It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Why would the actors do any better than the writers or directors? Strike or no?
Strike? Do they really need to strike?
I’d share my thoughts on this, but I don’t think you’d understand. You are constantly mis-characterizing AFTRA. And I don’t think you understand the differences between the two guilds. You buy into Membership First’s line just as badly as Nikki does.
Your suggestion of an extension makes no sense. The current SAG leadership is playing brinksmanship. More time goes against that. Not to mention there is an upcoming guild election and the renegotiating of the commercials contract in the fall.
There isn’t much left to negotiate here. SAG caved on a higher dvd rate (still trying to get 15% P&W contribution above current payout, which the individual actors don’t see a penny of). The clip reuse deal that AFTRA got is the proposal SAG wanted and was denied in the first round of negotiations. That leaves product placement and force majeure issues. Doubt they’ll get movement on the first. Can probably do something about the second. Neither are really strikeable issues.
But, we won’t know until that SAV as asked for. If they fail to get 75%, game over. If they only get 75-80%, the leadership will push for strike and the AMPTP will try to break the union (and possibly succeed). To have any sort of real impact, the vote would have to be in 90 percentile (which I don’t see happening in current climate).
I’m not in SAG or WGA, but it seems to me like the rules are a little different as far as strike-effects, thusly…
If I’m trying to sell a script, and it gets bought, then I can get into the WGA. If I had done that during the strike, I’d be considered a scab.
However, it takes more than one acting role to be SAG. So if I audition for an indie film during a SAG strike and get it, well, it wouldn’t have been enough to get me into SAG anyway, so I can’t really be called a scab for that. You also hear all the time about SAG waivers for indie films, but never WGA waivers.
Am I wrong? I certainly could be.
I haven’t even heard what the main points of contingency were supposed to be w/SAG. Last summer, everyone knew what the writers were after and what the companies had offered. I’d imagine it still has to do with Internet delivery & electronic sell through residuals. I had thought the main reasons the companies didn’t settle earlier with the writers had less to do with the writers and more to do with the resulting figures that would have to be presented to the actors.
How much would public perception play into the decision to strike? Julia Louis Dryfus and Eva Longria make for great copy and photo ops for a ‘down with the people’ crusade but would seeing Tom Cruise, George Clooney and Reese Witherspoon in sweats and baseball caps circling Paramount’s front gates incite a venomous backlash across an already irate $4+/gallon paying, mortgage defaulted country? And if they (A-listers) didn’t show, would it be a viewed as sign of disunity or that the hypocritical malcontents do no work – regardless of what the median wage or status of the average member is.
How much would SAG be looking out for SAG and how much would it be looking out for its members? An example of could be major agencies. Once upon a time it was the major power player getting a client on a hot project or increased paycheck. Now, they’re controlling the project/package and using as much leverage to set it up w/greatest financial upside, (whereby in theory the talent repped by the power player can get a bigger paycheck). With SAG having the power to now shut down a production, would it now, (as kind of example), look to gain the power to shut down a distributor, like Hulu or USA Network.com for not being able to control content distribution, which could mean lost residuals for talent? Maybe not that specifically but along those lines…?
LYT:
Actually, not true about needing more than one acting job to join SAG. You are thinking about SAG vouchers (one method of gaining entry). If you were on a SAG project as an extra you can get (but not always) a voucher. Three allows the individual to pay into the union.
However, if you are hired by a SAG film to do a job, you can get Taft-Hartley’d. You become SAG eligible, meaning you don’t have to pay the dues yet, but must before working the next SAG job. There is a fine to the production company by SAG to do this and paperwork to be filled out. Production has to explain why they couldn’t use an existing member. It is in short a hassle that a lot of productions do not want to deal with.
There were WGA waivers during the last strike, but to companies that were not affiliated with AMPTP.
Well, Hend, you seem to be sharing your thoughts… and I appreciate it.
I do think AFTRA has an agenda that works against SAG and I do believe that they want to acquire as much new territory as they can. I completely understand the difference between the two unions… but I also understand – or admit, unlike you – that AFTRA continues to creep into areas where SAG has always traditionlly been. And the wider AFTRA spreads its actor-unfriendly deals, the more studios adjust to make their projects AFTRA instead of SAG, because the can save money.
