Rant #720: An Icon Passes

As I am sure you already know, Dick Clark, the host of "American Bandstand" and host, creator and producer of dozens of other shows during a more than 50-year career, died at age 82 yesterday.

You can read elsewhere about his many exploits, how American Bandstand helped the civil rights movement, how his shows helped to make our lives better.

Heck, my mother had told me numerous times that when I was a very little kid, every time "American Bandstand" came on the air when it was a weekly show out of Philadelphia, I would jump up and down in my crib.

But here, I am going to talk about topics related to him that few of the obituaries will even give a slight mention to.

Two of the shows that he produced clearly stand out in my memory, and gave me some of my most vivid recollections from my childhood.

"Where the Action Is" was his spinoff from "American Bandstand." Although it lasted about two seasons as a daytime, Monday-Friday show, it was really the first music "video" show, setting the groundwork for "The Monkees" TV show and even, down the line, MTV.

This black and white show showcased the hottest recording acts of the day, usually lip-syncing to their hits at beaches, pools, or resorts of one kind or another.

Originally hosted by singer Steve Alaimo, the show kind of morphed from a showcase for many acts into a showcase for one act.

Signed as the house band of the show based on their incredible success in the Pacific Northwest, Paul Revere and the Raiders were made for television. They had a very visual act, were very performance oriented, wore Revolutionary War costumes, and had sort of a hard-edged garage/bubblegum pop sound that owed as much to the Beatles as it did to the Kinks.

Led by bandleader Paul Revere and lead singer Mark Lindsay, the band virtually took over the show, and became its centerpiece, along with all the other rock, pop and rhythm and blues acts that appeared on the program. In addition to Revere and Lindsay, the names of Smitty and Fang also entered the lexicon, and the Raiders became among the top teen idols in the nation through this show, certainly setting the environment for the creation of the Monkees.

Clark did many of the voiceovers for the program and I watched it almost religiously.

After that show went off the air, Clark held onto the popularity of the Raiders with his Saturday afternoon "Happening" shows. Following "American Bandstand" on the schedule, these half hour shows starred the Raiders, playing their latest hits and hobnobbing with other popular acts.

There was also a "Battle of the Bands" on every show, and teen idol celebrities like Merilee Rush and Peter Tork were often the judges.

Clark also did voiceovers for this show, which lasted two seasons, and like "Where the Action Is," he was also the producer.

Sure, these two shows are mere footnotes on a resume that included so many other, perhaps more memorable programs.

But to me, the two shows were the essence of Clark: a modern huckster to the youth of America, but in the very best sense of the word.

He was a businessman first, and always, and he had his hand on the pulse of the youth of America.

And parents trusted him with their kids.

So, in parting adieu to Clark, I have to say that he was a truly one of a kind person, a guy that had his fingers on everything, but always knew where he was going next.

Rant #719: A Barrel Full of Monkees

Last night, after a long, hard day of work, my family and I did something a little bit different with our evening.

The fabled Cinema Arts Centre in Huntington, Long Island--usually the bastion of art house films, and more snooty looks at entertainment and media--itself did something completely different last night.

They presented a rock legends tribute to Davy, Micky, Mike and Peter, better known collectively as The Monkees.

Bill Shelley of Shelley Archives has been collecting rock and roll video for years, and he has an extensive collection of everyone from the Beatles to the Rolling Stones to the Allman Brothers to Steely Dan, just to name a few.

But last night, he presented a more than two-hour program/tribute to the Monkees, a natural for this sort of thing because of their very video nature.

Taking musical segments from their show, mixed in with the numerous TV commercials and guest appearances on other shows as well as segments from their film "Head" and their TV special "33 1/3 Revolutions Per Monkee," Shelley proved once and for all, and without a doubt, that the Monkees were a vital piece of the 1960s, and that their music--and to a certain degree, their hijinks while performing these songs--continue to be vital, and if nothing else, quite interesting.

Whether performing the seminal "I'm a Believer" or playing with Nerf Balls (they introduced this line of toys in 1969), the foursome had their hands on the pulse of what was hot in young America from the mid 1960s through the latter stages of the decade.

Some said they were born as a band with silver spoons in their mouths, but the fact of the matter is that given this task, they handled it not only admirably, but probably more successfully than could ever have been imagined.

With numerous hits and hit albums, and with a successful TV show to boot, their legacy lives on, in everything from current teen idols to music videos to the big, full-fledged tours that are the staple of the world of music today.

