Anthony Weiner Will Just Have To Wait.

I promise you I'll get to the Weiner Comps, but Anthony will most likely be around for a long time.
Sherwood Schwartz won't.
He just died at the age of 95.

Sherwood Schwartz was a television icon.
He was certainly the most influential person working in television regarding a specific generation.
Sherwood Schwartz was the creator and Executive Producer of "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch".
These two shows had enormous appeal to the generation immediately succeeding mine.
I found this rather unfathomable at the time.
I've still never understood it.
I thought these were two of the worst shows ever to come down the pike.
The fact that the immediately succeeding generation embraced them as they did gave me the distorted impression that I was part of the last generation that had a genuine sense of humor.
And that I'll never be threatened by a future generation of comedy writers, because there won't be any.
But that kind of skipped a generation.
And a wave, a sunami, if you will, of new young really funny comedy writers took things over.
I wonder how much regard Tina Fey has for "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch".
In my mind, these shows were never funny.
I even got the impression that they weren't even TRYING to be funny.
Except maybe when "Gilligan's Island" brought in the Harlem Globetrotters.
And then I thought it was just as a goof.
I mentioned in a previous article that some shows just strive to be FUN, as opposed to FUNNY.
I believe that these shows fell into this category.
And I suppose they succeeded in that regard.
To the point where people growing up with them can quote episodes chapter and verse.
I knew that Sherwood Schwartz was certainly capable of being very funny.
He was Red Skelton's head writer for quite a few years.
He used to write for Bob Hope.
These were very demanding men, and certainly no slouches when it came to funny.
So Sherwood must have been capable of playing hardball with the best of them.
But left to his own devices, he seemed to prefer softball.

There was one way that I did find "Gilligan's Island" funny.
If you watched it with the sound off.
You'd stare at the screen and continually be dumbfounded as to how the characters got from one location or scene to another.
But that was about it.

A couple of interesting things about "Gilligan's Island":
It only ran three seasons.
People think it must have run at least twelve.
No. Only three.
Also, it is fairly common knowledge that the actors did not receive much in residuals, and they ran out rather quickly.
So none of them got rich off of it.
Sherwood Schwartz made a fortune.
That's how it goes.
I've known several of the actors from it.
None of them begrudged Sherwood for this.
They all seemed to love him personally.
One of the great ironies is that there were others who profited quite nicely from it:
Phil Silvers' daughters.

Phil Silvers had a deal with CBS to do "The New Phil Silvers Show" in the early 1960's.
The show was not worth anyone's attention.
Certainly not anyone who had seen the Old Phil Silvers show, where he played Sergeant Bilko.
As part of the deal, Phil was offered profit participation in one of three sitcoms to appear on CBS's fall lineup that year.
One of them was "Gilligan's Island".
Another was "The Baileys of Balboa", which starred his old Colonel, Paul Ford.
I forget what the third one was.
Phil, for what must have seemed a mystifying reason to some, chose "Gilligan's Island".
And his daughters have been living high off the hog ever since.
That's why, if you notice in the "Gilligan's Island" credits, it says that it is a "Gladasya" production.
"Gladasya" was Phil Silvers' eternal catchphrase.
I consider this all ironic because one of the worst sitcoms ever done provided wealth for the family of one of the purveyors of the best sitcom ever done.

I had an opportunity to meet Sherwood Schwartz about twelve years ago.
He attended one of my plays in Los Angeles.
He attended because Dawn Wells, who played Mary Ann on "Gilligan" was the female lead.
Sherwood Schwartz was a class act.
At least that night.
Whenever industry people attend plays in L.A., particularly important ones like Sherwood, they expected to be comped into the theatre.
Sometimes they'd be adamant about it.
Sherwood Schwartz arrived at the theatre.
I recognized him immediately.
I assumed Dawn had left tickets for him, as comps.
No.
Sherwood reached into his wallet, pulled out cash, and paid full price for his tickets.
I was impressed.

Afterwards, Dawn introduced me to Sherwood.
He couldn't have been more complimentary about the play and my work on it.
He did a complete analysis on it that I, of course, thought was dead on.

As a result of that evening, Sherwood Schwartz could do no wrong.
And I'm very sad to learn of his passing.

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Weiner Comps.

Maybe you've noticed.
Maybe you haven't.
But I have not written one word about the Anthony Weiner scandal.
Until now.
And now, I'm probably the last person with a blog to bring up the subject.
"Why?", you might ask.
Because while it was on the front page of every newspaper, I simply didn't think I had anything to add to the discussion.
It has taken me all this time to realize that I do.
So even though I'm late to the party, I'm now going to jump in.

Over at least the next couple of sessions, I'm going to try to determine the closest comparable celebrity scandal to Anthony Weiner's.
Much like I did when trying to come up with the closest comparable singer to Eddie Fisher the week that he died.
And just recently, by determining that Walter Matthau was the closest comparable actor to Peter Falk.

This will be based on several criteria:

1) Seriousness of the scandal.

2) Degree of embarrassment he caused to himself and others.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job.

5) Nature of the sexual indiscretion.

6) The extent to which lying was involved.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal.

See? That last one is what makes this a scientific endeavor.

The closest comp will be the best indicator of what will become of
Anthony Weiner.

So I'm not just frittering away my time and yours.

Along the way, we will visit the usual suspects.
And maybe some we've all forgotten about.
Grades will be handed out.
Much like report card grades.
Grades of comparability.
The one with the highest grade is the closest match to Anthony Weiner.

The one thing I can't quite recall clearly about all of these instances is which ones of these, for lack of a better word, scoundrels, actually had their wives up on stage next to them as they were apologizing to America as a whole.
Weiner didn't.
But I don't think that this is a major factor.
I think it's more of a reflection on their spouses than on the apologists.
If I do remember specifically about certain cases, I will certainly make note of it.

So, see ya next time, as we dig in to "The Weiner Comps".

Let the fun begin!

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Know Your Audience. 2.

Harkening back to last time, when you are in a position of power over people who are trying to force spec scripts upon you, what factors are usually applied that determine whether or not you actually open the envelope containing said spec script, leaving you open to possible litigation and probable embarrassment if you are trapped into having to offer an opinion about what you have read?

In one instance early on in my career, when I was head writing on "The Odd Couple", when I was still somewhat of a softy, I insisted that
another letter be sent along absolving me from any charges of plagiarism.
I only made this insistence after outright pleading and begging over the phone by the prospective spec script submitter, before we had the screening process down to an exact science.
Many promises were made by the submitter.
About how this was easily the best spec script I was ever going to receive.
About how he knew "The Odd Couple" inside and out.
About how everyone he had shown the script to had told him that it was the best "Odd Couple script they had ever read.
This begs the question "How many "Odd Couple" scripts could everyone he had shown his script to have read?"
I was dubious at the prospect, but I had been systematically worn down.

So I received the letter of absolvement, and opened the envelope.
At least it was the right length, unlike the page-and-a-half full of "Howyoudo's" submitted by my relatives, which was never actually in an envelope to be returned unopened.
But that's the best that could be said about it.
In most respects, it was far worse than the page-and-a-half full of "Howyoudos".

The word most accurately describing it was "belabored"
It contained this massive, pointless scene about how Murray the Cop was eating a hamburger, and the thrust of the alleged comedy was how his breath was making Felix and Oscar nauseous because it smelled from onions.
Fifteen minutes of dialogue about onions and Felix and Oscar being nauseous about it.

