Why are Indie films often so poorly made?

[Charli]

What Blaine said, starts with the script, the foundation. You build from there and anything and everything goes wrong. Who do you blame? People calling the shots. No different than someone managing a restaurant, a business, etc. It always falls on management's shoulders.

 

[ugafan]

Exactly.
Each may seem innocuous enough on its own - but together they create a whole that is weaker than the sum of its parts.

this phenomena of antagonism shall henceforth be called "caffesse's law of independent selection".

 

[Zak Forsman]

Absolutely. Having an experienced and talented DP for one, can blow an indie film through the roof, as compared to having the director/writer/editor/producer shoot the film. It's a very unprofessional and unsatisfying method of production, yet many directors still feel it necessary. Why aren't Hollywood films shot that way? For exactly that reason...Directing on it's own is MORE than enough on someones plate if they take the project seriously, and want to come out with a quality piece in the end. You have to realize their are people who's lives revolve around the jobs they do, and they are far more qualified, and experienced to do those jobs. Collaboration is key!

maybe i'm the exception to the rule then? maybe?

 

[Jim Brennan]

I think we all believe that about ourselves. ANd it can be done if you prepare.

In addition to directing...

I'm producing, but I have 3 other producers and a line producer, so once we roll, I'm not doing any of that. It's mostly about fundraising and pre-pro.

I'm the writer, but the script has been done for some time. The adjustments I make from here on out are from a director's standpoint.

I will be editing, but most likely only the rough cut. Then we have an editor.

During production I am ONLY the director.

But now that we know the general do's and don'ts of the subject, does anyone have any more specific things that are sort of indie giveaways, or things that they think bring indie films up short?

 

[OldCorpse]

Actually I think a far more interesting question would be "What makes amateur films look characteristically lame?". Because, let's face it, for all of us who've been around the block a couple of times, we all understand perfectly well, that it all starts with the story. So, that's obvious, and not what I'd like to focus on at the moment.

What's interesting to me, is how you can literally tell from a short sequence of 2-3 seconds and not much more, that this is a lamo amateur film. It's equivalent to reading a few sentences from the first page of a screenplay - or 1 page - and immediately knowing that this is sh|t. That's too short a time to speculate about the story, and how "the story doesn't work". And yet, your judgment is right - the script/film is sh|t.

Now what accounts for that? I remember watching a short film from the "user films" forum here. I was watching a sequence of no more than 5 seconds - there was no dialogue - and immediately it was screaming to me "Lame! Lame! Lame!". That was fast! I knew nothing about the story. And already I could spot a hopeless case. It was simply two guys exiting a parked car and running down the street. I was amazed at how cheesy it looked. And I tried to analyse - after all, this kind of sequence is seen millions of times in various movies studio and independent. So HOW can I tell that this one is amateur? Certainly not the story. It wasn't strictly speaking "acting" as far as subtle facial expressions, because it was all filmed in long shot, so you didn't really see the faces clearly. Yes, there was something lame and unconvincing about how the two guys ran, but it wasn't simply their "lame movements" - it was connected with sound effects and a bunch of other things. When you see a sequence like that in a studio film, there's a ton of sound work that goes into making this convincing, and most amateur productions lack the time/skill to pull off good sound design, which is vital in making a convincing movie. That was just one aspect - there were many others.

My point is: how about all those other factors which immediately from frame 1 tell us: "this is lame amateur" - what is it EXACTLY that allows us to make that judgment, which is pretty much 100% reliable. It's not a simple issue - you can't simply say "steady camera", "good resolution" etc., because sometimes films are shot with a deliberately hand-held "shaky camera" for effect, "grainy film" etc - and yet, you never make a mistake. So what is it? Yes, obviously, it's "many small things put together", but what are some of the characteristic features? I mention one - sound design, but obviously there are a lot more. So?

 

[Zak Forsman]

I think we all believe that about ourselves. ANd it can be done if you prepare.

