Another Reason To Love Dave.

As all talk shows have degenerated from interesting talk to movie stars coming on to do their six or twelve minutes to plug their movie that is opening that week, it has presented problems for all concerned:
The viewer, who sits through these plug-a-thons.
The movie star, who has to become a traveling salesman.
Worse, the movie star who has to become a traveling salesman knowing that what he or she has to sell is shit.
And the host, who almost always has seen the movie, and has to act like he or she really likes it, no matter what he or she really thought of it.

None of this is as good as interesting talk for it's own sake..

Lately, David Letterman seems to be short-circuiting the process, at least somewhat.

Just this past week, on separate nights, he had on Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker, who were each flogging a movie they both star in, called "Did You Hear About The Morgans?"

It was established early on in each interview that Dave had indeed seen the movie in question.

With both of them, everything under the sun was discussed with Dave, except the quality of the movie.
If you've checked the subsequent reviews, there seems to be good reason for this.

It seemed to be established early on that Dave was not going to commit himself on this issue.
And both Hugh and Sarah Jessica seemed smart enough not to press the issue, and not even to do any kind of selling job for it, possibly sensing that Dave would swat them down like flies for doing so.
The movie itself was never commented upon, although a clip was shown both times.
But it went uncommented upon in both instances.

I find this very refreshing.
Maybe it's happened with Dave before, and I just didn't notice.
I've never noticed it with any other talk show host.
You would think that this would discourage movie studios from wanting their stars to be booked on Letterman.
Maybe at this point in his career and life, Dave just doesn't give a shit.
Hear, hear, if that's the case.

Also that week, Susan Sarandon was booked on Letterman to flog "The Lovely Bones".
Dave saw that one too.
And he started harping about how sad it was.
And he did not mean it in a good way.

Sarandon seemed a bit thrown for a loop.
She got very defensive.
"But isn't it well written? Well directed? (And fishing for any possible compliment) Well acted?"
asked Sarandon.
"Well, yeah......but it's so SAD!!!" replied Dave.

It's a very good thing in another way. It indicates that when Dave waxes ecstatic about a movie that his guest is plugging, he really means it.
That doesn't necessarily make it good, but at least you know that HE thinks it is.

I certainly hope this is a trend.
It could change the entire nature of the talk show as we now know it.

I'll be devoting much of this blog, at least in the next few weeks, to current movies that are now, or have recently been offered to the paying public.

I'll explain more about this tomorrow.


******

The Crying Game.

When my sister and I were kids, and we'd start "acting up", and it looked like we weren't going to stop, my father would inevitably say "Somebody's gonna end up crying".
And my sister would invariably say "And it's gonna be me".
And she'd usually be right.

This is an excerpt from an article I wrote here just about two months ago.

"I've usually been amused by the notion of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, with their audiences becoming more and more fragmented, causing them to become more and more shrill, if such a thing is possible.
Watching them become a daily embarrassment to the Republican Party has provided even more fun.
But as much as I've enjoyed the Carnival, I'm afraid that it's time for something to be done.
Something that in many peoples eyes might infringe on the First Amendment.
But there's nothing in the First Amendment about the right to be on TV or the radio.
Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly have seriously gotten into what can very reasonably be called "inciting violence".
Limbaugh, with his daily hatespeak about how he hope Obama fails: Limbaugh preaches to the people with the guns.
What better way for Obama to fail than by getting himself assassinated?
Does anyone really think that this is beyond the scope of Limbaugh's more passionate audience members?
O'Reilly providing information on how to find the surviving abortion doctors: I can't imagine why. Can you?
These actions themselves bespeak treason.
I don't know if it goes that far legally, but I know they're walking the tightrope.
So let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
It's not treason.
But it's definitely incitement to violence.
So we don't arrest them.
And yes, there's freedom of speech, which ends with the classical example of Shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one.
What Limbaugh and O'Reilly are doing, to me, goes over that line.
Therefore neither of them is owed a place on the public airwaves, no matter how popular they are.
There's such a thing as the FCC.
They issue the licenses.
The FCC, if it chose to, could revoke the licenses of any station that carried Limbaugh or O'Reilly on the basis that they are inciting violence.
The two of them could then concentrate their efforts on their websites.
This might cut down on their influence, because it would require their audiences to read.
And go try and build an audience on webcasts alone.
I, for one, do not want to see any more people get shot at Holocaust Museums, or any more abortion doctors get killed.
Limbaugh is offering up the propaganda that this was caused by the liberals, but if you don't think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly, however indirectly, had a hand in those events, I would like to offer up for sale to you my 51% interest in the Brooklyn Bridge.
It would be difficult, and certainly out-of -character for President Obama to commandeer any effort to influence the FCC.
But there are plenty of political types (Senator Schumer?) who can certainly carry this ball and run with it.
Limbaugh and O'Reilly have outlived their dubious entertainment value.
There's nothing "amusing" about them any more.
On any level.
They are no longer "entertainers".
They are rabble-rousers.
A responsible society must find a way to at least discourage the rabble from being roused."

Since I wrote this, just in the past week or so, Limbaugh is calling everyone he perceives to be liberal as "Nazis". And his "audience" is listening.
Swastikas are showing up on liberal congressman's front lawns.
People showed up at President Obama's Town Hall Meeting today with loaded guns.
Some legally, some illegally.
Chris Matthews interviewed one of them on his show today.
My question is "Why wasn't he being interviewed by the Secret Service?
From behind bars?"

Add Glenn Beck to this mix.
He's even more insidious because he just seems like a benign dumbbell.
The other night, he devoted a major portion of his show putting a Nancy Pelosi mask on one of his employees and ostensibly served her a glass of poisoned wine.
He was suggesting what a wonderful idea it is to do away with Nancy Pelosi.

Ya think maybe some member of his "audience" is saying to himself "Wouldn't a gun be easier?"

Ya think maybe if Glenn Beck and his like didn't have access to an audience on the airwaves, these thoughts wouldn't be prompted as easily?

Does anybody know anybody at the F.C.C.?
It's time.

If not, somebody's gonna end up crying.
And it's going to be us.


*****

The Day I Thanked God For Sarah Palin.

It was this past Friday. July 3rd.

I know I've mentioned this before, but, as a news junkie, I hate holidays.

All the 24 hour cable news networks considered July 3rd, July 4th.
Thus, a holiday.

Whenever it's a holiday, the cable news networks, whose job it is to provide NEWS, do not provide news.
Or talking heads.
I love the talking heads.
The only place you can find news on a holiday on national TV is on the half-hour network telecasts, with a substitute host.
Because nobody wants to work on holidays.
And you can't find the talking heads anywhere.

Maybe Fox News has news coverage, but I don't bother to check.

So CNN shows Larry King rerun marathons, and MSNBC has "Lockup".
Endlessly.
24 hours of documentaries about life in prison.
Why on earth does MSNBC think that their core audience would want to watch even a minute of interviews with tattoed guys in orange jumpsuits with shaved heads, behind bars?
Where's the common ground between them and Rachel Maddow?
I don't get it.

If I'm home, I just rely on Tivo to get me through.
But I was at a cookout at my relatives, so I was lost at sea.

Cable news networks are, in a way like drug dealers.
They know their viewers are addicts, and like drug dealers, they show them no mercy.
They make their clients go cold turkey.

So you pray that some, hell, ANY major story breaks on a holiday so MSNBC will stop showing prisons.

Friday, my prayers were answered.
There was Sarah Palin announcing her "retirement" from politics.
Who knows why?
Who cares if she means it or not?
She probably doesn't.
She probably has something up her sleeve.
But it didn't matter.
It qualified as a major story.

