Monthly Archives: November 2007

From the 1964 Judy Garland Show on CBS, the lady herself and Mel Tormé sing "The Trolley Song." Tormé was a recurring guest star on the show, as well as being the guy in charge of putting together songs and special musical material every week. Shortly after this was taped, he and Judy had a falling-out and he was fired…not a huge loss for Mel because the show was already teetering on the verge of cancellation and Ms. Garland would be fired a few weeks later.

Several years later, after Garland was dead, Mr. Tormé wrote a book about his experiences on the series. It was called The Other Side of the Rainbow, With Judy Garland on the Dawn Patrol and while it professed love and admiration for Judy, it sure didn't make her out to be a very nice or stable person. I've met about a half dozen people who worked on the show and I've always asked them how accurate it was. Unanimous reply: Not very. They all say Tormé made himself look good at the expense of others and the truth, though they've split evenly on whether Garland was fairly depicted.

I have no idea but the whole series (which is available on DVD) has fascinated a lot of people, as much for the backstage tales as the often-memorable musical performances. Here's one of those musical moments…

Here's news of another strike: The union that represents Broadway stagehands has been working without a contract since July 31 and has chosen today to walk off their jobs. All but eight Broadway shows are immediately going dark and no one seems to know how long this will last. The previous strike, which was in 2003, ran for four days.

I'm heading for New York this coming week for some meetings with publishers, some bicoastal picketing, a comic convention and a bit of show-going. So am I afraid that the strike will mean the shows I intend to see won't be playing? Nope. I'm lucky enough to have tix for two shows that are among the eight that are unaffected by the strike. They're at theaters that have signed a separate deal with Local One, the Stagehands' union. I tried to get seats to Jersey Boys, which is among those that will close, but it's sold out and all my "I can get you house seats" friends found that they couldn't.

After I posted what I just posted, I came across this video which makes a lot of the same points. This is from the WGA General Meeting of a week ago Thursday. A writer named Howard Gould, who's a member of the Negotiating Committee, explains in a little more than three minutes how he came to see the necessity of this strike.

His speech came a little late in the proceedings. A lot of members had left by then, which is why you'll see a lot of empty chairs. But those of us who were still there gave Howard a standing-o because what he said seemed just so right.

This is my fourth WGA strike and while many things are the same as they always are, many are different. The main one in the latter category is that for the first time in my experience, there is no real opposition within the Guild.

That is amazing. Our members…they are a contentious lot, partly because the nature of writing seems to attract the highly-opinionated, partly because we have such varied specialties and lifestyles. Within the WGA, you have guys who wrote for Eddie Cantor and gals who just graduated Film School and sold their first script. You have the producer-writer who's way more producer than writer. You have the scribe who's unhappy with how his/her career's been going and who's always taking it out on the Guild, blaming it because he/she still doesn't own the house next door to Paul Haggis. You have game show writers, comedy writers, soap opera writers, dramatic writers, variety show writers, people who write slasher films, serious dramatists, people who write The Simpsons, documentary writers and Bruce Vilanch. You have a certain number of people who make a million or two per script and an awful lot who are sweating next month's mortgage payment, and you also have some people who are very brave about Not Working and others who view that in abject terror.

It's quite a mix.

In my previous strikes, I heard a lot from what we might call the naysayers…the faction that argues that striking at a certain moment or for specific issues is a bad idea. Sometimes, I even think they're right…though with some of them, that's due to the Stopped Clock principle. They always say it so it's occasionally true. In 1985, the "Don't Strike" crowd got their wish and stopped a strike. I think they were spectacularly wrong that year, especially the ones who screamed, "There will never be any money in home video!" Yeah, right. It's amazing how many of those people could now pass polygraph tests and swear that they were loyal supporters of that strike and can't believe how many lunkheads opposed it.

In this strike, I am hearing none of that. So far, not a peep. Not from within the WGA ranks, anyway. Now, granted: The strike's only about a week old but usually, this view is heard by now, heard before the strike happens, in fact. Commencing on or before Day One of previous strikes, it was receiving a disproportionate share of attention because, after all, the Producers control a lot of the media and they like "Dissent grows within WGA" as a headline. Plus, of course, a divided union is a more interesting news story than one that's hanging together. If the strike goes on another few weeks, there'll be some members starting to cave and their number will be blown all out of scale in the press.

