By Caroline Page, 3L

The Net

As I watched the trailer on YouTube to refresh my memory, this film seems so comedic in present day. From the old school computer graphics to the overly dramatic plot, watching this in 2010 is definitely entertaining. However, in 1995 this movie hit all the fears that faced our society in the new age of the internet. At a time when we knew little, if anything at all, about the internet, the plot rang true. Sandra Bullock stars in this thriller about a software programmer who comes across a disk that gives access to government and military systems around the world. As this discovery becomes known, she finds herself in danger as the bad guys hunt her down to get their disk back. She finds her name, background, everything has been changed through the powers of “the net.” As cheesy as it sounds today, this movie was ahead of its time and kept me on the edge of my seat until the end. This movie is a perfect date movie, if nothing else, to laugh at how “far we’ve come.”

Minority Report

Like The Net, this movie is also ahead of its time. However, I highly doubt (and hope) that the society portrayed in this film will ever become our reality. The film, starring Tom Cruise, is set in 2054 and centers on an experimental police force that employs three “precogs” who can see murders that occur in the future. With these visions, the police officers are able to hunt down the killers and stop the murders before they happen. When a precog sees Cruise’s character commit a murder, he flees the station and a search commences. Cruise steals the precog who saw his murder, and the film follows his attempt to find the woman he is to murder and figure out why. It is a suspenseful crime thriller that keeps you guessing throughout. While the premise is a little far-fetched, given it is only 50 years in the future, the fictional society intrigues even the dullest imagination and is a good choice for the chicks, dudes or both.

Iron Man

We are all familiar with the comic book character of Iron Man, but it is Robert Downey, Jr., that brings him to life. I will admit, as a girl I had no desire to see this movie – definitely one for the dudes. However, I was pleasantly surprised how good it turned out to be. Downey had been out of the limelight for quite some time, but he made his comeback perfectly in this movie. He brings a light-heartedness and sexiness to the film, not to mention endless amounts of comedy. It’s your run of the mill superhero action film, but the comedy from Downey keeps the story fun and entertaining. The special effects in the movie are also very good and lead you to believe someone actually could fly and do the things Iron Man does throughout. All in all this is an action-packed, comedy-filled movie that is great to watch with your girl friends, the dudes, or your date. Just watch it soon before Iron Man 2 comes out!

By: Bernetta Hardy, 4L

New media is synonymous with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social networks. Public interest in television sitcoms, printed publications, and other forms of traditional media are quickly dwindling while social networks are experiencing an explosion of growth. Last year, Michigan’s Ann Arbor News closed its doors, and the chain that owns the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times declared bankruptcy. At the same time, Twitter membership quickly expanded, peaking at 13 percent in March 2009. The popularity of social media is greatly influenced by celebrity participation in social networks.

Celebrities use social networks to connect with their fans and market their projects. On Facebook, Lady Gaga posted tour dates and promotional photographs of her multi-platinum debut album THE FAME. During the Oscars, Ashton Kutcher sent tweets to his fans about partying with Sean Combs and posted pictures of himself and his wife, Demi Moore, enjoying the post-Oscar festivities. Kutcher and Lady Gaga represent the many celebrities who choose to reveal their personal images and private thoughts on popular social networks.

Social networks like Facebook and Twitter have demonstratively benefited from their celebrity members. When Kutcher challenged CNN to a Twitter popularity contest, he simultaneously obtained 1 million followers and catapulted the struggling internet service to the forefront of social media. The impact of Kutcher and other celebrities on social media has not been overlooked by the popular social networks. In Business Week, Biz Stone, the creative director of Twitter, attributed the success of the site to Kutcher, Shaquille O’Neal, and several other public figures. In fact, celebrities are so instrumental to the success of Facebook, the largest social network with more than 300 million users, that the network has a formalized support program for celebrities and other public figures. In fact, Facebook created, ”vanity URLs,” personalized web addresses, solely for its celebrity users.

