Jump to content

Maxim Ford for president!


Recommended Posts

Depending on the locations there are various potential dangers that film makers can come across. It's not necessarily using the film making equipment that causes the danger, but the environments where people are filming and the action they are filming. It's not just short term dangers, but the long term effects from various substances that aren't too good for your health.

 

One of the biggest dangers is falling asleep at the wheel when driving home after a long day.

Edited by Brian Drysdale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on the locations there are various potential dangers that film makers can come across. It's not necessarily using the film making equipment that causes the danger, but the environments where people are filming and the action they are filming. It's not just short term dangers, but the long term effects from various substances that aren't too good for your health.

 

One of the biggest dangers is falling asleep at the wheel when driving home after a long day.

 

Well in most low budget films people are just filming in peoples houses and in exteriors. There aren't really very serious environmental dangers or substances that you wouldn't encounter by leaving the house when not making films. It's probably far safer in fact than when people are filming with iphones or ipads which nobody seems concerned about and goes on ALL the time!

 

As far as falling asleep at the wheel that is just as dangerous in any context, whether someone is making a film or just coming back from work generally.

 

It only starts becoming dangerous at a certain level of working.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I agree to an extent with Freya. It's possible to build a case that almost anything is dangerous if you work at it hard enough. Life involves risk. Most film work, even at fairly high levels, doesn't involve any special risk, certainly nothing that's riskier than the sorts of things most people regularly do.

 

But let's not kid ourselves. This is not about safety, it's about creating a closed shop by the back door, and it is, incidentally, the sort of thing that gives safety culture a bad name. This is misuse of safety as a political tool.

 

What irritates me about this sort of unionisation is the fact that it so often relies on claims to be helping out poor people to garner support. This isn't about helping people who are working on tiny, low-end shoots for minimum wage, it's about securing the positions of people who are already on £50k plus and working regularly as grips and camera assistants, who don't really need the help. As ever, unions work nicely for people who are in the union, but do next to nothing for people who aren't, who are most often at the greatest risk of employment problems.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well in most low budget films people are just filming in peoples houses and in exteriors. There aren't really very serious environmental dangers or substances that you wouldn't encounter by leaving the house when not making films. It's probably far safer in fact than when people are filming with iphones or ipads which nobody seems concerned about and goes on ALL the time!

 

As far as falling asleep at the wheel that is just as dangerous in any context, whether someone is making a film or just coming back from work generally.

 

It only starts becoming dangerous at a certain level of working.

 

Freya

 

On productions I've worked on there has been a sound recordist with double concussion, a number of injured ankles, an injured hand, someone had a finger squeezed in a Steadicam arm, one person died falling asleep at the wheel and a producer crashed their car after a fortnight of long hours. Also, crews having knives pulled them and I've had a camera smashed.

 

Sorry, iPhones are lightweight, a 30lb camera can injure you or other people in a number of ways. Carrying weights is something that needs care and quite a few film people have had back injuries or have back problems.

 

If you've worked a series of 12 or 14 hour days and have a one or two hour drive back home at the end it's a serious risk, I know I've had the matchsticks in the eyes at times and had to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you say a film set is safe I honestly do not know what sort of film making you are talking about. A trailing lead of a Red Head lamp a person triping crashes a hot and electrified object onto another person.

 

A few weeks ago I watched as a film crew lit some primary school children with 2 2.5 HMIs in light rain. No sparks and trailing power leads through the wet grass.

 

People who say film makiing is safe are the people who really should do a safety course.

 

Yes the grips are concerned about low paid and unskilled grips lowering wages and de skilling their jobs.

 

Should a person be allowed to operate a crane with two people and a camera a height without training?

 

The answer is the people on the low budget films should join the union and demand proper training, wages and conditions too.

 

BECTU is trying to stop the falling of wages but people prepared to work for nothing help cut each others throat.

 

The closed shop made sure that wages remained high and that it was possible to have a career. And yes it was difficult to get in, it took me 3 years.

 

How many people now will be able to survive or will be forced to leave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Right now, Maxim, your attitude is the thing closest to forcing me to leave; I can't be a paid-up part of this.

