So, how many crew members do I need for an indie feature film?

O

Oller Visuals

Well-known member
Fantasy feature film. Budget unknown. It's going to be low budget, and I'm looking to have a small, effective crew. As in, how small and effective can a crew be while still making an amazing indie feature?

While I've made some short films and worked with commercials I don't have experience with any large scale productions. Honestly I don't have a clue what kind of people I need to help with the grand scheme of things. This is still in early stages and a few years away, but want to make a rough breakdown what crew would be needed shooting an indie feature.

My roles:
- Director, writer, executive producer, cinematographer (also playing one of the leading roles), lots of other stuff. Got my hands full.

Crew ideas and thoughts:

- The "soundguy". Experienced one-man army doing all sound capture; is this realistic? How many does a sound crew usually consist of? One guy running around with audio equipment, and whoever is behind the camera (or simply doesn't have their hands full at the moment) can monitor some audio on headphones as well.

- First AD. Practical reasions me being in front of the camera + I also want an assistant director/cinematographer for feedback. Probably someone I know from before, just experienced filmmaker in general.

- Make up people, wardrobe, assistans etc, etc... All that stuff (not much to break down at this early stage).

- Budget/economy person/contracts with crew, etc. Office type of person. Probably some previous experience with movie productions (at a larger scale than this one). I'll personally sign contracts etc too but need someone to do all the boring stuff that is also probably a full-time thing. What would you call this job? The Life Saver? (Advertising this job as "Producer" seems a bit off, or is it?)

- Catering. An awesome chef!

That's what I can think of at the moment. As you can tell, I don't really know what I'm getting myself into. I don't really work in the business anymore (because I don't like it) so "get some experience with larger productions first" isn't an option here. Any advice appreciated, hit me!
 
Hey, cool that you are thinking about shooting a feature!

As you already know, there is not one answer to this, it all depends on the scope of your story, kills, budget, etc...

But as a small note, I would consider not being writer/DP/director/lead. If you can just direct, you will increase your chance of turning out a better product. Directing a feature can be overwhelming enough.

I'd also say that gaffer, grips, AC, and a dedicated DP will also allow you to move faster, thus shooting more per day.

Also, a script supervisor and continuity person is going to save your life in a feature.

Obviously there is lot's more, but thought this might be a good starting point.
-Best of luck!
 
If you're playing a lead in the film I dont think you should shoot, direct, and act. Hire a DP and make your life much much much easier.
 
Completely agree with the above. I shot a Civil War short film few years back that should be hitting the festival route in the coming year. I was only Cinematographer & Steadicam and that was a huge undertaking considering we were very low budget. We had a pretty decent crew of an average of 15-20 people most days with a cast of about 10 for an almost no budget film. But we had a trailer of gear, a huge camera package, and some very excited and willing people to participate that both had experience and no experience at all.

You do not want to approach the film with that much on your plate. You will be so stressed out that most likely you will be behind every day on principle photography (this is the fight you will have every day), and the day to day stress will come out in the editing room with continuity issues, your acting not up to par, camera techniques suffering, etc.

I think Cinematographer/DP, Camera assist, gaffer, and sound are an absolute must. You can probably get a good number of PA's to help you on the film. Make sure their rolls are identified and they know what and what not to do, both in terms of approach to work on set and most importantly safety.

Spend your money wisely. I don't think a caterer is a wise choice unless its your mom. LOL. I'm not saying food isn't needed. In fact it is one of the most important aspects of a no-budget shoot; but that can be done creatively. Get a good friend or family member to help out. Coffee, bagels, pizza, and pasta goes a long way. Consider energy drinks. Water is a must. Snacks on set like energy bars, nuts, pretzels, etc are a huge help. The loss of morale is the killer of small/no-budget sets. You can provide morale through food. But you will also have to provide it yourself. You will be cheerleader for your film from the start of the day to the end of it.

Also one of the most hardest things to do is continue to respect everyone on set even though you will be stressed out to your limits. Treat everyone like human beings. Everyone is on the same mission. To tell a great story.

Good luck!!
 
You could hitch down route66 with a hot girl and a digital bolex and come back with a feature, no crew.

