John Clark Pro Se Blog

Actor, Producer & Writer

Wikipedia, the Lying Encyclopedia

By John Clark on Posted in A SPACE FOR NOSTALGIA, COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Uncategorized

The storm in a teacup I inadvertently started has now become a veritable Mt. Etna. I do this for Notable People everywhere, of which I am deemed to be one.

As I’ve said, notable people are discouraged from editing pieces written about them by others. References from published sources are provided by WP contributors, and I have maintained that the choice of these references are biased, and contravene their own set of rules all the time. These editors cross the boundaries of “Maintaining a neutral point of view”, of “Never claiming ownership of an article”, and “Avoiding conflict of interest.” It is clear that the subject of an article on a living person, or a dead person, lies in the area of “Biographies.” Such was the featured article on my old friend, John Le Mesurier, best known from the “Dad’s Army” British TV series, repeated I believe on BBC in America.

I was accused of manipulation, making threats, advertising, lying, and making vain claims. They tried to expose me by ridicule and insult, and have blocked me from editing, which I’ve been happily doing for three or four years, creating harmless other type articles. I can still, however, express myself on my talk page, where I am linking to this. This is what SchroCat (a pseudonym hiding an identity) said to prove I was guilty of all of the above sins. He published as follows:

Having spent a chunk of my own personal time traipsing up to the British Library because of the ridiculous questioning of whether a respected and proven biographer is reliable or not, I am very happy to say that I found in back issues of the Radio Times the information that at 20:15 on 26 November 1946 Episode 10 of Just William was broadcast on the BBC Light Programme, ending at 20:35. It was subsequently repeated on the same wavelength at 16:30 on 1 December 1946.

Clark, There is no hearsay, so stop trolling. I have provided sufficient information. If you want to see it in black and white, buy the McCann book. Scans are not possible for microfiche records at the BL: I asked and was told that I would have to get it transferred to the rare book section for electronic processing. You want to do that, then you can foot the bill. If you are too parsimonious to do that, then look elsewhere. I have contacted the author to ask him: he has provided an answer. If you also want to hear it directly from him, I suggest you contact him directly. If not, then you will have to [[WP:AGF]]. If that is beyond you, then go to the reliable sources people and ask them to make a decision on the matter. I care not what you want to believe or not believe, your pointless trolling on this matter has gone far and beyond any normal or natural behaviour. – [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 09:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I then contacted Graham McCann, the author of the book from which the information came and asked about the connection between Just William and Le Mez. He confirmed to me that “the information came from the BBC’s written archive records and Le Mesurier’s personal files.”

Consequently I am more than happy that what we have in this article is an accurate reflection of what is available in the reliable sources, and that those sources have provided archival information from unimpeachable sources.

Fortunately, I am a member of the Just William Society, deemed by these fellows not to be a reliable source, and one of their volunteer historians by the name of Robert Kirkpatrick went down to the library to find out if Wikipedia was telling the truth, or allowing a lie. I cannot download this to Wikipedia, because I am blocked. So I am downloading it here, on my website, to prove that lies about people are permitted at Wikipedia. He had this to say to me, before supplying proof that lies are to be found on Wikipedia. He said

 Herewith a copy of the page from the Radio Times showing episode 10 of Just William broadcast on 26 November 1946.  As you can see, there is no mention of John le Mesurier.

The episode was repeated on Sunday 1 December 1946  -  cast list wasn’t given.

So, we all agree that this Wikipedia chap is correct, in that there WAS an episode on JW on that date (which was never in doubt anyway), but if he’s saying that John le Mesurier was in it and that Radio Times proves it then he’s 100% in the wrong.

As I said, my own suspicion is that le Mesurier’s biographer got it wrong (after all, we all make mistakes  -  and in any case perhaps it was le Mesurier himself who got mixed up) and that the reference should have been to the live broadcast of the stage play from the Granville Theatre on 23 December 1946.

PS  I should add, for accuracy’s sake, that I wasn’t allowed to photocopy the page from the Radio Times at the British Library, as it was too large (i.e larger than A4).  I could have paid for it to be scanned and copied, but that would have taken 24 hours. So I went to Westminster Reference Library and was able to take the photocopy from their bound volumes of the Radio Times.

I can, of course, assure you that both copies were identical! I hope this helps and you can get your life back!!!!!”

Robert

Here’s the visible scan of the Radio Times entry:

 

I hope Jimbo Wales acts on this information, and takes steps to free up a notable’s ability to edit freely, alongside other contributors. And there are at least 3 of these lying pseudos who should be banned forever from contributing to what is otherwise a fine encyclopedia.

 

 

 

 

 

Brit Week and a Jolly Good Time

By John Clark on Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, TIME OUT

We Brits sure know how to have fun! Last night as the sun was settling down behind the mountains on the western horizon, in the gardens of Santa Monica’s very stylish Fairmont Miramar Hotel overlooking the beach, there was a promotion and celebration of all things British as it exists in the fair city of Los Angeles, California.

It was a kind of fancy dress party, inspired and themed by some members of the DOWNTON ABBEY cast who were present and being honored. This is Hollywood, after all. So we “expats” were invited to attend dressed up, if possible, in something suggesting the flapper era of England, circa 1920.

Since the story begins around the time of the S.S.Titanic sinking, and progresses on up into the twenties, there was scope for a wide choice of costume. The only other fancy dress ball I ever attended was as a child when my parents sent me as a choir boy and I won first prize. So I decided to be a man of the cloth, dressed in a cheap RC priest outfit (their robes don’t change an inch), and for good measure took a young friend who came dressed as a prostitute picked up on the way in, and whom I’d brought with me to convert. She was bursting out here and there, torn slip, retro French knickers, suspenders, seamed stockings and all. There we were, arm in arm, and quite a few heads turned.

And so the evening began, with Tin Pan Alley entertainment, tapdancing exhibitions, a lively banjo-led band, and touchy feely dancing. And we know how to enjoy being silly and sexy, as well as serious.

An Irish tourist came running up, fell to his knees, and begged me to hear his confession. He wanted to know where my church was. He was quite serious, if a little drunk on the great spiked Ginger Beer coolers. I told him I was a traveling priest, used a kind of modest curtained pope-mobile, and could come his way on prior notice. He scribbled me his motel address. It was only when I told him to bring his Master Card or cash, that he figured out that I was maybe not what he thought I was. Then I saw a couple of very attractive women sitting in a corner. I asked who they were, and they rather sheepishly confessed they were on the organizing committee, and were — Americans!

I found again many of my old and dear friends, and we duly swapped cards, past attitudes forgotten and forgiven. Attached to my business card is my California Notary card, designed unsubtly to let people know that I am able to 1. tell the truth, 2. keep secrets, and 3. uphold the law. This is Hollywood.

Famous British companies are well represented, Boots, Jaguar, Cunard and all, and I look forward to wandering around this week in search of having a good time while learning more of the business side of it, which in this economy gets to be the point. But as of this week, with the stock market at all time highs and employment improving, there is hope and a renewing spring-like step in the air. Entrepreneurship is budding.

OLD AGE

By John Clark on Posted in A SPACE FOR NOSTALGIA, A SPACE FOR REFLECTION, COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to medical sites

I remember in my New York days sitting on the West side with my friends Milo O’Shea, who recently left us, his lovely wife Kitty – and a one hundred year old man who lived in their building. He was a retired doctor, who had actually made friends with Mark Twain, and got to know him well. I asked him what it felt like to be one hundred years old, thinking I’d get an educated answer from the medical point of view. His answer has stayed with me. He said that when he got into a warm bath, it felt as if his bones were going to explode!

