Book: Advanced Screenwriting... Academy Award Level

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
Just got a new book by Linda Seger, "Advanced Screenwriting -- Raising your Script to the Academy Award Level". Curious if anybody has read this, has thoughts on the book? I am only on page 25. Thus far she goes into concepts I have rarely seen in other sw books, detailing various story structures beyond three act linear structures, structures I had rarely read about (spiral, reverse, parallel, present time, repetitive) in other books.

Not sure I even want to go down the path of non-classical non-linear non-three-act structures at this point in my career. Might be best to stick with more formulaic three act linear structure to get a spec sale. Once established, I could see getting more experimental. But I might change my mind once I finish reading the book.

Regardless, fwiw, this looks to be a book with content quite different from all the other how-to books on screenwriting.
~randall
 
About 2/3 through the book now. Honestly, now it is reading more like same old same old. New material more so in the author's analysis of examples from film, which is worth reading. But no magical formula on how to write to win an Oscar. Worth a read though, I plan to finish it.

Ted Spencer said:
I'll be interested to hear about what you think once you've read it. Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I feel like when I'm buying too many screenwriting books, it's the same as cleaning the house top-to-bottom. I'm distracting myself from the real problem, which is that I don't feel like writing! The only thing that makes you get better is writing more. I don't really enjoy writing a screenplay, I enjoy finishing a screenplay. I'm a director and editor at heart, not a writer.

However, I do think both for myself and what else I've seen that this is the best time to write a great screenplay in the traditional Hollywood style (I'm thinking movies with tight structure, multiple subplots, original kernels - Die Hard, Midnight Run, Chinatown, etc.). I think this is what the fewest number of people are able to accomplish these days, as now virtually anyone can actually go out and shoot a film. Sitting down and hammering out an absolutely perfect script for over a year or so is, imho, much more difficult.

So, it seems odd, but I'm beginning to think that writing has turned into the best way 'in', and not making a film so much. Sell a great screenplay and you're not only in (agent, recognition, can get people on the phone, etc.), you'll likely be able to support yourself writing while also making money to shoot a film that the industry will take notice of now that you've got their attention with your screenplays.

It's a cliche, but story is king now more than ever. You wouldn't know it from a lot of the stuff that actually makes it to the screen, but the hollywood system is kinda funny like that!
 
I agree, story is king. IMO it's also the most commonly botched part of a movie project. Strange, huh? But like you said, that represents a sort of opening for some of us amidst a rapidly growing glut of inexpert filmmakers. Write a really superior story/script and you jump right to the head of the class.
 
Finished the book. I like it, I would recommend it. No magic formulas as I said, but it does have pieces of wisdom that I think can help any screenwriter better their craft. Ideas and examples not found in the many other how-to books on screenwriting.
~randall
 
Frank Perrotto said:
So, it seems odd, but I'm beginning to think that writing has turned into the best way 'in', and not making a film so much. Sell a great screenplay and you're not only in (agent, recognition, can get people on the phone, etc.), you'll likely be able to support yourself writing while also making money to shoot a film that the industry will take notice of now that you've got their attention with your screenplays.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I love shooting films or just random footage at the park for my own enjoyment, but the sad fact is that unless I can get a decent budget ($250,000 - $1,000,000+), name actors, and a distribution deal, I don't have much of a leg to stand on as a director or producer. Well, maybe a peg leg, but that just isn't cool unless you're a pirate.

A couple months ago I reevaluated things in terms of my filmmaking aspirations, and decided that focusing on writing now is the way to go. Sure I can make a short film for fun once in a while, but my concentration needs to be on finishing some scripts that'll knock 'em dead. It is really great not being so limited in terms of subject matter, set pieces, spectacle, effects, etc... when just writing a spec I don't intend to self produce.

Randall_Oelerich said:
Finished the book. I like it, I would recommend it. No magic formulas as I said, but it does have pieces of wisdom that I think can help any screenwriter better their craft. Ideas and examples not found in the many other how-to books on screenwriting.
~randall
Click to expand...

Nice. This is one thing that I get tired of with screenwriting books, the same basic concepts and formulas are reiterated by each guru in their own way. I could definitely use a book that has some radically different techniques and theories.

Also, isn't Linda Seger a highly demanded script/story consultant for the studios out there in H-wood?
 
Last edited:
Awesome discussion!

