Welcome to Hollywood!
What are the options for a specialist who no longer wants to "work for his uncle"? Freelance, coworking, your business ... and Hollywood. The Hollywood production process organization system could be a salvation for talented individuals who lacked the skills of a businessman. Literate businessmen, organizers of nature, yesterday's film producers could import the Hollywood scheme into the market of creative services *, create a name for themselves and unleash the participants of their projects to the level of freelance stars.
* The author will talk about design - the industry, the nuances of which understands the best. Hereinafter, the designer will be understood as a representative of any creative profession, including the designer, art director, illustrator, layout designer, copywriter, typewriter, photographer, fashion designer, and even a strategist. The specifics do not negate the fact that situations and ideas that are described in the article can be transferred to other industries and industries.
There are no unemployed designers, there are freelance designers. Even if the designer sits at home without orders, anyway, with pride and self-esteem, he can say that he is a landsknecht, a free shooter, a knight without fear and reproach. Even better - the proud poor samurai ronin, as in the films of Kurosawa. He can be very experienced, own different types of weapons and have scars from many battles. But there are a lot of samurai around, and everyone tries to work for a bowl of rice, so you have to be a very good merchant, that is, be able to convince the customer that your services are first class and cost more than a bowl of rice. Not every proud samurai can praise his sword. As the old Japanese proverb says: someone has a sharp blade, someone has a sharp tongue. In the combination of these qualities hard to believe. And if a samurai is a good trader, then a natural question arises: what does he do among samurai? After all, it has long been known that selling others is much more profitable. Profit increases significantly when a person exploits a person.
')
Now the idea is very popular that if several freelancers get together and form a creative gang, then it will be much easier for them to survive. It is assumed that this gang will be without an ataman (enough! Have suffered! Anarchy is the mother of order!). In general, the creative person for the most part is rather naive. He lives in some of his own little world and - one gets the feeling - he doesn’t guess about some aspects of human relationships that go beyond the framework of creative collaboration. Meanwhile, even a regulated relationship between two people is a constant conflict of interest. What to say about ad hoc relationships of several creative individuals at once? Extinguish the light. If the coworking gang does not fall apart because of small squabbles in the spirit of “why did not Vasya pay the rent on time?”, Then sooner or later there will be a chieftain who will turn this scheme into ...
From the creative fraternity, no, no, yes, a nugget or a couple is knocked out who are able and love to sell their services. Sooner or later they come to the idea of ​​organizing a creative team under their strict guidance, in other words, about exploiting the abilities and talents of those who do not sell their abilities. But then the following ambush appears: to be able to sell and to be able to organize N people into a well-coordinated and efficient mechanism is not the same thing. To organize a business model of 5 people is one (family), of 25 - another (artel), and of 125 - the third (factory). We will be merciful, forget about the teams of 2500 people (corporation). Many of yesterday’s designers, who dreamed about the path of the big boss, are too tough to organize not only a factory, but also an artel. Every time a company grows physically, it must be made more complex in a constructive, systemic and social way. Not every manager has enough abilities to step over one stage and move effectively in the direction of another, delegate something, do not meddle with one’s only right opinion. One finger on the hand is enough to recalculate the originally Russian design studios, which crossed the milestone of 100 people (with the corresponding turnover of funds). Someone simply does not need such momentum. For some, the house near Moscow and a brand new jeep is the ultimate dream. Someone just afraid to turn gray early. Still, business is nervous. Are there any other options for good earnings, in which the designer can be spared from having to go through the harsh school of Russian entrepreneurship?
The film industry and the design industry have a lot in common, but at the same time they diverge in one key point: the organization of the production process.
Designer = actor. First, the actor learns to become a good actor. Still, for this profession is not enough manly chin with a dimple and a bust of the third size, although for many years we have been trying to convince the opposite. (And generally, let's forget here about the special ways of moving up the career ladder). The actor at the beginning of his career gets small roles, works a lot and hard, participates in casting, agrees to work for ridiculous fees. In short, it creates its portfolio bit by bit, which critics would later call “filmography”. The most important thing is that both the actor and the designer sell their abilities and talents.
Creative director = director of the picture (director). Despite the fact that the functions of the creative director in different studios are different and are directly dependent on his financial interests, the essence is always the same: the creative director is the director of the creative process, “the main thing on the stage”. When an actor becomes a star, he can afford to combine several roles in a team: for example, be a director and screenwriter, i.e. director of the picture, the author of the plot, and often the author of the original idea of ​​the film. Clever people, as a rule, receive additional education for this; sassy, ​​of course, trying to ride the director's chair with a cheek. How many times have we seen a situation where a good actor makes a mediocre movie, and even plays mediocre in it, because “there wasn’t enough seat”. It is easy to draw parallels with mediocre creative directors who grew up from designers.