A friend sent me this, call it a guest post. A dissertation on old age, written by a very honored writer and reporter with my old employer, CBC Canada. I pass it on as a service because I couldn’t say it better. This gentleman is 5 years older than I am, but like everybody, I’m headed there and so are you, so be fore-warned! I also take most of the same pills, and have to beware of the inevitable stress that comes with providing this web service. Most of all, I identify completely with his sentiments and observations.

The full-time job of growing old 

By Joe Schlesinger, CBC News

I have a new job. I’ve been a journalist for 65 years. Nowadays, though, my main job is being a patient, seeing doctors and other medical practitioners. Boy, do I ever see doctors!

First, there is my GP, of course. Behind him, an army of specialists: a rheumatologist, a cardiologist, several orthopedists and neurologists, a dermatologist, periodontist, as well as a dentist, an optometrist, audiologist, pharmacist, naturopath and physiotherapist, to say nothing of the trainer who tries to keep mobile what Shakespeare called the “shrunk shank” of old age.

In my case, though, not all that mobile. I’ve worn out two hip  replacements. (Number 3, I’m happy to report, is doing just fine.)

I’ve been held together by slings, stitches and plaster casts,  treated with acupuncture needles, ultrasound devices and had traction devices yanking at my spine and a leg. I also take oodles of pills. Not surprisingly, even as they keep me going these meds can have serious results that are benignly called “side-effects.”

But I put up with them because I know that without some of these medicaments I would not be alive today. Had I been born 30 years earlier I would have been dead at a much earlier age because some of the meds I use had not yet been developed.

Also part of my regime are the old standbys such as the Aspirin pill I take daily to reduce the risk of life-threatening blood clots. Not any Aspirin, mind you, but low-dose baby Aspirin! That dose of baby Aspirin in a way closes the full circle of life as Shakespeare foresaw it some 500 years ago when he wrote about the first and last stages of life in The Seven Ages of Man:

At first the infant, mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms… Last scene of all, that ends this strange eventful history, is second childishness and mere oblivion, sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Balderdash! OK, so I have some false teeth and wear eyeglasses. Yup, I’ve needed the care of nurses at times. But I assure you, no later-life mewling or puking from this quarter. Still, it takes patience to be a patient.

For starters, of course, there is the waiting for appointments and for distant dates for operations, and just twiddling your thumbs in doctors’ or hospital waiting rooms. What requires even more patience is coping with the everyday chores of your debilities. Many of the routines of plain living, from putting on your socks in the morning, as your joints protest, to preparing for bed at night can suddenly take a lot of doing.

But I refuse to let any of this affect my taste for life. If anything, I have a greater appreciation of its joys large and small.

Above all, what sustains me is the love of my family. And that makes everything else tolerable and worthwhile.

The rest? Well, I do have occasional memory lapses but Google and other IT crutches fill in the holes. Mainly, I have trouble walking and staying upright. The remedy for that has been clear for thousands of years ever since in Greek mythology the monstrous Sphinx that devoured those who could not answer its riddle challenged Oedipus to name a creature with three legs. His answer — an old man with a cane — won him the throne of Thebes.

These days, we’ve gone beyond canes, we have wheels. For me, a cane is fine for short distances. For longer walks, there is the walker; you can push it along and use it as a seat if you need a rest. It even has a basket to go shopping with.

Somewhere down the road I’ll probably need a wheelchair. I may even get to drive one of those snazzy electric carts I keep seeing barrelling down sidewalks. That and painkillers should keep me going until, one day, the inevitable moment of oblivion comes along.

In the meantime, there is still much to engross the heart and brain. In my case, a loving family, cherished friends and the treasures of nice dinners, music and reading. Those are the elixirs that make life worth living.

But there is one more thing that occupies my mind, and that is keeping up as best I can with the turbulence of the world I’ve inhabited these 85 years. I have spent my whole life as a witness to history.

First, as a boy who, during the Second World War, lost his parents in the Holocaust and was pushed from pillar to post, from country to country, a refugee first from Nazism, then from Communism. That experience led me into journalism and a career of traveling the world and reporting, at times, on its triumphs — such as the fall of the Berlin Wall — though more often on the travails of wars, revolutions and other disasters.

Once upon a time I used to do things like jumping out of a helicopter in Vietnam as it hovered over a landing pad under enemy fire, climbing a sacred mountain in North Korea, crossing the famed Khyber Pass on foot from Pakistan into Afghanistan, and riding an elephant with an army patrol chasing Khmer Rouge troops through rice paddies in Cambodia. (I fell off the elephant, but never mind.)

I can no longer do these things, but, thanks to the internet, I can get around to distant places and events by letting my fingers do the walking. And I do. Whether it’s my old homeland, the Czech Republic, or Chile or China, I feel a need to keep up with what’s happening there.

That need is fed in part by a sense of belonging, a feeling that since I was there at turning points in the history of these places I have a stake in their future. What’s more, I fear that if I let them drop into the memory hole I would diminish myself to a teller of old irrelevant tales. Besides, the mind needs exercising as much the rest of the body does.

One of the best ways to give the brain a thorough workout is to try to unravel the complexities of the politics of countries such as Israel, Iran and Italy.

So I keep on exploring what’s happening in distant parts of the world, often saddened by the turn of events and outraged by outbursts of brutality, but now and then also delighted by the triumphs of the human spirit. I have, in a way, the whole world in my hands, the world of all that is near and dear to me as well as much of what lies far beyond the horizon.

All this thanks to a lot of doctors and all those pills I swallow.

Wikipedia

By John Clark on Posted in ACTORS' & DIRECTORS' CORNER, COMMENTARY-Passing parade

I’ve been a contributor for many years now. I guess it started when I needed a means to rehabilitate my name and reputation after the onslaught from the court, the press, my wife, my children, my in-laws, and, ok then, if you insist, the nanny. Doing this enabled me to show that I did have a life, and a professional one at that, well before becoming a part of my wife’s life. And access to the site being free, and knowing the laziness of many journalists and other media folk, I felt that they would check me out there, and leave me alone.

Here I should mention that I love the concept, and admire it in action. They have extraordinary software which takes a while to learn, very specific rules, and on the whole there are built-in safeguards to protect against advocacy. Neutral Point of View, one of their 3 core principles. The others are Verifiability, and No Original Research.

This is all to the good, until it comes up short in their big weakness. How to deal with the BLPs. That is the Biographies of Living Persons. As many of my friends in the industry know, reputations have been shattered, as well as undeservedly exalted, by editors, some of whom are what I call fanboys, and others the exact opposite. Combine that thought with the fact that they actively prevent the target subject from having any hand at all in the creation or editing of the page. I fought long and hard to create my page, and finally I think they got fed up with me, and I got away with it. Here, check it out.

Things had been quiet on this front, until a couple of weeks ago, when a firestorm erupted.

I noticed a featured entry on my old friend, John Le Mesurier, long passed on. The creators of the article linked to many of his co-workers, and it mentioned that he started his radio career with the series Just William in 1946. My name wasn’t mentioned, and I thought, what the heck, I’ll put in my name because I was the first William, and he worked with me, and link it to the article on me. Well, it was immediately deleted, so I put it back, and this started an edit war, a no-no at Wikipedia. Often article talk pages are more interesting than the articles they discuss. The irony is that when I asked the Just William Society to look into the matter, they found that the biographer of the book which was their source was wrong, he never was in the radio show! And I certainly don’t remember him in the broadcast studio either. So their sourcing policy has serious flaws in it anyway.

