This is an incredibly basic tactic in indie (no budget) filmmaking today. Help someone else before you ask them to work for you for free.
do local indie film scenes really exist?
- Thread starter miketv
- Start date
This is an incredibly basic tactic in indie (no budget) filmmaking today. Help someone else before you ask them to work for you for free.
At least you were aware of that one. It was actually the 3rd time I wanted to roll my eyes & say "Okay, dad!" in response to your input.
Let's try to keep the baseless assumptions & personal accusations to a minimum til you know me a little better, k?Sonnyboo -- as JoshL noted (and I said in my last post), I have tried to join a 48 hr crew. Multiple times, to no avail.
I'm not looking for people to "work for me for free". [side note: who are "they" to ask me to work for them for free?]. As I said before, i came to film through the music scene. There was never a question of anybody working for anybody. Everybody has something they want to accomplish, and they go after it as specialized individuals in a group effort.
That's the way I intend to work in film. I have little to no interest in the director-centric style of film making. In fact, I think that system might be responsible for strangling the life out of independent film in America.
I just honestly don't see why there's no film equivalent of a music scene.
Okay, keep rolling your eyes, dude. You asked for advice. I'm in a position to give advice on THE VERY SUBJECT you are inquiring about, because I've done the very things you are asking about. If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. I'll remember to ignore all future queries from you.
EDIT: I decided to re-visit this thread, just to make sure that I wasn't being a jerk. And in doing so, I caught something that slipped by me before. At first, all I saw was your "thanks, dad" comments. I skipped over the rest. I now see that the rest are worth addressing.
I mean no disrespect, but these comments really just show an utter lack of knowledge of the logistics of filmmaking. Musical creation is so much more immediate. Filmmaking takes time, dude.
Just like in the indie music scene, in the indie filmmaking scene everybody has something they want to accomplish, and they go after it as specialized individuals in a group effort. The difference is the amount of time needed to get something solid in place.
Sure, I suppose you could take a democratic approach to filmmaking, the same way that each member of a musical group has an equal say in how new material takes shape. Go ahead and try that. See how long it takes you to make even a three-minute film (one that is worth watching).
Having a chain-of-command is a model of efficiency. It also is necessary to keep a coherent vision. The democratic approach works great for a rock band, with four or five members. Can you imagine using the same approach for a 50-piece orchestra? No, that's why they have conductors.
And why is there no filmmaking equivalent to the local music scene? Really?! Because, unfortunately, people will not pay a $5 cover to get drunk while watching me shoot a movie.
By the way, independent film is stronger than ever in America, and the world over. Nothing is being strangled.
EDIT: I decided to re-visit this thread, just to make sure that I wasn't being a jerk. And in doing so, I caught something that slipped by me before. At first, all I saw was your "thanks, dad" comments. I skipped over the rest. I now see that the rest are worth addressing.
I mean no disrespect, but these comments really just show an utter lack of knowledge of the logistics of filmmaking. Musical creation is so much more immediate. Filmmaking takes time, dude.
Just like in the indie music scene, in the indie filmmaking scene everybody has something they want to accomplish, and they go after it as specialized individuals in a group effort. The difference is the amount of time needed to get something solid in place.
Sure, I suppose you could take a democratic approach to filmmaking, the same way that each member of a musical group has an equal say in how new material takes shape. Go ahead and try that. See how long it takes you to make even a three-minute film (one that is worth watching).
Having a chain-of-command is a model of efficiency. It also is necessary to keep a coherent vision. The democratic approach works great for a rock band, with four or five members. Can you imagine using the same approach for a 50-piece orchestra? No, that's why they have conductors.
And why is there no filmmaking equivalent to the local music scene? Really?! Because, unfortunately, people will not pay a $5 cover to get drunk while watching me shoot a movie.
By the way, independent film is stronger than ever in America, and the world over. Nothing is being strangled.
Last edited:
Gotta hand it to ya: you are the king of assumptions, CF. I'm not here to argue, I'm trying to hold a discussion that I feel hasn't been held.
I've made movies. 3 minutes, 30 minutes....spontaneous & scripted...I've made good & bad. I've written songs both good & bad. Some of the best movies were finished in 2 hrs, & some of the worst songs took months to write with 3 other people. The idea that there's some... standard amount of money, time, & effort due for making a "quality" movie is insane. Same for a band producing the material for for a stage show...there are no prescribed doses. (While we're snarkily pointing out assumed shortcomings, CF: I mean no disrespect, but this just shows your fundamental misunderstanding of art. You might be practiced in the money side of film, but you apparently know nothing about cultural impact or scene-building. Also: seriously? You think I was saying people should pay to go watch films being made? Nice reading comprehension. I guess it's forgivable since you already admitted that you don't completely read things before reacting to them. Ok...I'm done stooping.)
IMO, having a chain of command is a model of bloated inefficiency & soullessness. Every artist must sacrifice his own vision to a person with a paycheck by the nature of it.
