ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

10 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle

Just read that back - I feel I should add, there is some responsibility to the filmmaker to at least try and raise money to pay people though! There shouldn't be an automatic expectation that people should work for free.

10 years, 7 months ago - Angel Perez Grandi

Hi Kelie,

I joined SP last year in the hope of getting some work. I knew there was going to be a lot of unpaid offers but I also knew that one day's work would more than cover the fees - No luck so far.

I agree that it's fair to offer unpaid positions and that it should be a personal choice every filmmaker makes whether to get involved or not. However, the balance is completely out. I don't know the numbers but it feels that 90% of job offers on SP are unpaid.

It's time to enforce a minimum fee to ensure that those filmmakers like us who invest and rely on technology can cover their basic costs if they want to get involved in an interesting project that won't pay. One thing is to work for free, and another is to pay to work. I think SP should be more strict with job postings in an attempt to bring some balance back because as Andy writes: this is a piss-take.

As things stand I don't see a reason to renew my subscription.

All the best,
Angel

10 years, 7 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

When I was a student, I got paid 20 quid an hour to do some crew work. Before that, I was paid 10 quid an hour to be an extra.

After graduation, I had one pretty well paid gig that included showing my short film. So, it looked like my money was going up.

Then, crazy that I am, I decided to embark on directing microbudget films that cost less than what one person's salary should be. Don't worry, the employees were paid at least minimum wage, only those of us crazy enough to run the business worked for percentages of the profits.

I guess I now see why I failed economics in High School. (What motivated me is that a producer who "liked" my script threatened to butcher my script, and, in the words of a great editor Walter Murch "turn a man into a chimpanzee.")

There are paid gigs out there. Shooting People is not the film industry, any more than Craig's List the hotel industry or Freelancer.com the tech industry.

In fact, with Stage32 and TalentCircle, FilmAndTVPro, Shooting People has the worst paid "jobs" in film out there. Even the unemployed third world employers on freelancer.com pay more.

But, there are talented people on here who are under-appreciated.

Does that mean I'll come here when I have a paid job to offer, because it will stand out so much?

I thought about it, and, after experience, I say no. If I so much as offer minimum wage, I get offers from people who were willing to work for free on other gigs. They don't even ask to see the script, they don't care about the project, it's just the novelty of a paid job that attracts them. So, I can't imagine that they'd give the job their all, and the project would suffer because of it.

Not everyone is like that, but a lot of the talented people give up looking because they are sick of the unpaid or poorly paid jobs.

That's why the BBC, Working Title, Aardman, advertising agencies, and others don't advertise on "film networks." It's not because BECTU would boycott them, but because they don't want employees who are only in it for the money.

They advertise where there are other jobs that pay similar wages, or on their own websites. Many recruit at film festivals or markets.

Or, if they do come here, they might look at profiles and show reels and invite the right people to apply. I think I got a couple of job offers through Shooting People, at least indirectly, but not through jobs that advertised on this site.

A new producer who knows about everything except recruiting might recruit here for a perfectly good film, so I still read the job ads on occasion.

However, I know a lot of people who are paid more than the highest paid job I've ever seen on this site. This "no pay" is not the industry norm, any more than Oxfam represents retail.

We got some great costumes at Oxfam for our last film, and I even volunteered there once. I'm not knocking SP or Oxfam, just saying those aren't places you go to look for paid work.

10 years, 7 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

Despite what I said earlier, Paddy is spot on. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that if people are relying on SP to provide them with regular paid work, then they need to also look elsewhere as this is never going to happen. I'm here mainly for the relationship building. Finding those golden nuggets of people, who like me, are searching for something more than just a job. And in the past few months alone I have tied up with some really amazing people, some of which I'll go on to do work with outside of SP. I've also learnt new things - like information on drones and filming with drones for example. Where else would I be able to ask a question and then have a bunch of people with more knowledge than me offer their thoughts - for free!
And also where I've been able to offer my insights to other peoples questions, dilemmas or issues.
So I guess you need to work out exactly what it is you want from SP and then if it's here, use it, if not, then look elsewhere. Me, I use it as a 'part' of my overall strategy of support.

10 years, 7 months ago - Andy Dickinson

I agree with you all whole heartedly. it is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow scenario. Which surely hinders creativity. film makers are creating work in the hope of making some money further down the road. scratching around to make a showreel. How about a pot of gold available for up and coming film makers, Experimental films, outsiders, great ideas. After all this is where great films are born. creativity needs to blossom not stagnate in a business model of profit and loss. Yes there is funding available like the BFI film fund, but what is that? 6 proposals per year or something like. The film industry is making big profits, share the profits, start a foundation for creativity where great ideas equals funding, The money is out there but not distributed across the industry fairly, which I fear is killing it. You only have to turn on your tv to see the dross which is making it into our homes, anyway that's another discussion. I will stop there, Im starting to sound like an old marxist. I will continue my search for the end of the rainbow. great to get your opinions. Good luck chaps.
Andy

10 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

This one will run and run, getting posted afresh by each of the disciplines feeling singled out for harsh treatment. If SP lists only paid jobs, it doesn't mean that the 5-10 or so jobs posted will suddenly find sufficient budgets and be well enough structured to pay NMW/scale, it means no jobs will be posted. That means nobody getting experience, and even fewer paid jobs long term with a constricting industry.