What began as a storm in a teacup has blown up to be a big issue at the Wikipedia website, and has even drawn in the founder, Jimmy Wales. As I said, it has to do with the fact that they don’t allow celebrities who have their own entries known as “Biographies of Living Persons” to in any way edit their entries. A “Conflict of Interest” rule. So even if they are misquoted, or sourced to an unreliable mention in a newspaper or book, there’s nothing they can do about it.

Does all this matter? I think it does, because Wikipedia is usually, one might say always, at or near the top of search engines. And because it’s royalty free, the press quotes freely from it all the time. I am campaigning for them to change this rule. “Celebrities” and other sentient groups, should be able to edit too. If Wikipedia claims to be democratic, i.e. for “all the people”, then all the people should be able to edit anything anywhere at any time.  And if they continue to ban celebrities? By way of illustration of possible legal outcomes, I made up the following courtroom scenario, and posted it on Jimbo Wales’s user page:

Celebrity vs. Wikipedia, does 1-30 (The does will cover senior editors, founders and 30 users)

CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: My client has been libeled in the pages of Wikipedia in an article written by users who operate under assumed names.

JUDGE: Libeled? Does your client claim privacy privileges which are quite broad?

CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: No your honor, he knows that he is vulnerable to general criticism and accepts that. He is what they call a Notable, and as such becomes part of a category called “Biographies of Living Persons”, and any content may only be changed at the discretion of other users, but not him. That is the crux of this action. He does not accept statements that hold him up to ridicule, scorn, and contempt.

WP ATTORNEY: My client claims immunity as a public website. It merely passes on what is being said elsewhere. All statements are sourced.

JUDGE: Does Wikipedia discriminate against any users?

WP ATTORNEY: Absolutely not. Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, as we proclaim publicly.

JUDGE: Can’t the plaintiff remove the offending language then?

CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: No your honor. Under Wikipedia’s restrictive rules, celebrities cannot change anything in articles detailing their lives, beyond possibly a fact here and there. It contravenes what is known as their Conflict of Interest rule, which is a core principle, and which conflicts with their own rules which my friend just stated.

JUDGE: I see. Then can you state your problem with individual users?

CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: They don’t always provide a source for their unpleasant remarks, and many are the celebrities’ fans, and in this case haters. Often-times untrue statements remain unchallenged.

JUDGE: Then I grant permission for you to bring any such users into court, as I rule they are not exempt.

CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: But how do I find them?

JUDGE: That’s your problem. (raises gavel)

WP ATTORNEY: (Quickly) May I confer with my clients?

(After a short interlude.)

WP ATTORNEY: I think we can settle this, your honor. My clients are willing to change the rule. They will henceforth include the celebrity and notable BLPers as regular users. Of course, they will then have to conform to the same rules as everybody else.

JUDGE: Sounds good to me. I will sign an order to that effect. Case dismissed.

************************
We will see what happens next. I think that the high ups, whoever they are, will think about making the change, and I predict that it will happen in the near future. Will WP fall apart? No, it will carry on in a much more acceptable way. I would hope to see the living celebrity actors, the sports heroes, the academics, the scientists, the music makers, the artists, the writers, the health specialists, yes even the politicians contribute to their spaces, and that they will become a lot more readable. There will be original research, indeed there will, but so what? Lies will come tumbling down, and truth will prevail in the long run. Because no one wants to look stupid, and the liars will eventually be caught out. Self-correcting. No longer can they blame their publicist or lawyer or agent or manager or friend for “getting it wrong, not my fault.” They can say what they want, and the burden will shift to others to prove if they are lying or outrageously stretching the truth, and so Wikipedia will become more transparent. I’d give it a new name. I’d call it WikipediaPLUS.
LATER
Oh dear, I’ve been BLOCKED! Not banished, mind you, but blocked from editing. Well, I am still allowed to express myself on my talk page, which I am doing. Here is my talk page. Start at the bottom, if you’re interested. And if you’re a “celebrity” or a “notable person”, you should be.

 

33 Years. A Review and a Complaint

By John Clark on Posted in A SPACE FOR REFLECTION, ACTORS' & DIRECTORS' CORNER, COMMENTARY-Passing parade

I see that my late ex will be having an Off-Broadway theatre named for her at a June 3rd ceremony in New York. The 45 Bleecker Street Theatre will thereafter be called the Lynn Redgrave Theatre. I am pleased for her. I plan to be there, and to become re-acquainted with my children and old family members and friends.

This has given me occasion to reflect on our life together.

Lynn and I, over the course of a little under 33 years, made a change in the landscape for the life of actors, for the better, I do believe. We never went looking for trouble. It came to us, and instead of burying it, we fought back.

REVIEW

First was a lawsuit against the Gate Theatre in Dublin. We put on a play starring Lynn and Dan O’Herlihy, my first directing job actually. We ran for 3 sold-out weeks (the longest they’d book us), the best box office in their history. Our deal was to split profits, which were excellent. Instead, they took half of our gross receipts. Discovery revealed that the Irish government, the owners, had years before ordered the management to make the theatre available to outside Irish companies for free. We lived locally, hired Irish actors, financed the show, and of course paid all the costs of our production. A 4-wall deal. Why we lost the case is another story, but we left Dublin soon after, leaving an Irish Equity with a smile on its face, for we had broken the Gate’s hold on their previous minimal actor’s salaries. It’s worth mentioning that despite using an Irish attorney, we didn’t get our money back.

Then we headed West, back to my home town of New York, where we were soon greeted with a lawsuit filed against us by U.S. Equity who extorted 5% of my wife’s self-paid salary as dues, from a year’s tour we took across America with our own show, financed by us and directed by me. We had posted Equity bonds at each date, and they refused to return them. Again, we lost, for reasons I won’t go into here. They returned the bonds less 5%. But, in a form of revenge you might say, we made a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, who summoned the leaders of all of the performing unions, and found that Equity alone had been breaking the law for years, penalizing foreign stage performers for daring to peddle their art in America. They had constructed a punitive discriminatory dues structure, in order to discourage them. This time we won. Now foreign actors are treated equally, and have a smile on their faces too, because it has led to a relatively free exchange of actors between America and England and elsewhere. Certainly audiences have applauded this development. We however, were deprived of financial satisfaction because we were outside the Statute of Limitations (3 year rule.) Yul Brynner received hundreds of thousands of dollars which nearly broke the union, but he was very nice, he sent Lynn a bunch of daffodils by way of thanking her.

Next came our famous lawsuit against Lew Wasserman and MCA/Universal, when Lynn was fired for wishing to breastfeed our daughter Annabel at work. Our thoroughly compromised WMA agent didn’t help, nor did our attorneys, and UTV’s press department went to work. Our suit was quietly dismissed by a corrupted judge headed for retirement. I wrote about it in the “Housecalls, what really happened” topic on the left. Expensive yeah, and actor mothers and fathers were eternally grateful for causing all Film and TV companies to provide facilities for employees who were new mothers and their babies. That was the only positive to come out of that case. In the event, they were ordered to reimburse our attorneys’ fees. They didn’t. They’d faxed notice of a hearing to our locked office while we were performing Love Letters up in San Francisco, and avoided payment due to our non-appearance, thanks to their famed “I always win” attorney Gale Title. No transcript was made of the proceedings, so Lew kept all of our attorney fees, and we never knew how he managed to make that happen.

Next, Lynn and I were asked to lead the Players, Edwin Booth’s 1888 gift to actors on Gramercy Park, by our close friends Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon. I’d been a member for many years. The club was in dire straits. No proper books, so we gave them 20 grand to construct a proper set. Then our tough love for them proved to be too much, and we were summarily ejected. They’re still floundering. I see that steps are being taken by insiders for a clean sweep to improve its chances of survival. For my trouble, I’ve been called John Sleeper Clarke.

