AUDITION FEE: anyone heard of one?

Regarding the comment re independent movie producers promising future 'big payments' for film: I agree that it is a dodgy way of operating. Personally I've never been promised 'big payments', although I have done films on a co-op basis on a number of occasions. On some of those occasions the producer has certainly had a misguided idea of the film's potential profitability - frankly I'd take any promise of substantial payment outside a studio or screenwest-funded picture as a sign of extreme naivety on behalf of the producer. In terms of what I think of the producers who make promises of payments on those terms - well, if they are 'promising' payment then that is simply a lie and a fraud - the chances of even a good film made under such circumstances making a substantial profit is very small, the number of people working on a film is very large, and film being what it is anyone who has even done a few shorts is well aware that those projects are great for fun and experience but very rarely produce a cinema-worthy piece (the number of variables on the techinal side to pull of a decent film is massive - there really isn't any feature film equivalent of the solid budget shows a good amatuer theatre company can produce). But it depends as well on the producer's intent and their age/level of experience. I had great fun a few years back doing a godawful feature film that was written, produced and funded by a couple of young guys who were still going through film school. They thought they were making a big-time movie: I (and most of the people who had any experience who were in the project) knew from the outset that there was no way that it was going to make money and just wanted more experience in front of a camera. The movie went as I expected, no payment resulted, but frankly I still got exactly what I expected. The project was a brilliant learning resource for the young filmmakers involved, and I did a large number of increasingly better short films (some festival, but also some just for fun on quiet weekends) with them over the next few years. In that case the exorbitant promises was just the forgiveable naivety of an ambitious but wellmeaning couple of students, and I have no problem working on that sort of project so long as they respect the value of the actors' time. On the other hand, I've seen a number of people claiming to be about to make a feature film who advertise their auditions with promises of making someone a star etc. On EVERY occasion that I've done any research into the person's identity, resources and experience it has become utterly obvious that the person simply doesn't know what is involved in making a film, and the project probably isn't going to even get off the ground. As for the lack of contact afterwards? Again, I haven't had that myself, but I'd guess it is more likely due to producer-ineptitude (i.e. their burying the project once they realise that on their current resources it will take years to complete post-shooting editing and production) than malevolence. Having said that it still isn't acceptable - films are often a serious time-committment and it isn't excuseable to get someone to work on your pet project on the basis of a false promise. To play devil's advocate though...I've also ran into actors who have been upset because they got exactly what they were promised - i.e. a profit share agreement, where the producer said up front there was next to nil chance of a substantial profit, but the actor just didn't want to hear that and had substituted their own expectations of wealth and stardom. Again on the devil's advocate approach: - most profit-share THEATRE productions only pay a few hundred dollars for an outstanding success, and nil-payments and very low payment aren't uncommon. And I've seen some VERY experienced theatre producers promote the promise of payment as a reason to work on their company's profit-share production. Furthermore, most of those theatre companies take great pains to describe themselves as professional even though there is no possibility (even in a sell-out season) for a performer to make a living weekly income out of the production. Not saying that these are bad companies - I've happily worked for many before and I hope to continue to do so - but I wouldn't necessarily confine the issue of over-exaggerated promises on profit-share arrangements to the film scene. So yeah, I guess it depends on what is promised. I'd suggest that anytime someone works on a longer than 20 min film that isn't properly funded, then never ever do it because you think your going to produce some indie hit. One of the nice things about film is that you CAN just go have some fun making a short on the weekend, or doing a feature over a long period of time, and get some valuable experience acting in front of a camera. That's a perfectly legitimate reason for doing a film - if you ever get the chance to dig up (via the net or whatever) the earliest student/indie films of some of the bigger hollywood directors you'll see that they are almost all fairly horrible, it's simply the learning curve that film-making often needs. But if you aren't getting paid as you work, then you're not likely to get paid later.