It also had the added bonus of consistently having the word "onions", whether in dialogue, or description, spelled "Oinions".
And the payoff to the scene, which involved Murray having not the slightest clue why Felix and Oscar were acting less than positive towards him, was Felix saying to him "Murray, it's because you're eating OINIONS!"
(His caps, not mine)
We went into full "avoiding ever taking this spec script submitter's calls in the future" mode.
But some people are just too persevering.
These were the days before Caller I.D, and it was too easy for any caller to get through if he happened to pick the right time.
So I found myself confronted once again by this man, who tried to pin me down about the script.
At first, I told him there was nothing wrong with it.
I was met with "So when are you going to shoot it?"
I then had to inform him that we weren't going to shoot it.
I was then met with "I don't understand. Why wouldn't you shoot it? All my friends think it's great!"
I had to explain that all of his friends don't work on this show.
He pinned me down to the point that I had to break down and tell him that not only wasn't it going to be shot, but it was immediately going to be thrown into the trashcan.
It was easily the worst spec script we had ever read.
"What was wrong with it?" he inquired.
"What wasn't?. You gave more dialogue to Murray the Cop than to Oscar and Felix. You did a fifteen minute scene on making people nauseous, which would likely make the audience nauseous too. And you consistently misspelled "onions", turning it into "oinions".
He responded "Well that was just a typo."
I said "It's a typo if you do it once. After ten times, it's a lifestyle".

It soon became clear to him that we were not going to do his script.
I'm sure he had lovely things to say about me to his friends who adored the script.

To this day, in my house, and in my sister's house (My sister used to work for me at the time), the word "onions" doesn't exist.

It has been replaced, now and forever by "oinions".

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Know Your Audience.

When you are in a position of power in the world of television or film writing, you have to exercise much caution about accepting spec scripts.
For various reasons.
One is that you always run the risk of being sued if there is the trace of a notion in something you've written that shows up on the screen that even slightly resembles a piece of spec material you've received.
Spec material is usually quite awful, so having to steal from a spec script makes you a particularly low brand of lowlife.
Good spec material is so much more the exception than the rule.
It's how I got my start, so early on in my career, I suppose I was a little more sympathetic than most.
But I usually wouldn't read any of it.
It was usually returned unopened, sparing me from any conceivable litigation.
But occasionally, I was forced, yea confronted, with spec material that was already opened, and was forced to read and comment upon.

I mentioned that when I was recently in Arizona, and a ten year old child and I were discussing Black and White TV, that she was also a writing student.
And that she asked me some questions about writing.
And that my answers satisfied her.
This was one of the stories I told her--------

A couple of close family members were invited to my house during my one-season wonder days in the late 70's.
Blood relatives.
People I couldn't throw out of my house.
There was information that they had withheld from me about their appearance that evening.
They had collaborated on a script for my current series.
They had high hopes for this collaborative effort.
This was going to skyrocket them into a show business success at least equal to their relative.
Meaning me.
I wasn't at all concerned in the least about getting sued.
But I was going to have to read it.
In front of them.
And I, being the worst poker player in the world, could not possibly bullshit my way into convincing them that I loved it if in fact I didn't.
Nor could I conceal my rage at being imposed upon like this.
So I guess I was praying that it would in fact be great, and be the answer to their show business prayers.
My prayers were not answered.
One of the main problems was that most scripts for half-hour sitcoms were between 40 and 50 pages.
This script was a page-and-a-half.
Noticing this, I thought to myself "This had better be the best page-and-a-half ever written, or it's going to be a Red Alert."
It wasn't the best page-and-a-half ever written.
It was an atrocity.
At this point, it's brevity was an asset.
Aside from it's poor punctuation and grammar, it contained a Cardinal Sin.
My friends and I, some writers, some just friends, had an expression that we used with each other.
To make each other laugh.
It was derived from Buddy Hackett's Chinese Waiter routine.
In it, he would greet each customer by saying, in an Oriental accent, "Howyoudo???!!!"
So my friends and I would always find ways to pepper our conversations with "Howyoudo????!!!".
It usually made us laugh quite consistently.

I swear to you, in that page-and-a-half, there were at least eight "Howyoudo???!!!!'s".
I said to my relatives, what's with all the "Howyoudo's"?
They responded with "Well you and your friends are always saying it.
We thought you'd think it was funny".

I had to say to them, "You know, I've been involved in an awful lot of half-hour sitcoms.
You've come to an awful lot of filmings of them.
Have you ever, once, in your whole lives, ever hear one of our characters ever say "Howyoudo"?
They replied that they hadn't.
I pressed ahead.
"Has it ever occurred to you WHY you've never heard any of our characters say "Howyoudo"?
They admitted that it never had occurred to them.
I continued. "Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the audience wouldn't have the slightest idea why they WOULD say "Howyoudo"?
That maybe it was just an inside joke among friends?
That it was not meant for America's ears?
And if it was, it would require a lot of explanation?
Which isn't provided in your page-and-a-half?"

Seeing that their hopes were dashed, they gave up.

I wished they had seen it before they put me through my ordeal, and I put them through theirs.

So my lesson to that little girl in Arizona was "If you want to write sitcoms know who you are writing for.
You're not writing for your own amusement.
You're not writing for your friends.
You're writing for millions of people whom you don't know personally.
If you can bring your own voice to it, that's great.
But first and foremost, you're writing for America.
And if you get really lucky, you're writing for the world".

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Renovations.

I mentioned yesterday that my essay schedule will be altered somewhat, now that the Game is gone.
I will still attempt an average of three essays a week, but they most likely will not be on three consecutive days.
They will be spread out throughout the week.
With no particular pattern to it.
My work plate is starting to fill up more than I thought it would, and I'm afraid that if I am faced with the usual deadlines that I've usually imposed on myself on the blog, I will be dealing with unnecessary pressure.
I'd like to keep whatever standards have been established in your eyes around here on the same level.
I think I can.
But in order to do that, I need to give myself a little breathing room.
Check in on me as often as you usually do, and you most-likely won't be missing anything.

So, farewell to Tuesday Weld, Wednesday Addams, and Floyd Thursby as we have come to know them.

And I'm definitely taking tomorrow off.

After that, kien sabe?

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

You Can't Take Me Anywhere. Chapter 26.

I've reached a certain age where I don't take any shit from anybody anymore, and I don't give a shit what I say to anybody anymore.
Actually, I reached this certain age about twenty years ago, but it's just now becoming fashionable.
In any case, this can be a deadly combination.
Particularly if you're my wife, and you otherwise enjoy going out in public with me.
This past week, we went out to our local Sushi place.
A rather upscale establishment.
We love the Soosh, and go just about every week.
On this particular occasion, we found ourself seated next to a group of thirtyish, articulate women.
We could tell that they were articulate, because they wouldn't stop talking .
Articulately.
A problem developed.
Also at their table was a little girl.
I don't know how old she was.
Could have been anywhere from three to six.
I really can't tell these things.
Anyway, it was apparent that one of these articulate women was this little girl's mother.
I couldn't be positive which one, but I had my suspicions.
And this very cute little girl began banging out a pretty good rhythm with her chopsticks.
I was impressed.
Except for the fact that it was on our table.
A fact that went unnoticed by any of those articulate women, who continued on being articulate with each other, ignoring the fact that one of their children was knocking out a pretty good Gene Krupa impression with her chopsticks on our table.
Now, I had nothing against the little girl.
I mean, she was anywhere from three to six.
What did she know about restaurant etiquette?
But I started fuming at the little girl's mother, having a pretty good idea as to which one she was.
I stared down this woman, and asked, out loud, "Is this MY kid?"
She replied "Excuse me?"
I replied "You know. This one here. The one doing Gene Krupa on my table."
"Gene who?"
Obviously the wrong reference.
How could I expect anyone in their thirties, even someone articulate, to be any kind of aware of Gene Krupa?
I simplified things.
"She's bangin' away with her chopsticks on my table!"
She responded with "It's not your table. It's the restaurant's table".
This gave me pause.
The kind of pause in which I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
I said "So that makes it all right?"
Miss Articulate says "That's no reason to be rude" about it."
I said "There's EVERY reason to be rude about it!
You're out in public with your kid, you're responsible for her.
You started the rudeness.
I'm just indulging in rude counterpunching.
How'd you like it if I leaned into your table and began using your table as a drumset?
Or would it still be just the restaurant's table?!"

