I think I'm going to be as alone on this one as I probably am about yesterday's post about Garralaga's perfect game.
What I say might even alienate people.
Even my loyal readers.
But it's what I believe.
Here goes:
I think Helen Thomas had no right to say what she said about how the Jews should leave Israel, and that it was inexcusable for her to say it.
There.
I said it, and I'm glad.
It's now out in the open.
What? This isn't so shocking?
How about this?
I think what she said was right.
Not the part about them moving back to Germany, but the rest of it.
I just think that she had no right to say it.
I have the right to say it.
Why me, and not she?
Simple.
Because I am a Jew, and she is not.
She is of Lebanese extraction, and that colors what she says.
It's very much akin to the fact that it's okay for black people to use the "N" word with each other, but not okay for white people to use it under any circumstances.
I get that.
So from now on I'll simply refer to my people as the "J" word.
Or Doctor "J".
A lot of us are doctors anyway.
Why do I think that what she said was right?
Because I, myself, have been saying it for years and years.
To anyone who would listen.
And I've been very specific about it.
I've said "You know what would solve the Middle East Problems? If we moved Israel.
We've always been very supportive of Israel, but with all our support, we haven't been able to help them very much.
As long as we're in a continual Helping Mode, why don't we do something that will really help them?
Why don't we offer all Israelis the opportunity to establish their homeland on the West Coast of Florida, to form their own country on land approximately the same size as Israel?
Who's going to bother them there?
Besides, there are already a whole lot of "J"s there already.
They won't even have to assimilate.
Give them each a First Class ticket to come here, which they could cash in for a coach ticket.
We'd all be way ahead of the game."
The plan still looks good to me, except I'd probably change the location, what with the oil spilling and all down there.
All right then, maybe Jersey.
How about Jersey?
There's lots of "J"s there too.
So the ocean will be on the other side.
A lot of "J"s who moved from New York to L.A. had the same problem about the ocean.
And they were able to deal with it.
To get to the beach in Jersey, you just make a right instead of a left .
How about just below Route 9 on the Jersey Turnpike?
Lovely farmland.
We can even let them collect the tolls.
That ought to seal the deal.
See? I think I can do these ethnic slur jokes because I am Doctor "J".
Not like Helen Thomas.
I know that there's a problem with this scenario.
You think I don't know?
I know.
Israel, where it is, is considered the Holy Land.
It's where the Wailing Wall is.
You know what?
You build a new one.
Where you can wail in peace.
How do we really know if it is, in fact, the Holy Land?
Just because it says so in the Old Testament?
To quote Mr. Mercer, to illustrate my last remark----
Jonah in the whale.
Noah and the Ark.
It says that too.
Who believes it?
Who's to say we're not just cherry-picking about what to believe from the Old Testament?
This is worth risking life and limb over?
Mister?
Excuse me. I just lapsed into my Jackie Mason impression.
To me, there was only one place that I know was Holy.
I didn't have to look it up.
The old Yankee Stadium.
Now THAT was hallowed ground.
After having it for about twenty five years more than the Jews had Israel, they tore it down.
And you know what?
After about six months, I got over it.
This new Yankee Stadium is just as Holy to me now as the old one was.
You just have to be willing to adjust.
You just have to not be a slave to your religion.
It's the classic example of how Religion leads to nothing but War.
And how more wars are started more by Religion, and Oil, than anything else.
And that's what all the entire Middle East wars have been about.
And will always be about.
It's those two things.
Religion and Oil.
And it's been unsolvable.
This solves both problems in one fell swoop.
That's why you give them the land below Route 9.
Away from the refineries around Route 13.
See? I've applied a lot of serious thought to this.
I'm just offering what I consider a reasonable way towards peace in our time.
At least in the Middle East.
Now, obviously, I'm not your hardcore orthodox regular synagogue attendee.
Maybe if I was, what I'm saying might hit me as sacrilege.
I'm sure it hits some of you as sacrilege.
But I'm the kind of "J" who is very proud of my heritage, and have absolutely no use for any of it's religious rules.
I attribute this, as I do most things, to my upbringing.
I had a mother who preached abstinence from bread during Passover, leaving us no choice but matzoh, yet she kept a fresh loaf of Wonder Bread stashed in the breadbox.
There used to be a thing called a breadbox.
And that loaf of Wonder Bread kept dwindling throughout Passover, without my sister or I touching it.
I had a mother who forced my sister and I to sing Chanukah songs every year when we lit the Menorah.
And she'd want them sung "Out loud, and with expression!"
She actually had the lyrics to all of them mimeographed.
One year, knowing where they were stashed, we hid them.
She found them.
She had radar, or something.
And we ended up singing, as usual.
This tradition ended the year my sister's hair caught on fire from the lit Menorah candles.
As we were singing "Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel".
My mother made me start Hebrew School a year earlier than all of my contemporaries.
Just to please my grandmother.
Not to please me.
The Hebrew School was ill-prepared to deal with this.
They didn't know what to do with me the second year.
So I took the first year over again.
That was the best they were able to come up with.
Perhaps that was the beginning of my ongoing low-boredom threshold.
So, as you can see, it was forced down our throats.
Hypocritically.
My sister and I have had a grand total of three marriages.
All to non-"J"s.
Coincidence?
So those are my thoughts, and I think I'm free to express them, as foul as you might think they are..
Because I'm still Doctor "J".
And Helen Thomas is not.
*****
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Thanks For The Memories.
I don't usually like to indulge in piling on, and I'm not really enjoying it now, but I feel I must join in the chorus of people who have stated out loud that Jay Leno really tanked at the White House Correspondents' Dinner Saturday Night.
It's not so much THAT he tanked.
It's the WAY he tanked.
I've noticed over the last few years that Jay has slowly morphed into Bob Hope.
Now, is becoming Bob Hope necessarily the worst thing in the world?
Not if you are talking about the pre-1960's Bob Hope, when Hope was quite wonderful.
But some time beginning around 1963, when he made "Call Me Bwana" and I'll Take Sweden", and those movies with Phyllis Diller, all bets were off.
His periodic TV specials were the height of laziness.
You could see him reading the cue cards in his monologues.
And he did topical humor that was squeaky safe.
I plan to write more about Bob Hope in general in the near future.
But this latter-day Bob Hope is the one that Jay Leno has completely morphed into.
The White House Correspondents' Dinner was the icing on the cake.
The material was the lamest I'd ever seen him attempt.
Very much in the latter-day Hope tradition.
He was blatantly reading from index cards.
Even on the Tonight Show, he did a much better job of not making you think he was reading the cue cards.
Although I don't know if that's still true.
I haven't seen the Tonight Show since he returned to it.
Not because I have an attitude.
Just because I have a lack of interest.
Instilled upon me by his excursion into Primetime.
Boy, when Leno first started out, he was brilliant.
I used to see him regularly in the 70's at the Comedy Store and the Improv, in his typical motorcycle jackets.
He was always devastating and totally cutting edge.
The beginning of the end was when they made him start wearing suits that actually looked good on him.
I'd never really seen Leno bomb before Saturday Night.
And you knew he knew he was bombing.
And he wasn't gracious about it.
It's the first time I'd seen him not be gracious.
He blamed the audience.
There seemed to be mutual hostility.
It must have been really embarrassing for him to be upstaged by that highly seasoned, much better prepared comedian, President Obama.
The older Hope got, the more rigid he seemed to be about his work habits.
He'd always surrounded himself by a plethora of writers, commandeering the writing table, being a very good editor of material, and gradually accepting weaker and weaker jokes.
He also was never home.
If there was a gig anywhere, he was there.
This is now the total definitive description of Leno.
The morphing is now complete.
I've mentioned before that in personal encounters with me, he was nothing but charming and personable.
But maybe I've only seen one side of him.
I saw Conan's interview Sunday on "60 Minutes".
There was a strong implication that Conan thinks Jay campaigned to get the Tonight Show back,
which is contrary to what Jay implied to Oprah.
I don't know who to believe.
But I DO know that Jay was found hiding in a closet, eavesdropping on the meetings determining whether he or Letterman was going to get the Tonight Show originally.
With very little to go on, I suspect that this is something that Bob Hope would do.
At least the latter-day Bob Hope.
But I'm only guessing.
*****
It's not so much THAT he tanked.
It's the WAY he tanked.
I've noticed over the last few years that Jay has slowly morphed into Bob Hope.
Now, is becoming Bob Hope necessarily the worst thing in the world?
Not if you are talking about the pre-1960's Bob Hope, when Hope was quite wonderful.
But some time beginning around 1963, when he made "Call Me Bwana" and I'll Take Sweden", and those movies with Phyllis Diller, all bets were off.
His periodic TV specials were the height of laziness.
You could see him reading the cue cards in his monologues.
And he did topical humor that was squeaky safe.
I plan to write more about Bob Hope in general in the near future.
But this latter-day Bob Hope is the one that Jay Leno has completely morphed into.
The White House Correspondents' Dinner was the icing on the cake.
The material was the lamest I'd ever seen him attempt.
Very much in the latter-day Hope tradition.
He was blatantly reading from index cards.
Even on the Tonight Show, he did a much better job of not making you think he was reading the cue cards.
Although I don't know if that's still true.
I haven't seen the Tonight Show since he returned to it.
Not because I have an attitude.
Just because I have a lack of interest.
Instilled upon me by his excursion into Primetime.
Boy, when Leno first started out, he was brilliant.
I used to see him regularly in the 70's at the Comedy Store and the Improv, in his typical motorcycle jackets.
He was always devastating and totally cutting edge.
The beginning of the end was when they made him start wearing suits that actually looked good on him.
I'd never really seen Leno bomb before Saturday Night.
And you knew he knew he was bombing.
And he wasn't gracious about it.
It's the first time I'd seen him not be gracious.
He blamed the audience.
There seemed to be mutual hostility.
It must have been really embarrassing for him to be upstaged by that highly seasoned, much better prepared comedian, President Obama.
The older Hope got, the more rigid he seemed to be about his work habits.
He'd always surrounded himself by a plethora of writers, commandeering the writing table, being a very good editor of material, and gradually accepting weaker and weaker jokes.
He also was never home.
If there was a gig anywhere, he was there.
This is now the total definitive description of Leno.
The morphing is now complete.
I've mentioned before that in personal encounters with me, he was nothing but charming and personable.
But maybe I've only seen one side of him.
I saw Conan's interview Sunday on "60 Minutes".
There was a strong implication that Conan thinks Jay campaigned to get the Tonight Show back,
which is contrary to what Jay implied to Oprah.
I don't know who to believe.
But I DO know that Jay was found hiding in a closet, eavesdropping on the meetings determining whether he or Letterman was going to get the Tonight Show originally.
With very little to go on, I suspect that this is something that Bob Hope would do.
At least the latter-day Bob Hope.
But I'm only guessing.
*****
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
More Funny Divorces.
Who'd a thunk it?
Who'd a thunk that an actress with her own share of tattoos, who went on TV many years ago to enthusiastically promote a godawful movie that she starred in that she must have known was godawful, "Two If By Sea", making her a complete whore, who later on in life marries a guy covered with tattoos, including those of the Swastika variety, and surprise, surprise, he gets caught cheating on her, who'd a thunk she'd be considered "America's Sweetheart"?
Who'd a thunk it?
Because she won an Oscar?
Lots o' women have won Oscars.
Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar.
I don't recall anyone calling her "America's Sweetheart".
And again, people are asking the wrong question: "Why on earth did he marry her?"
Yeah. Right. Nobody ever marries up.
And yes, Jesse James marrying Sandra Bullock IS marrying up.
It's a close call, but it's still marrying up.
And again, I don't hear anyone asking "Why on earth did she marry him"?
Two reasons: 1) She is the aforementioned tattooed whore herself. And......
2) To quote a Playboy Cartoon I remember from the 60's, where a young man brings his prospective bride home to meet his parents, and the "bride" is the ultimate floozy hooker, wearing a sandwich-board that reads, in big, bold letters: " $5!!!! Come and get it!!!!!",
the boy's father, seated on the couch next to the boy's mother, says, in the caption, quite understatedly, "You're blinded by love, son".
So "America's Sweetheart" was blinded by love.
It could happen to anybody.
You can still legitimately ask "What the hell was she thinking?"
But to feel sorry for her?
I can't.
I'm a Jew.
She married someone with Swastika tattoos.
It wasn't "I'll marry you if you get rid of the Swastika tattoos."
She took him as he was.
Gladly.
And he turned out to be someone who cheated on her with someone with even more Swastika tattoos than he.
But at least he'll be "Cured" by going to rehab. Right.
I hear no apologies to my Tribe from her.
Forgive me, but my sympathies lie elsewhere.
They both deserve whatever they get.
Including each other.
This divorce is much more Funny Peculiar than Funny Ha Ha.
I'm just sayin'.
*****
Who'd a thunk that an actress with her own share of tattoos, who went on TV many years ago to enthusiastically promote a godawful movie that she starred in that she must have known was godawful, "Two If By Sea", making her a complete whore, who later on in life marries a guy covered with tattoos, including those of the Swastika variety, and surprise, surprise, he gets caught cheating on her, who'd a thunk she'd be considered "America's Sweetheart"?
Who'd a thunk it?
Because she won an Oscar?
Lots o' women have won Oscars.
Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar.
I don't recall anyone calling her "America's Sweetheart".
And again, people are asking the wrong question: "Why on earth did he marry her?"
Yeah. Right. Nobody ever marries up.
And yes, Jesse James marrying Sandra Bullock IS marrying up.
It's a close call, but it's still marrying up.
And again, I don't hear anyone asking "Why on earth did she marry him"?
Two reasons: 1) She is the aforementioned tattooed whore herself. And......
2) To quote a Playboy Cartoon I remember from the 60's, where a young man brings his prospective bride home to meet his parents, and the "bride" is the ultimate floozy hooker, wearing a sandwich-board that reads, in big, bold letters: " $5!!!! Come and get it!!!!!",
the boy's father, seated on the couch next to the boy's mother, says, in the caption, quite understatedly, "You're blinded by love, son".
So "America's Sweetheart" was blinded by love.
It could happen to anybody.
You can still legitimately ask "What the hell was she thinking?"
But to feel sorry for her?
I can't.
I'm a Jew.
She married someone with Swastika tattoos.
It wasn't "I'll marry you if you get rid of the Swastika tattoos."
She took him as he was.
Gladly.
And he turned out to be someone who cheated on her with someone with even more Swastika tattoos than he.
But at least he'll be "Cured" by going to rehab. Right.
I hear no apologies to my Tribe from her.
Forgive me, but my sympathies lie elsewhere.
They both deserve whatever they get.
Including each other.
This divorce is much more Funny Peculiar than Funny Ha Ha.
I'm just sayin'.
*****
Monday, April 19, 2010
Funny Divorces.
Who'd a thunk it?
A 65 year old wealthy major TV star, not known for his looks, having been married six previous times, mostly if not totally to trophy wives, marries for a seventh time, to a 38 year old trophy wife.
And it lasts TWELVE YEARS!
Who'd a thunk it?
People are actually asking how they could possibly be getting divorced.
This, I won't even consider.
How it lasted more than six months is the shocking thing.
People are also asking how he could even consider marrying her in the first place.
Those people who are asking that, come closer to the screen...........
Okay. Good. Here's the answer:
HOW COULD HE NOT???!!!
People are what they are. Larry King is a serial marrier.
Does anybody think this will actually be his last marriage?
Larry King knows what he is.
He knows why he is attractive to women.
It's not his dimples.
How well would this man do with women if he was an accountant?