I know it about myself. and it's not only preparation (i had nearly three months of prepro on Heart of Now), but also taking the time to empower other members of the crew. it would be impossible to direct and DP if I had not gone into every location ahead of time with the lighting designer/gaffer to "pre-light" the spaces, all the spaces.

and most importantly, to allow the first A.D. to do his job, which is to run the set. that way I can focus my attention on the actors' performance, mise en scene and camera blocking. hell, i don't even like to look at the monitor during takes, i trust the camera op and the lighting designer/gaffer to do that. but you need full support and to give them your trust. really, i think having a top AD on set is key. i wouldn't be surprised if many indie directors think they are supposed to be running everything, telling everyone where to be and when. that is a sure-fire method for having to compromise your creative vision.

but under it all, i think the big problem indie filmmakers have is an unwillingness to fail. everyone plays it safe, trying to emulate what they've seen elsewhere rather than trusting their own voice. you NEED to be willing to fail!!!

 

[Sad Max]

I mention one - sound design, but obviously there are a lot more. So?

Compositional design.

A well-composed shot or sequence of shots is immediately perceptible and appreciable while you are seeing it.

A lame, boring composition with no particular focal points or emphasis is disinteresting with the same sort of immediacy.

 

[Jim Brennan]

Old Corpse,

That's EXACTLY what I'm looking for. Thanks for articulating that so well.

Any takers?


I just noticed that after my tirade about poor spelling the other day that i misspelled "often" as "Aften" in the title of this thread. How LAME is that?

Any chance somebody can fix it?

 

[Beeblebrox]

maybe i'm the exception to the rule then? maybe?

Count me as the exception as well. On Lost Mission, I was the co-writer, director, DP, make-up artist, producer, editor, and visual effects artist. We shot the movie in 11 days (after 3 months of pre-production and 2 days of location prep). Our budget was $15,000. Only two of our six actors had been in a movie before.

I am guilty basically of every "violation" listed here. The feature film I described above just landed domestic and international distribution.

What sold it specifically was the relatively good execution and most importantly the script. So I'm going to have to argue in favor of the "story is king" mantra. The execution was good, considering my too-numerous hats (I'll never do that again), but it was the story that kept their attention and kept them in the movie.

In my experience, I've seen tons of incredibly low budget films, but if the story is there, I manage to forget the other stuff. Just look at a film like Shadows. Or Stranger Than Paradise. Or El Mariachi. Or Primer. These are IMO successful films that make the most of limited resources with a strong story or strong characters that keep you interested.

 

[OldCorpse]

Compositional design.

A well-composed shot or sequence of shots is immediately perceptible and appreciable while you are seeing it.

A lame, boring composition with no particular focal points or emphasis is disinteresting with the same sort of immediacy.

Yes! Certainly a huge factor. And that can be damn subtle sometimes. It can be an issue of a few inches difference in framing. Some time ago, I remarked that on one short the framing on a shot was just an ugly choice in that particular case, and my point was dismissed by another poster, but that's exactly an example of something seemingly small that can make a huge difference. Good point, Sad Max.

Let's have more!

 

[Luis Caffesse]

this phenomena of antagonism shall henceforth be called "caffesse's law of independent selection".

Badass.
:thumbsup:

 

[Shawn Philip Nelson]

Because a film is as bad as it's weakest element

 

[Simon Höfer]

Because a film is as bad as it's weakest element

Not really. If you have a crappy camera and crappy camera handling, but an awesome story, good acting and good sound, the movie will still be good.

I think story and acting are the real key elements. The next one is sound.

It's always up to the idea in the first place, BUT the idea must fit for a low end execution.

In other words: There are good stories that can be done well on a low budget and there are good stories that cannot be done on a low budget. So you have to choose the right one

 

[Jim Brennan]

In other words: There are good stories that can be done well on a low budget and there are good stories that cannot be done on a low budget. So you have to choose the right one

But the trick is to have a balance between making a sci-fi/period/adrenaline junkie movie, which is beyond your financial resources, and making a typical indie-20-somethings-sitting-around-smoking-and-whining-movie.