But who says the guy with the wallet has any good ideas? If I kill some people to finance my film, does that suddenly give me the strength of artistic vision? No.
In my ideal system, the strongest vision guides the project & that vision always prevails over financial returns. Sure it might sound suicidal, but I consider it much less self-destructive than abandoning earnest cultural pursuits in the name of slightly better food on the table. I couldn't care less how things have "always been". Things are pretty screwed up now....I think the old ways are the reason why.
If independent film is "stronger than ever" in America, then why are the Spirit Awards (not to mention Sundance) drowning in big-name stars & corporate sponsorship? Why are all the "indie" films released by Warner, Universal, & Fox? Why did 50 Cent win Producer of the Year at the Detroit Independent Film Fest in 2011 with his $7million-dollar turd that didn't even rank 4.2 on imdb? I saw shorts there from 1st timers that literally made me cry......but this hollywood jerkoff rolls in with an amazingly unoriginal film & steals the rewards from every one of the genuinely-independent & actually-local artists.
Independent film is NOT stronger than ever. It's just becoming as corrupt & culturally counterproductive as politics. If it was stronger than ever, the millions of shorts being made in America would be producing minimal streams of income for the artists for entertaining a crowd, just like the music scene. Instead, day after day artists get ripped off by submitting their work to non-paying film fests in the hopes of "making it" in the used-up hollywood system. Is our culture really so insecure? Is the market telling us that our actual indie films are no match for hollywood, even among the independent-minded? If so, then we should be alramed instead of coming with half-assed excuses for the lack of a real functioning indie film scene.
I believe there can be a new way. I think only greed & ignorance stand in its path.
I've made movies. 3 minutes, 30 minutes....spontaneous & scripted...I've made good & bad. I've written songs both good & bad. Some of the best movies were finished in 2 hrs, & some of the worst songs took months to write with 3 other people. The idea that there's some... standard amount of money, time, & effort due for making a "quality" movie is insane. Same for a band producing the material for for a stage show...there are no prescribed doses. (While we're snarkily pointing out assumed shortcomings, CF: I mean no disrespect, but this just shows your fundamental misunderstanding of art. You might be practiced in the money side of film, but you apparently know nothing about cultural impact or scene-building. Also: seriously? You think I was saying people should pay to go watch films being made? Nice reading comprehension. I guess it's forgivable since you already admitted that you don't completely read things before reacting to them. Ok...I'm done stooping.)
IMO, having a chain of command is a model of bloated inefficiency & soullessness. Every artist must sacrifice his own vision to a person with a paycheck by the nature of it.
But who says the guy with the wallet has any good ideas? If I kill some people to finance my film, does that suddenly give me the strength of artistic vision? No.
In my ideal system, the strongest vision guides the project & that vision always prevails over financial returns. Sure it might sound suicidal, but I consider it much less self-destructive than abandoning earnest cultural pursuits in the name of slightly better food on the table. I couldn't care less how things have "always been". Things are pretty screwed up now....I think the old ways are the reason why.
If independent film is "stronger than ever" in America, then why are the Spirit Awards (not to mention Sundance) drowning in big-name stars & corporate sponsorship? Why are all the "indie" films released by Warner, Universal, & Fox? Why did 50 Cent win Producer of the Year at the Detroit Independent Film Fest in 2011 with his $7million-dollar turd that didn't even rank 4.2 on imdb? I saw shorts there from 1st timers that literally made me cry......but this hollywood jerkoff rolls in with an amazingly unoriginal film & steals the rewards from every one of the genuinely-independent & actually-local artists.
Independent film is NOT stronger than ever. It's just becoming as corrupt & culturally counterproductive as politics. If it was stronger than ever, the millions of shorts being made in America would be producing minimal streams of income for the artists for entertaining a crowd, just like the music scene. Instead, day after day artists get ripped off by submitting their work to non-paying film fests in the hopes of "making it" in the used-up hollywood system. Is our culture really so insecure? Is the market telling us that our actual indie films are no match for hollywood, even among the independent-minded? If so, then we should be alramed instead of coming with half-assed excuses for the lack of a real functioning indie film scene.
I believe there can be a new way. I think only greed & ignorance stand in its path.
Last edited:
If I write the checks - and I did - I make the decisions. There was a lot of input from other people on the set.
And many people were delegated - by me - to make on set decisions.
But I had the ultimate decision making authority, and that's the only basis on which I would write the checks.
And many people were delegated - by me - to make on set decisions.
But I had the ultimate decision making authority, and that's the only basis on which I would write the checks.
And there's a difference in equipment cost as well... the matter of financial scale HAS TO come into play. If you're using a cheap camcorder to make your films, it's still just about as expensive as a mid level guitar... and the guitar sounds better than the camcorder looks. Artist, tool all that assumed, A drummer has a much higher financial investment than the bassist or guitarist. I as a DP with my own gear have spent tens of thousands (oh, those were the days) in time and money building my kit, so that I have a minimum set of quality gear to use when I'm on a project.
