I feel I am cheating myself...

nouou

nouou

Well-known member
Has anyone else felt that way?

I've shot a couple shorts in the past and am preparing to shoot my first feature. I am investing my time in learning basic concepts of lighting, cinematography, and audio. As I am preparing my budget, which is currently at 2900, and will probably end up with 3500, I think of people like Robert Rodriguez and how he shot El Mariachi on actual film, and had almost no hardware behind the camera, and came out with a budget of $7000ish. I feel I am cheating myself by budgeting too many things that in my mind are a necessity or will make the film look/sound better, yet other people are pulling off decent films with pure mico-budgets. Has anyone else felt this before? I am curious if I'm the only one.
 
I think there's a lot to be said for talent and skill, but that's kind of stating the obvious.

That aside, there are some folks who can accomplish almost anything with next to nothing. But if you set out to make something on no budget when you could actually have a budget available to you, you're sort of defeating the purpose. Work within the budget you have available to you, and if it's a small budget then so be it. You get what you can, and make use of what little that might be.

Focus on creating a good picture (and good sound) within those means, and don't worry that some one else did it with less (or more).
 
Nowadays, filmmakers of our stature worry way too much in pre-production. If you have access to a budget, utilize it. Just make sure that's not the only thing that makes your independent project unique.

Go out and make the movie with whatever you have.
 
It's really easy to throw money at obstacles. But working with what you have really helps you hone your skills. I like to watch that early Peter Jackson flick "Bad Taste". It's awesome in that it's obvious he only had a few bucks but did not let that stop him from getting his vision onscreen. Ubercheese? Of course. A gateway to bigger and better things? You tell me.
 
I've made movies with 1 CCD cameras and literally spent nothing more than 20 bucks on tapes. So what if the image isn't "film" quality? So what if I don't have big expensive lights or know everything about ligthing? Like everyone else says, it's what you create with what you have.

Like film critic Ray Carney says "Pablo Picasso could create works of art with a rock and a burnt stick. In fact he did. We call them 'charcoals'". People have shot films on Pixelcams for christ's sake. The camera, or the camera's abilities are simply tools. Like a writer holding a pen: nobody cares how expensive his damn pen is or how pretty his handwriting is. They care about the sentences, the words. The scenes, the images.

To me, the most interesting filmmakers/cinematographers/sound designers work within incredibly limited budgets. Pretty pictures and shallow focus can now be made by 14 year old kids and uploaded to youtube. To pay more money to get prettier pictures is severely boring. When you have less, you can focus more. If you make your film look like something YOU made, it is worth more than any film look or hollywood budget. Nobody will be able to buy that look, only attempt to copy you.

Point is, the most important thing is to shoot the way you shoot and ignore everyone else (sorry for the rant). Good luck with everything.
 
i saw el mariachi, i don't thing anyone would watch that movie if there were no story behind making it, it's not that good at all, even by today standards. he had allot of resources given to him for free, so the movie did cost considerably more.

you need a little bit of resources to make a movie, and some can be acquired with money, so you will need a bit of money to make a movie, especially if your planning to make a 2hr feature that has these many scenes and locations, and that amount of preparation, and allot of resources and equipment, and all that requires money at the end. if you have zero money, you can't make a movie. on the other hand resources is considered money in my book anyway, if you can access equipment or sets or locations, or whatever, that's part of the production, be it your paying for it or not, they don't count that when stating that a movie cost 7000 or 50000, a movie might have millions worth of stuff and state that it only cost them an extra $500, it doesn't mean in my opinion that the movie only costs 500, the real value would be if i have nothing of the production, how much would it cost me to make that movie, that would be a tottaly different number, that's the real indie number, that's what separates indie from studios, we have pretty much zero resources and making a movie with low budgets.

something to ease the budget,

all the basic equipment that can be used again in other movies should be divided by the number of movies that you will be doing, instead of saying $7000 as a budget for the first movie, which if your talking 2hr movie, will pretty much consist only of basic equipment needed, and the movie won't be very good, you could budget 14000 for two movies, and make two decent or at least much more decent $7000 movies, so it can be something that can have real production value, and not look amateurish,

you will still need to have some resources for free, some people can get brilliant locations for free, and permits to some places, good actors, or whatever your story would need that you can get for free or very little money.

considering that all the technical parts would be as good as possible as well.

