SAG Indie

Thanks for all the input here. 18 months is a fairly short period of time between SAG jobs in Colorado (where we both live). He moved here from New York a couple of years ago and does mostly theater now.

We wouldn't be against making the health care and pension contributions, but Financial Core sounds like a great option.

And if I understand it correctly, we wouldn't have to file *any* contracts with SAG if he's Financial Core. Is that correct?
 
Patrick_Swinnea said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no exemption. If a SAG actor wants to act in a film, that film has to be a SAG film, or he risks the wrath of the union for violating the contract. Even if it's self-produced and self-funded, if the actor is a member of SAG, he's vowed to never work on a non-union film.
 
Patrick_Swinnea said:
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.
Click to expand...
The "experimental" film contract was a horrible abomination for producers. It has apparently died a quick and much-deserved death, gone the way of all things that were a really bad idea. You did *not* want to sign the experimental contract!

The deferred contracts they offer now (short & student) take the place of the experimental. The experimental contract was never really intended for anything other than short or student work anyway -- it was highly inappropriate to use it for a commercially-destined project. The new 'ultra' contract is vastly superior, from a producer's perspective, than the old 'experimental' ever was. Do not mourn it. Instead, if you ever find a copy of it, burn it.
 
Patrick_Swinnea said:
Thanks for all the input here. 18 months is a fairly short period of time between SAG jobs in Colorado (where we both live). He moved here from New York a couple of years ago and does mostly theater now.

We wouldn't be against making the health care and pension contributions, but Financial Core sounds like a great option.

And if I understand it correctly, we wouldn't have to file *any* contracts with SAG if he's Financial Core. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

If he has filed FC, then he can work on both union and non-union gigs without any backlash from the union. HOWEVER, everyone in the cast HAS to be non-union or FC. So, for all intents and purposes, he would be considered a non-union actor by SAG. And considering where he lives, he might want to give it some consideration as he would surely meet the criteria of "not being able to make a living as a SAG actor"!

There are many options, though, to filing FC status if he is opposed to the idea - he could produce but not act in it, for example.
 
Moonwind said:
Unless the rules have changed, the only down side to FC is not being able to vote.
Click to expand...
Well, not necessarily.

Financial Core status means that you resign from the union. You are no longer a SAG member. You can't vote, you can't ever be elected to office, anything -- because you're not actually a member of the union. What you become is classified as a "dues-paying non-member". You retain eligibility for the SAG health & welfare fund by paying in, and you're allowed to work on SAG projects without the union getting the producer in trouble, but you're also allowed to work on non-union projects because -- heck, you're not SAG anymore!

Jon Voight is the most high-profile member to resign from the union and elect financial core status. He will likely never be accepted back to full union membership -- they dis-invited him from the SAG awards ceremony. They feel that financial core threatens the very existence of SAG -- because SAG Rule One is "thou shalt never work on a non-union production", and SAG gains its power over producers because hey, if you want the big names, you gotta become a SAG signatory. But Financial Core changes all that -- now producers can go non-union and still hire the likes of Academy Award-winner Jon Voight.

So yes, SAG vehemently hates Financial Core.
 
Barry_Green said:
The "experimental" film contract was a horrible abomination for producers. It has apparently died a quick and much-deserved death, gone the way of all things that were a really bad idea. You did *not* want to sign the experimental contract!

The deferred contracts they offer now (short & student) take the place of the experimental. The experimental contract was never really intended for anything other than short or student work anyway -- it was highly inappropriate to use it for a commercially-destined project. The new 'ultra' contract is vastly superior, from a producer's perspective, than the old 'experimental' ever was. Do not mourn it. Instead, if you ever find a copy of it, burn it.
Click to expand...

AMEN, BROTHER! The choir of one is SINGING praises to that statement!
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, not necessarily.

Financial Core status means that you resign from the union. You are no longer a SAG member. You can't vote, you can't ever be elected to office, anything -- because you're not actually a member of the union. What you become is classified as a "dues-paying non-member". You retain eligibility for the SAG health & welfare fund by paying in, and you're allowed to work on SAG projects without the union getting the producer in trouble, but you're also allowed to work on non-union projects because -- heck, you're not SAG anymore!

Jon Voight is the most high-profile member to resign from the union and elect financial core status. He will likely never be accepted back to full union membership -- they dis-invited him from the SAG awards ceremony. They feel that financial core threatens the very existence of SAG -- because SAG Rule One is "thou shalt never work on a non-union production", and SAG gains its power over producers because hey, if you want the big names, you gotta become a SAG signatory. But Financial Core changes all that -- now producers can go non-union and still hire the likes of Academy Award-winner Jon Voight.

So yes, SAG vehemently hates Financial Core.
Click to expand...

