Here's another post about the great character actress Margaret Dumont and whether or not it's true that, as Groucho often said, she never understood the jokes in their scenes together. Weighing in is my buddy Steve Stoliar, who knew Groucho well in the last years of that great comedian's life and worked for him…

Here's my take on the Dumont question: I think it's altogether possible that she was a skilled comic actress who didn't really understand the sophisticated wordplay in the Marx scripts. In other words, I don't see this as either/or. It's possible Groucho's getting a bum rap with everyone saying he was spreading false rumors about her lack of a sense of humor. The example he would often give is, "I said, 'Remember, we're fighting for this woman's honor, which is probably more than she ever did.' And she'd say, 'Julie — What does that mean?'" Understanding a line like that requires an understanding of puns and double-entendres and the serpentine workings of clever wisecracks. That's an entirely different comic mechanism than funny situations, funny physical bits, funny characters, funny expressions/reactions.

The idea that Groucho would intentionally malign Dumont seems dubious, because I always found him to be eminently fair in how he sized people up. Given the fact that Groucho appeared with Dumont in two Broadway plays — and their road tours, with all the traveling — plus half of their films, it doesn't seem possible that she could've "fooled" him into thinking she didn't understand his jokes. Groucho wasn't very foolable, even in a short amount of time, never mind all those years of live performances and films.

So isn't it possible that both tenets are valid? She had a lengthy comic career and had splendid timing, but verbal wordplay wasn't her strong suit?

Quite possible. And I have worked around experienced comedians who were somewhat lost as to what a joke was when they were working in a soundstage with no live audience present. And someone else wrote in to suggest that maybe Ms. Dumont did such a good job playing a stuffy dowager who doesn't know about the world outside her mansion that folks around her thought she was that character…and the legend grew to the point where even Groucho went along with the myth.

Thanks, Steve — and I note that someone has recently come across a kinescope (alas, in German) of Buster Keaton's 1951 TV show. Most episodes of that series are lost but this one that turned up has Lady Dumont in it, thereby expanding her list of great comedians she appeared with. It already included not only the Marx Brothers but also Laurel & Hardy, W.C. Fields, Abbott & Costello, Danny Kaye, Red Skelton, Jack Benny, Martin & Lewis and — if you want to count Wheeler and Woolsey — Wheeler and Woolsey. I tend to think you couldn't continue for so many years to appear worthy of sharing the screen with such folks if you didn't understand your own scenes.

Groucho Marx rarely mentioned his frequent co-star Margaret Dumont without claiming that she never got the jokes; that he'd hurl some ribald innuendo her way and then she'd come to him later and cluelessly ask, "Julius, what does that mean?" A number of folks like whoever posted as SisterCelluloid are questioning that view of her.

I think the piece overstates her importance to the act a bit when it says "This is a woman who was as responsible as anyone on earth for the success of his films" but she was very, very good with whatever they gave her to do, which often did not amount to a lot of screen time. Then again, she sure did work a lot for a couple of decades there and especially when she was on the stage with them, she had to have understood what the audience was laughing at.

As much as I admired Groucho Marx, he never seemed to be a good judge of women, especially with that last one he let into his life. I'm inclined to think Madame Dumont has been underestimated in the joke-understanding department.

I don't write here enough about Samantha Bee, who has emerged as one of the brightest, strongest voices among those who do political comedy in this country. Somewhere at Comedy Central, there's probably a custodial engineer who used to have a much better job there before he — it's probably a "he" — let Samantha slip away. Oh, what the Daily Show could still be if she was in the chair.

Her show Full Frontal is quite wonderful, especially when she's front and center in its segments. I TiVo it every week but somehow don't get around to watching each episode until weeks later. This is becoming the norm with me for shows I like. So I don't rave about them here because by then, they're old news…but I sure like things she says. Here's an article listing some of the smart/funny things she's said this year on her show and elsewhere.

Here's a Warner Brothers cartoon directed by Chuck Jones that you probably haven't seen. It's called "Drafty, Isn't It?" and it was made in 1957 for the U.S. Military. The voices were done by Daws Butler, who actually gets a screen credit. Daws was in a lot of WB cartoons and sometimes had the largest roles but only Mel Blanc's name got into the credits back then.

