That's Not What She Said

Link Hit

2008-03-28T13:45:00.000-07:00

Review of Miss Guided that Includes Many Words and Phrases

2008-03-25T19:18:00.001-07:00

I really wanted Miss Guided to be good. Judy Greer stars; she was uproarious in Arrested Development as George Bluth’s flash-happy secretary, Kitty (“Say goodbye . . . to these!”), but has failed to turn that potentially career-making role into any kind of stardom, repeatedly stumbling on weak scripts (American Dreamz, the dreadful television bomb Love Monkey) while occasionally doing good work in smaller roles (a guest shot on My Name Is Earl was particularly funny). And while creator Caroline Williams’ name may be on the worst episode of The Office, given the way sitcoms are written I’m sure she did her share of good work on one of my favorite shows. Chris Parnell has been great in a recurring role as Dr Leo Spaceman on 30 Rock. These are the ingredients for a good sitcom. Unfortunately, they just aren’t working.

Greer plays dippy but sweet-natured Becky Freeley, a high school guidance counselor who has the misfortune to be employed at her alma mater. Becky appears to be popular with students, but she’s an incurable dork, and stumbles around her social life like she never left the tenth grade: Her best friend is the beautiful English teacher Lisa (Brooke Burns), who has all the markers of one of the popular girls -- vain, perhaps a bit mean -- and who doesn’t seem to be aware of Becky’s existence much of the time; she has an incurable crush on Spanish/shop teacher Tim (Kristoffer Polaha), who is a beefcake but more than a little bit dim; and she has conversations like these in the teachers’ lounge:

LISA: Guys get intimidated by me. It’s actually kind of annoying.
BECKY: Are you sure he likes you? Maybe he likes someone else.
LISA: Like who?
BECKY: I don’t know who he likes.

The show is punctuated from time to time with private moments in which the teachers address the camera head-on to tell you what they’re thinking. Most of these come from Greer, though Polaha and Parnell get in on the act a little bit. Though I can see what they’re supposed to be -- much like the “talking heads” in The Office, they serve to pace the show and provide punch-lines to scenes that might have difficulty providing one otherwise -- they feel overused and frequently fall flat.

The pilot features Ashton Kutcher as Beaux, a “traveling educator” (read: substitute teacher) who threatens Tim’s position by teaching Spanish, well, competently. Beaux also makes like a bee for Becky instead of Lisa, tossing Becky’s life into a bit of a turmoil until it turns out that he’s a crackpot hippie who doesn’t have a college degree and is encouraging students not to get one, either. This bit of stunt casting has been pushed very hard by ABC (his name has been tacked on as an Executive Producer, and all the spots seem to want you to believe he’s either [a] the head writer or [b] the star), and by coincidence or design, he gets the bulk of the laugh lines. Unfortunately, there are only two of those (“you don’t need a degree to sub for music, art, or PE -- or to just hang out” being the best), and though Greer pours all her considerable talents into her role, not much comes of it. I liked Becky, I just didn’t think she was funny.

The second episode, which aired directly after the first last Thursday, has a clever concept, but repeatedly misses the mark in what could have been a funny episode. A student has started a website, LindsayLopez.com (“a blarg”, in Becky’s terms, modeled on Perez Hilton but covering only the school), that includes a “most doable teacher” list. Becky is 18th on the list, a concept that, if you’ve seen Judy Greer and remember high school (and your high school was anything like mine), is kind of ludicrous, but hey, it’s TV, let’s suspend our disbelief for a moment. When Lisa places first, Becky tries to climb the charts -- only to dress like a colossal dork circa 1987, and then, through a series of unfunny slapstick antics, get injured and end up in a neck brace, in the process plunging to last place. The big twist that gets her to number one is dirty but not very funny, which is weird -- the show is, for the most part, sunny and clean, if not hilarious; in that moment it is none of those things.

Miss Guided has potential, and I’ll be giving it a run again this week, in case it’s just having some growing pains at the moment. It’s the kind of show that could break out. The actors are funny, and when they have good lines they hit them hard. The “sit” part of the sitcom is well-defined and funny in the abstract if not in practice -- Parnell’s Vice Principal Bruce has an “office aide” who functions as essentially a butler, which is a funny idea that could be further explored; Becky’s crush on Tim is silly but not the sort of will-they-won’t-they drama that gets old quickly; and the concept of a high school at which the teachers are more like teenagers than the teenagers are could turn out to be very funny. But it’s got one more week. Right now, to be perfectly frank, Miss Guided sucks. But it might get better.

Lost: Episode 4.08, “Meet Kevin Johnson”, or: I’d Like to Put His Face in a Foreman Grill

2008-03-23T17:34:00.000-07:00

Let me tell you about Michael Dawson: to hell with Michael Dawson. Ever since Harold Parrineau’s name popped up in the credits of Lost earlier this season, I have been dreading his return. You remember the part in The 40-year-Old Virgin when Paul Rudd says, “If I hear ‘Ya Mo Be There’ one more time, ya mo burn this place to the ground”? That’s how I started feeling about Michael by the time he was mercifully allowed to put-put off the island with WAAAAAAAALLLLT! in tow, leaving Lost to annoy me with Sawyer and Kate instead. If I had heard that guy shout MY BOY! one more time, I was going to do an Elvis on my television. A pointless act, I know, but a man driven to the edge of his sanity, with no power and no recourse to higher authority, will act out by harming himself.

So it was with mixed trepidation and anticipation that I approached “Meet Kevin Johnson”. When the previouslies included a shot of Michael bobbing in the darkened ocean screaming the name of his oft-wayward son, I giggled. When he stood on his mother’s stoop in a flashback and started talking about “a father’s right” with that special edgy keening that he seems to keep in reserve for when he wants to send your eyes spinning back in your skull with annoyance, I began to worry that I was going to have to stop watching Lost again, which would be a shame, because what else is a fellow to do of an evening if not rot his mind with the boob tube? God forbid I should pick up a book.

Well, all’s well that ends well, and while my feeling is that a good ending for Michael would be a couple of hours with Sayid and some bamboo spikes, followed by a good being killed, at least it appears that Walt has made his last appearance for a while.

The Wayback Machine: Michael (flashback)

Nearly three quarters of “Meet Kevin Johnson” was spent in flashback -- and the flashback was contiguous -- but somehow it felt like not enough. I know some people expected more of Michael getting off the island (there had been speculation that he had never got back to the mainland at all). I expected more of him on the boat. As I said last week, I’ve been waiting for boatbacks that gave us proper introductions to the latelamented Minkowski (Fisher Stevens) and Regina (Zoe Bell); instead we got a brief exchange with one, and none of the other. If we don’t start seeing more of Fisher Stevens pretty soon, I’m going to have to append “criminally underused” to his name. But I’m not convinced that we’re done with boatbacks, so we’ll leave that for another time.

So it turns out Michael and Walt made it back to New York. How they had time to get off the island in that dinky little boat, sneak into the country without alerting to the world to the fact of their existence, cross the country, take up residence in New York, reestablish contact with Michael’s family, and have a falling out all within a few days -- that would take years of my life -- remains a question, but hey, it’s television, and it’s television in which there is time travel, so I’m not too worried about it.

The trend with the people who get off the island seems to be that ultimately they don’t flourish. Hurley ends up institutionalized, Sun trying to play single mother, Kate raising another woman’s baby, Jack drinking and drugging and trying to commit suicide, Sayid backsliding into violence. Michael joins Jack in the ranks of the suicidal, though his first attempt seems not unlike something a Bond villain might cook up: he writes a note to Walt, and purposefully crashes his car out on the docks. It doesn’t work. I know that’s supposed to be mystical and all, but my guess would be that this method of suicide is neither popular nor particularly effective.

Haunted by visions of Libby, one of the women he killed, Michael tries to make contact with Walt, cannot, and just as he hits bottom, good old Tom -- Mr Friendly, to longtime fans of the show -- pops up with an offer and some info: Michael’s suicide attempts will continue to be futile because “the island isn’t done with [him]”, and the Others would like to offer him some work.

This island mumbo-jumbo (the island has powers when you’re not there anymore? Is the island part of a secret cabal that controls the universe? Quick! Someone call the Illuminati!) might explain something: Way back in the last episode of season three, Jack stood on the edge of a bridge, ready to hurl himself into the abyss beyond, only to be interrupted by a fortuitous (for lack of a better word) car wreck. Is the island not done with Jack, either? Is this a clever device to explain all the inexplicable deus ex machina that seems to be at play in the flash forwards? I’m not sure it is. I think it’s a mistake to assume that, because the island wouldn’t let Michael kill himself, that it gives a crap about Jack’s possible suicide. The option is open, but I wouldn’t start building complicated theories based on this idea.

I also wonder about the Libby-visions. Why is Michael not haunted by visions of Ana Lucia as well? Because nobody liked her? Just because she was a fascistic beyotch doesn’t mean that Michael didn’t murder her in cold blood, as well. Anyway.

Turns out more incontrovertible proof of Michael’s invulnerability crops up when he tries to shoot himself and it doesn’t work -- at exactly the same moment as a news report comes on detailing the recovery of Flight 815. Michael goes to find Tom at his hotel (and OMG Tom is teh gay!!!!), and Tom has quite a bit of possibly false information about Charles Widmore, owner of the freighter, and perhaps the man who faked the 815 crash site. Michael’s job? To go undercover on the freighter and search for the island. Michael is reluctant, for lots of obvious reasons. But then Tom says this:

You’re not going on that boat so you can swab decks, Michael. You’re going so you can kill everyone on board.

Yeah. Okay. He’s already riddled with guilt about the two murders he committed in his semi-righteous quest to retrieve Walt from the Others, and this is supposed to convince him to take up this line of work? Apparently so. I blame time travel again. How? Maybe Michael went to the future and met an alternate-reality Michael who convinced him that it was going to be awesome. Don’t ask me, I just work here.

Arriving in Fiji, Michael is greeted by Minkowski briefly, has a little flirty-flirty with Naomi over her admittedly sexy accent, and then is told by Miles that his name isn’t Kevin, which . . . okay. So Miles’ psychic abilities aren’t limited to dead people, eh? Also, there’s a bomb that he’s supposed to set off in a few days. Apparently the reason he’s supposed to do this is to save the lives of the people still on the island. That’s cool and all, but if I were Michael, I might be a little wary of the people who put me up to murder in the first place. Michael, however, was not overburdened with brains, and he goes ahead and sets off the bomb. Tries to, anyway. Turns out to be a fake.

Then Ben calls. That’s a ballsy move. But when Michael tells him he tried to set off the bomb, Ben seems surprised: “You actually activated the bombs?” Sounds like even Ben didn’t think Michael would be this good a helper. Anyhoozy, Michael agrees to sabotage the boat, and Ben says, “Consider yourself one of the good guys.”

Queue whooshy noise, and the world’s longest flashback is over.

Meanwhile, back on the Island . . .

Very little island action this week, mostly because we had to spend the whole episode finding out how Michael came to be the dude who was sabotaging the boat. What we get is essentially a Locke ploy to keep the natives from getting restless: He finally takes that grenade out of Miles’ mouth (took a while), and trots him out for Claire, Hurley, Sawyer, Rousseau, and Ben to examine. What does he say? Not only is he there for Ben, but when Ben claims that their orders are to kill everybody else, he doesn’t deny it.

Claire’s response (and Claire seems to have gotten uppity of late): “What, he’s one of us now?” Good point. It goes unanswered. Locke’s crew do find out about Michael, though. You know what? I don’t think Locke’s leadership is meant to last long. He’s a psycho. And sure, plenty of psychos have run plenty of governments for plenty of years, but those psychos had armies and stuff. All Locke has is a big-ass knife and an overblown “connection” to the island. Every week, it seems less and less as though Locke’s connection to the island is unique: Hurley’s seen Jacob’s cabin, Michael can’t kill himself, Rose, too, has been healed, Jack and Kate have both seen visions . . . yeah, Locke’s not connected to the island any more than anybody else; he just wants it more.

The real action takes place at the end of the episode: Ben sends Rousseau, Alex, and Alex’s low-functioning boyfriend Karl off to look for “The Temple”, which is apparently where the Others (oh yeah, the Others) are hiding out. In the jungle, they’re ambushed by an unseen person with either a silenced rifle (why?) or a really awesome blowgun. Karl and Rousseau are both shot in the chest, and the episode ends with Alex, hands in the air, shouting, “I’m Ben’s daughter!”

I don’t really mourn Rousseau’s death, and I’m not really surprised by it. She was interesting for a while, but she’s just sort of been there, saying weird things, ever since the first season. Once she was creepy; now she’s an afterthought. Ah well. Not everybody can last forever. And Karl? That kid has water on the brain. His name might as well have been Dead Meat.

Can’t Hardly Freight

Even less happens on the freighter this week than happened on the island. Sayid and Desmond are awakened in the night to find Captain Gault administering a public beating to a couple of extras, saying, “Nobody leaves this ship without my say-so!” (There are a lot of people on that freighter, man.) Then there’s the flashback, then Sayid turns Michael in to Gault, calling him a “traitor”. Of course, one man’s traitor is another man’s hero, and I’m not sure traitorousness is one of those immutable personal characteristics.

