Why are Indie films often so poorly made?

[Brandon Rice]

I'm going to jump in here on the Storyboard issue.

I totally see where Zak's coming from, and I respect his creative opinion. I generally use a shot list, but for instance in my last short, I changed shots on the fly, and Geoff (who was DP/Camera op) was coming up with new shots on the fly, so we did have something to start with but in the end it was very much more organic. Same thing has happened on all of my films, including Smuggler's Ransom.

 

[Jim Brennan]

Man, I love these type of discussions.

For me, storyboards are like rehearsals. Not about "locking" anything down, but rather about exploring a vision. I had a meet with our storyboard guy the other day, and the way he mapped out a scene actually made me rethink some of the dialogue. The scene is better than ever and I doubt I would have come up with those ideas without his creative input. At the least, that type of prep helps things run smoothly. At its best, it fuels creativity for me. It is not a substitute for creativity or skill on the set, but an enhancement. Storyboards should never keep you from trying something different. But they can allow you the resources and confidence to know you got what you NEED to make the scene work. Now you may have the time to try something that may or may not work, knowing it won't make or break the scene. At least that's how I see it. But in the end, you do what works for you.

Michael, great post and I agree with a lot of it. People learning there craft should be made certain allowances. Indie film is about taking chances and growing, and sometimes that means falling on your face. You have to be willing to risk that. But I guess my concerns stem from apathy, delusion and ignorance.

I've also been thinking about Hudson's post, and there is a difference between films that make the IFC channel, or some other commercial outlet and those that don't. My guess is that part of that is quality. THose films that are featured in such a venue are just the tip of the iceberg in relation to the amount actually made. I've seen about 5 or 6 features made here in Colorado in the past couple of years. Aside from one doc I can guarantee that you will probably never see them. They aren't good enough for anyone to promote, or for someone to seek out.

AS far as the word "amateur", what is the definition of that? If the converse term "professional" is defined by financial compensation, than I am a professional. If it is defined as a primary source of income than I am not...but I am close. My point is that most of the films on places like IFC were made by guys who were probably "amateurs" when they made that film. They may be professionals now....but because of the quality of their amateur work. And I know some amateurs who are pretty damn good filmmakers.

 

[Zak Forsman]

great post, jim. i hope no one ever accuses me of being too professional. the day that happens, something's gone horribly awry.

michael, well put. the only thing i would add is for indie filmmakers to workshop with actors and develop their ability to speak the actor's language. give them actual direction, point them toward a path that leads to a result. if you just give them a "destination" by asking for a result, then they are doing your job for you, directing and navigating themselves. and the last thing you want is an actor who is inside his/her own head and not that of their character. nothing reads more plainly on film than an actor who is forcing it. and last, give everybody your full, unconditional TRUST in their creative choices. don't just say it, show it.

once you've done all the preliminary prep work during prepro, every other choice will be made by the people you've hired, in the moment, as a reaction to the physical, logistical, emotional and even spiritual realities of the shoot. so give them the confidence to make good decisions by taking away the fear of making bad ones. and the rewards will come.

 

[mrWr0ng]

you don't have to have storyboards to make a great film, but it shows everybody on the crew who ISN'T you which direction actors will be facing, where they will be located in the room, and what they will be doing at what time. This is a HUGE boon for gaffers, DPs and anybody else involved in lighting or blocking that aren't the director. Yeah, you don't have to have them, but when you're in post and realised you crossed the line on a crucial shot, you'll be kicking yourself in the rear end.

you don't need a shot list to make a great film, but it helps the producers, ADs and script continuity know what shots are when and all of the coverage needed in advance to make sure you have everything you need. Sure, you don't *need* them, but when you're in post and realised you've forgotten an insert of a clock or a character exiting from a car, you'll be kicking yourself in the rear end.

you know what else you don't need to make a great film? a script. or even a video camera, as la jetee proved. Or actors. Or a location. Or a crew. But you know what? All of it helps, and when you get on a big enough set, when you have actual crew that you're paying for, on a budget with limited time, you'll find yourself kicking yourself in the rear end all the time for not properly prepping. You'll find yourself needing to work out a scene with the actors and your gaffer and grips sitting on milk crates, waiting for you to come back and tell them what to do. And then after spending two hours working with them to set up lighting, you still have to block. And then some three hours later you're taking your shot instead of having your scene be ready for blocking when you've finished with the actors. That's NOT an efficiently run movie set.

