Have you ever been harassed while working? If so, why? How did you handle it?

[Luke Randall]

 

Guerrilla film making, why Mr. Director?

 

I'm not sure if this is a real question or you're taking the piss but I'll go ahead and answer anyway :)

 

I can grab shots that would otherwise be impossible for me to get. The shots can improve a film by adding connective tissue between main locations and up your production value. If carefully planned and executed safely, why not!

Edited November 18, 2015 by Luke Randall

[John E Clark]

 

I'm not sure if this is a real question or you're taking the piss but I'll go ahead and answer anyway :)

 

I can grab shots that would otherwise be impossible for me to get. The shots can improve a film by adding connective tissue between main locations and up your production value. If carefully planned and executed safely, why not!

 

Saint Hitchcock of the Eternal Film Pantheon, got 'guerrilla' shots of Cary Grant appearing to enter the UN Building by setting up a camera in a van across the street, in the film "North by Northwest"(1959).

 

The reason being that film permits on the UN were either difficult or not possible. This shot connects Grant with the location, being dropped off... using a projected backdrop in studio.

 

 

This shot "from a van across the street" from the UN building, strongly places him at the location with realism that could not be achieved with a studio set.

 

 

This is the 'view' of the location today...

 

 

Here's an interesting blog post where I got the above images, showing 'then and now' for some number of the locations in the fllm.

 

http://www.scoutingny.com/the-filming-locations-of-north-by-northwest-part-2-new-york-youve-changed/

Edited November 18, 2015 by John E Clark

[JD Hartman]

 

Saint Hitchcock of the Eternal Film Pantheon, got 'guerrilla' shots of Cary Grant appearing to enter the UN Building by setting up a camera in a van across the street, in the film "North by Northwest"(1959).

 

The reason being that film permits on the UN were either difficult or not possible. This shot connects Grant with the location, being dropped off... using a projected backdrop in studio.

 

 

Well the above certainly helps to justify the actions of thousands of guerrilla shooters.

 

Permits may be difficult to obtain to shoot at LAX, but not impossible. Right? Was it the tedium and delay of the permit process or just an excuse to save a few bucks? Guerrilla shooters deserve all the Police attention and disruption that they get. When you hear a Guerrilla shooter talk about the locations they stole, the story is usually infinity more interesting than any of the images they captured.

[Luke Randall]

Guerrilla shooters deserve all the Police attention and disruption that they get. When you hear a Guerrilla shooter talk about the locations they stole, the story is usually infinity more interesting than any of the images they captured.

 

I'm not really sure how the lack of a permit affects the quality of the images but if you've got a constructive contribution on the topic I'd be happy to hear it.

 

A lot of Wong Kar Wai's early films contain tons of footage taken on the sly. More recently Black Swan nicked a few shots on the NYC. Under certain conditions and as long as it's safe and unintrusive -- I don't see any harm. But to each their own!

Edited November 18, 2015 by Luke Randall

[JD Hartman]

None of your posts are germane to the topic at hand.

[Luke Randall]

None of your posts are germane to the topic at hand.

 

I responded to the OP's question. Then yours. What's the problem?

 

PM if you've got an issue, but let's not derail a lighthearted discussion as I'm interested to hear stories from others too :)

[John E Clark]

 

Well the above certainly helps to justify the actions of thousands of guerrilla shooters.

 

Permits may be difficult to obtain to shoot at LAX, but not impossible. Right? Was it the tedium and delay of the permit process or just an excuse to save a few bucks? Guerrilla shooters deserve all the Police attention and disruption that they get. When you hear a Guerrilla shooter talk about the locations they stole, the story is usually infinity more interesting than any of the images they captured.

 

Yes, there's even a Film Office... but there are a number of requirements, one being a $1M bond for nonairfield locations, a $10M for airfield locations, and restrictions, such as filming of TSA officers, procedures, etc. is strictly prohibited, as well as Border Patrol/Immigration/etc. The Tom Bradley International Terminal is specifically excluded.

