Nope. Still don't have time to post much of anything, but that should change, this weekend.  Speaking of this weekend, I wanted to mention that my longtime chum, Scott Shaw!, is appearing in Santa Cruz this Saturday with his high-larious Oddball Comics Slide Show.  Here's a link to an article about Scott that will tell you where he'll be and what he'll do.  And if you can't make it to Santa Cruz, you can at least click to his daily column at www.comicbookresources.com.

And after you go there, enjoy more intellectual content by clicking here.  And still more by clicking here.  Hi-Ho!

Barring some planet-shattering news, there won't be any updates here for a day or three.  The operator of this website is buried in deadlines and scarcely has time to post this.  But keep checking back because he'll make it up to you.  Somehow.  Hey, if you're really bored, here's a link to a website all about cheese!

A Review/Report: How Now, Dow Jones is what some call a "lost musical" — that is, one that is almost never performed.  With a book by Max Shulman (creator of Dobie Gillis), lyrics by Carolyn Leigh and a score by Elmer Bernstein, it arrived on Broadway in December of 1967 and departed 220 performances later, having lost its entire capitalization.  That it ran as long as it did was largely due to an incredible advance sale which, in his book The Season, William Goldman attributed to the title.  The show had no huge stars (Tony Roberts, Brenda Vaccaro and Marlyn Mason were the three biggest) and its creators had no great track record…so the huge pre-sale had to be because of the title.

Goldman claims it was irresistible to "theatre party ladies" — women who arrange charity functions wherein a group sells a huge block of theatre tix to its members.  The title suggested something light and frothy about the stock market, which was perfect for the kind of businessmen who pay for tickets to such charity events.

That's Mr. Goldman's theory and I can't say he's wrong…though it occurs to me that it also suggested something similar to How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying, which had been a huge hit, not all that long before.  In any case, though the show had one semi-hit song — "Step to the Rear" — it wasn't a success, and hasn't been revived often since then.  Until last evening.

Monday evening, the Musical Theatre Guild staged — for one performance only — a "concert version" of How Now, Dow Jones at the Pasadena Playhouse.  Since I never saw the Broadway version, the following is just a hunch: I think we saw a better show than the folks in New York 35 years ago.  Even without sets or much in the way of rehearsal, and with actors who were still (mostly) reading from their scripts and had never before performed it before an audience, the production was enormous fun.  The four lead roles were performed by Larry Raben, Mary Jo Mecca, Jennifer Gordon and Doug Carfrae and all were excellent.  Also excellent was the musical direction by Brad Ellis, who is a helluva talent and a helluva guy.

This is the kind of thing that "concert versions" should do: Shows that won't otherwise get performed and which may even profit from a humble production.  I suspect How Now would have gotten lost in a full-scale production with sets and costumes and choreography but it worked well on the Pasadena Playhouse stage.  The storyline doesn't make a lot of sense —

Oops.  Just realized I haven't summarized the storyline.  Briefly, a woman named Kate works on Wall Street as "the voice of Dow Jones," announcing the latest averages.  She has been waiting years for a low-level broker named Herbert to marry her.  Herbert, however, won't wed until he gets a promotion, which won't happen until the Dow Jones average hits 1000, which it never has.  (This is 1967)  Frustrated, she runs off and has a one night affair with another low-level stock market employee named Charley, which results in her getting pregnant.  Charley's about to marry someone else so, in a panic to give her child a father, she announces that the Dow has hit 1000.  This touches off a huge buying boom, followed by all sorts of financial disaster when her fib is revealed and…well, like I said.  The story doesn't make a lot of sense —

— but it almost doesn't have to.  The songs are fun, the book is peppered with funny lines and the actors have wonderful, juicy roles which they play to full advantage.  You can't go see this production but maybe its reception tonight will prompt others.  This is a show that does not deserve to be lost.

A frightening statistic: The third issue of our current Groo mini-series — Groo: Death and Taxes — is now in stores.  Gary Grossmann, who is perhaps our most dedicated fan, informs me that, as of that issue, there have been 4391 original Groo comic pages.  Yow.

I have a pet peeve which might be termed "The Trivialization of Words Which Oughta Be Inflammatory."  It's when you take some minor injustice and liken it to some true, monumental wrong.  I know a voice actor who can't get hired by a certain studio because the folks there who do the hiring think he's not very talented.  Instead of accepting that, he says, "The studio has blacklisted me," thereby trying to make them seem as evil and misguided as the industry-wide conspiracy that once drove certain talented writers and actors out of the business and, in a few cases, to their deaths.  One employer deciding on his own not to hire someone does not constitute a "blacklist."  In the same spirit, an animator I know has taken to describing the current spate of layoffs as "The Holocaust."  Frankly, I don't think one should invoke words like "The Holocaust" unless actual murders and racial genocide are being committed.  (Years ago, when I first got into computer bulletin boards, I believe I started a rule that caught on.  It stated you weren't allowed to describe someone as a Nazi unless they were actually heiling Hitler and/or invading Poland.)

