Not A Good Casting.
Subscribers to Shooting People’s Casting Network will probably still remember the nasty taste left in the mouth by the recent volley of bitter recriminations about low and unpaid work. Always keen to take an unpopular route I wheezed on loud and long about the value of such work and why Shooting People should still offer its acting members the chance to make their own minds up about what they turn down or follow up.
There are caveats to this of course. No one supports productions that don’t share their resources equitably and with respect for the work of all involved. No one is suggesting that actors shouldn’t be paid – only that sometimes no one earning any money is not a reason for a film not to get made.
However the biggest problem I find with repeating this argument is the postings that then come in from directors looking for actors to collaborate with. My girlfriend is an actress and so I generally skim over the casting bulletin each day and recommend to her anything I think she’d be amazing in. She is definitely castable as “…late 20′s/early 30′s – well spoken – attractive – height between 5’6″ and 5’10″…” so my fingers hesitated over yesterday’s casting call from Mark McDermott about his feature film project “Silent Terror”.
I’ve never met Mark and I don’t think I’ve seen any of his previous work, I have no personal vendetta against him and I am definitely not accusing him of any short practice, unfairness or anything other than crass stupidity. Equally I am in no way intending to attack his feature project, just the way in which he is pitching it to his would-be collaborators. This is not the worst casting call I’ve read on Shooting People but it does contain some of the regular flash points that always stop me forwarding things to my girlfriend so I thought I’d take a moment to explain why, expressed like this, actors have good reason for feeling like we’re treating them like idiots.
“Hi, I am currently casting for my second low-budget feature film Silent Terror, a suspense driven psychological thriller….”
Mark’s opening sentence at least sets out a clear genre and he goes on to give useful and concise information about shooting dates, location and format. However whilst “second low-budget feature” may sound like a step up from your “first” low-budget feature just have a think about what message this is actually sending. Of course it is good to let your prospective cast know that you have experience and we all know how hard it is to make films so no one will hold it against you that your first low-budget feature clearly vanished without a trace. But is this the first thing you want to tell people?
Because the simple fact is that if this is your “second low-budget feature” that generally means the first didn’t enable you to secure a better budget for this film. Again I must stress that I’m not trying to say Mark is a bad filmmaker, I’ve not seen his first film and I have no idea what he was trying to achieve with it. Neither does the average reader of this casting call. All they have is the information he has given them, so, like me, their first thought should be that rather than promoting his credentials, a man directing his “second low-budget feature” is not actually showing a glowing track record. This is probably an unfair assumption – but there is nothing to stop us leaping to it – especially when we later read:
“We are evaluating distribution opportunities at present and are considering a self-distribution strategy, along with film festival submissions.”
Come on, we are all grown ups here. No one considers a self-distribution strategy. You are forced to accept a self-distribution strategy because distributors don’t yet trust you to back you. This is fine. This is your second low-budget feature after the first one did nothing – of course you’re “considering a self-distribution strategy”. No one will think you’re a failure for this state of affairs, what erks the reader is the attempt at spinning it.
Mark is clearly an ambitious young filmmaker who has yet to receive any real support from within the industry. He is getting off his arse and defying their lethargy by making a film to prove that he has a talent with story telling. He is exactly the sort of person that Shooting People was set up to support and exactly the sort of person that actors should want to meet and possibly work with. Yet because of the way he has presented his past record and place within the industry he makes himself look like a conceited fool who doesn’t yet realise that his films suck.
However the real problem with this casting call comes when he pitches the story and the involvement he hopes his actors will have.
“The film is far reaching in its scope, with a large meandering story. Therefore, the parts we are looking for are significant and pivotal, but will only be required for a limited time in production.”
This blew me away. Who pitches a film with the word “meandering”? I mean I find a lot of Robert Altman’s work to often be meandering but I bet he didn’t try and raise the finance like that. Meandering means dull. Meandering means listless, directionless, rambling tedium. You don’t mean meandering you mean, I don’t know, far reaching or complex or many layered or multi-faceted. OK it’s a mistake and we all make mistakes but a pitch is a pitch and it should be cared about and if you say your film is “meandering” then even if I’m being charitable I’m thinking you’re going into this project without a clear idea of what you’re doing – an idea backed up by the next sentence…
“There will be opportunities for improvisation of performance and dialogue, so you have the potential to bring your own elements to the roles.”
