Oscar, Sundance, Cannes, etc. Short Films (The Cinematography)

[DDirector]

Watching many nominated and winning short films from the Oscars, Sundance, Cannes, and many other film festivals, it got me thinking.
What exactly makes these films winners compared to the other films?​

I love the look of indie films. Budgets of around $250,000 - $2,000,000
Its a different look and feeling that doesn't scream Hollywood. Its not seen as often, but seen way more often in the festivals.

I was watching some trailers to find some examples.
A great one I found was 'Like Crazy'. According to IMDB, budgeted around $250,000.

These films look great. They dont look like Hollywood big budget films and they don't look like amateur films.
Even the very intro shot, you can tell.

I've noticed that most of these films are shot handheld. So its more in-your-face, realistic.
Many of the scenes look very naturally lit and not artificial to make it look beautiful. I cant explain. It looks great! but not Hollywood great.
Many dark scenes with great lighting

So, in terms of Cinematography, what makes these films film festival nominations or winner?
If they judge a film for its cinematography, would you have some tips?


0:07-0:11 -- Very indie look. Handheld. A little over exposed, but I like it!
0:20-0:24 -- Natural low lighting
0:35-0:41 -- Outdoor low lighting

*In terms of the story, please visit this link:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...Films-(The-Story)&p=1986357378#post1986357378

 

[Awesome Box]

Indie films are made with more creative freedom because they don't have Studio Executives dictating what the final film will become. Because the Director is given more freedom and in many cases final cut on these types of films they are more open to developing the story in a specific way that works for their target audience. Hollywood Blockbuster films are aimed to please a larger audience and thus the people paying for them usually have full control over what the film becomes. The freedom of making a film for a specific audience allows the Director and DP to take greater risks and do unconventional things. In the Hollywood system the Studio Execs like to minimise risk as they want to make their money back and will stick to the normal conventions.

I've worked on a bunch of indie films and even had the chance to shoot a low budget indie. And what I was allowed to do with the camera and lighting on that type of set wouldn't be allowed on a larger budget film as it was highly risky and could have quite possibly not have worked and left us without a film. Fortunately enough, my ideas whilst unconventional ended up adding to the film and giving the characters and story so much more depth. The film would have been very different indeed if there had been less control given to the Director and myself, but because we didn't have to answer to Investors, Studio Executives or Executive Producers we were able to play with our ideas and ultimately invent a different way of doing things.

Also the budget can play heavily on what the style of the film will become. With indie films, budgets are considerably lower and as such schedules shrink in order to conserve money. This means that setting up complicated Dolly, Jib, SteadiCam or Aerial shots becomes time consuming and thus opting to go handheld is sometimes the quickest and easiest way to get the shots done. Hollywood has the privilege of both time and money, something that indies don't have a lot of. It is pretty common for most indies to be shot in three weeks or less, while most Hollywood films take months.

That's not to say that indie films don't get to do great complicated shots. We just have to pick when we do these shots more carefully and use them less frequently. But at the end of the day, if you have the passion and are dedicated enough, you can make a film on almost any budget in any amount of time. I've also found that a lack of funds and time creates an environment of great innovation, and coming up with unique and different approaches to a scene is what gives indie films their charm.

 

[drapeama]

Indie films are made with more creative freedom because they don't have Studio Executives dictating what the final film will become. Because the Director is given more freedom and in many cases final cut on these types of films they are more open to developing the story in a specific way that works for their target audience. [..] The freedom of making a film for a specific audience allows the Director and DP to take greater risks and do unconventional things. [..] I've also found that a lack of funds and time creates an environment of great innovation, and coming up with unique and different approaches to a scene is what gives indie films their charm.

When you really want something to be done, you won't find excuses, you will find ways to get it done.
And, talking about indie filmmaking, it's not because you're shooting on a smaller budget that you can't do it properly.
Cheaper equipment can make it too. I've done a dolly using Rollerblade wheels, and the total costs is like less than 100$ including the 10 foot galvanized pipes. Works great, no bumps in the footage. I can even sit on it while operating the camera.

