omb feature film

I actually shot a feature in 3 days, but it was designed to be done that way -- the whole story was seen from the POV of just 3 'webcams', so the lighting, camera and sound positions were pretty fixed. Each scene was shot in real time, and I was fortunate to have actors who didn't flub their dialogue or make significant mistakes.

I could have done the whole production end myself, but it would have been a lot more work for no good reason. Our crew was minimal, but their help made it a whole lot easier for me to focus on producing and directing. I still maintained complete artistic control, being both producer and director. I also edited.
 
The reason to do everything is to provide some authenticity to the film. Old Hollywood knew how to present a completely contrived experience in a convincing way that appeared authentic. For various reasons, today's filmmakers, including Hollywood, cannot. When you have 15 - 35 people on the set, all hired as independent contractors brought together for the film, only the strongest director can impose a personal vision. With a OMB or tightly-knit 2 or 3MB, a single vision is possible, because the same person, or small group stays together as a company. For example, I don't have to hire a sound person. I have found a way to get good sound on a small film. If and when the scope increases with financial success, then I can think about bringing on another person who would do sound and whatever else they know how to do or learn. I don't think you have to burn to make good films. I got into this, because I could not find anything worth going to see, so I decided to make my own. I have successfully operated against the conventional wisdom (CW) in other fields of endeavor. Time will tell whether or not I can do it here.
 
Curtis Mack said:
The reason to do everything is to provide some authenticity to the film. Old Hollywood knew how to present a completely contrived experience in a convincing way that appeared authentic. For various reasons, today's filmmakers, including Hollywood, cannot. When you have 15 - 35 people on the set, all hired as independent contractors brought together for the film, only the strongest director can impose a personal vision. With a OMB or tightly-knit 2 or 3MB, a single vision is possible, because the same person, or small group stays together as a company. For example, I don't have to hire a sound person. I have found a way to get good sound on a small film. If and when the scope increases with financial success, then I can think about bringing on another person who would do sound and whatever else they know how to do or learn. I don't think you have to burn to make good films. I got into this, because I could not find anything worth going to see, so I decided to make my own. I have successfully operated against the conventional wisdom (CW) in other fields of endeavor. Time will tell whether or not I can do it here.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand this. When I look at movies from 'Old Hollywood', they seem LESS authentic to me than the movies of today. What Old Hollywood movies are you referring to?
 
In my 12 years of making films, my principal role has been as the producer. And as the producer, I find (or more often write) the script -- the story that I want to tell. I then pull the resources together to make the film, which includes hiring cast and crew. I find a director who shares MY vision for the film. I stay involved, and everything that's done is aimed toward bringing to life my vision -- my film.

I delegate, I don't abdicate.
 
Last edited:
Curtis Mack said:
The reason to do everything is to provide some authenticity to the film. Old Hollywood knew how to present a completely contrived experience in a convincing way that appeared authentic. For various reasons, today's filmmakers, including Hollywood, cannot. When you have 15 - 35 people on the set, all hired as independent contractors brought together for the film, only the strongest director can impose a personal vision.
Click to expand...

Uh??? Old Time Hollywood crews were 'casts of thousands'... Here's a photo from an 'old' Hollywood production, I count about 10 people of the crew just for this one shot (there was probably an army's worth of people not scene in this BTS shot... there may be a couple of actors waiting around for their part in the scene... also note the size of the camera (fully blimped...) and the size of the light... on a trailer...

kane_clip_image002.jpg
 
Curtis Mack said:
I have successfully operated against the conventional wisdom (CW) in other fields of endeavor. Time will tell whether or not I can do it here.
Click to expand...

I like the cut of your jib!

Curtis Mack said:
With a OMB or tightly-knit 2 or 3MB, a single vision is possible, because the same person, or small group stays together as a company.
Click to expand...

