Directors Behaving Badly

January 29, 2008 3:40 AM

The Cheating of Salim Baba [video | projector]
posted by hadjiboy (25 comments total)

“I was told they were filming me for their own CD and I was given only 10,000 Rupees [$253.00 U.S.] for the entire shoot that went on for weeks”,

It's called outsourcing. Don't like working for non-union scale? Join an actor's guild, scab.
posted by three blind mice at 4:06 AM on January 29, 2008

It's called outsourcing

It's called deceiving, but then what would you know about that.
posted by hadjiboy at 4:13 AM on January 29, 2008

Naaah, what would he do with all that money, they are doing him a favor
<>
posted by zouhair at 5:00 AM on January 29, 2008

Sorry, two guys show up from America and want to film you for a few weeks "for their own CD"? C'mon. A guy who makes his own movies from film scraps using a razor blade and tape? Salim Muhammad knows what an Oscar is. He knows it means those two guys who were filimg him are gonna make some coin. He's crying foul because he was too stupid to negotiate a better deal.

They make him famous AND he wants to them to pay him for the honor? This guy has more nerve than Paris Hilton.
posted by three blind mice at 5:04 AM on January 29, 2008

“I haven’t signed the letter because it says I cannot let others film me”

Whoa. Is that normal practice? To ask the subject of your documentary to sign a release form stating that he can't be filmed by anyone else? If so, that's ridiculously rude.
posted by mediareport at 5:19 AM on January 29, 2008

Jesus, three blind mice, projecting much?
posted by mediareport at 5:20 AM on January 29, 2008

This guy has more nerve than Paris Hilton

Right now--you're actually sounding like Paris Hilton.
posted by hadjiboy at 5:41 AM on January 29, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

First of all he was paid 10,000 rupees. Apparently tickets to his screenings cost 1 rupee. I realize this isn't a lot of money by our standards, but that isn't the question. The question is whether it is a lot of money by his standards.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:01 AM on January 29, 2008

The question is whether it is a lot of money by his standards

The question is whether it's a lot of money by any standards compared to the kind of money that the film's going to make (which will essentially be telling his story).
posted by hadjiboy at 7:21 AM on January 29, 2008

10,000 rupees is about $250
posted by parmanparman at 7:30 AM on January 29, 2008

You realize you're talking about documentaries here, don't you? The typical documentary will gross about $80,000. If it was shot on film that won't even cover the costs of filming, (assuming 16mm, 10 minutes shot/1 minute used) much less distribution, etc.

I'd be much more concerned about the contract, but from what I could tell, none of the reporters actually read the contract, they just repeated his claims.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:46 AM on January 29, 2008

The typical documentary will gross about $80,000

This isn't a typical documentary--if you look at the Ropa Vieja Films site--it looks like this documentary has won more awards then I can remember, and if critical acclaim is anything to go by (and the tenderness of the story) then I'm sure it will gross a substantial amount. Also, did you watch the video. The Directors are talking about releasing it on Television too, so there's another cash cow right there. In any case, I think they should've been a little more generous with the payment. Or at least being more truthful with him about the fact that they were filming him for a documentary which would be shown around the world.
posted by hadjiboy at 8:04 AM on January 29, 2008

When they were filming, it was still a "typical documentary." They paid their subject what I assume was an acceptable rate at the time. Now, if they get lucky and make a lot of money, judge them by what they do for their subject at that time, not what they haven't done before they've made their money.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:11 AM on January 29, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

What is the going rate for appearing in a documentary? Seriously, I'm curious. It's not like this is some kind of mega blockbuster Tom Cruise film. It's a short documentary that isn't going to get a lot of screening. If it wins a lot of awards, even an Oscar, it's not going to translate to a financial windfall. What it will do is make it easier for the makers of this film to get funding to make their next documentary.

If you look at your own links you'll see they are requesting donations that are tax deductible so they can distribute the film. In the USA that means it's part of a non-profit venture. The subject of the film got payed 10,000 rupees for his time. What would he make in a few weeks normally? Sounds like he got compensated more than fairly for his time. As CheeseDigestsAll says, I'd be more interested in the contract, which he says he didn't sign, but there's no real information about that.

I really don't see how the guy is being ripped off at all.
posted by Eekacat at 8:24 AM on January 29, 2008

Now, if they get lucky and make a lot of money...

FWIW -- this is a short documentary (14 minutes). How much revenue (and then profit) do short documentaries generate?
posted by ericb at 11:15 AM on January 29, 2008

There's more to this story than we're hearing.

A release that contains a clause prohibiting the subject to be filmed by others? I'm dubious about that claim. If there were legal concerns on showing the film, why has it been entered into and accepted by juried film festivals? Are the film makers that clueless?
posted by ericb at 11:19 AM on January 29, 2008

He seems to be have had no problem being filmed by others.

From a photo essay on Salim (December 2007): "'Where is this place called Oscar? Will a win fetch me some money so that I can marry off my daughter?' But when the significance of the Oscars is explained to him, his face lights up: 'You say it is like the Filmfare Award? Then I feel proud and happy'....'I am worried about the marriage of my second daughter.' Maybe the red carpet will be his path out of his troubles."^**

"In December 2006, Al Jazeera English also shot with Salim for a day for their movies slot."^*
posted by ericb at 11:26 AM on January 29, 2008

Okay. So ... the release he mentions is one which the filmmakers have sent him regarding making a full-length film about his life, not this short-documentary.

"Kolkata filmmaker Raja Dey, who co-produced Salim Baba, told IANS: 'I feel proud to be part of the film... I think there should be some effort to create a fund for him. The makers must do something if the film wins.'