you will be able to see the extra cash in your production, maybe a steadicam guy for the entire movie, or a crane shot for one scene, or a song,or composer, or sound fx, or renting one or more cameras for a multicam scene, or renting a special camera or lens for one scene, or getting better light equipment, or better lenses or more lenses, or renting a place or a car for a day, or making a set, using extras for one scene, wardrobe, or make up, depending on the story one of these things even if only used for one shot can lift your production value to new levels.

i'm pretty sure i forgot to mentions some of the production boosts that can be had with a few extra bucks, and lost myself somewhere a few lines back, but the point is you can add value even if only to one scene and make a much better movie if you don't plan on making a movie with just the bare minimum equipment. you will find the movie costing much more than the equipment if you don't have enough free resources, or tailor the budget of a movie to a very low number just because it's a magical number, and have most of the movie lacking something important.

sorry about all the rambling...
 
"if you have zero money, you can't make a movie."

This is technically untrue. But yes, cinema is an artform that lends itself to money- you need it almost all of the time. But VIDEO has changed all that- camcorders have changed everything. Tarnation, a feature length film, was made for a little over $200. That's 80 minutes long for 200 bucks.

Video cameras are cheap and can be borrowed from many places nowadays, especially friends. Make friends.

The real problem is getting your stuff out there. Distribution will always cost money.
 
Cinema as art form is one thing- but CONTENT is always KING.
Measure of a work (feature length) by what it costs to produce is NOT a valid expedient.

I've spent more on craft services for a DAY than has been discussed here as an entire budget by nouou.

The original "El Mariachi" wasn't very polished, and doesn't really stand the test of time (IMO).
Rodriguez was fortunate to be in the right place at the right time, with the right product (reaching a certain market that was then, largely, untapped).
Good for him.
None of us can fault him for his success.


That anyone would cling so tenaciously to an edict to do it, but just on the cheap- reminds me of the 'schawartza fenza' movement in the 1960's or the 'cinema obscura' tenet.
Whereby the requirement to fit the work into a particular 'jar' defeated the content's viability.
Good stories lost on technique emphasis.

The same way you can fast forward through a Michael Bay smash-em-up spectacular to get to the good parts (few and far between as they may be).

Just keep your EYE ON THE PRIZE.
It's the STORY.
And, we're trying to be STORY TELLERS.

If all you have is $100 camera and some blank tape- go for it.
But, don't let THAT lead you.
STORY in front (all that other **** stays behind the camera).
 
Gotta disagree with you whole-heartedly. Film isn't strictly about story-telling at all. Who told you this? That's very very very very limited. It's like saying novels or paintings MUST tell stories or BE about the stories. Art=content. Art=style. What you're referring to is empty art when you talk about what you talk about. And for someone to choose a certain style, an aesthetic- a way of saying what they want to say- why is that wrong? It's only a boring waste when you have a guy like Rodriguez or Tarantino who are only interested in flash and glitz and WOWING the audience. To do what you're doing, tell a good story, is simply not enough. You'll only look like every other Hollywood hack. You'll end up like Spielberg, or worse, George Lucas.
 
STORY TELLING.
It's a metaphor, not an edict.
A figure of speech, meant to relay a concept.

Disagree? Okay fine.
No foul.

However, I believe you base your diatribe upon some misguided assumptions.

Example; There's a stunning art film out there, with a run time of 58+/- minutes- shot in 16mm of a stationary object beside a roadway, cars zooming by back and forth.
The object is a dead animal (I think it's a fox, might be a dog- it's hard to tell, been there for a while).

That is the only scene, and it runs continuously for the length of the film.

Now, for nearly an hour, the audience sits there and studies this scene, running in real time- without any dialog, sound effects, or other contributing factors.
It's just the ambient sound of a two lane roadway on a sunny day, looking at this dead animal carcass, for nearly an HOUR.

At the World Premiere (which I attended), when the lights went up, the audience all snapped their fingers bohemian style (beatniks listening to jazz like).

I guess there's a 'story' in there somewhere. Hard pressed to find it maybe.
Or maybe the filmmaker was relying on the individual observers to make up their own 'story'?
One cannot know for certain (without a boring 'artist statement' attached.)

Perhaps what you object to is formulaic works by mainstream producer/directors?
I mean, those are the ones you cite in the rambling condemnation provided.

Couldn't agree with you more- it's all pablum in my book.

