Is $10,000 indie feature possible ?

[David G. Smith]

I have to go back to the original question. Yes, as noted above, it is POSSIBLE to make an indie feature for $10K, but, as also noted above, that comes with some very big caveats. Now the second part of the original question, would this be a good idea as a showcase for your writing? That is a very good question. My first thought on that is, actually, probably not. A full feature length film, made for such little money is going to be chock full of compromises, which, if you are able to overcome, may not necessarily showcase your writing talent. Now, it just might, but I think that pulling off a $10k feature, that is well done and enjoyable, will be perceived as a triumph of some type of DIY techno-stylistic talent that you have, and not necessarily your writing ability. And to pull off a $10k feature, you are going to HAVE to have a unique DIY techno-stylistic talent.

I think that if you want to be noticed as a writer, then continue to write, and put your best efforts into that. If you have $10k to put into a film, you may want to write a killer short, and put your money into that. With a shorter film, that kind of money may go farther and have fewer of the compromises to deal with that jumping into such a small budget feature would have. When you are done with the killer short, shop it around to festivals and everywhere else you can, and when it is noticed take every opportunity to let everyone know that you have other projects that you have written.

Now that being said, if you have $10 grand and a script, and you really want to make a feature, then go for it. At the very least, it will be a great learning experience and will cost about the same as one semester at a big name film school. And in the end, who knows…..

And as noted above, don't expect to make that money back.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I think if there is any filmmaker out there that is in it for the money, then they don't get it.

 

[Batutta]

I think if there is any filmmaker out there that is in it for the money, then they don't get it.

I think you should qualify that with ONLY in it for the money. Nothing wrong with being in it for the money if you also have a true passion for the art form. Spielberg himself said he was chasing dollars early in his career, but you can't ever deny that he also had an immense passion for what he was doing.

 

[David G. Smith]

I think if there is any filmmaker out there that is in it for the money, then they don't get it.

That reminds me of an interview I read from Orson Wells, latter in his life, where he said that sticking with filmmaking was a mistake. He said that he could have probably been more successful by going back to the theatre, or literature or even politics. But that saying that staying with filmmaking was a mistake was like saying that staying with a specific woman was a mistake. I stayed with her because I loved her. (Paraphrased of course).

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Now that being said, if you have $10 grand and a script, and you really want to make a feature, then go for it. At the very least, it will be a great learning experience and will cost about the same as one semester at a big name film school. And in the end, who knows…..

And will undoubtedly learn more than the average film school grad !

 

[David G. Smith]

And will undoubtedly learn more than the average film school grad !

Absolutely. Now, I am a fan of education, but for filmmaking, hands on is where you learn. I took some film classes early on, but how I really learned from those classes was by borrowing the equipment, going out and making highly stylistic commercials and promo spots for a local (Detroit area) fetish leather shop, and sneaking back into the editing lab to cut, late at night, on the ¾” Umatic S/P editing system that they had FUed up and gave me an after hours key to. With THAT reel, my partner at the time and I were able to go out and get more business.

 

[Barry_Green]

The thing is, El Mariachi really isn't that good.

Not really, no -- but it's better than Desperado! :thumbsup:

Point is -- Rodriguez didn't just get some idea in his head that he'd go out and make some movie and make all sorts of money. He made film after film after film after film, dozens and dozens of them. In his book he likens it to learning to play the guitar -- when you learn to play the guitar, you practice until your fingers bleed. And that's what he was doing with his short films. And he was making award-winning shorts before ever biting off the big ol' chunk of trying to tackle a feature.

And yes, he had his budget and his expectations extremely low. His plan was to sell it to a Spanish TV station -- the rest is all a happy accident. But he went in with a reasonable plan, and a well-developed skillset. He already knew how to tell a story in pictures, because he was a somewhat-successful comics artist before even trying film.

Read his book, read about the years of development he put himself through before he ever took the wild ride to make El Mariachi.

