John August

Television

Please take your finger out of your ear

Rant, Television

Along the lines of my gripes with cinematic [cell phone troubles](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/no-signal) and [air ducts](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2006/air-vents-are-for-air), Lou Lesko takes issue with another movie cliché:

> The high technology wireless radio devices that are concealed in the ear canals of the good guys for surreptitious communication work just fine without sticking your finger in your ear. And yet on NCIS Los Angeles last week –- in a pivotal scene where a guy is being shadowed -– there were all the protagonists, obvious as could be, looking like they forgot to take a Q-Tip to their ears for the last month.

For once, writers are off the hook. Nowhere in the scene description do we tell actors to poke their fingers in their ear canals.

Rather, it’s directors who are likely propping up this cliché, worried that the audience — particularly a CBS audience — won’t understand why characters are talking to invisible people.

What’s wrong with the business

Film Industry, Los Angeles, Television, WGA

Writers in film and TV are making less money. For 2009, TV writers brought in three percent less, while screenwriters’ [earnings dropped](http://www.wga.org/content/subpage_whoweare.aspx?id=230) 31%.

In a rough economy, it’s no surprise to find workers in all industries making less, but in the case of the writers, it feels a lot different on the ground. It’s not simply the economy.

Fundamental relationships and business practices are changing. More writers are competing for fewer jobs. Established quotes are being ignored. Mid-tier writers are passed over in favor of the very cheap or very expensive, and even they have a hard time actually getting paid.

Get a group of working — or _should be_ working — screenwriters together for more than ten minutes, and you’re likely to discuss all these issues.

Last week, David A. Goodman (Family Guy), Kayla Alpert (Confessions of a Shopaholic) and I did a panel on KCRW’s The Business, discussing these topics. The show is now online, and [worth a listen](http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tb/tb091012writers_face_the_new).

Some important points to emphasize:

* __All writers in the industry are essentially freelance.__ Even being staffed on a TV show is seasonal. Writers aren’t “laid off;” they’re simply unhired. That’s true for many jobs in film and TV, from actors to gaffers to costume designers. Writers are pretty much the only craft that can generate their own work, however.

* __Writing is the R&D of the entertainment industry.__ Try as they might, studios don’t know which projects — or even which genres — are going to be hits. That’s why they develop a range of properties, knowing that only a few of them will go into production. A studio that doesn’t develop material won’t have movies or shows for upcoming seasons.

* __Studios are small parts of big corporations.__ While studios have often been owned by larger corporations, from Gulf+Western to Coca-Cola, the current consolidation and integration of the major studios is unprecedented. Film and TV used to be largely insulated for a downturn in the economy — people still wanted their movies and shows. But now that studios are so tightly entwined with their parent companies, corporate cutbacks hit Hollywood much more directly.

* __Quotes are both real and imaginary.__ A writer’s quote is generally whatever she has recently been paid for a roughly equivalent job. ((Quotes work the same for actors and directors.)) If Sasha Dramaturg received $200K for a draft, set and polish ((“Draft, set and polish” is common shorthand for a writer’s first draft, a rewrite of that draft, and smaller polish on that draft.)) on a movie at Fox, her quote would be $200K. If Fox wanted to hire her to write a movie, her agents would be looking for at least that much money. Recently, however, quotes are sometimes being ignored. Fox might tell her agents that they’re paying $100K, take it or leave it. If Sasha takes it, her quote is now $100K. ((Deals can also be “no-quote,” meaning they’re not supposed to be disclosed. For the animated movies I’ve written, I’ve made significantly less than my quote.))

* __Writers aren’t unique.__ While this panel was about writers, every facet of film and television is in upheaval. You can take any profession or craft, from development executive to stunt coordinator, and find uncertainty and anxiety about where this is all headed.

Host Kim Masters did a smart job stoking the conversation, and producer Darby Maloney cut an hour’s worth of material down with remarkable finesse.

One thing that didn’t make the cut was a list that a friend had sent me in anticipation of the panel. It’s more bloggy than radio anyway:

What’s Wrong With The Film Business
—-

1. The conflict and turnover caused by the buying and selling of companies causes confusion, uncertainty, and weakens morale in the production area.

2. The “suits” who control the studios interfere too much with creative decisions; the studios should be run by creative people rather than businessmen, lawyers, etc.

3. The constant turnover of the production head of the studio is disastrous.

4. Overhead is indefensibly high.

5. Authority is not clearly defined.

6. Producers are given exorbitant contracts, and there is no relationship between what a producer receives and the box-office success of his or her films.

7. Screenplay costs are excessive and and the write-off on stories and contracts is enormous.

While this seems like a very current assessment, the list actually comes from a 1936 report by Joseph P. Kennedy, who was hired by Paramount’s board of directors to determine what was ailing the studio. ((This list comes courtesy Howard Suber, who makes reference of it in his book The Power of Film. It originally appeared in Leo Rosten’s 1941 book Hollywood: The Movie Colony/The Movie Makers (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1941), Pp. 253-254.
Rosten’s book is out of print, unfortunately.))

I find it strangely comforting to realize that the industry was just as broken 70 years ago.

To me, it suggests there’s a cycle to the industry. While we’re in a painful contraction phase now, there is still reason for optimism. Hollywood loves money, and money loves Hollywood. As the economy improves, I suspect we’ll see increased investment in the industry, either through new technology (as happened with home video) or new piles of money (such as foreign investment funds).

