Stuntman required

Currently seeking a stuntman for a short film. The stunt requires the individual to drop through a plastic skylight and land on a padded couch two metres below. The individual will be bound at the wrists and have a pillowcase over his head. Pay: $100. Waiver required to be signed. This is a non-union film. An army medic will be on site. Anyone mad enough to be interested, write to anupstartcrow@hotmail.com Cheers.

Andrew Smith wrote:
>
>
> Currently seeking a stuntman for a short film. The stunt
> requires the individual to drop through a plastic skylight
> and land on a padded couch two metres below. The individual
> will be bound at the wrists and have a pillowcase over his
> head. Pay: $100. Waiver required to be signed. This is a
> non-union film. An army medic will be on site. Anyone mad
> enough to be interested, write to anupstartcrow@hotmail.com
> Cheers.



Warning bells flashing everywhere here, for all concerned.

I'm not saying the idea isn't possible, but I hope a LOT of THOUGHT goes into how it can be achieved SAFELY.

Pay is far too low for what a trained professional would agree to. Therefore the 'mad' enough individual (who may be capable, if not experienced?) will probably have no recognised qualifications.
So who is coordinating the stunt? Probably the director...who probably also has no experience in this sort of thing?

"Non-union" I take to mean amateur/volunteer production standards? So there may not be regulation (or any?) contracts involved. The waiver probably absolves everyone apart from the volunteer doing the stunt from any liability....look at it carefully before agreeing to sign. An army medic present does not guarantee the stunt will be set up safely; merely that some form of care will be available after an accident occurs...!

There has been no mention of liability insurance. A serious mishap could not only be dire for the stunt performer, but seriously cripple the production...because if this 'Waiver' is not comprehensive in what it purports to be, the director/production company could still probably get sued in the event of an accident . An non-professional waiver will not stand up in court if the management is found to be negligent and causes a major accident.

There is possibly confusion between what is happening to the character and what is required of the stuntperson. The CHARACTER is the one with bound wrists, a bag over their head, and falls through the skylight onto the couch.
The STUNTPERSON does not necessarily need wrist restraints, so long as on film it appears consistent that the arms can't move. The bag over the head may still be cut to allow vision, so long as this is out of camera shot. The fall through the skylight and the landing on the couch are TWO SEPARATE events, depending on how the shot is set up. So there can be adequate safety mats under the skylight (and hands and eyes can be free to land) out of camera shot. The matching shot of landing on a couch amidst broken pieces of skylight can also be a different shot.

Unless it's being envisioned as a long single shot for a specific purpose, I imagine the drama/suspense possibilities would be enhanced by closer camera frames and faster editing...another reason why accuracy and separation of the events will enhance the final product.

I'd be very surprised if the distance from above the skylight to the impact area of the couch is only 2 metres ...just over a body length? I'd hazard a guess of at LEAST double that. From that height, and falling through an obstruction on the way, the accuracy of the landing is going to be more seriously restricted.

Has anyone tested the padded couch, to see what is required from a 2-4 metre fall? Will the couch stand up to the impact? (Another reason a closer second shot is good, the fall can be from a lower height.
And has the skylight plastic been especially constructed? Has it been tested, as to whether it will shatter into manageable fragments? If it doesn't shatter the way windscreen safety glass does, it could break into sharp shards that could lacerate the person coming through, or seriously impale them upon landing.


These are my immediate thoughts on reading your post...there are probably even more safety issues. My concern is obviously for the safety of whoever undertakes this stunt, and from the limited description you give in your advertisement, it does not instill much confidence.

But I offer these warnings also to assist the filmmakers...because seriously, how would it affect your reputation/career/life if something goes wrong? With the exception of shooting two different angles (the skylight shot and the couch shot) it sounds like it will be a one-take event...once you've crashed through one skylight you probably won't try it again. You obviously want to get a great shot in the can, so triple- and quadruple-checking everything possible is also to your advantage....snuff films went out in the late seventies.

The magic of film and editing is that you can make the impossible seem possible...you can also create an audience perception of danger where in reality there is none.
I really hope everyone thinks this through well, and if it goes ahead, does everything SAFELY.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Excellent posting, Craig. I wonder if Andy Fraser has seen this....

