Our Favorite TV Personalities

According to a recent Harris Poll, Jay Leno is America's favorite TV personality. You can read all about it right here.

Now, my first impulse when I read this last week was, "Oh, my God! Something happened to Maury Povich?" But after I read the article, I soon realized that, no, he was obviously just excluded due to some inexplicable oversight.

Then I thought, "Jay Leno? Really?" I saw this article linked at TV Tattle, and in their summary, they referred to the poll as the "well-respected Harris Poll," as if they knew people were gonna call B.S. on Leno "winning" such a survey. Well, turns out it's not a poll targeting only guys named Harris, it's a real poll with science and methodology and stuff, so I guess we have to acknowledge Jay's popularity.

I have no problem with that, but what I call the Entertainment Elite might still refuse to believe that people actually find Leno such a likable, appealing performer. Much of the EE still likes to pretend Leno's success is some kind of anomaly or just a tribute to the sheer numbers of "the sticks." I'll get to what might comprise an EE-approved list in a minute, but first let me go through the rest of the "real" list after Jay:

2) Hugh Laurie: America loves a cranky TV doctor who treats us like vermin? I guess it's OK because everyone knows he's British and therefore much more polite and gracious in real life.

3) Ellen DeGeneres: I still don't see how anyone who watches her dance--i.e. anyone who sees 5 minutes of any given episode of her talk show--could like her enough to make her number 3. But I'm not a Harris, so what do I know?

4) Oprah Winfrey: I thought she'd be higher, actually. Are people holding her weight gain against her? Her frequent bamboozlements by dishonest authors? Her refusal to make Steadman an honest man?

5) David Letterman: I'm actually surprised he's THIS high. The Entertainment Elite would like to pretend he's been whipping Jay all these years.

6) Jon Stewart: Hmm, maybe this list isn't so different from the EE's take after all.

7) Charlie Sheen: His placement this high proves that America still believes that everybody deserves a fifth chance.

8) Steve Carell: I was gonna say America must not be holding "Evan Almighty" against him, but then, who saw "Evan Almighty?" And if so, who remembers?

9) Stephen Colbert: See #6.

10) Mark Harmon: Yes, Virginia, there is a top-rated show called "NCIS." I have to admit part of me is still unwilling to accept that phenomenon. Maybe people just still love "St. Elsewhere."

The Entertainment Elite, that all-powerful group that controls the entertainment news media, the countless stream of pop culture awards, and the entire entertaino-industrial complex, would grant some of these celebrities their likability, but they would 86 many others. Mark Harmon? He's on that show that all the rubes like. Charlie Sheen? Nah, nobody that "matters" watches "Two and a Half Men."

Here's how I think an EE-approved list would look:

1) Tina Fey
2) Oprah
3) Jon Stewart
4) Alec Baldwin
5) Simon Cowell
6) Stephen Colbert
7) David Letterman
8) The cast of "Gossip Girl"

9) Justin Timberlake (He's on TV an awful lot for someone without a "regular" role, and look how the media goes gaga over him)

10) Keifer Sutherland

And if you don't like any of these 10, then they'll force them down your throats, and if you persist in denying their essential likability, then there's something wrong with you.

Let's all laugh at Richard Dreyfuss

I know there have been key events recently that inspired hope in Americans--the Inauguration, the Steelers winning the Super Bowl--but these are still trying times. In such difficult times, I think the country can benefit from doing what I like to do when I'm feeling down or stressed: Mock Richard Dreyfuss.

It just so happens that DVD Talk reviewer Paul Mavis has given us some excellent laughing material in one brief but glorious paragraph in his review of "Rona Barrett's Hollywood," a compilation of celebrity interviews she conducted for TV in the 1970s. I can't possibly do this justice by summarizing, so instead I quote:

RICHARD DREYFUSS
From the sublime to the ridiculous. Aggressively egomaniacal Richard Dreyfuss, here interviewed in 1981, pontificates about sex and bachelorhood as only former cocaine-addict Dreyfuss could. Dreyfuss' pseudo-intellectual rap, fully aided by a rapt Barrett, is nauseatingly intense. Dreyfuss loves to hear himself talk, and here he insists that no other man but himself knows what truly meaningful sex is like, and that he's better than every other guy, because everyone he grew up with was conditioned to mindlessly score with as many girls as possible, while he alone wants a "real" encounter with a woman (this from a guy married three times). The best (and worst) moment has to be when Dreyfuss lets his elitist side show when he proclaims that although his parents' income was middle-class, they fortunately didn't possess "middle-class intellects." Jesus, what a tool.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Paul Mavis! I'm always up for a good mocking of Richard Dreyfuss, and this is probably the single funniest thing I've read in an online DVD review since...well, maybe ever.

