In Bexhill, England, a baby fox fell down a drain pipe.  It was too far away to reach, so the rescue workers waited until it tried to find a way out itself and got close enough to grab.  

All the while, the young fox's mother (sorry, "mum" this is England, after all) came by to watch surreptitiously, at a distance, keeping an eye on the proceedings.

When they were able to get the little fox out, it will so covered in muck that they decided to clean it first, before putting it an an open animal carrier.  They then placed the carrier out in the open of the backyard, so that the mother could come by to help -- and as soon as she does, the baby fox realizes that all is well and...

​Well, just take a look at it all --

So, I've seen that ABC is bringing back the old game show, To Tell the Truth, in a six-episode Summer run.  It will star Anthony Anderson, who I like very much.  The original show first aired in 1956 and had a long run, and it's had other incarnations since.

To Tell the Truth is, I think, one of three particularly iconic TV game shows of  that era, the others being What's My Line?, I've Got a Secret.

As readers of these page have probably figured, What's My Line? is the one I think was the best, being substantive, and a good mix between celebrity Mystery Guests and "everyday" guests, along with sharp and entertaining celebrity panelists who had a wide range to ask thoughtful questions and be funny-- not to mention having perhaps the most erudite host, John Daly.  I've Got a Secret was a respectable second best, for me, a show that was clearly heavily inspired by What's My Line?, but I find the "secrets" often fairly flimsy and forced, especially with the celebrity guests compared to the celebrity Mystery Guests.

In watching old reruns on  YouTube, I find To Tell the Truth not only the least interesting of the three, but often annoying to watch.  To be fair, I didn't feel that way when I watched the original show as a kid -- but then, I was a kid.  But the reruns don't hold up for me.  It does have one thing going for it, though two negatives for my taste, which far top the sole positive.

Make no mistake, the one positive is a big one -- it's probably the easiest for home viewers to play along with.  Three guests insist they are someone, and panelists ask questions to determine which of the three guests is the real person.

But that's the foundation of the biggest problem.  Because two-thirds of the answers are lies, I find myself not caring.  Even if the answers by the "fraud" contestant are accurate, the person responding is lying because they're not who they say they are.  And when the answers are not accurate, because the fake-person simply doesn't know, that just makes it all the less involving   In the end, I just find it sort of bone-dry empty.  There's a randomness, as well, to the questioning, which is totally up to the panelists that means the actual person could conceivably be asked almost no questions about themselves if the panelists prefer to question the two others, who are frauds.  And as the viewing audience in the dark, you just don't know.  Some viewers might find that "the fun" -- me, I  find it frustrating and empty.

The other problem is what comes after the game, when the real person is revealed.  At that point, the host would question the two "liars" to find out more about them, and once that's done all three contestants would get sent off.  That's what I find especially egregious.  They've brought on someone who is apparently interesting enough to be a subject, let two other people lie about that person, and once this interesting person is finally revealed -- he or she is never asked a single thing directly about their interesting life.  Only the two "frauds," which is usually something fascinating like, "I'm Earl Bondurant, and I sell insurance at the Automobile Club."  Swell, but I want to know more about the person who was interesting enough to have them on as a guest.

The good news is that this second problem is is easily resolvable, and if this new version does so, it'll be a vast improvement.  If the new show repeats that pattern, it will -- for me -- fall into the same boring hole.  If, however, they allow for brief follow-up questions by the panelists for the real, and interesting, person who can at that point answer more about themselves, in more detail, then a big hole will be vastly improved on.

Otherwise, I find To Tell the Truth an especially frustrating show., and ultimately fairly empty.  Yes, a game that the audience can play along with reasonably well -- it's one notable saving grace -- but a game that "Who cares?" is far too often the first reaction.

Me, I'm just not particularly interested in watching a show where the answers are lies two-thirds of the time.  If I wanted to do that, I'd put on a Donald Trump press conference.

There!  And you didn't think I could get politics in this.  O ye of little faith...

I heard back from my cousin Susie about the piece I wrote the other day of her experience starring in the film, A Bridge Too Far.  She noted a few corrections on her Facebook page, but I'm pleased that I got as much of the story as accurate as I did.  However, I do stand by my larger point that she is the star of the film.

For the sake of accuracy, here's what she wrote --

" Bob, you're so funny. That's amazing you remember (kind of remember) the story from 4 decades ago! I was traveling Europe, by myself except for the people I kept meeting and traveling with along the way, two of which were friendly Dutch boys. I went back to their town to visit them while A Bridge Too Far was being filmed. Hans had a minor role and brought me to the set a lot. That's when Richard Attenborough asked me to be in the scene where I sit on top of the tanker with a soldier as it rolled into town. It was a ton of fun and my spot was edited down to a couple nano seconds. Blink and you'll miss it! wink emoticon The photographs I have from being on the set for a week look reflect "

Ha.  I work in the film industry.  It's not likely that I'm going to forget that my cousin appeared in a film directed by Richard freaking Attenborough.  If I got a couple of details slightly off, I attribute that the a screenwriter's creative license.  But as I said, I stand by my insistence that she's the star...

For those who missed the original tale, you can find it here, along with a video.

I've posted links to many of Mark Evanier's wonderful series of articles on "Rejection" for writers, and here's his latest, #11.  Though the pieces are of most interest to...well, writers, I think they're interesting, as well, for people who like movies and TV, because they give in inside look at how those professional actually work, behind the scenes.  But beyond that, they generally offer thoughtful insight into dealing with with work situations whatever the field -- dealing with all manner of bosses, how to handle behind turned down, and not always getting what you want...and how to get there, or how to move on to something different if you don't get there.