Music gigs aren't the same as film/video. I've also done both. The band playing at the bar/garage/wherever, is much more like the PRODUCTION portion of the film process. When you go to lay down the tracks to make your first record... 1 person is in charge of that recording / mixing process. If the bassist and guitarist and singer all mixed their own tracks, you'd never end up with a consistent and concise product at the end as everyone would try to emphasize their part over the others. You can argue that your group is comprised of artists who are holistic and non-superficial in that way, but then you are using robots that have been programmed by someone to have a consistent vision and not real humans (I'm sure there are exceptions -- but they're exceptions).
If all that matters is the performance, stop after shooting and don't edit the project... but your editor has to hate you for making their job much harder, your crew must deplore their time being wasted on set on a project that may never see the light of day or live up to the promise that was made to them at the beginning of the process.
I know nothing about you personally nor your past projects... but I have a crew of 40-50 people on set with me when I shoot. We schedule everything to fit the schedules of intersections, the location, the actors, and the crew. Not soing so, we'd still be shooting 1 man crew shorts in the living room or park with the 2 actors we can manage to hang on to who don't get so frustrated with us they leave the project without warning.
At some point, the writer, producer and director have to decide who is going to be the final say on a set when one of the 50 people on the crew comes up and asks a question about a point of minutiae. Without that, projects with a larger scope won't get made.
In terms of funding... I'm a singer. When I gig, I use the mics and amps provided at the venue... I have literally no overhead for what I do. My ego and sense of self are the only things I risk when I step on stage. As a cinematographer, I have a large financial investment that I need to offset. If I believe in a project and the filmmaker, I will donate time so long as it benefits me in some way in the future. No roadmap = no assurance... limited past success = no assurance... I need assurances that my Demo Reel or my future bank account will benefit somehow from the production. Without that, I'll turn down the job. I've put 10 years of research and learning into what I'm doing and come out the other side as a respected member of the crews I work with: "I don't ever want to do another shoot without you on set."
I've had no commercial success thus far, but I've got my sights set on a future where I can afford to do nothing but shoot film/video narrative pieces for a living. Yes, you can jam, I've done it... it's simply not as effective nor productive as the traditional hierarchical method that has been used and refined for the past 100+ years because it works. Can it be done... absolutely. Is it your thing... absolutely. Will you catch lightning in a bottle... perhaps. I'd rather bet on a a little bit of lightning each production than striving for that one perfect storm.
Your way of doing things isn't "right"... neither is mine. They are both ways of doing it. One has a better track record than the other. I fully support you shooting an ad hoc piece and trying to use a community approach to your post production work. My personal experience is that your project will never get finished without pursuing it yourself -- which means you chose the shots that get sed in the edit... which means ultimately, it's your vision up on screen. in the end, there's one filter for the footage.
Music gigs aren't the same as film/video. I've also done both. The band playing at the bar/garage/wherever, is much more like the PRODUCTION portion of the film process. When you go to lay down the tracks to make your first record... 1 person is in charge of that recording / mixing process. If the bassist and guitarist and singer all mixed their own tracks, you'd never end up with a consistent and concise product at the end as everyone would try to emphasize their part over the others. You can argue that your group is comprised of artists who are holistic and non-superficial in that way, but then you are using robots that have been programmed by someone to have a consistent vision and not real humans (I'm sure there are exceptions -- but they're exceptions).
If all that matters is the performance, stop after shooting and don't edit the project... but your editor has to hate you for making their job much harder, your crew must deplore their time being wasted on set on a project that may never see the light of day or live up to the promise that was made to them at the beginning of the process.
I know nothing about you personally nor your past projects... but I have a crew of 40-50 people on set with me when I shoot. We schedule everything to fit the schedules of intersections, the location, the actors, and the crew. Not soing so, we'd still be shooting 1 man crew shorts in the living room or park with the 2 actors we can manage to hang on to who don't get so frustrated with us they leave the project without warning.
At some point, the writer, producer and director have to decide who is going to be the final say on a set when one of the 50 people on the crew comes up and asks a question about a point of minutiae. Without that, projects with a larger scope won't get made.
In terms of funding... I'm a singer. When I gig, I use the mics and amps provided at the venue... I have literally no overhead for what I do. My ego and sense of self are the only things I risk when I step on stage. As a cinematographer, I have a large financial investment that I need to offset. If I believe in a project and the filmmaker, I will donate time so long as it benefits me in some way in the future. No roadmap = no assurance... limited past success = no assurance... I need assurances that my Demo Reel or my future bank account will benefit somehow from the production. Without that, I'll turn down the job. I've put 10 years of research and learning into what I'm doing and come out the other side as a respected member of the crews I work with: "I don't ever want to do another shoot without you on set."