This gives me pause. Booths = Redgraves, compare! Consider: Separated by about one hundred years, it produces quite startling results. Junius Brutus cf. Sir Michael = Shakespearean actors, patriarchs and family founders, both. John Wilkes cf. Corin (or Vanessa) = fiery political trouble-makers, both. Asia cf. Lynn = good writers, recorders of their family stories, both. John Clarke cf. John Clark (me), married to those same sisters. We are the link by our same name. We are both lawyerly, both comedians, both into management, and as Asia wrote to her brother Edwin “He lives a free going bachelor life and does what he likes.”  Sorry, no comment from me there, and he’s dead! Enough already.

COMPLAINT

To bring us up to date, I am here to say that the tradition is still alive, even though Lynn isn’t. I still choose to live dangerously, sui juris, out of some kind of personality defect, contrariness, orneriness, or just some kind of survival instinct from bad ad litem experiences – it’s not for me to say. But today I filed a Complaint with the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau, and the Los Angeles Department of Consumer Affairs against The Breakdown Services, Ltd. This is only a start, but hopefully it will lead to a satisfactory finish. Their stranglehold on the casting process is a scandal. Read it here:

I am a British born professional actor age 80, and have been a union member in England, Canada and America since 1944 (SAG/AFTRA, US Equity, ACTRA, Canadian Equity, British Equity). I am and have been a U.S. citizen since 1965. I do not use a “manager” or an “agent” because of past conflict of interest problems with them, and the experience of a major lawsuit against the William Morris Agency. I get my own acting jobs, but am effectively prevented from doing so.

I need to avail myself of full casting information from the Breakdowns, aka “Breakdown Services” (hereinafter “BS”), which is a monopoly service employed by all big and small movie and TV production and theatre companies. Scripts and story lines are received by BS from these companies, and from them, BS creates a breakdown of story plots and characters. This information is supplied EXCLUSIVELY to agents and/or managers electronically for money and profit, which is their business practice.

Actors, the subject of these notices, are shut out from seeing all of them!

The owner/founder of BS, Gary Marsh, told his audience at a seminar he gave the evening of March 20, 2013 at the premises where I live at Oakwood, Barham Blvd. Hollywood, to a group of child actors and their mothers that he has lawsuits pending against actors who have bootlegged his information. I have done this in the past. He told me that I could not buy their services at any price, only managers and agents, and between them they set the rules. I asked him if I could receive this information if I became a manager, and he said I could not qualify because I am an actor, and if I “wear 2 hats”, I would still be denied. There were at least 20 witnesses.

I believe that all actors are protected from this kind of discriminatory anti-competitive practice by government law, such as The Sherman Act, of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 S 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7.

Breakdown Services operates and reaches across state lines from coast to coast, and abroad. There is no competitive service anywhere. 

As settlement, I DEMAND

That the Breakdown Services provides this information ONLINE, so that ALL ACTORS across the world have access to it, at NO CHARGE. Any cost or expense should be born by the Breakdown Services, and passed on to the production companies. It is their joint problem. Together, they created it.

This complaint will soon appear online for the inspection and I hope support of actors. No, not their managers, and not their agents, and not the production companies. They’ll hate it. Actors don’t wish to be “protected from themselves” (see Gary Marsh’s Q&A link above) and will care, and, I’m pretty sure, SAG/Aftra and Equity will care too. I hope the brave ones will flock to support the request. This is not to denigrate Breakdown Services, for they do a fine job. We just want them to open up to us, the central sine qua non of their business, and stop insulting our intelligence.

Follow along and let me know you support this complaint, so that regulators are assured that we actors and directors WANT to know what jobs are available, 100% of them, not just for our enablers (managers and agents) to know, if you employ them at all, but ALL of us. Actors have voices off camera too, in our free society. Let them be heard loud and clear.

My Twitter handle is John Clark@johnclarknew. Click on it. I need feedback!

I hope it will not be necessary to file a lawsuit against Breakdown Services, because I don’t like lawyers either. And this would need one.

 

A storm in a Teacup. Age and IMDb

By John Clark on Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants

Frivolous lawsuits abound, aided by the court system, lawyers, and this time by the unions. And they dilute the serious issues that should be getting our attention. (Hint, like pro se actors vs. Breakdown Services Ltd., SAG/Aftra?)

Nikke Finke broke this news to us on March 19:

Last night a federal judge in Seattle ruled that a lawsuit brought by an actress who accused the online film and TV database for posting her birthdate in her bio without her permission will go to trial. U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman denied summary judgment from IMDb on Junie Hoang’s breach of contract claim, meaning the case will go forward to an April 8 trial date. The core claim makes the central issue of the case whether the site enables age discrimination in the entertainment biz with its policy of posting ages on individuals’ web pages.

In the original lawsuit filed in October 2011, Huang claimed she attempted to increase her exposure on the website in 2008 by subscribing via credit card to IMDb Pro. She changed her name and didn’t reveal her age when providing information for her profile. Soon after joining, her age appeared on the site, revealing info she claims harms her chances of landing film roles. Huang claimed the site performed record searches using her credit card information to obtain her age and did not remove the information when she requested it. Amazon called the suit “frivolous.” But then-separate unions SAG and AFTRA backed Huang’s action saying that when actual ages are posted “they become known to casting personnel, the 10+ year age range that many [actors] can portray suddenly shrinks and so do their opportunities to work”.

As a start, IMDb doesn’t offer webpages for subscribers to fill. It gives information deemed to be reliable, that’s all. And it gives it to everybody, producers, performers and craft professionals, either for free or a for a small fee at the IMDb Pro website.

This actress spoofed her name, and didn’t wish to reveal her age when providing her information. If she’d been selected for a Wikipedia “biography of living people” profile, you can bet they’d have her nailed down with accuracy, including her birth name and age. I have this to say, as if there were no more important things to think about.

Junie, there IS no privacy any more. Get used to it. When all’s said and done, the truth won’t go away, and lies will. Your age, your health, the nature of your sickness, your height, your weight, the natural color of your hair, your sexuality, your use of body enhancements, your clothes, your underwear, your income, your debts, your criminal history, your driving history, your court records, your credit history, your FICO score, your marriages, your lovers, your citizenship, your parents, your ancestors, your acting credits, your car, your home, your children, and why you died. Nobody’s kidding anyone any more. Consider, the more we’re different, the more we’re the same. Set me up or bail me out is today’s cry. Only one thing matters in the end. SPELL MY NAME RIGHT.

Then I decided to have a little fun.

I’ve been an IMDb Pro subscriber for years, where I’m John Clark (II), and have my own credits, contacts, pictures and clips displayed. They’re great people, and perform a useful service. They list just about everything knowable about a person, an agent, a manager, and a production company, with their phone numbers and addresses. Also film and tv reviews, and my favorites are from users, especially under the “hated it” category, (always, to me, more interesting.) You can indeed send in corrections, and they are always verified by them. So I sent this to IMDb:

Some people think I’m 80, over the hill, weigh 300 lbs and can barely see, let alone walk. Actually, I am 45, Greek, of royal birth, and an Olympic athlete with a black belt in Judo. I can speak 14 languages, and make love multiple times without a break if the scene calls for it. I have worked 12 times for Spielberg (I’m his favorite), mostly doing my own stunts. I need work. Here’s my number, in case CAA doesn’t return the call.

IMDb ignored me and hasn’t made this correction! H-e-e-l-p! Should I sue?

