Jump to content

Why economics and politics ARE important to Cinematography.com


Brian Dzyak

Recommended Posts

FYI, I went to a four-year school. I did the community college thing in high school for college credit though.

 

 

I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion with you and you just want to spout a bunch of propaganda.

 

 

I'm glad I am part of the intelligent 10% that doesnt' vote down party lines one way or the other in the United States.

 

Both parties have agendas. Otherwise, the Goddamn Democrats would've pushed a reasonable public healthcare option through with a Filibuster-proof majority.

 

 

This conversation has convinced me that political discussions SHOULD be banned here. It's like trying to convince a Muslim that Judaism is the "real religion". It's like banging your head into a wall over and Over and OVER again. Too bad you're so sure of yourself Brian. The people that effect real change in this world are open to the needs of others and compromise and making the decisions that are best for everyone, not just their own silly little cliques.

 

Propaganda? :blink: I've uttered no such nonsense. I offered the solutions you asked for. That you find them to be "propaganda" speaks to your own potential bias and agenda. You say something like "Goddamn Democrats" and claim to be unbiased? uhhuh ;)

 

But that is neither here nor there. The fact is that the Milton Friedman ethic of "get what you can no matter who or what suffers" is what causes societies and economies as a whole to suffer. If that is "propaganda" that should be banned, then it is clear that those who support the status quo truly don't have the world's best interests in mind. Individual selfishness doesn't improve the world for anyone in the long term.

 

But Karl, I offered the specific solutions you asked for yet I have yet to hear any such specifics from the "other side" to support why the status quo is the proper avenue that humanity should follow. I'm open to alternative reasonable suggestions. :)

 

To close, I want to share one of the best quotes I've heard about the current state of things: "A Republican telling us how to fix the economy is like an Arsonist telling the Fire Department that they missed a spot." If that's too subtle, the point is that we know that Milton Friedmanism/Reaganomics brought the world and our industry to this place, so why on earth would we want to continue with those types of policies that have been proven to fail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Besides rich people are mean.

 

 

Well, not all of them. :) In general, even for those who DO give generously to charities et al, "rich people" will never truly "give til it hurts" out of the basic instinct that they don't want to be poor. I've spoken with countless Libertarians and Conservatives who feel that this system of unfettered Free Market Capitalism IS the "best" system while at the same time, they do recognize that, in their words, some people slip through the cracks. Their answer to that is that "Charity" is the answer to help those people. In other words, they don't want "Government" to dictate how the "wealthy" helps. They'd prefer that people have the choice to help others or not.

 

The problem with this idea is that poor people and those in need don't have the luxury of time to wait around to find out if rich people are in the mood that day to be charitable. So, yes, some "rich people" are mean and greedy and selfish and some are charitable and compassionate and giving.

 

But, the alternate idea is to create and sustain a system where we don't need charity in the first place. Instead of a "dog eat dog" system where only the most powerful and rich "win" (which is only about 1% of humanity) while the other 99% "lose," wouldn't it be better to not allow just a few to hoard so much wealth so that resources are more evenly distributed across the population? It's not pure "Socialism," but it is a system that doesn't allow so few to acquire so much that they are able to unduly influence public policy to the detriment of the many. Jimmy Carter went on TV to admonish the nation about the growing selfishness that Reagan managed to encourage. Thirty years of Milton Friedmanism, where the ideology is "I got mine, you get yours, and if you can't, then F you!" creates an imbalance in wealth that is unsustainable, both for basic economies and for silly ideas like "democracy."

 

Evidently, some people see talk like this as "propaganda," but it is just history. It's "propaganda" to those other people because they somehow like the current system the way it is even though they aren't (and likely never will be) Billionaires like those who they defend.

 

 

So, this IS the situation the USA and the world is in right now. It's one where Producers can and do troll the planet to find the lowest cost for manufacturing but then are able to turn larger profits every year. Governments (state and national) happily turn over bribes (tax incentives, tax credits) to get "manufacturing" in their region and thus lose out on revenue that those regions need for silly things like infrastructure, schools, emergency services, etc.

 

The guy in the opening article gets his movie made at lower cost just as the big boys do at the studios. A few people get temporary employment, governments get ripped off, and the Corporations walk away with bigger profits than ever so they can buy Government officials and votes that favor their own interests.

 

So who "wins" in this current state of things and what are "Crews" supposed to do? Do we chase work around the world, if we're allowed to? Do we cut our rates, just to get work, even though our cost-of-living can't possibly compete with the slave wages of others around the world? Is that what "adapting" to the situation means? Or should we work to change the fundamental policies that create situations like this in the first place? It took a violent Revolution to rid the New Colonies of the Fascist efforts in the 1700s http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/04/15/the...t-of-the-1770s/ . FDR managed to throw off the Fascist efforts of the Republicans in the 1930s and enacted real positive change PEACEFULLY. How this episode in history plays out is anyone's guess. But we all know that this path we're all on cannot sustain itself and continue infinitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who "wins" in this current state of things and what are "Crews" supposed to do? Do we chase work around the world, if we're allowed to? Do we cut our rates, just to get work, even though our cost-of-living can't possibly compete with the slave wages of others around the world? Is that what "adapting" to the situation means? Or should we work to change the fundamental policies that create situations like this in the first place? It took a violent Revolution to rid the New Colonies of the Fascist efforts in the 1700s http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/04/15/the...t-of-the-1770s/ . FDR managed to throw off the Fascist efforts of the Republicans in the 1930s and enacted real positive change PEACEFULLY. How this episode in history plays out is anyone's guess. But we all know that this path we're all on cannot sustain itself and continue infinitely.