This new article is about money.  How to deal with not getting it, and how to find ways that will not only help you get it, but help you in ways that will allow you to pursue your interests.  And...oh, other things, too.

It was a quiet week.  ​The town finds a way to complain in the midst of beautiful spring weather, Mildred makes off with $220,000 in cash and heads to Buenos Aires, and a few memories of the host's Uncle Jack.

There's an interesting article here in today's Sunday New York Times by Gretchen Morgenson about women on corporate boards and executive pay.  I note this, however, for a completely separate reason.

Throughout the article, only one person is quoted, referred to as an "expert on corporate governance," and at the top of the article, it is headed by a photo of her.  That would be Nell Minow.

As readers of these pages well-know, I often write about Nell and discuss her expertise in many areas -- most notably corporate governance and as a the "Movie Mom" movie critic (not to mention partner with me in the Apology Institute of America...) -- so, I like to point out articles like this to make clear I'm not just exaggeratiing about a friend but...she really is this good.

For those who are taking the holiday weekend off from clicking links, in short the article discusses the oddity of how a study shows that companies with woman on their board of directors pay their chief executives more money.  One reason for this, Nell points out, is that because it is so extremely difficult for  woman to get on a corporate board of director, a lot of pressure is put on them to "go along" in order to stay on the board.  As a result, when higher pay is proposed for the executives, they are more likely to support it.  The article goes into other areas and explanations of this, as well (including on how some of these business may simply be more successful and therefore pay more), but that's the basis of the piece.

​But mainly, just check out the article because Nell is in it so much.  Or simply to see the very nice photo.  We have our priorities, you understand...

Last night, as part of their Memorial Day series of war films this weekend, TCM showed A Bridge Too Far, which I consider perhaps the greatest war movie ever made.  Okay, fine, admittedly I'm biased for an exceedingly odd reason, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.  That's because my cousin, Susie Elisberg Duttge is in it, if you look closely enough.

A Bridge Too Far was shot in 1976, made on location in Holland and the surrounding area.  There's a sequence in the film when Allied troops have liberated a Dutch town and enter it to waves of celebration by the residents, almost as a parade.  As it happened, my cousin and a girlfriend of hers were hiking through Europe, and were in Holland at the time and heard that a movie was being shot nearby.  Curious, they altered their plans a bit and made their way over to watch.

As director Richard Attenborough was setting up the elaborate sequence, he felt that something was missing.  What he decided it needed was to have a couple of local girls sitting on one of the Allied tanks as it drove though the cheering throng.  And so, at the very last minute, the filmmakers started to do some scouting -- and they spotted these two pretty, young girls there among the spectators and asked if they'd like to be in the movie.  And you got it, that was my cousin Susie and her friend.  They were cast, gotten into hair and make-up, put in place on the tank, and the scene was shot.  No doubt first discussing with Richard Attenborough the motivation of their characters.  (Probably, "You're really happy.")

Yes, okay, it's hard to spot from the angles the scene was shot and edited, but they're there.  And as the saying goes, it's not the size of the role that matters, but the size of the actor.  Ultimately, of course, that's an artistic decision by director Attenborough of what was most-need to make the impactful scene as effective as it is, perfectly balanced without overwhelming the focus of the scene away from the troops.  And in the end, I've always believed that that moment is what helped make A Bridge Too Far the highly-regarded epic it is, as much as the performances by Sir Laurence Olivier, Sean Connery, Robert Redford and others.

UPDATE:

I heard back from my cousin about the piece  She noted a few corrections, but I'm pleased that I got as much of the story as accurate as I did.  However, I do stand by my larger point that she is the star of the film.

For the sake of accuracy, here's what she wrote --

" Bob, you're so funny. That's amazing you remember (kind of remember) the story from 4 decades ago! I was traveling Europe, by myself except for the people I kept meeting and traveling with along the way, two of which were friendly Dutch boys. I went back to their town to visit them while A Bridge Too Far was being filmed. Hans had a minor role and brought me to the set a lot. That's when Richard Attenborough asked me to be in the scene where I sit on top of the tanker with a soldier as it rolled into town. It was a ton of fun and my spot was edited down to a couple nano seconds. Blink and you'll miss it! wink emoticon The photographs I have from being on the set for a week look reflect "

Oh, okay, for those interested in seeing the other actors and scenes, to each their taste, so here's the trailer.  You'll note that it only includes a partial cast list, leaving out such important actors as."And starring as 'Girl Sitting on Tank'..."  But that's most-likely contractual, set before production began, to protect traditional hierarchy in advance of any casting changes that might occur later.
​

ABC is re-running tonight (Saturday) their terrific mini-series on Bernie Madoff, that starred Richard Dreyfuss, who often looked uncannily like the main figure.  I wrote about the show here, so I won't repeat what I said, but will note how well it was thoughtful, low-key and smartly done.  I suspect many people missed it the first time around because they opted for the flashier mini-series on O.J. Simpson that aired at the same time.  

It's a two-parter, so there isn't much time to invest, and it airs at 9 PM East Coast time, 8 PM in the Midwest.  Here's a clip --

On this edition of the 3rd & Fairfax podcast from the Writers Guild of America, the guest is Aziz Ansari who is interviewed about his career and his Netflix series, Master of None, which he created and has written most of the episodes.