The Taqwacores...Muslim punks! Win tickets to attend screening!

 

Earlier this year, I caught the screening of the "Taqwacores" at  the Asian Pacific Film Festival.

There was such a buzz about the film, that the artistic director was unable to accommodate all the fillm buffs who turned out at the Director's Guild to catch it.

The visually-stunning flick sold out!

Readers at the Tattler may recall the glowing movie review it received at this site.

Post:  05/07/10

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3458481441884861780

Now, filmgoers have a golden opportunity to win a ticket for an upcoming screening in Beverly Hills on Nov. 7th.

Ticket Contest

Mail an e-mail with your name and contact info to:

rsvpdiversity@sag.org

The vastly entertaining film is an intriguing foray into the realm of Muslim punks.

Screening Venue

Screen Actors Guild
James Cagney Screening Room
5757 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA

See 'ya there!

http://www.thetattler.biz

Screen Actors Guild...a**holes mistreat members! Actors urged to tear up Union cards...

Well, the other shoe dropped at SAG this week.

For me, it was the last straw.

Starting today, I'll be urging actors and performers under the Guild's jurisdiction to jump ship, and set the ceremonial barge adrift.

Over the years, as a full-fledged member, I've put up with a lot of nonsense from staffers and Union reps at the Screen Actors Guild.

The party is over as far as I am concerned.

Of course, the attitude was always thick over there on Wilshire Boulevard.

The suits thought their sh** didn't stink, alright.

And, the individuals hired (and elected) to do the bidding for Guild Members, were not only slow in delivering once they stood at the plate, but downright rude and insulting to the membership when they encountered any criticism back.

Just this past year - during the toughest contract negotiations with the Producers to date - the truth rang out loud and clear.

Screen Actors Guild reps were only interested in saving their own butts and at any cost.

Unfortunately, that selfish (misguided) approach split the Guild in two - and ultimately - resulted in a total loss of faith in the SAG, the negotiating teams, and the powers-that-be (the executive leadership & paid employees hired to run day-to-day affairs).

Thumbing your nose at a producer, or a powerful movie studio, is generally not a good idea in
uncertain times.

Nor does it bode well to mistreat and/or ignore the wishes of a Guild Membership.

For example, this past week it came to my attention that a member - who mailed in a dues payment for $50.00 - was ousted from the Guild because of an oversight over a paltry $8.00 shortfall.

The mind-boggling disgusting scenario went down something like this.

The member mailed in a check for $50.00 to ensure membership was not suspended for failure to pay the required fees due every six months.

Imagine that!

Approximately one month later, SAG returned the lone check (in spite of the fact it was good) uncashed with a note informing the startled actor that because there was a shortfall of eight dollars (he should have written a check in the sum of $58.00 to meet the current obligation), the Guild proceeded to cancel membership without further notice.

This is a example of the kind of dim-witted, mean-spirited - unjust - guild action that goes down at the Screen Actors daily with nary a concern about the livelihood of the member in question - or even their feelings - for that matter.

If there was a mere shortfall of eight lousy bucks, surely there were sufficient grounds to overlook the shortfall, apply the payment, and allow the member to remain in good stead.

If that was not the case, as a matter of form, shouldn't a staff member have contacted the individual about the problem, so the balance could be paid without the necessity of such severe (outrageous) action on the part of the Guild?

Isn't that what professionalism is all about?

In view of the fact the individual in question was a member in good standing for twenty years, it shocks the sensibilities to learn that SAG would act in such a barbaric disgusting fashion!

At a time when the economy is bad (and actors are out of work due to budget restraints, a slow down in production, and run-a-way filming out-of-state) surely the Guild should be trying to show a little compassion (and mercy) on its unemployed members who are struggling to eat and keep a roof over their heads.

In recent months, SAG lowered the boom on SAG actors who chose to go on "honorary withdrawal" from the Guild, as well.

In spite of the fact a member may have done so due to financial hardship, or pressing family commitments, SAG now requires that an actor face a sort-of "inquisition" (to ensure their leave of absence was innocent and devoid of any political motivation) before membership will be reinstated after a"court" finding that establishes merit to the petition.

Huh!

SAG is supposed to be a union representing its membership, not a Nazi concentration camp where actors must tow the line, or face a "holocaust".