But so far, the mob that yells, "Take the offer and let's get back to work" has been pretty much non-existent. Why? Well, a huge reason is that the idea of agreeing to let the studios make as much money as they can off the Internet with us receiving bupkis is just too outrageous. Even those whose hearts are with Management have a hard time siding with that one. But there's an even bigger reason that no one in the WGA wants to take the offer and that is that there is no offer.

It struck me the other day that that's one thing that's different this time. In my previous strikes, the Producers had presented us with a unilateral and rotten contract proposal — a few increases in minimums, generally below the cost-of-living rates…a few rollbacks, some of them quite large…and there's always one little item that we can celebrate as a "gain." Usually, these offers aren't even a product of two-way negotiations. Usually, the Producers just refuse to listen to anything we want to say and instead hand us a bad "take it or leave it" offer and to leave it means to go on strike. This time, there have been some talks — apparently fruitless — that have led to no offer. There is no piece of paper that the "Don't Strike" mob can wave about at the moment and insist is good enough.

As I understand it, the Producers' position at this moment is as follows: Take the two most important issues — DVDs and Internet delivery — off the table. Drop all your demands in those areas and then (and only then) we'll sit down with you and make a decent offer that covers the other stuff.

So if someone asks you why the WGA is striking…well, there it is. We haven't accepted the deal because there is no deal. All there is is a demand that we surrender before they'll discuss surrender terms. Matter of fact, given the Producers' long history of "negotiating" by dictating their terms and then walking out of the room, it's unlikely that they will discuss anything in a give-and-take manner even then.

I have one friend — well, let's call this fellow an acquaintance — who I've known since we worked on a variety show way back in the days when there were variety shows. He's always been terrified of a strike…any strike for any reason at any time. He's always talking about burning his home down. Every time anyone mentions the "s" word in his presence, he starts hollering, "Why don't we all just save time and burn our houses?" If the Producers were demanding their hedges be trimmed "or else," he'd be on Peter Chernin's lawn with the clippers at this very moment.

Even he doesn't see that the WGA can do anything but what it's doing. I hope the boys at the AMPTP understand that when they can't even get this guy on their side, they've really botched this thing up.

I'm not sure when it was done — and I don't know where to find a copy of the whole thing (does anyone?) — but Stephen Sondheim did a TV special some years ago where he taught students how to sing some of his songs. A while ago, in this posting, I linked to a clip of him critiquing a brave young woman who was attempting to sing "Send in the Clowns," not only in front of its composer but in a public spectacle where he was expected to find fault with her performance. Here, three brave students take on one of Sondheim's most difficult songs with him playing teacher. The most interesting thing about this clip is the look on his face when he hears something he likes. It's a look I've seen on the face of every great songwriter I've been able to look at when he's hearing his song the way he wants to hear his song.

I didn't make it to the protest rally today. I tried to but with 4000 striking writers turning out, the parking situation was impossible. After driving around for a half-hour, I figured that if they had that kind of turnout, they probably wouldn't miss me.

With Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien refusing to cross picket lines and do their shows, there are rumors that NBC may insist on having guest hosts brought in to replace them. Now, there's a career-ender if ever there was one: Scab Guest Host. It'll be interesting to see whose career is so desperate that they'll even appear on those shows, let alone host. I mean, besides Joan Rivers.

I'll be doing more Q-and-A over the weekend but I thought it might interest someone to know that this item — the one in which I explained why I believe writers deserve residuals — has become the most-read posting in the four and a half years that this weblog has been around. It's had more hits than all the women who've ever dated Bobby Brown combined.

Okay, that's a pretty awful joke. Just remember I'm on strike.

In the meantime, go read Mark Harris on why the Writers are in the right. I don't agree with the folks who are saying the WGA leadership could have done a lot more to prepare for this but what's done is done. Harris is correct about the larger, current issues.

