Freelance Living Wage

[Guest]

Have you all seen the rates to join the film unions? Good grief. Then the yearly dues. What on earth does the union management do with all that money? They certainly don't ensure that everyone is working. On any given day 90% of the members of SAG or ACTRA are unemployed.

 

The DGC has chased me in this country for years. Total fees they have extracted from me thus far.....ZERO!

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

You expect a heart surgeon to earn the same as a "burger flipper?" Is that what you are advocating here?

 

Of course not. What I'm advocating is that nobody should be paid hundreds of times more than the minimum wage. I'm not here to propose a cutoff, but a few times that rate? Certainly. Ten times that rate? Maybe. But at some point it's not about rewarding someone for their abilities, it's about bragging rights because you're getting a bigger number than someone else, and channeling a huge proportion of the money into a tiny proportion of the people is unnecessary, divisive and unfair, especially given the dubious contribution a producer's fundraising efforts make to the creative success of the film.

 

P

[Guest]

 

especially given the dubious contribution a producer's fundraising efforts make to the creative success of the film.

 

Many films are financed with 100% pre-sales, and the bank acting as interim financier as the film gets made. The film is delivered and the broadcasters pay the producer who then pays off the bank loan.

 

Please explain to me what is "dubious" about this method of film finance?

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Read the sentence again. I wasn't talking about the approach to fundraising, I was talking about the contribution the producer makes to the success of the film, which is by definition slim. This is hardly controversial.

 

But you're still not addressing the question, which is whether or not a producer should be entitled to a much larger than average share of the proceeds. Even if you accept that the role is fundamentally necessary (which neither Maxim nor I do), even if you accept that grubbing money counts as a skillset (which I just barely might) and even if you accept that the deployment of that skillset is of moral value and a net benefit to society (the idea of which is just comedy), none of this justifies the overwhelming enrichment of producers at the cost of everyone else. They are not making a bigger contribution than anyone else.

 

In any case, you're talking absolute bilge. Many films are not financed with 100% pre-sales. This may be true if you take as your sample commercial feature-length filmmaking as practiced in north america, but as I mentioned above, big American union movies represent a microscopic proportion of the world's human beings who actually work in film, TV and related trades. I have only ever worked on a single-digit number of feature films in any case. One or two of them may have been pre-sold. The others simply weren't sold at all. Most of the narrative stuff I've ever worked on was never sold because it was short films. And I'm probably quite lucky compared to a lot of the people currently coming out of media courses in the UK.

 

So no, there are not many films that are financed with 100% pre-sales. There are not many films that are financed to any great extent at all. I would assume the producers of these short films, music videos and the like went into production knowing this full well.

 

P

[Guest]

I was talking about the contribution the producer makes to the success of the film, which is by definition slim. This is hardly controversial.

 

This is such pure rubbish, rubbish, rubbish!!! I can't believe I am on here trying to defend the role of the producer to two people that seriously have not got a clue! The producer is the single most important person on any project. Without him nothing is going to happen, period. There is no money to make it happen. This has become such a nonsensical debate. I might as well be talking to two members the flat earth society.

 

"But you're still not addressing the question, which is whether or not a producer should be entitled to a much larger than average share of the proceeds."

 

And, YES, he bloody well should be!!!

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

And, YES, he bloody well should be!!!

 

Why?

[Justin Hayward]

Because you're not willing to do it yourself. You and Maxim are projecting a "will" on a tremendous amount of people that are absolutely not willing. You're calling working producers "the rich", but there are many, many successful producers that came from nothing. They had drive and a "will" to put together films, and they did.

 

Neither of you have that drive or the will, other than posting on this website and possibly attending some meeting.

[Phil Rhodes]

Most producers aren't "willing" to shoot or edit or record sound or act.

 

And I didn't even go to the meeting in the end!

[Justin Hayward]

You're right. Most producers set their goals much higher than recording sound.

[Guest]

Most producers aren't "willing" to shoot or edit or record sound or act.

 

As this debate deteriorates further into the theatre of the absurd with these comments....Phil, why on earth do you think that the producer should do every job on set? You can't name for me a single company on earth where the CEO does every job himself, what kind of BS nonsense are you spouting here?

 

If the producer did shoot and record sound, then you and comrade Maxim would be on here decrying the producer for robbing the working man of his employment opportunities!!

 

The producer is not required to direct the movie once he has hired the director, nor is he responsible for ensuring that quality audio is recored on set once the proper person has been hired to do this job.

 

Do I need to explain the concept of division of labour to you?

 

You're going to be waiting a long before you show up on a film set and hear that the producer is earning the same wage as the boom op.

 

R,

[Keith Walters]

 

This is such pure rubbish, rubbish, rubbish!!! I can't believe I am on here trying to defend the role of the producer to two people that seriously have not got a clue! The producer is the single most important person on any project. Without him nothing is going to happen, period. There is no money to make it happen. This has become such a nonsensical debate. I might as well be talking to two members the flat earth society.

 

"But you're still not addressing the question, which is whether or not a producer should be entitled to a much larger than average share of the proceeds."

 

And, YES, he bloody well should be!!!

 

R,

 

http://downfall.jfedor.org/create/

 

[Guest]

Wow they've really come a long way with those Hitler parodies Keith. Ok what's funnier, me as Hitler or Phil? I can't be sure?

 

Ok I did Hitler as the producer, the obvious choice given the current environment. Youtube is processing it, please stand-by.

 

R,

[Guest]

Damn this is funny! I just watched it back, frigging hilarious!!

