ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years, 7 months ago - Jendra Jarnagin

Semantics are important when people are skimming listings: You are not "Recruiting Crew" you are looking for collaborators. Someone interested in the arrangement you describe isn't going to read the heading "Recruiting Crew" and crew who are looking to be recruited are not going to be interested in a listing with such a vague description or vague division of labor.

11 years, 7 months ago - Dan Keating

I appreciate the feedback - I'm still taking it in. I envisage that these things scale with the production. Two people will never make Jurassic Park no matter how many hours you give them. But for a short?

This Chris Jones blog post is a good example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.chrisjonesblog.com/2012/05/top-ten-microbudget-tips-with-a-crew-of-2-and-budget-of-500-what-can-be-achieved-jaw-dropping-work.html

Point 2 makes for a nice illustration.

11 years, 6 months ago - Vanessa Bailey

Hi Dan! Paddy's absolutely right - film crew tend to have very specialised areas of expertise, though some may double up (for example the DOP on my short film also did the lighting, but that was because he's an expert in both, not because I asked him to multi-task). I think Chris's blog is more about keeping your crew down to the bare bones, rather than asking the director to also do the sound and he soundie to do the lights. If you're working on a tight budget/schedule (and Dan mentions this point) you need people who are efficient and expert, not Jacks of all trades. If you find a good director it's moe than likely he'll know people who will be willing to collaborate with him. Crew will be attracted by a good script and a strong director with vision and expertise and (as Nick suggests) a Producer who's getting stuff happening (ie getting finance in for expenses, food etc...), that's generally your starting point. My crew came firstly through connection with myself or the director and then through interest in the film's Twitter feed and then my sound guy through Mandy.com. Hope this helps! Good luck with the project :D

11 years, 6 months ago - Sarah Chorley

Hi everyone,

Great responses, and we totally agree at SP - members look for roles on our site by using filters and selecting their particular areas of expertise, so the more specific you can be (on both sides), the better response you should get. We think it's important for filmmakers to be recognised for their specific talents too.

That said, if anyone has specific feedback on the way Production, and casting & Crewing works on the site, please send over to help@shootingpeople.org so we can add to our ongoing improvement plans.

Pleased to hear that you've had such a good experience of Casting, Dan - that's an area we've really focussed on developing recently, so glad it's doing the trick.

Best,
Sarah
SP

11 years, 7 months ago - Dan Keating

To clarify - this isn't a recruitment thread. It's a discussion about the mechanics & limitations of using the SP site. Hence posting it under 'SP suggestions'. Apologies if it came across as something else.

11 years, 7 months ago - Jendra Jarnagin

I know what you are saying, but what I am saying is still relevant. I meant it in the broad sense, not the "criticizing this thread" sense. I'm trying to be helpful in answering your original question by saying: it's all about the way you portray it, and targeting the right kinds of people that you are looking for.

11 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Part of your issue as Nick above suggests may be the idea of seeking lots of generalists in an industry with many specialisms!

The way shoots generally work is to have people taking responsibility for certain areas. There's nothing worse than 'I thought you were doing that bit' - it wastes time. Or generalists who all want to do the fun bits but not the crappy bits, or have different abilities. Every shoot I've been on has had time pressures - it just takes time. That means someone has to crack the whip and be sure everything is covered, and everyone knows what they're doing.

Slightly off-topic, but I work a lot on HUGE events too, and we structure the personnel with massive redundancy. We have sparks and spare sparks, we have plumbers who'll do nothing almost the whole time until that moment when we need one *right now*, we have carpenters or metalworkers on standby to fix up scenic elements if needed the moment they're needed. There isn't time to find someone local in the yellow pages if your costs are measured in the tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds a day!

This is why people tend to work in very specific silos - a soundie won't carry boxes, a spark won't rig at height etc. It means there is always exactly one person (or one team leader) who has expertise and responsibility over an area, only one way a finger can point, one person dedicated to get things sorted and report back to the PM/1AD. It seems really inefficient until that first time things go wrong, then you see why it's usually done that way. You don't have people faffing with things they don't understand and you don't get three conflicting ideas on how to solve an issue.

11 years, 6 months ago - Dan Selakovich

This has come up a lot over the years on SP. Recently I took a job post to task wanting an editor who was also a colorist. Two completely different skills, but because they came in the same box from Apple...

As usual, I agree with Paddy. But you also have to think about the size of your production. If you have a 3 ton lighting package, you need a gaffer, best boy, a few grips and electricians. If your lighting package fits in a van, a gaffer and a single grip may be all that you need. And there's no reason that a P.A. can't help move a sandbag. But asking a gaffer to also be a grip, a dolly grip, a genny operator, etc. is way out of line and asking for trouble. There are also 2 on set positions that are constant work: 1st AD and script supervisor. Asking either of these to double up in madness.

On my last short, every position was filled by one person with the exception of the DP who was also the camera operator. So still a small crew, but enough people to keep the days short and get the job done efficiently.

A friend of mine calls himself a DP and Editor. He's a lousy editor. There are a lot of us that have been around for awhile that know a lot of shit. But we specialize in one thing. Maybe two. But just because I know tons about production and post doesn't mean I'd be a good producer. The idea of a bunch of collaborators with multiple jobs is a myth, just like the idea of an Auteur.

I don't like the word "collaborator" in job posts. That word in this industry covers a whole manner of sins. "I need a collaborator in the editing room" means "I need someone to operate the machinery while I point and say 'cut there'." You don't need a collaborator, you need an editor.

11 years, 7 months ago - Nick Goundry

Hi Dan. Perhaps the approach is the problem. I'm a writer with little filmmaking experience but I have a lot of writing experience and I'm working on several short scripts that have gotten good feedback from industry readers.

I'm interested in meeting producers (and others with more production experience than myself) to talk about general collaborations on work that would most likely be low-budget and, to a degree at least, self-funded. To my awareness, Shooters in the Pub is the only way to really do this more generalised networking through SP.

But then, perhaps this is actually the wrong approach. It's probably more pragmatic to pick a project and then decide what production roles you need to fill. You say you "don't need specifics", but actually if you plan under the assumption that you WILL (and why not?), then that will make it easier to make use of SP's resources.

It sounds like you need a producer as a start point.

11 years, 6 months ago - Dan Keating

Good honest feedback from the community. I'm picking up a vibe here and feel like there's some gentle correction going on.

Let's see if I'm wise enough to take it on board.

Thanks