One of my favorite political commentary websites is Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo. I like Liberals who are respected by most Conservatives and Conservatives who are respected by most Liberals, and Marshall is in the former category. The other day, he mentioned that he was thinking of covering the New Hampshire primary not for any magazine, as he usually does, but just for his weblog. If he could get enough donations, he said, he'd go to New Hampshire and report his observations, unfettered by the needs and editorial dictates of some employer. Well, before he even announced a dollar goal, he had nearly $5,000 in contributions, which is more than enough. I'm looking forward to this, not only because Marshall is a perceptive reporter and commentator but because it's a fascinating new model for online journalism. If it works, the possibilities are endless…and exciting.
Oh, The Places Your Mail Will Go!
If you get a letter from me in the next year and you aren't the Gas Company, it will probably have one of these on it — the stamp that was unveiled today to honor the late Theodor "Dr. Seuss" Geisel. I think it's terrific that he is being so honored, and also that the U.S. Postal Service didn't hire some other artist to execute an illustration of the Good Doctor and his characters. Unless I miss my guess, that's a slightly retouched photo surrounded by actual Seuss drawings, and I think that's great.
There's an unfortunate tendency sometimes to honor an artist by having another artist preempt their work. But this is all Seuss, all the time, so I've ordered a couple hundred. Rumor has it that we will see a Charles Schulz stamp before long. If so, I hope it's actually Schulz art. After all those years of not letting anyone else draw his strip, it would be a shame if someone else drew his stamp.
Fair and Balanced
Not only have I been meaning to mention Atrios but I wanted to give you all this link to Ron Paul's weekly essays. Paul is a Libertarian Congressguy from Texas but unlike some prominent Libertarians, he seems to have a decent sense of reality. I don't always agree with him but then I don't always agree with anyone, including myself. At times, Paul sounds like what Republicans would sound like if they actually sounded like Republicans.
Bang Bang
Atrios is one of the most-read political bloggers who skews Left. And if you think I post often, you should see this guy. Anyway, I've been meaning to mention him here but he just put up an amazing transcript from C-SPAN transcribed by someone else. Here's the link to it. It's a call from a lady who apparently intended to remain anonymous, discussing what she saw at the Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington. It turns out this woman is…well, you'll see.
The World's Foremost Authority
A new production of Larry Gelbart's play, Sly Fox, is set to open next April in New York. Richard Dreyfuss stars in a role originated by George C. Scott, but never mind that. The most interesting bit of casting involves a smaller role. "Professor" Irwin Corey is in the company, and some theater buffs think will make him the oldest performer to ever play on Broadway. The professor is 89 (some reports say 91) and he still does occasional stand-up gigs, plus he recently became a great grandfather. Here's an article about him from when he was a much younger man of 87.
Nudge, Nudge
The wonderfully silly Eric Idle has embarked on what he's calling his Greedy Bastard Tour. You can find out if and when the greedy bastard is coming your way, and read a weblog/diary he's posting of the experience here.
In the meantime, John Cleese is setting up his own website at www.thejohncleese.com. Why the "the?" Because one of those professional John Cleese impersonators who doesn't look very much like John Cleese (there are several) has already claimed www.johncleese.com. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
Update
For the record, tomorrow's Daily Variety carries the following notice wrapping up this situation…
WGA animation writing award winner Mark Evanier is a three-time Emmy nominee. Information in Thursday's paper was incorrect.
It's kind of an interesting way to phrase it. I was advised not to ask for the correction for fear they'd write something that implied I'd claimed the three Emmys and they had just now caught me in a fib. The above doesn't admit that the mistake was theirs, but it also doesn't tell what they're correcting. Unless someone hauls out last Thursday's issue — which no one will bother to do — they won't know what's being corrected. They might assume the original piece had said I was a two-time Emmy nominee, for instance. I'd have preferred it if they'd said something to indicate the mistake, whatever it was, was wholly on their end. But I guess this will do.
Maybe I'm making too much of it but I don't want anyone to think I'm one of those people who claims awards he hasn't won. There was a guy a few years ago who was taking big ads in the Hollywood trade papers saying he was a five-time Emmy winner when he wasn't. He'd never even been nominated once.
I think what had happened was that he'd worked on five shows that had won Emmys but he himself had not won one. They're very specific about who actually receives an award when the show does and he did not have a position on any of the shows that made him an actual Emmy recipient. If The Tonight Show wins an Emmy as best show, that means that everyone who worked on the show worked on an Emmy-Winning show. It does not mean everyone who worked on the program is an Emmy winner. But some folks like to confuse the issue.
Time to Spend Money!
I've just ordered my copy of the new Looney Tunes DVD set from Amazon, and you can do the same thing by clicking here. Knowing you, I presume you'll want one because from all reports, it's an excellent presentation of the material, and we all know how wonderful the material is. I also know you'll want this, the four DVD set, as opposed to the two DVD set that's also being released and which only has half the cartoons on it. The line-up of chosen cartoons is pretty good.
Matter of fact, the main complaint I've heard about it is that they picked films that are so good, they're shown constantly to the point where some of us are sick of them. (I have a personal rule: I don't attend any cartoon festival where they're showing What's Opera, Doc? It's not that it's not a fine cartoon but for about two decades, it was a rare program of cartoons that did not include it, usually as the finale. I once attended a Betty Boop fest, secure in the knowledge that it would all be Max Fleischer shorts animated three thousand miles from the WB Cartoon Studio and — sure enough — the host came out and announced, "In addition to some great Betty Boop cartoons, we have a bonus for you tonight." The minute he said that, I knew: What's Opera, Doc? Had to be…and it was. I don't think it's as wonderful as some other cartoons Chuck Jones directed and and even if it were the best, enough is enough. I don't need another viewing…I can see it in my sleep and hear Elmer's voice echoing, "Kill da wabbit," deep in my eustachian tubes.
