Saturday I got home and caught up on my personal life. So, yesterday, I had some time to kill and thought I would see “The Help.” After all, it has been doing incredible business and being a producer, I figured I had better see it. I had no interest in the material and thought I was going to end up seeing a typical liberal-slant Hollywood film about the mistreatment of blacks in this country.

—–

Boy was I surprised when I left the theater. ”The Help,” at this point, is the Best Picture of the Year and should be nominated by the Academy and every other major organization. In fact, there is nothing even close to the quality of this film released thus far this year.

Taking a book about pre-civil rights south and converting it into a movie that would appeal to the masses is difficult at best. However, when you factor the chick flick factor into this one, it becomes almost impossible. Well, writer/director Tate Taylor has succeeded on a grand scale. He has taken a best-selling novel about southern mores during the early 1960s during the beginning of the civil rights movement and turned it into a four quadrant movie. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this film tops 200 million in domestic box office before its run is finished.

And, to make Taylor’s accomplishment even more unbelievable, Taylor is not known as a writer/director. In fact, this is his second feature; the first being a relatively unknown film. The remainder of his career to date has been as a bit-part actor. Let’s just say he will have no problem getting his next feature financed with an “A” list cast.

Emma Stone has secured her place as a full-fledged movie star with this one. In it, she plays “Skeeter” Phelan, the Junior League member with a heart. Skeeter, like all southern aristocracy in the 1950s was not raised by her parents; she was raised by her black maid. Her maid, Constantine, portrayed by 1970s star Cicely Tyson (Sounder) in a memorable cameo, instills all of the morals and self-esteem into Skeeter that her biological mother does not. In fact, her biological mother is only concerned that her ugly daughter find a spouse, which is what we are told all, Ole Miss, graduates from that era are supposed to do.

This pattern develops with all of the black maids in Jackson, Mississippi. The biological mothers are too busy with their social standing and “do-gooding” to care about their own children. And, the black maids take over the job and do a damn good excellent job of it. However, the movie fails to explain how the majority of the white children raised by black maids turn into racists; which is what most of Skeeter’s friends have become.

***SPOILERS COMING***

The two maids who form the center of the story, Abileen and Minnie, are portrayed by relatively unknowns who also give Oscar-caliber performances. They never lose their character as they show the trials and tribulations of living in the Deep South prior to the civil rights movement. Abileen and Minnie show their love and compassion for the white children they are raising whilst they are continually being mistreated by their employers. Both of them live hard lives, but do not throw in the towel. Their inner-strength shows in every scene.

Bryce Dallas Howard appears almost unrecognizable as the antagonist of the film. She is Junior League president Hilly. She is also a bitter racist bitch who, in the end, is beaten by Minnie and Abileen because of her own hubris. It is her southern pride that does her in with both “The Help” and her mother (Sissy Spacek).

Getting to the ending is a joy from the beginning. I did not feel bored at all and did not even doze off. Everything about the movie worked, including the detail in the production design. The entire film reminded me of this period of my youth. From the “Charles Chips” containers in the kitchens to the black and white TVs which showed images of Civil Rights leaders and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Every detail was excellent.

And, most importantly, it was the portrayal of the black life in the 1960s that was excellent. Not once did I feel I was being manipulated emotionally. Not once did I feel I was being used to help propel a liberal agenda. The entire time I was sitting in the theater, I felt I was just witnessing the lives of these people; both the good and the bad from both races. In this way, “The Help” was more fair and balanced than most of the mainstream media is these days; and that my readers is a good thing

—–

Owen Wilson portrays Gil Pender, a Hollywood screenwriter on holiday in Paris with his fiancée, Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents.  Gil is on vacation from being a Hollywood Hack and in the process of writing his “Great American Novel;” the theme of which is being enamored of the past.  You can tell from the beginning that he is not happy with either his life or his fiancé and wishes to be part of a better generation and era.

Inez, the direct opposite of Gil, is a materialistic ambitious character who is pretty much unlikable from the beginning.  Her mother is such a bitch that you cannot help but expect the same of her.  Her father is portrayed as a right-wing “tea bagger” who is constantly getting into arguments with the liberal Gil, mostly over politics.  There is never a point in the film when you feel the slightest sympathy for anyone in Inez’s family.  You just simply know that Inez will do something during the course of the film that will allow Gil to get out of the engagement and relationship.

There is not much more I can say without giving the major plot twist away.  However, I will say that the majority of  jokes and dialogue require the viewer to have a strong background in the material.  Anything short of that will leave the viewer perplexed and completely out of touch with the plot.  In fact, when I saw the film, there were many jokes where only about five people in the audience were laughing hysterically.  The remainder of the sold-out crowd just didn’t get it.

This is where the elitism and self-indulgent nature of Woody Allen shines.  If you are not part of the inside joke and well aware of the literary and artistic references throughout, you will be lost.  And, this, unfortunately, will be what kills this film commercially.  It will play very well in intellectual centers and areas where elitism shines.  But the mass general public throughout the world will almost definitely never see it.  In fact, I was mentioning this film to a Thai friend this morning and we were both sure that it will never see the light of day there.

