There were no protests outside the Harmony Gold theater. It was standing room only inside the full room. A few people stayed in line for seats as they opened up. But many SAG members in good standing showed up for the limited 455 seating at the guild’s Town Hall confab about the coming Strike Authorization Vote and had to be turned away. They were told there would be another meeting in a much larger venue at the Hollywood Renaissance hotel next Wednesday, December 17th. [In NYC, SAG changed the date of its Town Hall meeting at the Westin Times Square to next Monday, December 15th, to accomodate those who work on Broadway.] Meanwhile, I’m told the Strike Authorization ballots will go out right after Christmas to SAG’s 120,000 members. More than 75% of those returned would have to vote “yes” to give SAG leadership the added negotiating leverage of a strike authorization.
I was informed by attendees that inside tonight’s session, the dais consisted of SAG President Alan Rosenberg, Executive Director & Chief Negotiator Doug Allen, Deputy National Executive Director for Contracts Ray Rodriguez, Hollywood Division 1st National Vice-President Anne-Marie Johnson, and Negotiating Committee chief David Jolliffe. First, there were opening statements. Then a question-and-answer session was held with the members in the audience. ”About 99% of those who spoke were exceedingly supportive and said ‘Yes, we need a strike authorization vote.’ I was shocked. The people on the dais even got a lot of standing ovations,,” one attendee told me. “But you never know about those people who didn’t speak.” One member asked SAG leaders to clarify why the WGA writers haven’t been paid their New Media residuals by the studios and networks. And an IATSE member who’s also a SAG member complained about the lousy terms including Health Plan rollbacks he thought IA had negotiated with the AMPTP representing Big Media. The SAG leaders responded by explaining the difficulties of dealing with the AMPTP which refuses to bargain in good faith with not just SAG but all the Hollywood guilds. Towards the end of the meeting, SAG board member Frances Fisher, who was the last speaker, asked those still present to raise their hands if they were going to vote “yes” on the strike authorization ballot. “Some people had already left but I think everyone else put their hand up,” SAG prez Rosenberg told reporters.
Among those attending were former SAG president Ed Asner, and board members Frances Fisher, Kent McCord, Seymour Cassel and former board members Sally Kirkland and Mike Farrell, who has spoken out publicly against the Strike Authorization Vote. Recently elected National Board member Amy Brenneman, one of the leaders of the Unite For Strength campaign, also was there as well as U4S member Amy Aquino. I’m told that no U4S board members spoke at the mike. One U4S Hollywood board member was overheard commenting to others that U4S will be staging “Vote No” alternative educational campaigns on the strike authorization although none have yet been announced.
- SAG Strike Authorization Vote Update
- AMPTP Posts Its June 30th “Final Offer
- Some SAG Members Speak Out Against Strike Authorization
- Funny Accounting, AMPTP Website Style
- Canadian Actors Are Supporting SAG
- SAG Email: “We Have CEOs’ Attention”
- SAG Reply To Hollywood CEOs: “Make Good Faith Effort At Bargaining With Us”
- Hollywood CEOS To SAG: We Tell You What The Deal Is, Not Other Way Around
- SAG Issues Q-&-A Regarding Negotiations
- SAG Prez: “Board To Call A Strike Only If It Becomes Absolutely Necessary”
- SAG’s Rosenberg Hopes To Avoid Strike
- AMPTP To Employers: SAG “Completely Out Of Touch With Reality”
- UPDATE: AMPTP Trash Talks SAG Strike
- SAG-AMPTP Talks Break Down; SAG Will Now Seek Strike Authorization
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


So when do you stop blaming the other guy, and start taking responsibility for your own actions. Why is it always the other guys fault?
SAG’s leaders failed to get the job done, plain and simple. They spent too much time and energy fighting with AFTRA, rather than dealing with the studios.
Right now weigh the pros and cons before voting. Think about it real hard, figure out if this is going to help or sink you. Personally it will sink SAG to even think of striking in this tanking economy.
