CANADA BOOSTS FILM TAX CREDITS
Hollywood Reporter-
20 February 2003

by Etan Vlessing (Toronto)
and Peter Kiefer (Los Angeles)

Hollywood craft and talent unions were taken aback Wednesday by news that the Canadian government is raising production tax credits from 11% to 16% for foreign producers shooting there. "It proves the point we've been making," DGA director of governmental affairs Kathy Garmezy said. "This underscores that this is an industry that everyone wants and that we should keep. Certainly for our supporters, it says you're right to try and level the playing field," she said, referring to recent U.S. legislative efforts to combat runaway production.

The film or video production services tax credit (FVPSTC), introduced in 1997 to encourage runaway production here, now will provide a refundable tax credit of 16% on eligible Canadian labor costs on international -- mostly U.S. -- film and TV shoots in Canada.

The foreign tax credit increase was unveiled Tuesday by the federal finance minister, John Manley, as he released his annual budget.

Said SAG deputy national executive director Pamm Fair: "This certainly doesn't bode well for the professional performers who have already lost employment to Canada. We will continue to seek remedies to keep production in the United States, and hopefully legislators in the United States will help us find those solutions." Added Brent Swift, chairman of the Film & Television Action Committee, a grass-roots organization that is working to thwart the flow of production outside U.S. borders: "They have started a trade war without us doing anything. They started at 11% and raised it to 16% -- it is a one-sided trade war, and it could be the death knell for medium-size businesses, not to mention the people who work in the industry."

Explaining the increase in the tax credit, the federal government said the incentive and other tax credits introduced by provincial governments have helped develop Canadian film and TV production talent and infrastructure and made Canada a world-class location for film and video productions. Ottawa added that the tax credit increase follows extensive consultations with the industry, in particular the Writers Guild of Canada, the Directors Guild of Canada, the Canadian Film and Television Production Assn. and studio operators.

Emphasizing the contentiousness the issue of runaway production often provokes, Toronto's Globe and Mail newspaper led its Page 1 story about the tax breaks by saying that Prime Minister Jean Chretien "won't be bullied by Hollywood entertainers or U.S. politicians who want to blame Canada for stealing film production work." The federal government reduced by CAN$25 million ($16.5 million), or about 25%, its annual subsidies over the next two years for homegrown film and TV production financing distributed through the Canadian Television Fund. The government will contribute CAN$75 million ($49.6 million) to the fund in each of the next two years, compared with the CAN$100 million ($66.1 million) it has contributed since 1996.

Major Canadian producers applauded the increase in the tax credit as an answer to industry pleas but expressed disappointment over the cut to the Canadian Television Fund contribution. "The government definitely heard our message that production was suffering, particularly in British Columbia," Jane Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Film and Television Production Assn., said Wednesday. She added that the government should consider increasing the tax credit for Canadian producers to offset the reduction in subsidies. "We now need to focus on improving the Canadian tax credit so domestic production will not suffer," she said. Stephen Waddell, national executive director of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, applauded the foreign tax credit hike as a job creator.

But Waddell called the cut in CTF contributions a "blow" to homegrown actors, writers, crew, directors and producers. CTF executives attempted to gloss over the cut in subsidies from Ottawa. CTF president and CEO Sandra Macdonald said the reduction will "provide some much-needed stability for the television industry." CTF chairwoman Janet Yale added that the industry will need to "adjust to a smaller resource base," which likely will mean 60 fewer productions receiving CTF support over the next two years.

Budgetwide, that would represent a potential CAN$83 million ($54.8 million) drop in production activity and a loss of about 290 hours of original programming each year.

The federal government will be looking to the private sector, especially cablecasters, conventional broadcasters and other content carriers, to compensate for the shortfall in CTF contributions. Private-sector contributions to the CTF have grown from CAN$45 million to CAN$110 million ($72.7 million) over the past seven years.

In an aggressive step by state officials to combat runaway film production, Gov. Gray Davis plans to propose California's first sizable tax credit today in an effort to discourage film and TV shows from fleeing to cheaper locales such as Canada.

