A producer's nightmare-- problem actors

[narcissus]

I have been working on a low budget feature for +3 years... in fact, the first day of shooting was 3 years ago this week (June 17, 2002). On this first day of shooting, the DAT machine broke-- and there was no usable dialogue.

So I continued to shoot the film and hoped that I could edit around and dub... fix it in post. I had no other choice since I had a very strict deadline to complete shooting (limited access to locations and the place I was staying which was the primary location).

I began post a few weeks after wrapping. Several months later it became appearant that other scenes were needed.

So I contacted the actors and crew and got together another shoot the following summer. We shot for several days straight during the summer then one day per weekend because of their schedules. I also began to film another project with the actors simultaneously because of the limited access to locations. The actors' moods had noticably changed from the first shoot, however-- they began to complain about the pay ($480 per day on a low budget indie...) and the heat and the cars and the air,,,, but otherwise the shooting was going along well.

Then in mid September 2003, the actors showed up +90minutes late to one shoot, and have not shown up to any shoot since. I have scheduled 3 shoots since, and given them over 20 days notice (the contract specifies that I give them at least 2 days)-- still they were no-shows.

I sent many many emails and waited and waited... nothing. Then after sending several legal threats, was told to speak to one's agent. So I called and emailed him. He asked if I would pay airfare for the shoot. I agreed,, (though I am not contractually obligated to do so). Several days later I was told that the actor was not available for my project.

So I had an attorney review their contracts. He said they are valid and it is clear that they must appear if I give them 2 or more days' notice... So he wrote them each a letter asking them to contact me to resume filmming. Nothing from one,, only a non-working phone number from the other.

I was advised to not include any names because this information may harm the actors, and I will yield to that despite the fact that their actions are interfering with my ability to finish my film. This has been the case for over 20 months now of them not showing up for 1 day of neccessary reshoots. I do not believe it is libelous for me to post provable facts about someone interfering with my business. If I were making false claims to harm them I could be opening myself up for a suit against myself-- I have no desire to do that. Right now, I'm trying to gain some other perspectives and to hopefully help other people to avoid going through the same unneccessary trama.

Does anyone have any comments or suggestions ???


Thanks,


JB

(edit; punctuation)

 

[narcissus]

the actress had no problem showing up (it was 2 years to the week after the last shoot they showed-up for).

the actor, due to so many delays/problems, was written out of the scenes. I heard from the actress that he wanted to be involved at the shoot (after all that !!!) , but he was already written out.


I took a year off for health reasons, and am back on finishing the effects. I completed a viewing copy which was entered into Sundance this week (for the 2008 fesitval).

needless to say, I'd never hire these actors again, and am actually looking into making films in CG now (animated).

 

[clive]

Glad to hear you finally got the film wrapped, and sorry to hear you've had some health issues.

Had to laugh when you said you're moving over to CGI animation... I don't know how many directors wish they could replace actors with animation, glove puppets... any damn thing other than an actual person.

It could be that you just got incredibly unlucky with your cast, in which case you'll never have these problems again. Not all actors are "problematic"

 

[spinner]

Hi!

I always wondered what happened to you! I am glad to hear that everything worked itself out. Sorry about your health, we should all hope to never get sick in this administration. I hope you will let us all know how your next project goes.....actually, I would love to know how the 'troubled production' went as well....

-- spinner

 

[Will Vincent]

Wow... old thread, but since Spinner revived it today, I thought I'd chime in a little..

First off, congrats on wrapping, and good luck with getting into Sundance.

As for the problems, the only thought that is in my head worth mentioning is that their whining and lazy behavior is most likely related to something other than whatever pay rate they had agreed to. Example, I was recently (a few months ago) a resident DJ at a night club. I went in three nights a week, and did my thing.. no problem. It was after a few months of feeling like I was being taken advantage of -- going in on days I wasn't working to work on lighting, etc -- that I started to complain about things. What was it I complained about? Money. Even though I had agreed to work for that amount, suddenly it wasn't "enough".. but it really didn't have anything to do with money, it just felt like my time was more valuable than what I was making.

