How do you judge a low-budget short film (or feature)?

[iamWZA]

Interesting and somewhat expected answers, but allow me to be stubborn for one more post, because I don't want to hijack this thread. I've heard those sorts of things said before, and always they are from people who are talking about a filmmaking process I'm not interested in. The traditional way to make a film as a director (would you agree?) is to have as much funding as possible, to have qualified people for every single job thinkable (including 'man who makes tea for people who want two sugars', 'man who supervises number of sugars put in tea' and 'man who checks there is a suitable number of sugar sachets' (who are all using up the money from the budget on jobs that either don't need doing, could be done by one person or could be done yourself)) and to act solely as the director. You have all the equipment you need and huge number of people working on the film.

If I were to be thrown into that from the experience I have, I'd probably commit suicide after the first day. I wouldn't have a hope in hell. But nowadays a film can be made with a small budget with professional gear, with a crew of yourself, your actors and one or maybe two friends who can help you out when needed. That's what I will do, and the way I am preparing for it is completely relevant. I shoot my friends, I direct them, I practise with the equipment...

I'm not so naive that I think it's going to be plain sailing. I know for sure I'll hit plenty of blips but I will be ready for them. And the end result won't be terrible in anyway, it may not be completely perfect but as long as it's pretty darn good I'm going to be happy.

 

[Kholi]

The traditional way to make a film as a director (would you agree?) is to have as much funding as possible, to have qualified people for every single job thinkable (including 'man who makes tea for people who want two sugars', 'man who supervises number of sugars put in tea' and 'man who checks there is a suitable number of sugar sachets' (who are all using up the money from the budget on jobs that either don't need doing, could be done by one person or could be done yourself)) and to act solely as the director. You have all the equipment you need and huge number of people working on the film.

Exaggerated but justified! xD I like when the tray of goodies comes around on a big set. Yes, this is the traditional way motion pictures are made and with very good reason.

If I were to be thrown into that from the experience I have, I'd probably commit suicide after the first day. I wouldn't have a hope in hell.

Experience changes that, I used to think the same thing. Again, justified, but like a lot of things in life, we tend to make them out to be worse than they really are or ever really will be.

Like talking to girls. =P

But nowadays a film can be made with a small budget with professional gear, with a crew of yourself, your actors and one or maybe two friends who can help you out when needed. That's what I will do, and the way I am preparing for it is completely relevant. I shoot my friends, I direct them, I practise with the equipment...

Nowadays if you aren't creating on thin budgets (even if you have major budgets) you're swiftly becoming irrelevant. Regardless, it still stands that if you aren't actually putting them in a position that demands results, delivering dialogue, hitting marks, then combining it all into one coherent piece then you really haven't begun.

Once you do that then you realize not only how it all works, but why it does (or does not), and I truly believe that there's nothing that can replace the experience of actually doing, or leading an entire project from start to delivery. Especially when you set out under the pretense of a goal--money, etc.

I'm not so naive that I think it's going to be plain sailing. I know for sure I'll hit plenty of blips but I will be ready for them. And the end result won't be terrible in anyway, it may not be completely perfect but as long as it's pretty darn good I'm going to be happy.

Confidence is important. Although I don't believe in luck, it's good to have some wished your way.

xDDD And if you have any confidence to spare, pass some my way.

 

[Cassius]

The people who are getting offended here are really missing the point. Go make your crappy film. I have no issue with it and I've made a ton of them. But I'm not arrogant or naive enough to think anyone here wants to watch them. There's a big difference between serious productions and practice. I learned from it and now I can get paid. That's how it's always worked, but thanks to easy distribution those little student level films are getting promoted like real ones.

As for holding out for something to be perfect, I did that once when I wanted to start making things. The project failed miserably and I later learned that I had gone about everything the wrong way. That's how I learned that failure is part of the process. So definitely make it as good as you can, but if it's a story you really think has long term potential and you really want to see happen perfectly I would recommend shelving it and writing something simpler to start with.

