Freelance Living Wage

[Guest]

Crew need to exist to do skilled work. The only work done by producers is generated solely by the machinations of the production process itself. It's entirely made up.

 

Again, pure silliness. You think that the work a producer does is un-skilled work? Surely a seemingly intelligent person like yourself would like to retract such a statement. Raising millions of dollars to make a movie with requires the most unique skill set one can imagine. Then there is the added knowledge required to close bank deals and access tax credits. Clearly you have no idea.

 

R,

[Guest]

There are no needed qualifications to be a producer. The key is just money and the hiring of a crew,

 

Such an asinine statement that does not even merit a response.

 

R,

[Guest]

1) Falling Budgets and future film funding

2) falling wages longer working conditions

3) The poor range of films being made ...ganster, zombie, Nazi on moon, etc

4) Media courses that turn out more graduates than there are jobs

5) An industry where who you know is more important that what you know.

6) Where a camera assistant has to study, pass NVQ etc but a producer does not need to know anything.

These are all chronic problems that have been around for years. What do you want? Government legislation to make all the negative aspects of the film industry go away?

You live in some sort of dreamland my friend.

R,

[Maxim Ford]

Why don't you ask the costume and make up artists on "les Mis" who stop work in protest at 16 hour days what they want?

 

Or the person who can't live on the wages now being paid? or the student who has finished studies is in debt but is only offered unpaid work as an intern?

 

I can see that you have no answer, no understanding of the way the world really works, but believe the propaganda that the rich "create jobs" , "producers make films" ,

 

You took the wrong colour Matrix pill, the truth is that wealth is created by people working. So the the film workers make films that generate millions of pounds in revenues in cinemas, DVDs, TV showings and internet advertising. BUT the system makes sure that the money stays in the hands of the owners, of the cinemas, the distributors, the producers. It has even stoped funding British films.

 

Now if film makers are stupid enough not to organise, to demand the industry they need, with good conditions then wages and conditions will continue to fall as profits will rise.

 

Maybe that is dreaming, or is it the imagination that is needed in every creative process to see what is possible.

 

So as well as all other methods of campaigning, join the union, fight in the union for the policies you want, and get it to fight for a better film industry with good working conditions.

[Phil Rhodes]

It's not that it isn't a skill. Playing patience is a skill.

 

What worries me is whether producing under the current rules is a skill that's either necessary or desirable.

 

To be honest, though, Maxim, most of the people who are being exploited at the moment are being exploited on tiny independent jobs which will never be in reach of the union anyway.

[Guest]

BUT the system makes sure that the money stays in the hands of the owners, of the cinemas, the distributors, the producers.

 

Yes, and quite rightly so. Those that take the financial risks also reap the financial rewards. Film workers are paid an hourly wage, often times it's quite a good hourly wage compared to what many other people make. The money they are paid is their compensation, they keep it even if the movie bombs and loses millions of dollars. I'll tell you what, I would be in favour of a revenue splitting scheme with every member of a film crew. So long as they understand that if the movie bombs and loses millions, like The Fifth Estate just did, everyone who worked on the movie has to give their wages back.

 

I mean that's only fair, win as a team and lose as team.

 

So I would like to extend to you the job offer of DOP on my next movie. Your contract will clearly state that you are also responsible for any loses on the project. If the film fails to make a return, you will return 100% of your salary to me.

 

When can you start?

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

So long as they understand that if the movie bombs and loses millions, like The Fifth Estate just did, everyone who worked on the movie has to give their wages back.

 

 

Pigswill. Producers invariably get paid a fee to produce and then end up with a cut of the proceeds.

[Guest]

Yes, and those producers need to give back their fees if the movie bombs as well. I'm applying this across the board.

 

So what position on my next shoot do you want Phil? I'll take both you and Maxim under my new contracts.

 

R,

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Well, Richard, if you're writing/directing/producing the next film, it perhaps isn't too bad of a deal ;)

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

Yes, and those producers need to give back their fees if the movie bombs as well.

