Out of Focus

Hey kids, you know what? This year’s Tribeca Film Festival is right around the corner, starting on April 21, and tonight is the first of two volunteer outreach info sessions at Tribeca Cinemas. If you have any interest in participating with this year’s festival, you should visit the Volunteer web page. The festival simply couldn’t happen without the help of the thousands of people who donate their time each year. Apparently you have to reserve a space at these info sessions, so don’t simply show up, but visit the web site and you can call or email the volunteer coordinators with any questions or RSVPs. The sessions are tonight and next Tuesday at 7 PM. If you can’t make it, you can still volunteer, so don’t despair.

As someone who was a volunteer for the first two years of the festival, I encourage you to do so if you’re at all interested and available. It can be a lot of work, but it can also be fun. Really, the experience becomes what you make of it. Those people with a great attitude always looking to do things seem to have a great time. Others who just hoped to get free tickets and see some celebrities, only to find out that they’re expected to actually help (and not bug the celebrities!) sometimes wind up moping around.

Additionally, last year we created a position called “Core Volunteer” on the screenings team. These volunteers basically sat in the theaters and watched the films while on headset. They were responsible for alerting the booth if there were any projection problems and assisting with the in-theater mic and speaker for Q&A sessions. Filmbrain actually did this position a couple days, and I believe he had a great time. I’m not sure how many we’ll need this year, and we’re very selective in the process of choosing because it entails a lot of responsibility, but if you might be interested (again, it’s a volunteer position), please use the email address at the top left of this page to let me know.

Last August I got very excited due to the release of “The Martin Scorsese Collection” on DVD from Warner Video. Well today, MGM releases another box set they’re calling “The Martin Scorsese Film Collection” with four different Scorsese pictures including the new 25th Anniversary 2-disc DVD release of his masterpiece Raging Bull.

Collectively, the Warner’s set has better movies with the inclusion of Who’s That Knocking at My Door?, Mean Streets, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, After Hours and GoodFellas, but this MGM collection is actually fascinating for a very different reason – it’s far more eclectic, including four films (Boxcar Bertha, New York, New York, The Last Waltz and Raging Bull) that are basically nothing like each other but if watched in close proximity still exhibit Scorsese’s characteristic traits as a filmmaker.

Obviously, Raging Bull is the hook for this set, and if you have no interest in the other films, you can buy Raging Bull on its own, separate from this set. I already owned the previous DVD release, but the extras on this 2-disc version are incredible. They include a commentary track by Scorsese and his longtime editing partner Thelma Schoonmaker; a second commentary track featuring a slew of other participants including DP Michael Chapman who simply created one of the most beautiful looking films in the history of cinema; and a third commentary track featuring screenwriter Paul Schrader and the real Jake LaMotta. There are also (count ’em) five making-of documentaries, newsreel footage of the real LaMotta as well as a shot-by-shot comparison of DeNiro and LaMotta in the ring. I haven’t seen it yet, but the description of these extras should be incredibly enticing for any cinephile.

(On a related note, I just learned today that the real Vicki LaMotta, portrayed magnificently by Cathy Moriarty in the movie, passed away two weeks ago in Boca Raton at the age of 75.)

Continue reading “DON’T STOP WITH THE BULL: ANOTHER SCORSESE BOX SET ARRIVES FOR VIEWING”

Maybe we’ve come to expect too much. I mean, it’s the most watched television event every year, and over the last two decades, people tend to expect more from the commercials than from the Super Bowl itself. If the game blows, at least the commercials were decent. But no matter how good the game actually is, if the commercials suck, everyone will bitch and moan.

A few weeks ago on a crosstown bus, my girlfriend and I heard this kid, aged somewhere between 12-14 I would guess, talking on his cell phone to a friend. They started talking about Super Bowl commercials, and the kid was complaining about how horrible they are now. They used to be creative, he said. They used to be fresh and new, never before shown, he said. Now, they make him so frustrated because not only are they boring, but many have them aren’t premiering for the first time anymore.

