It seems like, on any given day, a person can flip open a trade magazine and read all about what producers should expect from their free-lance video crews. I think that’s well and good for many of the new producer/directors, and those articles may help them choose competent teams. However, this article deals with the flip side of the issue --namely, what experienced freelancers expect from their (often novice) employers.
The following is an article I wrote a decade ago about the plight of working freelance for various industrial video, and magazine television producers. Although some of the technology has changed over the years, business practices generally have remained the same. Enjoy.
Video has brought with it many changes in the realm of corporate and commercial filmmaking. Not only are there the obvious differences between motion picture cameras and their electronic counterparts, but the new technology has ushered in alternative ways of thinking.
In the old days of Spectra light meters and changing bags, it was difficult for a person to advance to the rank of producer/director. Unless it was a family-owned business, the aspiring applicant had to demonstrate a solid background in the medium. Resumes boasted of experience: behind cameras; over flatbed editing consoles; pounding out page after page of scripts, and even of years spent chasing after what seemed like the all-important graduate degrees. People worked up the ranks. And those with the right blend of experience, creative flair, corporate conservatism and dynamic leadership eventually were rewarded with the directorial reins.
Today’s corporate way of thinking is different, though. People are being dubbed producer/director on the basis of good company politics, fine intentions and a pleasant personality. They surface, it seems, from every department except film/video production. It is unbelievable how many of this new directorial cadre know hardly anything about our industry! I don’t know where they all come from, or who approves their hiring, but it is frightening.
Similarly, there once existed a time when freelance crews were selected on the basis of proven ability. Production companies looked for impressive credits on resumes, flashy demo reels and a good reputation. If the people were competent, it was taken for granted that their equipment would be up to the task.
Somewhere down the line, corporate and cable video has changed all of that. Now, in the producer’s eyes, the most important factor in hiring a video crew is the equipment. But since the new people in charge hardly understand anything about technology, they make a decision based on the video camera the prospective cameraman owns.
If the cameraperson possesses the one brand that the producer has heard of, he or she is considered eligible for employment. If he owns a different type, even one of comparable or superior quality, that cameraman has one strike against him. Critically important working tools such as a good lighting and grip package seldom enter into the initial conversation. Unlike his film counterpart, the question of this individual’s ability and experience only arises after the equipment category has been dealt with. The human being is considered merely an accessory that comes with the camera.
The plight of the production sound mixer is even worse. He or she has been ignominiously named the “video tech,” and his/her sole responsibility is thought to be “to keep the cameraman out of trouble and to run the VTR.” In his “spare time,’ he may be called upon to put a lavalier or radio mike on someone in order to record sound. (Of course, the soundtrack is always expected to be perfect, since sound editing is complex and costly in video.)
In terms of sound recording equipment, the only “important” consideration in hiring is that the soundman have radio microphones. Other things, such as a mixing panel and a nice selection of microphones, don’t seem to matter. Like the cameraman, the soundman is something that comes along with the camera package.
As for the rest of the crew members--camera assistant, boom man, gaffer and grip - they only exist after forceful negotiation by the cameraman and re-submission/approval of the original budget. Somehow, companies are under the delusion that two people can accomplish what normally takes a film crew of at least four or five.
There is a consensus that, because television news is video and because news teams are only two people -- two are all you need for quality production. Of course, they expect better lighting than that of news, and the sound should be feature quality. Yet, only two bodies are supposed to accomplish this great feat.
But once the crew has suffered the humiliation of realizing that the primary reason for their hiring was not their Emmy nominations, but rather the fact that the cameraman happened to own the right camera, the real fun starts. In addition to doing our jobs, it all too often becomes our responsibility -- out of dire necessity -- to turn the production set into a classroom.