Yesterday, Sen. Angus King (an Independent from Maine, though he caucuses with Democrats) made a suggestion to executives at Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Hulu, asking them to consider making their streaming services free during the holidays.  The intention is that with so much free movies and entertainment, it would convince people not to go out and ultimately help lower the risk of spreading COVID-19 and keep infections down.

As you might imagine, the public reaction to this was very positive.  And I think it's a very nice idea.  In fact, on the surface it's a wonderful idea.  I also think that once you get past the razor thin surface it is pretty meaningless.

For starters, I sense that most people who are traveling for the holidays or going out to holiday parties are not doing so because there's nothing to watch on TV.

I also sense, too, that not only do most households already likely subscribe to at least one of those services (Disney Plus alone has 86 million subscribers, which I assume are largely households), but the number of homes that don't subscribe to just one service AND would stay in if they got a temporary free subscription is small enough to not make a dent in health conditions.

Further, consider --

Can you imagine someone calling the parents and saying, "Mom, I won't be coming home for Christmas like we discussed because I got a free subscription to Hulu."  Even more to the point -- and this is the Big Logic Problem in this -- if everyone in the country was to get free holiday subscriptions to these services...then you wouldn't have to stay home to use them, but you could keep your travel plans, fly home to your family, and know that you could watch your free streaming movies from there!

(Besides, if a person is so irresponsible to travel during a raging pandemic in the first place, staying inside for any reason, let alone because  you could watch movies, is not likely a high priority.)

As for people who weren't planning to travel, but did expect to go to parties or socialize with friends, this streaming service offer has almost no impact on that either.

After all, it presupposes that people will stay at home inside to watch movies 16 hours a day.  Every day.  For at least a week.  You have to assume (have to) that after a while, anyone -- but especially people who were irresponsible enough to plan to go to parties and socialize -- wouldn't, at some point, get tired of watching TV all the time and want to get out, and go do what they were planning to before.  Go to holiday parties.  Or socialize.  And even if they stay inside, watching movies for 16 hours a day, all the time, but just decide they need to get out once -- go to one holiday party, not half a dozen, just one, or get together with friends for one night -- That is All It Takes to Get Infected.  Once.

Further, people who were planning to get together with friends for the holidays but now have streaming movies to watch will be under absolutely no obligation to watch them alone.  It is not unreasonable to think that people who wanted to socialize with their friends might now say, "Hey, we were planning on watching Hamilton.  Want to come over and watch together?  We can make a potluck party of it!"

Would there be some people who won't travel and stay at home watching their holiday streaming offer?  Or not go to Christmas parties or socialize with friends, and just watch their free streaming services?  Absolutely.  But those are the people who most probably weren't planning to travel, go to parties or socialize...anyway!

So, all that this would conceivably impact are the few households who don't already subscribe to a streaming service AND would cancel their irresponsible travel plans and irresponsible party plans and irresponsible social plans -- which they know at this point are irresponsible and don't care -- AND stay at home to watch streaming movies alone AND watch them for 16 hours a day, every day, for a week...because without having these streaming services they feel there is nothing else to watch on TV.

The idea that Sen. King suggested is an extremely nice one.  It is a nice one as a "thank you" gift to a nation that has been through a hellish year.  Businesses are under no obligation to thank the public, of course -- Senate Republicans finally agreeing to pass the $3.4 trillion relief and stimulus package that House Democrats passed back in May would be a really cool and much better "thank you" -- but yes, it would be nice.

But it would have pretty much next to zero impact on the pandemic.

If people do want to help out and have an impact on not spreading the coronavirus, my own suggestion is to wear a face mask for a few weeks.  And if you really want to do your civic good, don't go to parties.  And if you do go, stay six feet apart. And wear a face mask.

That, or watch Hamilton alone with your family 56 times.

And yes, I know that there are some people who will do that​...


​https://t.co/nAeBWPG9ln

A common sight in Los Angeles during "Awards Season" (basically for the Oscars or Emmys) are billboards all over town for movies or shows -- or sometimes actors -- that say "For Your Consideration," directed at voters from the organization in question  Or to be more subtle, some just say FYC, since at this point everyone in town knows what it means.  And the trade papers of Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter tend to be filled with full-page ads for this, as well, and are more often where you'll see "For Your Consideration" ads for individual achievements, including the technical crafts.  (Less so in this days of online content, but it's still prevalent.)