I wonder if the price charged by the network for a 30 second spot has become so high – this year, Fox reportedly charged $2.4 Million – that the advertisers don’t feel like they can spend the money on producing a great ad or, better yet like in years past, series of ads. Whatever is going on, the creativity that used to make the Super Bowl ads such a highlight no longer exists, at least not to the degree it once did.

The best ad I saw actually wasn’t on during the Super Bowl, but it should have been. Nike’s “Michael Vick Experience” played throughout the football season and was brilliant – imaginative, exciting … really everything we used to expect in a Super Bowl ad.

Don’t get me wrong: not everything this year sucked by any means. (You can see all the Super Bowl ads by going here.) I give major props to, of all sponsors, Ameriquest Mortgage Company. The “Cat Killer” ad should definitely be a finalist for best ad of the evening. It had everyone at my little viewing party laughing, and this was a room of Eagles fans who weren’t exactly all happy at the time. And the “Taser Scare” ad – where a convenience store customer gets beat up when the owner mistakes him for a robber – was pretty funny too. Of course, how either ad really connects to the home mortgage business is tenuous at best.

Personally, I also really liked FedEx’s “Dancing Burt” ad that decided to strictly follow the formula of what makes a great Super Bowl ad: A celebrity, an animal, a dancing animal, a cute kid, a groin kick, a talking animal, attractive females, the product message, a famous pop song and then a funny one-liner bonus ending. In its own meta, knowing, sarcastic way, it was a great ad.

I might give honorable mentions to a few of the Bud Light ads, but they weren’t as strong as in years past. Anheuser Busch was once again the big spender with I can’t-even-count-how-many commercials they ran. I liked their “Clydesdale Zoo” bit if only because of the continuing storyline created from last year’s. But the commercial for new Budweiser Select was pretty boring, even if it basically unintentionally said that all other Budweiser sucked because of a crappy aftertaste.

Heineken’s Brad Pitt bit was slightly clever, but not amazing, and Diet Pepsi’s “Ladies Man” had a nice little bit when Queer Eye’s Carson Kressley turned to look. CareerBuilder.com seems to have taken a cue from previous advertisers Hotjobs and Monster.com to be this year’s online job site presenting creative spots. The series of “Monkey Business” ads were cute if not one note/one joke.

Usually the weirdest ads often come from those small advertisers who probably blow their entire year’s ad budget on making a noticeable big splash during the Super Bowl. Emerald Nuts of California bizarre ad “Unicorns” might have been strange, but it was also somewhat memorable while actually advertising the product. The mock C-SPAN senate hearing spot for GoDaddy.com, on the other hand, was just absurd, and they’re attempt to look like the real C-SPAN only made it appear low-rent. If you weren’t paying close attention to the actual dialogue of the bit, you’d never even know what the product was. In fact, everyone at my party was asking, “What was that?” Only because I actually registered my domain name through GoDaddy last year could I tell them what the company did.

I guess I should at least address the movie trailers. The best were also the biggest, and they were both fresh. Paramount has been running a tease for War of the Worlds in movie theaters for a couple months, but the preview during the game was new and fresh (at least to me) featuring scenes from the movie using Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning. It was just enough to whet one’s appetite. Same with the trailer Warner Bros. trailer for Batman Begins. Various teasers and previews have been in theaters and on the web site for months, but this one was new and exciting, and most importantly, it incorporated more real scenes and dialogue than any I’ve seen before.

The worst ads definitely included Miller Lite’s two lame attempts to put down the introduction of Budweiser Select; Cialisis’s boring, previously seen “Good Times” spot; MBNA’s absurd “Gladys Night Plays Rugby”; Degree for Men’s bizarre “Mama’s Boy”; and Napster’s stupid “Do the Math.” But my least favorite ad of the night had to be Ford Mustang’s “Frozen in Fargo,” which in its own way was just kind of gross and disturbing. What made it worse was that it aired three times, at least that I noticed. First, between the coin toss and the kick-off, I think, and then later in the game it was shown twice in the period of consecutive commercial breaks.

