HOLLYWOOD ACTOR PREP by Dana Kaminski

What a shocker! The SAG CONTRACT INFORMATIONAL MEETING, in Hollywood, was expected to be a PR stunt for the ‘vote yes’ side…

Instead, 600 actors turned out, and let everyone know that they were voting NO. No—ratifying—this—”bad—deal”.

I, for one, am relieved. I believe actors should be paid for their work, and paid more than they get now…(How radical am I!) 

I don’t mean more pay for the big earners, the actors that make millions; those you read about in the press. 

I mean the other 95% of the actors in SAG. Those that you don’t read about. The ones whose names are in the credits at the end of every movie  you see. You know, when everyone leaves the theater?

Those professional actors have a life that is vastly different from the big earners.  They are talented, skilled, experienced; many you would recognize…And they deserve to be paid.

The new SAG Contract, the one up for ratification, has holes so big that the entire population of actors will not be able to exist as professional actors. That is the estimate.  The “profession” will be diminished to “hobby” level. The idea of making a living as an actor, even a hungry one…will be no more. 

The actual future outcome for actors, if this contract goes…isn’t in the PR you may be hearing, about this contract; that some fine dollars went to pay for. 

The AMPTP Gave Actors A Take-It-And-Die-Either-Way Offer 

It’s all in the fine print and the holes; of the Theatrical TV SAG Contract, as offered by the TV Networks and Film Studios, to SAG Actors.  It’s a “take it or leave it” offer, or rather a “take it and die either way”, offer.

If  you keep reading my blog, I will try and explain it, and organize the items simply, so that it’s easier to comprehend.  Dense and complicated…but critically important. 

Right now– is when the voting on the contract is taking place, at SAG.  The deadline to turn in votes is, I think, June 6?

 As I said, I was certainly surprised at the force and overwhelming majority of actors who were ‘voting no‘ and let everyone know it, at the SAG meeting.

I don’t think I was the only one surprised. Some actors stayed away…everyone was expecting a persuasion to ratify…  

I think those on that ‘vote yes’side were shocked, too.  As was the new regime at SAG…because they, next, counter-acted with an move that will just blow your socks off…It’s just too crazy…  

If you think that all along this contract has been a circus of drama, j-u-s-t  w-a-i-t…!

                        But, I am not telling you yet! That’s tomorrow’s post!  

First,  you have to know what happened prior…

Here’s the article published by Nikki Finke, published in ‘Deadline Hollywood Daily’, on the SAG Contract Vote Information Meeting:

It was not a friendly room towards white or Ned Vaughn of Unite For Strength, part of the so-called SAG National Majority now leading SAG. Both were booed. While SAG President Alan Rosenberg and Ed Asner received standing ovations. There were over 600 people based on staff’s count, described to me as a broad mix of “working, kind of working, rarely working, and never working” actors. Everyone I spoke with agreed that the members opposed to the contract outnumbered those who favored the contract by as much as 75% “Vote No” to 20% “Vote Yes” with 5% undecided.

Anne-Marie Johnson, SAG VP, in 'That's So Raven'

 

Anne-Marie Johnson convened the Hollywood Division meeting and joining her on the dais where White, Vaughn, SAG Chief Negotiator John McGuire from NY, Stacy Travis, Connie Stevens, and Ray Rodriguez. A slide show covering the contract’s major points was shown. Then it was Q-and-A time with questions from the floor alternated with questions submitted on cards.

 

Several attendees told me Ned Vaughn made many misstatements, while Stacy Travis appeared overwhelmed by the task of answering queries. White is known for his calm manner but, when the crowd was not pleased with many of his answers, he began to get hot under the collar. Even more so when Rosenberg, Stevens and Johnson repeatedly voiced their opposition to the contract due to very fundamental issues such as the high budget threshold for made-for-New Media productions enabling rampant non-union productions, as well as the virtually non-existent residuals structure for network primetime content streamed on the Internet. “You can make a hell of a TV series for $300,000,” Stevens said. 

 

Vocal “Vote No” advocate Scott Wilson said from the floor that “it is stunning” that SAG was creating a space for non-union work funded by studios.

 

One “Vote Yes” supporter claimed more pilots were going to AFTRA than SAG. So White was asked specificxally how passing the contract would bring TV producers back from AFTRA. He had no clear answer. A “Vote No” backer said what mattered was the pilots’ success ratio. Said another, “The union we do pilots under is relevant because of thresholds towards penions and health. We’re dishonoring prior generations who fought for residuals and P&H.”

 

Regarding the latter, Ned Vaughn was asked if he thought SAG was throwing under the bus those older members who’d worked prior to 1971 when it came to residuals. Vaughn stated that their work was so old that they’d gotten paid already years ago. “It’s such a small amount of money anyway…” he added. The crowd didn’t like that reply at all.

 

Vaughn later told Variety that the “Vote Yes” contingent asked Rosenberg repeatedly to explain how voting the deal down will lead to a better agreement when the AMPTP has said repeatedly it won’t sweeten the terms. “I think a lot of members don’t believe that voting no is going to get us a better deal,” Vaughn told the trade.

 

Some questions from the “Vote No” contingent caught White in inconsistencies. For instance, on the issue of force majeure, White has continually insisted in the past that an issue like that in this contract will never be negotiated again with the AMPTP, not even in 2011. And, because this is all the guild could get on the issue, this contract should be ratified.  (“We will never be able to get anything back in force majeure, that’s for sure,” White has said.)

 

But when during last night’s questioning, White’s answer suddenly was not as definitive. “He sugar-coated his answer to make it appear as if SAG could go in and renegotiate things,” one “vote No” attendee told me. “He claimed the Sunset clauses allowed for that. Well, you could hear a collective moan from the crowd.”

 

White also tried to get out from under his quote “This deal sucks”, which I reported he said during a National Board meeting and which the “Vote No” contingent is now using in its campaign to reject the contract. White stated Thursday night that he should have used another word — not because he felt “suck” was an inappropriate word for an Interim NED to use during a board meeting, but because he was misunderstood and wanted to make it clear that there are good things about the contract. “Moans again,” a source told me.

Towards the end of the evening, Ed Asner spoke and received a standing ovation for expressing deep concerns about the contract. Frances Fisher expressed concern about clip use going forward because of the contract.

 

Actor Frances Fisher

 

 

I Received All The Info About SAG’s Informational Meeting, Live, On Twitter…

An actor on Twitter tweeted the whole event, as it unfolded. I am going to put some of those tweets at the bottom of this page, in case you don’t understand much about Twitter.  

Here is a summary that the same twitterer sent to me, just afterward, by email.  His name is Michael Heister; he’s a member of both SAG and AFTRA….Got a blog, too.

My name is Michael Heister, and I’m an actor member in good standing of both SAG and more recently AFTRA.

I attended and live-Tweeted the meeting Thursday evening (May 21). __dana__ and vdovault were kind enough to retweet (or RT as it’s known in the Twitterverse). Again, my gratitude to them for that and for passing on other information related to the current contract offer. VDO and I became acquainted with each other through the Internet during the WGA strike, and she’s cool and sharp and knows her stuff. 

Nikki Finke at DHD did a great job summarizing the event. [Posted above.] If you cross-reference my Tweets and her summary, I think she may have used me as a source. She didn’t contact me or source me, so I have no way of knowing. I can only infer from some similarities in phrasing between my live Tweets Thursday night and her post filed at 3 p.m. Friday. In any event, I’m cool with it and glad to be of service. Nikki does great work, and provides a valuable forum.

