El Mariachi and Primer get thrown around a lot as great examples of low/no budget filmmaking and with good reason. They are genre defining examples. So if they can do it...why can't you? Here's why. Let's start with El Mariachi.
El Mariachi was shot for just under $7000 and that was film costs plus a few hundred for miscellaneous expenses. The reasons he did it so cheap was:
He had a partner in his star Carlos Gallardo. They were childhood friends and both had a passion for making movies. Carlos had the town they shot in wired. He knew everybody and he was from a well off family. So he could get his folks employees free as extras or henchmen. He got the hotel, the bus, the turtle, the dog, his apartment, etc... At least $20-30k of production value free because he was able to talk people into giving it away for free. You need a partner or partners who can get stuff free.
Rodriquez wrote the script with everything free in mind. He knew he had those items and he'd been to the town before many times so he could write the script based on what he had avaliable. If you don't got it, don't put it in the script. They say write what you know. Write what you HAVE also.
The most important thing that never gets mention is Rodriquez already had 10 years filmmaking experience prior to shooting El Mariachi. He would make short films on Beta or VHS with his family. He had around 9 brothers and sisters so he got them to be in his short films. He recorded on video and edited on two VCRs hitting pause and play and rec. This taught him how to pre-visualize and edit in his head so he would know which shots to get and what he didn't need. A vital skill when you can only do one take.
Now Primer:
Primer is a better example to first time filmmakers as I believe the writer, director, star Shane Carruth had zero prior movie making experience. BUT, he was an engineer so he knew he needed lots of pre-planning.
He went to every location he had and shot 35mm film stills with various stocks until he got a look he liked then went to the local film distributor and asked how he could emulate that look on 16mm. They like what he did and his vision and helped him out and gave him a discount. EDIT: I also believe the preshoots were designed to find film stocks he could use with the natural light available since he had no crew or wouldn't be able to add lights to the locations.
Like El Mariachi everything was one take because more takes cost more money. He rehearsed and rehearsed and only shot what he needed. Something unnecessary in the digital age, at least until some of the GOP1 hacks started coming out. ^_^
Like Rodriquez he only put in the script stuff, locations and actors he could get for free. His house, his job, wife, friends, family, etc... He did get some actors through regular auditions, like his co-star, and the reason they wanted to be in it was the script was so good they didn't care it was free. Write a good script and people will do it for free.
Now Clerks
Shot for just under $30k, it's still a good example of what to do and what not to do. It shares a lot of the same things as listed above. He had the store. He had his friends and he got actors to work for free because they loved the script. So I'll list the main problem imho. Multiple takes. He wanted the acting a certain way and he wanted long takes so any error and they had to start again. This caused multiple takes of almost every scene. A no-no in the film age, but not as big a deal in Digital.
So in closing the main points are, you either need a great script that attracts people willing to work for nothing or you need a partner/s who can get stuff free. Yes...sadly I have neither at the moment....sob.
It may well be true that "psychological competence" is absolutely required for a successful filmmaking career (if you don't have a famous father in the business, anyway), but the "competence" the filmmaking profession requires typically involves business and organizational skills which are often, if not always, in direct opposition to the temperamental requirements associated with the practice of most art forms -- the ability to perform solitary work, obsessive focus, alienation from the larger community, disinclination to pursue material success, etc.
One result is that filmmaking form typically doesn't mature in the same way other art forms do. The road from Bach to Brahms, or from Shakespeare to Beckett, isn't necessarily a logical development, but does represent a cumulative maturity. Film, meanwhile, typically goes sideways, or gets dumber and dumber.
Different countries have different approaches -- some subsidize the entire film industry, or the art film sector, and this usually allows more neurotic or socially inept types to advance. In the U.S. however, we suffer from an excess of normality, because (I would argue) of the reliance on private and commercial finance. The folks likely to succeed under such a system generally will not be working at the levels of (for example) contemporary novelists, playwrights or composers, because they're competent in the wrong areas. In other words, we may need less business and social competence, in favor of the accomplishments demanded for the practice of most other art forms, but which individuals can lack completely in the movie business.
Yes... yes... absolutely yes. When you leave the realm of being a hobbyist filmmaker, step into the arena of being the filmmaker that does nothing else for a living things change completely. You learn a lot, and you realize that a lot of the things other hobbyist like to say are just things repeated from other sources, not their experience.
