Mumblecore

Hells yeah!

For those that don't care enough to read that other thread, here's a re-post of my feelings on this subject:

Cracker Funk said:
Yay, we're finally talking about mumblecore! Thanks for listening, guys.

Okay, here's what I like about mumblecore -- it bridges the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots. A movie like "Puffy Chair" proves that ANYBODY can do it.

I have about as basic a setup as anyone on this forum would want -- a T2i, a Rode NTG2 and a Zoom H4n (audio equipment borrowed). That's a really inexpensive setup. However, it's inexpensive to me, because I'm a professional bartender. It's inexpensive to the vast majority of the people on this forum, most of whom have full-time "day jobs".

It's not even slightly inexpensive to that snot-nosed kid in the inner-city, or that rural small-town, or that trailer park. That kid who loves watching movies and dreams of making them some day. But his dream is a pie in the sky, because he finds it ever so difficult to muster the money needed to get even this basic setup.

To that kid, I present "Puffy Chair". You don't need expensive equipment to tell a good story. All you need is a passion for filmmaking, a desire to learn the craft, a cheap camera, and a solid story.

"Puffy Chair" didn't have sound design, M1chea1. The entire thing was shot with a camcorder. That's it. No lights. No audio gear. No nothing. Just a dude with a camera. And now that dude is in Hollywood, working with professional crews and professional actors, getting paid professional dollars. And he started with a cheap camcorder.

Mumblecore offers an alternative. It seems to me that most indie filmmakers spend a heck of a lot of time working on their production values. That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. But that doesn't have to be the only way. Mumblecore is that other way. Anyone can make a feature, and if you really apply yourself, you can make something not just "watcheable", but solidly entertaining. "Puffy Chair" grossed $200,000 at the Box Office.

Yes, I know that the vast majority of mumblecore films are horrible. So what? The vast majority of indie films are horrible. Same difference. The fact that there is even one solid mumblecore movie is proof that it can be done, and I find that inspiring.
Click to expand...
 
Heh, I thought mumblecore was some kind of punk music offshoot.
smiley_haw.gif


The fact that there is even one solid mumblecore movie is proof that it can be done, and I find that inspiring.
Click to expand...

How so? There are people, in life, who will literally survive being struck by actual lightning more than once. Statistically rare, but it happens.

What is so compelling about this mumblecore? From the brief readup I just did, it's a rebranding of lo-budget indie fare. :hmm:
 
Here are my two cents:

Mumblecore can work really well.

But this is very misleading to most indie filmmakers, because 99% of the time when you overtly try to acheive the mumblecore effect your film will just suck.

This isn't to say that people shouldn't try but stylistically and in terms of the script it has to be perfect, other wise it looks terrible. Every shitty video that you see on YouTube that a bunch of teenagers have made whilst staying at home on a Friday evening could be classified as mumblecore, because when good filmmakers try and do it it often looks almost exactly the same.

I would repeat that this does not mean I do not think it is worth trying.
 
Zensteve said:
What is so compelling about this mumblecore? From the brief readup I just did, it's a rebranding of lo-budget indie fare. :hmm:
Click to expand...

I suppose you can call it "rebranding" if you want, but there are two problems with that.

Firstly, this isn't an edict, like the stupid Dogme95, or whatever that marketing ploy was called. "Mumblecore" is a term that has been coined by critics, not by filmmakers. It is a reference to the fact that the audio is usually really bad, so it sounds like everybody is mumbling. Plus, these tend to be talky movies.

But the main distinction, if we're to use "Puffy Chair" as an example, is that this has never been done before. It is literally ground-breaking. A dude with a shitty camera made a movie, without ANY of the standard tools that conventional wisdom says are necessary, and it met with terrific success.

I don't think your lightning-strike analogy works, in this discussion. How many ultra-low-budget movies do you know of that follow traditional methods? Almost all of them. How many of these movies are even slightly successful? Almost none of them. How many of them go on to gross $200,000? None of them.

Mumblecore, on the other hand, isn't a tactic that is used nearly as often. How many people have you ever met who've just grabbed a camcorder and made a feature film? I think your preconceived notions of the odds involved are out of whack.
 
NickClapper said:
Here are my two cents:

Mumblecore can work really well.

