The Power of Stardom

The former star of the TV sitcom “Valerie” has been starring in a courtroom drama for the past 2 1/2 weeks. Suggested titles for this new fall series: “Valerie’s Lawyers” or “The Lorimar Family”--or, perhaps more appropriate to the story line of this particular power struggle, “Who’s the Boss?”

That has emerged as a central question as Valerie Harper and Lorimar Television continue their year-old feud over who wanted creative control of the NBC comedy and whether the Emmy Award-winning actress quit or was fired.

While the much-publicized trial in Los Angeles Superior Court is a simple breach-of-contract suit, some attorneys involved in the case say that theoutcome may have broader significance in defining just how much clout a star wields in today’s television world.

The dispute revolves around “Valerie”--a.k.a. “Valerie’s Family” and now called “The Hogan Family”--an NBC comedy from which Harper, the star of the show, parted in August, 1987. Harper, who played mother-of-three Valerie Hogan, was written out of the show (killed in an accident) and replaced by Sandy Duncan as Valerie’s sister-in-law.

Lorimar Television, the show’s producer, claims that Harper quit. Harper claims that she--along with her husband, Tony Cacciotti, who served as supervising producer on the show--were wrongfully fired.

Lorimar and NBC filed a $70-million suit against Harper, and she sued them back for $180 million, both actions charging breach of contract. A jury trial began Aug. 17 and is expected to continue for the next several weeks.

Although the question of who breached the contract first is the only issue being debated by the attorneys and the witnesses in the courtroom, another important fact may have wider implications for Hollywood: A show called “Valerie” went on the air without Valerie--and the Nielsen ratings weren’t affected.

Some attorneys involved in the Harper case believe that the fact that her series continued without her may keep other performers from taking their grievances to court.

That fact also raises questions about whether any TV star is worth the large salaries they are traditionally paid. Harper’s contract called for her to receive $65,000 per episode in the series’ third season, escalating to $90,000 per show in year five. In June, 1987, she requested that those figures be boosted to $100,000 in year three and $140,000 in year five.

In addition, Harper’s husband, Tony Cacciotti, her former weight-loss and health coach, also received substantial compensation and a supervising producer credit on the show, although various witnesses for Lorimar have claimed that he did not have enough television experience to warrant the title.

Lorimar’s attorney, Don Engel, interviewed during a break in last week’s court sessions, suggested that the fact that a television series was able to go on without its star has already made other stars recognize that they may command less power than they previously believed.

“I think the fact that she has hurt her career so badly has already made a lot of performers sit up and take notice,” Engel said. “I think there’s going to be a lot less tendency for performers to take their complaints to court.”

When asked to respond to that, Harper’s attorney, Barry Langberg, said heatedly that “Valerie” was able to go on without Valerie due to Harper’s own creative skill.

“The fact that the show was able to go on without Valerie is a tribute to Valerie to a large extent, because she basically developed the show,” Langberg said. “She was the one who said she wanted the show to be an ensemble, and she did as much of that as she could.”

Although Engel and NBC attorney Donald Zachary laughingly said they do not expect that a ruling in Lorimar’s favor would lead to a “Cosby Show” without Bill Cosby or other drastic changes in what goes on the TV screen, Engel noted that television series may be less reliant on their stars than in the days of “I Love Lucy.”

Engel noted, for example, that NBC’s “A Different World” is proceeding this season without star Lisa Bonet, who will leave the “Cosby Show” spinoff about college life because of her pregnancy. (She will go back to her role as Cosby’s daughter on “The Cosby Show,” returning home as a college dropout; her pregnancy will not be written into the script.)

Whether “The Hogan Family” would have maintained its ratings position if Harper had not been replaced by a known star such as Duncan isn’t known. Still, this instance suggests that in some cases major TV stars may at least be interchangeable.

Titles may be interchangeable too. At the beginning of last season, Harper sued Lorimar and NBC to halt the use of her name in “Valerie’s Family,” the title chosen following her departure. NBC won the right to continue using the title “Valerie’s Family” for the rest of the 1987-88 season in trade for a promise that Harper would get an early trial in the breach-of-contract suit. In June, the network retitled the series “The Hogan Family.”

The fact that ratings stayed approximately the same for both seasons suggests that the audience was not as worried about the title as Harper.

The title dispute served one practical function, however: As a result of that agreement, Harper vs. Lorimar and NBC is in court after only a yearlong delay, rather than the 3 to 5 years it might have taken through normal channels. To further expedite the trial, retired Superior Court Judge William Hogoboom was hired to preside over the case as part of Los Angeles’ “rent-a-judge” program. The parties involved are paying $15,000 per week in court expenses including Hogoboom’s salary.

While the title controversy has been put to rest, the attorneys have continued to hurl accusations in court--from Lorimar, that Harper’s erratic behavior during the beginning of the television season last year constituted a breach of contract and forced them to launch the season without her, and from Harper’s side, that Lorimar’s lawyers continue to conduct a campaign to smear the actress’ name.