For the aforementioned reasons, I have decided not to support SAG any longer in their contract negotiations, stand behind their efforts to unionize all productions here and/or across the country, or bother to take it upon myself to enlighten actors about the benefits of a "Union" house.

In fact, I plan to recommend productions go non-union - or better yet - urge actors to start organizing a new Union for performers that will ultimately (i) care about the well-being of the worker (ii) have compassion on a performer's plight when times get financially tough (iii) endeavour to represent the best interests of Union Members and not just the prurient interests of paid employees, managers, and the self-serving contracted Executive Branch.

Amen!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Screen Actors Guild...tenative contracts agreed to!

The National Board of Directors voted on April 19th (2009) to approve a tentative TV/Theatrical deal with the producers and recommend it for ratification to the members.

After a months-long battle over contract issues - played out in nasty detail in the press - the National Board of Directors voted 53.38 percent to 46.62 percent to approve and recommend to SAG members new two-year successor agreements.

The proposed agreement covering actors in the jurisdiction of motion pictures and television, delivers a 3.5% effective annual increase comprised of a 3% wage increase and a .5% pension and health contribution increase upon ratification ( and a 3.5% wage increase in year two).

After all the terms were discussed extensively in a closed-door meeting, it was moved and seconded that the National Board direct the interim National Executive Director to send the tentative agreement between the Producers (represented by the AMPTP) and the Screen Actors Guild to the membership for ratification with a recommendation from the Board to vote ‘Yes.’

On the heels of the vote count, SAG National President Alan Rosenberg urged members to carefully review both the pros and cons in the referendum materials and exercise their right to vote."

“We are pleased that Screen Actors Guild members will soon be voting on a deal for television and motion pictures. We’re eager to get our members back to work and to focus now on the challenges ahead, particularly on initiating a comprehensive effort to thoughtfully plan for the future," added interim National Executive Director David White.

White proceeded to note that the negotiating committee, task force and professional staff worked tirelessly on the agreement over the past twelve months with a positive end result.

On behalf of the National Board, he thank the dedicated teams for contributing their time, commitment and expertise to the cause.

According to Chief Negotiator John McGuire, the tentative agreement delivers increased contributions to the SAG pension plan, increased minimums, a significant gain in background actor numbers from 50 to 55 over the term of the contract, and tracks new media provisions achieved by other entertainment industry unions.

"The terms of the agreement puts SAG in sync with the other unions, but does not include the extended term recently proposed by the AMPTP," he noted for the record.

Provisions of the proposed deal include:

* A two-year term of agreement concluding June 30, 2011.
* Effective annual increases of 3.0% in wage increases.
* A .5% increase in pension contributions upon ratification.
* A 3.5% wage increase one year following ratification.
* Greater residuals for TV & Theatrical features than those paid for DVD.
* Residuals for ad-supported streams of feature films & TV programs.
* Residuals for derivative new media programs.
* Additional background actors in features.
* Increased compensation for guest stars from 7.5% to 10%.
* Increased trailer money break ( $2,500 to $3,000 per week).
* Increased overtime money for 3-day performers ($2,700 to $3,000).

Staff at SAG have reported that the ratification ballots will be mailed to eligible Guild members in early May with an expected return date (votes cast) at the end of the month.

Tabulation will occur immediately upon the conclusion of balloting.

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) is the nation’s largest labor union representing working actors in the country today.

Established in 1933, SAG has a rich history in the American labor movement, especially with regard to fighting for artists’ rights amid the current digital revolution which has swept the entertainment industry over the past couple of decades.

With 20 branches nationwide, SAG represents nearly 120,000 actors who work in motion pictures, television, industrial films, commercials, video games, music videos and all new media formats.

The Guild's main thrust is to enhance actors’ working conditions and pursue realistic compensation for services rendered.

Although opposing factions threatened to split the Actor's Union asunder in recent days over the contentious contract issues aforementioned, SAG continues to endeavour to be a unified voice on behalf of artists’ rights.

SAG is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO which is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

Info: www.sag.org

http://www.julianayrs.com

Screen Actors Guild...Rosenberg lawsuit rejected by Court. Power-plays continue...

Superior Court Judge tells Rosenberg no deal!