He knows his options. Marry gold-diggers, or spend lots o' time with hookers.
Or both.
Maybe they're one and the same.
I never hear anyone question why his wife Shawn married him.
We all seem to know.
Of course there was no pre-nup.
Ya think she'd marry him with a pre-nup?
Don't ya think he knows she knows she wouldn't marry him with a pre-nup?
And of course, Shawn now wants everything that isn't nailed down.
You know the old joke: " We know what you are, now we're just haggling over price."
They both filed for divorce claiming infidelity on the other's part.
There's a shock.
Yeah. He's enough to satisfy her.
Yeah. She can probably still stomach him.
Yeah. He's never had a roving eye.
I listened to the audiobook of Larry King's latest autobiography.
It is filled with interjected testimonials from family, friends, and particularly, his soon to be ex-wife.
They all couldn't be more lauditory. Particularly from Shawn.
So I'm thinking, "Maybe this one is different"
Now, I'm just giggling.
Why she's hassling him over child custody is the only real question here.
From all reports, he's a wonderful father.
Wait.....do you suppose? Do you think maybe, just maybe, she might be using the kids as a bargaining chit?
So where's Gloria Allred during all this?
Isn't there a women's rights issue that she can find? That must have a role somewhere in all of this, don't ya think?.
You'd think this would be right up her alley. I mean, she's already been representing hookers in the Tiger Woods case.
Where is she? In hiding. That's where she is.
That's all she needs. To piss off Larry King.
And give her one less major outlet for her to mouthe off on National Television.
Maybe these are just two crazy kids having a rough patch.
Maybe they can smoothe things out.
I certainly hope so.
*****
A 65 year old wealthy major TV star, not known for his looks, having been married six previous times, mostly if not totally to trophy wives, marries for a seventh time, to a 38 year old trophy wife.
And it lasts TWELVE YEARS!
Who'd a thunk it?
People are actually asking how they could possibly be getting divorced.
This, I won't even consider.
How it lasted more than six months is the shocking thing.
People are also asking how he could even consider marrying her in the first place.
Those people who are asking that, come closer to the screen...........
Okay. Good. Here's the answer:
HOW COULD HE NOT???!!!
People are what they are. Larry King is a serial marrier.
Does anybody think this will actually be his last marriage?
Larry King knows what he is.
He knows why he is attractive to women.
It's not his dimples.
How well would this man do with women if he was an accountant?
He knows his options. Marry gold-diggers, or spend lots o' time with hookers.
Or both.
Maybe they're one and the same.
I never hear anyone question why his wife Shawn married him.
We all seem to know.
Of course there was no pre-nup.
Ya think she'd marry him with a pre-nup?
Don't ya think he knows she knows she wouldn't marry him with a pre-nup?
And of course, Shawn now wants everything that isn't nailed down.
You know the old joke: " We know what you are, now we're just haggling over price."
They both filed for divorce claiming infidelity on the other's part.
There's a shock.
Yeah. He's enough to satisfy her.
Yeah. She can probably still stomach him.
Yeah. He's never had a roving eye.
I listened to the audiobook of Larry King's latest autobiography.
It is filled with interjected testimonials from family, friends, and particularly, his soon to be ex-wife.
They all couldn't be more lauditory. Particularly from Shawn.
So I'm thinking, "Maybe this one is different"
Now, I'm just giggling.
Why she's hassling him over child custody is the only real question here.
From all reports, he's a wonderful father.
Wait.....do you suppose? Do you think maybe, just maybe, she might be using the kids as a bargaining chit?
So where's Gloria Allred during all this?
Isn't there a women's rights issue that she can find? That must have a role somewhere in all of this, don't ya think?.
You'd think this would be right up her alley. I mean, she's already been representing hookers in the Tiger Woods case.
Where is she? In hiding. That's where she is.
That's all she needs. To piss off Larry King.
And give her one less major outlet for her to mouthe off on National Television.
Maybe these are just two crazy kids having a rough patch.
Maybe they can smoothe things out.
I certainly hope so.
*****
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Second Sign Of Spring.
The first sign of spring is when you move the clocks ahead an hour.
At least around here.
You'd think it would be when there are little buds on the trees.
But here in Michigan, that hasn't happened yet.
It's just been too friggin' cold.
So it's the clocks.
The second sign of spring starts today, with the opening round of "March Madness".
64 college basketball teams play each other over the next two days.
Actually, technically, that second sign of spring started on Tuesday, when two teams you never heard of played each other for the privilege of becoming the 64th team.
You know. The one that's going to lose to Duke.
Duke is the number one seed in their division, of which there are four.
And this other team, the 16th seeded Arkansas-Pine Bluff will be losing to them.
I say this with relative certainty because no 16th seeded team has EVER beaten a number one seeded team.
In the history of the NCAA tournament.
Which has had a pretty long history.
Longer than I have.
And for me, that second sign really didn't begin on Tuesday because even though I had a bet down on it, I forgot it was on, and forgot to watch it.
So as far as I'm concerned, today is the official second sign of spring.
I always get totally immersed in the March Madness.
And I haven't watched one college basketball game all year.
Because the entire season is all about who's going to get into this tournament.
I don't need the preliminaries.
I guess this makes me not a purist.
I haven't been totally immersed in any sport since the Super Bowl.
I haven't watched any Pro Basketball either.
Except for the NBA All-Star Game.
For the same reason.
The NBA's entire season is about who's going to be in the playoffs.
And far too many teams do.
I'll catch up to the NBA when the playoffs start.
I don't watch hockey.
I think there are too many rules.
I mean, who really gives a crap whether or not your teammate has crossed the blue line before you do when you have the puck?
When that happens, it stops the action.
People who support this rule say that abolishing it would lead to too much scoring.
Too much scoring?
Most hockey games end in scores like two to one.
Hockey cries out for more scoring.
So what all this basically means is that I've just about been completely out of action betting-wise for about a good month and a half.
This is the longest stretch I go through all year.
It's what Shakespeare meant by the "Winter of our discontent".
Mine, anyway.
With my short term memory failing me rapidly anyway, I've had to go back and recover my account numbers and passwords from my Internet Sportsbetting Websites.
A whole friggin' month and a half.
The NCAA tournament is quite perfect.
Unlike college football, where they play all these bowl games and half the time you still have to guess at who the real champion is.
The NCAA tournament starts out with all these teams, and they play each other, eliminate each other, and one of them emerges the winner.
On neutral courts.
Fair and square.
And CBS's coverage is usually quite excellent.
No, you don't get to see all of the games in their entirety.
But would you really want to see 32 complete games over two days?
And 16 more over the next two?
The way CBS does it, unless you are a real fanatic, you don't really miss anything.
So March Madness has put a spring in my step, and turned a middle-aged man's fancy into wagering.
And it means that baseball, where I WOULD want to see 32 complete games over any two days, is just around the corner.
Go, Arkansas -Pine Bluff and 23 points!!
*****
At least around here.
You'd think it would be when there are little buds on the trees.
But here in Michigan, that hasn't happened yet.
It's just been too friggin' cold.
So it's the clocks.
The second sign of spring starts today, with the opening round of "March Madness".
64 college basketball teams play each other over the next two days.
Actually, technically, that second sign of spring started on Tuesday, when two teams you never heard of played each other for the privilege of becoming the 64th team.
You know. The one that's going to lose to Duke.
Duke is the number one seed in their division, of which there are four.
And this other team, the 16th seeded Arkansas-Pine Bluff will be losing to them.
I say this with relative certainty because no 16th seeded team has EVER beaten a number one seeded team.
In the history of the NCAA tournament.
Which has had a pretty long history.
Longer than I have.
And for me, that second sign really didn't begin on Tuesday because even though I had a bet down on it, I forgot it was on, and forgot to watch it.
So as far as I'm concerned, today is the official second sign of spring.
I always get totally immersed in the March Madness.
And I haven't watched one college basketball game all year.
Because the entire season is all about who's going to get into this tournament.
I don't need the preliminaries.
I guess this makes me not a purist.
I haven't been totally immersed in any sport since the Super Bowl.
I haven't watched any Pro Basketball either.
Except for the NBA All-Star Game.
For the same reason.
The NBA's entire season is about who's going to be in the playoffs.
And far too many teams do.
I'll catch up to the NBA when the playoffs start.
I don't watch hockey.
I think there are too many rules.
I mean, who really gives a crap whether or not your teammate has crossed the blue line before you do when you have the puck?
When that happens, it stops the action.
People who support this rule say that abolishing it would lead to too much scoring.
Too much scoring?
Most hockey games end in scores like two to one.
Hockey cries out for more scoring.
So what all this basically means is that I've just about been completely out of action betting-wise for about a good month and a half.
This is the longest stretch I go through all year.
It's what Shakespeare meant by the "Winter of our discontent".
Mine, anyway.
With my short term memory failing me rapidly anyway, I've had to go back and recover my account numbers and passwords from my Internet Sportsbetting Websites.
A whole friggin' month and a half.
The NCAA tournament is quite perfect.
Unlike college football, where they play all these bowl games and half the time you still have to guess at who the real champion is.
The NCAA tournament starts out with all these teams, and they play each other, eliminate each other, and one of them emerges the winner.
On neutral courts.
Fair and square.
And CBS's coverage is usually quite excellent.
No, you don't get to see all of the games in their entirety.
But would you really want to see 32 complete games over two days?
And 16 more over the next two?
The way CBS does it, unless you are a real fanatic, you don't really miss anything.
So March Madness has put a spring in my step, and turned a middle-aged man's fancy into wagering.
And it means that baseball, where I WOULD want to see 32 complete games over any two days, is just around the corner.
Go, Arkansas -Pine Bluff and 23 points!!
*****
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
You Asked for It, I Got It, Toyota.
Okay. I think I've got all the fixes for Toyota's problems.
This was a concept originally offered by my friend Larry Miller.
But not applying to Toyota, and without several embellishments that I am about to add.
I don't think he'd mind if I appropriate some of what he said.
First, fix the Goddamn Brake System, and any other problems you might know about.
Second, go to GM and offer to buy the rights to the name "Bel-Air", and the blueprints for the
1957 Chevy Bel-Air Body by Fisher.
Easily the coolest looking car that's ever literally come down the pike.
I would never underestimate cool.
GM needs every dollar it can get it's hands on.
You can probably get the rights for a couple of choruses of anything.
Third, sell Toyota to yourself and change it's name to "Bel-Air"
I mentioned in a recent post about what an extraordinary age we live in.
What's not so extraordinary about this age is how every car on the road looks like every other car.
Without that little thing on your keyring that you push to make your car make noise and light up, it's very difficult to find your car in a parking lot.
When I was three years old, my parents used to put me through this little parlor trick on the street where a car would pass by and I would shout out the year, make, and model of said car.
My parents' friends thought I was some sort of car prodigy.
I really wasn't.
I think any three year old could do it.
Because in 1951, every car had it's own distinctive look.
All you needed to perform the parlor trick was eyes.
And at three, I was quite nearsighted and wore glasses.
Nowadays, my corrected vision is 20/20 and I can't tell one car from another.
And it's not just me.
Nobody can.
These cars may be a whole lot safer (except these days, Toyotas) but they sure are undistinguished.
And they all look like compact cars, whether they are or not.
And none of them look as cool (at least to Americans) as the '57 Bel-Air.
Fourth, start mass-producing, using today's safety standards, cars that all look like 1957 Chevy Bel-Airs.
Fifth, Make a lot of convertibles. I miss them. I think everybody does.
Sixth, make them all electric cars.
Enough of this hybrid stuff.
The technology is already here.
Price them as reasonably as possible, and emphasize the savings from not having to lay out a penny for gasoline.
I think they'd sell like the proverbial hotcakes.
Sixth, as you're ready to start selling them, take out a lot of ads on Fox News.
It's been proven that the people who watch that will buy anything.
*****
This was a concept originally offered by my friend Larry Miller.
But not applying to Toyota, and without several embellishments that I am about to add.
I don't think he'd mind if I appropriate some of what he said.
First, fix the Goddamn Brake System, and any other problems you might know about.
Second, go to GM and offer to buy the rights to the name "Bel-Air", and the blueprints for the
1957 Chevy Bel-Air Body by Fisher.
Easily the coolest looking car that's ever literally come down the pike.
I would never underestimate cool.
GM needs every dollar it can get it's hands on.
You can probably get the rights for a couple of choruses of anything.
Third, sell Toyota to yourself and change it's name to "Bel-Air"
I mentioned in a recent post about what an extraordinary age we live in.
What's not so extraordinary about this age is how every car on the road looks like every other car.
Without that little thing on your keyring that you push to make your car make noise and light up, it's very difficult to find your car in a parking lot.
When I was three years old, my parents used to put me through this little parlor trick on the street where a car would pass by and I would shout out the year, make, and model of said car.
My parents' friends thought I was some sort of car prodigy.
I really wasn't.
I think any three year old could do it.
Because in 1951, every car had it's own distinctive look.
All you needed to perform the parlor trick was eyes.
And at three, I was quite nearsighted and wore glasses.
Nowadays, my corrected vision is 20/20 and I can't tell one car from another.
And it's not just me.
Nobody can.
These cars may be a whole lot safer (except these days, Toyotas) but they sure are undistinguished.
And they all look like compact cars, whether they are or not.
And none of them look as cool (at least to Americans) as the '57 Bel-Air.
Fourth, start mass-producing, using today's safety standards, cars that all look like 1957 Chevy Bel-Airs.
Fifth, Make a lot of convertibles. I miss them. I think everybody does.
Sixth, make them all electric cars.
Enough of this hybrid stuff.
The technology is already here.
Price them as reasonably as possible, and emphasize the savings from not having to lay out a penny for gasoline.
I think they'd sell like the proverbial hotcakes.
Sixth, as you're ready to start selling them, take out a lot of ads on Fox News.
It's been proven that the people who watch that will buy anything.
*****
Thursday, March 11, 2010
One Discovery Leads To Another. Part Three.
Current background noise as I am writing: "Charles Nelson Reilly and Carol Channing singing "Put On Your Sunday Clothes" from "Hello Dolly!"
So seeing David Engel performing "What Causes That", from "Crazy For You" on YouTube caused me to seek out other pieces of YouTube on David Engel.
And it turns out that there is a vast menu.
There is a performance reel, broken down into three parts: Songs, Dance, and Scenes.
I already knew, from seeing him in "Forever Plaid", that he could sing and act great.
But it was that " Dance" reel that absolutely stunned me.
There was no real dancing in "Forever Plaid".
That he was also one of the best dancers I had ever seen was a complete surprise.
This makes him an absolute Triple Threat.
The kind of reputation that Sammy Davis had, but didn't deserve as much as David.
I'm talking "best dancers" in the Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly tradition.
Jazz, Ballroom, and, especially, Tap.
This is not just a hoofer.
This is an artist.
To prove his dancing chops and his creativity, he does this thing in concert where in the background you see Gene Kelly performing "Singing In The Rain" in the movie, and in the foreground, you see and hear David singing the number and matching Kelly move for move.
It is absolutely incredible.
He does the same thing and is equally adept matching Fred Astaire in "Shoes With Wings On", from the movie "The Barkeleys of Broadway".
I don't think there is another living soul who could pull this off.
That slapping sound you might be hearing now is me patting myself on the back for my being so right about him to begin with.
Then, I found clips of a 2009 Los Angeles Benefit Concert in tribute to George and Ira Gershwin (my third Ira Gershwin reference in three days).
It was David re-teaming with the "Forever Plaid" cast, doing some very funny, outrageous versions of Gershwin classics.
There were others performing as well.
Mostly people who were actually linked romantically in life as couples.
