An Alternate Model of Production
Today, production equipment
is lighter than ever, yet each generation of young filmmakers
overlooks the creative potential of this technology, falling into the
same trap as the last. They pack their scripts with complex shots and
then spend huge amounts of money on tons of rental equipment (most of
which lay dormant in trucks during production). Why? Because they
aspire to be part of the movie industry and this is their perception
of it.
On Location in New York City
Hollywood has defined,
refined, and pushed the envelope in cinema, turning out some of the
most entertaining and endearing movies ever made. These movies are
indeed costly to make, which is compounded by a tendency towards
exorbitance. Trying to emulate Hollywood moviemaking without Hollywood
financing has resulted in the stifling of potentially great new
talent. Hollywood, therefore, is not the ideal model for the aspiring
filmmakers.
Independent filmmakers need
an alternate model of production. This is achieved by maximizing
creativity and productivity within budgetary constraints.
|
The
goal of an alternate model of production is to maximize
creativity and productivity within budgetary constraints. |
Budget Dictates
Script Parameters
A story can be
told in different ways depending upon the budget. Each variation will
yield the same story, but it will be designed differently. To use an
analogy, a house can be built with $100,000 or $1,000,000. Both
variations will be a house, but the designs will be different based on
budget constraints. The builder with $100,000 can afford a modest
house, while the builder with $1,000,00 can afford a mansion with all
the extras. Similarly, a movie's budget defines how the story is told
in terms of variables such as locations, characters, special effects,
etc.
This sounds
like common sense, but it's amazing how many filmmakers infuse a
script with expensive elements such as night locations, crowd scenes,
complicated camera moves, etc., knowing full well what the financial
limitations are. The root of the problem is that it occurs
cumulatively, one scene at a time, sometimes one shot at a time.
Ultimately, they try to build a $1,000,000 house with a $100,000
budget.
It's
unrealistic and creates many problems during production, including the
possibility of an unfinished film. The final product is usually
substandard because resources are spread too thin. This is the most
common and dangerous blunder made by both novice and veteran
moviemakers alike. Ironically, it is the most avoidable.
Every Penny Must Go On Screen
Traveling to
locations, unloading equipment trucks, rigging lights, laying dolly
track, organizing crowd scenes, etc. is time consuming and expensive.
Most importantly, this work does not appear on screen per se. In order
to make a successful low budget movie, you must put every penny on the
screen.
If a story can
be told with 10 locations, why use 20? If it can be told with a cast
of 6, why use 12? Are elaborate lighting setups and camera moves
adding to the story or are they just burning up the budget and pulling
down overall quality? You must ask these hard questions.
One reason
filmmakers refuse to be economical in terms of equipment and story
variables is that they fear a rough, low quality look. The truth is,
economy does not mean low quality. It means telling a story within
one's means. This results in higher production values because every
penny is put on the screen.
When you try to
a make bigger movie than the budget can support, you spread resources
too thin. As money runs out, you may take short cuts and foolish
chances. This results in lower quality.
Compromise Is Your Bunkmate
During a
revealing Actors Studio interview, Steven
Spielberg said that "compromise is a your bunkmate." He
covets his second and third ideas, since they have been the keys to
successful problem solving. This is a great lesson for aspiring
filmmakers who often feel that they must shoot the movie as conceived.
It would be
nice to capture a movie exactly as planned, but if the choice is
getting an ideal incomplete film or a modest complete film, the latter
wins. Orson Welles' Touch
of Evil was a low budget film by Hollywood standards, yet the
story is not hampered. This was due to the progressiveness of Orson
Welles, who, incidentally, was forced to work low budget for most
of his career despite his early success.
Orson Welles
Though an
American production, Touch
of Evil is considered a forerunner of the
French new wave.
Story is King
Without name
actors, a low budget movie must rely exclusively on the quality of its
story to attract audiences. The story must be intriguing and must
contain unwavering conflict. The conflict, whether
physical or dramatic, must be:
-
intense
-
elevated
-
memorable
When done
right, this is what creates the word of mouth buzz that surrounds a
movie. Remember: story is king. If you only take one thing away from
this website, let it be this principle!