I left her very little wiggle room, except for "My child is not a kid.
A kid is a Billy Goat".

I laughed in her face---"Billy Goat? Is that the best you've got?"

As she and her crew hadn't ordered yet they all followed her lead, and decided to dine elsewhere.

As they were leaving the restaurant, I leaned back and shouted to them "Gene Krupa was a great drummer. Played with Benny Goodman.
You probably never heard of him either!
I'm here every week! Come back any time!

They were gone.
During all this, I hadn't once looked at my wife to see what her reaction was to all of this.
I can never be quite sure where she stood after any of my occasional outbursts.
But it turned out that she was as put off by this woman as I was.
And wasn't too thrilled with the kid, excuse me, Billy Goat, either.

So I was that all too seldom a thing in her eyes: A hero.

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Mystery Of The Gaylords.

I had this show, "That's Amore!---Italian American Favorites", sitting on my Tivo for the longest time.
Never getting around to watching it.
It was on my local PBS station, and consumed two and a half hours of Tivo time, which meant it was probably about ninety minutes including pledge breaks.
It took me all that time to get around to watch it because it was hosted by Danny Aiello.
Never my idea of a good time.
Danny Aiello tends to go over the top in just about everything he does.
Maybe this is somebody's idea of a good time.
But not mine.
This show contained clips of just about everybody who had anything to do with singing Italian songs.
I liked all of those singers.
So I knew that at some point, the day of reckoning would come, and I'd sit down and watch this show, which would most-likely have wonderful clips, and most likely have Danny Aiello's over-the top effusiveness.
Or, to be more specific, Danny Aiello's nauseatingly over-the top effusiveness.
And a ton of pledge breaks that I would have to skip through.
But eventually, I braved the elements.
The clips were for the most part, great.
Great Italian singers like Perry Como, Julius La Rosa, Bobby Darin, Doninico Modugno ("Volare"), Vic Damone, Connie Francis, mostly in old black-and white archival footage.
The rest in fairly recent concert footage.
There, we got to see 93 year old Frankie Laine, literally at death's door, singing "That's My Desire".
And 94 year old Jew Tony Martin, singing "There's No Tomorrow".
In his case, it seemed fitting.
Although he's still around.
And other singers who weren't Italian, but made some of their bones by singing Italian songs.
That famous Italian singer Eddie Fisher, that famous Italian singer Rosemary Clooney, who was Irish and came from Kentucky.....
Okay. She did sing "Come on-a My House", which was actually Armenian, but there WAS "Mambo Italiano", which was featured prominently.
So I guess it fit.
What never fit was Danny Aiello's nauseating effusiveness.
It made me start praying for pledge breaks.
Then, about two thirds into the show, something startling happened.
At least to me.
Danny Aiello nauseatingly effusively introducing a singing group called "The Gaylords".
I wasn't expecting any surprises.
I didn't expect to see anyone I wasn't thoroughly familiar with.
But this trio comes on, in what was obviously fairly recent conert footage, singing a song called "From the Vine Came The Grape".
And it was terrific.
The lead singer had one of the worst toupees you could imagine.
But it was the kind of thing you could overlook.
That's how good they were.
My immediate thought was "Why have I, who knows everything about show business, particularly from that era, the pre rock and roll era,
never heard of the Gaylords?"
I was baffled.
I looked them up on Wikipedia, where I learned that they had the only record that made the charts on the extremely successful "Isle Of Capri".
How could I not know that?
Was I losing it?
I feared for my mental capacity.
My next thought was to go to Amazon, and see what I could find on The Gaylords.
They had one 2 CD set, that I immediately ordered.
I put it in my CD player in my car. It's terrific.

I'm traveling with my wife in the car. I have the Gaylords CD on.
My wife has always had a rather spotty history in terms of what celebrities she knows and what ones she doesn't.
Expecting nothing but ignorance on her part, I asked "Do you happen to know who's singing?"
Without missing a beat, she responds "Sounds like the Gaylords".
I was floored.
It's one thing for her to have a spotty history about celebrities.
But I DON'T have a spotty history.
I know everybody.
Or at least I thought I did.
But for HER to have knowledge that I didn't have?
Unfathomable.
About a week later, I'm driving in my car with my brother-in-law.
Someone with absolutely no show-business background.
He fixes windows for a living.
Our conversations are usually dominated by talk about sports.
We're listening to the Gaylords.
I just casually ask him if he knows who's singing.
He immediately shoots back "The Gaylords".
I was now officially in the Twilight Zone.
This does not compute.
Shortly thereafter, I sit my wife and my brother in a room and say "Okay. Are you Gaslighting me?
How come the Gaylords come trippingly off your tongues, and I never heard of them before a few weeks ago?"
One of them offers up "Well, we used to hear them on the radio all the time when we were growing up here in Detroit.
It turns out that the Gaylords were from Detroit. It was their base of operations.
They were much bigger in Detroit than anywhere else.
That's why my wife and my brother-in-law knew of them, and I didn't.

What it boiled down to was location, location, location.

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

How To Watch MSNBC. 3.

Coming down the homestretch, some words about Ed Schultz, who hosts "The Ed Show" at 10pm on MSNBC.
You'd think there'd be room for his entire name.
Seems rather too informal, don't you think?
Actually not.
Ed is not a particularly formal guy.
Being from the Midwest. he is rather homespun and folksy.
It is reflected in his sense of humor.
But Will Rogers, he's not.
He is very outgoing.
The kind of guy you'd meet at a party and expect him to slap you on the back.
He is definitely the kind of guy who pats himself on the back.
Constantly.
But I like Ed, and I like his show.
Despite the excesses.
His heart is definitely in the right place, and he is perhaps more of an overt crusader than anyone else they have.
He'll mix it up with the folks on location much more than the others.
More backs to slap.
And more people to slap his.
He does a lot of ranting in the first few minutes of his show.
Get the point of the rant, then hit the fast forward on the Tivo until the first guest.
He is less effective with a guest who agrees with him.
It becomes a bit of a love fest.
When that happens, move on.
He's much better when there is one-on-one conflict.

One really annoying and stupid thing he does:
He rallies his audience nightly to get out their cell phones to respond to a poll question.
Whatever the issue is, the question is always along the lines of "Who's right? The Democrats, or the Republicans?
And he wants people to spend their good money to text their responses.
And the results are always the same.
They always overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats.
Since the demographic for his show and everything else on MSNBC Primetime is overwhelmingly Left Wing, what does this prove?
This is an utterly pointless exercise.
But we go through it every show.

Ed seems to find the real dregs of Conservative spokespeople to get into shouting matches with his Liberal opponents.
He has this one woman, Heidi Harris, who is just oh so slightly to the left of Ann Coulter in her politics and her ability to frighten children.