NBC is already cutting back 5 hours of programming, the CW is using mostly AFTRA shows, and all new shows they sign will be under AFTRA. I am sure the other networks will follow.
Obama said the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. Does SAG really think now it the time for the “Stick it to the MAN” mentality?
Oh wait I forgot it’s all about ME, ME, and more ME. Forget about everything and everyone. Actors think they aren’t replaceable. Oh but they are my friend, they are.
Small correction: it wasn’t Alan that asked for a show of hands on the “yes” on strike authorization. It was the brilliantly gifted Frances Fisher. Now, back to your regularly scheduled rant.
Actors don’t get paid to audition and all the other shit (work) they have to do to try to land a paying gig.
Thinking you somehow deserve compensation for this is really greedy.
Actor’s are the only people who think they should actually get paid for looking for a job.
That’s like the day-workers outside home depot being bitter that the one day someone picks them up, they don’t get paid for the 6 weeks they stood around waiting.
I was at the meeting last night and I can honestly say things are becoming both Orwellian and Kafkaesque with each passing day. This is not leadership we are witnessing, this is brinkmanship. Alan Rosenberg & Doug Allen want you to drink their cool-aid. A show of hands for support in a staged rally, 450 members? – come on, give me a break! Secret ballots? Not for this bunch. After months of failed negotiations with the AMPTP and a back stabbing attempt to sabotage the ratification process of our sister guild AFTRA’s contract, the time has certainly come to change our negotiating team and oust Alan Rosenberg as quickly as possible. A NO VOTE is not a no to residuals – there are no rollbacks – read the contract! A NO VOTE means get new leadership – NOW!!
Just wondering why actors, directors, writers, etc, don’t just dump the whole residual system themselves and demand higher up front payments ?
Dear Anonymous:
Respectfully, your “plan” is this. “No” vote automatically leads to “gainful employment,” and further more, it’s “obvious.”
I’m afraid that not only is that “obvious,” but it’s not a “plan.” Your contention is that “vote no” = “gainful employment.” My friend, there is neither not any planning in that statement, nor is there any accounting for the dozens of variables or choices that connect those two dots other than wishful thinking. A “plan” requires steps to connect the dots between action and result. You (nor any other “no” voter) have made any attempt to explain or account for any contention other than “voting no = gainful employment.” That’s no more persuasive to “yes” voters than if we were to say the following to you: “voting yes = gainful employment.”
Let’s break this down. We’re currently in control of only one variable: Whether leadership has the ability to call a strike or not.
A “no” vote leads to only one of four possibilities, with no necessary connection to “gainful employment.” None.
NO VOTE POTENTIAL OUTCOME ONE: Producers leave the current offer on the table. Possible? Sure. But WHY if you were a producer would you want to leave the current offer on the table following a guarantee by SAG we won’t strike?
I can’t think of any. But let’s say for the sake of argument that producers leave the current offer on the table following a “no” vote.
-there’s no guarantee leadership will present the union-busting offer to membership for vote, at all.
-there’s no guarantee that the current joke of an offer would be accepted by majority vote: And in fact, polling suggests it wouldn’t be.
-there’s no guarantee that completion bonds would be more readily available, to allow for shooting long-schedule films.
Guarantee of gainful employment = zero.
NO VOTE POTENTIAL OUTCOME TWO: Producers, assured we will do NOTHING to them, pull the current offer and offer something must nastier.
-chances that the leadership would put up a worse offer for vote = slim to none.
Guarantee of gainful employement = zero.
NO VOTE POTENTIAL OUTCOME NUMBER THREE: Producers, assured we won’t strike, pull the offer, and put up no new offer.
-chances that leadership would recommend an offer that doesn’t exist = none, zero, zilch, nada.
Guarantee of gainful employment = zero.