The finale was the entire cast singing "Our Love Is Here To Stay", with each couple taking turns talking about their love for each other.
When it was David's turn, he and Larry Raben, one of the other original cast members of "Forever Plaid", spoke about how they were recently married to each other, apparently just getting in under the wire before gay marriage was legally banned in California.
It was quite touching.
And I was quite pleased that they had beaten the system.
I have since communicated with David, and have learned that making a life for himself in Los Angeles, where he is very happy and works constantly, is far more important to him than being the biggest star on Broadway.
Finally, somebody who has his priorities in order.
For those of you lucky enough to be in the Los Angeles area this weekend, David will be appearing in concert with a young lady named Tami Tappan in a two person show entitled
"A Fine Romance", at the Carpenter Performing Arts Center, in Long Beach, on Sunday evening, March 14th. Dinner at 5pm. The show at 7pm.
You can phone 562-856-1999, X4, for reservations.
If I was in L.A. this weekend, I know where I'd be.
....oh, now they're playing "I Love A Cop", from "Fiorello".
Gee, that's nice.
*****
So seeing David Engel performing "What Causes That", from "Crazy For You" on YouTube caused me to seek out other pieces of YouTube on David Engel.
And it turns out that there is a vast menu.
There is a performance reel, broken down into three parts: Songs, Dance, and Scenes.
I already knew, from seeing him in "Forever Plaid", that he could sing and act great.
But it was that " Dance" reel that absolutely stunned me.
There was no real dancing in "Forever Plaid".
That he was also one of the best dancers I had ever seen was a complete surprise.
This makes him an absolute Triple Threat.
The kind of reputation that Sammy Davis had, but didn't deserve as much as David.
I'm talking "best dancers" in the Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly tradition.
Jazz, Ballroom, and, especially, Tap.
This is not just a hoofer.
This is an artist.
To prove his dancing chops and his creativity, he does this thing in concert where in the background you see Gene Kelly performing "Singing In The Rain" in the movie, and in the foreground, you see and hear David singing the number and matching Kelly move for move.
It is absolutely incredible.
He does the same thing and is equally adept matching Fred Astaire in "Shoes With Wings On", from the movie "The Barkeleys of Broadway".
I don't think there is another living soul who could pull this off.
That slapping sound you might be hearing now is me patting myself on the back for my being so right about him to begin with.
Then, I found clips of a 2009 Los Angeles Benefit Concert in tribute to George and Ira Gershwin (my third Ira Gershwin reference in three days).
It was David re-teaming with the "Forever Plaid" cast, doing some very funny, outrageous versions of Gershwin classics.
There were others performing as well.
Mostly people who were actually linked romantically in life as couples.
The finale was the entire cast singing "Our Love Is Here To Stay", with each couple taking turns talking about their love for each other.
When it was David's turn, he and Larry Raben, one of the other original cast members of "Forever Plaid", spoke about how they were recently married to each other, apparently just getting in under the wire before gay marriage was legally banned in California.
It was quite touching.
And I was quite pleased that they had beaten the system.
I have since communicated with David, and have learned that making a life for himself in Los Angeles, where he is very happy and works constantly, is far more important to him than being the biggest star on Broadway.
Finally, somebody who has his priorities in order.
For those of you lucky enough to be in the Los Angeles area this weekend, David will be appearing in concert with a young lady named Tami Tappan in a two person show entitled
"A Fine Romance", at the Carpenter Performing Arts Center, in Long Beach, on Sunday evening, March 14th. Dinner at 5pm. The show at 7pm.
You can phone 562-856-1999, X4, for reservations.
If I was in L.A. this weekend, I know where I'd be.
....oh, now they're playing "I Love A Cop", from "Fiorello".
Gee, that's nice.
*****
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
One Discovery Leads To Another, Part Two.
This is really quite an extraordinary age we live in.
What with satellites, computers, and IPhones, we can essentially take a shortcut through life.
Everything that used to require at least a trip to the library, where you usually couldn't find what you were looking for anyway, is now at your fingertips on the Internet.
It has caused me to get reacquainted with people I knew forty years ago just by one of us making a mere pass at it.
This blog has enabled me to reach people I never thought I'd reach, and enabled them to find me.
Whenever I actually sit down and write the entries for the blog, the background noise of choice for me is Sirius Radio's Broadway Channel, which I get from my Satellite TV.
That's another thing we have now. Radio on TV.
I've got it on now.
The Original Cast of "West Side Story" singing "Gee, Officer Krupke".
Yesterday, I mentioned that I believe I'm one of the five most knowledgeable heterosexuals about Musical Theatre.
The Broadway Channel certainly helps me keep current.
It has also pointed out to me that there are gaps in my knowledge.
There are a couple of shows that I deliberately kept off my radar, and never attempted to see.
They both have music and lyrics by George and Ira Gershwin. (My second Ira Gershwin reference in two days)
Don't get me wrong. I love a Gershwin tune (How about you?).
But I guess I had a prejudice about the two shows that each took a slew of Gershwin songs used in other shows and fashioned new books around them: "My One And Only", and "Crazy For You".
I was put off by the concept. I've been a purist, I guess.
I like the songs to emanate from the book.
This seemed backwards to me.
Looking back on it, I think I blew it.
The bookwriters for those two shows were Peter Stone for one, and Ken Ludwig for the other.
Both experts in their field.
Both shows were probably great.
So I'm sitting writing the blog one night a few weeks ago with the Broadway Channel on, and I hear a song that I never heard before:
A duet between what sounds like two Chassidic Jews called "What Causes That".
An up-tempo, bouncy, clever song that is charming my pants off as I'm writing.
The only show I know that has Chassidic Jews is "Fiddler".
I know it ain't from that.
So I look up at the screen, and it says "What Causes That, Crazy For You".
The satellite gives you a lot of help.
So I know that it's Gershwin, and I thought that I knew all of Gershwin.
Turns out that I didn't.
So I do an Internet search to find out where this song was originally done.
Within minutes I learn that it came from a 1928 flop called "Treasure Girl".
Michael Feinstein was Ira Gershwin's archivist, and discovered it in a trunk.
It wasn't published or recorded until they did "Crazy For You".
In 1928, it was performed by Clifton Webb.
Probably without a Yiddish accent.
This was a big week for Clifton Webb entering my head.
After seeing "Present Laughter", I went to the IBDB website to see who starred in the original Broadway production in 1946. It was Clifton Webb.
Prior to that week, probably the last time Clifton Webb entered my head was when I saw
"Mr. Belvedere Rings The Bell" on TV about 25 years ago.
So now I go to YouTube to see if there are any performances of "What Causes That".
And there, smaller than life, was David Engel.
Those YouTube screens aren't very big.
You pretty much have to squint to see people's faces on it.
You know. David Engel. From yesterday.
There was a three minute scene leading up to the song, between David and another actor.
They looked exactly alike.
It approximated the "Mirror Scene" in the Marx Brothers comedy, "Duck Soup", and was very funny.
David and the other actor LOOKED exactly alike, but it was easy to determine which one was David.
Because he oozed personality.
The other actor didn't ooze.
David completely blew the other actor off that little screen.
And he completely blew me away.
This led me to seek out other YouTube entries for David.
And what I found made the scene from "Crazy For You" just the appetizer.
.......oh, now they're playing "Poor Jud is Dead" from "Oklahoma".
Gee, I love that song.
More about David Engel tomorrow.
*****
What with satellites, computers, and IPhones, we can essentially take a shortcut through life.
Everything that used to require at least a trip to the library, where you usually couldn't find what you were looking for anyway, is now at your fingertips on the Internet.
It has caused me to get reacquainted with people I knew forty years ago just by one of us making a mere pass at it.
This blog has enabled me to reach people I never thought I'd reach, and enabled them to find me.
Whenever I actually sit down and write the entries for the blog, the background noise of choice for me is Sirius Radio's Broadway Channel, which I get from my Satellite TV.
That's another thing we have now. Radio on TV.
I've got it on now.
The Original Cast of "West Side Story" singing "Gee, Officer Krupke".
Yesterday, I mentioned that I believe I'm one of the five most knowledgeable heterosexuals about Musical Theatre.
The Broadway Channel certainly helps me keep current.
It has also pointed out to me that there are gaps in my knowledge.
There are a couple of shows that I deliberately kept off my radar, and never attempted to see.
They both have music and lyrics by George and Ira Gershwin. (My second Ira Gershwin reference in two days)
Don't get me wrong. I love a Gershwin tune (How about you?).
But I guess I had a prejudice about the two shows that each took a slew of Gershwin songs used in other shows and fashioned new books around them: "My One And Only", and "Crazy For You".
I was put off by the concept. I've been a purist, I guess.
I like the songs to emanate from the book.
This seemed backwards to me.
Looking back on it, I think I blew it.
The bookwriters for those two shows were Peter Stone for one, and Ken Ludwig for the other.
Both experts in their field.
Both shows were probably great.
So I'm sitting writing the blog one night a few weeks ago with the Broadway Channel on, and I hear a song that I never heard before:
A duet between what sounds like two Chassidic Jews called "What Causes That".
An up-tempo, bouncy, clever song that is charming my pants off as I'm writing.
The only show I know that has Chassidic Jews is "Fiddler".
I know it ain't from that.
So I look up at the screen, and it says "What Causes That, Crazy For You".
The satellite gives you a lot of help.
So I know that it's Gershwin, and I thought that I knew all of Gershwin.
Turns out that I didn't.
So I do an Internet search to find out where this song was originally done.
Within minutes I learn that it came from a 1928 flop called "Treasure Girl".
Michael Feinstein was Ira Gershwin's archivist, and discovered it in a trunk.
It wasn't published or recorded until they did "Crazy For You".
In 1928, it was performed by Clifton Webb.
Probably without a Yiddish accent.
This was a big week for Clifton Webb entering my head.
After seeing "Present Laughter", I went to the IBDB website to see who starred in the original Broadway production in 1946. It was Clifton Webb.
Prior to that week, probably the last time Clifton Webb entered my head was when I saw
"Mr. Belvedere Rings The Bell" on TV about 25 years ago.
So now I go to YouTube to see if there are any performances of "What Causes That".
And there, smaller than life, was David Engel.
Those YouTube screens aren't very big.
You pretty much have to squint to see people's faces on it.
You know. David Engel. From yesterday.
There was a three minute scene leading up to the song, between David and another actor.
They looked exactly alike.
It approximated the "Mirror Scene" in the Marx Brothers comedy, "Duck Soup", and was very funny.
David and the other actor LOOKED exactly alike, but it was easy to determine which one was David.
Because he oozed personality.
The other actor didn't ooze.
David completely blew the other actor off that little screen.
And he completely blew me away.
This led me to seek out other YouTube entries for David.
And what I found made the scene from "Crazy For You" just the appetizer.
.......oh, now they're playing "Poor Jud is Dead" from "Oklahoma".
Gee, I love that song.
More about David Engel tomorrow.
*****
Monday, March 8, 2010
One Discovery Leads To Another.
When it comes to Show Business, I've always trusted my guts.
And for the most part, they've never let me down.
Yes, "The Hurt Locker" just won the Academy Award.
I still feel totally justified in thinking it was shit.
I've mentioned before that on the sitcoms I ran, I did the casting.
And that I went kicking and screaming into the night trying and failing to get the network and the studio to allow me to cast Loni Anderson in a pilot because I thought she would be a break-out star. Which she became the very next year on the same network in "WKRP In Cincinnati".
And that I got Annie Potts her SAG card because I thought she'd be a breakout star.
She was, but, as Ira Gershwin first wrote, not for me.
I don't think I mentioned that before Amy Irving became Steven Spielberg's wife, she was
Ralph Malph's girlfriend on "Happy Days".
Because I cast her, thinking she'd be a breakout star.
She was great in that episode. Far better than that show had a right for her to be.
The one I "let slip through my fingers" was Debra Winger, who also read for me for "Happy Days", for the same part that Amy Irving got. The casting person misspelled her name on the sheet.
And to this day, I still think her name is spelled Wingar.
I just didn't get it with her. I couldn't get past that voice of hers. And that lack of a sense of humor.
I think that time has proven me right.
And I think I'm probably the only person in America who doesn't get "Terms of Endearment".
And I still think I'm right.
I've always trusted my guts.
Some time in the 90's, there was a show that I saw in Los Angeles called "Forever Plaid".
I'm sure many of you are familiar with it.
For the uninitiated, it's a spoof of 50's male musical groups like The Four Aces, The Four Lads and The Ames Brothers.
It had great exaggerated choreography, great humor, and four great performers doing many of the above mentioned groups' hits and others.
There was also a gay sensibility to it that added to it's charm.
I also mentioned in my article about a week ago about Noel Coward's "Present Laughter" that I am a heterosexual with very homosexual taste.
I am probably among the five most knowledgeable heterosexuals about Musical Theater.
I suppose that is the equivalent to being among the five smartest bears in the zoo.
But I know my stuff, and I ended up seeing "Forever Plaid" four times in three different cities.
That first time I saw it, the cast was made up of the original New York cast.
One of the cast members wore dark, horn-rimmed glasses.
I made sure I looked his name up in the program.
His name was David Engel.
I remember turning to my wife and saying "The one with the glasses is going to be a major star.
He's going to be Broadway's next big Musical Theater Leading Man."
Now, this is not to slight the other cast members. They were also great.
It's just that I don't make "Major Star" pronouncements that often.
I'll go to tons of shows and those thoughts and words just don't enter my head and come out of my mouth.
It's always been a rarity.
But they did that night. About David Engel.
In the other productions of "Plaid", there were different casts. And it didn't happen in any of them.
And there was always one of them wearing the horn-rimmed glasses.
So it wasn't the glasses.
It was him. It was David Engel.
He took funny to a whole other level.
They all sang great, but he seemed to have a four-octave range.
He sang "Sixteen Tons" and hit low notes that Tennessee Ernie Ford never dreamed of hitting.
He was something.
So it has always been a particular sore point with me that David Engel had for quite some time fallen off of my radar.
Is there really that little justice in the world?
Was I, dare I say it, wrong?
About three weeks ago, David Engel resurfaced on my radar and heightened my trust of my guts and my sense of righteous indignation.
More about this tomorrow.
*****
And for the most part, they've never let me down.
Yes, "The Hurt Locker" just won the Academy Award.
I still feel totally justified in thinking it was shit.
I've mentioned before that on the sitcoms I ran, I did the casting.
And that I went kicking and screaming into the night trying and failing to get the network and the studio to allow me to cast Loni Anderson in a pilot because I thought she would be a break-out star. Which she became the very next year on the same network in "WKRP In Cincinnati".
And that I got Annie Potts her SAG card because I thought she'd be a breakout star.
She was, but, as Ira Gershwin first wrote, not for me.
I don't think I mentioned that before Amy Irving became Steven Spielberg's wife, she was
Ralph Malph's girlfriend on "Happy Days".
Because I cast her, thinking she'd be a breakout star.
She was great in that episode. Far better than that show had a right for her to be.
The one I "let slip through my fingers" was Debra Winger, who also read for me for "Happy Days", for the same part that Amy Irving got. The casting person misspelled her name on the sheet.
And to this day, I still think her name is spelled Wingar.
I just didn't get it with her. I couldn't get past that voice of hers. And that lack of a sense of humor.
I think that time has proven me right.
And I think I'm probably the only person in America who doesn't get "Terms of Endearment".
And I still think I'm right.
I've always trusted my guts.
Some time in the 90's, there was a show that I saw in Los Angeles called "Forever Plaid".
I'm sure many of you are familiar with it.
