Late Night Last Night

I watched the first episode of CNN's six-part documentary series, The Story of Late Night.  I thought that, by and large, it was well-done, and I look forward to the remaining episodes.  The clips have been limited, but pretty good, and I'm glad that they dealt with Ernie Kovacs, who was one of the innovators of television -- and it's good that one of their on-camera experts referred to him as one of the little-known gems of TV.

I have a few quibbles.  None significant on the substance, but small omissions that would have been easy to address since they weren't matters that were overlooked or slipped through the cracks, but rather they did touch on, even a length.

One is, in fact, Ernie Kovacs.  All the things they talked about were spot on.  But when they talked about his career and why he wasn't available to be brought back to host the Tonight Show, all they said was that he now had a career in Hollywood.  What they left out was his long career in television, most notably his own TV series which was on for four years and his many specials, all of which was why he was considered one of the gems of TV.  Further, is career in Hollywood, while okay, was nothing compared to his career in television -- which is the reason he's legendary.  So, it was just a weird way to deal with Ernie Kovacs, after referencing him with such praise.  They showed his inventiveness, a decade at least ahead of his time, but the suggestion was that it was all from his limited time -- twice a week for six months on the Tonight Show.

The other omission is even more odd, and even easier to address.  So much so that it seems like a conscious decision, though -- if so -- one that flies by me.  It's when they talk at the beginning of the series about the Father of Late Night.  The man who invented it and who invented morning TV, as we know it, as well.  Sylvester "Pat" Weaver, who created the Today Show, and with its success then created the Tonight Show.  They talked about him at length, had him on camera, had others talk about him and praise him.  All good.  What's odd is that they left out one easy thing that would have connected the audience to him -- he's the father of actress Sigourney Weaver.

Why that didn't get mentioned -- I've read it often, so it's not a hidden fact -- is beyond me.  I'm sure they knew it.  This is so well-researched, they couldn't not have known.  (Here's how EASY the research is for anyone --: do a Google search for "Pat Weaver" and look at where it lists "Children"!!!).  And it's fairly well-known, even more so within the film industry, which the filmmakers are obviously part of.  So, it almost has to be an intentional omission, not an oversight.  But...why?  Yes, I can think of a few reasons.  But I'm looking for one that makes sense...

On a personal note, it was nice to watch all the praise on Steve Allen.  I say that because my mother went to high school with him, at Hyde Park High School in Chicago.  She still had her yearbook from then -- Steven Valentine Allen.  (Also, in the yearbook, Mel Tormé.)  I had a chance to talk to both fellows about it.  Tormé had length when he had a cameo in Naked Gun 2-1/2, and Allen more briefly as he was leaving a lecture.  Anyway, so I always feel an extra bit of enjoyment when they get singled out with notice.