I should've linked to this a few weeks ago but it's still good…

Jim Haberman is the guy who fingered Peter Cook as the interviewer in that great Woody Allen video. He's sent me a message he titled, "My closing arguments on the Woody Allen interview." Here it is…

Never expecting to stir up so many conflicting opinions on Woody Allen's interviewer's identity, I did what any borderline OCD comedy nut might do and scanned all 300+ comments on the piece over the last 4+ years on YouTube, then checked out each candidate mentioned as well as I could in every way online. About 2/3 of those offering an opinion there voted for Peter Cook, but the others split between Russell Harty, Derek Granger, two others each with a lone vote — and the man I'm now a bit embarrassed to admit probably was the actual culprit.

After poring over bios and carefully listening to the available audio on all the suspects, it's fairly evident that the 2nd-place vote-getter in those YouTube comments, Barry Took, was likely Woody Allen's interviewer there. Took had been a stand-up comic, sitcom writer, TV host (in Brit-speak, presenter) and finally, the TV exec apparently responsible for assembling the Monty Python group, reason alone for immortality right there. Videos of his Point of View BBC commentaries in the '80s a la Andy Rooney reveal a vocal style quite similar sounding to Cook's natural speaking voice but with softer undertones and a more rapid-fire tempo, both in evidence in the Allen interview. Like Cook, Barry Took was also quite active in London media in and just before 1971, including doing lots of interviews and hosting.

I'll also admit my first analysis was based mainly on the more subdued first half of the interview, and on closer inspection of the latter part, it was troubling to hear so much noisy giggling from the interviewer, not a Cook trademark at all. And since Barry Took had strong comedy roots, it's very plausible that he, like Cook, would have been capable of pulling off the kind of deadpan send-up done here. So although none of your respondents actually mentioned him, I now change my plea to 80% probability that it was Mr. Took asking the questions, and will beg for humble mercy from the court. And suddenly I'm very worried about the fate of "Geoff's sister" as well.

I still have no opinion on any of this but am glad to have encouraged one more round of pointless Internet argument about a trivial matter. Those of you who are irate about me pointing out what a rotten president George W. Bush was, please note how much space I devoted to this as opposed to that. Thank you.

Just saw this on Twitter…

And now I'm worried: What kind of chaos is going to occur during the NBC4 News at 11 tonight?

Paul Krugman reminds us what a terrible, terrible president George W. Bush was.

Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner did a live chat this afternoon as part of some sort of ComedyFest thing that Comedy Central is doing. Judd Apatow moderated and there were a few tech-type glitches in it, including the first few seconds getting lopped off.  But funny things were said so here's the video of it…

Ezra Klein on the subtext of some of Barack Obama's jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Yeah, I think there may have been more point to some of those lines than was immediately apparent.

It has become an odd "talking point" that the president should be doing more to deal with a Republican congress that assures its supporters that they won't deal with him except maybe to arrange his surrender terms. I keep being reminded of the 1985 Writers Guild strike. Our negotiating committee went in to present demands and proposals to the producers' representatives. The producers' representatives handed our negotiators a take-it-or-leave-it offer (a very bad one) and left the room. Their position was that there would be no negotiations nor would they even listen to our proposals. This is a strategy that sometimes has worked rather well for them but when it doesn't, we get long strikes because it takes a long time for them to budge from that position.

During the strike, I kept running into writers who felt we'd been months walking picket lines because our leaders didn't know how to bargain. I kept having conversations that went like this…

OTHER PERSON: They should get in there and negotiate.

ME: Negotiate? With whom?

OTHER PERSON: With the producers, with the other side. You get in there and you establish a dialogue.

ME: They're refusing to talk with us.

OTHER PERSON: Then you make them talk to us. You establish a dialogue. You get in there and bargain.

ME: How do you do this?

OTHER PERSON: I keep telling you. You establish a dialogue. You sit down with them and present ideas to them.

You wouldn't believe how often I had that conversation. Eventually, our Chief Negotiator had some back-channel conversations with their Chief Negotiator and when the strike had gone on for a while and the producers were looking for a way to budge without appearing to budge, something was worked out. But there was never that head-to-head bargaining where they accept something we offer and give us something for it. The producers felt that to just listen to us was to lose. Just as a lot of Republicans want to be able to go back to their constituents and brag that they didn't negotiate with Obama.

We eagerly await Mark Cohen's biography of Allan Sherman, Overweight Sensation. You can advance order a copy of it here.