Of course, now that you've drawn the line in the sand- it's time to put up some work of yours so we can see what "ART" really is.
Right?
Just point us to the Vimeo, YouToob, or other host site where your work is so we can get, um, educated.
I'd be glad to look at it (and get the lesson you provide).
Thnx.
 
NoNoob,
I have to agree with you on this one. As a graduate student in Media Studies and Filmmaking, I have heard it over and over again from many of my professors: The Story is the most important aspect of a film. Sure, there are those who like "Art" films and I suppose that is okay, for them. But most people read novels or watch movies because they want to be entertained; they want to be told a story that takes them out of their mundane, boring everyday reality and transports them, for however brief a time, into a new reality that is more interesting/exciting.

As a film student, I have been exposed to many "artsy-fartsy" films that garnered critical acclaim and found myself bored to tears and watching the clock, praying for them to finally be over. All the artistic technique in the world is useless if you don't have an intersting and engaging story to tell. On the other hand, a powerful story can easily engage an audience even if the technical aspects of the film are not up to Hollywood standards. Yes, as filmmakers, we are Storytellers first and above all else and in any good film, Story is still King.
 
jpastuch said:
Gotta disagree with you whole-heartedly. Film isn't strictly about story-telling at all. Who told you this? That's very very very very limited. It's like saying novels or paintings MUST tell stories or BE about the stories. Art=content. Art=style. What you're referring to is empty art when you talk about what you talk about. And for someone to choose a certain style, an aesthetic- a way of saying what they want to say- why is that wrong? It's only a boring waste when you have a guy like Rodriguez or Tarantino who are only interested in flash and glitz and WOWING the audience. To do what you're doing, tell a good story, is simply not enough. You'll only look like every other Hollywood hack. You'll end up like Spielberg, or worse, George Lucas.
Click to expand...

You called out Spielberg, Lucas, Rodriguez and Tarantino - all mere lines away from each other. Something tells me you're playing this post from shock factor.

Not all movies have to be grieving, thoughtful drama pics to be considered art.

EDIT: Actually, I take that last line back. Art is what you make it. There's no set boundaries on it.
 
Shock value? What's so shocking about calling Spielberg a hack? He is.

Story is not king in anything except the story. Look at how many of you repeat this "story is king! story is king!". You sound scared almost.

Who told you people just want to be entertained? How the hell has that become the pinnacle of filmmaking? To just entertain people? Why should we offer them MORE escapes and distractions from their lives? American Idol and Spielberg and Disney already do all this plenty. Don't know about you but I'd like to live my life as me, not John Wayne. Life is interesting to me. And scary. Oh but oops- I'm not allowed to express any of that. The audience might get bored.

To call things "Artsy-fartsy" and "grieving dramas" is something a 14 year old would say. Seriously. it just shows how ignorant some people want to be. You WANT to block new things out. New viewpoints or ways of seeing the world. It's a little scary and very depressing- that you NEED constant entertainment and plot in a film otherwise you give up. If you aren't willing to put work into viewing something, and trying to really understand and experience it, why bother? Why don't we all just make Star Wars sequels for that matter?

Look, I haven't seen the hour long dead animal film. I can't comment on how good or bad it is. I can't help it if people snap instead of clap. I do not at all agree with liking something just because it's different- in fact I disagree with just making things WEIRD and calling it artistic (hey david lynch). But the animal film, even if it's BAD art, shows that there are a zillion ways to make things. People laughed at Orson Welles. They laughed at John Cassavetes. A lot of great, new filmmakers are often shunned and torn apart by cynical losers unwilling to give something a chance. It's sad. and the fact that we think we need to be constantly ENTERTAINED by a film or book really saddens me. Makes me want to throw up.

To tie this in to the topic, cheating yourself with a budget is nothing. There are worse ways to cheat yourself and I think I've described them all here. The scariest and hardest thing in the world is to be yourself and do things the way you want to do them. Let everyone else fall in line and mock with the rest of the sheep. It's their problem.
 
I shot a feature length action movie for much less than 7000 dollars. Although, I already had a camera, computer, and NLE available to me.

My budget looked something like this:
DIY steadicam: $30
3 500watt worklights: $60
Spud cannon (filled with flower): $20
Cigarettes: $10
Duct Tape: $20
Fake moustache: $3
GRAND TOTAL: $143.00 spent on my first feature film.

