Freelance Living Wage

[Mark Dunn]

I think we have an illustration here of why one poster is a videographer and the other is a producer of features.

[Phil Rhodes]

Fine march into the offices of any of the studios in LA and present your theories to them, I'm sure they'll be most interested.

 

Isn't that just an appeal to authority? I wouldn't take their behaviour as any more of a guide than I'd take yours.

 

At the end of the day, Richard, nobody's questioning you ability to behave in the way you're proposing. I know full well - from bitter, bitter experience - that producers are more than happy to pay people less than their transport costs. What I'm questioning is whether you should do that.

 

Ultimately someone in your position can do more or less what he likes to crew, and all we can do in response is refuse to work for you. I wouldn't query where the power lies here for a moment.

 

P

[Keith Walters]

In truth the vastly wealthy find ways to minimise their tax burden and often contribute less than your average citizen.

That argument is always trotted out in discussions like this, but it is somewhat fallacious. I pay somewhere between 25 and 30% of my income in tax, and yes, maybe someone like Jim Jannard can beat his tax rate down to something like 8% (I have no idea what the actual figure is). The thing is, 8% of his income is going to be unimaginably larger than 30% of mine!

 

And he doesn't get any more use out of the roads, hospitals, military, police etc than any other US citizen.

 

It always seems bizarre to me that people seem to imagine it is only right and proper that somebody who is already paying a vastly greater amount in money in tax even at the average tax rate, should be taxed at an even higher rate. It never works anyway because these are the every people who can afford the necessary Tax Avoidance measures, (such as living in th' South of France to avoid the aforementioned "Super Tax")

[Phil Rhodes]

It's fallacious if you look at it as absolute amounts, it's perfectly valid if you look at it as a proportion. I think the ideal lies somewhere between, but probably inclining toward the latter: the costs of living are similar in each case. Ultimately it is, or should be, a recognition that more money beyond a certain point is just about bragging rights.

 

P

[Keith Walters]

 

You may get someone to go and see your film with a star name, but they will very certainly be back out in the foyer demanding a refund if it is out of focus.

 

So, it turns out that Dave the focus puller is just exactly as important as the star.

I'm not sure what you'd call that: An "Appeal to a ludicrous and unlikely scenario" perhaps.

If the shot was out of focus they would be back to do a re-shoot. That's why they set up a projector and screen for viewing "Th' Rushes" when shooting fillum.

They don't go to all that trouble just to look flash.

At Panavision we used to make sh!tloads of money renting rushes projectors.

 

 

With video of course you can check the focus as you shoot and play it back immediately. (Well, you can with real cameras, not that "Raw" dingbattery...)

And you'd need to be smoking far more "certain substances" than it sounds like you can afford, to be able to actually shoot a whole feature out of focus, AND Post-Produce it, AND ship it to all the cinemas with nobody noticing....

I seriously doubt there would be a mass walkout because one scene out of the film was soft. The only time I could imagine that happening anyway is the actor(s) just happened to produce an absolutely stunning performance just for that take. In that case, the director wold probably just live with it.

[Guest]

Ultimately someone in your position can do more or less what he likes to crew, and all we can do in response is refuse to work for you. I wouldn't query where the power lies here for a moment.

 

P

 

Except no one ever does refuse to work for me. Quite the contrary, I get 2-3 emails per week (and phone calls) from past crew asking me what I have upcoming and whether or not they can work on another one of my shows. Because my sets were the best organized, and they had the most fun working on my movie. Earlier in the thread I illustrated the superb accommodations the crew stayed in while they were shooting Against The Wild.

 

So I have zero issue finding crew Phil.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

And you'd need to be smoking far more "certain substances" than it sounds like you can afford, to be able to actually shoot a whole feature out of focus, AND Post-Produce it, AND ship it to all the cinemas with nobody noticing....

 

Regardless, it's in focus (and properly sound recorded, and with appropriate makeup and costume and... and...) because people made sure those things were so.

 

If those people - whoever they are - were not there, the movie would not exist, or would be unwatchable. You can argue the toss over who's most important on a sliding scale if you really want to, but the reality of it is that everyone's essential. I mean, most producers won't pay for anyone who isn't absolutely essential, right?

 

 

 

So I have zero issue finding crew Phil.

 

Terrifying, isn't it. Don't you see why it's uncomfortable to me to see someone like you, who's spent more or less this entire thread emphasising how worthless and replaceable crew are, and how much less important they are than anyone and especially you, indicate that you still have people clamouring to do it?

 

The whole industry is sick.

