Word is that the actors' union is split over whether to strike. Obviously, LCT Magazine opposes a strike simply because it would hurt the Southern California chauffeured transportation industry, which depends on entertainment clients for revenue. And the industry already endured the street theater and business blowout of a writers' strike earlier this year (The people who give us such rich, TV-worthy dialogue as "It's, like, you know, Omigod. . . ")
But aside from that, we must marvel at how so many actors underscore the empty-headed stereotype. Not to mention, the self-involved persona of brattydom. (Ever hear the one about how an actress screws in a ceiling light bulb? She just holds the bulb to the socket and waits for the world to revolve around her!)
Why should recession-wracked Americans sympathize with people who VOLUNTARILY don't show up for work because they think they are not making enough money? With unemployment possibly headed to 1982 levels (upwards of 9-10%), what are these people thinking?
If the strike happens as the recession worsens, a lot of the restaurants where aspiriing actors actually work and Hollywood decision makers dine could go under as well. Then there won't be any work on or off the set. And Americans might finally see much of Hollywood for what it is: A costly, distracting frivolity. -- M.R.
Print | posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:47 AM