Neil Simon plays - autobiographical or not?

Come Blow Your Horn (1961)* - yes, based on his brother and parents
Little Me (1962) - no, musical
Barefoot in the Park (1963)* - yes, based on his first marriage
The Odd Couple (1965)* - kind of, based on his brother and mate
Sweet Charity (1966) - no, musical adaptation
The Star-Spangled Girl (1966) - no, Simon regretted not doing concept justice
Plaza Suite (1968) - no, just funny
Promises, Promises (1968) - no, musical adaptation
Last of the Red Hot Lovers (1969) - no, just funny
The Gingerbread Lady (1970) - no, based on people he roughly knew
The Prisoner of Second Avenue (1971) - no
The Sunshine Boys (1972) - no, based on old vaudevillians
The Good Doctor (1973) - no, Chekov
God’s Favorite (1974) - no, Job (bad play)
California Suite (1976) - no, just funny
Chapter Two (1977)* - yes, based on his second marriage
They’re Playing Our Song (1979) - no, musical
I Ought to Be in Pictures (1980) - no
Fools (1981) - no, old Russian
Brighton Beach Memoirs (1983)* - yes, expressly so
Biloxi Blues (1985)* - yes, time in army
Broadway Bound (1986)* - yes, starting career
Rumors (1988) - no, farce
Lost in Yonkers (1991)* - yes based on childhood
Jake’s Women (1992)* - yes based on ex wives
The Goodbye Girl (1993) - no, musical
Laughter on the 23rd Floor (1993)* - yes based on TV career
London Suite (1995) - no just funny
Proposals (1997) - no
The Dinner Party (2000) - no
45 Seconds from Broadway (2001) - no
Rose’s Dilemma (2003) - no

So it’s actually a smaller proportion than I thought - ten if you include Odd Couple. I think bc the blockbusters and critical hits are autobiographical they overshadow other work.

Book review - "Son of Any Wednesday" by Muriel Resnick

William Goldman alluded to this book in The Season though he didn't name names - he quoted the comment about all English directors being called Peter and the quote that the author had never read an Ibsen play. It was a little mean.

This is an entertaining book. I had a lot of fun reading it. Resnick decided to write a play after the failure of her last novel, feeling that it at least would get reviewed. She joins the Group Theatre writers workshop of Molly Kazan, writes something that she is told will be sellable (part for a star, one set, small cast)... pitches it to Greer Garson who turns it down, but it gets optioned quite quickly, money is raised quite quickly.

But then the troubles start. There's never enough money so more producers have to be brought in. They have troubles getting directors then when they geet them have trouble keeping them. George Morrison for instance keeps wanting changes and things added, and slows the play down. They keep getting people as they go before eventually getting Henry Kaplan.

They get a cast, after a lot of rejection but have trouble holding on to it. Sandy Dennis doesn't want Gene Hackman because he's not hot enough so they get Dick York who quits so they get Gene Hackman who does so well that Michael Rennie, the big star attached, gets jealous and quits so they bring in Don Porter.

There are nice reviews but a bad one from Eliot Norton makes everyone panic. They have trouble getting a theatre. Trouble with balloons the author wrote in. Mike Nichols pops in periodically and assures her it's fine but people still panic. Opening night goes terrifically well, the piee runs and runs and sells for a huge amount to the movies.

Triumph. Although exhausted.

Resnick lists the short runs of the next shows her cast and crew did which is a little mean, as it the appendix of all the people who turned down the play, but I guess she's entitled to.

This is like a season arc of Mrs Maisel where she wrote a play. She gets married to some dude during it too. I really enjoyed it.

Book review - "Ernest Lehman: The Sweet Smell of Success" by John Krampner

 Excellent book. Looks at the short stories, novels, different drafts of scripts. Compares how he improved apparently easy jobs eg West Side Story, Sound of Music. Retrieves Lehman's contribution to Virginia Woolf from the cult of Mike Nichols and to West Side Story from the cult of Arthur Laurents and Steven Sondheim.

Affectionate towards Lehman to a degree but also exasperated. Hypochondriac, night owl, distant father, workaholic, loving husband but not around, tolerant of wife's long affair, devoted carer towards end, became a dad in his eighties, super talented, decent supervisory producer but bad hands on one, terrible director. Skill as novelist left him in 70s apparently, though could still write good essays. Probably retired at right time, I can imagine him getting kicked off Mission Impossible. Fitted in well at classy studios like MGM and Paramount and Fox. Mate of David Brown's. Should have written another original. Should have teamed more with Robert Wise, they collaborated so well together.

