does this occur in every city?

Does what occur exactly? Do people ask actors to work for free?

This is so commonplace that I'm not sure if that's what you're asking or if I'm missing something with the ad.
 
Unfortunately this job is non-paying, but reel material will be provided.
Click to expand...
balegood.jpg
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Does what occur exactly? Do people ask actors to work for free?

This is so commonplace that I'm not sure if that's what you're asking or if I'm missing something with the ad.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because a lot of actors in their early twenties aren't getting paid work anyway; they need to build up their resume, gain experience, exposure, etc.

Obviously if you want EXPERIENCED actors who have BEEN IN MOVIES or ON TELEVISION already you're going to have to pay them something to have them show up. But, honestly, there are precious few other artistic ventures where a newbie is telling someone that they have to PAY them to show up and do their art.

Painters in art galleries?

Photographers in photo galleries?

Filmmakers on the indie scene?

Illustrators doing indie work?

FX artists making their "super cool" reels?

Make up artists doing their friends' Halloween makeup?

Any one of these artists during their "newbie" years don't make a dime upfront for doing their craft. Actors shouldn't be held to a different standard.

If the photographer has been published, if the actor has a long RESUME of movie and/or PROFESSIONAL stage appearances, if the illustrator has had a few graphic novels published, the make-up artist has done work for film, as with the FX artist, then sure, they need to be paid. But any artist anywhere who is asking for MONEY when they're bringing nothing but their "talent" to a piece... Unless the novice filmmaker is getting paid up front too, I don't see why any other novice artist involved with the film should.

Having professional artists as parents, though, I can tell you the most important thing is that if you're not paying, you better not be AUDITIONING. There is nothing more Bulls&^t in the world than some director having people audition for a role in their flick when the actor or effects artist is working for sandwiches.

If you're hiring people to work for free, there should be some indication that you will hire them on a future project and you should base your decision on MEETING with them or talking with them on the phone (after receiving a head shot). To put someone through an audition process when you're not even paying them is heartless and horrible and just plain wrong. If you're a good director you'll get good performances so long as you get the actors with the right ATTITUDE.
 
Last edited:
Not true at all. I just finished directing a short dramatic film for a guy -- his first attempt at writing and producing. One of my actresses has a string of IMDB credits as long as your arm, and has appeared (with dialogue) in a number of Hollywood movies, alongside well known actors, as well as a number of network TV shows. She did the role (supporting) for meals, credit and copy -- and I don't think we even fed her.

The male lead in my feature 'Afterlife' -- Greg Thompson -- also has an impressive resume, including playing the role of Darrell Waltrip in "3: The Dale Earnhardt Story", as well as some stints on "One Tree Hill" and "Dawson's Creek". He worked for us on a deferred-pay basis.

Don't underestimate your chances. If you have a truly great script and can demonstrate an ability to make a decent film from it, you can get top notch talent.
 
Last edited:
chapelgrovefilms said:
Not true at all. I just finished directing a short dramatic film for a guy -- his first attempt at writing and producing. One of my actresses has a string of IMDB credits as long as your arm, and has appeared (with dialogue) in number of Hollywood movies, alongside well known actors, as well as a number of network TV shows. She did the role (supporting) for meals, credit and copy -- and I don't think we even fed her.

The male lead in my feature 'Afterlife' -- Greg Thompson -- also has an impressive resume, including playing the role of Darrell Waltrip in "3: The Dale Earnhardt Story", as well as some stints on "One Tree Hill" and "Dawson's Creek". He worked for us on a deferred-pay basis.

Don't underestimate your chances. If you have a truly great script and can demonstrate an ability to make a decent film from it, you can get top notch talent.
Click to expand...


There you go, see?

I think the only time payment is of absolute necessity is when you're dealing with kids. I would be very wary of having a kid working on set if they weren't being paid something and all the correct paperwork wasn't in place.

Good to hear on you getting such top notch talent for your piece. The bottom line is that MOST actors (and artists in general) don't make squat from doing their art beyond the occasional booth at an art fair or a small theatre gig or commercial. Most artists, like you said, aren't in it just for the payday. If you give them something worthwhile and don't demand that they quit their day jobs to be in your film, I too believe that you can get some decent actors (and crew) at no cost.
 
"Having professional artists as parents, though, I can tell you the most important thing is that if you're not paying, you better not be AUDITIONING. There is nothing more Bulls&^t in the world than some director having people audition for a role in their flick when the actor or effects artist is working for sandwiches."

Isn't "meeting and talking" with potential actors and receiving headshots a part of the audition process? It seems to me that there should be a certain protocol that should be followed regardless if money is exchanged or not.

Is it ok for a DP to disregard the directors storyboards/shot list because he isn't being paid?
 
Hey, nobody puts a gun to their heads and forces actors to come and audition. When I post casting notices, I am clear about the role, the project, and the compensation. I always say up front that it's deferred pay, meals, credit and copy. Or, in the case of some shorts, simply meals, credit and copy. I make the script available for any actor who wants to read it. If the actors choose to come audition on that basis -- as Greg Thompson did for 'Afterlife' -- then there's no 'Bulls&^t' about it.

Anybody who DOESN'T audition actors for their film is making a huge mistake. Just because it's not a paying role, that doesn't mean you just have to take whoever is willing to participate.

Moving on....

Chamber005, I believe you SHOULD pay actors and crew if you possibly CAN. I knew a director once who actually said to me, "If they're willing to work for free, then LET 'em." How unprofessional is that? If YOU hope to make money on your movie, then there's no reason why the others involved in the project shouldn't be paid -- either out of the budget or on a deferred-pay basis. Fair is fair.
 
Last edited:
Since I identified Greg Thompson, I may as well ID the actress too. She also did a role in "Afterlife". Her name is Bonnie Johnson, and here's her IMDB page -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0176922/

I can assure you that is NOT a complete list of her credits by any means.

Bonnie auditioned for 'Afterlife'. Having worked with her before, she never needs to audition for me again -- I know she's got the skills and the talent, and I'm always happy to have her in my films. The same for Greg Thompson, but since he's made the migration to L.A., I doubt I'll get to cast him again.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
Anybody who DOESN'T audition actors for their film is making a huge mistake. Just because it's not a paying role, that doesn't mean you just have to take whoever is willing to participate.
Click to expand...

Agreed; especially when dealing w/actors whose work you are unfamiliar with. Even when I did volunteer work there was an interview process and some candidates were weeded out.

You have to make sure that your crew is competent, capable, and right for the role.
 
And keep in mind that placing an ad is not a crime. People can see the ad and then choose whether they want to respond.
 
Jim Brennan said:
And keep in mind that placing an ad is not a crime. People can see the ad and then choose whether they want to respond.
Click to expand...


Jim, i agree...i can see why poeple were confused about my posting it...

i'm also speaking as someone who'se been unemployed for 3 months, so i had a chip on my shoulder and probably shouldn't have posted that ad. right now for me, its rediculous to work for free, but it's apparantly commonplace for struggling actors to build a resume. i would act for free if i worked at home depot and i wanted to act. just not now. home depot never called me back.
 
skinny! said:
Jim, i agree...i can see why poeple were confused about my posting it...

i'm also speaking as someone who'se been unemployed for 3 months, so i had a chip on my shoulder and probably shouldn't have posted that ad. right now for me, its rediculous to work for free, but it's apparantly commonplace for struggling actors to build a resume. i would act for free if i worked at home depot and i wanted to act. just not now. home depot never called me back.
Click to expand...


Make sure you're getting those unemployment checks!
 
Where I'm living now, it doesn't happen. This area is so podunk, they don't even know what "videeo" is. Seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top