[Guest]

Terrifying, isn't it. Don't you see why it's uncomfortable to me to see someone like you, who's spent more or less this entire thread emphasising how worthless and replaceable crew are, and how much less important they are than anyone and especially you, indicate that you still have people clamouring to do it?

 

The whole industry is sick.

 

We have 15 pages of this thread and most of it is you demonstrating to the world your complete inability to read and comprehend simple basic English.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Oddly enough, people occasionally call me, too.

 

The point remains. As my own union put it, if people have no choice but to do it your way, they'll do it your way. Or not at all, as some of us have made the decision to do.

[Guest]

You seriously think I put a gun to people's heads and force them to work for me? You should work for the teacher's union here, you sound just like they do.

 

My solution, pay all the teachers 1 million dollars per year.

 

Yes, there are "bad" producers out there Phil, heck I know several of them. Film is a risky and unstable business for all involved on a good day. People in this industry simply need to accept that fact. For those that want M-F 9-5 50 weeks a year, good grief...DO NOT work in film!

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

Film is a risky and unstable business for all involved on a good day

 

There are no good days here.

[Maxim Ford]

Yes, crews love producers and e-mail them asking for work and Hugh Hefner's young wife really loves him.

 

Crews have total freedom to work or not, they dont have rent to pay, food, travel etc ...they are total free agents.

 

Enron took all the risks and recieved all the profits, EVERYONE else got screwed.

 

No blockbuster movies, how ever bad have lost money.

 

Anyone who is rich and wants to reduce the tax they pay has the choice of lowering their income to pay less tax -they dont - why because you would have to be brain damaged not to understand that being rich means having more money, more health, more options, more power.

 

Acting is a skill, it is not worth any more than any other skill, many film makers have made great films with normal people and children.

 

Capitalism will destroy itself, it almost did it 3 years ago, not by its critics, but exactly by the free market nonsense talked here about free markets and freedom.

 

We should be ready to step in when it all goes belly up with ideas of a society based on equality, freedom and fraternaty. Where all people have work. careers, food heating and housing, an end to forieign wars etc....

 

And for the film industry film workers should start to make structures which make films not for profit, but because cinema is a language for people to exchange ideas. Where are stories are told which reflect the reality of millions of peoples lives and not the narrow range of subjects that are "profitable"

[Stuart Brereton]

And for the film industry film workers should start to make structures which make films not for profit, but because cinema is a language for people to exchange ideas. Where are stories are told which reflect the reality of millions of peoples lives and not the narrow range of subjects that are "profitable"

Ever since movies first existed, they have been created for entertainment and profit. Who the hell wants to see a movie that 'reflects the reality of millions of people's lives"? Cinema is, and should be, escapism.

 

I'm sure you'd prefer prefer cinema to be a means for the politburo to disseminate propaganda in order to educate the masses, or for oh-so-worthy, arts council funded liberals to make polemic films that no-one wants to see, but that simply doesn't reflect the wishes of the viewing public.

[Guest]

I'm sure you'd prefer prefer cinema to be a means for the politburo to disseminate propaganda in order to educate the masses, or for oh-so-worthy, arts council funded liberals to make polemic films that no-one wants to see, but that simply doesn't reflect the wishes of the viewing public.

 

Check out anything made by TeleFilm Canada, this is their entire philosophy of filmmaking.

 

R,

[Keith Walters]

 

Check out anything made by TeleFilm Canada, this is their entire philosophy of filmmaking.

 

R,

This same conversation seems to come up every 18 months or so. I really don't really need to type new posts; there are plenty of good used ones to recycle :)

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=54617&page=3&do=findComment&comment=370762

[Guest]

This same conversation seems to come up every 18 months or so. I really don't really need to type new posts; there are plenty of good used ones to recycle :)

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=54617&page=3&do=findComment&comment=370762

 

Yeah and you gonna keep hearing it over and over again too!

 

R,

[Freya Black]

Ultimately someone in your position can do more or less what he likes to crew, and all we can do in response is refuse to work for you. I wouldn't query where the power lies here for a moment.

 

P

 

Nah there's all kinds of things...

 

Slip a few hairs in the gate*, subtly shoot some footage on the edge of the focus, get some footage with extra traffic noise, whatever suits your area of expertise.

 

Lots of options.

 

You really need to get away from this powerlessness thinking Phil.

 

I like Maxims attitude. He has a problem with things and has a plan for what he is going to do about things.

Excellent.

 

You have more power than you think Phil but if you believe you have none then you are surely right.