This is the same illogic that Clinton’s continued attacks on Obama meant nothing. Wounds are wounds, even if they aren’t fatal. And while one expects them to be inflicted by the other side, one does not expect them from inside the family. And that’s what AFTRA’s behavior represents.
But we can agree to disagree. You can argue me as ignorant (like Nikki), but all I will argue against you is that I think you are wrong. I have no idea what your motives or interests are here.
I don’t think there will be a SAG strike, because I also agree that there is nothing significant enough for them to strike on. AMPTP played the AFTRA situation exactly the way they played DGA as leverage to shut down WGA. And that was after all the other unions were done, which was already pretty much enough – along with the earlier 3 month work stoppage – to avoid a strike.
The failure of SAG leadership is something I would also argue is the case. The militants are not militant enough for my tastes, since they are not moving the bar… and as I write, AMPTP (nor AFTRA) is not their biggest problem.
And the old leadership is far to passive in other ways for my tastes. It’s not my union, so I have no vote. But my philosophy would be that if the militants want to be militant, they need to be tougher. And if the passives want to lay down, they need to lay down more happily. Right now, the deals all get split down the middle… which is perfectly fine with the AMPTP. Labor is the least of the issues that the studios have to worry about these days.
To my eye, the biggest mistake many of the people in the unions make is seeing it in too narrow and personal a prism. AMPTP only cares about the big strokes. And the unions tend to obsess on the micro-details.
Wrong, David. AFTRA isn’t encroaching on SAG territory. It’s the other way around. And AFTRA’s primetime rates are comparable to SAG’s (in most cases, identical).
But, just some history for you. Membership First started as Save SAG during the merger vote. They fought the merger and won. The theory being that it wouldn’t be an actor’s union anymore and they couldn’t risk the possibility of change.
Ever since that vote, MF has been railing against its sister union. Doug Allen, The SAG NED, wrote and 8 page article in the SAG membership magazine saying how horrible a union AFTRA was in October 2007. The current leadership was under the belief that AFTRA would cave to SAG if they pushed hard enough and then was caught with its pants down when they didn’t.
The agenda has been SAG’s the whole way.
Even now, SAG is not putting forth it’s own agenda, it is trying to destroy AFTRA’s ratification.
And that’s not to say that SAG isn’t divided against itself. The A-listers want no part of a strike (and I think may break ranks if one were to come). SAG NY can’t stand the Hollywood Board, but doesn’t have the votes to do anything about it. Ditto the hinterlands (even combined with NY).
I’m not convinced the current leadership won’t call a strike if they get an authorization (even a bare minimum one).
As to my agenda, I work with actos in both AFTRA and SAG contracts. I’m tired of all the disinformation going around and I’m doing my part to correct the errors as I see them.
An intelligent leadership should, get the increases it can on basic rates, straighten out force majeure. Sign a deal. Then take the next three years to examine the state of the industry (spend the money that the DGA did to know whereof they speak). WGA is set to renegotiate two months before SAG currently in the next round. The militants in the two unions will actually have an opportunity to link up effectively then. Maybe lose this battle, but win the war in the next round.
I agree that it is a lot less likely that SAG will go on strike, although the latest activities of the Membership First group certainly give me some pause.
hendhogan is correct that the big indicator of the two Allens will be the holding of a Strike Authorization Vote. So far, they’ve been avoiding the really inflammatory stuff in the press while they negotiate – unlike the WGA situation where bombs were being thrown every day of the negotiations in the press. The Monday rally is not a good sign, but it is interesting that the leadership is not officially describing it the way the blog hardliners are.
The thing about a Strike Authorization Vote is that it will completely tip their hand. Even asking for the vote in the current climate is an indication that they want to go out. Given that SAG board members have expressed concern that such a vote would likely not get the 75% approval level (and possibly not even 50%), the vote itself would leave SAG leadership with very few options. If the vote failed, the leadership would immediately lose their position in the negotiations, and could be in a situation where they would be forced to step down. If the vote succeeded in getting 90% of the membership to approve a strike, the guild would effectively be forced to do it – since this result would polarize the AMPTP. And the result of what could be another 4-6 months of picket lines would be something that could be obtained today at the negotiation table without putting everyone out on the line.