NO VOTE POTENTIAL OUTCOME NUMBER FOUR:
This is the interesting and scary possibility. Consider the common thought that producers haven’t done a -lock out- as the ultimate producer hard ball weapon is because they fear that to do so would mobilize SAG into striking.
So what happens if they’re guaranteed, via no vote, that we won’t strike?
Would producers have the balls to do a full lockout (a.k.a., ultimate hardball)? I don’t know.
Would producers do a full lockout (zero work) then encourage stars and others to go fi-core and hire scabs and non-union and make a full run on burying SAG permanently? I don’t know, and neither does anybody else. But us putting down our “ultimate weapon” unilaterally absolutely enables them to use theirs, if they think it’s worth the enourmous SHORT-run cost.
What I do know is that if we vote “no,” we’ve taken away one of the only disincentives to pulling a “professional sports” style lockout. A total production halt of SAG projects. The ultimate “kiss our ass” from producers taking the opportunity to crush SAG in order to not have to deal with SAG for the rest of our lives.
——————–
So seriously, when I say I have yet to hear any PLAN that starts with voting “no,” I still haven’t.
“voting no = gainful employment” (with no steps whatever on why or how or what SAG would have to do to connect those dots) is simply demonstrably, false.
All we have control over now is *one* variable: Whether or not we guarantee producers we will not strike, and deny the leadership WE elected the negotiation tool they seek.
Absent anybody putting any specificity whatsoever to the contrary, the only “plan” a note vote yields is a plan on how producers will be guaranteed we won’t strike.
If people think that “voting no = gainful employment, obviously” with no more planning or thought than what we -won’t- do, we’re seriously, absolutely fucked.
Like it or not, the leadership we voted into power at SAG have a plan and the time tried method of potential work stoppage to restart negotiations.
Simply saying “no” to that, offering -nothing- by way of a concrete step-by-step alternative, but merely saying “no” to somebody else’s outline of action is *not* a plan. Putting the word “obviously” in the false contention that somehow “voting no = gainful employment” doesn’t make it so. I wish it did, but it doesn’t.
Voting “yes” does not automatically lead to gainful employment, and neither does voting “no.” It merely decides whether we have a negotiation of producers fearing potential strike, or a formalized assurance that we won’t do anything they might give a rat’s ass about.
In solidarity.
Until SAG creates a threshold of employment for voting rights, SAG will continue to be a dysfunctional guild. How can a group with such a high unemployment rate allow just anybody to vote on the future of the others who actually work and would be affected by a strike? If those who actually work as actors still feel a strike is necessary and appropriate, then it’s worth discussing; but the votes of people who are waiters and cabdrivers, who don’t mind voting for a strike because it wouldn’t affect their lives, are worthless.
Get it together SAG and don’t let industry outsiders like most of your membership destroy the industry at a time like this.
I will try this again.
Last night was not a debate or a town hall meeting. It was a rally!
The current leadership wants you to think that there are only Two choices. “Take the shitty deal” or “Threaten a strike”. We have a third choice. “Do nothing”. Do nothing and do it right now! If we do not take the deal we continue to work under the old contract and we do not relinquish “New Media”. We send out Two positive messages. One that we will not roll over and take a shitty contract and Two that we care enough about this town to keep it working. We need to find a creative way out of this. We are smart enough to get out of this. Please do not fall for the scare tactics.
I saw a couple of people try to express a different point of view. I saw fellow union members heckle them. I was disgusted.
Let me also state that I am in support of 90% of what we are negotiating for. ………. “New Media” = “New negotiating tactics”
Or maybe we are dumb!
The whole concept of residuals was cooked up by Lew Wasserman and Ronald Reagan in 1952 when Wasserman was head of MCA (the talent agency that became MCA/Universal) and Reagan was the President of SAG.
What initially was a payoff to SAG and soon after the WGA to allow MCA talent to produce TV shows with their clients (A conflict of interest) it was quickly seen as a weapon by Wasserman, who knew smaller companies (the studios competition) would not be able afford to payout residuals over the life of a movie or TV show. And it worked. Suddenly only studios were producing television, with MCA being the biggest.
