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.
0 Comments
I honestly have no idea who won any Golden Globe last night, other than apparently Lady Gaga because she bumped into Leonardo DiCaprio's arm and the Twitter World has gone crazy. I haven't bothered to look and see who won because, well, I really, truly don't care. About 30 or so people who are unidentified and possibly stringers who voted for a person just doesn't do much for me. But godspeed to the winners. It's nice to get any award, even it's one as meaningless as your office pool.
I did watch the opening monologue, because I like Ricky Gervais. And I thought he was pretty amusing, even if not every joke was great. (My favorite line, clearly appreciated by the knowing-audience, was about stars feeling obligated to show up because they knew their studio had bought the award for them.) But I do love seeing the comments about how rude he was. Yes, he was rude. I have no problem at all with anyone being offended by any of his comments, just don't be surprised by them. This isn't his first barbecue. But I bring all this up because of my favorite comment of all, by far, It was in an article whose headline caught my eye by Cole Delbyck, an entertainment writer for the Huffington Post. Basically chastising the hijinks of the presenters, he wrote, "Seriously, everybody needs to turn down with the planned gags and forced humor. It's the Golden Globes, not an amateur stand-up set at the Chuckle Bucket." "It's the Golden Globes"??? As if the evening is the equivalent in decorum to an invitation to dine with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. Or your friends' wedding anniversary. "It's the Golden Globes"?! Really? There is less etiquette required at the event than standing in line to get tickets for a Taylor Swift concert. That's not hyperbole. If you tried to cut in line, you'd probably get jumped on by the others. If you dropped your trousers at the Golden Globes while presenting an award, there's a chance you could be invited to come back next year as host. And by the by, it actually is a whole lot closer to amateur stand-up night the the Chuckle Bucket. Really and truly. Did the reporter not notice the glass of beer on the podium that Ricky Gervais kept sipping from? Those in the audience might have been wearing nice clothes, but most were likely getting sloshed all night. "It's the Golden Globes." Hey, at least he used the word "gag". I love Penn and Teller. But I'm not particularly a fan of their show, Penn and Teller: Fool Us -- though it's a hit and was recently renewed for its third season. I'm not quite sure why I don't like it much, but I think there are three reasons. 1) It's really not Penn and Teller doing much, but other magicians brought in, 2) when Penn and Teller explain how they believe the trick is done, they hide most of the details, so they're really not saying much of anything, and 3) I dislike the host Jonathan Ross, who's a smarmy guy with a chat show in England. If you don't know Penn and Teller: Fool Us, the premise is that magicians come on stage to do a trick, and Penn and Teller then try to figure out and explain (cryptically) how it was done. Most of the time, they can. But If they can't, the magician wins the opportunity to open for them in Las Vegas. Here is a magician, Kostya Kimlat, who indeed fools them. But that's not the fun. The fun is how pissed off Penn is that he can't figure it out. It's clearly not "angry" pissed off, almost more admiration that the guy is so good that he knows he won't figure it out. And he wonderfully plays the "pissed off" to the hilt. This is a bonus clip. It's Penn Jillette later calling into another of Jonathan Ross's shows, this on the radio, and he talks about the as yet-unaired appearance of being fooled and you can tell clearly his admiration for the guy. But his more-involved explanation with a background story that didn't get on the TV show makes his reaction all the more understandable.
In the latest edition of the Writers Guild podcast, 3rd and Fairfax, we hear about the new direction TV shows are taking -- heading online. The online world was a major issue in the last WGA strike, and though the studios and AMPTP corporations were insisting that the Internet was all new-fangled and too distant to worry about or deal with, the writers understood that the reality was otherwise. (And understood too that the companies knew that.)
So, what we have here are writers David Slack and Joelle Garfinkel discuss about converting Joelle's drama pilot, Cam Girls, into a web series. Also, for those interested in the inner-working of the Guild (something that isn't always the case with Guild members themselves, though can be interesting and important, depending on the area, there's a conversation with the head of the Guild's Diversity Department, Tery Lopez. With just two shows left before he leaves The Daily Show, there's an odd article here in Reuters, "Why Jon Stewart Might Be Irreplaceable."