The Davis plan is being proposed to start in 2004 and is projected to save producers $50 million the first year, $80 million the second and $100 million by the third year, far more than any state program in the past. The state has done little in the past, because it has historically dominated filming.

Davis is expected to unveil the plan at a meeting with Hollywood union leaders in Burbank. He is seeking to grant producers a 15% tax credit on the first $25,000 earned by a worker on lower-budget projects--probably those of less than $10 million--provided that substantially all of the production takes place within the state.

The proposal is similar to recent federal proposals by lawmakers in Washington seeking to blunt runaway production nationwide. The federal proposal offers a 25% credit. The California credit would offset state taxes applying to the companies that make the films.

The Davis plan was welcomed by studio and labor representatives, even though the announcement of the program raises questions about political timing. Davis, who is facing reelection this year, is closely tied to the labor movement in California, and the issue of runaway production is the top concern of Hollywood's blue-collar unions with potentially tens of thousands of jobs at risk.

"This will be good for the economy of Southern California," said Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America. "The very fact the governor is coming out with this presages good things."

Davis had been considering a credit of as high as 25% but chose to propose the lower number--and delay the start of the program until 2004--because of the state's $12-billion budget deficit, Deputy Press Secretary Byron Tucker said.

Because the tax credit is aimed at modest-budget productions, Davis' program will affect neither major Hollywood films nor involve a credit on the $20-million-a-picture salaries of stars such as Julia Roberts. It won't even affect the typical Hollywood film, which now costs an average of nearly $55 million to make. Instead, the credit targets the plethora of smaller TV movies, independent films, cable productions, TV pilots and other projects with smaller profit margins that have been fleeing Hollywood in droves to such countries as Canada and Australia. Davis said he wants to send a message that California will compete with other states and countries for productions. "We're creating an atmosphere that lets filmmakers know that California really wants their business. This stimulus package will provide a substantial financial boost to California's entertainment community," Davis said.

Some details have yet to be worked out, including the exact size of productions affected and how much filming has to take place in California to qualify. Tucker said those details would be resolved with legislators. In the past, proposals for tax credits have received a cool response out of concern they might be seen as giveaways to big studios.

Runaway production has been a problem for nearly two decades in Hollywood, accelerating rapidly during the 1990s when studies show the number of U.S.-developed productions shot in foreign countries doubled to about one in four now. A 1999 report by the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild estimated that nearly $3 billion in production leaves the U.S. annually, the largest chunk affecting California. That study estimated the overall economic effect at more than $10 billion when the losses ripple through the economy, although some economists have disputed that number as too high.

Canada has been especially aggressive at luring projects, offering government financial incentives on top of a weak Canadian dollar and lower wages that make shooting about 25% cheaper there, according to union and federal studies. Productions with stories set in the U.S. but shot or scheduled to be shot in Canada include the upcoming Civil War movie "Cold Mountain" and the popular new WB series "Smallville," set in Kansas. Even the prime-time Fox soap opera "Pasadena" opted to shoot for budget reasons in Vancouver, British Columbia, instead of its namesake city.

Calls for legislative action to blunt runaway production have been voiced for years. The movement gained momentum in the last year as the industry's fortunes declined, California's economy softened and pressures increased to tighten budgets. Entertainment employment in Los Angeles County slid by 32,900 from its high of 272,000 in November 1999, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

"People have always looked at this industry like it's a big moneymaking, money-grabbing business. But it's cyclical, and people from technical workers to actors are freelance. The industry provides employment for working families who need the money and benefits to survive," said Joseph Aredas, the top West Coast official for the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

ED HOOKS ON SURVIVING

ED HOOKS ON SURVIVING–by Ed Hooks

"Colleen's Big Break" Colleen Haskell, the cute girl in the bikini in last summer's hit television show "Survivor", has been cast in the lead role in a movie. She will play opposite Rob Schneider in the Columbia Pictures film "Animal", due for a June 2001 release. I am happy for Colleen because she seems like a nice enough sort, but this kind of development unfortunately feeds public misconceptions about acting. The casual observer might easily conclude that acting must surely be a snap, something that requires no training or experience, if even cute beach-nik Colleen can do it.

