Three Scrooges, Part 3: Song and Dance Men

Thought of the Blog: Dickens says that Bob Cratchet had only met Scrooge’s nephew once (this was in Stave Four in the future: "Mr. Scrooge's nephew, whon he had scarcely seen but once" – an odd way of putting it if they had met more often than once). This was when Fred visited Scrooge at his counting house and invited him to Christmas dinner.

                This implies one of two things – either this is the first time Fred had come to Scrooge’s counting house for any reason, let along to invite him to his party (Stave Three says he WILL go by year after year but not necessarily HAS in the past); or, if Fred HAS been inviting Scrooge year after year, Cratchet has only been working for Scrooge over the past 364 days at MOST. When Scrooge says, “You’ll want all day tomorrow…” was this the FIRST time he asked this to Cratchet, or was this an annual conversation. It seems to imply this has happened before – getting all day off – perhaps Scrooge comes to expect this from his clerks.

                If Cratchet has only been at his job less than a year – what of the other clerks?  How many has Scrooge had over the years? Can you imagine the job interview? Where had Cratchet worked before? Was he that bad of a clerk this was the only position available? I would think not many people would recommend Scrooge and Marley as an ideal work environment…

WELL KNOWN SCROOGES

                In the late 1960s the Hollywood Musical* as a genre was on its last great gasp. In the 1970s they were as rare as a Jennifer Aniston blockbuster – for every “Cabaret” there were ten “Mame”s.  The theaters were dominated by big-budget wide-screen epics including “Fiddler on the Roof” and “Oliver!”  A Dickens tale as a musical? Sure, and if it worked once…

                *Note that “Scrooge” was filmed and produced in England and therefore not, literally, a Hollywood Musical, but it snuggled nicely into the genre.

                “Scrooge” was released in 1970 and starred Albert Finney in the title role. It received four Oscar nominations and Finney won a Golden Globe. It was well received critically.

                Several things differentiate this version of the tale – not least of which is the music. Most “Christmas Carols” contain music – usually brass band versions of old Christmas songs, a small choir singing carols, Tiny Tim’s Peter-Brady-like-cringe-worthy renditions of various tunes; and the occasional song during Fezziwig’s and Fred’s parties. But this was a Musical with a capital “M” – the songs had little to do with the holiday and more to do with reflecting the mood and emotion of the moment: teasing children belt out “Father Christmas”.  “December the 25^th”is a fun tune at Fezziwig’s party but not the kind that would become a Christmas classic. There is the genuinely sad “You … you” during which we see the exact moment when the adult Scrooge shut himself off from the world and when his older self realized what he had become. Most people remember the unbelievably catchy “Thank You Very Much” sung twice during the movie. You’ll be humming it all day now.

               Its unique moments are what stand out – seeing the face of the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come and the scenes set in hell – no other version of the tale has this (“Disney’s Christmas Carol shows a vague face and a coffin deep in the glowing earth, so it is close). In fact, it’s not in the novel at all. But I don’t mind that – if I want a faithful rendition of the novel I would hardly expect it from a musical.

                And it is always fun to see Alec Guinness try to sing. Being of my generation, I did not realize Alec Guinness was Marley until after I had seen him in that OTHER movie he was in. Therefore, I will always associate him with that OTHER movie first. Put another way, every time I see “Scrooge” and the ghost of Marley enters I expect him to say, “Go to Dagobah, Ebenezer, and learn from Yoda…”

RARE SCROOGES

                Mister Magoo’s Christmas Carol (1962). WHAT!? This classic is put in the “rare” category!? Yes, in the 1970s it was on TV quite a bit, but it went decades without rebroadcasting. Maybe where you live some local station aired it, but not in my market. Not even the cable channels. It has come back to television recently though – TiVo has helped me find it. This cartoon is usually at the top of most favorites list, so I suspect the show has aired elsewhere annually or I just missed it. For twenty years. … Hmm, I stand by its rarity.

                Now this Magoo isn’t the doddering racist from the weekly cartoon; this is the Magoo from the 1950s UPA shorts – still blind as a bat but painting, hunting, camping as if nothing is remiss. Unfortunately most of those shorts are long gone.

                It presents itself as a musical – hence its inclusion here. The titles bring the tunes to mind – which is a good indication of their longevity – Lord’s Bright Blessing, Ringle Ringle, etc.  The songs were written by the same team that wrote the tunes to “Funny Girl” – which explains why the songs rank so high in retention.

