SAG Indie

Josh_Boelter

Josh_Boelter

Well-known member
I’m curious as to whether any of you extreme low-budget directors have used the SAG Indie agreement. They’ve lowered their fees recently so it’s easier to use SAG actors on ultra low budget features (under $200,000). Also, you can use both union an non-union actors. Since my feature will be shooting in Michigan, I kind of doubt there are that many SAG actors around. It’s not as if I can afford to fly people out from L.A., put them up, feed them, and pay the SAG fees. However, if there were some local actors that were SAG, it might be worth it. Anyway, I’d be interested in hearing about other filmmakers’ opinions and experiences with SAG.

Cheers,

Josh
 
I haven't had a chance to use it yet, but we are shooting are first feature soon and intend to use the new "ultra low budget agreement".

They have free seminars on the agreements in NYC and LA and I am going to go the NYC session.

Chris
 
Yeah, I guess it would make sense for you since you're in New Jersey. There are a lot of SAG actors in the New York/New Jersey area.
 
I've got to say, it really looks like SAG has been listening. The prior agreements were outrageously bad for the producer, but these new agreements look, on the surface, to be exactly what you'd want. None of the bullcrap about "any actor can veto your film's release", etc. I haven't gone through the contracts in detail but I read the overview and it looks like SAG's really getting their "act" together.
 
Yeah, a year ago I wouldn't have considered using any SAG actors, but the new ultra low budget looks reasonable for me. That is, if it turns out that there are any SAG actors in Michigan or the upper Midwest who might like my script. I'm still not sure about that.
 
where can I look at a copy of this agreement? We are starting up on a feature next year and we may use it.
 
The meetings that SAG Indie offers to explain the new contracts are certainly worth attending. The old "Experimental" contract wasn't all that well liked by producers or talent; the new contracts seem to be much better suited to the way that things work in the real world.
 
I'm working on a project at the end of September that requires SAGIndie contracts and I'll be submitting everything next week. I'll post my experiences as they come...

Basically they just want to know anything and everything about your movie. Budget, shooting schedule, cast, script. And then when the movie's done they want a finished copy.

Kind of a pain to have to turn all that stuff in on an independently financed film, but it keeps you on schedule and make you accountable. Oh, and it let's you use SAG actors for deferred pay (which is great on a no budget production)!
 
Oops, I was just going over the contract for the "Ultra Low Budget...."

Turns out in addition to providing every detail of production, you have to pay $100/day plus 14.8% for pension benefits to SAG.

Still cool that you can use pro actors, but in my case the SAG actor is a good friend, and I orginally conceived the idea as a project for him to star in. He's been on board since the outline stage, and wants to make the movie as much as I do. It kind of suck for us that we can't just go shoot something without getting permission and coming up with $115/day for SAG... What do you do if an actor "wants" to defer pay?

Ok, I'll stop whining now...
 
Patrick: Technically, SAG only has jurisdiction if the project is shot on film. For video, the union is AFTRA. So a SAG performer is not violating his union agreement if he works for free on a project shot on video.

Josh: Being a member of SAG doesn't necessarily mean that the actor is good. Conversely, there are many good actors who are not members of SAG. Make sure you audition all your actors to see if they can meet your project's requirements.
 
Holy Crap!

We are totally NOT shooting on film. We're using the FX-1 to do a feature length "mockumentary" (hate that word, but that's what it is...) intended for film festivals.

OK, I will double check what you told me, but what else do you know about AFTRA? I assume I need to 1) Contact SAG to confirm what you just told me.
2)Contact AFTRA to see what, if anything, we need to do for them.

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if he's a member of AFTRA or not...

On another note, what if (big IF) we shoot it on video, it gets selected by some big name festival, and we find investors to pay for a 35mm blowup. Would SAG be involved at that point? (I know, these are all questions for SAG, just thought I'd throw them out).
 
SAG has jurisdiction over their members and signatory producers and production companies regardless of the medium that the project is shot on. What really matters is the intended distribution channel (theatrical, DVD, pay television, cable, etc), not the recording format.
 
Hmm... what if the SAG actor is a producer on a self financed independent film? Does he have to pay himself? This wouldn't seem to be in the best interest of the SAG actor.
 
Also, I know SAG used to offer an "Experimental Film" contract for features under $75,000. Under that contract all payment was deferred unitl the film made a profit. I can't find a link on the SAGIndie website for that contract anymore.

They offer deferred contracts for students and short films, but our project isn't either of those.
 
If this SAG actor wants to act in a non-union film he will most likely have to declare himself financial core in order to do it. This has happened before with actors who want to help out a friend or branch out into directing or producing - unless this actor has enough Q to bring in money on his/her name only.
 
I did a quick search and from what I understand someone who is Financial Core SAG can still demand union scale but choose to work for less. Hmmm...

This could work out for us if he's up for it. What would you say are the downsides to choosing Financial Core status (other than not being able to vote in the Union)?

Can you choose Financial Core status and the revoke it at a later date?
 
The SAG experimental contract is no longer current and has been replaced by the ultra low budget contract (along with a number of other contracts).

As for paying yourself if you are a SAG actor and the producer, you don't effectively have to, however, you would still be obligated to make the contribution to the health care and pension plan.

A declaration of financial core has to be based upon not having income within a certain period of time and is not something that a guild actor is likely to consider without a good reason.
 
Unless the rules have changed, the only down side to FC is not being able to vote. If you read some of the threats made by SAG against FC you would think an actor who is FC is dealing with the devil and a few of his imps, but I know too many actors that have gone Core due to necessity and some who STAY Core as a protest against some of SAGs stronghold grip. So, for a lot of young actors (or older beginners) FC is a great alternative to being stuck trying to get one of the (relative) few SAG jobs. As an example, when I was in casting it usually averaged around 1800 to 3000 submissions for 5 or 6 speaking roles on LOW budget films. It could be 9000 or more submissions for a decent budget film. With that kind of competition Financial Core makes sense (unless you are in SAG and highly discouraged from taking that action).

On the down side, once an actor has gone FC, he/she has to remain FC status for a set amount of time. Last time I checked (which I admit has been months ago) it was 18 months. After that an actor is re-instated with all rights and privilages restored ... ie, the right to vote. But talk it over with your friend and weigh out all the options (including the new SAG contracts and, if you have enough money, Favored Nations).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top