Colleen's big break coincidentally occurs during the longest labor strike in Screen Actors Guild history. Media has lately been focusing on SAG, its relationship with its own members and with non-union actors. The Guild has widely publicized that it will gladly accept as new members any non-union performers who are willing to put in eighty hours on the picket line. No training or experience as an actor is necessary.

The Guild will also accept as members anybody who wants to work as an extra on a few SAG-approved movies. Extras are of course not actors at all and, again, no training or acting experience is necessary. In other words, in the year 2000, you do not have to be an actor to be a member of Screen Actors Guild. Acquire a SAG card and voila!, you're an actor by definition and default, no fuss, no muss. Is it any wonder that the American public has so little understanding of and respect for the ancient art of acting? In our culture, art and commerce have become intermingled, undistinguishable from one another. If Colleen Haskell gets cast in a movie, then she must be an actor, right? I mean, you don't get leads in movies unless you can act. Right? In the minds of many, she defines the craft. Celebrity : acting : fame : the American Dream. Does anybody care that acting at its best is modern-day shamanism? Does anybody care that there are individuals who actually take pride in calling themselves actors? To paraphrase Texas Senator Lloyd Benston in the vice-presidential debates some years ago, "I know actors. Actors are friends of mine. You, Colleen, are no actor." Acting is an interpretative art, one that seeks our commonality as humans. An actor says to the audience, "I understand this about this character." When the audience applauds, it is saying, "I see what you mean!" Acting speaks to the issue of what is required to live successfully on this planet. It is an art many thousands of years old and, until the 20th century, it filled an important function for most cultures. Despite the membership policies of the Screen Actors Guild and the implications of Colleen's lucky day, acting as an art form requires a high degree of intelligence, energy, passion and dedication. It is not a skill you sort of pick up on a south sea island while avoiding insect bites on your legs. We are living in an era when the visual image itself is a form of currency. "If I am on television or in a movie, I must matter," goes the reasoning. Acting for an individual who is oriented this way is not an art, but "a form of flattery." (Joseph Chaikin, "The Presence of the Actor"TCG Books, 1991) This kind of narcissistic self-involvement is a sad signal of America's cultural decline in the 21st century and testament to our psychic neediness. It is also a wake-up call to the actor who is proud of his craft, the actor who considers acting to be an honorable profession. Colleen Haskell is only the most recent of the "Survivor" veterans to find a niche in show biz. All sixteen of the contestants have made appearances on television shows. Gervase Peterson appeared on the sitcom "The Hughleys"; Sean Kenniff showed up on the soap opera, "Guiding Light." Richard Hatch, the $1 million winner, has his own radio show now and is writing a book. I presume they have all become members of the Screen Actors Guild.

LOS ANGELES TIMES by James Bates, 20 October 2003

CAN SACRAMENTO HELP HOLLYWOOD?

Schwarzenegger Promises To Staunch The Outflow Of Filming To Cheaper Locales, But The Issue May Be Overshadowed For Now. The actor known for the phrase "I'll be back" is trying to make good on his promise to bring Hollywood's movie and TV shoots back to California after numerous productions have fled to cheaper locales. Since being elected governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger still weeks away from assuming office has been raising the issue of so-called runaway production in private talks with industry representatives. And members of his transition staff already have met with studio and guild officials, according to people familiar with the sessions.
But Schwarzenegger, despite his best efforts, is likely to find that political currents and a budget mess in Sacramento will limit him to cajoling and arm-twisting rather than serving up more-concrete measures such as financial incentives. Tax breaks, labor credits and other sweeteners are considered by many to be crucial if California is to compete more aggressively with lower-cost foreign locations such as Canada, Australia, Britain and Eastern Europe, as well as states offering incentives such as Illinois, Louisiana and New Mexico.
"I just don't see it happening in our budget scenario anytime soon," said state Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Culver City). Mike Farrell, chairman of the Screen Actors Guild's legislative committee, said his group also believed that stopping runaway production was very important. "But we understand there are other issues" that Sacramento lawmakers are sure to deem "more important," he added. For his part, California's governor-elect has sent clear signals that he intended to follow up on his vow to reverse the outflow of film work. Motion Picture Assn. of America President Jack Valenti said that he had had two recent conversations with Schwarzenegger one before and one after the Oct. 7 recall election and that Schwarzenegger specifically mentioned his desire to keep more productions in California.

