The way to write a good independent Feature is?
- Thread starter Michael Anthony Horrigan
- Start date
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
DecadenceFilms
Active member
Michael,
In my very humble opinion, I think you may be starting from the wrong place. Putting a mature, business head on for a second, I would say that your plans for your film are too vague and that vagueness is a contributory factor to your difficulties deciding which way to go. Taking it to a festival and hoping it creates its own hype leaves too much to chance. The filmmakers who forge their careers are usually the ones that take a very active role in the marketing both of their film and their own reputation.
Decide first what your career goal is, then work backwards.
Are your aspirations to be a working professional who gets funding for projects, or do you aspire to create truly genre defying films?
Whilst they're not mutually exclusive, there is a difference in emphasis IMO.
Your goal in the first instance is surely to make something with production value approaching Cinema quality, with a strong marketing hook and recognisable genre that gives itself a shot of traditional distribution (however slim that might be) but crucially leaves a path for itself to recoup money through alternative money streams (distribution or self-distribution/hybrid deals). Turn a profit and you prove that you are a safe bet to invest in again, and less of a risk to invest in more highly. You then climb the career ladder.
In the second instance the goal is more about YOU as an individual Director catching the heat, rather than the film itself...though they are necessarily linked. Make sure your press pack leaves people in no doubt you are a major new talent, with a new way of looking at the world who can create innovative or controversial films...the innovation itself then becomes the marketing hook.
In the first instance there's certain boxes to be ticked...you want scenes that allow for a great trailer (eg the masks on the Strangers)...things that can make the film appetising for an audience regardless of how good the whole is. Location is also important...there's a reason so many low budget films are set in woods...stick a 5K up and a bit of fog and it looks great. You want the story set somewhere cinematic but free.
The second instance is more execution dependent in that you're competing on the turf of the Directors considered teh "best" by critics...serious social realism films, or cutting edge material. Your game has to be a bit tighter imo...but you've got the kind of wild card where even an unsuccesful film can mark you out as a real talent eg Paul W.S Anderson with Shopping...by all accounts not a film distributors liked too much (banned in UK, limited DVd release US) but his Producer managed to talk a few industry heads into representing him based on the style of his direction and he went on to work ever since.
Rick.
In my very humble opinion, I think you may be starting from the wrong place. Putting a mature, business head on for a second, I would say that your plans for your film are too vague and that vagueness is a contributory factor to your difficulties deciding which way to go. Taking it to a festival and hoping it creates its own hype leaves too much to chance. The filmmakers who forge their careers are usually the ones that take a very active role in the marketing both of their film and their own reputation.
Decide first what your career goal is, then work backwards.
Are your aspirations to be a working professional who gets funding for projects, or do you aspire to create truly genre defying films?
Whilst they're not mutually exclusive, there is a difference in emphasis IMO.
Your goal in the first instance is surely to make something with production value approaching Cinema quality, with a strong marketing hook and recognisable genre that gives itself a shot of traditional distribution (however slim that might be) but crucially leaves a path for itself to recoup money through alternative money streams (distribution or self-distribution/hybrid deals). Turn a profit and you prove that you are a safe bet to invest in again, and less of a risk to invest in more highly. You then climb the career ladder.
In the second instance the goal is more about YOU as an individual Director catching the heat, rather than the film itself...though they are necessarily linked. Make sure your press pack leaves people in no doubt you are a major new talent, with a new way of looking at the world who can create innovative or controversial films...the innovation itself then becomes the marketing hook.
In the first instance there's certain boxes to be ticked...you want scenes that allow for a great trailer (eg the masks on the Strangers)...things that can make the film appetising for an audience regardless of how good the whole is. Location is also important...there's a reason so many low budget films are set in woods...stick a 5K up and a bit of fog and it looks great. You want the story set somewhere cinematic but free.
The second instance is more execution dependent in that you're competing on the turf of the Directors considered teh "best" by critics...serious social realism films, or cutting edge material. Your game has to be a bit tighter imo...but you've got the kind of wild card where even an unsuccesful film can mark you out as a real talent eg Paul W.S Anderson with Shopping...by all accounts not a film distributors liked too much (banned in UK, limited DVd release US) but his Producer managed to talk a few industry heads into representing him based on the style of his direction and he went on to work ever since.
Rick.
