Yes, it’s true. I’m told there’s a lot of dissatisfaction among Hollywood CEOs with MPAA head Dan Glickman. “The unhappiness
focuses on the fact he’s a bad and boring speaker who has not repped the movie business well in Washington,” my source says. The moguls in particular blame him for not being able to keep those $246M in tax breaks for studios and filmmakers intact within the stimulus package. The thinking is that Glickman, a Democrat like Jack Valenti (although that’s where the comparison ends), got outmaneuvered by Republican lawmakers. (I wouldn’t be surprised if the MPAA looks for a GOP lobbyist.) I’m told the MPAA board, comprised of the major studios, only voted to extend Glickman’s contract for another 18 months. That’s enough time they figure to find a replacement. So Valenti had 38 years atop the organization, and Glickman will have 6 1/2. Meanwhile, the MPAA will finally release its full report on what a record-breaking year 2008 was for the movie biz — but only on Tuesday, following Glickman’s appearance at ShoWest, and then only online. Bad enough the MPAA doesn’t want Congress to know that the box office is going gangbusters domestically and internationally, but it doesn’t want the Hollywood guilds to realize this, either.






Maybe Bingham Ray or Jeff Lipsky of the long defunct October Films can take over!
They had one. Former Hastert staffer. Danny G fired him. Seems a former Ag Sec is reaping what is sowed….
Dan used to be the US Secretary of Agriculture. Insert your own sardonic aside here.
Errr… last time I checked, the GOP was completely politically irrelevant and Democrats dominated the Senate 59-41 and the House by 60-40%. Moreover, the failure of Glickman to keep those tax cuts in place represents more the fact that he’s a CLINTON Democrat in the Obama era, rather than crafty ole’ Republicans getting their way. Glickman has been out of Washington for 9 year, and even when he was there, he was never a power mover.
The MPAA should be looking for someone along the lines of a Howard Dean (NOT Howard Dean, though) or a Rahm Emmanuel. Instead they’re going to crawl into bed with some conservative with no juice on the HIll.
Leave it to the MPAA to go out and get a GOP lobbyist during the Age Of Obama.
Wasn’t he Secretary of Agriculture previously in Clinton’s administration? Why was he even chosen in the first place? he has no connection to the movie business other than his son Jonathan Glickman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Glickman
Jeez, give the guy time. Expectations are just too unrealistic these days. Valenti was there for so long it’ll take a while for ANYONE else to be as good at the job as he, so getting rid of Glickman will only start a revolving door. Besides, there will be strict oppositon from the “Party of No” against ANY Democrat because they’re desperatly trying to stop Democrats in any and every way possible. Every day there is new light being shone on the way business has been done (as usual) and it’s not flying with this Administration. So Hollywood, like everybody else, has got to come to grips with that notion, and put the work in. Things are changing, so WAKE UP!
Bad enough the MPAA doesn’t want Congress to know that the box office is going gangbusters domestically and internationally, but it doesn’t want the Hollywood guilds to realize this, either.
Oh, a few of us guild people are already well aware of it. Unfortunately, though, we’re not the ones negotiating the deals…
I’d have to agree about the bad speaker part. I saw him last September at a Harvard in Hollywood event. He was really boring. I remember thinking ‘this guy used to be the head of the Department of Agriculture — why on earth would he have been selected to rep entertainment interests in DC’?
Thank you, Nikki for stating the truth (“it doesn’t want the Hollywood guilds to realize this, either”). Odd (ha!) that Variety writes a front page story and doesn’t ask any of the guilds for a response. Well, the industry rag’s one-sided coverage of the past year is less egregious (and less “criminal”) than the guilds’ pathetic acceptance of the studios’ self-serving economic forecasts and their own inability to better represent their members. Well, the next 2-3 years will bring a daily reminder to the guilds’ negotiators and the rank-and-file of their failure.
Might a reason for a possible change in MPAA leadership be due, in part, perhaps to the fact that the MPAA (Management), for the most part, may be populated by five or six major corporations; which, may also be beholden to the former Republican administration for a, NOW, multi-Billion dollar, capitalized, indu$try?
Needless to say, but, I’ll say it anyway, Labor unions(Employees), for the most part, usually, tend to side with those of the Democratic persuasion.
This, IMHO, emphasizes the, obvious, shift away from Artistic interests towards Bu$ine$$ interests; and, other such core changes, top to bottom, that have taken place within the Entertainment Industry, itself.
Glickman is the first politician to head the MPAA. He has only four predecessors: its founder, Will H. Hays, an arguably corrupt former Postmaster General whose Production Code instigated movie censorship; Eric Johnston, the former president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who oversaw the creation of the Hollywood Blacklist; former union (CIO) bureaucrat Ralph Hetzel who toyed with a movie classifiction system while his bosses searched for his replacement; and Jack Valenti, the White House spokesman and summa graduate of the LBJ school of jawboning who enabled media consolodation and the destruction of independent film and TV companies. Considering what others in his position have done, if Dan Glickman wants to sit around with his thumb up his ass, that’s fine with me.
The “tax breaks for Hollywood” were a tough-sell from the get-go. But Glickman is blah and Valenti was an impossible act to follow. They could go for someone like Tom Daschle — who still has lots of juice with Obama and congressional Ds — but the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, is no fan of his so no help there with tax breaks.
Would be surprising if they went for an R in the top spot but there certainly ought to be an R in the #2 slot. Republicans are not irrelevant in Washington — it still requires a super-majority of 60 votes to get anything significant out of the Senate.