|
CANADA BOOSTS FILM TAX CREDITS
Hollywood Reporter-
20 February 2003
by Etan Vlessing (Toronto)
and Peter Kiefer (Los Angeles)
Hollywood craft and talent unions were taken aback Wednesday by news
that the Canadian government is raising production tax credits from 11%
to 16% for foreign producers shooting there. "It proves the point we've
been making," DGA director of governmental affairs Kathy Garmezy said.
"This underscores that this is an industry that everyone wants and that
we should keep. Certainly for our supporters, it says you're right to
try and level the playing field," she said, referring to recent U.S.
legislative efforts to combat runaway production.
The film or video production services tax credit (FVPSTC), introduced in
1997 to encourage runaway production here, now will provide a refundable
tax credit of 16% on eligible Canadian labor costs on international --
mostly U.S. -- film and TV shoots in Canada.
The foreign tax credit increase was unveiled Tuesday by the federal
finance minister, John Manley, as he released his annual budget.
Said SAG deputy national executive director Pamm Fair: "This certainly
doesn't bode well for the professional performers who have already lost
employment to Canada. We will continue to seek remedies to keep
production in the United States, and hopefully legislators in the United
States will help us find those solutions." Added Brent Swift, chairman
of the Film & Television Action Committee, a grass-roots organization
that is working to thwart the flow of production outside U.S. borders:
"They have started a trade war without us doing anything. They started
at 11% and raised it to 16% -- it is a one-sided trade war, and it could
be the death knell for medium-size businesses, not to mention the people
who work in the industry."
Explaining the increase in the tax credit, the federal government said
the incentive and other tax credits introduced by provincial governments
have helped develop Canadian film and TV production talent and
infrastructure and made Canada a world-class location for film and video
productions. Ottawa added that the tax credit increase follows extensive
consultations with the industry, in particular the Writers Guild of
Canada, the Directors Guild of Canada, the Canadian Film and Television
Production Assn. and studio operators.
Emphasizing the contentiousness the issue of runaway production often
provokes, Toronto's Globe and Mail newspaper led its Page 1 story about
the tax breaks by saying that Prime Minister Jean Chretien "won't be
bullied by Hollywood entertainers or U.S. politicians who want to blame
Canada for stealing film production work." The federal government
reduced by CAN$25 million ($16.5 million), or about 25%, its annual
subsidies over the next two years for homegrown film and TV production
financing distributed through the Canadian Television Fund. The
government will contribute CAN$75 million ($49.6 million) to the fund in
each of the next two years, compared with the CAN$100 million ($66.1
million) it has contributed since 1996.
Major Canadian producers applauded the increase in the tax credit as an
answer to industry pleas but expressed disappointment over the cut to
the Canadian Television Fund contribution. "The government definitely
heard our message that production was suffering, particularly in British
Columbia," Jane Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Film and
Television Production Assn., said Wednesday. She added that the
government should consider increasing the tax credit for Canadian
producers to offset the reduction in subsidies. "We now need to focus on
improving the Canadian tax credit so domestic production will not
suffer," she said. Stephen Waddell, national executive director of the
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, applauded the
foreign tax credit hike as a job creator.
But Waddell called the cut in CTF contributions a "blow" to homegrown
actors, writers, crew, directors and producers. CTF executives attempted
to gloss over the cut in subsidies from Ottawa. CTF president and CEO
Sandra Macdonald said the reduction will "provide some much-needed
stability for the television industry." CTF chairwoman Janet Yale added
that the industry will need to "adjust to a smaller resource base,"
which likely will mean 60 fewer productions receiving CTF support over
the next two years.
Budgetwide, that would represent a potential CAN$83 million ($54.8
million) drop in production activity and a loss of about 290 hours of
original programming each year.
The federal government will be looking to the private
sector, especially cablecasters, conventional broadcasters and other
content carriers, to compensate for the shortfall in CTF contributions.
Private-sector contributions to the CTF have grown from CAN$45 million
to CAN$110 million ($72.7 million) over the past seven years.
TAX BREAK BEING SOUGHT FOR FILMING
by James Bates,
Los Angeles Times, 11 January 2002
In an aggressive step by state officials to combat
runaway film production, Gov. Gray Davis plans to propose California's
first sizable tax credit today in an effort to discourage film and TV
shows from fleeing to cheaper locales such as Canada.