Blessedly, What's Opera, Doc? is not in this new DVD release…but I'll bet it's in the next one.) Anyway, I would have preferred some more obscure shorts but I understand: The better this release sells, the more likely it is that someone at Warner Home Video will say, "Hey, we've got to release all our cartoons on DVD," which is probably inevitable but it would be nice if they got on with it. So once again, here's the link to order yours. And make sure you watch Early to Bet, which is on Disc Four, and which is among my favorite WB cartoons that we aren't all sick of seeing.
A New Policy
I am instituting a new policy for my personal e-mail. Along with messages that want me to send my life savings to Nigeria or take pills guaranteed to shrink or grow certain body parts, I am ignoring most (i.e., 99%) of the mail that wishes to engage me in political debate. Every time I post something controversial here, I get a batch of rebuttals that range from the thoughtful and interesting to those that seem to lack a certain fundamental reading comprehension. I can only spare so much time writing things other than my professional assignments and I'd rather spend it on stuff for this board, which thousands read every hour, than discussing abortion or gun control or Iraq with one person. So I'm going to stop answering them, and I've even stopped reading them all. If you want to send me a link to an article you think I should read or mention here, great. But I'm too far behind on my e-mail to reply to messages from folks who want to go one-on-one in e-mail. Thank you.
Request Filled
Thanks to all of you who've volunteered to send me last night's To Tell the Truth. I have arranged to get a copy.
Public Appeals
As I mentioned, Game Show Network scheduled an episode of To Tell the Truth this morning — one that had Bill Hanna on it. I warned you we might have to guess exactly when it was on…and I guessed wrong and missed it. Anyone out there get it? Anyone out there get it who's willing to dub me off a tape?
Also, does anyone reading this have a copy lying around of last Thursday's Hollywood Reporter? The one for October 23? It had the item in it about that award I won and I didn't bother to pick up a copy. I forgot I have a mother who will be heartbroken if she doesn't get a copy.
By the way: At my request, Daily Variety's going to run a correction that will say I didn't win those three Emmy Awards they erroneously bestowed upon me. I hope it doesn't look like I claimed I'd won them and they're catching my error.
Recommended Reading
Stan the Man
IGN FilmForce has posted the second and final part of Peter Sanderson's article on Stan Lee and the book about him. Here's the link and, as before, I recommend the piece although I disagree with some of its conclusions. Peter's one of the sharpest guys around about this kind of thing.
P.S. on Siegfried and Roy
As predicted here, animal rights groups are using the attack on Roy in their campaign to stop animals from being used in performing sitiations. Here's an article that will tell you about a recent charge and the denial.
Also: I told a story about a magician I worked with named Mark Kalin who used a tiger in his act. According to this report, Kalin has jettisoned the performing cats. There will be more of this.
Fantastic Four #1 and Siegfried & Roy
The Siegfried and Roy show in Las Vegas is apparently history now. For those of you who never saw it, trust me: It was odd. There was a certain self-adoration about it that I found excessive, especially considering how little Siegfried and Roy themselves did in the show. When you get to that scale of magic — huge effects that can be seen from the back row — the illusions are primarily performed by the folks who designed and built the equipment, and those who operate them backstage. Making the elephant appear is mostly a matter of the magician pointing at the prop. As I recall, the most impressive thing in the show was in Roy's handling of the big cats.
And there was one other moment I will not forget because it was worth every penny of the $100+ ticket price — or would have been, had I not been in on a comp. At one point in the show, a huge robotic dragon came out and lifted Siegfried (or what was allegedly Siegfried) in one hand and an apparent Roy in the other and held them high over its head. As I sat there, I could only think: "My God! It's a Jack Kirby cover, come to life!"
Actually, a lot of comic book artists over the years have drawn covers on which a huge monster holds the heroes aloft but Jack probably drew more than anyone. The classic example would be the cover of Fantastic Four #1 above. (The reference books usually credit the artwork on that cover to "Jack Kirby and Dick Ayers" or "Jack Kirby and Christopher Rule." It definitely isn't Ayers and I don't think it's Rule, either. I think the inking was by longtime DC and Marvel inker George Klein. And Sol Brodsky designed the title logo, executed by Artie Simek.) It's a great cover and like many, the more you look at it, the more you see. I've known that cover since just after it first came out, which I believe occurred on August 8, 1961. Until the other day when I chanced to be reading an Internet message board, I never realized something very silly about it.
Okay, so Reed "Mr. Fantastic" Richards is using his newly-acquired stretching powers to slither out of his bonds and he's saying, "It'll take more than ropes to keep Mr. Fantastic out of action!" And of course, he's right but this does raise an interesting question…
Here's the question: Who tied him up? Nowhere in the story does anyone tie the man up. The monster depicted is an unlikely candidate to have done it. In fact, the only bad guy in the whole issue who has fingers is the Mole Man, who lives underground and is unable to see in daylight, and he just doesn't look the type. One might also ponder: If someone did tie up Mr. Fantastic, why did our hero wait until a monster had burst through the asphalt and grabbed his girl friend before he started getting out of those bonds? Reed is supposed to be a pretty smart guy.
Like I said, this never occurred to me before. But the other day, I read this message thread over on the discussion board for Comic Book Resources, and a fellow who goes by the name of Cei-U pointed it out. Next time I run into Stan Lee, I'm going to ask him about this. I will report back to you on the puzzled look on his face and the polite way in which he tells me that he doesn't remember and doesn't know (a) who tied up Mr. Fantastic or (b) why any of us care.