So here's a question, about those big choice moments

[Guest]

I'm curious, how hard is it to build up the network out in LA, though?

 

This is how contacts are really and actually made in LA. You move there and you put all of your kids into soccer. You are standing on the sidelines and you can now chit-chat with the parents. Within a few minutes you find this person that does this in the film industry and this person that does that etc. End result, you make contacts, lot's of them.

 

Those contacts lead to other contacts, and pretty soon you have a nice pool of contacts. This type of social networking is critical.

 

Now of course if you don't have kids you can put into soccer, you can use http://www.rent-soccer-kids.com this site will provide you with star players that will impress other parents. This is critical in the LA film scene, no one wants to associate with the parents of kids that suck.

 

R,

[Guest stevie wara]

I am worried that I'll get too comforatable and the directing thing will fall by the wayside - but ultimatly is down to me, not to let that happen. I'm finding the job is giving me more time to develop my own stuff and I've already got some shoots lined up for later this month. So hopefully I can do both in the short to mid term then see what happens and what opportunies come along.

Hi,

 

You might be interested by film director Jay Craven. He is a tenured professor at Marlboro College in Vermont, which doesn't seem at all to get in the way with his ability to write, produce and direct feature films.

 

http://www.disappearancesmovie.com/craven.html

 

I agree that it ultimately comes down to you.

[Guest stevie wara]

Now of course if you don't have kids you can put into soccer, you can use http://www.rent-soccer-kids.com this site will provide you with star players that will impress other parents. This is critical in the LA film scene, no one wants to associate with the parents of kids that suck.

 

Hahaha, that's funny. :lol:

[Tim O'Connor]

Thanks for the input guys. As for you, Tim, in terms of what I want to do in one sentence it would be this: Make a livable wage as a narrative director of photography.

 

Such a clearly defined goal is a good start. For the sake of discussion, what DPs do you know who do this, not necessarily the megabucks feature

cinematographers but ones who make a steady living in the lower-budget world (made for cable, tv movies, maybe some episodic shows) that

is still way higher in budgets than the more familiar to many of us low-budget world of 16mm. features and shorts.

 

One of my friends, who has been the most successful financially of anybody with whom I started, does mostly commercials and high end

corporate stuff. He gets to do some cool things and with budgets way above the low-budget features never mind shorts that we know so well. He got married and bought a nice house and lives well but he never shoots a straight up movie. He gets asked a lot but he sticks with the jobs that pay the best.

 

Does anybody know is there a level of cinematographers out there, maybe in L.A., who make a decent and reliable if not fat income working

steadily on cable movies and tv shows, perhaps turning down higher paying jobs for other gigs to work strictly on films and tv shows?

 

When I say tv shows Adrian I'm thinking of ones that might be more feasible to get, not higher end ones such as say "24" or

"Law and Order" whose per episode budget is still way beyond what many of us ever get to do.

 

I had a friend who moved to L.A. after establishing himself out here and for the first year he starved financially but he had saved and gradually he started working, shooting music videos and episodic shows for lower tiered cable networks and then started to get some features. He did well and once he got going he was able to stay with the work that he likes, even though it doesn't always pay as well as our other friend's jobs.

[John Sprung]

I'm curious, how hard is it to build up the network out in LA, though?

 

You're already starting to do it right here on this forum.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Well that much I know John ;)

And I'm sure I'll do my best to maximize that once I get out there. In the mean-while, if this job happens and while I'm working, I'll be making trips out to LA "scouting," and of course buying a few rounds for people both from here and whom I meet.

