From the CAO BG Performers Discussion Board
Where Background Perfomer Deductions Go
By Aurthur Dent
You asked, Where exactly is the "bang for the buck" you receive when you make less money
than a cash backgrounder?
While I can see that the bang that your buck gives (or 17 cents as in this case) may seem almost
inaudible when one is looking at one's personal situation - there is a much larger issue involved. I
will attempt in my usual long-winded way to answer:
- Why the pay scale is so small to begin with
- The reason for the differences in pay scale between full and apprentice members, and
- The benefits of further reducing that small amount by having apprentices give some of it to the
union.
But first of all, I would like you to know that I do not find your questions negative in any sense
of the word. When anyone deducts something from your paycheck, you have every right to ask how it
will benefit you. In fact, it's the most intelligent thing to do.
There is no question that $8.50 an hour is a pitiful amount of money for what one has to put up with
- and further deductions may "seem" arbitrary or unfair. Yet, even though union members,
apprentices and cash BG are doing essentially the same job, there IS a distinct and important
difference between these groups. It has to do with the level of commitment and the level of support
they are willing to give to the union. There is also the HISTORY of the situation that one must take
into consideration.
Years ago, ACTRA, seeing a chance to help their members who were either beginning their careers, or
just having trouble making ends meet, lobbied to get productions to hire a given number of ACTRA
members as extras. It was agreed that the number used would vary according to the production's
budget. And because they WERE professional actors, it allowed ACTRA to eventually negotiate a higher
rate than an ordinary extra. The producers agreed - not because they wanted to help starving actors
- or because they wanted to be fair - but simply because they recognized that the small increase in
the cost of using a limited amount of professional actors would more than make up for itself in the
producer's ability to use them on a set. It wasn't (and still isn't) a hell of a lot of money - but
for many professional actors it was a god-sent. It enabled them to survive. It still does to this
day.
Back then, an extra was lucky to get a T-shirt, let alone minimum wage. Feeding them anything was
practically unheard of. When large crowds of extras were used, it was common for a number of them to
just get bored and go home. You have to keep in mind that when the forced use of professional actors
as extras was initiated, ACTRA didn't represent extras. Nobody did. They were totally on their own.
Okay, that was then, this is NOW, the BGers may say. ACTRA is representing us now and even though
they may have been forced into representing us by PACT and people who fought for us, ACTRA should be
fighting for US, just like everybody else! And were not just "extras" - we're background
PERFORMERS! We want better working conditions, better food, better pay. We work long hours just like
everybody else. We know our job and a lot of us are professional too. It's not just a hobby. It's
our JOB! And we wanted to be respected for it.
All too true. Especially so in regards to respect and pay scale.
Unfortunately, the reality of the business throws a different light on the situation.
Firstly, BG performers are always going to be at the bottom of the financial totem pole and even in
the unlikely event that BG rates could be increased dramatically, it would only result in less
people in the background. It's one of the first areas Line Producers look at when trying to save the
nickels and dimes. Extras in Canada are now called BG performers, but regardless of what we call the
category, "extras" is how it is still seen by the studios. And "Extras", for the
most part, are seen by the studios as merely "movable scenery". In an entire film crew, BG
performers need to know the least in order to do their jobs. And although the working conditions may
be extremely harsh at times, it is also the easiest job on a film crew - bar none.
Take the REAL lowest rungs of the film industry ladder. PAs & Security. PAs are on set an hour
before most of the cast & crew and are still cleaning up after most of us have gone home. And
PAs do not get overtime after 8 hours either. People in film Security do 12 hr-plus shifts by
themselves in the most miserable conditions imaginable. They are not fed hot meals and they are
often required to spend the entire night alone in parts of the city that you or I wouldn't dream of
going unless forced to by gun point. And BOTH those groups have a training program that is far more
extensive than what someone doing BG work has to go through.
The fact that BGers are relatively affordable in large numbers gives the director a wider option to
make certain set ups more interesting or realistic - but should it prove otherwise, there are many
ways around using them and directors know all of the tricks of their trade - aside from just
digitally creating them. Which is exactly what they would do if they had to pay EVERY BG performer
$19.50 an hour. Hence, the layered pay scale.
ACTRA has recently negotiated a minuscule increase in BG's pay scale. One has to keep in mind
though, even THAT would not have happened without ACTRA's participation. After all, there is only so
much pressure one can apply to a studio concerning a group of people who are relatively easy to
replace - mainly because the majority still do BG for the fun of it. Nevertheless, the increase did,
I believe, amount to more than 17 cents an hour - so regardless, their situation did improve. (Ok -
"improve" here is being used in its loosest sense )
Further, the higher negotiated rate for full ACTRA members doing BG is in keeping with that member's
commitment to the acting profession.
Serious actors who work as BG are looking for better roles, more experience and the chance to make
acting their major source of income - and they are quite different from those who only supplement
their income with occasional extra work - and it is right and proper that the rate at which they are
paid should reflect that. Further, they should always be given - and WILL always be given - a
priority over others who choose to work sporadically in that area. Simply because supporting serious
actors who want to become professional actors by increasing their pay is an investment towards the
heath of the film industry as a whole.
For the serious actor starting out, BG work is simply a right of passage. First you have to prove
that you are serious simply by having the perseverance not to give up. That part has nothing to do
with your ability to act - but rather, your ability go the distance. Extra work is one of the first
arenas where you can learn the barest essentials of the film business. When someone who is serious
about the profession and can stick with it, they will gain enough credits and become an ACTRA
member. And they will have deserved that membership AND its higher rate of pay. When they get more
experience (and a few breaks) they may move away from BG work and make room for others in that area.
That's the way it works. It works for the betterment of the industry *as a whole* - not to anyone's
personal self-interest. For others, BG work may be as far as they want to go. But they too, will
have paid their dues and will have earned that higher rate of pay.
Supporting our union is the only way we will ever improve our working conditions. Seen in that
light, 17 cents is not a big price to pay. Personally, I believe that those who do BG work on a
regular basis and do not join ACTRA BG, are merely asking for a free ride. I may still respect the
work they do and sympathize with their working conditions - but I find them severely wanting when it
comes to supporting their fellow actors. All BGers benefited from the recent increase in pay. Those
who refuse to join merely because they have to pay 17 cents an hour more, may rue their
self-centered view of this industry when they get screwed on some future production one day and find
there is nobody to fight for them.
Remember, the actors that went before you all worked in conditions that were inferior to what you work in today. And they were only able to improve those conditions because they supported each other. Pay the 17 cents with pride, I say. Throwing it into the kitty is not so much as a deduction, as it is an investment. It may make your life a little tougher, but it WILL eventually help those who follow you.
|
