Editorial: Losing the plot in 'Hobbit' row

Sir Peter Jackson. Photo / Getty Images

Opinion

The legendary director Alfred Hitchcock famously complained that he was misquoted as saying that all actors were cattle.

"I never said all actors were cattle," he intoned, in his distinctive lugubrious drone. "What I said was that all actors should be treated like cattle."

It's one of the more amusing snapshots of the perpetually fraught relationship between actors and the movies.

But there is nothing amusing about the scrap that has broken out between Wellywood mogul Sir Peter Jackson and a group representing actors.

The disagreement focuses on the terms and conditions under which actors will be employed on the Warner Brothers/New Line two-film production of The Hobbit.

Sir Peter - who may yet direct the movies after delays in the troubled project forced his choice, Guillermo del Toro, to pull out in June - is the films' executive producer. That's the name given to the person who runs the project, which puts him in the direct firing line of the aggrieved actors.

The point of contention is not entirely plain and the actors' representatives have not been conscientious in returning phone calls from journalists wanting to find out what Sir Peter and the studios have done or are planning to do wrong. Incredibly, they refused to let Sir Peter even talk to a Wellington meeting of their actors on Thursday evening.

But plainly the actors want to discuss a collective agreement - essentially unionising the workplace - in order to ensure that wages and conditions are protected. On the face of it, that sounds unexceptionable, but the prime mover in the matter is an Australian-based union, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), which is not registered in this country and which, therefore, cannot legally negotiate an agreement.

And it is hard to read what is going on as anything other than a grab for membership by that group.

Sir Peter's claim that he cannot negotiate a collective agreement with independent contractors is slightly disingenuous. Even in our deregulated labour market he, or the studios he represents, could negotiate a collective agreement if they were of a mind to.

But they are not of a mind to because it is in the nature of the screen industry that work is project-based; that some "jobs" are for a few days only; and that the impossible schedules of shooting don't allow for tea breaks, sick leave and overtime entitlements to be set in stone.

The actors, who claim only to want to "negotiate in good faith", seem to be getting their retaliation in first. If there is reason to believe that Sir Peter will deal unfairly with local actors, they have certainly kept very quiet about it.

The history of The Lord of the Rings project is not littered with stories of vulnerable thespians trampled underfoot as the Weta moguls barnstormed towards Oscar glory. On the contrary, many local actors did extremely well out of the production and Sir Peter's announced plans for "residuals" - a sort of bonus payments programme - do not encourage the belief that the stream of largesse is going to dry up any time soon.

Support for the MEAA from the guilds representing the behind-the-camera talent - such as camera operators, designers and lighting teams - has been conspicuous by its absence.

That's because their members know what the implications are of the current stand-off: Sir Peter says a "long, dry, big budget movie drought" is a likely outcome "if this thing goes nuclear".

It's no idle threat. Film-making, even on a small scale, is capital-intensive and high risk. Hollywood productions have a long history of being held to ransom by unions. One of the reasons so called "runaway" productions choose to film here is that they relish the versatility and can-do mentality of local actors and technicians.

As a result they are exquisitely sensitive to the slightest whisper of labour trouble. Lots of phone calls will have been made this week by the people behind projects considering shooting in New Zealand and the conversations would not have made pleasant listening for New Zealanders.

Huge amounts have already been spent on Hobbit set construction and our landscapes are indissolubly linked with Tolkienland, so it's unlikely - though far from inconceivable - that the shoot will relocate. But it is certain that the prospects of future productions have taken a big dent this week.

There is no reason that actors here should be exploited; but there is no evidence that is happening. We are already facing competition from countries offering bigger tax incentives than we do to lure runaway productions. Our actors may rue their disproportionate militancy sooner than they think.