IT’S GARRY SHANDLING’S SHOW (1986-1989)

(Dailymotion/Vimeo/YouTube/etc.)? You’re probably familiar with THE LARRY SANDERS SHOW, which features stand-up comedian and actor Garry Shandling as a neurotic late night host. (Given that Shandling was one of a few folks considered to be an heir to Johnny Carson, it was not much of a stretch for him.) It was a huge critical and commercial success for HBO, and its depiction of the nitty gritty of producing a late night show was very ahead of its time. However, before THE LARRY SANDERS SHOW there was IT’S GARRY SHANDLING’S SHOW.

Simply put, IT’S GARRY SHANDLING’S SHOW was one of the first meta-sitcoms. Shandling plays ‘himself’, aware that a sitcom audience, at home and in the studio, is watching him as he lives his semi-celebrity, narcissistic, vain, and insecure life. Each SHANDLING’S SHOW episode opens with Garry giving a fourth-wall breaking monologue about his current status as well as what he hopes to accomplish this episode. (I’ll note that THE GEORGE BURNS AND GRACIE ALLEN SHOW did something similar decades prior with their introduction to the show.)

As each episode of SHANDLING’S SHOW would progress, Garry would continue to nod and wink at the audience and, as the show grew older, became bolder about actively turning the safe 80s sitcom format on its head with loads of surreal bits and set-breaking acts.

SHANDLING’S SHOW was one of the first comedies penned for Showtime, as well as Shandling’s first show working both in-front of and behind the camera. He co-created it with Alan Zweibel, one of the original SNL writers, and they often enlisted legendary TV comedy director Alan Rafkin (THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, ONE DAY AT A TIME (1978), THE BOB NEWHART SHOW — his directorial filmography is ridiculous). Oh, and Ed Solomon (BILL & TED) had a hand in more than a fair number of eps, too!

It also has one of the best TV theme songs ever, reflecting the meta-nature of the show, also penned by Shandling & Zeiwbel. It’s 41 seconds long — a fact the show frequently hammers home — but it’s catchy enough that you’d suspect it was written and performed by Randy Newman:

(From the first episode — there’s a bit of setup, but not much):

To follow that up, it has one of the best riffs on the theme song opening:

Sadly, today it seems to be barely remembered except by TV and comedy nerds, despite the fact that it was quite critically acclaimed at the time. There are several reasons for that: first, it was on Showtime in 1986 and they didn’t exactly have a huge audience then, and they certainly weren’t known for their original programming. That said, FOX purchased rerun rights to bolster their Sunday lineup, but this was before they’d wrangle THE SIMPSONS.

Second, it was practically impossible to watch after FOX ceased airing reruns in 1990. Some fans would post VHS recordings to YouTube once that was a thing, but it was like posting into a vacuum.

Third, Shout! Factory released a full-series DVD set over a decade ago that I dragged my feet on buying and, before I knew it, it was out-of-print and almost of the ripped YouTube eps had been scrubbed.

However! You can still find a fair number of eps out there, as well as a smattering of clips. They’re well-worth your time although I’ll warn you that more than a few jokes haven’t aged terribly well, but they’re all immaculately constructed. If you don’t believe me, Rolling Stone just listed the show as #58 on their ‘100 Best Sitcoms of All Time’ list*.

Sample episode (S01E12):

First episode (S01E01):

Shout! Factory’s DVD Trailer:

  • I quibble with the list, not because of the entries themselves, but because I don’t believe you should include an in-progress series on the list, and they included -many- on-the-air shows.

Turner Classic Movies Film Festival: Part Two (2021)

The second part of highlights from this year’s TCM (virtual) Film Festival, this time focusing on ‘Classics Curated By TCM’ available to stream via HBO MAX.

It’s worth noting that I have no idea how long these will be available to stream. If I had to guess, I’d say they’ll be available until May 11th.

