Freelance Directing: The Promise and the Pitfalls

By Mark Thomas, Managing Director/Executive Producer at Cultivate Media

It always gives me pause when people I don’t know well say, “Trust me.” Often, they end up being the people I felt uncomfortable extending trust to. Additionally, those who have a need to tell me how long they’ve been in the business… they bug me. I always wonder if that statement is made from some insecurity about knowledge, and that somehow tenure will both counteract and justify those words.

So, as you read this, please don’t think I’m asking you to trust me. Respect is desired, trust is earned. Additionally, who cares how long I’ve been at this…I’ll leave it here: long enough to hopefully have some perspective that’s worth considering.

Essentially forever, our system has been pretty much the same. There have been a few exceptions, but usually a director “signs” with a company who then handles representation and production. We’re different from the “studio” system, where talent has an agent, a manager and may or may not have their own production company, who then partners with any number of entities (it helps to remember that an “entity” is a group of people with access to money) to get something made.

As most of you know, our process heretofore was much more streamlined. Reps (or Agency peeps) sent us scripts, looking for us to submit directors for consideration. Historically, the Agency Producer (AP) had told our rep what they were looking for, genre-wise and often they were asking for a specific “rostered” director’s reel. While the system was never “free” it certainly wasn’t a “free-for-all.”  

Nowadays, while some of the above certainly is “the norm,” more and more we find ourselves up against a new (or at least somewhat new) company with an “off-roster” director (which IMO is just a much cooler term for “freelance director”) who often is also someone we’re not familiar with.

Here’s where I sense this goes sideways.

The AP receives reels from a rep, from a company putting a director forward, who a few weeks ago the AP received the same director’s reel from another company. If at all interested the AP may ask the rep for “status,” at which time the rep is required to confirm the director’s actual status, which in this example is “freelance.” It’s my observation that this “muddying of the waters” is not great for anyone involved in the process. 

While this article could be much longer (I could go down several paths here), let me put this out there: In my opinion, this not the best long-term path for a director’s career. 

I do understand that there are any number of sites where a company can locate “free-lance” talent (to be clear, I’m not referring to those sites who are legitimately trying to help traditionally underrepresented segments of our industry), and how appealing that is when you don’t have a relevant option on your roster to submit for a project. Further, I get that with the way our industry has been of late, if you’re a director who’s unsigned, you’d be reluctant to limit your “sources” of work. It all makes sense…until you step back and look at it from 30,000 feet.

For the production company, we all know it costs real money to put forward any director for any project. Why would one want to do that for talent with whom they have no exclusivity? Those, of course, are decisions each company owner must make for themselves.

But the more salient point(s) regards the directors themselves.

Each successful director usually has someone(s) in the role of “gatekeeper” of their brand. All talent needs development, literally at all levels. Some are from scratch, some are wanting to extend their career arc, and others need reinvention.

The freelance model flies in the face of all of that. Being a gun-for-hire sure sounds great, but questions remain, such as: Who’s watching the growth (or lack thereof) of your reel? Who is helping you define career goals and making a plan to see them achieved?  Whose helping them stay on-brand? Most importantly who has a consistent track record of success when doing all of this?

The reality is that the answer to all of the above is…no one.

The freelancer is by-and-large left to their own devices in these matters, and  lacks the perspective that talent really needs.

Some have an agent. Some have “relationships” with reps. Yet others have “preferred companies” they work with. Let’s break that down. 

An “agent” would, as a rule, have very little experience actually “developing” talent. They get paid when the people they represent work. Much the same applies to many reps. Their job is to book work. Those are not negative reflections on those roles, it just speaks more to the point that fundamentally this is not what they do. Nor should it be.

Conversely, signing with a production company that has the aforementioned track record of developing talent and then allowing them to do their job should address the above questions…and in a productive manner. None of us gets it right all the time, but most of us make the herculean effort required to hit the mark on a regular basis. 

I’ll admit that I come from a “traditional” position about this subject, but I’m open-minded about doing things differently, as long as different is better, not just different.

To the “freelance directors,” I ask: Do you want a year, or do you want a career?

Food for thought.