For the uninitiated, it's a spoof of 50's male musical groups like The Four Aces, The Four Lads and The Ames Brothers.
It had great exaggerated choreography, great humor, and four great performers doing many of the above mentioned groups' hits and others.
There was also a gay sensibility to it that added to it's charm.
I also mentioned in my article about a week ago about Noel Coward's "Present Laughter" that I am a heterosexual with very homosexual taste.
I am probably among the five most knowledgeable heterosexuals about Musical Theater.
I suppose that is the equivalent to being among the five smartest bears in the zoo.
But I know my stuff, and I ended up seeing "Forever Plaid" four times in three different cities.
That first time I saw it, the cast was made up of the original New York cast.
One of the cast members wore dark, horn-rimmed glasses.
I made sure I looked his name up in the program.
His name was David Engel.
I remember turning to my wife and saying "The one with the glasses is going to be a major star.
He's going to be Broadway's next big Musical Theater Leading Man."
Now, this is not to slight the other cast members. They were also great.
It's just that I don't make "Major Star" pronouncements that often.
I'll go to tons of shows and those thoughts and words just don't enter my head and come out of my mouth.
It's always been a rarity.
But they did that night. About David Engel.
In the other productions of "Plaid", there were different casts. And it didn't happen in any of them.
And there was always one of them wearing the horn-rimmed glasses.
So it wasn't the glasses.
It was him. It was David Engel.
He took funny to a whole other level.
They all sang great, but he seemed to have a four-octave range.
He sang "Sixteen Tons" and hit low notes that Tennessee Ernie Ford never dreamed of hitting.
He was something.
So it has always been a particular sore point with me that David Engel had for quite some time fallen off of my radar.
Is there really that little justice in the world?
Was I, dare I say it, wrong?
About three weeks ago, David Engel resurfaced on my radar and heightened my trust of my guts and my sense of righteous indignation.
More about this tomorrow.
*****
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Another Reason To Love Dave.
As all talk shows have degenerated from interesting talk to movie stars coming on to do their six or twelve minutes to plug their movie that is opening that week, it has presented problems for all concerned:
The viewer, who sits through these plug-a-thons.
The movie star, who has to become a traveling salesman.
Worse, the movie star who has to become a traveling salesman knowing that what he or she has to sell is shit.
And the host, who almost always has seen the movie, and has to act like he or she really likes it, no matter what he or she really thought of it.
None of this is as good as interesting talk for it's own sake..
Lately, David Letterman seems to be short-circuiting the process, at least somewhat.
Just this past week, on separate nights, he had on Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker, who were each flogging a movie they both star in, called "Did You Hear About The Morgans?"
It was established early on in each interview that Dave had indeed seen the movie in question.
With both of them, everything under the sun was discussed with Dave, except the quality of the movie.
If you've checked the subsequent reviews, there seems to be good reason for this.
It seemed to be established early on that Dave was not going to commit himself on this issue.
And both Hugh and Sarah Jessica seemed smart enough not to press the issue, and not even to do any kind of selling job for it, possibly sensing that Dave would swat them down like flies for doing so.
The movie itself was never commented upon, although a clip was shown both times.
But it went uncommented upon in both instances.
I find this very refreshing.
Maybe it's happened with Dave before, and I just didn't notice.
I've never noticed it with any other talk show host.
You would think that this would discourage movie studios from wanting their stars to be booked on Letterman.
Maybe at this point in his career and life, Dave just doesn't give a shit.
Hear, hear, if that's the case.
Also that week, Susan Sarandon was booked on Letterman to flog "The Lovely Bones".
Dave saw that one too.
And he started harping about how sad it was.
And he did not mean it in a good way.
Sarandon seemed a bit thrown for a loop.
She got very defensive.
"But isn't it well written? Well directed? (And fishing for any possible compliment) Well acted?"
asked Sarandon.
"Well, yeah......but it's so SAD!!!" replied Dave.
It's a very good thing in another way. It indicates that when Dave waxes ecstatic about a movie that his guest is plugging, he really means it.
That doesn't necessarily make it good, but at least you know that HE thinks it is.
I certainly hope this is a trend.
It could change the entire nature of the talk show as we now know it.
I'll be devoting much of this blog, at least in the next few weeks, to current movies that are now, or have recently been offered to the paying public.
I'll explain more about this tomorrow.
******
The viewer, who sits through these plug-a-thons.
The movie star, who has to become a traveling salesman.
Worse, the movie star who has to become a traveling salesman knowing that what he or she has to sell is shit.
And the host, who almost always has seen the movie, and has to act like he or she really likes it, no matter what he or she really thought of it.
None of this is as good as interesting talk for it's own sake..
Lately, David Letterman seems to be short-circuiting the process, at least somewhat.
Just this past week, on separate nights, he had on Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker, who were each flogging a movie they both star in, called "Did You Hear About The Morgans?"
It was established early on in each interview that Dave had indeed seen the movie in question.
With both of them, everything under the sun was discussed with Dave, except the quality of the movie.
If you've checked the subsequent reviews, there seems to be good reason for this.
It seemed to be established early on that Dave was not going to commit himself on this issue.
And both Hugh and Sarah Jessica seemed smart enough not to press the issue, and not even to do any kind of selling job for it, possibly sensing that Dave would swat them down like flies for doing so.
The movie itself was never commented upon, although a clip was shown both times.
But it went uncommented upon in both instances.
I find this very refreshing.
Maybe it's happened with Dave before, and I just didn't notice.
I've never noticed it with any other talk show host.
You would think that this would discourage movie studios from wanting their stars to be booked on Letterman.
Maybe at this point in his career and life, Dave just doesn't give a shit.
Hear, hear, if that's the case.
Also that week, Susan Sarandon was booked on Letterman to flog "The Lovely Bones".
Dave saw that one too.
And he started harping about how sad it was.
And he did not mean it in a good way.
Sarandon seemed a bit thrown for a loop.
She got very defensive.
"But isn't it well written? Well directed? (And fishing for any possible compliment) Well acted?"
asked Sarandon.
"Well, yeah......but it's so SAD!!!" replied Dave.
It's a very good thing in another way. It indicates that when Dave waxes ecstatic about a movie that his guest is plugging, he really means it.
That doesn't necessarily make it good, but at least you know that HE thinks it is.
I certainly hope this is a trend.
It could change the entire nature of the talk show as we now know it.
I'll be devoting much of this blog, at least in the next few weeks, to current movies that are now, or have recently been offered to the paying public.
I'll explain more about this tomorrow.
******
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Crying Game.
When my sister and I were kids, and we'd start "acting up", and it looked like we weren't going to stop, my father would inevitably say "Somebody's gonna end up crying".
And my sister would invariably say "And it's gonna be me".
And she'd usually be right.
This is an excerpt from an article I wrote here just about two months ago.
"I've usually been amused by the notion of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, with their audiences becoming more and more fragmented, causing them to become more and more shrill, if such a thing is possible.
Watching them become a daily embarrassment to the Republican Party has provided even more fun.
But as much as I've enjoyed the Carnival, I'm afraid that it's time for something to be done.
Something that in many peoples eyes might infringe on the First Amendment.
But there's nothing in the First Amendment about the right to be on TV or the radio.
Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly have seriously gotten into what can very reasonably be called "inciting violence".
Limbaugh, with his daily hatespeak about how he hope Obama fails: Limbaugh preaches to the people with the guns.
What better way for Obama to fail than by getting himself assassinated?
Does anyone really think that this is beyond the scope of Limbaugh's more passionate audience members?
O'Reilly providing information on how to find the surviving abortion doctors: I can't imagine why. Can you?
These actions themselves bespeak treason.
I don't know if it goes that far legally, but I know they're walking the tightrope.
So let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
It's not treason.
But it's definitely incitement to violence.
So we don't arrest them.
And yes, there's freedom of speech, which ends with the classical example of Shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one.
What Limbaugh and O'Reilly are doing, to me, goes over that line.
Therefore neither of them is owed a place on the public airwaves, no matter how popular they are.
There's such a thing as the FCC.
They issue the licenses.
The FCC, if it chose to, could revoke the licenses of any station that carried Limbaugh or O'Reilly on the basis that they are inciting violence.
The two of them could then concentrate their efforts on their websites.
This might cut down on their influence, because it would require their audiences to read.
And go try and build an audience on webcasts alone.
I, for one, do not want to see any more people get shot at Holocaust Museums, or any more abortion doctors get killed.
Limbaugh is offering up the propaganda that this was caused by the liberals, but if you don't think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly, however indirectly, had a hand in those events, I would like to offer up for sale to you my 51% interest in the Brooklyn Bridge.
It would be difficult, and certainly out-of -character for President Obama to commandeer any effort to influence the FCC.
But there are plenty of political types (Senator Schumer?) who can certainly carry this ball and run with it.
Limbaugh and O'Reilly have outlived their dubious entertainment value.
There's nothing "amusing" about them any more.
On any level.
They are no longer "entertainers".
They are rabble-rousers.
A responsible society must find a way to at least discourage the rabble from being roused."
Since I wrote this, just in the past week or so, Limbaugh is calling everyone he perceives to be liberal as "Nazis". And his "audience" is listening.
Swastikas are showing up on liberal congressman's front lawns.
People showed up at President Obama's Town Hall Meeting today with loaded guns.
Some legally, some illegally.
Chris Matthews interviewed one of them on his show today.
My question is "Why wasn't he being interviewed by the Secret Service?
From behind bars?"
Add Glenn Beck to this mix.
He's even more insidious because he just seems like a benign dumbbell.
The other night, he devoted a major portion of his show putting a Nancy Pelosi mask on one of his employees and ostensibly served her a glass of poisoned wine.
He was suggesting what a wonderful idea it is to do away with Nancy Pelosi.
Ya think maybe some member of his "audience" is saying to himself "Wouldn't a gun be easier?"
Ya think maybe if Glenn Beck and his like didn't have access to an audience on the airwaves, these thoughts wouldn't be prompted as easily?
Does anybody know anybody at the F.C.C.?
It's time.
If not, somebody's gonna end up crying.
And it's going to be us.
*****
And my sister would invariably say "And it's gonna be me".
And she'd usually be right.
This is an excerpt from an article I wrote here just about two months ago.
"I've usually been amused by the notion of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, with their audiences becoming more and more fragmented, causing them to become more and more shrill, if such a thing is possible.
Watching them become a daily embarrassment to the Republican Party has provided even more fun.
But as much as I've enjoyed the Carnival, I'm afraid that it's time for something to be done.
Something that in many peoples eyes might infringe on the First Amendment.
But there's nothing in the First Amendment about the right to be on TV or the radio.
Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly have seriously gotten into what can very reasonably be called "inciting violence".
Limbaugh, with his daily hatespeak about how he hope Obama fails: Limbaugh preaches to the people with the guns.
What better way for Obama to fail than by getting himself assassinated?
Does anyone really think that this is beyond the scope of Limbaugh's more passionate audience members?
O'Reilly providing information on how to find the surviving abortion doctors: I can't imagine why. Can you?
These actions themselves bespeak treason.
I don't know if it goes that far legally, but I know they're walking the tightrope.
So let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
It's not treason.
But it's definitely incitement to violence.
So we don't arrest them.
And yes, there's freedom of speech, which ends with the classical example of Shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one.
What Limbaugh and O'Reilly are doing, to me, goes over that line.
Therefore neither of them is owed a place on the public airwaves, no matter how popular they are.
There's such a thing as the FCC.
They issue the licenses.
The FCC, if it chose to, could revoke the licenses of any station that carried Limbaugh or O'Reilly on the basis that they are inciting violence.
The two of them could then concentrate their efforts on their websites.
This might cut down on their influence, because it would require their audiences to read.
And go try and build an audience on webcasts alone.
I, for one, do not want to see any more people get shot at Holocaust Museums, or any more abortion doctors get killed.
Limbaugh is offering up the propaganda that this was caused by the liberals, but if you don't think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly, however indirectly, had a hand in those events, I would like to offer up for sale to you my 51% interest in the Brooklyn Bridge.
It would be difficult, and certainly out-of -character for President Obama to commandeer any effort to influence the FCC.
But there are plenty of political types (Senator Schumer?) who can certainly carry this ball and run with it.
Limbaugh and O'Reilly have outlived their dubious entertainment value.
There's nothing "amusing" about them any more.
On any level.
They are no longer "entertainers".
They are rabble-rousers.
A responsible society must find a way to at least discourage the rabble from being roused."
Since I wrote this, just in the past week or so, Limbaugh is calling everyone he perceives to be liberal as "Nazis". And his "audience" is listening.
Swastikas are showing up on liberal congressman's front lawns.
People showed up at President Obama's Town Hall Meeting today with loaded guns.
Some legally, some illegally.
Chris Matthews interviewed one of them on his show today.
My question is "Why wasn't he being interviewed by the Secret Service?
From behind bars?"
Add Glenn Beck to this mix.
He's even more insidious because he just seems like a benign dumbbell.
The other night, he devoted a major portion of his show putting a Nancy Pelosi mask on one of his employees and ostensibly served her a glass of poisoned wine.
He was suggesting what a wonderful idea it is to do away with Nancy Pelosi.
Ya think maybe some member of his "audience" is saying to himself "Wouldn't a gun be easier?"
Ya think maybe if Glenn Beck and his like didn't have access to an audience on the airwaves, these thoughts wouldn't be prompted as easily?
Does anybody know anybody at the F.C.C.?
It's time.
If not, somebody's gonna end up crying.
And it's going to be us.
*****
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Day I Thanked God For Sarah Palin.
It was this past Friday. July 3rd.
I know I've mentioned this before, but, as a news junkie, I hate holidays.
All the 24 hour cable news networks considered July 3rd, July 4th.
Thus, a holiday.
Whenever it's a holiday, the cable news networks, whose job it is to provide NEWS, do not provide news.
Or talking heads.
I love the talking heads.
The only place you can find news on a holiday on national TV is on the half-hour network telecasts, with a substitute host.
Because nobody wants to work on holidays.
And you can't find the talking heads anywhere.
Maybe Fox News has news coverage, but I don't bother to check.
So CNN shows Larry King rerun marathons, and MSNBC has "Lockup".
Endlessly.
24 hours of documentaries about life in prison.
Why on earth does MSNBC think that their core audience would want to watch even a minute of interviews with tattoed guys in orange jumpsuits with shaved heads, behind bars?
Where's the common ground between them and Rachel Maddow?
I don't get it.
If I'm home, I just rely on Tivo to get me through.
But I was at a cookout at my relatives, so I was lost at sea.
Cable news networks are, in a way like drug dealers.
They know their viewers are addicts, and like drug dealers, they show them no mercy.
They make their clients go cold turkey.
So you pray that some, hell, ANY major story breaks on a holiday so MSNBC will stop showing prisons.
Friday, my prayers were answered.
There was Sarah Palin announcing her "retirement" from politics.
Who knows why?
Who cares if she means it or not?
She probably doesn't.
She probably has something up her sleeve.
But it didn't matter.
It qualified as a major story.
And there was David Schuster, being wrangled in from whatever cookout he was attending to cover this event, and pre-empt prison programming.
And it was on for over four hours.
And we even got some talking heads.
And they actually mentioned some other news.
Then, it was over.
And they went back to the tattooed bald guys in the orange jumpsuits behind bars.
And I got the sense of what Cinderella must have felt like at midnight.
I'm hoping something else happens today, because I don't think I can sit through much of Michael Jackson's funeral.
The jumpsuits might even be preferable.
*****
I know I've mentioned this before, but, as a news junkie, I hate holidays.
