low-pay/ no pay

dear peter,

if my experience is anything to go by, the real challenge coming soon isn't the film, it's fatherhood. I'm sure you'll have a marvellous time with the film but it's importance will be seen in a completely different light when you experience something truly life-changing. I'm saying this in the belief that you haven't already got half a dozen kids!

my child, now eight years old, was born while I was on stage forty miles away. it never for a second occurred to either me or my wife that I should not be doing my job in order to attend probably the most important moment of my life. Odd, when you think that prime ministers and millionaire sports stars feel comfortable with taking time away in order to cope with paternal/spousal duties. I was on £235 a week.

I console myself by saying that I would have been hopeless at the birth anyway - which is probably absolutely right. But it does, I hope, display how committed I am to my career as a professional actor - it may also go some way to explaining why I feel so vehemently about the potential loss of that career because of fees being driven down by my fellow actors' need for exposure at any price.

enjoy the film, well done for getting it, but allow yourself the opportunity to fully enjoy fatherhood.

all the best,

cliff

• 17 years ago
• 41

I'm back! Couldn't help it...

Cliff, can I tweak this discussion, constructively as I believe, and ask a simple question?

This thread is now contains messages from a number of younger actors (and in my case, older ones) who have given evidence of why, if undertaken cautiously, unpaid work can give valuable experience, particularly where camerawork is concerned. You and several others are, as you say, vehement in your opposition.

So what constructive advice have you for younger actors who desperately want and need need experience, but who can't, by the nature of the business, find it difficult to gain? This post would suggest that you favour them sitting on their backsides doing nothing but presumably writing endless letters to agents and CDs with nothing to show on their CVs, no up-and-coming live performances because they must preserve their purity and refuse profit-share, and no film and TV experience because no pay/low paid work is supposed to be beneath them.

Sorry, but I truly feel your relentless negativity is disappointing from someone who has clearly had a good shot at the title.

So how about laying aside the Equity rulebook, the self-pity and the "when-I-were young" nostalgia and give the newbies something positive to act on?

Best, KD.

• 17 years ago
• 42

Oops, missed out the important bit.

Congratulations, Peter!!!!!!!

• 17 years ago
• 43

kd,

I so wanted to step away from this.

You completely mistake realism about the business with negativity. if I felt negative about the job I would have stopped doing it years ago. I wouldn't change my chosen career path for the world. Being a professional actor is of fundamental importance to me. Got it?

I'll try to deal with your points.

The area of profit-share theatre has not been raised in this thread. It represents a completely different opportunity for actors. doubtless another thread will deal with those possibilities.

Writing letters to agents, including showreels, is a tremendously good idea. Also inviting them to profit-shares is a good idea. The agents are a major component of the casting process - and when they take you on they will not want you to work for nothing. A casting for a paid job being interfered with by an unpaid film shoot will not be met with approval.

Sending unsolicited introductions to casting directors will, I believe be expensive and meet with limited success. The major casting professionals will not deal with unrepresented actors and they don't have the time to wade through the thousands of introductions looking for a gem. They simply deal with agents that they know and trust and use spotlight online. In effect they're trusting the agents to find the new gems.

I have said in previous posts that I have no idea how to change the system to make you happy. The existing system works for the majority of the industry.

And finally, I find the closing four lines of #54 deeply offensive. How dare you patronise me for putting genuinely felt, and to my mind constructive, comment on this thread simply because it doesn't mirror your views on the industry?

cliff

• 17 years ago
• 44

Once again I would like to say thank you to everyone who so far has shared their thoughts and experiences on this subject. Like the Equity Film Symposium it is all very interesting.

I personally worry very much that we are in danger of driving our wages down by working for no payment. I must be very clear about what really worries me - I am not talking about student films or groups of creative friends who get together to make a short film out of their own pockets where not one single person is being paid, and all involved are giving their time for free, to create a showcase of their work.

I don't have a problem with that. Other than too often actors are asked to sign waivers.

However - when films are being funded by public money from Regional Arts Boards, Regional Film Commissions and Local Authorities and the producer is being paid, the director is being paid, the camera operator is being paid and the editor is charging at least a £150 per day.

