SAG Indie

One more note...

...I love auditions. I call it "fishing." I don't simply want famous people in my film. I want to find the actors who are about to break. Faces that have never been seen but are already damn good at their job. This takes time. You'll see 100 faces for every 10 worth bringing in for call backs. Out of those, only 2-3 will be worth casting.

However, I've held casting sessions since I was 14 years old. I've held them in Portland, Seattle, Spokane, Ashland, Albuquerque and New York City. I've held at least 30 casting sessions. And ever since I decided to have each project be it's own LLC and become a SAG Signatory, the quality of people auditioning has increased exponentially.

I found that I could be far pickier. I could expect actors to show up to an audition off-book. I could give subtle, nuanced direction and have actors actually understand what I want from them. I could say "Okay, I'm writing a roll for a 55 year old bald guy with a bad comb over" and get 100 people, 10 of which were all excellent actors. Having MULTIPLE QUALITY CHOICES for a roll is KEY to making a great film.

For me, casting is like being a kid in a candy shop. I meet thousands of actors, narrow my list, keep the numbers of great actors who aren't right for this project, call them 3-4 months later, write them rolls for my new project...you can't do that if you're relying on nonprofessionals.
 
I did an ultra low budget contract recently for a 50k, 15 day shoot. SAG made us put up 200% of the SAG payroll as a bond, when at the SAG indy seminar they said 30%-40%
It was a nightmare and severely hampered our cash flow affecting the entire picture, as the bond was higher than our post, and they made us wait 6 weeks to get it back. Also, we had to hand deliver payroll within 3 days of the week ending, they wouldn't let us give the actors their checks along with the crew, some actors received their checks 3 weeks (!!!) AFTER we wrapped.

The Los Angeles SAG reps were Margaret Johnson and her `boss' who called herself Twanda and would not give her last name. If you get them assigned to you ask for a reassignment, they even told an actor who couldn't wait 3 weeks for her check that we were untrustworthy without ever meeting us or doing any background/credit check.

better to tell SAG your shoot is over 4 weeks and do a standard low budget, that way you can at least get taft hartleys and points for non-sag players.
 
that sucks. we did SAG ULTRA LOW on Heart of Now and negotiated a bond under 40%. Rep was Julia Allen, who is very "by the book", but if you're nice, she will work with you.
 
... and if you're not `nice'? On other pictures I did with a straight low budget it was so much `nicer' and by the book than the ultra low where they seemed to be making up `rules' as they went.
 
Bringing this thread back up to ask a question to you guys who have had experience with SAG on indie features.

What happens when a film goes over budget?

Hypothetically - you have a film that is budgeted at 199K, so you sign the 'ultra low budget agreement' with SAG (the cutoff for that is 200K). Then you get into post, you run out of money, which is not uncommon in many cases, and you raise another 50K in finishing funds to finish your postproduction.

In the end your film winds up with a 250K budget.

Does SAG somehow take into account the entire budget?
Or are they only interested in your production budget?

If you go over the limit after production are there any ramifications in relation to SAG?

Just curious.
This scenario came up in conversation with a friend, so I figured I'd ask here and see if anyone had run across something like this.
 
Theoretically, if you go past the 200K in actual cash expenditures then the ultra-low budget agreement no longer applies and you retroactively have to pay higher day rates for each actor.

However, I've never known anyone who did this.

Despite that, I think it is in your best interest to make sure you can finish the project within the given budget ceiling designated by SAG.
 
Prodigi Pictures said:
Despite that, I think it is in your best interest to make sure you can finish the project within the given budget ceiling designated by SAG.
Click to expand...

Of course - not only because of SAG, but because I wouldn't want to go over budget in the first place.

I wasn't suggesting it as a way to skate by - just curious seeing as 200K is such a low threshold, I could easily see someone budgeting at 190K or something and next thing you know a day or two of overtime and you're over 200K (which would cost you a hell of a lot more if you have to go back and pay all the actors over twice as much).

Thanks for the clarification.
:thumbsup:
 
Zak Forsman said:
that sucks. we did SAG ULTRA LOW on Heart of Now and negotiated a bond under 40%. Rep was Julia Allen, who is very "by the book", but if you're nice, she will work with you.
Click to expand...

Zak -

To clarify, do you mean that you negotiated a bond for 40% of your estimated actor expenses or 40% of what SAG originally quoted you?

- Justin
 
*shakes head* Unions, what a joke. SAG is probably the worst. Fortunately plenty of good actors will ignore their union affiliation.

I would rather fine ones who are Financial Core, that's ideal for everyone, them and us. I would never make my production company a signatory of any union, I don't believe in unions. I'd just form an LLC individually for the project and make that a signatory, as was mentioned above, much better idea.
 
JonathanLB said:
*shakes head* Unions, what a joke. SAG is probably the worst. Fortunately plenty of good actors will ignore their union affiliation.

I would rather fine ones who are Financial Core, that's ideal for everyone, them and us. I would never make my production company a signatory of any union, I don't believe in unions. I'd just form an LLC individually for the project and make that a signatory, as was mentioned above, much better idea.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what we did for our film. A Lonely Place For Dying is owned by Lonely Place, LLC. Lonely Place, LLC is the signatory. Eventually, the assets of Lonely Place will be transferrred to Prodigi, Inc. Prodigi, Inc. makes another movie and that movie's LLC becomes signatory to SAG.

SAG is difficult to deal with. However, there are too few actors who are Financial Core for me to consider that a viable casting option. We want major celebrities for our project.
 
