![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatJust when I started envying the tv writers and thinking it would be cool -- along comes a moral writing dilemma that I honestly have no clue how I'd resolve.
You are a writer - for a film or tv show. The show and/or film has been cast. Everyone is perfect for the parts. If a tv show you are in your third season and doing rather swimmingly. Your cast is hot. You are getting critical acclaim. Everyone likes you. Heck you've won awards. If you are a film, it's a triology, you've aired the first two films to huge acclaim. People eagerly are anticipating the next installment.
Everything's going great right? Writer's getting along. Fans seem to love the characters.
You've been told that you've got a deal for another film after this one, or say another season of the tv show, possibly two. And get this, you got a deal for other projects. Cool!
Here's the problem - one of your actors has gotten into public fracas with another actor and on set, called the actor something really nasty and offensive. So offensive that the people on the set are complaining about it in the press. This becomes public.
The actor instead of making things better, makes them worse by denying he did it.
Or:
Say your actors got arrested for drunken driving, made a fool of themselves, offended some minority groups and this hit the press? Or they've held up production on the set and are making other actors uncomfortable - so uncomfortable the other actors are starting to threaten to quit. Or they arrive drunk to the set each day?
Do you just fire them? Hold on a sec -
The actor who is doing all of this is one of your major players - you have a huge arc planned around them. If they leave the show it will cost you storywise, it could foul it up completely. Because you can't recast the character - people have identified the actor with the part and this is not a daytime soap opera (where they can get away with such things). No, if the actor leaves so does the character. The character might as well be dead.
What do you do??? What if the actor is the lead? What if they are main part of the show or film? Do you ignore what they've done? Can you ignore it and hope the public will eventually forget it and still watch? Give the actor a warning? Find a way to punish them without firing them? Or fire them and try to write around it? Here's an exercise - pick your favorite show and write an episode in which the lead or a major character has to leave the show permanently. Can you do it?
1. Angel The Series - Charisma Carpenter was causing lengthy delays, making the workplace hostile for the crew, and costing time and money in production time. Unfortunately it was not enough to fire her under her contract, so when the contract was up they let her go. This did however present a problem - she was a lead character and a fan favorite - how to handle it?
Glenn Quinn was using drugs and addicted. Came on the set drunk most of the time. Costing the producers money. He was a lead character in the series - what to do?
2. Lost - three actors had DUI's or got into trouble with the police in Hawaii. Two actors were having troubles with the other actors on set, causing delays, and making work difficult.
But one of the three was a fan favorite and one of the few minority characters on the show.
What to do?
3. Grey's Anatomy - an actor calls another actor a derogatory term concerning his sexual orientation. He denies doing it to the press. Yet has allegedly done it twice with witnesses.
The whole thing has become public. Both actors are lead players in an ensemble cast and are important to the show. What to do?
4. The West Wing - one of the lead actors was upset that another one was making more money and in more scenes than he was. He threatened to quit if he didn't get the same amount. The character was written out and the actor let go, they could not afford to pay him as much as the lead. This wasn't a moral dilemma thank god. And most situations regarding actors are like this one.
Some days, I'm very happy that I'm not employed as a television writer or filmmaker.
You are a writer - for a film or tv show. The show and/or film has been cast. Everyone is perfect for the parts. If a tv show you are in your third season and doing rather swimmingly. Your cast is hot. You are getting critical acclaim. Everyone likes you. Heck you've won awards. If you are a film, it's a triology, you've aired the first two films to huge acclaim. People eagerly are anticipating the next installment.
Everything's going great right? Writer's getting along. Fans seem to love the characters.
You've been told that you've got a deal for another film after this one, or say another season of the tv show, possibly two. And get this, you got a deal for other projects. Cool!
Here's the problem - one of your actors has gotten into public fracas with another actor and on set, called the actor something really nasty and offensive. So offensive that the people on the set are complaining about it in the press. This becomes public.
The actor instead of making things better, makes them worse by denying he did it.