JB

Yes, Andy Fraser HAS seen this. Many thanks Jarrod for the heads-up! Unfortunately, I'm just popping out the door to rehearsal and don't have time to write the considered reply that this thread demands just now. However, I fully intend to do just that before the day is out as this is SUCH an important issue.
Happy Swashbuckling!
Andy Fraser.

Ok, I'm back now from an excellent rehearsal involving safely constructed props and weapons used by actors with previous stage combat training/fight performance experience in an environment where there is proper insurance and...but I get ahead of myself.
In all seriousness, Craig has made some excellent points, partly with regard to the film director and/or producer, but primarily he writes with the actor/stunt performer in mind.
I'll now put in my two cents worth from a Fight Director's point of view and hopefully I'll be able to add something to Craig's already comprehensive post.
First of all, some terminology (please forgive me, those of you who know these things already!). A Fight Director is a specialist who is trained to direct and choreograph violence which is both safe (for all concerned) and dramatically effective (makes sense for the character/actor and looks good to the audience). Fight Directors work in theatre, film and T.V. Fight Directors co-ordinate fight moments only. They do not devise car chases, high falls from buildings, set people on fire, etc. In Australia, only those individuals who have qualified as a Fight Director with the Society of Australian Fight Directors Inc. may properly use the term.
A Stunt Performer is a widely skilled individual who has gained said title from the M.E.A.A. Stunt Register. He/she is qualified to perform action sequences (fighting, vehicle work, falls, diving, wire work, etc.) under the supervision of a qualified Stunt Co-ordinator. Therefore, Stunt Performers may only perform stunts. They are not qualified to devise and co-ordinate them. They work almost exclusively in film and T.V.
A Stunt Co-ordinator is an individual with further skills and training and again, has received this rank from M.E.A.A. A Stunt Co-ordinator is qualified to devise, supervise and co-ordinate stunts and action sequences. They may also perform in them. Like Stunt Performers, they work almost entirely in film and T.V.
Safety Officers are individuals specifically trained and qualified (through M.E.A.A. again) to advise on workplace safety during a shoot. This can range from making sure cables are properly taped down through to the safe co-ordination of stunts. As such, many Stunt Co-ordinators are also Safety Officers. In the theatre, Fight Directors perform a similar role advising as to the safe construction of set, costumes, etc. as they affect the fight sequence.
Often on a film set, a Fight Director and a Stunt Co-ordinator/Safety Officer will work in tandem, with the FD choreographing the fight moment, and the SC/SO ensuring that the working environment was safe to perform in. This was certainly my experience on both 'Teesh and Trude' and 'The Shark Net', two recent examples.
PHEW!
Judging from the original posting, what this shoot needs is a Stunt Performer (that's already been asked for), but more importantly, a properly qualified Stunt Co-ordinator/Safety Officer. (Please see Craig's comment about the army medic!). It probably doesn't need a Fight Director (based on available information), but if the character who falls through the skylight gets, say, punched up just prior to the fall, then a Fight Director would be called for.
Sadly, it would appear unlikely to happen based on the info in the original post and it really throws up the wider implications of a situation like this. Namely that:
1) Someone will probably be found who is crazy enough to do the stunt.
2) Someone will one day get SERIOUSLY injured doing something like this and I am extremely worried that that day is not far off.
This is especially true given the number of low/no-budget short films being done which require this sort of thing. Both my Fight Director colleagues and Stuntie cousins know that for every one of these we get asked to work on, another half-dozen or so get made with a "hit-and-hope" mentality which smacks of ignorance, arrogance, or a combination of both.
In theory, every stunt/piece of action/fight sequence (including the one in the original post) is feasible. By the same token, so is every one potentially hazardous. I also firmly believe that you cannot make any stunt/fight COMPLETELY safe. There is still the human element to consider. However, what you can do is REDUCE the risk to as infinitesimal amount as you can. That is why there are people such as Stunt Co-ordinators and Fight Directors around as they are able to offer practical solutions that minimise the actual risks and get rid of the unnecessary ones.
Unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that it will only take a major accident, followed by a high-profile lawsuit to change the prevailing attitude. This is equally applicable to stage and screen, amateur and professional.
Part of the reason Craig makes such strong and well-articulated points in his post is that he comes from an INFORMED position. This is largely down to his many years of experience in the industry, but also partly because, two years ago he gave up 18 consecutive Sunday mornings to get some Stage Combat training. It not only gives performers the "fighting skills", but, far more importanly, gives them the awareness they need to be able to recognise when they are in a potentially dangerous situation. Trainee Stunt Performers, as part of their journey, develop a similar awareness with regard to all the various disciplines that they must master.
Budget, or the lack thereof, is no excuse. Absolutely not. If you can't afford a Fight Director or Stunt Co-ordinator, then don't do the project. Would you do a big musical without a choreographer? Would you shoot a film without a Director of Photography? In my opinion, any company/director/producer (delete where applicable!) who fails to engage such a specialist when necessary is negligent. Waivers, shmaivers. Hiring a qualified specialist shows that the company has shown duty of care and can claim it took appropriate measures to achieve workplace safety in the event of an accident.
As for those actors and aspiring stunt performers...get some training. Learn to recognise when you are being asked to do something that is potentially unsafe and request the presence of someone who is qualified to advise on the situation. You are not expendable and you have a right to work in an environment which is as safe as it can be. An actor once said to me, "But I'm afraid if I do that, I might never work again." I replied, "And if you don't, you still might never work again..."
Sorry for the doom and gloom tone, its just that I take it all very seriously. Well, it IS my profession after all and I do have my biases! I recognise too that I've been very long-winded, but hey, I don't write in here that often. Although, (mainly for Jarrod) I do visit this website almost daily!
Happy Swashbuckling!
Andy Fraser
Fight Director