 

You're making my point for me. People tripping on a lead? People operating electrical equipment outside in the rain? These are issues which affect a huge number of people on a daily basis. These are normal, everyday risks for people in all kinds of jobs. That doesn't make them non-risks, but it does make your special pleading unreasonable. Most of the risks encountered on most film shoots are no more severe than those experienced by people in other work, who largely do not claim they need special certification. Cranes, overhead rigging, maybe. But all grips, all camera crew? It's so obviously ridiculous, it's so pathetically thin, I'm insulted that you're even trying to keep the pretence up.

 

Your comments on a closed shop make it even more clear what you're really after. A closed shop keeps wages high for you. A closed shop maintains a career for you. And if you behave like that, you're just another rich person's club trying to stamp on the less fortunate and keep them out.

 

I can't stop you if you want to do that but I don't like being lied to.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The all-pervading safety concern...

 

It is near impossible to argue against a poster of a child asking where his daddy is, with the subtle inference that his father was 'taken' by unsafe work practices.

 

In another technical universe I partake in on occasion the same discussions are happening, with unfortunately the same propensity for knee-jerk and politically profitable solutions.

 

Keep in mind someone is making more money than they would usually as an outcome of it all (the flouro-collar mafia).

 

...as mentioned, it's impossible to argue against the resultant emotional appeals.

 

For me personally it's about the personal trust of my colleagues - something earned on a one to one basis over time - should a piece of abstract paper that is meant to represent the same in the context of the industry at large really convince anyone otherwise? Even if it should, will it? Of course it's unrealistic to expect to be working with the same people on every job, so maybe it's the best we can do.

 

What it really boils down to is what you have control over >> be honest and critical about your abilities with yourself, and often.

 

Then and only then, do the required hard sell to get your foot in the door etc. - but never cross the line.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Film making is completely safe. It only becomes potentially dangerous when people start working at a higher level

 

 

 

Well in most low budget films people are just filming in peoples houses and in exteriors. There aren't really very serious environmental dangers or substances that you wouldn't encounter by leaving the house when not making films.

 

I'm going to assume that you're joking, Freya. Film sets can be very dangerous places to be, and in my experience, the lower the budget, the more dangerous they are. Low budget productions employ inexperienced crew who have no idea about safety, and often have no common sense at all. I once saw a student Gaffer place a lamp on the edge of a bathtub which was full of water and had an actor sitting in it. She had no comprehension of why it was potentially lethal.

 

I've been injured 4 times in my career, once fairly seriously, so please don't tell me that film-making is completely safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making my point for me. People tripping on a lead? People operating electrical equipment outside in the rain? These are issues which affect a huge number of people on a daily basis. These are normal, everyday risks for people in all kinds of jobs. That doesn't make them non-risks, but it does make your special pleading unreasonable. Most of the risks encountered on most film shoots are no more severe than those experienced by people in other work, who largely do not claim they need special certification. Cranes, overhead rigging, maybe. But all grips, all camera crew? It's so obviously ridiculous, it's so pathetically thin, I'm insulted that you're even trying to keep the pretence up.

 

 

Sorry Phil. these are all thing found in the construction and there is a pile of safety regulations about electrical equipment in that industry. I wouldn't say film making is as dangerous as being a trawler man or coal mining (unless you're filming in that environment), although anything that involves weights, physical effects, explosives, weapons, construction work, filming at low level in helicopters carries a potential risk . You keep things safe by minimising the risks in the planning, all industries have their own risks and unless they addressed there's always the possibly for injury or even death.

 

If you're filming you need to be aware of your environment, the recent death of Sarah Jones is a reminder that unless safety planning is part using locations there can be consequences. The level of risk or danger will vary from production to production and your role on it, but you need to be aware of it. Safety is an important area for a trade union in protecting its members, so I'm surprised there's any debate over its involvement in the subject.

 

I don't think the grips are preventing people from operating a doorway dolly, which has a relatively low risk, although just don't try to lift it on your own.

Edited by Brian Drysdale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the sums being mentioned, the annual pay for many grips doesn't seem to be that far different to crane operators. If you're working on high end productions, you're going to be at the higher end of the scale. http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Crane_Operator/Salary

 

The most dangerous jobs in UK http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/What-are-the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-UK-5905.htm#.VA6pQ2MfK8E

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10845754/Britains-most-dangerous-jobs.html

 

Film & TV workers can be involved in a range of industries, there is a wide range of crafts involved in making a production.