                Jim Backus does the definitive voice of Magoo, the immortal Paul Frees also provides voices. So does Morey Amsterdam – immortal in his own way as Buddy Sorrell (remember him stealing the show on the Christmas episode of Dick Van Dyke? Or for that matter … of every episode of Dick Van Dyke?).

             Its unique moments:

1.       It begins and ends with Magoo and the other characters preparing to perform Carol on stage. In between acts the curtain closes to begin the commercial break. We are watching a cartoon pretending to be a stage production of “A Christmas Carol”.

2.       Gerald McBoingboing speaks!?

3.       This was the first holiday cartoon produced specifically for television. It paved the way for Charlie Brown, Rudolph and all the other animated “Christmas Carols”. 

4.       The ghosts were out of order! The Ghost of Christmas Present was first! I have always remembered that: this was one of my first (not THE first – that was the 1969 cartoon) exposure to “Christmas Carol” and I always wondered why “later” versions had the ghosts appear out of order. 

UNSEEN SCROOGES (version I have not seen but will review anyway, oh like that’s never been done by professional critics…)

                Near the end of NBC’s reign as the #1 broadcast network, it collected some of its stars to be in a musical version of “A Christmas Carol: The Musical” in 2004. It was based on an earlier stage musical.

                Kelsey Grammer took a break from Frazier to play Scrooge. Other NBC stars such as Law & Order’s Jesse L. Martin and Seinfeld’s Jason Alexander was Marley.

                I tried watching it, I really did. But I lost interest quickly and turned the channel. The musical numbers were not that catchy and I found it kind of boring.  To me it added nothing unique to the tale.

                It was fun watching Martin and Alexander sing and dance. Seinfeld fans are usually shocked to know Alexander is quite different from his shlub-counterpart George Costanza. Likewise Martin – given his and L&O partner Jerry Orbach’s legendary musical theater background it is too bad the two of them never did anything else together. 

                I watched it when it was broadcast. I tried watching it again the next year during a repeat with the same feeling of ennui. I’ve yet to see it all the way through. Maybe it picks up at the end. I doubt it…

NEXT: The Sounds of Silence

Copyright 2012 Michael G. Curry

Three Scrooges, Part 2: Where No Scrooge Has Gone Before

WELL KNOWN SCROOGES

                “A Christmas Carol” ran on the TNT network in 1999 to mixed reviews. I refer to it as the Patrick Stewart Christmas Carol for its star who plays Scrooge. Its reception was only fair, probably due to the high expectations (see my Rare Scrooges entry).  I wish I could say I enjoyed it as much as I anticipated I would, but I walked away from it disappointed. Since its release I count it as a wonderful movie – its flaws have faded over time.

                It is a very cold movie – the scenery, the acting, almost everything about it. It is the antithesis of the George C. Scott version with its beautiful and bright sets. That is one aspect of it that I did not like at first but love now.  It’s almost as if the camera lenses were covered in a blue film. Everyone and everything is dark and drab.

                And Scrooge is frozen emotionally. He does not have mean or harsh feelings towards either – he has no feelings. You’d think he was the actor who played Data, not Picard (Star Trek references are inevitable, so I got this one out of the way quickly).

                There are so many things I like about this movie, so many little moments that make it stand out: 

                1.                “Games, Spirit, games…” – Scrooge begs the Ghost of Christmas Present to stay at his nephews party. You can barely hear the pleading seep through the ice. In the novel, Dickens says Scrooge asked to stay in an-almost childlike way. Stewart’s way was much more to his character. Seeing him laugh and play along (“he can see” during blind man’s buff – yes it is buff, not bluff) showed the ice thawing.

                2.            The Cratchets are probably best portrayed here than in any other movie. Malnourished, poor teeth, sunken cheeks – they hired a Tiny Tim that actually looked like he may be seeing his last Christmas.

                3.            The Ghost of Christmas Present ages noticeably through his Stave.

                4.           Scenes with Welsh miners, sailors and sea and lighthouse keepers all celebrating Christmas were shown – rare scenes in “Carol” adaptations.

                5.            “I’ll give you a shilling,” if the boy running past his window would return with the prize turkey. Stewart said the line hunched low in the window – as if afraid someone would hear. I laughed out loud at this. I enjoy the few times Scrooge has had difficulty with his conversion.