I've had no commercial success thus far, but I've got my sights set on a future where I can afford to do nothing but shoot film/video narrative pieces for a living. Yes, you can jam, I've done it... it's simply not as effective nor productive as the traditional hierarchical method that has been used and refined for the past 100+ years because it works. Can it be done... absolutely. Is it your thing... absolutely. Will you catch lightning in a bottle... perhaps. I'd rather bet on a a little bit of lightning each production than striving for that one perfect storm.
Your way of doing things isn't "right"... neither is mine. They are both ways of doing it. One has a better track record than the other. I fully support you shooting an ad hoc piece and trying to use a community approach to your post production work. My personal experience is that your project will never get finished without pursuing it yourself -- which means you chose the shots that get sed in the edit... which means ultimately, it's your vision up on screen. in the end, there's one filter for the footage.
I'm not here to argue either. Whatever. But if you give snark ("thanks, dad"), be prepared to get it in return.
I never said I was good at the money side of things (I'm not). You started a discussion that is fundamentally about networking, whether you know that or not. I've networked. In fact, I'm about to go to an event tonight, in which I'll surely meet new filmmakers in the area, some of whom I might someday collaborate with. My points to you have been that you simply need to network if you are to attain your goals in this medium.
Nobody is stopping you from trying this egalitarian form of filmmaking that you think will save indie filmmaking. Please, have at it. Maybe you're on to something that is simply revolutionary. But you'll never know if you don't have anyone to work with. And you won't have anyone to work with if you don't network.
The question of whether or not a chain-of-command is a model of efficiency is something that pretty much the entire business world, and military, and government, would disagree with you on. If you've got some way of doing things that doesn't involve having someone in charge, and you can somehow make it more efficient, please do it. And then teach all of us what we're doing wrong. That's not to say that your ideas are invalid or wrong, but surely you must know that you're going against the grain, and your ideas are unproven. Chain-of-command as a model of efficiency is pretty well-established.
Is Indie filmmaking thriving or suffocating? Depends on how you look at it, and I know that many people on this forum (not just you) would disagree with me. I look around and I see a TON of people picking up cameras. I see them doing beautiful things (if, albeit, not usually financially-rewarding). Every now-and-then, though, I see an absolute NOBODY break-through that glass ceiling by making a movie that gets seen by the masses, in ways that have never happened before (not with such frequency, anyway). I say it's thriving, though I can understand how people might disagree with that.
And no, I didn't think you thought that people would pay to watch me make a movie. That was part of the snark that you mentioned. Music and movies are not even slightly the same, not in their creation, not in how audiences enjoy them, not in how they are monetized. It's a poor comparison on your part.
FIFTY people. On set.
And you pay some of those people, right? Does it come out on screen? I mean....can you honestly justify that by looking at the a scene on the screen & saying "that took 50 people to shoot"? I haven't seen your films & I'm not judging, but -- unless they're laden with special effects & stunts, or maybe choreographed musical numbers -- I don't imagine there's much you can shoot with 50 people that somebody else can't shoot with 5. (If I'm wrong, I've gotta see that footage!)
Is it making sense to anybody else yet why I say the old ways are bloated & inefficient?
Again, I go back to my earlier question: is the market telling us our indie films suck?
I'm not sure where you got 'holistic' or 'non-superficial.' These are some assumptions you're making about me that just aren't true. I'm not even sure how a film could be made holistically. (It looks like you're thinking I'm some looking for some anticapitalist, democratic/communal utopian hybrid....if so, you're waaay off base. I'd appreciate being addressed as an individual, not some weird archetypal opponent dreamed up by those of you who clearly dislike my line of questioning. It's a boring distraction from any progressive discussion.) Also, in my experience, the first person to get kicked out of a band is usually the one who thinks he can "program robots" to do his bidding. The ones who stay are the ones who "get it". They have healthy egos & talent...they have vision, something to contribute, & they do it because they love it. It seems like the only real difference between filmmakers & musicians is that band members can make $100 a weekend plus perks to support their craft.
I'm not a fan so I'm just using this as an example, but which one of the the Beatles do you think programmed the other robots? There is a such thing as shared goals. And there are people who can tell a story with sock puppets better than most of us could dream of with the biggest budget & the highest-paid crew. Trust me, I've seen the work of people who assume they can lead a project just because they can write a check.
Again, I defy you to provide evidence of a proven prescription regarding the amount of time & money needed to produce a quality product. All I see is a lot of money being wasted, a select handful of people profiting, & another generation of wannabe filmmakers being exploited as "interns" when they could be out working on their own projects. In that respect, today's indie film productions are even more crooked than their hollywood counterparts....like the term "indie" is just an excuse to not pay people.
