markrothmansblog

"Taste The Borscht", Part One.

2012-02-14T11:16:00.001-05:00

I had intended to tell you a story about my mother, involving the old standard joke, known in most Jewish circles as "Taste The Borscht."
I had assumed that most people I knew, most of them comedy witers, were familiar with the joke.
It turned out that hardly any of them were familiar with "Taste The Borscht".
So why on earth should my readers, most of whom are not comedy writers, be familiar with it?

As a result, today will be devoted to the telling of the joke, and next time will be devoted to how it involved my mother.

So here's "Taste The Borscht":

A little old Jewish man goes into Katz's delicatessen on the Lower Easr Side of New York City.

The waiter, another little old Jewish man, approaches him to take his order.

Customer: Bring me a bowl of Matzoh Ball soup.

Waiter: (Leaning into him) You don't want the Matzoh Ball soup.

Customer: Yes I do. Bring me a bowl of Matzoh Ball soup.

Waiter: Trust me. You don't want the Matzoh ball Soup.

Customer: So what do I want?

Waiter: Try the Borscht.

Customer: The Borscht?

Waiter: (With a wink) The Borscht.

Customer: All right. Bring me the Borscht.

Waiter: (Triumphantly) I'll bring you the Borscht.

The waiter is practically skipping into the kitchen to place the order.
Shortly, he returns with the Borscht.

Waiter: Doesn't it look great? Just like I told you?

Customer: I've got to hand it to you. It does look great.

Waiter: Would I steer you wrong?

The Waiter heads back to the kitchen. He is stopped by the customer.

Customer: Excuse me. Would you come back here please?

The Waiter returns.

Customer: Taste the Borscht.

Waiter: What do you mean, taste the Borscht?

Customer: Taste the Borscht.

Waiter: I don't have to taste the Borscht. I had a nice big bowl of it before you came in. It's delicious.

Customer: Taste the Borscht.

Waiter: (Finally indulging him) All right, I'll taste the Borscht.......where's the spoon?

Customer: (Pointing his finger in the air) Aha!!!!

And that's "Taste the Borscht".
Next time, I will demonstrate how my mother unwittingly took this joke to new heights.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
If you like one, contact me at macchus999@aol.com
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.

******

Rothman's Picks For The 2012 Oscars.

2012-02-11T11:46:00.003-05:00

I'm only dealing with most of the major categories, and only where I think I can add to the discussion..
I haven't seen some of the nominees, but then, nobody among academy members has.
Consider me just another nobody.
These picks are based purely my opinions, and on what I HAVE seen.

BEST PICTURE
"The Artist"
"The Descendants"
"Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close"
"Hugo"
"Midnight in Paris"
"The Help"
"Moneyball"
"War Horse"
"The Tree of Life"

I've seen all of these babies, and to me, it's a three-horse race.
I can't fathom why "Midnight In Paris" is on the list
I can see voting for "The Help", "The Artist", or "Hugo", and none of the others.
My vote goes to "Hugo".

BEST ACTOR
Demian Bichir, "A Better Life"
George Clooney, "The Descendants"
Jean Dujardin, "The Artist"
Gary Oldman, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"
Brad Pitt, "Moneyball"

Didn't see "A Better Life"
Didn't stay awake for Oldman in "Tinker, Tailor...."
Thought Brad Pitt was MUCH better in "The Tree Of Life". If he was nominated for that, I'd probably vote for him.
So it's a two-horse race.
The French guy in "The Artist", and Clooney.
Since I didn't hear the French guy talk, and did hear Clooney, and since Clooney carried "The Descendants" on his back, my vote goes to Clooney.

BEST ACTRESS
Glenn Close, "Albert Nobbs"
Viola Davis, "The Help"
Rooney Mara, "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
Meryl Streep, "The Iron Lady"
Michelle Williams, "My Week With Marilyn"

Didn't see Glenn Close.
Viola Davis was good, but the actresses in "The Help" were all nominated because of the nobility of their characters, rather than how good they acted.
Rooney Mara was not exceptional.
Again, a two-horse race.
Any time Streep is on the ballot, she must be considered seriously, because she's just that good.
And I'm partial to anyone who carries a less than wonderful movie on her back.
But Margaret Thatcher and Marilyn MONroe were both two very visible people in our lives, and Michelle Williams was simply a better MONroe than Streep was a Thatcher.
Michelle Williams gets my vote.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Branagh, "My Week With Marilyn"
Jonah Hill, "Moneyball"
Nick Nolte, "Warrior"
Christopher Plummer, "Beginners"
Max Von Sydow, "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close"

Didn't see Nolte or Plummer.
Jonah Hill and Von Sydow were not Oscar-worthy.
Branagh was great.
He gets my vote by default.
Question: Why the hell wasn't Ben Kingsley nominated for "Hugo"?
If he was, I certainly would have voted for him.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Berenice Bejo, "The Artist"
Jessica Chastain, "The Help"
Melissa McCarthy, "Bridesmaids"
Janet McTeer, "Albert Nobbs"
Octavia Spencer, "The Help"

Same thing as I said before about the actresses in "The Help"
Didn't see "Albert Nobbs".
Another two-horse race.
The French girl would have been more appropriately nominated in the "Best Actress" category.
It was a leading role, and she was wonderful.
Melissa McCarthy, whom I love, attempted to carry "Bridesmaids", a complete abomination, on her broad shoulders.
It was Yeomen's work, and I liked all of her scenes.
But it just wasn't enough.
So my vote goes to the French girl.

BEST DIRECTOR
Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"
Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
Terrence Malick, "The Tree of Life"
Alexander Payne, "The Descendants"
Martin Scorsese, "Hugo"

Again, what's Woody Allen doing here?
I can't fault any of the others.
But it's a clear cut choice.
Scorcese for "Hugo".

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"
JC Chandor, "Margin Call"
Asghar Farhadi, "A Separation"
Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo, "Bridesmaids"

Again, what's Woody Allen doing here?
And what on earth are those women from "Bridesmaids" doing here?
Didn't see "Margin Call" or "The Separation"
I'm curious to see what the script looked like for "The "Artist"
Whatever it looked like, it got the job done.
So it gets my vote.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxton, Jim Rash, "The Descendants"
John Logan, "Hugo"
George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon, "The Ides of March"
Aaron Sorkin, Steven Zaillian, Stan Chevren "Moneyball"
Bridget O'Connor, Peter Straughn, "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy"

Seems like another two-horse race.
Sorkin writes wonderful dialogue, and it was the best thing about "Moneyball"
"Hugo" was a much better movie, and was very well-scripted.
I guess I'd vote for Logan.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
"The Artist"
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"
"Hugo"
"The Tree of Life"
"War Horse"

"Hugo", without question.

BEST MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)
"The Adventures of Tintin"
"The Artist"
"Hugo"
"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"
"War Horse"

"The Artist", hands down. It totally envelops you, and is one of the biggest assets of the film.

BEST MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)
"Man or Muppet" from "The Muppets". Music and Lyric by Bret McKenzie
"Real in Rio" from "Rio". Music by Sergio Mendes and Carlinhos Brown Lyric by Siedah Garrett

Only two? And one of them is from The Muppets"?
Why bother?
Not having heard either, I'd vote for the one that isn't "The Muppets"

I had the Giants last week, so maybe I know something.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
If you like one, contact me at macchus999@aol.com
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.

******

Report Card---"War Horse".

2012-02-09T15:18:00.002-05:00

I know I said I was going to do my Oscar picks this time, but a DVD of "War Horse" was sitting in my computer, and I realized I hadn't seen it yet.
To make my Oscar picks as comprehensive as possible, I just sat through "War Horse".
This is a very good movie, with some exceptional moments.
It also has a lot of tedious moments.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Quite. Particularly the first half-hour, which zips along.
It hits a sagging point after that, and eventually recovers from it.
B+.

Compelling, even?

It never reaches compelling.
D.

Is it controversial?

Doesn't try to be.
Doesn't need to be.
No Grade.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Not really. It doesn't matter.
No Grade..

Is it funny?

Doesn't try to be.
Doesn't need to be.
No Grade.

Is it a story worth telling?

Very much so.
A.

Is it good storytelling?

It drags, particularly during all the war scenes.
C.

Is it well written?

It's well written enough.
C+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

All of the above.
A.

Is it too long? Too short?

It seems far longer than it's running time.
C-.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

Yes, and yes.
A.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

Yes, it's predictable, and yes, it surprises you.
I cried at the end.
A.

Is it worth the thirteen bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it and paid?

'Fraid not.
D.

Is it an impressive film?

Quite impressive..
A.

Overall grade: B.

A little too much War, not enough Horse.

Next time, the Oscar picks. I promise.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
If you like one, contact me at macchus999@aol.com
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.

******

Report Card---"The Tree Of Life".

2012-02-07T15:20:00.000-05:00

It is perhaps a bit unfair to use my usual scoring system in grading "The Tree Of Life".
But it's the only one I've got.

I've tried, with these Report Cards, to accomplish two things:
1) To only tell the reader as much of the plot as is necessary for him or her to determine whether or not they would like to see the film based on their previous agreement with what I have to say about them.
If you've been disagreeing, then my opinion, and these Report Cards, are meaningless.
And
2) To approach movie reviewing from the point of view of a screenwriter, which I don't believe anyone else is doing.

With "The Tree of Life", there is so little that appears to be storytelling that a writer's approach seems almost useless.
And "The Tree Of Life" is such a Director-driven movie that it almost seems to not need writers, which leaves me a little cold.

Anyway, with all this in mind, on to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Often. A lot of times not.
I found it a lot easier to get through it by multi-tasking.
Terence Malick, the Director-Writer, essentially lays out a good half-hour to simply put up breathtaking images on the screen that causes the movie to absolutely grind to a halt.
It picks up significantly from there, but still, it's a half-hour worth of screen savers.
B-.

Compelling, even?

On rare occasion.
B.

Is it controversial?

Only in the sense that it is confusing, and raises many questions.
C-.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Not really.
D.

Is it funny?

Not ever.
F.

Is it a story worth telling?

What story there is certainly makes an impact.
B+.

Is it good storytelling?

It rambles like crazy, and is constantly confusing.
D.

Is it well written?

When it feels written, which is occasionally, the writing is good.
B-.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

Extremely, on all counts.
Malick is, and has always been, an extremely gifted artist. A painter.
Brad Pitt is magnificent in this. He is far more effective in this than he was in "Moneyball".
A+.

Is it too long? Too short?

It is overindulgently long.
D.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

When you're not confused, you believe it, and you totally care.
A-.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

There's no way you can figure out where this is going, and I don't know if this a good thing.
C.

Is it worth the thirteen bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it and paid?

I guess the imagery was much more effective on the big screen, but in a movie theatre, you can't multi-task.
C-.

Is it an impressive film?

You can not be unimpressed by it.
A+.

Overall grade: B+.

This is one where the whole is better than the sum of it's parts.

It's also the last of the movies that I will have seen that have been nominated in any of the major Oscar categories.
I have a few more Report Cards to do on other movies, but next, I'll offer my picks for the winners, based on what I've seen.
Not on what I think will win.
I'm not any kind of prognosticator.
I'll just indicate which ones I would vote for.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
If you like one, contact me at macchus999@aol.com
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.

******

Report Card---"Hugo"

2012-02-04T14:10:00.001-05:00

The last movie I saw in Los Angeles was "Hugo".
Again, for free, courtesy of the Directors Guild.
I got to see it in 3-D.
That's really the only way to see it.
I really haven't taken many opportunites to see movies in 3-D.
I think the last one I saw before "Hugo" was "House of Wax", with Vincent Price, when I was a kid.
"Hugo" is a lot better than "House of Wax".
It's also better than every other movie I've seen this year.
It is outstanding on every level.
It is the creme de la creme
No contest.
It's quite a departure for Martin Scorcese.
It completely demonstrates his love for the movies in a way that nobody else can.
It is a triumph.
I had no problem staying awake for this one.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Fascinating
A+.

Compelling, even?

Everything about it is compelling.
Everything that traffic will allow.
A+.

Is it controversial?

It's not about controversial.
But it's got so many other things going for it.
No Grade.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Over and over.
It involves one of my favorite themes: The fall from grace.
A+.

Is it funny?

When it wants to be, which is often enough.
A.

Is it a story worth telling?

Absolutely.
A+.

Is it good storytelling?

It is tremendous storytelling
A+.

Is it well written?

Quite.
A.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

Extremely, on all counts.
A+.

Is it too long? Too short?

It could have gone on forever, as far as I was concerned.
A+.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

Totally, and totally.
A+.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

I knew nothing about the story going in, so everything was a surprise.
A+.

Is it worth the thirteen bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it and paid?

Just for the 3-D glasses alone.
A+.

Is it an impressive film?

It is THE most impressive film I've seen in ages. It leaves "House of Wax in the dust.
A+.

Overall grade: A+

There was one moment that they didn't go for, and I was surprised that they didn't.
If they did, it would have been icing on the cake.
I don't want to do a spoiler alert, so if anyone who saw the movie wants to know what I'm talking about, e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com and I will respond with that information.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
If you like one, contact me at macchus999@aol.com
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.

******

Report Card---"Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy"

2012-02-02T13:32:00.001-05:00

When I was in Los Angeles, the Director's Guild was nice enough to include "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier. Spy" on their list of movies that Guild members could see for free at movie theatres.
I must say that it provided me with a most enjoyable experience.

You know how you can have one of those really long, satisfying naps?
I mean a really deep snooze.
Well, after sitting through the most excrutiatingly boring first twenty minutes of "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", probably the most excrutiatingly boring first twenty minutes of any movie ever made, I decided to lean back in my lush stadium seat, in this lush theater, and, having made no financial investment, just decided to snooze it out.

Please bear in mind that I was not at all tired when I entered the theater.
The sleep inducement can be laid squarely at the feet of the movie and the moviemakers themselves.

So in my truncated grading of this movie, be alerted that I'm just grading the first twenty minutes that I saw.
I woke up when there were only ten minutes left, and had as little knowledge of what was going on as I did during those first
twenty minutes, or the two hours that I was asleep, for that matter.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

No.
F.

Compelling, even?

No.
F.

Is it controversial?

No.
F.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

No.
F.

Is it funny?

No.
F.

Is it a story worth telling?

I don't know.
No Grade.

Is it good storytelling?

No.
F.

Is it well written?

No.
F.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

I couldn't tell from what I saw.
No Grade.

Is it too long? Too short?

For watching, way too long.
For snoozing, just right.
F.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

I don't know.
No Grade.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

I don't know.
No Grade.

Is it worth the thirteen bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

I get just as good naps without paying thirteen bucks.
F.

Is it an impressive film?

I think it's safe to say no.
F.

Overall grade: F.

This is only the second time in my life that I fell asleep at the movies.
The first was when I was nineteen, and went to see the original "True Grit", with John Wayne.
Again, twenty minutes and out.
So what do I know?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"50/50"

2012-01-31T14:08:00.001-05:00

"50/50" is, quite simply, a movie about a young guy who gets a serious form of cancer.
50/50 is his chances for survival.

That's it in a nutshell.
It all leads up to whether he will beat it or not.
Considering that this is the entire story, it takes some interesting turns, and is quite an affecting movie.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

I've never known a young guy like this who has had to deal with cancer, so I found it quite interesting.
B+.

Compelling, even?

On occasion.
B+.

Is it controversial?

There is an element of controversy concerning "bedside manner"---how indelicately he is told about it, and how indelicately he is told about the results of the major operation that determines his fate.
You sometimes think that doctors should be hung by the neck.
A.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Only about how I escaped this particular fate when I was young.
B.

Is it funny?

Considering the nature of the subject matter, and that Seth Rogen had a major hand in getting it made, it is perhaps more funny than you'd expect.
A.

Is it a story worth telling?

Absolutely.
A.

Is it good storytelling?

It drags on a bit. It can be as excruciating for the audience as it is for the lead character as we both wait to learn his fate.
C.

Is it well written?

The writing is pretty good.
B+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

All three.
A.

Is it too long? Too short?

It runs an hour and forty minutes, and seems twice that length.
This is the main problem with the movie.
D.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

It's believable, and you are totally emotionally invested.
I cried at the end, which is not necessarily a spoiler alert.
A.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

There's only two ways it can go, and you really can't predict which one.
B+.

Is it worth the thirteen bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

No, but it would be worth Tivoing once it hit HBO.
C-.

Is it an impressive film?

Fairly impressive, but just fairly.
B-.

Overall grade: B.

It's a heart tugger that made me look at my watch repeatedly.
An odd combination.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card----"Moneyball"

2012-01-28T12:50:00.000-05:00

I have to be a little schizophrenic in dealing with "Moneyball".
It is based on material that is so familiar to me that I have to describe my reaction to it separately from that of the average moviegoer.
I'm not talking about having read the book.
I didn't have to read the book, for the same reason.
I was so familiar with the source material that there was no point in reading the book either.

For the uninformed, there is this great writer named Bill James, who specializes in writing about baseball.
He has brought a revolutionary concept to how baseball should be played, and how teams should be assembled.
Billy Beane, (Brad Pitt) a former player, and then General Manager of the Oakland A's, becomes Bill James' first major league disciple.
He attempts to turn the A's, a team with relatively little money to work with, into a team competitive with teams such as the Yankees
and the Red Sox.
Teams with far bigger budgets.
He does this by attempting to apply Bill James theories.

I'm sure I have been reading Bill James' material far longer than Billy Beane has, and have been a much earlier disciple, although nobody has
ever asked me to run a baseball team.
If they had, I would have done the same thing Billy Beane did.
So this movie is a documentation of what Billy Beane did.
Which is why it was impossible for me to enjoy it as much as say, the average baseball fan.
Or say, the average business fan.
Like my wife.
I told her that she would enjoy "Moneyball" far more than I did.
And she did.

Since this schizophrenia exists, I am going to score "Moneyball" in two ways: my reaction, and what I perceive to be the reaction of the general public ("G.P.")

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

I've always considered it a fascinating subject, which is why I knew all about it ahead of time.
If you're coming to it new, and have any kind of a mind, it should also be fascinating.
Me: C. G.P.: A+

Compelling, even?

Same answer.
Me: C. G.P.: A+

Is it controversial?

In baseball circles, James' and Beane's approach has always been controversial
To interested newcomers, it should raise some controversy.
In this regard, I'm very glad the movie was made, and nominated as for a Best Picture Oscar.
Me: A. G.P.: A+.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

I haven't, but the average baseball fan certainly has something to chew on.
Me: C. G.P.: A.

Is it funny?

On occasion.
Me: B+. G.P.: B+.

Is it a story worth telling?

I like that it was made into a movie. It's certainly worth telling to the masses. Any movie that is essentially an argument for intelligence is worth making.
Me: A. G.P.: A+

Is it good storytelling?

Extremely, on all counts.
Me: A+. G.P.: A+.

Is it well written?

Any script that has Aaron Sorkin's fingerprints all over it is bound to have the words crackle.
Me: A+. G.P.: A+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

All three. But I don't really think Pitt's performance is Oscar worthy.
Me: A-. G.P.: A.

Is it too long? Too short?

For me, it was a little long. For others, it probably wouldn't seem so.
Me: C. G.P.: A.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

It happened, and was accurately described.
Billy Beane has been the Don Quixote of baseball. You've got to care.
Me: A. G.P.: A+

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

Totally predictable to me. No surprises here.
Totally the opposite for the average moviegoer.
Me: D. G.P.: A+

Is it worth the thirteen bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

Not mine. But everyone else's.
Me: F. G.P.: A.

Is it an impressive film?

I always knew that there was a good movie to be made from the book, and objectively, but not viscerally, I can say that it is impressive.
But others are probably much more impressed than I was.
Me: B. G.P.: A+

Overall grade: Me: B-. G.P.: A.

I recommend it to all but the extreme cognoscenti.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"The Iron Lady"

2012-01-26T11:38:00.000-05:00

"The Iron Lady" is about the life of Margaret Thatcher, and she is played by Meryl Streep.
Let's face it.
Streep is the best we've got.
Any time she gets nominated for an Oscar, as she did for this, it would be foolish not to give her serious consideration.
Particularly when the movie is not as good as she is.
And let's face it.
It's not.
And it's a lot harder to give a great performance in a less than wonderful movie.
But she does.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Occasionally, but mostly not.
C-.

Compelling, even?

Never.
D.

Is it controversial?

Considering that I was not that I was not that well-versed on Thatcher's political stances, I was surprised how seldom I agreed with them.
And when you try to portray her as a political heroine, it creates conflict.
This is not an asset.
C-.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

I was barely thinking about it while I was seeing it, except about how teriffic Streep was.
B.

Is it funny?

No. It could have used a little humor.
It could have used something.
D.

Is it a story worth telling?

You would think.
A-.

Is it good storytelling?

Not at all. It rambles from the present to the past, to the distant past, back to the present, to no particular purpose.
This indicates to me that they didn't have a good linear story to tell.
D.

Is it well written?

Not so you'd notice.
C-.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

All three, and it's got Streep.
A.

Is it too long? Too short?

WAY too long.
D.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

I believed it, but as hard as she tried, I really didn't care about Thatcher.
B-.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

Yes and no. There's nothing about Thatcher's life that was a deep dark secret.
D.

Is it worth the thirteen bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

Except for Streep, It was barely worth seeing for free.
F.

Is it an impressive film?

I was only impressed by Streep, and her efforts to carry this picture on her back.
C-.

Overall grade: C-.

She still might be worthy of my Oscar vote, although she did rely more heavily on prosthetics than usual.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo"

2012-01-24T13:09:00.000-05:00

I'm told that this movie is based on a series of Swedish novels, which were then turned into a series of Swedish films.
I'm also told that these Swedish entities were all great.
Well, this movie is certainly no Swedish meatball.
It is very entertaining.

One of my favorite TV shows is "Law and Order--Criminal Intent"

This movie is essentially what you'd get if somebody decided to expand that show to two hours and change, spend lots of money on it, filmed it in a foreign locale, got even grislier, and had the investigator/savant be a
young girl with piercing jewelry hanging all over her, and of course, tattoos.
It is a mind-bender, a rip-roarer, and a thriller-diller.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

It goes without saying any more.
A+.

Compelling, even?

Quite.
A+.

Is it controversial?

No, and doesn't need to be.
No Grade.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

No, and you don't have to. It's simply a fun ride.
No Grade.

Is it funny?

No, and it doesn't need to be.
No Grade.

Is it a story worth telling?

For the ride it provides, absolutely.
A.

Is it good storytelling?

Excellent.
A+.

Is it well written?

Very well written, but not really a movie about writing.
B+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

All of the above.
A.

Is it too long? Too short?

Never had to look at my watch.
A.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

Yes, and yes.
A.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

No and yes. Extremely well-crafted in this regard.
A+.

Is it worth the thirteen bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

I suppose I could have waited until it showed up on HBO.
C.

Is it an impressive film?

You're not so much impressed as just taken in for the fun of it.
B.

Overall grade: B+.

The Oscar nominations just came out today.
I have a few more to see in my DVD pile before I start commenting on them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

The Worst Case Scenario.

2012-01-21T23:40:00.001-05:00

Let's say that you've booked a cruise on a top of the line cruise ship.
Let's say it's the Costa Concordia.
Let's say you get on board at the appointed time.
Let's say that the ship's Captain, Captain Vinnie Boom Botz, (see Dangerfield, Rodney)decides to show off and steer the ship too close to shore and crashes it into the rocks , and the ship capsizes.
And between 25 and 55 people, possibly including you, drown.
But not Captain Boom Botz.
He's one of the first ones off the boat after the first scrape on the hull.

Would that not be the worst case scenario?
Probably not.
The worst case scenario if if ALL the passengers drown, and Captain Boom Botz survives.

This begs the question "So, what would be the BEST case scenario?"
In all honesty, I can't think of one.

I must say, I've never seen the point of cruises.
You end up spending time with people you'd never want to meet in real life.
There are other people on the boat whose express purpose is to sell you things you don't want.
My wife usually ends up spending way too much money at Art Auctions where they try to convince you that everything you purchase is a major bargain.
You also pay an exorbitant price to essentially eat your face off.
At least five meals a day.
If you don't have all five meals, you're not getting your money's worth.
It's like a floating Grossinger's.

So you usually get seasick, and spend time tossing at least two of those meals over the side.

So maybe Captain Boom Botz had the right idea, only not for the right reasons.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"The Help"

2012-01-18T15:01:00.000-05:00

I have to admit, I walked into this one with very low expectations.
I figured it was going to be another Oprah-style movie.
I couldn't have been more pleasantly surprised.

"The Help" is a magnificent movie.
It is emotionally gripping from beginning to end.
It is overwhelming.
One of the great stories about one of this country's greatest injustices, and how at least some of it was overcome.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

It is fascinating. Certainly considering that it is true.
A+.

Compelling, even?

Consistently.
A+.

Is it controversial?

There has certainly been a lot of controversy associated with it.
Any movie that leads to constructive arguing about it is my kind of movie.

A+.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Yes. Particularly because of what an eye-opener it was.
A+.

Is it funny?

Occasionally, and in the best sense.
A.

Is it a story worth telling?

Of course.
A+.

Is it good storytelling?

Coming to it knowing nothing about it, every scene was a revelation.
A+.

Is it well written?

Extremely. Great dialogue.
A+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

All of the above. It deserved all them Golden Globes, however worthless those hunks of metal are.
A+.

Is it too long? Too short?

Perfect.
A+.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

Totally believeable. If you don't care about the characters, you are made of stone.
A+.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

Again, knowing nothing about it going in, everything was a surprise.
A+.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

I've since learned that movie prices have gone up to about $13.
It's worth all of it.
A+.

Is it an impressive film?

Asked and answered.
A+.

Overall grade: A+.

The leader in my clubhouse as far as Best Picture is concerned.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"The Artist"

2012-01-15T10:27:00.001-05:00

"The Artist" is a stunning movie.
I had the good fortune to see it in the actual movies in L.A., which is where I am, using my Director's Guild card as a freebie to get in, which made it even better fortune.

It is a movie that totally envelops you.
It is , as many of you already know, primarily a silent movie.
A pretty daring idea these days.
It very much resembles the story of silent screen star John Gilbert, and his downfall when talkies came in.
It was made by mostly French people, and also John Goodman, in a key supporting role.

The most outstanding aspect of it is it's use of music.
It has this lush, overwhelming musical score.
I doubt that the score's effect would make the impact that it does on a less outstanding sound system than you'd find in the movies.
I'm glad they didn't send me the DVD for this one.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Another movie about movie-making? How could I not be interested?
In form, style, and storytelling, overwhelmingly yes.
A+.

Compelling, even?

Quite often, but not always.
There are some very dreary parts that could be trimmed, but I'm quibbling.
B+.

Is it controversial?

It's not something aimed for, nor need it be.
No Grade.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Yes. Mainly about how wonderful an experience it was.
A+.

Is it funny?

It's not really a comedy, yet it is quite often funny.
A+.

Is it a story worth telling?

Yes. Just like it was with John Gilbert and "Singin' In The Rain"
A+.

Is it good storytelling?

It is expert storytelling, with occasional lingering on some scenes.
A-.

Is it well written?

Don't know how much writing goes on in a Silent Movie, but it was certainly well told.
A.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

Yes, on all levels. Extremely.
A+.