Reevaluated is exactly how I would put it. I'm nearing completion on a feature (see signature, banner thingy) and I'm just kind of shocked at how limited the options are. Actually, it's weird, they're wider than they've ever been, yet somehow limited. There are a hundred social networking sites, blogging platforms, digg this, stumbleupon, tweet it, myspace, etc., not to mention a million video sharing websites. And yet, it's harder than ever to be heard. There's also a million film festivals, yet it's more difficult than ever to get in. For some reason, what I've seen of programmers (I had lunch with one from Tribeca a few times) they're the last people I'd get to evaluate the quality or entertainment value of a film.

Anyway, ten years ago, all of this would have sounded great, right? You can get the word out about your movie from the comfort of your home on your laptop. Well, that sounds good in theory, but the reality is, I honestly don't like sitting on the internet all day hoping my youtube views will go up or that some producer's rep would just email me back. It's gotten to the point where I just shut email on my blackberry off from 10am to 7pm, otherwise I'd be a damned mess all day.

It got me thinking, in the good ole' days, you'd finish your film, send it off, and wait for a phone call while maybe attending some parties and networking a bit. In the meantime, you can write another script, get your head together, hone your craft, and maybe read a few books and catch up on some classic cinema. If and when you do get that rejection or acceptance call, I'd say you're mentally prepared for it because you have time to be introspective.

Now, that's not really possible. I was shocked at a list in this article on the Truly Free Film blog where it suggested if you haven't done every single one of these things, don't even bother sending your film into festivals.

I mean... I uhhh, still have to eat and keep a roof over mine and my wife's head, don't I? And since distributors aren't paying upfront fees anymore, I'm guessing self-distribution isn't going to put food on the table. McDonald's maybe... I love McDonald's, but I'd like to have grocery and gas money as well.

Anyway, long story longer, it occurred to me that a lot of what is going on in the indie world right now feels like a lot of whining and its marginalizing indies even further, and I actually would like to make a living someday at this. The more whining that goes on, the more it seems like the movies themselves are becoming less and less appealing.

So screenwriting and getting back to story are where I decided to put my energies and it's really great to hear that I'm not the only one who came to this conclusion. Amazing, because twenty years ago, the advice would be the opposite: go shoot a great film because nobody else is doing that.

Not to say that everyone is shooting great films, because they certainly aren't, but as far as festivals and the net go, what constitutes a great film has become so vague and nebulous and I get the feeling the studios could care less about our little circle jerk, as they have a bottom line to tend to. In the meantime, the feeling I get out here in Los Angeles is that good, up-and-coming screenwriters are becoming more treasured and revered.

So pass that screenwriting book! I'm glad you got something out of it, I'm gonna head out to BN in the morning and give it a look-see for myself!
 
Frank Perrotto said:
I feel like when I'm buying too many screenwriting books, it's the same as cleaning the house top-to-bottom. I'm distracting myself from the real problem, which is that I don't feel like writing! The only thing that makes you get better is writing more. I don't really enjoy writing a screenplay, I enjoy finishing a screenplay. I'm a director and editor at heart, not a writer.

However, I do think both for myself and what else I've seen that this is the best time to write a great screenplay in the traditional Hollywood style (I'm thinking movies with tight structure, multiple subplots, original kernels - Die Hard, Midnight Run, Chinatown, etc.). I think this is what the fewest number of people are able to accomplish these days, as now virtually anyone can actually go out and shoot a film. Sitting down and hammering out an absolutely perfect script for over a year or so is, imho, much more difficult.

So, it seems odd, but I'm beginning to think that writing has turned into the best way 'in', and not making a film so much. Sell a great screenplay and you're not only in (agent, recognition, can get people on the phone, etc.), you'll likely be able to support yourself writing while also making money to shoot a film that the industry will take notice of now that you've got their attention with your screenplays.

It's a cliche, but story is king now more than ever. You wouldn't know it from a lot of the stuff that actually makes it to the screen, but the hollywood system is kinda funny like that!
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm a director more than a writer, at least of screenplays, my writing background is non-fiction, but I think it's the thrill of finishing something, for sure.

It's very tough with anything the first time around. I remember when I wrote my first manuscript, I knew it wasn't the quality that I expected of a book, and got discouraged, so it took way longer to finish because I doubted myself and whether I could whip it into shape. I kept thinking of that first draft as "not as good as real work," without realizing that nobody's first draft is as good as published work. It took me 16 drafts to get it to the point where it was published.