The Mystery Measure: 6 out of 10

The episode glided over some stuff I had wanted to see (Michael’s actual rescue, life on the boat), but it did provide some answers, to questions like, “How dumb is Michael?” (Answer: Not as dumb as Kate, but pretty dumb.)

The big cliffhanger is the question of Rousseau’s death. Is she really dead? Who killed her? Why? Did she look weird in those regular clothes, or what?

Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff: On Good and Evil and the Queer Question

One of the things Ben keeps saying is that he’s one of “the good guys”, or that the others are “the good guys”, or whatever. On some level that seems hard to believe. He’s manipulative, and he did commit an enormous mass murder to gain a position of power. But it is true that the Others qua the Others have actually only ever committed one murder, and attempted one other. (That I can remember, anyway.) Meanwhile, the Lostaways have killed, among others, Ethan, Goodwin, and Tom, and attempted to kill Mikhail many times. There have been individual acts of violence within the Other community, but in the context of conflict, they do seem to keep the lethal force to a minimum.

This week, Ben draws a distinction between himself and Charles Widmore, “A killer without conscience or a greater purpose. . . . When I’m at war, I’ll do what I need to do to win, but I will not kill innocent people.” Well, yeah, kinda, except when he gassed a whole bunch of people, but maybe those were the mistakes of youth.

What it comes down to is that “the good guys” and “the bad guys” are almost always synonymous with “my tribe” and “their tribe”. In any situation in which two groups of people come into lethal conflict, each side does terrible things to the other, and feels that the things they do are justified, while the things that the other side has done are not. It’s the way of the world. Lost seems to understand that, and as we get to know the Others better, we are given another set of people who seem willing to act against all people on the island, thereby redefining the Others as part of “our tribe” for the viewer. The fact is, however, that there are no good guys, as far as I can tell. Heck, the Boat People could be the good guys, if we had just watched four seasons worth of a show about someone searching for a magical island only to find it inhabited with hostile castaways. You’d think that Michael would understand that better, having himself done terrible things in the name of achieving an ostensible good. But then, you’d be thinking, which isn’t Michael’s specialty.

Beyond Good and Evil, we have the question of Tom’s sexuality. In fact, in the context of the show, it’s almost a non-issue: we get a glance at a boyfriend (possibly a high-class gigolo -- I mean, have you seen Tom’s butt?), and then it’s off-screen and never mentioned again. I wouldn’t even bring it up, except I keep seeing comments here and there about how it’s “unnecessary.”

I’m sorry, but that’s horseshit. If Tom had had a girl in his room, the word “unnecessary” would have come up exactly never. But since it’s a guy, people who are afraid to display their homophobia in an outright way try to pretend as if they object because it’s not germane to the plot. Well, guess what, people? It’s part of his character. The thing that differentiates Lost from lesser shows is that it gives its characters contours and details that make them interesting. One of Tom’s appears to be that he’s gay. They’re not making a point, not at all. In fact, I think that it’s a sign of progress that this sort of thing can just be slipped into the show without a big deal being made out of it: there was no very special episode, there were no speeches, there was no classless homophobe inserted to learn a lesson. Tom just happens to be gay, like millions of other people on the planet.

It’s difficult to know how many gay people there are in the world. Religious groups have studies that say as low as 1% (still 60 000 000 people on earth); gay rights groups claim it’s as high as 10% (600 000 000 people on earth). Even splitting the difference, we’ve met dozens of people on Lost, and not-a-one of them has been homosexual. I’m not accusing the show of homophobia; I’m just saying that it doesn’t really make a hell of a lot of sense for a cast this large to include zero people with alternate sexual practices. To have gay character is to reflect reality. They’re not pursing a liberal agenda, trying to be PC, or any other thing. They’re just evening out the demographics.

Subtle homophobia -- the kind that takes form, not as gay-bashing or violence or explicitly homophobic legislation, but as an ill-disguised desire to pretend gay people don't exist -- is probably not as damaging as overt discrimination, but it is perhaps more insidious, because people think they can get away with it. To call Tom’s moment “unnecessary” is to imply somehow that the whole practice of homosexuality should be kept out of the public eye unless you have something to say about it. In that way, it is kept “other”, marginalized, and allowed to maintain its stigma. I reject that. The right of gay people to be gay is not about liberal or conservative, any more than the right of black people to be black is, or the right of Jews to be Jews, or the right of old people to be old. Don’t tell me you don’t want to see it, because you know what? It’s not up to you, any more than it’s up to gay people to tell straight people that they don’t want to see straight sexuality practiced in public. So “unnecessary” this, buddy. That’s what I have to say.

And Now, Your Moment of Jackface

Sadly (or happily, for the Jack haters out there), there was no Jack in this episode. So instead, I’ll leave you with a Moment of WAAAAAALLLT!

“Oh man, am I going to have to find something else to do with my Thursday nights?”

One Word Review of Miss Guided

2008-03-21T18:38:00.000-07:00

Nope.

Corner Gas and Other Disconnects

2008-03-21T11:41:00.001-07:00

So, there's this show that's been popping up on WGN of late. It's called Corner Gas. I'd never heard of it, so I thought I'd give it a run. It's amazing the gems one will find by tuning into random crap on television. I thought I might get lucky.

Instead, I got Canadian. That's right, Corner Gas is a Candian single-camera sitcom in which the joke appears to be that there are no jokes. And not "no jokes" in that BBC Office kind of way. Nope, there are just no jokes, not that I noticed. It was all sit, no com. In fact, there were many situations: two people sit at a counter discussing something. Let's say it's another person. That third person enters the room. The two people at the counter cease to discuss the third person.

Hilarity ensues, right? Not as far as I can tell. The topic just changes.

A little research indicates that Corner Gas is like, an award-winning Canadian show and all. Maybe I've seen the wrong episodes. But let me confess something to you: I've seen a lot of episodes of Corner Gas. Five or six, maybe. I find its total lack of . . . anything . . . kind of entrancing. I can watch it in the same way that I used to stand in my living room and watch that channel that gives nonstop traffic updates in a mechanized voice while flashing a series of images from the mountain passes. The ODOT channel. Corner Gas is like the ODOT channel: quiet, repetitive, hypontic.

Far be it from me to judge from place of ignorance. I willfully admit that our neighbors to the north may find this show legitimately hilarious; it wouldn't be the first time that something notionally funny from a foreign land struck me as completely baffling (including but not limited to Falwty Towers, the majority of Monty Python, and that Australian romcom I can't remember the name of). So what am I missing?

I think there are a few disconnects here. First: maybe I'm just not nice enough. One of the defining features of Corner Gas, much like Canada as a whole, is that everybody seems to be a completely swell guy. The show is, above all things else, gentle. Perhaps I've been weaned on American edginess, and I just can't handle anything that doesn't have a political bent or some good killin'. Maybe I want my comedy to be mean. Is that all right? Is it possible to be too nice? I think so. I mean, when was the last time that the Canadians won a war single-handed, like the United States of Freedom has done every time we ever fought one ever including when we fought one against ourselves? Second: Perhaps I am spoiled by a superfluity of choice. Last time I was in Canada . . . actually, I was in Toronto, and it was totally awesome. But the mental image I have had of Canada since I first became aware that there were whole other countries on this planet (at the age of twenty-three or so) was of a place where people were stuck inside all the time without a lot to do. Toronto regardless, I choose to cling to that notion now as an explanation for why Corner Gas is such a huge hit up there in the Great White North: when all you have is a pair of snow shoes and a couple of old Guess Who records, Corner Gas must seem like the sweet, sweet humor of the gods.

There's also the possibility that I really have just seen the wrong episodes of the show. But you know why I doubt that? I'll tell you why: The Red Green Show. Go ahead. Watch a few clips of The Red Green Show. I'll give you a minute.

[Sings a few bars of Arcade Fire's "Wake Up".]

See what I'm talking about? I mean, if there's a culture that finds that funny, Corner Gas must be a true titan of laffs. Barrel o' monkeys and that whole bit.

Anyway, I kid. I cannot truly recommend Corner Gas, however, because it is mind-numbingly, soul-crushingly unfunny and boring (though it does star a dude named Brent Butt). And it does make me wonder if a couple of synapses might not be firing right in the collective brain of them up there in Canada. (Then again, given that Two and a Half Men is the #1 comedy here in the United States of Justice, I probably shouldn't be talking.)

I give Corner Gas two bottles of maple syrup out of a possible gallon.

USA! USA! USA!

In which there are some thoughts on Lost, and some links to boot

2008-03-20T22:11:00.001-07:00

Tonight's episode of Lost took place almost entirely in flashback, telling the relatively straightforward (straightforward for Lost, that is) story of how Michael Dawson became Kevin Johnson. I was worried that they'd play the WAAAAAAALT! card again, but luckily that unfortunate boy remains in New York, in the care of his grandmother. Though I don't feel that it's adequately explained why, exactly, Michael doesn't feel like he can tell his mother where he's been for two months, that nixes my fear that I was in for an entire season of Michael shouting, "MY BOY! I have to get my boy! I will kill because of my boy! WAAAAAALT! YOU CAN TELL I'M WORRIED ABOUT WAAAAAAALT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN SHAVING!!!"

Still a little unclear on the timeline: Michael has been gone for something like a month, but it seemed as though he'd been back in New York for a while when Tom (who, it turns out, is not of the heterosexual persuasion) came to find him. Anyway. The boatbacks I had been anticipating provided less detail than I expected, and we didn't see Zoe Bell once, which leads me to believe that there may be more boatbacks -- possibly from Charlotte or Frank or Miles, but my money's on Faraday -- in the offing. It's weird to realize that we'd be halfway through a regular run of the new-structure Lost, and past the halfway mark for the strike-shortened variety. The presence of the Others was finally mentioned in this episode, so I wouldn't be shocked to see them come back into play -- to make a ploy for / attack on Ben? -- pretty soon.

Caught a quick reference to Kurt Vonnegut on the game show that played in the background as Michael attempted to shoot himself. Vonnegut is the author of the sci-fi classic Slaughterhouse Five, which is the most obvious inspiration for Desmond's time-pilgrim act. That's more an Easter Egg for fans than a clue, but there you have it.

Stay tuned in the next couple of days for a more in-depth recap. In the meantime, some links to tide you over . . .

After the recent unpleasantness, I found my interest in Lost redoubled, partially because it's been the only new thing on that wasn't mind-numbing reality drek. To that end, I went seeking a podcast, and eventually settled on this one, put together by husband-and-wife duo Ryan and Jen. They attempt to recap episodes in just 8 minutes (quite literally a breathtaking feat), and then spend the meat of their show on analysis, both their own and others'. As Hawai'i residents, they're also able to peek in on filming from time to time. The spoilers are light, the atmosphere is fun, and the production quality is high.
A personal hero of mine is Mr Stephen Fry, the British actor, novelist, game show host, and all-around person of wit. Turns out he has a blog. It's not updated every day, but it's usually worth a gander when it is, especially if you're into technological geekery.
Good for a giggle.

And now, with my NCAA Tournament bracket in tatters (damn my faith in the Pac-10), I move to try to claim the five bucks I bet somebodyorother that Portland State wouldn't come within 20 of Kansas. I leave you with a video, starring Simon Pegg of Shaun of the Dead fame:

John Adams, Episode One, or: A-Hunting We Will Go

2008-03-19T20:11:00.000-07:00

The United States is a nation of laws, not of men. -- John Adams

Or somesuch. I’m having a hard time finding an actual source for that little tidbit, perhaps the most misunderstood (and definitely the most oft-quoted) bon mot from a man who was nothing if not a master of the short, cutting remark. To take it on its face, it seems like the sort of thing to which one must react with shock: what kind of nation would it be if it did not acknowledge the existence of the humans who comprise it it? My god, the damage such a state could perpetrate.

Adams meant it in fundamentally a different way, however. What the revolutionary Americans rebelled against was in fact a nation very much of men -- the key distinction was that it was a nation of a very few men, which ruled over a great many. The law, as such, must have seemed nebulous to a man who lived thousands of miles from the halls of power. The law could change at the caprice of men -- of one very specific man, the King of England. Adams envisioned a country in which the law, very nearly immutable, ignored the petty desires of any individual and treated all the same. The blind mistress justice and all that.

Whether that turned out to be what we got, and if so, whether that’s a good thing, is a debate for another forum. But I’ve just recently watched the first episode of HBO’s John Adams, based on David McCullough’s fascinating (if somewhat fawning) biography, and it’s set me to thinking. The difficulty with a history of the United States is that it must be, by its very nature, the history of a system. But stories want to be about people. And therein lies the problem.