To recap, the meeting – one of many being held around the country, but Hollywood is by far the largest division within SAG – opened with introductions of the officials on the dais by First VP Anne-Marie Johnson. Interim National Executive Director (or IED as Nikki Finke so brilliantly acronym’ed him) David White, chief negotiator John McGuire, board member Ned Vaughn all got a mix of cheers and boos. Stacy Travis received light applause. IMHO she didn’t get booed because most of the Membership First folks in the room didn’t know she’s with Ned Vaughn in the Unite for Strength faction. SAG President Alan Rosenberg received a rousing standing ovation. And members were generally polite to SAG’s lawyer.

I slapped myself awake quickly enough to be second in line at the second mic. A built stunt guy galloped to the mic first, and I’m smart enough to know better than to get in the way of a stunt guy. I don’t know where those guys are bred and raised, but they’re the ones I want on my side in a guerilla war after the military falls against an alien invasion.

The first few questions – no disrespect to the stunt guy – were mild technical questions. Then it was my turn.

I asked David White specifically –what changed –in the offer between his February assessment that the deal “sucked” and the deal that we’re now voting on. I framed it as, what changed so the deal went from “suckage” to “non-suckage”. He did not answer my question. Instead of giving us insight into his thinking, or detailing the substantive differences (aside from the capitulation on force majeur and the shortening of the contract length, what is there??? Seriously, I don’t know, he didn’t tell us) between the offers, he burned through my whole two minutes with his regrets about having used the word “sucked” in the first place, so I couldn’t get a follow-up comment in.

A commenter at DHD brought up the person who questioned Ned Vaughn’s credentials as an actor. I responded at DHD, and I’ll reiterate here. We should bear in mind we’re all actors. We’re all professionals. This should never be personal. It’s about the best interests of members of the guild, which to my way of thinking align closely with the best interests of the industry. We argue the issues, not the individuals. For example, I am still in awe of Jamie Cromwell’s work in LA Confidential, and I associate that with my dad. My dad taught drama and he lived in LA in the period LA Confidential is set, and he was very impressed with Cromwell’s performance. 

My other observations – including a couple of personal notes – are best read from my Twitter feed.

I will add this, though. I did get some cheers for my question, because, I think, it was the first one to get to the heart of the matter. I asked David White to give me a reason to vote for the contract, and I got a talkative lawyer’s version of crickets. Ed Asner, in contrast to me, got a standing ovation for his impassioned statement of opposition. What can I say? I’m no Ed Asner.

Anne-Marie Johnson

More tomorrow…

If  you’d like to read all the articles that I have published on SAG,  the-contract-and-controversies!…Go to the upper right and put “SAG” in the search bar.

And if you’d like to follow me, and the others on Twitter: sign up here, by clicking this link.

My ‘twitter name’ is __dana__. Click here to see my page and tweets, and to follow me.  You can then get all my tweets about Hollywood Actor Prep. SAG. Me. And more…

In support of the art of acting, and all acting professionals…

:~Dana

Haven’t Hollywood Movie Studios Always Been Like Monolithic Powers?

Yeah. They have. That’s why the Screen Actors Guild came about, and why it was so necessary.  Actors have always needed protection from exploitation.

Which they were able to get, by all of the protections that SAG was able to put into place.  These protections were put into the “contract”.

What’s  happening now, is that the current contract has caused such dispute because some of these protections were removed from the latest contract; additionally, for new media, some of these protections aren’t included.

Hollywood isn’t owned by Hollywood anymore.

Some people think that when Hollywood was running Hollywood; then the community of Hollywood, and it’s actors, writers, and artists, had much more of a say. And that the powers that ran Hollywood had more of an interest in it, and everyone involved here.  More than just dollars and cents, and profits.  

Example: Sony was once Columbia Pictures. Sony is a conglomerate out of Japan. So Sony is not only not owned by Hollywood, it’s not even owned by Americans.

What was once 20th Century Fox Studios, is now called News Corp.  Why “News”?  Because it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian, who is a newspaper magnate.

Newspapers, both really trashy, and high level; globally.  Now, additionally, among other stuff like the Wall Street Journal… he owns Fox News, Fox Television, the Fox film studio, MySpace, Hulu, and on and on…

Apparently, he doesn’t even like movies.  Really. (I have a podcast that I will be posting so you can hear more about Murdoch…)

The point is not whether Mr Murdoch likes or doesn’t like movies.  

The point is this, if you don’t respect movies, then you probably don’t have much respect for actors.

I’ve got a list, that’s ready to post, that shows just how large these conglomerates are.

I’ll be posting that soon. There’s another change that is important to understand…

The film studios aren’t just film studios anymore.

Neither are the TV networks. They all used to be very separate entities. They were,until recently, based primarily on different coasts. Movies were West Coast; Television was East Coast.

Now, there’s ‘NBC Universal’.

And they all have internet stake.

And almost all, except one, are on Hulu.  

You probably know that Hulu doesn’t pay any of the actors that you watch on it.

So, the complaint is that if these companies can run content without paying the performers in it, then they will. By simply funneling it into the parts of their business that gets away without paying the actors.  Due to the ‘contract’ provisions concerning New Media.

Click on the ‘play’ arrow to watch the video:

More on this and the actor contracts, in my next posts…

In the meantime, please go and sign up on the email list at the very top of the right sidebar.  That way, whenever I add something to Hollywood Actor Prep Blog, you’ll be notified.

I also plan on doing some branching out this blog–Those that sign up will be invited to participate.

Best,

Dana

SAG President Alan Rosenberg Emails Actor Members

Not an April Fools joke…

Alan Rosenberg, SAG President

April 1, 2009

Dear Screen Actors Guild Members,

As you read in a SAG email sent to you this morning, the Joint SAG/AFTRA Commercial Contracts Negotiating Committee reached a tentative agreement with advertisers early this morning in New York City.  I would like to thank and congratulate the hard-working staff member team for their unity and collaboration over the past months starting with the W & W meetings, and especially during the long 6 weeks of negotiations.  They who worked tirelessly on behalf of SAG members and I know each of them sacrificed time with their families, and work opportunities.

The advertising industry displayed a willingness to have labor peace, and to make compromises even during these challenging economic times, to keep actors working,

It is clear that when SAG members work together, unified and focused on common goals to benefit actors, we really can accomplish many things.

I’m gratified that we were able to reach an agreement with AFTRA and conducted these negotiations together. More details of the tentative agreement will be released once the Joint SAG/AFTRA Board has met. Please watch the SAG website at sag.org for updates and email your comments and questions to Contract2009@sag.org.

Again, congratulations to the professional women and men who gave their time and expertise to these critical negotiations.

In unity,

Alan Rosenberg
National President

Best, 

:Dana

Follow me on Twitter, for alerts as to when I post this blog, and for important actor news.

My Twitter name is __dana__. If you click on that, a new window will open at my twitter page. You can sign up for  Twitter by clicking on this.

Some Professional, Middle-Class Actors Made Videos About Issues Of Grave Concern.

Do you recognize some of these professional actors, in these videos?

They Are Not From The Press, And That’s A Solid Blessing, In This Case

The good news is, these videos talk about the real issues; and just how imperative they are…How damaging it will be to accept this ‘AMPTP contract’, for the future of all actors, and to the profession altogether.

These middle-class actors did the math.  

For you.

They looked over the legalese, and all the boring stuff, so you don’t have to…

Maybe it’s because they are real working actors.  

And, they’re not obscuring what is important, with all that other stuff…gossipy-drama that most of the press puts front-and-center; when discussing SAG, altogether. And, yes, even most of the bloggers do that too.  Even those that claim to be “an expert” on the topic.  (Um, those people that write those articles, aren’t actors usually.)

