The Laugh Track

I am sure every American has had this experience. Some time or another (probably many times) he or she has been watching a situation comedy when someone says something that is supposed to be a joke, and even if it is not particularly funny there is uproarious laughter. Unless that sitcom was filmed before a live studio audience, that laughter almost certainly came from a laugh track.

Laugh tracks have existed for nearly as long as network television. Despite this, their usage remains somewhat controversial to this day. The reason that they came to be used at all was quite simply to recreate the feeling of being part of a live audience. During the Golden Age of Radio (roughly the Thirties into the early Fifties), most radio shows were recorded before a live studio audience. With many early sitcoms, however, this was not always possible. To keep the laughs and guffaws familiar from the old radio comedies without shooting in front of a live audience, then, prerecorded or "canned" laughter came to be employed on TV sitcoms. Of course, even its earliest critics have argued that the true purpose of the laugh track was to cue the audience as to when to laugh, as if they were not intelligent enough to know what was funny. Proof that this may be the actual reason behind the use of laugh tracks may be seen in the fact that sometimes canned laughter would even be used on early variety shows and sitcoms that were filmed in front of live audiences. When joke did not go over well, sometimes the mild laughter of the live audience would be supplemented by prerecorded laughter--a practice known as sweetening. If the entire purpose of the laugh track was to give the illusion of filming before a live studio audience, then the use of canned laughter when a live audience was present would be needless.

Regardless, the laugh track was not without precedent. As early as the 17th century, French poet Jean Daurat offered free tickets to a performance of one of his plays in exchange for nothing more than applause. This practice reached its height in 19th century France when any theatre managers employed claques--groups of people who were paid for simply applauding performances. In the United States canned laughter was used on radio shows, although never to the extent that it would be on network television.

Indeed, it would be in on September 9, 1950 that the genie would be let out of the bottle. It was on that date that The Hank McCune Show debuted on NBC. The show ran only briefly and would probably be almost entirely forgotten were it not for the fact that it was the first sitcom to use canned laughter. It would be in 1953, however, that there would be a development which would really allow the laugh track to take off. That year a sound engineer named Charley Douglass invented the Laff Box, a device which could be played like an organ in order to produce various sorts of laughter. No one is quite sure where Douglass recorded the original laughs for his Laff Box, but it was soon in demand. In fact, the company he founded (Northridge Electronics) is still in the business of selling laugh producing machines.

If there was a Golden Age for the Laugh Track, it was probably during the Fifties and Sixties. At this point in television history, the vast majority of sitcoms were not filmed in front of live studio audiences. As a result laugh tracks were employed on the vast majority of sitcoms--from Leave to Beaver to The Brady Bunch. Laugh tracks were even used on many Hanna Barbera cartoons, not only on such primetime series as The Flintstones, The Jetsons, but also on their many Saturday morning cartoons. Even in the Sixties, however, there was still resistance to the concept among both critics and TV producers. In fact, there were some shows which did eschew the use of a laugh track even then. The Monkees featured a laugh track during its first season, but through part of the second season it was disposed of entirely. The classic TV series Batman never used a laugh track. Apparently one was used in test screenings for the show, but it met with disapproval. I rather suspect that it would have taken away from the overall campiness of the series.

The Seventies saw an even greater attack on the laugh track. As early as 1967 He and She was filmed before a live studio audience. By the Seventies this would be common practice. Shows from All in the Family to WKRP in Cincinnati were taped in front of live studio audiences. In fact, I suspect that the majority of sitcoms were taped in front of live audiences. Of course, this does not mean that the laugh track ceased to be employed entirely. Even on All in the Family canned laughter was occasionally used in combination with the studio audience. In other cases various TV producers wanted to film their sitcoms without the benefit of either laugh tracks or live studio audiences. Larry Gelbart wanted to produce M*A*S*H without a laugh track, but met with resistance from CBS. Ultimately, they compromised by not having the laugh track used during the scenes in the operating room. By the sixth season of the show, the laugh track would cease to be used entirely on the show. On the DVDs of the series, there is an option on the first six seasons to simply turn the laugh track off.

Since then the use of the laugh track on TV shows has waned since its use in the Fifties and Sixties. In the Eighties the first season of Sledge Hammer featured a laugh track, but it was discontinued with the second season. On the DVD release of the series, the laugh track is absent even from the first season episodes. The Wonder Years and the various dramedies of the Eighties (Hooperman, Slap Maxwell, and so on) never would use laugh tracks. Today there are many American shows that do not use laugh tracks, most notably Scrubs, My Name is Earl, and the stateside version of The Office, among others. Even when shows do use laugh tracks these days, they are often more subdued than they were in the Fifties and Sixties.

