MovieChat Forums > Swimming with Sharks (1995) Discussion > Guy Should Never Have Been Hired

Guy Should Never Have Been Hired

posted 14 years ago by KeyserSoze05
19 replies | jump to latest

Guy Should Never Have Been Hired

I’m currently a Hollywood assistant – my take on the film: yes, Buddy was abusive, manipulative, and cruel at times, however, Guy should never have been hired for that job in the first place. This mismatch is what causes much of the tension and problems between the two. I probably would have had much more sympathy for Guy if he hadn’t been so naïve, idealistic, and so out of place in that job.

Basically, for someone like Buddy (very senior level executive and a difficult personality as well), you need to hire an assistant with at least a couple years of experience supporting lower-level executives. Someone who knows the basics of the job, the industry, what to expect, and has had some time to develop a thick skin. Guy was fresh out of college with no clue what he was doing. Mismatched from the start. Secondly, Guy ultimately wanted to be a writer, not a development exec. Another major stumbling block for Guy. A position like Buddy’s assistant needed more of an aggressive, experienced, MBA-type, hungry young executive on the rise, not a naïve, fresh out of college, “deer in the headlights” person like Guy.

I think the film would have been more interesting with a stronger, more experienced character for the role of Guy. Many times, I just wanted to tell him: look, it’s a tough job and yes, your boss is going to be ridiculous and over the top at times, but what did you expect? If you don’t want this or you don’t like it, leave. You’ll be replaced within the hour.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] harrichun 14 years ago

For all I can see your point, and agree that in reality there is no way Guy would have got the job, I disagree that having someone who was thick skinned as Buddy's assistant would have made for a more interesting movie.

The transition from "Guy the whipping boy" to "Guy the bastard" was what made this movie what it is.

Rorschach: Giving hope to gingers since 1985

[–] LocoHero 14 years ago

you're just making excuses for a bully

no offence, but maybe when you're older you'll realise that

Time for Frank D'Amico to go byebye.

[–] CallmeLightning 13 years ago

So basically, what you're saying is the very thing that sets up the characters and the whole situation in the film should be eliminated? That's like saying "Well gee, Titanic was alright, but it would have been better if the main characters decided not to get on that ship!".

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Elemenoh 9 years ago

He made no prescriptive statements for how the film should have been executed.

Just that the behavior of the Spacey character (Scott Rudin/Arnold Rifkin) was beyond the pale, which it is. There's a reason that Arnold Rifkin is stuck doing trench-action now, and that Scott Rudin needs to search for months for a new assistant. Rudin is soon to join him if he keeps burning bridges like Chevy chase in the early 80's.

I worked next-door to Rudin for over a year, and the man is simply an unprofessional, infantile assh_le. Not a week went by that I couldn't hear him, OVER SPEAKERPHONE, ripping some poor rube to shreds for getting his voicemail instead of an answer from him. The one time he visited the LA Disney Lot from NYC was the single most uncomfortable experience of my life... I wound up taking a bathroom break at the same time as him, just after he ripped some assistant to shreds over the local Trader Joe's being out of Cobb Salad.

It's no shock that he often goes without assistants for months on-end, not too many people enjoy being physically assaulted at work for not sharing his racist sentiments. The fact that he's never been imprisoned for aggravated assault is testimony to how crooked the LAPD is.

The guy's a worthless piece of sh_t, regardless of his professional accolades, and the only reply I've ever seen for a former Rudin assistant is "This applicant hasn't been taught how you actually function in LA, he's just another target for Scott's throwing fits."

Rudin (and formerly Rifkin) desks are where naive idiots kill their careers.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shipperly-groom 13 years ago

But the point of the film is Buddy wanted a deer in the headlights type like Guy, the better to bully him. That was what he got off on. A more professionally experienced person would have called a halt when the demands got too silly, and had the strength to do what Buddy pointed out was always Guy's option - to walk away from the job. It's analagous to a boss who continually hires young, pretty, inexperienced PAs because they are the type he likes hitting on. He could probably employ better and more competent PAs if he looked for someone with greater confidence and experience, and paid less attention to their looks, but decorative naive young assistants are more exploitable and increase his opportunities for fun playing sexual power games.