 

What, to themselves? Well, I suppose it'd be deductible! Thinking like a true producer there, Richard.

[Guest]

Producer's very rarely use their own funds Phil. They raise funds from private equity, or bankable pre-sales. Not even Jerry Bruckheimer puts his own money into his movies, he uses the studio's money. So yes in fact producers would have people to give the money back to.

 

R,

[Guest]

You two remind me very much of the story of the Little Red Hen. Neither of you wants to gather the grain, or bake the bread. But you'll be first in line to say, I'm ENTITLED to more.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Producer's very rarely use their own funds Phil. They raise funds from private equity, or bankable pre-sales. Not even Jerry Bruckheimer puts his own money into his movies, he uses the studio's money. So yes in fact producers would have people to give the money back to.

 

Good grief, haven't you ever done this?

 

Here's how you do it. You set up a limited liability entity of the appropriate type for your jurisdiction - let's call it FilmBoddington - you make the movie, then claim no money has been made and fold the company.

 

Then you set up BoddingtonFilm in the same offices with the same phone number, the same Aeron chairs and the same staff, and claim you don't owe anyone any money. Buying the assets of the dead company (from yourself, for a dollar) and distributing the film at a tidy profit is optional, but considered a bit gauche, even among film producers.

 

Then you go home in your chauffeur-driven luxury car, looking like

 

 

P

[Guest]

you make the movie,

 

But Phil, where does the money come from to make the movie in the first place?

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

That's the "claim you don't owe anyone any money" part.

[Guest]

No that comes after the movie is made. How do you pay for the cast, crew, locations, etc etc, under your plan?

 

R,

[Maxim Ford]

 

 

So I would like to extend to you the job offer of DOP on my next movie. Your contract will clearly state that you are also responsible for any loses on the project. If the film fails to make a return, you will return 100% of your salary to me.

 

When can you start?

 

R,

I can start as soon as I and the rest of the crew approve the script, director and schedule. At last you are understanding who produces the wealth, the people who make the film. Not the financiers.

 

The is another point you miss, it is crazy to think about films that make money and lose money. What is important is to have a healthy cinema that makes a wide range of movies, that makes entertainment, drama and social issues and as a whole makes money. A major fault with the "free market" (or market just for the rich) is that a film that breaks new ground is seen as a failure because it doesn't make a profit in its first 6 weeks. The history of cinema is full of the most wonderfully films that the market failed. Where would Pulp Fiction be without the French New Wave? Maybe France should demand a cut in the profits?

 

We need to fund cinema as a whole and produce a wide range of great films.

 

Producers and their investors want to invest in films that will make a profit. Therefore they limit the subject matter to the most banal Iron Man 3, Zombie Gangster Nazis on the moon 5,. They want to lower wages, shorter shoot times, less crewing more interns.

 

Yes the low budget films have lower wages but this is where the film makers of tomorrow are so it is important that things are improved by getting proper funding and wages.

[Phil Rhodes]

Maxim, the problem with that at the moment is that the "filmmakers of tomorrow" currently have no tomorrow.

 

There is nowhere to go.

 

Low paid stuff is abusive and a waste of time because everyone really knows that there is no, or almost no, bigger stuff to work up to.

 

P

[Freya Black]

I'm definitely not getting some aspects of this conversation.

 

It sounds something like "Producers are bad because all they do is turn up with the money to make the movie and then make off with all the profits!!"

 

If that is a problem then surely the answer is just straightforward and you can cut out the producer by funding the movie yourself, or even better as someone suggested, everybody could get together and fund the movie and then split the profit at the end if there is any.

 

If you don't want to work for the producer then don't work for the producer and do something else to make it work.

 

Seems straightforward.

 

Have I missed an important part of this conversation or is it that some stuff is being assumed and not said...