Best thing that ever happened to me career-wise was being laid off from my first serious job. That's when I went full bore at this, and the second best thing that ever happened to me was having ALL of my gear stolen in one shot.
That forced me to stop relying on the tools to get jobs, and made me realize that I should step it up a notch. Been pretty great ever sense.
i bet there are a few thousand people out there who have a good enough vision that can really shine out. but only the PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMPETENT people who can actually COMPLETE their idea to a finished film will have that 1% chance. that's when most people continue with their day job and leave filmmaking as a hobby.
'Musgo' - Shot in 7 days on a GH2 for $4,700
http://www.artofthestory.com/filmmaker-interview-gami-orbegoso-creator-of-musgo/
All you need is a damn good story and a damn good director you can get for free. If you have those two elements, the whole cast/crew will form itself around those two and every one will be motivated.
Also the people involved should all love film making as an art and as an activity for people to have fun.
It's all about motivation = story. And if you haven't got the story, you better have the money :p
Also don't expect to live off of it. If you're lucky you will but don't do it for that reason. There's already enough shit being made so please, if all you want is money. stop now :p
These are (some of) my credits so you can judge whether what I say is of any value: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1187456/
If you want to be a filmmaker, you should always be making projects. Ensure that every project you make gets completed and released. Look to work for others as well as on your own projects. Try to build a team but be ready to step in to find a solution (or do it yourself) if something falls through. Have a vision about where you want your career to go, but respond to opportunities that arise. Accept disappointments in how your projects are release/received and figure out how you can stay on track despite the setbacks.
I personally believe that if you take investors' money, you should work responsibly and try to recoup their money and a profit. However, what I see more often is that the directors who successfully break out of the low budget world often do not worry about this but instead make as many projects as they can to build their own personal brand and hope to be discovered. I've spent a lot of time doing too many jobs to complete certain projects on budget or chasing down distributors. It remains to be seen whether this was the best approach for my career.
"I would argue that none of it works. Not the rich kid thing, and not the warrior thing. Other countries have other approaches, but that requires a different approach to the arts."
Agree with you.
At the end i see all here talking about money revenues, no the art of making film with less than $7000. Yes film need money to get it done, but some others took this not the warrior way not the rich kid way, took it their own way.
@Vitaliy_Kiselev Maybe, im just really really really ignorant for some undeveloped country indie film maker like me. But you know, its fine here, im just sharing, im not important, i dont wanna be. I just see it like art. Yes artits need someone to back it up. Here im my own mesenas. Its my hobby as vitality pointet out.
Why do i have to make money with this? Really Why?
Is hobby aircrafting cheap??? no i dont thinks so, but its hobby. Does it make you ear money, YES if you take it to a competitive level, then you have risk, then is a business, need sponsors and you NEED TO WIN. But if you dont compete then you spend money you know it will never ever return, but the smile on your face playing with you plane i asume is priceless. Vitality even make money haking a camnera, no one paid him money to hack GH1, he enjoy it, it was a challenge ( i asume only ). Racing karts is hobby for alot of people, but is not cheap, the 99.9% of them will never get to formula 1, but every one knows that the best drivers from F1 racing come from a background of good Karting taken to a competitive level. It makes me feel that everyone here talks about F1 super champions, but no one about the road of the ones that dont compete, yes cos no one knows them lols!!!!
Does anyone take movies as a hobby here?????????????????? Hello???... i dont think so, doesnt seem to be the case arround this thread. Only money for more than $7000
Its allright, lots of people dont compete, personaly i just like the feeling of making it, and seeing the result, just like other ones like the smell of gasoline and hot engine gases. The end result is just the finish line of the next step for you hobby lol.
Yes, you can make a movie with less than $7000, but in 2012 its pretty clear you wont get any further than your local viewing. With the help of the internerd you may have some visits, buts it allright.
Its that wrong? For some people here it sound like it, and that is the only thing that disapoint me. But its ok, it wont stop others from making movies, crappy ones, tha nobody will ever see, THEY DO EXIST THOUGH, to teach what not to do. Sometimes like in my case as im seeing now, some others paid money to teach others what not to do. Its our money its ok, when is from others, then you have a big problem.