Like I say, often, here at Hollywood Actor Prep…it takes a professional actor…

It takes an actor to understand an actor’s life.

It takes one to know one.  It takes one to understand one.  And, it takes one to inform  and advise another.

It takes an actor to explain what the issues are, and how it can impact all actors…now, and in the future.  

So, here they are.  Here we are. 

The Actors. You. Me. All Of Us…Solidarity.

I appreciate you watching these videos, and thank you for taking a look at the issues.  And I hope you will tell others.

….That’s far more than what the journalists have been doing. Ironically.  (It appears to me, that most journalists may not even know what the issues are, or that there are issues and conflicts.  Is it reporter-laziness?  Is it just easier to make fun of Alan Rosenberg, or talk about this star or that one, than to research about the AMPTP? Or do they think it attracts more readers?? Lots of people say that the reporters are also paid by the same people as those on the AMPTP, like Rupert Murdoch…That may be true, but I don’t think it’s that complex….I think it’s just laziness.  It takes time & effort, to look into a contract. Takes none,  to ‘throw mud around’. )

 

I think that actors, profoundly,  contribute to our culture.

And, to be redundant, because I will say this again and again, happily.  

(And then… once more with feeling!)

I think that actors are valuable.  

I think that actors deserve to be paid. And to be regarded as valuable professionals.  

I think that actors deserve to be treated with dignity, and allowed to earn money and healthcare…a living.

I believe that every time an actor performs, that actor should receive payment.

And that includes performances live, OR recorded.  

I firmly believe, that when any venue, studio, channel, or internet station, : especially when they make money from sponsors/advertising, and the sponsors are paying for productions that feature actors, that the producers should compensate the actors.  

Elementary, right?  Well, they don’t plan to.  

That’s what this is all about.  

Surprised?

 

Call me a “hardliner”, but I don’t think exploitation is ever acceptable.

And, I do believe the AMPTP contract is exploitative. And, I think they are quite aware of that.  I think they know the inherent implications that come along with it.  

Are you aware that they are clear, that they, flat out,  intend to keep all earnings for themselves. While using the work of actors, to earn it.  And there are earnings, and these earnings are increasing, all the time.  Especially on the ‘net.

All the while, the actors, will be unpaid and impoverished, as a result. Really. Impoverishing them individually, and their families, and all the ramifications that come with that.

It will have a devastating effect on the profession of acting, altogether.  A career that is regarded as perilous already. Rendered utterly, truly, impossible.

The AMPTP, quite consciously,  created this situation.  They knew, all along,  that they were offering actors a terrible, lessening, deal.  

They also used a lot of PR, they hired marketing experts, even for the internet.(Look it up on Google, if interested in more details.) They knew that the timing was terrible for a SAG Strike; and they were able to use the current public economic fear, to their advantage.

So they’ve been paying a lot to feed the public some very persuasive, and mostly, obfuscating information.

To the max, they power-played… They played on the public’s insecurity about the economic situation of our country, to somehow flip it around…and make the actor the “bad guy”. They played on the fear that every actor lives with, and professional insecurity. 

(And, some of the problems were waged between actors themselves…because like any lesser class in any social social system, in terms of wealth or power; when the lowest classes can’t fight back, they fight who the ones they can. Themselves.  Especially when the pressure, anxiety, and potential loss, is so high.)

Generally, the acting profession is a mystery, for the public.

Unfortunately, that has served to weaken the interest, and the severity of the actors’ side, in this conflict.

The public regards the acting profession, in one of two ways:

• Illogical, and fruitless, as far as income.
  • or
• Overpaid movie stars.

That’s just not so.  There are many, many actors who earn a living; just a living, in the acting profession.

As for actors, well…most don’t even know the issues, themselves.

I hate to admit that, and to see such lack of interest too.  But, I think I know why that is…

That has to do with their professional stature. Because, at different caliber levels, the professional experience vastly differs. As does the actors’ personal life. Social experiences, too.

Interests, and goals, too.  Perspectives.  

Younger actors,  who are just beginning, only can focus on trying to get a foothold in, professionally.  They aren’t concerned with livlihood, not yet.

And, the very successful stars, well, you’ve heard some of their opinions…but the truth is, they can’t relate.

It’s so very far from their experience…They just don’t need to worry about dollars-and-cents, in their lives. Things like residuals, and even the internet, are not issues that have anything to do with them. And they do live pampered, cloistered lives. (They actually do.)  So they just don’t get it.

Even though they may appear to be wise, it is within the realm of their “blindspot”.  Their perspective is just too far removed from actors, on the other strata.

As actors, we can always use support, but it’s very necessary, now.  

And, we need solidarity.  So please, connect with each other, and inform each other. 

And public awareness. (Because if the issues & facts & ‘the math’ doesn’t make it into the press, then we can get the knowledge out there, right?)

Please send this post to your friends who act, or wish to. Professional or not.   

Because if it’s your profession, your life, then they should know.  And, it would be good for you to support that profession…

It may be that if we don’t consolidate, there may not-be-an-acting-profession in the future.

We must get the issues out to the public, because it isn’t happening in the media, otherwise.  

…The actors’ stance and SAG  is losing power, every day, as a result.  

Please email this post to your friends, it’s so-o easy and takes a second, only.  Send it to all of them, because it’s very important to get the public to know the facts. Put it on your Facebook page…Your MySpace…

Use the “SHARE” widget down below, the white one…it will take you right to your email or Facebook page, etc. Directly, too, no clicking around or filling in stuff…

Thanks, for all of us…

And keep the faith. 

Follow me on Twitter, if you don’t already….my Twitter name is __dana__.  (Twitter registration is the shortest…!)

Once again, I ask you to please share by emailing to your actor friends, and to others, as well. Actors need the public to know, and to be in support of the profession, right now.

Best,
Dana

Better news for all actors: Now a win-win-win situation?

New SAG Plan: instead of putting out a “strike authorization”, for the professional actors, of SAG to vote on…they are sending out something different…an AMPTP contract authorization. Directly, to the SAG members, to see it for themselves, and to vote on whether to accept it or not.

What IS the AMPTP CONTRACT, actually?? Well, it states the “bottom line” level, (the lowest pay scale) that they are proposing: to pay for acting…now and in the future.

(….What they are ‘offering’ is “bupkus”…)

It’s not much different, now, it’s just a direct choice for actors, instead of the representative leadership.

(This is according to Nikki Finke’s column: ‘Deadline Hollywood’ and if you really want the skinny on the underhanded moves of the AMPTP during this, and during the prior Writer’s Strike (WGA), she’s the one with the real goods, and the guts…)

Alan Rosenberg

The SAG Strike would’ve been about whether or not to accept the same contract.

If the SAG strike is what is causing such terror and public uproar, then…

My own vote, on this changed-SAG-vote, is that it’s brilliant!

So much wasted energy, and actor leverage/actor-power has been spent on internal arguing and blaming. Blaming the people that are available and safe to be blamed. (Can’t bite the hand that feeds, right?)

Ridiculous, I have always thought…for actors to blame the Alan/Allen leaders of SAG.

(BTW…SAG Leadership didn’t compose the AMPTP CONTRACT ! That was created by the hands that won’t feed you, Actors. Those that think you will do anything for a job, and actually…besides not paying you for your work, the AMPTP contract —the new “final” contract, according to the Producers/Movie Studios side—literally takes away meal breaks. While working. So, under the new terms, not only will you not be able to afford food, to eat at home…you won’t even get a food break on a 10 hour day, on the job. Is it okay, with you, not to eat? Dieting, aside, I do mean.

