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

[filmmakerguy]

I'm friends with a number of actors on Facebook and from time to time, I read a rant from an actor on unpaid gigs and how actors should be paid. One actor even went as far as saying, that if you have been doing movies for a while and still aren't paying actors, then you haven't progressed as a filmmaker, hinting maybe you should give it up. Reading some of these rants from actors can be very discouraging as a poor filmmaker trying to get a low budget movie off the ground. I always feel the need to respond to them, but don't want to be dogpiled by their angry actor friends.

Then I read Dov Simens update yesterday..........

IMPORTANT POINT: Don’t ask me what to pay the actors? Stupid, stupid, stupid question. What do they get paid when doing a useless short. Answer $0. Now, you’re offering all these millions of actors that are looking for an Opening Title Credit in a feature film an opportunity to launch their career… No Joke “They should pay you”. They’re happy with (A) Food & (B) Credit. And if they ask for money tell them “Go do a short”.

“THE $2,000 FEATURE FILM”…. (“Got $2K? Yes. Then make a Movie”)
source: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Movie-Cloud/388775021155092





So I wanted to talk about this controversial subject, why aren't actors paying us? We spend months to years writing the screenplay. We spend months in pre-pro with casting, prepping everything, doing all this producer work on it. We spend all this time directing it and many of us also edit it. We either bring our own gear to the table or find a way to get the gear, the locations, the art direction, the everything.

And most of the time, we are never paid. We don't make any money. Many of us get screwed by distributors. We go into it knowing this because ultimately we're just trying to launch our careers and want to shoot the best movie we can. We spend literally thousands honing our craft, buying the gear to make our dreams come true. And many actors aren't willing to spend any money to do the same. Many of them could have the lead in the film and wouldn't put in one red cent. Some are so inconsiderate that they won't even promote the movie which is virtually free to do. It's the least they could do but they won't even do that.

This subject has always fascinated me because I once heard a photographer say he got pissed because a model he met had the nerve to say he should pay her to take her photos. He was like, WHAT? I've been doing this for so many years, I have all this thousand dollar equipment and training and knowledge, no, you pay me.

And then I've heard models who say the complete opposite...I don't do unpaid stuff, I don't care who you are. You pay me. There is some weird balance where some photographers only do paid work and some models only do paid work. I can only imagine, these people will likely never work together.

And now I'm noticing many actors saying "I only do paid work".





I know how this thread is going to go...so this is more of a rant. Indulge me. :cheesy:

 

[Gary Huff]

By your logic, once you've paid off your equipment, you shouldn't be charging for shooting, outside of maybe lunch and gas.

Where do you get the that acting is not work? Should people not be paid for work? Perhaps you should work more at getting investment money to the level of where you can make your film and pay people a living wage to help you make it.

And the idea that actors should pay you is like making a flat out statement that your film will do gangbusters and launch their careers, when in reality, if the film even gets finished in the first place, it probably won't do much, if any, business.

 

[MattinSTL]

One or both parties can get potential gain based on their talent... on that sliding scale I can see either deserving money from the other party... or if what they bring is equal... they should both be paid accordingly, but a real production will get the best actor they can... and a good actor doesn't have to pay to work.

i.e. an unknown actor with something to prove... and ALL unknowns have something to prove... would be lucky to show his/her abilities without having to spend his/her own money... but of course this hinges on the talent of the production.

"Film" is always going to be a mix of passion, obsession, frustration, and pay... in that order.

 

[filmmakerguy]

So you disagree with Dov Simens?

 

[Gary Huff]

So you disagree with Dov Simens?

Absolutely. Dov Simens isn't making a living making films...he's making a living selling his "How To" material to suckers.

 

[filmmakerguy]

Why is it that when a photographer works on a photo concept with a model, the photographer is paid by the model. If an actor needs head shots, they pay the photographer $200+ or whatever.

However when a movie director works on a movie concept with an actor, the movie director doesn't get paid by the actor? Doing a movie is a lot more work than taking a few photos. You are talking sometimes over a year of someone's life working on something just so you can look good as an actor.


double standard?

