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 La Presse.
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 TV and movie jargon, 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-machinos.” “Every time, we refuse to get on board with the project, we have that 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 cinematographer 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 cinematographer later got a call from the director: “He didn’t like the vibe and I ended up losing the gig.”
Another cinematographer describes a similar situation at Bell Media. A client recently notified him that his cameras and filming equipment could not be used. He had to work out directly with an account manager at Grandé to be able to lug his own equipment. The trade-off? He would get half of his 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,” says one of our sources. Most companies also have sublease agreements, which allow more flexibility depending on needs.
However, in his specific case, material that would never pass through Grandé Studios was subject to a “discount” simply because the project was signed by 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 [handing over 50% of rental income], I just won’t be able to use it. »
“This 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.
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 touch 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 show Nouvelle chance pour l’amour, produced by Déferlantes – of which Quebecor is a minority shareholder – “the cameramen working on this production were unable to offer their equipment even though there chances are the rental rates will be better and 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 says. “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 also pay a “commission” to MELS or Grandé if either studio is involved, according to documents seen by La Presse. This requirement also applies to exterior filming.
MELS and Quebecor had not responded to our interview requests at the time of publishing this report.
