Meanwhile, the trial balloon of forgiving student loans is floated. In other words, we would pay for Michael Moore's intern while Mr Moore weighs in on the evils of capitalism.

Irony is beyond the ken of some.

LOL. Allow me to explain the movie business to you. Internships are common as dirt in the industry. Ever studio, production company and independent has interns.

I know from personal experience. It's how I got my start in the business over twenty years ago.

In fact, I chose interships over going to film school full time. Not only did the internships give me valuable experience and contacts - contacts I later utilized to obtain steady employment - they allowed me to go into the work force relatively debt free. I'm now started my third decade in the industry, and make a great living in a union job doing what I love.

You need to shop around for the good ones (if all you're going to be doing is fetching coffee 12 hours a day, take a pass), but iI highly recommend internships to anyone wanting to get into production.

Allow me to explain the movie business to you.

You missed the point by || that much.

Yes, that's how that industry works. Michael Moore cries over the evils of capitalism, so it would make sense that he would pay his interns, oh, I dunno, a livable wage or something. And not participate in one of the evils of capitalism...

Come on Amy,

You've lived long enough in LA to know this is standard in the film industry. I myself took an unpaid job at Orion Pictures. I worked for free for one month and was offered a full time job job. It was a great job for somebody barely out of college. I'd tell anybody with a degree in film that this is one of the ways to get your foot in the door, especially when you have no connections. Mr. Moore has helped out the Traverse City, MI area by providing both paid and unpaid job opportunities to an area in need of jobs. How bad is that? You may not like his politics but his job creation and his ability to pump money into a local economy is pretty darn good. Let him come to Charlotte, NC and pump some money in here!

This is more than a stretch. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Amy, are you genuinely ignorant of how film internships work, and the benefits they offer? Unlike a lot of production companies, Moore only takes students - meaning, he's doing it completely above board.

My career started when I dropped out of film school, moved to LA, and got a gig working as an intern on a shitty feature film. It got me in the door, led to paying work, and gave me a career in the film business, which I have enjoyed for more than two decades. Film school couldn't (and can't) do any of that.

Opening the door to the film business is one of the toughest things there is. This is a huge opportunity for interns, and given a choice between working on some shitty production or a Michael Moore film, you'd be insane not to want to work with an Oscar winning filmmaker, even if you despise his politics. Holy shit, to call this out as a sign of his bad character is about the most ignorant thing you could possibly do.

At its heart, this just plays to that ludicrous canard that anyone who's politically left of center should give away all their money if they're to be ideologically consistent. You know better than that.

While I have issues with Moore, this is not proof of his hypocrisy. What it does, however, is indicate an overwhelming desire on your part to criticize him, regardless of the criticism's merit.

PS: And the reason you don't have interns working for you is because there's not a significant benefit to working for you. A couple months interning on a feature film - especially a high profile one from an Oscar winning filmmaker - buys you a career in the film business.

Looking back a few decades, I can safely say that the three months I spent interning on Masters of the Universe are STILL paying off, while the better paying gig I had before that - working in a bookstore - didn't do much for me, except cover rent and food.

Wow, people, since when does standard equal right? We could argue equally as well that Wall Street is doing what it's always done, so why start bitching now?

And job creation...well, the only reason a job should be created is if a job needs to be done, not because someone needs money.

When I was in the Mortgage Industry, for just a very short time before the crash, I was absolutely disgusted by how my bosses wanted me to say anthing I had to in order to sell the loan and collect the money. My answer to them was that a poential customer's money and equity did not belong to us just because we needed to pay our bills. And that puts me on the side of the good and righteous, correctamundo?

The flip side of that, is that we cannot turn around and say to any entity, not Wall Street, not a Fortune 500 company, and certainly not the government (which is funded by us working stiffs), "Give me your money! Make your business less efficient by creating a job even though there's nothing for me to do!"

And Amy is right about Michael Moore. He could change the "standard" in Hollywood if he wanted to. He could "be the change you want to see", but he's not.

Hollywood itself could change it's standards. It could start paying interns, get rid of the casting couch, stop building whole fake towns for a three month shoot, stop having giant charity fundraisers like Comic relief, wherein the celebs spend tens of thousands of dollars on gowns and jewelry and nannies and dinner out and limos, all to ask the working class to donate their money. Waste, waste, waste. That's all Hollywood does, so "lol, it's standard, silly, lol" really isn't much of an argument.

Equating the internship system with the casting couch is idiotic.

The benefits of internship are incalculable. In the case of Moore's company, they only take students, meaning that instead of taking classes, students are actually getting hands on experience that will lead to a career. What you're saying, in essence, is that they're better off taking classes that have no immediate benefit than they are actually getting entry to the business. That's lunacy.

The point Amy's trying to make is not that there is no benefit to interning in the movie business ... obviously there's a great deal of benefit to even one internship.

The point she's making is that the work is unpaid ... so only those with an independent means of support (mommy and daddy, trust fund, savings, etc.) can afford to give up weeks and/or months of their time to take on unpaid (or barely paid) work.

That means the benefits of a movie industry internship are not available for all ... they're only available for the privileged few (you know, for the 1% Moore ranted against when he addressed Occupy Wall Street).

It the internships paid an actual wage, the poorer kids (the ones who have to work to help meet expenses while in college) could afford to work for Michael Moore, too.

Amy,

"Yeah, working for me has zero value."

Not what I said. But compared to working on a Michael Moore film? Negligible. You work on a film, you're working with scores of professionals, all of whom - if you're any good - will not just educate you, but help you on the way to your first paying gig.

I absolutely believe that working for you would benefit someone who wanted to break into journalism. But given that you're one person, and that journalism is - as you pointed out - a struggling business these days - it seems pretty clear that interning on a film is a smarter move than interning for a writer.

"Meaning that these students are PAYING to work for Moore.

Absolutely disgusting."

Really? Because I spent two years paying film professors to teach me in the hopes of eventually getting a degree that would leave me.... well, nowhere. A degree in film is virtually worthless. Which I dropped out of school and moved to LA. Three months interning, and I had a career in film that's lasted more than 20 years. Every single success I've had has come from that internship. It got me in the door in a way a film degree never, ever would have.

Sorry. Working on a Michael Moore project is a golden opportunity for some kid. I've worked on scores of feature films in literally EVERY capacity (Except DP. I've never shot a film professionally.) It's one of the hardest businesses there is to break into. For someone with exactly ZERO professional experience to get on a crew - let alone the crew of a Michael Moore film - is the opportunity of a lifetime. The amount of logic torture you have to perform to convince yourself otherwise is mind-boggling.

Conan,

Horseshit. I was as far from a rich kid as you could get when I moved to LA. I quit school and worked my ass off for months to save up enough money to make the move and to support myself while I broke in. I drove a shitty used car I bought for $200, and I lived in the worst dump you've ever seen.

And you know what? It was a hell of a lot cheaper than a year of film school, and paid off a hell of a lot more.

I quit school and worked my ass off for months to save up enough money to make the move and to support myself while I broke in. I drove a shitty used car I bought for $200, and I lived in the worst dump you've ever seen. -- Josh Olson

Where did you live and how did you eat for those "months" it took you to work your ass off and save the money you would need to support yourself while working for free on a film internship?

I really missed the point of Amy's post. I thought that capitalist hating Michael was being a hypocrite was the point. Josh Olson then corrected my thought by pointing out this is how capitalism works in Hollywood. I guess I am just dumb.

Conan,

"Where did you live and how did you eat for those "months" it took you to work your ass off and save the money you would need to support yourself while working for free on a film internship?"

In a $200 a month apartment in West Philadelphia. I moved out of my parents' house the day after I finished high school.

Instead of trying to find a gotcha clause in my story (you won't), maybe you could explain to me a more financially rewarding way that I could have broken into the film business. I've been in it for more than two decades, and I have yet to come across a better way for someone with no connections to do it.

Dave,

There's a difference between hating capitalism and being critical of people who abuse it. The notion that liberals are hypocrites if they make money is sophomoric in the extreme.

Are you saying that Michael is just against people who abuse capitalism Josh? Are you saying that Michael is a proud capitalist? Pray tell.

Are you equating working at Reason magazine with working on a feature film?

Just from a purely financial perspective, that's an absurd comparison. The potential financial rewards of one don't even begin to compare to that of the other. And I don't mean this as a knock to journalism at ALL when I point out that thousands of kids come to LA every year to break into the film business.

Dave,

Your position is inane. It appeals on a smug dittohead level, on par with those people who think that anyone who thinks the rich aren't taxed enough ought to just send checks to the government. Not worth discussing seriously.

What kind of answer was that Josh? Did I make you angry?

How about this. What is Michael's opinion of Capitalism? Is he a supporter of it or not?

Horseshit. I was as far from a rich kid as you could get when I moved to LA. I quit school and worked my ass off for months to save up enough money to make the move and to support myself while I broke in.

Yet you'd already gotten into film school and "spent two years paying film professors to teach [you] in the hopes of eventually getting a degree that would lea[d] [you].... well, nowhere."

You may not have been a rich kid, but you'd already gotten a few breaks.

For someone with exactly ZERO professional experience to get on a crew - let alone the crew of a Michael Moore film - is the opportunity of a lifetime.

No one's arguing that point or mind-bogglingly trying to convince themselves otherwise.

The point is that not every kid out there can afford an unpaid internship (in Hollywood or anywhere else for that matter) and so those opportunities are, in reality, open only to a select few ... and that it's exploitive ... and Moore's a hypocrite.

Perhaps that's natural selection; only those hungry enough to grab the opportunity deserve it. So ... if that argument's good enough for Hollywood in employing unpaid or lowly-paid labor, why isn't it good enough for Wall Street or Main Street?

According to Michael Moore and others of his ilk, it's evil for workers to have to start at the low-wage end of the scale in the factory or the corporation and work their way up ... but it's apparently not evil in the documentary film business.

And for Moore to rail against evil capitalists for exploiting low-paid workers while doing so himself is hypocrisy; no matter the eventual (implied or actual) benefit to the wage slave.

Instead of trying to find a gotcha clause in my story (you won't)....

I'm not trying to find a "gotcha" clause in your story (it's a great story).

I'm trying to point out that your experience is not universal.

And because it worked out for you does not make it the best way of doing things. Just because you were able to put your professional life on hold and spend several months working for pay and were able to save enough to spend several months working for little or no pay does not mean everyone can.

You're like the guy who defends fraternity hazing because "that's the way we've always done it" or "it builds character and creates pledge class unity" or "I had to go through it so the new guys should, too."

Just from a purely financial perspective, that's an absurd comparison. The potential financial rewards of one don't even begin to compare to that of the other. And I don't mean this as a knock to journalism at ALL when I point out that thousands of kids come to LA every year to break into the film business.

"POTENTIAL fiancial rewards" are not guaranteed rewards ... nor even reasonably certain to occur.

Does every unpaid intern break into the film industry and find his dream or even a rewarding career? Or do some of them (i.e., the majority) simply end up working at a regular, but not exactly financially lucrative job (e,g, cameraman for a local newscast) or in a different industry altogether?

Perhaps some reason interns do find financially-lucrative careers in writing, journalism, media, etc. And many go on to find jobs in the industry. According to the Website, reason interns have "gone on to work at such places as The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, ABC News, and reason itself."

==============================

And, Josh, not every unpaid intern agrees with you.

