The results are in, and I think they are extremely encouraging.

Before I analyze the names and numbers, a brief primer on our Board.  There are 16 members, with an additional 3 officers serving in an ex officio capacity.  All terms are two years long. But every year, there is an election.

In “on-year” elections (odd years), there are eight Board seats up for a vote, as well as all three officer positions.

In “off-year” elections (even years), the other eight Board seats are up for a vote, and there are no votes for officers.¹

Off-year elections are typically sleepier than the on-year elections, and this result was certainly in keeping with that pattern.  There were 1235 votes out of an eligible voting membership of about 7500.  That’s low, but not really that far off from historic off-year voting tallies, which typically land between 1200 and 1400 votes.

The big news this year is that the pattern of 2005, 2006 and 2007 (Patric leads a slate, the slate wins in entirety) has been broken.

The results:

Katherine Fugate (647, 9.1%) John F. Bowman (629, 8.8%) Howard Michael Gould (619, 8.7%) David A. Goodman (552, 7.7%) Karen Harris (544, 7.6%) Mark Gunn (525, 7.4%) Aaron Mendelsohn (498, 7.0%) Kathy Kiernan (463, 6.5%)

Neither Howard nor Aaron were backed by Patric.  Is this an earth-shattering indication of a sea-change in Guild politics?

No.  Not at all.

However, the placement of Howard at number 3, just behind popular NegCom Chair John Bowman and just above David Goodman (who has been pretty explicit about his total, hard-line support for Verrone) is definitely an indication that there’s some change in the air.

As you all know, I am a big booster of Howard’s, and I also publicly supported Mark Gunn and Aaron Mendelsohn.  All three are smart guys who, like me, have a great interest in making sure that we:

• employ the most productive tactics and strategies to achieve gains for all writers, and
• do a much, much better job of enforcing the gains we do win

Now, while I didn’t say much in support of John Bowman (because, frankly, he didn’t need it), I’m a big fan. I was elected to the Board in ’04 on a slate with John, I think he’s a brilliant guy…but I also think there’s an even better John Bowman than the one we’ve seen.  John’s been doing a good job keeping the ship straight; I think eventually he just might take the helm. That’s the John I’m really looking forward to.

I’ve also known Katherine Fugate for years, and even though Verrone backed her, I bet she’ll be quite an independent thinker.  So that’s five…

Kathy Kiernan is a good egg too.  She’s a newswriter, and I think it’s critical that we have at least one newswriter on the Board. News contracts are negotiated in the East, and the prior WGAE E.D., Mona Mangan, really made a mess of the last negotiation.  Having our own newswriter in a position of power can only be a good thing for us and the WGAE, because the more mutual accountability there is, the better off we all are.

Hmm…six out of eight!

Karen Harris comes from the daytime world. I met Karen back when I was doing outreaches as a Board member, and I really liked her.  Even though Daytime is under the big contract, it’s the first segment to get thrown under the bus (and it sure as hell got thrown under the bus in ’07).  I disagree with Karen on a number of issues, not the least of which is her position on the infamous fi-core blacklist letter, but I think that on the whole, it’s more important that Daytime has a voice in that room.

From what I could tell of Karen, I’m willing to bet money that hers will be a strong and independent voice as well.

That’s 7 of 8 candidates that seem like they’ve got some independent spirit to them, and I’m thrilled–not so much because I think they’d all agree with me (I doubt they would), but because they’re willing to challenge the majority position. Good, healthy debate is necessary…particularly if the debaters are all rational and smart. Not everyone currently on the WGAw Board meets both criteria.

Some meet neither.

I think those days are drawing to a close.

Congrats to all the winners. Death to The Rubber Stamp! Long live the debate!

1. Usually. If something should disrupt the term of an officer, a new one may be elected during the off-year. For instance, 2004 was an off-year, but because Victoria Riskin was forced to resign the presidency, Dan Petrie Jr. and Eric Hughes ran for President that year. [↩]

13 Comments »

As I’ve noted before, I’ve been reluctant to talk too much about SAG politics.  They have their union, I have mine (all three of ‘em), and my interest is mostly as someone who a) is affected by how they negotiate, and b) is interested in seeing the creative unions work together in a better way.

A group called Unite For Strength running against the folks who had been in charge (Membership First) did really well in the SAG elections, so the chance of SAG and the AMPTP finally coming to terms seems to have improved.

Congrats to the new guys, and welcome to the fun (not fun at all) world of union governance.

One comment by one of the incumbents did strike me as a bit dispiriting.

We appreciate and thank everyone who voted. Analyzing the results shows there was no mandate for either slate. Membership First still retains control of the Hollywood Division board and still controls the vote on the negotiating committee.