As is always the case in Woody Allen films, the acting is outstanding.  Although, in my opinion, Owen Wilson tries a little too hard to play the nebbish character that Woody Allen himself has portrayed in all of his movies prior to the turn of the Century.

The Paris locales shine under the cinematography of Darius Khondji.  The use of rain and earth tones gives this film the feel needed to transport the viewer to another world.  The Costume and Set Design is also outstanding.

Three stars out of five.

For those you who are unaware of the method in which disputes are resolved between the entertainment unions and producers, I need to give you a little primer before I tell you what happened today.  Keep in mind that whenever a producer needs to hire any actor who is a member of SAG, they must agree to abide by all of the rules of the SAG Minimum Basic Agreement (“MBA”).  The MBA appears on its face to be fair.  It is not, however, as it is not enforced equally against both sides.  The enforcement procedure is heavily biased against independent producers.

The method of enforcement is a grievance procedure in which a group of union-leaning arbitrators decide the facts and issue judgments.  In fact, other than one or two of the approved arbitrators, the entire group is liberals and rarely find in favor of producers.  There is an article on the internet about a certain SAG Arbitration in which the writer states that:

There is a basic assumption in SAG arbitrations that the producer is always wrong and only wants to cheat the actors out of their rightful compensation

I personally have been involved in a SAG Arbitration in which Arbitrator Sol Rosenthal ruled that an interoffice memo at a certain talent agency had more legal effect than an executed agreement with the actor, even though the executed agreement stated clearly that outside evidence could not be considered when interpreting the agreement.  For those of you that have gone through law school, this is something you learn in First Year Contracts.  Did Arbitrator Rosenthal care?  Nope.  He ruled that the actor had a two-week guarantee of employment even though the written agreement he signed had no guarantee at all.

One of the requirements of the MBA is that all employers (Producers) must put up “financial assurances” supposedly to protect union actors from not being paid for their services.  These “financial assurance” provisions are used by SAG to extort large cash deposits (called a SAG Bond) from independent producers.  However, I am not aware of a single instance in which a major studio has ever been called upon to provide such a deposit. Basically, this clause makes it much more difficult – if not impossible – for independents to make films.  And, it amounts to giving the union the right to do anything to bully the producer at a time when the producer must cave because of the tremendous amounts of money at risk should the production stop just before actors are employed.

Before SAG will allow their members to work for a producer they demand payment of the SAG Bond.  The amount of the bond is determined by some formula which only SAG knows and makes sure that no one else is ever told.  In some cases an independent producer of a low budget feature may have to put up 30-40% of the entire budget of the film to secure not only payroll of the actors but residuals that might not accrue for years to come.  This effectively prevents some movies from ever being made because independent producers have a difficult enough time raising enough money just to make the movie.  If, on top of that, they have to pay a huge deposit to SAG – which they will hold onto for as long as they choose – that alone kills many small independent projects. What is the net effect?  Very simply, fewer actors are employed because fewer movies get made.

This article is about one very specific cash bond.  I work at Millennium Films and we produced a film called “The Expendables” in 2009.”  The film was released in 2010.  Prior to the beginning of principal photography, SAG demanded that we put over $700,000 as a cash bond to secure the payment of actors.  This despite the fact that we have made over 300 movies and always paid everyone what they were due. We paid the bond, as usual, because we had no choice.

Since the movie finished shooting in mid-2009, we have tried to get our bond money back.  After almost one year of asking SAG for our money they eventually gave back all but approximately $15,000.  This they held onto because we were told there were “claims” from a few stunt performers who apparently alleged they were incorrectly paid for overtime, meal penalties, and stunt adjustments.  We were first notified that there were these unspecified “claims” in August of 2009.

Since their initial claim letter, we consistently requested details and evidence of these so-called “claims” so that we could review and assess them.  If we knew what the claims were, we could theoretically accept them, dispute them, and/or settle them.  SAG, however, steadfastly refused to tell us who were making the claims, how much was being claimed, or any other specifics.  Every demand for reimbursement of our SAG Bond was ignored by SAG who simply demanded more and more documentation from us.

Of course, we provided whatever documentation was needed.  We then waited and after another period of between 30-60 days, we again demanded our bond money back.  We were told to provide more information (sometimes it was information that had already been provided).  This went on for almost a year until August of 2010.  Finally, at that time, we were told by the SAG representative, “I think I can determine the claims now based upon what I have and what the performers have given me, please sign an agreement extending the statute of limitations so that we can make a determination and get back to you.”

We refused, as we have a corporate policy of never extending the statute of limitations.  We were then met with a demand for arbitration in which no claimant was named or explained except for language in the demand stating that unspecified “performers in the film” had not been paid.  We immediately filed our own grievance to get the remainder of our bond back.

For the eight months since, we have continued to request details, evidence, and proof of the claims to allow us to properly evaluate them.  Eventually, we were given certain stunt performer’s names, but still nothing to show what the individual performers were actually claiming.  We demanded in pre-arbitration motions that proof of the claims be given so that we could evaluate them.  Still, nothing.  We continued demanding and still received nothing.