This brings us to the recently-expressed sentiment in some quarters that Speedy Gonzales cartoons have been "banned."  No, they haven't.  The Cartoon Network, which controls them all, has simply decided not to show them at this moment, the same way the Cartoon Network doesn't show a lot of films that it owns.  "Banning" would be like if the government came in and forbade the exhibition of any animated motion picture that featured a supersonic rodent character, voiced by Mel Blanc doing a cliché Mexican accent.  That is not what has happened here…but do an Internet search for "Speedy AND Gonzales AND banned."  See how many write of the cartoons' absence as if jackbooted government censors have kicked down doors and burned all the prints.

The films in question have been generally withheld because there is no upside to exhibiting them…only potential problems.  The folks at Cartoon Network have about a thousand Warner Brothers cartoons in their library plus zillions more from Hanna-Barbera, MGM, Ruby-Spears and other producers.  Given the rapid rate at which audiences seem to tolerate and even enjoy reruns, there is no harm (to them) in omitting a few cartoons that involve racial stereotypes from the schedule.  There is, however, a possible downside if certain groups protest and/or sponsors get uncomfy.  I think it's dumb to get upset over a silly little cartoon mouse and even dumber to fold in response to that pressure (or, dumbest, the possibility of that pressure).  But I understand why they do it.

Only they don't, really.  In truth, Cartoon Network occasionally sneaks one of those racially-sensitive films into the air with no fanfare.  I don't know if they've run a Speedy Gonzales lately but they will, probably without calling huge attention to it and thereby daring folks to object.  The more they can do this, the closer those cartoons are to joining the normal rotation.

Also: Currently on the Internet, one can sign several petitions (like this one) that ask Cartoon Network to free the imprisoned Señor Gonzales.  Ordinarily, I think protest movements designed to move TV networks are a colossal waste of time that almost never cause the desired change.  This one, however, might have some impact.  A groundswell of requests — or even a trickle that can be passed off as a groundswell — could provide some moral cover for Cartoon Network.  If and when they run the cartoons more blatantly, objections can be met with, "We're only bowing to demand," thereby making them look less like spreaders of ethnic caricatures and more like public servants.  In any event, the Speedy Gonzales cartoons will eventually lose their leper status and be aired more routinely on TV…whereupon they'll be largely ignored.

This is because of one point which I don't think alters the current argument but I might as well make it.  It's that the vast majority of cartoons that featured Speedy Gonzales were pretty lousy.  The character is kind of cute and might still have some merchandising potential…but more than half his cartoons were done during the late period wherein DePatie-Freleng Studios was producing the cartoons for Warner Brothers.  The non-Speedy cartoons created under that arrangement are rarely shown and no one cares, no one clamors to see them, no one mounts protests demanding their exhibition.  The Speedy cartoons from that period are no better.  Of the earlier Speedy Gonzales cartoons, it's true that one won an Academy Award and three more garnered nominations…but by that point, so few theatrical cartoons were being made that, each year, WB could pretty much designate which of its films would get nominated.  At the time, they had great merchandising hopes for the mouse so WB applied its corporate muscle there.  (Also, Friz Freleng — who was directing Speedy's appearances — was the senior director and he wanted the films hyped for Oscars.)

But Speedy's films aren't particularly great and most people — including many who are protesting their unavailability — probably wouldn't watch them if they were routinely available.  That, of course, is not a reason to "ban" anything.  It is, however, an excellent reason to not run them…at least, not very often.

No, no April Fool's Day jokes here…but they're popping up across the Internet.  Drop by everyone's favorite search engine, www.google.com and click on the link that says, "The secret technology behind Google's amazing accuracy."  And check out today's headlines on www.broadway.com.

As usual, we recommend the new issue of The Jack Kirby Collector, and not just because we have a column inside.  Editor-Publisher John Morrow does his customary fine job of assembling articles and artwork about The Man, and the tabloid format enhances the latter so much that you won't mind (much) the hassle of storing the thing.  The cover is something of a gem.  In 1969, Jack was snookered into producing a ton of artwork for a Los Angeles-based company called Marvelmania International — a mail order firm that had licensed the right to manufacture Marvel merchandise in the guise of a fan club.  The fellow who operated Marvelmania was not the most honest guy in the world. I worked there a while and quit when the full magnitude of his duplicity became apparent.  Many of us were either never paid, or paid way less than we were owed.

