FS7: Brand film.

Im sorry to say its a bit of a hodge podge really :(

Id say india tomatoes is Slog3 not really delogged.

Cant tell what the other stuff is, and some stock?
 
Yes, hodge podge is about how I'd describe it. Some odd grading for sure. All the India stuff was FS7, all the UK stuff was Red Epic. Pretty obvious really:)
 
I feel like ungraded Slog is a "look" these days and I have to say that it's a look that I don't particularly like.
 
This is so wrong, the company in the video talks about climate change. While everyone knows the new TRUMP EPA rules: “Climate change” is in the “avoid” category, to be replaced by “weather extremes”. Instead of “climate change adaption”, say “resilience to weather extremes”. (According to the guardian). And no this not politics but science moderator :)
 
Last edited:
Beautifully shot Liam (although I agree with others re: the grade, that true black wouldn't be SUCH a bad thing ;-).

I must say (and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from without taking offence), that I'd have a hard time accepting a job like this for Syngenta. Of course it's a matter of opinion whether we can "make land more efficient" through chemical technologies, but the entire way their message is couched makes me gag. I can hardly believe the audacity of showing a bird, and even a bee, after the title "enabling wildlife to flourish alongside farming". Having followed the legal battle between a group of concerned scientists/environmentalists and Sygenta & Bayer's sale of neonicotinoids for several years now (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/sos-bees/blog/49092/ http://sos-bees.org/solutions/), it is clear to me that this is the last thing that Syngenta's technologies are managing to achieve!

I'm genuinely interested in the decisions you made when accepting to help create this sort of film. Could you explain a little?

Sorry to come across as such a stick-in-the-mud. I really hope you don't think I'm attacking you personally, but am genuinely interested in your thought process.

Cheers,

jason
 
jasonbrooks said:
Beautifully shot Liam (although I agree with others re: the grade, that true black wouldn't be SUCH a bad thing ;-).

I must say (and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from without taking offence), that I'd have a hard time accepting a job like this for Syngenta. Of course it's a matter of opinion whether we can "make land more efficient" through chemical technologies, but the entire way their message is couched makes me gag. I can hardly believe the audacity of showing a bird, and even a bee, after the title "enabling wildlife to flourish alongside farming". Having followed the legal battle between a group of concerned scientists/environmentalists and Sygenta & Bayer's sale of neonicotinoids for several years now (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/sos-bees/blog/49092/ http://sos-bees.org/solutions/), it is clear to me that this is the last thing that Syngenta's technologies are managing to achieve!

I'm genuinely interested in the decisions you made when accepting to help create this sort of film. Could you explain a little?

Sorry to come across as such a stick-in-the-mud. I really hope you don't think I'm attacking you personally, but am genuinely interested in your thought process.

Cheers,

jason
Click to expand...
Sorry Jason, I only just spotted this comment, I wasn't ignoring it.

I didn't write this, I didn't edit this. I neither endorse nor condone the message. The message is not mine. I have no horse in this race.

Quite simply, I'm a professional filmmaker. I get paid to make films, not to judge. It's my job. The phone rings, I go to the airport. That's pretty much it.

I know I'm a mercenary, but hey, I'm a member of Greenpeace too.
 
jasonbrooks said:
I must say (and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from without taking offence), that I'd have a hard time accepting a job like this for Syngenta.
jason
Click to expand...


Not me. I'm a hired gun. I'll shoot, as the joke goes, "anything but porn or legal depositions".

I once did a shoot for Greenpeace that made BP out to be evil and the very next day did a PR piece for BP that made them out to be conscientious stewards of the environment. I'm just a conduit. Besides, professional film and video is often lie-telling, so to speak. We make effort to make people look better than they actually look and when we shoot scenics of a place we pick out all the good-looking, most scenic locations. Short of true documentary work, rarely do we document the reality of a place. We are most often illusionists who craft and sell illusion. Even so-called "Reality TV" isn't reality. Ever found yourself moving a garbage bin out of a shot? As if life doesn't include garbage bins. But we move them out of shot in order to create our garbage-binless illusion.

btw, nice reel, Jason.
 
Last edited:
Everything everyone here has said contains some truth.

Generally, I agree with Jason. Bee colonies are collapsing around the world, frogs aren't faring too well either and there's Syngenta peddling what is pretty untrue to most serious observers of environmental affairs.

But who wants to cast the first stone? This discussion in regards to the above is hugely important and honestly it's unusual to find it here on a forum otherwise devoted to the technical not philosophical or political side of cameras and shooting.

So, most of us do work that isn't completely squeaky clean. A tourism video may bring needed visitors and much needed dollars to a small third world village but what about the impact on the community and place of the visitors and new buildings? Sometimes you can try to be part of the solution in participating in a questionable project and having some small voice and influence on how stories are presented (keeping them honest) and how your clients approach the project. Other times, when it's a matter of promoting Oxycontin, tobacco, etc you can only say no.

Jokingly, I suggest we set up a confessional booth like in the Catholic Church where we can cleanse ourselves of our participation in less-than-virtuous projects. It'd be strictly cross-faith, of course, with atheists welcome.
 
Lots of people work for corporations or attend schools even when they are not 100% in line with their own personal values (and it goes both ways on the social/political spectrum) This is a decision everyone has to make for themselves. I understand the argument/need to sometimes put your personal beliefs to the side in order to make a living. If you truly care and want to make an impact you can always donate or support a cause you believe in. For me, family usually comes first but not always.
 
