'Not a very attractive bride'

[Adrian Tan]

You've no doubt seen this already, but anyway...

====

'Not a very attractive bride'

Cameraman Anthony Aurelius can be heard describing the bride as "not a very attractive bride at all" and saying "I don't think I blame Hitler" for the Holocaust.

The remarks are heard in unedited footage that Stan Gocman and his wife Claudia Ressler requested from Mr Aurelius because the edited version was such poor quality, they told the Jewish Chronicle newspaper.

The couple got married at a synagogue in London's West End, followed by a black tie reception for 150 guests at a nearby hotel.

Mr Aurelius made his offensive remarks to his assistant as they drove through London from the ceremony to the reception.

The comments were picked up on his camera microphone, which was left running in the back seat of his car as the lens captured buildings and streetlamps.

Mr Aurelius told his assistant that Jewish people think "they're better than everybody else because they're from Israel".

He then criticised the couple for choosing his cheaper film package.

His assistant is heard calling Jewish people "the meanest people in the world".

Mr Gocman, a fashion buyer for Ralph Lauren, was quoted as saying: "We didn't want anything fancy or worthy of an Oscar, just a documentation of the day.

"At first, I was really upset but then I was furious. I think he's a disgusting little man. I can't even stand to watch the video, it makes me so angry."

Mr Aurelius wrote the couple a hand-written apology, including a cheque for a full refund, as well as a subsequent email to Mrs Gocman.

He said: "I am very sorry for our stupid, childish conversation. "I am also very sorry for offending you and possibly your family also. You did not deserve this. I am ashamed, in honesty.

"We know, in truth, very little about what went on in the war. To be deeply honest, I respect your strength as a culture from coming back from this."


Source: Telegraph
Author: Erin Tennant, Approving editor: Nick Pearson

[Mark Williams]

So, what is your point?

[Adrian Tan]

I'm not sure I have a point, but I guess the main thing I take from it is not to supply raw footage. No doubt there's other lessons to be learned as well, apart from not slagging off your client or being a racist idiot.

[Chip Thome]

There should be several points to be learned from this idiot's stupidity.

First should be: "TALK STUPID ABOUT YOUR CLIENT AND LOSE YOUR BUSINESS".

We aren't the only one's seeing this and this idiot's name shall be forever in the Idiot Wedding Vendor Hall of Shame for the area where he was working !!!

The other most obvious point: "If you REALLY dislike a particular culture, race or religion, then DON'T TAKE GIGS FROM THOSE YOU DISLIKE"

Seeing how we know of his anti Semitic feelings for the family and his opinion of the bride's beauty, the bride was probably dead on right that the quality he provided her JUST PLAIN SUCKED !!!

My apologies now for my rant. But idiots like this should be driven out of business for the good of the market as well as for the people who might be affected.

[Jeff Harper]

Adrian, I think I have, in the past, viewed some of your work, and as I recall it was quite good. Furthermore, you seem like a genuinely nice, intelligent guy, at least based on your posts.

That all being said, on occasion I do not understand your posts or their purpose. Nevertheless, the posts I do not understand seem, at worst, harmless musings. In the case of this post, I feel differently. I felt uncomfortable reading this post, and I did not like having the unpleasantness of that incident you described being brought into this house.

I REALLY do not like to see peoples names from the outside being brought in here. In this case a cameraman who I'm guessing is not a member of this forum is named in your post. This is not good. These threads show up on search engine results. In other words, anyone who googles the man named can find him in this thread, including the man himself.

I think of this forum as a clean, professional environment that is free of much of the trash that we find elsewhere on the web. I'd like to see it remain that way.

In my opinion this thread should be deleted and we should move on to more constructive topics.

[Adrian Tan]

Hi Jeff, for what it's worth, the post is a copy-and-paste of a news article that's widely available, and I suppose I take the view that anything wedding-video-related that makes a splash in the media is something that might be worth discussion here. Can totally understand if you think differently.

[Dave Blackhurst]

If you look up STUPID in Oz, does this guys pic pop up??

Who leaves a camera RUNNING in the car while in transit??? Who would be stupid enough to include something that offensive in "raw footage", no matter who said it... let alone document your own low life "opinions"???

And if the short clips are representative of the "quality" delivered, the "vidiot" should stand in front of a blackboard for a long time, repeating "I am NOT a videographer", maybe 10K times or so... the bride was so blurry, couldn't even make out a face - not her fault though, she's probably lovely...

This does go to the "you sometimes get what you pay for", but in this case I don't think whatever money saved will ever counter the grief. Sadly this does represent what happens when clients hire the wrong vendor... and you can't get too much more wrong...

[Jeff Harper]

I understand Adrian. Bestiality is widely available but I don't want to see it here. I do not see relevance here. It is my fondest hope that there are no members of this forum who will need to remember to keep their cameras turned off because they would say such things. If they do get caught saying such things then they have it coming anyway, they've asked for it.