I tend to approach it backwards: what I see out of the current DIY movement isn't of great interest (to me, anyway), and the same has been the true since the beginning of the American "indie boom", in the early 90s or late 80s, if you go back and see what they were doing then. With very few exceptions, there's little to admire, at a wide range of budgets, once you divorce these works from the indie mystique and the fables surrounding their making. And judging by the box-office of these films, audiences weren't and aren't thrilled either.
So I can't see that any of the current approaches "works", except for those few filmmakers who happen to hit the jackpot. But while it's easy to envy their success, it's much harder to admire their films.
I would argue that none of it works. Not the rich kid thing, and not the warrior thing. Other countries have other approaches, but that requires a different approach to the arts.
The Warrior, TO ME, is someone who doesn't have much to start with but fights to do what they want to do. People who use whatever they have to make it happen, despite the flaws etc. Maybe there's a different meaning in it for you, which I can respect.
What Ted Hope talks about, sometimes, does seem to reflect on the fact that things are changing so they can stay the same, or that he has to take a lesser paycheck or be forced out of the only place he sort of "fits in" to the industry.
I do get behind this specific post of his, and again, it's just the reality of it. It may appear different for me because this is all I do with my life, I don't work a second job outside of the industry, and I am doing my own work while trying to float in Los Angeles. I'm far from rich, half the time I'm late paying rent (first world problems, I know.)
Suppose it just means something different to others, which is all good.
All this "warrior talk" recalls, for me at least, the American self-realization delusion industry. Be what you want to be, etc.
Ted Hope, for example, recently produced a film written/directed by Martin Donovan. Was it because Donovan is a Warrior (or came up with a startling original script, the best Ted Hope could find) or because he's well known as an actor?
You know the answer as well as I do.
Guys, want to note that quote is made using ">" before paragraph, not each line, btw.
Like this:
So, all that said, yeah, I do think that there are Warriors and that there are Wealthy, having the instinct to make it happen if you are a Warrior is still very important, but knowing which one you are makes things a lot easier.
You can use page refresh in browser, as I also changed slightly it's style.
In response to the idea that there are so many people doing this and it's hard to break through the noise:
-- Robert Rodriguez and Tarantino touch on this topic. They are split on their opinions, I find Tarantino's to be a reflection of how the industry flows, especially with what @kae said about the majors mining minor talent (to their detriment or not.)Hate on Dunham all you want, but she not only took tops at THE film festival to even get selected in, but she was taken under the wing of Judd Apatow and immediately segued into her own television show, of basically the same concept.
It also wasn't her first feature, interesting fact. =P
-- http://blogs.indiewire.com/tedhope/a_career_in_indie_film_better_have_that_second_job_lined_up
It occurs to me that only the rich kids, those who have ridiculous connections, and the warriors will survive. The world is becoming more stratified every day; why should film be any different? As the middle class disappears in the larger economy and society, so too shall it disappear from film. My partner and I struggle every day with the poverty that our decision to be active participants in our culture has brought us. But what should I do instead? Sacrifice my soul to go work at some awful job? -- From the comments.
This is a good read from a producer that's been neck-deep in Independent Cinema for most of his life, and the comments that follow are very thought-provoking. When they say that only the Rich and the Warriors will survive, that's the reality of this business.
True, expecting to succeed on persistence alone is definitely not the way to go, yet well-aimed persistence typically breeds the kinds of relationships and connections that you do need to survive and make a career out of this stuff.
I'd have to say that it's pretty fairly split (at first thought) between the rich and the warrior, and some of the rich are still warriors in their own right, battling over large denominators to finance their projects or aspirations.
I can't personally get behind the novelist comparison. But, let's not forget that there are warriors in that arena as well as silver-spooned authors. It isn't free to write a novel technically, you need to have time and time equals rent/mortgage, food, living.
So, all that said, yeah, I do think that there are Warriors and that there are Wealthy, having the instinct to make it happen if you are a Warrior is still very important, but knowing which one you are makes things a lot easier.
"It's plain and simple: some people just do not get it, and as harsh a reality as that is, it's even more a reality than the fact that you either have what it takes or you do not. What it takes may be defined as what Ted Hope calls "The Warrior" "
The trouble here is, if we want to be rational and regard moviemaking as a business, then "indie" aspirations and behavior are idiotic, based on the averages, whether we regard ourselves as "Warriors" or not: only a tiny handful of people manage to earn decent livings as film directors, world-wide. Expecting to succeed on persistence alone is folly.
