Jump to content

Freelance Living Wage


Recommended Posts

Did Sam Spiegal make the "African Queen"?

No, he paid other people to do it.

He bought the services of others.

He was an employer.

Everyone else was employee.

They created the film, he had the ownership of the film.

The crew got wages, he got the total value of the film minus the cost of production.

This is not special to film making this is the process of capitalism. This is what producers do.

 

In Polish state cinema the process was this...

The industry was organized into film groups of film makers, headed by the most experienced film director. The was a literary editor who would suggest books scripts and the film group would prepare script and budget. This would be submitted to the ministry of culture for funding. If approved it went into production. Ownership of the film was with the State, the film workers got full time employment and wages. Film was accessed on its artistic and economic success. There was a production manager but no producer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you are reducing the job of producer to "gathering money". A producer is concerned with a lot more than just the financial aspect of making a film. Logistics, legal department, are all part of the production department. If there's no one serving as the head of this department and taking responsibility for those critical aspects of movie making, who will you turn to when your actor sues you for shooting scenes with him without having made him sign an authorization beforehand? Who do you turn to when your DoP doesn't show up on day 1 because he hasn't received his call sheet as planned?

 

There has to be someone heading the production department. You don't want to call them a producer? Fine. But they're still doing a producer's job.

 

As for the African Queen, you say that Sam Spiegel didn't make it because he only paid other people to do it. Even if this simplified stance on a producer's job was actually true, and it isn't, he therefore made the film happen. If no one had stepped up to the plate and paid other people to make the film, there would be no film. He may not have shot a single scene or recorded a single sound, but take him out of the equation, and there would be no African Queen.

 

I'm from the European school of filmmaking. In my mind, directors are the most important people on the payroll. They get the idea for the film, write it, then get a producer to make it happen. They are therefore, in a way, the employer of the producer. WIthout the director, no producer. But it is fundamental to recognize the importance of that collaboration between the two. The director creates the film, the producer ensures that everything the director needs is there for them to create it. If there weren't any producer, the director would have to do their job, which would in turn make them the producer of the film.

 

There's no way around it. A film is a production. For a production to happen, you need a producer.

Edited by Nicolas Courdouan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ownership of the film was with the State,

 

You've seriously got to be kidding me? You want to go back to life behind the Iron Curtain? Ok away you go then.

 

BTW, you evil capitalist pig you, I want a share of your time-lapse shots revenue! Look at the rates you are charging!

 

http://www.time-lapse.co.uk/library_prices.html

 

What kind of person are you? One minute you openly advocate for state ownership of a finished film, all the while you are gouging fellow filmmakers with ridiculous rates for your stock footage!! 600 UK pounds per second for a commercial? SHAME!!!

 

Maxim I am going to call on you to either A. Give your work away for free B. Share the proceeds equally with all of us in the film industry.

 

If you don't agree to either A or B, then nothing you have said on this site carries any weight and you frankly are the biggest hypocrite to ever post on here and you should be ashamed of yourself!!!!

 

Come on Maxim, I am calling on you publicly to practice what you preach and disavow capitalism. I'm waiting.......

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, the production manager is an extension of the producer in the exact same way a camera operator is an extension of the DoP. There cannot be a production manager without a producer they have to answer to, just like there cannot be a grip without a DoP they have to answer to.

 

Would Maxim claim that DoPs aren't necessary on the assumption that they are not really the guys operating the cameras and lighting the sets? You could tell me that on average to low budget features, the camera is operated by the DoP most of the time, and there are no camera operators. I would retort that on those same features, most of what the production manager's role consists in is also taken care of by the producer, and there is no production manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone!

 

I'm not a cinematographer OR a producer, however I thought I'd wade in with the perspective of a stopmotion animator. After all, some of my best friends are cinematographers and producers....

