"Yes, I Can. Yes, I Can!" Uphill movement in the right direction today at SAG.

So now that Doug Allen has stepped down as executive director of the Screen Actors Guild and head negotiator in the union’s attempt to seek and settle on a new contract, what happens next and what does this mean to the business of acting for both union and non-union actors?

In short, I’m encouraged.

The greatest fallout from what has been the SAG dilemma can be measured in terms of both negative public and internal relations. The infighting at SAG has not played out well in the public arena. Instead of garnering support for the predicament it finds itself in (as the Writers Guild did during the strike), SAG leadership, in fact the entire union, has come off in the public eye as rather unlikable. Then there is the infighting pitting one celebrity name against another in a war of rhetoric and best acting. Next year’s SAG Awards ought to have a category for Biggest Idiot in the War of Words.

Of course all of this has absolutely nothing to do with a new contract that must be secured as soon as possible. As in all campaigns, there comes a time when aiming for a sound bite on the evening news has to end and the real work begin. Even President Obama had a dinner honoring John McCain shortly before the inauguration ceremonies.

My advice: It’s time to start fresh and with a clean slate – and under the new team in place at SAG, under the leadership of David White as interim director, the union and its board have a good starting point and an opportunity to actually get some work done that will benefit both their current and future members.

I’m happy to help SAG spin this in the right direction, when the time comes – and that will be soon. That’s if I’m asked. You see, those of us who represent talent also feel the impact of the stalemate. SAG needs to reassure the industry as a whole that it’s getting it’s act together – and taking it on the road – that is on the road to reasonable discussions, reasonable expectations and a reasonable, new contract that its membership will embrace and the rest of us can support in the journey of getting back to both the fundamentals and to work.

Then there is the curious case of Alan Rosenberg. He’s in a tough spot, personally and professionally. After all, when all is said and done and his term as SAG president has expired, I assume he intends to return to the ranks of “working actor.” If that’s the case, then, indeed, he has some PR strategy to work on, as well.

Full steam ahead …

BL

Want to know what casting directors really think of actors?

Now playing on “Inside the Business of Acting,” on the Virtual Channel Network, is our four-part interview with the wonderful, Los Angeles-based casting director Michael Donovan. Whether you’re new to the business or looking for a fresh perspective on how the changing landscape has impacted the business of talent casting, what Michael has to say will help, comfort, inspire and empower you. It’s the best 50 minutes you’ll spend in support of your career.

I hope you take the time to watch this – and I hope you’ll share your comments about it with me afterward.

By the way, if you want to really know how to maximize the services of ActorsAccess.com in ways that can help you be both smart and pro-active in both the pursuit and support of your acting career, access our five-part interview with Breakdown Services founder and president Gary Marsh, also available on-demand in the episodes listing section of the “Inside the Business of Acting” Web TV series home page at VirtualChannelNetwork.com.

It's all free.

BL

Another fine mess for SAG

I have been silent for the last month eagerly anticipating something positive to comment on regarding the internal (and public) bickering with the seemingly endless Screen Actors Guild to-authorize-a-strike or not-to-authorize-a-strike serial melodrama.

Is it just me, or have you had enough of this already?

I know it’s important; I know it’s about what actors deserve. But, I also know that now months into this struggle, it appears that the industry is no closer to a new SAG contract than it was when the issue for the union was focused on their members voting down the new AFTRA contract (which, as we know now, was also unsuccessful).

While it appears unlikely that the SAG leadership will get 75% of their actor members to vote “yes” on a strike authorization (should they still decide to seek it), the bigger picture, which is really the smaller picture, might matter most. That is, aside from seeking a strike authorization, SAG also needs to think about seeking unity from among its membership – and how to get everyone effected back on the same page.

It doesn’t much matter who’s in, who’s out or who’s on first as much as it will matter if the union is ever able regain the respect of all of their actor members they’re supposed to be representing fairly and equally.

Is it just me or is it time for some movement in a positive direction beginning with a fresh look at what makes sense for the people effected and the impact of this long stalemate on the perceived and real health of the business of acting?