In Which We Recount What Happened

I suppose it would be a mistake to start a miniseries called John Adams with anything other than John Adams. And television, let’s be clear, is not history. So perhaps the creators of John Adams the show can be excused for shoehorning John Adams the man into a situation in which, as far as we know, he took no part: Adams comes riding into Boston on a frigid night in 1770, and no sooner than he has greeted his wife than the call goes up that there is a fire, and he barrels out into the cold and dark to help. As he pounds toward the source of the disturbance, it becomes clear that something altogether different is happening: gunshots, and then a wave of fleeing people rushing up an alleyway. Seconds later, Adams wades knee-deep into the aftermath of the famous Boston Massacre: bloodied British troops stand surrounded by dead New Englanders, and no less a personage than Adams’ cousin Sam (also not there, and noted mostly today as progenitor of a famous if not particularly awesome beer) shouting that they are murderers. Suffice it to say that neither man was likely present for this event, but hey, it’s television, and the Massacre qua a court case did turn out to be pivotal in the life of John Adams, so what the heck, why not.

When Adams, saying, “Counsel is the last person a person should lack in a free country” (but not missing out on the fact that the case will raise his profile), agrees to defend the soldiers, the first episode of John Adams becomes a courtroom drama. These scenes, to say the least, drag a little bit. Though the court, in certain ways, does not resemble any court you’re likely to see on Law & Boredom or Boston Legal, in other ways viewers of those shows will feel right at home. Witnesses quite literally stand at a bar behind the lawyers, as do the defendants, surrounded by a rabble. The lawyers wear comical white wigs and gowns that look not unlike what you might have worn to your college graduation. But the structure of the scenes: the truthful witness, the lying witness, the unlikely witness who sucks it up to tell the truth despite the external pressures not to do so, the final closing flourish in which the good guy out-shines his opponent with rousing oratory . . . you’ll be wondering where Sam Waterson is.

More effective are interstitial scenes that punctuate this action, in which Adams discusses his career prospects with Jonathan Sewall, a powerful friend but a Tory, and the case with his wife, Abigail, whose chief function seems to be to act as a drag on his ego. When he wants to quote every great thinker from history in his closing statement, his wife reminds him that convincing people that he is smart and convincing people that his clients are not guilty are not the same thing.

After his victory in court guts his practice, Adams is presented with a choice: Sewall has offered him a job working, essentially, for the king’s government. His cousin Sam wants him involved in politics -- first local Massachusetts politics, and then, later, the Continental Congress in Philadelphia; Sam Adams believes that John Adams’ presence will lend his ticket gravitas: a man who would defend British soldiers but also oppose British rule must be a fair and bright man indeed, goes the reasoning.

Adams’ inner turmoil is played out before his eyes: standing at Boston Harbor, he watches as an incensed mob tars and feathers a British ship’s captain who would unload taxable tea. (Let me tell you something: I had always thought about tarring and feathering as a kind of humorous thing. Well, it appears it was not at all. I hadn’t really thought through the consequences of hot tar on naked flesh, but it appears that it was quite disgusting.) Discussing this scene with his wife, Adams says, “The people are in need of strong government, Abigail. Restraint. Most men are weak, and evil, and vicious.” While I agree with the latter part, it is unclear, at this point, what Adams means by the former.

His decision is essentially made for him when British troops roll into Boston en masse and the King declares, essentially, that the rule of law cannot be enforced in Massachusetts, and that disturbers of the peace will be taken to England for “fair” trial. That seems to be the last straw for Adams, the great believer in law (and, lest we not forget, his own abilities in that field), and, in the final moments of the episode, he packs himself onto a horse to ride with the Massachusetts delegation to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

The Good

Though deeply flawed, the first episode of John Adams does bring ample pleasures. Chief among these is the performance of Paul Giamatti, who has turned out to be one of the very best American actors in the business. His Adams is at times like a bear disturbed from hibernation: hunched, growly, powerful. Other times . . . . well, he’s always a little growly, but in the wake of a big legal victory or caught up in the pleasure of his work, he is energetic and comical, vain and self-conscious but also charismatic. Giamatti lacks the cannon-like voice so often associated with long-dead founding fathers, but his gruff (not to say grim) honks lend Adams reality that he might night have had in the hands of a trombone-voiced Shakespearean.

Flowing from Giamatti’s performance, the characterization of Adams himself is more complicated than one might expect. His flaws are not glossed: Adams is self-regarding and short-tempered, blatantly favors his older children at the expense of his middle son, Charles, and if principled certainly seems not to object when those principles align very closely with his ambition. He is independent, opinionated, stubborn to a fault -- American. The real John Adams was descended from many generations of Americans, and was not in any sense an expatriated Briton; John Adams seems to grasp that intrinsically.

The cinematography, art direction, costumes and set direction are all very fine as well, and communicate in a way that almost nothing I’ve seen before has the reality of life in the late 18th Century. In many period pieces, everyone comes off as perhaps a little too coiffed, every hair in place, as if the fact that they wore wigs and spoke an unfamiliar dialect means that life had no dirt on it. Not so here. Director Tom Hooper employs handheld cameras and tight close-ups, communicating to the viewer that life in Massachusetts in 1770 was neither easy nor clean.

Though this technique is common in cop shows and war movies, I’ve never seen it employed in a period piece, and it’s very effective. No expense has been spared in the attempt to make 1770 feel real to us. The camera work does not violate that.

The Bad

A niggling aside, but let’s get it out of the way first: The accents are . . . well, it’s hard to figure them out. I’m not sure that anybody has any real grasp of what an American might have sounded like 240 years ago. Would a colony still under British control have had something closer to what one might today call a British accent? Would Adams, a small-town Massachusetts man by birth, have sounded like a character out of a Stephen King novel, a backwoods New England hick? As an educated man, would he have spoken with that flat Kennedyesque brogue? Danny Huston, as Sam Adams, seems to have shot for a tempered British affect. Giamatti and Linney seek to split the difference, with the result that they both seem to wobble a little bit, especially early on. After an adjustment period, however, Giamatti seems to hit on something consistent if not accurate, and it’s good that he does: Since Adams is a seminal American figure, it is necessary that he sound American. Though Giamatti doesn’t sound exactly American, but he certainly doesn’t sound English.

Beyond that, the real problem is with the characterization of everyone other than Adams. Because he is the hero, the show has an obvious investment in making Adams seem principled and strong, as no doubt he was. Unfortunately, it suffers from a variation on what I like to call Teen Moron Syndrome.

A movie that suffers from Teen Moron Syndrome has a main character who is bright, teenaged, and frequently socially outcast. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t trust the audience to notice that our hero is smart, so all of the teenagers around him must be slavering idiots by contrast. (For a classic example, see the otherwise excellent War Games.)

John Adams does not make Adams’ contemporaries stupid, it makes them morally reprehensible. In an attempt to make John Adams seem like a voice of reason, it portrays Samuel Adams as a rabel-rousing, cutthroat ruffian, whose eye very nearly glints at the sight of a riotous crowd covering the nude body of an innocent man in hot tar. It makes Sewall a clueless stuffed shirt, and his wife a tittering simpleton. Bloodthirsty masses abound. Witnesses at the trial of the soldiers are little but bewigged savages. After a while, this becomes tiresome.

The Ugly

I have the feeling that John Adams is going to provide us with a lot of ugliness before all is said and done, but the ugliest thing about the first episode has to be the image of a tarred-and-feathered man being ridden out of town on a rail.

I’ll be back before long with a review of the second episode of John Adams.

Lost: Episode 4.07, “Ji Yeon”, or: Welcome to the Suck

2008-03-18T00:05:00.000-07:00

Let’s get this out of the way right up top: I do not care for Jin & Sun episodes. Call me a xenophobe, call me heartless, call me a sucker for plot over character, but Jin & Sun, for lack of a better term, bore me shitless. Their brand of domestic angst sets my mind to wandering -- to the banana cake in the fridge, the bourbon in the cupboard, or, so help me, to Smallville. I feel like what there was for them was explored way back in season one, and whenever they turn up now, it’s just to let us know that, yeah, their marriage used to suck, Jin used to be a first-class SOB, Sun couldn’t keep it in her pants, but wow, the island appears to have solved that problem. Hey: I get it. Why don’t you tell me if Miles Straume is still chewing on that hand grenade?

So I was not predisposed to like the most recent episode of Lost. Unfortunately, aside from the fact that it further explored a relationship I have long since grown bored with, it was also a weak outing, the kind of thing I was hoping we had left behind when the show’s producers announced the show would be ending come 2010, and we had fewer than fifty episodes left. With seven episodes down this season, and another several casualties of the late and unlamented WGA strike, I feel like there ought to be some urgency. Not that every episode has to be a classic, but when nearly a third of it is wasted on uninspired filler, well . . . that’s another ten minutes they don’t have to tell us something important, or give us something surprising about a character.

Lost is a great television show, but it is not great in an unqualified way. Since the second season, it has more than once fallen to repeating itself (gee, do you think Locke has gullibility issues?), it has allowed characters to become one-note and then allowed them to dominate the show (WAAAAAALT!), and it has torpedoed its compelling romantic triangle by turning its apex into high-functioning idiot. “Ji Yeon” dipped its foot in a few of these traps, and some others along the way. At any rate, this all just a lengthy preface to what we’ll call a formula-in-refinement:

Jumpin’ Jack Flashback: Jin (flashback) & Sun (flashforward)

Sigh.

Jin: Well, that was a waste. Jin’s flashback was essentially a fakeout, and one that I can’t imagine worked well for the attentive viewer. Aside from Jin’s obviously-dated technology (chunky cellie; minor detail that I in fact missed the first time through), the entire tone of the Jin’s scenes told us there was something up, because they clashed so egregiously with the tone of Sun’s. Having failed to build suspense with Jin’s flashbacks, the show ultimately failed to give us any points of character, either: we already knew that Jin used to be a fanatically-devoted employee of Mr Paik, Sun’s father. I don’t think it really served much purpose to remind us. Toss in some failed slapstick, and I think we’ve laid an egg, ladies and germs.

Sun: Sun’s flashforward, in which she goes into premature labor, survives, and is visited by a an extremely creepy Hurley in a suit (did anybody else go to a disturbing visual place when Sun told Hurley that they were alone?), was a little more like it. And then: OMFG JIN IS DEADED!!!11ONEONE11! Though there didn’t seem to be a hell of a lot going on in this version of the future, we were left with a few things to chew on: Why was Sun’s regular doctor unavailable? Is Jin really dead? (My vote is no. Or yes, maybe. I don’t know. Howzabout those Mets?) Is Hurley ever going to cut his hair? And what’s the point of wearing an expensive suit if you’re not even going to shave? And at least one question was answered: Sun is the last of of the Oceanic Six.

Meanwhile, back on the Island . . .

Sun and Jin pack up to head for Locke’s camp, as Sun has become convinced that Daniel and Charlotte are not all they claim to be. Juliet, apparently frightened that Sun and her baby will die, spills the beans to Jin (whose progress with English has been remarkable) about Sun’s affair with that bald dude from last season. Jin, after a real clunker of a philosophical conversation with Bernard, decides that it’s better to forgive and forget than to . . . do whatever it was he was going to do otherwise.

This was the real meat of the episode. The gimmicky flashforward/flashback structure was kind of lame, but the moments after Sun’s confession-by-proxy really showed up the fact that Daniel Dae Kim (Jin) and Yunjin Kim (Sun), unlike some of their compatriots in this show, have the chops to measure up to their looks. Daniel Kim, in particular, was good in these moments as a man who has trained himself for years to suppress all emotions other than rage: His first reaction is that same rage, but slowly the rage breaks as he examines what has become of his life and his marriage without the boiler-room pressure that caused him to behave that way in the first place. Though it turns on a clunky conversation in which Bernard deeply misunderstands the concept of Karma, the eventual reconciliation, in which Jin tells Sun, essentially, that he deserved her infidelity when she committed the act, but now they’ve changed, was nice. Oh, man. Never redeem yourself on this Island. Never admit to it, at any rate. Don’t you remember what happened to Charlie? Boone? Shannon?

Freight Days a Week

Just as in “The Constant”, we meet a mysterious personage played by a notable actor (this time the venerable Kiwi stuntwoman Zoe Bell), only to dispose of them within minutes. I can only assume that Minkowski and the mysterious Regina, who takes a dive off the boat wrapped in chains, will be seen more in the inevitable boatbacks that should be coming soon.

The boat is no less mysterious than the island, even if its captain, a rough Aussie named Gault, seems surprisingly straightforward. Below decks pipe-tappings, mystery blood stains, unexplained missions in the helicopter, and the advanced “cabin fever” that Gault blames for the deaths all leave me with the impression that we haven’t really left the island after all. I find myself dubious about whether our Oceanic Six will even be leaving this season. Despite its mystery, we are given three pieces of information that would seem to be key: First, the boat belongs to Penny Widmore’s old man (unsurprising), Ben may have faked the crash (see above re: surprises), and the boat’s janitor appears to be Michael, cleverly disguised as former Phoenix Suns star Kevin Johnson (DUN! except not).

