Monthly Archives: December 2007

Our dear friends at the AMPTP put out another of their lovely press releases yesterday. As you may recall, they walked out of negotiations with the Writers Guild on December 7 and promptly issued a list of six demands that, they said, had to be met before they'd speak with us again. There have been no talks since then, and as far as we know there have been no talks about resuming talks.

Yesterday's press release sort of reaffirms their position but it only mentions three of the six demands. It doesn't say they're withdrawing the other three. What it says is…well, here. You don't need me to summarize. Read it for yourself. Then come back and we'll discuss one paragraph in particular which I think is especially disingenuous.

Okay, here's that paragraph. It's the one about how they want us to withdraw our demand relating to the representation of those who write animation…

The WGA seeks to obtain, once again by top-down organizing tactics, jurisdiction over animation writers who traditionally fall under IATSE's jurisdiction, and to deprive those writers of their free choice to elect union coverage under the voting system administered by the National Labor Relations Board. The AMPTP has asked the WGA to withdraw this demand.

Okay, let's unpack that. I'm not entirely sure what they mean by "top-down organizating tactics" but one assumes they think we should be going via some opposite route…say, "bottom-up?" The phrase "…traditionally fall under IATSE's jurisdiction" is extremely misleading. First of all, the WGA has already organized some Animation Writers so this alleged tradition already has loopholes aplenty in it. Secondly, the immediate focus of the WGA's organizing in the area of Animation Writing is to cover studios and projects that are not covered by Local 839 of IATSE. So that's the relevant tradition here.

Then we get to the part about depriving "…those writers of their free choice to elect union coverage under the voting system administered by the National Labor Relations Board." Hey, if that's the case, we can settle this in no time. Let's have an election! Ask folks who write cartoons if they'd like the WGA to represent them. If all the AMPTP is trying to do is protect those writers' right to vote, great. Let's vote.

But of course, they won't go for that. The AMPTP is trying to prevent such votes…and by the way, to the extent the above suggests the WGA is trying to gain jurisdiction without that kind of election, that's a lie, too. The Guild couldn't win representation of these people without winning an election. What the WGA is trying to do is to get some language removed from the WGA-AMPTP contract that defines a "television motion picture" and a "theatrical motion picture," expanding it to include animation. That would give the WGA a clearer path to organize (which would mean a "bottom-up" campaign and seeking elections) at companies whose writers are not covered by IATSE.

So what the AMPTP has been doing all along is trying to block us from doing traditional labor organizing in that area and having elections…and they're saying, "We won't change the contract language in question because if you want to organize in this area, you have to do traditional labor organizing and have elections."

I know there are some people out there who are saying that the WGA should drop its demands relating to Animation and also to so-called "Reality" programming in order to get back to the bargaining table. I think that's foolish for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that it won't get us a quarter-inch closer to a contract. The Alliance has listed six demands they say we must comply with before they'll bargain again. Now they're saying, "Drop these three" without saying the other three no longer matter. So if we do drop these three, they'll say, "Great. Now, drop the other three — especially that stuff about Distributor's Gross — and we'll schedule more talks."

And even then, there's no guarantee that those talks will move us any closer to a deal than did the earlier talks. They could just sit with us for two days, discuss the weather, make trivial and cosmetic improvements on their old deal points, and then throw us out with another list of ultimatums. That's certainly been the modus operandi so far.

There's compromise language possible in the area of Animation and also in "Reality" (which, you may notice, I always put in quotes. I've worked in "Reality" programming). In Animation, let us do the traditional kind of labor organizing, elections included, which the above statement claims they're trying to defend. In "Reality," do much the same thing. Allow the unrepresented to decide they want representation and let traditional union organizing, which the AMPTP claims to be defending, proceed.

By the way: One of the reasons that WGA representation of Animation is becoming a more and more relevant issue is that more and more movies are blurring the line between live-action and animation. Thanks to Motion Capture and other new technologies, it's getting difficult to tell on some projects where one leaves off and the other begins. I think it's safe to assume that if live-action is covered by union representation and animation isn't, the studio producing a film that's in any way arguable will be arguing the non-union side of things. Which poses a problem for the Writer because that quarrel has to take place before the movie is made, before you can look at a frame of film and even discuss whether it's live-action or animation.

It's hard enough now to determine which Polar Express was, so you can only imagine that debate when the whole endeavor was just a verbal idea. One of the reasons that Animation Writers overwhelmingly would like to be in the WGA is that they want to avoid the old bait-and-switch: They're asked to write what they're told will be an animated film and since it ain't live-action, it will have to be done without a WGA contract. But once it's done, the producers start talking about Motion Capture and inserting live actors into the proceedings…and suddenly, the Writer wakes up and he or she has written a movie that should have been done (and wasn't) under a WGA contract. It would be so much neater if they all were.