To me, the hallmark of a bad director is someone who doesn't trust his crew, which is exactly what happens when you demand to be intimately involved in every process that happens on set. You don't allow your crew to bring in or add any thing to the movie, they are only extensions of the director. This might work for small stuff on small sets, and you might be able to boast that you haven't screwed anything major up yet, but that's only now. There will be a time when the pressure on, when investors are demanding to see what's happening and when it'll be done, and a line gets crossed or a shot gets forgotten. In these cases, it can be something minor that turns in to a major headache in post, or if Murphy raises his head, it'll be something major that results in a standstill in post, re-hiring actors and paying out the wazoo to get what was missed or screwed up.

Storyboards are not limiting. You can move around them or toss them on the set depending on what you want to do. Our last short we scripted and storyboarded, threw out half once we got to the location because of issues, and made up the rest on the spot. The film took 3rd place. So yeah, it can be done. But you know what? I still had a storyboard. Not even bothering is playing with fire, and your set becomes VERY inefficient when the director is getting involved in every single decision being made.

But whatever dude. You're the best thing since sliced bread right? So who cares about what people who actually work on big budget, big crew sets have to say?

 

[mrWr0ng]

For me, storyboards are like rehearsals. Not about "locking" anything down, but rather about exploring a vision. I had a meet with our storyboard guy the other day, and the way he mapped out a scene actually made me rethink some of the dialogue. The scene is better than ever and I doubt I would have come up with those ideas without his creative input. At the least, that type of prep helps things run smoothly. At its best, it fuels creativity for me. It is not a substitute for creativity or skill on the set, but an enhancement. Storyboards should never keep you from trying something different. But they can allow you the resources and confidence to know you got what you NEED to make the scene work. Now you may have the time to try something that may or may not work, knowing it won't make or break the scene. At least that's how I see it. But in the end, you do what works for you.

You totally get it, and I think what others are missing from this is that bringing in outside people to work will *fuel* creativity. People who demand not to use storyboards or other DPs or other people in a creative medium don't want their creative input, they don't trust anyone else and they're afraid their own vision will get stepped on by hearing someone else's opinion. I DP for lots of other people but when I direct my own stuff, I bring in a DP, I share my vision for the scene and ask for theirs. Every single time, the movie as a whole is better because that fresh perspective brings in new ideas and new ways of looking at it. You can disagree with something someone else says in a creative sense or determine that your vision is the best and they should go with that, and that happens often, but turning down options, removing choices that you can make is only limiting one's self.

 

[Zak Forsman]

ironic this perception you have of me because it is the complete antithesis of how i operate. i cultivated radical collaboration on my last three films. and my cast and crew on Heart of Now felt empowered and fully trusted by me. first, because i take away the expectation for how a set is supposed to run by blurring the edges of the conventional hierarchy. i establish a family-like atmosphere where each of us is on an equal creative level. and i engage them in dialogue about the creative choices we are making. i give them the "baseline" and they expand from there. which is another reason i don't storyboard. I have my preliminary ideas and notations in my overhead blocking diagram. and a rich palette of guidelines to work within, but I want to see what the actors are bringing first. we'll do a few takes, letting the improv fly and the scene develop organically. i'll make adjustments with them and with the camera blocking to better supplement their performance. then when things are really cooking, i step in and free up the camera op, telling him, now you have a good feel for the rhythms of the scene, do whatever you want, take a few chances. and those are always the best takes, by far. it's true that I write and direct and dp, but I am not the author of this film. we all are. i am adamant about that and do not take an "a film by" credit. that credit goes to the whole "Sabi" team. some of the cast and crew speak directly to this point in the interview we did for DVX Talk Radio this week.

you can listen here -> http://www.dvxtalkradio.com/website audio/28nov07 podcast.mp3

mrWrong, you're being a little presumptuous. i do happen to work on "big budget, big crew sets" and get paid a ridiculous amount of money to do so. it's how I am able to take half a year off, and produce and pay for my own indie features. is Transformers big enough for you? Knocked Up? Lost? Pirates trilogy, maybe? i'm on a dozen shows a year, and you know who runs a great set? and really surprised me? George Clooney on Good Night and Good Luck. there you saw a man empowering the artists he hired. but that's a rare thing. usually i come away from my experience on a studio picture with the same thought... "nobody is here for the filmmaking. they're here for the paycheck." so i'm not impressed with the suggestion that productions with more people and more money to throw around are somehow more valid. creatively, they are not.