The Michael reveal might have been less of an anticlimax if not for two things: First, and most important, there’s the small matter of Harold Parrineau’s name being in the credits, and having been all season. I suppose that this could have flown over the heads of some viewers, but if you’re reading this, you’re either A) my mother (hi Mom!) or B) a pretty serious fan of the show who probably knows who Harold Parrineau is. Once we found out there was a boat, and Ben had a man on it, it was a fairly safe bet that it was going to be Michael out there. Second is that the way they attempted to build up the suspense by copping out last week on Ben’s confession to Locke (“you’re going to want to sit down for this”, or whatever he said). This actually pretty much ruled out anybody other than Michael, because who else would be surprising to Locke (and therefore the viewer) is even a candidate? Unless it was Boone or Anthony Cooper back from the dead, the only real candidates were Michael and Walt -- and whether or not Walt has gotten “taller”, to use Locke’s word, he’s still not old enough to be anybody’s man anywhere. Their attempt to build up the suspense killed it.

Anyway. The freighter sequences were more effective than the flashes, and certainly gave me the creeps, but mostly this was heavy lifting for a future episode in which we are told exactly what has been happening on that boat since Kevin Johnson got on board.

The Mystery Measure: 5 out of 10

In the Mystery Measure, I assign an arbitrary number out of ten. What does it mean? Well, it could be based on how mysterious an episode seemed (the pilot? a 10). It might be based on how many answers we get (“The Contant”? Another 10). I’ll tell you this: stall-tactics and filler get low scores, episodes that advance the plot get high ones, and I reserve the right to give an episode a low score if I didn’t like it.

We were given some answers, it’s true. For instance, we now know the entirety of the Oceanic Six: Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Aaron, and Sun. For those who cannot see the forest for the trees on the subject of Aaron, all I have to say is this: Get over it. Objections like “he’s not in the manifest!” and “he didn’t have a ticket!” are irrelevant. “Oceanic Six” would be a media-contrived appelation for the people who left the island who had been associated with that plane. They’re not making fine distinctions based on the manifest.

But it felt as if the answers were largely ones we could have guessed. The Michael reveal fell flat for me, and honestly, I was fairly sure Sun was going to make it off the island before giving birth. We already knew that proximity to the island’s borders messed with the mind. And while we were given some new questions to ponder (#1: what is up with Hurley’s lecherous “gooooood”, anyway?), I didn’t find them all that compelling.

Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff, and It’s All Small Stuff

Future installments of “Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff” will be more in-depth than this week’s, because I feel a lot of the small stuff has been gone over already. In the future, this is where we’ll dig into the minutae, and I’ll stop reviewing and start theorizing. So I’ll discuss one specific this week -- Jin’s headstone -- and then issue a generalized warning. Peep this people:

Lots of people are going nuts over the dates on this. On the right side, we see that Jin was born on 27 November 1974, and “died” on 22 September 2004, the date of the crash. Obviously, this isn’t the case. But remember the story that Jack told at Kate’s trial: The plane crashed. Eight people survived initially, but two of those died. Those who remain are the Oceanic Six.

A lot of people are freaking out over the question of “who are those two people”? I think the answer is pretty simple: they’re nobody. They have no existence outside the context of the lie. Clearly, many more than six people survived the crash, and many more than two have died on the island. A short list: Boone, Shannon, Libby, Eko, and Charlie. That’s excluding characters who were minor and characters I loathed. Those extra two were invented to give the lie some contours, so it doesn’t seem like some kind of obvious lie. Whether Jin dies or not (and I’m not convinced he will), the only way it matters if he is one of those “extra two” is if his corpse is brought back to the mainland with the Six.

The dates on the left show Sun’s birthdate: 20 March, 1980. Looks like Jin was a cradle-robber, eh?

The generalized warning: Just because there’s an “Oceanic Six” consisting of the six listed above, that doesn’t preclude other people getting off the island. Obviously, we’ve already seen Ben, not one of the six, off the island, serving as Sayid’s spymaster. Any of Desmond, Juliet, Rousseau, Faraday, Charlotte, Miles, Richard (Captain Guyliner, Ben’s #2, who has been mysteriously absent all year), and other people I may be forgetting, could be off the island, but unconfirmed. I wouldn’t bet on Rousseau leaving, not after so long, and I’d bet that at least one of Faraday, Charlotte, and Miles gets greased before the final reckoning. But I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Desmond and/or Juliet made it home.

And Now, Your Moment of Jackface

Over on Lostpedia, they appear to have caught onto Matthew Fox’s tendency to make what we’ll charitably call exaggerated facial expressions when letting us know his character is experiencing duress of one kind or another. This week’s will be subdued, because Jack’s screen-time was limited, but here’s a classic example. And so, without further ado, your moment of Jackface:

The “Well, if you need anything, remember that I’m incredibly smug” Jackface.

That's Not What She Said, Part Two: The Revenge

2008-03-17T16:29:00.000-07:00

Hello, and welcome to the re-launch of That’s Not What She Said, a blog that no longer has anything to do with the now-defunct writers’ strike. I had thought to let this blog go dead. But no! Rescued from the depths, That’s Not What She Said now serves me in the same egomaniacal way that bloggery serves anybody else: To let me tell you what I think, and in turn what you should be thinking. Both of my readers should be ecstatic about it, I’m sure.

I decided to revive this blog when I discovered that my old gig recapping The Office over at Northern Attack appears to be winding to a close. James Fan, Grand Mucka-Muck of that site, is moving on to bigger and better things, and we wish him the best of luck in those endeavors, on which I will no doubt be updating . . . the people who bother to read this site. (Dear Reader, you are well-loved, if perhaps nonexistent.)

The purview of That’s Not What She Said will be somewhat broader and less detailed than the exhaustive recaps I offered at Northern Attack. Though I intend to remain glib, and to continue to offer opinions on The Office, as the television season grinds back into gear I will also be serving up humorous piffle in connection with other shows, including Lost, Scrubs, 30 Rock, and Battlestar Galactica. Violating somewhat the premise stated in at the top of the page (“It’s not culture if it’s not pop”), you may also find some thoughts on books (though only cursory, I’m sure). I could bust you in the mug with my opinions on music, though I must admit that I am no longer as connected with that scene as I once was. And movies. We can discuss movies as well. There could even be the occasional baseball post, but never fear -- I’ll leave the baseball to those who are better informed than I.

What you won’t be getting: Egregious errors in spelling, punctuation, or capitalization. L33T speak. Reality television talk. (Sorry.) Any discussion of Grey’s Anatomy, House, or 24, unless it’s snide or sarcastic. (Not sorry.) The story of my life. Word-mincing. Politics.

What you will be getting: The world. No. Opinions stronger than your morning coffee. That’s more like it. As per above, I don’t mince words. I am not the world’s nicest person. I think fast, I write fast (at least when it comes to the Interwebs I do), and I don’t really have the time or inclination to temper my opinions so as not to hurt people’s feelings. Come fall, when a full slate of shows returns, I’m hoping to provide recaps and analysis of the shows listed above, and perhaps a couple of others. If this turns out to be onerous (and if anybody starts reading), I may end up having to take on helpers -- we’ll see. Until then, come! Let us explore cyberspace together!

See Ya in the Funny Pages

2007-12-08T15:53:00.000-08:00

Well, it's happened. We went from rampant optimism to another break down in the talks in a matter of mere weeks. There's sniping, there's rhetoric, but what you really need to know is this: no progress was made, and it looks like the rest of the TV season is probably going to go down the tubes.

The Directors Guild takes up talks with the AMPTP soon. Directors don't usually walk, so that may end up forcing WGA's hand. We'll see.

Don't Ask Me, I Just Work Here

2007-12-04T19:44:00.000-08:00

Hollywood Reporter: Well, the AMPTP made its offer, and at the very least, the WGA didn't storm from the room. They're countering tomorrow, though no one seems to know the details. So, yeah: What do we know? Nothing. I'm no longer optimistic, I'm no longer pessimistic, I'm just confused.

Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald: It appears that Leno will be paying staffers' salaries after all. Yet another contradictory report from yet another source. Sigh.

So anyway, with news no longer flying so fast, I'm going to try to summon the energy to expand the M.O. of That's Not What She Said. I'll be working on a second "flashcap" forc Northern Attack soon, but with any luck I'll be able to post here with reviews of the "Veronica Mars" season 3 DVD box, and do the same for "The Wire" season 4 shortly thereafter. Whee!

Merry-Go-Round

2007-12-03T20:47:00.000-08:00

Talks begin again tomorrow, and as long as the sides are talking, that's always good. But reports are that almost nothing got accomplished last week, and both sides have been more engaged in PR than negotiation, as far as I can tell. The San Jose Mercury-News reports that the optimism of the last two weeks has almost completely disappeared. Meh.

Monstersandcritics.com: A short but interesting blurb indicates that the WGA may ditch negotiations with the AMPTP if they feel like they're still getting nowhere, and instead negotiate deals with individual production houses. Apparently, this has been done before, back in the 70s by cinematographers, and it worked. It would be a high-pressure tactic, for sure, but if it fails . . . ouch.

LA Times: Improvisation and the strike -- many actors are WGA members. If they ad-lib on the set, are they strikebreaking? Nobody seems to know for sure, and some, like Ben Stiller, are walking a tightrope while moving forward with shooting.

Let the Playhouse Burn

2007-12-01T13:09:00.000-08:00

In a story in the Hollywood Reporter AMPTP mucka-mucks criticize WGAW president David Young, who, you'll recall, is new and already had a reputation for not being great at negotiation. Although nothing that comes from either side should be taken with anything less than a fistful of salt, sources are claiming that Young has "dug in [his] heels" too hard, refusing to negotiate from the AMPTP's initial offer, which was never intended to be final. WGA negotiators have rejected the idea that Young is too inexperienced to be involved in these kind of talks. Officially I have no opinion, but I wouldn't be shocked if Young isn't quite as skilled as you might want your chief negotiator to be.

Film legend Woody Allen has shot a "Speechless" video in support of striking writers, according to Deadline Hollywood Daily. I'm intrigued to see this one, because unlike the others I've seen, I expect it might have some artistic merit as well as propaganda value.

New York Times: As expected, non-writing staff for Conan and Leno have been laid off by NBC. Conan's production company will be paying staffers until they're re-hired, and Leno has promised a Christmas bonus, but has said nothing about salaries.

AP: ABC News has reached an agreement with its newswriters, who have been working without a contract for three years.

The really important news is that I'm still writing occasional recaps for Northern Attack, filling in gaps in back episodes. My recap of "The Alliance" should be up sometime today.

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

2007-11-30T09:38:00.000-08:00

Well, the press blackout has been lifted, and the news is . . . well, it's not good. Deadline Hollywood Daily and The Hollywood Reporter are reporting that the talks are moving slowly, and that the WGA is deeply unimpressed the AMPTP's new proposal. Apparently, negotiation sessions are brief, and the two sides spend a lot of time not even in the same room, mulling things over, with agent Bryan Lourd holding things together with twine and duct tape.

The WGA sent out an email to its members calling the AMPTP's proposal a "rollback". Here's the text of that email:

To Our Fellow Members,
After four days of bargaining with the AMPTP, we are writing to let you know that, though we are still at the table, the press blackout has been lifted.

Our inability to communicate with our members has left a vacuum of information that has been filled with rumors, both well intentioned and deceptive.

Among the rumors was the assertion that the AMPTP had a groundbreaking proposal that would make this negotiation a "done deal." In fact, for the first three days of this week, the companies presented in essence their November 4 package with not an iota of movement on any of the issues that matter to writers.

Thursday morning, the first new proposal was finally presented to us. It dealt only with streaming and made-for-Internet jurisdiction, and it amounts to a massive rollback.

For streaming television episodes, the companies proposed a residual structure of a single fixed payment of less than $250 for a year's reuse of an hour-long program (compared to over $20,000 payable for a network rerun). For theatrical product they are offering no residuals whatsoever for streaming.

For made-for-Internet material, they offered minimums that would allow a studio to produce up to a 15 minute episode of network-derived web content for a script fee of $1,300. They continued to refuse to grant jurisdiction over original content for the Internet.

In their new proposal, they made absolutely no move on the download formula (which they propose to pay at the DVD rate), and continue to assert that they can deem any reuse "promotional," and pay no residual (even if they replay the entire film or TV episode and even if they make money).

The AMPTP says it will have additional proposals to make but, as of Thursday evening, they have not been presented to us. We are scheduled to meet with them again on Tuesday.

In the meantime, we felt it was essential to update you accurately on where negotiations stand. On Wednesday we presented a comprehensive economic justification for our proposals. Our entire package would cost this industry $151 million over three years. That's a little over a 3% increase in writer earnings each year, while company revenues are projected to grow at a rate of 10%. We are falling behind.

For Sony, this entire deal would cost $1.68 million per year. For Disney $6.25 million. Paramount and CBS would each pay about $4.66 million, Warner about $11.2 million, Fox $6.04 million, and NBC/Universal $7.44 million. MGM would pay $320,000 and the entire universe of remaining companies would assume the remainder of about $8.3 million per year. As we've stated repeatedly, our proposals are more than reasonable and the companies have no excuse for denying it.

