Birthday Tribute: Karl Held

Well, it’s another September the 19^th, which means it’s time for the most controversial post of the year: the birthday tribute to Karl Held!

I believe it was last year when someone finally explained to me the other main reason why Karl’s David Gideon character is so disliked. As I recall, it’s because the character has a tendency to sometimes act like he knows it all and/or tries to explain things that don’t need explaining? The person mentioned some occasions where he explains some things to Della and she has an expression like, “You don’t have to lecture me, David.”

I’ll agree that David does have those moments. And admittedly, I know some people in real-life who are like that. They are quite annoying. But on the other hand, I’m honestly a bit amused by them, because in general, they really aren’t trying to do anything wrong. They’re just sharing their enthusiasm and maybe letting it get a little out of hand. They don’t even really stop to think that maybe they don’t need to say this or that. So even that reason doesn’t make me dislike the character.

However, this much I will say: the commenter also noted that David does not act like that in The Grumbling Grandfather, in spite of his idolization of Perry. I do think it’s rather a pity that they changed the characterization in season 5, instead of sticking a little more with what the character was to begin with. Perhaps he wouldn’t be nearly universally disliked if they had taken a more season 4-influenced path and kept the character more as he was in his first appearance.

But regardless, it certainly wasn’t Karl Held’s fault that the characterization was altered. He just worked with the material he was given. Apparently those moments were actually in the script. I suppose perhaps delivering the lines differently could have made some level of difference, but maybe it was the director’s choice and not Karl’s to deliver the lines the way he did. There just isn’t enough information on that period of Perry to really judge what happened.

I wonder if anyone has ever even interviewed Karl about his time on Perry? It would be interesting to get the story from his point-of-view.

I still haven’t quite found a place for David in my Perry stories. I used him in The Case of the Spiteful Spirit two years ago and that is the only appearance he’s made in my official timeline. The Lux Aeterna stories on Livejournal remain nebulous as to whether they’re part of the official timeline. So as far as the official timeline goes, I have never explained where David disappeared to. Since I say that other characters who have disappeared onscreen are still around, however, perhaps David is just busy with law school and is still in Los Angeles, instead of leaving it as I said in Lux Aeterna.

While looking over the previous birthday posts, I saw I had an idea for David to maybe appear now and then, bringing Perry interesting problems that could sometimes turn into new cases. Perhaps I will use that idea for the next mystery story, if I continue the series after The Nefarious Necklace. I just hope that if I do decide to use David as a main guest-star in a story, that fact alone wouldn’t make a lot of readers decide not to bother reading!

It would have been neat, as I’ve said before, if there had been more canon scenes of Perry mentoring David in the ways of the law. Perhaps it could have been more like Perry’s relationship with Ken in the movies. Of course, I imagine that even if David’s characterization had been handled better, viewers wouldn’t have liked if the series had followed him to the end of his law school studies and had Perry take him on as another lawyer in the firm, as he did with Ken. That definitely would have changed the scope of the series a bit, probably unfavorably. I doubt I would go that route in my stories, but I would like to do some of the mentoring scenes. I will also likely try to characterization David a little more like in The Grumbling Grandfather.

I was a little worried that some readers might mistakenly think that the mechanic character in Necklace is supposed to be David and that he failed law school, but since there are many guest-star characters on Perry named David, I figured I would let it slide. The character is called David for a reason, so I didn’t want to try to find a different name that would work just as well. However, I did realize, much to my chagrin, that I accidentally started a pattern once I gave the character a surname. Both Davids have first and last names of Biblical characters: David Gideon and David Solomon! Oh well, it works.

As before, I feel that David Gideon is a character who had a lot of untapped potential. I’m glad that Karl brought him to life and gave it a good try for those nine episodes. I hope he has a very happy birthday!

Birthday Tribute: Karl Held

This must be the week of unpopular opinions, because today is the 19^th and it’s time to talk about Karl Held again!

And oh snap. I was just looking him up to make sure he’s still alive (he is; he’s 83 today!), and it said his wife just died this year. Gah. That is so sad. They married in 1964, which is awesome, but now he must be so lonely and sad without her.

