Dark Victory
Page 21
“Yes.”
“In which you appear?”
“Yes.”
“I don’t know if they had what was known as a package representation as early as 1939 or ’40. Do you know if you had such a contract?”
“I wouldn’t know. There were times back there every once in a while the things come in the mail and you sign it if you are satisfied with the agent. Sometimes there were, I remember, some period[s] in which I signed additional for representation in additional fields.”
“Have you ever refused to sign any contract of representation by MCA?”
“No.”
“Then we can assume that you at the present time have the regular SAG contract for talent representation with MCA, that they represent you in all media in which you might appear which might be television, radio, and motion pictures, and also that you have with them a package representation contract; that’s correct, is it not?”
“I would say so, yes.”
“Do you know of your own personal knowledge whether you have such contracts with MCA at this time?”
“Well, now, if my life depended on it, no. I just signed what was sent and sent it back.”
“I think we can fairly assume that Mr. Reagan had such contracts. Did MCA ever condition representation by them of your signing of any contract?”
“No.”
“What unions are you a member of, Mr. Reagan?”
“Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA. I have been a member, in addition, of the American Guild of Variety Artists for a brief time when I made personal appearances.”
“How long have you been a member of AFTRA? When did you first become a member?”
“Well, it was just radio, the Radio Guild, and I imagine that was probably about the same time when I came out here and joined the Screen Actors Guild. In my early days of sports announcing in the Midwest, we didn’t know about such things. We were all out in the open with no unions, no union representing, when this organization was created.”
“Do you recall when you became a member of SAG?”
“Yes, when I came here and signed my contract with Warner Brothers.”
“1937?”
“Yes.”
“What positions have you held in SAG since you became a member in 1937?”
“Well, I have probably held twenty years of membership total as a board member. I briefly was a vice-president and I had six and a half terms as president.”
“Do you recall the years that you were president?”
“Yes, I was appointed to fill out the term of a resigning president around 1946 or ’47. I served five and a half years then and refused to run anymore but served on the board continuously until a couple of years ago, I guess 1959 or ’60. I became president again for one year. Just shortly before the end of that year [I] resigned.”
“Then you were president of Screen Actors Guild in July 1952?”
“Yes.”
“And you were a member of the board of directors in June 1954?”
“Yes.”
“What committees have you served on, Mr. Reagan, of the Screen Actors Guild?”
“Well, the negotiating committee for years back.”
“Would that be negotiations with respect to both motion picture studios and television production companies?”
“Yes, and negotiations also—I have been on the negotiating committee to negotiate the basic agreement between the Artists’ Managers Guild, the agent.”
“Of June 30, 1954?”
“Yes. Then I have been on committees that had to do with trying to work out arrangements between ourselves and AFTRA over the question of jurisdiction of television.”
“In what year was the jurisdictional dispute between AFTRA and SAG settled?”
“Oh—”
“That was with respect to TV film?”
“That went on for a great many years. I hope it’s settled now. I think it was settled—I would have to say, isn’t that awful, it’s been about a year and a half or two years when we finally refused, the Screen Actors Guild refused any idea of a joint merger into one union.”
“That’s right, sir. I think you have misapprehended my question and I will rephrase it, if I may. There was in the early ’50s, was there not, a dispute between AFTRA and SAG as to which union would have jurisdiction of TV films?”
“That’s right.”
“Was that dispute settled at that time?”
“Well, it was settled to the extent that we had jurisdiction of film, although AFTRA really never gave in. They always protested and claimed that we shouldn’t have. We were the only one in the talent field, when television came we were the only ones that gave up jurisdiction of television. We were the only ones that found ourselves in trouble because when we gave up we didn’t think we were giving up the right to negotiate for actors to negotiate with motion picture studios and making film[s].”
“Do you recall, sir, whether or not AFTRA and SAG went before the National Labor Relations Board to settle the jurisdictional dispute over TV film?”
“I think there were thirteen of those appearances. AFTRA I think filed about thirteen times.”
“There were thirteen suits but I am referring specifically to the one in which the NLRB decided with respect to TV film. Was that in [1951]?”
“I think it was.”
“In that year SAG received jurisdiction of TV film?”
“According to the NLRB in that suit, yes.”
“When SAG received jurisdiction in TV film, what then did it have to do, what procedures did it follow to actually implement its jurisdiction?”
“We then had to negotiate for the working conditions and wages of films made for television. We also had to negotiate for motion picture distribution.”
“Were these as such carried on?”
“Yes.”
“Do you remember the year of such negotiations?”
“I know this seems silly but you are asking about an awful lot of years of memory.”
“Let me try to refresh your recollection if I may, Mr. Reagan. I think we have already established that in [1951] the NLRB settled the SAGAFTRA jurisdictional dispute, correct?”
“Yes.”