The Davis plan is being proposed to start in 2004 and is
projected to save producers $50 million the first year, $80 million the
second and $100 million by the third year, far more than any state
program in the past. The state has done little in the past, because it
has historically dominated filming.
Davis is expected to unveil the plan at a meeting with
Hollywood union leaders in Burbank. He is seeking to grant producers a
15% tax credit on the first $25,000 earned by a worker on lower-budget
projects--probably those of less than $10 million--provided that
substantially all of the production takes place within the state.
The proposal is similar to recent federal proposals by
lawmakers in Washington seeking to blunt runaway production nationwide.
The federal proposal offers a 25% credit. The California credit would
offset state taxes applying to the companies that make the films.
The Davis plan was welcomed by studio and labor
representatives, even though the announcement of the program raises
questions about political timing. Davis, who is facing reelection this
year, is closely tied to the labor movement in California, and the issue
of runaway production is the top concern of Hollywood's blue-collar
unions with potentially tens of thousands of jobs at risk.
"This will be good for the economy of Southern
California," said Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of
America. "The very fact the governor is coming out with this presages
good things."
Davis had been considering a credit of as high as 25%
but chose to propose the lower number--and delay the start of the
program until 2004--because of the state's $12-billion budget deficit,
Deputy Press Secretary Byron Tucker said.
Because the tax credit is aimed at modest-budget
productions, Davis' program will affect neither major Hollywood films
nor involve a credit on the $20-million-a-picture salaries of stars such
as Julia Roberts. It won't even affect the typical Hollywood film, which
now costs an average of nearly $55 million to make. Instead, the credit
targets the plethora of smaller TV movies, independent films, cable
productions, TV pilots and other projects with smaller profit margins
that have been fleeing Hollywood in droves to such countries as Canada
and Australia. Davis said he wants to send a message that California
will compete with other states and countries for productions. "We're
creating an atmosphere that lets filmmakers know that California really
wants their business. This stimulus package will provide a substantial
financial boost to California's entertainment community," Davis said.
Some details have yet to be worked out, including the
exact size of productions affected and how much filming has to take
place in California to qualify. Tucker said those details would be
resolved with legislators. In the past, proposals for tax credits have
received a cool response out of concern they might be seen as giveaways
to big studios.
Runaway production has been a problem for nearly two
decades in Hollywood, accelerating rapidly during the 1990s when studies
show the number of U.S.-developed productions shot in foreign countries
doubled to about one in four now. A 1999 report by the Directors Guild
of America and the Screen Actors Guild estimated that nearly $3 billion
in production leaves the U.S. annually, the largest chunk affecting
California. That study estimated the overall economic effect at more
than $10 billion when the losses ripple through the economy, although
some economists have disputed that number as too high.
Canada has been especially aggressive at luring
projects, offering government financial incentives on top of a weak
Canadian dollar and lower wages that make shooting about 25% cheaper
there, according to union and federal studies. Productions with stories
set in the U.S. but shot or scheduled to be shot in Canada include the
upcoming Civil War movie "Cold Mountain" and the popular new WB series "Smallville,"
set in Kansas. Even the prime-time Fox soap opera "Pasadena" opted to
shoot for budget reasons in Vancouver, British Columbia, instead of its
namesake city.
Calls for legislative action to blunt runaway production
have been voiced for years. The movement gained momentum in the last
year as the industry's fortunes declined, California's economy softened
and pressures increased to tighten budgets. Entertainment employment in
Los Angeles County slid by 32,900 from its high of 272,000 in November
1999, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.
"People have always looked at this industry like it's a
big moneymaking, money-grabbing business. But it's cyclical, and people
from technical workers to actors are freelance. The industry provides
employment for working families who need the money and benefits to
survive," said Joseph Aredas, the top West Coast official for the
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.
ED HOOKS ON SURVIVING
ED HOOKS ON SURVIVING–by Ed Hooks
"Colleen's Big Break" Colleen Haskell, the cute girl in the
bikini in last summer's hit television show "Survivor", has been cast in
the lead role in a movie. She will play opposite Rob Schneider in the
Columbia Pictures film "Animal", due for a June 2001 release. I am happy
for Colleen because she seems like a nice enough sort, but this kind of
development unfortunately feeds public misconceptions about acting. The
casual observer might easily conclude that acting must surely be a snap,
something that requires no training or experience, if even cute beach-nik
Colleen can do it.
