Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

"Are Indie Movies Getting Too Pretty"

"What's more, should films like the Detroit-is-burning documentary Burn or its Sundance cousin Detropia, look as beautiful as they do?"

Well, would a documentary about dysentery have to be brown to be valid?
 
I stand by the same principle I always have - make the tools fit the story. If an audience member walks out of the theater feeling like the visuals didn't quite match the story being told, it can be a failure, at least through that audience member's eyes. If many people feel that way about it, then it probably is a failure. The Hobbit is very interesting. The audience seems to be split on the visual aesthetics of HFR.

There are many movies and TV shows I have seen shot digitally that lack texture and life in my opinion.
 
I don't view this as a negative point of how technology has become available for indie filmmakers to shoot with, but what I do find negative is the emphasis on "Look, we have a RED camera now, the SAME camera that Hobbit and Social Network was shot on, so our film must turn out looking EXACTLY like that"... story, locations and all other facets of making a film are being eclipsed by the notion that the camera is the one that's supposed to make all of that happen.

It's troubling when I'm approached by a director or a producer because I happen to own a RED, pick me for my services as a DP and my equipment... then not throw any money into other areas of production and expect me to make it look like a Hollywood film. This is being all too common nowadays and it's hindering the indie world I think. Sure there are great stories out there but the production team behind them gets everything right with the proper amount of money, and usually it turns out to be somewhat successful.

Too many directors and producers are being caught up in this 4K, RED camera, 20 stops of lattitude bullshit... they need to leave that to the DP and his team and turn around to pay attention on the REAL aspects... like... the STORY for example...

Just my $0.02
 
Respectable, but at what point does a literal interpretation become hackneyed? Can you communicate urban decay in a technically proficient way without detracting from the overall story? I think so. I haven't seen Detroit Is Burning so I can't speak to that in particular, but I don't think we have to interpret every aspect of story in order to tell it completely, particularly in Documentary. A shiny picture of a pile of shit is still a picture of a pile of shit. The sheen might even add to the description ;-)

I tend to subscribe to the notion that the documentary film maker should be as transparent as possible and keep the focus on the subject. Calling attention to the film making is ego getting in the way. Steve, You've done a lot of Doco work, yes? What are your thoughts on that idea?

Steve Sherrick said:
I stand by the same principle I always have - make the tools fit the story. If an audience member walks out of the theater feeling like the visuals didn't quite match the story being told, it can be a failure, at least through that audience member's eyes. If many people feel that way about it, then it probably is a failure. The Hobbit is very interesting. The audience seems to be split on the visual aesthetics of HFR.

There are many movies and TV shows I have seen shot digitally that lack texture and life in my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Aesthetic is obviously an important creative choice that will impact upon the story, and you'd have to agree it is becoming more beautiful by "default" but not just because of cameras. Lighting and grip equipment has also gotten cheaper and more accessible, and the impacts of the power we now have in post production, and the incredible amount of information/knowledge we can access to enhance and trouble shoot has a huge impact on what people can now more readily achieve. A lot more people can "choose" to make their project look beautiful. But yes, a gritty or even downright ugly aesthetic can really help a piece to be more impactful or immersive too. I just watched an Australian film again last night that i'm a big fan of, the "Magician" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0461989/ -- ugly as sin by todays standards, and a perfect fit for it's mesmerising lead and story line.

For me the interesting line of questioning is, are the majority of film makers now choosing beauty over grittier aesthetics because they creatively prefer them, or because they can, or perhaps because once you create a beautiful image, it takes balls to ugly it up. :)

Just had this discussion in post yesterday with a director, where it is so easy for us to "beautify" female actors etc these days... but you have to come down to what best serves the mood and story your going for. We uglied them up a little :) Personally I think there is a genuine "pull" to beautify things now, because we can. At least I feel it, and it requires conviction to serving the story to help make the best choice. But that's the heart of the craft isn't it.

All in all, I think a honey moon period with every new love occurs. But like always, it'll come full circle. And I'm sure the author will have more diffused, cine grained footage being presented. But things evolve too... and this is good! :)) And by my reckoning, a festival default level of "glistening cinematography" is easier to watch than a festival default of "ugly" footage.
 