But if we regard moviemaking as an art, and would-be superstars expect to succeed on their own unique merit, then talk about being a Warrior isn't going to help much. How many people in the arts, traditionally, are "Warriors" in the business sense? If novelists had to finance and secure the locations and players of their novels, before they could realize these works, how many great novels would get written and what kind of "writer" would be attracted to the medium?
Unfortunately, most of us hold the fallacies of both views at the same time -- namely that's there a decent chance of making money despite miserable odds and that we're Great Artists despite any proof of that claim, even on paper.
The result is tens of millions dollars down the drain, annually.
I'm more so saying that I don't give a damned what people say if the money's being returned, made, etc. People will always talk, just like people lambast "The Hollywood System" but look at how much money it does bring in.
Naturally, if you're not making your budgets back or constantly in the red then you probably need to rethink what you're doing.
I don't think NewDeal meant not caring about investors getting paid back, that's sort of obvious. But, what other people say and all the talk that goes on. It's just white noise. Some may not like your work, but if the distribution deal's there and you're able to recoup, that's saying plenty enough.
Paul W.S. Anderson is still making movies, isn't he? LOL
"I won't give two damneds either way if people like my first feature or not. I'm already on to a second one on an even LOWER budget. Once you get to the point where you're doing instead of talking all of the background voices become noise that you learn to tune out... and the only thing that matters is finishing what you started and starting something else that you can finish."
The above is perfectly valid if all you want to do is keep churning out film after film and have the deep pockets to finance them. Hell, Van Gough probably didn't give a shit if people liked his paintings either. But I think a lot of folks here want to work their way up to bigger films that can reach an audience and for that you need bigger budgets and INVESTORS. And investors DESERVE to get their money back and people that help you by working for free the first couple of times deserve to get PAID at some point so eventually you reach the crossroads where you have to ask "Is there an audience for my "films" or isn't there? " And at this point you damn well better care if people like your stuff or not. Because if they don't, maybe there is more you need to learn and you can only learn it by feedback - especially the negative feedback. If you keep hearing the same negative things over and over again from your audience, 9 times out of 10 they aren't the ones with their heads up their ass.
I learned this the hard way. Test screening audiences are precious to me now. I watch them like a hawk - and learn.
I also agree with both of your posts here in the thread. Especially the first one.
The people who are successful, no matter if they do good or bad work, are DOING work.
Otherwise, yeah, you either have it or you do not have it. If you do not, then you can make up for it by studying hard, practicing frequently, or cash.
"Second approach - Guy who invest time to make a team..."
Agree with the above EXCEPT you have to have the innate talent to direct and after all these years I really think you have to be born with it. Sure, you can progress technically. And I do think great directors become greater with each film they notch on their belt but a lot of folks keep making movies that are crap because they don't have the innate talent. Meaning, they can't judge a good line reading from a bad one. They don't have a feel for good lighting and wouldn't know it if they saw it. They can't write great dialogue or great screenplays. They can't pinpoint what's wrong with the rhythm of an edited sequence. Unfortunately, some of this can be learned but most of it can't.
That's why it's great to be able to mount a movie with very little money and show it to people. You can face your limitations and attempt to surmount them. But hard work alone won't make you a Spielberg, Nolan, Coppola, Hitchcock or Scorsese. All these guys had it right out of the box, when they were young, I'd dare say when they were born. They're all great businessmen (Coppola less than the others) but first and foremost -- they were great artists.
I agree with most of your posts, but Tarantino was not a first time Director when attacking RESERVOIR DOGS. That's a well-known fact, and that movie was not cheap, either. In fact, none of the three features you cite were cheap.
Again, I agree with you and of everyone in this thread I think you've got the most sane and experienced perspective on "how things work", but great films DO cost a lot of money, and you can easily go and find the budgets of the greatest, most recognized motion pictures in the short history of motion picture to corroborate that.
Coppola would agree with you, I think. His primary gig is NOT motion picture, it's selling wine. Many times and many places he can be cited as saying that. In fact, here:
"We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script. "
-- http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-On-Risk-Money-Craft-Collaboration
Enjoy, as I think he's speaking directly to the kind of artist that you are. Which I am not, but I respect and feel as though I understand.
As for this topic and contributing something, cool, here you go:
The reason why people can't do it is because they just don't understand it. Plain and simple . These surface "facts", misquoting statements, inability to parse real and applicable, timeless data from the stories (sometimes fables) of success. You are not Shane Carruth, Shane Carruth is Shane Carruth. You are not Kevin Smith. You are not Robert Rodriguez. The year is 2012, and things have changed drastically yet are more the same than ever.