Colleen's big break coincidentally occurs during the longest labor
strike in Screen Actors Guild history. Media has lately been focusing on
SAG, its relationship with its own members and with non-union actors.
The Guild has widely publicized that it will gladly accept as new
members any non-union performers who are willing to put in eighty hours
on the picket line. No training or experience as an actor is necessary.
The Guild will also accept as members anybody who wants to work as an
extra on a few SAG-approved movies. Extras are of course not actors at
all and, again, no training or acting experience is necessary. In other
words, in the year 2000, you do not have to be an actor to be a member
of Screen Actors Guild. Acquire a SAG card and voila!, you're an actor
by definition and default, no fuss, no muss. Is it any wonder that the
American public has so little understanding of and respect for the
ancient art of acting? In our culture, art and commerce have become
intermingled, undistinguishable from one another. If Colleen Haskell
gets cast in a movie, then she must be an actor, right? I mean, you
don't get leads in movies unless you can act. Right? In the minds of
many, she defines the craft. Celebrity : acting : fame : the American
Dream. Does anybody care that acting at its best is modern-day
shamanism? Does anybody care that there are individuals who actually
take pride in calling themselves actors? To paraphrase Texas Senator
Lloyd Benston in the vice-presidential debates some years ago, "I know
actors. Actors are friends of mine. You, Colleen, are no actor." Acting
is an interpretative art, one that seeks our commonality as humans. An
actor says to the audience, "I understand this about this character."
When the audience applauds, it is saying, "I see what you mean!" Acting
speaks to the issue of what is required to live successfully on this
planet. It is an art many thousands of years old and, until the 20th
century, it filled an important function for most cultures. Despite the
membership policies of the Screen Actors Guild and the implications of
Colleen's lucky day, acting as an art form requires a high degree of
intelligence, energy, passion and dedication. It is not a skill you sort
of pick up on a south sea island while avoiding insect bites on your
legs. We are living in an era when the visual image itself is a form of
currency. "If I am on television or in a movie, I must matter," goes the
reasoning. Acting for an individual who is oriented this way is not an
art, but "a form of flattery." (Joseph Chaikin, "The Presence of the
Actor"TCG Books, 1991) This kind of narcissistic self-involvement is a
sad signal of America's cultural decline in the 21st century and
testament to our psychic neediness. It is also a wake-up call to the
actor who is proud of his craft, the actor who considers acting to be an
honorable profession. Colleen Haskell is only the most recent of the
"Survivor" veterans to find a niche in show biz. All sixteen of the
contestants have made appearances on television shows. Gervase Peterson
appeared on the sitcom "The Hughleys"; Sean Kenniff showed up on the
soap opera, "Guiding Light." Richard Hatch, the $1 million winner, has
his own radio show now and is writing a book. I presume they have all
become members of the Screen Actors Guild. |
LOS ANGELES TIMES by James
Bates, 20 October 2003
CAN SACRAMENTO HELP HOLLYWOOD?
Schwarzenegger Promises To Staunch The Outflow Of Filming To Cheaper
Locales, But The Issue May Be Overshadowed For Now. The actor known for
the phrase "I'll be back" is trying to make good on his promise to bring
Hollywood's movie and TV shoots back to California after numerous
productions have fled to cheaper locales. Since being elected governor,
Arnold Schwarzenegger still weeks away from assuming office has been
raising the issue of so-called runaway production in private talks with
industry representatives. And members of his transition staff already
have met with studio and guild officials, according to people familiar
with the sessions.
But Schwarzenegger, despite his best efforts, is likely to find that
political currents and a budget mess in Sacramento will limit him to
cajoling and arm-twisting rather than serving up more-concrete measures
such as financial incentives. Tax breaks, labor credits and other
sweeteners are considered by many to be crucial if California is to
compete more aggressively with lower-cost foreign locations such as
Canada, Australia, Britain and Eastern Europe, as well as states
offering incentives such as Illinois, Louisiana and New Mexico.