Is it too long? Too short?

A tad long. But just a tad.
A-.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

We know this sort of stuff actually happened.
And you care tremendously.
A+.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

I thought it would be totally predictable, but it does throw some curves at you.
A.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

Yes. With a few extra for popcorn and Milk Duds.
A+.

Is it an impressive film?

To put it very mildly.
A+.

Overall grade: A.

A real original, in the best sense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"Bridesmaids"

2012-01-12T13:24:00.001-05:00

"Bridesmaids, like "Young Adult", is a Chick-Flick.
But this one is el Chicko-Flicko.
That's all it is.
The kind of movie where men are portrayed as either irredeemable assholes, or dimwitted jerks who do not realize how lucky they are to have these particular women in their lives.
The Nancy Meyers variety of Chick Flicks.
And all it does is try to be funny, and only rarely succeeds.
It also makes an incompleted pass at making you care.

It has several problems.
The main one is that Kristen Wiig is the lead actress.
No man is lucky to have her in his life.
You kind of root for the irredeemable assholes.
I've never found her funny on "Saturday Night Live".
Only quirky and annoying.
When I see that she is in a sketch these days, I quickly hit fast forward on the Tivo.
She is a sketch actress.
There is absolutely no depth or personality at work.
She is very much what we used to call Al Molinaro behind his back: a shticktician.
That's all she is.
You can't hang a movie on Kristen Wiig.

Among the other many problems is that the writing is lame, and makes you laugh twice in a one hour and forty-five minute comedy.
If it were Amy Poehler in the same part, the movie might have stood a chance.
You care about her.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

No.
Unless maybe you're a woman.
C-

Compelling, even?

This is me, giggling at the question.
F.

Is it controversial?

Not in the least.
D.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Not for a moment. It's difficult to dredge up thoughts now.
C+.

Is it funny?

Almost never.
There is this extended scene about flatulence and vomiting, and it's as nauseating as it sounds, but they build it so much and for so long that you're almost compelled to laugh hard.
But that was one time in a full-length movie.
D+.

Is it a story worth telling?

Not to me.
D.

Is it good storytelling?

It is labored storytelling. There's a lot of "Get on with it!"
D.

Is it well written?

Asked and answered
D.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

Kristen Wiig is her usual awful. Maya Rudolph is given absolutely nothing funny to do, which begs the question "Why did they hire Maya Rudolph?"
Melissa McCarthy has some good comedic turns, and steals whatever there is to steal.
Petty theft.
C-.

Is it too long? Too short?

Ten minutes would have been too long.
F.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

No, and no.
F.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

Yes, and no.
F.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

It's not worth ten bucks in Confederate money.
F.

Is it an impressive film?

Asked and answered.
F.

Overall grade: D.

Mindless, tasteless, artificial, spearheaded by a stiff...I could go on.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"Young Adult"

2012-01-10T09:58:00.001-05:00

"Young Adult" is a Chick-Flick, which is the worst thing I can say about it.
And I mean that in a good way.
Charleze Theron, who is, as usual, extraordinary, plays a woman who is obsessed with her old, now-married, now-a-father, boyfriend.
The obsession is completely one-sided.
The movie is the playing out of this obsession.
She renews an acquaintance with someone she just vaguely knew in high school., a short, pudgy, crippled man, who in life would never have a shot with Charleze Theron.
Except maybe when she played that grossly unattractive serial killer in "Monster"
But this is the more traditional attractive Charleze Theron.

The old high school acquaintance is played by short, pudgy, non-crippled Patton Oswalt, who gets second billing, so you know that their relationship will be consummated at some point.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Pretty interesting. it would probably be more interesting to chicks, er, women.
A-.

Compelling, even?

It is compelling in it's performances, particularly Theron's.
You can't take your eyes off her.
A-.

Is it controversial?

No, but it doesn't need to be.
No Grade.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Not really.
C+.

Is it funny?

Not really.
C+.

Is it a story worth telling?

I don't see why not, nor do I really see why.
B-.

Is it good storytelling?

It holds your interest.
B+.

Is it well written?

Pretty well written.
B+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

All of the above.
A+.

Is it too long? Too short?

The length never concerned me.
A.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

Yes, and yes.
A+.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

That's it's main weakness. It's very predictable.
D.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

My wife's maybe, but not mine.
D.

Is it an impressive film?

I was impressed with Theron and Oswalt. That's about it.
B.

Overall grade: B-.

I've seen better, and I've seen far worse..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"My Week With Marilyn"

2012-01-07T10:32:00.001-05:00

"My Week With Marilyn" is a really good movie.
It is everything that "J. Edgar" is not.
It is heavily sourced and footnoted, and very much rings of the truth.
And the truth is fascinating.
It is about the difficulties involved in making a movie with Marilyn MONroe.
In this case, "The Prince and the Showgirl", which starred Ms. MONroe, and Lawrence Olivier.
I don't know if he was a Sir or a Lord at this point, so we'll just go by names alone.
But to me, she will always be Marilyn MONroe.
Michelle Williams, the actress playing Ms. MONroe, is eerily like her.
Physically, and in her mannerisms.
She is spectacular.
Kenneth Branagh is great as the constantly frustrated Olivier.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Always. But then I am a sucker for movies about moviemaking, ever since I saw "Sunset Boulevard" and ""The Bad and the Beautiful"
A+

Compelling, even?

Often. Just as Marilyn was compelling
A.

Is it controversial?

No, but it doesn't need to be.
No Grade.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

It further confirmed in my mind what I believed going in, that she was a great, great actress who owned the camera.
A.

Is it funny?

When it wants to be, which is sometimes, which is often enough.
B+.

Is it a story worth telling?

If you like stories about movie-making, it is a must.
It is a tremendous insight on all levels.
A+

Is it good storytelling?

It is mesmerizingly good storytelling.
A+

Is it well written?

It's not really a picture about writing.
But the writing never ever gets in your way.
B.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

I believe I covered how well it was cast.
It was extremely well shot.
A+.

Is it too long? Too short?

I never looked at my watch.
A+

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

Yes, and yes.
A+

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

Well, you know how it ends, but there are certainly surprises along the way.
A-.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

I would have had no objections if I had gone to the hip on this one.
A.

Is it an impressive film?

On all levels.
A+

Overall grade: A.

If this sort of thing appeals to you, by all means see it.
If it doesn't, see it anyway.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"J. Edgar"

2012-01-05T12:09:00.001-05:00

"J. Edgar" is Professor Clint Eastwood's history lesson about former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.
There are many people who are too young to know anything about J. Edgar Hoover, which is why I introduced him by his title.
These too young people might just go to see it because the title role is played by Leonardo DiCaprio.
Older people might go to see it because of insight they didn't have about Hoover that Professor Eastwood provides.

But there are no sources given.
No footnotes.
So there is no further insight.
As far as I can tell, the story is made out of whole, or reasonably whole cloth.

It's another example of Oliver Stone storytelling.
It's as if the Professor were saying to himself, to paraphrase the great author William Goldman, "How can I, Clint Eastwood, prove once again that I am, in fact God?
I know! I'll tell a studio that I want to do a picture about Hoover, and they'll fork over oodles of money to let me do it.
Something they wouldn't do for anybody else.
And I'll get DiCaprio to play Hoover, something he'd give his left testacle to do, particularly because I'm directing it.
And I'll take any approach I damn well want to in telling the story."

This is what we have with "J. Edgar."
Young people will assume that this version of Hoover's story is the Gospel, because they don't know any better.
Older people, who are more familiar with Hoover's story, might be more skeptical, particularly when there are scenes that take place in private, where there are no flies on the wall to prove their veracity.

The film is not based on any credited source.
There is simply a screenplay credit. A credit that the Professor I'm sure had a hand in.
And nothing else.
So it is Eastwood's version of history.
I see no reason for this movie to be made.
A well-annotated documentary about Hoover would suffice.
But you can't get DiCaprio excited about that.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Intermittently.
Way too much time is spent on the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, where we all, or most, know the result.
All that's up for questioning is Hoover's direct involvement in the arrest and capture of Bruno Hauptmann, and what Hoover's and Lindbergh's relationship was with each other.
This seems to be all speculation, which diminishes the interest.
A lot of the rest of it is just plain tedious.
C-.

Compelling, even?

Never.
F.

Is it controversial?

In the sense that we don't really know if we're watching history, yes.
B-.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

In the way that I described in the introduction.
F.

Is it funny?

Never.
F.

Is it a story worth telling?

If it can be done with proof rather than imagination, yes.
B.

Is it good storytelling?

It shifts back and forth between the 60's and the 20's and 30's, which keeps things livelier, and contrasts DiCaprios make-up job more often.
But it's stuck telling what amounts to fiction about someone factual.
B-.

Is it well written?

It's not glaringly badly written. How's that for a back-handed complement?
B.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

I buy DiCaprio as Hoover.
It is well shot.
B+.

Is it too long? Too short?

I was constantly sitting there saying "Get on with it!"
D.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

It's believable in the sense that it all could have happened.
That's different than "Did I believe it?"
I didn't.
I never cared about the characters.
C-.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

Always predictable, never surprising.
F.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

It's worth nobody's bucks.
F.

Is it an impressive film?

Not at all.
F.

Overall grade: D-.

It was Professor Eastwood's ego trip, and power trip.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Should Old Acquaintance Be Forgot? Part Two.

2012-01-02T23:20:00.001-05:00

Okay.
So last November 7th, I receive an e-mail from Zisser, asking me for my mailing address.
Something I assumed he had.
Either I had mysteriously fallen out of his Rolodex, or he assumed that I had moved and didn't let him know about it.
It was a rather strange request, but I've received stranger.
I e-mail it back to him, no questions asked.

Then, around the day before Thanksgiving, I receive an engraved invitation to "Join the Newlyweds" at a Brunch to be held at Zisser's home in Florida, the next week.
His son, who I had met several times, was getting married.
Now, what's wrong with this picture?
Well, aside from the fact that this gave me very little time to respond, it made no mention of an actual wedding taking place, much less one that I was invited to.
I did not have to put on my Sherlock Holmes hat to quickly conclude that I was, in fact, on the "B" list.
People who were not invited to the wedding, but would perhaps accept this as a consolation prize.
And drop what they were doing to make travel plans to fly thousands of miles to attend a facockta Brunch.
After they were not invited to the wedding.

Could they have eloped?
If they had, wouldn't it be tactful to mention that in the invitation?
So elopement was doubtful.

Could my Wedding Invitation have been lost in the mail?
If it had, would there be some effort on Zisser's part to find out why I hadn't R.S.V.P.'d?
There wasn't.

It was obviously a rather cheap ploy to wangle a gift out of me for his kid.
None was forthcoming.
I ignored the invitation, and planned to ignore Zisser for the duration.

Then, early last week, I received a holiday greeting card from the Zissers, replete with pictures from the wedding, in which I was informed that it was held on November 19th.
A wedding to which, according to the form letter that accompanied it, not even made out to me personally, the immediate world was not only invited to, but attended in droves.
I consider this to be hard evidence that there was never any intention to invite me to this facockta wedding.
You don't ask for someone's mailing address on the 7th, where an invitation couldn't possibly be received before the 10th, and not expect the recipient not to be snubbed if the wedding is held on the 19th.
No, he was aiming to only invite me to the facockta Brunch.
If he'd invited me to the wedding, I most-likely wouldn't have gone, and I would have most-likely sent a gift.
I would have been just as happy not knowing about the wedding to begin with.
I'm not one of those old crabby Jews who get into "I invited him to mine, why didn't he invite me to his?"
I really couldn't give a crap about that.
What has gotten my dander up, and my dudgeon high, is that there was a conscious decision to not only snub me, but to try to treat me like an idiot in the process.
Zisser was trying to pull a fast one, not giving me enough credit to be able to figure out that I was on the "B" list.
Why he didn't invite me to begin with is anybody's guess.
Sending the follow-up card with the wedding picture and description is something I just chalk up to Zisser not thinking, or Zisser delegating the thinking to somebody else.
Somebody else who was not thinking.
Anyway, it's wonderful to not be thought of like that, whoever was not doing it.
It resulted in my simply getting my nose rubbed in it, which has always been the history between me and Zisser.

Also in the form letter was the expected braggadociotic cheeky blather about his daughter, the Bat Mitzvah girl from ten years previously, having just gotten her Phd. in Clinical Psychology and continuing her humanitarian ways in general, and how wonderful their just married son is, now that he's just joined the family law firm.
Undoubtedly the "Best Law Firm In The World".

Maybe Zisser's Bar Mitzvah picture is sitting somewhere in one of Zisser's closets in his house, turning into the Picture of Dorian Gray.

I am now certain that, as we have started to approach the finish line, I have finally nosed him out in the "Best Boy In The World" Sweepstakes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Should Old Acquaintance Be Forgot?

2011-12-30T23:20:00.008-05:00

Considering the time of year it is, and in this specific instance, you bet your ass it should.
You are catching me today with my dander up.
If you were to look upwards, you would undoubtedly see my dander.
I am in particularly high dudgeon.
Again, if you were to look upward, that would be MY dudgeon you'd be staring at.
This one requires major backstory, and most-likely much expansiveness on my part.

When I was growing up, in public school, junior high, and high school, I had a very good friend.
Now he is simply an old acquaintance whom I'm now convinced should totally be forgot.
I'm only going to half out him.
I'll give you his last name.
It is Zisser.
I'm only doing this because after the major figurative slap in the face he gave me, my only other choice would be to physically confront him, literally slap his face, and challenge him to a duel.
And physically, I'm really not up to that.
So, figuring on the likelihood that he has Google Alert, his last name should be enough to call this to his attention.
I mean, what's the point of having a blog if you can't use it to settle scores with?

As a child, and as an adolescent, Zisser was always my stalking horse.
He was always a much better student than me.
He always got better grades than me.
I swear that by the time he was eleven years old, he had his career choice mapped out.
He was going to be a lawyer, just like his way-older brother.
I, of course, into my early twenties, had no idea what I wanted to be.
Zisser was the example I was supposed to follow, according to my mother.

Hanging on the foyer wall in his parents' apartment in Queens was his Bar Mitzvah picture.
Next to it, in his handwriting in magic marker, was his name, followed by, in quotes, "The Best Boy In The World".
I really couldn't argue with that.
As far as I could tell, he WAS the best boy in the world.
And he wasn't embarrassed that it was still hanging there throughout his college career.
I suppose I should have suspected then that this was the first sign that he would become a full-fledged terminal braggart.

With my mother, it was always "Why couldn't you graduate college in four years, and go on to law school, like Zisser?
Why is it taking you six, and you still don't know what you want to do with yourself?"
I had to explain to her, more than once, "Well, you see ma? It's simply because I am not the best boy in the world.
Zisser is. I don't stand a chance."
I would be met with "Well, don't you WANT to be the best boy in the world?"
I'd reply "Desperately. With all my heart. (And I meant it) But that title is already taken. I can't wrest it from him."

After college, Zisser and I kind of drifted apart.
He went on to law school, and I went on to nothing, until I
fell into writing.
We went to each other's weddings, each involving much travel, because we lived in different regions of the country.
I always sensed that there was some lingering competitiveness between us.
Particularly after I had made it big in TV writing.
And Zisser probably figured that even though he was now a successful lawyer, I could probably buy and sell him five times over.
And he'd have been right.
And it probably didn't sit well.
He followed all the rules. He got out of college in four years. I was headed for bumdom.
It didn't compute.
He should have been in a position to say "I told you so."
But I never gave him that opportunity.

The last time I saw Zisser was at his daughter's Bat Mitzvah, about ten years ago, in Florida, where they still live, and where that
fackockta "Best Boy in the World" Bar Mitzvah picture is probably still hanging on some wall in his house.
The event turned out to be a two-day orgy of self-congratulation and homage to this little girl of thirteen, who apparently was the greatest
scholar and greatest humanitarian the world would ever see.
More and more examples of this were shared during this orgy.
I wonder if Zisser gave any thought to his guests, who also had daughters who were his daughter's contemporaries, who were perhaps not as
scholarly or humanitarian as Zisser's.
Any thought that he might be rubbing their noses in it?
Like his "Best Boy In The World" picture was rubbing my nose in it?
So the title of "Best Girl In The World" was bestowed on her.

I think the mold of "Best Boy In The World" was first cast by
Zisser's way-older brother.
He became a major star defense attorney in Florida.
Zisser then joined his law firm, becoming an attorney specializing in divorce cases.
Cashing in on human misery, as it were.
Cleaning up, and cleaning up on, messy divorces.
His way-older brother was once featured on "A Current Affair", depicted as the crafty Jew lawyer who got his obviously guilty client off on a murder rap by outsmarting the other lawyer.
That was his job.
But maybe if he actually was the original "Best Boy In The World", he might have turned his talents to becoming a D.A.
What am I thinking?
That would require a major pay cut.
He's a member of my tribe.
So that would be out of the question.
These were my first indications that they both were perhaps not worthy of their titles.

Next, how I got slapped in the face, and why I'm slapping back.

I'll give you a hint.
It has to do with yet even more recent and substantial nose-rubbing.

Happy New Year, all!

Well, almost all.......

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Juggling The Batting Order.

2011-12-29T00:22:00.002-05:00

Every year, my wife and I watch the Kennedy Center Honors.
They were on Tuesday night.
And we usually attempt to figure out the order of the honorees to be honored beforehand.

It's usually pretty easy.
The Kennedy Center Honors can be counted on for being two things:
Very entertaining, and a ratings disaster.
That's why they throw it on during Christmas Week.
It's the week when the networks have their lowest expectations.

But it has always been done with an eye for showmanship, and how to maximize whatever miniscule ratings they'll get.
Until last Tuesday night.
Don't get me wrong.
It was a very entertaining show.
One of their best.
Usually at least one of the honorees, usually the classical artist (There's always one of them) provides us with a snoozefest because of their presence.
That didn't happen this year.
No snoozefests.

They always like to open with a heavyweight, who's not a musician.
In order to grab the TV audience initially.
And they close with the heavyweight who IS a musician.
So they can do their huge production number at the end.
One out of this year's honorees qualified as a non-musical heavyweight.
Not talent-wise, but ratings-wise.
That would be Streep.
They are all extremely talented and honor-worthy.
You'd never know it from the promos.
This years promo went "The stars turn out to honor Meryl Streep, (tight closeup of Meryl Streep being honored) Neil Diamond (tight closeup of Neil Diamond being honored) and more legends of entertainment (a three-shot of Yo-Yo Ma, Barbara Cook, and Sonny Rollins, with only graphics beneath their pictures to identify them)"
It was clear who CBS regarded as the heavyweights, and who were the lightweights.
So they'd close with the musician heavyweight, Neil Diamond.

My predicted batting order seemed like a no-brainer.
They'd open with Streep, segue to Sonny Rollins, then Barbara Cook, the latter two buried in the middle because nobody in the provinces had ever heard of them, then Yo-Yo Ma, because they knew the audience would sit there on their hands salivating for the closer, Neil Diamond.
I was dead-on with the first three.
I was already counting my money.
I couldn't lose.
Then, after the next commercial, they began honoring Neil Diamond.
And it was great.
After two people who I never heard of sang a couple of Neil's songs, they brought out Lionel Ritchie, who sang "I Am, I Said".
Great.
Just great.
Then they brought out Smokey Robinson, who sang "Sweet Caroline", eventually backed up by the Fenway Park Singers, all bedecked in Red Sox outfits. (Neil had performed a memorable concert at Fenway.)
Then they shlepped out Caroline Kennedy, and Smokey put his arm around her and sang the song directly to her.
Magic.
Probably the best segment they had ever done in the history of the show.
Nothing could possibly follow that.
So what's wrong with this picture?
They hadn't yet honored Yo-Yo Ma.
One of the lightweights.
During the commercial, I actually thought that maybe he had a bellyache and went home.
But no.
They came out of commercial, and immediately began honoring Yo-Yo Ma.
And I could have sworn I heard millions of TV sets being turned off.
What were they thinking?
And it became a festival of string quartets.
A "Holiday For Strings" if you will.
But not any major holiday, like Christmas or Yom Kippur.
Just a minor league holiday, like Arbor Day, or Tubishvat.
Whatever TV sets hadn't already been turned off would have been turned off during this massive display of stringed instruments.
It gave "anti-climactic" a new meaning.
I was too stunned to snooze.
Even if it was presented in this order when it was live, the show wasn't going to be aired for two weeks.
They could have reversed the running order in editing.
The Neil Diamond segment, the greatest they had ever done, was followed by Tubishvat.

The world is being taken over by amateurs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"Midnight In Paris"

2011-12-27T11:20:00.000-05:00

"Midnight In Paris" is this year's offering from Woody Allen, and it was sent to me from the kind people of the West Coast.
It's a fantasy, where our writer-hero steps back in time from the present whenever the clock strikes Twelve Midnight and takes him to Paris of the
1920's.
There, he meets the likes of Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda, Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas.
He never wants to leave, convinced that this was a better time to live.
He attempts to prove to his bitch-fiancee that this is happening, but of course, as in all fantasies, nobody else can see this transformation.
It's just like Topper and the ghosts.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

The idea is. But the movie for the most part isn't.
C.

Compelling, even?

Never.

F.

Is it controversial?

I'll give it "thought-provoking". That's all.
B.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

I was just barely thinking about it WHILE I was seeing it.
D.

Is it funny?

Hardly ever, considering the source.
D.

Is it a story worth telling?

If told better, perhaps
C.

Is it good storytelling?

Good storytelling should not cause one to almost nod off while watching it.
I was one who almost nodded off while watching it.
D.

Is it well written?

He's done far better, on all levels.
C.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

I was too busy almost snoozing to notice.
B.

Is it too long? Too short?

It wasn't long, but it sure seemed it.
F.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

It is not believable, because the premise is not fulfilled satisfactorily.
The very nature of the film keeps the audience at arm's length about caring about the characters.
You are constantly kept aware that you are watching written characters.
This is what I said about "Melinda and "Melinda"
D.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

The last fifteen minutes or so, after I took an official snooze, when it finally gets to the point, is quite interesting,
A.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

If I'd gone to the movies, I'd have slept through the interesting part, so no.
F.

Is it an impressive film?

Not at all.

F.

Overall grade: C+.

All this recent Woody Allen stuff has really been hit and miss.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"The Descendants"

2011-12-24T11:23:00.000-05:00

As I indicated in the previous post, "The Descendants" is all about adultery.
I thought the subject was handled rather clumsily.
It is also about George Clooney's character's struggle to do the right thing about his control of a major valuable piece of real estate
in the Hawaiian Island of Kauaii.
His family, the heirs to this land, want him to sell to the most crass lucrative faction.
There is also a less crass, less lucrative faction.
There is also the option of not selling at all, leaving the land pristine.
The two elements adultery and greed, consistently get in each other's way, mitigating Clooney's motives for what is his ultimate decision.
The film-makers want you to think he's heroic at the end, but because of the adultery factor, you really don't know what causes him to make his ultimate decision.
And maybe he's not such a hero.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Very much so.
A+.

Compelling, even?

On occasion.
B+.

Is it controversial?

It's already stirred up plenty on my end.
A+

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

I do and I have.
A+

Is it funny?

Hardly ever. A little more humor infused wouldn't hurt.
C-.

Is it a story worth telling?

I really don't think so.
C-.

Is it good storytelling?

Considering that it is not worth telling, it is told very well.
A.

Is it well written?

For the most part.
B+

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

Clooney is riveting, as usual.
There are some nice turns by Beau Bridges and Robert Forster.
The acting overall is first-rate.
The photography, particularly on Kauaii, is breathtaking.
A+..

Is it too long? Too short?

Neither.
A.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

Very believable, and you certainly care, but it's very superficial.
B.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

I was ahead of them, plotwise, at least as to the "What?". But not as to the "Why".
And I only found that disappointing.
C-.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

Not in the least.
D.

Is it an impressive film?

On some levels, very.
On others, not at all
B-

Overall grade: B.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Clooney can make almost anything work.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

More Than A Few Words About Infidelity.

2011-12-22T00:59:00.001-05:00

I mentioned in my last post how the subject of infidelity permeates my work.
Perhaps I owe you more of an explanation as to why it permeates my work.
My personal situation is not up for discussion.
Let's just say that I consider myself an extremely moral person.
But I've always considered infidelity to usually fall into a very gray area of morality.
Sometimes it is flagrantly very dark gray.
Sometimes it is extremely light gray.

I just saw the movie "The Descendants", which stars George Clooney.
It deals largely with the subject of infidelity.
I will do a Report Card on it in my next post.
One of the things I will discuss is what I feel was the black-and-white nature with which the subject was handled.
It almost never gets into the "Why?" of it.
Only the "Who?".
And how the perpetrators are to be dealt with.

There are two adulterers in this film.
One seems to commit the act for what seems to be sport.
Like a member of the "Mile-High Club", where guys would rent a helicopter and hookers, and fly over their own homes where their wives are.
Either sport in this case, or mercenary reasons.
It's not really pinned down.
Here, we are really dealing with the very dark gray.
Unless a "Mile High Club" member feels he is justified to participate in this outdoor sport.
This would usually have something to do with revenge of some sort for being mistreated.
And would lighten up the dark gray, at least in my eyes.
But in this instance, more information is required.

In the case of the other adulterer, we are not given a clue as to the "Why?", and what the problem was in her marriage.
It is completely glossed over.

Anyway, further up the lighter gray scale is sexual boredom.
Particularly when it's mutual.
Or mutual contempt.
Or payback when one mate has cheated on the other, or at least is highly suspected of having cheated on the other.
And they don't want to end the marriage because children or heavy duty alimony are involved.

And what if your marriage partner has let him or herself go, developing a potbelly that you know will never go away?
Do you not have the right to take this as a personal affront?
A sign of disrespect?
And don't you have the right to act upon this accordingly?
I'm just asking.

What if YOU have let yourself go, developing that same potbelly?
Doesn't your partner have the same right that you have to act upon it?

What if one of the partners has developed the inability to sexually function?
For medical reasons or whatever else.
Should this become a life sentence for the other partner?
You'd think it would soon turn into a death sentence.

What if all remnants of romance is gone, never to return?

So what I'm saying is it's not all that simple.
There are a lot of good, moral people who have a legitimate need to be unfaithful.
Just as there are a lot of rotten apples out there who don't.

It's not like all those Lifetime movies or those Nancy Meyers movies where men who cheat on their wives are simply rat-bastards.

And if you're going to do a movie about the subject, or a play, I feel that it behooves the author to dig more into the "Why?" and maybe not concentrate so much on the "Who?'
And keep away from the dark gray.
It always strikes me as a bit arbitrary.

That's what I try to accomplish in my writing.
And sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who does.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger"

2011-12-20T11:05:00.002-05:00

Yet a third Woody Allen movie that had slipped under my radar, this one is first-rate.
It's from 2010, and it relies heavily on the two favorite subjects of my own work, infidelity and the toying with it to the point where marriages break up, and the Fall from Grace.
Plenty of both are on display here.
There is nothing I find more compelling to see or write about than those two subjects, and Woody handles them quite deftly.
The title alludes to a quack fortune teller that one of the main characters completely puts her faith in.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

It can't help itself but be interesting.
A+.