Hey All

I think everyone shuld probably read Andy's post so I've quoted the whole thing again.

I wanted to comment that, waiver or no waiver, there are ways and means, legally speaking, of attributing responsibility for your broken arm/neck/back or your untimely death to organiations who pay you, with full knowledge of your lack of training, to do something dangerous.

Leah

Andy Fraser wrote:
>
> Ok, I'm back now from an excellent rehearsal involving safely
> constructed props and weapons used by actors with previous
> stage combat training/fight performance experience in an
> environment where there is proper insurance and...but I get
> ahead of myself.
> In all seriousness, Craig has made some excellent points,
> partly with regard to the film director and/or producer, but
> primarily he writes with the actor/stunt performer in mind.
> I'll now put in my two cents worth from a Fight Director's
> point of view and hopefully I'll be able to add something to
> Craig's already comprehensive post.
> First of all, some terminology (please forgive me, those of
> you who know these things already!). A Fight Director is a
> specialist who is trained to direct and choreograph violence
> which is both safe (for all concerned) and dramatically
> effective (makes sense for the character/actor and looks good
> to the audience). Fight Directors work in theatre, film and
> T.V. Fight Directors co-ordinate fight moments only. They do
> not devise car chases, high falls from buildings, set people
> on fire, etc. In Australia, only those individuals who have
> qualified as a Fight Director with the Society of Australian
> Fight Directors Inc. may properly use the term.
> A Stunt Performer is a widely skilled individual who has
> gained said title from the M.E.A.A. Stunt Register. He/she is
> qualified to perform action sequences (fighting, vehicle
> work, falls, diving, wire work, etc.) under the supervision
> of a qualified Stunt Co-ordinator. Therefore, Stunt
> Performers may only perform stunts. They are not qualified to
> devise and co-ordinate them. They work almost exclusively in
> film and T.V.
> A Stunt Co-ordinator is an individual with further skills and
> training and again, has received this rank from M.E.A.A. A
> Stunt Co-ordinator is qualified to devise, supervise and
> co-ordinate stunts and action sequences. They may also
> perform in them. Like Stunt Performers, they work almost
> entirely in film and T.V.
> Safety Officers are individuals specifically trained and
> qualified (through M.E.A.A. again) to advise on workplace
> safety during a shoot. This can range from making sure cables
> are properly taped down through to the safe co-ordination of
> stunts. As such, many Stunt Co-ordinators are also Safety
> Officers. In the theatre, Fight Directors perform a similar
> role advising as to the safe construction of set, costumes,
> etc. as they affect the fight sequence.
> Often on a film set, a Fight Director and a Stunt
> Co-ordinator/Safety Officer will work in tandem, with the FD
> choreographing the fight moment, and the SC/SO ensuring that
> the working environment was safe to perform in. This was
> certainly my experience on both 'Teesh and Trude' and 'The
> Shark Net', two recent examples.
> PHEW!
> Judging from the original posting, what this shoot needs is a
> Stunt Performer (that's already been asked for), but more
> importantly, a properly qualified Stunt Co-ordinator/Safety
> Officer. (Please see Craig's comment about the army medic!).
> It probably doesn't need a Fight Director (based on available
> information), but if the character who falls through the
> skylight gets, say, punched up just prior to the fall, then a
> Fight Director would be called for.
> Sadly, it would appear unlikely to happen based on the info
> in the original post and it really throws up the wider
> implications of a situation like this. Namely that:
> 1) Someone will probably be found who is crazy enough to do
> the stunt.
> 2) Someone will one day get SERIOUSLY injured doing something