Full ‘Classics Curated By TCM’ HBO MAX lineup: https://filmfestival.tcm.com/on-hbomax/films-a-z/

BALL OF FIRE (1941): A lesser known Howard Hawks screwball classic, featuring Gary Cooper as a stodgy professor and Barbara Stanwyck as a nightclub singer in trouble with both the police and the mob. It’s classic TCM fare in that it airs rather regularly and I find it endless re-watchable. (If you don’t have HBO MAX, it’s also available via kanopy.)

THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION (1981): Directed by Penelope Spheeris (BLACK SHEEP, WAYNE’S WORLD) not only is THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION a great music doc about the Los Angeles punk scene of the late 70s/early 80s — including Black Flag, X, and Fear — but also a brilliant doc in general, one which resulted in two more iterations that are also worth your time.

HARLAN COUNTY USA (1976): Director Barbara Kopple’s in-depth look at striking Kentucky coal minors. It’s a classic, an important piece of American history. (I’ll note that it does run regularly on TCM and Criterion’s streaming service.)

THE MELIES MYSTERY (2020): A doc detailing the restoration of over half of silent film auteur Georges Méliès. I haven’t seen it, but can’t help but imagine any self-respecting film nerd wouldn’t want to watch it.

THE NAKED CITY (1948): Previously recommended! (Also, it’s easily available on any non-TCM fest day.)

SCARECROW (1973): This Jerry Schatzberg film is completely new to me — I’ve only see THE PANIC IN NEEDLE PARK — but it features Gene Hackman and Al Pacino as two misfits trekking across the U.S., so I doubt it’ll completely waste my time.

SO THIS IS PARIS (1926): Lubitch directed more than several handfuls of silent films before helming talkies such as NINOTCHKA and DESIGN FOR LIVING. While I’ve never seen it — I’m largely unfamiliar with Lubitch’s silent work — it’s a new restoration, heavily features folks dancing the Charleston, and Myrna Loy makes an appearance.

THE THIN MAN (1934): Previously recommended! (That said, if you’re pressed for time, it’s easy enough to watch any old day.)

TO SLEEP WITH ANGER (1990): Charles Burnett (whose first film is the the fantastic KILLER OF SHEEP) weaves this tale of an old acquaintance (Danny Glover) who pops back up in a family’s life and slyly disrupts them. It’s a remarkably surreal but grounded film, chock full of great little scenes, performances, and intriguing tracking work.

I hope some of you can catch these while you can, and that the next TCM Fest has both virtual and physical screenings!

Turner Classic Movies Film Fest: Part One (2021)

Turner Classic Movies’ annual film festival is virtual for the second year in a row. While last year it took place entirely on TCM’s cable channel, this year they’re also leveraging HBO MAX for ‘Classics Curated By TCM’. Unlike prior years, there’s no real theme, which is disappointing, and I think leads to a rather lackluster lineup, but your mileage may vary.

I thought I’d point out a few noteworthy pieces for TCM’s timed ‘screenings’ today, and HBO MAX’s offerings tomorrow:

‘Screening’ via TCM Full Schedule:

May 7th 1:30am EST: DOCTOR X (1932)

If I were smarter, I would have posted this earlier this week because this probably will have already aired by the time you read it, but it’s worth mentioning. The UCLA Film & TV Archive and The Film Foundation recently restored this two-color Technicolor marvel — similar to how they restored the previously recommended THE MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM (1933). Michael Curtiz also directed it (as he did WAX MUSEUM) and Fay Wray also appears in it, so you know it’ll be some top-notch classic horror.

May 7th 8pm EST: SF SKETCHFEST PRESENTS PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE TABLE READ – ADAPTED BY DANA GOULD (2021)

Comedic genius and horror film fan Dana Gould wrangled an all-star list of comedians including Maria Bamford, Bobcat Goldthwait, Oscar Nuñez, Bob Odenkirk, Janet Varney, Paul F. Tompkins, and more to perform his adaptation of PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. Fun fact: Gould was good friends with Vampira (who barely but memorably appears in Woods original film) near the end of her life, and helped out of more than a few bad times.

May 8th 3:15am EST: let me come in (2021)

Bill Morrison (DAWSON CITY: FROZEN CITY) shaped this from the remains of the German silent film PAWNS OF PASSION (1928). While I haven’t seen this, I’m fascinated with it simply from a film history perspective and the fact that it’s managed by Morrison intrigues me even more.