                6.            When Scrooge told Cratchet Merry Christmas during “The End of It”, Cratchet backs off and grabs a fireplace poker and wields it in defense from what must be, to him, a Scrooge who has finally cracked.  Scrooge realized what he must seem like and backed off.  I laughed out loud.

                Some things I did not like about the movie still gnaw at me: Scrooge’s toe taping during Fezziwig’s dance while still being stone faced.  Wouldn't it have been better for Scrooge to not only tap his toes but also to try to smile, cracking the facade slowly?  Scrooge’s convulsion that turned into laughter: true it was meant to show the ice finally breaking, but seemed too forced, too obvious.

                This movie contains two things of note that are not in other versions: the discussion at the very beginning about what is so dead about a doorknob.  Also, Caroline and her husband are shown – they are happy that Scrooge is dead and thus payment of their debt to him will be delayed long enough for them to save it up! In the musical “Scrooge” the character (unique to that movie) Tom Jenkins takes their place leading to the rousing “Thank You Very Much” musical number. No other version I have seen includes Caroline.

                Then there was Topper, the friend of nephew Fred’s who flirted with his sister-in-law. Played by Crispin Letts in an oily, stalking manner that makes Eric Roberts character in “Star 80” look like Sebastian Cabot in “Family Affair”. Kudos! This is the ONLY version of “A Christmas Carol” that has a character more unlikable than Scrooge!

RARE SCROOGES

                I had a cassette tape set of Patrick Stewart’s one-man stage production of “A Christmas Carol” long since worn out and trashed. I expect it is still available on CD or download. If so, get it. It was this program that made me (and presumably the disappointed critics) so look forward to Stewart’s movie. The only thing better would have been seeing it live.

                Stewart used Dickens’ stage notes when the author would perform the work.  Talk about a faithful adaptation…  While not a word-for-word reading of the novel, it comes pretty darn close. It makes any road trip worth the journey.

UNSEEN SCROOGES (version I have not seen but will review anyway, oh like that’s never been done by professional critics…)

                “A Jetson Christmas Carol” from 1985. Since I am critiquing Patrick Stewart’s versions of the tale I thought I’d keep with a faux-sci fi theme. In this version the Jetsons are the Cratchets and Mr. Spacely, his boss, is Scrooge (although they are never called that). I expect it is filled with silly future gadgets and does not stray from the basic story. It has good reviews on IMDB, so I expect it not to be a complete waste of time.

                I would imagine the best part would be listening to all the original voice actors playing their roles for one of the last times. It was always fun hearing Daws Butler’s octogenarian growl trying to sound like a young child. And by now Mel Blanc’s voice was so low it vibrated the windows.

                Astro as the sickly Tiny Tim?

NEXT: Scrooge, a Song and Dance Man...

                                                                                                               Copyright 2012 Michael G Curry

Three Scrooges, Part 1: Famous First Editions

                Question of the blog: Note how Belle, when asked by her husband to guess who he saw, immediately says “Ebenezer Scrooge”?  How often does she think of him? How many times does her husband walk past his office? Does she still have strong feelings for him? Is her husband stalking Scrooge? Does he bring up his wretched state often as a way of showing her she made the correct choice? What kind of control freak did she marry?

WELL KNOWN SCROOGES

                “A Christmas Carol” has been filmed as long as there has been film. But “Scrooge” from 1935 is the first talkie of the novel. It stars Seymour Hicks in the title role. Look very quickly to see Maurice (Dr. Zaius) Evans in a bit part. It is on the public domain so it has often been run on TV and released many times on video cassette tape and DVD. I wish someone would take the time and resources to restore it.

                While not the best of the films, it is not the worst either. Seymour Hicks’ Scrooge looks ghastly. Wild hair, pasty and craggy face – he exudes the bitter hatred Scrooge seems to feel toward humanity. He doesn’t seem the caricature that is typical in Carol adaptations – he seems a genuinely grumpy old man.  Hicks also plays the younger Scrooge during the scenes with Belle – he is either made up to look very much older or younger than he was. An excellent job either way!