So there's yet another reason — I have more, believe me — why Animation should be covered by the WGA. If that demand and the one about "Reality" are impediments to a new contract, okay. Put them aside for now and negotiate the other main points, such as sharing revenues for Internet delivery and adjusting the compensation on DVDs. We'll have to get through those topics eventually. Why not now?

Joe Conason on how the right-wing suddenly (and temporarily) seems to love Barack Obama. This is a Salon link so you may be in for some ad-watching if you want to read it.

A number of comic book websites were wishing a happy 86th birthday yesterday to John Severin, the great comic book artist. And they were right to want to salute this veteran illustrator, whose career highlights have included drawing for EC Comics, including the first few issues of MAD; a long stint as the star artist for Cracked, plus hundreds and hundreds of magnificent war and western comics for DC, Marvel and several other publishers. He's currently drawing a Bat Lash mini-series for DC and showing the world that he's still got it, still doing superior work.

So they were all right to want to salute him on his birthday but they were a little early. I don't care what Wikipedia says, guys. John Severin's birthday is the day after Christmas, December 26.

In the holiday spirit, we bring you the trailer to Laurel and Hardy's 1934 version of Babes in Toyland, which is sometimes also known as March of the Wooden Soldiers. It was one of their better films…and a very colorful one, despite the fact that it was filmed in black-and-white. A decade or so ago when a home video company colorized it, someone who worked for the outfit described an interesting bit of mass delusion. He told me that he'd encountered an amazing number of people who swore that the movie must have been originally made in color because they vividly recalled seeing it that way. At the time, they couldn't have…and I guess that says something for how effective the movie is. (You can also realize that by comparing it to the 1961 Disney remake.)

The only person I ever met who didn't much like this film was its producer, Hal Roach. As Mr. Roach told it to me, he had the idea and he wrote a much better plot outline which Stan Laurel refused to follow. They bickered over it for several months until Roach, fearing the movie would not get made in time for its desired release date, threw up his hands and told Laurel to do whatever he wanted. Hal didn't seem to think too much of what resulted but most people find it quite wonderful. Here's a few minutes of it…

Some WGA members are disappointed that the late night hosts are going back to work despite our strike. I think it hurts the strike effort but only a little. The networks still cannot produce most of their prime-time shows. The movie studios still cannot deliver most of the desired product to their marketplace.

One upside to Dave, Jay, Conan, Jimmy, Craig, Jon and Stephen restarting their shows is that the news coverage in their country will be less impaired. Earlier today, I was talking to a friend of mine who I'd consider well-versed in what's going on in the world. He had not heard of the recent embarrassment where Mitt Romney was found to have fabricated a tale he's been telling for years about watching his father march with Dr. Martin Luther King. Romney's staff has admitted it's not true — one spokesperson said "He was speaking figuratively, not literally" — which sure doesn't square with the actual quotes.

A candidate for public office lying? I have a feeling it's not the first time. But Mitt is lucky that Dave, Jay, Conan (etc.) aren't on to make it into the week's running gag. Not all that long ago, Al Gore said a few things that were not really lies but could be viewed as such if you were out to slam the guy. His opponents did a good job of selling the idea that the alleged fibs proved not just that Gore said something untrue but that they were proof that he was a congenital liar, incapable of speaking the truth…someone not to be believed if he just told you what time it was.

And now here we have Romney getting caught telling a truly untrue tale and repeating it on many occasions…and he may get a pass on it because the late night hosts aren't taping. People aren't hearing about it the way they'd hear about it if The Daily Show was current. Hillary Clinton and her husband have said some embarrassing things lately in besmirching her opposition and they're not paying much of a price for it, either.

So while I'm disappointed those hosts are coming back, there is this. Maybe now more people will know what's going on in the world.

Wade Sampson reminds us that today is the seventieth anniversary of the opening of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the movie that changed animation (and maybe more than that) forever. It debuted on December 21, 1937 at the Fox Carthay Circle Theater in Los Angeles. Like most of you, I first saw the film after seeing several of Mr. Disney's later (and probably, better) animated features so I didn't appreciate how revolutionary Snow White was at the time of its debut; not until the early seventies when I attended a screening hosted by, of all people, Chuck Jones.

He seemed like an odd choice since Jones had not worked on Snow White. (His total experience at Disney was many years after it was made…a few months spent working on Sleeping Beauty.) This wisdom of his selection as speaker became apparent when he delivered a little talk after the film — a talk that could have been titled, "What Walt Disney Could Do That We At Warner Brothers Could Not." Much of it had to do with slow, subtle character animation and a wider, muted color pallette. He cited moments in Snow White that could never have been done in one of his seven-minute Looney Tunes extavaganzas. The budgets at Warner's did not allow an animator to spend as much time on a sequence as Walt allowed his crew…and the need to tell a story in seven minutes necessitated much swifter, broader action.