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
Thanks for the advice. I think starting off with a great screenplay is the best way to start for me. Yes, learning how to market ones film is key but I'm more concerned at this point with making something worth marketing.
I agree with much of what you've said though.
Thanks for the input.
I agree with much of what you've said though.
Thanks for the input.
Anthony Todaro
Well-known member
Mike - From a writer only point-of-view, I look for people to produce my stories, as you know... lol. I can say from experience after getting tons of reads the ones that hit, the work I do that is requested most and the ones that get optioned by independent filmmakers, are the clever low budget stories. The stories that have character and are simple to produce get the most attention.
Memento is an example I always use. That film could have been made on a shoestring with no name actors and been good. It's better because it wasn't but the story was solid. Yes it was low budget, but I'm talking NO BUDGET. It didn't feel like it was written for budget. Some of these indie films I watch are horrible. I'm talking features. Few are good and even fewer are great.
I think your post about starting with a good script is key. But the question is, what's a good script? The answer is the best story you can afford to make, IMO. Once I started to consider easy production and no budget in my writing it was much much harder. This is a good thing. It challenges one to find cleverness in plain site rather than relying on amazing effects. The film BLOWUP is another one I look to for inspiration. Not that it's the most amazing film on the planet, it's a great one, but that's not why. It's intriguing. It's known for being an original in so many ways. The idea is so simple but the way it was executed on the page and in camera is nothing less than brilliant. So brilliant, De Palma just had to 'borrow' it. Lol.
It's in the writing. Find a writer or a story that is nothing less than amazing. Don't even think about rolling one frame until you are captivated by the script. If the story hurts you or affected you in any moving way that's a good sign it's worth shooting.
I've seen that in your shorts so I know you know. I'm just saying that there are smart writers out there with this in mind. Before I sit down to outline a feature length script, I already know what the range of budget is in my head just by the story. A space opera can't be done for $1k. It could but it's not going to live up to the competition. If you have something ingenious on your hands it might revolutionize but the odds are against you. Mainly in your viewership. An audience watching a movie with some epic looking box art will be disappointed when they see the finished product and it's not what they were expecting.
I know my budget going in, even if it's a spec. A screenplay is like having a child. Some people plan for it, some people don't. The last thing any filmmaker wants is a amazing concept that can't execute without money. I just saw a movie called, ELIMINATION. Good example of a cool concept and an extremely failed production. I think most of the problems with it could have been dealt with on the page.
A clever story that has complex and interesting characters will always win over effects. Your gut is dead on. Go with it. Trust your writing or trust your writer. Get those pages to a point where they blow you away. Tedious attention to the story will pay off ten fold when it comes time to get distribution, IMO.
Memento is an example I always use. That film could have been made on a shoestring with no name actors and been good. It's better because it wasn't but the story was solid. Yes it was low budget, but I'm talking NO BUDGET. It didn't feel like it was written for budget. Some of these indie films I watch are horrible. I'm talking features. Few are good and even fewer are great.
I think your post about starting with a good script is key. But the question is, what's a good script? The answer is the best story you can afford to make, IMO. Once I started to consider easy production and no budget in my writing it was much much harder. This is a good thing. It challenges one to find cleverness in plain site rather than relying on amazing effects. The film BLOWUP is another one I look to for inspiration. Not that it's the most amazing film on the planet, it's a great one, but that's not why. It's intriguing. It's known for being an original in so many ways. The idea is so simple but the way it was executed on the page and in camera is nothing less than brilliant. So brilliant, De Palma just had to 'borrow' it. Lol.
It's in the writing. Find a writer or a story that is nothing less than amazing. Don't even think about rolling one frame until you are captivated by the script. If the story hurts you or affected you in any moving way that's a good sign it's worth shooting.
I've seen that in your shorts so I know you know. I'm just saying that there are smart writers out there with this in mind. Before I sit down to outline a feature length script, I already know what the range of budget is in my head just by the story. A space opera can't be done for $1k. It could but it's not going to live up to the competition. If you have something ingenious on your hands it might revolutionize but the odds are against you. Mainly in your viewership. An audience watching a movie with some epic looking box art will be disappointed when they see the finished product and it's not what they were expecting.