“Then another followed closely?”
“I think in [1951] the negotiations—we would have ended these negotiations.”
“Do you recall with what companies SAG negotiated at this time?”
“Well, again we had to negotiate with the major producers, major motion picture studios, even though many of them weren’t engaged in television. We realized this, of course, was where the battle would have to be won or lost and then we negotiated with the group representing the ten independent motion picture producers of TV.”
“Does the name ‘Alliance of TV Film Producers’ ring a bell with you?”
“Yes, that’s right.”
“So then negotiations took place with the major motion picture production companies and with the Alliance of Television Film Producers, correct?”
“Yes.”
“Do you recall with which companies SAG negotiated in the motion picture film—for TV film production, of course?”
“Well, now I may be wrong in this but it seems to me, once having cleared the decks and negotiated, I think we negotiated with the motion picture producers as an association with the major studios in addition to the Alliance.”
“Did these negotiations, to the best of your knowledge, sir, take place generally simultaneously?”
“That again—my memory would be pretty dim on. I would think, yes. Maybe—I don’t honestly know.”
“What was the big point at issue in the negotiations with TV film production companies in 1952?”
“Well, of course, the biggest point of all was to recognize the principle of residual payments for actors in films once made, that they would be paid again when those films were run.”
“That was the dispute that was going on between SAG and this union at this time, correc
t?”
“Well, that was to get—naturally the studios after fifty years of operating on a basis of once they had the film in the can it was theirs, they resisted at this idea of anyone having a lien against that film and they did not have complete ownership of it. One studio head said, ‘It’s mine to throw off the end of the dock if I want.’ I made some that I wish he had.”
“In point of fact, television was a dirty word in the motion picture industry in 1952?”
“That’s right.”
“It’s also a fact, is it, Mr. Reagan, that the first company to capitulate with respect to repayment for reuse was a TV production company?”
“I am sure that would have been the Alliance, yes.”
“Which company, whether a member of the Alliance or not, was the first to capitulate with respect to repayment for reruns?”
“There you have me. I wouldn’t know where we cracked that and if you tell me I’ll have to take your word for it.”
“Well, you were president of the Screen Actors Guild in 1952, were you not?”
“Yes.”
“This was a very important matter which Screen Actors Guild was taking up and it was the most important point of the Guild?”
“Yes, and I don’t want to appear as though I am trying deliberately to be vague, but, as I say, I would like you to realize in my history of holding an office with the Guild, my memory is like a kaleidoscope of meetings, that I am sure if I sat down with someone and started in, I could then recall the details. But I met for seven months twice a day five days a week in an attempt to settle the big jurisdictional question in 1946 and ’47. I mean personally for more than eight or nine weeks almost every day in 19—before 1947 as a member of negotiating committees. I mean, it’s the length of negotiations that led to the stopgap that led to the release of feature motion pictures to television and I went to New York and I met out here for countless meetings with AFTRA when they were attempting to evade what was our right and jurisdiction.”
“I think the grand jury understands, sir, at this time you were very busy and the memory of man is not the greatest faculty he possesses. I will attempt to refresh your recollection with respect to this time period. In the first place, does the fact that I state to you now that MCA was the first, MCA-Revue, that is, was the first to acquiesce to the residual payments help you out in your recollection? Can you substantiate that statement?”
“No, I can’t. I honestly can’t. I know that many times Jack Dales reported to me as president, he is the executive secretary of the Guild, that he had talked off the record to Lew Wasserman about this problem and about the recognizing of this principle and so forth. When did this occur, when did you say?”
“July 1952. July 23, 1952.”
“Well, maybe the fact that I got married in March of 1952 and went on a honeymoon had something to do with my being a little bit hazy.”
“I’m glad you raised that point. If we might digress, who is your wife?”
“Nancy Davis.”
“Was she a member of the board of directors of SAG in 1952?”
“Yes.”
“Do you recall any other unusual or momentous events in 1952 with respect to SAG’s relations with one or more TV film production companies?”
“Well, now what kind of events?”
“In 1952, when you were president of the Screen Actors Guild, did not the Screen Actors Guild grant to MCA what is known in the trade as a blanket or unlimited waiver to produce TV films?”
“Oh, we have granted—I don’t know when it exactly started, we granted an extended waiver to MCA to be engaged in production as we had done with other people. Mr. [Feldman], who was an agent and produced feature pictures, we gave him a waiver also.”
“That was a limited waiver, limited specifically to two or possibly three productions a year. It was not a blanket or unlimited waiver?”
“That’s right.”
“What is SAG’s history with respect to granting waivers in either media, motion pictures [or] television prior to 1952?”