The AMPTP's intractability is dispiriting news but it must also be motivating. Any movement on the part of these multinational conglomerates has been the result of the collective action of our membership, with the support of SAG, other unions, supportive politicians, and the general public. We must fight on, returning to the lines on Monday in force to make it clear that we will not back down, that we will not accept a bad deal, and that we are all in this together.

Patric M. Verrone, President, WGAW
Michael Winship, President, WGAE

Yikes. They do not sound happy. It seems like my initial speculation that the AMPTP might be on the verge of an early buckle was incorrect, as there don't seem to be any big victories here. This sounds pretty much like the kind of compromise deal that might get done after months of striking has weakened the positions of both sides. I doubt very seriously it's actually a "rollback" -- what would be the point of offering your initial position, and then offering less? -- but it doesn't sound much.

So, the question becomes: Did the AMPTP come back to the table because they thought they were winning, or is this all part of a game in which they increase their offer incrementally in hopes that the writers accept something marginally less than the absolute maximum the AMPTP is prepared to give? I can't imagine they actually thought that offering the same thing again so quickly was actually going to work; writers have been loud, unified, and they've been winning the PR war handily. In fact, that sounds like a deliberate slap in the face, if not negotiation in bad faith, and either indicates that the AMPTP is totally clueless about consensus among their striking workers, or is just a collection of collossal assholes. It's kind of funny, but one hopes for the latter, because at least it means they have room to give, and a deal could still get done once they unclench. If it's the former -- negotiation not in bad faith but from bad information -- these talks will like collapse, just like the ones that ran from last summer through early this months, because no one's felt the pain yet, and no one has the incentive to make massive compromises.

The stage-hands strike ended yesterday, and Broadway, unlike Hollywood, is getting back to business. One wishes that this could be viewed as an optimistic sign, but I think it has essentially no effect or use as a bellweather for these talks; the issues were much simpler, the amounts of money much smaller, and the position of the union ultimately much stronger in this one.

Here's a depressing paragraph if ever I read one:

"[American] Gladiators," hosted by Hulk Hogan and Laila Ali, will replace freshman dramedy "Chuck," which recently was picked up for a full season but only has a few more episodes in the can because of the strike. "Chuck" is scheduled to air original episodes through Dec. 3. No decision has been made when and where the show's remaining couple of new segments will run.

NBC is adding three hours of reality programming coming in January 2008, including a revamped "American Gladiators" to replace their best new show, "Chuck". I used to love "American Gladiators". I also used to wear Wolverine jockey shorts and suck on Otter Pops. Sigh.

I was all optimistic. Now, I think there's a strong chance this stuff falls apart before any actul progress is made.

In which Conan Scores Big PR Points

2007-11-29T13:01:00.000-08:00

Nikki Finke is reporting that Conan will become the second late night host, after Letterman, to pay staffers out of his own pocket until the strike ends. Conan wrote for "The Simpsons", among other shows, and is a WGA member. Finke also reports that Carson Daly, who has been absolutely reamed for his decision to cross pickets, was going to lose his show if he didn't, so . . . yeah. Still wish he hadn't done it.

It's official: The Democrats have cancelled the CBS debate, partially because WGA wouldn't promise not to picket. Any Democrat who crossed pickets would pretty much immediately have his or her candidacy torpedoed in the primaries, because outfits like the AFL-CIO (affiliated with the WGA, East) hold enormous sway with the hardcore left that votes disproportionately in primaries. (Personally, I support Osama in 2008. He's the only one who will hunt down and capture Barack Obama. Ya burnt!)

A question I wonder about is if this hurts someone like Barack Obama, who recently rebooted his campaign and has once more been gaining ground on Hillary Clinton, to the point that she's no longer a prohibitive favorite. Obama is still far behind, and he needs to score another debate victory like he apparently did a few weeks ago (I find Democratic politics only slightly less distasteful than I find Republican politics, so I don't watch the debates and am going off what I've read) to keep his train running. On the other hand, he's probably wise at this point to be concentrating locally on Iowa, where he appears to have a good chance of winning, which would blow up the entire race, I suspect.

Nobody asked me, but I'm going to say it anyway: I think Hillary Clinton is a disaster candidate for the Democrats. You'd think they would have learned their lesson about nominating charismaless, swotty Senators in the Al Gore and John Kerry debacles, both of whom lost eminently winnable races, not because their ideas were any worse than George Bush's (Kerry didn't seem to have any actual ideas), but because they were stiff and boring. Clinton is essentially the same, except she comes with the bonus of being perhaps the most hated woman in America -- there's a massive section of the electorate who would seriously consider voting for, I don't know, Homer Simpson over Hillary Clinton, and just live with the fact that their next President was fictional. I've been saying for more than a year that the only way the Democrats could lose the upcoming election to the Republicans, short of the Contitution being changed so Arnold Schwarzahoozy could run, was to nominate Hillary Clinton, thereby gifting whatever lame candidate the Republicans are able to find a whole bunch of easily-plucked votes.

I, personally, have no animosity toward Hillary Clinton, and would probably vote for her over any of the lamebrain Republicans who might win the nomination, mostly because the extreme right wing of the party seems to have outlawed the reasonable center -- you know, the sort of person who doesn't deny the existence of the indisputable fact of evolution and recognizes that there's a distinction between "low taxes" and "small government", and that one doesn't necessarily imply the other. Also, Rudy Guliani scares the shit out of me. But I'm not the sort of person they need to convince. Self-professed feminists are not the kind to be scared off by Hillary Clinton. It's everybody else. People hate her. People hate her just as passionately as other people hate George Bush. That is a fundamental disqualification for national politics.

Okay, tangent over. Go about your day.

Slow Day

2007-11-28T15:51:00.001-08:00

According to EW, the industry as a whole is taking the talks as a positive sign, but fact of the matter is that the news blackout has rendered whatever drama there is at the table invisible and therefore, from our perspective, moot.

Reuters reports the same with slightly more detail. A "solidarity rally" was held yesterday in New York, and not only did John Edwards show up -- all part of his initiative to paint himself as champion of the working man, I suspect -- but a couple of New York reps showed as well. Of interesting: Democratic candidates are promising to boycott a debate if CBS news writers also go on strike, as they have threatened to do.

The LA Times says the debate, which is to be televised on CBS, might have to be scrapped anyway. If WGA members picket the debate, Edwards, along with Senators Obama and Clinton, would not show, because it would entail crossing a picket line, which would look bad to the mllions of union Democrats who tend to be among those who vote in primaries. Other, less-well-known candidates may see this as an opportunity to get their names out there, but the fact is that the odds are overwhelmingly that either Edwards, Obama, or Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and a debate without any of them is no debate at all. ABC has rights to a Democratic debate and a Republican one in January; those will be held in New Hampshire. I've been to New Hampshire in winter. Nobody short of a Yeti is going to be able to picket those debates, believe you me.

Anyway, estimates I've seen for the end of the strike range from Deadline Hollywood Daily's projection of sometime before Christmas to one reporter (can't remember who, now -- sorry) predicting it could all be over by tonight. Well, it's four PM on the west coast. They could negotiate into the night, I suppose, but my guess is that we'll be waiting at least until tomorrow. The sooner the better, anyway. Lord knows I have a pile of good books to read, but it's so much easier to just watch "30 Rock", don't you think?

The Dim Flicker of Hope's Candle

2007-11-26T10:07:00.000-08:00

Today, the WGA and the AMPTP return to the negotiating table after a scant three weeks off the job. In light of the rhetoric spewing from both sides as recently as two weeks ago, color me surprised but optimistic. As I wrote about on Saturday, strikes that end quickly are the ones in which things are achieved for one side or the other. One's instinct is to think that the writers may be close to a pretty serious win, but that may merely be a result of the fact that the WGA is loud and the AMPTP has remained -- Variety advertisements aside -- relatively quiet and faceless. Either way, there's reason to be optimistic, because neither side wins if negotiations break down at this point.

Which brings us to this article from Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily. Finke's reporting has been invaluable over the last three weeks, and when she says that "a very reliable source" is telling her that there's a deal "seemingly in place", it's worth taking notice. Finke herself is very cautious in the post, and I think that warrants due skepticism from us out here in the Mobility -- either the agreement is tenuous enough to fall apart, or the source was unsure (she quotes him/her as saying "it's already done, basically" [emphasis mine]), or something. I think part of the caution she exhibits may be due to the fact that the deal is supposed to be done "before Christmas" as opposed to this week, indicating that not all the kinks have been worked out. If it's true, though, a good portion of the season may be salvaged. Just how much is hard to say -- we'll almost certainly see some down time as a result of what would be, at that point, a two-month-long work stoppage -- but at the very least, "The Office" may have an opportunity to save was has been, to date, a distinctly lackluster season.

CBS News has a fairly boilerplate article about the return of the sides to the table, but it does add some minor fuel to the idea that the AMPTP may be buckling: While studios have been talking about the abundance of unproduced scripts they have, it appears that some of the ones they were counting on -- including the sequel to "The Da Vinci Code" -- are unfinished and will remain so until the WGA comes back to work.

New Republic/CBS News: Writer Mark Evanier gives a little (somewhat self-serving) history of WGA labor unrest going back seventy-five years. Most notable for an illustration of the above point about the legnth of strikes: In 1985, the WGA went on strike with a divided membership, unity collapsed after three weeks, and they got their asses handed to them in the subsequent negotiations. Their position -- or rather, their dedication to it -- wasn't strong enough to support aggressive bargaining tactics. I suspect that one side or the other may have had that happen this time, and it doesn't seem likely to be the writers -- though again, that could all be spin and PR.

Entertainment Weekly reports that the talks are taking place -- probably as we type -- at an undisclosed location, and under media blackout. Picketers, who (like yours truly) took last week off to break bread with family and friends, are back out today despite positive action in the boardroom. The article links to Get Back in that Room, a blog that has catalogued more than 400 layoffs since the start of the strike.

ABC News: With talk shows going dark, Presidential hopefuls, who have made appearances on "Letterman" and "The Daily Show" staples of their campaigns in the last few go-rounds, are out a source of publicity -- but perpetual punching bags like Hilary Clinton are also getting a break from the barbs of late nite wags.

Anyway. I was trying to embed a YouTube video into this post, in which Daily Show writers take their usual approach and apply it to the AMPTP, but YouTube has made that more complicated, so fuck it, I'll just post a link. The video is actually kind of old news, and I actually find it interesting more as an object lesson in the symbiosis of writers and actors than anything else. The segment is hosted by writer Jason Ross, and he mouths words that sound exactly like what Jon Stewart says every night -- and they're still funny, but not nearly as funny. You can hear the echo of Stewart's voice in Ross's much less practiced delivery. But you also see that you must be hearing the echo of Ross's voice in Stewart's every time he goes on television. It's very interesting. Also includes a guest shot from John Oliver, TDS's Brit-in-residence.

You Leave Me . . . Speechless

2007-11-23T12:18:00.000-08:00

London Telegraph: Hollywood stars, in solidarity with the WGA, have starred in a series of short films that are either silent or improvised. Recognizeable faces include Sean Penn, Holly Hunter, Chazz Palimentieri, and Jay Leno. Watch: Sean Penn, Hunter & Palimentieri

Reuters: Los Angeles' chief economist says that the strike could end up costing LA's economy $200 million if it lasts "through the end of the month", which I assume means another week.

The New Yorker had an interesting article on its financial page in its 19 November issue. The lessons of strikes past: Strikes are a result of imperfect information -- both sides think the other is bluffing -- and long ones happen when nobody is actually bluffing. Those are almost always destructive: Prolonged work stoppages edge both sides toward total compromise, with neither side making up in marginal gains what it lost in wages or profits. There's more, and if you're interested, that article alone is worth the $4.50. The rest of the issue is good, too, so it's not like you'll be paying a cent a word.

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

2007-11-20T12:25:00.000-08:00

Hollywood Reporter: Fox has joined NBC-Universal and Sony in delivering letters of suspension to their actors, but in a new twist, are not invoking force majeure, which essentially terminates contracts and leaves actors free to do what they want without worrying about when their show comes back. Fox asserts that the contracts are still valid, and TV contracts remain priority one. SAG says that five weeks of half-pay is the maximum for "hiatus status", and then after that, contracts must be terminated if studios don't want to pay in full. Fox appears to feel otherwise.

La Times: CBS news writers and graphic artists, working the last two and a half years without a contract, have authorized a strike as well.

Daily Variety: The upcoming talks appear to be more than just a PR stunt. Apparently, we have four powerful talent agents to thank for this minor reconciliation; they had kept in contact with the heads of the AMPTP since the start of the strike, and last week reached out to WGAW's David Young. Here's hoping that Young can channel a little of his PR mojo into negotiation for once.

Deadline Hollywood: Somebody's in trooouuuble! An unnamed TV writer-producer has been called befrore the WGA disciplinary committee for breaking the strike rules on his show and a couple of other projects.