> like this and I am extremely worried that that day is not far
> off.
> This is especially true given the number of low/no-budget
> short films being done which require this sort of thing. Both
> my Fight Director colleagues and Stuntie cousins know that
> for every one of these we get asked to work on, another
> half-dozen or so get made with a "hit-and-hope" mentality
> which smacks of ignorance, arrogance, or a combination of both.
> In theory, every stunt/piece of action/fight sequence
> (including the one in the original post) is feasible. By the
> same token, so is every one potentially hazardous. I also
> firmly believe that you cannot make any stunt/fight
> COMPLETELY safe. There is still the human element to
> consider. However, what you can do is REDUCE the risk to as
> infinitesimal amount as you can. That is why there are people
> such as Stunt Co-ordinators and Fight Directors around as
> they are able to offer practical solutions that minimise the
> actual risks and get rid of the unnecessary ones.
> Unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that it will only take
> a major accident, followed by a high-profile lawsuit to
> change the prevailing attitude. This is equally applicable to
> stage and screen, amateur and professional.
> Part of the reason Craig makes such strong and
> well-articulated points in his post is that he comes from an
> INFORMED position. This is largely down to his many years of
> experience in the industry, but also partly because, two
> years ago he gave up 18 consecutive Sunday mornings to get
> some Stage Combat training. It not only gives performers the
> "fighting skills", but, far more importanly, gives them the
> awareness they need to be able to recognise when they are in
> a potentially dangerous situation. Trainee Stunt Performers,
> as part of their journey, develop a similar awareness with
> regard to all the various disciplines that they must master.
> Budget, or the lack thereof, is no excuse. Absolutely not. If
> you can't afford a Fight Director or Stunt Co-ordinator, then
> don't do the project. Would you do a big musical without a
> choreographer? Would you shoot a film without a Director of
> Photography? In my opinion, any company/director/producer
> (delete where applicable!) who fails to engage such a
> specialist when necessary is negligent. Waivers, shmaivers.
> Hiring a qualified specialist shows that the company has
> shown duty of care and can claim it took appropriate measures
> to achieve workplace safety in the event of an accident.
> As for those actors and aspiring stunt performers...get some
> training. Learn to recognise when you are being asked to do
> something that is potentially unsafe and request the presence
> of someone who is qualified to advise on the situation. You
> are not expendable and you have a right to work in an
> environment which is as safe as it can be. An actor once
> said to me, "But I'm afraid if I do that, I might never work
> again." I replied, "And if you don't, you still might never
> work again..."
> Sorry for the doom and gloom tone, its just that I take it
> all very seriously. Well, it IS my profession after all and I
> do have my biases! I recognise too that I've been very
> long-winded, but hey, I don't write in here that often.
> Although, (mainly for Jarrod) I do visit this website almost
> daily!
> Happy Swashbuckling!
> Andy Fraser
> Fight Director

I suppose we shouldn't automatically jump to conclusions and villify the poor chap. After all, not much info was given in the initial posting. At this stage we simply don't know all the details. For all we know it could be a perfectly legitimate attempt to earn a Darwin Award.

JB

I don't wish to add anything to the above debate (everything I might have commented on has already been said by people far more qualified to say it than I...), but one of Andy Fraser's comments tickled my interest:

"Budget, or the lack thereof, is no excuse. Absolutely not. If you can't afford a Fight Director or Stunt Co-ordinator, then don't do the project".

