Helping, Collaborating and Prejudices

Filmmakers who seek help are a common thing for me. Even though I am not a well-known name, I constantly receive messages from help-seekers (at least I am popular in that regard). Sincerely, I am ready to share any information and knowledge with fellow filmmakers. After all, we live in an age where no one has a monopoly on knowledge, so it would be pointless to hide it. Whenever I am asked, I make time to share as much as I know. But I am never a fan of actively helping anyone.

What I am getting at is that helping is when one side gets more from the other, and it causes an asymmetrical dynamic that is hard to sustain. So, I believe, when artists interact with each other, the exchange should elevate both sides. It shouldn’t be like a simple favor to a friend or neighbor (even with the expectation of receiving a similar help from them later on). It should be a collaboration in which both parties have an interest. Otherwise, someone will always feel short-changed, which is a recipe for disaster.

Artists in Trade

I always ponder the value others might get from collaborating with me. For professionals, the initial gain is financial, which is a factor I respect. Yes, money matters, and I acknowledge its significance. My stance opposes exploiting professionals by seeking free or low-cost labor in the name of independent filmmaking, which is a common practice among debut filmmakers that causes a bad reputation for them (of course, I have made this mistake in the past as well, but I live and learn).

Equally, it is important for me to work with individuals who view their involvement in my work as enriching to their own art or craft. This principle extends beyond the professionals, even amateurs can find value in it. Take, for instance, amateur actors who may not have dreams of a career, but participating in a film could become a valuable experience for them. They could earn recognition within their existing pursuits. I like Ayn Rand‘s take on this: She claims that we also trade in moral goods, just using a different kind of currency. It’s like making a moral payment for someone’s virtues and exchanging the satisfaction you get from them.

It’s true. As artists, we trade all the time, even if it is not always visible. And fairness is a must in it, just as it should be in every other kind of trade. What I expect is to earn what I deserve through my own efforts and the quality of my work, not through backdoor deals or special favors. I don’t like handouts or preferential treatment. If someone attempts to assist me without my request or takes action on my behalf without my knowledge (which is something that occurs often), I appreciate the intention, but I consider it counterproductive. So, I always try to bring something valuable to the table and make sure everyone gets their fair share, whether it’s moral, tangible, or intangible. It might seem like a relationship of interest on the surface, but to me, it’s the healthiest way to get things done together.

Prejudices Work

Yes, prejudices work. That’s why they are so popular. We use prejudices more often than we think. Because they are beneficial. They are like practical shortcuts. Especially in high-risk moments, a quick judgment call can save our skin. And every time we refuse or accept to collaborate just because we assume the outcome, that’s prejudice in action. Sometimes, we even dress it up and call it an experience or an observation.

Think about people who have never done any sport in their life, suddenly get a gym membership, and announce: Gym life forever. I give it two, maybe three months, tops. Then they are back to excuses. Of course, I don’t have a sixth sense for spotting quitters. But I am usually right. Like, weirdly right. It doesn’t make me some kind of visionary. It doesn’t mean my friends are lazy, either. It just means I have a working prejudice. A little mental shortcut that helps me make peace with patterns I have noticed. I know it’s not a universal truth. But it usually turns out to be true enough. And even if it’s wrong, the cost of being wrong would be tiny. It’s not life or death. No one dies if I am wrong. No big philosophical crisis.

Shields and Weapons

Prejudices are not inherently evil; it’s how we use them that matters. And I think the best way to use them is as shields, not as weapons. Let’s say, when teaching a child, being too open in their interactions with strangers might leave them vulnerable to potential dangers. But you can protect them by teaching caution toward strangers, which is, in essence, a form of prejudice: Don’t trust strangers. Are all strangers dangerous? Of course not. But children may not be able to learn it quickly to make a distinction between dangerous and not, which puts them in a vulnerable position. Sometimes, they need certain prejudices to stay safe.

On the other hand, I think the powerful should avoid prejudices and take more risks because they simply CAN. Ironically, it’s often the other way around: those with the least tend to be the most open-minded, while those who could afford to take risks are often the most guarded. If we flipped that, I think prejudices could become more useful, even humane, rather than harmful.

My Prejudices Are Better Than Yours

We humans are full of contradictions, with countless ways to mess things up, but also countless ways to make things right. Our flaws and virtues are part of us, and we are all a mix of them. Whatever our purpose, good or bad, we always find or create an “other” and stand against it. Think about it. You aim your good intentions at a target, thoughts you believe are useful and kind. But every target casts someone as the villain.