                It is a canny effort with the usual expected scenes. Some scenes included here and rarely elsewhere is Scrooge dining in a pub before going home. There is also an extended scene that no other version shows…

                The Lord Mayor’s Ball was mentioned only briefly in the novel and then forgotten. In this film we see the Lord Mayor’s banquet and contains the funniest line from any Carol adaptations. “My Lord, will you make your speech now or will you let the ladies and gentlemen continue to enjoy themselves?”  Genuine humor in Carol adaptations is rare indeed.  I think it was included in order to air “God Save the Queen” during the dinner – a patriotic touch in a depression-era England beginning to hear the early thunder of war…

                Uniqueness: Marley is never seen! Scrooge emotes to an empty chair, beating Clint Eastwood by 77 years! Certainly saves on the film’s budget.  Ghost of Christmas past is a bright light shaped like a tall man’s shoulder and head; Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come is a black shadow against a wall (only the Ghost of Christmas Present is cast - and is played as a gluttonous blob). They air the lighthouse keepers and the sailors, but not the coal miners.

                It is a product of its time – filled with melodrama and enough overacting to embarrass even the child actors on “Barney & Friends”.  But it IS fun to watch. The first talking version of the novel and a very fair version.

RARE SCROOGES

                “Christmas Carol” was a silent film version released in 1913. It was re-released in the US under the title “Old Scrooge” in 1926.

                This movie is 100 years old this year. Wow. It has long thought lost, but the version I have on DVD is in incredible shape - it must have been meticulously restored.

                Like most silent versions of Carol, this was based on a stage play rather than an original adaptation.

                Here is Seymour Hicks again, 24 years earlier, still with craggy face, white hair almost comically askew and dressed in an even more threadbare suit.

                Uniqueness: the movie opens with a bit of the history of the story – telling us of Dickens’s past and childhood. It opens with Dickens at his desk writing the opening line. We are told Scrooge is an ogre with a frozen heart and body. Scrooge lives where he works – remember this was based on a stage play – which is pretty common in silent films to save the cost of different sets.  Strangest of all, I think, is that a creepy Marley (draped in white sheets), not the three spirits, shows Scrooge his past, present and future. And yet they DO change scenes to show Scrooge visiting Cratchet and giving the children coins. This was a “dream segment” – he later plays the usual trick the next day pretending to be the same old covetous miser before revealing to Bob his changed nature.

                Was this the first film version of Carol? No, but it is the first time Seymour Hicks played Scrooge on film; and his second film was the first talking version.

                 

UNSEEN SCROOGES (versions I have not seen but will review anyway, oh like that’s never been done by professional critics…)

                My friend Clyde Hall (whose blog is http://playmst3kforme.blogspot.com) posted on Facebook about a version of Carol I have never seen. The cartoon “The Real Ghostbusters” did a Carol episode in which the ‘Busters caught the three Christmas Ghost and thus Scrooge never redeemed himself. The ‘Busters try to reverse what they did. Note “The Real Ghostbusters” is a cartoon based on the movie, not the cartoon based on the Saturday morning cartoon from the 1970s.  That should have been called “The Actual Ghostbusters”. Spencer, Tracy and Kong came first…

Next: Where No Scrooge Has Gone Before...

Copyright 2012 Michael G. Curry

A Christmas Carol

                For over a decade my Christmas tradition began Thanksgiving night with a reading of Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”.  Not to a crowd or to a child, just to myself. Usually I finished it before the long weekend. Now with a wife, a child, work, writing and games it takes about a week, haha.

                I love the story in all its incarnations. I love the movies, the TV spoofs and once got to see a stage production in St. Louis.

                The plot is … well, if you don’t know, stop reading right now.

                The story behind the story is almost as interesting. (taken liberally from Wikipedia, but I did check the facts …) Dickens was concerned about the plight of poor children. In early 1843, he toured a tin mine where children worked. The conditions of the Field Lane Ragged School he visited that year were equally appalling to him. In February 1843 a parliamentary report exposed the effects of the Industrial Revolution upon poor children; it was called Second Report of the Children's Employment Commission.  Dickens planned to publish an inexpensive political pamphlet tentatively titled, "An Appeal to the People of England, on behalf of the Poor Man's Child" in May of that year but changed his mind, deferring the pamphlet's production until the end of the year.

                In a fund-raising speech on 5 October 1843 at the Manchester Athenæum (a charitable institution serving the poor), Dickens urged workers and employers to join together to combat ignorance with educational reform, and realized in the days following that the most effective way to reach the broadest segment of the population with his social concerns about poverty and injustice was to write a deeply-felt Christmas narrative rather than polemical pamphlets and essays. It was during his three days in Manchester, he conceived the plot of Carol.