The rest of the review is entertaining as well, though not on that level. But that's not a knock on Mavis, but an indication of how supremely idiotic Dreyfuss must be on this disc.

So, America, sit back, grab a cold one, and let's all laugh at Richard Drefyuss. We deserve it.

(By the way, despite Mavis practically begging us not to buy or even rent this Rona Barrett DVD, and despite the ample evidence he provides as to how it doesn't even succeed as kitsch, I still kind of want to rent it. Maybe America should have a laugh at my expense.)

Entertainment returns to FamilyNet TV

Well, not that "inspirational" programming can't be entertaining, but...ah, let's just say that this small inspirational channel has apparently altered its programming focus somewhat, devoting a big chunk of its schedule now to entertainment programs (albeit ones with family appeal) instead of the religious-based fare that had been (and still is if you consider the whole schedule) its staple.

When I first got this channel a few years ago, it was running oldies like "My Little Margie," "Life with Elizabeth," and "I Married Joan," but not that often, and mostly in low-profile timeslots. At some point last year or so, it phased most of those out, and I tuned out of FamilyNet. The addition of "I Spy" didn't do much for me, and for a while that and "The Loretta Young Show" pretty much filled the "secular" spots in the lineup.

Now, however, as part of what it calls "Families on FamilyNet," you can see "Happy Days," "Family Ties," and "Early Edition," (I don't know if I get that last one, but I think it's relatively wholesome, so it's Family enough), all in prime time. Best of all, though, is what kicks off this new lineup at 6:00 PM, then is repeated at 2:00 AM for the night owls: A double shot of "My Three Sons," the color Uncle Charley years.

I'm not terribly interested in the other shows right now, though I think it's nice to have "Ties" on somewhere, at least, and I might check out the occasional "Happy Days" rerun, but I'm glad the "Sons" are back on TV. I don't know if FamilyNet looks at ratings the same way other networks do, but if this philosophy works out for them, maybe we'll see more "selling out" and maybe some more adventurous (read: older) family-oriented sitcoms like "Donna Reed" or "Father Knows Best."

The Wonderful World of TCM: You Can't Get Away with Murder (1939)

OK, this aired many moons ago on TCM, but the fact that I just got around to it last week is no indication of the quality of this cool Warner Brothers crime flick. This 1939 feature is one of the many crime/gangster movies Humphrey Bogart did before he "blew up," to use the parlance of today (or of 2004, at least). I don't think Turner Classic shows it often, but it's an entertaining if sometimes hokey movie, one certainly worthy of a DVD release in the near future.

As the title indicates, the movie intends to teach us a lesson by dramatizing a conflict between good and evil. Ultimately, however, the real conflict is between Bogart's natural charisma and the effort of the filmmakers to turn him into a creep. Guess which wins?

Bogey is a thug who's sort of mentoring Dead End Kid Billy Halop. In this movie, Halop is just plain old Johnny Stone, a basically decent kid who idolizes Bogart to the dismay of his sister Madge (Gale Page) and her cop boyfriend Fred (Harvey Stephens). Bogey and Billy have some neato adventures, like sticking up a gas station, until a botched pawn shop robbery leads to a murder and we soon find ourselves in a prison movie.

See, the murder weapon Bogart uses happens to be a gun Billy swiped from Fred. The authorities not only pinch the two for the gas stickup, but somehow manage to send poor Fred to the big house for the pawn shop murder. Despite everyone (except maybe Fred) taking a somewhat nonchalant attitude and believing that the case will never hold up on appeals, Madge's beau is sent to the chair. He's certain to fry for a crime he didn't commit...unless SOMEONE can set the record straight. Someone who might have some kind of information that could maybe implicate someone else...hmm...

