Does anyone think festivals are a racket?

[Nate North]

After producing my first independent feature film, I heard a lot, and recieved a lot of mail about film festivals. At first I thought my work had been noticed and someone was offering me a free plane ticket out of respoect for my 8 months of hard work and 40k spent on the film.

But then as I read on, it turned out that I was supposed to pay them, just to screen my film, which might or might not be included, Then I would pay all my own expenses and stay at an overpriced hotel the festival promoters have a kickback deal with. If I was one of the lucky ones, the festival promoters would then show my movie to large crowds of paying customers, make several thousand dollars just off the one showing, then they won't even return your screening deposit.

I came to find all film festivals are like this, with the exception of ones you have to be invited to. I'm also very skeptical about all the Hollywood talent agents that are supposed to be in the audience. How much bigger is American Idol than any one film competition, and yet not even one real celebrity has emerged in however many terrible years that it has been on.

Maybe I'm just ranting here, does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on whether festivals are exploiting indie filmmakers?

 

[Nate North]

Yeah, I noticed I was getting a little negative there for a bit and tried to be more upbeat in my last post.

I've had some terrible flu for two days and haven't got much sleep. I agree that I've ranted enough about some of the bad aspects of doing business.

@2001

Seems like the digital age is here for good, I'm really looking forward to getting anything RED or better so I can produce some watchable video. It's going to be really great in 4 years when you can get one used for 10 grand.

 

[CamVader]

Yeah, I noticed I was getting a little negative there for a bit and tried to be more upbeat in my last post.

I've had some terrible flu for two days and haven't got much sleep. I agree that I've ranted enough about some of the bad aspects of doing business.

@2001

Seems like the digital age is here for good, I'm really looking forward to getting anything RED or better so I can produce some watchable video. It's going to be really great in 4 years when you can get one used for 10 grand.

It's all good. Hope you're feeling better soon.

 

[Cracker Funk]

The biggest problem with low/no/micro budget indies is the "just get out there and shoot" attitude without adequate planning/preproduction and an true, deep understanding of the craft. It's a tremendous boon to the video and audio equipment manufacturers but does a disservice to the art of filmmaking.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. I see it just the opposite. I think we need more people to take the "just get out there and shoot" attitude.

My own experiences are a perfect example. It would be one thing if I had all the time in the world. But I don't. I'm not a professional filmmaker, and there are a whole lot of people out there who are in my exact same shoes. Somehow, we need to fit this very time-consuming craft into our already busy lives. So, for me, and I imagine a lot of other people, it's a question of choosing between these two scenarios:

1. Just get out there and shoot (now).
2. Do it "right", and really do everything as best as it can possibly be (at some unforseen date in the future).

Well, if I want to take option "2", that's a multi-year investment for a feature film. I wear a lot of hats, and if I'm going to do them all "right", then I need to invest many years developing each different skill (many of which I personally have no interest in doing professionally).

Sorry, I don't have that much time. I'm not willing to spend many years making a single feature (unless it's a multi-million-dollar sci-fi epic). I have a life; I want this filmmaking thing to go somewhere, and not at a snail's pace.

So, I take option "1". I accept that some aspects of my film will not come anywhere close to matching the quality of productions coming out of Hollywood, or even a mid-level indie. It's not that I don't care about all of the production values, it's just that I have a strategy that I hope this low-budget movie leads to something bigger. Perhaps I can use this to attract funding, so that on the next feature, I can hire a proper audio technician, someone like you with good equipment. Etc.

For me, option "1" is just a means of showcasing my storytelling abilities. The low production value means that it won't be coming soon to a theater near you, but it also means that I just made a freaking feature film, with a two man crew, in a very rapid span of time. There are many benefits to getting it done, quickly.

-- Getting it done quickly means that it actually gets done. The pattern I see with low-budget filmmakers who take their time to get it "right" is that many of their projects simply never get finished.
-- Getting it done quickly means that I can move on to the next project. Quality is important. But I also see the value in quantity. One success can lead to a larger success, and the faster you move, the easier it is to ride the wave of momentum.

Anyway, sorry for the long-whinded response, but that about sums up why I think the people who don't have much money to spend should just get out there and do it. Devote all of your energy, all of your resources, and do the damn best you can, but don't get hung up on making it perferct.

