Today's Daily Variety contains a long letter from Fox attorney Robert J. Sulze on the Amaani Lyle v. Warner Bros. case that the California Supreme Court decided unanimously a couple of weeks back...
If you know nothing about Ms. Lyle's lawsuit, it concerns free and easy banter between writers in the "Friends" writers' room, and a stenographer who claimed she was mortified by the language...after she was let go for slow transcription of said banter.
Mr. Schulze, in his May 1 Daily Variety letter (and which I would link to if I could find the damn thing), explains why the ruling is a victory for free speech. It concerned explicit sexual language, but that language was not directed at the plaintiff Ms. Lyle, therefore it didn't constitute "harrassment," sexual or otherwise. The court found it to be permissible because it was "work connected," that is, done because the sexual nature of the show required the writers to have the freedom to explore many different avenues -- even randy talk -- in pursuit of new and better "Friends" plotlines.
All of the above triggers memories of bawdy drawings I've encountered over the years, traipsing through the halls and offices of various animation studios.
At Disney, good old Pete Young would regularly show me some of the graphic gag drawings he made of various women around the lot, or of me in some horridly compromising situation. A quick look or short remark would be all it would take to get him started. He'd pass me a series of screamingly funny x-rated cartoons, then quietly tuck them away in his drawer. He knew enough not to leave them lying around.
Dirty drawings discreetly viewed and then hidden away from prying eyes have not always been the case in Animation City. Some years back, I walked down a hallway of Disney Television Animation to find all kinds of x-rated goo gaws plastered on the walls and hanging from ceilings. (Genitalia were much in evidence.) An executive who knew one of the instigators -- then and now a talented artist/director -- told him he was "a lawsuit waiting to happen."
Happily, no lawsuits occurred. At least not at Walt Disney Television Animation. But The Animation Guild once filed a grievance on behalf of an artist at a signator studio who stood accused of drawing naughty parts of the human anatomy into key layouts. The artist was let go by the studio, and the Guild fought the dismissal every step of the way. Ultimately, however, we lost. There were just too many witnesses and too much evidence that undermined our case.
Over the years, I've sat in on a number of sexual harrassment hearings. Almost always the harrassment cases centered around verbal...rather than drawn...harassment. Even so, the studios have grown ever more skittish about having suggestive drawings up on tall, vertical surfaces. Girl in a bikini? Better take it down. Half undressed model in a suggestive pose? Lose it quick.
One of the few times I've seen a lot of pictures of scantily-clad women up on an artist's door was when that artist was female. If it had been a man, I question if it would have been tolerated. Fifteen years ago, I was in a room at Disney Features that had Playmates plastered over every available surface. I doubt that kind of artistic display would be allowed to happen in 2006, for the legal risks are too high. A single sexy drawing near somebody's desk? Sure, I still see them, but every studio has become increasingly conscious of the litigation that awaits them if they let artists' libidos get too far out of control.
Like writers' notes and conversation, some workplace testerone is still allowed. But the quantities in which it slopped around cartoon studios a decade or three ago are gone for good.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Sexual Harrassment in 'Toonland
Today's Daily Variety contains a long letter from Fox attorney Robert J. Sulze on the Amaani Lyle v. Warner Bros. case that the California Supreme Court decided unanimously a couple of weeks back...
If you know nothing about Ms. Lyle's lawsuit, it concerns free and easy banter between writers in the "Friends" writers' room, and a stenographer who claimed she was mortified by the language...after she was let go for slow transcription of said banter.
Mr. Schulze, in his May 1 Daily Variety letter (and which I would link to if I could find the damn thing), explains why the ruling is a victory for free speech. It concerned explicit sexual language, but that language was not directed at the plaintiff Ms. Lyle, therefore it didn't constitute "harrassment," sexual or otherwise. The court found it to be permissible because it was "work connected," that is, done because the sexual nature of the show required the writers to have the freedom to explore many different avenues -- even randy talk -- in pursuit of new and better "Friends" plotlines.
All of the above triggers memories of bawdy drawings I've encountered over the years, traipsing through the halls and offices of various animation studios.
At Disney, good old Pete Young would regularly show me some of the graphic gag drawings he made of various women around the lot, or of me in some horridly compromising situation. A quick look or short remark would be all it would take to get him started. He'd pass me a series of screamingly funny x-rated cartoons, then quietly tuck them away in his drawer. He knew enough not to leave them lying around.