iFilm has a page of all the Super Bowl ads, including a few that apparently Fox considered unacceptable and were therefore banned. I’m not sure why this second GoDaddy.com spot was “banned” but the other one allowed to air. Apparently, there’s also a spot for Steve Wynn’s new hotel and casino in Vegas that iFilm claims “the NFL wouldn’t run!” Why? I have no idea. If anything, it’s a bit dull. On the other hand, I do see why Budweiser’s “Wardrobe Malfunction” – which jokingly claims to depict the true reason for last year’s Janet Jackson incident – wasn’t accepted. The ad is kind of funny, but as anyone could tell from watching the broadcast, neither Fox nor the NFL wanted any reference to last year’s incident.

Oh yeah, the game? Well, screw you Philly. If you had somehow managed to not mangle your clock management in the final quarter and actually come back for a win, I would have won another $130!! You deserved to lose this game – the Pats basically played good enough not to lose, while McNabb and the Eagles did exactly the opposite. They gave away every chance they had, no matter how remote it may have been especially at the end. My only rooting interest in this game was based on the small amount of money I had on Philly. Maybe since I didn’t really want the Eagles to win with Terrell Owens in the game – that bastard would have had an even bigger head than he already does – my heart wasn’t really in my betting.

So what was better this year? The game or the commercials? I guess this year it was the game. Just one of these days, it would be nice if the answer to that question could actually be that it was a draw.

It seems that the next James Bond film will, in fact, be the one fans of author Ian Fleming’s original novels have long been waiting for — an adaptation of the author’s first and most character-driven novel, Casino Royale! This news was announced along with the fact that the adaptation will likely be ruined by director Martin Campbell who competently directed the first Pierce Brosnan film Goldeneye, but that means you can also credit him for turning James Bond into just another action hero.

Shockingly, E! Online managed to briefly mention the full history behind Casino Royale: it was Fleming’s first Bond novel that for some reason was never optioned by Eon Productions — the producers of all the Bond films run by Broccoli dad and now daughter — so instead the title was used for a spoof in 1967. While E! was doing a decent job with the story, industry trade paper Variety’s own story (sub req’d)stupidly attributes the choice of title to distrib MGM being on a “title revival role,” explaining that the new Inspector Clouseau movie with Steve Martin will be called The Pink Panther, just like the first film in that series starring Peter Sellers and David Niven, both of whom also starred in the Bond-spoof. Instead, author Nicole Laporte seems to be ignorant of the fact that the film is a return to adaptations of original Fleming-written Bond source material, something which hasn’t happened in over 15 years since The Living Daylights (and that was only a short story, not a novel).

Campbell is yet another action hack, just not one as offensive as, say, oh, I don’t know … Michael Bay. I mentioned a long time ago that my dream for a next Bond picture would be “Clive Owen as James Bond in Casino Royale directed by Quentin Tarantino.” Well, it won’t be Quentin (who absolutely would be more interesting than Campbell), but there’s still a chance that it could be Owen. The novel Casino Royale is a phenomenal character study that, while creating the suave British spy we’ve come to know and love, also presents Bond as a darker, more mysterious character than the one to whcih we’ve become accustomed to in the films. With the right actor, Campbell is decent enough to (hopefully) not screw it up too much. Here’s hoping the right choice is made.

I just got back from the Arcade Fire show at Irving Plaza. While the band sounded great, the room was so packed and there were enough taller people than my average 5′ 10″-ish self, that I suddenly knew how all the shorter (usually female) members of the audience must feel most of the time going to shows – hearing great music while staring at the back of someone’s head. But the band was great, and even with the frustration that came with primarily seeing a neck and head – my friend and I kept doing the old Kids in the Hall headcrusher bit with our thumbs and forefingers – when each of those songs started and the soaring cacophony of somehow chaotic yet perfectly blended sounds emanated from the stage, it all became OK.