If your story has animals/kids/extras/explosions then.. you might need 30+ people.

So how can one answer.

Let say a typical narrative. Like 2/3 actors doing simple stuff..

The barest bones is probably..
Camera Dept 2
Sound 1
Art/Costume 1
AD 1
Runners 2 (one can cook, the other can move a Cstand)

Features and crew size is really a money game..

Because an under staffed department keeps everyone else waiting - which costs.. so save money by making that department bigger and therefore faster - but then your crew just got bigger, daily cost higher,and you need more catering and accommodation so the pressure mounts to cut days so you expand another department to handle the pressure.. which I call 'Pop Will Eat Itself' (for no logical reason).

Balancing the tail with the dog is what an experienced producer can do, get the ratio right.. not over blow, but not skimp.

The thing eats itself when the costs get so high that there is no time to concentrate on performance and you end up with no story!

I guess therefore it is about balancing the departments.

An AD is (IMO) not really an assistant to the director.. often the director and AD are pulling different ways.. the AD wants to move on, as soon they have gathered a coherent and cuttable sequence that is in focus and wont need ADR, and hit the schedule.. the Director wants another take or a whacky angle that takes an age for the camera department to pull off.

I would shoot a short or test first. I would not act.

Also director/DOPs? Hmm personally I think dedicated DOPs tend to deliver the vision faster and therefore cheaper.
 
Last edited:
My personal opinion is that Id really like to do a 'slow and light' film.

I think four weeks of minimal camera department with an FS7 and stills primes would probably deliver more than one week with an alexa, cineglass, gaffer HMI camera department.
 
It depends on what you are doing. For example, if you are not doing something that's heavy on make up, then you can skip a makeup person - most actors will do their own makeup, just a basic powder down so that they're not "shining". Same idea with costumes - if costumes are not a huge part of the story, then you can have the actors use their own stuff... this is a bit more tricky, in that if you're shooting out of sequence, and there are costume changes involved, they must keep track of it and that can be too much for some - play it by ear.

However, I personally would hire a DP - because whatever you put out in money, will return itself in faster setups and you'll come out ahead. But of course, it again, depends, many docu-style projects really don't have a DP necessarily.

The moral of the story is - think about your feature very, very carefully, before you start it. Settle on the style, settle as many questions in pre-pro as you can. That way, you will have an easier time figuring where you need a dedicated pro to hire, and where you can skip it.
 
It depends. I know a filmmaker that does everything himself on his features. He does work in the family friendly genre but his Films look and sound good and work and make money. I couldn't do it myself but he's made almost a dozen features. He shoots quickly , usually in two weeks and doesn't have long days (sometimes half days). Minimum light set up, mostly amateur cast with an occasional name actor. Does all post himself. Camera is locked down, mike is painted out and scenes are rerecorded after the scene immediately like a radio play. None of this is what you see on "real" sets but it just illustrates what can be done. Some will poo poo the techniques as unprofessional but his last movie did very respectable theatrical box office .
 
I do it all myself - write, direct, camera, light, pull focus, sound, with no other support most days. It can be done, but you better be in good physical shape. I run about 25 kilometres a week and this still kicked my ass. I would NOT consider adding acting to that list as that would be a bridge too far, and I'm a crap actor anyway. Of course, it would also be hard to act and pull your own focus. I will say, having done camera for other people, things actually work faster for me when I'm alone, as there is no time lost explaining what needs to be done to the various crew members. A lot of time can be wasted just getting people up to speed and on the same page. I had a wardrobe person before I started shooting, just to get the costumes sorted, and they were a family friend. Some days, friends of my lead actor would help out and hold boom. Other days, I just set it on a stand, or used wireless mics. All my equipment fit into two large rolling cases. Mistakes were made, a few continuity gaffes and forgotten shots, but nothing catastrophic.
 
