Scarlet = No More Excuses

[Tom Lowe]

In a sense, internet technology like Youtube or DIGG or Bit Torrents could be one answer to what you are talking about, David. Generally speaking, stuff that people want to watch racks up large numbers of views (or seeders on Bit Torrents), even if it's just some college chick lip-syncing in her underwear, or a guy who happened to catch an animal doing something funny or whatever.

As of now, these technologies are not mature by any stretch of the imagination. But maybe one day, they will help to propel high-quality indies into large worldwide distribution via (hopefully to some extent legitimate) broadband or electronic distribution. Even if 90% of your viewers are pirating the movie, its popularity might get you some lucrative Bluray sales or cable distribution deals, etc. Who knows. It's a brave new world, and as always, I have faith that quality work will find a way...

 

[David Rasberry]

There was an interesting story on PBS radio a few weeks back about the American Film Market. A week long event that is more like a street bazaar than a festival where cheap features are sold for foreign distribution. Mind you these are films that would likely never see a screen in this country, small or large. Genre films, action, horror, and cheap sci-fi/fantasy are staples. The gist of the story was if you could make films efficiently for around $300k budget and sell them for $500k at the rate of two or three a year, you could make a living at it.
I worked as pick-up crew on one of these back in the 80's, though I didn't know that is what it was at the time.
Has anyone here ever done productions for this market?

 

[jpp]

It's more likely that art films will never be profitable, and that there's no distribution method, present or future, which will ever recoup the costs of a professional production. To take Tom's favorite, what Malick film has made money lately, despite advertising budgets and press coverage far broader than anything an indie could ever hope to come up with?

I've said so many times before here, but this is why most governments subsidize their film industries, including the art film sector. Art and alternative film doesn't make money. It's never made money as an industry. It may be profitable or glorious for the filmmaker, thanks to the doors it opens or the satisfactions of the work. But it's rarely profitable for investors.

And while it's certainly true that Reservoir Dogs and Badlands were cheap by Hollywood standards, most of us would never be able to raise such budgets, notwithstanding limited locations, small casts or natural light. To take the more current example, and the easier one to shoot by far, Reservoir Dogs was budgeted around $2.5 million(?) and, if I remember correctly, it's theatrical gross barely broke that production figure. And that's a far more accessible film than most art endeavors.

It's a brave new world, and as always, I have faith that quality work will find a way...

We really can't do otherwise than to believe that, but the rub is, "quality work" which might eventually find an audience, may well never get financed. And there's no audience for imaginary films.

 

[Tom Lowe]

David Rasberry, I worked on a couple of shoots in LA with a guy called Serge Rodnunsky (sergerodnunsky.com) who does just what you are talking about. He shoots two or three $200K features per year and sells them at AFM for a tidy profit. He pays washed-up stars to appear in them, and cuts the films himself on a home studio.

His pictures are actually really great to work on. The first show I did with him, I did everything from rigging lights to driving a stunt car!

 

[Nils J. Nesse]

David Rasberry, I worked on a couple of shoots in LA with a guy called Serge Rodnunsky (sergerodnunsky.com) who does just what you are talking about. He shoots two or three $200K features per year and sells them at AFM for a tidy profit. He pays washed-up stars to appear in them, and cuts the films himself on a home studio.

His pictures are actually really great to work on. The first show I did with him, I did everything from rigging lights to driving a stunt car!

Cool. Can you recommend a good Serge Rodnusky film?

Jack of Hearts has an impressive cast, M. Emmet Walsh, Ben Gazzara and... Roddy Piper!

 

[jpp]

Don't want to kick the corpse when it's down, this hopeless thread has apparently run its course, but one element of the structural failure can't be overstated since it's ultimately so destructive and self-perpetuating, assured failure.

The poor quality of writing in indie film, which Scarlet won't address, is almost certainly the direct result of the way American indies are financed. Whether they aspire to direct their own material or are just happy writing screenplays, strong, skilled writers, the kind who have spent years learning the craft, simply don't go into the indie medium today -- unless maybe they're terminally deluded.