 

US crews can't possibly adapt and accept the equivalent of being paid as "slave labor". If you were to look at the accounting ledgers for a film shot in Eastern Europe or the Far East, the savings occur primarily in the areas of :location; crew (below the line); food; lodging, etc. The cost of have the named talent on set remains the same as well as that of certain key production personnel. It a very simplistic view, but it seems that actors need to accept a lessor payment or payment plus percentage and "above the line" personel need to accept less wages to bring production back to the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...This conversation has convinced me that political discussions SHOULD be banned here...

I'm finding the back-and-forth here of interest. Some of what Brian is saying rings true for me. Some I just find difficult to understand, but I don't fault him for that. This thread perhaps should have been opened in "off-topic", but I am appreciative that it is being tolerated just the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I have never produced anything in the US I might be totally wrong here, and you are free to slam me if I am. The problem that I see with the unions is not the wages but the rules on how many people there should be on a set. I often hear ridiculous claims that the DP can't operate. The director can't direct the extras. And so on. What is up with that? And I'm not taking anything away from the operators or their work. Absolutely not, I suspect that a lot(most) of the productions still would use an operator even if they didn't have to.

And what are the problems doing a low budget movie outside the unions? Wouldn't it be easy ignoring the unions if you're not doing a big production? Just avoid signing anything. Or will they(union) put a blockade on your set if you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I have never produced anything in the US I might be totally wrong here, and you are free to slam me if I am. The problem that I see with the unions is not the wages but the rules on how many people there should be on a set. I often hear ridiculous claims that the DP can't operate. The director can't direct the extras. And so on. What is up with that? And I'm not taking anything away from the operators or their work. Absolutely not, I suspect that a lot(most) of the productions still would use an operator even if they didn't have to.

And what are the problems doing a low budget movie outside the unions? Wouldn't it be easy ignoring the unions if you're not doing a big production? Just avoid signing anything. Or will they(union) put a blockade on your set if you do?

 

 

Those are valid questions, Klas. Nobody will "slam" you for asking. :)

 

As I understand it, anyway, the purpose of the "rules" is two-fold. In terms of the DP/Operator question, yes, part of the rationale is to provide work for qualified people. And that goes beyond your specific example. Naturally, a movie can theoretically be accomplished by far fewer people than a "standard" large movie uses. But, you don't get something for nothing, so it would be inevitable that quality and efficiency would falter if all of the specializations weren't staffed by individuals.

 

As an example, let's presume that a low-budget movie decides that in order to save money, it will only have one Camera Assistant. Can this one person do it alone? Sure. Of course. But, what happens to the productivity of the day when that AC needs to run to the darkroom to deal with magazines when he should be on set helping with the next setup, getting marks, etc.?

 

In your example, suppose the DP IS the only Operator. How much of his attention is diverted to pure mechanics of getting a shot while his attention SHOULD BE on concentrating on the totality of the project and collaborating with the Director? Now add a B-Camera or additional cameras. Or add lighting changes within a setup. Suppose there was a problem but the DP didn't see it because his attention was pointed at operating a shot rather than looking for problems that sometimes crop up during an actual take. Then what? Well, it's not like the movie isn't being shot, but the quality will suffer in the end.

 

DP's CAN operate, but it isn't really in anyone's best interest when it comes to the quality and efficiency of the movie which directly impacts th entire project, particularly in terms of budget and "making the day." How many shots WON'T be achieved (and well) because the DP has to split his attention between "directing" the photography and actually having to get in the trenches to concentrate on the mechanics of getting 14 hours of shots?

 

 

As far as the unions "forcing" low-budget projects to sign contracts, I don't think that this problem is as prevalent as some people make it seem. In most cases, the unions (SAG, IATSE, DGA) typically have low-budget contracts that don't impose the kinds of rules and wages that the big movies can afford. It's not all about wages. Unions are also and primarily there to protect workers rights and safety.

 

So, yes, some of the point of unions is to help to protect the job opportunities for people in the industry so when it is applicable, a union MAY step in to ensure that qualified people have that opportunity to make a living. But more than that, unions are there to help ensure that workers are not abused by excessive hours or direct safety concerns.

 

To the larger point of this thread, there is a faction of our population that detests rules and regulations of any kind with the claim that such rule impose on their personal "freedoms." To that, I ask, "freedoms to do what exactly?" Freedom to abuse workers or underpay them or put them into unsafe conditions? Now, naturally, individuals have the complete right (and duty?) to refuse to be abused in any way. Just walk away! Right? That's the theory, but we all know that with wages being suppressed, most people DO need to take any job they can get AND walking away from a job could potentially negatively affect the rest of their career. So what to do? Which leads back the point of a union and a contract where the parameters of employment and what an employer can and can't do comes into play. The onus is taken off the worker who just wants to do his job without the pressure of having to argue over every little thing, like wages and safety.

 

Are unions perfect in this regard? No, not at all. There are abuses and some things do fall through the cracks and those are the things we generally hear about because they make news. But by and large, we don't hear about the vast majority of agreements that DO work well for all involved. Everyone is employed, they all do their jobs, money gets made and everyone goes home happy and safe. That's 99.9% of the projects out there that are shot under a contract.

 

So, again, why did the guy in the opening article abandoned his nation and it's workers? He did it to go find cheap labor somewhere else because, at least in his mind, everyone in his country is overpaid and the rules are too restrictive. Presumably he would shoot in Los Angeles if those people would agree to be paid the low wages that those in Thailand agree to. But Los Angeles is far more expensive a place to live in, so his wish is unreasonable. So, he is allowed to go manufacture his product somewhere else and import it back into the nation he abandoned without adequate tariff penalties that used to offset the benefits of Corporations to do what he did.