Design project = film project. And in fact, and in another case, quite specific tasks are being solved: commercial cinema should entertain, commercial design should sell. And in fact, and in another case, the project is working on a group of creative professionals. Sooner or later those days will pass when a lone designer draws a logo, form, business card and says goodbye to an unpretentious client. Design "by itself" is gradually giving way to branding - a complex of strategic and creative works that are impossible for one person.
The composition of the team for the film project depends on the budget and the tasks that are put in front of the picture. The billion-dollar industry has generated an ideal scheme for the interaction of creative people. Film studios in this case act as a material and legal basis, but not a place of permanent work. The key role in organizing and launching the film project is assigned to the producer.
A producer (producer, from produce - to produce) in filmmaking is a confidant of a film company who exercises ideological, organizational and financial control over the production of a film. He also takes an active part in the selection of actors, technical staff. Producers are also directors, actors, writers.
The system of producers originated in the late 1910s in Hollywood and became a natural step towards the introduction of personal responsibility for a complex of creative, organizational and financial issues, without solving which the production and rental of a feature film is impossible.
Yu. A. Kravtsov, Fundamentals of film aesthetics. Theory and history of cinema. Tutorial. SPb, 2006
The producer finds interesting ideas, the producer knows how to turn an idea into a project, the producer sets tasks, the producer knows who will cope with these tasks in the best way, the producer estimates the costs, the producer finds the money, the producer makes a team, the producer solemnly hands the wheel to the director, the producer controls process, the producer does not give creativity to dominate the tasks, the producer knows how to eliminate friction between the Creators, the producer knows what the product should be for it to be sold, the producer knows how sell, producer guarantees that he will sell, producer sells.
With all the similarities with the film business, we still do not see anything like it in the design industry. If a design studio declares that for each project it gathers (within its team) a team ideally suited for the tasks, then such statements are a blatant lie. This is contrary to the principles of the design business organization, in which the operational reshuffling of team members is excluded. Most of the time the designer is loaded with work to the eyeballs, and the team for the project is recruited on the principle of "free cash!". This is neither good nor bad, it is vital. If one of the designers spits on the ceiling, the company loses money. In this case, it is necessary either to dismiss some manager for incompetence, or to reduce some designer as a full-time unit.
Freelancers are not able to organize themselves into an effective creative team in the same way that several actors are not able to make a film.
Because of the factory system of organizing the creative process, we have so few narrow specialists. We have almost no designers who specialize, for example, only on a multi-bar or only on a corporate style. We have no industry experts at all, when, for example, a designer is the best at making corporate identity for financial companies, or drawing posters for movies best of all. A designer should be able to do almost everything: he should work in all programs, be able to photograph and still be desirable to be able to draw with his hands. This is neither good nor bad, it is vital. Otherwise, the designer will not find a job.
Meanwhile, we all know how to play, for example, Kevin Spacey. And the producer knows it, and the director. And for what roles you can invite him, and for what you can not, it is also clear to everyone. Everyone knows that he will equally well play an alien, a maniac or a good family man, but he will be out of place in the role of a brutal policeman who saves the world on an asteroid. Only in our Russian yellow-haired cinema can the eternal drunk Khabensky play the admiral of the beginning of the last century, the “white bone” and the polar hero. Only in the creative services industry, the designer who designed the online store yesterday, today is developing a corporate font for a pipe factory, tomorrow he can draw a flyer for the party "Without shorts a cocktail for free."
A designer could save a tremendous amount of time and nerves if he were not puzzled by the questions of finding customers and organizing his small business process. He could only engage in the activities in which he is a master. No need to think about payment methods, no need to think about contracts and copyrights, do not draw clumsy "original" font or photograph a model on the background of light wallpaper, lit by a crappy sofit and a homemade soft box from a sheet - the producer will take care of everything.
The crisis has brought hundreds of freelancers to the desert shore who are doomed to eat what God will send, thousands more will be killed on the galleys of “leading design studios” for a bowl of soup - crowds of helpless creators, most of whom have no idea how to look for customers and how to profitably sell abilities. The Hollywood system could be a salvation for the most talented of them. Literate businessmen, organizers of nature, yesterday's film producers, to whom sponsors showed a fig because of the crisis, could import the Hollywood scheme into the market of creative services, create a name for themselves and unleash the participants of their projects to the level of design stars.
But in order to create a supply from producers on the market, it is necessary that demand arises for them. Non-moviegoers (customers) built the Hollywood system. The industry itself, the filmmakers community, decided “we need such a system, it will suit everyone, with it we will make more money.” Demand for design producers should arise among designers, among creators. They must understand that working in an office for someone is boring and unprofitable. They must understand that it’s difficult and unstable to look for orders on their own They should understand that working together, but without a leader is stupid. They must be prepared for real teamwork with people who have not been seen before. They must be willing to share profits and glory.
