Jump to content

Freelance Living Wage


Recommended Posts

then you cannot in good faith complain when people don't like you. It's the most obvious circular relationship imaginable.

 

P

 

Now Phil aside from you and comrade Maxim, who else would that be exactly? Any other member of the forum is free to speak up either way.

 

I can tell you that I am constantly called by past crew members asking me if I have any projects upcoming, and wondering if they can be apart of any new project. I hear all the time from past crew how much they enjoyed they my shoots. On Against The Wild the entire crew stayed at a beautiful resort, each room even had its own fireplace.

 

Here it is right here, does it look like the crew suffered?

 

http://www.expedia.ca/Parry-Sound-Hotels-Kellermans-Resort.h3040421.Hotel-Information

 

I would challenge you to find a crew member or vendor that says they have an outstanding invoice from the movie. Then there are all the times on The Dogfather and Against The Wild when a crew member had a family emergency and had to leave the set for a few days. I insisted that we keep paying them, even when we had to bring in and pay a replacement.

 

On Against The Wild a crew member shattered the rear window of their hatchback when they closed it because he had a piece of gear in there. I gave him the cash to replace the window. This caused quite a few shocked looks on set, no one had seen a producer do anything like that before.

 

I paid a young actor a substantial fee out of my own pocket when they didn't get a part in one of my films. The casting director had never seen a producer do that in her entire career. I can guarantee you that the young man will never encounter another producer for the rest of his life that gave him money even though he was NOT in the movie!

 

I can go on.

 

Your attempts to paint me as some sort of monster will not succeed. I have far too strong of a track record of treating crews with the utmost respect that there is nothing you can say or do to damage my reputation.

 

You are to be blunt, simply talking out your arse!

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record - as if anyone cared - I only argued against Maxim's point that a producer is not necessary to make a film.

 

I am 100% behind any project that would guarantee that filmmakers - and by that I mean "crew" in the largest possible sense of the word - earn enough money to live decent lives, own a property, get a pension plan, etc. etc.

 

I think as with all things in life, balance is what we should strive for, and I think Maxim is a bit too extreme for my tastes. He only sees the producer as the big greedy bad wolf trying to exploit their crews to get richer, and that is simply not what most producers are. Case in point: Richard here, and all the producers I have ever worked with - note: I do mean "with", and not "for". People who care about the people who are actually handling the lights, mics and cameras. That's who most producers are.

 

Producers are filmmakers. If they were in it for the money, they could do a lot of other things that are far less risky.

 

It is a false assumption that producers finance films with their own money. The golden rule of producing is: you never gamble with your own money. It is a false assumption that most producers are rich. Most producers struggle to find funding plans, and have to live with the fear of failure and having to repay the real financiers out of their own pocket - which in other words would mean absolute, total, immediate bankruptcy.

 

I sympathize with your situations and desires for a better, more secure industry for film workers. I'm pretty sure I'm in the exact same situation you both find yourselves in, and so are most people on this forum. I just think you guys are not aiming your rifles at the right guys.

 

Once again, producers are not the problem.

Edited by Nicolas Courdouan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Even if they're not, and that does rather rely on drawing a line between execs and producers, they're certainly the people with the ability to solve the problem. The current situation does not give them sufficient motivation to do so, as it's far too easy to ensure that the producer is well-paid while everyone else is not.

 

I fully appreciate that here in the UK there is so little work, and so little money, that almost anyone can make a case that they're not doing very well, but it's very much relative: Richard's ability to cover the cost of a broken car window may well be irrelevant if he's going to make that much money in the next four minutes. Likewise, I stopped doing freebie music videos around London on the day that the guy in charge turned up in an Aston Martin having told us all there was no budget so we'd have to work for free.

 

 

 

The golden rule of producing is: you never gamble with your own money... Most producers... live with the fear of ... having to repay the real financiers out of their own pocket

 

Isn't that directly contradictory?

 

In my experience, producers tend to engineer themselves into a position where they're going to get a lot of money regardless of the quality or commercial success of the project.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard's ability to cover the cost of a broken car window may well be irrelevant if he's going to make that much money in the next four minutes.

 

You really do have an amazing ability to miss the point don't you?

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, producers tend to engineer themselves into a position where they're going to get a lot of money regardless of the quality or commercial success of the project.

How is that possible when the money a producer makes out of a film only starts flowing in after the investors have been paid back?

 

Unless I'm being very naive here, a producer only gets a fee before the release, and can only make the big bucks if the movie is a major success, which is at best a very risky gamble unless we're talking huge blockbusters.

 

Or are you suggesting that producers fake budgets and expenses so they can steal the investor's money rather than spend it on the film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salary, wage...

 

I don't know how this works in the UK, but don't think for a second that a producer is free to pay themselves 10,000 a week if the rest of the crew is earning the minimum wage.

 

Production companies, like any other financial entity, are held accountable for their books and how they spend the money, especially when it's not theirs (do you really think any bank or TV channel CFO in their right mind would risk millions at the hands of a producer and not follow closely how that producer spends their money?). They're not some all-powerful organization who answers to no one. They're companies.