LA Times: The strike is a PR war, and there's no doubt who is winning: the writers. One poll shows only 4% of the public favoring studios, another, 8%. I coulda told you who was winning just from reading the news. Writers are getting out there, and the AMPTP is coming across as a monolith. The human face, boys: It wins every time.

Media Week: Advertisers may be asking for their money back soon. The issue is February -- sweeps month -- when ratings are highest and ads go for big bucks. If shows aren't back on track in three weeks, say some advertisers, sweeps could be wiped out -- in which case, it'll be time to start making some demands.

. . . and the Gambling Comission's Hanging on by the Skin of Its Teeth

2007-11-16T22:46:00.000-08:00

Big News:

Don't call it a comeback, they've been here for years. AMPTP and WGA will return to the table in ten days. Links to the United Hollywood blog, so the headline and such are not what you'd call . . . neutral.

Gonna Be a Rumble Out on the Promenade

2007-11-16T13:40:00.000-08:00

Variety blog: "Curb Your Enthusiasm" producer Gavin Polone thinks the strike was ill-timed and may ultimately be ill-fated. With the writers out, at least for now, many networks may be making more money, rather than less, as they already have finished scripts to rush into production but aren't currently paying writers to do anything. He also says he could see the strike lasting six months.

Variety: Animosity is getting worse between writers and studios. And some numbers! AMPTP says that WGA wants a 700% pay hike on "electronic sell-through" (ie, iTunes) and 200% on internet pay-per-view. The WGA counters that these add up to raises of 2.1 cents and 2.5 cents per use, respectively. Anyway, AMPTP took out full-page ads in the the New York and LA Timeses that really pissed off the WGA. The article also notes that John Edwards will be on the picket lines with the writers today.

Entertainment Weekly: What does this strike mean for the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), whose contract is up come June? Well, actors are already much better paid than writers and directors for DVD, and the WGA's move to take DVD residuals off the table may mean that other unions aren't too worried about that, either. It's new media, and a guild that hasn't struck since 1980 may walk out as well, if the WGA -- which hasn't met with the AMPTP since 4 November -- can't nail down the contract that should be a bellweather for other major guilds. Oh yeah, what was the last SAG strike about? The changing ways in which people watch movies -- on videocassette.

Hollywood Reporter: Studios are ready to exercize "force majeure" on actors -- ie, terminate their contracts, legally, because of the strike. Universal is putting some actors on "unpaid hiatus". If "force majeure" is enacted against, say, Steve Carell, it means he doesn't have to drop everything and come back to "The Office" if he's filming a movie when the strike ends. Yikes.

Well, folks, next week is Thanksgiving week, and I'll have lots of travelling and cooking to do in that time. I'll be trying to give news hits, but don't look for anything major until the last burp is belched and the last bit of stuffing is stuffed in a stomach. When I do have time, I'll be back with "What is a Residual?" Until then, check back here for news, and check over at Northern Attack for my recap of this week's unofficial season finale of "The Office".

Dramatis Personae: The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers

2007-11-16T13:35:00.000-08:00

The name of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers is a little misleading, though perhaps not intentionally so. It is not, as it sounds like, a collection of the men and women who get producer credits on movies and television shows; as we’ve already seen, many of those people are writers, actors, and/or directors in their own rights, and as a result are members of one of Hollywood’s grand plethora of guilds. No, the AMPTP is an association that represents just about any company that produces television shows or movies on which guild labor is used. The list is long -- over 300 members -- but the highlights include ABC, Dreamworks, CBS, Fox, NBC, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Disney, and Warner Brothers.

As you can imagine, the AMPTP has an enormous amount of money, and its President has a fairly impressive resumé: J. Nicholas Counter III, who as head of the organization serves as its chief negotiator in its talks with not only the WGA but with the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild of America, and the constellation of other guilds and unions in showbusiness, got his law degree from Stanford in 1966 and before becoming the head of the AMPTP worked with the prestigious Los Angeles law firm Mitchell Silberberg and Knupp, which has a long history of representing consortuims of entertainment businesses. Counter plays hardball, and he seems to be prepared to use the vast amounts of money at his disposal to try to wait out the competition:

Mr. Counter said companies were prepared to use alternative programming like reality shows, reruns and movies to fill broadcast and cable networks during a walkout that might last, by his estimation, 9 or 10 months. (source)

Understandably, the WGA hates him, and the blog United Hollywood has already accused him of spreading disinformation when he implied that the WGA could end up blacklisting its own members for violating strike rules. That’s possible, but it’s also part of negotiation in a fight as ugly as this one has become. Both sides look to demonize the other. Counter is good at that.

Anyway, returning to the subject at hand, the AMPTP was founded in 1982, and Counter was tabbed then as their chief. He was in place when the WGA last struck, in March of 1988, a strike that lasted five months, obliterating the end of the 87-88 season and pushing back programming for the 88-89 season into winter. That strike saw the invention of reality television as we know it today, with shows like “Cops” filling the gaps as shows like “Cheers” vacated the airwaves.

So, what is the stance of the AMPTP? In its essence, it’s that new media is, well, new, and they don’t know how to make money off it yet, or whether it will gut their business, and as such it would be unwise to go about promising money willy-nilly to talent. Obviously, the actual issues at hand are more complicated than that, but that’s what it boils down to. That said, Counter and his compatriots have occasionally said other things. Here, for example, is a message from 1 November, days before the strike started:

. . . no further progress can be made because of the WGA’s continuing efforts to substantially increase the DVD formula. We’re ready to meet at any time . . . but the DVD issue is a roadblock to these negotiations.

While this may have been true at the time, several writers came forth after the strike began and said that the kibosh had been put the DVD demands in an eleventh-hour attempt to salvage negotiations, but it didn’t work. It seems pretty clear that AMPTP felt its strongest public negotiations ploy was to deal with the DVD issue, and with specific numbers -- according to industry statements, DVD residuals paid to writers came to $56 million in 2006. That sounds like a big number. That said, the studios made billions off those DVDs -- but the AMPTP is not alone in telling half-truths in this situation, so it’s probably wise to give them a pass.

The next day, a statement on the AMPTP website again addressed the DVD proposal first, calling it “unresonable”. Then it goes on to say that writers do get residuals from new media, and that the writers demands in that area will inhibit “our ability to experiment, innovate, analyze and adapt”. They have continued to hit this point again and again: Writers do get paid for new media of all kinds. New payments would be prohibitive.

It’s difficult to find information on exactly how much writers get paid for new media -- iTunes downloads, streaming video views, and so on -- but since the AMPTP has not named a specific number, my guess is that it wouldn’t look particularly high, even to Joe Blow at home on his computer. According the AMPTP, the basic issue is that writers want to be paid for advertisements on streaming video, while the AMPTP wants to pay them a share of producers’ revenue. What does that mean in dollars and cents? I’m too dumb to figure it out. Sorry, guys.

I’ll be back with news hits later in the day.

addendum: Here is an article in which Entertainment Weekly attempts to break down how much writers might make off internet residuals. Yeah, it didn't help me much, either.

Dramatis Personae: Writers Guild of America

2007-11-14T17:45:00.001-08:00

Well, this isn’t going to reach quite to the level of research paper, but I’ve been doing a little reading, and here, now, is the first of my Dramatis Personae articles. So: Just who are these guys, anyway?

Well, as a matter of fact, the Writers’ Guild of America is actually two entities: The Writers’ Guild of America, West, headquartered in Hollywood, and the Writers’ Guild of America, East, headquartered in New York City. They are affiliated, are both on strike, and have the same list of demands -- but to lump them always as one group would probably be a mistake. In fact, they sharpened their claws for the current squabble with studios by bitching at one another over finances. So, without further ado:

Who is in what union?

The Eastern branch had 3770 members as of 2006, consisting, in theory, of writers of films, television, and radio, though the vast majority of its members are in the film and television industries. Notable members of this branch include Tina Fey, the writers of Saturday Night Live, and Steve Bodow, head writer of The Daily Show. In fact, The Daily Show was the first Comedy Central program to go union, precipitating the unionization of Comedy Central in general. Jon Stewart was instrumental in this process, and has been particularly vocal in his support of the strike. WGAE’s President is Michael Winship, a former writer for the news progam “Now with Bill Moyers”. Its executive directory is the famously feisty Mona Mangan, who has been on the job since 1984; she’s looking to retire as soon as a replacement can be found.

The Western branch is by far the larger of the two, with just more than 7600 members as of 2006; they represent the bulk of the film industry and much of teleivision as well. Notable members include Greg Daniels of The Office, Damon Lindelhof of Lost, Joss Whedon of Buffy and the upcoming Dollhouse, and Steve Carell -- and others; if they write in Hollywood, they’re a member of WGAW. Its president is Patric Verrone, who wrote for “Futurama” and “The Critic”. A large part of Verrone’s agenda involves expanding Guild membership into reality television and animation, which both figure to be network staples if the strike drags on as long as it seems like it might. Its executive director is David Young, who recently replaced John McLean. Young is known as a strong organizer and good at the PR side of the job, but not as strong in negotiation.

How are they different?

WGAE is seen as considerably more militant than WGAW, though you can’t tell from the street protests this autumn. WGAE is affiliated with the immensely powerful AFL-CIO, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Affiliation of Writers Guilds, and Union Network International; WGAW is affiliated with only the IAWG. The last agreement with the AMPTP was passed in 2004; the WGAW approved it with a 16-1 vote of its directors, while WGAE directors gave it a considerably less resounding 10-6.

WGAW’s membership is roughly twice the size of WGAE, and its budget, as of 2005, was nearly four times as large. A National Labor Relations Board finding back then said that CBS, which airs “Two and a Half Men”, “CSI” and “How I Met Your Mother”, had violated labor laws by negotiating with WGAW without including WGAE. This led to union in-fighting and accusations by WGAE that WGAW had participated in union-busting; WGAW countered that WGAE owed it in the neighborhood of a million dollars in dues and miscellaneous charges.

Where do they come from?

They both have their origins in the 1912 founding of the Authors Guild, which included playwrites, story writers, and the like. In 1921, with film ascendant, the Screen Writers Guild formed, though in early days it was less of a union than a social club. It wasn’t until the Depression, when unions loomed large in the collective psyche of the United States, that the Guild began to operate in a more union-like fashion; starting in 1933, membership exploded, and by 1941 the SWG was conducting collective bargaining with movie studios. In 1954, what had been a union including just film writers merged with smaller groups representing television and radio writers, and divided itself in twain: Writers Guild of America, East, and Writers Guild of America, West. Originally, WGAW had two separate branches for film and television/radio, but that division was eliminated in the 1970s.

sources
www.wga.org
www.wgaeast.org
essortment.com
Wikipedia
Los Angeles Times
Two articles from Variety

Bullets

2007-11-13T18:21:00.000-08:00

I meant to post the first of my "Dramatis Personae" articles this afternoon, but instead found myself out for several hours attempting to secure repairs on my car. I swear, I'll do it tomorrow. Instead, a couple of links:

LA Times: Bullet pointed list of the issues at stake.
BBC: A quick Q&A on the players and issues at hand.
UPI: British Writers' Guild may use awards ceremony as a platform to express solidarity.
Washington Post: Children of writers on the picket lines.
AP: The AMPTP states its case in ads.

In which there are links

2007-11-12T20:54:00.000-08:00

TV Watch: Wayne Friedman wonders how the networks will weather the strike.
LA Times: Human interest! As if adopting a baby wasn't already expensive.
The Nation: Who owns what.
Peter Goldstein of the LA Times: Fear and Loathing in Los Angeles, a skeptical view of claims that studios don't have enough certainty to give a slice to writers.
SurveyUSA: Poll: Writers winning the war for hearts and minds.

The End Is Extremely F'ing Nigh

2007-11-11T18:55:00.001-08:00

Damon Lindelhof of Lost mourns the death of television.

The LA Timesreports that this strike could be the beginning of the end for Friday Night Lights, the football drama that is much beloved by a small portion of the population. More a spiritual descendant of My So-Called Life than Monday Night Football, FNL has never had good ratings and could die on the vine if the strike curtails programming before its ratings can rally.

Pressure Points

2007-11-11T16:58:00.000-08:00

I'm fast learning that Reuters, despite the fact that it is neither located in the United States nor specifically geared toward entertainment news, most often offers the most insightful analysis of events leading up to and comprising the strike. In this article, by Steve Gorman and Dana Ford, tells us that layoffs may be imminent among the non-writing staff of late night shows, and also mentions -- something I hadn't heard before, but maybe I wasn't listening closely enough -- that the AMPTP has said it will return to the negotiating table if the WGA agrees to suspend the strike. WGA has so far refused that overture. Instead, executives from talent agencies are trying to act as mediators. It's easy to scoff when people say it's a small town, but Hollyweird really is a small city within a much larger one, it seems.

Protean-voiced producer Seth MacFarlane, of "Family Guy" and the egregious "American Dad", has apparently been a hit on the picket lines with his hot rhetoric and comedia dell'arte of characters. He's also been encouraging producers who can afford it to pay laid-off assistants out of their own pockets. Now that would be a gesture. I wonder what MacFarlane's definition of "afford" is.

