Jump to content

/


horizon 2011

Recommended Posts

I am in agreement with DJKillaQueen here, It seems to be running theme for certain production companies affiliated with the BBC in flouting the employment law offering no pay for participation in projects.


Example here:http://www.uk.castingcallpro.com/viewtopic.php?chain=85&topicnum=44930&p=1&format=1


Surely one would be under the assumption that this production has acquired funding before airing, so why they can not afford to pay for participants is beyond reason, especially when the BBC screws everyone out of paying licence fees!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I mean they should hold a casting, making sure they pay full equity rates and expenses to all participants, thats what we pay our License fee for. I mean that's so much more cost effective than offering an opportunity to someone from the local populace who might find the idea of being on TV quite exciting. Not to mention a copy of the programme to show to their child in later life.


Hangings to good for them.


FFS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr there's a reason why there is a minimum wage and there are clear rules on use of actors (supporting or otherwise) in programme making. Now you might think it doesn't matter if a terrestrial broadcaster uses free labour whilst paying it's crew, director, producer and so on but those who work in an industry that is hard enough as it it is to make a living within have every reason to challenge the use of free labour.


It is bad practise and the BBC should know better.


Interesting article Ms Lilith and how quickly the BBC backed down when challenged. I have passed the OP onto Equity and BECTU for a view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> we are filming with a selection of people of varying ages to illustrate how our sensory system develops over our life time.


>We would just need to walk through the park with your baby and sit on a bench


We have to include pictures of mothers and babies so that people can really understand that we're talking about people just like them, and we can't use stock footage because we're creatives, and anyway it has to be up-to-date people just like us, and we have to put in lots of emotive audio background and other zappy graphics because ... because ... because ...


Sofia, when you have the time, get to a viewing room and watch some Horizons from twenty, thirty, forty years ago. Better still, rebroadcast a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh great the B.B.C. making another boring downbeat programme, who thinks of these programmes.

They live on an housing estate, lets get them to talk about pain.

Does it hurt to put you in the spotlight on t.v and talk about your deprived lifestyle, and being looked

down on, does it hurt, your lifts dont work,does it hurt. All been done before.

I advise anyone not to participate, your not in a goldfish bowl, you wont get paid.

It will be totally boring.

Make a programme about bankers, and how well they have done, and how much pain they have caused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a documentary comparing perceptions?

e.g. why some long-term unemployed on benefits think that a menial job is ok for immigrants but not for them ... or mental torture of criminals deprived of 'me' time vs mental breakdown of full time carers of partners/parents with dementia.


I'm not having a pop - I really don't understand how some people can be so self-important or self-absorbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms_Lilith Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely one would be under the assumption that this

> production has acquired funding before airing


They have, but unfortunately sixty pence doesn't go far these days.


Indeed, once you've underpaid all the people unfortunate enough to work on the show full time (and drafted in some freelancers to work for diddley on the promise of 'seeing them right' on the next job) - there'e hardly anything left-over to pay somebody to sit on a park bench once for ten seconds. Let alone organised the paperwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ms_Lilith Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Surely one would be under the assumption that

> this

> > production has acquired funding before airing

>

> They have, but unfortunately sixty pence doesn't

> go far these days.

>

> Indeed, once you've underpaid all the people

> unfortunate enough to work on the show full time

> (and drafted in some freelancers to work for

> diddley on the promise of 'seeing them right' on

> the next job) - there'e hardly anything left-over

> to pay somebody to sit on a park bench once for

> ten seconds. Let alone organised the paperwork.


The BBC Equity Agreement From the 1st of August 2008


Rate of pay for artists:


Supporting Artiste Standard Day: ?85.50 Overtime Day: ?13.00 Standard Night: ?93.70 Overtime Night : ?16.10 S/A Holiday pay: ?8.78


Walk-On Artiste: Standard Day: ?105.70 Overtime Day: ?16.10 Standard Night: ?127.90 Overtime Night: ?21.60 W/O Holiday Pay: ?11.11


Extra Payments: Haircut ?25.00 Special Skills ?40.60 for W/O & S/A Car for filming Negotiable

Day Multi Episodes 50% of daily fee, ?52.85 for W/O, ?42.75 for S/A


Night Multi Episodes 50% of daily fee, ?63.95 for W/O, ?46.85 for S/A Second Outfit ?11.40 Evening or Special Clothing/Uniform ?23.90 Costume/Makeup Fittings: ?46.25 max 8 hrs or ?24.85 max 4 hrs

Travel rate for a W/O or a S/A i?9.80 Day/Night rates are for a 9 hour stipulated time period.


