Was at a Film show at the weekend, and a local Filmmaker said the difference between using Union rather than Non-union Actors is Quality and Price.....Guessing that's true, us that, I've used Non-union Actors that were fantastic......Is there potential for tension on Set if you use a mix, depending on what you can afford?
Union vs Non-Union Actors
- Thread starter derek smith
- Start date
I have used both union and non-union actors together without a problem - this is possible on a feature under the SAG AFTRA ultra-low budget contract. Also you can get Taft Hartley waivers on higher budget projects, which allow you to get permission from the union to use a non-union actor for a specific role (or couple of roles) that you can't otherwise cast.
I'd add, however, that I've worked with plenty of terrific non-union actors.
I'd add, however, that I've worked with plenty of terrific non-union actors.
Well I disagree with this filmmaker. I always thought there was plenty of good non-union talent out there. Often it's union people who work on non-union films but under the radar, sometimes using a different name.
At the end of the day it all depends on your needs. Do you have roles that you can't fill by doing a non-union casting session?
I think that's what making an indie film is all about. Making it all come together without commercial music, without the usual famous actor, taking the road less traveled, etc.
On the other hand not having someone at least somewhat famous can break a film.
At the end of the day it all depends on your needs. Do you have roles that you can't fill by doing a non-union casting session?
I think that's what making an indie film is all about. Making it all come together without commercial music, without the usual famous actor, taking the road less traveled, etc.
On the other hand not having someone at least somewhat famous can break a film.