And there was David Schuster, being wrangled in from whatever cookout he was attending to cover this event, and pre-empt prison programming.

And it was on for over four hours.
And we even got some talking heads.
And they actually mentioned some other news.

Then, it was over.
And they went back to the tattooed bald guys in the orange jumpsuits behind bars.

And I got the sense of what Cinderella must have felt like at midnight.

I'm hoping something else happens today, because I don't think I can sit through much of Michael Jackson's funeral.

The jumpsuits might even be preferable.


*****

Courage? Candor?

I'm posting Thursday's post on Wednesday, because my thoughts are fresh, and the event just happened, and I want to express myself before 42 other blogs maybe say the same thing.

I watched it live.
Pretty compelling television.
Governor Mark Sanford pretty much spilling his guts all over the place.

Things I noted:

He was really well dressed for the occasion.
I'm guessing that this means that he ain't exactly giving up on his political career.

If you just got back from Argentina, a long flight, you'd probably be dressed a little more comfortably.
Unless you're still trying to maintain an image.

He got done dropping his bombshell, and everyone interviewed started talking about how courageous he was for being so forthcoming about it all.

I don't know. He never addressed who in his family knew exactly what.
Then it came out that they all knew everything for months.
So why the stupid lying about going hiking?

And he was praised for his candor, his honesty about it all.

Building up to the revelation, he started talking about the Bottom Line.

The Bottom Line is that the motherfucker got caught.

Where would the courage and the candor be if the motherfucker didn't get caught?

And why would you be so stupid as to abandon your job, a job that ain't so easy to abandon, and tell such an assinine lie to try to cover your tracks?
Perhaps because you're a shmuck and a putz?

I'm getting a little tired of politicians, of any political stripe, talking about how badly damaged their families are because of their infidelities.
They don't have to be. And his family apparently didn't abandon him.
If the sanctimony of marriage wasn't so relentlessly preached by the sanctimonious, infidelity would be a lot less bitter pill to swallow.

I know a lot of people who are thrilled that their parents got divorced, no matter why.

It requires a lot of ego to assume that one's family is going to be all that destroyed by one's infidelity.
But then, it requires a lot of ego to become a politician.

Folks, I've said it before.
I'll say it again.
It happens ALL THE TIME.
Let us all get over it.

At least he had the good taste not to shlep his wife up on stage to stand next to him, like Spitzer and McGreevey did.
Or maybe he didn't have the good taste, and his wife just told him to go fuck himself.

I don't quite understand why there isn't a law of diminishing returns here.

This stuff happens so often with politicians and other celebrities these days that it's more the norm than the exception.

Why is this still news?

Sanford spent much of his time apologizing to everyone whose path he ever crossed.

In retrospect, I think the only person who is owed an apology for all of this is the man who took more heat for this sort of thing unneccessarily, particularly from Sanford, and still holds the patent: Bill Clinton.

P.S.---I've since heard that Mrs. Sanford, when asked about her husbands whereabouts over the weekend, said "I don't know, and I don't care".
That should've been a clue.

It's a shame Sanford missed Father's Day. I hear the kids picked out a really nice tie for him.
Maybe that's the one he wore for the press conference.


*****

The Bum's Rush

Okay. So Letterman made another feeble apology.
And whattya know?
People are now gathered around his theatre with picket signs calling for him to be fired.

Over a joke that hurt no one.

So it didn't even work.

The irony here is that there are people on the air who have said far worse, and the effects of what they have said are so much worse, that a good case can be made that they should be removed from the airwaves.

I've usually been amused by the notion of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, with their audiences becoming more and more fragmented, causing them to become more and more shrill, if such a thing is possible.

Watching them become a daily embarrassment to the Republican Party has provided even more fun.

But as much as I've enjoyed the Carnival, I'm afraid that it's time for something to be done.

Something that in many peoples eyes might infringe on the First Amendment.

But there's nothing in the First Amendment about the right to be on TV or the radio.

Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly have seriously gotten into what can very reasonably be called "inciting violence".

Limbaugh, with his daily hatespeak about how he hope Obama fails:

Limbaugh preaches to the people with the guns.

What better way for Obama to fail than by getting himself assassinated?

Does anyone really think that this is beyond the scope of Limbaugh's more passionate audience members?

O'Reilly providing information on how to find the surviving abortion doctors:

I can't imagine why. Can you?

These actions themselves bespeak treason.

I don't know if it goes that far legally, but I know they're walking the tightrope.

So let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It's not treason.

But it's definitely incitement to violence.

So we don't arrest them.

And yes, there's freedom of speech, which ends with the classical example of Shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one.

What Limbaugh and O'Reilly are doing, to me, goes over that line.

Therefore neither of them is owed a place on the public airwaves, no matter how popular they are.

There's such a thing as the FCC.

They issue the licenses.

The FCC, if it chose to, could revoke the licenses of any station that carried Limbaugh or O'Reilly on the basis that they are inciting violence.

The two of them could then concentrate their efforts on their websites.

This might cut down on their influence, because it would require their audiences to read.

And go try and build an audience on webcasts alone.

I, for one, do not want to see any more people get shot at Holocaust Museums, or any more abortion doctors get killed.

Limbaugh is offering up the propaganda that this was caused by the liberals, but if you don't think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly, however indirectly, had a hand in those events, I would like to offer up for sale to you my 51% interest in the Brooklyn Bridge.

It would be difficult, and certainly out-of -character for President Obama to commandeer any effort to influence the FCC.

But there are plenty of political types (Senator Schumer?) who can certainly carry this ball and run with it.

Limbaugh and O'Reilly have outlived their dubious entertainment value.

There's nothing "amusing" about them any more.
On any level.

They are no longer "entertainers".

They are rabble-rousers.

A responsible society must find a way to at least discourage the rabble from being roused.



*****

The Jokester Vs. The Political Animal.

Usually I don't use this space to mouthe off politcally.

Not that I don't have strong political opinions. I do.

It's just that I don't feel that I usually have much to add to the public forum that hasn't already been said by Keith Olbermann.

But this dust-up between Sarah Palin and David Letterman has left me with thoughts that I've found unexpressed anywhere else that I have found.

I received this mass e-mail from one of my readers. I didn't ask for permission to reprint it, because it wasn't sent only to me personally.

Here are excerpts:

"I enjoy most of David Letterman's humor. Fact is, I generally prefer Letterman over Leno . . .
I think Letterman was way out of bounds on his "jokes" regarding Sarah Palin and her daughter(s). It was poor taste, unnecessary, not at all classy.

Leno would occasionally border on jokes that were a little too risque, but I don't think he'd have ever done something like this.

Leno was, and is a world class performer. Letterman was, and is. Except Letterman really messed up on this imbroglio. Perhaps he'll learn.

.......Letterman goofed and should have made a simple apology instead of turning it into a seven minute desk spot."

Here's how I responded:

"Palin brought all this on by herself by shlepping her knocked-up daughter up onstage at the Convention.
If it were a Democrat with a knocked-up daughter, the Republicans would never let him or her hear the end of it.
Letterman has already apologized several times. What more do we want from him?
Palin implying that he is some kind of child predator is typically way out of line.
But I think Letterman is thriving on the attention.
Very few people like Palin.
One of these people is intelligent, and the other is not."

I now realize that there is more to be said.

I have since watched all the Letterman episodes from the past week, which I had Tivo'd.

Much as I admire and respect Letterman, and think he is totally right in this situation, I think he's acted like a complete wuss.

He has compounded this by issuing an even more humble, serious apology on the show that aired on Monday night. All about how the perception of the joke can sometimes be more important than the joke.
Is this network pressure that we are witnessing?
God, I'd hate to think he'd succumb to something like that.