 

[Brandon Rice]

so i'm not impressed with the suggestion that productions with more people and more money to throw around are somehow more valid. creatively, they are not.

Amen! I hope to ALWAYS keep my crew numbers down, so that the set can run tighter, and smoother, because I think sometimes in film, less is more (in regard to amounts of crew) because if you get a small, tight-knit crew who is there because they're passionate about film, and about the project, you'll have a better film, IMO.

Hence the reason I feel so many TV shows, like CSI, or other "big" TV shows feel so flat...

 

[Jim Brennan]

I think this argument over the storyboards is a limitation of the medium we are communicating in rather than a tremendous difference of opinion.

Any other Bad Indie Hallmarks that anyone wants to share? Something maybe from the POV of the film you've seen as opposed to your own experiences on a set?

 

[Loki]

mrWrong, you're being a little presumptuous. i do happen to work on "big budget, big crew sets" and get paid a ridiculous amount of money to do so. it's how I am able to take half a year off, and produce and pay for my own indie features. is Transformers big enough for you? Knocked Up? Lost? Pirates trilogy, maybe? i'm on a dozen shows a year, and you know who runs a great set? and really surprised me? George Clooney on Good Night and Good Luck. there you saw a man empowering the artists he hired. but that's a rare thing. usually i come away from my experience on a studio picture with the same thought... "nobody is here for the filmmaking. they're here for the paycheck." so i'm not impressed with the suggestion that productions with more people and more money to throw around are somehow more valid. creatively, they are not.

There are a few key people in a film production that should have 'creative' influence. But your PA's.. and your Grips.. are generally there to earn a paycheck... but in the process do a damn good job for you.

I have nothing wrong with someone wanting to be on set just to be paid... as long as they are doing a good job at what it is they do.

Sure it'd be nice if everyone involved loved the film.. and be as invested in it as the director... but that rarely happens. When it does... it is a good thing but rarely the norm.

Just out of curiosity; what kind of stuff were you doing on these sets? Those are some pretty high profile film sets!

 

[Jim Brennan]

: i'm on a dozen shows a year, and you know who runs a great set? and really surprised me? George Clooney on Good Night and Good Luck. there you saw a man empowering the artists he hired. but that's a rare thing. .

I would SO go gay for Clooney.

 

[snowleopard]

I have a different comment to consider here. Most indie films are seen on the web, and most of them seen at fairly low-res, like You Tube. The experience of sitting at home, looking at your computer screen, and watching a 320x240 movie can't even compare to opening a DVD package, and watching it on a 52" home entertainment system, let alone in a theater. Adding to that, most film festivals I've been to these days have digital projectors that aren't that great, and have non-Dolby sound systems. Not that these "failings" account for more than a poor story or bad script, no. Just something to consider.

I'd also think it would be interesting to flip the table here and hear some candor as to why your independent film ended up amateur looking? We must all have them in the closet. For example, I'm no Martin Scorsese, ALL of my films suffer from this in one aspect or another. Mostly from sound issues, hiring the wrong people, and not allocating enough time to shoots, due to a severe lack of funds.

 

[Jim Brennan]

Mine was first and foremost not spending more time on the script. Dumb, dumb, dumb things that seem obvious in hindsight and could have been easily fixed with a few more drafts.

That, and being the director and DP. Dedicating enought time to one, causes the other to suffer and it showed.

 

[Loki]

I have a different comment to consider here. Most indie films are seen on the web, and most of them seen at fairly low-res, like You Tube. The experience of sitting at home, looking at your computer screen, and watching a 320x240 movie can't even compare to opening a DVD package, and watching it on a 52" home entertainment system, let alone in a theater. Adding to that, most film festivals I've been to these days have digital projectors that aren't that great, and have non-Dolby sound systems. Not that these "failings" account for more than a poor story or bad script, no. Just something to consider.

I'd also think it would be interesting to flip the table here and hear some candor as to why your independent film ended up amateur looking? We must all have them in the closet. For example, I'm no Martin Scorsese, ALL of my films suffer from this in one aspect or another. Mostly from sound issues, hiring the wrong people, and not allocating enough time to shoots, due to a severe lack of funds.

