Notes to the crew, from Fincher

[OmahaAudio]

 

"But Fincher raises a good point: the blu-ray is forever....

Only until A: it starts to delaminate (and all current optical disks will eventually delaminate) or B: the last Blu-Ray player dies and there's nothing that will read his precious "forever" Blu-Ray disks.

[RPSharman]

Olle,

Crew labor and overtime costs far less than longer schedules. It's why we see longer days, shorter schedules, and additional units. Remember, it's only the "working crew" which costs more. The office crew, accountants, editorial members who are on payroll during production, art department and set decorators, etc., are all less expensive when schedules are shorter. The rental of trailers, trucks, camera/lighting/sound, stages, locations, etc., far exceed overtime costs.

I know Europeans are starting to see longer days and more "American" schedules.

Our unions have abandoned working conditions in lieu of health care and rate stabilization. Many contracts allow 14 hours of time on set before double time. Night premiums went away long ago, so longs days during the week lead to late calls on Fridays. Forced calls (violating minimum rest time) were negotiated to be so cheap that they are now commonplace, in hair/make-up especially.

Long hours are "fine" for legal associates and businessmen and other professions who work hard to earn the kind of living we do. But typically they work inside, during the day, with consistent schedules and usually shorter or reasonable commutes. And they're not hanging heavy lights over people while suffering from sleep deprivation.

Brandon Lee was killed many years ago because long hours and fatigue led to a critical error. Things have only gotten worse, and I'm amazed that our health and safety are of so little concern to the higher ups.

As far as Fincher in concerned... He may be a crazy asshole. Many artists are. It's the responsibility of those in charge of him to do their job and keep their employees safe.

Robert

[old school]

  However, I do understand that some of the best directors in history, are a$$holes in which the crew hate.

While this may or may not be true, I've worked with many directors who loved their crews and were loved back by them. Together they made many fine movies. We all work for the director. That includes cast and crew. Personally I can't condone bad or dangerous people in the name of so called "art".

CrewC

[Olle Sjostrom]

Wow Robert. That is sad. 

 

Yes we are seeing that in Sweden too. Recently did a TV show with 18 hour days. We were well compensated for it though, but still... At least no one was being an asshole, claiming everyone should just be happy and NOT TIRED. Even the producer and executive producer said it was a bad idea. 

 

I don't see a fictional shoot go more than 3 hours of overtime (total of 12) over here. A commercial project will definitely go beyond 15, but everyone from PA to DOP will charge overtime after 9 hours. 

 

In general though, work ethics and the right circumstances for a job well done have diminished dramatically in Sweden. We have a right wing government who are hell bent on doing a Mao thing with the jobs; they dismantled the unions, making the employers able to set their own rules for employment. So it's AOK to behave like an asshole to people if you're giving them jobs cus "They should be thankful they even have a job". Insane. 

 

The fact that Fincher made commercials (and still do?) might be why he's behaving like he is doing ("You're all tools"). He sees the product that needs to be shown from its best side, and that gives him that "fury" on set methinks. We had a director like that in Sweden who never gets any jobs any more because of that behavior ;P

[RPSharman]

There is no good excuse for bad behavior, except perhaps a mental illness making you unable to have empathy - Narcissist, Sociopath, Psychopath.

 

I still feel that it's hard for those people to recognize their problem if they continue to be rewarded for the behavior.  If crews refused to work for those directors, if producers refused to hire them, if bond companies refused to insure them, etc., then perhaps it would open the door for more directors who produce good work AND respect their colleagues.

 

Robert

[Olle Sjostrom]

There is no good excuse for bad behavior, except perhaps a mental illness making you unable to have empathy - Narcissist, Sociopath, Psychopath.

 

I still feel that it's hard for those people to recognize their problem if they continue to be rewarded for the behavior.  If crews refused to work for those directors, if producers refused to hire them, if bond companies refused to insure them, etc., then perhaps it would open the door for more directors who produce good work AND respect their colleagues.

 

Robert

Yes. 

 

This is the way it works in Sweden (seems to, at least). But I guess that's because we're such a small country. Everyone knows everyone in the business kinda, so you have to be nice

[John Coffey]

This exemplifies why I wanted off the sets after working them for a short time. First, I can't stand the caste system. Second, I hate that the art is treated more importantly than having a real life with our families. Third, every so often an major asshole director comes along and makes for a miserable set experience. 

 

I had a family that worked in the business for three generations and it was like the coal mines, you hoped your kids didn't have to work them, but they were there if nothing else panned out. Naturally, I thought my dad and grandfather were being silly and the film business was a blast. So I didn't do anything with my college degree and gleefully worked on films.