 

Any logos or areas leased by the airlines or others in the airport are required to be 'cleared' by the respective owners before filming takes place. Then there's the usual LAX 'quick gouge tax' that is a fire marshal or representative that may be required, even for scouting, and further, the requirement for a airport person to be assigned to the project, at a given pay scale paid by the production, also for scouting and production.

 

There are location fees that were not specified, but depended on the location within the air port, or any of the general air port land. (I presume the abandoned track house area off the end of the runway is also covered by the LAX Film office...).

 

Etc... so no, this is not a realistic possibility for a minimal to nothing budget production.

 

Don't know if one needs a general LA film permit in addition to the specific permit for LAX, but the general one is about $600 and is good for 14 days, and up to 10 locations from the webpage. The Film Office will determine if public safety (aka the police, for traffic and crowd control etc... not for production company security...), fire, other inspection agency is required. An $85 'fire spot check' fee will be taken and allows a fire inspector to show up at any time at the location during filming to verify permits and safety conditions.

 

While perhaps a $100K budget film could handle $1500 worth of regulatory compliance... and of course for big budge... a cast/crew lunch is many times that per day... for a budget of $10k or less, that's 10% of the budget or more that is just 'money out the door' with no realistic benefit, beyond the permits.

Edited November 18, 2015 by John E Clark

[John E Clark]

None of your posts are germane to the topic at hand.

 

They come under the heading of 'potential for being hassled', 'permit nazis' being on popular source of being hassled... and the the responses as to why a nolo budget production would try to by pass the permitting process.

Edited November 18, 2015 by John E Clark

[Phil Rhodes]

I think there is a legitimate concern that some places are available only to people with a lot of money.

 

The refusal by some jurisdictions to recognise the difference between very large and very small shows is essentially prohibitory to smaller productions. I don't think that's OK. Public places are for public use.

 

There's an even bigger problem with the growing privatisation of what appears to be public space. That's a problem of local government, where it seems like such a good deal to allow development companies to build, say, a commercial office complex that often not much attention is paid to the fine details. In these situations it can be even more expensive to shoot than on public property.

 

I don't particularly want to encourage anyone to break the rules, but there is an underlying problem here. There is no legitimate problem with small units setting up a bit of camera, grip and light on most street corners, even in busy places like LA. Permit it, sure. Ensure no one place is saturated, sure. But don't make it prohibitory. That just crushes people's ambitions and is massively counterproductive from the perspective of encouraging entrepreneurship and business development.

 

P

[Satsuki Murashige]

Guerrilla shooters deserve all the Police attention and disruption that they get. When you hear a Guerrilla shooter talk about the locations they stole, the story is usually infinity more interesting than any of the images they captured.

I really don't think stealing locations is that big of a deal when done safely and with respect for the civilians nearby. Most small productions and videos are not going to go through the film commission and permitting process for a few guys and a camera shooting a walk and talk on the sidewalk or some b-roll in the park. It's not like they are shutting down streets, bringing in condors, etc.

[John E Clark]

I really don't think stealing locations is that big of a deal when done safely and with respect for the civilians nearby. Most small productions and videos are not going to go through the film commission and permitting process for a few guys and a camera shooting a walk and talk on the sidewalk or some b-roll in the park. It's not like they are shutting down streets, bringing in condors, etc.

 

To me, for shooting in public places... I don't consider that 'stealing'... sure shooting on private property without permission, I can see that as 'stealing'... but for 'city/county/state/federal' property... all citizens are 'owners in common' for many uses... such as 'filming', or 'walking'... absent some safety/security reason for not allowing anyone access to the area... but that is a general restriction, not just for 'filming'.

 

The usual kicker is the requirement for adding a rider to one's insurance naming the public entity as a beneficiary. It's been a while, but the last time I asked my agent it was something like $500 to get a rider for a given entity, using my 'home owners' insurance, since I don't have a 'film production' business... and we have let the Wedding business lapse (we were never asked for riders for any wedding shoots at any location public or private... and I don't think many wedding couples take out additional insurance for damage or injury that may occur during their event at a given location either...).

 

I have been asked to leave a local, popular for photographers, State Park, and the main cause was for using a 'tripod'... hence not making tourist happy shots...