Compelling, even?

Sometimes.
B+.

Is it controversial?

It really doesn't aspire to be, but it doesn't matter.
No Grade.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Only in the way I always think about it, but that may just be me.
B+.

Is it funny?

It is very funny, sometimes verging on hilarious.
A.

Is it a story worth telling?

To me, it always has been.
A+.

Is it good storytelling?

Extremely.
A.

Is it well written?

The dialogue is first-rate.
A+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

Extremely well-cast. Anthony Hopkins and Josh Brolin are right on the money as the male leads.
And there are great turns by Pauline Collins as the quack fortune teller and Lucy Punch as Hopkins' second wife.
It uses London very well in the shooting, and it is extremely well-edited for comic effect.
My only misgiving is that there is a narrator who is neither one of the characters, nor is it Woody.
It cries out for it to be Woody.
A.

Is it too long? Too short?

Never felt the need to look at my watch. It zips along.
A+.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

Very believable, and you certainly care.
A.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

I was ahead of them a couple of times, but it did not interfere with my enjoyment of it.
B-.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

I wouild have had no qualms if I shelled out the dough.
A.

Is it an impressive film?

All of his good ones are.
A.

Overall grade: A.

Quite a step back up from "Melinda and Melinda".

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"Melinda And Melinda"

2011-12-17T08:43:00.001-05:00

Another Woody Allen movie that came and went under my radar, from 2004, "Melinda and Melinda", is an ambitious idea that I think falters greatly in execution.
Two couples sit around a table in a French Restaurant in New York.
The two males are playwrights.
One writes comedies, the other writes tragedies.
During the course of the movie, they take the same premise and each attempts to prove that it is more to their individual specialty than the other's.
And we see the ensuing story played out, back and forth in both genres.
At least, that is what is attempted.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

The idea is certainly interesting. I could see why Woody would want to tackle it.
But the movie itself never rises above boring and confusing.

C.

Compelling, even?

Never.

F.

Is it controversial?

The attempt is made, but it really isn't.

D.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Only on the level of how much a reminder it is that even a genius like Woody Allen can occasionally fail.

C.

Is it funny?

Only rarely. And that's in the "comedic" segments.
In the "tragic" segments, it is of course never funny.

C-.

Is it a story worth telling?

It would seem to be, but not like this.

C.

Is it good storytelling?

No, on most levels.
There is not that big a contrast to when they are in the "tragic" version and when they are in the "comedic" version.
They seem to overlap each other, to the point of confusion.
The tragic needs to be more tragic, and the comedic needs to be much funnier.

D.

Is it well written?

The dialogue is pretty interesting
It's really the only thing it's got going for it.

B+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

I suppose. Will Ferrell is pretty good as the comedic voice of Woody Allen.
He is the one consigned the snappers and one-liners that would usually come out of Woody's mouth if he was in it.

B.

Is it too long? Too short?

It seemed interminable.

F.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

It is not believable, because the premise is not fulfilled satisfactorily.
The very nature of the film keeps the audience at arm's length about caring about the characters.
You are constantly kept aware that you are watching written characters.

D-.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

Not really predictable, and it cries out for surprise that never happens.

C-.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

It is worth no bucks.

F.

Is it an impressive film?

Not at all.

F.

Overall grade: C-.

I guess it happens to the best of us. Sometimes more than once.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Report Card---"Anything Else"

2011-12-15T09:18:00.002-05:00

Attempting to make good on my threat to do Report Cards on Woody Allen movies that have, for one reason or another, slipped under my radar over the last few years, I will begin with the film "Anything Else".
I Tivo'ed it and watched it recently.
It smacked of vintage good-but not-necessarily-great Woody Allen.
Woody has a major acting role in it, but is not the protagonist.
This has been a rarity for him.
The protagonist is a young actor named Jason Biggs.
Woody Allen, as an aging schoolteacher turned comedy writer, is young Biggs' mentor about comedy and life.
Biggs also plays a comedy writer who has had more success than Woody at comedy writing, but at least as much failure in his romantic life.
"Anything Else" has that great New York flavor about it, with many scenes set in Central Park as their meeting and strolling place.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

To me it was. Any time the subject is comedy writing and failing romantic relationships, I'm in.
A+

Compelling, even?

No. It's tone is quite light-hearted. But it is very interesting.
B-.

Is it controversial?

It makes no attempt at controversy.
No Grade.

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

There are a couple of gut-bustingly funny scenes in it, that you relish if you think about them.
B+

Is it funny?

It is very funny, but mostly not of the gust-busting variety.
Much of the dialogue, particularly Woody's, takes the form of jokes.
The kind of jokes that you very much associate with Woody Allen.
While I'm usually put off by dialogue that sounds like comedy writers wrote them, I give Woody a complete pass because he's actually playing a comedy writer.
And the jokes are first-rate.
A.

Is it a story worth telling?

It completely held my interest. What more do you need than that?
A.

Is it good storytelling?

Quite structurally sound, with quite a few surprises along the way.
A.

Is it well written?

The dialogue is wonderful.
That's always been his strength.
A+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

Yes, yes, and yes.
There are some great turns by Christina Ricci as Biggs' totally self-absorbed girlfriend, Stockard Channing as Ricci's wannabe Cabaret Singer mother, and especially Danny Devito, as Biggs' totally inept agent, who constantly speaks in Garment Center metaphors.
One of his scenes with Biggs is one of the gut-bustingly funny scenes described previously.
A+.

Is it too long? Too short?

I never looked at my watch, or stopped the Tivo to go to the bathroom
Higher praise cannot be found.
A+.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

It's believable, and you never really have to care about the characters that much to enjoy them.
A.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

Never predictable, full of surprises.
A+.

Is it worth the ten bucks I would have spent had I gone to the movies to see it?

I think I would have felt that I'd gotten my money's worth.
A.

Is it an impressive film?

You're certainly not overwhelmed, but it's a very pleasant ride.
B+.

Overall grade: A.

I'm certainly glad I watched the Woody Allen documentary, if for no other reason than that it led me to see this movie.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

It Was The Best Of Harry Morgan, It Was The Worst Of Harry Morgan....

2011-12-13T01:39:00.002-05:00

Harry Morgan was a great comic actor....when given the opportunity.
Which wasn't often.
He certainly had great comedy and acting chops.
But I really think the comedy chops were underutilized.

I know a lot of people loved him on MASH.
I wasn't one of them.
But I don't blame him.
I think his part was written badly, causing him to go over the top comedically.
This caused his acting to always show.
Nothing subtle about Colonel Potter, unfortunately.

I only saw him once when he was Jack Webb's partner on Dragnet,
The only one I've ever seen shine on Dragnet was Jack Webb.
And when Harry Morgan was on it, Dragnet was a very Right-Wing show, on in a very Left-Wing era.
So it was not exactly my glass of tea.

But there was a sitcom on from the mid to late 50's that really brought out the best in Harry Morgan.
It was called "December Bride".
It was a very funny, very well written, hardball, three-camera live-audience sitcom, where Harry, in a supporting role as the next door neighbor to Spring Byington and her family, was funny every time he opened his mouth.
He was always served up straightlines so he can nail the punchline that followed.
And boy, could he nail them.
His character's name was Pete Porter.
Harry was the funniest actor on "December Bride".
Actually, it was a two-way tie between Harry and Verna Felton, a great old character actress who played Spring Byington's friend Hilda Crocker.
You might also remember Verna Felton as the actress who occasionally showed up on "The Jack Benny Show" to play Dennis Day's mother.
What a hoot she was in that.
I probably should have given "December Bride" at least Honorable Mention when I offered my Top Ten favorite sitcoms.

Pete Porter had a wife named Gladys, who was often alluded to, but never seen.
And the allusions were always hilarious.
It was great that she was never seen.

This was the Best of Harry Morgan. By far.

The Worst of Harry Morgan, oddly enough, was when he played the same character.
It was in a spinoff of "December Bride" that started the year
after "December Bride" went off the air.
It was called "Pete and Gladys".
And they made several fatal mistakes.

1- They actually showed Gladys.
2- They cast the horrendous Cara Williams, who proved each and every week just exactly how much she wasn't Lucille Ball.
3- They turned Harry Morgan into Cara Williams' straightman. Maybe if he had a Cuban accent like Desi, it might have worked.
4- They turned it into a one-camera filmed show with a blatant laughtrack.
5- Because of this, the same writers there were on "December Bride" got lazy, and wrote godawful scripts.
Godawful dialogue, and godawful stories.

This is why it was the Worst of Harry Morgan.

But I'll always have "December Bride" to cling to.
There is a condensed episode of "December Bride" on YouTube.
About nine minutes worth.
I recommend that you watch it.
It made me laugh out loud quite a few times.
And it makes the point that I've been making about it.

There are several episodes of "Pete and Gladys" on YouTube.
I could barely get through half of one of them.
But if you insist on slogging through sewage, just like Harry Morgan had to in it, it's there to be viewed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
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.

******

Old Bread, Old Rolls. Part Five.

2011-12-09T12:23:00.003-05:00

Frank Capra directed some really great movies.

"It Happened One Night"
"Mr. Deeds Goes To Town"
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"
"You Can't Take It With You"
"Lady For a Day"
"Meet John Doe"
"Arsenic and Old Lace" (Cary Grant at his funniest)
and of course, "It's a Wonderful Life".
There was another great one, "American Madness", from 1932, which, upon viewing, seems to be the basis for "It's A Wonderful Life".

Capra was a major voice in the anti-colorization crusade that began when movies started being colorized.
As someone who shot most of his movies in black-and white, I suppose you can understand why.
Capra was always wrapping the American Flag around himself.
With colorization, he was wrapping "artisitic integrity" around himself.

Now, I've seen the colorized versions of "It's A Wonderful Life" and "Arsenic and Old Lace"
Not harmed artistically in the least.
They lost none of their integrity.
I think they were even improved.
There was nothing particularly aesthetic to their black and white nature.
But with Capra, it was a matter of "artistic integrity".
That's not the way he made them.

Funny, how when the two movies Capra made in color, the very good
"A Hole In The Head", and the absolutely stinking, in spite of Peter Falk's great performance, "Pocketful of Miracles", both showed up on televison a few years after they were made, when most viewers still had black and white TV sets, and the movies were cut up, and broken up for commercials, you didn't hear a peep out of Capra and his "artistic integrity".
He just scooped up his "Pocketful of Residuals" and kept his mouth shut.

Capra also made a slew of movies in the really early 30's that I've never seen, and would really like to.

There was an even bigger stinker, right out of the "Old Bread, Old Rolls" playbook, which showed where Capra really stood on "artistic integrity".

In 1934, Capra made a pretty good movie called "Broadway Bill".
It starred Warner Baxter as a down-on-his-luck horse trainer who invested his entire future on the outcome of a horserace, that included his horse, Broadway Bill.
Hence, the title.

In 1950, Capra decided to do a remake of "Broadway Bill".
It was called "Riding High"
He got Bing Crosby to do Warner Baxter's part.
And what Capra did was the cheapest-looking, chinciest, cheesiest example of "Old Bread, Old Rolls" that anyone can imagine.
He literally used at least half the footage from "Broadway Bill", not just racetrack stock footage, but complete scenes, with actors and dialogue, and cut it together with the new stuff he shot with Der Bingle.
The result was a schizoid looking movie, half of which looked like it was shot in the early 30's, with 30's looking automobiles, and telephones that required two hands to use them, intercut with footage that was obviously shot in the 50's.
One-handed telephones.
50's-looking automobiles.
Much clearer looking footage than the graininess of the early 30's footage.
There has always been a distinct difference between movies made in the 30's
and movies made in the 50's.
And it constantly kept bouncing back and forth between the two eras.
It was really jarring, and completely took you out of the story.

Many of the same supporting cast was used: Ward Bond, Margaret Hamilton, Douglas Dumbrille, Charles Lane, Raymond Walburn, Clarence Muse, Paul Harvey, Irving Bacon, and others.
And in the latter footage, they all looked significantly older.
So they kept looking older and younger. And younger and older.
You didn't need a trained eye to notice this.
There was even a scene where Capra, aware of the problem, staged it so that Crosby was talking to all these actors. who were facing him,
wearing hats, with their backs to the camera.
You only saw Crosby's face.
Why this movie was done with this overall approach is a mystery.
Maybe Capra owed the studio a picture, balked at the prospect, and wanted to deliver it as lazily as possible.
Or maybe they gave him a larger budget and he'd gain a "Pocketful of Extra Cash" he wouldn't have to spend making an entirely new movie.
Anyway, it was completely grotesque.
"Artistic Integrity" did not raise it's head in this instance.

Your honor, I submit that this was the most egregious example of "Old Bread, Old Rolls" ever perpetrated.
The equivalent of the Nuremburg Trials would have been appropriate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
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.

******

Old Bread. Old Rolls. Part Four.

2011-12-06T09:48:00.004-05:00

Today's incident is the one that inspired this whole series of articles.
It's the one that reminded me of the original "Old Bread, Old Rolls" story, because it is so strikingly similar.

A couple of weeks ago, it was once again Pledge Week on your favorite and mine, my local PBS station in Detroit.
My wife had Tivoed a musical special called "Moments To Remember", a traipse down early 1950's Memory Lane.
I remember seeing it quite a few years ago, and enjoying it.
I even wrote about it here once, at some point.
So when my wife put it on for her mother to watch, I started to get caught up with it again.

Before they got to the body of the show, the hosts, Nick Clooney (Georgie's father) and Patti Page, informed us over and over that this was, in fact, NOT a rerun of the show that was on several years ago.
That it was in fact, an entirely new show.
Because they had had so much positive response from the first show, they decided to come out with an entirely new version.

This certainly peaked my interest, and had me hooked.
After a few new numbers that were not included in the original show, they started including retreads of numbers that were.
They had Julius La Rosa singing "Domani", using the same piece of videotape where his pocket handkerchief started out on the right side,
then magically switched to the left side.
Then he once again sang Eh, Cumpari".
Same piece of video.

Then, they once again shlepped out a 94 year-old Frankie Laine, to sing "That's My Desire".
Making no allusion to the fact that the man had died six years ago.
This was not part of a new show.

All in all, I'd say that at least 40% of the material was recycled from the previous special.

And the stuff that replaced it was decidedly inferior.
Stuff that obviously didn't make the cut for the original show, because that stuff lacked the quality of the stuff that did.

They shlepped out The DeCastro Sisters, whose one and only hit was "Teach Me Tonight", which they sang.
These were three women with ancient faces, each wearing wildly inappropriate teased jet-black wigs.
They were, in short, child-frighteners.

And they now have all since died.
One, as early as 2004.
So this number was shot back then.
They had simply gone to the vault of what was left over and exhumed it.
Again, not exactly new.

And, of course, no mention of anyone now being dead was mentioned.
They did an interesting interview with the pianist Roger Williams, who is now also dead.
No reference to that.

They had groups on that I had never heard of, who did cover versions of other people's hits.

We were not getting a "totally new show".
We were getting the dregs of what was left from the previous show, with filler from stuff we'd already seen.
Because they didn't HAVE enough material to put together an enirely new show.

PBS must have figured that the demographic was so old for this show that nobody would know the difference.
You know.
Just like "Old Bread and Old Rolls".

I have since thought of one more glaring example of "Old Bread, Old Rolls", perpetrated by the usually great director, Frank Capra.
He wasn't great this time.

More about it next time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
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.

******

Old Bread, Old Rolls. Part Three.

2011-12-03T10:03:00.002-05:00

As advertised, today I will reveal why the last two posts have had this somewhat cryptic title.
One of my friends from college, a Jew, told me this story from his childhood:
He and his family lived in Queens, as I did.
In the summer, for the entire summer, every year, they would go to a Catskill bungalow colony known in Yiddish as a "Kuchalein"
I'm not sure of the exact English spelling.
I'm not even sure that there is one.
"Kuchalein" literally meant that you had your own kitchen facilities in your bungalow.
You cooked alone.
That was the literal translation.
It wasn't like Grossinger's or the Concord, where the main object was for the management to stuff you with as much food as humanly possible, and for the guests, to be stuffed with as much food as is humanly possible.

For the younger female guests, another main goal was to meet a doctor who she could convince to marry her.
On an episode of "The Odd Couple", where Rob Reiner played Penny Marshall's boyfriend and felt the need to go on retreat, we had him go to a Kuchalein called, appropriately, "Cucky's Lane".
That name didn't make it past the Wednesday run-through.
It was replaced with a name with far less character---"Imglick's Lodge"
Our efforts at tribute went unappreciated.

So these Kuchaleins were definitely somewhat downward on the social scale, and far more family oriented.
There was a somwhat primitive quality to them.
Not the best plumbing facilities in the world.
Nobody had their own telephones in their bungalows.

The way the denizens of the Kuchaleins were able to make contact with civilization was with the one telephone available to all, which was located in Mr. Lipschitz's "Canteen", which was another way of referring to what was basically a General Store.
The Canteen was the 7-11 of it's time.
With overinflated prices to match.

And the bungalow guests were at Mr. Lipschitz's mercy, pricewise.
Mr. Lipschitz also had a microphone, attached to a public address system, so that if anyone received a call, they would be paged by Mr. Lipschitz over the loudspeaker.

Now Mr. Lipschitz was an "Immie".
A Concentration Camp survivor with tatooed numbers on his arms.

This, as in the other instances I related, caused the first generation American born Jews to resent him, along with his generally foul nature.

Mr. Lipschitz had a first generation American-born son named Warren, whom Mr. Lipschitz, with his thick foreign accent, called "Vodding".
As did everyone else there, usually mockingly, behind his back.

On what turned out in retrospect to be a typical day at the Canteen, "Vodding" cautioned his father that the expiration dates had been reached on many of the baked goods Mr. Lipschitz offered for sale.

Vodding suggested that they be replaced by the new shipment that had not yet been put on display.
Lipschitz countered with "Old bread, old rolls, they won't know the difference".

What Lipschitz was not aware of was that the microphone was turned on and that last sentence of his was heard over the P.A. system by everybody in the bungalow colony.
Within a matter of minutes, the entire population of the colony amassed in front of the Canteen, shouting "Old Bread, Old Rolls, they won't know the difference!"
Over and over.
Now I really don't know that this was "Immie Bashing".
It coulld just mean that Lipschitz was simply a contemptuous old cuss.
The bungalow denizens went on strike, never to enter the Canteen until it was "Under New Management"

This took place in about a week after Lipschitz had fled.
He probably beat a hastier retreat than he had when he fled the Nazis.

Stay tuned for Part Four, next time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
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.

******

Old Bread, Old Rolls. Part Two

2011-12-01T13:14:00.002-05:00

There will be no further mention of "Old Bread, Old Rolls" in this post.
You might be wondering why the last post and this one bears that title.
It will become more than apparent when we reach part three.

As in part one, this post also relates to Jewish anti-semitic "Immie Mistrust", and also relates to my upstairs neighbors, the Freitags, when I was a kid growing up in the Bronx.

It also intrinsically involves my mother, Bella.
I don't recall if I mentioned this previously, but perfect casting if someone were to make a movie about Bella would be Estelle Harris, the brilliantly funny actress who played George Costanza's mother on Seinfeld.
The spitting image, in every detail.
Looks, voice, character, everything.

Estelle appeared in my first play in Los Angeles in the late 80's, before anyone knew who she was.
Many members of my family attended opening night of this highly autobiographical play.
When Estelle made her entrance and began speaking, my family members were absolutely stunned.
Bella had died about five years previously, and it was as if Estelle had brought her back to life.
So as I relate this story, it helps if you picture Estelle Harris as Bella.

As I mentioned previously, Bella had this attitude about "Immies", particularly the Freitags. Particularly Tamara, Mrs Freitag.
But it also extended to their son, David.
David, as I mentioned, was one of my closest friends.
Mainly because I found him to be very good natured, and extremely funny.

But Bella, for no apparent reason at the time, except for the fact that he descended from "Immies", considered him a bad influence on me.

As even the best of friends do, David and I got mad at each other for some insignificant reason that I can't even remember.
We were at least momentarily on the outs with each other.
During this very brief period, a note was slipped under our apartment door.
It read "Tomorrow, your house will be bomed"
That was the spelling.
B-O-M-E-D.
And immediately, based on absolutely nothing, save "Immie-Mistrust", my mother suspected David of placing that note under our door.

Now I had gotten into lots of fights with other friends of mine, and I'm sure if I was on the outs with any of them, my mother wouldn't have jumped to a similar conclusion.
And there were certainly more than a handful of genuine Anti-Semites who lived in our building who who easily more likely suspects.

I know this because I remember when the Rabbi from my Hebrew School sent us all out to sell raffle tickets for the upkeep of the shul to people in our building, only for me to be met more than once with "Get away from me, you dirty Jew"
That put an end to my Door-To-Door salesman career.
I told the Rabbi as much.
It was like talking to a wall.
But I stuck to my retirement guns.

Also, David was far from illiterate, much less a bad speller.
It just didn't make any overt sense that he was the culprit.

But this didn't stop my prejudiced, lunatic mother from trying to prove David's guilt in the matter.
She approached it much in the same way that Captain Queeg tried hanging the Caine Mutiny on the theft of the strawberries.
With Geometric Logic.
She decided to ostensibly "Patch things up" between David and me by having us sit down together and write out "Peace Treaties" that my mother would dictate.
Yes, Peace Treaties.
I'm paraphrasing, but here's the gist:

"I promise that we will never fight with each other about anything ever again.
And that we will be brothers under the skin. Always together.
Through thick and through thin.
We will always remain together.
Even if we were in one of our houses and it was BOMBED, we would man the fortress together..."
Pretty subtle, hah?

So this whole charade, right out of a bad episode of "I Love Lucy", was designed to prove that David would misspell the word "Bombed".

But of course, he didn't.
It failed.
Just like Captain Queeg.

In Philip Roth's "Portnoy's Complaint", one of Alexander Portnoy's complaints to his psychiatrist is that he was raised by Hottentots
and Zulus.
I think I should be joining Portnoy on the couch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
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.

******

Old Bread, Old Rolls.

2011-11-28T19:37:00.003-05:00

This is going to be either a two or a three-parter, depending on how expansive I feel.

There was something mortifying about my heritage when I was growing up, that I, as a child and an adolescent witnessed firsthand.
I'm not the only one of my peers to have witnessed it.
Maybe it was just a small sampling.
I don't know for sure.
But it sure was rampant in my parents' and their friends' inner circle.

My parents and most of their friends were first generation American Jews.
Their parents all came from "The Old Country"
Russia, Poland, Rumania, Germany......

I was a second generation Jew.
But sprinkled among my parents friends, or, rather, co-apartment dwellers, were contemporaries of theirs who were, in fact, immigrants.

They still spoke with foreign accents, like our grandparents did.
Some of them had tattooed numbers on their arms.
Evidence that they had spent time in, and had survived, Nazi Concentration Camps.

Our upstairs neighbors, Leo and Tamara Freitag, were two such immigrants, or "Immies", as my parents disparagingly called them behind their backs.
Their son, David, first generation, with just a trace of an accent, was one of my closest friends.

See, that's the thing.
The first generation Jews were almost invariably disparaging toward the "Immies" behind their backs.

I don't know if the "Immies" deserved this disparagement.
I'd had no direct evidence that Leo or Tamara did.
But disparagement is what they got.
And it seemed to be simply because they were "Immies".

It was a form of Jewish Anti-Semitism.

Case in point:

One evening, my mother and all of her women friends (I guess they felt they had to include Tamara) went into Manhattan to see a Broadway Show.
So far, so good.
After the show, they all decided to go to Lindy's.
This was when Lindy's was the Show Business mecca of New York Restaurants.
It had a reputation of being expensive, at least for it's time.
It also had a reputation for having the best Cheesecake in the world.
It no longer does, but apparently it did then.

It was determined before they went in that the check would be divided equally among the "girls".
One after the other, each "girl" ordered Cheesecake and coffee.
The Cheesecake and coffee cost around two dollars and fifty cents.
Pretty big money in those days.

It went around to Tamara.
Tamara ordered a Turkey Leg and a bowl of Borscht.
Water on the side.
Seven Bucks.
A fortune.
And they were dividing the check equally.

Tamara got stares from the entire table.
But she was oblivious to them, or at least feigned obliviousness.

For literally the next three years, all I ever heard about was that friggin' Turkey Leg and the bowl of Borscht.
You didn't even have to mention Tamara's name to hear about it.
But of course, any time anyone did, out of Tamara's earshot, it came pouring out of somebody's mouth.
Usually my mother's.

I don't know how anyone would have reacted if it was anyone but Tamara who got the aforementioned Turkey Leg and bowl of Borscht.
I doubt that the reaction would have been that harsh.

I, myself, think in hindsight that maybe if that's what she wanted to eat, she needn't have been a slave to conformity.
I'm sure I would have been met with "Then why didn't she kick in with the extra $4.50?"

I guess I'm on the fence with this one.
I mean, she was always nice to me.
And maybe she should have been cut a little slack for puttin' in all that
time in Auschwitz.

Next time I'll offer up more "Immie Mistrust".

I can already see that this will be a four-parter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
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.

******

Notes On The Woody Allen Documentary

2011-11-25T11:27:00.001-05:00

I Tivoed it when it appeared on PBS last Sunday and Monday.
I watched both parts on Wednesday night.

Thursday, I went to my relatives for Thanksgiving dinner, watched the football, ate my face off, got liquored up, and passed out.
I'm pretty sure that last part was the most enjoyable.

So I'm writing about it today.
I'll save you the Report Card grades, because the entire thing gets an A+.
Particularly if you are a rabid Woody Allen fan.
I thought I was one.
But I'm sure that there are some that are more rabid than me.
Those would be the ones who are the first ones on line at the box office in New York the day any of his films open.
I am not one of those.
The best thing I can say about myself in that regard is that if I hear one of his films is opening, I will make every effort to leave my house and pay actual money to see it.
I can't say that about any other film-maker.

But because I live in the provinces of Michigan, Woody Allen films tend to open, do not much business, and depart after a week.
As a result, there are many times that I don't even know that one has hit town.

That is why I particularly enjoyed the second half of the documentary far more than the first, even though it embarrassed me to learn that there were literally at least FIVE films of his that I had never even heard of, much less seen.
They simply slipped under my radar.
Those films were concentrated on much more heavily in the second half.

And it has provided me with a mission: to Tivo all of those films, and do Report Cards on them as if they are new.
Because to me, they are.
I just received the DVD of "Midnight in Paris", not even knowing that it was one of his films.
This gives me a leg up.

For you non-rabid or even non-fans, this documentary might prove to be an eye-opener.
Woody Allen is one of the maybe two or three geniuses we have still walking among us.
This documentary was long overdue.

In the first half, it was all the early stuff that I was far more familiar with, and made me laugh repeatedly.
To the point that I now want to see all of them all over again, and at least revise my Honorable Mention list of the Greatest Films of All Time to include many more of his.

The second half provided the first defense of his behavior regarding Soon-Yee, with interviews from people who avidly support him.
I'd certainly never seen that before.
Everyone, including Woody, was effusive in their praise about Mia Farrow's range and talent as an actress.