 

I work in a kind of miniature version of a liveaction shoot, the difference being that our average productions last many times longer than the live-action counterpart. Animation crew are often expected to work of projects for free or for deferred payment. It's bad enough when the freebie job is 3 or 4 days out of your life but some of these animation roles run to 6 months or longer. Who on Earth can work for free for half a year? It's ridiculous.

 

I started in the industry shooting on film in the mid-90s as an 18 year old. I'm not lying when I say I now earn a SIXTH of what I earned as an 18 year old in the 90s. After almost 20 years of shooting high-end ads and TV series all over Europe. That is absolutely not a joke. And it's the same story for many of my industry friends.

 

They say the budgets aren't high enough to pay properly. But who devises a budget? Producers should take a large amount of the blame here. They are presenting budgets to clients that rely on the crew working as free labour. Clients don't care how a quote was devised, they generally take the cheapest. So the downward spiral continues as each producer tries to stay competitive.

 

If there was a mimimum wage, it would at least provide a bottom line to prevent producers from using free labour as a way to undercut the rival production companies. Money should be saved by using igenious short cuts and by actually empoying people who know what they're doing and can get it right first go (aka SKILLED PEOPLE). Not by bringing in a tribe of free newbies who flounder around out of their depth creating endless problems. I've had to shore up so many laughable shoots, it's just too depressing for words.

 

Awaiting my death by firing squad.

Edited by Cadi Catlow
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

If you have a producer he is the owner of the film and an employer. He does not have to have any qualifications or experience he has the MONEY. The capital, and its a capitalist economy, so all the rights and power lie with him.

 

So you may not understand it, or are confused by the fact that films are organized, and have accounts, but the central fact is he is an employer and you an employee.

 

Now if you are a director imagine this situation you like a certain ending, or style, or a scene.

 

But if the producer doesn't like it, because it tested badly in Hull, or he thinks he can't sell it the distributor. You will find yourself on the wrong side of the editing room door.

 

If we have a situation where we fund the industry as a whole, then every film does not have to make a profit, we can have experimental films, films that try new things, films that reach an audience more slowly. This means removing the producer as owner and controller from the equation.

 

As for what rates I charge for time-lapse footage, this is not footage shot by some unpaid intern on a D5 but a tracking shot of the midnight sun in Norway shot on 35 mm, transfered to full HD at Technicolor in LA. If you knew what you talking about you would realize that is a very reasonable price.

 

By what twisted logic should share what I earn with you ?

 

Socialism is you should receive according to your work. You don't work -no money honey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for what rates I charge for time-lapse footage, this is not footage shot by some unpaid intern on a D5 but a tracking shot of the midnight sun in Norway shot on 35 mm, transfered to full HD at Technicolor in LA. If you knew what you talking about you would realize that is a very reasonable price.

 

By what twisted logic should share what I earn with you ?

 

Socialism is you should receive according to your work. You don't work -no money honey.

 

Oh my goodness the truth at last!! Here's Maxim espousing how he deserves his huge fees for his time lapse footage because of the incredible skill he uses to capture such amazing imagery, therefore he deserves to be paid big bucks for his work. Maxim's next breath....producer's don't have any skill level at all, raising money and closing bank deals is not a skill. Anyone could do it. Therefore he should make money using capitalist methods, but, producers should not be allowed to do the same thing.

 

You're full of BS Maxim. Talk about hypocrisy and the pot calling the kettle black, WOW!!

 

Now to the next point, you say, "If you knew what you talking about..." Guess what, I do in fact know what I am talking about! I have been in the stock footage business since 1997. I have one of the biggest privately owned collections in the world. My work is sold on Getty, Thoughtequity, and Fotosearch. I have travelled all over the globe to dozens of countries and five continents building my collection and shooting on 35mm FYI. And doing it MYSELF. I've also shot a huge pile of time-lapse. So yeah, I do know what I am talking about when it comes to stock footage, both the production and the sales and marketing.

 

Here I am doing a stock footage shoot with black tip sharks, look ma no cage. A little more dangerous than standing by while the motion control rig shoots the setting sun. :D

 

 

R,

post-4653-0-72158300-1383345516_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Maxim's next breath....producer's don't have any skill level at all, raising money and closing bank deals is not a skill.