Even though the laugh track has been a long established practice in the United States, I must admit that I have never cared for it. Quite frankly, I think it is a bit of an insult to the viewer's intelligence. First, I am perfectly aware that many classic sitcoms were not filmed in front of live studio audiences. For that reason it is not necessary to try to maintain any illusion that they were. Indeed, I know full well that neither The Flintstones nor The Jetsons were filmed in front of live audiences! Second, and more importantly, like most people I know what I think is funny. No amount of canned laughter is going to convince me that something I don't find funny is outright hilarious. And I find it annoying when I hear a joke on a sitcom that simply drops dead receives tons of uproarious, but canned laughter. Indeed, there are times when I have wondered if sound technicians on various shows even know when to properly use the laugh track. A case in point is the show Yes, Dear, possibly one of the least funny shows of all time. I honestly believe that on that show a character can say something as mundane as "I'm going to the store to get some milk" and receive tons of uproarious laughs via the laugh track...

Regardless of my misgivings about the laugh track, I am not sure it will ever cease to be used entirely on American television. True, its use has declined from what it was in the Sixties. True, there are many hit shows on these days that do not use laugh tracks. Unfortunately, there are still many shows that do use laugh tracks. And I'm guessing that as long as producers worry that they will have to remind viewers what is funny, they will continue to use laugh tracks.

Superman II the Richard Donner Cut

Warning: Here There Be Spoilers

With the advent of home video, there also developed a new phenomenon in which alternate versions of previously released movies would be released to video (and eventually theatres as well). Often times these alternate takes on films would simply be versions of the film released with additional footage. Other times, in the case of so called "director's cuts," they would be versions of the film that are more loyal to the director's vision than the final cut (even today, many directors do not have approval of the final cut, which usually falls to the studio). Superman II: the Richard Donner Cut falls in neither of these categories. Instead, although it shares the name of the Richard Lester movie released in 1980, it is almost an entirely new movie. Well over half of the footage in the movie has never been seen by audiences before.

As to how the "Donner Cut" of Superman II came about, that could take an entire book to explain in detail. To make a long story short, Superman and Superman II were being made simultaneously. Quite simply, Richard Donner was directing two movies at the same time. As the release date of Superman drew nearer, however, it was decided that Donner should concentrate on Superman and could return to Superman II after the first film was finished. Unfortunately for Donner, the tension which existed between him and the producers (Alexander and Ilya Salkind) would result in his removal from the movie. Richard Lester (most famous for The Beatles movies A Hard Days Night and Help!) was brought into replace him. Much of Superman II was then rewritten by screenwriters David & Leslie Newman, and reshot by Lester. While there remained scenes directed by Donner in the final theatrical release (nearly everything involving Lex Luthor, General Zod and his comrades' attack on the White House, and so on), the bulk of the theatrical release had been directed by Richard Lester.

For many years the footage that Richard Donner had shot was believed to be lost. When the first film, Superman was restored for its DVD release in 2001, however, several reels of footage shot by Donner for Superman II were discovered in the vaults. This would spark a campaign, largely conducted via the World Wide Web, demanding the release of the Donner version of the film. After overcoming various legal hurdles (getting the rights from Marlon Brando's estate to use the footage featuring him, negotiating with the Salkinds who owned the footage, and so on), work finally began restoring the closest thing to Richard Donner's version of Superman II that could be hoped for.

Because Richard Donner was never allowed to complete Superman II, the "Donner Cut" does use some of the footage shot by Richard Lester in order to preserve the movie's continuity. That having been said, around 80% of the "Donner Cut" is footage shot by Richard Donner. And while it has much in common with the Richard Lester version, it is also very different. Entire scenes which appear in the Lester version (such as those involving the Eiffel Tower in Paris) are absent in the Donner version. By the same token, entires scenes appear in the Donner version (such as Clark Kent's return to the Fortress of Solitude after he gave up his super powers) that do not appear in the Lester cut. Although it shares much in common with the Lester version, the Donner version is an almost completely different film.

Of course, I suppose that the question on the minds of many is, "Is it a better movie than the Lester version?" I don't know that this is a question that I, as both movie fan and a comic book fan, can answer. That having been said, there are things that I like much better about Donner's version of Superman II than Lester's version. I think the relationship between Clark and Lois is much better developed in this movie, much of this because they are allowed more intimate moments together. Indeed, the means through which Lois discovers Clark is Superman in the "Donner Cut" is more convincing than that in the "Lester Cut (in which Clark stumbles on a bearskin rug into a burning fireplace, unharmed)." Although just a screen test, it looks as good as a completed scene.