I've known several of the people being interviewed.
Primarily about forty years ago.
An interesting sidebar to this is that the women involved, who were quite young and fairly attractive when I encountered them, now all appear every inch of the forty years that have been added to them.
And the men do not seem to have aged at all.
I don't know what to attribute this to.

Woody, however, has seemed to evolve physically into what Mel Brooks looks like and sounds like now, plus horn-rimmed glasses.

His has been an interesting and compelling life, and we are shown the roots of how his career evolved.
He is a person who is a fountain of good movie ideas and good jokes.
He is compulsive about thinking about them.
What sets him and David Mamet apart from someone like me is their prolificity.
Mamet is one of those two or three geniuses I was referring to
I just don't seem to have that many good ideas, and they are both overflowing with them.
Mamet is also in that handful of film-makers and playwrights, like Woody Allen, where I can see at least two or three stinkers in a row (and they both have them) and be ready to shell out hard money to see the next one.
And I'm always glad I did.

Woody also seems to be compulsive about practicing the clarinet every day, and it seems to have paid off.
When he did that documentary "Wild Man Blues", his clarinet playing was certainly not up to the level displayed in this more recent documentary. .

I heard the first explanation of why he gives short shrift to actors in casting sessions, and usually doesn't even bother to read them.
He claims that he doesn't want to waste their time, as if any actor would consider any kind of extended audience with Woody Allen a waste of time.
This response seemed rather lame.

All in all it was a great and inspiring way to spend three and a half hours.
If you missed it, make sure you see it next go 'round.

It also makes me wish that they did a similar one on Mamet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
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.

******

The Best Single Recording That Virtually Nobody Ever Heard Of.

2011-11-22T11:00:00.002-05:00

Not too long ago, there was a documentary on PBS about the great Louis Prima.
Notably featured on it was his last wife, the one after Keely Smith. Her name was Gia Malone.
She was a great singer, and filled Keely's shoes admirably.
A friend of mine, who loved Louis Prima, but had never seen Gia Maione until this documentary, referred to her as "The best singer I'd never heard of".
I'm here today to discuss the best single record that most, if not all of you, have never heard of.
Let me preface this by once again reminding you of my disdain for my local PBS station programming, come hell or high water, The Lawrence Welk Show". Not only the Lawrence Welk Show, but the Lawrence Welk Show once it went to color and lost all of it's character.
When I was in my teens, and used to baby-sit for neighbors on a Saturday night, Welk was usually the least objectionable programming.
And it did have some character.
It had a funny trumpet player named Rocky Rockwell.
It had the great clarinetist Pete Fountain.
It had basso-profundo voiced Larry Hooper, and it had a violinist named Aladdin, who virtually appropriated Lou Monte's act.
I think I was aware of Aladdin's appropriations sooner than I was aware of Lou Monte.
It wasn't clear to me who stole from who until years later.
The point is, except when Welk was dancing with some old lady from the audience, the show was capable of being downright entertaining.
But not by the time it went to color in the late sixties.
And that's what they show on PBS in my house.
So why don't I just not have it on?
My wife's 88 year old mother lives with us, and Welk has always been one of her favorites.
And she doesn't make any distinctions between it's former quality and it's subsequent lack of it.
So my wife has Welk on the Tivo for my mother-in-law.
So I'm constantly bombarded with it.
I have also expressed my previous disdain for Guy Lombardo, which had also been a family tradition between my wife's parents.
Every New Year's Eve, until the year he died, her father would shlep out the last eight-track player and cassette in existence.
He and my mother-in-law would dance to Lombardo's version of "Auld Lang Syne".
And then, of course, they'd leave the entire rest of the eight-track tape going until it ran out.
At least I think that's what they did.
It was sometimes hard to tell, because of the cotton in my ears.
In the 1940s into the early 1950s, there was this great swinging Big Band led by Charlie Barnett.
Their biggest hit was a song called "Cherokee".
Maybe you know it.

"Sweet Indian warrior
Since first I met you
I can't forget you
Cherokee sweetheart...."

Except they did it as an instrumental.
A very swinging instrumental.

They were to put it mildy, contemptuous of the noise put out by Lombardo and Welk.
And they put out this ultra-mocking parody of their sound, called
"This Is The Wrong Idea"
The "vocalist" on this recording was Billy May, who was a trumpeter with the Barnett band, and went on to be one of the swingingest arrangers of all time.
He arranged Sinatra's "Come Fly With Me" album in it's entirety.
He was Peggy Lee and Mel Torme's go-to guy whenever they were going for something upbeat.
He arranged the Bobby Darin-Johnny Mercer "Two Of a Kind" album I alluded to not too long ago.
Billy May was a hipster by any definition.
And "This is the Wrong Idea" is a hipster's reaction to the Lombardos and Welks of this world.
It's on YouTube.
Just type in "Charlie Barnett the wrong idea".
A feast awaits you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
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.

******

The Greatest Single Recording Of All Time.

2011-11-19T11:05:00.002-05:00

It's no contest.

Hands down, the greatest hit record single of all time is Louis Armstrong's original recording of "Hello, Dolly!"

You must be in a state of utter, irretrieveable depression to have it come on the radio and not only feel better, but start tappin' your toes in rhythm, from the moment those first few unmistakable plunks on the banjo begin as the intro.
It simply must a smile on your face.
Certainly, most popular music of that era (1964) was not about that at all.
It was downbeat.
It was about rebellion, protest, and loving the Beatles.
"I love the Beatles" was my six-years-younger-than-me sister's mantra.
When asked precisely WHY she loved the Beatles, her response was usually
"I don't know. I just love them".
She was one of those young girls who made the trek to Shea Sadium to see and hear whatever could be seen and heard of the Beatles from a distance,
which was admittedly not much, and convince herself that it was one of the happiest days of her life.

The Beatles, in 1964, held down the top five spots on Billboard's singles charts.
Stuff like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "All My Lovin" , "Yesterday", etc.
Louis Armstrong came along in 1964 and vaulted over ALL of them to become Number One with "Dolly".
This was stunning.
Particularly to the Beatles.

Shortly after that, they stopped turning out singles, and concentrated on albums.

The history of the original recording of "Dolly" is not without intrigue.
Armstrong was recording an LP (remember those?) and they only had time and room for one more track.

The publicist for the show "Hello Dolly" visited Louis at the recording and practically had to twist Louis' arms into pretzels to get him to record
the title song from the show, which I believe hadn't opened yet, and was having severe problems on the road to New York.
Armstrong hated this song, but mercifully recorded it to do an old friend a favor.
And, showman that he was, played and sung the hell out of it.

They put it on the LP as the last track, and for whatever reason, it started getting enormous airplay by DJs.

Armstrong, having completely forgotten about it, went to Europe and Southeast Asia to entertain the troops, who were, of course, glad to see him.
He would do his traditional opening of "Sleepy Time Down South" to huge applause.

Then, all of a sudden, there were huge cries for the audience for him to sing "Hello Dolly!"
Louis had no idea what they were referring to.
He turned to his band members and essentially asked "What the hell are they talking about?"
Louis had forgotten that he had recorded it, and it had since become a huge hit in the U.S., and was played constantly on Armed Forces Radio.

So he asked the band members "Do we have that one in the books?"
One of the band members dug it up, and Louis, only half-remembering it, launched into a semi-improvised version for the troops.
It brought the house down, and it had then become a single lifted from the album.
That's when it shot to number one.
Deservingly so.

There were other examples of more established artists rising to number one in the single pop charts in that era:
Sinatra, twice, with "Strangers In The Night", and Sinatra, with child, with "Somethin' Stupid"
But they weren't going head-to-head with the Beatles, who were only making albums at that point.
So the bar was set slightly lower.

So "Dolly" was a befitting tribute to not only the greatest and most influential jazz trumpeter ever, but also to the man who essentially invented jazz as we know it.
You really can't say enough about him or his rendition of "Hello Dolly!"
But I think I got us off to a good start.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

******

Report Card---"Trying To Get Good".

2011-11-17T11:24:00.004-05:00

"Trying To Get Good" is a documentary that has been around for a couple of years.

It is NOT one of the ones I received recently from the West Coast.
It's one that I received from Amazon, after a long fruitless search for it.
I actually paid retail for it.
That's how much I wanted it.

The subject of "Trying To Get Good" is perhaps our greatest living jazz trumpet player, Jack Sheldon.

Some of you may be most familiar with Jack Sheldon, if not by name, as the voice of the bill languishing on Capitol Hill on Schoolhouse Rock----
"I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill......"
He also traded much banter with Merv Griffin on the latter's show, and was probably the best thing on it.

But he has been so much more than that.
I referred to him as perhaps our greatest living jazz trumpeters.
This, of course, takes Louis Armstrong out of the equation.
He was the greatest jazz trumpet player of all time.
And Jack Sheldon will be the first to admit it.

More about Louis Armstrong next time out.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Sheldon has lived a fascinating and surprisingly torture filled life.
Many personal tragedies, drug and alcohol addictions, and he has come out the other end surviving it all in remarkably good spirits.
And there is much of him in performance, and it is joyous.
A+

Compelling, even?

Very much so. His main compulsion is to constantly practice and get better with the trumpet. He lives for his instrument, many say to the complete and utter disregard of the rest of his personal life.
A+

Is it controversial?

I learned many things about him that I didn't know beforehand.
A+

Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Yes. to the point where I want to watch this film over and over.
A+.

Is it funny?

It is hilariously funny because HE is hilariously funny, particularly in performance
A+.

Is it a story worth telling?

To everyone.
A+.

Is it good storytelling?

Consistently revealing, all along the way.
A+.

Is it well written?

On a documentary like this, you don't really notice the writing.
The fact that it was unobtrusive is obviously a plus.
A+

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well shot?

Certainly well shot, Casting takes the form of interviews.
Clint Eastwood puts in his eight cents.
Merv Griffin was interviewed extensively here shortly before his death, and had many interesting things to say.
A+.

Is it too long? Too short?

Could have gone on at least another 45 minutes.
A+.

Is it believable? Do you care about the characters?

It's life. If you didn't care about the characters, you have no movie.
Sheldon is so lovable that he forces you to care about him.
A+.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

Never predictable, full of surprises.
Unless you know that much about his life going in.
A+.

Is it worth the 22 dollars and fifty cents (the retail price)?

Every hard-earned penny.
A+

Is it an impressive film?

Nothing but.
A+.

Overall grade: A+.

Treat yourself to this, or wait for some better deal than what I found.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Our Lady Of Penn State.

2011-11-14T21:46:00.001-05:00

I've heard a lot of talk about how last Saturday's football game between Penn State and Nebraska should have been cancelled, because of the horrendous child molesting scandal that went on in the locker room showers several years ago.
And how they should not be allowed to go to, or accept any Bowl Game appearances this year.
Or how the entire football program should be placed on a long probation, or be eliminated entirely.
And how the least that should happen to coach Joe Paterno is his being fired.
And what a disgrace that there were a huge throng of fans rallying and cheering him at his house the night of his firing.

The first and loudest voice in support of all these things is Ed Schultz, a major voice of left-leaning reason on MSNBC.
I agree with everything he has said on the subject.

But there is a disturbing parallel to this situation that I've heard nobody address in the same manner.
And I think it should be addressed in exactly the same way.

Anyone remember what went on with priests and altarboys in the Catholic Church?
It wasn't that long ago.
It was rife throughout the Catholic Church in many many venues.
Remember?

When that scandal broke big, I didn't hear anyone call for Church services to be cancelled anywhere.
And people kept showing up on Sundays as if nothing had happened.
And the Deacons and Pastors kept passin' the plate, and fillin' them coffers.
Nobody made even the teeny-tiniest suggestion that at least some of that money be used to help their victims.
No. Lawsuits had to be settled for that to happen.

And nobody suggested that any major Church events, like Christmas, Easter, or Ash Wednesday be cancelled that year.
Or forever, for that matter.

And nobody would even dare suggest that the Pope should be fired.
Or should even resign.
After all, it happened under his watch.
As far as we know, he totally swept it under the rug.
And nobody thought it was a huge disgrace that his huge throng of supporters rallied and supported him at his house (I believe it's called The Vatican), and still do, every chance they get.

And there were far more victims here than at Penn State.

If we're not letting Joe Paterno off the hook, then why the Pope?
This was only football. Just a game.
Catholicism is supposed to be about teaching morality.

Now, don't get me wrong.
You and I both know that I am a Jew.
And that this may have the smell of my being anti-Catholic.
But if it turned out that there was a mass child-molesting scandal among Rabbis and their young flock, I would be the first one calling for the closing down of shuls and synagogues.
And, if I had anything to say about it, there would be no more Chanukah, Pesach, or Purim .

It's the least we could do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

The Report Card Season Has Arrived.

2011-11-12T11:57:00.001-05:00

Two days ago, I got my first FedEx package from the West Coast, containing a DVD from one of the major studios
looking for my vote in the upcoming award season.
I expect this to be the beginning of the usual Sunami of DVDs that I will be receiving.
I will be reviewing them in my usual Report Card Fashion.

For those not familiar with the process, bear in mind that I generally don't enjoy reading reviews.
Mainly because they reveal way too much about what I could potentially be seeing.
I don't want to know the plot of a movie going in, and far too many reviewers tell you everything there is to know.

What I try to do with Report Cards is to tell you absolutely all you absolutely need to know to determine whether
it is something you want to see or not.
Without revealing the plot.

If you follow my advice a few times, and agree with me, you'll find this a very handy guide as to what you should shell out your hard earned money
for.
If you disagree with me, then you will find these Report Cards utterly useless.

Another added feature this go round is that, aside from whatever plays I see in New York this year and apply the same process to,
I have also ordered 12 DVDs from a website called operaaddiction.com, which offers videotaped Live DVDs of Broadway shows.
In this case, shows that I always wanted to see, but never got around to it.
They extend timewise from the 90's all the way back to the 50's, and are mostly musicals.
I don't know if they were in fact pirated, or how good the quality of the picture and sound are.
I'm told that they vary.
But I will be on the case.

So, welcome to Report Card Season!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Down Goes Frazier. 2.

2011-11-10T10:57:00.000-05:00

When Joe Frazier was Heavyweight Champeen in the late 1960s into the 70's, someone had the bright idea to form a musical aggregation called "Joe Frazier and the Knockouts"
I witnessed this phenomenon on television several times.
Primarily on the Joey Bishop late night TV show, I believe.
It was almost as frightening as Joe must have seemed to most of his ring opponents.
As it's lead singer, Joe was God's gift to boxing.
That's as charitable as I can get.
If you need more evidence, and I can't imagine why you would, it's there on YouTube.

Muhammed Ali transcended Boxing.
Joe Frazier tried to get everything there was to get out of Boxing.
There would have been no "Muhammed Ali and the Knockouts"
Ali was a class act.
Frazier's act had no class.

I find it quite interesting that Ali outlived Frazier, what with the toll of far too many comeback attempts that left Ali a quivering mass,
even though he still had his mental faculties.
Joe at least had the good sense to pretty much retire after Manila, and at least seemed far the healthier.

Ali and Frazier seemed to be the last of a great era for the Heavyweight Division of Boxing, which had always been the glamor division.
Where you'd always spend the money for the Pay-Per-View title fights.
For me, that moment ended when Mike Tyson bit half of Evander Holyfield's ear off.

Now, all Heavyweight Title Fights are shown on HBO at no additional cost.
That's because the Division is dominated by two giant Russian brothers named Vitale and Vladimir Klitschko, who regularly slaughter their
opponents.
The only fight that might be worth paying for is the two Klitschko brothers fighting each other.
But the two have made a sacred vow never to fight each other.
Probably just as well.
They both wear red trunks, and are very difficult to tell apart.
You'd probably keep saying "Is that him, or the other one?"

So the era ended.
Ali retired to major icon status.
Joe retired to running his own gym, where he tried to train all of his maybe twelve children into becoming fighters.
His most noteworthy attempt was his son Marvis, who many of my friends and I were convinced that Joe actually wanted to name "Marvelous".
You know.
Like Marvelous Marvin Hagler.
But maybe Joe couldn't pronounce "Marvelous".
Just guessing.
Anyway, Joe took Marvis, a very gifted boxer, and tried to turn him into a slugger.
Which was all Joe knew how to do.
And he threw him to the wolves.
The wolves in question were Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson, who both quickly disposed of him.
The outcome wasn't so marvelous.

Both Ali and Frazier's daughters became boxers.
And they once fought each other.
Ali's daughter narrowly outpointed Frazier's.

I suppose that was rather fitting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

Down Goes Frazier.

2011-11-08T13:32:00.000-05:00

I guess if you're going to write about the life and death of Smokin' Joe, this is what you've got to call it.

It certainly is representative.
Joe Frazier, great champion that he was, and he was, is best remembered for the times he lost.
"Down goes Frazier!", repeated over and over by Howard Cosell at the first fight he had with challenger George Foreman, is the signature memory of him.
"The Thrilla in Manila", Frazier's third and final fight with Muhammed Ali, is the second most familiar time that he lost.

I love boxing.
I regard it as the only sport I can watch without having a bet on it.
That's how exciting and dramatic it can be.
There's always the question "Can this guy beat that guy?'
And it's never answered until they get into the ring.

"The Thrilla in Manila" provided the two fighters the opportunity to knock the stuffings out of each other, to the point where neither could really compete in the ring with any kind of effectiveness.
It could be argued that though Frazier couldn't answer the bell in the fourteenth round, he ended up far less damaged than Ali.
They both spent weeks in the hospital after that one.

Frazier always lived in Ali's shadow.
When it was the kids vs. the hardhats in the late 60's, Ali's stand on the Vietnam War made him the kids' favorite.
That left Joe to be the champion of the hardhats.
The kids grew up, the hardhats died off, leaving Joe with no one left to root for him.

The three Ali-Frazier fights were Boxing at it's best.
Great clash of styles.
Ali, the smart boxer, Frazier, the slugger who only knew one way to fight: to keep advancing and slugging.
You never knew how it would end when the two of them fought.
They were each other's equals.
Very few people remember that Frazier won their first fight, knocking Ali on his back in the last round.

The two Frazier-George Foreman fights were Boxing at it's most predictable.
Two sluggers.
One, Foreman, who could hit harder than anybody, and towered over Frazier, and was able to keep him at arm's length, while pounding Joe with punches, and Frazier, who kept advancing to try to keep punching, and ended up continually hitting the canvas for his efforts.
If they had fought a thousand times, it would have been the same result.
Although after about the sixth time, Frazier would have been dead.

When Ali fought Foreman, he used his boxing abilities and his natural ring smarts to beat Foreman.
While absorbing brutal punishment from Foreman, he just looked Foreman in the eye, and said "Is that all you've got, George?"
And Foreman, as he has since related it, thought to himself, "Yup. that's all I've got."
After that, he was dead meat.

So Joe pretty much earned his place in Ali's shadow.

I wonder if Joe died from too much smokin'?

More about Frazier and Ali next time.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

Not-So-Buried Treasure.

2011-11-05T11:10:00.002-04:00

W-a-a-a-a-y back when I wrote about a DVD bio of the lyricist-composer-singer Johnny Mercer,it caused me to do an all-out YouTube hunt for everything I could find on Mr. Mercer.
That's how much I loved this DVD and his work.
And probably him if I knew him.
He was one of our greatest lyricists, singers, and, to me, above all, duet artists.
On the DVD, you got to see Mercer performing duets with quite a few people.
The best pairing by far was with Bing Crosby.
Both of their easygoing styles complimented each other's, and the result was divine.
An attempt to recapture that particular brand of magic was turned out by Mercer and Bobby Darin in a 60's album called "Two of a Kind".
It does a very good job of recapturing.
And is easy to find on Amazon.
I recommend it highly.
Mercer and Darin both died in the mid-seventies, both on the operating table.
In both instances, this was very sad.
If Mercer had lived on, I'm sure he would have been included in those duet albums turned out by Sinatra and Tony Bennett.
And it would have been glorious.
By the way, this is another posting that I had intended to make shortly after the Report Card on the Mercer DVD.
Some things just get lost in the files.
But I managed to retrieve it, because I heard something just the other day to remind me of it.
As I said, a YouTube search was launched for everything Mercer.
And I found a duet by Mercer and Bing of a song that seemed new to me.
It was called "May I Have the Pleasure of Your Company?"
It was great.
Information was provided for it's origins.
It was from a show called "The Good Companions", with lyrics by Mercer and music by Andre Previn, which opened in London, was not particularly successful, and never made it across the pond.
My first reaction was "Gee, I hope they made an Original Cast Album of "The Good Companions".
My second reaction was "Gee, I hope it's available somewhere".
My third reaction was "Gee, I hope that if there is an Original cast Album of "The Good Companions", and it's available, I hope it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get my hands on it".

So I go to Amazon. There it is:
"The Good Companions": Original Cast Album. It is available.
Price: $129.99 New. $39.99 used.
Borders was just about the same.
Limbs would be lost. I had to regroup.

Then it hit me like a bolt of lightning:
"What a major dumbbell I am! I think I've already bought this CD. I think I've heard it. Mercer wasn't on it, and maybe that's why I dismissed it after one listening, but I have definitely purchased this CD and listened to it."
I still wanted to hear it again.
But my CD collection is strewn over many rooms in several residences.
Good luck trying to find it.
I was sitting in my den in Michigan at the time.
You know how whenever you look for something and you find it, it's always in the last place you can possibly look for it?
I went upstairs to my office, opened my closet full of CDs, and sitting on the very top of the very first box of CDs was the Original Cast of "The Good Companions".
Kismet.
I listened to it, and it is far more wonderful than the first time around that I spent with it.
John Mills was it's star, and has some very touching numbers.
The show is about vaudeville, and there are great up-tempo numbers, and numbers that are heartbreaking.

The three or four heartbreakers are handled by a young English actress. They are more acted than sung, and really get to you.
I had to read the fine print on the CD cover to realize that the young English actress in question was Judi Dench, who turned out to be another not-so-buried treasure.
All of this came back to me in a rush because I was listening to Bing Crosby's last concert at London's Royal Palladium.
And he opened the concert with revised lyrics to "May I Have The Pleasure Of Your Company?", which he sang directly to the audience. He couldn't have sung it to Mercer, who had died the year before on the operating table.
I'm sure this was his way of providing tribute to his old friend.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

******

Flippin' And A Floppin'

2011-11-03T12:18:00.003-04:00

Now, you might think I'm referring to Mitt Romney, or Herman Cain, and you certainly wouldn't be very far off-base.
But that's not what I'm referring to.

Or you esoteric old-time classic TV fans may think I'm referring to Sid Caesar's trio, The Haircuts, a takeoff on the Rock and Roll
group, The Crewcuts.
The Haircuts' "Big Hit Record" was "You Are So Rare To Me".
The "flip" side, of all things, was called "Flippin' Over You".
I thought "Flippin' Over You" was much funnier than "You Are So Rare To Me".
The "release", or middle part of "Flippin' Over You" involved Carl Reiner and Howard Morris laying out so Sid could handle it by himself.
And he sang, at breakneck speed, "Flippin' and a floppin' and a floppin' and a flippin' and a flippin' and a floppin' and a floppin' and a flippin'
Flippin' and a floppin' and a floppin' and a flippin', yop pop pop pop pop pop pop, pow!"

That's not what I'm referring to either.
Nor I'm I referring to old time character actor Jay C. Flippen, whom to my knowledge, was never involved in floppin'.

What I am referring to is a filmic device that I've only seen employed in sitcoms.
I first became aware of the term by Garry Marshall.
It was a device we employed occasionally on his shows.
Probably most often on "The Odd Couple".
It involved the actual optical flipping of the picture that was used when a character indicated some resistance to doing something.
The "flip" implied that time has passed, and the character's resistance has been broken down.
The set-up line most often associated with "flips" is a male character saying "You're not going to get me into a dress"
Flip to: that character all gussied up in a dress.
Not the most sophisticated device ever conceived of.
And I've never seen it employed in a movie or in a theatre.
But done with good timing, it can be at least somewhat effective.

Lately, the flip has been used without the optic device.
It used to be often accompanied by a musical slide up the scale of a xylophone.
Now, it has been refined to a straight cut, but it's effect is the same.

And lately, it has been overused by of all people, my hero Chuck Lorre.
Last week, Alan Harper was in his bedroom with his girlfriend.
He said something untoward towards her.
Flip to: Alan leaving the bedroom, blanket in hand.
They used it as a running gag in the episode, and in that context, it was kind of funny.

The following week, Alan's mother (Holland Taylor) invites Ashton Kutsher in for a drink, assuring him that she has no designs on him.
Flip to: The two of them under the covers in the after-glow.
It was quite predictable, and that's when they lost me.

In the very next half-hour, on "Mike and Molly", it was their Halloween Show,
Molly was all dressed up to go to a party as the Bride of Frankenstein.
She wanted Mike to go as Frankenstein.
And we actually had a minute and a half of "You're not getting me into that costume"
Flip to: The two of them in their car, Mike behind the wheel, covered in green makeup, all decked out as Frankenstein.
I can't imagine that there was anyone who did not see this coming.
So Chuck Lorre has become enamored of the Flip.

Flipping in itself is not an atrocious idea.
But one must be judicious about it.
You can't use it too often, or your audience will be waiting for it.
And not happily.

And your flippin' will be floppin'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

In-Tuh-Gray-Shun.

2011-11-01T10:01:00.001-04:00

My mother fancied herself quite the interior decorator.

This was quite fancy on her part, as nothing in our apartment when I was a teenager, or any other time since, ever matched anything else in it.
And her taste ranged from gaudy to gaudiEST.

And she didn't react well to criticism about her handiwork.
When we lived in a medium two-and-a-half bedroom apartment in Flushing Queens, there was a dining area.
Not quite a dining room.
And my mother decided that what the dining area table needed over it was as large and as glitzy a chandelier as could be found.
And she found it.
And she hung it over the table.
And there was this constant fear among the rest of us that the weight of it would cause it to come crashing down
on us during the main course.
Alluding to it, my sister said one of the funniest things ever attributed to her:
"This thing should be hanging in the lobby of the Loewe's Valencia".

This is a line that plays best in New York, where the Loewe's Valencia was known as the most lavish movie palace this side of Grauman's Chinese.
But you get the idea.

The emitting of this line from my sister's mouth not only caused me to do a spit take with my potato latkes,
it also reduced my mother to tears.
So my sister, of course, had mixed feelings about saying it.

Shortly after that, undaunted, my mother offered to have my sister's room repainted.
There was nothing spiteful about this.
She was simply looking to exercise her creative muscles once again.
And she had a concept.
Knowing that my sister was a young teenager, and aspired to be "cool", she offered up the bold notion
of having two of the opposing walls painted stark black, and the other two walls painted stark white.

My sister, in spite of my mother's track record, indulged her.
This may have had something to do with feeling bad about the "Loewe's Valencia" remark.

So, much as Picasso approached a canvas, my mother approached the bedroom walls.
Once again, the word "monstrosity" would have been charitable.
My sister was appalled.
But the deed was done, and she lived with the horrendous result.

And I only added salt to the wound by, upon each and every entrance to my sister's room, saying "In-tuh-gray-shun".
The natural implication that this was a heavy-handed statement about
racial equality.

Recalling this, and posting about casting as I have the last few outings, reminded me of some ongoing racism that I don't think you hear too much about in public, but I used to hear about all the time in private.