This seems way off base to me.

If you're accused of making a joke about someone's child being a victim of a child predator, which Letterman did NOT intend to do, not even knowing that the 14 year old was at the ballgame with Palin and Giuliani, and which he said he did NOT do, and which, as he said, anyone who knows him or his show knows he did NOT do, you must be HIGHLY INSULTED.
You don't suck up to that , forgive me, bimbo.

You MUST TAKE UMBRAGE.

Not like the phony umbrage that a political animal like Palin, who knows better, is taking.

Seven minutes of relatively light banter about it is letting her off way too easily.

He should have swatted her like the mosquito she is.

He should have put her in her place, which is somewhere under a rock.

He shouldn't be inviting her on his show so she can turn him down.

He should be issuing a public banning of her from his show.

That's what she deserves, and that's what will help his ratings more than anything else.

You just KNOW that this is how he really feels about it.

But to make yet another public apology?

He has been totally manipulated by someone vastly inferior to him.

I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Where are his cohones?

And why aren't they on display here?

Does he really think his audience is made up of Palin fans?

This one does not compute.

Letterman and Palin have totally different agendas.

Letterman's is to make highly edged sarcastic jokes about everyone in the public eye.

That's his job, and he does it really well.

If he had to apologize every time he offended anyone, he would be doing nothing BUT apologize.

Palin's is to keep herself in the public eye at all costs.

As a political animal, one knows that sincerity takes a back seat to everything.

She can't possibly be as offended as she's making out to be.

Letterman isn't and really can't be a political animal.
It doesn't seem to be part of his genetic makeup.

Bill Clinton and John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer had to do the political dance in public of how they disgraced their families by committing adultery.
You know they'd all like to have said "Yeah, I screwed around. Why is this your business?"

Letterman could have just as easily said "Yeah, I told an offensive joke at your expense, Governor, and your daughter will survive it. It comes with the territory. Get over it."

Cohones.

It has served both of them to keep this story alive.

But Letterman keeping it alive this way is causing me to lose some respect for him.

Dennis Miller (of all people) was once confronted by a member of someone's family.
That someone was treated quite tastelessly in a joke that Miller had told.
And the family member called him on it in a public situation.

Miller thought about it for a moment, and said "You know what? You shouldn't like me."

And that was the end of it.

This family member wasn't a political animal, so there was nothing left to be said.

And that's where it should sit here. Palin, if she was really offended, shouldn't like Letterman.

And that should be the end of it.

And Letterman, if he was really offended, which he should be, shouldn't like Palin, and should have blasted her on his show.

And that should have been the end of it.
If it wasn't, it would have fanned the flames, and be a really great story, instead of the nauseating one it has become.


*****

Fine And Danny

In yesterday's post, I referred to "Danny and Sylvia: The Danny Kaye Musical", which I saw last Wednesday in New York, thusly:

"Never have I had such thoroughly mixed feelings about any show I've ever seen.

It alternated between totally great and thoroughly awful, and kept shifting back and forth."

I'll now elaborate:

What was great about it----They found a guy who simply nailed Danny Kaye.
He channeled him. He captured all that was great about him.
It was as if you were seeing Danny Kaye in a great live performance.
Better, in fact.
Because it came without all of the negatives that have since been associated with Danny Kaye, the person.
From all accounts, Danny Kaye in real life was, as my friend Lenny Friefeld would describe him in his intentionally redundant way, as "a shmuck and a putz".
He would always go out of his way to snub autograph seekers.
He would go to nightclubs at dinner shows and sit with his back to the onstage performers.
In the show "Two By Two", he would intentionally wreak havoc on stage.
He would always be bragging about who he was flying around in his private plane.
He apparently treated his wife, Sylvia Fine, abusively, something not covered in the musical I saw.
But then who wanted to see that, anyway?
So watching him on clips on YouTube, or in his old movies, meant accepting his personal baggage along with him. I find this difficult to do.
It's not like Jerry Lewis, whose professional and personal persona is pretty much that of a shmuck and a putz. If you like his work, you know what you're getting going in.

But Danny Kaye's public persona was that of an erudite, charming, likeable humanitarian.
And this apparently was not him.
He was entirely a lie.

But seeing someone else in his skin, someone equally talented at being Danny Kaye, removed all that baggage, and made it really easy to watch him perform all those wonderful Sylvia Fine songs, and other material that he made famous. That's why much of this show was great.

What was godawful about it: They didn't use all those wonderful Sylvia Fine songs.
Odd, because that's what the show was ostensibly about---how her songs transformed Danny Kaye into a major star.
There were twenty-eight songs in this show.
You know how many of these they used were Sylvia Fine songs ?
Three.
You heard me. Three.
And what were the other twenty-five?
Pedestrian crappy songs, supposedly about their relationship.
One or two at least made the attempt to copy Sylvia Fine's witty style, and they sort of worked, but the rest were just pedestrian crappy songs that commented on scenes we'd just seen and didn't move the story along. I wanted to rise from my seat and say "Get on with it!!"

Has anyone ever heard of Lyn Duddy and Jerry Bresler?
Their main claim to fame, besides writing shows that never made it to Broadway, was to write the songs for "The Honeymooners" when they did a season of hour-long musical episodes.
They were the original purveyors of the Pedestrian Crappy Song.

In my early twenties, I once drove Totie Fields and her husband from New York to Philadelphia to appear on the Mike Douglas Show.
She was waxing ecstatically about having hired Lyn Duddy and Jerry Bresler to write special material for her.
I already had my attitude about them then, but didn't have the heart to tell her.

Then she started gushing about how they turn out a new musical every week for "The Honeymooners".
I did have the heart to tell her that the stuff currently on the Honeymooners was recycled from ten years previously, and simply reshot, this time in color.
She of course didn't believe me, but I still had the memory of my friend David Freitag singing those songs over and over ten years previously until I wanted to belt him in the mouth.
Those guys couldn't even turn out new pedestrian crappy songs for the occasion.
They were perfectly content recycling the old ones.

And the guys who wrote the new songs for the Danny Kaye musical were Duddy-Bresler clones.
And the ancient audience didn't notice or care.
They just wanted to see their Danny, in whatever form was offered.
It's a critic-proof show. Nothing was going to keep these people away.
And they had a wonderful time.
They just simply didn't know how good a show they could have seen.

In the dialogue, it was mentioned that Cole Porter was so impressed with Sylvia's songs that he interpolated two of them into one of his shows.
I would have loved to hear those songs.
But, of course, I didn't get to hear either one of them.
I got to hear more pedestrian crap.

The time frame for this show was the late thirties, when Danny and Sylvia first met, to 1948, when Sylvia tells Danny that he is about to become a father.
If they had extended it by a year, they could have bailed much of this show out by providing the perfect ending: Their daughter would have been born, and they could have both sung a song to the baby that Sylvia Fine wrote for "The Five Pennies" called "Lullaby in Ragtime", which has intricate two-part counterpoint melodies. In the movie, it was done by Danny Kaye and Louis Armstrong. There is, in fact, a third part, but there are only two actors on stage.
There wouldn't have been a dry eye in the house, including mine.

So they kept going back from great Danny Kaye performances without the baggage, to pedestrian crap. The latter, needlessly.

Do I really have to fix everybody's shows?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My book, "Show Runner" and it's sequel,"Show Runner Two", can be found at the Amazon Kindle Store, You can search by typing in my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, or Happy Days.
You might want to check them out.
You don't need a Kindle machine to download them.
Just get the free app from Kindle, and they can be downloaded to an IPhone, IPad, or Blackberry.
The paperback, "Mark Rothman's Essays" is still available for people without Kindle.
I have many readings and signings remaining, and the thing about Kindle is you can't sign one.
The website "On Screen & Beyond" has two hours of an interview I did on it's podcast in their archives.
Just Google On Screen & Beyond to find them if you're interested.

