|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 18th, 2007, 08:52 AM | #1 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC Metro area
Posts: 579
|
Remuneration for assistant as "talent"?
From time to time, I work for a local indie producer/director/vid, always at a firm rate of $ X per day (or half-day). A few months back I was on a job for this person and was asked to be on-camera for a short segment. At the time, I was told it might not be used, but more footage was needed/wanted and there was time available to shoot it. I agreed to do it and at the time was flattered with the compliment that I was "a natural".
The producer/director/vid works under the philosophy that nothing extra is given to the client beyond what they pay/contract for; if the client is willing to pay for more, then more is provided. Otherwise, it seems the minimum gets to the client. I recently learned that the footage of me was indeed used, but with voice-over. I've been working w/this indie for about 2 yrs now to get experience, so I didn't mind at the time...ya' know..."anything to help get the job done". I've also recently learned that this may happen again. If/when it does, and in light of the producer/director/vid's philosophy, is it fair of me to suggest compensation different/greater than my standard rate? (I.e., since "I did more than I normally do", should I have been compensated for that)? All input invited.
__________________
Denis ------------ Our actions are based on our own experience and knowledge. Thus, no one is ever totally right, nor totally wrong. We simply act from what we "know" to be true, based on that experience and knowledge. Beyond that, we pose questions to others. |
March 20th, 2007, 11:56 PM | #2 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Posts: 1,538
|
So...
You're saying that the definition of "talent" is anyone who appears in front of a camera? And that there's really no difference between YOU and a person from a talent agency who's spent some years taking acting classes, going to auditions, and dedicating themselves to becoming more than just an extra? Following up on this thinking, if the "talent" moves a few lights helping out, would they deserve some of the gaffers budget? I say no. A gaffer is paid for the availability of their specific expertise - not really for moving lights. Anyone can move a light, but only people with training and proven skills should be compensated as a gaffer. What I'm essentially saying here is that as a producer, I'm really paying people for AVAILABLE EXPERTISE at my call. If the actor pitches in and moves the case from setup 1 to setup 2 I thank them, but I'd never for one moment think of compensating them as a crew member - they're just momentarily pitching in as unskilled labor in that particular area. Just like you're pitching in "unskilled labor" as an actor in your example. If and when I ask someone to come on my set because I'm expecting to have their "acting expertise" available on call - at that point I think it's fair they ask for compensation. Up to that point, you're just pitching in like the actor who after the shoot helps load a case into the car. (Disclaimer: I'm in Arizona, a right to work state. And we're talking about industrial type productions here. On the majority of serious and/or major sets, if you move a case or light, expect at LEAST to be yelled at - or to become the subject of a formal complaint. Forewarned is forearmed!) |
March 21st, 2007, 06:34 AM | #3 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 100
|
Quote:
Always your call. Cheers, Robert |
|
March 21st, 2007, 03:17 PM | #4 | ||
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC Metro area
Posts: 579
|
Perhaps I was more myopic than I suspected.
Bill,
I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm seeking the knowledge and experience of others. Quote:
FWIW, this shoot was for a short promotial work to be used at a charity event for a gallery in NYC. I was simply wondering what "common practice" is in such situations: should someone - anyone - somehow be remunerated for increasing that profit in such a circumstance, even if only inadvertantly or unexpectedly? (If I had said "No" to the suggestion, might I never be hired again by the producer, even as an assistant, because it would have cost him more to hire "paid talent" for this specific shoot)? My main interest is in learning if such circumstances are common or not, and how producers might view/handle them, and how "paid talent" might view it.(Did I effectively "take work" from someone - anyone - because the producer chose to use me? I suspect that might very well have been the case. Frankly, I don't know what standard practices are when dealing with/paying talent. That's one reason I posed the question). Quote:
Despite all that, I think I understand your perspective.Thanks for offering it; it's exactly the "slap" I needed to "snap me out" of an apparently myopic perspective. (Don't we all need that from time to time)?
__________________
Denis ------------ Our actions are based on our own experience and knowledge. Thus, no one is ever totally right, nor totally wrong. We simply act from what we "know" to be true, based on that experience and knowledge. Beyond that, we pose questions to others. |
||
March 21st, 2007, 04:28 PM | #5 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
March 21st, 2007, 07:06 PM | #6 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Posts: 1,538
|
POST SNIPPED
First and foremost, Let me commend you on both your tone and attitude throughout your original post and response. This is a murky area and you've addressed it with both honesty and common sense. I hope I managed, in my response to do a bit of the same - but it's not unusual for me to look back at a post I make and find myself surprised to find an unintended tone of censure or worse in what I write here. Such is newsgroup/forum discourse. I think the call as to when a producer (or possibly the client that producer is representing) is "taking advanage" of a situation for profit is much harder to descern than most people think. When I was exclusively on the talent end, I would often think a producer was pushing for that extra hour or trying to avoid hiring an extra set of hands exclusively in the quest for a better bottom line. Now that I AM that producer, I can tell you that I really NEVER have time to be that Machiavellian in my thinking. For every case like yours where I can look back and think "Perhaps I should have compensated "Tom" for being a smiling customer in that short scene." I have a long string of "Gosh, Tina, Roger and Judy sat around all day gobbling up craft services and shooting the breeze and each of them did 4 minutes on camera work and they're each walking away with a full day rate which represents hundreds upon hundreds of dollars of my talent budget." I've had to come to understand that it's not my fault, nor theirs. It's just the only way to do this sensibly. I MUST pay them to sit around so that when I need them, I can put out the call and the nine others on the crew can do what they do and not waste many times MORE than the talent cost. That (and a thousand other) things occupy my brain when I'm directing/producing and the fact that someone (ANYONE!) steps up and makes a contribution without making a ruckess about it simply cements them into my "that person is a PLEASURE to have on set - the next time I'm putting a cast or crew together, they'll be among the first I call." I never call them because of their "actiing" unless I start to see them as an actor. If and when I do, they must compete for their roles alongside everyone else in the agent's talent book. And I suspect that's not where you want to be - precisely because I'll hire a crew person (especially one with a "pitch in" attitude) over and over and over again. But I'll hardly EVER do that with an actor, knowing that the client will get grumpy if they see the same faces over and over in their videos. For what it's worth. |
March 22nd, 2007, 07:22 AM | #7 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC Metro area
Posts: 579
|
Bill, Steve, and Robert: Thanks for your input.
While repetition can foster efficiency and prowess at a particular task, I share Steve's observation that it can also generate boredom, and, the somewhat strict separation of duties on a set can easily lend to reducing the chances of learning/doing something different and making larger/more valuable contributions. While unionization offers certain protections, it also enforces restrictions. I (at least like to think I) would resist being confined to a single "box".
Learning other perspectives helped broaden mine. Thanks for that.
__________________
Denis ------------ Our actions are based on our own experience and knowledge. Thus, no one is ever totally right, nor totally wrong. We simply act from what we "know" to be true, based on that experience and knowledge. Beyond that, we pose questions to others. |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|