Two interns on the movie, Black Swan have filed a class action lawsuit against Fox Searchlight for exploiting them and violating minimum wage laws.

From the New York Times:

One plaintiff, Alex Footman, a 2009 Wesleyan graduate who majored in film studies, said he had worked as a production intern on “Black Swan” in New York from October 2009 to February 2010.

He said his responsibilities included preparing coffee for the production office, ensuring that the coffee pot was full, taking and distributing lunch orders for the production staff, taking out the trash and cleaning the office.

“The only thing I learned on this internship was to be more picky in choosing employment opportunities,” Mr. Footman, 24, said in an interview. “ ‘Black Swan’ had more than $300 million in revenues. If they paid us, it wouldn’t make a big difference to them, but it would make a huge difference to us.”

==============================

The U.S. Department of Labor has certain criteria for who can be an unpaid intern. The unpaid position must benefit the intern, the intern must not displace regular employees, the training received must be similar to what would be given in an educational institution, and the employer should derive no immediate advantage from the intern's activities.

Conan,

Most of your points have already been addressed. You can choose to ignore them or not. Your position demands that we all pretend the demand for entry into the film business is commensurate with the demand for entry into journalism.

As for the Black Swan interns, their position is pathetic. First of all, one of them is 42 - what a 42 year old is doing interning anywhere is anyone's guess, but that doesn't speak to a particularly compelling CV. Second, the notion that a film should retroactively pay the crew more when it's a hit is more than a little problematic. If they actually succeed with their suit, they'll end up closing one of the few doors available to people with no connection and no experience. And regardless of whether or not they succeed, they've fucked themselves professionally.

Basically, what you and Amy are arguing for is making it even harder for people with no connections and no pre-existing advantages to break into the film business. Not journalism, and not an assembly line. The film business.

I think I'm on board with MarkD's assessment. OWS isn't really about anything more than envy. It's privileged white people complaining that THEY didn't get a bailout. It's not the 99%; it's the 19% vs. the 1%. The bottom four quintiles aren't even in the game.

Michael Moore is just awful. By not paying for interns, he's ensuring that he gets another privileged white person like himself. Who else can afford to work for free in Manhattan?

My last answer got eaten somehow. So:

Conan,

"The point is that not every kid out there can afford an unpaid internship (in Hollywood or anywhere else for that matter) and so those opportunities are, in reality, open only to a select few ... and that it's exploitive ... and Moore's a hypocrite."

This is monumentally twisted logic. Basically, you want to abolish a system that makes it possible for people with no connections in the business and no professional experience to break into the film business because it doesn't make it possible for everyone everywhere to do it? Insane.

Next, it presupposes that kids in film school aren't there on scholarships, which is equally ridiculous.

"You may not have been a rich kid, but you'd already gotten a few breaks."

Really? How? Unless you're arguing that being accepted to film school constitutes a break.

MORE -
"According to Michael Moore and others of his ilk, it's evil for workers to have to start at the low-wage end of the scale in the factory or the corporation and work their way up ... but it's apparently not evil in the documentary film business"

Yes, if we pretend that breaking into the film business is no different from breaking into working on an assembly line. But we'd have to be abject morons - or liars - to believe that. Getting a gig on a conveyor belt is a shot at earning a living. Getting a gig on a film being produced and directed by the most successful documentary filmmaker in history is the opportunity of a lifetime. Don't insult our mutual intelligence by pretending you don't understand that.

"Just because you were able to put your professional life on hold and spend several months working for pay and were able to save enough to spend several months working for little or no pay does not mean everyone can."

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't put anything on hold. If I'd spent my money on a film school education, you wouldn't be telling me I was exploited. But if I spent a tiny percentage of that money and time on an internship that led to a lucrative career, I was? Insane.

Not only did I not put my professional life on hold, my professional life STARTED the day I started work as an intern.

Setting aside the professional advantages it got me, I learned more in three months than I had in two years of film school.

This argument is idiotic. It's a classic example of the righteous anger of the uninvolved. You truly do not know what you're talking about.

"And because it worked out for you does not make it the best way of doing things."

Indeed. But in 20-some years in the film business, I have yet to come across (or come up with) a better way for kids with no connections and no experience to break into the business.

Josh: I have no knowledge of the film industry, so perhaps you could explain to me how paying interns minimum wage would destroy the ability "for kids with no connections and no experience to break into the business"? Thank you.

Most of your points have already been addressed.

Not really.

You've mostly kept repeating your talking points and referring back to your own success stemming from an internship over 20 years ago.

The only frame of reference you're using for your argument is your own experience. You're not addressing unpaid internships in general as much as you are defending your own.

You've been very successful, but your experience is not universal. Not every intern succeeds the way you did.

Perhaps your defensiveness on the subject stems from an unpaid intern or two whose labors you've exploited in your own career.

==============================

You're arguing that unpaid internships in Hollywood are a good thing and can't be compared to unpaid (or even paid) internships in any other industry because so many people are trying to break into the movie industry and the internship might be their only chance.

Exploitation is exploitation. And being popular doesn't excuse it.

Not every go-fer on the set is going to end up an award-winning screenwriter ... or even have chance to. Just because one might doesn't excuse using all of them like a rented mule.

Hollywood habitually castigates non-movie-industry capitalists for exploiting labor while excusing its own ugly practices. That's called hypocrisy.

If you're gonna tell Wal-Mart to pay its low-level employees a "living wage," you should do the same for your own. And, yes, very few Wal-Mart employees are going to become Hollywood screenwriters. However, more than a few of them will become store managers or division managers and make a pretty decent living at it.

==============================

As for the Black Swan interns, their position is pathetic. First of all, one of them is 42 - what a 42 year old is doing interning anywhere is anyone's guess, but that doesn't speak to a particularly compelling CV.

So ... because he's 42 and had a bad experience with an movie internship, he's to be dismissed as a loser?

Perhaps he decided later in life to switch careers and wanted to break into the film business, but had ZERO experience; and he heard that an internship was a better way to do that than going to film school. Maybe he read that somewhere.

Perhaps he wasn't able to chase his Hollywood dream at 20.

And, because he'd worked for a while, he had enough in savings to be able to take an unpaid internship later in life.

And 42 ain't too late to change careers. Raymond Chandler didn't publish his first short story until his mid-forties, after losing his day job as a bookkeeper for an oil company. And his first novel followed six years later.

==============================

Second, the notion that a film should retroactively pay the crew more when it's a hit is more than a little problematic.

They're not arguing that a hit movie should retroactively pay its interns.

They're arguing that all movies should pay their interns ... or at least give them intern-like work assignments instead of exploiting them by making them glorified go-fers.

Some poor guy without savings or an independent means of support could have gotten a paying job as a go-fer on the set and perhaps had a chance to break into the industry that way, but since the studio chose to exploit unpaid intern labor for that job, that guy didn't get the chance.

==============================

And regardless of whether or not they succeed, they've fucked themselves professionally.

Most likely true.

Perhaps not a wise choice on their part.

Future paid movie interns may have them to thank for not being exploited, however.

I can think of a few reasons why not paying interns would be better than paying minimum wage to do the same thing. Flexibility. Boss can have intern do or help or audit or whatever any job on the set. An employee might be part of a union that does not permit job shuffling. Also, if I were hiring someone, even at minumum wage, I would be trying to hire the best worker. Not necessarily the person that desires to learn the most. Benefits? Don't employees get them and interns not? It isn't just a simple hourly wage if the person hiring is looking for something different in an employees than they would in an intern. Like experience?

This is not so cut and dried and some might assume.

I have no experience with this field but I can certainly see why the intern role developed and has continued. It might be exploitative. It might not.

Meloni,

" perhaps you could explain to me how paying interns minimum wage would destroy the ability "for kids with no connections and no experience to break into the business"? Thank you."

The film business already does this. It actually does better. PA's on movies get paid well over minimum wage. Movies - like everything else - are made on a budget. You can't just create money out of thin air. Internships allow people with no marketable skills to learn some, and break into the business. Compared to the cost of film school (and the overall uselessness of that degree), that's a hell of a bargain. If you cut the internships out of films, they won't add more money magically. That work will just be done by people who are already on the crew.

Amy,

"It is always interesting to me when people I know to be so far left that their heads probably don't even turn right find themselves able to compartmentalize and make excuses"

I'm not an ideologue. It's possible to live your entire life well and honorably without subscribing to an ideology.

"I am a newspaper columnist, struggling in this economy, and a friend's daughter offered to work for me for free, reading some stuff and commenting. I told her I couldn't pay her much, but I would pay her: $10/hr."

That's great. If you were the Production Manager on a film and decided to go over budget to hire some inexperienced kids, you'd be fired, and would probably not work again. Rightly so.

"You may see film as the wonder of all career universes, but others see journalism that way"

Ridiculous. This isn't about how I see the film business. It's how the world sees it. If we have to pretend that journalism attracts as many people as movies, this conversation is pointless. There's no judgement call there, by the way, Amy, and if you want me to acknowledge that journalists serve a profoundly important purpose - moreso than some filmmakers - I'm happy to do it. But let's not mangle facts here. I don't see a billion Chinese tuning in every year to watch the Pulitzers, do you? This isn't snobbery. It's simple fact. Personally, I wish teachers got the kind of respect and attention that filmmakers and movie stars do, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Conan,

"Perhaps your defensiveness on the subject stems from an unpaid intern or two whose labors you've exploited in your own career."

The only times I've used interns was when I was a production co-ordinator. Most were film students. The good ones went on to careers in the business because I and other crew members brought them along on our next jobs for pay. (One of 'em even hired me on a project a couple years later.)

"You're arguing that unpaid internships in Hollywood are a good thing and can't be compared to unpaid (or even paid) internships in any other industry because so many people are trying to break into the movie industry and the internship might be their only chance."

I'm arguing that an internship in the arts is not the same thing as an internship in manufacturing. To claim it is is the height of dishonesty.

"Perhaps he decided later in life to switch careers and wanted to break into the film business, but had ZERO experience; and he heard that an internship was a better way to do that than going to film school. Maybe he read that somewhere."

Perhaps, indeed. If he'd done that, and done a decent job, he'd be working now, instead of trying to glom onto the profits of a hit. (By the way, I'd be thrilled if crew people started getting residuals, but that's a much larger discussion on an entirely different topic. )

"And 42 ain't too late to change careers. "

I didn't say it was. I just said it's odd. But if that was the only way for him to break in, then he should have made the most of it.

"They're not arguing that a hit movie should retroactively pay its interns"

That's precisely what they're saying. He said that because the movie made $300 mil, it shouldn't be a problem to pay them. I don't know if you know this, but no one goes into a movie knowing how much it will make after it comes out. They didn't have $300 mil to make the film. They had $13. Don't know how many small indie films you've worked on, but the notion that they could just add two crew members and pay them out of money that comes from.... where again?... is ridiculous.

"Future paid movie interns may have them to thank for not being exploited, however"

If this lawsuit somehow magically causes film productions to be able to conjure money out of thin air, then you are quite correct. However, budgets are finite. All this suit will do is cause future productions not to bring on interns. And while you're convinced the film business is no more attractive than working in a car factory, the rest of the world disagrees, and these schmucks will have closed the door on countless people with no other way in.

Close the door on internships, and productions will stop using interns. It's that simple.