The lead character is Ralph Phillips, a daydreamer kid who turned up in five (I think) of Jones's cartoons — this one, one other for the military (for which his voice was done by Mel), and three "regular" WB cartoons where he was younger and voiced by Dick Beals. He never caught on and you won't particularly like this film but you might to watch a little of it because (a) it's a Warner Brothers cartoon from back when they were doing great ones and (b) the way things are going in this country, they may be reinstating the draft soon.

Busy with more deadlines…and when I get around to it, I'm going to write a long piece here about deadlines. It won't tell experienced writers anything they don't already know but I think a lot of beginners get very confused about when it's vital to meet a deadline and when you just have to come close. The work I'm doing today is about 85% vital.

---

An article someone should write — and it won't be me — is how those of us who were horrified by Mr. Trump's election can or should deal with folks we know who did support him and are now kinda mystified as to what they're getting for their vote. As I mentioned the other day here, every time I turn on MSNBC — admittedly, not that often — I see Trump supporters saying things like, "Uh, we thought he was going to 'drain the swamp' of the kind of people who've run Washington and he seems to be putting them in charge." Or someone is waking up to the idea that their health insurance or Medicare may now be in jeopardy.

Yelling at these people, "Didn't you listen to this man? Didn't you notice how often he lied?" isn't going to help anyone. Nor is hollering at the folks who are thrilled he's in office because, you know, unemployment was at seven million percent under the black guy and that's why Trump got the biggest landslide ever. But there may be a more constructive way to talk to these people than hurling insults…although come to think of it, people hurling insults are doing pretty well in America these days.

---

Sorry to hear of the passing of Alan Thicke. I never met the man. I have no anecdotes or observations. Just sorry when anyone dies before they get to be really, really old unless of course they prefer it that way.

---

If you live in the Los Angeles area, there is an Instaplay this weekend. And if you don't live in the Los Angeles area, there will still be an Instaplay this weekend and I'm hoping to be there for it. Instaplay, as I've explained here, is something done now and then by the best comedy improvisers I've ever seen. They take a suggestion of a title from the audience and then proceed to create an entire musical comedy — complete with songs that sometimes rhyme — right before your astonished, laughing eyes.

I wrote about them here and everything I said there still applies. It's Saturday evening, it's in Culver City, it's in a tiny and unfancy theater. It's cheap to attend and the entertainment value is very, very high. Come and bring along a title to suggest for the play, preferably of a holiday, non-political theme.

Today's the day when Stu Shostak does his annual Christmas Gift Webcast. He'll have on four guests, each to discuss something that you might give someone you either love or feel an obligation to remember this Christmas. Actress Kathy Garver, who I'm sure you remember from TV's Family Affair, will be there to talk about her new book, X Child Stars, about what's become of kids who, like her, once starred on TV and movies. Former CNN legal correspondent Mark Shaw will be discussing his new book about Dorothy Kilgallen, The Reporter Who Knew Too Much. Julia Benjamin, who appeared on the YV series Hazel, will be on to talk about her book, Susie…Ain't She a Doozie? My 'Hazel' Years and Beyond. And MAD magazine's own Dick DeBartolo, aka The Giz Wiz, will tell you all about new gizmos and gadgets — which ones you wanna get, which ones you wanna avoid.

Stu's Show can be heard live (almost) every Wednesday at the Stu's Show website and you can listen for free there and then. Webcasts start at 4 PM Pacific Time, 7 PM Eastern and other times in other climes. They run a minimum of two hours and sometimes go to three or beyond. Then shortly after a show concludes, it's available for downloading from the Archives on that site. Downloads are a paltry 99 cents each and you can get four for the price of three. You can save so much money, you can afford to send your favorite blogger a lovely Christmas present…or I'll settle for Hanukkah.

Despite a widespread belief in Hollywood that there's little market for movies based on Broadway musicals, a whole lot of them are at least in development, including remakes of West Side Story, Little Shop of Horrors, Gypsy, Guys & Dolls and Oliver! Here's a list of what's in the works. Keep in mind that all of these won't get made and it's not unlikely that most of them won't get made.

You probably know about this but the New York Times has published a long, detailed article on the computer hacking that was done by Russia to help elect Republicans…and not just Donald Trump. This is not something that can be denied any longer, though I'm sure Trump and most of his supporters will forever deny it as pure fiction. A lot of people don't care how you win as long as you win.