Let’s say you stand for wisdom; someone else is cast as ignorance. Somebody, somewhere, has to play the fool. You want peace, but there must be some evil people who want war. You value life, but you spray your house and kill every bug in sight. Life demands death, but it’s always someone else’s life. Pandas are few and cute; bugs are too many and (often) disturbing. The life of a fly may seem less important than anything else, but perhaps it’s the other way around for some. Perhaps they are more important than anyone thinks. Sometimes we don’t even need any useful or moral reasons. We just feel that way. The point is that no matter what suits us, we must stand against something. A person, a figure, a thought, always weighed, always valued. Someone or something is always worth less or more. This one matters. That one doesn’t. It’s always us and them. This and that.

Can you really exempt yourself from doing this? Can you, really? If you think about this for a while, sooner or later, I am sure you will find yourself trapped in political correctness to avoid this human paradox. Being politically correct, perhaps, is the worst plague of our time, but it makes us feel better. Let’s do it, let’s all say it with one voice and relax: Everyone deserves a chance, at least once, maybe even twice or three times.

Now let’s get back to reality. I, too, am a flawed human being full of prejudices. And I must daringly admit that, at times, they have served me well. And, more daringly, I would like to share some of them here: the archetypes I encountered while collaborating in filmmaking. I could (even more daringly) name at least one real person for each of these, but of course, I won’t do that. I know that a person cannot be defined by labels (even if they choose these labels themselves). They, perhaps, can exhibit some of their traits. So, I would not recommend categorizing people or treating them according to my prejudices. None of them should be used to judge anyone. But that doesn’t mean, my friends, we shouldn’t talk about our strengths and weaknesses. That’s what I did, a little guarded, a little vulnerable, a little tense, and a little cynical. A bunch of “others” all wrapped up in my own flaws and virtues:

Hope Merchants

Hope Merchants never say no. They can’t. They are like shopkeepers who never admit that they don’t sell the product: “It’s just out of stock, you should come back next week”. And next week, they will try to sell you something else. They keep you hanging. They live off your hope. You will never hear no from them, which is exactly what you need to hear to move forward. But they only lead you to constant disappointments.

Know-it-all Officers

Know-it-all Officers have one way of doing things. And they think it’s the only way. A method that worked once, so now it must always work. They don’t take feedback. They don’t adjust. They don’t adapt. They don’t listen. They just grind you down until you fit their template. They pull you into their safe, mediocre comfort zone where they can stay happy.

Hookers

Hookers sell you polished and professional services in shiny labels. They wrap professionalism in packages. Your creative vision doesn’t matter. As long as the money is there, they will make it work. But you won’t get the merit you are after. You will get a representation of it. Looks good, but feels empty.

Mentors

Mentors always give advice. They drop wisdom on you but don’t do the actual work. Their advice never makes the ship sail. And most dangerously, you might find yourself in the mentor trap, where you either hang on every word or rebel and do the exact opposite. But neither of those paths will take you anywhere.

Experts

Experts know their worth, so they can be selective about whom they work with. They don’t want their skills to be cheapened, and they expect to see some effort or respect from you. Sometimes, though, they may expect a bit too much. They don’t want to feel like their time is being undervalued, and they want to hear it. You can only work with them if you can afford them both financially and emotionally.

Cliques

Cliques are all about the group. Whether it’s politics, culture, or ethnicity, they pull you in. They back you up, help you grow, and act as if your success is their success. It’s not just about you, it’s about expanding the circle. They love to build you up, but only if it makes them look good. They offer support and make you feel like you are part of something bigger. But the moment success shows up, they take the credit. It’s always about the group, always.

Masters

Masters are great at inspiring, but not so much when it comes to collaborating. You should forget about building a relationship on equal terms. If they see you as competition, they will either shut you out or ignore you. If they think you are beneath them, they might praise you and maybe even throw a bone to help, which (I think) you should refuse.

Co-pilots

Co-pilots are your biggest supporters and your partners in progress. When you stand back to back, there is this strength: together, you are unbeatable. But it works as long as you feed each other and don’t become competitors. Once competition begins, that’s when the partnership is in danger. And as you move forward, there will always be someone left behind. It’s part of it.

Tribes

Tribes are your people: your family, your friends, the ones whose thoughts and vibes you trust. If they are willing and able, they will step up, take ownership, and treat your work like it’s their own. But having them is a kind of luck, and you don’t want to abuse it. You don’t want to blur the lines too much between work and friendship. Because it’s not about building a planned collaboration; it is an organic relationship.

Pilgrims

Pilgrims are fully committed to what they do. They are dedicated and always give their best effort. They follow their own path, so they are not always ready for collaboration. But when your paths cross somehow, that’s when you can make something extraordinary together.

Fans

Fans don’t care about collaboration; they only look for a connection. They admire you or your work and often use the idea of collaboration as a way to get closer. But no matter how qualified they are, even if they are capable, it’s still a one-sided relationship, and sooner or later, someone ends up disappointed.