Its hardly uncommon for indie producers to cite budgetary restraints for not being able to afford professionals in their projects, whether that is on or behind the camera, or on or offstage. Now before people start getting angry about what I'm about to say - I'm just testing people's ideas here - its an issue which I have mixed thoughts on and am wondering what other people's opinions are:

I do wonder whether the problem Andy expressed concerning fight directors etc is part of a wider mentality in indie film/theatre generally in WA - that is that stage/film costs, set costs, publicity costs are things you save and budget for, whereas people you can expect to come free (or for whatever amount is left over at the end).

Now this IS predominantly an amateur theatre website, and those who know me would realise that I'm certainly not targetting the many amateur theatre groups in Perth with the above comments (given my involvement with a few I'd be somewhat of a hypocrit if I was). This is a question more confined to indie film and co-op stage. Also, like most actors in Perth who (occasionally) collect money for their efforts I am well and used to performing for free or for rather small shares of profits. And I enjoy it. But, I do wonder, particularly when doing co-op gigs, whether or not the willingness of people in the performing arts to do things out of the love of it occasionally leaves us short-changed. If there was an attitude of 'If you can't afford the stage-manger/actor/fight-director/choreographer/etc don't do the project', I wonder whether the people who plan and budget so hard for venues, film costs, publicity etc would also budget for professional people and wages on their indie projects. On the other hand there would undoubtedly be projects that would not go ahead if that level of cost was required.

I'm wondering what other people's views are on this? In the scheme of producers often wishing and aiming and succeeding at moving on to bigger venues, bigger sets, and better quality film, is there a lack of ambition in Perth for indie producers to move beyond using free/co-op actors and crew?

I don't mean to sound one-sided on this - by disclaimer I myself and a few others own a fledgling theatre company that will be putting on several shows in the next couple of years. And they'll almost certainly be meagre co-op for cast and crew, as there is no way that our budget could allow for equity rates. But on the other hand, maybe that's just a by-product of knowing that in Perth at least, people are never part of the fixed expenses that you must budget for.

Wondering what your thoughts are...

What a cunning stunt

We all do co-op shows to improve. Actors and Directors do it for opportunity and experience, Writers for exposure. Its all about improvement and one fo thsoe improvements is to do the shows that have the scale to afford an equitable return for all but at co-op stage Money is probably the least of the returns that we are aiming for.

But... without funding i feel it would be very hard, if not nigh on impossible for a co-op company to pay equity rates. theatre dosent make money unless its musicals and blockbusters.

But... (again) co-op companies should do every thing to maximise returns for their casta nd crew (i have problems with co-ops that spend a great deal of money on promotion and opening ngiht parties to make their companies look good and then have no returns for their actors.) I feel co-ops should have a clear profit share from the start and a transparent accounting of all funding spent. I also hate co-ops who give out way too many comps to their friends. Its got to be an equal share as wella san equal decision on comp policy and an understanding that money spent weill advance the show not the individuals or company putting on the show.

And actors shouldfn't do any show without knwoing what the co-op is goign to dow ith the production money and how much of the profits will eb spent for production.

It is too easy to undermine yourself for the sake of being in a show.