It’s called “French Hours” by the way, having no set meal-breaks. You just nibble when you can, if there’s time. Apparently, they film that way in France…Fine, I’d agree to it, here, if they’d start serving fine French food on movie sets.

You know what would really win me over?? If the AMPTP started to give actors a teeny tiny bit of the honor that France gives to their actors, and artists of all kinds. Or how about just a bit of respect. (Even a false showing, that would be better than anything I’ve seen yet. )

Oh, and if they create a national, official government office called “Ministry Of The Arts”–Just as they have in France…

Ahhh, oui, I digress. I rannnntttt.)

I do think that SAG’s new tact is a great turn of events. Let all the actors read over exactly what they won’t have. Let them see who the real boogeyman is. Let all see the real numbers..I mean, the real money offered. And who is not willing to spread it around, to those who they even call: “the Talent”.

Doug Allen

…Some actors may not ‘get’ how this all applies to them, at all…

And I urge you, all, to-think-as-successful-working-actors. And if you are not one, now, then think “as-if”.

(Because I know that part of this conflict has to do with all different economic levels of actors, all trying to agree on the same contractual items, and they all mean different things to different actors

Example: For an actor who has never worked, the $28 dollars that the AMPTP is offering for per-show (with no residuals for any re-play)…well, that may seem great to a young actor who has never had a paying job. Or who has spent a year, breaking their back, suffering indignities, and maybe doing “background”/extra work, so as to get their “3 jobs” so they could qualify for eligibility for a SAG card…)

To them, a real job, any job, feels like reward enough.**

It’s not.

I’ve been on both ends of the acting career spectrum.

And all in-between….Trust my words: time keeps moving. And so does your acting career, with the right amount of determination. You can get acting work, with the right amount of skill, determination, and intelligent focus. Yes, you can, and you will, then.

And…if and when you make that happen… you will want to earn a living, and even live well…you will want payment, adequate, just payment…for your work. For your talent. As an actor.

It’s hard work.

Almost certainly, you will still love it.

And…because you will be eating, too; you will be glad you did.

Best,

:Dana

Here’s recent excepts from SAG’s website:

Subject: Message from Doug Allen, SAG National Executive Director

January 14, 2009

Dear SAG National Board Members and Alternates,

Because the executive session of our recent extraordinary National Board meeting occurred without my presence in the room, I want to directly communicate several points to all board members and alternates.

I began and ended my report to the National Board on January 12 by stating that I have followed and always will follow the directives of the National Board expressed by a unanimous or majority vote. Under my leadership all SAG staff has complied and will comply with those directives as well. I also said that I am by SAG constitution and by employment contract accountable to the board for my performance.

I welcome your review of that performance and respectfully request only that, in the interest of fairness, such review include the opportunity for me to discuss with the board any comments, questions or issues you wish to raise, not in lieu of executive session discussion, but prior to such discussion.

It is unfortunate that the important matters contained in the National Board meeting ag enda were not accomplished at the meeting January 12 and 13. I know that opinions vary sharply on why that happened. From my perspective, to the extent AMPTP positions or actions are the problem, the solution cannot be determined by how intensely you fight among yourselves.

Regarding the TV/Theatrical negotiations, and the sharply divided opinions on the board about how to proceed, I offered the following suggestion to a cross section of Guild leaders during the period of the executive session. I asked that they discuss the suggestion with other board members in attendance. I proposed that the strike authorization referendum be suspended and that management’s offer be put to the membership in a ratification vote. I also proposed that, before that membership ratification vote, we meet immediately with the AMPTP to determine to what extent, if any, they are willing to improve their last offer, to maximize its chances for ratification. I further proposed that the offer then be sent to the members with Pro and Con statements from National Board members and that otherwise the Guild would remain neutral during any member debate regarding ratification. This process will give Screen Actors Guild members the opportunity to formally express themselves on the bargaining issues.

This suggestion was communicated to some, but not all board members in attendance, and apparently was rejected by some who heard it, at least in part, because they believe I could not be “trusted” to implement it. Since I am the one proposing it and since I have never acted contrary to the directives of the National Board, that is not a reasonable objection. In any case, if it is the decision of the National Board to proceed as I have proposed, I assure you that the staff and I will carry out your decision faithfully and diligently.

I will convene an Officers’ call this week to discuss this suggestion and how it might be considered and implemented. I encourage all board members to discuss these issues with the Guild officers or with me in advance of the call.

There are no more important issues before us than the conclusion of the TV/Theatrical Contract negotiations and the initiation of the Commercial Contract negotiations. Super-heated rhetoric through the press will not contribute to our success on behalf of the members. Working together to resolve your differences will.

Doug Allen

Two days before, Alan Rosenberg sent out this to the SAG board members:

Los Angeles, (January 13, 2009) — SAG National President Alan Rosenberg sent the following message to Screen Actors Guild national board members and alternates today:

“At the end of the National Board plenary meeting this afternoon, a group of board members submitted a document to the Guild that purports to deal with the employment of the National Executive Director and the continuing approach to negotiations. After analyzing the document, Screen Actors Guild’s in-house and outside counsel have concluded that the document does not constitute a valid written assent, for several reasons, including a lack of sufficient signatures and the absence of any language on the document demonstrating the intent of the signers to grant their assent to the proposal. Guild National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator Doug Allen and the National Television and Theatrical Contract Negotiating Committee remain committed to advancing the cause of actors and our crucial contract negotiations.”

No substantive actions were taken by the Guild’s national board, which met at SAG’s national headquarters January 12 and 13 for almost 30 hours straight.

No mailing date has been set for the previously approved TV/Theatrical strike authorization referendum.

We have no further comment.

ABOUT SAG, FROM THEIR WEBSITE;
Screen Actors Guild is the nation’s largest labor union representing working actors. Established in 1933, SAG has a rich history in the American labor movement, from standing up to studios to break long-term engagement contracts in the 1940s to fighting for artists’ rights amid the digital revolution sweeping the entertainment industry in the 21st century. With 20 branches nationwide, SAG represents over 120,000 actors who work in film and digital television, industrials, commercials, video games, music videos and all other new media formats. The Guild exists to enhance actors’ working conditions, compensation and benefits and to be a powerful, unified voice on behalf of artists’ rights. SAG is a proud affiliate of the AFL-CIO. Headquartered in Los Angeles, you can visit SAG online at www.sag.org.

Please continue to share on Facebook, and MySpace, and with all your friends. Especially, to actors. It’s important to get the messages out, it really is! Thanks very much!

And, follow me on Twitter for updates, and info- (link below)

http://twitter.com/__dana__

Did Hollywood Industry Rags Really Report False Stories? Knowingly?

SAG negotiator Doug Allen was the subject of some false reporting, yesterday, in these three journals, apparently:

1. Backstage Magazine (link to false SAG article, dated today, which is day after!…Means they published something that was known not to be true, publicly, by that time-of-publish!)
2. The Hollywood Reporter (link to false SAG article-note same authors!)
3. Variety (link to false SAG story)

All three of these reported “Late Breaking News”.

Problem was, their “news flash” was not true. Not when they reported it, anyway. (I can’t know what is happening today, which is the second day of the Screen Actor Guild National Board Meeting.)

They said that Doug Allen was fired, by SAG’s national board. Their articles continued to detail the history of internal strife at SAG.

Please don’t pay attention to the Hollywood Press.

…How crazy is that, that I am forced to advise that!

“Don’t be naive, Dana, these rags never are accurate for news.”

That’s what some people have responded, to my shock about their journalistic fabrication.

(If it is, as is reported by Nikki Finke, in her ongoing column called “Deadline Hollywood Daily”...)

