Why isn't the industry more represented?

[Guest]

The reason I didn't was because I didn't "look geeky" enough.

 

All you needed was a pair of black glasses with tape in the middle :lol:

 

Here's a hilarious true to life reason why I wasn't hired for two freelance jobs I applied for a while back. The reason I was told specifically by the employer was because I drove to the interview in my VW Touareg! Apparently this caused them to think that I would be far too expensive if I could afford a $75, 000.00 car.

 

The first time it happened I thought it was a fluke, so when it happened again, I decided to drive my Jetta for any future interviews.

 

So we can call this "VW Touareg Discrimination." I am setting up a foundation to help other Touareg drivers who have also suffered from this awful form of discrimination.

 

This is the offending vehicle incase you have never seen one:

 

http://www.vw.ca/ca/en_ca/models/Touareg_2.html?247SEM

 

So remember, when you go to a job interview don't look prosperous.

 

R,

[David Rakoczy]

In America, approx. 13.5% of the country is African American. Although I don't have any empirical data, it seems unlikely that 13.5% of film crew members are black.

 

Also, approx. 50% or more of the US is Christian. I also doubt that 50% of crew members are Christian. Even acting wise, it seems doubtful that that many are Christian seeing as how so many movies display sentiment that would be contradictory to Christianity (even in a positive light.)

 

The nation is roughly half women, yet women do not make up 50% of crew members.

 

I'm just curious if anyone has any ideas or insight into why the film industry, particularly in the areas of the crew, are not more representative of the population as a whole?

 

Probably the same reason the NBA does not represent the population as a whole...

[Matthew W. Phillips]

So we can call this "VW Touareg Discrimination." I am setting up a foundation to help other Touareg drivers who have also suffered from this awful form of discrimination.

 

Maybe he just didn't like German cars in general and think they are overpriced status symbols, which they are ;) Cars are no different than sports teams, people have preferences. A silly reason not to hire though.

 

And no, Richard, I'm not just jealous. You wouldn't catch me driving a German car if I had Bill Gates' money.

[Guest]

A silly reason not to hire though.

 

It's a common problem with all hiring, employers don't want people that are or appear to be too successful, since they figure they may not stick around long.

 

R,

[Matthew W. Phillips]

It's a common problem with all hiring, employers don't want people that are or appear to be too successful, since they figure they may not stick around long.

 

R,

 

I didn't realize that driving a German car made you appear successful? I've known people who drove $50k+ Mercedes and Beamers who work at McDonalds and live with their parents. It's all about priorities.

[Guest]

I didn't realize that driving a German car made you appear successful? I've known people who drove $50k+ Mercedes and Beamers who work at McDonalds and live with their parents. It's all about priorities.

 

Man you have a massive chip on your shoulder. No point in denying it.

 

Next you'll tell me you send all of your spare money to feed the starving children of Africa and you ride a bike.

 

R,

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Man you have a massive chip on your shoulder. No point in denying it.

 

Next you'll tell me you send all of your spare money to feed the starving children of Africa and you ride a bike.

 

R,

 

I may have a chip on my shoulderm no denying it HOWEVER you definitely seem to be braggy about your material wealth and possessions...especially since you've had some recent successes. I give it to you straight as you give it to me, but I still love you Richard. B)

[Guest]

I may have a chip on my shoulderm no denying it HOWEVER you definitely seem to be braggy about your material wealth and possessions...especially since you've had some recent successes. I give it to you straight as you give it to me, but I still love you Richard. B)

 

I should be able to make an example out of the silliness of not being hired because I drove a Touareg, and it not be perceived as "braggy." Would my story be believable if I said they didn't hire me because I drove a 1976 VW Bug?

 

What recent successes? Have you seen The Dogfather in a theatre near you or in Blockbuster? It's not a success until the public has the last word, and they are a tough master to please as every commercial filmmaker knows.

 

Now when I post a picture of my super model wife, and my truck load of film awards, then you can call me braggy. ;)

 

R,

[Matthew W. Phillips]

What recent successes? Have you seen The Dogfather in a theatre near you or in Blockbuster? It's not a success until the public has the last word, and they are a tough master to please as every commercial filmmaker knows.