My biggest problem with the internships is that the *school* charges the students for them. The university requires that a student do an internship (paid or not) in order to graduate with a certain degree. The student has to find the internship opportunity on his own, and pay the credit hours and any associated fees to the university... So the student IS often times paying for the internship- to the school. That's the way it was at my university, anyway. If you're getting credit hours, you're paying for those credit hours, and the internship was required and was worth three credit hours. So, I paid for my unpaid internship. Note that most of the "good" internships (the ones with the best networking opportunities) require that the intern be receiving credit hours...

I guess I am hesitant to cry "exploitation" because I have some small experience as a 'working student' when I was a teen. I worked my ass off from 6 in the morning to 8 at night every day at a reknowned horse trainer's ranch one summer. I cleaned stalls. I fixed fence. I drove to town and did the shopping as required. I did everything that needed doing on the ranch and in return I had an unparalleled opportunity to learn from a master. Had I merely been an employee, I'd have been cleaning stalls and not had the teaching as well. If he'd been hiring assistant trainers, I'd have never made the cut. It was a win/win arrangement for both of us. I feel blessed to have had that opportunity. It definitely opened doors for me later.

When talking internship for free, there are questions that are important to ask, particularly from the US Dept of Labor:

"The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded"

and in California the employee, must get ACTUAL college credit for the labor...

So, many companies [like mine] just go ahead and pay them, because it's easier to comply with a minimum wage, than to deal with potential issues raised by having the thing be potentially shady... or audited.

Let's assume that this is done in a purely lawful way, that the people are there to leanr potentially useful info on the industry, and that NO ECONOMIC GAIN comes from their participation.

You would think that a forward thinking progressive would WANT to pay people a wage, especially if all they are doing is getting some bigshot coffee, so that they would be sensitive to the fact that while experience is a valuable and vital thing, money keeps the body fed.

ESPECIALLY a political progressive like Moore. He accuses many of taking advantage, of not living up to expectations. If he says that, he HAS to do it better, He has to lead by example.

Leadership. It is what makes things better. Instead of just making a point.

SAD,

"ESPECIALLY a political progressive like Moore. He accuses many of taking advantage, of not living up to expectations. If he says that, he HAS to do it better, He has to lead by example."

Again, this is the infinite, magic money theory of filmmaking. If your choice is 50 crew people and no interns, or 50 crew people, and bring in a couple kids who will benefit extraordinarily from the experience, how the hell is it the best choice NOT to give those kids the shot?

I was relieved to see someone who appears to support OWS recognizes that "You can't just create money out of thin air."

I guess it just comes out of the rich guys pockets.

But only the rich guys on Wall street. The rich guys on Rodeo Drive can keep their money because, dah-lings, they EARNED it! Everyone knows all the captains of other industries got where they are by craftily tricking the rest of us out of our money.

An awful lot of noise above trying to dismiss what Moore (hack, spit) is doing:

Decrying capitalism while engaging in it.

There's really not more to say.

Nikki,

"But only the rich guys on Wall street. The rich guys on Rodeo Drive can keep their money because, dah-lings, they EARNED it! Everyone knows all the captains of other industries got where they are by craftily tricking the rest of us out of our money."

Respectfully, if you think we got into this fiscal crisis because the barons of Wall Street are acquiring their money fairly, you live in an alternate universe.

Amy,

"Best of all, MULTI-MILLIONAIRE Michael Moore can afford to pay people way, way beyond what I do."

By this logic, ever movie production ought to pay every person on the crew ridiculously well because the people financing the films are millionaires.

I can't even begin to address the absurdity of this.

"Michael Moore, multi-millionaire, pays ZERO to the people who work for him,"

And there we go. In a nutshell, the problem with this discussion.

Michael Moore offers internships at his company. Therefore, Michael Moore pays the people who work for him nothing.

There is nothing rational in that conclusion.

"yet earns his living crowing about the evils of capitalism"

Do you really believe that anyone who makes money in America is a hypocrite if they criticize how American capitalism works?

That's logic worthy of a Rush Limbaugh.

Amy,

"Michael Moore speaks quite differently. He's all about the little guy and seeing that people get paid a living wage -- unless they happen to be working for him and that would require him opening his check book or taking home multi-millions less the living wage he would have paid if he weren't a raging hypocrite."

For all I know, you have information indicating that Michael Moore doesn't pay his employees well. However, it is impossible to determine that from the fact that he uses unpaid interns. A does not lead to oranges. Sorry.

"Look up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and wonder to yourself whether the protesters might have the wrong address for their ire. As in, where's "Occupy Washington"?"

The entire point of the Occupy movement is that Washington is run by the most monied interests to the detriment of the rest of us. That's why the support for the movement crosses all creeds and races and economic status (in spite of the feeble attempts of some to make out otherwise.) The point - and the fact - is that Wall Street basically runs Washington, Amy. What would be the point of targeting Washington?

Josh:

You are so snarky and so incredibly stupid I barely know where to begin. I guess I will start with your nasty crack about the 42 year old intern suing the Black Swan production company. Clearly you are, among other things, an ageist asshole. So the guy or gal is 42? Maybe they want to change careers, or get into something they have always dreamed of. But no. Josh says you're pathetic at 42. Too old to do anything but curl up in a ball and die. Or are you afraid one of those ancients might show you up someday?

Next, you are willfully missing the point of the article, again I suppose because you're an asshole. Paid or unpaid internships are beside the point. The point is that Michael Moore, a self-proclaimed hater of capitalism and loud supporter of anything socialist, is doing what every other capitalist movie company does, get interns to work for just the experience. He could put his money where his mouth is, and pay the interns a small stipend. It would not materially affect the financial position of his company, and would make him look a bit less hypocritical than he does. But he doesn't pay them, and his hypocrisy is intact.

And so what if not paying interns is the standard in the movie industry? If the "standard" was to have to screw the producer to get work on a movie, would you approve? Now follow this: the point of this paragraph is to say that just because something is the "standard" in the industry does not make it right. It just makes it the standard operating procedure. Got that? Should I explain it again more slowly?

By the way, the completely-for-profit company for which I work is the acknowledged leader in its industry, and is growing substantially. We could find lots of college students who would intern for nothing, but we pay our interns.

If you work in the movie industry, you do the industry no credit in terms of making it appear to be filled with thoughtful people.

And Josh:

Yeah, I know I am making some points others made earlier. But reading through the comments just made me more and more angry at your insolent, know-it-all attitude that I thought I would try to pound some of the points into your concrete head again.

Do you really believe that anyone who makes money in America is a hypocrite if they criticize how American capitalism works?

If the criticize and demonize it to the point Moore does, abso-FUCKING-utly.

Also Josh I notice you side stepped Melonis question about paying interns by making a statment about how well production assistants are paid.

So wich is it? Are they internships or well funded salaries? Make up you mind

"The point - and the fact - is that Wall Street basically runs Washington, Amy. What would be the point of targeting Washington? " JoshO

you are acting like D.C. is not complicit in all this... how is it possible that Wall St. or Chicago runs Washington? Because Washington doesn't follow it's own rules or laws? Or that various entities in the govt. conspire to force Fannie/Freddy and Banks to give mortgages to people who are clearly incapable of paying it back? The Prez talks a good game to the OWS kids, while taking an astonishing amount of campaign contributions from those very same wall st. bankers. It's up to HIM to say NO. This is true of many poli-critters, but regardless of their party, they want power.

You see, that's the test. the question is not if someone will try and buy you. There will always be those that will try to pay to get ahead in the world. The test is if the Politician will take their money, and use that as an action.

The OWS kids are looking at the wrong group. You can't make a person not try and throw his money around, but you can make it clear that nobody better accept it, thus taking away his incentive to toss the cash.

Far as Moore and your 50 person crew go? WHO SETS THE BUDGET? Michael Moore. He isn;t laboring under the tyranny of the Budget, because he OWNS the freaking company! Sure the second unit operates with that budget, and the Ad's have to do what they can, with what they have. These arguments are above their pay grades.

In his early days, MM was in a position to need free help. Been there, done that, have a burn from a Mole 5K to prove it. But once he became a big name he had every reason to make things better if he believed in doing so.

Imagine how the world would beat a path to your door if you were known to pay your interns? Imagine what high quality interns you would get?

I get that the movie industry operates on this outdated idea. What percentage of interns ever actually get into the industry? But like it was in the photography industry years ago {I used to be a pro} people take advantage when you will work for free, when they can ALWAYS find another film school student who will work for nothing. Not only will they treat you like hell at times, but you may never see an advantage... The differential in power is too great.

Internship IS NOT VOLUNTEER WORK. It is not being a gofer on a studio lot just to network. But how many people find this system to be exactly that? I have several friends who know it quite well.

Some of the leaps in reason here are so inept, I can’t even begin to address them. If you criticize and expose crooks, you hate capitalism? Got it. If your politics are left of center, you’re a hypocrite for running a business or making a profit? Got it. If you’re a socialist, you’re an asshole for giving kids an opportunity to work on a movie? Got it. If you acknowledge that working on movies is perceived by most of the world as more glamorous and lucrative than journalism, you’re a snob? Got it. If you point out that a budget is a finite thing, you’re delusional? Got it.

So when I go off to make my next film, and I only have five million bucks, I’ll just hire as many people as I need and pay them as much as I can without regard for the fact that I only have five million bucks and the money will just magically appear. And when I come across some eager kids with no experience but a lot of enthusiasm, I'll pay them with money I don't have. Awesome. You have no idea how much easier that will make my life, because up until now, I was laboring under the delusion that sticking to a budget was part of the job.

Thank you one and all.

And allthesense? Go fuck yourself. It doesn’t take much in the way of courage to sign your name to an insult, but it takes a true coward to do it from behind a pseudonym. Wanker.

Swiss,

"you are acting like D.C. is not complicit in all this"

Um... Where did I say that?

Does the phrase "follow the money" mean anything to you? Of COURSE Washington is complicit. But Washington doesn't run the show. The notion that the Occupy movement should be protesting the people who work for the people who are in charge is inane. It's a pathetical rhetorical mantra perpetrated on us by Fox News in an attempt to mock a movement that has, in one month, captured the imagination of the world in a way the Tea Party, the new right, "compassionate" conservatism, or fiscal conservatism never have and never will.

so you are saying that washington doesn't make the rules about who takes money, or indeed, doesn't decide IF they should take it or not? Talk about inept reasoning...

Sure, follow the money. both who buys and who is being bought.

Also? "in one month, captured the imagination of the world"

Yeah? And they've accomplished exactly what?

They don't even have a coherent sense of what they want that I've heard. Although there seems to be a move in the US to give them free money for making stupid mistakes in education. Pardon me. I got out of college during a recession and owing a PILE of money that took many years to repay, while I worked jobs that had nothing to do with my education. This is NOT a new thing.

And if they believe the pandering they are getting from the Prez, I've got a shiny bridge to sell them.

If you want anything you have to find similar representatives and VOTE. I don't hear much about that from any of them. It also takes a LONG time to get stuff moved. You can occupy forever, but nothing will happen until you actually get people elected.

This is how change ACTUALLY works. Not by drumming and chanting and tweeting.

Josh, you have not addressed the point. Why? Because you can't. Moore is a hypocrite; when it's his money, it's different, isn't it? By the way, since we've never seen you here before, you must be working for Moore and you have a Google Alert on his name. So you must be one of his publicists.

I repeat: you have not addressed the point because you have no response. Moore believes that all rich people should have their wealth confiscated. Moore, a rich person, is taking steps to keep more of his wealth. Therefore, he is a hypocrite. QED.