Or:
Say your actors got arrested for drunken driving, made a fool of themselves, offended some minority groups and this hit the press? Or they've held up production on the set and are making other actors uncomfortable - so uncomfortable the other actors are starting to threaten to quit. Or they arrive drunk to the set each day?
Do you just fire them? Hold on a sec -
The actor who is doing all of this is one of your major players - you have a huge arc planned around them. If they leave the show it will cost you storywise, it could foul it up completely. Because you can't recast the character - people have identified the actor with the part and this is not a daytime soap opera (where they can get away with such things). No, if the actor leaves so does the character. The character might as well be dead.
What do you do??? What if the actor is the lead? What if they are main part of the show or film? Do you ignore what they've done? Can you ignore it and hope the public will eventually forget it and still watch? Give the actor a warning? Find a way to punish them without firing them? Or fire them and try to write around it? Here's an exercise - pick your favorite show and write an episode in which the lead or a major character has to leave the show permanently. Can you do it?
1. Angel The Series - Charisma Carpenter was causing lengthy delays, making the workplace hostile for the crew, and costing time and money in production time. Unfortunately it was not enough to fire her under her contract, so when the contract was up they let her go. This did however present a problem - she was a lead character and a fan favorite - how to handle it?
Glenn Quinn was using drugs and addicted. Came on the set drunk most of the time. Costing the producers money. He was a lead character in the series - what to do?
2. Lost - three actors had DUI's or got into trouble with the police in Hawaii. Two actors were having troubles with the other actors on set, causing delays, and making work difficult.
But one of the three was a fan favorite and one of the few minority characters on the show.
What to do?
3. Grey's Anatomy - an actor calls another actor a derogatory term concerning his sexual orientation. He denies doing it to the press. Yet has allegedly done it twice with witnesses.
The whole thing has become public. Both actors are lead players in an ensemble cast and are important to the show. What to do?
4. The West Wing - one of the lead actors was upset that another one was making more money and in more scenes than he was. He threatened to quit if he didn't get the same amount. The character was written out and the actor let go, they could not afford to pay him as much as the lead. This wasn't a moral dilemma thank god. And most situations regarding actors are like this one.
Some days, I'm very happy that I'm not employed as a television writer or filmmaker.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-19 05:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-19 05:35 am (UTC)But you see I separate the artist from their work. Most of the time.
T. S. Eliot was anti-semite - but an amazing poet. Flannery O'Connor a racist. And some of the people I've known in my life have been homophobic and racist - family members, bosses, etc - but good kind people.
The world is not simple. And I am not in a position in which I can throw stones. I know I've said things in my life that have hurt others not intending to. Luckily for me, it wasn't public. And no they weren't words like the one Washington used or a racist epithet. And I can promise you Washington has probably more than once in his lifetime been hurt like TR Knight, possibly more so - being a black man in Hollywood is not an easy thing. And the "N" word is still widely used - my uncle, may he rest in peace, used it all the time. Made me cringe every time he used it. Made it difficult for me to be around him at times. But he was otherwise a deeply kind person who did a lot for others. Washington similarily has done things for others - he has gone on excursions for several years now to Africa to help people in that country - using his own money to provide aid.
Life is not simple. It's grey. Think of BTVS for a moment - how many horrible things did these people do to one another? I think the hardest thing we do in this life is try to understand those who hurt us. Hating them gets us nowhere. I know because I've tried the hating and trust me, it doesn't help. I'm still fighting it. I feel sorry for both Mr. Knight and Mr. Washington, but most of all for the writer who has struggled and has not had it easy.
To clarify...
Date: 2007-01-19 06:20 am (UTC)And I think the writers may have no other choice than to find a way to write out Washington's character. My guess is they are already paving the way for it. Each episode, he has less and less to do. Also they can use the hand to write him out if need be. He is a far easier character to write out of the series than any of the others.
But, the dilemma got me to thinking - what would happen if say Tobey MacQuire did the same thing while filming Spiderman 3 to James Franco?
Should Tobey be fired? Would you not go to it? Or what would happen if during Angel, Boreanze did it to say Alexis Denisof? How do you resolve that scenario? You as a filmmaker? It's a hard question to answer.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-19 05:47 am (UTC)http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1202053lost1.html
(sorry, I had to look it up because I hadn't heard anything about it...)