Karl is unfortunately quite unpopular among Perry fans. If disliking The Jaded Joker is almost universal, disliking David Gideon seems to be even moreso!

Honestly, I think people are hating on the wrong character. David is a nice boy, despite getting sidetracked for a while and taken in by a femme fatale’s wiles. But Karl’s first Perry character, son of the titular Angry Dead Man, is really a piece of work.

I ordered some things on Amazon recently, and among them was the second half of season 4. I’ve been wanting that for over three years to have the uncut version of The Misguided Missile. Finally, it’s mine! All the Simon scenes are intact and I can watch them any time I want!

I have been watching the episodes I’ve never seen uncut before I go on to my beloved Misguided Missile. The first one I tried was The Angry Dead Man. And of the ones I’ve seen on the set so far from the first two discs, it has the biggest chunks taken out of it on television!

I gave the television set one very long, blank stare when it showed the scene with Lloyd Castle reading about Willard Nesbitt’s death at sea and his receptionist Helen comes in crying. Later, Lloyd is with his secretary Jenny and they are apparently romantically involved. The television version, to the best of my recollection, eliminated all scenes showing Lloyd and Jenny’s relationship, including this one and about two others. Lloyd asks Jenny to marry him in one scene, and this is discussed in court in another scene.

Also missing is a scene right after Willard Nesbitt reads in the paper about the mine and realizes his wife’s being cheated. He runs inside and calls Perry’s office, using a handkerchief to muffle his voice as he talks with Della, pretending to be an IRS agent. When the conversation doesn’t go as he hoped, he hangs up and rushes out to break into the cabin and look for the contract. A short scene where Della talks about the phone conversation is missing as well.

And some of Karl Held’s screentime is also among what’s absent, albeit only a small portion. After he and his stepmother Eve take the luggage outside to go back to the city, the uncut version shows them loading the luggage and getting in the car to drive away.

Bruce Nesbitt is a strange person. In his first scene, he actually seems nice. He holds Eve as she cries over the news of Willard’s (first) death and later tries to bring her a drink. Later, however, he behaves very obnoxiously and disrespectfully, not seeming upset by his father’s death and jeering at his stepmother. He remains obnoxious for the remainder of his screentime, criticizing Eve to Perry on the phone and trying to insinuate in court that she was playing around and that his father wanted him to spy on her because of it. Perry points out that Willard was likely only worried for Eve’s safety.

One of the criticisms against Karl Held is that his acting is wooden. I honestly can’t see anything wrong with it here. He portrays Bruce as a very nasty, selfish, repulsive boy who seriously resents his stepmother and seems indifferent about his father. If Karl’s acting was truly wooden, I doubt Bruce would be so despicable. I also doubt that David would seem much different from him.

But David is very different, and in mostly good ways. While he wasn’t always kind to his grandfather, he was nowhere near as terrible as Bruce, and he did improve. Thankfully, one complaint I’ve never heard against David is that he’s nasty, which is good since he isn’t.

David idolizes Perry and is eager to get back on track and finish law school. While naturally he makes slip-ups, I could really only find a couple in addition to the ones in his first episode. That’s quite different from what some of the fans will say, exaggerating that he’s “always” making mistakes!

There’s about three episodes where he offers helpful suggestions that move the plot along. The same role would have been taken by one of the other team members in other episodes, true, but this did give David something to do. And I thought it was good to have him try to contribute to the episodes instead of just being there like a bump on a log.

He also occasionally investigates, which may or not prove fruitful, just as it doesn’t always prove fruitful when Perry or Paul investigates. Now if David always had good luck, that might come off as more aggravating! Or if he always failed. Instead, as I recall, they seemed to try to have a balance, the same as with the other characters. And that, as far as I’m concerned, makes it fine.

I still wish they would have developed the idea a bit more of Perry teaching David the principles of the law. I really liked that angle. And honestly, David could have become a recurring character, popping in and out of the show perhaps once or twice per season, coming to Perry for advice or maybe even bringing a problem that would end up becoming the mystery for the episode. That would have been fun and perhaps the viewers wouldn’t have found him too intrusive.

