Starting from scratch, I could shoot and get through post with $8k worth of equipment. I'd need a production budget for actor salaries and SAG expenses, insurance, location and permit fees, catering, some production design, costuming and maybe make up. But even buying the equipment, I could spend less than $35k and produce a feature that distributors would assume had cost hundreds of thousands to make. I'd enjoy the challenge of making a good feature for $10k and the goal would be to have good enough sound that a ton of work didn't need to be done by the distributor once the film was picked up. So many films get hung up on sound.

I produced a feature length adaptation of the Merchant of Venice. We used a Sony F-900 for shooting but kept the budget under $50k. Paramount was going to pick it up and they thought our budget was $2 milllion. It can be done. It requires thought, planning and the appropriate script. But as I said, making a high quality, low budget film is all about knowing when, where and how to compromise.

Story, a great cast and crew, and good equipment are essential.

heath

A $5k movie budget doesn't allow for a $5k microphone, set your sights lower.

I have a pretty good Azden shotgun that does the job in most situations, but this was on a very busy street. The cafe was perfect, the sound conditions were not. One solution was wireless lavaliers, and fortunately the sound guy who volunteered had access to some very nice pro equipment (and knew how to use it). I wish I had a set like that, but the purchase price is money I could invest in the production instead. even the rental ($50/day) is better than buying, and the results (sound we can use instead of doing ADR) are priceless.

One of the challenges of no-budget filmmaking is knowing when to spend a little money to get a lot of results.



J.

Keep your eyeballs peeled too... we found some eggcrate foam that was going to be thrown away (it had been used as large scale packing material in shipping). We use this as a portable sound booth/sound blanket... and it does a pretty good job of eliminating ambient noise behind a subject or killing echoes off hard floors. Feather Duvets also do a good job of muting ambience as do woolen blankets folded in half over a stand... or just about any reasonably dense material.

Using what's at hand saves tons of money, not just in writing your script... but in making your production kit as well.

Everything on a set was made by someone in the industry at one point or another... based on an immediate need with junk that was laying around at hand... then it was packaged and bulk manufactured and given a $4000 price tag and everyone thinks they need one to shoot with. To get the costs down, stop thinking like a consumer and start thinking like those folks who made the thing in the first place.

As far as actors... I've never used SAG actors (no offense to any SAG members here, I simply don't have the access/budget/desire to jump through those hoops). I've always gone with aspiring actors who love to act. Universities/community theaters/renaissance festivals are all littered with folks who will get in front of your camera with a crappy script and no hope of distribution and take chalk sandwiches as payment thanking you for the experience on the way out the door.

1 out of 1000 are actually good actors if directed well. With good enough direction, you can trick just about any of the other 999 into giving a good performance. Tape is cheap, keep the cameras rolling without telling the actors you're doing so and try out stuff as rehearsal when cut has been called (tape still rolling, crew knows it's not true because they've been briefed independently that "cut" isn't really "cut". Make sure to stay out of frame while giving the direction and having them try other things. You'll get surprising performances when non-actors think the camera isn't rolling.

Real actors cost more but take less time to get the results you can cut with. They come prepared and know the characters and don't need as much guidance through the material and character building. They cost money, as always in my philosophy on microbudget cinema, Time=Money. You can use time as currency if you're able to invest the time. You'll even be able to get good salable results doing so if you spend enough of it.

Keep in mind that the Italian Neo-Realist movement used tons of non-actors because they just looked like they fit into the environment being filmed (Rome: Open City - Rossellini - 1945). That film cast "real actors" in a few key roles, but the vast majority of the cast were non-actors.

Taking the time to light creatively with stuff you have at hand (scrap wood painted black to use as flags, aluminum foil to use to direct the light out of fixtures you have sitting around)... This is, however, one of the two areas I'll actually say it's wise to spend a little money, lights and microphone. These are the two things that should be done starting at a certain level of quality and really shouldn't dip below that imaginary line. Careful lighting staging and framing will help hide the fact that you're using an old, midrange miniDV camera.

Set design, costuming and makeup will bring a production value to your shoot that most indies lack (note the -ie ending rather than the -y ending. For me, Indy filmmakers make large budget films with name actors outside the studio system with the hopes of achieving distribution. Indie filmmakers fill that niche between guerilla filmmaker and indy filmmaker).

Spending an unreasonable amount of time on the script is tantamount to making this succeed!!! With 99.999% of Indie films next to unwatchable (mine included) due to incomplete writing - I won't say bad writing, just a rough draft rushed into production without brutally honest critique - spending the time up front when a dozen people aren't sitting around waiting for you to fix a problem with the dialog as the sunlight wanes on your shot (personal experience - lesson learned).

The hardest part of making films this way is keeping the drive going throughout the seriously protracted production/post-production process. You need to surround yourself with motivated people who will kick you in the ass when you run out of steam... or take over while you rest for a bit.