The West Wing situation was handled very well I thought, as well as it could be.... And I thought they handled things pretty well on Angel; it does upset fans when their favorites leave, but ultimately they get over it, after all Oz left because Seth wanted to do other things, and Tara never came back because Amber was busy, and the stories went on just as smoothly (more or less) as the killing off of Doyle and putting Cordy into a coma (except I thought her coma should have started WAY earlier, she really showed off how bad she could act when she didn't want to be there).
However this new situation w/Grey's Anatomy & Isaiah Washington will tear their show apart...they are going to have to write Washington out of the show, as soon as possible. The guy can always pull a Mel Gibson and go into rehab...but I don't see how they'll be able to keep him on the show (besides contracts have clauses that allow them to fire actors who cause bad press because of bad behavior, don't they?).
Agree
Date: 2007-01-19 06:14 am (UTC)I watched it tonight and I don't see how Rhimes is going to get around it. Unfortunately the show established a close friendship between Burke (Washington) and George (Knight) at the very beginning - a friendship that appeared to have been healed last week and was shown again tonight. George shares as many scenes with Burke as Christina did - also, hate to say this but in the first season of the series there was a bit of "slashiness" or "UST" implied in the friendship - when George was a roommate and Christina commented that Burke had more in common with him than with Christina. (This happened on Angel too, by the way, with Lindsey and with Spike - Boreanze was bothered by it and did say things, but it was kept under wraps, Angel wasn't as popular as Grey's and as far as I know - he never called anyone a name. But when Whedon caught wind of it - he deliberately began writing the scenes into the series to push Boreanze's buttons or that's what the rumor mill held. Can't help but wonder is something similar happened on Grey's except in this scenario....don't know wasn't there and what the parties involved have stated - Washington was really out of bounds - to the point in which it became hostile.)
I think they can actually write Washington out without too much problem. Since the show really does center more around Meredith and they can find someone else for Christina down the line. He's not intergral to the show. And the writers have been writing less and less for him - pushing him to the sidelines. Also he has the injury - which if played right could give them a way to get him off the show.
That said - there's another issue which most people aren't aware of - contracts. Firing contracted actors is not as easy as it looks. They aren't "at will" employees. They are under "contract" and represented by a "union". This is why Charisma couldn't just be fired. Quinn could because he was showing up for work drunk. Same with Rodriquez - a DUI is enough to get you fired. But calling your fellow actors names and getting into fights on the set? Don't know. They might be able to get him offed for the fight - depending on who hit who first.
But name-calling? Then again - the fact it has hit the public, and the talk shows, provides the producers with enough ammo to terminate Washington's contract for "cause" stating that his continued employment is harmful to the series.
It's an interesting dilemma. Emotionally? I am finding it difficult to watch Washington - regardless of what I wrote above. I cringed tonight, but at the same time was struck by how professional and good Knight's acting was. Knight deserves an emmy nod for his performances opposite Washington.
Re: Agree
Date: 2007-01-19 06:40 am (UTC)Tobey MacQuire is an interesting example...I think if he did something so herendous that parents wouldn't take their kids to see Spiderman III then they would just have to shut down production, and wait to see if MacQuire could pull himself back from the abyss....
Tom Cruise did alienate a lot of his audience and War of the Worlds and Mission Impossible III both suffered at the box office because of his sudden 'creep factor'... obviously Cruise thinks he can win people back, but the fact is that his Samarii movie stunk too, and that was before the weirdness got out of hand.
I was surprised that Harry Potter movies didn't miss a beat with the death of Richard Harris, they didn't even try to make the replacement look or sound like the old Dumbledor, I really respected the decision.... But of course he wasn't one of the three core characters, I don't think they would find it as easy to replace Hermione!
LOL Obviously I'm not offering any suggestions or ideas how these things should be handled, I'm just enjoying the examples.... I think Grey's Anatomy can survive this, it is a strong ensamble show and he wasn't the lead....
