Why the Writers Strike was Doomed to Failure (And How We Can Win Next Time)
Read more strike coverage on the Huffington Post's writers' strike page.
The talks between the producers and the writers have broken off indefinitely. The smart money says the AMPTP is simply going to bypass the writers' guild and make a boilerplate deal with DGA. A deal they'd press on the WGA. Probably there'd be some "new media" monies. It's doubtful there would be any expansion of guild jurisdiction into internet content or reality programming.
So, then, the strike has failed. Failure, of course, was the only outcome for this strike.
It is not the result of lack of will or even rightness on the side of the writers, or the earnestness of the negotiating committee. I know several of the members. They are longtime friends, and some were at my wedding. I do not believe with any part of me they did not want what they believed was best for the greater membership: a fair share of the profit from that which we help create. And anyone who believes I'm somehow against the idea of getting all of us -- me included -- two cents or ten cents or a buck more a DVD or digital download either overestimates my ideology, or underestimates the level of my greed.
In fact, I would say it is my greed -- my desire to have all rather than some -- that leads me to declare the strike a failure.
Think about it. Think about why "we" strike. The rallying cry we hear ad nauseam is that "we won't let what happened twenty years ago happen again." That is to say; the strike "we" engaged in, the deals we made re: home video were failed ventures. That is the collective reckoning, though I doubt many even know what the bone of contention in the '88 strike was -- foreign residuals for one hour programming -- or how the creative provisions the WGA tried to force on the producers alienated the DGA.
And, so, twenty years later "we" are back on the picket lines. And every three years "we" go back to the table to collectively bargain. And that right there; that phrase speaks to why this strike and every writers' strike will fail: the guild uses collectivism to seek a bargain. Why should we get a bargain when we can buy the store?
In 2006 the total earnings of the working membership of the guild was $905 million dollars. Our residual income alone was $264.3 million dollars. Currently every working member of the guild is compelled to cede 1.5 percent of their gross, pre-tax income to the uild. While in the last year the guild has done a better job of handling money, it should be noted that in fiscal year 2006 the guild managed to turn that revenue into a $202,611 deficit.
There is more and better to be done with our money.
Let's say the guild was to hit up its membership for an additional 1 percent of its gross income. Let's say the guild were to put that money into a fund to produce films. The guild would then own, or would have co-ownership of the negative with the film's author. And since "we" could make this film without interference from the studios, the film would of course be great. The guild, then, could take this great film and cut whatever distribution deal it pleased with whatever distributor -- old media or new -- with which it chose. And the deal would be made on our terms. And the film would remain ours. And project by project the revenue stream would continue to grow, and more films would be made and "we" would own them and eventually "we" would control the vast majority of content produced.
Or, studios would be forced to enter into similar authorship sharing agreements if they wanted to work with the best and brightest writers. They would have no choice because, as we all love to say, it all begins with the words on the page.
Of course, we would have to work out some kind of profit participation with all the other artisans in Hollywood because -- unlike the multi-nationals and conglomerates -- we would be beneficent with our wealth.
This is no fantasy, no act of a wild imagination (and yes, I borrow that line). Film festivals are sick with indies being made by individuals without a sliver of the experience, connections or access to cash "we" have.
And, what; five weeks into this strike? Factor in the lost wages, the wasted man-hours, we could be wrapping our first film by now.
Our film.
There is no substitute for ownership. Beyond my love of the craft, it is why I choose to ply my trade mostly in books, on the internet and in graphic novels: I own my shit.
And I will happily be the first to divert my guild dues to a film fund to own some of that, too. See if I'm kidding. One phone call from the "leadership" of the guild, and I'll put the check in escrow. Now.
I doubt the call will come.
Instead, "we" face down holidays and property taxes due and another three, four or more months without income.
For what?
For the opportunity to stand up and beg for the best bargain "we" can get? For the opportunity to remain as we were: sharecroppers on the media plantation? "We" can continue with this evolutionary change -- gathering together every three years to get our bargain. Or, we can make revolutionary change. In the wake of this failed strike there can be victory. Permanent victory, if the leadership has the meat to quit whipping up rallies and start marshaling manpower. Now, in this moment, is the time to make the choice that will truly secure the future for our heirs and us.
Ownership, or servitude? Which will it be?
Read more strike coverage on the Huffington Post's writers' strike page.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I'm a Guild member. As soon as my eyes focused upon "John Ridley....
Please, John, do those of us members who care about the future of residuals a favor and just cross the picket line to finish up, "Red Tails" or "Undercover Brotha 2" or whatever it is you're working on.
It's become tiresome hearing you kvetch on about it. Greed does seem to be your motivation but not in the way you offer us.
*yawn*
how does Michael Moore do it?
Dear Mr. Ridley, why are you even a member of the WGA since you seem to have nothing but contempt for its elected leaders. I wonder does your contempt also include the last generation of WGA members who fought very hard to get me (and you) medical coverage and a pension plan? Is it too much to ask that we, the present generation, fight just a little for those writers who will come after us?