Well now that the studios and corporations that own them have bought up all the competition they no longer need the “weapon” of residuals so they want to take them back.
New Media is the non-union, residual free town the studios have been dreaming of for 60 years. If you give them a block, they’ll take the whole city and we will never get it back.
If SAG loses this battle, they’re the biggest gorilla in the room because everyone knows who Brad Pitt is but they don’t know who David Fincher or ERic Roth are (Star, Director and Writer of “The curious case of Benjamin Button), if the AMPTP doesn’t have a problem kicking them to the curb, God help all the guilds and unions in the next go ’round of talks.
Christ the IATSE deal is being sold as an achievement. Of what? It’s nothing but rollbacks. And it’s only as good as it is because the WGA stood firm and SAG is standing firm now. If they had just rolled over IATSE members would have been screwed even more.
People can bad mouth how the WGA and SAG have handled negotiations but historically the DGA and IATSE have never achieved even one significant gain in contract talks — EVER — they’ve all been achieved by either SAG or the WGA. Two guilds willing to stand up not only for their members but for the town as a whole.
My prediction is that SAG doesn’t even get 50%, much less 75%.
That display last night was shameful. A total disgrace for anyone who believes in democracy or who believes in the integrity of what unionism is supposed to be.
That “rally” was everything that is wrong with SAG. We have a leadership who talks AT US, rather than listens TO US. They silence any discenting opinion and surround themselves with like-minded yes men. They are unaware of what the members of the union actually thinks because they don’t listen to anything anyone else says if it goes against what they already believe. These people don’t seem to understand that their power doesn’t exist in a vaccuum. They are there to represent us. We are not here as simple props for them to exploit.
Typical of SAG under Rosenberg:
1) They stacked the meeting with their own supporters.
2) They didn’t allow anyone who disagreed with them, even though some people were there, to address the “rally” and offer a different perspective.
3) They then forced everyone to vote by raising their hands, in full view of their rabid supporters, instead of giving people the option of a secret ballot.
Pathetic.
What was accomplished yesterday? Nothing. Very, very typical of Alan Rosenberg’s leadership at SAG indeed.
Someone above compared it with an echo chamber, how true that is.
Residuals have nothing to do with the production budget of a film.David Clennon has got his eye on the ball. Best listen to him. Happy Holidays to all….friend and foe alike!!!
“Until SAG creates a threshold of employment for voting rights, SAG will continue to be a dysfunctional guild.”
So, will SAG waive my dues if I’m unemployed for a period of time?
Didn’t think so.
So, will SAG cover my Health Care if I can’t make my payments for a period of time?
Didn’t think so.
Let me see if I get this right – you want me to have a voice in the union *if* I work a certain number of days.
But, if you have your way, you’ll strip me of my right to vote and still want me to *pay* to be in the union?
Screw that noise.
Sterling wrote: “Voting ‘yes’ does not automatically lead to gainful employment, and neither does voting ‘no.’”
Voting ‘Yes’ will, under the circumstances, lead to unemployment.
Voting ‘No’ will, under the circumstances, maintain gainful employment.
Thank you for your detailed reply, but you’re convoluted “logic” is simply false.
“Not evil. Just wrong.”
Wise words to apply to one’s opponents during this debate.
Merry Christmas!
Time For Change said, “We have a leadership who talks AT US, rather than listens TO US. They silence any discenting opinion and surround themselves with like-minded yes men.”
I attended the informational meeting and I heard everyone who wanted to speak during the Q&A and heard them for more than the time allotted without being cut off. I don’t understand how you could feel like they didn’t let people with different opinions speak, it was an open mike until no one else wanted to speak.
Then one member from the audience approached the mike and asked for a show of hands who was in favor of a YES vote and while almost everyone in the room raised their hands it was in no way a forced vote or a vote at all.