Leaving out any specifics for the moment... not talking here directly about Liam's specific work posted above or the corporation and their legal battle that Jason mentions...

Let me just say I find this to be an important topic - and I scratch my head a bit with JP's & Liam's responses. "No horse in the race", "just a conduit" "sell illusion". I get & understand some of that. As the camera person / filmmaker, we're most often expected to make some person, thing or place look better than the reality of that person, thing or place. But if I personally decide that the only moral / ethical compass of a possible client is if they can pay my day rate - then where do you draw the line - and how doesn't that become a very slippery slope? And why not then pornography? Or marketing for the sex trade? Or blatantly fabricating & then marketing non-existent places with the many wonderful technologies at our disposal?
What if while filming on location for your client, you are the only person in sight to possibly help save someone from a burning building or walking into a crevice? You keep rolling with eye to viewfinder with no regard for that human life other than to capture it being extinguished?

Honestly not trying to sound preachy but I'm generally curious now...
 
Actually Mark, I draw the line at religious films, although I did once make a film in Kolkata about Mother Teresa, so I guess, I make those too.

Listen folks, this isn't difficult. Like JP, I'm a freelance. Companies ring us because they need a job done. I only work for top production companies. If the client is good enough for them, it's good enough for me. I might not like the client, but have to suck it up and get on with it. Sometimes that's really hard to do, but you have to see it through. It's called being professional.

I used to work in advertising and rock and roll. These days I work mainly for Governments, corporates and NGOs with a bit of broadcast here and there. I'm proud of the work I do. I've been doing it a long time and there's usually a queue of companies trying to book me. I have a reputation for being able to take on difficult jobs and deliver above expectations. I do this for clients all over the world. Often, I'm working in hostile environments; I've filmed in nine war zones, all the major slums in Asia, Africa and South America. I've filmed countless egomaniac rock and pop stars, politicians, stars of stage and screen. I've filmed workers on the shop floor, execs in the boardroom, drunks and drug addicts. I've made films that have changed how people think about AIDS in Thailand, and films that have showcased best practice in education and medicine. I've shot in disaster zones, including earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes. I've filmed a dying man's message to his unborn daughter and made films that have have won dickhead awards in Europe and America. I have been shot at (more than once) puked on, pissed on and spat at. I have always remained focussed on the job in hand, but not without compassion. Compassion is always foremost in my mind. To compare what I do to a pornographer is shamefull. To suggest I might 'fabricate' the truth or let someone die to get a shot is fu**ing insulting. You might not have the balls to walk in my shoes, frankly I don't f****ing care. And yes, you do sound preachy.
 
Last edited:
First of all - Liam - I did not compare you or your work to a pornographer. Nor did I suggest that you have or would fabricate the truth. And I was not preaching - I was truly asking - each of those sentences end with a "?". And they were hypothetical questions directed to any reader - not specifically at you. I did not aim to piss you off & apologize since I've obviously offended you.

Jason's original question intrigued me - as did the professional hired gun responses. My point that this can be a slippery slope for any freelancer was perhaps lost and this is probably best left to another generic thread - that doesn't have someone's work posted to it.
 
OK Mark, I accept you meant no ill feeling. Maybe next time don't quote my name in the same paragraph you describe a moral and ethical decline into pornography and beyond. No hard feelings. All good.

Going back to Jason's original question, I'd like to know how he balances claiming the moral high ground with working for the Saudi regime?
 
What I learned pretty early is that choosing ones clients is a privilege of the rich.

I'm looking forward to having enough wonga to be able to work for worthy causes for some months of the year.

Yep I'd steer clear of true badduns but that's it.
 
Good deal Liam & so true Sam. Here in the states, as I assume it is in all industrialized countries, I personally feel it gets ever harder to frankly even understand - especially in the moment of being hired - who the "true badduns are" (at least sometimes). With so many global corporate divisions, splits & mergers, etc, I find it hard to navigate & keep up with what can feel like accountants games. I assume that all of us have come to this profession because the stories we help tell can help support good / worthy causes and in turn make our communities better places. But in my career, I know I've done good, professional work for folks I no longer respect or trust. Certainly is one of many hazards of the job.
 
I sensed this was shaping up as a great discussion. it's reassuring we all feel more or less the same way and apply ethical standards to our work. How to pick your course through a minefield of projects and clients?

Sure, there are the obvious badduns. Then there are the sneaky ones. How many of you have had that ironic experience of working on a 'good works' project run by difficult small-minded people - or working with great generous people you respect on a mind-numbing or ethically questionable project?

So many ways to look at this. One is the legal principle of everyone (clients) deserving the best representation (producer/shooter) they can get. Another is you atone for each lousy job or client by doing a freebie or discounted job for a charity or good cause.

The Twentytwenty video is great, Liam, great story, great filmmaking. Using your production skills is an awesome way to contribute to something you believe in.

My tip to this community: any time you get an email from something you'd really like to support, instead of making a cash donation reply with an offer to do some filming.

Mick
 
Afterglow said:
My tip to this community: any time you get an email from something you'd really like to support, instead of making a cash donation reply with an offer to do some filming.
Mick
Click to expand...

Exactly, and remember cash donations are not always tax deductible (depending on the organization you are giving to) while you never get taxed on donating your time (your time in pre-tax). So it's better to make $500 less and donate your time to organization "A" than to make $500 from organization "B" and donate $500 to organization "A" (that isn't necessarily a 501c3)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top