Maybe Moore's crime, like Soros' crime, is that of criticizing a system they've mastered for their own personal benefit.

Perhaps we'd be better off working to create the same wealth and recognition for ourselves as these two "socialists" have than whining from a position of want and jealousy.

They obviously see the system's faults and use them to their own advantage. Perhaps if they cried "I am a capitalist!" we'd forgive them their greed and success?

By golly I think I got it. Josh was simply trying to tell me that Michael is just critical of those who abuse Capitalism. Josh thinks Michael is a Capitalist and is doing all he can to protect the Capitalist system - keeping it pure that is.

Off topic, but why is it so hard to spell my name right?

I don't think the US (and thereby the rest of us) got into this fiscal crisis because a few CEO's raked in big bonus money while their company's went down. Whatever millions or even billions that amount was is a drop in the bucket compared to the country's growing debt and operating defecit. Perhaps immoral, but they were just working within the rules of the system....kinda like Michael Moore and his unpaid interns. Except they weren't decrying the system at the same time.

I try to avoid the political topics as I'm a (grateful to have the best neighbours in the world) "leech" from the north but like alittlesense (who always posts under that name, BTW) Josh's comments were driving me nuts!

I've been mulling over Crid's comments about the self-assessed morale superiority of progressives driving their belief that they know the best thing to do with the rest of our money and Josh's comments have really nailed that argument home for me!

Don't forget, Mr. Moore has - on several occasions - used non-union labor. Why? Because it was cheaper.

Yep. Real hero of the working man, that guy.

Oh, and here I thought with the banning of BOTU, we'd be lacking sanctimonious, obnoxious leftists in these parts.

Apparently not.

OMG, I just checked into this thread after posting this morning. I love reading the comments. It's hilarious how Amy's gang of anonymous self-righteous sycophants take themselves so seriously, and how quickly they work collectively (dare I say socialistically?) with Amy to bully dessenters into silence.

jimg, Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers, Cousin Dave, SwissArmyD, lujlp, Radwaste, Crid - quite the collective brain trust you've got going.

If it's wrong for Wall Street (or WalMart) to use unpaid interns or employees, it's just as wrong for Moore (and others like him) to do so.

You don't get to cherry pick the truth.

Either every business (regardless of political bent or corporate ownership) is allowed to use unpaid interns, no matter what the ultimate goal may be, or none of them are.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to oppose that very simple and equitable ideal?

Otherwise, what are you saying? That if the business (company, etc.) is politically amenable to you, that they get a free pass on exploiting and taking advantage of people, but if you disagree with them, all bets are off?

What kind of caring, progressive, mindset is that?

This is the inherent, underlying, lie of the extremists on both sides (right and left). They like to say that all people are equal, but when it comes to practicing what they preach, they always believe that some people are more equal than others, based solely on whether they agree with them or not.

Moore doesn't get a pass on this either, no matter how much you want him to.

It's simple. Either you believe that people should be held to what they say (in other words, if Moore says that everyone should get a 'living wage', then that also applies to his interns, or he's a fucking liar), or you buy into the idea that certain people get a pass on hypocracy, just because you like them (and that would make you a moron).

Just to avoid some misunderstanding, let's elaborate a bit:

Josh (for example) appears to believe that there is something so innately fabulous about being an unpaid intern for Michael Moore (or some other Hollywood bigwig), such that it supercedes any consideration about equal treatment or any idea of Moore (et. al.) having to abide by their own statements to the contrary (like everyone deserves a living wage, etc.).

And, it would seem, that he also believes that a very nearly identical internship for a financial firm or for a place like WalMart does not have that innate fabulousness, and such internships are therefore evil on the face of it (even if the intern entered into that position voluntarily).

Now, I'm of the belief that if the situation is entered into voluntarily, and all of the terms are made clear up front, then there is nothing philosophically at issue with an unpaid internship.

However, if Moore (and others like him) choose to assume a position of self righteousness and make the affirmative claim that no person should be forced to work for anything less than a living (or minimum) wage, they then do not get to turn around later and abrogate that position just because 'that's the way it's always been done'.

They either believe that position (and pay their interns), or they do not (and are lying hypocrites).

Not to be a stickler for details...but am I the only one that noticed that this add was dated 2003? Wasn't that before he was such a well-known name? Is it fair to judge a person based on something he did 8 years ago? Don't get me wrong, I think that he's a whiner and makes huge inferences based on very little facts. However, I believe the same thing is happening in this particular column...

I've been reading the dialog back and forth. Josh believes that if interns are paid that movies and large production companies won't hire interns any longer, closing a hole for newbies to get into the business.

Amy et al believe that Moore needs to put his money where is mouth is. If he believes that all people should be given a living wage, that he should pay all of his workers a living wage, and that since he owns the production company, he has that option and can have influence in the business to make things more like he claims he wants them.

This whole argument reminds me of similar debates about slavery before the civil war. People insisted that if slaves were paid rather than owned that the economy of the country would go down the shitter and that no one would be able to ever be able to buy food again. The same debate is going on with illegal immigration. Farmers insist that if the illegal aliens are paid a living wage that no one will be able to purchase the food required to live.

I've worked as free intern labor and as paid intern labor. When I was in college, I set up a windows computer network in a school that was being built as a requirement for a Systems Analysis and Design class. Every person in that class had to complete a small project in the community for free. My groups project was much larger that most, and we put in alot of extra hours, however those were hours we were allowed to fit in where they worked and we didn't have to show up all day every day to get the project done. I had a paid internship with a telecommunications firm the summer before I graduated with my BS in CIS. I was paid $10 per hour...which was HUGE money for me back then (1997). Both internships helped me be a person that had a job lined up before I graduated.

Do unpaid internships have their place? Yes, but only for very short term, limited scope projects. When a person has to show up every day all day long for months at a time, expecting them to work a full time job without pay is unreasonable. As for the assertion that the film industry would stop having interns if they had to pay them, that is unreasonable. Every industry needs new blood. To not make allowances for that will kill the industry. I would hope that people who have made millions would be smart enough to understand that.

-Julie

Cousin Dave,

"By the way, since we've never seen you here before, you must be working for Moore and you have a Google Alert on his name. So you must be one of his publicists."

Good point. Before you post again, though, I suggest getting some more tin foil for your hat.

"Moore believes that all rich people should have their wealth confiscated."

Wow. Your grasp of Michael Moore's politics is breathtaking.

Amy,

"You're so partisan, and such a film loyalist, you're incapable of recognizing the abject hypocrisy here. It's almost cute, but depressing."

I'm as far from partisan as you can get, Amy. I'm reading a bunch of people with little to no experience in the business they're decrying knock a system that allows kids with no experience access to the field they want to break into. And for those of you who like to throw the word "socialist" around, do you actually know what the word means? Internships are about as socialist as you can get. Seems pretty consistent to me.

By the way, thanks for clarifying my status with Whacko Dave.

Tim,

"If it's wrong for Wall Street (or WalMart) to use unpaid interns or employees, it's just as wrong for Moore (and others like him) to do so."

Um.... Sure. Okay. Can you point me to a link showing Moore criticizing Wall Street for using interns?

"And, it would seem, that he also believes that a very nearly identical internship for a financial firm or for a place like WalMart does not have that innate fabulousness, and such internships are therefore evil on the face of it (even if the intern entered into that position voluntarily)."

In other words, it's just as easy to break into a career at Wal Mart as it is in the film business. (And that's ignoring the bizarre implication that Wal Mart uses unpaid interns. Do you just type random words and fling them into the internet? I advise considering your position for a moment before blurting it out to the world.

Got it.

Let's make this clear with some facts: if you're making a movie whose budget can hold 50 people, you hire 50 people. If your budget can hold a hundred, you hire a hundred. I can either make a movie with interns or without them.

There are countless kids out there in film school (or not) who'd kill to get a chance to see first hand how a film is made, and to get their foot in the door in an industry that is legendarily difficult to break into.

What some of you are arguing is that if my budget can only handle 50 people on the crew, I should just hire those 50, and fuck those kids.

That is what it comes down to. No one uses interns for essential labor. (And if they do, they're violating the system, and more power to anyone who does something about it.) It's not even close to a fair swap - the interns benefit WAY more than the production does. But because you can play rhetorical games with the situation to attack a political opponent, we should just kill the whole system.

Do you get it yet? Interns aren't necessary. Movies will get made without them. Easily. The whole system is designed to give access.

This is what happens when people place ideology over humanity.

First, let me preface, I'm not a fan of Michael Moore, BUT....

I'm having trouble equating a job at Walmart with an internship on the production of a movie. One is a job, the other is an internship. Apples and oranges, in my mind.

Internship= education, experience, networking, opportunities, resume flare, etc.

Job= wage, human resources, benefits, etc.

Internship, to me, is more along the lines of job shadowing, rather than a job.

I also noticed that this was from 2003.

What did I do to get called Whacko Dave? I asked a few questions of you Josh - which you never answered by the way. I didn't think they were that difficult, evidently you found them that way.

You see, I was educated by Jesuits (probably before you were born), and my nature and training lead me to ask questions. It has served me well financically. Unlike Michael, I willingly admit to be in the 1%.

Josh, I may be a little old and senile, but couldn't you give me a simple answer that even I could understand. I thought the point of the post was that Michael is a hypocrite - am I wrong?

Also you said: "The notion that liberals are hypocrites if they make money is sophomoric in the extreme.

Posted by: Josh Olson at October 26, 2011 10:23 AM" I haven't seen anyone, other than you, say that. Could you please address that without attacking someone. You can get it on with me though - I am a seasoned combat vet - so I don't mind your name calling - I just find it sophomoric.

Mr. Olsen, I might get beat up for saying this, but I'm with you.

"So when I go off to make my next film, and I only have five million bucks, I’ll just hire as many people as I need and pay them as much as I can without regard for the fact that I only have five million bucks and the money will just magically appear. And when I come across some eager kids with no experience but a lot of enthusiasm, I'll pay them with money I don't have. Awesome. You have no idea how much easier that will make my life, because up until now, I was laboring under the delusion that sticking to a budget was part of the job."

The US government would do it that way!

If my kid were interested in a field and an unpaid internship were available, I'd tell him to jump on it. In fact, he has done so. Money is not the only measure here. Gaining valuable experience and making important contacts and getting an eye-opening look at 'real world' application of hopes and dreams? It is hard to put a price on that. Plus, it allows someone with some hustle and desire to place themselves at advantage over their peers. It is a benefit down the road and looks great on a resume.

And for those people comparing it to a job at Walmart or fast food. Please. Training to stock shelves? Run a register? Flip a burger? A day of training and a couple days on the job and you'd know all there is to know about it. Can't say that for film industry or publishing or politics or many others that do encourage interning. It is disingenuous to compare them.

"First, let me preface, I'm not a fan of Michael Moore, BUT....

I'm having trouble equating a job at Walmart with an internship on the production of a movie."

Who did Michelle? You found an equation I did not find above.

Also, I am glad you noticed it was from 2003. That shows you pay attention to what you read. Now, who equated a job at Walmart with an internship?

LauraGr - looks like a straw dog to me - who, pray tell, is doing the comparing to a job at Walmart?

I am sorry you look down on other people's job experiences. I guess you speak from experience.

Dave,

"What did I do to get called Whacko Dave? "

Apologies. I was referring to "Cousin Dave," who's convinced that A) I work for Michael Moore because he's never seen my byline here before; and B) that Michael Moore believes rich people should have their wealth confiscated.