My second book, I was far more confident, I knew I had the skills, and I knew no matter how bad anything may appear on the page the first time I wrote it, it would turn into gold by the time I was finished. It took 13 drafts for the second book, even still.

So with screenplay writing I'm finding it the same. I have my script and after 33 pages I'm like, "I don't know if this is that funny, I mean it's a romantic comedy, it's just not that funny right now." The situation, though, is funny, I mean the structure is solid, and was carefully planned, so it's really a matter of writing it all out, then going back and finding the comedy in each scene, one by one. For now I'd rather just get it all out and see what happens. Then after this, I can go back and perfect it over and over.
 
Frank Perrotto said:
So screenwriting and getting back to story are where I decided to put my energies and it's really great to hear that I'm not the only one who came to this conclusion. Amazing, because twenty years ago, the advice would be the opposite: go shoot a great film because nobody else is doing that.
Click to expand...

:thumbup:

Reevaluated is exactly how I would put it. I'm nearing completion on a feature (see signature, banner thingy) and I'm just kind of shocked at how limited the options are. Actually, it's weird, they're wider than they've ever been, yet somehow limited. There are a hundred social networking sites, blogging platforms, digg this, stumbleupon, tweet it, myspace, etc., not to mention a million video sharing websites. And yet, it's harder than ever to be heard. There's also a million film festivals, yet it's more difficult than ever to get in. For some reason, what I've seen of programmers (I had lunch with one from Tribeca a few times) they're the last people I'd get to evaluate the quality or entertainment value of a film.
Click to expand...

I was shocked at a list in this article on the Truly Free Film blog where it suggested if you haven't done every single one of these things, don't even bother sending your film into festivals.
Click to expand...

As for this list, some of it is just common sense stuff. Things like having a poster and a website. The thing that annoys me these days is that it feels like having an amazing film is secondary to the whole social networking craze. Personally, I'd rather put my energies into making the film, not obssessing over a blog, twitter, and myspace, plus having to constantly add videos to all the hundreds of video sharing sites out there. Sheesh, no wonder so many films don't ever get finished, let alone distributed. And the ones that do and use this marketing strategy probably take 2-3 times as long to finish because the filmmaker(s) are trapped in the social networking dungeon. I don't know, I'd personally rather be nearly done with a film and make sure it is something I want to release with confidence before I started blogging about it. I wonder how many indie films have a blog and a twitter acount before they have page one of the script written?

Sadly, I really feel that social networking stuff like twitter is the next thing, and once the entertainment industry figures out how to twitter-ize their wares and charge for it, say goodbye to classical story structure and any kind of contemplative storytelling outside of literature and genre fiction.

This all just illustrates that we really are in the age of hype. Everything is so hyped up beyond belief that by the time it is actually released, I am sick to death of it.

Not to say that everyone is shooting great films, because they certainly aren't, but as far as festivals and the net go, what constitutes a great film has become so vague and nebulous and I get the feeling the studios could care less about our little circle jerk, as they have a bottom line to tend to. In the meantime, the feeling I get out here in Los Angeles is that good, up-and-coming screenwriters are becoming more treasured and revered.

So pass that screenwriting book! I'm glad you got something out of it, I'm gonna head out to BN in the morning and give it a look-see for myself!
Click to expand...

Good stuff Frank. I can't really argue with what you are saying.
 
Good stuff Frank. I can't really argue with what you are saying.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the support, because this is the kind of stuff I feel like nobody is saying. I mean... I know I'm thinking it, and I'm afraid to say it sometimes, but I guess you gotta let it all hang out once in a while to know whether or not you're sane!

With regards to the social networking/marketing question: The only thing I wonder is, if a person were to make a great genre film like Primer, which is five years ago now, would that cream still rise to the top without so much social networking B.S.? I'm not so sure in this climate anymore, and that's really sad.

This all just illustrates that we really are in the age of hype. Everything is so hyped up beyond belief that by the time it is actually released, I am sick to death of it.
Click to expand...

The age of hype is right on the money. There is no good and bad, there is only that which is hyped and that which is not. If you're not hyping, you're not on the map, and many of the gatekeepers do not care about the actual quality of the work, only how many blogs have done write-ups on it. Not really a measure of quality, imho.