Night Rates - Apply if Artiste is called between 10pm and 7am. If an artiste is called at 6.30am the artiste should receive the night rate for a days work.


Walk-On Artistes are defined as not having to give individual characterisation in a role but may be required to impersonate an identifiable individual, to accept individual direction and to speak a few unimportant unscripted words where the precise words do not matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what i don't understand it why a local mother who uses the park who volunteers to appear on tv with her child as a local mother who uses the park should be seen as an actor or 'artiste'


how can it be 'flouting' employment law when there's no employment?


would people really rather that 'local mother and child' on a documentary was 'actor and some child pretending to be local mother and child'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob you are totally incorrect about the reasons for the deregulation of TV and in-house production.


It is not a jobsworth attitude to demand people are paid for the work they do. The media has in the past been particularly bad at exploiting (esp young) people with no reward for often what are some of the longest hours. A typical person working in the film industry works 72 hours a week minimum. Some workers, like make up artists and those in post production work more.


There are very good reasons why the roles and jobs filled have strict rules on what defines employment and pay. If mothers and babies were the 'subject' of the documentary, as identifiable input, then that would be different. But they are being asked to do a walk-on role, as an 'illustration'. That is something entirely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bob you are totally incorrect about the reasons

> for the deregulation of TV and in-house

> production.

>

> It is not a jobsworth attitude to demand people

> are paid for the work they do. The media has in

> the past been particularly bad at exploiting (esp

> young) people with no reward for often what are

> some of the longest hours. A typical person

> working in the film industry works 72 hours a week

> minimum. Some workers, like make up artists and

> those in post production work more.

>

> There are very good reasons why the roles and jobs

> filled have strict rules on what defines

> employment and pay. If mothers and babies were the

> 'subject' of the documentary, as identifiable

> input, then that would be different. But they are

> being asked to do a walk-on role, as an

> 'illustration'. That is something entirely

> different.



The reasons the BBC has these rules is because of the unions and a safe form of income (the licence fee). Just look at the credits after any programme to see how many hangers-on are involved. I can see why you may need a make-up artist for people appearing on live TV but for anything pre-recorded a touch of tan or blush could be done in a few minutes in photoshop by any student. As for catering units, get them to bring a flask and their own sandwiches. Why should licence fee payers buy them three square meals a day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You clearly know nothing about the industry or programme making silverfox.


I can assure you that every credit is a required job....would you like to give me some examples of what you define as hangers on? Having worked for many BBC productions over the years, I can assure you that it's more often the case that more staff are needed, not less. It's not the BBC that has rules on pay and employment...IT IS THE LAW.....and rates are set accross the industry as a whole irregardless of broadcaster or production company.


Catering units exist because of the long hours worked and because crew need to be kept on set. If you are on location...you may be miles away from any provider of food. Many productions (based in studios) charge crew a flat fee for lunch.....so you will often find it is only crew on location that get a hot lunch provided, which I think is reasonable.


As for pre-recorded programme making.....have you any idea how powerful film lighting is? Do you have any understanding of contrast and the other technical complications of image recording. Make-up is an important part of dealing with that and is far cheaper than doctoring the image in post production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • When I watch the clouds from my window they quite often appear like very slow-moving lines of vehicles on a multi-lane highway, gradually edging forward. So I was rather doubtful when I just now saw them creep forward a very small amount, pause a short while, and then make a small reverse, more or less back to the point they'd advanced from.  Another pause, and then the same repeated.  And again and again.   More perhaps like a small moored boat, being blown by the wind.  I don't at this moment remember seeing anything quite like that before, at least for it to seem so memorable, though possibly i have, and forgotten. I doubt it's peculiar to Dulwich, but Dulwich is where I happen to be, and it is nature.  So hello clouds.  
    • Looking for single mattresses. Thanks 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...