Jack was promised hefty sums of cash to draw dozens of things, including eight posters of Marvel heroes that the guy at Marvelmania promised to market.  The eight drawings represented some of Jack's finest work, and he actually inked them himself, which was something he rarely did.

Only four of the eight were ever issued and, though poorly printed, they sold well…which, of course, did not mean that Jack received the promised hefty sums.  He got only a few bucks for the four that were released and nothing at all for the others.  The Captain America drawing that adorns the above cover was one of those that weren't printed as posters — and what a terrific, dynamic piece of work it is.  So are all the lost Kirby treasures you'll find in The Jack Kirby Collector, which you can find at your local funnybook shop or order direct from www.twomorrows.com.

It'll run you $9.95 and if that strikes you as high, just remember it's $9.95 more than Jack got for drawing the Captain America poster.  Einstein supposedly once said there was a compensating rule of talents.  That is, if you were very, very good at playing the violin, you'd turn out to be very, very bad at something else to balance.  Jack Kirby was very, very good at creating comic book art and very, very bad at getting paid for it.

The Wondercon is in Oakland, California from April 19 through 21.  Wanna know what panels I'm hosting?  Good.  Then this button won't go to waste…

As all connoisseurs of quality television are well aware, the new version of the game show Press Your Luck is called Whammy! and it debuts April 15 on the Game Show Network.  They've jazzed it up with bells and whistles and high-tech goodies, none of which should harm the strategy/chance elements of the program that I always found fun…but none of which should help, either.  You can see a short on-line preview of the new version by clicking over to this page.

Recommended: www.ifilm.com is a website that allows you to watch short films (or excerpts from them) on-line.  I've had occasional technical problems there but they have an abridged version of one film which you may find worth the hassle.  It's a brilliant short called "Truth in Advertising," and it's all about the ad business.  It was, in fact, made only to be shown at one advertising industry function but it was too good to not make it into the real world.  If you're feeling adventurous, here's a link that will take you to the ifilm page for it.  And, yes, that's Colin Mochrie among the players.

There was so much to discuss with this year's Academy Awards that I plumb forgot my eternal gripe: The oft-repeated claim that "a billion people" watch the Oscars.  This is nonsense, as I've mentioned here before many times. What reminded me was an e-mail from Peter Dunning, who writes from Kawasaki, Japan.  He says…

I am E-mailing you from Japan, where, for the past three years, the Academy has sold Academy Awards Show rights to a subscriber TV service called WOWOW.  Because only about 2.5 million of Japan's 130 odd million movie fans subscribe to WOWOW, and because it shows in the afternoon on a weekday, probably a very small percentage of Japanese watch the show.

There you are.  That's probably about as well as the Academy Awards do in any non-English-speaking country.  The Nielsen people say that, this year, 41.8 million Americans watched.  Where's the rest of that billion?  (The Grammy Awards are now claiming two billion viewers, or a little less than a third of the population of the Earth — an amazing assertion when you realize that, this year, less than 20 million watched in this country.)

The programming schedule for WonderCon is up at www.wondercon.com.  I'm hosting five events and I'll post a list of them here in a day or three.

The best of all the jokes about the Liza Minnelli wedding.  This was uttered by Lewis Black on The Daily Show…

Michael Jackson gave the bride away with Liz Taylor serving as Maid of Honor and Mia Farrow as one of the bride's maids.  Minnelli said she chose the wedding party when she was drunk one night and started throwing darts at the National Enquirer.

Can you tell the difference between a female and a she-male?  If you're driving on Sunset Boulevard, your life could depend on it.  You can test yourself over at this website.  (Beware!  It's one of those pages that plays really lousy music.)

My favorite non-musical play — and almost the first one I saw live in a theater — is/was The Odd Couple by Neil Simon.  Alas, I did not have the thrill, and I'm sure it was one, of seeing Walter Matthau and Art Carney in the leads.  The first time I saw The Odd Couple was at the Ivar Theater in Hollywood around 1967 and it starred Jesse White as Oscar and Roy Stuart (the skinny lieutenant on Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.) as Felix.  I laughed so hard that, the next day, I had to run out and purchase a copy of the play so I could read the lines I'd missed.

Since then, I've seen more than a dozen incarnations of The Odd Couple, not counting the wonderful movie and the highly-variable situation comedy.  The worst was probably a touring company starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman — bad, not because of them but because a feeble sound system rendered half the lines inaudible and hissy.  (This was before Mr. Klugman's vocal problems.  He sounds now like did on that stage.)  It wasn't so terrible for me since I knew every line by heart but at intermission, my date had to ask if we could leave…and we did, along with much of the audience.

