I know it was canned, and then re-shot as simple black and white performance video but what the fuck is this? Possibly illegal? Certainly it takes the piss out everybody asked to write on it. Especially after sending out two tracks to write on as they were unsure of which one was being released.

What is everybody's thoughts on this? Especially the commissioners on here.

You may think this is just some director rant cos they didn't win the pitch but it's not. I was just horrified that this happened. And there seems to have been no discussion about it.

Anyway, anybody got a link to the black and white one?

         

Here's a YouTube and a 60sec clip

         

WHAT!? this is news to me. in any regulated industry, practice such as this is illegal. the commissioner in question should be fucking ashamed of himself!

you're right, alan, this is a total piss-take. i obviously wrote on those two and like every other treatment i've written recently, i was given a two or three sentence brief. what exactly does this guy get paid for!? spending all of 30 seconds writing a brief for god knows how many directors to write on it, only to make the decision to direct it himself. his attempt subsequently gets binned and his bosses have to spunk another 20 something grand on re-making it.

         

c'mon guys, this happens all the time. it may be a bummer but It is certainly not illegal. Tom is a stand up guy, as far as commissioners go, I've worked with him many times. After rounds and rounds of treatments that aren't hitting the mark, sometimes a video just has to get done...

         

Are they paying Tracy Chapman royalties for this track?

         

The Scooter Libby trial must have gottten someone all worked up about corruptions and scandlas. Makes me think to the glorious Refused eruption.

This is is not the end of the world, but it does make my point. Getting directors to waste their time for a job they have no chance of getting is not a crime, but making bad videos that have to get re-shot is. Labels are taking a big gamble when they self-commission, since they often (it seems) end up with something they don't really want. That is the whole point of having a commissioner and outside directors - oversight and all that.

         

I dont understand why there's such an uproar over such a non promising song. Are you really freaking out over THAT?

         

dude, i hear 30 treatments these days is the norm on this side of the pond. i just try not to get frustrated with any of this stuff. it's difficult and unfair, our pay situation is shitty and we're expected to always be in beg borrow steal mode, but that's the way it is. i'd rather this than the fucking year and a half of my life wasted working for a studio. i think feeling burned about it isn't worth it.

i dont expect anything for writing a treatment. a good visual idea can always be recycled.

the thing that pisses me off is a situation i once had where i was approached to shoot material to cut into someone else's video as the label and band weren't happy with the result. they had liked my treatment but gone with a bigger name director.

i told them no fucking chance. if they wanted me to direct a video for them then hire me to direct the video and don't ask me to fix their mistakes, nor would i be party to interfering with someone else's work. at least they were apologetic and remain on good terms with me. that really pissed me off though.

         

surely if this commissioner decides he's the best man for the job, presuming he got paid, this would be known as insider trading (or the equivalent) in any regulated industry. Which as I understand it isn't legal...?

I'm sure Tom's a nice guy and I haven't been crying myself to sleep since hearing this, i just think it's a bit of a piss-take. we're all trying to make a living and get our hands on what work we can in such a competitive industry - when you hear of someone being in a paid position to chose the best director for any given job and they go ahead and choose themselves (is he an experienced director?) it just shocks and saddens me is all.

but then, i wouldn't hesitate to write on anything else that should come from him.

         

I thought this post would get more responses... but then I'm also not surprised that people have been wary about bitching about a commissioner...

I heard about this a few weeks ago and it didn't surprise me an awful lot. EVERYONE I know harbours secret fantasies of being a director... even commissioners. Plenty of commissioners have tried their hand at directing. Two that come to mind instantly are Liz Kessler and Trudi Bellinger, but there's loads more.

Tom is indeed a stand-up guy and a creative and knowledgeable person. However, having had a lot of people write on this in the thinking that they had a certain chance to get the video- it is understandable that these said directors get the hump. Maybe Tom should have emailed all directors involved (or their reps/producers) and explained that none of the scripts he received were up the bands street or strong enough and then explained that he had been asked to direct the video, or had decided to direct this himself. I guess this is the honest and upfront party line- however, there would have been such a furore from uppity prodco peeps that he would have had his project canned instantly and waylaid the process even further...

End of the day. This video is boring and does nothing for the song or band. In fact none of the videos for their latest and most sucessful album have been great (and you'd hope that with the budgets and status you'd have some muscly vids which would have been played simply everywhere and sold even more records) and I know that Mercury have had problems with every one of these videos... so what's going on?

In fact now I'm confused- b&w video is Tom's right? Who did the other one??

         

Does Tom also have a surname?

         

I believe it was Tom Bird. Creative Director for Mercury records, UK. Tom doesn't just do the videos, his team are also in charge of photo shoots and the like.

         

Tom Bird is a director as well, has been for many years.

         

Wasn't aware of that. Got any links to his other stuff Jason? Makes sense. If I wasn't someone with a bunch of practice and experience, I wouldn't throw myself at a Razorlight promo...

