Economic impact of local productions - Symposium Reflections - Part III

How much of an impact can a film project have on the local economy?

The Motion Picture Association of Utah (MPAU) commissioned an Economic Impact Study of Utah’s film industry, emphasizing the benefits of the state’s Motion Picture Incentive Program (MPIP)—colloquially referred to as the “film incentive.” The MPAU summarized the study in an explainer video.

In short, the state—through the Utah Film Commission—invites filmmakers worldwide to produce their movies and series in Utah by highlighting local resources such as unique filming locations, support services, experienced crew members and actors, etc. The film incentive—a 25% rebate—is available to qualifying productions that spend a defined amount of their production budget within the state. For example, if a film production spends $1,000,000 in Utah—a claim that has to be verified by a third-party audit—they may receive a rebate of up to $250,000.

The impact of money spent on film and television production in Utah is not limited to the local film industry; it’s also advantageous for ancillary industries and sectors as well. Fees for location permits benefit municipal, county, and state governments. Hiring local crew members and actors, catering and vehicle rental, hotel accommodations, renting equipment, and studio space benefit local businesses, enabling them to pay their employees. Employees pay local taxes; they buy groceries and pay for their housing and transportation, and myriad goods and services for their personal needs, benefiting even more local businesses, who have their own payrolls to meet. They may not even realize that the film industry’s economic impact also works to their advantage.

This begs a more specific question: How much do film projects by local filmmakers affect the local economy?

The answer depends on whether or not—and to what degree—those local filmmakers understand and accept that the business of filmmaking cannot be separated from the art form.

As I’ve previously discussed, in the Venn diagram showing how creative industries and their adjacent communities overlap, local filmmakers may find themselves in one of three archetypical roles: Industry professionals, working-amateurs, and faux-professionals.

There are indeed a number of Utah-based film industry professionals. They understand and respect that filmmaking is as much a business venture as it is one of artistic expression. They have established effective and sustainable business models. They understand that prioritizing people with fair compensation is essential to creating a quality film that can see a return on investment. One important characteristic they all share is knowing that no one person can do it all. They know their professional strengths, have the integrity to acknowledge their limitations and respect the varied, complementary talents of those they work with, trusting them to do the same. They embrace the standards and best practices of the industry, maintaining due diligence through all stages of production and effectively managing assets and required deliverables from concept to distribution. This is what professional industry filmmakers do: employing themselves and others, doing their part to sustain the industry, and making a quantifiable difference in the economic landscape.

The working amateurs are those filmmakers who have managed to corner a niche within the local market that’s technically part of the larger industry, embracing business models with a modicum of sustainability—at least for those above the line. Their priorities are in the saleability of the finished product with a maximum return on a miserly investment. They don’t embrace industry standards so much as meet minimal requirements. Best practices will almost always be substituted with whatever they can get away with legally, if not ethically. If a loophole will save them money on production, they’ll find it and exploit it. They understand the business well enough to know that a mediocre film—with a built-in, albeit less discerning, audience—that’s done its due diligence has a better chance at distribution and profitability than an otherwise flawless work of art that can’t produce a chain of title, signed contracts, and/or other deliverables that reputable distributors will ask for.

Faux-professionals are well-versed in the jargon associated with their craft. They take themselves—if not the art form—very seriously, an unfortunate and potentially volatile combination of the Dunning-Kruger effect and unchecked narcissism run amok. More often than not, the responsibility for the unsaleable nature of many local productions—I’ll refer to them hereinafter as “community films”—rests squarely with faux-professional community filmmakers. Having never let go of amateur thinking, they prioritize the completion of a film over its distribution, assuming that the completed project will be so good that it will sell itself—grossly underestimating the importance of basic business planning and the necessity of due diligence. They are so focused on getting to say “That’s a wrap” to the applause of an exhausted and under-compensated crew that every decision they make leading up to that point is rooted in a scarcity mentality. Problems that can easily be avoided by not starting preproduction until proper funding is in place are simply dealt with along the way. Lacking any practical means to hire the professionals needed to do the job right, they cut corners just to get the job done, starting—most often—by requiring most of their cast and crew to waive or defer payment and convincing those above-the-line to accept rates that aren’t just below industry standards but even fail to meet the federal minimum wage.

Faux-professionals like to refer to themselves as “in the industry” because they sincerely believe that they are. Actual film industry professionals may beg to differ. Finished “community films” exist only on the outer-most fringes of the film industry—assuming someone remembered to create IMDb entries for them, as promised to many a cast and crew, in lieu of a paycheck. This speaks to the economic impact of such projects; there is none—people can’t pay rent or buy groceries with deferred salaries.