I get the confusion, and apologize for not being clearer.

"I thought the point of the post was that Michael is a hypocrite - am I wrong?"

Yes. That is the point of the post. You're not wrong. The point of the post is, though. Michael Moore may, indeed, be a hypocrite (and he's played with the truth enough in some of his films, especially the earlier ones, that I certainly won't argue that larger point), but this is simply not an example of that.

"Also you said: "The notion that liberals are hypocrites if they make money is sophomoric in the extreme.
Posted by: Josh Olson at October 26, 2011 10:23 AM" I haven't seen anyone, other than you, say that. "

That's the implication. There's a very tired old saw that's always leveled at anyone whose politics are left of center who happens to be wealthy. Somehow, they're hypocrites for not giving all their money away and living in tents. It's usually accompanied by the idiotic and meaningless phrase "limousine liberal."

The implication is that it's okay to be a leftist if you're broke, but the instant you get some money, you should stop giving a shit about the poor. It's moron rhetoric.

I'm having trouble equating a job at Walmart with an internship on the production of a movie."

Who did Michelle? You found an equation I did not find above."

Tim did. He wrote:

"If it's wrong for Wall Street (or WalMart) to use unpaid interns or employees, it's just as wrong for Moore (and others like him) to do so"

The statement makes two absurd implications. The first is that an internship at Walmart would have the same benefits as an internship on a feature film. The second is that Walmart uses unpaid interns. Neither is worthy of serious response.

I didn't read Tim's post the way you did Josh.

He's asking the question - Is it wrong to have an unpaid intern? If it is, how can it be ok in the film industry?

Michael often rails about how people are underpaid. Yet he does it himself. In other words - Why is it wrong for a Capitalist to do something but not Michael for doing the same thing? There is the absurdity.

LauraGr - looks like a straw dog to me - who, pray tell, is doing the comparing to a job at Walmart?
I am sorry you look down on other people's job experiences. I guess you speak from experience.

Posted by: Dave B

Tim @1:24am brought in walmart.

What did I write that indicated I look down on other people's job experiences? Is it because I believe all the nuances of shelf-stocking could be learned in a few days on the job? Am I in error?

And while this is has all gone far afield, it's important to hit this point - internships exist in many fields, including journalism. When they're misused, they can be as exploitative as anything, but the entire system is not, in and of itself, exploitative. It exists for a reason, and one has to be profoundly cynical to pretend that reason isn't primarily to aid the professional education and evolution of the intern.

I was shocked to read Amy's piece on this because while I often disagree with her politics, I've never seen her post anything so cynical. She knows the internship system has been around forever, and she knows it's a viable and positive way for people to break into all manner of careers.

Some people hate their political enemies with such a passion, though, that they'll warp their own understanding for the sake of taking a shot.

Set aside all the politics, and all the bullshit. If you're a film student and want to break into documentary films, you'd kill for the opportunity to intern with the single most successful documentarian in the history of film. This is a huge opportunity.

Some people - partisan ideologues - will see that statement as some sort of endorsement of Moore's politics, or his films. That speaks more to their biases than mine. The only time I've opined on Moore here I've stated that he mangles the truth in his films. That's hardly an endorsement. Ideologues tend to lose sight of the fact that facts aren't subject to their ideology. One needn't agree with Moore to recognize his achievements. It would be like denying that Rush Limbaugh is very good at what he does because he's a drug addicted racist cocksucker.

One can be both.

If one accepts that the folks who are screeching about Moore's hypocrisy here are reasonable, consistent and honest in their objections, then one has to accept that these people think the system of internships needs to be eradicated.

And that's a position that's so monumentally idiotic, it's not even worth discussing.

Dave,

"He's asking the question - Is it wrong to have an unpaid intern? If it is, how can it be ok in the film industry?"

Really? You want me to break it down? Okay.

1) It's not wrong to have an unpaid intern. That's a system that's been with us for decades, in all manner of businesses. It works.

2) Tim's question compared an unpaid internship at Walmart with one in the film business. Idiotic comparison. If such things existed, they'd be two different things.

Honestly, I'm really tired of the snobbery that demands we all pretend that the film business is no different from working in a Walmart. Last time I checked, thousands of kids aren't flocking to wherever the fuck Walmart is based every year with the lifelong dream of working at a fucking Walmart.

You don't do an unpaid internship for a job that doesn't require experience, Dave. I suspect you know this. You do it to break into actual careers.

Do you get it yet? Interns aren't necessary. Movies will get made without them. Easily.

And people will find ways to break into the movie industry - with or without unpaid internships, contacts, or experience.

And they'll do it with a lot less self-righteous prattle from film-makers about how they're doing the "poor kids" such a tremendous favor by allowing them to fetch coffee, clean the office, and take lunch orders for no pay.

It's not even close to a fair swap - the interns benefit WAY more than the production does.

Let's see...

The production gets free clerk-level labor that would cost a union minimum per hour (and include benefits and work rules on top of the hourly rate).

On the other hand, the intern gets an inside view of a movie being made ... something he could never get any other way; like, perhaps, by being the PAID production assistant who fetches coffee, cleans the office, and takes lunch orders.

This is what happens when people place ideology over humanity.

Thank God, film-makers are there to let these poor kids fetch coffee, clean the office, and take lunch orders for no pay.

If only those greedy bastards at Doctors Without Borders had half the humanity of Hollywood.

LauraGr - looks like a straw dog to me - who, pray tell, is doing the comparing to a job at Walmart?
I am sorry you look down on other people's job experiences. I guess you speak from experience.

Posted by: Dave B

Tim @1:24am brought in walmart.

What did I write that indicated I look down on other people's job experiences? Is it because I believe all the nuances of shelf-stocking could be learned in a few days on the job? Am I in error?

Posted by: LauraGr at October 27, 2011 10:56 AM

Tim was not comparing a job at Walmart, or fast food, to an unpaid internship in the movie industry. You misread his post and mine.

Yes you are in error. You are obviously not a marketing major. No insult intended on my part.

Last time I checked, thousands of kids aren't flocking to wherever the fuck Walmart is based every year with the lifelong dream of working at a fucking Walmart.

Time to check again, Josh.

People are flocking to Bentonville, Arkansas to study Wal-Mart's innovative logistics and supply-chain practices and information management practices.

The company does more with less than any other retail chain. And in a cost-conscious world, that's something its competitors want to imitate.

Thanks to Wal-Mart, retailers have more power over manufacturers than ever. Wal-Mart was the driving force behind the adoption of the universal bar code system and is the driving force behind the implementation of the RFID chip in the retail and CPG industries.

Wal-Mart's information management techniques have enabled to company to virtually eliminate lost sales from out-of-stocks and to transfer products quickly to high-demand areas.

It's not for nothing that Wal-Mart (along with Home Depot, Lowes, and Waffle House) is the go-to retailer in the aftermath of a natural disaster, often having its trucks loaded and ready before the disaster strikes.

So, yeah Josh, an internship at Wal-Mart can be quite valuable in helping someone establish a career in the retailing or consumer packaged goods industries, the information management industry, or the supply-chain and logistics fields.

Josh said: "Dave,

"He's asking the question - Is it wrong to have an unpaid intern? If it is, how can it be ok in the film industry?"

Really? You want me to break it down? Okay.

1) It's not wrong to have an unpaid intern."

Really Josh? So if it is ok to have a unpaid intern, why it not ok - according to Michael Moore - to not pay a living wage (whatever that means). I am trying to keep on topic - not wander off to something I don't think Amy was getting at.

Conan,

I can see why you don’t sign your name here. I just got you to say in public that most people perceive a career at Walmart to be as desirable and as glamorous as a career in show business.

I love the lengths some people will go to to avoid acknowledging how brain dead their own argument is.

Dave,

"Really Josh? So if it is ok to have a unpaid intern, why it not ok - according to Michael Moore - to not pay a living wage (whatever that means). I am trying to keep on topic - not wander off to something I don't think Amy was getting at."

By the logic of this question, college students should not only not have to pay to go to college, they should BE paid.

If you don't have a problem with students paying to learn in a classroom, I fail to see why you're so upset at the notion of interns not getting paid.

"Yes you are in error. You are obviously not a marketing major. No insult intended on my part.

Posted by: Dave B "

How many marketing majors are lining up to get an entry-level job at my local walmart?

Comparing apples to bananas to kumquats does not make the argument.

Intern at Walmart HQ would be similar to intern at a major studio. They'd learn entirely different types of skills than someone running around a movie set.

If someone wants to make an investment of their own time towards their own future, why should I think it is a bad thing?

I am quite certain some interns get taken advantage of. And some reap huge benefits. Some probably get a bit of both.

Anyone that does not desire to be an unpaid minion on a set is not required to apply for an internship. They can apply for an assistant's job. Of course, since they have no experience they are unlikely to get a job.

Yes Josh, you really have gone far afield from the point that Michael is a hypocrite.

You said above: "I was shocked to read Amy's piece on this because while I often disagree with her politics, I've never seen her post anything so cynical. She knows the internship system has been around forever, and she knows it's a viable."

Amy's post was about Michael being a hypocrite. You are the cynical one claiming she has some clandestine purpose of ending internships.

Josh said: "Set aside all the politics, and all the bullshit. If you're a film student and want to break into documentary films, you'd kill for the opportunity to intern with the single most successful documentarian in the history of film. This is a huge opportunity."

Uh, who said it wasn't. Amy sure didn't. I didn't. What is your point?

Josh said: "Some people - partisan ideologues - will see that statement as some sort of endorsement of Moore's politics, or his films. That speaks more to their biases than mine. The only time I've opined on Moore here I've stated that he mangles the truth in his films. That's hardly an endorsement. Ideologues tend to lose sight of the fact that facts aren't subject to their ideology. One needn't agree with Moore to recognize his achievements. It would be like denying that Rush Limbaugh is very good at what he does because he's a drug addicted racist cocksucker."

What are you getting at Josh, other than you don't like Rush Limbaugh. The topic is Michael is a hypocrite. Not internships. Nobody cares if you like Michael or not.

Josh said: "If one accepts that the folks who are screeching about Moore's hypocrisy here are reasonable, consistent and honest in their objections, then one has to accept that these people think the system of internships needs to be eradicated."

Actually Josh, no. You are having a major logic breakdown here. We are talking about Michael's hypocrisy - simple as that. If Michael was a consistent person, which he is not, he would never have an unpaid intern. No one is saying that unpaid internships are evil but Michael.

Josh, are you reading my posts? You replyed "If you don't have a problem with students paying to learn in a classroom, I fail to see why you're so upset at the notion of interns not getting paid."

When did I say I had a problem with the notion of interns not getting paid? Dude, you are getting delusional. Michael has a problem with the pay people get for work, not me. Keep up Josh.

I can see why you don’t sign your name here.

I use the same name every time I post here. I don't post under any other name and if you meet me in the street, I'll tell you the same things I say here.

I don't publish my name here because I've had a few too many bad experiences in which people who disagreed with me tracked me down and harassed me. I don't need the aggravation (nor does my wife) and I get no benefit from publicity.

You, on the other hand, can publish your name here since you are a public person and get benefit from publicity.

I just got you to say in public that most people perceive a career at Walmart to be as desirable and as glamorous as a career in show business.

WTF?

Is your head up your ass for the warmth?

You did no such thing.