Anyway, I wish I had a recording of Chuck's speech because it contained a lot of fascinating observations — with admitted jealousy, a great creator of animation was discussing a cartoon from the standpoint of an onlooker. I came away with a new appreciation of the film.

Wade mentions the Carthay Circle in his article. It was a great place that in the fifties and sixties, alternated between housing live shows and movies. My parents must have taken me to a half-dozen films there. Situated in what was largely a residential area, it had impossible parking, which was probably what caused it to close. In fact, it became rather well-known as a theater to avoid because it had 1,500 seats and about a tenth as many places to leave your vehicle. Still, if you got there, it seemed worth the ordeal. It was a palace and just being in it was an experience, regardless of what was showing. (I seem to recall seeing Around the World in 80 Days there. I was four and a half when that movie was first released, but perhaps what we saw there was a reissue.) The place was intermittently open and closed in the late sixties and then finally demolished around 1969

In fact, they not only razed the theater but they plowed through many of the surrounding streets. The name "Carthay Circle" referred to an area with several circular avenues with the theater at the approximate center. The city decided to straighten things out so they connected this to that and that to this and now you can drive through that area and watch some streets change names inexplicably from block to block…but there's no trace of the Carthay Circle Theater or even of the circular topography in which it was situated. Kind of a shame.

Fortune Magazine picks the 101 Dumbest Moments in Business for the year. Fortunately, none of them involve hiring me.

Here's a little Christmas music for you…

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will return to the air with new shows on January 7, sans writing staffs. What are they going to do? Probably a lot more interviews, some rerun segments and a seriously reduced capacity to do new material. There's kind of a gray, arguable distinction over when a writer-performer's words are the work of his writer side, and there will be pressure on Stewart and Colbert (as there will be on Leno, O'Brien and the others) to expand the definition in favor of their performer functions. They'll also all probably spend a little time on each broadcast trashing Management for not making a deal. That maybe in apology to their guild for going back but it will also apparently also reflect these folks' true feelings.

By the way: A number of articles about this have made the assertion that Johnny Carson was able to return to work, when he did in '88, because he was not a member of the Writers Guild. I don't think that's true. I don't know it for a fact but I believe Johnny was a member.

The question I'd like to see someone put to Jon Stewart would have to do with his intentions regarding the Academy Awards, which he's supposed to host on 2/24/08. I would guess that if the strike isn't over by then — or isn't over in time for him to adequately prep for that date — he won't wanna. I would further guess that if the strike is not over, the Powers That Are might be afraid of giving him that bully pulpit. It all adds up to just another reason the AMPTP would be wise to get this thing settled well before then.

This is the time of year when I get a lot of e-mails asking me to post my Mel Tormé Christmas story. It's right here year 'round and it's the "most hit" page of my website.

Also, every year I point you to some wonderful online animation over at the ICQ site involving Santa and his reindeer. They used to do a new one of these each Christmas but they seem to have discontinued the tradition. The old installments are still available here, however. [WARNING: Music may begin the second you go to that page. And make sure you check out all four cartoons.]

And I really like Garfield's 12 Days of Christmas Advent Calendar. Check it out every day between now and December 25. (Full disclosure: I work with the Garfield company but I had nothing to do with this.)

Fred Kaplan on why the Democrats in the Senate keep opposing the Iraq War but meeting Bush's demands for more $$$ to keep it going.

Well, let's see where we are with this puppy…

There's still no news about the AMPTP returning to the bargaining table with the Writers Guild. One presumes this will occur after the first of the year and probably after the AMPTP has opened discussions with the Directors Guild on their contract. A lot of folks seem to be assuming that the DGA will rapidly make one of its quickie deals that gives it a little bump while setting up some sort of precedent that undermines other unions.

I doubt that. For one thing, the DGA is in no real hurry. Their contract doesn't expire until the end of July. Secondly, a lot of DGA members — especially those who are also writers and/or actors — have made it clear to the guild leadership that they don't want to see the DGA allow itself to be used against the other unions, nor do they want to accept a deal that concedes many of the points that the AMPTP is refusing to give the WGA. Lastly, if played right, the DGA could have a lot of leverage as a result of what's happened with the WGA. It's too good an opportunity to blow on a fast sellout.

Or so all the logic tells us. Then again, this is the Directors Guild that sometimes thinks the best way to deal with the AMPTP is to not make trouble for them.