I could understand the whole "working your way up through the ranks as a slave for 15 years" thing if it meant the people who come out the other end would be insightful artists who make amazing films, but they DON'T. They make Transformers & The Hangover & Snakes On a Plane. They make awful retroflop & sparkly action movies. So where's the value in holding a reflector for 6 hours & no pay, when you could have been working on your own thing with you your own crew? One day you might get to make crap that's been dictated by 18 soulless producers & a brain-dead test audience, & you'll get to force people to eat it. Is that the goal?
Again, another assumption/putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about performance being the only thing that matters....jeez....but my main response against this part is that A) my editor won't mind any part of the project if I'm the editor, because I love what I do, and B) have any of your films seen the light of day or lived up to the promise you made? You said yourself that you've had no commercial success....does your crew despise you for it?
Now we're getting somewhere.
Which one of these entities (gov't, business, military) do you think produces the best art? The most culturally-relevant? the most challenging? The most entertaining?
Efficiency is efficient, but I don't operate under the assumption that it produces good art.
If you're looking at it from a standpoint of pure artistic merit, the way that you want to do things is, of course, the best way for you to do things. What you want, and what you want to do IS different than the typical film scene. But that doesn't mean you can't find people who think the way you do.
Going back to meeting people, you might want to look into the local art collectives; you might find some more people there who are thinking along the same lines as you are. Again, if you can't get on a 48 hour team, you can still go to the meet-and-greet. Bring cards, be friendly, network. Local improv groups maybe, or local small theatres might have people who are interested in "film jamming". Maybe even pull in people from the local music scene...go to indie shows and talk to the musicians; see who might want to work with you. At the very least, you can get to know more people in your area.
Going back to meeting people, you might want to look into the local art collectives; you might find some more people there who are thinking along the same lines as you are. Again, if you can't get on a 48 hour team, you can still go to the meet-and-greet. Bring cards, be friendly, network. Local improv groups maybe, or local small theatres might have people who are interested in "film jamming". Maybe even pull in people from the local music scene...go to indie shows and talk to the musicians; see who might want to work with you. At the very least, you can get to know more people in your area.
Well, seeing as how government and military don't make art, I guess business produces the best art. You need examples?
I'm not gonna get into an argument about how movies and music are different. Why aren't you asking the same questions about novelists? Why isn't there a local indie novelist scene?
My assertions and word choice were based entirely on the discussion of filmmaking vs. jamming in a band. The words were applied to the process it would take to have a truly egalitarian / democratic / committee based filming / editing process... none of it was directed at you.
The cast and crew I work with are folks who would otherwise be doing community theater production with no expectation of return other than being given a venue to perform their crafts. In addition, we feed them and give them reel footage that they can then use to pursue other work if they so choose... it's written into our contracts with them.
Commercial success is not the only kind of success.
I didn't work my way up from the bottom, I worked my way up from having no clue what I was doing to knowing what I was doing... above the line the whole time (except this last shoot where I acted as a Gaffer/Lighting Adviser for the DP.
We've found after working on 2-4 productions a year for the past decade that when we allow our crew members to concentrate on a single craft, they are able to dedicate more time and effort to making it the best they can. Our last 2 or 3 productions have been quite a bit better than the previous dozen. We've found folks who not only join our productions, but continue to ask us when the next one is going to be so they can clear their schedules in advance. We also invite new people who are looking to dive in on a working set and learn to do the work. Our expectations and our hierarchy are made very clear from the beginning and everyone has a good expectation fo the work going into every shoot.
Many people we've found are simply great workers, and we focus our attention and teaching time to share the knowledge we've learned with them as they want it. We also allow them to work up the chain of command rather quickly, not the 15 years, but within a few to being a department lead if they so desire (and pursue).
Our product has improved over every project we've done because we've allowed ourselves to fail in the process, then analyzed the failures harshly, and corrected them in the following productions.
More recently, we've tried using a division of the responsibility of the directorial role and found the cast and crew to be very confused as to what they needed to do and who they needed to talk to / listen to to get answers to the questions they had. This was discussed brutally at the Post-op meeting and the decision was that we would go back to a solidified hierarchy to alleviate confusion.
This makes sense as our last shoot had 10 extras + Extras holding supervisor, 6 leads, Production team of PM, Director, 2 producers, 2 ADs, DP, Gaffer, 10-15 grips, Set Photog + grip, Craft Services x 3, Set Design / Art dept x 2. This progression happened slowly over the past decade.
We do still do some shoots smaller in scope, but we're really trying to get to the point where we can pay folks for their time... which means longer shoots / fewer pages per day, much higher quality and external sources of funding -> which then demands that we have a distro plan in place... which means making the transition from shorts to features (which we're in the process of doing now).
Again, YMMV, but this has been our experience, the hierarchy has proved that at about 10 people on set, the waters are muddied and a clear communications hierarchy is required. If you can get a set that works like a band does while just jamming, awesome. Generally, there is a member or two that really end up at the helm to make a band REALLY successful... they couldn't without the rest of the band, but the vision and big push forward is generally channeled through 1 or 2 individuals.