But not as OK as during the encore when suddenly, the main culprit head decided to leave just as the band kicked into “Rebellion (Lies).” And then, it happened. As usual, not much seemed to come from the stage between songs as the many members of the band traded places and instruments. I turned around trying to stretch my neck when suddenly my friend gasped, “Oh my god!” I heard someone else suddenly say, “It’s Bowie.” I stared at the stage, and saw a grey-haired man had joined the band on stage. But it wasn’t David Bowie, it was the main Talking Head himself, David Byrne, and suddenly with Arcade Fire as his backing band, he launched into what can only be called a breathtaking rendition of “Naïve Melody.”

I jumped on the Arcade Fire bandwagon just before the hype – not so early that I would consider myself part of any knowing in-crowd, but before there was any conceivable backlash in site. I couldn’t go to the now infamous CMJ show, and my hesitation at buying tickets for last year’s Bowery show bit me in the ass when the day after CMJ, tickets which had been on sale for weeks had suddenly sold out. Then last night’s show (originally at Bowery Ballroom) sold out in something like 20 minutes, before we even knew it had gone on sale. So when tonight’s show at Irving went on sale, we jumped on them. Then suddenly, the Bowery show was moved to Webster Hall, and anyone who reads any reasonable number of the blogs listed on the right will know that all the cool kids were at Webster last night.

But who cares? Those at Webster didn’t get David Byrne. The show (lack of sight and all) would have been enough, but suddenly it became a night to truly remember.

(If you want to take a peek, Jen Daily Refill was there and managed to get a video clip. It’s a bit blurry and far away, but it’s better than the nothing I’ve got for you.)

Meanwhile, the lack of any real flow between songs was sort of interesting when compared to the group the preceded Arcade Fire on stage. A four person band called Man Man from Phialdelphia that was one of the most interesting, chaotic, bizarre things I’ve ever seen. I think I liked them – kind of – but I’m not totally sure. I can’t even really describe them except imagine Tom Waits fronting Primus playing at a demented circus with scary clowns or, at the very least, in a dark film version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Oh yeah, and throw in a bit of Cab Calloway too. The whole band – but especially the drummer – was just this ball of energy, and even though they all – again, especially the drummer – appeared to be completely out of control, there obviously was a very (or at least, relatively) well-thought-out, constructed and played presentation of music going on. They played one song right into another, and the energy that exploded at the beginning of their set, didn’t dissipate until they left the stage, probably leaving many of us to say, “What the…?”

I’m getting a bit delirious now and must get to sleep. As I type this, I’m watching Dubya’s State of the Union speech. I could have sworn I just heard him say “nuculer” again, but that’s not possible, right? There’s no way he could have that word in a speech and not have been trained how to say it once and for all. Nu-clee-er. Not nu-cue-ler. This is our president, and he has once again demonstrated his superb mastery of the English language. It’s enough to make someone want to hitch a ride with Arcade Fire and head “back” to lovely Ontario.

UPDATE: Brooklyn Vegan has the audio of the Byrne performance as well as photos, including a fuzzy one of Bowie watching from the balcony.

I know we’re all Johnny Carson’d to death (no pun intended) at this point, and I don’t want to suddenly sound like a Jay Leno basher, because actually I tend to watch neither Leno nor Letterman most evenings. But last night’s Late Night With Conan O’Brien was all the proof NBC should need that they made the right choice in locking-up O’Brien to succeed Leno as host of The Tonight Show in 2009.

This was O’Brien’s first show back since Carson’s death, and even as he acknowledged that virtually everything that could be said had been by others, he gave his own tribute to Johnny via an 11 minute seemingly off-the-cuff monologue that was as touching and heartfelt as Letterman’s Monday night, just in a different way.

O’Brien didn’t try to turn the entire program into a Carson tribute, and considering his place in late-night television as well as his limited relationship to Carson, that was the right thing to do. After the standard opening monologue, he sat at his desk and just talked – to bandleader Max Weinberg, to the studio audience, and to us at home. Like Letterman, he gave personal memories of his few encounters with Carson. The most telling moment, however, and the one which distinguishes both Conan and Dave from Jay, was when O’Brien talked about what he considered the best advice Carson ever gave him.