 

As for DoPs who make a living wage, well, Tim, my dad did it for 30 some odd years, mostly local stuff for TV and commercials/corporate industrial work, and later on VHS/DVD exercise videos. Nothing wrong with that type of work, and I've done and do it whenever I can, because I quite enjoy shooting. Still, though, I'd be happy to eek out my own living working smaller shows, smaller films, and hell if someone offers me a 30mil feature to Dp, I certainly won't turn it down. But, I'm realistic enough to know that my life as a DoP has been and always will be a smattering of different formats budgets and joys. Of course, given a 2 year time horizon, who knows, Philadelphia may pick up as a major city for film-work, again and I won't have to move and just be able to have a nice war-chest saved up.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Well, so the interview went well. Pity that I didn't screw it up as then this whole worry would be moot. I haven't officially been offered the job, but it appears to be a foregone conclusion. And also apparently the compensation has gone up to near 50K/yr which'd be nice. I am still worried about taking it and missing 2 years of freelancing. Of course, if I am going to move out to LA either tomorrow or in 2 years I'll still have to rebuild a network. . . so at least with this chance I'll have a good amount of money in savings to help with that as I build up the contacts in the industry in LA.

Whether or not I take it when offered, well I've decided i'm going to base that off of the outlook of my bookings for the rest of the year when/if it's offered.

My biggest worry in all of this is that I'm not "good enough," to "make it." It's my own neurotic nature and self doubt perhaps normal, perhaps not. So here's hoping that no matter what I do prove to myself and to others that I am good enough, and hopefully one day in the not to distance future something I've lensed will stir a feeling and a reaction in someone.

Till then, I suppose what I have learned and been reflecting on recently is the need to take things moment by moment. And incedently if anyone wants to hire me to make sure I don't take a desk somewhere, please feel free ;)

[Robert Costello]

A lot of people have bad things to say about Ramen Noodles

then you look at this guy:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/tontantin

 

Like different styles of Ramen, thus is life. Although they get different ratings, notice how each is treated with respect and passion by the taster.

 

The same way you have a passion to be DoP. Each experience or each film or shoot is like a package of Ramen in a way.

 

Go to California. Eat Ramen Noodles. Be around people making movies. Be around big cameras. Double your netflix monthly rentals.

 

or at least make that the goal when you take this job, if just for the money, all the while eating Ramen Noodles and living in a cheap apartment still having doubled your netflix monthly rentals

...

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Sadly can't do netflicks, I have a need to buy DVDs.. ahh the compulsion.. but FYE, buy 3 and get the 4th free ;)

I honestly don't think a move to LA would be right for me just this moment; though I'd be fine eating Rammen when I get out there; I just know that upon arrival you need more than just a bag full of dreams-- that the process of build up a career will take at least a few months of hard work with no income (or little income). So, next egg seems necessary. Alas.

[Robert Costello]

the nest egg is needed. true. but the mental and creative yolk is

much more important for a healthy chicken. form follows finance all too often..

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Quite true. Thankfully I still have a few thousand feet of 16mm laying 'round and SR3, and the new Konvas to really puit through her paces on the weekends, even if i take the job.

[Freya Black]

Second, John's comment about availability of work-- I thought it was just me! Slowwwwww. No one knows knows what the next couple of years will bring.

 

Good luck,

 

Bruce Taylor

 

 

I've got a preety good idea I'm afraid. :(

 

Take that job and stock up on the canned food thats what I say!

 

I would also suggest that it's a good idea to head out to the west coast soon to visit and start meeting people.

2 years is actually a very short time and you are going to need some time to sort things out and get packing!

 

But grab the money and put together what you need to survive.

 

love

 

Freya

[Adrian Sierkowski]

That's the idea Freya ;)

If anything I'll certainly need to shoot out there to find an apartment!

I'm going to evaluate the job v the film when the offer comes in and how my bookings for the year at looking. Right now they were up, but the snow-storm hurt, bad. Everything for a month basically got pushed. But if this offer comes in in say, April, and I've already booked up May/June/July, well then it's a bit of a no brainer that I'll stick with film, as 3 good months of film work can set me for the rest of the year. So, we'll see what comes.

As an aside, anyone have any super-duper networking tips for when I eventually shoot out to LA, aside from of course posting on here that I'll be at X bar with an open tab and an open invite for forum members ;)

[Brian Dzyak]

[quote

Brian Dzyak

The entire "tax incentive" thing is a massive scam/bank robbery.