The AMPTP is out trying to sell the idea that the current strike is all the fault of those stupid writers, not of the organization that has refused to bargain in good faith or, lately, at all. I don't see this p.r. campaign as gaining any real traction, nor do I see it weakening WGA resolve. For every one writer who begins to doubt that we're doing the right thing, another twenty get angry and more determined. But I guess Nick Counter has to say something.

David Letterman's company is about to open talks with the WGA about the possibility of an interim contract…and do take note of how many news sources were reporting last week that such a deal was close or near-certain or even already completed. It's a good reminder of how totally wrong and rumor-driven some of the news coverage of this strike has been. They commence discussions tomorrow, and the consensus in the WGA seems to be not to grant such a deal.

I know there's a respectable argument that the WGA should pact with Letterman's outfit, Worldwide Pants. Dave is likely to return with or without an interim deal, and having his writers back — and the removal of a picket line that will scare away desired guests — would give him an advantage over competition with no interim contract. If that would help Dave clobber Jay, wouldn't that put additional pressure on NBC to settle? (Answer to that: Maybe but maybe not. And CBS, which would see two of its key programs probably return to at least their old levels of profitability, might figure that they then had less reason to settle.)

There may, however, be even a better reason that the WGA will not make that deal with Letterman. According to this article in Variety…

Situation is complicated by the fact that while Worldwide Pants owns the CBS latenighters, company cannot dicker with the guild on the
central issues of new-media distribution because CBS controls most of the new-media rights on those shows.

This whole strike is about new-media distribution and if Letterman's company can't make a deal in that area, that's a contract-killer right there. We're on strike against companies that don't want to share those revenues.

So it looks like Dave will be going back to work on January 2 but without his writing staff. It seems highly appropriate that his only announced guest for that night so far is Donald Trump, a man who believes that in any dispute between employer and employee, the employer is always right.

Lastly: Folks keep asking me how long I think the strike is going to last. The other night over dinner with some writers, I made what everyone seemed to think was a strong case: All logic-based indicators would, I think, point to the AMPTP trying to make a deal on or around February 1 and not, as some have suggested, keeping the WGA out until next June or so. When I get some time, I'll write up that argument for this page…but it will have to be qualified with a reminder that so far in this strike, and many times in other labor disputes, the Alliance has not done what you'd think would be in its best interests. Sometimes, the execs involved are stubborn, much as some of our elected officials cling to strategies long after they should have course-corrected.

The AMPTP also has this "rule of one" where one of the core member companies can veto a deal that the others all want to make. In the '88 strike, there were several major studios that thought it was insane to let the thing go on as long as they did. But they were not unanimous so that strike went on longer than even some on their side wanted. This one may, too…but when I get a chance, I'll tell you why I think it would be really foolish of the AMPTP to let this one go much past Groundhog Day.

Jeannie Schulz — widow of that guy who drew Charlie Brown, plus she's also a very bright, lovely lady — has some comments on the David Michaelis book on her late hubby. I recently got a copy (free) which I'm working my way through and so far, it seems to be everything Schulz's associates have been telling me it is: A lot of good, well-researched revelations about the man interspersed with so many odd deductions about his character and personality and too many questionable factual assertions as to despoil the good parts. I think, when an author who never met you says you never hugged people, and all your friends and family are saying you did, the author is on wafer-thin ice.

Steve Martin's new book, Born Standing Up, is quite a surprise. It's kind of an autobiography, though he says it comes close to being a biography because he feels so detached from the person he's writing about. He covers his childhood, his adolescent days working at Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm, and then his break-in to comedy writing and performing and stardom. It stops when he makes his first movie, The Jerk, and gives up stand-up forever. Amazingly introspective — which is not to say all his self-observations ring true — he depicts his subject (himself) as not particularly gifted in the way we think a successful comedian is born funny. To Martin, it was all a matter of figuring out how to do something that, he seems to feel, did not come naturally to him.

It is not, in some ways, a particularly flattering self-portrait. I came away from the book admiring Martin's candor and willingness to display his warts but I'm less certain of how I feel about him as a comedian. In portions of Born Standing Up, he seems to be conducting a final burial for his stand-up act, drawing a hard line between that guy and the person he is today…and even the old Steve Martin, the guy in the white suit with the arrow through his head, doesn't seem to have ever been the real Steve Martin. He writes of anxiety attacks and of feeling lost in his own career…and at time, I found myself wondering why he wrote the book.

Which is not to say it's not a fascinating read. You can order it from Amazon by clicking here and I'm going to recommend you do that. It's a quick read and a good chance to get inside the brain of a very successful performer. You'll understand that stardom, especially in the area of stand-up comedy, ain't always as wonderful as it may look.

I link to this little Christmas cartoon every year and people seem to love it…