Celebrity users attract millions of people because they provide an opportunity for their fans to obtain an intimate glimpse into their personal lives. Social networks permit celebrities to interact with their fans directly, without publicists, cameras, or other factors that usually stand between celebrities and their fans. Courtney Love Twitter fans learned what she really thought about the Guitar Hero video game featuring her late husband, Kurt Cobain, when she encouraged a British journalist to rape the creator of the popular video game. In addition, fans of former porn star Jenna Jameson learned of her double ectopic surgery when she provided a detailed explanation of her surgery on Facebook. True fans of Love, Jameson, and other celebrities who utilize social networks feel a personal connection to their favorite celebrities that is impossible within traditional media.

However, although intimacy may be goal of many fans who flock to their favorite celebrities on social networks, this goal may be frustrated by “ghost Twitterers.” Ghost Twitterers are writers that some celebrities hire to update their fans on various social networks. These outside writers are utilized because some celebrities believe that their busy schedules prevent their personal participation in social networks. For example, in a recent New York Times interview, Kanye West admitted he hired two handlers to update his blog because he was unable to keep his fans abreast of his numerous projects. Even politicians like Ron Paul and Pres. Barack Obama hired staffers whose primary responsibilities include creating and maintaining Twitter and Facebook accounts. As Twitter, Facebook and other social media become integrated within celebrity marketing strategies, more celebrities will turn to “ghost Twitterers” to speak on their behalf. As the “ghost Twitterers” industry expands, the true test of these popular social networks will not be whether the new social media can maintain its popularity against traditional media; but, whether the millions of fans who participate in these social networks will continue to maintain their membership when the intimacy they believed the social networks provided, is proven to be false.

By: Timothy Sutton, 1L

When James Cameron’s latest blockbuster “Avatar” was released, the world of entertainment wondered how the new 3D technology used in the film would reshape the world of film and television? Consumer Electronic Show, or CES, 2010 saw a number of 3D televisions released by Samsung, LG, and Panasonic. The new Real 3D technology used in “Avatar,” “Alice in Wonderland,” and “Clash of the Titans,” reduces the amount of eye-sore and headache that has plagued the 3D film industry since the ’50s. That’s right, the ‘50s! 3D technology is far from cutting edge; in fact some technology writers from cnet.com and the mashable.com feel that 3D is a fleeting gimmick soon to fizzle out before the year’s end.

Imagine the PGA Masters in 3D. When Tiger Woods makes his 2010 debut in 3D this year in Augusta, will you be wearing your polarized glasses? Industry experts bet you won’t. Realistic expectations are that it will be 10 to 20 years before the 3D revolution hits your living room. Just imagine a Superbowl party, grilling, drinking, and cooking out with friends. The game is about to start so everyone goes to put on their red/cyan 3D glasses. It is not only super uncool but highly unlikely that you would travel with these glasses or have dozens of extra pairs lying around the house to accommodate guests.

For the cool $3,000 average for a Real 3D television set, consumers will most likely not add this to their Black Friday door-buster must haves. Glasses-free 3D technology does exist, but the cost of units with the necessary glass filters that work 3D magic run between $9,000 and $20,000 for a 42-inch unit.

So why the continued trend to release and even re-release films in 3D? Money. Because it is so inconvenient to purchase 3D technology and all the funky glasses that go with it, filmmakers bank on your interest in seeing Sam Worthington lop off Medusa’s snake head in 3D, driving up theater ticket sales. There is a real war going on between studios and theaters over the amount of theaters allotted to show 3D movies. Paramount, among other studios, require that theaters buy both the 2D and 3D version of all of the movies they distribute. So it seems, whether you like it or not, 3D is here to stay.

By Eric Bonholtzer, 3L

Despite the popularity and advancements in film and television technology, one particular aspect of the entertainment industry has lagged behind the cutting edge: casting. It was not so long ago that the typical submission process for agents consisted of a standard routine. Most agents were in the office pouring through hardcopy breakdowns that were delivered to their doorsteps in the morning. For those not in the industry, a breakdown is just that: an itemized breakdown of the roles that casting directors are looking to fill. In times not so long past, it would be a race to see who could stuff envelopes fastest with headshots of those who fit the description. The agents would then send the manila-colored parcels to the casting directors by messenger. In the age of internet savvy and instant messaging this practice might seem barbaric, or a relic from the days of the pony express, but the fact remains that this was the system in place until just a few short years ago.