Chris and Bentley Mitchum (Robert's son and grandson) are both financial core because of the rules on non-union work (especially for young actors trying to break in). Chuck Heston, a past president of SAG, even went FC for a while so he could do a favor for a friend - put all of his holdings into his wife's name and claimed hardship. Erik Estrada has in the past been FC (and I think still is). Edward Albert, Jr. was FC for a while (another Oscar winner). And there are many more. The big challenge is finding out who is and who isn't since there isn't a list of FC actors floating around that I know of. The best way (IMO) is to go to a couple of low budget casting directors - they usually have the skinny on who is and who isn't at any given time.
 
i just came back from the 'sag indie workshop' in los angeles... pretty cool, learned a ton of stuff... if you are in la or nyc, i highly suggest going... just for the information. there were people from various states and it was completely filled, we had to sit on the floor! but then again, we were a bit late... lol.

a ton of great information, stuff you would never know about...
oh and cool, free, blue light pens! lol

next dates in la and nyc are sept 8 and oct 13

t :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
Wow, lot's of stuff to look into here...

He would be the only SAG member working on the project. After we talk to SAG I'll post back with what we plan to do. The biggest part of going Financial Core would be the ability (or lack of) to become a full fledged member again in the future. We'll have to see what the latest rules are. If going Financial Core meas no SAG contracts it sounds like a great option to have.

Barry and Moonwind thanks for the info.
 
Patrick_Swinnea said:
Wow, lot's of stuff to look into here...

He would be the only SAG member working on the project. After we talk to SAG I'll post back with what we plan to do. The biggest part of going Financial Core would be the ability (or lack of) to become a full fledged member again in the future. We'll have to see what the latest rules are. If going Financial Core meas no SAG contracts it sounds like a great option to have.

Barry and Moonwind thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

You are very welcome, Patrick. Looking forward to hearing how it goes. One word of advice - when speaking to SAG do not mention Financial Core! (Read how Barry put it for full impact <grin>.) And Core people can become full fledged members again, especially if they have FC'ed due to hardship as compared to doing it as a 'political' statement. I know several actors that went FC due to hardship - one lost everything in one of the wildfires, another lost it all to the Northridge quake. Both FC'ed and both are now back in SAG in good standing and full membership. The one's who do it quietly and keep their heads low usually don't have much trouble once the time period is up. Its the vocal ones (like Jon and Chris and a few others) that probably won't ever be the SAG fair-haired :engel017: boys/girls again.
 
I remember reading somewhere that most SAG members don't even make enough from acting to qualify for the medical benefits. It's a wonder that not more of them declare financial core. I mean, is it that important to vote for the next president of SAG?

A lot of the SAG signatory production companies do many non-union projects now, so an actor would have lots more opportunities if he can work both union and non-union jobs.
 
fyi- straight out of the current '2005 sag film contracts digest'

short film agreement
less than $50k

ultra low budget agreement
less than $200k

modified low budget agreement
less than $625k

low budget agreement
less than $2.5 million

t :grin:
 
sag has plan I and plan II medical pension and health benefits...
they are determined on earnings and of course it depends on how much you work...

also, its definitely good to vote for the next sag pres and the cabinet!!!
theres alot of internal dispute among board members and presidents all WITHIN sag...
lots of drama during elections, its like watching those cheesy political name calling commercials during voting time...

t :laugh:
 
You mentioned not to say anything about Financial Core to SAG so we definitely have a fine line to cross!

What do you think about this - We shoot the movie (a pretty small deal, crew under 10 and cast under 20). Once it's done we'll know if we have the next indie masterpiece or a very expensive home movie. If we feel confident enough about the project to send it around, he can file for FC before the movie hits the festivals. That way he's not risking anything (though it doesn't sound like there's much to risk) and we can just go shoot our stupid movie and worry about the stuff we *should* be worrying about, story, acting, blah blah blah...

Of course this may be a very bad idea for reasons I haven't figured out yet. Ultimately it's "go time" to get the legal stuff in place to make this shoot happen on schedule. I need to pitch the FC angle to him pronto if it seems like the best way to go... (as it's ultimately his decision). Otherwise we better get to signing contracts.

It'd be nice to worry about it once we know we have something worth worrying about. And with the unpredictablity of independent film, you just never know what you'll end up with... :)
 
Sumfun said:
I remember reading somewhere that most SAG members don't even make enough from acting to qualify for the medical benefits. It's a wonder that not more of them declare financial core. I mean, is it that important to vote for the next president of SAG?

A lot of the SAG signatory production companies do many non-union projects now, so an actor would have lots more opportunities if he can work both union and non-union jobs.
Click to expand...

