Was Jay Leno’s monologue acceptable under strike rules?
By
I mentioned this in my previous post and, as expected, Jay’s monologue has the guild talking. For convenience, here’s a quote from Nikki Finke’s early morning post on the monologue Jay delivered last night:
Leno Sounds Like He Broke Strike Rules
I have a feeling this controversy not only isn’t going away but will probably deepen over the next days: Jay Leno admitted last night on the air during his first show back from strike hiatus that he wrote his own monologue. That’s a huge problem because it violates the strike rules of one of his unions, the Writers Guild Of America, which is currently on strike and picketing NBC and Leno’s Tonight Show. Leno did deliver what was a funny monologue. So the big question is who wrote it: WGA members or scabs (i.e. the usual contingent of joke writers who hang out around Jay’s kitchen table)?
Leno addressed that very issue during the monologue: “You know what I’m doing? I’m doing what I did the day I started. I write jokes and wake my wife up in the middle of the night and say, ‘Honey, is this funny?’ So if this monologue doesn’t work it’s my wife’s fault,” he explained. “We are not using outside guys. We are following the guild thing… We can write for ourselves…”
Earth To Leno: That’s not the way the WGA interprets its strike rules . . .
According to the Los Angeles Times, however, Jay felt that he was operating within the WGA guidelines:
Writers get last laugh on late-night shows
. . .
However, Leno’s monologue Wednesday — which he said on the air he wrote himself and tested on his wife — raised questions about whether there was a consensus about the rules.
When asked why the NBC comedian felt his monologue was within strike rule guidelines, a source close to the show pointed to a passage in the WGA Basic Agreement that excludes material written by hosts for themselves. However, guild attorneys have previously said that exception applies only to performers on struck shows who are not members of the guild.
A spokesman for the guild, contacted after the show, said it was aware of Leno’s monologue and wants to discuss it with him, but declined further comment.
This sounds to me like exactly the muddle I was wrestling with a few days ago. Hope they can work it out soon, because it sounds like I’m not the only one confused by this. I know there are varying opinions as to whether any of the hosts should have returned to work, but since they’ve gone back (or are going back) now, a clarification as to just what is allowed certainly would be welcome.
UPDATED TO ADD: According to Deadline Hollywood Daily, “The Writers Guild Of America just confirmed that ‘a discussion took place today between [its member] Jay Leno and the Writers Guild to clarify to him that writing for The Tonight Show constitutes a violation of the Guilds’ strike rules.’” I wonder where things will go from here . . .
FURTHER UPDATED TO ADD: The AP just posted this article, which, among other things, confirms that “the guild’s contract ‘is notoriously difficult to interpret’” and asks the question we’ve been asking here since the WGA first posted its strike guidelines (quoted in the article): “[I]f a guild member is prohibited from performing in a character for which writers normally provide material, what to do about Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert, who performs his entire show in character?”
Related posts
14 Comments
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 am
His “We Didn’t Start the Fire” montage thing made me think immediately that he was breaking rules…and his monologue was freakin’ long…longer than Dave’s and Conan’s combined! But I think writing his own monologue was within the rules, as he performed it himself and that was that loophole in the “WGA Basic Agreement”…but not the montage thing as that definitely was written and performed by someone else…if not many others…
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 am
Seems like a fine line to me… after all, one’s own words, delivered orally, doesn’t seem like writing, even if one wrote ‘em.
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
You know, I don’t even know anymore. I think my brain is exhausted from debating all the sides to this very big issue. All it wants to do anymore is laugh at “The Wørd”.
Though, I will say something in regards to the very last comment of the LA Times article, specifically:
As she picketed in the frigid air outside, Gina Gionfriddo, a writer/producer on NBC’s “Law & Order,” said guild members were not upset with O’Brien and the other hosts for going back on the air without their writers.
I’ve been reading a lot of the comments on Nikki Finke’s Blog and the United Hollywood Blog too, and there are A LOT of angry writers out there over all the hosts going back at all (excluding Letterman) — I’m not sure if Gionfriddo’s statement here accurately reflects the general mood, but then again, I’m not on the picket lines, so what do I know. But, I’m just sayin’…
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I think it all depends on what you consider writing. Is it still writing if you’re thinking through what you’re going to say in your head, and outline it mentally? Or is that just being as prepared as you can be WITHOUT actually putting pen to paper? I think it would be impossible NOT to think of a few things you want to say when you get on the air to at least some degree. Just knowing that you’re going back on the air and you better have something to say, that alone would spark ideas. If that’s all he did, then I think that’s fine. But if at any moment he put pen to paper, or started typing up ideas, that is writing.
On the other hand, he’s a comic before he’s a talk show host and that sounds a lot like the beginning stages of writing an act. The question is what constitutes writing, and how much preparation are they going to allow? If you, say, think out a full sentence or two right down to the words you want to use, is THAT writing? What if his whole monologue was memorized, but he never put pen to paper? And if that is considered writing, how can you prove it? You can easily just deny it, it’s not like they can check your thought processes.
Tricky, tricky…
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Adding:
In other words… what’s are the differences between writing and composing? Are there any? Should they outline differences to avoid confusion? What happens if they rule that there aren’t any? One could argue that improv is a form of composing. It is certainly a tool that can be used in the writing process, but what about that alone? If you dictate something to yourself to memorize that, is that composing (think dictating a book… heh)?
This is something I thought they’d have figured out by now. And you’d think that whatever the consensus is that the hosts make it their job to make 100% sure they are clear on what they can and cannot do. Just like Colbert running for president. He had to figure out what you can and cannot do. But there was never any doritos money, and here there is some. If you take doritos money to mean… content. Okay, my metaphor died.
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
@Erin…just like Colbert running for president…maybe he’ll do something with the strike like he did with that…with highlighted parts of the contract being read and make it kind of a learning experience like he did with the how to get your name on the ballot thing…
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Didn’t these situations come up 20 years ago during the last strike? One would think the precedent would be set, unless the rules have changed.
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I think Colbert might be able to do “formidable opponent” and debate the strike on air.
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
@ vigwig
I’d like to see something like that, however I remember reading somewhere that, according to the strike guidelines, you’re not allowed to perform material that would normally be written for a character. Or something along those lines. That’s what’s worrying me the most. Colbert may have an advantage because he has a background in improv, but on the other hand he is doing his ENTIRE show in character. I think that just by doing that, he may be breaking the rules. THAT is what I’m most worried about, and what I’m sort of looking forward to seeing the most.
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
@ Joshua J. Slone…”Didn’t these situations come up 20 years ago….One would think the precedent would be set, unless the rules have changed.”
And one would think that the rules would be relatively easy to explain and understand, too. But after reading (and reading and reading) all the interpretations out there, I’ve come to the conclusion that if one engages one’s brain, someone will consider it writing. :D
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
@ Erin,
The strike guidelines were linked in the original of the Deadline Hollywood Daily article I linked above. Or you could go here. :)
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Who cares if it was “acceptable”–it was funny! Leno is an entertainer; he entertained me. Ipso facto, he did his job.
Moving on…
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
“…the guild’s contract ‘is notoriously difficult to interpret’”. I think that’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. (Clause IV.A.ii: ‘in the case of performers performing a character whose name is identical to their own..’)
I hope Stephen and Jon are finding a way to laugh at all this. (How else could they keep from going insane?) Maybe some Rabbis and papyrologists and Gandolf the Wizard will cross the picket line to help them sort this all out.
Reply
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
[...] Was Jay Leno’s monologue acceptable under strike rules? [...]