 

 

 

Why do you say this?

 

 

Because the film industry as a whole has had at least two record setting profitable years in a row. "It" is NOT losing money in the least. So, studios and Producers troll the planet for the state/nation that is willing to hand over the biggest welfare/incentive checks/breaks and they go shoot there. And more often than not, "there" generally means less expensive labor (and ofttimes, less experienced) as well. So, like so many other products, movies are being manufactured for less money every year while the profits go up.

 

You don't see ticket prices going down because manufacturing costs are going down as Milton Friedman promised. You don't see wages of crews going up because profits are good.

 

No, just like every other industry being devastated by (primarily) Republican/Conservative economic ideology/policy, the workers (that's us, the crew) scramble for whatever work we can get, are asked to take concessions at every contract negotiation while governments take massive hits on their tax revenue just so they can get a movie made in their area. Meanwhile, the studios clean up at the front end (in manufacturing savings) and again on the back end (in exhibition) with record setting profits.

 

And this isn't a scam?

 

 

Thankfully, some states ARE finally looking back at their books and are determining that their incentive programs are operating at a loss. Well, DUH! <_<

Edited February 18, 2010 by Brian Dzyak

[Tim O'Connor]

Because the film industry as a whole has had at least two record setting profitable years in a row. "It" is NOT losing money in the least. So, studios and Producers troll the planet for the state/nation that is willing to hand over the biggest welfare/incentive checks/breaks and they go shoot there. And more often than not, "there" generally means less expensive labor (and ofttimes, less experienced) as well. So, like so many other products, movies are being manufactured for less money every year while the profits go up.

 

You don't see ticket prices going down because manufacturing costs are going down as Milton Friedman promised. You don't see wages of crews going up because profits are good.

 

No, just like every other industry being devastated by (primarily) Republican/Conservative economic ideology/policy, the workers (that's us, the crew) scramble for whatever work we can get, are asked to take concessions at every contract negotiation while governments take massive hits on their tax revenue just so they can get a movie made in their area. Meanwhile, the studios clean up at the front end (in manufacturing savings) and again on the back end (in exhibition) with record setting profits.

 

And this isn't a scam?

 

 

Thankfully, some states ARE finally looking back at their books and are determining that their incentive programs are operating at a loss. Well, DUH! <_<

 

 

 

Massachusetts is moving in that direction right now, although since the incentives started four years ago many crew people have worked more than ever, at least on big Hollywood films.

 

Adrian, maybe you can develop a new sitcom "Everybody Loves Ramen" for when you get out there.

[Brian Dzyak]

Massachusetts is moving in that direction right now, although since the incentives started four years ago many crew people have worked more than ever, at least on big Hollywood films.

 

 

Yes, crews out of the "productions centers" (like LA, NYC, and Chicago) have been working more, but at a LOSS to the overall local economies. The jobs "created" are temporary and the numbers haven't added up with the incentives taking MORE out of local economies than is added with the jobs.

 

While a place like Mass. has been benefiting from Corporate Welfare policies, it's only a matter of time until it all dries up as soon as some other city/state/nation throws even more tax savings/incentives at a profitable Corporation (studio) and Mass. will once again "dry up." Then crews in Mass. will likely whine and complain saying that the government should give even MORE incentives/tax cuts to the Industry. So again, the profitable Corporation will cut more costs from the front end while continuing to clean up on the back end... and for what? So a few people can fight over fewer jobs and likely will be willing to cut their wages just for the scraps thus hurting ALL workers everyone around the world? Just so a few already wealthy people can accumulate even more wealth?

 

It started as a snowball with Reagan and turned into an avalanche with NAFTA as Corporations are allowed to ship jobs wherever they want to with NO penalty (via high tariffs) for importing those goods back to the USA. Massachusetts is competing with EVERY nation around the world to keep jobs in the USA by giving tax break gifts to profitable Corporations.

