Paul . . . who?

Which Paul did you say you were?

Will I know you if I ever work again and I find myself on the set of your successful series?

Are you a friend of “Tom”?

I wasn’t being clear. By ” . . . this part of the debate is over,” I meant, “I really need to move on now.”

But look at me. I’m back at it again.

And you didn’t even try to challenge any of the points I made.

“Narcissistic” was the wrong term. Better to say, “Intensely focused on her/his visual goals, to the possible exclusion of other stimuli.” Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct my sloppy usage.

Dave C-l-e-n-n-o-n.

To Paul, who asserts that he is a DP (three comments or so back):

I would take seriously the claims of a real D.P. who can be identified on IMDb. That would require that you give us your last name.

But let’s say you’re bona fide, and that you’re not shading the truth, to assure that you keep working on your successful series, by disputing my claims regarding JUST ONE of the problems facing our joint Wages and Working Conditions committee. (And please, no worker in her/his right mind wants the AMPTP to shut our industry down again, to save what amounts to pocket change for them. So our proposals will be reasonable.)

Your testimony about the extent of ON-camera abuses — using stand-ins to replace actors — is contradicted by real, live stand-ins, and actors, who have first and last names, but let’s give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, you say nothing about the abuse of sending the actor home, to save money, and having the stand-in read lines from OFF-camera during rehearsal AND during shooting. It’s not surprising that you wouldn’t have noticed this abuse, as most DPs care only about what the CAMERA SEES, with little regard for what’s happening off-camera, little regard for the quality of the sound, or the quality of the ON-camera actor’s performance. Trust me, “Paul,” such abuse happens plenty. I’ve been at this game a little longer than you, and I saw this abuse begin and I’ve seen it grow and grow.

Dismissing a day-player early “as a courtesy”? I’ve never asked for such a courtesy. I don’t think it’s very professional, on the part of the actor or the producer. Yeah, occasionally I’ve seen series stars allowed to go home (then, being replaced, off-camera, by his/her stand-in) because that star is tired and she/he has a full day of shooting tomorrow AND because the producer doesn’t want the star working too late because producer wants all the crew (except the DP) on hand, well before the star arrives next morning, after the star’s very reasonable twelve-hour turn-around (”turn-around” is the minimum time any worker is allowed to be off the job — time, for example, to drive home; to eat a warmed-over dinner; to spend a few moments with her/his family, if they’re not already asleep; to lie down for a few hours, and then to get up and start all over again. Turn-around varies from eight to twelve hours. Teamsters often get less, because they have to move all the trailers and generators and other equipment everybody else uses).
I assume you shoot one-hour and/or single camera shows, because you say nothing about the abuse of actors and the exploitation of stand-ins during the five days of work on multi-camera SIT-COMS. It is common for a stand-in (or an assistant director, or even a writer) to perform at the all-important first “table reading,” in place of the actor who should be there. But DPs are never there either, so how would a DP know that? And frequently the guest actor isn’t brought in on the SECOND day of the week, when the important work of rehearsing the show on-its-feet takes place. Again, a DP wouldn’t know that because he/she isn’t there on that day either.

Finally, outside the closed universe of the Camera Department, other, flesh-and-blood crew workers get a hell of a lot less turnaround than your 11 hours or your subordinates’ ten hours. But you might not have noticed that because, by the time you walk on set, costume supervisors and their assistants and the make-up artists have been there for for as long as two hours. And they’ll be there long after you drive away from the set. Same for just about every other crafts department. When you arrive to shoot the first scene, do you think everything your camera sees, including furniture and actors, appeared there by magic, just before you walked on the set???

My wife is a retired (we hope) second camera assistant (clapper/loader, in England). Not a very glamorous job. I’ve never heard her remark on how considerate or thoughtful DPs are. DPs don’t talk to second camera assistants, but she did relate to grips and other workers, and she has a better sense than you do of what their work life is like, including how much turn-around they get. (I.A.T.S.E., their union, hasn’t done a lot for them over the many years of rule by Tom Short and his somewhat crooked predecessor.)

Most DPs strike me as narcissistic (more so than most actors, believe it or not). If you are a DP, and if you’re not a narcissist, you’re an exception.

And remember, we’ve only discussed one of the many problems we have to sort out, before our negotiators sit down across the table from the sims who carry the DNA of piranhas.

Dave Clennon

Even if you refute every single point I’ve made, this part of the debate is over.

*sigh* Yes, see Dave Clennon’s post right here in this thread. The actors have to work out the issues they need to negotiate on before going into negotiations, that always helps doncha know, and right now they’re holding sessions to hammer out their concerns.

Is there any reason why people always ask the exact same questions time after time and then never listen to the answers? Please phrase your talking points in the form of statements, lest anyone think they’re sincere questions and waste their typing fingers answering them.

Love your work, hate your politics.

