There are a lot of "impersonator" plays around these days. I guess it started before Hal Holbrook did his Mark Twain show and before James Whitmore was out there bringing back Will Rogers…but those two spawned a lot of imitations done by imitators of other famous folks.

I guess the format is irresistible. First off, you can usually do these shows with a cast of one, or perhaps a cast of one plus a few musicians. You don't need sets or a lot of costumes. And you start with a lot of great material because you pick one of the famous dead people who left behind writing and monologues and songs, plus there's also the subject's biography which will probably yield some good anecdotes. Plus, you have that Big Star Name. People won't go to An Evening With Ira Lipsitz but they might turn out for An Evening With Someone Famous (as portrayed by Ira Lipsitz).

Some of the ones I've seen have been very, very good (Frank Ferrante as Groucho, for instance). And even the worst of them (I won't name names) had a fair amount of entertainment value, even if it derived from the person being imitated, not from the imitator.

I won't pass judgment on the show being promoted in today's clip, which runs around four minutes, since I haven't seen the whole thing. But I will say it's rather an odd choice of Famous Person to replicate…

Earl Kress has an additional bit of info on the Mel Blanc American Express commercial linked to in the previous item.

A quick one today. It's Mel Blanc's commercial for the American Express card.

Mel told me that it got him more recognition (in terms of people knowing who he was visually) than everything else in his career combined. He also said that it made it impossible for him to use any credit card anywhere without people making remarks. If he used his American Express card, they said something about it — "So this is the famous Mel Blanc American Express card!" And if he used a Visa or MasterCard, of course, they said, "What's wrong? You leave home without it?" But he was very happy he'd done the spot. Here 'tis…

I thought last Sunday night's Tony Awards ceremony was rather unremarkable. The lack of a central host gave the proceedings an impersonal feel and while nothing particularly awkward or uncomfortable occurred, nothing all that memorable did, either. I sure didn't get the feeling that most of the live audience in the hall cared that much who won so one can imagine how hard they were sweating out the results in Idaho. It seemed to me that Jersey Boys probably sold a lot of tickets with the number they presented on the telecast and that no other show did anything that would send audiences stampeding to the box office or even the TKTS booth.

But the broadcast did okay in the numbers. Ratings were up a bit, a fact that may stem from the fact that (a) unlike many years past, the show was not up against some blockbuster competition and (b) the total number of awards shows on the networks has declined, thereby making each one that remains a bit more special. And Broadway is probably happy that unlike most past years, the Tony Awards have not been followed — so far — by a sudden rash of shows announcing that they're closing. So maybe the ceremony does have a place on network television after all…a view that was hotly contested just a few years ago.

The Silent Movie Theater is getting new ownership and a new policy that will include talkies. This article tells all about the changes.

As explained in this piece I wrote some time ago, the venerable film palace was an important part of my teen years. Still, I'm past the point of being outraged over any changes made to it. I have a certain skepticism about anyone ever being able to make a go of it so I feel they should try whatever they think might make it viable. It's in a bad location (no parking) and it's small and now that most classic films are available on DVD, I'm not sure there's much of a market for showing old movies. Still, I like the idea that the institution John Hampton erected is still there, still showing great films, so I wish the new owners well. I'm sorry that I just don't seem to get there often, even though I could practically walk to the theater.

I was disappointed with Look, Up in the Sky! The Amazing Story of Superman. That's the new documentary about You-Know-Who that debuted this evening on the A&E Network. It pretty much drives home the fact that to the folks who now control the property — and who obviously controlled the documentary to the extent of making its latter segments an infomercial for current TV and movie projects — the comic books are an incidental sidebar in the character's history. Every TV, movie and radio appearance was mentioned but the comics got a surface treatment, barely epidermis-deep. Although a few writers like Mark Waid and Elliott Maggin were interviewed about the character's history, I don't think anyone after Jerry Siegel was mentioned as having written 60+ years of Superman comic books and the artists didn't fare any better. No mention of Curt Swan or Wayne Boring or Al Plastino or any of them.

For that matter, as the history was recounted, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster had the vision, did the first stories and were thereafter unworthy of further mention. What became of them? We heard a lot more about the fate of the men who portrayed Superman on screen than we did about the men who created him. Of course, some of this was because of current litigation and long-time corporate embarrassment…but I suspect most of it was because Time-Warner is pushing the Smallville series and the new Superman Returns movie. The other stuff can be mentioned for historical context but only as it sets up the current product as the culmination of all that has gone before.

I also thought the documentary ginned up a lot of vague, unconvincing reasons for Superman's enduring popularity. The explanations seemed flimsy and forced. I know some of the people interviewed have deeper, personal affections for the character. It would have been nice to hear more along those lines and less from the producers of the current movie…which, if we are to believe the documentary, already has people flocking to it even though it has yet to open.

And this may just be a personal prejudice of mine from having seen too many of these. There seems to be a law among documentarians that if your subject spans the sixties and seventies, you must include news footage of the J.F.K. assassination, Vietnam protests and Nixon's resignation. Not only that but you must draw some sort of line, however forced, between those events and your story. In this case, the throughline seems to be that the murder of Kennedy caused the mass disillusionment of a generation and led to things like race riots and war protests…and this, in turn, made Superman — as a defender of the status quo — seem irrelevant. I think both premises are questionable or, at best, gross oversimplifications.

Finally, I think Kevin Spacey may be the best actor working today. Isn't it amazing that as a narrator, he's monotonous and unable to sound the least bit interested in the topic at hand?

