How I did it...

D

David W. Richardson

Chapelgrove Films
I'm writing a book -- small paperback, most likely -- all about how I was able to write and produce a unique feature-length movie ("Tangled Web") that we were able to shoot in just 3 days, on a budget of under $1500.

I plan to self-publish the book. Does this sound like the kind of thing you folks might be interested in? If I get enough interest here, I can do a DVXUser special price. Just let me know.
 
Most of us would certainly be interested and wish you the best of success. The caviat, however, is the success of the film itself. Shooting a feature in 3 days isn't the hook, nor is it even the quality of the feature. The key, I would think, is the marketability of that feature. May you enjoy all of that success...the success of your book will depend on it.
 
True. Though 'Tangled Web' might not be the only webcam-style concept out there. At any rate, it's about thinking outside the box sometimes. :)

(For the record -- no webcams were used in the making of "Tangled Web".)
 
I don't think Robert Rodriguez would have had success with Rebel Without a Crew if El Mariachi wasn't any good.

I'd love to see the trailer.

My first statement wasn't meant to sound like "I bet your feature wasn't very good;" I'm just reinforcing the points already made.

G'luck. :)
 
Truth be told, 'El Mariachi' wasn't groundbreaking. It was an okay story, told reasonably well on very little money. To be honest, though, I've wondered if 'Mariachi' would've gotten any notice at all if Rodriguez hadn't been Hispanic.

Don't get me wrong -- he's very talented and has gone on to do some really good (and successful) movies. I've just personally seen indie features that were a lot better than 'Mariachi', but went nowhere.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
Truth be told, 'El Mariachi' wasn't groundbreaking. It was an okay story, told reasonably well on very little money. To be honest, though, I've wondered if 'Mariachi' would've gotten any notice at all if Rodriguez hadn't been Hispanic.
Click to expand...
whaaaaaaaa ????????????? huh????????????????????????? seriously?
I've never once thought about the success of the film in relation to his ethnicity.

chapelgrovefilms said:
Don't get me wrong -- he's very talented and has gone on to do some really good (and successful) movies. I've just personally seen indie features that were a lot better than 'Mariachi', but went nowhere.
Click to expand...
  1. EL Mariachi was in the midnight screening at Sundance where fun is the key word not high art
  2. There's a distinct and fun voice here and a early raimi-esque use of the camera. It's no Citizen Kane. It's no Sex Lies and Video tape, but I saw it on the movie screen not knowing who Rodriguez was or anything about the films appearance at Sundance and I was entertained. Equally as entertained if not more than Sex Lies and Videotape (to randomly pick a more erudite break out Sundance indie to compare it to)
  3. This was pre-digital revolution, on the cusp sure, but still before it and way before 24p prosumer video. So it was a big deal that it was shot for $7k on film. (as it screened at Sundance, before the distributor put $35K into blowing it up to 35mm and remastered the sound.)
So the fact that its fun and entertaining, and there is a UNIQUE AND QUIRKY VOICE there , plus the marketing of how little it was shot on were the recipes for it success. I don't think it had much if anything to do with somekind of affirmative action.
......

Back to topic.

If this is a "webcam" type shoot I wouldn't be so interested in a book telling me how I could emulate it. The film may be excellent, but the gimmick is too specific. We can't all go make 50 webcam movies after you do it.
 
You may be right. It's just an opinion.

I still say, though, that I've seen a number of well done indie features that, in my opinion, were better than 'Mariachi', but they never got a second glance from the powers that be in Hollywood.
 
well its always a crapshoot as to what will catch on or not
also I think their was just less inundation at the time with tons of microbudget stuff
and along the lines of the "clear original voice thing" its easier for a entertaining film with bus top mariachi brawls shot in authentic Me-hico to stand out in the market place from really well done Sex Lies and Video Tape, or In the Bedroom, or You Can Count on Me type fodder - notice I said really well done - there are just so many of those well done acting vehicles with no stars attached that they will be hard pressed to stand out against something that is competently done that has a gimmick and some and an identity that you can see from a mile away, vs. close intimate scrutiny.

Like Brick is a good example. Well done movie. Helluva gimmick.
 
I can, but they were film festival entries, some of them, that have never made it beyond that point. And I mean entries into a small local film festival (though they weren't locally made). So I doubt you'd have heard of them.

