COMING IN 2018: WE'RE ENTERTAINING NOURISHMENT FOR THE MIND, BODY & SOUL
We will return in 2018 with a new look, mission & direction. Stay tuned as we develop our online destination that celebrates contemporary & retro pop culture as well as body, mind & spirit!
First, McClain spills on the second season of "Retired at 35," premiering June 26 on TV Land. The 42-year-old actor explains how "35" is evolving into more of an ensemble family sitcom (cough cough, “Happy Days”?!?) with the addition of Marissa Jaret Winokur ("Hairspray") as his sister—a heretofore largely MIA character who may indeed be the love child of Chuck Cunningham and Jenny Piccolo. Watching and learning from his TV parents—Hollywood legends George Segal (“Just Shoot Me!,” “The Longest Day”) and Jessica Walter (“Arrested Development,” “Play Misty for Me”)—McClain tells how he reimagined his life at 35 and beyond while merging his realities of being a New York stage actor and a Los Angeles sitcom star. Among his small-screen experiences: Being cast in Jessica Simpson’s ABC sitcom pilot and surviving Jenny McCarthy’s failed UPN sitcom “The Bad Girl’s Guide." (The latter of which taped on the same Paramount soundstage where Fonzie loved Pinky, where a pre- and post-spun-off Joanie loved Chachi—and where, 20 years later, McClain would find his “inner Leather.”) Finally, McClain talks about his buzzed-about Funny or Die political satire videos featuring “Lost” star Michael Emerson, “Eight is Enough” references and more!
Next … on a more serious note commemorating the third anniversary of her tragic death from cancer on June 25, 2009, Farrah Fawcett’s longtime secret lover, Greg Lott, opens up about Farrah’s struggles with Ryan O’Neal and son Redmond’s heavily publicized drug problems. In this final installment of his in-depth three-part Retroality.TV interview, Lott reveals how he—not the cancer-stricken Ryan O’Neal—was Farrah’s true love in the final 11 years of her life. He also offers additional thoughts on Alana Stewart and explains why he’s had such a difficult time getting the U.S. media to allow him to tell his story.
Also, in the show monologue I give a shout out to my friend, TV historian/author David Hofstede, who just launched his own blog, "Comfort TV" (http://comforttv.blogspot.com/).
Finally … in the conclusion of her two-part “coming to America” story, dream analyst Yvonne Ryba tells how her nocturnal subconscious paved the way for her own spiritual reinvention once she moved from England to Texas in the “Dallas”-rich 1980s.
As the ever-beloved Farrah Fawcett is yet again immortalized in likeness—this time as a wholesomely sexy Barbie doll commemorating her iconic 1976 swimsuit poster and benefiting an Alana Stewart-helmed cancer foundation in her name—the late TV angel’s embattled lover, Ryan O’Neal, keeps fighting to hold onto her multimillion dollar image while trying to salvage his own.
Last month, the University of Texas System sued O’Neal for possessing an estimated $30M Andy Warhol portrait of Fawcett—one of two in existence—that they say she bequeathed to them. In turn, the actor sued his longtime foe Craig Nevius, alleging the “delusional” Farrah’s Story producer—who helped Fawcett secure the rights to her record-selling poster—stole from and sold out Farrah and defamed and distressed O’Neal with “lies” that led to UT suing. O’Neal, claiming the “second Warhol” is legally his, is seeking more than $1 million in damages.
Nevius assisted UT in part by pointing out that O’Neal’s daughter (and OWN “soaprah” co-star), Tatum, divulged in her recent memoir, found, that Dad had the Warhol—which media reports have since called “missing” and “stolen.” “That was a ‘thank-God-we’ve-caught-you moment,’” Nevius told ABC News in June.
Not exactly the kind of “a-ha moment” Oprah likely bargained for when signing father and daughter to their (forced?) reconciliation series, The O’Neals. But with Tatum claiming Ryan “brutalized” her, abandoned her for Farrah and exposed her to "lots of drugs" growing up—charges pretty much echoed by her brother Griffin (who instead said his dad gave him cocaine at age 11)—should unseemly O’Neal allegations at this point leave anyone with an O face?
(O’Neal previously called Tatum’s drug and abuse claims, outlined in her 2004 memoir A Paper Life, “malicious lies.” And when asked about Griffin’s charges that, upon Fawcett’s terminal cancer diagnosis, “vulture” Ryan’s “only goal was to make sure he would be in (Fawcett’s) will,” the O’Neal patriarch snapped to Vanity Fair in 2009, “I hate him! He knows I have money. I made a tremendous amount of money on real estate; more than I deserve.”)
Ryan’s attorney requested a 10-day extension to file his response to UT’s suit, originally due by Aug. 1. Nevius’ legal answer to O’Neal’s suit may hit next week as well. Expect serious fireworks—especially now that a UT System rep says the university has “photographic and videographic evidence” of Fawcett referencing her ownership of both Warhols shortly before she passed.