Batutta said:
I do it all myself - write, direct, camera, light, pull focus, sound, with no other support most days. It can be done, but you better be in good physical shape. I run about 25 kilometres a week and this still kicked my ass. I would NOT consider adding acting to that list as that would be a bridge too far, and I'm a crap actor anyway. Of course, it would also be hard to act and pull your own focus. I will say, having done camera for other people, things actually work faster for me when I'm alone, as there is no time lost explaining what needs to be done to the various crew members. A lot of time can be wasted just getting people up to speed and on the same page. I had a wardrobe person before I started shooting, just to get the costumes sorted, and they were a family friend. Some days, friends of my lead actor would help out and hold boom. Other days, I just set it on a stand, or used wireless mics. All my equipment fit into two large rolling cases. Mistakes were made, a few continuity gaffes and forgotten shots, but nothing catastrophic.
Click to expand...

Did you do this in a feature, or for short length material? Simply asking, since you didn't specify, because features are complex marathons. Not to suggest you don't already know that.

I totally understand cutting down time by not having to communicate with others. But the other side is that you can't be working with your actors while you light...or some other thing that could happen simultaneously now has to happen consecutively.

Also, if the OP will be working with friends and favors, folks who are not experienced, the need for explaining and hand-holding is much greater. With more experienced crew, communication can happen much more efficiently, often outweighing the time saved by trying to do it all by ones self. And on a feature, these in experienced folks often find they've agreed to more than they've bargained for, and begin to quit on you, or show up late, etc...

Batutta, perhaps you were speaking about feature length projects, and perhaps you've even gotten good results. Certainly not calling your work into question. But since we are giving advice to the OP, I thought I'd chime in with the other side of that coin.

I've shot effective shorts, with one location, two leads and 4 supporting cast. The crew breakdown was as such:
AD, Director, DP, Gaffer/Grip, AC/Grip, HMU, Sound Recordist. This was a two day shoot, and was meticulously planned in pre-production so schedules, shot lists, lighting diagrams, wardrobes and such were all clearly defined, with a talented AD helming the project.

I've shot features, with upwards of 8 locations, 5 leads and 8 supporting cast. The crew breakdown was as follows:
UPM
1st AD
2nd AD
Director
DP
Gaffer
Key Grip
Grip
AC/Grip
Wardrobe
HMU
Sound Recordist
Script Supervisor
Craft Services
PAs
This was an 18 day shoot. Not everyone had to be there for every shoot day, but most, based on the script needs.

I have also shot one or two projects I've written, directed and shot, but they were short scripts, half day shoots, one actor, one location, only two or three lighting set-ups. Crew was as such:
Writer/Director/DP/Gaffer
Lead Actor
Sound Recordist
AC/Grip
Grip
We ran about two hours over, for a total of 7hrs. The project came out ok, but I didn't have as much time to work with the actor on their performance so it wasn't exactly what I wanted.

I've also shot a short with 1 location, 1 lead, and all by myself. This didn't turn out very well, but it was mostly b cause I wasn't that good at lighting yet. I even records the sound myself, straight to camera, which wasn't that bad. But the house was very quiet, and the actor was always close to the camera mounted mic, with a lav as backup. I coul re-shoot this short again, just by myself, and I think it would turn out pretty decent, now that I'm better at lighting. But this scenario that le de itself to good results as a one man band, is the exception...and again, it was a half day production.
 
Last edited:
abreu-canedo said:
Did you do this in a feature, or for short length material? Simply asking, since you didn't specify, because features are complex marathons. Not to suggest you don't already know that.

I totally understand cutting down time by not having to communicate with others. But the other side is that you can't be working with your actors while you light...or some other thing that could happen simultaneously now has to happen consecutively.

Also, if the OP will be working with friends and favors, folks who are not experienced, the need for explaining and hand-holding is much greater. With more experienced crew, communication can happen much more efficiently, often outweighing the time saved by trying to do it all by ones self. And on a feature, these in experienced folks often find they've agreed to more than they've bargained for, and begin to quit on you, or show up late, etc...

Batutta, perhaps you were speaking about feature length projects, and perhaps you've even gotten good results.
Click to expand...

