Posts by Michael Duignan
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
At the end of the day, they can't actually legally do what they've been trying to do, and as soon as that starts to become more clear, I'm hopeful things will settle down.
I kind of doubt that. Nothing about how the MEAA has acted up to this point seems rational or constructive; people have been pointing out to them that obvious legal point for quite some time now.
The only way I can see this ending is if NZ actors realise that the MEAA can't represent them because the Australian and NZ industries are in direct competition with each other.
When do we reach that point? Perhaps when Middle Earth has an Australian twang?
-
Tv3 just did it again.... (Pj's wife)
It's not clear from that article if the announcement is about the dispute, or whether the film is going to shoot in NZ.
I have a question for any legal minds out there. What is to stop Actors agents from referring to the pink book guidelines in each contract they sign? Would the guidelines then have the same force as a contract?
-
Like I said Jan, speculation.
I'm just connecting two facts.
There is no question that the Equity Organiser is getting paid, and its a legitimate question to ask where that money coming from, and whether that explains why such an active organisation as NZ Equity let its legal status lapse? It's quite a hard thing to let happen - the companies office sends you repeated warnings, then puts a notice in the paper stating it intention to strike you off the register. It's not something that just happens through a single oversight.The second thing to consider is just how much money the residuals are, and who would control this cash. If it is like SAG they get paid the money as lump sum and administer it to their members. Like Peter Jackson said, this is serious money. It make sense for the MEAA to try and control this money: if you have a million dollars in the bank, many more things become possible for your organisation. Talking to SPADA about "guidelines" does nothing for their bottom line - hence completely ignoring them. They want a contract which locks MEAA into controlling this money from any big production that comes to NZ.
Whatever happens you can be sure of this: Any time someone says it's not about the money: its always about the money.
-
Something just occurred to me ( I am speculating here;)
But perhaps the reason why NZ equity has not been filing returns (and subsequently struck off) is due to the fact that they are being bankrolled by the Australian union. If they filed returns they would have to show a large in flux of cash from Oz, which would undermine their claim to be an "independent" arm of MEAA, acting on behalf of NZ actors.
Suddenly it doesn't look like ineptitude, but dirty tricks.
-
Also, am I missing something, or is this article getting people confused: "NZ Actors Equity organiser Frances Walsh told NZPA." ??
Thats not a mistake; they have the same name. Frances used to be a journalist for Metro. She took the job soon after she left. As far as I know (and this needs to be confirmed) her salary is paid entirely by the MEAA. Combine that with the fact that they have let their legal status in NZ lapse and I think you have a clear case of Australian interference in the NZ industry.
-
As far as I'm aware, Shore doesn't hold the copyright over his film work let alone receive residuals. And IIRC, he quit King Kong under similar clrcumstances to Michael Nyman's falling out with Peter Greenaway.
Actually composer usually only sell the synchronization rights - which are the rights to put the music in the soundtrack of the film (and trailer - some times but not always). They retain copyright of the music - so if you buy the soundtrack on disc the composer makes money, not the production company (usually).
However - the Hobbit is offering residuals right? So this is a moot point? There is no way most NZ film productions would be able to do that; some of them don't even have a distributor. Having a standard contract for NZ productions that ensured residuals is unworkable, apart from the largest budget films.
But those larger budgets almost alway come with international stars attached, and apart from this particular fracas the MEAA seems to have a blanket objection to bringing in foreign actors, even on productions like Spartacus, which would not happen without them:
http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/stand-off-over-hobbit-continues-3814024
In a display of incredible ignorance they objected to Vincent Gallo, and I happen to know the producers of local TV shows have had three hour long shouting arguments with Frances Walsh about bringing in a single American actor to work on a local shoot. The immigration officials they dealt with admitted they had been to the minister so many times to get approvals for foreign actors that they had to find another loophole to get them in.
If you look at the standard MEAA contract (which I'm guessing is what they would like to implement here), the pay rates are 75% more if you have an "imported artist".
http://www.alliance.org.au/resources/equity/
This obsession with stopping foreign actors from coming in is much more aligned with SAG's interests than anything else.
-
Agreed, Simon, but how many of those contractors - not actors, but others - would be recognized every time a film was shown? Surely that is the point of residual payments? An actor who has been in (too) many roles is often passed over for a "newer" face. Unfortunately, actors have a "use-by" date. NZ actors are at a distinct disadvantage compared to overseas actors who get residuals
You're saying residuals are a payment because somehow an Actor's value gets "used up" by repeated screenings of their likeness? I suppose thats true if you are shilling for a beer company or something, but as an actor in a feature film, its a long bow to draw.
It's true that an actor can be over exposed in New Zealand very quickly, but that is more to do with the fact that we only make 4 films a year (in a good year). Absolutely nothing about what Equity is doing is going to help that situation.
-
So lets recap:
Equity NZ through what appears to be administrative negligence, has lost it's legal standing as an organisation representing NZ performers.
For more than a year they refuse to meet with SPADA, who represent all NZ producers to discuss improved working conditions for NZ actors, in accordance with the ECA and NZ labour laws.
They demand to meet the producers of The Hobbit to discuss a collective contract negotiated by them, apparently completely oblivious to the fact that this would be illegal under the Commerce Act.
The producers of the Hobbit point that the rates they pay have been quite generous, and are only getting better. Meanwhile Equity refuses to spell out exactly what it is they are seeking, apart from muttering about credits (?!) and unspecified terms unrelated to pay.
http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/employment-issues-sir-peter039s-hands-address/5/65796
If what they are asking for is so little, and the arrangement in the past have been fair, why boycott it and risk the entire shebang?
This behavour seems completely self destructive. The only way it makes sense is if you look at it from the point of view of the MEAA.
When was the last time a large organisation, especially an Australian one, spend money and time for completely altruistic reasons? They don't; Just like a company their own organisational interest come first.
The vast bulk of MEAA members work in Australia; what do they have to lose if they create industrial strife in NZ? = Nothing. What do they have to gain if NZ is no longer an attractive option for American, British, or indeed Australian production finance? They keep productions in Australia, and Australian performers nests feathered.
So looking at the disorganised and bizarre behaviour surround this and other issues, either Equity and MEAA are complete idiots about the law and reality of the territory they are working in, or more likely, the MEAA cares far more about stopping runaway production from coming to NZ than it does about NZ actors. Why else would they refuse to meet with SPADA and make an honest attempt to draw up more favourable guidelines for actors?
Man, it's difficult to watch a bunch of nice actors, who apparently have no sense of the bigger picture, being manipulated to act against their own interests like this