Hey, maybe that’s how I could use the character in my stories, if I ever get The Malevolent Mugging finished and continue the mystery series. I also need to decide if I’ll be writing a Halloween Perry story this year. David might be in that if I do.

I’ve actually had an idle thought lately of making one of my screenshot music videos using the song Hallelujah (the Leonard Cohen song) and images from David’s episodes. Some things in the song definitely put me in mind of him, particularly his misadventure with the femme fatale. I don’t know whether I’d really make it, or if I’d post it anywhere if I did, but the idea does intrigue me (even if most people would detest it just for being about David).

David isn’t my favorite character, but I am proud to say I like him. I feel rather sad and puzzled that the dislike of the character is so rampant throughout the fandom. I’ve tried to understand why, but I just can’t seem to see what the problem is. I will agree that it probably wouldn’t have worked to have him there long-term, but since he’s around for only nine episodes, the dislike boggles my mind all the more. I guess it’s just one more of many ways that I am very unconventional.

In any case, I feel that Karl Held did a fine job bringing both Bruce and David to life and making them different as night and day. I’m happy he’s part of the Perry family and I hope he has a very lovely birthday!

Birthday Tribute: Karl Held

Today is Karl Held’s birthday! I hope he has a lovely day.

In trying to think of something fitting for a birthday post, I started pondering on my favorite episodes that feature David, and out of those, which have my favorite David scenes.

I enjoy David’s very first season 5 episode, The Missing Melody, for the plot, the guest-stars, and how David is brought into the script, with Perry and Della remembering him from the Grumbling Grandfather case. Continuity in classic television series is always a delight to behold, so it gives me a little thrill each time I watch this episode and see David acknowledged as having been around before.

Of course, one that I’ve cited before is The Renegade Refugee. True, that is the episode where David makes probably his worst slip-up, but he tries so hard to make it right. And I say he should be given credit for how quickly he listens to Perry and realizes exactly what his error was. A rebel he is no longer.

Also, often cut from the episode is one of the most excellent scenes where Perry defends Hamilton, when David is upset over Hamilton springing a surprise witness in court. Perry says that he and Hamilton are adversaries but not enemies, and says the system works so that each lawyer is pushed to be his very best.

David is very prominent in The Left-Handed Liar, being friendly with the defendant and even letting him stay at his apartment. David has an extensive encounter with Andy in that episode, which is exciting for being the first time Andy really has a long scene. But Andy doesn’t yet have his own dialogue, so he mostly sounds like Tragg all the way through it. A pity, since no one can carry that dialogue as well as Ray Collins, and since Wesley is deserving of having a separate speech pattern for his character.

I was, of course, wrong last year when I mentioned that David rarely does anything that really helps. Several episodes feature him having ideas that move the plot along in a positive way.

Of those episodes, my favorite is probably The Meddling Medium. It’s interesting to think of David knowing a parapsychologist. He’s the sort of fellow with whom Perry might be acquainted, since Perry knows such a collection of unique people from all walks of life. But, since the writers were trying to give David something to do, this time he is the one who knows the person and suggests that Perry make his acquaintance.

One of the most intriguing things about David’s suggestion is the fact that the person he recommends Perry visit was a real parapsychologist, Dr. Andrija Puharich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrija_Puharich This marks one of only a couple of times when a real, living person is referenced on the show, and possibly the only time such a person is actually seen. (Perry mentions knowing Rod Serling in The Promoter’s Pillbox, but alas, Rod doesn’t make a personal appearance.)

I’ve been thinking for a long time about writing a sequel to The Meddling Medium, which would delve into several supernatural angles that I believe the episode hinted at but never outright said. I still think that Phillip eventually had contact with spirits and that was at least partially why he was so insistent at the end that he wasn’t a fraud, even while he was absolutely sloshed. Also, I realized that while I assumed that proving Bonnie has ESP would imply that she picked up the real murderer’s thought process, that was never actually stated. By proving she has ESP, the implication that she really channeled a spirit instead is just as strong a possibility.

