'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

So, what is your point?

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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...

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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?!?!?!"

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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?

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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!!

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

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

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

There is a fuller article on the Daily Telegraph website. Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...itic-rant.html The videographer in question apparently has an interesting background.

Aside from the idiotic racism it's a case in point where the couple got what they paid for. £600 for a two man shoot of a wedding in Central London is a stupid cheap price. The reception venue is just off Trafalgar Square & probably £100-£150 per guest for 150 guests. The guy is clearly not a pro & took 9 months to deliver a crap wedding video & was trying to appease the couple by giving them all the raw footage. A gesture that has backfired spectacularly.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

I agree Nigel - that is a ridiculous price - having said that I would assume the couple had shopped around and should have been aware that the price was way low and should have been rightfully suspicious - you get what you pay for IMO. I'm not saying they deserved a crap video just that they should had applied some common sense when they saw a 2 man crew in London for £600!

Pete

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

I thought that the name Anthony Aurelius was familiar. Those of you in the UK may have seen the Google Ads for www.highdefinitionbride.com (also trading as www.raisingawarenessproductions.com). The company shut up shop in the middle of August leaving couples who had paid to have their wedding filmed not receiving anything.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Yes Nigel ... i've seen those ads many times!

Could it be him ?? Feel sorry for his other customers.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

The High Definition Bride website is now shut down but the Wayback Machine has a copy Wedding Videos by High-Definition Bride | Home

He is obviously an old school videographer who thinks a photo of a monstrous shoulder mount camera is what is going to entice the brides to book. The website also has logos of the IoV & Guild of Television Cameramen

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Here is his price list from May last year. The mind boggles!

Bronze Package – £695
Silver Package – £995
Gold Package – £1,495
Platinum Steadicam Package – £1,995
Diamond Cinematography Package – £2,995
Diamond Executive Package – £4,995


Here is a guy who clearly is just trying to take all the money he can. You simply can't be a £695 videographer but also a £4995 videographer.

I kind of think, he's a guy who is happy enough to take on £695 packages, but he sure as hell isn't going to worry about the quality. He will have an attitude of the day of 'this is only a cheap one, so I'm not going to stress and I'll cut back on the gear I use'

Also - Platinum steadicam Package? As in, he will walk around for 10 hours of a day filming entirely on steadicam??

You may as well have an iphone, a £200 handicam, a £1000 handicam, a DSLR, and a C100 and then offer different price ranges depending on which camera you bring!

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Something really puzzles me here! If he was operating last year surely he was shooting to cards and not tape? I might understand if he handed over a bunch of tape cassettes but surely he went thru them and logged the footage?? On card it would have been even easier ..just delete the rubbish clips and keep the bride happy. Don't we all log our footage so we have known what material we have to work with?

Admittedly I once (a long time ago) left a camera in standby between the ceremony and reception and ended up with depleted batteries but seriously who would leave a camera running and dump it in the car??

Maybe it's better for all that he is out of business? Reminds me a bit about the post a year or so here (also in the UK) about another photog/videog that was sued by the couple!! I guess we will always have poor operators in any business trying to make a fast buck.

Chris

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Oh come on everyone? Has nobody ever picked up and old tape or more modern card, played the first few seconds, decided that it was the right one and simply dumped it to a DVD or made a copy and handed it across to solve a problem quickly? I must have done this hundreds of times. Phone rings - client says I need another bla bla boa, and your brain makes that snap decision on if this is a serious chargeable product, or simply a helpful freebie, that really isn't worth thinking about.

This guy made the mistake of not remembering or logging, or just not thinking - that's all he is guilty of. Stupidity.

Private comments or even public comments to paying guests all have a context. Bad taste very often, but not litigious. I've given up thinking about the things you hear that would offend - as in a TV gallery when the remote feed comes up and a very ugly person is revealed, causing the Director to comment very bluntly about it into the earpieces and speakers of everyone. If he said to the person "My God you are ugly" that's very hurtful. To say somebody is ugly isn't in itself a crime - is it. Just bad taste or just rude.