John? Who runs this little studio, this WGA studio? Are there - like - you know -- development execs, with Mini Coopers and scripts in the backseat, piled up for "weekend read"? Who gets the lattes? The production wing of the WGA? You? It's so preposterous a notion that I don't know how to respectfully disabuse you of it. Can you imagine the soviet style battles, the agents trying to negotiate with guild production execs (I can't stop laughing - - MY DOG is laughing, John.) And is it my imagination, but it seems to me - just a little early to be declaring this strike a disaster and a failure -- I think we're in the midst of a little revolution, actually. And you're right, we won't be fooled again. Yes. There you are right. Am I imagining the tone of smug satisfaction in your declaration of our defeat? I do hope not. In spite of your wrong headed, single-minded dedication to being wrong, there's something pleasing about having you argue the other side. But by other side, I don't mean giving aid and comfort to AMPTP, but rather, a continuing effort to question the Guild leadership. This post just seems -- please forgive me, sir, well -- squirrly.
I do not disagree with the central issue in this blog entry - that by giving up copyright, there is an inherent problem and weakness in the position of the WGA. Giving control to the Guild is a terrible idea - if they can't manage money in a vacuum, how the hell can they produce films? But the idea of ownership - yes. From the get-go, Hollywood has created an instituional model which has controlled, limited and effed writers. And we do not always help ourselves.
But Mr. Ridley, two things. One a comment on an above comment - I do not think you will cross a picket line. Anyone who is this passionate about something, to continue to blog here, could not possibly do that. But. And I appreciate the need for rational opposition voices - it is almost my position too. But do you really think this is what helps the WGA the most? Really? While the AMPTP is essentially union-busting, you think being a naysayer is of assistance? If you do, I feel you are sorely mistaken. If you really want to help, why not reach out to some of the extremely well-known actors you have worked with and see if they will say something tangible for the strike. I don't mean the cute little Speechless campaign. But the most famous actor you know, going on TV and saying: Writers want a small percentage. Studios want them to have either 0 or $250 a year. Is that fair? Yes, that's not what you think is so glorious? But y'know -- it might work. Give it a shot.
As a IATSE member other wise know as collateral damage in this strike I am loosing sympathy as days go by - writers still get paid their residuals as do actors and directors and us below the line people get a coal in our proverbial Christmas stocking - as this goes on I am sure more people who are both below the line union and make their living from film will begin to loose sympathy as their lives suffer while the "poor" writers get all the attention and public sympathy! Just my 2 cents!
It's interesting how you equate collective bargining to "creed". And your "big plan" is to divert the funds to run the union to make "one film"? And what if it goes bust? Then what do you have?
That's right. A failed union. And you're back to being sharecroppers again; only this time with no collective bargining organization, because Ridley here, spent in on a blockbuster remake of one of his earlier flops.
That's right. Turn your collective power into an attempt to "be the boss". Only problem is, to keep funding it, you have to go back to work for the same bosses you have now... at whatever contract they offer.
And when the film fails (or even if it doesn't) you still have to keep working for the same bosses to keep funding the studio.
Nice one John. You almost made up for your last article where you sided with the management. It almost looks like you got the union spirit.
Nice idea, but in a business with patchy profits and positively criminal accounting do you really think distributors (who take most of the ticket price) are actually going to help your masterpiece succeed? Nothing disturbs the rich more than the prospect of change. "Citizen Kane" is a marvelous film, even today, but Hearst made sure it wasn't the first blockbuster.
Good idea! The WGA should get into film producing or at least, own a greater share of the production in films! As Creative Artist was first conceived of as working actors owning their own production company, the WGA could and should do the same thing or something close to it!
What has this got to do with the real world?
Oh wait - I know. In the real world, old gatekeepers picking and choosing who gets access to production will be replaced by new gatekeepers. Don't even think there's no suit-n-tie worthy folks in the WGA who would love to push their friends crap into production over "good" stuff. You can't run from what is essentially a closed system.
Considering the entertainment content of 99% of the drek on television and in the movies, my first question is, "Why is anyone paying these no-talents ANYTHING?"
This post is hilarious. Have the guild get into movie production? Only someone who has never capitalized, produced or directed a movie would think that was feasible. What profits? Most movies are not successful. And who distributes this guild fare? Oh, whoops, the studios. Or is the guild going to get into the distribution business as well? Someone hand this guy $10M to make a movie and see how well it turns out. I can't think of a better recipe for bankruptcy.
As a global suggestion it's the best yet! The difficulties are always in the details but owning the content of an enlarging and increasingly more valuable library of works is the ONLY way to gain respect from the studios. Remember, each one of them also began with a single title and kept at it until the few have come to dominate the industry. There's no reason writers can't join forces and do the same.
I love the plan. Seriously. Owning content is everything. One question: why should we be "beneficent with our wealth"?
I wouldn't put my fate in the hands of "guild leadership
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