Tireless crusades against the way "Hollywood works" by people who've never done anything or even false ideals on how things are, or should work. This is a silly one, and the mark of the couch crusading filmmaker.
It's plain and simple: some people just do not get it, and as harsh a reality as that is, it's even more a reality than the fact that you either have what it takes or you do not. What it takes may be defined as what Ted Hope calls "The Warrior" or you've just got a ton of money to do what you want to do like John Aglialoro.
You get it first, then you decide if you have what it takes, and then you either leave or you stay. Whether it's for money for for the love of the art, a combination of both. That's the REALITY of it. Not the fantasy version.
If you want to get somewhere, like NewDeal said, get on with it. I agree, I won't give two damneds either way if people like my first feature or not. I'm already on to a second one on an even LOWER budget. Once you get to the point where you're doing instead of talking all of the background voices become noise that you learn to tune out... and the only thing that matters is finishing what you started and starting something else that you can finish.
And, as always, feel free to take it with a grain of salt.
Here is how I look this:
First approach - "Indie" guy who very small or now team doing all by himself, spending his own money and getting few views on youtube, constantly talking about amazing hidden art value in his works. This is just hobby.
Second approach - Guy who invest time to make a team, sometimes not very skillled team, get enough funding and who understand how they could return this funding (and this is really harder than shoot something). He make the film, learn how to work with people and helps them improve their skills during this work. And aftert this he also interact with sales and marketing professionals and always return the money with profit. This is professional work, even if you are beginner.
Most of indie films looks so shitty exactly because people "write, direct, edit, shoot, compose all by themselfs....
well - this comment pertained to 'indie'. The moment James Cameron does this we call him superman. Just goes to show- if you are going to do something, make sure that it doesn't SUCK first.
i dont think is a bad position. Bunch of money, in what economy, here you dont need that much to make it happen. I dont ask for money so i dont have to return nothing, i put my own money, just like when you buy your own pen and book for writing. I spect no return from this, just finish it. And about that comment :
"getting money and never returning them under false pretense, as you made shit film or average film that you are unable to sell to public".
I dont understand why is that to do in my position? I have made no false pretense, or shit film, or avare film, im not selling it to anyone, i just making movie, 2 hours long, for sharing with other to see, i spect no more thant a critic in form of return for improving next time.
From my experience, about 1/2 who work in the industry are fairly "disconnected" and it's just another job for them. Many of those are in the industry just because their parents worked in the industry and it was an easy path to a good paying job. Good for them. It's a good job, and we need there experience and skills.
The other 1/2 work in the industry as it is a constant learning experience, and it funds their own private creative obsessions too. You learn a lot about directing when you work with directors every day and watch footage everyday. What you feel works and what you feel doesn't work. The hours are often long and unreasonable compared to most any other job. But you also get the rare opportunity to swim in and around many amazing crafts, including critical things like amazing food service and drivers as skilled artists. Trust me. When someone has a great idea, you can easily find a crew of friends from your work to dive in and share your passion to complete your idea. For free. Just because we are just as curious and obsessed as you. Someone shared their vision, and we are hooked too. While many in the industry are very disconnected, there are just as many others that are here because we are addicted to those days we get to work with amazing talent. Some are famous, but many, many others are inside the crafts that most will never get a chance to experience and enjoy.
A great movie is a great movie. Budget doesn't make a great movie. Directors, talent, crew, and editing do.
Look at just three of the best movies which were by "first time" directors, over a span of 70 years. (Reality is these were usually their 20th completed creative project, as they all worked in the biz in some way before doing this, but they all didn't follow many of the traditional rules...)
Citizen Kane Reservoir Dogs American Beauty
Watch those three movies again. Be comfortable just doing what you want. They did. Yes, the world may not praise you as a new god, and throw silly money at you. But you will have proven to yourself you can complete it and you will be a better person for doing it. And you will quickly see what you do well, what you need to learn, and where you need help to make your next vision really deliver. And then other obsessed people will see and step up to help you. Just, they will never know they want to work with you until you do something. Just do it.
Everyone respects anyone who has completed any movie over anyone who hasn't... Go to war. Either carry all the bags yourself or find/keep your troops motivated. Just do it.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!