******

New York, The Tony's, and Other Shows.

I know going in that this one is going to require two posts to cover it.

First, the Tony's: I assume that I'm that I'm the only one watching who cares equally about seeing the Tony's and the NBA Finals, which were on opposite each other.

If my bookie took action on the Tony's, I'd ignore the NBA Finals completely.

The opening number at the Tony's was great. Better than anything that followed.

Particularly when that rocker got bunked in the head by the scenery.

Broadway is pretty expensive these days, but we got to see that for free.

My usual attitude about watching the Tonys is that it acts as a stimulus for me to want to go to New York to see a lot of shows.
But if you've read me with any kind of regularity, you know that I've spent a lot of time in New York this year, and already seen most of these shows.

What it did prove to me this year is that my shit detector is still pretty accurate.
There wasn't any show that they showed a clip of that I hadn't seen that I suddenly felt compelled to see on a future trip.
And the clips that I did see only confirmed that I was right to want to see what I've seen in the first place.
With the glaring exception of "God of Carnage", which had the bad taste to win for Best Play.
That one fooled me with the ads, and would have fooled me with the Tony clip.
It just slipped under my radar.

There were two others I would have voted for over that one: "33 Variations", and "Impressionism", although the latter wasn't even nominated.

It was nice that they gave a Lifetime Achievement Award to Jerry Herman, composer and lyricist of my favorite musical of all time, "La Cage Aux Folles".
It was the answer to the musical question "What took them so long?"

I haven't wanted to see "Billy Eliot", which won for Best Musical.
It just looks so artsy-fartsy.
My shit detector has sounded a five-alarmer.

That "Next To Normal", which I saw last week, didn't win is something someone is going to have to answer for.
It is electrifying, stunning, a tour-de-force, impressive musically and lyrically, and is a musical about mental illness.
So, major points for ambition.

I also had dinner between shows last Wednesday with a couple of my readers. Janet and Lee. They are two of the primary Initials Game players on the weekend game, and we had a great time.
We have all become friends.
You can never have too many of them.

If you live in the New York area, or the Detroit area, or the Los Angeles area, and would like to share food with me, just e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com and we can try to work it out.

The other show I saw last Wednesday was "Danny and Sylvia: The Danny Kaye Musical".

Never have I had such thoroughly mixed feelings about any show I've ever seen.

It alternated between totally great and thoroughly awful, and kept shifting back and forth.

Much more about this tomorrow.


*****

Hobnobbin' With The Cee-lebs

This is something I hadn't done for quite a while, but I just spent the last three weeks in L.A., and I did my share of it.

I was out there trying to do some money and actor-wrangling for my movie.

Tonight, NBC is starting up again with "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here", that Godawful "Reality" show.

Three weeks ago, I had lunch with Alana Stewart, who has been quite visible lately because she produced the documentary about Farrah Fawcett, and she was on TV constantly, talking it up.

Alana had appeared on the original "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here".
She had appeared in one of my plays ten years ago, and we had gotten along famously, mainly because she was quite wonderful in it, and a dream to direct.
She channeled, of all people, Vivian Vance. And boy, did it work.

(For those of you who remember my "post-a-clef", she was none of those people. She replaced one who was.)
If you knew anything about Alana Stewart, you'd know that she liked her creature comforts, and you'd have bet any amount of money that she'd be the first one to extricate herself from that "Reality" show. And after they had her stick her hand into a jar of live worms, you would have won that bet.
She'd much rather be in a movie. That's what I was counting on.

She also knows everyone in Hollywood. When she was in my play, the audience was a regular Red Carpet. She'll probably be in my movie, and probably deliver me a prominent leading man.

We ARE talking about getting a movie made, which is still one of nature's imponderables.
Until the cameras start rolling, and even after that, we're always talking about "if" rather than when.
Unless you're Spielberg.

A few days later, I had lunch with Mai Britt, whom you might recall as the star of such movies as "The Young Lions", "Murder Inc.", and "The Blue Angel" (The one without Dietrich).

She's probably best known as having been Mrs. Sammy Davis Jr.

I became friends with Mai (pronounced "My". If you call her "May" once too often, she'd probably break your arm.) in the early 90's, when we were both living in Tahoe.

She is truly one of the great humans. A loyal, caring friend. How many of those can anyone find?
Great sense of humor.
Sharp as a tack.
Takes great pride in stealing the cover of Life Magazine away from Inger Stevens in 1957.

Two incidents worth noting: When we were in Tahoe, a childhood friend, of mine, Elliot Zisser, was coming up to visit with his family.
When we were kids, to make fun of him, we all called him "Cowboy Zisser", because, of course, it was so appropriate. It stuck for many years.

I invited Mai to join me and the Zissers for dinner at Caesars Tahoe's Italian restaurant.
I said to her beforehand, "Mai, if when I say 'This is Elliot Zisser', you say 'Cowboy Zisser?', you can name your own price."
Her price was dinner.
Still one of the highlights of my life.

The other incident was when she invited me to conduct the Passover Seder at her house for her and her 20 year old son Jeff.
Mai had converted to Judaism for Sammy, but never really had much of an opportunity to put it into practice.
Now you've got to understand. I am not exactly a paragon of religion.
I'm as Jewish as they come, but both of my wives were not Jewish, and as far as shul goes, I am at best a Once a Year Man.
So conducting a Seder was one particular dance that I'd never been invited to.

She got out Sammy's solid gold Passover dishes (what else?), and I conducted the Seder.
One of the highlights of my life.
She provided two highlights.

It had been fifteen years since we last saw each other.
But when we sat down for lunch three weeks ago, it was like we had never been out of touch (which we had). And we picked up right where we left off.
Just great.

This past Saturday, I was back in Michigan, and a friend of mine invited me to see Paula Prentiss appear in a local production of "The Glass Menagerie".
She looked great, and was great.
And I got to meet and chat with her husband, Richard Benjamin, who has been one of my heroes.

As I rattled off everything I knew about his career, which was everything, he seemed quite pleased, and was quite gracious.
I wish I had more to write about him, but the meeting was brief, and we had no prior history.
I hope I am fortunate enough to develop some with him.

I'm in Connecticut this week, planning to make a Wednesday jaunt into Manhattan to catch a couple of shows and meet up with several of my readers for dinner.

And Conan started up last night. I'll probably have something to say about that.

This is about as chatty a post as I've ever put up.
I promise you, I'll sharpen my knives again real soon.


*****

Why I Love Telemarketers.

I spend a lot of time at home. It's where I write.

I've mentioned that I'm in the process of putting together a movie.

So I spend a lot of time at home, on the phone, and, particularly, waiting for the phone to ring.

A lot of times, while waiting for the phone to ring, it rings.

Only, instead of it being the person I'd hoped to hear from, it's a telemarketer.

Telemarketing should be against the law. You should not be allowed to call up a stranger in order to sell them something.
There is no legitimate excuse for this profession existing.

Moreover, when you answer the phone and say "hello", you should never be subjected to waiting more than half-a-second for a response.
You often are subjected to at least twenty seconds before you hear from the other end in a typical telemarketing call.

As a result, I love telemarketers.
You may ask "Why?" at this point.

In my case, it's because I turn them into human punching-bags.

The display on my phone is a pretty good indication that a telemarketer is calling.
So I'm always prepared to go into telemarketer-abuse mode.

Many of us have a lot of stress, and no outlet for it.
Verbally beating up on another human being who deserves it is a great stress reliever.

The louder, the angrier, the more abusive you can get towards them, the better you feel afterwards.

