Back in Los Angeles, after a bunch of delays on my flight back from Chicago.

While I was away, apparently there's been some major controversy about Disney casting a black actress to star as Ariel in the upcoming live-action version of The Little Mermaid.  It's a big deal on the white supremacists sites, needless-to-say, but also some Disney "purists" are beside themselves, very upset that this is not the Arilel they grew up with.

While I sort of, kind of, slightly understand the thoughts of a Disney "purist" -- that understanding only goes so far and most I couldn't care less.  Not only because it's a fictional character, but also because it really doesn't seem to change much about the story.

But there's another big reason, too.

The Little Mermaid was written by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen in 1837.  That's long, long, long, LOOOOONG before Disney adapted their version, and today's "Disney purists" first saw the story. -- which substantially changed from the original.  Which is okay...though if one is going to be a "purist" it's certainly worth noting.

But even more than that, back in 1913 -- 106 years ago -- a statue of The Little Mermaid was erected in Copenhagen to honor their Hans Christian Andersen and his story.  And while it's not likely that the artist was making an ethno-analysis of the character, and it's just color of the material he chose to use, he could have chosen to use any stone, and in the end, it's all we have to go on.

Yes, just in case "purists" aren't clear -- she's black.

The guest contestant for the 'Not My Job' segment of this week's NPR quiz show, Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me! is actress Olivia Wilde.  She is very lively and upbeat, as host Peter Sagal talk with her about her new film, Booksmart, for which she made her feature film directing debut  ​

A few weeks back, I wrote a rave review about a great documentary, Maiden, about the first-ever, all-female crew for the Whitbread, a 32,000-mile around-the-world sailing race in 1989, which you can read here.  As I wrote, in brief, the documentary surprisingly was extremely exciting for a film about sailing, and equally-surprisingly was often deeply emotional.

The Los Angeles Times main film critic Kenneth Turan reviewed the film on Wednesday.  How big a glowing rave is it?  Let's just say -- I tries nots to steer you wrong.  He begins this way:  "Maiden tells a mighty tale about the majesty of the human spirit and the power of women, and it’s all true."  And it goes from there.

Here are two, extended passages.  The first --
​

​And the review ends with this --

You can read the full review here.

I tries nots to steer you wrong.

Here's a brief, 4-minute interview with Tracy Edwards, the skipper who was the driving force putting together the team, and Alex Holmes who directed the film -- which he got the idea to make after attending a speech by Edwards at his young daughter's school.

By the way, one of the things I referenced in my original article was that the documentary leaps out because they had SO much footage aboard the boat -- along with great archival footage of Tracy Edwards' life before she got into sailing.  In an L.A. Times article by Susan King that I read, it explained more in detail how this came about.

Director Holmes said that he initially envisioned the project as a narrative film, because it never occurred to him that there would be footage of the race.  It was only after Tracy Edwards told him that they actually did have cameras on board that he realized it might be possible to make as a documentary.  

Edwards herself fills in the holes how that surprising reality came about --.

"The Royal Naval Sailing Association, which was our race committee, had this quite revolutionary idea to film stuff. It was all very exciting. All the other boats were going 'No, no no — we’re too busy racing; we’re too serious to take cameras on board.'

​"We said, 'We’ll take them.'  We did feel that we wanted to, whatever happened, capture this for posterity. I think we were probably the only boat with two cameras because Jo, as the cook, said, 'I am not doing the watch, so I’ll do the filming.' And we put a camera on the mast as well. If you heard 'All hands on deck,' the job of the last person out was to hit the panic button and that would start the filming. So that’s how we got footage in extreme conditions."

Several months back, after writing an article about the death of a famous screenwriter (sorry for leaving out the name, but that's part of the twist in the story.  Bear with me, we'll get to it...), my friend Dr. Greg Van Buskirk posted a reply online asking me to tell the story tangentially related to that of my odd confrontation online with Alec Baldwin.  I'd never told the full thing, and he was curious.  I promised I would, but other news stories and interests got in the way.  And the spirit didn't move me enough to delve back into it then.  But enough time has passed -- since the request and the actual incident -- and it seems like a good respite from writing about Trump, who by comparison makes it all seem incredibly benign.  