Maybe I shouldn't carp because these specials are usually even farther off the mark. But so much work went into this one that, I dunno, I somehow was expecting something with a bit more substance. As it was, I guess it was a nice collection of clips…especially from films and TV shows that Warner Home Video has coming out.

Gilbert Gottfried reports from the floor of the 2006 E3 videogame convention.

The Vallely Archives, a weblog devoted to the work of illustrator Henry E. Vallely, recently found an example of how Bob Kane (or his ghost of the moment) had swiped a memorable panel in the first issue of Batman from Vallely's work. Shocking? Maybe…especially now that they've found another example.

Did I ever mention here that after a slow start, I've warmed to The Colbert Report? Never miss an episode. It and The Daily Show form the strongest back-to-back comedy bloc I've ever seen on television. In fact, I find myself reading the news now and sometimes thinking, "Boy, what Colbert's going to do with that." He oughta have a field day with this story.

John Derbyshire, who has been one of the leading Conservative pundits of the last few years, feels that everyone who supported the War in Iraq ought to start apologizing.

These people say the world's funniest joke was written by Spike Milligan. I'm not dubious that it was written by Spike Milligan…only that it's the world's funniest joke.

Okay, I'm satisfied that the gent in the photo (in this post) was not Whitney Ellsworth and that it's almost certainly Harry Gerstad. The above pic shows Mr. Ellsworth on the set with George Reeves and as you can see, it's a different guy. In fact, it's a different guy who looks a lot more like Whitney Ellsworth did when I met him in 1968.

Whitney Ellsworth was an interesting figure in comic book history. He was a cartoonist and a pulp writer in the thirties and when those two forms merged to form the great American comic book, Ellsworth became the chief editor at DC Comics. As such, he spent most of his time not editing comics. That was done by underlings while Ellsworth watched over the company's licensing and their deals for movies and radio shows based on their characters. In the fifties, he relocated from New York to Los Angeles to supervise the George Reeves Superman TV show and never left. He stayed in L.A. trying to sell other shows and to represent the company's interests on programs that did get sold.

He was the first person in comics I ever interviewed and I got absolutely nothing out of him. I don't think that was because I was new at interviewing. It was because he was horribly nervous, even facing a 16 year old kid with a tape recorder. He didn't want to talk about Superman in the forties because that might have meant mentioning Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, and he didn't want to talk about them. He didn't want to talk about Batman because…well, I'm not sure but I think it was because he was afraid we'd get near the topic of what Bob Kane actually did and why didn't Bill Finger get credit? He didn't want to talk about Wonder Woman because he was afraid of angering the estate of William Marston, who created the character. I think the big scoop I got out of our chat was that Aquaman sometimes talks to fish…and even that, he briefly tried to put off-the-record. DC was then going through major upheavals and I think he was terrified he'd say something impolitic, I'd print it in my little 300-circulation fanzine…and someone at DC would read it and use it as an excuse to terminate his position.

I didn't think that was him in the other photo but it's nice to know for certain. Thanks to everyone who wrote in, especially Brad Ferguson, who sent the above pic.

We have a triple feature for you today. In 1977, Three's Company debuted on ABC. I was never a fan of the show but every so often, I'd catch an episode or part of one and note some fine comedic acting, especially by John Ritter. What a lot of people don't know is that Three's Company was a thrice-made pilot. All three versions had Mr. Ritter playing the not-gay roommate (though his character's name changed) and all three had Audra Lindley and Norman Fell as the Ropers, but the first had two different ladies playing Ritter's cohabitants. It also had a very different script — reportedly a much more adult approach.

You may be surprised to learn that Larry Gelbart wrote the script for that first pilot. He's credited with the words, "Developed by…" in this clip, which is the opening of that version…

ABC — which at the time meant Fred Silverman — liked some things about the pilot but not that writer's approach and not the two ladies. So they got new producers and a new script and they recast the ladies. Here's the opening of the second pilot…

Close but no, as they say, cigar. It's rare for a pilot to be filmed or taped three times. All in the Family was but those attempts spanned two networks. In the case of Three's Company, Silverman liked one of the new stars but not the other so the producers went hunting for a new Chrissy. When they found Suzanne Somers, they taped the pilot yet again and it was deemed buyable. It debuted with a short order (six episodes) in March of '77, became a hit and didn't leave the air until September of 1984. Even then, there was an attempt to spin off Ritter's character and keep things going. Like I said, I was not a fan but there were times — especially when Don Knotts joined the cast — when I couldn't resist tuning in. Here's the opening from the first season…

I received about twenty messages from folks answering my query about the man in the photo in the previous item. Some said it was definitely Whitney Ellsworth, some said it definitely was not and some in the latter group offered different names. The consensus — and it's not overwhelming — is that it's a gentleman named Harry Gerstad, who was a film editor on the show and later a director.

Alfred Walker, who thinks it's Gerstad, also reminds me that the A&E Network is debuting a two-hour special tomorrow night entitled Look, Up in the Sky! The Amazing Story of Superman. It's a documentary about the Man of Steel and it airs tomorrow night at 8 PM East Coast time, 5 PM West Coast time. Then it reruns four hours later and runs again on later dates. I have no idea how it'll be but the TiVo is set.

Who is this man? No, no…I know the one on the right is George Reeves on the set of the Adventures of Superman TV show. But who's the guy on the left? Someone sent me this photo and asked if it was Whitney Ellsworth, who produced the show for a time after serving as Editor-in-Chief of DC Comics for many years. I only met Mr. Ellsworth once and that was in 1968, so I'm a bit fuzzy on what he looked like. He looked something like the gentleman in question but I'm not certain…so I'm wondering if anyone else is.