* The author will talk about design - the industry, the nuances of which understands the best. Hereinafter, the designer will be understood as a representative of any creative profession, including the designer, art director, illustrator, layout designer, copywriter, typewriter, photographer, fashion designer, and even a strategist. The specifics do not negate the fact that situations and ideas that are described in the article can be transferred to other industries and industries.
Ronin
There are no unemployed designers, there are freelance designers. Even if the designer sits at home without orders, anyway, with pride and self-esteem, he can say that he is a landsknecht, a free shooter, a knight without fear and reproach. Even better - the proud poor samurai ronin, as in the films of Kurosawa. He can be very experienced, own different types of weapons and have scars from many battles. But there are a lot of samurai around, and everyone tries to work for a bowl of rice, so you have to be a very good merchant, that is, be able to convince the customer that your services are first class and cost more than a bowl of rice. Not every proud samurai can praise his sword. As the old Japanese proverb says: someone has a sharp blade, someone has a sharp tongue. In the combination of these qualities hard to believe. And if a samurai is a good trader, then a natural question arises: what does he do among samurai? After all, it has long been known that selling others is much more profitable. Profit increases significantly when a person exploits a person.
')
Coworking
Now the idea is very popular that if several freelancers get together and form a creative gang, then it will be much easier for them to survive. It is assumed that this gang will be without an ataman (enough! Have suffered! Anarchy is the mother of order!). In general, the creative person for the most part is rather naive. He lives in some of his own little world and - one gets the feeling - he doesn’t guess about some aspects of human relationships that go beyond the framework of creative collaboration. Meanwhile, even a regulated relationship between two people is a constant conflict of interest. What to say about ad hoc relationships of several creative individuals at once? Extinguish the light. If the coworking gang does not fall apart because of small squabbles in the spirit of “why did not Vasya pay the rent on time?”, Then sooner or later there will be a chieftain who will turn this scheme into ...
Own business
From the creative fraternity, no, no, yes, a nugget or a couple is knocked out who are able and love to sell their services. Sooner or later they come to the idea of ​​organizing a creative team under their strict guidance, in other words, about exploiting the abilities and talents of those who do not sell their abilities. But then the following ambush appears: to be able to sell and to be able to organize N people into a well-coordinated and efficient mechanism is not the same thing. To organize a business model of 5 people is one (family), of 25 - another (artel), and of 125 - the third (factory). We will be merciful, forget about the teams of 2500 people (corporation). Many of yesterday’s designers, who dreamed about the path of the big boss, are too tough to organize not only a factory, but also an artel. Every time a company grows physically, it must be made more complex in a constructive, systemic and social way. Not every manager has enough abilities to step over one stage and move effectively in the direction of another, delegate something, do not meddle with one’s only right opinion. One finger on the hand is enough to recalculate the originally Russian design studios, which crossed the milestone of 100 people (with the corresponding turnover of funds). Someone simply does not need such momentum. For some, the house near Moscow and a brand new jeep is the ultimate dream. Someone just afraid to turn gray early. Still, business is nervous. Are there any other options for good earnings, in which the designer can be spared from having to go through the harsh school of Russian entrepreneurship?
Hollywood
The film industry and the design industry have a lot in common, but at the same time they diverge in one key point: the organization of the production process.
Designer = actor. First, the actor learns to become a good actor. Still, for this profession is not enough manly chin with a dimple and a bust of the third size, although for many years we have been trying to convince the opposite. (And generally, let's forget here about the special ways of moving up the career ladder). The actor at the beginning of his career gets small roles, works a lot and hard, participates in casting, agrees to work for ridiculous fees. In short, it creates its portfolio bit by bit, which critics would later call “filmography”. The most important thing is that both the actor and the designer sell their abilities and talents.
Creative director = director of the picture (director). Despite the fact that the functions of the creative director in different studios are different and are directly dependent on his financial interests, the essence is always the same: the creative director is the director of the creative process, “the main thing on the stage”. When an actor becomes a star, he can afford to combine several roles in a team: for example, be a director and screenwriter, i.e. director of the picture, the author of the plot, and often the author of the original idea of ​​the film. Clever people, as a rule, receive additional education for this; sassy, ​​of course, trying to ride the director's chair with a cheek. How many times have we seen a situation where a good actor makes a mediocre movie, and even plays mediocre in it, because “there wasn’t enough seat”. It is easy to draw parallels with mediocre creative directors who grew up from designers.