And I'm sure Trump will throw a lot of his tantrums as more and more people suggest that his "win" was not legitimate. Hell, the guy still insists that he won a huge landslide and, I guess, that all those records that show what past landslides really looked like are phony.

If you don't want to wade through the whole Times piece, Kevin Drum has a brief summary in two messages — this one and then this one.

I've been very busy and am only now getting around to reporting on what I did last Saturday night. Some friends and I went to see Lewis Black at the Orpheum Theater in downtown Los Angeles. He was very, very good.

This was, I think, the fifth time I've seen him perform live. The first was in a tiny theater and he was great. The second was in a way-too-big theater with bad sound and I'm not sure how good he was because I couldn't hear half of what he said — and we did not have bad seats. Since then, he seems to be working venues that are large but not too large.

As with most of the past times I've seen him, the show was opened by comedian John Bowman, who is very funny. When you're an opening act, a certain percentage of the audience tends to treat you like Muzak. They talk or check their cell phones and some are in no hurry to get to their seats before the headliner takes stage. Bowman was good enough that most people paid proper attention but when four people strolled noticeably to their second-row seats, he got a big laugh by saying to them, "Nice to have you here but you missed Lew. He went on first tonight!"

I liked John Bowman a lot. So apparently does Lewis Black. From our third-row seats, we could see him in the wings, watching the first half of Bowman's set from backstage. I thought that was nice. A lot of headliners don't treat their opening acts with a whole lot of respect.

The audience erupted when Black took stage. If you haven't seen him live, you haven't seen him. He's truly a great monologist and he always seems to have not only new material but timely material. About half of his act was about Donald Trump and his cabinet picks. As you might suspect, Black thinks Trump is an idiot and that the people who voted for him could not possibly have understood what they were getting. (If you haven't watched MSNBC lately, they seem to be finding a lot of Trump voters who are saying, "I never dreamed he'd really do most of those things he said.")

Black covered other topics, as well. He shares my dislike of Candy Corn and delivered an update on his previous rant against the stuff. He spent a lot of time talking about religion. His time on stage was not too short and not too long. It was just right.

You may be wondering how I got such good seats…third row center! And for face value. I'll let you in on the secret. Black has a fan club and you can join it at his website for $20 a year.

You get all sorts of perks and special offers but it's worth it just because you get early access to tickets for his concerts and you get great seats for face value. I paid $75 apiece (plus some handling fees) for the four seats a few months ago. Comparable tickets (or worse ones) were being scalped in the last few weeks for $150-$300 each. Go ahead. Tell me the fan club fee isn't a helluva bargain.

Among the other perks you get is access to the full online library of The Rant Is Due. I've explained about this before here but just in case you weren't paying attention…

Black closes each live show with a little webcast he calls The Rant Is Due. It's 20-30 minutes of him answering questions that have been e-mailed to him and on Saturday night — and this is a new addition — it also included an opening theme song by John Bowman and a few minutes of Bowman doing standup as well.

Everyone can watch these live at his website but that kinda means guessing when he's going to finish the main show. His Twitter feed may also tell you. It's easier to watch them several days later when they're posted to his site. The one I saw Saturday night has not yet been posted as I post this.

They only seem to ever have the five or six most recent ones available in the "free" part of the website. Anything older than that is in the section which can only be accessed by fan club members. There are well over a hundred there and some of them are very good…and those too are worth the $20 membership fee even if you never buy tickets.

However…well, I might as well post a small complaint here; not that Mr. Black or anyone close to him is likely to read this or heed my advice. I wish he wouldn't close the proceedings with these segments. The one he did Saturday night was fine but it was nowhere near as fine as what preceded it…so the evening didn't end on its highest note. If I were him, I'd do a half-hour, stop and do his webcast, then shut down the cameras and finish the show.

This is a very small gripe since everyone there, myself included, had a great time anyway. If he comes your way, join the club, score some good seats and go sit in them. He may be the smartest, funniest makes-you-think comic working today.

I was just reading this news report about the Bill Cosby trial in which he stands accusing of raping a lady named Andrea Constand. They're arguing over the prosecution's plan to bring in thirteen other women who claimed to have been molested by Cosby. The idea is to show a pattern of behavior. The defense opposes this and my eyebrows did a Groucho when I read this from the article…

"To come up with the required showing of a 'signature,' the commonwealth reaches for a cliché: a giant in the entertainment industry using his power to take advantage of young aspiring actresses. Even if proven, the age-old 'casting couch' is not unique to Mr. Cosby," defense lawyer Brian McMonagle wrote in an October defense brief opposing the testimony.