I sense your anger in your post here. I feel it would have been more productive if you had had the courage to speak in front of the group.
The worst kind of scuttlebutt “reporting”.
Here are some actual facts from someone who was in the room:
• Then a question-and-answer session was held with the members in the audience.
FACT: It should have been a question-and-answer session, but at least 1/3 of the folks came to the mic simply to express their support for the strike auth. Some were thoughtful, some were incoherent, some were high school pep-rallyish; but all of them took time away from those who actually wanted some clarification. This waivering and as-yet undecided member really got sick of the time being allotted to folks who had no questions and only wanted to say “YAY STRIKE”. Argh. Each Q&A was limited to 2 minutes total, and the time would have been better spent with longer answers and fiewer lock-steppers. The point is to try to convert your undecideds, not to simply reinforce those who are marching with you already.
• “About 99% of those who spoke were exceedingly supportive and said ‘Yes, we need a strike authorization vote.’
FACT: Patently false. Whomever told you this is a shill. Many people got up and had reservations. There were, I’d guess, 30-40 total questioners. Easily 10-15 of them had concerns or expressed outright opposition to a strike auth.
• Towards the end of the meeting, Rosenberg asked those still present to raise their hands if they were going to vote “yes” on the strike authorization ballot. “Some people had already left but I think everyone else put their hand up,” the SAG prez told reporters.
FACT: As mentioned above, this wasn’t Alan Rosenberg, but actually the last person to take a turn at the mic. (Someone above says it was Frances Fisher…sounds right to me). Again, the final questioner did not ask a question, but basically tried to “fire everyone up”, and then asked who’d vote for strike. I was horrified. This was supposed to be an informational session, and a strike auth is supposed to be a personal choice, voted on in secret; and yet here were our “leaders” using tremendous peer pressure to get folks in the room to raise their hands (possibly so they could claim consensus after the meeting to Deadline Hollywood). The overwhelming majority of people in the room did raise their hands, but it was not difficult to see a number who didn’t, irrespective of what Alan says.
Here’s my take on the whole thing. I went into the meeting planning to vote against authorization. During the meeting I changed my mind in favor. Then late in the meeting, I changed my mind back against. But I’m still very, very torn.
For me, one ultimate issue boils down to how the leadership treats the members. I know we have a right to ask for a better deal then the ridiculous one offered. I know the producers are not negoitating in good faith. I’m not necessarily against a strike.
But a strike is a tool that needs to be used when it will actually accomplish something worthwhile and concrete. It needs to be part of an overall strategy. And one has to believe the strategy is being executed by talented people who know what the hell they’re doing.
Last night’s meeting gave me no confidence that such people are in charge. At one point, someone at a mic simply asked somewhat plaintively, “please stop ‘spinning’ us, and just give us the facts.” Yet the crew onstage seemed unable to keep their agenda from creeping in, unable to treat the union members like adults. They continued to talk in hyperbole, continued to treat dissenters with an impatient contempt for the questions they were asking, refused to discuss alternatives which were raised (such as marshalling support for the next three years and striking in 2011 when more info is known about new media, when we could have the WGA synchronize, etc ). They replied defensively to concrete suggestions….One person suggested that to gain support, it be announced before the vote that if we got a strike auth., we’d wait a fixed period of time (2-3 months) before we’d use it. I thought this was a great idea to convert the torn folks like me (it would certainly make me more likely to vote “yes”). Alas, it was rejected out of hand, with no discussion as to why. Another person asked why there weren’t more sympathetic, well-known, high-profile members leading the PR wars. They were told about how Alan and/or Doug had been appearing here or there to promote the cause, completely ignoring the fact that neither of these gentlemen fits the profile that the questioner was suggesting. On the one hand, they’d have us believe that “pattern bargaining” does not apply to us; in the same breath, they tell us that if we don’t fix new media residuals NOW, the “pattern” will have been set, and can’t be broken. You can’t argue both ways.
