M D Productions presents: 'Violet'
- Thread starter khmuse
- Start date
Sid Barnhoorn
Well-known member
Nice shots 
StormFactory
Well-known member
Whenever I see young children on small film projects without a studio teacher present, I scratch my head at the reasoning that one is not needed. Glad to see you point out that it does not matter if it is summer or a weekend. If you have children working in your film you need a studio teacher. The presence of the parent or parents does not supercede the teacher requirement.khmuse said:
This brings up a big point that I wanted to make with regards to SAG actors. As a producer, director, filmmaker, etc.,...
YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE A SAG PRODUCTION TO USE SAG ACTORS.
It is the responsibility of the SAG actor to do SAG signatory work. Not yours. The only two things that you must do in the state of California to employ people is 1.) pay the minimum wage and 2.) have workers' comp. That's it. Most of us with our small weekend projects don't do those two, so why worry about SAG?
Actors want to act. Period. Celebrities might be different but actors want work. The only time I hear actors ask if the project is SAG is if they are new to the guild or they are involved in guild politics. Give an actor a great, meaty role, SAG or not, and they'll jump at the chance to play it.
I say this not to discourage you from going SAG. As khmuse has talked about, dealing with SAG can be an easy pain-free and very helpful experience. My experiences with them have also been pleasant.
The purpose of this post is to just to also let you know not to be scared of using SAG actors when you're not signatory. SAG has no jurisdiction over anything you do. That is until you go signatory. Then SAG has a say over every project your signatory company does.
By the way, khmuse, did you form a company for this particular project to go SAG signatory or did you go signatory under your name or production company?
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
I can understand the fear people have when working with SAG but that comes from not knowing... It's really an easy thing to do and SAGIndie has made it even easier. They offer workshops (in L.A.) the second Thursday of each month that helps indie filmmakers understand the different options available to them. That want to make it easy so filmmakers will give SAG actors work. They are just trying to look out for the actors' interests which is, afterall, their charter.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
StormFactory said:
Very true. I was able to cast Anthony Tyler Quinn who is SAG and quite experienced, but hadn't had the type of role I wanted to cast him in, and it was a film with a subject matter that was very personal to him, so he jumped at the chance...
I will indeed go through SAG once I do a feature, but for shorts and whatnot right now, I think going non-SAG is what I'll do.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
khmuse said:Here are some screen caps from one scene from our first day of principal photography.
Beautiful image Kevin! Wonderful framing!
khmuse
Tech Guru
Hello StormFactory,
You are correct, it is the actors responsibility to confirm that a production that they are contemplating working on has a production ID number and that the producer is a signatory. This does make it incumbent upon the producer to be honest and if they are not a signatory, nor is their production approved, they need to make this clear in their audition notices and at every point in the process.
I was at an audition last Thursday evening where the producer outright lied to the talent (my daughter in this case) stating that they were going to shoot under a "SAG Experimental" contract. This is absolutely false as the SAG Experimental contract was replaced over 2 years ago. I am furious that this producer would be so bold and even worse, waste our time. We drove over 3 hours round trip for an audition that, had we know its status, would have never accepted in the first place. There really should be an enforcement mechanism and penalties for this type of misrepresentation.
I do agree that it is the actors choice to honor or not their obligation to the guild, but to take away that decision from the actor by misrepresenting the nature of a project is simply wrong. All actors want to work, but professional actors make their living from acting and isn't fair to ask them to put their career at risk.
When looking at a project that you want to use professional actors for there is really little reason not to shoot under a union contract unless you are so grossly under-budgeted that you simply can't afford to do things right. This can be a big red flag for anyone, talent or crew, it indicates that there is a greater probability that the project has budget concerns or that the producer really doesn't have the talent's interest in mind.
I know that there are a lot of great actors out there who are non union, but in a market like LA, the ratios are much different than in other non film markets. Here, if talent isn't well represented or not yet union, they are often either new or not really all that good.
For me, I want to work with the best talent that I can. It is after all their performances that appear on screen, so I am willing to do what is necessary to make this possible. This does mean that I have a few limits placed upon what I can do, but in general I don't find these to be an issue for the type of work that I take.
In answer to your last question, I am a signatory producer as both an individual and a under the production company.
You are correct, it is the actors responsibility to confirm that a production that they are contemplating working on has a production ID number and that the producer is a signatory. This does make it incumbent upon the producer to be honest and if they are not a signatory, nor is their production approved, they need to make this clear in their audition notices and at every point in the process.
I was at an audition last Thursday evening where the producer outright lied to the talent (my daughter in this case) stating that they were going to shoot under a "SAG Experimental" contract. This is absolutely false as the SAG Experimental contract was replaced over 2 years ago. I am furious that this producer would be so bold and even worse, waste our time. We drove over 3 hours round trip for an audition that, had we know its status, would have never accepted in the first place. There really should be an enforcement mechanism and penalties for this type of misrepresentation.
I do agree that it is the actors choice to honor or not their obligation to the guild, but to take away that decision from the actor by misrepresenting the nature of a project is simply wrong. All actors want to work, but professional actors make their living from acting and isn't fair to ask them to put their career at risk.
When looking at a project that you want to use professional actors for there is really little reason not to shoot under a union contract unless you are so grossly under-budgeted that you simply can't afford to do things right. This can be a big red flag for anyone, talent or crew, it indicates that there is a greater probability that the project has budget concerns or that the producer really doesn't have the talent's interest in mind.
