Trouble finding older actors

D

Denialorcoped

Well-known member
I am in the casting process of my short film, it has a budget of 4k but don't have much to pay actors. I've found it really difficult trying to find an actor in his 60's and maybe early 70's, which the role requires. I am from Chicago and most of what I see are younger people. Anyone provide some ideas of where I could look?
 
Oh boy, I sympathise. I've had the same problem. It's bad when you don't have enough money to pay. The reasons are fairly obvious. Short films are something you do to establish a career. If you are old, you either have already established a career, or you've dropped out, so there is nobody left of that age group to do short films... unless you pay quite a bit and get an established actor. The way I got old actors last time I did this was through word of mouth, unfortunately. Put out the word, and see what the cat drags in. Best of luck!
 
Not sure if it's the same, but in the UK good sources of older people are from amateur dramatic societies. Many are actually quite skilled and do it for fun. Older people understand choice, and hate exploitation. They may be happy to do it but you need to be open about the lack of money. They'll understand, but hate it when they see signs of budgets by the equipment, locations and other spend areas. They then get grumpy the actors warrant so little of it. So you need to be careful with your approach and explanations.
 
Denialorcoped said:
I am in the casting process of my short film, it has a budget of 4k but don't have much to pay actors.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't understand this kind of thinking at all. You can have a great script and high production value, but if you have mediocre acting, you have a mediocre film at best.
A good script and good acting with halfway decent production value, still leaves you with a good film.
It seems to me like misplaced priorities. If you have 4K to spend on a short film, you have money to pay actors, you're just choosing not to. And as Paulears points out, experienced actors will see that money is being spent, just not on them. They will feel undervalued. Not really what you want on your set.
 
Chicago has a program where you volunteer to usher and they send you out to different theater productions each week . Good way to see and get know actors around town without spending much cash.
 
Well if I have to spend money on crew, equipment, locations, and props then that unfortunately doesn't leave much for my cast. You say a "mediocre film at best" but that is better than no film at all which would happen if I paid my actors but didn't pay for things that are essential.
 
Denialorcoped said:
Well if I have to spend money on crew, equipment, locations, and props then that unfortunately doesn't leave much for my cast. You say a "mediocre film at best" but that is better than no film at all which would happen if I paid my actors but didn't pay for things that are essential.
Click to expand...
That sounds like you don't think actors are essential.
 
Denialorcoped said:
Well if I have to spend money on crew, equipment, locations, and props then that unfortunately doesn't leave much for my cast. You say a "mediocre film at best" but that is better than no film at all which would happen if I paid my actors but didn't pay for things that are essential.
Click to expand...

How do you justify paying crew and not actors? Is crew more important somehow? Do you feel they are more 'skilled' labor? I suppose they are bringing their gear to the shoot, so you don't have to rent or purchase any?

Actors work as hard as anybody. They are as integral and important, if not moreso, than what gear you shoot on or who handles it. It's easy to get wrapped up in gear envy, becoming enamored with the idea of shooting in 4K or with a Red or whatever. "Lots of dolly shots, crane shots, sliders -- it's gonna be GREAT!" Too much of that is overkill. Even if all your shots are great and your sound is awesome, what good is all of that if your actors are untalented or inexperienced? When the film is finished, nobody's going to say, "Wow! That was really AWESOME camera work! GREAT sound! Too bad the actors dropped the ball." No.....they're going to say, "Eh....I wasn't impressed."

If you're producing the film, then it's your job to make sure that ALL elements of the film are the very best they can be. That includes actors. The RIGHT person for each character, not just whoever you stumble across or whoever is willing to do it for free. A good producer's #1 rule is to always hire the BEST, most experienced, most skilled, best trained person you can afford for EVERY job, whether in front of or behind the camera.

And no, a 'mediocre film' is NOT better than no film. Unless you want it to tell the world that you are a mediocre filmmaker.

Not trying to be harsh. I wish your project all the best. But do it right. Make it absolutely the best it can be. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time and talent.
 
Denialorcoped said:
Well if I have to spend money on crew, equipment, locations, and props then that unfortunately doesn't leave much for my cast.
Click to expand...

BTW, I've made two feature-length movies and several shorts, and spent almost nothing -- in one case, absolutely nothing -- on locations. I've shot in hospitals, bars, restaurants, corporate offices, mansions, private homes, even shot in a municipal cemetery and had a custom-cut REAL gravestone delivered, setup, and taken away when we were finished with it -- and none of it cost me a dime. And no, this wasn't provided by friends and family -- all of it came through going out and making contacts with people I'd never met and who'd never heard of me before.

Lots of people and businesses are excited to have a film crew come in and shoot something. To them, it's glamorous and fun! All you have to do is beat the bushes. With some effort, you can cut your costs considerably without having to shaft your cast and crew.
 
Should everyone be paid, of course but the reality is in the major markets you have a glut of very good actors who want to work. Give them a challenging script with strong characters and a realistic production timeframe and treat them with respect and dignity and many strong actors will work for free. Especially if you just don't have the cash. I'd forgive a producer who paid a sound mixer and no one else , many times you don't have a choice (extreme low budget shorts). But thought less unnecessary spending is usually a recipe for disaster.
 
lambert said:
Should everyone be paid, of course but the reality is in the major markets you have a glut of very good actors who want to work. Give them a challenging script with strong characters and a realistic production timeframe and treat them with respect and dignity and many strong actors will work for free. Especially if you just don't have the cash. I'd forgive a producer who paid a sound mixer and no one else , many times you don't have a choice (extreme low budget shorts). But thought less unnecessary spending is usually a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

And there it is. "If they're willing to work for free, then LET them!"

Not good practice.

Sorry, but paying the people who are working hard to make YOUR vision a reality is not "unnecessary spending" in my book.
 
Try local community theaters. Many actors drop out of the business only to find their way back to the theater when their lives provide the room for it. By that time, they're in the age range you seek, or close to it. I know a few really fine actors who appear in local community theater. They'd also do it for the experience and love of it.
 
The thoughtless unnecessary spending I was referring to was spending all your cash on production side and none on the actors. Sorry for being unclear. I should add uneven is a better word.
 
Community theaters are a good idea, but be sure you're finding actors who have previous film experience. Theater acting is a different skill entirely, often not well suited to film work.
 
lambert said:
I'd forgive a producer who paid a sound mixer and no one else , many times you don't have a choice (extreme low budget shorts).
Click to expand...

It's better to pay everyone something than to pay a few and not the others. I would love to have had $4K for making a short. But that's just me.
 
In general I'd agree with you David on pay for everyone but on shorts with a few hundred dollar budgets and a few half day shooting I'd rather have the flexibility to give to the actors who are struggling. The last few shorts we shot in Austin we didn't pay any actors and were clear about it in the postings . Some of the actors were very well off, some weren't. When we found out someone was struggling we got them some cash. Also most of the actors were on set for 2-3 hours total. The leads more of course. Crew was the director and a someone different to help each day. As far as paying the sound mixer it is the hardest position to fill gratis, they get nothing for a reel like everyone else and many times have a huge investment in gear .
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top