November 7, 2003

Factoring consent.

Dusk Till Dawn Edward Champion wonders if an indie filmmaker we admire might not be overstating his case...

It could have been the greatest X-Files episode ever. A supernatural story directed by Quentin Tarantino airing right after the Super Bowl. A ratings bonanza. A fresh take on a show showing early signs of atrophy. But it didn't happen. Tarantino, you see, wasn't a union man.

Tarantino's union aversion can be seen in Full Tilt Boogie, a documentary that chronicles the making of From Dusk Till Dawn. It's a documentary directed by Sarah Kelly, who served as a production assistant on Pulp Fiction. Dusk director Robert Rodriguez and Tarantino opted to head south with a non-union crew. But when the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) caught wind of this decision, they tried to shut the film down. Later in the film, Kelly heads off to the IATSE convention to get answers, but she's foofarawed away.

Despite all of Tarantino's shameless mugging and Kelly's partisan antics, the doc does raise a valid issue: How can low-budget films get made while sticking with the frequently stern demands of unions?

Filmmaker Brian Flemming has recently weighed in on the SAG Experimental Film Agreement, long the bane of lo-fi filmmakers hoping to needle professionalism and creativity in a pinch. Flemming writes, "I pour a year or more of my life into a feature film, then at the very moment all of that work is to pay off, an actor who worked one day on the film can make any demands whatsoever (money, credit, more close-ups, anything) and hold up the distribution of the film." A legitimate gripe. But the agreement summary states that the filmmaker need only "obtain each professional performer's consent [emphasis in original]," meaning SAG actors and not necessarily the non-SAG players who can fill a background.

As described by the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, the Experimental Film Agreement was borne out of a desire to find a middle ground. Before the EFA existed, a Low Budget Agreement served as the working template for any picture made under $500,000. But if a filmmaker's budget involved the periodic smashing of penny jars, she was SOL. The EFA hoped to find a compromise. Give SAG actors the opportunity to experiment; give low-budget directors a conduit to use low-budget actors.

But film distributors often need name actors to sell their goods. Even if it is someone along the lines of Jason Patric or Linda Blair. This puts the budding filmmaker into Low Budget Agreement territory, assuming she can get the cash. And here's where you're really playing with numbers. Because a filmmaker now has to pay SAG weekly rates (assuming a name actor will work for scale) while keeping the budget under $2 million (or $3 million, if the filmmaker shows enough diversity). What this means is a fast, down-and-dirty shoot involving tremendous creativity and considerable accommodation for more lucrative gigs.

Reportedly, Jon Favreau shot Made as a union film for $3 million. (So he says on the DVD commentary.) But to dream that impossible dream on a professional low-budget level involves considerable financial ingenuity. Despite the exponential rise in books which tell the layman how to create movie magic in two weeks or less, the union issue is legerdemain that still falls well under the radar. It's something that begs the question: How many great indie movies like 13 Conversations About One Thing (also a $3 million film) are scrapped because of SAG demands or troubled budgeting?

Edward Champion



Bookmark and Share

Posted by dwhudson at November 7, 2003 5:32 AM

Comments

The argument that low budget films cannot pay union scale may be true - but I just do not care. If a film school dropout wants to go to Mexico and make a movie for $7000 ("El Mariachi") fine, but if you are a REAL filmmaker, the unions need to be honored. The megacorps have this big campaign to tug at our hearts to remember the carpenters, grips, and production assistants when we download so-called pirate videos, so it is certainly right that they remember those people at paycheck time and the same for independents. If you cannot make a test video that attracts enough investment to make a film that pays a fair wage - WITH HEALTH BENEFITS - then it just should not be made.

Posted by: MiKell at November 7, 2003 8:48 AM

I respectfully disagree. In my experience, it's more than possible to make a low-budget, non-union film without ripping anyone off, financially or otherwise. You will be dealing with a young, inexperienced crew, but since you are giving them positions more advanced than their experience normally permits, they will work for less than their union brethren.

What's more, I am in almost every way supportive of unions, and a member of one myself, but I have a hard time feeling too sorry for poor union joes like the SAG members who get like $1000 a day at least, or the drivers who make $50 an hour for sitting in a truck all day. Good for them for making good money, and obviously there are tons of productions that can afford it, but there are also productions that can't, and they should not be made to feel guilty for it.

Another common misbelief is that one can't make a proper film without SAG actors (or up here in Canada ACTRA people). That's like saying all the good bands are signed to major labels. Well, maybe not quite, but the point is: there's plenty of talent out there who haven't been discovered yet.

Posted by: D at November 11, 2003 1:57 PM

I've made two feature films. Amount of profit I've made: $0. Complaints I have about this: 0.

Profit and filmmaking are not necessarily the same thing, and there's no reason they should be. There's an entire genre of theater that acknowledges that art can be done outside the profit motive. Here in L.A. we call it "Equity Waiver" theater. The union Actors Equity allows its members to participate in plays in 99-seat theaters for token payments--gas money, basically, for each performance.

This system has resulted in a hell of a lot of great theater. (And a play I co-wrote, Bat Boy: The Musical came out of this system--and resulted in high-paying New York performances for two Equity members of the original cast.) The Equity Waiver system has also created many more opportunities for actors to practice their craft in front of audiences than would otherwise have existed. It's a great system--and it would be a great disservice to their members if Actors Equity were not to have it. It's good for everybody--playwrights, directors, theaters, audiences.

It can now be cheaper to make a DV feature than to stage a four-week run of a play in an L.A. theater. There could be a new kind of filmmaking to parallel Equity Waiver theater. Risk-taking films could be launched that wouldn't otherwise be launched.

But SAG is a significant barrier. Most good actors I know are in SAG. That union is extremely promiscuous in recruiting members, and it's easy to buy one's way in. I know people who have had one job or even no SAG job who are bound by that union. They clearly shouldn't be in SAG (yet), but every actor wants SAG written at the top of his or her resume.

In this new world, SAG should have the equivalent of an Equity Waiver agreement--and the Experimental Film Agreement isn't it.

(And, dw--FYI, by "one day" players I didn't mean background talent. Nothing So Strange has two dozen or more speaking roles. That guy I referred to in my blog entry was not an extra--he had a speaking part.)

Posted by: Brian Flemming at November 11, 2003 9:49 PM