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

[Luis Caffesse]

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

No offense to Dov, but I'm not that interested in what he says - nor is he interested in what I have to say.
I'm pretty certain he would respond with the same dismissive yet polite response that imdjay received.
And I wouldn't fault him for it. I wouldn't go on his site and criticize him anymore than I would want someone to join our site only to post about how they think our community is flawed is misguided.

Dov, and many people like him, have discovered that the best way to make money in the indie film world is to make money off indie filmmakers.
I'm certain he has plenty of great tips for filmmakers, I don't doubt that for a second. But the underlying attitude of much of his advice breeds an attitude of entitlement and disrespect that I just can't get behind.

 

[Gary Huff]

Dov, and many people like him, have discovered that the best way to make money in the indie film world is to make money off indie filmmakers.

+1000

 

[Justin Kuhn]

I shot an indie that I was paid for--a lump sum, didn't end up being a great day rate, but I was really excited about the project because I thought it was a great script. I wanted to make it happen so I took the hits I needed to take. One of the leads was hired; she was an incredible actress, but stuck in bit parts in TV so she was willing to do the rate necessary to make a feature lead role happen. The male lead was a friend of the director's; HE was putting money into the film as an executive producer, because he wanted his career to go somewhere and the quality of projects he'd been involved in prior was not high, comparatively. But he wasn't paying to be in the film as such. It was just worth enough to him to invest in the project, because he saw it as investing in his future, because he believed in the project.

It's not like you have to even pay an actor a lot in certain situations. An independent actor who's good, but not breaking through yet, will pour a lot of themselves into something they're making dirt wages on if they believe in the project.

 

[Kholi]

Haven't seen this reason pop up, succinctly anyway.

Why pay actors to be in your feature?

So that they show up when you have to shoot.

That's reason enough for me to find 100~150/day on a no-budget picture to pay everyone at the very least. Why should a solid actor show up on your likely-to-be-crappy-and-do-nothing-for-his-or-her-career-no-budget-feature-film, just because you think they should?

It's harder to justify paying on a short film, but then it's hard to justify a short film's expense to begin with.

No offense meant, but it oft seems like he's preying on the naive...

 

[Justin Kuhn]

Haven't seen this reason pop up, succinctly anyway.

Why pay actors to be in your feature?

So that they show up when you have to shoot.

That's reason enough for me to find 100~150/day on a no-budget picture to pay everyone at the very least. Why should a solid actor show up on your likely-to-be-crappy-and-do-nothing-for-his-or-her-career-no-budget-feature-film, just because you think they should?

+1 to that. Shot another indie where none of the actors were getting paid, all amateur wannabes...our male lead had a "powder problem," if you will, and one of the female leads ended up getting written out of the movie because she was unreliable on her lines, as well as punctuality if she showed up at all.

 

[filmmakerguy]

^No offense Kholi but didn't you raise something like $10k+ for your feature through kickstarter? And on top of that, you own/shoot on a red camera? I think it's a bit different in your case, not everyone is as fortunate as you and we got to work with a lot less to try to make something happen. I think some of you guys are talking like paying all the actors is an option we have to take. To many of us, it's the difference between some independent movies happening or not. I don't know any filmmaker that wouldn't like to pay everyone involved in the cast and crew including themself. But until you've "made it", many times that isn't an option.

 

[hscully]

I don't think that it's the same for an actor in a feature because you shoot on contiguous days during the week. It's the same for crew. I'm an actor and a filmmaker. Almost all the money I raise goes to paying people, crew and actors. I recently DP'd a short where the actors weren't paid, but were otherwise well treated. I was on a weekend when they could.

I think the idea of asking an actor to pay to be in your feature, short, or whatever you're shooting is not a good idea at all. You paid for gear. Actors pay for classes, headshots, transportation and opportunity costs to audition. It's not like they don't invest in their careers. If someone wants to volunteer and it doesn't cost them anything to do it (i.e. you feed them and provide transportation) then that's cool for crew or actors. Would you ask a grip to pay to work on your film for a credit? I think this notion is absurd

 

[Kholi]

^No offense Kholi but didn't you raise something like $10k+ for your feature through kickstarter?