[Maxim Ford]

Slave: Why are we building this Pyramid we could build houses for ourselves.

Slave Boddy; You crazy you need a Pharaoh, only a Pharaoh has the skills

 

Serf: Why are we working the Lords land and not our own

Serf Boddy: You so stupid, like arguing with the flat earth society, only a Lord understands and has the skills to do farming.

[Freya Black]

 

Because essentially you are referring to an issue that exists in all societies the world over. Is it fair that there are rich people while others go hungry? This question has been debated since Old Testament times and we certainly are not going to resolve the question on cinematography.com. If we do, I'll be sure and share the Nobel Peace Prize with both you and comrade Maxim.

 

 

To be a bit pedantic, I should point out that the issue and argument isn't normally about "is it fair?", as obviously it isn't but more "what can we do about this?", which is a much harder question to answer. Even many capitalist based societies try to add an element of fairness quite often because most people tend to agree that there should be some fairness to the way things are ordered.

 

Obviously there is also a minority of people who want to keep slaves and s*** too.

 

Freya

[Maxim Ford]

Massive advances have been made in fairness and social justice, just compare Sweden with Brazil.

 

After the 2nd World War great progress was made in health, education, housing.

 

This has been reversed since Thatcher /reagan Neo liberal - rule of finance capital.

 

The trickle down effect... (only a trickle ) and such bollocks

 

If you read the work of Philip Zimbardo, or the films of David Simon you can find the proof that human being can be made to greedy or not, cruel or kind...depending on their social situation.

 

The ignorance of producers is another reason for taking control of the film making process off them.

[Phil Rhodes]

As this debate deteriorates further into the theatre of the absurd with these comments....Phil, why on earth do you think that the producer should do every job on set?

 

Obviously, I don't.

 

I was talking to Mr. Hayward, who was lecturing me on the basis that I'm not willing to be a producer. He's absolutely right, as it happens, but of course it's a ridiculous accusation to make on the basis that, of course, certain people have expertise in certain areas. One would not expect me to produce, just as one would not expect a producer to operate a camera.

 

 

What's actually interesting is that he then compounds this by indicating a crippling lack of respect for roles other than producing, on the basis that the role represents "setting sights higher." This implies the absolute superiority of producing over other roles which has been a characteristic of your approach and is a large part of why producers are so hideously unpopular; they're often so inexcusably narcissistic.

 

Self-belief is - within extremely tight limits - okay, but there is a worrying theme developing which implies a rather medieval sort of relationship, as you'd find between the lord of the manor and a serf working the farmland. I have learned not to associate, and certainly not to work, with people who support this worldview, because it causes practical problems - in the context of the current discussion, it tends to lead to overconfidence and excessively demanding working practices.

 

Or, to put it another way, what we have here is a situation where a corporate financier (a producer) whose skills involve very little more than pretending to be nice to people so they'll give him money, who expects everyone to fall on their knees whenever he's around and work 16-hour days on the basis that it'll make him richer. This is generally justified in the producer's mind on the basis that he genuinely believes himself to be a superior being, deserving of everyone's adulation and devotion; many things you have said support the idea that this is how the producing brain works.

 

Personally I am under no illusions that I am anything other than a very normal, standard, run-of-the-mill human of whom there are about six billion examples on the planet, with no special abilities or particularly noteworthy characteristics. This is something called humility, which I suspect will be a novel concept to you.

 

Of course in the situation I describe, a producer is actually failing miserably by failing to plan and provide for the production properly, and making it everyone else's problem to solve. But that will, obviously, be characterised as "driving a hard bargain" or "getting the most out of the budget" or any one of a dozen other pallid excuses for being crap and leaning on everyone else to solve it.

 

The problem with your Hitler parody is that it accurately represents how many producers actually think, and from my point of view, that does rather suck the comedy out of it.

 

P

[Guest]

The problem with your Hitler parody is that it accurately represents how many producers actually think, and from my point of view, that does rather suck the comedy out of it.

 

P

 

The closer to real life the funnier it should be. All the producers I have shown it to think it's hilarious.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

They would. They're not the victims.

[Guest]

Actually the fact that I can paint myself that way tells you something. I don't take myself that seriously, and neither should anyone else. At the end of the day, it's just entertainment, none of us are doctors saving lives.

 

R,

[Justin Hayward]

 

What's actually interesting is that he then compounds this by indicating a crippling lack of respect for roles other than producing,

 

I was only facetiously countering your crippling lack of respect for producers.

[Maxim Ford]

At the end of the day, it's just entertainment, none of us are doctors saving lives.

R,

All Quiet on the Western Front

Cathy Come Home

State of Siege

Grapes of Wrath

Naked Among the Wolves

Battle of Algiers

Today This Night a City will Die

Little Big Man

The Miracle Worker

The Train

Some films are a lot more than "entertainment"

Edited November 4, 2013 by Maxim Ford

[Guest]

And no one would of died or starved to death if none of those movies had been made. Don't take yourself or this industry so seriously Maxim.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

Don't take yourself or this industry so seriously Maxim.

 

Whereas producing, on the other hand, is Very Serious Business which obviously entitles the producer to the lion's share of the profits.

 

Sorry, but you do rather walk straight into these things.

[Guest]

Oh Phil you're so brilliant, wow, yes amazing.

 

I seriously don't know why you waste bandwidth typing your ridiculous statements, you honestly think that you and comrade Maxim are going to cause a revolution in the film industry that sees film crews throwing off their cruel overlords in something akin to a scene from Les Miserables?

 

Good bloody luck with that mate!!

 

R,