ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

I've been considering the difference between above and below the line, and thought about how it relates to one of our favourite debates here on shooting people.

We all moan about unpaid work when we're looking for work, but then if we're trying to put a production together we realize that it's hard to get people together without money.

Well, believe it or not, this trouble has existed since the beginning of film making, or at least for 100 years (it also existed in theatre before that, for hundreds or thousands of years.

There's no catch 22, yes, you can't get money without talent, and talent doesn't want to work without money. But, there are solutions.

I remember Blair Witch Project. It was, apparently, shot with SAG actors (union actors paid union wages). The budget was extremely low, but they paid the actors SAG minimum. In a lot of very low budget films, actors didn't work for free, but for "scale." (Which I understand is SAG minimum plus a percentage of the profits.)

But, if you read William Goldman's "Adventures in the Screen Trade", you see that sometimes actors want much more than that. Yet, they still find a way to commit even when no money is in place. In fact, director, writer, actors and producer commit before the money does. (Although the commitments can be broken if no money is involved.)

When you can't afford to pay a writer, you can put forward an "option" to put the script on layaway. ( https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/film-development-101-option-vasco-p.) I have not yet seen an option for an option on the jobs posts.

I think there could be some differentiation for "above the line" posts in the way the job forms work. A search for writer can say "option amount" against future "full pay". For other "above the line" talent recruited in the development phase, there can be an option that instead of looking for someone right now, you're looking for a team to put together to show the money people. And there can be some other kind of retainer involved.

For a short definition of above the line: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/above-line-verses-below-film-production-vasco-p-de-sousa

Notice that I mention these jobs are recruited before the money is in place. So, in the "jobs" section, I think they should be listed differently. Above the line talent (Stars, writers, directors, producers) come on board before the money does, but that doesn't mean working unpaid. It means not yet knowing what their salary will be when they express interest in a project.

This can also work for below the line talent in some cases, if recruited in the development phase.

So, why not just say the job is "paid" more than minimum wage? Well, the jobs are speculative because the project doesn't yet have all its money. The film might not be made at all. (This is especially the case with screenplays.) Sure, we all think we'll make every film idea we have, but ask Emma Thompson and she'll tell you that most ideas don't end up getting made, even when great above the line talent get involved.

But let's say it is made. You don't yet know how much it'll cost. Going into things with a pre-conceived number in your head might make it harder to get the film made. It makes sense to first talk to certain people, like writers, editors, etc and see how expensive it would be to do this and that before deciding what they will get paid. And, also some negotiation often needs to take place on what the writer (and below the line talent like editors, composers, etc) will actually do and not do.

The current job form kind of gets in the way of that negotiation. Producers are committing to not paying people (especially writers, and I have checked, it's even worse for writers), and committing to give an excuse as to why they can't pay people. Then they wonder why all the professional writers end up seeking work elsewhere and just use SP to moan. But, they don't seem to understand that you can recruit a team and then raise the money to pay them.

(I understand that things are different for short films, but it might make sense to make those no-budget shorts with a bunch of friends. The more they screw up on the sound, lighting and acting, the better your editing skills will become. Even better yet, act in it yourself, and you'll really learn to edit. That said, short-film director Frank Darabont got an option for one dollar down payment to adapt a short story once...)

Putting these options (including the script option) in front of less experienced producers will help to educate them on their other options besides asking people to work for free or despairing that they don't have money. When looking at unfamiliar terms on a form, people will do a Google search for "script option" and suddenly come away more educated.

Anyway, that's just an idea, do what you like with it. I hope everyone is having a great holiday season.

Happy New year.