Uhhhh... actors.

And then there's actors.

First of all I feel for actors as they get judged by how they look, how they talk and generally if they can bring audiences to laughter or tears. Writers just have to give someone a screenplay and then they get paid. Much easier on the ego.

I'm gonna get a comment from Chris on this but I'm coming from my own experiences with actors.

You may have heard about the Modern Family cast above went into the new season and then promptly pulled a strike of sorts. They obviously planned this and made sure everyone was in solidarity. The show was successful,  the network was making plenty of money and besides, the Friends cast was getting $1 million per episode each!

The Modern Family cast was making around $60,000 according to LA Times, nobody knows for sure but they wanted a bigger piece of the pie as they feel that they are responsible for the success of the show.

You're reading this from a writer who's worked in episodic. What do I think?

First of all, they're nowhere near the Friends phenom, nor even close to Seinfield and there really isn't a breakout star from the show except for Ed O'Neil. He made his rep in the sitcom Married With Children and is probably paid more than the others as he has the street credits. He's paid his dues.

The other cast members are good but are basically character actors, none of them have the presence of Ed O'Niell or Bryan Cranston from Breaking Bad, or James Gandolfini from Sopranos.

Whatever the asking price was it seems it'll be around $170,000 to $180,000 each episode with some increases if they stay for 9 years. I guarantee it won't be around for 9 years. Why? Because it's a novelty show, a 1-note premise that will eventually tire.

Maybe this sounds like I don't like actors. I like some and not others. A veteran director friend of mine said once that if you want a good actor, they're gonna be "good". Not exciting particularly, nor outstanding, but they'll say the lines and stand where you want them to.

But if you want a great actor, well, these people are a little crazy and that's why they're great. Classic example is Brando, there's Robert Duval, Al Pacino, Gene Hackman and a handful of actors. These guys give classic performances like some actors dream of.

A lot of actors are really insecure and I think it comes from a business where you're judged on your looks more than anything else. While actors who know their craft are usually easy to work with, those who aren't all that good can be hell. And if they somehow become stars it's super hell.

There's an old actor joke where the director tells one actor that the scene is all about him and then the director tells the other actor the same thing.  The joke infers that they will go at each other, in words and action, to overpower the other. I've seen it with actors and with comedians and it isn't pretty.

But one thing is missing in the demands.

What about the writers?

This may come as a surprise to some of you but actors don't make up their lines. After 40 years in the business, I still get asked this when I tell them I'm a writer. Their answer is always "I thought they make up the lines".

There's a great quote from Norman Jewison, who directed Cher in Moonstruck where she won an Oscar. She thanked her hairdresser.

Jewison was known to have said: "Well at least she didn't do it all by herself".

So how much does the actor bring to the table. To their credit they must figure out what or who they are on screen and it's not easy. I've been to some actor schools and watched and would never be able to reveal myself the way actors have to. I do appreciate the abilities and craft and when it works, it works great.

So does this ensemble cast deserve more money? Ask someone in Kansas that question and you'll know what to expect. But here in Hollywood; they do deserve it because their helping to make the show a success and you can bet the writers are making far more than they are. And once the run is over, they're out on the street again more often than not carrying the brief bit of fame that they had.

Bottom line is "who's more important - the actor who's hired to play his/her part or the writer who created the show and it's characters?"

And by the way when I say actors, I mean that in the British term, male and female, the term actress comes from a French word, actrice. But come Emmy or Oscar time, they even  occasionally mention the writer who gave them the words.

Because without us, they wouldn't know what to say.

(Thurs: Actors Pt 2 - good actor/bad actor)

Movies and the future of us

There was an interesting story in the LA Times last week. One of the big agencies, CAA has sold a 35% stake to an investment firm to help find funding for movies. Some of the old guys like Cohen and Fox and Zanuck are probably turning in their graves as the movie industry becomes even more corporate.

And we all know what corporations do; keep the bottom line and make sure the stockholders are happy.


In the "old days" a producer went to see the head of the studio, who was probably the one who created the company, to ask for money to make a movie.  Many times it was as simple as three questions; what's the story, who's in it and how much will it cost.

That was it.

The producer would say they have Bogart and Hepburn, it's a story about a boat in Africa and it's gonna cost $1 million. One man decided on it, not a committee, no surveys, just one man.

Now not only is the decision made by committees and boards, but also by people who don't have any experience or passion about the movies. The old guys were cost conscious and were tough, but they also knew movies.

Of course it was a different time, once TV came onto the scene, it began to change and with it the way movies are made. There was a brief spark in the early 1970's when scores of movies were made by new, young filmmakers on real issues.

That all changed with Jaws which made so much money, it spawned what is now called the blockbuster era. Movies now had to make tons of money in the first week-end. Yet, to some extent, movies were okayed by people who knew the film business.

Today, they're made by trends and what worked in the past. The movies now are either sequels, comic books, horror or romantic comedies. There still are lots of low budget indie movies but the costs of advertising can be more than the movie cost to make.

