#FemaleFilmmakerFriday – Special Oscar Edition… What Are You Wearing?

Posted Leave a commentPosted in Female Filmmaker Friday

What’s your take on the controversy over whether to ask women what/who they’re wearing in red carpet interviews?

Thank you so much to my supporters at patreon.com/katehackett who help make posts like these possible. If you’d like to join me on patreon, I’d love to have you: you get BTS, weekly posts about the industry, and way more. 

I think there need to be other questions asked in addition to “who are you wearing”. 

The question comes from a relationship that actors / talent / Hollywood has with designers; designers provide these expensive garments for free for the exposure and the name dropping. It’s an old relationship that Hollywood has used for years and years; it’s not for me to say whether or not I agree with it, it is what it is. 

However.

who cares who we’re wearing!

It is exclusively women who are reduced to questions about their appearance. Men rarely, if ever, have to field “who are you wearing” questions because their persona does not revolve around their appearance. And that’s fucked up. 

Red carpets interviewers receive limited time — sometimes very limited. Stars are ushered from stop to stop and bigger outlets receive more face to face time with bigger stars. So “who are you wearing” tends to be the first question because it’s part of the wardrobe deal — the talent needs to name drop. They need time to do that. If you don’t get it out fast, you’ve missed an opportunity to do your job and if the interviewer doesn’t ask, odds are that the next awards show that celeb is going to be ushered right by that news outlet by her publicist. See the problem?

I personally don’t mind asking about an ensemble; for centuries, women have been limited in their self expression to their dress (if that, in some cultures & places) and fashion absolutely has artistic merit. It is not MY personal art form, but I can appreciate it. But “Who designed this” should be followed by “what do you like about it” or “what drew you to this”… and then (call me radical) THE WORK THE WOMAN ACTUALLY DOES. Or a book she’s reading. Or, or, or. Don’t just pan up & down her body and call it an interview. 

#FemaleFilmmakerFriday – Battle of the Writers

Posted Leave a commentPosted in Female Filmmaker Friday

I suppose it does happen that the director and screenwriter are two different people? In such case, is the writer required on set, or is his job limited to just the writing? — Spidernana93

The director and writer are VERY OFTEN not the same person. And this question has two completely different answers based on whether we are talking about film or television. The golden rule is:

On a film set, the director is king. The writers are either not invited / allowed on set at all or they aren’t really giving much feedback. Their job, at that point, is done. 

On a television set, the writer is king. Writers, on TV shows, are also producers (after a certain level), which means their word is …not law, because they have bosses too, but you get the idea. A TV director is a hired hand and he absolutely has a lot of say in a lot of things, but at the end of the day, Writer = Producer = Big Cheese.

As film & tv get blurrier and blurrier, I imagine there will be a shift, if there hasn’t already been. I think TV writers will start to expect more of a say in film and film directors doing episodes of TV will want more authority over their sets. Years ago, film & tv didn’t really mingle; it was really hard for a TV actor to “make the jump” to film. Big directors didn’t take the step down to work television. But now… everything’s different. I think right now it’s still a “big get” for a television show to invite a film director on, but I don’t think that will be the case forever. TV is big money and it’s prestigious now, so there is ever more competition. I’m curious to see how this winds up shaking out!

If you liked this article and want to see more like it, please consider supporting me via katehackett.com/patronage!

Top Five Reasons to Support Artists

Posted Leave a commentPosted in Female Filmmaker Friday

#FemaleFilmmakerFriday – The Unequal Pay Debate, part two

Posted Leave a commentPosted in Female Filmmaker Friday

Thank you so much to my supporters at patreon.com/katehackettwho help make videos like these possible. If you’d like to join me on patreon, I’d love to have you: you get BTS, weekly posts about the industry, and way more.

We left off with the question: wtf is a name actor.

A name actor is someone who is recognizable. I am not a name actor. I have a name! My name is Kate! But I am not A NAME. Matt Smith is a name. You know him, which is why his representation was able to negotiate a higher rate of pay for him than Foy’s reps were able to negotiate for her. It’s A LITTLE bit comparable to experience in the workplace, but exacerbated. He had recognizability she did not. And this happens a lot – and it skews male because men have more opportunities than women (bigger roles, more visibility, etc), so it’s just a cycle that goes on and on.