I have not seen the news article, and I can tell you I do not feel sorry that I missed it. There is no telling who is telling the truth in the news half the time anyway, it's mostly he-said/she-said.

[Jeff Harper]

Funny Dave, had to laugh at your comment.

Maybe I'm overreacting, bestiality is a bit of a stretch, a bad analogy, you think? I'm now laughing at myself. Anyway I don't know, but I didn't see the point of the post. My rant is over. You guys have at it.

[Dave Blackhurst]

I think Jeff's point is that this is a horrible example of a terribly unprofessional "vidiot"... and doesn't really fit with the spirit here, where we try very hard to make the best of every "event", even if we aren't making the big bucks, or the lighting is bad, or something goes horribly wrong... or... you get the idea...

Posting about some lunkhead that I suspect would be head first in the dumpster out back were he to show such 'tude around most of the guys here is "interesting", but your entire post was a "cut and paste", and not sure how it adds signal to the s/n ratio...

It's not that it is "widely available", there have been recent discussions on "grumpy priest", and aerial videography "crashes" which are widely available, and discussed on DVi in a professional context. There's very little if any "professional context" available on this one... it was a grasp at straws to use this as an example of why not to supply raw footage...

EDIT:
Jeff and I were "simul-posting" - no Jeff it's NOT a stretch, offensive idiotic behavior is what it is... I know in my circle of friends and colleagues, that moron would likely actually end up in the dumpster, along with his "gear"... there are limits to tolerance... and sometimes stupidity really DOES need to be painful.

I would however re-title this thread "too stupid to be a videographer" to properly represent the subject matter at least!! Or if you wanted to add some context "THIS is what we have to 'compete' with?!?!?!"

[Adrian Tan]

Hi Jeff, reflecting on this a little bit, here's three reasons I think the incident is at least worth knowing about:

-- awareness of how videographers are presented in media, and of couple's potential concerns/reasons for booking or not booking. As I mentioned, I tend to adopt the view that any time wedding videographers are mentioned in media, it's worth knowing about.
-- raw footage -- an example for the argument to not supply it. The above case is extreme -- a racist rant. But what if a camera operator says something that's merely unprofessional rather than outright offensive?
-- possible contract alteration -- for instance, whether clauses need to be included that indemnify you against offence taken from raw or from edited footage. I currently have no such clause. What if, for instance, a guest said, "Nice dress; shame about the girl wearing it", and you missed this on an edit, and uploaded it online as a trailer? Would a client have any cause of action against you?

[David Barnett]

I didn't hear about this, but I think it's a bit topical. Similar to the priest who yelled at the photog a couple weeks ago. I don't think Adrian expressed any of his own opinions, myb some ppl are mis-interpreting what the article says as what Adrian is saying. I dunno, not sure he deserves criticism or second guessing why he posted it. As to the incident, a bonehead. And if the couple sucks so much & took his "cheapest package" why'd he have an assistant with him, and why offer raw footage as a makegood. The videog probably has pretty bad customer service skills, and didn't want to hear from the couple much as far as criticism.


Yo Adrian!!

[Mark Williams]

I feel the guy has enough problems to deal with without humiliating him further on this forum. I am sure he has learned his lesson.

[James Manford]

I understand his frustration about getting paid £600 for the gig in LONDON of all places ... couples want to pay less and less now. And the groom isn't exactly broke ... has a decent well paying job from reading the article, a buyer for Ralph Lauren I believe.

The videographer made the biggest mistake of not going over every clip he was giving to the bride. And even though he charged £600 didn't it occur to him that if he did a good job with the editing (lazy editing is no excuse) ... they would still recommend him so he could charge more to the next customer ???

Absolute amateur and he deserves what ever is coming to him from this ... slating people's backgrounds, religion, caste etc is unacceptable.

[Peter Riding]

I see nothing wrong with Adrian posting this story. Its been all over the UK papers, e.g. the massive circulation and online presence of the Daily Mail:

Camerman's anti-Semitic rant caught on Jewish wedding video | Mail Online

Nor do I think anyone needs to point out the obvious lessons to be learned. But just in case, I will point out one that our USA cousins should be able to relate to with an analogy to guns. Never ever assume that there is not a live round in the chamber, and never ever assume that a blank round is a blank round. So don't leave those cams around with the "safety off" :- )

Another would be that tempting though it may be to talk in shorthand to get your point across quickly to a close confidant in apparent confidence, again don't make assumptions, especially on the actual day no matter how much a client may themselves have wound you up (we don't know what preceded this episode). He appears to have got frustrated by having accepted a low fee for a lavish day and also assumed - probably wrongly - that the photographers were getting paid thousands. Were he more experienced he would know that there is no direct correlation between the total spend on the wedding and the fees for photos and video; clients priorities differ and at the opposite end of the scale we have all probably shot gigs where our fees are the largest single expense a modest couple have incurred.

He appears to have shut for business two months ago. Some of the comments attributed to him in his letter do not appear to be true based on the copy of it on the daily Mail website.

Delete the thread? Are you kidding?

Pete