The advent of the internet really did not change much in the casting world for longer than one would think. Thankfully, though, Tinseltown eventually conformed to the technological age. The main reason the advent of widespread internet access did not change things rapidly was because of the monopoly that agents used to possess. For many years the only way an actor could be submitted for a role was though an agent. The reason for this was because only agents had access to the breakdowns. This meant that unless an actor somehow came across a way to get a subscription to the services, and interestingly a small number did, a thespian was strictly out of luck. This made matters even more difficult for novice actors as, even if they were lucky enough to get representation, an agent might only want to send his or her top breadwinners for choice roles. This combination of hardships made it exceedingly difficult for new faces to get into the industry.

While advances in technology have helped widen access to the casting world, they have by no means made it substantially easier to break onto the scene. The way the submission process is set up now is multifaceted. Some agents still do submit via the traditional breakdown services; however, the vast majority use casting websites. This makes it much easier for both the agent and the casting director. Indeed, two of the most prominent sites, Actors Access and L.A.Casting, are mainstays for the standard 2010 submission procedure. The breakdowns are now sent electronically, and agents have a portfolio of their clients’ pictures. These portfolios consist of different looks and descriptions of any special abilities, accents, and training the actors possess. Depending on what the role calls for, the agent clicks the appropriate photo, adds a note if necessary, and submits their client for consideration.

While this advance in technology has made matters easier for the agent, it has also had another effect: allowing unrepresented actors a chance to submit. For a fee, both Actors Access and L.A. Casting will allow any actor to create a profile so they can upload their photos and resume and start submitting, just like agents. Neither site requires membership in the Screen Actors Guild to participate, and that is a huge advantage for new actors. Typically, unless a person had an incredibly unique look, an agent would not glance at them twice unless they were a member of SAG. The reason for this is because the majority of television and film production is under SAG contract and provides work for SAG actors only.

But does this availability mean that anyone can become the next big star? Not necessarily. The reason for this is because even in the electronic casting world, a good majority of roles are still sent to agents first, and some are sent to agents exclusively. Sometimes the roles will be released to L.A. Casting and Actors Access subscribers if the casting directors do not find what they are looking for, but agents often get the first crack. Another hurdle is that, like a job posting on Craigslist, it often comes down to opportunity and drive. An actor must be diligent in scouring the casting notices to see if there is anything that fits his or her description, and sometimes the window of submission is quite limited. That said, the technological advances in casting have revolutionized the industry, and while they have not exactly leveled the playing field, at least they provide new actors a chance to compete as long as they have persistence. That is the beauty of technology;it makes things different while still keeping things the same. After all, it is an old actor’s axiom to say that only persistence pays off.

Historically, the judiciary grudgingly tolerated the media as an unwelcome intrusion into the legal process. The role of the judiciary is to ensure the adherence of legal rules and to maintain order in the courtroom by moderating the behavior of the attorneys, parties and other participants of the legal system. However, in high profile cases, the role of the judiciary is often disrupted by an uneducated media that tends to simplify legal issues and mock the participants of the legal process.

As a result, many judges of popular legal cases restrict the media’s access to information discussed within their courtrooms. Some of the tactics used to limit press coverage of trials include prohibiting cameras and reporters from the courtrooms, denying disclosure of certain topics to the media, and refusing to provide press conferences. Many members of the judiciary believe these drastic measures will protect the legal process from being improperly influenced by the media and public opinion.

However, the hostility demonstrated toward the media conceals the fact that the judiciary often makes decisions that are affected by the press coverage of a controversial legal issue. For example, many commentators opined that the media attention garnered by the Terri Schiavo case unnecessarily interfered with the Florida judiciary. Although 18 witnesses and Schiavo’s husband, Michael Schiavo, testified in court that Schiavo previously expressed her desire not to live in a permanent vegetative state, the courts continued to allowBob and Mary Schindler, Schiavo’s parents, to file motions opposing the removal of her feeding tube. Critics of the Schiavo case argued that the constant media attention put pressure on the judiciary to allow the Schindlers to make meritless claims and unnecessarily stall the inevitable outcome.