It was at a birthday party for Bob Wright (the head of NBC) shortly after O’Brien had started on Late Night. He had been asked to do a bit of comedy at the party, and only after he got there did he learn that Carson would be following him. Here’s the way O’Brien described it on last night’s show:

(After the party, Johnny) came over to me … and he said to me, “Just be yourself. That’s the only way it can work.” And I noticed at the time he said, “That’s the only way it can work.” He didn’t say, Be yourself, and it will work. And there’s a distinction there, if you’re listening, and I was listening very carefully. He was being very honest. He was saying, I don’t know you. You may not have what it takes. But the only way to do it is to be yourself. There was nothing fake about it; nothing patronizing, or, Don’t worry, you’re going to be amazing. He, I think, respected the form of these shows enough to just sort of tell me, “That’s the only way it can work.” You know, Good luck to you; I have no clue if it will work for you – but that was his way of saying that.

“Be yourself.” That was the epitome of Johnny Carson. In their own ways, both Letterman and O’Brien have exemplified that same ideal. O’Brien especially never shied away from his brand of humor and performance style, even as NBC was giving him year-to-year contracts and the critics pulverized him in those early days. I don’t want to say that Leno isn’t also, in his own way, being himself: he is known to be a workaholic, a consummate joke-writer and comedian; but there’s something about him, especially when interviewing people, and that giggle of his that rings fake. And never was his over-preparation more disturbing than during his very non-personal monologue tribute to Johnny a week ago, which sounded scripted, maybe even read from the teleprompter, and seemed to make Leno very uncomfortable.

Eleven minutes is a very long time for a camera to stay in one position, not movement, not edits, just staring at one person sitting in place talking, but like Letterman the night before, O’Brien was riveting because it was honest. He was funny without being inappropriate, and rather than just talking about why Carson was so important to television, he spoke about why Carson was important to him. His conclusion to the segment was a bit shaky and overdramatic. “We’ll do the best we can to soldier on” might have been a bit much. But then that’s just what he did. The rest of the show was like any other Late Night With Conan O’Brien with only Jeffrey Tambor making a brief comment about how nice Conan’s words were. The rest of the show was without Johnny, except in the spirit of inspiration O’Brien expressed if not always eloquently, at least meaningfully and with feeling.

In today’s New York Times, Alessandra Stanley wrote about “Carson’s Long Late-Night Shadow.” In response to David Letterman’s comment on his Monday show, “There is only one Johnny Carson,” Stanley states that Letterman is unfortunately in error thanks to the never-ending line of Carson-imitators who continue to come and go. She then spends (read: wastes) valuable column inches lamenting the horror that is Craig Ferguson, new host of CBS’s Late, Late Show. Her point is that in just about everything other than his Scottish brogue, Ferguson is simply attempting to clone Carson from the types of jokes and sketches to his timing, to even his method of delivery (hands-in-pockets, looking side to side, etc).

Why waste time on Ferguson, though. His show will likely get better with time, and if it doesn’t, it won’t be around. The fact that TV executives are too close-minded to try anything other than a Carson Tonight Show clone is a problem that will continue until that surprise hit personality suddenly appears as if out of nowhere. Kind of like O’Brien. (As I said the other day, even Carson Daly’s late night program which started with the casual two chairs facing each other atmosphere has since added the ubiquitous desk.) But wouldn’t it have been better to write a story showing how O’Brien is obviously the next rightful heir of Carson’s mantle: from Johnny to Dave to Conan?

Granted, Stanley acknowledges Conan: “Mr. Ferguson is a reminder that Conan O’Brien has earned his contract to take over the Tonight Show in 2009,” but maybe she should have waited until after yesterday. The story seemed to want to be more about Carson’s legacy than a review of Ferguson’s talents. Stanley should have known that Conan would say something about Johnny on the program, and maybe given the chance, he will expand on the Tonight Show tradition in a way similar to what Stanley seems to want.