“(A)t no time have I ever claimed that Ryan O’Neal stole the portrait of Farrah Fawcett,” Nevius wrote in a statement published last month on The Morton Report web site. “(I)n terms of me being the one to cause Ryan’s public humiliation, well, has he watched his own reality show? … (I)t’s hard for me to believe that I am the cause of this man’s ‘mental anguish and emotional distress’ when, according to his reality show, he has recently been in therapy for personal and relationship issues dating back before I ever met him.”
O’Neal’s ever-growing legal, personal and public-relations battles became even more entangled this week with the heroin- and gun-related felony arrest Tuesday of his troubled son with Fawcett, Redmond, 26, and the possible future arrest of the long-estranged Griffin, 46. Hours after Redmond was busted, Griffin reportedly caused a head-on car crash that sent him to the hospital with moderate injuries. Police later discovered drugs and a loaded weapon in Griffin’s car and are seeking a warrant to arrest him.
The O’Neals are “falling apart,” Ryan told TMZ after Redmond entered a not guilty plea in court Thursday. “But we’ll come back.”
The former Peyton Place and Love Story star’s comeback—or, more precisely, rebranding—in recent years as a reality docudrama fixture has been fraught with controversy and challenge. Ironically, though, his most persistent conflict during his made-for-TV reinvention hasn’t been with his tragic offspring but rather with the man whose association with Fawcett put O’Neal back in homes in the era of celebreality.
But O’Neal won’t be referring to Craig Nevius as the executive producer who directed him in TV Land’s 2005 reality show Chasing Farrah. Nor will he acknowledge him as the filmmaker who won the showbiz-leery Fawcett’s trust so much that she named him her “loyal friend and protector,” spokesperson, agent, manager and, ultimately, the business partner who would help execute her vision for her groundbreaking cancer documentary. (That project— filmed in part by Farrah friend Alana Stewart and originally titled A Wing & A Prayer—was Fawcett’s would-be work of art. Nevius says she didn’t want the innovative docufilm in any way featuring “talking heads” and focusing on her “love story” with on-again, off-again flame O’Neal.)
Instead, O’Neal—who, in Fawcett’s final months and with Stewart’s involvement on-camera and off as the project’s newly-promoted producer, overtook and repackaged the “video diary” as NBC’s “news special” Farrah’s Story—now brands Nevius in a legal filing as “a delusional fan” who is “obsessed” with Fawcett and “jealous” of O’Neal and Stewart. So “deeply jealous” of O’Neal, he alleges, that Nevius made “false, malicious and defamatory accusations to the media and (UT) … in an attempt to ruin O’Neal’s reputation and strip him of the Warhol portrait while drawing attention to himself.”
Exactly how a jury would assess O’Neal’s reputation—pre and post-Nevius-claims—is, in this scandal-loving new-media age, anybody’s guess. Ryan has twice been arrested himself—in 2007 for firing a gun in a dispute with Griffin (these charges were later dismissed) and in 2008 with Redmond for felony drug possession when authorities found meth in his Malibu home during his younger son’s probation check. Ryan pleaded guilty and was ordered to partake in a drug awareness program. His attorney, Mark Werksman, told People magazine at the time that the actor "found it extremely frustrating and upsetting" to be charged. “He's not a drug user and he doesn't want to be thought of as a drug user.”
Around the time of Ryan’s second arrest, he attempted to force Nevius to turn over A Wing & A Prayer to him and another executive producer. When Nevius refused (he says according to Fawcett’s strict instructions “never (to) give anyone—including Ryan—the footage or the contract”), O’Neal reportedly called him and threatened, “I’ll kill you with Farrah, and then I’ll kill you in real life.” O’Neal told The New York Times recently, “I may have said ‘I’ll kill ya,’ but I said that as a joke.”
Nevius offered up a most unflattering essay on O’Neal days after The O’Neals premiered on (oh, the irony) Father’s Day. “Now, as the two year anniversary of Farrah's passing approaches—she died on June 25, 2009—I realize that the woman I remember is the one that Ryan O'Neal has forgotten,” Nevius wrote on The Morton Report, referencing the O’Neal’s recent interview with Piers Morgan, in which the actor blamed his family for Fawcett’s cancer.
“At least that's how it appears to me as he boldly and recklessly steers the promotional tour for his new reality series, The O'Neals, into the very dark but familiar territory of exploiting Farrah's tragic death just as he did two years ago,” Nevius wrote. “But this time through, he's not treading lightly but plowing forward in what appears to be a shocking attempt to bury his own children under a heap of undeserved guilt. All the while he positions himself as the put-upon father who, as hard as he claims to have tried, simply could not keep his kids happy as they went to war with Farrah to win his attention, affection and approval.”
Among Nevius’ bold claims in this piece: “(Not) that Ryan didn't profoundly contribute to Farrah's pain and suffering during her illness. Because he did … A few months after Farrah began chemotherapy, Ryan became increasingly jealous and, at times, even angry at the outpouring of love and sympathy that she received from all over the world—not to mention his own children.”
Interestingly, O’Neal doesn’t mention the Morton Report piece in his complaint. Instead, he offers a few character assassinations, er, characterizations of his own. He claims that when Nevius met Fawcett in 2005, he “claim(ed) to have production experience (and) surreptitiously ingratiated himself into Fawcett’s life, contacting her multiple times per day and taking it upon himself to act as her personal assistant without pay.”