Hey Craig,
That was an excellent post and I'm glad I managed to tickle you! You raised some very worthy thoughts (as does David in the subsequent post). I'll attempt now to give my response, again from the Fight Director's point of view, to the issues you've raised and I hope I can match the same considered, open, debating style of your post. Here goes...
You mentioned "...that stage/film costs, set costs, publicity costs are things you save and budget for, whereas people you can expect to come for free..." and later on you say, "...in Perth at least, people are never part of the fixed expenses that you must budget for."
In my opinion, this is the crux of the issue. People SHOULD be part of the fixed costs that you must budget for. The reasons are varied and depend a great deal on the actual "people", but with regard to a Fight Director, if you get one on board, you cannot help but make the fight sequence both safer for all involved, and be more effective dramatically. Even if someone thinks that they can do it themselves and it will look just as good (highly debatable!), then it still brings us back to the safety element and that really is the bottom line. The Fight Director will look at EVERYONE'S safety, not just the actors involved in the fight moment. Other non-combatants on stage/set, crew in the wings/off camera, musicians and, most importantly, the audience must all be taken into consideration. The Fight Director has the skills and knowledge to make the environment as safe as possible.
Therefore, I believe that a Fight Director's involvement in a project which calls for a fight moment is compulsory. No one will ever persuade me otherwise (bias declared!). However, it is unfortunate that the prevailing attitude in the entertainment community, stage or screen, amateur or professional, is that a Fight Director is some sort of luxury item. This mentality has to change and I'm doing my utmost in Perth to achieve it. Its just that I worry that someone will get seriously injured before I manage it. This is not a problem confined to Perth either. My colleagues in the Society of Australian Fight Directors Inc. are all of the same mind. We are working together on a national level to improve the situation.
Therefore, if the script calls for a fight (or stunt), then set some money aside to hire the appropriate specialist. It never ceases to amaze me that companies will choose plays/film scripts which have fights in them and not make any effort to include those costs when budgeting.
The timing of all this is ironic since just two weeks ago I offered a short workshop for Directors on Working With A Fight Director. The response was miniscule which was a real disappointment since one of the topics I covered was all about budgeting and planning for a Fight Director's involvement in the project. I know that the post was seen by a great many people because my workshop for Actors - Working with Found Weapons, run the following week and advertised in the same post, was fully booked.
Now onto the second topic - what sort of fee? There seemed to be a bit of a quantum leap from my statement about if you can't afford an FD, don't do it, to discussions about Equity rates. Equity rates? That'd be a treat! Look, I'm realistic. There are only a small handful of companies in Perth that can actually afford to pay me what I'm properly worth. And when they hire me, that's what they pay. However, I spend much more of my time doing Fight Directing work for smaller companies at well below what I'd like to charge. Why? Because ultimately the artist in me wins out over the businessman and I believe that if a company has made the effort to try and get me involved, then I really, genuinely want to help. After all, I'm trying to make the use of a Fight Director an automatic decision when called for, not some afterthought. Therefore, I'll do my utmost to make it happen. At the same time, it IS my profession and I've got a wife and a kid and a mortgage, so it becomes about striking the balance between quoting a fee which the company can manage, and also one for which I don't feel I've undervalued myself and my art form. It ain't always easy! Quite often there are battles of Faustian proportions for my soul as I negotiate with companies and my artist and my (clearly not so successful) businessman slug it out. All safely choreographed of course!
How it usually works is that when approached, I get an indication of what sort of budget the company has, and based on that, I'll be able to work out the amount of time (in hours) that I can give to make it worthwhile for all concerened. Companies in Perth with whom this system has worked include Class Act, GRADS, Arena and Hayman. If companies begin to plan a specialist's fee into their budgets, they'll be able to get that specialist for longer thus increasing the quality of the final product.
To tie in with a point in David's post about actors in a co-op show being told at the start of the project what sort of profit share they are likely to receive would work well for me. If a co-op company rang up and said, "Andy, we're doing 'Hamlet' and we'd like you to direct the fights. Everyone involved is going to receive X at the end of the run. Would you be willing to do the job for that?", I would in all probability agree. So you see, there's a great deal of scope for negotiation. But I too get a little disgruntled when the companies with "no money" have glossy posters and flyers all over the place and full-colour programmes, but none of the actual people involved have received any sort of profit.
Am I a mercenary then? I don't think so. You don't wake up morning and just become a Fight Director. It takes years of dedicated training and I, along with my colleagues, sacrified a lot (not just financially) to reach the stage we're at. We all strongly believe its our INVOLVEMENT which is the most important element. A colleague in Sydney tells of how one week he was working on 'Star Wars Episode II', and the next he was doing a co-op 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses'. We want to be a part of it. Nothing bugs us more than to see a play/read a review/etc. where someone who isn't a Fight Director has done the choreography. Of course there's a sense of, "That should've been my gig!", but deep down, at the core, there's the realisation that yet another company has risked the health and well-being of its actors, crew and audience.
Therefore, I can only repeat:
If you can't afford a Fight Director or Stunt Co-ordinator, then don't do the project.
That's my opinion anyway. Thanks for reading!
Happy Swashbuckling!
Andy Fraser
Fight Director.

