Zero budget film released on iTunes and turns a significant profit.

You can point to any artist and wonder how their career exists and argue the point and merits of their work. It is highly subjective and everyone has an opinion.

Laszlo Kovaks and Vilmos Zsigmond discuss the idea of "exotic locations" in several interviews. They emphasize that [Eastern] European photographers came to America in the 60s and were in great demand because they were unique in their ability to see the beauty of our country, unlike native filmmakers. The desert, which I grew weary of in my early years, is a highly captivating place to people who have never seen it. I've watched movies where it was treated in really exiting ways I never would have thought of myself. To me, the low-country of the Southeast is exotic - but it may be little more than bug-infested swamp to those who call this place home. I don't think the exotic location argument holds much water, if that isn't already clear.

I also believe that everyone is connected to a great story in some way. We may also be lucky enough to be connected to people who can help us move these stories forward. Commercial success isn't guaranteed. Not even for the biggest, best-packaged studio features with the biggest stars. Not for the tiffany broadcast networks. Despite everything they can (and do) throw at their product, it doesn't always work.

For me, the real story is that someone - anyone - who creates content is controlling the content completely throughout distribution and reaping gross dollars for their effort. That is exciting because it takes studio accounting practices, which are inherently designed to deny artists their money whenever possilbe, and turns it all on its ear.
 
Erik Olson said:
For me, the real story is that someone - anyone - who creates content is controlling the content completely throughout distribution and reaping gross dollars for their effort. That is exciting because it takes studio accounting practices, which are inherently designed to deny artists their money whenever possilbe, and turns it all on its ear.
Click to expand...

But that's precisely my point. How? Once you're established, you have more opportunity to do stuff like this, but that doesn't fit in with 99.9% of everyone else. This is nothing new, it's just different on the technical side. People have been leveraging their famous contacts for years.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
To go from making a feature on a few grand of your own money to having a studio seek you out and fund you for a few million with known talent, I think that's definitely something.
Whether we call it 'mainstream success' or not.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's something, but I wouldn't term it as "mainstream success."
 
Forget the movies, even the word "mumblecore" is annoying...

I finally watched the "For Lover's Only" trailer...where's the conflict? Where's the story? I hope this movie is better than the trailer makes it seem.
 
Gary Huff said:
I agree that it's something, but I wouldn't term it as "mainstream success."
Click to expand...
Fair enough - we've probably gotten a bit off track with the term 'mainstrem success.'
Your point is taken though, Gary - people leverage their status to do things others without such visibility are not able to do (at least not on the same scale).
 
Saharanturtle said:
can you expand a bit on this part above? I'm not sure exactly what you mean
Click to expand...

I was just agreeing with Erik's comments that one of the hardest parts of any project is actually seeing it through.
Often times many filmmakers I've met will look at those who have achieved some level of success as though they don't deserve it, mainly because they see their work and think (or say) "I could have made that." And the truth is many of us could have made any number of things that are out there... but the thing is, we didn't.

The actual doing is the hardest part.
And many times, the only difference between those who are successful and those who aren't is that the successful guy actually made something happen... and saw it through all the way to the end.
 
Hmm... that's an interesting thought. I think even that is just subjective, and has a lot to do with what you're doing in general.

To me, doing is the easiest part, finding an audience for it and then money is the hard part. But, I can see how getting things started/going/done can be the hardest part for others. I get stuck at the "How will I pay rent after this?" phase. =T
 
I would not only agree with what Erik and Luis wrote, but say it's a cowardly position to take to simply sit back and take pot shots at someone else's work in such a manner. I'm not saying work should be immune from criticism, but that criticism should be fair. For example, comparing to someone's peers, or a contemporary work made under the same restraints, by someone with similar experience, that came out superior is reasonable. Or if you actually have produced something on the same level, you could I suppose stand up. But that also depends on what the presenter is claiming.

Several years ago a local filmmaker I won't mention by name made a feature length film. I was at the premier and it was a mess. I chuckled and groaned a few times under my breath at a few scenes. But you know what, he finished it. Plus, it was a heavy drama which is hard to pull off. He made another feature film a year or so later, and while it was a bit more polished, it was just as bad. But he had shot two features while I had shot zero, same with most of his local peers. Another two years went by and by then I had shot a "feature" that I had screwed up, and in many ways it was worse than his first project. Around that time he was finishing another feature, and well, this one turned out to be pretty good actually! I wish I had made it.

To quote business guru Tom Peters, "Fail. Forward. Fast. No screw ups, no learning. No big screw ups, no big learning. No fast screw ups, no fast learning." And the last thing you want to do is have jackals in the audience who talk away but haven't done sh*t keep you from doing that.
 
snowleopard said:
I would not only agree with what Erik and Luis wrote, but say it's a cowardly position to take to simply sit back and take pot shots at someone else's work in such a manner.
Click to expand...