Hollywood News, up-to-the-minute

By John Clark on Posted in ACTORS' & DIRECTORS' CORNER, COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Uncategorized

Nikke Finke has a free site which I rather like, it’s where you go for the latest breaking news on the Hollywood front. It’s called DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD.

Today, she informed her readers that the managers were at it again, pleading their cause before a federal judge, but were thrown out. Here, she can speak for herself:

Personal managers took it on the chin Tuesday in U.S. District Court when Judge Dean Pregerson wouldn’t touch California’s Talent Agencies Act. Instead the judge threw out an outrageously broad lawsuit filed by the National Conference of Personal Managers seeking to overturn the state’s ban on managers “procuring” employment. That provision has effectively allowed clients  to void their management contracts and not pay commissions even if the managers obtained a job for them. (Managers are unlicensed whereas talent agents must be licensed by the state to procure employment.) Pregerson rejected the managers’ claim that California has created “involuntary servitude” for them. “Not being compensated for work performed does not inevitably make that work involuntary servitude,” the judge ruled. “Plaintiff’s members have choices.” He also rejected claims that the Talent Agencies Act violated the Commerce Clause, the Contracts Clause and the First Amendment.

Well, that got my pulse going and my blood-pressure pointing north. A lot of managers made comments outlining ideas for future strategy, and I just HAD to chime in with my voice and MY comment:

John Clark says:

ACTOR HERE! Spoiler alert – rant ahead – listen up.
 We actors are entrepreneurs by instinct and training and dreaming. When we’re not working, we work out, honing our craft, and wait for the phone to ring. And wait and wait and wait. 
So, in frustration, we pick up the phone and call a casting director about a project we heard about, maybe from a writer friend, and a part we think we’re right for. She/he won’t take the call. We call the packager.  Same thing.
 We call Breakdown Services to ask for a reasonably priced subscription to their researched data-base of parts, characters, and jobs available day by day. They won’t sell to us.
 We’re SHUT OUT of OUR industry!


Remove all of us actors? What will be left is NOTHING…NOTHING…NOTHING.


Remove all of these agents and managers, then what’s left? Why, the world of entertainment and fantasy fulfillment for paying audiences happily humming away.


I’m eighty years old. I’ve been a part of our industry since I was a famous child star in England before the end of World War 2, and quite famous since (for all the wrong reasons.) I won’t be around much longer.
 And I say F**K Y*U to agents and managers for preventing me from making direct contact with my goals. [I used the actual words, which Nikke allows and my webmaster doesn't.]


I pass this advice to the next generation of actors. “Get in touch with your own self, and make sure there are no degrees of separation between you, your soul, your spirit, your sense of creativity, your business sense, and any roadblocks in and to your ability to GET WORK!

”
Thank you judge, thank you SAG/AFTRA/EQUITY, and thank you Government for controlling the agencies by licensing them, and rejecting the “managers” of actors’ lives. If these “personal managers” really want to “represent” their clients, then they should marry them, and go all the way.
 And that is my rant for the day.”

There was an immediate response.

WTF are you talking about? Because CD’s won’t take your calls, Managers shouldn’t be paid for the work they do for you insecure, ranting, miserable actors?

Comment by Huh? — Thursday March 7, 2013 @ 2:22pm PST 

To which I said

If you had half of a brain, you’d have made sure that the client’s checks, contractually, were made payable to you, subtract your commission, and then net it off to the client. But then you’d be a fiduciary, subject to the laws of fraud, and actors are smart enough to see that, and won’t let you do it. Which makes YOU an insecure, ranting miserable ex-hairdresser manager. Boo hoo.

  • Comment by John Clark — Thursday March 7, 2013 @ 5:33pm PST

(Oh Lord, maybe I should not have said that. Now I’ll NEVER get a manager to represent me, nor an agent for that matter! Or maybe even a haircut .)

Christopher Dorner (cont’d)

By John Clark on Posted in A SPACE FOR REFLECTION, COMMENTARY-Passing parade

February 13, 2013

We must assume that Dorner’s life has ended. He left quite a trail, and many loose ends, which we now have to pick up and make sense of. I plan to resurrect the record of his days in court, under the watchful eye of, and rejected by, Judge David Yaffe, who has just resigned, bowing to the pressure of the corruption exposed by 70 year old Richard Fine, whom he consigned to 18 months of solitary confinement in Men’s Jail, and was released last year. In a way, Yaffe started this whole thing.

We owe the following profound description and overview of what went down to Darwin Adikia, who posted it at CNN.com. It is very much worth reading, and shows how we are all involved, like it or not, by what we do, and by what we don’t do.

Continue Reading

The Dorner Manifesto, unedited

By John Clark on Posted in A SPACE FOR REFLECTION, COMMENTARY-Passing parade

February 7, 2013
Reading ex-officer Dorner’s manifesto is a chilling experience. He is obviously sincere, and his points are well taken. Many in society feel just as he does, whether perceived as wronged by co-workers or lawyers or the courts or family or loved ones. They too have seen their efforts to get satisfaction frustrated at every turn. But it is not given to normal and sane people to act out as he is doing. We have psychiatrists to prevent that kind of thing.

Dorner will probably be cornered and shot on sight, as in Bin Laden. He won’t be taken alive to express his truth from the dock, which would be a pity. We could all learn from what he might say. We all have our truths, and we will want to hear his.

Now we read of 2 ladies in a pickup minding their business which was to deliver the L.A. Times along a street in Torrance very early in the morning. They were ambushed by cops, then wildly shot at in a fusillade of bullets, nearly losing their lives. A case of very mistaken identity. The police thought they saw a large black man driving a truck of the wrong make and color.

I may be too late now, but I have a word of advice for what Mr. Dorner should do next. He should hole up in a house somewhere, then call the media, then call the police to come and get him. Then he should emerge with his hands up for all to see, maybe waving a white flag. Then he has a chance to not get shot, appear in the dock and express himself, and possibly get a measure of satisfaction before he’s put away, probably for life, where he might become a very good writer.

I have reproduced his statement here, unedited, but spell checked. He’s an intelligent man, well read, and a liberal! And many many showbiz and other notable people will see that their names are listed, his favorites and his unfavorites, among some shrewd observations.

**********************************

Feb 4, 2013 9:14:04 AM
From: Christopher Jordan Dorner /7648
To: America
Subj: Last resort

I know most of you who personally know me are in disbelief to hear from media reports that I am suspected of committing such horrendous murders and have taken drastic and shocking actions in the last couple of days. You are saying to yourself that this is completely out of character of the man you knew who always wore a smile wherever he was seen. I know I will be vilified by the LAPD and the media. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil that I do not enjoy but must partake and complete for substantial change to occur within the LAPD and reclaim my name. The department has not changed since the Rampart and Rodney King days. It has gotten worse. The consent decree should never have been lifted. The only thing that has evolved from the consent decree is those officers involved in the Rampart scandal and Rodney King incidents have since promoted to supervisor, commanders, and command staff, and executive positions.

The question is, what would you do to clear your name?

Name;
A word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to.

Name Synonyms;
reputation, title, appellation, denomination, repute.

A name is more than just a noun, verb, or adjective. It’s your life, your legacy, your journey, the sacrifices and everything you’ve worked hard for every day of your life as an adolescent, young adult and adult. Don’t let anybody tarnish it when you know you’ve lived up to your own set of ethics and personal ethos.

Continue Reading

Tooting My Horn as JUST WILLIAM

By John Clark on Posted in A SPACE FOR NOSTALGIA, ACTORS' & DIRECTORS' CORNER, COMMENTARY-Passing parade

Hey folks, this is quite exciting! Terry Taylor, the editor of a magazine which is put out twice a year for the Just William Society in the U.K., had been in touch with me a few weeks ago to ask if we could put together the story of my life. Daunting!

