Show & Tell
One Nice Bug Per Day
Kiana Khansmith
Claire Keane
Sweet Seals For You, Always
hello vonnie
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
h
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
izzy's playlists!
AnasAbdin
No title available
tannertan36
ellievsbear
Love Begins
dirt enthusiast
No title available
No title available
Kaledo Art
Not today Justin
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Brazil
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Kenya
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from Indonesia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Lithuania
@bisexual-magneto
considering the Pope is apparently thanking AfD politicians for their "family politics" can we stop pretending the catholic church is some kind of resistence movement and remind ourselves it's one of the biggest misogyny machines on the planet.
...tbh when discussing words that just exist to make men's problems sound like their own separate category of human experience of a gravity that women wouldn't Understand and that can't be debated, one of the big ones is "emasculating".
It's so big, people overlook it.
It's feeling disrespected. It's feeling humiliated - by treating a guy in a way that would be normal towards a woman. Or to make sth sound extra-serious when happening to a man.
If doing the dishes or cleaning the bathroom or doing the laundry "humiliates" a guy, it means "feeling humiliated by not being granted male privilege in a situation/by doing sth that I find beneath me.".
If you feel disrespected by a woman correcting you or beating you in a sport, it means that means you feel entitled to a woman intentionally losing to you or letting you say anything you want to protect your ego.
"Emasculating" makes it sound like this is a special male experience. But it's not like women aren't getting disrespected for doing the things that men feel emasculated by (hence "stay in the kitchen"/"make me a sandwich" type jokes).
Except that's considered a deserved form of disrespect that you aren't even allowed to get mad at. "Emasculated" just means that as a man you don't deserve it and suddenly it's unfair - and a man feeling "emasculated" is often used as an excuse for them to get back at a person they feel disrespected by. You will literally have lawyers and courts excuse violence against women bc "he felt emasculated". Whereas a woman has to "take a joke" and "lighten up".
As a woman, I've been emasculated all my life in this society.
The OP is right to isolate the term "emasculated" as providing insight into making men's problems sound like a separate category and being tied up in double standards and so forth, but most of her argument assumes as universally understood a sense of "emasculated" that I don't think I've ever heard. I don't remember in my life ever hearing it used in the sense of "disrespected" or unfairness from another person, as in entitled to better treatment (or if I've once or twice heard it used that way, it was so occasional that I dismissed it). The way I've always understood "emasculated" is simply as an unpleasant psychological response to something in a similar category to "embarrassment" (and with a lot of overlap), when something makes a man who is insecure about his masculinity in some way feel like less of a man.
I've never heard of lawyers and courts excusing male violence on the basis of a man "feeling emasculated", although I'm sure it's happened somewhere and I could be uninformed on its frequency I suppose.
I certainly don't deny that some terrible men channel feelings of emasculation into rage and violence and afterwards use it as an excuse. But I am skeptical that this is the way society as a whole treats the concept of emasculation, as the OP seems to imply.
It's definitely the case that some courts did use to exclude male violence on account of the perpetrator feeling emasculated.
Your link is eye-opening, but I find it a bit of a stretch to characterize what it describes as defenses based on the bare concept of "being emasculated", certainly not reflecting the examples of "emasculation" mentioned in the OP -- rather, it's based on homophobia and/or transphobia.
By the way, not that this pertains to the link, but to be clearer about my reblog above, I didn't mean above cases that were decided a number of decades ago, a time when a serious range of unreasonableness in court decisions surrounding intimate violence wouldn't surprise me the way it would in recent times (e.g. easily within living memory, rape within marriage didn't exist as a legal concept).
If you speak German, I would recommend you read Akteneinsicht, by Christina Clemm. She is a lawyer who helps survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence.
In this book, she presents anonymised summaries of cases and then comments on the way the legal system treats women. She talks about this in that one.
And yes, it is very much contemporary.
On that subject, have you ever noticed when abuse allegations are made public and people say "oh, we don't really know what's the truth" and "oh, it's a witch-hunt" - they never say that about the person who was very likely abused? They will never say that in response to Rich Celebrity Man being like "oop I would never do this, I don't know what this is about" -> you won't see people respond to that with "oh, we don't know if that's the truth" or "oh we have to wait for the trial to see if that's true". When people start massive hate campaigns against abuse survivors, you will crickets and radio silence from the "let's not turn this into a witchhunt!!!!" crowd
I also think it's interesting that right now, in Germany, we have this case of Collien Fernandes coming forward against her husband, actor Christian Ulmen, for sharing fake sexual material of her online - and there is one narrative, particularly pushed by the right-wing conspiracy media outlet "nius" but also generally the people who want to defend famous men at all cost, that Fernandes' allegations are some psy-op attempt by powerful people to force a law that ends anonymity on the internet.
And rewatching the Amber Heard stuff - which has serious implications for freedom of speech and press (...realistically, especially if you are a woman) because in the article at the heart of the matter, she never mentioned Depp and she never called herself a "victim" and she was still sentenced for defamation.
Isn't it interesting that in one case, people said "we have to protect popular actor man at all costs, basic civil rights be damned!" but with Collien Fernandes it's "she needs to shut her mouth because by talking about her own experiences and demanding a law against deep-fake porn she is effectively a threat to our civil liberties!" uwu the fact that both are protecting Famous Actor Men is just a coincidence.
I'm rewatching the Medusone video on Johnny Depp and Amber Heard again and among all the other thing, it should really, really, really shake your trust in celebrity psychologists and psychology commentators like """body language experts""". Especially when it comes to women.
Chris Eccleston on that shit let him talk!!!!
🏆 Achievement: Impressive levels of bigotry against Prince Andrew and Johnny Depp, according to Harry Potter fan
Anyway, bored now and the thread is getting to long. Im sure there are more rich creeps she has defend from their victims.
I feel like everything has already been said about Rowling and how the new Harry Potter show will directly fund and forward her political agenda. I'm preaching to a choir here.
But I think something that hasn't been talked about enough is stuff like the seperate "school" they've built for the child-actors to somehow comply with child labour regulations where the kids are "learning" in extremely interrupted settings in giant classes at ungodly hours in the morning. Remember, even our regular school hours are not in sync with when teenage brains are the most active - but here we are talking about kids that are learning at random times a day, starting at 5:30 and then going to work or going to work and THEN learning in the evening.
In what world is this okay?? I mean, what is this if not child exploitation on a massive scale?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Actress here, by the way. Not just actress, I've done plenty of other things as crew and also had a stint in production. Also my career is mainly in the UK so I know the regulations here. Oh and teaching vulnerable kids was my first real job ever!
The law is very strict protecting children. I have worked with children quite a lot on sets, in fact I'm certified to chaperone, so I can guarantee you children are very, very safe. In fact, the very reason children are very, very safe is Harry Potter. Harry Potter was the first production where they tried the school-on-set model, which isn't really a school as we know it, but areas dedicated to learning, so that tutors can come and help children catch up with school work; they do homework, help them prepare for exams (even A-levels when they're older), and whatever other educational needs they have, they're met. And it's not one teacher for hundreds of kids, don't be ridiculous. Often, tutors have one or two kids at any given time, sometimes slightly bigger groups of six or ten per tutor. Which is a lot more than they get in any normal school, because it allows kids to have people who are hundred per cent focused on them.
The reason the "school" (like I said it's not really a school building, it's rooms) is open so many hours it's because it's merely rooms in a set, and sets are typically open that many hours. My average working day as an adult is 12h, to give you some idea. Obviously kids cannot do this. Currently kids can only be at the filming studios venue about 9 hours a day, of which only 5 can be actual work (rehearsing and shooting). These hours can start as early as any school day and can end late, but it doesn't mean kids are there all day. Like a kid can easily be called to be there at 7am and be at home by 3pm, or be called on set at 5pm and be gone by 10pm. Additionally, children need breaks. By law, they have to have every possible break and not go more than 2h, 2 and a half, without a break. So for example very recently I was working with kids on a TV series. Most actors were there 12h a day. We had teenagers who could only be there for a few hours, typically we had them in the mornings and then they'd go home. And we'd have them on set for maybe half an hour at a time or less, then they'd go for a break while we repositioned cameras and filmed other things, and then they'd come back. Once it was time for kids to go, they were gone. And they aren't allowed without chaperones, and each chaperone can only have a small group of kids at a time.
The way tutoring works is, they squeeze it when they can. Since rooms are open at all times during day time, tutors can be called for a few hours a day as needed, and maybe while the adults are filming the kids can get a couple hours of tutoring and have their classwork done, or maybe if it's a very interrupted day they have tutoring half an hour, work another bit, then go play, then tutor again. But tutoring hours count as hours at the venue, so they're never too many hours.
