Rob Hardy’s Road to Success
Rob Hardy, a white male filmmaker, argues that defining success for yourself is the best path to success because each individual has the ability to craft any path and be genuinely happy with it. I agree with this point because filmmakers may commonly believe in the unrealistic myth of overnight success that leads to wealth and fame, but success should instead be measured by how each individual defines it. Thus, a filmmaker’s success can be understood as being true or genuine to oneself. However, because of Hardy’s limited perspective as a white man in the film industry, his argument that genuinity equals success might not apply to filmmakers whose race, gender or other identities do not share the same privileges as Hardy.
The first step in Hardy’s roadmap to success is defining success for yourself. Hardy claims that once you define success for yourself, you’ll be able to genuinely enjoy that journey to success rather than operating on someone else’s definition of success because that would lead to wasting valuable time and energy on something you didn’t want to achieve in the first place. I agree that success is a subjective feeling not an objective metric. In order for you to deeply and genuinely connect with a goal, it has to be something you individually believe and embrace, and it has to be something that deeply resonates with you. In this way, the pursuit of success is a sort of authentic expression of oneself. Therefore, the meaningful pursuit of success must be self-defined rather than imposed upon you by others. Hardy’s advice allows aspiring filmmakers to center their own definition of success.
However, as a white man, Hardy’s advice fails to acknowledge that not everyone is on the same level playing field when it comes to success, including the luxury of being able to define success for yourself. Hardy benefits from many privileges that can impact one’s professional options, paths and goals. Being white and being male are two well-recognized privileges, especially in the film industry, which is overwhelmingly dominated by white, male filmmakers. For example, these privileges also often correlate with greater financial security and stronger networks than non-white non-males. Several studies explain the privileges of whites include higher incomes, intergenerational transfers, and other systemic advantages over people of color. Being a male is also associated with greater financial security than people of other gender identities. Therefore, Hardy benefits from the combined privileges of being a white male, which is likely to result in greater financial resources and greater social networks, which in turn, are vital to growing one’s professional career. Thus, white males can face fewer challenges or obstacles to expressing their genuine selves, particularly in professional circles. White males are more likely to be rewarded for their real or perceived identities, so the potential drawbacks of “putting themselves out there” or pursuing their dreams are not subject to the same constraints or pressures of a non-white non-male person. Yet, throughout the article, Hardy never verbally acknowledges that he has these privileges or states how they benefit him in any way. Without acknowledging these privileges and how they might influence his paths or options, he does not consider how his advice as a white man in the film industry would affect or apply to those who are not male or white in the film industry.
Because of Hardy’s limited perspective as a white male, his advice best applies to people who have the privileges that Hardy takes as a given. For example, Hardy discusses accessibility to cameras and equipment as something that can be easily obtained. “You don’t need that much money to create a short film.” While it’s true you don’t need a high budget production team to make a short film, Hardy makes the assumption that everyone aspiring to be a filmmaker has accessibility to cameras and gear. His advice also sounds particularly tone deaf when he suggests that aspiring filmmakers must “apply ‘success boosters’ liberally,” such as nurturing your social and professional networks, advancing your leadership skills, and even investing in self-care such as “managing your energy better.” The blinders of Hardy’s privileges limit the applicability of his advice for marginalized aspiring filmmakers who may not have the same financial health, social capital, or other resources.
Finally, Hardy doesn’t recognize that simply being genuine isn’t sufficient for some people to survive in the filmmaking industry. Being genuine as a white man in the film industry is more likely to get recognized and acknowledged, because that’s the primary voice and driving force in that industry. However, because of systemic and oppressive racism, a woman of color sharing her perspective and being her genuine self alone will face obstacles and challenges invisible to a white male pursuing the same profession. She may not be able to find a community of other diverse female filmmakers or be able to interest anyone in films that share her perspective or experience because she is not “marketable” or “mainstream” enough for a white, male dominated field. So how does a woman of color follow Hardy’s advice to “apply success boosters liberally”? If the system is not likely to reward or support her in the same way as it might Hardy, does she just need to re-adjust her definition of success to accommodate an inequitable and racist system? Or does she stick with her “genuine” vision of success, even though she lacks so many of the resources and opportunities that Hardy may take for granted? Ultimately, Hardy’s advice to define success for oneself is too simple to reflect the complex costs and challenges that diverse filmmakers are more likely to face in following Hardy’s advice.
Despite these limitations, Hardy’s tips still offer some practical guidance to all readers. His main goal is to offer aspiring filmmakers “a set of best practices to help filmmakers move more quickly and intentionally towards their own definitions of success.” These practical tips break through certain myths and unrealistic expectations about becoming an “overnight success” in Hollywood film. For example, Hardy says, “Overnight success — especially in the world of filmmaking — is total bullshit.” Instead, he encourages readers to take a more granular view of progress, such as “invest[ing] in making small, manageable bits of progress every single day, or at least every single week.” Hardy also blatantly acknowledges the financial instability that most filmmakers face, encouraging aspirants to embrace finding alternative or supplemental sources of income, such as “shooting stock footage or doing something completely unrelated to film.” Since Hardy does not sugar-coat the hard work and financial challenges of a career in film, his straightforward advice is helpful because it is practical.
Hardy’s tips also create enough room for the reader to tailor them to their personal lives with some flexibility. He allows for the reader to accept or reject his tips and acknowledges that not everyone has the same goals. For example, Hardy stresses that everyone needs to define their own version of success and work for it slowly and patiently, regardless of the variety of ways others might define success. Hardy concludes his advice with the suggestion that all filmmakers be open to re-assessing how they define success “or the path to achieving it.” He urges readers to support their own growth and change on the career track, so they can individually “figure out if we’re still on a track that we want to be on, and then make any necessary course corrections.” Such suggestions are generally supportive of filmmakers having diverse and flexible definitions of success and paths to achieving it. In these ways, Hardy’s invitation to filmmaking is a broad and inclusive one.
While Hardy never acknowledges his own privileges as a white male or addresses the special challenges diverse filmmakers face, his advice is still practical and flexible in ways that can benefit readers who are different from Hardy. Indeed, Hardy begins the article with a personal confession about his own struggles: “I got seriously burned out on filmmaking, depressed even. There came a point where I thought about just giving up filmmaking entirely and getting a regular old day job.” Sharing his own vulnerability helps to draw other aspiring filmmakers in; many of us feel vulnerable because we know or sense that this profession is one that can be one that is taxing and difficult to succeed in. Hardy’s article encourages readers to create our own definition of success in practical but flexible ways. On balance, Hardy’s advice can still help aspiring filmmakers feel a little bit more hopeful and secure about pursuing a future in filmmaking, whoever they are and whatever their dreams might be.
Bibliography
Choudhury, Sharmila. “Social Security Administration.” Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis, June 1, 2003. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v64n4/v64n4p1.html.
McDonald, Steve & Day, Jacob. (2010). Race, Gender, and the Invisible Hand of Social Capital. Sociology Compass. 4. 532 — 543. 10.1111/j.1751–9020.2010.00298.x.
Warren, Andrew. “The Gender Gap in Financial Health.” Financial Health Network, July 14, 2022. https://finhealthnetwork.org/research/gender-gap-in-financial-health/.