All the 24 hour cable news networks considered July 3rd, July 4th.
Thus, a holiday.
Whenever it's a holiday, the cable news networks, whose job it is to provide NEWS, do not provide news.
Or talking heads.
I love the talking heads.
The only place you can find news on a holiday on national TV is on the half-hour network telecasts, with a substitute host.
Because nobody wants to work on holidays.
And you can't find the talking heads anywhere.
Maybe Fox News has news coverage, but I don't bother to check.
So CNN shows Larry King rerun marathons, and MSNBC has "Lockup".
Endlessly.
24 hours of documentaries about life in prison.
Why on earth does MSNBC think that their core audience would want to watch even a minute of interviews with tattoed guys in orange jumpsuits with shaved heads, behind bars?
Where's the common ground between them and Rachel Maddow?
I don't get it.
If I'm home, I just rely on Tivo to get me through.
But I was at a cookout at my relatives, so I was lost at sea.
Cable news networks are, in a way like drug dealers.
They know their viewers are addicts, and like drug dealers, they show them no mercy.
They make their clients go cold turkey.
So you pray that some, hell, ANY major story breaks on a holiday so MSNBC will stop showing prisons.
Friday, my prayers were answered.
There was Sarah Palin announcing her "retirement" from politics.
Who knows why?
Who cares if she means it or not?
She probably doesn't.
She probably has something up her sleeve.
But it didn't matter.
It qualified as a major story.
And there was David Schuster, being wrangled in from whatever cookout he was attending to cover this event, and pre-empt prison programming.
And it was on for over four hours.
And we even got some talking heads.
And they actually mentioned some other news.
Then, it was over.
And they went back to the tattooed bald guys in the orange jumpsuits behind bars.
And I got the sense of what Cinderella must have felt like at midnight.
I'm hoping something else happens today, because I don't think I can sit through much of Michael Jackson's funeral.
The jumpsuits might even be preferable.
*****
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Courage? Candor?
I'm posting Thursday's post on Wednesday, because my thoughts are fresh, and the event just happened, and I want to express myself before 42 other blogs maybe say the same thing.
I watched it live.
Pretty compelling television.
Governor Mark Sanford pretty much spilling his guts all over the place.
Things I noted:
He was really well dressed for the occasion.
I'm guessing that this means that he ain't exactly giving up on his political career.
If you just got back from Argentina, a long flight, you'd probably be dressed a little more comfortably.
Unless you're still trying to maintain an image.
He got done dropping his bombshell, and everyone interviewed started talking about how courageous he was for being so forthcoming about it all.
I don't know. He never addressed who in his family knew exactly what.
Then it came out that they all knew everything for months.
So why the stupid lying about going hiking?
And he was praised for his candor, his honesty about it all.
Building up to the revelation, he started talking about the Bottom Line.
The Bottom Line is that the motherfucker got caught.
Where would the courage and the candor be if the motherfucker didn't get caught?
And why would you be so stupid as to abandon your job, a job that ain't so easy to abandon, and tell such an assinine lie to try to cover your tracks?
Perhaps because you're a shmuck and a putz?
I'm getting a little tired of politicians, of any political stripe, talking about how badly damaged their families are because of their infidelities.
They don't have to be. And his family apparently didn't abandon him.
If the sanctimony of marriage wasn't so relentlessly preached by the sanctimonious, infidelity would be a lot less bitter pill to swallow.
I know a lot of people who are thrilled that their parents got divorced, no matter why.
It requires a lot of ego to assume that one's family is going to be all that destroyed by one's infidelity.
But then, it requires a lot of ego to become a politician.
Folks, I've said it before.
I'll say it again.
It happens ALL THE TIME.
Let us all get over it.
At least he had the good taste not to shlep his wife up on stage to stand next to him, like Spitzer and McGreevey did.
Or maybe he didn't have the good taste, and his wife just told him to go fuck himself.
I don't quite understand why there isn't a law of diminishing returns here.
This stuff happens so often with politicians and other celebrities these days that it's more the norm than the exception.
Why is this still news?
Sanford spent much of his time apologizing to everyone whose path he ever crossed.
In retrospect, I think the only person who is owed an apology for all of this is the man who took more heat for this sort of thing unneccessarily, particularly from Sanford, and still holds the patent: Bill Clinton.
P.S.---I've since heard that Mrs. Sanford, when asked about her husbands whereabouts over the weekend, said "I don't know, and I don't care".
That should've been a clue.
It's a shame Sanford missed Father's Day. I hear the kids picked out a really nice tie for him.
Maybe that's the one he wore for the press conference.
*****
I watched it live.
Pretty compelling television.
Governor Mark Sanford pretty much spilling his guts all over the place.
Things I noted:
He was really well dressed for the occasion.
I'm guessing that this means that he ain't exactly giving up on his political career.
If you just got back from Argentina, a long flight, you'd probably be dressed a little more comfortably.
Unless you're still trying to maintain an image.
He got done dropping his bombshell, and everyone interviewed started talking about how courageous he was for being so forthcoming about it all.
I don't know. He never addressed who in his family knew exactly what.
Then it came out that they all knew everything for months.
So why the stupid lying about going hiking?
And he was praised for his candor, his honesty about it all.
Building up to the revelation, he started talking about the Bottom Line.
The Bottom Line is that the motherfucker got caught.
Where would the courage and the candor be if the motherfucker didn't get caught?
And why would you be so stupid as to abandon your job, a job that ain't so easy to abandon, and tell such an assinine lie to try to cover your tracks?
Perhaps because you're a shmuck and a putz?
I'm getting a little tired of politicians, of any political stripe, talking about how badly damaged their families are because of their infidelities.
They don't have to be. And his family apparently didn't abandon him.
If the sanctimony of marriage wasn't so relentlessly preached by the sanctimonious, infidelity would be a lot less bitter pill to swallow.
I know a lot of people who are thrilled that their parents got divorced, no matter why.
It requires a lot of ego to assume that one's family is going to be all that destroyed by one's infidelity.
But then, it requires a lot of ego to become a politician.
Folks, I've said it before.
I'll say it again.
It happens ALL THE TIME.
Let us all get over it.
At least he had the good taste not to shlep his wife up on stage to stand next to him, like Spitzer and McGreevey did.
Or maybe he didn't have the good taste, and his wife just told him to go fuck himself.
I don't quite understand why there isn't a law of diminishing returns here.
This stuff happens so often with politicians and other celebrities these days that it's more the norm than the exception.
Why is this still news?
Sanford spent much of his time apologizing to everyone whose path he ever crossed.
In retrospect, I think the only person who is owed an apology for all of this is the man who took more heat for this sort of thing unneccessarily, particularly from Sanford, and still holds the patent: Bill Clinton.
P.S.---I've since heard that Mrs. Sanford, when asked about her husbands whereabouts over the weekend, said "I don't know, and I don't care".
That should've been a clue.
It's a shame Sanford missed Father's Day. I hear the kids picked out a really nice tie for him.
Maybe that's the one he wore for the press conference.
*****
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Bum's Rush
Okay. So Letterman made another feeble apology.
And whattya know?
People are now gathered around his theatre with picket signs calling for him to be fired.
Over a joke that hurt no one.
So it didn't even work.
The irony here is that there are people on the air who have said far worse, and the effects of what they have said are so much worse, that a good case can be made that they should be removed from the airwaves.
I've usually been amused by the notion of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, with their audiences becoming more and more fragmented, causing them to become more and more shrill, if such a thing is possible.
Watching them become a daily embarrassment to the Republican Party has provided even more fun.
But as much as I've enjoyed the Carnival, I'm afraid that it's time for something to be done.
Something that in many peoples eyes might infringe on the First Amendment.
But there's nothing in the First Amendment about the right to be on TV or the radio.
Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly have seriously gotten into what can very reasonably be called "inciting violence".
Limbaugh, with his daily hatespeak about how he hope Obama fails:
Limbaugh preaches to the people with the guns.
What better way for Obama to fail than by getting himself assassinated?
Does anyone really think that this is beyond the scope of Limbaugh's more passionate audience members?
O'Reilly providing information on how to find the surviving abortion doctors:
I can't imagine why. Can you?
These actions themselves bespeak treason.
I don't know if it goes that far legally, but I know they're walking the tightrope.
So let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It's not treason.
But it's definitely incitement to violence.
So we don't arrest them.
And yes, there's freedom of speech, which ends with the classical example of Shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one.
What Limbaugh and O'Reilly are doing, to me, goes over that line.
Therefore neither of them is owed a place on the public airwaves, no matter how popular they are.
There's such a thing as the FCC.
They issue the licenses.
The FCC, if it chose to, could revoke the licenses of any station that carried Limbaugh or O'Reilly on the basis that they are inciting violence.
The two of them could then concentrate their efforts on their websites.
This might cut down on their influence, because it would require their audiences to read.
And go try and build an audience on webcasts alone.
I, for one, do not want to see any more people get shot at Holocaust Museums, or any more abortion doctors get killed.
Limbaugh is offering up the propaganda that this was caused by the liberals, but if you don't think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly, however indirectly, had a hand in those events, I would like to offer up for sale to you my 51% interest in the Brooklyn Bridge.
It would be difficult, and certainly out-of -character for President Obama to commandeer any effort to influence the FCC.
But there are plenty of political types (Senator Schumer?) who can certainly carry this ball and run with it.
Limbaugh and O'Reilly have outlived their dubious entertainment value.
There's nothing "amusing" about them any more.
On any level.
They are no longer "entertainers".
They are rabble-rousers.
A responsible society must find a way to at least discourage the rabble from being roused.
*****
And whattya know?
People are now gathered around his theatre with picket signs calling for him to be fired.
Over a joke that hurt no one.
So it didn't even work.
The irony here is that there are people on the air who have said far worse, and the effects of what they have said are so much worse, that a good case can be made that they should be removed from the airwaves.
I've usually been amused by the notion of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, with their audiences becoming more and more fragmented, causing them to become more and more shrill, if such a thing is possible.
Watching them become a daily embarrassment to the Republican Party has provided even more fun.
But as much as I've enjoyed the Carnival, I'm afraid that it's time for something to be done.
Something that in many peoples eyes might infringe on the First Amendment.
But there's nothing in the First Amendment about the right to be on TV or the radio.
Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly have seriously gotten into what can very reasonably be called "inciting violence".
Limbaugh, with his daily hatespeak about how he hope Obama fails:
Limbaugh preaches to the people with the guns.
What better way for Obama to fail than by getting himself assassinated?
Does anyone really think that this is beyond the scope of Limbaugh's more passionate audience members?
O'Reilly providing information on how to find the surviving abortion doctors:
I can't imagine why. Can you?
These actions themselves bespeak treason.
I don't know if it goes that far legally, but I know they're walking the tightrope.
So let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It's not treason.
But it's definitely incitement to violence.
So we don't arrest them.
And yes, there's freedom of speech, which ends with the classical example of Shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one.
What Limbaugh and O'Reilly are doing, to me, goes over that line.
Therefore neither of them is owed a place on the public airwaves, no matter how popular they are.
There's such a thing as the FCC.
They issue the licenses.
The FCC, if it chose to, could revoke the licenses of any station that carried Limbaugh or O'Reilly on the basis that they are inciting violence.
The two of them could then concentrate their efforts on their websites.
This might cut down on their influence, because it would require their audiences to read.
And go try and build an audience on webcasts alone.
I, for one, do not want to see any more people get shot at Holocaust Museums, or any more abortion doctors get killed.
Limbaugh is offering up the propaganda that this was caused by the liberals, but if you don't think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly, however indirectly, had a hand in those events, I would like to offer up for sale to you my 51% interest in the Brooklyn Bridge.
It would be difficult, and certainly out-of -character for President Obama to commandeer any effort to influence the FCC.
But there are plenty of political types (Senator Schumer?) who can certainly carry this ball and run with it.
Limbaugh and O'Reilly have outlived their dubious entertainment value.
There's nothing "amusing" about them any more.
On any level.
They are no longer "entertainers".
They are rabble-rousers.
A responsible society must find a way to at least discourage the rabble from being roused.
*****
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Jokester Vs. The Political Animal.
Usually I don't use this space to mouthe off politcally.
Not that I don't have strong political opinions. I do.
It's just that I don't feel that I usually have much to add to the public forum that hasn't already been said by Keith Olbermann.
But this dust-up between Sarah Palin and David Letterman has left me with thoughts that I've found unexpressed anywhere else that I have found.
I received this mass e-mail from one of my readers. I didn't ask for permission to reprint it, because it wasn't sent only to me personally.
Here are excerpts:
"I enjoy most of David Letterman's humor. Fact is, I generally prefer Letterman over Leno . . .
I think Letterman was way out of bounds on his "jokes" regarding Sarah Palin and her daughter(s). It was poor taste, unnecessary, not at all classy.
Leno would occasionally border on jokes that were a little too risque, but I don't think he'd have ever done something like this.
Leno was, and is a world class performer. Letterman was, and is. Except Letterman really messed up on this imbroglio. Perhaps he'll learn.
.......Letterman goofed and should have made a simple apology instead of turning it into a seven minute desk spot."
Here's how I responded:
"Palin brought all this on by herself by shlepping her knocked-up daughter up onstage at the Convention.
If it were a Democrat with a knocked-up daughter, the Republicans would never let him or her hear the end of it.
Letterman has already apologized several times. What more do we want from him?
Palin implying that he is some kind of child predator is typically way out of line.
But I think Letterman is thriving on the attention.
Very few people like Palin.
One of these people is intelligent, and the other is not."
I now realize that there is more to be said.
I have since watched all the Letterman episodes from the past week, which I had Tivo'd.
Much as I admire and respect Letterman, and think he is totally right in this situation, I think he's acted like a complete wuss.
He has compounded this by issuing an even more humble, serious apology on the show that aired on Monday night. All about how the perception of the joke can sometimes be more important than the joke.
Is this network pressure that we are witnessing?
God, I'd hate to think he'd succumb to something like that.
This seems way off base to me.
If you're accused of making a joke about someone's child being a victim of a child predator, which Letterman did NOT intend to do, not even knowing that the 14 year old was at the ballgame with Palin and Giuliani, and which he said he did NOT do, and which, as he said, anyone who knows him or his show knows he did NOT do, you must be HIGHLY INSULTED.
You don't suck up to that , forgive me, bimbo.
You MUST TAKE UMBRAGE.
Not like the phony umbrage that a political animal like Palin, who knows better, is taking.
Seven minutes of relatively light banter about it is letting her off way too easily.
He should have swatted her like the mosquito she is.
He should have put her in her place, which is somewhere under a rock.
He shouldn't be inviting her on his show so she can turn him down.
He should be issuing a public banning of her from his show.
That's what she deserves, and that's what will help his ratings more than anything else.
You just KNOW that this is how he really feels about it.
But to make yet another public apology?
He has been totally manipulated by someone vastly inferior to him.
I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Where are his cohones?
And why aren't they on display here?
Does he really think his audience is made up of Palin fans?
This one does not compute.
Letterman and Palin have totally different agendas.
Letterman's is to make highly edged sarcastic jokes about everyone in the public eye.
That's his job, and he does it really well.
If he had to apologize every time he offended anyone, he would be doing nothing BUT apologize.
Palin's is to keep herself in the public eye at all costs.
As a political animal, one knows that sincerity takes a back seat to everything.
She can't possibly be as offended as she's making out to be.
Letterman isn't and really can't be a political animal.
It doesn't seem to be part of his genetic makeup.
Bill Clinton and John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer had to do the political dance in public of how they disgraced their families by committing adultery.