Ouch again.
O’Neal continues, “Unfortunately, when Nevius showed Ms. Fawcett and NBC his work on the documentary, it was clear that he was unskilled and that his work was amateurish and sensationalized—his cut of the documentary looked like tabloid journalism, contrary to the wishes of Ms. Fawcett, and could not be broadcast on national television. As a result, Ms. Fawcett requested that O'Neal take creative control of Farrah's Story, thereby ending Nevius' creative involvement with the documentary. In part because of Nevius' emotional instability, the last time Ms. Fawcett saw or spoke with Nevius was in the early spring of 2009, shortly after he had delivered his cut of the documentary.”
(Two years later, The New York Times would characterize O’Neal’s takeover of the project thusly: “After Mr. O’Neal and NBC gained full control of the documentary, the film took on the feel of network celebrity fodder—at once more glossy and more morbid.”)
O’Neal told the New York Post in May 2009 that Fawcett wanted Nevius off the project in mid- to late-April because he persistently pushed for a storyline indicting paparazzi and tabloids for her deteriorating health. "He was obsessed with this angle, that the media was haranguing Farrah to the point where she couldn't recover,” O’Neal said. "Harangued? Who isn't harangued? We all get harangued. At most, that's a sidebar. This is a story about Farrah struggling for her life."
We may never see Nevius’ edit of the film or know what the terminally ill and at times heavily medicated Fawcett thought of it—or wanted after seeing it. But given the unprecedented access she gave Nevius to her private life—and her apparent permission and approval for him to make many of her intensely personal struggles public—it’s hard to imagine he would deliver a take on her vision that opposed the wishes she had voiced.
Was Nevius’ edit sensationalistic “tabloid journalism” or hard-hitting docu-journalism about tabloids whose cover headlines screamed—much to the fighting-for-life Fawcett’s pain and disdain—“Farrah Begs: Let Me Die!”
O’Neal now alleges that Nevius retaliated after Farrah cut him off. “Sadly, Nevius’ malicious behavior is nothing new, and it is consistent with his prior despicable conduct. In 2009, Nevius intentionally sold private, personal medical information about Ms. Fawcett’s battle with cancer to tabloid journalists, distributed film footage of her battle with cancer and other materials proprietary to Ms. Fawcett and third parties, and embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company that Ms. Fawcett established.”
These charges are more or less duplicated from a complaint filed last year by O’Neal’s business manager and Fawcett’s estate trustee, Richard “Bernie” Francis, who sued Nevius on behalf of Farrah’s estate. That suit was settled this spring, The New York Times reported, without Francis’ allegations being proven:
“For the next 18 months, Mr. Nevius pursued his lawsuit against Mr. O’Neal, Ms. Stewart and Mr. Francis full-time, hoping to regain control of the company he and Ms. Fawcett formed and produce the film he says she wanted. Mr. Francis countersued, accusing Mr. Nevius of being a hanger-on who ingratiated himself with Ms. Fawcett and embezzled money from their company. (He and Mr. O’Neal never offered proof, and Mr. Nevius denies the allegations.)”
The charge that Nevius sold Fawcett’s private medical information to the tabloids is most ironic. In June 2008, Nevius wrote a Los Angeles Times editorial exposing UCLA Medical Center for breaching Fawcett’s privacy and calling out the National Enquirer for inducing the breach by paying a UCLA employee (who was later indicted) for Farrah’s private medical info . In “Chasing Farrah Too Far,” Nevius even details a run-in with an Enquirer reporter who tried to persuade him to discuss Fawcett’s health. Clearly, the late actress authorized her producing partner’s revelations—including her specific exchanges with U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O’Brien’s office—in that essay.
Nevius also worked with Los Angeles Times reporter Charles Ornstein to document Fawcett’s sting of UCLA in the only media interview she gave following her cancer diagnosis. Nevius’ company, Windmill Entertainment LLC., released film footage of Ornstein’s August 2008 interview to various media outlets around May 11, 2009—the date the Times published Ornstein’s piece. About two weeks earlier, per Fawcett’s 2008 agreement with the newspaper, Nevius gave written permission to the Times to publish the interview within five days of Farrah’s Story broadcast premiere on May 15.
The producer says that O’Neal’s recent legal action against him is “a desperate attempt … to further harass me into silence. I believe this is less about the portrait of Farrah Fawcett by Andy Warhol than it is about certain actions and events that occurred during the last few years of Farrah's life which I have knowledge of and that he (and others) would prefer me to never speak about.”
Nevius is likely referring in part to The Farrah Fawcett Foundation, the charitable organization receiving an undisclosed royalty from the sale of the new Farrah Barbie. Last year, he released a statement to X17 Online “publicly calling on the Attorney General to investigate the ‘Farrah Fawcett Foundation’ and interview a handful of Farrah’s trusted friends and associates with respect to Farrah’s knowledge and intent regarding this so-called ‘charity.’”