I wrote that an internship at Wal-Mart could be valuable in establishing a career in logistics, information management, CPG, or retailing. I wrote nothing about it being glamorous or desirable.

Although, for those who aren't drawn to show business as a career (and there are millions who aren't), careers in other fields CAN be as desirable to them as a career in show business was to you.

To my dad, a career in aircraft design was FAR MORE desirable (and possibly even more glamorous) than a career in show business. That's why he went to engineering school and not film school. That's why he went to work for McDonnell-Douglas and not Fox Searchlight. That's why working with Igor Sikorski or Allan Loughead would have been far more desirable to him than working with Michael Moore.

You need to get out of Hollywood once in a while and meet non-film people.

There are engineers out there who couldn't name a movie star to save their lives, but they can tell you who designed the Ford Mustang, the Lockheed L-1011, or the dual-core processing chip. 'cause that's what they love.

There are business people who devour every book by Lee Iacoca, Jack Welch, or Michael Porter; who study CEOs and business strategy like you study film techniques. 'cause that's their livelihood.

There are people who don't share your passion for moviemaking but have passions of their own. And it's pretty damned arrogant of you to dismiss their dreams and passions as "conveyor belt" jobs and simply "earning a living" just 'cause you don't understand them.

But you go ahead and tell yourself that the whole world envies you and wants to be in the movies. If that's what keeps you going, fine.

LauraGr - I was tempted to make a woman comment but Amy will not give me a raise.

LauraGr said: "How many marketing majors are lining up to get an entry-level job at my local walmart?

Comparing apples to bananas to kumquats does not make the argument."

LauraGr, you are the one not making an argument. I wasn't saying anything about marketing majors lining up to get an entry-level job at any local walmart. As you seem to be prone to do, you misread my post. Probably my fault so I will try again. You said "Is it because I believe all the nuances of shelf-stocking could be learned in a few days on the job? Am I in error?" Yes you are in error. Any first year marketing student knows that you cannot learn all of the nuances of shelf-stocking in a few days on the job.

Dear LauraGr, I am all for unpaid interns. I am all for paid interns. The subject (topic) at hand is Michael's hypocrisy. He is the one that has a problem with people being unpaid or not paid enough, unless they work for him. Please keep up.

Dave B- Pardon me for assuming you knew I was discussing entry-level jobs. The kind an intern gets when they have no previous experience. The kind a shelf-stocker at a store would get. Not advanced level management.

Michael Moore may well be a hypocrite. I don't know and don't really care. It does seem his intern ad was very straightforward and in line with industry expectations. Applicants must be enrolled students and they are interning for credits. Credits and experience. All the jobs listed were grunt work. People that want to apply and get a taste of the industry might find it a hugely rewarding experience. Or not. I'll assume they get out of it what they put into it.

I don't see why there is a big kerfluffle about Michael Moore offering internships. They work. The schools encourage (or require)them. The students compete for them and place high value on them. This is win/win and I fail to see the problem.

To clarify above before I really get into trouble. I get paid the same as Gregg. My pay does not include benefits, Gregg's does. Like Michael, I think Amy should pay me equal to, or more than, Gregg but Amy thinks Gregg provides more benefit to Amy Industries than I do. You see, life sucks, but the Goddess is the boss and as much as I would like to be on an equal basis with Gregg, him and I are not equal. Maybe Michael will give me an upaid internship, after all, I could bask in his glory and greatness. On second thought, please don't fire me Amy.

"Michael Moore may well be a hypocrite. I don't know and don't really care." You don't know and don't care. Why the hell are you posting here then. You are incredible. Michael is a hypocrite, no may well be about it. Get your head out soldier.

"I don't see why there is a big kerfluffle about Michael Moore offering internships. They work." Please dear lady, try. You can't be even trying. There is no kerfluffle (whatever that is) about Michael offering internships. It is the hypocrisy of being unpaid, unpaid, unpaid. Get it. Sheesh. One more dipshit post and I'm going to Hookers and Booze to cool off.

The kind an intern gets when they have no previous experience. The kind a shelf-stocker at a store would get. Not advanced level management.

Still apples to kumquats.

An unpaid intern, by law, must be learning the field in a way similar to what they'd learn in a classroom (not simply fetching coffee and cleaning the office).

The company sponsoring the unpaid intern can derive no benefit from the unpaid intern's work (like the benefit of not having to hire and pay entry-level people to fetch coffee and clean the office).

The entry-level shelf-stocker is paid - perhaps not much, but paid nonetheless. Thus, the entry-level shelf-stocker is considered by law an employee and the company is subject to labor laws, tax withholding, safety standards, and regulated work hours, as well as other regulations.

The Black Swan interns are suing Fox Searchlight alleging they were worked like rented mules for no pay and given no education in film production. If true, that violates the laws governing the use of unpaid interns.

According to what people have posted here (on both sides of the issue), their allegations are par for the course for Hollywood interns.

Michael Moore has publicly castigated corporate America for its low pay and low regard for low-level workers.

If he is hiring unpaid interns and working them like rented mules, that would be hypocrisy on his part. If, on the other hand, he gives his interns an education in filmmakiing rather than using them for cheap labor, then more power to him. But, from the comments here, that would make him a very rare boss in Hollywood.

Dave,

"Amy's post was about Michael being a hypocrite. You are the cynical one claiming she has some clandestine purpose of ending internships."

I'm close to giving up here. I've communicated this pretty clearly several times now. I suspect some folks are just deadset on finding any fault they can with Moore, regardless of whether or not it has merit.

Michael Moore uses (or used) unpaid interns.

If you think the use of unpaid interns is an abomination and should be done away with, then your outrage over his use of them is understandable.

However, if you grasp that internships are a time honored method of learning and breaking into a wide array of businesses, then you can't criticize Michael Moore for using them.

It really is that simple.

"The topic is Michael is a hypocrite."

Wrong. The topic is that he's a hypocrite FOR USING UNPAID INTERNS. I've explained several times and many ways how he is not. He may be a hypocrite for a wide variety of other offenses, but on this one, he's not. Sorry.

"No one is saying that unpaid internships are evil but Michael"

That is a factual assertion. It is not a matter of opinion. Therefore, I have no doubt you can easily cite me an example of Michael Moore stating that unpaid internships are wrong. I also have no doubt that when you can't, you'll have the good grace to acknowledge it.

Conan,

"You, on the other hand, can publish your name here since you are a public person and get benefit from publicity."

You got me there. The fame and riches that will come my way from posting here are beyond all dreams of avarice. I stand outed.

"Although, for those who aren't drawn to show business as a career (and there are millions who aren't)"

No shit, genius. Where did I say otherwise?

"To my dad, a career in aircraft design was FAR MORE desirable (and possibly even more glamorous) than a career in show business."

Good for him. Same with most people in my family. What, precisely, does that have to do with the fact that to countless people it IS one of the most desirable industries around? Seriously - you'd argue that the sun sets in the North if you felt it made your case. Try this on for size - I'd wager there are students studying aircraft design who take unpaid internships in order to work with people like your father. I'd also wager there are NOT people taking unpaid internships in order to get careers at Walmart. Ask your dad if he thinks you're a snob for thinking his job is probably more desirable than working for Walmart.

"There are people who don't share your passion for moviemaking but have passions of their own. And it's pretty damned arrogant of you to dismiss their dreams and passions as "conveyor belt" jobs and simply "earning a living" just 'cause you don't understand them."

What an imbecilic thing to say. I've dismissed nothing. I've stated facts. You've perceived a snobbery in what I say because you carry your own snobbery within you. If you want to pretend that all jobs are equally desirable, knock yourself out. I'm dealing with the real world here.

In your idiotic conceit, we have to pretend that there are as many people who want to be greeters at Walmart as want to be rockstars; that as many people want to be cashiers at Albertson's as want to be race car drivers; that as many people want to be janitors as astronauts. It's a sophomoric form of class snobbery, and it has exactly NOTHING to do with the topic.

Pop quiz - do you know why countless people line up to be unpaid interns on movies and NO ONE lines up to be an unpaid file clerk at U-Haul? I'll give you some time to ponder it. Let's see if you're capable of an honest answer. So far, nothing you've posted here indicates otherwise.

Could this be true?

Michael Moore, Benevolent Employer of the Left

http://www.jessicaswell.com/mt/archives/2008/03/michael-moore-benevolent.php

I don't see why there is a big kerfluffle about Michael Moore offering internships.
Posted by: LauraGr

Thats because you are stupid, there is NO kerfluffle over the blob offering internships.

The kerfluffle is over the hypocracy of the fact that he offers interships while bitching about other industries doing the same and how those poor interns not in the film industry dont get a 'living' wage

Ah! Now we're talking! Because the issue there isn't that he uses unpaid interns, it's that he's alleged to be exploiting them.

I wonder how many people here are willing to acknowledge that they understand the difference.

Michael Moore using unpaid interns isn't hypocrisy. Michael Moore ABUSING unpaid interns is.

Know why that's so easy for me to admit?

Because I'm not peddling an ideology, nor am I slave to any.

Josh said: "Rush Limbaugh is very good at what he does because he's a drug addicted racist cocksucker."

"That is a factual assertion. It is not a matter of opinion. Therefore, I have no doubt you can easily cite me an example."

Josh said: "Unlike a lot of production companies, Moore only takes students"

"That is a factual assertion. It is not a matter of opinion. Therefore, I have no doubt you can easily cite me an example"

His ad reads "Positions are full-time or part-time. We try to work around the students
schedule although we recommend a commitment of at least 2 days a week for
10-12 weeks."

So Michael Moore is guilty of not paying an unqualified, short-term worker / student working 2+ days per week a living wage. And he'll work around their class schedules AND make sure their class requirements are met by the intern's work experience.

The bastard.

Seriously?

Everyone is a hypocrite. Including our hostess. Big whoop.

I'd also wager there are NOT people taking unpaid internships in order to get careers at Walmart.

You'd lose.

[Possibly - Wal-Mart has internships, but I'm not sure if Wal-Mart has unpaid internships.]

Wal-Mart's information mangement systems and supply chain operations are some of the best in the world. The learning opportunities there for someone pursuing a career in those fields are pretty big.

You see, Josh, you're making the mistake of thinking of working at Wal-Mart only in terms of shelf stockers and cashiers. Those aren't careers, those are jobs.

However, there are W-M corporate and division offices all over the world that employ professionals in the fields of marketing, management, finance, information technology, logistics, etc.

I worked in the corporate offices of one of Wal-Mart's competitors for a few years. We didn't lack for interest in our internships or career opportunities. Nor does Wal-Mart.

Once again, the degree of your tunnel-vision with regard to the non-film world is incredible. You seem unable to comprehend anyone ever wanting to do anything but work in Hollywood.

...we have to pretend that there are as many people who want to be greeters at Walmart as want to be rockstars; that as many people want to be cashiers at Albertson's as want to be race car drivers; that as many people want to be janitors as astronauts.

At first I thought you were just being thick. But you really are an imbecile.

No one, least of all me, compared being a rock star or a race car driver with being a greeter at Wal-Mart or a cashier at Albertson's; nor said anything about there being as many people who want to be an astronaut as want to be a janitor.

You made that leap of illogic all by yourself.

If you want to pretend that all jobs are equally desirable, knock yourself out.

Nowhere did I say or even imply that all jobs are equally desirable.

I wrote that some people approach non-film careers with the same level of desire that you approached your film career.

I'm dealing with the real world here.