I know that there are a lot of great actors out there who are non union, but in a market like LA, the ratios are much different than in other non film markets. Here, if talent isn't well represented or not yet union, they are often either new or not really all that good.
For me, I want to work with the best talent that I can. It is after all their performances that appear on screen, so I am willing to do what is necessary to make this possible. This does mean that I have a few limits placed upon what I can do, but in general I don't find these to be an issue for the type of work that I take.
In answer to your last question, I am a signatory producer as both an individual and a under the production company.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Absolutely agree there Kevin... being honest is the #1 thing to do! Though for shorts I'll still probably never go SAG, as I don't look to profit off of the films themselves, and generally I AM working on a VERY tight budget, but I have many people who know my work and have worked with me in the past, so they know the product will have a much higher production value than the budget, and more importantly, it'll actually get done.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
khmuse said:
Totally, some people just SHINE on screen! She's one of them to be sure.
You're shooting on an SDX900 or something, right? 2/3 CCD camera? I noticed grain (noise) in the images you posted... I am assuming these images are raw from camera, without CC, correct? And I hate still frames for the very reason they show so much grain (noise) when in motion it isn't even visible...
Kevin, do you think you can go through some more lighting setups for us like you did on Thou Shalt Not? I really enjoyed those in-depth posts.
khmuse
Tech Guru
I agree Brandon, there is nothing more disappointing for cast or crew than to work on something that doesn't get finished. When you add to that that neither got paid, well that's really unfair.
I do fully understand the desire to shot things on a "VERY tight budget..." I too try to get as much as I can on screen for as little as possible. What you should understand is that it really isn't much more expensive to work under a SAG Short Film contract as you can completely defer the talent's salaries (assuming that they agree to work under those terms). The only time that this would change is if you do get distribution, which we all know is nearly impossible for a short film.
I would encourage anyone to at least attend a SAGIndie meeting once and ask all the questions that you want. You may find that its not as difficult nor expensive as you might have thought and if you are wanting to head your career in that direction eventually, why not start earlier than later?
I do fully understand the desire to shot things on a "VERY tight budget..." I too try to get as much as I can on screen for as little as possible. What you should understand is that it really isn't much more expensive to work under a SAG Short Film contract as you can completely defer the talent's salaries (assuming that they agree to work under those terms). The only time that this would change is if you do get distribution, which we all know is nearly impossible for a short film.
I would encourage anyone to at least attend a SAGIndie meeting once and ask all the questions that you want. You may find that its not as difficult nor expensive as you might have thought and if you are wanting to head your career in that direction eventually, why not start earlier than later?
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Thanks Kevin, can you point me (and many others I'm sure) to a site or something where we can find out when the next SAGIndie meeting is? That'd be awesome!
And for the record, on most films I do, the crew is paid, and the cast is generally deferred, so you're assumption is probably correct that a SAG Short Film project would probably be about the same amount.
And for the record, on most films I do, the crew is paid, and the cast is generally deferred, so you're assumption is probably correct that a SAG Short Film project would probably be about the same amount.
khmuse
Tech Guru
Brandon Rice said:
No, these scenes were shot on a DVX, but I will be mixing a number of different formats in this project including the SDX and Super 8mm. I just got our SAG approval a few days ago so I didn't have time to line up the SDX rental and for these shots, I knew I could get what I wanted from the DVX, so based upon talent availability I went for it.
Yes, these are raw camera grabs (the color balance being achieved in camera) and yes, there is some of what you are calling "noise" but really, this is simply the nature of under-sampled color space and compression. The motion images from these scenes are very "noise" free. In lower light conditions I will use the SDX as it has much better low light performance based upon the larger imager.
I will be happy to post lighting setups when we are using lighting. This is entirely grip equipment and natural light shots.
More to follow.
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
Brandon Rice said:
Here's the site you want:
http://www.sagindie.com/
Their meeting schedule is:
http://www.sagindie.com/workshops.html
with the next workshop on December 14th. It's well worth attending. Be sure to have them validate your parking...
khmuse
Tech Guru
Brandon Rice said:
Happy to provide a link.
http://www.sagindie.org/
If you are paying your crew and deferring pay to your actors, your costs would be insignificantly different so I would recommend that you at least consider it at some point.
Edit: Blaine just beat me to it, but regardless, I would recommend attending.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
khmuse said:
Cool stuff! Yeah, again, I wanted to preface my "noise" comment with saying I know in motion they look great! I have always noticed that my grabs always have some visible noise, but look awesome, and noise free in motion. Thanks for the info and I look forward to your lighting setup posts!
Blaine said:
Thanks Blaine! And Kevin
I will be looking into this, and hopefully attending the next meeting, if not the meeting after.
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
You did...and it was...khmuse said:
And if you're using SAG actors why would you want to put them in that situation. The SAG Short Film Agreement and Ultra-Low Budget Agreement both make it fairly easy and painless to go the SAG route. Check the highlights out here:khmuse said:
http://www.sagindie.com/contracts2.html
Under both of these agreements you may mix union AND non-union actors.
Last edited:
Ted Arabian
Member with Ladder
Nice grabs, Kevin! I especially love the second one. That golden light in the background is just beautiful!
And is that guy wearing a MEMBERS ONLY jacket??? Wow! What closet did that come from? :grin:
Looking good, my friend!
-Ted
And is that guy wearing a MEMBERS ONLY jacket??? Wow! What closet did that come from? :grin:
Looking good, my friend!
-Ted