I'm also going to disagree with generic titles being a problem, because sometimes I don't even need a story. Some people do incredible things with basic concepts and action scenes that I'm happy to see with just a straight forward title.

 

[Barry_Green]

Go make your crappy film. I have no issue with it and I've made a ton of them. But I'm not arrogant or naive enough to think anyone here wants to watch them.

And therein is the difference. You understand (through experience) what David and Kholi have been saying. You've got to go out and do it in order to have done it and know what you're in for, but -- look, the first one IS going to be awful. Nobody springs forth from the womb knowing how to run. There's stumbling and tripping along the way. It's part of the journey and part of the learning process. When a baby tries to walk for the first time, they do awfully. It's natural, it's to be expected, you can't amass the skills to make a great film without making some not-so-great films first, just like you can't run marathons before you learn to walk.

So go make it. Just don't spend a lot of money on it, because it's going to be a learning exercise more than it's going to be a watchable opus. And there's nothing worse than seeing one of our forum members get themselves irretrievably in debt on a lousy film, because they "chased their dream". Understand that your first one is going to be awful, and budget accordingly.

That's how it's always worked, but thanks to easy distribution those little student level films are getting promoted like real ones.

Yes, and -- really, that's probably what led to the question that started this thread, don't you think? Now there's SO MUCH being made, and so much of it is awful, how do you know which ones to actually spend your time on? There's a big lesson in that, folks...

As for holding out for something to be perfect,<snip>, but if it's a story you really think has long term potential and you really want to see happen perfectly I would recommend shelving it and writing something simpler to start with.

Okay, there I will disagree, because this is a trap that *everyone* falls into. They get this genius glorious idea, which sets them on the path of wanting to be a filmmaker, and they don't want to ruin the genius idea so they come up with some other idea and try to do that, and it's awful, and then they try another and it's awful, and by that time they're broke and burnt out... and the genius idea never gets done.

I say go with the genius idea. Now. It's the one you're jazzed about, so go do it. But here's the thing -- if you do it and it turns out lousy, so what? That's okay -- this was your first crappy film anyway, right? The learning exercise that's going to have so many things screwed up on it, etc...

And once you have some solid experience, you can always remake your genius idea the right way. Christopher Nolan did. Sam Raimi did. Peter Jackson did. Once you know what you're doing, revisit your genius idea and do it "right".

Only, I don't think most of us will. Why? Because your genius idea SEEMS like a genius idea to you, most likely because you don't have that experience yet. In reality, when you have a healthy dose of experience, when you understand the ins and outs of storytelling, when you're an accomplished filmmaker, you'll look back on that "genius" idea and think "what was I thinking???"

If your idea is really really good, if your script is so amazing that you want to wait until you're a perfect filmmaker before attempting it, then stop everything right now and send your script to some talent agents. If it really is that great, they'll arrange for a studio to buy the script and make it into a top-notch film and you'll make a lot of money and launch your career. And if (as is more likely) the agents say "pass", then -- the idea probably isn't all that great and doesn't warrant all that attention. But it's still a project that YOU have passion for, so -- you should make it.

 

[Gary Huff]

So go make it. Just don't spend a lot of money on it, because it's going to be a learning exercise more than it's going to be a watchable opus. And there's nothing worse than seeing one of our forum members get themselves irretrievably in debt on a lousy film, because they "chased their dream". Understand that your first one is going to be awful, and budget accordingly.

I would argue that you should make a bunch of shorts first instead of a feature-length film. That way you get your learning in and only have to take up a few days of people's time who aren't getting paid instead of weeks and weeks.

Only, I don't think most of us will. Why? Because your genius idea SEEMS like a genius idea to you, most likely because you don't have that experience yet. In reality, when you have a healthy dose of experience, when you understand the ins and outs of storytelling, when you're an accomplished filmmaker, you'll look back on that "genius" idea and think "what was I thinking???"

I run into this over and over and over again. That's why you need to float your ideas to people who a) have taste and b) will give it to you straight instead of your friends/family who will tell you it's a great idea no matter what. This goes double if you have a script.