You know they'd all like to have said "Yeah, I screwed around. Why is this your business?"
Letterman could have just as easily said "Yeah, I told an offensive joke at your expense, Governor, and your daughter will survive it. It comes with the territory. Get over it."
Cohones.
It has served both of them to keep this story alive.
But Letterman keeping it alive this way is causing me to lose some respect for him.
Dennis Miller (of all people) was once confronted by a member of someone's family.
That someone was treated quite tastelessly in a joke that Miller had told.
And the family member called him on it in a public situation.
Miller thought about it for a moment, and said "You know what? You shouldn't like me."
And that was the end of it.
This family member wasn't a political animal, so there was nothing left to be said.
And that's where it should sit here. Palin, if she was really offended, shouldn't like Letterman.
And that should be the end of it.
And Letterman, if he was really offended, which he should be, shouldn't like Palin, and should have blasted her on his show.
And that should have been the end of it.
If it wasn't, it would have fanned the flames, and be a really great story, instead of the nauseating one it has become.
*****
Not that I don't have strong political opinions. I do.
It's just that I don't feel that I usually have much to add to the public forum that hasn't already been said by Keith Olbermann.
But this dust-up between Sarah Palin and David Letterman has left me with thoughts that I've found unexpressed anywhere else that I have found.
I received this mass e-mail from one of my readers. I didn't ask for permission to reprint it, because it wasn't sent only to me personally.
Here are excerpts:
"I enjoy most of David Letterman's humor. Fact is, I generally prefer Letterman over Leno . . .
I think Letterman was way out of bounds on his "jokes" regarding Sarah Palin and her daughter(s). It was poor taste, unnecessary, not at all classy.
Leno would occasionally border on jokes that were a little too risque, but I don't think he'd have ever done something like this.
Leno was, and is a world class performer. Letterman was, and is. Except Letterman really messed up on this imbroglio. Perhaps he'll learn.
.......Letterman goofed and should have made a simple apology instead of turning it into a seven minute desk spot."
Here's how I responded:
"Palin brought all this on by herself by shlepping her knocked-up daughter up onstage at the Convention.
If it were a Democrat with a knocked-up daughter, the Republicans would never let him or her hear the end of it.
Letterman has already apologized several times. What more do we want from him?
Palin implying that he is some kind of child predator is typically way out of line.
But I think Letterman is thriving on the attention.
Very few people like Palin.
One of these people is intelligent, and the other is not."
I now realize that there is more to be said.
I have since watched all the Letterman episodes from the past week, which I had Tivo'd.
Much as I admire and respect Letterman, and think he is totally right in this situation, I think he's acted like a complete wuss.
He has compounded this by issuing an even more humble, serious apology on the show that aired on Monday night. All about how the perception of the joke can sometimes be more important than the joke.
Is this network pressure that we are witnessing?
God, I'd hate to think he'd succumb to something like that.
This seems way off base to me.
If you're accused of making a joke about someone's child being a victim of a child predator, which Letterman did NOT intend to do, not even knowing that the 14 year old was at the ballgame with Palin and Giuliani, and which he said he did NOT do, and which, as he said, anyone who knows him or his show knows he did NOT do, you must be HIGHLY INSULTED.
You don't suck up to that , forgive me, bimbo.
You MUST TAKE UMBRAGE.
Not like the phony umbrage that a political animal like Palin, who knows better, is taking.
Seven minutes of relatively light banter about it is letting her off way too easily.
He should have swatted her like the mosquito she is.
He should have put her in her place, which is somewhere under a rock.
He shouldn't be inviting her on his show so she can turn him down.
He should be issuing a public banning of her from his show.
That's what she deserves, and that's what will help his ratings more than anything else.
You just KNOW that this is how he really feels about it.
But to make yet another public apology?
He has been totally manipulated by someone vastly inferior to him.
I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Where are his cohones?
And why aren't they on display here?
Does he really think his audience is made up of Palin fans?
This one does not compute.
Letterman and Palin have totally different agendas.
Letterman's is to make highly edged sarcastic jokes about everyone in the public eye.
That's his job, and he does it really well.
If he had to apologize every time he offended anyone, he would be doing nothing BUT apologize.
Palin's is to keep herself in the public eye at all costs.
As a political animal, one knows that sincerity takes a back seat to everything.
She can't possibly be as offended as she's making out to be.
Letterman isn't and really can't be a political animal.
It doesn't seem to be part of his genetic makeup.
Bill Clinton and John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer had to do the political dance in public of how they disgraced their families by committing adultery.
You know they'd all like to have said "Yeah, I screwed around. Why is this your business?"
Letterman could have just as easily said "Yeah, I told an offensive joke at your expense, Governor, and your daughter will survive it. It comes with the territory. Get over it."
Cohones.
It has served both of them to keep this story alive.
But Letterman keeping it alive this way is causing me to lose some respect for him.
Dennis Miller (of all people) was once confronted by a member of someone's family.
That someone was treated quite tastelessly in a joke that Miller had told.
And the family member called him on it in a public situation.
Miller thought about it for a moment, and said "You know what? You shouldn't like me."
And that was the end of it.
This family member wasn't a political animal, so there was nothing left to be said.
And that's where it should sit here. Palin, if she was really offended, shouldn't like Letterman.
And that should be the end of it.
And Letterman, if he was really offended, which he should be, shouldn't like Palin, and should have blasted her on his show.
And that should have been the end of it.
If it wasn't, it would have fanned the flames, and be a really great story, instead of the nauseating one it has become.
*****
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Fine And Danny
In yesterday's post, I referred to "Danny and Sylvia: The Danny Kaye Musical", which I saw last Wednesday in New York, thusly:
"Never have I had such thoroughly mixed feelings about any show I've ever seen.
It alternated between totally great and thoroughly awful, and kept shifting back and forth."
I'll now elaborate:
What was great about it----They found a guy who simply nailed Danny Kaye.
He channeled him. He captured all that was great about him.
It was as if you were seeing Danny Kaye in a great live performance.
Better, in fact.
Because it came without all of the negatives that have since been associated with Danny Kaye, the person.
From all accounts, Danny Kaye in real life was, as my friend Lenny Friefeld would describe him in his intentionally redundant way, as "a shmuck and a putz".
He would always go out of his way to snub autograph seekers.
He would go to nightclubs at dinner shows and sit with his back to the onstage performers.
In the show "Two By Two", he would intentionally wreak havoc on stage.
He would always be bragging about who he was flying around in his private plane.
He apparently treated his wife, Sylvia Fine, abusively, something not covered in the musical I saw.
But then who wanted to see that, anyway?
So watching him on clips on YouTube, or in his old movies, meant accepting his personal baggage along with him. I find this difficult to do.
It's not like Jerry Lewis, whose professional and personal persona is pretty much that of a shmuck and a putz. If you like his work, you know what you're getting going in.
But Danny Kaye's public persona was that of an erudite, charming, likeable humanitarian.
And this apparently was not him.
He was entirely a lie.
But seeing someone else in his skin, someone equally talented at being Danny Kaye, removed all that baggage, and made it really easy to watch him perform all those wonderful Sylvia Fine songs, and other material that he made famous. That's why much of this show was great.
What was godawful about it: They didn't use all those wonderful Sylvia Fine songs.
Odd, because that's what the show was ostensibly about---how her songs transformed Danny Kaye into a major star.
There were twenty-eight songs in this show.
You know how many of these they used were Sylvia Fine songs ?
Three.
You heard me. Three.
And what were the other twenty-five?
Pedestrian crappy songs, supposedly about their relationship.
One or two at least made the attempt to copy Sylvia Fine's witty style, and they sort of worked, but the rest were just pedestrian crappy songs that commented on scenes we'd just seen and didn't move the story along. I wanted to rise from my seat and say "Get on with it!!"
Has anyone ever heard of Lyn Duddy and Jerry Bresler?
Their main claim to fame, besides writing shows that never made it to Broadway, was to write the songs for "The Honeymooners" when they did a season of hour-long musical episodes.
They were the original purveyors of the Pedestrian Crappy Song.
In my early twenties, I once drove Totie Fields and her husband from New York to Philadelphia to appear on the Mike Douglas Show.
She was waxing ecstatically about having hired Lyn Duddy and Jerry Bresler to write special material for her.
I already had my attitude about them then, but didn't have the heart to tell her.
Then she started gushing about how they turn out a new musical every week for "The Honeymooners".
I did have the heart to tell her that the stuff currently on the Honeymooners was recycled from ten years previously, and simply reshot, this time in color.
She of course didn't believe me, but I still had the memory of my friend David Freitag singing those songs over and over ten years previously until I wanted to belt him in the mouth.
Those guys couldn't even turn out new pedestrian crappy songs for the occasion.
They were perfectly content recycling the old ones.
And the guys who wrote the new songs for the Danny Kaye musical were Duddy-Bresler clones.
And the ancient audience didn't notice or care.
They just wanted to see their Danny, in whatever form was offered.
It's a critic-proof show. Nothing was going to keep these people away.
And they had a wonderful time.
They just simply didn't know how good a show they could have seen.
In the dialogue, it was mentioned that Cole Porter was so impressed with Sylvia's songs that he interpolated two of them into one of his shows.
I would have loved to hear those songs.
But, of course, I didn't get to hear either one of them.
I got to hear more pedestrian crap.
The time frame for this show was the late thirties, when Danny and Sylvia first met, to 1948, when Sylvia tells Danny that he is about to become a father.
If they had extended it by a year, they could have bailed much of this show out by providing the perfect ending: Their daughter would have been born, and they could have both sung a song to the baby that Sylvia Fine wrote for "The Five Pennies" called "Lullaby in Ragtime", which has intricate two-part counterpoint melodies. In the movie, it was done by Danny Kaye and Louis Armstrong. There is, in fact, a third part, but there are only two actors on stage.
There wouldn't have been a dry eye in the house, including mine.
So they kept going back from great Danny Kaye performances without the baggage, to pedestrian crap. The latter, needlessly.
Do I really have to fix everybody's shows?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My book, "Show Runner" and it's sequel,"Show Runner Two", can be found at the Amazon Kindle Store, You can search by typing in my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, or Happy Days.
You might want to check them out.
You don't need a Kindle machine to download them.
Just get the free app from Kindle, and they can be downloaded to an IPhone, IPad, or Blackberry.
The paperback, "Mark Rothman's Essays" is still available for people without Kindle.
I have many readings and signings remaining, and the thing about Kindle is you can't sign one.
The website "On Screen & Beyond" has two hours of an interview I did on it's podcast in their archives.
Just Google On Screen & Beyond to find them if you're interested.
******
"Never have I had such thoroughly mixed feelings about any show I've ever seen.
It alternated between totally great and thoroughly awful, and kept shifting back and forth."
I'll now elaborate:
What was great about it----They found a guy who simply nailed Danny Kaye.
He channeled him. He captured all that was great about him.
It was as if you were seeing Danny Kaye in a great live performance.
Better, in fact.
Because it came without all of the negatives that have since been associated with Danny Kaye, the person.
From all accounts, Danny Kaye in real life was, as my friend Lenny Friefeld would describe him in his intentionally redundant way, as "a shmuck and a putz".
He would always go out of his way to snub autograph seekers.
He would go to nightclubs at dinner shows and sit with his back to the onstage performers.
In the show "Two By Two", he would intentionally wreak havoc on stage.
He would always be bragging about who he was flying around in his private plane.
He apparently treated his wife, Sylvia Fine, abusively, something not covered in the musical I saw.
But then who wanted to see that, anyway?
So watching him on clips on YouTube, or in his old movies, meant accepting his personal baggage along with him. I find this difficult to do.
It's not like Jerry Lewis, whose professional and personal persona is pretty much that of a shmuck and a putz. If you like his work, you know what you're getting going in.
But Danny Kaye's public persona was that of an erudite, charming, likeable humanitarian.
And this apparently was not him.
He was entirely a lie.
But seeing someone else in his skin, someone equally talented at being Danny Kaye, removed all that baggage, and made it really easy to watch him perform all those wonderful Sylvia Fine songs, and other material that he made famous. That's why much of this show was great.
What was godawful about it: They didn't use all those wonderful Sylvia Fine songs.
Odd, because that's what the show was ostensibly about---how her songs transformed Danny Kaye into a major star.
There were twenty-eight songs in this show.
You know how many of these they used were Sylvia Fine songs ?
Three.
You heard me. Three.
And what were the other twenty-five?
Pedestrian crappy songs, supposedly about their relationship.
One or two at least made the attempt to copy Sylvia Fine's witty style, and they sort of worked, but the rest were just pedestrian crappy songs that commented on scenes we'd just seen and didn't move the story along. I wanted to rise from my seat and say "Get on with it!!"
Has anyone ever heard of Lyn Duddy and Jerry Bresler?
Their main claim to fame, besides writing shows that never made it to Broadway, was to write the songs for "The Honeymooners" when they did a season of hour-long musical episodes.
They were the original purveyors of the Pedestrian Crappy Song.
In my early twenties, I once drove Totie Fields and her husband from New York to Philadelphia to appear on the Mike Douglas Show.
She was waxing ecstatically about having hired Lyn Duddy and Jerry Bresler to write special material for her.
I already had my attitude about them then, but didn't have the heart to tell her.
Then she started gushing about how they turn out a new musical every week for "The Honeymooners".
I did have the heart to tell her that the stuff currently on the Honeymooners was recycled from ten years previously, and simply reshot, this time in color.
She of course didn't believe me, but I still had the memory of my friend David Freitag singing those songs over and over ten years previously until I wanted to belt him in the mouth.
Those guys couldn't even turn out new pedestrian crappy songs for the occasion.
They were perfectly content recycling the old ones.
And the guys who wrote the new songs for the Danny Kaye musical were Duddy-Bresler clones.
And the ancient audience didn't notice or care.
They just wanted to see their Danny, in whatever form was offered.
It's a critic-proof show. Nothing was going to keep these people away.
And they had a wonderful time.
They just simply didn't know how good a show they could have seen.
In the dialogue, it was mentioned that Cole Porter was so impressed with Sylvia's songs that he interpolated two of them into one of his shows.
I would have loved to hear those songs.
But, of course, I didn't get to hear either one of them.
I got to hear more pedestrian crap.
The time frame for this show was the late thirties, when Danny and Sylvia first met, to 1948, when Sylvia tells Danny that he is about to become a father.
If they had extended it by a year, they could have bailed much of this show out by providing the perfect ending: Their daughter would have been born, and they could have both sung a song to the baby that Sylvia Fine wrote for "The Five Pennies" called "Lullaby in Ragtime", which has intricate two-part counterpoint melodies. In the movie, it was done by Danny Kaye and Louis Armstrong. There is, in fact, a third part, but there are only two actors on stage.
There wouldn't have been a dry eye in the house, including mine.
So they kept going back from great Danny Kaye performances without the baggage, to pedestrian crap. The latter, needlessly.
Do I really have to fix everybody's shows?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My book, "Show Runner" and it's sequel,"Show Runner Two", can be found at the Amazon Kindle Store, You can search by typing in my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, or Happy Days.
You might want to check them out.
You don't need a Kindle machine to download them.
Just get the free app from Kindle, and they can be downloaded to an IPhone, IPad, or Blackberry.
The paperback, "Mark Rothman's Essays" is still available for people without Kindle.
I have many readings and signings remaining, and the thing about Kindle is you can't sign one.
The website "On Screen & Beyond" has two hours of an interview I did on it's podcast in their archives.
Just Google On Screen & Beyond to find them if you're interested.
******
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
New York, The Tony's, and Other Shows.
I know going in that this one is going to require two posts to cover it.