That’s not presenting facts, and clarifying issues: it’s spinning, pure and simple. Spin to the press, the AMPTP, the public all you want; but for God’s sake, deal with your membership directly and honestly. I didn’t see that last night, and that troubles me. You have to ask who you’re giving the authorization power and how they might use it. The ultimate decision of a strike authorization is up to the full National Board, but a lot of that board’s makeup consists of these seemingly tone-deaf folks.
I plan to attend the meeting on the 17th, and I am looking for less hype, less agenda, more analysis of ALL options, more detail. I imagine that I will not be the only one in attendance who wants to see REAL discussion of our issues. It will be interesting to see if Alan, Doug, et al. learn from last night’s mistakes.
The worst kind of scuttlebutt “reporting”.
Here are some honest and impartial facts from someone who was in the room:
• Then a question-and-answer session was held with the members in the audience.
FACT: It should have been a question-and-answer session, but at least 1/3 of the folks came to the mic simply to express their support for the strike auth. Some were thoughtful, some were incoherent, some were high school pep-rallyish; but all of them took time away from those who actually wanted some clarification. This waivering and as-yet undecided member really got sick of the time being allotted to folks who had no questions and only wanted to say “YAY STRIKE”. Argh. Each Q&A was limited to 2 minutes total, and the time would have been better spent with longer answers and fiewer lock-steppers. The point is to try to convert your undecideds, not to simply reinforce those who are marching with you already.
• “About 99% of those who spoke were exceedingly supportive and said ‘Yes, we need a strike authorization vote.’
FACT: Patently false. Whomever told you this is a shill. Many people got up and had reservations. There were, I’d guess, 30-40 total questioners. Easily 10-15 of them had concerns or expressed outright opposition to a strike auth.
• Towards the end of the meeting, Rosenberg asked those still present to raise their hands if they were going to vote “yes” on the strike authorization ballot. “Some people had already left but I think everyone else put their hand up,” the SAG prez told reporters.
FACT: As mentioned above, this wasn’t Alan Rosenberg, but actually the last person to take a turn at the mic. (Someone above says it was Frances Fisher…sounds right to me). Again, the final questioner did not ask a question, but basically tried to “fire everyone up”, and then asked who’d vote for strike. I was horrified. This was supposed to be an informational session, and a strike auth is supposed to be a personal choice, voted on in secret; and yet here were our “leaders” using tremendous peer pressure to get folks in the room to raise their hands (possibly so they could claim consensus after the meeting to Deadline Hollywood). The overwhelming majority of people in the room did raise their hands, but it was not difficult to see a number who didn’t, irrespective of what Alan says.
Here’s my take on the whole thing. I went into the meeting planning to vote against authorization. During the meeting I changed my mind in favor. Then late in the meeting, I changed my mind back against. But I’m still very, very torn.
For me, one ultimate issue boils down to how the leadership treats the members. I know we have a right to ask for a better deal then the ridiculous one offered. I know the producers are not negoitating in good faith. I’m not necessarily against a strike.
But a strike is a tool that needs to be used when it will actually accomplish something worthwhile and concrete. It needs to be part of an overall strategy. And one has to believe the strategy is being executed by talented people who know what the hell they’re doing.