Finally over the past weekend – with the actual arbitration scheduled for Tuesday – SAG provided allegations made by the seven stunt performers.  Still we were given no calculation of the amounts at issue.  We were just given vague claim forms stating what the performers felt they had not been paid.  No calculations or amounts of any kind were even given at this point.

That brings us to today.  We went to the arbitration planning on making a case for the return of our bond plus interest for the time it was wrongfully withheld.  When we got there we found out that two stunt performers were going to testify and that another five could not make it and were going to make their claim via written declaration.  Of course, there is no way we could cross-examine them or address the truth of their claim if they weren’t there!

We argued vehemently that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction over these claims as we were not given notice and it was a violation of due process.  We argued and stressed that we had been asking for evidence of these claims for more than a year and had just been stonewalled while SAG kept our money.  We argued until we were blue in the face.  But, the arbitrator decided the arbitration would go forward and that he would determine the validity of our arguments after the hearing.

Now, keep in mind we are paying a lawyer to represent us in this action and the only thing we have to gain is $15,000 plus some interest on the bond if the arbitrator determines that SAG withheld the bond unjustifiably.  Further, if the arbitrator determines he has no jurisdiction at that point, we have won and the legal bill stops.  But, he decides to let the matter proceed even though we have had absolutely no notice of the claims up until this point.

After lunch and three hours of witness testimony, I get a call from Trevor Short and Avi Lerner, two of the owners of Millennium, saying they are coming to the hearing.  Once they arrived we made a motion to dismiss the action because of SAG’s failure to present any substantial claims within the timeframes applicable and for failure to give us proper notice of the actual claims they were now ma;king for the first time.  The arbitrator rules against our motion.  We then stated our position forcibly that we had no intention of gracing these proceedings with any further credibility and, making sure the arbitrator knew exactly how we felt, we left.

Sometimes you have to make a stand against union bullying in the same way that Scott Walker is in Wisconsin and Chris Christie is in New Jersey. This is our stand.  We know we will now probably have an arbitration award rendered against us and that the union will attempt to turn such award into a judgment.  At that point, we will file a court action seeking to overturn the award because the arbitrator did not have proper jurisdiction and that the entire proceeding violated due process.  Maybe, we will lose.  Who knows?  But we have to try and get this into a proper legal forum and out of the “closed shop” of union -ppointed arbitrators.

If you do not fight the unions whether they are entertainment unions or the SEIU or the teacher’s Unions, they will end up controlling the country.

Mayor Cedric Glover may be a Democrat, but he is a great conservative when it comes to business.  He helped us in many ways when we were building the studio including helping us in the land acquisition and facilitating a loan from the city when the economy collapsed and we needed a little extra cash to make sure the project did not fall apart.

This whole project started as an idea when I was in Shreveport shooting “Mad Money” in the Spring of 2007.   During that time I became acquainted with Cedric Glover and his city council.  My colleague and I, Michael Flannigan, spent a good deal of time working with the city during the production of “Mad Money” and Mayor Glover started talking about how he wanted to support the film industry and help it grow in Shreveport.  At that time, Louisiana had a 40% entertainment industry infrastructure tax credit in place.  We decided that if the City had land that was not being used, maybe we could lease it and take advantage of the tax credit to develop and build a movie studio.

Michael and I discussed this idea with the owners of Millennium Films, and with the encouragement of all three of them, especially Avi Lerner, we proceeded to identify some land that the city had available.  Michael and I then filed the application for the State Infrastructure Tax Credit and it was approved.  We then proceeded to negotiate a lease with the City for the aforementioned land along with the help of our Shreveport Attorney Dannye Malone.

Now, it was time to finance the construction.  Unfortunately, the Stock Market collapsed in September, 2008 and the financing became impossible.  No bank would even consider a real estate development deal in late 2008, let alone a movie studio.  This is when we saw the true power and dedication of, not only Mayor Glover, but the entire municipal government in Shreveport.  They, along with Avi Lerner, would not let the project die.

After exhausting what we thought were all possibilities, a financing package came together, which included a partial loan from the City of Shreveport.  Construction began in late 2009.  And, yesterday, we had the grand opening of the first phase of the studio which is now fully operational.  When all of the phases are complete, the Shreveport facility will be a 20 acre studio with a complete back lot that will include various facades representing exteriors in different parts of the world.

Right now, in the initial phase, we have two fully soundproofed stages, production offices for two films, an integrated CGI visual EFX house, storage, commissary and a screening room.  Phase two includes the building of some storage warehouses and, as mentioned earlier, some facades.

This studio represents an example of what government can do when it’s pro-business and really wants to create jobs.  Between the State of Louisiana Department of Economic Development, through its representative, Chris Stelly and the City of Shreveport, this package came together with a relatively small investment in taxpayer dollars.  Already, it has created more than 80 full time jobs in Shreveport and approximately 150 part time or seasonal jobs.  The area of the city where the studio was built is now going through gentrification and will become an active and productive part of the city.  It will no longer be a blight on the city where drug dealers and prostitutes sold there wares.