Keep telling yourself that.

...do you know why countless people line up to be unpaid interns on movies and NO ONE lines up to be an unpaid file clerk at U-Haul?

I'll give you a little hint ... there's no such thing as an unpaid file clerk at U-Haul.

Because in the real world, you're required to pay people who work for you.

Josh said: "My career started when I dropped out of film school, moved to LA, and got a gig working as an intern on a shitty feature film. It got me in the door, led to paying work, and gave me a career in the film business, which I have enjoyed for more than two decades. Film school couldn't (and can't) do any of that."

"That is a factual assertion. It is not a matter of opinion. Therefore, I have no doubt you can easily cite me an example."

Michael Moore using unpaid interns isn't hypocrisy. Michael Moore ABUSING unpaid interns is.

Know why that's so easy for me to admit?

Because I already said the same thing two posts above yours.

Josh said: "Opening the door to the film business is one of the toughest things there is."

"That is a factual assertion. It is not a matter of opinion. Therefore, I have no doubt you can easily cite me an example."

Josh said: "And the reason you don't have interns working for you is because there's not a significant benefit to working for you."

"That is a factual assertion. It is not a matter of opinion. Therefore, I have no doubt you can easily cite me an example"

Josh said: "Pop quiz - do you know why countless people line up to be unpaid interns on movies and NO ONE lines up to be an unpaid file clerk at U-Haul?"

"That is a factual assertion. It is not a matter of opinion. Therefore, I have no doubt you can easily cite me an example."

Dave,

Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

I apologize for believing your positions were honest.

When you come up with that quotation from Moore, though, I'll be interested in seeing it.

Best,

Josh

JOsh said: "In the case of Moore's company, they only take students, meaning that instead of taking classes, students are actually getting hands on experience that will lead to a career."

"That is a factual assertion. It is not a matter of opinion. Therefore, I have no doubt you can easily cite me an example"

JOSh said: "The point - and the fact - is that Wall Street basically runs Washington, Amy."

"That is a factual assertion. It is not a matter of opinion. Therefore, I have no doubt you can easily cite me an example"

Sorry Josh (I'm not sorry), just being obtuse like you.

I am not going to go through all of Michael's anti-captialist screeds for you or anyone. I am losing enough brain cells just reading your posts. Lord knows I can little afford losing more. If you need a mea culpa from me you got it. If you believe Michael is not a anti- captitalist that enjoys the fruits of capitalism then you are as dumb as you appear. Thank you for your opinion that my intellectual dishonesty is staggering, from you that is a true complement.

Gosh, while being obtuse I missed LauraGr's last post. Gee LauraGr, I hope it is nothing I said. We'll see you on the next Michael post - have fun - party on and God speed (little mma lingo from Bas).

Ask your dad if he thinks you're a snob for thinking his job is probably more desirable than working for Walmart.

I can't. I don't think his job [was] more desirable than working for Wal-Mart. For him, it was. For me, it wasn't. I don't like engineering (although getting to fire large missiles on a test range and blow things up would be pretty cool).

Besides, even adjusted for inflation, I made more working for a Wal-Mart competitor as a marketing analyst than he did working for a aerospace company as an engineer.

I later interviewed for a job at Wal-Mart in which I would have made more than I did with the competitor and would have been working in marketing for the online division. I didn't get the job as they went with an internal candidate (you know, someone pursuing a career with Wal-Mart).

So Mr. Josh "I Will Not Read Your Fucking Script" Olson... you got yours, so everyone else can go take a flying leap, can't they? You are a typical Hollywood prick. Yes, I know how to use IMDB. And guess what? I will not watch your fucking movie.

Michael Moore would be a hypocrite if he was hiring an EMPLOYEE to do a JOB for a minimal wage.

He's not!

He's hiring an INTERN to do an INTERNSHIP.

If you accept a JOB at Walmart, you get PAID. If you accept an INTERNSHIP at Walmart, you don't get paid.

Showbiz is a special case. PAID labor isn't worth that much in showbiz....

@Dave B
Conan said: "If you're gonna tell Wal-Mart to pay its low-level employees a "living wage," you should do the same for your own. And, yes, very few Wal-Mart employees are going to become Hollywood screenwriters. However, more than a few of them will become store managers or division managers and make a pretty decent living at it."

Why did my comment strike such a nerve? Why don't you address the comment rather than my attack my reading comprehension skills?

Dave,

"I am not going to go through all of Michael's anti-captialist screeds for you or anyone. "

I'll spare you the trouble. Unlike you, Moore (and I) know the difference between a college student taking an unpaid internship in a field they're interested in entering and a 12 year old Chinese girl working in a factory so your iPad doesn't cost an extra ten bucks. It's reasonably safe to say that Michael Moore has never condemned the internship system as a form of economic injustice. If you actually understood the politics of the people you despise, it would spare you these embarrassments.

Conan,

"I can't. I don't think his job [was] more desirable than working for Wal-Mart. "

So there are as many children in America who dream of one day working at Walmart as building airplanes.

Done with you.

Amy,

"internship" is a clean name for exploitation, except when it's paid, like it is at evil capitalist reason magazine"

So you're actually taking the position that the long standing academic tradition of unpaid internships - in EVERY field - is exploitation?

Okay. That's kind of a different subject, though, Amy. Because most people tend to believe that that particular system actually works, and greatly benefits interns. That's why virtually every college and university has internship programs.

The problem with your thesis, then, is that you believe Michael Moore is a hypocrite because he subscribes to a system that YOU believe is exploitation, but which the world accepts as a positive form of education and career advancement. It's sort of like you calling me a hypocrite for loving movies when I also enjoy TV, because you've decided you can't do both.

"I could have an "intern," but I don't, because it's cheap and ugly."

Could you, though? I'm asking sincerely - would journalism schools give their students credit for interning with you?

Amy,

"Of course they would. I'm a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and author. Josh, I'm going to go with the notion that that wasn't asked with a big helping of superiority about being in the movie business. "

I can see why a journalism school would send students to work in a newsroom. I don't quite get why they'd send one to work for a columnist. Any derision you read there speaks to your own insecurities, not my snobbery.

I also get why film schools give credit to interns for working on film productions, or production offices. I'd be very surprised to find out that a student could get credit for interning directly for me.

"it's kind of ugly how you seem to place such vast importance on moviemaking as if any other calling is shit"

You might do both of us a favor, and re-read the comments I've made about the film business. Any arrogance you're seeing is of your own projection.

If I were a bus driver and made the comments I've made about the film business, you not only wouldn't gripe, you'd agree. The notion that we have to pretend that some careers aren't more popular than others is idiotic. I'm supposed to pretend that kids flock to Detroit to follow their lifelong dream to work in factories because if I acknowledge what everyone knows, I'm arrogant? That's a kind of phony, playing to the peanut gallery false modesty I find loathsome. One isn't disrespecting bus drivers by acknowledging that more people grow up wanting to be astronauts than bus drivers.

Worst job I ever had was being the low man on a construction crew, renovating houses in Manayunk, PA (before it got gentrified.) I spent a week scraping petrified kitten corpses off a hardwood floor and trying to get the smell out. You would have me believe that that job was as desirable, glamorous and lucrative as the one I had now, that just as many kids grow up in America dreaming of scraping dead kittens off of floors as do dreaming of lucrative careers in show business.

Correction - you'd have me PRETEND to believe it was, because you know as well as I do that some jobs are more desirable and popular than others. But it's bad form to say that when you happen to have one of the good jobs.

The ONLY thing I've expressed arrogance about here is the fact that most of the folks who are opining on the subject of film business internships don't know the first goddam thing about the film business. Forgive me for thinking that my job grants me a level of experience and understanding some of you don't have. I certainly don't think I know as much about the journalism game as you do, or the sputtering lunatic business as Cousin Dave does.

No one interns for years, Amy. You're talking about mentoring. A whole different kettle of fish. And what you do is admirable. But it doesn't relate to this. Internships are short, and aren't generally about working one on one.

Amy,

"A scientist I know just commended me for sending her four emails to clarify a single word about her work. I was one of four finalists for journalist of the year in Los Angeles this year and last."

I don't doubt it. What part of what I wrote wasn't clear? It wasn't a slight against you at all. I've now clarified that several times, and you're STILL taking it that way. I even stated - quite clearly - that I'd be surprised if a film school gave intern credit to someone who came to work for me. Apologies if this, too, comes across as arrogant, but I'm as qualified in my field as you are in yours.

"Either Moore is for people getting a living wage or he is not."

I already addressed this. You ignored it. Not everyone shares your disdain for the internship system. It's quite possible to oppose economic injustice and believe that the internship system is valid, productive, positive, and helpful.

So there are as many children in America who dream of one day working at Walmart as building airplanes.

Here we have another intentionally disingenuous query from Josh.

In what capacity?

Comparing "working at Wal-Mart" to "building airplanes" is apples to oranges, buddy.

You really are a dishonest piece of ... work.

If you'd questioned whether there were as many people wanting to work in retail corporate operations as there are who want to work in an aircraft factory, that would have at least been an honest question; and even a relevant one.

You deliberately and dishonestly phrased your question to make it seem like I belive there are as many people who dream of stocking shelves and sweeping floors at Wal-Mart as there are who dream of being aircraft engineers.

Nice try.

==============================

Generally CHILDREN don't grow up wanting to be financial analysts, database administrators, or human resource managers. Even the day-to-day activities of a screenwriter, cameraman, set designer, and make-up artist are a little beyond the scope of a child's ability to envision his eventual adult job.

And folks who do want to become financial analysts, database administrators, or human resource managers often don't have a specific company in mind at which they will do those jobs.

Just like people who want to become a screenwriter, cameraman, set designer, or make-up artist often don't have a specific employer in mind for whom they will do that work.

Comparing "working at Wal-Mart" with "building airplanes" is disingenuous. You never idenfiti

People generally first seek the field or the industry and seek opportunities in those fields or at companies in those industries.

So, I don't know if anyone dreams of specifically working for Wal-Mart. And I don't know if anyone dreams of specifically working for Fox Searchlight. I doubt it in both cases.

No one dreams of stocking shelves or sweeping floors at Wal-Mart (or any other retailer) ... just as no one dreams of cleaning up a movie set or emptying garbage cans at the studio ... just as no one dreams of sweeping up at the airplane factory.

Josh, I'll bet real money more people dream of becoming the CEO of a retail giant than dream of becoming a janitor at Fox Searchlight.

==============================

Done with you.

It's "finished." Cakes are "done," people are "finished."

And I'm finished with you and your crap.

"Either Moore is for people getting a living wage or he is not."

Is he for paying college students for their time studying and attending classes? Or are they being exploited for having to do hours of coursework? Or are they only exploited if learning takes place off campus?

The intern=slave reasoning is not logical.

Interns are not employees. Nor are they supposed to be slave labor.

Learning the trade from a tradesman rather than an academic is a good thing. It gives a whole different perspective to the material learned. Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.

The students are paying for an education, getting educated, and getting credits (and experience, and contacts) working part-time for less than a semester. Poor things.

I'm supposed to pretend that kids flock to Detroit to follow their lifelong dream to work in factories because if I acknowledge what everyone knows, I'm arrogant?

You ARE arrogant. And Amy's not the only one who's commented on it.

Many kids flock[ed] to Detroit to follow their lifelong dream to work in the automobile industry (not simply to work in factories). Again, you compare the lowest jobs in the other guy's argument and the highest jobs in your own.