Not quite the whole story but a lot of it, starting with my being “discovered” as they used to say, on a bus in Chipperfield, and my beginnings as a child actor in wartime London with comedian Will Hay on BBC radio.

We performed the act for the King, Queen, and Princesses 4 days before the war ended. What followed was my being cast as “Just William”, and the downward spiral of my life as an actor to the present day. That’s 69 years! Here’s what he had to say:

Continue Reading

FLIGHT

By John Clark on Posted in ACTORS' & DIRECTORS' CORNER, COMMENTARY-Passing parade

Saturday, November 3rd. 2012

I don’t bother with moviegoing much any more. My time is taken up with real life things, and I don’t need to escape into worlds of action, horror, fantasy, and in-your-face scatology, and I fear that the same might be said for the general population, as the new economic/political scene gets under way.

However, partly to celebrate my 80th birthday, and partly to see something I could relate to (I have a pilot license and owned 2 planes), and as a SAG member for the past 50 years, I decided to accept Paramount’s invitation for actors to see a special screening of this movie yesterday at the Writers Guild Theater, and interact with the makers at a Q & A afterwards.

Continue Reading

Parental Alienation, Syndrome or what?

By John Clark on Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to medical sites, Links to new justice

URGENT UPDATE

December 14, 2012:
With the terrifying news out of Newtown Connecticut this morning, it is now more clear than ever that psychological profiling of any student demonstrating possibly dangerous behavior be ordered, and to hell with their personal right to privacy. When lives and guns are involved, emergency methods must be taken. It seems that these perpetrators are seeking closure of some kind. When that involves mass killing and the taking of their own lives, society is at risk, remains unprotected, and learns nothing.

It’s time the American Psychiatric Association got its act together. Let the ruling body immediately review the latest DSM-5, and “clean it up” to the extent of including a requirement that any individual inflicted with the pain of Parental Alienation (PAS or whatever)  HAS A FORM OF MENTAL SICKNESS. Until this is done, students wracked with overwhelming conflicts lurking in their inmost family relationships will continue to seek relief. It is worth noting that the first victim of this latest outrage by a twenty-year old male student was his sleeping gun-loving mother, and then on to the elementary school to take down teachers and babies. This happened in the peaceful Connecticut countryside community of Newtown. 28 people have died, including himself, and still counting!

[Piers Morgan on CNN publicized his opinions on gun violence, and incredibly, the NRA is asking for his eviction from the shores of the USA! This column appeared in MailOnline on December 30, the end of the year. He says it better than I could have done]

December 13, 2012:
I see in an article in the current Time Magazine (Dec. 17), a report on the new guidelines for Mental Illness. It summarizes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), used by doctors for their purposes and insurance companies, on which to base their decisions. The new features of the DSM-5 have just been approved, and will be published in May 2013. They’re just “cleaning it up” until then.

The article tells us that in the world of mental health, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is more or less the bible. Doctors use the DSM’s definitions to diagnose depression, stuttering, fetishism, schizophrenia and more than 300 other conditions. Insurance companies use it to justify reimbursements; without a DSM code, mental-health patients usually don’t get a dime. And the manual carries enormous cultural heft: when it stopped listing homosexuality as a mental disorder–after a 1974 psychiatrists’ debate in which being gay was deemed sane by a vote of 5,854 to 3,810–gay rights received a crucial boost.

Among the many conditions listed, those with affects caused by Hoarding, Bereavement, Binge Eating etc. are allowed; Aspergers and Autistics is a maybe, and Parental Alienation Syndrome is definitely not in.

Much has been written and much has been discredited in the efforts of Richard Gardner, who came up with it back in the early 1980s. But I’ve had personal reasons to revisit and rethink the case of Parental Alienation, and whether it rises to the level of a syndrome. There is a storm of controversy attached to it.

But first, what is a syndrome? Wikipedia comes up with this definition:

In medicine and psychology, a syndrome is the association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by someone other than the patient), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together, so that the presence of one or more features alerts the healthcare provider to the possible presence of the others.

Let’s assume that you are a divorced or separated parent, and that your kid is firmly alienated towards you, one of the parents, and there is no underlying reason! By underlying reason, I mean that you, the alienated parent has no history of abuse, violence, or drunken behavior, and instead your behavior has always been loving and steadfast and caring, and, even better, you have always provided financial support for the kid without protest. And in fact, used to have an excellent relationship.

I believe that the condition has become hard-wired into the child’s mental processes, and is therefore a form of clinical sickness capable of being rectified.

Well, the DSMs say that, nevertheless, it is not an insurable condition. It may require medical intervention, or it may require counseling, but it’s only if you go along with their opinion and it’s your choice. As far as the courts are concerned, it doesn’t exist as a syndrome, or an identifiable medical condition, and will probably refer to the DSM protocol.

It is my view that, lacking any other probable cause, a syndrome IS operating. Professional intervention is not only advisable, but, bearing in mind the kid’s future workplace career and college education, should be required by any licensing authority, and even ordered to be tackled by the medical profession, the schools, and the courts. The official view seems to be that the individual’s and family’s right to privacy comes first, and the public’s right to be safe and protected comes second.

Whether the other parent, the one conditioning the child towards alienation, should be punished is a different issue, already in hand. That parent may well go to prison if the other one pushes for it, for the courts frown on that behavior. But if that happened, even such an order most probably will not release the child from his or her frozen mental state, might even make it worse (“So you put my Dad/Mom in prison? I HATE you”), and therapy will still be needed. Please, do everyone, and your child, a favor.

OUR PRESIDENT’S SOBERING SPEECH

By John Clark on Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to new justice, My Family and Me

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Newtown, Connecticut:
A grim Barack Obama made a powerful speech tonight from the Sandy Hook Elementary School auditorium, where he told residents not to lose heart in the wake of the devastating shootings that last Friday took 27 lives, including 20 children, 5 teachers, 1 school psychologist, and the gunman aged 20.

He slowly read the names of these innocent children, just 6 and 7 years old:

“Charlotte . . . Daniel . . . Olivia . . . Josephine . . . Ana . . . Dylan . . . Madeleine . . . Catherine . . . Chase . . . Jesse . . . James . . . Grace . . . Emilie . . . Jack . . . Noah . . . Caroline . . . Jessica . . . Benjamin . . . Avielle . . . Allison.”

The speech, it should be noted, came from his own hand and heart.

He then turned his attention to the living, which is where this column usually heads. It  should be read and thought about by everyone, but especially by Family Court judges, Family Court “specialist” lawyers, Family Court “child evaluators”, the justices on the Courts of Appeal, the justices on the State Supreme Court, and the mothers and fathers caught up in the throes of divorce and the, always, always, unavoidable betrayal of their children.

Obama said “This town reminds Americans what should really matter. . . ”

He pointed out that the nation is failing at what he called “our first task,” which was to care for the children of the nation.  “It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right.”

He then asked: “Can we truly say that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we are doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? . . . a chance at a good life, with happiness and with purpose? If we are honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We are not doing enough, and we will have to change.”

We can’t tolerate this any more. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. In the coming weeks, I’ll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators, in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

I hope I will be excused for focusing my thoughts on our living children – all ages, from young to old. They are still with us, they are not lost, and we still have a chance to get it right. Let this be a way of making amends for the dead.

Here is the full speech and text.

DISCUSSION

The result of what Adam Lanza did was evil, no question about that.

But was his intent evil? I don’t think so, because I don’t think that children are inherently evil.

