Is it just me, or do most Indie films look like they were shot in their basement?

A few posts back got us into the "acting vs. story" debate.

Putting on my audience-member hat, I wonder if philosophically you can separate the two. Your cast *is* your story in most cases; they are the living embodiment of your script. Script vs. performance? One just can't succeed without the other. Sure, you can get all analytical and think "what a great plot twist, too bad the lines were delivered so flat", but again, I'm talking audience here; emotional impact, empathy, etc.

So many of the films I've viewed from the links here (and at DVInfo) are really weak (again, when I stop thinking "wow, someone did this weekends with a dvx, I'm impressed"). they don't suck me in and involve me. It's usually the performances that do that (for me anyway). My first reaction is "that's not an actor, that's someone's friend" because their facial and body proportions just don't look "hollywood", but that's not necessarily about physical beauty, it affects the character actors as well. There's something about the way an experienced & gifted actor moves, speaks, or reacts that seems "real" to me and pulls me in.

I'm sure a lot of this is affected by direction and cinematography as well.

And man... bad audio! If you have great performers, you can get by with weak framing, blocking, and lighting, as long as it sounds right. Bad sound can kill just about anything!

Just my rambling .02.
 
Policar said:
I don't think Spiderman 2 has a single static frame in it.
Click to expand...

I'm a big Spiderman 2 fan and have watched it analytically several times (with sound off).

By static frame I assume you mean the camera being locked down (not moving).

There's a couple offhand.... Peter in the doctor's office and Spiderman in the elevator... used in good effect, a counterbalance to the fast-moving action sequences elsewhere in the movie.

I love Raimi's work, and it's the best in this movie.
 
To all,

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this thread. I was on vacation this past week with no internet access, so I have been writing, working, and reworking my script. (Scriptwriting, as we all know is difficult, tiring, and sometimes downright disheartening!)
I am very appreciative of all the responses I have come back to. Your responses have delved into things outside of my question (which is great, because asking "I need help with everything" would have probably turned most away from posting, lol) and I feel that a lot of my questions have been answered, with new ones waiting to be answered through some experience.
Thank you so much to everyone!
 
Lol. Thats what i was thinking! :)

To SexyPants: White walls are a bane of Indie Film-makers. They make films look very unprofessional. Try to paint them, or decorate them as Blaine suggested. They wont look much like a basements anymore.
 
No wonder THX-1138 looks like a garage made movie...

No wonder THX-1138 looks like a garage made movie...

Fugitive said:
Lol. Thats what i was thinking! :)

To SexyPants: White walls are a bane of Indie Film-makers. They make films look very unprofessional. Try to paint them, or decorate them as Blaine suggested. They wont look much like a basements anymore.
Click to expand...

The problem here of course is a matter of budget. If one had the budget to paint a wall, then one probably has the budget to find a studio, rent a house, or similar which has the desired look, or coersed to that look.

In the particular case of THX-1138 I think the stage had to be huge to get the evenness of the background to look like it was infinite.

On the other hand many 'futuristic' films use 'garage', or 'cement lined' motorways to give a bleak look.

Outside of a script and getting actors to emote, lighting and composition are the main failures I've seen of many of the first effort films.

On the topic of composition, I've had a 30 year battle with my wife on the topic, relative to our respective still photography styles and 'people shooting'.... so needless to say there is quite a bit to deal with even when one says 'composition'. When we first met she harshly criticized my 'composition'... I got my revenge by marrying her...
 
[SIZE=+0]I think it just comes down to talent. You can do so much with very little, it just depends on how passionate you are. Although you may have no budget, you can go along way with your actors and your story. That above all else, will carry your film along way.[/SIZE]
 
While talent and story will take you a long way you still need to add production value. With some ingenuity and elbow grease you can "add thousands of dollars of production value" to your low budget shoot. Spend some time really searching for a location that, while inexpensive, will give the impression of uniqueness.
 
framing and lighting... yes... but what about said factors?

framing and lighting... yes... but what about said factors?

If you look at any high budget hollywood film, I notice several things.

1.) The raw *resolution* of the image is extremely good because it's shot on 35mm using really expensive lenses and cameras and all that production crap.

2.) You always see the glint in people's eyes and people's faces are sculpted in natural light.

3.) The compositions are always very *formal*. That is.. they follow the rule of thirds, they are well balanced, the colors are pleasing, all that jazz.

Chances are... you're not shooting on 35mm. That being said... I can guarantee you that your actors will always look terrific and have a percieved pleaseing, *professional* look to them if you shoot them in natural light and make sure that their faces are sculpted and that their eyes have the glint in them.

take this portrait for example, shot on my DVX100A:

http://www.revluxfilms.com/pictures/portrait6.jpg

her face is sculpted so that it is interesting to look at, the light in her eyes is beautiful, and the depth of field is slightly shallow with that nice texture in the back.

Another thing that I find really makes images pop are that you leave compositions very uncluttered... if you have a medium shot from the waste up of someone against a background... make sure that the background is all it NEEDS to be. A kitchen counter doesn't REALLY need a glass on it, or a fork, or anything. It just makes the subject so much easier to look at, it makes your eyes go to the subject.

Anyway.. some ramblings, hope I've helped you in some way and good luck to your project.
 
I do not think that 35mm has anything to do with the question of this thread. There are way too many examples of films that were not shot in 35mm to debuff that reasoning.

I think what is most important are the following 3:

A Widescreen Aspect Ratio.

This lends an immediate 'film like look'. Even
poorly shot VHS footage benefit's from an aspect ratio other than 4:3
Crappola.

and then

Composition and lighting.

Whether it be natural lighting and a simple foamcore bounce or a Grip truck at one's disposal, you got to get light onto your subject matter; specifcally, faces. The more depth one creates, the more sculpting one can do with the light, the better.