People are pathetic nowadays. Surely this must be more embarrassing for the couple concerned now they've made it public - with everyone looking at her image and probably agreeing.Get a thicker skin!

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Offering packages like that is setting yourself up for work that will put you way out of your depth.

I agree, you can't be a £600 videographer and a £5000 one. It requires a different mindset and style when filming, editing and everything ... call me crazy, but that's how I feel anyway!

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

+ criminally offensive hate speech.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

It looks like we all have become judge and jury, :) He did something we all do now and then but not as extreme as he did. How many times have I seen topics passing by here complaining about the venue, the master of ceremony, the priest and even the couple. I too have been complaining about certain events that didn't go right at a wedding to a photog at the day of the wedding and vice versa and the bride or groom has been a topic of discussion more then once. I never make racist remarks but I"m sure if the couple would hear every thing I was complaining about now and then, they would be upset as well, eventhough I know I'm right :).

In a stressful run and gun moment driving from one to another location even I have had the camera in rec mode while I was driving the car and noticed only minutes later so any ongoing conversation would have been recorded as well.

Beside the fact that his racist remarks are unacceptable he was only stupid not to have checked his raw material before handing it out, I never hand over raw material right from the card except if this was a part of the assignment (if the client wants to edit himself)

It's better not to dig further into his past, like recovering his website and discussing his business model or pricing.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

No - I don't agree. He made comments in private to somebody he works with - he isn't inciting hatred.

Looking at my diary it's full of Jethro, Jim Davidson, Jimmy Carr, Chubby Brown, and I've got some old material on the shelf somewhere from Bernard Manning. In context, it's entertainment - in another it's potentially criminal. As this poor guys comments were accidentally recorded and then ended up in just the wrong place, he's had the flack. A comment in private is just a comment.There was NO criminal activity. Even the politicians get it wrong - remember the politician who forgot he was miked up and who's private comments were made public. Again, perhaps in bad taste and stupidly done - but not criminal. There is no bad taste police. If you were to make the Hitler/Jewish comments to an audience not expecting them, then that would be different -- but if a comedian wishes to deliver this bad taste material to a paying audience, then the best they can do is leave. Much of my theatre video work is a DVD in a filing cabinet, ready to be used in the future.

Criminally offensive hate speech? Just unpleasant stuff in private, accidentally made public.

Jim Davidson's in Norwich soon - he's got some good comments on the paralympics, which the audience love and is actually quite funny - and the people in wheelchairs laugh, as does my work experience lad who has cerebral palsy. If somebody in the audience put something on youtube out of context, you could accuse him of all sorts, and sometimes people do.

People are just too delicate sometimes - toughen up a bit, develop broad shoulders and smile!

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Sorry, I just see little humor in laughing and joking at people like that?! Sure, you've seen 'some' who laugh as well, however that's probably a very small percentage of those as opposed to those who would likely be irate.

As for the rates, yeah that really is a terrible idea, he most likely attracted just cheapskates anyway as a result. A $5000 bride would see him as a $600 videographer much the same way you don't buy a $60,000 Toyota, you buy a Lexus.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Maybe we could give the guy a little slack, after all, he didn't have this on his price list:
Royal Wedding Package ......... £99,995

After having got burned over the years by people who I trusted and then they went out of business, took off for parts unknown, or what ever, with my money or things, I tell myself it'll never happen again but then it does. Fortunately I'm not in the megabuck class like some of those who gave money to shyster Bernie Madoff, but it still hurts, both monetarily and mentally.

With Madoff and his ponzi scam the victims have lawyers going after institutions where Madoff put the money. Not sure how this works if the institution took the money in good faith but have to give it up because of its source. Seems like they would be loosing too. In the case of the Madoff ponzi scam everybody was trying to get rich so it was like birds of a feather flock together.

