Sam vs. SAG

Greetings, Benanarthurites. Cardinal Caudle has brought to my attention an article Sam wrote for Backstage, entitled Forget the Unions, Make a Film. Just in case Backstage pulls the article, I have posted it here:


I want to share ideas about movies in an economy that has failed us all. The unions may find my ideas controversial; but with a weak economy, something has to give. First, I'd like to talk about motivation. Why are you making a movie? If you want to make a movie for personal gratification, out of passion and love—then great! You will find the rewards you are looking for. Doing it for profit may be a disappointment.

Assuming you have a great screenplay, some actors who will work free, locations, and a great digital camera (forget film; it's too expensive), you're ready to begin. There are great books on directing, which are excellent in steering you in the right direction on how to set up shots, etc.

How does the Screen Actors Guild fit into this? If you are lucky enough to find a star—from today or from yesteryear—and you're working together and you do not have to pay the star, in my opinion you should set up your film as a two-project vehicle. Because a project has to have signatory status to use union actors (forget using union actors if they are not stars or "names"), cut your screenplay into two parts. One "project" will be signed to union agreements; the other pages of the screenplay, those that don't pertain to the union actors, will be another "project." Then combine them in the editing process.

Of course, SAG will say you can't do this, but they will never know which parts of the movie are what. If they require a script, then only turn in what needs to be union and go from there. There are plenty of stock-footage shots not covered by the union that get added into union-covered movies all the time, and no one gets reprimanded. So why is it a big deal to do two projects and combine them later as one?

Here's an example: You've lucked out and gotten a star. You only need him or her for a cameo—like, 10 pages. You set up these 10 pages as a SAG production, and the rest separately as a nonunion production. Then in editing, you combine all and you save lots of money on workers' compensation insurance, etc. You just eliminated making the whole production a union film. If SAG says anything, say the shot with the star was a stock "scene" and you put it in your film.

As for distribution, a copy of your movie on DVD costs less than a dollar. If you fail to get a distributor for your film, it doesn't hurt to take about $1,000 of your own money, or even just 500 bucks, and make them yourself. Many distributors out there will take your "retail-ready" DVDs and market them.

To compete with foreign markets so production stays in America, we all may need to take a pay cut. All entertainment unions need to help producers keep costs down. State lawmakers need to pass laws making California an easy and affordable place to do business in. Cutting the costs of workers' compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, and taxes; stopping permit fees for filming; and lowering the sales tax are a few good starting points.

I've always believed in making things happen for yourself. My motto is "If it's meant to be, it's up to me." Good luck to all first-time moviemakers!



Sam, who is himself a SAG member, is basically telling neophyte filmmakers how to circumvent union rules. Hey, if going behind the union's back was good enough for Ed Wood...

Well, it didn't take long for the guild to fire back. SAG official Ray Rodriguez posted a rebuttal to Backstage a few days later, charging that Sam's article was "Replete with Misinformation":


I write in response to Back Stage's April 1 opinion piece by Sam Mraovich entitled "Forget the Unions, Make a Film."

This article is replete with dangerous misinformation that, if taken seriously, will lead aspiring filmmakers down a short path to failure and serious legal problems. Even worse, this article completely ignores the fact that the Screen Actors Guild's low-budget theatrical contracts allow aspiring filmmakers with even the smallest budgets to use professional actors under a SAG contract.

Mr. Mraovich advises filmmakers fortunate enough to have found a "star" to submit the portion of the script containing the star's performance as a "separate" production, to be combined in editing with another "separate" production made entirely nonunion. I will limit myself to highlighting four of the most salient problems with this scheme.

First, the guild simply will not sign a film that does not have a clear beginning, middle, and end. We have been reviewing scripts and ferreting out would-be schemers for far longer than most aspiring filmmakers have been alive. Mr. Mraovich seems to think that it's a simple matter to fool the long-serving and knowledgeable staff that works here. Don't believe it.

Second, if the filmmaker is unfortunate enough to succeed at signing the partial script to a SAG contract, the guild will obtain an arbitration award after the fact, requiring the filmmaker to pay all of the actors in the combined production under the applicable collective bargaining agreement in addition to a host of penalties. If the filmmaker cannot satisfy the arbitrator's award, the guild will foreclose on the film, sell it, and use the proceeds to pay the actors. Pursuing Mr. Mraovich's strategy is a good way for filmmakers to lose everything they worked for.

Third, any aspiring filmmakers who pursue this scheme will face legal consequences for their failure to make pension and health contributions on behalf of the "nonunion" performers, including a possible ERISA lawsuit that will add to their burgeoning legal and financial woes.

Fourth, and most importantly, aspiring filmmakers need to remember that it is the actors' performances that will make their films come alive. Using the experienced, professional actors that a SAG contract provides access to will give aspiring filmmakers their best chance to make a quality film that stands out and showcases their talent in an environment where nearly anyone can buy a digital camera and produce mediocre content.

The fact is that aspiring filmmakers do not need to choose between using SAG actors and making a low-budget film. SAG offers low-budget agreements to independent producers that allow them to pay as little as $100 per day on a production with a budget of $200,000 or less. For films less than 35 minutes long with budgets less than $50,000, actors' salaries can be deferred entirely.

We hope that any aspiring filmmaker inclined to consider Mr. Mraovich's foolish advice will first visit www.sagindie.com to learn more about how to produce low-budget union films legitimately. We also hope that in the future, Back Stage will contact SAG and do some fact-checking before printing anything like Mr. Mraovich's unfortunate article, in order to avoid creating a trap for the unwary filmmaker.


As a commenter noted, "Bad enough that certain politicians and corporate interests are trying to bust the unions. We have to put up with ham handed, el cheapo filmmakers like Mraovich who try to circumvent union policies."