Last edited:
I think the author was noticing something, but got the point Completely Backwards. I think what has happened is that it is easier to have a a documentary with bad cinematography because it is easier to shoot a professional camera now. Few years ago, many documentary's were often as beautiful as feature films, mainly because just not anyone can shoot film at some random location away from a rental store. Now in about 1 day, you can pick up a digital camera and get a "quick" look that is kind of professional ... but really all the art of cinematography is missing. For example, some of my favorite documentaries have beautiful shallow depth of field portraits, and the cinematography tells the story. (my recent favorite doc is "Nostalgia for the Light"). It's not digital vs film, it's recording vs cinematography.
 
Scott Crawley said:
Respectable, but at what point does a literal interpretation become hackneyed? Can you communicate urban decay in a technically proficient way without detracting from the overall story? I think so. I haven't seen Detroit Is Burning so I can't speak to that in particular, but I don't think we have to interpret every aspect of story in order to tell it completely, particularly in Documentary. A shiny picture of a pile of shit is still a picture of a pile of shit. The sheen might even add to the description ;-)

I tend to subscribe to the notion that the documentary film maker should be as transparent as possible and keep the focus on the subject. Calling attention to the film making is ego getting in the way. Steve, You've done a lot of Doco work, yes? What are your thoughts on that idea?
Click to expand...
Yes, I grew up in the doc world, spending my first 8 years in the industry working at a prominent documentary house. I think there are a lot of tools available now that help the doc filmmaker. Cameras with great low light ability, Small, portable, low heat lighting instruments, advancements in wireless mic technology, and post production tools that we could only dream of back when I started. What I'm saying is, using those tools in a way to best tell the story is still the key. For example, DPs used to do a lot more in camera when it came to effects for dramatizations, or specific interview styles, etc. They would soften, dirty, contaminate the image to give it a look. Today, you have the option to do it at camera or in post. Whatever suits the story and what you are trying to achieve.

As for narrative, I like a lot of stuff right now. Love The Walking Dead (shot on film), Sons of Anarchy (shot on Genesis and Alexa), and Beasts of the Southern Wild (16mm). I enjoyed Hitchcock (RED) as well. I've enjoyed a lot of the work shown here on Reduser which is right in the heart of indie land.

Looking back on my earlier statement, I should probably be careful about saying digital lacks life. That's too generalized. there are movies shot on film that lack life as well.
 
Shervin Mandgaryan said:
Too many directors and producers are being caught up in this 4K, RED camera, 20 stops of lattitude bullshit... they need to leave that to the DP and his team and turn around to pay attention on the REAL aspects... like... the STORY for example...

Just my $0.02
Click to expand...


Yup! Working in a rental house, so many people come in renting out equipment that any hollywood blockbuster production would be envious of (slight exaggeration obv), and I'm always curious to know what they're shooting. After hearing their "story", it seem obvious to me that their story isn't as complete as say their rental package is. Anyone remember AVATAR when it came out? So many people hated it due to its story...they didn't care for any of the effect work at all. Story story story!
 
Steve Sherrick said:
Yes, I grew up in the doc world, spending my first 8 years in the industry working at a prominent documentary house. I think there are a lot of tools available now that help the doc filmmaker. Cameras with great low light ability, Small, portable, low heat lighting instruments, advancements in wireless mic technology, and post production tools that we could only dream of back when I started. What I'm saying is, using those tools in a way to best tell the story is still the key. For example, DPs used to do a lot more in camera when it came to effects for dramatizations, or specific interview styles, etc. They would soften, dirty, contaminate the image to give it a look. Today, you have the option to do it at camera or in post. Whatever suits the story and what you are trying to achieve.

As for narrative, I like a lot of stuff right now. Love The Walking Dead (shot on film), Sons of Anarchy (shot on Genesis and Alexa), and Beasts of the Southern Wild (16mm). I enjoyed Hitchcock (RED) as well. I've enjoyed a lot of the work shown here on Reduser which is right in the heart of indie land.

Looking back on my earlier statement, I should probably be careful about saying digital lacks life. That's too generalized. there are movies shot on film that lack life as well.
Click to expand...

FYI...Walking Dead is also 16mm (still film, but a surprising choice right?)
 
So I read the article, and am not surprised.

Yes, digital has made it easier for indie projects to look high budget. Call it glossy or whatever. Things in general look better. Because the cost of "gloss" has come down dramatically, and because our multi-platform industry has exploded. There are exponentially more DP's and people working in our medium than ever before (many on low budgets). The web and the 200 channels on your cable box have helped make that happen.

What this writer doesn't take into consideration is that many of this know this already. The hunt to create an "organic" image (that doesn't look digital) is one of many reactions to this. So is the hunt for old glass, Super Speeds, unusual filtration...whatever it takes to "dirty up" the image and give it some character...
 