I suppose you could factor in the cost of my XHA1, MacbookPro, and FCS 2 HD (academic)

My movie was soooo cheap because I wrote the script around things I already had at my disposal. It's not going to win an oscar or anything, but I think it turned out pretty well given the amount of effort i put into it.

Check out the trailer for it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTstuwhRHE
 
jpastuch said:
Shock value? What's so shocking about calling Spielberg a hack? He is.

Story is not king in anything except the story. Look at how many of you repeat this "story is king! story is king!". You sound scared almost.

Who told you people just want to be entertained? How the hell has that become the pinnacle of filmmaking? To just entertain people? Why should we offer them MORE escapes and distractions from their lives? American Idol and Spielberg and Disney already do all this plenty. Don't know about you but I'd like to live my life as me, not John Wayne. Life is interesting to me. And scary. Oh but oops- I'm not allowed to express any of that. The audience might get bored.

To call things "Artsy-fartsy" and "grieving dramas" is something a 14 year old would say. Seriously. it just shows how ignorant some people want to be. You WANT to block new things out. New viewpoints or ways of seeing the world. It's a little scary and very depressing- that you NEED constant entertainment and plot in a film otherwise you give up. If you aren't willing to put work into viewing something, and trying to really understand and experience it, why bother? Why don't we all just make Star Wars sequels for that matter?

Look, I haven't seen the hour long dead animal film. I can't comment on how good or bad it is. I can't help it if people snap instead of clap. I do not at all agree with liking something just because it's different- in fact I disagree with just making things WEIRD and calling it artistic (hey david lynch). But the animal film, even if it's BAD art, shows that there are a zillion ways to make things. People laughed at Orson Welles. They laughed at John Cassavetes. A lot of great, new filmmakers are often shunned and torn apart by cynical losers unwilling to give something a chance. It's sad. and the fact that we think we need to be constantly ENTERTAINED by a film or book really saddens me. Makes me want to throw up.

To tie this in to the topic, cheating yourself with a budget is nothing. There are worse ways to cheat yourself and I think I've described them all here. The scariest and hardest thing in the world is to be yourself and do things the way you want to do them. Let everyone else fall in line and mock with the rest of the sheep. It's their problem.
Click to expand...

Entertainment does not mean smiles, explosions and gun fights. I was heavily entertained by movies like The Visitor, Man on Wire, etc. this year. When I mean entertain, I mean that it has my attention, that I'm captivated by the movie and that it has my mind working.

And I'm pretty sure no one here is laughing at Orson Welles. Citizen Kane has been recognized and there's still his great performances in flicks like The Third Man and his role in F for Fake.

And like I said, I'm throwing up at the fact that you think you can tell other people what art is. If anything, that's more disgusting than somebody being entertained by *gasp*, Kill Bill or something.
 
I got cornered into judging final thesis works for graduate students at a prestigious film school here in the U.S. Doing a favor for a friend, as it were.
(one should wonder why they'd ask me)

Twenty plus short films, and some without a single redeeming value.
BUT- there was one that stood out, more than head and shoulders above all the others.
In fact, it goes down in my book of best films ever.

I had rarely experienced such profound imagery and message in my life of watching movies.
At one point in my career I'd see as many as six films a day too.
This one knocked me off my chair.

"Told" (as in telling a story) in three segments, the filmmaker succeeded in capturing the essence of what love and separation is all about (IMO).
The film had a beginning, middle and end- but not, necessarily, presented in that order.
You see, masterful 'story telling' doesn't have to follow a rigid framework (the kind that seems to bother jpastuck).
It can start with the finale for that matter.

I was moved by the power of what the filmmaker presented, and the point of view (one that I'd never seen presented before).
It was artfully accomplished, and exquisitely stated.
Bravo.

At the end of the screenings I sought out the filmmaker to congratulate the success.
Turned out to be a woman (nothing wrong with that, of course) who happened into film school on a lark.
I wished her well for her future in filmmaking, to which she responded, "Oh, I don't think I'm going to follow it. After all, I'm a poet."

And that's when I knew the best of the best are really poets.
[Which, I'm afraid, will be lost on our resident squawker here. Did anyone else notice his vitriolic contributions have been devoid of anything positive? Sad.]

If asked to boil his contributions down to one line, this is it:
>>Story is not king in anything except the story.<<

Duh.
 