Dey said Salim had got an offer from the makers of Salim Baba for a full-length film. Salim said: 'They had sent me some papers to sign. But after consulting a lawyer I did not sign it. I felt that it would forfeit my right to talk to other media or allow others to shoot. A filmmaker from London also has expressed his desire to shoot my life. I can only take a decision once I know the details.'"^*

I suspect that they are discussing a theatrical release based on his life, not a documentary. Whatever form for the proposed full-length film , I'm sure he would be well-compensated. One would assume his attorney would see to that. There likely is a clause that would insure that he didn't sell his story to others. Any film maker and studio would seek an exclusive on dramatizing the story. The issue of exclusivity,however, is always up for negotiation.

I suspect that the current kerfuffle being made is a negotiation tactic suggested by his attorney. With the documentary short and Mohammed Salim in the "spotlight" Mohammed Salim does have an edge in negotiations. It appears that others have expressed interest in making a film based on his life, etc. All terms are negotiable at this point.
posted by ericb at 11:41 AM on January 29, 2008

BTW -- there's no guarantee that there would be interest in a full-length film about Salim. The film makers are likely hoping on getting exposure from the Oscar nomination and potential win. They'd have to find investors in order to finance a story, script and eventual filming. Given that -- unless they were able to nail down a studio before production -- they'd have to find distribution. Lots of hurdles ahead. And any potential success relies on execution -- quality storytelling, filming, etc. They need to convince others that there is a market for a film kind of like an Indian 'Cinema Paradiso.'
posted by ericb at 12:53 PM on January 29, 2008

If you look at your own links you'll see they are requesting donations that are tax deductible so they can distribute the film.

The donations were raised to for completion of the film ("Ropa Vieja Films is currently seeking financial contributions for the completion of 'Salim Baba'") and for entering it into film festivals ("Intended for the international film festival circuit 'Salim Baba' will run between 10 - 15 minutes long.").^*PDF
posted by ericb at 2:48 PM on January 29, 2008

Although we have wrapped post-production on Salim Baba, the financial challenges imposed by our festival submissions and promotional costs have us continuing our fundraising efforts. With the generous support of our donors we've been able to create a wonderful film, but we still need to get the film out to audiences worldwide, and with your support we can make this happen!

From the "of" link ericb.
posted by Eekacat at 4:07 PM on January 29, 2008

hadjiboy, I'm pretty impressed by the stinginess and lack of generosity of the commenters in this thread and quite bewildered why they responded that way.

The film makers, although not well to do themselves are well educated, have jobs, understand that Salim, the subject of their documentary short, lives in Calcutta slums with a wife and five children, in abject poverty in a 10 by 10 foot room, offering his putting film scraps together to entertain the local children at the rate of 2 pennies. One Indian Rupee is equivalent to 0.0220751 U.S. Dollar.

Their movie, according to the film makers, intends to evoke a sense of "charm" and "magic". They filmed 18 hours of film over 4 days of this man's life. And, according to the video clip, he contributed to the filming as well. Ok, so Salim made $60 a day for 4 days. It's not a huge salary in Calcutta.

Here are salaries for software engineers there.

The film makers could have sent him something, knowing his circumstances, as their film racked up the many awards. Or maybe set up some kind of Pay Pal donations for Salim, after showing the film. Something.

I'm refusing to see the film and hope that these guys have the decency to offer Salim some financial reward if their film about him receives an Oscar.

Thanks for the post hadjiboy.
posted by nickyskye at 8:25 PM on January 29, 2008

CheeseDigestAll, if it was a "typical documentary", I hardly doubt that they would've come half way around the world to shoot it. And by the reaction that its generated--they were bang on target to have realized its potential. Obviously its not going to be a huge blockbuster like Eekacat says, but this will give them a solid platform to launch their future projects off of (something which Salim Baba is responsible for in some small way).
If they were so sure of their good intentions then why did they not tell him that he was being filmed for a documentary which might be shown all around the world? And why didn't they keep him informed about the kind of critical acclaim that his film, about which he was the main subject, was garnering? (You ask what's the going rate for appearing in a documentary, and then you say that the subject of the film got paid more than enough for his time, but if that were the case--then why weren't they more upfront with him?)

Eg: Mr. Salim, we're going to shoot you for this documentary, and we can only afford to pay you this much at this time, but if we do succeed in bringing this venture to the screen in the way we hope to, and sharing it with the world, then we will try to do our best to see that you are adequately compensated for it.
posted by hadjiboy at 11:52 PM on January 29, 2008

ericb, I'd be curious about that too.

He seems to be have had no problem being filmed by others.

He didn't have any problem being filmed for the short documentary either, that is until he discovered that he might've been taken advantage of.

I suspect that the current kerfuffle being made is a negotiation tactic suggested by his attorney.

Actually, if you read the first link, the current kerfuffle has more to do with the fact that Mr. Salim was told that he was being filmed for a CD, and not a documentary, which he says he would not have allowed as there are other people who are interested in depicting his life-story.

BTW -- there's no guarantee that there would be interest in a full-length film about Salim.

On the contrary, he's already been approached by a London based Production House to buy the rights to his story. So I think there might be a good chance that it might get made, but that's neither here nor there.

If you look at your own links you'll see they are requesting donations that are tax deductible so they can distribute the film.

And I wish them all the best, but it would've been nice if they could've been a little more even-handed with Salim.
posted by hadjiboy at 12:16 AM on January 30, 2008

you're welcome nicky
posted by hadjiboy at 12:17 AM on January 30, 2008