 

The reason I'd go through the hassle would be to avoid being hassled as in the case of the State Park... but I'd also do it for a shoot that involved 'guns' or 'simulated' crime. I've heard enough stories about a shoot that appeared to the neighbors to be a crime in progress leading to police being dispatched, and while no really unfortunate events occurred, the shoot was cancelled because of lack of permits.

 

Then there's my favorite anecdote... a production of a porn movie was using a house without a film permit... due to the 'loud female vocalization'... the neighbors called the cops... several people arrested for vice/prostitution charges, but eventually everything was dropped except 'shooting without a permit'...

Edited November 19, 2015 by John E Clark

[Robin R Probyn]

JD.. your going to be able to rent yourself out as negative fill pretty soon.. :)..

[JD Hartman]

JD.. your going to be able to rent yourself out as negative fill pretty soon.. :)..

 

So funny....

 

I couldn't, another Phil owns the exclusive rights.

[Satsuki Murashige]

John, your story reminds me of one of the first jobs I had as a PA, working on a documentary about the effects of PTSD on war veterans. We were interviewing a WW2 vet in the gaffer's sound stage. This gaffer shot a lot of porn on the side. Several hours into an extremely emotional interview, we started to hear soft moaning from upstairs. We all looked at at each other in confusion, and then at the gaffer who was sound asleep on a couch behind a curtain. We shook him awake so he would hear it too, and he ran upstairs. After a few moments, the sounds stopped. Apparently, he had forgotten that he had double booked us with a porn shoot upstairs that day. Our interview subject never noticed and kept speaking throughout the whole ordeal. Not sure that qualifies as harassment, but it certainly was memorable.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

I couldn't, another Phil owns the exclusive rights.

 

I resemble that remark! Or is it resent.

 

P

[Dino Giammattei]

Two situations come to mind. One I handled well the other not so much.

(The Good) Shooting in a mall in front of a restaurant. We had full permission from the mall management. The owner of the restaurant angrily confronted us to say we were going to ruin his business. I pointed out that our being there was attracting a crowd of people and that we would recommend that folks check out his establishment. By the time the day was half over, his business was so good he fed the crew for free.

(The Bad) In my younger days as a newsie, while covering a County Council meeting where a group of protesters were present. One of the protesters became physically abusive to my camera operator. I bull rushed the guy and explained that if he touched anyone of my crew again I was going to remove his intestines through his left nostril. He screamed in terror and called the cops (At six foot, 214lbs and ugly, my friends say I'm quite scary when angry). What I "should" have done was to calmly explain that we were there to cover the event and then ask if he wanted to express his his point of view on camera. It would have surely diffused the situation and possibly gotten me a couple of good sound bites for the evening broadcast. You live and learn...

[Robin R Probyn]

John, your story reminds me of one of the first jobs I had as a PA, working on a documentary about the effects of PTSD on war veterans. We were interviewing a WW2 vet in the gaffer's sound stage. This gaffer shot a lot of porn on the side. Several hours into an extremely emotional interview, we started to hear soft moaning from upstairs. We all looked at at each other in confusion, and then at the gaffer who was sound asleep on a couch behind a curtain. We shook him awake so he would hear it too, and he ran upstairs. After a few moments, the sounds stopped. Apparently, he had forgotten that he had double booked us with a porn shoot upstairs that day. Our interview subject never noticed and kept speaking throughout the whole ordeal. Not sure that qualifies as harassment, but it certainly was memorable.

Thats called sexual harassment .. you should have reported it..

[Phil Rhodes]

"Hello, Sir. Can I ask what you're doing?"

 

I turn around to see a man in a high-visibility jacket and a custodian helmet strolling towards me. I glance from the camera to him and back again several times, before cautiously offering the words:

 

"What does it look like I'm doing?"

"I can see what it looks like. I'm asking anyway."

 

Naturally, this makes me suspicious.

 

"Why do you ask?"

"Because we've had a complaint from that building over there that you were acting suspiciously."