Only time for two this morning, starting with this one from Neil Ottenstein…

I was reading an article today about how Fox executives are saying that their network will actually benefit from the WGA strike — higher than ever ratings for American Idol and less costs otherwise. I was thinking that this might actually be a good thing for the WGA. If all the studios were suffering equally then they might be more united in this, knowing that at least the other guys are doing just as poorly. If
on the other hand, Fox is actually doing better, and much better in comparison to the others, then maybe the other networks will realize that they need to get some high quality scripted shows out there to provide some competition. In order to actually be competitive they need to settle the strike.

It might be a good thing for the WGA. It might also be true, at least in the short run. One of the reasons WGA strikes tend to be longer than some other unions' (or happen more often) is this delayed impact that we have when we walk. It takes a while for our absence to get noticed and there's also sometimes a brief benefit to the studios and networks when they clear out some old product, write off some old contracts, etc. Of course, they're almost always going to say that they're hurting less than they are and might even claim they're delighted that we're striking. That's just part of the game that's being played.

I learned this trick when I was thirteen years old and buying old comic books I really, really wanted. You dare not let the seller know how much you want it when you're haggling over price. You have to act like it doesn't matter that much to you or that there are other places you can get it cheaper. It works the same way in any negotiation and all the players know it. In this case, the Producers have to say, "Oh, we can wait a while for the Writers to come crawling back to the bargaining table. We're not hurting. In fact, some of us are even doing better because of the strike."

And then we have this from Boyd Jeremy…

Regarding this matter of you writers being overpaid, do you think you are? What do you say to someone who works a 40 hour week selling shoes for less money than a writer makes in twenty minutes?

I think, first of all, you note that there are shoe salesmen who make a lot more money than some of the people I'll be marching with in about an hour. What I think some people don't "get" is that show business is one of those lottery-like fields where only a few do really, really well. They are not typical. They also are not the people whose incomes would be most affected by any strike. Strikes are generally about setting or raising minimums.

Next year, the Screen Actors Guild will get some sort of increase in scale payments and may even have to strike to get it. Whatever they get will have no meaningful impact on the annual income of Mr. Tom Hanks. He might make a few more bucks off those Bosom Buddies DVDs but it'll probably amount to about what he tips the servers at his favorite restaurant. Still, if actors are picketing, the Producers will be wailing, "Those ungrateful, overpaid actors! Why, do you know how much we have to pay Tom Hanks to make a movie for us?" But of course, those people bid against each other to get Tom Hanks. They offer him that money because they believe he's worth it. You can't say someone is overpaid and then offer him five million dollars more than he got on his last job.

Well, you can. And they do. But we don't have to think anyone, including the person saying that, really believes it.

The thing I would say to anyone who thinks TV and movie writers make "too much" (whatever that means) is…well, I'd say a couple things. One is that there's a lot of money in this industry. Some ventures are very profitable and if you're an important contributor to one of those, you ought to get paid well. If you don't get paid well, it does not mean (as I've noted here before) that the money you don't get goes to widows and orphans. It goes to the studios and the CEOs and to someone else who will probably have less to do with the success of the show or movie than you do and may already be even more "overpaid" by whatever definition of that word is being applied to you.

You also — and this is a very real issue for some of us — lose in non-monetary ways when you aren't paid well. The people you work with treat you and your work better when you establish its value, at least in comparison to what everyone else is receiving. That may not be the most logical thing in the world but it's usually true. There is a "pecking order" and a hierarchy of respect on any production and it is not disconnected from the size of the checks everyone's getting. You often establish your importance in that hierarchy by being one of the better-paid participants. Even if you turn around and give half your fee to those widows and orphans, you oughta get every dollar you can get without killing somebody. It's one of the best ways to remind everyone what you're worth.

Also, of course, sometimes it takes a long period of unpaid or lowly-paid struggle to get to the point where you can command Top Dollar and then it doesn't last all that long. A writer spends five years writing unsold, spec screenplays. Finally, he sells one that gets made and the movie's a hit. He gets paid very well for the next one or two and his fee skyrockets…but at some point, it crashes back down to Earth and he's back to the low money and writing scripts that don't get sold. He may seem overpaid for a time there but not when you average it out over the length of his career. I don't know a lot about the business of selling shoes but I don't think they have anything similar going on there.