But as the budget is smaller, it involves less people, you have more control over what you're doing. Same applies to company, you start small so you do whatever you want, then when you get bigger and bigger, some people are hired to take care of certain aspect of it and you end up with a huge company with many people working at the same time. Money, pressure, time...all that together add stress, so I guess the creative part fades away while that stress takes place instead.

 

[goodgoings]

God, that trailer made me cough up fur balls. Why call it indie if it's similar to what WB is putting out? And is this indicative of Sundance's standard? Really, I want to know.

 

[starcentral]

Interesting, "Like Crazy" was shot on the 7D.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Michael, this trailer is pretty bad example of indie because it looks average and when seeing whole films (avail on netflix) you will see that the direction NEVER goes beyond traditional badly-shot TV coverage. SO the only "indie" quality about this film is: no recognizable faces and done for cheap.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Indie films are made with more creative freedom because they don't have Studio Executives dictating what the final film will become. Because the Director is given more freedom and in many cases final cut on these types of films they are more open to developing the story in a specific way that works for their target audience. Hollywood Blockbuster films are aimed to please a larger audience and thus the people paying for them usually have full control over what the film becomes. The freedom of making a film for a specific audience allows the Director and DP to take greater risks and do unconventional things. In the Hollywood system the Studio Execs like to minimise risk as they want to make their money back and will stick to the normal conventions.

I've worked on a bunch of indie films and even had the chance to shoot a low budget indie. And what I was allowed to do with the camera and lighting on that type of set wouldn't be allowed on a larger budget film as it was highly risky and could have quite possibly not have worked and left us without a film. Fortunately enough, my ideas whilst unconventional ended up adding to the film and giving the characters and story so much more depth. The film would have been very different indeed if there had been less control given to the Director and myself, but because we didn't have to answer to Investors, Studio Executives or Executive Producers we were able to play with our ideas and ultimately invent a different way of doing things.

Also the budget can play heavily on what the style of the film will become. With indie films, budgets are considerably lower and as such schedules shrink in order to conserve money. This means that setting up complicated Dolly, Jib, SteadiCam or Aerial shots becomes time consuming and thus opting to go handheld is sometimes the quickest and easiest way to get the shots done. Hollywood has the privilege of both time and money, something that indies don't have a lot of. It is pretty common for most indies to be shot in three weeks or less, while most Hollywood films take months.

That's not to say that indie films don't get to do great complicated shots. We just have to pick when we do these shots more carefully and use them less frequently. But at the end of the day, if you have the passion and are dedicated enough, you can make a film on almost any budget in any amount of time. I've also found that a lack of funds and time creates an environment of great innovation, and coming up with unique and different approaches to a scene is what gives indie films their charm.

What you forget is that all Hollywood is using experienced key players so the film will look, sound, etc great. Yes, those experienced people might not be putting in their poetic 100% into the work (or often might not be capable of the extra touches of humanity) but still at least they will produce quality product. With indies, because of money constrains everyone is taking chances, and so you have AC standing it as DP (bad idea), cam ops standing in as DPs (also bad idea). There is so very few indie films where the indie spirit: "anything goes!" was used to their advantage because majorities of indies is a low budget aspiration of Hollywood counterpart.

 

[drapeama]

What you forget is that all Hollywood is using experienced key players so the film will look, sound, etc great.
[..]
majorities of indies is a low budget aspiration of Hollywood counterpart.

1) That's for sure. But in the indie world, people that makes movies have (at least) a basis of the filmmaking process, no?
2) Indie should be a miniature scale version of Hollywood (an even better version) without the many restrictions that money, executives and all the other aspects involved.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

1) That's for sure. But in the indie world, people that makes movies have (at least) a basis of the filmmaking process, no?
2) Indie should be a miniature scale version of Hollywood (an even better version) without the many restrictions that money, executives and all the other aspects involved.