A couple days ago, I saw a rare and absolutely refreshing twist on this, killing two birds with one amusing but also admirable stone.  It was a billboard promoting the TBS show, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.

The other day, Disney announced its news streaming service Disney Plus which will launch November 12.  Pricing will be $7 a month or $70 for an annual subscription, which most news reports commented how it compares favorably to $13 a month for Netflix's most popular tier.  The company said that they may eventually bundle Disney Plus with other of their services like Hulu and ESPN Plus.  During the first year, they expect to release 25 new series and 10 movies, documentaries and specials.  Overall, the Disney Plus library will have over 7,500 TV episodes and 500 movies.

It seems like a fascinating venture, with some plus and minuses.  On the plus side, Disney has a huge vault they can draw from, and recently bought the film division of 20th Century Fox, and now have that library, too -- which include the Star Wars franchise, the Avenger franchise and all 30 years of The Simpsons.  And among the new productions for the service are a Star Wars spinoff series, The Mandalorian and prequel to Rogue One (for which Diego Luna will reprise his role of Cassian Andor).  There will be a series Marvel Studios series Loki, that stars Tom Hiddleston reprising his role,; and a Pixar series Monsters at Work, that takes off after the events of the  original Monsters Inc. movie.

On the negative side -- or at least left out of most news stories is that the $7 a month is an "initial" price, most likely to get interest and subscriptions, and it seems probably that that will rise, and the cost-difference with Netflix will narrow.  In addition, Netflix has $9 stream plan, as well, which is much closer to Disney's "initial" offering.  And a significantly larger catalog -- 1,569 TV shows and 4,010 movies. (Keep in mind that the "7,500" figure for Disney is episodes, not shows.  If each Netflix TV series only has two years of 22 episodes each -- and keep in mind that old shows often had around 35 episodes a years and most not only ran for more than just two years, with some like Gunsmoke and Bonanza running for decades -- that works out to 70,000 episodes.

But further, it only compares with Netflix and leaves out Amazon.  An Amazon Prime subscription averages out to $10 a month.  And that not only includes a very large catalog, including international TV shows -- but most importantly includes free 2-day shipping on Amazon (and free next-day delivery on orders over $35), along with music streaming, cloud photo storage, Prime Now with free grocery and restaurant delivery within range, and more.

And no one should expect immediately competition with Netflix.  Disney predicts between 60-90 million subscribers in five years -- while Netflix currently has 140 million subscribers. Disney also says it expect so spend $2 billion a year over most of the next five years, while Netflix spends around $12 billion on content a year.

This is not to say that the Disney Plus service isn't intriguing and won't be a success.  In fact, it's very fascinating and seems poised to do well.  But as a complimentary service to Netflix and Amazon Prime, rather than one that can knock them out of the box.  Mainly, it's to say that most coverage of Disney Plus was pretty sketchy in its description of the landscape.

Besides which, who know how that landscape may be drastically changed in five years.

You likely saw the "news" story where "Fox News" bizarrely seemed to try to shame actor Geoffrey Owens -- who appeared on The Bill Cosby Show for seven years -- for now working at a Trader Joe's grocery store.  Even at face value, it was a bizarre thing to write about for many reasons, the most basic being obvious:  slamming someone for having a job just seems weird and nasty.  And picking on Geoffrey Owens seems especially odd.  Though it was good to see a lot of people noting on social media that what he's doing now is far superior to the star of the show he was on.

How aghast was social media at the unfairness of the "Fox News" article?  Not only were liberals and several "Hollywood actors" like Blair Underwood and Justine Bateman outraged at "Fox News" but I saw angry tweets from such far right voices as actor James Woods and Dana Loesch, spokeswoman for the NRA (and one-time aspiring actress) taking "Fox News" to task, as well.