For a feature. I've shot about 14 days, 10 of those in a condensed two week timeframe, have a couple more to go. I discuss the script with my actors before the shoot, and I work with them in front of the camera. No, you can't work with them as you light. But you can't really light while shooting either so we just work the scenes out as we film. Great thing about digital is that you shoot rehearsals until you get it right. Memory cards are cheap. I try to cast right, or write to the strengths of actors I know. I work hard on the script to make sure the writing is tight, clear and the scenes playable and the rest tends to sort itself out. It's rare for me that an actor is way off the mark. Mostly it's just small adjustments. And I storyboarded the whole show. Sometimes I deviated from them, usually to work around a location limitation. Biggest challenge I had is one actor flaked the day before shooting, and I had to sub in another actor with only a day prep. And he had a TON of dialogue. We muddled through it, taking it slow and feeding him lines, and in the end it cut together fine...I will stress...I didn't shoot my feature this way because I wanted to. I had NO OTHER choice if I wanted to get it done. Nobody was giving me a chance and I got tired of begging for a handout. And with the technology where it's at I had no excuse no to. I frankly could not afford a decent crew with the resources I had, and felt I would do as good or better a job than someone else working for free, who might not be reliable. I would never suggest this approach over a real, experienced crew, only stating that, it can be done if you have the will and the patience. As for the results, this is the teaser trailer. I'm pleased with how it came out considering, and the experience has been very empowering--

 
KarlSutton said:
So do most of you have the sound recordist do the boom or just use wireless on all actors?
Click to expand...

I boom whenever I can, as it usually sounds better if you can get close enough. Wireless only when the actor is far away outdoors, or for a fast moving scene where I'm following the actors over a long distance handheld or on the gimbal. Wireless can sound good but you usually have to add a little bit of presence and room sound to it in the mix to make it feel right.
 
A decent editor and director will know that you can use a boom a lot - pasting tight dialogue to wide shots and over reaction shots. Or doing a plate to remove the boom in a locked wide.

Many directors don't get that low budget shooting is 80% about having a shot list that works with simple boomed audio!
 
Thanks Batutta for sharing that trailer looks great. Eric Rohmer said best prep for directing was running ten miles a day, maybe it was kilometers.
 
robmneilson said:
If you're playing a lead in the film I dont think you should shoot, direct, and act. Hire a DP and make your life much much much easier.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! When you have ideas, the worst thing is to delegate them, to somebody who may or may not do what you want. The last music video I was involved with was my own band - with my own kit and crew, and I hated everything they shot. It was technically OK in some areas - in focus, correctly exposed, but just dull. One camera was never quite framed right, and we ended up with a very average product because the people shooting it didn't't have the vision I had.

With my production manager's hat on - you've produced a list of job TITLES - but in a budget production, the important thing are their skills. One sound guy might be enough - but what will their role be on the shoot? It could be a simple one, or that person might need assistants? We don't know?

We'd need the storyboard, details on locations, details on everything. Lighting, for example - one person and a few zip up bags or a team of people with access equipment? When you say low budget - what does that mean. Budget unknown is crazy? If you are the executive producer, you know exactly what the budget is - that's what producers do? I get the impression you're thinking about the end credits more than what these people do? A good crew can be smaller than an average one.
 
Batutta said:
I will stress...I didn't shoot my feature this way because I wanted to. I had NO OTHER choice if I wanted to get it done. Nobody was giving me a chance and I got tired of begging for a handout. And with the technology where it's at I had no excuse no to. I frankly could not afford a decent crew with the resources I had, and felt I would do as good or better a job than someone else working for free, who might not be reliable. I would never suggest this approach over a real, experienced crew, only stating that, it can be done if you have the will and the patience.
Click to expand...

Genius. Congratulations, Batutta! This is what anyone needs to succeed:

1)Right Attitude

2)Self-starter, go getter, work ethic

3)Energy, health and time

4)Ability to inspire people

5)Good Taste

Just from the sentence that I quoted above, it's clear Batutta has the (1), (2), (3), (4), nailed. The only question remaining is (5) - admittedly, this is hard and out of your hands. And it can only be answered by putting out the work and seeing if it grabs. Now, naturally, without (5), it's all meaningless, to repurpose Matthew 16:26, you can do 1-4 and without 5 there is no profit. But doing 1-4 is indeed super hard and super rare, and can in fact be compared, per the bible verse to "the whole world". You have the whole world - a rare accomplishment, and congratulations. Now what about your soul?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top