May 8th 8am EST: I LOVE TROUBLE (1948)

I haven’t run the numbers, but it feels like there are fewer noirs in this fest than prior years, but this is one I’ve been meaning to watch for a while.

May 8th 11:45am EST: NICHOLS AND MAY: TAKE TWO (2021)

A new doc regarding the extremely influential comedic team of Mike Nichols and Elaine May. I’ve seen prior docs on ‘em, and yet I’m still making time for another.

May 8th 10pm EST: LADY SINGS THE BLUES (1972)

I’ve only read about this film in contrast to the recent Billie Holiday docudrama, and I know it takes wild liberties with her life, but are you going to pass up the chance to see Diana Ross, Billy Dee Williams, -and- Richard Pryor in the same film? (Yes, I know Ross and Williams were in MAHOGNY together.)

May 9th 4:15am EST: I KNOW WHERE I’M GOING! (1945)

Exactly the sort of fest film I’d attend without knowing anything but the basics. It’s a romance and it’s written and directed by legendary English filmmakers Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.

Tomorrow: some HBO MAX TCM Fest recommendations.

JAMES ACASTER: REPETOIRE (2018)

(Netflix) James Acaster is an English comedian that, with REPETOIRE, embodies the playful, albeit formalist, comedy I absolutely love. His storytelling and setups are accessible, but if you love plays on logic or toying with language, you’ll completely fall for him.

However, Acaster isn’t simply content to play with language, as the specials dabble with color and structure, breaking up his epic four-hour comedy special into four parts, then breaking up those parts into subparts punctuated by blocking and small props, such as how he utilizes his watch.

It’s very smart, oddly thrilling for stand-up comedy, and surprisingly re-watchable.

It’s worth noting that Acaster has taken a hard turn from his prior observational/fictional comedy to focus more on self-reflective storytelling bits regarding mental illness, so REPETOIRE isn’t exactly representative of his current comedy, but it’s still damn good.

(Apparently, a clip calling out transphobic comedians from his latest special COLD LASAGNE HATE MYSELF 1999 went viral in January, so you may already be familiar with him.)

Lastly, GOOD ONE, Jesse David Fox’s brilliant comedy podcast, hosted him recently and it’s a terrific hour and a half that has Acaster breaking down his process and comedic evolution.

“I should have warned you earlier: some of the jokes are sad.”

SWITCHBLADE SISTERS (1975)

(Arrow/VOD/Blu-Ray) ‘Girl gang’ exploitation films are a big blind spot for me, one I’ve been trying to rectify for a while now. While I dearly love the SWITCHBLADE SISTERS podcast (RIP), I knew absolutely nothing about the film going in apart from the fact that Tarantino featured it in his short-lived Rolling Thunder VHS series. I assumed it was a bit of an insensitive gender swap on male gang films of the early 60s, and, boy, was I wrong, because this film is gonzo.

While it does have several unfortunate exploitation hallmarks — easy nudity and a rape scene — ultimately director Jack Hill (SPIDER-BABY, FOXY BROWN) does these girls right by portraying them as hardened, take-no-shit folks, literally constantly circled by the patriarchy, willing to wage a fucking war when the time comes, and oh yeah, they rain holy hell down in the third act.

This is a film that’d be celebrated for its vibrant anger if it were made today. So many thinkpieces would be penned about how Lace talks through her teeth!

Arrow recently released a pristine Blu-Ray, which I highly recommend. However, while I love the cover art, I can’t help but point out that the rendition of Patch has her eyepatch on the wrong eye and it’s irked me ever since I noticed the discrepancy, even though it has to be intentional but I can’t imagine why. That said, Arrow thoughtfully included the original artwork as a reversible cover!

Arrow’s trailer:

Original trailer (NSFW):

THE DUST BOWL (2012)

(hoopla/VOD) When I first heard that Ken Burns was working on a documentary about the Dust Bowl, I was already neck-deep doing research for a very Dust Bowl-centric novel and I thought to myself: “Well, I might as well give up on it now, because soon there’ll be a storm of Dust Bowl novels and the market will be exhausted.’”