This spring, a Facebook group called “Farrah Fawcett: We Want the Truth” encouraged fans to write the attorney general to investigate the foundation and the final months of Fawcett’s life. So far, no active investigation has been reported.
Last year, Nevius questioned the foundation’s origins—and its officers’ roles—in a legal response to Francis’ suit against him. He claimed Fawcett “was not aware of the Foundation’s existence during her lifetime or of Mr. Francis’ attempts to usurp her estate.”
“On information and belief, (Alana) Stewart … appointed herself ‘president’ of the Farrah Fawcett Foundation, a charitable foundation funded by Ms. Fawcett’s assets, and Mr. Francis named himself ‘chairman of the board/treasurer,’” Nevius claimed. “On information and belief, Kim Swartz, an attorney for Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, who has been fired by Ms. Fawcett, also installed himself as ‘director.’ On information and belief, Mr. Francis and Ms. Stewart are using the Foundation to divert Ms. Fawcett’s assets away from other rightful beneficiaries. On information and belief, although Mr. O’Neal has no official title with the Foundation, he recently announced that he would be ‘working with the Foundation.’”
According to a business entity record published on the California Secretary of State’s web site, “The Farrah Fawcett Foundation” was first filed with the state on Nov. 20, 2006. The foundation is also referenced in Fawcett’s amended Living Trust, dated and signed Aug. 7, 2007. Charitable trust registration records on the California attorney general’s web site show the foundation was registered with their office on Jan. 25, 2007.
Oddly, however, registration records on the attorney general’s web site indicate the foundation’s 2007 and 2008 IRS returns and the registry’s annual renewal report for 2007 were filed by Francis on May 15, 2009—the night Farrah’s Story premiered. Six weeks later, Fawcett died. The first public mention of The Farrah Fawcett Foundation appears to be on the date of her death, when O’Neal released a statement requesting donations be sent to the foundation “to support cancer research.”
Also curious: A 2010 report quoting Lee Majors’ manager, Denny Bond, as saying the decades-estranged Majors and Fawcett, who reunited via phone just months before her death, planned to reunite on a Vegas stage in Love Letters and were planning “a Los Angeles charity performance for her soon-to-be-established cancer foundation.”
The foundation is again in the news thanks to Barbie and Stewart. “Farrah created the foundation two years before she died and her aim was really to help in cutting edge research and to help people that are actually struggling with cancer now,” Stewart told Fox News this week, “so that’s really the mission of the foundation. It’s really wonderful for her memory and for her legacy and for her fans.”
In June, the foundation joined forces with Brand Sense Partners, LLC and Robert A. Finkelstein. Ltd. “to identify and execute new business ventures to perpetuate the star’s legacy and to support her non-profit foundation’s mission of raising funding for alternative methods in cancer research, prevention and awareness,” a news release states.
Stewart told the Los Angeles Timesthat more projects are in the works to keep Fawcett’s legacy going, adding she often asks herself, “What would Farrah do?”
If Farrah’s story behind the poster behind the commemorative doll is any indication, Fawcett would fight to control her image—and its copyright—and take legal action to keep others from exploiting either at her expense.
“The poster” that launched her star and solidified her image as the wholesome TV angel with a celestial body and a twinkling smile was entirely Fawcett’s creation. So says photographer Bruce McBroom. And so asserted Fawcett in a suit she filed in February 2009 alleging the poster’s publisher and related business entities invaded her privacy and unjustly enriched themselves by misappropriating her name, image and likeness.
“Plaintiff solely chose the photographer, Plaintiff solely created overall styling, Plaintiff solely determined the wardrobe (i.e. specific swimsuit used), Plaintiff solely created the hair styling, Plaintiff solely did the makeup used, Plaintiff solely directed photographic content (including, but not limited to, the angle of the photograph as well as the pose and posturing of the model), Plaintiff solely determined the location where the photograph was taken, and Plaintiff solely approved the background used in the photograph.”
Plaintiff also retained exclusive copyright ownership of the entire shoot—at least according to her suit—and received 10 percent of merchandising royalties totaling $400,000. Refusing to be “owned” apparently led Fawcett to bolt from Charlie’s Angels after one season in 1977 when its executives refused to give her a 10-percent cut of the show’s massive merchandising.
Strangely, though, according to U.S. Copyright Office public records, the poster’s publisher, Pro Arts, had registered “Farrah” under its name in 1976—and for more than 30 years, it claimed the copyright, even though Fawcett apparently owned it. Her suit was dropped in May 2009, two months after the registration suddenly changed to her name, according to U.S. Copyright Office records. Her long ownership fight—which intensified in 2008 and piqued in early 2009 while Nevius was her business point person—finally resulted in resounding victory.
According to the U.S. Copyright Office records, the “Farrah / by Farrah Fawcett” copyright changed one more time—on the day Fawcett died. The same estate that sued Nevius now controls the iconic image whose legal ownership he helped her secure.
One wonders not only what Farrah would do but what she would say about the ongoing battles over her image, her intentions and her legacy that have placed many of those closest to her in perennially defensive postures.