It is called "The Entertainment Industry" for a very good reason. The reason people go to the movie theater (or watch TV, listen to the radio, etc.) is to be entertained. The STAR WARS films made (and are still making) millions of dollars because the audience wanted to be magically transported to a "galaxy far, far away" from the stresses and problems of their daily lives. The same is true of those who desire to follow Indiana Jones deep into the unexplored jungle on one of his fantastic quests in search of some mythical object.

Storytelling is as old as human language. Countless millennia ago, gathered around fires in Cro-Magnon encampments, people sat enthralled as the tribal storytellers practiced their art, weaving tantalizing tapestries of love, danger, conflict and adventure which were played out upon the mental screen of the mind's eye. The modern motion picture is but the logical outgrowth of this innate human desire (no, need) to be entertained. Yes, as tired as the phrase may seem to some, Story is still the reigning King of the motion picture industry. The Story is the reason people flock to the theaters (and watch TV or read a novel) by the millions each and every day.

A film without a good story and strong plot is doomed to failure. Of course, what constitutes a "good story" is purely subjective in nature. What one person might consider a terrific story will be utter garbage to someone else, and this is as it should be. But I would be willing to bet that if the "Dead Animal" film were to be exhibited in the same theater as, say, a new Indiana Jones flick, ol' Indie would win hands down at the box office.

This is not to say that such "artsy" films should not be made at all. If that is what the filmmaker wants to do and he/she is satisfied with the idea that his/her work will appeal to, and be viewed by, a very limited audience, then by all means go for it. For the rest of us, however, we are storytellers. Telling stories is what we do. It is what we enjoy doing and we get great pleasure in watching the reactions of our audience as they sit, enveloped by the magical, imaginary universe we have created for them. For us, then, the Story is still the driving force behind our work; the very reason for doing what we do. Without stories to tell, we would never have picked up that camera in the first place.

But we have digressed from the original question.

Nouou, just make your film. Tell your story. If you have $XYZ.XX to spend on a film and you believe spending that money will help you make a better film, then spend the money. If you don't have any money to spend on your film, go ahead and make it anyway. Just tell your story the best way you can. Whether or not you spend $25 or $2500 making your film, you will most definitely NOT be cheating yourself. You would only be cheating yourself (and your potential audience) by not making your film, or telling your story, at all.

So, get out there and shoot!

And by the way, most of the money Robert Rodriguez spent on El Mariachi was for film and processing. If he had possessed a DVX back then, the film would have been made for much, much less. Speaking of El Mariachi, I happen to like the film. And Desperado, too.
 
Last edited:
It's kind of crazy how people keep twisting my words around. Ha. a great film can be entertaining. A great film can tell a story. They don't HAVE to do either to be great. For some reason people on here keep thinking that- STORY is king! PLOT is NECESSARY! You won't find this requirement anywhere else accept movies for some reason. Why.

No one says "this poem is not entertaining! This painting has NO PLOT!" The reason that poet made such a good movie is because she probably didn't get trapped up in the silly things we're talking about. "OH I HOPE IT HAS THREE ACTS. AND A RISING ACTION!" Right.

If you only worry about entertaining the audience and creating a great "plot" that wraps up neatly, you are cheating your supposed audience and cheating yourself. You're limiting movies and being cynical. You're saying I'm telling you what art is? I'm giving my opinion of what I've learned about art and film. I used to think the same exact way you do until i started opening my mind up a little more.

YOU'RE telling me, very smugly, that story is necessary and also KING in a film, but as I cited many examples (Slacker, Mutual Appreciation, Stranger than Paradise, The Mirror) the details of what happen in the plot are barely even important. The characters' emotions, the style of the film, what the artist is trying to say is what becomes important.

What about the film The Passion of Joan of Arc? How about Killing of a Chinese Bookie or A Woman Under the Influence? or Godard's Breathless? How about even Scorsese's mean streets? Ozu's Late Spring? Yes, many of these films follow a "story", but it's barely important. Things like atmosphere, moments and substance are what matters. Not some clever plot twist or Hitchcock gasp moment. The plot is more or less secondary. These films don't cut things out just because they might "bore" someone or deviate from a silly plot. And because they don't follow some rigid structure about plots, it gives them freedom.

EDIT: Also I think I mentioned Tarnation, which has no "plot" or "story" and was made for less than $300.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top