“Oh, well, I would have to say there must have been, I am sure, there must have been times when for some reason or another we refused but I am sure also—I can tell you what our general attitude was. Our attitude was where we could see no harm to one of our members, to our membership, that we should do everything we could to encourage production because the great problem we have had has always been unemployment. Even in times of prosperity actors are unemployed. They sit out and wait. If somebody comes to discuss and tell us they want to make pictures, we are inclined to go along with them.”
“You would like to have as many production companies making pictures as possible?”
“Yes, in America.”
“We have bandied the term ‘waiver’ about. Let’s see if we can be a little more specific about it. Why would it be necessary for a talent agent to apply for a waiver to engage in film production or motion picture production?”
“Well, it was [some] years ago the artists’ manager, the agent in our business, agreed voluntarily to let the Screen Actors Guild set up the standard and legitimize the relationship between agent and actor. Up until this time if a man wanted to represent an actor, he might find some young man, make him a star, he could take as much as fifty percent of what they were making. There was nothing to guide it. They voluntarily entered into this arrangement, so we always, in the transposition of negotiating a contract with our employers as employees, and we turned around in turn and then negotiated with the agents as employers.”
“If I may summarize what you are saying, Mr. Reagan, that the necessity for the waiver and the rules which SAG has, requires that a waiver be open talk is because of the fear of a breach of fiduciary relationships which the talent agency has with its clients?”
“That’s right.”
“Prior to 1952 what talent agencies, if you recall, obtained waivers from Screen Actors Guild and we’ll take this ad [seriatim]. First in motion pictures?”
“The only one offhand that I can say that [I] recall was Feldman with his limited waiver.”
“But you do recall that it was a limited waiver?”
“Yes. Now, there may have been others. I don’t recall them right now.”
“Myron Selznick, does that ring a bell?”
“Oh, he was a little before my time.”
“You are familiar, are you not, with the waiver granted to MCA in 1952 during your term as president?”
“Yes.”
“Can you tell this grand jury why Screen Actors Guild gave to MCA a blanket or unlimited waiver?”
“Well, my own reasoning and one of the reasons perhaps why this doesn’t loom so importantly to me is I personally never saw any particular harm in it. I was one who subscribed to the belief, and those were times of great distress in the picture business, I was all for anyone that could give employment. I saw no harm in this happening. Now, anything I would answer from there would be hearsay. I have been told that Revue grew out of MCA’s efforts to enter the motion picture industry, in moving into the field of television, and they wouldn’t touch it. And when Revue had in their hands the possibility of these packages and couldn’t get anyone to produce them, that they set up shop to produce them themselves.”
“Do you recall how early this was in point in time?”
“I don’t know. I think it was prior to ’52.”
“It would have been either the latter ’40s or 1950?”
“Yes.”
“Because Revue had been in production since that time?”
“Yes.”
“Do you recall the year Revue first went into production, Mr. Reagan?”
“No, I don’t. Television at that time, you must recall, was mostly live and was mostly centered in New York and I knew there were shows called package shows, that you got a chance to do a guest shot. You went to do yours and it was a Revue package. I wasn’t even familiar with the name too much. I just called it an MCA package but then that w
asn’t strange because we had the same thing in radio.”
“You have given us your rationale behind your reasons for the blanket waiver to MCA in 1952. What was Screen Actors Guild’s reason for granting this waiver?”
“Well, that is very easy to recall. Screen Actors Guild board and executives met in meetings and very carefully considered these things, weighed them at board meetings. I remember discussions taking place about it and usually the result of the discussion would be that we felt we were amply protected, that if any harm started from this, if anything happened to react against the actors’ interests—we could always pull the rug out from under them. No great harm would be done before we could ride to the rescue, that our feeling was here was someone that wanted to give actors jobs and that is the way it would usually wind up.”
“How many more waivers did Screen Actors Guild grant to talent agents subsequent to the blanket waiver to MCA in order to give actors jobs?”
“I don’t recall. I don’t know if we did to William Morris or not. When I say I don’t know if we did, it was because I was more familiar with William Morris in the live field of packaging.”
“Do you know whether any talent agents applied for blanket waivers subsequent to the time SAG granted one to MCA?”
“No, I don’t.”
“Did Screen Actors Guild attempt to induce agents to enter TV film production subsequent to the time it granted a blanket waiver to MCA?”
“No, I don’t think we ever went out and asked anyone to do that.”
“That would be consistent with the rationale behind the granting of a blanket waiver, would it not?”
“No, I don’t think the Screen Actors Guild is an employment agency. I think we can well recognize our not putting out blocks in the way of anyone who wanted to produce but I don’t think ours was the point of trying to go out and get someone to produce.”
“In other words, had the blanket waiver been asked by talent agents subsequent to 1952 in July when SAG granted the blanket waiver to MCA, such requests would have been considered by the Guild and granted, correct?”
“If all of the circumstances were the same as, they would be.”