For whatever reason, that did not happen. (Also, while I did finish a very rough version of the novel, I ended up abandoning it as it deviated too far from what I wanted it to be.) When Burns’ THE DUST BOWL did come out, it didn’t have the buzz that his recent documentaries have had. Hell, I heard more people talking about Burns’ BASEBALL doc than THE DUST BOWL.

Ken Burns has always been able to turn what could be a dull American history lesson into something immensely watchable; dramatic, even. He even managed to make the story of the creation of the United States National Parks into a riveting six-part documentary series. However, the Dust Bowl itself, just on paper, reads like a horror story. It doesn’t necessary require Burns’ deft touch.

If you aren’t familiar with the Dust Bowl, it’s one of the earliest and one of the worst, man-made environmental tragedies ever. Basically, the US government had a ton of unworked land in the Plains and then handled out lots for folks to head west, to settle and farm. Families rushed out and overworked the land to the point where the soil ended up turning to dust. Then a severe drought arrived and, because nothing could grow, there was nothing to catch the wind in the plains. The winds stripped all of the newfound dust from the ground, causing the ‘dust storms’ that barreled over the lands. Oh, and all of this occurred during The Great Depression.

To be clear: we’re not talking about temporary tornados here; we’re talking about stories-high loads of dust covering the lands for days on end. Houses were literally buried in dust. Everything in your house was covered in dust. You ate and breathed dust. The dust chewed through everything, eroding wood, clothing; farm animals would suffocate on it; children spewed up dirt.

These storms lasted for a decade because, there was no way to stop them without rehabilitating the land and, because of the prolonged drought, that simply couldn’t be done, not the way the current farmers tended their lots. Those lands had literally became deserts. Everyone that had been lead out there by the government, told to farm away with abandon, were left with less than nothing. (Yes, this was definitely Burns’ attempt to bring attention to climate change.)

Burns has always been best at leveraging photos for visual props as opposed to film footage, as photos allow him to unfurl his trademark sense of fireside storytelling at his own pace, but there are more than enough snippets of environmental footage that really hammer home the scale, monstrosity, and devastation of the storms. Anyone could make an effective cautionary tale documentary from that footage because it’s that spectacularly unreal, and it encompasses everything about America at that point in time.

It’s also worth noting that, unlike many Burns’ docs, a number of those who lived through the Dust Bowl are still alive, so there are far more first-person accounts than you’d expect from a documentary of his. It’s an enthralling, often tragic documentary, one which captures the tension of how the US was handling the plains at that time.

I’d imagine the same reason why THE DUST BOWL didn’t gain traction like prior Burns documentaries is the same reason I never learned about the Dust Bowl until later in life. It’s the tale of an American failure on American land that was spearheaded by an American government and resulted in the ruin of many American families and individuals. It’s a man-made disaster that folks just want to sweep under the rug and, yeah, that doesn’t make for the coziest viewing, but it’s history worth knowing.

ELEPHANTS CAN REMEMBER (1972)

Seven years after I read my first — the first — Poirot novel, THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES, upon reading ELEPHANTS CAN REMEMBER I can say I’ve finally read every Poirot novel, roughly forty of them. I still have a handful of short stories saved up for a rainy day, but it’s the end of a long journey.

ELEPHANTS CAN REMEMBER is far from Christie’s best, but it does feature copious scenes with Christie stand-in Ariadne Oliver, who gets in a few quality digs about being a recognizable crime author. While it’s a mystery concerned with memory and recollection, there are some basic mistakes that can’t necessarily be attributed to the theme or intentional unreliable narration. Additionally, the mystery is laughably transparent. I rarely try to actively solve the mystery when reading detective fiction, but it was so obvious that I couldn’t help but do so.

It’s worth noting that, based on the theme of memory with ELEPHANTS CAN REMEMBER, as well as some of the previously listed inaccuracies and errors, a number of folks believe that, by this time in life, Christie was suffering from dementia, possibly Alzheimer’s disease, and writing through it. (For more information, see this NPR article.)

