Actors Equity launch Save Spaces for Aussie Faces

After the debacle he caused in New Zealand with The Hobbit, Simon Whipp should quietly retire and let someone who really wants to help the film industry take his role.

Producers should be allowed to use actors from other countries to help make their films. The main reason why our film industry is suffering is the shortsightedness of MEAA and Actors Equity – having to use Aussie actors who are not known in the rest of the world limits their distribution potential enormously.

In LA they can use actors from all over the world – including Australia. What would happen if their union was as short-sighted as ours and wouldn’t allow Aussies to act in their films? End of careers for people like Cate Blanchett, Russell Crowe, the Hemsworth brothers, etc etc

What’s about young Australian actors and actressess and some Australian actors and actressess includes Sophie Monk to appear in Australian movies and television shows after they’re appeared in some Hollywood movies and some American or British television shows? Australia should make more movies and television shows, telemovies and mini-series.

Producers owe a duty of care to the country that funds their production. If a production is funded domestically then it should use local actors (and crew) where ever possible and have open discussions about any perceived need to depart from this maxim. Simon Whipp is quoted above as being happy for offshore funded productions to use offshore actors (and crew) which is encouraging.

The USA does not use actors from all over the world lightly, the productions have to go through a rigorous approvals process to hire foreigners – if both Australia and New Zealand were to follow the same regime there would be no performer unhappiness. Strangely, there is no call from the bureaucrats or the producers for such a regime.

Great news for the industry – the government finally opening up the restrictions on importing foreign talent. This will really help boost local production. Sure some local actors may miss out on lead roles but then the production may not even go ahead anyway. The net effect of this change will mean more jobs for the industry overall for technicians, stunts, actors and extras – and that’s a good thing!

Let’s get one thing straight here before Dean and the like go off half-cocked. MEAA is talking about film and TV productions that have some form of funding from the Australian taxpayer or productions mandated by government under local content rules.

As to Aussie actors working in the US, the productions they are working on are financed by investors, not the US Government.
MEAA’s position on series like TERRA NOVA being produced here for US network Fox in Queensland, which is fully funded by investors, is that the producers have every right to pick who they like.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh Dean?
Signed, Roy Billing (who is not afraid to put his name to his comments!)

The Aussie industry is languishing enough as it is with the strong dollar, without Equity having to further discourage foreign producers.

Having worked as an assistant to producers in Australian film, I believe the general sentiment regarding having to employ a quota of local actors is a serious pain in the ass, and it’s a real turnoff for American coin in particular. Equity would be better off allowing the doors to open where foreign actors are concerned, and I am hopeful this would lead to a general increase in production that benefits everyone, rather than just actors.

[comment edited]

The other thing I would urge people who wish to comment on this issue to do, is to read the existing Foreign Certification Scheme Guidelines and then to read the proposed new Guidelines. The proposed new Guidelines have been formulated by the Government without consultation with MEAA / Equity, whose members, the performers of Australia, are the industry group whose livelihood is most directly affected.

Roy Billing.

first question would be Roy how do we get private investment into australian film and television industry instead of waiting for government investment or relevant bodies.

Secondly i think its important that we look at how to get our industry back on its feet so we can all enjoy an industry that has supported us for so long. Rather than aiming at the negatives why not put some positives forward to help Aus Film and the relevant state bodies fight for all cast and crew so we get a balanced feedback from all.

Thirdly all levels within our industry are suffering and it will take a unified front to help each other and get our industry back on it’s feet. Many of our gifted cast and crew are heading off shore as there are limited prospects available here.

Let’s put our heads together and post some positive ideas to help save our industry.

Bring them in. It is hypocritical to suggest that foreign actors cannot come here to work, when most of our actors aim to work in the US and take off there as soon as they have had some local success. No-one is going to not cast Geoffrey Rush in a role, and the thought of it is ridiculous…. he is a prime example of one of ours working overseas.

Allowing more os actors to work here will force local film/tv makers to start making projects of greater international appeal (finally). Producers/Directors making Australian Drama for an Australian Audience will continue to use local actors and help to launch them on their way to os success.

With respect to equity and local actors, I feel a deal needs to be struck to allow more access to OS performers. Don’t Australian actors go OS to seek work?

To consider Geoffrey Rush could miss out on a local part is a bad example of a negative, he is one of our highly sought OS exports, no one in their right mind is going to replace him with someone just because of an accent. Australian actors that have had OS success are of increasing appeal here because as film makers we DO want international recognition of our projects.

Private investment in film will only happen further once we start to make projects of higher global appeal, and this can be enhanced by the allowing of more OS actors that have broad audience appeal off shore. As much as we all love a local coming of age drama….. film here needs to find a larger balance of global appeal through its stories; investors like to make money, that’s why it is called investing!

