Well, I agree… but as you and I are not lawyers (at least, I’m not) then we can’t know what laws over the years have been violated. Or, more accurately, we could say that perhaps the right laws weren’t written in the first place.

It also happened in the music industry – during the 1980’s, I think.

By the 1990’s, 5 corporations owned all of the major record labels. And, the consequence to the music industry has been similar to what we are identifying in the film industry.

However, as it doesn’t seem to violate anti-trust laws, in either the film industry or the music industry, I don’t know of any legal measure that would have prevented it.

I suspect that what we’re talking about would appropriately be considered to be part of the larger, more fundamental problem identified and expounded upon by the likes of Noam Chomsky, that of corporate definition.

Yes, that is exactly my point. So we’re in agreement. This horror began in the 70s and by the 80s, the change in Hollywood was complete.

There’s no solution to the problem; the “solution” would have been to not let it happen in the first place—but that would have required the government to step in and say “no” to all these corporate takeovers, in Hollywood, of the studios. Perhaps it would have set a nice precedent, and we wouldn’t have vast corporate ownership of *all* our media sources today—huge corporations now own the great majorit of TV and radio stations and newspapers across the country.

If your main point is that studios are making lesser quality films because their primary goal is to make money for their corporate owners who really don’t care how that money is made — by shit or shingle –then, I agree with you.

I’ve been involved in a creative venture run by accountants who saw little beyond the focus of “SELL PRODUCT.” There is a zone of productive harmony that exists in marriages of art and commerce, where both are well served.

At present, the Hollywood film industry seems to be operating outside of that zone. Commerce is being well served, but art is not.

And, the audiences are not.

I’ve seen “The Upright Citizens Brigade,” yes, as well as other improv stuff.

Your point about improv work is well taken, to a point. But films are not improvised. (occasionally scenes are, but this is rarer than following a script). Yes, when someone improvises, they are creating. It’s a form of writing. Of course.

But in that instance the actor is not “acting,” he/she is writing. ACTING is the process by which someone pretends to be a character for a period of time either on stage or on film/TV. IMPROVISATION is a form of writing. Just because an actor can improvise, and thus “write,” doesn’t make the actor an artist—for that reason.

I mean, let’s not throw around “artist” too readily at writers either. Most are hacks, not artists.

Anyway, to the extent that an actor contributes to a script/film, etc. via improvisation, sure—I’ll grant you that’s creative. But now you’re grasping at straws.

As to a problem implying a solution, I can’t agree. Some problems simply exist. That doesn’t mean they’re solve-able.

And again, I never laid the blame for the current state of Hollywood on high actor salaries. You’re misreading me. I said actor’s salaries are too high. That’s all. I explained in detail what IS to blame for the current state of Hollywood. Actor salaries are just a factor, and a smaller one than others.

I respect your opinion that films cost too much to make and that actors are unfairly benefiting from that cost, possibly to the detriment of writers.

But, to identify this as a problem implies the possibility of a solution. After all, it’s not Astrophysics that we’re talking about.

So, what would be your proposed solution to the problem of actors’ salaries? And, what would be the ramifications of such a solution, to the industry as a whole, as well as to the individual actors?

Further, if one sees fit to identify actors’ salaries as a problem — and the proximate cause of the decline in quality of films — then, why not blame the studios who choose to allocate their resources in such a way as they do?

But, what would be the reasoning behind blaming the studios for engaging in profitable business practices in which, not only are none of their employees being mistreated, but the studios are accused of OVER-paying some of their employees?

On what standards (legal, moral, ethical…?) would such a criticism be predicated, if it were not to be totally arbitrary?

– somebody has to *write* the damn thing. –

I’m curious, have you ever been to see improvised acting or comedy?

When next you’re in NYC, I recommend that you check out the Upright Citizens Brigade. It’s an improv comedy troupe with some SNL cast members (I think it was founded by Amy Poehler) as well as some other fairly well-known TV comedic actors and some as-yet-unknown talent.

The Sunday Night shows are completely improvised. One of the actors, referred to as the “monologuist,” begins the show by telling a little tale, allegedly made up on the spot with a word offered from the audience. And, the rest of the show is composed of the actors improvising scenes with each other on stage, loosely based on the aforementioned monologue.

Basically, the monologue offers some basic ideas for scenes — a person trapped in a bank during a hold-up, for example — and, the actors act scenes with each other, many of which are premised upon the events from the monologue, but the scenes are mostly composed of information not included in the monologue.

So, if all of the people on the stage are actors, and actors aren’t artists by virtue of the fact that they don’t “create” anything, then, who’s creating that show for the hour of its duration?

Would you say that it’s simply a thing that is not created, but crafted, even though the actual “writing” of the scenes is being done on-the-spot by the actors who are performing them?

(It’s usually a very funny show, by the way, and a lot of fun.)

But again, all matters of opinion. But take the greatest example you can think of—-Brando or DeNiro, I don’t care—to me these people are not “creating” anything… they’re interpreting. There’s nothing “artistic” about it.

Which is not to denigrate what they do—craftspeople are important.

Whether writers are more important than actors—well, my inclination would be to say yes. But if you consider film overall as a collaborative art, you can argue that no one is really “more” important than anyone else—the director is clearly key, but I guess the thing is, if you get right down to it—somebody has to *write* the damn thing. A director can guide, interpret, and improve upon what’s written… and an actor can interpret and improve upon what’s written (perhaps). The cinematographer can add beauty and moving imagery, and so on. But it all begins (or should begin) with what’s written.

Of course the truth is, films aren’t sold as scripts as often as they’re sold as “packages” these days. But still, the idea is there.

But anyway, all this debating back and forth about acting and what it means—it’s not totally relevant. The fact is that when the system is already far too expensive—and you add in 20 million or whatever for the cost of a single actor—then surely anyone should be able to see that such a thing is ridiculous. It’s the same corruption that we have in the business world, where CEOs make 100 million dollar salaries and take away even larger severance packages when they’re edged out or let go… someone will always argue that such indecent amounts of money are justified…. but in our heart of hearts we all know it’s really wrong.

– Yes, precisely. It should go to the *writers.* Actors are not “artists.” Actors are at best “craftspeople.” Art they do not create. –

I think that actors are both craftspeople and artists.

Some rolls are written very precisely, leaving less room for interpretation, improvisation and creation. An actor might be more appropriately referred to as a craftsman when acting a role in a Shakespeare play, for example, in that he’s probably not creating anything that’s not implied on the page.

But, other roles — take the aforementioned example of The Mask — are more subject to the creativity of the actor.

Do you think that Jim Carrey’s role in The Mask was written exactly as he performed it? Do you think that any other actor given the script could have played that role in any way resembling the way that Carrey played it?

I don’t. I think that Jim Carrey is a unique actor who is both a craftsman and an artist, and that his performance in The Mask was more attributable to his creation than to the writers’. But, such a judgment is premised upon the definition of “art,” and we may have differing definitions.

I do agree that writers seem undervalued, underutilized and are likely underpaid. Whether writers are, in all cases, more important to a film than actors, and whether writers should therefore be paid more than actors across the board, is an issue that I would like to see tested, as I said.

Experiment: Pay top-dollar for a screenplay, its writer and additional writers to beef up the dialogue and tweak the screenplay as needed, and use lesser known or less “hot” actors and no CGI. See what happens.

Make sure you hire a good director, though.

Well, I never said that anyway. So no naivete here. I simply made the observation that actors make too much money, and it adds another cost to filmmaking.

But you’re right—it’d be silly to expect corporations to take any hypothetical savings and put it back into good product.