The only good news of late is that SAG and AFTRA are actually casually dating again, sitting down together in search of a new commercial contract. Bravo to the SAG powers-that-be that realized the sense of both building this bridge and crossing it. It makes me wonder whether these same people at SAG now wish they did this a lot sooner.

Another fine mess, indeed.

BL

"Yes" or "no" vote for a SAG strike authorization? It's all a matter of self-interest.

As the year comes to a close, most of the conversations I’m having these days have little to do with holiday plans, but, mostly, have to do with the SAG strike authorization ballots that are going out to union members just after the first of the year. I have been asked, a lot, about whether or not I think there will be a “yes” majority and if I think the chances of the authorization (if gotten) will, indeed, be used to force a work stoppage in the business of acting.

Tough questions; difficult answers to ponder.

This has been a very contentious year for SAG and, as the year ends, the union finds its members more divided than ever over this issue. In the process, SAG has also created an enormous public relations problem for itself, both internally among its members and externally among the general public. It’s a tough climate in which to call for and execute a strike – and receive any public sympathy for the cause.

In an era where the future of hard copy newspapers is in jeopardy, the Los Angeles Times has proven itself a valuable tool in this discussion. On December 16th, the paper published an opinion piece by actor and former SAG president Melissa Gilbert that has stirred much controversy. An opinion piece published today by LA Times columnist Patrick Goldstein puts much of it in perspective. They are both well worth reading. Regardless of where you stand on the strike authorization issue, these two columns do a good job of discussing the landscape in which this is all occurring.

You can read Melissa Gilbert’s article here.
You can read Patrick Goldstein’s article here.

Today I wrote an update on the Web site to chapter 8 in my book, The Business of Acting, about the union crisis we now find ourselves in. I hope you will read it.

As I wrote there, when the book was first published in 2002, the prominent union issue at that time was whether or not SAG and AFTRA would, could or should merge into one union to serve all actors.

The opinions on that issue were loud and strong. But, nothing seems to top the rhetoric over this current dilemma now facing the business of acting. It’s not just about the strike authorization vote SAG is seeking in an attempt to move along (and resolve) stalled contract negotiations with producers; it’s also about the core strategy the union leadership has opted to take in this bumpy journey.

A merger would have been a piece of cake compared to this one.

Clearly, this issue has gotten lots of people talking, not just union members, but the general public, as well.

In a conversation with a prominent working actor (who is a SAG member) the other day, I asked how concerned he was about the impact a work stoppage would have on other people and other businesses, many connected to acting (like talent agencies, management companies, and publicists and PR firms), but many not (like dry cleaners, coffee shops and restaurants). Most everyone is feeling the pinch from the recession we’re in; many simply couldn’t survive the financial damage a strike would do to them and their businesses.

This actor’s reply: “Fuck ‘em,” he said, “Let that be on the heads of the producers.”

My response: “Well what if the collateral damage includes your agent or your manager having to close their business? Doesn’t that matter to you?”

Again, the actor replied: “Fuck ‘em.”

Hmm. When last I looked, no one who has achieved any level of success was ever able to do it on their own. Given that agents and managers spent a tremendous amount of time and money representing their clients and given that most submissions don’t result in obtaining an audition for a client (or any commission income from a job that a client might be lucky enough to get), my unspoken response was, “Well who the fuck are you? Where is the respect and decency towards the people who are consistently pro-active in the interests of your career every day? Where is the appreciation for the amount of work they do for you that generates them nothing in dollars and cents? When you met with these people for the first time about working together, were you arrogant enough to both seek their assistance and let them know that you would toss them to the wolves if you had the chance to do so?”

“Fuck you,” I wanted to say out loud. But, I didn’t.

Instead, this exchange made me think about self-interest. Where do we draw the line, in both life and career choices? How much are we willing to risk?

Indeed, at the end of this day, the big question for those who will be given the responsibility of making this strike or not-to-strike authorization decision is “How much are you willing to risk?” and, when it’s all over and done with, either way, “How and where do you pick up the pieces that are left and reconstruct a working career in whatever the new landscape is?”