It is not a particularly well-kept secret in Hollywood that actors, particularly actors who haven't broken through to stardom, but are working on regular series, would much rather be the only black actor on a predominantly white show, or the only white actor on a predominantly black show.
Simply because there is a better chance that they'll get noticed.
Their agents were always advising them that if they had a choice, to go with the one with the racial contrast.

Think about it: Would Jim Carrey have broken through after kicking around all those years if he wasn't Fire Marshall Bill on "In Living Color"?

Would Sherman Hemsley have become a star after kicking around all those years before George Jefferson on "All In The Family"?
What about Esther Rolle? Around forever until she was Florida on "Maude".
You might notice that they weren't offering any spinoffs to Rue McLanahan or Adrienne Barbeau.

For most working actors, the most they want is token In-tuh-gray-shun, where they are the tokens.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

******

The Quintessential "The Casting Person Must Know The Talent Pool" Story.

2011-10-29T11:30:00.004-04:00

Okay.
So it's 1987.
I'm the Show Runner for "She's The Sheriff".
I've said this before, but it bears repeating:
I had, as a casting person, someone who was elevated from the secretarial pool by the Head of Casting at Lorimar at the time, Barbara Miller.
This casting person was a very sweet, earnest, well-meaning person named Megan.
Megan was foisted on me by Barbara Miller, instead of giving me an actual casting person.
It was Barbara's way of using me and my show as guinea pigs.
I really didn't care so much, because I, myself, knew the talent pool backwards and forwards.
So there was no hardship.
The hardship was that I was presented with the same crummy actors to audition every week who were Barbara's favorites.
Megan was simply executing Barbara's orders.

A week came up where we had to stray somewhat from Barbara's dance card. We needed a specific type of character actor.
In the script, we were depicting the first time Suzanne Somers' mother (Pat Carroll) was going on a date since she had become a widow many years previously, and how this would affect Suzanne.
It was a very good script and a very good episode.
So the problem at hand was to find a suitable actor who would be believeable as someone who could be romantically involved with Pat Carroll,suitable in age, which meant 60-ish to 70-ish.
Distinguished would be good.
I hadn't given much thought about it, as the part didn't really require him to carry much comedy.
We just needed a good, solid, experienced actor, who was suitable for the part.
So it didn't seem like much of a problem at hand.

We were in Barbara Miller's office, me, two of the other producers, and Barbara.
After a little chatting about it, Megan waltzes into the room, with an 8X10 inch glossy of an actor.
She holds it unseen to her chest, like the cat who swallowed the canary, and announces "I've got the guy. We can stop looking right now!".
She turns around the picture for all of us to see.
It's a picture of an actor named Edward Andrews.
I don't know how many of you out there know the name Edward Andrews, but you'd certainly know his face.
He has been in EVERYTHING.
He was a walking history of television and movies.
His IMDB credits are as long as two orangutan's arms.
So he certainly had the experience.
He certainly was well qualified.
He was tall, bespectacled, with black horn rimmed glasses, a full head of white hair, slightly stout.
He usually played the classic tired businessman.
And he had major comedy creds.
He was the Commander on an ABC series designed to be a female ripoff of "McHale's Navy" called "Broadside"
Pretty subtle, huh?
He played the equivalent to Captain Binghamton to that great comedienne Kathleen Nolan, from "The Real McCoys.
Only he wasn't manic, like Joe Flynn.
He played it more like Paul Ford did on "Sgt. Bilko"
But this was a man who had comedy chops, and I would have cast him without even reading him.
He was, in fact, very much the right idea.

Except for one thing: Edward Andrews had died two years previously.
Now, I could have taken Megan aside, and pointed this out to her privately, to avoid her embarrassment.
Or I could have done what I in fact did, which was to say, "Megan, Edward Andrews died two years ago".
I did this mainly to embarrass Barbara Miller, who also should have known about Edward Andrews' passing.
We didn't have the Internet in those days.
If you had gone to Edward Andrews' IMDB page, you would have seen that he had died in 1985, just as I had indicated.
We ended up giving the part to a wonderful actor named Richard Erdman, whom you might remember from the movie "Stalag 17", or from the TV series "The Tab Hunter Show.
Strike that.
Nobody remembers "The Tab Hunter Show" but me.
As we have the Internet now, all you young casting directors out there today have the option of just pushing a couple of buttons and you'll save at least the Edward Andrews brand of humiliation.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

Casting And Eating.

2011-10-27T12:32:00.005-04:00

One of the by-products of listening to all the Podcasts I have described is the continuing plaint from the hosts and their guests about how terrible it is to audition.
How awful the casting process is.
How hard it is to even get the audition you want can be sometimes.
I understand.
I have seen casting agents who are absolute know-nothings.
They are usually quite young.

There is a legendary story about Shelley Winters, when she was long into her career, and finding herself subjected to having to audition for some young casting agent who had never heard of her.

Shelley dutifully showed up a the audition, and the young female casting person said "What have you done, Miss Winters?"
At which point Shelley dutifully reached into her huge handbag and pulled out her two Oscars, and said "This!"
I doubt that this is apocryphical.
I have seen things that bad and worse.
Actors, never the most stable people in the world, continually leave themselves open to devastating personal rejection.
So I guess it's natural to go on Podcasts and bellyache about it.

Another thing they bellyache about is reading in front of some producer who is actually eating a sandwich while they are reading.
The height of rudeness, or so it would seem.

As someone who has been that side and the other side of the casting table, I would like to make the case for the Defense.
Yes, it's criminal to appoint someone who hasn't earned his or her bones as a casting person to that position when he or she doesn't know the talent pool.
But nobody brings anyone up on charges for doing it.
It's part of the game.
Nobody's putting a gun to your head saying "You must become a working actor!"
So a lot of actors hate having to audition.
About as much as they love getting the part.
Whenever I have been in the situation where I had to audition for an acting role, I approached it with relish.
To me, it was just another chance to show off.
I also don't understand how an actor doesn't want to look at him or herself on the screen.
It's okay for others to pay to see them on the screen, but not okay for them to look at themselves.
To quote the late, great, Edmond O'Brien in "The Barefoot Contessa"----"This I cannot figure."
As a producer, I have been far more than once been guilty of eating a sandwich while somebody was reading for me.
But I feel no guilt about it.
I do not believe I've committed any sort of affrontery.
I have learned over the years, and this is an absolute constant, that no matter what city I'm in, casting whatever I am casting, approximately 15% of the talent pool is any good. and by the same token, 15% of the people doing the casting are any good.
The trick is to get the two right fifteen percents together.
It's not as easy as it sounds.
Because this is the case, it is a miracle that any good casting gets done.

When I was casting those sitcoms, it was almost never a matter of "Oh, I could pick this guy, or I could pick that guy".
There were almost never any choices.
So I would spend most of my day, a day where I had to do far more than casting, praying that at least one person would be at least adequate enough to be cast.
Never mind even trying to find brilliance.
I was just looking for adequate.
In order to accomplish this, and to see all the actors whose agents had begged me to see their clents, I had to forgo going to lunch.
I had to have somebody bring me a sandwich.
And I had to eat it in front of them.
But it was never a matter of deliberate rudeness.
It was "Either I see you with my mouth full, or I don't see you"
Why did they think I was there when it was a quarter after one?
Maybe this has been enlightening to actors toiling in the trenches.
I hope so.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

The Invasion Of The Pod People. 5.

2011-10-25T11:29:00.001-04:00

"WTF with Marc Maron" was my introduction to Podcasts, shortly after my introduction to the IPhone, thus introducting me to ITunes, thus offering me the challenge of figuring out what the hell to do with Itunes. Or, as Marc Maron would say, WTF to do with ITunes.
WTF stands for exactly what you'd think it stands for.
And if you have no imagination, he regularly spells it out for you.
Marc Maron is, first and foremost, a comedian.
A very good one.
And his subject matter on the Podcast is, first and foremost, comedy.
He talks about it directly to the listener.
He talks about it to his guest, who is usually one of his contemporaries, in a studio.
He also, in about one out of five shows, does a live podcast at a Comedy Club venue, where there are about five comedians who do stand-up, along with talking to Marc.
In these shows, there is much interaction between the comics.

In all of the above, Maron bears his inner soul.
He wears his heart on his sleeve.
He can be excruciatingly honest.
Especially about his personal failures.
But in a very entertaining way.

The usual dynamic casts you, the listener, as a psychiatrist, and him as your very entertaining patient.
But none of it seems contrived.
He just needs to share his pain with the immediate world, and he does it in a very funny way.
Listening to Marc Maron got me through last night's excruciating World Series game. (Yes, I had money on St. Louis.)
Because what he was going through was a lot more excruciating than what I was.
If you're at all interested in the inner workings of comedy, you should really give him a try.
And if there are other Podcasts out there that I have missed, that you think I or my other readers might be interested in, don't hesitate to let me know about them.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

Invasion Of The Pod People. 4.

2011-10-22T12:10:00.002-04:00

The other Pod Person I was referring to as one of the three I listen to regularly is Stephen Tobolowsky, a very steadily working character, who hosts "The Tobolowsky Files" as his Podcast.

I first discovered Stephen Tobolowsky when he was a guest on Kevin Pollak's Chat Show, and realized, that to my knowledge, I had never seen him before, and was totally unfamiliar with his work as an actor.

Being one of the few who has never seen "Groundhog's Day", in which he had a significant part, my only subsequent sampling of his acting work was on an episode of "Law and Order:Criminal Intent", which is now the show that fills up my Tivo.

Once the regular "Law and Order" and "Law and Order L.A." went off, I was ready to give uo the ghost.
But my wife strongly recommended "Criminal Intent" as a show I would glom onto.
I was hooked from the first episode I saw, and have built up a collection on the Tivo.
One of the first episodes I saw was one where Stephen Tobolowsky guest starred.
And I recognized him from Kevin Pollak's show.
I haven't seen him in anything else acting-wise, but now, I have been on a constant lookout.
Maybe I'll get my hands on "Groundhog's Day".

When he did Pollak's show, he told stories that were totally mesmerizing, and quite structured.
He is also a writer, and for many years was romantically linked to the wonderful playwright and screenwriter Beth Henley.
It would not shock me if some of his writing talent came from hanging around with Ms. Henley and having osmosis seep through.

But he is a brilliant writer in his own right.
On his show, he works with a co-host, who primarily serves to introduce Stephen, and Stephen takes it from there, talking directly to his audience.
And what he provides is literature.
He makes no bones about having prepared what he's going to say by writing it out first.
I identify most closely to what he does than what the ones in the other Podcasts do.
I like to think that what he does verbally is closest to what I attempt to do on the page.
I think that I approach things with more overall humor, and he approaches things with a little more darkness and irony.

But at our best, I think we both indulge in telling ripping yarns.
He has a warmth and charm that I don't nearly possess as much of, at least on the page.
And his is a very friendly experience.
The Podcast runs just about an hour.

I recommend it highly.

I have also realized that there is a fourth podcast that I listen to just as regularly, and I will discuss that one next time.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

The Invasion Of The Pod People. 3.

2011-10-20T11:47:00.003-04:00

Continuing on with the Pod People, today I'll be talking about "Kevin Pollak's Chat Show"
Kevin Pollak is a great comedian, and an extraordinary mimic.
For the uninformed, his current specialties in that regard are Peter Falk, Alan Arkin, Albert Brooks, and Christopher Walken.
There is a major visual component to each of these impressions, which he will launch into at the drop of a chapeau.
He is very big on chapeaus. Always wearing one.
So the fact that this podcast is also televised is very helpful.

Unlike Larry Miller's which runs approximately 35 minutes in length, Pollak's runs between two and two and a half hours.
And it is primarily an interview show.
He has one guest per show, ranging from fairly well-known actors to Giants of the Industry.
But it is always about Show Business, and this appeals to me.

In a previous post, "Why I Miss Tom Snyder", I bemoaned the passing of interview shows where the idea is to have extended interesting conversation.
This is what Pollak provides, and is primarily why it is worth your time.
Pollak is a first-rate interviewer.
He works in the rarefied air of expecting his audience to know almost as much about Show Business as he does.

The visual trappings are very similar to that of the Charlie Rose Show, without the somnambulistic similarities.
Aside from his guest, he has two other people filling two other seats that are on camera quite a bit: his young girlfriend, Jamie Foxx (yes, there is another one) and a young actor/friend named Samm Levine (yes, there is another one, for you old Jewish theatregoers out there).

Pollak spends very little time talking directly to the audience, preferring to talk directly to Jamie or Samm or his guest.
Much like Howard Stern does.
This does not rob us of any entertainment value.

There are, in my view, some minor excesses.
He likes to indulge in a patronizing game called "Who Tweeted?", where the object is for he and his guest to determine who, among Paris Hilton, Tyra Banks, and Justin Bieber, made the mindless Tweet that is quoted.
This doesn't imply that they don't deserve to be patronized.
I suppose this was funny the first time, but they do it every week.

He tends to fawn over his guests.
The bigger the guest, the bigger the fawning.

He shows some mock (I THINK it's mock) contempt for his viewers, having no trouble telling them individually to go fuck themselves at the drop of another chapeau.

He closes each show with his catchphrase,"Get out of my face".

But I am a fan of well-done mean-spiritedness, and that's what this is.
For regular readers here, I'm sure you notice that I indulge in it my own self fairly often.
So if Pollak should perchance read this, I would wear the "Go Fuck Yourself" hurled in my direction as a Badge of Honor.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

The Invasion Of The Pod People. 2.

2011-10-17T21:43:00.003-04:00

I mentioned last time that I was going to discuss the three Podcasts that I listen to regularly.
I'm going to start off with, admittedly, my favorite, "This Week With Larry Miller"
It would only be fair to point out that I'm somewhat prejudiced, because of the three, Larry Miller is the only one of the Podcast hosts who is actually my friend.
I've never met the others.
Maybe if I knew them, I'd like their shows just as well.
But such is not the case, and maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.

However, Larry and I go back more than twenty-eight years, ever since he appeared in one of my plays.
He is a master comedian, actor, and more important, for Podcast purposes, storyteller.

Listening to his Podcast is very much like an experience I've shared with him many times: having lunch with him.
In a broadcast from last March, entitled "Cracking Spines..." he referred to me by name, and talked about my play, and how terrific it was.
This was the only time it didn't feel like we were having lunch.
But it was certainly nice to hear.

Unlike the other Podcasts I listen to, Larry is the only one who talks directly to you.
It's unscripted and never needs to be scripted.
Larry is hilarious off-the-cuff.

One of the others is in fact scripted, and sounds it, but it is scripted very well.
The other is the host talking to a guest and his two cohorts, very much in the Howard Stern style.

Larry is the only one who flies solo and a capella.

The major tone here is joviality.
When you simply want to feel good about things, you listen to Larry.
He is always upbeat, and always respectful of others.
Far more than I am.
I spoke to him on the phone yesterday to alert him that I was going to be writing about him today.
I did the math, and figured out that we hadn't spoken in eight years.
But as it is with so many friendships, we picked up right where we left off.
We didn't miss a beat.

I reminded him of the funniest thing I remember him saying to me.
When we were in rehearsals for the play, I had recently acquired a new girlfriend.
She had coerced me to start wearing cologne.
A cologne that she picked out.
Now, I really didn't want to louse up this relationship this early, so I indulged her.
And if you knew or know me, you'd know the words "Rothman" and "cologne" rarely appear in the same sentence.
So my flirtation with cologne was a brief one.
But when it was ongoing, I had returned after lunch to the rehearsal, with my girlfriend in tow, and the cologne drenching my pores.

Immediately upon our entering the theatre, Larry sidled up to me and said, "Ah!!!! I see you've just returned from the Cologne Store!"

The ensuing laugh I got from it, and the embarrassment I felt, are what made the experiment short-lived.

At Larry's website, he has an Amazon banner, so if you ever feel the need to purchase anything from Amazon, it would be nice if you clicked on Larry's banner first.
It helps line his pockets with silver, and I can't think of anyone more deserving.
It can take you to the Amazon Kindle Store, where, as you know by now, my books are available for purchase, or if you have the need, it can always take you to the Amazon Cologne Store.

*****

The Invasion Of The Pod People.

2011-10-15T12:19:00.001-04:00

Part of the reason that this is the Golden Age of Television has to do with the Internet, and in fact, radio.
There is this fairly recent development that has shown up on the Net, and on Itunes called Podcasts.

I'm sure many of you are aware of them.
Maybe you even listen to some of them yourselves.

They are another version of Talk Radio, sometimes simulcast visually.
But the accent isn't on politics, as so such Talk Radio is.
Rather, the accent is on comedy.
I suppose their nearest antecedent is Howard Stern.
But the ones I listen to and/or watch are more for adults.
For generally Show-Biz hip adults.

At this point, I pretty much just listen, whether they are televised or not.
That's why it makes Television better.
It allows you to multi-task.
You can listen to these Podcasts while you have the sound off on your TV.
I particularly do this when I'm watching some sporting event.

I can't recall the last time I needed to hear anything a sportscaster was saying during a ballgame or a fight.
Unless I was dealing with Vin Scully.
But most of the time, I'm not.

So the Podcasts win out every time.

I guess I could have always just listened to the radio during a sporting event.
But in the past, there wasn't anything I necessarily wanted to hear.

But these Podcasts are archived.
You can listen to any episode of any one of them any time you want to.
No least objectionable programming for me.

The three main ones I listen to these days are "This Week With Larry Miller", (hosted by, of all people, Larry Miller) "Kevin Pollak's Chat Show", and "The Tobolowski Files", hosted by a character actor who has a ton of credits but whom I was unfamiliar with until he appeared on "Kevin Pollak's Chat Show", Stephen Tobolowski.

What these Podcasts have in common is that they are all hosted by working actors, all out of Los Angeles, and all mesmerizing, and for the most part hilarious, storytellers.

If you like what I do on these pages, you'll like what they do verbally.

Over the next few posts, I will discuss each of these Podcasts in some depth.
In the interim, you should seek them out yourselves.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

A Close Encounter With Robert Evans.

2011-10-13T10:36:00.002-04:00

On the Current Channel, the one that houses Keith Olbermann these days, there is a program that follows it every night,
called "50 Documentaries You Should See Before You Die".
Mixed in with most of Michael Moore's movies is one called "The Kid Stays In The Picture".
This is a documentary biography of movie mogul Robert Evans.
I saw it not too long ago.
It is very entertaining, as was the book it was based on, which was an autobiography.
Evans narrates it himself.
Is it a documentary I should see before I die?
Not necessarily.
This, by the way, is how Evans talks throughout the picture.
It could have also been called "The Kid Asks Himself Questions And Answers Them Himself Throughout The Picture".

On Ali McGraw: "Did I want her the first time I laid eyes on her? You bet I did".

You get the idea.

Evans was Head of Production at Paramount Pictures at the same time I was working on "The Odd Couple" there.
Was Evans, in fact, instrumental in getting the "Odd Couple" movie made there?
You bet he was.
Was Evans responsible for putting together such classics as "Rosemary's Baby". "Love Story", "The Godfather" and "Chinatown"?
Was he ever.
He had quite a successful run.

Did things start going sour for Evans with "Popeye, "The Two Jakes" and "The Cotton Club"?
Did it ever.
There was even talk, though unsubstantiated, that he was involved in the "Cotton Club Murder Case", in which others were sent to prison for the murder of potential producer/investor Roy Radin.

As a sidebar, when I was producing "New Odd CUPPle", I used to see this big overweight shlubby-looking guy with stringy hair,who walked around in a raincoat, regardless of the fact that this was Southern California, hanging around the set.
Turns out, he was Roy Radin, and he was Demond Wilson's manager.
This accounted for his presence.
That was my close encounter with Roy Radin, who didn't survive much longer after that.

As for my close encounter with Robert Evans, it was common knowledge, when he ran Paramount, that he drove around in this gaudy black-and gold Rolls-Royce. Or maybe it was a Bentley.
Whichever, it certainly was gaudy.
And you knew it was his, because it was parked in the parking space with his name on it.

His office was on the other side of the lot from mine.
I had a used, beat-up light blue Volkswagen Beetle at the time.

For whatever reason, I was about to leave the lot in my Beetle one late afternoon.
Reaching the turn to the main gate at the precise moment was Evans in his gaudy Rolls or Bentley.
I mean THE precise moment.

But I had the right of way.
I had a right turn to make, and he had a left turn.
He started to edge into the turning space ahead of me.
I quickly darted in ahead of him and cut him off, proceeding to the main gate.

Was I proud of myself? You bet I was.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

The Chocolate Milk Pecking Order.

2011-10-11T13:35:00.003-04:00

First, let me rank the specialty items, in descending order.

1) A New York Luncheonette Egg Cream.
Pure Heaven.
2) Any smoothie you can make in your blender, customized to taste.
3) Dairy Queen's chocolate shake. A superior store-bought product.
4) In-N-Out Burger's extremely cheap and extremely good chocolate shake.
5) Bottom of the barrell: McDonald's chocolate shake with whatever the hell they put in there.

Those were the prelims.
Now, for the main event.

The rankings of chocolate milk, in descending order.

1) Chocolate milk made with Fox's U-Bet chocolate syrup.
Fox's U-Bet is primarily a New York thing.
The best chocolate syrup on the market.
Most, if not all Egg Creams are made with Fox's U-Bet chocolate syrup.
Out here in Michigan, and in California, Fox's U-Bet can be found in the Kosher section of most supermarkets.
And it costs a pretty penny.
But it's worth it.

2) Yoo Hoo Chocolate syrup. Again, big in New York.
Not to be confused with Yoo Hoo chocolate drink, which is decidedly watered down.
I'm not even sure if the syrup still exists, but if it does, and it has retained it's quality, it's just about as good as Fox's U-Bet.

3) Hershey's Chocolate syrup.
Decidedly a comedown from the first two mentioned, but nevertheless acceptable.

4) Any gallon jug of chocolate milk you can get in any supermarket.
Usually quite tasty, but cannot be found in a non fat version, for you weight watchers.

5) Bosco. A triumph of childhood marketing. But a vastly inferior product.

6) Cocoa Marsh. Three steps below Bosco. Heavily advertised when I was a kid. Don't believe they make it any more.
Claude Kirschner of "Super Circus" used to hawk the hell out of Cocoa Marsh.

7) Nestle's Quik. Didn't taste bad, but always tasted powdery.
Who needs anything that tastes powdery?

8) Ovaltine. Didn't quite taste like chocolate. Could only be drunk when hot.

9) Flav-R-Straws. The bottom of the barrel. You pour a glass of milk, stick one of these straws which contains something resembling chocolate in it, shake it up and down, you do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around, the "chocoate" substance is released into the milk, and provides a less than satisfying experience.

I suppose that the reason for this exercise is to expose the unenlightened to the glories of Fox's U-Bet.
Check it out and you will immediately upgrade your chocolate milk experience.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

The Importance Of Chocolate Milk.

2011-10-08T11:05:00.002-04:00

Occupying Wall Street.
Occupying D.C.
Occupying Boston.
Occupying L.A.

This is important stuff.
Maybe these are revolutionary times.

You can go to all the major news outlets and hear everything there is to hear about those occupations.

But you can only come here to hear about chocolate milk.
And that's what has been occupying my mind lately.

I love a good chocolate milk.
Or chocolate shake.
Or chocolate malt.
Or chocolate smoothie.

If you were to wake me in the middle of the night and say "Mark, would you like something to drink?" I could be counted on to say "I would like some chocolate milk."

I also hate a bad chocolate milk.
And there's plenty of that to go around.

So let me amend that last statement: If you were to wake me in the middle of the night and say "Mark, would you like something to drink?", I could be counted on to say "I would like some good chocolate milk".

Just exactly when is it appropriate to have chocolate milk?
This is a subject of much debate.
Although, in my mind, it is an open and shut case.

It is appropriate to have chocolate milk with scrambled eggs, fried eggs, poached eggs, but not egg salad.

Any cheese is an OK accompaniment.

It is appropriate to have chocolate milk with a tuna fish sandwich, with mayonaisse, with or without lettuce, but definitely without tomatoes.

It is appropriate to have chocolate milk as a dessert item a cappella.
But it is much more preferable to have it as a dessert item in the form of a shake or a malt, or a smoothie.

It is definitely inappropriate to have chocolate milk with something else sweet, like cake or cookies.
This is sugar overload, or overkill.

I don't believe that these are just my rules.
I think just about any Jew will tell you the same thing.

Speaking of Jews, particularly Jews from New York, we think we know more about what constitutes good chocolate milk than anyone else does.
New York City was where the Egg Cream was invented.
The Egg Cream was first found in candy stores there known as Luncheonettes.
I don't know if Luncheonettes still exist, but they certainly did in the Bronx and Queens, when I was growing up there.

The interesting thing about Egg Creams is that they contained neither eggs nor cream.

You made an Egg Cream by pouring two fingers worth of chocolate syrup into a glass, adding two fingers of milk, and filling up the rest of the glass with seltzer.

Then you stirred the glass vigorously.
The result was heaven.
Next time, I'm going to go through the litany of distinguishing good chocolate milk from bad.
In a descending pecking order.

As I see it, this too is important stuff.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

My Kind Of Town. 2.

2011-10-06T12:36:00.002-04:00

The celebrities who showed up at the Hollywood Collectors Show essentially fell into three separate categories:

1) Those who looked extremely good, in spite of their advancing age----
I got to meet James Darren, "Moondoggie" from Gidget, who quite naturally looked like his own grandson.
It was astounding how young he looks.
I serenaded him with a chorus of "Goodbye Cruel World, I'm off to join the Circus", to which he replied "You wound me".
He was quite gracious.
Ron Ely, TV's original Tarzan, looked extremely dapper and distinguished.
As did Barry Bostwick.
As did my friends Dawn Wells and Leslie Easterbrook.

2) Those who were victimized by some bad plastic surgery.
No sense naming names here.
And

3) Those who Time decided to take into the back of an alley and beat the shit out of.
There were quite a few of them.

I sat directly across from James Hampton, whose foremost claim to fame was as the fifth lead in "F Troop"
He wasn't Larry Storch, or Ken Berry, or Forrest Tucker, or even Edward Everett Horton as Chief Roaring Chicken.

He apparently was the bugler.
I never watched "F Troop" very often.

I had hired James Hampton on an episode of "She's The Sheriff", in which he was quite dandy.
I approached him and reminded him of this and my feelings about his performance.
You've never seen a more grateful man in your life.
It even made it palatable to hear him blowing on his bugle to attract attention to himself every once in a while.
As the second day wore on, and it was becoming apparent that the goods weren't being moved as quickly and as profitably as many had hoped, the celebrities representatives started hawking their client's wares at severe discounts.
It was rather sad to watch.

A minor mystery was solved on this trip.
The actress Diane Baker had her own table.
Diane Baker was stunning when she was younger.
She is still quite a handsome woman.

I have a cousin-by-marriage who is a wonderful actor.
His name is Michael Lerner.
The lineage is that he is my father's sister's daughter's husband's brother.
Michael has specialized in roles where he plays characters who are morbidly obese.
That is because he had always been morbidly obese.
I feel that I can talk about him like this because he is my Couisin. By marriage.