Compostion is an art form. Think of the Director's that go onto greatness and then think of the rest of the run-of-the-mill DGA guy's. I think compostion and framing is an artform into itself and cannot be taught (So to speak) but is a gift that some have and some simply do not.
 
no no, I completeley agree with you on the 35mm. I merely mention it to say that (many) high budget hollywood films have a very high resolution image... be it HD, 35mm, whatever, which I see as a factor that contributes to the percieved "professionalism" of a film. I think having a good eye for composition and light is far more important than the quality of the medium you shoot in.

all in my very humble opinion.
 
Ner0 said:
if you have a medium shot from the waste up of someone against a background.
Click to expand...

Interesting that the waist is referred to as a waste:p

Anyway I believe that in terms of looks alone, other than the medium that its shot on, lighting is paramount. People tend to notice the lighting first, then the composition of the shot. Also, the average joe probably wouldn't notice a poorly composited shot, as long as the shot on the whole looks pleasing - That whole 'movie' look which is so important. Just my opinion is all...
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Let's just say that it is too close to call between Acting and Writing...

I never cease to be amazed by the frequency of productions (and not necessarily just low-budget independents) that strive so bloody hard to achieve high(er) production value; yet make the fatal error of of casting actors that the camera plain & simply just doesn't like...

or a writer who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the script. Cliché it may be... but "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage" is as relevant today as it was in the beginning.

Either oversight will kill a film, and kill it instantly.
Click to expand...
Well said and too true, too true.

By the way- I live in O-Town. What kind of stuff do you do?

Any examples I can scope out?

THX...
 
I think "production value" only really means anything if it contributes to the story. There aren't any "rules" for filmmaking per se. Allow me to contrast two films I've seen recently: Match Point and The Squid and the Whale.

Match Point was quite "by the book" as far as "production value" goes: smooth camera moves, powerful compositions, sexy lighting, exquisite make-up, classy sets etc. But this all contributes to the kind of story Match Point is - smooth, suave, sexy etc. (interpretations will vary of course).

Whereas The Squid and the Whale had almost no "production value" to speak of, yet it was just as compelling. The cinematography reflected the comic realism of the film, lots of hand held, the lighting was more natural, the sets looked very "undesigned" and there were some exceptionally "white wall" / basement looking sets in that movie, all of which contributed to the kind of story Squid and the Whale was.

The cinematographer on Kiezslowski's A Short Film about Killing said something interesting: he basically argued that it all comes down to interpretation. The story or idea or script is the core of any book, film, play etc. But its how individuals interpret that text into their various media that may (possibly) be able to be quanitified, for example, how well the cinematographer developed that particular interpretation. And then you've got something to argue I guess.

CallaghanFilms' point regarding the Three Rules is very relevant because, whilst one can make a bad story look good, the film won't stand much ground. Whereas a good story, shot badly, may still go somewhere. I generally find that critics find far more redemption in not so "well shot" films with good stories, than not so "well told" films with flashy camera moves. Of course, the fact that it was badly shot or recorded or edited or timed or whatever relative to the interpretation of that director or cinematographer or sound designer relative to what the story is actually about etc. as opposed to by some Production Value Rule Book, doesn't help it.

I don't know; just struck me that films that have looked like "indie basement" films and greatly compelled me, because they're true to the story, aren't necessarily bad or not as good as they could have been because they don't employ typical "production value" elements.

Gosh, so long winded.
 
I don't mean to offend anyone... but following this thread, I think a lot of people here are losing sight of making film for the passion of making film and telling a story. Instead, you're simply trying to have a Hollywood mentality (and still be independent?) How ...?

Many of you are actually debating HIGH budget vs LOW budget and not really talking about what makes a film good. What happened to telling a story?

We already know what makes a movie financially "expensive" looking, but what makes a movie interesting and engaging is something else. Many of you have forgotten about the great independent filmmakers who have made it.

I'm the last one to say that you do not need to know about cinematography, lighting, composition, etc. (I'm a painter) but I admire much more the people who mentioned STORY, ACTORS, DIALOGUE, etc..

I recommend people listen to the commentary by Robert Rodriguez's on "El Mariachi" Go talk to people who were in your shoes and find out how they made movies, not just how Hollywood makes movies.
 
But indie shouldn't mean doesn't look as good as hollywood, and I second the motion that most indie films don't look as good as their hollywood brethren. I pre-ordered The Ore DVD because it's an indie short that actually looks awesome. Hollywood achieves this look by throwing money at it, but indies have to dig a little bit deeper and play to their strengths.

We generally don't have something like WETA digital who employs over 100 digital artists, so plan your visual effects well and for maximum effect, if you're story needs any at all. But even if you want to do something like an action film, use time instead of money and practice tonnes before hand (remember safety is more important than the shot) and then use your camera to come up with the most interesting angles you can find.

If you're movie is Coffee & Cigarettes you don't need to think a lot about design but try to find the most interesting location you can for something like that.

And finally it's the lighting. Grab a couple of end table lamps and practice on someone's face and in rooms. This is so key, and any DP worth their weight can create a great looking set out of anyone's basement using only light.

We don't want to ape hollywood necessarily, we just want to make some images that are well exposed and look good.

PS - Sound is more than half of what makes the picture looks good.
 
story and characters - both more important than the look, as cinematography should be used to inform these elements and aid in the telling.

That being said, poor camerawork and lighting can detract from these as well. I think that production design is the other half of cinematography and a good designer can be invaluable. I think that the post by Loki is a great example of camerawork that helps build a universe for a film to exist in, and work that highlights production liabilities. Composition and lighting are the biggest keys and camera movement always helps too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top