"I just don't see it happening in our budget scenario anytime soon,"
said state Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Culver City). Mike Farrell, chairman of
the Screen Actors Guild's legislative committee, said his group also
believed that stopping runaway production was very important. "But we
understand there are other issues" that Sacramento lawmakers are sure to
deem "more important," he added. For his part, California's
governor-elect has sent clear signals that he intended to follow up on
his vow to reverse the outflow of film work. Motion Picture Assn. of
America President Jack Valenti said that he had had two recent
conversations with Schwarzenegger one before and one after the Oct. 7
recall election and that Schwarzenegger specifically mentioned his
desire to keep more productions in California.
"I've been in this job for 37 years and never had any governor of
California call me twice to say, 'I need your help and please be
available to me,' " Valenti said. Union officials add that
Schwarzenegger's knowledge and relationships in the business eventually
should help in the fight. "Arnold Schwarzenegger comes from the
entertainment business. It's an area he knows really, really well, and
he's expressed his commitment to it," said Bryan Unger, western
executive director of the Directors Guild of America.
"But he's got a full plate and a lot to do before he can take this on."
Runaway production continues to be a problem locally, statewide and
nationally, as cheaper currencies and aggressive incentives have lured
film and TV shoots. Although Canada's currency strengthened against the
U.S. dollar during the last year, the overall budget of a film shot
today in Vancouver remains about 25% cheaper than if it was shot in the
U.S., said Peter Mitchell, chairman of the Motion Picture Industry Assn.
of British Columbia. Even films set in the United States increasingly
are being shot in foreign countries to save money. The coming Civil War
drama "Cold Mountain" was shot in Romania, and the Oscar-winning
"Chicago" was filmed in Toronto. Last night's TV movie "Hollywood Wives:
The New Generation" was shot in Calgary. During the recall campaign,
Schwarzenegger identified runaway production as part of a larger push to
keep businesses from leaving the state. Various studies have estimated
the direct cost to the United States at about $3 billion a year, most of
that in California, and about $10 billion when those losses ripple
through the economy.
Nonetheless, Hollywood incentives have historically been a hard sell in
Sacramento, especially among legislators from areas outside of Los
Angeles. Some lawmakers maintain that any tax breaks amount to a
windfall for wealthy studios and producers. What few programs do exist
are vulnerable, moreover. The state's film commission and its Film
California First rebate program for filmmakers, aimed at keeping
productions in state, have been hammered by budget cuts. Hollywood's
unions seemingly scored a victory when outgoing Gov. Gray Davis last
year championed an aggressive tax break aimed at stemming runaway
production. But it ran headlong into opposition from the powerful
president pro tem of the state Senate, John Burton (D-San Francisco).
Burton and other legislators contended that it was hard to make a case
for the bill when social services were being cut in the fiscal squeeze.
"There were a lot of people who were supportive of the idea" of the tax
break, said Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson (D-Culver City), the bill's
author. "They just questioned the timing." Wesson said he was hopeful
that Schwarzenegger would jump-start the drive for incentives once the
state's budget crisis eased. Schwarzenegger hasn't committed to any
specific plan, although H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for his transition
team, said the governor-elect knew the value of dangling financial
carrots from his personal experience in Hollywood. Schwarzenegger
himself periodically shot films outside of the United States, notably
"Collateral Damage" in Mexico and "The Sixth Day" in Vancouver. But he
scored points with Hollywood's labor community when he pushed to shift
his most recent film, "Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines," to Los
Angeles from Vancouver. Palmer said Schwarzenegger believed that
improving the state's overall business climate by easing regulatory
burdens and reforming the costly workers' compensation system was a
first step toward helping stem runaway production.
But any decision on whether to push for specific incentives will have
to wait until after Schwarzenegger's team finishes auditing the state's
finances. "While he understands the importance of being able to create
incentives to keep productions here, anything in that regard is going to
have to be part of the overall look at what the operating deficit is,"
Palmer said.
In the meantime, Murray said, Schwarzenegger should use his celebrity
to promote California production whenever and wherever possible,
including promotional appearances at film festivals. "The
governor-elect," Murray said, "would be a great salesperson to fight
runaway production."