Despite the tension between the two groups, recent events in California reveal a drastic change in judiciary-media relations. In January, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker publicly announced his plans to stream live video of the Proposition 8 trial for later broadcast on YouTube. Walker received support from various media outlets, as well as from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who initiated the construction of rules needed to permit the broadcast. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, prevented Walker from streaming the controversial trial. Although the court did not permit the broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial, the court specifically noted that its decision was “not expressing any view on whether trials should be broadcast.” Even though the high court did not overtly advocate for public access to courtrooms, this decision is significant because it signals the judiciary’s acknowledgement of the public’s interest in legal matters. Through this decision, the Supreme Court impliedly allows lower courts to spearhead efforts to include the media in the legal process.

The decision regarding the streaming of the Proposition 8 trial is significant because it permits the integration of two groups whose fates are combined. The public relies on both the judiciary and the media for information and interpretation of complicated issues. The public expects the media to provide them with access and information to situations and celebrities that provoke national attention. The public also depends on the judiciary to interpret complicated legal doctrine and maintain the integrity of the legal process. Unfortunately, when the judiciary denies the media access to the legal process, the public is forced to rely on the media for comprehension of the complex American justice system. Members of the media are often uneducated about legal matters and may inadvertently disperse incorrect information to the nation. Therefore, the judiciary must incorporate the media into the legal process and view this activity as an extension of their civic duty instead of a hostile takeover.

Written by Bernetta Hardy, 4L Staff Writer

Every so often there is news of a celebrity getting arrested for something stupid that they did. Usually this story is followed days or weeks later with another story announcing their release. As a result, it seems like most celebrities can commit a crime and after a promise to seek anger management courses or a tearful plea, they are able to walk away with just a slap on the wrist. Even for more serious crimes, it seems like the sentences are often drastically reduced.

Nicole Richie was arrested on Dec. 11, 2006 in Burbank after the California Highway Patrol received 911 calls about a driver driving on the wrong side of the freeway. Officers found Richie on the Ventura Freeway, alone in a black 2005 Mercedes SUV. Richie told officers she was following a friend, but there were no other vehicles around at the time. Richie was “very lucky” that she didn’t hurt herself, said CHP officer Tod Workman.
Richie’s 2006 arrest was the second one for the actress, and according to California Law, there is a required 96 hours of jail time on a second offense for driving under the influence. However, many counties in California insist on at least 10 days of jail and some even require 30 days. Richie was convicted of driving under the influence and was sentenced to 96 hours in jail; of that sentence she served only 82 minutes.

Mel Gibson’s famous anti-Semitic rant after he was arrested caused a media frenzy back in 2006, but only resulted in a sentence of three years of probation. In October, a judge granted a request to expunge that famous arrest from his record, so now, legally, it is as if it never happened.

Paris Hilton was also arrested and charged with driving under the influence. Compared to other celebrities, Hilton received a “harsh” 45 days in jail but ended up only serving three days. The L.A. County sheriff’s office stated that the decision to allow Hilton to resume her sentence under house arrest was made after consultation with medical personnel. Hilton was allowed to finish her sentence at her home. In 2008, Khloe Kardashian was arrested for driving under the influence after leaving a nightclub. Kardashian was later sentenced to 30 days in jail. However, she only served 4 hours and 37 minutes. She was released due to “overcrowding.”

Clifford Harris, also known as the rapper T.I., was arrested in a federal sting in 2007 after his bodyguard delivered three machine guns and two silencers to the hip-hop star, according to a Justice Department statement. Authorities said that Harris provided the bodyguard $12,000 to buy the weapons, which Harris is not allowed to own because he is a convicted felon. The federal sentencing guidelines recommend that a person who pleads guilty to these charges should serve four years and months.