Despite the excitement they tend to engender in the local film community—I don’t think community films actually benefit anyone. To be frank, I think that they do more harm than good. Exploited actors and crew are prevented from learning the actual value of their time and talent. They become so accustomed to “donating” or underbidding their services and paying the “passion tax” that when they’re presented with an offer that industry veterans would scoff at, they accept it without question or even any negotiating on their behalf by their so-called “agents”—because 15% of a lousy offer is still better than 15% of a client’s “experience” and IMDb credit. This undermines the income potential for other local actors and crew. A desperate labor market attracts predatory employers. While some may be quick to point fingers at incentivized productions hiring local background talent for less than half of what SAG-AFTRA deems as an acceptable minimum day rate, some Utah-based producers, including the working amateurs described above, also exploit that desperation. While it might be good for their bottom line in the short term, the practice is simply not sustainable.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and—especially where guest posts are concerned—do not necessarily reflect the official policies and/or practice of the Utah Filmmakers™ Association, its officers and/or associates.

How saving a few bucks now can potentially backfire later…

Nb. I was not personally involved with the production of “Good Joe Bell” in any capacity beyond an audition for a small role set aside for regional day-players like myself—I did not get the part but I’m not one to hold any grudges. My knowledge of the production and its management is based mostly on publicly available information and through conversations that I’ve had with Utah-based contractors who were either hired for the film or had direct contact with others that were. My intent in writing this essay is not to question the actions or intentions of the producers because it is my sincere belief that the issues that I discuss can be most likely attributed to middle-management positions that may or may not be local hires. All that being said, I wish to draw attention not to any individual person making such decisions but to the impact that they have, not only on the production itself but on the community in which it was operating.—Joe Puente

---

Anytime that a film production makes its presence known in any community, it can be very exciting for the locals. Who doesn’t get a thrill when they see a famous face in person for the first time? Even celebrities get giddy when they meet other more famous celebrities. Community business owners can also get excited by the prospect of a movie shooting in their town, especially if they have a product or service that the production could use. In short, making a movie costs money and that money gets spent wherever that movie gets made. It’s for this reason that film commissions exist—usually operating under the auspices of government economic development agencies—to promote their communities as destinations for producers to make their films. In addition to highlighting available filming locations, local industry services, and talent, governments also allocate resources in the form of tax incentives and rebates to attract film and television productions to their states.

It’s not uncommon for state and/or municipal governments to offer tax breaks to established corporate brands as an incentive to create brick-and-mortar operations in their communities. The thinking behind these efforts is that the short term cost in waived corporate or property taxes would be offset by income and sales tax revenue resulting from all the new jobs and economic activity that the incentivized company will bring to the community. Of course—if not properly considered—such incentives could potentially be too generous, turning such incentives into wage subsidies.

(CC BY-SA 3.0)
Caroline Bonarde Ucci

Film incentives don’t work like that. Instead of waiving taxes or fees to attract productions, they are simply offered a rebate that is tied directly to the amount of money that the production spends within that community. One such production was the film “Good Joe Bell,” starring Mark Wahlberg, which was filmed in Utah in 2019.

Even with a recognizable name like Wahlberg attached to the project, “Good Joe Bell” was “independently” produced without the resources of a major studio so it was considered a “low-budget” film—at least, compared to other major releases. It’s not uncommon for below-the-line management types to allow the “low-budget” nature of a project to induce a scarcity mindset which is then used to justify lowballing venues and contractors. It’s one thing when you’re trying to get a reasonable rate while you’re still in pre-production, but once the cameras start to roll, the budget is essentially locked and the time to haggle has lapsed. In the mind of a Line Producer or Unit Production Manager, dealing with day-to-day operations, they might still jump at the chance to get something for “free,” thinking that they’re “saving money” for the production. While it may be technically true that something of value may be acquired or used for a time that they—e.g. the production—did not have to pay for, they forget that it’s most likely going to be listed as a loss in revenue on someone’s balance sheet.

“Good Joe Bell” was no exception to this phenomenon. In the spring of 2019, the production paid a Utah high school for the use of its approximately 2,200 seat football stadium. However much that rental fee was, it did not include the cost to fill those seats with cheering sports fans. The going day-rate for a background actor in Utah has remained static for several years at $101.50. That breaks down to the federal minimum wage (since 2009) for the first eight hours plus overtime for the final four hours of a typical 12-hour production day. The cost to fill that stadium for one day of shooting would be around $223,000.

Assuming that the scene in question was always part of the script, it had already been broken down, the number of extras needed and the cost for hiring them calculated and factored into the budget, which was then approved prior to the start of production. Despite this hardly atypical scenario of accounting and resource management most likely having been addressed, a decision was made—by whom, specifically, this author does not know—to persuade people to sit in the stadium without being paid.

Casting background talent for a film is not an alien concept to experienced filmmakers. Any producer that’s able to get the signature of an established, recognized actor onto a non-binding letter-of-intent and transform that into enough funding to make a “low-budget” feature, isn’t going to be hobbled by the prospect of casting extras. It’s just a given that an Extras Casting Director will need to be hired at some point.

About four weeks prior to the stadium shoot, a post from one of the high school’s official social media accounts, excitedly invited members of the community “to participate” in filming a scene for a movie “starring Mark Wahlberg” at their stadium in which the “young men of our football team will play a role…” In an effort to entice them to fill the grandstands, “participants” were offered a chance to win a raffle and go home with a new TV, gaming system, or tablet, generously provided by “the film company.” According to local industry gossip, this tactic to “save money” on extras for a single day of production did not work as well as had been hoped. It also created problems as far as their efforts to “re-create the energy and excitement of” a high school football game. I’m curious to see how that particular scene is framed in the completed film.