And they are trained to be polite, at all costs. They don't fight back.
They are designed to be punching bags.

Sometimes, sarcasm is more effective, and equally rewarding.

I seem to have gotten on telemarketing lists for people trying to sell sports-betting picks.
I can't imagine how they found me.

The typical call goes this way:

Me: Hello?

Them: Hi. I've got three sure winners for this weekend's games, and we're practically giving them away!

Me: Really? That's pretty good.

Them: Are you interested?

Me: I might be....

Them: We've been hitting over eighty percent on our picks this year. You won't find anything better than that.

Me: Eighty percent? That's pretty impressive.

Them: So are you interested?

Me: Let me ask you something. Do you bet on your picks?

Them: Sure.

Me: A lot of money?

Them: Yup.

Me: You must be making it hand over fist.

Them: I'm doing really well.

Me: Well, if that's the case, why are you wasting your time sitting in some boiler-room someplace, trying to sell me your picks?

Then they hang up.

See? There is fun to be had with telemarketers, even though they are the scum of the earth.

You get to verbally beat them up, and you get to belittle them.
What's better than that?

If any of you reading this are telemarketers, I'm sorry if I offended you.

No, I'm not.

Door-to-door salesman is another occupation that should be abolished legally.

I don't love door-to-door salesmen.
If you open the door, and they go into their pitch, you can verbally abuse or belittle them,
but they might hit you.

So it's not worth it.
A whole different matter entirely.


*****

Return To The Nude Beach

No, I haven't gone back to the Nude Beach.
I'm just returning to the subject matter.
And really just one aspect of it.
I've learned something rather interesting, and, to me, highly amusing about this blog.

I have a rather sophisticated stat counter for it, which tells me many things about the readers of this here blog.
It tells me how many hits I receive a day, where in the wide world they come from, where, if anywhere they were referred from, how long they stay on line, which articles they entered and exited on, which articles they were seeking out if they did a search, all sorts of stuff.

Here's the fact worth mentioning:
The most popular article that I've posted thus far is one of the first I wrote.
The one about my experiences at the Nude Beach at Lake Tahoe.

It has received more visits than any other article by far.
This in itself is not fascinating.

What is fascinating is that every visit I've received to that article since it was published in January was as a result of a Google search for "Nude Beach".

Okay. That's still not fascinating.
What's fascinating is that:
EVERY SEARCH AND VISIT TO THAT ARTICLE HAS COME FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
Usually from the Far East. Cambodia, Korea, China, Burma, Japan.
Often from Germany. Sometimes from Scandinavia.
AT LEAST ONCE A DAY. EVERY DAY.
I don't know why. Are they nude beach-starved around the world?

Most of my other articles are only rarely specifically sought out. But when they are, it's usually by Americans.

The foreign Nude Beach visitors usually don't stay long on the website.
From what I can determine, probably not even long enough to stay for the punchline.
And they only rarely return.

I have this image of all these foreigners clicking on this article and being invariably disappointed that there are no pictures.
Don't anybody get excited. I'm not putting any up.

But in order that our fellow members of the United Nations at least have the opportunity to read the original article, I'm going to print it again here.
If I don't, they might just be routed to this article.

And without the story attached to it, it's certainly not worth it.
If you haven't read it, I'd suggest that you do, as it contains probably the funniest punchline of any article I've put up.
Just don't expect any pictures.

Beginning today, a new daily feature of this blog will be the listing of yesterday's Nude Beach article hits, and where they're from:

Yesterday's sightings:


Riyadh, Ar Riyad, Saudi Arabia (Ettihad Etisalat)
Seoul, Seoul-t'ukpyolsi, Republic of Korea, (Hanvit Broadcasting Co.,ltd.)

I can assure you. the hits will keep on coming.

And all you Americans, don't start doing Google Nude Beach searches to reach this site just to prove me wrong. It would only make me think less of you.


The Nude Beach

I consider myself to be an expert on Nude Beach Behavior.
I spent the better part of the '90's living at Lake Tahoe, spending the better part of ten years at it's nude beach.
It's actually a clothing optional beach, which can present some problems.
There is usually some unspoken resentment by the nudists towards the people who wear at least a bathing suit.
Being the conformist that I am, I usually went with the daily majority.
If there were more naked people than not, my pants would come off.
If they were outnumbered, I'd keep them on.
Through experience, I have learned that there are two reasons, or a combination of two reasons, why people go to the nude beach.
It has nothing to do with not wanting a tan line, or to be totally at one with nature.

It's to see or be seen by members of the sex that interested them, naked.
In my case, it has been to see as many women in that state, starting out dressed, and ending up undressed.

I have found nudists to be a generally wierd lot.
Many are very uptight at being stared at, which begs the question:
"Then why are you dropping your drawers in public?".

The question "What are you lookin at?" is one I've heard far more often than you might think.

It's really not sexual.
I've never experienced an erection there, nor have I ever seen any male experience one.
Perhaps it's the elephant in the room (or the lake), but it has never been an issue.
I once witnessed a young couple having an enormous heated verbal exchange, ending in them not talking to each other.
Naked.
I found this dynamic hilarious.

I once saw The Amazing Kreskin, the "mentalist", at the nude beach.
I didn't know him, but that didn't stop me from going up to him and saying "Hello Kreskin".
He, in full Kreskin voice, refused to admit that he was, indeed, Kreskin.
Indeed he was.
But, for the record, he wasn't all that Amazing, if you get my drift.

I've written an entire screenplay, and an entire play at the nude beach.
It's a very good test for you as a writer.
If you can concentrate on the page, with all the pulchritude around you, you must really be on a roll, and really be on to something.

Being somewhat averse to sand, I would usually pump up a life raft, take it out on the water, armed with my yellow legal pad and a pen, and write.

One day, I was out on my raft, writing away, and I noticed a young couple in ther 20's descending the huge incline leading to the floor of the nude beach.
The girl was absolutely gorgeous.
They planted themselves directly in front of where I had left my bag of stuff.
They began disrobing.
The girl had a phenomenal body.
She sat down, completely naked, and removed from her beach bag an enormous black bonnet, with a huge brim, and bows enabling her to tie the bonnet around her neck.
She put it on her head, and tied the bow.

From the neck up, she looked like Renoir portrait.
In a master shot, she looked ridiculous.

So I'm sitting out there on the raft, and I'm thinking " I've got the line.
All I need is the opportunity to use it".

At around 3pm, the Lake started getting choppy.
This was a common occurence around this time of day.
This made it impossible to keep writing.
So I paddle my way to shore, and plant myself directly behind the girl with the bonnet.

And I'm waiting for the opportunity. And I'm waiting. And I'm waiting.
Finally, she starts to untie the bow and remove the bonnet.
The opportunity was at hand.
I said, out loud, "Don't take off the hat! It makes the whole outfit!"

The fifteen or so people within earshot laughed hysterically.

Never will I be better set up for a one-liner.


*****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(From April 2014)  Not too long ago, I was made aware of a website called Kickstarter.com
I'm sure many of you have heard of it.
I figure that this is the last chance for me to get a movie that I wrote made.
Being a sequel to "Network", it's called, appropriately enough, "Another Network".
I'm trying to raise $225,000 to get it made well.
I implore you, I beseech you, to at least go to Kickstarter.com, type in "Another Network" where it says Search Projects, click on it, watch the fifteen minute video of me being interviewed about it (rather entertainingly, I think), read the details provided, and if you feel at all generous towards me, make a pledge to help me get this movie made.
If I don't reach my goal, it won't cost you a thing.
If I do, your pledge will be activated.
And think about how happy you'll be.
At least for me.
And how happy this relatively old man will be if you come through.
And I promise you that I will make it my business that this movie gets seen.
And that you will be proud to be a part of it.