Another way in which the "Donner Cut" is superior to the "Lester Cut" is that the scenes with Brando have been restored, with the side effect of correcting what has always been regarded as one of the biggest plot holes in an otherwise good film. In the Lester version, there is no explanation as to how Clark Kent got his powers back. We simply see Clark, having struggled to return to the Fortress of Solitude, picking up a mysterious, glowing, green crystal there. With the Brando footage restored in the Donner version, not only does Clark pick up the green crystal, but the following scene between Clark and the hologram of his birth father Jor-El lets us know just how he became Superman again.

The "Donner Cut" also outshines the "Lester Cut" in the battle between Superman and the rogue Kryptonians in Metropolis. In Donner's version, the fight scene is much darker and more dynamic. Gone are Lester's little touches of humour in the battle, making it seem more like the life and death struggle it should be. In fact, my only caveat with Donner's version of the fight is when Superman crashes into the torch of the Statue of Liberty. While a very cool scene, since childhood I have known that the Statue of Liberty is in Gotham City, not Metropolis. For me, it would be like any other film placing the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in New York City rather than in Cleveland.

Of course, there are also ways in which I feel the Lester version is superior to the "Donner Cut." In the "Lester cut," when Superman arrives outside the Daily Planet building, he utters the classic line, "General, would you care to step outside?" In the Donner version, we get a much, much weaker line--Superman says to General Zod, "Don't you believe in freedom of the press?" Even worse is the ending of the "Donner Cut"--the ending originally intended for Superman II. Quite simply, Superman reverses time in order to undo all the wrong that has been done. When it was decided that the ending of Superman needed a more exciting ending, the trick of reversing time was then used in that film instead. I must say I didn't like the time reversal trick in Superman and I don't like it any better in Superman II. Quite simply, Superman being able to turn back time effectively robs any story involving him of any dramatic tension. After all, Superman can simply turn back time to solve any problems that may arise. People can say what they will about Lester's "magic," amnesia inducing kiss--in my humble opinion it is much preferable to something (namely, reversing time) which robs a story of all its dramatic integrity. Why couldn't Clark simply hypnotise Lois (he did it in the comic books as early as 1941).

As I said earlier, I think comparisons between the "Donner Cut" and the "Lester Cut" may be unfair. And, to be honest, I really cannot say myself which one is superior. That having been said, I do know that if one took the best elements from both and edited them together, it could well be the perfect movie. At any rate, the "Donner Cut" of Superman II is well worth seeing. Not only is it interesting to see a completely different version of a well known film released over twenty five years ago, but Donner's version of Superman II is a very good film in its own right.

Another Golden Age Comic Book Artist Dies

Last month saw the passing of Green Lantern creator Martin Nodell. Now another Golden Age comic book artist has passed on. Hardin "Jack" Burnley, who worked on both Superman and Batman as well as co-creating Starman with Gardner Fox, died on December 19 at the age of 95.

Burnley started his career as an artist with King Features Syndicate in 1929. He was the youngest artist ever to have his own syndicated feature. At the time most of his work involved drawing cartoons for the sports sections of newspapers. Among others, he provided work for journalist Damon Runyon. It was in 1940 that he first started working for National Comics (later to become DC Comics). He provided the cover for World’s Fair Comics #2, 1940, which was the first time that Superman and Batman were ever featured together in an illustration. He also illustrated chapters of some of the Justice Society of America's adventures in All Star Comics. Burnley was the first artist to illustrate both Superman and Batman besides their creators. For many years he also illustrated the Superman and Batman newspapers strips.

In comic book fandom, however, Jack Burnley is perhaps best known for having created Starman with writer Gardner Fox. Starman was Ted Knight, who invented a gravity rod which gave him a number of different abilities. He first appeared in Adventure Comics #61, April 1941. For a time he was also a member of the Justice Society of America. The character met with only a little success during the Golden Age ceasing to appear in print in 1944. When the Justice Society of America was revived in the Sixties, however, so was the original Starman. Over the years he would appear with the group several times. Eventually he would be a regular character in the Starman comic book of the Nineties, in which his son took over the mantle of Starman.

In 1947 Burnley left comic books to return to illustrating for newspapers. He worked for both the Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph and the San Francisco News. He retired in 1976.

