The look of Independent Film

T

thesammyshow

Member
Why is it that you can easily see a difference from Independent to a Major feature film, even when the picture quality and sound quality are the same? Like say, youre watching a movie and you have no clue what the movie is when it starts but within the first two minutes you can tell its independent. I guess my question is, what makes us tell the difference, lets say the acting is great, the picture and sound are great, after all of that, how do we still know its independent and not major?
 
Art direction.

Most indies simply don't have the money and time to properly and fully dress a set, color coordinate wardrobes, etc.
 
To a certain degree, you can tell from the logo animation of the production companies. Watch a movie with Joe Blow Productions logo and compare it to the epicness of the 20th Century Fox or Warner Bros video and you can tell what the budget is before a frame is even there
 
I agree with Luis. But most of us are using Mid Level cameras which produce stunning images in the right hands. But Film still looks better IMHO. (not counting RED cams) I think they look exactly like film but my eye is untrained.
 
I agree with Art Direction and such, but I also think about sound effects, sound design, lighting design (not just being lit - which is what most indie's do). Editing. Movie editing is usually more indepth with more shots (DP storytelling), averaging 6 to 8 seconds per shot, while indies lag more around 15 seconds a shot. Indies are also usually pressed for time, so they can't spend nine 40-hour weeks to shoot a movie, instead they spend maybe 1/3rd of that missing shots and scenes and not allowing actors to reach full potential.

So all in all, I'd say money is what they are missing. It can be done though - an Indie to look like Hollywood major, but it takes so much energy that it's rare - extremely rare.
 
BTW here's an example of what I would consider good quality work without the millions of Hollywood. Mind you this is a promo piece, but promos quality at length would just be a feature. The avg American commerical can reach prices in excess of $250K

http://www.vimeo.com/1157403
 
You are reacting to to the pop culture with such questions.

Look at the movies from the 70s and you will see a very different look in expensive films. Now many years later the films have another looks (main films often going for polished "expensive" look even when the story doesn't call for it).
 
That 'look' is also determined by advances in actual stocks. Which is where the polished look comes into play. Newer stocks have less noise than ever. The difference in actual look of stock between 1970 and now is very different.

Indies typically lack sound design. Or if they have it - the mix is lacking. Something like the last samurai or transformers we are looking at 50 track on the absolute minimum. Sometimes it can get up to 150. Indies, lucky to have 2 tracks for the entire mix. There are no levels of sound.

Even indies that originate on film look bad. I go to Ithaca college. Everyone still shoots 16mm. They all transfer poorly and get it back at compressed SD. Which voids the entire reasoning for shooting film in the first place. There is a process to doing it right. DIs don't exist in the indie world. 2K transfers don't exist in the indie world. Really it's a money thing there.

As for shooting. Most times - people just light it to get exposure. There is no layer of light. There is no dynamic lighting. Most of the time it's flat. If it's not flat. We can see three shadows from the light setup. Indies move slow. The coverage just isn't there. Most indies don't shoot two cameras. It's just one. So we automatically have less footage to cut between.

Most of the time there is a master. Maybe an OTS here and there. And that's it. Large budgets - multiple cameras, and a ton of coverage.

And I would throw Genesis, the F23 with Digiprimes, and the F35, the Viper, the Phantom, whatever that Arri is that is digital, into the mix of cameras that produce a film image on digital.

But I digress - really indies lack in almost every department. Most are short funded, short staffed, with limited professional knowledge and even professional actors.

Almost every large budget film will have 60 people working on the base level. It just goes up from there. Indies are lucky to have maybe 10 dedicated crew. There are differences on every level.
 
But what about those movies with 80 million dollar budgets and still call themselves independent? That Pacino-Deniro flick that came out recently claimed to be independent but had a huge budget. oh wait...that sucked as well.
 
This is an area I have been analyzing for a bit of time. I've shot a few features and I'll admit they were crap...and I vowed to never do shoot again until I have a great script...even if it means never shooting again. The great script is the first piece of the puzzle. I have been pouring over great films to understand what the main difference is. Time is one of the biggest keys to the puzzle as well. The time to get all the shots...and I mean great shots...the shots that add that extra layer of depth to a film. I'm not even talking about the greater production value...the look...I'm talking about the patience to let things play out and covering every ounce of emotion that can be found in every scene. My other films...I was always eliminating shots, because I didn't have the foresight and patience to add those little pieces that pull it all together. Developing that patience when everyone else is falling by the wayside...looking at their watch to see if it's time to go. I'm not sure I'm describing what I mean in this...but it's all about adding that extra layer of depth to a film that is usually missing from independent films. That layer begins with the opening credits and first scenes we see. That excitement and interest is there from the opening moment. Study the best directors with their best cinematographers and see what I mean.
 