All that aside, there's something else very notably to make clear --

What the "Fox News" story important leaves out is that Geoffrey Owens is STILL an ACTIVE working actor -- and simply checking the iMDB.com movie database would make that incredibly clear. It's not that he's been acting on and off for a while -- rather, he has seven TV and movie credits the past two years alone, including a role this season on the CBS series, Elementary.   Indeed, he was worked steadily in films and TV every year for the past 12 years (with one exception in 2012).  So, while it would be perfectly fine if he had gotten out of acting and just wanted a nice job at a good company to make a living and get health care and personal respect, in fact that's not the case at all -- he has an an impressively long career as an actor that goes back to 1985.  And "Fox News" didn't even bother to browse to his credits, which would have taken about 15 seconds.  In fact, given his long career and seven seasons on a hit series, it's likely that he has been successful enough to have been vested in the Screen Actors Guild health care program.  And so, he probably doesn't need the health care from Trader Joe's.  He just wants the work and salary.  Horrors! 

(And since he lives in New York, this doesn't include any of the stage work he might have been doing there over the years, as well.  I've read one story from a local school, too, that explained how he comes in to teach acting there on occasion, which they wouldn't be able to offer otherwise.  Another story was a reminiscence from someone of  "An act of kindness. Twenty-two years ago while I was in college, #GeoffreyOwens and his wife found out that I didn't have enough food to eat. I hardly knew them. They bought me bags of groceries and hugged me as I cried - shocked by their kindness. A hero stands tall anywhere.")

The reality is, for most actors, except those lucky few who become stars or who break through as supporting performers, jobs don't come regularly, so the option is to do nothing during your downtime (which can be months because jobs, even half a year) or stay busy with other work.  So, in other words, this break news "story" from "Fox News" is that a journeyman actor with a 33-year career has a has a second job to keep him busy and provide income.

I should also note that he picked a very nice company to work at.  I've been a huge admirer of Trader Joe's and shopper there for probably 40 years, when they were just a West Coast company, with most of their stores in Los Angeles.  And Joe Coulombe was still the owner, and did their radio ads himself.  There's a Trader Joe's about half a mile from where I live, and I pass it maybe four times a week on my morning constitutional -- I probably stop in once a week.  They're employees tend to be very friendly and incredibly helpful, and seem to actually like working there, so it makes all the more foolish to try to "shame" someone for doing so.  I suspect they have a long waiting list of job applicants and are very selective who they hire.

Today's Labor Day, so I won't head over, but I'll make sure to stop in on Tuesday, just on general principle to offer my support.  I really only have one quibble with Trader Joe's.  And it's not really a quibble at all, just a caveat --

I have a very nice Hawaiian shirt that my friend Deborah (who's from Honolulu) bought me several years back.  And I have to be incredibly careful NOT to wear it when I know I'm going to shop at Trader Joe's.  If you shop there, you know what I mean and where this is going.  One day I was wearing the shirt and browsing around the store -- and every five minutes, some customer would come up to me and ask for help.  I didn't mind explaining that, no, I wasn't an employee, I was just wearing my own Hawaiian shirt, but I felt bad for the people asking who always so embarrassed that they had confused my Hawaiian shirt with those of the store.  So, there have literally been times when I've gotten dressed in the morning, and then remembered I was going to be shopping at Trader Joe's that day and quickly changed shirts.

Other than that -- and that they periodically drop carrying favorite items of mine -- I think Trader Joe's is a terrific store.  And lest they get smeared, as well, for being a demeaning place to work, it's important to know that the very opposite it true.

On the positive side, I wouldn't be surprised if Geoffrey Owens gets a lot of positive notice from this story, bringing his name to the attention of casting directors who are inundated daily with piles of actors' resumes to try and sort through to figure out which lucky few will get to audition for producers -- and who know how monumentally unfair this "Fox News" smear was and may want to do right by him to correct that wrong.

One of the most difficult things for any career actor is to stay visible so that they get those auditions and stay in the eye of casting directors and producers.  It's my hope that the attempt by "Fox News" to meaningless "shame" someone living under the wire and out of the spotlight, like pretty much everyone in the world, backfires in a big way and ends up getting an actor more work than he would have had otherwise.  But at the very least, it's nice that it has brought out stories about what a good guy the fellow is.

Where is Al Franken when you need him?  The author of Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot​ would have had a field day with Bill O'Reilly, but no, he had to go off and get elected to the U.S. Senate.

