CRITIQUE BOUTIQUE

Andrew Wallenstein, top TV critic for the Hollywood Reporter and NPR, did a very interesting review yesterday of the upcoming fall season, especially his denigration of the networks’ use of old celebrities in new series. He did miss one or two points.

The success of any show - TV, movie, play, whatever - is an iffy prospect at best. You can spend lots of time and money putting together the most talented actors in town and the most imaginative production team in the business, and still end up with a flop (see: Ishtar). So if the networks want to try and hedge their multi-million dollar bets by using popular celebrities, maybe we should cut them a little slack.

Besides, I’m not quite clear on what it is Mr. Wallenstein would like actors to do after starring in a successful series. Should they just disappear? After all, they have spent a certain amount of time learning their craft, paying their dues, as it were, collecting multiple scabs on their knees getting famous. Should they, like aging athletes, simply retire from the field, perhaps look for a product to endorse? Or would he be more comfortable if they just stayed at home and waited for a call from Dancing With The Stars?

I notice that Mr. Wallenstein has a masters in journalism (you gotta love the internet). No doubt his parents are very proud. But I’m guessing he’s never actually stepped on a stage himself, never read a line, never written one, never directed anything, never risked a fragile ego on the whim of an audience. He’s like the guy who sits on the beach sipping margaritas and joking with the pretty girls, opining on the nuances of surfing, while the surfers bob up and down in the water, half a mile out, struggling with twenty foot waves and ten foot sharks.

My suggestion to Mr. Wallenstein is that before he writes any more reviews, perhaps he should actually try the surf. It isn’t as safe as the beach, but it isn’t quite so full of sand either.

A foot on either side.

1 XCZR

HARD TIMES

In an article called "Gov's Candid Moments . . ." the Los Angeles Times printed the text of some recorded comments made by Mr. Schwarzeneger in a private meeting with aides. I believe the Times has crossed the line and I wrote them the following letter:

The infamous Nixon tapes of the 1970s revealed a president who was a ruthless campaigner, perfectly willing to violate the Constitution and break the law in order to retain power. They were pivotal pieces of evidence in the impeachment case against him, which lead to his eventual resignation.

The Schwarzenegger tapes, portions of which are published in Friday’s Times, are meaningless snippets of conversation showing, at worst, that the Governor, like most people, is somewhat less generous in private when referring to his colleagues and competitors than he is in public. These are not candid moments, as the title of the article implies, they are private moments, having no relevance whatever to public issues, and no reason whatever to be published by the Times.

Phil Angelides lost no time in trying to use the Governor’s comments to gain political advantage, a sad comment I think on his own character. I am a Democrat and would like to see Shcwarzeneger lose in November, but this is inappropriate.

The Times should be embarrassed for publishing the piece. The Governor would be well within his rights to sue.

A foot on either side.

1 XCZR

TAX HYKU

Tax rates have you pissed? Talk to Bill Frist. I e-mailed this letter to the L. A. Times:

I’m not much of an economist, not even a very good mathematician, really, which is probably why I’m confused by what I saw on the TODAY show this morning. Senate majority leader Bill Frist issued a bizarre threat in an interview with Matt Lauer, saying that unless tax cuts for the wealthiest American’s were made permanent, tax hikes for middle income wage earners would be unavoidable. He did not elaborate.

I don’t see how that would work. Setting aside for a moment the whole alternate reality notion that giving more money to the wealthy somehow benefits the poor, if we deduct money from the treasury with permanent tax cuts, how does that protect the middle class from a tax hikes?

I tell ya, it’s a mystery to me. I’m just glad we have straight shooters like Bill Frist and George Bush running the show. Otherwise, we’d really be up the creek.

SHORT STACKS

For most of the 20th century, lots of folks felt the best pancakes in Los Angeles were made at DuPars restaurants. They were just diners, really, but their batter recipe was a killer. If you had a taste for pancakes you had to go to DuPars.

The first DuPars, the one next to the west patio at Farmers Market, had waiters and waitresses who had been there a lifetime, starting as teenagers and staying into their 50s. You could go away to college, stay for graduate school, come back, and the same people would be taking your order, bringing you coffee, and calling your by your first name. To say it was part of the community is an understatement.

In the early part of 2004, that flagship DuPars at Farmers Market was sold to the Tiny Nailors chain. They didn’t take a vote. No one asked all the pancake eaters what they thought. They just sold it. The restaurant stayed open for a while but rumors of closing were constantly in the air. The waiters and waitresses, not really old enough to retire but too old to start looking for new work, walked around in a daze, looking like deer caught in the headlights. They didn’t know what to do. By summer, DuPars finally did close, leaving employees to go where they might. It sat there empty for quite a spell, until one day a crew came in and gutted the place, leaving nothing but a shell. They put up a sign: OPEN, EARLY 2005.

Well, 2005 came and went, along with the first half of 2006, and the promise of an opening date began to taste like the promise of troop withdrawals. And still, not a lick of work was done. That empty shell just sat there, day after day, making everyone sitting in the west patio wonder what was so goddamn important they had to throw everyone out of work before they had all their ducks in a row? The words on everyone's lips were, bush league.

They finally started working on the new place late this summer. Maybe they'll have it done by Christmas, hard to tell. Businesses are bought and sold all the time for a variety of reasons: the market collapses for a product, bad management, financial advantage for the owner, or maybe just on a whim. But the result is always the same - employees’ lives thrown into disarray. That's life in the big city I guess. But people are beginning to feel it may be time to rethink our whole idea of business.

Actually, people want surprisingly little. Most folks are still willing to work long hours for short pay but, if you can imagine their audacity, now they want some security. They want to know that in return for their hard work and loyalty their health needs will be covered, that a foolish business decision by an owner cannot cancel out a pension earned with a lifetime of work, that they cannot be thrown out, like the weekly garbage, simply because an owner has found a way to make an extra buck.

This may seem like a departure from the currently accepted format for owner/employee relations, but it isn’t a very radical departure. A secure work force is less likely to commit crimes, create chaos, or do anything else that starts with a c. Beyond that, it’s just fair, and I prefer to think of Americans as fair. Don’t you?

One foot on either side.

1 XCZR