The economic benefit to the city and the State is already being seen.  The jobs created will bring more tax revenue in the form of income taxes from the already employed.  In addition, the area will attract other businesses which will generate more tax revenues.  This is real stimulus.   It is government aid in the creation of job in the private sector, not the public sector.  This represents an actual example of Republican theory at work.

It is not the stimulus the Obama Administration gave us in 2009 which included longer unemployment benefits, the creation of temporary jobs, the creation of public sector jobs which will require constant tax dollars to maintain, and massive union payoffs, etc.  And, the cost of the Millennium Studios project was born at the state level, not federal.  It is small government doing what it does best.  Not the gigantic federal monster which the Obama Administration would like to have take over the economy.  It is proof that Federalism works.

If only the Obama Administration would realize this and keep out of the economy.  Had the stimulus and bailouts not gone forward, the country would be completely out of recession at this point.  The economy would have taken care of itself.  Now, instead, our children are burdened with another four trillion dollars of debt.  The still-in-power Democratic Senate refuses to listen to the Republican House on ways to curtail the ridiculous Federal spending.

In the meantime, congratulations to Millennium Studios and to my colleagues, Avi Lerner, Trevor Short and Danny Dimbort.  And, one more time, thank you to the City of Shreveport, its Mayor, Cedrick Glover and the State of Louisiana for backing and supporting business and industry in the private sector.

For those of you not in the Entertainment Industry, the MPAA is the major lobbying force for the motion picture industry in Washington.  According to Wikipedia, it was started in 1922 as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America.  It is primarily responsible for administering the Motion Picture Rating System which is a voluntary system to inform parents whether a film is suitable for viewing by children of various ages.  That’s right, it’s the MPAA that decides whether a film is rated “R” or “PG-13.”  This rating system began in 1968 when then head of the MPAA; Jack Valenti felt that the Hays Code was grossly out of date.  It was one of the main successes of Mr. Valenti’s tenure at the MPAA. 

Jack Valenti became head of the MPAA in 1966 under the insistence of Lew Wasserman who was running Universal Pictures and essentially running Hollywood at the time.  Valenti’s background was impeccable.  He was a known Washington insider and friend of both John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.  Valenti wielded much power on behalf of the Motion Picture Industry during his 38 year tenure.  He was loved by both the Washington Insiders and the Hollywood Executives.  Although a Democrat, he always had the best interests of the Industry at heart.  He served it well and retired at the ripe old age of 82.  Shortly thereafter, he passed away.

 Valenti was replaced by former Cabinet Member Dan Glickman who held the post for about five years.  Glickman retired one year ago and a search for his replacement has been going on by the Studio Executives since then. 

Finally last week, the replacement was found.  Imagine my shock when such replacement turned out to be Chris Dodd, the retired Senator from Connecticut.  Or, should I say, “The forced into retirement Senator from Connecticut.”  Chris Dodd did not run for reelection in 2010 most likely as a result of the numerous controversies during his last few years in office.  Basically, he knew he was going to lose. .. in the Blue State of Connecticut. 

The largest of those controversies involved sweetheart home loans given him by Countrywide Financial during his chairmanship of Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.  Mr. Dodd answered to the allegations about these loans by saying he was not aware he was given low interest rates or any preferential treatment by Countrywide.  However, the program under which the loans were granted should have given him notice that something was up.  Maybe, he just chose to look the other way?  In the end, we all know what happened to Countrywide; Bank of America purchased it in order to stop the mortgage lender from going under during the heart of the 2008 financial crisis. 

Of course this is the same financial crisis that was mentioned during the Academy Awards by Charles Ferguson when he won the Oscar for the documentary “Inside Job.”  His comments about the non-incarceration of the purveyors of the financial crises were quoted in the article, “The Worst Academy Awards Show” by Tim Ross.  Maybe Mr. Ferguson was thinking of Chris Dodd when he uttered those immortal words during the Oscars? (Or, maybe not!) 

Another controversy occurred during the time Mr. Dodd was Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs involved the near collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  For those of you that do not know, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the semi-governmental entities in charge of aiding lenders with home mortgages.  It is actually much more complicated, but I want to keep this article as simple as possible.  For those of you that want more information about Fannie Mae, please see the Wikipedia article linked here. 

According to Opensecrets.org, Senator Dodd was the largest recipient of campaign funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Needless to say, Senator Dodd vehemently denied that either one of these organizations were in trouble during the 2008 Financial Crisis.  Do you blame him?  He needed their money.  I guess he believed they were “fundamentally strong” as long as they were supplying him with cold, hard taxpayer cash. 

A third controversy involving Senator Dodd was that he reportedly received over $223,000 from AIG employees for his campaign coffers.  This is the same AIG the US Government bailed out.  It is also the same AIG that Senator Dodd amended a bill allowing certain AIG employees to still collect their bonuses after the government bailout.  As you all remember, those bonuses incensed taxpayers across the nation and members of the press that bothered to report them.  As a direct result, the Hartford Courant and New Haven Register both condemned Dodd for his actions.  One actually called for his resignation from the Senate. 