In these situations, time and time again actors being told "sorry we don't have a big enough budget to pay you, but we will feed you and give you a copy of the film".

Why, when public money is being given out, is the cost of actors' wages no longer being taken into account?

There seems to be the general assumption "Actors are so desperate for work, that there is no need to budget for them in the making of a film - they will do their job for nothing."

What can we do about this? When every year, many talented actors pour out of the 21 accredited drama schools, as well as many other colleges and university drama courses.

As yet these new actors do not know their worth - they don't have a long list of professional credits on their CV's, so they can all too easily be persuaded to work for nothing. Or sometimes even very experienced actors can become vulnerable when they have not worked for a long time.

I know our union is concerned about this too, that is one of the reasons they heled the symposium. And it will be interesting to see what our union does next.

Also it would be good to hear from more actors who have been around for a long time, before this thread closes.

Cheers
TRACEY

• 17 years ago
• 45

Dear Cliff and Ducklin,

First of all thank you for your congratulations. Cliff, I know it's life changing because I already have a four year old daughter-this one's a boy! Of course I'm looking forward to it, although I wish my couple friends wouldn't keep being prophets of doom about it "being so hard with two!" Anyway, that's beside the point. I think low/no budget films have got to be gone into cautiously-they're extremely valuable for experience and (hopefully) showreel material, but I do think you could get stuck in the rut of doing them and too many would suggest you weren't serious about your profession. Also the lines become blurred between professionals and amateurs (playing devil's advocate though, I know Ian Hart and Charles Dance have fairly recently been involved in this field). I think, use them for what you need, but obviously, never take them over a paid job in the industry. I do agree with the lady that suggests by working for nothing, we send out a message to the film makers, so it's a bit of a catch 22! At the end of the day, it's about choice though and I totally respect what Cliff says, he's been in the industry long enough and has done enough quality work to know what's he's talking about. But I was at my daughter's boirth and I'll be at my son's-someone has to spray my wife, cut the umbilical cord and help her to breathe!

• 17 years ago
• 46

Cliff,

First of all, if my comments genuinely offended you, I apologise. I certainly wasn't being patronising - as I said in my first post, I respect your achievements, your place in the industry, and your right to state your point of view. Neither do I doubt your sincerity. But I'm sincere too, and since some of your comments to others in this thread have clearly been considered patronising by them, whether or not you so intended, it may be that we should mark our prickliness down to the perils of over-exhuberant discussion in the electronic medium.

Let me put it this way: my respect for you is precisely why I felt the need to elicit some kind of definitive statement about the course you suggest young actors DO pursue in order to be pro-active in their search for credits and experience. I didn't expect you to come up with a catch-all answer - who could? But I do feel that if you are going to state so categorically that a course of action shouldn't be taken, you ought to be prepared to state the alternative that should. I don't see why you feel you 'so didn't want to get into this'.

If I may, though, some points of agreement but also rebuttal.

Do I 'get it' that professionalism is everything to you? Yes, of course I do. My assessment of you hasn't gone on hold just because we're having a bit of a spat. Clearly, however, we have differing ideas as to what constitutes professionalism.

You say that profit share is not the topic of this thread. Isn't it? It's certainly been mentioned already, and, since profit share is a wage-less contract that says payment is conditional on profits, which frequently don't appear, I don't see how it can be dismissed from the equation. If you consider this situation acceptable in theatre, why not in film? All right, in live theatre you may attract agents and CDs, but not all profit share turns out well, the opportunity is transitory, whereas a film you can take away with you, re-edit if necessary, and use to your advantage (i.e. for showreels) over and again until you suddenly realise you don't look like that any more.

We all agree that sending your details on spec to agents is a good idea. That's how I got my agent. But my point was - and this is the part you haven't addressed - how long can a newbie afford to tout the same page of credits which never changes because they can't secure any paid work? Well, hang on, I admit you sort of answered that one by suddenly appearing to declare profit share worth a discussion, but you also mention sending round showreels. Showreels full of what, may I inquire, if we're talking about actors who haven't managed to land their first paid TV or film job?

