backstage.com: The hullaballoo around the indie film “Beasts of the Southern Wild” and its ineligibility for the Screen Actors Guild Awards has refocused attention on child actors’ workplace protections.
The producers of “Beasts” weren’t signatories to SAG-AFTRA’s Low Budget Feature Agreement. Director Benh Zeitlin cast 8-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis, a nonunion member, in the lead role of Hushpuppy, a girl living with her ailing father in the backwoods of Louisiana who goes on an adventure as melting icecaps unleash a flood.
8 comments:
I think that this movie is fantastic, and I saw it fairly recently and I loved the child actress. But, it saddens me to know that she wasn't unionized. At the same time, I don't think that a *child* should have to be unionized to receive fair treatment. I think that child labor laws in this country should also apply to child actors. It's considerably more difficult for a child to become a union member than an adult. I understand the award committee's decision to not consider the award because of the (possibly) unfair treatment of the child, but it's sad to me that these protections can only come from unions and aren't already built into federal or in the least, state laws.
It is upsetting to hear that this little girl didn't receive any protection or any schooling while on set. I also think that is it a little insensitive that one of the comments said something like, she was good but others could have done it. Well, others didn't do it, this little girl did and it would be better not to harp on the things that could have been. This girl and the rest of the cast loose out on a potential award because they were not unionized. I hope that they are compensated for their time and efforts, the movie was great and they shouldn't loose out because of the details.
There are many parts of this situation that seem a little twisted. It definitely seems wrong that the child actress (who, I have heard, did rather well in this movie) did not get paid for her work in the movie, and that she was taken away from her education in order to act. But at the same time, she is just a little girl. It seems to me that acting is less of a job when you're a child. If she has no one waiting at home for her to bring home the bread for, why does she need to be paid? Maybe she's a volunteer actress and simply loves what she does, maybe it's just a fun game to her that she gets to play more often than most other games. And it seems wrong that she should be punished for something she didn't know about. Not qualifying for an award just because she didn't get paid for her role seems a little harsh to me.
I see how you could make arguments for both sides. In my opinion, if someone give a "acclaimed" performance, they should have the chance to be given some recognition for it regardless of whether they're union or not. Even if it is an award at the ceremony titled "Best Performance by a non-SAG Actress But We Still Thought She Deserves Some Credit Because She Was Just That Good". Also, whether or not she received protections from the project contract was not her fault nor her primary responsibility. If anything, I think she deserves some credit for delivering her performance DESPITE the fact she didn't have those contractual accommodations.
This is an extremely frustrating situation. I understand that by the Equity Ten Commandments they can't recognize her in their awards. The sad part is that there is conversation about whether she was treated properly or not. It makes it seem like if you don't follow equity standards you're simply inhuman. Im sure that the film did not make the child actress work under unreasonable conditions. I do wish that she would be recognized in some way for her incredible work done for this film.
I think where we're getting to with these comments is that it seems unfair to ding the actors in this film (especially the underage ones) by barring their participation in one of the foremost awards ceremonies of the year because of their producers' missteps, and that if the girl's performance is the best, she should be eligible to win the award. However, from the union's perspective, she was not offered the chance to sign on with the union (and, to a certain extent, she and her parents did not push hard enough to join the union), so there's no reason for her to win a SAG award if she's not a SAG member. The education and maximum work rules that the union has fought for are important - foregoing them could set a terrible precedent, and especially with producers like Fox Searchlight, you don't want that on the record. I'm expecting that Fox will fold, and quickly to prevent the union from acting out against the production company, but really I think a level of education needs to go in here, since it currently seems like Fox takes these union-argued protections for granted in the wellbeing of their child actors.
I agree with "skpollac"; if the only reason that she can't be recognized is because she doesn't belong to a union, then that is ridiculous. If that is the only reason, then get her into a union. It is just sad that you can say that her performance was good and that she would be worthy, but oh no she isn't in a union, so no! However if it was a situation where she was treated unfairly on set or if it was child labour, I can understand these decisions. I have no idea what the Award’s rules and regualtions are in terms of nominating actors and actresses; but I wonder if there were adult actors or other child actors who were previously not in unions, but then joined after a similar situation and were then nominated.
I think the situation is unfortunate. It really is a bummer for the young actors in this movie to give a great performance and miss out on an opportunity to win an award. But when it comes down to it, they weren't unionized by SAG and therefore aren't eligible for a SAG Award. That's like saying "I gave a great performance in an off-Broadway theatre (or off-off or regional or London), and should be eligible for a Tony. The producers could have moved us to a Broadway theatre, but they didn't. It's not fair. I deserve a Tony." Your performance may have been Tony-worthy, but you're not eligible. It's unfortunate, and I say that 100% sincerely. The real issue is the unionization and treatment of child actors, not whether she is eligible for an award that she's obviously not eligible for. Let's open the door to a conversation about fair treatment and unions.
Post a Comment