He played the morbidly obese version of Arnold Rothstein in the film "Eight Men Out", in which he was wonderful.
I've never seen him not be wonderful.
I have also never seen him not be morbidly obese.
When he was much younger, the word "pudgy" would have covered it.
But he grew into himself in later years.
Michael was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in the film "Barton Fink".
He was magnificent in that.
I would have voted for him.
But the Award went to Jack Palance for "City Slickers".
Palance went up on stage to accept his award, and startled the audience by doing one-armed pushups.
Michael Lerner wouldn't have been able to do ANY pushups.

Along the way, Michael hired a publicist, and the publicist managed to wangle "Entertainment Tonight" to do "A day in the life of an Oscar nominee on the day of the event".

I got to see my actual cousin, who was married to Michael's brother, and when they got into the limo, there, sitting next to Michael, was Diane Baker.
Still looking stunning.
While Michael was still looking like Michael.
Not exactly a dreamboat.
This did not quite compute.
Maybe it was a studio-arranged thing?
I couldn't imagine that they were an actual item.

So when I met Diane Baker, I hit her with a barrage of questions about all of this.
According to her, she and Michael had been good friends forever.
Seemingly nothing more.
She informed me that Michael has since dropped over a hundred pounds.
Your proverbial drop in the bucket.
But at least it's a start.

I hope he's doing well, and if the family reads this, I hope they don't object to the fat jokes.
But as family can be, he has been merciless towards me in the past.
And probably will be again.

Let's hope for the best.

--------------------------------------

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.

******

My Kind Of Town.

2011-10-04T12:20:00.002-04:00

Thought you may like to hear some of the more telling moments of my trip to Chicago for the Hollywood Collector's Show.
One of the first things I noticed when I got there is that my nameplate at my table was placed directly between Penny Marshall and Cindy Williams.

My first reaction to this was "How flattering! This should probably help me sell a lot of books.

I arrived about a half-hour before they did, and immediately sold three books.
Then the girls arrived, and all hell broke loose.

They took their places, and neither Penny or Cindy could comprehend why I was seated between them.
I was having trouble trying to figure out that one myself.
Then, they unlocked the zoo.
People came swarming out of he woodwork to pay to get their pictures taken with Penny and Cindy and Henry Winkler.
And stepping over my face in the process to get to them.
And I kept getting in everybody's way
I was completely bypassed in the deluge.
Nobody from the zoo had any interest in noticing me.
I don't think any of them were at all literate, thus wouldn't have thought to have bought a book even if they did notice me.

It's quite comforting to know that the fan base for the show that you had so much to do with it's creation were not even vaguely interested in anything but having their picture taken with the girls.
Reading anything about how the show was created could not have interested them less.
I felt that the only chance I had at selling more books would be to get the hell away from them.
I did, and book sales improved rapidly.
They do these shows in L.A. and Chicago, and I imagine that it's easier to do it in L.A., because you don't have to fly the celebrities in and put them up in hotels.
I understand that for this last show in Chicago, except for maybe one or two celebrities, the rest had to make their own way to Chicago and pay for their own accomodations.
So they already have a pretty steep nut that they have to dig themselves out of.
They were significantly in the hole before they trotted out their merchandize.
There is new management there now, so I don't know how this is going to be handled in the future.
Because I drove from Detroit and my wife is a member of the Hilton Diamond Points club, it cost me virtually nothing to make this trip.

And after selling those first three books, I was already in the black.

Next time, I will talk about some to the cee-lebs I spent some time with.

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.

******

The Top Five.

2011-09-29T14:55:00.002-04:00

Okay, sports fans, here we go!

#5
Seinfeld.
I've already written fairly extensively about it.
It's negatives are Jerry's inability to act convincingly, and the buy that you have to make that any character could quite easily run into any other character within the Metropolitan area of New York without it seeming to matter that it smacks of major coincidence.
But, as is true of every entry in the Top Five, it is gut-busting funny.
I place this entirely at the doorstep of Larry David.
"Seinfeld" was a mastery of story architechture, and Larry David is the Frank Lloyd Wright of sitcoms.
He managed to take four story lines in each episode, weave them together, and build a pyramid out of them, placing the final block on top at the end, much like one would put a maraschino cherry on top of a beautifully formed cake.
One of the results of this is that you can watch a rerun of "Seinfeld" and not recall that a particular story line was in that episode.
It was never not funny.
When it wasn't slugging you with roundhouse rights, it was peppering you with jabs.
It really never missed.

#4
Two And A Half Men.
Probably makes me laugh harder and more consistently than any other show currently on television.
I don't miss Charlie Sheen at all.
To me, it never was about Charlie Sheen.
It was always about great, punchy, imaginative storytelling and dialogue.
Chuck Lorre's best work so far.

#3.
Curb Your Enthusiasm.
A real high wire act.
Larry David working without a script.
A real further tribute to his architechtural abilities.
I'm in awe of the process, and how hard he can make me laugh with it.
He is a major comedic presence.
And it scares me how much I am like his character in real life.
Unlike "Seinfeld" and "Two and a Half Men", this is one show where the star can not walk away from it successfully.

#2
The Dick Van Dyke Show.
The first show to successfully work well in two arenas: the office, and at home.
And you wanted to go to both places.
It was one of two shows that had a great Show Runner and a great star. Carl Reiner and Dick Van Dyke.
It had the license, which it used liberally, to have the characters sound like comedy writers, and not cause there to be a layer of believeability missing.
That's because they WERE comedy writers.
When Van Dyke was at home, they pretty much stuck to character writing.
And you had Mary Tyler Moore in those Capri pants.
What more could a young adolescent lke myself want?

#1
Sergeant Bilko.
The other show that had a great Show Runner and a great star.
Nat Hiken and Phil Silvers.
And I think they were both more overtly great.
Never was there a show with more positive energy.
I am in awe of Nat Hiken for another reason: years later, I was in a position to cast the sitcoms I worked on.
We brought in all the old Bilko regulars to read for me at one point or another.
The only one we used consistently was Billy Sands, who played Private Papparelli.
But we also brought in people like Joe E. Ross and Al Lewis.
How Nat Hiken was able to drag acceptable, much less hilarious performances, out of them, is beyond me.

Phil Silvers was really in his prime, and Hiken gave him pretty much free rein to improvise within the context of tremendously well-crafted scripts, and he only improved upon them.
They shot thirty-nine episodes a year for five years, and to my recollection, only slightly missed on maybe two episodes.
What a tremendous batting average!
And what a high slugging percentage!
The largest overwhelmingly positive output in sitcom history.
There is no show that I would rather watch, even though I have seen them all over and over again.
Most of the others, at this point, I have no reason to go back to.

So that's it.
Feel free to disagree and express yourselves about the overall list.
Just be aware that I'm not easily swayed.

-------------------------------------------

I'm on my way to Chicago for the Hollywood Collector's Show, and will be away from my computer until next Tuesday.
Hope to see you all then.

*****

More Of The Top Ten.

2011-09-27T12:01:00.002-04:00

Continuing on:

#9
Car 54, Where Are You?
The second greatest show from the all-time greatest show runner, Nat Hiken.
Probably among the best single-camera sitcoms ever produced.
Hiken had a great sense of editing technique.
Always knew how to cut to the joke and away from the joke, to make the jokes even funnier.
The show had a very New York Jewish sensibility.
It had great imaginative storytelling.

One entire episode was devoted in trying to convince one of the patrolmen that it was Thursday instead of Friday.
This requires imagination.
It had great dialogue, which was Hiken's signature.
The only thing it didn't have was a major star to carry the proceedings, like he had with Phil Silvers.
It's two leads were essentially supporting players.
More help was needed.
But Hiken so outclassed the competition in all other respects, then and now, that I rank "Car 54" this highly.

#8
The Mary Tyler Moore Show.
A true groundbreaker.
It gave every young woman something to aspire to.
The writing was top-notch.
The surrounding cast was first-rate (except for Gavin McLeod, often referred to as the world's luckiest white man).
Great storytelling.
Who knew before this that Ed Asner was funny?
The "Chuckles The Clown Bites The Dust" episode deserves all the accolades it received.
Mary even transcended Laura Petrie, and that's saying something.

#7
The Jack Benny Show.
The real shame of it all is that every year, fewer and fewer people remember him.
His show was brilliant.
Brilliantly written, brilliantly performed.
It relied heavily on the use of "callbacks'----setting up a joke early in the script, and paying it off unexpectedly later on to hilarious effect.

Benny created such an indelible character, someone so vain, so cheap, so petty, such a crappy violinist, and made you love him for it.
He invented the concept of making sure that everyone else was funny around him, often just playing straight to the other characters.
And this worked because all the other characters' jokes were essentially about HIM.

That he has faded from America's consciousness is a disgrace.
I have a cousin, a smart kid, whom twenty years ago, when he was a teenager, engaged me in a conversation about sitcoms.
I asked him what he thought about Jack Benny.
He replied, "Oh, he's pretty funny. The way he chases around those English girls and they speed up the tape...."
He thought I was referring to Benny Hill.
He had never heard of Jack Benny.
And that was over TWENTY YEARS AGO.
Jack Benny should be forcefully re-injected into the public's consciousness.

#6
Louie.
Louis C.K. is perhaps the most inventive performer on the current scene.
Easily the best stand-up comic we have.
He is very much the auteur of "Louie".
Besides writing, producing, directing, and performing in it, he even edits it.
A man in total control.
It started out being what "Seinfeld" started out being----a way to show that his real life was distilled into his stand-up routines.
Except on "Seinfeld", I never believed a word of it.
It was a concept that they gave up on rather early.
Louie has been doing the same thing.
Except with Louie, you believe EVERY WORD of it.
As a result, you often see a man in pain going through life, wishing it was something else.
This makes it darker than most sitcoms.
It has the ability to be gut-busting funny.
It also has the freedom which he takes to virtually NEVER be funny during the entire half-hour.
But it is always fascinating, as is he, and you are always in total awe of what he is doing.
He did an episode with Joan Rivers this year, which, if there is any justice, she should win an Emmy for.

Next, we approach the top five.

-------------------------------------------------

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.

******

The Top Ten List---- #10.

2011-09-23T22:36:00.003-04:00

There has never been a show as quotable as #10 on my Top Ten list.
Therefore, I am devoting most of this page to notable quotes from this series, and I'll get to the other nine anon.

#10
The Honeymooners.

Some pertinent quotes:

Pipsqueak in the poolhall: I've got a friend named Harvey who's bigger than me.
Ralph: I've got a friend named Shirley who's bigger than you!

Norton: In the words of the immortal Pierre Francois De La Brioschi, "La Plume......"
Ralph: Aww, shuddup!

Ralph: See? That's the difference between you and me, Alice. You're the kind of person who'd bend way over on April Fools Day to pick up a quarter. I wouldn't.
Alice: You couldn't!

Ralph: Wait a minute! What's goin' on here?
Alice: Ralph, Carlos is teaching us the Mambo.
Ralph: Ohhhhh! Carlos is teachin' you the Mambo. Carlos is teachin' you the Mambo.
For a minute there I didn't know WHAT you were doin'. Carlos is teachin' you the Mambo..........
Everybody out!
Mrs. Manicotti: But Mister Kramden, it's fun!
Ralph: And YOU, at YOUR age, should be ashamed of yourself!

Ralph: (To his Mother-In-Law, after many catty remarks by her)
YOU are a Blah-bermouth!!!
Mother-In-Law: Well I never.......
Ralph: YOU! Blabbermouth! OUT!! OUT!!!

Quizmaster: And what do you do for a living, Mr. Kramden?
Ralph: Homma, homma, homma, I brive a dus.....

Ralph (to Alice): Hoo hoo, are you going to get yours! Bang! Zoom!

Alice (reacting to Ralph's balking at buying a TV set): Well I don't want to look at that sink, that icebox, that stove, and these four walls!
I wanna look at Liberace!!!!

Ralph: (Filling out a questionaire for Norton's job application) "What do you think of the applicant's overall character?"
(As he's writing) The--applicant--is--a BUM!!!!

Ralph: The first thing it says here is to take the club, approach the tee, and address the ball.
Norton: (Following instructions)......Hello ball!

Ralph: How'd you like to go sailin' over the Clubhouse, Alice??!!

Norton (As the Chef of the Past): And who, pray tell, are you?
Ralph (As the petrified-by-the-camera Chef of the Future) Homina homina homina Chef adda Future!!

Norton: So tell me oh Chef of the Future, what does your Handy Housewife Helper do? Can it core a apple?
Ralph: Ooohh, it can core a apple......hah hah!

Ralph: (To Alice) Baby, you're the greatest!

Ralph Kramden was one of the great comedy protagonists of all time.
He was played so realistically by Jackie Gleason that you always felt his pain, which was almost always intense.
Ed Norton, as played by Art Carney, was a perfect comic character.
It would be impossible to capture in quotes all the times that Norton, in attempting to line up a billiard shot, or to write something,
would flail his arms interminably, in front of Ralph, causing Ralph to completely lose it and smack Norton on the back, and yell
"Come on!!!!!!"

The acting was usually better than the writing. Whenever they went for jokes, they more often than not just laid there.
And all of these quotes can be found in the original 39 episodes.
When Gleason unlocked the vault, and exhumed the "Lost Episodes", they proved to be not nearly in the same league as the original 39.
Very little to quote there.

Still......baby, you were one of the greatest!

-------------------------------------------------

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 the second hour of a 2 hour interview I did on their podcast. The first hour is in their archives, and the second hour will be next week.
Just Google On Screen & Beyond to find it if you're interested.

******

The Top Five Honorables.

2011-09-22T00:22:00.003-04:00

As we head into the Top Five Honorable Mentions before we get to the actual Top Ten list, you'll see some rather exotic choices.
Without further ado:

#5
It's A Great Life.
This is a show that probably most of you have never heard of.
It was on for two seasons on NBC in 1954 and 1955.
It was wonderfully funny.
I remember seeing it when I was in the fourth and fifth grade, and remember laughing my head off.
I also saw a whole lot of episodes of it on cable on something known as the Nostalgia Channel about ten years ago.
It was as funny as I remember it being in the fifties.
It starred Michael O'Shea, James Dunn, and William Bishop.
For the most part, not exactly household names.
Michael O'Shea made some minor movies, and had minor parts in major movies.
He was probably best known for being married to actress Virginia Mayo.
Michael O'Shea was a GREAT comic actor.
He talked with his hands.
In a most unique fashion.

James Dunn had won an Oscar ten years previously for his role as the father in "A Tree Grows In Brooklyn".
He was wonderful in that.
He was not required to be funny in that.
If not for "It's A Great Life", no one would have had any idea how funny he was.

William Bishop was the handsome straight man who was really just there along for the ride.

O'Shea and Bishop played WWII veterans who sold vacuum cleaners door-to-door.
For whatever reason (I never really knew) they were boarders at Earl and Amy Morgan's house.
James Dunn was Earl, usually called "Uncle Earl", and was the laziest cheapest man on earth.
Amy was Frances Bavier, creating the mold for Aunt Bee some five years later. But much funnier than Aunt Bee ever was.

It was as good as it was because of the writing.
It was run by two of the most unheralded writers ever in the trenches-----
Ray Singer and Dick Chevillat.
They were brilliant storytellers and dialogue writers.

My other primary contact with their work was on the Phil Harris-Alice Faye radio show.
Arguably the funniest radio show ever. Certainly the best written.
I'll make that argument, anyway.
And I'll write about it more extensively at some point.

There's an episode of "It's a Great Life" on YouTube, but for whatever reason, Michael O'Shea isn't in it.
So it's not one of it's best.
But it does capture the flavor of it, and most of all, it's almost breakneck pace.

#4
I'm Dickens, He's Fenster.
John Astin and Marty Ingels teamed up as a pair of carpenters.
Both men are excruciatingly funny in it.
I think it only ran one or two seasons on ABC in the early sixties.
Leonard Stern, also responsible for the writing on "He and She", was in command here.
He did great work.

#3
Extras.
My first real taste of Ricky Gervais.
Very British, very realistic, extremely funny look at show business across the pond, from the point of view of some of it's least successful denizens.
Makes me wish I'd seen the British version of "The Office.

#2
It's Garry Shandling's Show.
Broke the fourth wall in very much the same way they did on "Burns and Allen"
He must have been highly influenced by that show.
It was quite innovative in it's own way.
My favorite episode was one they did with Red Buttons as a guest star.
I will devote an entire post to Red Buttons at some point and describe what he did on this show.
But he was hilarious, as was Shandling with him.

#1
The Larry Sanders Show.
Very much a breakthrough for how sitcoms could be done.
Hilarious on so many levels.
Realistic on so many levels.
Great cast, particularly Rip Torn and Jeffrey Tambor.
Really a borderline Top Ten choice.

Next time, the actual Top Ten begins, with #10 through 6.

-------------------------------------------------

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 the second hour of a 2 hour interview I did on their podcast. The first hour is in their archives, and the second hour will be next week.
Just Google On Screen & Beyond to find it if you're interested.

******

The Next-To-The Last Honorables

2011-09-19T17:02:00.001-04:00

I've got 10 Honorable Mention candidates left, and I'm back on numerical track.
So I'll list and describe them over the next two posts as #20 down to #11.
Then, we will get to the actual Top Ten, numbered from #10 to #1.
Here we go:

#20
Lotsa' Luck.
Dom Deluise as bus driver Stanley Belmont, and Kathleen Freeman as his mother.
One of the funniest comic actors ever, and arguably the funniest mother ever.
Stanley is beseiged weekly by his family who lives with him.
Great writing. Simply hilarious.

#19
Dharma and Greg.
More of a salute to Chuck Lorre's brilliance.
And I was and am in love with Jenna Elfman.
It's neck and neck between her and Lisa Kudrow.
Great supporting cast as well.

#18
Mike and Molly.
Yet even more of a salute to Chuck Lorre's brilliance.
Everyone in the cast is quite appealing.
Maybe if there was more of a sampling of it, it would rate even higher.

#17
Mister Peepers.
From the early to mid-fifties.
A very gently performed, witty comedy.
Wally Cox as a shy junior high school science teacher.
He was brilliant.
It also introduced Tony Randall as one of the other teachers, Harvey Weskit, which allowed him to perfect the character he played later on in
all those Doris Day-Rock Hudson movies.
And it had Marion Lorne.
If you'd only known her from "Bewitched" or "The Garry Moore Show", mumbling her way through life, you have no concept of just how funny she was. That's where she did her BEST mumbling. What a hoot!

#16
Friends.
Ostensibly born as a "Seinfeld" ripoff, it had very finely drawn characters.
It was hugely funny.
It had everybody in love with everybody else.
In a good way.
It had Lisa Kudrow.
'Nuff said.

Numbers 15 through 11 next time.

-------------------------------------------------

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 the first hour of a 2 hour interview I did on their podcast. It will remain in their archives, and the second hour will be posted this week.
Just Google On Screen & Beyond to find it if you're interested.

******

More Honorables.

2011-09-17T11:31:00.007-04:00

These shows, to me, are all more honorable than the previous ones mentioned.
And to me, they are more and more prestigious as we proceed down the page.

Amos N' Andy.
I know I've written about this show before.
Let me reiterate what I feel is significant about it.
It was one of the most offensive shows of it's time. And also one of the funniest. Now that we have passed it's time by almost sixty years, the
offensive element is pretty much gone, and it's still one of the funniest.
It's hard to be much funnier than Tim Moore, who played The Kingfish.

The Bob Newhart Show, and Newhart.
An entry.
Virtually indistinguishable, as Bob essentially played the same character.
Both shows had memorable supporting cast members.
Bob has been one of the great reactive comic actors, and showed off this skill equally well in both extremely well-written shows.
Only one of them started the "Hi Bob" drinking game, so perhaps the nod goes to the Bob Newhart Show.

The Tony Randall Show
The one where he played a judge and was as great as Tony Randall always was.
The one where Allyn Ann McLerie played his tight-assed secretary, Miss Reubner.
I wonder why that one hasn't shown up anywhere?

Hey, Landlord!
The first time Garry Marshall and Jerry Belson were in charge of a sitcom.
It was 3-camera, live audience, free-wheeling, and contained some great dialogue, and some great recurring performances, like Michael Constantine's as Mr. Ellenhorn, one of the tenants in the building.
He was a whole lot funnier here than on "Room 222".
But then, wasn't everybody?

He and She
Richard Benjamin and Paula Prentiss, a real-life husband and wife, playing husband and wife.
It was very sophisticated lunacy, and both Benjamin and Prentiss showed off their major comedy chops.
As did Jack Cassidy, as the egotistical star of "Jet Man" , a Batman ripoff, based on Benjamin's cartoon strip.
It was the first show since Rob and Laura Petrie established the mold that showed a loving married couple that respected each other.

Entourage
Would probably be rated higher, if for the fact that it's not really an out-and-out sitcom.
But it was extremely well done, with extremely well drawn characters, and had a pretty good share of belly laughs.

The Big Bang Theory
My first salute to Chuck Lorre, whom I think is one of the greats.
Extremely intelligent writng about extremely intelligent people.
Even if they are nerds.

Taxi
Great writing.
A great introduction to Danny Devito, Christopher Lloyd, and to many, Andy Kaufman. Rarely fell short of hilarious.

I Love Lucy
An enormous output.
Was somewhat inconsistent in quality, but there was so much that was memorable, and that transcends generations, that attention must be paid.
It was Lucy in her prime, which was tough to beat.
And you had Desi running things and being brilliant on camera.
And Vivian Vance and William Frawley bringing up the rear in grand style.

More next time.

-------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

You might want to check out the Kindle Store in general. It is the wave of the future, so consider me a surfer.

The website "On Screen & Beyond" has the first hour of a 2 hour interview I did on their podcast. It will remain in their archives, and the second hour will be posted next week.
Just Google On Screen & Beyond to find it if you're interested.

******

More Kindling.

2011-09-15T11:38:00.001-04:00

We'll get back to the Top Ten Honorable Mention list next time.
And when we do, I will begin eliminating the numerical factor until we get to the top five Honorable Mentions.
I'll be doing this because I keep thinking of other shows that I've neglected to put on the list.
Shows that rank higher than the ones already discussed.
And I don't want to have to start dealing in fractions.

The main order of business today is to inform you that I have put up another book on Amazon Kindle.
It's called "Show Runner Two. The Sequel".
Again, Cindy Williams has graced me by doing the Foreword to it.

It contains about 570 pages of blog material that will be taken down from the blog momentarily.
I am just simply going to be ravaging the blog.

The price is $12.99 for each of the two books.
And they both contain over 500 pages.

I have been given to understand that you don't need an actual Kindle device to get these books.
You don't have to spring for the hundred bucks or so.

If you get Kindle's free app, you can download the books to your IPhone, or IPad, or Blackberry.
In any case, it's certainly easier than shlepping around a 500 page book.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I have some ravaging to do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My paperback book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is still available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

Beginning The Honorable Mention Odyssey.

2011-09-13T14:16:00.002-04:00

There will be roughly 35 sitcoms covered, including the Top Ten, which we will get to last.
The Honorable Mentions will precede them, and described in descending order, with the higher numbers worth less than the lower numbers.
I will cover as many each session as fills the page.
I may have more to say about some than others.
I will begin with #22, which includes all the shows I worked on intensely:
The Odd Couple, Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, Busting Loose, Makin' It, and She's The Sheriff.
I enjoyed them all, enjoyed working on them all, but would find it self-serving to put any of them in the Top Ten.
And I don't really think any of them have earned it.
But they all deserve Honorable mention.
I don't want to rate them.
That's like trying to pick your favorite children.
So it's placing at #22 is not really reflective of how I feel about them.
It's just my attempt at diplomacy.

#21
Our Miss Brooks.
Eve Arden when her timimg was impeccable.
The writing was funny and intelligent.
The supporting cast was first rate.
Gale Gordon was the perfect foil.
Much better than with Lucy.
If you've never seen Richard Crenna as the teenaged high-pitched voiced Walter Denton, you've missed major comedy.

#20.
Sanford and Son.
Good writing, but it mainly had a major force of comedic nature in Redd Foxx.
I defy anyone to watch that show and not find Redd Foxx hilarious.

#19
The Burns and Allen Show.
Always funny.
Gracie was great.
Burns, particularly in his monologues, which broke the fourth wall, was brilliant.
Bea Benaderet was a major asset.
Another major innovation, particularly back then, was how George would sit in his den with the TV on and his show on the TV.
He'd watch it, and never tell any of the other characters that he was watching.
And he'd use this device to drive the other characters crazy and drive the story.
As imaginative as you could get.
A word of caution:
Don't watch too many episodes back to back.
You'll start to notice that it's essentially the same show every week.
Small doses.
The writing must have been particularly difficult.
The writers kept having to come up with straight-lines for other characters to feed to Gracie that can be taken in two different ways.
Gracie would invariably take the wrong one.

#18

All In The Family.
I thought it was hilarious, revolutionary, controversial when nothing else was, well written, and extremely well-played.
It still is.
But it hasn't dated well.
It was always very topical, and very loud.
It now seems even louder, and it's topicality does not work in it's favor any more.

#17
Web Therapy
A recent find.
Lisa Kudrow as a sham psychiatrist conducting three minute sessions with clients on the internet.
It is primarily about lying.
Lisa Kudrow is a major comedic treasure, and this show (Recently found on Showtime) already has it's shit together.

#16
The Danny Thomas Show.
This was one of my favorite shows when I was a young teenager, before Rusty Hamer got too old to be funny any more.
It was solid hardball comedy.
Very solid scripts.
Thomas was very good.
It had Hans Conreid as Uncle Tonoose.
Nobody else did.
But the last ten minutes of each episode were usually pretty deadly.
It got sentimental to the point of treacle.
And he'd usually be singing, which I myself could always pass up.
I'd usually watch the last five minutes of "M Squad".
Okay.
I think that this has been an auspicious beginning.
More next time.

-------------------------------------------------

My book, "Show Runner" can be found at the Amazon Kindle Store, if you search my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, and Happy Days.
You might want to check it out.

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.

You might want to check out the Kindle Store in general. It is the wave of the future, so consider me a surfer.

******

More Non-Honorables.

2011-09-09T19:52:00.002-04:00

Other sitcoms that might be considered to be on some peoples Top Ten
Favorites list, but don't even rate Honorable Mention on mine, for one reason or another:

MASH---- Loved the movie, which was extremely hip. The TV series was extremely square.
It was also badly cast, overacted, preachy, and had a one-joke character (Klinger) whom they tried to sustain
for the entire series.

The Office----Never saw either version.

Ellen----Enjoyed it until she came out of the closet. Then, it became extremely, uncomfortably militant.

Rhoda----Not bad, but her husband was a cipher. And they consistently talked about scenes that would have been much better if they were shown.

The Jeffersons---Just loud and silly.

Topper----Clever, well written, but I'm just not big on fantasies.

Ozzie And Harriet----I enjoyed it a lot, but it just didn't try very hard.
The story lines all smacked of minutia.

WKRP In Cincinnati----Sometimes very funny, like when they dropped the turkeys out of the sky because Mr. Carlson thought they could fly. The supporting cast was very good, and made an indelible impression.
But the lead actor, Gary Sandy, added nothing to it.
I basically took it or left it.