I don’t begrudge Smith’s reps (or Smith) for wheeling and dealing. I don’t begrudge anyone for doing his or her job – and it is Smith’s agent’s job to get him the highest rate of pay they can. I also don’t really begrudge producers for not trying to offer Foy more money; their job is to keep overhead low, and that means keeping pay to a dull roar. 

That said, obviously it’s not fair – it’s not fair from the lowest rung straight on up. I think the most proactive way to handle this, however, is not to ask production to go against everything it represents. We need the actors’ union to take a stand and protect its underrepresented members to ensure that pay is commiserate with job AND experience (or, you know, my favorite term: NAME). SAG should be stepping in to assist those contract negotiations and actors need to be more vocal about their pay. If Foy and Smith had discussed it, I doubt we would be.

#FemaleFilmmakerFriday – The Unequal Pay Debate, part one.

Posted Leave a commentPosted in Female Filmmaker Friday

What about unequal pay? – part one.

Thank you so much to my supporters at patreon.com/katehackettwho help make videos like these possible. If you’d like to join me on patreon, I’d love to have you: you get BTS, weekly posts about the industry, and way more. 

I know we all read about The Crownlast year – how Claire Foy made less than Matt Smith – and I imagine we all have OPINIONS on it. I bet your opinion is probably HOW COULD THEY.

Let’s slow our roll and go a little deeper. 

I know The Crownepisode actually wound up with an apology and a promise to give Foy backpay to close the gap (ALTHOUGH. https://www.glamour.com/story/claire-foy-not-given-back-pay-the-crown) but Hollywood pay scales are actually kind of … flibbertygibbity. It’s not just “she is on set for 1000 hours this season, she gets 1000 * 100$/hr!” and there is no set amount everyone always receives. 

Let’s start at the bottom: SAG Scales. 

SAG sets its rate sheet every handful of years, when they run contract negotiations, and it’s always better than minimum wage. Commercial and theatrical are different rates (as of right now, commercial pays something like 650/day and theatrical is 980 for a single day of shooting; weekly performers get more). That scale is what it is – men and women are making the same amount. If your agent isn’t negotiating above scale for you, you probably aren’t hitting giant pay discrepancies. 

KIND OF.

I’ve been on sets where I have ALL the dialogue; my male counterpart has ZERO LINES but is reacting to stuff on camera, and he’s still making the same rate as I am. Is that fair? No. And that’s where your agent MIGHT MAYBE want to negotiate above scale for you, though there’s not always much wiggle room for it. 

I have also RUN sets where everyone’s making 100/day (new media rates from a bunch of years ago) and someone on set for 12 hours makes the same amount of money as someone who pops in for 2. Is that fair? No. But you know what I do not feel like fucking around with in the interest of “fair”? 100 dollars a damn day.

So – actor money isn’t based on an hourly rate, nor is it based on the actual amount of time you’re working. If they call you for the day, you’re paid for the day, no matter what your call time is — which does make sense; you’re asking an actor to be available, so you have to pay for that time. 

But when you get to bigger roles and bigger paychecks, that scale goes out the window — you may way more per episode, your reps negotiate (remember the 2.5 million or whatever it was the Friends made? PER EPISODE?), and you agree to that pay rate for X number of seasons. It’s all contracted, it’s all negotiable. And salary negotiations are typically not shared, which is where we get into trouble.

Moreover, a huge part of actor pay is based on something that has absolutely nothing to do with how much you’re working:

Your “Name”.

(come back next week for the EXCITING CONCLUSION and explanation of wtf a “Name” actor is)

#FemaleFilmmakerFriday – It’s Not Good Yet.

Posted Leave a commentPosted in Female Filmmaker Friday

I grapple with how much to share on here – how much of the process to reveal, how much to show the sausage being made. My general inclination is to only show polished performances & work, which I adhere to completely when other people are involved. But what about things I’m writing or doing myself? Do I share works in progresses? Or only completed, finished things? To that end, do I share scripts? or only shot, edited, and corrected work — do I adhere to the medium in which I see something, or do I share whatever straws I have?

