Skip to main content

Random pop-culture information moment




You may be excused for not knowing the name, dear reader. 

But Sheldon Leonard Bershad was an important figure in Hollywood for decades.  He was a ubiquitous character actor in the 1940s, playing the bartender Nick in A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946) for example, and playing Cyprian Boyle, a pirate, in CAPTAIN KIDD the following year. You can find his name in the above movie poster, although you may have to look closely for it there.

By the mid 1950s Bershad had moved behind the camera, becoming a successful movie and television producer.  Very successful, especially on television. He produced MAKE ROOM FOR DADDY, THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, GOMER PYLE USMC and others.  

In the second season of the show THE MONKEES, there is a sort of tribute to Sheldon Leonard Bershad, and in fact to his role as a pirate.  In the eighth episode of that season a character named "Sheldon Leonard" approaches Peter Tork and persuades him to trade in his guitar for ... a treasure map!

Now we get to the random pop-culture moment.  I only recently learned that this fellow was the inspiration for the first names of the two central characters in THE BIG BANG THEORY.  Apparently the writers were fans of Bershad's and did their bit to carry on his legacy with the first names of Messrs Hofstadter and Cooper.

Good to know. 

Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryMay 22, 2025 at 5:31 AM

    I never heard of Sheldon Leonard Bershad, but I have heard of Sheldon Leonard--the actor, not the character in The Monkees whom you mention. Sheldon Leonard Bershad is the same person as Sheldon Leonard the actor. For his stage name, he dropped "Bershad." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Leonard

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ChristopherMay 22, 2025 at 5:42 AM

      Indeed. The "Bershad" is absent from the movie poster I use as illustration above.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
23 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...
Post a Comment
Read more