I’ve thought of the story following my timeline (which is post-season 9), but on the other hand it seems more likely that it would take place shortly after the episode and hence, still be in season 5. It might be the perfect place to stick David in, as I’ve been wondering how I could fit him into a story other than my Lux Aeterna pieces on Livejournal. If I have it set during the season 5 period, that would also give me the opportunity to explore Tragg and Andy’s relationship a bit, and Andy getting to know the other characters, as it would be shortly after he becomes a main part of the cast.

This story is intended to be my main Halloween story for the year, and whatever the final plan where its details are concerned, I’m hoping to start work on it very soon now.

If I have David in it, I’m unsure of whether I’ll explore why he vanishes from the series in mid-season 5. In the Lux Aeterna stories, it’s mentioned that a friend of his grandfather’s invited him to stay with him to finish law school and get into a firm. But I’m not sure if I’ve decided that those stories are part of my main timeline. Regardless, I may ignore the mystery of David’s departure and just focus on him as the episodes did, leaving it off with him still around.

In general, although most of the David episodes do not inspire fanfiction story ideas, almost all of them are quite good and enjoyable to watch. I like The Posthumous Painter less than most of them, but it’s still a fairly good offering, and come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve seen it uncut yet. Episodes are always better uncut.

It’s funny that I never realized David appeared in out-of-town episodes until once I caught part of The Roving River. I still need to see that one in full, but from what I saw, it’s quite good too.

The Shapely Shadow I still have mixed feelings about (even though the plot is basically very intense and well-done), but I plan to see it again, and I hope that when I do, it will be the uncut version. I don’t recall taking issue with any of David’s scenes.

With several David episodes still having been viewed by me in only their cut states, I suppose some of the scenes people use to complain about him could be in the uncut versions only. But I’ve seen people complain about him using the cut versions alone, so I don’t imagine there’s anything even more frustrating in the uncut versions. In any case, I doubt there’s anything I personally would be particularly irritated about, and if there was, I further doubt that it would make me change my entire opinion on the character. I like David fine, and I’m happy that the writers tried to experiment with using him a bit, even if it didn’t quite work out in the end.

Happy Birthday, Karl Held! Thank you for your time as part of the Perry Mason family.

Birthday Tribute: Karl Held

I’ve been waiting a long time to do this post. Today’s date made for a perfect opportunity, so I’ve been planning to do it now for weeks.

Karl Held was born September 19^th, 1931. He’s one of the few cast members still alive today. Awesome. Happy birthday, Karl!

As previously noted, he may very well have been the Perry actor I was first aware of, as he had a small part as an FBI agent in the classic Disney comedy That Darn Cat! It was that movie that started me on a journey to find other old, live-action comedies by Disney and others, and it certainly played a part, to some extent, in sparking an interest in old television shows too.

Aside from that, and observing Karl in various guest-spots—such as on Sea Hunt—Perry is the main thing I’ve seen him in. He had a well-known role on the soap opera Falcon Crest for three seasons, but as I don’t tend to watch soaps, I doubt I’ve ever seen him there. I’m sure he did an excellent job, however!

I still really wish I could find Ready for the People. Karl Held’s character works for the prosecution in that, an intriguing switch. And Simon Oakland is the prosecutor!

I don’t know whether the ill feelings many Perry fans hold towards Karl’s main Perry character extend to the actor as well. I would hope not. And honestly, I feel that the harsh and negative views on David Gideon are unfair and his character’s faults exaggerated.

I can’t quite tell whether David is really disliked by the majority of the fanbase or if it’s just that his haters are among the most vocal fans. And naturally if someone is merely rubbed the wrong way by the character for a legitimate reason, that’s different. Some personalities don’t mix well. But when things become blown out of proportion, I do have to scratch my head and wonder.

I specifically studied David’s scenes as my local station went through season 5 again, looking for all of the evidence that the haters claim is there. To some extent, yes, it is. But some I couldn’t find much trace of. And most of it really doesn’t seem like grounds to detest him, even if true.

One charge against David is that he’s a virtually useless character who doesn’t do much. There’s no place for him in the series. True?