Doesn’t that just mean that you’ve not written a good script yet?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m neither being purely sarcastic or anti-impro. Trust me, my girlfriend is a gifted and experienced improvisor and thanks to her I’ve been lucky enough to see some of the best practitioners of the craft in the world (genuinely). I love impro. Which is why it makes me cross when filmmakers reach for it unknowingly, when they assume that it’s a simple case of letting the actors say the gist of the script rather than being word perfect. Again I’m not accusing Mark of this, rather I’m hoping to point out that expressions like “opportunities for improvisation” are meaningless, foggy and suggest that he is not being rigorous in his approach. Perhaps improvisation is a key creative tool in his production, if so, say so. This reads like you’re hoping your actors will save you from the still unresolved problems in your script.
“All travel and food expenses will be covered. A DVD of the finished film will be provided, along with a digital file of your scenes if required for your showreel.”
Hooray for this, the bare minimum requirements of getting strangers to work on your project. But lets just skim over the story to the character breakdown…
“Jane – late 20′s/early 30′s – well spoken – attractive – height between 5’6″ and 5’10″ – partial nudity required. She has dark hidden secrets.”
And there it is. The ever present bugbear of the Shooting People Casting forum. “Partial nudity required”. How come nudity is “required” yet everything else has “opportunities for improvisation”? I mean, what if, using her impro skills, the actress decides to leave her clothes on? Is that ok? As a piece of impro?
Again, don’t get me wrong, as a filmmaker I’m all in favour of nudity in films. Story telling is about drama and I can think of plenty of dramatic situations that are heightened by everyone being actually physically naked. Not a problem. However that’s a general point about cinema. Let’s just think what you are asking your actress to do in this post. You want her to improve your script with her impro skills and get her tits out. For this you will pay her bus fare, buy her a bacon sandwich and send her a DVD of another low-budget film which you will then send to film festivals because no distributor will touch it.
This is why actors get pissed off.
Again, don’t get me wrong – I am merely talking about how Mark has sold this project, not the project and not Mark. I can think of many situations when a gifted young director will inspire his cast to give astonishing performances because they believe totally in his creative vision. This could turn out to be one of those situations… but you can’t introduce yourself to people like this – you can’t just expect people to get naked for the price of a train ticket because you’ve already made one low budget film that has flopped.
I fully support the right of people to seek collaborators for low and unpaid films – but if you are forced into taking this route think about how collaboration actually works before you start demanding your cast get naked.
James February 16th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
It sounds like this Mark guy is a hack…
Emily February 16th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Great post Ben! The no money/nudity thing always kills me – most actresses are willing to do nudity for the right part/money/director but I always wonder who would be willing to do it for an unknown, with an unknown track record and without obviously knowing what they are asking of their cast, unless of course its porn!
Thanks for standing up for us
xoxo
zahra February 16th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Good points well made Ben… happens waaaay to often across all the bulletins – and for those of us who’ve been subscribing for years it can get depressing to see the same old mistakes made time and again (even though to e fair they are probably being made by different people.)
My only criticism is your stance of self-distribution – yes it can mean one hasn’t yet garnered the trust or support of the industry – BUT – it could also be because the filmmaker has decided upfront that that is the best way to get their film in front of an audience.
I think the industry is on the cusp of a whole new way of working at the moment and a lot of that revolves around distribution and exhibition. One of the films we currently have on our slate is a definite self distribution case, whereas with the rest we will be looking at a more traditional model.
Once again an insightful post though!
Peace
z
Seb Smith February 17th, 2010 at 11:02 am
It would be funny if it wasn’t so frightening! Posts like this do give film makers a bad name.
But agree with Zahra that you’re wrong about self distribution – my first no- budget film was picked up by Lionsgate but considering self-dist for my next one as don’t want to sign all my rights away for 20 years…
And yes it will be a second no-budget film – amazinglyoney doesn’t fly at you just coz you’ve made one!
Cheers
Seb
James MacGregor February 17th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I agree with almost everything in your blog posting Ben, but I feel a trifle sorry for Mark, who has now been publicly castigated on one of the top 50 best filmmaker blog sites in the world. Fame for him at last perhaps, or perhaps infamy. He may have been well intentioned after all, though clearly not well advised in every department. Perhaps he could have remained anonymous and your points could have been made without personal or professional injury.
Of copurse if he has any personal wealth or a rich benefactor, he could now sue the arse off you…
Mark McDermott February 17th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Hi Ben,
I often read your blog with interest and started reading it this morning when I was quite shocked to see I was the source of it! You have done an interesting analysis and I understand where you are coming from. I would like to reply and clarify my position though so people don’t consider me “conceited” or as two people commented, “a hack” and giving “filmmakers a bad name.”
