Friday, December 19, 2008

From the E-Mailbag...

This is from Matthew Hahn...

I think everyone's missing the point here on Mark Felt, just as they did when he outed himself as Deep Throat. Was he a hero because he exposed Nixon? Was he a traitor because he exposed Nixon? No. He was neither. He was a career bureaucrat whose nose was out of joint because Nixon promoted Pat Gray as head of the Bureau instead of him. This is the reason that he went after Nixon — revenge, pure and simple. He certainly didn't have a problem with illegal burglaries, as that is precisely what he was later convicted of himself.

That may be so but, after reading darn near everything that's ever been published about Watergate and about Mr. Felt, I don't see any evidence of why he did what he did. It's possible he was mad that he didn't get J. Edgar Hoover's old job. It's also possible that he was mad that instead of promoting from within, as was expected in an organization like the F.B.I., Nixon went outside the bureau and appointed a political hack. The F.B.I., rightly or wrongly, had always prided itself on being independent of the president or any other governmental entity...and now, Nixon had installed a stooge. (Remember: Gray was the guy who tried to impede the investigation of the Watergate break-in, lest it lead into the White House...and he later resigned after it was revealed he had destroyed the documents from E. Howard Hunt's safe.)

I could believe that Felt started leaking to Woodward because he was pissed at not getting the job. (Felt was not necessarily next-in-line, by the way. There were others in the F.B.I. who might have been selected, too.) I could also believe he did it because he honestly felt that Gray was compromising the F.B.I. and covering up crimes. (Felt leaked about a lot of other matters, and did so before Gray got the job.) I could even believe Felt was outraged at Nixon's lawbreaking but felt his own was morally justified.

I really don't know which version to believe, nor do I know any way to prove just what was going on in Felt's head at the time. What makes me suspicious of the scenario you describe is that it was the theory — presented as fact — by folks like Pat Buchanan who were desperate to kill the notion that the man who helped bring down their beloved Nixon was in any way a hero. When the real name of "Deep Throat" became known, there was this rush to tar him...and it came from people who had no way of knowing Felt's motives. They may be right. You may be right. But I see no reason to favor one interpretation over the other.

• Posted at 6:32 PM · LINK

Price Fixing?

You may have heard what happened on The Price is Right the other day. If you didn't, give this a watch and then we'll discuss it on the other side. Pay particular attention to how subdued Drew Carey's reactions are to a seeming miracle...

Okay, here's what happened. There was a fellow in the audience — a guy named Ted who is a devout Price is Right fan. He watches the show every day and either takes notes on or memorizes the prices. As you might imagine, the program sometimes gives away the same prize more than once. Throughout the show, Ted was shouting out, as folks in the audience do, suggestions to the contestants on stage who are guessing prices.

This particular showcase consisted of goodies that had appeared on past shows. Ted knew the prices, did a quick bit of addition and yelled out the right answer. On stage, the contestant (Terry) heard him and gave Ted's answer as his guess. It is not known if Ted and Terry knew each other or not. As it turned out the price was exactly right.

On The Price is Right, the showcase contestants give their guesses, then the show goes to commercial and when they come back, the winner is announced. During the break, the show's staff, recognizing that an exact, seemingly impossible "guess" had been made, became concerned that something might not be Kosher. As you may remember, there was once a gentleman named Michael Larson who did the "impossible" on another CBS game show, Press Your Luck. Mr. Larson had figured out a pattern in the game board and, quite legally, exploited it to win more than $110,000 on a show where wins of under $10,000 were the norm. There was a long tape stop and inquiry before that show's producers decided no rule had been violated. When they did, taping resumed and the "win" was certified.

Something similar happened here. The reason Drew Carey's reaction was so subdued is that during the break, he was told what had happened and had participated in the debates as to how it should be handled. He, like the show's producers, felt that the win seemed wrong in some way, with particular emphasis on the other contestant's situation. She made a great bid, apparently with no assistance, but she lost...to a guy who was given the answer. Still, that's how it works on The Price is Right. The audience shouts out numbers all the time and there's no rule that disqualifies a contestant if they use one of those suggestions and it turns out to be correct.

There's no word from within the show as to whether this will prompt any rule changes. Probably not since it's part of the fun that the audience participates like that. What they may do though is keep Ted out of the building. I hope Terry gave him a cut of the showcase.

• Posted at 3:58 PM · LINK

Hi-Diddle-Dee-Dee!

It's looking increasingly like the Screen Actors Guild strike will not happen...or if it does happen, it will be so tepid in number and spirit as to set the union up for a hasty fold. Put simply, the necessary solidarity just ain't there.

If you're interested in the "no strike" viewpoint, you have nosagstrike.com insisting that, given the current economy, this is no time for SAG to be shutting down the town in a quest for gains that the other above-the-line unions were unable to achieve.

I'm not a SAG member but if I were, I don't think I'd buy that argument. There's never a good time for a strike, never a moment when a union with the length and breadth of SAG could take a hike without causing severe economic damage in many different directions. That is, in fact, one of the union's strengths and why its strikes tend to be short. When we writers find it necessary to walk out rather than accept a crappy deal, it takes a while for anyone to notice we're gone. There are always a few scripts completed and you have producers or directors who can write a little and get by for a time. But if Ugly Betty walks off Ugly Betty, production on the show ceases immediately.