I admit, I’m a little pissed off from having had this conversation and wondering, really, how do we all financially survive should a strike really happen – and how do we all pick up the pieces, either way, and rebuild in a very uneasy environment.

Ah, the grinch.

BL

To (SAG) strike or not to (SAG) strike? Much more than a matter a dollars and cents.

Does it make sense for SAG actors to vote for a strike authorization? It all depends on who you ask.

The SAG actors I have been discussing this issue with as recently as today all say, “No.” Given the economy, given the times, given the current landscape and given that the producer’s have made it clear that SAG negotiators will not come away with anything more than the AFTRA deal now in place with that union’s members, it seems clear that we might very well be headed for a no-win situation very quickly.

Richard Verrier’s coverage in today’s Los Angeles Times presents an important overview on where things stand and what’s at stake. I urge you to read it.

It’s mostly about the Internet. SAG’s intent is to squeeze out whatever it can for its membership from “new” media, almost at any cost. But is this worth striking over now?

Seventy-five percent of SAG members will have to say “yes” to a strike authorization before the march to a work stoppage can officially begin. But, will 75 percent of the SAG membership be willing to endure the additional hardship the inability to work will cause them?

It’s tough enough just to get an audition for a job in this business when the industry is operating at “normal”; take away any opportunity to work for not only (SAG) actors, but the tens of thousands of people in related and connected industries who will feel the big pinch of a strike, as well, and you have to question the sanity of such a move at this time.

Does anyone ever win from a strike? Can any member of the Writers Guild actually claim to be better off financially right now because of their walk out? Admittedly, arguably, there may be a few folks who can answer “yes” to that today, but for the majority, the stress from bills that went unpaid and opportunities that are still being felt. Will they feel any differently a year from now?

What’s an actor to do?

Tough question. If you’re a SAG actor, what will you do? What can you afford to do? What are you willing to risk? How much risk can you tolerate?

Should a SAG strike occur, those actors who are also members of AFTRA will be expected to honor the strike and not accept AFTRA-contracted work: AFTRA members who are not (also) in SAG, will have a choice to make: will they be asked to or expected to honor the SAG walk-out? What official position will the leadership of AFTRA take?

Indeed these are tough times in the business of acting. I know I want my clients to work and I know they want to work. How exactly are we all expected to survive what could be a long strike – and how much discomfort (or worse) are we willing to tolerate? Finally, how much might all of us stand to gain? Could we ever really make up the losses we would all suffer from another long strike and, even if we could, would those gains really be worth the toll of the stress, strain, and the (lifestyle and financial) compromises that it would take from all of us on the road to that or any victory?

I expec that there will be lots of phone calling between lots of agents and managers and their clients tomorrow.

How about you? If you're a SAG actor, will you vote for a strike authorization? If you’re an AFTRA or non-union actor, what would you do?

Post your comments here or e-mail me directly at blemack@TheBusinessOfActing.com. I look forward to hearing from you.

BL

A note of appreciation in tribute to talent agent Barry Rick (1945 – 2008)

My friend Barry Rick died recently. He was a remarkable talent agent, with a skill for representing actors in a way that we rarely see in this business any more. As founder and president of the Los Angeles-based commercial talent agency BRick Entertainment, Barry, in a short period of time, managed to carve out a respected niche for his “boutique” agency that he launched in 2003.

We held a memorial tribute for Barry last Tuesday night, at the Lillian Theatre, in Los Angeles. Nearly 100 current clients, friends and industry colleagues were on hand to celebrate his life and his contributions. I was honored to have been asked to emcee the evening. I was also happy to meet Barry’s son, Tom Popp and Tom’s wife, Felicia, who flew in from Washington, D.C. to share in the tribute.

In what was an upbeat, respectful, sometimes tearful gathering. Memories were shared, stories were told, and one thing became very clear early on: Barry was much more than just an agent; he was a mentor, he was a surrogate parent, he was an innovator in how he walked through the business of acting (and in life).

