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

[Blaine]

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.

While I agree what you and everyone have said about story, actors and dialogue, the title of this thread is:

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

which to me speaks more to the look of the movie than the actual storytelling. Of course, story is king...along with good (credible at a minimum) acting, but this thread seemed to be dealing more with why so many indie films LOOK like they were poorly done...thus the discussions on production value. And production value doesn't have to cost a bundle. There are a lot of inexpensive things you can do to make it LOOK LIKE it cost a bundle.

 

[Matt Sconce]

Here is just an example. This is a film from some people in Atlanta I know. The film was shot on a CineAlta. Most of it looks pretty ok, but even from the trailer, it just lacks pizzaz.

http://www.behindthenine.com/trailers/Bt9_trailer.mov


Thank you all so much for the responses thus far!

I think the reason they look "Fake" is because things that are important to a movie are done poorly. The CC in the above example is much too warm, in my opinion. It looks like they had some halogen lights blazing away. Also, the framing is much too wide in a majority of the shots. This makes the movie unable to draw you into its world. Those are two reasons it appears "Fake".

 

[MalcolmOng]

Just watched it...i liked the titles actually....

 

[!Director]

As some have already stated, the most important part of a film is the story. Sometimes people get too hung up with technical matters, fireworks over content. I assume you are shooting your feature with a DVX, and this is one of the problems I have encountered with video since the 1970s. With film you have to have at least a minimum amount of knowledge of photography, composition of shots and the language of cinema. EX: Why do you frame or light your actors or your scene in a certain way to mean something from the psychological POV. In video, most people who use it don't know anything about anything, you white balance and you shoot. Video is too democratic and accesible, so anyone that picks up a camera, looks through the hole and presses the record button is a "filmmaker". So, when it looks like **** or like it was shot in the "basement" is because there is no sense of what lighting does and why. I have been in the busines for 36 years and my knowledge of lighting came from all these years of sometimes just looking around me and also watching what the good cinematographers do., no matter where they are from. There is also a misconception among many that video is so sensitive that you don't need to light it, which is true if you are just doing undercover police work or operating a security camera at a 7/11. I have my own 100a that I have used in a lot of recent projects. Fell in love with it after working all my life in 35mm. But, in all my projects I use the same lighting as in 35mm, just smaller units. Kinos are wonderful for interiors and you have different units for any purpose, sometimes just one from overhead gives you the moody look that might be needed for a dramatic scene. For one of my projects, a police story happening mostly at night, I used 1 small unit taped to the dashboard of the police cruiser, powered by the cigarette lighter, that was enough for the performer to look good. But, for a scene going on in a city square, I had a Condor with an 18k HMI providing the "moonlight" and no less than 15 hidden 1ks behind trees and providing kicks. Everyone told me that my video work looks like 35mm and it's because I light as if it was. Bad lighting is bad no matter what you use. A 35mm feature lit with the same carelessness as video looks like **** also, and I have seen many of those.

 

[Blaine]

I think the reason they look "Fake" is because things that are important to a movie are done poorly. The CC in the above example is much too warm, in my opinion. It looks like they had some halogen lights blazing away. Also, the framing is much too wide in a majority of the shots. This makes the movie unable to draw you into its world. Those are two reasons it appears "Fake".

I agree, msconce. It looks flat, from poor lighting. Now, they may have wanted to achieve the look they got, but I felt that several of the shots could have benefited from some "highlighting." The two best shots were actually on the pool table.

 

[Drew Ott]

I think really good audio is very underestimated for making your mind truly believe that what you are watching is real. Great ambient sound can subconsciously make your mind believe everything you are seeing, even if the video is horrible.

 

[-D-]

There are a lot of inexpensive things you can do to make it LOOK LIKE it cost a bundle.

The question is: if it didn't cost a lot, why would one try to make it seem so? Surely the determining factor in how a film "looks" or "sounds" is the subject matter/story/script. "Production standards" become irrelevant if they don't mean anything as do unmotivated compositions or inappropriate lighting.

 

[Drew Ott]

The two best shots were actually on the pool table.

Agree.

 

[Mtech]

Lightning is indeed undervalued. Sometime ago I fell in love with lightning. I went to my carrage and spent hours there producing all kind of lightning situations and moods with some cheap halogen lamps. People who still think lightning is the part where you throw enough light at your subject to be able to turn of the gain shoud try this too.

Now about those basements:

Finnish 2 hour indie film Star Wreck was shot almost completelly in the producers living room. Yes I know it's bluescreen and not that much about basements. But it is such a great source of inspiration. There aren't too many feature lenght indie movies which have been in production for seven years out there. It's free for download, check it out. You don't like sci-fi? Neither did I and still enjoyed it.

http://www.starwreck.com/

 

[Alternative_3]

Q: Mr. Indie, can I see the business plan for your film project?
A: My plan is in my head.

Q: Mr. Indie, how did you cast your actors?
A: That was easy, they're all my friends and relatives.