Tutoring and "schools" on set are designed to make children's lives easier so they don't fall behind and so they have a more one-to-one way of learning, and don't struggle to cope with the educational demands of their age. What Harry Potter has done building a dedicated learning area is improving their lives vastly. These kids won't have to get up early for filming every day and then still be behind in school work. These kids will learn in the funnest of ways, and have one amazing experience filming as well. So if you don't know what you're talking about, don't.
Are kids being sent to school at 5:30 for this acting job yes or no?
At 5:30 they're not even on their way to set dude. In fact the vast majority of them probably spends less time on set than they ever spent in school, and probably sleep more hours now than they did pre Potter.
Here's the thing. Most articles on this don't say the word "starts" they even specifically say it "operates", because that’s what they're citing from the original BBC source:
I think when you ask most people what a school "operating" and its "operating hours" means, they will read this as hours in which classes are in session and kids are learning.
Now there is two options:
- You are right and the BBC was lying, wrong, or unclear in their wording, and this school (they don't say the set) and then lessons start and end at UK regular hours. Which is great, great news!
- Or...the BBC is right. In which case this is very, very bad.
And right now, the BBC and its wording is the only official source I find. So what you say is very reassuring and no one will be happier than me once a different reputable outlet or the production itself releases a follow up clarifying that this wording was misleading and the school operates at regular hours in a regular way.
But until this is the case, my only official source is this BBC quote which is very concerning. And if a very official source like the BBC says somsthing very concerning about the way hundreds of kids are being treated for a project that is going to make a lot of adults a big deal richer, I'm going to keep my eye on that because after so many years of the same cycle of "we are treating our child actors super well and comply with all the laws" -> 20 years later -> "I barely had a childhood and felt like a product" I've become quite a bit cynical about that and don't want to be on the team that is shocked when in a decade or two, we get the next autobiographies about how a child actor was being exploited for profit.
Now, again, if what you say is true, that's good. But with only the BBC article to go on and the BBC article implying something quote horrendous, I'm going to need an official source that this is not the case to turn off my alarms.
And especially the fact that these things were reported as positive cool features of the set and no one came rushing forward in a panic "just to be clear our school starts at 8:30 am/9:00 am!!!!! We would never send kids to school at 5:30!!!!!! We're just setting up the classrooms, not operating!!!" makes me mostly wary.
The BBC is right you're just not interpreting them right. The BBC also has to write for a general public in a language they'll understand, and I guarantee you they call it school hoping you'll understand it that way but it isn't. Like, there's no headmaster, teachers, gym, PE class... it's not a school. Film studios are massive complexes full of different buildings of all sorts, and they've set out classrooms there. You might call it a "school" because for all intents and purposes, it's kinda what it is, but it isn't a school like any other school in London. For example there's no staff, they're just areas designated to be used when the kid needs it and always with their tutor. And tutors are not the same as school teachers either. They're like private tutors. So there will be classrooms and tutors but there won't be hundreds of students at once, there'll be groups, and they'll come and gone throughout the day as needed, as the BBC clearly states.
I honestly don't know what's so confusing to you so I've just taken the article and translated it for even the thicker minds:
"could use a series of portable buildings as a school facility for the next decade." Portable buildings are what we normally use for hair and make up, costume, offices, and even as dressing rooms or bathrooms and canteens. They're like in construction, temporary blocks you can put together like legos. Notice their wording "used as a school facility". Not that it becomes Harry Potter School. That they'll habilitate areas to be used as if they were school facilities. As I've been saying.
"designed to be used by up to 600 pupils during peak periods, when large crowd scenes are shot, but will typically serve about 150 students." Firstly, there's a massive difference between the design and what happens in practice. You don't get 600 child actors at the same time on set every day, even for Potter. It just doesn't happen. Hell, you don't get 600 actors at once every day, period, imagine the money! But they need large areas because on the days in which they do have some hundreds, they'll need the area. Like I said not all at once, normally you break it into small groups and rotate. Like, if you're filming Harry and Ron in Potions class you'll have what, twenty students around? maybe five that the camera can capture behind them during close ups? So you grab those five for the half an hour you're filming, then send them to break, or lunch, or play or tutoring, whatever, move the equipment, film whatever you can without kids, then bring in another six or seven... That's how you do it. You'd only need a few dozens at once if you were doing a general shot from very far away showing many students moving.
"between 05:30 and 20:30 so young actors can fit in their actual studies between night shoots, reshoots and location filming." As I was saying, they keep the facilities open (basically studios are self contained complexes like mini villages with very heightened security, once you come in, you stay there all day and just move between the buildings, so they can keep the learning area open and the kids can walk in and out whenever they want between shots, always with tutors).
", it was specified that the school infrastructure will be in place for a maximum period of 10 years." again they call it school infrastructure. As in school-type buildings. Not like building an actual school.
Also not the first time it's been done. They did it for the first time for the Potter movies and I've seen them, they're just classrooms one could go in and use as needed when needed. Just to have a quiet space with tables and chairs and decent lightning because film sets can be quite chaotic.
-> This is what the Daily Beast writes about it - and that means they either verified it and this is what they learnt OR they took the information from the BBC article and also interpreted the phrasing "the school operates from---to" the most obvious way there is.
If we say "Oh the BBC has to write for the general public (which cannot understand the complexities of acting)" -> well the General Public(TM) has a concept of "school operating hours" because going to school and sending kids to school is a very common experience to the general public. So if the studios told the BBC "our sets are open from 5:30 to 20:30 and from 8:30 to 15:00 the kids also receive lessons" and the BBC reporter sat down and wrote "the school operates from 5:30 to 20:30" then they made a mistake. That's straightforward. That is not trying to explain something - it's a mistake. Whatever their intentions were. If they did it for the public to better understand this operation, they failed in even two regards.
And at the very least it seems strange. Not saying this might not have happened. But I struggle to imagine a scenario where a) this mistranslation might have happened and b) and neither the writer nor any editor at not a single point looked at these operating hours for a school for 10 year olds and followed up with the journalist writing the article or studios whether there's really a school that operates at 5:30 in the morning or until 20:30 in the evening.
...which, considering that other news outlets are clearly interpreting it the same way I do, is not my 'bad faith' but a very obvious interpretation.
Journalists make mistakes, editors can miss those mistakes. Maybe they used fucking AI to write the article. In fact, this could VERY well explain this considering that journalists are now pressured to use AI and this feels like something that might happen if you use AI. In that case, it's an issue of the BBC FAILING to write for the general public. Again, great if this is the case. As I said, wonderful thing, if this turns out to be the answer here. That's what I've been saying in my last reblog - if this is simply poor wording on behalf of the BBC, then that's great. They are NOT sabotaging kids right to education for a 70billion dollar company's bottom line.
But right now, I only have various news outlets saying there is school, operating, educational programmes being operated - at these hours. At the behest of an industry with a horrible history of exploiting kids. Vs someone telling - albeit in vivid detail - this is not the case based on their experience in that industry.
I did actively try to find out more - to find anything, really - but unfortunately all I found is an article about the school on the set of the old movies you mentioned -
I was hoping to find some information about how they solved it there - but they don't really say anything clear on the hours either. For example they added aphoto of this schedule here, but there are no hours in the left column - just "am", "lang", "pm" -
the only thing this article tells us about the hours they worked back then is this:
Again, this is about the original movies. Not the current TV show. It doesn't tell us anything about how the current school is being ran.
That said, I can't help but notice that what they did back then at the set of the original Harry Potter movies does not seem to line up with your experiences in terms of organisation of these studio schools general. Not calling you a liar - the Harry Potter movies in terms of budget, size, number of kids, duration - are not really your average production. In fact, when I try to find more general information or information about other productions, it's extremely difficult because Harry Potter overshadows everything and makes up most of the matches. It's also been quite a few years since then.
What it does tell me is that it looks like there's not just 1 way these on-set schools work. Which makes sense because obviously, vectors are different depending on your production - how long are you filming, how many kids are there, what ages are these kids etc. I also tried to look into UK child labour laws and from what I gather, there's differences based on councils, but overall seem to be a lot more lax than in my home country which might be why a lot of what you are describing (like this really casual school set-up) does not sound reassuring to me.
But this also means that what you are telling me does not really give me definitive information on what is or isn't happening specifically on the Harry Potter set. Much less prove that it's the BBC journalist who was careless or unclear in their wording or misunderstood what they were told or made a mistake. The only hard original source I have on this specific production and its strategy for securing these kids' right to a school education is a BBC article saying that these are the school-or-not-school's operating hours. That is what I can verify - that this article exists. And that you are saying something different.
At the end of the day, whatever they are doing, I cannot confirm it or deny it. It's wonderful if I'm wrong! As I said before, I'm entirely open to that. If tomorrow, they post an update saying 'hey, actually the kids are strictly learning between 8:30 and 15:00" I'm willing to take that to the bank and the question is settled for me until, again, someone disagrees.
if in 20 years, those child actors come foward and tell us "wow that studio school was great and met all our educational and social needs equal to or above norm standard and operated during normal hours" -> then I will be a happy woman indeed.