 

Freya

Edited November 16, 2013 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

The point remains. As my own union put it, if people have no choice but to do it your way, they'll do it your way. Or not at all, as some of us have made the decision to do.

 

A very sorry state of affairs when the union are telling you that you have no choice!

So much of this stuff going on in the UK.

 

Freya

[Maxim Ford]

Ever since movies first existed, they have been created for entertainment and profit. Who the hell wants to see a movie that 'reflects the reality of millions of people's lives"? Cinema is, and should be, escapism.

 

I'm sure you'd prefer prefer cinema to be a means for the politburo to disseminate propaganda in order to educate the masses, or for oh-so-worthy, arts council funded liberals to make polemic films that no-one wants to see, but that simply doesn't reflect the wishes of the viewing public.

 

Not true. The whole of the Italian neo realist movement was not made for profit. All Russian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian post war films were not made for profit.

 

Film lovers, critics and audiences find these films some of the best films ever made. Do Americans like these films?

 

No because the "free market" says they will not watch them. Are they shown on TV ? Again no.

 

The free country where they watch only their own films , in the totalitarian communist countries they watched US movies, so what does that say about your society. More closed than the Soviet Union.

 

But the free market gives you such great movies like "Pearle Harbour" , "Iron Man 3, " "Avatar" "Sex and the City 2"

 

There are real problems about how and who should fund films but the free market is not free and it does not make that many good films.

 

The real hope is that film makers get involved in running their own industry, and train up commisioners.

[Stephen Williams]

 

Not true. The whole of the Italian neo realist movement was not made for profit. All Russian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian post war films were not made for profit.

 

Film lovers, critics and audiences find these films some of the best films ever made. Do Americans like these films?

 

No because the "free market" says they will not watch them. Are they shown on TV ? Again no.

 

The free country where they watch only their own films , in the totalitarian communist countries they watched US movies, so what does that say about your society. More closed than the Soviet Union.

 

But the free market gives you such great movies like "Pearle Harbour" , "Iron Man 3, " "Avatar" "Sex and the City 2"

 

There are real problems about how and who should fund films but the free market is not free and it does not make that many good films.

 

The real hope is that film makers get involved in running their own industry, and train up commisioners.

 

What is stopping you & your friends making films that aim to loose money? If some of you own houses then they could be sold & the money spent for the good of your workers. Sounds like a great idea why don't you do it :D

[Guest]

The free country where they watch only their own films , in the totalitarian communist countries they watched US movies, so what does that say about your society. More closed than the Soviet Union.

 

The Americans have the most open film industry in the world! Hollywood has a very long tradition of welcoming talented people from all over the globe. Look how many Canadians and British have made it big in Hollywood!

 

The Americans have ALWAYS graciously bought my movies for distribution their country. And the USA has 10X the population of Canada.

 

I was in LA for a week recently, every meeting I had I was warmly welcomed by the Americans.

 

Look at the Oscars....it's an American award show and they hand Oscars to people from all over the globe.

 

People can say what they want about the USA, but no country has given more to the film industry than the United States has.

 

R,

[Guest]

 

What is stopping you & your friends making films that aim to loose money? If some of you own houses then they could be sold & the money spent for the good of your workers. Sounds like a great idea why don't you do it :D

 

Ha Ha Stephen, good one!

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

but no country has given more to the film industry than the United States has.

 

Er, no, Richard, that's obvious and pathetic pigswill.

 

You're confusing what's good for you, with what's fundamentally good. Again.

 

P

[Guest]

Phil, I live in a country where Hollywood films make up 99% of the screen time, and Canadian films make up 1%. Which is largely why I can't theatrically release any of my movies in Canada. Oh well, that's the breaks I guess.

 

Is there another country with a bigger body of collective film work than the United States?

 

Let me guess you're going to say India?

 

R,

[Maxim Ford]

One of the best films I saw last year was Canadian "Incendes". Was the that supported by TeleFilm Canada? If so they did a good job.

 

This film was moving, intellgent, clever, well shot and directed etc.

 

If to be moved and informed can be called entertained, then it was great entertainment.

 

If was about the middle east, religion and war.

 

Not the film for people with the IQ of a potato.

 

Of course this film was not shown in the Muliplexs...

 

The free market if left alone will destroy cinema, it will always favour the popcorn sales of the movie. The quick buck over the long term investment.

 

No Pulp Fiction without French new wave.

 

Are you not slightly interested in the Cinema that you don't see? The films that critics and cinema lovers say are some of the best films ever made.