A monkey wrench SAG President Alan Rosenberg threw into pending SAG contract talks with producers was tossed back into his lap today by a Superior Court Judge.

Alan Rosenberg (SAG Guild President) and Anne-Marie Johnson (Guild 1st Vice President) filed a lawsuit against SAG this past week, seeking to reinstate Doug Allen (who was relieved of his duties as the Union's Chief negotiator) and to reconstitute the Guild's former negotiating committee.

The SAG board fired Allen last month on the grounds that he was mishandling negotiations with the studios.

Former SAG General Counsel David White was installed in Allen's place and is currently acting as interim Executive Director alongside John McGuire who was named the Union's new chief negotiator.

On the heels of the controversial White/McGuire power-play, the SAG board also disbanded the Union's negotiating committee (dominated by Allen's supporters) and appointed a new task force in their place.

According to Alan Rosenberg and his supporters, the move was not only "unwarranted" but "undemocratic" in nature.

To many Guild Members, ousting Doug Allen and the negotiating team amounted to "written assent" - which they allege - violated the California's Corporate Code.

Hence, the lawsuit to nullify the ousting of Allen and the negotiating team.

Talks with producers were scheduled to continue this week, but were suddenly halted due to the unexpected legal proceeding.

Attorneys for SAG appeared in Los Angeles Superior Court this morning to respond to the Plaintiffs' lawsuit.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court found that the lawsuit was procedurally defective and refused to issue an injunction requested by the Plaintiffs.

In response, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated their intention to amend their documents and resubmit the paperwork for further review by a Superior Court Judge on Thursday, February 5th (2009).

The Guild and its attorneys have vowed to attend the court hearing and present a vigorous defense.

David White, acting interim Executive Director of the Guild, fired off an e-mail to me this evening in which he underscored the importance of continuing talks with producers as quickly as possible so that a fair contract may be negotiated for SAG members.

Once the legal issues are resolved, that is wholly possible.

In the meantime, the Guild will continue to work in the service of its members, with focus, dedication and commitment," White concluded confidently.

http://www.julianayrs.com

Web TV...Welcome to Lost Angeles. Signed SAG agreements with actors...

One of the big bones of contention in the stalled contract talks with the Screen Actors Guild and Hollywood producers pertains to profit-sharing over web content and the rich media proliferating in its wake.

In spite of reports flying out of newsrooms around the country that producers are adamant about not yielding on this contract issue, a couple of creators of a Web TV show ignored the call-to-arms and proceeded to sign their actors under a SAG "experimental" contract.

Part of the reason they firmed up the talent this way was due to the uncertainty of the potential to realize a profit online.

"We signed agreements with our actors that stipulate a share in the profits when the series goes into the black."

I laughingly noted to one of the writers when we crossed paths at the upbeat Chalk Rep Theatre launch the other night - that in the old days - "deferred pay" meant "no pay".


Although he and his partner chuckled at the joke, both were dead serious about following through on their commitment to the actors.

The made-for-the-web TV Show has a few episodes in the can in spite of tough financial times the industry has been facing in recent days.

The project - "Welcome to Lost Angeles" - focuses on a young man who moves out to California to pursue his dreams which run afoul when interrupted by unemployment, a troubled relationship, and few unexpected mishaps around the lower mainland along the way.

Of course, the fictionalized storyline appears to be a take-off on the old idea that the West Coast metropolis - once known as the City of Angels - has been relegated to the status of "City of Lost Angels".

Yeah, it's tough-going getting a break in the sprawling third-world city - which I have cynically christened - the "big bad orange".

While the concept of the weekly series seems a bit cliche, I'm holding judgment; especially since the creators are still "tooling" around with ideas for the next season.

Check it out.

Info: http://www.lostangeles.tv/

Shopping & Gift Ideas

www.julianayrs.com

Screen Actors Guild...sh** or get off the pot!

Rebel rouser Affleck turns off SAG Membership with elitist views

Although I am a member of the Screen Actors Guild, I haven't been reporting much on the contract negotiations much ballyhooed in the press in recent days.

For the most part, it's because I have been ticked off with the way the negotiators have been handling the talks.

Notwithstanding, disruptive factions within SAG have upset the status quo to serve their own selfish ends.

And, that is unsettling too.