© 2003 Los Angeles Times
RUNAWAY PRODUCTION- Costing California Millions-
National Crisis, or fair market economics?
San Francisco, CA–
Photo Credit: Studio Schell
Hester Schell with Elliot Gould.
The Creative Coalition, a non-profit organization, sponsored a panel
discussion on runaway production at the San Francisco Film Center in the
Presidio October 18, 2001. The panel, which included Tom Todoroff (Bordertown
Pictures), Peter Coyote and Elliot Gould, was moderated by Creative
Coalition member Ron Reagan Jr.
Photo Credit: Studio Schell
Arts Advocate and Presidential son, Ron Reagon, Jr.
The dollars figures are quite alarming. Over 13 billion
dollars in lost wages, production expenses, basic hotel and support
industry budgets go across the border and overseas every year, costing
American jobs, American revenue. We need write our congress people, and
the California labor commission, start a dialogue, find ways to keep the
jobs home, perhaps by creating our own incentives and tax breaks. It is
estimated that more than half of the TV movies of the week are shot in
Canadian for a series of tax incentives from the Canadian government.
Added to these incentives is an exchange rate of about 40 cents on the
dollar. Production companies, made up of American executives, are set up
as Canadian companies to take the advantage, then dissolved when
production wraps. This is how American TV production avoids union labor
costs. It is wrong and it is keeping us from realizing a steady
paycheck.
San Francisco casting director Sarah Kliban noted that
since the September attacks on New York and Washington, commercial and
industrial production has all but evaporated in San Francisco. "I hope
we can come up with some solutions to cut down on runaway production
before we're all out of business. It has to happen and it has to happen
now." Casting directors Nancy Hayes and talent agent Belinda Irons were
also in attendance, as were Anne Long, San Francisco SAG branch
president, and SAG representative Karen Lipney.
Before the presentation, I spoke briefly with Peter
Coyote and Elliot Gould-
Photo Credit: Studio Schell
Peter Coyote reviews Government labor
reports with attendee.
BACN: Since the September 11 tragedy, what do you think
is the greatest challenge film artists are faced with right now to keep
production moving ahead?
PETER COYOTE: Well, film artists don't own the means of
production. So, they have to do their work and be ready to go to work.
The problem Hollywood is going to have is what to do with all the
blow-em-up, shoot-em-up explosive movies and get in gear with things
that are more relevant to the human condition.
BACN: What might San Francisco focus on?
PETER COYOTE: I think San Francisco ought to focus on
looking at runaway production as an across the board employment issue.
And they ought to be on their congressional delegation, and the small
business administration. They ought to be on all the unions, but more
than the unions, we ought to be recognizing that the film business is an
entrepreneurial business, that it is proprietary technology that we
should be protecting, that we have taught the world how to organize,
storyboard, shoot, account films and make them ready for our markets.
That is proprietary technology which ought to be protected. It is not a
Republican issue, not a Democratic issue.
BACN: Since the September 11 tragedy, what do you think
is the greatest challenge film artists are faced with right now to keep
production moving ahead?
ELLIOT GOULD: We have to do something. We have a
problem. We have to focus and educate each other. Start to push local,
state and national government to look at where we are. In terms of our
personal problems, everything is up for re-evaluation. We have to see
before we think. Everything is changed. This is serious shit. We have
one heart. We have one mind. Our freedom has been attacked. We are under
attack, so yes, tap the phone lines.
AUDITIONS AUDITIONS AUDITIONS-
BECAUSE, YOU NEED TO KNOW...by Hester Schell
It is a fact of life. If you're an actor, you will be auditioning
throughout your entire career. Yes, even the big box office prize
winners still have to audition. For those performers out there who are
new to the business of show business, here are some helpful hints about
what should and should not go on at auditions. In response to
subscribers' concerns at BACN listed projecst, here are a few industry
standards and professional ethics you may need to be aware of.
DO NOT SIGN A RELEASE FORM: Never, ever sign a release form at an
audition. Release forms give the owner of that footage permission from
you to use that footage wherever they wish, including promotional and
marketing campaigns, print media or whatever else may be in the fine
print of the release. Auditions are not shoot dates and filmmakers
cannot and should not use auditions as such. Filmmakers should not get
you to show up under the pretense of an audition when they intend to use
that footage for more than just audition review. You are there to make a
determination whether you are right for a role.