Pseudo-Empaths

Pseudo-empaths love the idea of the underdog you. Even if you are not, they will frame you that way based on your identity or background. They need you to be. It makes them feel generous. So they can support you on their terms. But the moment you refuse the role they have assigned you, the empathy vanishes, the double standards kick in, and you understand it was never about you.

Fanatics

Fanatics are blind. They stick themselves to a worldview and an identity they refuse to question. They don’t talk to you; they preach to you by filtering everything through their own ideological lens. They are even fanatics about being open-minded. They will preach open-mindedness while refusing to open their own minds. Every situation, every argument, and every fact bends to fit their perspective.

Propagators

Propagators don’t just defend a worldview, they promote it. But they never admit to their role, they act as if their views are universal truths. They create a universally accepted common sense to draw you in and use labels to communicate, which often feels like NGO promotions: environmentalism, feminism/gender equality/womanhood, LGBTQ+, political activism, anti-war (Anti-Russia), veganism, labor struggles, anti-colonialism, ethnic/exotic identities, social justice, immigrant/refugee narratives.

Activists

Activists love to fight against something. Freedom, resistance, and solidarity are their favourite words, but too often, they hollow them out with their actions. They defend justice, but only according to their own sensitivities. A post here, a share there, protests, boycotts, hashtags; they just make noise, not solutions. And they want films to be a part of this. They create a sense of completion and an illusion of success by spreading their ideas, which lets them play the same game over and over. But, in the end, real problems stay the same or are never solved by their actions. They just feed the algorithms and make social media platforms richer.

Cancelists

Cancelists are masters of scapegoating. They pick a person or figure or company or country, pin every bad thing on them, and attack at every turn. They avoid looking deeper so they can ignore uncomfortable truths about themselves or the ideas they support. So, by staying on the surface and being accusatory, they can stay feeling pure as angels.

Networkers

Networkers aren’t focused on real collaboration; they are focused on collecting names. They may know everyone but contribute little. Their conversations are all about dropping names. They try to assert dominance by mentioning who they know, as if that somehow means they know the work. It’s a game of showing off influence, not building anything real.

Lickers

Lickers always praise you and try to get your collaboration through flattery, but when it comes time to do the work, they either disappear or reveal their incompetence.

Con-Artists

Con-Artists find easy and practical ways to get things done. They solve the problems in the short term, but in the long term, their solutions can create new issues, sometimes even bigger than that they solved. You can spot them by this trait: They understand a little about everything, but they don’t know anything in depth.

Romantics

Romantics romanticize everything. They call their work a passion and frame themselves as poets, not filmmakers. They reject technology, AI, tools, and progress, while glorifying the purity of human creativity, which they believe is just based on instincts and inspiration. They don’t work. They don’t push. They simply stand there and wait for their art to descend from the sky. If cinema had stayed in their hands, we probably would still be watching silent films. What they do is actually living in a personal development myth, a bubble, an echo chamber disguised as art, without any real merit or talent.

Symbolists

Symbolists have to decode everything. When you include a bird in your film for a simple frame, they would be busy decoding what that bird means and what it symbolizes. They are like the medieval icon artists who pursue divine meanings. They always over-read things, which makes communication impossible.

Complexists

Complexists dress up art with big words from philosophy, psychology, and sociology. But no one, not even they, understand what it means. They make it sound complicated enough so people can start thinking they must be a genius. In fact, it’s just an attempt to cover up their lack of merit.

Opportunists

Opportunists are like chameleons. They always shift their colors to match whatever is trending. They can change their style or stance without a second thought. They have no real principles, they just rationalize every step they take and call it “playing the game by the rules”. Long-term collaboration is not their thing. You might see them selling oranges after a film project.

Anti-Capitalists

Anti-capitalists love to critique capitalism. They use the opportunities that capitalism provides, but when it’s time to talk, they preach the same cliché anti-capitalists rhetorics. And there are always certain people ready to buy these messages, which makes them feel clever, like they are somehow above the system. So, their rhetoric always SELLS. Ironically, even in their criticisms, they are after a benefit. If you call them hypocrites, they will just blame capitalism again for pushing them to do it. And so the cycle continues.

Populists

Populists always focus on a target audience. Of course, they don’t always think in terms of extreme mass appeal, but they are always targeting a specific group of people, and everything they create is for that audience. They love categorizing cinema and audiences. They divide them into segments: cinephiles, festival-goers, indie film lovers, arthouse fans, so on and so forth. So, when they collaborate, the goal is always to meet the tastes of that particular segment. In this way, they convince themselves they are doing something niche, but, in fact, they act as pure populists within their circles. And they always confuse populism with popularity; they think that everything popular is produced from this populist perspective. They do not realize that being popular is sometimes the result of a mix of unpredictable circumstances.