You go on to say that no agent will take kindly to an actor accepting a no pay job in preference to a paid one. Who said anything about doing so? We're talking about how young actors, those who are on the first rung of the ladder, can use their dead time constructively. No-one has suggested they should turn down paid jobs - that would be insane. I have always been completely straight with no-pay projects about the fact that they will have to work around me if I get a paid engagement, or else they can choose to re-cast. Once or twice I have, and they've always taken the first option.

I agree with you about the relative pointlessness of sending details to CDs.

Finally, you say you have no idea how to change the system to make me happy. Cliff, you don't have to make ME happy. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow (by now you may be hoping that I will) and I'd have no regrets. I would think it wonderful if you could do that for the newbies, but as you say, it isn't going to happen any time soon. However, if there's a groundswell of young actors who feel that taking a few flyers from time to time helps increase their skill and confidence, gets their faces on camera and sometimes makes them money too, then that's a very different thing from trying to gain 'exposure at any price'. I say good luck to them, and I also say that as the marketplace changes their opinion may turn out to be prescient.

Sorry once more for the undue offence.

Best, KD.

• 17 years ago
• 47

kd,

yes, your closing 4 lines of post #54 caused huge offence, and thank you to all the people that PM'd me to agree that those comments were entirely out of order.

I have given my interpretation of how the business stands today - you may disagree with how I see it, however, personal attacks will win you few friends in a business where friendships can be over in minutes but animosity can be there for life.

I appreciate that nothing will change your mind regarding your chosen course of action in this business. I'd say that you're in denial about the bigger picture implications of what you're doing but you'll say you're only doing what's necessary for yourself. Irreconcilable difference. I feel that your union is probably a useful tool for your future, you appear to believe that it's worthy of such bitterness and dismissal that one wonders why you wanted membership. Again, an irreconcilable difference.

Tracey, like myself, has years of professional experience but also she's seen the whole agency side of the work and the involvement with Equity and the NAC - she's out there, actually involved in something that might help young actors. Her input is dismissed.

Is there anyone that you're prepared to listen to? Do people need to agree with you in order to have a valid point of view?

Signing off.

cliff


ps. there is one small matter which you may not be aware of - rather than pointing it out on this thread and being accused of points-scoring I've PM'd you.

• 17 years ago
• 48

Cliff,

Thanks for you last mail, and the PM, which I'll reply to by return after signing off here. Why would I have accused you of point-scoring? It was good of you to take the time to write it.

Obviously I've cut you deeply and having apologised (and I extend that apology to anyone else who was offended) I doubt there's any more I can say that will make it good. You're right, professionally and now personally we have irreconcilable differences. Despite this, I'm afraid people will have to take me as they find me because at my age and at this stage of my career I'm no more likely to change my opinions as to what's right than you.

However, no-one has to agree with my point of view. I have simply stated it for what it's worth. To me there's no right or wrong way to be an actor; the only measure is whether one achieves a life's work of which one can be proud. The fact that increasingly so many actors seem to be taking unpaid work when it suits them, regardless of the Equity rule book, is surely testimony to fact that this type of work has become a perceived necessity in the industry, which may in turn point to the fact that in our different ways we both may be in denial.

Now, as I have nothing more to say, and since what I have said has caused offence, it seems only right that I bow out of the discussion, erase the bookmark, and let the thread continue without me.

I wish you Cliff, Sovay and everyone else reading these posts the very best for the future.

May the muse be with you always, KD.

• 17 years ago
• 49

dear keith,

thanks for the PM.

actors are, by their very nature, passionate and emotional creatures and disagreements happen. you're absolutely right when you say that we care.

the topic of this thread is probably unsolvable given the nature of this business but I do believe that it's been a worthwhile exercise in debating those issues - we all have different points of view, and that's a good thing. It's got to be healthy to understand that other people have different, often completely opposite, passionately-held beliefs.

I've learned a lot from this debate and thankyou to all the contributors.

I will now follow your lead and step away from this thread.

all the best,

cliff

• 17 years ago
• 50