 

It is a great business, but the inhumane hours are absolutely ridiculous. After about age 25, I saw their point and my goal in life transformed to finding another way to make a good living off the sets....which took about 30 more years.

[BondAudio]

If you can't get what you need ( want ) in a 12 hour day, then YOU are NOT doing your job as a 1st AD (and director). 

To tell the crew to suck it up and keep going is not a good recipe.

They have a huge budget, just shoot for an extra week. 

Don't tell me there's no money - think of the overtime payments in the current model

[Constantin]

If you can't get what you need ( want ) in a 12 hour day, then YOU are NOT doing your job as a 1st AD (and director).

I think you're right about 1st AD, but not so much director. His primary concern should be the artstic element (if any) of the production. It's not his job to think about money or time. It's his job to deliver a great movie with great performances. He needs a competent AD and production team at his side who will need to worry about the schedule.

In my mind, overtime is their fault

[S Harber]

That so many people so readily accept this blog that readily omits quotes and paraphrases as something to substantiate demonizing a director who only 1 person who has posted here has worked with says a lot about the mental state of the nation these days.

Many folks I know like working for Fincher and the types who have clarity, respect good work, and don't suffer fools. And yes, there's a lot of fools doing what we do. Fincher's quotes aren't nearly as offensive as a lot of the false bravado and posturing I read on posts here at JW on a regular basis.

 

No surprise to anyone, the days can be long. It has always been that way. Network TV shows run up to 14 hrs but generally hover around 12's here in the US. Commercials and usually the last day of a pilot seem the most egregious for length of day but that's more or less part time/short run work. Features vary widely but the lower budgeted in general seem to be the worst in length of day as there isn't a fulcrum of costing much more when days get longer.

Honestly, nothing will shorten the shooting until it costs the productions more money via wages or insurance costs. That's the language the Viacoms and Universals of the world speak.

 

I'd suggest banking or real estate if you want nice hours but then if you get very good at any career you will see that the days more often than not run toward the 12+ hour mark.

 

Scott

[studiomprd]

s.harber: " only 1 person who has posted here has worked with "

and he has worked with Mr. Fincher several many times.

(I'm referring to a movie mixer who has posted here, though not in this thread; there are also a couple commercial mixers on here who have worked (more than once) with him

Edited February 18, 2014 by studiomprd

[afewmoreyears]

Make that 2 people.....  Crew and I swim in the same "pond"..

 

  I have worked with him many many times over the years.... I did his (I THINK ... one of--I can't remember) first directorial gigs)... and many others over the years.... Videos and some commercials.. It's been a while since I've worked with him.... I can't imaging things changing... 

 

  I have never had him come after me, but I have seen many "situations" before where he was quite boisterous towards others...  

 

 I would chalk it up to:  a  lack of self control at times mixed with total excitement... tainted with stress....  When the cameras stop rolling, and all is calm, he has been nice and polite....  Sometimes not so....  I would imagine he has a great deal on his mind, and a great deal of pressure.... like any director.. Should he be nicer to everyone... ? Probably... But I get it....

 

He responds well to strong personalities... That do a good job without difficulties.... and respects that... If you are weak so to speak....and foul things up.. he sniffs that out...  Foul up your job, and watch out...

 

I actually barked at him once....  he seemed surprised, and never gave me a look of anger or disrespect since... Some folks are like that...

 

  I learned to stay out of the way, do my job well and...... stay out of the way  LOL.....  It worked for me......   

[S Harber]

I'm not here defending Fincher as much as saying that a lot of folks seem to want to jump on the bandwagon of demonization and blaming him for many of the things that are wrong with our industry.

There are much worse examples as well as better. There just seems to be a lot of misplaced anger about things beyond our direct control and a general frustration with how things are done. I hate that game and find it fosters resentment and bad feelings.

Welcome to the working world. Best of luck out there.

[David Waelder]

I have been watching Black Sails, a new STARZ show about pirates in the early 18^th century. The show has a deliciously clever premise: it’s the prequel to Robert Lewis Stephenson’s Treasure Island. The show is centered in the pirate enclave that developed in Nassau around 1720 (glory years for buccaneers). It purports to tell the saga of how John Silver came to be part of Captain Flint’s crew. Many historical figures, like Anne Bonny, are intermixed with the fictional characters.

 

It’s a guilty pleasure. There is much joyful mayhem and wenching but the dialog often sounds post-Freudian and requires more than the usual suspension of disbelief.