Really good work.

Neil Simon Top Ten

 1. The Odd Couple

2. Plaza Suite

3. Barefoot in the Park

4.Biloxi Blues (script)

5. Chapter Two

6. California Suite

7. Lost in Yonkers

8. The Heartbreak Kid (script)

9. Promises, Promises

10. They're Playing Our Song

Movie review - "Carnal Knowledge" (1971) ****1/2

 I liked this when young but it means more to revisit in later years once you've you had more experience in relationships. So much was all too familiar, either personal or observed - young men chatting about what they can "get" out of women, passing various obstacles to get what they want, putting women on pedestals or treating them purely as sex objects, the hatred Jack Nicholson's character has for women, the rationalised abuse, in a way.

Some of this was electrically good - the fight between Nicholson and Ann Margret, the dialogues between Nicholson and Art Garfunkle.

The film is a triumph of casting, acting and directing (not that the other bits aren't good too). Jack Nicholson became a great but remember he was relatively new to stardom. Art Garfunkle, who is excellent as the passive, timid Sandy, was known as a singer (and remains mostly known as a singer). Candice Bergen and Ann Margret were both regarded as jokes; both are superb particularly Ann Margret in the more spectacular part, yelling, flashing her breasts, committing suicide and so on. Bergen's part is more tricky because you keep wondering why's she with Garfunkle and Nicholson. The Cynthia O'Neal part is maybe a little sketchy - she's with Garfunkle but wouldn't mind a shag with Nicholson and is mean about Ann Margret.

Mike Nichols' direction is perfect - clinical and full of insight. The original script is here. You can tell it was envisioned as a play - it's mostly two handers -  but it has been rendered cinematically.

At times watching this I wondered how influential it had been for Woody Allen films. Allen always goes on about Bob Hope, Bergman and Fellini, but this felt like later Woody Allen - Husbands and Wives but also things like Annie Hall; even the music score with tracks like Mood Indigo was familiar.

Book review - "Mike Nichols: A Life" by Mark Harris

 Fabulous book. Definitive. Nichols was a major player - this book captures it. The background, the upbringing, the college years (he could be mean - not surprised), comedy with Elaine May, straight acting, adventures as a director, early films, incredible success, great disappointment, exotic love life, terrible fathering (at first... he got better), finding his groove as a film director again, compulsive spending, addictions to drugs at a late age.

I was familiar with a lot of the hits - The Graduate, Virginia Woolf - but it was great to read about the disappointments - Day of the Dolphin, The Fortune, Fools. The theatre stuff is gripping. People seem to have really loved him. But he couldn't do everything as those who've seen The Fortune can attest.

A magnificent book.

Movie review - "The Fortune" (1975) **

 Famous flop which on paper sounded as sure fire as anything in the mid 70s- Beatty, Nichols, Nicholson, the writer of Five Easy Pieces... with an exciting new star Stockard Channing. Where some bumbling con men kidnap an heiress in the 1920s. Sounds fun.

But it's not. They don't kidnap her, not really, she goes willingly because she's in love with Beatty and has to marry Jack Nicholson and Nicholson wants to bang her. The action is stretched over a long period - it seems like ages - when farces work better over a compressed period of time.

I was never sure what the goals of the characters were. To have sex? Make money? Why not just re-do Ransom of the Red Chief (like Ruthless People did). I couldn't tell the character differential between Beatty and Nicholson.

They don't use Channing's father and under-use Beatty's wife. Doing farce and comedy is hard - Carole Eastman doesn't do it (I know her script was rewritten). Mike Nichols' careful, classic direction lacks pace.

It's a really boring movie. It's not even attractive - most of it is shot in this dusty, deserty area.

Play review - "Prisoner of Second Avenue" by Neil Simon (1971) (audio play)

 Different Simon work - it's really an extended rant by a man having a nervous breakdown, which is very well done. The wife character doesn't do much other than pop up feeder lines.

This is part of that sub genre of stories around this time about boomer parents who lost theirjobs after twenty years of boom conditions - The Great American Tragedy a George Kennedy TV movie was about the same topic.