Last night’s meeting gave me no confidence that such people are in charge. At one point, someone at a mic simply asked somewhat plaintively, “please stop ‘spinning’ us, and just give us the facts.” Yet the crew onstage seemed unable to keep their agenda from creeping in, unable to treat the union members like adults. They continued to talk in hyperbole, continued to treat dissenters with an impatient contempt for the questions they were asking, refused to discuss alternatives which were raised (such as marshalling support for the next three years and striking in 2011 when more info is known about new media, when we could have the WGA synchronize, etc ). They replied defensively to concrete suggestions….One person suggested that to gain support, it be announced before the vote that if we got a strike auth., we’d wait a fixed period of time (2-3 months) before we’d use it. I thought this was a great idea to convert the torn folks like me (it would certainly make me more likely to vote “yes”). Alas, it was rejected out of hand, with no discussion as to why. Another person asked why there weren’t more sympathetic, well-known, high-profile members leading the PR wars. They were told about how Alan and/or Doug had been appearing here or there to promote the cause, completely ignoring the fact that neither of these gentlemen fits the profile that the questioner was suggesting. On the one hand, they’d have us believe that “pattern bargaining” does not apply to us; in the same breath, they tell us that if we don’t fix new media residuals NOW, the “pattern” will have been set, and can’t be broken. You can’t argue both ways.
That’s not presenting facts, and clarifying issues: it’s spinning, pure and simple. Spin to the press, the AMPTP, the public all you want; but for God’s sake, deal with your membership directly and honestly. I didn’t see that last night, and that troubles me. You have to ask who you’re giving the authorization power and how they might use it. The ultimate decision of a strike authorization is up to the full National Board, but a lot of that board’s makeup consists of these seemingly tone-deaf folks.
I plan to attend the meeting on the 17th, and I am looking for less hype, less agenda, more analysis of ALL options, more detail. I imagine that I will not be the only one in attendance who wants to see REAL discussion of our issues. It will be interesting to see if Alan, Doug, et al. learn from last night’s mistakes.
I think Grippin’ in LA is on to something…
Regardless of SAG governance issues, and despite the negative aspects of a potential work stoppage, protecting the future of actors and their ability to remain sustainable is of utmost importance.
Some people on here make some really cruel remarks about “actors not being real workers” or “lazy” or “pathetic at their careers if they have to work at starbucks or wait tables in between gigs”. That’s absoulute garbage! Like there’s something so undignified by working for a living between jobs!
What some individuals and/or crew members may not understand is that for that one or two days or week an actor shows up on set, may very likely have been preceeded by years of training, practice, auditions, hustling, maitenance, side jobs to pay for the training, headshots, tapings, more hustling, etc. In other words, a lot of work. You get called for an audition one day out of the blue and you’re expected to drop everything, show up on time, look great, be amazing etc.
I’d like to know how many of you BTL’ers that consider yourselves the “hardest of REAL workers”, are doing free theater between lucrative film & TV gigs? Or taking regular weekly classes? Or working out daily in case your suddenly expected to look perfect in a swimsuit, tomorrow? My point is that it’s ignorant to make such statements towards actors insinuating that if they only work “part time” they must be lazy or “not good”. There’s only so many roles to go around.
Not only that, but lets say you work in the props department. You go out and are interviewing for a couple jobs. Well, are they selecting you based on your appearance? How fit you are? (no ice cream and doughnuts during hiatus!) The sound of your voice? Your dialect? What your face has been seen in 2 months ago? No! Nobody cares about those things if you work in props because your face isn’t all over everything. If you worked on a shitty movie last year but the props work was great, well who cares if the movie was shitty – you still did a great job and will be hired again. Because they need you to help keep the machine going. But if you’re an actor who does that same movie you run the risk of you and your career going right down with it! So next “job interview” or as we call it “audition” we go will be preceeded by our reputation from that same shitty movie that didn’t affect your career in the least, in fact – you’re already working on another show. But the actor ends up with their career perhaps being forcibly put on hold. Or until the next person decides an audience can handle your face again for reasons that could have nothing to with your actual talent, capability, or willingness to do the job. Maybe it just wasn’t a great movie and never should of been made but now you suck by association.
Now that’s only one scenario. But the bottom line is yes – actor’s needs ARE different, not better, just different.
If middle class actors become extinct than what? Resse Witherspoon will play the starring role, and then throw on a few different wigs to play the lesser roles opposite her? The bus driver. The funny neighbor lady…the lawyer who represents her when it all goes awry….Or maybe it could just be one giant monologue – think of all the costs that could be eliminated if there was only one actor! Maybe that could be their next rollback: only one actor per show!