Perhaps she would find inspiration in the ongoing fight by Happy Days cast members to get their due for 35-plus years of the CBS Corp. and others exploiting their names, images and likenesses for profit. A quote from the Seventies sitcom TV icons’ recent court filing seems to say it all:
“Although defendants routinely rebrand their corporate images, they should not be permitted to rebrand the truth.”
"I don't want to shame and embarrass and humiliate them, but I will if I have to," Cassidy told CNN. "You owe me a fortune -- you want to go to trial, big bad Sony against David Cassidy, go ahead."
TV angel Farrah Fawcett sadly left us in June 2009, and Happy Days went to rerun heaven more than a quarter-century ago. But that's not stopping costly and increasingly nasty legal wars over the use—or alleged misuse—of the multimillion-dollar likenesses these cultural icons left behind.
Fawcett's posthumous drama involves an estimated $30M Warhol portrait of the late actress, the Texas alma mater she named in her will, the embattled longtime lover she did not and the outspoken TV producer who for years has fought him and his business manager’s handling of her reportedly $50M estate.
The Happy Days dispute centers on circa-2008 Vegas casino slot machines and displays plastered with cast member likenesses, a media conglomerate hitting a decades-in-the-making merchandising jackpot and a beloved family of retro sitcom actors claiming they're owed a $10 million-plus cut of the "winnings."
The sitcom actors claim they had not been paid in over a decade—or, in most cases, ever—for CBS Studios Inc. licensing their likenesses on everything from Vegas slots, DVDs, dolls, bed sheets, drinking glasses, trading cards and lunch boxes.
Today, their lawyer, Jon Pfeiffer, told the AP that CBS recently issued his clients checks for $6,000-$6,500 each, claiming “that is the full payment for all that is owed.” In other words, CBS just told Mrs. Cunningham, Joanie, Potsie and Ralph Malph to sit on it.
As the Fonz would say in a thoroughly disapproving tone, Aaaaaaaay.
(Fonz’s portrayer, actor-producer-director Henry Winkler, is not a part of the suit, nor is co-star-turned-producer-director Ron Howard. Winkler said he’s received his royalty checks, sums undisclosed, as part of a separate contract but supports his castmates in their fight.)
Both the Fawcett and friends-of-Fonzie fiascoes pit powerful and wealthy institutions—academic and showbiz—against individuals with comparatively limited resources, all battling over the value, real or perceived, of celebrity images designed for and dependent on public consumption.
In the case(s) of Warholgate, acclaimed film actor-turned-controversial “docu-reality” TV star Ryan O'Neal has come out swinging on both sides of the coin. But more on that shortly.
In the Happy Days money war, co-stars and co-plaintiffs Marion Ross, Erin Moran, Anson Williams and Don Most remain the very picture of wholesomeness personified in their hit 1974-84 series set in 1950s and ’60s Milwaukee. Their images have been used since the mid-Seventies to market a relentless array of products that in turn have continuously sold the series to new audiences, making the show’s corporate owners a very pretty penny.
Now, especially in the case of the cash-strapped Moran—who last year lost her home to foreclosure—these not-so-Happy folks are clearly the collective David taking on the corporate Goliath of CBS Television Studios, Inc. (which now owns co-defendant Paramount Television, which produced the series for ABC).
“Happy Days epitomizes what is best in America, with the Cunningham family exemplifying the best of what a family can be,” states the complaint filed in April against CBS on behalf of the four actors and the widow of co-star Tom Bosley. “As will be proven at trial, defendants’ actions epitomize what is worst in Corporate America, exemplifying its worst business practices.”
The Cunningham family versus big, bad business exploiting their likenesses in the name of Sin City jackpots? Can CBS really afford this narrative influencing a jury—or, worse yet, the court of pubic opinion?
Which brings us back to the thorny O’Neal saga.
Earlier this month, the University of Texas System's Board of Regents sued O'Neal in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for possessing a mixed-media portrait of Fawcett that pop artist Andy Warhol created in the early 1980s. The UT System, a richly endowed group of 15 academic and health institutions in the Lone Star state, claims the highly valuable portrait was bequeathed to the University of Texas at Austin—Fawcett's alma mater—in her living trust.
One of two nearly identical Warhols of the actress known to exist is on display through Sept. 4 at the UT Austin’s Blanton Museum of Art. (In fact, the famous image is the face of the museum’s “About Face” exhibit, gracing promotional material and signage hanging near the Blanton’s front entrance.) The other was seen hanging above O’Neal’s bed in recent episodes of his OWN reality series.
O’Neal’s name was notably excluded in his on-again, off-again girlfriend’s living trust, which stipulates that “all of (her) artwork and any objects of art” be given to the university when she died. The UT System claims O’Neal has “wrongfully converted” the portrait—and possibly other artwork from his late lover’s estate. Essentially, the university alleges he stole what a UT rep calls a “big-ticket” Warhol and wants a jury to force him to hand it over.
O’Neal’s publicist, Arnold Robinson, offered two conflicting responses to this dilemma. “The portrait that Mr. O’Neal has is the Warhol that was given to him by Farrah,” Robinson told The New York Post in an e-mail prior to UT’s suit.