 

In a recent episode, Captain Flint must entice his crew to careen their vessel to scrape the bottom. The process involves beaching the ship at high tide and lashing the hull at an angle to give access to the bottom. Scraping off the barnacles that adhere to the vessel would enhance speed and give the pirates an advantage in a chase. It’s every bit as messy, dangerous and arduous a job as it sounds. Flint and his bos’n, Billy Bones, spend some time discussing the amenities they will need to keep the crew committed to the project. They must procure a whole pig for a beach feast and also secure, well, entertainment. Throughout the episodes, all the various captains and their backers seem to give considerable attention to the need to keep the crews engaged lest they drift off and make alliances with other pirate captains.

 

I’ve never worked with David Fincher and, so far as I know, don’t know anyone who has, so I don’t want to address his behavior in particular. Mr. Fincher may be completely undeserving of the critical attention he has been receiving here. Good directors can often be difficult and we tend to give them some slack because they bring the creative energy and vision that makes the project soar (or not).

 

But, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable expectation that a film director might give as much consideration to the well being of the crew as an 18^th century pirate. I don't buy the argument that the director should get a pass because the AD or someone else is really responsible for hours and working conditions.

 

Fifteen men on Dead Man’s Chest

Drink and the Devil have done for the rest.

 

David

Edited February 21, 2014 by David Waelder

[Jeff Wexler]

I was waiting to chime in here so I guess now is as good a time as any. I worked with David Fincher on "Fight Club" and for all 100 days of shooting I never had a problem with David nor did I feel he was abusive to the crew. He even announced early on that he had negotiated with the Studio for more shooting days so as to insure that we would not be working crushingly long hours. We did not have long hours on that movie. David was/is a totally hands on director, completely in touch with everything that happens on the set (and, I would say, very knowledgeable of everybody's craft) --- if your slacking off, he will know it and you'll hear about it.

 

I can't speak for how David may or may not have behaved on movies after "Fight Club" but during that production I had a great deal of respect for him as a director and was never aware of any of the sorts of things put forth in the article under discussion here.

[Philip Perkins]

I'm not sure I've ever worked for a director who cared if I was tired.  They might be kind of sorry about it somewhere in the back of their mind, but working long hours and working while tired is kind of part of the package in this end of the biz, or at least it has been for me.

 

philp

[Marc Wielage]

I'm not sure I've ever worked for a director who cared if I was tired.  They might be kind of sorry about it somewhere in the back of their mind, but working long hours and working while tired is kind of part of the package in this end of the biz, or at least it has been for me.

 

Same here. But I operate from the Super Chicken philosophy:

 

[Christian Spaeth]

Good read, this! Goes with my general impression that tastes vary! One gets along with a director the other one hates. It's like in real life, it all comes down to your/their personality. Nobody gets along with the same people as everybody else. There are the very few exceptions where everybody hates a director, but I think those are very rare, in my experience even the biggest d-bag has a few fans on any given crew. I am sometimes surprised when some crew members (regulars on a TV series) tell me about the last director they worked with and how terrible it was, all rushed and stressy, and then others say how great it was because they actually got sh*t done.

To me getting along with the director on a personal basis is a great bonus. I can do my work well enough without that, but if there's a common ground (i.e. you "get" each other) then I just love going to work every day that bit more. Can't help it.

[Henchman]

60 takes means you don't really know what you want, and how to get it.

I wondered why a great movie like the original Dragon Tattoo cost only I think $12 million to make.

But the Fincher version cost $120 million.

Also, I think most of his movies get undersrebevd critical acclaim.

Social network comes to mind. Still don't understand why prowl thought tags was such an amazing movie.

[Henchman]

I found black sails to be unwatchable.

[macrecorder]

I think you're kind of aiming at the wrong guy here. The pompous pratt who wrote this is the one who deserves your contempt. Listen to him take some quotes from Empire (for Chrissake), and then feels like it is his duty to interpret the great leader's words for us, as if they are tablets in stone, handed down to him, who uniquely amongst us all, is qualified to relate the great man's thoughts. Fincher says some things regarding his work, which may be casual chat, and betray a kind of perfectionism, hardly unknown in directors. But Evan Luzi feels compelled to write screeds of pompous elaboration of this interview, telling us he gets Fincher, unlike the rest of the us unworthy grease monkeys, and thus it is his solemn duty to tell us all how we must behave on set.

 

Apparently we just don't get what is required to make great art, and none of us have ever realised that we were there to 'serve the performance'. Well blow me down with a feather, if only someone could have come up with this profound thought before Evan, the quality of films would be much higher. For sure.