Also,, my books ,"Show Runner" and it's sequel,"Show Runner Two", can be found at the Amazon Kindle Store.
Along with the newer ones, "The Man Is Dead", and "Report Cards".
You can search by typing in my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne and Shirley, The Odd Couple, or Happy Days.
Check them out.
You don't need a Kindle machine to download them.
Just get the free app from Kindle, and they can be downloaded to an IPhone, IPad, or Blackberry.
The paperback, "Mark Rothman's Essays" is still available for people without Kindle.
I have many readings and signings remaining, and the thing about Kindle is you can't sign one.
If you'd like one, contact me at macchus999@aol.com.
And now, we've got my reading of my "Laverne & Shirley Movie" screenplay on YouTube.

******

Broadway. It Ain't All Disney.

I'm in New York for most of this week.

My wife and I took in a matinee on Sunday. The new play with Jane Fonda, "33 Variations".

What I didn't realize was that we were seeing the last preview performance, as it opened last night. You are right in assuming that I'm not particularly interested in what critics have to say.As I've mentioned before, I have my own built-in shit detector.

As I am writing this, the play hasn't had it's opening night yet, and the reviews aren't in yet.
I know that the reputation of the New York critics is that they'll take a crap on anything and everything.
If that's what they do here, do yourselves and the theatre a favor in general, and ignore them completely.
This is a brilliant play. The kind of brilliance that I could never begin to approach.
And I think I write pretty good plays.
The kind of brilliance that hasn't been seen certainly on Broadway in quite a while.

She plays a dying musicologist, who is trying to solve a mystery about Beethoven.
We sat first row, center.
I was able to truly scrutinize Fonda throughout.

To use the word "exceptional" would be an insult.
Magnetic, riveting, compelling. Now we're getting warmer.

She shares, with her father, the wonderful acting trait of restraint.
She rarely wears her emotions on her sleeve, nor did the old man.

But when he did, as in the "Ensign Pulver describing the firecracker he's gonna throw under the old man's bunk" scene in "Mister Roberts", Fonda's giddiness is so much better because it was a momentary lack of restraint.

Sometimes restraint can be overdoing it, or should I say underdoing it.
I'm now going to do the cheekiest thing I've ever done.
I'm going to give Henry Fonda an acting note from a movie he made 68 years ago, like it matters to anyone but me.

The movie was "The Lady Eve", one of Preston Sturges' handful of classics he made in his prime.

It's a wonderful comedy.
Barbara Stanwyck plays a cardsharp whom Fonda, heir to a brewery fortune, snake fancier (He just spent two years in the Amazon), and basically a yokel, meets on an ocean liner.
She is on the prowl. She successfully draws him in.
On some pretense she creates, they go to her cabin.
She calls him "Hopsie". He hovers over her, obviously smitten.

The dialogue is something like this:

"Stanwyck: What's the matter, Hopsie? You seem a bit out of sorts.

Fonda: Oh, nothing. I guess it's your perfume.

Stanwyck: Don't you like it?

Fonda: Oh. Sure I do. It's just that I've been up the Amazon for the last two years, and they don't wear perfume."

He delivers that line deadpan, with restraint, and it basically passes in the night.

But what if he delivers it this way?: "Oh. Sure I do. It's just that I've been up the Amazon for the last two years and......(the thought registering on his face of just how badly those natives smell)......they don't wear perfume."

I guess it's too late to fix it.

The parallels between the relationship between Jane Fonda and her daughter in this play and the dynamic beteen the two Fondas in "On Golden Pond" are eerily close.
In each case, the elder knows he or she is breaking down and dying, and the younger is attempting to resolve earlier conflicts.
Putting Jane Fonda in this part adds a nice spooky element.

In "33 Variations", Jane Fonda chooses her unrestrained moments like a master chef going to the market to select his vegetables. It's something to see.

I plan to see several other shows while I'm here, and I'm delighted to see what a broad menu there suddenly is for dramatic plays on Broadway. It used to be there really weren't hardly any.

It's not just "The Lion King", and "Beauty and the Beast", and "Shrek".
There's a place for them, too. I'm in favor of anything that gives kids a reason to see live theater.

Now, we've got "33 Variations". Maybe that will even lead us to more variations.

Maybe not everything is going to hell this year.


*****

The Names Have Been Changed To Protect The Innocent.

"The Story You Are About To See Is True.
The Names Have Been Changed To Protect The Innocent"

These were the opening words of every episode of the series "Dragnet".
My ex-wife used to love to watch "Dragnet" when she was a little girl.
But it was on past her bedtime.
Going into the last commercial, the announcer would always say "The results of this case in just a moment".

My ex-wife's parents watched "Dragnet", and unbeknownst to them, their little daughter would be sitting on the staircase landing, watching along with them.
Once, during the last commercial, she was spotted on the landing and immediately ordered to be off to bed.
And she cried out "Can't I just see the zults? I just wanna stay up to see the zults!!"

After she told me this story, the word "results" was never used in our house.
It forever became "zults"

Do you know what a "Roman-a-clef" is?

Here's the definition, according to Wikipedia:

A roman à clef or roman à clé (French for "novel with a key") is a novel describing real life, behind a façade of fiction. The 'key' is usually a famous figure or, in some cases, the author.

Well, this is going to be a Post-a-clef.

Ordinarily, I hate using this form.
I've been totally candid about everything so far, but in this case we must protect the innocent. And one of the characters is SO innocent that I don't want to hurt him.
And one of the characters is so guilty that I don't want to get sued.

Years ago, I wrote, produced, and directed one of my plays, a romantic comedy,
in Los Angeles in one of those 100 seat Equity Waiver Theaters that dot the L.A. landscape.

Equity Waiver means you don't have to pay the actors.

There's something you should know about theater in L.A:
Nobody goes to see it.

I mean, theyll go to the Dorothy Chandler, or the Mark Taper Forum, or the Ahmanson downtown.
But they don't go to the Equity Waiver Theaters in any kind of serious numbers.

So why are productions done there?
Two reasons.
Either to serve as gymnasiums for actors, places for them to work out.
Or to serve as Showcases for actors, directors, or writers with Agendas.

I put my play in one of those theaters because of my Agenda.
I wanted to show Show Business that I wasn't just a sit-com guy, but a real playwright and theater director.
(And maybe they'd also see this play as a Back-door Pilot.)
Heavy Agenda.

Very important TV stars are sometimes willing to work in Equity Waiver Theater, for free, because they have Agendas.
One such important TV star, a veteran leading actress of several TV series and too many TV-Movies to count, clamored to be the female lead in my play.
For free.
Because she had an Agenda.
She wanted to prove to the industry that she was adept at comedy.
Comedy was something she was rarely considered for.
She was willing to read for me.
She had the tools for comedy.
And her name value would certainly fill some seats.
So I wanted her.
Let's call her "Millie".
But Millie's agent was very protective of Millie.
Let's call him "Asshole".
That's what most agents are called anyway.
Asshole wanted to make sure that the leading man would be someone of her stature, and would make her look good.
This was a tall order to fill, trying to find someone like that who'd work for free.
But we all started to compile lists of potential leading men who would fill the bill.
We would contact the actors Millie deemed acceptable.
We had a few solid nibbles, but couldn't nail anyone down.

The closest I came was a major comedian who got big around the same time as Robert Klein and George Carlin, was more mainstream, had had a short-lived sitcom, and was just itching to have another go at it.
Let's call him "Dick", although he certainly wasn't one.