I note also that WGA was fairly well organized when they went out. David Young was nothing if not well versed in how to prepare for a strike – they had all their picket captains set, their picket strategy worked out, their shifts created, and a whole informational system established. (It has been argued that the WGA spent over a year and a half preparing for a strike while the DGA wpent over a year and a half preparing for a negotiation, and that each guild got what it had prepared for.) SAG has done nowhere near the level of organizing that WGA did. Given the disorganization, the continuing feud with AFTRA, and the dissatisfaction that many members have with the current approach, a strike at this time would seem to be as disastrous an idea for SAG as it would be for all the film and TV crews it would devastate. And for a lot of people just recovering from the 4-7 month work loss caused by the WGA strike, the word “devastate” is probably an understatement.
Does anyone know how many times a Hollywood union has called for a strike vote and NOT gone out on strike?
The problem I have with your position, Hend, is not the rate card, but working rules and residuals. I have been told by more than a few working actors that working under an AFTRA contract has made their residulas disappear and led to worsened working conditions.
Do you think those who feel they have experienced this are consipiring to make AFTRA look bad?
So you think that those in SAG who feel that AFTRA is infringing – and I am gathering that you are of the believe that anything shot on videotape belongs to AFTRA, no? – are just crazy?
Is there any argument you can make that isn’t about those against AFTRA in SAG being 100% wrong?
I’m not asking to antagonize… I am sincere in asking. My experience looking into this – and I look pretty hard, because I am uncomfortable with some of my friends who are very, very anti-AFTRA since I know they are so anxious to find elements of the union that can be targetted and controlled – is pretty one-sided.
Even what you have argued before… seems to be – and please correct me if I am oversimplifying – that AFTRA isn’t infringing, that they are just as good on contracts that might otherwise be under SAG, and that you are put off by the blaming of AFTRA instead of taking internal responsibility at the union. No?
With due restrain, where is an affirmative argument?
Sorry for the long departure. Weekend was hectic.
No side is either fully right or fully wrong. And I don’t have a particular bone to grind against SAG (more the way it’s been lead this last few years). I, too, know people who feel that AFTRA residuals suck (and they do). Of course, SAG cable residuals suck equally as hard. And the people that complain about AFTRA residuals are complaining about cable, not primetime (which are commensurate with SAG).
There is a difference between raiding and competing. Remember, the leadership of SAG, Membership First, are the people that voted down the merger as SAVE SAG. That creates two distinct unions with different philosophies on how to organize shows. By the very nature of having two, you are going to create competition. (side note: if you look at the original agreement between SAG and AFTRA under the 4As, all television is supposed to be the province of AFTRA). The default switch isn’t SAG. AFTRA is taking from SAG, it is competing. Equally.
You did oversimplify a bit, but hardly your fault. This is really complicated stuff. AFTRA and SAG rates under the primetime contract are roughly the same. Different ways of getting there, but they both arrive in the same place. It’s the cable contracts that get tricky.
And, yes, SAG should be focused on getting it’s own deal done. The reason (this time) for attacking AFTRA is that the two Allens went to the studio heads and asked for them to intervene (ala WGA) and were rebuffed. The deal on the table is the deal, not gonna get better than AFTRA. So, Doug Allen said they will fight the ratification of AFTRA’s contract (and spend at least $150,000 of actors dues to do so). Even though, they have no guarantee that they will get a better deal.
BTW, I’ve seen AFTRA’s deal. It’s good. It’s in line with the previous contracts and it sets no precedents in stone. And, it contains some hefty gains in Primetime rates (more than is typical with the joint AFTRA/SAG bargaining).
And, yes, I think Membership First made this bed and now doesn’t want to lay in it (even though it wasn’t very difficult to see that this is where we would all end up).
As to the affirmative argument comment, I’m not sure what you are getting at.