The "plot" is about the man's family (siblings) discussing how to help him - they offer him some money and eventually he says no.

Maybe we should have seen the never-seen daughters who are in college. Maybe the guy should have gone back to work earlier - he has a touchy pride, whines about the wife going back to work, etc. It does limit sympathy. But some of it remains powerful.

Richard Dreyfuss starred in this version - I kept thinking the voice of his brother was super familiar; it's Dreyfus' real life brother.

Play review - "Plaza Suite" by Neil Simon (1967)

 A wonderful play - collection of plays, rather. The first one contains some of Simon's best writing, a look at a couple celebrating their wedding anniversary and the wife realises the husband is having an affair. I actually think Simon could've spun this out into a full length piece - act two she goes on a date, act three they reunite at a child's wedding. But what's left is terrific - it captures the ebb and flow of a 20-something marriage, a woman who forgets stuff but is still razor sharp. It's very well done.

Part two isn't as regarded but it still quite funny/touching - a producer has romanticised his past and tries to seduce his star struck ex. I love the pop culture of the time - references to Mia and Frank, Yvette Mimieux, Dean Jones, Troy Donahue. The central situation of this was actually strong enough for a longer piece too.

Part three is a comic gem - daughter locked herself in room on wedding day. Ed Asner is the dad (I listened to a radio version) - he doesn't have the strength that George C Scott would have. A lot of Simon I think benefits from casting a guy who would make a believable killer - Scott, Robert Redford - not a nebbish character. But great.

Play review - "The Odd Couple" by Neil Simon (audio play)

 Simon's classic - though as he admitted while the first two acts are seemless, the third act is wonky (he fixed it enough on the road to work but it's not as good as the first two - I'm not sure what else he could have done. Had a custody dispute between the two over something? Brought in Felix's wife?)

The central situation is so strong, so universal, as are the two archetypal leads, it has overshadowed the excellent support fact - the Greek chorus poker game and most of all the Pigeon sisters, who are brilliant. It's a delight of easy construction, character drive jokes, excellent recall and pay off.

Nathan Lane was Oscar in this one, Dave Paynter was Felix. I think Lane would be better as Felix.

Play review - "Barefoot in the Park" by Neil Simon

 Listened to an audio recording - Laura Linney is perfect as the female lead, you'd think Eric Stoltz would be ideal as the male but he isn't... lacks a certain strength and definite-ness that Robert Redford brought to the part.

A lot of this has dated - jokes about hitting little old ladies, the woman staying home - but it has a genuine love for its female lead that is very endearing, and the jokes come along so consistently, and some of them are still very effective because they are character based. The conflict is obvious but effective (she's spontaneous, he's conservative), the sub plots work well (mother, crazy neighbour), its understanding of stage craft is solid.

Book review - "Life Isn't Everything: Mike Nichols, as Remembered by 150 of His Closest Friends" – by Ash Carter and Sam Kashner (2019)

Mike Nichols was one of the giants of late 20th century entertainment - he deserved a bio but this, while there's lots of good stuff about it, isn't it. I think so much of what Nichols did needs to be placed in context - which is kind of there but there's not enough.

Nichols was a refugee from Germany, dad was a doctor but died young, Mike had a skin condition that meant he lost all his hair. His rise was fairy rapid - at university he met Elaine May and discovered impro. He and May became stage stars, Broadway stars then he turned into a giant director of theatre and film.

There were dark periods - a difficult childhood, a lack of faith in his abilities as a film director in the 70s, an addiction to medication that contributed to depression and a mental breakdown - and less flattering aspects such as a lust for money and compulsive womanising. But the picture is overwhelmingly positive - intelligent, charming, a firm decision maker, a long legacy of great work.

The book is long, at times fascinating, at other times a slog. There's too many comments from actors, who tend to gush at the best of times - I mean, they're smart actors but still actors, we don't hear as much from say editors, DOPs or executives

There are big gaps on the personal front - his three kids barely get a look in, neither do his first three wives (outside of reference to his womanising), but we do get pages and pages on Diane Sawyer. There are pages on the influence of Nichols and May - I think like a lot of comedy you just had to be there - plus The Graduate, Annie, Spamalot - but notable gaps: nothing on Luv, Plaza Suite, Fools, The Apple Tree, Streamers, Comedians, Family and disappointingly little on films like Wolf, Regarding Henry, What Planet are you from? 

