I attended a local horror film festival the other day. The films ran the gamut in production values as far as both sets, wardrobe etc. and camera and lighting. A couple were very "videoy" and not cinematically lit. There was light and you could see the actors but no style to the lighting at all. They seemed to be shot on some sort of small censor video camera.
Most were in the middle. The lighting was generally not awesome but a little bit more cinematic and they appeared to be shot on a camera that made them look less videoy, probably a DSLR of some sort. A couple were high end. The lighting was excellent, the picture looked very high quality, maybe a DSLR shot by someone that really knew how to get everything out of it and all the right lighting, but probably something nicer, maybe a Red something like that.
The rest of the production values seemed to be pretty much in line with the image quality. Poor image quality videoy looking short films had no wardrobe design, no set design, and the sound was poor, no J cuts in sound, noticeable buzzes and hums that came on and off as you cut between actors, etc. The middle films had some props, wardrobe but not much, some more FX, the sound was a bit better. The top end productions had everything, great sound, nice locations/sets, and more camera moves, dollys, jibs, etc.
What struck me was that the entertainment value, at least to me, was totally unrelated to the production value. The most entertaining films were in teh middle. But, if they had been high end or lower end productions, they would have been just as entertaining. The ones that were bad were bad regardless of production value. It was a horror film festival so some of them were bad in a good way, as in delightfully schlocky, but some were just bad.
I will say the most "videoy" productions were a bit distracting. After watching a few more or less "cinematic" productions it was just kind of Bang! in your face, look at this video look on the big screen! But that wore off quickly and then I enjoyed it (or not) like the rest.
Also some of the high end productions were a bit jarring. It was like, wow, look at this really high end location, horses, dolly shots, beautiful lighting, period clothing, actually quite decent acting, for this mildly entertaining at best crappy story. It just felt kind of pretentious. I felt like they would have actually been more entertaining if they had way less production value and had not tried to look just like Hollywood. It would have at least given them some character. For some of the middle of the road production value pieces the poor fx, lack of wardrobe, passable or bad but not annoyingly bad acting actually gave them some charm and was part of what made them entertaining.
So maybe this pertains more to the horror genre but I was just really struck by the way that the quality of production seemed to have very little impact on which films I found entertaining. The middle of the spectrum productions had decent angles (most of the time not always) and there were no unintentional jump cuts or anything, but it wasn't Stanley Kubrick style cinema and they weren't even trying for anything like that. It was mostly wide, close, pan, get the actors on teh screen and tell the story and it just totally worked when the actors were having fun and the story was engaging.
Most were in the middle. The lighting was generally not awesome but a little bit more cinematic and they appeared to be shot on a camera that made them look less videoy, probably a DSLR of some sort. A couple were high end. The lighting was excellent, the picture looked very high quality, maybe a DSLR shot by someone that really knew how to get everything out of it and all the right lighting, but probably something nicer, maybe a Red something like that.
The rest of the production values seemed to be pretty much in line with the image quality. Poor image quality videoy looking short films had no wardrobe design, no set design, and the sound was poor, no J cuts in sound, noticeable buzzes and hums that came on and off as you cut between actors, etc. The middle films had some props, wardrobe but not much, some more FX, the sound was a bit better. The top end productions had everything, great sound, nice locations/sets, and more camera moves, dollys, jibs, etc.
What struck me was that the entertainment value, at least to me, was totally unrelated to the production value. The most entertaining films were in teh middle. But, if they had been high end or lower end productions, they would have been just as entertaining. The ones that were bad were bad regardless of production value. It was a horror film festival so some of them were bad in a good way, as in delightfully schlocky, but some were just bad.
I will say the most "videoy" productions were a bit distracting. After watching a few more or less "cinematic" productions it was just kind of Bang! in your face, look at this video look on the big screen! But that wore off quickly and then I enjoyed it (or not) like the rest.
Also some of the high end productions were a bit jarring. It was like, wow, look at this really high end location, horses, dolly shots, beautiful lighting, period clothing, actually quite decent acting, for this mildly entertaining at best crappy story. It just felt kind of pretentious. I felt like they would have actually been more entertaining if they had way less production value and had not tried to look just like Hollywood. It would have at least given them some character. For some of the middle of the road production value pieces the poor fx, lack of wardrobe, passable or bad but not annoyingly bad acting actually gave them some charm and was part of what made them entertaining.
So maybe this pertains more to the horror genre but I was just really struck by the way that the quality of production seemed to have very little impact on which films I found entertaining. The middle of the spectrum productions had decent angles (most of the time not always) and there were no unintentional jump cuts or anything, but it wasn't Stanley Kubrick style cinema and they weren't even trying for anything like that. It was mostly wide, close, pan, get the actors on teh screen and tell the story and it just totally worked when the actors were having fun and the story was engaging.