17.5K

And on top of that, you own/shoot on a red camera?

Well, technically, the only video acquisition device I own's an iPhone 4. Right now it's shattered because I slept on it.

I think it's a bit different in your case, not everyone is as fortunate as you and we got to work with a lot less to try to make something happen.

Ah man... well, I don't know how to respond to that! haha. Mostly because it's actually pretty inaccurate/wrong. Not offensive, just not true.

I think some of you guys are talking like paying all the actors is an option we have to take. To many of us, it's the difference between some independent movies happening or not.

Depends on where you are, as well. If you can find decent actors that will hang with you for several months while you shoot your picture out, that's great. The likelyhood is that you either won't find decent actors or they wont' show up when you need them to.

I don't know any filmmaker that wouldn't like to pay everyone involved in the cast and crew including themself. But until you've "made it", many times that isn't an option.

If you can figure out how to put out a decent product without paying anyone, then you should do it. What Dov is suggesting out of the gate is "Just don't pay actors" and that mentality is a recipe for failure, in my opinion (Take it or leave it of course).

Pay what you can as a token of good faith, and hope that participation and dedication will be the token returned to you is what I'm saying.

Oh, and edit here... the best way to get actors to show up in the first place is a decent script and work history. People want to collaborate with others that do good work. Association is also pretty valuable. I'd probably spend more time worrying about that, if I didn't have the money (which for me personally, I don't) than worrying about anything else.

 

[Justin Kuhn]

I think Kholi's point is well-made. If you can't scrape up the money you need by earning it yourself, or borrowing it, or kickstarting...you just have to get really creative with your story, i.e. how can lack of continuity, funds or even actors at all act as a boundary that in fact inspires creativity?

 

[hscully]

^No offense Kholi but didn't you raise something like $10k+ for your feature through kickstarter? And on top of that, you own/shoot on a red camera? I think it's a bit different in your case, not everyone is as fortunate as you and we got to work with a lot less to try to make something happen. I think some of you guys are talking like paying all the actors is an option we have to take. To many of us, it's the difference between some independent movies happening or not. I don't know any filmmaker that wouldn't like to pay everyone involved in the cast and crew including themself. But until you've "made it", many times that isn't an option.

I'm not sure it's true but if he RAISED the money then he did the work. It's a lot of work managing a Kickstarter or Indie Go Go campaign, fundrasiers, letter campaigns, auctions. Jeez! That's not being fortunate, that's doing the work of producing when you're not established enough to garner investment. I have to raise > $35K to pay people to shoot my feature in June. That's the deal. That's the hard work I have to do if I want to produce this feature. What would you expect? The actors to pay YOU? Oh, right.. you do

 

[john threat]

Come on dudes! kickstarter makes it even EASIER for you to get your actors to pay into your movie. Professional actors show up whether you are paying them or not. Plus you can always do deferred contracts which is usually just the same as getting them to do it for free.

Free acting is the future!

 

[David W. Jones]

Not trying to ruffle any feathers, but there is also a line to be drawn in filmmaking and you are either on one side or the other.

Either you are an amateur/hobbyist, or you are a professional and filmmaking is a business. Sometimes hobbyist forget that professional filmmakers put food on the table/earn their living by getting paid for their services in filmmaking.


http://www.irs.gov/uac/Business-or-Hobby?-Answer-Has-Implications-for-Deductions

 

[Darren Levine]

it does seem that much of the breakdown is about where there line is that a filmmaker needs to rise above to be able to pay actors

however...

i don't think there's a line, it's an attitude. If i'm doing a project that i can't pay an actor for, i give some other incentive, whether it be deferred pay, a percent of the film, etc... but i don't see any real excuse to deny an actor or anyone on your set at the bare minimum a stipend. everyone has travel and living costs. not even homeless people live for free.