 

Success occurs at all levels, Richard, and you know this. Many people don't even get a movie deal working with >$1m dollars. The fact that you've even had that opportunity is a huge success to many people. Sure, you aren't James Cameron at the moment but I still bet you've trumped 99.9% of film school graduates.

 

Yes, the mob has the final say, unfortunately. This is why I tend to object to people who are "film snobs" (not saying you are) because they get so caught up in what "expert" opinion is that they forget that the paying public is all that matters.

[Guest]

Success occurs at all levels, Richard, and you know this. Many people don't even get a movie deal working with >$1m dollars. The fact that you've even had that opportunity is a huge success to many people. Sure, you aren't James Cameron at the moment but I still bet you've trumped 99.9% of film school graduates.

 

True. But, movies can not be a hobby, the public has to support you with cash or you've failed at the most important level.

 

R,

[George Ebersole]

All you needed was a pair of black glasses with tape in the middle :lol:

 

Here's a hilarious true to life reason why I wasn't hired for two freelance jobs I applied for a while back. The reason I was told specifically by the employer was because I drove to the interview in my VW Touareg! Apparently this caused them to think that I would be far too expensive if I could afford a $75, 000.00 car.

 

The first time it happened I thought it was a fluke, so when it happened again, I decided to drive my Jetta for any future interviews.

 

So we can call this "VW Touareg Discrimination." I am setting up a foundation to help other Touareg drivers who have also suffered from this awful form of discrimination.

 

This is the offending vehicle incase you have never seen one:

 

http://www.vw.ca/ca/en_ca/models/Touareg_2.html?247SEM

 

So remember, when you go to a job interview don't look prosperous.

 

R,

Ironically enough I had a videographer hire me as a camera assistant and PA because at the time I was driving a new car. Go figure.

 

*EDIT* Heh, even more ironic, I used to work directly under one of the founding members of Apple, and also used to videotape Steve Wozniaks board of directors every now and then. Maybe I should've put that on my application :P

[John Sprung]

*EDIT* Heh, even more ironic, I used to work directly under one of the founding members of Apple, and also used to videotape Steve Wozniaks board of directors every now and then. Maybe I should've put that on my application :P

 

Nope, that would make you overqualified. The last thing bosses want, especially the incompetent ones, is people working for them who are better qualified than they are.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Bruening]

May I offer some perspective on the original question?

 

Humans are a social creature. We're only a few notches above our tree swinging ancestors. We retain much of that pack behavior running as undercurrent within our civilized self-awareness.

 

Movie production is a high stress dynamic. It serves the producers well to manage the aspects of social harmony and tension within the production group. Elements of similarity improve harmony, therefore, productivity. Elements of difference improve tension, therefore, the energy to feed creativity.

 

For example, let's hypothesize a group dynamic: If all of the crew is composed of white males, all tension based on race and sex is avoided. Yet, by careful hiring and management, a creative tension can still be fostered to the benefit of the final product. Actually, creative tension can be managed better since the group will not fall easily into racial or sexual hatred. Again, theoretically, if you want the best product then this is the model you would follow.

 

Yet, Hellywood found that the inclusion of women was necessary from the beginning. There have always been tasks that women were better suited to, whether from natural ability or social training. As well, the social harmony could be improved amongst the men in the group when women were included. I can't really account for in this forum what role the inclusion of women had in mating behaviors. Though, we all know that mating behavior does occur amongst crew members. Women have always been valuable to the success of movie product.

 

Hellywood also inherited from the stage industry the inclusion of homosexuals into aspects of the production. Homosexuals are notoriously creative and hard working to the point of utter self-sacrifice. They have always been valuable components to the success of stage and movie product.

 

So, the basic group model of white males, by necessity, had to accommodate females and homosexuals. The tensions that that caused were tolerable because the contributions of those two additive groups outweighed the discomforts caused within the group.

 

Let's consider a further dynamic. Add a significantly different racial group. What do those tensions contribute to the product? Is that racial grouping necessary to the success of the product? Is there something that any particular racial group can do that makes them essential to the product's success?