Or maybe the worst was the "female" version with Rita Moreno as Olive and Sally Struthers as Florence.  This was a rewrite Mr. Simon did in '86 and not, I'm afraid, a successful one.  Among the problems was that the gender switch was not fully reflexive.  In the original, Felix began acting somewhat like Oscar's wife, cooking for him and complaining about how unappreciated he was when Oscar came home late for dinner.  In the distaff version, however, Florence did not become Olive's husband or vice-versa, and it was hard to see what all the screaming was about.  The best moments, as I recall, came from the wholly-new material and involved two male Hispanic flight attendants — Manolo and Jesus Costazuela — who displaced Gwen and Cecily Pigeon.

No, I thought, it didn't work.  The Odd Couple is just about the perfect comedy and it should remain just as Mr. Simon wrote it.  Maybe.

Much to my amazement and probably yours, Neil Simon has rewritten The Odd Couple.  A new, "updated" version will have a tryout at the Geffen Theater in Westwood, beginning June 19.  The plot, Simon says, is the same but 70% of the dialogue has been altered to make the jokes less dated.  I assume this means more than the removal of the automat line and the one about the Magic Chef.  Word is that the Pigeon Sisters are now the Costazuela Sisters.

This strikes me as such a terrible idea that it may be a good idea.  I mean that.  If someone you know who's very smart and rational suddenly said to you, "I'm going to rub cream cheese in my hair," you'd think, "Hmm…that guy's always been very smart and rational in the past.  He can't be as wrong as it seems.  He may not be right about this cream cheese thing but it's at least possible he knows something I don't."  Neil Simon has had some failures lately but his lifetime batting average is still way ahead of almost anyone else's.  He must know what he's doing, right?  Okay, I'm skeptical, too.

We'll find out in June and, yes, I'm going.  I dunno who's in it yet but I have to see what was wrong with the old version and how Simon thinks he's fixed it.  He's the most successful playwright of the last century and — who knows?  Maybe he'll wind up with an even better version of the funniest comedy ever written.  Either that or a head covered in cream cheese.

It was probably my bad phrasing — or maybe I can blame it on the root canal — but two of my saner friends wrote to say, in effect, "How can you say that The Apartment is not a love story?"  I said explicitly that it was but folks seemed to think I was arguing against that notion.

My point was that Mssrs. Wilder and Diamond chose to end their tale before Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine) had shown any real feelings for C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon).  Wilder always said that he liked to leave things to the audience to project, and I suppose that's what he was doing here…but he was also choosing what to leave to our imaginations and what to show us, and he often showed us the cynicism, the rotten motives, and left us to fill in the nice redemptions, if any, that might have occurred after "The End."  Fran is a character who has made a mess of her own life, falling for a man like Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray) who shows her whatever absolute minimum of affection is necessary to get her into bed for a quickie.  Only when his marriage goes kablooey does he decide he's going to marry her and even that, he manages to make feel like some sort of grudging accommodation.  Still, she's ready to marry the bastard.  What changes her?  Learning that Baxter really cares about her.  That's when it suddenly dawns on the lady that the sweet, puppy-faced guy who fawned over her and nursed her really loves her.

And, you know, I buy all that.  People do act that way, and I don't think it's inhumanly out of character for Fran to suddenly say to herself, "What the hell am I doing with this jerk Sheldrake when Baxter really cares about me?"  So she rushes to him and, apart from a false alarm when she momentarily fears he's offed himself, she shows him no passion, no warmth, no nothing.  She jokes about them getting married but doesn't act like she means it any more than when she was talking about being in love with ol' J.D. Sheldrake.  Maybe less.

Still, I like the way The Apartment ends.  I think that's one of the film's strengths.  I just think that, as he often did — though not always — Wilder chose a story where an upbeat romance would have gotten in the way.  These are not romantic people and for them to suddenly become healthy lovers would have been characterization whiplash. How they come together is valid and very, very human and I think much of what made Billy Wilder unique is that he didn't make a dive for the quick happy ending.  Was this because, in his skeptical way, he rarely saw them in life?  Or was it a crafty appraisal and respect for his audience's sensibilities?  Either way, it sure made for some great movies.

Chicago's HealthWorks Theatre is staging an unusual one-night only performance of one of my favorite musicals, 1776.  The twist?  Gender reveral.  John Adams, Ben Franklin and the rest of the Founding Fathers will be played by women, making them Founding Mothers.  I am not going.