Admittedly, he doesn’t really do much. The great majority of the time, he’s along for the ride and his part could likely easily by filled by Paul (who is sometimes also there). But as for hating him because of it, well, it’s not even his fault. The writers are to blame for not using the character as well as they could have.

EDIT: There was at least one occasion where they tried to be more inventive, in The Posthumous Painter. David is aware of the device they can use to test the paintings and see how old they are, which becomes a key plot point. I suppose they could have had Paul or Perry mention it, especially since at least Perry is also aware of the device's existence, but it was nice to give that bit to David. I knew about this episode, and had seen it prior to writing this, but of course only belatedly remembered. Hmm, I think it works better when I write an entry over a couple of days instead of all at once....

It’s been mentioned to me that William Talman commented on how Gardner’s original characters took up the somewhat stereotypical roles in legal dramas—the defense attorney, the loyal secretary, the private detective, the district attorney, and the policeman. And it was further pointed out to me that David doesn’t occupy one of these roles and therefore, doesn’t fit into the formula.

Of course, my usual attitude is To heck with the formula! I think some elements of it could have, and probably should have, been played down or eliminated over time. But, objectively, examining things in that way doesn’t leave much room for David, it’s true. The stereotypical sidekick role, which could be taken by a young law student, is filled on Perry Mason by Paul as well as Della. And when David attempts to actively help with a case anyway, he ends up taking scenes away from Paul by investigating things instead of Paul. Which, I imagine, invokes the ire of Paul fans and fangirls. Perhaps not unreasonably, but still.

Then comes the issue of claiming that David is always screwing up. And here’s where I really get confused. I did believe the haters’ words on this at first, but after reviewing the episodes, I found hardly any of it. Unless, of course, some such scenes have been cut, which is always possible.

Discounting his first appearance, where he was tricked by a femme fatale and met his idol Perry for the first time, I could really only cite The Renegade Refugee as an instance where David made a glaring mistake. While trying to help Harlan Merrill, who is panic-stricken and wants to get his affairs settled as soon as possible, David suggests various options for his situation and at last hits upon the idea of giving Perry the power of attorney. He forgets to add that Harlan also needs to write a letter with specific instructions for Perry, so that his desires can’t be contested as mere hearsay later.

Honestly, I’m more than willing to give the guy a break. He was just trying to help, after Harlan specifically asked him for help when Perry wasn’t there. He didn’t for one minute pretend to be a practicing attorney, either; he made sure to tell Harlan he wasn’t one, yet. And he tried to rectify the damage after Perry pointed it out to him. It wasn’t his fault he couldn’t get Harlan to hold still and come back when he found him again.

I suppose some people might say David also screwed up in The Malicious Mariner, where he fails to learn much from a suspect and ends up rather drunk for his efforts. But Paul doesn’t always succeed in getting information, either. Some suspects are stubborn. Who knows whether he would have done any better in that affair?

I think some of David’s haters dislike him merely because they feel he’s an intruder or because they don’t like some young kid hopping into the cast. This may even really be the main reason, and also be why they sometimes magnify David’s faults beyond the truth. I’ve seen it before, time and again. Scrappy-Doo, anyone? And, for anyone aware of Japanese anime, Chibiusa/Sailor Chibi Moon? The exact same arguments are levied against those characters.

You know, the ironic thing about Scrappy-Doo is that, back in the late 1970s when he was first added to the Scooby-Doo cast, he saved the show. The formula was wearing thin and they needed to try something a bit different. Hence, in came Scooby’s nephew Scrappy. And that garnered enough new interest to keep it going. Nothing else changed.

Of course, some would say that the addition of the sixth cast member did entirely alter the show. I disagree. They still solved mysteries. The ghosts were still fake. Scooby and Shaggy were still terrified. The only real differences were that Scrappy was eager to charge ahead and could never believe that Scooby was really a big coward. Actually, I think Scrappy’s presence added a whole new dimension to Scooby. It’s intriguing, seeing him try to look out for his nephew and keep him out of trouble despite his own fears.

That all being said, I don’t necessarily prefer the episodes with Scrappy. I just feel that the hatred against him is blown way out of proportion and is quite ridiculous.