But at this point, all I can say is "the BBC writes X, tumblr user hjellacott says Y - and also, notably, X and Y do not mutually exclude each other". All I know is that we are talking about an industry with a horrid record in regards to their treatment of vulnerable groups, women, and ESPECIALLY children. So yeah. I'm not exactly going away from what you describe with "oh, it's great, it's definitely a very strange mistake that the BBC somehow made." - I'm going away from this "there is a good chance that the BBC made a very odd mistake - a very decent chance that maybe AI reworked that article and didn't realise what it was implying - - - but the BBC also unintentionally is on record saying something very concerning about how these kids' education is being handled and so far, the best argument against it being true is personal experiences of a harry potter fan on tumblr who mentions having experiences in the industry."
You know what, whatever dude. I've actually been there, worked in Potter, probably going back to it soon, and have colleagues in it, I'm an industry insider, but you want to believe whatever you want to understand from these websites (which is not what they're saying by the way, you're just insisting in misinterpreting or twisting or perhaps you really are so thick you don't understand basic writing because the BBC article for example was crystal clear), go ahead. It makes no difference to me.
Clearly it makes no difference to you 😆
Not really. I mean at the end of the day you're forgotten by tomorrow and I'm on set this weekend doing what I love. I have a happy and fulfilled life. I have great stuff to look forward to. I like coming to Tumblr and if anyone has genuine questions about filming I love to share my knowledge because it's an industry I'm passionate about, but trolls? Do whatever, if you think it's good for your mind by all means. We should just do the things we enjoy and are good at and yours is being a twat so you should go ahead and be the best you can be at it. Make your dreams come true.
I think you should make some more vague posts about this interaction to show how happy and indifferent you are
Lol somebody help this dude out of the Cuckoo's nest 😂😂
Damn girl your track record 😭
I feel like everything has already been said about Rowling and how the new Harry Potter show will directly fund and forward her political agenda. I'm preaching to a choir here.
But I think something that hasn't been talked about enough is stuff like the seperate "school" they've built for the child-actors to somehow comply with child labour regulations where the kids are "learning" in extremely interrupted settings in giant classes at ungodly hours in the morning. Remember, even our regular school hours are not in sync with when teenage brains are the most active - but here we are talking about kids that are learning at random times a day, starting at 5:30 and then going to work or going to work and THEN learning in the evening.
In what world is this okay?? I mean, what is this if not child exploitation on a massive scale?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Actress here, by the way. Not just actress, I've done plenty of other things as crew and also had a stint in production. Also my career is mainly in the UK so I know the regulations here. Oh and teaching vulnerable kids was my first real job ever!
The law is very strict protecting children. I have worked with children quite a lot on sets, in fact I'm certified to chaperone, so I can guarantee you children are very, very safe. In fact, the very reason children are very, very safe is Harry Potter. Harry Potter was the first production where they tried the school-on-set model, which isn't really a school as we know it, but areas dedicated to learning, so that tutors can come and help children catch up with school work; they do homework, help them prepare for exams (even A-levels when they're older), and whatever other educational needs they have, they're met. And it's not one teacher for hundreds of kids, don't be ridiculous. Often, tutors have one or two kids at any given time, sometimes slightly bigger groups of six or ten per tutor. Which is a lot more than they get in any normal school, because it allows kids to have people who are hundred per cent focused on them.
The reason the "school" (like I said it's not really a school building, it's rooms) is open so many hours it's because it's merely rooms in a set, and sets are typically open that many hours. My average working day as an adult is 12h, to give you some idea. Obviously kids cannot do this. Currently kids can only be at the filming studios venue about 9 hours a day, of which only 5 can be actual work (rehearsing and shooting). These hours can start as early as any school day and can end late, but it doesn't mean kids are there all day. Like a kid can easily be called to be there at 7am and be at home by 3pm, or be called on set at 5pm and be gone by 10pm. Additionally, children need breaks. By law, they have to have every possible break and not go more than 2h, 2 and a half, without a break. So for example very recently I was working with kids on a TV series. Most actors were there 12h a day. We had teenagers who could only be there for a few hours, typically we had them in the mornings and then they'd go home. And we'd have them on set for maybe half an hour at a time or less, then they'd go for a break while we repositioned cameras and filmed other things, and then they'd come back. Once it was time for kids to go, they were gone. And they aren't allowed without chaperones, and each chaperone can only have a small group of kids at a time.
The way tutoring works is, they squeeze it when they can. Since rooms are open at all times during day time, tutors can be called for a few hours a day as needed, and maybe while the adults are filming the kids can get a couple hours of tutoring and have their classwork done, or maybe if it's a very interrupted day they have tutoring half an hour, work another bit, then go play, then tutor again. But tutoring hours count as hours at the venue, so they're never too many hours.
Tutoring and "schools" on set are designed to make children's lives easier so they don't fall behind and so they have a more one-to-one way of learning, and don't struggle to cope with the educational demands of their age. What Harry Potter has done building a dedicated learning area is improving their lives vastly. These kids won't have to get up early for filming every day and then still be behind in school work. These kids will learn in the funnest of ways, and have one amazing experience filming as well. So if you don't know what you're talking about, don't.
Are kids being sent to school at 5:30 for this acting job yes or no?
At 5:30 they're not even on their way to set dude. In fact the vast majority of them probably spends less time on set than they ever spent in school, and probably sleep more hours now than they did pre Potter.
Here's the thing. Most articles on this don't say the word "starts" they even specifically say it "operates", because that’s what they're citing from the original BBC source:
I think when you ask most people what a school "operating" and its "operating hours" means, they will read this as hours in which classes are in session and kids are learning.
Now there is two options:
- You are right and the BBC was lying, wrong, or unclear in their wording, and this school (they don't say the set) and then lessons start and end at UK regular hours. Which is great, great news!
- Or...the BBC is right. In which case this is very, very bad.
And right now, the BBC and its wording is the only official source I find. So what you say is very reassuring and no one will be happier than me once a different reputable outlet or the production itself releases a follow up clarifying that this wording was misleading and the school operates at regular hours in a regular way.
But until this is the case, my only official source is this BBC quote which is very concerning. And if a very official source like the BBC says somsthing very concerning about the way hundreds of kids are being treated for a project that is going to make a lot of adults a big deal richer, I'm going to keep my eye on that because after so many years of the same cycle of "we are treating our child actors super well and comply with all the laws" -> 20 years later -> "I barely had a childhood and felt like a product" I've become quite a bit cynical about that and don't want to be on the team that is shocked when in a decade or two, we get the next autobiographies about how a child actor was being exploited for profit.
Now, again, if what you say is true, that's good. But with only the BBC article to go on and the BBC article implying something quote horrendous, I'm going to need an official source that this is not the case to turn off my alarms.
And especially the fact that these things were reported as positive cool features of the set and no one came rushing forward in a panic "just to be clear our school starts at 8:30 am/9:00 am!!!!! We would never send kids to school at 5:30!!!!!! We're just setting up the classrooms, not operating!!!" makes me mostly wary.
The BBC is right you're just not interpreting them right. The BBC also has to write for a general public in a language they'll understand, and I guarantee you they call it school hoping you'll understand it that way but it isn't. Like, there's no headmaster, teachers, gym, PE class... it's not a school. Film studios are massive complexes full of different buildings of all sorts, and they've set out classrooms there. You might call it a "school" because for all intents and purposes, it's kinda what it is, but it isn't a school like any other school in London. For example there's no staff, they're just areas designated to be used when the kid needs it and always with their tutor. And tutors are not the same as school teachers either. They're like private tutors. So there will be classrooms and tutors but there won't be hundreds of students at once, there'll be groups, and they'll come and gone throughout the day as needed, as the BBC clearly states.
I honestly don't know what's so confusing to you so I've just taken the article and translated it for even the thicker minds:
"could use a series of portable buildings as a school facility for the next decade." Portable buildings are what we normally use for hair and make up, costume, offices, and even as dressing rooms or bathrooms and canteens. They're like in construction, temporary blocks you can put together like legos. Notice their wording "used as a school facility". Not that it becomes Harry Potter School. That they'll habilitate areas to be used as if they were school facilities. As I've been saying.
"designed to be used by up to 600 pupils during peak periods, when large crowd scenes are shot, but will typically serve about 150 students." Firstly, there's a massive difference between the design and what happens in practice. You don't get 600 child actors at the same time on set every day, even for Potter. It just doesn't happen. Hell, you don't get 600 actors at once every day, period, imagine the money! But they need large areas because on the days in which they do have some hundreds, they'll need the area. Like I said not all at once, normally you break it into small groups and rotate. Like, if you're filming Harry and Ron in Potions class you'll have what, twenty students around? maybe five that the camera can capture behind them during close ups? So you grab those five for the half an hour you're filming, then send them to break, or lunch, or play or tutoring, whatever, move the equipment, film whatever you can without kids, then bring in another six or seven... That's how you do it. You'd only need a few dozens at once if you were doing a general shot from very far away showing many students moving.