This all begs the question, why try to get “free” extras if the production knew that extras would be needed and factored that knowledge into their budget?

As I stated above, it’s the scarcity mindset embraced by below-the-line management types. Filmmaking is a job, like any other, and people with any modicum of responsibility want to get noticed, which—in the minds of some—is most easily translated into “saving the production money.”

In the world of “independent film,” there is no end to stories of would-be auteurs like Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith, “saving money” by shooting their features on 16mm instead of 35mm film, using real locations after hours instead of building sets, having actors apply their own makeup, calling in favors, getting friends to “donate” their time for the sake of a “passion project,” etc. Of course, those stories are famous because they’re flukes. The subsequent success for such filmmakers wasn’t the result of breaking rules, it was being lucky enough to get away with it while telling stories that resonated with their audiences.

When a production has budgeted a specific amount of money for something that is integral to telling the story, not spending it does the production no favors. In the case of “Good Joe Bell,” this attempt to “save money” by not spending it on background talent worked against the production in two ways. The aforementioned rumored difficulties in realistically depicting a sporting event as well as a reduction in the economic incentives that brought the film to Utah in the first place.

“Good Joe Bell” was approved to receive up to $1.38 million from Utah’s Motion Picture Incentive Program—that’s 20% of $6.9 Million dollars that the production was projected to spend in Utah. Yes, a multimillion-dollar budget can still be considered “low,” especially when you consider that this particular shoot cost less than half of what Wahlberg was paid to be in a $210 Million “Transformers” sequel.

If the production had budgeted to hire enough extras to fill that football stadium, at the end of the shoot—following an independent audit—they could have counted it toward their rebate. In the end, filling those seats would have only cost about $179,000, or about $81/seat instead of $101.50. However, since they did not spend that money to hire local Utah background talent, they could not include it in their final tally when applying for the rebate. So, whoever thought that they were going to get a pat on the back for saving $220,000 actually wound up potentially costing the production by reducing their rebate by roughly $45,000. Productions often count on those rebates and factor them into their post-production budget. $45,000 in lost post-production resources is nothing to sneeze at. That old saying, “Penny wise and pound foolish” comes to mind.

The scarcity mindset comes with a myopic perspective of how the economics of film production works. By focusing only on the bottom-line—which often isn’t even part of the job description for middle-managers—they fail to see potential consequences to the production like those described above until after-the-fact, if at all, and are even less likely to consider its impact on the local community.

The whole point of government-funded incentives for film production is to benefit local economies. The cost of production rebates is significantly offset by the production’s spending on the use of local venues and services, and the hiring of local contractors—including background actors. Filling a high school football stadium wouldn’t have just “cost $220,000,” it would have created over 2,000 jobs, even it was just for a single day. All of those “extras” are people who have lives to live and bills to pay like anyone else. Working for one day on a film set just might cover a utility bill or a loan payment. People can’t pay their bills with a raffle prize, or a story about being in a movie with Mark Wahlberg—most likely as a blurry figure in the background for a 5-second shot. To say nothing of the fact that the use of unpaid labor is against the law. Though, I have no doubt that the “participants” were provided with appropriate and valid documentation to sign, clearly indicating their willingness to waive their rights to be compensated. Of course, just because something might be legal, doesn’t mean that it’s ethical or morally justified.

A little over a year after they wrapped production in Utah, the “low-budget” film, “Good Joe Bell,” premiered at the 2020 virtual Toronto International Film Festival where it sold for $20 million ($20,000,000).

I’m curious to know the thoughts and feelings of any locals that were convinced to work on that film without being paid, once they have been made aware that their uncompensated time and effort helped to make that sale just a little more profitable… for the producers.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and—especially where guest posts are concerned—do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the Utah Filmmakers™ Association, its officers and/or associates. Utah Filmmaker(s)™ and UFA™ are trademarks registered with the Utah Department of Commerce Division of Corporations and Commercial Code, Registration Numbers 10706542-0190 , 11025542-0190 and 10502093-0190 respectively.

Willem Kampenhout on The Art of the Camera Prep

What is the one skill you’d give to up and coming Camera Operators and Assistants?

The art of the camera prep.

Pictured: Camera Prep Artist

As a rental house manager, I hear and see this firsthand. From the last-minute emergency calls to the shows that come and leave without an error, there is a wide gap between the productions that truly utilize their time and their equipment. The fastest way to close this gap? Equipment prep.

Equipment prep is like dating before marriage. You’d hate to show up on your wedding day asking, “What’s your name?” 

So on your prep day, what are things you should go through as a part of your prep?

