Sam commented on the stagehand primer link I recently posted, more specifically about the author, Mick Alderson. That started me thinking about a few things. Let me respond to and riff off of his thing. First:
I’ve worked with Mick for years now. He’s GREAT to work with. Also taught me a sizable chunk of my apprenticeship base knowledge on the job-site. And was one of the only Sr. hands willing give me an answer to the question “why?†in almost every instance. I want to mention this is appreciated coming from a once young lad who knew nothing about theater.
Kudos to Mick. He wrote a great primer, and now we’re discovering that he’s an all around good stagehand as well, as far as taking someone under his wing and having lotsa patience for the new guy(s).
I’m sure that this isn’t an isolated stagehand thing, but I think at some point or another, we’ve all been taken under someone’s wing at one point or another. It’s got to be a time-honored tradition, I imagine, the method by which common knowledge becomes common, and is passed down over the years.
What’s funny, though, is that I re-examined many of my memories of the guys who – to varying extents – made sure I was not only learning what I needed to know, but also was exposed to the many tips and tricks and little details that might take you a ton of time to learn on your own. For the most part, I realized that many of them were really cantankerous bastards who had little to no patience for many of the other guys in the studio. How is it that they had time for the new guy?
One fine gentleman who taught me much of what I know about electrics was a really rude older guy with a gambling problem, a seemingly endless taste for massage parlors, visiting them so often it could be called a hobby. He refused to speak with 90% of all the various crews in the studio…and by “refused to speak” I mean totally refused to speak to them. If they asked him a question, he would simply turn his back. The other ten percent? He would do nothing but argue. The mental image I have of him is either with his mouth open really wide as he was yelling at any of the numerous people he had screaming matches with every day, or of him gesticulating wildly as he walked away from said numerous people. Yet he had endless time for me and my many really basic and stupid questions.
In fact, every morning, he would seek me out. We were working in the soaps, and he’d go over the lighting plan with me, set by set…telling me what all the symbols meant, letting me know what “hidden things” were going on…what the LD (lighting director…I don’t want to assume) wanted that he/she wasn’t saying on the plot. Why each light was where it was, and why it was focussed where it was focussed. How the day would go, and why.
So basically, this guy, who was in every other respect a totally irritable, nasty fuck (pardon my french, but it really does apply here) spent serious time showing me the ins and outs of the business. How does that happen? Was he looking for a friend? Was he hoping to have a member of the crew who did things his way? Was he just like that? I’ll never know. Either he’s dead, or working somewhere I’ll never get around to visiting.
But the whole idea really boggles my mind sometimes. There are guys who couldn’t spend ten minutes in a room with an inanimate object without starting some sort of fight, and many of them took me aside to impart some serious knowledge to me.
Maybe I’ll work on polling some of the guys I work with, and see what I can turn up. This can’t be an isolated thing. If you have had a similar experience, write or comment.
On to the question. Have you ever rigged with a guy that attracts “Murphy†in increased yet solvable amounts? This might sound a bit strange, but working with a guy who has so much stagecraft knowledge seems to attract challenges from the spirit of Murphy’s law. Have you ever noticed such phenomena? Not to say it was ever less safe, just a welcomed bombardment of challenges.
You know, it’s funny, but yes. I have. And so have many of my brothers in the business…I know because I’ve actually discussed it with them.
Back when I was working with databases in corporate hell, there were a few different classes of people: those who just merely worked with what I was running, with few to no problems; those who had endless problems because they were incompetent; and those who – for whatever reason – always seemed to run into the strangest situations, even though they were obviously knowledgeable. It’s the same way now, in the business…tv, theater.
I think that what happens is that X person’s knowledge eventually winds up overwhelming the problem…they don’t employ Occam’s razor, and then they get in really wierd trouble. The biggest hurdle is that they tend to start with really complicated solutions to problems on whose simplicity they don’t pick up.  The “solutions” cause more trouble, which snowballs as each one is implemented.
Here’s an example that led me to this explanation: I was working with a really, really knowledgeable stagehand a few weeks back. We were cutting some batten for some crap we had to hang from the grid for an effect. It’s nothing crazy, just 1-by. As he’s cutting, the saw started to go haywire. His first reaction? Check the blade. He started to take off the housing, when I put that piece of batten to the side and told him to try another piece. The problem? There was a piece of metal embedded in the wood. Checking the saw would’ve been a good thing to do maybe three steps down the road, after all the obvious stupid little things were eliminated.
If he had gone on to check the saw blade? What could have happened? He could have dinged something badly, stripped out hardware, lost that one nut you absolutely shouldn’t lose, or any other number of similar Murphy-esque situations, all of which would set a few guys off mumbling to themselves as they worked to solve the complications of the already overly complicated solution. The solution which, obviously, hasn’t yet solved anything other than to keep a few members of the crew from growing bored.
I also work fairly regularly with another guy who gets into this sort of trouble all the time, but for a different reason – he’s pretty ignorant, has no idea how ignorant he is, and tends towards solutions that work with what little he knows.
For instance, the other day he hung a lamp that didn’t come on when he had the channel brought up. His solution? Take the unit back off the grid, and take apart the lamp (while standing in the Genie, naturally, without making it safe in any way/shape/form) to make sure everything was kosher. Then, he wanted to check into the raceway that housed the tail he had plugged it into.
Of course, it’s pure pig-ignorance on his part…anyone else would just plug it into another tail, then start eliminating potential causes from there. But the solution he knows relates to a problem he had that was the most memorable and complicated, and his brain hasn’t really worked out the shortest route to all the other potential solutions I know he’s been shown (mostly because I showed them to him). But just looking at where he went, you could see how Murphy could take over in just about endless ways. To paraphrase the old saw, he knows just enough to get in trouble.
So what have I arrived at here? Yes Sam, the Murphy problem is depressingly common, I think. If you have some good stories, post them in the comments.