Harris negotiated a plea for one year plus a day in federal prison for trying to buy machine guns and ammo. As part of the deal, the rapper was also sentenced to 1,500 hours of community service, a $100,000 fine, and one year of home confinement. Some have suggested that Harris was able to use his celebrity to reduce the punishment. “This has been an unusual plea from the very beginning,” said Page Pate, a criminal defense attorney. “But they apparently felt he was in the unique position because of the things he could do with his celebrity that other people couldn’t do. Is it right or wrong? I won’t get into that. But is it fair? No. Joe Smith isn’t going to get this deal,” Said Pate.

Rapper Lil Wayne, whose real name is Dwayne Carter, is also heading to jail in February for attempted weapon possession charges. He received a sentence of only one year in jail.

The justice system is meant to be fair, but it is far from it. In an ideal world, celebrities would be held responsible for their actions but realistically, that is not the case because in this society, money often buys power and power allows you to get out of things normal people could not.

Written by Sheila Hassani, LL.M Staff Writer

If you have cable television and can afford a TV then you are certainly aware of the battle for the “Tonight Show” going on between Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien. We all take sides on this issue quite effortlessly, choosing the comic who appeals to our conception of “funny” and “entertaining.” With all the news coverage over this squabble, one would assume that there is a tremendous amount at stake for NBC, late-night television programming, and the country as a whole. Sadly, that is far from the truth. Our culture, guilty as charged, is fixated on “celebrity” and the Conan v. Jay showdown at NBC is the latest victim of media carnage. Television, internet and radio campaigns ask viewers to chime in, tweet, text, and email their opinions on the matter, which really is a legal question of contractual obligation of NBC Studios to keep their promise to a performer, O’Brien.

I have a close friend who works for the “Jay Leno Show” and got the inside information as to how the negotiations have affected the staff at NBC. More than a year ago, NBC was sent notification by O’Brien’s agents and attorneys that he did not believe that Leno planned on stepping down as the host of the “Tonight Show.” In fact, Leno had not made any mention to NBC executives or producers that he intended to leave the show or retire. The network looked at their two celebrities and made the decision to ask Leno to step down. O’Brien was victorious, and seven months ago received the ceremonial torch, from a reluctant Leno, signifying O’Brien’s ascension as new “Tonight Show” host. For seven months O’Brien was on top of the world, and for Leno, because retirement wasn’t part of his plan, NBC struck a deal with the senior host to remain on the network at a different time slot under the name “The Jay Leno Show.”

Staffers lost their jobs during the transition from O’Brien to Leno as a host of characters changed the face of the “Tonight Show.” Two months passed, and many employees under Leno were forced to find work elsewhere or enter early retirement. Once the “Jay Leno Show” was up and running, pay cuts had taken place, but the staff was just happy to be employed. Jump to present day, where O’Brien’s timeslot on NBC needed to be shuffled around for the Winter Olympic games, and the question arose: how does the network balance their two celebrities’ followings? Who gets the longer slot? Who gets the more primetime hours? Their previous dealings had always favored O’Brien, and that particular deal followed the trend. O’Brien was offered the longer time slot and a later time following Leno’s prime time position, but with only a half-hour of programming. The shortened programming meant one guest, a quick comedy bit, and a musical appearance. Many staff members under Leno were under the impression that they would lose their job but had no choice. Nothing was put in writing at the network for fear that the staff would jump ship to a more secure working environment with steady pay scales and checks. All everyone could do was wait while the attorneys for both O’Brien and Jay worked out the details of the time slot shake down.

According to camp Leno, O’Brien’s agents and attorneys wanted to ensure “The Tonight Show” kept its original time slot and programming, and they were seeking “The Jay Leno Show” to be pushed later or taken off the air. The negotiation centered around the perceived value of each program to the network and the potential loss of O’Brien completely. As we now know, O’Brien was unhappy with the network’s decision to keep Leno on for an early half-hour of programming and chose to leave “The Tonight Show” permanently.

