didn't have the wisdom to order Lifetime Service back when they used to offer it.

Would you like to buy Ed McMahon's house? They're only asking $6,750,000 for it, which means they'll take — what? Six twenty-five? It has six bedrooms and five bathrooms and it's 7,013 square feet.

Maybe you'd just like to take a look at the place. You can take a virtual tour over at this site. See how many images you can spot of Johnny and Frank. I think I saw three Carsons and one Sinatra.

If the realtor had any sense of humor, he'd have decorated the place with thousands of empty Budweiser bottles before he took the pictures.