I’ll miss him, as will Tom, Felicia, and Barry’s sister, Elizabeth, and his mother Sally. So, too will he be missed by those who joined in our tribute and those whose lives he touched, but who were unable to attend.

A scholarship fund has been established in Barry’s name to provide an honorarium to students from Emerson College, in Boston, who intern at BRick Entertainment during their semester in Los Angeles at the school’s acclaimed L.A. Center. Barry was a staunch support of this program. Many students who have interned at BRick under his mentorship have gone on to either work at the agency or be represented by the agency after graduation.

I encourage you to make whatever size donation you can in Barry’s name. Checks should be made payable to Emerson College, noting “Barry Rick Scholarship” in the memo line of your check.

Contributions should be sent to:
Ms. Amy Meyers
Emerson College
120 Boylston Street, 7th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02116-4624

Barry wanted his agency to survive and thrive after he was gone. Last summer, he named another remarkable person, Kenny Suarez, to succeed him at the helm of the agency he worked so hard to build.

Sometimes the business of acting shows its true colors; not industry life as it’s portrayed on “Entourage,” but industry life as it’s lived by most of the people who have chosen it as their livelihood. We lost a great guy, but the family of actors he created as his client roster, and the community of industry professionals he interacted with, are forever impacted by how he did what he did.

Bravo, Barry. Bravo.

BL

Union membership: Prestige by assocation? Hardly.

I was happy to hear back from Michael, an actor who first wrote me several weeks ago in response to my Blog comments on the latest episode in the ongoing industry drama that has become, as I call it, “the AFTRA SAG dilemma."

Michael and I corresponded about the consequences of union actors filing for Financial Core Status. I posed several questions back to him in my response (which you can read in the Blog entry).

Michael wrote me again with some key questions that I wanted to share with you, along with my response to him.

Michael wrote:

"I joined AFTRA thinking it would make it easier for me to get into SAG, get more legit auditions, and make me more noticeable to agents when blindly submitting (or from seminars, etc.). But now I see little to no opportunities for union as of now, and I still want to do student films, indie projects, etc. I mean, as you said, there's no real way they would know unless I am a recognizable face (in which case, I'll probably be doing union projects anyway). Thanks for the heads up. So, it is still ok to do non-union work as of now, right? Also, any advice on getting an agent and/or into SAG so I can get more legit auditions?"

I responded:

"Your reasons for joining AFTRA are/were honorable —as they are for so many others who join thinking (or expecting) the same thing. It’s a tough call, really. A couple of years ago, when it looked like AFTRA and SAG might actually merge, lots of actors who couldn’t (yet) qualify to join SAG raced to join AFTRA thinking that when the (expected) merger happened, they would automatically become members of the “new” union that covered all forms of the (acting) business. Alas, that wasn’t to be the case. When the vote was taken, it wasn’t meant to be (yet). Ultimately, given this new landscape, a merger might not only be inevitable, but be the only way both unions can move ahead and survive (and thrive). As soon as they both stop playing politics and leave their egos at the door, we might see them both actually start being in the business, again, of truly representing the best interests of all true career actors.

I can’t tell you that it’s (still) okay for you to do non-union work; the union rules are the union rules. But, having said that, I think you will be unscathed from the experience, should you choose to return to it.

Lastly, there are many agents (and managers) in this new landscape who do, indeed, represent non-SAG talent. No one was born with a SAG card. SAG cards, like careers, have to be earned. Good agents (and managers) recognize that they can develop good actors into great clients and let them earn their union status on the way, when it’s the right time/right place."

I hope that this perspective is helpful to any of you in a similar situation to Michael’s.

Always ask questions; always seek as much advice as you can. Then, weigh your options and make the choice or choices that make sense for you. Often times, circumstances dictate direction. You're in this business for a career, not just a job. Always consider your options from a "bigger picture" perspective, as well as for the short-term -- and always proceed as a smart, informed actor.

Got a comment or question? You can post here or e-mail me at blemack@TheBusinessOfActing.com.

BL