Edited by Brian Drysdale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
weights, physical effects, explosives, weapons, construction work, filming at low level in helicopters carries a potential risk

 

Sorry, I'm not going to be dragged off course here.

 

Most of the filmmaking that's actually done in the UK doesn't involve any of those things because we generally can't afford them. We can sit here all day and trade back and forth examples of things that happen in film and TV that are unusually risky. I could also relate some truly scary examples of electricians, who have been legally required to have training for some time, doing incredibly dangerous things not because they lacked instruction but because they were stupid, feckless and lazy. The fact remains, however, that the overwhelming majority of of it film and TV work involves few risks that need special attention, and this situation is not an excuse to create a closed shop by the back door. This is not about safety, it's about consolidating the position of the most well off people in the UK film industry who are already doing very well, which is horrible.

 

It is often difficult to be the person arguing against greater safety regulation - one can be characterised as incautious in any case - but in this instance I am seeing no effective argument that this is really a safety issue, other than in special, unusual circumstances such as helicopters and pyrotechnics which by and large need licensed people anyway.

 

The little people in BECTU - the people fresh out of film school who are paying their £15 a month - are entitled to assume that their union will not piss all over them. They have a tiny enough chance of making the big time in the UK anyway, it's a bit much to have their own union trying to stop them.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating to read the replies here.

 

So far we have had someone mention steadicam, red heads, 2 x 2.5 HMI's, a crane, a 30lb camera, and a sound recordist,

 

Maxim said it best when he said "If you say a film set is safe I honestly do not know what sort of film making you are talking about." although to be fair I didn't mention a film set either!

 

I'm a bit amazed at the lack of understanding of what it's really like at the hard edge of filmmaking. There are no steadicams, cranes, red heads, 30lb cameras and usually not even a sound recordist (have you never heard of plural eyes!)

 

It's true that you might trip over a cable I guess but that might happen in your home anyway or anywhere where there are cables and to be honest with you, what cables there were are now very much on the way out as everything becomes battery powered.

 

Brian was closer when he talked about safety in the general environment. I mean if you are wondering around in the woods you could easily trip over dead branches or twigs or something, but like I say these things are general concerns about safety in life and we should probably be teaching some basic safety stuff in schools to everyone.

 

In my experience iphones and ipads are far, far more dangerous. Especially iPads. Its really commonplace everywhere that people film on ipads and for some reason they almost always like to walk around while they are doing it at the same time. They have a slight concern for safety as they move slowly. They even use them in the rain which is always a surprise to me as they are so expensive. This stuff is more dangerous than low budget filmmaking in the UK.

 

Personally I'm not against teaching safety on film sets etc, just the statement that film making is dangerous which is a silly thing to say. Is photography dangerous too?

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film & TV industry is a board church and even if crew people don't use the items I mentioned every day of the week, there are circumstances even on lower budget productions where one or two of these items get used. I've worked on shorts and music videos which have used them, so it's not unreasonable for filmmakers to come across them at some stage, or at least hope to use them on a future production.

 

Danger is a relative thing, it depends on where you're working and the type of filming you're doing. Some equipment is hazardous if you don't operate it correctly, for example a TV studio camera pedestal if you don't put in the safety pins before removing the camera. Covering a riot can be dangerous if you're caught in the wrong place and the rioters don't like the press. Low budget film making can have its dangers or risks if you've got an ambitious director pushing things to the limits (hopefully, to some extent, they are, but, in theory, know where that limit is).

 

The term film set can be applied to productions being shot for television. It doesn't need to be in a studio, it can be a room in someone's house.

 

You are even less ware of your surroundings when shooting as a one person crew with an ENG camera using a viewfinder than with an iPad or IPhone. You can easily bump into lamp posts, people, cars (or they into you) and doors as you move because you don't have any peripheral vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes, Brian. All of those things are risks that need to be managed. But none of them are special risks that need specially-certified people to deal with them. If being caught in a riot is a risk that needs someone with a special piece of paper to warn us about, the problem, I would wager, is that the average level of intelligence in the population has reached an all time low. Adult human beings should be assumed to be reasonable actors who do not need special coaching to deal with things which are either obvious or everyday.