CHECK REFERENCES AND REPUTATIONS: Auditioning works both ways,
especially if the pay check is copy, credit, meals. You, the actor,
should be interviewing the filmmaker as well. Is this someone you want
to work with? Does this project meet your career goals? Is it a part you
want to commit to?
NEVER PUT YOUR HOME ADDRESS ON YOUR RESUME: It is just too dangerous
to have headshots out there with home addresses. Use a postal box or
email address. Do not give out your home address to anyone until after
you're sure whom you're giving it to. If the filmmaker wants to use you
in their project, they can get your home address after you've been given
the role. As long as the filmmaker can reach you via phone throughout
the audition process, that is enough.
NEVER GIVE OUT YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: This is a private
confidential federal number. No one needs it except the payroll office,
which is not a consideration at the audition. You are there to read from
the script, improvise and make the determination if you are right for
the role. If anyone asks for your social security number, politely
decline. If there is a paycheck involved and taxes are to be taken out,
then the payroll company will get your social security number when you
fill out your tax deduction payroll forms.
NEVER PAY TO AUDITION: Crooks and deceivers, or those with
questionable ethics could make a lot of money from auditioning people
with no intention of making a movie. Auditions are part of a job
application process. We have laws to protect employers from such
practice. Do not confuse this with standard registration fees collected
by casting directors. These fees generally run from $10 to $20. It
shouldn't ever be more than that to register with a casting director,
and it's usually worth that investment.
NEVER TAKE YOUR CLOTHES OFF: There could very well be a hidden camera
just out of site, or a mini DV sitting right there in front of you.
There is the potential that the footage could end up on the Internet, or
anywhere else for that matter, in questionable circumstances. Face it,
if your film director hasn't been to film school, or doesn't come from a
theatre background, just bought a DV camera and needs to find some
actors, he or she may not know what standard practices are. So, don't
get angry. That filmmaker may not know any better. Filmmakers new to the
industry, should make an effort to inform themselves about how to hold
auditions, and what is and is not expected. But that is not something
actors have any control over. What you do have control over is what
we've shared here today. And then there's your preparation for reading
from the script and performing your monologue, how to cold read, what
makes a good headshot, hairstyle, whether to dress for the role, how to
stand if you're being taped, how to play to a reader, etc. We could
write a book. Many people have. You should read a few of them.
In closing, here is one final piece of advice. After you are cast,
and you agree to be in a project, IT SHOULD NOT COST YOU MONEY TO BE IN
SOMEONE'S FILM: Read the contract's fine print before you agree to play
the role. What? No contract? Then write one up yourself. Have something
in writing so you can get your copy. If the pay check is copy, credit,
meals, are they willing to include bridge tolls, gas, parking, dry
cleaning or make-up? Try to separate yourself from your excitement at
finally getting an offer. Be sure you want to do it. Be sure there is
clear communication about schedules and your schedule conflicts. Talk to
your employer, get your homework done (and that includes taking care of
your personal life before you go into productions.) Don't forget to have
someone check on your pet if you're doing fourteen-hours days. Take your
prescription medications with you. Let someone in your family or a close
friend know where you are shooting and what time you are expected back.
Being in production is going to challenge you in ways you never
thought imaginable. It takes a lot of work and you'll get better at
auditioning as you continue training, get out there and gain experience.
Good luck and keep at it. It is survival of the fittest out there, and
it will take time to get in shape and then stay in shape. |
JUST WHEN IS PILOT SEASON?
continued from front page-
When you
finally do get your union card and have enough experience on your resume
with demo. reel footage to back you up, it may be time to move to the
big time and swim with the sharks. The question remains: when?
Opportunity can be found year round in Los Angeles due the volume of
television. However there still remains cyclical up and down swings.
Here is the breakdown on the traditional Los Angeles casting season.
The most active casting time for the autumn TV season is
Mid-July through late December. Once key cast members are on contract -
leads and reoccurring supporting parts - there are guest spots,
non-reoccurring characters, under 5 lines, and background. Pilot season
and the second half of the episodic TV season, runs early January
through May. The truly slow times are around the holidays in December
and then May through June. During the slower TV times, the feature film
market is ongoing.