Although Engel insists that his side has toned down the language that was part of the original papers filed against Harper last year (which included this description of Harper by producer Thomas Boyett: “Her behavior during (a) long meeting could be characterized as a changeable combination of fury, hysteria, combativeness and paranoia”), the word insane has arisen several times in trial testimony.

Lorimar Television President David Salzman said Harper “acted as if she was insane” at some meetings, and said he was concerned “for her health and sanity” during meetings before Harper left the show. He denied however, that Lorimar actively campaigned to create a public image of Harper as insane.

“The only public perception we tried to change was that the viewers perceived her as ‘Rhoda,’ ” he said, referring to Harper’s previous TV series.

Even though he questioned her star power, Engel believes that Harper’s star status has already had a profound effect on the case.

“I happen to think that if she were not a major personality, the facts being what they are, she would not have pursued this case,” Engel said. “I have to think that she’s counting on the jury being very heavily swayed by that.”

That remains to be seen, but certainly the jury could not help but feel the heat of the spotlight in this case. Although media interest has waned somewhat since the trial began, it has been tried almost literally before the cameras, as press photographers jockeyed for the best shot of Harper during the first days.

“We’re conducting this trial in a fishbowl,” Engel observed one afternoon during a break.

A court reporter complained that his face keeps turning up in film footage on “Entertainment Tonight.” A juror in the women’s room protested, through a cloud of hairspray, that the jury was not receiving enough attention.

“I heard the jurors in the ‘Twilight Zone’ case got a lot of publicity,” she pouted--adding that she hoped the jury would be notified ahead of time which day the trial would end so they could be sure to “wear something cute” for the photographers.

Having Harper, an actress, on the stand also has made it difficult at times for an observer to separate truth from performance. As a matter of course, witnesses have read various documents aloud to the jury. “Take it from the top?” Harper asked during one of her readings.

Other showbiz personalities have appeared to amuse and bemuse the onlookers. Some of the witnesses have been comedy writers, such as “Hogan Family” supervising producer Chip Keyes--and continually cracked up the jury. Keyes, explaining how late the staff sometimes worked on “Valerie,” remarked, “I walked the dog at the wrong end of the day.”

“This trial is going to become famous for one-liners,” replied Engel.

While other courtrooms in the utilitarian County Court building no doubt have been preoccupied with crime, murder and mayhem, this jury has been confronted with:

--Extraterrestrial evidence. Exhibit 529 was a letter from “Alf.” Actually, the Alf letter was written by Lorimar’s Salzman to NBC Entertainment President Brandon Tartikoff. The letter--in which Alf, the furry alien character from another popular NBC comedy, begged Tartikoff not to cancel “Valerie” after a season of marginal ratings--was Salzman’s way of persuading Tartikoff to save “Valerie” for the upcoming season. (Tartikoff did renew the show, although the influence of Alf/Salzman remains unclear.)

--An invitation to La Costa. Not for the jury, but for “Tony and Val”--extended by Merv Adelson, chairman and chief executive officer of Lorimar, during a short-lived period of reconciliation between Harper and the studio in early August, 1987. (Adelson was then a part owner of the pricey health spa.) “La Costa is a place where the sky is always blue,” the note said. “I’ve always found that La Costa is great for stress reduction and recuperation. . . .”

--The “change of life” note. Salzman, a man noted for taking lots of notes (“I’m not compulsive about anything--I like to take notes,” he responded to an attorney’s suggestion that there was something unusual about this), had written in the margin during a particularly emotional meeting with Harper and others: “change of life.” Harper’s attorney, Barry Langberg, charged that Salzman was trying to portray Harper as “a really insane star who’s going through a change of life.” Salzman acknowledged that he had written the note, but did not explain why.

--More notes. “Hogan Family” supervising producer Judith Pioli explained to the jury as part of her testimony what she meant when she described “giving notes” to actors on the set-- in other words, suggestions for a better performance. Later, Pioli corrected Engel’s pronunciation of Cacciotti . “That’s a note,” cracked the judge.

NBC attorney Donald Zachary fears that the showbiz aura, besides possibly swaying the jury in favor of Harper, may also lead the jury to accept that threats, walkouts, star temperament and the wholesale rewriting of contracts on a whim are part of the normal process of doing business in Hollywood.

“That’s why it’s significant. If the jury buys that argument, then contracts in our industry, the sports industry, the music industry don’t mean anything, to the extent that we’re in a business that is always subject to blackmail of this type.”

Of course, if the jury doesn’t allow itself to be influenced by its perception of show business, Harper vs. Lorimar is just another trial, Zachary noted.

“If it is seen as simple--that this is a breach-of-contract issue--then it’s no more significant than any other breach of contract. We’ve been in hundreds of them.”