 

[tommygdawg]

I really agree with everything being said here, as a film maker, I agree. I have learned SO much by doing the past few years. Upon going into making my first film, I had amassed a bit of knowledge about film making from reading the forums, but I was nervous as all get out the first time I worked with actors and had to actually shoot a movie. In fact, I didn't direct the actors one bit! Luckily, I had competent actors who did OK without direction. For anyone who's interested, the film is on my site, it's called World View, feel free to tear it apart

All that said, I don't think the film was "terrible" or "awful" or something that turned out to be completely an exercise. I think it's possible to make a short film for your first that is actually okay. Is it going to be anything better than "okay" comparatively speaking to films from experienced film makers? No, I don't think so. Everything I've learned has been through doing. I've made a TON of shorts and I have learned everything from scheduling, prop making, lighting, shooting, working with actors, different methods for actors, the list just goes on and on. I'm still making shorts. I tried my first feature last fall, total failure. Total and complete. I abandoned the project.

Now? I'm moving into longer format shorts in addition to my usual short shorts. I'm not going to tackle an hour and a half or two hour movie until I'm confident I can tackle the 20 minute, the 30 minute, the 40 minute, the 50 minute, etc. I'm so much more confident in my abilities now while also being much more experienced in what I can get and also while knowing that I STILL have a metric nut ton to learn.

The topic question? I usually scrub through and look at the photography, acting, and audio. But I do try to watch and comment on a lot of short films, especially low/non-budgeted ones so that I can support the community that I'm very much a part of.

 

[David Jimerson]

Interesting and somewhat expected answers, but allow me to be stubborn for one more post, because I don't want to hijack this thread. I've heard those sorts of things said before, and always they are from people who are talking about a filmmaking process I'm not interested in. The traditional way to make a film as a director (would you agree?) is to have as much funding as possible, to have qualified people for every single job thinkable (including 'man who makes tea for people who want two sugars', 'man who supervises number of sugars put in tea' and 'man who checks there is a suitable number of sugar sachets' (who are all using up the money from the budget on jobs that either don't need doing, could be done by one person or could be done yourself)) and to act solely as the director. You have all the equipment you need and huge number of people working on the film.

If I were to be thrown into that from the experience I have, I'd probably commit suicide after the first day. I wouldn't have a hope in hell. But nowadays a film can be made with a small budget with professional gear, with a crew of yourself, your actors and one or maybe two friends who can help you out when needed. That's what I will do, and the way I am preparing for it is completely relevant. I shoot my friends, I direct them, I practise with the equipment...

I'm not so naive that I think it's going to be plain sailing. I know for sure I'll hit plenty of blips but I will be ready for them. And the end result won't be terrible in anyway, it may not be completely perfect but as long as it's pretty darn good I'm going to be happy.

Well, that's just it. The first time you do it, you won't be ready for the blips. You can't be ready for the blips. You actually won't even know some of the blips are happening until later.

I mean this constructively -- you are being naive. You are thinking you're going to be able to prepare for anything without even really knowing all that much about what goes into it. You simply will not have a good idea of what does until you actually do it.

You're talking about the equivalent of teaching yourself to play tennis with a couple of friends who also don't know how, hitting a ball around casually now and then -- and then thinking you can enter a competitive tournament and do well. No amount of watching, reading, and hitting around with friends is going to prepare you for that. You won't become proficient without lots and lots of actual playing against people who know how to play. And a lot of coaching.

I'm not trying to berate you here; I'm simply trying to get you to look at things realistically for the sake of your own learning.

 

[Egg Born Son]

Well, that's just it. The first time you do it, you won't be ready for the blips. You can't be ready for the blips. You actually won't even know some of the blips are happening until later.

I mean this constructively -- you are being naive. You are thinking you're going to be able to prepare for anything without even really knowing all that much about what goes into it. You simply will not have a good idea of what does until you actually do it.