Also, I was reminded of it to a while back last year when the TV critic for Salon.com, Melanie McFarland, wrote a review in October for the new ABC talk show, The Alec Baldwin Show.  What leaped out to me in fond remembrance were several passages she wrote -- 

As you will see, that review resonated with me.

By the way, I want to be clear about something right upfront.  If anyone wonders why I am bringing out this tale publicly, please know -- that I'm not.  The story is already public.  As will be clear from the online links to articles, it has already been told.  There's not even the slightest reason to "hide names" because they've already been written about -- by the participants themselves.  Nor was anything about it ever secret.  I'm just late in fulfilling my promise to retell the tale after that associated news story and am filling in some holes that wouldn't be otherwise clear, mostly from the distance of time.

And we dive in.

The tale had its beginnings 11 years ago during the 2008 Writers Guild Strike.  During that time I had a column on the Huffington Post, and as a Guild member on strike I wrote a weekly "primer" of sorts, explaining the strike, what I thought were the important and valid reasons behind it, and the current status of things.  Yes, I was biased.  But I tried to be honest and as objective as possible.  And I also should add, from my absolutely biased perspective, my analysis tended to be proved reasonably-correct in the end.  Including coming with in days of predicting months earlier when I thought the strike would end.  And why.

Needless-to-say, I wasn't the only person writing about the writers' strike against the AMTPT.  There were many, on both sides.  As a slight digression, but as background, among them were many entertainment lawyers.  And what seemed bizarre is not just that entertainment lawyers all seemed wrong, but SO wrong that it was like they were clueless.  One day I mentioned to a member of the WGA's negotiating team that it was my observation that of all the people writing about the strike -- AMPTP negotiators, studio executives, directors, actors, producers, journalists, even fans-on-the-street -- the group of people who were more-consistently wrong about more things with the strike were entertainment lawyers.  The negotiating team member, who had read most-everything written about the strike and was intimately involved with the reality, laughed and said, "I think you're right."

Anyway, among those putting in their two-cents about the strike was Alec Baldwin, who in his own pieces on the Huffington Post tried to analyze what was going on, and was very critical of the writers.  He would use the Directors Guild as the shining example to emulate, referencing that they had only had to strike once in their history, and that was just for 15 minutes.  It should be noted that "not striking" is not always A Good Thing because it can mean capitulating before you get what you want.  More to the point, the DGA rarely ever had to strike because they would negotiate weakly, settle, the WGA would fight hard, go on strike, get all these benefits, and then the DGA would come in and say "Wait, we want these, too."  Indeed, that very thing happened just prior to the 2008 strike.

Every once in a while, I would write a few HuffPo columns refuting what I believes were errors in Mr. Baldwin's positions, and he would go on making errors.  As far as I knew, he wasn't aware of my pieces, although they were all prominently featured on the Huffington Post's Entertainment section front page, so I guess it was possible.

(One of the amusing things about my column-responses were all the reader comments I would receive from worshipful Alec Baldwin fans, blisteringly outraged that I would dare criticize their beloved hero and shred me for it.  I tended to skim them and let such things be, but what I really wanted to write back was, "Please know that Alec Baldwin is not going to invite you to his house for dinner, no matter how much you suck up to him.")

Anyway, one day Mr. Baldwin wrote an analysis that I thought was especially wrong-headed and particularly divisive given the then-status of negotiations.  And I knew the kind of commentary I wanted to write in response.

Not long before that article, the Screen Actors Guild had graciously joined the WGA in solidarity and organized a day when SAG members were encouraged to join the Writers Guild picket line.  A great many did (at my picket line, I recall that Debra Messing and Emily Deschanel were there, which only added to why I was a big fan of them both), and it was extremely generous and the joint-effort got a great deal of attention in the news.  It was this that I decided to write a column about of appreciation.

In making clear with this event was so important, I knew it was important to put this unity in perspective.  I explained that writers and actors were often natural enemies -- largely based on "I created the characters and they're not doing the lines right" and "I brought the characters to life and therefore they're mine" -- and I included some examples of the antipathy, one of which was an infamous tale of two unnamed actors on a movie set ridiculing a famous, unnamed Pulitzer Prize-winning comedy writer who had written the screenplay, as they shouted out a stream of deprecating remarks (knowing the writer was nearby and could hear), most notably, "Doesn't anyone here know how to write comedy?!!!!."  And yet, as I went on to note, despite actors and writers having this lifelong battle, my point was that it was so incredibly magnanimous of the actors to come to the support of the writers during the strike.  And which showed the importance of what was being struck for.