"I've been in this job for 37 years and never had any governor of California call me twice to say, 'I need your help and please be available to me,' " Valenti said. Union officials add that Schwarzenegger's knowledge and relationships in the business eventually should help in the fight. "Arnold Schwarzenegger comes from the entertainment business. It's an area he knows really, really well, and he's expressed his commitment to it," said Bryan Unger, western executive director of the Directors Guild of America.
"But he's got a full plate and a lot to do before he can take this on." Runaway production continues to be a problem locally, statewide and nationally, as cheaper currencies and aggressive incentives have lured film and TV shoots. Although Canada's currency strengthened against the U.S. dollar during the last year, the overall budget of a film shot today in Vancouver remains about 25% cheaper than if it was shot in the U.S., said Peter Mitchell, chairman of the Motion Picture Industry Assn. of British Columbia. Even films set in the United States increasingly are being shot in foreign countries to save money. The coming Civil War drama "Cold Mountain" was shot in Romania, and the Oscar-winning "Chicago" was filmed in Toronto. Last night's TV movie "Hollywood Wives: The New Generation" was shot in Calgary. During the recall campaign, Schwarzenegger identified runaway production as part of a larger push to keep businesses from leaving the state. Various studies have estimated the direct cost to the United States at about $3 billion a year, most of that in California, and about $10 billion when those losses ripple through the economy.

Nonetheless, Hollywood incentives have historically been a hard sell in Sacramento, especially among legislators from areas outside of Los Angeles. Some lawmakers maintain that any tax breaks amount to a windfall for wealthy studios and producers. What few programs do exist are vulnerable, moreover. The state's film commission and its Film California First rebate program for filmmakers, aimed at keeping productions in state, have been hammered by budget cuts. Hollywood's unions seemingly scored a victory when outgoing Gov. Gray Davis last year championed an aggressive tax break aimed at stemming runaway production. But it ran headlong into opposition from the powerful president pro tem of the state Senate, John Burton (D-San Francisco). Burton and other legislators contended that it was hard to make a case for the bill when social services were being cut in the fiscal squeeze. "There were a lot of people who were supportive of the idea" of the tax break, said Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson (D-Culver City), the bill's author. "They just questioned the timing." Wesson said he was hopeful that Schwarzenegger would jump-start the drive for incentives once the state's budget crisis eased. Schwarzenegger hasn't committed to any specific plan, although H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for his transition team, said the governor-elect knew the value of dangling financial carrots from his personal experience in Hollywood. Schwarzenegger himself periodically shot films outside of the United States, notably "Collateral Damage" in Mexico and "The Sixth Day" in Vancouver. But he scored points with Hollywood's labor community when he pushed to shift his most recent film, "Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines," to Los Angeles from Vancouver. Palmer said Schwarzenegger believed that improving the state's overall business climate by easing regulatory burdens and reforming the costly workers' compensation system was a first step toward helping stem runaway production.

But any decision on whether to push for specific incentives will have to wait until after Schwarzenegger's team finishes auditing the state's finances. "While he understands the importance of being able to create incentives to keep productions here, anything in that regard is going to have to be part of the overall look at what the operating deficit is," Palmer said.

In the meantime, Murray said, Schwarzenegger should use his celebrity to promote California production whenever and wherever possible, including promotional appearances at film festivals. "The governor-elect," Murray said, "would be a great salesperson to fight runaway production."
© 2003 Los Angeles Times

RUNAWAY PRODUCTION- Costing California Millions-
National Crisis, or fair market economics?
San Francisco, CA–

Photo Credit: Studio Schell

Hester Schell with Elliot Gould.

