‘Selective.’ This is certainly the best word to describe the letter by Celia Hamilton, actra’s Toronto branch manager, which appeared in the Feb. 10 issue of Playback. Entitled ‘actra rights oriented,’ the letter is a testimony to just how thin actra’s argument is for their case in this matter.

If Hamilton’s intention is ‘to clear up any misunderstandings that may have been left with [Playback] readers’ after reading our [Green Couch Productions] letter in the Jan. 27 issue, she truly missed the boat in her address.

To suggest, once again, that we are ‘amateurs’ for balking at paying performers approximately $250 per day under actra’s 45% discounted rate and then not discuss the performers’ fringe payments or the share the performers must receive in the distributors’ gross revenue is veritably irresponsible.

This is Hamilton’s means of trying to belittle our reputation with Playback readers who either missed our letter or do not remember this point in our argument. Undoubtedly, Hamilton is aware that $250 per day is not even close to being the entire rate.

Hamilton is again selective in her discussion about actra’s concern about the state of Canadian production. She states that actra ‘believes strongly in fostering homegrown talent’ and offers the agreements that actra has struck with Canadian universities, colleges and the Canadian Film Centre as evidence.

She says that actra performers who volunteer their time can work for no payment on productions made by students of these institutions, but she neglects telling readers that if any of these films are ever shown in a public venue where admission is charged, the students must pay the performers in full. God forbid a student sell their film and use the money to pay the following year’s tuition. Essentially, actra has discovered a way to derive revenue from an area where it once did not receive even a penny.

Nevertheless, the most disheartening aspect of Hamilton’s letter is that she pits actra performers against Canadian producers such as ourselves. She pronounces that the average annual salary of $7,000 by actra members is a ‘glaring reminder of how much further [actra] has to go’ in safeguarding performers’ hard-won rights.

This suggests that producers who do not pay actra rates do not have any concern for the rights of performers.

This could not be further from the truth.

actra should understand that low-budget films can allow actra’s low-income performers the chance to have their image captured on film as something more than just a bit part or extra. These are the films that actors put on their reels. These are the films that give actors the chance to excel in their careers. Yet Hamilton declares us to be ‘amateurs’ and against the rights of the performer.

actra should take a good, long look at the state of filmmaking in Canada.

The calls of support we have received from across Canada and from professionals in all facets of the film industry since our first letter appeared demonstrate a strong discontent with the current Independent Production Agreement. actra must stop relying on the uncertainty of the American dollar and government-subsidized productions and take an initiative in securing a stronger, more healthy future with Canadian independent production.

As we stated in our first letter, it is only through working together that we can achieve the ultimate goal – getting Canadians into theaters to see Canadian films.

aaron barnett, scott carman and michael shayne,

green couch productions,

toronto.

-Green Couch letter hits a nerve

Re: actra’s message to the independent film community

As an independent Canadian producer, I read with dismay the letter by Celia Hamilton, branch manager for actra’s Toronto office (Playback, Feb. 10, p. 5). In it, she takes exception to a letter by Aaron Barnett, Scott Carman and Michael Shayne of Green Couch Productions, Toronto. If one can read past Ms. Hamilton’s ideological postulation, it is clear that the guys from Green Couch have hit a nerve.

What Hamilton has accomplished with her letter, is to confirm that there is indeed a rift that needlessly prevents some producers from hiring actra talent.

At the root of the problem is a clash of interests on both sides.

As filmmakers, we have to accept that a union (actra) does not share our enthusiasm to get our films made. Conversely, actra needs to appreciate that (with the exception of a limited number of relatively well-heeled broadcasters and production companies), it serves an industry that is small and fragile and a membership that is largely unemployed and underemployed. It is a situation that merits a more progressive, realistic approach to what passes for an Independent Production Agreement.

Before anyone condemns this as a compromise, please consider this. Despite what actra may think it does to accommodate independent and low-budget productions, it is often the major obstacle to an otherwise feasible project. In other words, many other unions and suppliers are able to make satisfactory arrangements with producers.

If, as Hamilton states, ‘the average actra member working in Canada earns just over $7,000 per year,’ it insults those members to say that their plight is ‘a glaring reminder of how much further we [the actra members] have to go.’ It distracts from the reality of too many actors chasing too few jobs and a union that has alienated many employers from hiring more of its members.

cathleen macdonald,

producer,

motion picture enterprises,

mississauga, ont.