Writer's Strike

Let me start by saying "I Support the Writers." I say this because one day I hope to be a member of the WGA and because in my humble opinion, the writer's are the most under-appreciated element of the film business. By no means am I the only one to hold this view...in fact, you hear it down here in LA almost every day...everyone seems to fundamentally side with the writer's except for the fat cat studio executives (and all the resentful TV crews who are out of work).

But fundamentally, this is an emotional and self-serving position (like most positions).

The question could be better framed: is the writer's strike wise? What do the writer's stand to gain vs. what do they stand to lose?

This is where the disconnect comes in. The writer's are seeking a "step-deal" as far as I can understand, a deal whereby they get a piece of the big internet action if it ever happens. Michael Eisner is saying - fine, go strike Apple Ipod downloads, don't strike against us. We're not making any dough. And for the moment, I think he's right. But the writer's are wagging their fingers and saying, don't try to pull that shit with us - that's what you did last time and we ended up getting screwed on DVD residuals.

So this is a revenge fuck. Okay. Let's just call it what it is...now the question is: is it smart?

I don't know. But I'm surprised to see how much solidarity is being expressed at the moment. I think the studios know the solidarity will fade (it always does) and the less certain and unstable the writer's get the more pressure from within the guild will rise to resolve the thing. The studios should just do nothing to aggravate the writer's and eventually they'll crack.

I apologize in advance...but I'm going to talk about Iraq. I do this because I find it fascinating what people opt to support vs. not support. Obama and many liberals (and most of Hollywood) talks about not supporting the Iraq war because it's a dumb war. But explain to me how the Iraq war is any dumber a proposition than the writer's strike?

I can see the goal in Iraq - create a model of democratic stability in the Middle East, ensure Saddam had no WMDs, teach the world "don't fuck with us" or we'll fuck your shit up. Those are the lessons. In order. Granted, they didn't work all that smoothly and as a consequence many folks jumped ship and started calling it a dumb war, a war of thievery or vanity, or foolishness.

Now why do these things not apply to the writer's strike? Isn't it a vain, greedy, stupid maneuver by the writer's to go after money that doesn't yet exist? Isn't the idea behind it right, but the timing and execution questionable?

And despite private reservations I'm sure many writer's hold about the strike, they are sticking with it because it matters in the long run and they're on the right side of history. I agree with them. But how come people don't have the same attitude towards Iraq? Similar principles apply. Maybe Iraq wasn't the best timing or perfectly executed, but what makes one jump to the other side and not support the project in entirety, in essence, breaking the picket line and not supporting your country.

Am I crazy?