As readers of this blog know, I was a huge fan of Sherman's during the short time that much of America was a huge fan of him…and I remained one after his career self-destructed. A lot of his work was "of the time" and does not endure today but an awful lot of it holds up well. Some of the lyrics are so clever that the songs are fun to listen to even if you don't get all the references…and there's something very endearing about his delivery. I've heard a lot of different people perform Allan Sherman songs and never liked any of them that much. Later today, by the way, I'll be posting a parody of an Allan Sherman song. That's right: A parody of a parody.

In the meantime, Josh Lampert has a review of the book which will tell you much about the too-brief roller-coaster ride that Allan Sherman called his life. I have a higher opinion of the art of the song parody than Lampert does but his view of Sherman's story is an interesting one. Thanks to Bruce Reznick for the pointer.

I just watched and enjoyed a nice "little" movie — and I don't use that term disparagingly. I'm impressed by films that put something on the screen besides money and special effects and where the hovering presence of CGI doesn't add an air of unreality to the entire proceedings. I'm also interested in the world of magic and all this made me a good candidate to enjoy Desperate Acts of Magic, a new "independent" film that was written, co-directed, co-produced and co-edited by a clever magician named Joe Tyler Gold. And oh, yes — he's also the star of the film which is clearly fictional but just as clearly derived from his years doing magic, not always in the glamorous venues.

I don't think a lot of people understand the hard, often impossible work that goes into (a) developing a solid magic act and (b) finding some way to "monetize" it, as they now say in every seminar about anything these days. And I don't mean the magician's out to make a ton of money off his art/craft. I mean he just wants to make enough to pay for the props and to keep doing the act. I once heard a top sleight-of-hand wizard say, "I consider myself a success as long as I don't have to go out and get a real job." And as he said that, he riffled a deck of card and all four aces flew out onto the table.

In the interest of Full Disclosure, I should mention that I know a few folks involved in this film. One of them sent me a video and asked if I could give it a plug here. I usually don't do things like that and I always cringe when a friend asks that because, you know, what if it sucks? But I started watching and got hooked. Mr. Gold (who I don't know) plays what I'm guessing is kind of a variation on himself, living a life that could have happened to a guy like himself. In truth, I know, he worked a lot of the dreadful, low-paying gigs that his character endures in this movie. Being a magician is such a difficult career that many of the top ones still respond with nervous facial tics if you say the phrase, "Birthday party for about two dozen children." So the film's about that kind of Baptism of Flash Paper and also about trying to build a relationship (like, with a woman) in that world. Valerie Dillman is quite charming as the lady who first encounters Joe when she lifts his wallet and later lifts his spirit and career, and there's a lot of other good acting in there.

I'm trying to sell this without overselling this so I'll just recommend you give it a look. That part may not be easy since it's just now rolling out with screenings in the next few week in Los Angeles and New York. I assume those will lead to wider distribution and video availability. Remember that name — Desperate Acts of Magic — and check it out when it comes to a theater or cable channel near you. Here's a link to the website where you can get the screening dates and other useful info, and here's the trailer…

Costco treats its employees well and limits CEO compensation to a few million per year. McDonald's doesn't treat its employees so well and pays its CEOs a lot. So…which is a better way to run a business these days? Guess.

A lot of folks are upset because Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was read his Miranda rights. Some of them appear to think that the man did not have those rights and that the reading somehow bestowed them upon him…but never mind those people. Let's deal with the ones who are simply outraged that the alleged Boston Marathon Co-Bomber was informed of the rights he already had. Why was this done? Well, according to Adam Serwer, it's because the law requires this.

David Frum points out a big problem Rand Paul is going to have if he seeks the presidency next time out. He's going to have to denounce a lot of his father's supporters and maybe even some of what the Old Man himself says.

Actually, I think it's way too early to be talking about presidential contenders now. I have a hunch that the Republican nominee, and maybe even the runners-up, aren't even on anyone's radar at the moment. Same with the Democratic nominee if Hillary doesn't run.

I have no opinion on this issue of Peter Cook maybe being the interviewer in the Woody Allen video but…

• Someone named "Mike" wrote me and stated with seeming certainty that it was Russell Harty.
• Someone named "Geoff" wrote to say they'd bet their sister's life it's Peter Cook. For the sake of Geoff's sister, I certainly hope it is.
• And Stephen Saunders writes to say his best guess is Brian Trueman, who took over the show from Michael Parkinson, or maybe Clive James. Then he notes that the imdb page for the show Cinema for September the 9th 1971 lists Woody Allen as a guest and says the "presenter" (i.e., host) was Derek Granger.

Who's right? I dunno. We report, you decide.

Watched Conan O'Brien's speech last night at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Some real sharp material read by a guy who sounds like he didn't read it in advance.