 

The end-result is that the nation that he uses as a base of operations that provides him silly Socialist programs like the EPA, the FDA, the NIH, the CDC, Police, Fire protection, the Military, public education, the DOT, the FAA, etc. is slowly but surely eroded because people like him refuse to support the system financially. What SHOULD a guy like him do? If this is his strategy for his business, then he should pick up and move to another nation and base himself there and not be a drain on the resources of the USA anymore. In other words, why should someone like him continue to get the benefits of this society when he is unwilling to adequately financially support it?

 

And therein, lies the primary argument that befuddles the US and other nations of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, Brian, I have worked the past sixteen days, straight :-<

 

 

I will answer all of your points when I get a decent day off. Inventorying film canisters doesn't count. . .

 

 

 

FYI, I am NEITHER a Republican nor a Deomcrat. I vote for the common good. Less than 10% of the U.S. population does that. You really have to see past rhetoric if you want to make a difference in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, Brian, I have worked the past sixteen days, straight :-<

 

 

I will answer all of your points when I get a decent day off. Inventorying film canisters doesn't count. . .

 

 

 

FYI, I am NEITHER a Republican nor a Deomcrat. I vote for the common good. Less than 10% of the U.S. population does that. You really have to see past rhetoric if you want to make a difference in the U.S.

 

 

You're absolutely correct. Not enough people comprehend the realities of economy and democracy instead relying on soundbites and rhetoric for information.

 

The rhetoric says that "Milton Friedmanism" IS the best system for the planet to work under. For those unfamiliar with Friedman's failed theory, it suggests that if the "market" is left unfettered, that in time, the good businesses and people will succeed and the "bad" businesses and people will fail (read: die).

 

The reality is that Milton Friedmanism, as supported and pushed by the US Republican Party for the past thirty years, hasn't really worked out that way. Instead, via the WTO and World Bank with a bit of help from the US CIA and programs like GATT and NAFTA, economies worldwide have been devastated by this ideal of unfettered Free Market Capitalism. Of course it works for the scant 1% at the top. But it has been proven to decimate the Middle Class and kills the Poor.

 

Those are the realities, but some political parties around the world enlist various methods to "fool" people into supporting this system even when it hurts them. It's called "propaganda" and it has worked quite well in a variety of societies throughout history in order to enrich just a few while the majority suffer.

 

So yes, real information is necessary and the USA media, being predominantly Corporate owned, is woefully under-serving those who depend on it to protect democracy and rights.

 

 

Those kinds of macro-issues are necessary to understand when someone in Hollywood is sitting at home wondering why all of the movies, movies of the week, commercials and many features are being shot in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, London, Budapest, Prague... and Boston, Louisiana, NYC, Iowa, etc. It is a Government's JOB to protect national interests and the people who live and pay taxes within those borders. So when policies are enacted that undermine a nation's economy, by encouraging USA-based Corporations (like Hollywood movie studios) to manufacture their products outside of the borders of the home nation, then the Government is not doing what it is meant to do.

 

Those in other nations may look at this topic/discussion and be happy that they now get the jobs that used to be done by US citizens. To that I would personally ask why they don't instead push their own national industries instead of "poaching" jobs from USA-based crews? Your own Governments are handing out bribes to USA Corporations, which means that there is less tax-revenue for your own nations that should be paid in any other circumstance.

 

The point is that this is really a systemic problem in that "Milton Friedmanism" is the promise of better lives for everyone, but what's missing is the level-playing field. So, Corporations are the ultimate winners and the CEOs and stock holders of those Corporations are the one's benefiting while Governments and the people they are meant to care for, suffer.

 

So yes, it means properly educating people and this thread is meant to help those who are struggling in the film industry to understand what's happening. It intends to answer the questions of why work seems to be more scarce while the studios are making record profits. It answers why Governments are handing out bribes to Corporations while those same Corporations (movie studios) are making record profits. Being properly informed as to the FACTS is imperative to one's survival in this industry and in the life.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and Boston, Louisiana, NYC, Iowa, etc. It is a Government's JOB to protect national interests and the people who live and pay taxes within those borders.

 

Uh....stupid question, I thought Boston, Louisiana, NYC, & Iowa, where part of the USA????

 

You don't want workers in those parts of the USA protected Brian? :blink:

 

R,

 

PS: I like you Brian but your obsession with only wanting the US film industry to exist in Southern California is quite perplexing. You don't just want the unions and gov't to protect US jobs, you want them to only protect film jobs in Southern California. I think your fellow Americans in other parts of the country will have some serious objections to that.

 

What happens if their is major earthquake in S. Calif and people in the other 49 states say screw sending our tax dollars to help them out, they wanted to be their own country so let them bail themselves out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh....stupid question, I thought Boston, Louisiana, NYC, & Iowa, where part of the USA????

 

You don't want workers in those parts of the USA protected Brian? :blink:

 

R,

 

PS: I like you Brian but your obsession with only wanting the US film industry to exist in Southern California is quite perplexing. You don't just want the unions and gov't to protect US jobs, you want them to only protect film jobs in Southern California. I think your fellow Americans in other parts of the country will have some serious objections to that.

 

What happens if their is major earthquake in S. Calif and people in the other 49 states say screw sending our tax dollars to help them out, they wanted to be their own country so let them bail themselves out.

 

:)

 

Let me try to explain it this way. Suppose a little town has a business in it that employs a large percentage of that town's population. For better or worse, that town's existence relies on that business because in order for that business to manufacture its product, it needs the people in that town. The people need the company and the company needs the workers. It should be happy place to be. Everybody wins. Right?

 

For over fifty years, Southern California became THE place for movies, television shows, and commercials to be made because the "Corporations" that made these products settled there. The movie studios are in the greater Los Angeles area as are most of the stages AND the most experienced and qualified Cast and Crew in addition to everyone Above-the-Line.

 

Picking up and moving the manufacturing of movies is akin to General Motors picking up and moving from Detroit to a cheap factory in China. The USA Executives stay put and collect the profits while the former workers in Detroit either find something else to do or become a drain on government resources (while the cheap labor in China lives a substantive existence).