I do not want to go into detail about any other of Senator Dodd’s mishaps and/or semi-ethical behavior, one of which included the purchase of Dodd’s vacation home in Ireland at an extreme discount after helping to arrange a presidential pardon for its owner; Edward Downe, Jr.  Downe, a convicted felon for insider trading, also happened to be a partner at Bear Stearns – another company that benefited from Dodd’s strong position on the Banking Committee. 

As some point when it comes to Senator Dodd, you might as well just say, “If it smells like a duck . . . “ 

Based upon all of this evidence and controversy, how can the MPAA even consider this man for the job held by the great Jack Valenti?  What were they thinking?  Has the Hollywood Establishment gone so far to the left that they would ignore all of the warning signs about him?  In my opinion Chris Dodd is a pure example of a limousine liberal and one of the most left wing of all Senators that served in the past few years.  In fact, his rankings by the Progressive Liberal Group, Americans for Democratic Action have him at 95% or higher since 2000.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the Hollywood left have become so blind that they would rather choose a strong left winger with a questionable past than to keep looking until they find someone who has a righteous and clean record.  In the meantime, they will preach constantly about the alleged racism and ethical improprieties of the right.  Once again, it is nothing but Hollywood hypocrisy; pure and simple.

In the past few years, many states have enacted such tax incentives.  The three most lucrative and most popular are currently Michigan, Louisiana and Georgia.  I have already written about the Michigan tax incentives in the past.  One such article about Michigan is “SAG and the Independent.”   These tax incentives are keeping billions of dollars and hundreds of jobs in the United States at a time when they are needed most.  As of this morning, the unemployment rate is 9.0% and the “Real” unemployment rate is approximately 16%. 

Recently, California has enacted a Tax Incentive Statute, to help keep its lucrative entertainment industry alive.  The California Statute provides a refund of up to 25% of Qualified Production Costs for Films that have 75% of their production days and/or 75% of their total budget spent in California.  The total amount allocated for this credit is one hundred million dollars per year.  However, the total amount has a lifetime cap and such cap is quickly approaching.

 Effectively, this California money will run out in about 18 months.  What this will do is remove all production from the state of California except for some TV, and a few feature films in which the stars have enough clout to keep the film in California.  As it is now, production in California is down even with the credit because, other than NY, it is the most expensive state to shoot in.  Without the credit, the industry will effectively leave the state.  Once it’s gone, it will be very difficult to ever get it back. 

Who will be hurt the most by this?  Will it be the major studios or independent producers?  No.  Studios will shoot films wherever they can make them cheaper.  Producers will do the same.  It may be inconvenient or uncomfortable for producers like me to live in a foreign country or in a hotel for a few months, but such is the cost of business. 

The State of California will be hurt largely because the lucrative tax revenues from the Entertainment Industry will go elsewhere.  However, the people who will be affected the most are the laborers who actually make the movies.  I’m talking about the grips, gaffers, drivers, prop makers and the general labor on a movie set.  These are the people who are not taken when a film leaves the state of California.  These are the people who will become unemployed and/or leave the state for areas where employment in their field may actually exist.  This, of course, will then hurt California even more as more tax revenues disappear forever. 

The two major unions that represent these craft workers and laborers are the IATSE and the Teamsters. IATSE represents almost all non-creative labor on a movie set.  The Teamsters represent casting directors, drivers, location managers and animal wranglers.  Therefore, it is in the best interests of these two unions to do everything possible to keep production here in California.  And, I have been informed by inside sources within the government that they are.  In conjunction with the DGA which represents directors, these unions have been lobbying to get the California Production Tax Credit increased and extended to help maintain whatever employment there is left in California for production crews. 

From what I have been told, the legislators in Sacramento are taking the lobbying efforts of these unions seriously because they are “workers” and represent the middle class.  In contrast, when Warner Bros or Disney goes up to Sacramento, they are seen as the rich downstate Hollywood Producers begging for taxpayer handouts to keep their expensive cars and Beverly Hills mansions.  To put it frankly, lobbying by the Hollywood Studios doesn’t work.  But, it may work for the IATSE and Teamsters members. 

So, why hasn’t Sacramento extended the tax credits?  As we all know, the State of California is effectively bankrupt.  The California Legislature is having a tough time deciding where to allocate the few dollars that are available.  And, there are many other industries and lobbyists that have their eyes on the few available funds.

 What surprised me most, as told by my contact, is that there are other unions actually trying to kill the production tax incentives and actively lobbying against their continuance.  Which unions might you ask:  The SEIU and the CTA (California Teachers Association).  These two unions who have their hands in almost every pocket within the State do not care about their fellow laborers in the Entertainment Industry.  They only care about getting an ever increasing share of California Tax Dollars; to the extent that such tax dollars even exist. 

As you know, the SEIU represents many state and local government employees.  They also represent people in other industries such as hospital workers.  However, their strength comes from their representation within the public sector.  Basically, the more money they can get from the government, the more the union members get paid and the more dues money goes to the union.  The same is also true of the CTA. 