At an hour and 20 minutes, the film is never tiresome, but at a certain point you just root for the kid to go ahead and do what you expect him to do. The morality play aspect isn't the reason to watch, though; that would be the tough-guy patter of our man Humphrey, who is a lot of fun and brings real star power here. I find Halop's anguish hilariously overwrought at times, and Page and Stephens don't have much to give us, but Bogart is always a treat with his alternately reassuring and intimidating remarks to his young protege.

The supporting cast features great work from Henry Travers as the requisite kindly old longtime inmate--his name, "Pop," tells you all you need to know about him--and Harold Huber as a stuff-stirring con who walks around the entire movie with a big wise-ass smirk on his face. He tries to to get a big escape going, and the whole time I'm imagining how big that smirk will be if he DOES get away. It might require early Cinemascope.

Back to Bogey, though. I don't know who is to "blame," exactly--director Lewis Seiler, the credited screenwriters, the men who wrote the original play, or simply the general prevailing code at Warners in 1939--but the already-growing Humphrey Bogart persona, one which makes his generic hood character compelling, shares screen time with some vile actions. "You Can't Get Away With Murder" makes every effort to undermine Bogart's cool by showing him as cowardly, disloyal, selfish...and, oh, yeah, murderous and without regard for human life. Beyond his criminal activities, though, the ones that we're sort of supposed to resent, he's a real heel to Johnny, and THAT'S what's supposed to turn us against him.

Does it work? Nah. Maybe in 1939, audiences rooted for Bogey to get some kind of comeuppance. As I watch it in 2009, though, the attempts to deglamorize him seem forced, even desperate. The movie would still be entertaining without H.B., but not as worthy of a second viewing. It's that tough-guy delivery, the menacing glances, and the cocky swagger--even before Bogart became a superstar--that make his character cool in spite of the story's best efforts to prove otherwise. It's also what makes "You Can't Get Away With Murder" essential viewing for Bogart fans and a safe pick for fans of crime and gangster pics of the era--and aren't we all?

And they can KEEP their crummy paperbacks!

One of the finest magazines this nation has ever produced, "Mad," is going quarterly, as Mark Evanier discussed earlier this week. This is one of those magazines that should be around in some form forever, just like "Life," "The Saturday Evening Post," and "Spicy Adventure Stories."

Conversation I had with myself after reading the news:

ME: Hey, "Mad" is only gonna be a quarterly now. What a shame. It should be on the stands every month.
MYSELF: I know. I grew up reading it. If that magazine can't make it, which one can?
ME: I grew up reading it, too, you know. But it's tough for print mags these days. Hey, when was the last time YOU bought a new issue?
MYSELF: Uh...er...well, it's been a while.
ME: Yeah, a long while. And it had been even longer before you bought THAT issue!
MYSELF: Hey, I could say the same of you, pal.
I: Hey, neither of you supported "Mad" in years, so neither of you should be complaining about this.
ME AND MYSELF: Ah, shaddap!

I guess I kind of took "Mad Magazine" for granted for a long time, even though whenever I saw a copy in recent years, I was pleasantly surprised to find it still funny. We should all have a chance to pick up a new issue when we want one, though I must admit that maybe nothing compares to the joy of being a young'un discovering the irreverent brand of humor from the Usual Gang of Idiots.

With this great publication on the decline, where are kids today getting their wit from? The Internet? BAH! Kids can't take the Internet into their classrooms, can they?

They can? Who the heck gave kids all these computers, anyway?

Getting back to the original point, I may not have bought it much lately, but I'd sure hate to see "Mad" go. It was bad enough to see the end of those cheap paperback collections they sold through bookstores and gave away as subscription premiums. Don't let the crummy magazine go away, too!

Super Bowl Storylines I'll Be Following

THE SPREAD: Will the buffet at my mother-in-law's party include chicken wings?

HEALTH ISSUES: Will my stomach hold up to a full assortment of spicy, fattening, and otherwise not-so-good-for-me grub?

EXPERIENCE: How will our baby daughter respond to her first Super Bowl party? Can she withstand the crowd, the bright lights, the atmosphere?

ENDURANCE: And will she be cranky when we wake her up sometime around halftime to make the short drive back home?

CROWD NOISE: Will the other guests drown out Al Michaels and John Madden? Not that I'd be that upset if they did.

HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE: Will we get priority in getting the best seats in front of the TV? How will having an infant factor into that?

And, oh, yeah, will the Steelers win? Because I sure hope they do.