 

People move to a place to work in a job they wish to spend their life doing. And living in that place comes with a cost, particularly in a place like Southern California which was chosen because of the variety of climates and environments that were helpful to film production. It's expensive, but that's not the fault of those who live there so they can live their one life doing the thing that makes them happy. Curses to them for not having the passion to dig holes in a cheap place like South Dakota or India. <_<

 

Anyway, yes, location work is part and parcel of movie-making, so it is expected that productions will take place wherever the script calls for. But, when the entire production is allowed to go "wherever" in the world just because a local Government agrees to bribe the Corporation for those temporary manufacturing jobs, then there is something fundamentally wrong with society when it places profit over people. No?

 

The "film industry" in other parts of the USA never truly existed until this Corporate Welfare mentality was encouraged by the Milton Friedman ideology. Look at it this way. Had I had a wish to work in the auto industry when I was a kid, I would have known that I should move to Detroit to make that a reality. I wouldn't move to Vancouver, Canada or Santa Fe, New Mexico and expect to succeed. You go where the work IS.

 

And for so many, Los Angeles was the place where movies and other entertainment was made. Why? Because this IS where the movie studios and Executives ARE in addition to the stages and other infrastructure that was built over the past fifty+ years.

 

But now, because of MACRO-economic policies, ALL businesses and towns and cities are affected because Corporations are encouraged to troll the planet for the cheapest labor/manufacturing costs they can find. And Governments world-wide are buying into it and are continually handing out Corporate Welfare/Bribes to get any work at all in their area.

 

So who wins?

 

In regard to your last question, I'm not entirely clear on the relevance, but I have heard this argument from "Libertarians" before. With that line of reasoning that you suggest, it suggests that every region/state become its OWN nation as opposed to being a "united" region governed by a common government. I believe that your own Québécois sovereignty movement pushes that very idea. So if that's the alternative, I ask, why stop there? Why have government at all? Ultimately, this is where the Libertarian ideal leads... back to individuals living in an anarchistic environment where, likely, the most wealthy and powerful would become a new Aristocracy... the very thing that the United States was created to defeat in the first place.

 

 

But that's all general history and reality. What am I for personally? I'm for stopping this insanity of handing out Corporate Welfare, particularly to those Corporations that are making massive profits, like the Film Industry. I mean, why? Why should a film Corporation deserve tax breaks and credits when it makes record profits year after year? It's not like a Corporation that is teetering and could use a little help to stay afloat. The entertainment industry as a whole is not suffering at all... at least on the Corporate Above-the-Line level. So why are Governments (state and national) so willing to hand out Corporate Welfare? I'm for encouraging EVERY region/state/nation to build their own film/tv industries instead of relying on foreign Corporations to bring work to them (ie, US studios giving international crews work). In other words, if Canadians or Australians, etc. want to work in the movie business, then develop their own industries instead of relying on bribes to US Corporations to get that work from US studios.

 

Difficult to implement in the current economic environment? Of course. But why is that such a crazy idea to work toward? So I'm an optimist. :) But so were our Founding Fathers who sought to rid people of the tyranny of Fascists and other greedy Aristocracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, yes, location work is part and parcel of movie-making, so it is expected that productions will take place wherever the script calls for. But, when the entire production is allowed to go "wherever" in the world just because a local Government agrees to bribe the Corporation for those temporary manufacturing jobs, then there is something fundamentally wrong with society when it places profit over people. No?

 

When you say "allowed" what exactly do you mean? Are you saying you want the US federal government to make it illegal for Hollywood to shoot any where except S. Calif?

 

I was under the impression that the USA is a free country and business people are free to spend their money where they want to.

 

If the people of Southern California are as outraged by "runaway production" as you are then why don't they refuse to buy tickets to movies that are shot outside of S. Calif?

 

In other words, if Canadians or Australians, etc. want to work in the movie business, then develop their own industries instead of relying on bribes to US Corporations to get that work from US studios.

 

Ah I was hoping you would say this, as it's a common American argument against US productions shooting in Canada or Australia.

 

Here's the problem, we would love to develop our own film industry here in Canada but thanks to total US control of the theatrical distribution chain only 1% of movies shown in Canada are Canadian. Your country has the other 99% Brian. You speak of fairness a lot, is this fair?

 

In the 1980s the government of Brian Mulroney tried to place limits on the amount of US films shown in Canada in an effort to help the Canadian film industry. The US film lobby headed by Jack Valenti went ballistic!! Off to Washington they went and demanded that former Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan threaten Canada with trade sanctions if they went ahead with the plan. Well guess what happened, the Canadian gov't dropped the idea and that was that.

 

Brian, I could make the best damn movie ever here in Canada and my chances of getting it across the country on Canadian screens is absolutely zero! The Hollywood studios simply will not allow it.

 

So if you think I have sympathy for people in S. Calif that don't have a job because a movie is shooting in Toronto instead of Los Angeles you'd be dead wrong.

 

First Brian, you get out of the Canadian film market then maybe we'll get out of yours.

 

I should add that any Americans that want to come to Canada and work on US or Canadian movies shooting here are more than welcome to. I had a US DOP on Dogfather and a US lead actor. Canada makes the process of Americans coming to Canada to work on movies very very easy, even though the USA does NOT return the favour to Canada.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say "allowed" what exactly do you mean? Are you saying you want the US federal government to make it illegal for Hollywood to shoot any where except S. Calif?

 

I was under the impression that the USA is a free country and business people are free to spend their money where they want to.

 

If the people of Southern California are as outraged by "runaway production" as you are then why don't they refuse to buy tickets to movies that are shot outside of S. Calif?