Not sure why Government lawyers with taxpayers money are trying to make the victims whole but that's another thought.

In my case it was normally trying to buy something (deposit) or leaving something on consignment. Lesson learned: don't be too trusting. But why do I have to keep re-learning it?

Such a deal I have for you today. Because its Saturday and you seem like a nice sucker, er ... I mean, person, you can have this wonderful, always to be remembered, special video package for, get this, only ....(whisper amount because its such a good deal) .... but you have to get it now.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

To be honest, I wouldn't like any of my in-the-car conversations to be heard by the B&G.

I don't know what you guys talk about en route, but previous conversations I've had have included such topics as:

-- the main one: moaning over having done a bad job. "I did a terrible job at the groom's house. I have to make up for it at the bride's." Or: "My ceremony shot was blocked by mobile phone. I really should have thought camera placement through better."
-- complaining about photographers
-- commenting that so-and-so is attractive. I remember one guy I worked with telling me that the bridesmaid was making eyes at him... and he was right -- she later asked him out during the reception. I don't ever recall, though, having heard or having said that so-and-so is unattractive.
-- just the general shorthand language I use with my main shooting partner is not bride-friendly. It's joking shorthand. For instance, we refer to any place -- church, person's house, reception -- as a "joint".

There's also that point that, apart from offence, quite private matters are often discussed in transit unrelated to the wedding.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

I read about this in the metro newspaper on a way to a shoot a couple of days ago.

I think it mentioned that he apologised and gave them a full refund. As inappropriate as it was for him to make such comments, I think it was rather petty to release a story like this to the press.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

i agree with those who have pointed out that many on here bitch about their clients, but then point the finger when someone is caught. nobody is perfect. yes, he seems to be a racist chancer who really should pay more attention to what he's doing. but then again he could be just a someone letting off steam (in a stupid way) with a dodgy website. Racism is uncalled for and plain stupid but who hasn't complained about idiot clients??? they exist and are numerous!



beauty is in the eye of the beholder...but some folk are, well...challenging, in a visual kind of way....

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

A PRO will make the bride the most beautiful woman of the day, no matter how "visually challenging"... that's what separates the PRO from a wanker that spouts off and blames someone else for his inadequacies.... or that his clients were foolish enough to hire him at HIS OWN SET PRICE and expect he would do the job professionally.

I would suggest one thing can be learned from this is that ANY "wedding videographer" who makes disparaging comments about the bride is committing professional SUICIDE in a social media age...

Not everyone is a supermodel, but if you make them FEEL like they are, you will be the PRO they remember (in a GOOD way!)

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Yeah, it's easy done in the new version of Edius, there are several blur presets ranging from good looking to plain ugly, I think the plain ugly preset is around 70% blur, works like a charm but I"d never tell the bride, I"m not that stupid.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Sound people spend long hours with headphones on privvy to the very private comments made by the talent wearing the mics - the key feature of the job is that nothing heard gets passed on - even if you hear the artiste slagging YOU off. Like "The sound guy is really piss1ng me off - he always come in here wanting the stuff back just when I want to relax - I'm going to tell him to F*ck off next time - he's a twat" - and then you have to go in, knowing that changing the routine might reveal you 'know', and of course the person is all smiles, just like you". It's all pretend, isn't it - it simply needs privacy maintained. That is all that went wrong.

People are allowed to be racist, bigoted, homophobic in private. No Government is going to try to prevent you having opinions. You just can't promote these in public.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

I think you just did - this isn't a private thread is it?

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Well, my clients have a sense of humor so they will understand.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

And if things are really bad ....

.... you can pixilate!

Disclaimer: I don't have to worry because I don't do weddings.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

I have found that the best solution for boring weddings is to hand over a blank dvd and to tell my client that after careful consideration I think this is the best option for their video. I then charge them extra as I had to edit down 2 hours of footage to... well, just the best bits. That's a lot of cutting!

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

HA! Quote of the night!