But he has the good taste to usually devote the last five or six minutes to a professional Left Wing comedienne, such as Lizz Winstead or
Stephanie Miller.
And they are usually pretty funny.
So Ed does defer to the pros here and there, and doesn't try to compete with them.
As I said, I like Ed and his show.
It would be nicer if he wasn't such a cornball.

Okay, some overall things to be aware of as you navigate through an evening of MSNBC:

Any time that they come back from a commercial and you hear rhythmic music, they are just about to head into another commercial.
So keep moving.
If there is no music, they are in fact beginning another extended segment.

Any time there is a young substitute wonky-looking, glasses wearing host, such as Chris Hayes, go right on to the next show.

Any time that there is a clip of President Obama, and you've already seen a clip of him that day, it will be the same clip.
So keep moving.

Any time there is a clip of John McCain, whether you've seen it or not, keep moving.

Any time there is an announcement that they will be interviewing victims, whether of 9/11, Katrina, flooding, racism, or just about anything designed to evoke your sympathy, keep moving.

Another approach is to always be multi-tasking when you have MSNBC on.

Keith Olbermann will be back in about a month or so, on the Current Network.
I can't wait.
It sounds like he'll have the opportunity to hire anyone else he wants for the other shows on it.

Comcast has purchased MSNBC.
I don't know how this will effect the political stance that MSNBC will continue to have.

If all these people are let go, we might have the opportunity to see how Keith really feels about them.

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

*****

How To Watch MSNBC. 2.

To continue from yesterday,

MSNBC filled Olbermann's vacated 8pm slot with Lawrence O'Donnell.
This was probably the best thing they could do.
Lawrence O'Donnell is a class act.
Easily the classiest act they have.
If you have to watch only one hour a night of MSNBC, it should be his.
Lawrence O'Donnell does not delude himself that he is funny.
Many politicians, particularly Republicans, have that particular delusion.
Remember John McCain and "Bomb. bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?
Many Democrat politicians are genuinely funny.
Barney Frank, Anthony Weiner...JFK was pretty funny.
President Obama is pretty deft with the jokes.
I think it has something to do with an overall humanity that Republicans lack.
O'Donnell, clearly a Democrat, is also clearly not funny, and seems to know it, and makes no attempt at it.
He is, however, quite ironic, and displays that admirably.
He is also quite passionate about the issues he covers.
Seemingly more genuinely passionate than all the others at MSNBC.
Certainly more genuine than Chris Mathews.
He is a more compelling personality than the others, and has much more gravitas.
The only Tivoing I do there is if he's covering a non-political topic, such as Libya.

As long as I'm on Libya, let me say a few words about a great reporter, Richard Engel.
Richard Engel is a genuine war correspondent.
Always out there where the action is.
Until yesterday, when he was reporting on a very clear feed from Pakistan, I was under the assumption that he had a speech impediment.
It turns out that it was simply the lousy feeds they were getting from Libya that seemed to give him a sibilant "S".
Just like Pinky Lee's.
But yesterday, with a good feed, he sounded fine.
They should look into that.

Okay. Onward. As Mort Sahl used to say.

Rachel Maddow.
Her heart is definitely in the right place.
Most of the time.
But she really thinks she's a hoot.
And she will belabor a point into the ground.

One of her ongoing themes is to call out people who won't appear on her show, or even return her phone calls or e-mails.
I know someone who attempted to get her to read a movie script so she could appear as herself in a Cameo role.
That someone would be me.
One of her staff people agreed to receive the script.
It was sent.
Months went by.
No response.
I e-mailed to find out why.
It had gotten lost somewhere and was never read.
Would I send it again?
I would and did.
That was many months ago.
And it was a part that could have been done by anyone.
No response.
Pots and Kettles.

With Rachel, hear her out for the subject matter, give her no more than a minute, then move on.
And stop whenever there is a good guest.
That's it.

I'll wrap this up tomorrow, with Ed Schultz, and some general rules that I haven't yet covered.

Mañana (It's good enough for me.)

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

*****

How To Watch MSNBC.

Okay. Yesterday didn't count.
How can you count a day when you have the biggest story in the
LAST TEN YEARS?
All you really needed to do yesterday was ignore MSNBC completely.
Yesterday, it was no different than any other Cable News outlet.
Except for a few moments when Lawrence O'Donnell called out George W. for announcing in 2005 that going after Bin Laden was no longer his top priority.
Then he showed a campaign clip of Obama saying how it's still his.

I ordinarily regard MSNBC as being as valuable as Radio Free Europe was to the Soviet satellite nations.
Sometimes, it is the only bastion of sanity.
But ever since Keith Olbermann left, it has been far more difficult to make an entire evening of viewing out of watching MSNBC.
And that's what it used to be.

So I will offer up instructions on how to get the most out of MSNBC's evening programming.:

First, you absolutely have to have Tivo, and watch it on at least an hour's delay.
Second, you must understand that when he was there, and since, Keith Olbermann was and is their only on-the-air personality to have a legitimate sense of humor.
Virtually all of the others, with the glaring and applaudable exception of Lawrence O'Donnell, THINK they have a sense of humor.
Some, in fact, think that they are hilarious.
None, in fact, are.
So there is much slogging and Tivoing to be done to navigate your way through an evening of MSNBC.

Let's begin with Chris Mathews.
Extremely confrontational with people he disagrees with, and with people he agrees with.
A lot of it seems to be for show.
A general rule is that after about a minute of him talking to the camera, you get it, and can Tivo on to his first segment with guests.
If he has two guests, they usually both are on the same side of an issue, so after the initial points are made, you can Tivo on to the next
topic and guests.
If he has guests with opposing views, like a Democratic strategist and a Republican strategist, Mathews will generally agree with the Democrat, and it generally becomes a shouting fest very quickly.
When that happens, move on.
A couple of things bother me about him:
He goes out of his way to constantly remind you that Dick Cheney's name is pronounced "Cheeny".
Although I've never heard anyone pronounce it that way.
I hit the Tivo when he does that just out of annoyance.
You might want to do the same.

The other thing is that he lumps the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories in with all the other extreme lunatic fringe conspiracies.
It has been clearly established by many mainstream people that the Warren Commission Report is full of holes.
Congressional Hearings have backed this up.
The Single Bullet Theory hasn't gained any more credence than it had originally.
So his attitude is rather an affront to many Americans who are reasonably using their minds.
Also, Chris Mathews repeats himself constantly.

Okay, one more before we continue this tomorrow:
A fellow named Cenk Uygur hosts the 6pm slot.
No, I don't have any idea how to pronounce it either.
Cenk thinks he's a riot.
He's not. In a rather smarmy way.
The best way to deal with Cenk, is to hit the Tivo when he talks to the camera, and keep moving until we land on a good guest.
Stay with it until the guest is done. Then keep moving.
One thing about MSNBC.
The good guests will appear on just about any of their shows.
So if there is one that turns up with Cenk, it's usually worth stopping for.

My idea of a good guest who shows up regularly there would include Barney Frank, Anthony Weiner, Bernie Sanders, E.J. Dionne, Michael Moore, Howard Feinman, Richard Wolfe, Ed Rendel, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, and Katrina Van Den Heuvel, who unlike the others, is very easy on the eyes.
My idea of one who isn't a good guest is Al Sharpton, whom they shlep on whenever there is a race issue for him to decry.

Let me again make this clear. I like MSNBC. I find it necessary.
But it's getting so that you really have to pick your spots.

More tomorrow.

Manana (It's good enough for me).

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

*****

Someone Else Who Didn't Want Paul Reiser.