1. NO. Basis understanding and "having done it hundreds of times" is VERY different. For instance if you never shot in a bar, the first time you do it you will deliver good but ultimately average images as you are trying to discover how to give a bar bar vibe. If you've shot in bars dozens of times you will be pushing the boundaries of the medium. All the sudden less-then-expected solutions will emerge.

2. NO. Indies are VERY different beasts that engage the mind on very different level. By trying to do the "miniature version" you are setting yourself up for a failure - why would i bother spending $10 on your "miniature" if for the same $10 i can go see the real deal?

 

[drapeama]

1. NO. Basis understanding and "having done it hundreds of times" is VERY different.
2. NO. Indies are VERY different beasts that engage the mind on very different level.

1) Meant to be more like: we all starts somewhere, and Indie seems to me to be the best place.
2) Valid point.

 

[Awesome Box]

When you really want something to be done, you won't find excuses, you will find ways to get it done.
And, talking about indie filmmaking, it's not because you're shooting on a smaller budget that you can't do it properly.
Cheaper equipment can make it too. I've done a dolly using Rollerblade wheels, and the total costs is like less than 100$ including the 10 foot galvanized pipes. Works great, no bumps in the footage. I can even sit on it while operating the camera.

I don't think you quite understood what I was saying. I totally agree that just because you have a smaller budget doesn't mean you can't have great looking shots. I have built my own dolly's in the past for less then $200 and they have produced results just as good as the expensive Chapmans Dolly's. It is the innovation of the indie filmmaker to create something with little or no money that adds to the creative charm of those types of films.

An example would be instead of hiring a SteadiCam to pull off a long and complicated move An indie filmmaker who can't afford that might put on a pair of roller blades and attached some counter weight to their camera to get a similar result.

 

[Awesome Box]

What you forget is that all Hollywood is using experienced key players so the film will look, sound, etc great. Yes, those experienced people might not be putting in their poetic 100% into the work (or often might not be capable of the extra touches of humanity) but still at least they will produce quality product. With indies, because of money constrains everyone is taking chances, and so you have AC standing it as DP (bad idea), cam ops standing in as DPs (also bad idea). There is so very few indie films where the indie spirit: "anything goes!" was used to their advantage because majorities of indies is a low budget aspiration of Hollywood counterpart.

I tend to disagree with you Patryk. Not all of those big name DP's started out as DP's. Most worked their way up through the camera or lighting department learning as they went. And in the course of that they would have been AC's shooting indie films in order to get noticed as a DP.

I myself and a camera assistant slowly working my way towards one day being a great DP. And I think that going about it this way is a completely valid way or reaching that goal. Some people choose to becomes DP's straight out of film school, others decide to work their way through the lighting department, and each will be skilled in a different way. Just because someone has only ever being a DP does not make them better at telling a story then someone who has just stepped up to shooting from being a Gaffer or Camera Operator. As a matter of fact I've seen Camera Operators create better images then so called DP's who have only ever done that job.

I also reject the notion that indie films don't use experienced key players. I have seen highly credited DP's and Directors working in the realms of indie filmmaking. Sometimes the studios don't believe in a project enough to back it and at that point, a highly professional and dedicated team might consider to work with the limitations of lower budget and time constraints in order to deliver a more artistic film.

In short, I think that what sets indie films apart isn't just their lack of budget or time, but their true creative freedom because they aren't burdened with having to appeal to a mass audience. They can make niche films for like minded individuals that become cult classics and can be very profitable in their own right. I hear more people complaining about how they didn't like the latest blockbuster film because the story let them down personally then I do people who go and watch limited screenings of indie films. People interested in that subject matter and creative style are more likely to be drawn to a particular film and be satisfied with it where someone not interested won't even bother seeing it because it doesn't appeal to them. Hollywood films are trying so hard to appeal to everyone that they hardly ever end up appeasing anyone. If they thought a bit harder about their target audience they would probably spend less money on marketing and make greater profits. The true beauty of indie films is they stand to make the largest return on their investment, because they aren't wasting money marketing to the wrong audience.