You make some great points, Andy and we look forward to working with you on Othello!
However, I just wanted to pick up on your comment about companies spending the budget on full glossy posters and programmes, etc. At least in our case, for Macbeth (and will also be the case for Othello) ALL our wonderful full-colour printing was obtained by me for FREE as in kind sponsorship from the Printers that we use regularly. So NONE of our budget was spent on these things. Also all the actors got an equal share of the profits, with Class Act getting no share at all.
I think you'll find that most of a small theatre company's budget these days is eaten up by venue costs - but your point is taken! I think we should all try to budget for a fight director if the production requires one.

Angelique



Thou surly fly-bitten burn-bailey!

Also, it was not that long ago that I reviewed a professional show where my my main disappointment was the pathetic looking stage punches. No huge concerns about safety there, but again, they probably thought 'we can manage this on our own'...and it really detracted from my belief in the characters.
It might have only taken an afternoon for them to learn some good techniques from Andy - I remember that part of his course being extremely worthy...if a play calls for a swordfight I EXPECT to have to get extra training; when it's 'just' a stomach punch, you may THINK you know enough. But I was surprised how much effective information Andy could teach in a short time, and the results were far more realistic...and worth the investment.





....And I notice our esteemed webmaster has been browsing through and giving his opinion by rating these posts, all quite highly. This particular thread has produced some highly valuable and well-argued comments....great to see such an interesting, helpful discussion.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

pussy

I think I may be one of the mad individuals, but if you are in WA, or willing to fly me over to whereever you are (I would be willing to exchange pay for the flight) and if it is a breakaway skylight, I would be willing to try it.

[%sig%]

Luke Heath wrote:
>
>
> I think I may be one of the mad individuals, but if you are
> in WA, or willing to fly me over to whereever you are (I
> would be willing to exchange pay for the flight) and if it is
> a breakaway skylight, I would be willing to try it.
>


Luke, you are an idiot.

Apart from the fact that the message was posted almost a year ago, you obviously have not read the copious amount of information in the following messages as to why this project was NOT a good idea.

Why do you think trained professional stunt performers told everyone to avoid this like the plague?

Why do you even imagine they would consider paying for you to fly to them when they were not prepared to pay anyone to set up the stunt safely? You would be willing to exchange the pitiful $100 pay to go towards your flight, but would you also be prepared to exchange your health, safety, hospital costs, insurance premiums and loss of potential income and future mobility after it all goes wrong?

Read the posts again, and THINK before you volunteer for things.

Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Of all the things Luke may be, he is most certainly entertaining.

I always read a Luke Heath post. Whereas most crgwllms' posts are so long and full of clever and considered opinions and advice... how boring.

Yes, quite.

Just out of curiosity, is anyone allowed to know the name behind 'JG' ??? I noticed that your email address is from UWA... Which department? I have been, and as I am writing this, still am, at UWA today, helping with some Data entry for research my mum is doing, with the school of Psychology.

Even if the post was from a year ago Craig, if you are reading this, maybe they are still looking for someone... maybe, just maybe, they have tightened up a few of the details to make it safer in the time that has elapsed.

[%sig%]

Yes, quite.

Just out of curiosity, is anyone allowed to know the name behind 'JG' ??? I noticed that your email address is from UWA... Which department? I have been, and as I am writing this, still am, at UWA today, helping with some Data entry for research my mum is doing, with the school of Psychology.

Even if the post was from a year ago Craig, if you are reading this, maybe they are still looking for someone... maybe, just maybe, they have tightened up a few of the details to make it safer in the time that has elapsed.

PS. Thanks for the compliment JG, I do try to make my posts interesting, and not too long-winded

[%sig%]

JG wrote:
>Of all the things Luke may be, he is most certainly entertaining.

>I always read a Luke Heath post. Whereas most crgwllms' posts are so >long and full of clever and considered opinions and advice... how boring


Luke Heath wrote:
>
> Yes, quite.
>
> Even if the post was from a year ago Craig, if you are
> reading this, maybe they are still looking for someone...
> maybe, just maybe, they have tightened up a few of the
> details to make it safer in the time that has elapsed.


Don't get me wrong, JG, I agree. I also find Luke to be highly entertaining. Even I need a diversion from clever and considered discussions once in a while.

And one other thing I'll say for him, he's certainly persistent. If anyone deserves a chance to be flown across the country and thrown through a skylight, it's him.

Cheers,
Craig