I agree, having a poster, website, trailer, behind-the-scenes photos... I'd argue that all of this still falls within the realm of filmmaking. I love putting together a poster and a trailer. Even the website is fun, because it involves design and how you want people to feel about the prospect of seeing your movie. It's when you start to go beyond that to being stuck in the, "How many sites can I keep up with," rut that the paradigm starts to fall apart for me.

But getting back to screenwriting, I would say that one side effect of trying to keep up with all this stuff on my first feature is that I now enjoy the isolation and deep thought of writing a helluva lot more. It's not such a reactionary process, which is what I find twitter and all this other stuff to be. Also, having made a dramatic indie that has some navel-gazing by the characters, the next one is going to be science fiction and I'm going to spend wwwwwwaaaay more time on the script.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion so far, this newb really enjoyed it!
 
Frank Perrotto said:
With regards to the social networking/marketing question: The only thing I wonder is, if a person were to make a great genre film like Primer, which is five years ago now, would that cream still rise to the top without so much social networking B.S.? I'm not so sure in this climate anymore, and that's really sad.
Click to expand...

Yep. Makes you wonder doesn't it? Plus, even getting a film into something like Sundance or any of the larger festivals that have the potential to launch a director's career, you pretty much have to have a film rep who can get you in due to their connections.

As social networking evolves, the whole indie filmmaking scene will be totally different 10 years from now. I remember a couple of years ago, I read an article or interview about the film industry. I can't remember where it was, maybe Wired magazine or online somewhere. Anyways, there was a statement made that basically said that the corporate business world is on its way out of movies, while the IT industry is on its way in. I kinda agree with that in some ways. What I want to know is when are the artists/filmmakers/writers... basically the actual creative people going to dictate what films are made and how they are seen? When I say dictate, I don't mean dictator, we don't need filmmaking Hitlers and Stalins here, but moreso when will the filmmakers themselves have the upper hand? As it's always been, the writers, directors, and actors have always been at the mercy of whoever controls the money and distribution, the businessmen and now it seems somewhat the computer and tech industry.

If I do make my own indie/micro-budget feature anytime in the next year or so, unless I can secure name talent, a great composer, an ace sound designer, amazing supporting cast, a DP that is a master of light and shadow, a RED One or equivalent/better camera, I am going to go into it to make the best film possible, but at the same time with no illusions beyond "this is just for the love of it and for practice for whenever I become lucky enough to make it to the big leagues."

And whatever happened to the guy who did Primer?
 
Last edited:
Shane Carruth did Primer and to be honest, I don't know what the hell he's doing! He's been saying he's going to make this period romance film set against the shipping industry or something like that for the last five years. I actually think that Primer is so good that the moment he's ready to do something else, he'll basically be able to dictate the terms. Steven Soderberg said he'd produce anything the guy wants to do. There's probably five or six people like that with tremendous clout who want to see if this guy really has the goods, so they're willing to protect and shepherd his next project, and he basically can take as long as he wants. That's a pretty amazing position to be in.

I think the thing is that it doesn't matter if the IT industry moves in or who the money people are, the thing that ultimately dictates what gets made is the audience. I feel that films like The Dark Knight, There Will Be Blood, Assassination of Jesse James, Zodiac, and a few others from the last couple of years prove that great films can still be made within the system and the studios grant directorial power to those who deserve it. But the problem is that there's hardly any new blood getting in anymore. Not at the micro-budget level, anyway. Like I said, the last major 'in' who could write his own ticket that I know of is Shane Carruth with 'Primer'. 'Teeth' was made by the son of one of the most famous artists of the 20th century. 'Brick' had to have a budget of at least a million dollars and it had a boutique studio behind it. Not to say these aren't good films, but the lack of micro-budget indies breaking through the noise is disconcerting.

Meanwhile, there are a ton of amazing looking indies being made now that even have pretty excellent performances, but for some reason, it's not translating to a career as it might have at one time. What gives? Is it the movies or did something change on the inside? I definitely think festivals have started focusing more on films that don't have as wide an appeal as Primer, Pi, or Following, so I feel as though that might be part of it, and also, I'm not so sure anyone has made anything as good as those in the last few years. If they have, I wish they'd step to the front of the class... or that the teacher would call on them at least! Either the doors shut at the same time as the HVX came out, or the films hit a sort of stasis, where the focus went too far away from concentrating on a great story, which had to be the focus before HD since filmmakers couldn't afford 35mm and to hone a performance through multiple takes. I'm not sure what it is... like I said, I hope the cream still rises to the top, but what if it no longer does?
 