I agree that the equity body needs to be considered and consulted in the early decision making, but something has to give. The majority of Australian film makers will always, I believe, support local performers, and provide opportunity for locals to work with imported parties. Projects such as Star Wars and The Matrix Trilogy proved that.

I think Mark’s point about how do we get more investment into Australian productions is what we should be talking about as that is what will provide more employment across the board.

The producer offset is good for mid to larger scale production budgets. No matter what, to green light more films we need to attract private investment. To do so, we need to look at the best bits of the old 10BA days and providing tax incentives for private investment worked.

It generating more films into production and therefore more jobs and a healthier industry. Yes, we all know the system was rorted and it needed to be scraped at the time. However, surely in this technological age where governance and audit capabilities are significantly more sophisticated this avenue should be investigated again? There must be a way for this to work?

Providing a tax advantage for a risk investment is the way to get investors to have a punt on a film. The turn around would be significantly faster and more work for all. Writers, directors, actors, crew, technicians..everybody. The market would decide what is commercial in their eyes and wear the risk of their personal choices.

Roy, get your facts straight or stick to acting buddy.

Have you actually compared the old & the proposed? the differences are minor but clearer in intent.

On MEAAs own website it has copies of the consultation dialogue that took place over TWO YEARS.

the Fact is MEAA didn’t get everything it wanted and,… is sulking.

This is nothing more than a hysterical “sky is falling” exercise and you have come straight in fella.

Also I couldn’t help but notice the absence of the majority of the upper echelon of Aussie artists who do have OS careers chose not to sign the letter to the minister. “Solidarity Reg!?” ( or is that Roy?)

From my very limited understanding, what MEAA wants is to not change guidelines that were set up in the (very xenophobic WHITE AUSTRALIA) 70s. That means that you cannot employ a lead actor from a foreign country unless there is 30% or more investment from the foreign country. What the government wants is to drop that 30% figure to the STATISTICALLY RESEARCHED viable figure of 15% (i.e. studies on Australian films made in the past few years was undertaken, and the results were that foreign investment in these films averaged around 12-14%.).

So let’s look at this logically. If I was making a film and had a lead actor in it that was recognised world wide, which means far great sales, would I not use him or her? Particularly if, for example, the role was written for an American, a Brit, Japanese (think Japanese Story. Can anyone out there explain to the public the MEAA debacle that ensued with this film?) Korean – it doesn’t matter – surely I would use them? Surely the aim of making a film IS TO MAKE MONEY? Surely the actors of Australia would want a film that they have made to be seen outside of the country? Would I want to cast Cate Blanchette in the lead role instead of say Reese Witherspoon? Well of course I would, but sometimes it’s about who is available! So it’s a no brainer. I’m not going to replace a lead actor of Cate’s standing with someone else because they’re foreign. That’s really a ridiculous argument.

But basically, what MEAA wants is that we don’t make the movie at all. Simple.
Unless they have their way, they do not care about the wider implications of their stance, and I mean, the wider implications to their members, not even to the country or industry as a whole. [comment edited for legal reasons] Can anyone explain how the sort of bullheaded and strangely aspergic behaviour of the union is actually giving the impression to the rest of the world that we are not a stable production option?

We used to have a great reputation, but now, particularly after the New Zealand hysteria, producers around the world are saying ‘oh, well, your dollar is strong, AND you have a very unstable union, so we will spend millions and the next thing we know, it will all collapse around us. Not worth the risk, thank you though. We’d rather shoot in Baghdad.”

And I believe the Geoffrey Rushes and Cate Blanchett’s of the world should NOT be signing this MEAA letter. That’s hypocrisy at its best. It is these (amazing and wonderful) actors who are taking away the lead roles from our gifted, but not ‘A Listed’ actors, without these actors, who are INTERNATIONALLY renowned, multiplexes will not open a movie. If I was an Australian producer making an Australian film, I know that I HAVE to choose Cate or Geoffrey or Nicole, otherwise I won’t get a distributor on board. Those are the names the distributors want, the names of the AUSTRALIAN Actors who are famous OVERSEAS.

So, basically, from my understanding – if I want to make a film that has the lead role written for, say, an American, (with the rest of the cast being Australian) (or even let’s say the role is an Australian, but the film Gods have smiled on me and Johnny Depp just fell in my lap and begged me to make this film because he wants to play an Australian), unless I find 30% (double the average) of the money from overseas, I have to tell Johnny that I can’t make the movie with him.

And then I have to go to the distributor and say, I can’t get Johnny and Geoffrey Rush and the 5 or 6 other actors you deem high profile enough are all busy for the next 2 years and anyway, they don’t like the role, what can we do? And the distributor will say, well, sorry, not interested in this movie anymore. Why don’t you go back to waitressing with all the actors that would probably have gotten really nice roles out of this movie that we are not able to make anymore.

And don’t blame the distributors. The public won’t see these films, and without an audience, well. Really.

[comment edited for legal reasons]