Discussion: Tom Cruise was right to be upset and to chastise crew members on his set but people are fundamentally misunderstanding how film sets work and what the social distancing rule was there for in this case. My viewpoint as someone who works in Film and TV.

This will probably be removed in favour of the next post from someone who saw Shawshank for the first time, but I had to get this off of my chest.I keep reading comments in these posts talking about how expendable these people are, and how they could be replaced by anyone at the drop of a hat and it's starting to really make me angry.I fully understand that Tom Cruise, in his role as a producer, was furious with one or more crew members who weren't socially distanced on his set, presumably at a point when filming itself was taking place. What people don't understand is that this distancing is a purely symbolic gesture, likely for insurers and others to see. I understand the need for this, particularly in such a big undertaking. But for the record, the only thing the insurers care about in this case, is the actors, without whom the whole production stops. Even that is understandable.What people seem to misunderstand fundamentally is how films are made.In this case, on a film of this scale there could easily be anything from 500-1500 people in this crew. Presuming that they are not all there at the same time, some are never there and that some are doing things like building sets (as I do) in other places while filming is taking place, I'm willing to conservatively estimate that there are 200+ people there, indoors at times, during the main filming of the actors (ie not second unit stuff).Each process, whether it be lighting, camera, make up, grip, acting etc inherently requires collaboration and close contact with your team mates. Lighting will involve holding and building screens and butterflies together, climbing large tripods that need to be held when you do so for safety, spending hours in a cherry picker with a team mate for safety (and by law in many cases) directing a light, holding said screens to deflect light half a meter away from an actor's face for close ups.Between takes, the camera will be adjusted, maybe fitted with a new lens or cleaned by a minimum of two people, then passed on to the grip or an assistant who will mount it for the cameraman or in many cases attach it to a gimble that the cameraman is wearing. That same person will then have to spot the cameraman as closely as possible so that he doesn't fall and seriously hurt himself. failing that a simple raising shot or small pan, often requires the grip to manually move the dolly again practically touching the cameraman. A stunt for a film like this will likely require a minimum of 5 cameras at times, but maybe as many as 12 or maybe more. So do the maths.These area few examples of any of the countless things that require people to be in contact with each other. Basically the only two people who don't have this problem are the director and continuity/script guy. Everything else is collaborative and doesn't happen without being in contact with at least the things that other people are touching. The only time for most film jobs when you're not in contact with other members of the crew is when you're not working.By the standards of a lot of actors and directors, Cruise's rant wasn't even that bad. What I want people to understand is that when you do all of the above things with your team, and probably even travel together in busses and minivans, it is highly possible to then neglect to stand a meter or two apart when the camera is actually rolling or during your lunch break without thought. In many cases you will be living together, cooking for each other in the evenings, drinking together etc, while away from home for weeks or months. The idea of Covid-safe film making is a nonsense.Now to what really annoyed me. People are saying those guys are totally replaceable with such glee. A lot of them are and a lot aren't. This is the problem. Our governments have provided in many cases, close to nothing for people like myself, who work freelance without choice in order to do this work that we love, work fucking hard at and pay our taxes so that we have no alternative but to take jobs when they come up regardless of whether it feels safe to do so. It's no different to delivery drivers or other 'frontline' work in that respect. Our unions won't let us drive big vehicles for long distances without breaks, will compensate late nights with late mornings, will ensure expensive over time because so much of film making is basically construction so safety is paramount. They have no real answer for this.If standing less than a meter apart from someone or even shaking their hand is a sackable offence, or represents a significant danger, then think about the other things that we have to do for work, 12+ hours a day and ask yourself whether it's fair to even be in that position or to have to make that choice. For me the choice is working or struggling to pay the rent, for others it's working or not paying their mortgage, feeding their families, feeding themselves. And the problem is that these people can be so easily replaced, by other people who have to risk their health in order to survive, for the benefit of a seventh Mission Impossible film. What's a 65 year old grip assistant or best boy going to do for work otherwise when building sites and trade shows aren't really hiring anyway. Saying 'you're so lucky to have work' is a crock of shit in this situation and I'm frankly sick of hearing it too.Rant over. via /r/movies https://ift.tt/37oTbSC