You're talking about the equivalent of teaching yourself to play tennis with a couple of friends who also don't know how, hitting a ball around casually now and then -- and then thinking you can enter a competitive tournament and do well. No amount of watching, reading, and hitting around with friends is going to prepare you for that. You won't become proficient without lots and lots of actual playing against people who know how to play. And a lot of coaching.

I'm not trying to berate you here; I'm simply trying to get you to look at things realistically for the sake of your own learning.

So so true. I'm struggling with my first serious scripted effort for WarFest at the moment. I have made a few short pieces capturing activities, improvised snippets and special effects tests to learn the camera and do some basic editing but nothing scripted to date. Aside from the fact that Murphy has come out to play and everything is going wrong, everything from me being laid up sick in bed for three weeks (saved by the month extension to the deadline, I hope...) to having to replace an actor whose measurements I've already bought costumes for, to ebay props/costumes turning up the wrong size, wrong quantity or not at all... aside from all those issues and more... if anything the fact that I have overstudied the subject is holding me back right now. I have my mind too full of things I probably don't need to know yet and am concerned that I'm fretting too much over details and not enough over substance. Does my lighting need to be perfect? Can my lighting be perfect? Blocking, 180 rule, location sound, colour, lens selection argh, in the heat of the moment it's choking me - I really just need to shoot the damn thing and analyse what I didn't do after the fact.

My script that I was so proud of turned out to be a couple of pages too long, editing it down destroyed the balance and external circumstances have forced 9 rewrites and counting. The only thing going right is that I'm still on budget (doesn't this alone guarantee long term success?) and if the permission I got for my location gets reneged on or rained out (both likely since I've had to push back the shooting date) I can thankfully still afford to build sets without going over. In short no amount of study/tests or even planning will prepare you for the curveballs coming your way.

My next films will build on the errors of this one and those that follow and the resulting calmness of mind will be able to grapple with the million facets of filmmaking. I can't believe when I first bought my camera that I thought I could do a few tests then launch into a feature. Thankyou DVXUser for convincing me otherwise!

 

[tommygdawg]

So so true. I'm struggling with my first serious scripted effort for WarFest at the moment. I have made a few short pieces capturing activities, improvised snippets and special effects tests to learn the camera and do some basic editing but nothing scripted to date. Aside from the fact that Murphy has come out to play and everything is going wrong, everything from me being laid up sick in bed for three weeks (saved by the month extension to the deadline, I hope...) to having to replace an actor whose measurements I've already bought costumes for, to ebay props/costumes turning up the wrong size, wrong quantity or not at all... aside from all those issues and more... if anything the fact that I have overstudied the subject is holding me back right now. I have my mind too full of things I probably don't need to know yet and am concerned that I'm fretting too much over details and not enough over substance. Does my lighting need to be perfect? Can my lighting be perfect? Blocking, 180 rule, location sound, colour, lens selection argh, in the heat of the moment it's choking me - I really just need to shoot the damn thing and analyse what I didn't do after the fact.

My script that I was so proud of turned out to be a couple of pages too long, editing it down destroyed the balance and external circumstances have forced 9 rewrites and counting. The only thing going right is that I'm still on budget (doesn't this alone guarantee long term success?) and if the permission I got for my location gets reneged on or rained out (both likely since I've had to push back the shooting date) I can thankfully still afford to build sets without going over. In short no amount of study/tests or even planning will prepare you for the curveballs coming your way.

My next films will build on the errors of this one and those that follow and the resulting calmness of mind will be able to grapple with the million facets of filmmaking. I can't believe when I first bought my camera that I thought I could do a few tests then launch into a feature. Thankyou DVXUser for convincing me otherwise!

I SO feel your pain. You have no idea. I've experienced ALL of these things when trying to shoot even five page shorts. It's so frustrating and disheartening, but one thing it sure as heck teaches is patience and learning to come up with new ways to solve problems and being able to shoot a movie under loads of stress. Couldn't trade that for anything.