For instance, when the issue of a potential strike arose, an upstart group referring to themselves as the "Rebels" - consisting of a few high-profile actors such as Ben Affleck and Kevin Bacon - cried out for a mind-boggling approach to the issue.

Because a large percentage of actors in the guild don't work full-time - and (in their opinion) had nothing to lose if a strike was called - bozos like Affleck and Bacon were urging a stipulation that only full-time actors be granted the privilege to vote on the contract negotiations.

In a follow-up post, I criticized the "Rebels" for taking an elitist approach.

After all, one of the original missions of the Guild, was to ensure that all actors were equal in the eyes of the "shop" - whether they be an extra, a day-player - or full-fledged star.

In closing, I noted in that scathing review of their misguided efforts, that their so-called solution to the problem was a dangerous one because it played into the hands of the producers.

In closing, I posed a question.

Have you never heard of the old axiom, "Divide and Conquer"?

Shortly after that post, the rebels faded into oblivion, for some inexplicable reason. (!)

Even still, as the contentious talks continued between the negotiators and the producers, factions within the guild threatened to split SAG asunder.

So, at the next Board election, members scrambled to promote their candidates to ensure their "voices" would be heard at the bargaining table.

Unfortunately, the votes were almost split, and SAG ended up with two warring factions deep within the heartbeat of the guild.

Since then, negotiations have been sluggish.

Each week - on average - I have received about three e-mails updating me (!) on the clever maneuverings "going down" on both sides in the contract dispute.

But, no cigar!

Although some contend that our sister Union (AFTRA, of which I am dues-paying member also) was smart to negotiate and strike a deal early, I disagree.

As usual, the negotiating team sold the membership down the river!

Unfortunately, SAG has gone too far the other way.

What irks me most is the "paper tiger" approach.

Guild negotiators threaten to strike, but don't.

It's gotten to the point now - that when the sceptre rears its ugly head as a potential bargaining tool - the producers just shrug - yawn - and respond accordingly.

Ho-hum!

At a crucial stage of the "game", SAG has finally initiated proceedings for a referendum to vote on a strike.

Once again, though, the powers-that-be at SAG have screwed up.


Now that SAG has tipped their hand - and warned the producers about a potential strike in January - the studios and independents have been given ample opportunity to get all their "ducks" in a row before that eventuality.

Stupid!

Personally, I think that one day - out-of-the blue and without so much as a peep - all actors on all sets and sound stages around the country should swiftly and stridently march off the job.

Then, we'll have 'em by the short and curlies.

After all, a sudden stop in production - and a vital loss of revenue - is the only action capable of landing a knock-out punch.

Maybe then, the producers will be ready to strike a deal!

Screen Actors Guild...polls members on negotiations using security measures!

Best-dressed at SAG Awards confident that negotiations will be fruitful...


The ongoing battle over contract negotiations for union actors is still at a fever pitch and continues.

In fact, the spirited talks have been so rancorous in Hollywood, that the top brass at the Screen Actors Guild are sending out a poll to fathom up how the membership feels about current negotiation efforts by union reps.

The polling cards are for paid-up members of the Guild, only.

Documentation inside the mailers alert members to the fact - "that the polling card is not a ballot or a ratification notice or referendum voting card" - to ensure there are no misunderstandings about its purpose.

Mindful that a rebellious few may attempt to fraudulently influence the polls - to gain the upper hand - the Guild devised a surefire method of thwarting any interference by any nefarious contingent out to upset the apple cart.

For instance, the response card bears a "unique bar code" to prevent fraudulent reproduction of the response cards.

And, to ensure there is no misunderstanding about who may participate, the sampler clearly states on its face:

"This postcard includes a unique bar code to ensure that only active members in good standing participate in this poll."

The bar code was devised to be unique to individual members for two reasons.

For starters, to ensure only one card would be returned and counted per individual member - and ultimately - to prevent anyone from skewering the results of the poll by reproducing the cards in large numbers and returning them filled in by persons unknown or unqualified to vote.

The unique bar code was also devised to elicit a demographic analysis that would be representative of the community.

For example, Guild organizers believe that if a response is statistically similar to the distribution of membership at any particular branch and/or division, it may be more reliable as an expression of overall membership sentiment.