"between 05:30 and 20:30 so young actors can fit in their actual studies between night shoots, reshoots and location filming." As I was saying, they keep the facilities open (basically studios are self contained complexes like mini villages with very heightened security, once you come in, you stay there all day and just move between the buildings, so they can keep the learning area open and the kids can walk in and out whenever they want between shots, always with tutors).
", it was specified that the school infrastructure will be in place for a maximum period of 10 years." again they call it school infrastructure. As in school-type buildings. Not like building an actual school.
Also not the first time it's been done. They did it for the first time for the Potter movies and I've seen them, they're just classrooms one could go in and use as needed when needed. Just to have a quiet space with tables and chairs and decent lightning because film sets can be quite chaotic.
-> This is what the Daily Beast writes about it - and that means they either verified it and this is what they learnt OR they took the information from the BBC article and also interpreted the phrasing "the school operates from---to" the most obvious way there is.
If we say "Oh the BBC has to write for the general public (which cannot understand the complexities of acting)" -> well the General Public(TM) has a concept of "school operating hours" because going to school and sending kids to school is a very common experience to the general public. So if the studios told the BBC "our sets are open from 5:30 to 20:30 and from 8:30 to 15:00 the kids also receive lessons" and the BBC reporter sat down and wrote "the school operates from 5:30 to 20:30" then they made a mistake. That's straightforward. That is not trying to explain something - it's a mistake. Whatever their intentions were. If they did it for the public to better understand this operation, they failed in even two regards.
And at the very least it seems strange. Not saying this might not have happened. But I struggle to imagine a scenario where a) this mistranslation might have happened and b) and neither the writer nor any editor at not a single point looked at these operating hours for a school for 10 year olds and followed up with the journalist writing the article or studios whether there's really a school that operates at 5:30 in the morning or until 20:30 in the evening.
...which, considering that other news outlets are clearly interpreting it the same way I do, is not my 'bad faith' but a very obvious interpretation.
Journalists make mistakes, editors can miss those mistakes. Maybe they used fucking AI to write the article. In fact, this could VERY well explain this considering that journalists are now pressured to use AI and this feels like something that might happen if you use AI. In that case, it's an issue of the BBC FAILING to write for the general public. Again, great if this is the case. As I said, wonderful thing, if this turns out to be the answer here. That's what I've been saying in my last reblog - if this is simply poor wording on behalf of the BBC, then that's great. They are NOT sabotaging kids right to education for a 70billion dollar company's bottom line.
But right now, I only have various news outlets saying there is school, operating, educational programmes being operated - at these hours. At the behest of an industry with a horrible history of exploiting kids. Vs someone telling - albeit in vivid detail - this is not the case based on their experience in that industry.
I did actively try to find out more - to find anything, really - but unfortunately all I found is an article about the school on the set of the old movies you mentioned -
I was hoping to find some information about how they solved it there - but they don't really say anything clear on the hours either. For example they added aphoto of this schedule here, but there are no hours in the left column - just "am", "lang", "pm" -
the only thing this article tells us about the hours they worked back then is this:
Again, this is about the original movies. Not the current TV show. It doesn't tell us anything about how the current school is being ran.
That said, I can't help but notice that what they did back then at the set of the original Harry Potter movies does not seem to line up with your experiences in terms of organisation of these studio schools general. Not calling you a liar - the Harry Potter movies in terms of budget, size, number of kids, duration - are not really your average production. In fact, when I try to find more general information or information about other productions, it's extremely difficult because Harry Potter overshadows everything and makes up most of the matches. It's also been quite a few years since then.
What it does tell me is that it looks like there's not just 1 way these on-set schools work. Which makes sense because obviously, vectors are different depending on your production - how long are you filming, how many kids are there, what ages are these kids etc. I also tried to look into UK child labour laws and from what I gather, there's differences based on councils, but overall seem to be a lot more lax than in my home country which might be why a lot of what you are describing (like this really casual school set-up) does not sound reassuring to me.
But this also means that what you are telling me does not really give me definitive information on what is or isn't happening specifically on the Harry Potter set. Much less prove that it's the BBC journalist who was careless or unclear in their wording or misunderstood what they were told or made a mistake. The only hard original source I have on this specific production and its strategy for securing these kids' right to a school education is a BBC article saying that these are the school-or-not-school's operating hours. That is what I can verify - that this article exists. And that you are saying something different.
At the end of the day, whatever they are doing, I cannot confirm it or deny it. It's wonderful if I'm wrong! As I said before, I'm entirely open to that. If tomorrow, they post an update saying 'hey, actually the kids are strictly learning between 8:30 and 15:00" I'm willing to take that to the bank and the question is settled for me until, again, someone disagrees.
if in 20 years, those child actors come foward and tell us "wow that studio school was great and met all our educational and social needs equal to or above norm standard and operated during normal hours" -> then I will be a happy woman indeed.
But at this point, all I can say is "the BBC writes X, tumblr user hjellacott says Y - and also, notably, X and Y do not mutually exclude each other". All I know is that we are talking about an industry with a horrid record in regards to their treatment of vulnerable groups, women, and ESPECIALLY children. So yeah. I'm not exactly going away from what you describe with "oh, it's great, it's definitely a very strange mistake that the BBC somehow made." - I'm going away from this "there is a good chance that the BBC made a very odd mistake - a very decent chance that maybe AI reworked that article and didn't realise what it was implying - - - but the BBC also unintentionally is on record saying something very concerning about how these kids' education is being handled and so far, the best argument against it being true is personal experiences of a harry potter fan on tumblr who mentions having experiences in the industry."
You know what, whatever dude. I've actually been there, worked in Potter, probably going back to it soon, and have colleagues in it, I'm an industry insider, but you want to believe whatever you want to understand from these websites (which is not what they're saying by the way, you're just insisting in misinterpreting or twisting or perhaps you really are so thick you don't understand basic writing because the BBC article for example was crystal clear), go ahead. It makes no difference to me.
Clearly it makes no difference to you 😆
Not really. I mean at the end of the day you're forgotten by tomorrow and I'm on set this weekend doing what I love. I have a happy and fulfilled life. I have great stuff to look forward to. I like coming to Tumblr and if anyone has genuine questions about filming I love to share my knowledge because it's an industry I'm passionate about, but trolls? Do whatever, if you think it's good for your mind by all means. We should just do the things we enjoy and are good at and yours is being a twat so you should go ahead and be the best you can be at it. Make your dreams come true.
I think you should make some more vague posts about this interaction to show how happy and indifferent you are
I feel like everything has already been said about Rowling and how the new Harry Potter show will directly fund and forward her political agenda. I'm preaching to a choir here.
But I think something that hasn't been talked about enough is stuff like the seperate "school" they've built for the child-actors to somehow comply with child labour regulations where the kids are "learning" in extremely interrupted settings in giant classes at ungodly hours in the morning. Remember, even our regular school hours are not in sync with when teenage brains are the most active - but here we are talking about kids that are learning at random times a day, starting at 5:30 and then going to work or going to work and THEN learning in the evening.
In what world is this okay?? I mean, what is this if not child exploitation on a massive scale?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Actress here, by the way. Not just actress, I've done plenty of other things as crew and also had a stint in production. Also my career is mainly in the UK so I know the regulations here. Oh and teaching vulnerable kids was my first real job ever!
The law is very strict protecting children. I have worked with children quite a lot on sets, in fact I'm certified to chaperone, so I can guarantee you children are very, very safe. In fact, the very reason children are very, very safe is Harry Potter. Harry Potter was the first production where they tried the school-on-set model, which isn't really a school as we know it, but areas dedicated to learning, so that tutors can come and help children catch up with school work; they do homework, help them prepare for exams (even A-levels when they're older), and whatever other educational needs they have, they're met. And it's not one teacher for hundreds of kids, don't be ridiculous. Often, tutors have one or two kids at any given time, sometimes slightly bigger groups of six or ten per tutor. Which is a lot more than they get in any normal school, because it allows kids to have people who are hundred per cent focused on them.