Accordingly, both the SEIU and the CTA are doing everything in their power to stop the re-funding of the California Production Tax Credit.  To put it simply, they want the money!  To hell with the Entertainment Industry:  Even if it is one of the top private employers in the state!  This is all about government to these people and, not only the payment of public employees, but its expansion as well.  Maybe we should look at what’s going on in Wisconsin right now where they are currently considering a statute to invalidate union representation in the public sector. 

Over the course of the years, I have had many arguments with the IATSE and at one point was on their “Most Wanted” list.  Not this time however.  California has got to wake up in so many ways and this is one of them.  Keep your biggest industry here where it started and where it belongs.

“Mr. Smith” is not only one of the greatest films ever made, but it also shows the love that Mr. Capra had for his adopted country.  For those of you that do not know, Frank Capra was an Italian immigrant.  He came to this country with his family as a young man and somehow ended up in Los Angeles during the early years of the motion picture industry.  He started in silent films as basically a gopher and eventually became one of the top five directors of the Golden Age of Motion Pictures.  Some would even argue today that he is one of the top five directors of all time.

In addition to “Mr. Smith,” Capra is also responsible for some of the great motion pictures of all time.  Among them are “It Happened One Night,” “Meet John Doe,” “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town,” “You Can’t Take it With You,” and, of course, “It’s a Wonderful Life.”  From 1933 to 1946, Capra was nominated for six Academy Awards for Best Director and won three.  “It Happened One Night” was the first movie to sweep the Oscars in all five major categories.  This did not happen again until “One Flew Over the Cukoo’s Nest” in 1975.  It has only happened once since.

Capra single-handedly kept Columbia Pictures afloat.  He was the first of the star directors and one of the first to have his name about the title.  His movies were not just movies, they were Frank Capra movies.  And, they were basically all the same.  It was the little man taking on the establishment and usually winning.  Many of the current Hollywood stars love Capra and emulate him.  In fact, Adam Sandler has already remade two of Capra’s films, one directly and one indirectly; “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town,” and “Click” was basically a remake of “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

In “Mr. Smith,” Jefferson Smith, as portrayed by Jimmy Stewart, is appointed to the Senate from a small western state as a result of the death of the sitting Senator.  He is appointed with the intent of the political machine in his home state to maintain the status quo and to protect the illicit dealing of those in charge.  He is not supposed to upset the apple cart.

However, the machine in power underestimates Smith.  They see him as a dumb patriotic man who could be manipulated and controlled.  But, his patriotism and his love for the people create just the opposite.  He believes in the “city on the hill,” as did Ronald Reagan.  He believes that good will always triumph and that the evil and greedy will be defeated.

When he uncovers a scam within his state to further enrich the machine at the expense of young boys, he takes the machine on.  The machine fights back with all its force and attempts to destroy Smith.  But, Smith uses the rules of the Senate to his advantage and begins a 24-hour filibuster in an attempt to save himself and destroy the machine.  This last 15 minutes of the movie contains some of the most patriotic speeches ever put on film.  Smith quotes the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bible.  And, each of these quotes and dialogue in between show both Smith (and Capra’s) love for this country and its ideals.  It is without a doubt one of the most powerful 15 minutes in any movie ever made.

Another very poignant point of the film occurs when Smith first arrives in Washington.  Instead of going to his office and being controlled by his handlers, Smith wonders off and begins a tour of historical Washington.  The tour takes him to all of the major sites in the nation’s capital.  This sequence reaches its climax at the Lincoln Memorial where Smith sees a little boy reading the Gettysburg Address out loud to his dad.  During the sequence, Capra cuts to Smith and various other bystanders at the memorial including a black man.  Every line of the Address takes on a new meaning and leads us to an emotional high.  It is film making at its best.

In closing, I recommend that every one watch this movie and many of other Capra films.  You should also look up the series of war films that were made by Capra in response to WWII.  These films, known as the “Why We Fight” series, were made at the request of the War Department to educate the public on the reasons the US entered the conflict.  They too are very patriotic and full of Capra’s love for his country.

I just wonder, why doesn’t Hollywood show it’s love for America anymore?  Why does the product coming out of my industry only show the bad and not the good?  I just cannot answer that question!

Unfortunately, this PC obsession on the left seems to have infected all aspects of our country ranging from education to entertainment, whether it is television, film, or the written word.  In fact, some friends of mine in education have told me that almost everything in education is controlled by PC at this point.  One of the most recent examples is the news that Mark Twain’s classic piece of literature, Huckleberry Finn, is now being edited to take out all usage of the dreaded “N” word “nigger.”

As I stated in my earlier article cited above “Has PC Taken Away Free Speech,” episodes of the classic television situation comedy “Sanford and Son“ are being edited now on TV Land to remove all usage of that word.  This is true regardless of whether the usage is funny or fits within the context of the episode.  The same is also being done to other situational comedies from the 70’s which contained irreverent and/or racial humor.