“It would be nice if the late Johnny Carson could be remembered a little less reverently,” Stanley writes. “Then perhaps some other talk-show host could shake up a format that has not been altered or improved upon since Carson retired.” Sure, there will hopefully be some new and exciting innovator who will one day bring another network’s late night programming to prominence, but in the mean time, O’Brien’s not doing too bad, and considering that the smartest artists aren’t necessarily the ones who simply revolt against what came before but also have knowledge of it, I’m looking forward to that day when the TV listings say, The Tonight Show With Conan O’Brien.

P.S.: You can read the full transcript of Conan’s tribute to Johnny here at Croooow Blog. (Thanks Surfergirl!)

Tonight at 10:30 PM on MTV is the episode of The Ashlee Simpson Show for which we’ve all been waiting: Ashlee is going to “sing” on Saturday Night Live. Then she’s going to unintentionally “dance” on SNL before racing off the stage to hide her embarrassment. at the now-infamous lip-syncing revelation. (Sorry … “backing vocal track.” My bad.)

The best part in the promos I’ve seen on MTV is Ashlee talking to the cameras: “If my career is over because of this, then that’s sad.” Of course, she misspoke. I’m sure all of us were thinking that if her career isn’t over that would be sad, at least for the rest of us. Of course, don’t worry if you miss the episode tonight. While MTV is known for airing things once and then never, ever, EVER again, they know that this was a watershed TV moment, and I’m sure they’ll replay it through the weekend. And the best part is, I’m pretty sure the incident at the Orange Bowl is still to come. Yay!

OK, that may be a bit of exaggeration at this point, but the news in Variety today that NBC has cut the season order on American Dreams from an already lower-than-normal 19 to only 17 episodes (sub req’d) is not a good sign for the future of this great Sunday night family drama. I’ve made no secret about my love of this series. It made my Top 10 list of 2004, and in its own indirect way, it even saved my life once.

In its favor, American Dreams is a favorite show of critics as well as NBC topper Jeff Zucker, and it has a very loyal audience. It also happens to be one of the most advertiser-friendly shows on TV since it’s demos run from young to old and several product placement integration stunts have been effective. It has suffered this season in the 8 PM Sunday hour against major competition on all three other major networks (ABC’s amazingly popular Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, CBS’s solid procedural crime drama Cold Case, and Fox’s comedy superstars The Simpsons and Arrested Development), but it’s also the only “family-friendly” family drama on all of television that isn’t stupid as hell, talking down to its audience young and old. (Yeah, I’m staring at you 7th Heaven!)

NBC’s decision to pull the show from February sweeps actually makes sense – this week it would face the Super Bowl; next week the Grammys. But cutting the order this late in the season by two episodes is unfortunate if only because it now means the writers and producers need to consolidate the story they were planning to tell. The Variety story concludes, “Prince said he had planned for episode 17 to serve as a cliffhanger leading into a two-part season finale.” Considering that 13 episodes have already aired this season, they don’t have that much flexibility to change and consolidate storylines – without ruining them – from six remaining episodes to four.

Hopefully, NBC will stick with the show for another season. The era of the program has just entered 1966 (I believe) and there’s been plenty of turbulent activity already. I want to see how eldest son and wounded Vietnam vet (and now marine recruiter) J.J. reacts as news of the war gets worse and the number of US forces escalate. I want to see how they treat the height of the civil rights era, Johnson’s resignation, the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King. This is a show which has been a wonderful snapshot of a crazy time in our history; a time which day-by-day seems all to similar even to those of us who did not live then to many of the issues our society still struggles with today. Even if it’s a bit melodramatic and even sappy at times, this is the kind of intelligent television that can actually be good for you, and your parents, and your children. Sure they promote it around the musical stunts, but the show is so much more than that. With Er becoming more snore-intensive every season and The West Wing continuing its schizophrenic ways in an attempt to reinvent itself, here’s hoping that Zucker doesn’t continue his otherwise absurd destruction of NBC programming dominance by canceling the only great non-reality program (various Law & Order not withstanding) they have left.

