MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

An E-Mail From A Committed NO Voter On The SAG Contract

“You may have seen the video on sag.org. A rigidly scripted mantra that, just like the Guild Summary in our ballots, is remarkable more for what it DOESN’T say than for what it does tell us about the SAG TV/Theatrical contract.
These are pieces of DISinformation brought to us, at OUR expense, by the highly paid Crisis Management team of The Saylor Company, employed by OUR union because OUR union has been hijacked by “go-along-to-get-along” forces that think we can be fooled into drinking the Kool Aid.
VOTE NOW. VOTE NO on the SAG TV/Theatrical Contract
Here is a video hosted by Martin Sheen recommending a NO vote: Send out to the universe.
Below are links to YouTube videos filmed and edited by Rico Bueno of the Wild Bunch of Hollywood, from all the footage he has taken of our Vote No on the Contract pickets and rallies. They are true representations of our membership across the board, speaking from their hearts and their real life experiences. Worth watching.
This is Part One of Rico’s video
This is Part Two of Rico’s video
This is Part Three of Rico’s video
and here is a video by Rhonda De Felice.
Here’s what happened when one member attended the May 21st Informational meeting in Hollywood:
Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 11:18 AM
Hi everyone….
I recently left a message in support of voting yes for the upcoming theatrical vote. Last night I went to the meeting at the Renaissance Hotelwhich was sponsored by the “Vote Yes” contingency, and I left the 3 hour meeting a definite “NO” vote…to my surprise. I highly recommend you all attend whatever information meetings are available before you vote. There’s a lot of bogus info floating around and I apologize for the last message I posted. At this point, sure, we will lose work in the short term by voting “no” now, but the alternative is to lose our residuals and if this happens, they will be gone forever. That would be tragic for all of us!!!
I hope you will all really inform yourselves before you vote. If anyone wants info about last nights meeting you can contact me directly.
Thanks and I hope you all have a happy and safe holiday weekend!!!!
Bob

There is more information on the attached flyers. (1 | 2 | 3)You can download and print copies and pass them on.
VOTE NOW. VOTE NO.
In Solidarity
Scott Wilson”

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “An E-Mail From A Committed NO Voter On The SAG Contract”

  1. hendhogan says:

    Vote no and then what? What brings the AMPTP back to the table yet again? Bueller?
    I mean, these are the same people who advocated voting down the franchise agreement with agents in 2002 because THAT deal was unacceptable. Anyone want to wager a guess as to the status of that agreement today?
    Or howabout this, the AFTRA agreement will still exist. So, even if SAG gets everything it wants, all that guarantees is that all new media projects will be AFTRA for at least the next 2 years. And then what? Any chance of SAG synching up contracts with the other unions vanishes with voting this down.
    So, where’s the upside?

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

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