P.S. Are you willing to travel? Production for the next feature, "A Slow Death" is tentatively scheduled for April 2012.

 

[Nate North]

Advertise yourself

I'll have to respectfully disagree. I see it just the opposite. I think we need more people to take the "just get out there and shoot" attitude.

it's a question of choosing between these two scenarios:

1. Just get out there and shoot (now).
2. Do it "right", and really do everything as best as it can possibly be (at some unforseen date in the future).

Well, if I want to take option "2", that's a multi-year investment for a feature film. I wear a lot of hats, and if I'm going to do them all "right", then I need to invest many years developing each different skill (many of which I personally have no interest in doing professionally).

For me, option "1" is just a means of showcasing my storytelling abilities. The low production value means that it won't be coming soon to a theater near you, but it also means that I just made a freaking feature film, with a two man crew, in a very rapid span of time. There are many benefits to getting it done, quickly.

Hmmm,

It depends on what your goals are. If you aren't pushing hard to make something watchable, chances are it's not going to be. Making "shoot from the hip" films is good practice, but that's it.

I ran into this same problem, and the first film I did, I "went out and shot". I started filming my first feature the week I got my first real camera (a single cannon 40d). I spent 35k before it was over and ended up making a pretty good film for a small niche audience. It was great practice and a critical resume item that got me multiple jobs. So this method can work to a degree. I lost 10 grand, and less than 100k people ever saw the movie. When I show it to people to demonstrate ability, though most people like it, I get a lot of "it doesn't look like a lot of money or planning went into this, if this was like Avatar I'd watch it" So there are ways where it's quite ineffective as well.

The second movie I'm doing according to plan 2, so I'm doing it right. CF has some good points, I'm mired in a very frustrating situation of trying to get the money to make a demo to get the money to make a demo to get the money. I may be stopped entirely, before I ever start. Not to mention that I'm not getting any film-making done since I'm constantly spending time trying to organize strangers into a cashless project. The reason I'm enduring this mind numbing frustration is that I don't see the point in making a movie that's just for me. Movies are about sharing our vision of the world. Sometimes I think that people on their 10th Star Trek spoof forget that. If you can't publish it, and it's not your idea, and it's nothing new, and it looks bad, then your only value is the ego boost that comes from saying "I made a movie". That seems selfish in the context of guys like Spielberg that united a generation of people through a sense of wonder.

The Middle ground -

Here's where I ended up getting my practice. The advertising industry. When I figured out that I was just too poor to ever have a fair chance at producing a film, I didn't give up, or make some crap project. I just downsized the product until I could make it professional. These days I produce television commercials for corporations, as well as web videos etc. I'm making film that people watch and serves a purpose, getting constant practice, and saving up money to put myself in a position to produce a good feature.

I'd advise any low income filmmaker to consider the advertising business, It's a great way to bridge the gap between practice and the real thing, and hone your skills, on corporation dollars. Plus there is constant feedback (complaints) about how people expect visuals to look. It's annoying, but teaches you about how people react to what's on screen and why. It's been an invaluable experience.

Ps, ask for half your money down and charge hourly, I wish I had known that when I started

 

[Cracker Funk]

Hmmm,

It depends on what your goals are. If you aren't pushing hard to make something watchable, chances are it's not going to be. Making "shoot from the hip" films is good practice, but that's it.

I think we're probably not quite on the same page, as far as overrall quality of the film is concerned. I never said I wasn't trying to make something watchable.

But your experiences kind of make my point. Your first film isn't what you'd like it to be, but it led to other things. You got jobs, as a result of making it. I want as many people as possible to see and enjoy my first feature, but the goal, from the beginning, has been to use it to demonstrate storytelling ability, in hopes of landing a job, and/or funding. And heck, if we're lucky, maybe we'll find a little cult following (that would be icing on the cake).

So, if this movie is a success, then like you, I take option "2" for my second feature, but since I'd have an actual budget, I'd be able to hire people who know what they're doing, instead of trying to do it all myself.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"clouded by considering a movie a creative work of art. If you look at it like a commodity"

I look at my movies like a commodity because that's what they are.

 

[PositiveFuture]

I'm really looking forward to getting anything RED or better so I can produce some watchable video.

Do you really need something that good? Don't tell me 7D's, DVX's, most anything prosumer costing 2 grand upwards isn't good enough for you. C'mon man! There've been some stunning films produced on those cams.