That would be me.
In 1988.
Paul Reiser was currently co-starring in a sitcom called "My Two Dads".
This was a show I didn't watch.
But he was already well known as a stand-up comedian.
I thought he was a wonderful standup comedian.
He was also very good in the movie "Diner".

I was organizing a staged reading of my new play in Los Angeles.
Essentially, it was a backer's audition.
Larry Miller was going to do the male lead.
He offered up the idea of Paul Reiser participating in the reading as the second male lead.
This sounded like a swell idea.
Pretty much as a favor to Larry, Reiser agreed to do it sight unseen.
A few days before the reading took place, I met with Larry, Paul, and another actor who was going to participate at one of our places of residence.
Reiser didn't seem too keen at having to be there.
He didn't seem too keen at having to go over his scenes, of which he had two extended ones.
One in the first act, the other in the second act.
We began reading his two scenes.
That's when he really didn't seem too keen.
Nor did I.
He misread the material to the point that it was frighteningly unfunny.
It wasn't supposed to be.
It was supposed to be unfrighteningly funny.
It, in fact, was.

Everyone is different about how they rehearse.
It is legendary that Lee J. Cobb spent the first three weeks of rehearsal of "Death of a Salesman" just grunting.
But I didn't have three weeks.
I knew I had a good play, and I knew I was going to have to give Reiser line readings for it to seem that way, no matter how he would react to them.
I plunged into it.
He bristled, and said, "Oh, THAT'S how it's going to be".
But it wasn't.
After I gave him the line readings, he did it exactly as he had done it the first time.

"Oh, THAT'S how it's going to be".
That's also what Ellen Degeneres said to me when she auditioned for me a few weeks earlier for the same play and I had the same problem.
But there wasn't the same urgency.
I didn't feel obligated to cast her, and she certainly didn't feel obligated to want to do it.
She couldn't wait to get out of there.

Now, these are two people who later starred in their own very successful sitcoms.
And were very good in them.
They got people who knew how to write for them.
I could have written for them.
But in this instance, I hadn't.
The material already existed.
And they couldn't and/or wouldn't adapt.
The problem was mine, not theirs.
My material is very fragile.
If it isn't done a certain way, it stinks.
I'm sure that Reiser, after he read the scenes the first time, thought the material stunk.
And he was just hanging around to do this as a favor.
And he certainly wasn't going to accept line readings from a writer whose material he thought was shit.
So what was I supposed to do?
The reading was set for Sunday afternoon.
Reiser thought he was doing me a favor.
Larry thought he was doing me a favor.
I thought maybe there was a 20% chance Reiser would turn out to be
Lee J. Cobb.
Reiser has a lot of charm. Maybe he'll charm his way through it.
And I thought his name value would be worth something.
So I bit the bullet, crossed my fingers, and said, "Okay, see you Sunday".

Sunday arrived.
The first two scenes played very well.
Reiser was in the third scene, with the lead actress.
It went okay.
But it was a hard scene to louse up.
It was almost actor-proof.
But it wasn't as well received as the first two scenes.

It was the scene in the second act that I was worried about.
I knew THAT one wasn't actor-proof.
It was delicate.
Timing and likeability were everything.
We get to that scene.

It was exactly as he had done it in that one rehearsal.
There was no timing, wrong attitudes, and no likeability emanating
from Reiser.
We were in the crapper.

A close friend of mine, who had not read the play, whispered to me
"This scene isn't up to the other ones".
I whispered back "This is the best scene in the play.
It's not the scene. It's him."

We had two producers going into the afternoon.
After the reading, we only had one.
Pretty much because of that scene.
We were now like a Twin-Engine Cessna with only one engine.
But the other producer hung in there, and we got it on.
And we got an actor for the second male lead who listened to me, and was great.
And that same friend from the whispering at the reading, when that second scene was over on opening night,whispered to me "You're right.
It IS the best scene. It WAS him."

I'm just sayin'...........

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

*****

I'm Just Sayin'......

I came back from New York last week, expecting to find an episode of Leno on my Tivo where Paul Reiser was guesting.
I knew he was guesting because I did a search for Reiser when I heard he was going to have a new series.
And I set my Tivo for the series.
And it showed me he was going to be on Leno while I was gone.
But when I checked, the two episodes of the series were there, but no Leno.
As of last night, I hadn't seen any of it.
Then, late last night, I checked the Tivo, and there was the Leno episode.
A week late.
It was that night's Leno.
This Tivo thing is a genius.
Because I set the episode by way of a search, it was going to record Leno whenever Reiser was on it.
Which turned out to be this past Monday night.
I put it on, and go right past "Headlines" and the first guest, to get to Reiser, who I always thought was a great standup comic,and very good on "Mad About You", a show I enjoyed very much.
Which is why I was looking forward to his new series.

Reiser, certainly looking older, grayer, and puffier than I remember, immediately starts trading banter, hilarious banter, about how his
show was cancelled by NBC after two episodes.
This was news to me.
And apparently pretty fresh news to him.
This pretty much begged the question "Why was he bothering to appear on Leno at all?".
When you give it any thought, the answer is pretty simple.
It was to bellyache, albeit in an hilarious fashion, about being dumped after only two episodes by a network for which he had provided an
enormous hit series for many years.
It was couched in how he really didn't want to do another series to begin with.
How he was coaxed, cajoled, if you will, out of retirement, to do this new show.
And the network just gave him the hook after two outings.

He made light of the situation.
But you could see the pain oozing out of him.
How could it not?
So what if you once singlehandedly made a huge network hit?
So what if you are so comfortably retired that you never had to work again?
Talk about "Fuck You" money!

But he was coaxed.
And he's a pro.
And when you're a pro, and you put on the uniform, you swing for the fences.
And when you are thoroughly rejected by the critics, the network, and the audience, who turned out in drove (the singular of droves),
how can you help but be anything but devastated?
This was definitely a wounded man.

I then watched the two episodes that I had Tivoed.
They seemed to be attempting to aspire to Larry David's style with
"Curb Your Enthusiasm".
The first episode even had Larry David in a couple of scenes.
Those two scenes were very funny.
The others, as Reiser would put it, not so much.

The scenes with Larry David appeared to be improvised.
And the camera seemed static, as was required.

The other scenes all seemed heavily scripted, with all the characters talking in Reiser's rhythms.
Very quickly. As does Reiser.
This works for Reiser, who plays himself. A comedian.
A man who talks naturally in professional fast comedy rhythms.
His own.
It doesn't work for any of the other characters.
They are not comedians.
This removes a layer of reality that is needed. Desperately.
I'm just sayin'.......
And in all of those scenes, the camera jumps around all over the place.
And there are editing tricks that call way too much attention to themselves.

The second episode was more of the same, but more domestic, about his family, and with no Larry David.
This compounded the felony.

So the overall effect is that of a show that is occasionally very funny, outweighed by it's constant freneticism and artificiality.

I doubt that I would have lasted another week with it.
I've certainly seen worse shows than this, but the network was basically right to not want him anymore.

Tomorrow: The time I was in on the ground floor of "not wanting Paul Reiser".

Manana (It's good enough for me.)

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

*****

Report Card---"The Motherf**ker With The Hat".

I was in New York last week, and saw "The Motherf**ker With The Hat".
Chris Rock was in it.
That's why I saw it.
That's probably why everybody saw it.
There was a largely black audience.
Certainly larger than any show I've ever attended.
Since Chris Rock was the only black member of the cast, it probably accounts for the demographic breakdown.