Burnley was one of the best artists of the Golden Age. To a large degree he was responsible for Superman as we know him today. Having come from the field of sports illustration, Burnley was among the first comic book artists, if not the first, to actually pay attention to musculature in his illustrations. He gave both Superman and Batman more muscles than their original artists (Joe Schuster, who co-created Superman, and Bob Kane, who co-created Batman) had. His style would prove influential on future generations of comic book artists. Until the Silver Age most superheroes would be absolutely musclebound. As both the co-creator of Starman and one of the first artists to actually detail muscle structure in his illustrations, he certainly had an impact.

Sometimes I Really Hate New Year's Day

I really have to admit that, even as a child, I was not particularly fond of New Year's Day. In many respects, it seems to me to be a drab day with nothing to really make it special beyond being the first day of the year.

As a child much of the reason I disliked New Year's Day was that it was the last day of Christmas vacation, meaning that the next day would mean I would have to go back to school. Like many children, I did not particularly care for school and would have really preferred a few more days off. Of course, it also marked the end of the holidays. We would usually take down our tree and our lights on January 1 or January 2. Even then other people would take theirs down even earlier. After January 1 there would be no more Christmas trees, no more lights, no more holly and mistletoe--at least not until after Thanksgiving, which was literally months away. While I no longer go to school, I still dislike New Year's Day as the end of the holidays.

Of course, another problem I had with New Year's Day as a child was that overall it was a drab day. Growing up we only received four channels and it seemed as if nothing was on television for the entirety of the day. Oh, I would watch the Tournament of Roses Parade of a morning, although I must admit that even as a kid it was a tad dull. The afternoon was filled with college football, which really didn't interest me unless Mizzou was playing. At night there would be little more on television than reruns. Today I have cable, but there still doesn't seem to be very much on television. One would think that on the night of New Year's Day, the networks have some sort of special programming--some Hollywood blockbuster, at least. Unfortunately, they don't. The cable channels do have marathons today, but I must confess I have already seen the majority of episodes of Monk and Law and Order.

As an adult I must also confess that much of my dislike of New Year's Day also stems from the number of New Year's Days I have spent hungover. While I did not do so the past few years, there was a time like many when I would spend New Year's Eve drinking heavily. As a result I would often awaken the next day with a hangover that would take all day to recover from. I eventually concluded this was not the best way to open the New Year.

I must also admit that I dislike New Year's Day because it is the beginning of January. For me January is one of the blandest months of the year. Nothing much really goes on during all month. And while the month is sometimes marked by snow, which I must admit to enjoying provided we don't get too much, in Missouri it is more often marked by ice storms. Of course, with ice storms nearly everything comes to a halt, not to mention that there have been a few times we have been without power.

I have often thought that we here in the United States should develop some sort of special traditions for New Year's Day, some different way of celebrating it instead of watching parades and football games, and recovering from hangovers. As it is, I feel as if we end the holidays with a whimper rather than a bang. I think that the Scots may well have the right idea. December 31 marks Hogmanay, a celebration beginning the night of December 31 and lasting through the morning of January 1 or sometimes January 2, which is observed as a bank holiday in Scotland. Not only are the holidays ended with a bang, but people are even given a day to recover from the celebration!

At any rate, I'll probably spend the day doing a little of nothing. And tomorrow I'll take down our Yuletide celebrations. I must admit I won't be happy about it, but then there is always next year.

The 1992-1993 CBS Monday Night Schedule

In the history of television I can think of very few perfect nights when it comes to American network broadcasting, nights when every single show on a given night and on a particular network was good. In my opinion one of the few times this occurred was during the 1992-1993 season, when CBS had a perfect Monday night lineup.

In some respects it does not surprise me that CBS would have a perfect Monday night lineup that season. While they aired some bad shows on Monday night throughout the Eighties and early Nineties (does anyone out there remember My Sister Sam or Major Dad?), for the most part CBS had been on a roll when it came to that night for some time. Throughout the Eighties Monday night on CBS had been home to M*A*S*H, Newhart, and Designing Women. Indeed, the making of CBS's perfect Monday night lineup during the 1992-1993 season can be traced back to the 1988-1989 season, when Murphy Brown debuted. During the 1992-1993 season, Murphy Brown was the oldest TV show on CBS's Monday night lineup. It was also still very much in its prime.