Here is a brief list:

1. Fully build the camera with all of the necessary accessories for your job. 
2. Power on the camera, check the settings and adjust to your project
3. Make sure all accessories are functioning properly. This includes:

• Batteries / Charger 
• External monitors / Client Monitor
• Lens mounts / Lenses
• Follow focus / sync Wireless
• Video out / sync Wireless
• Ensure media records / downloads properly
• Matte boxes, filters
• Focus assists / Range finders

Next, now that your camera is built, turn to support. Camera support is all about what holds or moves the camera. Do you need:

1. Tripod (adequate size for the payload)
2. Handheld Rig
3. Slider
4. Gimbal
5. Steadicam

Each of those above options will require a change to your camera build, so do a full run-through of the changeover OR get a 2nd camera to live on the specialty support. Sometimes a 2nd Camera is cheaper than the time spent moving the camera to and from the main tripod setup. 

You can find anything online.

So now that your dress rehearsal is complete, pack your camera up carefully. I recommend using a “camera coffin” wherein a fully or mostly built camera can be set into a case and snugly fitted to your custom camera build. Load everything into your vehicle and double-check you have everything. It doesn’t hurt to double and triple check your checkout list from the rental house so know that you indeed have everything. 

Now you are set and ready to go! On the first day of production, Camera will be the first team ready to go and all other teams (lighting, set dressing, cast) will be faster in their setup as they can now see exactly what the first shot will be. 

So, Producers, budget for an equipment prep. It will save you money. Even on a super tight budget, camera crews may take a 1/2 day prep rate and that money spent will greatly outweigh the costs of a 30-minute camera delay. Do the math. It’s worth it!

Willem Kampenhout is part of the team at Mystery Box LLC in Pleasant Grove.

---

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and—especially where guest posts are concerned—do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the Utah Filmmakers™ Association, its officers and/or associates. Utah Filmmaker(s)™ and UFA™ are trademarks registered with the Utah Department of Commerce Division of Corporations and Commercial Code, Registration Numbers 10706542-0190 , 11025542-0190 and 10502093-0190 respectively.

A Message from Carolyn Leone and the MPAU

Hello Fellow Film Industry Professionals:

MPAU Board Members
Carolyn Leone, Michelle Moore,
and Ashley Cook.

My name is Carolyn Leone. I am the current President of the Motion Picture Association of Utah, (the MPAU). When not volunteering my time to the MPAU, I am a Costume Designer for Film and Television.

As you may or may not know, the main function of the MPAU is to provide a unified educating and lobbying force in the state of Utah, to support and grow our Motion Picture Incentive Program.

Due to a lack of adequate funding to this program, the state of Utah recently lost the television show YELLOWSTONE to our neighbor state Montana. The loss of jobs and tax revenue for Utah is indeed sad news.

The MPAU is currently working hard to build new and ongoing relationships with legislators as we head into a gubernatorial election year. Our top priority is to have our message heard by the new incoming administration. 

With the new school year starting, I am reminded of all the wonderful film programs we have in our state including those at the University of Utah, Brigham Young University, Utah Valley University, Salt Lake Community College, and SpyHop. Film and Digital Media programs turn out students who are eager to work in the film industry. The MPAU wants to make sure that these young bright minds are not forced to leave the state of Utah to start their careers. We want to keep our talent, money, and infrastructure in Utah.  I commend these institutions not only for the high-quality education they bring but also for their forbearance in keeping the wheels of education turning during this challenging time.

I could not be more proud of our film community in Utah. The willingness to pull together, and do what is necessary to make Utah a destination of choice for local filmmakers and filmmakers from around the country, and around the world, is nothing short of incredible. 

If you are not already a member of the MPAU, please do consider joining us. Not only do your membership dollars help with our educating and lobbying efforts, but you also help build our membership numbers, which builds our power and influence in growing our Motion Picture Incentive Program. Ultimately bringing more opportunities to everyone in our industry.

Join us today at mpau.org

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and—especially where guest posts are concerned—do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the Utah Filmmakers™ Association, its officers and/or associates. Utah Filmmaker(s)™ and UFA™ are trademarks registered with the Utah Department of Commerce Division of Corporations and Commercial Code, Registration Numbers 10706542-0190 , 11025542-0190 and 10502093-0190 respectively.

Lindsey Watson on going back to work

Things to consider when going back to work.

Liability waivers.

I can’t believe I even have to write this, but there is no more important precedent to set with the industry than our refusal to sign away our lives (literally) for the privilege of having work.

The “standard” 60-hr workweek has to go.

More hours does not equal more output. And more importantly, the harder we work, the more compromised our immune systems become, and the more likely we are to not only contract but also spread Covid-19.

Kit fees should be standard for everyone asked to work from home.

If you provide equipment that the production or a facility would have provided before, you should be compensated accordingly. This isn’t just about your main workstation, this includes your laptop, your phone to manage calls (and endless text messages) all day long, and also includes stipends to cover faster internet, electricity, printer toner, etc.

Additional Reading:

https://optimizeyourself.me/dear-hollywood-normal-wasnt-working/

https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-You-Should-Sign-a-Waiver-of-Liability

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/stanford-study-longer-hours-doesnt-make-you-more-productive-heres-how-to-get-more-done-by-doing-less.html

https://hbr.org/2015/08/the-research-is-clear-long-hours-backfire-for-people-and-for-companies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6617405/

_____________________________________________

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and—especially where guest posts are concerned—do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the Utah Filmmakers™ Association, its officers and/or associates.