It's not a step to be taken lightly...but unions are all about negotiations, and you can't enter into a negotiation without the power to say no. Going on strike is the only meaningful way in which a union says no. Without it, you wind up eating too many crummy deals...like, say, the one that the AMPTP has offered SAG.

It would be nice if we lived in a labor environment where strikes were never necessary. Alas, they occasionally are. A week or two ago on some discussion board, I saw someone say, "There shouldn't be a strike. Both sides should just get together in a room and talk until they come to some sort of agreement." That would be wonderful but that does not happen. The reason anyone's even talking about a strike is because that does not happen. The AMPTP does not do business that way. What's more, they believe that they've taken billions away from the unions by not doing business that way...so they have no interest in changing.

The anti-strike argument I might buy is that SAG is in no shape for the battle. The breach with AFTRA has weakened them, robbed them of that ability to choke off the flow of product to the networks. Infighting has weakened them further...and bad economic news has too many members operating out of too much fear. I don't believe the offer is a good one. I don't even believe it's comparable to what the WGA and DGA accepted. But the union sure doesn't seem to have the capability of doing any better.

One big problem: You have a lot of "name" stars coming out against a strike. In a sense, the views of Tom Hanks and Charlize Theron on this matter shouldn't carry much weight with the SAG membership. Most SAG members have very little in common with the economic concerns of those in the superstar category. Unions bargain for minimums while someone like Hanks has his own lawyers busily negotiating for maximums. This is not to suggest that Hanks and other Big Stars who've come out against the strike are acting only in self-interest...but a strike of the entire union is unlikely to benefit them. It's for the beginners, the day players, the extras, the journeymen, etc. An offer could be very bad for the 99% of the union that will never get near the earning power and clout of Will Smith...but good for, or at least not bad for Will Smith.

Still, it does matter what the George Clooneys of the world think. Not only are they the "face" of SAG to the outside world but they're the soul and spirit within. The producers need actors in general but they need guys like Clooney in a specific sense. You can't have a successful strike without some of them on the picket line. The WGA, before it grabbed up picket signs, did sufficient outreach and informational meetings to get the "A" list screenwriters and TV showrunners largely on board. SAG doesn't seem to have that...or enough of that.

I'd love to see SAG rebound and coalesce and link arms and take a solid stand. Even though a strike at this time might kill a movie project I'm writing, I don't like seeing our town's most powerful union thrashing about, imploding and infighting. This will eventually translate to worse money and working conditions for all of us...or at least all of us who aren't in the top 3% of our job categories. But the Screen Actors Guild in its current state doesn't look fit for any sort of battle and could even do itself serious structural damage if it tries. They should stop looking for a way to win the war and focus on some solution that'll enable them to get out with their limbs intact. This one was lost the day AFTRA decided to go it alone.

• Posted at 2:34 PM · LINK

Mark Felt, R.I.P.

Mark Felt, the F.B.I. officer who was the legendary "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame, has died at the age of 95. There are those who would argue otherwise but I think the guy was a genuine American hero...for a brief time. He was also behind a good deal of illegal surveillance that the bureau conducted, and I don't think one act cancels out the other.

The legend, of course, is that Felt gave Bob Woodward the inside info that enabled the reporter (and his partner, Carl Bernstein) to blow the Watergate scandal wide open and bring down Richard Nixon. What I've gleaned from my readings is that Nixon was undone more by his friends (and himself) than his enemies or any reportage. A lot of what Felt told Woodward, at least as quoted in All the President's Men, was wrong. Still, he was right enough to keep the Washington Post on the story when others thought the investigation had gone as far as it would ever go. That it went the distance is attributable, at least in part, to Felt.

According to this news report, Woodward and Bernstein went to visit Felt a month ago while they were in the area to give a speech. For Woodward and Felt, it was a reunion. For Bernstein and Felt, it was an introduction. They'd never met. I'll bet the reporters are glad they made that detour.

• Posted at 1:56 AM · LINK

Today's Video Link

First off: A lot of you wrote to tell me that you loved the link to that episode of The David Susskind Show where he interviewed Jerry Lewis for an hour. Well, there are installments of that series available online. I'm not going to embed my favorite because it's 90 minutes and I don't like how a hulu embed seems to slow down this site. But here's a link to a very famous Susskind episode — How To Be A Jewish Son, featuring Mel Brooks, George Segal, David Steinberg, Dan Greenburg and other Jewish sons. This aired in 1970 and drew so much attention — particularly because of how funny Brooks was — that it was rerun very often for a year or two.

As for what I am embedding: When cable TV started popping up in this country, many believed that the future of the medium was interactive. As a kind of experiment, the company we now call Time-Warner flew the great game show host Bill Cullen to Columbus, Ohio to emcee How Do You Like Your Eggs? for a cable service they had there called Qube. He did four of these for a home audience estimated at well less than a thousand viewers (some sources say 200) and this is the first ten minutes of the first one. It's kind of interesting to watch, especially when you remember that all through this, executives are thinking, "This is the future of television." It also shows what a good host Bill Cullen was, even working in unfamiliar surroundings with a new crew, doing an unpolished show. Hope he got paid well.

• Posted at 12:52 AM · LINK