The Guild asserts it will also be able to analyze the results to determine important earnings data.

This information may be helpful - in view of the fact that one faction of highly-paid union members - recently sought to eliminate actors in lower-earnings brackets from voting on contract issues because they had allegedly "less at stake".

Response cards returned to the Guild in a timely manner will be submitted to Integrity Voting Systems, and subsequently, scanned to determine their authenticity.

Once verified, Integrity Voting Systems will tabulate the results of the poll.

The information will be shared with the Negotiating Committee at the Screen Actors Guild.

A demographic analysis will be done in the aggregate, as well.

However, none of the reports generated will contain any information disclosing the identity of the individual member, nor will any of the options an individual member chose on the response card be disclosed to third parties.

The polling document is intended to be a sampling of membership views on the AMPTP proposals being set forth in the TV/Theatrical contract negotiations.

The Negotiating Committee will access the data with the specific aim of proceeding with contract negotiations with a better awareness of the wishes of Screen Actors Guild members at heart.

Disgruntled actors walk picket line at Studios...

Child Actors...publicity stills, agents, et al. You outta be in pictures, kid!

I listened in amusement as a woman next to me gushed about how cute a man's kids were.

"They should be doin' commercials," she insisted.

In response, the fellow grinned and noted that he stopped into an Agent's office one day to discuss representation, but decided to forgo on the idea when the woman in charge of the children's division informed him they would need photographs - which could conceivably cost about $200.00 - or more.

The woman reacted angrily,

"That's not true. It's just a rip-off. All you need is a snapshot or two."

Wrong!

I was a theatrical agent representing child actors several years ago.

True, if you're interested in having your kids schlep around as slave labor doing extra work here and there, one or two of the local casting offices will only ask for a Polaroid (oftentimes for a small processing fee, which I disagree with) to insert into their casting files where clients peruse for nameless "bodies".

But, landing bona fide acting assignments for the young ones is much more specific than that, and the process requires the investment of at least one standard 8 X 10 glossy photograph.

This is the industry norm - for children and adults - alike.

In fact, a quality still of the "talent" amounts to a calling card. And, based on its strengths or weaknesses, the aspiring thespian may or may not get in the door.

When I was submitting performers for consideration, I was constantly amazed by the fact that one particular photo of a client would always land them an audition, while other struggling hopefuls continued to be "passed" over. So, choosing the right photographer is also a key factor in the equation.

For those of you who are not familiar with the process, it goes something like this.

Each day, ad agencies and casting directors send out casting notices with a "breakdown service", announcing parts that are auditioning by appointment only.

Agents - usually franchised by the Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA - then sift through the casting notices and select clients they deem appropriate for the assignment - based on their actual "training", "experience", and "look".

Feature roles may require more extensive credits - but - the criteria varies from director to director. It's a general consensus that stage work is a big plus, especially when Film and/or TV credits are few and far between.

Commercial casting offices are often seeking an "image" to represent a particular product, so experience may not always be a prerequisite in that arena.

A list of the names of the talent, and their overall personal stats (Height, Weight, skills, etc.) - and the accompanying photographs - are packaged up in the morning, and then sent out in the afternoon mail by special courier.

Calls for auditions may trickle in later that day or bright and early the next morning.

So, without a photograph - and especially a quality one to catch the eye of the casting director - the talent may be left out in the cold.

True, some disreputable agents may be associated with an acting school, or a photographer. In that event, stay away from them like the plague, and seek representation elsewhere.

If you hotfoot it over to SAG or AFTRA (both are situated in the same building on Wilshire Boulevard between Fairfax and La Brea) you can obtain an Agent's list. Generally, those listed on the union sheets are professional, legitimate, and above-board - unlike other scam outfits hapless parents and their kids may encounter around Tinsel town in the pursuit of fame and fortune.

In the event your child is able to secure an agent, then be sure you can be reached on short notice; after all, that is also the nature of the beast...things may be slow one minute, then move at lightning speed the next.

And, a word of advice...

Make sure your tot is actively engaged in honing their acting skills and other talents by way of vocal lessons, and acting workshops and/or classes with reputable teachers and coaches on a regular basis.

That way - when the big break comes - they'll be ready for the opportunity and won't blow it!

Break a leg!





No business like show business!