Freelancers, really? Part Three

IN PART ONE and TWO of this post, I went into the value of having a writing class in the Canadian Film and TV industry that can make a living on writing full time, and the economic and creative difficulty of "mandating" a couple of scripts per season for freelancers.

In rereading this discussion in preparation for this final post, I was struck by something new that came to me out of the comments. There were a few "freelance" writers who seemed to get a bit huffy because they thought I was calling them "part time writers." Of course, that wasn't my intent. A full time freelancer who puts together a living from many different sources during a year is, of course, a full time freelance writer. And in the sense that a writer in a story department isn't an employee, but an independent contractor hired for the length of the project, well, hell, they're full time freelancers too. It's just a difference in how you get to the point of making your year.

What we have here is a culture clash. The levers of how story departments work in Canada and how scripts are used to top up anemic salaries means that writers will always scramble for their scripts. So what we have here is a difference of opinion between those who look to staff and work on one project for a few months, and freelance freelancers (hoo boy) who want maximum freedom but access to a pool of greater opportunity.

That's a fundamentally unstable proposition. Neither method is better than the other. Both have advantages and disadvantages. There's just no way to please both groups through the mandating of one or two scripts for a freelancer each season. Whatever you decide to do, one group loses out.

It seems to me that the people who would most like there to be a "mandated freelance script rule" fall into three main categories:

1. Baby Writers who think it will make getting that first break easier.
2. Working, Full Time Freelancers who want the option of the occasional script as well as the freedom to work on their theatre, screenplay, print, or prose projects.
3. True part-time writers, who make the bulk of their money doing something else (acting, producing, crew, etc.)

Is there a way that we could improve the opportunities for these three groups without instituting the mandated freelance script, which would hurt people who mostly try and staff?

Let's take on the Baby Writers first. Guys, Girls, this may not be a thing you want to hear, but here goes:

Things are pretty good for you already.

If you have any talent whatsoever, you may not realize it but the Canadian system is already set up in such a way that it's considerably easier to break in here than it is in the USA. First of all, you have places like the CFC and NSI who are turning out grads each year, pre-vetted, that for some reason are a particularly flavorful fish for Canadian Broadcast Execs. You do have wet-behind-the-ears grads getting development deals all the time. I don't think that's always the best deal for the industry, but that's another subject for another time.

Add to that the fact that many series do look for a junior to put on staff when they're ready to go, for a very good reason: you're cheap. It all comes down to money. They can hire two or three of you for what they'd have to pay me. So there's that.

Then there's the regional nature of Canadian TV production. We have wonderful provincial barriers in this country, straining and groaning to make those tax credits work. If you are a writer from NFLD, or Alberta, or Saskatchewan or Manitoba -- heck, buddy, you may have just won the lottery. There are diversity programs you can take advantage of, if you're from a background that qualifies.

There's also the opportunity to get in at the story-coordinator level, helping a story department. You might even be thrown a co-write. Yup. Provided you actually can write, a little legwork on your part, a bit of bustle in the hedgerow, and you can truly make your own luck. But it really is on you. You have to figure it out. The movement you need is on your shoulder.

The problem isn't in the starting out -- it's the few years down the road when you're not the new thing anymore. When you have a bit of experience and some expectation. Then it gets dicey.

For groups 2 and 3 above, there are things that would make it better.

• We could try to pursue a course where we set minimums or try to raise the salaries for story editors. If the weeklies were higher, then maybe there wouldn't be such a scramble for scripts. But then again, they might hire fewer story editors. The pressure might go back to making everything freelance, with one harried overworked "head writer" having to cobble it all together. That's a sure right to quality. Sigh.
  
  
  
• We could try to take a stand against "writer sweatshops." Monitor shops that hire lots of writers to endlessly come up with story that then has to make it past a non-writing producer, all for a weekly and no script guarantee. The largely unregulated nature of this side of the business is kind of a bit of a scandal, and nobody's talking about it. Agents and business representatives have a role to play in this, too. Many Canadian agents are playing fast and loose and close to the vest when it comes to communication with the WGC. If the guild doesn't know about it, they can't do anything about it. There's a cozyness to producers out there that might not be serving clients exceedingly well.
  
  
• We could develop modes of conduct, education and outreach to people who will be running story departments, or network executives or producers, about the values of thinking about that outside person and what they can bring to the table.

As for all the things that a freelancer can bring to the table, I've often thought that what might be wise in a story department in Canada was to split or stagger contracts. A new director coming into the set can bring new energy. Why not codify that with writers, too?

What if we structured some story departments so that one writer, say, had their work frontloaded, and didn't work the whole season. And another writer came in later and started halfway through, thereby bringing new energy and torque to a show? I think that kind of worked pretty well for Blood Ties, where I joined halfway through the run. Maybe that's something that could be encouraged?

Imagine if, just as you're all getting tired, there's a new infusion of energy? That seems to me to offer the best of all worlds -- getting someone new in to bring fresh ideas and energy, and yet providing the continuity one needs to have a unified vision in the story department.

Anyway, that's what I think. What about you?