You know, for all of the miserable crap that goes on in WGA politics, I’m thrilled to say that we NEVER talk in this somewhat creepy partisan manner. We’re all writers, and as we heard so many times during the strike, we’re all in this together (even though some people don’t like the idea of whom “all” represents). Patric Verrone isn’t from another frickin’ country or something.  I mean…ick.  ”Membership First still retains control…”  Well, that’s not really true, but more importantly it’s lame. The voters have retained control. And apparently, what the SAG voters wanted was a broader range of opinions in governance.

The WGA does have slate-itis, but it’s a strange sort of slateism, with plenty of overlap.  When I ran for the Board in 2004, I ran on a slate with John Bowman, Aaron Mendelsohn, Ron Bass and Dan Wilcox, all of whom were subsequently endorsed in later elections by Patric Verrone. We’re not quite so rigid about our party politics in the WGA.  There are issues that bring strange bedfellows together all the time.  Phil Robinson and I aren’t well-matched when it comes to negotiation philosophy, but we see eye-to-eye on credit policy.  Robert King and I disagree on negotiations and credit policy, but we see eye-to-eye on how to deal with the WGAE.

Patric and I see eye-to-eye on the Yankees (sniff, gonna miss ‘em in the post-season this year).

And for all the criticism I level toward Patric, I respect him and I respect his intentions.  He certainly hasn’t ever been so gauche as to say “Writers United still maintains control of the Board.”¹

I hope that even as SAG’s governance becomes more diverse, their tolerance for each other grows as well. They’re going to need it. It’s not lockstep opinions that make a union strong, but respect for the people with whom you disagree.

1. Even though they do–in a way that Membership First clearly does not. [↩]

1 Comment »

If the strike of ’07 was about new media, we all have a stake in making sure new media actually works. Striking for a flop would be, well, embarrassing.

Happily, the studios that employ us seem to be doing a decent job of starting to monetize the web without losing the farm in a blaze of piracy. And in an even happier development, writers are starting to exploit the web for themselves, cutting the studios out of the process entirely.

Now, I’ve always been skeptical of the whole “the average guy will BE the media, man!” philosophy, but we’re not talking about the average guy.  We’re talking about Joss Whedon, who cracked the code on original made-for-internet entertainment and actually made some real dough.¹ Whedon managed to duplicate, as an artist, the three things the studios are really, really good at: financing, marketing and distribution.  iTunes and his own website served as his distribution platform, he financed Dr. Horrible himself, and he let the interwebs handle the marketing part.

Right now, he’s the shining example.

But there’s a new site hoping to duplicate his success, and like Whedon, the creators of the content are WGA members.

It’s called StrikeTV.

A few things to note.

First, the site was conceived of during the strike, but it’s not about the strike…I think “strike” now means “strike while the iron is hot!” kind of strike.² Second, the site is in beta, which means it hasn’t quite opened to the public yet.

Third, you lucky readers of The Artful Writer get a sneek peek (just click here).  The first 500 of you to sign up for accounts (free, of course) will get to view the beta site and check out the content.  Make sure to use access code STV1123AW when registering.

Some of you might be wondering, “Well, this is cool.  But…um…how do they make money?” From what I understand, some of the revenue will be ad-generated, and some revenue will be generated by syndicating to other content providers (Yahoo, Google and other large sites do pay some content providers for the right to broadcast their material, typically compensating the provider by splitting ad revenue with them).

Because StrikeTV is the brainchild of writers, the financial arrangment with the content creators is obviously favorable to the artist. The artists retain copyright and get the lion share of the ad revenue their content generates.

This site is the first real, concrete attempt by a writer’s consortium to wrestle the studio’s bread and butter away from them. Sure, it’s small, and yes, it’s nascent. And, to be honest, I’ve had a few tough-love talks with one of the site’s founders, because friends ask the tough questions.  Like…”yes, but how will this actually make money?” The folks behind StrikeTV are confident that they’re on to something. And while I’m rooting for this thing to become the next Universal, I’m happy enough that writers are learning the business, taking control, setting precedents, and, well…

…being artful!

1. For those who detest the residual-free “promotional periods” in our new media deal, it’s interesting to note that Whedon opted to follow this exact strategy for his own product. Of course, he had total ownership, so he was reaping the benefits of the promotional loss-leader. Still, the free teaser period proved to be a smart strategy for the internet. I don’t think it’s going to be going anywhere any time soon. [↩]
2. You know, the way you might name a baby born during Hurrican Ike “Ike,” but you’re not saying the kid is like a hurricane…but rather just…associated with a time…okay, to be honest I’m struggling here because I don’t really love the name, but don’t hold that against the site. [↩]

4 Comments »

Boy, I hate writing posts like this, because I hate that things happen like this. But they do, so I will. Excuse me while I get my righteous anger hat on.

A few days ago, WGAw Board Member Howard Rodman, a working screenwriter who is also a Professor of Screenwriting at USC, went to see Woody Allen’s Vicki Cristina Barcelona at The Arclight Cinemas.