David Letterman was on vacation last week, so it wasn’t until last night’s Late Show that he was able to address the death of his mentor, idol and hero, Johnny Carson. The contrast between Letterman’s appreciation for the former king of late night and the one presented last week by current Tonight Show host Jay Leno was an extreme one. Leno came out and turned his monologue into a somber, yet not very personal, reflection on what Carson meant to television. He seemed incredibly uncomfortable, trying to be serious in a forum where he’s used to being funny. The rest of the show felt like an outsider interviewing people who knew Carson better than Leno ever did or could. It was a perfectly nice presentation by the show that nominally carries on Carson’s work.

But what happened on Letterman last night was a whole different animal; not a period of mourning as much as a celebration. Letterman didn’t need to have Don Rickles and Bob Newhart reminiscing about what made Carson so great. Letterman came out and started giving a standard monologue, without mentioning Carson at all, much to my surprise. Yet five minutes later, anyone watching the show knew that he couldn’t have honored Carson more . Following the traditional comic monologue, Letterman continued with a magnificent reflection about what Carson meant to him that was funny and touching. After mentioning how he owes everything to Carson, he also revealed, “Every one of those jokes I did a few minutes ago were written for us over the last couple of months by Johnny Carson – a tremendous act of friendship.” (Can anyone imagine Leno even entertaining the thought of using a Carson-written joke in his monologue?)

Granted, Letterman is known for having his own insecurities about his own talents. The stories of his post-show freak-outs have been going around since his days on NBC. He’s never thought he was good enough; much of his humor on-the-air comes from a self-deprecating place – another contrast to the ever-confident Leno – and he’s always projected a degree of awe in reference to Carson. Last night during his interview with former Tonight Show producer Peter Lassally, Letterman even asked if Johnny every lost it or screamed in his dressing room when something went wrong after the show, an interesting question for anyone who ever read Bill Carter’s The Late Shift about the “late night wars” surrounding Carson’s retirement and Letterman’s move to CBS.

Letterman spoke about Carson all night with an adoring sense of awe that would have seemed a bit annoying had it not been so genuine. You could tell here and there that had he not been on camera, Letterman might have broken down crying. During much of his reflection, he had a harder time looking into the camera than normal; in fact, it was almost only during a self-deprecating comment that he would stare straight at the home viewer and flash that toothy smile.

He also managed to give a brilliant analysis of both Carson’s contribution to late-night television as well as what’s currently wrong with it.

The Tonight Show didn’t really become The Tonight Show until Johnny Carson started to host it. And he created the template for that show, and everybody else who’s doing a show, myself included, we’re all kind of secretly doing Johnny’s Tonight Show. And the reason we’re all doing Johnny’s Tonight Show is because you think, Well if I do Johnny’s Tonight Show, maybe I’ll be a little like Johnny, and people will like me more. But it sadly doesn’t work that way. If you’re not Johnny, you’re wasting your time. Really everything — the band, the chairs, the desk, the announcer — it’s all because we just want to be a little bit more like Johnny.

And he’s right. Nobody has been able to redefine that template. Even interview-oriented shows like NBC’s Later or the Tom Snyder version of CBS’s The Late, Late Show that simply featured two easy chairs eventually morphed into a host behind a desk. Last Call with Carson Daly which started with the same comfy chair set-up put Daly behind a desk some time ago as well, simply retreating to the standard set-up created by Carson. It’s unfortunate actually, and as Letterman mentioned on the show, maybe some day, another will come along who will redefine the format, but that’s still not the case today.

Last night’s Late Show show exposed the primary difference between Letterman and Leno: the current Tonight Show host is much more of a performer than his rival and competitor. The only thing different about Leno’s show last week from any other Tonight Show was his attempt at warmth and seriousness in his monologue. He had a subject to cover, and that’s what he did. Letterman, on the other hand, has rarely seemed as enthusiastic as he was talking about his idol, even under such circumstances.