Which I guess would be the main thing I'd say to that person. You really don't know, just as I don't know what "overpaid" would be for a shoe salesman. I suppose no paycheck would be too large if he was selling enough shoes…and he wouldn't be getting that compensation, whatever it was, if the store wasn't making a decent amount from his efforts. I wonder if anyone who thinks a TV writer is overpaid also thinks a novelist whose book sells 50,000 copies and goes through ten printings shouldn't make a lot more than an author who sells 5,000 copies of one press run.

A few of the e-mails I've received about the strike and some of the web chatter I've read suggest to me that the commenters know as little about my profession as I do about theirs. That is not in any way a putdown of what they do. Perhaps in a strict numerical way, I have the potential to make a lot more in my line of work than they do. That's quite possible. I also have potential downsides that they don't have and perhaps aren't seeing when they're only looking at reports, sometimes exaggerated or way outta context, of what a few in my profession receive. The other man's grass and all that.

No one, I should hope, is expecting you to feel sorry for us Professional Writers because we're getting gypped on DVD money and Internet downloads and the like. Not a one of us chose this line of work under duress. This is just a business dispute — a larger, nastier version of the kind of thing that goes on thousands of times a day in Hollywood when we aren't on strike, and which happens in some form in any profitable business. We may get emotional because we do see our work and human lives getting damaged by a number of things that the Producers have done or are attempting to do. You'd get emotional if your boss was trying to slash your salary, too. Or whittle away your family's health insurance.

I think we'd just like you not to buy the "spin" that the strike is because we're tired of filling our swimming pools with Evian water and need the extra bucks to buy Pellegrino. The folks in Management — the Nick Counters of the world, whose jobs are to get us to sign for as little money as possible — certainly don't believe that. They're in the business. They know how things work and where the money is. So don't you believe it.

That's all for now. I gotta go carry a sign up and down in front of Fox.

Jim Hawthorne, a funny man and a pioneer of TV and radio in Los Angeles, has died at an age somewhere in his eighties.

I'm just old enough (I'm 55) to recall when Hawthorne was broadcasting in this town, always doing something so fresh and clever that people were talking about it the next day. His name was often mentioned in the same sentence as an Ernie Kovacs or a Steve Allen…both of whom acknowledged him as friendly competition and occasional inspiration. Hawthorne also had a brief film career, including a period when he was teamed with comic actor Joe Besser after Besser left The Three Stooges.

I wrote about Hawthorne here and linked you to a video clip that sadly doesn't capture the general wonderfulness of his on-air energy. But to those of us who remember him fondly, it's better than nothing.

More Bob and Ray. This is a sketch from a 1979 special that ran in the Saturday Night Live time slot. It was done by most of the same crew and it was called Bob & Ray & Jane & Laraine & Gilda. It featured them and the ladies of SNL and it was pretty funny, I thought. I watched it again recently when I transferred my old Beta copy to DVD. Lorne Michaels ought to release it on a real DVD or perhaps include it on one of the SNL collections. Here it is…

And here we have a 1968 article in which Roger Ebert visits the set of one of our favorite movies.

The Broadway version of Young Frankenstein opened this evening. I think I'm seeing it next Thursday night.

Here's a link to an NPR story on Mel Brooks and the show. And there are a number of other radio clips about Mel to listen to on that page.

And you can see a pretty long video sampler over on this page. (Caution: The video starts automatically and may be loud.)

So…which do we think will prove to be more embarrassing to Rudy Giuliani? His relationship with Bernard Kerik, who today was indicted on multiple counts of tax evasion and corruption —

— or his relationship with Televangelist Pat Robertson? My money's on Pat.