But this is very misleading to most indie filmmakers, because 99% of the time when you overtly try to acheive the mumblecore effect your film will just suck.

This isn't to say that people shouldn't try but stylistically and in terms of the script it has to be perfect, other wise it looks terrible. Every shitty video that you see on YouTube that a bunch of teenagers have made whilst staying at home on a Friday evening could be classified as mumblecore, because when good filmmakers try and do it it often looks almost exactly the same.

I would repeat that this does not mean I do not think it is worth trying.
Click to expand...

No disrespect, but I think you miss the point of mumblecore. It's not a look that you go after. It's a simple act of putting story ahead of everything, and making a damn movie with whatever resources you've got.
 
Cracker Funk said:
No disrespect, but I think you miss the point of mumblecore. It's not a look that you go after. It's a simple act of putting story ahead of everything, and making a damn movie with whatever resources you've got.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid we're going to disagree again :P

Mumblecore is totally about the look. There's a reason why almost all the films that I've seen by people on this forum couldn't be bracketed as mumblecore. They're trying to put across a story with limited resources, but it doesn't turn out as mumblecore. Mumblecore as a movement may have started as a way to do something different with low budget movies, but you look at the resources and backing the Duplass brothers get nowadays and then ask yourself why they are still producing things in the same style they had when they actually had limited resources.

I'm firmly off the impression in film that if you can categorise a group of films into any technique then that technique is deliberate. And, I would emphasise, I have nothing against some mumblecore films, but it is a very easy thing to get wrong.
 
ROC said:
Can you explain mumblecore to me in layman's terms?
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia: Mumblecore is an American independent film movement that arose at the turn of the twenty-first century. It is primarily characterized by ultra-low budget production (often employing digital video cameras), focus on personal relationships between twenty-somethings, improvised scripts, and non-professional actors. Filmmakers in this genre include Lynn Shelton, Andrew Bujalski, Mark Duplass, Jay Duplass, Aaron Katz, Joe Swanberg, and Barry Jenkins.
 
Cracker Funk said:
But the main distinction, if we're to use "Puffy Chair" as an example, is that this has never been done before. It is literally ground-breaking. A dude with a shitty camera made a movie, without ANY of the standard tools that conventional wisdom says are necessary, and it met with terrific success.
Click to expand...

I've never seen Puffy Chair, so I won't comment on that.

But how is this different from, say, Rodriguez - making a pretty average film (written around available locations), on a very lean budget, that eventually goes on to make millions of dollars (and a few sequels & career starters), was edited on a VHS deck... and spawning the book that continues to claim that it only cost a few thousand dollars to make (and skipping the bits where the sound was so god-awful that millions was spent to prepare it for actual release)

After all is said & done, the odds of his film getting picked up & taken like that was pretty small. (And when it did, there was still a lot of fixing to do)


How many ultra-low-budget movies do you know of that follow traditional methods? Almost all of them.
Click to expand...

I'd change that to "almost none of them"... 'cos they can't afford the traditional methods.


How many of these movies are even slightly successful? Almost none of them. How many of them go on to gross $200,000? None of them.
Click to expand...

Yah, 'cos most are crap. :P


I think your preconceived notions of the odds involved are out of whack.
Click to expand...

No. I really believe that the only way to really stand out, in a flooded field, is to rebrand something when you do it yourself.

Lo-budget?
Crap sound?
No lights?
Can't afford effects, so it's character & dialogue driven?

It used to be called "indie". (and even that term carries baggage)

Why buy an "indie" film, when calling it "mumblecore" adds some serious gravitas? :cool:

You need to give me some real reasons why this isn't just a smart effort at rebranding.
 
So what would a film like "he's just not that into you" be considered?

It's not low budget (from the actors it seems like they spent a fortune plus the advertising)

And how about Valentine's Day in that same vein?

Would those still be considered "mumblecore"?
 
NickClapper said:
From Wikipedia: Mumblecore is an American independent film movement that arose at the turn of the twenty-first century. It is primarily characterized by ultra-low budget production (often employing digital video cameras), focus on personal relationships between twenty-somethings, improvised scripts, and non-professional actors. Filmmakers in this genre include Lynn Shelton, Andrew Bujalski, Mark Duplass, Jay Duplass, Aaron Katz, Joe Swanberg, and Barry Jenkins.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I realize how idiotic it is to ask what something means when Wiki or Google is a click away.
 
