Milburn Stone

The character reasons for the move were clear, but I'm unfamiliar with the real-life behind-the-scenes mundane reasons. Please share!

To know exactly how Jack Cassidy would have played this, just watch him as Oscar North in any episode of the Richard Benjamin Paula Prentiss sitcom He and She. (If you can find one.)

I share your fondness, Rinaldo, for the Lou Grant hour-dramedy series. It seemed unique in its time. But we watched a couple of episodes on Hulu lately, and it didn't really hold up. I don't know why. Maybe because, even though it was unique in its time, its blend of humor and issue-oriented drama was soon imitated widely? So that it doesn't seem that special now? Whatever--I loved Lou and Rossi and Billie, and Animal, and the good-looking straight-man type whatever his name was, and Mrs. Pynchon, way back when.

Maybe "overreacting" was the wrong word, and if I came across as saying "you're wrong to feel the way you feel," I apologize, because that's not what I was trying to say. Nobody's wrong to feel the way they feel. But I hate to see people feel bad! And I suppose I was just trying to say there's also the very real possibility of a rainbow in this situation, in addition to the rain.

I loved your whole post, Lonesome, but was surprised to read this sentence, simply because I've never in my life encountered a film music aficionado who didn't think Hugo Friedhofer's score for Best Years of Our Lives was one of the best scores ever written. Understanding that someone-somewhere's mileage is always going to vary, I didn't think there was any serious controversy about that.

I "feel your pain," gilmel, but until we see what he does with the show, I think you might be overreacting. For one thing, we don't know that satire won't be a very important part of what he brings to the talk show. He found a way to shape the "comedy news show" in his own image, creating something unlike anything that had been seen before; he may well find a way to do the same with the network talk show. My own feeling is that anyone who could do what he's done is capable of doing just about anything. Now, I don't know that I'm right about that. But I do know I'm willing to wait and see before despairing.

On last night's show he handled the "bombshell" with his typical brilliance. Spent the time talking about Letterman's retirement, and then how "whoever takes his place is going to have some mighty big shoes to fill!!!" Heh.

The great thing about Colbert being the choice is that he is smart enough to realize he can't just "step in" to an existing show as if nothing has changed but the host. (Surprisingly, others, when given comparable opportunities, have not realized this.) I trust him to create a show in his own image, just as he has done with The Colbert Report. When The Colbert Report was first coming together, he could have conceived it thus: "It'll be like The Daily Show, only with me stepping forward from correspondent role to host role." But he didn't do that. He created something brand new. He'll do so again.

To focus attention on the terrible problem of military rape by turning it into razor-sharp satire was absolutely brilliant. The show is not only funny, it slays me with its awesomeness.

I take your point, Rinaldo. I think I'm just saying that this time, when I actually examined what Mickey Rooney was doing (instead of going to the knee-jerk reaction of "how dare he," which I have often defaulted to in the past), I didn't find anything egregious about it. No more so, certainly, than with Alan Reed's evocation of Italian-American stereotypes in his portrayal of Sally Tomato in the same movie. Mileage varies, of course, but my inclination now is to think that Rooney and Blake Edwards received a bum rap.

A month or two ago we had occasion to watch Breakfast at Tiffany's again, and you know, I gotta say, by this viewing I came around to thinking that his portrayal of the Japanese photographer wasn't that offensive! (After years of accepting the conventional wisdom that it was.) Now, mind you, I'm not Japanese, and I don't know how I'd feel if I were, but I don't know that anything about the portrayal was appreciably "worse" than Frank Sinatra playing a Jew (in Come Blow Your Horn) or Anthony Quinn playing a Greek (in Zorba the Greek). Both also relied on (a bit of necessary) stereotyping in order to bring their characters to life. Has the world decided that characters of a nationality/ethnicity must only be played by actors of the same nationality/ethnicity? If so, we're going to have to consign to the scrap heap a whole lot of performances over the years. What I appreciated this time was that there was nothing at all negative about Rooney's portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi. He was a professional who needed his sleep! I'd be angry too.

Actually, Brian Posehn would be good! P.S. A Boston Gal, I love that your sentence actually makes sense.

And she did it without missing a beat. I marveled at it even more the second time I watched.