The reason the "school" (like I said it's not really a school building, it's rooms) is open so many hours it's because it's merely rooms in a set, and sets are typically open that many hours. My average working day as an adult is 12h, to give you some idea. Obviously kids cannot do this. Currently kids can only be at the filming studios venue about 9 hours a day, of which only 5 can be actual work (rehearsing and shooting). These hours can start as early as any school day and can end late, but it doesn't mean kids are there all day. Like a kid can easily be called to be there at 7am and be at home by 3pm, or be called on set at 5pm and be gone by 10pm. Additionally, children need breaks. By law, they have to have every possible break and not go more than 2h, 2 and a half, without a break. So for example very recently I was working with kids on a TV series. Most actors were there 12h a day. We had teenagers who could only be there for a few hours, typically we had them in the mornings and then they'd go home. And we'd have them on set for maybe half an hour at a time or less, then they'd go for a break while we repositioned cameras and filmed other things, and then they'd come back. Once it was time for kids to go, they were gone. And they aren't allowed without chaperones, and each chaperone can only have a small group of kids at a time.
The way tutoring works is, they squeeze it when they can. Since rooms are open at all times during day time, tutors can be called for a few hours a day as needed, and maybe while the adults are filming the kids can get a couple hours of tutoring and have their classwork done, or maybe if it's a very interrupted day they have tutoring half an hour, work another bit, then go play, then tutor again. But tutoring hours count as hours at the venue, so they're never too many hours.
Tutoring and "schools" on set are designed to make children's lives easier so they don't fall behind and so they have a more one-to-one way of learning, and don't struggle to cope with the educational demands of their age. What Harry Potter has done building a dedicated learning area is improving their lives vastly. These kids won't have to get up early for filming every day and then still be behind in school work. These kids will learn in the funnest of ways, and have one amazing experience filming as well. So if you don't know what you're talking about, don't.
Are kids being sent to school at 5:30 for this acting job yes or no?
At 5:30 they're not even on their way to set dude. In fact the vast majority of them probably spends less time on set than they ever spent in school, and probably sleep more hours now than they did pre Potter.
Here's the thing. Most articles on this don't say the word "starts" they even specifically say it "operates", because that’s what they're citing from the original BBC source:
I think when you ask most people what a school "operating" and its "operating hours" means, they will read this as hours in which classes are in session and kids are learning.
Now there is two options:
- You are right and the BBC was lying, wrong, or unclear in their wording, and this school (they don't say the set) and then lessons start and end at UK regular hours. Which is great, great news!
- Or...the BBC is right. In which case this is very, very bad.
And right now, the BBC and its wording is the only official source I find. So what you say is very reassuring and no one will be happier than me once a different reputable outlet or the production itself releases a follow up clarifying that this wording was misleading and the school operates at regular hours in a regular way.
But until this is the case, my only official source is this BBC quote which is very concerning. And if a very official source like the BBC says somsthing very concerning about the way hundreds of kids are being treated for a project that is going to make a lot of adults a big deal richer, I'm going to keep my eye on that because after so many years of the same cycle of "we are treating our child actors super well and comply with all the laws" -> 20 years later -> "I barely had a childhood and felt like a product" I've become quite a bit cynical about that and don't want to be on the team that is shocked when in a decade or two, we get the next autobiographies about how a child actor was being exploited for profit.
Now, again, if what you say is true, that's good. But with only the BBC article to go on and the BBC article implying something quote horrendous, I'm going to need an official source that this is not the case to turn off my alarms.
And especially the fact that these things were reported as positive cool features of the set and no one came rushing forward in a panic "just to be clear our school starts at 8:30 am/9:00 am!!!!! We would never send kids to school at 5:30!!!!!! We're just setting up the classrooms, not operating!!!" makes me mostly wary.
The BBC is right you're just not interpreting them right. The BBC also has to write for a general public in a language they'll understand, and I guarantee you they call it school hoping you'll understand it that way but it isn't. Like, there's no headmaster, teachers, gym, PE class... it's not a school. Film studios are massive complexes full of different buildings of all sorts, and they've set out classrooms there. You might call it a "school" because for all intents and purposes, it's kinda what it is, but it isn't a school like any other school in London. For example there's no staff, they're just areas designated to be used when the kid needs it and always with their tutor. And tutors are not the same as school teachers either. They're like private tutors. So there will be classrooms and tutors but there won't be hundreds of students at once, there'll be groups, and they'll come and gone throughout the day as needed, as the BBC clearly states.
I honestly don't know what's so confusing to you so I've just taken the article and translated it for even the thicker minds:
"could use a series of portable buildings as a school facility for the next decade." Portable buildings are what we normally use for hair and make up, costume, offices, and even as dressing rooms or bathrooms and canteens. They're like in construction, temporary blocks you can put together like legos. Notice their wording "used as a school facility". Not that it becomes Harry Potter School. That they'll habilitate areas to be used as if they were school facilities. As I've been saying.
"designed to be used by up to 600 pupils during peak periods, when large crowd scenes are shot, but will typically serve about 150 students." Firstly, there's a massive difference between the design and what happens in practice. You don't get 600 child actors at the same time on set every day, even for Potter. It just doesn't happen. Hell, you don't get 600 actors at once every day, period, imagine the money! But they need large areas because on the days in which they do have some hundreds, they'll need the area. Like I said not all at once, normally you break it into small groups and rotate. Like, if you're filming Harry and Ron in Potions class you'll have what, twenty students around? maybe five that the camera can capture behind them during close ups? So you grab those five for the half an hour you're filming, then send them to break, or lunch, or play or tutoring, whatever, move the equipment, film whatever you can without kids, then bring in another six or seven... That's how you do it. You'd only need a few dozens at once if you were doing a general shot from very far away showing many students moving.
"between 05:30 and 20:30 so young actors can fit in their actual studies between night shoots, reshoots and location filming." As I was saying, they keep the facilities open (basically studios are self contained complexes like mini villages with very heightened security, once you come in, you stay there all day and just move between the buildings, so they can keep the learning area open and the kids can walk in and out whenever they want between shots, always with tutors).
", it was specified that the school infrastructure will be in place for a maximum period of 10 years." again they call it school infrastructure. As in school-type buildings. Not like building an actual school.
Also not the first time it's been done. They did it for the first time for the Potter movies and I've seen them, they're just classrooms one could go in and use as needed when needed. Just to have a quiet space with tables and chairs and decent lightning because film sets can be quite chaotic.
-> This is what the Daily Beast writes about it - and that means they either verified it and this is what they learnt OR they took the information from the BBC article and also interpreted the phrasing "the school operates from---to" the most obvious way there is.
If we say "Oh the BBC has to write for the general public (which cannot understand the complexities of acting)" -> well the General Public(TM) has a concept of "school operating hours" because going to school and sending kids to school is a very common experience to the general public. So if the studios told the BBC "our sets are open from 5:30 to 20:30 and from 8:30 to 15:00 the kids also receive lessons" and the BBC reporter sat down and wrote "the school operates from 5:30 to 20:30" then they made a mistake. That's straightforward. That is not trying to explain something - it's a mistake. Whatever their intentions were. If they did it for the public to better understand this operation, they failed in even two regards.
And at the very least it seems strange. Not saying this might not have happened. But I struggle to imagine a scenario where a) this mistranslation might have happened and b) and neither the writer nor any editor at not a single point looked at these operating hours for a school for 10 year olds and followed up with the journalist writing the article or studios whether there's really a school that operates at 5:30 in the morning or until 20:30 in the evening.
...which, considering that other news outlets are clearly interpreting it the same way I do, is not my 'bad faith' but a very obvious interpretation.
Journalists make mistakes, editors can miss those mistakes. Maybe they used fucking AI to write the article. In fact, this could VERY well explain this considering that journalists are now pressured to use AI and this feels like something that might happen if you use AI. In that case, it's an issue of the BBC FAILING to write for the general public. Again, great if this is the case. As I said, wonderful thing, if this turns out to be the answer here. That's what I've been saying in my last reblog - if this is simply poor wording on behalf of the BBC, then that's great. They are NOT sabotaging kids right to education for a 70billion dollar company's bottom line.
But right now, I only have various news outlets saying there is school, operating, educational programmes being operated - at these hours. At the behest of an industry with a horrible history of exploiting kids. Vs someone telling - albeit in vivid detail - this is not the case based on their experience in that industry.
I did actively try to find out more - to find anything, really - but unfortunately all I found is an article about the school on the set of the old movies you mentioned -
I was hoping to find some information about how they solved it there - but they don't really say anything clear on the hours either. For example they added aphoto of this schedule here, but there are no hours in the left column - just "am", "lang", "pm" -
the only thing this article tells us about the hours they worked back then is this:
Again, this is about the original movies. Not the current TV show. It doesn't tell us anything about how the current school is being ran.
That said, I can't help but notice that what they did back then at the set of the original Harry Potter movies does not seem to line up with your experiences in terms of organisation of these studio schools general. Not calling you a liar - the Harry Potter movies in terms of budget, size, number of kids, duration - are not really your average production. In fact, when I try to find more general information or information about other productions, it's extremely difficult because Harry Potter overshadows everything and makes up most of the matches. It's also been quite a few years since then.