Maybe that’s because of the personal relationship Letterman and Carson had which never existed with the latter’s Tonight Show successor. While NBC was able to shove in a clip of one of Leno’s earlier stand-up performances on Carson’s show, The Late Show was able to provide a mini-retrospective of clips and sketches featuring Carson interacting with Letterman. What does it mean that the eternal sidekick – Ed McMahon – was the only Carson Tonight Show regular to appear with Leno while Letterman spent a half-hour interviewing producer Lassally and then featured a performance by Carson bandleader Doc Severinsen (along with former Tonight Show bandmembers Tommy Newsome and Ed Shaughnessy) – who conspicuously didn’t appear with Leno but was doing interviews on Today the next morning. And then there’s the fact that Carson had been secretly writing and feeding jokes – for no reason other than his own amusement – to Letterman for at least the last several months.

The viewership numbers may still show Leno being the current late-night leader, but comparing the two tributes to Carson proves both who really carries on Carson’s legacy as well as who his favorite was. If the secret to late-night success – at least artistically – is being yourself, Letterman wins in a landslide, and we should all be thankful that the next host of The Tonight Show will be Conan O’Brien.

Meanwhile, there was a little blurb in the business section of yesterday’s New York Times (I can’t find the article online) that talked about viewership in late night today versus Carson’s last year in 1991-92. Amazingly, the analysis of the numbers is abysmal, paying more attention to Leno’s larger lead over second-place than Carson’s greater total numbers and audience share in a universe with fewer total viewers (as well as, to be fair, far fewer viewing options). But Carson’s dominance in the late-night landscape, even if his lead over ABC’s Nightline is smaller than Leno’s lead over Letterman, shouldn’t be underestimated, especially for its cultural significance.

Of course, NBC and Leno care more about the numbers in today’s landscape, which makes sense since they’re in the business of audience share. And I suppose that was reflected in the two respective tribute shows. While Leno and The Tonight Show honored a figurehead mostly because he had to, Letterman and The Late Show honored a man and his unique talent – because he wanted to.

It’s January, which means that unless you’re catching-up with the major film awards contenders, your choices at the cinema become more and more limited by the week. January brings the dregs of theatrical releases, the major studios relative throwaways that most likely would flop against most good competition the rest of the year. But this weekend, if you live in New York, there is a release starring the great Robert De Niro that is absolutely required viewing.

No, I’m not talking about (or judging) Hide and Seek. Rather, opening at the Ziegfeld Theater today is the 25th Anniversary re-release of Raging Bull. It doesn’t matter if you’ve seen it before – well, except if you haven’t, what the hell is wrong with you? Here’s a chance that rarely comes along anymore: to see one of the best and visually most beautiful movies ever made projected the way it was meant to be onto one of the biggest and best screens around. I don’t care how many thousands of dollars you can afford to spend on a home theater system with a big, flat screen and professional sound system; and I’m sure the transfer on the brand new two-disc special edition coming out in two weeks is as good as can be. But all that money later still won’t buy you the experience of seeing Martin Scorsese’s stunning film like the $10.50 that will get you into the Ziegfeld and put you in front of that gigantic screen.

In the new issue of Sports Illustrated, there’s a story by John Schulian called “One Tough Baby” (avail only to SI mag subscribers) about Clint Eastwood’s current critical and Oscar favorite Million Dollar Baby. Under the headline on page 66, it says, “It may be the most troubled of sports, but boxing still packs a punch in Hollywood. The Latest fight film, Clint Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby, just may be the greatest ever.”

No it isn’t. I’m not an MDB hater like some others, but as good as MDB may be, it is most definitely not the best boxing film ever. That title goes to Raging Bull. Even if MDB does accomplish what Raging Bull couldn’t, namely a win on Oscar night (Robert Redford and his Ordinary People took hom the Best Director and Picture prizes), Marty and Bobby can still kick Clint’s and Hilary’s asses any day. Go see for yourself at the Ziegfeld this week. There’s no good reason not to, and while rep houses may screen the film repeatedly over the years to come, the opportunity to see it again on a screen the size of the Ziegfeld’s may not be for another 25 years.