So, to clarify that some, I'd say one of your jobs on set, as a producer, is to make sure all your people know that they are valued. Make everyone feel important and they will take ownership of the project. Once they feel like they are just as important as you are, they'll do whatever it takes to get the film done, and done well.

Now, that's not to say that there aren't some people who just suck to work with. It is possible you got smacked with the unlucky stick and had to work with some real trolls, but I think it would behoove you to take a look at yourself and see if there isn't anything you might need to change for the betterment of a smooth production.

Changing oneself is one of the most difficult things to do, often because we're afraid to admit that we are flawed. However, you are the only person that you can change... and even a slight change of your own behavior can drastically affect those around you.

Just words of wisdom, take them as you will. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm not saying you are right either.

At any rate, congrats again, and good luck.

 

[narcissus]

one of your jobs on set, as a producer, is to make sure all your people know that they are valued. .

I definately did that as best I could. Still tried to for over a year after they showed up several hours late on the last day they showed up in 2003.

they'll do whatever it takes to get the film done, and done well.

That's what I've heard, and seen from some involved on the film-- but not what I've seen from them, or two other people formerly on the production. Fortunately, I would never hire any of them again, or work with them again. That is basically the only positive thing I can say about them at this point...

At any rate, congrats again, and good luck.

Cool. Thank you for one of the few sensible replies in this thread.

 

[steve gelder]

"claims of defamation are limited to living persons only and the living person must be identifiable in the writing or publication"
there are no names included in this thread

I know this is an older thread and a dead horse, but just to clarify something about defamation -

When it says "the person must be identifiable", that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be identified by name. If I write something defamatory about Britney Spears, and you know it's about her because of the language I use, but I never use her name, it's still defamation if you can recognize who it is from the context of the story.

In this case, if I knew who narcissus was, as a director, and I knew which project he was working on, I could deduce who the actor and actress are he's accusing of being difficult to work with, and that could possibly constitute defamation. It would be easier for the actors to prove if it was an easily identifiable project and they were household names, but they still might have the basis of a case that could cost thousands in court fees.

Make sense?

 

[narcissus]

Make sense?

Not really. I actually have the right to say anything I want as long as I believe it to be truthful without fear of being sued (thanks for trying to chill-effect the thread again...).

Liability comes only into play if I was intentionally trying to damage someone's credibility. I have repeated my intentions for this post; to help other to avoid the same unneccessary predicament. It doesn't matter if I post their names or not-- my intent is simple.

 

[narcissus]

All I have posted are provable facts and my own opinions about the actors. I still have no idea why so many people here have posted bogus legal info and pseudo-threatening falsehoods in this thread...


Anyway, here is some legit legal info;

"Most states recognize a valid defamation lawsuit when false written or spoken words are communicated to a third party and disparage a person of his trade, office, or profession, and when the employer or ex-employer negligently failed to check the accuracy of such information.

Exceptions

If the employer makes a mistake in providing a reference by looking at the wrong file, and later corrects the mistake, then the employee does not have the right to press charges of defamation.

If the employer shares their opinion about the employee’s wrongful conduct to another person; an opinion cannot amount to defamation.

If the employer disseminates defamatory but true information about the employee."


(source; http://www.mypersonnelfile.com/oer_defamation.php)

 

[steve gelder]

Not really. I actually have the right to say anything I want as long as I believe it to be truthful without fear of being sued (thanks for trying to chill-effect the thread again...).

I wasn't trying to "chill-effect the thread"; I'm explaining a point of law. You don't have to use the person's name in order for them to be identified.

And you are absolutely wrong from a legal standpoint when you make the statement you made above. Just because you believe your statements are truthful doesn't mean you can't be sued.

The post that followed this one said something about people posting bogus legal info. You have proven several times in this thread that you do not understand the difference between legal and what you consider to be right and wrong.

 

[narcissus]

you are absolutely wrong from a legal standpoint when you make the statement you made above.

really ?

i guess internet legal sites must all be wrong then if you're right...