Continue Reading

QUARTET

By John Clark on Posted in ACTORS' & DIRECTORS' CORNER

I saw that this film, the first solo movie directing effort of Dustin Hoffman, was to be screened at the DGA’s excellent movie house in Hollywood, and that Dustin would be interviewed by Michael Apted (our last DGA president) for a Q & A after the screening.

If controversy was sought, they couldn’t have found a better place, or subject. Apted had been involved in directing Dustin in the movie Agatha, and as some of us remember, that movie was filled with litigious controversy, and my sister-in-law Vanessa costarred. . . but more about that later. What fun! I knew I had to be there.

I think that the L.A. Times review written with intelligence by the dependable Betsy Sharkey says it best, and I agree with her view, sometime xenophobe that she can be, so link on it here. Incidentally, I enjoyed seeing several of my old British actor friends of long ago working again.

This film is based upon the retired opera performers’ home in Milan, which was built by Verde over a hundred years ago. Casa di Riposo per Musicisti has been displaced to a village near the Thames countryside, and staged at Hedsor House, going now by the name of Beecham House. Most attractive it is, with lush English gardens and busy Victorian interiors.

There’s no such real opera performers’ home in England, sad to say, but we do have a real actors’ home, Denville Hall it’s called, which is where my mother-in-law Rachel Kempson spent some demented time. Here’s a brief documentary video from the priceless Path collection of ancient newsreels. (I’m being sneaky here as you’ll see if you watch it).

Dustin gets to direct with a sure hand, especially in his management of actors and crowds, and I hope he feels encouraged to continue with that occupation. It requires the willingness to learn a new skill-set, but there’s a great satisfaction in it, extending easily from the urge to act.

In the aftermath of the Newtown horrors, we may get to see the ascendancy of films like this; no violence, no guns, little exterior “action”, but much to think about in the recesses of the mind. I do believe that we seniors will be firmly planted in movie theatre seats once again, and face it, we have more time and spending money than the kids. But no way the big 4 (Universal, WB, Paramount, Disney) will favor the trend, and we’ll have to continue to depend upon the likes of Bob Weinstein, Sony, and Fox. Now that Ismael has gone from us, is Merchant Ivory still cooking, I wonder.

 

QUARTET (cont’d)

By John Clark on Posted in ACTORS' & DIRECTORS' CORNER, COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Showbiz sites

Dustin spoke on stage after the screening with many funny anecdotes in the making of QUARTET, especially in his director/actor dealings with Maggie Smith, who has quite a reputation for being “difficult”, as does Dustin. He said they got along “just fine”.

He spoke of the minutiae of the producing/directing process, how he had little to work with in terms of budget, and had to complete it using his own money. He also spoke of his preferred director methods. Hates those who keep precise lists and set ideas of how actors and equipment should move, and likes those who arrive on set with very open minds.

I am second to none in my admiration of Dustin, who is 5 years younger than me, unwillingly became an unknown actor in his early twenties, while I unwillingly became a child star aged eleven. I not only admire his acting, but also his approach to his career, designed by himself. Just as conflict exists in the good story told, it exists in the good life lived. I think we share that approach.

I’ve talked here about the ways the actor can manipulate his senses and emotions, from the inside or outside, in the unending quest for a great performance. And about having no degrees of separation between you and yourself.

Agents and managers are tools. But here’s where that plan falls apart. If you are a star, an icon like Dustin, you can do it. If you are a star like Lynn Redgrave, you can also do it (with my help). If you occupy the lower depths, like me these days, you will become the tool of those same agents and managers. The tail wags the dog.

The almost legendary story of the Agatha production in 1979 is worth telling here, only because he brought it up at great length. As a matter of fact, he chose to bring up Vanessa’s behavior too, recalling her unpopular political dance with PLO honcho Yasser Arafat. He held his nose, as though to say “Vanessa didn’t notice this?” And of course, it didn’t help the marketing of the movie.

Dustin had been invited to join Barbara Streisand, Steve McQueen, Sidney Poitier and Paul Newman who had set up their own producing company First Artists Productions. They felt that they were the most important part of movies because they were the draw, and were seen onscreen (probably true). Besides, they didn’t trust the majors’ accounting practices (definitely true), and wanted to choose their own scripts and have approval of directors, casts, writers, and final edit. They invited Dustin in with his own production company Sweetwall Productions. The second to involve Dustin, this was their 17th, Agatha.

It was beset with problems from the start. Julie Christie bowed out for health reasons. Producer David Puttnam (now a life peer) was upset he had to accommodate Dustin into what he thought was a finished script and also bowed out, (but first vowed never to work with this “difficult” actor again.) Dustin, by then executive producer, had gone over budget, and so the company took his control away. Dustin claimed he wasn’t paid in the agreed way, and insisted on maintaining control all the way up to final cut. Recently hired lawyer Phil Feldman had come in as president and chief executive officer though, changed the conceptual field, and got himself sued by Dustin for 30 million dollars, which was the amount Dustin claimed for his fee, plus what he put into it, plus the amount he claimed the movie would have made if he’d been left alone. Trust lawyers to fix things, right?

Anybody who thinks that major stars are loving warm human beings are just plain wrong. They lord it, often unyieldingly, over their individual turfs.

Anyway, it became clear that the presence of Agatha director Michael Apted approved by Agatha actor/producer Dustin Hoffman, this night was not without purpose. It was a time for digs, and they flew. But Dustin also graciously congratulated Michael for the success of 56 Up, the continuing follow-up of his Up Series examination of cradle-to-grave British lives.

The time came for the Q & A, but there were no microphones available for audience participation, and so an actor in the front row got up and joined them with his actor question. Then I decided it was my turn. I put up my hand, and Michael asked me up on the stage, and so it was that I shook hands with Dustin.

I said that he and I had worked together some 50 years ago, but it was not as actors. It was in the kitchen at Ted Flicker’s The Premise on Bleecker Street, where we made the coffee, served the refreshments and cleaned up afterwards, while his friend Gene Hackman was improvising along with George Segal and Joan Darling up on the platform.

“You”, said I, “went on to become the iconic star that you are, and I went on to become Vanessa Redgrave’s brother-in-law, and then a director. And come to think of it, didn’t Vanessa get into the litigation act too? I have vague memories of that.” He looked a little stunned.

At which point Michael hurriedly asked me to move on with a question, which was “Now that you’ve crossed the aisle into the director’s corner, will it have changed you when you next act in a movie?” To which he replied that he wasn’t sure, but it would certainly make him more sensitive.

[As I left the stage, I couldn't help but recall an essay I had written for the L.A. Daily journal. In it, I reflected that I'd studied acting technically from the outside (British, Canadian) inside (U.S. the Method, Lee), and then ventured into the theater of the truly absurd, the inside of a courtroom, not pretending real life, but actually doing real life, villains and crooked deus ex machinas and all. I thought I bet Dustin or Pacino or De Niro wouldn't dare go that far. Maybe I'm ahead of 'em. Yup, foolish, and I'm proud of myself!!!]

And so a great evening came to an end.

Go and see Quartet. I think you’ll like it.

The Queen’s Speech 2012

By John Clark on Posted in A SPACE FOR NOSTALGIA, COMMENTARY-Passing parade

It was 1945, Princess Elizabeth was 18 and I was a small impressionable boy of 12 when I met her. It was just before the end of the war. I’ve been dazzled ever since, so be kind.

The speech is an annual affair, and this year the message was particularly worth watching and reading because Britain had a mind-spinning time of it in 2012. Here she made a speech to start off her Diamond Jubilee year.

June 3. Marked the beginning of her Jubilee celebrations (that’s 60 years on the throne), catching up fast with Queen Victoria, who reigned for 63 years and 7 months. We followed the procession of ships on the Thames on a rather watery day.