You can read that article here.

I intentionally left out the name of the actors and famous comedy writer and even the movie, because I didn't want that to be the point of the honorific.  But I also knew that if Alec Baldwin ever read the piece, he would know the story and people involved I was referring to.  Not because it was a well-known story in movie circles...but because the actors in question were himself and his then-girlfriend Kim Basinger.  And the famous comedy writer was indeed incredibly famous -- Neil Simon.  (Again, "Does anyone here know how to write comedy?!!!")  The movie was the flop, The Marrying Man.  More on that in a moment.

I also wrote the piece the way I did for another reason.  I didn't want to slam Alec Baldwin publicly, but since I knew he would of course know all the details, if he ever did read the column I wanted him to know very clearly that in our HuffPo disagreements on the strike I wasn't some little ignorant sap to be lectured to, but knew exactly what I was talking about.  (Indeed, as I noted above, I had friends on the negotiating committee, as well as on the WGA board, and actually did know what I was talking about.  Rather an being an outsider pontificating.  I may have been biased, but I was biased based on facts.)

It turned out that Mr. Baldwin saw the column.  I know this because his next article was titled, "Quips are Killing Me" -- and the opening two lines of it were, "That Robert Elisberg keeps putting out funnier and funnier stuff. His 'quips; are killing me."  So, that was the first hint that he had read it.  He went on to make a number of criticisms about what I had written that I didn't think were remotely supported by reality, but personal opinion aside that's not what most caught my attention.  That's because the most bizarre and silly thing was -- for reasons unknown to man, he decided to out himself!!!  Inexplicably, he repeated the Marrying Man story, took credit, defended it, and insisted that it was ludicrous of me to suggest that even the great Neil Simon couldn't ever dare be criticized.  (Fun fact:  That was something which doesn't remotely exist in my article.  More on that in a moment, too...)

And yes, for those interested in if this is true, you can read his Quip article here, in all its self-aggrandizing glory.

Again, to reiterate, this story is already public.  I have told absolutely nothing new here about the articles, nor remotely secret.  The links are to articles long-since printed. 

Back to the tale.  As you can imagine, I was utterly flabbergasted that he chose to reveal his own participation in the event, especially after I had taken great pains to hide it all.  The best I can figure is that some actors really do just want to see their name in print, even if it makes them look like churlish.  Just make sure you spell my name right.

Most everything he wrote was so off that it was the world's easiest set-up to correct, like a grade school t-ball sitting on its perch just waiting to be aimed, leveled, and then knocked out of the park.  I SO much wanted to take it apart, line by line -- my typing fingers were aching -- but -- but -- I also knew that if I did, he'd reply.  And then I'd reply.  And he, and me and he and...and...and what I remembered was one of my favorite expressions from my good friend Nell Minow -- "Sometimes you have to be the adult in the room."

And so I chose to be the adult in the room, and let it slide.  And let all the reader comments from adoring Alec Baldwin acolytes sit un-replied to.  Instead, I moved on and for my next column about the WGA strike I covered it from another angle entirely.

And so 11 years have passed.  I think the statute of limitations have run out.  Even still, as before, I have no intention of dissecting his original article line-by-line.  I do admit there were a few things in it so egregiously wrong that to this day I've remembered then with wearily-shaking head.  And since it's no longer part of a "back-and-forth," with miniscule chance of it becoming one, I do think it's time to correct at least one aspect of the incredibly foolish record, especially since Neil Simon passed away last year at the age of 91.  As one writer to another (albeit that other typing on a higher plane), I feel it's his due.  And by the way, it was Neil Simon's passing that prompted my friend asking me to retell this tale.

In all Alec Baldwin's criticism and blame of Neil Simon for The Marrying Man, nowhere did Mr. Baldwin make note of some of the most obvious realities.  As much as he wanted to blame the script and did so repeatedly and at length -- he and Ms. Basinger had read the script and clearly liked it enough to sign a contract, get paid, and star in the movie of it.