I say this, I don’t like lying anywhere. I especially don’t appreciate, being a member of the public, and assuming that journalism is adhering to a certain set of standards. Of truth. The public goes to these journals for facts. Factual, truthful, information. Journals are supposed to be the source of such.

Now, if it’s accepted in Hollywood that “entertainment news” can be trumped up and falsely reported, well, that’s up to them.

But, when it becomes socially persuasive, or influences people to one side or another; or is disseminated for some kind of personal gain, and in exchange, could cause others harm…I find it unconscionable.

What harm can come to actors from this?

Well:

It affirms what has been going on since this began: a portrayal, overall, of actors as dumb, silly, out of touch, out of control. In other words, furthering a tangential view of the actors’ stance as something obscure and abstract. Allowing this actor-bias to control the public attention, and veering the public away from the real issues. Issues that are concrete and very logical. Substantial.

In other words, a bashing smokescreen.

AMPTP Is Only Offering A Low or No Money Deal To Actors

This whole AMPTP/SAG issue has become far off-the-mark of what it truly is about. (Uh, paying actors for work.)

Instead it has been about so much that isn’t related, and the public has no way to decipher what the heck it is about.

It all looks like something the actors are doing to themselves, and doing to others; or rather if SAG does choose to strike, then they are out to destroy the world, the country, the economy, you-the-common-man.

That is absolutely nuts.

And, in this era of acceptable false reporting: it is simple propaganda.

That’s heinous, for those reporters to do that. According to Nikki Finke, the Variety reporter was asked, by SAG, to state a retraction. He did not.

What’s the gain for them, you may ask…I am not sure. Read Nikki Finke’s take on it.

Maybe, like many journalists, he has been working on a screenplay, or even has one on the studio desks, right now? I have no clue.

It’s a hell-of-a-lot more dramatic to report all this drama, I guess…then the truth of how difficult it is to survive as an actor. What the life really is.

‘Hollywood’ is a one-factory town. ‘ With Powerful Bosses Running It.

As I’ve written before, this is a small town, as far as the business goes. The bosses are clearly the bosses, and the workers are in the bread lines.

The bosses have the better parties with the celebrities, and can invite you over for a tennis match on their backyard court.

While the actors are leaving town, not able to survive.

…I’ll investigate all of this, and post more with more factual information…

********************************************************************************

Update #1

Newer News On False SAG News!!

Within an hour after publishing this blog post, I am back!

And…Guess what? Now Variety has published a new and different article, on SAG and the results of the 2 day National Board Meeting, and just within the last few minutes!

The Variety reporter, of this current SAG article, is “staff”.

A-hem.

It’s a totally different story.

No retraction on the false one. No comment from them either.

Hey! That’s a solution! Just print another story, um…

…With a whole different ’story’????

Here’s the title, from the new Variety-on-SAG-reportage…click on it to read ‘full SAG story’, this one, I mean!

“SAG status quo proceeds (main title)

Allen keeps job after two-day session (smaller print, subtitle…)

In the last two days, SAG has been full of sound and fury, signifying … the status quo.”

I am reprinting the first line, here, as one example…illustrating what I mean, about “actor bias” and not only from Variety, but in much of the reportage on the AMPTP conflict with SAG.

Look how they portray SAG by ridiculing them, instead of admitting their own mistake.

Actor-bashing as sport, and able to? Due to lower “status” in factory-town??

Have you seen my post where I reprint my comments to the L.A. Times writer?

As well as the article, to illustrate futher, about how this postential actor strike, and the disputed issues, are either twisted, or not listed at all? http://www.hollywoodactorprep.com/blog/2008/11/latimes-blog-on-actors-and-sag-strike-isbiased-incorrect/

Whereas Backstage Magazine (which is supposed to be FOR ACTORS!)

and
The Hollywood Reporter still have this as only title going, on the whole two-day meeting at the Screen Actors Guild, which was supposedly about whether or not to call a SAG strike:

SAG ousting chief negotiator Doug Allen

Move decreases likelihood of a strike

By Andrew Salomon and Jay A. Fernandez

Best and keep the faith; please remember to stay informed…

Dana

And please share this article with your friends, and on Facebook, and other social sites. Actors, and all artists, can only become able to speak for themselves, with knowledge and solidarity.

*************************************************************************

Update #2

Oh dear.

Another change!!!

Now, The Hollywood Reporter has a new article on the SAG Board (a link ) meeting and it appears to be an article with the goal of, mainly, making a defense of it’s false, prior article.

This one doesn’t have a retraction either, and no admitting of any mistake.

This one also makes actors look bad. It makes it seem as if the heads of SAG are “oh so sneaky”…Is that why their article wound up not to be true. Are they trying to say, if not for these sneaky actors, then Doug Allen would have been out and the writers wouldn’t have looked like liars. Or bad reporters, writing inaccuracies before fact-checking. This article seems to have, as its main goal, making sure that the reporters aren’t to blame for publishing false article.

Sorry. They still are.

Oddly, this Hollywood Reporter article is a reprint from a Backstage** article.

Is Backstage regarded as a source for factual news and integrity? Except that they published the original article a full-day-after-the-other-journals did, and long after it was publicly known that it just was not true! And never was nor would be!

If you look at this article, also, it makes the Screen Actors Guild leadership look awful, and the membership as well. And the board.

I ask again, isn’t Backstage an actors’ newspaper? Ostensibly. How come this reporting is so annhiliating, about us, then?

I think; calling the actors and SAG misguided, and out of control, and narcissistic; is more accurate about the mudslingers, themselves.

The proof is in the reporting.

The Screen Actors Guild has decided to postpone the acting strike authorization vote, amongst it’s actor member-base.

Why?

Here’s the statement, straight from the SAG website:

Patrick Goldstein

Patrick Goldstein, staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, insulted all actors. And SAG.

             :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

         “The Big Picture

Patrick Goldstein on the collision of entertainment, media and pop culture”

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

So I wrote a comment to tell him so.  BTW, whatever happened to the standard of “truth in journalism”?

SAG stars in new production of ‘It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World’

11:17 AM PT, Nov 25 2008

For years, people in Hollywood have casually dismissed the Screen Actors Guild as the craziest union in creation. Apparently they weren’t exaggerating. As my colleague Richard Verrier has reported, after getting nowhere during months of on-again, off-again talks with the studios, SAG has now opted to pursue a strike authorization vote from its 120,000 members.  (The union has been working without a contract since June 30.) If this is meant as some kind of threat designed to drag the studios back to the negotiating table, SAG is even more deluded than anyone believed possible.

SAG’s goal is pretty obvious. The guild hopes that by getting a big strike mandate from its membership–a strike referendum requires 75% approval from members who cast ballots–it can use the threat of a disruption of the Academy Awards to force studios to negotiate a better deal. But according to most insiders I have spoken to, no one takes the threat seriously–they don’t believe the strike will happen. Why not?

1) As James Carville once famously said: It’s the economy, stupid. As it is, most SAG members don’t work regularly, at least not at acting. They’ve got real jobs, whether it’s at Starbucks, waiting tables, doing construction, teaching or running small businesses. Whatever the gig, they know–like the rest of us know–that the economy is in the toilet. No one wants to risk losing the jobs they have that actually pay the bills. So fewer people have the pie-in-the-sky attitude that usually fuels SAG strike votes from all those members who aren’t working TV or film jobs. Normally, they’d say, What have I got to lose by a strike? I’m not working anyway. But too many members are clinging to their side jobs, which has a sobering effect on anyone considering the value of a misguided strike.