I think it’s a really interesting struggle for artists — when is art done? (never) and when do I share it? Moreover, as an actor, we have a really unique artistic process; you see the entire thing. You see us working. A painter doesn’t work that way – you see the painting, not the painter. With an actor, you see the good, bad, and ugly. 

So I’m opening this #FemaleFilmmakerFriday post up to you guys — I want to know how much art YOU reveal to people. Do you share your works as they go or are you a purist? Do you share only what you deem “worthy”? …but then, how do you decide what (or when) that is?

Thank you so much to my supporters at patreon.com/katehackettwho help make posts like these possible. If you’d like to join me on Patreon, I’d love to have you: you get BTS, weekly posts about the industry, and way more. If you have questions you want to see answered, please consider tossing in a few bucks to the Patreon.

— Kate

#FemaleFilmmakerFriday – What roles are MANDATORY on set?

Posted Leave a commentPosted in Female Filmmaker Friday

What are film roles you’ll never leave out on your future sets? Perhaps because you’ve had to work without them before, etc. (things like HMU, production design, AD, line producer, etc etc. Anything beyond director/producer/DP basically) – Bri 

Thanks, Bri!! 

Hey! First, big ol thanks to my Patrons over at patreon.com/katehackett for supporting me every month and making sure I can put videos out — like this one! Patreon is an amazing platform that gives me stability as an artist to keep fighting for a little room in the industry – if you want to keep in touch with me, learn about the biz, or just show support for a writer, producer, actor, creator in Los Angeles, visit patreon.com/katehackett. Patrons also receive weekly #FemaleFilmmakerFriday content, so if you don’t want to miss anything, make sure you head on over!

If you’re a wonderful Patreon FOLLOWER, I’d love to be able to bring you into the fold — join today & be part of the community! This post DOES contain affiliate links and I receive a small percentage of any purchases made through them.

And, of course, thanks so much to viewers like you for joining me for this month’s Female Filmmaker Friday vlog, where once a month I chat with you publicly about some aspect of the business — and being a woman therein.

This month I have a question from one of my Patrons. Bri asks “What are film roles you’ll never leave out on your future sets? Perhaps because you’ve had to work without them before?”

So— beyond the bare minimum, which is really just actor, director, who do we have? DP. Sound. Those are the next most important roles. You must have good sound. Period. DPs are great, a good camera does wonders, though sometimes you can get a director to double. When I hire for these roles in particular, I do my best to hire women; I’ve worked with some WONDERFUL female DPs who really have a great eye. These jobs also skew typically male, so it’s important to be conscious of your hire.

After that, as an actress, I always want Hair & Makeup. Some actors are fine without it; I’m notoriously bad at doing my own hair and makeup and if I have to commit my face to film, I would love for someone who knows what he or she is doing to tackle this.

At this point, everything else becomes “wishlist”. If you’re shooting at a teeny micro budget level, you can make this work with your skeleton crew. However. It’s important to know your weaknesses and farm that work out. Production design is probably the next person I would really want on set; it’s possible to get away with doing PD yourself, especially comedy, but it’s always a billion times better when you hire someone.

When I’m working barebones, I do all the line producing (which is budget stuff), we AD ourselves (keep ourselves on schedule), we gaff ourselves (lighting), we clothe ourselves, so these teammates are not REQUIRED for uber low budget productions I run, but they’re really fucking helpful. It also really depends on the scope of the project; a short comedy in your apartment doesn’t need a best boy. A scifi short action film requires at least three people on production design’s team. 

To conclude: actor. director. sound. DP. Hair & Makeup. You can skate by with those — but remember that that means YOU are doing all of the other jobs that you had to omit!

PATRON ONLY EXCLUSIVE #FemaleFilmmakerFriday – Stay in your lane!

Posted Posted in Female Filmmaker Friday, Patron Beta Tester Tier
As an artist, I really, really hate the “stay in your own lane” mantra that’s been floating around. I didn’t become an actor (or a writer) to exclusively perform in my wheelhouse. The argument for it is that there are fewer opportunities for <insert minority here> and I understand that. I respect that we want […]
To access this post, you must purchase Beta Tester Tier, Writer's Workshop Tier, Producer Tier or Unicorn Tier.

