He is obviously filled with rage at small filmmakers, however.
I would say it's more of a jaded overview of the industry as a whole, tbh.
His paragraph about the 1ST AD with stunts makes me wonder if he got injured doing stunts and the producers could not help him with a hospital bill.
Regardless, he's not incorrect. I've witnessed many, many unsafe situations on such 'amateur' (or 'indie') productions. Every time I raise my concerns, and every time I'm not entirely convinced that the AD had even contemplated my concern, let alone prepared a solution. I've witnessed 'stunts' taking place without stunt supervisors. I've been a part of countless productions shooting on open road without so much as high-vis vests, let alone traffic management.
making the assumption that an amateur film can't be good.
I would disagree somewhat - certainly amateur films
can be good, and I'm sure the original writer is aware of that. I think, however, the argument is around semantics - to call yourself a professional simply because you have made a 'good' film (by whose standards?) is not really accurate at all. And there are plenty who do - his point is that traditionally the implication of an 'indie' filmmaker is that they are still a professional. Yet, the term has become diluted by amateurs who call themselves 'indie' in attempt to 'legitimize themselves.' That's not to say that all amateur films are bad, I think the point is more along the lines of simply having made a good/decent film does not suddenly make you a professional, and even moreso - simply having made a film at all does not make you a professional (especially if it's 'bad').
As I'm sure APE will back up, an amateur Sound Designer may make quite an aurally pleasing sound design for a film - it may be praised for being good, but it does not make them a professional.
In much the same way that a DP can go out and shoot some nice shots on their Blackmagic Pocket of birds and trees and nature. It can look good, but it does not make them a professional DP.
There's a low-budget independent production with a budget of $5mil, a cast of 30 and a crew of 60, all of whom are getting paid, and all who have legitimate credits on other independent or studio productions, working 12-hour days, 6 days a week for 3 months and performing as they would on any other production, be it studio or independent. Then there's a 'low-budget independent production' with a budget of $500, a cast of 3 and a crew of 4, none of whom are getting paid, all of whom have little to no credits, shooting on a borrowed DSLR, doing 5-hour days each weekend for a number of weeks. There's a huge difference between the two, and I think the point he's trying to make is that it's impossible to liken the two, as they are totally different beings, and amateur filmmakers (like the latter example) should perhaps not attempt to liken themselves and equate themselves with such productions as a way to legitimize themselves.
I've certainly been a victim of low-ball pay offers, no-pay offers, 'deferred' (i.e. no pay) offers from amateurs. I've then seen this attitude carry over onto productions that do have budgets. I've been offered a $50-$100/day token rate to Focus Pull on commercials with $10k+ budgets. I've seen MUAs argue with the DP. I've seen Data Wranglers argue with the DP. To me, that's totally unacceptable, but perhaps it's a by-product of this current generation of amateur filmmakers who have never learned how to be professional, despite the fact that they may label themselves as such.
TBH the terms amateur and professional are less meaningful than they used to be. As high quality gear is now much more affordable there are many amateurs who think they can drop $500 on a camera and call themselves a professional photographer or videographer. I have a friend who did that - her work is terrible and she gets paid for it, while the members of this very site are producing beautiful content just for fun, and that content far surpasses the quality of my "professional" friend.
I believe that's perhaps an underlying point of the initial post. Amateur and professional is not simply about who gets paid and who doesn't get paid anymore.
I think there's much more to being a professional in this field than just whether or not you get paid. It comes down to your experience and attitude, your awareness of the craft and the industry, the way you present yourself and whether or not you have the ability to perform your job in the same way that other professionals do - all in addition to the work you're doing.
For example, if someone were paid $5000 to do the sound design on an 'indie' film, and it was someone who had just stepped out of film school, had little to no experience in sound on professional films, who then delivered a stereo mix that sounded simply adequate - you'd probably call them an amateur.
Whereas if Randy Thom worked on a project for free, you would still call him a professional.