                Dickens had already written a tale of Christmas redemption as part of “The Pickwick Papers” in 1837; Gabriel Grub was a lonely and mean-spirited sexton, who undergoes a Christmas conversion after being visited by goblins who show him the past and future. 

                Although Dickens made little money from it at first, it was an immediate success – stage productions and readings (some by Dickens himself) developed quickly. The first was February 1844 (it was published two months earlier). It has since become as much a holiday classic as “A Visit from St. Nicholas”.

                It has been called an indictment of 19th-century industrial capitalism and  Scrooge's redemption underscores the conservative, individualistic, and patriarchal aspects of Dickens's 'Carol philosophy', which propounded the idea of a more fortunate individual willingly looking after a less fortunate one. Personal moral conscience and individual action led in effect to a form of “noblesse oblige” which was expected of those individuals of means. I knew I liked the story for some reason…

                This idea would make some In this politically-charged atmosphere faint dead away. “Use our means to help the poor!? Why on earth would we want to do that?” Because Jesus told you to. And as of 1843, so does Charles Dickens.

                The current state of observance of Christmas is largely the result of a mid-Victorian revival of the holiday spearheaded by A Christmas Carol. Hutton argues that Dickens sought to construct Christmas as a self-centred festival of generosity, in contrast to the community-based and church-centered observations, the observance of which had dwindled during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In superimposing his secular vision of the holiday, Dickens influenced many aspects of Christmas that are celebrated today in Western culture, such as family gatherings, seasonal food and drink, dancing, games, and a festive generosity of spirit.

                This simple morality tale with its pathos and theme of redemption significantly redefined the "spirit" and importance of Christmas, since, as Margaret Oliphant recalled, it "moved us all those days ago as if it had been a new gospel." and resurrected a form of seasonal merriment that had been suppressed by the Puritan quelling of Yuletide pageantry in 17th-century England.

                I enjoy reading through the small bits and pieces you usually do not see during the films and plays – the many religious references for one (other than Tiny Tim’s hoping his being in church would remind others of who made lame men walk, etc.).  “Carol” has turned into a secular Christmas tale, but I was surprised how many references to the birth of Christ, the visit of the Wise Men, and so forth, are peppered – lightly, but still peppered – throughout the story. I also enjoy Scrooge’s political debate with the Ghost of Christmas Present. Scrooge is thoroughly back-handed by the ghost, who all but says Scrooge is no Jack Kennedy.

                This was a nice bit taken from IMDB about the 1938 movie. It’s a good description of Scrooge: The word "humbug" is misunderstood by many people, which is a pity since the word provides a key insight into Scrooge's hatred of Christmas. The word "humbug" describes deceitful efforts to fool people by pretending to a fake loftiness or false sincerity. So when Scrooge calls Christmas a humbug, he is claiming that people only pretend to charity and kindness in an scoundrel effort to delude him, each other, and themselves. In Scrooge's eyes, he is the one man honest enough to admit that no one really cares about anyone else, so for him, every wish for a Merry Christmas is one more deceitful effort to fool him and take advantage of him. This is a man who has turned to profit because he honestly believes everyone else will someday betray him or abandon him the moment he trusts them. 

                From now until Christmas I will be reviewing three adaptations of “A Christmas Carol” in each blog. One will be a well known, often-played version; a rarely-seen version; and a version I have not seen. How can I review something I’ve not seen? Oh please, happens all the time.  It won’t be a comprehensive list, but I’ll do my best to keep to the format.

                I enjoy watching all the different versions of the story – there have been dozens and dozens. How closely these various adaptations follow the story is fun to discover - what they add and what they leave out are intriguing. Most of the cuts, especially in the early films, are economical – we have five minutes to tell this story, we’re not spending a lot of time on where Cratchet’s daughter Martha works; but in some cases they producers have to add bits to fill in two hours of content. Sometimes it’s a song, sometimes it’s an entirely new scene. That’s half the fun of watching. The other half is enjoying a jolly good tale!

                More to come!

                

Think Before You Meme

            There’s a meme floating around Facebook lately that ruffled my feathers a bit. It went:

            “There comes a point in life when fun no longer means clubbing, drinking, or being our till 4am, or thinking about yourself!