July 23. She sent a message of congratulations to cyclist Bradley Wiggins, who had just won the Tour de France, the first Brit to ever do so, and was later to win the most golds at the Olympics.

July 27. She opened the Summer Olympics, hosted in London, and

August 29. Opened the London Paralympics.

September 10. Andy Murray became the first Brit (ok, Scot), to win a Grand Slam event (US Open) since Fred Perry in the thirties. He’d also won gold at the Olympics, first to do so in 100 years.

Now it’s the end of the year, and with 2013 upon us, it remains to be seen what’s in store for an encore.

Makes me proud to remember the land of my birth, although I gave up citizenship long ago for silly reasons (unbelievably, I was protesting my country’s intervention in Biafra!)

God Save the Queen still rings in my ears. Happy and Glorious. Can’t help it.

 

RUNNING YOUR LAWSUIT WITH SELF HELP

By John Clark on Posted in Links to legal, self-help sites

I have frequently been asked by friends and others in this largely free-wheeling buyer-beware jungle of our industry called Showbiz with its circling network of lawyers and contracts and producers and unions and agents and managers and publicists and landlords and traffic courts … to help them.

They say it’s all very well, but you don’t tell us how to conduct a lawsuit or even understand what’s going on. You find yourself in court as a sue-ee or a sue-er, and I need to know what do I do now?

As you know, I am not a lawyer. I did take out my Notary license, but by law I cannot give legal advice. However, I can, and have, told you what happened to me, what to beware of, and what I learned the hard way. I could give you a nudge to point you towards a trustworthy lawyer, but I haven’t found one yet. I’d much rather find out how to arm myself (no, not with a gun), and how to do it in a professional manner. I did sign up for an online course to become a lawyer a few years ago, but gave up after listening to a few lectures. Not for me, and I don’t sell out!

I scoured the internet for self-help guides, and was not impressed. No sense of what really goes on in a court room (a parallel world, and believe me, they’re all intimidating, as are lawyers’ offices.) They give false impressions and empty comfort.

Then I found Dr. Frederick Graves online, an experienced retired Florida lawyer, like me with a mission. I bought his program and studied it. I didn’t then have any particular personal use for it, except to kick myself for being green and stupid. Now I do need it, so I recently bought his latest updated version and checked it out. I have examined it in detail, and I can say that it very effectively teaches you how to FILE AND RUN A LAWSUIT FROM START TO FINISH, or if you prefer, HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR LAWYER IS DOING HIS JOB IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS and HOW TO MAKE SURE THE JUDGE IS BEHAVING HIM OR HERSELF. Dr. Graves is very specific, and he gives away the secrets as well as the tools.

Law students and even licensed lawyers would do well to get acquainted with it, because it essentially deals with all of the common legal tricks used in battle, and takes the view to not trust lawyers or judges either. Don’t kid yourself, courtroom legal tactics are games of war, and the punishments meted out can exceed the worst of wounds by a judge who seems to take sides, and can leaves scars on the soul! And you’ll be the only advocate swearing to tell the truth!

I don’t suggest you can become a brilliant trial lawyer overnight. Just stick with Law & Order and Family Guy for that. But if you’re in any way contemplating litigation or you’re in the middle of it, you need to get the intimidation off your back, and learn how to fight by insisting that the rules be followed by the judge and the lawyer(s) you’re using or fighting. (Just an aside here, screen writers could use the practical knowledge too.)

Bear in mind that the courts are encouraging you to do it for yourself. Yes they are! They don’t provide court-appointed lawyers unless you’re indigent and in Criminal court. This is more for Civil court users, although any alleged criminals out there are welcome too. And the courts would be grateful to see pro pers and pro ses with know-how exercised respectfully. Judges are not umpires, and they don’t offer legal advice from the bench. They make rulings based upon what they see and hear, according to the law. You’ll be on your own.

So it is with enthusiasm that I urge you to copy and paste this link into the address bar of your browser. Be sure that this is all that appears in the address bar for it to work properly (on a Mac, the drop-down menu may say “go to site” ). When you’ve studied it, bookmark it so you can go back to it and check it out thoroughly. You won’t see legalese, and the language and instructions are pretty straight-forward.

www.HowToWinInCourt.com?refercode=CJ0021

You’ll quickly get ideas and leads on how to proceed, with free workflow charts, forms, and so on. If you decide to buy the program, all I ask is you mention my name or this site. Dr. Frederick Graves is my friend, he knows that I want to help you, and if I bring people to his website, I get a small commission, and that helps to keep this site running, and advertisement-free.

You’ll see that the cost is reasonable, less than a country lawyer’s one billable hour. And your time? Maybe a weekend of concentrated study.

If you do use it, get back to me with a story of your experience. I’m at john@johnclarkprose.com, and maybe I’ll tell it here. Maybe you’ll get a screenplay out of it. Here’s MY true story!

BTW, important, please know that there are no guarantees of success in your case, I accept no responsibility, and I can’t answer any legal questions. It’s completely up to you. A notary I am, a lawyer I am not.

21342 Colina Drive, Topanga 90290

By John Clark on Posted in MY EVICTION PICTURES

This was our home for 22 years, which I developed over that period. Its last sale price does not indicate that the property was the subject of litigation, and was the price realized upon its sale by Lynn Redgrave who deserted it 3 years previously, partnered by Judge Gold standing in my shoes, who created a court order. I was evicted by the now discredited (described by Judicial Watch) corrupt Judge Gold of Los Angeles Family Court (now “retired”, meaning he works as a private judge – lol).

I sued the new owners who’d been waiting in the wings, the Katlemans. Also the real estate agent Melissa Oliver (conflict of interest), and the escrow company. The judge was anxious to grab funds which was easy, because I had no mortgage, and he signed off on it “as is”. There were no inspections that I’m aware of. Amazing how judicial orders can skate over proper procedures. My cases were dismissed, and I was charged the escrow company’s legal expenses for my efforts to get them to reveal the details. Over $12,000, 5 times what I received as my share of this “community property” (again, lol!). So much for real estate transfer laws, a pillar of a man’s rights in a free country.

Were they working in unison? At least I found out what they’d been doing to me under cover of secrecy. Only as a result of my litigation efforts, I got a statement. Later, Mr. Katleman took the front property’s address causing a visit by Malibu Building and Safety to the front guest house only to inspect it, and a deliberate diminution of its value. It was bought by Melissa’s real estate friend at a price less than what I had previously offered to the court .

My home’s address was always 21342 1/2. I was banned from entering the property, subjected to arrest, and in the dead of night Miyuki and I sneaked in in dark clothing, and rescued my diaries and records of my life. I then had a choice, before moving into my trailer to tow it to a trailer park. Burn the place down, become a Chris Dorner, or put a curse on it. I chose the latter. Gold put me in jail anyway, just for 24 hours to disable me before I could start my courtroom defense from the aggressors.

To the new buyers, be aware that the pool, which I dug, has no safety fence, and I did a whole lot of upgrading without permits, and buried huge amounts of trash on the grounds with my backhoe, as well as laying drains into a sewage pit and drain field under the car park. I also built the little studio near the tennis court without permits, also the tennis court and night lights. Demand to see all previous inspection reports if there are any, and insist on new independent inspections. Look for the devil in the details. Notice it’s right next to a huge park, full of small trees and brush, has no shelter from the sun, and sits under a steep slope which used to give me trouble from pelting rain, dust, and small rocks. Full disclosure, right?

I wish Mr. Katleman, my fellow DGA member, well, in his TV career. Not so his pimply lawyer in his legal career.