Insanely restrictive Church- any ideas?

Craig Terott · June 15th, 2005, 09:52 AM

"It sounds a bit funny that you expect the priests understanding..." Sure, I do expect more than from your average person. He is the divine one - he's wearing the robe. What, all those spiritual principals go out the window when they see a videographer? Maybe he considers us NON-MEMBERS of his organization - possibly in some cases there is this prejudice? The least that can be done is to return the same level of respect that is given him.

Stark contrast, when I walk into Congregational church 9 times out of 10, I get a lot of understanding and sometimes they are almost overly accommodating. I've had pastors walk right up to me, shake my hand, pat me on the back and ask what they can do for me.

I wouldn't recommend the customer talk to the priest about video because you're making an issue out of it. You're making it a big deal. There should be no issue. Don't go on the alter, don't move around a lot, and don't make a spectacle of yourself.

Peter Jefferson · June 15th, 2005, 10:32 PM

ive always publicly said that wedding videography is an invisible artform.

"and don't make a spectacle of yourself."

you hit it on the head mate... I agree wholeheartedly with that comment

James Emory · June 18th, 2005, 09:10 PM

Before I had read very far, I said to myself, this must be a Catholic church. I don't shoot weddings anymore for various reasons and one being because of that very crap you're dealing with. I agree with Craig. I have only had one incident involving the same restrictions and it was at a Catholic church several years ago. By the way, I didn't shoot it because there was not enough budget. All others that I have done, under 10, the preachers were very accommodating. I think one important element that is being overlooked here is that on that day, the bride owns that church and she should have the say so in how the ceremony goes just short of permanent physical alterations. Churches are a business, like it or not, and the paying customer calls the shots. Before a preacher or priest told me what I could or couldn't do, especially for such a unique event, I would just have to go somewhere else. I mean this church that I was dealing with wouldn't even allow any additional unmanned cameras! What is up with that? NONE of this has anything to do with violating or disrespecting a religious place either. My advice is just don't do the job if there are restrictions that really defeat the purpose which in this case is the need for adequate coverage to achieve a professional product. Weddings are a significant revenue stream for churches and if they started losing business because of these ridiculous rules, I guarandamntee you they would change the rules reeeeeal quick!!

Patrick Jenkins · June 18th, 2005, 10:06 PM

Quote:

I think one important element that is being overlooked here is that on that day, the bride owns that church and she should have the say so in how the ceremony goes just short of permanent physical alterations.

It's interesting that you make the catholic church assumption. Actually, most denominations and churchs, yes - it's as you put it: it's the bride (and groom)'s day so it's very accommodating. Not so with a catholic ceremony. You have to have the wedding their way, using their structure, using their readings, their vows, etc etc etc. The only real decision that the B&G has is whether they want a condensed ceremony or the full mass (I'm not catholic, but my fiance is and we just finished our Engaged Encounter a few weeks ago - end result being that we are not having a catholic ceremony). In fact, the catholic church teaches (sacrament - AFAIK - what I gathered from our weekend) that the only way to have a marriage recognized by god or the church is to have it in a catholic church. All of these things lend to why some churchs are extremely strict and structured where it doesn't make much sense (to the average person). Again, I wish to avoid a whole religious tangent, but ultimately these things happen the way they do because there's still the whole element of the priest/church being the only go-between with the mortal and spiritual. When you have this type of mindset, it's hard to find a compromise or consensus between a working professional and clergy with a perceived higher calling (no disrespect intended).

I guess ultimately you just have to grin and bear it, try to do the best job possible, and consider whether you want to work a similar gig in the future.