 

I'll refer you back to the list of specific policy changes that Karl asked for a few posts ago. First, yes, this is "supposed to be" a free country however it was meant to be "free" within certain parameters. Franklin Delano Roosevelt enacted some very stringent limits on business and banking following the Republican Great Depression in the 1920s that helped to recover the US economy and build a strong Middle Class, which is the backbone of any viable Democracy. The Reaganites arrived in 1980 to undo all of that positive progress in favor of the Milton Friedman ideology that suggests that there should be no limits or regulations of any kind. The recent devastation in Haiti is a prime example of what happens in an unfettered Free Market environment where regulations are done away with regarding safety and Corporate behavior.

 

So, yes, business ARE allowed to spend their money as they see fit. Prior to 1980, there were rules, though, that helped to protect "American interests." Essentially, what happened was that if it took $10 to manufacture something in the USA, and the Corporation went over the border/overseas to produce it for $1 dollar, then $9 dollars of tariffs were imposed to encourage that Corporation to keep manufacturing within the USA and keep the economy strong and viable.

 

Then Reagan and Milton Friedman arrived followed by Bush I, Clinton and NAFTA, and Bush II. Thirty years of policies designed specifically to erode the national economy (and arguably democracy itself) so that Corporations and their CEO and stockholders would be the only one's to profit. Like these guys: http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/ This type of thing simply wasn't allowed prior to Reagan. But after he and the rest of his ilk took control of our nation, manufacturing was encouraged to leave and deregulation and lack of rules of any kind led to Libertarian havens, like Haiti.

 

 

In regard to your last question above, like so many other products that have been outsourced, there was a push a while back to place a "Made in the USA" stamp of some sort on movies that were primarily made internationally using US dollars, but because we've endured three decades of Conservative Regimes, that kind of labeling on just about everything was discouraged. This is why a company like WalMart manages to thrive. Cheap products don't come without a price to someone. If consumers knew just how impoverished, overworked, and underpaid foreign workers were in places like China and Haiti, I wonder if their consciences would hold their wallets back or not. :(

 

 

 

Ah I was hoping you would say this, as it's a common American argument against US productions shooting in Canada or Australia.

 

Here's the problem, we would love to develop our own film industry here in Canada but thanks to total US control of the theatrical distribution chain only 1% of movies shown in Canada are Canadian. Your country has the other 99% Brian. You speak of fairness a lot, is this fair?

 

 

In the 1980s the government of Brian Mulroney tried to place limits on the amount of US films shown in Canada in an effort to help the Canadian film industry. The US film lobby headed by Jack Valenti went ballistic!! Off to Washington they went and demanded that former Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan threaten Canada with trade sanctions if they went ahead with the plan. Well guess what happened, the Canadian gov't dropped the idea and that was that.

 

Brian, I could make the best damn movie ever here in Canada and my chances of getting it across the country on Canadian screens is absolutely zero! The Hollywood studios simply will not allow it.

 

 

No, it's not fair. So instead of going along with the current system that limits "local" filmmaking, why not try to change THAT policy instead of giving in to the Corporate/Fascist Agenda?

 

 

 

So if you think I have sympathy for people in S. Calif that don't have a job because a movie is shooting in Toronto instead of Los Angeles you'd be dead wrong.

And that attitude is what the Fascists count on because when we boil Milton Friedman's ideology down, all it ultimately says is that selfishness rules all else. I wonder where the humanity is in that attitude?

 

 

 

 

 

First Brian, you get out of the Canadian film market then maybe we'll get out of yours.

 

I'd say that I'm all for it, only I'm not. Instead, I'd prefer that Canadians and all other nations make more of their own movies and that the USA invites those movies in as well. "Hollywood" makes some absolute crap and it would be nice to have more choice in what we spend our entertainment dollars on. I rather enjoy the real Canadian films that do manage to get out there and I'd like to see more. So instead of giving in, why don't other nation's filmmakers fight their own government's and "Hollywood" to get a more equitable share of distribution instead of merely handing over Corporate Welfare to those who are already rich beyond what most of us can imagine?

 

 

I should add that any Americans that want to come to Canada and work on US or Canadian movies shooting here are more than welcome to. I had a US DOP on Dogfather and a US lead actor. Canada makes the process of Americans coming to Canada to work on movies very very easy, even though the USA does NOT return the favour to Canada.

 

R,

 

Wow. Really? I can't count the number of times that I've been told that I can't continue on with a production because it's going to Canada. That place is on virtual lock-down except for the very top of the heap. We are SO not "welcome to" shoot over there. On the other hand, I've seen MANY international crew members who freely find work here. Thanks to policies like NAFTA, the playing field is very uneven, particularly for US based crew. I'm interested where your information is coming from (because I truly DO want the most accurate current information), but in my experience, your last statement isn't accurate at all. I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, it's just that I haven't seen any evidence of it on my end.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not fair. So instead of going along with the current system that limits "local" filmmaking, why not try to change THAT policy instead of giving in to the Corporate/Fascist Agenda?

 

Not sure how I am "giving in to the Corporate/Fascist Agenda?" You mean just send a letter to the Hollywood studios and ask them to stop distributing movies here?

 

I wonder where the humanity is in that attitude?

 

It's the same humanity you exhibit when you want to throw film workers in Canada, Boston, or NYC, out of work.

 

So instead of giving in, why don't other nation's filmmakers fight their own government's and "Hollywood" to get a more equitable share of distribution instead of merely handing over Corporate Welfare to those who are already rich beyond what most of us can imagine?

 

As I said, it's been tried. Canadian filmmakers going up against the Hollywood studios isn't a David v Goliath match up, it's a flea v Goliath.