It's one thing to dream about somehow or other making a movie, or even to buy an EX1 or a Scarlet and try to make one. But it's impossible to sit in the room 8-hours a day working on screenplays, week after week, year after year, on the expectation that someone else is going to invest in what, on its face, is not a commercial property, in a medium where ignorance and bad judgment are the norm.

Auteurist theory is fine and well, but in practice what we get in the U.S. of A are would-be directors who are even worse writers, and on whom a great deal of indie money is lost, year after year. Short of a miracle, there's no way for this system to redeem itself. The wrong people will always be making the movies and the wrong movies will always be getting made, because the packages are fundamentally defective from the start.

Resolution won't cure any of this.

 

[James T Mather]

Very true. Jpp is my favourite poster here. Hands down.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

110% agree with jpp's post above.

Just want to add that, while all that is true... There is still no shortage of bad writing in Hollywood, broadcast television and elsewhere. It also doesn't help with the various financial or bureaucratic pressures that can dictate how concepts are developed or implemented and on what schedules and budgets.

Many parts to a whole, when creating a film. But at its fundamental core, story is king. It's all about the story... This is often lost on the indie crowd. It seems that so many aspiring young filmmakers have the dream of getting their hands on a really cool camera so they can shoot a movie.

 

[Tom Lowe]

As Jeff points out, most of the big-budget feature writing is a total disgrace to humanity, so paying these guys millions to sit around churning out the same old crap doesn't seem to help much either.

Also, generally speaking, it should not take years to write a screenplay, for godssake.

While I agree with much of what jpp says, he's also terminally negative on anyone being able to break though into mainstream success. Nolan did it with a great little short that led to Memento, which then culminated this year with the wild success of The Dark Knight. It can be done. Aronofsky did it, too.

IMO, talent with patience and perseverance will find a way. If becoming a successful narrative film director was easy, believe me everyone would do it.

 

[jpp]

Just want to add that, while all that is true... There is still no shortage of bad writing in Hollywood, broadcast television and elsewhere.

Agreed. For my dime, the one oasis is, or at least was, cable TV. "The Sopranos", "The Wire", "Deadwood", etc. won't be to all tastes, and the shows probably overstayed their welcome, and that diet can get tiresome after a while, but the writing intelligence on display was unique to the industry. It could be the difference between letting [real] writers run the show, and letting producers and sponsors run the show.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

The Palmer Plan...

The Palmer Plan...

The wrong people will always be making the movies and the wrong movies will always be getting made, because the packages are fundamentally defective from the start.

Resolution won't cure any of this.

They probably have not read "Photoplay Plot Encyclopedia" by Frederick Palmer published by the Palmer Photoplay Corporation Department of Education Hollywood Cal. Second Revisied Edition, Copyright 1922.

That was part of the larger Palmer Plan, its newsletter, and related "script schools" of the era influenced the "Hollywood" style of script and filmmaking.

I was listening to Frank Capra speak to some firends a while back and he said that "people who don't have something to say (in a film) shoud not make films".

If you are making a film to make money in the first place you are probably doomed, and that goes not just for low budget films but for all films at any price.

It was mentioned before that today few people would rent "Following (1998)" for entertainment, but how many woud rent the musical version of "Lost Horizon (1973)", is there a place where we can get the counts?

A camera that produces "normal" looking results at much lower cost, might let someone make something that could not afford to otherwise. The choice before was "cheep and low grade" or "too much for normal grade". If you get normal grade for cheep, it does put you just one step up from where you would have been, is that enough to make up for all the other knocks against you, no, but being able to shoot at a higher ratio can let you reshoot and over shoot more and that can help make up for poor actors and give the editor more to work with. If Scarlet comes closer to 35mm at half the price of a REDONE how can that not be a good thing? And something world changing, even if in your eyes just a small change.