Finding or creating an interesting story that can be shot cheap, but still LOOK interesting and be compelling is hard.

Memento is good example. I don't know how much that cost to make. But it was a stroy that would have been great at any price, as long as the acting was good, and the tech aspect was competent.

 

[mjjason]

I can forgive many technical issues (camera quality, sound, etc..) of a film but I can't forgive a poor story. Most indie films are made by people who believe they have the greatest idea ever and try to pull it off. Sadly the idea is just crap. Though there are gems.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Though there are gems.

And inevitably everyone (myself included) think their idea is one of those rare gems.... but odds are it isn't.

Reminds me of Carrie Fischer's line in 'When Harry Met Sally' -
Everybody thinks they have good taste and a sense of humor, but they couldn't possibly all be right

 

[MalcolmOng]

Most indie films are made by people who believe they have the greatest idea ever and try to pull it off. Sadly the idea is just crap. Though there are gems.

While what you say is true, I believe that for any film to work, the key ingredient to it's success is the absolute belief in the infallibility of the idea or concept. Everything else follows suit. So whether or not the idea is good or not, the filmmaker needs to be totally under the impression that it IS the greatest idea in the world. Without such conviction, there won't be trash, but there won't be gems either. With alot of people persuing their own artistic dreams, you'll have many people finding ways how not to do it, leaving the gems for you to learn from.

 

[Ming]

As a viewer I have the opposite expectation from studio and indie releases.

Whether we're Steven Speilberg or Joe Smoe we can certainly all understand and sympathize with budget constraints, and I think we're all probably rooting for the little guy from the git-go. I can think of few -if any- movie lovers who don't attempt to watch every indie film knowing the makers were constrained and allowing them this license. So while glorious execution in an indie movie will certainly "wow" me, I would definitely expect proper execution from any studio release. No, in an indie flick I'm definitely there for the story all the way. I expect the execution to be lackluster. When both story and execution in an indie film are great you end up with Sundance winners and new opportunities for that cast and crew and its a glorious thing.

As said, I expect execution from a studio release and, if missing, the story has to be really great to compel me. Even then I go away resenting a great story, weakly executed.

EDIT:

To paraphrase myself

Regardless of budget- turds just can't be polished -and we expect very little in the way of polish from an indie. If an indie manages to present a gem we're pleased and when they both present AND polish we're absolutely overjoyed. Poor execution from a studio release is seen as tarnishing said gem. Indies are given a pass in this regard.

 

[snowleopard]

I'm going to stick with screenplay. Followed by acting, then sound etc. It doesn't help that message boards and sites all over the web split nano hairs talking about trying to get everything to look cool and pro and focus on technical gadgets for that. "I must have the latest toy to make my film look good". But it's story, characters, acting, directing actors.

Take a look at the film Tape. It was shot on a PD150 I believe. It's one location, three actors, lots of hand held, with minimal lighting. How did they do it? Well, in this case the story was excellent, and the acting superb. For a moment or two you look at it and it looks cheap, but it only takes a few more frames for you to know this is actually a very professional group of people making this. I can't imagine a single person on this site who would not have been incredibly proud to have made that film.

But instead of aspiring to do something like that, we split hairs about how we have to have the Red or a 35mm adapter for our HVX, or HMI's and Kino Flo's. Why? It's easier, and funner, to tap out your money and buy a camera and spend hours setting up and playing with your new Kino Flo's, than it is to sit down and write a quality script.

 

[mrWr0ng]

i'm working on a feature right now that's pretty bad. the biggest problem is that the writer/directors won't stop trying to f**k the talent. but it's taught me that crew isn't nearly as important as a great story. the crew is great and they all work hard, but every body hates every shot they're working on because there are no storyboards, no shotlists, and a poor set location without room to properly set up shots so every thing is comprmised. this mostly comes back to preproduction. take care of EVERY THING in preproduction, because it's far cheaper to figure out your every shot when it's just you and the key crew discussing what will be done, ratther than trying to figure it out on the spot and not knowing which side of the line you're on.