 

We've gone round and round this several times.

 

The issue I personally have with this is that the skills required to raise money and close bank deals are associated with several problems. First, this is exactly the kind of dealing that provokes narcissism, exaggeration, borderline untruth, and generalised sharp practice. Particularly in this part of the world, anyone gathering money to make a film does so knowing that there will be no financial return because the film will almost certainly not be sold, and if sold will almost certainly not be profitable.

 

So if I I seem cautious about the moral values of producers it is because of my longstanding experience of the fact that they're actually doing is going to "investors" and lying to them to get money. If it's not already obvious, this is immoral, it is incorrect behaviour, it is wrong.

 

I acknowledge that I am not able to do that. I am proud of my inability to do that.

 

You have stated before that you disapprove of the charitable intent that is represented by crowdfunding, but you can't possibly contend that there's any less evil at play by the pernicious lying for money that goes on in more conventional circles. The nice shoes and the smart suits do not make it right. Personally I consider myself to have been an "investor" on a lot of productions, mainly short films dangling the nonexistent carrot of deferred pay, and it actually wasn't all that long before I realised that I was being cheated.

 

Second, when someone's entire professional skillset is the ability to creatively cheat people, when someone does that day after day as a career, you do tend to end up with some fairly unpleasant human beings who are often willing to do almost literally anything, not only for money but for any perceived advantage, and not only professionally but privately as well. You end up with hideous, broken, morally bankrupt human beings. The film industry is not the only place where these people emerge, but that's wrong too.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 anyone gathering money to make a film does so knowing that there will be no financial return because the film will almost certainly not be sold, and if sold will almost certainly not be profitable.

 

That's not entirely true.  Most people I know set out with the idea to make a profit in mind.  If you're going to start applying this philosophy then you might as well apply it to pretty much every industry on the planet.  Unless of course you can point out for me an industry that guarantees profits.  The airlines perhaps? Real estate? Steel production? TeleCom? 

 

Phil, titans of industry go down the drain almost monthly, want a list?  The problem with people like you is that you don't understand the basics of economics.  Market forces are vast and totally unpredictable.  You want everything sliced and diced and packaged into neat little boxes with red bows on them.  Sorry not going happen.  When you invest in ANYTHING there is a level of risk involved.

 

Film is an industry of extremes, mega budget studio tent poles flop at the box office, and take investor money with them. Meanwhile Orin Peli makes a movie for $13, 000.00 that earns 100 million.  Again....who has a crystal ball to see the future?

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Again....who has a crystal ball to see the future?

 

Er, well, me, in point of fact.

 

I have never worked on a dramatic production I thought had a chance of breaking even with two exceptions, both of which were US-financed. I was right in every case.

 

UK producers hire crew with the standard "good for your CV" and "deferred pay" platitudes, but whether that's true or not (and it never is), they either know or should know that they are never going to succeed financially. If they don't know that, then they are certainly professionally incompetent, but they are also idiots, and dangerous idiots. The point at issue is that you want me to "point out for me an industry that guarantees profits". I can't do that. But I can point out one that practically guarantees failure.

 

The truth in most cases is that they know it full well, of course, and ensure that they're the only people who make any money.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

in general producers are not workers but capitalists organising the investment of money in film for profit.

Producers as a group and as in organisations have driven down wages and made working conditions worse. "What is you rate? .....We only have this in the budget, take it or leave it "

Where films are fully funded there is no need for producers at all. They are not part of the creative process.

 

Budgets in the UK have been falling and producers have taken no action to stop this.

 

In France budgets are 6 times the size of the UK and their industry is supported be levies. That is possible here too and decent wages. People have to organise and demand the industry they want.