 

People have built their lives in production centers (homes, friends, families) and are now expected to either travel (if asked and allowed) for extended periods or live simpler (read: lose their homes) just to keep working at the job they have chosen.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

If I were to do anything of the sort, I think I'd revisit The Real World formula, with "The Real World: L.A.' and recruit film school students and plop them down somewhere and film them trying to get into the business. Not only would it be marketable as a reality tv show, but also an educational dvd ;)

[Tim O'Connor]

If I were to do anything of the sort, I think I'd revisit The Real World formula, with "The Real World: L.A.' and recruit film school students and plop them down somewhere and film them trying to get into the business. Not only would it be marketable as a reality tv show, but also an educational dvd ;)

 

Hey, if you like doing reality/documentary stuff, do you know anybody in Scranton? That's not too far from you. NBC

has this documentary show about a bunch of people who work in an office. It's called "In the Office" or something. It's

an office in a paper company and even though that sounds like it might be boring, it's actually entertaining although I

don't know why the boss Michael Scott hasn't got booted yet. He's pretty crazy.

 

Your film students reality show sounds good. Just please resist the temptation to call it the "Reel" world. Pleaaaaaase.

[Brian Dzyak]

I understand that there are at least a couple of readers here who aren't interested in having the facts about our economy being discussed. <_< Too bad. Denying truth about global economic issues doesn't really help anyone.

 

But you don't have to take my word for it. The numbers speak for themselves, so I'll let this article back up what I said previously about why our economy is in a shambles (now deleted words):

 

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...ilm_tax_credit/

 

 

 

IT STARTED with Canadian cities luring movie producers with subsidies when the Canadian dollar was low. Then a few US states got into the competition and the race was on. Now, Massachusetts is competing with at least 45 states in offering film tax credits, with some states paying as much as 50 percent of a movie’s production costs.

 

Are states benefiting from this competition? There are potentially two types of benefits - gaining new long-term jobs and a less tangible (and implausible) possibility that people who see the film will be motivated to locate their businesses and major conventions in the state.

 

The supposed pay-off in film employment in Massachusetts is clearly not happening. The Department of Revenue data show that, even assuming that all the jobs in the industry are entirely attributable to the credits, Massachusetts spent $94,000 in credits per full-time equivalent job with salary and benefits of about $68,000. That is a losing bargain.

 

Measured by the tax revenues generated by the subsidized film productions, Massachusetts only gets back about 16 cents per dollar invested. The evidence isn’t any better elsewhere. Connecticut gets an 8-cent return on the dollar, and Rhode Island reaps 28 cents. Michigan state senator Nancy Cassis puts the irrationality of the spending in perspective: “The state needs more than 20,000 small businesses, or almost 148,000 taxpayers with an income of $45,000, just to pay for the credits next year. It takes 789 individuals or 109 small businesses to fund a single star in a movie.’’

 

And that’s exactly what states are financing - skyrocketing marketing costs and the exorbitant pay that top stars get per film. Research by Susan Christopherson of Cornell University shows that producers are no longer employees, but subcontractors to the six major production companies - Sony, Viacom, General Electric, Time Warner, Disney, and News Corporation. As subcontractors, they are responsible for financing the production. In the pursuit of upfront cash, they play states off against each other. And states are eager to play - competing to pay for up to half of these costs, most of which go to the stars and the production companies.

 

The Commonwealth’s expenses can only be justified if they are creating long-term employment here in Massachusetts. But these jobs are predominantly transient. The contract workers that fill the new jobs work on a project-by-project basis and typically move on when the film is done shooting. More than 40 percent of the wages that are subsidized through the credit are paid to people who both live outside of Massachusetts and were paid more than $1 million on the project. These are not expenses that will be recycled in the local economy.

 

Several states are cutting back, and in the case of Wisconsin, limiting tax credits to the creation of permanent jobs. That was the rationale behind the failed attempt to provide a $50 million bonding subsidy for road, water, and sewer construction to Plymouth Rock Studios - that its $400-million complex would create up to 4,000 permanent jobs.