The San Jose Mercury News ("the Merc", to this old Peninsulaite, and best paper in the Bay Area), reports that with Jay Leno refusing to cross picket lines NBC may be bringing in guest hosts in an attempt to stay on the air. No word on who that might be -- those people would have to be amenable to strikebreaking where Leno isn't -- but I'd encourage NBC to go some kind of completely radical route. How about James Gandolfini? That would be different. Also, Oprah is always looking to expand her Earth-swallowing empire. (Did anybody else hear on "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" that people in rural Iraq watch Oprah? Wow.)

At BloggingStocks.com, venture capitalist Peter Cohan estimates that a six-month strike could cost the WGA as much as $486 million in lost wages. His numbers are admittedly fuzzy, but if it drags on that long, if he's even in the ballpark, it's going to take a long time for the writers' action to pay for itself, and even that's assuming massive growth in new media.

RIP, Norman Mailer

2007-11-10T17:41:00.000-08:00

We take a break from our regular programming to note the passing of the titanic Norman Mailer. Loved and hated in equal measure, Mailer revolutionized English-language journalism and nonfiction with books like Armies of the Night and Miami and Siege of Chicago, wrote at least one acknowledged classic in The Executioner's Song, and penned a personal favorite, Of a Fire on the Moon. Super perfundo to a genuine mensch.

Strike Two

2007-11-10T16:17:00.000-08:00

Another sector of the entertainment industry has been nailed by strike fever: Broadway shut down when stagehands went out on strike, according to AP reports. The rhetoric is similar, but he constituencies are very different, I'd suspect.

Ellen Degeneres has pissed off the head of WGA East by returning to work after honoring picket lines for a day. Degeneres is a member of the WGA, but also of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, which supported her move. Ellen's producers have sniped back, but ultimately this seems like small beer to me. It's the weekend, people, what do you want?

Not surprisingly, news has slowed somewhat since the first day of the strike. Next week, I'll be doing some research, and attempting to bring my three loyal readers a primer on the players: The American Motion Picture and Television Producers, WGA West, and the supposedly more-militant WGA East. Look for those (hopefully) Tuesday-Friday. Of course, I will continue to bring news updates as well.

"I'm Here for the Duration"

2007-11-09T17:52:00.000-08:00

A couple more links for your mug. This one was brought to my attention by commenter Denise over at Northern Attack: YahooTV has an interview with "Office" writer-producer Greg Daniels. Title of this entry taken from the interview.

Meanwhile, Film.com is not feeling optimistic. They also report that FOX is less likely to be affected by the strike in the immediate future than some other networks, because of "American Idol" and other programming they have that wasn't scheduled to start until January anyway. "24" is pretty much kaput for the season, however, unless the strike is resolved within the next couple of weeks, which doesn't look likely.

Pickets Get Pretty

2007-11-09T12:50:00.000-08:00

Looks like the most beautiful man on Earth has come out in support of the WGA. (That would beSendhil Ramamurthy. Sorry, Greg Grunburg.)

Be careful of Sendhil's eyes. He uses them to hypnotize you, and then he strikes.

Governotor?

2007-11-09T11:29:00.000-08:00

Reports of Ahnuld's involvement in the strike are greatlyexaggerated according to a UPI report. The Governator says he has not "been asked" to get involved, but he will down the line if the sides come to him. A reasonable stance to take, I suppose, but less proactive than I had expected from an action star.

But wait! The BBC spins it another way! Schwarzathingy is all over this in a backstage kind of way! It's so hard to know who to believe in our post-modern America. (Or Britain, as the case may be.) Is there "objective" truth in these post-Derrida times? Where will we find it? Don't look at me -- I just ask questions, I don't answer them.

Those crazy Democrats are . . . well, they're talking, which is what they're best at. Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all come out in favor of the WGA. Given that Republicans seem to be best at things that are even less useful than talking, these days, it seems likely that our next President will be on record in support of the union. Yeah, shocker. Hopefully, this will all be over by then. If not . . . well, if not, I don't think there would be any Hollyweird left for a hypothetical future President to meddle with.

This press release states that rallies today on the Western Front will be outside Fox, and no less than Tom Morello (of Rage Against the Machine fame) will be playing an acoustic set. That sounds . . . weird.

The Hollywood Reporter says that Ray Romano and other members of the cast of the late not-so-lamented sitcom "Everybody Loathes Rain Man" (I assume you can get there) were on the pickets yesterday . . . but the really big name is Jesse Jackson. Gotta tell ya, I'm not sure this is a good thing for the WGA. The man has a fetish for lost caues, I swear.

One last note, and then later I'll have a different sort of post later today if I have time (heading out to Portland's Wordstock Festival soon enough): Software globjillionaire Marc Andreessen takes studios to task on his blog for picking a fight at the wrong time. What makes this the wrong time? This:

You're faced with a massive, once-in-a-lifetime shift in mainstream consumer behavior from traditional mass media, including film and television, to new activities that you do not control: the Internet, social networking, user-generated content, mobile services, video games. It's been snowballing since the mid 90's, for like 12 years -- 12 years of denial and obfuscation -- but it's really rolling fast now.

So the uber-rich technocrati are as split on this issue as anybody else -- Michael Eisner thinks the WGA is dumb, Andreessen thinks the AMPTP is dumb. Maybe they're both dumb. Who knows. You know what this situation could use? A muscle-bound Austrian with a giant bazooka.

News: Quick Hits

2007-11-08T13:20:00.000-08:00

Just some linkeage:

Variety reports that several writers will not be following WGA Strike Rule #8, which stipulates that all writers must turn copies of any uncompleted scripts they have written over to the union, ostensibly to guard against allegations of strikebreaking. Studios sent writers' agents strongly-worded letters before the strike even started, telling writers that they would be in breach of contract if they did any such thing. Writers are justly afraid of being nailed by legal action from the studios, who have already paid for the scripts and would seem to have the high ground here. (Note: I am not a lawyer.) WGA asserts that the scripts do not become studio property until options are exercized, which they wouldn't have been yet on incomplete scripts; they're threatening censure or fines for guild members who do not obey Rule #8. Yikes.

The LA Times has an article detailing the reaction of labor leaders outside the conflict; not surprisingly, they appear to be on the side of the WGA. The most interesting tidbit seems comes from Rose Ann DeMoro, head of the California Nurses' Assosciation, who has a list of the four big needs for a successful strike: 1. Public support. 2. Cohesion among members. 3. Political power. 4. A righteous cause. I would say that #4 is way, way down the list, but it appears that the WGA has #1 on its side -- feeling on the internets, at least, is overwhelmingly in favor of striking writers, at least for now. It appeared that they hand #2, but if they start fining people over Strike Rule 8, that could be a problem. The other two? Well, the current Governor of California used to be a member of a Hollywood guild, so that can't hurt. As far as #4 goes, I'm not sure "righteous" ever comes into the equasion in today's America. I think they're right, but I don't know about righteous.

"Office" writers Michael Schur (who also plays Mose Schrute) and Jen Celotta stopped by Office Tally yesterday to chat with fans; Tanster has posted a chat transcript. It's long, but interesting.

"Office" star Jenna Fischer (Miss Beesly, if you're nasty) has a blog entry discussing the strike.

In which there is a war of words, and I try to think up a less ugly name than "scab".

2007-11-08T11:14:00.000-08:00

Hi all. News continues to build. United Hollywood is reporting that some soaps are already hiring "scabs", though I haven't seen anything confirmed on that. I don't like the term "scab", because it makes me sound like what Brian Howard would call a "union shill", which I swear I'm actually not. "Picket-line-crosser" is sort of cumbersome, however . . . "nonunion writer"? That's a little unweildy as well, but I like it better than "scab". This is difficult, because "scab" is such a versatile word (it can be verbed -- one can "scab" -- or remain a noun -- one can be "a scab"). But there you have it. "Nonunion writer" it is, until I come up with something better.

Michael Eisner, former head of Disney, has something to say, and it's not good:

For a writer to give up today's money for a nonexistent piece of the future -- they should do it in three years, shouldn't be doing it now -- they are misguided they should not have gone on the strike. I've seen stupid strikes, I've seen less stupid strikes, and this strike is just a stupid strike.

Talking to the Hollywood Reporter, he had several other colorful things to say, including calling the talking up of digital media by networks and studios "a harlot's parade" (good one; I'm going to steal that), and saying that the only people currently making money off of new media are the aggregators and distributors, like Apple. Of course, Eisner himself heads a company called Tornante that invests heavily in new media, so it's hard to take exactly what his meaning is. "They should do it in three years" is probably the heart of the statement -- he's saying that they're giving up a dollar today for a dollar tomorrow, and that dollar probably won't actually be there until next week. There might be some merit to that, but if you ask me, it's always better to get in something a little too early than a little too late.

Put it this way: If there were no money in this, would the AMPTP be so reluctant to give it up? Of course not. "Sacagawea dollar? That's what you want? Here, have one." So perhaps WGA is making sacrifices that aren't yet necessary, but they will be eventually. Call it the ripping-off-the-bandaid approach.

In other news, The Governator appears to be trying to step in -- nothing heavy-handed from this small-government hero, just some back-channels chatter -- in a move that frankly I had expected earlier. Ahnuld (notice how I keep carefully avoiding spelling his last name? not a coincidence) is well-positioned to A) make a real difference in this matter, and B) come out looking like a real champ, which everyone knows he loves. He's bright, he's rich, he's got the weight of government behind him, and he knows the business. The Reuters article I've now cited like a billion times indicated that the two sides were so estranged that the only way to bring them to the table would be gradual communication through back-channels; Schwarzenegger (did I get it?) is the perfect man for that job. This is the signatirue industry of the biggest, most powerful state in the most powerful nation on Earth.

"You know my handcuffs? I picked them."

Let's See if We Can Squeeze This into a Nutshell.

2007-11-08T10:33:00.001-08:00

I said before that I was reflexively in sympathy with the writers in this strike, and that’s true, but that’s not the entirety of the reason I feel the strike was necessary. I’ll try to detail my thinking here.

I’ve had at least one person treat me as if I was hopelessly naive for even taking a side. The fact that this person didn’t have a much more than a lot of snotty questions with no answers didn’t really endear them to me; but the real issue is that I feel this strike is necessary for the health of the film and television industry as a whole. I understand that studios have both an obligation to their share holders to make money and feel no moral obligation to compensate writers in any way other than they already do -- in fact, they feel that the current compensation structure is more than fair. That much is obvious from the AMPTP website. The industry line is that it will collapse on itself if forced to pay writers, actors and directors residuals on internet views and downloads.

To which I say, bullshit. They claim to make no money off that stuff; if that’s true, then any percentage of zero dollars is zero dollars -- so they’re not really paying anybody anything. But the fact of the matter is that, despite the fact that the way we watch television is changing, there is still an incredible amount of money in the industry; not paying residuals on internet accesses amounts to a pay cut, and no union outside of a seriously struggling industry (like the American automobile or airline industries) is going to accept that.

To some people, it seems to be about process, and from what I’ve read -- particularly from this Reuters article -- it’s fair to say that everyone’s to blame for that one. AMPTP took a radical stance at the start as a bargaining ploy, hoping to give a little ground and still come out golden. It seems like the WGA decided to strike the moment that happened, or at least their lead negotiators did, and between July and 5 November, negotiators met less than two dozen times. That seems to be the WGA’s fault, largely; they used guild elections as an excuse not to meet with negotiators several times in September and October. Everyone’s acting outraged, and I think that may be because everybody negotiated in something less than good faith.

I’ve gotten off track. The reason I support this strike is because it is in the interest of any industry to compensate its employees well. If residuals dry up, a great number of writers and actors and directors will not be able to afford to be writers and actors and directors. They’ll have to go back to Muncie, Indiana and take jobs as accountants and receptionists and clerks at the VA hospital. That pleothora of choice you and I, the viewer, have come to enjoy, 200 television channels, thousands of movies released each year for our edification, all those things? That would probably dry up. If you don’t compensate your workers fairly, they don’t work. It’s as simple as that.

Some would argue that television gets along fine without scripted shows. “American Idol” is consistently the highest-rated show in the land. I suspect that it is such results that embolden studio executives as they march forward into this strike, and I don’t blame them: If television can be made, and made profitably, without having to pay writers or actors, they ought to do it. I also don’t think it’s going to work. I say this not just because the only reality show I’ve ever had any use for is “Newlyweds” (shut up), but because I genuinely believe that variety, the spice of life, is what keeps television going. With no scripted television -- which runs the gamut from soapy weepers like “Grey’s Anatomy” to farcical laffers like “30 Rock” to morally challenging science fiction like “Battlestar Galactica” -- a lot of television going to start looking the same. News, reality fluff, and a few cartoons. It’s not a pretty picture, and it’s not a picture that’s going to attract a lot of viewers after a while. The last strike torpedoed viewership. It seems like studios are betting on that not happening nearly as much this time around. I think they’re betting hard and betting wrong.