Q: Mr. Indie, can I see your shooting script?
A: I'm directing and I already see the whole movie in my head.

Q: Mr. Indie, how many months have you been reheasing?
A: My friends and relatives have busy lives, so were just gonna do a quick walk through of each shot before we film it.

Q: Mr. Indie, have you tried blocking any scenes yet?
A: What the @#$%$ is blocking? Speak English for @#@#$% sake.

Q: Mr. Indie, are you going to do camera and lighting tests?
A: This filmmaking stuff is expensive. We're gonna rent what we need when we do the shoot.

Q: Mr. Indie, are you gonna study some of the great resources out there like the Hollywood Camerawork DVD series?
A: Like I said, we're renting. Why should I blow the little money I have on that stuff?

Q: Mr. Indie, do you think you're not putting in enough effort on planning and preparation?
A: Hey, I've been busting my ass to get this project off the ground for months now. Like I told you, I can see it all in my head! I'm not a stinkin' accountant. I don't need a friggin' business plan for a twenty minute film or spend all freekin' summer doing a bunch of stupid paperwork and looking at DVDs. All I gotta do is get out there and shoot it!

Q: Mr. Indie, what made you decide to make a film this summer?
A: Well, its the summer coming up after all. I thought it was about time I made a serious movie.

You're being a little hard on Clerks, don't you think? Oh wait....that was a good movie.

As a matter of fact, go watch Marebito and tell me if he suscribed to all of those years of preparation. He didn't, because he shot it in 8 days between The Grudge and the sequel. And yet, with all of the problems with shooting betacam, the movie sucks you in after 5 minutes and you never notice what it's shot on. To me, that shows it's the idea and the execution.

If your shooting 6 guys talking about women in their basement, I'd say your're bound for trouble. If you have those same 6 guys discussing how they dissect women in their basement, suddenly the environment helps the subject matter, and instead of feeling cheap and fake, it feels grungy and creepy. It's all a matter of what you're going for, I don't care that you took 100 meetings and blocked the scene 100 times.

 

[digitial dan]

This summer, I am planning on shooting my first feature, blah blah blah, you know, the same shpeal everyone gives before asking a question. I have been looking at a lot of indie films recently, and though I KNOW that most of them were shot in some person's basement, I could tell the intention was to NOT make the environment look like someone's basement.

I took a step back and looked really close at some footage and realized they had all the "correct" things to make the environment come to life, but to my poor eyes, I still saw "the basement", so to say.

I then looked at some of the camera angles and such. Then I went and watched some Hollywood movies and tried to compare. To my observation, I think the big difference was in the way people composed their shots.

As I am going to be shooting most of my stuff indoors, I have been trying to think of ways to maybe frame the scenes so that the audience perceives an environment that is cohesive to the story, and not glaringly someone else's basement.

Any suggestions or comments would be much appreciated! Thanks!

That's because very few people have been schooled in the art of filmmaking. By that I mean shooting with film. Shooting with film is a whole different ballgame for sure BUT two ingredients are constant with video: camera angle and focal length of lens, and the second, lighting.

Too many people put their efforts into equipment instead of into what is seen in front of the lens. I recall telling someone just that 25 years ago. I said the people who will come to see your movie don't care what kind of camera it was shot on or what kind of film. They want to see quality photography and writing. They don't see what goes on behind the camera lens. Nor do they care. They just want a good movie to watch at the end of the day.

So I gave him an example: George Lucus or Spielberg could make a million dollar hit with just a super 8 camera. How many of us can make the same thing statement? Most of the current crop of indie makers want expensive cameras and equipment. They are looking in the wrong direction. They should be looking at themselves and their talent (or lack of) as a movie maker.

 

[mjmcneese]

They should be looking at themselves and their talent (or lack of) as a movie maker.

Good point. As has been said again and again, our gear is a tool that we use to tell a story. If there's anything I've learned from the projects I've done, it's that there's not only a mix of all of these elements (story, talent, cinematography, lighting, audio, score, etc) that must be well-executed, but the elements must be intertwined to actually HELP you tell the story. Scorcese can go out and hire a gaffer to come in and light his set without ever looking at the script, and he or she will make it look gorgeous...but does it fit the story?

When shooting, take inventory of your shot, not just does it look good, but does it look 'right.' Everything in the shot should have a purpose...talent, props, location, shadows, audio, camera angle, etc.

So, I'd say what seperates a proper looking movie from a movie that looks like it's shot in a basement is the storytelling ability of the producer. Know what you want out of each shot to the finest detail, and don't settle for anything that you can't make happen.

 

[Drew Ott]

That's because very few people have been schooled in the art of filmmaking. By that I mean shooting with film. Shooting with film is a whole different ballgame for sure BUT two ingredients are constant with video: camera angle and focal length of lens, and the second, lighting.

Too many people put their efforts into equipment instead of into what is seen in front of the lens. I recall telling someone just that 25 years ago. I said the people who will come to see your movie don't care what kind of camera it was shot on or what kind of film. They want to see quality photography and writing. They don't see what goes on behind the camera lens. Nor do they care. They just want a good movie to watch at the end of the day.