Dirty drawings discreetly viewed and then hidden away from prying eyes have not always been the case in Animation City. Some years back, I walked down a hallway of Disney Television Animation to find all kinds of x-rated goo gaws plastered on the walls and hanging from ceilings. (Genitalia were much in evidence.) An executive who knew one of the instigators -- then and now a talented artist/director -- told him he was "a lawsuit waiting to happen."
Happily, no lawsuits occurred. At least not at Walt Disney Television Animation. But The Animation Guild once filed a grievance on behalf of an artist at a signator studio who stood accused of drawing naughty parts of the human anatomy into key layouts. The artist was let go by the studio, and the Guild fought the dismissal every step of the way. Ultimately, however, we lost. There were just too many witnesses and too much evidence that undermined our case.
Over the years, I've sat in on a number of sexual harrassment hearings. Almost always the harrassment cases centered around verbal...rather than drawn...harassment. Even so, the studios have grown ever more skittish about having suggestive drawings up on tall, vertical surfaces. Girl in a bikini? Better take it down. Half undressed model in a suggestive pose? Lose it quick.
One of the few times I've seen a lot of pictures of scantily-clad women up on an artist's door was when that artist was female. If it had been a man, I question if it would have been tolerated. Fifteen years ago, I was in a room at Disney Features that had Playmates plastered over every available surface. I doubt that kind of artistic display would be allowed to happen in 2006, for the legal risks are too high. A single sexy drawing near somebody's desk? Sure, I still see them, but every studio has become increasingly conscious of the litigation that awaits them if they let artists' libidos get too far out of control.
Like writers' notes and conversation, some workplace testerone is still allowed. But the quantities in which it slopped around cartoon studios a decade or three ago are gone for good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I remember the case of the artist who "slipped in" genitalia into children's cartoons, and to tell the truth, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you'd fight his dismissal "every step of the way". What he did was INSTANT grounds for firing, imho. Not just stupid and foolish, but also a hugely expensive "prank" for that show(not to mention--and I'm an avid Stern listener--plain offensive), requiring retakes and re-animation from overseas...but I am sure you remember all that. I think in the case of that person, he had some clearly serious problems. These weren't private gags for friends, this was putting things into backgrounds of kids' fare that had NO business being there. He'd done it compulsively and repeatedly. Why should that company have taken the huge fall they surely would have because of his behaviour? I don't think that was a great battle for the union to pick. Just my opinion.
As for the supposed continuing overzealousness of producers/employers/studios, I haven't seen it at all. I have nudes up around my office--nudes by the old masters(including the ones from the 30s and 40s, lol), but they're not crude and potentially offensive sexual gags. Women and men (especuially artists) both know the difference. And btw, there are just as many guys as gals who are actually made pretty uncomfortable by certain sex "gags" and such...the good old days of open snraking sexually are gone, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm glad the women aren't made to sit in another building, either. ; )
All in all, this is a hell of a better, healthier and freer working world than the old days were.
Yes, I too am puzzled why you fought this artist's dismissal. Putting some gag drawings up around the office is one thing. Putting them in a publicly broadcast children's show is another. Seems to me there are more worthy people and situations to fight for.
We filed a grievance over dismissal because 1) the artist claimed to be innocent and never wavered from that position, 2) much of the evidence was weak and/or ambiguous, (for instance, there was a sexy sign in a layout that was put forward as evidence; but the same sexy sign was in an approved storyboard the artist was using for the layout, and 3) the job of the guild is to defend members when they say the charges are false, not to prejudge the issues.
If the artist had admitted to us (the lawyer and I), that yeah, well, the company's charges were correct, we would have dropped the grievance.
As it was, the grievance came close to settling but didn't. (We couldn't come to agreement on a dollar figure.) I had a number of Disney artists come up to me during and after the grievance and ask the same questions that you've raised. I gave the same answers I'm posting here.
The Guild's job, at the end of the day, is to be an advocate for a member who representes that she or he has been wronged.
I have found there to be a lot of sexism in this field directed at good looking women. Why, your own Tom Sito told me himself that in his opinion, attractive women are not nice people.
It's easy to label us all intollerant, pin-up hating extremists, but there is a difference between the appreciation of the female form, and the mistreatment of female co-workers. So long as attitudes remain apologetic for the bad types of behavior, you'll find women are less tollerant of the innocent stuff. It's only common sense…
Post a Comment