These folks wanted to be designers, engineers, marketers, or even just to be a part of what was then an exciting industry (yes, even if it meant working a high-paid job in the factory). They just wanted to be a part of it.

Some of those kids even chose their colleges and majors on the basis of being able to get a job in the auto industry after graduation.

Some started earlier. Mustang designer, Sid Ramnarace, wrote to GM and Ford when he was 12 years old, asking for advice on how to get a job as a car designer.

@Dave B
Conan said: "If you're gonna tell Wal-Mart to pay its low-level employees a "living wage," you should do the same for your own. And, yes, very few Wal-Mart employees are going to become Hollywood screenwriters. However, more than a few of them will become store managers or division managers and make a pretty decent living at it."

Why did my comment strike such a nerve? Why don't you address the comment rather than my attack my reading comprehension skills?

Posted by: Michelle at October 28, 2011 7:47 AM

It didn't.

Here are Amy's last two paragraphs of her post.
"I'm a middle-class newspaper columnist and author (working in not exactly the golden age of newspapers and publishing) and I don't have people working for me for free. If you work for me, I'll pay you -- and buy you lunch when you're here at my place. (And let's remember that I'm one of those meanie fiscal conservatives!)

What I want to know is how come many of the people occupying Wall Street (as if everyone rich or successful there has caused every problem in their lives and all of our lives) aren't occupying the lobby of intern-stiffing multi-millionaire Michael Moore."

If you prefer to discuss Wal-Mart - have at it. Michael is still a hypocrite.

Dave,

"I am not going to go through all of Michael's anti-captialist screeds for you or anyone. "

I'll spare you the trouble. Unlike you, Moore (and I) know the difference between a college student taking an unpaid internship in a field they're interested in entering and a 12 year old Chinese girl working in a factory so your iPad doesn't cost an extra ten bucks. It's reasonably safe to say that Michael Moore has never condemned the internship system as a form of economic injustice. If you actually understood the politics of the people you despise, it would spare you these embarrassments.
Posted by: Josh Olson at October 28, 2011 8:26 AM

Oh come on now. The "Michael" touts a living wage all the time. Are you telling me the internship system, you and Michael ascribe to, is not an economic injustice. Does it pay a living wage? How you justify this discrepancy amazes me. But that is just me.

I don't fully understand Michael's politics. For all I know he laughs all the way to bank - at you not me. I do not despise Michael. Why do you think I do? Is it because you despise people like Rush Limbaugh?

What embarrassments? You are really full of yourself.

Oh, and I don't have an iPad. And how do you know I don't know the difference of unpaid interns and factory workers in China? Do you always try and insult people? Obtuse.

Dave B: when you prefer to discuss internships rather than jobs, have at it. There's a huge difference between the two.

I work in the healthcare industry. The hospital I work for is contracted with local universities/technical schools which allows students to complete internships on our campus.

Twice a year I have an intern spend a few weeks with me, UNPAID. It is a requirement to obtain certain credentials. I had to do it to obtain mine.

Does intern do any "work" when he/she is with me? Absolutely. Does it work to my advantage? Not really. They are usually slow and unsure of themselves. However, if said intern is motivated, eager to learn and has a good attitude, and I happen to be hiring, who do you think would be a good candidate? Ding ding!!! The intern!! That is the only benefit I may get for sponsoring an intern, which is also a benefit to them.
In return for the "unpaid work", the intern gets to obtain their credentials and credits for school. They also get to see if they're cut out for the job. They learn their weak areas, what they need to focus on. They get hands on training in the real world, contacts, networking and they beef up their resumes.

When intern gets a "job" and becomes an "employee", they get added to the payroll.

There's you Walmart free explanation of my stance.

David,

"The "Michael" touts a living wage all the time. Are you telling me the internship system, you and Michael ascribe to, is not an economic injustice. Does it pay a living wage?"

No. Neither does going to college. Does supporting college mean you support economic injustice?

More to the point - are you people insane, or are you just so blinded in your hatred of this filmmaker that you can't bear to acknowledge that an unpaid internship is not the same thing as an unpaid job?

"And how do you know I don't know the difference of unpaid interns and factory workers in China?"

Um... Is this a trick question?

BECAUSE YOU DON'T. You think that someone who's outraged at the treatment of factory workers in China is a hypocrite for using interns.

As Michelle rightly pointed out, there are internships and there are jobs. One is done for college credit, the other is done for money. If you - like Amy - object to the entire notion of college students being given access to work environments that coincide with their field of study in exchange for credit, then say so. However, if you DO actually get that there's a difference between an internship and a job, then you have no choice but to admit that Michael Moore is not a hypocrite by offering college students an opportunity to get credit and experience.

Michelle -

Is internship a requirement for film school graduation or degree?

INTERNSHIP DESCRIPTION: Research for documentary films, administrative
duties (answering phones, copying, faxing, word processing, getting and
sorting mail), running errands, assisting editors, maintaining tape
library, archive press and generally assisting producers and other staff in
whatever way will be helpful.

Not worthy of pay? Michael is a hypocrite.

Your experience is anecdotal.

Josh

"You think that someone who's outraged at the treatment of factory workers in China is a hypocrite for using interns."

Uh, no. Not paying interns for real work is hypocrital for Michael. It isn't about you or the industry. But be sure to be as condescending as possible.

Can I assume that you do know that some industries pay their interns?

Do you think I hate Michael?

Do you hate Rush Limbaugh?

David,

"Is internship a requirement for film school graduation or degree?"

Credits are. Internships are one way to get credits.

"Can I assume that you do know that some industries pay their interns?"

Sure. And some don't.

I'll also assume that you know the difference between a job and an internship, and are too invested in being right at this point to acknowledge that.

"Do you think I hate Michael?"

I think you're fixated on poking holes in him in any way you can. If your attempt here had validity, I'd applaud it. It doesn't.

"Do you hate Rush Limbaugh?"

Good question. He's a racist, a hatemonger, and a belligerent liar with no code of ethics whose only purpose is to promote an agenda that hurts more people than it helps, I'd say he's certainly worthy of hate. Personally, I have better things to do with my emotions.

I'ze thinks youze all is bein' too literal. Showbiz is a verge of talented performers —sometimes undetectably-talented yet profitable performers— and mundane chores.

In showbiz especially, kids who aren't astute enough to understand that they're being taken advantage of were never going to be getting their needs met by the business anyway. Go ahead, rip 'em off. It's just not that big a deal. If they don't want to stop and pick up the dry cleaning, there's probably an idiot nephew who'll get it in the morning. Let 'em quit. What did they ever do for anyone, anyway? It's just a fucking fax machine.

Meanwhile, the ambitious interns weren't planning to buy a sports car with their compensation anyway... They're glad to be making real contacts, if only social ones. Showbiz is clubby, but there's nothing criminal about it.

Or: Requiring savvy is not immoral... Especially in as trivial an enterprise as film.

> whose only purpose is to promote an agenda

Oh, stay home and do your nails.

> Personally, I have better things to do with my
> emotions.

Have you met Patrick? He does this too.... Presents detailed, thoughtfully-worded critiques of things which, he vociferously assures us, command none of his attention whatsoever.

By all means, do things with your emotions! Go go go!

Well dave, since unpaid internships are SO wrong, should these schools be condemed for making it a requirement, and the hospital as well for participating?

Josh

I know that internships are training for the possibility for future employment. They are also vehicles for introducing a person to field of endeavor. There must be a point you are trying to make regarding a job vs. internship. I don't know what you are getting at. Are you saying an internship is not a job? I would say that an unpaid internship was not gainful employment but I still consider it a job. We are probably talking some semantics here and I am truly getting confused.

No, I am not fixated on Michael. I was just commenting on a post in a blog. Michael is a hypocrite for not paying interns. My opinion. You are the one fixated on attacking me for my opinion.

The following is a description of a job ( I guess I need to say in my opinion)
INTERNSHIP DESCRIPTION: Research for documentary films, administrative
duties (answering phones, copying, faxing, word processing, getting and
sorting mail), running errands, assisting editors, maintaining tape
library, archive press and generally assisting producers and other staff in
whatever way will be helpful.

Your opinion is it is not a description of a job.

Perhaps Crid is right with his post above: Showbiz is a special case. PAID labor isn't worth that much in showbiz....

I am not bad mouthing your industry for not paying interns. Michael bad mouths every industry, other than his own, for not paying people enough for work performed. He opens himself up for critical comments. You call it hate, but that is what you see, and that does not make real.

Well dave, since unpaid internships are SO wrong, should these schools be condemed for making it a requirement, and the hospital as well for participating?

Posted by: Michelle at October 28, 2011 1:15 PM

Did I say they are "wrong?" (Sorry if the question mark inside the " bothers you, but that the way I was taught) Women.

Dave,

"There must be a point you are trying to make regarding a job vs. internship. I don't know what you are getting at. "

Clearly.

So.

Michelle,

A lot of the argument about internships being legitimate learning experiences or exploited cheap labor has to do with the type of tasks being performed by the intern.

In your example, the intern is performing specific job-related tasks that advance the intern's knowledge and skills in the field. Your intern shadowed you, learning from you.

In the Black Swan suit, two Hollywood interns are alleging that their "internship" was nothing more than a minimum wage job fetching coffee and cleaning the office ... without the minimum wage or the labor law protections an actual job would have had. In their allegations, there was no learning or skills advancement.

Based on comments here, having interns perform non-learning menial tasks seems to be a longstanding and widely accepted practice in Hollywood.

The question raised by Amy's thread title then becomes whether Michael Moore's advertised internships are the same labor exploitation that the Black Swan internships are alleged to have been. The description of the job duties in his advertisement sound like menial labor for which he should be hiring a clerk. If so, Moore's a hypocrite in regard to the statements he's issued against corporate America exploiting workers.

In short, if Michael Moore is criticizing the rest of the world for taking advantage of cheap labor while doing so himself (no matter the potential long-term payoff), he's a hypocrite. If not, he might still be, but not in this regard.

==============================

As Josh and Crid have pointed out, however, even an exploitative "internship" can give the intern a chance to be on an active movie set or in a studio and to try to learn something and make contacts despite the long hours and menial labor.

The smart ones take advantage of it. The dumb ones weren't going anywhere anyway.

And sometimes the interns get class credit for their menial labor (not much in the way of compensation, but something).

Whether a paid employee (clerk, coffee fetcher, etc.) would have the same opportunities to watch and learn and make contacts (along with getting wages and some labor law protections) could have some bearing on whether one considers this type of internship to be exploitation or a legitimate foot-in-the-door opportunity.

Still, the fact that in popular industries being an exploited intern can offer a foot in the door doesn't make it less skeevy on the part of the exploiter ... then again Hollywood's pretty much corporate headquarters for skeevy.

Yeah... I have no insights about how the college credits ought to work. Presumably any real intellectual value from an internship could be tested.

But since Higher Ed is (or should be) about to get a harsh revaluation anyway, I don't know how much we should stress.

Moore if repugnant

Look Josh, aside from a couple of people noone really has railed againt the internship idea.

What it boils down to is this - a rich guy who, in part, makes a living complaining about other rich guys not paying their underlings enough to live on isnt paying his underlings in the manner he demands of others.

Somthing tells me if Micheal Moore werent in the film industry and there for a sacred, figuritve(and physically almost a literal), cow that you wouldnt be so hell bent on ignoring his hypocracy