Things like "When Miriam Spoke Out" and "Blue Shark Hash".

And one that DID get distribution (direct-to-video) and, in my opinion, SHOULD have gotten some buzz in the business, but so far has languished virtually unnoticed -- 'The Circle' with Angela Bettis.

Another is 'Strike The Tent', which was released on video (to zero fanfare) as 'The Last Confederate'. Beautifully done Civil War movie with (last I heard) a $5 million budget that the producer got from his own family. Several 'name' actors. Shot on 35mm film (I believe). No interest from Hollywood -- period. Never even got into theaters -- went straight to video.
 
You can also currently make a case for today's "mumblecore" films. Most of the filmmakers making these films are having to self-distribute their work, and get very little attention. And if you want to go further back, there's John Cassavetes, who went his entire life without ever being taken seriously as a filmmaker, and his work going unnoticed. Now he's appreciated more, but he's still regarded by many critics and industry types as "just an actor who screwed around with a camera with his actor friends".

I think it's true what Jack said, that a film has to have some kind of gimmick, or conceit, or name actors, to get any attention. Look at Blair With. It's a terrible movie, but Artisan hyped it like there was no tomorrow, with the whole "Three college students disappeared into the woods to shoot a documentary. Five years later, their footage was found". Even independent film has become so commercialized. It's near impossible for the indie "Cinderella" stories of the '90s to repeat themselves; Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, etc. Their films are entertaining, but it seems like they only got as much attention as they have because they're fun, crowd-pleasing movies with commercial appeal. The true art has always gone either unnoticed, or severely under-appreciated.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
You can also currently make a case for today's "mumblecore" films. Most of the filmmakers making these films are having to self-distribute their work, and get very little attention. And if you want to go further back, there's John Cassavetes, who went his entire life without ever being taken seriously as a filmmaker, and his work going unnoticed. Now he's appreciated more, but he's still regarded by many critics and industry types as "just an actor who screwed around with a camera with his actor friends".

.
Click to expand...

I never saw Cassavettes that way, and I don't know anyone who does. While it's true that his films were never widely released, they were usually well received critically, especially A Woman Under the Influence and Shadows. Many current filmmakers cite him as a strong influence.
 
Their films are entertaining, but it seems like they only got as much attention as they have because they're fun, crowd-pleasing movies with commercial appeal.
Click to expand...
That seems perfectly fair. A good & successful movie is one that pleases a lot of people (crowd), no? If a movie pleases only a handful of people, why should anyone want to invest in it? Why are great movies great? Because they please a lot of people. Indie filmmakers: Give us more crowd pleasers, please. Thanks a million.

Why would anyone want to make a movie that is not a crowd-pleaser? ???
 
Last edited:
Jim Brennan said:
While it's true that his films were never widely released, they were usually well received critically, especially A Woman Under the Influence and Shadows.
Click to expand...

A Woman Under The Influence and Faces were the only films of his to make any money or get any good reviews, really. Two of his eleven films. Husbands, Opening Night, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Minnie and Moskowitz, Love Streams were all totally disregarded, and panned by critics. And "Woman" and "Faces" didn't get any recognition until it was fashionable. He had to book theaters for "Woman" himself, pay for all the prints, advertising, etc. Most theaters wouldn't book the film, and it only got into the New York Film Festival after he convinced Martin Scorsese to threaten to pull "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" if they didn't screen "Woman". Shadows got great reviews in Europe, as just about all of his films did overseas. But in America he went neglected, and/or critically lauded. Sure, he's more appreciated now, and is a major influence on filmmakers (he's my biggest influence) but not a single one of his films wound up on either of the AFI's list of greatest American Films, and most of his films have never been distributed on video, laserdisc, or DVD (Love Streams and Husbands did have limited VHS releases, in butchered form). All of this appreciation has only occurred after his death.
 
seunosewa said:
Why would anyone want to make a movie that is not a crowd-pleaser? ???
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know, maybe some filmmakers was to challenge their audience, and make them think. And the ones that try and do both, usually have a really simple message that no one has to do any real critical thinking to "get". Take Crash for example. It parades itself as high art that's supposed to make you think, but it's point is so grade school and easy. Not everyone wants to put on a silly hat and dance around for people's pleasure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top