I’ve been around SAG governance a few years and haven’t seen you around committees or board rooms. No point in trying to hammer Alec Baldwin for your own shortcomings. He at least is talking to the portion of SAG leadership that a) works b) doesn’t want to strike AGAIN THIS YEAR.

I am an avid tv fan who has been following the Hollywood negotiations (cause there’s intrigue and Nikki Finke’s blog is addictive). here’ an audience member’s opinion:

Why does everyone assume that it is the (perceived)”stalling” by SAG West that will cause a failure of negotiations and thus a strike? Why are the A-Listers pushing Rosenberg to negotiate early, as if the possibility of a strike hinges solely on whether Rosenberg will talk sooner rather than later? As if talking early will imemdiately prevent a strike?

I admit that I don’t know much about the Hollywood industry, so if you wanted an uninformed, viewer opinion, here it is: I support SAG west, just as I supported WGA. It’s just sad to see the west and east be so fractured, as this will definitely be a weakness in negotiations. SAG West will be in a better bargaining position after they’ve gone through their W&W. I think it was underhanded for the actors to take out those ads. It undermines SAG, and if I had notbeen more informed, the average viewer would erroneously (I think) believe that the ads show that blame lies with SAG West. These ads undermine their unions!

Someone mentioned, there’ll be a de facto strike. Why? It’s not de facto if there’s a possibility that the AMPTP will negotiate fairly, right? It takes two to tango, and two sides to cause a strike. The focus should be on the AMPTP, because if a strike is going to occur, we know from WGA history that it will be the AMPTP’s resistance that precipitates the strike. And those misleading AMPTP ads have brainwashed the A-listers into thinking that ‘if only people are ready and serious to negotiate can a strike be prevented!’ As if the DGA’s early talks post-WGA-strike had anything to do with how quickly the deal was made. Even I, a non-Hollywood person, can see the transparency. I know that it was made, and made quickly, purely to stick it to the WGA. The strike ended b/c the AMPTP finally decided they would concede after all, but not to the WGA. How childish! And yet the A-Listers are buying this hogwash that it was the DGA’s informal, early talks that led them to a quick deal. No, it was probably strike fatigue and the fact that AMPTP lost the public opinion. Doesn’t Clooney know about AMPTP’s misinformation campaign, or are the stars in the studios’ pockets, too? Please.

Early talks, in my humble opinion, means nothing, if the substance of the talks is very little. I wasn’t aware of the issues that Dave Clennon listed. Those points are well worth considering before approaching the AMPTP.

When I want to ask for a raise at work, I don’t just go into my boss’ office and have him take lead of the conversation and tell *me* about my work performance. I need to first review my accomplishments, perhaps think about some of my own shortcomings (and find a way to mitigate them with other successes), and then have a pay raise figure in my mind before i meet with the boss. Isn’t that like W&W? Yes.

If I weren’t prepared for a talk, say if I ran into my boss in the hallway and brought up a payraise, he could say, “Oh, but you screwed up yesterday” and then walk away. Or, he could say, “Sure, 50 cents more,” and walk away and the next time i bring it up, he’ll say, “I thought we said you’d get 50 cents?”

But if I am prepared and then talk to my boss, he doesn’t dominate the conversation, I can bring my points to the table. Due to my preparation I will realize that if he offers me a 50 cent raise per hour, I will know not to accept because my contribution is worth more than that. Otherwise, I would have accepted the paltry 50 cents and bargained against myself if I didn’t know what raise I deserved.

We see eye-to-eye on this. As a WGA member, watching the public in-fighting among SAG members is disheartening. Remember the months leading up to the WGA strike: the West reached out to the East to settle their differences BEFORE launching their campaign for a fair contract; the WGA reached out to its brothers and sister unions (including SAG and the Teamsters) BEFORE launching their campaign; the WGA stood united during the negotiations — in PUBLIC.

Stop the bickering, stop the public announcements of petitions and threats and GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!!!! Whatever your final decision is, I as a WGA member will be behind you all the way. But I will not support public in-fighting that gives the studios more ammo against you. And you shouldn’t either.

Stand behind your leaders.

And get your act together. Fast!

Hopefully calmer heads will prevail before these two wreak more havoc on our struggling economy. Then we can all move forward and hopefully these ‘leaders’ can be moved out.

Regarding your comment about “strike happy”

I think it is a given that the WGA was strike happy! Even the most militant of WGA strike supporters finally admitted that the strike was a waste of time. Remember a strike is supposed to be used as a last resort as it causes harm to so many directly affected as well as indirectly affected.

And the fact that SAG is dragging its feet on beginning earlier negotions, it is clear that they are angling for a strike as well. That is why there is so much dissent from within SAG.

So, no one is portraying them as strike happy. Their actions say that is exactly what they are. After watching the disaster that was the WGA strike, are you really surprised that there would be many within SAG that stand up and push their negotiators to resolve this contract without a strike?

