TV judges

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
21

There is probably some truth about “Judge Judy” from both viewpoints. She was considered a competent judge in family court, but she was also quite a firecracker. She was spotlighted on Sixty Minutes for her unusual approach before she got her television show. I would think that having her own show has only encouraged that side of her personality.

She is pretty harsh and that’s not my style, but I honestly can’t say that I disagree with her on many issues. I’m not familiar with the law, but she does seem to be consistent.

And nothing gets on her show unless she approves of it. I’ve heard her indicate that before. So if some kid is seen telling her off, she allowed it to be telecast. I would think that would happen with some frequency.

On some of the judicial shows, the winner is paid from $5,000 that is set aside for each case. Then the winner and loser split the remainder. Of course, if the winner receives the full $5,000, the loser takes nothing.

The plaintive and defendant are also members of SAG. That doesn’t mean that they are actually acting or are fed lines.

22

[QUOTE=Zoe]

The plaintive and defendant are also members of SAG. That doesn’t mean that they are actually acting or are fed lines.
[/QUOTE]

Umm…

What?

How do you figure that either the plaintiff or defendant are SAG members?

In general, to become a member of SAG, you have to either work on a SAG film in a principal role, accumulate enough points through background work, or belong to an affiliated union like AFTRA or Equity.

What are you talking about, here?

23

[QUOTE=Bricker]
In general, to become a member of SAG, you have to either work on a SAG film in a principal role, accumulate enough points through background work, or belong to an affiliated union like AFTRA or Equity.
[/QUOTE]
In fact, you /have/ to join once you take your second job. (You get one for free.)

But surely these shows are AFTRA jurisdiction, anyway, not SAG?

24

[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy]

But surely these shows are AFTRA jurisdiction, anyway, not SAG?
[/QUOTE]

Good point – I’m so used to those two mushing together, but you’re right: a TV show would be AFTRA.

25

Yes and no. Shows shot on film in one-camera style – most hour-long dramas – are SAG. Shows shot on video in three-camera style – most other shows – are AFTRA.

26

[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy]
Yes and no. Shows shot on film in one-camera style – most hour-long dramas – are SAG. Shows shot on video in three-camera style – most other shows – are AFTRA.
[/QUOTE]

But still, the litigants on the shows would not be union members. (Well, some might be, but it would have nothing to do with their appearance on these shows.) The parties are contacted by the show based on small claims filings. It would be impractical to then require these people to join the union just for a one shot appearance. Not to mention the economic impact of paying initiation fees and union dues. It wouldn’t make sense.

27

[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy]
Yes and no. Shows shot on film in one-camera style – most hour-long dramas – are SAG. Shows shot on video in three-camera style – most other shows – are AFTRA.
[/QUOTE]

This sounds like something you know a bit about. Can you expand a bit on why this is? As I look at the AFTRA site, they seem to claim near-universal coverage of TV.

28

[QUOTE=Bricker]
This sounds like something you know a bit about. Can you expand a bit on why this is? As I look at the AFTRA site, they seem to claim near-universal coverage of TV.
[/QUOTE]

Not so. Or rather, not entirely so. The current war with SAG kind of muddies the water… purposefully. And that, my friend, sucks unwashed llama ass. They do have quite a bit of coverage of THIS kind of TV, yes, but not of scripted television at all. 95% of scripted television is under SAG contracts, and 100% of movies fall under SAG contracts as well.

The current rift and negotiations could be disastrous. But that’s another story for another thread.

AFTRA’s hold on television tends to be more in the realm of announcers, voice-over artists, variety shows, commercial actors, non-scripted shows, and so on. They also have a stake in some musical acts.

Elly, WGAe scribe (television, mostly.)

29

[QUOTE=Bricker]
This sounds like something you know a bit about. Can you expand a bit on why this is? As I look at the AFTRA site, they seem to claim near-universal coverage of TV.
[/QUOTE]
Well, AFTRA gets everything that isn’t straight scripted drama. They also historically, in the 40s and early 50s, got scripted drama, too, which was generally done live, with three cameras focussed at all times on the action, and the director, up in the control booth, switching the broadcast from one camera to another. But, later on, when Hollywood got into the act (most early television was done in New York), the concept was “short movies made for television”, and they shot them the same way they did movies, with one camera, first shooting a broad version of each scene (with the scenes done in an order that was convenient for shooting, rather than in story order), then closeups of actor #1 saying all his lines, then closeups of actor #2 saying all his lines, and so on, all the shots finally put together in the editing bay. SAG got jurisdiction on these shows, because they were made in Hollywood, they were being made by movie studios, and it just seemed natural. The split has continued to this day, with SAG generally doing the one-hour dramas, and AFTRA generally doing sitcoms, soaps, and everything else.

There are several more unions in the US that cover actors. AGVA, which historically handled vaudeville, now does Las Vegas and theme parks. AGMA does opera. (Members of the orchestra, however, belong to the Musicians Union.) Actors Equity does legitimate plays and musicals. There are also a couple of ethnic unions from way back when the other unions wouldn’t take certain people.

Traditionally, the distinction was, “SAG gets film and AFTRA gets video”. But now some one-camera shows are being shot with video cameras, (often postprocessed digitally to have the color balance of film) and I don’t know how that’s being divided up.

The situation really isn’t altogether healthy, as it encourages a degree of ghettoization that they don’t have in, say, Britain. Can you imagine an American actress with a status comparable to, e.g.,, Judi Dench doing a sitcom?

30

[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
I’ve also seen Brown lament the fact that, though a given party to a suit was an ass, he still had to rule in his favor, as the facts and law were on the ass’s side.
[/QUOTE]
Well this isn’t surprising since, according to Mr. Bumble, the law is a ass in the first place.