 

[Gary Huff]

Which photographer are you talking about? Which model?

A photographer can't really use headshots for their portfolio. They're headshots, not interesting (I'm sure some do, but that's usually a mistake). But a photographer might want to put together a project for his/her portfolio, and wants a model that is in demand and can ask for (and receive) compensation for their time and use of their likeness.

What can't you understand about this?

 

[MattinSTL]

It's because the photographer doesn't have much to gain in that scenario.

If he/she did... they'd probably take the pics for free. Again... I think whoever has the balance of talent is the most likely to be paid. If the model is known and the photographer isn't... the model gets the money... or vice-versa.

I don't think there are many people beating the system for long.

 

[Gary Huff]

Let's also say that an actor pays you, acts in your film, and then you fail to deliver a finished work. Do you really want to set yourself up for legal action (even if small claims court) because you couldn't uphold your end of the bargain?

 

[MattinSTL]

Really the biggest hole in this concept is that a decent actor wouldn't have to pay to be in something... and a decent production wouldn't even think that way.

The premise is flawed.

 

[Gary Huff]

Really the biggest hole in this concept is that a decent actor wouldn't have to pay to be in something.

I agree completely, just trying to throw some practical reasons out there considering such an asinine statement by Mr. Simens to begin with.

 

[filmmakerguy]

The photographer is building up their portfolio of work, just like anyone else. That $500 or whatever that model pays, will go towards him hiring his hair and make-up artist to assure he snaps the best looking photos to use in his portfolio. He'll just put those photos on his website and roll that into booking more gigs/work. He's got stuff to gain obviously.

The only difference is people look at the photographers as bringing value because he's bringing all his equipment and experience and they don't look at it like that for movie directors. Nobody takes us seriously, like Gary said, it's not like your movie is going to go anywhere. You probably won't even complete it. And like you even hinted, probably cause the lack of talent/balance or you got more to gain.

Everyone including actors talk like they are doing us this huge favor. I think we are doing them the favor. They have more to gain. Let me see them spend months writing, going into pre-pro, shooting/directing, editing, looking for distribution, etc.

We bust our asses to make a movie and we don't get half the respect photographers get where people would even think to put in money into the project they are in. I've yet to ever see an actor say "don't worry, we'll pay for the make-up and hair." Yet they do it all the time with photographers when they need photos done.

We barely get any respect, I think Dov is right.

 

[Batutta]

This is kind of a pointless question, because on the income scale, aspiring actors rank somewhere just above homeless junkie. Funding a movie with their money won't get you far...I think all things being equal, with both sides working for free, some kind of profit sharing contract where everyone has a stake in the success of the project is the most equitable scenario.

 

[Gary Huff]

They have more to gain.

What do these actors have more to gain exactly?

Let me see them spend months writing, going into pre-pro, shooting/directing, editing, looking for distribution, etc.

You're right. Now go make your movie and don't use any actors and see how far that gets you.

We bust our asses to make a movie and we don't get half the respect photographers get where people would even think to put in money into the project they are in.

I think you need to stop bringing up photographers. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

I've yet to ever see an actor say "don't worry, we'll pay for the make-up and hair." Yet they do it all the time with photographers when they need photos done.

Do you have a specific example? I've had models do their own makeup and hair, but never paid for a MUA to do it.

We barely get any respect, I think Dov is right.

You think Dov is right because you're his intended market...those people who think they can max out a credit card to make their film because it'll make millions and make them rich. The world doesn't work like that, and the sooner you realize it, the better off you'll be before you get yourself into a financial bind.

 

[filmmakerguy]

This is kind of a pointless question, because on the income scale, aspiring actors rank somewhere just above homeless junkie. Funding a movie with their money won't get you far...I think all things being equal, with both sides working for free, some kind of profit sharing contract where everyone has a stake in the success of the project is the most equitable scenario.

This is the problem though, more and more actors are saying "I only do paid work." Many are starting to snub their nose at any filmmaker who would dare ask them to be in something unpaid.