Dick's big plaint was how he opened the doors for guys like Seinfeld who had these huge hit sitcoms, but he has no respect as an actor, and couldn't get another series.
I'd seen him complain about this on TV.
Meanwhile, he was making money hand-over-fist in Vegas, and nightclubs, and concerts.
So he saw my play, which he loved, as an opportunity to get that respect.
He read for me and was really good.
But he was wavering.
It would mean giving up a lot of money.

I told him a story I had heard, about Mel Torme.
Mel Torme was offered the opportunity to play Mickey Rooney's brother on what turned out to be an Emmy award winning episode of "Playhouse 90", written by Rod Serling in the late 50's.
Mel Torme was torn.
He moaned to his friend Edmond O'Brien, who was already cast in another part in this episode, about how he was only being offered $500 to do the show, and how it would mean turning down the $5000 a week for three weeks he would have earned in nightclubs.
O'Brien said to him, "Melvin, you should be paying them."

Torme played Mickey Rooney's brother, and was great.

I told Dick the same thing.
He understood.
I almost had him.
But in the end, he couldn't turn down the money.

Next case.
I considered Casting my forte, and my gut usually proved right.
Starting to scramble, a name entered my head that I thought would be really good.
The star of a MAJOR action series in the 60's, who I had seen be VERY funny.
Let's call him "Manny".
Manny wasn't all that visible lately, and I had a feeling doing this play with Millie might do him some good, get him great exposure and that he'd do it for free.
Manny didn't even make it to Millie's ears.
I mentioned Manny to Asshole, who said "Him? Are you crazy?! He's not funny! And he's got to be a hundred years old! You're not going to put him on the same stage with my Millie!!
That's how he thought, and that's how he talked.
He was wrong, but I wasn't going to press the matter.

I later learned that Asshole not only represented Millie.
He also represented Manny.

How would you like to be Manny, having Asshole as your agent?
Or at least this particular Asshole.

So we pressed on.
The longer it took, the less qualifications were insisted on.
Stature became less important than making Millie look good.

So I thought of really good actors I'd worked with, and mentioned someone primarily known as a comedian, very well-known in the 60's and 70's.
This was the 90's.
Millie and Asshole deemed him acceptable.
Let's call him "Jackie" (What else is new?).

In the interim, I was coaching Millie on how to be better in the part, even though the play wasn't completely cast yet.

After a couple of sessions, I get a call from Asshole:
"Millie really thinks a lot of you. She's reading for a sitcom pilot next week. Would you be willing to give up your Sunday and go to Millie's house to coach her for her audition? I'd really owe you for this".

I agreed.

Like I said, Millie had the tools, and was very malleable. She completely trusted me.

It was good material, which made it easier.
I made many suggestions, which she immediately adapted to easily.
By the time we were done, I thought she was quite good.

For whatever reason, she wasn't cast.
But I felt redeemed when the pilot, which didn't sell, was aired the following summer.
The actress who was cast, let's call her "Swoosie", played it exactly as I had instructed Millie to play it. And was quite good.

Okay. So I call Jackie's agent, and explained the situation.
He requested a script.
I shortly hear from Jackie.
He loves it and wants to do it.
Raving and raving about the script.
And he's thrilled that Millie wants to work with him.
Jackie is in.

I meet Jackie for lunch.
He has bandages on his face.
He's just had a facelift.
He tells me he had it done live on the Internet.
So he could get it done for free.

A week later, we hold the first cast reading at Millie's house.
Jackie is terrific.
Millie seems to be keeping her distance.
I sense Trouble In River City.

Everyone leaves.
I ask Millie if anything is wrong.
"No, everything's fine".
I less than believe her.
I leave, with the citizens of River City yelling "Trouble! Trouble! Trouble!" in my car.

Next day, I get a call from Asshole.
"Millie can't do the play. She's really sorry". I thought this was probably not a good time to mention to Asshole that he owes me.

Turns out, between the time she accepted Jackie until the first cast reading, she found out about Jackie's free Internet facelift.
She couldn't get past the words "Tacky" and "Cheesy".
I really couldn't blame her.

So I had Jackie and no Millie.
And now Jackie is threatening to pull out if don't get someone of equal stature to Millie.

I tried.
But there were several actresses of that stature who also thought Jackie represented "Tacky" and Cheesy".
Jackie was sensational in the part and I really didn't want to lose him.
And I thought he might still be a bit of a draw.

The best I could do was a really terrific actress and comedienne who I knew, very well-known for her only TV series, a big hit show, now considered legendary.
But I think it typecast her.
She thinks so too.
People had trouble thinking of her as anybody else.
This happens some times.
As Garry Marshall was often given to say, "It's not a fair business".
Let's call her "Aurora".

Jackie didn't want to hear about Aurora.
His almost precise words were "Don't give me no Aurora!"
I said "What happened to the raving and raving about the play?"
He said, "That's when you had Millie!"

I loved and love Aurora. Personally and professionally.

So here's the zults.

I told Jackie to go screw. I was going with Aurora.

I was going with less star power.
For the male lead, I went with an actor whose work I loved, but who was only known in more limited circles.
He was actually much better known as a child actor. Let's call him "Morris".

Aurora, matched up romantically with Morris?

Well, Morris was now 50. It worked great.

It was wonderful to watch the two of them together.

We got great reviews, and Equity Waiver being what it was, did sparse business.

Morris left during the run. We got someone else. A really good actor, with no drawing power.

Now, I don't want to see anything on the "Comments" section offering up guesses as to who all of these people are.
You'd have to know me really well to get that kind of information out of me.
If you think you know, keep it to yourself.
I didn't do it this way to tease you.
It was the only way I felt I could tell this story with any kind of tact.

You know what? After Morris left the run, I probably should have gone after Manny.
He still would have been great.

And Asshole still owed me one.

He still does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(From April 2014)  Not too long ago, I was made aware of a website called Kickstarter.com
I'm sure many of you have heard of it.
I figure that this is the last chance for me to get a movie that I wrote made.
Being a sequel to "Network", it's called, appropriately enough, "Another Network".
I'm trying to raise $225,000 to get it made well.
I implore you, I beseech you, to at least go to Kickstarter.com, type in "Another Network" where it says Search Projects, click on it, watch the fifteen minute video of me being interviewed about it (rather entertainingly, I think), read the details provided, and if you feel at all generous towards me, make a pledge to help me get this movie made.
If I don't reach my goal, it won't cost you a thing.
If I do, your pledge will be activated.
And think about how happy you'll be.
At least for me.
And how happy this relatively old man will be if you come through.
And I promise you that I will make it my business that this movie gets seen.
And that you will be proud to be a part of it.

Also,, my books ,"Show Runner" and it's sequel,"Show Runner Two", can be found at the Amazon Kindle Store.
Along with the newer ones, "The Man Is Dead", and "Report Cards".
You can search by typing in my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne and Shirley, The Odd Couple, or Happy Days.
Check them out.
You don't need a Kindle machine to download them.
Just get the free app from Kindle, and they can be downloaded to an IPhone, IPad, or Blackberry.
The paperback, "Mark Rothman's Essays" is still available for people without Kindle.
I have many readings and signings remaining, and the thing about Kindle is you can't sign one.
If you'd like one, contact me at macchus999@aol.com.
And now, we've got my reading of my "Laverne & Shirley Movie" screenplay on YouTube.

******

Why I Love The"Comments" Section, Even Though Maybe Some Of You Don't

Because, unlike some of you, I read all the comments.

Because, unlike most of you, I respond to the comments.

Because it inspires exchanges like these, in the "Horseradish as Advertised" post:

Stef said...
Why is Kentucky Bourbon GWTW? Do you have a drinking problem?