The Creative Coalition, a non-profit organization, sponsored a panel discussion on runaway production at the San Francisco Film Center in the Presidio October 18, 2001. The panel, which included Tom Todoroff (Bordertown Pictures), Peter Coyote and Elliot Gould, was moderated by Creative Coalition member Ron Reagan Jr.

Photo Credit: Studio Schell

Arts Advocate and Presidential son, Ron Reagon, Jr.

The dollars figures are quite alarming. Over 13 billion dollars in lost wages, production expenses, basic hotel and support industry budgets go across the border and overseas every year, costing American jobs, American revenue. We need write our congress people, and the California labor commission, start a dialogue, find ways to keep the jobs home, perhaps by creating our own incentives and tax breaks. It is estimated that more than half of the TV movies of the week are shot in Canadian for a series of tax incentives from the Canadian government. Added to these incentives is an exchange rate of about 40 cents on the dollar. Production companies, made up of American executives, are set up as Canadian companies to take the advantage, then dissolved when production wraps. This is how American TV production avoids union labor costs. It is wrong and it is keeping us from realizing a steady paycheck.

San Francisco casting director Sarah Kliban noted that since the September attacks on New York and Washington, commercial and industrial production has all but evaporated in San Francisco. "I hope we can come up with some solutions to cut down on runaway production before we're all out of business. It has to happen and it has to happen now." Casting directors Nancy Hayes and talent agent Belinda Irons were also in attendance, as were Anne Long, San Francisco SAG branch president, and SAG representative Karen Lipney.

Before the presentation, I spoke briefly with Peter Coyote and Elliot Gould-

Photo Credit: Studio Schell
Peter Coyote reviews Government labor
reports with attendee.

BACN: Since the September 11 tragedy, what do you think is the greatest challenge film artists are faced with right now to keep production moving ahead?

PETER COYOTE: Well, film artists don't own the means of production. So, they have to do their work and be ready to go to work. The problem Hollywood is going to have is what to do with all the blow-em-up, shoot-em-up explosive movies and get in gear with things that are more relevant to the human condition.

BACN: What might San Francisco focus on?

PETER COYOTE: I think San Francisco ought to focus on looking at runaway production as an across the board employment issue. And they ought to be on their congressional delegation, and the small business administration. They ought to be on all the unions, but more than the unions, we ought to be recognizing that the film business is an entrepreneurial business, that it is proprietary technology that we should be protecting, that we have taught the world how to organize, storyboard, shoot, account films and make them ready for our markets. That is proprietary technology which ought to be protected. It is not a Republican issue, not a Democratic issue.

BACN: Since the September 11 tragedy, what do you think is the greatest challenge film artists are faced with right now to keep production moving ahead?

ELLIOT GOULD: We have to do something. We have a problem. We have to focus and educate each other. Start to push local, state and national government to look at where we are. In terms of our personal problems, everything is up for re-evaluation. We have to see before we think. Everything is changed. This is serious shit. We have one heart. We have one mind. Our freedom has been attacked. We are under attack, so yes, tap the phone lines.

AUDITIONS AUDITIONS AUDITIONS-
BECAUSE, YOU NEED TO KNOW...by Hester Schell

It is a fact of life. If you're an actor, you will be auditioning throughout your entire career. Yes, even the big box office prize winners still have to audition. For those performers out there who are new to the business of show business, here are some helpful hints about what should and should not go on at auditions. In response to subscribers' concerns at BACN listed projecst, here are a few industry standards and professional ethics you may need to be aware of.

DO NOT SIGN A RELEASE FORM: Never, ever sign a release form at an audition. Release forms give the owner of that footage permission from you to use that footage wherever they wish, including promotional and marketing campaigns, print media or whatever else may be in the fine print of the release. Auditions are not shoot dates and filmmakers cannot and should not use auditions as such. Filmmakers should not get you to show up under the pretense of an audition when they intend to use that footage for more than just audition review. You are there to make a determination whether you are right for a role.