I might be inclined to agree with you except for two points: first, what is the dividing line between criticism and "pot shots"? If a work is trying to give an impression of "art" that was derived primarily for reasons outside of that (i.e. for financial gain, to make use of a particular celebrity, to open the door to fancy parties, ect. vs. to tell a story, showcase a location, look into the lives of characters that the creator(s) feel deeply about), then I feel that it comes across, and I comment on it. I might be dead wrong, and I will totally cop to not having seen the film (only the trailer), but from that trailer, I have impressions and none of them even come close to prompting me to spend $3.99 to rent the film.

Second, I find it hard to accept the "cowardly" term that you used considering I'm on here using my own name. Don't you agree, Mr. Snow Leopard?

For example, comparing to someone's peers, or a contemporary work made under the same restraints, by someone with similar experience, that came out superior is reasonable. Or if you actually have produced something on the same level, you could I suppose stand up. But that also depends on what the presenter is claiming.
Click to expand...

This sounds like the old "don't criticize if YOU'VE never made a film!" argument coupled with a "you can't criticize a work if it hasn't been done better yet with similar circumstances." Please enlighten me if I read that incorrectly, because I immediately reject both assertions out of hand.

To quote business guru Tom Peters, "Fail. Forward. Fast. No screw ups, no learning. No big screw ups, no big learning. No fast screw ups, no fast learning." And the last thing you want to do is have jackals in the audience who talk away but haven't done sh*t keep you from doing that.
Click to expand...

If this local filmmaker is learning and getting better at his craft, then awesome. Go him. But I totally reject your line about "jackals in the audience" because, again, that has no basis in anything. Anyone who creates will always and for ever run the risk of having someone else try to knock it down. If it is worthwhile, it will survive. If not, tough. Learn and continue.

If the Polish Brothers get rich from this film, then yay for them. But I think it's equally as valid to express my opinion that it's a cash-in on their actress contact. Maybe they had an actual story/characters that they really wanted to bring to life. Perhaps not. I'm betting not. And if I am correct as to what the film is like, then I would be very uncomfortable doing the same thing.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
I was just agreeing with Erik's comments that one of the hardest parts of any project is actually seeing it through.
Often times many filmmakers I've met will look at those who have achieved some level of success as though they don't deserve it, mainly because they see their work and think (or say) "I could have made that." And the truth is many of us could have made any number of things that are out there... but the thing is, we didn't.

The actual doing is the hardest part.
And many times, the only difference between those who are successful and those who aren't is that the successful guy actually made something happen... and saw it through all the way to the end.
Click to expand...

Truth^^^^^
 
I am happy for the filmmakers in this instance. Of course they exploited what every bit of cache they could to make the film work for them. That is the game, is it not? Where I find hope, as an unknown, bottom feeder guerrilla filmmaker is that there are folks out there discovering the alternate means of film viewing. If they reap a benefit from it, they may be more inclined to take a chance and pay to watch a film from an unknown, and who knows, maybe one that I get made. Who knows?
 
Gary Huff said:
Maybe they had an actual story/characters that they really wanted to bring to life. Perhaps not. I'm betting not.
Click to expand...
I think people are reacting to the notion that you haven't seen it, yet are casting aspersions on the filmmakers as to that this wasn't a sincere effort, etc. That seems pretty unfair.

Look on IMDB -- it has 88 ratings, with an average of 9.5. It has five user comment reviews, all highly positive. Now, that's early, granted -- but nobody has rated it below a "4" yet. On iTunes, there are 244 reviews, giving it an average of 4.0 out of 5 stars. On iTunes there are more than a few one-star reviews of people hating it, and lots of five-stars of people loving it. Not 100% sure what to make of that, but when the reviews get in the thousands we should have a lot clearer picture.

I don't know anything about the film, but I have seen a few of the Polish Brothers movies and I think they're inventive storytellers. I would certainly wait a little while before making any comment on the sincerity or viability of this picture; if the marketing is driven by twitter/iphone downloads, people are certainly going to be vocal about it; that demographic can't stop crucifying Rebecca Black, and if they think that the Polish Brothers are pulling a fast one on them, they will make it widely known.
 
Barry_Green said:
I think people are reacting to the notion that you haven't seen it, yet are casting aspersions on the filmmakers as to that this wasn't a sincere effort, etc. That seems pretty unfair.
Click to expand...

But I have seen the trailer...which I feel I am safe in assuming they had a strong hand in putting together. And there's nothing in there about characters or story, no dialogue whatsoever. It's about showing two attractive people fooling around amongst the backdrop of an exotic location. Should I not then assume that it's what the film is basically about? It certainly doesn't entice me to spend the $3.99 to rent the movie (and apparently no one else on this thread either since no one has mentioned seeing it).