I know my budget going in, even if it's a spec. A screenplay is like having a child. Some people plan for it, some people don't. The last thing any filmmaker wants is a amazing concept that can't execute without money. I just saw a movie called, ELIMINATION. Good example of a cool concept and an extremely failed production. I think most of the problems with it could have been dealt with on the page.
A clever story that has complex and interesting characters will always win over effects. Your gut is dead on. Go with it. Trust your writing or trust your writer. Get those pages to a point where they blow you away. Tedious attention to the story will pay off ten fold when it comes time to get distribution, IMO.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
^ As some participants in this thread already know all too well, I 100% agree with Anthony...
: )
: )
Brian P. McQuilkin
Active member
The Signal.
$50k budget. Story takes place in a fictional post-apocalyptic city (using Atlanta as the model). Each third of the movie was written by a different guy, and each of them directed their third. Limited theatrical distribution, though it did poorly at the box office (partly from the poor marketing strategy and delayed release on the part of the distributor). The first 2/3 of the movie are strong. First time I watched it, it was purely out of curiosity to see what someone could make for $50k. After about 2-3 minutes, I forgot that I was watching a $50k movie. Not a ton of locations but enough to avoid that low-budget feel. And there was a car crash that looked pretty damn good.
Rumor has it that the distributor (I want to say Magnolia, but I could be wrong) bought it for a little over $2m.
1.6M
And I have the movie on Blu Ray, often tell people about it. But, most can't even sit through it unless they're filmmakers. It's a good effort @ 60K. Standing against larger properties, it's not good to me.
On the merit of a low budget feature, it's okay. Sort of long and hard to watch.
But nothing in the first two acts drives you to care about a female who was cheating on her loved one and didn't have the guts to tell him. Not to mention a lot of flat motivation, random scenes, and plastic dialogue.
It was decent, good and great it wasn't to me.
Also doesn't line up with Ted and Anthony's descriptions for what a script should be. When they say that, I literally think Memento like Anthony pointed out.
The Signal comes nowhere near in terms of writing.
Last edited:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
-Christopher Nolan's first film, "Following". It cost $6000 to make (in 1999).
-Once ($100K-150K in 2007, depending on where you check). While what would be called 'the script' is hard to certify on this one, it nonetheless works very well in that regard IMO, budget considered, as I think it must be in all cases...
-El Mariachi
-Deuce Of Spades
-Others I'll probably think of later...
My $.02
-Once ($100K-150K in 2007, depending on where you check). While what would be called 'the script' is hard to certify on this one, it nonetheless works very well in that regard IMO, budget considered, as I think it must be in all cases...
-El Mariachi
-Deuce Of Spades
-Others I'll probably think of later...
My $.02
Ted Spencer
Veteran
AFAIC any film's budget at any level has to be considered in its evaluation. One shouldn't compare the merits of a Ferrari to Miata on an equivalent basis either. Sure they're both 2-seat sports cars, but you *are* supposed to get what you pay for...
Please do, and let me know what you think. I thought it was absolutely charming. It also made about $20M combined...
[below is re: El Mariachi]
Well, we're all entitled to our opinions : )
But it set off a legendary Hollywood bidding war that (IIRC) caused a few high-level heads to roll (the ones who failed to recognize its and RR's merits).
For my $.02: I recently re-watched it as a reference for my "Deuce Of Spades" review, and found it to be very engaging and clever. Is it "Citizen Kane"? No. But it's a very good film...considering : )
[below is re: Deuce Of Spades]
The ending was problematic for me, yes, but as I said in the review, it was something that was easily fixable; a script/directing/acting problem for a small (but unfortunately weighty) amount of screen time. Not a story problem though - all the story and character arcs as they play out are excellent IMO. It's like...a birthday cake with a misspelled name on top or something - a drag, but fixable - and it doesn't ruin the whole thing if you have a little...forgiveness : )
Again, one man's poison is another's passion, so there are no absolutes in art. I happen to think everything Andy Warhol ever did is unmitigated rubbish. Yet someone recently bought one of his pieces for like $90M...
The larger point, this particular drum that I keep beating, is about *not underestimating* the overriding importance of script/story quality. In film after film I act in, read the script of, rewrite, watch, etc., it keeps staring at me - the (so-called) writer(s) just plain don't have it going on...or appear to know...or care (enough)...
Simple as that most of the time...