 

Back to the pack thing. As a better-monkey, humans can accommodate gender variations and sexual dynamics within their grouping far better than elements that challenge their basic monkey pack nature. The differences between racial groups in the USA are dissolving. But, the differences are still great enough to make the production's group dynamic split along racial lines. That split makes it almost impossible for a producer or director to manage the group's energy when that energy can't form between racial splits.

 

I HAVE OFFERED ALL OF THIS AS THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE. I AM NOT DEFENDING ANY POSITION. I AM NOT TRYING TO PISS ANYONE OFF.

[Guest]

I HAVE OFFERED ALL OF THIS AS THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE. I AM NOT DEFENDING ANY POSITION. I AM NOT TRYING TO PISS ANYONE OFF.

 

Too Late! Red Alert! :lol:

 

R,

[Stephen Williams]

Too Late! Red Alert! :lol:

 

R,

 

Hi Richard,

 

From memory you bought a Konvas, got some short ends & shot some stock footage. After a few years you were able to finance your own feature film on 35mm, sounds like any success you had was of your own making.

 

Stephen

[Guest]

Hi Richard,

 

From memory you bought a Konvas, got some short ends & shot some stock footage. After a few years you were able to finance your own feature film on 35mm, sounds like any success you had was of your own making.

 

Stephen

 

Pretty accurate, and thanks for saying so. But hey, not every one is comfortable with the idea that individual effort counts for some thing.

 

R,

[Stephen Williams]

Pretty accurate, and thanks for saying so. But hey, not every one is comfortable with the idea that individual effort counts for some thing.

 

R,

 

Of course only a fool would buy a Konvas for $1000 when they can buy a RED for $17,500 and be 'part of the revolution', RED is 4K & so cool which is more important to many than just starting a real business to earn money.

 

Stephen

[Guest]

Of course only a fool would buy a Konvas for $1000 when they can buy a RED for $17,500 and be 'part of the revolution', RED is 4K & so cool which is more important to many than just starting a real business to earn money.

 

Stephen

 

Oh you're a very naughty boy :D

 

R,

[Stephen Williams]

Oh you're a very naughty boy :D

 

R,

 

It's important to have a sense of humour & a fairly thick skin in this business.

[Guest]

It's important to have a sense of humour & a fairly thick skin in this business.

 

You are 100% correct on that point.

 

R,

[Paul Bruening]

You two should go bowling.

[George Ebersole]

May I offer some perspective on the original question?

 

Humans are a social creature. We're only a few notches above our tree swinging ancestors. We retain much of that pack behavior running as undercurrent within our civilized self-awareness.

 

Movie production is a high stress dynamic. It serves the producers well to manage the aspects of social harmony and tension within the production group. Elements of similarity improve harmony, therefore, productivity. Elements of difference improve tension, therefore, the energy to feed creativity.

 

For example, let's hypothesize a group dynamic: If all of the crew is composed of white males, all tension based on race and sex is avoided. Yet, by careful hiring and management, a creative tension can still be fostered to the benefit of the final product. Actually, creative tension can be managed better since the group will not fall easily into racial or sexual hatred. Again, theoretically, if you want the best product then this is the model you would follow.

 

Yet, Hellywood found that the inclusion of women was necessary from the beginning. There have always been tasks that women were better suited to, whether from natural ability or social training. As well, the social harmony could be improved amongst the men in the group when women were included. I can't really account for in this forum what role the inclusion of women had in mating behaviors. Though, we all know that mating behavior does occur amongst crew members. Women have always been valuable to the success of movie product.

 

Hellywood also inherited from the stage industry the inclusion of homosexuals into aspects of the production. Homosexuals are notoriously creative and hard working to the point of utter self-sacrifice. They have always been valuable components to the success of stage and movie product.

 

So, the basic group model of white males, by necessity, had to accommodate females and homosexuals. The tensions that that caused were tolerable because the contributions of those two additive groups outweighed the discomforts caused within the group.

 

Let's consider a further dynamic. Add a significantly different racial group. What do those tensions contribute to the product? Is that racial grouping necessary to the success of the product? Is there something that any particular racial group can do that makes them essential to the product's success?