In other words: Even if he did his position of power to pressure women into having sex with him, that's not proof of anything since a lot of big stars and producers do that. What a wonderful defense.

And by the way, I don't think that's as common these days as some people think it is.

Fred Kaplan writes about Trump picking ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to serve as Secretary of State. It will not surprise you since it's Fred Kaplan and I'm linking to this article that Fred sees a genuine problem. It's the probability that Tillerson believes that what is best for the country will line up with what maximizes profits for the oil industry.

Apparently in the Trump White House, there will be no such thing as a Conflict of Interest. We seem to have elected General Bullmoose.

A few weeks ago when Florence Henderson died, I wrote here that she was very smart, utterly aware of her image and quite ready to screw with it and act "against type." She had a good sense of humor about herself and everything and was totally professional. I should have linked then to this video.

It's from the Broadway Backwards show for 2015. Broadway Backwards is another one of those shows staged by Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS to raise dollars for their most worthy cause. The premise of Broadway Backwards is that male performers sing songs usually performed by females and vice-versa…so here we have Ms. Henderson singing a tune sung by a buncha sailors in South Pacific.

She was getting up in years, her voice was not what it once was — but she still managed to delight the audience…

Fred Kaplan writes about the Russian hacking to influence our presidential election and what can be done about it. (SPOILER ALERT: Not much.)

Is there anyone who thinks that if the Democrats had benefited from illegal Russian efforts, Republicans would ever stop screaming about it? They'd have Hillary impeached and charged with treason before she got her hand on the Bible.

According to this morn's ratings reports, The Dick Van Dyke Show – Now in Living Color! did great in total viewers, attracting more of them than a Simpsons episode on Fox and the movie Frozen on ABC. NBC had on a football game so the ratings there are a little more complicated, what with different things airing in different time zones.

But Rob, Laura, Sally, Buddy and Mel did attract 7.41 million viewers, which is pretty good. (Frozen got 6.50 but then again, everyone who loves Frozen or might love Frozen has already seen it thirty times and owns the Blu-ray.)

However! In the coveted 18-49 demographic though the Van Dyke rainbow extravaganza did pretty poorly, finishing a distant last in its time slot. Is this a calamity? I don't think so. 18-49 is a big deal because most advertisers want their commercials to reach that age group but there are sponsors who want to reach older folks…or at least don't mind. That's why there are channels like MeTV and Cozi TV and Antenna TV.

CBS is probably delighted. They had to know the show was going to get demos like it did and they scheduled it anyway. We seem to be reaching a time when there are so many channels and alternatives splitting up the viewing audience that a lot of networks will be happy to have anyone watching…even ancient, near-death people over the age of 50.

Bill Cosby's assault trial is set for next June. Here, the New York Post cites Fox News citing a "source close to the disgraced comedian" that he "plans to ask his attorneys to seek a plea deal to avoid a trial."

So one news source I don't trust cites another news source I don't trust saying that someone whose identity is unknown says that Cosby's going to do something he apparently hasn't done yet. Are we a wee bit skeptical this is so? It might be true. It also might be a completely bogus story but it could be predicting something that will actually happen. I believe all psychics are phony but occasionally, their guessing matches what turns out to be reality.

I'm just kinda wondering why any "source close to the disgraced comedian" would leak something like that.

But it is worth discussing: Would those who think Bill Cosby is guilty of some or all of the accusations feel justice was served if he avoids jail time? Suppose he confessed, apologized, paid some huge amount of money to the victim and paid a huger amount to some appropriate charity. And suppose you were satisfied that he really was almost blind and/or in failing health at age 79.

Would it matter to you if he promised to retire from performing? If the victim in this case said she was satisfied?

Or might you think that for such a high-profile star to not get prison time for such heinous deeds would make a mockery of Justice and the premise than no man is above the law? Theoretically, his wealth and power should have no impact on the verdict but we all know it does, and that it works both for him and against him.

I really don't know how I feel about this. If he didn't do time behind bars, I wouldn't think he'd "gotten away with it." But I also might feel he'd gotten off easy because he's a once-beloved star who has done some good in the world…and he shouldn't.