So why are the agencies going outside their own for money?

Because they're not making as much from their clients. That precious 10% (dictated by state law nontheless) is getting less and less. The percentage stays the same, but the rates don't. Remember Paramount dropping Tom Cruise a few years ago? He was asking for too much money.

Big stars like Cruise had a deal where they get money from first revenues, they could get millions of dollars even before the studio.

But now big stars don't guarantee big box office. Remember Tom's WWII movie? Or that one with Cameron Diaz?

What's happening is beginning to shape the film business in a whole new way, and a lot of it isn't good news. Fewer movies are being made by the big guys, and let's face it, most of the population on this planet sees movies from the big studios.

And this means less work for writers, actors and directors. And further behind but already hurting, are the crews. Yet film schools churn out more fodder. I've already told you that around 85% of WGA writers are out of work now.

My Christmas script was originally set at $2.5 million, which would have been a nice payday for me. But I discovered it was being made for less than $1 million. That meant less for me. However I am curious how they could make a Christmas movie, with snow, in late August in Hamilton, Ontario, for that little money.

First of all, the crew had to be working for less money and the shooting schedule, usually around an already impossible 18 days, was probably cut down to 15 days, maybe even less. They had one star, Lauren Holly, who was married to Jim Carrey, and in Picket Fences and a few other shows, probably made a modest amount. And I mean modest.

Since I have worked as a producer and know budgets well, I have been seeing less and less money being shelled out for movies and series. I believe that the end of the big money on shows like Seinfeld or Friends is over. I doubt studios and networks will give away those levels of money to talent anymore.

But the question is; how low can we go?

Well, Hallmark, who has US rights to the Christmas story has paid probably anywhere from $350,000 to $400,000 for the movie. That is less than a  half  hour sitcom on Comedy Channel.

Take it or leave it.

The producer has to find the additional funding for their movie from other sources, in this case, a Canadian broadcaster and hopefully foreign sales. The only good thing here is that a Christmas movie is guaranteed to show every year at Christmas, so the potential for royalties is possible.

SAG already has several options for low budgets; including one where everyone works for free. They have realized that it's better to  have an actor working on a no-budget movie for free than not at all. Their deals aren't always easy to do; but at least they try.

WGA and DGA have similar deals, not quite as generous but helpful. A writer can defer his salary but once the movie is sold, they have to be paid the full amount.  It's a big more complicated but that's the basic formula.

Then you throw in one more item; the fact that a hell of a lot of people are downloading movies for free. My horror film is being downloaded in England and Germany and I don't see a Euro. And on top of that, it's a bad print.

We have a generation who feels entitled to seeing movies for free and they do. One filmmaker played his movie on the internet and charged a modest fee to watch it. He made some money but it wasn't long before people were seeing it for free.

How do you handle that? It's not theft, it's a cultural.

And the future, well, I don't know where those film students will go; usually the attrition rate is around 75%, those leaving the film business after a year or two of no work. I don't see the business going back to the old days, Blockbuster Video is in bankruptcy, dvds are on the way out to be replaced by streaming video.

It is estimated that there are around 12 million unemployed people in America, the government likes to say 9 million but they usually don't count the ones who gave up looking for work. 


It seems that there will be very expensive blockbuster movies and smaller budgets on TV shows and series. And since Charlie Sheen gets around $2 million per episode, maybe he can take a cut in  his salary.


Either way, I am glad I was in the last good era of TV movies, having done them since 1989 when budgets were decent and work was everywhere and when agents actually took on new writers with no credits and worked with them.


(Thurs: Preparing a reading with real actors)

Winners & Losers & why

All the gold in California

Is in a bank in Beverly Hills 

In somebody else's name

So if you're dreaming about California

It don't matter at all where you played before

California's a brand new game

                    -Gatlin Brothers

It seems that most movies about Hollywood tend to show the down side of the movie business. You've got A Star Is Born (1937, 1954 & 1976) about a famous actor who mentors a rising star only to see her eclipse his fame, or Sunset Boulevard (1950 ) about a screenwriter who becomes a "companion" to a faded silent movie star and pays the ultimate price. There even was a movie called "The Oscar" and a dozen more, including the Robert Altman film, The Player, about a producer who kills a screenwriter.

Ironically, the best book and movie on the business to my liking was Nathaniel West's classic Day of the Locust (1979), a brilliant study of those who come seeking fame who end up with nothing. While the book was written in 1939 the only difference between then and 2010 is that the cars are better and we have iPhones.

My "crowd" is mixed, a few wildly successful people, some successful, some less so and some at the bottom of the ladder. Then there's those who border on complete delusion as a means to validate that they too are successful. Needless to say those categories above don't always end up at the same table. It's almost as though success fears failure in others as it might be catching like a virus.

Something else that hasn't changed is the amount of people who still come to Hollywood to become stars. While in the 20's to the 70's, it was mostly actors and singers, now it includes screenwriters and directors. And they all are still consumed by the knowledge that they have what it takes.