Design project = film project. And in fact, and in another case, quite specific tasks are being solved: commercial cinema should entertain, commercial design should sell. And in fact, and in another case, the project is working on a group of creative professionals. Sooner or later those days will pass when a lone designer draws a logo, form, business card and says goodbye to an unpretentious client. Design "by itself" is gradually giving way to branding - a complex of strategic and creative works that are impossible for one person.
The composition of the team for the film project depends on the budget and the tasks that are put in front of the picture. The billion-dollar industry has generated an ideal scheme for the interaction of creative people. Film studios in this case act as a material and legal basis, but not a place of permanent work. The key role in organizing and launching the film project is assigned to the producer.
A producer (producer, from produce - to produce) in filmmaking is a confidant of a film company who exercises ideological, organizational and financial control over the production of a film. He also takes an active part in the selection of actors, technical staff. Producers are also directors, actors, writers.
The system of producers originated in the late 1910s in Hollywood and became a natural step towards the introduction of personal responsibility for a complex of creative, organizational and financial issues, without solving which the production and rental of a feature film is impossible.
Yu. A. Kravtsov, Fundamentals of film aesthetics. Theory and history of cinema. Tutorial. SPb, 2006
The producer finds interesting ideas, the producer knows how to turn an idea into a project, the producer sets tasks, the producer knows who will cope with these tasks in the best way, the producer estimates the costs, the producer finds the money, the producer makes a team, the producer solemnly hands the wheel to the director, the producer controls process, the producer does not give creativity to dominate the tasks, the producer knows how to eliminate friction between the Creators, the producer knows what the product should be for it to be sold, the producer knows how sell, producer guarantees that he will sell, producer sells.
With all the similarities with the film business, we still do not see anything like it in the design industry. If a design studio declares that for each project it gathers (within its team) a team ideally suited for the tasks, then such statements are a blatant lie. This is contrary to the principles of the design business organization, in which the operational reshuffling of team members is excluded. Most of the time the designer is loaded with work to the eyeballs, and the team for the project is recruited on the principle of "free cash!". This is neither good nor bad, it is vital. If one of the designers spits on the ceiling, the company loses money. In this case, it is necessary either to dismiss some manager for incompetence, or to reduce some designer as a full-time unit.
Freelancers are not able to organize themselves into an effective creative team in the same way that several actors are not able to make a film.
Because of the factory system of organizing the creative process, we have so few narrow specialists. We have almost no designers who specialize, for example, only on a multi-bar or only on a corporate style. We have no industry experts at all, when, for example, a designer is the best at making corporate identity for financial companies, or drawing posters for movies best of all. A designer should be able to do almost everything: he should work in all programs, be able to photograph and still be desirable to be able to draw with his hands. This is neither good nor bad, it is vital. Otherwise, the designer will not find a job.
Meanwhile, we all know how to play, for example, Kevin Spacey. And the producer knows it, and the director. And for what roles you can invite him, and for what you can not, it is also clear to everyone. Everyone knows that he will equally well play an alien, a maniac or a good family man, but he will be out of place in the role of a brutal policeman who saves the world on an asteroid. Only in our Russian yellow-haired cinema can the eternal drunk Khabensky play the admiral of the beginning of the last century, the “white bone” and the polar hero. Only in the creative services industry, the designer who designed the online store yesterday, today is developing a corporate font for a pipe factory, tomorrow he can draw a flyer for the party "Without shorts a cocktail for free."
A designer could save a tremendous amount of time and nerves if he were not puzzled by the questions of finding customers and organizing his small business process. He could only engage in the activities in which he is a master. No need to think about payment methods, no need to think about contracts and copyrights, do not draw clumsy "original" font or photograph a model on the background of light wallpaper, lit by a crappy sofit and a homemade soft box from a sheet - the producer will take care of everything.
Demand creates supply
The crisis has brought hundreds of freelancers to the desert shore who are doomed to eat what God will send, thousands more will be killed on the galleys of “leading design studios” for a bowl of soup - crowds of helpless creators, most of whom have no idea how to look for customers and how to profitably sell abilities. The Hollywood system could be a salvation for the most talented of them. Literate businessmen, organizers of nature, yesterday's film producers, to whom sponsors showed a fig because of the crisis, could import the Hollywood scheme into the market of creative services, create a name for themselves and unleash the participants of their projects to the level of design stars.
But in order to create a supply from producers on the market, it is necessary that demand arises for them. Non-moviegoers (customers) built the Hollywood system. The industry itself, the filmmakers community, decided “we need such a system, it will suit everyone, with it we will make more money.” Demand for design producers should arise among designers, among creators. They must understand that working in an office for someone is boring and unprofitable. They must understand that it’s difficult and unstable to look for orders on their own They should understand that working together, but without a leader is stupid. They must be prepared for real teamwork with people who have not been seen before. They must be willing to share profits and glory.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/49356/
All Articles