Well, there is another question. Does true indie film exist? Sorry to those films out there calling themselves indie when they were shot on Panavisions. Juno, Little Miss Sunshine - you are not independent film.
 
That is a good question. Having Al Pacino in your film...does that make it independent if you raised the funds through a chilli cook-off? There is so much grey/gray area there. For me it means funding it myself...no name actors...etc. And then of course no thetrical release...you and I watching it in my living room on a big screen TV.
 
Hi,

Beats me.

Brokeback Mountain claimed some "Indie-tude" with star-power and directed by Ang Lee for goodness sake. Randy Quaid took a SAG-reduced fee and sued (I don't know how it turned out), because he felt duped that it wasn't indie enough.

Some films are certainly breaking barriers by being put together on shoelaces and string and making a hell of difference on what to watch. Movies like Lookout and Junebug and Hard Candy are character and story-driven and sort of don't look independent, which I guess, isn't the point of this thred - I didn't/don't mean to hijack.

I hope this is the intent, that is "What is the look?"

For me, there are enough reasons to think that the production end of things for the lines independent and mainstream have been blurred by technology. For a relatively small amount of money, a small crew can do what a large crew can do, nearly as well, depending upon story requirements, of course.

Luis's comments are, as always, spot on about dressing a scene. If you have to use what you have to 'find', well, it's going to look like a 'found' set. If the story calls for sets that can be found, you'd be ahead of the game.

On it goes.

I'm almost to the point of giving up on the idea of "Indies" - unless they are made with video and shown on plasma screens. :)
 
Technically, independent films=films that are not financially backed by a major studios. It has nothing to do with the budget for the quality of the people working on it. The Star Wars prequels are technically independent movies because George Lucas financed them himself.
 
Huy Vu said:
Technically, independent films=films that are not financially backed by a major studios.
Click to expand...

Not a few films have broken traditional paths in funding in past few years, and even defining what a "major studio" is blurry, too, or at least it is to me.

But then, I'm getting old.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Art direction.

Most indies simply don't have the money and time to properly and fully dress a set, color coordinate wardrobes, etc.
Click to expand...

Certainly agree on that front. I think another part of it is just that so few indies ever get a great art director or production designer to begin with.

I think of anything done by Alex McDowell or Dante Ferretti (granted they both have giant budgets) and I see just as much if not more imagination in their work than any great DP.

Even if you look at the posts here I think I might've seen 1 or 2 comments EVER about a short film's set design or style (beyond how it was lit or shot).

Just a random example here's War of the Worlds set.
picture.php


I can't think of too many indie films that have half as much thought beforehand in building a world for the characters.

In general, I think most directors know enough about lighting to appreciate a good DP, but few know enough about art direction to appreciate (and hire) good production designers, set decorators, ect...
 
Last edited:
In general, I think most directors know enough about lighting to appreciate a good DP, but few know enough about art direction to appreciate (and hire) good production designers, set decorators, ect...
Click to expand...

Some good points on this thread.

I think it's probably true that people don't know enough about art direction. It's not the sort of thing that even gets discussed in "How to" type books either.

Lighting and shot selection are givens, but you rarely see the importance of set design and texture mentioned.

I love making films and will continue to do so as long as I am healthy enough to do so, but it's like a never ending journey. With each film you make you realise the imprtance of another facet of filmmaking .:thumbup:
 
Mattykins said:
Well, there is another question. Does true indie film exist? Sorry to those films out there calling themselves indie when they were shot on Panavisions. Juno, Little Miss Sunshine - you are not independent film.
Click to expand...


We've had this discussion before

Always funny hearing about Indie films starring De Niro :P

I think We are the true indie filmmakers. Or look at Dimension Extreme

No name talent and crew, guerilla budgets ....
 
These are great comments, because we are all getting an education on all the aspects that make up a great film from start to finish. Without all the pieces it will still look small time versus the big time. We have to find ways to capture all of this on a small budget. Find those young hungry superstars of the future...maybe we can get lucky and find all those missing pieces on a shoestring budget. Find the people with that passion for filmmaking in their respective area of choice. It can be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top