Look on IMDB -- it has 88 ratings, with an average of 9.5. It has five user comment reviews, all highly positive. Now, that's early, granted -- but nobody has rated it below a "4" yet. On iTunes, there are 244 reviews, giving it an average of 4.0 out of 5 stars. On iTunes there are more than a few one-star reviews of people hating it, and lots of five-stars of people loving it. Not 100% sure what to make of that, but when the reviews get in the thousands we should have a lot clearer picture.
Click to expand...

I took a look at the reviews. A lot of the negative reviews seemed to have specific complaints while the positives merely toss the word "beautiful" around multiple times. That's great...if it's a travelogue.

Again, I will totally heed the notion that I am completely off-base with this, but so far this is what my impression of the project is.
 
Gary Huff said:
Second, I find it hard to accept the "cowardly" term that you used considering I'm on here using my own name. Don't you agree, Mr. Snow Leopard?
Click to expand...

Gary - My post wasn't directed at you, at all. I don't know why you're responding in such a manner, or believe that it was. I was also somewhat critical of this film's claims as well in my earlier post, mostly related to the budget, and as others noted, why it succeeded.

I also think you're misinterpreting what I was stating. I don't feel you can't criticize a film until you've made one. That's nonsense, and I thought I was trying my best to avoid that claim. We all do it. I do it. For example, I refuse to watch any more Michael Bay films because the two I've seen were awful in my eyes. Could I do better? On that budget and scope, probably not. But I can also point to someone on that level (say, Ridley Scott, James Cameron) as a comparison as to how action films on that scope should be made. And I can point to filmmakers who work with very little budget and achieve what I feel is a much more rewarding experience to watch. This same thinking I think applies to flat broke indies. I often come across indie filmmakers (again, not you, Gary) who will sit back and criticize starving indie filmmakers films as being garbage, only to find out when they try it, it's harder than they think it is. That's what I was getting at.

As to my identity. I have said my name many times on here, 2-Pop, Red, and other related sites. I've listed my home town, what jobs I've had, what my work is, etc. I'm definitely not hiding behind my avatar, which I view as being for fun. I have also repeatedly referred to my work as average, because it is. And that there are dozens and dozens of people on this very forum that know way more and possess far more skill than I ever will. All of which has nothing to do with anyone else, and certainly isn't referring to anyone else as being cowardly.

Phil Anderson
Portland, Oregon
 
Last edited:
Fair enough, Phil. Sorry for mis-reading your post. I agree with you in spirit, but I would like to say that even though it is hard to make a good film, even if you have poured your entire life into a project, if it's garbage, it's garbage. I would never want to blast a film simply because it doesn't appeal to me. There are plenty of films that are very well made that just don't jive with my taste, and that's fine. But I'm definitely suspicious of the "artsy" filmmaking that is the equivalent of tossing a bucket of red paint against a white wall and then declaring it a masterpiece.
 
Barry_Green said:
Look on IMDB -- it has 88 ratings, with an average of 9.5. It has five user comment reviews, all highly positive. Now, that's early, granted -- but nobody has rated it below a "4" yet.
Click to expand...


I'd discount the 70 10/10 votes it currently has, because - seriously?????

And I believe the earliest online feedback for films are mostly generated by fanboys and the filmmakers themselves. The truth (as you mentioned) comes out well after release, depending upon how soon mass numbers of people see it. I've seen crap films show up on IMDb with a collection of filmmaker created ultra positive comments, but once said crap is released and the audience has a chance to decide - yeah, they unleash the fury.

That said, I hope this "zero budget" film is a good one. I'd rather there were more good films than crap films.
 
Wow, I can't believe this conversation happened over a year ago. They finally added this film to Netflix, so now that I didn't have to spend extra money to see it I checked it out.

And my initial assumption was quite correct. I did enjoy some of the "look" of it, very 60s-ish in style in places, and sometimes the 5D footage looked pretty good. However, I'd say at least a good 1/3 of the movie was out of focus, including focus problems (there are definitely moments where Michael Polish seems to have forgotten in which direction to turn the focus ring) and it felt very "only one take" in nature. Some of the shots are "shaky cam" while others make use of a tripod, with some moves that look like they forgot to loosen up the threads before attempting to tilt up.

As for the story, there's not really any. There's no conflict until the third act really (at one hour and three minutes in) and it's all very ham-fisted, with characters making decisions for no reason that is given. And there are several montages in this film, all of which involve the kind of lifestyle that not many people can experience. The romance is never explained, it's just that over eight years ago they were very much in love and then broke it off for no reason that it's ever given or explained. They just did, I guess so that eight plus years later they could meet again for this film. It's really just an excuse to show two people engaging in lots of PDA all over France. The movie is mostly a scene with some small talk, a montage, another scene with small talk, another montage. I never learned anything I felt let me see into what these characters were truly thinking/feeling. There are a few moments, but they feel like the kind of bulls*%t people give you when they want to sound like they are exposing their soul, but still not being specific enough to actually tell you anything.

All in all, a total wash for me. A few great shots, a lot of bad ones, and no content to speak of outside of some interesting shots of the countryside.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top