Everything on a set was made by someone in the industry at one point or another... based on an immediate need with junk that was laying around at hand... then it was packaged and bulk manufactured and given a $4000 price tag and everyone thinks they need one to shoot with. To get the costs down, stop thinking like a consumer and start thinking like those folks who made the thing in the first place.

You mean like the CPU-controlled electronic firelight simulators that do the same job that a grip with a $4 dimmer do? ;-)


J.

Hi Cole,

Thanks for sharing - always a toughie among your peers but as they say, what doesn't kill you only makes you grow stronger. Actually, looking at the first 10 minutes I thought the actors generally did a good job. As you mentioned, scripts are critical and I'm sure you're making progress over this one (overly dialog intensive in Act I, without plot develpment) - ensure each scene advances character develpment, avoiding exposition.

If lighting gear is a problem, try adding some additional practicals to avoid shadows (table lamps, etc). Regarding camera work, the framing is acceptable yet you'll want keep the camera moving (establishment, CU, ECU, POV, OTS, etc). Try using a 300-3200hz bandpass filter to simulate the telephone call. Generally, the audio needs a lot of tweaking, hopefully something you can fix in post (missing ambient noise, etc); it's also noticeable on shots like the missing noise when the actor eats a cracker (ADR).

Thanks again for sharing your efforts!

Warm Regards, Michael

Hi Cole,

Thanks for sharing - always a toughie among your peers but as they say, what doesn't kill you only makes you grow stronger. Actually, looking at the first 10 minutes I thought the actors generally did a good job. As you mentioned, scripts are critical and I'm sure you're making progress over this one (overly dialog intensive in Act I, without plot develpment) - ensure each scene advances character develpment, avoiding exposition.

If lighting gear is a problem, try adding some additional practicals to avoid shadows (table lamps, etc). Regarding camera work, the framing is acceptable yet you'll want keep the camera moving (establishment, CU, ECU, POV, OTS, etc). Try using a 300-3200hz bandpass filter to simulate the telephone call. Generally, the audio needs a lot of tweaking, hopefully something you can fix in post (missing ambient noise, etc); it's also noticeable on shots like the missing noise when the actor eats a cracker (ADR).

Thanks again for sharing your efforts!

Warm Regards, Michael

Wow, thanks for watching. I'll be cutting out alot of the dialog as a bunch of it is fundamentally unneccesary.

We started this project with no clue what we were doing, using it as a day to day learning platform. We bought equipment we felt would benefit us as we went along (again, not on this movie's budget, but mine as I've used it all since then and purchased it with the intention of doing so). We actually acquired alot of lighting knowledge on that first day by reviewing dailies every day after the shoot to figure out what we needed to fix for the next day's shoot. You learn very quickly this way! The audio is due to the cheap microphone we used, but we did capture sound, and I can always ADR the whole thing if necessary (time=money ;) ).

The camera work, I was only able to get neat shots when I had more than just myself and the actor on set... not that often :(. As I'm still working on the edit, I hadn't gotten to my audio pass (still have to record my voice for the other end of one of the phone calls). This would take care of many of the issues you hear there, just is really just me learning to piece together a dialog (this is the second sound piece I'd ever shot, the first was just little vignettes with one-liners, no conversation necessary). I learned a mountain by having to piece together every single line of dialog from separate takes about the power of the editor ;)

Again, I can't believe you'd actually choose to subject yourself to that much of it (it gets away from the dialog later [the unedited bits ;) I really burnt out on editing the dialog, ready to dig back in again and start from scratch])...thank you so much for watching and critiquing.

As for the CPU controlled fire simulators... I've programmed stuff like that to solve simple problems..... so yes, I could see a laptop, applescript and an X10 system providing this functionality on a need basis, then becoming a fabricated unit later for much more money :)

Rehi Cole,

Okay, I peeked at the second 10 minute segment. Again, the quality of the acting was your strong point, well choreographed with the script. The pacing also seemed to work well. The outdoor camera work would profit by matching it to the script as: establishment, wide over the shoulder, reverse, close OTS, close reverse, POV, cutaways, etc. At minute 18, you did a fine job with your camera action.

Good try on the intercut, although it needs to have a context. Perhaps you're familiar with Pudovkin's techniques::
1. Contrast - intercutting two radically different circumstances to exaggerate the drama of each circumstance
2. Parallelism - Intercutting two events that are simply happening at the same time, without drawing attention to their circumstances
3. Simultaneity - Intercutting events where one's outcome depends on the other, to increase the suspense (often with increasingly faster cross-cut edits to increase suspense and tension

At minute 16, we learn that your intercut is based on simultaneity. If possible, build up with a stronger thread so the audience can follow the context (or perhaps I forgot it from my prior viewing of the first 10 minutes).

Oddly, the contrast is a bit high when the camera is on the male - the medium shots of the female actor seem okay. I get the feeling the camera settings were changed between the actor's individual shoots.