Utah Filmmaker(s)™ and UFA™ are trademarks registered with the Utah Department of Commerce Division of Corporations and Commercial Code, Registration Numbers 10706542-0190 , 11025542-0190 and 10502093-0190 respectively.

Thoughts on film budgets

Budget breakdown for "Excursus"
A short film by the author—
with which he proposed to
his wife (who said yes).

One day, I was on the set of a corporate production and around lunchtime I was sitting with some of the crew members, talking shop. A newer member of the crew was asking one of the veterans about budgeting for a production. With appetites growing, catering and craft service was used as an example. Crafty can be budgeted by setting a dollar amount per day per person on the cast and crew. Allot $10 per person on a small 10-person production and your craft service budget will be $100/day. You’ll certainly want to be more generous and flexible when it comes to catering meals, especially if you opt to hire different caterers throughout the course of the shoot to add some variety to the menu. Productions—regardless of what they’re shooting—are often judged by the quality of their craft service and catering. In my budget template, “Comestibles” (Food) is the first item “Below-the-line” for that very reason.

Another question that was asked was, “Where in the budget can you most easily save money?”

Frugality, when budgeting for any film is always wise but I’m of the opinion that before one asks, “where can I save money?” One simply needs to become informed as to what the standard rates and fees are in order to properly estimate the required budget for a production. This is especially true if one is producing a project for a client. The client could be a business investing in a television commercial, or it can be an investor backing a feature film.

Knowing how much production services cost—and not forgetting that one needs to include their own fair wages—is essential to making a realistic budget estimate. When the client inevitably asks, “Can you do it for less?” the answer should never be “Yes.” It should be, “Only if you want to change the scope of the production and lower your expectations.”

Once production is rolling, and one has a defined budget for what they have been contracted to do, opportunities to save money may certainly present themselves. However, the way one saves money on a production and how one uses that savings should be informed by ethical business practices and the law.

Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for budgeted productions to request “volunteers” in front of and behind the camera, regardless of the fact that the practice is illegal. A producer may justify this practice—called “wage theft”—for any number of reasons, from saying that they’re “saving the client money” to trite appeals to artistic egos but it doesn’t change the fact that the practice opens up the production (and the client) to some severe legal ramifications that could cost much more than the savings envisioned by using unpaid labor.

In the case of productions that expect to take advantage of government-funded film incentives, the motivation to "save money" in the short-term negatively affects not only the people convinced to work for free but the bottom-line of the production itself.

If a project is approved for a film incentive rebate of 25% based on their commitment to spend at least $1 million dollars in the state, cutting corners through wage theft will directly impact the amount of money they would receive for their rebate.

For example: getting 100 people to be free extras for a simple crowd scene might save the production $10,000 for one day but NOT spending that money can, at best, shrink the production's rebate check by $2,500. Or worse. When all the receipts are counted, the budget has been properly audited and it turns out that not paying extras that one time was all it took to cut their in-state expenditures to less than $1 million dollars thus disqualifying them for the 25% rebate.

That $10,000 saved on one day of production would wind up costing $250,000. It's not uncommon for producers to count on incentive rebates to fund or at least supplement their post-production budget. And all it takes to screw it up is a short-sighted UPM or Line Producer to make an unethical and illegal decision because they think they're doing their employers a favor by "saving" them some money on a single day of production.

Bottom line, one should never try to save money at the expense of the people that are working for them. If one has given an accurate and fair budget estimate to a client and the client has agreed to it, there should be no excuse for asking—or requiring—anyone to work for less than a fair rate, especially if it means that a budget surplus is only going to be used to inflate one’s own reimbursement for their services as a producer. I can’t think of any producer that has used a budget surplus to refund their client/investor because they overestimated the cost of the production. Being able to make a reasonable profit for the work one does is an essential factor in making fair and accurate budget estimates.

When budget-saving opportunities present themselves, one needs to ask,

“Will any one person be negatively affected by this decision?”

For example: If one has allotted $2000 in their budget to secure the use of a location—based on typical rates for similar locations—and then learns that the owner/manager of said location only charges $1000 or its use. Before popping open the wrap party champaign, the question must be asked…

“Will any one person be negatively affected by this decision?”

If $1000 is the standard fee, determined to be fair and worthwhile by the owner/manager, then the answer to the above question is, “No.”

Congratulations! That’s a $1000 budget surplus—assuming, of course, that the rest of the budget balances out at the end of the shoot.

So, what do you do with that savings?

One option of what to do with any budget surplus during production is to simply allot it to the contingency fund. Every production should include a “Contingency” line-item equal to at least 10% of the entire production budget. These funds are set aside from the beginning in order to cover unexpected expenses, and any minor differences between estimates and actual rates and fees for the production.

If a piece of equipment is damaged and needs to be repaired or replaced immediately, so the pace of production isn’t hindered, contingency funds can be used to cover those costs and those receipts provided to the production’s insurance company for reimbursement.