CBS's Monday night lineup during the 1992-1993 season opened with Evening Shade. The series had debuted during the 1990 season on Friday night, but eventually moved to Monday night where it spent the rest of its run. On the surface Evening Shade had everything going for it. It was created by Linda Bloodworth-Thomason. who had also created Designing Women. Its cast featured several big names. Set in Evening Shade, Arkansas, it featured movie star Burt Reynolds as a former pro football player who had returned home to coach high school football. His wife was played by Taxi veteran Marilu Henner. The cast was filled out by movie stars Hal Holbrook, Ossie Davis (whose character narrated the series), and Charles Durning, as well as character actor Michael Jeter. Not only did the show have a great cast, but Evening Shade also boasted some of the best scripts of any sitcom on at the time. Quite frankly, it was one of the funniest shows of its time.

Unfortunately, despite its big name cast and stellar scripts, Evening Shade did not meet with a good deal of success. Its rating, although hardly bottom of the barrel, did not make it one of television's biggest hits. The series ended its run after only four years and has only been seen in reruns sporadically ever since. I find this sad, as it is a show that deserves to be seen by as many people as possible.

Following Evening Shade on Monday night during the 1992-1993 season was another creation of Linda Bloodworth-Thomason. The series featured John Ritter and Markie Post as a married couple who also happen to be a senator's aide and a political reporter respectively. The cast was rounded out by Billy Bob Thornton (before he became famous) and Ed Asner. The series was a combination of romantic comedy (the relationship between Ritter and Post's characters being central to its premise) and a satire on current, political affairs. Like Evening Shade, it featured some of the best writing on television at the time. Sadly, it was never a huge hit. The series lasted only three years before going off the air. It hasn't been seen very much in reruns since then, although it is now available on DVD.

As mentioned earlier, Murphy Brown was the oldest of the shows on CBS's 1992-1993 Monday night lineup. Created by Diane English and debuting in the fall of 1988, the series focused on the title character played by Candace Bergen. Murphy was an outspoken anchor and investigative reporter for the fictional news magazine FYI. Set in Washington D.C., the show was well known for taking potshots at both the American political scene and American television. In 1992 the series was both at the height of its success and the height of its notoriety. During the 1991-1992 season, Murphy, unmarried at the time, discovered that she was pregnant. During the 1992 [residential campaign, then vice president Dan Quayle attacked the series in a speech given that May as "...mocking the importance of fathers..." If Quayle's intention was to persuade Americans not to watch the series, he failed miserably. Even more viewers tuned into the series. I might also add, the series seemed to get even better after it had been singled out by the Vice President--it produced some of its funniest episodes during this season. At any rate, Murphy Brown ran another six years (for a total of ten years on the air) and went onto a healthy afterlife in reruns and on DVD.

Following Murphy Brown was a new sitcom, Love and War. Created by Diane English, the series focused on a restaurant owner (played by Susan Dey) who has an off again, on again relationship with a self centred sports writer (played by Jay Thomas). Arguably, its first season was also its worst season--I've always thought Susan Dey had all the charisma of a block of a wood. That having been said, Jay Thomas and the patrons of the restaurant (including the hilarious Joel Murray as Ray) were fantastic. The series improved greatly when Dey left and the talented Annie Potts joined the cast with the 1993-1994 season, but even in its first season it was a good show. Unfortunately, it only lasted three years.

CBS's Monday night during the 1992-1993 season was closed by Northern Exposure. The show debuted as a summer replacement series in July of 1990, garnering such a following that it made its way onto CBS's 1990-1991 fall schedule. It was one of the few summer replacement shows in the history of television to have actually been picked up for the fall. At any rate, it had a distinguished lineage. Its creators, Joshua Brand and John Falsey, had been producers on St. Elsewhere. The series centred around New York lawyer Joel Fleischman, who finds himself in the small town of Cicely, Alaska as a means to pay for his medical education. Fleischman is not only a fish out of water in this new environment (Cicely not only being a small town, but a very eccentric one at that), but finds himself romantically drawn to pilot Maggie O'Connell (played by Janine Turner), who is in many ways his polar opposite. While Fleischman would appear to be the central character on the show, Northern Exposure was largely an ensemble series, with one of the best ensembles on television. There was Ed (Darren E. Burrows), the young, aspiring Native American filmmaker, Marilyn (Elaine Miles), Fleischman's unusually quiet receptionist, Chris Stevens (John Corbett), the philosophical radio personality and ex-con, Holling Vincouer (John Collum), the owner of the local eatery (The Brick), and too many others to name. Northern Exposure was essentially an intellectual show with elements of both comedy and drama. It often explored existential themes and even employed fantasy and dream sequences, and there were even episodes which flashed back to Cicely's past. Its influences ranged from psychologist Carl Jung to Native American culture to mythologist Joseph Campbell to the TV series Twin Peaks to the works of Kafka and Dostoevsky. Not only did the show receive fairly good ratings for much of its run, but it also received many awards, including Emmys and Golden Globes. The show ran for five years before going onto a successful afterlife in rerun and on DVD.