            “Fun means Disney movies, family dinners, bedtime stories, long cuddles, a messy house, sleeping by 10pm and hearing little voices say “I love you”.

            “Becoming a parent doesn’t change you, it makes you realize that the little people that YOU created deserve the very best of your time. Repost if you get it. I hope I see this on the wall of every Mother and Father I know!”

            I generally agree with this with one major exception.

            The person who created this meme had their heart in the right place, even if their head was in Tulsa.

            Here’s why:

            My wife and I adopted our daughter when she was three days old in 2009. I did not create her; my wife did not create her.  The three of us share no DNA, unless it was with the common ancestry of Ook the Australopithici a million generations back.

            I know, I know, Homo Sapiens aren’t descended from Australopithecus, deal with it, I’m rolling…

            Did we “create” her hair color, her eye color, her eventual adult height and weight? No. Did we “create” her love of Barney the Dinosaur? Hell no. Did we “create” her smile, her sense of humor, her vocabulary? Yes, (the answer to those questions would have been “no” had we adopted a ten year old, just to point out a fact.) so in a sense the meme writer's use of the word "created" was correct; but I will wager that was not what he/she meant.              

            Is it axiomatic to assume that if we did not create our child she does NOT deserve the very best of my time? Well, anyone who took a class in logic would say yes. Just as those posts of "Like and repost if you love Jesus" implies that if we do NOT like and repost...

            Shortly after my daughter was born Huggies had a sweepstakes – free diapers for life or some such. According to the rules from the television commercial announcing the contest, all you have to do is fertilize an egg and gestate for nine months and give birth to a baby. It was meant as a joke but it ruffled those self-same feathers as the meme did three years later.

            Being a grumpy old person, I wrote to the company and explained that I and my wife were adopting. Why were we excluded from their contest? I explained to them the millions of adopting parents they are excluding and ignoring and perhaps Pampers would treat us better.

            I received a canned email saying they understand my frustration and of course the contest was open to us and any adopting parents. The “rules” were all in fun and I was provided an official statement of rules. And indeed gestating self-created zygotes was nowhere mentioned in the rules.

            We entered. We didn’t win. Bastards…

         

            Months earlier, before our daughter was born but the adoption all but completed, our local K-Mart had a parking lot marked “For Expecting Mothers” just after the handicapped spots and just before the parking for the rest of us. We parked there quite a bit.

            “Should we park here,” my wife asked.

            “You are an expectant mother,” I said. Fortunately for come hapless clerk no one called us on it.

            The expecting mothers’ parking sign is no longer there. Perhaps too many fat men or elderly ladies parked there and they saw their nice gesture to pregnant women was being ignored. Unlike someone with a handicapped sticker on their Mercedes doing back flips into their store, there was a parking privilege they COULD do away with.

            Am I arguing that adoptive parents should be given special class treatment under the constitution? No. Should they be treated the same as any expecting or … (what’s the word) ... arrived (?) parent? Yes, certainly.  

            I guess my point is a meme author (and anyone who shares it on FB and elsewhere) ought to think about who they might be excluding when they pontificate. I've done it too and so I try to be careful about such things.

            Some people might say, “Lighten up”. I expect most of the people who would roll their eyes at my perceived slight would also be the kind to sputter and fume when they are told “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. Woe to you hypocrites!  I am discussing about being more inclusive, not less.

            An imagined slight to your religion because a store clerk doesn't identify it specifically may be your hang-up. An imagined slight to my not having a true parent/child relationship because my child was not born to me naturally is my hang-up. It may be egocentric of me to say but my hang-up seems less political and less petty; you don’t hear Pat Robertson say much about a “War on Adoption”.

            There, that’s off my chest.

            I’m thinking for the countdown to Christmas I may do reviews of the various adoptions of my favorite Christmas story – “A Christmas Carol”. More to come!