Take the blonde girl, mid 20's who looked across the room at the party, it was still early and guests were just arriving. Then she spotted two older men standing near the bar talking. It took her a second to decide to move and she approached them, smiling.

"Hi, I'm Serena".

The two men were myself and my director friend Paul. It didn't take much to figure out why she selected us. The other guests were either around her age so early in the evening or were couples talking to each other. Serena was an actress, and that was not really her name.

The party was a party  given by a studio owner whom I had known since my Calgary days. His Hollywood Hills home, "just a short drive from Jack Nicholson's place", overlooked the entire valley and as I stood at a glass bar the size of my kitchen, a bartender poured drinks as we watched the fires in the San Bernadino mountains 20 miles away. For a moment, I felt guilty, knowing that not far away firefighters were desperately trying to save hillsides.

"Beautiful house, isn't it," she said.

Whatever Serena didn't have, she did have confidence, the kind that always amazes me as I never really had that when I began. I probably still don't have it that much. I see that confidence so often with the young actors and writers and directors but also know that confidence in itself isn't all that important.

Actors are the biggest casualties in this city of dreams. There are more of them for one, approximately 200,000 according to SAG, and they're not counting the actors who still haven't gained admission to the powerful union.  The WGA has about 8000 writers and at any given time, less than 2000 are working.  DGA has around 2500 - 3000 directors, most of whom are not working.

So you can see the odds against even getting a job let alone hanging onto it.

Think of it this way, every day I look for a new job. Same for the actors and directors and crew. Those on a series have a little job security... at least until the show is cancelled. And some shows get canceled after the 2nd episode is aired. Job security is a word we've never considered. 

And when we find a potential job, 90% of the time we get rejected. 

Why do some people win and the majority lose? Hard question to answer. There is the talent factor, no doubt a leading contender for the big time. But as the studio exec told me, craft and discipline are more important. And then there's the main two reasons why someone doesn't work.

Either they're not very good or they're hard to work with.

Who loses? Everybody else. 

But it's how you lose that counts. 

A lot of them give it a good shot and if, after a few years it doesn't work out, they drop out and find a regular job and forget about it. While a steady working actor can earn up to $50,000 a year, the majority make around $8000. A year.

Higher up in the foodchain, you have the character actors who, with a hit series and maybe a movie or two a year enjoy a somewhat full career and they can even buy a home. And of course, we can't forget the stars who make as much as $20 million a picture. Like Sandra Bullock.

Sandra recently dropped her fee to $10 million to show how much she loved the script to The Blind Side. Now that's showing real bravado.  And it will end up getting her an Oscar nomination and I predict, a win. Meryl Street is nominated twice and that will cancel her out. Besides she has enough Oscars.

But there are those others; the desperate ones who don't know when to give up. And they tend to be those who really aren't that good at what they do. Not that you have to be good; look at the cast of Friends, not particularly talented, except maybe for Courtney Cox, and look at them -- a hit series and they're millionaires.

But they won the lottery in the same sense that you or I would if we bought a ticket. Really. For some reason they had "chemistry" as they say, something worked, their chemistry, the world was just ready for that show, and it was well crafted by the writers and directors.

But that's lightning in a bottle, as executives like to say. It rarely happens twice.

But back to Serena. After 10 minutes of the usual party talk she looked at us in the eye and said, "so what do you do?" We told her. She moved closer. She also focused more on Paul than me; writers don't hire actors, directors do. I saw my host and excused myself as Paul listened to her story about the last movie she was in.

After all, writers don't hire actors. Writers don't hire anybody and nobody even sees them sometimes, our work is done before the crew and actors are hired. And I've learned not to bring business cards anywhere because I have the bad habit of handing them out. 

And those people do call you.

After 20 years I have met many Serenas at parties or functions or even in coffee houses and once crossing a street. As I crossed a young woman was crossing beside me and when a car screeched she commented on the crazy drivers. I agreed, told her to watch all around. It took her almost at the curb when she said; "so, are you in the business"?

The thing of it is that yes, it is flattering to have a good-looking woman talk to me and sometimes it's quite sincere and I have been known to help writers who are starting out. But after many years I have learned to stick to writers whom I may be able to help or at least read their work.

But my best story about meeting on a street was when I took a bad fall on my mountain bike at an intersection and several people came to help. My wrist was totally broken, in an "S" shape. Two people helped me, the girl taking her leather jacket off so I could lay my head on it. The other person was an older man, maybe 70's and he asked my name and what I did as a job to see if I was fully conscious. I told him I was a writer. He smiled and said so was he. And the girl said she was a special effects person for the movies.

I take a spill on my bike on Ventura Boulevard and the two people who come to help me are in the film industry. Small world.

And the old guy? He was Marty Krofft, who created a ton of kid series for CBS in the 1960s and 70's. Anyone over 40 would know his name.

He gave me his card and said, "call me when you're better".

I did call him months later. He never returned the call.

(Coming Friday : Part 2 of winners and losers)