So much good stuff here guys! Really a great conversation...

And I must agree that I think writing is a better way into the industry, if you're good of course (but duh, right?), than just pumping out shorts and hoping for the best.

The simple reality, and Ryan just underscores this in a short but elegant and I find highly accurate post, is that nothing that isn't great is really going to take you anywhere. That's the best way to paraphrase what Ryan said. My DP went over this with me, talking about getting something into Sundance, which is not a goal that I aspire to right now anyway but he was speaking of a short he shot for another director (who has done good work, like worked on a PSA with Arnold, done some Warrior Wear commercials, etc., very talented director). He said it cannot be a good story, there are plenty of good stories, it has to be a GREAT story, and it can't look good, it has to look GREAT, technically there can be no imperfections as technical perfection is just assumed. It doesn't get you anywhere, it just means if your film is technically perfect, now its story can be properly evaluated.

The basic fact is that it's like a lottery, but you have some control over it. You don't have total control. For one because we all don't have unlimited budgets, but two because no matter how great your idea, you never know if the stars will align just right to make it come together as you believe it should. There are just so many films being made that you have to stand above them in a very noticeable way. It has to be apparent that you are a master of your craft, so we're talking like out of 100 films, yours is one of the 1-2 best. That's a pretty tall order. Being in the top 10-15% isn't that difficult, it just takes a professional with decent knowledge of story structure, honestly it's not rocket science, but then getting into that top 1 or 2% of all material being made, that's where it counts.

Because what's the difference between what I do and what an amateur does? Sure, I can get a music video into 17 film festivals and win a few Best Music Video awards, and maybe their music video gets into only 2 or 3 festivals and doesn't win anything. But at the end of the day, we're both still just making music videos as a hobby without getting paid by record labels to do it, so what does it matter? It's only that guy whose video won 4 or 5 major awards who really gets noticed. So it's not good enough to be 2nd best, basically.

The reason I feel like screenwriting is a great avenue is because you have essentially unlimited bullets left in the chamber to reload. If you write a script that didn't turn out that well, you can re-write it and hope to make it better, you can discard entire sections and turn it into something else, still hoping to make it better, or you can forget about it, toss it aside and write another. What did you lose? You lost a lot of your time, perhaps, but you didn't spend any money. If I make a short film, the way I want to make a short film, there goes $5,000 to $25,000, so it BETTER be good, because that's a LOT of money. If it's not good, it's an utter failure. If it's not very good to great, for that matter, it's a failure. It's acceptable to make mediocre work if you're spending $1,500, because it's not much money. Even if you're making $12/hr you can still justify $1,500 spent on a short once a year as just a hobby expense, like a skiier or a mountain climber or something like that. No biggie. But once you put up some real money, like $10,000, you better be getting somewhere with that film, it better not just be something you show to your parents and your friends, haha.

I came into this industry with at least some financial resources, but even so I only have a few bullets in the chamber. I can only afford to make a short here and there, before I have to be ready to try my hand at a feature, and I only have enough to make one ultra low budget feature ($125K let's say) before that's it for me. There wouldn't be a second attempt if that one doesn't get me somewhere. That's it.

Whereas with screenplays, you can spend about $65 copyrighting it and getting it registered with the WGA, then if it's good you can send it off to some competitions and festivals, but even if you spend $500 doing that, no big deal, because even if you write 2-3 scripts a year then you're still not spending too much, and if you're good you should be winning some cash prizes now and again to make up for some of the entry fees. But the great part is, you are putting yourself and your name out there, giving yourself more opportunities, yet not exhausting your financial resources.
 
Excellent post JonathanLB.

Something your post made me think about is how if you are writing a spec versus writing a script for a feature you will be producing/directing, potential budget issues and limitations aren't in the way. It is a lot easier to tell a great story if you can write whatever works best for the story, where as if you're doing a no to low budget feature or short, the whole damn time you have to be constantly thinking about "how the hell am I gonna pull this off?" Or, "I don't have the budget to do this pivotal scene properly, so then what do I do? Write a mediocre scene that fits the budget, or do the scene as written, yet it will come off as amateur and possibly ruin the entire film."