It is about the drug culture, friendship, lying, cheating, and self-discovery.
It is very funny, and very dramatic.
It is a really good play.
It would probably be a really good play without Chris Rock.
But not as good.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

It is relentlessly interesting.
A+.

Compelling, even?

Quite.
A+.

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

Yes, and quite often.
A+.

Is it funny?

Asked and answered.
A+.

Is it a story worth telling?

It is quite thought-provoking, and quite dynamically told.
A+

Is it good storytelling?

For the most part. It doesn't end as well as it begins, which is always a bit of a letdown, but it moves like a bullet.
B+.

Is it good writing?

Extremely good dialogue.
A+

Is it worth laying out 75 bucks for?

Very much so.
A+.

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

Here's where it gets interesting. Chris Rock is the third lead. But he has the star part.
The other actors are all great. But a certain amount of charisma is needed for Rock's part.
An understudy would be quite a comedown, and quite a disappointment.
You need someone who can take over the stage, and he does that.
I have a play which is usually very difficult to cast, because there is a ten o'clock character in it who only has one scene.
And he has to own the stage.
It's hard to find an actor who is that good who is willing to only appear in one scene, unless he is very lazy.
Many times, I successfully pressed myself into service as an actor when I wasn't able to find that one-scene actor.
And I certainly am that lazy.
But Chris Rock's role is far more prominent.
And he more than holds his own.
It was very smart to cast him, and very smart of him to take it on.
I've heard him being interviewed about how his biggest concern about the play is remembering his lines.
Unusual, because he has far less to do here than in one of his concerts, where (don't let him fool you) he is letter perfect.
The staging is fine, but the set design is a bit confusing.
Two of the sets are quite similar, and the first time you go from one to the other, you think it's the same set, but the character redecorated it.
This is even more confusing because there is a small table in the first scene, upon which the hat that belongs to the Motherf**ker sits.
And that table sits there regardless of which set we are in.
Is this artsy-fartsy symbolism? Or just sloppiness?
It doesn't work for me, regardless.
But this is a relatively small quibble.
B+.

Is it too long? Too short?

At an hour-forty, it seemed about right.
But you really didn't want it to end so soon, or so abruptly.
B.

Is it believeable? Do you care about the characters?

Totally, and totally.
A+.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

It's a little predictable early on, if you work at it, but there are quite a few surprises along the way.
A-.

Overall rating:
A.

Judging by the movies he's done, it may be the best acting Chris Rock will ever do.

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


*****

A Commercial Jingle And Pitch For "Mark Rothman's Essays" by James Durante.

"When I look back 'tru life I find
Lots of memories remain
Certain days stay in my mind
And keep runnin' 'tru my brain
I remember the day that Ederle swam the Channel, what a splash!
I remember the Wall Street Crash
Or when Winchell first shouted 'Flash'
But there's one day that I recall though it was years ago
All ma' life I will remember it I know........

I'll never forget the day I read a book.
It was contagious,
Seventy pages.
There were pictures here and there
So it wasn't hard to bear
The day----I read a book.

It's a shame I can't recall the name of the book
It wasn't a History
Because it didn't have no plot
It wasn't a Mystery
Because nobody there got shot
The day I read a book
I can't remember when
But one of these days I'm gonna do it again, yes sir.......
One of these days I'm gonna do it again!

Ahhh litt'rature!!!
There's nothin' like sittin' at home nights at the fireplace
With a pipe, a dog, and a good book at your feet.......
But if ya walk into my house, you'll see LOADS of books.
And believe me, they're not there just for appearance.
I press an awful lot of butterflies!!

My literary appetite is stupendious.
They don't write 'em quick enough for me.
The Book of the Month didn't come out fast enough for me,
So I read the Book of the Week.
The Book of the Week didn't come out fast enough for me,
So I read the Book of the Day.
THE Book of the Hour,
THE Book of the Minute,
But THAT wasn't even fast enough.
So far this week, I've read six books that haven't even been written yet!!

But I'm not confined to home readin'.
I once spent two weeks in the liberry.
I would've been outta there sooner, but I'd buried ma' nose in a book, and forgot which book I buried it in!
A dilemmia......

Why, on the first page of this book, they printed the author's name.
And right underneath it was his private phone number---
Copywright one nine three nine.
But I'm gonna send it back.
I've been dialing that number for four months, and nobody's answered!

Nevertheless,
While cruisin' thru the liberry,
I found the classic I was lookin' for.
It wasn't the Encyclopedia Britannia,
It wasn't "Forever Umbriago"
It was a book that was three thousand eight hundred and fifty seven pages thick.
And I'm glad I took it.
It fits perfectly under the short leg of my pool table!

It wasn't a History
Because it didn't have no plot
It wasn't a Mystery
Because nobody there got shot
The day I read a book
I can't remember when
But one of these days I'm gonna do it again, yes sir.......
One of these days I'm gonna do it again! "

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

If you care to hear Jimmy's rendition, go to YouTube, type in "Jimmy Durante, the day I read a book".
It was recorded in 1947, the year of my birth.
How prescient of him.
Although my book isn't 70 pages or 3857 pages either, for that matter.
It's about 250 pages.
Just right to fit under the leg of a kid's pool table.
And there are no pictures here and there, so it might be a little harder to bear.

Even so, if this doesn't interest you in "Mark Rothman's Essays", nothing will.
If it does, e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com


*****

Republicans Who Think.

I watch the MSNBC show "Morning Joe" most mornings.
It's not very much like most MSNBC programming, which consists of liberal but reasonable talk shows, and prison and predator shows.

"Morning Joe, hosted by Joe Scarborough, is one of the few places where you can find a reasonable conservative Republican view about things.
I find this refreshing. Most of the time.

I try not to get very political around here very often, but this situation in Wisconsin has raised the hackles.
Primarily because these reasonable Republicans, like Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and Mike Barnicle (actually, I don't know what he is. Certainly not reasonable. Certainly an idiot, so let's not count him) have expressed themselves as being on the fence about the protests in Madison.
They are pretty close to echoing the talking points generated by the snake oil salesmen at Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, but with a little more apparent thoughtfulness.
You hear things like " Maybe they really are broke in Wisconsin. They've got to cut something".
This was on Friday.
The unions have since acceded to the budget demands and it's clear that this has been about Union-busting all along.
On Monday, the thoughtful Republicans were saying "Well, I guess we were wrong about that."

And you'd hear "Who says public sector employees should have unions?"
Who says they shouldn't?

Or "The Governor won the election. So he has a mandate,"
He got 52% of the vote, In 2000, George W. Bush got 49% of the vote and thought HE had a mandate.

Obama did a lot better and nobody gave him a mandate about anything.
And now the polls show that 52% of the electorate is now against what the Governor is attempting.
He won the election because he probably outspent his opponent three-to-one on advertising.
Pretty good mandate.

Or "Kids have to stay home from school because the teachers are out there protesting".
I can't imagine the kids learning any more than they could possibly learn by what's going on with the protesting.

Or "The Democrats are cowards by hiding out in Illinois while the Republicans are working in the arena of Democracy".
Nobody is working harder than those Democrats for the people who elected them.
What's the difference where they're doing their work?

I think it's time for reasonable Republicans to adhere to what Bill Maher calls "New Rules".

Here goes: If you consider yourself a reasonable, thoughtful Republican, and if Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck says something, and you find yourself agreeing with any of them, for whatever reason, you must carefully examine yourself, with an MRI if necessary, because you are wrong.
Automatically.
Don't even bother to question it.

You'll find it will save you a huge amount of unnecessary thoughtfulness.