While I've got your attention: Mayor Giuliani seems to like to dress up in women's clothing an awful lot for shows and stunts and parties. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

However, I think that if a possible/probable Democratic candidate for the presidency had even done that once, this election would not be about Iraq or Health Care or jobs or "the Economy, stupid" or any of that. It would wind up being about the charge that the candidate and anyone who'd even think of voting for him is a sexual deviant and a pervert. Somewhere on my hard disk I still have the e-mail from an acquaintance trying to convince me that John Kerry wasn't a "real man" because he went wind-surfing.

Time for more of these, starting with this message from Ed Coyote…

On basic principles, based on the YouTube video, I have no problems supporting the strike, or the writers' goals for fair compensation. That being said, I'm left with the impression that it was a strike at some point in the past that led to the residual payment plan in the first place, and with that having been established, the genie was let out of the bottle so to speak. If that first deal hadn't been cut, do you think some other compensation system would have been worked out? Or would the issue always come back to that, meaning more strikes along the way?

Beyond that, maybe you can help me with the math in the video. The original deal was for 2 1/2 cents on the dollar. Then there was the 80% reduction, which took it down to 1/2 cent on the dollar. Which means that the residual on a $19.99 CD works out to .09995 cents, which is damn close to a dime. I know it's not the only issue, but the math says you're doing better than the 8 cents you're looking for. Did I err? I mean, I must have, but I'm not seeing where based on the video.

Anyway, thanks for your time. I'm glad you're blog isn't covered by the WGA.

If it were, maybe I'd make a buck on it once in a while.

To your first question: I think that if the WGA hadn't established the principle of residuals when it did, it would have happened later, either because we fought for it then or another labor organization had set the precedent.

To your second: I think the math has been over-simplified a bit here for public consumption, and it omits a very important aspect of all this, which is that the way in which the DVD money is paid lends itself to what some people call Hollywood Accounting.

In its raw form, Hollywood Accounting is when you write the top-grossing movie of the year and your deal calls for you to receive 5% of the profits…only the studio forever claims that there are no profits. The film cost $50 million to make. It's taken in $500 million so far but around the same time, the studio decided they needed to spend a billion dollars to put up a couple of new office buildings…and of course, since people who'll work in those buildings work on the marketing of your film, that means the new buildings are an expense of your film and must be deducted before they get around the calculating profits, which means there aren't any.

Our DVD formula not only stinks but it's configured to allow for loopholes and number-juggling. The Producers can deduct some expenses before they pay you your teensy percentage. I don't know if it's still part of the WGA demands but at some point, one was going to be to clean up some of the language that lends itself to that kind of chicanery. Saying that we get four cents per DVD and want it upped to eight cents is not precise but it's close. The main stonewall in this area is that we think the number needs to be improved and the Producers are resisting the whole idea of ever raising it for any reason. They like how poorly all the unions (not just us) are paid and want to hold onto that for as long as possible.

Next, we have this from Janet Harriett…

Reports keep coming out of this show or that show "shutting down production." Does this mean the shows are effectively being cancelled, or will shows that have shut down come back with new episodes once the strike is over? I'm guessing some shows are fairly safe — Comedy Central isn't going to permanently boot The Daily Show — but could the strike jeopardize shows that were new this season, so they don't necessarily have a long track record with ratings or a lot of episodes to take them through an extended period of reruns?

Most shows will come back with new episodes whenever it seems possible to make them. "Shutting down" generally means they just can't film or tape them at the moment. However, networks would be cancelling some of these shows even if there was no WGA strike, so those shows probably won't come back. And I suppose the following is possible: A show is limping along with feeble ratings and the network is thinking of getting rid of it. If it shuts down because of the strike, that might seem like a good time to pull the trigger on it. They're certainly starting some new shows because of the strike. (A revival of American Gladiators hosted by Hulk Hogan? Wouldn't you have loved to have been in the meeting where they came up with that? I'll bet that meeting was more interesting that the show will be.)

And this last one is from Christopher Jones…

I watched the "Writers Strike: Why We Fight" video on your website, which ends with a statement urging the viewing to "Support the WGA."