Seriously guys? Is your attention span that short?? Mind you, I love Jon Stewart. I think he's a gem of a rare talent, and wish that President Obama wasn't joking when he recently appeared on the show and said he was going to sign an Executive Order to ensure that Stewart stayed on the job as host as The Daily Show. But when the article tries to explain why Stewart is irreplaceable and discusses, among others, Peter Lassally's opinion (generally highly-valued as the former executive producer of The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson and The Late Show with David Letterman) that Stewart's "mix of intelligence, quickness and comedic timing couldn't be readily replicated" -- all that I could think was: what on earth are you talking about?? "It's a persuasive argument," the article goes on. No, it isn't. It's actually painfully weak. Not only can it be replicated -- it has been! Twice. Is Mr. Lassally's or Reuter's or anyone's peripheral vision so limited or tunnel vision so narrow that they are unable to see Stephen Colbert or John Oliver???! I'm not making the point of who's best or if they're all the same. That's personal taste. Just that these three gentlemen possess the very same, impressive attributes. Does anyone think that if Comedy Central had announced that they were replacing Jon Stewart with Stephen Colbert or John Oliver that we'd be seeing an article like that that he's irreplaceable? No, we'd be seeing articles about how thank goodness the brand was being carried on in such good hands. I'll go further. What if Al Franken didn't decide to go into politics. Do you think he possesses the same mix of intelligence, quickness and comedic timing to have hosted The Daily Show. What if Steve Carell hadn't left the program, might not he have been a wonderful replacement with a similar mix of intelligence, quickness and comedic timing? How about if Comedy Central had gotten Ricky Gervais to come in as the new host? Or even perhaps Tina Fey? That's six additional people I can think of off the top of my head, who have a similar mix of intelligence, quickness and comedic timing and who can perform in a politic environment with charm. But I'm okay stopping with Stephen Colbert and Jon Oliver who actually do have their own TV talk shows. As does Seth Meyers, who could have done a good job hosting The Daily Show, too. So, there's seven. I'll bet cash money that given a few more minutes, other people could come up with others on top of that. Who knows? Maybe even the actual new host Trevor Noah will be yet another who can do it. Maybe not, we'll find out soon enough. Jon Stewart just happens to be so terrifically wonderful at what he does that it's a shame to let someone that great go. Every individual is unique, so in that regard, yes, he's "irreplaceable." But there are a lot of wonderful people with the same mix of talents who could take over The Daily Show with only a hiccup of regret. Over on Mark Evanier's website (always a good way to start a piece), he wrote here the other day about the movie The Sunshine Boys, and links to a good interview with one of that film's actors, Richard Benjamin, who he notes he likes a lot. I had reason to meet Richard Benjamin back about 20 years ago, when Northwestern finally made it to the Rose Bowl after about 55 years, and so there were a lot of NU alumni events around Los Angeles, as you might imagine, what with all the entertainment graduates from the school. I happened to be at this one particular house party that Benjamin also was attending with his wife (now of 54 years), Paula Prentiss, who also went to the school where they met, and they were both a pleasure to talk with. I have to admit, I know that I made that easier by gaining a lot of bonus points bringing up a movie he'd directed that had flopped horribly, but I said I loved -- and loved for all the right reasons, as I explained them. In fact, it was to tell him this which is, to a large degree, why I sought him out. The movie was called Milk Money, and was such a disaster, it's one of the things that pummeled his directing career. The problem was that, long before the movie opened, almost a year, as I recall, word had somehow got to some right-wing religious family group that went on the rampage, slamming the despicable film for being all about a little 10-year-old boy who goes out with his allowance to buy a hooker for himself. The campaign against the film was vociferous in outrage for its moral depravity on such a subject for a movie, and by the time the film opened, it was dead in the water. The thing is, as the movie neared release, I got hired to write TV ads for it, and I was sent a copy of the film to watch in preparation. I was, of course, wary about what I was going to watch -- and to my utter shock, what the public "word" was on the film had...absolutely nothing...to