As I stated and you pointed out, this is my second feature. Perhaps I should have established my position a little more. Yes, my first feature vanished without a trace. I made it over 5 years ago when I was young and inexperienced, but fiercely ambitious. I should have made some shorts, but I couldn’t resist the urge to make a feature. It wasn’t horrendous, but it wasn’t good enough for distribution. I am not pretending this film does not exist as the experience was invaluable. In some ways it is too easy to go out and make a feature these days, leading people to make one before they are ready. I certainly wasn’t ready and looking back, I wish I had done some shorts to gain the necessary experience and that I would now be making my first feature. However, that is not the case and I wanted to be up-front about the issue. I have since used the time to further learn the craft of filmmaking and hopefully my second feature will show far more what I am capable of.
Regarding distribution, I did not intend to “spin” anything. Self-distribution is the most likely route to get the film out there to an audience. However, this will not stop me from trying to attain a distribution deal when the film is complete. If I didn’t think it was potentially worthy of distribution I wouldn’t be making it, so I am going to strive for this option, while considering self-distribution strategies that will allow the film to get out there rather than sit on my shelf.
The project itself is a difficult one to pitch. I can’t explain why right now as it is a unique concept. I am not looking for actor improvisation to save a bad script, but improvisation is actually built into the core of the idea. Again, maybe I should have elaborated a little more, but I am walking a fine line between revealing key information and keeping certain facts under wraps. Suffice to say, improvisation is an essential ingredient to add authenticity to the story. Regarding your point about the word “meandering”, you are absolutely right, it is not the right word at all. I like the suggestions you made and in further pitching I may use some of your ideas if that’s okay?!
You come on to discuss the “partial nudity.” You say that, “How come nudity is “required” yet everything else has “opportunities for improvisation”?” I didn’t say that everything was available for improvisation, I just said there were “opportunities”, as you quoted. Yes, I would like the actors to bring ideas and improvisation, however, the script has certain elements in the story that must be followed. If there wasn’t this roadmap the film would be “meandering”
. I could be wrong, the story may organically grow during filming and partial nudity won’t be required, which is fine with me. However, I would prefer to be open about this from the outset rather than hiding it and springing it on the actress further down the line. If it is required, it is one small element of a much larger role and I certainly do not want the actress to “improve your script with her impro skills and get her tits out.”
I am an ambitious filmmaker and continually strive to improve my skills with the aim of one day making some great films. I have a long way to go, but hopefully my next feature will be another big step on the way. I did not offer a deferred payment to the cast as this often seems an empty gesture. However, if the film does go on to make some money I would certainly fairly remunerate all those involved out of my own pocket. I appreciate that without talented actors and actresses my ideas are worthless. I want to engage in an active collaboration with cast and crew to help realise my ideas and create films worthy of an audience.
I hope no one took offence in my casting notice, this was not intended, and I will attempt to significantly improve my pitching in the future.
Best wishes,
Mark
Aaryk Noctivagus February 18th, 2010 at 5:08 am
Hello Ben,
I know Mark and have worked on his previous feature and also his recent short film, both times without pay although I am not an actor but a composer. I have always found Mark to be a joy to work with and would jump at the chance to work with him again.
I can see that you make good points about his posting, but I regret that you saw fit to name him. That is a pity because the person you deduce from the posting is in no wise the Mark McDermott I believe I know. Mark has always been a complete gentleman in all his dealings with me. Yes, he sometimes makes mistakes, and I once gave him a right piece of my mind – well we’re all human and he took it like the gent he is. Sometimes Mark may trip over his own enthusiasm, but thank goodness for his enthusiasm.
I am sure Mark will now work to improve his pitching technique. I believe him to be a very worthwhile director to work for – which is why I repeatedly give him my time and hard work for free. I have worked with him twice and I hope to continue to work with him.
Best wishes to you,
Aaryk Noctivagus
Composer and SP member.
Ben’s Blog » Blog Archive » Precisely The Point. February 18th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
[...] Mark McDermott’s eloquent defence of his project (which you can read here http://shootingpeople.org/blog/category/bensblog/2010/02/not-a-good-casting/) proves my real point. I made it plain in my original post that I didn’t believe Mark was [...]
Mark Jacobs February 19th, 2010 at 9:48 am
IN January 2010 I asked the casting site admin to improve the layout and amount of data in castings. The budget available, format, shoot dates, insurance, H&S elements, contract etc all of these aid the actor in making a decision. SP should replicate the same template that they use on the Filmmakers network.
The response I receied back was “you post wont be published, I believe we are quite close to having one”. Needless to say here we are 6 weeks later after one large vote with loads of actors sounding off about how they have been ripped off by castings and SP has still done nothing to improve or standardise the amount of work available to them.
Are you serious about improving things here?
Ben’s Blog » Blog Archive » DIY February 27th, 2010 at 10:26 am
[...] was a refreshingly constructive response to the casting call post I wrote a week or so ago. I was going to bang on a bit more about the sort of thing directors and [...]