And they have never lost their popularity, only gained on it, and the recent death of Davy Jones has truly brought fans out of the woodwork. Their future as true pop stars has been solidified for another generation and probably for generations into the future.

The video tribute was pretty well done, and the packed audience clapped along after every segment was shown. Some of the video was not rare--how many times can you see their classic "Daydream Believer" segment (with Davy's introduction intact)? Some of what was shown was quite rare, such as the aforementioned Nerf toy commercial.

Most, if not all of the segments can be found on YouTube, but to see them on the big screen was a plus.

But whatever was being shown, the audience--a mix of baby boomers, older fans, and even some younger fans like my son--was into it from the get go, and never stopped.

There was a brief question and answer session afterward, and the whole evening went pretty quickly.

I wish Jann Wenner was there. As the unenlightened despot of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, he has never had a fondness for the group, certainly one of the most beloved acts of 1960s rock and roll.

With Davy Jones' untimely passing, even his Rolling Stone mag opened its pages to the Monkees, giving a surprisingly large amount of coverage to his death and the overall Monkees phenomenon.

Perhaps time heals all wounds, whether real or imagined, and perhaps Wenner will allow the so-called Pre-Fab Four into the hallowed halls of the Hall of Fame next time nominations come around.

If he would have seen this video tribute, he would truly understand why, for years, fans have called for the HoF to include these four extremely talented performers into the HoF.

Forget about the silver spoon; these guys had talent, and the talent to carry the whole thing off.

Now, nearly 50 years after the fact, is the time for them to be welcomed in.

Sure, the Monkees aped the Beatles, but the video tribute demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that they belong in there, the sooner the better.

Rant #718: Comedy Redux

Yesterday, I pontificated about the new Three Stooges movie, which I--and the world--could have lived without.

But I got to thinking, that this wasn't the first time that our beloved comedy teams have been portrayed by others, mainly on television.

Some of the portrayals are pretty good, some are pretty awful, but comedy teams seem to be ripe for this sort of thing.

"Bud and Lou" was a 1978 TV movie purportedly showing the real relationship between Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. Lou, played by Buddy Hackett, came off as an overbearing, career-directed mole in this film, while Bud, played by Harvey Korman, came off as something of a drunken wimp.

I remember that Korman and Hackett appeared on "The Tonight Show" to push the film, and actually performed the classic "Who's on First" routine pretty flawlessly.

But the film fell flat, because it was a drama about a beloved comedy team, and basically showed how wretched they supposedly were.

Where's "Susquehanna Hat Company" when you need it?

Another portrayal of a comedy team was that of Laurel and Hardy on a number of TV shows and TV commercials by comic actors Dick Van Dyke and Chuck McCann.

This was a more reverential portrayal of the comedy team than was the portrayal of Abbott and Costello by Korman and Hackett. When you would see Van Dyke and McCann do their takes on Ollie and Stan, you got the sense that they really loved the comedy team, and their portrayal was pretty much picture perfect.

McCann--a little more robust than he is today--had Hardy's slow burns down to perfection, while Van Dyke's Laurel hit the mark by mixing the innocent with the comic, which is really what made Stan and Ollie the benchmark for all comedy teams.

I have included a clip of the two from "The Gary Moore Show," and you can see for yourself how two comic geniuses portrayed two other comic geniuses without missing a step.

Van Dyke and McCann put on their Laurel and Hardy guise with other sidekicks, but I would say the two of them together were absolutely incredible. Their portrayal of Stan and Ollie was spot on.

There have been others who have portrayed comedy teams on TV. One that I could think of was a portrayal of the Marx Brothers by none other than the Sweathogs of "Welcome Back Kotter" fame.

Gabe Kaplan almost made a career out of this, playing Groucho on the small screen and on the stage.

But looking at all of these, from the depths of the Korman/Hackett impersonation to the heights of the Van Dyke/McCann portrayals--and with everything in between--there is just nothing like the originals.

Why watch copies when the originals can be viewed so easily?

I guess that can be said for the Three Stooges film.

Why watch a copy when all you have to do is put in a DVD and watch the masters at work?

And no, I don't look forward to any Cheech and Chong reduxes in the near or distant future.

Rant #717: Three Stooges ... Hey, Take It From a "Real" Larry (nyuck, nyuck)

My family and I saw the new Three Stooges movie this weekend.

Let me tell you about the plot first before I tell you whether I liked it or not.

Moe, Larry and Curly are dropped off--more like thrown to--a Catholic orphanage, and they grow up as being the most un-adoptable of the children at the orphanage.

