Should aspiring actors pay movie directors to be in their independent movies? POLL

[filmmakerguy]

I think those are excellent points Luis. But it's hard not to keep score when they instantly say they only do paid work. That was Dov's point, suddenly then the question arises, who should really be paying who on an indie feature? Obviously you pay if you really want them, you have to. Otherwise you move on.

I agree 100% with most of your points, I think you'd be a blind fool not to see the points you've made, which is why I'd never ask an actor to pay me to be in my movie. However to pay them in some ways is an insult to me, since I'm not even paying myself. I'm working countless hours deferred, yet some of them won't even do 1 day or a weekend deferred.

But like you said, they will never believe in your project as much as you do and ultimately that is the sad thing about the whole collaborative process. And maybe another reason why it irks me so much. When they instantly go to discussing pay, I think they are motivated by pay. They could care less about the project whereas someone else who'd be willing to do it unpaid, I tend to feel they care more about the project. They will stick with you come hell or high water. Need to reshoot something and have no dough left? They are there for you.

So as a filmmaker, I tend to lean towards finding actors who will do unpaid stuff because I feel they are more passionate about not only the project but acting. And I do everything in my power to pay them, I feel they should be paid. And at the same time if you can't, deferred or a back end percentage always. If you get paid, they should get paid. The problem is when the difference between making the movie or not involves paying them..then you have to choose making the movie and have to go with someone else.

 

[filmmakerguy]

and just in case my post over there magically disappears..... "“They should pay you”. They’re happy with (A) Food & (B) Credit << Really? If the intent of this is as it's written, it comes off as a sure way to scare away good talent or at best begin a condescending relationship between actor and director. Also begs the question, if an actor buys a role, then how can you not expect the actor to demand that they do the role as they want, not as the director wants, after all it's their purchase and will want what they believe they bought."

Awesome man, looking forward to seeing his response! lol

 

[Batutta]

I still say this is kind of a silly question and statement, because it is not compatible with any realistic situation. Aspiring actors generally don't have money. An actor doesn't have to be in your movie as much as you need a good actor, so you'll never be in an equal bargaining situation. The value you are giving them is all speculative. You could be the worst movie director since Ed Wood for all they know. So the chances you are going to find a really good actor, who also believes in your project enough to fork over money, and who has funds to give, and is also lacking any other options to exercise their craft and get exposure, are probably very slim.

 

[filmmakerguy]

Another thing that irks me, that is somewhat related. You have ALL these actors who make $20 million+ a picture. They make insane money, like Jessica Alba, etc. If they really cared about cinema and movies, they could easily finance countless independent films. Hell, many of them could star in a few for free and they'd get some serious attention to some very worthwhile projects. But they never do.

Meanwhile directors slave away for scraps.

 

[filmmakerguy]

I still say this is kind of a silly question and statement, because it is not compatible with any realistic situation. Aspiring actors generally don't have money.

This is simply not true Batutta. I forget the exact number, but it's something like 10% of actors out there do it full time with a living wage...the number is really bad. All the rest pretty much have regular jobs. They are cops, doctors, dentists, businessmen, lawyers, managers, etc. They act on the side in gigs here and there as aspiring actors. Very few do it full time as their primary income. And those that do, tend to have a significant other covering most of their living costs. I say this as someone who knows a lot of actors.

So they could, if they wanted to, put in money for projects.

 

[J Davis]

just want to point out that its pretty common practice for models who are starting out to pay a photographer
it makes an interesting comparison

but having said that - if I met an actor who was rich enough to bankroll my film at the cost of casting decisions and creative control?
hell no

 

[Batutta]

Another thing that irks me, that is somewhat related. You have ALL these actors who make $20 million+ a picture. They make insane money, like Jessica Alba, etc. If they really cared about cinema and movies, they could easily finance countless independent films. Hell, many of them could star in a few for free and they'd get some serious attention to some very worthwhile projects. But they never do.

Meanwhile directors slave away for scraps.

Well that's a different story. The thing is, when actors are at that level, they don't need to use their own money. Just their presence alone could guarantee a certain financial commitment from investors, and indeed many independent films are financed that way. Tarantino got Reservoir Dogs made because Lawrence Bender was able to get the script to Harvey Keitel, who loved it, and that helped get the budget they needed. So why risk your own funds when you don't have to?

 

[filmmakerguy]

just want to point out that its pretty common practice for models who are starting out to pay a photographer
it makes an interesting comparison

but having said that - if I met an actor who was rich enough to bankroll my film at the cost of casting decisions and creative control?
hell no

Happens all the time though in Hollywood. Even Kevin Smith when he went to do his first few movies, the studios gave him a list of actors and said these are the ones you can use. It was all back catalogue of actors they had in past projects. They wanted him to shoot movies with those actors because the more Hollywood movies they were in, the bigger their names would get. That's why he kept using Affleck. Affleck isn't exactly the first person someone thinks of for a comedy movie but he was on the list. Money controls everything unfortunately.

