ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

12 years, 5 months ago - William Scott-Johnson

I heard if you pay one person a wage in a company, it's the law to pay everyone. I've heard of crew being paid and actors not being paid or vice verser. To get out of that difficulty, low budget films who can't afford fees, pay expenses and feed everyone instead.

12 years, 5 months ago - Nicholas Hughes

The jobs section is for the paid jobs, the collaboration section is for the expenses only jobs. It's a simple system, worked out as a compromise between all parties and it should be adhered to.

12 years, 5 months ago - Daniel Cormack

"From them days on I've vowed that no person will be expected to work for nothing on my productions".

That's all very well JP, but should your personal convictions be enforced on everyone else, even if both the person producing the film and person willing to help out are happy with the arrangement?

Personally, I say live and let live. Unfortunately there are a few sharks out there (less than one would imagine in my experience), but did everyone you meet "take advantage"? Were those two completely wasted years in which you learned nothing and got no benefit from? If so, I'd say it was either extremely bad luck or extremely bad judgement. Your bullshit detector seems to have gone from non-existent to the other extreme of seeing everyone as a cowboy, which is unfortunate as I think you'll miss out on opportunities if you close yourself off like that.

12 years, 5 months ago - Daniel Cormack

I agree: if one person is being paid, then everyone should and that's how I've run my projects - with everyone in the same boat, all paid or all unpaid.

Looking at it purely from a legal angle, department heads and some other senior grades (and indeed actors) are classified as self-employed so don't have to be paid the minimum wage and are free to negotiate whatever rate they want, even if that is nothing. Lower grades can only help out on a voluntary basis, ie. with no contractual obligation to turn up or do work.

Obviously, the reasons these situations arise is that is easier to get grades to help out for expenses-only than others.

12 years, 5 months ago - Keith Manning

Hi Dan. Thanks for your post, very interesting. That is how, in my opinion these things should be run. Pay everybody the same is obviously fair. Not paying the top guys is a new one to me, but makes total sense if they have just finished a top end paying contract. Lets face it, most big DOPs earn more than the average budget of a short in a week.

12 years, 5 months ago - Keith Manning

Hi Ryan, Working for free is another debate that will run forever. Thanks for agreeing that everyone should get the same though. The reason that I wanted to raise some awareness about this is that many of the guys producing shorts are inexperienced and maybe just need a little nudge in the right direction.

12 years, 5 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

Sounds great, when you have the money I'd like to work on that project.

I've written a microbudget film so that we'd have to raise less in order to pay everyone (well, everyone who comes in later. I've decided not to pay my own wage, but just to hope for money later if the film does well.)

Although I've had some people backing the film, it doesn't look like we'll raise the budget we wanted. Some people have offered to work for free, because they believe in the project.

It would be great if everyone on a film were paid the same. Maybe everyone in the world could be paid the same. If you find a good entertainment lawyer who works for minimum wage, let me know.

12 years, 5 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

I'll put amateur theatre as an analogy. The director often gets paid, so do some of the stage hands, and if it's a recent script, the writer might get paid well too. But the actors are often volunteers doing it for fun (and sometimes even the person running it all is.) Hey, that's how we did our school plays.

As far as my own productions, I'm currently seeking crowdfunding for a production so I can pay the other people. It's an uphill struggle to raise that money.

I can understand that if someone needs certain skills that are in short supply, those will get paid more than others that are plentiful. With limited resources, it's not all about being fair unfortunately, it's about getting the project done.

It's the same with cameras and costumes. You don't pay the same for a MK ii that you do for a t-shirt. If you can get a free prop off someone, and you don't have money, will you pay for it like you pay for the camera, just to be fair?

12 years, 5 months ago - Jon-Paul Washington

I've posted more times about this subject then I can remember....

In my humble opinion, if you have not got the funds to produce your film to the standard you want it to be, then you wait until you have....like I have been for the last two years with a short I have written. I've been saving a bit here and a bit there, nearly had the money, then a curve ball was thrown from 'life' and i'll now have to wait a bit longer.

Basically, everyone who works on the film will be paid the same (including the actor), whatever their role, and it will mean a skeletal crew, but I will not have people working for free.

I worked for free for over 2 years and people took advantage. From them days on I've vowed that no person will be expected to work for nothing on my productions, not even the runners, and if that means that my film never gets made, then so be it.

As you can probably tell, I have very strong opinions on this, so i'll leave it be.

Here's to a fairer world.

J.P.

12 years, 6 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Hi Keith, I agree. But there are many ways all of this shakes out. For example, on my last short, it was people like grips, camera, AC, that got paid, and the DP, sound mixer, etc. not, simply because those more "important" positions were filled by huge hollywood people that make more money than god, so they were able to do my small thing because they could afford to. A friend of mine did a micro budget feature where everyone got paid $400 a week. From P.A.s on up. Of course, everyone was also deferred at Union rates just incase the film sells. It seemed to work well.

12 years, 5 months ago - Hanna Harlyn

I've heard of this arrangement that Dan mentioned happening for big photoshoots. Employing a big photographer because a commissioner knows that even if the budget is small, the photographer will do/spend what ever it takes to make the best pictures. Haven't heard it in independent films before though...I guess people making independent films don't necessarily always have established connections to make this kind of thing possible.
I did a great music video shoot recently where noone on the shoot was paid, but everyone in the crew were in a job one-up from what they ususally do. It turned out brilliantly though, the DOP was a highly experienced camera man who works for a major network. So it was a labor of love for all involved, but in a way that everyone on the crew genuinely managed to get something more out of it because it took their experience/career a step further. For me as the lead actress I wanted to do it because I knew who the DOP was, so for me it was worth it.

I think encouraging new film makers to pay everyone involved is essential! Even if a basic flat fee, at least it helps to establish a president that noone should have to work for nothing. In film schools I feel it should be encouraged that anyone brought in (usually actors in this case) should be paid.

That's my tuppence.

12 years, 6 months ago - Gareth Bennett-Ryan

Welcome to an actors world haha. It's not fair though no, everyone should be in the same boat. Or at least offered a percentage. Not having much money is understandable, but when people expect you to work for free as standard thats when I take objection.

12 years, 5 months ago - Andy Williams

surely there's a market principle here. some actors will work for just a reel. some crew will work just for experience. some will work for the fun. the market might mean that sound recordist won't ever bring their kit and skills to the table for nothing. the producer has to balance all these with the sole focus on making the best film for the available budget. that's what indie film making is all about. the people who collaborate are consenting adults. having rules, and sometime arbitrary rules, about what is fair is like a straight-jacket. it simply means less indie work will be made and less people get to do what they love and get a break. and that can't be a good thing.

12 years, 5 months ago - Ned Hussain

I understand what you are saying but lets face it, you cannot get a skilled DP, Editor, Director or Sound person everyday. There are far more actors/actress, runners, assistants etc that WILL want to work for free, experience, expenses and food. That said, if people are paid they usually do a better job.

I don't think you should be offended, as it is the producers role to pay whomever they wish and in return the person applying can make their own mind up.

12 years, 5 months ago - johnnie oddball

OK so if i don't have any budget and no friends i just don't make a film ? budgets are wonderful or a rich sugar daddy but really its only fair if you get funding or a nice budget to pay people and if you have no budget and loads of friends and free kit be honest with everyone from the start and tell them you need help at least feed your crew and have a small crew doubling up tasks to keep costs down , excuses stop you making films and broken promises will end with everyone being upset with you and your film , good buzz from the start of your film will make the ex of completing your film will inspire you and everyone in your crew actors are amazing and if you look after them they will look after you and are always up for helping out in other bits of the film if your honest from the start with you budget