So I gave him an example: George Lucus or Spielberg could make a million dollar hit with just a super 8 camera. How many of us can make the same thing statement? Most of the current crop of indie makers want expensive cameras and equipment. They are looking in the wrong direction. They should be looking at themselves and their talent (or lack of) as a movie maker.

I really agree with this. People these days think budget = quality, and that is the farthest thing from the truth you could come by.

 

[Brandon Rice]

Just saw this thread. I watched the trailer for Behind the Nine. I gotta say, the lighting was kind of weak, but more than that, the editing and pace of the trailer was ridiculous, and we never once got to hear any lines from the actors. I think its a poorly cut trailer more than anything else. I wouldn't be paying as much attention to the set dress, etc. if it was a gripping, well cut trailer, or film in some cases.

 

[adkimery]

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 realistically speaking what are the odds of always having a killer script to work from or killer actors to work with? Yes, a killer script w/below average production value will most likely be better than a crappy script w/above average production value. But an average script with average production value will be better than an average script w/below average production value. And odds are most of us will be working w/in the realm of "average."


-A

 

[500lb Productions]

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.

EXACTLY. 90% of prepping a location set is taking EVERYTHING extraneous down and putting it away, whether its house, an office, a restaurant, or whatever.

The remaining 10% is adding your own set details, flowers, paintings, props, whatever.

Be sure your location agreements include the owner removing any item small enough to carry. And when they protest with "but that's my prize wakyball!" you have to be prepared to praise the godawful wakyball in all it's glory and point out that your character is far to (insert negative adjective here) to have one of those. *cough*cough*

Unless you want the cluttered look, in which case it's never actually cluttered enough!! Then 90% of the effort is gathering all the crap from the rest of the house and piling, er, artfully arranging it in the room being used.

 

[500lb Productions]

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 ...?

Well, i think its a lot like Fashion in a way. The goal is to be sharp, on point, attractive, compelling, flashy, (or other words here), but never CHEAP.

Is cheap (looking) ever fashionable?

So while we may be making cheap movies, we don't want to make cheap LOOKING movies. If a scene looks cheap, tacky, declasse.... the story has to motivate the look rather that it being obviously motivated by the budget.

You can spend hundreds of thousands renting lights, dollies, cranes, and the crew to operate them, and still end up making Catwoman or Waterworld.

And you can also find creative ways to get excellent results with little money.

And guess which is more work?? If you work hard at it, you do it. Some people can make amazing art with a $10 camera. Seriously (holga). And others can't take an interesting picture of their dog with the best Nikon and every lens on the planet.

And sometimes having too much money is a handicap... you're soo busy lusting and buying the next great thing... to ever make anything useful with the last one you bought.

Ok, I think I rambled long enough ;-)

 

[omar_]

And sometimes having too much money is a handicap... you're soo busy lusting and buying the next great thing... to ever make anything useful with the last one you bought.

Agree! I think independent film makers should revisit ElMariachi's commentary. Robert Rodriguez says don't spend money on ANYTHING, not a single thing.

He mentions how you have to REFUSE to spend on anything, including props. Make due with what you have and pull it off.

 

[mvetanen]

Having worked on a few Zero Budget films (shorts and feature lenght) the biggest problem is lighting.

1. Most common problem is that the scenes are underlight. There is key light, but no fill light or kicker, hair light or even a seperation light. This leads a flat look.

2. Lighting on your primary subject is not balanced for the background. This is one of the biggest problems next to underlighting. This problem is NOT fixable in post.

3. Uneven lighting. Try and avoid 8 stops between the darkest and lightest parts of the scene. Better to over light the primary subject and then darken in post rather than underlight.

4. No color filters or correction on the lights. This leads to off color backgrounds or off color primary subjects. Color correcting the lights can make all the difference in the world.

Most indie film makers put lots of money in the camera but nothing in the lighting. In my view having the essential lighting kits, gells and reflectors is just as important as having the correct camera, tapes and lenses.

 

[Brandon Rice]

Nice Callgahn, I do somewhat agree but want to shuffle them up !!!!!!!!!

-

I think Actors are first in order of importance. Why ? Because bad acting can be spotted even by the most incompetent observer from the very first line.

-

Then story comes second and inevitably is the item that will sink or swim your piece. Because if we cannot hold them until the last frame, then we failed.

-

Competent Cinematography is last. I have seen many a compelling film with 'so so' camera and lighting work.

Quoting Hudson from awhile back... just reading through this thread again. I completely agree with what you said. Actor's are the most important thing that seperates a CHEESY indie film from a GOOD/GREAT indie film. The one thing I ALWAYS seem to notice while watching indie stuff, no matter how it looks, or what the budget is, is the acting. I see SO many indie films with less than competant actors in lead roles, and it makes me pull my hair out of my head! Spend lots of time and energy on casting! It's SO important.