Doesn’t Rosenberg and company’s actions remind anyone of a Captain who is hellbent on sailing his ship in the face of a massive, apocalyptic storm, despite warnings that it will be suicide for all?
The SAG leadership is so bullheaded that I’m afraid all of its passengers will be lost at sea. And its actions may end up sinking other ships in the process.
SAG will always cut off its nose to spite its face.
This is SAG’s version of pitting the rich against poor. Pitting those actors who don’t work against those who do. Attempting to create some sort of moral superiority where none exists.
It wasn’t enough for SAG to cause division with those other unions who may share a common interest with us, or even other actors unions themselves. Now they wish to cause division within our union itself.
The problem is that Alan Rosenberg, and his entire group, it’s all about hyperbole. There is no substance to the things he says. It’s the time tested political tactic of playing people off of each other. Nothing more.
They’re called wedges.
They’re designed to divide people into neat little groups, then you can easily dismiss one (or more) of the groups because they’re “not like us.” They’re designed to draw attention away from the real issues.
The real issue here is that any strike would be counter-productive. It would be counter-productive because anything one would expect to gain in a strike would be lost DURING the strike (and probably a lot more).
“Stop” is right, in the short term. But SAG is taking a long term view.
Silver Lake actor,
Your facts aren’t quite right. The simplest being the mics were opened up not only for Q&A, but for questions AND COMMENTS. That’s standard operating procedure and would have been a great place to voice your opinions. You say “FACT: it should have been…” And your usage of “should” makes it an opinion.
If you do attend the meeting on the 17th I would suggest you make your comments at the mic of the CLOSED meeting rather than weakening the position of your fellow members by posting your blow by blow description of the meeting publicly for all including the AMPTP to see.
The good news is since your facts here aren’t all that accurate you haven’t done the damage you could. It is nice that you echo the AMPTP’s press release “tone deaf” quote. But I wouldn’t necessarily believe their words if I were you.
You say, “For me, one ultimate issue boils down to how the leadership treats the members.” If that is your issue then by all means get up to the mic on the 17th and ask for your hug. But please don’t write a full meeting report, however inaccurate, to the AMPTP again.
Suggestion:
Why doesn’t the BIG guns of SAG, and by that I mean, “Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Jack Nicholson, etc go to the table with the CEO’s and negotiate the deal? Everyone knows that the studio chiefs will wilt in the presence of stars because they are All starfuckers. The Alan Rosenberg’s of this world couldn’t even get a drive-on pass onto the lot. Let’s put our fate in with GIANTS, not the ants.
PB—
Read more closely.
• DH reported it as a Q&A. My “fact” was that it actually wasn’t just a Q&A, it was also comments….in other words, DH reported it wrong. As for your statement that “comments ” are “standard operating procedure”, that’s debateable. The purported purpose of the meeting was to educate members. Having other members in the room getting up to say “I support the strike” is not education—it’s grandstanding.
• I don’t read AMPTP press releases. Any choice of words that are similar is mere coincidence. I wrote “tone deaf” because that was my observation in the meeting.
• My comment was hardly a blow-by-blow description or a “full meeting report” of a gathering which lasted 2.5 hours.
• If my posting a couple details of the meeting to an industry blog so weakens the position of my fellow members that it concerns you, then SAG is in far worse shape than anyone could have thought.
• You write “get up to the mic….and ‘ask for your hug’.” Thanks for belittling me. I’m a proud member for 15+ years. My opinions and concerns are just as valid as yours are. But I won’t resort to name calling or condescension. I’ll respect your right to feel as you do, and wish you would reciprocate. It’s exactly that kind of disrespect for fellow members’ views that is hindering this process.
You want the votes of people on the fence? Try listening to their concerns instead of antagonizing them. I don’t need my hand held; I need complete answers.