After the university sued, Robinson told Star magazine, “This is a completely ridiculous lawsuit. Ryan’s friendship with Andy Warhol began 10 years prior to his meeting Farrah Fawcett. When Ryan introduced Farrah to Andy Warhol, he chose to complete two portraits of her, one for Miss Fawcett and one for Mr. O’Neal. Mr. O’Neal looks forward to being completely vindicated in the courts.”
Then, last week, the 70-year-old actor retaliated—but not at the university. Instead, O’Neal filed suit against Craig Nevius, Fawcett’s producing partner whom she called her “loyal friend and protector” in her final years. O’Neal claims Nevius, who assisted UT in what media reports called an investigation of the “missing” Warhol, is “a delusional fan” who’s maliciously defamed him in part by making allegedly false statements prompting UT’s suit against him.
The actor is seeking at least $1 million in punitive damages on his claims of defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
According to O’Neal’s blistering complaint, “Nevius is obsessed with Ms. Fawcett, and his is deeply jealous of her relationship with her longtime romantic partner, the Academy Award and Golden Globe-nominated actor Ryan O’Neal. Two years after Ms. Fawcett tragically succumbed to cancer, Nevius continues to harass O’Neal by making false, malicious and defamatory accusations and characterizations about O’Neal and his purported theft, possession and concealment” of the Warhol portrait to UT and the media.
In a detailed response posted on The Morton Report, Nevius—who last month was quoted in Good Morning, America and Star magazine reports breaking news of the Warhol drama—denied he ever claimed O’Neal stole the portrait.
“I have simply recounted the request by Farrah’s alma mater to help them identify and locate numerous pieces of artwork that appeared to be mysteriously missing from the original inventory provided by her estate, which, by the way, is overseen by Richard B. Francis, Ryan O’Neal’s loyal friend and business manager of over 40 years,” said Nevius, who executive produced Fawcett's hit 2005 TV Land series, Chasing Farrah.
Nevius sued both men and Fawcett’s friend Alana Stewart in May 2009 on the eve of NBC’s premiere of its Emmy-nominated “news special” Farrah’s Story. That two-hour “video diary” chronicled Fawcett’s three-year fight against the anal cancer that would take her life on June 25, 2009. It premiered to more than nine million viewers and mixed reviews, many calling it exploitative. "After Mr. O'Neal and NBC gained full control of the documentary," wrote New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg, "the film took on the feel of network celebrity fodder--at once more glossy and more morbid."
Nevius served as the project’s executive producer but claimed O’Neal, Francis and Stewart conspired to cut him out of the project (and Fawcett’s life)—while allegedly violating Fawcett’s business partnership with him and her expressed wishes for the documentary—during its final weeks of production. An article last May in The New York Times detailed O’Neal’s contentious takeover of the documentary originally titled A Wing & A Prayer.
Filing on behalf of Fawcett’s estate, Francis—the estate’s trustee and O’Neal’s longtime associate—sued Nevius in January 2010. Francis’s allegations are more or less repeated in O’Neal’s new action against Nevius.
“Sadly, Nevius’ malicious behavior is nothing new,” O’Neal’s new suit alleges, “and it is consistent with his prior despicable conduct. In 2009, Nevius intentionally sold private, personal medical information about Ms. Fawcett’s battle with cancer to tabloid journalists, distributed film footage of her battle with cancer and other materials proprietary to Ms. Fawcett and third parties, and embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company that Ms. Fawcett established” with Nevius to produce A Wing & A Prayer.
Both Nevius’ suit against O’Neal, Francis and Stewart and the Francis-filed estate suit against Nevius were dropped last spring. Nevius told The New York Times that he entered into settlement talks when his attorney advised him last December that the legal fight could continue for two more years to the price of at least another quarter of a million dollars.
“In spite of their best efforts,” Nevius told The Morton Report last week, “Ryan’s former attorneys were unable to obtain a confidentiality agreement from me when they dropped the last equally frivolous action against me (which was purported to be in the name of Farrah Fawcett). So this new charge of ‘defamation’ would seem to be nothing more than another intimidation tactic: a second bite at the legal apple. I understand the truth can be a very frightening thing for some people. By the way, it is also my understanding that truth is a complete defense to defamation.”
“I’m fighting at least two multi-millionaires,” Nevius told The New York Times last spring. “And at this point I don’t know that it’s honoring Farrah. I just don’t think she’d want us all destroying each other, which is pretty much how it’s going.”
And, much like the Happy Days merchandising melee, it sadly doesn’t show any signs of stopping.
Next week: Dueling accusations, the Farrah poster and media branding.
CBS has struck back at Happy Days cast members who've sued for money they say they're owed for series merchandising, including (oh, the irony) a recent slew of slot machines depicting their images.
Here's an interesting CNN report from April:
From CNN: "'Hollywood Hustle,' a story about celebrity merchandising controversies, will be part of a CNN Presents hour on August 7 at 8 p.m. ET/PT."
Snooki and The Situation: I'd tell them to "Sit on it!" but they probably already have.