Everyone wants to hold him out as an example of "see, it can be done", but how many folks are willing to walk the path he walked to make it happen?

You say he was lucky. Well, luck is when preparation meets opportunity. And he'd been preparing himself for YEARS.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Yes !

Great post Barry.

RR did indeed pay his dues. He was making films with VHS when we were all lamenting the cost of S16.

I love RR but he is kind of a hack; Sin City and PT being his best works to date IMO. (and I do love these films)

 

[Barry_Green]

And will undoubtedly learn more than the average film school grad !

Sure, about the low-level technicals. You'll learn about filmmaking, the same way that a construction worker learns about housebuilding.

But what about the architecture? What about the design, and the grading, and the soil tests and all that stuff that happens, that has nothing to do with swinging a hammer? Where are you supposed to learn all that?

That's the equivalent of all the stuff you don't learn on set.

I don't care whether someone goes to film school or not, but if they want to do this thing right, they've got to learn all that stuff. Spend a couple of years reading every book published, or go to school, your choice, but ... all that stuff has to be in place. People gotta spend time on set, yes -- but they also have to spend a whole lotta time in books, in classes, in seminars, watching and reviewing films, directors' commentaries, all sorts of stuff. Kind of like the stuff you've been doing for years -- if someone wants to be a director, and they skip all that hard work, well...

 

[Barry_Green]

I love RR but he is kind of a hack; Sin City and PT being his best works to date IMO. (and I do love these films)

He's hit-and-miss, but when he hits, it's pretty fantastic. I thought Planet Terror might have been his best... heh. And the first Spy Kids ruled the box office for something like eight weeks in a row, and you could just see the passion for him, because it was "bedhead" all over again, working with kids, making silly fun kids movies, just like all those shorts he used to make.

 

[Gary Huff]

Write a bunch of scripts, and use that $10,000 to make a great short. If you want to be making a living in the filmmaking business, that's the best way to start.

 

[Batutta]

Read his book, read about the years of development he put himself through before he ever took the wild ride to make El Mariachi.

You say he was lucky. Well, luck is when preparation meets opportunity. And he'd been preparing himself for YEARS.

I read his book, probably the day it came out. You didn't really read my post. I said he only intended to sell it to the Spanish market. I said because of his experience he was able to capitalize on his opportunity. My point was that because of his incongruous success, you have people out there thinking they only have to make a film as good as El Mariachi and you're going to get a movie deal. That's just not so. He WAS very lucky to have been recognized for his film, which isn't that good. He was just the right guy, with the right film, at the right time. That is luck. Everything that happened after was because of his ambition and talents.

 

[filmman]

Hi Randall~ You seem like a sincere fellow, so I'll take a shot at this thing one more time.

The answer to your question is yes. I have done it. I have done it for less and I have done it for more.

$10,000 is a lot of money. So keep that in mind. It's a lot of money to waste ... for anyone, even a millionaire. (A millionaire told me that personally when I asked him to invest $10,000 to finish my first 35mm feature film. It's a great story. I might put it on my next book on filmmaking.)

It appears to me that you don't mind spending $10,000 just to get noticed or to possibly get your feet wet in the business of making indie features, and I sincerely admire your feelings about it. I feel that you've been inspired by some of the people on this user group to ask such a question and are ready to embark on your first feature film -- if only it were possible. ... Yes, you've been told by many people now that it is possible, and the discussion here has been excellent. So go ahead and do it -- really. You will get out of it what you stated in your opening statement in this thread.

1) Let me caution you though; you won't recover your money. It will be a one in ten million shot that you do. The reason is: it costs at least $20,000 to market a small indie feature film these days. And obviously you don't have or you are not going to be willing to spend $20,000 on marketing a film that you shot for $10,000. But you will probably be able to get it into a festival. You should save about $2,000 of that money to pay to a festival director to include your movie. So you should really make it for $8,000. But this is just one possible scenario for being able to at least get a screening for your movie; otherwise you will only be able to make DVDs and send them around, and maybe no one will watch them or give you feedback. There is not much production value that you will get for a $10,000 movie. If you did, the movie would fall into that one in ten million dollar category.