Also, it's deliciously ironic how hard a time both parents are giving her about "lying to us" when both parents are constantly lying to her! More than stuff not adding up, I think it's this sixth sense she has that she's constantly being lied to (because, after all, most sentient beings do develop a sense of when they're being lied to) that accounts for her discomfort.

A few years ago I saw (for the first time) a screening of the mid-fifties French suspense film Les Diaboliques. And I realized that the detective character in this movie was beyond the shadow of a doubt the model for Columbo. Faux-bumbling, genial manner disguising cleverness? Check. Rumpled raincoat? Check. And--most telling of all--the same "oh, just one more thing" every time he seemed to be walking out the door to leave the person-of-interest in peace. You could have knocked me over with a rumpled raincoat.

The Conan of Late Night with Conan O'Brien would have been an excellent choice. But the Conan of today is damaged goods, I'm sad to say. Not just because his TBS show has failed to set the world on fire. More because, from Day 1 of his taking over The Tonight Show, some fire seemed to go out of him. The brilliant, edgy Conan of Late Night had been replaced by a safer version, apparently because he felt he needed to change in order to appeal to a "broader demographic." (Or because someone at NBC convinced him he needed to change, or forced him to change.) Ever since, he's not the same.

Like you, I thought the focus group sketch was quite funny. It managed not only to plumb the depths of Amy's low self-esteem, but to make the point that men are idiots. As a man, I appreciated that.

I'm partial to Send Me No Flowers, because, unlike the other Rock-Doris movies in which Rock's character pretended to be someone the character wasn't for the sake of a ruse (possibly gay mama's boy vs. straight playboy, absent-minded scientist vs. slick executive, etc.), in SMNF he plays a full-on 24-carat neurotic who really is just what he seems, a full-on 24-carat neurotic. And he plays it well. Anyone who thinks he was just a dumb actor should see how well he handles the comedy in this portrayal.

The promos are looking good.

IMO, what happened before my eyes was an actor who is not adept at physical comedy trying really hard to prove, straining every ounce in his body, that he is adept at physical comedy. Which doesn't add up to laughter. Comedy requires effort, but should look effortless. On the other hand, the funniest scene in the film to me--which I thought DiCaprio brought off well enough--was the conversation between him and the FBI guy on the yacht, when Belfort so obviously believed he was getting the upper hand and so obviously wasn't. Edited to add: By the way, referencing the original post, where was Jenna Elfman in this? I didn't see her, and the IMDB doesn't list her, which inclines me to believe she wasn't there.

I'm 1000% certain it wasn't Gaad, but rather a character we haven't met before.

That makes sense.

I could be wrong, but I had the feeling that the Clark/Elizabeth assignation wasn't taking place in their own home, but in a motel room somewhere, which they had rented for the purpose of the role-playing. It just didn't look like their home or their bedroom to me. Now, just so I can get clear on something: So, Claudia had an affair with someone, and then blew her cover (which, actually, is pretty unbelievable to me--not the affair, but that she'd blow her cover). How did that lead to the murder of the agents? In addition to blowing her own cover, did she (unbelievably) also tell this lover the identity of all her sleeper agents? Why would she do that? And does this revelation clear up who did the murders? Like, can we conclude that it must be America, because there's no cover to blow as far as the Centre is concerned?

Pardon my lack of cynicism, but I think the Israelis' eagerness in the episode to make a deal to free 1500 Soviet Jews was not driven so much by the desire to gain 1500 votes for the ruling party, as by the desire to see 1500 Soviet Jews freed. Arkady said it himself, when he said that while Communists are driven by loyalty to an economic ideal, Jews are driven by loyalty to tribe. Speaking as a Jew (and of course, this show is written by Jews), I can tell you that he is not all wrong.

That is great news. There was an announcement to that effect right at the conclusion of this season's final episode--a title card which read "Episodes will be back in a new season," or words to that effect. This cheered me greatly, because in a field with a lot of good competition, Episodes IMO is the smartest, funniest comedy on television in many a year. Les Moonves (who actually had a cameo in the season finale) seems to be a TV executive of the old school--i.e., if he likes a show himself and knows it's good, he supports it.