Copyright 2012 Michael G. Curry

Thankful for Television

"Thirty days of being thankful" is this month's flavor on Facebook. Some of my friends participate, I do not. My friend Clyde has posted every day so far this month. One post caught my attention and I thought I would share it with you. It is his thoughts and he would own any copyright on it and it is reprinted here with his permission:

TV may seem a strange thing to be thankful for. It can be a huge, vapid wasteland of tawdry reality shows, mismatched programming (I still don't see how WWE belongs on the Syfy Channel) and tepid melodramas. But the other side of TV is a blessing we take for granted. It's the medium that let us experience as a nation and as the entire human race, in real time, the historic landing of a man on the moon. And it gave us a united strength as we shared the tragedy of Challenger, of assassination attempts, of that dark September day in 2001. When TV is bad, it is very bad...but the good found in it shines all the more for it. The Tonight Show and Mr. Carson crossed generations, gave them common ground at a time when that was the rarest thing in the world. It has made our childhood Saturday mornings a balm for the weekly growing pains of school. It has given us role models in kindly Neighborhoods of Make Believe and in marsupial Captains of the Treasure House. It has given us 5 Year Missions of futuristic space exploration that lifted our spirits after little mundane, difficult days we thought would never end. It has given us Lucys and Barts and Cosbys and MST3Ks and Big Bang Theorists who brought needed laughter into our homes on days when life gave us nothing to be amused at. If you think TV cannot be artistic as well, watch the Dr. Who episode 'Blink'...a Hugo Award winner and the kind of taut writing I watch TV in the hopes of experiencing once a decade or less. TV is human and flawed and at times detestable; a lesser medium derived as a tertiary offshoot of theater and motion pictures. But God uses all venues to reach His children, and He has made it a hallmark to utilize the least to do the most. That is how I will always recall The Man in the Water. January 13, 1982. Air Florida Flight 90, insufficiently de-iced by ground crews during a cold snap in Washington DC, strikes a busy commuter bridge and crashes into the deadly frigid waters of the Potomac River. Six injured survivors come to the surface, clinging to wreckage and hoping for a miracle. TV showed dramatic footage of the aftermath, and I have never forgotten the day I saw it or the impact it had. Still photos showed one of the six passing the lowered lifeline from the first helicopter on the scene to his fellow survivors first. One is badly hurt and still cannot hold on, and a watching man on the shore dives in, risking the hypothermia threat of the water to finish bringing her ashore. When the helicopter went back for the 6th man, the one who had given up the lifeline for others, he was gone. Arland D. Williams, Jr. chose that moment of chaos and death to live these words, the whole television-linked world as witness: Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. That is the blessing of TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz9JKtvC_wE

Although I would disagree with him on a small point - TV's coverage of 9-11 was disgraceful. True it brought us together, but only akin to how a school of fish is brought together by sharks preparing to feed.  There is an entire book in what Clyde has written, i think. Perhaps I should write it! Thank you, Clyde, for this wonderfully thought-out mini-essay on television.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109878615/LSL-Open-Letter-10-11-2012-1

This is an open letter from Laura Siegel Larson. Her father co-created Superman.

Ever since the Avengers movie came out there have been several comic creators protesting the exclusion of Jack Kirby and his heirs from even token consideration and thanks for his creations. Jim Starlin, the creator of Thanos - the mysterious bad guy at the very end of the movie - received a free ticket to see the film. A movie that made half a billion dollars domestically and he received a free ticket.

The second most memorable scene of the Avengers movie was seeing Jack Kirby's original work used as Agent Coulson's Collectible Cards. They used his characters; they used his art. His original art.

At first I was torn by this issue and could see both sides. I have since come to the sides of the creators.

The corporate owners argue that these men and women were hired to draw and write comic books. They did so and they were paid for doing so.

On a vastly smaller scale I was a radio announcer for ten years during the 1980s and 1990s. My job (among other things) was to create commercials for local businesses. Sometimes those commercials were awful and sometimes they were very very good. A few were so good they played on other stations throughout the listening area. I won a contest with a restaurant chain and had my commercial played in every city that had that chain - my sister heard me at Purdue University. The commercial played in Chicago, Champaign IL, Springfield IL among other markets. I was quite proud of that commercial.

Twenty years later I was driving through one of the cities in which I was a DJ. A commercial came on the radio that was a word-for-word remake of one of my old commercials. It was a auto repair place instead of a video store but it was mine! It was a Star Trek spoof I fell back on a few times when someone wanted something quick. There are lots of Star Trek spoofs out there, but I repeat this was a word-for-word remake. Someone must have gotten a hold of an old tape and thought they could use it.