 

Safety, unfortunately, is an unscratchable itch. It is impossible to eliminate all risk and we should not try to do so. You can always argue for more safety. At some point, this has to be opposed.

 

Especially, as we've seen, when this is not about safety. This is misuse of safety culture in an attempt to create a closed shop.

 

I hate to think what'll happen when they realise that a far better way to shut down low-budget production in the UK is to persuade the insurance companies that nonunion crew are intrinsically unsafe. Good grief, did I say that out loud? Maxim, forget you heard it.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film & TV industry is a board church and even if crew people don't use the items I mentioned every day of the week, there are circumstances even on lower budget productions where one or two of these items get used. I've worked on shorts and music videos which have used them, so it's not unreasonable for filmmakers to come across them at some stage, or at least hope to use them on a future production.

 

I think you are right that there are a lot of people who hope that one day they will get to a higher level where they will be able to use things like this but I'm a bit skeptical that will actually happen, although the examples given are not really the kind of thing people are really even thinking about.

 

Steadicam is expensive and requires a trained operator.. The low budget equivalent would be some kind of stabaliser but they are rare as the results aren't great and they still require a certain amount of skill and experience. Red heads are dead and gone and I don't think people expect to ever be using those really. Similar for HMI's. I don't think anyone even thinks about cranes at all. 30lb cameras are looked down on. Nobody is worried about sound recordists.

 

I think mostly people aspire to better cameras (although not bigger ones), better lenses, maybe a doorway dolly, a few more led lights.

 

Music Videos these days tend to either have proper budgets or be made by the band and their mates on their phone or similar.

It's ironically rare that people want to make music videos these days now that anyone can stick one up on youtube. It was more of a thing when people had to fight to try and get their video seen on MTV, now just anyone can get their music video seen, nobody is interested anymore.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are even less ware of your surroundings when shooting as a one person crew with an ENG camera using a viewfinder than with an iPad or IPhone. You can easily bump into lamp posts, people, cars (or they into you) and doors as you move because you don't have any peripheral vision.

 

I'm not sure what we are talking about here. Do you mean people shooting news footage???

I'm sure that shooting news footage can be dangerous in all kinds of ways especially these days.

 

Again you keep talking about all this high level stuff like Vinten Pedestals and Television news crews but that isn't what I'm talking about.

 

My point is that film making is not inherently dangerous. Just as photography is not inherently dangerous or are we saying that photography IS inherently dangerous?

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The construction industry requires crane drivers, scaffolders and various other people to have certificates, this is just applying the same to the film and TV industry.

 

If people aren't thinking about getting to the next level, the odds are usually stacked against them, so it becomes self fulfilling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your enemy is not the closed shop or the threat of one.

 

There are Universities up and down the country selling film courses and making big money at it. Producing thousands of want to be film makers who all think if they work for nothing they will be successful.

 

BECTU is trying to hold on to better wages and conditions, to make producers pay a proper wage, to have a minimum freelance living wage for starters, to have a financed British film industry.

 

Red Heads are far from dead, and a 6 kw HMI will still be needed unless the the Sun stops being 7000 footcandles.

 

Professional film making is dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Your enemy is not the closed shop or the threat of one.

 

Why not? It's designed to keep me (or more to the point, people like me) from being able to work. I know that's the only way you can actually exercise any control in the circumstances, but it's still a reprehensible thing to do.

 

 

 

 

There are Universities up and down the country selling film courses and making big money at it. Producing thousands of want to be film makers who all think if they work for nothing they will be successful.

 

Couldn't agree more, universities should not do this. Your proposals, however, do nothing to address this. All you seem to be interested in is jealously guarding the best work for people you like. This does nothing to help people being ripped off by unscrupulous educational establishments. In fact, what you're trying to do disadvantages them by denying them any realistic chance of getting involved in high end work unless they're someone's mate or relative. I know this is inevitable to some extent but you should not be encouraging it - quite the opposite.