Guest Shot blog by James DuBuc
I want to meet the individual who created the modern-day boob-tube genre we call "reality television." I would love to sit with this person and hear the tale of how he or she came up with the idea of a show with no script, no paid actors, just cameras and regular folk like me. I want to know how they got past the whole “tell a tale, teach a lesson, solve a problem and leave the audience with something to think about” thing that comes to mind whenever I think of television when I was growing up. Yes, I want to meet this person … and punch them right in the mouth.
Aren’t these newer, slice-of-life "reality" shows such as Jersey Shore and Real Housewives of (Insert Metropolitan Area Here) supposed to have a point? We’re supposed to be cheering for someone, right? Isn’t there some sort of “voting” that’s supposed to take place? I could tolerate these shows if they had some sort of “thing” that I wish I could win.
At least the "classic" reality shows (I can't believe I just used that phrase) were--and in same cases still are--somewhat entertaining. I wouldn’t want to work for Donald Trump, but I’d be willing to go on The Apprentice just so he could fire me and I could whip it out and pee on his desk before walking out the door. Of course, this season he's pitting down-on-their-luck, once-employed entrepreneurs against each other, so in essence Trump is already raining on his own "ha-ha-you're-fired" parade.
I could see myself signing up for Survivor, except it reminds me of going camping with a bunch of really creepy people who probably badmouth me behind my back. I'm okay with the “strength” challenges or the “swimming” challenges, but I always flip the channel when it came to the “food” challenges. That was usually when the one person out of the group, the good looking attractive buff & built guy with the nice smile, would be chowing down on something like sautéed beetle rectum … ugh. Now THERE’S a mouth I want to kiss! Tic Tac, anyone? I'd rather go see what ole’ Fonzie’s up to, even on murky Happy Days YouTube clips. He’s also cute, and probably not munching on beetle butt.
But back to my point: What’s the goal of the new crop of reality shows? What gives? It seems like we’re just watching a bunch of really crappy home movies. But instead of it being some cute little kids playing in the park or celebrating a birthday, we’re watching “Snooki” and “The Situation” in a foul-mouthed drunken stupor in the hot tub. I don’t think “cute.” I think “douche,” as in she probably needs one, and he just IS one. These aren’t people I’d hang with, so why would I want to watch them on TV?
These new reality shows can’t be good for our kids. Think about it. You have an impressionable fourteen year old daughter. You want her to grow up to be a mature, responsible young woman, right? You want her to be polite, respectable and have manners so that eventually she’ll meet her Prince Charming and get married, right?
Now let’s say you have a choice of evening entertainment for your little Princess to watch. Channel one is an old episode of Designing Women. Channel two is The Real Housewives of New Jersey. Now let me remind you that your daughter will be watching women who will set the tone for how she interacts with others and is therefore an expression of you as a parent. Make your choice now … I’ll wait. (Insert Jeopardy! theme music.) I can’t tell you WHICH show to choose, but in a few years everyone you know will describe your daughter as either “Classy” with a capital “C” or as a sniveling little “Runt” … with a capital “C”.
I say we put it to the test. I have a concept for a show that would not only be entertaining but educational as well. It might take some schmoozing with TV execs, since it’s a long-term show, but I think the ratings will be through the roof. Think of it as The Truman Show only with identical twins, each being raised in a carefully planned and scripted life. So let’s say we have little Johnny and little Jack. We’d snatch them from their mother’s arms immediately after being born (oh, the drama!) and separate them into two new families. Johnny lives with “Family A” and his life is molded around old family television shows. Jack, on the other hand, lives with “Family B” and his life is shaped by reality shows.
Johnny’s early years are pleasant enough. Picture him growing up in a household that is a healthy mixture of Happy Days, Eight is Enough, The Brady Bunch, Growing Pains and The Partridge Family.
Now without even watching a single episode, you already know how little Johnny’s going to turn out. He’s polite. He respects his elders. He studies hard in school. He gets his first girlfriend and she’s that sweet girl in his Algebra class that his parents often invite over for dinner.
Sure he gets into trouble sometimes--what adolescent boy doesn’t? But even when his mom and dad catch him ditching school or sneaking a sip of beer from the fridge, gosh darnit, we still love him. His parents have that “family meeting” and they tell him how disappointed they are in him, and he feels terrible about what he’s done. He swears he’ll never do it again, and we believe him. And when that day comes when Johnny drops to one knee and proposes to his girl, (after getting her father’s blessing, of course) we’ll be on the edge of our sofa chairs as she accepts, and we’ll wipe away a tear when he breaks the news to mom and dad. We want Mr. & Mrs. Johnny to have beautiful children that mom and dad dote over. Yes, we watch Johnny over the years and quietly say to ourselves, “I want my kid to be like Johnny.”
And then there’s Jack. His world is a healthy mixture of COPS, The Bachelor, The Anna Nicole Show, Jersey Shore and Real Housewives of New Jersey.
Dixie Carter's "This is not a whorehouse" rant seems so appropriate here.
