The look of Independent Film

Well, in the end, doesn't this all dribble down to not having enough money?
Click to expand...

You still need to know what to spend the money on. If you have a thorough knowledge of all facets of "the look" you ideally want, you are better able to judge where the money goes.

Also, with all the people the average person knows, it may well be possible to dress a set for very little, if you've put the right amount of thought into how you want it to look.
 
DecadenceFilms said:
You still need to know what to spend the money on. If you have a thorough knowledge of all facets of "the look" you ideally want, you are better able to judge where the money goes.

Also, with all the people the average person knows, it may well be possible to dress a set for very little, if you've put the right amount of thought into how you want it to look.
Click to expand...

Set is a great example, but only one of several. It's not the ONLY thing. Locations in general, equipment, etc etc.

It's a plethora of things.
 
I think another point to all this is that, trying to get a 1/3" CCD to mate up to say a 24x36mm is asking a lot out of a camera. Look at the HPX500 or a VariCam and ask yourself, do you think it's possible that an imager twice the size is going to make a better picture/image? Probably.

Then as pointed at early on, time to set the camera up properly, let alone doing so in a hand held is a task at best, whereas these 2000's and greater have all kinds of little switches, rotating dials, etc. that make moving the color band a synch by comparison to 4 or 5 menus, let alone a poor quality LCD that won't give you a clue as to what the real image looks like (the latter of which a lot of indie's do).

A good camera isn't low cost and thus not "cheap" they are expensive and are thusly so because they have those bells and whistles that "make" that picture that says, "this isn't indie."

Last year I got to work with a DP using a Sony CineAlta900 and the last thing I would have wanted to have happen is for him to say, "Your turn." I would have said, "dysentary," and slipped off set for the bathroom but not for dysentry but to barf. Just assembling that thing into a working device took about 90 minutes. Just one shot to blow up a fort that measured all of about 4 to 8 seconds took 47 minutes to set the camera up properly with three test runs for color. Geez. Think of the 20 ppl standing around waiting for something to happen?
 
drdimento said:
Last year I got to work with a DP using a Sony CineAlta900 and the last thing I would have wanted to have happen is for him to say, "Your turn." I would have said, "dysentary," and slipped off set for the bathroom but not for dysentry but to barf. Just assembling that thing into a working device took about 90 minutes. Just one shot to blow up a fort that measured all of about 4 to 8 seconds took 47 minutes to set the camera up properly with three test runs for color. Geez. Think of the 20 ppl standing around waiting for something to happen?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the world of film. Hurry up and wait. The cinealta's are beasts. But they produce some of the best images I've seen. I am in love with the CineAlta line. 47 minutes of setup is nothing. With the RED we were talking an hour build time. Then you have the other departments working to get the set cleared to go.

We had a setup of about 2 hours to shoot a small sequence. It's film life.
 
filthrich said:
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.
Click to expand...


Those are not 'independent'... the use of the word 'independent' for those types of films, is 'independent of studio direct funding for production', and perhaps 'independent of direct supervision' of the project during production from the studios... they will definitely have a distribution deal already done with a major studio or distributor. In order to get such deals, these 'independents' have to use essentially the same talent pool, and level of production values that the 'in-house' studio productions use.

I think it is a misnomer to use the word 'independent' in such productions.
 
an example of a "high quality" "indie movie" is juno, it is supposed to be a different genre of video, the "witty" humor and dialogue made the viewer laugh because they haven't been exposed to that kind of humor before.

also indie is becoming more of a style in film, not just having a low budget. It's almost having a big budget and then making it look as though you had none haha such as a lot of swish pans, rack focusing in and out when there is nothing to be focused on, or zooming really fast in and out multiple times.

like the short Spider that played at sundance, or for that matter any of the movies by blue tounge films

check em here. http://www.bluetonguefilms.com/

or Four eyed monster.
 
Last edited:
Dillon, lets not get naive here. Although there might be people out there trying to imitate the look by doing the things you mention ("focusing, zooming in and out, or shaking the camera") on truly indie films it's done out of necessity. The DP having to be his own focus puller, the DP knowing that most likely there won't be another take so lets quickly zoom in for the feeling on the face of the actor, etc.).

That said i think most indie films fail fo a bunch of reasons (the lesser gear, people with less experience, no art dept, etc. being just one of many). For one most indie filmmakers are NOT doing an indie film, they basically are rehashing what's in their blood (TV and Hollywood for the most part) thus they jsut try to recreate what they see there -- traditional coverage etc. Very few try to do something "cool withing the budgetary constrains." Look at Kieslowski's "Blue" where a simple scene of a woman looking at a cube of sugar absorbing coffee has more power then a 20 minute monologue, or Gallo's "Brown Bunny" who took a risk of maybe boring the audience by playing a 7 min clip of him raiding through a boring suburban neighborhood (shot through a dirty windshield of his car) layered with melancholic music, or Godard who played with the convention by covering the scene in a totally "wrong" way. Those people wake up to do something cool and fun and not just to get the job done by covering the scene properly.
 