I guess people's problem isn't going to be about Tom's experience or even the quality of the promo, so much as the fact that some of London's top directors must have pitched on this job and he's decided to give himself the job.

Where does professional decision making end and self-promotion (in one form or another) start? I know some of the biggest rants on here have been about commissioners (in the US) giving people from their own affiliated companies work- ie. the refused tv debacle and many more. Why did Tom decide that he was the best person to do this? If the band and management had turned round and said that he was the best informed person to do the shoot and they'd like him to make it for them- then that's pretty easy to tell the other directors. However, I know that their are plenty of people out there who would have jumped at the chance to make what Tom did with the band; just a simple performance piece for sweet FA money and no prep. But Tom decided to do the job himself. I guess it deserves some explanation. But I know that Tom is probably far too busy to be on antville!

By the way. None of the directors I work with pitched on this job and I have no vested interest- just find this intriguing. When I was told Tom was doing the video- I'd never thought he would have sent it out for treatments...

         

You can check out Tom's credits on MVDBase. None of us know what happened on this commission except for the label. They likely couldn't find what they wanted and it was the easiest way to go - I concur with presidentofvice. I don't think this situation is as cynical as the EP/Commissioner situation.

         

Cheers jason will do. And yeah, let's put this to bed eh? Another dissapointing video... ho hum! Have a good weekend people. DK

         

videography as sgf mentioned.

         

i heard (and this may or may not be totally accurate) that the video he made was canned because the label and/or the band felt it made them look pretentious and even further up their own arses. apparently there was a bit of bad press going around that jonny was an arrogant fuck (like we didn't know that already) and it was felt that this video would not do them any favours in this department, hence a very 'safe' re-shoot.

         

kreeger and others -

This self-commissioning/corruption/conflict-of-interest topic was discussed to death a few months ago so that could be why you are not getting the outrage you are looking for. Maybe the angles are different in the UK, but you can read the state-side discussion on antville (including a response from the "offending" commissioner/directopr's rep). I humbly also offer my own thoughts on my blog. I know it is not exactly the same situation but this definitely happens often in the US as well.

         

30f - I certainly don't want to discourage you from promoting your blog twice in the same thread, I am a big fan, but I think this is a different animal. Director's and prodco work at the pleasure of the record company, we are their vendors and it's their money. If for whatever reason they want to do something internally that's their progogative. It certainly sucks to spend a weekend writing all for not but it sucks a lot less than blowing £50K on video that doesn't work. This seems to be something of a british phenomenon, do you have any examples of American commissioners awarding jobs to themselves to direct?

         

yeah, this is not the EP/commissioner situation at all, a whole different animal. one that doesn't actually really bother me. if the label or artist had gotten something they liked it would have been made. did all the treatments get to the artist? no, they never do. but bottom line is everyone is going to have to get used to "in-house" directors at the record labels...sad to say, but it's the wave of the future (at least on the lower end of the budget scale). i know several majors currently setting up in-house video production companies...sooo do the smart thing and get in on it early.

         

How's this for irony - I heard that Refused TV is going be the in-house company for all Atlantic videos under $30K.

         

I certainly have no knowledge of this particular incident - but I am not clear why these incidents are vastly different. I know an EP and a director aren't the same thing - but the conflict of interest issue is still at the forefront. The inside/outside the label part does not seem all that important to me either. Pellow is a free-lance comissioner so she is not really "inside" the label, yet she has the power to steer many jobs to her own directors. How exactly is this different from her steering the jobs to herself to direct? Seems like "six of one, half a dozen of the other" to me. But I am also hopped up on ferret tranquilizer and roofing tar.

Other commissioners that have done this in the US? Off the top of my head - Lorin Finkelstein and Max Nicholls (Max has directed more jobs that listed on mvdbase, including one for a group called Shazam that was a remake of an Eddie Murphy track). This happens on lower end jobs and it ranges from no big deal to a minor annoyance if you are someone who wrote on a job and lost out to someone with the inside track (like being the commissioner). Been happening, is happening, will happen going forward.

Should the list of "inside traders" include artists or managers (some with actual label titles and power) that direct videos that are/aren't their own clips? Irv Gotti, Chris Stokes, Marilyn Manson, Fred Durst? The lead singer has the right to direct his own video, but what is he is "reading" treatments from directors before he comes up with "his" idea?

All that and no links to my own blog, I must be losing my self-promoting touch.

         

The difference is that commissioners usually direct jobs because the treatments that they've solicited don't work. They don't keep the production fee (and likely don't make a directors fee since they're on salary) and they usually don't have a reel to build. The EP needs the money and the new work for the director so the books are already cooked before you begin writing. I agree that it's not pretty either way, although all of this pales in comparison to how much it would suck to lose a job to Fred Durst.

         

Amen to the Fred Durst comment.