Don Starnes's Lounge Discussions

https://www.theheartofshowbusiness.com/holllywood-hustle-what-you-did-no...

Thank you for the info, I wasn't aware of that...

The producers that I know who are in favor of a producer's union are line producers, who are middle managers. They work for more executive producers and often have lousy working conditions. They have as little control over the working conditions as the rest of the crew does. Still, Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg is correct: the law is settled on this matter. Their only recourse seems to be to move up to be more executive producers and then run their businesses in a much more sane, efficient and sustainable way. I'm a DP, but I produce occasionally and know it can be done.

@Don Starnes - as a producer, line producer and executive producer myself (with 30+ years in the industry), I have literally NO SYMPATHY for the working conditions (allegedly poor - I have never experienced or seen that, ever, ever, ever) of those who want to have the job of a producer. If they want to be a boss, they have to pay the cost, and generally speaking they are more than adequately compensated for the work they do. The PGA nonsensically published a short article "supporting" the SAG strike early on - yet we should all understand that it's their members who are actively working with the MPA/AMPTP on what to ask for and how to negotiate with the unions (you CANNOT get into the PGA without having been in a production by a MPA/AMPTP member) Because... optics. And perhaps a perverse sense of humor. I am just pointing out the business facts in this environment. Producers are in charge of working conditions. Producers are in charge, at first instance, of profitability on a production. So in no world can they be a labor union, and in no world will they be nicer people when they become Executive Producers - because then they have even more pressure in having to answer to investors and financiers, who DGAF about the conditions. It's not really any different in any other industry.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg thank you for your reply, Shadow, that is really helpful. As fast as the AMPTP goes, how would that change to lose the last P from the AMPTP, look like?

I love NI DICK HEADS. They are very rare found only in small parts of southern california

In an ideal world, all preparation for shooting happens off set. Everyone shows up as prepared as possible. The production designer isn't asking questions on set that could have been dealt with before. Nor is the cinematographer or the sound engineer. They know what's expected of them, they know the specifics of the shoot and what to expect when they get there. The same should be true with actors. Their work is at home, in rehearsals and prior to the shoot. It's up to the director to organize readings and rehearsals, give notes and be available for questions from the actor. Discussions about character should happen prior to arriving on set, when the entire production is not held up while those discussions take place. That being said, some productions skip these important preparations due to time or budget constraints, inexperienced directors or other issues. Subsequently, they'll have more to deal with on set. Additionally, things change and evolve once shooting begins -- which is what makes working on set so exciting! -- and unforeseen problems and opportunities arise. An actor who has done everything they can prior to arriving on set to learn the story, get into character and engage in their performance, may still need to interact with their director on set. But whatever questions and input they have at that point will be new ideas or potential problems identified during the shoot that should just take the performance up a notch. @Ed, I think actors can absolutely be brilliant AND easy to work with. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. The myth that actors have to be difficult, challenging people to give a great performance is just that, a myth. If actors are sacrificing performance for niceness or making "too safe" choices, that certainly is a problem but then, hopefully preparation with the director will have identified that. If a director doesn't know how to get great performances, they can hire better actors by working with a top-notch casting director, get training to learn how to give direction, take acting classes themselves, hire an acting coach, choose better scripts or work with actors more prior to arriving on set.