 

[Egg Born Son]

The biggest and most important lesson I've learnt on this one is trading artistic vision for completion. At least I hope I complete it in time, it's not 'in the can' yet! This film will look nothing like the amazing one I saw in my mind. But I have to realise that I'm learning and through compromise the vision will always be elusive. At this point I just want to submit, no matter how cringe-worthy. Giving up would be true failure. And some things have turned out right. I've realised I've been pretty on the money with my early gear purchases. Everything I've bought is proving useful and nothing I'm missing is causing problems. That's a good feeling.

 

[jghenderson]

I know it seems unfair-- a movie should stand on its story, not the visuals--

How is that unfair? Film is a visual medium. The visuals ARE the story. If a film has crap cinematography, then it fails as a film, plain and simple.

 

[Grug]

I think its actors/story that mainly is the true weakness - and biting off more than one can chew as a production - I would have a crack at a student flat based film or an abandoned shed film but explosions - I would not bother on a micro budget - because it will look crap.

I strongly disagree. I think the vast majority of the time it's the Directing and Editing that show up as the weakest links - mostly in a lack of cohesion (though arguably the editors are generally limited by the Directors not acquiring enough coverage of their scenes).

 

[sonofaresiii]

Interesting discussions all around. Allow me to weigh in on a few if you don't mind--

First-time directing: Hah. I remember my first few movies with outside actors (where you actually audition and cast someone you've never met, instead of just having your friend do the thing you need). Man, I was so scared. I'm by no means an actor's director-- I'd generally rather be left alone than have a conversation with someone-- and it's so intimidating seeing all these directing workshops, seeing actors' exercises and being told over and over what you can and can't say to an actor, and if you say the wrong thing they will break down and be completely useless.
Well, it's lies. That's what I learned. Actors are really good at acting-- that's what they DO. They're not just props standing around, waiting on you to move them like a puppet master. The most important thing is to understand how an actor wants to be directed, and most of the time they'll let you know. I've done everything from talking through deep emotional journeys with an actor, to saying buzz words to remind them of past experiences, to telling them "Louder! Angrier!" to just saying "Do the thing, you'll be great." We sometimes forget that an actor wants to do well just as much as we want them to... but they all communicate differently, and at the end of the day, it's just about transferring the vision in your head to theirs. There's no right or wrong way to do it.

As far as whether to make your Brilliant Idea into a movie, or shelve it for when you're ready-- I think it's a little of both. On the one hand, you have to honestly assess whether or not you can make your movie. CLOVERFIELD, AVATAR or INCEPTION don't happen unless you really know what you're doing. You can't blow up New York on no budget.

On the other hand, there's no such thing as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. If you have one great idea... you will have another. Don't get so caught up in thinking that this is your only chance to ever become successful ever-- if it really is, then what are you doing in this business anyway? So take your great idea, go make it into the best movie you can, and after that, take your NEXT great idea and make it into the best movie you can. Don't ever be afraid of not having another great idea. They're the easiest thing to come by in this business, and EVERYONE has one.

EVERYONE.
(By the way, don't tell anyone about your great idea until you've got something to show for it. I'm not talking about someone stealing it or ripping you off-- I'm talking about you being annoying. Everyone has an amazing idea for a movie, for a video game, for a comic book. Who gives a ****? Show me an amazing screenplay, don't tell me about an amazing idea you're totally going to make into a movie someday.)

Anyway, glad to see all the great discussions going on, even if I am hijacking my own thread! Let's add a twist to the original discussion: what ruins that short/student film for you, once you've already decided to give it your time? The cinematography looks good, the acting looks good, audio is good, you decide to watch and actually enjoy yourself... is there anything that's really going to blow it for you? Usually I'll let a badly lit scene slide if the rest of it looks good, or a wooden actor if the rest are solid... but what really kills it for me is the twist ending. That seems to be the basis of every short/student film ever... they don't really bother coming up with a good story, they just come up with a good ending and have 8 minutes of build-up, which REALLY makes me feel like I've wasted my time. For reference, see this film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhs8dKMTN4 which made the rounds a few years ago, or that short film... can't remember the name, where a guy steps into a town full of mannequins who move when he's not looking at them. Yeah, those kind of twist endings bug the hell out of me, but everyone else seems to love it.