2) Break down the script very wisely, researching every expense that you will incur. Make sure you shoot the opening and closing sequences of your movie first. If disaster strikes, you will be able to fill the middle part with pulp.

3) Schedule your movie wisely. Shoot both opening and closing of your movie in the first day.

4) Make sure you don't use SAG actors, because it's impossible to do even an ultra low budget SAG contract movie for $10,000.

Good luck with the movie.

 

[Barry_Green]

My point was that because of his incongruous success, you have people out there thinking they only have to make a film as good as El Mariachi and you're going to get a movie deal. That's just not so.

No, I got all that. My point was that even though El Mariachi isn't really great, it was entertaining, and it took an incredible amount of preparation before he was able to make something that was entertaining. And we have people thinking they can make a film just as good, and that's simply not so. The evidence is overwhelming.

So, yes -- prepare yourself as thoroughly as Rodriguez did, and maybe you can make a film as good as El Mariachi. And then become one of the hundreds of decent films made every year that are starving for any sort of recognition. Yes Rodriguez got lucky, but come on, he also won the Grand Jury prize at Sundance, and that helps your luck along the way...

 

[Batutta]

RR won the audience award, no small feat, but I mostly agree. I think what he did was more impressive in 92 than it would be today, when there are more tools at young filmmakers disposal.

 

[Barry_Green]

Right, audience award, not grand jury award.

But I don't know how it'd be any more impressive then vs. now, what do the tools have to do with it? I'd still watch El Mariachi over 99% of the stuff that's being made today with better tools...

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Our, the viewer's, ignorance propped RR's success as he simply did what was popular in Mexican culture -- the cheapo gangsta' film. And it just happened that some uneducated festival director assumed that to be an original idea and... the rest is history.

 

[Gary Huff]

And I think most people have it backwards when they think that these films paved the way for similar ones. It did quite the opposite actually.

Case in point: The Blair Witch Project. This film did not open up a way for films shot in this way to enter into the mainstream. Hell, even the sequel was a conventional film (with a budget of $15 million and none of the original filmmakers having anything to do with the production other than a trite "Producer" credit). In fact, it was ten years later that anything like that film came out in theaters again. And, in a case of history repeating itself, the sequel to Paranormal Activity will be shot like a typical film with a much bigger budget and none of the original filimmakers returning to any substantial role.

Have you heard of such movies as The Strand, Believers, Solstice, and The Objective? I haven't. This is what the filmmakers from Blair Witch went on to make. The budget for The Objective was $4 million. Nothing to sneeze at, but still low-budget standards. Congrats to these guys and their success, but their film earned $248 million dollars worldwide and this is where they ended up.

People need to open their eyes. Make films, yes, God yes. But make good films that you enjoy making and viewing, not some embarrassing waste of space. And don't think you're going to be the next big thing on some $10,000 film.

One final thought: Reservoir Dogs had a budget of $1.2 million. Small yes, but far, far larger than $10,000. And have you ever heard of it's director, Quentin Tarantino?

 

[Batutta]

Right, audience award, not grand jury award.

But I don't know how it'd be any more impressive then vs. now, what do the tools have to do with it? I'd still watch El Mariachi over 99% of the stuff that's being made today with better tools...

The action in the movie in relation to how much it cost to make was impressive for the time, especially being shot on film. Now, there are so many cheap digital tools to fake that stuff easily, and any noob with a DVX can make a film that looks at least as good, cinematography-wise. I'll give RR this. The editing in the movie is great and raises it a notch or two above the usual zero budget indie fare.

 

[Barry_Green]

Granted on that, yes, given the budget, the action is quite impressive, and there's no fake digital bullet hits and whatnot...