Also, being limited by indie film budgets immediately knocks out so many interesting topics across all genres that it can really be disheartening to have to write under these limitations.
 
Well that's very true, I mean the scope of what you can write about when you're trying to make a film for sub-$250K let's say versus what you can write about when budget is absolutely no concern is obviously a huge difference. The first is a tiny subset of the second.

That being said, I think there's still quite a bit you can do provided you have some budget at least. You may have to rule out filming in a full stadium, or filming a car chase, or a complicated action sequence, but you can still probably get away with a little of everything if you really need it. You could still do really good low budget action, if you have the ability. I have a few black belts, for instance, so at least I would know how to choreography simple action if I needed to do so, or could direct that type of thing easier on a lower budget I suppose without tons of experts. Then again I'm sure insurance would be higher and whatnot.

I've actually felt what you are saying a lot more on short films. I always feel so limited with shorts, almost like every time I come up with something I think, "Oh, that's 4 locations... I really can't do 4 locations, I don't think. Hmm... well... uhh now what?" I feel that it takes ten times as long to come up with a good idea that fits the budget as it would be to just come up with a good idea and a good script, without considering the budget. But for this feature script I'm writing now (just hit 55 pages tonight!), it hasn't been much of a concern. Most of the scenes are in simple locations, an apartment, a house, a few restaurants, a few offices, etc. Nothing overly complicated, so that's good. Even if someone said I had $20 million I wouldn't change much about the locations, because this is just basically where they should be.

It happens this story is fortunately not a high budget idea. But yeah, I had thought about with my next script, because I think it could be a variety of budget levels from probably $300K to $75 million, depending on talent, structure, etc., that I could basically write a few different versions. I mean a screenplay can usually be rewritten for a lower or higher budget to some degree, and provided I knew what higher budget scenes I could remove to replace with lower budget ones, or switching out more complicated, expensive locations with simpler ones, it'd probably be possible to adjust the budget as necessary.

If you are writing a spec. script to sell, though, I would think you'd want to keep it sort of middle of the road. I think if you write something that could only be done for $100 million, you may be showing yourself to be the kind of writer who doesn't know how to think like a producer, which can be very aggravating. As someone who has dealt with that type of writer before, when I was considering doing some producing with music video directors, it's always frustrating when someone doesn't realize what it costs to film what they write.

I think a good writer should absolutely have a producer's knowledge of film, rather than just thinking they are writing in a vacuum with absolutely no regard for what any of it really means in the real world. For instance, you should know when you have a child character, that costs more money than an adult, or when you have a night exterior, that costs more money than any other type of shot, or filming at an airport, or whatever it is, all of this should be considered. It doesn't mean you shouldn't do it anyway, but it's good to be able to be a bit realistic. There are a lot more production companies that could afford to buy a script for a film they could shoot for $2 million than for one that can only be shot for $70 million, haha.
 
I actually am not a big fan of Brick, but I did love the look of the film. I know where they were going, film noir set in a high school, and they pulled it off brilliantly, I just wasn't able to 'go' with it so much. Still, I'm amazed that Brick only cost a half million dollars. Wow... the look of that film was incredible for that kind of money. Even fewer excuses then! Now if I could just find that half million dollars... where the hell did I put it?

I tentatively agree that the cream still rises to the top. When I click on a trailer or a clip of some film that has been seeking distribution for a year and can't get into any major festivals and I'm BLOWN AWAY by what I see, then I'll change my mind. So far, that hasn't happened. Even the majority of the stuff coming out of major festivals (and I rent anything with those little festival winner labels, just to keep up) is usually somewhere between the "why would anyone who is psychologically healthy watch this?" and not bad/good categories... but never great.

The reason I say tentatively is that I think, as Nektonic said, that festivals have become increasingly based upon connections, nepotism, and whether or not you have a well known producer's rep. Would Shane Carruth be able to just blindly send off a DVD today and get into SXSW, let alone Sundance? I've seen some things (and there have been a lot of articles about this recently) that are beginning to make me think that's no longer the case.