First, the Tony's: I assume that I'm that I'm the only one watching who cares equally about seeing the Tony's and the NBA Finals, which were on opposite each other.
If my bookie took action on the Tony's, I'd ignore the NBA Finals completely.
The opening number at the Tony's was great. Better than anything that followed.
Particularly when that rocker got bunked in the head by the scenery.
Broadway is pretty expensive these days, but we got to see that for free.
My usual attitude about watching the Tonys is that it acts as a stimulus for me to want to go to New York to see a lot of shows.
But if you've read me with any kind of regularity, you know that I've spent a lot of time in New York this year, and already seen most of these shows.
What it did prove to me this year is that my shit detector is still pretty accurate.
There wasn't any show that they showed a clip of that I hadn't seen that I suddenly felt compelled to see on a future trip.
And the clips that I did see only confirmed that I was right to want to see what I've seen in the first place.
With the glaring exception of "God of Carnage", which had the bad taste to win for Best Play.
That one fooled me with the ads, and would have fooled me with the Tony clip.
It just slipped under my radar.
There were two others I would have voted for over that one: "33 Variations", and "Impressionism", although the latter wasn't even nominated.
It was nice that they gave a Lifetime Achievement Award to Jerry Herman, composer and lyricist of my favorite musical of all time, "La Cage Aux Folles".
It was the answer to the musical question "What took them so long?"
I haven't wanted to see "Billy Eliot", which won for Best Musical.
It just looks so artsy-fartsy.
My shit detector has sounded a five-alarmer.
That "Next To Normal", which I saw last week, didn't win is something someone is going to have to answer for.
It is electrifying, stunning, a tour-de-force, impressive musically and lyrically, and is a musical about mental illness.
So, major points for ambition.
I also had dinner between shows last Wednesday with a couple of my readers. Janet and Lee. They are two of the primary Initials Game players on the weekend game, and we had a great time.
We have all become friends.
You can never have too many of them.
If you live in the New York area, or the Detroit area, or the Los Angeles area, and would like to share food with me, just e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com and we can try to work it out.
The other show I saw last Wednesday was "Danny and Sylvia: The Danny Kaye Musical".
Never have I had such thoroughly mixed feelings about any show I've ever seen.
It alternated between totally great and thoroughly awful, and kept shifting back and forth.
Much more about this tomorrow.
*****
First, the Tony's: I assume that I'm that I'm the only one watching who cares equally about seeing the Tony's and the NBA Finals, which were on opposite each other.
If my bookie took action on the Tony's, I'd ignore the NBA Finals completely.
The opening number at the Tony's was great. Better than anything that followed.
Particularly when that rocker got bunked in the head by the scenery.
Broadway is pretty expensive these days, but we got to see that for free.
My usual attitude about watching the Tonys is that it acts as a stimulus for me to want to go to New York to see a lot of shows.
But if you've read me with any kind of regularity, you know that I've spent a lot of time in New York this year, and already seen most of these shows.
What it did prove to me this year is that my shit detector is still pretty accurate.
There wasn't any show that they showed a clip of that I hadn't seen that I suddenly felt compelled to see on a future trip.
And the clips that I did see only confirmed that I was right to want to see what I've seen in the first place.
With the glaring exception of "God of Carnage", which had the bad taste to win for Best Play.
That one fooled me with the ads, and would have fooled me with the Tony clip.
It just slipped under my radar.
There were two others I would have voted for over that one: "33 Variations", and "Impressionism", although the latter wasn't even nominated.
It was nice that they gave a Lifetime Achievement Award to Jerry Herman, composer and lyricist of my favorite musical of all time, "La Cage Aux Folles".
It was the answer to the musical question "What took them so long?"
I haven't wanted to see "Billy Eliot", which won for Best Musical.
It just looks so artsy-fartsy.
My shit detector has sounded a five-alarmer.
That "Next To Normal", which I saw last week, didn't win is something someone is going to have to answer for.
It is electrifying, stunning, a tour-de-force, impressive musically and lyrically, and is a musical about mental illness.
So, major points for ambition.
I also had dinner between shows last Wednesday with a couple of my readers. Janet and Lee. They are two of the primary Initials Game players on the weekend game, and we had a great time.
We have all become friends.
You can never have too many of them.
If you live in the New York area, or the Detroit area, or the Los Angeles area, and would like to share food with me, just e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com and we can try to work it out.
The other show I saw last Wednesday was "Danny and Sylvia: The Danny Kaye Musical".
Never have I had such thoroughly mixed feelings about any show I've ever seen.
It alternated between totally great and thoroughly awful, and kept shifting back and forth.
Much more about this tomorrow.
*****
Monday, June 1, 2009
Hobnobbin' With The Cee-lebs
This is something I hadn't done for quite a while, but I just spent the last three weeks in L.A., and I did my share of it.
I was out there trying to do some money and actor-wrangling for my movie.
Tonight, NBC is starting up again with "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here", that Godawful "Reality" show.
Three weeks ago, I had lunch with Alana Stewart, who has been quite visible lately because she produced the documentary about Farrah Fawcett, and she was on TV constantly, talking it up.
Alana had appeared on the original "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here".
She had appeared in one of my plays ten years ago, and we had gotten along famously, mainly because she was quite wonderful in it, and a dream to direct.
She channeled, of all people, Vivian Vance. And boy, did it work.
(For those of you who remember my "post-a-clef", she was none of those people. She replaced one who was.)
If you knew anything about Alana Stewart, you'd know that she liked her creature comforts, and you'd have bet any amount of money that she'd be the first one to extricate herself from that "Reality" show. And after they had her stick her hand into a jar of live worms, you would have won that bet.
She'd much rather be in a movie. That's what I was counting on.
She also knows everyone in Hollywood. When she was in my play, the audience was a regular Red Carpet. She'll probably be in my movie, and probably deliver me a prominent leading man.
We ARE talking about getting a movie made, which is still one of nature's imponderables.
Until the cameras start rolling, and even after that, we're always talking about "if" rather than when.
Unless you're Spielberg.
A few days later, I had lunch with Mai Britt, whom you might recall as the star of such movies as "The Young Lions", "Murder Inc.", and "The Blue Angel" (The one without Dietrich).
She's probably best known as having been Mrs. Sammy Davis Jr.
I became friends with Mai (pronounced "My". If you call her "May" once too often, she'd probably break your arm.) in the early 90's, when we were both living in Tahoe.
She is truly one of the great humans. A loyal, caring friend. How many of those can anyone find?
Great sense of humor.
Sharp as a tack.
Takes great pride in stealing the cover of Life Magazine away from Inger Stevens in 1957.
Two incidents worth noting: When we were in Tahoe, a childhood friend, of mine, Elliot Zisser, was coming up to visit with his family.
When we were kids, to make fun of him, we all called him "Cowboy Zisser", because, of course, it was so appropriate. It stuck for many years.
I invited Mai to join me and the Zissers for dinner at Caesars Tahoe's Italian restaurant.
I said to her beforehand, "Mai, if when I say 'This is Elliot Zisser', you say 'Cowboy Zisser?', you can name your own price."
Her price was dinner.
Still one of the highlights of my life.
The other incident was when she invited me to conduct the Passover Seder at her house for her and her 20 year old son Jeff.
Mai had converted to Judaism for Sammy, but never really had much of an opportunity to put it into practice.
Now you've got to understand. I am not exactly a paragon of religion.
I'm as Jewish as they come, but both of my wives were not Jewish, and as far as shul goes, I am at best a Once a Year Man.
So conducting a Seder was one particular dance that I'd never been invited to.
She got out Sammy's solid gold Passover dishes (what else?), and I conducted the Seder.
One of the highlights of my life.
She provided two highlights.
It had been fifteen years since we last saw each other.
But when we sat down for lunch three weeks ago, it was like we had never been out of touch (which we had). And we picked up right where we left off.
Just great.
This past Saturday, I was back in Michigan, and a friend of mine invited me to see Paula Prentiss appear in a local production of "The Glass Menagerie".
She looked great, and was great.
And I got to meet and chat with her husband, Richard Benjamin, who has been one of my heroes.
As I rattled off everything I knew about his career, which was everything, he seemed quite pleased, and was quite gracious.
I wish I had more to write about him, but the meeting was brief, and we had no prior history.
I hope I am fortunate enough to develop some with him.
I'm in Connecticut this week, planning to make a Wednesday jaunt into Manhattan to catch a couple of shows and meet up with several of my readers for dinner.
And Conan started up last night. I'll probably have something to say about that.
This is about as chatty a post as I've ever put up.
I promise you, I'll sharpen my knives again real soon.
*****
I was out there trying to do some money and actor-wrangling for my movie.
Tonight, NBC is starting up again with "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here", that Godawful "Reality" show.
Three weeks ago, I had lunch with Alana Stewart, who has been quite visible lately because she produced the documentary about Farrah Fawcett, and she was on TV constantly, talking it up.
Alana had appeared on the original "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here".
She had appeared in one of my plays ten years ago, and we had gotten along famously, mainly because she was quite wonderful in it, and a dream to direct.
She channeled, of all people, Vivian Vance. And boy, did it work.
(For those of you who remember my "post-a-clef", she was none of those people. She replaced one who was.)
If you knew anything about Alana Stewart, you'd know that she liked her creature comforts, and you'd have bet any amount of money that she'd be the first one to extricate herself from that "Reality" show. And after they had her stick her hand into a jar of live worms, you would have won that bet.
She'd much rather be in a movie. That's what I was counting on.
She also knows everyone in Hollywood. When she was in my play, the audience was a regular Red Carpet. She'll probably be in my movie, and probably deliver me a prominent leading man.
We ARE talking about getting a movie made, which is still one of nature's imponderables.
Until the cameras start rolling, and even after that, we're always talking about "if" rather than when.
Unless you're Spielberg.
A few days later, I had lunch with Mai Britt, whom you might recall as the star of such movies as "The Young Lions", "Murder Inc.", and "The Blue Angel" (The one without Dietrich).
She's probably best known as having been Mrs. Sammy Davis Jr.
I became friends with Mai (pronounced "My". If you call her "May" once too often, she'd probably break your arm.) in the early 90's, when we were both living in Tahoe.
She is truly one of the great humans. A loyal, caring friend. How many of those can anyone find?
Great sense of humor.
Sharp as a tack.
Takes great pride in stealing the cover of Life Magazine away from Inger Stevens in 1957.
Two incidents worth noting: When we were in Tahoe, a childhood friend, of mine, Elliot Zisser, was coming up to visit with his family.
When we were kids, to make fun of him, we all called him "Cowboy Zisser", because, of course, it was so appropriate. It stuck for many years.
I invited Mai to join me and the Zissers for dinner at Caesars Tahoe's Italian restaurant.
I said to her beforehand, "Mai, if when I say 'This is Elliot Zisser', you say 'Cowboy Zisser?', you can name your own price."
Her price was dinner.
Still one of the highlights of my life.
The other incident was when she invited me to conduct the Passover Seder at her house for her and her 20 year old son Jeff.
Mai had converted to Judaism for Sammy, but never really had much of an opportunity to put it into practice.
Now you've got to understand. I am not exactly a paragon of religion.
I'm as Jewish as they come, but both of my wives were not Jewish, and as far as shul goes, I am at best a Once a Year Man.
So conducting a Seder was one particular dance that I'd never been invited to.
She got out Sammy's solid gold Passover dishes (what else?), and I conducted the Seder.
One of the highlights of my life.
She provided two highlights.
It had been fifteen years since we last saw each other.
But when we sat down for lunch three weeks ago, it was like we had never been out of touch (which we had). And we picked up right where we left off.
Just great.
This past Saturday, I was back in Michigan, and a friend of mine invited me to see Paula Prentiss appear in a local production of "The Glass Menagerie".
She looked great, and was great.
And I got to meet and chat with her husband, Richard Benjamin, who has been one of my heroes.
As I rattled off everything I knew about his career, which was everything, he seemed quite pleased, and was quite gracious.
I wish I had more to write about him, but the meeting was brief, and we had no prior history.
I hope I am fortunate enough to develop some with him.
I'm in Connecticut this week, planning to make a Wednesday jaunt into Manhattan to catch a couple of shows and meet up with several of my readers for dinner.
And Conan started up last night. I'll probably have something to say about that.
This is about as chatty a post as I've ever put up.
I promise you, I'll sharpen my knives again real soon.
*****
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Why I Love Telemarketers.
I spend a lot of time at home. It's where I write.
I've mentioned that I'm in the process of putting together a movie.
So I spend a lot of time at home, on the phone, and, particularly, waiting for the phone to ring.
A lot of times, while waiting for the phone to ring, it rings.
Only, instead of it being the person I'd hoped to hear from, it's a telemarketer.
Telemarketing should be against the law. You should not be allowed to call up a stranger in order to sell them something.
There is no legitimate excuse for this profession existing.
Moreover, when you answer the phone and say "hello", you should never be subjected to waiting more than half-a-second for a response.
You often are subjected to at least twenty seconds before you hear from the other end in a typical telemarketing call.
As a result, I love telemarketers.
You may ask "Why?" at this point.
In my case, it's because I turn them into human punching-bags.
The display on my phone is a pretty good indication that a telemarketer is calling.
So I'm always prepared to go into telemarketer-abuse mode.
Many of us have a lot of stress, and no outlet for it.
Verbally beating up on another human being who deserves it is a great stress reliever.
The louder, the angrier, the more abusive you can get towards them, the better you feel afterwards.
And they are trained to be polite, at all costs. They don't fight back.
They are designed to be punching bags.
Sometimes, sarcasm is more effective, and equally rewarding.
I seem to have gotten on telemarketing lists for people trying to sell sports-betting picks.
I can't imagine how they found me.
The typical call goes this way:
Me: Hello?
Them: Hi. I've got three sure winners for this weekend's games, and we're practically giving them away!
Me: Really? That's pretty good.
Them: Are you interested?
Me: I might be....
Them: We've been hitting over eighty percent on our picks this year. You won't find anything better than that.
Me: Eighty percent? That's pretty impressive.
Them: So are you interested?
Me: Let me ask you something. Do you bet on your picks?
Them: Sure.
Me: A lot of money?
Them: Yup.
Me: You must be making it hand over fist.
Them: I'm doing really well.
Me: Well, if that's the case, why are you wasting your time sitting in some boiler-room someplace, trying to sell me your picks?
Then they hang up.
See? There is fun to be had with telemarketers, even though they are the scum of the earth.
You get to verbally beat them up, and you get to belittle them.
What's better than that?
If any of you reading this are telemarketers, I'm sorry if I offended you.
No, I'm not.
Door-to-door salesman is another occupation that should be abolished legally.
I don't love door-to-door salesmen.
If you open the door, and they go into their pitch, you can verbally abuse or belittle them,
but they might hit you.
So it's not worth it.
A whole different matter entirely.
*****
I've mentioned that I'm in the process of putting together a movie.
So I spend a lot of time at home, on the phone, and, particularly, waiting for the phone to ring.
A lot of times, while waiting for the phone to ring, it rings.
Only, instead of it being the person I'd hoped to hear from, it's a telemarketer.
Telemarketing should be against the law. You should not be allowed to call up a stranger in order to sell them something.
There is no legitimate excuse for this profession existing.
Moreover, when you answer the phone and say "hello", you should never be subjected to waiting more than half-a-second for a response.
You often are subjected to at least twenty seconds before you hear from the other end in a typical telemarketing call.
As a result, I love telemarketers.
You may ask "Why?" at this point.
In my case, it's because I turn them into human punching-bags.