 

But the evidence on creating permanent film centers outside of New York and Los Angeles is not compelling. Toronto bought a 20 percent stake to entice Filmport to build large movie studio complex there. The $65 million facility has not attracted a single major production since it was completed in 2008.

 

Massachusetts expects to spend some $150 million in film credits this year, which will bring little long-term benefit to the state. That money could be much better spent on education and training, roads and bridges, and similar services that really can strengthen the state’s economy.

Joan Fitzgerald is professor and director of the graduate program in law, policy and society at Northeastern University, where Peter Enrich is a professor of law.

[Tim O'Connor]

I understand that there are at least a couple of readers here who aren't interested in having the facts about our economy being discussed. <_< Too bad. Denying truth about global economic issues doesn't really help anyone.

 

But you don't have to take my word for it. The numbers speak for themselves, so I'll let this article back up what I said previously about why our economy is in a shambles (now deleted words):

 

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...ilm_tax_credit/

 

 

There are many good comments, following the article you've linked, which argue that the tax credits bring business in to the state by discounting a certain amount of taxes on money that the state otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity to have taxed at all. Commenters also point out that the article gives the impression that the state is writing checks to producers when actually the state is accepting smaller checks from producers who otherwise wouldn't written any checks at all to the state.

 

It is a valid question whether this is fair or not. Why do it for film productions? Some people contend that tax credits are a way to develop a bigger production base with permanent jobs and that there is a good deal of precedent for tax credits to develop a given industry in Massachusetts with the commonwealth having given many incentives in past years to high-tech companies.

[Brian Dzyak]

It is a valid question whether this is fair or not. Why do it for film productions? Some people contend that tax credits are a way to develop a bigger production base with permanent jobs

 

 

I think that your question right there is the basis for the doubts about handing out Corporate Welfare. While the perceived benefits of jobs to real people seems like a good thing for the moments when jobs are there, the fact is that with "globalization" (brought about by the Milton Friedman unfettered Free Market ideology and policies like NAFTA) Corporations (film studios/productions being among them) can and will move like nomads to wherever they can "manufacture" for less money. That means getting tax breaks and other "handouts" from state and national governments as well as seeking out the cheapest labor possible regardless of skill and quality.

 

These aren't partisan comments in any way... just facts and history. The greater Massachusetts area may be feeling positive right now because of recent work, but as soon as some other region decides to offer even greater "incentives," studios/Producers won't think twice about abandoning Boston. And as the study (like others in Iowa and Michigan show as well), Corporate Welfare to film productions is ending up as a negative in terms of overall budgetary concerns instead of a positive.

 

While movies do need to go out into the world to shoot "on location," like any other industry, there was a "home base" for stage work where a qualified work force was based with their families and lives. But like the auto-industry, we should wonder if the Corporate mentality for profit-at-all-cost is forcing families to pick up roots whenever the Corporations wish to troll the planet for cheaper manufacturing costs. Today the hot-spots seem to be Boston, Detroit, and Louisiana. Before that it was Prague, Budapest, North Carolina, and Australia. What region is next and what happens to that "permanent" workforce in Boston? It's likely they'll feel the economic pain that those in places like LA and NY do...places where skilled workers built lives and families.

 

That is just one reason why these "tax incentives" aren't necessarily a good idea to the overall good health of the worldwide economy. In the past, if you wanted to work in the movie business, you moved to where movies were made, LA or NY. It's just like anyone wishing to work in the auto-industry moved to Detroit. Simple. At least it was. But the push for a Global Economy forces families to uproot or lose homes or for skilled workers to choose other careers, oftentimes at lesser salaries if they can find a job at all. Again, this isn't a partisan statement...it's just reality. While the Corporate profits continually rise, worker wages remain stagnant or go down and career and "home stability" is threatened... and those "above-the-line" buy larger and larger mansions behind bigger gates.

 

We all know which political ideology caused this chain of events to occur and with any luck, it can be changed. But in the meantime, we all have to be honest and brave enough to face reality so that we can make the best choices we can given the macro-economic forces at work that enrich a relative few while leaving the rest of us scrambling for what we can.