If your plans include a move to Los Angeles do it with
demo. footage, a union card and personal referrals to agents. Bone up on
market trends and keep that headshot current. Play it smart. Make your
move with preparation and a survival plan. A healthy savings account can
help you feel like you can take more risks. Do what you can to make
opening doors less like doors slamming in your face. Remove obstacles
and guess what? Your path becomes clearer.
I advise my students to get a union card in a smaller
market-less competition and you'll work more frequently. It's not a bad
idea to move to Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, or Portland for a
couple years to build up your experience. When you do decide to make the
move to the big time you'll have what you need and agents will be more
likely to want to see you. If however, you've got something that
absolutely no one else has, such as drop dead sex appeal, comic timing
with an unrelenting sense of humor, and maybe a winning lottery tickets,
by all means, GO. What are you doing still struggling in San Francisco?
San Francisco will never provide a liveable wage solely from acting
income. There isn't enough volume of work here.
On the other hand, if theatre is your first love, and
doing commercials, industrials, and voice over, is for fun and
supplemental income, stay put. The theatre community here needs you.
CAN ACTORS EARN A LIVING?
by Hester Schell
This column is dedicated to you: the actor who has done a few "copy,
credit, meals" indies. By now, you're wondering, "Where's the money
going?" or "Why isn't there any money for actors?" You might be feeling
a little cheated. You're thinking, "Why is the A.D. talking about what
she's/he's making on this film?"Hopefully, you have an agreement which
includes gas, bridge tolls, parking, make-up supplies and dry cleaning.
What, you don't have any kind of agrement? Then it's time to start
talking. It should not cost you money to be in someone's film. Clearly,
there comes a time when you must take a stand and stop working for no
cash. The decision to stop working for free may come for you when you
realize you've paid enough dues. You've learned how to be on-set, match
your action versus play an action, make a mark, work angles in
close-ups, know your frame-line, etc. You realize Continued on page 4.
your contribution to the film is equally important as the production
crew's contribution, who, most likely are getting a day rate. What,
then, can you do to increase the chances of getting paid for your work?
For starters, you can simply not accept parts in "no/low budget"
projects that don't provide some kind of financial arrangement. This is
a personal career decision that you have every right to make. Next,
there are some excellent "art of negotiation" books available. Since you
don't have an agent negotiating for you, you need to learn the
vocabulary o f how to ask for money. Practice with me now: "Thank you
for offering me this role. We need to talk about our mutual expectations
of working together. I expect that it won't cost me money to be in your
movie. Here is a list of expenses I anticipate. Do you have petty cash
for this?" Having said this, in addition to documenting your expenses
and saving your receipts, you are creating space for the
producer/director to choose how they wish to handle these expenses. If
they still put you off for that reimbursement you asked for three days
ago, you could offer to film your close-ups when the expenses are taken
care of, but this may be too aggressive a measure for most of us. The
point is, folks, that the momentum needed for Bay Area non-union film
actors to be paid must begin somewhere. Let it begin with you. Only you
can make the difference in how you participate in the low-budget
projects. You set your own boundaries of what you are willing to give.
We can encourage producers to go SAG signatory, but this is ultimately
the producer's choice. The reality is that the laws of supply and demand
in a free-market economy indicate that independent film producers will
continue to find plenty of actors who will work for free. At some point,
the Bay Area acting community will need to come together for the mutual
benefit of the industry and insist that non-union actors be paid on a
scale comparable to non-union lighting, sound or camera production
crews. Production people rarely work without their minimum day rate, so
why do actors? Because we haven't said "no." Film directors need to
start budgeting day rates for actors. Actors need to encourage producers
to register their projects with Screen Actors Guild. When we raise the
stakes at the top, the rest of us step up to a higher level of
professionalism as well.
FILMMAKERS GOING DIGITAL
Filmmakers prefer not to wait for the next monthly edition to start
receiving headshots. Where we were accustomed to a 6 to 8 week
pre-production audition time, the casting process is speeding up, at
Internet pace, just like the rest of the business world. As you go
through the listings this month you'll notice many more web addresses
and email submissions. If you are feeling a bit overwhelmed with the
Internet being thrust upon you, don't be shy about asking for help. |
.gif)