Also, while the movie did flop, and likely the script did need additional work, Neil Simon was renowned throughout his acclaimed career for rewriting and rewriting and rewriting his material until he got it right.  And as the culture knows, Neil Simon got it incredibly right A Whole Lot.  (When I went to UCLA grad school, Neil Simon received an lifetime achievement award and gave a speech after.  I recall him talking about The Odd Couple, one of the great, and most successful comedies in the American theater, and how he still sees things in it he wishes he could fix.  The audience burst into disbelieving laughter.)  But as much as Neil Simon loved to rewrite and get everything as correct as he could, after being slammed on the set by the movie's two stars, he didn't need the aggravation, left the set and didn't do anymore work on it, letting the screenplay exist as it was.  And being a Neil Simon project, no one else could work on the script either.  So, the outburst didn't fix anything, it only served to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  And nail the coffin lid closed.

It should noted, as well, that in all the blame he heaped on Neil Simon for the film's failure, nowhere did Mr. Baldwin suggest that just maybe, possibly, the actors didn't give performances that were totally strong and could have at least perhaps been one conceivable reason the film fell flat.

And in the end, as I said above, nowhere in my article did I suggest that Neil Simon -- or any writer -- can't be criticized.  Indeed, the favorite sport of Hollywood has long been to criticize writers.  Or "Schmucks with Underwoods," as studio mogul Louis B. Mayer called screenwriters and their typewriters.  "I have some notes..." is a phrase all screenwriters likely consider having chiseled on their gravestones.  The thing is, as we all know -- and by "all" I include all mature adults around the world whatever their profession and even many immature children -- there are good ways of criticizing and inane ways.  With a screenplay, a good way is sitting down with the writer and telling them what you don't think is working and why.  A very bad way is to yell out insults to the entire cast and crew about the most successful comedy playwright in the history of the theater, knowing that he can hear you, and topping that by shouting out, "Doesn't anybody here know how to write comedy?!!!!"

I think that over time Alec Baldwin has developed into a very good character actor.  He was an absolute joy on the TV series, 30 Rock.  Tina Fey and her writing staff gave him brilliant material, and nailed it most every time.

Hey, y'know, we all have flaws.  Some people just have more of them public than others.  And in the end, I've left out some of the tale because as interesting as some tangents may be, they're still just tangents. And also because, speaking personally, one of my own many flaws is that I often type for far too long.  But rest assured I'm almost done here...  And finishing, I'm quite certain that Mr. Baldwin couldn't care one single whit for what I think about this, or anything -- and far more likely doesn't have even the most-tenuous clue who I am.  Which is fine in the Grand Scheme of things.

And if he did have a clue, I'm pretty certain he'd think I was just a few steps below a slug.  Which is fine, as well, to each their own. Me, I'm glad that I have people like Greg Van Buskirk in my life. If ever I need a chemist to develop a formula for a new detergent, or take apart my motorcycle (if I had one), I know he'll be there for me.  

​And so, for those who don't remember it from the first time around, that's the tale my friend asked about...

I saw a great documentary at the Writers Guild Theater over the weekend which seems an unlikely topic for an exciting, moving true story like this.  It’s called Maiden, about Tracy Edwards, a British cook on a racing sailboat who decides to put together the first all-female crew to enter an Around-the-World Sailing race in 1989 -- despite never having skippered a boat before.  It's really well done, wonderful.  Tons of archival footage (including of the race, since there were videographers on board, as well as her earlier life) that almost makes it like watching a work of fiction, and very emotional at times with some twists and surprises.  I shall say no more, because the unexpected moments and twists -- and perspective -- are some of the fun.
 
I don’t know if it will get a theatrical release, but since it’s from Sony Classics, I suspect it will.  At the very least it will eventually be on DVD, perhaps in three months or so.

One small footnote I'll add -- when watching the trailer afterwards, I paused at the credit block...and there noticed that her name was listed as "Tracy Edwards MBE." .They don’t mention in the film that she got that impressive honor.  In fairness, I don’t recall that the documentary has an end crawl to update the story, so if not, there was no place to reference it.

As I've mentioned previously, my cousin Jim Kaplan has a small sailboat/motor boat, and when I told him about the documentary, he laughed and said, "I love sailing -- and even I wouldn't ever think you could make a film about it that was exciting."