WGA negotiations were successful in part because the WGA got unified, in part because they ramped up their organizing budget, and in part because they reached out to a range of brother and sister unions, including but not limited to SAG.

What SAG needs to do now in order to have a successful negotiation with the AMPTP is to get unified. For the New York Board or other regional boards to publicly call on the National Board to set a deadline to commence negotiations is not only undemocratic (SAG has not completed its course of wages and working conditions meetings wherein the membership may provide input concerning priorities in the upcoming negotiation), but sends a message to the AMPTP that our guild is disunified. A disunified guild will be perceived by the AMPTP as unable to effectively wield the one and only real weapon it has going into a negotiation – the threat to strike.

Nobody wants a strike. Not even Alan Rosenberg. And if you want to get personal about it, being SAG president takes a LOT of time, time he would otherwise spend pursuing work and working. If the guild must walk, his wife is off work from her lucrative TV series gig. He has a strong financial motivation to not call a strike.

We must all recognize that if the guild does not enter this negotiation unified, the AMPTP has no motivation to give the actors a deal even as good as the DGA’s. The only language the AMPTP understands is the language of economics. They have to know that SAG is ready, willing, and able to strike for as long as it takes to get a fair contract. If SAG can’t do that, the AMPTP will dictate a rotten, union-busting deal to the guild, which is absolutely the last thing anyone who values the guild wants.

Please, if you are a member of SAG and care about the guild, now is the time to participate in the W&W process and stand behind our elected representatives in this critical period.

Have you ever attended an S.A.G. Wages and Working Conditions meeting? A sub-commitee of, say, New Media research (do you have the vaguest idea how difficult it will be to get fair compensation for the re-cycling of our performances across all the new mediums?) Or the sub-committee on background and stand-ins? Or the one on the problems facing child performers?

Just one example among many of the issues the committees are struggling with right now, five days a week, frequently twelve hours a day (even more for staff and chairs):

Are you aware of the very serious problem of principal actors being sent home early, or not even being called for a day, or more, because the producers can so easily have a stand-in play the principal actor’s role off-camera? They even put stand-ins ON-CAMERA for over-the-shoulder coverage, in costume of course, with an approximation of the principal’s hair, as seen from behind!

Look at how this unfair practice benefits the producer and harms the actor, the stand-in and the crew:

1) Dismissing the actor at eight hours means producers pay him/her
No overtime. Actor loses.

2) Having the stand-in perform off-camera, and in some of the
on-camera coverage means that on some days producers don’t have
to call the actor in AT ALL. Actor could be hired for three days
instead of a weekly. Or even as a day player — one or two days
instead of two or three days. Actor loses.

3) Stand-in is required to perform extra tasks as the replacement for
the principal actor. She/he may feel very uncomfortable performing
the absent actor’s role, having to learn lines and speak them with
some facility and conviction. He/she usually receive NO extra
pay for performing these additional, stressful tasks. Stand-in loses.

4) The remaining actors have to perform the scene(s) without the
actor who is supposed to play the character they are interacting
with. Other actors lose.

5) If the principal actor is supposed to work early scenes the following
morning, producer will dismiss her/him early so as not to invade
that actors turn-around. Sometimes an actor’s twelve-hour turn-
around gives the crew a little extra time added to their
unconscionable EIGHT-hour turn-around. Crew loses.

6) Guest actors are often left out of table readings and the first day or
two of rehearsals (in the case of half-hour comedies), so that
producers can save days of pay, hiring the actor for fewer days.
Stand-in substitutes for the missing actor. Actor loses one or two
days’ pay. Stand-in exploited, with no extra compensation. Actor’s
performance suffers with lack of table-reading and lack of normal
rehearsal time, which is too short in any case.

That is only one of dozens of problems facing the Wages and Working
Conditions Committee and its many sub-committees. If you attended
one half-hour of one W and WC Committee session, you would see
democracy in action and you could get a clue about the work that has to be done before our negotiators face the AMPTP on that first fateful day. (In Los Angeles, you could also see the AFTRA and S.A.G. co-chairs sitting side-by-side, effectively and amicably moderating the intense deliberations of the Wages and Working Conditions committee.
It takes a lot of maturity and a good sense of humor to pull that off.)

And much of the new work being done by staff, officers and membership COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE until the DGA and WGA deals had been drawn up and published, especially the terms of the New Media contracts. (S.A.G. still has not received the final documents from the DGA.)

The staff of the Guild has been working for months. The offices of the president and of the executive director are in frequent contact with the offices of the AMPTP.

Mr Baldwin, your arrogant bullying of our democratically elected leadership demonstrates the contempt that rich oligarchs feel for democracy and for ordinary working people who try to band together to act in UNION to improve their lives.

Shame, Mr Baldwin. I don’t think you or Clooney or Hanks or most of the other fortunate few will have much to be proud of when this critical season of struggle is over. I always hated the term “Limousine Liberals.” Now, for the first time, I think I know what it means.

Dave Clennon