You know, I liked Conan from his first day hosting Late Night and I watched as he got better and better. At some point — around the time Andy Richter left and Conan decided he didn't need a sidekick — I began to sense a little too much polish. His routine last evening reminded me of why, late in his run on that 12:35 show, I shifted my TiVo Season Pass over to Craig Ferguson…and don't have one for Conan's current program. He's a very funny man at times and everyone who knows him tells me he's one of the nicest people in the business. Most of them also tell me though that I'd like him better when he's off-stage and not trying a bit too hard to come off as a slick professional comedian. I can believe that.

The guy they need these days at those dinners — though they won't hire him since he'd genuinely wound some of the attendees — is Bill Maher. Maher's kind of the opposite of O'Brien in that everyone thinks he's a much less appealing person off-camera…and my brief encounters with him would bear that out. But he does "own" his material in a way few current topical comics do. You sense that even if Maher didn't write that joke about Mitch McConnell, he knows who Mitch McConnell is and actually shares the point-of-view expressed in the joke. When Conan did his Mitch McConnell joke last night — eyes rarely straying from a typed script — I got the feeling that if you tried to engage him in conversation about it afterwards, it would have been, "Mitch Who? Oh, yeah…he's one of those Senate guys, right?" Maybe he wouldn't say that but that's how Conan comes off to me. So do the two late night Jimmies and a lot of other comics these days.

The late Lorenzo Music and I were once talking about one of his many gigs, The Mary Tyler Moore Show. He believed the presentation of Ted Baxter on that series had actually changed the standard for news readers in this country; that they'd successfully made a laughingstock of the anchorman who loves the sound of his own voice and the image of himself on the monitor…but doesn't really know or care what he's reading. Lorenzo believed that depiction had sent TV news producers scrambling to find anchors who seemed to have a more genuine connection with the copy they were reading off the TelePrompter. Like most of the comics we've seen at the Correspondents Dinner, O'Brien could have used a little more connection with the lines he was delivering. Some of them were very, very clever. And most of those performers at the dinner could have used (should have used) a TelePrompter. When you're insulting people in the audience, you ought to at least pretend to be looking at them.

In case you missed it, here's his entire speech…

Jim Haberman writes…

About two minutes into this piece, I starting thinking the interviewer just might be the great comedian Peter Cook, and by the eight-minute mark, I was convinced of it and firmly remain so. As an admitted Anglophile comedy junkie who's long put Cook's earlier work at the very top of the gods' pantheon and listened intently to pretty much every known recorded word of his, I'd be willing to wager not only the farm on this, but whole townships and counties in the bargain.

Aside from clearly recognizing the voice, my thoughts are these. Peter Cook had earlier in 1971 hosted a legendary flop, the brief, disastrous run of a live interview TV series on BBC2 somewhat saucily titled "Where Do I Sit?" which probably left him with the germ of some basic interviewing skills. Woody Allen is and was known to have been a longtime admirer of Cook, and it's quite conceivable that for this straightforward long-running Granada TV interview series "Cinema", they devised a prank that went something like this: Allen, America's latest red-hot young comedy director/star, agreed to appear on the series only if Cook was allowed to interview him. Their clever private conceit for the show of course was that Allen would speak only in falsehoods the entire time, and to make the resulting gag appearance seem genuine, Cook's involvement remained a secret.

This "Cinema" episode from Sept. 9 of that year may not even have aired, though since it's listed for that date in IMDB, one suspects it was shown, undoubtedly to much public bafflement. Further enforcing that this is likely Cook's handiwork are: a) it doesn't sound like Parkinson who did most of the show's interviews of that period, b) the program did allow occasional one-off celebrity interviewers, and especially c) there's the inescapable fact that this interviewer blandly, unquestioningly forges on in the face of such blatant lies from Allen that anyone with a brain and not in on the joke would have stormed off set in the first five minutes or less. Or begun cracking up, which Cook famously seldom did, unlike his frequent comedy partner, Dudley Moore, who famously quite often did. Topping it all off, this interviewer is a brilliant example of one of Cook's most celebrated signature characters: the fatuous, clueless, monotone upper-class twit.

Well, that's my plea, your honor. Apologies to you if this went on too long, as I've been known to do sometimes, or as many might say, always. Let me also take this moment to let you know how very much I've been enjoying your blog since I learned of it six months back or so. You certainly dig up and put out a lot of terrific, often seldom-seen gems (like this interview), for much of which I share great fondness, especially so many comedy greats — the Marxes, L & H, Benny, etc. (And to boot, I find your editorializing pretty spot-on nearly every time.) So please keep it up! And thanks for hearing me out on my favorite topic.

I have no opinion on this. Might be Cook, might not be Cook. The main thing that would lead me to the latter conclusion is that I would have thought the interviewer would have been funnier. But Jim may be right. Anyone out there know for certain?