Moe comes the closest to getting adopted, but because he wants his friends with him, he gets brought back to the orphanage. Another boy is adopted in his place.

Through the years, the boys grow up at the orphanage, and they cause nothing but havoc no matter what they do.

Then the orphanage cannot pay its mortgage, and the boys set out to try to find a way to pay what the orphanage owes.

In the middle of this, they get embroiled in a murder plot involving the buxom wife of the kid who was adopted in the place of Moe so many years earlier. The wife wants to get rid of her husband so she can get together with someone else, which ends up being not him, but someone else she wants to get together with.

The Three Stooges end up triumphing over evil, but while they don't save the orphanage, the place survives in another guise.

That's it, in a nutshell.

No, this picture won't drain your brain at all, and the movie makers really try hard to make the "new" Three Stooges as believable as possible, but ultimately, these "new" Three Stooges have even less credibility than the Joe Besser Three Stooges years did, or even less than the cartoon Stooges did.

They really do try. The three actors portraying the Stooges look, act, talk and poke, hit and punch just like the original Three Stooges did, but they just aren't Moe, Larry and Curly, they are actors portraying Moe, Larry and Curly, and there is a difference.

Sure, there were some funny and somewhat clever sight gags, and the filmmakers--Peter and Bobby Farrelly--are obviously big Three Stooges fans, because there are some nuances in the film that make that pretty clear.

So I give them kudos for that. That is much different than what I have seen with other reboots, where they take a title, let's say, "Get Smart," and have no clue about what made the original so terrific. The reboot is a botch job, and falls by the wayside.

But even though this film tries, there is something missing from it that is an integral part of the Three Stooges experience, whether you realized it or not.

I think one reason that the new film kind of falls flat is that it is missing that "Yiddishkeit" that the original shorts had.

What I mean by that is that the Three Stooges were Jews, and much of their humor was derived from that experience. There are many in-jokes in those original shorts, and as a Jew, I can see them loud and clear, whether it is the use of certain names, places, or other sight gags and jokes.

In this film, everything is homogenized, made vanilla, and you simply don't get that.

But I guess that if you are below the age of, let's say, 25, you might like this picture.

It wasn't quite the worst movie I have ever seen, but I have seen better.

Think of it this way: The Three Stooges movie is to the original Three Stooges as the new Yankee Stadium is to the original Yankee Stadium.

It's a good facsimile, but it isn't the real thing.

But if you are a young kid, and you don't know what the real thing is, this film will do.

And the laughs I heard from the kids in the theater tells me that a lot of people, younger people, really liked this film.

I think the moviemakers knew this, and catered to that audience.

There were some very mild sexually oriented jokes, but a lot of that stuff--which was included in the original trailer--was edited out of the final cut, so what you get is generally a safe film for kids, made more so by the disclaimer at the end, where the moviemakers tell the kids that the hammers, knives and other things that were used in the movie were rubber and fake.

Why they felt the need to do this is beyond me. I guess they wanted to protect themselves just in case any kid started to hit his brother's head with a hammer, but previous generations never had this problem, so why would the current one have such a problem?

I don't get it, and I really don't get making movies, or reboots, like this one.

It reminded me years ago of The Little Rascals movie. I took my then very young daughter to see this, and it was even more implausible than the Stooges film. You had the characters of Farina and Buckwheat together in the same movie at basically the same age, which was an impossibility, but I guess the moviemakers took certain liberties, just like they did with the Stooges movie.

Oh well, to sum it up, not the worst movie out there, but far from the best, the Three Stooges movie should appeal to younger kids who don't know any better.

Now, after seeing this film, what their parents should do is to buy, rent or find the original Three Stooges shorts, and let the kids watch them--then the kids will see the real, honest to goodness Stooges, not copies.

And I guarantee that they will love the originals.

How can you make a real copy of a concept that lasted generations?

Here's to Moe Howard, Larry Fine, Curly Howard, Shemp Howard, and even to Joe Besser and Curly Joe DeRita.

They were the real thing, and the real thing is just that.

And take it from a real Larry, this copy is just a copy, and little more.

(P.S.: Seeing this film marked the 50th anniversary of seeing my first Stooges movie in the movie theater--"The Three Stooges in Orbit" (1962). My father swore that he would never take me to see any film ever again after sitting through this movie, where the mainly kids audience was throwing things, talking and yelling and screaming and making a mess of themselves. He didn't keep his promise, but I did see my second Stooges film with my friends: "The Outlaws Is Coming" (1965).)

