"Closure" feature shot with DVX100a.

D

DCD3 Films

New member
Hey everybody,

Check out the new feature film "Closure". It was shot for $25,000.00 with the DVX-100a. The film was shot as raw as possible, natural lighting and a stock camera. This is a first time feature for director Douglas Downing III.

Here's the info on it.

imdb page - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810803/
official web site - http://www.closurethefilm.com

Trailer 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzeMV4F2-YQ
Trailer 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx6igPESyz4
Trailer 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cw1_Y7QfOM

Brief Synopsis,

For the average twenty-year-old college male, "Spring Break" is a time to "cut it loose" and "get wild". No matter what the destination is, heavy drinking and plenty of irresponsible behaviors are on the horizon, but not for "LUKE WISER" our twenty-year-old main character. For Luke he will spend "Spring Break" driving to his hometown to confront the man that sexually abused him as a child.

Also make sure to check the fall issue of filmmaker magazine, there's an article about closure in the In Focus column. Closure will be hitting the 2007 festival circuit.

I hope everyone is well,

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
yo DC if it was shot raw were did the 25,000 go what you spend 25,000 on ??????????

peace n luv

Mark Dog
 
The money was mostly spent on actors, (sag ultra low budget) feeding the actors, giving the actors a place to stay, other crew. Other equipment. A composer for the original score.

It was a twenty day shoot. Considering all of that, $25,000.00 goes fast and is not that much.

As for no lighting equipment that was the directors decision. He just wanted to use the natural environment.
 
Last edited:
k, i think u spent to much , u could used talented non union actors and at 25,000 u could bout an hdv camera or 2 dvx for an a and b camera and made at least 2 or 3 movies i think 25,000 way to much i think

peace n luv

Mark Dog
 
$25K and you have it uploaded through youtube?:huh: :shocked:


EDIT: AND no lighing?! I think you guys put your money in the wrong places. I wish the best for you, though. Good luck with it.

-brown
 
Last edited:
Mark Dog said:
k, i think u spent to much , u could used talented non union actors and at 25,000 u could bout an hdv camera or 2 dvx for an a and b camera and made at least 2 or 3 movies i think 25,000 way to much i think

peace n luv

Mark Dog
Click to expand...

25K is definitely not "too much" for a 20 day, feature shoot. It actually sounds like a very tight budget for that long of a shoot schedule.
 
As a DP myself, I cannot stress the importance of lighting. From the cinematographers point of view...I dont understand how he couldve stood back and let the film be shot with "natural lighting" and hoped to get a decent picture out of it all. To be totally honest, I felt the screengrabs on the site were average. Many of them had blown out highlights or areas that were peaking, and several seemed soft in focus. I also wasnt too fond of the compositions...Did the director shoot this himself? Best of luck with what you guys got. Maybe prepare more of a production setup next time around.
 
Hey Everybody,

Thanks for the feedback. But like I said before, everything was done for a reason in this film. The director went for a raw look. Yes he did shoot this himself. And this film had to be shot sag low budget because of it's original arrangments. The film had a much larger budget but because of the subject matter people dropped out. So the director was tired of waiting and financed it himself with one other person. And as for youtube, we are using it for viral marketing.

This is also a dialogue driven film so the director is not trying to impress anyone with any shots. He chose the dvx100a because its a cheap camera and you can get a good look without really having to do anything.

So please look out for Closure in the 2007 festival circuit and it's 2007 fall theatrical release.

For more info check out the fall 2006 filmmaker magazine. There's an interview with the director that tells the whole story of closure and where it has come from. The film has been well recieved so far and got the director a much larger budget for his next production "Tommy Fat".

The beauty of independent filmmaking is you don't need to wait for anyone ,you just do it. In this case it was done and it has paid off. So please feel free to ask any questions, but keep in mind I am not the director or a producer, i am just a messenger. I will answer them as best as I can.

I hope everyone is well,

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
DCD3 Films said:
The beauty of independent filmmaking is you don't need to wait for anyone ,you just do it. In this case it was done and it has paid off.
Click to expand...

Good point. Sometime's I forget that... it's a shame.
 
i still stand 25,000 k is to much they did a movie called primer shot on 16mm not video no less for 7,000 , wish u luck on ur film though

peace n luv

MarkDog
 
Hey Mark,

Glad to see your interest. We are aware of the film primer. Primer did not have a large cast and was not sag, also the actors were not paid. All the money went to renting equipment and buying film. Primer was also not a difficult movie to make and was only 80 minutes long. Also, it cost $28,000.00 to blow up primer to 35mm so it could play at sundance. We appreciate your concern but $25,000.00 was nothing. The film was originaly budgeted at $500,000.00 so you see how we had to cut a lot of corners when all wee ended up with was $25,000.00. I am sure you have heard of clerks, cost $27,000.00 to make back in 94, we can have the same discussion about that film and primer. Overall primer and closure are in two different situations. there is a long story behind closure. If you'd like to learn more please read the interview with the director in filmmaker magazine.

Again, I feel independent filmmaking is a beautiful thing and I enjoy speaking about it.

I hope all is well,

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top