It’s still an entertaining read, and has a handful of intriguing characters to keep your interest. Again, it’s far from the heights of early and mid-career Christie, but it’s still a Poirot novel, with Mrs. Oliver as his sidekick, and while it’s not quite an undiscovered late-in-life marvel of a work, it’s still good fun.

https://www.agathachristie.com/stories/elephants-can-remember

PROFESSOR UNRAT/THE BLUE ANGEL (1905)

A few years ago, my wife bought me a English copy of Heinrich Mann’s PROFESSOR UNRAT (retitled as THE BLUE ANGEL by the publisher), a 1979 edition which was also bundled with notes from THE BLUE ANGEL director Joseph von Sternberg, as well as a transcribed copy of THE BLUE ANGEL’s screenplay (which Sternberg immediately undercuts in his notes, as he specifies that they improvised the bulk of the dialogue and he doesn’t see the point of the transcription endeavor). Anyway, I didn’t get around to reading it until recently.

I thought that the novel wouldn’t have many surprises — I assumed that the film hewed pretty closely to the source material — but I was dead wrong. It’s as if Sternberg read the first forty pages, then skipped to the end and filled in the rest on his own, resulting in a radically different work than the film. (To Sternberg’s credit, he allegedly discussed his changes with Mann and Mann wholeheartedly endorsed them, adding that he wished he’d thought of the ending himself which, uh, -does not track- as Sternberg’s ending wouldn’t work at all for Mann’s novel.)

PROFESSOR UNRAT is the story of a poorly respected, older professor — Professor Mut, often referred to as ‘Mud’ or ‘Old Mud’ (in the original German, his name is Professor Unrat — it’s literally the title of the book — which I believe more translates to ‘Unclean’ or ‘Garbage’), who falls in love with Rosa, a tawdry song-and-dance actor who is known for shoeless Greek dances. However, unlike the film, the novel is the story of a bully, a man who utilizes his wife to bring ruin to an entire town full of prior students he felt had slighted him.

To be reductive, Mann’s PROFESSOR UNRAT feels closer to BREAKING BAD as opposed to the fallen man melodrama of Sternberg’s THE BLUE ANGEL.

One last thing: the translation I read was from 1932. The 1979 edition didn’t bother to re-transcribe it. As far as I know, there isn’t a newer translation which is a shame because, frankly, this translation seems suspect for the reasons noted above, but it also just seems sloppy in general. There’s a lot of poor syntax and, frankly, it’s often a clumsy, awkward read, and I’m pretty sure that’s not due to Mann’s writing. Don’t get me wrong: it’s still a fascinating text, especially if you’re familiar with the adaptation, but it’s worth reading on its own merit.

https://www.goodreads.com/ro/book/show/442181.The_Blue_Angel

AFTERLAND (2020)

I pre-ordered Lauren Beukes’ AFTERLAND before lockdown without knowing anything about the book. I’ve been a fan of hers for years — ZOO CITY, THE SHINING GIRLS * and BROKEN MONSTERS are all worth your time — so I was very excited for her new book. Unfortunately, AFTERLAND didn’t hit my local bookstore until late July.

Around August I glanced at the summary on the slipcover and saw it was a post-pandemic thriller and I immediately shoved it to the bottom of my to-read queue because, for obvious reasons, I didn’t need that at that time.

April rolls around and folks are getting vaccinated. I’ve re-watched 12 MONKEYS (the TV show), THE LEFTOVERS, read and watched SPONTANEOUS, and given the fact that all three of those pieces deal with pandemics and/or the collective grief of dealing with unknown, uncountable deaths, I thought: “Hey, maybe I’m ready to read AFTERLAND now!”

I was not. The book jumps back-and-forth in time, starting with the post-pandemic present, then back to the unknown of the pandemic: a virus that only affects men with a single-Y chromosome which then induces a particularly aggressive, deadly type of prostate cancer. Beukes absolutely nails a lot of the details of living within a pandemic, the uncertainty, the hysterical actions some take, the social fallout.

