The Highway to Hell Is Paved With Advil and Scotch

We here at Strike Watch currently suffer from a herniated disk, have so since before Halloween, and we are quite literally brought to our knees by periodic flashes of pain, which shoot from the lower back to the ankle via the sciatic nerve (aka The Highway to Hell).

The only relief seems to emanate from the ingestion of prescription-strength Advil and a Lagavulin on the rocks. We would make more of a party out of it if we dipped into our Naproxen--the Strategic Petroleum Reserve of pain relief--but we don't feel the urge quite yet to order up the full Jerry Lewis. (If you use Percodan, it's called a Chevy Chase.) These lightning bolts can strike at anytime, and we have resigned ourselves to a lifetime of misery.

Then again, we have been well-prepared for it, seeing as how we cover Hollywood unions. The latest shocks to the system come, as always, via email. One says actors should vote against candidates for SAG Awards who signed the high-profile petition against strike authorization; others condemn the sending of the email. We haven't read them all that thoroughly, but we believe there is talk of blacklists and Nazis, loyalty and betrayal, the end of residuals and the End of Days.

We can't reprint them here because the information hasn't been verified yet--yes, we know it's a blog and all, but we would still like to maintain a modicum of journalist procedure; besides, we here in the Land of the Layoffs have other pressing matters to attend to. If you need the juicy details, you may find them at Keri Tombazian's blog.

We merely provide this latest post as a gentle reminder to all concerned to, please, get this over and done with now before we throw ourselves onto the tracks at Jay Street-Borough Hall and have the F Train mercifully end our pathetic existence.

Thank you.

--Andrew Salomon

(UPDATE: Richard Masur's email offers an eloquent perspective on the situation and is posted below. So, too, is Alan Rosenberg's statement, and a statement from the Awards Committee.)

Comments

[Andrew Salomon]

From Richard Masur, national board member (New York) and former SAG national president:

An email has been circulated by a member of the SAG Board of Directors, who has a political agenda, and is attempting to punish other SAG members for taking a stand in opposition to her position. She defines anyone who disagrees with her position as "disloyal" to Screen Actors Guild.

We have an unfortunate and ugly history with such words in this union. Over fifty years ago, another group in power at SAG chose to apply the words, "disloyal," "traitor," and "subversive" to some of their fellow members who had the temerity to question the actions of their union and their government. In order to punish anyone who did not agree with those in power, a Blacklist was established and, out of fear, SAG's leaders supported it.

The Blacklist was evil. But it worked. People's lives and careers were seriously damaged or destroyed.

Eventually people with courage stood together and denied these bigots their power, and put an end to this despicable practice. But now, it seems, a new group of people who think they know what everyone else should think and feel has decided the time has come to bring the Blacklist back.

Well, SAG, the DGA, the WGA, AFTRA and the AMPTP have already made their decision about such tactics. All made statements that they would never again tolerate this kind of intimidation and abridgement of people's rights. For that is exactly what is being attempted here. If you take a position which the bully boys (and girls) don't like, they will call you names and label you "traitor" and "disloyal." Well, in this day and age the members of this union and the members of this industry will not tolerate such behavior. They will see it for what it is -- demagoguery of the worst kind -- and do with it what it deserves: flush it down the toilet.

In the fifteen years that the SAG Awards have been held, there has never been an attempt by any faction within the guild to politicize them. That is as it should be. These awards were conceived of as an opportunity for actors to be honored by their peers. The sole criterion for the awarding of these honors has been artistic achievement. That must continue to be the case.

The SAG Awards have meant a great deal to the members, the Guild and the SAG Foundation, as well as all the honorees. It would be a shame if this worthy process were to be sullied by this political manipulation. I sincerely hope that all the nominees will show up to demonstrate that they will not allow such tactics to prevent them from supporting and honoring their fellow SAG members.

Richard Masur

[mheister]

I received an email from a fellow SAG member (offered here at the bottom of this post), and I'd like to offer a little perspective. The idea floated is to not vote for strike authorization opponents who are nominated for SAG Awards. The rationale is that these nominees - almost all well-established stars of hit shows who have agents, managers and lawyers to look after their rights - are, in opposing the strike authorization vote, looking out for themselves at the expense of their middle-class actor scene partners. If they're not looking out for the middle-class actor, why should the middle-class actor reward them with a Guild-bestowed accolade?

We are not talking about the Oscars here. We are talking about an award issued by our guild, which is a union. A fair argument may be made for taking into consideration the nominee's stance on union-related issues when casting such a vote. When notoriously anti-union actor Jon Voight was nominated a year or two back for something, I personally decided in good conscience I could not reward him with a guild award after his blatant and financially unjustifiable exploitation of Fi-Core status (Voight wasn't exactly broke and in dire financial or professional straits when he made this decision).

This is not and cannot be a "blacklist". The blacklist, lest we forget, was a list kept by producers of creative professionals in the entertainment industry - actors, writers, directors, musicians, composers, so on - they would not hire out of fear of being called before House or Senate committees in Washington DC investigating "un-American activities". You know, like creating art. The careers of many amazing artists were ruined during this black chapter in American history.

All that is being proposed by the writer(s) of the missive below is that nominated members who don't have the backs of the middle-class actors be denied a union-bestowed accolade. There is not a middle-class actor I know of - and I defy anyone to provide evidence to the contrary - who's even remotely close to having the power to deny any of these higher-profile actors any acting-related employment opportunities. In fact, in going public with a proposition like this, activist actors may be placing their own future employment prospects in jeopardy as many of these nominees are also producers, and carry significant influence beyond their screen presence.

I would like to think that many of the actors opposed to the strike authorization vote would, if they better educated themselves, be as horrified by the prospect of giving away the future - you know, the Internet - as I am. I was very happy to see the latest Hollywood Call Sheet speak so forcefully to the need for a yes vote on the strike authorization. I hope these actors read their Call Sheet thoroughly. I hope, if they have questions, that they call the guild and ask. And I hope that some may actually change their minds.

I personally haven't yet decided if this will sway the casting of my SAG Awards ballot. If it does, I may just not tell anyone, anywhere, ever. I may well not be alone in this. And if this award does matter to the nominated actors - it is, after all, the only one coming solely and directly from their fellow thespians - let the nominees stew, now and afterwards, over whether their political stand on this issue so vital to the future viability of the guild may be a source of blowback for them.

Here's the letter I received:
--------------
Dear Actor Friends,
I'm feeling angry and I'm feeling powerless.

And I'm ready to do something I wouldn't have dreamed of until now.

I'd like you to look at this list of name actors:

Alec Baldwin
Josh Brolin
Steve Carell
Sally Field
Michael C. Hall
Susan Sarandon
Tony Shalhoub
Kevin Spacey

These eight and several more of our "high-profile" fellow Guild members have recently done two things:

(A) They have advised us rank-and-file members to VOTE NO to giving our National
Board the authority to call a strike if the AMPTP refuses to improve its
insulting and contemptuous "last, best and FINAL" offer.

(B) Now these arrogant elitists are trying to take away our right to even HAVE a
vote on this critical issue. They are telling the National Board to withdraw
the strike authorization referendum.

This is the National Board which is now dominated by "Unite-for-Strength"
and USAN, their New York allies. U4S and USAN are the same faction which
these SAME STARS endorsed in the September board election.

And this is the same U4S/USAN-dominated National Board which voted, in October,
(by 97% to 3%) to (1) call in a Federal Mediator, AND -- if mediation FAILED --
(2) send out ballots to us -- the membership -- asking for the authority to
call a strike if the AMPTP continued to insult and demean us.

And now, many of those same National Board members, with the support of a long
list of star actors and star actor/PRODUCERS, are ready to renege on their vote -- their
promise! -- to give us members a voice in these fateful negotiations about the
future of middle-class actors.

I'm ready to do something radical.

I cannot claim the following idea as my own, but I am determined to act on it.

This advice I'm pasting here was posted on the website USActorsOnScreen.com. I'm not
telling YOU what to do, only that I am going to follow the advice below and
use my vote for the S.A.G. "Actor" Awards to send a message.
################################################################################

Darling Actors,

I'm just a fan. I'm especially a fan of character actors. (My heart belongs to Claude Rains. And Gale Sondergaard is one of my role models.)

And I follow the labor scene. Lots of struggles on lots of fronts. Not just the Hollywood scene, though it's especially juicy.

BOYCOTTS can be an effective weapon in labor struggles. And my labor savvy tells me that YOU have a boycott weapon, in your hands, right now.

It's a ballot. Your awards ballot.

Like every other self-respecting Hollywood institution, you put on an annual AWARDS show. And show-business handicappers love to read YOUR awards as OSCAR tea-leaves. (That's why many of us tune in.)

Well, the following actors have two things in common. ONE is that they are nominees for S.A.G. "ACTOR" honors.

Thing TWO-in-common is this: These rich-and-famous nominees have all signed on to Danny DeVito's famous open letter. The one where DeVito and his fellow stars tell YOU that YOU should vote against giving YOUR National Board the option of calling a strike, if, IF, the networks and studios keep treating you with contempt.

Thing-TWO-in-common means this, at least to a watchful fan: These nominees seem to want their union to be weak and to capitulate to the moguls.

And yet, THEIR UNION might give these union-underminers that prized statuette.

Those DIS-loyal nominees are . . .

JOSH BROLIN ("Milk")

KEVIN SPACEY ("Recount")

SUSAN SARANDON ("Bernard & Doris")

MICHAEL C. HALL ("Dexter")

SALLY FIELD ("Brothers and Sisters")

ALEC BALDWIN ("30 Rock")

STEVE CARELL ("The Office")

TONY SHALHOUB ("Monk")

If I were a regular, ordinary, not-rich-and-famous actor, and if I wanted my union to be strong so it could fight for me . . . would I want to give any of these rich-and-famous UNION-UNDERMINERS my vote? Would I want my union to give them such an honor -- MY UNION's ultimate stamp-of-approval?

I would remember those names when I began to mark my ballot.

Most of us in labor only get to vote for union officers, or for new contracts. YOU get to vote for actors who perform outstandingly, AND who (you hope) support the union that is honoring them.

If the networks and studios beat you down, it will be a disheartening signal to other working folks across the country. Don't let it happen. Use your strength. And use your awards vote.

Vote for actors who are loyal to their union.

In solidarity,

A spiritual daughter of Jane Darwell

January 7, 2009 7:19 PM

[Andrew Salomon]

Alan Rosenberg, national president,
Screen Actors Guild

“As President of Screen Actors Guild, I urge SAG members to celebrate the extraordinary performances of actors and the art of acting, and cast their votes for the upcoming SAG Awards. This is our time to share the pride of our profession and the remarkable history of our union. I commend and congratulate our nominees and look forward to seeing them January 25 at the 15th Annual SAG Awards ceremony and live simulcast on TNT and TBS."

[Andrew Salomon]

The SAG Awards Committee
Of Screen Actors Guild.

"The Screen Actors Guild Awards has always been and will always remain non-political. It is unfortunate that a few people have chosen to attempt to politicize our annual salute to excellence in our profession. We know actors value outstanding performances and cherish their yearly opportunity to commend the good work of their peers above all else. We look forward to celebrating the achievements of our nominees on January 25."

[mheister]

While I appreciate and respect the sentiments expressed by the Awards Committee, and understand their need to remain entirely above the fray, entertainment industry awards shows in general have always been political from the inception of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The well-loved are more likely to win than the loathed. "Message" films and performances fare better as well. Films have been snubbed for being too political. Films that have not stood the test of time have won over films that were clearly better and more influential to the history of cinema, in some cases because of excellent marketing during awards season. The shows themselves are used to showcase upcoming product.

Ideally, the various awards shows this season really should be all about honoring achievement. But let's face it, politics and commerce have been and will continue to be a part of the equation.

[mheister]

Over at SAGActor (http://sagactor.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3836&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=20), Larry Cedar makes a salient point actors and awards:

"What awards like those given by SAG, The Academy, The Foreign Press, etc. primarily do is provide not only an evening's entertainment as well as a significant ego boost to the winners and their handlers (as if they needed it), but also a highly potent "selling point" through which they can more successfully pursue their next gig (with its attendant salary boost). Want proof? Check out the trades the next day after the ceremony."

Cedar goes on to say, "Considering the fact that my vote is a gift which can only benefit their career, as well as the fact that it's being bestowed on behalf of an organization which has offered them union protections for most of their professional lives, I'd have to be NUTS not to take such feelings into consideration."

He makes a valid point, and I think adds to the discussion. From a realpolitik perspective, it may well be wiser at awards time to also vote your pocketbook.