And a golden opportunity for the few who do... : )
I sort of disagree, though. The Car Analogy isn't fitting to me because you drive a car around for a lifetime. We're talking something you spend an hour and a half or so watching, with a lot other movies around it looking for your attention. A low budget shouldn't automatically mean an apology or special treatment.
But, like you said, different strokes.
You're right, different eyes. Apologies if that came off the wrong way. A movie doesn't have to be good to set off a bidding war, though. Just needs to be something someone can bank off of in different ways.
Last Comic Con I believe someone's fantasy works compiled into a little book set off bidding wars. How many other people had those, though? It just happens to be someone had something that another person could bank on.
Sale doesn't mean good movie, just means sellable.
Considering that it was low budget? Okay, so if it was the same exact movie but had a few million, or a whiff of one of Adam's budgets, then it suddenly becomes not a good movie?
Again, sounds like low to no budget filmmakers nepotism. Not just seeing it with an audience's eye.
Right, everyone sees it differently. But, there must be some sort of barometer when people start suggesting absolute ways of working.
Yeah, can't disagree. Script is important, definitely a drum worth constantly beating. I'm just curious as to what constitutes the point at which a script is ready, and from at least two of the examples given, it doesn't really seem like there's a high bar set, but then Memento and Following (which I'm almost done with now) are miles and miles beyond those two.
Miles
And, I don't feel like I need to have any compassion for the filmmaker of Following, even already knowing who this guy is today. It stands up as a movie, not a movie shot for six thousand dollars.
So yeah, confusing to me.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Haven't read the whole thread, but would "Pi"(1998) be a 'good script'... at 60K it is in the 'micro budget' class...
Aronofsky's next film, "Requiem for a Dream"(2000), while not a micro, heck maybe even a mega budget at 4.5 million for those fighting for a 100K or so... was equally 'unmainstream'...
I think both Nolan and Aronosfsky have sort of settled into 'business as usual' in Hollywood, having made their splash with their respective first few films.
Another filmmaker of the 'low budget' variety, for some value of 'low'... is Abel Ferrara. He does seem to get more money than most non-mainstream filmmakers, but not all that much more...
And I've always wondered out Woody Allen has been able to fund his movies, given they are rarely give a wide+media blitz distribution.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
You mean "El Mariachi" and "Deuce Of Spades", right? I was under the impression you hadn't seen DOS yet...
??
And speaking of "absolutes" (as you mentioned earlier), while you or anyone else is certainly entitled not to like "El Mariachi", unequivocally condemning it (and its script) seems to me a bit...well...absolute. FWIW, almost all of the tomaotometer's "top critics" rated it favorably, some very highly so. Most mentioned its humble financial origins as well. And...is that nepotism? I don't think so...
Regarding "absolute ways of working" (your words), was that in reference to my position regarding story/script quality concerns? If so, then I think we may misunderstand each other...
AFAIC there's no "absolute" measure of quality in any art form - that's (part of) what makes it so elusive to succeed at. You've asked a few times (in this thread and others) how one is supposed to *know* when a script is great, etc. Well, simply put, you can't, at least not in any...absolute way. Which is certainly attested to by the innumerable failures of the very, very best artists in all fields of all time. So if you're looking for that, or for an answer as to how to determine that, there simply isn't one...*
At the risk of stating the obvious, all an artist (like a filmmaker) can do is *the best they know how to*. The problem in practice though (and the real force behind this drum I keep beating after many decades as a professional) in arts *that involve written, spoken, and/or sung language* is the tendency of too many artists to underestimate how excellent the writing *must be* to have any real chance at success. And "fluke" successes, "one-hit-wonders" etc. (there will always be a tiny but highly publicized number of those) don't disprove the point - at least not very much more than winning a lottery proves something about the winner...
Time and time again I've seen artists I know or have worked with produce poorly written (or even just mediocre) movies, plays, songs - what have you - and fail as predictably as the setting of the sun...
But when you look at the successes, as least in my experience (and there have been quite a few), time and time again - quality writing is almost always at the heart of it. That's all I'm saying - *quality writing is all but certainly the biggest single ingredient in success in these arts*. In my humble opinion : )
I'll close with a quote I loved from William Goldman's book "Adventures In The Screen Trade". It was from an interview he did with George Roy Hill, director of "Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid", probably their most famous and successful collaboration (Hill also directed "The Sting", "The World According To Garp" and many other well-known films). Mr. Hill said:
"The principal job of a director is to first get his script and get it right and get it playable and get it almost foolproof. Then his job is to cast it as perfectly as he can.