 

Again, I know the only way you can secure the pay and conditions of the already-successful is by doing this, but please don't pretend you're working for anyone but that rather narrow special interest group.

 

 

 

 

BECTU is trying to hold on to better wages and conditions,

 

No, it isn't. It's trying to take already wealthy and successful people and prevent anyone competing with them.

 

I understand why you are trying to do this but please don't use the excuse that you are trying to help everyone. You're not. You're trying to feather the beds of the people who need it least. This is what conservative politicians do.

 

 

 

Professional film making is dangerous.

 

I disagree with such a blanket statement, especially as it relies on your definition of "professional", but the point remains regardless. This has nothing to do with your previous statements and is irrelevant to a discussion of pay and conditions.

 

Your whole approach is based on this and it just doesn't follow. You appear to be trying to say that film sets should be safe (which nobody disagrees with) therefore it's OK to create a closed shop. It is not OK to create a closed shop under any circumstances and it is morally very dubious to misuse safety culture in this way.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ignore the points I have made and continue with your accusation without any evidence to back it up.

 

Show me one action of the union designed to stop you working.

 

 

Working on a set with maybe 50 kilowatts of 3 phase electricity, staging stunts with cars, smoke, people tires, sets held up by heavy wieghts, lights wieghing 20 kilos on wind up stands.....

 

 

Yes people should be properly trained to work in the film industry. I would not want to get on a crane with a grip who had not been trained.

 

Every time I have filmed on a building site I have had to get trained, So I would expect film makers to know what they are doing too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes, Maxim, that's because, as people have repeatedly told you, it's very difficult to argue against any call for increased safety - even under completely unreasonable circumstances.

 

As for ignoring your arguments, I've responded to you practically point by point.

 

 

 

Show me one action of the union designed to stop you working

 

This entire argument is about the union trying to stop people working. I may not be able to objectively prove your motivations - nobody could, without a mind-reading device - but regardless of what you're trying to achieve, what you actually will achieve is to ensure that anyone without a certain piece of paper is thrown out of work.

 

I have argued that your position on safety is invalid in a majority of cases. I restate that argument now.

 

I also find it suspicious that you constantly conflate arguments about pay and job security with arguments about safety. The two have nothing to do with one another - unless you are deliberately misusing the safety argument as a tool to restrict people who are permitted, by you, to work, which is what I believe you're doing.

 

Of course, you could dispel my concerns in an instant by making it clear that anyone, without reference to personal contacts, can take the required courses to gain the certification you're talking about, without anyone in the union having any authority to choose who can and cannot obtain a place on the course.

 

But that's not how you're doing it, is it? A prospective camera assistant will need the approval of an existing camera assistant, won't they?

 

That's a closed shop, or something very like it, with regard to the special union-within-a-union that you appear to be trying to create. A special union, for all your friends, so they can remain as wealthy as they are.

 

Personally I consider it clear that your intention here is, as with the grips, to create a situation where you control who is permitted to work. Again, regardless of your motivations, you should not do this. It is not your business to do this. In fact, it is your responsibility not to do this. A union should be egalitarian, not a members-only club for the well-off.

 

But what I really don't understand is why you're bothering to argue with me. I have no power in the union. The people whose careers will be destroyed by this rarely seem to go to meetings. You can do what you like. You're the boss, and nobody can stop you.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect Phils argument may be based on grips having to be trained, but the grips also being responsible for the selection of the trainees for the scheme. By having the latter it may be possible that outsiders are being kept outside of the scheme and they could just be recruiting relatives or people in the know. Another issue could be that the scheme is overly London centred and may not allow for the training of regional grips..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE

 

Of course, you could dispel my concerns in an instant by making it clear that anyone, without reference to personal contacts, can take the required courses to gain the certification you're talking about, without anyone in the union having any authority to choose who can and cannot obtain a place on the course.

 

But that's not how you're doing it, is it? A prospective camera assistant will need the approval of an existing camera assistant, won't they? QUOTE

 

NO, not true, the camera branch is making no such decisions.

 

Show me one person who has been denied training by BECTU.

 

You have as much power in the union as I do, if you can be bothered to come to meetings and argue your point there rather than rant here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...