CHECK REFERENCES AND REPUTATIONS: Auditioning works both ways, especially if the pay check is copy, credit, meals. You, the actor, should be interviewing the filmmaker as well. Is this someone you want to work with? Does this project meet your career goals? Is it a part you want to commit to?

NEVER PUT YOUR HOME ADDRESS ON YOUR RESUME: It is just too dangerous to have headshots out there with home addresses. Use a postal box or email address. Do not give out your home address to anyone until after you're sure whom you're giving it to. If the filmmaker wants to use you in their project, they can get your home address after you've been given the role. As long as the filmmaker can reach you via phone throughout the audition process, that is enough.

NEVER GIVE OUT YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: This is a private confidential federal number. No one needs it except the payroll office, which is not a consideration at the audition. You are there to read from the script, improvise and make the determination if you are right for the role. If anyone asks for your social security number, politely decline. If there is a paycheck involved and taxes are to be taken out, then the payroll company will get your social security number when you fill out your tax deduction payroll forms.

NEVER PAY TO AUDITION: Crooks and deceivers, or those with questionable ethics could make a lot of money from auditioning people with no intention of making a movie. Auditions are part of a job application process. We have laws to protect employers from such practice. Do not confuse this with standard registration fees collected by casting directors. These fees generally run from $10 to $20. It shouldn't ever be more than that to register with a casting director, and it's usually worth that investment.

NEVER TAKE YOUR CLOTHES OFF: There could very well be a hidden camera just out of site, or a mini DV sitting right there in front of you. There is the potential that the footage could end up on the Internet, or anywhere else for that matter, in questionable circumstances. Face it, if your film director hasn't been to film school, or doesn't come from a theatre background, just bought a DV camera and needs to find some actors, he or she may not know what standard practices are. So, don't get angry. That filmmaker may not know any better. Filmmakers new to the industry, should make an effort to inform themselves about how to hold auditions, and what is and is not expected. But that is not something actors have any control over. What you do have control over is what we've shared here today. And then there's your preparation for reading from the script and performing your monologue, how to cold read, what makes a good headshot, hairstyle, whether to dress for the role, how to stand if you're being taped, how to play to a reader, etc. We could write a book. Many people have. You should read a few of them.

In closing, here is one final piece of advice. After you are cast, and you agree to be in a project, IT SHOULD NOT COST YOU MONEY TO BE IN SOMEONE'S FILM: Read the contract's fine print before you agree to play the role. What? No contract? Then write one up yourself. Have something in writing so you can get your copy. If the pay check is copy, credit, meals, are they willing to include bridge tolls, gas, parking, dry cleaning or make-up? Try to separate yourself from your excitement at finally getting an offer. Be sure you want to do it. Be sure there is clear communication about schedules and your schedule conflicts. Talk to your employer, get your homework done (and that includes taking care of your personal life before you go into productions.) Don't forget to have someone check on your pet if you're doing fourteen-hours days. Take your prescription medications with you. Let someone in your family or a close friend know where you are shooting and what time you are expected back.

Being in production is going to challenge you in ways you never thought imaginable. It takes a lot of work and you'll get better at auditioning as you continue training, get out there and gain experience. Good luck and keep at it. It is survival of the fittest out there, and it will take time to get in shape and then stay in shape.

JUST WHEN IS PILOT SEASON?
continued from front page-

When you finally do get your union card and have enough experience on your resume with demo. reel footage to back you up, it may be time to move to the big time and swim with the sharks. The question remains: when? Opportunity can be found year round in Los Angeles due the volume of television. However there still remains cyclical up and down swings. Here is the breakdown on the traditional Los Angeles casting season.

The most active casting time for the autumn TV season is Mid-July through late December. Once key cast members are on contract - leads and reoccurring supporting parts - there are guest spots, non-reoccurring characters, under 5 lines, and background. Pilot season and the second half of the episodic TV season, runs early January through May. The truly slow times are around the holidays in December and then May through June. During the slower TV times, the feature film market is ongoing.