At first I was understanding of these omissions but I gradually became annoyed especially as so many pages were devoted to other stuff.

Book review - "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" by Eric Idle

My friends and I were Monty Python fanatics growing up - Eric Idle was always among everyone's top three of the group, along with Michael Palin and John Cleese (everyone recognised Terry Gilliam's directing skill and Graham Chapman's ability as a leading man but they weren't favourites and no one really was into Terry Jones). Idle was instantly likeable with his cockney (?) voice ("say no more, nudge nudge") and instantly funny face - he was a real strength in a group with few weaknesses. His specialty was song writing and he came up with classics notably "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life".

Python was something of a pop group - complete with adoring fans, break ups, constant pressures to reunite - and Idle was the most pop star like of them: paying his guitar, having numerous famous friends (notably George Harrison and Lorne Michaels but also Robin Williams, Steve Martin, Billy Connolly, Mike Nichols), jetting around the world on various exotic trips (down the Nile on John Cleese's yacht with Peter Cook, Stephen Fry and William Goldman among others, attending the Tour de France with Williams and Michael J Fox), swapping Python quotes with Elvis Presley. It's fun to be a celebrity.

Idle's life began with great tragedy - his RAF father was killed hitchiking in an accident on leave, sending his mother to a nervous breakdown; she shunted Idle off to a boarding school for RAF orphans which he hated (I can imagine what it was like) but he was smart, and got a scholarship to Cambridge. He fell in love with writing and performing and in what seems alarming rapidity started writing for TV shows for David Frost and the like, eventually being part of Monty Python. Idle was something of a lone hand in the group - Graham Chapman and John Cleese were one writing team, Terry Jones and Michael Palin the other - but he still fitted in brilliantly and became one of their most recogniseable faces, helped by the singing.

It was Idle who went "American" biggest and most of all, who seemed the least temperamental, who was most keen to get the band back together - Cleese and Jones were more temperamental, Chapman's life was more chaotic, Palin more seemingly focused on England while Gilliam was focused on movies. Idle moved to the US first of all and seems to have the most US credits (though Cleese may match him by now) - mostly small/supporting roles, though he had the lead in The Rutles which has become a major cult, starred in Nuns on the Run, and made a studio comedy, Splitting Heirs, and had a role in Suddenly Susan he doesn't write about here. He regained a bit of status with the huge success of Spamalot - I'm surprised he wasn't used for more musicals because his songs are very catchy. No doubt he tried. For the last twenty years his main gig seems to have been touring and performing.

This is a highly entertaining book packed full of fun stories - hanging out with Harrison and the light  that makes it seem to be fun to be famous. Idle quotes a lot from his speeches rather than his sketches and songs - speeches about John Cleese and so on. There's probably too much about concerts and different productions of Spamalot - they were successful, we get it. I would have liked to have read more about the less successful ventures like Splitting Heirs. Still a great romp.

Random thoughts on Neil Simon

He died this week - a ripe old age. I don't know what his last years were like but I hope they were okay ish. He seemed to find happiness with his last marriage.

Simon was once a very big deal in my life - I would read and re-read his plays and try to ape his style. He had the basics so down - simple stories, strong emotion, solid structure, laughs and heart. He was a great gag man but knew his work needed more than that.

Simon was once a massive deal in the theatre world - from the 60s to the 90s, really, Neil Simon plays were events. He would stumble to be be sure but always bounce back.

Some random thoughts on his theatre works:

* Come Blow Your Horn (1961) - solid first play, decent laughs, based on the Simon family notably Neil and his brother but also his parents. Not a classic, but good.
* Little Me (1963) - musical which Simon would criticise but which seems to be revived a lot. I've read it - it's okay. Maybe needs tunes.
* Barefoot in the Park (1963) - funny, warm play which hasn't dated particularly well, in part because it was so imitated - it is about a manic pixie dream girl. But written with a lot of love and skill. The film adaptation is very well acted and awfully directed.
* The Odd Couple (1965) - a deserved classic, brilliantly funny, subtle structure, a great idea masterfully executed. Like Barefoot the film is divinely acted and not very well directed.
* Sweet Charity (1966) - Bob Fosse was the real star of this, but Simon's adaptation is solid.
* The Star Spangled Girl (1967) - not a bad idea, two liberals fight over a conservative manic pixie dream girl, but Simon doesn't get the girl - its his first play not really based on a world he knows, or a girl he knows, and you can tell.
* Plaza Suite (1968) - another Simon classic, the first and last eps especially. The middle bit is fine but the first and last are brilliant. A segmentthat was cut resulted in a film The Out of Towners that is stressful to watch.
* Promises Promises (1968) - first rate musicalisation of The Apartment and I can't believe it wasn't filmed.
* Last of the Red Hot Lovers (1969) - this was okay. A bit repetitive.
* The Gingerbread Man (1970) - interesting tough ish play. I saw it live - it has lost a lot of its freshness.
* The Prisoner of Second Avenue (1971) - angry white middle class rage, quite well done.
* The Sunshine Boys (1972) - lots of fun and one of Simon's best star vehicle
* The Good Doctor (1973) - Simon does Chekov. Not bad. Some people love this but I found it a bit cold.
* God's Favorite (1974) - I didn't like this one. Repetitive and not terribly interesting.
* California Suite (1976) - a marvellous return to form. The slapstick play isn't that great but the othe three are superb.
* Chapter Two (1977) - Simon's most autobiographical effort since Barefoot I guess, a very moving and funny account of widowhood.
 * They're Playing Our Song (1978) - skilful funny book which is probably Simon's most original musical. I wish it had been filmed.
* I Ought to Be in Pictures (1980) - not bad, but feels like ingredients he's used before.
* Fools (1981) - terrible play about Russians. Simon's worst.
* Brighton Beach Memoirs (1982) - Simon returns to autobiography and it works a treat, a very fine play which was badly filmed.
* Biloxi Blues (1984) - another fine memoir play that was turned into an even better film.
* Broadway Bound (1986)- a decent play, the least good of the trilogy in part because he'd already mined this material for Come Blow Your Horn but some good moments.
* Rumors (1988) - Simon attempt at a farce. Not bad.
* Lost in Yonkers (1990) - a return to material of his other plays (dodgy family, etc) but very well done.
* Jake's Women (1992) - Simon with some familiar themes (widowhood etc) but well done
* The Goodbye Girl (1993) - I remember being less impressed by the film when I rewatched it. Have never seen the musical.
* Laughter on the 23rd Floor (1993) - disappointing play which I wanted to be better because of its source material but lacks story and real insight into Simon's collaborators.
* London Suite (1996) - a dud, no really strong plays not even the sequel to the California Suite classic.
* Proposals (1997) - haven't read this and have no desire to it doesn't sound very good.
* The Dinner Party (1999) - another play I haven't read. I think I should though!
* 45 Seconds from Broadway (2001) - not a very good play, I have read this one, it is very creaky.
* Rose's Dilemma (2003) - I saw this on Broadway. It wasn't very good - dealt with widowhood etc. Had some funny lines but I think from the 1990s Simon ran out of gas.

Honourable mentions for his original film scripts:
* The Heartbreak Kid (1972) - genius writing
* Murder by Death (1976) - lots of fun
* The Goodbye Girl (1977) - feels like a play. Not bad. I remember finding it brilliant the first time and annoying the second.
* The Cheap Detective (1978) - haven't seen it
* Seems Like Old Times (1980) - quite fun
* Max Dugan Returns (1983) - not very good not enough story for a film
* The Lonely Guy (1984) - very sweet I remember this fondly
* The Slugger's Wife (1985) - never seen it and it sounds awful
* The Marrying Man (1991) - I should try to see this from all accounts its a train wreck but a fascinating one
* The Odd Couple 2 (1998) - no desire to see this.

So his great days were really the 60s and late 70s and 80s... for me and any rate.

Wonderful entertainer. Brilliant writer.

Script review - "Catch 22" by Buck Henry

I remember loving the novel for its pace and wit and disliking the film for being unfunny and so long, confusing and lumbered. David Shipman wrote that Buck Henry did a good job knocking the script into shape but was let down by Mike Nichols' direction. Reading this, for me the flaw it in the script.

This takes forever, over 200 pages, isn't very engaging or funny. The female characters are all sex objects, it was hard for me to tell characters apart on the page. It perked up in the last third when people started dying.

Book review - "The Season: A Candid Look at Broadway" by William Goldman (1968)

Had another read of this fabulous work and enjoyed it as much as ever - gossipy, opinionated, smart, funny it has aged very well. Occasionally it feels a little mean, with cracks about actresses weight and the section on Mike Nichols, but consistently comes up with good, original ideas and fresh takes on the theatre.