2) I was a vocal supporter of the Writers Guild strike because I felt they were in the right. They weren’t asking for the moon, and the studios, having boasted for so long about their profitability, had the money to give. But in the midst of a dire economic crisis, SAG is asking for concessions that no other union got in their negotiations last winter. They have been standing firm in seeking an increase in actor residuals from DVD sales, a demand that the studios will never agree to. It’s foolhardy, not to mention unrealistic, to expect that SAG members will join the guild leadership in what is obviously a kamikaze mission.

3) The WGA was united. SAG is divided. On one flank, it has AFTRA, a more conservative sister guild that is quietly poised to recruit more actors and gain more clout for future negotiations. On the other flank, it has a group of actors, endorsed by such respected, high-profile SAG members as Tom Hanks, Alec Baldwin and Sally Field, who’ve made it clear that they want nothing to do with a suicidal strike in the midst of hard times. There are even more stars who haven’t issued public declarations for the dissidents who privately support their cause. If necessary, the stars will exercise their clout, blitzing members with reminders of the folly of a showdown with the studios.

4) When the WGA went out on strike, there was a true sense of solidarity with other guilds, notably SAG, based on the feeling that the studios had pushed their hand too far. In early negotiations, it looked like what the studios really wanted was a rollback in residuals and other guild benefits. The WGA had the high moral ground. SAG today doesn’t have similar support. The Writers Guild will surely offer soothing words of solidarity, but the true believers aren’t there this time around. SAG will have to go it alone. But timing is everything. And you don’t have to read a newspaper or watch TV to know that the timing for a Hollywood actors strike couldn’t be worse. The WGA got tons of support from the media, not to mention regular Joes who identified with their cause. But with more people losing their jobs every day, SAG is about to discover that most people will view them as rebels without a cause.

FYI Patrick Goldstein has been a Los Angeles Times film columnist for ten years, and contributed as a writer there since 1979.  His online blog, though, is fairly new.

Here is the comment that I zipped back…It’s posted, online, along with the other comments that his blog elicited, “from both sides of the fence”.  (To read all the comments, and see the original blog, click here.)

I find this awfully article condescending, demeaning, and insulting. With a shocking entitlement to do so.

1. The SAG goal: your “translation” denotes an ugly bias. Interesting that you would be aware that actors don’t get paid enough to live on earnings, in one sentence, and you use that to make a point about the economy.
2. Yeah, actors are aware that there is a bad economy. Have you ever not asked for your salary because of what was happening in the country’s economy?

Why do you demand that of actors? Why do you demand that you have your Academy Awards over actors getting paid for working? Hm?
Anyway, if the strike does begin, and the AMPTP decides to pay actors fairly, then you will still have your Academy Awards.

Actors really are concerned about their future in this business, which is tenuous. And their careers. And their families. And this overall notion, and entitlement, that actors should work for free.

“Terrible economic time for a strike”? That will give it more power, perhaps, and then maybe the studios will include the actors in their plans, and allow the entire artform to survive, in this business. I hope.

The middle class actor is gone, and so will the profession. Unless actors get paid. Unless a set point is started now, in an exploding entertainment area. The future is hard to foretell, but not by the studios…they already know the direction they are going, and it’s to the internet.

I am not even acting anymore, but I still am incensed at the free-flowing disrespect that I read everyday, by some journalist or another.
The other thing I see is lack of information–do you even REALLY know what the STRIKE is about??? Are you aware of what the union is asking for?

I believe that actors deserve to be paid, and paid more than they do. I ESPECIALLY know, that the studios have made very extensive plans, and invested heavily in the internet.
Do your homework, it’s easily found on the internet–all the studio heads are telling their stockholders that the studios have a strong future in the “NEW MEDIA” and that they have invested much money. They don’t do so, without careful and strategic numbers and plans.

Their plans don’t include paying actors.
WHY?
Why are they fighting so hard, not to have to?
Not to set a precedent, on paying talent on the net?
They aren’t even PAYING the writers, with the terms they settled their strike on.

Why is it that you choose to publish a piece that is actor-bashing? Vitriolic? To a whole group, generaliizing, with ugliness?
Perhaps, with a little bit more research, and a lttle more empathy, you’ll see that actors are people.
(Sometime “playa-hating” doesn’t allow empathy…?)
The people that are actors really should be paid for their work. Period. And they should be able to live off of that money. No matter what everyone else’s economy is.

Sorry to be so harsh in tone, but I think the tone of your article denoted an entitlement, to diminish and degrade…
And outright insult. (“stupid” “crazy” “suicidal”) Why is that okay? Because bias, or personal attack, is okay, for certain groups that you view as the lesser ones?
No wonder, as you state, there isn’t support from the media…
Personally, how would you feel if I framed your group that way? (No I don’t know you, or any group you may identify with.)

Certain specific points that you make require too much depth to answer here, but I will absolutely do so on my blog, and I would ask you to please check in there, because I do believe that you are writing with such a bias, that you discredit yourself.
And that you are doing an injustice to the actors that really have looked at this carefully, intelligently, and thoroughly.

I think you are way off, and I think it’s wrong, and really ugly.
Sorry.
And I think that this town revolves on fear; and no one wants to speak up to and against the powers that be. That’s why Alan Rosenberg is labeled “aggressive”, simply for being “stand up” and being a real representative.

Seriously, when you talk about people having to work in Starbucks, to support their career, don’t you see the lack of correlation, to describe them as “greedy”? (Bias never has logic, I know…I am a published author, and researcher, on that topic.)

And to complain about how it may affect the awards show?

That sounds awfully similar to…”Let them eat cake”.

 

Posted by: Dana Kaminski | November 26, 2008 at 02:49 PM

 

If you have a comment for this blog, on this or any topic here, please use the Facebook Group Page for the Hollywood Actor Prep Blog, temporarily, because we are experiencing a glitch in the commenting system here.

Join the group anyway, because you can contribute there, with more than words.  You can put up photos, video clips, your show or movie posters and announcements, anything you choose. (Within the limits of Facebook and with a “G” rating, please.)

Just below, you’ll see a rectangle that says “share /save”. That makes it easy for you to save this post, or email to someone else.  It also easy-enables you to put it on your own social site page, like your bulletin board on MYSPACE or FACEBOOK…

Please share with your friends, and post on your own social sites, if you think this is valuable.

Or give back, big or small.          

  Thank you all.

For My Readers, My Community…

When I started this blog, I had no idea that such a political and dire situation would confront actors.

I had not even an inkling, that there would be such a dramatic situation..Let alone that I would be in a position where I would have, already, a communication link with the population (actors) that it would concern.

Right now, that’s the way it is.  (And stuck with it or not, here we are, and so this community will deal with it by the same methods that this blog was planned: advising, educating, supporting… Actors.)

The Screen Actors Guild is involved in a struggle that, they believe, is going to make-or-break the career of acting.  Forever.  Really.  

When I scrutinized the facts, I see their point.  Clearly.

And, because I believe in the arts, and I believe that the arts are integral to our culture, and because they are the measurement of which all cultures are apprised; I value the arts.  I also value the arts, because I am an artistic/creative person, and the arts are my identity.

I also believe in the arts, because I think cultures need their arts, psychologically, to stay healthy as a society.  I regard the arts as necessary, also, I don’t regard them as frivolous, or “extra”.  I believe they have an integral function, and purpose, in society. All species work, to survive and thrive; but the arts are a manifestation of what makes humans a higher species.

And they make life, really “living”.

I believe acting is an art form.  I’ve said that many times, in my blog posts.

It’s one of my missions, here, to revere acting as an art form, to “frame” that aspect of it; which therefore, participates in its continuation, that aspect.  To share this passion, amongst a (niche) social group, that also believes the same; is one of the purposes and functions of this blog.  