It is interesting how the negotiation between the attorneys for Leno and O’Brien has been portrayed in the media as Leno’s struggle to regain “The Tonight Show.” Sensational news always raises ratings, and O’Brien’s final show had almost as many viewers as Leno’s final “Tonight Show” a year ago. The antics of O’Brien spending network money on outrageous cars, horses, and original NFL footage all come from the same budget used to fund the many salaries of the staff members of “The Tonight Show,” who have not penned a $32.5 million exit deal. Sadly, the PAs, grips, camera operators and other staff will take the fall for the inability of NBC to appease O’Brien. Shame on NBC for pitting these two men against each other and double shame on them for letting Leno shoulder the blame.
This seems like and editorial and none of the “facts” are supported by a citation.

Timothy Sutton, 1L Day Staff Writer

The health care reform bill, Affordable Health Care for America Act, would provide all Americans with access to quality and affordable health care under insurance reform legislation. The bill passed in the House on Nov. 7 by a vote of 220-215. It represents Pres. Barack Obama’s goals for health care reform, which include: slowing the growth in out-of-control costs, creating competition in the health care marketplace, protecting people’s choice of doctors, planning to keep them affordable and ensuring Americans to equal and stable access. The total cost of the plan comes to about $900 billion over 10 years, which would cover 36 million uninsured Americans, according to the federal Committee on Education & Labor’s blog, available at http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml.

The health care reform debate is running rampant in town halls throughout the United States, and Hollywood is no exception. The buzz is being felt from celebrities across the spectrum. More specifically, celebrities have been coming from right and left to weigh in on the debate and share their two cents in press releases and online postings.

Chuck Norris
In a column titled “Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare” on TownHall.com, Chuck Norris has expressed his perspective and strong opposition to the proposed health care reform. Norris remarked, “Obamacare is about the government’s coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development. . . . The bill says that the government agents, ‘well-trained and competent staff,’ would ‘provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional and motor domains. . . . Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts’? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! . . . Are we to assume the state’s mediators would understand every parent’s social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom?”

While Norris brings up valid points about each child requiring specialized and individualized attention relating to his or her social and cultural background, it can be argued that many parents and children require this attention. Child protective services is already a government entity that has the potential to be involved in the life of every family, and before drastic intervention is required for many families and children in the future, the bill could provide the concern necessary from the beginning.

Mark Hoppus

Taking another approach to the health care reform, Blink 182’s bassist, Mark Hoppus, is a strong supporter of the bill. He recently wrote an editorial for the political news site The Huffington Post, stating that “When a person’s best option to pay for health care is to take to the Internet and ask for small donations from strangers, bold changes need to be made. . . . Mr. President, members of Congress, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies, there has to be a better way.”

Moby

The famous musician Moby posted a story on his blog bringing to light the health of his deceased mother that makes it hard to not support the health care reform plan. Moby described how in 1996 his mother complained to her HMO about breathing and other health problems after she had quit smoking. The doctors didn’t take X-rays or perform any other tests and sent her on her way. Three months later, as her respiratory problem worsened, her insurance company allowed her to have X-rays and saw that she had advanced lung cancer. About six months later, she died from lung cancer, and Moby remains an avid supporter of health care reform as a result.

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/celebrities-sound-health-care-reform

Written by Jasmine Abrams, 2L Staff Writer

We often idolize celebrities as super-human, but if there was ever any doubt that they are not, the list of celebrities that have contracted H1N1 should be some indication. In the recent months, celebrities such as Marilyn Manson, Brian Litrell from the Backstreet Boys, Elton John, Rupert Grint of Harry Potter fame, Dennis Hopper and even CNN’s own medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, have been diagnosed with H1N1, better known as swine flu.

While Litrell is lamenting cancellation of tour dates due to his diagnosis, Manson has managed to make light of it in his recent blog. Manson’s post stated: “So I have officially been diagnosed, by a real doctor, with THE SWINE FLU. Unfortunately, I am going to survive.”

Amid continuing increases in reports of H1N1 outbreaks and the media attention surrounding celebrities contracting swine flu, the L.A. County Department of Public Health opened the first of its H1N1 Vaccine Clinics Oct. 23 and will continue to open more locations through December.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends taking these everyday precautions to avoid getting sick:
• Wash your hands often with soap and water. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand rub.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth. Germs spread that way.