For those of you who aren’t local, The Arclight is a large multiplex in the heart of Hollywood that shows a mix of mainstream and niche films. It’s a very hip theater.  It’s one of the places movie buffs prefer to see movies. The rooms are nice, the bulbs are usually calibrated, and in a pleasant sort of quirk, a theater employee announces each film to the audience before it begins.

Unfortunately, Howard experienced an unpleasant quirk of the pleasant quirk.

Tonight, for instance, when I went to see Vicki Christina Barcelona, the final credit, the one just before the film began, reads “Written & Directed by Woody Allen.”  But in announcing the film, the Arclight staff person said simply, “Directed by Woody Allen.”  

    When I spoke with the manager after the screening, he said it was house policy to mention one or two star actors and the name of the director.  I asked whether, when the preferred credit of the filmmaker was “written and directed,” they chose to elide half of that.  He said that they did not have the time to mention what he called “subsidiary” credits.  He specifically mentioned the set decorator.  And, I asked, the screenwriter?  His reply: “We simply don’t have the time to acknowledge everyone’s contribution.”

Now, it’s been my experience that “forgetting” the screenwriter is common enough.  In its very, very early days, IMDB only listed the director’s name under the “Overview” section beneath the title.  I sent them a very lovely email explaining why this was insulting to writers, and a week later, screenwriters were included.¹

But this is worse.  In this instance, we have a theater employee parroting a policy that reduces the screenwriter’s participation to that of a non-author.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m no snob about the work that goes into movies.  The last thing I’d ever say is that it’s embarrassing to be compared to a set-decorator. It’s not. What I will defend, however, is our well-earned right to be respected as the co-authors of movies. The Arclight doesn’t believe we are, so I won’t be seeing any movies there until they wake the hell up.

Our authorship is not questionable.  We are de facto and de jure authors.  Our de facto authorship is explicitly acknowledged by the studios, who refer to it in our contracts, even as they seek to co-opt it.  Our de jure authorship is a matter of international law and the basis of our right to collect foreign levies, which are split 50-50 with directors…again, because we are coauthors of movies.

I understand why a theater would want to announce the lead actors of a film. Actors are glamorous.

And I understand why a theater would want to announce the director of a film.  I’ve done the job.  It’s authorship for sure.

What I cannot fathom is why a theater in Hollywood would be so stupid as to ignore the fundamental, essential, originating, authorial, indispensible and primary contribution of the screenwriter.

I’d like to think Woody Allen would agree.  I hope that somehow this post makes its way to him (if it does, hey, you’ve made me laugh more than anyone else on the planet, so thank you, sir!), and I hope he calls the Arclight and expresses his disapproval of their policy.

I hope that the WGAw and the WGAE both denounce this absurd practice.

Will it change the world?  Not today, no.  Chalk this up to a screenwriting version of the broken window theory. Screenwriters face plenty of obstacles and injustices in this industry, but while we try and get the major studios to guarantee us a place on the sets of the movies we coauthor, we ought to go ahead and fix this smaller problem too.

The more respect we demand, the more respect we won’t have to demand.

1. I’m not taking credit for the change. It was likely one they were already planning, perhaps the result a concurrent storm of requests from fellow writers. Regardless, writers have been listed right under directors ever since. [↩]

30 Comments »

So when we ask the burning question “Is there anything John August is incapable of doing?”, we can now go ahead and scratch another possibility off the list.

Yes, he can write WordPress plugins.

(Ed. Note: John had help.  Special thanks to Nima Yousefi, Will Carlough and Andy Maloney for their work on the plugin. Commenter Tim W. managed to uncover a bug, Nima showed up and commented immediately…and just a short while later, he generated an update to the plugin to kill the bug. Thanks, Nima!)

Geez.

Imagine John and I taking middle school shop class together. I’m the kid with glue in his hair who has staple-gunned his shirt to a hacked off piece of wood. John’s the A student staining his perfectly constructed Chippendale-quality birdfeeder a lovely chestnut brown.

Happily, we’re all the beneficiaries of his latest bit of WP geekery: Scrippets.

Since I started this blog, I’ve always wanted to be able to drop in bits of screenplay, but the formatting is obviously an issue.  I typically resort to something horrible like:

---

INT. CHURCH – DAY

The REVEREND stands at the altar.

REVEREND: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today–

GROOM: (hyperventilating) Uhhh…I don’t think I can do this…

---

As you can see, that’s just awful.

Now, here’s the same bit with the Scrippets plug-in.

See?

Happily, it’s very easy to use.  Here’s how I wrote the above:

Go ahead, try it out in comments.  I think it works there as well. Just follow the basic line spacing pattern as shown above.  Note that this plugin doesn’t auto-capitalize, so you need to all-caps your slug lines and character names.

Up next, John writes a plugin that turns Sparkletts into a nice chablis.

14 Comments »