Film Strategy

Actor, Peter Coyote, has written a letter that I think should be spread far and wide. Read it in full here . My favorite part* is the recommendation he makes, which is this: There is a simple way leading actors might bring a second, more flexible and targeted weapon into the fray on behalf of your colleagues which incidentally, would provide the ancillary benefit of insuring that you consistently play opposite actors of the highest caliber. If you were to include language in your contracts specifying that, in your films, the “quotes” of your peers must be recognized as a negotiating floor for their compensation, if you publicized that fact, and, if you kicked back a modest amount, say on salaries over six million dollars a film to make that money available, each and every actor negotiating to play opposite you would be empowered to demand the fair compensation that he or she has won for their work. (my bold ) People in general, and specifically lawyers, are accustomed to doin

I recently wrote an article about why it is a good thing for certain filmmakers making certain films to share the wealth with profit participation instead of deferred compensation. A caveat: that has a limited use. However, I wanted to revisit that idea and clarify what that means for a filmmaker looking to adopt a profit participation strategy to paying their cast and crew. The truth is that while paying your cast and crew with profit participation instead of deferred compensation can lower a producer's and investor's out-of-pocket production and postproduction costs and improve morale/motivation, it has limits. Here's why: A producer makes multiple contracts throughout the life of a film starting with the writer and ending with the distributor. Along the way, she decides to offer back end participation (or net/gross profits or profit participation) to the cast and crew and signs a contract with them promising to do so. When the producer meets with the distributor

REPOSTED FROM MY OTHER BLOG: LENSATIC I have always admired the low-budget filmmaker who can make something beautiful or daring or entertaining with the tiniest budget.  Unfortunately, the low-budget filmmaker is not the rarity but the norm.  There is no shortage of filmmakers trying to create even if it means at negative cost to themselves because there is so much potential financial and personal reward in the end.  Maybe that's why the industry has been able to get away with paying nothing for highly creative and technical services and expensive equipment.  That's done more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.  That is why Charles Davis has done the industry a service by reporting on the internship abuse in the entertainment industry.  In a post for The Baffler, he  tracks and outs  the production companies that continue to perpetuate one of the worst practices of the film and TV industry: failing to pay workers a real wage by offering instead "pay on an

LOVE NEVER DIES... Sometimes it kills! One could say that we make films because we are so haunted by the movies we saw in our past that we feel compelled to create new ones. That might explain why director/producer Peter Szabo has been wanting to make films ever since Jaws scared the wits out of him as a little boy.  It also hints at the haunted protagonist at the heart of Peter's latest short, Love Never Dies .  Thematically, Peter is attracted to dark and tragic tales so it's no surprise that he adapted "Nona" by Stephen King for Love Never Dies after acquiring the non-commercial adaptation rights through the Dollar Baby Scheme . TITLE: Love Never Dies GENRE: horror/thriller short (35 minutes) DIRECTOR:   Peter Szabo PRODUCERS: Peter Szabo and Reese Eveneshen BUDGET: $10,000 FINANCING FROM: In-kind donations and Self-financing PRODUCTION DATES: March 13 through April 3, 2011 POST PRODUCTION DATES: April 2011 through November 2012 CA