I completely agree, it was just a perspective on some of the films coming out.. haha but yeah a good indie film to look at is Coffee and Cigarettes, my favorite scene is between jack and meg white making small talk and then she says, "We'll you drug that thing all the way down here aren't you going to show me what it is?" (referring to jack whites Tesla coil in a red wagon) haha

very stylized movie.
 
Last edited:
What is "art direction" anyway but "good taste" put to action. Develop your sense of style and color and coordination and you'll do fine.
 
Develop your sense of style and color and coordination and you'll do fine.
Click to expand...

Yea and so I went to my trainer and said I needed to do this and all she could say was "Gluts & Lats"

Last time I knew what color went with what they had gramimals tags on them.
 
Mattykins said:
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.
Click to expand...


Very good points!!!! I AGREE.
 
HerzogisGod said:
What is "art direction" anyway but "good taste" put to action. Develop your sense of style and color and coordination and you'll do fine.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but good Art / Set direction can make a HUGE DIFFERENCE in the way a movie comes across. Lighting aids everything, but the color of walls, the amount of props in a scene, etc. These items weigh heavily on the visual aspect of the scene.
 
Kess said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a question, I'd kinda like answered by everyone's opinion. What makes for a GOOD Script?

My opinion: Every idea has the potential to be a good idea. For me, it's more about how those ideas are put together than anything. Scripts need to be circular and precise. For example, if in one scene your lead Protagonist trips over the water hose in the front yard, then we need to see that concept with the water hose another time in the movie - especially if it comes out of no where.

I think indie's do things for the sake of doing them and in bad scripts, the actor would have tripped over the water hose which seemed to come out of nowhere. And we'd never see it again. In a good script everything happens for a reason, and we don't see things that don't effect the plot (at least not many things).

Also dialog is realistic and fluid. And characters are thoughtout with unique speech and personalities.

Would love to hear what others think on this.
 
What makes for a great story?

More then mere continuity and proper use of setup/payoff. More then a plot that has a beginning, middle, and end. Though many indie scripts don't even contain the above, lol.

A story with a theme and message that touches on something universal. Characters that feel real and genuine and that we care about. In fact, character is SO important it can not be underestimated. I will watch a movie with a mediocre plot if the characters keep me compelled (Half Nelson is an example of a recent film I watched that had a not so great story but great characters).

Another MAJOR feature of a great script is visual storytelling. I just watched WALL-E for the first time last night. PIXAR, I believe to be the absolute best visual storytellers on the planet. The first act of WALL-E is a mesmerizingly brilliant example of visual storytelling. I found myself thinking, 20 minutes in, if the film keeps this up it will be in my top 10 of all time. What makes it so great IMO is that there is basically no dialogue whatsoever in that first chunk, and the way it pulls you into WALL-E's desolate world is so incredibly well done, I was completely floored. For more great examples of visual storytelling, watch some films by Chan Wook Park, or some other great asian cinema, the way they visualize there stories is quite unique from us 'mericans. There are shots that blow my mind (especially from the Vengeance trilogy, that's Sympathy for Mr Vengeance, Old Boy, and Lady Vengeance)

I'm also much more into finding a story that can benefit from the limitations of an indie production. And I'm reaching further then the typical Blair Witch Project example... raw DOGMIE stuff like NARC, Open Water (though I hate the way this movie looks with it's 60i), My Summer of Love, Half Nelson, Dancer in the Dark, even Eternal Sunshine (with it's lomo warm look and it's inventive effects could be done indie with the vision and creativity, but hey not everyone is Gondry)...

This reminded me that, over and over, I can not be reminded enough, lol, that we are working in a visual medium. Can you take your script and strip it of dialogue and still understand what is happening? How can you show instead of tell?
 
Last edited:
karapetkov said:
http://www.vimeo.com/1333375


In case you haven't watched it.

Pretty good, IMO.

Did it have a big budget? Don't think so.

Did only 50 people watch it? Nope - 36K+.

Anything is possible.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think many of us have seen this "White Red Panic". We also need to realize differences between shorts and features. While I think the piece was awesome, dealing with features is keeping that up over lots of sets, scenes, actors, etc. A much different and more difficult animal. but I do think this is one of the rare examples.

In fact, truth is I think it's not that hard to get your movie to look like hollywood, if you spend time studying the "why it doesn't".
 
jls4 said:
In fact, truth is I think it's not that hard to get your movie to look like hollywood, if you spend time studying the "why it doesn't".
Click to expand...

I agree with this. And I believe as McKee does that you have to understand and spend a great deal of time and practice learning and applying the tried and true principles and rules, then break them. Most of the greats did this... Kubrick, Lynch, Spielberg... etc... this is something I can't get many of my peers to understand, those who think they are ready to make artful, 'original' films without mastering genre first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top