It’s a strange time for a writer to be starting in the industry. Not only will you be competing with every other aspiring writer, you’ll also find yourself up against established writers who’ve been forced to cut their quotes. With uncertainty comes caution, and studios will be less likely to take a chance on an unknown writer.

But crisis is also an opportunity. When I meet with recent film school graduates, I remind them that whatever happens next in the industry won’t be something my generation does. It will happen among the 20-somethings, the narrative entrepreneurs who figure out how to make the next great thing. Rather than seeking permission to work in the existing industry, they’ll make their own.

To become one of those inventors of industry, you need to surround yourself with similarly ambitious people. Film school is a good choice, but so is living and working in the right neighborhood in Silverlake or Brooklyn or Austin — or more likely, a place I wouldn’t even realize is a hotbed.

In the KCRW panel, Kayla Alpert made a final point worth repeating: writers can write. As frustrating a time as this is, screenwriters at every level have the unique opportunity to make something new by themselves. That’s a luxury worth more than dollars.

Cablevision and the Supreme Court

Film Industry, Follow Up, Television

In January, I wrote about [Cablevision and the Infinite TiVo](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/cablevision-and-the-infinite-tivo), a plan by a cable operator to shift recording of TV shows from users’ boxes to a central server:

> Cablevision wants to offer DVR as a service instead of a device. Rather than recording 30 Rock on the box attached to your TV, the show will be recorded at Cablevision’s headquarters. Then, when you want to watch it, Cablevision will send the show to your television. If it works right, it should feel just like a normal DVR. Only without the cost of the DVR.

I thought it sounded great if you were a consumer, or Cablevision. And pretty damn bad if you were a copyright holder, or someone who produced content. Like, say, a screenwriter.

> Cablevision’s RS-DVR is back-door video-on-demand. They’re trying to offer the networks’ output to their customers on their own terms, without paying any additional fees.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. Sort of.

Today, it [refused to hear an appeal](http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090629-711145.html) on the Cablevision case, allowing the Second Circuit Court’s decision to stand. Cablevision can begin introducing its service.

In a brief to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Solicitor General’s office had already urged the Court to skip this case, [rather than risk bad precedents:](http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2009/20090529.asp)

> Network-based technologies for copying and replaying television programming raise potentially significant questions, but this case does not provide a suitable occasion for this Court to address them.

> The parties’ stipulations, moreover, have removed two critical issues — contributory infringement and fair use — from this case. That artificial truncation of the possible grounds for decision would make this case an unsuitable vehicle for clarifying the proper application of copyright principles to technologies like the one at issue here.

If Cablevision’s service really is *exactly* analogous to a conventional DVR — a giant farm with one hard drive per customer, recording shows only a time-forward basis (no reaching back to record last week’s 30 Rock) — then it’s pretty easy to use the metaphor of a very long hard drive cable. A different case, or a more ambitious service, would offer a better venue for figuring out what role a middleman can play in offering content to consumers.

I don’t think consumers really want a virtual DVR. They want content. They want to watch whichever TV show they want, whenever they want it. And they should be able to.

As I said in my first article:

> The studios should then negotiate with Cablevision and all the other cable and satellite providers to roll out a system that calls this service what it really is: video-on-demand. A consumer should be able to watch (or record in their home) an episode when it’s first broadcast, or get it through VOD for a fee. That fee should be low, cheap enough to make it an appealing alternative to piracy.

When is it brown-nosing?

Film Industry, QandA, Television

questionmarkWhen applying for grants or fellowships that are sponsored by a specific institution or company do you think it would be a smart idea to specifically praise that organization’s work in your application letter, or would they immediately consider that brown-nosing? Is there a good balance to strike?

— Joel
Chicago, IL

Any sort of application, whether it’s for a grant, for college or for a job, needs to do exactly three things:

1. Explain your qualifications
2. Explain your ambitions
3. Explain why these two things make you an ideal candidate

It’s in this third aspect that you acknowledge what the organization (or individual) does, and if there really is something laudatory about it, you can work that in without being a kiss-ass.

For example, if you were applying to the [ABC/Disney Emerging Writers Program](http://disneyabctalentdevelopment.com/), you would read the note by Anne Sweeney on the website:

> Individuals with diverse voices, talents, backgrounds and experiences are imperative to creating high-quality content that is reflective of our audiences.

She’s saying (a) we want to make great shows that are (b) liked by a wide range of audiences, so (c) we’re deliberately looking for writers that come from a wide cross-section of backgrounds and experiences. Notably absent in her statement is any sense of “for the good of the world” or social justice. She is framing it as a smart business decision, which is your cue to do the same.

In your application, it’s fine to commend this program’s goals and explain why its mission so suits your goals and experience. Draw parallels between your background and that of past fellows whose work you admire. Talk about how you hope to work at a company that understands the importance of diverse opinions. But don’t drone on about how much you love Desperate Housewives, or how Mulan transformed your life. That’s brown-nosing. It’s transparent, gross and unhelpful.

If you were applying for an internship at Platinum Dunes (Michael Bay’s company), you would absolutely want to express your enthusiasm for populist genre fare. But appreciation is not fanboy-dom. Be enthusiastic but sane. Companies want employees, not cultists.

Any time you’re applying for something, imagine you’re the person reading through all the applications. What would the perfect candidate look like? How close can you come to being that candidate?