Television and cinema professionals are no longer able to rent their equipment directly to producers who do business with Bell or Quebecor, an obstacle to their annual remuneration and their professional practice, denounce around ten industry stakeholders in interview with The Press.
It is common for small and big screen professionals to rent their own equipment throughout a shoot. This is often the case for electricians and stagehands, lighting engineers, riggers and even directors of photography, who work in particular with their own cameras.
Owning a “truck”, in the jargon of TV and cinema, allows freelancers to recoup significant expenses and make a good living from their profession. “It’s about revenue, but there’s also a creative aspect,” says electro chef Jaden Scholes. “When we work with our tools, we are better, we are more efficient. »
He and his business partner were offered contracts that did not allow them to use their own lamps, LED lighting systems, generators and other essentials in the trunk of the “electro-machines”. “Each time, we refuse to embark on the project, we have this luxury compared to others,” says Mr. Scholes.
Production houses also benefit from equipping themselves with artisan entrepreneurs. “It’s very advantageous for us to improve our teams and negotiate directly” with these people, explains an independent producer. “Very often, when they take their own equipment, the equipment is more up to date, more adequate. »
A director of photography who requested anonymity – “if my name appears in your article, I will be barred, I will no longer work” – explains that a producer recently informed him that his technical teams had to leave their equipment at home.
The first thing they said to me, before even talking about production, was: “The equipment must be rented from MELS because it’s a project for Club Illico.” I told them, “Look, you’re talking to the head of a creative department and the first thing you say to me is this. It makes no sense.”
A cinematographer, on condition of anonymity
The cinematographer later received a call from the director: “He didn’t like the vibe and I ended up losing the gig [le contrat]. »
Another cinematographer describes a similar situation at Bell Media. A customer recently warned him that his cameras and filming accessories could not be used. He had to come to an agreement directly with an account manager at Grandé to be able to carry his own equipment. The other point of view ? Hand over half of your rental income.
Both MELS, Grandé and smaller studios offer a deposit system, which allows equipment owners to use their storage services, their rental counter and their customers in exchange for a commission ( also called “discount”). “It’s a system I’m comfortable with,” explains one of our sources. Most companies also have sublease agreements, which allow more flexibility depending on needs.
PHOTO MARTIN CHAMBERLAND, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
Aerial view of MELS studios, in Montreal
However, in his specific case, material that will never pass through Grandé Studios was subject to a “discount” simply because the project was signed Bell, explains the director of photography. “It’s for a 100% outdoor contract. My equipment is still with me, but if I don’t agree to their terms [remettre 50 % des revenus de location], I just couldn’t use it. »
“That means that production could pay half the price directly to the DOP! », says an indignant head of an independent box, who emphasizes that television and cinematographic projects are financed largely by taxpayers.
It’s money that goes into the pockets of the giants for absolutely nothing, and that we don’t have to put into the projects, into the screen, into the wow factor.
A manager of an independent company, on condition of anonymity
The rental of equipment for certain projects from the production house Sphère, which Bell Media co-owns, must go through Grandé, we were able to confirm in email exchanges.
“Producers have no contractual obligation to engage the services of Grandé Studios,” says Veronica Sylvestre, senior manager, communications and public relations at Bell Media, by email. “We put them in contact with the Grandé team to see if they can offer their services at competitive prices. »
Another example from TVA: for the filming of the reality TV New chance for loveproduced by Déferlantes – of which Quebecor is a minority shareholder – “the cameramen working on this production were not able to offer their equipment even though there is a chance that the rental rates will be more advantageous and that the equipment will be more extensive” , says a third cinematographer.
For freelancers, these demands from the giants mean a loss of clients while “television is an equipment rental industry, not so much salaries,” he notes.
Vincent Bourassa hears complaints like this regularly. “There is a strong trend,” says the director of a cooperative which allows around fifty technicians to pool their equipment and consign it for rental purposes.
“It’s never clear threats, but it’s induced,” he said. “If you bring your equipment, it will be known and you risk being barred. What bothers me the most is when public money is at stake, when subsidized TVA productions have to go to MELS. Often, in their agreements, it is written that the studio must respect market prices. But at the same time, if production is forced to go to MELS, it does not shop and does not really have access to the market price. It costs that much and that’s it. The money stays within Quebecor and it is the taxpayers who end up paying. »
Rigging companies that rent lifting equipment to foreign productions must additionally pay a “commission” to MELS or Grandé if either studio is involved, according to documents seen by The Press. This requirement also applies to exterior filming.
MELS and Quebecor did not respond to our interview requests at the time of publishing this report.
With the collaboration of Jean Siag, The Press
The “much broader” problem, says Lacombe
PHOTO JOSIE DESMARAIS, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
Mathieu Lacombe, Minister of Culture and Communications
“I would be careful before blaming one company or another, whether it be Quebecor or Bell,” said the Minister of Culture and Communications, Mathieu Lacombe, questioned Wednesday about the investigation of The Press published the same day on the management of the two broadcasters in terms of rental and post-production. “The market is difficult and the industry is transforming. Players do what they can with the environment that exists. I think we should instead look at the model in general and ask ourselves questions. And we will ask ourselves these questions in the coming months. » Mr. Lacombe claims to be aware that the imposition of rental and post-production services on independent producers by private broadcasters is “an increasingly widespread practice in the industry”. Does he see a problem there? “I think the problem is much broader than this specific element. We have to see the situation as a whole because there are other issues,” explains the minister, who mentions the acquisition of shares of Bell and Quebecor in production houses. ” The model [de financement] comes from a time when the internet didn’t even exist. This raises issues that need to be addressed, and that is what we are doing. I have an announcement coming very soon on this subject. »
Fanny Lévesque, The Press
(Re)read the article “MELS or nothing for Quebecor projects”
(Re)read the file “Towards an erosion of independent production? »