ringsider

I need some expert help please. During a very drunken debate last night I was asked by some non-film fans why films insist on listing all the people who have contributed their expertise to the making of the film. We managed to agree that knowing the name of the director is important, but I was unable to muster a single argument to support the listing of the hairdresser, the costumier and all the other head cooks and bottle washers. Do we ned to know the name of the Producer?

As one of my inquisitors said, no other activity feels the need to give visual credit to everyone who contributes to that activity. He cited a current example, the Lords Test Match, and suggested that one of THE key men is the groundsman, and while the experts probably know his name and credentials, less than 5% of the crowd and less than 1% of the tv audience would know him. And the cricket is none the worse for not knowing.

Any suggestions for a counter argument?


Regards - Bernie

Steve Crook

Similar to at a cricket match where 95-99% of those watching won't know or care about the name of the groundsman, 95-99% of the people watching films won't know or care who did all the little jobs that make the film possible. They don't bother to read credits.

But films, or TV shows, are much more of a collaborative art than a cricket match. In the cricket match, if the groundsman does a terrible job then it shows. But if most of the other people do a bad job, those that sell the tickets, those that stock and man the bar, do a bad job, it doesn't affect the match. A film can be spoiled by just one of the many people involved doing a bad job.

The hair and make-up, the costumes, the lighting, the sound, the cinematography and many other things. If any one of these is done badly then it shows. And they are often done by teams of people rather than just one individual.

It probably helps to know what all the arcane terms in credits mean.
What is a "best boy" and why are they sometimes female?
What is a "gaffer" or a "rigger" or a "foley artist"
See the IMDb glossary for any you don't know.

Your cricket groundsman will probably work at one cricket ground for much of his career. Most people working in films and TV are effectively self-employed and are hired for just one production. So reputation matters a lot more. And they get a reputation by getting on-screen credits. The people that make decisions as to who to hire pay close attention to on-screen credits. They always have. And now they can check on someone's past history with services like the IMDb. If they want a good hairdresser they might remember a film where they liked the way the hair was done so they can look up the credits of that film and see who did that and what other films they've worked on. If they spot that the person worked on another film where they didn't like the hair then they might decide not to hire them after all.

That's why a lot of people try to get some of their credits removed from the IMDb. The ones where they know that they didn't do a very good job or where it's a film they'd rather not be associated with. But the IMDb is a database, not a résumé service. When someone writes their own résumé they might miss out work they aren't proud of or work on films they don't want to be associated with, they might even "pad it out" and include a few credits that they aren't entitled to. But the IMDb lists all of them (or tries its best to) and only lists the productions they actually worked on and it also shows exactly what job they did and if they got an on-screen credit.

There are some credits in many productions that appear to be "vanity credits" where the person didn't do much. And they do sometimes appear to be overly detailed. Do we really need to know the name of the person who swept the studio floor or the person who brought the coffees? A lot of credits are given because if the people get on-screen credits then they don't have to be paid so much

There are some wonderfully obscure credits to be found in some films. Do you remember how in The Silence of the Lambs, the pupa of a moth was found in the mouth of each victim and in the final chase there were a lot of moths flying around? There had to be someone responsible for those moths, to make sure they were the right type and that they looked OK on film. To make sure that they were managed properly, that there were enough of them and that they weren't harmed too much. In American films, the person in charge of animals is called a wrangler. So in The Silence of the Lambs we have an on-screen credit for "moth wrangler and stylist". And of course they couldn't do it all by themselves, so there is also an on-screen credit for the "assistant moth wrangler and stylist"! But the IMDb shows that this assistant has yet to work on another production. It must be quite a specialised job

Steve

earlb

Steve I found the above very interesting. I'm (probably) one of the few who love to view the credits on a film to see who did what. TV annoys me when they squeeze them up so I can't see the mentions (except for some of those cheap and nasty 'made for TV' films where they try to give themselves credibility by having a protracted list about the length of two commercial breaks.)

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Marky B

I agree with you,Earl,about the squashing of credits at the end of a film,when all along you have been trying to put a name to a face.

William Goldman once wrote that film making is a group venture. While you may say Steven Spielberg's Jaws,or Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather,they didn't do everything on the film and of course not forgetting they were not the original source of material.
Film making is a team effort and I think everyone should be mentioned on the credits. It is up to the film watcher if they want to see them all.
Ta Ta
MArky B

I once shot an elephant in my pyjamas - how he got in my pyjamas,I'll never know

BristolUK

Then of course there are the movies where they roll so bloody quickly you never have time to read anyway.

And how often do you hear a great song and it's written so damn small you haven't a hope in hell of reading it to find out what it was?

On a side note, sometimes you need to watch to the end because something has been added.

Steve Crook

You think it annoys you? You should hear the British contributors to the IMDb fume about it. It makes it very difficult to gather the correct credits

Steve

Steve Crook

Golding isn't the only person to say that, he probably wasn't even the first. The making of a film or TV production is very nearly always a collaborative venture. Which is why auteur theory is such a nonsense. But despite that, it is still taught in some film schools

Steve

ringsider

Some very interesting responses, serving only to remind me that I watch and hopefully enjoy films, but many Britmovie contributors live and breathe films and filmaking.

Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced.

I absolutely take the point about the need for credits to be available for those involved in the industry, but surely IMDB (or other databases?) are the place for such credits, not necessarily at the beginning or end of the film.

When I decide to watch a film I usually consider the genre and story outline; the Director; the stars AND the supporting cast. My decision takes no account of who provided the costumes, did the hair, provided the food etc. Not even who wrangled the moths? As for the Producer, I really don't care.

I appreciate that some people watch films at a much deeper level, but when I sit down to watch a film I just want it to start immediately, and afterwards I just want to grab a quick cup of tea or a pint and think about what I have just watched.

I clearly must try harder.


Regards - Bernie

P.S. The one credit I sometimes look for is the name of any songs and the singer(s).

P.P.S. I was persuaded this afternoon to sit through 80 odd minutes of the film Zeta One. Apart from the very lovely Yutte Stensgaard, I cannot think that anyone would want to be credited with their part in this sorry effort.

Steve Crook

As for the producer, you shouldn't really care. They don't usually have much say in any detail in the finished production. But they do provide the funding. Either they provide it themselves or they get it from other people and without the producer there would be no film. So it's hardly surprising that they want their name on it.

But nobody's saying that you or anyone else should watch all the credits. That's what the fast forward button is for on a video or DVD and is why people often leave the cinema while the credits are still running.

The credits are mainly there for the benefit of the people who get the credits, as a way of advertising their work. And for the benefit of other people in the business who might want to know who did what.

Steve