It is really pathetic in LA in this matter. I would hazzard to guess that 96% of the actors registered with SAG do not make enough money to live on without a second, non-industry job like waiting tables, etc. SAG definitely had its place and time, but IMO that time is running out. And it has turned into 5 times the monster it replaced, the Studio System. At least with the Studio system actors were signed to contracts (albet sometimes chinchy ones) and were paid a weekly salary. They were also taught HOW TO ACT, which is something very sorely needed in LA (and NY and Orlando and .....). SAG was formed to protect the actors from being screwed by the Studios (such as residuals, etc.), but now SAG is screwing all but the top echelon (re 2 to 3%) of its actors. And since SAG is NOT A UNION, but a Guild, it doesn't do much to help the other 96%. No free training, no unionized lists (ie, the next name on the list is the one who gets the job), little or no monitary help during strikes, etc. It is a crying shame that this highway robbery is being thrust upon so many people! And even more of a shame that this Guild would prefer its members to work as a waiter or typist or whatever than to do something that could help hone their skills and make them better at their craft! Bob Mitchum, Chuck Heston, and several others of the "old" crowd at one time talked about a new system with SAG - one where actors who made less than the cost of living (a set goal such as $50,000 a year) could take union and non-union parts, with non-union pay reported to SAG for bookkeeping purposes. Once the actor reached the point of consistantly making the $50K over a 3 year period would then not be able to take non-union parts unless he/she fell below the set amount. I think that would be a wonderful implementation and would help not only the actors in SAG, but low-budget production companies as well. But I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it, especially since "blue in the face" is not one of my more attractive colors. :grin:
 
Patrick_Swinnea said:
You mentioned not to say anything about Financial Core to SAG so we definitely have a fine line to cross!

What do you think about this - We shoot the movie (a pretty small deal, crew under 10 and cast under 20). Once it's done we'll know if we have the next indie masterpiece or a very expensive home movie. If we feel confident enough about the project to send it around, he can file for FC before the movie hits the festivals. That way he's not risking anything (though it doesn't sound like there's much to risk) and we can just go shoot our stupid movie and worry about the stuff we *should* be worrying about, story, acting, blah blah blah...

Of course this may be a very bad idea for reasons I haven't figured out yet. Ultimately it's "go time" to get the legal stuff in place to make this shoot happen on schedule. I need to pitch the FC angle to him pronto if it seems like the best way to go... (as it's ultimately his decision). Otherwise we better get to signing contracts.

It'd be nice to worry about it once we know we have something worth worrying about. And with the unpredictablity of independent film, you just never know what you'll end up with... :)
Click to expand...

Shooting that way could get your friend kicked out of SAG in a heartbeat, so I wouldn't suggest doing that. When I said not to mention FC, I meant while you were getting all the info about the other contracts to see if you can figure out a way to shoot it SAG signatory. (Remember - one SAG actor means ALL actors must be SAG or Taft-Hartley'ed.) But if all else looks too expensive, then your friend will have to FC with SAG if he is willing - thats when Financial Core should be brought up. But I wouldn't suggest taking the chance of SAG either fining your friend or at worse kicking him out of the guild.
 
Gotcha. I knew it had to be a bad idea... :(

And if I understand Taft-Hartley, all the other actors have to agree to do a SAG job next? I'm confused. This sounds like it would be a negative for all the other actors (or ones not wanting to join SAG).
 
Moonwind said:
(Remember - one SAG actor means ALL actors must be SAG or Taft-Hartley'ed.)
Click to expand...
Not with the new contract. If I'm not mistaken, the new Ultra contract lets you mix SAG and non-SAG actors freely.
 
Not with the new contract. If I'm not mistaken, the new Ultra contract lets you mix SAG and non-SAG actors freely.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can mix union and non-union actors with the new agreement, which makes things a lot easier. If I had to use all SAG actors, I wouldn't even consider using the agreement. Especially in Michigan. I still need to call the local SAG office, but I suspect SAG actors are fairly rare here. I'm going to look more at local theater groups and hope I can find some good actors who can also tone done their performances from stage acting to screen acting.

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.
Click to expand...

Scary though, casting actors without auditions! Yeah, I'll definitely audition everyone. And I've seen enough crap from Hollywood to know that SAG membership doesn't necessarily mean quality acting skills.

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.
Click to expand...

I also hate the word "mockumentary", but that's sort of what my feature also is. Actually, we're mixing fake documentary footage with some real documentary footage. I'm not sure what you'd call that. I'm just calling it a comedy.

Cheers,

Josh
 
Barry, you're right, I went over the Ultra Low contract again and that's exactly what it says - you can mix SAG and non-SAG.

Now I'm wondering if, as both a Co-Producer and SAG card holder, he can defer payment to himself voluntarily. There HAS to be a provision for that (and he's too good of an actor to sit offscreen). We're financing this ourselves (under $6000) and any funds he (we) has to tie up in SAG paperwork and security deposits is less that can go to props, food, etc. His part is too big to simply shoot in a couple of days.

Most of the actors do professional theater or improv comedy, and all of them have offered to fill roles based on the story idea. We've been really lucky in this regard, and it's allowed us to use top notch talent on a shoestring budget. But he's the only one with a SAG card... so...

I called the Denver SAG office today and am waiting a call back. I'll post what I find out.

This is a really important topic for self financed films. Even when all the technical mumbo jumbo is in place bad acting kills most small films, IMHO. Using pros who want to just work on a project for fun (and for free) should be an easy (and free) process.

On the site for the film "Kissing on the Mouth" one of the creators talks about SAGs misdirection involving digital movies. Their old ads said something like "If it's DV it's just a home movie." Now the ads read," Without professional actors, it's just a home movie."

So the point is, SAG has the talent pool wrapped up in red tape, so they get to call the shots on what is and isn't a "home movie." Ha!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top