 

If I remember correctly, the minimum wage for a producer on a feature film in France is about 4000/week. That's their fee. It certainly is more than enough to live, but wait: it is the exact same as the minimum wage of a chief editor. It gets even better: The minimum wage for a DoP is 4500/week. It is understood that no matter how much the director is earning on the project (they have a different status there,"Artiste", that does not entitle them to a minimum wage), no one should be paid above their pay grade. And that includes the producer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I learned recently that a new law had been proposed, that will impose the minimum wage - which is more or less a "recommended wage" in the case of smaller budgets - for all film crews.

 

This law was proposed by... The biggest French production companies. So it seems not all producers are trying to exploit their crews after all.

 

The same law has been vehemently opposed by independent filmmakers, who often make films that cost less than 2,5 million Euros, which up to now exempted them from those minimum wages, and allowed them to cut their costs. And it is true that, should such a law be put in place, the only thing that will happen will be less indie films, and more big blockbusters that have enough budget to pay everybody decently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh, they certainly are.

How do you know that? (genuine interrogation)

 

If you entrusted a producer with millions of your own money, would you not keep an eye on their expenses?

 

Production companies are bound to stick to the budgets they parade around while asking for money all over town. Why would anybody agree to give money to a producer who has budgeted their own salary at 1,000,000 for no other reason than "because they could"? And why would anybody not ask a producer where 1 of the 10 millions they gave them have disappeared if they didn't get a receipt for it?

 

Producers might be making the biggest bucks when a film succeeds at the box office, but until they have repaid every single cent they borrowed from their investors, the truth is they are held by the balls, just like any other young middle-class couple trying to repay their mortgage to the bank they borrowed it from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure there are good producers and bad producers in the way they treat their crews. I worked for a South African producer who was a racist and called me all the names under the sun when I suggest he hire and train some black film workers but he got up with us a dawn mucked in and also cooked us breakfast. people are complex. But that is not the point, we are talking social structures. The role people play not their personality or nature.

 

A producer in the capitalist set up is the owner and employer. Do people here really not know about above the line costs and below the line?

 

Of course a producer can pay himself a wage, and receive a percentage of the film, and a wage for being a director of the production company, and own the company too. Also he can put trips to LA on the film as well as........

 

Have you not worked on a film where you were told that money was tight and then seen a star or director flown first class 6 times in a month to LA?

 

The remarkable thing is that on budgets of £1 million or £100 million the below the line costs are pretty much the same. It is the above the line costs where the money can flow,

 

Has anyone here had a producer ring up and say : "On this film we will pay anything you want, we remember how much you've helped us in the past?"

 

Now if someone can say, sorry, we understand it has been bad, but we are now able to pay proper wages, make better films and increase budgets and tell me how its going to happen, then fine no need to change.

 

But as so far they haven't so I say things have to change.

 

That means more money from the people making money out of films coming back to production.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you not worked on a film where you were told that money was tight and then seen a star or director flown first class 6 times in a month to LA?

 

No different than a multi-national corporation that lays off 10, 000 people then gives the CEO a 5 million dollar raise. Sure it's annoying. But it's not illegal in any of the G7 countries and it's not going to stop anytime soon.

 

George Lucas sits atop a massive pile of money. He deserves every penny of it. His mind created one of most successful film properties in history. He created it, he deserves the lion's share of the money.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I've certainly been on a film where I was told money was tight, and seen three cars turn up at the same hotel for two actors and, inevitably, a producer.

 

Listen to the director's commentary for the first Resident Evil and you'll hear people claiming that sharing cars because it was some sort of sacrifice because it was a "small movie".

 

There's a certain amount of real-world detachment going on.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that a 19 year old PA is going to get the same salary and perks on set as a director or producer is ridiculous. Next you and comrade Maxim will want a law passed that prevents the CEO from having his own parking space near the door.

 

Some people earn more than others on a film set, deal with it.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

The idea that a 19 year old PA is going to get the same salary and perks on set as a director or producer is ridiculous.

 

Nobody's proposed that except you.

 

But once again we're in a position where the crushing obviousness of the problem appears to pass you by. I propose something awful or stupid that a producer has done, you say "well yes, we do that, it's inevitable", as if that's some sort of excuse.

 

Yes, I know you do that. That's the problem. I can't make it any more obvious. We're practically down to tautologies, now. I'm unable to break these intrinsic concepts of basic morality down any further.

 

For some reason, it seems not to be obvious to you why immoral behaviour is wrong. If that isn't axoimatic to you, and it appears not to be, there really is nothing more I can say other than to once again point out that this is exactly why producers get a bad rap.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure there are good producers and bad producers in the way they treat their crews. I worked for a South African producer who was a racist and called me all the names under the sun when I suggest he hire and train some black film workers but he got up with us a dawn mucked in and also cooked us breakfast. people are complex. But that is not the point, we are talking social structures. The role people play not their personality or nature.