What it does tell me is that it looks like there's not just 1 way these on-set schools work. Which makes sense because obviously, vectors are different depending on your production - how long are you filming, how many kids are there, what ages are these kids etc. I also tried to look into UK child labour laws and from what I gather, there's differences based on councils, but overall seem to be a lot more lax than in my home country which might be why a lot of what you are describing (like this really casual school set-up) does not sound reassuring to me.
But this also means that what you are telling me does not really give me definitive information on what is or isn't happening specifically on the Harry Potter set. Much less prove that it's the BBC journalist who was careless or unclear in their wording or misunderstood what they were told or made a mistake. The only hard original source I have on this specific production and its strategy for securing these kids' right to a school education is a BBC article saying that these are the school-or-not-school's operating hours. That is what I can verify - that this article exists. And that you are saying something different.
At the end of the day, whatever they are doing, I cannot confirm it or deny it. It's wonderful if I'm wrong! As I said before, I'm entirely open to that. If tomorrow, they post an update saying 'hey, actually the kids are strictly learning between 8:30 and 15:00" I'm willing to take that to the bank and the question is settled for me until, again, someone disagrees.
if in 20 years, those child actors come foward and tell us "wow that studio school was great and met all our educational and social needs equal to or above norm standard and operated during normal hours" -> then I will be a happy woman indeed.
But at this point, all I can say is "the BBC writes X, tumblr user hjellacott says Y - and also, notably, X and Y do not mutually exclude each other". All I know is that we are talking about an industry with a horrid record in regards to their treatment of vulnerable groups, women, and ESPECIALLY children. So yeah. I'm not exactly going away from what you describe with "oh, it's great, it's definitely a very strange mistake that the BBC somehow made." - I'm going away from this "there is a good chance that the BBC made a very odd mistake - a very decent chance that maybe AI reworked that article and didn't realise what it was implying - - - but the BBC also unintentionally is on record saying something very concerning about how these kids' education is being handled and so far, the best argument against it being true is personal experiences of a harry potter fan on tumblr who mentions having experiences in the industry."
You know what, whatever dude. I've actually been there, worked in Potter, probably going back to it soon, and have colleagues in it, I'm an industry insider, but you want to believe whatever you want to understand from these websites (which is not what they're saying by the way, you're just insisting in misinterpreting or twisting or perhaps you really are so thick you don't understand basic writing because the BBC article for example was crystal clear), go ahead. It makes no difference to me.
Clearly it makes no difference to you 😆
I feel like everything has already been said about Rowling and how the new Harry Potter show will directly fund and forward her political agenda. I'm preaching to a choir here.
But I think something that hasn't been talked about enough is stuff like the seperate "school" they've built for the child-actors to somehow comply with child labour regulations where the kids are "learning" in extremely interrupted settings in giant classes at ungodly hours in the morning. Remember, even our regular school hours are not in sync with when teenage brains are the most active - but here we are talking about kids that are learning at random times a day, starting at 5:30 and then going to work or going to work and THEN learning in the evening.
In what world is this okay?? I mean, what is this if not child exploitation on a massive scale?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Actress here, by the way. Not just actress, I've done plenty of other things as crew and also had a stint in production. Also my career is mainly in the UK so I know the regulations here. Oh and teaching vulnerable kids was my first real job ever!
The law is very strict protecting children. I have worked with children quite a lot on sets, in fact I'm certified to chaperone, so I can guarantee you children are very, very safe. In fact, the very reason children are very, very safe is Harry Potter. Harry Potter was the first production where they tried the school-on-set model, which isn't really a school as we know it, but areas dedicated to learning, so that tutors can come and help children catch up with school work; they do homework, help them prepare for exams (even A-levels when they're older), and whatever other educational needs they have, they're met. And it's not one teacher for hundreds of kids, don't be ridiculous. Often, tutors have one or two kids at any given time, sometimes slightly bigger groups of six or ten per tutor. Which is a lot more than they get in any normal school, because it allows kids to have people who are hundred per cent focused on them.
The reason the "school" (like I said it's not really a school building, it's rooms) is open so many hours it's because it's merely rooms in a set, and sets are typically open that many hours. My average working day as an adult is 12h, to give you some idea. Obviously kids cannot do this. Currently kids can only be at the filming studios venue about 9 hours a day, of which only 5 can be actual work (rehearsing and shooting). These hours can start as early as any school day and can end late, but it doesn't mean kids are there all day. Like a kid can easily be called to be there at 7am and be at home by 3pm, or be called on set at 5pm and be gone by 10pm. Additionally, children need breaks. By law, they have to have every possible break and not go more than 2h, 2 and a half, without a break. So for example very recently I was working with kids on a TV series. Most actors were there 12h a day. We had teenagers who could only be there for a few hours, typically we had them in the mornings and then they'd go home. And we'd have them on set for maybe half an hour at a time or less, then they'd go for a break while we repositioned cameras and filmed other things, and then they'd come back. Once it was time for kids to go, they were gone. And they aren't allowed without chaperones, and each chaperone can only have a small group of kids at a time.
The way tutoring works is, they squeeze it when they can. Since rooms are open at all times during day time, tutors can be called for a few hours a day as needed, and maybe while the adults are filming the kids can get a couple hours of tutoring and have their classwork done, or maybe if it's a very interrupted day they have tutoring half an hour, work another bit, then go play, then tutor again. But tutoring hours count as hours at the venue, so they're never too many hours.
Tutoring and "schools" on set are designed to make children's lives easier so they don't fall behind and so they have a more one-to-one way of learning, and don't struggle to cope with the educational demands of their age. What Harry Potter has done building a dedicated learning area is improving their lives vastly. These kids won't have to get up early for filming every day and then still be behind in school work. These kids will learn in the funnest of ways, and have one amazing experience filming as well. So if you don't know what you're talking about, don't.
Are kids being sent to school at 5:30 for this acting job yes or no?
At 5:30 they're not even on their way to set dude. In fact the vast majority of them probably spends less time on set than they ever spent in school, and probably sleep more hours now than they did pre Potter.
Here's the thing. Most articles on this don't say the word "starts" they even specifically say it "operates", because that’s what they're citing from the original BBC source:
I think when you ask most people what a school "operating" and its "operating hours" means, they will read this as hours in which classes are in session and kids are learning.
Now there is two options:
- You are right and the BBC was lying, wrong, or unclear in their wording, and this school (they don't say the set) and then lessons start and end at UK regular hours. Which is great, great news!
- Or...the BBC is right. In which case this is very, very bad.
And right now, the BBC and its wording is the only official source I find. So what you say is very reassuring and no one will be happier than me once a different reputable outlet or the production itself releases a follow up clarifying that this wording was misleading and the school operates at regular hours in a regular way.
But until this is the case, my only official source is this BBC quote which is very concerning. And if a very official source like the BBC says somsthing very concerning about the way hundreds of kids are being treated for a project that is going to make a lot of adults a big deal richer, I'm going to keep my eye on that because after so many years of the same cycle of "we are treating our child actors super well and comply with all the laws" -> 20 years later -> "I barely had a childhood and felt like a product" I've become quite a bit cynical about that and don't want to be on the team that is shocked when in a decade or two, we get the next autobiographies about how a child actor was being exploited for profit.
Now, again, if what you say is true, that's good. But with only the BBC article to go on and the BBC article implying something quote horrendous, I'm going to need an official source that this is not the case to turn off my alarms.
And especially the fact that these things were reported as positive cool features of the set and no one came rushing forward in a panic "just to be clear our school starts at 8:30 am/9:00 am!!!!! We would never send kids to school at 5:30!!!!!! We're just setting up the classrooms, not operating!!!" makes me mostly wary.
The BBC is right you're just not interpreting them right. The BBC also has to write for a general public in a language they'll understand, and I guarantee you they call it school hoping you'll understand it that way but it isn't. Like, there's no headmaster, teachers, gym, PE class... it's not a school. Film studios are massive complexes full of different buildings of all sorts, and they've set out classrooms there. You might call it a "school" because for all intents and purposes, it's kinda what it is, but it isn't a school like any other school in London. For example there's no staff, they're just areas designated to be used when the kid needs it and always with their tutor. And tutors are not the same as school teachers either. They're like private tutors. So there will be classrooms and tutors but there won't be hundreds of students at once, there'll be groups, and they'll come and gone throughout the day as needed, as the BBC clearly states.
I honestly don't know what's so confusing to you so I've just taken the article and translated it for even the thicker minds:
"could use a series of portable buildings as a school facility for the next decade." Portable buildings are what we normally use for hair and make up, costume, offices, and even as dressing rooms or bathrooms and canteens. They're like in construction, temporary blocks you can put together like legos. Notice their wording "used as a school facility". Not that it becomes Harry Potter School. That they'll habilitate areas to be used as if they were school facilities. As I've been saying.