If one has fairly estimated the cost of a crew member’s rate and kit fee and the actual cost is slightly more than the estimate, don’t ask the crew member to give you a discount or to waive their kit fee just to match the estimate. Pay them what their knowledge and experience have determined is fair. Contingency funds exist to make up that difference.

If a new contractor has offered the production a valuable service for considerably less than what has been budgeted only because they’re new to the industry and have not yet grasped the value of their work, before just agreeing to their lower fee, ask the question:

“Will any one person be negatively affected by this decision?”

The new contractor would certainly be affected, even if they don’t realize it. One must also consider that agreeing to that lower fee may result in a budget surplus but it would be unethical and potentially detrimental to the segment of the industry that the contractor represents. Undervalued services often result in more knowledgable and experienced contractors having to lower their rates in order to be competitive while hurting their ability to make a living at what they do. So, it isn’t just one person being negatively affected, it has the potential to affect an entire segment of the industry. So, the answer to the above question is “Yes!”

It’s also important to remember that, in this scenario, we’re working within an approved budget. The funds are there to compensate cast and crew fairly so there is no excuse to exploit someone’s naïveté in the interest of “saving money” that's already been earmarked for necessary expenditures. The client has already agreed to the amount, fully understanding the inherent risks involved in such an investment. Worrying about the risk that a client is taking is not part of the producer's job description.

There are already too many established filmmakers that approach budgets with a “scarcity” mentality. Being knowledgable about the value of the work that goes into a production and standing firm with clients/investors about having realistic expectations when it comes to appropriate budget estimates will help ensure that the work is valued and respected.

The contract may still go to the lowest bidder, but at least the difference in cost will be based on reasonable variables in an estimate and not a deliberate effort to undercut the competition and devaluing the work.

Joe Puente
Founder/Administrator
Utah Filmmakers™
_____________________________________________

Utah Filmmaker(s)™ and UFA™ are trademarks registered with the Utah Department of Commerce Division of Corporations and Commercial Code, Registration Numbers 10706542-0190 , 11025542-0190 and 10502093-0190 respectively.

Tell your state reps how the film incentive benefits you

(This post has been updated with the inclusion of a letter† sent to Senator Luz Escamilla and Representative Angela Romero from the Utah Filmmakers™ Association)

This article in the Salt Lake Tribune has been making the rounds in the Utah film community. It does a terrific job of illustrating how much government incentives benefit local film industries and professionals but—regardless of the amount of money being discussed—one can only read so much about “tax credits,” “rebates” and “GDP” impact before one’s eyes start to glaze over.

As important and informative as this article is, there's one section that I think should resonate with filmmakers on a personal level. It starts with Virginia Pearce, Director of the Utah Film Commission, talking about “the crew member who gets paid, who takes his wife out to dinner, who buys a new car, who is able to live and work here instead of living and working in L.A….”

It quotes Taylor Sheridan, the filmmaker behind the Utah-based production “Wind River,” who said of his Paramount Network series “Yellowstone” that it “…employs hundreds of people, and the vast majority of them are local… And the ones who are coming in, they’re renting properties, they’re standing in line at the grocery store. They’re staying here. They’re moving in… We show up and spend an extreme amount of money, employ a workforce... And showcase the state.”

It’s one thing to read about the film incentive’s benefits to the local economy in abstract terms but I think what was missing from this article was a more personal perspective.

The Motion Picture Association of Utah exists to inform the Utah state legislature about how important the film industry is to Utah’s economy and how integral the Motion Picture Incentive Program is to bringing productions into the state and employing local filmmakers.

It’s imperative that state legislators also hear from the people who benefit directly from a thriving local film industry: their filmmaking constituents.

Utah Filmmakers* can support their industry and the efforts of the MPAU by contacting their legislative representatives by phone, fax, letter, and e-mail and letting them know how the film incentives directly impact their lives.

Don’t know who your legislative representatives are? That’s okay. I voted and I still had to double check—I guess state legislators are more camera shy than those in federal office. Just visit https://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp, plug in your address/zip code to find out who your representatives are and tell them how important the film incentives are to you personally.

As individuals, Utah filmmakers do not need to talk about GDP growth or the return on the state’s investments. Talk about how much you love your job and being able to make a living doing it in Utah. Better yet, how a more active industry would enable you to work full time—if you don’t already.

Talk about how landing that gig on a film or series that made use of the incentive is what kept a roof over your head in Utah, enabled you to support your family, buy locally and to take a more active part in your community.

Who among us doesn’t have a story of how a job came through at just the right time to take care of the bills or an unforeseen expense. If that job wouldn’t have been possible without the incentive, you need to let your representatives know about it.

The Utah legislative session starts on January 28, 2019. Contact your representatives TODAY!

—Joe Puente
Founder/Administrator
Utah Filmmakers™ Association

*As loosely defined by the Utah Filmmakers™ Association, “A ‘Utah filmmaker’ can be anyone based in Utah who’s involved in filmmaking including—but not limited to—Producers, Writers, Directors, Cinematographers, Animators, Actors, Sound Engineers, SFX/VFX Artists, Composers and many other technical and creative people.”