 

Wow. Really? I can't count the number of times that I've been told that I can't continue on with a production because it's going to Canada. That place is on virtual lock-down except for the very top of the heap. We are SO not "welcome to" shoot over there. On the other hand, I've seen MANY international crew members who freely find work here. Thanks to policies like NAFTA, the playing field is very uneven, particularly for US based crew. I'm interested where your information is coming from (because I truly DO want the most accurate current information), but in my experience, your last statement isn't accurate at all. I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, it's just that I haven't seen any evidence of it on my end.

 

Why yes it's quite easy, me bringing in a US DOP to work here and a US lead actor was very easy. If I want to work on a US production as a director, well it's possible, but the paper work and expense is 100X times greater than what it is for a US director to work in Canada.

 

Neither the US or Canada is allowing people like grips and carpenters to work in each other's country on a film, that is true. But for a US DOP coming to Canada, piece of cake. A Canadian DOP going to the US, next to impossible.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I found this article/opinion commentary which speaks to how and why economics and politics play a large part in our industry and why it should be important for everyone here. There is a growing list of comments, pro and con, at the end of his article at the link below:

 

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/fdemarti...ing-in-bangkok/

I haven't read all of the replies, and don't intend to as it seems to be on the verge of political-flames.

 

The article, to me, only brings up one valid issue; cost.

 

One of the biggest clients for San Francisco production used to be Japanese corporations. What this guy in the article was b----ing about being in Thailand was what the Japanese were saying about production costs in Japan. And, of all places, they came to San Francisco to shoot? ... one of the MOST expensive cities in the US? That's saying a lot for Japan's media industry.

 

In short, it's not an isolated problem. Germany, the UK, and the Scandinavian countries all have the same problem. It's why you don't see big films coming out of any of those countries without lots of other companies flipping the bill for a giant co-production.

 

I don't want to get too geeky about this, but, the cost of everything has to come down. The dollar needs more buying power, and the only way to allow that to happen is to let the financial markets do their thing.

 

So, when the dollar is strong, you won't have to hire union labor, but competent freelancers, then rent your gear and shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a very negative view of unions. Maybe they were useful 50 or 100 years ago, but right now, in the US, they are bankrupting entire industries. Public employee unions are raping and robbing state governments blind.

 

We had GM line workers making $75 an hour to turn a wrench. That is simply ridiculous. It is unsustainable.

 

In LA, you have union teamsters making $800 a day to drive a passenger van for movie productions... up to $1,500 a day with overtime! We're talking about a freekin guy driving a van. I can find someone who would be happy to take that job for 15 bucks an hour. Who in their right mind would pay anyone $1,500 a day to drive a van??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a very negative view of unions. Maybe they were useful 50 or 100 years ago, but right now, in the US, they are bankrupting entire industries. Public employee unions are raping and robbing state governments blind.

 

We had GM line workers making $75 an hour to turn a wrench. That is simply ridiculous. It is unsustainable.

 

In LA, you have union teamsters making $800 a day to drive a passenger van for movie productions... up to $1,500 a day with overtime! We're talking about a freekin guy driving a van. I can find someone who would be happy to take that job for 15 bucks an hour. Who in their right mind would pay anyone $1,500 a day to drive a van??

 

The Teamsters that drive the big trucks, the trailers, the mechanics, etc deserve that kind of money. The Van drivers do not. This is the biggest problem with the unions. It's a total waste of money that could be going somewhere else.

 

On the flip side, there is so much money wasted above the line that it is ridiculous. Every show has a few producers in name only that take a big paycheck for doing nothing. Then there are always useless political hires that do nothing and get paid for it. Many office PA's do nothing all day. Money is wasted all over the place in the film biz. From top to bottom. If a real company wasted money like that it would be out of business in no time, or it would be AIG or the Government.

 

You are 100% right Tom, this is not sustainable. The Unions really screwed themselves with the latest deal that made it so much harder to get health insurance. That was one of the big reasons to join the union, and that is gone. All the Unions have gotten too big and care more about having political power than protecting their members. What the hell are your dues paying for? Once you give that up, there is no way the studios will give that back. People will start dropping out of the union, fewer people will join, and power will dwindle.

 

SAG totally f'd itself by threatening to strike after the writers. The studios were able to see they could save a ton of money by switching a bunch of TV shows to digital, and by passing SAG altogether. Not to mention that there was a political struggle within SAG which made them weak. They had no bargaining power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I have a very negative view of unions. Maybe they were useful 50 or 100 years ago, but right now, in the US, they are bankrupting entire industries. Public employee unions are raping and robbing state governments blind.

 

We had GM line workers making $75 an hour to turn a wrench. That is simply ridiculous. It is unsustainable.

 

In LA, you have union teamsters making $800 a day to drive a passenger van for movie productions... up to $1,500 a day with overtime! We're talking about a freekin guy driving a van. I can find someone who would be happy to take that job for 15 bucks an hour. Who in their right mind would pay anyone $1,500 a day to drive a van??

I hope I don't get my tires slashed (or worse), but I was on a Kawaski shoot one time with a Teamster crew. Not a big deal. They knew their stuff, they were professional, addressed the director and producers as "Sir", but they weren't the fastest crew I'd ever seen work. Again, not a big deal because they knew the equipment and their jobs.

 

But, the thing that got me was this; a half hour "softball" break. Yes, that's right. The crew got a half hour mid morning break to play softball out in the back alley behind the studio where I was working. That was above and beyond the craft services and all the other amenities those people got.

 

Me, at the time I was barely making min-wage as a substitute stage manager, but was just as well educated in apple boxes, scrims, lights, dolly and dolly track as any of those people. Best I could do was shrug my shoulders.

 

Even so I'm not anti-union. The unions were created to respond to a real need for labor reform. But I wonder what would happen if everyone, above and below the line people, all took a giant pay cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how I am "giving in to the Corporate/Fascist Agenda?" You mean just send a letter to the Hollywood studios and ask them to stop distributing movies here?