Rant #716: Guilty of What?

I have held my tongue (or my typing fingers) long enough on this one, and although I have written extensively on this on Facebook, I haven't done it here yet.

Until now.

Just exactly what is George Zimmerman guilty of?

Yesterday, Zimmerman was in the courtroom for his shooting of Trayvon Martin, the teenager who Zimmerman followed and killed several weeks ago.

After much debate, the state of Florida filed second-degree murder charges against him.

Zimmerman has claimed from the outset that Martin attacked him as he turned away and was headed back to his vehicle. He claims he acted in self defense.

Zimmerman sits in jail now, awaiting future trial. His lawyer has not asked for bail, probably because at this point in time, the safest place for his client is in jail, away from the public as well as being secluded away from other prisoners.

The brouhaha that this incident has caused has been something incredible, fanned by the media's desires to propel this story to front pages around the country, as well as other opportunity seekers' needs to see their names featured prominently in those stories.

Zimmerman is public enemy No. 1 to some people, but quite frankly, I want to know exactly what he is guilty of--and we will find that out when his trial takes place, a few months down the line.

I believe he was at least guilty of one thing: as part of the neighborhood watch of his community, he saw Martin in a gated community, and didn't believe he belonged there. He called the police, as is procedure, and the police told him not to pursue the teenager, that they would take care of it.

He did so anyway, and that he is guilty of, that is obvious.

Beyond that, everything is pretty fuzzy, even though to some people, it is pretty clear.

What happened between Zimmerman and Martin is where the crux of this case stands, and Zimmerman will have his day in court to explain everything that happened, at least from his standpoint.

Did Martin attack Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman feel threatened? Did Zimmerman attack Martin? Was this all a dreadful accident?

That is what we will all find out somewhere down the line.

However, there is a lot of racism in this country, and I am not just talk about the "traditional" type.

I am talking about behavior that is anti-social, anti-human, and really anti-everything this country stands for.

Race mongers--yes, people profiting off of such a virulent act as this one--have already convicted Zimmerman of this crime. They would even lynch him if they could, and they have basically done that with their words over the past few weeks.

People like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson (yes, I have removed the Reverend from their names, because they are more "men of the sloth" then men of the cloth) and Spike Lee have become their own judge and jury in this case, and the scary thing is that so many people have backed these fools in their quests for attention.

Sharpton and Jackson are long-time rabble rousers who know an opportunity when they see one, and they have clearly seen one here.

They point fingers without knowing any facts, and their rants and raves (yes, in lower case) are racism and bigotry at their worst.

Where were they when a mob murdered Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights some years ago? I guess Rosenbaum wasn't the proper "persuasion" for Sharpton and Jackson to get involved.

And let's not forget Sharpton's Tawana Brawley fabrication and Jackson's "Hymietown" comment.

These guys are out for themselves, and let's not forget that.

And Lee is the worst of the bunch. He actually had the gall to be giving out Zimmerman's supposed home address on Twitter so that people could visit Zimmerman, and he didn't give it out so visitors could have tea with the man and his family.

The problem is that it wasn't Zimmerman's address; it was the address of an elderly couple who had nothing to do with this incident.

Lee should have been jailed for his actions, but a lot of hush money kept the elderly couple away from the courts.

I want to hear what Zimmerman has to say. Sure, it will be his story, and not Martin's story, and not Sharpton's or Jackson's or Lee's story.

But let's hear what he has to say before we rush to judgment.

I thought that in this country, you were innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, personally, I think that Zimmerman will get the book thrown at him for some guilt in this incident. He went against what the police told him to do, so to a certain extent, he created the situation that ensued.

But what happened after Zimmerman decided to pursue the teenager is extremely important, and there is no way anyone can convict this man to the fullest extent of the charges until what happened comes out at the trial.

And those looking to lynch Zimmerman prior to hearing his side of the story are no better than those who lynched others, simply because of the color of their skin, throughout our country's history.

Hate is hate, no matter what hue it takes on.

Rant #715: A 62-Year-Old Partridge in a Pear Tree?

If you need a reality check on how much older we have all gotten, let me give it to you right now.

David Cassidy is 62 years old today.

That's right, the lead Partridge Family member, or at least the one of two (along with stepmom Shirley Jones) who sang on the Partridge Family records, turns a year older today.

The early 1970s were prime time for Cassidy. The son of actor Jack Cassidy was primed and ready for stardom in the late 1960s, but show business didn't know what to do with him.