[–] eolloe 9 years ago

the point of the film is Buddy wanted a deer in the headlights type like Guy, the better to bully him. That was what he got off on.

Exactly this. Buddy wanted types like Guy.

[–] Robbmonster 13 years ago

I’m currently a Hollywood assistant – my take on the film: yes, Buddy was abusive, manipulative, and cruel at times, however, Guy should never have been hired for that job in the first place. This mismatch is what causes much of the tension and problems between the two. I probably would have had much more sympathy for Guy if he hadn’t been so naïve, idealistic, and so out of place in that job.

Basically, for someone like Buddy (very senior level executive and a difficult personality as well), you need to hire an assistant with at least a couple years of experience supporting lower-level executives. Someone who knows the basics of the job, the industry, what to expect, and has had some time to develop a thick skin. Guy was fresh out of college with no clue what he was doing. Mismatched from the start. Secondly, Guy ultimately wanted to be a writer, not a development exec. Another major stumbling block for Guy. A position like Buddy’s assistant needed more of an aggressive, experienced, MBA-type, hungry young executive on the rise, not a naïve, fresh out of college, “deer in the headlights” person like Guy.

I think the film would have been more interesting with a stronger, more experienced character for the role of Guy. Many times, I just wanted to tell him: look, it’s a tough job and yes, your boss is going to be ridiculous and over the top at times, but what did you expect? If you don’t want this or you don’t like it, leave. You’ll be replaced within the hour.

Good take on things, but what you are actually doing is confusing fantasy with real life. Yes, in real life Guy should never - and WOULD never - be hired in that job, but this is a story, and Guy's nature was essential to the dynamic of the story.

If Buddy had hired the aspiring, go-getter exectutive type you describe, the film would not be this film, but more likely a more even and less violent power struggle between the two, relying more on wiles than on physical torture.

If the situation you descibe had actually happened in the film, the assistant and Buddy probably would have got along just fine, and the film would have been very boring indeed.

Never defend crap with: "It's just a movie"
My work:
watch?v=uwRqc0KSkJ0
watch?v=z74-vDDDmTU

[–] christpunchers 12 years ago

Maybe Buddy prefers to hire a wimp. The job is all about running around for Buddy, doing a lot of mundane things without requiring any thought, any thinking... a young hot executive who's got a MBA won't fit into such position. You need someone who can be easily cornered, who will stay loyal, who will live in fear.

[–] jreedha 11 years ago

No we don't need stupid people here - especially nasty, petty people who are so ignorant that they can't recognize British spellings when they see them. Pretty pathetic, Zep old boy.

[–] Maestro37 11 years ago

Thank you, jreedha, for sparing me the effort of chastising special-Ed zeppelin. I'm often embarrassed by the provinciality of my fellow Americans. Cheers.

[–] duckmares 10 years ago

No. {Throws paper clips at previous poster.} Details, as Buddy would say. As his name implies, Guy is just a normal guy, and throughout the movie we see the world through his eyes. The message is that we are all Guy by default - before he starts "swimming with sharks". Buddy himself was once like Guy, but paid the heaviest price of all for his career in the death of his wife. Since Guy's ambition to be a writer was an extension of his love of movies, his decision to become an executive assistant was the first compromise on his dream. As time goes on, Guy becomes Buddy, from his speech patterns to the bullying of new assistants that in turn begins the process of eroding their innocence. In this way we understand Hollywood to be a factory for bullies where the the price of success is the loss of innocence, and the more success person achieves the more corrupt their soul will become. A case in point is that per KeyserSoze05's view, the person Buddy should have hired is exactly the person Guy had become after Year One on the job.