@Zensteve I think the main difference between 'indie' and mumblecore (which is really just a sub category) is that mumblecore is self referencial in abiding by the rules of mumblecore. Most indie filmmakers only end up with an indie product because that is what they can produce with their resources, mumblecore filmmakers set out to make their film look and feel a very specific way.

And I would agree that most, with some honorable exceptions, is complete crap.
 
For the record:

"You don't need expensive equipment to tell a good story. All you need is a passion for filmmaking, a desire to learn the craft, a cheap camera, and a solid story.
Click to expand...

Cheap is relative in this field. But be that as it may, it means that if you want to be a filmmaker, you will use the equipment at your disposal, at least to get started.

"Puffy Chair" didn't have sound design, M1chea1. The entire thing was shot with a camcorder.
Click to expand...

This film was shot on a PRO-sumer camera, a Panasonic AG-DVX 100. At the time, it was a $2500 camera. I know, I have one. It ain't a camcorder.


"No lights. No audio gear. No nothing. Just a dude with a camera."
Click to expand...

Anyone with a "boom operator" has audio gear of some kind. The DVX with a good professional microphone will give you good audio. There are two ways of controling the light coming into a DVX. I use ambient light all the time, but I use the neutral density, iris and white balance like crazy. That's why the lighting doesn't suck.

"And now that dude is in Hollywood, working with professional crews and professional actors, getting paid professional dollars.
Click to expand...

So, okay, this guy gets the "Kevin Smith" award for that year. But even Smith doesn't make films like that anymore. And I would bet this guy doesn't either. Call it whatever you want, its still indie filmmaking. Many people -- myself included -- call it 'guerilla filmmaking'. The audio was good because he must have worked with it during the editing process. Did I mention the DVX has meters on it to set your levels? And I would bet he didn't use iMovie to edit this.

It's just indie filmmaking, dude. We're all doing it....:yes:


...and yeah, I thought mumblecore was some form of Emo I hadn't heard about...:D

-- spinner :cool:
 
Zensteve said:
I've never seen Puffy Chair, so I won't comment on that.
Click to expand...

I see the logic in your arguments, but to be frank, I really think you need to see "Puffy Chair" (and know how it was made) before you can add much insight to this discussion.

Zensteve said:
But how is this different from, say, Rodriguez - making a pretty average film (written around available locations), on a very lean budget, that eventually goes on to make millions of dollars (and a few sequels & career starters), was edited on a VHS deck... and spawning the book that continues to claim that it only cost a few thousand dollars to make (and skipping the bits where the sound was so god-awful that millions was spent to prepare it for actual release)
Click to expand...

A "very lean budget"? Yeah, that term is relative. Rodriquez shot on film. That's not a lean budget, when compared to mumblecore. For "Puffy Chair", I think it safe to say that the biggest expense was the camera, and for all I can tell, it was a basic consumer camcorder. Comparing "El Mariachi" to mumblecore shows a serious misunderstanding of what mumblecore is.

Camcorder. Script. Actors.

That's all you need to make a movie. That's mumblecore. It ain't like nothing that's been done before, at least not with any success.

Again, the term "mumblecore" isn't a marketing ploy. Mumblecore filmmakers are just making movies, with the scant resources they've got. It's outsiders who have branded it "mumblecore", and I personally have never heard this term used to market a film, but only in conversations like this one.
 
NickClapper said:
@Zensteve I think the main difference between 'indie' and mumblecore (which is really just a sub category) is that mumblecore is self referencial in abiding by the rules of mumblecore. Most indie filmmakers only end up with an indie product because that is what they can produce with their resources, mumblecore filmmakers set out to make their film look and feel a very specific way.

And I would agree that most, with some honorable exceptions, is complete crap.
Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry, that is not even slightly true -- there is no evidence that any mumblecore filmmaker is going for a specific "mumblecore" look, or that they are trying to fit the conventions of this genre. No disrespect, but I don't think you could produce a single piece of evidence to support this argument.

People -- mumblecore filmmakers are just filmmakers. They make movies. But they choose to make movies now, instead of waiting until they've got the funding to do all the fancy production work that they surely wish they could. And for many people, that means grabbing a camcorder and making a movie, with nothing more than a camcorder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top