 

[jpp]

he's also terminally negative on anyone being able to break though into mainstream success. Nolan did it with a great little short that led to Memento, which then culminated this year with the wild success of The Dark Knight. It can be done. Aronofsky did it, too.

IMO, talent with patience and perseverance will find a way. If becoming a successful narrative film director was easy, believe me everyone would do it.

Both Nolan and Aronofsky rode to Hollywood on their successes. Nothing wrong with that, but their success isn't proof that directors with non-commercial aspirations succeed. And not everyone admires their work, beyond -- especially in the case of Nolan -- technical accomplishments, of a high order.

It might be true of novel writing or sculpture to say that "patience and perserverence will find a way". But, given the financing requirements, I don't believe it's true in the movie business, and even less so in countries without public funding. There's a reason there's no American Bergman, Antonioni, Tarkovsky, Fellini, Mizoguchi, Im Kwan-taek, Clarie Denis, Hou Hsaio-Hsein, etc. And there's also a reason why so much Hollywood film is mediocre, even on its own terms.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Agreed. For my dime, the one oasis is, or at least was, cable TV. "The Sopranos", "The Wire", "Deadwood", etc. won't be to all tastes, and the shows probably overstayed their welcome, and that diet can get tiresome after a while, but the writing intelligence on display was unique to the industry. It could be the difference between letting [real] writers run the show, and letting producers and sponsors run the show.

Yep. I liked the Sopranos at first, but it changed for me or perhaps I just got tired of it somewhere around season 3. I seem to be in the minority, but I liked the first season of Six Feet Under... The show just "lost it" halfway through season 2, IMO, by the time season 5 came around, I was like "damn, that show is still on???". Can someone tell me why Entourage is so popular? Never got into The Wire or Weeds and some of the others that have done well.

As for network TV... Some real anomalies there. I can't understand the appeal to The Office. Then there's HEROES -- good idea gone wrong, what a circle jerk that has become. CSI and its derivatives -- Zzzzzz..... 24 -- Pull the plug already. As for non-episodic offerings; please, no more talk shows, variety shows, and reality shows. Then again, if someone makes a reality show called "Dude, I slept with your mom", I'm down for watching at least one episode of that.

 

[James T Mather]

I think the contention generally that all these threads inevitably lead to is that a camera is only a small part of the equation for mainstream production. Ie: the costs inherent in narrative production are far greater than simply stock & processing. That is all. But have at it by all means.

For my part, I have never met a director/writer of an independent production who doesn't consider his script/film a cruelly overlooked masterpiece where as the reality of the situation is that different tastes etc make it difficult if not impossible to agree on a projects direction. One man's taste is anothers trash. The alternative? Writing by committee doesn't seem to produce better results. It seems to me, however, that convincing financiers of a projects viability is an important step in its development.

 

[jpp]

For my part, I have never met a director/writer of an independent production who doesn't consider his script/film a cruelly overlooked masterpiece

And, more often than not, it's a "writer" who's never voluntarily read a work of literature or theater, doesn't know film classics, and can barely get through a business letter....

In a system like ours, dependent entirely on private and commercial funding, the standards will ultimately be those of the funders, or the self-opinion of the filmmakers if they have resources of their own.

Commercial prospects aside, I have to think there are defensible standards of quality even if it's next to impossible in the movie businessto arrive at consensus. It's just that most people in this business don't know, and have no basis to know. Tell the average adult that he draws like a 6-year old and is a poor judge of fine art, and he's unlikely to punch you in the mouth, if he thinks about it a little. But tell the average adult or business person or movie investor that his grasp of narrative is that of a 6-year old, and you're in for trouble.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Both Nolan and Aronofsky rode to Hollywood on their successes. Nothing wrong with that, but their success isn't proof that directors with non-commercial aspirations succeed. And not everyone admires their work, beyond -- especially in the case of Nolan -- technical accomplishments, of a high order.