Or, on the other hand, has indie film become so obsessed with the HD technology that filmmakers are no longer spending as much time on story? You would think that as soon as the HVX hit, you'd see an explosion of like five or ten filmmakers who had previously not been able to make it because of not having the tools at their disposal. But as I click on the umpteenth trailer or clip and see sort of the same thing (looks absolutely stunning, but what the hell is this about?) as all the other clips I've seen, I'm starting to wonder if it's us or them. And I believe that a technically perfect picture is nowhere near as important as performance, sound (always), and a great story. I'd still argue that you're more likely to get noticed shooting on grainy-as-hell 16mm black and white reversal film rather than top-of-the-line HD. Seems kind of dumb, but I think that dismissiveness of anything that isn't film is still there. At least for those of us on this side of the fence... Steven Soderbergh and Peter Jackson can shoot on whatever they like because they're on that side.

Maybe, in the end, it's a little bit of both. Even Amy Taubin, in her mumblecore tear-down, said that Sundance has become increasingly blind to emerging talent... and that was almost two years ago. That's not even to say that those mumblecore filmmakers aren't talented, I actually enjoyed some of those films or certain aspects of them (casting), but I think mainly what we're saying is that Hollywood just hasn't seen or doesn't seem interested in signing the next Aronofsky or Nolan, someone who made a great indie that could go on to do The Dark Knight and/or Memento, The Wrestler and/or The Fountain (is he still doing Robocop?)

What do you guys think? What is the major thing going on here, lack of quality/wide appeal in indies or festivals becoming more closed off to those types of films due to lack of connections/politically driven content? I mean, there hasn't been a micro-budget filmmaker that broke through in quite some time, and we used to see one every other year or so.
 
Hmm, honestly I'm not sure, but I think a lot of the time there should be some sort of distinction that goes beyond studio film and indie film.

I personally think the distinction is kind of frustrating because I might suggest four terms, not two, so studio picture, indie studio picture, indie picture, and financial indie picture. The main distinction here is that there are studio pictures that are basically "indie" in their storytelling and feel, they are like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, very peculiar film with an indie feel yet it has major star power. Then you have the regular studio film, like Transformers 2 or GI Joe or whatever, major films with major commercial appeal, or whatever romantic comedy of the day, etc. Then you have indie films, like you see in a festival, a $100,000 indie picture about whatever it is about. Then you have financial indie pictures, which are only indie because they aren't made by a studio, not because of their content.

There is a wrong-headed assumption that because a film isn't made by a studio, and is therefore indie, it must be indie in content. And it can be annoying for me as a filmmaker to associate with people I have nothing in common with just because we both don't have financing besides our own. I mean, I don't want to make "indie films," I want to make films with BROAD commercial appeal just like studio films, only with smaller budgets. There's no reason that cannot be done, you just can't make special effects extravaganzas. But you can absolutely make a romantic comedy, a comedy, a drama with more mainstream elements, etc. You don't have to make some weird esoteric thing and then sit around smoking a bong talking about how lame Hollywood is. I personally love Hollywood films, I'm mainstream, I want to make mainstream films, but I just don't have the big budgets they do.

Waaaaay too many indie films are just plain weird, and while this can work sometimes, it doesn't work often. Usually it means a film that is just not well structured or not well thought out. It's like part comedy, but wait it's part drama, it's really funny this scene, it's really serious this other scene, on the whole you're not sure what to make of it. The tone is inconsistent, etc. This is sold as being a quirky indie film, but really to me it's just a failed film because it has no clear tone. You can get away with saying anything is acceptable under the guise of it being "a quirky indie film" that doesn't need to obey typical rules. Fine. But just understand that audiences don't have to like it, either, and probably won't.

Some material is necessarily indie because it's niche oriented, like gay and lesbian films can do fantastic because there is a great market there, a very supportive, apparently educated "art" market to those kinds of films, and they are niche because most of us who are not gay really don't care as much about most of them. Yet they can be solid performers.

The types of things I see on the indie circuit are often too indie in content. I have no problem with their indie budgets, often they can achieve really great looks.

I just don't agree that you can't get a Hollywood looking film on a low budget. You absolutely can. So you can absolutely open up the mainstream audience with your film, if you so choose, or you can go the niche market path. But $150,000 is enough to make a romantic comedy, for instance, look just as good as The Breakup or any other film along those lines. What you're missing is major stars, union paychecks, unnecessary crane shots to establish a house (a RED on a jib will look great to most audiences, and is way cheaper, nobody is going to notice something like that if done well), etc. Your script must be careful but you can pull off fully professional results for mainstream audiences inexpensively now days. I guess it does take a lot of talent, but I would say more than that it just takes a well put together team of professionals who are passionate about the project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top