@ Angelique. Never said it was mutually exclusive. Many talented actors are absolute delights, however many are very nice and can remember lines and work repetitively with very little talent. I would suggest you read this missive from Arthur Penn. What he says is ABSOLUTELY happening to the craft and business of acting. SEE BELOW: "I do not want to know another thing about what a nice guy or gal someone on the stage is: This is entirely irrelevant to me. Some sort of desperation has crept into our theatre--all of our arts, really, but we're discussing theatre--where we feel a defensive wall is erected around the meretriciousness of our work by highlighting how hard someone has worked; how many hours they've put in at the soup kitchen; how many hours they spent researching the aphasic mind in order to replicate the actions of one; how many ribbons sweep across their breast in support of causes; how much they love their lives and how lucky they feel to be on Broadway! There is very little art, but there is a great deal of boosterism. Fill the seats; buy a T-shirt; post something on the Internet; send out an e-mail blast. I'm in my eighties, and I think I should have left this earth never knowing what an e-mail blast was. I saw a play recently that was festooned with understudies: Not the actual understudies, but the hired, primary actors, all of whom performed (if that is the word) precisely like a competent, frightened understudy who got a call at dinner and who raced down to take over a role. No depth; no sense of preparation. These were actors who had learned their lines and who had showed up. And that is all. I spoke to the director afterwards. By all accounts a nice and talented and smart guy. I asked him why a particular part in this play--a Group Theatre classic--had been given to this certain actor. He's a great guy, was the response. Prince of a fellow. Well, perhaps, but send him home to be a prince to his wife and children; he is a shattering mediocrity. But nice and easy counts far too much these days. Another director told me--proudly--that he had just completed his third play in which there wasn't one difficult player; not one distraction; not one argument. Can I add that these were among the most boring plays of our time? They were like finely buffed episodes of Philco Playhouse: tidy, neat, pre-digested, and forgotten almost immediately, save for the rage I felt at another missed opportunity. All great work comes to us through various forms of friction. I like this friction; I thrive on it. I keep hearing that Kim Stanley was difficult. Yes, she was: in the best sense of the word. She questioned everything; nailed everything down; got answers; motivated everyone to work at her demonically high standard. Everyone improved, as did the project on which she was working, whether it was a scene in class, a TV project, a film, or a play. Is that difficult? Bring more of them on. Is Dustin Hoffman difficult? You bet. He wants it right; he wants everything right, and that means you and that means me. I find it exhilarating, but in our current culture, they would prefer someone who arrived on time, shared pictures of the family, hugged everyone and reminded them of how blessed he is to be in a play, and who does whatever the director asks of him. Is Warren Beatty difficult? Only if you're mediocre or lazy. If you work hard and well, he's got your back, your front, and your future well in hand. He gets things right--for everybody. No friction. No interest. No play. No film. It's very depressing. I don't want to know about your process. I want to see the results of it. I'll gladly help an actor replicate and preserve and share whatever results from all the work that has been done on a part, but I don't want to hear about it. I've worked with actors who read a play a couple of times and fully understood their characters and gave hundreds of brilliant performances. I don't know how they reached that high level of acting, and I don't care. My job is to provide a safe environment, to hold you to the high standards that have been set by the playwright, the other actors, and by me. I hold it all together, but I don't need to know that your second-act scene is so true because you drew upon the death of your beloved aunt or the time your father burned your favorite doll. Now the process is public, and actors want acclimation for the work they've put into the work that doesn't work. Is this insane? Read the newspapers, and there is an actor talking about his intentions with a part. I've pulled strands of O'Neill into this character, and I'm looking at certain paintings and photographs to gain a certain texture. And then you go to the theatre and see the performance of a frightened understudy. But a great gal or guy. Sweet. Loves the theatre. Every year or so, I tell myself I'm going to stop going to see plays. It's just too depressing. But I remember how much I love what theatre can be and what theatre was, and I go back, an old addict, an old whore who wants to get the spark going again. I don't think we can get the spark going again because the people working in the theatre today never saw the spark, so they can't get it going or keep it going if it walked right up to them and asked for a seat. It's a job, a career step, a rehabilitation for a failed TV star or aging film star. I got a call from one of these actresses, seeking coaching. I need my cred back, she said. This is not what the theatre is supposed to be, but it is what the theatre now is. I don't want to just shit on the theatre: It's bad everywhere, because it's all business, real-estate space with actors. It's no longer something vital. I used to think that the theatre was like a good newspaper: It provided a service; people wanted and needed it; revenue was provided by advertisers who bought space if the paper delivered, but profit was not the motive--the motive was the dissemination of truth and news and humor. Who goes to the theatre at all now? I think those in the theatre go because it's an occupational requirement: They want to keep an eye on what the other guys are going, and they want to rubberneck backstage with those who might use them in the future. But who are the audiences? They want relief not enlightenment. They want ease. This is fatal. I talk to Sidney Lumet. I talk to Mike Nichols. I ask them if I'm the crazy old man who hates everything. You might be, they say, but you're not wrong. They have the same feelings, but they work them out or work around them in different ways. The primary challenges of the theatre should not always be getting people to give a shit about it. The primary challenge should be to produce plays that reach out to people and change their lives. Theatre is not an event, like a hayride or a junior prom--it's an artistic, emotional experience in which people who have privately worked out their stories share them with a group of people who are, without their knowledge, their friends, their peers, their equals, their partners on a remarkable ride." ~~ director ARTHUR PENN

Completely agree, Ed! And as someone who has worked in a lot of different fields, I'd have to say this is true in every industry. I've always been passionate, outspoken and given 100% of myself to an endeavor and can tell you is almost never appreciated. Not by bosses or co-workers or even clients. Makes their job harder, right? As Penn says, it's a business. It's not about making a great product, it's about churning it out and selling it. But then the mediocrity doesn't apply just to actors, either. It affects the writing the most. When Hollywood hires younger, less experienced people to make movies to save money, they must also hire nice, non-threatening actors to work with. I mean, a really smart actor challenges a director in a way they may not want to be. I remember hearing a great story about Clint Eastwood working with a young director who said he'd do the shot more than once (or twice) but the director better not use the first take. Meaning, don't waste my time because you don't know what you're doing. A less feisty, experienced, famous, talented actor would never say that. It really comes down to the definition of "difficult," doesn't it? What to one person is a pain in the ass is to another person the very essence of creating art. Which only reinforces that the director is in charge and it is up to the director to set the expectations of the actor and establish the relationship.

Thank you Ed.