 

Or it will be an industry just for the rich

 

I'm sorry Maxim, but that's ridiculous. The Producer is the single most important person on ANY production. They pull everything together, they're the ones that make things happen, and NOTHING happens without the. Directors, Cinematographers, cast and crew etc. they just shoot the thing... and none of them would be there to shoot anything if it weren't for the Producers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry Maxim, but that's ridiculous. The Producer is the single most important person on ANY production. They pull everything together, they're the ones that make things happen, and NOTHING happens without the. Directors, Cinematographers, cast and crew etc. they just shoot the thing... and none of them would be there to shoot anything if it weren't for the Producers.

 

Can we please give Mark the gold medal for "getting it." Thank-you Mark, please forward your resume to me when you are in Toronto.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not understand the difference between an employer and a employee or If you do not understand what owning the copyright of a film means it really makes this discussion meaningless.

 

Making a film without a producer is exactly like a cameraman keeping the copyright on his footage and selling it many times to many programs. Woking for a producer is like working for a TV Co and letting them exploit the footage.

 

As for Indie film making the model that I would interesting is film makers getting together in groups and choosing a director and script to make. Instead of the film makers being asked to give their labour for little or no money with no say in the key decisions of story etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

Can we please give Mark the gold medal for "getting it."

 

Is it me, or are you willing to agree with anyone who says you're important?

 

To Maxim's point, ultimately it will remain true, like it or not, that a film can be made without a producer but it can't be made without a crew. It wouldn't ordinarily be my inclination to point that out, but it's true nonetheless. I would not propose that as a desirable situation, but it certainly is desirable that the status quo, in which people are forced into the role of charicature bad guys, does not persist.

 

Ultimately, like so many problems, it's another problem that's fixable by the creation of a more successful industry.

 

So that won't be happening, then.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Producers are the owners of the bakery, they raised the capital to build their business. They have hand selected the recipies and worked with pastry maestros to perfect them, they helped select the flour and the yeast, they have employed the best bakers and bakers hands they can get to kneed the dough, practicioners who with the right resources and recipies can turn dough to bread. They make sure they had enough money when starting to get the ovens and proofers they needed to do the job. And when there is a fresh warm loaf sitting on the shelf of their bakery, they have to sell it before it goes stale.

 

Some producers I love, some I despise. But despite this, their job is challenging and often starts with mere words on a page and the vision of something bigger.

 

Work on a job with a great producer, then on one with a bad one... Then you truly understand what value a good producer brings.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is it me, or are you willing to agree with anyone who says you're important?

 

To Maxim's point, ultimately it will remain true, like it or not, that a film can be made without a producer but it can't be made without a crew. It wouldn't ordinarily be my inclination to point that out, but it's true nonetheless. I would not propose that as a desirable situation, but it certainly is desirable that the status quo, in which people are forced into the role of charicature bad guys, does not persist.

 

Ultimately, like so many problems, it's another problem that's fixable by the creation of a more successful industry.

 

So that won't be happening, then.

 

P

 

Actually a film can be made without a crew. See Rebel without a crew etc.

 

Also you aren't really comparing like with like.

I'm sure a production team could make a movie without a crew as such.

 

Freya

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Producers are the owners of the bakery, they raised the capital to build their business. They have hand selected the recipies and worked with pastry maestros to perfect them, they helped select the flour and the yeast, they have employed the best bakers and bakers hands they can get to kneed the dough, practicioners who with the right resources and recipies can turn dough to bread. They make sure they had enough money when starting to get the ovens and proofers they needed to do the job. And when there is a fresh warm loaf sitting on the shelf of their bakery, they have to sell it before it goes stale.

 

Some producers I love, some I despise. But despite this, their job is challenging and often starts with mere words on a page and the vision of something bigger.

 

Work on a job with a great producer, then on one with a bad one... Then you truly understand what value a good producer brings.

Producers are the owners of the bakery, they raised the capital to build their business That part is true....after that it depends on the bakery. Capitalists can and do hire all the skills they need. We have moved away from 19 century capitalism and are now in to international corporate finance capitalism. So one will find that one corporation buys everything like Neslie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nestl%C3%A9_brands

 

Now where does the poor baker who wants to make that great new bread but has no money to buy a bakery?