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

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, is available for purchase.Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


********

Just How Much Reviewing Does Sondheim Need? 3.

Plan D was sitting right under my nose all the time.
I just didn't think to look there.

Over the phone, I lamented my plight to my loyal friend and blogreader, Lee.
He quickly asked "What do I do?"
I responded "You're an archivist".
"Correct," he said.
And where do I do it?"
"At the Brooklyn Public Library", I replied.
"And what do you suppose they might have there?", he asked.
"You think they have the Sondheim Review?" I asked, in anticipation.
"We have EVERYTHING", he replied with pride

Within fifteen minutes, I received PDF files of ALL the puzzles.
Well, ALMOST all the puzzles.

There's a great old joke about an old Jewish woman taking her grandson Irving to the beach at Coney Island,
Irving goes into the ocean, wearing his water wings, because he can't swim without them.

Cue the thunder and lightning.
An enormous downpour fills Coney Island and the ocean.
Little Irving in his little water wings is stuck out in the middle of the ocean, fighting for his life.
Grandma is frantic. She approaches the lifeguard.
"Mister! You've got to save my little Irving!
He's out there in the ocean and he can't swim!
Irving goes under for the first time.
The lifeguard swims out after him.
He catches up to him.
Irving goes under for the second time.
The lifeguard pulls him up, and drags him back to shore, performing mouth to mouth rescusitation on little Irving.
Irving recovers.
Grandma is beside herself with gratitude.
"Oh, thank you! Thank you Mister! You saved my little Irving"
"Just in the line of duty ma'am" responds the lifeguard.
Grandma then adds "Oh......just one more thing. He had a hat".

Lee had not sent the Winter 2010 issue, assuming I had it.
But the complementary issue they sent me was for Spring 2011
I alluded to "He had a hat", he got the reference immediately, which is why I love him, and five minutes later, I had the hat.
The entire ten puzzles. For free.

Speaking of free, this gave me the freedom to send the e-mail that I wanted to send them all along.

For your perusal:

Gentlemen,

Well. it's becoming apparent that I've been dissed, blown off, and left to twist in the wind.
Just because I asked you for some cryptic puzzles at a fair price.
I suppose you have the right to do that.
I suppose you consider yourself above haggling.
Or even responding to haggling.
But you don't seem to be above panhandling: Placing TWO, count'em, TWO solicitations for donations on the front page of your Website.
I guess this means that you consider yourself at least TWICE as worthy of donations as the folks of Darfur, Haiti, Katrina victims, Jerry's Kids, The Salvation Army, Orphans, Food Banks,and the Homeless.
Because, after all, you're doing the world such a noble service: Telling us more about Sondheim than anyone could possibly want to know.
If I was James Lapine (Sondheim's chief collaborator) or Jonathan Tunick (Sondheim's chief orchestrator), and asked for those puzzles, I would already have them, at no cost, with no haggling, with your lips firmly pressed on my ass.
Because they are so much more important than I am.
I guess you only want donations where you don't have to lift a finger.

I originally approached you about these puzzles because the nearest library that had back issues of your magazine is over a hundred miles away from my house. Another example of not cost-effective.
But, as it turns out, I have a friend who works for the Brooklyn Public Library system.
With very little prompting, he sent me all the puzzles.
I now have them.

I also have a very popular blog that has a far larger readership than you do.
And there's probably some overlapping.
I write about Sondheim occasionally.
When someone does a Google search for Sondheim, my articles are often hit.

I now intend to tear your fawning, snooty, sycophantic, elitist, masturbatory magazine a wide one in an upcoming article on my blog called
"Just How Much Reviewing Does Sondheim Need?".
I'm already sharpening my darts.

By rudely ignoring me, you've created a lose-lose situation for yourself: You won't get my money, or my renewed subscription, and you'll get some very negative publicity.
Who knows? Maybe you regard negative publicity as better than no publicity at all.
You've also created a win-win situation for me: I'll have the pleasure of doing the puzzles for free, and I'll have the pleasure of writing and posting this article.
At the moment, I don't know which will give me more pleasure.
It will appear at markrothmansblog.blogspot.com
Coming soon to a computer near you.
This is what happens when you give someone the back of your hand for no reason.

Mark Rothman

If you are a subscriber, I mean no offense. Who knows? Maybe you're in it for the puzzles.
But these are the kind of people you're dealing with.

So whattya think? Did I tear them a wide enough one, too wide a one. or just the right size wide one?


*****

Just How Much Reviewing Does Sondheim Need? 2.

When Stephen Sondheim's great book, "Finishing The Hat" was published, he'd said it all.
It pretty much negated any reason to read any other articles about him.
Particularly the pedantic, sophomoric, self-indulgent articles that were spewed forth by
The Sondheim Review.

Which was why I indicated to it's publisher that in a perfect world, I had no desire to renew my subscription to it.
Okay. I didn't use "pedantic", "sophomoric", and "self-indulgent" to him in describing
the articles.
But there was an excellent chance that he knew I was thinking it.

So perhaps that was what got his back up.
And that my offer to renew my subscription in exchange for getting the Cryptic Puzzles from the previous ten back issues at three dollars a pop did not elicit an overjoyed reaction.
And maybe that's why I never heard back from anyone from The Sondheim Review.

But, boy, did I want those puzzles.
I alluded yesterday about the old burlesque routine where one character says to another "It's not the money, it's the principle".
At eight dollars a pop, plenty of principle was involved.
The burlesque routine, more elaborately, went "It's not the money, it's the principle! You think I care about the money? I throw money away! That's how little I care about money!"

It builds to everyone on stage tearing up money.
It can be found in the movie "The Night They Raided Minsky's", where it is brilliantly executed.

So I was desperately looking around for a Plan C to get my hands on them puzzles.
I thought I might have found something when I looked at The Sondheim Review website, and noticed that there was a place where they solicited donations to keep
the website going.
Then, I noticed that there were actually two places on the first page of the website where donations were solicited.
This led me to formulate two potential emails: One, at least in my eyes, a far more polite one than the other.

It's the one I sent.

This is it:

Dear Sirs,

As a former subscriber, and as you were kind enough to send me a complimentary copy of the current issue of the Sondheim Review, I was delighted to find that it contained a cryptic puzzle.
I did some checking, and learned that many, if not most of the issues going back to 2008 contain cryptic puzzles. There are about ten of them..
I would like to get copies of these puzzles without having to order back issues at $8 a copy.
I think a fair price for what would be maybe 20 minutes worth of copying and sticking them in an envelope and mailing them to me would be $3 a copy.
That's what I pay for my subscriptions of Games Magazine, which contains one cryptic per issue, and Games World of Puzzles, which contain sometimes as many as six per issue.
I have a subscription to Harper's Magazine, which contains Richard Maltby Jr.'s Cryptic puzzles in each issue. I pay $1.25 an issue for that.
So you can see why $8 a puzzle might stick in my craw a little.
I cancelled my Sondheim Review subscription because I found myself knowing just about everything I wanted to know about Sondheim.
And I just finished reading "Finishing The Hat". And there's tons of information about him on the Internet.
So now, all I'm really interested in are the puzzles.
I briefly spoke to your publisher this past Monday, and presented this proposition, also offering to pay for postage, and renew my subscription, if I could get my hands on these puzzles.
I was told that someone would get back to me about this.
It is now late on Friday, and nobody has.

As you actively solicit donations on the front page of the Website, why not consider what I'm proposing a donation?
One that would require very little effort on your part to earn.
Money that you would not get otherwise

I can be reached at (I gave them my phone number)
email: macchus999@aol.com

Please at least do me the courtesy of responding to this email soon.