In fact, use of the dreaded ”N” word has gotten so toxic that just talking about it in this column makes me feel uncomfortable.  The mere suggestion that the word exists puts you into a different category of human beings unless of course you are an African-American rapper, at which point you can use that word as many times as you want without any fear of being called a racist pig.  (By the way, that is just one example of liberal hypocrisy).

Most of this, as it relates to the entertainment industry, came to a head last weekend at the Golden Globes ceremony.  The host was British comedian Ricky Gervais.  Mr. Gervais’ style is that he pulls no punches, and being British does not have the obsession with being PC that Americans do.  If you want to watch all of his monologues from the event, please click here:  Ricky Gervais on the Golden Globes.  This will give you a good example of his irreverent humor.

Needless to say, this had the liberal Hollywood community up in arms.  In fact, Tom Hanks who is usually Mr. Nice Guy and one of my favorite members of the Hollywood Establishment, made the following statement about Mr. Gervais as he got onstage with Tim Allen during the awards:  “We recall when Ricky Gervais was a slightly chubby but very kind comedian,” to which Allen added: “Neither of which he is now.”

This went on all night and at points members of the Hollywood Establishment were seen dumbfounded at the comments coming out of Mr. Gervais’ mouth.  In fact, Robert Downey, Jr. at one point made a comment along the lines that the entire event had become rather nasty.

There was a time when Hollywood could laugh at itself and could laugh at things not PC.  Unfortunately, that time has passed.  Now, the Liberal Establishment has decided that saying anything off color has become forbidden and should be quashed.  What has happened?  Have we really gotten to the point where the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech has another exception:  “Though shall not say anything that offends anyone else?”

When will it all stop? When we have become a bunch of sheep following the PC Shepherd?  Must we all live in fear that every word out of our mouths will be interpreted as racist or against some group, such as the mentally handicapped?

I do not believe this is what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the First Amendment.

—–

The movie started and I immediately got the impression I was about to watch some typical Hollywood liberal documentary; in this instance the subject matter being education.  The movie started with the usual poverty stricken minority groups complaining about the education system and that America has failed its youth.  There was the obligatory mention of the failure of “No Child Left Behind” and how every president since Johnson has claimed they wanted to be the education president and remembered for it.  In the end, the movie implies they have all been failures in their presidential dream as standardized tests show American education at the bottom of the curve against most developed and some developing countries.

At that point, the movie took an unexpected turn.  When it came time to really start laying the blame, it did not blame conservatives at all.  The movie stated that over the past decades real spending per child after inflation had increased dramatically.  The problems within the education system were not just in the lower socio-economic areas, but in the elite upper middle class neighborhoods as well.   The film then put the blame almost entirely on “tenure” and the teachers’ unions.  Imagine my shock when I saw really this was where the movie was really going.  It was not going to blame “uncaring conservatives” for all of the evil in the world.

For those of you that are not aware, tenure is a policy in which school teachers, after a probationary period, cannot be fired without extreme difficulty by the school district.  Once the probationary period is passed, the teacher is guaranteed employment forever; no matter how incompetent or stupid the teacher actually is.

The film delves deeply into the history of tenure and its origins.  It then goes on to give examples of how bad teachers continue to be employed because of tenure.  In some cases, teachers are so bad that they do not even bother to teach at all.  They just read to themselves while the students do whatever they want. 

The sad part about all this is the school district cannot do anything about it.  The process to fire a tenured teacher is long, difficult and sometimes impossible.  First, a grievance must be given to the union, and then depending on the school district and its union agreement other administrative procedures must be followed.  In New York, for example, there are some teachers awaiting their disciplinary hearing for upwards of four years.  During that whole time, they are on full salary and, although not teaching, must go to work and basically sit in a room with other teachers who are also awaiting their disciplinary hearings.  After the waiting period is exhausted, the teachers are usually reinstated.  The statistics for the discharge of a tenured teacher are laughable at best.  The cost to New York schools because of this is in the tens of millions of dollars per year.  This is money that could actually be spent on education.

The movie then proceeds to paint the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and its sister union as the evil behind tenure and other problems in the schools.  Randi Weingarten, the president of the AFT comes across as your usual union self-righteous bleeding heart liberal elite.  She argues only about the horrible path of the teachers and is never seen addressing the concerns of the students.  I can almost guarantee you; she has not had one thought about a student since she became an administrator at the union.  Union leaders never care about anything except how to increase their influence by contributing to and getting elected Democratic candidates.  At least, that has been my personal experience.

After spending a considerable amount of time analyzing the administration of Michelle Rhee as the Chancellor of the Washington, D.C. school district and her war with the AFT in a fruitless attempt to change to a system in which teachers are compensated based upon merit, the film ends by painting charter schools and magnet schools as the potential saviors of the public school system; albeit at a cost to our children.  The movie then points at that there is not enough spots in these schools to accommodate all of the children that want and/or need to attend them.