Thanks for letting me ramble for a while! Back to the discussions.

 

[maranfilms]

(By the way, don't tell anyone about your great idea until you've got something to show for it

Couldn't agree more, as a director I hear it all the time, mostly from people that have no clue as to what goes into making a movie. I feel the sam though, if their idea is so great, then why isn't it on paper or something. I just roll me eyes, and am like yeah , huh!

 

[iamWZA]

The first time you do it, you won't be ready for the blips. You can't be ready for the blips. You actually won't even know some of the blips are happening until later.

Okay but these little things are always going crop up no matter how experienced you are. I don't think any film has been made where everything has gone exactly according to plan. Filmmakers are constantly having to adapt and try a new angle (not literally) when something awkward pops up. And masterpieces still get made that way. I'm not saying I'm going to make a masterpiece, but I don't doubt my ability to adapt to these things. I hope that doesn't come across as arrogance - I've got no reason to be arrogant, I'm just confident.

I'm not trying to berate you here; I'm simply trying to get you to look at things realistically for the sake of your own learning.

I know this, and as I've said I do appreciate it. I still think I can succeed but I always want to hear the opinions of people experienced in filmmaking.

Usually I'll let a badly lit scene slide if the rest of it looks good, or a wooden actor if the rest are solid... but what really kills it for me is the twist ending. That seems to be the basis of every short/student film ever... they don't really bother coming up with a good story, they just come up with a good ending and have 8 minutes of build-up, which REALLY makes me feel like I've wasted my time. For reference, see this film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhs8dKMTN4 which made the rounds a few years ago, or that short film... can't remember the name, where a guy steps into a town full of mannequins who move when he's not looking at them. Yeah, those kind of twist endings bug the hell out of me, but everyone else seems to love it.

Absolutely agree. For me, there are two breeds of short film, broadly speaking. One is the film with a twist to conclude, and the other is more of a character-based narrative that shows elements of a feature. I've seen both of the films you mentioned and wasn't impressed by either. The mannequin one - is that where the guy beats up the mannequins with a baseball bat and the twist is they're real people?

 

[craigbowman]

When I look at what novice filmmaker Faith Granger accomplished for $40k all I can do is sit back and smile. She continues to pile hundreds of thousands in pure profit into the bank as her four walling tour kicks sand into the face of lower tier distribution. While there are people who might have better skills in select areas, nobody I've seen from dvxuser comes close to following through on as wide a range of endevours as she has.

 

[iamWZA]

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

 

[David Jimerson]

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

Faith didn't wait until she thought she could do it perfectly, dude. She just went out and did it.

 

[sonofaresiii]

Absolutely agree. For me, there are two breeds of short film, broadly speaking. One is the film with a twist to conclude, and the other is more of a character-based narrative that shows elements of a feature. I've seen both of the films you mentioned and wasn't impressed by either. The mannequin one - is that where the guy beats up the mannequins with a baseball bat and the twist is they're real people?

Yep, that's the one. It was actually pretty interesting, until you get to the twist and it's just kind of a letdown. It was also kind of contrived-- he starts beating up the mannequins for no reason. They're not harming him, he can clearly escape anytime he wants... but out of nowhere he decides to smash the mannequins to pieces. Because if he didn't, then the twist wouldn't be as twisty! Eh.
One of the best short films I've ever seen-- and it's long for a "short" film-- is Successful Alcoholics. It doesn't rely on a twist or a punchline at the end to carry the movie. You see the same problem in a lot of big budget/feature films too, but somehow it's a raging epidemic in short films.

 

[sonofaresiii]

I don't know Faith Granger at all, but what I've noticed with a lot of these small-budget/major success stories is that... there's usually a lot more to the story than it seems. Almost always the person had great prior connections and tons of experience you just don't hear about.
Not knocking Faith Granger in the slightest, it's amazing what she's to have accomplished... just saying as a lesson, start building those connections and experience because you WILL need them, and by the time you're releasing your movie it's too late.