There is something visceral about seeing a film in a theatre.. it is quite an experience. If I had my way, all my work would be viewed that way.

It just makes everything feel a little bit more grand in presentation.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I totally support boarding and using it in conjuction with a shotlist.

Going into a shoot without any of these elements is disastrous in my world. The option to change it on the fly and be creative is always there, but missing something due to lack of planning is not good.

I also think in doing a previsualtion (Not of the CG kind, but of the shot list board kind) it starts the process of creativty well in advance. I want to go in knowing what I want and then getting other shots as they develop.

-

I DP'd on a project over the last couple of days and we had it boarded going in. We got those shots but also got addtional coverage as it came to us.

Zak ? I 100% respect your approach espeically if it works for you. For me ? I'm visualizing the second it hits the page.

 

[Zak Forsman]

There are a few key people in a film production that should have 'creative' influence. But your PA's.. and your Grips.. are generally there to earn a paycheck... but in the process do a damn good job for you.

I have nothing wrong with someone wanting to be on set just to be paid... as long as they are doing a good job at what it is they do.

Sure it'd be nice if everyone involved loved the film.. and be as invested in it as the director... but that rarely happens. When it does... it is a good thing but rarely the norm.

Just out of curiosity; what kind of stuff were you doing on these sets? Those are some pretty high profile film sets!

i respect what you're saying, loki. i guess i just like being the exception because I really want to cultivate a family-like atmosphere for everyone involved. I want to be the rarity out there and the hope is that I can elevate everyone's game by nurturing a creative environment where they can contribute more than they've been allowed to on other sets. so i make a point of making sure the grips and PA's i've hired get involved by helping them learn in any department they are interested in. most wold eventually like to make a feature of their own so they get experience watching the casting/callback/rehearsal process, learning what to look for on location or tech scouts, learning how to file with SAG, anything they want to be a part of. opening the project up to them during pre-production, really gets them invested. and I encourage them to voice creative ideas while defining the appropriate time to do so -- we do have a film to make afterall. we get some beers and do a crew read-thru of the script about two weeks from production too. it helps. most crew members wouldn't read it on their own. this also means that as a producer, you have to be VERY selective during the interview process.

to your last question, loki... i have the greatest job in the world. I get access to more than a dozen film sets a year producing behind the scenes content. we're in there documenting everything -- preproduction, rehearsals, every day of shooting, the wrap party, etc. we interview all the key personnel, rubbing shoulders with them day in, day out with everyone from the director and producers to the guy setting up crafty. could you imagine having Christopher Doyle confiding in you? offering you personal advice? every single one of these sets has the potential for a great education in what works and what doesn't. and by the nature of what I do for a living, I have to be attentive to exactly that with an objective point of view -- even Michael Bay's sets (if you want to learn about true efficiency, no one is more efficient than him).

now, i didn't come to los angeles to make movies about other people making movies. but if it affords me the opportunity to make features of my own? it's a welcomed stepping stone.

That, and being the director and DP. Dedicating enought time to one, causes the other to suffer and it showed.

i think it's doable. soderbergh does it under a pseudonym. for me, to make it work you need two things... a gaffer with an artist's appreciation for light who you can trust to make decision on your behalf. i had that on my latest picture. and the second is to do most of of the cinematopgrapher's job during pre-production. get into those spaces and devise the lighting plan down to every fixture. go over it and share ideas with your gaffer, who really becomes a lighting designer at this point. and hand him the ball. then while you're shooting you can walk on set. do you DP thing, go talk to your actors about the upcoming scene, return to the set to block the action with stand-ins and camera, tweak the lighting, then bring the cast in and shoot, shoot, shoot. this method never failed me basically, because this guy right here is as talented and intelligent and resourceful a filmmaker as you will ever meet.

Zak ? I 100% respect your approach espeically if it works for you. For me ? I'm visualizing the second it hits the page.

absolutely. as i'm writing i'm seeing it all play out in my head and i make notions in the script that you have the option of not printing when you make copies for cast and crew -- i use movie magic screenwriter. then i go to each location and re-visualize everything for the actual space we'll be in. I just document my ideas in a different way that suits the more improvisational way I work.

peace, brother. got your pm. you rock!