You are not alone in liking to work with as small a crew as possible - Herzog is another famous example. However, I'm not sure in his case it is down to the issue of "a single vision", so much as practicality - he finds it, understandably, much easier and faster to work with a minimalistic crew; he claims that when the crew grows, efficiency drops dramatically and you start having the majority of people sitting on their a$$ets most of the time, as only a given specialist is working at the moment ("hurry up and wait") - of course, the even worse scenario is on union shoots where it used to become absurd, because you had a "special guy" demanded by the union for every little thing ("cable guy") where nobody else was allowed to touch this or that little thing, or you could carry something up to a point and then union regulations demanded that you hand it over to the next "special guy" to carry something else. But we're not even talking about absurd situations like this - on location, especially remote location, Herzog would often take off with just the camera guy or camera and sound guy and sneak off in the morning before the rest of the crew woke up, and he'd be ahead by an hour and already working and getting stuff while the other guys in the crew missed the transport car which he took. He just likes working super minimal crew - it's more intimate, it's more immediate, it feels more "authentic" and less polished/staged, and basically more people just get in the way tripping over each other and waiting on each other. So - much sympathy for minimal crews.

However, that said:

Curtis Mack said:
For example, I don't have to hire a sound person. I have found a way to get good sound on a small film.
Click to expand...

That's like saying: I found a way to generate perpetual energy :) - I mean, if you have, man, you found the Holy Grail. This is the biggest technical challenge for indie films, and I have not found a solution, personally - I default to my wife (who is NOT a pro sound person!) who sort of fills in the sound person role, but man, I'd love to be able to afford a full sound crew. Love to. I totally hear you on the minimal crew thing, but I guess the one area I'd splurge on, given the budget, would be on sound. But if you found a way - then I take off my hat to you, and I'd take off my wig if I had one.

I'm not sure I can go along with the "personal vision" thing though. It is the job of the director to assure the film has artistic integrity, unity of purpose and a personal stamp - having a bigger crew, or delegating a job should not result in loss of artistic control. I mean, if I have a DP, I'd discuss in detail what it is that I want, and then check that it's what I get and so on for the rest of the crew... of course, I DP my own stuff due to budgetary issues, but I don't think you can excuse lack of control and organization and blame that for not being able to get what you need from your crew. After all, you don't act all the roles in your film, and the actors are probably the biggest variable in getting your result - acting is easily the most important factor in making a movie work or not, next to story - so it's silly to insist on doing craft services yourself because "vision" while your actors are going to be what makes or breaks your film. Even the script need not be by you, and the resulting film can have your unmistakable personal vision - plenty of directors are able to pull it off.
 
Don't know Curtis Mack but some of his solutions to sound may be as simple as recording actors after the take (burn notice would for some scenes do ADR on set in a special trailer). I believe they write about the same technique in the book making films at used car prices (not sure of exact title). Maybe he's dropping the boom into frame and taking it out in post. Maybe hes doing tons of post work on the sound. Maybe all his characters have voice boxes, don't know but it sounds like he's found a level of quality that works for his films. It might not be a level that others find acceptable but it sounds like he's happy with it, so great.
 
yeah never take people at their word for this kind of stuff. if someone ELSE says "his films sound great!" thats one thing. when its the creator saying it...have doubts. that goes for script, quality of acting, etc. no offense but its true. we are nowhere near objective enough to talk about our own projects that way. best you can say is "i THINK i get good sound/have a great script/etc." anything else is highly suspect.

as for only being able to keep a singular vision by keeping the crew down to 1-3 people, thats silly. the singular vision comes from one person ultimately being in charge of everything, rather than focus grouping it to decide things and letting 20 people have input on the final product (the way a corporate video is often produced).
 
I made a micro-budget feature awhile back with essentially three crew members (we had a couple scenes we shot with some extra grips), and I don't think I would do it again! I'm all for small crews....but a small crew is different than a SMALL crew.

Despite that, it was a great learning tool. If you go into it with the notion of learning alot, and maybe getting an OK movie out in the end then go for it!
 
I have yet to see a film made by a genuinely tiny crew (eg. two or three people) where I haven't been massively distracted by the piss-poor production values.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top