 

 

Well, no. We know that that isn't going to happen. :) What you do is vote in officials and push for policies that encourage your own national industries instead of relying on foreign Corporations to bring work to you.

 

In time, the "benefits" of manufacturing movies in Canada will be outdone by some other place in the world because that government will hand out bigger bribes to those Corporations.

 

But more importantly, arguably, the center of "commercial" movie-making is "Hollywood" (Southern California) so that is where a person should go if they want to participate in that arena. Just as I wouldn't move to Topeka, Kansas or the north pole and expect that the auto industry or fashion industry move there to placate me.

 

The economic point is that the primary "producers/studios" are based in Southern California so thousands of people over the years have moved there and built lives around the idea that that industry IS there and that they can make a living and raise families et al. But the Governments of the world have decided that profit means more than national interests or people, so the result is that real people are having increasing difficulty doing the very basic things, muchless "getting ahead."

 

More than anything, this is an ideological difference between people who believe in pure competition and those who wish for a world that doesn't conspire against those who aren't born into the "perfect" situation.

 

<shrug>

 

 

It's the same humanity you exhibit when you want to throw film workers in Canada, Boston, or NYC, out of work.

 

 

Again, those places are not where the centers of production were built so why the expectation that a Corporation be allowed to troll the planet, taking bribes from governments, to move manufacturing wherever it is most beneficial TO THE CEOs and STOCKHOLDERS no matter what negative impacts such decisions have on the greater good?

 

It's not about "throwing people out of work." It's about people who want to work in a particular field making the choice to go where the infrastructure IS instead of expecting and bribing industries to come where they are.

 

If I wanted to be a Longshoreman, I wouldn't pressure my local government to agree to tax concessions to get the Long Beach Harbor to move to Iowa. So why expect a local government to bribe a movie studio just to get movie-making in Iowa?

 

It's that process of bribery (tax incentives) that is part and parcel of the Milton Friedman/Fascist Agenda.

 

 

As I said, it's been tried. Canadian filmmakers going up against the Hollywood studios isn't a David v Goliath match up, it's a flea v Goliath.

 

The best things in life aren't easy. :)

 

 

 

Why yes it's quite easy, me bringing in a US DOP to work here and a US lead actor was very easy. If I want to work on a US production as a director, well it's possible, but the paper work and expense is 100X times greater than what it is for a US director to work in Canada.

 

Neither the US or Canada is allowing people like grips and carpenters to work in each other's country on a film, that is true. But for a US DOP coming to Canada, piece of cake. A Canadian DOP going to the US, next to impossible.

 

R,

 

Why would a Canadian DP WANT to come here? Most of the USA-work has already crossed the border, so what would be the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so I'm not anti-union. The unions were created to respond to a real need for labor reform. But I wonder what would happen if everyone, above and below the line people, all took a giant pay cut.

 

Thumbs up.

 

It's pretty sick the way some people are adamant to cut working people's wages, working people who use that money to buy homes, raise families, stimulate the economy by buying things. But those same critics have no problem with people like this: http://sickforprofit.com/ceos who have far more than any one person could ever need for doing absolutely nothing and contributing nothing at all. Somehow it's bad for a working person to earn too much, but it's justified for a CEO to earn millions and billions for wearing a suit and not breaking a sweat? :blink:

 

I really don't understand the mentality of people who support such a lopsided, anti-family/anti-society, system. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all of the replies, and don't intend to as it seems to be on the verge of political-flames.

 

The article, to me, only brings up one valid issue; cost.

 

 

It's not that big Corporations aren't able to pay the costs associated with producing a product. It's that they don't want to. And when their influence on Government policies (we define that as "Fascism") makes them able to manufacture for less (ie, by trolling the planet for cheaper labor, for suppressing wages of working people, for exacting bribes from local and national governments), then the real people lose because they are working for less and tax revenue is less (to pay for things like the EPA, the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, the Military, the Police, the Fire Department, the DOT, the FAA, public education, etc.)

 

....while those same Corporations continue to make record profits whilst claiming that they "can't afford the high costs of manufacturing." Then people point to the "excessive" pay of Union workers who are lucky to just own a house, muchless afford anything else and suggest that the working people (union members) should take pay cuts...instead of looking at the outrageous pay that those "Above-the-Line" take home and hoard.

 

There's not a lot of logic in that line of thinking unless one is incredibly selfish and/or psychopathic. :blink:

 

 

As Karl asked for (specific solutions to the problem), the answer is in limiting the amount of wealth that an individual can hold AND the amount of power that a larger entity, like a Corporation, can wield over public policy. Such a path would allow non-Hollywood motion-picture industries the ability to sell their own products to the international market and be profitable. It would allow all of us crew the ability to earn a sustainable living where we live instead of being asked to "chase the work" around the globe, in the rare instances where we are allowed to.

 

Or, we could all just sit back and say, "there's nothing I can do, so I might as well just go along with their game." The David vs. Goliath analogy was interesting in that David won. He won in that story because he didn't give up and he found the weakness to exploit. The question is, amongst the many weaknesses of the Milton Friedman ideology, which one can WE exploit to bring it down so that we all can live comfortable happy lives pursuing the things that we want to do in the limited time we have on this planet instead of just letting the selfish wealthy tell us how things are going to be? Isn't that what olden day Aristocracies did? Isn't that what the United States Constitution was meant to prevent ever again?

 

The guy in the opening article of this thread decided that it is worth the cost to his own logic circuits to justify giving in to the Fascist ideology that says "go wherever you can find the cheapest labor so that you can become wealthy." We don't all have to subscribe to that. It's not mandated anywhere that "only the strongest and most selfish have to be the only one's who survive." The world doesn't have to be that way.... but for now, it is led by people who do think that so that's why people who have built lives around a career that they love (filmmaking) are continually being pushed to cut their own wages or being pushed out of what they want to do.