Alan Rosenberg, SAG President

Sure,  I could ignore this whole “hurricane” going on, within the Los Angeles, within it’s one factory …in this one-factory town.  

I could just simply stick to what I was doing and will continue to do here: 

 

• giving tips about how to really conduct yourself as an actor, as a professional
• navigating the acting business, and “the industry”
• teaching all about the acting business that you don’t learn in acting classes
• showing great acting performances, and actors with skills, and discussing why
• sharing experiences that became lessons for me, so you don’t waste your own time
• busting myths about the acting profession
• supporting your actor journey–which can be, at times, difficult
• and just writing general and specific stuff that will assist you in your career.

The problem is, that SAG thinks, soon, there won’t  be acting careers.  At all. The acting profession is on the chopping block.  

That’s why, it is so very important.  In determining our cultural future, and…  Because acting is what this blog is about.  That’s why I write it, and that’s why you found it, and even subscribe.  Or come back.  

Whether aware of it, or not: “business” may just be strong-arming the actor, right out of our culture.  ( Simply, because business seems to act on solely what is advantageous, for business.  Above all.  That’s why there is that saying: “Business is business”.)

There’s a bias in the press, which influences the public. Creates more adversarial pressure. (See my upcoming LA Times post.)

I feel a certain responsiblity, because I am an artistic/creative type, and we just feel a natural calling, when there is some kind of underdog getting trampled, or someone weaker needing support. It’s somehow part of the “artistic temperament”.  And, it’s not someone else, it is us.

As I research, I see more and more that the public doesn’t have any clear idea about what this whole SAG/AMPTP thing is all about, and frankly, neither do actors.

And, if there is a time to be in-the-know, it is now. I urge you all to participate… 

Most actors, the ones that do know what’s happening, are afraid to speak out. And, viably so.  It’s a very “touchy” situation.

I believe that fear was what motivated the civil strife within SAG–so many actors just wanted not to stir up any dust…Getting work, as an actor, feels impossible enough, so much of the time.  To create animosity just felt like suicide, to some of them…And, as Hollywood Actors, we are all just, robotically, kissing butt. It’s just how it’s always been done.

Problem is, it may be that if there is no speaking up, it is going to become impossible to have a career as an actor.  Impossible.

Extinction.

Of the art form.  Of the profession.

And if actors don’t speak up now, there will never be any respect.  At all.

Am I scared? Yeah…

I am not so comfortable sticking my neck out, especially because I simply could play it safe… just write about how to do an audition properly, etc.  (Because nobody sticks their neck out here…oh yeah, right, I know, they do for “liberal” and “political” causes, but not for internal wrongs. No one speaks up, to powers-that-be.)

I am, seriously, afraid for the future of acting, too. And for those who are born, as actors. Whatever will they do? If there is no pay, or no real way to survive, if an actor?

In the least, I need to help get all the information out.  Make it readily available, and understandable. Here, and elsewhere. 

I will continue to investigate more… the validity and the facts, and the stance,  on both sides.  I will present them both, to you.

So I hope you will forgive me for veering a little off, by covering the SAG conflict, for a little while….or if this reads like abstract, theoretical meandering to you… I promise not to let this SAG stuff take over, the focus or content, here, at Hollywood Actor Prep.

And if there is an  Actors Strike,  I hope it is short-lived.  Or not at all…with enough strength, knowledge, goodness, and cohesion; on our side.

Thanks.

…And if you didn’t get a Thanksgiving message from me, 

I want you to know, that from the bottom of my heart, I am so very grateful for you, and for you being a partof, and coming back to… my blog.    

I give my thanks, to you.

;-Dana

PS Feedback? Comments? Questions? Debate?  Click for the Hollywood Actor Prep Group on Facebook, and please leave something there. Here, there’s a tech glitch  with “commenting”…  since Wordpress is going to releasing a new overhauling upgrade, soon, I’m waiting for that. It should fix the glitch as it installs their new blog architecture. 

On Twitter? if  you want to “follow me”, and get post news, click here for link…
Please share, and spread the word… and post the blog on your Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc, and email these posts to your friends.  Keep this community strong thriving and strong… especially now…

And, do donate, please…if you can, whatever you can.

Are you an actor that is in SAG?  If so, I urge you to support your union.  The Screen Actors Guild is in battle, and also in inner-turmoil; and most actors aren’t all that interested…yes, we have a lot going on, otherwise.

There’s a big Presidential Election really soon, and the economy is doing flip-flops.  I know.

Our own to-do lists are overfilled, and all our lives are running at breakneck speed.

Actors have all kinds of considerations, on top of the “normie” peoples’ lists:

• Like money to live, and thinking that you can’t get into the jobs to pay enough to worry, maybe, about whatever SAG’s contractual concerns are…
• Maybe you don’t feel you will even get to sign a SAG-type of acting contract anyway.
• Or you are a working actor, and you are more concerned that SAG is going to call a strike, and then you may lose momentum, or the chance to make some money acting.

Even with all the problems within SAG, and all the problems that actors face, and all the current disagreements…We really do need the union, and the union is looking out for all actors.

The points that they are holding on for, are solid and important: 

For example: it is true that the internet is growing and actors should have some protection and should get paid for work on the internet.

Actors should get paid, PERIOD.

I am really tired of the whole cultural acceptance of the starving actor.

Do I think that SAG will solve this, right now?  No. I don’t.

But I do think that what they are asking for, in these negotiations, is to make things somewhat better.

And I do think that all of us, actors, should stick together, to make things better.

SAG has a website.  Please write and tell the board members, and Alan Rosenberg, that you are behind SAG.

And ask them all, especially the new board members, to please be cohesive and strong, all together; and thank them for making sure that we will all get paid when we work.  After we get through this part, we can work on the other tough issues that actors deal with.  Here, and with SAG.

And thank you.  Not only for listening to me sound off here, but for being someone who knows about acting and it’s artistry.  It’s a beautiful thing; it really is, and I recognize that.  I am going to continue to make this a place that does so, here at the Hollywood Actor Prep Blog.

Best,

Dana

The SAG announcements, today, will state the results of their new board members.  I don’t ever remember a SAG board election as wildly and publicly anticipated.  

(And, I am a SAG “vested”…  Vested, in SAG union terms: means that I have been around long enough that I earned a pension which I will receive when I am old and bitter-er.)

Why are the SAG Board Announcements so exciting? 

Right now, in Hollywood, there is far more drama within the actor ranks, than in any theater. 

There’s practically a SAG Civil War, amongst Professional Actors. Within the SAG membership group of the real, authentic, working, actors.  And, actors from the two opposing sides of this war, are competing for Board of Director seats.

What this war concerns, at the heart, is what actors feel is critical to their career.  And, to the future of what is commonly known as an ” professional acting career”.

 At issue, is the concept of the Working Actor; and the decisions and actions of the SAG leaders, for the union.  The decisions that are on the table, right now.  

Plainly:

that group, which has been traditionally known as the Working Actor, the Professional Actor, and in the theatre, called the Journeyman Actor –

…unfortunately, that profession is headed for extinction. Here in Los Angeles.

Truly.  The middle-class actor is almost a no-more thing. Even was reported in the LA Times.

But, you might say, you just read that that that  Dr. House ‘s new-season-salary broke records…and that is true.

Stars do make a lot; AND they are a very small minority, compared to the rest of the group.  The group of professional working actors out here. 

 Two ends of the actor spectrum, actually, can both earn a living and benefits: stars and extras.  

(Extras weren’t always in SAG, but now they are; and there are some that work quite consistently, and do make a very good, regular income and even qualify for SAG benefits that include an exceptional health insurance plan.)  