†

_____________________________________________

Utah Filmmaker(s)™ and UFA™ are trademarks registered with the Utah Department of Commerce Division of Corporations and Commercial Code, Registration Numbers 10706542-0190, 11025542-0190 and 10502093-0190 respectively.

The value of time and talent

The Utah Filmmakers Association does much of its online engagement on Facebook, primarily through the Utah Filmmakers and Actors group. Originally started by Ben Hawker in 2007, the group has grown over the years into the largest online forum for filmmakers in Utah with over 13,280 members (at the time of this post). While The UFA™ has existed separately since 2002, with it’s own unique Facebook page and web presence, it does not have a formal membership structure. Instead it promotes the Facebook group as the de facto online forum for collaboration and promotion and is very grateful for the service that it provides to the filmmaking community in bringing Utah Filmmakers and Actors together on projects.

Image courtesy of "Vectorolie"
at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The group consists of both professional and novice filmmakers and is open to new members based in Utah.

With this mix of both people in the film industry and those who aspire to be a part of it, it’s become a valuable resource for professionals seeking paying work, productions looking to hire seasoned and new talent, and novices seeking experience and advice.

Over the years, the group’s administrators have tried to make the user experience in the forum as pleasant and productive as it can be. With so many members—and the number growing steadily—this can be challenging but, thankfully, the group is largely self-managed. There are a few policies and some guidelines—even a suggested template for members to use when posting cast and crew calls for upcoming projects. The most important element of the casting and crew-call template is the placement of the payment offered at the very top of the post. This placement is a courtesy to the professionals in the group that are there specifically to find paying work.

It is generally understood that the only projects that should ever be listed as unpaid are student films and filmmaking competitions that require all participants to be volunteers.

Nevertheless, this does not prevent people in the group from posting “unpaid” projects. As long as the lack of compensation is clearly indicated at the top of the post, the professionals in the group can more easily ignore them.

From time to time, someone starts a discussion in the group about an overabundance of these “unpaid” projects. This almost always sparks a lively discussion that soon devolves into a debate that requires the intervention of an admin to end the exchange, usually by turning off comments on the post. Full disclosure: the admins can be lively participants in these discussions as much as anyone else.

The default position of the Utah Filmmakers Association (which serves as one of the group’s administrators) is that apart from the aforementioned student and competition projects, all cast and crew calls should offer some form of compensation when seeking the time and talent of others in the group. A few examples, as referenced in the group description, include: “Rate / Negotiable / In Kind / Stipend / Deferred.”

“Rate” refers to either an hourly wage or a typical day-rate as indicated by federal law and industry standards. 

“Negotiable” simply means that there’s room to negotiate what the rate will be. 

“In Kind” means that the producers are seeking a trade in services or are offering another commodity with an equivalent or greater retail value to the standard rate indicated by the position. 

“Stipend” indicates that a flat fee, at least enough to cover travel costs, is being offered. This sort of compensation should be limited to very small projects and limited time obligations of those being sought for otherwise low-rate positions. 

“Deferred” refers to “deferred payment” which indicates that the participants will be paid only when—and if—the project recoups its investment costs. Anyone being offered deferred payment should consult an attorney—if possible—and/or read their contract carefully. A general understanding of the difference between gross and net profits might prove helpful as well.

There are myriad other ways of compensating people and all forms of compensation have their pros and cons but those listed above tend to be fairly common. Regardless of how individuals are paid for their efforts, all agreements should be in writing with a legally-binding contract and/or deal memo.

Also included in the group description is the following caveat:

“…state and federal laws prohibit the use of unpaid labor for for-profit entities... Which means…: No, you can’t use volunteer labor to make your film.” -G.R.Kanaan [Cinema Law: Why Using Volunteers is a Risky Way to Keep Costs Down on Your Film, MovieMaker.com, 2013]

Regarding the aforementioned non-student/non-competition projects that ask for unpaid labor, while group policy discourages the practice, administrators tend to ignore such posts, as do the professional members of the group. The reason being, simply, such posts are primarily made by novice filmmakers and are mostly answered by other beginners.

It’s not uncommon for these “unpaid” posts to try and entice responses with cliche promises of “food,” “fun times,” “experience,” “footage for their reels,” “IMDb credit” or all of the above, conveniently forgetting that paid projects can offer the exact same things—as a matter of course—in addition to a paycheck.

Whenever novice filmmakers—and sometimes experienced filmmakers who should know better—are reminded of the legal obligations associated with hiring talent, i.e. the lawful requirement to pay at least the Federal Minimum Wage, they often respond with a ready list of excuses—none of which carry any legal weight—for why they don’t have to pay anyone. Such excuses range from appealing to the artistic nature of filmmaking, claiming that because theirs is a “passion project” and they are foregoing a salary then everyone else involved should as well and be grateful for the "opportunity," to claims that they don’t expect to make a profit so that makes them exempt from the obligations of for-profit entities—n.b. making a profit is not what defines a for-profit entity. Even Utah Filmmakers™—a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization—is required by the same federal labor laws to pay participants in its productions under the Section One Entertainment moniker, business entity known as a DBA (Doing Business As). There are a litany of other excuses that novices fall back on but eventually, they’ll resort to making personal insults and accusing anyone criticizing or attempting to educate them of “not caring about the art” and only being “in it for the money.”