 

Back to the pack thing. As a better-monkey, humans can accommodate gender variations and sexual dynamics within their grouping far better than elements that challenge their basic monkey pack nature. The differences between racial groups in the USA are dissolving. But, the differences are still great enough to make the production's group dynamic split along racial lines. That split makes it almost impossible for a producer or director to manage the group's energy when that energy can't form between racial splits.

 

I HAVE OFFERED ALL OF THIS AS THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE. I AM NOT DEFENDING ANY POSITION. I AM NOT TRYING TO PISS ANYONE OFF.

You haven't pissed me off :). To me the all-white-male crew is an oddity.

 

We had a couple of homosexual gaffers, some lesbian grips, women directors, ethnic grips and PAs of all races, and the Jewish guys I worked with were in lower management; Stage Managers, one of my positions. But again, most of my work was in San Francisco. Yet Asians of all stripes, hispanics, blacks and what not, were fairly well represented.

 

A lot of it's demographics; i.e. there were more Asian and other different social/ethnic groups in SF, where there were more black crew members and film makers across the bay in Oakland.

 

The local crews I worked with and on were always professional. The only ego trips and discrimination I ever witnessed were from the LA crews. No joke. A crew from Japan or New York or Canada, or anywhere else, never gave any problems to any of the facilities I worked for, and were fairly diverse in crew makeup for what they were.

 

But a Los Angeles crew (not always, but more often than not) really threw their weight around, and if there was a black on the crew, then he was there because his family had money. The only time tools were stolen from the stage was when an LA crew came through. The only time tempers flared on a set were mostly with crews out of LA.

 

I know that's not true of all Los Angeles personnel. Reading the posts here confirms that. But, it may also be that there's just a certain social structure in certain parts of the globe in the local media-industries that's just been there from the start. Example; how many Pakistani born crew members are able to work in Bollywood? Probably few to nil. Or, as many Japanese Americans or Black Americans direct movies down in Los Angeles.

 

Just my take. Hope I didn't offend anyone.

[Guest]

You two should go bowling.

 

Stephen doesn't bowl, he yodels, we can go yodeling together.

 

R,

[Jim Hyslop]

David, my purpose in that was more targetted at the acting portion of the spectrum. What I mean is, it is doubtful that a Christian(devout, that is) would play a role that includes numerous lines of dialog that say profane things about the God they worship. Such is not uncommon in movies nowadays. Just the same, I doubt you would find a Muslim willing to speak of Allah in vain.

I think it depends on how open-minded the actor is. Just because a character says something does not mean the actor, or the screenwriter who has created that character, agrees with what the character says. The difficulty, of course, is convincing The Masses that "the actor is not the same as the character" (which is why I hate ads that state "[big Name Actor] IS [character name]" - no, [big Name Actor] PORTRAYS [character name] - there is a huge difference). But that's another rant for another day :-)

 

I think other challenging situations would be a female Muslim actress who had to play a scene in which she showed her hair, or a Sikh actor who had to remove his turban. In those (admittedly hypothetical) situations, you might want to treat the scene as if it were a nude scene - closed set, minimal crew, etc.

 

--

Jim

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Paul, I have always respected you but it is surprising to me to hear you stereotype by implying that homosexuals are more dedicated or give more than anyone else.

 

Contrary to the "anti-gay" persona that some of you are developing of me, I actually have worked with gays, and by choice. My last film had a homosexual man play an anti-gay role, and he loved the opportunity to be challenged in this way. He was a fantastic actor IMHO and so I definitely wouldn't take anything away from him. However, the heteros on the set were no less dedicated or giving. Indeed, many homosexuals are creative people and many are more open-minded to the roles you have for them. Therefore, in flexibility, you might be correct. But in talent, work-ethic, etc. I would have to disagree.

 

I am sorry also that people on this forum believe that they are so skilled and hardworking as opposed to the many other people who try and fail. Stephen and Richard tend to think that they have what they have only because they worked hard for it, as though no one else ever worked as hard as them and failed. This attitude mainly bothers me because it doesn't take into account timing, those that may have helped you, etc. However, it is very common for white males to portray the "self-made man" idea which everyone knows is a crock. You are entitled to your opinion, however delusional it may be.