This is my point...like Dov says, just move forward and find someone else then. And that is what I do. But I just find it interesting considering how much you bring to the table that they snub their nose at you when really they should be paying you.

You both have the same goal in mind, to get your careers off the ground. They want to be an actor, you want to be a movie director. They need you to write/find a good script, produce it, shoot it, edit it, release it, promote it. Unless they are willing to do all these things they sure as hell aren't going to be doing as much acting. They can keep on competing for the few scraps here and there...and many of them do a lot of complaining about how there aren't more roles for them or how they haven't been in anything in a while. Yet they sure don't seem to get how much work goes into the process. I feel like if they did, they would quit being so naive and show their support for a project that is worthwhile.

I can't tell you how many kickstarter/indiegogo campaigns I've seen that have failed. Where the lead actors won't even put $100 into it. Seriously? You're the lead. The filmmaker has already put in thousands in film equipment, editing equipment and countless hours on the project. This is why so many give up on their dream and just go and do commercial work. It's a very thankless job where everyone expects you to do everything.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

The difference between a photographer approached to do headshots is that the young actress is paying for work to be done for them. The client dictates what they would like.

If an actor or actress wanted to hire a production team to make a movie for them then sure they would have to pay but they would also get creative control as its not your movie and profits (which on the indie level there really isn't).

You can't have someone fund something as a service then not give them what they have paid for and no director in their right mind would make a contract to deliver a certain level of fame and roles based off the project. It would be the end up your career with the reality of the industry.

 

[Gary Huff]

It's a very thankless job where everyone expects you to do everything.

Maybe you should consider a different career then.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

This is the problem though, more and more actors are saying "I only do paid work." Many are starting to snub their nose at any filmmaker who would dare ask them to be in something unpaid.

If actors/actresses aren't willing to take low pay or no pay jobs here and there then they aren't just starting out just as almost everyone in the film making industry has started out taking low/no pay work on sets to get experience and so do actors. Just because they won't work for free on your film doesn't mean they don't pick and choose their projects. Maybe they aren't as impressed with your script and its chances to launch their career.

I can't tell you how many kickstarter/indiegogo campaigns I've seen that have failed. Where are all the lead actors at, they won't even put $100 into it? Seriously? You're the lead. The filmmaker has already put in thousands in film equipment, editing equipment and countless hours on the project. This is why so many give up on their dream and just go and do commercial work. It's a very thankless job where everyone expects you to do everything.

If they put money into a pot then what your suggesting is a co-op system where you would have to split any profits if there were any. A lot of people don't want to 'invest' in things that have very little chance of success but might act in it for experience. Big difference. Kickstarter campaigns are donations not investments.

 

[filmmakerguy]

You can't have someone fund something as a service then not give them what they have paid for and no director in their right mind would make a contract to deliver a certain level of fame and roles based off the project. It would be the end up your career with the reality of the industry.

Investors and studios dump in millions and get some say but they leave you with the creative control if they believe in you...you know..if you're Steven Spielberg or whatever.

But if you're just some no name director, you get no respect. That's really what it's all about, fighting and pushing to do that one movie that gets people like Gary Huff to shut up. The guys who say you bring nothing to the table, or less than the actors, or that you won't even finish or your movie will go nowhere. Or that you should just give up if you aren't getting thanked for all the work you do.

Just really stuffing a sock in their fat greasy talentless faces and proving yourself. All those hacks out there that put you down because they are worthless and want everyone else to be just as worthless as they are. That's what it comes down to. Rising up and proving yourself. You got to pave your own way, Dov is 100% right. Go shoot your feature for $2k, $500, whatever you can scrape together and make it happen. Nobody will ever take you seriously until you do that one movie that proves to them you can do it.

They're not doing you a favor, you're doing them a favor. If they want to get paid, tell them to go do a short. Dov Simens has got me fired up this morning.

 

[Gary Huff]

Kickstarter campaigns are donations not investments.

A thousand times this.