$.02

James Emory · June 18th, 2005, 11:11 PM

I want to make it clear that I'm not singling out any particular religion/church. It just so happens that both situations involved a Catholic church. Please, let's not make this more than what it is. I don't care what church it is or what the religion is. If I'm paying to rent that church (building) that day, they're going to do what I want or I ain't gonna be spending my money there, period. If I want 5 cameras, I'm going to have 5 cameras! They have every right to say, well, no you're not. At which time, I will say, I will go somewhere else. Like I said earlier. If it was known that a church was losing alot of revenue from having less weddings because of such ridiculous rules, those rules would change before they lost that kind of money. But, as long as people continue to accept the rules as they are, nothing will change. I don't have any sympathy for sheep that just fall in line. Baaaahhh!!

Karl Heiner · June 18th, 2005, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Emory

I want to make it clear that I'm not singling out any particular religion/church. It just so happens that both situations involved a Catholic church. Please, let's not make this more than what it is. I don't care what church it is or what the religion is. If I'm paying to rent that church (building) that day, they're going to do what I want or I ain't gonna be spending my money there, period. If I want 5 cameras, I'm going to have 5 cameras! They have every right to say, well, no you're not. At which time, I will say, I will go somewhere else. Like I said earlier. If it was known that a church was losing alot of revenue from having less weddings because of such ridiculous rules, those rules would change before they lost that kind of money. But, as long as people continue to accept the rules as they are, nothing will change. I don't have any sympathy for sheep that just fall in line. Baaaahhh!!

hello james,

mh..just wonder what direction this thread i taking. sounds like you write more about your problems with religion then videographing.

i still believe that we, as videographer, are the third party in a church, and have to act like a guest, because, that is what we are, and again, the one with the contract is your client, and you work for your client.
so if you should have any problems with the priest which can't be resolved, your client needs to be involved.

my last 2 cent

greetings

James Emory · June 19th, 2005, 12:19 AM

Now Karl, I don't understand the very first sentence in your reply because the very first sentence of what you quoted me saying is "I want to make it clear that I'm not singling out any particular religion/church. It just so happens that both situations involved a Catholic church."

Let's forget that the church is in this discussion at all, it doesn't matter who it is. If I am paying the bill, what I need will happen or I will go somewhere else. I think you're right that I have not been clear by seperating myself from the real client, the couple. I was speaking as if I was the couple renting the church. I would definitely speak to them first and have them speak to the church. However, if they wanted me to speak to the church, I wouldn't have any problems doing that. I also want to say that I am sounding a bit aggressive in these posts but that's just to make it interesting, you know what I mean. I do genuinely believe what I have posted but would never actually conduct myself this way with an actual client or their associates.

As far as being a guest, I agree with Peter. That's a given. I've done plenty of weddings, more than I wanted to, so I know how to conduct myself. I also have quite a bit of experience in broadcast network reality shows so I know all about being inconspicuous. In my posts I was taking up for the couple and acting as them and not making that clear as I stated above. I also said that I just wouldn't shoot the wedding because of those stupid rules. They would have to find someone else. Not only are churches businesses, but they are also places of power for some and they like you to know it. Let's definitely not turn this thread into a religion issue because I don't want it shut down because I do want to argue about this some more! Ha ha ha ha.

James Emory · June 19th, 2005, 12:41 AM

Craig wrote: "So anyway, here's me keepin' it REAL... it's a house of God - not the house of father Davis. Father Davis is a guest. And I believe God would want Kristin & Paul to see their wedding in all it's glory - not some compromised backshots only version. If Kristin was teary when Dad handed her off, I will do my best to get it so they both can re-live it... etc. even if I have to break a rule. That is what I owe to MY GOD and to Kristin and Paul. If in the Priests eyes that puts me in the church of Satin - then I forgive him for he does not know. "

Ha ha ha ha!!!!! Picking myself up off the floor.....rock on Craig!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm with Peter and Craig!

Colvin Eccleston · June 19th, 2005, 01:28 AM

Videography is one of a handful of services that is privileged to attend the ceremony. Respect the rules of the church, don't do the job or do a job that doesn't have such restrictions.