The display on my phone is a pretty good indication that a telemarketer is calling.
So I'm always prepared to go into telemarketer-abuse mode.
Many of us have a lot of stress, and no outlet for it.
Verbally beating up on another human being who deserves it is a great stress reliever.
The louder, the angrier, the more abusive you can get towards them, the better you feel afterwards.
And they are trained to be polite, at all costs. They don't fight back.
They are designed to be punching bags.
Sometimes, sarcasm is more effective, and equally rewarding.
I seem to have gotten on telemarketing lists for people trying to sell sports-betting picks.
I can't imagine how they found me.
The typical call goes this way:
Me: Hello?
Them: Hi. I've got three sure winners for this weekend's games, and we're practically giving them away!
Me: Really? That's pretty good.
Them: Are you interested?
Me: I might be....
Them: We've been hitting over eighty percent on our picks this year. You won't find anything better than that.
Me: Eighty percent? That's pretty impressive.
Them: So are you interested?
Me: Let me ask you something. Do you bet on your picks?
Them: Sure.
Me: A lot of money?
Them: Yup.
Me: You must be making it hand over fist.
Them: I'm doing really well.
Me: Well, if that's the case, why are you wasting your time sitting in some boiler-room someplace, trying to sell me your picks?
Then they hang up.
See? There is fun to be had with telemarketers, even though they are the scum of the earth.
You get to verbally beat them up, and you get to belittle them.
What's better than that?
If any of you reading this are telemarketers, I'm sorry if I offended you.
No, I'm not.
Door-to-door salesman is another occupation that should be abolished legally.
I don't love door-to-door salesmen.
If you open the door, and they go into their pitch, you can verbally abuse or belittle them,
but they might hit you.
So it's not worth it.
A whole different matter entirely.
*****
Monday, April 6, 2009
Return To The Nude Beach
No, I haven't gone back to the Nude Beach.
I'm just returning to the subject matter.
And really just one aspect of it.
I've learned something rather interesting, and, to me, highly amusing about this blog.
I have a rather sophisticated stat counter for it, which tells me many things about the readers of this here blog.
It tells me how many hits I receive a day, where in the wide world they come from, where, if anywhere they were referred from, how long they stay on line, which articles they entered and exited on, which articles they were seeking out if they did a search, all sorts of stuff.
Here's the fact worth mentioning:
The most popular article that I've posted thus far is one of the first I wrote.
The one about my experiences at the Nude Beach at Lake Tahoe.
It has received more visits than any other article by far.
This in itself is not fascinating.
What is fascinating is that every visit I've received to that article since it was published in January was as a result of a Google search for "Nude Beach".
Okay. That's still not fascinating.
What's fascinating is that:
EVERY SEARCH AND VISIT TO THAT ARTICLE HAS COME FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
Usually from the Far East. Cambodia, Korea, China, Burma, Japan.
Often from Germany. Sometimes from Scandinavia.
AT LEAST ONCE A DAY. EVERY DAY.
I don't know why. Are they nude beach-starved around the world?
Most of my other articles are only rarely specifically sought out. But when they are, it's usually by Americans.
The foreign Nude Beach visitors usually don't stay long on the website.
From what I can determine, probably not even long enough to stay for the punchline.
And they only rarely return.
I have this image of all these foreigners clicking on this article and being invariably disappointed that there are no pictures.
Don't anybody get excited. I'm not putting any up.
But in order that our fellow members of the United Nations at least have the opportunity to read the original article, I'm going to print it again here.
If I don't, they might just be routed to this article.
And without the story attached to it, it's certainly not worth it.
If you haven't read it, I'd suggest that you do, as it contains probably the funniest punchline of any article I've put up.
Just don't expect any pictures.
Beginning today, a new daily feature of this blog will be the listing of yesterday's Nude Beach article hits, and where they're from:
Yesterday's sightings:
Riyadh, Ar Riyad, Saudi Arabia (Ettihad Etisalat)
Seoul, Seoul-t'ukpyolsi, Republic of Korea, (Hanvit Broadcasting Co.,ltd.)
I can assure you. the hits will keep on coming.
And all you Americans, don't start doing Google Nude Beach searches to reach this site just to prove me wrong. It would only make me think less of you.
The Nude Beach
I consider myself to be an expert on Nude Beach Behavior.
I spent the better part of the '90's living at Lake Tahoe, spending the better part of ten years at it's nude beach.
It's actually a clothing optional beach, which can present some problems.
There is usually some unspoken resentment by the nudists towards the people who wear at least a bathing suit.
Being the conformist that I am, I usually went with the daily majority.
If there were more naked people than not, my pants would come off.
If they were outnumbered, I'd keep them on.
Through experience, I have learned that there are two reasons, or a combination of two reasons, why people go to the nude beach.
It has nothing to do with not wanting a tan line, or to be totally at one with nature.
It's to see or be seen by members of the sex that interested them, naked.
In my case, it has been to see as many women in that state, starting out dressed, and ending up undressed.
I have found nudists to be a generally wierd lot.
Many are very uptight at being stared at, which begs the question:
"Then why are you dropping your drawers in public?".
The question "What are you lookin at?" is one I've heard far more often than you might think.
It's really not sexual.
I've never experienced an erection there, nor have I ever seen any male experience one.
Perhaps it's the elephant in the room (or the lake), but it has never been an issue.
I once witnessed a young couple having an enormous heated verbal exchange, ending in them not talking to each other.
Naked.
I found this dynamic hilarious.
I once saw The Amazing Kreskin, the "mentalist", at the nude beach.
I didn't know him, but that didn't stop me from going up to him and saying "Hello Kreskin".
He, in full Kreskin voice, refused to admit that he was, indeed, Kreskin.
Indeed he was.
But, for the record, he wasn't all that Amazing, if you get my drift.
I've written an entire screenplay, and an entire play at the nude beach.
It's a very good test for you as a writer.
If you can concentrate on the page, with all the pulchritude around you, you must really be on a roll, and really be on to something.
Being somewhat averse to sand, I would usually pump up a life raft, take it out on the water, armed with my yellow legal pad and a pen, and write.
One day, I was out on my raft, writing away, and I noticed a young couple in ther 20's descending the huge incline leading to the floor of the nude beach.
The girl was absolutely gorgeous.
They planted themselves directly in front of where I had left my bag of stuff.
They began disrobing.
The girl had a phenomenal body.
She sat down, completely naked, and removed from her beach bag an enormous black bonnet, with a huge brim, and bows enabling her to tie the bonnet around her neck.
She put it on her head, and tied the bow.
From the neck up, she looked like Renoir portrait.
In a master shot, she looked ridiculous.
So I'm sitting out there on the raft, and I'm thinking " I've got the line.
All I need is the opportunity to use it".
At around 3pm, the Lake started getting choppy.
This was a common occurence around this time of day.
This made it impossible to keep writing.
So I paddle my way to shore, and plant myself directly behind the girl with the bonnet.
And I'm waiting for the opportunity. And I'm waiting. And I'm waiting.
Finally, she starts to untie the bow and remove the bonnet.
The opportunity was at hand.
I said, out loud, "Don't take off the hat! It makes the whole outfit!"
The fifteen or so people within earshot laughed hysterically.
Never will I be better set up for a one-liner.
*****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(From April 2014) Not too long ago, I was made aware of a website called Kickstarter.com
I'm sure many of you have heard of it.
I figure that this is the last chance for me to get a movie that I wrote made.
Being a sequel to "Network", it's called, appropriately enough, "Another Network".
I'm trying to raise $225,000 to get it made well.
I implore you, I beseech you, to at least go to Kickstarter.com, type in "Another Network" where it says Search Projects, click on it, watch the fifteen minute video of me being interviewed about it (rather entertainingly, I think), read the details provided, and if you feel at all generous towards me, make a pledge to help me get this movie made.
If I don't reach my goal, it won't cost you a thing.
If I do, your pledge will be activated.
And think about how happy you'll be.
At least for me.
And how happy this relatively old man will be if you come through.
And I promise you that I will make it my business that this movie gets seen.
And that you will be proud to be a part of it.
Also,, my books ,"Show Runner" and it's sequel,"Show Runner Two", can be found at the Amazon Kindle Store.
Along with the newer ones, "The Man Is Dead", and "Report Cards".
You can search by typing in my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne and Shirley, The Odd Couple, or Happy Days.
Check them out.
You don't need a Kindle machine to download them.
Just get the free app from Kindle, and they can be downloaded to an IPhone, IPad, or Blackberry.
The paperback, "Mark Rothman's Essays" is still available for people without Kindle.
I have many readings and signings remaining, and the thing about Kindle is you can't sign one.
If you'd like one, contact me at macchus999@aol.com.
And now, we've got my reading of my "Laverne & Shirley Movie" screenplay on YouTube.
******
I'm just returning to the subject matter.
And really just one aspect of it.
I've learned something rather interesting, and, to me, highly amusing about this blog.
I have a rather sophisticated stat counter for it, which tells me many things about the readers of this here blog.
It tells me how many hits I receive a day, where in the wide world they come from, where, if anywhere they were referred from, how long they stay on line, which articles they entered and exited on, which articles they were seeking out if they did a search, all sorts of stuff.
Here's the fact worth mentioning:
The most popular article that I've posted thus far is one of the first I wrote.
The one about my experiences at the Nude Beach at Lake Tahoe.
It has received more visits than any other article by far.
This in itself is not fascinating.
What is fascinating is that every visit I've received to that article since it was published in January was as a result of a Google search for "Nude Beach".
Okay. That's still not fascinating.
What's fascinating is that:
EVERY SEARCH AND VISIT TO THAT ARTICLE HAS COME FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
Usually from the Far East. Cambodia, Korea, China, Burma, Japan.
Often from Germany. Sometimes from Scandinavia.
AT LEAST ONCE A DAY. EVERY DAY.
I don't know why. Are they nude beach-starved around the world?
Most of my other articles are only rarely specifically sought out. But when they are, it's usually by Americans.
The foreign Nude Beach visitors usually don't stay long on the website.
From what I can determine, probably not even long enough to stay for the punchline.
And they only rarely return.
I have this image of all these foreigners clicking on this article and being invariably disappointed that there are no pictures.
Don't anybody get excited. I'm not putting any up.
But in order that our fellow members of the United Nations at least have the opportunity to read the original article, I'm going to print it again here.
If I don't, they might just be routed to this article.
And without the story attached to it, it's certainly not worth it.
If you haven't read it, I'd suggest that you do, as it contains probably the funniest punchline of any article I've put up.
Just don't expect any pictures.
Beginning today, a new daily feature of this blog will be the listing of yesterday's Nude Beach article hits, and where they're from:
Yesterday's sightings:
Riyadh, Ar Riyad, Saudi Arabia (Ettihad Etisalat)
Seoul, Seoul-t'ukpyolsi, Republic of Korea, (Hanvit Broadcasting Co.,ltd.)
I can assure you. the hits will keep on coming.
And all you Americans, don't start doing Google Nude Beach searches to reach this site just to prove me wrong. It would only make me think less of you.
The Nude Beach
I consider myself to be an expert on Nude Beach Behavior.
I spent the better part of the '90's living at Lake Tahoe, spending the better part of ten years at it's nude beach.
It's actually a clothing optional beach, which can present some problems.
There is usually some unspoken resentment by the nudists towards the people who wear at least a bathing suit.
Being the conformist that I am, I usually went with the daily majority.
If there were more naked people than not, my pants would come off.
If they were outnumbered, I'd keep them on.
Through experience, I have learned that there are two reasons, or a combination of two reasons, why people go to the nude beach.
It has nothing to do with not wanting a tan line, or to be totally at one with nature.
It's to see or be seen by members of the sex that interested them, naked.
In my case, it has been to see as many women in that state, starting out dressed, and ending up undressed.
I have found nudists to be a generally wierd lot.
Many are very uptight at being stared at, which begs the question:
"Then why are you dropping your drawers in public?".
The question "What are you lookin at?" is one I've heard far more often than you might think.
It's really not sexual.
I've never experienced an erection there, nor have I ever seen any male experience one.
Perhaps it's the elephant in the room (or the lake), but it has never been an issue.
I once witnessed a young couple having an enormous heated verbal exchange, ending in them not talking to each other.
Naked.
I found this dynamic hilarious.
I once saw The Amazing Kreskin, the "mentalist", at the nude beach.
I didn't know him, but that didn't stop me from going up to him and saying "Hello Kreskin".
He, in full Kreskin voice, refused to admit that he was, indeed, Kreskin.
Indeed he was.
But, for the record, he wasn't all that Amazing, if you get my drift.
I've written an entire screenplay, and an entire play at the nude beach.
It's a very good test for you as a writer.
If you can concentrate on the page, with all the pulchritude around you, you must really be on a roll, and really be on to something.
Being somewhat averse to sand, I would usually pump up a life raft, take it out on the water, armed with my yellow legal pad and a pen, and write.
One day, I was out on my raft, writing away, and I noticed a young couple in ther 20's descending the huge incline leading to the floor of the nude beach.
The girl was absolutely gorgeous.
They planted themselves directly in front of where I had left my bag of stuff.
They began disrobing.
The girl had a phenomenal body.
She sat down, completely naked, and removed from her beach bag an enormous black bonnet, with a huge brim, and bows enabling her to tie the bonnet around her neck.
She put it on her head, and tied the bow.
From the neck up, she looked like Renoir portrait.
In a master shot, she looked ridiculous.
So I'm sitting out there on the raft, and I'm thinking " I've got the line.
All I need is the opportunity to use it".
At around 3pm, the Lake started getting choppy.
This was a common occurence around this time of day.
This made it impossible to keep writing.
So I paddle my way to shore, and plant myself directly behind the girl with the bonnet.
And I'm waiting for the opportunity. And I'm waiting. And I'm waiting.
Finally, she starts to untie the bow and remove the bonnet.
The opportunity was at hand.
I said, out loud, "Don't take off the hat! It makes the whole outfit!"
The fifteen or so people within earshot laughed hysterically.
Never will I be better set up for a one-liner.
*****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(From April 2014) Not too long ago, I was made aware of a website called Kickstarter.com
I'm sure many of you have heard of it.
I figure that this is the last chance for me to get a movie that I wrote made.
Being a sequel to "Network", it's called, appropriately enough, "Another Network".
I'm trying to raise $225,000 to get it made well.
I implore you, I beseech you, to at least go to Kickstarter.com, type in "Another Network" where it says Search Projects, click on it, watch the fifteen minute video of me being interviewed about it (rather entertainingly, I think), read the details provided, and if you feel at all generous towards me, make a pledge to help me get this movie made.
If I don't reach my goal, it won't cost you a thing.
If I do, your pledge will be activated.
And think about how happy you'll be.
At least for me.
And how happy this relatively old man will be if you come through.
And I promise you that I will make it my business that this movie gets seen.
And that you will be proud to be a part of it.
Also,, my books ,"Show Runner" and it's sequel,"Show Runner Two", can be found at the Amazon Kindle Store.
Along with the newer ones, "The Man Is Dead", and "Report Cards".
You can search by typing in my name, Cindy Williams, Laverne and Shirley, The Odd Couple, or Happy Days.
Check them out.
You don't need a Kindle machine to download them.
Just get the free app from Kindle, and they can be downloaded to an IPhone, IPad, or Blackberry.
The paperback, "Mark Rothman's Essays" is still available for people without Kindle.
I have many readings and signings remaining, and the thing about Kindle is you can't sign one.
If you'd like one, contact me at macchus999@aol.com.
And now, we've got my reading of my "Laverne & Shirley Movie" screenplay on YouTube.
******
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments