Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Liz Smith | 06/19/2008 10:00 am

The Death of SAG?

Liz Smith

The hottest story of the summer is an unseen one. But it concerns all the people in Hollywood, New York and international cinema who are holding their breaths waiting to see what the Screen Actors Guild members will decide to do about going on strike — or not!

My Hollywood guru is Peter Bart, the editor of Variety. He writes: “Clearly, Hollywood artisans want peace. The events of the past six months have taken a terrible toll, disrupting the rhythms of the town as well as eroding its confidence.” And he notes how the striking Writers Guild may believe they won gains in their recent strike, but he adds they have since “taken a beating at their own private bargaining tables. Deals have been canceled, paydays reduced, jobs have disappeared.”

So we will see how actor Alan Rosenberg, head of SAG, advises his people. Will the SAG actors go down the same path as the Writers Guild did?

Bart says both sides need to “give” a little. But in strike situations, in all arguments, in legal cases, don’t people always say that? Will SAG follow the path of AFTRA, which won increased salaries and benefits but held the line on residuals on DVDs? Many SAG members are snobbishly disdainful of AFTRA’s giving in and its gains.

But my friend Mr. Bart seems to be indicating that SAG could do worse than follow AFTRA and not put the movie biz through another rigor.

 

Click here on this text to read my nationially syndicated daily column.

7 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Dr. Mark Klein
SAG’s problem is the proliferation of non professional entertainment outlets You Tube, video games, online services like Netflix video and tv reruns on demand and the increasing production of full length cartoon movies. Can’t be too long before the Simone in the wonderful comedy of the same name becomes a reality.
By Dr. Mark Klein on 06/19/2008 9:23 am
Frank Peterson
RE SAG and La La Land: I truly think that screenwriters need to quit reading comic books as the movies they make today are strictly for the 13 yr old male comic book readera. Give me a good European flick any day over most of the crap that is being made in La La Land. Color me elitist but I do have a brain and want it not only entertained but challenged a modicum. And Hollywood certainly isn’t, with few good exceptions, making flicks like that.
By Frank Peterson on 06/19/2008 11:14 am
Dr. Mark Klein
Frank is right about today’s movies.
By Dr. Mark Klein on 06/19/2008 11:51 am
rocky rocky
This brings to mind one of the newest Supreme Court decisions that I read about — with astonishment — at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080619/us_nm/usa_unions_court_dc_1 Here’s an excerpt from the news article: “The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Thursday a California law that prohibits employers from using state money to influence employees’ views on unions in their workplace. “The [California] law prohibit[ed] employers who receive state funds and grants from using the money to “assist, promote or deter union organizing.” It also requires companies to maintain detailed records on how public money has been spent. “Opponents also argued the California law unconstitutionally restricted employers’ speech in violation of their First Amendment rights.”
By rocky rocky on 06/19/2008 12:06 pm
Bonnie Oliver
Liz, if a strike would bring an end to the endless ‘reality show’ programming, I would stand on the sidelines and cheer the strikers. Alas, it cannot be. We are stuck with the survivors running an amazing race so that the winner is eligible for either a room at the big brother’s hotel or a job as an apprentice or an assistant chef. In other words, television programmers have lost their wits and we, the poor viewer, are the lessor for it, not to mention the SAG talent that is withering on the vine of ‘no work today’.
By Bonnie Oliver on 06/19/2008 2:00 pm
Holland Taylor
Something like 70% of the membership of SAG does not make a living wage from acting, and never has. They have jobs in other sectors and have SAG membership from a minor participation in that field. While many are struggling or beginning actors, a large percentage is firmly employed elsewhere and keep their membership active for their health insurance, or “to keep their hand in”. Yet they will have the same vote on whether or not to strike. These percentages, while not that extreme, also apply to the WGA. There has been a strong and vocal movement within SAG to allow voting for officers and various issues to the full membership, but to restrict just the strike vote to those members whose work participation has, over a period of time, proved a legitimate stake in that workplace. But I don’t observe SAG’s leadership has taken this movement, which is peopled only with regularly working actors and many a name you’d recognize, very much to heart. It’s an interesting discussion. I believe there are a number of major unions in America which do have internal distinctions as to who is reasonably qualified to vote on the extremely critical question of whether or not to strike.
By Holland Taylor on 06/19/2008 3:29 pm
Pamela Munro
Sag has allowed the union to get bloated far beyond the size where an average member could expect work. I think the producers like this because they want fresh faces for endless re-runs (unlike the ensemble players we saw in early sitcoms like I love Lucy.) But the union takes their rather hefty membership fees and dues and gives most of the rank and file NOTHING. The union still operates as if it were 1939 or even 1951! The studios are over - it’s every man for him/herself & the people who benefit the most from SAG are those who DON’T need any of its protections. Not that I don’t believe in unionism - without it the producers would really be beastly! - but the union seems to have lost its way and doesn’t remember its original mandate. But it’s impossible to operate both ends against the middle - We need radically creative thinking to keep SAG from slowly committing suicide & sadly, I don’t see that.
By Pamela Munro on 06/19/2008 6:32 pm