Designing Women---Written by women, about women, for women.
I had no designs on these women. It was not for me.

The Real McCoys----Almost qualifies for Honorable Mention. Many good things about it.
The writing, for one. Walter Brennan was great, as was Richard Crenna.
But Little Luke was a character who had corn coming out of his ears.
And there were soooooo many shows that I enjoyed more.

The Mothers-In-Law----The only reason I'm bringing it up is that it was one of the very few 3-camera sitcoms that went for hard laughs once Van Dyke went off in the 60's.
And Desi Arnaz was in charge, and his fingerprints were all over it.
And Kaye Ballard was a hoot.
But Eve Arden's timing had grown lethargic.
The show in general was a little too broad.

The New Dick Van Dyke Show---The writing was there, but Hope Lange was no Mary Tyler Moore.
The supporting cast in general was completely undistinguished.

The Abbott and Costello Show----They did two seasons in the early 50's.
If the second season was anywhere near as good as the first, it might even crack the Top Ten.
That's how bad the second season was. It was as if it was shot underwater.

Okay. Next time, I'll begin the actual Honorable Mention list.

-------------------------------------------------

My book, "Show Runner" can be found at the Amazon Kindle Store, if you search my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, and Happy Days.
You might want to check it out.

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.

You might want to check out the Kindle Store in general. It is the wave of the future, so consider me a surfer.

******

My Favorite Sitcoms. The Top Ten.

2011-09-08T10:24:00.003-04:00

After everybody's suggestions, I've given this a lot of thought.
I will be discussing far more than ten sitcoms over this upcoming series of articles.

Here are the ground rules I've set for myself as to how I'm going to approach it, and how I'm going to roll with it.

First, this is about my FAVORITE sitcoms.
That's what's been requested.
Some may also be what I consider to be the BEST sitcoms.
And the higher up the list, the more the two concepts will overlap.

The actual top ten favorites are the last thing I'm going to deal with.
What they have in common is the ability to make me laugh long and loud, on a consistent basis, and to enable me to respect the craft that went into it.

This will be preceded with a slew of honorable mentions, any of which I would be proud to put in my top ten if there were shows in the top ten that for whatever reason didn't exist.

The honorable mentions will be presented in a downward sequence on the page, going from least honorable to most.

This will take more than one article, and those appearing on subsequent days represent shows that in my eyes are worth more honorable mention than the shows mentioned previously, once again, gaining in stature in my mind as we navigate our way down the page each article.

This will all be preceded by a slew of "non-honorables".
These consist of shows that might seem to you that I could have conceivably overlooked.

These are not necessarily bad shows.
This is all very subjective.

They are simply shows I couldn't get behind, for one reason or another.
In each case, I will offer a brief explanation as to why they were overlooked.

These "non-honorables" will not be presented in any particular sequence.

To give you a taste, I will now get the ball rolling by offering up some of the "non-honorables":

"Everybody Loves Raymond"----You can always see the acting. And I hated the women.
Doris Roberts makes my flesh crawl.
And Patricia Heaton always seemed to have the rag on.
It was well-written, but I quickly lost interest.

"Cheers"----I hung in with it for about three years, until I realized that Shelley Long was really like that.
And there was an overlying tension on display to get a laugh every eleven seconds.
Very nervous making.

"Frasier"---Watched it three or four times. I never liked Kelsey Grammer on "Cheers", and found the writing on "Frasier" way too arch.
It was almost offensively unfunny.

"The Simpsons"---Watched it a few times, thought it was funny, but never felt the need or the urge to return to it.

"Soap"----Never watched it. This is true of "Benson" as well.

"Cosby"---Respected it. Never felt compelled to make sure I saw it from week to week.

"The Golden Girls"----Great pilot. Quickly deteriorated from there.

"Roseanne"-------Never watched it.

"The Andy Griffith Show"----Very watchable, but I was never bowled over by it.
And I feel that Andy Griffith completely wasted his major gifts by participating in it.

Okay. I think I've given you a taste of how this is going to shake down.

We will continue along these lines next time.

-------------------------------------------------

My book, "Show Runner" can be found at the Amazon Kindle Store, if you search my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, and Happy Days.
You might want to check it out.

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.

You might want to check out the Kindle Store in general. It is the wave of the future, so consider me a surfer.

******

Kindling.

2011-09-06T11:31:00.000-04:00

What will turn into at least an eight part series of articles about my top ten favorite sitcoms wil begin next time.

But I have some hard news:
My book, "Mark Rothman's Essays" has been doubled in size. There are over 500 pages, and it is retitled "Show Runner, my life and opinions in and out of the sitcom trenches" And There is a Foreword by Cindy Williams.

It is available for only $12.99

There is one catch: It's only available as an e-book. And, at the moment, only at Amazon. You can easily find it and sample it at the Amazon Kindle Store.
Yuo will need a Kindle to be able to download it.
If you're paying attention, you might notice that I've removed roughly 250 more pages from the blog. This is the content that I've added to the e-book.

Within the next two weeks, there will be another 500 pages worth of blog essays, which will be called "Show Runner TWO, the Sequel"
The blog will further be ravaged accordingly..

"Show Runner" can be found at Amazon if you search my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, and Happy Days.
You might want to check it out.

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.

You might want to check out the Kindle Store. It is the wave of the future, so consider me a surfer.

******

The Best Of Intentions.

2011-09-03T08:07:00.001-04:00

As you might be aware, there has been a clamoring from the Comments section to have me post my Top Five favorite sitcoms of all time.
It has been echoed by e-mails that I have received.
I plan to go this clamoring at least three times better.
I want to post my top ten favorite sitcoms of all time, with a slew of honorable mentions leading up to them
These honorable mentions will help provide a framework for the actual selections, to inform you about what elements help comprise the actual list.
But I'm not quite prepared to begin this undertaking today.
I still have to sort things out about it.
But it will be addressed in short order.
I will begin next week.
It will take the form of my series "The Best Movie Of All Time".

For those of you who are interested, I will be interviewed by Brian Zemrak for his Podcast on Thursday, September 8th for airing the following Sunday.
For more info, go to his website, OnScreenAndBeyond.com

Also, if you happen to be in the Chicago area on the weekend of October 1st and 2nd, I will be appearing at the Hollywood Collectors Show.
I will be selling my book there, and will be surrounded by the "Laverne & Shirley" contingent, including Cindy Williams, Penny Marshall, Henry Winkler, Eddie Mekka and Leslie Easterbrook.
For more info, here is the website:
http://hollywoodcelebrityshow.com/Rose.htm

I hope to see many book-hungry Chicagoans.
Or Chicagoans in general.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

The "Seinfeld" Brouhaha.

2011-09-01T12:57:00.002-04:00

I have been taking some hits lately in the comments section and with e-mails about my underwhelming feelings about "Seinfeld".
I'd like to elaborate, and perhaps set the record straight, as it has been a little crooked:

I think "Seinfeld' is at least one of the five greatest sitcoms of all time.
I think it has, in Larry David, one of three greatest Show Runners of all time.
Present company excepted.
It has always made me laugh out loud. Hard. All the time.
It has perhaps the greatest set of supporting characters ever to support anyone.
Some of my favorite actors.
Estelle Harris, who played George Costanza's mother, appeared in a staged reading of one of my plays.
If you've seen me write about my mother and ever wondered what she looks and sounds like, just think of Estelle Harris.
She was a dead ringer for my mother.
This play was autobiographical, and several of my relatives were there.
As soon as Estelle hit the stage, my family freaked out.
Since the play starred Larry Miller, Jerry Seinfeld, a good friend of his, was in attendance.
It was most-likely the first time he laid eyes on Estelle Harris.

"Seinfeld"s main strength was it's story architechture.
They managed to weave four stories into each episode, and build them into a pyramid that paid off all four stories at the top of it.
One of the by-products of this is that you can watch any episode of "Seinfeld' and not remember that it was the one that contained
certain specific story lines.
"Seinfeld" also contained no jokes.
Except when Jerry was doing standup.
All the humor was character and attitude.
I feel that it's a much higher form than set-up punchline.
To me, it's cleverness has only been surpassed by "Curb Your Enthusiasm", which employs many of the same techniques.
And that's a high-wire act because they work without a script.
Again, that's because they don't need jokes.

On "Seinfeld"s downside, Jerry was an embarrasingly bad actor.
You could frequently see him smirking after one of his own punchlines.
I think more judicious editing might have helped.
He needed the best supporting cast ever just to get him through.
That the show was that good in spite of it was a tribute to Larry David.

It reminds me of my favorite movie, "The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek", directed by Preston Sturges in the 1940's.
It starred Betty Hutton, arguably one of the worst actresses who ever became a movie star.
That the movie was that good, and starred her, was a tribute to Sturges.
There's a parallel there.

The argument about "Seinfeld" ensued because somebody tried to make the case that it represented the nineties, was the best show ever, and therefore the nineties were the Golden Age Of Television.
To which I replied and will reply again, "One show does not a Golden Age make."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

Something You Can Do In The Golden Age Of Television That You Couldn't Do Before.

2011-08-30T10:03:00.002-04:00

Any of you remember Eleanor Powell?
She was perhaps one of Hollywood's greatest stars.
At least from the waist down.
She was a contract player at MGM.

Eleanor Powell was up there with a select few of the greatest dancers who ever graced the silver screen with their presence.
She was probably the greatest tap dancer who ever lived.
In the same league with Astaire, Kelly, and The Nicholas Brothers.

Don't give me Ann Miller.
Ann Miller was all feet.
Eleanor Powell was all feet and all limbs.
She was acrobatic.
You had to be in awe watching her, which you got to do primarily during the thirties and forties.

There were a couple of problems with Eleanor Powell.
She was not a raving beauty.
She was not ugly by any means, but you really couldn't cast her opposite Clark Gable.
Her most romantic leading man was Jimmy Stewart in "Born To Dance", before Stewart was really a star and they didn't quite know what to do with him.

So Eleanor Powell's leading man was usually Red Skelton.

The other problem with Eleanor Powell was that she could literally not act her way out of a paper bag.
If they had plastic bags back then, she woudn't have been able to act her way out of those either.

So going to see an Eleanor Powell movie back in the day was primarily a tortuous experience, punctuated by sheer awe.
You had to sit through three quarters of the film trying to watch her try to woodenly act her way through some usually tedious story, waiting for one of the three dance numbers that they gave her that made it more than worthwhile.
But with the miracle of YouTube, you are able to do unprecedented things.
Like surf from one fantastic dance number of hers to another without ever witnessing her try to act.

You can do this for hours.
I have, and it is incredible.

You never have to sit through another entire Eleanor Powell movie again.
It doesn't matter that she couldn't act.

And it is rewarding beyond belief.

And totally reflective of the upgraded times we live in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

The Golden Age Of Television. 3.

2011-08-27T00:43:00.007-04:00

Okay.
So the fifties, if you believe me, was not the Golden Age of Television.
So when was it?
Was there one?
I think so.

The sixties?
What did the sixties give us?
The main thing was Color TV.
By the end of the sixties, most of us had it, and it certainly was an upgrade.
"Oooh! It's blue!" had about the same impact as looking at Uncle Miltie and saying "Look! He's moving!"
The sixties brought war into our living rooms.
Close up.
It changed an entire generation.

But the sixties also brought us a predominant amount of crappy TV shows.
Sitcoms about Witches and Genies and Monsters.
It was an era when "The Monkees" won Emmys for "Best Situation Comedy"

"The Dick Van Dyke Show", good as it was, was hardly representative.
And it was gone by 1965.

So it wasn't the sixties.

The seventies?
Well....there was a major resurgence in high quality sitcoms.
Mary Tyler Moore, All In The Family, Bob Newhart............
I'm not including any of the shows I worked on, although I think any one of them would have beaten "The Monkees".

And there was Watergate. Riveting live television.
And "Roots". But that was only on for a few weeks.

So I can't really make much of a case for the seventies.

The eighties had Cosby and nothing else I remember.
The nineties were a blur.

So where are we headed with all this?

Folks, it is my humble opinion that NOW, this very minute, is the Golden Age of Television.
Think about it.
Because of the incredible technology available to us, we can watch, on humongously large, crystal clear TV sets, anything that we ever want to watch.
Tivo has given us the opportunity to never be slaves to "least objectionable programming".
We are constantly treated to a menu of our own making.

For those who miss the "live" experience that we had in the fifties, most of it is there on YouTube.
No, it's not technically live, but we are watching something that WAS live when they did it.
To me this is the same thing.
Plus, we can watch the geniuses of the fifties as the adults we are now, rather than the kids who may not have had the sophistication to appreciate what we were seeing then.
We also had a bedtime then.
This means we never got to stay up late enough to see "The Colgate Comedy Hour with Martin and Lewis", perhaps the funniest thing I've ever seen on TV. I know this because of YouTube and DVDs.
Because that's where it all is..
It negates the need to go to the Museum of Broadcasting.
It's all there. Just by pushing a couple of buttons.

Yes, there is no commonality of experience.
No "water cooler" moments.
But I don't work at an office that has a water cooler, so I think those moments are overrated.
It's a small sacrifice, considering what you get in return.

And there's Turner Classic Movies.
Still the best channel for my money.
Every movie you can think of. Uncut. Without commercials.
If it was made in Widescreen, they show it in Widescreen.
And with Tivo, you can stop it to go to the bathroom.
You can stop anything to go to the bathroom.
As I said,there are DVDs, if you feel like spending money to own some of this stuff (something I've never quite understood)
If you don't want to spend money on them, most libraries have extensive collections of them.
Plus, there are wonderful shows currently being made that fit very well on those humongous crystal clear TV sets.

And people on TV can now curse a lot more frequently.

The Present has got everything.
It is the Golden Age of Television.

To quote Jerry Herman----The Best of Times is Now".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

The Golden Age Of Television. 2.

2011-08-25T09:15:00.007-04:00

The fifties, as exciting a time as it was for television, was NOT it's Golden Age.
It was just too flawed.
Although he started in the late forties, the fifties essentially turned Milton Berle into Mister Television.
For far too long.
Early on, it was simply a matter of "Look! He's moving!"
This graduated into "Look! He's moving! In a dress!.
Berle was mostly less than funny.
Combine this with his hammy mawkishness, and it was clear that he was not an asset to the Golden Age Legacy.

There were some great game shows in the fifties, like "What's My Line?", where the panelists dressed up in tuxedos, and the women wore evening gowns.
Except maybe when Berle showed up in a dress.

Or "I've Got A Secret", slightly less formal, but far more fun and more charming, primarily because of it's host, Garry Moore.

But then came the Quiz Show Scandals, which almost put a permanent end to all Quiz Shows.
A truly ugly time.

The fifties gave us Pinky Lee.

The fifties gave us fuzzy black-and-white pictures on the TV screens.

The fifties gave us Fuzzy Knight (Remember "Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion"?)
The fifties gave us "Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion"

The fifties introduced the concept of "Least objectionable programming"
And that decision usually fell to the head of the household.
Because most of us only had one set.
It brought us together, but not necessarily in a good way.

The fifties gave us Bert Parks.

The fifties gave us "My Llttle Margie".

But worse than anything, the fifties gave us the Blacklist.
It was pervasive, and certainly lowered the standards of what we were able to see, aside from ruining careers and lives.

Okay.
So I think I've made the case for why the fifties was NOT the Golden Age of Televison.

But I believe that there has been one, and I'll make the case for it next time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

The Golden Age Of Television.

2011-08-23T13:11:00.001-04:00

The Fifties.
Also known as "The Fabulous Fifties".
What a time it was!
At least in terms of television.
Oh, I know that TV technichally got started in the late forties, but it really took it's shape,or at least the shape that it had, in the fifties.

We got to see a lot of wonderful things.
Sid Caesar, a true artist and genius, supported by the greatest writing staff for sketch comedy ever.
Jackie Gleason---It wasn't just "The Honeymooners".
He brought his entire repertoire of characters to his variety show.
My favorite was Reggie Van Gleason.
Gleason was another true artist.

Speaking of true artists, Ernie Kovacs was the great innovator.
Steve Allen brought his free-wheeling approach, where he brought some of the best comedy sketch players to his variety show.

Ed Sullivan's main gift was that he brought families together in an America where most families only had one TV set.
If you didn't like the guy spinning the plates, or the juggling unicyclist, just wait a few minutes and there'd be Myron Cohen.
And there'd always be something for "You youngsters out there".

There was Jack Paar.
I maintain that there has never been a talk show host as interesting as Paar.
By sheer force of his personality.
He was an absolutely compelling figure.

Ther were great dramatic anthologies.
Each week, there were the equivalent of at least three new plays on TV.
And they were each an event.
When the theme music swelled for "Playhouse 90", it was spine-tingling.

The common denominator to all this was that it was all LIVE.
As it was happening, you were seeing it.
This meant anything could happen, and often did.
When things went wrong, that was often part of the fun.

That element is for the most part gone, except for sporting events, and talking head news shows.

Aside from live, there was also the incomparable "Sergeant Bilko" and "I Love Lucy".

So it was quite a time.

But I'm here to tell you that the fifties was NOT the Golden Age
of Television.

And next time, I'll be here to tell you why not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

Progress.

2011-08-20T12:49:00.004-04:00

Progress has a way of becoming the great equalizer.
I mentioned a while back about how I used to be the world's foremost authority on death.
When famous people died, how they died, where they died, etc.
I used to impress a lot of people with this bit of morbidity.
No longer.
The Internet has rendered this talent useless.
It's leveled the playing field.
Anyone can push a button on his or her computer and have access to everything that has been rolling around my head for lo these many years.

However, progress has now turned things back in my direction.
Up until recently, I considered myself the worst driver who was ever issued a license.
Actually, my late mother was THE worst driver who was ever issued a license.
I just followed in her footsteps.
We combined the same two major flaws in our driving ability:
An inability to control the vehicle (even more incredible in my mother's case, in that she passed her road test on a stick-shift), and absolutely no sense of direction.

Then, this new invention came out. The GPS.
Ours is called a Garmin.
It allows you to never get lost.
Just by pushing a few buttons.
Yes, you have to listen to an automaton lady give you directions, but I consider that a small price to pay for the thorough humiliation that I used to go through by admitting to strangers that I was lost.

I've heard some men bemoan the Garmin as another threat to their manhood.
As if there is some pride to being able to never get lost, and not have to rely on some female voice to guide you along.
As if there is some sort of triumph in being able to get yourself unlost all by yourself.
Without any help.
Tommyrot!
At least in my case.
Any time I used to get behind the wheel, it was always even money that I would get lost.
And I'd have to rely on another device, my cell phone, to rely on another female's voice, my wife's, to guide me to where I was going.
It's nothing that I've ever attached manhood to.
If I did, I'd be too ashamed to leave the house, much less get behind the wheel.
So I am no more than half the worst driver in the world that I used to be.
Maybe I'm still the worst, but none of it can be blamed on my sense of direction.
I wonder how much this would have improved my mother's status.
Probably not much.
She had her own peccadillos that I had never before witnessed or emulated.
Upon entering a freeway from an off ramp, she would invariably come to a full stop before going onto the highway.
She would never just proceed with caution.
If that had occurred on her road test, I'm sure she'd never have passed.

But in my case, I feel the playing field leveling under me all the time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

My Aviary Addiction.

2011-08-18T10:16:00.001-04:00

Fellow members, my name is Mark Rothman, and I am an addict.
Not to any drug.
Or anything alcoholic.
Or an abusive lifestyle.
Well, perhaps it contains elements of all three.
It is a game.
And there is no athletic benefit to it as there is to Wii Boxing.
Just a game.
A very simple game.
Called Angry Birds.
I while away far too many idle moments of my life playing Angry Birds.
Making those moments even more idle.

Angry Birds is a game that has been embraced by the youth of America.
And as far as I know, the world.
This makes it one of the few things I have in common with the youth of America.
And as far as I know, the world.

Angry Birds is compelling.
I play it on my IPhone.
For the uninformed, what you do is you hurl birds of various sizes and degrees of dexterity with a slingshot towards stationary pigs of various sizes and no dexterity.
When the Angry Bird lands on the pig, or on the piece of construction that lands on the pig firmly enough, the pig is destroyed.
When all of the pigs are destroyed in the same round, you proceed to the next level.
The birds all make very angry sounds, and the pigs all make laughing grunts.
I really don't want to hear the very angry sounds, or the laughing grunts.
This is because it is annoying, and it tips my wife off to the fact that I'm wasting my time playing Angry Birds.
So I turn off the sound.
As the birds are on my side, I never get angry at the birds.
Only the pigs.

You're playing this game in the hope that you get to see pigs die.
Growing up in a semi-kosher home, this is virtually a natural rooting interest.
Each level is a sort of clever geometric puzzle, where you try to figure out how to obliterate all of the pigs with the few birds you have.

The frustration is when you try and try and can't obliterate the pigs.
The fun is when you do, and go on to the next challenge.
You always want to get to the next challenge.
Many times it is easy.
Some times it seems near impossible.

When I had my Blackberry, my addiction was Brickbreaker.
That was a pretty good game.
The main order of business there was to try to beat your personal high score.
But it wasn't really all that creative.
Nor did it make all those angry noises and laughing grunts.

Technology has improved since then.

A free app was offered on my IPhone for Angry Birds, and I downloaded it.
After a length of time during which I became thoroughly addicted, and went through all the levels, I was offered the pay version.

See? That's how they get you.
Just like a Coke dealer.
I had to shell out 99 cents for the upgrade.
I bit the bullet and shelled it out.
I went through all of those levels.

Then I was offered "Angry Birds Rio".
Another 99 cents.

I see more on the horizon.

Eventually, it's going to break me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

Wii Are Now Amused.

2011-08-16T11:16:00.001-04:00

Okay.
So I tried the Wii Sports in my basement.
Golf.
Baseball.
Tennis.
Bowling.
Feh.
They all sucked.
My only hope for salvation was the Boxing.
It looked promising.
For one thing, you actually had to move around.
You actually had to throw punches, just like a boxer.
Exercise was beginning to take place.
Your opponents threw punches back at you, and here's the beauty part, if a punch landed on you, it didn't hurt.
That was always my fear in participating in REAL boxing.
That you could get hurt.
Here, you could get knocked down, you could get knocked out.
And it didn't hurt.
Actually, after a while, it DID start to hurt.
In my knees.
In my ankles.
Places where I've had surgery.
Or arthritis.

And this was caused by all the moving around.
I was almost ready to give it all up when my wife, a person much smarter than me, suggested that maybe I should wear an Ace Bandage on the sore parts.
Whattya know? I did that, and it stopped hurting.
Is it a matter of her being a genius, or me being an idiot?

I started by fighting easy opponents.
There are no options about how you start.
These opponents virtually never throw a punch at you if you are at all aggressive.
I felt like Joe Louis and his "Bum-of-the Month Club"
If you keep winning during the early stages, the opponents get tougher and tougher, to the point where it really gets competitive, and you can just as easily lose and get knocked out as win and knock out your opponent.

A word about the opponents: The graphics are not very sophisticated.
Even though the atmosphere and sound effects are great, the opponents tend to look like kewpie dolls.
They could do a better job there.
You choose a character for yourself.
Male or female.
And you take on all comers.
This presents a minor moral dilemma:
You occasionally face kewpie dolls who are women.
Even though they are kewpie dolls,I was raised to never hit a woman.

However, it also allowed me to act out some fantasies.
There are several women in my past whom I would have liked to have beaten up, but my sense of decorum wouldn't have allowed it.
But it's a great way to let out past aggressions.

You also take on opponents who are wearing eyeglasses.
I don't know what schmendrick thought of this, but it also flies in the face of my upbringing.
You never hit a man wearing glasses.
At least they haven't provided an opponent who is a woman and wears glasses.
That would be a double-whammy.

In any case, I invariably build up a major sweat when I participate in the Boxing.
It is great competition, and great exercise.
I particpate in Wii Boxing all the time.
And has made the purchase of Wii Sports well worth it.

Wii, Wii, Monsieur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

Wii Are (For The Most Part) Not Amused.

2011-08-13T12:13:00.003-04:00

My wife has continually been on me to get more exercise.
She is an exponent of this.
Even as I am writing now, she is downstairs in the basement, walking her daily mile on the treadmill.
To no avail, she has been encouraging me to do the same.
Or to at least take an occasional walk around the block.
My attitude about this is the same as it has always been-------
How do you keep score?
How do you win?
It's not that I'm so competitive.
It's just that I need something to make it not boring.
I admit to being one of the most sedentary people I know, but I'm not against the concept of exercise if it can only be made to be INTERESTING.

My wife recently attempted to rise to the challenge.
She purchased, and brought home, something called Wii Sports.
What it is, is simulated sports that you play with remote control devices that you hold in your hands while the sporting events appear magically on your TV screen, once you've hooked up the equipment.
I guess that eliminates some of the magic.

Apparently, this is something that is very popular with kids.
You'd think they would be more likely to engage in the real sports outdoors, or at least outside of their homes.
Because they are young enough to actually do well at these sports in real life.

So I opened the Wii Sports box, tried hooking up the equipment, and after several hours of it confounding me, was able to install it correctly.
I was actually eager for Wii Sports to actually provide me with some interesting exercise.
I was hoping for the best.
Because I consider myself too old to actually participate in most of the sports provided for real.
And I was never that good an athlete to begin with.

I looked at the menu of sports offered by Wii.
They consisted of Tennis, Golf, Baseball, Bowling, and Boxing.
I tried them one at a time.

1) Tennis---I figured that this would be a good one because Tennis always involved a lot of movement to cover the court.
I always used to build up a pretty good sweat playing tennis. It was a game that I used to actually be competitive with good players.
But this was doubles.
You weren't required to move much around the court.
And you weren't required to do much with your arm except make little baby swings.
It was very disappointing to say the least.

2) Golf---I was never very good at golf. But in this version, no matter how bad you were in real life, it was very difficult,if not impossible to hit a bad shot.
I've never hit a 240 yard drive in my life.
I never played a round of golf where I didn't top the ball at least half the time.
I never played a round of golf where my putts always went into the hole once they hit the green.
Here all those things happened consistently.
It was surreal golf, and of course, provided me with very little exercise.

3) Baseball----You only had control of the pitcher and the batter, which meant there was no strategy, very little arm movement and virtually no interest in continuing.

4) Bowling----There might have been some skill involved here, but there is not much exercise involved in REAL bowling.
A game that can be played while you are eating pizza.
It also involved very little exercise.

So that's four out of four disappointments.

My only hope left, before we were going to return the entire unit back to Best Buy, was if the Boxing was spectacular.
It certainly had a lot to live up to.
I was not optimistic.

What happened with the Boxing will be discussed next time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

The Half-Pink House.