I know this took place a few days ago, though running around it's gotten me a bit behind and taken me a while to get up to speed.  But I'm referring to when Bill O'Reill went on a bizarre hissy-fit rant about how difficult it's become for Trump to get not just A-list entertainers to perform at his innauguration, but almost anyone.  However, as you may have read, he has a theory --

​“The harsh truth is that there is reverse McCarthyism going on in the entertainment industry.” If you've finished shaking your head and rolling your eyes, I'll continue with his descent into emptiness.  “A number of entertainers believe their careers will be harmed should they associate with a new Trump administration.” 

How stupid is this?  Even his guest Charles Krauthammer told O’Reilly off -- yes, Charles Krauthammer -- replying “I find it hard to get exercised over the fact that we may be short a Rockette at the inaugural celebration."  

So much to say, so little time..

The main thing is that it shows a willful disingenuous on what McCarthyism actually was.  Not that what he suggests has anything to do with what's at play, but if it did it wouldn't be even close enough to see the connection with the Hubble telescope, because it's McCarthyism was something else entirely.  McCarthyism was the actual U.S. government using its authority to investigate people based on their political belief, bringing people to be questioned in Congress and asking them questions about their thoughts anad what they believe, throwing people in jail (actual jail) if they refused to comply.

That was MCarthyism.  An offshoot of it is that people were literally blacklisted for their beliefs.  Literally.  Their names were actually kept in books (the most infamous was called Red Channels).  And people were actually denied work and their livelihood as a result of it.

That's McCarthyism.  This is people chosing of their own volition not to perform at an event.

Beyond that, Mr. O'Reilly in his meltdown has forgotten or chosing to ignore or just been to foolish to recognize several things.  High among them is that, given that me live in a Democracy, people acctually have the right to entertain whoever they want for any reason they want.  And more to the point is that it was clear during the election how many A-list celebrities didn't support Trump.  So, why would one expect them to want to celebrate his Electoral College victory.  And even more, it's not just a case of not supporting, but so many of them hating Trump, hating his racist statements, hating his encouraging racism, hating his misogyny, hating his ridiculting the disabled, hating his trashing of the press, hating his disparagement of U.S. Intelligence serves, hating demagoguery, hating his calls to "lock up" Hillary Clinton, hating his congenital lying, hating his support of hacking, hating his praise of Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the expense of President Barack Obama, and so much more.

And if people hate Trump SO much, hate him that much, why on earth would anyone sane and rational even think for a moment that such people would want to help celebrate his victory and entertain on his behalf???

Did Mr. O'Reilly not even consider such a possibility???  Hey, even Charles Krauthammer did.

While it's certainly possible that some entertainers' careers could be impacted negatively if they performed at a Trump Inauguration Ball (which speaks volumes), if it did possibly occur it would be because audiences were so offended that they stopped buying recordings or chose to not attend concerts -- not because of any institutional actions.  Not that Mr. O'Reilly provided event a speck of lint as evidence of such a thing.

On the other hand, let's say that Beyonce, for one, did perform.  I have a feeling that her career would be just fine.  As would most anyone who chose to perform.  But that's not at hand.  The issue is that they simply hate the guy and hate all that he stands for and just simply have ZERO interest in entertaining on his behalf.

To me, much more shocking is that Ted Nugent hasn't volunteered or been asked to perform.  Now, there's something for Bill O'Reilly to truly get up-in-arms outraged over...

Ultimately, the only McCarthyism at play here is Charlie McCarthy.  Because Bill O'Reilly has shown himself to be a dummy.  Perhaps even mouthing someone else's words.

Here at Elisberg Industries, we like to keep our fine readers and loyal worldwide customers as informed and up to date with as much insight as possible.  That's why we have our correspondents, agents and brokers scouring the globe to stop on top of as close to everything as we can.

As you might recall, just the other day, I posted a couple videos of a wonderful moment at a recent Bruce Springsteen concernt in New Jersey when a couple got engaged in the audience, and he brought them up on stage.  Well, as it happens, we had a correspondent there.  The recently-mentioned Don Friedman, my fellow Glencoenian and New Trier grad, was at that very show at MetLife Stadium.  In his words, "Great moment!"  I suspect he'd have written more, but it's difficult when you're busy yelling, "Bruuuuuuuuuuce!!!!"