If your plans include a move to Los Angeles do it with demo. footage, a union card and personal referrals to agents. Bone up on market trends and keep that headshot current. Play it smart. Make your move with preparation and a survival plan. A healthy savings account can help you feel like you can take more risks. Do what you can to make opening doors less like doors slamming in your face. Remove obstacles and guess what? Your path becomes clearer.

I advise my students to get a union card in a smaller market-less competition and you'll work more frequently. It's not a bad idea to move to Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, or Portland for a couple years to build up your experience. When you do decide to make the move to the big time you'll have what you need and agents will be more likely to want to see you. If however, you've got something that absolutely no one else has, such as drop dead sex appeal, comic timing with an unrelenting sense of humor, and maybe a winning lottery tickets, by all means, GO. What are you doing still struggling in San Francisco? San Francisco will never provide a liveable wage solely from acting income. There isn't enough volume of work here.

On the other hand, if theatre is your first love, and doing commercials, industrials, and voice over, is for fun and supplemental income, stay put. The theatre community here needs you.

CAN ACTORS EARN A LIVING? by Hester Schell

This column is dedicated to you: the actor who has done a few "copy, credit, meals" indies. By now, you're wondering, "Where's the money going?" or "Why isn't there any money for actors?" You might be feeling a little cheated. You're thinking, "Why is the A.D. talking about what she's/he's making on this film?"Hopefully, you have an agreement which includes gas, bridge tolls, parking, make-up supplies and dry cleaning. What, you don't have any kind of agrement? Then it's time to start talking. It should not cost you money to be in someone's film. Clearly, there comes a time when you must take a stand and stop working for no cash. The decision to stop working for free may come for you when you realize you've paid enough dues. You've learned how to be on-set, match your action versus play an action, make a mark, work angles in close-ups, know your frame-line, etc. You realize Continued on page 4. your contribution to the film is equally important as the production crew's contribution, who, most likely are getting a day rate. What, then, can you do to increase the chances of getting paid for your work? For starters, you can simply not accept parts in "no/low budget" projects that don't provide some kind of financial arrangement. This is a personal career decision that you have every right to make. Next, there are some excellent "art of negotiation" books available. Since you don't have an agent negotiating for you, you need to learn the vocabulary o f how to ask for money. Practice with me now: "Thank you for offering me this role. We need to talk about our mutual expectations of working together. I expect that it won't cost me money to be in your movie. Here is a list of expenses I anticipate. Do you have petty cash for this?" Having said this, in addition to documenting your expenses and saving your receipts, you are creating space for the producer/director to choose how they wish to handle these expenses. If they still put you off for that reimbursement you asked for three days ago, you could offer to film your close-ups when the expenses are taken care of, but this may be too aggressive a measure for most of us. The point is, folks, that the momentum needed for Bay Area non-union film actors to be paid must begin somewhere. Let it begin with you. Only you can make the difference in how you participate in the low-budget projects. You set your own boundaries of what you are willing to give. We can encourage producers to go SAG signatory, but this is ultimately the producer's choice. The reality is that the laws of supply and demand in a free-market economy indicate that independent film producers will continue to find plenty of actors who will work for free. At some point, the Bay Area acting community will need to come together for the mutual benefit of the industry and insist that non-union actors be paid on a scale comparable to non-union lighting, sound or camera production crews. Production people rarely work without their minimum day rate, so why do actors? Because we haven't said "no." Film directors need to start budgeting day rates for actors. Actors need to encourage producers to register their projects with Screen Actors Guild. When we raise the stakes at the top, the rest of us step up to a higher level of professionalism as well.

FILMMAKERS GOING DIGITAL

Filmmakers prefer not to wait for the next monthly edition to start receiving headshots. Where we were accustomed to a 6 to 8 week pre-production audition time, the casting process is speeding up, at Internet pace, just like the rest of the business world. As you go through the listings this month you'll notice many more web addresses and email submissions. If you are feeling a bit overwhelmed with the Internet being thrust upon you, don't be shy about asking for help.