At the Browncoat Backup Bash (the Flan2 that wasn't) Tim Minear came and talked and happened to say that Joss had learned to never name a show after a character...when they started to 'spec' Firefly they refered to it as "air-lock", I'm guessing for the very reason you are writing about : replacing SMG or David would have involved huge problems, and the actors knew it.
Re: Agree
Date: 2007-01-19 07:12 am (UTC)Whedon realized okay, life is sooo much easier with ensembles. Heck, why do you think Lost is an ensemble? Abrahms learned his lesson on Alias - with Garner and the guy who played Vaughn. They'd been involved. She dumped him for Affleck, brought Affleck on the set.
He complained about it. She kicked him off the show. With Lost?
They can kill anyone at any time and the actors know it. Firefly, same deal - also those actors had been in the biz a looong time, Fillion, Baldwin, Tudyk, Glass, and Torres knew the ropes. It was in their best interest to make it work. It was not their first gig.
Course prior to BTVs and ATS, Whedon worked on Roseanne, who was notorious for firing anyone who did not get along with her. Want to talk about hostile work environments? Levine makes me laugh with his stories...like many tv writers, he's appreciative but not crazy about most tv actors.
Grey's has a similar problem - but the lead of Grey's isn't Washington but Ellen Pompeo. They can realistically fire anyone but Ellen. The problem with getting rid of Washington is it does cut down on the minority ratio they are aiming for - on the other hand, they can always find another actor. I'd kill him but that does get a tad melodramatic. Best to just gradually write him out which is what they appear to be doing. Shame, I adored the character of Burke and I have to admit I'm more than a little annoyed with the actor for being an ignorant homophobic turd and for letting out the fact that he is homophobic in public and in the work environment. He's getting paid more money than I can imagine a year and this guy is acting like a third grade bully? It's annoying and offensive. And hello, have more important things to concern myself with at the moment. LOL!
Agree on Harry, I think it was easy to replace Dumbledore at the point they did, because he wasn't that major yet. After Phoenix, it would have been harder. The actors they are going to have major problems replacing and these actors know it are: Harry, Ron, Hermione, Snape, and Hagrid. (The actor playing Hagrid has threatened more than once to stop doing them - apparently he finds HAgrid not that interesting to play, can't say I blame him.)
Cruise is a good example of an actor who has damaged his career by his off-screen antics. I have to admit that when I saw Mission Impossible III - I was creeped out by him and struggled with it.
Not sure I can get myself to watch him in anything else. Same with Mel Gibson - whose films I've more or less avoided since Braveheart and I became uncomfortably aware of the man's views and how he inserted those views into his films. Apocalypto is not a film I plan on seeing any more than Passion of The Christ. And I cringe watching him in the Lethal Weapons now. This is why so many actors in the 50's, 60's,70's, 80's and even now - don't tell people they are gay - because people can't buy them in a romantic role once they learn it.
(Never bothered me, because let's face it I'm not going to date the actor and it's a role and I know in the back my head they aren't into the person they are romancing onscreen. But I do know people who could not watch Richard Chamberlin, Rock Hudson, James Dean, Montgomery Clift amongst others - when they realized they were gay.
Never understood it myself. But I wonder if the thought process is all that different?)
Ghod, I should sleep. It's past two. Yes...my sleep hours are getting wonkier and wonkier.
Re: Agree
Date: 2007-01-19 02:45 pm (UTC)Re: Agree
Date: 2007-01-19 05:05 pm (UTC)And his relationship with George - has so much "slash" potential - I would not be at all surprised if there were fanfics out there on it.
Even in his relationship with Christina - Burke seems to be in the "stereotypical" female role - a "caregiver", "kind", "sympathetic", "able to talk about how he feels" - While Christina is in the "stereotypical" male role - hates to talk about feelings, unsympathetic/unempathetic, not a caregiver and tends to be brash. He cooks, cleans, likes things neat and orderly - Christina's locker and apartment are pits and she does not cook.
Which was why I loved the relationship - because the writers had switched the "stereotypical" gender roles.