A lot of  the heat of the drama within the SAG membership of real authentic working actors, has to do with the suddenly almost-defunct professional actor middle class. 

Obviously, always, throughout history, actors have scrambled for work.  The numbers of available actors compared to the amount of work that was available, has always been so extreme, it’s like a silly joke.  It’s always been an almost ludicrous career choice, by “normie” standards.  By regular working joes. An acting career has never been regarded, by outsiders, as a CAREER.

But, inside Hollywood :

 (that term, of course, I use “tongue in cheek’—I mean in “the industry”)

what was once regarded as a career, an acting career,

has radically changed. You probably “know”  all of these people, if you aren’t in the business.  They are the actors you recognize while you are watching a show, and you know you’ve seen them before, in a different show. From things that they’ve been in before.  And, when you visit here, and you see one of them, sometimes  you ask them if they were in your high school because they look “familiar”…They can be, also, sometimes, people you remember who had a great role in something and it knocked you out, with how wonderful they were.  Then you didn’t see them again for a while; then maybe you saw them later, in something else, completely different.

When they say from “career” to “hobby”, they aren’t kidding.

It really used to be like this: a professional actor went from job-to-job.  Even with months in between, it was possible to make enough to live decently, middle class.

Yeah, right, I know: there were never great guarantees in the acting business; and right again, there could be a big period of “nothing” where no auditions were won and the actor went broke for a while.  Bank account to zeee-ro, I know.

But there also was the flip-side, a professional actor could get one plum role or a steady stream of solid middle credit-list roles, and do very well.  Or do a steady trajectory upward, and garner juicy raises in payscale along the way.

(I really DO know, I’ve lived through both parts, again, and then again…)

For as long as I can remember, guest starring on a television show was a nice delicious job. Chunk-a-money job.

But this isn’t true anymore, it’s disappearing. That type of actor life, the real solid career actor.

 Enter the “hobby”.

And a “hobby” actor, instead, isn’t even a viable idea.  I don’t think it is. 

At any time, the nature of the art is this, as well as the nature of business:

To be a professional actor,

to begin a career as an actor,

to maintain a career as an actor,

takes far more effort, time, and sheer investment of self,

than any hobby.

There’s just no way to be a professional of such commitment, in a field that requires such commitment, “on the side”.

In jokes, actors are classically, self-absorbed.  I’m not advocating narcissism, but I do know that a strong sense of focus and intent, is part of what it takes, darn it.  Really. 

There is just no way that… the results are even going to be even decent fare, not a chance. With most of the actors, hobby-ists.

It’s going to negatively affect every production in the industry.  The level of performance that we all take for granted will go down with it.  It has to …

The great ones, the committed ones who may not be stars but are the solid backbone of reliable cast of every show—they will take their talent where it can flourish, and where they can survive.  Where they can earn a living. 

Acting, for the first time, will suddenly not appear easy to do.  It will appear not-so-expendable.

Hobbyists are not people who commit their lives, with their lives:  to their craft, which many professional actors truly do.

Actors do it, as corny as it sounds, for love.  With a overriding passion and commitment. Yet, they need to be able to make a living. Many career actors believe that this extinction is salvageable, if handled correctly by SAG leadership. 

This is at the heart of the strife that you may be hearing about.  Between-the-actors. The competition for work has always made us crazy.  You can imagine what this pressure of the AFTRA mutiny; and the loss of the middle class actor has done to our group, as a whole. 

(If you live in Hollywood, you may want to dig a trench. That’s right, there’s two wars; one is between the producers and actors, and the other is between actors: two factions of professional actors at war, splitting their “group” in-two.)

So… that is why the SAG news announcements coming today…is so extremely major.  SAG will announce  who won the votes to be the new SAG Board Members.  Huge drama, lots of emotion, even lots of celebs…

There are two warring sides, and the announcement will reveal which side will hold the majority weight—and sit, and make decisions, on the SAG board.

Please go to the next few blogs, if you are interested,  I post information from these two warring sides, from their own releases.

Peace,

Dana

Here’s a link for  an article from the Los Angeles Times,

on the disappearing-middle-class-actor:

 http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/28/business/fi-sag28

Professional actors  make up the membership of the Screen Actors Guild.  They are, in majority, behind the union and it’s position, which is; don’t give in to the studios and producers; don’t simply accept what they offer.  They aren’t willing to pay what we think is important; they aren’t willing to put the additions,  and changes, into the new contracts**…the changes that would provide appropriate type of payment for actors.

I am enclosing a video from the SAG site where Alan Rosenberg explains what is going on.  It’s from July, but it is remains relevant, and informative.  

Here’s the situation,”straight from the president’s mouth” … that concerns professional actors; that is, those with real acting careers…  

Alan Rosenberg’s Video Message To Members of SAG 

**In case you didn’t know! ”Contracts”  define how you earn money for acting–it is all about getting paid; and sufficiently paid… )     

Special note:

Please get paid for your acting work.  A revolutionary concept, I know; but still…we do live in an age where you can love what you do for work.

RIght?

I am providing some articles from the web. They give an overview, and foundation, but some of the information may be outdated; you’ll notice it, if so.  

They give a good background, overall.

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

(All in italics is directly from the wikipedia site, their notes…)

The strike would stem from the current handling of royalties from the sale of films distributed through new  methods. This includes royalties earned from Internet distribution services such as iTunes, as well as DVD sales, neither of which are currently written into actors’ contracts. The strike date was set for July 7, 2008, chosen due to its coinciding with the expiration of several contracts between the labor union and the AMPTP. Talks are currently being held on the possible terms of a renewal, but the two sides* are reportedly far from any deal.

[Dana's author note: *AFTRA did, in fact, settle. SAG did not; and the settlement by AFTRA created conflict between the two actors unions.]

 

 

FROM TV GUIDE, BRITISH EDITION:

US screen actors’ guild has no plans to strike: union chief

Jun 29, 2008

LOS ANGELES (AFP) — The president of the US Screen Actors Guild said on Sunday there were no immediate plans to strike against Hollywood studios, even though a contract with the studios was set to expire late Monday.

“We have taken no steps to initiate a strike authorization vote by the members of Screen Actors Guild. Any talk about a strike or a management lockout at this point is simply a distraction,” said SAG president Alan Rosenberg in a statement.

With the contract due to expire at midnight on Monday, negotiations between the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) have so far failed to produce a deal, raising concerns of another crippling Hollywood strike after a screenwriters’ walkout earlier this year.

But Rosenberg said talks would continue.

“The Screen Actors Guild national negotiating committee is coming to the bargaining table every day in good faith to negotiate a fair contract for actors,” he said.

Entertainment industry press have said most major movie studios had already planned their schedules to complete filming on existing projects by Monday.

And television studios were reportedly set to carry on filming episodes for as long as possible to stockpile material in case of a strike.

Complicating the issue is a feud between SAG, with 120,000 members, and the other major actors union, the 70,000-strong American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), after the smaller union gave tentative approval to a deal proposed by the studios.

SAG’s leaders say the agreement undermines their own negotiating position, and are aggressively lobbying 44,000 guild members who also belong to AFTRA, urging them to reject the deal when it goes to a vote.

The spat between the two unions has pitted A-list actors against fellow stars, with the likes of Tom Hanks, Kevin Spacey and Alec Baldwin siding with AFTRA and Jack Nicholson and Ben Stiller supporting the guild.

The disagreement prompted George Clooney to issue a statement on Thursday calling for unity, saying a split between the unions would only strengthen the position of the studios.

“The one thing you can be sure of is that stories about Jack Nicholson vs. Tom Hanks only strengthens the negotiating power of the AMPTP,” Clooney said.