"designed to be used by up to 600 pupils during peak periods, when large crowd scenes are shot, but will typically serve about 150 students." Firstly, there's a massive difference between the design and what happens in practice. You don't get 600 child actors at the same time on set every day, even for Potter. It just doesn't happen. Hell, you don't get 600 actors at once every day, period, imagine the money! But they need large areas because on the days in which they do have some hundreds, they'll need the area. Like I said not all at once, normally you break it into small groups and rotate. Like, if you're filming Harry and Ron in Potions class you'll have what, twenty students around? maybe five that the camera can capture behind them during close ups? So you grab those five for the half an hour you're filming, then send them to break, or lunch, or play or tutoring, whatever, move the equipment, film whatever you can without kids, then bring in another six or seven... That's how you do it. You'd only need a few dozens at once if you were doing a general shot from very far away showing many students moving.
"between 05:30 and 20:30 so young actors can fit in their actual studies between night shoots, reshoots and location filming." As I was saying, they keep the facilities open (basically studios are self contained complexes like mini villages with very heightened security, once you come in, you stay there all day and just move between the buildings, so they can keep the learning area open and the kids can walk in and out whenever they want between shots, always with tutors).
", it was specified that the school infrastructure will be in place for a maximum period of 10 years." again they call it school infrastructure. As in school-type buildings. Not like building an actual school.
Also not the first time it's been done. They did it for the first time for the Potter movies and I've seen them, they're just classrooms one could go in and use as needed when needed. Just to have a quiet space with tables and chairs and decent lightning because film sets can be quite chaotic.
-> This is what the Daily Beast writes about it - and that means they either verified it and this is what they learnt OR they took the information from the BBC article and also interpreted the phrasing "the school operates from---to" the most obvious way there is.
If we say "Oh the BBC has to write for the general public (which cannot understand the complexities of acting)" -> well the General Public(TM) has a concept of "school operating hours" because going to school and sending kids to school is a very common experience to the general public. So if the studios told the BBC "our sets are open from 5:30 to 20:30 and from 8:30 to 15:00 the kids also receive lessons" and the BBC reporter sat down and wrote "the school operates from 5:30 to 20:30" then they made a mistake. That's straightforward. That is not trying to explain something - it's a mistake. Whatever their intentions were. If they did it for the public to better understand this operation, they failed in even two regards.
And at the very least it seems strange. Not saying this might not have happened. But I struggle to imagine a scenario where a) this mistranslation might have happened and b) and neither the writer nor any editor at not a single point looked at these operating hours for a school for 10 year olds and followed up with the journalist writing the article or studios whether there's really a school that operates at 5:30 in the morning or until 20:30 in the evening.
...which, considering that other news outlets are clearly interpreting it the same way I do, is not my 'bad faith' but a very obvious interpretation.
Journalists make mistakes, editors can miss those mistakes. Maybe they used fucking AI to write the article. In fact, this could VERY well explain this considering that journalists are now pressured to use AI and this feels like something that might happen if you use AI. In that case, it's an issue of the BBC FAILING to write for the general public. Again, great if this is the case. As I said, wonderful thing, if this turns out to be the answer here. That's what I've been saying in my last reblog - if this is simply poor wording on behalf of the BBC, then that's great. They are NOT sabotaging kids right to education for a 70billion dollar company's bottom line.
But right now, I only have various news outlets saying there is school, operating, educational programmes being operated - at these hours. At the behest of an industry with a horrible history of exploiting kids. Vs someone telling - albeit in vivid detail - this is not the case based on their experience in that industry.
I did actively try to find out more - to find anything, really - but unfortunately all I found is an article about the school on the set of the old movies you mentioned -
I was hoping to find some information about how they solved it there - but they don't really say anything clear on the hours either. For example they added aphoto of this schedule here, but there are no hours in the left column - just "am", "lang", "pm" -
the only thing this article tells us about the hours they worked back then is this:
Again, this is about the original movies. Not the current TV show. It doesn't tell us anything about how the current school is being ran.
That said, I can't help but notice that what they did back then at the set of the original Harry Potter movies does not seem to line up with your experiences in terms of organisation of these studio schools general. Not calling you a liar - the Harry Potter movies in terms of budget, size, number of kids, duration - are not really your average production. In fact, when I try to find more general information or information about other productions, it's extremely difficult because Harry Potter overshadows everything and makes up most of the matches. It's also been quite a few years since then.
What it does tell me is that it looks like there's not just 1 way these on-set schools work. Which makes sense because obviously, vectors are different depending on your production - how long are you filming, how many kids are there, what ages are these kids etc. I also tried to look into UK child labour laws and from what I gather, there's differences based on councils, but overall seem to be a lot more lax than in my home country which might be why a lot of what you are describing (like this really casual school set-up) does not sound reassuring to me.
But this also means that what you are telling me does not really give me definitive information on what is or isn't happening specifically on the Harry Potter set. Much less prove that it's the BBC journalist who was careless or unclear in their wording or misunderstood what they were told or made a mistake. The only hard original source I have on this specific production and its strategy for securing these kids' right to a school education is a BBC article saying that these are the school-or-not-school's operating hours. That is what I can verify - that this article exists. And that you are saying something different.
At the end of the day, whatever they are doing, I cannot confirm it or deny it. It's wonderful if I'm wrong! As I said before, I'm entirely open to that. If tomorrow, they post an update saying 'hey, actually the kids are strictly learning between 8:30 and 15:00" I'm willing to take that to the bank and the question is settled for me until, again, someone disagrees.
if in 20 years, those child actors come foward and tell us "wow that studio school was great and met all our educational and social needs equal to or above norm standard and operated during normal hours" -> then I will be a happy woman indeed.
But at this point, all I can say is "the BBC writes X, tumblr user hjellacott says Y - and also, notably, X and Y do not mutually exclude each other". All I know is that we are talking about an industry with a horrid record in regards to their treatment of vulnerable groups, women, and ESPECIALLY children. So yeah. I'm not exactly going away from what you describe with "oh, it's great, it's definitely a very strange mistake that the BBC somehow made." - I'm going away from this "there is a good chance that the BBC made a very odd mistake - a very decent chance that maybe AI reworked that article and didn't realise what it was implying - - - but the BBC also unintentionally is on record saying something very concerning about how these kids' education is being handled and so far, the best argument against it being true is personal experiences of a harry potter fan on tumblr who mentions having experiences in the industry."
I feel like everything has already been said about Rowling and how the new Harry Potter show will directly fund and forward her political agenda. I'm preaching to a choir here.
But I think something that hasn't been talked about enough is stuff like the seperate "school" they've built for the child-actors to somehow comply with child labour regulations where the kids are "learning" in extremely interrupted settings in giant classes at ungodly hours in the morning. Remember, even our regular school hours are not in sync with when teenage brains are the most active - but here we are talking about kids that are learning at random times a day, starting at 5:30 and then going to work or going to work and THEN learning in the evening.
In what world is this okay?? I mean, what is this if not child exploitation on a massive scale?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Actress here, by the way. Not just actress, I've done plenty of other things as crew and also had a stint in production. Also my career is mainly in the UK so I know the regulations here. Oh and teaching vulnerable kids was my first real job ever!
The law is very strict protecting children. I have worked with children quite a lot on sets, in fact I'm certified to chaperone, so I can guarantee you children are very, very safe. In fact, the very reason children are very, very safe is Harry Potter. Harry Potter was the first production where they tried the school-on-set model, which isn't really a school as we know it, but areas dedicated to learning, so that tutors can come and help children catch up with school work; they do homework, help them prepare for exams (even A-levels when they're older), and whatever other educational needs they have, they're met. And it's not one teacher for hundreds of kids, don't be ridiculous. Often, tutors have one or two kids at any given time, sometimes slightly bigger groups of six or ten per tutor. Which is a lot more than they get in any normal school, because it allows kids to have people who are hundred per cent focused on them.
The reason the "school" (like I said it's not really a school building, it's rooms) is open so many hours it's because it's merely rooms in a set, and sets are typically open that many hours. My average working day as an adult is 12h, to give you some idea. Obviously kids cannot do this. Currently kids can only be at the filming studios venue about 9 hours a day, of which only 5 can be actual work (rehearsing and shooting). These hours can start as early as any school day and can end late, but it doesn't mean kids are there all day. Like a kid can easily be called to be there at 7am and be at home by 3pm, or be called on set at 5pm and be gone by 10pm. Additionally, children need breaks. By law, they have to have every possible break and not go more than 2h, 2 and a half, without a break. So for example very recently I was working with kids on a TV series. Most actors were there 12h a day. We had teenagers who could only be there for a few hours, typically we had them in the mornings and then they'd go home. And we'd have them on set for maybe half an hour at a time or less, then they'd go for a break while we repositioned cameras and filmed other things, and then they'd come back. Once it was time for kids to go, they were gone. And they aren't allowed without chaperones, and each chaperone can only have a small group of kids at a time.