It might be true of novel writing or sculpture to say that "patience and perserverence will find a way". But, given the financing requirements, I don't believe it's true in the movie business, and even less so in countries without public funding. There's a reason there's no American Bergman, Antonioni, Tarkovsky, Fellini, Mizoguchi, Im Kwan-taek, Clarie Denis, Hou Hsaio-Hsein, etc. And there's also a reason why so much Hollywood film is mediocre, even on its own terms.

I think most film-industry people admire Memento. I could be wrong, but I think Nolan is generally respected and admired. Both he and Aronofsky made it the old fashioned way, with talent and dedication and a hell of a lot of luck.

"No American Bergman..."? What do you call Malick?

jpp, I understand and agree with much of what you say, but there is also something to be said for the old line from Han Solo, "Never tell me the odds!" Sure, the chances of becoming a successful filmmaker based on talent are ridiculously slim. But so are the odds of becoming an Olympic athlete, or a rap star, or an NBA player. Yet somehow, there were thousands of Olympic athletes on TV in Beijing, dozens of new rappers on MTV each year, and Kobe Bryant and hundreds of other athletes in the NBA. If you're worried about the odds, you shouldn't be dreaming of becoming a filmmaker. Or a novelist. Or a film actor.

 

[jpp]

Tom, if everyone could make art, then art would be worthless, so we agree on that much. And the odds of writing "King Lear" are much worse than getting into Sundance or winning a Nobel in literature, so who's to complain about small chances.

What bugs the hell out of me is 1) a lack of opportunity, tied directly to the commercial funding models, which has led to the damnable mediocrity of American indie film, and 2) an absence of meritocracy, which makes discussions of odds relevant, since there's a lottery and/or American Idol element to a lot of it.

So,in effect, I'm arguing backwards: looking at the results of American indie film, and trying find reasons for why things are as bad as they are.

This isn't to say no one will ever succeed, or that those who do never deserve it. If you like the Batman stuff, and lots of serious film-goers do, then Christopher Nolan deserves every accolade, for doing it the hard way, and advancing on achievement, not a famous father, family money, or fluke success. Every bit of it was earned and he started with next to nothing ("Following"). But the mass-market, commercial basis of his work made it possible, and that's not what everyone wants. And if his approach is the only workable one these days, cinema is doomed.

Anyway, I don't want the last word for once, so somebody else please chime in.

 

[Joel Kaye]

And if his approach is the only workable one these days, cinema is doomed.

Anyway, I don't want the last word for once, so somebody else please chime in.

The less expensive it becomes to make and distribute movies the more likely we're going to see small well crafted movies made. Are we ever going to see huge budget art flicks that only a small number of people want to see? Probably not.

I just don't buy the idea that indie movies would be "better" if the financing model was different. What the hell is "better"? Someone is always guarding the money and their preference will dictate what gets made. The only way to remove that variable is have a movie budget lottery. Whoever wins gets to take the money and go make whatever they want. Do you really think that would be more successful than what Hollywood does?

How does something like Cold Mountain fit into your world view? I wouldn't call that a particularly commercial movie. It was epic, got made and won awards. Not sure how much money it made.

Blame the consumer or the culture. Most people don't want to watch an "art flick" because art flicks generally don't offer the kind of emotional experience Hollywood is offering. For most people Hollywood movies are "better".

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Think about this with me for a second…

You saved less than 1% of the production budget.

 

[M Most]

There's a reason there's no American Bergman, Antonioni, Tarkovsky, Fellini, Mizoguchi, Im Kwan-taek, Clarie Denis, Hou Hsaio-Hsein, etc.

I would nominate a number of American filmmakers in that category. Terry Malick, Paul Schrader, David Lynch, Robert Altman, and, yes, Woody Allen come immediately to mind. I would also offer Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, and Steven Soderbergh as alternates. In the past, there's also been Sam Peckinpah, Orson Welles, and, earlier in their careers, Martin Scorsese and Francis Coppola.