Letting go of the past—not forgetting it—has been deemed beneficial for one’s mental health, at least according to experts in the field of psychology. And when it comes to last year’s strike by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) against the advertising industry, you’d think it would be pretty easy to let go. After all, who wants to hold on to a fiasco that did little more than generate financial hardship for union actors, U.S. crew members and support service businesses?
After an arduous six months —with both sides holding out for what they defined as necessary landmark changes in recompense for actors’ services—an agreement which pretty much maintained the status quo was reached last October. This led observers to question why the strike lasted so long, in that the settlement terms seemingly could have been hammered out much sooner if different, more progressive strategies had been applied at the bargaining table.
But at least there was finally a settlement, accompanied by industry calls to let the healing process begin. The only valid reason for not healing as quickly as we would all like is the continued runaway production problem, which—as chronicled in SHOOT—was exacerbated by the strike.
Also serving to delay the healing process, however, are the unnecessary contemptuous expressions of those who refuse to move on and would seemingly prefer to pour salt into still-open wounds. The latest example involves reports of certain SAG members taking exception to the Directors Guild of America nominations for best commercial director of 2000. The Hollywood entertainment trade dailies have covered "issues" such as one of the DGA spot competition entries having employed nonunion actors, and declarations by union members that the DGA Award nominees need to be scrutinized for possibly hiring "scabs."
SAG released a statement from its president, William Daniels, to help set the record straight: "I am particularly upset that this event [the DGA Awards nominations announcement] was marred by statements of our members to the press regarding some of the nominees. I want everyone to know that contrary to published reports. … the Screen Actors Guild is not conducting and will not conduct any review or investigation of the directors nominated in the commercials category of the upcoming Directors Guild of America Awards.
"Some members of the Screen Actors Guild have a longstanding and very destructive habit of speaking to the media to try and advance their own personal agendas, often misrepresenting their statements as official SAG policy and point of view," continued Daniels, adding that "these anonymous members harm not only the guild, but can harm others as well, such as those commercial directors nominated for this year’s DGA Award."
Applauding Daniels’ statement was DGA president Jack Shea, who noted that the relationship between the two Guilds continues to be "fraternal" and supportive.
That cooperative orientation was reflected in a union lobbying effort in 1999 to keep and attract more filming in the U.S.—a lobbying effort that was cut short by the strike. Instead, during the strike, a growing number of advertisers found the experience of filming in foreign locales creatively and financially rewarding. And the fear is that this will translate into the continued loss of business domestically.
Rather than waste time and energy on petty calls for retribution—and statements to counteract those declarations—unions and industry leaders need to move on and now unite in order to figure out creative ways to help make the U.S. more competitive in an increasingly global market.