And I feel the same for David. There was some character potential there. It wasn’t ever quite tapped—again, because of the writers, not David himself. I like the idea of Perry mentoring a young law student who idolizes him. That could have been very interesting and character-developing for Perry. One of my favorite scenes between them is when David rants about Hamilton in The Renegade Refugee and Perry tries to help him see that Hamilton isn’t the bad guy. Oh, why does this scene so often have to be cut for commercials? Sigh.

The problem was, the writers were trying to keep the standard formula rolling while trying to figure out what to do with this new character, and they couldn’t quite make it all fit. Good or bad, people don’t like seeing formulas get changed, much of the time. If David had stayed with the show, and/or if the writers had tried to change the formula to get him to better fit, would he have cost them viewer interest?

I honestly have no idea. And I don’t think there’s any way to know for sure. I only know that some viewers, at least, didn’t like the formula of always having Perry win, but that’s a rant for some other time. The point is, maybe some tweaks in the formula, even with David, wouldn’t have rattled most of them up too much. Some viewers would have no doubt been lost, as probably happened whenever any real casting change was made, but others would have stayed. And new ones would have come aboard.

Anyway, in the end, David is only there for what, nine episodes? It kind of boggles my mind that people can hate on a character so much who was there so seldom.

An ironic note: Karl Held played a different character in his first Perry appearance, one who seems far more aggravating and obnoxious than poor David ever was. That fellow, in The Angry Dead Man, is very disrespectful and unkind to his stepmother in some of his scenes, and I can't recall if he ever actually shows his good side.

David may have gotten off on a bad path in The Grumbling Grandfather, but he tries to turn his life around and make something of himself. He’s basically a good kid. He’s young and he’s still trying. Yes, he’ll make some mistakes. And maybe he’ll be a bit over-confident. But that doesn’t make him horrible, only human. And he doesn’t give up. I like to think that he makes it through law school and becomes a good attorney in his own right.

Karl did an excellent job portraying two extremely different characters.

I wish there could have been an actual send-off for the character, even so much as a mention, instead of having him fade into obscurity after The Shapely Shadow. He is a part of the Perry cast, like it or not, and he deserved better than he got. But alas, it was common in those days for characters to quietly slip away. Tragg and Andy both did as well.

Next week, weekday posts should resume their spot on Thursdays. This weekend post will be a celebration of the series overall, in commemoration of the anniversary of the premiere on September 21^st, 1957. I’m undecided on whether that entry will go up ahead of time. I may try to slip it in halfway, on the 22^nd.

First encounters

Next week there will be a lot of tribute posts. And I’m kind of wondering how to do the ones on the 30^th, for William Talman and Wesley Lau. Should I combine the tributes into one large post? Should I post twice that day, with them separate? Should I post one of them on the weekend and one on the 30^th?

I realize that in May, I ended up doing a combined post for Raymond Burr and Lee Miller, but that was only because I found out about Lee Miller’s birthday while checking up on material for Raymond’s post. Otherwise, the posts would have been separate (and on the proper days, too).

I feel like I want to do the memorial tributes for both William and Wesley on the right day. But I’m concerned that if I post them separately, even if on the same day, the first one may get lost in the shuffle. On the other hand, if they’re combined in one post, I’m not sure that would allot the same amount of attention to each one either.

It seems a problem without a perfect solution. This is the first time I’m faced with it, as last year I was unaware that they passed away on the same day (sixteen years apart). And that is sad and eerie and uncanny to begin with, as they are two of my three favorites.

Thoughts, anyone? What seems the most respectful way to handle this?

While checking up on some of the recurring cast and their birthdays, I stumbled across this: http://www.aveleyman.com/ActorCredit.aspx?ActorID=7782 I’ve been on this site now and then; they have some fun and rare pictures for various character actors. The picture of Karl Held they have up suddenly made me realize something. There are certain cast members from our show with whom I was at least aware of for years before I was introduced to Perry. Karl is one of them.