 

 

A producer in the capitalist set up is the owner and employer. Do people here really not know about above the line costs and below the line?

 

 

 

I think you are right to identify social structures over the producer role. It's the way things are structured not something intrinsic to the producer role or the people themselves who will of course be erm, varied!

 

The producer will be forced to sell to some kind of distributor however, unless it is a vertically integrated company of some kind. So they won't stay the owner for long.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay this thread seems to be oddly taking a sudden turn towards being a bit more sane. Maybe it was something to do with the meeting the other day.

 

I think there is a question which can be put towards producers in relation to where their priorities lie.

 

It's a nonsense to suggest that producers want to work with smaller budgets. That's just insane.

Producers often end up forced to work with smaller budgets unless we are talking about the kind of producers who are also distributors.

 

Where there might be a question to be had is where producers put their priorities. Is it to looking after the big name actor or looking after the crew for example?

 

Of course having a name actor on the movie will make a massive difference to the success of the movie, whereas sadly the quality of say the cinematography will be a lesser issue.

 

I think there are definitely questions that could be made in that area.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The is nothing to stop producers getting together and working out a plan for a better film industry......but they don't .

 

It will be interesting if they support BECTU ideas for support of the Film Industry.

 

George Lucas did make one fairly good film, but the rewards far out way his contribution.

 

The rich should be given one days work down a coal mine, one day as a nurse, one as a teacher, one flipping burgers and then given the choice - they can keep their money but have to do one of those jobs. OR continue making films on a average wage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even that set on the idea that it has to be an "average" wage. Just not a wage that's literally several hundred times bigger than everyone else.

 

I absolutely agree with that statement, if we're talking about the salary (and not the financial rewards that come with a major success at the box-office).

 

And it applies to many other jobs. Certainly not surgeons, etc., but professional athletes and bank execs... The amount of money they make is staggering, which isn't the problem in itself. The problem is that it is disproportionate to what they bring to society in return.

 

Anyway, I absolutely agree that no producer should earn millions -again, as a fee- if the rest of the crew barely get enough to afford a rent and food.

 

Now I'd really like to get a few examples of actual cases where producers were granting themselves tens of thousand of dollars, pounds, euros as a fee and did not pay the crew far above their minimum or recommended wage as well.

 

Social injustice does exist, but I'm sure most producers have nothing to do with it. As Freya has pointed out several times already, the problem comes from the system, not the producers. And if that recent French law is anything to go by, we could even say that producers actively fight against social injustices regarding the financial security of their crews.

 

We too often tend to forget that producers, even though they are at the top of the food chain when it comes to the microcosm of a film crew, also have to answer to a lot of people. There is always a bigger fish.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Lucas did make one fairly good film, but the rewards far out way his contribution.

 

The rich should be given one days work down a coal mine, one day as a nurse, one as a teacher, one flipping burgers and then given the choice - they can keep their money but have to do one of those jobs. OR continue making films on a average wage.

So now you decide how successful someone can be AND institute means-tested forced labour? This is getting daft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The is nothing to stop producers getting together and working out a plan for a better film industry......but they don't .

 

 

You could just as easily say the same about the crew.

 

In actuality the producers do have an organisation called PACT where they get together and try and battle for better budgets and to continue the independent production model. There have been some major battles over the "Terms of Trade" as it is called, at various points. There was a relatively recent battle with Channel 5 when they wanted to kind of not pay anyone but still get programmes made. (It was a bit more complicated than that but you are welcome to look into it)

 

There is often a lot of pressure from broadcasters over the terms of trade as they would either like to have a larger slice of the production pie for themselves or they would like to kinda of get programming and not have to pay much for it and to delay payment for months and months.

 

As I keep saying there are a number of different kinds of producers. It ranges from something like ITV Studios productions which are productions made by ITV who control their distribution as well, through smaller independent producers who make stuff for the various channels and finally there are the tiny no budget style productions that will be lucky to see any distribution at all. There are of course also the government funded / tv movie stuff where certain blokes get money from their mates to make movies.

 

It doesn't really make a lot of sense to refer to producers as a monolithic block because there is such a variety.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

So now you decide how successful someone can be

 

I'd rather not have to. I'd rather someone like Lucas had the humility - there's that word again - to make that decision for himself. But that's rare; much more common, distressingly, is the I'm-special attitude that people use to excuse their rapaciousness.

 

It has become increasingly clear that allowing laissez-faire capitalism to define these things without any form of oversight leads to a horrifically unbalanced society which isn't helpful to anyone - including the rich, who find, pretty quickly, that a few million here or there makes no difference to lifestyle.

 

I should agree with Freya's point that there are a wide variety of people who are involved in the organisation and funding of film and TV productions. I have done it myself. It is my observation that anyone who is known, or wishes to be known, by the formal title of producer tends to be either:

 

- Rich as creosote and anxious to exploit others in maintenance of the status quo, or

- Someone who aspires to this situation and tends to behave in much the same manner on the basis they think it'll help.

 

I'm not sure which sort of person I like least.

 

P

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...