So let’s talk about Jack. I’m guessing he doesn’t like authority, dabbles in drugs, has a mouth that would make a sailor blush and respect for elders and for women? Umm, sure. He’ll probably have a girlfriend or two or three, but if his parents know about them, they won’t want them sitting at the dinner table and if they do show up, they’ll probably want to wash the chair cushions when they leave.
If Jack does manage to get married, (oh let’s not kid ourselves--he’ll change wives like he changes his underwear, assuming he does the latter) she’ll look pretty but will be the foul mouthed gold digger who secretly wants Jack’s mom and dad to kick the bucket so she can get her hands on their money. Not that they HAVE any, but Jack has her convinced he’s the cock of the walk with his cool rocking Camaro and his gallons of cologne. Mr. & Mrs. Jack won’t just have children; they’ll breed like roaches. Oh joy. We watch Jack over the years and quietly say to ourselves, “If my kid turns out like Jack, I’ll push him down a flight of stairs myself!”
Now that Johnny and Jack are adults, (Johnny just started college. Jack just made bail … again), which one would you want to marry your daughter? Well, I guess that would depend on what you chose to let your daughter watch on TV as well. I’m guessing Johnny has a grand church wedding with “Class” and Jack enjoys a quickie Vegas wedding with his little “Runt.” Let me know soon because I’ve already purchased their gifts. I’ll be sending either a nice set of monogrammed bath towels or a chainsaw enema.
You can thank the socially and sexually provocative mid- to late-1980s, America. Although Three's Company went to the big double entendre in the sky in 1984, its legacy of libido-charged innuendos changed the TV laughscape forever. And the zany farce's naughty humor, well, got a whole lot naughtier while climaxing (!) shortly after the we-know-what-that-title's-really-referencing Still the Beaver and Me and Mrs. C became ratings semi-sensations for the Disney Channel in 1985-86 and NBC in summer 1986, respectively. (Come to think of it, Happy Days--which also died in '84--was pretty smutty, too: "Sit on it, Mrs. C!" Helloooo!)
Okay, Me and Mrs. C was really a short-lived sitcom about (quoting the Associated Press) "a 62-year-old white widow who takes in a 22-year-old black boarder." And Still the Beaver (renamed The New Leave it to Beaver for its 1986-89 TBS run) was really about a 62-year-old white kiddo who after 22 seasons of syndication still had no idea his nickname had a vulgar connotation. But still. Their double-entendriffic titles alone paved the way for TV's biggest smutcom.
Enter Snatch!
"What's Snatch!?" you ask. Well, according to its official Facebook page, ''Snatch!''--not to be confused with Vicki! or Cleghorne!--"is an American television sitcom that originally ran from 1986 to 1990."
"Hmmm," you're thinking. "Must've been one of those syndicated classics from the Emmy-winning writer-producers of She's the Sheriff and (The All-New) We Got it Maid."
To be honest, our memories, like Snatch!'s eponymous lead character, are a little fuzzy. Perhaps we should again quote the show's official Facebook bio: "The show was centered around a Mary Tyler Moore-esque character named Sally Fenway working her way through life and love in New York City. She also happened to have a wise-cracking, hairy, eel-like creature living in her vagina named Snatch."
"Oh, yeah," you're saying to yourself. "The Small Wonder spin-off."
Yeah. That one.
Again quoting Snatch! literature (because, this way, if you're offended, we can just be all, "We're just sayin'"): "The series starred Geneva Carr as Sally Fenway, Fred Berman as Sally's neighbor Ruben Maricasa, Jason O'Connell as her boss Nigel Flavinworth, Billy Warlock as co-worker Robert Marcus, and Sally Struther as Sally's mom, Roberta Fenway. The character of Snatch was portrayed by a live-vagina/hand puppet operated primarily by Jason Favale."
Phew. Glad that's over. Anywho, Snatch! somehow flew under the radar with its behind-the-bikini line humor. Maybe because the Terry Rakoltas of the world were too busy linking FOX's Married ... with Children with impending Armageddon to notice that Sally Fenway's crotch-puppet wasn't popping up just to chomp cookies or sass "Mr. Snuffleupagus" while teaching kids the alphabet.
Snatch! creator Berman is especially funny in this filthy Fragglerock. His nosey neighbor Ruben is a cross between Three's Company's Mr. Furley and Felipe Gomez as channeled through Will and Grace's Jack McFarland on crack. (Yes, the drug crack.) And Geneva Carr--famous for her hilarious spots as the grimacing, finger-waving mom in the AT&T Family Talk commercials--handles the lead role with aplomb. Or is that Eve's Plumb? Either way, she handles it. And she handles it well.
Also serving as a series producer (along with Now Lookee Here Productions' Jason Chaet and Jason O'Connell) is Ethan Duff, writer/director/producer of the acclaimed comedic short film Was Monroe Raped?That darkly comic project--also starring the fascinatingly versatile Berman--focuses on a scarcely-seen episode of the '80s sitcom Too Close for Comfort in which Jim J. Bullock's character claims to have been kidnapped and sexually accosted by two large women in a van.
No word yet if one of these women was a surly, gravelly-voiced crotch-puppet.