It has always been my belief that people are best motivated by three things, in this order: fear, money, and sex. The allure of fame is the promise of the last two; take money out of that equasion, and writing for television becomes just another gig. Quality suffers, and ultimately, quantity suffers. Right now, it’s received wisdom that Americans want to be famous, that our children have learned to want to be famous. We all want to be in television. I wouldn’t count on that allure holding if it turns out the living to be made is irregular.

"When we're off the job, pretty much everything stops."

2007-11-07T21:30:00.000-08:00

That's Marc Cherry, writer-producer ("showrunner", in Hollyweird speak) of "Desperate Housewives", speaking to the LA Times this evening. Networks has hoped to keep showrunners doing the producing parts of their jobs, so that completed scripts could be turned into episodes to air through the end of the year. More than 100 showrunners picketed outside Walt Disney Studios (which owns ABC). The move caused many shows to shut down; Cherry's "Housewives", "Grey's Anatomy", "The Office", and "Family Guy" are among them.

Some of these shows will be off the air as soon as this week. Will it make a difference? It's hard to say. This may or may not be retaliation against a studio move to suspend contracts with production companies in an effort to kill support among rank-and-file, like production assistants, whose names you never see and who are not actually members of the striking guild. (This is pure spectulation, you should know.) I've read at least one studio head who claims that his studio won't be affected financially. (I'll try to find the link tomorrow; for now, my commentary is: Yeah, right.)

Other links:

LA Times:"The Office" first big casualty of strike
UPI: Writers Guild of Canada supports WGA move
Reuters: Writers may find succor in animation
Reuters: Strike could be a long haul

Goldmine

2007-11-07T16:15:00.001-08:00

Don't know how I didn't find this before, but the LA Times has got a grid of which shows have how many scripts. So, some of the biggies:

Late Night

Almost all of the late night shows, including Letterman, Leno, Stewart and Colbert, go into repeats immediately. Hey, we've still got "Nightline", right?

ABC

"Lost" appears to have eight episodes (out of a 16 episode run) completed, or will once shooting is done on finished scripts. "Grey's Anatomy" will have 11 to 13, "Pushing Daisies" 9. I worry about the fate of "Pushing Daisies" if this strike drags on; it has won its time slot consistently but hasn't been any kind of runaway hit. It could lose momentum and find itself cancelled.

CBS

Do they still have television shows on CBS?

NBC

"Earl" has 13 episodes completed, and "Scrubs" is expected to finish 12 out of 18.

CW & Cable

"Everybody Hates Chris" (CW), "Monk" (USA), "The Wire" (HBO), and "The Shield" (FX) are either completely written or already finished filming. The biggie (as far as I'm concerned) is "Battlestar Galactica" (Sci Fi). Television's best show has ten episodes good to go, and after that . . . who knows. Yikes.

"24", "Scrubs" up in the air

2007-11-07T16:01:00.000-08:00

One of the more interesting questions involved in this strike is what happens to shows like "Lost", "24" and "Battlestar Galactica", which don't return until January. What I've read seems to suggest that "Lost" may be ready go, because several scripts are already written. "24", on the other hand, appears to have been postponed indefinitely. FOX is citing concerns about having the show remain continuous, the way it has in the past, airing with no repeats or breaks in the schedule.

Meanwhile, Bill Lawrence, mastermind behind "Scrubs", has said that he doesn't "feel right" about being on-set, despite the fact that this is the critically-acclaimed show's final season. Speaking of the final episodes, he told Variety's Michael Schneider:

I haven’t put an ounce of thought into it. We’re on strike. During the downtime, it’s hard not to think about what to write next. But I fill my head with happy thoughts.

I've followed "Scrubs" for a long time, and it's a little disappointing to see it all spinning to an end like this, without input from its creator and driving force. That said, I've been pretty frustrated with this season, which appears to be going the predictable "Ross and Rachael" route with JD & Eliot, which is a shame, since those two are like, the most annoying couple on television. Lawrence expressed confidence that the episodes that are being shot from already-completed scripts will be good, but seems to have left open the question of whether or not the show would even come back if the strike imposed a premature hiatus. I'm betting not. It's always been ratings-challenged, and NBC has been treating it like a red-headed stepchild for seven years.

Who Are You: That's Not What She Said Edition

2007-11-07T15:17:00.000-08:00

So we already had a “That’s Not What She Said: Origins” edition, but I thought it might be helpful if I gave you a little more information on me and my background. But only a little. We’ll be doing this in question-and-answer format.

You call yourself a writer. What have you written? I have been a reporter with the Bend, Oregon, Bulletin and the Menlo Park, California, Almanac. That’s pretty much the extent of what you would call my “professional” writing career; long ago I wrote music and movie reviews for a college newspaper and a couple of now-out-of-business zines. Thrilling, I know. I’ve also had a few poems published, won a couple of awards for writing poetry (none you’ve heard of, though), and have a novel in the works.

Can I read some of your poetry? No. I gave up poetry years ago, partially because I decided that American poetry is a shambles. I don’t really have that much interest in the stuff that I wrote back then, and I don’t see why you should, either.

So what are your qualifications, mister? None, essentially, other than an ability to express myself in writing, and enough time on my hands to research this stuff. Come on, this is the internet! Who needs qualifications?

What are your political leanings? Not really relevant, but I think I’m currently registered as a member of the Green Party. I’d probably be a Republican if I could tolerate their military or social platforms. Sadly, I can’t, so there you are.

Will you loan me money? Hey, I’ve got a mortgage and bills too, buddy.

Will you at least tell me your real name? Joseph. But unless you’re here to offer me unspeakable amounts of money or fame, I’m afraid I can’t give you my last name. Just call me Linus, and everybody will be happy.

What does “That’s Not What She Said” even mean? Well, on the NBC sitcom “The Office”, anti-hero Michael Scott can’t resist responding to even the slightest of double entendres with “That’s what she said!” Since “The Office” is about to go off the air for who knows how long . . . I think you can put the rest together for yourself.

You call yourself a “TV junkie”. What shows do you watch? I watch “The Office”, and recap it at Northern Attack, splitting duties there with Karin, who has already been kind enough to comment on this here blog. In addition, I’ve been known to viddy “Scrubs”, “30 Rock”, “My Name is Earl”, “Heroes”, “Lost”, “Bones”, “Boston Legal”, “Pushing Daisies”, “The Wire”, “Battlestar Galactica”, “Good Eats”, “Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations”, and “The 4400”. I also have been known to watch old DVDs of “Veronica Mars”, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, “Angel”, “Firefly”, and “Northern Exposure”. Horrifying, isn’t it?

Do you have a comments policy? I don’t want to have to start a registration policy, so I’m asking you to keep your comments civil and legibile. That means no webspeak, no politics, no religion, no ad hominem attacks against me, other commenters, or the subjects of the posts. NO YELLING! no posting in all lower-case unless you are ferd farkel. Use a reasonable number of exclamation points (!), question marks (?), and other punctuation. If you find yourself getting too heated, do what I do (because I have that problem, too): Take a break. Calm down. Sober up. Come back tomorrow. This is an environment of welcoming, and disruptive commenters can just get the hell out of here.

What else do you have to say for yourself? Not much. I’m hoping that this strike is short; in that case, That’s Not What She Said’s raison d’etre disappears quickly. That’s fine with me. But until then, if you want the news and don’t have the energy to find it yourself, stop by. I’ll be trying to update daily -- and sometimes, like today, several times a day.

"We know the future of the industry is the web."

2007-11-07T14:22:00.000-08:00

Forbes has an article about the necessity of this strike from the point of view of the WGA. In it, Kate Purdy, one of the authors of United Hollywood (see sidebar) and a writer on "Cold Case", says the following:

We know that the future of the industry is the web, and that in the near future television sets and computer monitors will merge into the same screen.

Forbes isn't exactly what you'd call a union rag.

Blogs Don't Strike, Cos They Don't Make Money

2007-11-07T14:04:00.000-08:00

Ken Levine, a writer who has worked on such notable shows as "The Simpsons", "M*A*S*H", and "Frasier", may be on strike, but he's still blogging. Most of his entries are not strike-related, but they're still worth reading, because he's pretty funny.

What Happens When a Strike Stops Being Polite, and Starts Getting Real

2007-11-07T13:39:00.000-08:00

Well, as expected, networks appear to be ramping up reality program as a way of coping with the writers' strike. Ugh. Let me tell you about reality television: Screw reality television. Aside from when I accicentally watched Newlyweds all of the times it was on, I've never been able to tolerate the stuff, and I'll tell you why: It's lowest-common-denominator, mind-deadening, repetitive crap. And most of it's about as "real" as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Anything for which they have to "cast" is not reality, my friend.

This could turn out to be a very effective strategy, however. People love reality television. Looooooooove it. From American Idol to The Surreal Life, it makes up a great deal of television's most popular programming, and compared to scripted shows, which employ actors and directors and, yes, writers, all of whom must be paid, it's fairly cheap to put together. There's some question as to whether there might eventually be some reality TV fatigue -- a real possibility, if this strike drags on for a long time -- but for now, a certain segment of the population (the segment that lovesBig Brother) might see this as a boon. Fewer storylines, more shouting!

Anyway. The last time there was a strike was 1988, and it lasted five months. According to this article from 2001, that strike had brutal effects on television viewership, and nobody won. People turned off their televisions, and a significant chunk (10%, according to the article) didn't turn them back on when TV came back. In addition to this, the curse of the newsmagazine was born in those dark days. God only knows what horrors this strike might have in store if it goes on that long.

Joss Whedon Chimes In

2007-11-07T13:23:00.000-08:00

Joss Whedon is perhaps the greatest living television writer. He created the classics Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, and like any genius worth his salt, has one project (the latelamented Firefly) that died before its time. He's worn many hats on television and in film -- he's written for sitcoms (Roseanne), written movies both great (Toy Story) and, well, less so (the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer), directed television and one woefully under-exposed movie (Serenity, a spinoff of Firefly), and produced two shows. He's got a new show in the queue for spring . . . assuming the strike is over by then. Until then, as he said last week, he's "not picking up a pencil". Over on whedonesque.com, a blog dedicated to Whedon-related news, Joss Whedon has chimed in.

It's occurred to me that the links I've posted so far have been overwhelmingly pro-union, so I'll be adding a link to the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, the coalition of studios and networks that negotiates with the Writers Guild of America.

"The Office" on the Picket Lines, Steve Carell Staying Home

2007-11-07T13:00:00.000-08:00

Here's a video of Office writer-producer Greg Daniels, along with writer-actors Mindy Kaling (Kelly Kapoor), BJ Novak (Ryan Howard), Mike Schur (Mose Schrute), and Paul Lieberstein (Toby Flenderson) walking the picket lines outside NBC-Universal:

My impression is that "The Office" is one of the strongest union shows out there. Others, such as 30 Rock, are apparently still in production despite the fact that producers and stars are members of the WGA. Tina Fey did not report for work on Monday, and instead picketed the building that gives her show its name, 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan, but apparently came back thereafter to do her work as an actress. According to ABC News, however, Office star Steve Carell, himself a member of the WGA (he penned Office episodes "Casino Night" and "Survivorman" [this week on NBC], as well as co-writing The 40-Year-Old Virgin), will not cross picket lines. Yesterday, reports were that the show was trying to soldier on despite disruptions, but without Carell, that notion appears to be a non-starter. According to the linked article, The Office has two episodes in the can, and will go into repeat after next week.

That's Not What She Said, Origins

2007-11-07T12:42:00.000-08:00

I suppose it’s good to start with a statement of purpose and all, as much as I have one, or at least a list of biases. I’ve started this blog because I was cluttering up the comments page at Northern Attack, where I share recapping duties for the NBC television show The Office, with long posts containing strike news. I decided, given the plethora of free web hosting space out there, that it might be wiser just to start my own blog, and let James, webmaster of Northern Attack, do his his own way.

So, what’s my purpose, and what are my biases? My purpose is simple: To collect news about the strike of the Writers Guild of America, which is threatening to shut down scripted television and affect the entire economic structure of the largest state in the Union. There will be some analysis of said news, but keep in mind that I am neither a lawyer nor a union expert, and what you’re getting from me is simply the brain vomit of a clever kid who watches television and onceago got good grades and stuff. You’re not getting anything insider from me, as I am not an insider.

My biases. I am a writer, but not a screenwriter, and I belong to no unions or guilds. I am reflexively in sympathy with the goals of the guild -- there’ll be a quick blurb on that in a post later today -- but only in this instance. In a broader sense, my feelings on unions are mixed. Call them a necessary evil, and yet another institution that could use reform. But that’s straying closer to politics than I want to go.

A warning for readers: There will be the occasional curse word on this blog. I’m operating on the assumption that we’re all grownups here, and nobody’s sensibilities are going to be wounded too badly if I call a spade a spade -- or rather, a piece of shit a piece of shit. Don’t worry, we’re not going to be having a Pulp Fiction-style F-word orgy, there won’t be descriptions of explicit sex acts or graphic violence. If you can handle late night cable television, you can handle That’s Not What She Said.

Much love,

Linus.