If you do get sick:
• Stay home if you get sick, except to receive medical care or other necessities. You should not return to work or school until your fever has been gone for at least 24 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications.
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing or sneezing. It may prevent those around you from getting sick.

As some of the biggest names in the entertainment world have fallen ill thanks to H1N1, it is now safe to say that no one is safe from the swine flu. Therefore, we should all take extra precautions, especially leading up to finals, to stay healthy for the holiday season.
Written by Tina Eshghieh, 2L Staff Writer

The name Screen Actors Guild is undoubtedly associated with the film industry. Most lead actors and actresses appearing on the silver screen are members of the Screen Actors Guild, and membership in the union is one of the most coveted things that any aspiring thespian seeks. The Guild was established in 1933 by members of the Actors’ Equity Association (AEA) and recently celebrated its 75-year anniversary as strong as ever. The union was originally created because actors with extensive Broadway experience, who enjoyed the protection of the AEA for theater, were locked down into oppressive contracts when they moved to the film industry. While the Guild was originally created to stand up to studios’ grueling work conditions and free actors from being forced into the long-term engagement contracts that were commonplace in the 1940s, the actors’ union is now the gateway to all aspects of appearing on both the big and small screens. In fact, in the current casting world, it is almost impossible to secure an agent or even an audition without this coveted membership because the Screen Actors Guild has contracts with major studios that require membership in the union in order to appear in their productions.

Actors who are not members of SAG are not precluded from acting in general, but they are more limited in their options. Typically they are only able to land roles in non-union projects or those that the union has granted specific waivers for, such as student or independent projects. This is because major production companies must pay a fee to the Screen Actors Guild if they want to use non-union actor on a project that has a SAG contract. Because of the Taft Hartley Act, which require that a person may not be precluded from working because they are not a member of a union, a non-union actor can be a cast for a major motion picture, but because it takes the opportunity away from a union member, a fee is imposed. It operates like a preemptive breach of contract remedy similar to liquidated damages. Since studios do not want to have to pay these fees, it is rare that they will cast someone who is not a member of SAG, which is why it is difficult to get a major motion picture part or commercial role, and sometimes even an audition, without a SAG card.

Joining SAG is almost a catch-22. The most direct way to join is to be cast as a principal actor, meaning an actor with speaking lines, on a SAG contract production. However, due to the fees that studios are forced to pay to allow a non-union person to work in these roles, it is a very difficult road to take, even if a person is a very talented actor or actress. Another means of joining is to work three days as a background actor under a SAG voucher. The days do not have to be consecutive. Studios, due to their SAG contracts, are required to have a certain number of union members on set as background actors. Since the casting process is not as complex for background actors and the pay is less than principal actors, if a union member does not show up to a set, they are often replaced by non-union members who are already on set because the studio is fined if they do not have their quota of union members. The final way to get into SAG is to act in a principle role in an affiliate union such as American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), which governs radio performers, and to a more limited extent, some television shows, and AEA.

SAG membership comes with a huge perk: health care benefits. There are two ways to be eligible for coverage through the Guild. The first way is to meet a specified earnings amount in a four-quarter period, between $28,000 and $30,000 for coverage, depending on the date coverage was first earned. If a performer is unable to make enough money to satisfy the requirement, the second method of gaining coverage is by working 74 days within the same four-quarter period. Both ways require the payment of a premium, between $150 to $375 per quarter, but then performers are substantially covered, along with their dependent children, spouses and domestic partners. While there are many perks to joining SAG such as the medical benefits and even a pension plan, the cost to join is currently $2,277 with $58 semi-annual dues. Additionally, unless they meet very specific financial hardship exceptions, SAG membersare not allowed to work on non-union projects. Overall, the benefits far outweigh any drawbacks, and with the powerful actor’s union being the gateway to making it on the silver screen, it is little wonder that people are clamoring to join the guild, and that’s no act.

Eric Bonholtzer, 3L Evening, Staff Writer