 

This is a guy who reminds you he is 'available for hire' at the bottom of the page. Sure looks like he trying desperately hard to impress. Apparently he will work any amount of hours, because he gets the sacrifice necessary to make a blu ray. Really. Personally i would be wary of someone who is so keen to further his career that he feels it necessary to patronise every other crew member, whilst sucking up to a director with levels of sycophancy that would shame an acolyte.

 

Personally, I don't think it tells you anything about David Fincher. I would rather read first hand accounts like those contributed already. He's made some good films, and a load of clunkers. He's not a genius, and i don't hang on every word he says, or take Empire interviews that seriously. Unlike Evan Luzi.

[Evan Luzi]

Hey all – Evan Luzi here. Didn't realize this post was stirring up such a discussion until last week when a sound mixer on set mentioned he had come across this here. Thought I'd stop by and respond to some of the criticisms and hopefully clarify things.

 

So, here we go...

 

What an "A"hole---the writer of the article and the director----understand that the director may have a year off before his next project but the crew members have to go to the next job as soon as possible because they don't make the "big" money----please

 

                                                                   J.D.

 

Yes. I do understand that. I am part of that cycle. I recently wrote about Haskell Wexler's documentary Who Needs Sleep? which covers crew getting enough rest as a major safety issue on sets. I am totally onboard with Haskell's viewpoint here. I even iterate this in the House of Cards article when I wrote: "That said, keeping a crew long past 12 hours consistently is inexcusable and shows a lack of discipline and planning. There are proven safety and health risks involved with over-working and I do not condone testing those limits."

 

Even 12 on 12 off, Haskell's movement to push for 12 hour days, acknowledges that occasional days that extend beyond 12-hours are unavoidable and sometimes necessary. A lot of what I wrote about was from this perspective.

 

 
Re-read number 3, titled:

"3. Fincher Doesn’t Care that You’re Tired"

followed by:

"They asked if Fincher cared. He didn’t."

followed by:

"But Fincher raises a good point: the blu-ray is forever. Maybe you don’t care that there’s more coverage needed, but he has to go into the edit bay and squeeze out a scene that’s OK for people to watch over and over again.

So, which is a higher priority for the director: you getting sleep or the perpetuity of his art?

Yeah, you’re on the wrong end of that one."

 

I do apologize that this made Fincher come across as an asshole. I think he was making a more nuanced point than I managed to convey. In the interview he says he "can't care" that crew want to go home. To me, that means he cares, but has a duty greater to the project to keep pushing forward. I changed the wording in the article to reflect this.

 

I also changed "Fincher raises a good point" to "Fincher raises a point" because, upon further reflection, I am not sure if the point is good or not, but it is still valid. Blu-ray is forever (or at least the sentiment that the movie/tv show is forever) is true whether or not you are of the opinion that that should take priority over all else.

 

Finally, I changed the last line from "Yeah you're on the wrong end of that one" to "Sometimes you're on the wrong end of that one" because, well, sometimes you are, though I don't want to assume all directors think that way as was implied in the previous version.

 

So, I am sorry about my choice of words in this section. I should've edited more carefully to not paint Fincher in such a black/white light.

 

Totally agree with JB on this one. It also seems that the writer is insinuating that this is the only way good films are made, so if you don't like it you might as well expect to work on crap films for the set of your career. As Chris pointed out, that is definitely not the case. There are plenty of directors making amazing films, and shows without acting like dbags throughout the process. Same goes for DP's, and for sound mixers for that matter. There are talented ass holes and talented laid back, chill men and women. Being an inconsiderate prick is not inherent to the job. It's how you choose to do it.

 

Hm, I didn't mean to insinuate this and I don't believe I did. I mean the title of the article specifically mentions House of Cards and David Fincher. In the intro I wrote, "Fincher drops hints here and there about what it’s like to work with him." And throughout the article are use of qualifiers like "sometimes."

 

Also, the end of the article I wrote, "Not every director is going to be like David Fincher. In fact, most won’t. They won’t have the same work ethic, the same attitudes, nor the same experiences that have led to what Fincher believes is the right way to run a set."

 

But still, point taken and I completely agree that there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of different ways that productions are outputting excellent films and shows. I'm sorry if the picture I painted was too broad.