and where dov rubs the wrong way is this attitude that you're the dictator and here's how you'll get your film done for this little scrap of money by taking advantage of anyone who is trying to get their career going.

if you read that article/review i posted from someone who attended his class. the overall impression he got was the there is good info to be learned in the class, though dov personally admits he's no director, and has only professionally line produced a few old low budget films. more importantly, the reviewer repeatedly notes about dov's harsh attitude, which dov excuses by saying he's not one for babying or being lovely dovy about the tough business of filmmaking. but that to me is just not an acceptable excuse to elevate to the attitude that he exudes.

it seems many who take his classes take to the harsh attitude as he presents it and see it as him being realistic and giving good tough love to roughen them up for their next film or whatnot. i can't be sure since i'm only going off of reviews some have written, but there definitely is an air of entitlement that dov presents and encourages to filmmakers.


i'm actually starting a feature, and im heading off to a production meeting later this evening. the director has the entirely opposite approach to dov. he does demand the best from everyone, but at the same time he shows respect and appreciation for everyone and their efforts, and as we're coproducing it, we both agreed about how much we can compensate everyone, and even planning end of week bonuses, as a thank you for work well done. during the first production meeting the director even went as far to say that if we succeed at the task, everyone gets the credit, as he praises the cast and crew and not just himself for making the film a success, and on the flip side, if the film should fail, he shoulders all the blame.

it's two different attitudes. one is a positive one, one is.... well...

 

[john threat]

and where dov rubs the wrong way is this attitude that you're the dictator and here's how you'll get your film done

Dov is right! you are the dictator on your film! you dictate! If you dont - well, projects done by committee tend to blow. Too many cooks spoil the pot.

So whats need is a contract that says to an actor, as we enter this new age - you pay to play - but you have no say! in creative matters in the contract. If he complains about control - then he is outta there - no money back.

 

[Gary Huff]

it's two different attitudes. one is a positive one, one is.... well...

Entitled and "know-it-all".

Can't learn from your mistakes if you think you know it all already. That's why most people with that attitude don't go anywhere.

 

[Gary Huff]

If he complains about control - then he is outta there - no money back.

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

 

[rsbush]

No actor in their right mind is going to pay to be in an untried, untested filmmaker's project. The only thing you "really" offer them is a chance that they may get some usable footage for their reel. If an actor or filmmaker thinks these projects offer anything more, they are simply deluded. This is no reflection of the filmmaker's talent, what it is, is reality. The odds that an untried, untested filmmaker is going to launch an actor's career are so astronomically small that they may as well not exist. The odds that they may be able to get something for their reel are slightly better, but certainly not enough to pay for.


Yes, actors needing footage for their reels are a dime a dozen. But guess what, since the HDSLR evolution, so are untried, untested filmmakers. Those filmmakers don't hold all the cards as they did not too long ago. It used to be really hard for an actor to get any footage of their work, the projects were far and few between. Not so today. Throw a stone, you'll hit an aspiring filmmaker. This is probably why more aspiring actors think they should be paid today, the ratio of aspiring actors to aspiring filmmakers is a whole lot more balanced than at any time in history. They know you're paying for a lot of stuff, why not pay for the one thing you can't make your film without? They can always move on to the next casting notice.There are plenty.

 

[Egg Born Son]

An actor may choose to work for free but certainly shouldn't be paying to be in the movie. If they want to put money in to see it happen then they are producer/actors, should get both a say in the film and a return proportional to their investment. Or otherwise negotiated terms. Even if you take the attitude of director as dictator, that is insofar as allowed by the producer.

 

[bosindy]

IMO any filmmaker who would have their actors pay is not worth paying. Any filmmaker worth paying would never ask their actors to pay. I think having actors work for credit and reel footage is fair when everyone is starting out but it is always preferable to pay professional actors something if you can swing it.

 

[Alex H.]

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... But they never do.

Actually, they do on occasion. And that makes them Producers. And they are credited as such.