Was it my commercial? No. I was hired to create that commercial and was paid (somewhat) for doing it. Most such commercials, especially in the smaller markets, are owned by the station. Only rarely does the commercial belong to the company for which it was made. Remember the WKRP TV show in which a jingle was made for the funeral home? The deal fell through and they used the commercial for a tire business. That's why about once a year I would drag out an old Star Trek spoof for in-house promos and businesses. "You used that commercial for ME last year!" "So we did, would you like us to use it for you next year?"

I did a Peter Falk/Columbo spoof for a liquor store that was hugely successful - patrons mentioned it when they bought their booze. Was I entitled to any profit from the liquor store? No. Could I have used that same spoof later for another store? Yes, although it would not be a good marketing idea - you annoy your old client and patrons would call out the new client for being a copy-cat. Would the owners of the Columbo character be successful in suing us for stealing their character? Probably - they would win a "cease and desist" action, even though it caused them no loss of income.

Look at the employees of an automobile manufacturing plant. They are also hired to do a job; say, putting on a widget on the bottom of the car. They put thousands of widgets on cars every year. Are they entitled to a percentage of every car sold that has their widgets? No.

But why not? Why shouldn't they be if the car is successful and sells well?

You can argue that they ARE paid a percentage of every car sold - that's profit sharing by its very definition. They are provided insurance if they get sick or hurt as a result of their work. Although I suspect if I kept digging I would discover those benefits were given to the employees only through intense collective bargaining (dare I say ... unions?).

 And if the car is successful the employee continues to work there until he decides to quit or retire. So he does participate in the success of his widget-placement.

I don't want to get too deep into this argument - but there is a difference between widget placement and creating a unique piece of art. There are millions of cars with widgets, there is only one Captain America.  Not to belittle the work done by the factory worker who places the widget; but that argument is valid as well.

Back to my "borrowed" commercial; suppose this auto repair shop becomes phenomenally successful - with chains all over the nation. And they still use my commercial. Suppose their profits are in the millions. Would I be entitled to a share of that because of my commercial? Would the person who found my commercial and "borrowed" it be entitled?

I'm talking on a national scale here - millions and millions of dollars.

Just like the laws of quantum mechanics and cosmology - some laws (or at least things that seem to run on common sense) break down on a vast scale.

The Avengers movie has made one-and-a-third billion dollars. Billion. Carl Sagan billion. Was Jack Kirby - who helped create not only the Avengers but all - ALL - of the main characters portrayed in the movie - entitled to any share of the movie's income. The courts have said no.

Why not?

Why not a token amount? Why not at least set up a college fund for his grand-children or great-grandchildren? Would it cut into their profits that much?

Why didn't DC Comics "simply" give the 35-million spent on fighting their flagship character's creator's family to them directly?

And this is how they treat the dead - they treat the living even worse! If Thanos is the main villain in one of the future Avengers movie - will Jim Starlin still get a free ticket? Maybe ten tickets so he can take his family?  Will he be mentioned in the movie credits? Kirby wasn't.

Gary Friedrich created Ghost Rider. He's been barred from saying so at comic convention appearances, but he is. The Ghost Rider comic books say he is. He is sick and unable to pay his medical bills. How much have the Ghost Rider movie franchise made? Joke all you will about the quality of the movies - but they did make millions.  Not billions, true, but millions. Can't they pay Gary's bills?

Why not at least recognition? "Ghost Rider created by Gary Friedrich" - how much money will Marvel lose by putting that in their movies or allowing Gary to put that on a poster at a convention? Gary would get recognition and hopefully parley that into more writing gigs so he can earn an income (and hopefully at a company that allows creator-owned properties).  Jim Starlin, too.

Hollywood celebrities love their causes. But they have been mysteriously silent on this issue. Nicholas Cage is a comic book fan - he even owned a copy of Action Comics #1. He took his name from the comic book character Luke Cage, created by Archie Goodwin and John Romita Sr. Why hasn't he offered Gary Friedrich any recompense for his Ghost Rider movies?  Where is Bryan Singer? Where is Kevin Smith? Smith has written comic books - Green Arrow among them. What if the recent TV series "Arrow" took one of his plots and presented it as a story arc for the TV show? Would he stand up then?

The companies that own DC and Marvel are determined to cut the creators from the huge profits made. They will spend (35) millions of dollars fighting when they could settle for half of the amount. At least give the creators recognition. It will cause no loss of income to the companies and help the people who helped make their profits.

Copyright 2012 Michael G. Curry