January 28, 2009 1:10 PM

mark rothman said...
Stef,
To me, it was metaphoric as to what the Old South was about. I was 19, for chrissake!
For the record, I've never even tasted Bourbon in my life.
But that doesn't necessarily mean I don't have a drinking problem.
Does seltzer count?

January 28, 2009 3:19 PM

Jtexasoperastar said...

Well, actually, Deanna Durbin read "Gone With The Wind" twice in her teens, but she herself is not gone with the wind, because her popularity justs keeps growing and growing. Last year alone, 11 Deanna Durbin albums were released of her 1930s & 1940 songs. And for those who still appreciate a TRUE artist, please check out the largest Deanna Durbin website in the world at this address:www.deannadurbindevotees.com. Best wishes from someone who appreciates REAL talent!!!

January 28, 2009 11:27 PM

mark rothman said...

Look at this. I've offended a Deanna Durbin fan.
I'm sorry.
Deanna Durbin was wonderful.
I know that she herself is not gone with the wind, but 39 years ago, in 1970, when we did this song, her career certainly was.
Either by choice, or otherwise.
It's a METAPHOR.
And whatever popularity you maintain that she has now, she certainly did not have then.
And everything is relative anyway.
In 1936, MGM had the choice of signing Judy Garland or Deanna Durbin.
They chose Judy.
You want to squawk at them too?
I mean, that was only 73 years ago.
And I reiterate, I was only 19, for chrissake!

January 29, 2009 11:48 AM

or this exchange, under "Why I'm Glad They Blew Up the Sands Hotel", in which I discussed the late Lou Gottlieb of the Limeliters:

Tony Gottlieb said...

Nice old memory of my father, thanks.

January 29, 2009 1:20 PM

mark rothman said...

Tony,

Boy, you just never know who's out there, and who you're going to reach. I'm curious to know how you found this site.
I only wish I could have met your father under what might have been a more pleasant circumstance for him.
It's communication like this that makes it all worth it.
If you read my post about Danny Thomas in the article "When Vegas Was Worth It", you'd know that if I received the exact same message that you sent from Marlo Thomas, I would have been mortified.

January 29, 2009 2:27 PM

which led to this e-mail from Tony Gottlieb, reprinted with his permission (I would never do it otherwise, you are safe with me):

Your Blog came up on a Google Alert I have for Lou.

I remember those days when the Limeliters were 4 walling the Sands.
He said it was one hour between the 1st and 2nd show and one hour between the 2nd and 3rd show and 19 hours between the 3rd and the 1st show.

In retrospect I am certain that was still easier physically than too many days of one nighters but it was indeed a low point for him as you described.
-tg

So please, learn to love your "Comments" section.
As I do.

This is going to be a relatively light post.
And for those of you who read the "Comments" section, a bit recycled.
Like a rerun.

But it IS Super Sunday, and I expect attendance here to be way down today.

I know I'VE got better things to do.

I've got the Steelers laying 7.

Every time there's a major sporting event on TV (The Super Bowl, the World Series, the NBA finals, the NCAA men's basketball final, Opening day of the baseball and pro football seasons)
I break out the most appropriate T-Shirt or sweatshirt I have in my collection with a team's logo on it, and wear it all day.
I don't have a garment representing the Pittsburgh Steelers, but I have a Pittsburgh Pirates hat.
I've got that on.

And I've got a New England Patriots T-Shirt on.
This is very appropriate attire.

The Patriots are in the AFC, as are the Steelers.
They got jobbed out of the playoffs this year by the stupid NFL rules .
They probably would be in the Super Bowl, given the opportunity.
They had a much better regular-season record than the Cardinals.
And during the regular season, they beat the hell out of the Cardinals.

The rules must be altered so mediocrity can't be rewarded.
Wearing the Patriots shirt is my statement to that effect.



*****

A Rather Long Hiatus

In my previous post, I described my second-to-last stage acting experience.

"Next month we're going to have Odd CUPPle....." was 40 years ago.

Except for a couple of minor appearances on my sitcoms, my next actual stage performance was last year.

I did the lead, the title role in a musical in Los Angeles called "The Brain From Planet X".

The show is a delight. Funny, tuneful, a blast.

It got unanimously great reviews, as did I (puff, puff).

It came about in a rather flukey manner. I did not pursue this.

I hadn't been in L.A. that often.

I still keep a place in Malibu that overlooks the ocean (puff, puff).

Twice a year, once on my birthday in November, and once on my wife's birthday in February,
we spend a week in Malibu.

Last February, as I usually do when I'm in town, I call up friends and try to arrange to have lunch or dinner with them.

I called up one of my writer friends, and we had lunch.
My wife, trying to soak up the sun in February, something you can't do in Michigan, stayed home.

My friend and I met, at one of our usual haunts, DuPars, in Studio City. Right near where he lives.

He had once tried to get me to do one of the two leads in a movie he was putting together, a comedy, and he invited another actor over to his house, where he and I, upon request, started improvising these two characters.
Now, I'm not a big fan of Improv. I consider it merely to be fast writing.
And I had never done it before. But I took to it very easily.
My writer friend was peeing in his in pants.
The movie never happened.

Okay, back to DuPars. He's already seated.
I approach and sit down opposite him.
The first words to me were "I know you can act, but can you sing?"
I responded "Like a bird."
He told me about "Brain From Planet X", which was his show.
It sounded great.
And he was going to be directing it.
Knowing him to be an extraordinary writer, director, and musician, I knew sight unseen that it WOULD be great.
We ate, and he brought me back to his house.
He handed me a script, and I applied my afore-mentioned cold-reading skills.

Peeing in his pants.

He brought me over to the piano.
He played, while standing (what with his wet pants and all), and sang what would be one of my songs, and said "Sing it back to me."
I did.
He tossed me the script, and said "It's yours if you want it."
Now, I hadn't been asked to this particular kind of dance in quite some time.
I was very flattered to be asked.

There had been other productions of this show.
One in New York.
He told me it was not reviewed well, and that now, in L.A., it would be be part of a major Festival of New Musicals, which would be going on all over town.
It would be his last chance to get really good reviews, and thus get a prestigious firm to buy the amateur rights.
Realizing it was really important to him, I said, reassuringly, while crossing my fingers, "Well, we'll fix that."

So, I went back to the beach, and told my wife that I wasn't returning with her to Michigan on Friday.
I was going to stay out here for the next 4 months and do the lead in a musical.
Of course, her jaw dropped.
All the way to the floor.

If you're at all interested in getting a taste of what me doing a musical is like, go to YouTube, type in my name, and click on "The Brain From Planet X".
That clip is the promo for the show, and I am interviewed in it.
For the morbidly curious, you'll get to see what I look like.
After you look at the promo, stay on that page. On the screen, it will offer a look at "Brain Tap".
Or on the right hand side, there is a column with the heading, Related Videos.
Click on the one that says "Brain Tap".
It's 3 minutes of the show, in performance, with me figuring prominently.
You mostly just see my back, wearing a gaudy cape, with a big brain on top of my head.
You see my face for a brief moment, but you hear me loud and clear.
Much of my stuff in the clip is ad-lib, designed to be that way.
The audience reaction is genuine, consistently responsive, and representative of what the whole show is like.
You don't get to hear me sing.
That's Show Business.

If you want to check out the reviews, e-mail me and I'll tell you how you can.
If you hear that a production of this show is playing in your area, make plans immediately to see it.
You will not regret this decision.

It was a thoroughly delightful experience. I got to bond with some very nice people.
Most of the cast were in their 20's, and I was embraced by them.
I embraced back.

I just wanted to see if I could still hit it out of the park after 40 years, and I found out that I could.

To contradict Thomas Wolfe, you CAN go home again.


*****