The audio begins fine during the dialog sequence until about 13:30, then gets rough and apparently the audio/video editing gets out of sequence.

At minute 15, you're missing video footage that didn't render - don't we all loathe files spread over drives! Oh where, oh where did that A_7a_10 video go?

At minute 17, you had some nice lighting (especially the hairlighting/backlight and warmth) - great for that scene. Again, the audio was checkered with some tonal problems - hopefully you can mix in some ambient room tone.

So up to minute 20 I'm impressed by the acting - cudos. My sense is you've got a fair amount of effort ahead of you either with ADR or doing some reshoots. I'm beginning to see strengths in the story - with editing (flash jumps, etc), I'm sure you could put some necessary pizazz in the critical opening scene to fix the problem with the lengthy exposition sequence - we gotta keep developing our characters and the initial 5 minutes are critical.

Feel free to PM me if you'd like some specific feedback. I'm rooting for y'all! Perhaps we can link-up sometime (I'm in Petaluma).

Happy Trails, Michael

Wow, again, thanks for sitting through it (even in small doses ;) - perhaps I've just seen it way too much or been doing to much work on shorts to see it working. I've got better ways to start the piece to invest us in the main character more quickly (I don't think we currently care about him enough when the film starts). I'm going to pull the history reveals fforward and lead with them, they are much more tragic than just being introduced to the main character after those events in his morose, mourning funk.

Audio issues throughout, we had no clue what we were doing... we knew that the furry thing needed to be over the actor's head with access to the air being moved by the vocal chords. Some of the stuff we ended up reshooting to get better audio for the worst of it (reshoots now are out of the questions due to hair/schedule/age changes of the whole cast).

Missing clips will go away soon, I'm going to recapture the whole thing from tape again as I had captured in iMovie and moved into FCP later (never do this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - had to re-render every time I made a change in the edit due to the audio sample rate being different than what FCP would play in RT - PITA).

I'm going to be D/Ling the edit myself (it's downstairs on my edit station, not on my laptop) to compare your notes at the commented times. I'm really impressed that you're actually finding good stuff in there where I thought there were just learning moments for us all involved. Thanks for bringing a fresh set of eyes to the project.

About the audio - a few months ago, I made a comment to a beginning filmmaker to think about getting an XL2 to do some of the interviews for his documentary and using the microphone on the camera rather than a boom. This suggestion was met with a fair amount of hostility. But having worked professionally in post for several years, one of the things I see repeatedly is that new filmmakers, shooting with a camera with a decent microphone, frequently fare far better than new fimmakers using a boom. A first time director, running a set for the first time (yes, I know 1st ADs run the set, but this director didn't have one), working with an inexperienced boom operator is asking for trouble. One of the most interesting films that we have ever cut - visually brilliant, great script, good performances - is having to spend almost of the cost of the film to repair the soundtrack because of terrible audio. Everyone has to be ADR'd and the wonderful live performances are lost. A camera with a good microphone would have allowed him to use probably half of what he shot. he still would have needed a boom and sound mixer for some of it.

Part of being a successful first time filmmaker is making choices to simplify some aspects of shooting. You don't need to run the set, in a sense, in the same way a big budget film is run. You have to maximize your opportunities for success and minimize your opportunities for flat out failure.

My computer is on it's last legs, and i can't watch videos on it anymore. Hopefully, my IT-employed son with be able to restore some of it's former vitality over Christmas vaction and I can take a peep at what you're doing. So far, it sounds like you've made good decisions, and have learned the right lessons. I look forward to seeing where this goes. I'm enjoying your posts a great deal.

I said it before, and I'll say it until I'm green in the face: good audio makes a movie, bad audio kills it. I watch a lot of high school film/TV/video students, and even college students before they learn the right way, putting their great-quality mic on the camera! What happens when the actor is far away? What happens when the actor turns his or her head?

Ugh! Put the mic on a boom pole and get someone who's boomed more than once.

Heath

We were using this project as a learning exercise (like most do with their first 8-9 shorts). The audio was recorded well with crappy equipment (mostly due to the fact that we hadn't tested it together). We learned, even the inexperienced boom hanger when we had him on set (often, just a mic stand - scheduling people w/ day jobs & families for 8 full weekends w/o pay is difficult)

You're learning, and you're having fun doing it! My first student film stunk, but the last one or two were great (out of 5, I think), but we all had fun making the movies, no matter what.

I wanted my second film to look, visually, like Se7en, but I soon learned a student film shot with two lights and a professional and consumer HI-8 cameras don't look like a $40 million film!

heath

I work with the philosophy that I'm unwilling to work as if I'm working within my means ;)

I work with the philosophy that I'm unwilling to work as if I'm working within my means ;)

Don't let investors hear you. Or the studio execs. Or the banks. ;-)


J.