I honestly can’t remember when my dad introduced me to The Student Prince, but I am positive it was before I ever saw Perry. I also think it was before I developed an independent interest in old movies and television. If so, Richard Anderson may very well be the first Perry cast member I ever ran across. The more I think about it, the more I am very sure that his character Lucas was my favorite character from the film.

Isn’t it strange, how that works? He was my favorite, but I knew nothing about the actor, and by the time I became reacquainted with him years later I’d all but forgotten that initial encounter. And yet he managed to once again become a favorite due to Perry, with me not remembering the first meeting until after the fact. The same thing happened with Simon Oakland (whom I first saw on Perry years ago and immediately liked).

I guess it goes to show that my preferences have never really changed much, even after all this time.

As for Karl Held, well, my maternal grandmother had this magazine about cats that I just loved to read and re-read. One segment talked about cat movies. Disney’s 1965 classic That Darn Cat! was mentioned and I was intrigued. In 1996 I looked for it at the library and found it. I watched it, loved it, and my interest in old movies was sparked. It was the first old movie, aside from animated films and The Wizard of Oz, that I deliberately set out to see. That led to many more Disney comedies, and from there, an interest in similar fun family films.

I also watched the old movies my parents selected with greater interest and decided to seek out some of the awesome-sounding television shows my mom had talked about for years. I became so entranced with the golden oldies that for a time, I actually preferred things being in black-and-white to color! I generally prefer color again now, but some things really do look better in black-and-white for the shadows and mysterious effects.

Karl Held appears in That Darn Cat!, as an F.B.I. agent assigned to trail the titular character because there’s reason to believe the kitty knows where a kidnapped bank teller is being held. While he wasn’t my favorite of those agents, I enjoyed his part. The scenes of the agents tailing the cat are among my most favorites in the film.

(And I didn’t realize Karl Held has such pretty blue eyes. I’ve only seen him in black-and-white stuff other than this, I think. And I haven’t seen the film again since becoming better aware of who Karl is. Man, he looks good in a fedora. Of course, people generally do. It’s such a cool hat.)

I find it kind of neat that a Perry cast member was in the thing that sparked my interest in old media. And I’m one of the very few people who honestly isn’t bothered by David Gideon, so that makes it even better for me.

Offhand, I also remember seeing Raymond Burr in A Place in the Sun years ago. I want to say it was before I saw Perry, but I’m honestly not sure on that. It probably was, though, because otherwise my parents probably would have talked about the irony of him playing a prosecutor, and I don’t recall such discussion. What I do remember, very vaguely, is thinking he was very good in the part.

Ray Collins I met prior to Perry because of my love for the Ma & Pa Kettle films. I wouldn’t be surprised if I saw him in other things too. I remember The Magnificent Ambersons being on television sometimes and catching snatches of it.

William Hopper I would have seen in Rebel Without a Cause, but even though I liked that film, I cannot bring his character to mind. I regret that. I should get the film out again and refresh my memory.

It’s very possible that I saw Barbara Hale in things before Perry, too. With William Talman and Wesley Lau it’s more unlikely, since their films are sadly more obscure for the most part.

I would tentatively say it’s slightly possible that I saw Wesley in The Alamo, if that film was on television at some point. It’s probably one of the two most commercially available of all of his films. Of course, I also saw him in I Want to Live!, but I think I first saw that film after seeing Perry. I wish I could remember for sure. It’s also possible that even if it was after, it was before I saw any Wesley episodes.

I want to say that I thought the main character’s husband was very cute, in spite of the character being a deadbeat jerk. If that happened, it was similar to how I immediately liked Simon and didn’t want his Perry character in The Frantic Flyer to be hurt, even though he was . . . quite a nasty fellow. Instead of just being completely shallow, I think it was more that the actors themselves appealed to me, rather than their specific characters in those productions. Their goodness shone through.

(Albeit every now and then, I do become downright fond of a specifically antagonistic character, if the personality intrigues me in a certain way. I am extremely fond of Emil Sande in The Alamo and feel sorry for him when he is killed while trying to defend his weapon stockpile that Davy Crockett and the others show up to take. But that is a ramble for another place. Maybe on the 30^th, hmm?)