But they did.  The video footage they have access to is remarkable, and on a 30,000 miles race there is profound danger all the boats face almost every moment, Above all, though, the film is very involving from the personal stories involved.

This is the trailer.  It does a very respectable job telling the story and giving a sense of the richness, but the documentary is even much better -- in large part because the trailer leaves out much of her early personal life that is dramatic and fascinating, and also in part because the race itself is especially dramatic with twists.
 

Four years ago, I posted this article (with one updated-change today made for dates...).  It seems thoroughly appropriate to repeat it today..​

For those who like to look at the calendar for such things, today is the 75th  anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1944.  I thought it would therefore be especially appropriate to post this video.  It's the wonderful theme to the movie, The Longest Day, sung and performed most appropriately by the Cadet Glee Club of West Point, along with military band.
 
It's a particularly well-done video that begins with a minute of General Dwight Eisenhower's message to the troops before the invasion began, and interspersed with some excellent photos and archival film from the day.
 
By the way, the timpani you hear before the song begins is not only recognizable as the beginning of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, but more to the point, it's the Morse Code for “V” for Victory.
 
Also, in case you weren't aware, the main theme for The Longest Day, used throughout the film not just in the end titles, was written by pop-start heartthrob at the time, Paul Anka.

I wasn't planning on seeing the new live-action version of Aladdin, and figured I'd just wait for it to release on DVD.  I enjoyed the original animated film, but wasn't bowled over it enough to make the trip.  Mainly, it was Robin Williams' performance and accompanying, flamboyant character-animation, along with the score that most-appealed to me.  However, when I noticed at the last minute that the WGA had a 3-D screening, I decided it was worth the trip and jumped in the car.

I thought they did a respectable job.  Some things were even better in the new version -- most notably strengthening the character of Princess Jasmine, now fighting to be heard and made the next Sultan rather than just deciding who to marry (though that's still in the story) -- and some worse.  The plot, for instance, seems a little unfocused, and I thought the third act was a bit of a jumble, including one important plot point as the story comes to a head that for the life of me I can't figure out.  My best guess is that a scene got cut.  (I won't give it away.)  Yes, it's weird to see Will Smith as blue, but it's okay, he's a genie, after all, and they wisely figured out a way for that to be kept to a minimum, as he now helps out Aladdin by acting as his "valet" and looks like a normal Will Smith.  To his credit Smith didn't try to do Robin Williams, and does a perfectly fine, more restrained job.  On the other hand, he's not Robin Williams.  And it turned out a good decision to see it in 3-D, since the film is a vibrant production helped by the added depth to give it a richness.  My biggest quibble on the technical end is that I thought the sound mix on the songs was awful, with the music much too loud, overpowering the lyrics.

I also thought that Naomi Scott as Princess Jasmine was the break-out star here, almost to the film's detriment, since as a result we almost lose the title character's story.  (Her success will likely be enhanced when next seen co-starring in the upcoming remake of Charlie's Angels.)  Scott also gets a new song for the film, written by the original movie's composer Alan Menken, with lyrics by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul (who did the score for La La Land and The Greatest Showman).  The song, "Speechless," concerns the Princess finally breaking out and refusing to be kept silent anymore.  It's a power ballad, needless-to-say, and very good -- more than a bit reminiscent perhaps of "Let It Go" from Frozen -- and not only does Scott soar with it, but I suspect the number will get an Oscar nomination for best song, and be a frontrunner.

They've released a music video of it.  Two issues -- the clips they use from the movie don't compliment the song as well as idea (though they're understandably trying to sell the movie).  Also, they have that same sound mix issue as in the film.  But it's done well, and the song is centerpiece.

I've posted enough videos here of Jiminy Glick that I figure it's only proper to give some equal time to the fellow underneath.  This is from 2016 when Martin Short received the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Canadian Screen Awards.  While he gives a very nice acceptance speech, and the video montage is a lot of fun, I think the best part may be the presentation speech by Short's close friend and fellow SCTV alum, Eugene Levy.

By the way, they refer to the award as the "Candy."  I tracked down the story behind that.  The host for the evening is Norm MacDonald, and he quipped at the evening that, being Canada, it only made sense to called the award the Candy, as much a tribute to John Candy as anything -- and throughout the night, other presenters (including Donald Sutherland) picked up on it, and it appears to have stuck.