#FemaleFilmmakerFriday – Being TOUGH.

Posted Leave a commentPosted in Female Filmmaker Friday

Thank you so much to my supporters at patreon.com/katehackettwho help make posts like these possible. If you’d like to join me on Patreon, I’d love to have you: you get BTS, posts about the industry, and way more. If you have questions you want to see answered, please consider tossing in a few bucks to the Patreon. R

You have a very straightforward sort of personality. Did you develop a tough love attitude because of the way the industry treats women?

Yes and no. 

If anything, the industry expects women to be MORE patient, so I’m sure that my “tell it like it is”ness is a reaction to that. There’s no meanness involved, I’m not red-faced angry at someone for asking questions, but I see no reason to sugarcoat things.  The film world is a high stress world; there’s no time for that! The lessons I gleaned are to say what you need, ask for what you require, and be clear — works better for a man, admittedly, but if ENOUGH women do it… 

When I answer questions on forums like https://community.stareable.com, I’m answer as though I am speaking with professionals who are requesting assistance — they don’t need their hands held. Why waste everyone’s time? That said, I hope I do so with KINDNESS, because my goal isn’t to make anyone feel bad.

Of course…I think I’ve always been pretty aggressive. I remember at age 8, I turned to a girl in a Saturday rehearsal for a play and blankly told her, “We are not here for friendships. We’re here to …REHEARSE.” because she wanted to talk to me. So to some extent, that’s always been there. If anything, at this point, I think I’ve tamped it DOWN and THAT is entirely because of how the WORLD, not just the industry, treats women.

I can’t tell you quite what personality style works best for you — or for your set because different groups of people will need different things. I do know that I’m not afraid of being direct, but I am also (hopefully) encouraging. Every set is a new learning opportunity for EVERYONE, even the very best of us, and embracing that is important! 

#FemaleFilmmakerFriday – What’s Fi-Core?

Posted Leave a commentPosted in Female Filmmaker Friday

Rounding out my union series… Let’s talk fi-core. Financial Core allows employees to work in a union environment without becoming full members. It is a federal law and SAG has to play ball with it. Actors go Fi-Core for a lot of reasons, but the bottom line becomes: they can legally work non-union jobs. They do not have access to voting rights in SAG and they do not get screeners, but everything else still stands. According to SAG, you become a “fee paying non member” but you can still work union jobs. It’s weird. 

SAG obviously has a vested interest in making sure union actors do NOT go Fi-Core and there is a shitload of misinformation out there. So with as little overture as possible, here’s the deal:

Unions depend on their members to strengthen their bargaining position. If EVERYONE refuses to do their homework, can the teacher get mad? – that kind of thought process. If EVERYONE is union, producers HAVE to pay. But obviously not everyone is union, there’s a gatekeeping process, so you get your nonunion actors who then undermine SAG actors by saying: sure, we’ll work for less!

Ideal world, the nonunion actors are green; they’re not union simply because they have not earned their spot yet. Once they can join, they will join, thus strengthening the union’s position further.

But we live in the real world and that’s not how it works. A lot of actors choose to stay nonunion for a long, long time because there are jobs there — and they aren’t green actors anymore. So the union loses some strength. Other actors go fi-core to get more jobs (or whatever). And the union loses more strength. And eventually, the bargaining chip becomes: oh, you want these specific actors? the names, the big stars? okay, deal with the unionand it erodes the union’s middle class.

So, sure, you can go fi-core. It’s a personal choice you CAN make, legally, because the law says you can do it. You can also come back from it (you pay a reentry fee) if you decide you want to be SAG again. Again, that’s the law: they are legally required to permit your reentry. You lose a few “membership” rights, but not the big important stuff. You still get collective bargaining, you still get healthcare if you qualify. 

Sounds kinda sweet, right?

HOWEVER.

If you choose to go fi-core, it does hurt the union and all the actors in it. That’s really the biggest, most tangible drawback. 

So you have to ask yourself: do my needs supersede the needs of the collective? 

Big question.