I confess I don't know what "indie" means anymore apart from being a marketing term. As far as I can tell, it stopped having meaning late in the last century.

At this moment, probably thousands of things are being shot and probably 95% are not from a major studio or network. So, if virtually everything being produced as I write this is "indie," aren't dependent productions the exception? Films should just be called films unless they are being produced by a major, and then they should be called dependent productions and films. Or, to follow the trend of the kids who have come into the business and insist on cutie-fying all the names of gear and jobs (scriptie, crafite, etc.), I guess we should call dependent films "deppies."

Also, any major studio can become "indie" overnight. They just start a subsidiary and, pow, a new "indie" film company.
 
Content / story is king. And with the proliferation of readily available high quality equipment, just about anyone can polish a turd these days. Not sure what else there is to say...
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Content / story is king. And with the proliferation of readily available high quality equipment, just about anyone can polish a turd these days. Not sure what else there is to say...
Click to expand...

On the flip side of that there are lots of documentaries being made nowadays that never would have been made pre-"democratization". Most of them are poorly shot, but you could call them diamonds in the rough.

diamonds in the rough:polished turds=yin:yang

There is balance in the matrix and all is well.
 
Savva Svet said:
Anyone remember AVATAR when it came out? So many people hated it due to its story...they didn't care for any of the effect work at all. Story story story!
Click to expand...

It's a solid point that story is important but it would be more persuasive if you didn't choose the most successful movie of all time as an example of how *not* to make a movie. :P My take away from your example would be that I shouldn't focus on story if you think bad stories result in huge success. Call me a sell-out but in my opinion film is a medium to deliver a message. If you have no audience then your message doesn't matter. To take it to an extreme, if Martin Luther King was a small town baptist minister who never amounted to anything it wouldn't matter how great his speeches were.

Documentaries are generally opinionated and persuasion pieces. Building an audience is really really hard. Building a large audience for a documentary is even harder yet. Sure if you shoot on a cell phone a few people might watch it if it has amazing content but good audio and picture eliminates one more excuse/obstacle for someone to spend their time watching your documentary. And while it might minimize the art to some degree it'll undoubtedly boost your audience. The Atlantic writer is lamenting the loss of the super grainy 8mm documentary... that nobody except for Atlantic film reviewers ever watched. I say fuck that. Documentaries are more popular than ever and I think part of that can be traced to documentaries becoming more approachable.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
It's a solid point that story is important but it would be more persuasive if you didn't choose the most successful movie of all time as an example of how *not* to make a movie. :P My take away from your example would be that I shouldn't focus on story if you think bad stories result in huge success.
Click to expand...

I was trying to use Avatar as an example of expert film making, from a technical standpoint. It was sick! No exception (again in technical terms). But whenever I ask, "Did you see Avatar", everyone's response (in my experience) is "Yea, the story is so lame". So even the most successful film in Hollywood is still being poked at for lack of a great story. Because that's what it all comes down to. STORY! Once you have that, then it's about how you tell it, which is an entirely different conversation. =)
 
The story can actually be visual..

Ie. baraka was released in iTunes this past week. Zero dialog, but still a completely visual story driven by images and technical achievement (in 70mm no less)

so the visual element enhance the story, in some cases makes the story, low budget well written, well acted indy actor movies, succeed.

i think most Indy films fall to crap with bad scripts but more importantly, bad acting and worse, both.

the only think that kills a story is falseness, when everything rings perfectly true except the performance and that is the job of the writers and actors. Major film centers in the world tend to attract the best of both and thus some great Indy films can happen.

but don't worry so much about how things look. Look to see if the performances ring true, that is what kills even the biggest budget films.

A good example is "mean streets" not a great looking movie, but the actors (at the time) ring true, it had a tension and documentary feel and it helped launch the career of actors and the director.

Maybe it's important to do something original than to do something pretty.

david
 
It is all to easy for a director, struggling to engage the entire process, to take refuge in the comfort zone of the tech than to grasp the nettle of working with the actors. Then it also goes the other way round. Stating the obvious - it is all about balance - and seeing the forest and the twigs, not just the trees. Rare people have the mental and organisational facility to do that. In the meantime for many more of us, "pretty bad" is now within our grasp.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Content / story is king. And with the proliferation of readily available high quality equipment, just about anyone can polish a turd these days. Not sure what else there is to say...
Click to expand...

Beasts of the Southern Wild is proof of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top