Yeah that's the problem, most of the best actors ARE SAG. It's hard to find ones who aren't, it obviously must not be that difficult to get into SAG because most actors I see are, even though they're not making any money and work at a restaurant. It's weird, because cinematographers I know who are in IATSE 600 are actually in fact WORKING, paid professionals and make a living from their craft. Actors in SAG usually don't. I'm not sure what's going on with that. I got a SAG actor to work for free on a really lousy short film I did, lol, it was only a one-day shoot but he was game.
 
JonathanLB said:
Yeah that's the problem, most of the best actors ARE SAG. It's hard to find ones who aren't, it obviously must not be that difficult to get into SAG because most actors I see are, even though they're not making any money and work at a restaurant. It's weird, because cinematographers I know who are in IATSE 600 are actually in fact WORKING, paid professionals and make a living from their craft. Actors in SAG usually don't. I'm not sure what's going on with that. I got a SAG actor to work for free on a really lousy short film I did, lol, it was only a one-day shoot but he was game.
Click to expand...

SAG is not easy to get into. It takes about 1-2 years for most actors to figure out a way to get into the guild.

The discrepancy is largely one of math. Everyone wants to write or act. Both SAG and the WGA are huge and the majority of their members don't make a living from their chosen field. Also, there is a perception that acting and writing is easy...so, a lot of wannabes are attracted to these occupations.

I never sat in a coffee shop and heard a waiter say "You know, I want to spend years studying the nuances of photography, camera technology, lighting, color theory and visual language so I can be an intrical but invisible part of the filmmaking process as a cinematographer." It is (rightly) perceived to be a difficult position that requires tremendous knowledge.

I wish writing and acting were perceived in the same light. Everyone thinks they can write a script. "That chick who wrote Harry Potter? She was unemployed! I'm unemployed. I can write just as gewd as she can!" And thus is born a vast guild with a glut of unqualified members. "I heard Keanu Reeves was discovered in a shopping mall! I go to shopping malls! Maybe I can be an actor!" And thus is born another vast guild with a glut of unqualified members.

The truth is acting is a damn hard job. Good actors are hard to find. When one finds them they've always studied for years, are serious about their craft and don't have the habits of the flakey wannabes. If you hold a SAG audition you'll find only 1-2% of the actors are worth hiring, but that 1-2% are tremendously amazing.
 
Whoa you DO have high standards, haha, I wouldn't say 1-2% but that's just me. When I am looking over actors I would say that in general, union or not, 50% are not really that good, 20% are passable, another 20% are fairly good depending on the role / project, and 10% are very good.

Acting is very hard, I don't know how anyone could think it's easy, haha, I liked your comments, though, funny stuff.

Writing is extremely difficult, I think the main problem is actually that every director thinks he can write. In film school that's a huge problem and why so much of the work is bad. I can't tell if the directing is good if I'm so distracted by how awful the story is.

My background is writing, professionally since I was 17, but not in the fiction category, strictly research and non-fiction. That may lend itself well to documentary filmmaking, not sure if that's really my interest, though, narrative features interest me a lot more. But I still prefer scriptwriting (I've taken one college course on that) to short story writing / novels, etc. That's primarily because I'm not a fiction reader. I think fictional books can be great, but I don't have the time. I can watch an amazing movie in 2 hours or read a book in like 16-25 hours or something. No thanks. Plus my love and passion is film, so it's all research to me to watch movies or see TV shows, and it's basically just entertainment / a waste of time reading fiction. If I want fiction, I watch movies. If I want facts and information, I read books or articles, so I do a ton of non-fiction reading. I read for information, watch movies for entertainment or insight, etc. What I think is great about scriptwriting is you don't have to screw around with flowery BS, you just cut to the point. None of this nonsense like, "As she walked into the room the sweet smell of lilacs brightened her spirit and she felt like a flower in a spring field," or some crap. I really can't tolerate descriptions given in fiction, they all make me laugh, it just is too over-the-top for me. In a script it's like, "Jane walked into the room. She paused for a second, before walking to the bed." Just actions and dialogue, as it should be, no flowery nonsense or obnoxious metaphors. I studied that nonsense in high school and college, I got my As, I don't enjoy that on my free time. You can't tell me what I could see on screen. As the saying goes, a picture says a thousand words. So give me a picture, not a flowery description.

I think what is also great is a script is not a product, it's not a finished work, it's a blueprint for a project, nothing more, nothing less. It's not your job as a scriptwriter to describe everything. It's the production designer's job to figure out some of the details, the director's job to work out the exact blocking and positioning, the actors' job to add life to the lines, etc. I prefer blueprint writing to finished products when it comes to fiction. ;)
 
JonathanLB said:
What I think is great about scriptwriting is you don't have to screw around with flowery BS, you just cut to the point. None of this nonsense like, "As she walked into the room the sweet smell of lilacs brightened her spirit and she felt like a flower in a spring field," or some crap. I really can't tolerate descriptions given in fiction, they all make me laugh, it just is too over-the-top for me. In a script it's like, "Jane walked into the room. She paused for a second, before walking to the bed." Just actions and dialogue, as it should be, no flowery nonsense or obnoxious metaphors. I studied that nonsense in high school and college, I got my As, I don't enjoy that on my free time. You can't tell me what I could see on screen. As the saying goes, a picture says a thousand words. So give me a picture, not a flowery description.
Click to expand...


You should try reading anything by Louis-Ferdinand Celine. His novels don't have any of that.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pN...fox-a&sig=ctE_Ntqom7llpsJzNMYvtKiVHO8#PPP1,M1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top