Sadly, this lineup would not last. With the 1993-1994 season, the inferior Dave's World would take the place of Hearts Afire on Monday night. By the 1994-1995 season Evening Shade would be off the air. Indeed, while I obviously consider all of these shows good, it is worth noting that only Murphy Brown had a long run. Northern Exposure had the second longest run, at around five and a half seasons. Sadly, the rest ran at most three to four years. Worse yet, only Murphy Brown and Northern Exposure would see any success in syndication. The rest simply disappeared from the television landscape. Unfortunately, the quality of a show does not always guarantee its longevity. And at least three out of the five series are on DVD: Hearts Afire, Murphy Brown, and Northern Exposure. Perhaps eventually Love and War and Evening Shade will find their way on DVD as well.

Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (the Movie, NOT the Album)

Tonight, in the interest of history, my best friend and I finally broke down and watched Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. Both of us being die hard Beatles fans, we had actively boycotted the movie ever since it debuted in 1978. Of course, as pop culture historians, we both realised that sooner or later we would have watch to the film.

For those of you who have, fortunately, never heard of the film, Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band stars Peter Frampton and The Bee Gees as the band of the title. On paper I suppose the project sounded like a good idea. Both Frampton and The Bee Gees were at the height of their careers, and the music of The Beatles was, as always, hugely popular. That having been said, it soon became apparent that what seemed like a good idea on paper was not so good an idea in reality. Indeed, producer Robert Stigwood fired the original director, Chris Bearde (a comedy writer best known for his work on The Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour and hired Michael Schulz (best known for Car Wash). Even The Bee Gees begged to be released from the project, to no avail.

None of this boded well for the film. When it was released in 1978, it was to universally bad reviews and an indifferent audience. Despite the continued popularity of The Bee Gees and Peter Frampton, it bombed at the box office. And there is no wonder it failed. Quite frankly, even though I had heard the movie was bad over the years and even expected it to be so, nothing prepared me for this. It is much worse than I ever expected. Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band has only a shoestring of a plot, which is at times incomprehensible as well as nearly nonexistent. Worse yet, the characters speak no dialogue...the plot is largely conveyed through the narration of George Burns as Mr. Kite. Of course, this is probably just as well. While Frampton and The Bee Gees speak no dialouge, it is still readily apparent that they lack acting talent. Frampton is incapable of even so much as convincingly looking soulful and The Bee Gees are wooden.

Of course, all of this would be forgivable if the music was actually good. One would think that with the great George Martin, The Beatles' producer, who arranged the songs, that the music would at least be acceptable. Sadly, it is not. The Beatles songs as performed by The Bee Gees and Peter Frampton effectively have the life sucked out of them to the point that they are bubblegum rather than rock 'n' roll. Indeed, they turn "Nowhere Man," one of The Beatles very best songs in my opinion, into an adult contemporary tune! And while The Bee Gees are perhaps best known for their vocal ability, it seems to me that this movie makes it readily apparent that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were actually the better singers. The Bee Gees' vocals are a far cry from the originals. While The Bee Gees and Peter Frampton hardly do The Beatles' songs justice, at least they are not nearly as bad as some of the other performers. "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" is turned into a disco song (who would have even thought it possible...) by a group called Stargard, who were unknown at the time and have remained so ever since. "You Never Give Me Your Money" is also ruined by Diane Steinberg of Stargard and a total unknown, Paul Nicholas, whose film career never quite got off the ground before or after this film. "When I'm 64" is turned into a novelty number with British comedian Frankie Howard (who plays the villainous Mr. Mustard) singing the vocals--the only problem is that it isn't so much funny as painful. One would have hoped that the music in this movie would have been its saving grace. Unfortunately, it is not. In fact, it could be the worst thing about the whole film.

That is not to say that the movie doesn't have its good points. The movie's highpoint is Aerosmith's classic rendition of "Come Together." Ironically, not only does Aerosmith give the movie's best performance (they bring out the sleaze in "Come Together" in a way that Lennon never did), but they also put the viewer in the dubious position of rooting for the bad guys! Another highpoint is Steve Martin's performance of "Maxwell's Silver Hammer," a rather bizarre Busby Berkley sequence in the evil Dr. Edison's clinic and one of the few funny moments in the film. Earth, Wind, and Fire's version of "Got to Get You into My Life" is also great--they bring out the soul in a song that is basically soul to begin with. Finally, Billy Preston--the only one of the musical performers to actually work with The Beatles--delivers a show stopping version of "Get Back." Individually, the sequences featuring Aerosmith, Steve Martin, Earth, Wind, and Fire, and Billy Preston are great. Sadly, they do not make up for a movie that is abysmal at best.