The way tutoring works is, they squeeze it when they can. Since rooms are open at all times during day time, tutors can be called for a few hours a day as needed, and maybe while the adults are filming the kids can get a couple hours of tutoring and have their classwork done, or maybe if it's a very interrupted day they have tutoring half an hour, work another bit, then go play, then tutor again. But tutoring hours count as hours at the venue, so they're never too many hours.
Tutoring and "schools" on set are designed to make children's lives easier so they don't fall behind and so they have a more one-to-one way of learning, and don't struggle to cope with the educational demands of their age. What Harry Potter has done building a dedicated learning area is improving their lives vastly. These kids won't have to get up early for filming every day and then still be behind in school work. These kids will learn in the funnest of ways, and have one amazing experience filming as well. So if you don't know what you're talking about, don't.
Are kids being sent to school at 5:30 for this acting job yes or no?
At 5:30 they're not even on their way to set dude. In fact the vast majority of them probably spends less time on set than they ever spent in school, and probably sleep more hours now than they did pre Potter.
Here's the thing. Most articles on this don't say the word "starts" they even specifically say it "operates", because that’s what they're citing from the original BBC source:
I think when you ask most people what a school "operating" and its "operating hours" means, they will read this as hours in which classes are in session and kids are learning.
Now there is two options:
- You are right and the BBC was lying, wrong, or unclear in their wording, and this school (they don't say the set) and then lessons start and end at UK regular hours. Which is great, great news!
- Or...the BBC is right. In which case this is very, very bad.
And right now, the BBC and its wording is the only official source I find. So what you say is very reassuring and no one will be happier than me once a different reputable outlet or the production itself releases a follow up clarifying that this wording was misleading and the school operates at regular hours in a regular way.
But until this is the case, my only official source is this BBC quote which is very concerning. And if a very official source like the BBC says somsthing very concerning about the way hundreds of kids are being treated for a project that is going to make a lot of adults a big deal richer, I'm going to keep my eye on that because after so many years of the same cycle of "we are treating our child actors super well and comply with all the laws" -> 20 years later -> "I barely had a childhood and felt like a product" I've become quite a bit cynical about that and don't want to be on the team that is shocked when in a decade or two, we get the next autobiographies about how a child actor was being exploited for profit.
Now, again, if what you say is true, that's good. But with only the BBC article to go on and the BBC article implying something quote horrendous, I'm going to need an official source that this is not the case to turn off my alarms.
And especially the fact that these things were reported as positive cool features of the set and no one came rushing forward in a panic "just to be clear our school starts at 8:30 am/9:00 am!!!!! We would never send kids to school at 5:30!!!!!! We're just setting up the classrooms, not operating!!!" makes me mostly wary.
I feel like everything has already been said about Rowling and how the new Harry Potter show will directly fund and forward her political agenda. I'm preaching to a choir here.
But I think something that hasn't been talked about enough is stuff like the seperate "school" they've built for the child-actors to somehow comply with child labour regulations where the kids are "learning" in extremely interrupted settings in giant classes at ungodly hours in the morning. Remember, even our regular school hours are not in sync with when teenage brains are the most active - but here we are talking about kids that are learning at random times a day, starting at 5:30 and then going to work or going to work and THEN learning in the evening.
In what world is this okay?? I mean, what is this if not child exploitation on a massive scale?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Actress here, by the way. Not just actress, I've done plenty of other things as crew and also had a stint in production. Also my career is mainly in the UK so I know the regulations here. Oh and teaching vulnerable kids was my first real job ever!
The law is very strict protecting children. I have worked with children quite a lot on sets, in fact I'm certified to chaperone, so I can guarantee you children are very, very safe. In fact, the very reason children are very, very safe is Harry Potter. Harry Potter was the first production where they tried the school-on-set model, which isn't really a school as we know it, but areas dedicated to learning, so that tutors can come and help children catch up with school work; they do homework, help them prepare for exams (even A-levels when they're older), and whatever other educational needs they have, they're met. And it's not one teacher for hundreds of kids, don't be ridiculous. Often, tutors have one or two kids at any given time, sometimes slightly bigger groups of six or ten per tutor. Which is a lot more than they get in any normal school, because it allows kids to have people who are hundred per cent focused on them.
The reason the "school" (like I said it's not really a school building, it's rooms) is open so many hours it's because it's merely rooms in a set, and sets are typically open that many hours. My average working day as an adult is 12h, to give you some idea. Obviously kids cannot do this. Currently kids can only be at the filming studios venue about 9 hours a day, of which only 5 can be actual work (rehearsing and shooting). These hours can start as early as any school day and can end late, but it doesn't mean kids are there all day. Like a kid can easily be called to be there at 7am and be at home by 3pm, or be called on set at 5pm and be gone by 10pm. Additionally, children need breaks. By law, they have to have every possible break and not go more than 2h, 2 and a half, without a break. So for example very recently I was working with kids on a TV series. Most actors were there 12h a day. We had teenagers who could only be there for a few hours, typically we had them in the mornings and then they'd go home. And we'd have them on set for maybe half an hour at a time or less, then they'd go for a break while we repositioned cameras and filmed other things, and then they'd come back. Once it was time for kids to go, they were gone. And they aren't allowed without chaperones, and each chaperone can only have a small group of kids at a time.
The way tutoring works is, they squeeze it when they can. Since rooms are open at all times during day time, tutors can be called for a few hours a day as needed, and maybe while the adults are filming the kids can get a couple hours of tutoring and have their classwork done, or maybe if it's a very interrupted day they have tutoring half an hour, work another bit, then go play, then tutor again. But tutoring hours count as hours at the venue, so they're never too many hours.
Tutoring and "schools" on set are designed to make children's lives easier so they don't fall behind and so they have a more one-to-one way of learning, and don't struggle to cope with the educational demands of their age. What Harry Potter has done building a dedicated learning area is improving their lives vastly. These kids won't have to get up early for filming every day and then still be behind in school work. These kids will learn in the funnest of ways, and have one amazing experience filming as well. So if you don't know what you're talking about, don't.
Are kids being sent to school at 5:30 for this acting job yes or no?
I feel like everything has already been said about Rowling and how the new Harry Potter show will directly fund and forward her political agenda. I'm preaching to a choir here.
But I think something that hasn't been talked about enough is stuff like the seperate "school" they've built for the child-actors to somehow comply with child labour regulations where the kids are "learning" in extremely interrupted settings in giant classes at ungodly hours in the morning. Remember, even our regular school hours are not in sync with when teenage brains are the most active - but here we are talking about kids that are learning at random times a day, starting at 5:30 and then going to work or going to work and THEN learning in the evening.
In what world is this okay?? I mean, what is this if not child exploitation on a massive scale?
one of the reasons I don't fuck with the MCU anymore is the over emphasis on RDJ's Iron Man. it's extremely annoying, and I've now come to absolutely despite Tony Stark's centrality in everything in the MCU. it's so undeserved and a complete obliteration of his actual character and the rest of the characters. imagine retconning Ben Parker's role in Peter's life like this.
Actually, yeah, I think that is the crux of my problem with pretty much all left-wing thinking about young men.
Suppose a young woman, maybe a teenager, maybe a young adult without much experience asked you, "How do I score a hot boyfriend?"
What might you say to her?
Offer fashion advice and talk about where single guys hang out?
Talk about how, although physical attraction is important, it can be a mistake to base a relationship purely on physical attraction without considering other aspects of compatibility?
Ask whether this is something she wants for herself, or does she see it as a status symbol or way to impress others, and talk to her about her sense of self-worth?
Or would you go, "Wow, it sounds like she really hates men, I should find out whether she actually hates men and feels entitled to them or if she's just internalized man-hating messages from society and doesn't know better yet?"
Because the more I type it out, the more obviously fucking insane that last response sounds to me. It sounds like the kind of response to that question you'd hear from an incel forum or something. Like I do know there are men in real life who would respond that way to the question "How do I score a hot BF?" but
A) Those guys are nut-bags;
B) Those guys don't write articles wringing their hands about why young men are turning into misogynists (Okay, some of them probably do but you know what I mean.)
So why is it that the last thing you'd think if a young woman asked this question is the very first thought that pops into your head when a young man asks it?
Why is it that the scope of the argument about how to respond to a young man who asks the same question is,
"This is proof that he's a misogynist scumbag" on one side, and, "Maybe he only sounds like a misogynist scumbag so we need to double-check" on the other?
"How do I find a hot girlfriend?" - "Have you tried checking out some courses or activities in your town? That's a good way to meet nice girls you have interests in common with 😊."
"I work out and I have a 7/10 face AT LEASY how I do i get a submissive woman, 7/10 or better with low body count? This is hard because women are hypergamous and only date guys hotter than me. Also I don't want her to have male friends." - "Stay the fuck away from women."