He appeared in a couple of smaller roles in TV shows, but once the concept for "The Partridge Family" TV show came about--supposedly based on the real-life Cowsills, who had a number of hits but weren't thought to be photogenic enough--Cassidy was a lock for the lead role.

And he handled it pretty well.

"I Think I Love You," "I Woke Up in Love This Morning," and several other hits followed during the run of the show, but Cassidy actually became much bigger than the show, basically picking up the mantle from Davy Jones as the No. 1 teen idol in the land, besting Bobby Sherman by inches.

Wherever he went, there was mass hysteria.

Regrettably, during one concert, a fan died, and Cassidy had to take a long, hard look at his career from that point on.

His dual careers--actually three careers, as an actor, singer of Partridge Family records, and singer on his own, solo records--began to peter out by the mid 1970s. He still recorded and acted--and acted very successfully in a couple of stage productions--but his teenybopper fame really only lasted a few years.

He has been in and out of the spotlight since that time, recording and acting sporadically.

He was supposed to go on tour with Davy Jones this summer, but Jones' death put the kibosh on that.

Whether Cassidy is 62, 72, or 102, he will always be remembered by his fans as that fresh-faced kid with that beautiful long hair on The Partridge Family.

Along with Jones and Sherman, he must be looked upon as one of the all-time teen idols, loved by million of pre-pubescent girls, many of whom are now mothers and even grandmothers.

My sister absolutely adored him. She posted his pictures from Tiger Beat all over her room, she listened to his records, and she watched his show. And yes, she is the mother of three now, so she fits the profile perfectly.

Good luck to Cassidy.

A 62-year-old Partridge?

You bet!

Rant #714: New York Baseball History

Today, April 11, is a prominent day in New York baseball history.

Both the Mets and Yankees share in this historical day, although the days were actually separated by decades.

In 1962, the Mets made their debut on this day, playing a road game in St. Louis and losing to the host St. Louis Cardinals 11-4.

The Mets would go on to lose 120 games that year, and their 40-120 record has stood for 50 years as the worst record in major league baseball history.

But for an area that was without National League baseball for the previous four seasons, the Mets were a revelation.

After the Dodgers and Giants left for California in 1958, the only team in town was the Yankees. National League fans had to wait for another team to come along, and not only was another team coming along, but it was going to be the centerpiece of a brand new league.

Branch Rickey, long gone from the Dodgers, dreamed up the new Continental Baseball League as an entity that would try to garner loyalty for a set of teams, including a New York team.

The Continental Baseball League looked like a lock, but then the National League thwarted their opportunity by launching the New York Metropolitans as an expansion franchise, the successor to the Giants and Dodgers. With that launch, the Continental Baseball League died a quick death.

And although the team was inept at the start, and continued to be inept until 1969, New York fans loved the "Amazin' Mets," especially when they moved from the Polo Grounds to their own digs in Queens at Shea Stadium.

And when they improbably won the World Series in 1969, the hysteria was incredible. As a Yankees fan I remember it well. Everyone seemed to love the Mets at that time. Even Ed Sullivan's Topo Gigio wore a Mets uniform.

Now turning 50, the Mets franchise has been more inept than solid through the years, and they really have never risen in popularity above the Yankees, but as the second team in New York, they remain one of the most popular teams in professional sports.

Now looking back even further to the most popular and successful team in professional sports, the Yankees also celebrate an anniversary today, albeit a less auspicious one than the one celebrated by their crosstown rivals.

Facing the Boston Red Sox as the Highlanders in 1912, the soon-to-be-named Yankees lost to the Boston Red Sox, the team the would be their main rival through the decades.

The Highlanders would go on to lose more than 100 games that season, the last time the Highlanders/Yankees would lose that many games in a season.

More importantly, today is the 100th anniversary of the Yankees sporting pinstripes on their uniforms.

They weren't the first to do so--the Cubs did it a few seasons earlier--but the Yankee pinstripes stand as the most iconic fashion statement in professional sports.

It is what makes their uniform so special.

Those pinstripes were black, but they eventually morphed into blue pinstripes, and the uniform is prized by many with such a fashion statement.

And although there was a brief hiatus with the pinstripes a few years later, they eventually came back strong, and have never left, and the pinstripes have been with the team for every pennant and World Series since the late teens and early 1920s.

Congratulations on these anniversaries for the two New York baseball teams. Each team has a rich history, and who knows what lurks for these teams over the next 50 and 100 years.

Play ball!