do with what it actually was about. In fact, the movie is very charming and sweet, and funny. naked There is a sequence near the beginning of the movie where a group of these 10-year-old boys from the suburbs pool their money, so that they can go into the city and see a naked woman. After numerous turn-downs from any woman they pass on the street, despite their generous offer of $103.62 in a bagful of change, the boys get held up at gunpoint, when a prostitute, played by Melanie Griffith, interrupts the robbery, and the boys give her the money as thanks for saving their lives. She only accepts because when she stopped the crime, her john drove off, so she's out $100, which her pimp will be furious about. The boys are so utterly terrified that (in a very funny scene) they do everything possible to avoid seeing her, including turning out the lights, as she removes her blouse. The main boy, at the center of the story, in fact is so freaked out that he covers his eyes and succeeds in seeing absolutely nothing. That's the sequence that caused the uproar of Hollywood making a depraved movie that supposedly was all about a young boy who hires a hooker for himself. What the movie is actually about is that Melanie Griffith's character is on the run from some thugs. She sees the boys as a way to escape, and convinces them to let her take them home. Once there in the safety of the suburbs, the main little boy -- who adores Melanie Griffith -- tries to set her up with his lonely, widower father (played by Ed Harris), who has no idea what she does for a living. (His son says she's a math tutor.) THAT'S what the movie is about, this offbeat love story, as the hoods are trying to track the woman down. It's really sort of adorable, and enjoyable, and might even be worth adding it to your Netflix queue. Anyway, I told Richard Benjamin all this, that I totally got what the movie was about, and how really good it was, and how horrible it was to be perceived SO incorrectly and unfairly. And the look of appreciation and relief on his face was a joy I'll always remember. I also got the chance to tell him that the very first time I ever got to see him act was in another Neil Simon production -- in the stage play of The Odd Couple when it was in Chicago. It will not shock you to learn he played Felix. And it will not shock you to learn that he was about as perfect for that angst-ridden role as an actor could be. (The old film star Dan Dailey played Oscar, and was quite good. But Richard Benjamin as Felix was...well, he was perfect.) I got bonus points for that. Richard Benjamin had a long, successful association with Neil Simon, and (with all due respect to Matthew Broderick) may be the quintessential Simon hero. He also starred in the national touring company of Barefoot in the Park, and starred in the original Broadway production of Star-Spangled Girl. He even was in the 2004 TV remake of The Goodbye Girl. And further, it was Benjamin who directed the TV version of Simon's wonderful play, Laughter on the 23rd Floor, that starred Nathan Lane (in a role based on Sid Caesar). By the way, the Benjamins have a daughter, Prentiss Benjamin, who also went to Northwestern, and is an actress. My folks went to a lot of student production at NU and saw her a lot, telling me often how wonderful she was. I finally got the chance to see in when I was visiting, and we went to see a student production of the Stephen Sondheim musical, Merrily We Roll Along. She was indeed terrific -- and her parents were in the audience that night to see her, as well. Anyway, this tale all came about because Mark Evanier wrote about how the movie of The Sunshine Boys (in which Richard Benjamin plays the agent-nephew of Walter Matthau) is about the be released in Blu-Ray. What you read above is called "going off on a tangent". And what you'll see below to wrap things up is an episode of the wonderful, but short-lived 1967 TV series that Richard Benjamin and Paula Prentiss starred in, He & She. It was a fairly sophisticated show for its time, which alas was ahead of its time, leading the way to series like The Mary Tyler Moore Show, yet winning an Emmy award for comedy writing. (The award was won by Chris Hayward and Allan Burns -- who together wrote for Get Smart, and Burns later went on to co-create...The Mary Tyler Moore Show.) Benjamin and Prentiss played a married couple (shocking, I know...), he a cartoonist, and she a social worker. It also featured a terrific supporting cast, including Jack Cassidy (who in the show played the star of a TV series based on Benjamin's comic strip), Hamilton Camp (from The Second City troupe and a great folksinger with Bob Gibson), and Kenneth Mars (who the next year would play Franz Liebkind in Mel Brooks' film,The Producers), as well as Harold Gould. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|