2011-08-11T12:09:00.008-04:00

For much of the time that I worked at Paramount Studios, I had an office that overlooked Gower Street.
Gower Street was usually featured in stock footage of the entrance of RKO Studios in the thirties and forties,with cars to match.
RKO went out of business, and my office, which used to be part of RKO, was now part of Paramount.
I don't know what you'd have seen if the cameras were turned around and you'd have seen the other side of Gower Street in the thirties and forties.
But if you'd looked out of my window in the seventies, what you'd have seen was a very seedy, slum-like neighborhood, populated primarily by Mexicans.
I'm not attempting to be racist here.
I'm just reporting the facts.
You didn't want my office because of the view.
It was a nice, roomy office, but the view was not one of the selling features.
I always tried to avoid driving down Gower Street to go to work.
I usually took Vine Street directly to Melrose Avenue, which at the time was also pretty seedy, but didn't seem as inherently dangerous as
Gower Street.
I did this because I was deathly afraid of finding myself stranded on Gower Steet trying to fix a flat tire.
This was NOT a safe neighborhood.
Even though it was right next to a major movie studio.
I tried very hard to ignore my exterior surroundings as much as possible.
Many days, you'd find me with the window shades pulled down.

But one day, something rather extraordinary happened.
I pulled up the window shades, and noticed that one half, (the left half, from my point of view) of a two-family house was painted bright pink.
I don't mean just pink.
Shocking pink.
The kind of pink you might associate with Pink Elephants.
Or the Pink Panther.
Or Pepto Bismol, but much more intensely bright.
The other half was gray.

This caused interesting things to enter my imagination:
The first, of course, being "Why is anyone doing this?"
The second being, "Why only half the house?"

You'd think that discussions between the two owners would have led to some negotiations and perhaps arguments as to whether this was a good idea.
And some settlement would have been reached to avoid this eyesore.
But maybe the two parties hated each other.
To quote the late, great Fats Waller, "One never knows, do one."

Now, I've never considered myself any kind of architechtural aesthete, but even I knew that this was an atrocity.

Literally two months went by.
I'd look out my window and see a half-pink two family house.
The other half remained gray.
And the owner of the gray half had to have been worried about the loss of property value of his home, being planted directly next to the pink half.
Not that the house could have been worth that much to begin with.

I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Would the owner of the pink half revert back to gray?
Or would the owner of the gray half bite the bullet and go pink?

A month after this, I opened the window shade to my office one morning, and the matter was resolved.
The two-family house was now entirely pink, in the exact same shade as the other half.
The concession was made.
Or perhaps the owner of the gray half found the pink starting to grow on him.
We'll never know.

In any case, it was Peace in Our Time, but the house now looked twice as atrocious.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

Report Card---"Catch Me If You Can"

2011-08-09T17:34:00.001-04:00

"Catch Me If You Can" was the other show I saw last Wednesday.
I was able to use my TDF discount, so it only cost forty bucks.
This made me far more inclined to like it, although I really didn't need much help.
It was based on the movie that was around several years ago, which I liked a lot.
The key is whether or not it lends itself to musicalization.
It really does.
Particularly in the hands of Marc Shaiman.
There are many gorgeous melodies in it.
The lyrics are first rate.
There's a bit of a dichotomy in that about a third of the score is rock music.
The rest, more standard fare.
I much preferred the standard fare.
If there wasn't as much rock music as there is, I would have already bought the Original Cast Album.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

A story about the world's greatest con man is by definition interesting.
A+.

Compelling, even?

Quite often, as it explores why the lead character, Frank Abagnale Jr., is the way he is.
A.

Is it controversial? Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Not really, but it doesn't matter.
No grade.

Is it funny?

When it tries to be, which is often. It is also quite dramatic.
A.

Is it a story worth telling?

It's fascinating.
A+.

Is it good storytelling?

They make the most of it.
A+.

Is it good writing?

On every level.
A+.

Is it worth laying out $40 bucks for?

More, even.
A+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well staged?

The guy playing young Abagnale was quite ordinary. Not bad, but didn't stand out.
Norbert Leo Butz was exceptional, and certainly deserved his Tony.
And it's always a pleasure to see and hear Tom Wopat, who played Abagnale's father.
Especially when I wasn't expecting to.
The staging was first rate.
A.

Is it too long? Too short?

Never looked at my watch.
A.

Is it believeable? Do you care about the characters?

It happened, and you care.
A+.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

It depends on how well you remember the the movie. I didn't remember it that well, so it was pretty much surprising.

And I was surprised at how much I liked the score.
A.

Overall rating: A.

This is a first rate show that should be seen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

Report Card---"How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying"

2011-08-06T11:38:00.004-04:00

I went on a Wednesday Jaunt last week, when I was in Connecticut, into Manhattan to see a Matinee and an evening performance of two musicals running on Broadway.
I'll write a Report Card on the other one next time.

Today, I'll concentrate on "How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying".
As always, I try to score discounts on the tickets, because as we know, the retail prices are pretty outrageous.
I belong to an organization called The Theatre Development Fund, or TDF, which provides tickets at very reasonable prices for many shows.
You have to be affiliated with Show Business to be able to join.
After proving my affiliation, my membership was approved.
There weren't many shows left that I wanted to see, particularly after seeing the Tony Awards.
But I did want to see "How To Succeed".
"How To Succeed" was never available at TDF.
It was available at other discount sources, such as Playbill.com.
But only at 30% off.
I thought that if I went to the TKTS booth at Times Square, I'd stand in line and be able to do better than 30%.
The TKTS line only offered 20%.
So I grabbed my handy IPhone 4, and called Playbill, and got my 30% off.
I tried to figure out why a show that has oft been revived, lost out at the Tonys for Best Revival of a Musical to "Anything Goes", should be doing anything but giving tickets away.
Particularly in August, when it's usually the doldrums for most show.
This is all because I am a schmuck and a putz.
I had never seen a "Harry Potter" movie, and had no concept of just what a huge star Daniel Radcliffe was.
He was singlehandedly filling up that theatre every performance.
And could have accomplished that without management offeriing 30% off.

I saw the original production with Robert Morse and Rudy Vallee when I was a kid.
It was most enjoyable.
Those were the days when Vallee, quite well-known in his circles as the cheapest man who ever lived, rented out folding chairs to those who paid for "Standing Room Only".
I actually had parents who paid for a real seat for me, so I didn't have to line Vallee's pockets.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

Quite. They used every piece of stagecraft that was not available to them in 1961, to very clever effect.
A.

Compelling, even?

Not really. The material is essentially a cartoon. A very well drawn cartoon, but really no depth to it.
So caring about the characters was not foremost on the agenda.
C.

Is it controversial? Do you think about it after you've seen it?

No. You only think about what a good time you had having attended it.
C.

Is it funny?

It is hilarious, with a really solid book.
A+.

Is it a story worth telling?
I don't see why not, as long as you don't take it too seriously.
B.

Is it good storytelling?
It moves like a bullet.
A+.

Is it good writing?

Great dialogue, helped by the story thrust.
A+.

Is it worth laying out $100 bucks for?

I thought it was, just because I had that good a time.
A.

How's the musical score?

The musical score is so good, that for a while I thought that all the great songs were frontloaded into the first act.
Not so. The second act is loaded with great songs too.
It's a totally marvellous score
A+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well staged?

All of the above. Casting Radcliffe was a stroke of genius.
For management, and for him.

If anything will break him out of the Harry Potter mold, it's this.
John Laroquette was hilarious, and certainly deserved his Tony.
The staging was quite innovative.
A+.

Is it too long? Too short?

Never looked at my watch.
A.

Is it believeable? Do you care about the characters?

It's still a cartoon. Believeability and caring are not really issues.
C.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

One minor quibble---in the original production, if my memory is intact, when Morse sang "I Believe In You" into the bathroom mirror in the men's room, he used an electric razor, as did each of his cohorts. And you heard the tune come out of the electric razors in the form of kazoos coming out of the pit band.
Here, Radcliffe's cohorts used straight razors and shaving cream, leaving Radcliffe the only one using an electric razor, with kazoo accompaniment.

I recently read a book about Broadway orchestrators by the author Steven Suskin.
It's very interesting, and focuses on how the Musicians Unions forced Pit Bands to become smaller and smaller by having musicians double up on the instruments they play. It made me wonder if that was why instead of the traditional twelve, we were now down to one kazoo.
C.

Overall rating: A+.
The standing ovation it got, and it's ability to reduce me to tears as a result, sealed the deal.

And it was great seeing all those kids in attendance.
Kids who would never see a great old fashioned Musical Comedy like this if it weren't for Radcliffe.
And they seemed to be having a hell of a time even when he wasn't onstage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

HOLD The Shoes.

2011-08-04T09:45:00.004-04:00

This is going to be another tale about my friend Rick, the mechanic for the Lear Jets at LAX.

But first, a few of my favorite Frank Sinatra moments, and most-likely, some of his:

1- His death scene in "From Here To Eternity", when he's cradled in Montgomery Clift's arms, where he said things about the stockade guard, Fatso Jutson, as played by Ernest Borgnine, like "He whacks me in the gut. I spit in his eye like always".

2- His duet with Jimmy Durante, "The Song's Gotta Come From The Heart", from the movie "It Happened In Brooklyn".

3- Singing "My Kind Of Town", in "Robin and The Seven Hoods".

4-Duetting with Crosby on "Well, Did You Evah?" in the movie "High Society".

5- Incorporating "The House I Live In" and closing with it at Caesar's Palace, at the height of the Watergate Investigation.

And here's one my favorite Frank Sinatra moments that was probably one of the least of his:

On many occasion, my friend Rick would wait for the arrival of Sinatra's Lear Jet at LA.
Invariably, Sinatra would be having something to crab about.
Always to his wife Barbara (the former Mrs. Zeppo Marx).

Rick would invariably be part of the two-man team there to help unload the luggage from the aircraft.

On one occasion, as items are being unloaded, Sinatra notices his golf shoes.
He turns on Barbara--"Goddammit!! I told you I wasn't playing any golf this trip.
I told you I didn't want you to bring no Goddamn golf shoes!!
At which point, Rick says, completely deapan, but in a humorous fashion, to his fellow unpacker, "HOLD The Shoes."

Sinatra shoots him a scowling look, tempered by the fact that he knows that he has to be nice to his mechanic, who basically has his life in his hands.
But he knows that he's been dissed.

I can now no longer look at or listen to Frank Sinatra without thinking about, and being amused by "HOLD The Shoes".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******
Posted

The Nanny Needs Her Louis.

2011-08-02T08:00:00.003-04:00

Alas.
That's really all I can say.
Somebody decided to give Fran Drescher another TV series.
It's called "Happily Divorced" and it's on TV Land right after
"Hot In Cleveland", which I watch regularly.
Which doesn't help matters.
I can't stand Fran Drescher. So sue me.
It's not that she can't act. She can.
It's not that she doesn't have really good comedy chops. She does.
It's simply that voice.
And that laugh.
I can't get past either of them.
It's chalk on a blackboard.
It always has been.

I really thought that if anyone was going to be typecast after "The Nanny", it would be her.
Once it had left the airwaves, I had often thought "What the hell is she going to do with the rest of her life?"
I never figured "Another TV series".

And I was actually torn about watching it, at least once.
Rita Moreno was cast as a regular, playing her mother.
I love Rita Moreno.
I did a pilot with her once.
It was a joyous experience.
Mainly because of her. What a pro!

So I was, as Jimmy Durante would put it, "on the horns of a dilemmia".
One the one hand, Rita Moreno. On the other, Fran Drescher.
I Tivoed the first episode.
I started watching it.
Rita Moreno wasn't in the first five minutes.
Fran Drescher was.
So I never got to see Rita Moreno.
Five minutes was all I could take.

And I never went back.
And unfortunately, during "Hot In Cleveland", they do incessant promos for "Happily Divorced".
So I have to make sure that I Tivo "Hot In Cleveland" and only watch it that way and make sure that I'm quick on the fast forward trigger-finger.

Maybe she's a lovely person. I don't know.
I've never met her.
Maybe this is a harsh way to judge a stranger, but it's the only way at my disposal.

When "The Nanny" was in production, my friend Rick, whom I met when he enrolled in one of my writing classes, and has since become an outstanding writer, worked as a mechanic at LAX, working on the Lear Jets usually inhabited by celebrities.
Fran Drescher boarded one of his aircraft, about to fly off to somewhere.
One of Rick's other responsibilities was to help load the luggage into the baggage compartment.
Just as the plane was fully loaded, Fran Drescher's male assistant, described by Rick as overtly gay (he was probably a little more disparaging than that), went over to Rick and announced "The Nanny needs her Louis".
The assistant was referring to her Louis Vuitton travel bag.

Rick knew that this bag was one of the first things that was loaded on to the plane.
He sized up the situation, looked the assistant in the eye, and said
"Go tell the Nanny what she can do with her Louis!"

Imagining the look on her face when her assistant told her whatever he told her is my only pleasant memory of Fran Drescher.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you in the Tri-State Area, I'm doing a reading and signing of my book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", on Tuesday, August 2nd, at the
Huntington Book Revue, Huntington Long Island, at 7pm.
I look forward to seeing anyone who wants to see me.

******

The Weiner Comps. 7.

2011-07-30T10:54:00.004-04:00

The two finalists come from the world of sports.
And neither of them are Tiger Woods.
Tiger Woods finishes third, in my estimation.

Without further ado, the two finalists are Bret Favre and Marv Albert, in how they compare to Anthony Weiner.
As they've both been anointed the semi-finalists, most of the grading here is how the two relate to each other.
How they relate to Weiner is secondary.

And it's neck and neck to the finish line.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--

Favre, although doing almost precisely what Weiner did, seems to have gotten you should pardon the expression a "pass" from the media.
His story has been relatively low profile.
However serious Marv's transgressions were, the media jumped all over him.
Favre, B+. Marv, A.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--

Favre--Not a great deal.

Marv, a humongous amount.
Favre, C. Marv, A.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--

Favre--none.

Marv--pled guilty to a misdemeanor.

Favre, A. Marv, C-.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--

Favre--no. He's still playing.

Marv--Originally, yes, but he's since made a full comeback.

Favre, D. Marv, B+.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
Favre--Precisely the same as Weiner's. It just didn't seem as creepy.

Marv--Although in a different category than Weiner's, at least as creepy, with the biting of the woman's back, and the wearing of women's clothes. Particularly with that bad toupee.
That's an image that sticks in my mind overwhelmingly for creepiness.

Favre, A+. Marv, A+.

This is the kind of thing that makes them both finalists.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

Favre. It's not what I recall significantly.
Marv--did some pretty good lying until the truth came out.

Favre, C-. Marv, B+

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
They both have totally recovered.

That these are the closest comps bode well for Weiner's future by my scientific calculations..

My very subjective Overall Grades comparing them to Weiner:

Marv, A+. Favre, A.

Marv wins. A close call, but I'm giving it to Marv.

Yes!!!!! And it counts!!!!!

It's been a long journey, but now it's over..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you in the Tri-State Area, I'm doing a reading and signing of my book, "Mark Rothman's Essays" at the Westport Connecticut Library on
Monday, August 1st, at 7:30pm.
Also,on Tuesday, August 2nd, at the Huntington Book Revue,
Huntington Long Island, at 7pm.
I look forward to seeing anyone who wants to see me.

******

The Weiner Comps. 6.

2011-07-28T10:23:00.002-04:00

I'm going to attempt to accelerate the process by taking on four candidates today.
And they've all been candidates, politically, at one time or another, as has Anthony Weiner:
President Bill Clinton, Governor Mark Sanford, governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Senator John Edwards.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--

Clinton--Really just infidelity, blown way out of proportion by the impeachment trial.
Sanford--Also just infidelity, blown out of proportion by the hike on the Appalachian Trail in Argentina.
Schwarzenegger--Just infidelity, complicated by nothing, except maybe a complicated divorce.
Edwards--Just infidelity, complicated by a wife who's dying, but whom a lot of people didn't like too much.
D's for all.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--

Clinton--Considerable, particularly to his family.
Sanford--Unknown, really.
Schwarzenegger--None to him, plenty to Maria and probably all the Kennedys, whom you'd think would be embarrassment-proof by now.
Edwards--Loads of embarrassment all around.
Clinton, B+, Sanford, C-, Schwarzenegger, B-, Edwards, A.
Those grades are based on Weiner's level of embarrassment being the highest.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--

Clinton--Found guilty of perjury.
Sanford--No crime.
Schwarzenegger--No crime, unless you count "Jingle All The Way".
Edwards--The jury is literally out.
Clinton, D. Sanford, A. Schwarzenegger, A-, Edwards, C.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--

Clinton--No.
Sanford--No, although he was almost forced to.
Schwarzenegger--Was already a former Governor when the scandal hit. Now back to making moom pitchas.
Edwards--Was virtually unemployed at the time.
D's for all.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--

Clinton--Paula Jones.
Sanford--Is it really creepy that it was apparently more than just sex?
Schwarzenegger--The potential menagerie of illegitimate children he has strewn upon the landscape.
Edwards--Rielle Hunter.
D's for all.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

Clinton--Staggering.
Sanford--Considerable.
Schwarzenegger--Not really overt.
Edwards--Major.
Clinton, A+, Sanford, B+, Schwarzenegger, C-, Edwards, A.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:

Clinton--It's already been total.
Sanford--None.
Schwarzenegger--Depends on how the next few movies do.
Edwards--Less than none
Weiner, too soon to tell.
So, no grades.

Overall Grades comparing them to Weiner:

Clinton, C-, Sanford, C-, Schwarzenegger C+, Edwards, B.

We can do better than these.

Next time, the two finalists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you in the Tri-State Area, I'm doing a reading and signing of my book, "Mark Rothman's Essays" at the Westport Connecticut Library on
Monday, August 1st, at 7:30pm.
Also,on Tuesday, August 2nd, at the Huntington Book Revue,
Huntington Long Island, at 7pm.
I look forward to seeing anyone who wants to see me.

******

The Weiner Comps. 5.

2011-07-26T10:04:00.002-04:00

A couple of people who, prior to today, were probably never mentioned in the same sentence:
Michael Jackson, and Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyovich.
Two more different scandals could not possibly be imagined.
Let's see how it relates to Anthony Weiner.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--
Jacko---major questioning of his sexuality,his criminality, his pedophilia, and his eagerness to settle heavyweight lawsuits.
Blago---Similar type nicknames, but otherwise only questioning of his honesty and intelligence.
Nothing relating to his sexuality.
Jacko,B+. Blago, D.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
Jacko--Perversion, proven or not, naturally leads to embarrassment.
Blago--Corruption in Illinois seems to be a license to not be embarrassed.
Jacko, A. Blago, D.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
Jacko--The jury is technically out, but in all reality, it's technically in.
You don't have fourteen children "Sleeping with you" and then settle all those enormous lawsuits.
You don't settle ANY.
The law must have been broken.
Blago---Was just convicted on most counts.
Neither of these really relate to Weiner.
He committed no crime that we know of.
Jacko, D. Blago, D.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
Jacko---persevered, somewhat successfully, until his death.
Blago--Didn't get to resign. Was essentially thrown under the jail.
Jacko, D. Blago, B-.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
Jacko---About as creepy as you can get.
Blogo---Creepiness not really an element.
Jacko, A. Blogo D.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

Jacko--It's hard to know what Jacko really believed about himself.
Blago---Lying is in his DNA.
Jacko, C-. Blago, A.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Jacko. He's dead, so none.
Blago. He's figuratively dead, so none
Weiner's odds have to be at least somewhat better than this
Jacko, D. Blago, D.

Overall Rating--Jacko, C. Blago, D.

Except for the creepiness factor for Jacko, there is no real comp factor in existence here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

The Weiner Comps. 4.

2011-07-23T11:19:00.001-04:00

This one's virtually an entry:

Former Governor Jim McGreevey of New Jersey, and former Senator Larry Craig of Idaho.

The common threads: They're both gay, although Craig won't admit it.
And they're both politicians, like Weiner.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--
All there was with McGreevey was being gay.
He never portrayed himself as anti-gay.
He just was what he was.
Craig was the toe-tapper in the Minneapolis airport men's room.
However serious, it was an enormous brouhaha.
McGreevey, D. Craig, B+.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
McGreevey did shlep his wive uponstage for the apology, but then sort of faded into oblivion.
Craig couldn't have been more embarrassing if he tried.
As was Weiner.
McGreevey, D. Craig, B+.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
McGreeevey--It's no crime to be gay, although many states would like it to be.
Craig pleaded to a misdemeanor.
No crime for Weiner.
McGreevey, A-. Craig, D+.
.
4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
McGreevey resigned.
Craig went down swinging, did not resign, but could not win re-election.
Weiner bailed.
McGreevey, A. Craig, C.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--

McGreevey----Nothing necessarily creepy about being gay.
Craig---Toe tapping in the public men's room? Pretty creepy.
McGreevey, D. Craig, A+.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

I don't recall McGreevey lying.
I don't recall Craig NOT lying.
Nor Weiner. Until he got caught.
McGreevey, D. Craig, A-.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:

McGreevey and Craig are both gone. Probably.for good.
Who knows with Weiner?
That's what we're trying to determine.

Overall Grades: McGreevey, D+. Craig, B+.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

The Weiner Comps. 3.

2011-07-21T13:51:00.001-04:00

Two members of the World of Sports today-----
Tiger Woods and Michael Vick.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--
With Vick, I guess it's a matter of how you feel about dogs, and dogs biting each other until one of them is dead.
With Tiger, it's how you feel about serial adultery.
There was a serial nature to both of these scandals, as there is with Weiner.
With Weiner, it's about how you feel about sending out pictures of your privates.
I am a dog lover, and am rather indifferent to adultery in principle.
So I give Vick a D, and Tiger an A.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
With Vick, there was probably a macho element that appealead to his base.
Not much embarrassment there.
With Tiger, a mixture of embarrassment about how stupid he was to get caught so easily and how much it will end up costing,
and a certain swagger about being someone none of us ever pictured ever having sex or even thinking about it.
Vick gets a D. Tiger gets an A.

Tiger could end up being a finalist.
Far closer to Weiner than I had originally imagined.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
Vick went to the slammer for what was in fact his crime.
Tiger did not commit a crime.
It's starting to look like Vick doesn't even belong in this discussion.
And Tiger is looking better and better.
Vick, D. Tiger, A.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
They both took "time off" from their careers.
Vick in the slammer, Tiger in seclusion.
And Weiner resigned.
A for both Vick and Tiger.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
No sexual indiscetion for vick with the dogs (as far as we know), so it's not an issue.
With Tiger, it's not so much creepiness as silliness,
As I stated previously, what Weiner has admitted to seems pretty perverse, and he's practically a newlywed.
D for both.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:
Weiner was the only one carrying on about his innocence.
D for both.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Vick's already back in the NFL. Away from dogs.
Tiger still seems to be struggling on the golf course.
Too early to tell.

Overall Grade: D+ for Vick. A- for Tiger.

Tiger has a genuine shot at this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

The Weiner Comps. 2.

2011-07-19T17:21:00.001-04:00

Starting today, I'm going to attempt to take on two challengers at a time.
In this instance, two candidates who bring very similar traits to the table:
Former Democratic Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer, and current Republican Senator from Louisiana, David Vitter.
How do they compare to each other and to Weiner?

1) Seriousness of the scandal--They were virtually the same as each other.
Both involved cheating on their wives with hookers.
Spitzer seemed a little more culpable, because he had built a reputation for prosecuting hookers.
Vitter just did general moral railing against the idea of them.
Weiner, as far as we know, had nothing to do with hookers, or perhaps touching any women of any kind.
D.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
Both seem to have survived their marriages
They both had their wives standing next to them when they made their public apologies.
And again, it was just hookers. How embarrassing can it be?
Both far less creepy than sending pictures of your privates out over the Internet.
Weiner has survived his marriage as well, so there's a limit to how low a grade I can give.
C.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
Soliciting prositutes is in fact a crime.
Weiner didn't do that, and as far as we know, didn't commit any other crime.
D.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
In Spitzer's case, yes.
In Vitter's case, no.
Weiner resigned.
It seems to be the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Spitzer, A.
Vitter, D.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
There's nothing perverse about the need for hookers in a marriage that has gone on for quite a while.
What Weiner has admitted to seems pretty perverse, and he's practically a newlywed.
D.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:
They all lied, but Weiner's lying has been a lot louder and more prolonged before he caved.
B-.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Vitter's still in the Senate. Even got re-elected.
Spitzer had his own series on CNN, and there are already rumors about him jumping back into politics
With Weiner, too early to tell.

Overall Grade: C.

That they're all politicians indicate that I can't give it a lower grade than a C.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

Just A Brief Note.

2011-07-18T00:22:00.001-04:00

I watched "Curb Your Enthusiasm" tonight, and in a scene in a restaurant with Larry David, Richard Lewis, and Jeff Garlin, Larry tossed a
throwaway line: "Colonel, I had no idea that Marilyn MONroe was on the base".
A "Sergeant Bilko" reference that I have attempted to maintain the level of popularity of on this blog.
He did the full accentuation on the "MON".
Could he be one of my readers?
Or are he and I simply exactly on the same wavelength?
In any case, I'm pleased.

More Weiner Comps on Tuesday.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******

Finally, The Weiner Comps Begin.

2011-07-16T13:57:00.001-04:00

Enough time has gone by that I feel that I have to restate the criteria for the Weiner Comps.
This will be based on several criteria:

1) Seriousness of the scandal.

2) Degree of embarrassment he caused to himself and others.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job.

5) Nature of the sexual indiscretion.

6) The extent to which lying was involved.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal.

See? That last one is what makes this a scientific endeavor.
The closest comp will be the best indicator of what will become of
Anthony Weiner.
So I'm not just frittering away my time and yours.
Along the way, we will visit the usual suspects.
And maybe some we've all forgotten about.
Grades will be handed out.
Much like report card grades.
Grades of comparability.
The one with the highest grade is the closest match to Anthony Weiner.

The one thing I can't quite recall clearly about all of these instances is which ones of these, for lack of a better word, scoundrels, actually had their wives up on stage next to them as they were apologizing to America as a whole.
Weiner didn't.
But I don't think that this is a major factor.
I think it's more of a reflection on their spouses than on the apologists.
If I do remember specifically about certain cases, I will certainly make note of it.
Again, as with other lists of this type, I pretty much have an idea of where I'm heading with this.
But in many cases, I will be flying by the seat of my pants in making the judgements.
And they will not be in any particular order, because I really for the most part don't know what the order is.

Let's begin with David Letterman:

1) Seriousness of the scandal---not nearly as serious as Weiner's.
Dave was able to make jokes about it as soon as the smoke was just starting to clear.
C-.

2) Degree of embarrassment he caused to himself and others--
The guy who was blackmailing him caused the embarrassment.
All Letterman did was have the affairs.
Lots of men have affairs.
Very few send pictures of their privates on the Internet.
Dave isn't a politician, nor has he set himself up as a paragon of virtue.
It's almost the opposite.
D.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
There was, but not by Dave. Nor was there one committed by Weiner.
B+.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
For Dave, no. He handled the whole thing with aplomb.
For Weiner, yes. He really botched the whole thing, P.R. wise.
D-.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
One was overtly sexual, the other was apparently just creepy.
Actually, considering how young Letterman's internes were, that was pretty creepy too.
C.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:
We didn't even know about Dave's situation until he openly made a clean breast of things. With Weiner, it was deny, deny, deny, until he was pinned to the wall.
D-.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Dave recovered from Day 1.
We have no idea at this point with Weiner.
C+.

The only other thing they both have in common is that I've never seen either of their wives.

Overall Grade: C-.

I think we'll be able to do much better than this.

Well, this is your first taste of the Weiner Comps.
Hope you're looking forward to more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

******