 

[filmmakerguy]

Well that's a different story. The thing is, when actors are at that level, they don't need to use their own money. Just their presence alone could guarantee a certain financial commitment from investors, and indeed many independent films are financed that way. Tarantino got Reservoir Dogs made because Lawrence Bender was able to get the script to Harvey Keitel, who loved it, and that helped get the budget they needed. So why risk your own funds when you don't have to?

I agree, their presence...but again, many won't even give you their presence. They won't attach without funding and their agent will ignore you without money. Remember the Corrado thread? He had to lie and say funding was in place just to get them in it. Then he went and got funding and made good on it.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

it's hard not to keep score when they instantly say they only do paid work. That was Dov's point, suddenly then the question arises, who should really be paying who on an indie feature?

The problem with that viewpoint is that it instantly creates a dynamic of disrespect.
It immediately says "I am more important than you." As a filmmaker, I assume we all expect that we should be paid for our work at some point. Actors are no different, so I see nothing wrong with an actor who has reached a point in their career where they feel they can turn down opportunities that are unpaid. That is the goal, isn't it? As filmmakers don't we all hope to reach a point where the idea of shooting something for free is simply not a consideration? So if an actor has reached that point, who are we to begrudge them? Does that suck for us? Sure. But that's not their problem. We are also not the ones in a position to make that decision for an actor. If an actor chooses not to work for free not only is that their right, I would say it should be their goal and we should do everything we can to help get them there.

I shoot for a living - and I don't work for free. I shoot my own personal projects for free, and I MIGHT work on a friends project for free if I believe in what they're doing. But that is the key - I have to believe in it. If we can't get an actor to believe in our projects then the fault is with us, not the actor who does not want to work for free.

Passion is great - but at the end of the day we all need to pay our bills.
I do not resent actors who want to get paid anymore than I resent a anyone else who expects to be paid for their work.
We all bring value to projects, and we deserve to be rewarded for it.
Mutual respect.

to pay them in some ways is an insult to me, since I'm not even paying myself. I'm working countless hours deferred, yet some of them won't even do 1 day or a weekend deferred.

It's not an insult to you anymore than the convenience store down the street is insulting you by not giving you a lotto ticket for free. I mean, it would only take them a second to do it, and they stand to win a large percentage of the pot if you win, right? The problem is - they don't owe you anything, there are many more people who are offering the same things and they have no reason not to expect to get paid for their work.

The fact that you are not paying yourself has zero bearing on the actor. You deciding to make sacrifices doesn't obligate anyone else to make sacrifices.
Again, no one will care about your project as much as you do - and you should not expect them to. In their mind it is still a simple equation of hours of commitment, potential opportunity, and direct reward.... the bigger the opportunity, the less reward they're probably willing to take. All you can do is try to convince people that your project is worth sacrificing for. If they aren't convinced - they aren't insulting you, it just means they aren't going to go above and beyond to help you build your dream. That's not an insult, that's the default position. Is it insulting each second I do not give money to charity?

When they instantly go to discussing pay, I think they are motivated by pay. They could care less about the project whereas someone else who'd be willing to do it unpaid, I tend to feel they care more about the project. They will stick with you come hell or high water. Need to reshoot something and have no dough left? They are there for you.

There are two sides to that coin. First off, of course they're motivated by pay...everyone is. We all have to live, we have bills to pay, we have responsibilities. We all do this because we love it...but that doesn't mean people can simply work on everything for free. Life can't run on love alone, unfortunately.

As far as passion and loyalty - if you've never paid actors then I would caution you against making too many assumptions. The first time we were able to pay actors we saw a noticable difference in the level of professionalism, punctuality, commitment and dedication. Yes, actors working for free may bring passion to a project...but if things don't go smoothly they may also lose that drive and start to wonder why they agreed to it. They may start to feel resentful, or feel you're taking advantage of them. Paid actors, in my experience, stick with it and give it their all... because that is what you are paying them for.

I tend to lean towards finding actors who will do unpaid stuff because I feel they are more passionate about not only the project but acting.

Not sure that's true - an actor who is unwilling to do unpaid work may simply be further in their career. And, you could say, they may be further in their career because they are more passionate. My point is - people's willingness or unwillingness has little to do with how passionate they are about acting overall. I would agree that it has something to do with how passionate they are about your project specifically. But I would never question an actor's commitment to their craft simply based on whether or not they were willing to do it for free. I love shooting, but I won't do it for free.... and why should I? My days are already full with paid work. Does that mean I'm less passionate about what I do than the guy who works all day for no pay?

And I do everything in my power to pay them, I feel they should be paid. And at the same time if you can't, deferred or a back end percentage always. If you get paid, they should get paid.

That's great - and i agree, if you are getting paid, they should get paid.
But you can't flip that around and say that if you're NOT getting paid, they should be willing to go unpaid.
The decision to sacrifice your pay was your own - you can't make that decision for anyone else - cast and crew included.

The problem is when the difference between making the movie or not involves paying them..then you have to choose making the movie and have to go with someone else.

Yeah, and that is just one of the many many compromises we have to make as indie filmmakers.
Unfortunately, that's just the way it is.