 

For what? So that those who are already wealthy can accumulate and hoard even more? I know why the wealthy support this ideology. But for the life of me, I can't understand why the non-millionaires and non-billionaires support it too.

 

But this is the "New World Order" they wanted, so we can all either buy into it and become one of "them," selfish, self-serving, greedy, un-compassionate.... or we can fight it and create a more equitable world where we are all able to have the freedom to pursue that which we want to do with the limited time we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a Canadian DP WANT to come here? Most of the USA-work has already crossed the border, so what would be the point?

 

Brian, one thing you may not understand is that when a Hollywood film shoots in Canada, none of the dept heads are hired in Canada. They all come in from the US, primarily the LA area. Canadian DOPs don't have a hope in hell of being the DOP on a big US movie shooting in Canada, that position will be held by an American. The same as all the other dept heads.

 

The only people hired in Canada are grips, electricians, carpenters, and lot's of assistants to work with the US managers.

 

They shoot Smallville in BC for instance and also Supernatural, good luck finding an episode directed by a Canadian!! The director's fly in from LA, poach the job from a Canadian citizen, and then fly back to LA.

 

Canada is a total patsie in all of this because the logic is that we have to let in US director's and DOPs or the US films will shoot some place else.

 

Brian I don't know where you get your info from but Hollywood has already fleeced Canada left, right, up, and down, Canadians don't have a prayer of being hired as dept heads on Hollywood films shooting here.

 

The Canadian gov't will do nothing to protect the jobs of Canadian director's and DOPs because they figure having 100 "end credit" people employed is better than one director.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complaining that stars make too much is ridiculous. Are you complaining that NBA stars make too much while the guys selling hot dogs only make 15 bucks an hour? I rarely hear that. Those stars bring in huge audiences, which is why they make the bucks. Do you think the guy driving the grip truck can bring in an extra 10 million dollars in opening-weekend box office like Brad Pitt can? Do you think the guy selling hot dogs at the Lakers game is why people pay $100 for a ticket to attend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complaining that stars make too much is ridiculous. Are you complaining that NBA stars make too much while the guys selling hot dogs only make 15 bucks an hour? I rarely hear that. Those stars bring in huge audiences, which is why they make the bucks. Do you think the guy driving the grip truck can bring in an extra 10 million dollars in opening-weekend box office like Brad Pitt can? Do you think the guy selling hot dogs at the Lakers game is why people pay $100 for a ticket to attend?

 

No, what's ridiculous is suggesting that a Middle Class worker should take a pay cut because someone randomly decides that the job is too simplistic to merit that person living a decent life with a home, insurance, a car, and enough to take care of a family.

 

Way back prior to the Reagan-era, it was decided that individuals truly didn't "need" more than $3 million per year. So, moderate taxes were placed on the first $3 million in income and then a tax-rate of around 75% was placed on income after $3 million per year. Why was this fair and necessary? Because, in order for a free society to survive, it was recognized that allowing wealth to consolidate into the hands of a small percentage of the population would be inherently detrimental on many levels. Then the Reagan era arrived and we've witnessed the effects of what unfettered greed does to a civilization as infrastructure and education becomes compromised due to the overwhelming lack of tax revenue coming in like it used to.

 

So, yes, people with skills and talent should be allowed to earn more than a basic bolt turner, however just as there is a minimum wage to protect individuals and society at large, we need a return to the de facto "maximum wage" (in addition to a variety of other necessary policies) to return our economy (in the USA and around the world) to a place where a strong Middle Class can thrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada is a total patsie in all of this because the logic is that we have to let in US director's and DOPs or the US films will shoot some place else.

 

Brian I don't know where you get your info from but Hollywood has already fleeced Canada left, right, up, and down, Canadians don't have a prayer of being hired as dept heads on Hollywood films shooting here.

 

The Canadian gov't will do nothing to protect the jobs of Canadian director's and DOPs because they figure having 100 "end credit" people employed is better than one director.

 

R,

 

I understand the frustration, but those statements seem to cancel each other out. Canada is helping hundreds (if not thousands) of people to have jobs but somehow Canada is also being "fleeced"? :unsure:

 

I assume that you'd prefer to have all of the "Hollywood" projects in Canada AND have every position and cast member be filled by Canadians?

 

 

I think that the situation that you were proud of a couple posts ago is precisely the one I'm explaining. Governments bend over backwards to "bribe" the Corporations (ie, movie studio/production company) and in return, the project gives temporary employment to below-the-line people. Those people pay their taxes, but recent "incentives" studies are showing that because the tax incentives are so large, the benefits to the region are essentially negated. In other words, the projects take more out of the area/city/state/nation than they put in.

 

...WHILE at the same time, as you've described, those who are making (or have the potential to make) the most money up front (who also happen to be the ones who get back-end dollars) are given the most opportunities to work wherever they want without penalty. Producers, Directors, Writers, DPs, Actors, and the Transnational Corporations themselves are free to cross borders whenever they want to, work, then take the cash and go home. So again, we clearly see how the system is set up to allow wealth to consolidate at the top while those at the "bottom" ultimately are asked to take wage concessions and the regions they those people live in lose out on revenue they need to maintain their own infrastructures.

 

 

After all of these posts, I'd just like to reiterate that this thread is really meant to just explain the world IS so that current and aspiring "filmmakers" can understand in order to make wiser choices for their own careers. For every state/nation that gets excited to be the "New Hollywood North/South/East/or West," there are others that USED to think that but were abandoned because some other place handed out bigger bribes and/or encouraged the workers there to make concessions. The guy in the opening article went to Thailand and he blamed the high costs of crew in Los Angeles for it. I hope that some of this discussion helps all of us understand just why he is so very wrong.

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

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...