I imagine that sort of exactitude is a cold comfort for Beukes, as I doubt sales were strong because of the material, which is a damn shame. I’m tempted to say that she read Brian K. Vaughan’s Y THE LAST MAN and exclaimed: ‘This is bullshit! Women wouldn’t act like that!’ and decided to pen her own version. (Given Beukes’ experience in comics, I’m doubtful AFTERLAND was so reactionary, but she does allude to Vaughan’s series.)

Once you can get over the haunting foretelling of Beukes’ pandemic, you can revel in the compelling characters in AFTERLAND, all women except for protagonist Cole’s son, Miles. Cole is one flawed mother, but AFTERLAND seems to give Beukes permission to write absolute shit-heel women, which is exactly what Billie, Cole’s sister, is. There’s a fantastic familial push-and-pull that weaves its way through the novel’s cat-and-mouse game.

It’s great, character-forward speculative fiction that, while it’s a rough read in these times — and probably will be for some time — if you can stomach it, you’ll be rewarded.

  • THE SHINING GIRLS is slated to be an Apple TV+ mini-series starring Elisabeth Moss, although I haven’t heard whether it’s entered production yet.

REVIEW: Pancakes, Divorce, Pancakes (S0103, 2014)

(Paramount+/Pluto/VOD) Personal note: This will be the last daily recommendation for the foreseeable future, for reasons detailed below. I hope I haven’t wasted too much of anyone’s time, and my many sincere thanks to those who have commented and those I’ve conversed with over the past ~275 recommendations. You’ve been a balm through this very difficult time.

REVIEW was a fictional Comedy Central show — adapted from a more irreverent Australian show of the same name — centered around soliciting life experience queries from people and then ‘life-reviewer’ Forrest MacNeil (legendary cult comedian/actor/writer Andy Daly) would then find a way to live the experience, review it, and rate it on a five-star system.

While the show could — and definitely leaned into — slapstick behavior, it more often than not tackled more emotional challenges. In -Pancakes, Divorce, Pancakes-, the third episode of the opening season, Forrest is requested to:

1) Review eating 15 pancakes:

2) Review getting divorced (unfortunately not available via YouTube)

3) Review eating 30 pancakes:

Forrest commits to all of it and it’s so hilariously tragic, partially because he’s so blindly committed to his job, but also because he feels he has a personal contract with an audience that barely exists with which he has his own unwritten personal rules that he must abide by. (Especially in the -Divorce- segment, where most of the comedy is elicited by the fact that he feels he can’t tell his wife he’s doing this because of his show.)

I initially picked this episode as a quick-and-easy recommendation to write up but, while typing the above, I realized: Oh, fuck. I’ve become Forrest MacNeil.

I started these daily recommendations to give me a bit of structure and bonding with friends during lockdown. Also, I’d missed writing about media, as the last time I regularly did so was more than several years ago on my defunct videogame criticism/analysis website THE NEW GAMER. I thought: “I can find ~200-300 words a day about something I’ve watched that I love! Surely I can manage that for a year, or until I get to see a post-worthy film in a theater!”

That word limit lasted about three months. Then I added more unstated personal rules: I should post no later than midnight CST; if I haven’t watched it in over a year, I should re-watch it; if it’s an adaptation, I should read the book and comment on that; if there’s a TV adaptation, I should watch and touch on that. (To be fair, half of the time I had either already read the adaptation or watched some, if not all, of the TV adaptation. For example, my THE GHOST & MRS. MUIR recommendation with which I had previously done all three.)

Thanks to REVIEW, I’ve realized I’m currently writing these daily recommendations simply because of my own arbitrary rules and, while I love writing about media, it’s spun a bit out of control. It hasn’t been a bad experience by any means, but those dumb rules of mine ruined what was supposed to be a quick, dumb thing done for fun. That said, I’ll continue to write recommendations, but on far looser terms.

So, on that note, I’ll review this endeavor as Forrest MacNeil would: “Writing a daily media recommendation newsletter during a global pandemic: 4 stars.”

“This certainly is an upsetting number of pancakes.”