"Defamation is a general term for the false attack on your character"

source: http://www.faceintel.com/defamation.htm


"grant employers immunity from liability for truthfully disclosing information about job performance and reasons for termination."

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/cs/labor_laws_2/a/defamation_3.htm


"Truth is an absolute defense to defamation"

http://www.myemploymentlawyer.com/mel/answer.php3?answer_id=2326

 

[narcissus]

You have proven several times in this thread that you do not understand the difference between legal and what you consider to be right and wrong.

Wow... obviously you are so right-on with your legal info so far...

Why don't you point out where I've been wrong and prove it ?

 

[narcissus]

I have to repeat something again obviously, though-- my REASON for posting this is to HELP other filmmakers AVOID a situation where actors fail to appear for filmming.

For this, I've been bombarded by "smart people" like Steve with retarded and inconsequential info claiming I'm wrong for posting provable facts and my opinions about something. I'm not wrong for doing this. I know my sources for legal info here, and I have no idea why this "smart person" is still trying to make me look bad for trying to help other filmmakers avoid a bad situation with actors being childish and causing unneccessary damage.

If this particular "smart person", (Steve) thinks he can disprove the facts of my experiences with these actors, or my opinions of them, he might as well claim himself to be Jesus and fly off to Atlantis on the wings of a magical unicorn.

Guess this is place is still absurd. Wonder why I don't post much here...

 

[narcissus]

Note; I just got an infraction for the above post. I edited a few words into "smart person". That is the closest I can get to my truthful opinion, due to forum censorship.

It's interesting that Steve posts "you're wrong" to me with a false assertion about the law-- falsely charging me, with unsurprisingly bogus info. Seems Steve is doing what he is falsely claming I am doing-- making public charges against someone, but he has no proof to back himself, as I do with the actors. He is posting his opinion (obviously not legal fact), so I have no grounds to sue him, as per my arguement and legal info he is actively denouncing.

Also, Steve's false assertion that I have "proven.. that I don't understand" is another false assertion. It's a generalized charge, again loaded with bogus legal bearing.

Believing this display from Steve to be abhorrantly ignorant, I called him 2 names. And I'd do it again, if it weren't for forum laws.

 

[steve gelder]

really ?

i guess internet legal sites must all be wrong then if you're right...


"Defamation is a general term for the false attack on your character"

source: http://www.faceintel.com/defamation.htm


"grant employers immunity from liability for truthfully disclosing information about job performance and reasons for termination."

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/cs/labor_laws_2/a/defamation_3.htm


"Truth is an absolute defense to defamation"

http://www.myemploymentlawyer.com/mel/answer.php3?answer_id=2326

You only quote the parts of the law that you feel agrees with you. That won't help you in a courtroom, as they tend to take all of the legalities involved into consideration, not just what you approve of.

Your previous statement was that you could say anything without fear of being sued as long as you *believe* it to be true. That statement is wrong. Simple as that.

 

[John@Bophe]

Narcissus, I tried replying to your PM but your mailbox is full. If you would like a reply, please clear some of your PMs and let me know when you have done so.

 

[steve gelder]

Note; I just got an infraction for the above post. I edited a few words into "smart person". That is the closest I can get to my truthful opinion, due to forum censorship.

It's interesting that Steve posts "you're wrong" to me with a false assertion about the law-- falsely charging me, with unsurprisingly bogus info. Seems Steve is doing what he is falsely claming I am doing-- making public charges against someone, but he has no proof to back himself, as I do with the actors. He is posting his opinion (obviously not legal fact), so I have no grounds to sue him, as per my arguement and legal info he is actively denouncing.

Also, Steve's false assertion that I have "proven.. that I don't understand" is another false assertion. It's a generalized charge, again loaded with bogus legal bearing.

Believing this display from Steve to be abhorrantly ignorant, I called him 2 names. And I'd do it again, if it weren't for forum laws.

I've been polite to you up to now, and you clearly deserve no respect, as you offer none to others, but I'll try to approach you as a grown up, anyway.

I didn't make any charges against you. My original statement was that you can be sued for defamation, even if you don't use the person's name. They simply have to be identifiable in your writing.