We're entering the age of no excuses.

but don't get hung up on making it perferct.

Don't get hung up on making it perfect. But you do got to get hung up on making it excellent.

I think 'just get out there and shoot' is a great attitude, but it has to be balanced with determination and patience in the editing room... 90 per cent of indie filmmkakers aren't paying attention to soundscape, even with people repeatedly pointing it out.

 

[sonnyboo]

I'm really looking forward to getting anything RED or better so I can produce some watchable video.

Do you really need something that good? Don't tell me 7D's, DVX's, most anything prosumer costing 2 grand upwards isn't good enough for you. C'mon man! There've been some stunning films produced on those cams.

We're entering the age of no excuses.

Agreed. It's the artist, not the brush that counts. A great camera does not make a great film...

 

[directorik]

You are so right, PositiveFuture!

We're entering the age of no excuses.

We entered it a LONG time ago. Yet we still have excuses.

It's so much easier to think that having a "better" camera will
help you reach your goal than facing the really difficult reality.
Making an excellent movie is very, very difficult. The camera
used is a minor part of what makes an excellent movie.

 

[Nate North]

Agreed. It's the artist, not the brush that counts. A great camera does not make a great film...

That's absolutely true,

I just think they greatest works are produced by situations where there is a great artist, and a great canvas. The Sistine chapel mural just wouldn't be the same on a 6x9 wooden billboard on the front steps.

In my particular case I do need to shoot RED or above. I'm putting together a feature where a strong effort is going to be made to pass for studio production values. It's really one of my main goals on the entire project. It's for this reason that I have to push for a camera that doesn't give away our low budget within the first 20 seconds of the film. At first when I saw the new DSLR tech, I went nuts like everyone else, and went out and bought a D300s. But after shooting a pro project with one, it came out looking a bit sterile. As I watched a hundred different DSLR videos I found they all had that look in common, a sort of coldness to them. It reminds me of British television. I don't mean just the color specifically but the motion blur, grain, etc.

I found RED's new for 25k, and after reading your previous replies, I checked out the RED again, I found that much better demo footage was available. (such as hd television shows) It actually looks really good, much better than I remembered. I think with some good post processing, and lighting you could do wonders with this thing.

There is a big difference in the feeling with a movie camera, it's hard to describe but it's absolutely there.

I never said I couldn't make a good film without an expensive camera, I just believe that adding one to the mix will help the film get to market and rent well. I understand and agree with all above, but though a camera is only a fraction of what it takes to make a good film, it is the one thing that affects your entire film. Other things fade in and out, but a cheap camera is always there full screen.


Of course you can say I'm completely full of it, because of "the Shield", but it really depends on the look you want.

 

[PaulGriffith]

I just joined the thread and it seems as if you guys are past the rent vs buy debate...

However, it doesn't seem like anyone is figuring in 3 or 4 day weeks or long haul rentals. Every rental company I've worked with has a 4 day week, meaning if you need a camera for a whole week and it costs $1000 a day to rent, you only pay $4000 instead of 7000. Many of them on long term rentals (over a month or so) drop the price even more, so you end up paying the equivalent of a 2 and a half day week.

The only people in the film world who don't rent are generally DP's that use their gear day in and day out. Or when the gear is just so cheap (like DSLR equipment) that it works out to buy.

 

[sonnyboo]

I just think they greatest works are produced by situations where there is a great artist, and a great canvas. The Sistine chapel mural just wouldn't be the same on a 6x9 wooden billboard on the front steps.

And yet the Mona Lisa is smaller than an 8.5x11 piece of paper....

 

[Nate North]

And yet the Mona Lisa is smaller than an 8.5x11 piece of paper....

I think it's the exception rather the the rule in both cases, with the Mona Lisa's small canvas or Kevin Smiths cheap camera in clerks. By and large 99% of the best works we have ever seen were made by people who pushed for production values, or were at least handed them.

That said, I have to give you the point on this one, you definitely know how to debate.

Still, it's a different time, and people have expectations that Divinchi never faced. To lower the pretentiousness of this topic I started, I guess I'm just saying I don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight.

@Paul Griffith

I found REDs had dropped 10k in cost. You can buy one for 50 days rental. Thats a fair reason to buy if you shoot a lot, I think. They even have a pretty reasonable payment plan.