OK, I'm sold (I was already). I'm thoroughly convinced that the WGA is fighting on the side of the angels. So what can I do to "support
the WGA." I live in a suburb of Minneapolis, not Hollywood, so I can't come out and join the picket lines. What else could I do? Is there a fund to help support striking writers? Would writing letters actually help apply pressure to the producers in any meaningful way? Where would these letters need to be sent?

I don't know about any fund. I would think the two main things would be to help send out the right message and to bitch mightily about the reruns and the hardships and your favorite scripted entertainment being replaced by a revival of American Gladiators hosted by Hulk Hogan. If you hear your friends moaning about those overpaid, stuck-up Hollywood Writers who don't know how good they have it, set them straight. More important, you have an Internet. Use it to voice your support of our cause and your rejection of all that Management Spin.

If your favorite show is in reruns, don't watch 'em. Call or write to your local station or to the network and tell them you're going away and may not be coming back. It's the same way you'd protest if they cancelled your favorite show, the same numbers and address. You ought to be able to get it off the network's website.

Really though, there's not much you can do except to help us remind everyone who the Good Guys are in this battle. The Producers control a lot of the media and it's tough to fight them in that arena. Right now, we're doing great but if this strike goes on for a time, the stories won't be about Julia Louis-Dreyfuss coming out to join the pickets. Some members will get scared and the stories will be about them and their fears and problems. In '88, we got hammered by a lot of inaccurate press coverage and there is the hope that with the Internet now in the equation, some of that can be countered. So it would be nice if you all helped keep the faith on the web.

That's all for now but I did want to repeat my disclaimer: I'm not an official of the Guild, just a longtime member. Anything I post on this site is just my opinion…which is worth about as much as anyone's. Or maybe a little less.

The Writers Guild (my Writers Guild) has put together a little three and a half minute video that explains a few of the issues in our current strike. As you watch it, keep in mind there are others. And try to ignore the obvious jokes about whether the guy who wrote this got paid for it.

Rereading my answer to Martha Thomases (below) I see that in my haste to get back to work, I skipped over part of her question. Here's something else I should have said…

During a strike, it has sometimes been a WGA tactic to offer what are called interim agreements. We negotiate with this multi-employer bargaining unit called the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) which represents six big companies. Once we make a contract with them, all the other employers sign what are sometimes called "Me Too" agreements, meaning that they agree to abide by the same terms. So the AMPTP, in effect, negotiates on behalf of all the producers in town.

An interim agreement is when we're on strike and an independent producer says, in effect, "If you'll take me off the Strike List and let my writers return to work, I'll agree to your terms." There are variations on how these pacts are structured but in most cases, the Indie has a Favored Nations option. That is, he signs a new contract that the WGA draws up and then when we make our deal with the AMPTP — a deal which presumably will have more favorable terms for a Producer — the Indie can elect to switch to that. In any case, the principle is that they agree to sign with us, we go back to work at that studio and then, whenever the new contract is finalized, it displaces the interim agreement.

As a strike tactic, there are pros and cons of whether interim agreements help or hurt us in forcing a settlement with the AMPTP. Some also worry — and I think this is unwarranted but it is a concern — that it will wound Guild Solidarity if some members go back to work while others march the picket lines. In the past, we have sometimes (not always) offered interim agreements after a strike was on for a period of time…but the results have not been impressive. The AMPTP studios have put pressure on the independent producers not to sign them and it usually works. As Larry Gelbart once noted, an independent producer is a producer who's dependent on everyone else

Martha asked if Harvey Weinstein, for example, could go in and sign a WGA interim agreement. Well, if and when we offer them, he could. At the moment, the WGA is not offering interim agreements. As I understand it, the thinking is that we don't want to let a few, unimportant companies go back, at least not yet. If NBC wanted to sign, we'd probably make an exception because that would put pressure on the other majors. In fact, it would rupture the AMPTP and its precious collaboration…but signing a few companies won't put any heat on the Big Guys right now.

However, Harvey Weinstein probably wouldn't sign an interim agreement if they were available. Why? Because the members of the AMPTP — Sony, Universal, Time Warner, etc. — would have told him not to, and Harvey has to do business with those people. So it may not even matter if we offer them or not.