Posts by Simon Bennett
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As a director and producer I have worked closely with actors for the last 22 years.
I think that one of the side-effects of committing to a career as an actor in New Zealand is an overwhelming sense of powerlessness. Despite being at the pointy end of the business - it's the characters the actors portray that audiences identify with and care about - actors have very little control over how they are presented or perceived. They don't get to choose their costumes, their scripts, their directors, their makeup, which takes of their performance are used in a final cut. Their working lives are scheduled to the hour. They are told what to say, what to wear, where to stand.
Actors, by their very nature, are able to retain contact with a childlike ability to play. They crave an audience and approval. Unlike theatre, the screen industry can be quite alienating in this regard.
What I'm observing at the moment is a strong desire from a number of working actors to regain some sort of control. This is fundamentally a matter of self-esteem.
The tactics may have been misguided - these people aren't professional negotiators. Nor do they necessarily have a strong understanding of the ins and outs of the production industry. But they know they're not happy with the way some things are done in NZ, and want to see changes happen.
The only way for any kind of industry-wide agreement to be achieved is through negotiations that involve the actors, their agents (who actually negotiate contracts on actors' behalf, and SPADA - the NZ Producers' organisation. A renegotiation of the Pink Book guidelines was offered to Equity about 18 months ago during the OF stoush. This was ignored.
I think many actors may feel that to commit to an existing mechanism, and to negotiate with SPADA is to deal with Producers on the Producers' home turf. Unfortunately, this is probably the only legal way to get the actors' concerns integrated into industry practice in any sort of meaningful way.
Whatever the agenda of MEAA, their tactics are muddying the waters. My own limited dealings with MEAA and Simon Whipp have done nothing to cultivate trust. I find their tactics cynical and destructive. I am dubious as to whether they are communicating openly, honestly and fully with their membership.
There is a big old-fashioned groundswell among actors, of storming the ramparts and sticking it to the bosses, if the last week's worth of Facebook status updates is anything to go by. It's emotive and passionate, if slightly unfocussed. I think it's a shame that this passion may have been hijacked.
And lastly, I'd love to know what the actors' agents think about all this.
-
I don't know if it is - I've always worked form a hard copy. I'm sure SPADA or any of the actors' agents would be able to provide you with a copy.
-
As I've posted before, actors' contracts on OF were in line with Pink Book guidelines. This includes the 'nudity clause'. Which was adhered to throughout all six series.
I directed many episodes of OF (and was an Executive Producer). Sex scenes were always dealt with as a process of rehearsal and negotiation. Actors were not asked to do anything they felt uncomfortable about. On the rare occasions where an actor was uncomfortable, the scripted action was changed. In rehearsals, I always discussed with the actors what the shots would be, and considered it a matter of the strongest professional ethics to adhere to this promise.
If any actor was unhappy with the way any nudity/sex scenes on OF were handled, I'd love to hear about it.
-
"Interestingly, I understand that John Barnett is partially responsible for the lack of residuals in NZ as they were traded away in favour of increased up front fees back in the early 90s when actors were negotiating with SPP."
Urban myth I think. Barney wasn't running SPP back then. SPP was a subsidiary of TVNZ.
-
I have heard this 'use-by date' argument before, but in recent years, would dispute that it's an issue. Capable and experienced actors with a high profile are an asset to any production.
For example, having been a principal cast member in a successful show such as OF, makes an actor more appealing to TV networks in New Zealand rather than less. I have experienced this directly. I have had no problems casting Shane Cortese, Antonia Prebble, Antony Starr, Roz Turnbull, and others in subsequent projects. Their OF profiles are perceived to be an assett, rather than an impediment. Just look at how many leading roles Charles Mesure has been able to sustain post OF on multiple networks.
The pool of experienced screen actors in New Zealand is small. As long as there is drama production, actors who are good and experienced will continue to get work.
-
The actors' contracts for all drama productions I have been involved in (and that's a fair few by now, including Outrageous Fortune), ALL had built in 'nudity clauses'. These state (and I paraphrase) that an actor will be consulted if nudity is required for a role. The actor may choose not to perform nude, in which case a body-double may be engaged by the Producer.
I think the invocation of 'nudity clauses' is a red-herring as they have been pretty standard for many years. The real issues for NZ actors are residuals and a share in the back-end revenue ie DVD sales, downloads etc.
The actors for PR reasons are avoiding being specific about these issues as they ARE about money - and by most New Zealanders standards, screen actors are extremely well remunerated and well looked after at work. Therefore, this matter is unlikely to gain much public support.
However, to be fair to the NZ actors, residuals are a part of actors' deals in many countries around the world, and I can understand the feeling of unfairness.
BUT...as a director and producer, who is also an independent contractor, I work with many other highly-skilled contractors in the craft areas of the industry, who work extremely long hours for far less remuneration than actors receive None of these people get residuals or any sort of profit-share. I fail to see why, on policy grounds, this is a benefit that should automatically and exclusively be applied to actors.
-
I'm pretty sure that most producers would be happy to sit down and discuss terms and conditions of contracts with both actors and agents. In fact an offer from SPADA to open discussions on the Pink Book guidelines was ignored by the MEAA last year.
I think that Producers' issues lie with the MEAA and their agenda/tactics, not actors/performers or the idea of negotiation.
-
In its current form, Ping is very disappointing.
As a purported social networking tool, it's impossible to converse with contacts about music - surely the whole point of the thing.
The number of recording artists available to follow is pitiful.
Last.fm does a much better job.
I've been an Apple user (fan/advocate) since 1989. I can't believe this innovative company would actually release something so half-baked.
And the new Apple TV feels like two steps backwards. No onboard storage? With our internet speeds?
I get more functionality from my old AppleTV, which I actually use to sync with my Macbook Pro so I can play music through the stereo, watch photos on TV, and rent a movie that I can then hold onto and watch at a time that suits.
Not impressed.
-
I've seen The Shining several times over the years, and still find it terrifying. The twin girls: "Come and play with us Danny, forever and ever and ever"...
-
Networks (ie programmers) do change position on what is commercially viable in Primetime. This may be a response to an international trend in programme-making, or it may be that the competition has broken new ground and proven the established dogma wrong.
For some time there was no long-run hour-long local drama in primetime on TVNZ. Then TV3 demonstrated that local drama could be viable, with the success of Outrageous Fortune. and that local comedy could work (Brotown, Jaquie Brown Diaries). TVNZ's response: work very hard towards developing their equivalents.
It's also worth remembering that the profit motive isn't the sole reason for programming a specific show. Networks are very aware of brand, and their perception of the public perception of what their brand identity might be. Therefore some programmes have great value to a network, even though they might make a loss within their specific slot. This is because the programme might help define a network's brand, attract kudos, provide marketing and publicity opportunities, and sometimes deliver a specific audience to the next programme in the schedule.
All NZ programming is very expensive compared to ready-made, off-the-shelf programmes from offshore. However, even in this already commercial environment, we still get Dancing With the Stars, Outrageous Fortune, Go Girls, Diplomatic Immunity, NZ Got Talent, and many other expensive local shows, that taken individually would be far less lucrative for a network than most overseas shows in the same timeslot.
I don't think the destination of the $15M charter money (which is only a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of TVNZ, and NZOA's annual funding budget - which I believe is somewhere in the vicinity of $75M) will make much difference to the overall TV landscape in this country, whether it's available specifically to TVNZ or contestable across all the channels.