Unfortunately, the movie does not leave hope for our children or our country because of the control upon the system of the two major teachers’ unions.  They are afraid to eliminate tenure even if teachers would receive big raises to give it up as Michelle Rhee try to get through in a new union contract.  The union would not even allow this proposal of Ms. Rhee to come to a vote.  In the end Ms. Rhee ended up leaving her job and starting a web page, Facebook page and Twitter account to continue what she started in Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, only two of the children used in the film as representations of the problems will be in the charter or magnet schools because of the lottery system to accommodate the demand.  The rest will be in their run-down useless public schools and will be unprepared for the world ahead.

Our industry doesn’t get it at all. And I am talking about top executives down to secretaries.  I am talking about directors to craft service people.  Unfortunately, this is our (DGA) No 1 priority…But within our own members, they just don’t quite understand how serious this is…Hollywood is filled with very famous and successful people…And, we are really famous for our causes.  We care about things.  We step out, and we have our pet causes…The point is when we care about things, we back it with our money and we speak out.  The problem is nobody in this community speaks out about the threat that is actually happening in our community.  And, if we let this threat continue, they will not have the money to contribute to these causes.

The remainder of the article is mostly dedicated to the proposition that the problem stems mostly from the internet.  Mr. Johnson states that government should control the internet to protect the business models of the content providers.  He feels that the bill passed in the Judiciary Committee giving the Justice Department new powers to shut down “rogue” web sites is a good thing.

I beg to differ.  Controlling the internet is not the answer.  The internet should be used for the free expression of ideas and for the free sale of goods and services.  It should not be used for the illegal spread of copyrighted material.  Everyone agrees with this.  But, shutting down sites without due process of law is a bad thing.  It is one more step towards government control of the media and the creating of a de facto communist state.

What should actually be done is what was done to turn Napster into a legal entity.  The court system should be used in the manner for which it was created.  Criminal actions should be brought against illegal web sites.  Civil actions should be brought against those that sell and those that buy copyrighted material illegally.  It worked against Napster in the past and it has worked against numerous other web sites as well.

Under no circumstances should anyone’s property be taken whether it be a web site or more traditional forms of property upon the whims of the Justice Department; especially one under the control of the leftist Eric Holder.  (I wouldn’t even want someone on the right to have that power either.)  The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees everyone due process of the law.  This is not archaic law.  This is law that makes sense.  Let’s not chip away at our Constitutional right just because a problem exists.

And, to emphasize piracy is definitely a problem.  According to the International Motion Picture Association, $6.1 billion was lost by the major motion picture companies to piracy in 2005.  If you include the worldwide motion picture industry which includes independents, the number rises to $18.2 billion.  Mr. Hackford is correct about one thing: if this is not stopped, there will be no motion picture industry left and no more rich Hollywood elites to support their various causes.

However, according to the same study, only 38 percent of that piracy, although a big number, is from Internet sales.  The remainder is from the sale of hard items such as DVDs.  The biggest offenders are:  China where 90%, Russia where 79%, and Thailand where 79% of all estimated sales are lost because of piracy.  I can confirm this about Thailand personally as any movie can be bought on Thanon Sukhumvit, a main street in Bangkok, usually one week or more before it is theatrically released in the United States.  And, to make matters worse, the quality of these pirated DVDs, is not bad.  In some cases, it is as good as commercially available legal DVDs.

But, that’s not the whole problem.  It is not limited to developing nations.  Twenty percent of all piracy according to the above study was directly from the United States.  Again, it is not difficult to find pirated DVDs in downtown Los Angeles or on Canal Street in Manhattan.  And, again, the quality is usually pretty good.  The days of the video being captured by some pirate in a movie theatre with a handheld camera appear to be gone.  The piracy is going on in the labs.  And, I’m sure, for the most part, it is the labs in the United States and probably Los Angeles; the same labs that we entrust with our intellectual property.

And, let’s even take it one step further; here are some additional facts according to the same study:

• $5.5 billion in lost annual earnings among U.S workers
• 141,030 jobs lost
• $837 million in lost annual tax revenue
• $20.5 billion in lost annual output to all U.S. industries

And, this was all in 2005 when Facebook was merely a year old and most of us had not even heard of it.  If Facebook now has over 500 million members, imagine how these numbers may have grown in five years.  Please note that I am not stating that Facebook has anything to do with piracy.  I am only stating that if Facebook has grown by the numbers it has, imagine how much the potential reach of piracy, both internet and otherwise has grown during the same period.

I can state for a fact that it has affected the way we do business in the independent world.  Watermarking delivery items to specific buyers is now common place.  Screeners are not sent out to the media without careful protections in place.  Day and date releases worldwide are now commonplace not only for the major studios but for the independents as well.  This alone increases costs geometrically as you can no longer ship used prints overseas when the American release is finished.  You must now make prints for delivery all over the world even to the smallest countries.  In return, licensing fees have gone down in smaller countries because more of the capital expenditures must go to the cost of making prints than to the copyright holder.

So, in conclusion, the problem is very prevalent.  It may eventually lead to the end of the motion picture industry as we know it.  Mr. Hackford, the director of many great films, may have become a soothsayer.  But, regardless, more government control is not the answer.  Due process and the Constitution must not be ignored.  Let the court system handle the problem.  Keep our freedoms as the Founders intended.