Thanks,
Mark Rothman.

This, of course, led to nothing.

Then, almost by accident, Plan D fell into my lap.
This enabled me to turn the threats of negative publicity for them that I had in my other potential email into promises of negative publicity for them.

One of my loyal readers pointed out to me that I had just recently gone over the half-million mark in numbers of hits.
This is in two years.
The Sondheim Review, in seventeen years, has reached about a fifth of that total.
But maybe that's what happens when you devote at least three pages per issue on where each and every production of a Sondheim show that appears in this country is going to happen.
I know that if there's going to be a High School production of "Assassins" coming to my neighborhood, I want to be there.

So maybe I'm shooting a flea with an elephant gun.
But sometimes fleas can be awfully annoying, and it doesn't necessarily matter what weaponry is involved.

Tomorrow: Plan D, how I got the Puzzles, and the somewhat more vicious e-mail that ensued from me.

See ya then!


*****

Just How Much Reviewing Does Sondheim Need? 1.

There is a magazine called The Sondheim Review.
It comes out quarterly.

It is about all things Sondheim.

I used to subscribe to this magazine, but stopped several years ago, when I realized that they were telling me far more about Stephen Sondheim than any human being could possibly want to know.

A typical article is them interviewing the surviving Oriental actors from the original production of "Pacific Overtures".
Who would want to read that?
Their relatives, I guess.

There was one, at best two, articles an issue that could possibly hold my interest.
So I cancelled my subscription years ago.
The Sondheim Review has a very limited circulation.
As well it should.
I think next month, they're planning a three part article entitled "Sondheim: Boxers or Briefs?"

So why am I choosing this time to write about this unnecessary waste of paper?
A couple of months ago, the people at the Sondheim Review were kind enough to offer me a complementary issue of their upcoming edition.
They were trying to lure me back into the fold.
Be careful.
That's the last time the word "kind" will be used.

I looked it over and it looked like the same old tedious stuff.
Until I stumbled upon a Variety Cryptic Puzzle in the back of the issue.

I've mentioned previously about my love for Variety Cryptic Puzzles.
I checked the Website.
It seems that the last ten issues or so had Variety Cryptic Puzzles.

My first move was to go to my local library in Detroit.
I was told that the nearest library that had these puzzles on line was in Lansing.
Almost an hour there, and an hour back.
Not particularly cost efficient.

Plan B---I called the Sondheim Review.
On the website, they offered back issues for eight dollars a pop.
I didn't want to spend no eight dollars a pop.
That's eighty bucks.
For ten puzzles.
Games Magazine, Games World of Puzzles, and Harpers each have one of these puzzles per issue.
The average cost for the first two is three dollars a pop.
Harpers can be gotten for a buck and a quarter a pop.
As they used to say in the old burlesque sketch, "It's not the money, it's the principle".

I wasn't asking for complete back issues.
Just for someone to copy the ten puzzles in question for three bucks a pop, put 'em in an envelope, and I'll gladly pay for the postage.
I even offered to renew my subscription.
That would have caused me to spend five bucks a pop.
I needed it like I needed a hole in the head.
But I offered.
I thought three bucks a pop was a very fair price for what I was asking.
The Sondheim Review guy, the publisher no less, couldn't wait to get me off the phone.
He said he'd get back to me.
After two weeks, he never did.

So I was looking around for Plan C.
Only none was staring me in the face.

This is as expansive as I feel like getting today.

But we're a long way from home.

For more, manana will have to be good enough for all of us.


*****

One Time I Wish I Wasn't Right.

This article first appeared on this blog on June 16th, 2009, under the title
"The Bum's Rush":

"Okay. So Letterman made another feeble apology to Sarah Palin.
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."

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

Yeah. And those things on Sarah Palin's map weren't Rifle Crosshairs.
Right.

And there's no humility about it. Perfect.

Because SHE was the victim here.

It was all about her. Not the people who got shot.

She's at least as dangerous as Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
Because her followers are that much more rabid about her.

Welcome to hard times.

I hope I'm wrong about this one too.


*****

Remakes.

Ever see "The Defiant Ones"?
Tony Curtis? Sidney Poitier?
Two escaped convicts, handcuffed together? They hate each other?
I never saw it. Until last Friday.
I Tivoed it a couple of weeks ago. For a specific purpose.
It is a tremendous piece of work.
You know how, in my Report Cards, I ask "Is it well cast, well acted, well shot, well written?"
WELL!!!!!
It is all of these. To the nth degree.
When I wrote my Report Card on the remake of "True Grit", it was already on my mind to do a post on the subject of remakes in general.
I suppose there are a couple of instances where they are justified.
Epics like "The Ten Commandments" and "Ben-Hur", when done the first time around, there was no sound, color, special effects, or wide-screen to overwhelm you.
Otherwise, they are pointless efforts to cash in on someone else's previous success by someone who can't come up with something original to put on the screen.
Letterman had Matt Damon on last week so he could flog "True Grit".
Letterman was fawning all over it and him.
And the best reason either could come up for why it should have been remade was that it was much more faithful to the novel it was based on than the John Wayne version was.
How many moviegoers do you think have read the novel?
How many of you even knew it was based on a novel?
And based on what I saw, it couldn't have been much of a novel to begin with.

There is this story that I heard many years ago, perhaps apochryphal.
I don't know for sure. I wasn't there.
But I know at least some of it was true.
Here goes: In the early 70's, Marlo Thomas got it into her head that it would be fantastic if she remade "It's A Wonderful Life" as a TV movie, with Marlo in the Jimmy Stewart part..
All those around her, whether they actually believed it or not, agreed that it would be fantastic.
Marlo then said to her troops, "You know what would be even more fantastic?
If we all went over to Frank Capras house and told him about this in person."
So they all piled into Marlo's car and went over to Frank Capras house to deliver him the good news.
Mr. Capra was purported to reply "Not only will I not watch it if you manage to get it on the air, but I'll go to court and get a restraining order if I have to, to prevent you from doing it".
She ended up following through and doing it, so either it was an idle threat on Mr. Capras part, or he simply failed in his efforts.
I saw it. So she did have the idea, and she got it made.
That's the part I know is true.
Marlo wasn't as good as Jimmy Stewart, for what it was worth.
And I know that's true too.
What does all this have to do with "The Defiant Ones"?

In the mid-80's, a TV movie remake of "The Defiant Ones" was made with Robert Urich and Carl Weathers in the leads.
Entertainment Tonight interviewed the producer, or the director, or whomever that putz was that they interviewed, and asked the magic question:
"Why are you remaking "The Defiant Ones"?
He responded with, and I'm not kidding, "Well, the original was so good that we all felt it deserved to be remade".
So good that it deserved to be remade.
That sentence stuns me every time I think about it.
No disrespect to the dead, but with Robert fucking Urich and Carl fucking Weathers?
That's how it deserved to be remade?
Because it was so good?
I never saw this remake, and as I said, I never saw the original until last Friday.
Seeing the original only compounds the felony that ensued.
I looked up the remake on the IMDB.
There was one review.
The tone of it was somewhere between "It doesn't hold a candle to the original and "How dare they?"
Actually, that last part was mine.
If it's a matter of not getting anyone to watch the originals because they are in black-and-white, like "The Defiant Ones", then colorize the damn things and be done with it.
But please, as Jerry Lewis used to say on the Colgate Comedy Hour when he'd say
"DON'T lick it!!!"..........
DON'T remake it!!!!!!


*****