As I've mentioned here lately, Garrison Keillor is retiring as host of A Prairie Home Companion after 42 years.  (The show will continue in October, though with a new host, Chris Thile.)  And tonight is the last show.  It's being recorded, though, for airing on Saturday in its normal time slot at 5 PM, Central time.

Notable for our purposes here -- this last show tonight is being done in, of all place, the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles.  And yes, as I've mentioned, I have tickets.  It didn't even occur to me not to go.

I've told some of these stories before, but because of the occasion it's a good time to repeat them.

I first went to an A Prairie Home Companion live show before it even become a national program.  My brother John was living in St. Paul, Minnesota, at the time, and he would write me about this great local radio show, A Prairie Home Companion.  And so, when I went to visit him once, we went to see the show live, at the World Theater.  As I said, it was still just a local show, and didn’t go national for maybe another 3 years.  I still have some paraphernalia from going to that show.  One is a 20-page pamphlet called The Collected Poems of Margaret Haskins Durber. She was Lake Wobegon's poet laureate, and Keillor would often recite her wonderful, sometimes funny, sometimes thoughtful work.  For whatever reason, he dropped her as a character to talk about decades ago.  The pamphlet by Ms. Durber is dedicated "For My Husband," and reads --

Now I lay me down to sleep.
I pray the Lord that he will keep
To his own side, for goodness sake.
Unless, of course, he is awake.

I also even remember a passage from one of the songs he sang at that local show.  It came in a sketch about a sad sack of a fellow, and Keillor wrote a song to the tune of "My Way," sung in the first person by the man who had so many things coming on him.  It went --

Those guy,
They threw mud pies.
And threw them...
My way.

Oddly, and happily, when Garrison Keillor first retired from the show a long while back, in his intended farewall program, he did a sketch that actually used a verse from that same "My Way" parody.  I leapt out of my seat while listening, overjoyed.

While on the visit to St. Paul, I didn't only see and hear Garrison Keillor doing a local version of A Prairie Home Companion -- but he also had a local radio morning show.  And I remember every morning during my visit listening to Keillor do that show, as well.

So, how in the world could I not go to Garrison Keillor’s last A Prairie Home Companion?!
 
Yet, in addition to all that, there's another reason, as well.  I am literally – without exaggeration – the reason A Prairie Home Companion got on the air in Los Angeles.  It’s a long story, but this is very brief version:
 
Back around 1980, my brother -- still in St. Paul, told me that the still-local A Prairie Home Companion was going to do a national fundraiser on NPR from the University of Minnesota, and I really wanted to hear it.  So, I called around all the NPR outlets in Los Angeles to see if any were carrying it, and no one knew what on earth I was talking about.  Only one station, KCRW in Santa Monica, had sort of heard of it. 

The problem was, by the time I reached them, and by the time they looked into deciding what to do, the airdate had passed.  And they didn’t know if they were even allowed to air the previously-live show on tape delay after the fact.  They had to check with NPR in Washington.  I kept calling them and calling them, reminding them and noodging them to find out. 

At last, at least a month later, or maybe even two months, they got permission and aired the program.  And it was wonderful.  I called KCRW up to thank them, and the person said, “No, we want to thank you.  We’ve been getting phone calls all day from people who LOVED it, and we never would have put the show on if it hadn’t been for you following up with us.”

(To this day, I don't know if KCRW realizes that they were the first station to air A Prairie Home Companion.  It didn't become a national program for another couple years after that, and when it did, it was on KUSC.)
 
So, again, there is no way I even considered not going to the final broadcast.  Tonight.  In just a few hours.

And I'll be leaving very shortly for the Hollywood Bowl to be there.  I'll have a report later.

The other day, I wrote a long addendum here  to the latest in a series of great articles that Mark Evanier has written about rejection in Hollywood -- mainly about writers, but it tends to be appropriate for anyone in Hollywood, or often for anyone trying to work, period.

He has a new one, and again it's terrific.  The short version is that this one is about how one should look at any job interview as just an interview for one job, and not make it more than it is.  The long version is...much better.  You can read the whole thing here.