If the goal is just to make films, this method may work. If you have alot of $$$ going into a production (or many compounded over the years), you need to realize a return on that investment, or your investors will stop giving you funds to continue pursuing filmmaking.
Gaining investors (without a super slick sales guy), requires a plan and a portfolio. We've built our portfolio over the past decade and have enough productions under our belt to be less of a completion risk than other filmmakers in our indie film scene... that means, we can start pursuing investors, which means we are now focussed on getting a strong hold on distribution. One piece at a time. I've invested thousands of dollars (possibly 10+ thousand over the years) and really want to see that I wasn't just pissing away time and money. As the person who started out bankrolling our prodco, I want a return on that investment... even a break even would be nice.
The cast and crew I work with are folks who would otherwise be doing community theater production with no expectation of return other than being given a venue to perform their crafts. In addition, we feed them and give them reel footage that they can then use to pursue other work if they so choose... it's written into our contracts with them.
Commercial success is not the only kind of success.
I didn't work my way up from the bottom, I worked my way up from having no clue what I was doing to knowing what I was doing... above the line the whole time (except this last shoot where I acted as a Gaffer/Lighting Adviser for the DP.
We've found after working on 2-4 productions a year for the past decade that when we allow our crew members to concentrate on a single craft, they are able to dedicate more time and effort to making it the best they can. Our last 2 or 3 productions have been quite a bit better than the previous dozen. We've found folks who not only join our productions, but continue to ask us when the next one is going to be so they can clear their schedules in advance. We also invite new people who are looking to dive in on a working set and learn to do the work. Our expectations and our hierarchy are made very clear from the beginning and everyone has a good expectation fo the work going into every shoot.
Many people we've found are simply great workers, and we focus our attention and teaching time to share the knowledge we've learned with them as they want it. We also allow them to work up the chain of command rather quickly, not the 15 years, but within a few to being a department lead if they so desire (and pursue).
Our product has improved over every project we've done because we've allowed ourselves to fail in the process, then analyzed the failures harshly, and corrected them in the following productions.
More recently, we've tried using a division of the responsibility of the directorial role and found the cast and crew to be very confused as to what they needed to do and who they needed to talk to / listen to to get answers to the questions they had. This was discussed brutally at the Post-op meeting and the decision was that we would go back to a solidified hierarchy to alleviate confusion.
This makes sense as our last shoot had 10 extras + Extras holding supervisor, 6 leads, Production team of PM, Director, 2 producers, 2 ADs, DP, Gaffer, 10-15 grips, Set Photog + grip, Craft Services x 3, Set Design / Art dept x 2. This progression happened slowly over the past decade.
We do still do some shoots smaller in scope, but we're really trying to get to the point where we can pay folks for their time... which means longer shoots / fewer pages per day, much higher quality and external sources of funding -> which then demands that we have a distro plan in place... which means making the transition from shorts to features (which we're in the process of doing now).
Again, YMMV, but this has been our experience, the hierarchy has proved that at about 10 people on set, the waters are muddied and a clear communications hierarchy is required. If you can get a set that works like a band does while just jamming, awesome. Generally, there is a member or two that really end up at the helm to make a band REALLY successful... they couldn't without the rest of the band, but the vision and big push forward is generally channeled through 1 or 2 individuals.
If the goal is just to make films, this method may work. If you have alot of $$$ going into a production (or many compounded over the years), you need to realize a return on that investment, or your investors will stop giving you funds to continue pursuing filmmaking.
Gaining investors (without a super slick sales guy), requires a plan and a portfolio. We've built our portfolio over the past decade and have enough productions under our belt to be less of a completion risk than other filmmakers in our indie film scene... that means, we can start pursuing investors, which means we are now focussed on getting a strong hold on distribution. One piece at a time. I've invested thousands of dollars (possibly 10+ thousand over the years) and really want to see that I wasn't just pissing away time and money. As the person who started out bankrolling our prodco, I want a return on that investment... even a break even would be nice.
Godfather & Clockwork Orange were both produced from award-winning & culturally-relevant novels. To me, that looks a case of inspiration producing a work of art, another artist interpreting it, & business making money.
[Couldn't tell you about Breakin' 2 or Tree of Life....haven't seen them, but they both look like garbage.]
I appreciate the distinction, Knightly....I was starting to feel like a target for having the nerve to think differently. Your response is pretty much aligned with my own ideas, but we apparently have different takes on what the ideas mean.
I'm still not satisfied. This standard hollywood junior system still sounds like exploitation & wasted resources.
All those people on the set....none of them getting paid.....none of them getting a chance to tell their own story. IF those people were set loose to focus on their own projects, there would (potentially) be an increased amount of experimentation & production immediately. All those films being made with real intrinsic motivation would need venues. People could start showing ACTUAL indie shorts in venues if there were more crews doing more things, & suddenly independent filmmakers would have a few bucks to make another movie with.
I'm still not satisfied. This standard hollywood junior system still sounds like exploitation & wasted resources.