Movie reviw - "The Birdcage" (1996) **1/2

There are a plenty of really funny lines in this film - "the money's on the counter, chocolate", "that's why I'm packing light", "I made you short?" - and excellent performances from all the cast. The Miami setting works a treat, it's full of colour and the concept of Nathan Lane as Barbara Bush is wonderful.

But it has a central flaw which brings the whole thing down - it's so horrible for son Dan Futterman to want his father to go through with the deception, that we never care for him or his bride, and the whole thing doesn't have stakes. Because it was the 90s everyone acknowledges that it's a horrible thing he's asked them to do, but this doesn't fix the problem, it just draws more attention to it, and slows the action down because everyone keeps changing their mind about whether to do through with the farce. Which means it takes forever for the farce - the fun and games - to get going.

This could have easily been fixed by having it be Nathan Lane who is the one pushing the deception - they are the ones with the power. You wouldn't feel so sorry for him and Robin Williams and you wouldn't resent their bratty son and fiancee (Calista Flockhart, just before fame). But you do, and it makes the movie drag and unpleasant.

Book review – “Words Into Image” by Terry Sanders

Transcript of a series of interviews with top screenwriters – William Goldman, Eleanor Perry, Carl Foreman, Robert Towne, Neil Simon. Done around the same time as John Brady’s Craft of the Screenwriter so there is some cross over. Perry’s interview was fascinating – I loved the bit where she talks about trying to get a job adapting The Lonely Lady going “I promise I won’t have integrity”. She died in 1981. I enjoyed hearing from Foreman, who has some very impressive writing credits – he comes across as a bit self important at times, but clever.

Book review – “The Craft of Screenwriting” by John Brady

Superb collection of interviews with some of the best screenwriters in the business: Neil Simon, Paddy Chayefsky, Robert Towne, William Goldman, Ernest Lehman, Paul Schrader. It was published in 1982, which means there’s some poignancy – Chayefsky died not that long after his interview, Simon has just produced his first film (a career that didn’t last), Towne was about to embark on Personal Best. Full of great tips and insights eg Towne – the only way to learn screenwriting is to see your work done; Chayefsky – when you get feedback from artists it’s about the work, not the art. Brady is a brilliant interviewer – he’s always prepared and he knows his stuff.

Book review - "The Season" by William Goldman

For my money, the best book ever written about the theatre and one of the best books ever written about show biz - or any biz, for that matter. Its Goldman's masterpiece, well one of them, even better than Adventures in the Screen Trade. It looks at Broadway during the 67-68 season and is wonderful - well researched, funny, pungent, skilfully written, thoughtful, opinionated, smart. I've read it a number of times. Peter Bart reportedly tried to match it with The Gross but he doesn't come close, not even in the same league. Broadway is admittedly easier to tackle than Hollywood - more self contained, easier to find out what is going on, but Goldman really tackles his subject and comes up with original thoughts. 

I'd love to read a follow up article on this book - why are there no Friday matinees? Why did the NY Times keep on Clive Barnes as critic? (I thought Goldman's criticisms of Barnes - perhaps the most skilful hatchet job on a critic in history - were a bit strong but then went and read a selection of NY Times theatre reviews and they are pretty shocking) Why did none of Goldman's very practical suggestions be implemented? (It is a bit full on to expect matinees of Fri, Sat and Sunday - but Friday and Saturday would be worth it). 

Some of the writing is dazzling - the pieces on Judy Garland, A Day in the Life of Joe Egg, on the critics, Home Sweet Henry; as a critic, Goldman is endlessly astute - his views on popular theatre, musical comedy, Pinter, Neil Simon, etc are still relevant today. Sometimes he is not totally on the ball (while I agree Brendan Gill is one of the worst critics of the 60s, couldn't you argue that Gower Champion only came up with the idea of photographer for The Happy Time after seeing Blow Up because the photographer idea came along late in the piece), and sometimes he is a bit too mean, eg attacking Mike Nichols for receiving all this good press (it wasn't his fault, and who can blame him for occasionally being a bit big headed about it), saying Barbara Bel Geddes "could lose weight" (he could have made this point less nastily), and using the words "a flurry of fags". But this is what happens when you write a personal work, I guess. Magnificent.