 

[sonnyboo]

I think my point still stands, in that it doesn't matter what you shoot with as long as you succeed in telling your story well. Just having the camera doesn't make the images pretty; you need the talented people who know how to use it and light the scene in the best way for the story. That stays true whether you have a $300 camera or a $300,000 camera.

I'm not against using a RED or buying one, but I think having the caveat that it is "100% necessary" is a misguided. That's all.

If you have the money or think it is worthwhile to buy a RED or any of the other main cams, then by all means buy one. No one can forsee your personal needs better than you.

 

[voodoogmr]

I've found that even with a pro-level camera, my scripts are still terrible and I still rush production. So, shooting with a RED or ARRI camera certainly would make matters worse for me. It's a good thing too since we don't have the budget for those anyway.

And since the original post mentioned festivals, I will say that most of the festivals our films have been in have been great experiences. We use these to meet new actors, many of who come up to us after the screening and say they would love to work with us (and many now have). Great way to build good relationships with local talent.

But personally, the best part of a festival is getting to see my cinematography on a huge screen. That's worth the entry fee to me. And I especially like it when my "cheap" camera and lighting can stack up visually to a film that used $100K+ in equipment.

Oh, and for a good view on renting vs. buying with lower-end cams, watch the docs on the "Monsters" DVD. Not only a great film, but when I saw what this guy did with a Sony EX3, a Letus 35mm adapter, and a whole lot of talent, it really was inspirational.

 

[Nate North]

I think my point still stands, in that it doesn't matter what you shoot with as long as you succeed in telling your story well. Just having the camera doesn't make the images pretty; you need the talented people who know how to use it and light the scene in the best way for the story. That stays true whether you have a $300 camera or a $300,000 camera.

I'm not against using a RED or buying one, but I think having the caveat that it is "100% necessary" is a misguided. That's all.

If you have the money or think it is worthwhile to buy a RED or any of the other main cams, then by all means buy one. No one can forsee your personal needs better than you.

No one said anything about skipping on story or direction. I know that a lot of people who are yelling for good cameras think that's the end all, that an expensive cam writes stories by itself. That's not me. Obviously the story is the most critical part. Films are about people, not film. Wish I had realized that before making my first film.

Devil's advocate would say that Chronos proves that an excellent film can be produced on the credits of a good cinematographer, a very high end camera, and some music alone. The blu-ray version is astounding.

If it helps to explain that I am not being random or arrogant, I plan to use a good deal of composited CGI in the next picture, and the higher your color depth and light response, the easier the CGI integration. For a perfect fit, the CGI has to be lowered to the quality of your footage, and sometimes literally reflects it. So what I'm saying is that when you already have high end CG, fantastic audio, and an interesting story, an hvx-200 would really be a weak link. You can't fix a bad camera in post.

Ultimately my crazy criteria that has generated this discussion comes from a simple goal. I want to make a movie that I would rent if I had no idea who I was. If I was walking through blockbuster, and I picked up a box and looked at the back, and I saw footage that looked like TV instead of a movie, I'd just put it back on the shelf. This is not me now, I'm remembering how I rented movies when I was 20, a decade before using my first camera.

The exception is horror. You dont need a good camera for horror. I watched a telecine of jeepers creepers and liked it better than the final. If you really want to nail me on a "making it with a cheap camera" discussion, you can just say

Sam Raimi, Evil Dead, Spiderman 3. Home video camera+talent=250 million dollars

About the festivals. After reading these comments, they sound like fun. I'll be sure to check out a few, I was just curious about the sometimes large entry fees without promised showings.

 

[Jamster]

Hmmm, Film Markets NOT festivals are the place you should be aiming for... no?

 

[Nate North]

Hmmm, Film Markets NOT festivals are the place you should be aiming for... no?

I think you've got it Jamster. Smart comment.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

And yet the Mona Lisa is smaller than an 8.5x11 piece of paper....

Actually, no, it's quite a bit larger. But it makes a more interesting story if it's tiny, doesn't it? And once again, story trumps visuals...

 

[sonnyboo]

Actually, no, it's quite a bit larger. But it makes a more interesting story if it's tiny, doesn't it? And once again, story trumps visuals...

(it's actually 31 by 21 inches) I've seen the thing in Paris several time. It's magnified by the glass it's in, but it's quite small, especially in a museum full of 12-20 foot long paintings...