All those people on the set....none of them getting paid.....none of them getting a chance to tell their own story. IF those people were set loose to focus on their own projects, there would (potentially) be an increased amount of experimentation & production immediately. All those films being made with real intrinsic motivation would need venues. People could start showing ACTUAL indie shorts in venues if there were more crews doing more things, & suddenly independent filmmakers would have a few bucks to make another movie with.
JJ Abrams on TEDTalkshttp://blog.ted.com/2008/01/10/jj_abrams/
for the nay-sayers in this thread, pay close attention to the part between 13:45 & 15:13. Then explain to me again how your system isn't exploiting people & holding them back.
for the nay-sayers in this thread, pay close attention to the part between 13:45 & 15:13. Then explain to me again how your system isn't exploiting people & holding them back.
In your opinion, what is keeping them from telling their own story?
(no offense meant by anything I'm about to say. I'm honestly asking, not attacking you)
It's been two months since you brought this idea up here. There has been discussion and suggestions by people who agree with you and disagree with you (both are needed for good discussion!) You have an idea for how you'd like a film scene to work. You recognize that it does not work that way. A scene like you describe certainly COULD exist, but doesn't right now. I think we'd both agree that the only solution is to start it. So what have you done and/or what are your plans that you've made?
Let's riff on it for a bit (this particular sort of scene doesn't really appeal to me personally, but it could appeal to a great number of people. Hell, I was in the noise scene around here, which was a MUCH smaller crowd!). What you need for a scene:
-creators
-venues
-an audience
Venues should be the easiest part. Since you're working with the art/diy philosophy, you're looking for galleries (particularly that cater to a more punk crowd). Hell, you could use a garage with a projector. Does Detroit still have a big techno scene? I'll bet something like this could go over in place of a chill out room at a party. Check out that scene anyway; I'm SURE there are active and aspiring VJs that are probably thinking along the same lines as you (but that's for another point). If you get a few venues, you can easily have an event every week or so, just bouncing between them. Anyway, again, business cards, do some legwork, talk to the local punk/indie rock promoters. Once you and the rest of the scene you are going to build have some content ready, booking venues shouldn't be much harder than for a band.
Creators. This is the part, it seems, that you are stuck on. You need people who share your vision, and have access to equipment. People who aspire to be filmmakers might not be the best fit. Find the punk/art/diy crowd. Again, VJs might be interested. People who do improv comedy. Kids going to art schools. You're trying to do something that is different from what traditional film is, so find people who aren't trying to do traditional film. Go to their events. Talk to people, see if they're interested. Maybe a youtube channel with some films that you've done, to demonstrate the spirit of what you want to do. Oh, and social networking tip...spend more time talking about what THEY had just done. Not "great show man, let me tell you about my thing", but rather "great show, I dug this and this. The thing you did reminds me of something that is awesome. Hey, would you be interested in bringing your talents to this thing I'm trying to do?" Are there many buskers (street performers) in Detroit? Chat them up (but for the love of god, wait until they take a break between songs/performances/etc).
Again, don't try to make filmmakers think like you. Find people who think like you, and make them into filmmakers!
So you've got a bunch of people making film jams (come up with a catchy term for it too. People love lingo). You've booked a bunch of venues where you and the other jammers are going to be showing your work. Now who are going to be going to these things? Whose going to be watching? Going back to the noise scene, usually the crowd was 80% creators; I suspect you'll get a lot of that at first.
As Alcove said early in the thread, a band playing a bar is a different vibe than showing a film. With a film, you demand the audience pays attention...no talking, and if you aren't, you'll miss something. However, a band can play a bar, and the audience can 100% dig them, buy their shirts and cds, fill a tip jar, etc, while keeping them in the background. Maybe the solution is that; develop a style of films that an audience can pay attention to...or get a beer and chat up someone at the bar, and still enjoy it. Maybe go multi-media; get a couple bands, get a performance artist, or a standup comedian. Have someone showing and selling their paintings. Organize themed events...everyone makes a film about trees for the event in June, that sort of thing. Get the directors up front, talking, performing. Make a jam film live, with audience participation; film for an hour at the beginning of the event, have someone editing and getting dvds ready by the end of the event (is that possible? I don't know how quick you could portably render something short).
All of this is just tossing ideas around. The first step is finding like-minded creators and, again, I think non-film scenes are going to be your best bet. I think it might take a long time to build enough interest for "gigs", but if you can find one or two people, you can start jamming, and use that to draw more people into the scene. Be persistant, don't get discouraged, talk to everyone (and be prepared for a lot of people to say no). Weirder and more underground scenes than this have been established, so there's no reason you can't get the ball rolling on this one.
Hmmm. Another random thought. Maybe ditch the term "indie film" for "underground film". As you've said is it really indie if it's just the hollywood people, so screw them. Let them have the term and make up your own.