There are lots of movies that are “passion projects.” Most of them, no one ever hears about. The ones that do get press are the ones that secured funding before going into production and paid their cast and crew—including the person whose passion was behind the project to begin with. Those participants may have felt inspired—or compelled—to agree to a lower rate than they’re used to for the sake of the production; most likely making up the difference in other ways, like profit sharing, but they certainly didn’t agree to do the job for free.

There are a number of legitimate reasons for insisting that participants in any project should be paid. The aforementioned legal obligations, fairly standard and ethical business practices, the reassurance that compensated labor will result in a higher quality end-product and a significantly smaller chance of facing litigation from disgruntled participants seeking unpaid wages—just to name a few—and for every one of those reasons, the willfully uninformed novice and the experienced-but-unethical producer has an excuse to counter it, usually rooted in the one excuse that they’re both ashamed and proud to admit: “I don’t have the money to pay anyone.”

The argument that they should wait, get more experience, save their money and go into production later is met with a counterpoint that can be very difficult to defeat: “But I want to make my movie now.” It’s also at this stage that, with a little prodding, they might even confess that they haven’t finished the first draft of their screenplay.

It can be very frustrating to see someone with such obvious enthusiasm for filmmaking fall into this trap of impatience. For these naive individuals, no appeal to the law, ethics, sound business advice, industry standards or fiduciary responsibility can convince them that what they’re doing is wrong. Having accomplished little themselves, they will rest on the laurels of other notable filmmakers that self-funded their own projects—without acknowledging that those funds were used to pay cast and crew. They will vehemently deny that their practices undermine the wages and bargaining power of film industry professionals and claim that the experience they will gain—at the expense of a fair wage even for themselves—will help the industry later on, when they will have to settle for a lower rate that they’ll be partly responsible for while the cost of living continues to go up unabated.

It was following one of these discussions about paid vs. unpaid projects that this writer realized what those novices, hobbyists and ethically challenged filmmakers were actually saying.

The entire conversation can be boiled down to the following simple exchange:

Professional: Everyone has value that's worth being paid fairly… even you. 

Novice: No, they don't... and neither do I.

A general query was made afterward, asking, “Why is it that the more I try to tell someone that they have value, the harder they argue that they don’t?”

It prompted some interesting responses, including the following:

“If you [have] to tell them, then they didn’t believe it to begin with. Which is sad, because… a lot of the people that think they don’t have any value have more than most, but that truth was beaten out of them at some point, by someone who truly doesn’t have any value.”—Ryan Pederson, Producer/Director

To be clear, this is not a judgment call, just a speculative response to a generalized question. Though, to apply it directly to the context of this treatise, the practice of recruiting people to work without pay can be rooted in a few different places. One is the expectation in film school that people will help a student filmmaker because it's for their education—though there is nothing stopping a student filmmaker from compensating talent, especially non-student participants. The writer of this essay has been paid for student projects with both gas money and liquor (even though he doesn't drink... sometimes it's the thought that counts).

Unfortunately, some filmmakers take this "unpaid student-film" budget model and try to apply it outside of school. The results often speak for themselves in the form of barely watchable content that's celebrated by an overly-enthusiastic group of filmmaking hobbyists who think that just because they have a film degree and/or managed to cobble together a short film without a budget or doing any due diligence that they're somehow in the film industry now and on their way to being the next Harvey Weinstein (insert name of notable film producer without a sex scandal here).

In reality, they're not actually in the film industry but the way that they conduct themselves when making movies does have an effect on the industry. As much as they might want to wear the "strugging artist" badge to justify not paying their cast and crew to realize their vision—even if their current "passion project" is a commercial they agreed to produce for a friend of a friend's new business that "can't afford advertising," just so they can build up their reel and continue to convince themselves that they're "really doin' it!"—the reality is that whenever two or more people agree to participate in a venture that results in the creation of a finished product they are in fact engaged in a business activity. They're certainly not following the rules of business, they may or may not be aware of the legal requirements needed to even be in business or to market their services (even if it's only by word-of-mouth) to others. In their desperate need to build that reel and get noticed, they undercut the prices of experienced professionals just for the sake of getting their toe onto an actual film set or television production, where they hope to network with other filmmakers "just like them." The professionals know to ignore them, other novices, beginniers and naive young dreamers who don't know any better will get vcaught up in the excitement and enthusiasm and justify working for nothing as just "paying their dues."

This is not to say that professionals don't "pay their dues." It just needs to be understood that in the actual film industry, "Paying one's dues" means giving a friend a discount on one's standard day-rate, so they can afford to hire enough people to do a job right instead of recruiting a bunch of hobbyists that are just going to half-ass it for that ever ellusive deal called "Copy & Credit."
_____________________________________________

Utah Filmmakers™ and UFA™ are trademarks registered with the Utah Department of Commerce Division of Corporations and Commercial Code, Registration Numbers 10706542-0190 and 10502093-0190 respectively.