 

Freya

 

 

 

[Guest]

The is another point you miss, it is crazy to think about films that make money and lose money. What is important is to have a healthy cinema that makes a wide range of movies, that makes entertainment, drama and social issues and as a whole makes money. A major fault with the "free market" (or market just for the rich) is that a film that breaks new ground is seen as a failure because it doesn't make a profit in its first 6 weeks. The history of cinema is full of the most wonderfully films that the market failed. Where would Pulp Fiction be without the French New Wave? Maybe France should demand a cut in the profits?

 

Maxim, you are the ideal employee for an organization in Canada called, TeleFilm. This is Canada's film funding agency. They think just like you do...why make movies that would be commercially viable? Let's spend millions of dollars on "art" films and not worry if they make a profit, or even have potential to make a profit. Because after all we have filmmakers who have a "statement" to make, who cares if any member of the public actually wants to see a movie about this "statement."

 

BTW, this line of thought has been so successful that Canadian films make up 1% of the box office in Canada. American films make up the other 99%. Only in a place like Canada is achieving 1% of anything celebrated and called a success.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Yes Richard.

 

But that does not immediately excuse all the excesses of rampant "screw the little guy" capitalism.

[Freya Black]

 

Maxim, you are the ideal employee for an organization in Canada called, TeleFilm. This is Canada's film funding agency. They think just like you do...why make movies that would be commercially viable? Let's spend millions of dollars on "art" films and not worry if they make a profit, or even have potential to make a profit. Because after all we have filmmakers who have a "statement" to make, who cares if any member of the public actually wants to see a movie about this "statement."

 

BTW, this line of thought has been so successful that Canadian films make up 1% of the box office in Canada. American films make up the other 99%. Only in a place like Canada is achieving 1% of anything celebrated and called a success.

 

R,

 

Would love to be in Canada and friends with these people! :)

 

Having said that I suspect "Beyond the Black Rainbow" was a self funded project.

I have a feeling their desire for art might only go so far.

 

Would love to test the limits tho! :)

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

On a related note. I'm sure the UK box office for movies is far less than 1% here and most of the movies we make are BBC funded made for TV stuff or similar. I think it would be a far better use of money if they were making arty movies, yet here they seem to be churning out these dramas that all have a similar theme.

 

I commented on it last week when a movie called "Leaving" appeared on the iPlayer.

"A bourgeois housewife falls for a Spanish builder and the two begin a runaway affair. "

 

I notice most of the movies seem to be about family relationships but most often they fall right into the "affair" genre. I hadn't noticed it was an actual genre till I started seeing these movies with the same plot over and over and over.

 

I have just looked on the iPlayer and there is a new movie called "Wreckers" on there which is an exciting title, but no it's nothing like Sightseers or anything. The plot is described as "Dawn's hopes for a new life in the country are disrupted by her husband's brother." It's apparently about a married couple making a fresh start in the country. Now I havn't seen the movie but I'm kinda guessing I might know what the plot of this one is.

 

I'm wondering what on earth this is about. Are the people commissioning this stuff obsessed with affairs and family relationships? What is causing this?

 

I see another movie on there with the description "Drama. Edward hates living in his parents' retirement home - until a new resident arrives.". Yay! It's not an affair movie. It seems almost exciting and different, like the BBC are pushing their limits with how wild they can get. It's about family relationships of course but this one takes a wildly different spin on it and I'm guessing it doesn't feature an affair. (Unless they worked one in there to keep the right people happy).

 

I get the impression that the Canadian output is more varied?

 

Freya

Edited October 26, 2013 by Freya Black

[Guest]

Yes Richard.

 

But that does not immediately excuse all the excesses of rampant "screw the little guy" capitalism.

 

Did you and Maxim take part in "occupy Wall Street?" I can just see the two of you camped out in tents for a month in the middle of the city. No running water, no bathrooms, no electricity, sounds like a fun time for all.

 

Gee I wonder why they are not still doing it?

 

R,

[Maxim Ford]

 

 

While the average British feature film budget is half a million and falling the French Film industries is £3 million with a £100 million a year being raised in levies to subsidise production. BECTU have done a report and need to be supported in demanding the same here. http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/1965