COVID compliance was way more than testing and masks.

But first, PCR tests are not cheap. Antigen/Rapid tests are fairly cheap but were only approved by unions last summer--and only for a narrow set of low budget productions. Generally, a PCR test costs $150--$200 depending on the vendor/region and availability of labs. The mandated testing frequency of a normal sized union crew results in about 400 tests a week so that low end estimate is 60k a week for the swab & lab alone.

That's also just for the core crew. If you've got 50 extras working for one day, you've got another 50 tests, and 50 to 100 pre-employment tests (depending on your local situation) and paying them for their time to show up for the tests.

And that's just the cost of testing. You also need to hire staff to administer testing, enforce compliance, and sanitize. Add 1k each week for each production assistant. Then another 1500-2000 for each Admin, Supervisor, and Manager. It's easy to hit 100k a week for COVID department alone between testing, labor, and supplies. 5 Weeks of Prep with a 6 week shoot is a minimum of a million dollar COVID budget.

The first iteration of the RTW agreement also included a stipend for union members who tested. So add another $200 fee for every test, every crew member higher than a production assistant who tested. Subsequent deals reduced that to a fee for pre-employment testing only--which is more reasonable but still quite costly as you are adding another 200-300 days of labor across your production.

Then there's a dozen other issues and tangents that cost money. Like needing more hair and makeup artists, and more trailers for them to work in in order to maintain social distancing. Or, needing to budget more time for fewer workers to prepare cast in limited space. More drivers to transport fewer cast & crew members per van. Similar issue with locations, three days to prep, shoot, and wrap a location turned into 4 days to sanitize, prep, shoot, and wrap. There was also a practice of carrying more staff so that if one got quarantined or had inconclusive results you still had the minimum number for each department to operate.

To give you an idea of how complicated it all is: A big issue for awhile was catering. The longstanding Union agreements required lunch breaks to give all members equal access to catering facilities for the break period. Because social distancing requirements made "equal access" impossible, nearly every union member was also being paid penalties for not having a 'proper' break. Many productions converted to walking/rolling lunches. This mostly ended with the availability of vaccines (and union members needing a real break more than the penalty dollars).

Thats why studio's started requiring COVID protocols in 2020. But COVID compliance costs are generally higher than delays--so the return to work agreement is actually a Union initiative to preserve those protections.

Generally, Vaccination mandate was wanted by the AMPTP (Studios) while testing and masking and a number of other burdens were exclusively by unions who have drawn out those requests for 2 years after vaccines were available to try and secure more long term gains. Because a 40% increase in labor was never sustainable, no long term agreement was ever reached. This is happening now because the studios are out of money (Some desperately so, WB/Disney) and unions are now above 50% unemployment.

No COVID protocols were required by insurance because production insurance never covered COVID related delays.

You're reading into it too much. And that's saying something because this is already one of the most discussed and dissected scenes in film theory courses from the last half century.

However, there is some symbolism with the reflection--though I might suggest that "symbolism" is too strong a word.

Symbolism in movies only really works when it appears as a motif--a recurring composition, action, object, musical cue, or dialogue. Symbols require definition to hold meaning. Authors employ motif to signal the definition before the symbol is placed into the context which the author wants to draw meaning from.

So, where else in The Matrix do we see reflections? Easy, it's the next scene. There's a cracked mirror near him when he sits down to be extracted, it then repairs itself and tries to kill him.

Briefly--because there's literal libraries worth of chapters and essays written on this scene--how things are perceived--or reflected--in the Matrix is a recurring topic of exposition and philosophical musing--Residual Self Image and all that. Morpheus' glasses reflect that theme and foreshadow many layers of what's to come. That Neo reaches "into the reflection" of the glasses foreshadows both Neo's "physical" contact with the mirror and the thematic journey he is embarking on. That the mirror immediately tries to kill him exposits the hazards of pursuing truth and foreshadows the threat his own reflection--his own self image--poses to him.

But trying to draw meaning from right hand/screen left is reaching into your own construct rather than the film's. It's already thematically hefty. That the reflection operates normally on screen should signal a weight limit. Your own words signal your value of "personal" perspective--your residual self image--more than the pursuit of truth. That mirror is hazardous.

I think the comments cover Besson's personal issues thoroughly so I won't reiterate, but will assume the reader is aware.

It's also been noted here that there are multiple versions: Leon (International), The Professional (American), and Leon: The Professional (Extended/DVD). And I think each is defensible as the 'definitive' version but I tend to prefer the Extended because the severity of it has an added value. There's no mistaking it for revenge fantasy.

For the purpose of comparison, consider Hit Girl avenging Big Daddy in Kick Ass. She is far more active in the violence than Mathilde is every version of Leon combined*.* Yet that movie is able to treat it as fantasy, escapist. Not to knock it, the bad guys get what they deserve and it's fun. But, I've never thought that's what Besson was after and I tend to think the international and extended editions emphasize that intention more than the American.

I think you'd be more forgiven for watching the American version and thinking "the paedo is trying to get away with something." But the more salacious cuts have a way of implicating the audience more than the author. That the camera treats her like an adult emphasizes how she's been robbed of innocence. We can see the vast disparity between how she sees herself and how we see her.

So while I understand why and how people are uncomfortable, I believe that discomfort was always the intention and have never really thought that Besson was broadcasting his own preferences--so to speak.