 

I have a lot of friends that work on HOC, I would be very careful thinking that simply by reading a bloggers cherry picked quotes from a second year old online article to support the bloggers already stated opinion ( sound like anyone we know here? ), that you understand the way this set runs.  DF is not the director on HOC, he did the pilot and the 2nd EP on season 1 only.  I have heard only pretty kind things about how things run on that set, given the normal level of set pressures that working on series TV always brings, it sounds like a nice place to spend time. Cheers to Lorenzo Millan and his crew who are doing some great work on this show. 

 

I am not sure what my already stated opinion was here? What I was trying to do was provide context for what Fincher was saying. While it is true I "cherry picked" quotes, that's only because I didn't want to publish the entire article in full. I think the quotes I chose, and the parts I chose, operate with the same meaning in my article as they did in the full interview.

 

I think you're kind of aiming at the wrong guy here. The pompous pratt who wrote this is the one who deserves your contempt. Listen to him take some quotes from Empire (for Chrissake), and then feels like it is his duty to interpret the great leader's words for us, as if they are tablets in stone, handed down to him, who uniquely amongst us all, is qualified to relate the great man's thoughts. Fincher says some things regarding his work, which may be casual chat, and betray a kind of perfectionism, hardly unknown in directors. But Evan Luzi feels compelled to write screeds of pompous elaboration of this interview, telling us he gets Fincher, unlike the rest of the us unworthy grease monkeys, and thus it is his solemn duty to tell us all how we must behave on set.

 

Apparently we just don't get what is required to make great art, and none of us have ever realised that we were there to 'serve the performance'. Well blow me down with a feather, if only someone could have come up with this profound thought before Evan, the quality of films would be much higher. For sure.

 

This is a guy who reminds you he is 'available for hire' at the bottom of the page. Sure looks like he trying desperately hard to impress. Apparently he will work any amount of hours, because he gets the sacrifice necessary to make a blu ray. Really. Personally i would be wary of someone who is so keen to further his career that he feels it necessary to patronise every other crew member, whilst sucking up to a director with levels of sycophancy that would shame an acolyte.

 

Personally, I don't think it tells you anything about David Fincher. I would rather read first hand accounts like those contributed already. He's made some good films, and a load of clunkers. He's not a genius, and i don't hang on every word he says, or take Empire interviews that seriously. Unlike Evan Luzi.

 

Hah. OK. Where to start here...

 

In no way do I believe it is my "duty to interpret the great leader's words" nor do I believe they are "tablets in stone" nor do I feel that I am "uniquely" qualified to relate these thoughts. Rather, I have a platform that is read by crew who may be interested in this interview and want some context provided alongside it.

 

I also do not feel like my audience, or anyone reading, are "unworthy grease monkeys." I fail to find any moment of that article that would imply such distaste or arrogance over my readership who I respect greatly and often feel are more educated than myself.

 

And while I do take some time to relay how I think crew should behave on set, it's because people read my website because they want to learn about filmmaking or crewing or production. I, however, never make any promises about it being the "only" way or the "best" way, but simply what I think to be the right way. I encourage readers to disagree with me when they see fit. It helps me learn, too.

 

And yeah, so I have one little line on my site that says I'm "available for hire." How is that different from people who promote their work or websites in the signatures of this forum? Or at the bottom of an email? Or in their Facebook profiles? Or on Production Hub? It's a little line that's not intrusive and helps me to leverage a website I spend a good amount of time working on to get a job or two. I don't see how trying to hustle for work is something to be taken in the wrong way in an industry that is notoriously ruthless when it comes to finding work.

 

Anyway, it all comes down to the fact that I think you think I'm better than everyone. And I don't. I don't see the same level of condescending tone that you apparently took from the article that merits insulting me and holding me in contempt.

 

--

 

Phew, with all that said, thanks for checking out the article.

[studiomprd]

thanks for posting another perspective; I tried to indicate that there were folks who have had ongoing excellent working relationships with Mr. Fincher.

[Marc Wielage]

I have two minds on Mr. Fincher:

 

1) I know people who have worked with him in post who say he's a good solid guy, very technically aware, demanding to a point, but also respectful and appreciative

 

2) there's a great moment in the "Making of Social Network" documentary on the DVD where Fincher goes off on a boom op for daring to get a boom shadow in the frame, and he really goes nuts at the guy. I'm wondering, "gee, this is about a $50 fix as a visual effects shot, and the movie had about 500 VFX shots in it. Is this really worth having a temper tantrum over?"

 

So I dunno.

[studiomprd]

Marc: " Fincher goes off on a boom op for daring to get a boom shadow in the frame, "

didn't I read that Mr. Fincher once tell sound it would be OK to be in a shot, and he would remove it in post  ?