It's been two months since you brought this idea up here. There has been discussion and suggestions by people who agree with you and disagree with you (both are needed for good discussion!) You have an idea for how you'd like a film scene to work. You recognize that it does not work that way. A scene like you describe certainly COULD exist, but doesn't right now. I think we'd both agree that the only solution is to start it. So what have you done and/or what are your plans that you've made?
Let's riff on it for a bit (this particular sort of scene doesn't really appeal to me personally, but it could appeal to a great number of people. Hell, I was in the noise scene around here, which was a MUCH smaller crowd!). What you need for a scene:
-creators
-venues
-an audience
Venues should be the easiest part. Since you're working with the art/diy philosophy, you're looking for galleries (particularly that cater to a more punk crowd). Hell, you could use a garage with a projector. Does Detroit still have a big techno scene? I'll bet something like this could go over in place of a chill out room at a party. Check out that scene anyway; I'm SURE there are active and aspiring VJs that are probably thinking along the same lines as you (but that's for another point). If you get a few venues, you can easily have an event every week or so, just bouncing between them. Anyway, again, business cards, do some legwork, talk to the local punk/indie rock promoters. Once you and the rest of the scene you are going to build have some content ready, booking venues shouldn't be much harder than for a band.
Creators. This is the part, it seems, that you are stuck on. You need people who share your vision, and have access to equipment. People who aspire to be filmmakers might not be the best fit. Find the punk/art/diy crowd. Again, VJs might be interested. People who do improv comedy. Kids going to art schools. You're trying to do something that is different from what traditional film is, so find people who aren't trying to do traditional film. Go to their events. Talk to people, see if they're interested. Maybe a youtube channel with some films that you've done, to demonstrate the spirit of what you want to do. Oh, and social networking tip...spend more time talking about what THEY had just done. Not "great show man, let me tell you about my thing", but rather "great show, I dug this and this. The thing you did reminds me of something that is awesome. Hey, would you be interested in bringing your talents to this thing I'm trying to do?" Are there many buskers (street performers) in Detroit? Chat them up (but for the love of god, wait until they take a break between songs/performances/etc).
Again, don't try to make filmmakers think like you. Find people who think like you, and make them into filmmakers!
So you've got a bunch of people making film jams (come up with a catchy term for it too. People love lingo). You've booked a bunch of venues where you and the other jammers are going to be showing your work. Now who are going to be going to these things? Whose going to be watching? Going back to the noise scene, usually the crowd was 80% creators; I suspect you'll get a lot of that at first.
As Alcove said early in the thread, a band playing a bar is a different vibe than showing a film. With a film, you demand the audience pays attention...no talking, and if you aren't, you'll miss something. However, a band can play a bar, and the audience can 100% dig them, buy their shirts and cds, fill a tip jar, etc, while keeping them in the background. Maybe the solution is that; develop a style of films that an audience can pay attention to...or get a beer and chat up someone at the bar, and still enjoy it. Maybe go multi-media; get a couple bands, get a performance artist, or a standup comedian. Have someone showing and selling their paintings. Organize themed events...everyone makes a film about trees for the event in June, that sort of thing. Get the directors up front, talking, performing. Make a jam film live, with audience participation; film for an hour at the beginning of the event, have someone editing and getting dvds ready by the end of the event (is that possible? I don't know how quick you could portably render something short).
All of this is just tossing ideas around. The first step is finding like-minded creators and, again, I think non-film scenes are going to be your best bet. I think it might take a long time to build enough interest for "gigs", but if you can find one or two people, you can start jamming, and use that to draw more people into the scene. Be persistant, don't get discouraged, talk to everyone (and be prepared for a lot of people to say no). Weirder and more underground scenes than this have been established, so there's no reason you can't get the ball rolling on this one.
Hmmm. Another random thought. Maybe ditch the term "indie film" for "underground film". As you've said is it really indie if it's just the hollywood people, so screw them. Let them have the term and make up your own.
Yeah, I'm not making the same connections that you seem to be. I don't see anything exploitative or in any way holding anyone back, in this speech by Abrams. I've watched this speech before, I find it to be rather inspiring, and it gives me yet one more reason to kinda idolize Abrams.
I'm not very clear on how you think "our" system is exploitative or holding anyone back. If you'd like to expand on that a little, I'll gladly respond to your question.
Its the white mans corporations! The MAN is keeping us down! RISE UP RISE UP..
geeze,.. gimme a break.. look at youtbue... I mean 'cmon. 8 years of content are uploaded to youtube EVERYDAY. So what if %99.99 is drek.. thats leaves 700 hours of video that could be great uploaded EVERYDAY!
Technology is the great equalizer!
geeze,.. gimme a break.. look at youtbue... I mean 'cmon. 8 years of content are uploaded to youtube EVERYDAY. So what if %99.99 is drek.. thats leaves 700 hours of video that could be great uploaded EVERYDAY!
Technology is the great equalizer!