February 17, 2003

HOLIDAY UNSPECIAL

This is a pseudo-column for a pseudo-holiday…

The was a black guy in the opening number of ABC’s version of The Music Man, drink in hand, cigar in mouth, a door-to-door salesman in turn-of-the-century Iowa.  Ah, more black people in town. 

You know, I like the idea of revisionist theater.  I like the idea of black people playing unexpected roles.  But period movies, somehow even more so on TV, has to give me a reason other than political correctness for this kind of move.  Theater is different.  The most beautiful character need not be played by the most beautiful actor.  The glory of The Lion King on Broadway is representational animals… but it would never work on film.

More importantly, Matthew Broderick was oddly miscast in this role.  They obviously had Ferris Bueller in mind.  But that was a younger Matthew Broderick.  The glee in the eye of that kid is not the same in a man in his late thirties.  Broderick is an excellent actor.  But the key characteristic of Professor Harold Hill is that he is the slickest, smoothest operator going.  And Broderick doesn’t convey that as an adult.  My guess is that Craig Bierko, who had a spotty TV career and played this role on Broadway, would have been a far better choice.  But he’s not a big name.  And that’s a problem, even though the whole point of ABC’s musical franchise is that the shows are bigger than the talent.  Can John Cusack sing?  You think they tried Bruce Willis?  Matt Damon?  Jeff Daniels? 

ADDED THOUGHT:  “Don’t believe I caught your name. Don’t believe I threw it.”  Where?  The Music Man.  1950s.   And Daredevil.  2003. 

ONE MORE:  Were they just trying to stretch the show out to 3 hours by adding boring dance sequences?  Or was this the hamburger-free version of Musical Helper?

FASCINATING IDEA:  You know the Ameritrade ads that are about a year old, where the woman tells her mother that she’s investing in a record label and the waiter starts auditioning, thinking she owns the whole company? 

Well on Sunday, I saw the ad, which they interrupted after about 5 seconds.  There is a new message they wanted to get out.  But what I found interesting was that they were so comfortable with the awareness of the original ad - which was ubiquitous as a spot, but not a cultural phenom – that they trusted the viewers to “get” the shorthand. 

This struck me as a new development that I really appreciated.  They broke out of the traditional media thinking and made a bold move… not something you expect from a financial institution. 

It made me think of internet advertising and the rigidity that some advertisers bring to a new medium that has truly changed the rules… not because it is so special, but because it is a completely different medium.  It’s not print, where you have one shot at making an impression.  No one advertises on every third page of a newspaper with the same ad.  Television advertising can tell a story that print ads and banners cannot. 

There has, in my opinion, never been an advertising medium with as voracious an appetite for new images and ideas as the internet.  And the advertisers who finally wake up to the idea that people see ads on the web the same way they see all the other content on the web – see it, process it, move on to the next piece of information – the sooner they will mine the web gold better than we’ve seen so far.

GREAT SHOW:  On Sunday, I caught a CNN show called In The Money, which I really loved.  The guests for the sit-around-and-chat show were from various financial magazines, but they were young and loose and talked about a very wide range of stuff.  And leading the way was Jack Cafferty, who I remember from New York’s Live at 5 on WNBC and who now co-hosts with Paula Zahn on CNN’s American Morning.  And he was like a guy at a bar after a few drinks… not that he was drunk or impaired.  But he told the gut truth while also holding forth with very clear, thought out ideas.  Where else could you have heard a news anchor saying that he’d really like Saddam Hussein to either leave Iraq or provoke a war because all this coverage is getting boring?  And that’s how most people really feel.  People can scream about genocide in Iraq, but America loves when things blow up and then go away.  Enough already, where’s the S.I. Swimsuit Issue?  It may not be deep analysis, but damn it, it is real and funny and provocative.  And what more could I ask for from a Sunday afternoon with CNN?

BOX OFFICE:  No final estimates until later today, but Daredevil did a big number.  Chicago’s expansion was moderately successful, but not an outright smash.  And the other four Best Picture nominees got a boost, but are still sitting at the kiddy’s table.

READER OF THE DAY:  Every reader e-mail that seemed a really interesting choice to print is either bashing Daredevil or Chicago… so no e-mail today.  We’ll pile on later.  In the meantime, if you wish to defend either, your e-mail will be appreciated.

E ME:  What you want?  Baby I got it…