 

I turn around a clear 180 degrees to look at a building whose existence had previously gone entirely unsuspected by me and which has never appeared in frame. Another man in a high-visibility jacket, but this time without the helmet, is standing in the doorway, hands on hips, smirking at me.

 

"Suspiciously in what way?"

"Can I take your name and address, please, sir?"

"Well, I'd rather not, given that I'm not sure if it's going to come back to bite m-"

"What's your name?"

"Well, as I was sayin-"

"What's your name?"

"Am I obliged to give you th-"

"What's your name?"

"Am I being detained or am I free to continue with what I'm doing?"

 

The police officer looks at me as if I were stuck to the underside of his shoe, which under current circumstances I may soon be.

 

"Why are you being difficult?"

"Well, you approached me, I'm not sure th-"

"I could arrest you for a Section 5 public order offence."

"You could arrest me for a lot of things, but I don't think that the magistrate will agree that what I'm doing constitutes - what is it - threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour."

"Oh. Student of the law are we?" His tone is mocking.

"Not really. I've just had it quoted to me three times a day every time I'm out in London with a camera during the last ten years."

 

P

[Brian Drysdale]

When dealing with the police they have what is termed passing the attitude test. Pass it and you can get away with quite a lot, usually it just involves being friendly, upbeat and helping them fill their day. However, it probably won't work so well with security job's worths on private property.

[Phil Rhodes]

When dealing with the police they have what is termed passing the attitude test

 

So do I.

 

The problem with this is that increasingly, "having been stopped a lot" is grounds for being stopped and possibly even searched, which creates something of a vicious circle.

 

It's extremely difficult to maintain, and the police cannot reasonably expect, all smiles and happiness when this is their policy. Even the estimable Alister Chapman, who may possibly be the world's most pleasant and inoffensive individual, has been stopped and given hassle for no good reason.

 

P

[JD Hartman]

 

The problem with this is that increasingly, "having been stopped a lot" is grounds for being stopped and possibly even searched, which creates something of a vicious circle.

 

P

 

Must be a certain air about you Phil. Something the Police find inviting.

Running around London in a modified Cyberman outfit probably doesn't help either.

Edited November 22, 2015 by JD Hartman

[Phil Rhodes]

No, it's just the camera.

 

P

[Brian Drysdale]

Going anywhere with a professional camera tends to bring up problems. I was on shoot in Sudan, where we were taken to the police station by locals in a town and informed that life was cheap in Africa by the officer at the desk..

[Mark Dunn]

"Hello, Sir. Can I ask what you're doing?"

 

 

 

"What does it look like I'm doing?"

P

 

 

 

"Oh. Student of the law are we?" His tone is mocking.

"Not really. I've just had it quoted to me three times a day every time I'm out in London with a camera during the last ten years."

 

P

Sure, you're entitled to do what you're doing but so is the constable, which is to respond to complaints from the public and to determine whether an offence has been committed.

As to the mocking tone, what sort of tone is "what does it look like I'm doing?"

You should try just answering the question. They might even be interested. Who knows, one day they might even be able to help you.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Mark Dunn

[Patrick Cooper]

I was once shooting time lapse of shadows moving across a church in Adelaide, my local city. All of a sudden, a homeless man gets up from a nearby bench and approaches me, asking if I was filming him. He was very grumpy and irritable. I hadn't even noticed that he was there until he moved. When setting up the tripod, I had no idea that there was a man lying down on this bench. Regardless, the camera was not pointed at him or the bench. I ignored his question and pretended that I had still not noticed him and put all my attention on the camera. He then came to his senses and realised that I was filming the church and that was that.

 

Many years later, I was on a ferry at sea and decided to shoot a little bit of the journey in time lapse with my GoPro. Within about one second of putting the GoPro on the ground, a fellow passenger to my right springs up from his seat, quickly walks up me and starts questioning me in a serious tone. Though the thing is - the lens of the camera was pointing straight ahead - straight out to sea with the side of the vessel in view. This guy was seated to my right and yet he was super suspicious of my actions. As I interacted with him, he became less paranoid but he didn't ease up on the questions. There were so many damn questions, it was like the Spanish Inquisition.