 

Most serious films cannot be made at home without capital.

 

That is why a funding body which will support and fund directors fully would create a broader range of films and could improve conditions for film workers in an industry where the market has failed. People would still work in production - they would be production managers. employees like the rest of the crew,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I hate to return to the bread thing... (I mean what is that about? Just one of many non sequitur in this thread)...Matthew makes the key point when he says:"And when there is a fresh warm loaf sitting on the shelf of their bakery, they have to sell it before it goes stale."


Now you may be thinking that they can just put it on the shelf of the bread shop and wait for a customer but it's not like that because generally the baker doesn't own the bread shop, and it's more like they have to sell it to the huge supermarket chain, who are going to demand stupidly low prices.


I think this statement from Maxim sums up the problem in thinking:

"Budgets in the UK have been falling and producers have taken no action to stop this."


This is a really odd statement because it seems to imply that producers would like to have less money to work with. That is of course not the case.


It's a bit like saying all the cinematographers are really awful because they are all shooting on cheap DSLR's instead of film and they have taken no action to stop this.


In reality producers HAVE been trying to do things to stop budgets falling. This is one of the jobs of PACT for example. However producers are not at the top of the chain.


I think the reason that people are identifying producers as the problem is because they are the people who appear to be at the top of the chain for crew, when in fact you are only seeing part of the picture. That is why I was saying that there is a huge difference between a producer being someone like Ed Wood and a producer being Canal + or Channel 4 etc. The latter own the means of distribution. They own all the cake shops if we want to think about bakerys.


So it really depends on what you mean by a producer.


Freya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Producers are the owners of the bakery, they raised the capital to build their business. They have hand selected the recipies and worked with pastry maestros to perfect them, they helped select the flour and the yeast, they have employed the best bakers and bakers hands they can get to kneed the dough, practicioners who with the right resources and recipies can turn dough to bread. They make sure they had enough money when starting to get the ovens and proofers they needed to do the job. And when there is a fresh warm loaf sitting on the shelf of their bakery, they have to sell it before it goes stale.

 

Some producers I love, some I despise. But despite this, their job is challenging and often starts with mere words on a page and the vision of something bigger.

 

Work on a job with a great producer, then on one with a bad one... Then you truly understand what value a good producer brings.

 

Well Phil and Maxim I am clearly winning this debate, if support for my position from fellow forum members is the deciding factor.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making a film without a producer is exactly like a cameraman keeping the copyright on his footage and selling it many times to many programs. Woking for a producer is like working for a TV Co and letting them exploit the footage.

 

No it isn't at all. As I explained above, I did stock footage shooting for many years, and I have also now produced three feature films. There is little to no correlation between the two jobs.

 

You can create stock footage on your own, with very little capital investment. The end product is a series of shots that will be placed into someone else's finished program. I'm assuming that like me Maxim, you pay for your own travel and production costs when you are creating stock footage?

 

If you are hired to operate a camera or DOP a movie, the producer is paying you a day rate for your services, you have no risk in the project and you are being compensated for your time. So naturally the producer has every right to own the finished product.

 

Also, stock footage is relatively easy to create, it can be done with a one man crew. A narrative feature film is 100X more complex and requires a far greater range of skill sets. You need a script for one thing, which requires a writer. The list goes on.

 

I'm guessing I'm the only stock footage shooter, feature film writer, feature film director, editor, and producer, in the world. But then again I'm somewhat of a genius and incredibly multi-talented :D

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well Phil and Maxim I am clearly winning this debate, if support for my position from fellow forum members is the deciding factor.

 

R,

 

I'm afraid I have a bad feeling this isn't a competition, which I'm afraid also means NO PRIZES!!!

Sorry to break it to you Richard.

 

Now I bet you are wondering why you spent so much time on this thread! ;)

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...