Adam Kampia · June 19th, 2005, 06:31 AM

There seems to be an assumption that someone is always "paying a bill to the church" or "renting the church"

That is actually not the case in many, many churches (particularly Protestant churches). Many churches have the policy of performing weddings for congregational members for free. The B&G normally slip the officiant a gratuity, have to pay musicians, pay for flowers, etc. But they are not "paying" for use of the church sanctuary.

So in these cases, does it then make a difference the the officiant has soem restrictions on what can go on during the ceremony? I would think so. And I think its dangerous to walk into a wedding with the assumption that the Bride has bought and paid for the church that day.

Again, that's why I'm in the camp of "Let's communicate all of this beforehand".

James Emory · June 19th, 2005, 12:34 PM

Let's stop splitting atoms here. I think that I have been very clear in several posts about what my objective is.

Colvin, I do respect the rules of the church and respectfully would not do the job if I couldn't do it in a way to give the client what they paid for.

Adam, it doesn't matter where the money is going because ultimately a person or organization is getting paid whether it's for the person performing the ceremony or for the use of the building. The building itself sure isn't charging for its use.

Jonathan Nicholas · June 20th, 2005, 02:11 PM

What on earth is an Iriver?

Cheers

Jon

Edward Troxel · June 20th, 2005, 02:21 PM

It's a small device that can be used to record audio. Do a search for "iRiver" and you'll find out all kinds of information. Basically, it's an MP3 player that can be used for the purpose of recording.

Peter Jefferson · June 20th, 2005, 09:12 PM

"Respect the rules of the church, don't do the job or do a job that doesn't have such restrictions."

I guess the whole point of some of our posts is to air teh fact that IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.

Churches dont have to have restrictions. Sure enough they expect you to conduct yourself in a certain manner, but but why is one church different to another, even though theyre the same denomination??
Different rules for different churches??

Its like going to Maccas and gettin a big mac, only to have one store uses the special sauce, while another uses ketchup/tomato sauce... ON THE SAME BURGER

Same thing on the menu, but why are the ingredients different?? Is it coz there is a different chef in THIS kitchen as opposed to the other kitchen down the road??

I dont think so Tim....

SO WHAT!!!!! Theyre human too... are we going to let some robed dude's ego dictate how we earn a living??

I dont think so Tim..
You can, but im not, and im sure quite afew others feel the same...

A bit of uniformity is necessary across the board from all parties...
and a bit of respect to the professionals who must work in these environments is required.

Its not much to ask...

Colvin Eccleston · June 21st, 2005, 12:49 AM

The same way we have different ideas about how to do our job best, the same for church keepers, so they do what they think is for the good. The difference is that working for God is not a job. It has a deep significance; as does a church wedding ceremony. It is the ceremony that comes first, no matter what else is allowed. When the couple agrees to those rules, we are bound to work within the limits. The right thing to do is to discuss it all beforehand with the couple to realise their expectations and make them understand what may not be possible. You cannot get a good result by breaking the rules. You might be pleased by your fancy camerawork but everyone else involved is going to be spreading the word of how intrusive and disruptive videographers are. If you are lucky, your video will be seen by a handful of people. How many people are going to take away a negative view of the way you work?

June 19th, 2005, 01:28 AM	#39
Colvin Eccleston Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 93	You won't get respect if you can't give it. Videography is one of a handful of services that is privileged to attend the ceremony. Respect the rules of the church, don't do the job or do a job that doesn't have such restrictions.