Take for example; Paranormal Activity, Saw, The Blair Witch Project, El Mariachi, Napoleon Dynamite, Clerks, Reservoir Dogs, Mad Max, etc. All indie films that made huge returns at the box office and in DVD sales. Plus in the case of Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarrantino and Kevin Smith to name a few, whose careers where launched by their first attempts at making a film. Without indie films and their incredible ingenuity and creativity, some of today's greatest filmmakers wouldn't be where they are. I'm always reminded of the story from the set of clerks where Kevin Smith couldn't afford a boom pole so he used a hockey stick instead. Did it work? Yes. Would it have been done differently with a better budget? Yes. Did his creativity still make a great film? Yes. So why does it really matter that he didn't have the right gear or highly experienced Hollywood professionals working with him? At the end of the day, creativity, innovation and great story telling win out over budgets, time and experience.

Can those things improve a film? Yes. Are they absolutely necessary to make a film great? No, but they can be a great help.

Rant over... Sorry if I offend anyone, I don't mean to, I'm only a highly passionate indie filmmaker interested in nothing but telling great stories.

 

[drapeama]

I don't think you quite understood what I was saying. I totally agree that just because you have a smaller budget doesn't mean you can't have great looking shots. [..] It is the innovation of the indie filmmaker to create something with little or no money that adds to the creative charm of those types of films.
An example would be instead of hiring a SteadiCam to pull off a long and complicated move An indie filmmaker who can't afford that might put on a pair of roller blades and attached some counter weight to their camera to get a similar result.

1) Sometimes, when you have all the tools to make something interesting, you're more focused on using them rather than thinking of a great shot, knowing you have all the tools at your disposition to make it. Reminds me of this video I've seen recently:

2) Like they did on Crank 2. Not bad. I would prefer (personally) to choose another method to do that shot. If you'd need a steady cam, and that steady cam isn't affordable, I'd try to imagine that shot in another way. Handheld or Rollerblades aren't bad, but wouldn't give the same results. They've found an interesting way to shoot that particular scene though.

 

[Awesome Box]

1) Sometimes, when you have all the tools to make something interesting, you're more focused on using them rather than thinking of a great shot, knowing you have all the tools at your disposition to make it. 2) Like they did on Crank 2. Not bad. I would prefer (personally) to choose another method to do that shot. If you'd need a steady cam, and that steady cam isn't affordable, I'd try to imagine that shot in another way. Handheld or Rollerblades aren't bad, but wouldn't give the same results. They've found an interesting way to shoot that particular scene though.

I agree. Sometimes those happy accidents that occur when you can't do the shot you wanted to do due to budget or time can be just as good if not better then what you had planned.

Using the miniature in that clip is one ingenious way of working in your budget that an indie filmmaker would come up with to create a better story. Without the budget and the innovation those guys have shown, would the shot have looked as good without the jeep? Probably not, as it added to the story of the two guys sitting on the dune. One might have wondered how they got their if the jeep wasn't present. Without the creativity to have thought outside the box and use the miniature to get the shot, it would have changed the perception of the story.

 

[drapeama]

I agree. Sometimes those happy accidents that occur when you can't do the shot you wanted to do due to budget or time can be just as good if not better then what you had planned.

Using the miniature in that clip is one ingenious way of working in your budget that an indie filmmaker would come up with to create a better story.

And there's a couple similar story in major movies that are now cult classic. Can't name one right now, but I remember to have watched making-of that were discussing about stories like that.
Very ingenious. There was an article about that same video on how some other movies used forced perspective in it. Very interesting.