After all this it sounds like you're essentially frustrated that you don't have money to do the things you want... and for some reason that frustration is being directed at actors (namely because they are the most expensive thing you can't go without). Trust me, I understand your frustration... but the moment you begin to feel that anyone SHOULD work for free... you're going down a slippery slope of disrespect that will hurt your project in the long run.

I'm not saying actors shouldn't decide on their own to work for free, I know many have done that for me.
But when they do, I never forget that they are doing me a great service in doing so... they are donating their time, talent and energy to make MY dream possible. And I make sure they know that I appreciate it.

Oddly enough, the best way to get actors to work for free with you is to make sure they understand just how much you actually do value their craft - and then SHOW them through your work that you are doing everything humanly possible to make the best film possible. And, pay them whenever and however you can.

 

[Batutta]

This is simply not true Batutta. I forget the exact number, but it's something like 10% of actors out there do it full time with a living wage...the number is really bad. All the rest pretty much have regular jobs. They are cops, doctors, dentists, businessmen, lawyers, managers, etc. They act on the side in gigs here and there as aspiring actors. Very few do it full time as their primary income. And those that do, tend to have a significant other covering most of their living costs. I say this as someone who knows a lot of actors.

So they could, if they wanted to, put in money for projects.

I lived in Los Angeles for 20 years. I knew and worked with many an aspiring actor. The majority didn't have two nickels to rub together. If we're talking about a few hundred dollars to donate to the production that's one thing. But as a significant source of funding, I don't think it's realistic at all. And then you need all the other factors I listed to fall into line for it to happen in any meaningful way.

 

[Darren Levine]

Awesome man, looking forward to seeing his response! lol

he sure is swift, and smartly condescending... " D, I'm sure you know better. And I wish you the best of luck with all your success."

 

[Batutta]

I agree, their presence...but again, many won't even give you their presence. They won't attach without funding and their agent will ignore you without money. Remember the Corrado thread? He had to lie and say funding was in place just to get them in it. Then he went and got funding and made good on it.

Well no one wants to look like a shmuck and end up in a crappy movie, or put their client in a crappy movie. They have their jobs and reputations at stake. And risking being put in a small budget film by untested talent is a huge risk.

 

[Darren Levine]

wow, the more i read dov's full post, the more my hand feels the urge to facepalm....

"STEP 8: VOILLA! You have a movie. And you have $140-$240 left over for Social Media marketing that the next “Blair Witch” or “Paranormal” or “pi” or “Clerks” is here."

Yes, he just alluded to the point that 140-240 dollars will do for your film what those known films did with their (social media)marketing.... he's clever i'll give him that, that he doesn't make direct comparisons or statements, but to people who can't read between the lines or don't know more about marketing/filmmaking, it's downright misleading.

 

[john threat]

i work for freeeee! i love to work. Also - i dont get it. I live in NY. All the actors are rich and can buy a film any time they want.

poor actors? yeah right.

 

[Darren Levine]

an interesting and well thought out first hand experience of one of dov's classes:

http://www.jamespmercurio.com/review_dov.html

 

[filmmakerguy]

he sure is swift, and smartly condescending... "D, I'm sure you know better. And I wish you the best of luck with all your success."

Lots of truth in his post, make it happen with what you got. Get the actors you can afford, if you can't afford to pay, find actors who will do it for deferred and don't beat yourself up about it because you are bringing stuff to the table. They need you to get their career off the ground just as much as you need them.


I don't see how anyone can disagree with what he says. They are words of optimism and encouragement. A bright future lays ahead gentlemen, right over the horizon. A ship has arrived. Lets make some great movies with what we got. We can do it. We can make the next big thing and launch our film careers.

Seems like the sort of pep talk we all need outside of the typical discouragement you get everywhere else.

 

[Gary Huff]

Seems like the sort of pep talk we all need outside of the typical discouragement you get everywhere else.

There's a difference between "discouragement" and blunt "this is how it is". If you get discouraged because it is difficult, and the odds aren't in your favor (the vast majority of films do not make any money) then this is not for you.

There's a difference between saying, "You can't do it," and "this is what it takes. it's hard, it can be unrewarding at times, and you need to have the right reasons for doing it in the first place".

I see no need to sugarcoat anything. If someone is making a film for any reason other than they find the process itself personally fulfilling, or they have a movie they want to see get made, then I hope they are discouraged in order to save them money and from wasting other people's time.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

I don't see how anyone can disagree with what he says. They are words of optimism and encouragement.

The problem I have with Dov's advice that is he offers optimism and encouragement to the director at the cost of the actor.

His words do not sound like a pep talk that is saying 'we're all in this together' - instead he is saying (essentially) 'They need you more than you need them. You are better than them, you contribute more than them, they are not as important as you are.'

 

[filmmakerguy]

The problem I have with Dov's advice that is he offers optimism and encouragement to the director at the cost of the actor.

His words do not sound like a pep talk that is saying 'we're all in this together' - instead he is saying (essentially) 'They need you more than you need them. You are better than them, you contribute more than them, they are not as important as you are.'

If you feel that way, post that on there and see what he says?