June 20th, 2005, 02:21 PM	#43
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	It's a small device that can be used to record audio. Do a search for "iRiver" and you'll find out all kinds of information. Basically, it's an MP3 player that can be used for the purpose of recording. __________________ Edward Troxel [SCVU] JETDV Scripts/Scripting Tutorials/Excalibur/Montage Magic/Newsletters

June 15th, 2005, 09:52 AM	#31
Craig Terott Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Glendale, AZ Posts: 691	"It sounds a bit funny that you expect the priests understanding..." Sure, I do expect more than from your average person. He is the divine one - he's wearing the robe. What, all those spiritual principals go out the window when they see a videographer? Maybe he considers us NON-MEMBERS of his organization - possibly in some cases there is this prejudice? The least that can be done is to return the same level of respect that is given him. Stark contrast, when I walk into Congregational church 9 times out of 10, I get a lot of understanding and sometimes they are almost overly accommodating. I've had pastors walk right up to me, shake my hand, pat me on the back and ask what they can do for me. I wouldn't recommend the customer talk to the priest about video because you're making an issue out of it. You're making it a big deal. There should be no issue. Don't go on the alter, don't move around a lot, and don't make a spectacle of yourself.

June 15th, 2005, 10:32 PM	#32
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	ive always publicly said that wedding videography is an invisible artform. "and don't make a spectacle of yourself." you hit it on the head mate... I agree wholeheartedly with that comment

June 18th, 2005, 09:10 PM	#33
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	Before I had read very far, I said to myself, this must be a Catholic church. I don't shoot weddings anymore for various reasons and one being because of that very crap you're dealing with. I agree with Craig. I have only had one incident involving the same restrictions and it was at a Catholic church several years ago. By the way, I didn't shoot it because there was not enough budget. All others that I have done, under 10, the preachers were very accommodating. I think one important element that is being overlooked here is that on that day, the bride owns that church and she should have the say so in how the ceremony goes just short of permanent physical alterations. Churches are a business, like it or not, and the paying customer calls the shots. Before a preacher or priest told me what I could or couldn't do, especially for such a unique event, I would just have to go somewhere else. I mean this church that I was dealing with wouldn't even allow any additional unmanned cameras! What is up with that? NONE of this has anything to do with violating or disrespecting a religious place either. My advice is just don't do the job if there are restrictions that really defeat the purpose which in this case is the need for adequate coverage to achieve a professional product. Weddings are a significant revenue stream for churches and if they started losing business because of these ridiculous rules, I guarandamntee you they would change the rules reeeeeal quick!!

June 18th, 2005, 11:11 PM	#35
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	I want to make it clear that I'm not singling out any particular religion/church. It just so happens that both situations involved a Catholic church. Please, let's not make this more than what it is. I don't care what church it is or what the religion is. If I'm paying to rent that church (building) that day, they're going to do what I want or I ain't gonna be spending my money there, period. If I want 5 cameras, I'm going to have 5 cameras! They have every right to say, well, no you're not. At which time, I will say, I will go somewhere else. Like I said earlier. If it was known that a church was losing alot of revenue from having less weddings because of such ridiculous rules, those rules would change before they lost that kind of money. But, as long as people continue to accept the rules as they are, nothing will change. I don't have any sympathy for sheep that just fall in line. Baaaahhh!!

June 19th, 2005, 12:19 AM	#37
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	Now Karl, I don't understand the very first sentence in your reply because the very first sentence of what you quoted me saying is "I want to make it clear that I'm not singling out any particular religion/church. It just so happens that both situations involved a Catholic church." Let's forget that the church is in this discussion at all, it doesn't matter who it is. If I am paying the bill, what I need will happen or I will go somewhere else. I think you're right that I have not been clear by seperating myself from the real client, the couple. I was speaking as if I was the couple renting the church. I would definitely speak to them first and have them speak to the church. However, if they wanted me to speak to the church, I wouldn't have any problems doing that. I also want to say that I am sounding a bit aggressive in these posts but that's just to make it interesting, you know what I mean. I do genuinely believe what I have posted but would never actually conduct myself this way with an actual client or their associates. As far as being a guest, I agree with Peter. That's a given. I've done plenty of weddings, more than I wanted to, so I know how to conduct myself. I also have quite a bit of experience in broadcast network reality shows so I know all about being inconspicuous. In my posts I was taking up for the couple and acting as them and not making that clear as I stated above. I also said that I just wouldn't shoot the wedding because of those stupid rules. They would have to find someone else. Not only are churches businesses, but they are also places of power for some and they like you to know it. Let's definitely not turn this thread into a religion issue because I don't want it shut down because I do want to argue about this some more! Ha ha ha ha.