If people joined SP solely as a source of jobs, maybe there's a problem with the way the site is advertised to them? Maybe a trial sample issue of one of the bulletins would stop people feeling they've signed up based on something SP isn't? As with the whole industry, you have to chase a lot of leads and kiss a lot of frogs. Lots of leads come to nothing, occasionally a contact or connection pays off.

Would I rather all jobs were paid properly? Heck yeah. Can they be? Clearly not. The bulk of posts for crew aren't from budgeted features, but from hopeful entrants trying to scrape a project together to make a showreel. Maybe that showreel will get them that break, maybe not. I sometimes take a punt on unpaid work, going into it with my eyes open knowing it's unpaid but that the project has some merit. I'm not forced, and don't force anyone else either. Maybe something comes from one of the contributors here and it'll lead elsewhere, maybe not, but I'm free to make choices, and similarly don't want to curtail the choices of others. I just think the lack of jobs in a massively oversubscribed industry isn't the fault of SP members trying to be creative with what little money they can get.

10 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle

The real problem as has been mentioned is the complete absence of funding and lack of support at the grass roots level in the UK. There is next to nothing for short film development, especially if you fall on the wrong side of the 19-30 age bracket. It is a desert. The Scottish Short Film Talent Network just announced the only short film funding in existence north of the border that isn't bounded by age - there were 14 places, being narrowed to 5 which will see production, each on a 10K budget. An annual 50K spend NATIONALLY on developing new talent - it's a blight on the industry and it's to the industry support that blame should go, not directors trying to scrape together a reel for free. I'm not saying there aren't unscrupulous people out there but I would suggest they're outnumbered by the good guys. Unfortunately unless you can afford film school then there's no other way to get a short made than to do it for food and credits.

That's why I had to crew my first short for free. I looked after everyone, I fed everyone, I made sure that I shouted about everyone when it made a festival, but being short of a rich uncle I relied on the goodwill of the crew. And I'm going to have to do it again and again until I can put together a reel strong enough or get lucky enough to get funding and a budget. However in my other life I make corporate vids and I try to get well paid gigs for at least the tech crew I work with.

I hate asking people to work for free. I genuinely don't know how long I can continue to be a filmmaker if I keep having to ask people for favours because it sucks the motivation and life out of me. I'm a professional and I strongly believe you get the best people and the best work if you pay good money, but what choice is there? The only other alternative as I see it is we don't make films, and leave the industry to the chosen few?

10 years, 7 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

True, but how do you police that? I don't think you can. You'll be taking people at their word, You'd have to have submissions provide evidence for funders etc with the submission for the role on shooters. Then who is going to check all that paperwork and confirm the details are accurate? More staff would be needed and then subscriptions costs would double or triple, forcing some to leave SP...

The intention is right, but it would be ineffective and difficult, if not impossible, to manage.

10 years, 7 months ago - Andy Dickinson

Angel. Great to get some feedback and thanks for getting involved in this discussion. I feel a doc brewing on unpaid labour in the film and tv industry. working title 'Shafting People' I will inform you when I have secured funding for all crew members.
Don't get me wrong, I love shooting people and the networking aspects the site offers and also seeing what film makers are creating but I'm not holding my breathe for paid work.
best regards and love
Andy

10 years, 7 months ago - Marlom Tander

Feed you? It's down to the Spa for a Buy Your Own sarnies for you my dear :-)

10 years, 7 months ago - Kelie Petterssen

Hi Andy,

I completely appreciate where you are coming from. SP went along to a BECTU debate a few years ago: https://shootingpeople.org/blog/2010/03/the-bectu-minimum-wage-debate/ which you can refer to about why we still post expenses only roles.

I know it is not ideal, and we do the best we can to find and post paid roles.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with kelie@shootingpeople.org.

Best,

Kelie

10 years, 7 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

I feel that a minimum wage/rate is a must for a sustainable industry. However, when starting out as a filmmaker we has no history to secure funding. We are probably not in a job that pays enough to save to build a budget. So we ask for favours. We also do favours by working other people's films. But, there must come a time where we are proficient enough to believe that we are professionals because we have developed our craft and have reached a point where we shouldn't be 'low budget' anymore.
My view is that some filmmakers start of low/no budget and never progress because they are stuck in their comfort zone. They find it easy to just go and ask favour for every project they have. It's hard to raise finance. So I'm just going to ask for everyone to do it for free. And then any cash I do have Im going to pay to a facilities house for an Arri or a Red or a Genesis. After all, if the picture looks great, everything else will be great!!! Oh and shit! I forgot to account for a grade to make that picture look even better. So now I've got to ask for free post...
Maybe, to take the above posts a step further, we keep the expenses only BUT have a minimum fee paid to crew on films where the producer or director (or who ever is making the darn thing) has made at least, say, 5 films. They've had their opportunity to learn how to do things for nothing, not they must learn how to finance their projects slightly better. So this way, you don't piss off or turn away filmmakers starting out, but you also make those who have been doing it a while more responsible to the film, those who work on it and to the industry as a whole.
My 2c worth...

10 years, 7 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

And not forgetting that government funds typically only accounts for a small proportion of a films budget. The bulk typically comes from private investors. Producers should be honing their skills at salesmanship to pitch their projects to these investors, not hanging their hopes on the small amount of funds from agencies or government schemes. Even if you get them, you'll still be faced with upwards of 50% of the budget to raise.

That being said, I don't mean to sound like there are investors out there just waiting to through cash at a film. You have to work hard to find it of course. But outside of the studio/network system, it's the ONLY WAY to get films made.