If he does those two things, he can phone in the direction, because it doesn't make any difference, his work is eighty percent done. The fact is that no director with a poor script that is badly cast can make it work through his direction. On the other hand, if he gets the script right and the actors right, then he can invent, then the rest of it is fun - I don't mean it's all fun, it's partly a pain in the ass, but I mean, then you have a solid basis on which you can create."
-from "Adventures In The Screen Trade", page 568
Again (my words now), there's no guaranteed (i.e. absolute) way to 'get the script right', or even know with certainty when it is, but the point is how tremendously consequential that fundamental thing - the story/script - is. I completely agree with his point regarding acting as well, but I think it's significant to note that he always mentions the script first.
Because, as Hill implies, without that you've lost before you start...
Peace, bro
* High-profile screenwriting contests like Nicholl, Page and others, as well as many top film festivals, are certainly one way to get very credible validation of a script. You can't always take that to the bank, although many winners do...
Last edited:
Haven't seen DOS, just the trailer and your review. It's probably not fair to judge from that, but you're saying that Deuce of Spades is as good as Following?
Critics are critics. We're all one in some ways. Which means that most of this conversation is subjective?
I think we are misunderstanding each other, which is all good. You're saying my words = absolute, but I haven't said anything like that and I'm quite the opposite. I have read one consistent absolute statement:
The script must be good/great before you start.
The only absolute statement I have for anyone is to get it done.
There isn't an absolute. I didn't ask for any absolutes. I asked for a bar to measure good by. That's not far fetched at all.
I'm not asking anyone for this information. I know when a script's ready to go, it's when we decide we've written enough and it's time to move on to doing. You can only polish something so much, and most material isn't prize-winning, a lot of the times it's just escapism.
I'm not looking for any answers to how to work, I've got my own path.
I'm asking for measures of what's considered good so that I've got some sort of idea what you guys are talking about when you beat said drum.
Which leads me to the question you didn't respond to: if Deuce of Spades or El Mariachi had a larger budget and it was executed exactly as it is now, would it still be good?
I personally don't take budget into account when I ask myself "Was this a good movie?" It's an added bonus if it is. Like FOLLOWING, I really didn't care that it only cost six grand for the now famous Nolan team.
It was just a good, interesting, easy watch from start to finish.
But, you're saying budget is something to consider when rating?
This is where it's relevant to this discussion, because Michael's asking how to write a good indie (which I assume he means nano budget) feature film that he can go out and shoot on his own dime or a few thousand dollars raised.
And, let me throw this out there... which might open a new can of worms altogether...
As important as it is to the process, I do not believe a good script solely makes a good movie.
I believe that good filmmakers make a good movie. and matter more to the process.
A mediocre script can be turned into something great when executed by the right people. But, a good script not executed properly will be a bad movie.
Last edited:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Yep, we're talking past each other all right...
And repeating ourselves...
Argh...
: )
And repeating ourselves...
Argh...
: )
Yeah, indeed. Haha. I think I've just got an issue with the absolute idea that before you do anything the script must be incredible.
It's almost stifling to the actual process, to me anyway, to wait around for an incredible script when an incredible movie relies on much much more.
Anyway, to each their own of course! And, hopefully, I didn't come off as if I were telling anyone to work a certain way. That's not the way to converse.
Apologies if so.
It's almost stifling to the actual process, to me anyway, to wait around for an incredible script when an incredible movie relies on much much more.
Anyway, to each their own of course! And, hopefully, I didn't come off as if I were telling anyone to work a certain way. That's not the way to converse.
Apologies if so.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Likewise...
And no, an outright, empirically "incredible script" isn't what I'm talking about. We can't all be Shakespeare. What I am saying is that we should do everything in our power to avoid the all-too common practice known as turd-polishing...
And that requires us to start with something other than a turd...
Which is not nearly as easy as it sounds : )
And no, an outright, empirically "incredible script" isn't what I'm talking about. We can't all be Shakespeare. What I am saying is that we should do everything in our power to avoid the all-too common practice known as turd-polishing...
And that requires us to start with something other than a turd...
Which is not nearly as easy as it sounds : )