June 19th, 2005, 12:41 AM	#38
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	Craig wrote: "So anyway, here's me keepin' it REAL... it's a house of God - not the house of father Davis. Father Davis is a guest. And I believe God would want Kristin & Paul to see their wedding in all it's glory - not some compromised backshots only version. If Kristin was teary when Dad handed her off, I will do my best to get it so they both can re-live it... etc. even if I have to break a rule. That is what I owe to MY GOD and to Kristin and Paul. If in the Priests eyes that puts me in the church of Satin - then I forgive him for he does not know. " Ha ha ha ha!!!!! Picking myself up off the floor.....rock on Craig!!!!!!!!!!! I'm with Peter and Craig!

June 19th, 2005, 06:31 AM	#40
Adam Kampia Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 58	There seems to be an assumption that someone is always "paying a bill to the church" or "renting the church" That is actually not the case in many, many churches (particularly Protestant churches). Many churches have the policy of performing weddings for congregational members for free. The B&G normally slip the officiant a gratuity, have to pay musicians, pay for flowers, etc. But they are not "paying" for use of the church sanctuary. So in these cases, does it then make a difference the the officiant has soem restrictions on what can go on during the ceremony? I would think so. And I think its dangerous to walk into a wedding with the assumption that the Bride has bought and paid for the church that day. Again, that's why I'm in the camp of "Let's communicate all of this beforehand".

June 19th, 2005, 12:34 PM	#41
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	Let's stop splitting atoms here. I think that I have been very clear in several posts about what my objective is. Colvin, I do respect the rules of the church and respectfully would not do the job if I couldn't do it in a way to give the client what they paid for. Adam, it doesn't matter where the money is going because ultimately a person or organization is getting paid whether it's for the person performing the ceremony or for the use of the building. The building itself sure isn't charging for its use.

June 20th, 2005, 02:11 PM	#42
Jonathan Nicholas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 90	What on earth is an Iriver? Cheers Jon

June 20th, 2005, 09:12 PM	#44
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	"Respect the rules of the church, don't do the job or do a job that doesn't have such restrictions." I guess the whole point of some of our posts is to air teh fact that IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. Churches dont have to have restrictions. Sure enough they expect you to conduct yourself in a certain manner, but but why is one church different to another, even though theyre the same denomination?? Different rules for different churches?? Its like going to Maccas and gettin a big mac, only to have one store uses the special sauce, while another uses ketchup/tomato sauce... ON THE SAME BURGER Same thing on the menu, but why are the ingredients different?? Is it coz there is a different chef in THIS kitchen as opposed to the other kitchen down the road?? I dont think so Tim.... SO WHAT!!!!! Theyre human too... are we going to let some robed dude's ego dictate how we earn a living?? I dont think so Tim.. You can, but im not, and im sure quite afew others feel the same... A bit of uniformity is necessary across the board from all parties... and a bit of respect to the professionals who must work in these environments is required. Its not much to ask...

June 21st, 2005, 12:49 AM	#45
Colvin Eccleston Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 93	The same way we have different ideas about how to do our job best, the same for church keepers, so they do what they think is for the good. The difference is that working for God is not a job. It has a deep significance; as does a church wedding ceremony. It is the ceremony that comes first, no matter what else is allowed. When the couple agrees to those rules, we are bound to work within the limits. The right thing to do is to discuss it all beforehand with the couple to realise their expectations and make them understand what may not be possible. You cannot get a good result by breaking the rules. You might be pleased by your fancy camerawork but everyone else involved is going to be spreading the word of how intrusive and disruptive videographers are. If you are lucky, your video will be seen by a handful of people. How many people are going to take away a negative view of the way you work?