INT: So Del in '66 and '67, when you were moving from vice presidency to presidency, there was a lot happening. It must've been a pretty dense time for you?
DM: Well, the possessory credit triggered that above all. GEORGE SIDNEY who had been president hit a streak of pictures to do in London, so he was gone from the scene for a large part of time, and the burdens of the presidency fell on the vice president's shoulders. The WRITER'S GUILD had negotiated a clause with the producers that would prevent directors from ever getting possessory credit again. It came down to arguments about what is the most important part of filmmaking. The writers claimed it was the script and we maintained there was much more involved. It really hit the fan when the writers did this. The people who clearly had the most influence on what went on screen, the directors, were upset. We got into violent disputes with the producer's association who I believe had somehow just not thought through the process. The producers said we cannot take it out of the writer's contract, it is there, we signed it. We said we'd go out on strike and stop the industry if they didn't do something about it. I was the officer in charge of the guild at that time and I was totally unsure of my abilities to handle this and make as firm a statement that needed to be made. GEORGE STEVENS and FRANK CAPRA and JOHN FORD were very strong in their feelings about this. The writers finally offered them a grandfather clause. They all said to hell with that. We're talking about the future of this industry. So it went on for several months. This is where people got the impression that I should be president. It was GEORGE STEVENS and DELMER DAVES who cornered me one day and said with my reputation I needed to be president. JOE YOUNGERMAN kind of stayed out of it. I finally reluctantly said yes.

DM: So I went into office and the dispute continued for quite some time. One afternoon about dusk occurred the very famous meeting, all of the name directors of Hollywood were summoned to the board meeting. HITCHCOCK was there. RICHARD BROOKS, a fighter. MARTIN RITT, JOHN RICH, BOB WISE, STEVENS, CAPRA, FORD, everybody was there. The aim was to devise something rather quickly to put into the trade press. A two page cable was read by DAVID LEAN from London. He spelled out very neatly what a director does. He covered all of the aspects of a director's job. It was a stunning, succinct, beautifully expressed statement of what a true director does. This became the basis for our advertising campaign. Very soon after that we had a few angered meetings with the producer's association. LEW WASSERMAN, or CHARLIE BORAN convened a group of producers and came up with a statement, and I'm sure it came from WASSERMAN. They looked up the contract as a mistake and agreed to take it back after the WRITER'S GUILD contract was up in 2 years. We had a quick board meeting and that was it. We were making plans for a massive strike so they were smart to do this. I feel we clearly won that battle, and the whole issue has quietly festered with the writers in these 30 years since. I don't think the issue will ever go away.

INT: That must be partly where your respect for LEW WASSERMAN stems?
DM: Yes, absolutely. In the contract negotiations he would never enter into the talks. Other members of the producer's group would front them, but he was never present at those meetings. He got full reports of what everyone wanted and each negotiation the same thing happened. We finally argued until we came to a head butting position. Then LOU would come in and resolve things. He would pull the producers aside and inevitably sense of what LOU wanted came back to the table. In each instance, we found that amply rewarding and an amply fair way to resolve the disputes for both sides. My respect for LOU WASSERMAN is absolutely top notch, a great leader and a great man.

INT: Del, during the flury of that issue, do you remember much about ACTION magazine?
DM: ACTION magazine was a good magazine but it did not financially sustain itself and needed to be shut down. The purchase of the New York building was a costly situation. We purchased an old building on 57th street. In no way was it as comfortable as the Los Angeles building, which has since been replaced, but we fixed it up as best we could. It has never been totally satisfying to the New York members. They have still felt very upset by their secondary status as far as the building they are in. For the last 2 years we have been in strong negotiations for a series of moves to either sell the building or put up our own structure. Plans have gone forward and fallen by the wayside. The theater needs a lot of work, and a lot of that has been done already. I don't know what their current status is, but I think their final offer of selling the building and renting the office space has fallen by the way side because of financial situations. I think we are now thinking in terms of a thorough reconstruction of our whole building. There is ultimately going to be a lot of guild money spent one way or another to give them a new building.

INT: That segues us to the building in which we sit. At your first national board meeting as president, in Chicago, GEORGE STEVENS, our third president, spoke vehemently against the construction of a GUILD office in Hollywood. Tell us about that.
DM: GEORGE expressed himself very strongly. He got up and made a lengthy speech and I remember when he would get going on one of his major speeches, wondering what the hell he meant. His attitude was that we do not need to put money into a big, elaborate headquarters building in CA. Everything we were doing was tending to make us a union, not a guild. The organization was slipping away from being a community of creative professionals. He walked out and I was flabbergasted. He was one of the men I was counting on to guide me through the presidency. With him off the board and gone I was devastated. YOUNGERMAN had been talking to STEVENS and tried to convince him to come back to the board. JOE called CAPRA and explained the situation. GEORGE, JOE and I went up to Frank's house and in one hours time persuaded GEORGE to come back to the guild. FRANK got him to understand that I needed him, the guild needed him. It was all resolved.

INT: Generally during the presidency, the most important issues during your times in office?
DM: The possessory credit was the most important single issue. I think the second overall element that I felt was most important in the progress of the guild was trying to find an atmosphere in which the antagonisms between east and west could be resolved. I felt that by the time I finished my second term in '71, that we had made considerable progress in that direction. But they are eased tremendously, no way as open and hostile as they were 30 years ago. I felt that yes I had something to do with that.

INT: The toughest tasks for you in office?
DM: Not the toughest, but the 2 things I liked the least about the job was the contract negotiations. The very process really sort of drove me mad. I disliked it intensely. I never could understand particularly the lawyers for the producers association who just negotiated contracts. That sort of job would drive me crazy. It was not a fun, pleasant part of the job. The other thing was putting together the annual dinner in March. Why that became such a burden I don't know. YOUNGERMAN and I together, alone, devised the programs, the structure of the dinner. And the awards at this time were being changed almost every year. Each dinner, there would be some kind of a mix-up in the giving of the awards. It was just hellish.

DM: I never had any issues that I appealed to the guild to support me on. I never got into that kind of dispute with the producers or the studios. I was always comfortably resolved in those areas. I never asked the guild to back me up or to sit down and talk about what was happening to me. That being said, I was conscious the entire time, and still am, of the fact that the guild was there. That in itself made it possible for me to have a relatively serene time in my career. The guild's presence did it, especially with the rights surrounding the director's cut of a film. It has prevented the producer's taking the picture and locking me out of the process. The guild is there to move in and support a director, argue their case if necessary. But just the fact that they are there is important. How much we will tolerate. [INT: Does your experience give you additional clout in those areas?] No, I don't think it had anything to do with it.

INT: Runaway production, friction with the CANADIAN DIRECTORS GUILD?
DM: Well, I've done plenty of those, especially in Toronto. I worked for 3 summers in London as well. Yes, money was saved, particularly in Canada. Paying the crews less. Nevertheless money really was saved. I cannot fault studios or production companies totally for doing that. But on the other hand I do see the reverse side of that which means the Canadians have moved in tremendously to lure American production up there to take advantage of them. It has now become a major factor between the two countries.