Needless to say, unless you want to do so out of historical interest, I cannot recommend watching this movie, even if some of the performances are worthwhile. If you do chose to watch Robert Stigwood's Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, be prepared to find yourself rolling your eyes and groaning a good deal, not to mention heckling some of the worst parts of the film. Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band has made some lists of the worst movies of all time, and I can honestly say that dubious honour is entirely warranted.

The Sixties

With the New Year only a few days away it seems natural to engage in a bit of nostalgia. Today I find myself thinking back to the decade of the Sixties. My memories of the Sixties are very fuzzy. After all, I was born in 1963, making me only six years old when the decade ended. Much of what I know about the Sixties then stems from books I've read, TV shows I've seen, and so on. Still, I can't help but think that pop culture reached its pinnacle in that decade.

Indeed, it seems to me as if nearly medium that existed at the time was going through some sort of Golden Age or Silver Age. It was a time of fresh, original ideas, and a time of unbridled energy. Much of this seems odd to me in a way, as the Sixties was also a very tumultuous decade. It was not simply an era of long hair and love beads. By the middle of the decade the Vietnam War was well underway, as were the growing protests against it. Riots were not unheard of in the Sixties. Some were associated with race, such as those in the Watts neighbourhood of Los Angeles and on 12th Street in Detroit. Others were associated with the politics of the day, such as the one at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. I can easily understand why some might view the Sixties as a dark period in American history.

Despite this, I have to disagree that it was a dark period. As I said earlier, it seems to me as if almost every medium was going through some sort of Golden Age or Silver Age. And while the headlines in the Sixties could sometimes be bleak, it seems to me that there was a good deal of optimism in the air. The space programme was well underway and man reached the moon in 1969. And behind the various protests, there seems to me to have been the idea that one could ultimately change the world for the better. I think much of this optimism in the face of what were sometimes rough times was ultimately responsible for the high quality seen in the various media in the Sixties.

Indeed, I honestly think the heyday of American television may well have been the Sixties. There are many who identify the Golden Age of television as roughly being in the Fifties. Given the high quality of many of the dramatic anthologies (such as Playhouse 90 and Studio One), it is hard for me to argue with that. That having been said, however, I think the Golden Age of series television may well have been the Sixties. It seems to me that the decade produced more classic TV shows with continuing characters than any other. I must admit that if I were to make a list of the greatest sitcoms of all time, most of those shows on the list would have either debuted or aired during the Sixties: The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Andy Griffith Show, The Beverly Hillbillies, Bewitched, Gilligan's Island, Get Smart, The Monkees, The Addams Family, and Batman. Of course, the Sixties was also the heyday of sci-fi, horror, fantasy, and action-adventure oriented programming. It was the era of Thriller, The Man From U.N.C.L.E., The Wild Wild West, and Star Trek. Indeed, some of the best comedies (including some of those listed above) were also fantasies. The Sixties was also a time when the American networks would actually air some of the best British shows of all time, including The Avengers, Danger Man (once under its original title, later under the title Secret Agent, The Saint, and The Prisoner. And while most people think of spies and beautiful, blonde genies when they think of the Sixties, it did produce some quality dramas. The Defenders, Route 66, The Fugitive, and Bonanza all aired during the decade.

Indeed, I have to say that quite frankly I think even the commercials were better in the Sixties. This was the era when a shining knight would "zap" clothes clean in ads for Ajax laundry detergent. It was also the time when ads for Hai Karate asserted that the cologne made men so irresistible to women that they'd have to fight them off. It was also an era of animated ad spokesmen, from Tony the Tiger to Cap'n Crunch. I don't think commercials have been nearly so good ever since.