You're wrong when you say "if I believe it is true, I can say it without being sued." There's no accusation there, it's a truth. You're wrong. Sorry you don't like being wrong, but that's the law.

You have no grounds to sue me, for many reasons, first of which is you are posting anonymously, so I can't be harming your reputation. That has nothing to do with the legal info you cut and pasted from websites; it's the law.

Unless you are an attorney, you, Narcissus, can't be "denounced" for your "legal info" as you are no expert - essentially, no harm, no foul. Again, a reason you can't sue.

I also made no claims about you with your actors - I simply stated a point of law. So, you're whining about an attack on you that didn't occur.

Any lawyer could look at this thread and would agree with me that you've proven you don't understand the law. Your last posts give ample evidence of this.

And since you do not understand the law, you chose to call me names...which demonstrates to me pretty clearly why your actors didn't want to go back and work with you, even under the threat of legal action. You come across as quite a jerk in print; can't imagine how charming you are in person.

So, go back to not posting, and I'm sure no one will miss you. Go make your movies on your own, wasting years of time because you can't manage people. Call me names from behind an anonymous screen name, like a little girl. I don't care.

But when it comes to the point of law I made about being able to identify someone before an action can be libelous or considered defamation, that is correct, and you are wrong. Simple as that.

 

[narcissus]

You only quote the parts of the law that you feel agrees with you.

Read what they say. They don't say maybe, or sometimes, or occasionally. I won't quote the entire page, but real law (not your opinion) speaks for itself. That's only a few instances, reiterating the same legal info (google it yourself).

That won't help you in a courtroom

Yes they will-- laws are used in courts. Someone get this kid a Gatorade...

Your previous statement was that you could say anything without fear of being sued as long as you *believe* it to be true. That statement is wrong.

Nope. Defamation is a FALSE ATTACK on someone's character, which you have provably done in this thread and I have not. I have poised no false attack at any point against my actors. Period. Not even in my dreams. Again-- try to prove this to be false, and have Peter Pan give you a lift to see the Wizard of Oz while you're at it.

Again-- Defamation is a FALSE ATTACK on someone's character. Not sometimes, not maybe, not only on weekends. Not just "when I want", as you again charged me with above.

Google this for yourself. Stop making falsely charging me and making me repeat this.

 

[narcissus]

Any lawyer could look at this thread and would agree with me that you've proven you don't understand the law. Your last posts give ample evidence of this.

Okay-- I've posted links describing the reality of defamation. What have you posted besides rhetoric and false charges ?

And since you do not understand the law, you chose to call me names...which demonstrates to me pretty clearly why your actors didn't want to go back and work with you, even under the threat of legal action.

Attack of character seems to be happening from you now, mister smart.

You come across as quite a jerk in print; can't imagine how charming you are in person.

Okay-- who is name calling now ? And from such an ignorant source... oh no

Go make your movies on your own, wasting years of time because you can't manage people.

Yeah, I don't control people. So you think you're some kind of puppeteer or something ? You're a bit creepy besides the ignorant charges and bogus legal info.

But when it comes to the point of law I made about being able to identify someone before an action can be libelous or considered defamation, that is correct, and you are wrong.

I am wrong. Simple as that. No reference. I'm wrong because you're right. Hello genius...Say "hi" to Santa Claus for me....

 

[steve gelder]

Believe is the key word, Narcissus, not false. Believe.

You can *believe* the sky is green. Your belief does not make it a fact or law.

If you *believe* someone has cheated you, and you accuse them in writing or publicly of cheating you, you can be sued, as your *belief* is not a defense.

That's all I've been saying. That's the law. Why are you being so obtuse?

 

[narcissus]

Steve,

okay, obviously you're a bit slow. Google is a search engine on the internet.

Go to www.google.com

type in "defamation" (with or without the quotes)

you will find the first entry;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

The first sentance is;

"In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation."

again read the words, FALSE CLAIM. now meditate on that. What in the world do you think I've FALSELY ACCUSED actors of ???