Trouble finding older actors

[dmitrizigany]

It's better to pay everyone something than to pay a few and not the others.

That's so true.
I work on a live cabaret/circus show at the moment. Considering the hours you have put in, it's really bad pay. But everybody get the same, performers, technicians etc. Asking people to work for free or cheap is easier (and fair) if everybody does it for free or the same amount.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Boy this is a common complaint, and actors totally disagree. I've worked with a number of theater actors, and they do great in film. A good director can get a good actor to tone it down for film. Don't sell actors short.

Of course there are theater actors who are good on film. I've worked with a number who can do both well.

And it's quite true that a good director makes a big difference.

Just know that not all theater actors can make the transition, even with a good director. And not all good film actors can do theater well. If you find a theater actor you think might work well for a film role you're casting, then you need to audition him or her doing your character and material to see if they can do it well.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[paulears]

The thing with money is that it forces you to put a value on every component. As a viewer (call me a consumer) - my number one aim is to believe in what I am watching. What do consumers see first? Actors. They rarely notice good acting, but immediately spot bad acting. Locations are always variable. Actors less so. If you cannot travel to India to the Taj Mahal, would Brighton do instead? Both have similar buildings in some aspects.

Nothing infuriates actors who know they are good more than being lower down the pecking order than they should be. Actors are the Primary asset your production has. Technical people are support. I think you've made it clear that you have the modern view if many new filmmakers - the kit and the other wallpaper is more important than the actors. You also don't see it. Actors are creatives, and need looking after, or they perform badly. They often demand respect and need cosseting. The technical people don't even notice the actors quite a bit of the time, or consider them something that gets in the way of what they do. Directors need either endless patience or a big stick. Rubbish acting means people switch off, and no matter what lens you hired or location reached, if the acting is bad - THAT is what will be seen and remembered by the audience.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Well the fact (in my opinion) is that EVERY aspect is pretty much equally important, if your goal is to produce the best possible film you can. Most every person involved can say, "Without me, you'd have no film." (Okay, maybe not PA's. But you get the picture.) Writer, producer, director, actors, DP, sound, lighting, editing, art direction, even craft services......if any is deficient, the film suffers for it.

It's easy to get caught up in the excitement of the technology -- high tech camera gear, sound gear, anything with "gear" attached to its name, gets a guy's blood pumping! Some people get so excited that they think using the latest high-tech gear will give them a GREAT film. It won't. It can HELP you. It can increase your chances of having a great film. But if your script is weak or your on-camera talent isn't great, all the gear in the world won't make it a great film. In fact, great actors can take a marginal script and turn it into something people will want to see. It would be very hard for crew to do that.

I would rather have a great script, great cast, and average equipment and crew than to have an average script, average cast and GREAT equipment and crew.

So is it possible to get really good actors who will work for free? Yes, it's possible. But you shouldn't expect them to work for free. If you do, then you likely won't get them again. And remember -- if they're not getting paid, then they have no reason to be committed to your project. They can easily leave you in the lurch when something better comes along. Who could blame them?

 

[ED299]

Right up front I'll point out that I have no experience with hiring crew or actors. But I do have experience dealing with people who need to be paid.

Since your budget is small it sounds like your going to need the good will of the people working for little or nothing on your production. If you have $4K and you have a good idea of what your fixed costs are why not show the budget to your crew and potential cast so they can see exactly how much money there is an where it's going. Then if you've got $X to spend on actors and you can show them what their share will be, they can tell you up front if they're OK with that. Be open and honest right up front. Then there are no secrets and no surprises when someone finds out that you've made a better deal with someone else. Better to have those discussions before you start work than have someone get mad and walk out.

 

[scottfs]

Oh boy, what I hear over and over again is to keep all salaries quiet. Actors, in particular, aren't going to be happy if actor A is getting twice what he is!

An option is to give a stipend or a small amount (gas money) and a share of the profits (if any) if/when the film sells.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Oh boy, what I hear over and over again is to keep all salaries quiet. Actors, in particular, aren't going to be happy if actor A is getting twice what he is!

An option is to give a stipend or a small amount (gas money) and a share of the profits (if any) if/when the film sells.

Of course, short films almost never sell or make any money. But everyone involved knows that. A stipend or small amount should be paid to everyone. Anything is better than nothing, but it needs to be fair. It's okay to pay Actor A more than Actor D if Actor A has more scenes, more shooting days, etc. And paying a lead more than a supporting or bit player isn't unusual. You're right though -- paying some and not others is a bad idea. As is paying crew and not actors.