While I suppose some might disagree with my assessment of the Sixties as the Golden Age of Series Television, it is agreed by most fans that it was the Silver Age of Comic Books. This was the era during which DC Comics revived some of their biggest names in new forms. The Flash, Green Lantern, Hawkman, and The Atom were all revived during this time. For better or worse, the TV show Batman (a classic in its own right, but hardly representative of the original Caped Crusader) fueled new interest in the Dark Knight. And while DC Comics was creating new characters based on Golden Age ones, Marvel Comics was introducing entirely new characters and a new approach to comic books. The Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, The Hulk, Daredevil, and most of Marvel's classic line-up were introduced in the Sixties. What set Marvel Comics' characters apart from any superheroes that went before them is that they actually had personal problems. Indeed, some could be considered downright neurotic. And it must be kept in mind that DC and Marvel were not the only comic book companies who saw a resurgence in the Sixties. Charlton, Archie, and Dell all tried their hands at superheroes, sometimes even with a small degree of success.

While comic books were going through their Silver Age, I would also say that pop music was as well. Of course, much of this was due to the British. In 1964, The Beatles arrived on American shores and changed American music forever. In their wake followed several classic bands, such The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, The Hollies, and many others. For a time, the British literally dominated the American pop charts. This is not to say that American music was not good in the Sixties; actually, it was better than it ever was before or since. This was the heyday of Motown, with such artists as Smokey Robinson, The Supremes, The Temptations, and Stevie Wonder. And great American music did not end with Motown in the Sixties. This decade was when the late, great James Brown was at the height of his success. The decade also marked the first stirrings of power pop, in the forms of such bands as Paul Revere and the Raiders and The Monkees. Throughout the decade, rock music would get harder and harder until the subgenre later called "heavy metal" was developed. Such artists as Jimi Hendrix, Iron Butterfly, The Move, and others were fundamental in the development of the subgenre.

The Sixites also saw the publication of several books now considered classics. This was the period when To Kill a Mockingbird, Catch-22, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest were all published during the decade. And while it was published earlier, it was in the Sixties that The Lord of the Rings first attracted widespread attention. It was also a good time for children's books. Such classics as A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle, Island of the Blue Dolphins by Scott O'Dell, and The High King by Lloyd Alexander were all published in the Sixties.

I must also that the Sixties was a good decade for fashion. Okay, the bouffant hairstyle was definite hair don't, but by mid decade fashions were the best that they would be for fifty years. It was the era of the Mod look, with button-down shirts, wide lapels, kipper ties, turtlenecks, and flared pants all the rage for a time. And, of course, the decade also brought us the mini-skirt (the greatest fashion development in the 20th Century, in my humble opinion). The Sixties was the heyday of such designers as Mary Quant and Ben Sherman, when for a brief time Kings Road and Carnaby Street were the centre of the fashion world. Of course, later in the decade fashion would go downhill again, with such hippie fashions as love beads and sandals taking over, but for a time I think fashion was at its best in the Sixties.

The one medium I honestly think was not experiencing a heyday was the movie industry. Indeed, it seems to me that at that point the major studios were stuck in a rut. I honestly think they were out of touch with their audience and, as a result, were content to try to make movies similar to previous successes. The success of the classics Mary Poppins and My Fair Lady, and of the not so classic Sound of Music (I love the songs, but hate the movie) would lead Hollywood to try a number of big budget musicals that would bomb at the box office (Dr. Doolittle comes to mind....). That is not to say that the Sixties did not produce its share of classic films. This was the Golden Age of the action movie in my mind, with such classics as The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape, The Dirty Dozen, and Planet of the Apes being released during the decade. It was also a good time for comedies, particularly spoofs. This was the era of Dr. Strangelove, A Hard Days Night, The President's Analyst, Cat Ballou, and many others. The Sixties was also a time when filmmakers pushed the envelope as to what was permissible in films, to the point that the Motion Picture Association of America finally replaced their Production Code with a ratings system. It was during this period that the movies Bonnie and Clyde and The Dirty Dozen upped the ante on screen violence, that the movies Ulysses and I'll Never Forget What's His Name let slip "the big one, the queen-mother of dirty words (as it is called in A Christmas Story)," and films from The Graduate to the Bond movies were a bit more frank about sex than movies made in earlier eras were. Of course, whether all of this is a good thing or a bad thing I guess depends on one's point of view.

Quite simply, it seems to that almost every medium that existed at the time was hitting on all six cylinders in the Sixties. To me, this is when television and music were at their very best, and comic books and books were nearly so. I can't think of any other decade that was quite so productive when it came to creating high quality pop culture artefacts. Sadly, it was not to the last. As the Sixties wound down, the British Invasion came to an end, Motown started producing fewer hits, television started airing more mundane fare, and the comic book industry stopped churning out new superheroes. Eventually, the Sixties would give way to the Seventies, when it seems to me that television, music, and especially fashion were at low ebb. I guess it really is true...all good things must come to an end.