Comments on: LAFF 2006: Intellectual Honesty http://www.sagindie.org/indieblog/laff-2006-intellectual-honesty Independent Film Production Information, Resources and Events Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:47:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: nick http://www.sagindie.org/indieblog/laff-2006-intellectual-honesty#comment-6349 Sat, 26 May 2007 19:50:55 +0000 http://www.sagindie.org/indieblog/laff-2006-intellectual-honesty#comment-6349 What both of these comments fail to recognize is that there are some non-actor related restrictions that SAG contracts place upon low-bugdet films, specifically SAG approval over disrtibution deals. Imagine the frustration of toiling for many months or even years to get a film made and then having to let SAG approve your distribution deal. For a first-time filmmaker with no track record and little clout, this can be unnerving. Beyond that, so much of the red tape SAG requires under these contracts can really bog down a small production. Furthermore, many SAG actors will work on non-union films because their union doesn't find them any work and they have bills to pay (as a card carrying SAG member I can attest to that). What both of these comments fail to recognize is that there are some non-actor related restrictions that SAG contracts place upon low-bugdet films, specifically SAG approval over disrtibution deals. Imagine the frustration of toiling for many months or even years to get a film made and then having to let SAG approve your distribution deal. For a first-time filmmaker with no track record and little clout, this can be unnerving.

Beyond that, so much of the red tape SAG requires under these contracts can really bog down a small production.

Furthermore, many SAG actors will work on non-union films because their union doesn’t find them any work and they have bills to pay (as a card carrying SAG member I can attest to that).

]]> by: Brendan Davis http://www.sagindie.org/indieblog/laff-2006-intellectual-honesty#comment-32 Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:10:54 +0000 http://www.sagindie.org/indieblog/laff-2006-intellectual-honesty#comment-32 Having made both a short film under the old Experimental Agreement as well as having just completed my first feature film (Life With Fiona) under the Ultra Low Budget Agreement, I, too am puzzled by the notion that being a SAG signatory is a serious detriment creatively or budgetarily to a low-budget production. With each of my films our SAG signatory status gave us access to both the professional actors I wanted to use as well as their non-union cousins who were not only perfect for their parts but who needed - and appreciated - the work, too (all of whom, by the way, are DYING to get their SAG cards as soon as possible). And since we paid EVERYONE - regardless of SAG affiliation - the SAME on both projects (all deferred on the short, while all actors were paid the same as the SAG talent on the feature, both as a courtesy and since - not knowing ahead of time what our cast makeup would be - we had budgeted for an all-SAG cast in the first place) we had none of the animosity that I have seen firsthand can result from people who are doing similar jobs being paid unfairly in comparison to one another. This all seems so obvious to me, but then again, before getting my creative career going I was a crew member for many years who struggled mightily to get that precious union card (in my case, from the IATSE local covering my particular craft) which allowed me to work on better quality productions, i.e., the ones where even though they may not have always had a lot of money, the producers took great pains to ensure the most professional work environment possible so as to attract the best cast AND crew possible, in order that their movies could be made as well as possible. Those producers were always the ones I most respected, and therefore they are the ones I have consciously patterned my own fledgling career and actions after. Again, this seems obvious. Surely I'm not alone in recognizing this? Having made both a short film under the old Experimental Agreement as well as having just completed my first feature film (Life With Fiona) under the Ultra Low Budget Agreement, I, too am puzzled by the notion that being a SAG signatory is a serious detriment creatively or budgetarily to a low-budget production.

With each of my films our SAG signatory status gave us access to both the professional actors I wanted to use as well as their non-union cousins who were not only perfect for their parts but who needed - and appreciated - the work, too (all of whom, by the way, are DYING to get their SAG cards as soon as possible). And since we paid EVERYONE - regardless of SAG affiliation - the SAME on both projects (all deferred on the short, while all actors were paid the same as the SAG talent on the feature, both as a courtesy and since - not knowing ahead of time what our cast makeup would be - we had budgeted for an all-SAG cast in the first place) we had none of the animosity that I have seen firsthand can result from people who are doing similar jobs being paid unfairly in comparison to one another.

This all seems so obvious to me, but then again, before getting my creative career going I was a crew member for many years who struggled mightily to get that precious union card (in my case, from the IATSE local covering my particular craft) which allowed me to work on better quality productions, i.e., the ones where even though they may not have always had a lot of money, the producers took great pains to ensure the most professional work environment possible so as to attract the best cast AND crew possible, in order that their movies could be made as well as possible. Those producers were always the ones I most respected, and therefore they are the ones I have consciously patterned my own fledgling career and actions after.

Again, this seems obvious. Surely I’m not alone in recognizing this?

]]>