I am shooting my first low budget short film, then my first low budget feature length soon. I am aiming for good enough quality to go to the film festivals and for DVD sales, and if successful enough, public movie theater showings. So I am doing all the research I can and how to achieve that type of quality that is good enough. However, since I am on a micro budget, will I really need a PD? Can a DP, a soundman, and an editor be enough to suffice for the film and sound quality itself and be good enough for a movie?
Is a production designer really necessary?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Well, it's really just another word for "Art Director". Somebody has to fill that role. If you think you can handle it with your other duties then go for it. I always hire one, but I'm such a control freak I wind up doing half their job anyway.
As Gonzo says unless you are just going to film someone in their living room then you are going to need some sort of production design. It's a case of whether it's something that is complex enough to require a specific crew member to be on that task, or whether it can be cover by your basic set up.
Anything that requires some sort of set dressing, costume changes, props...etc will, if not strictly need, be made 100x easier by having someone dedicated to production design.
Anything that requires some sort of set dressing, costume changes, props...etc will, if not strictly need, be made 100x easier by having someone dedicated to production design.
Good points. Obviously the director has his/her say in what the movie should look like, but it is my belief that the reason your/anyone's favorite movie LOOKS so good is because they had and hired a kick ass set designer, art director and/or production designer to help craft the "look" of the movie. ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER (both Ridley Scott films), SE7EN and ANGEL HEART (among countless others) would not have had the same feel if there wasn't a capable and creative team behind designing the overall mood of the sets, etc.
* But for a low-budget production, yes, if you need to cut corners and save money, that is certainly a position that can be ironed out in other ways.
* But for a low-budget production, yes, if you need to cut corners and save money, that is certainly a position that can be ironed out in other ways.
Last edited:
The only person NECESSARY is a viewer, everyone else is optional 
Well the movie does require police, gangsters, police uniforms, gangster clothing, etc, as far as costumes and props though. Everyone else can be dressed as normal people. Let's talk about that film noir look that Se7en and Angel Heart have. Can you create something like that digitally in post instead of on the set? Or even if you can't, is having such a look really necessary, to draw the viewer in, when it comes to an action suspense thriller? Would audiences be accepting in today's world of an action movie with a microbudget look and feel to it, as long as the script was good?
Even if your characters are dressed like "normal people", what color cclothinf are they wearing, does it match the overall Color pallette for the film and does it fit the character?
A solid production designer is one of the most important jobs on set IMO, can't have an interesting shot with bad costumes and nothing interesting in the background.
90% of your color grading should be done on set. If you want mostly blue/cold look for example, all the set pieces and costumes and lighting should achieve it in camera. You can't bring out colors in post that were never there to begin with. The problem with slapping a magic bullet look or a hardcore curves correction on an image is that it jacks with your skin tone. Skin should always be skin colored, everything else can change.
A solid production designer is one of the most important jobs on set IMO, can't have an interesting shot with bad costumes and nothing interesting in the background.
90% of your color grading should be done on set. If you want mostly blue/cold look for example, all the set pieces and costumes and lighting should achieve it in camera. You can't bring out colors in post that were never there to begin with. The problem with slapping a magic bullet look or a hardcore curves correction on an image is that it jacks with your skin tone. Skin should always be skin colored, everything else can change.
Oh, and to answer your last question if the audience will accept poor production value... Most people, probably not. There's always going to be some niche audience for any script, but look at what most people spend their movie ticket money on. Sadly, in action movies story and acting tend to be the least important thing. Expendables was an awful, awful movie, but one of the highest grossing in 2010. Also, there's a lot of good content on TV and in theaters that have a good script and a good production, so how can you convince someone to watch something that can't compete?
I don't want to say this to be discouraging, rather encouraging to make sure you ace every aspect of your production. Action is an expensive genre to do right. Drama and comedy can often be done for much less. Remember too, a good script doesn't cut it, only a phenomenal, great, magnificent, bar-setting script can survive and compete against the multi-hundred-million budget flicks.
I don't want to say this to be discouraging, rather encouraging to make sure you ace every aspect of your production. Action is an expensive genre to do right. Drama and comedy can often be done for much less. Remember too, a good script doesn't cut it, only a phenomenal, great, magnificent, bar-setting script can survive and compete against the multi-hundred-million budget flicks.
In most cases no.
!n most cases no.
In this case you need someone to handle costumes. That person
is typically the costume designer - sometimes called the costumer.
The difference is the "designer" will design and make the costumes
needed while the latter will find (buy and rent) the needed costumes.
The look of both films you mention can be attributed to the amazing
talent of Arthur Max/Gary Wissner and Brian Morris/Kristi Zea. To get
that look a production designer is essential. What you see on screen
is not something that can be done in post production.
And yes, such a look is very important. Most of the time the major
difference in the feel of movies is the overall production design; including
set decoration, costumes, art direction and even make up. Things that
most people do not even really notice. And things that most low budget
filmmakers omit because of budget restraints. But it does matter.
My feature script (that I hope to do in 2012) pretty heavily influenced by it. Not specific plot points, but the overall vibe.
As Rik noted, in THAT kind of film PD is super critical. On my last film I basically knew what I wanted, and hired an art director who just had to execute it ("ok, the chair should be some kind of funky wingback, preferably with a bright primary color like red or blue", "Those shelves should have board games, beat up ones from the thrift store", etc...).
Last edited:
That is what a director does with a production designer does, too.
Of course how a movie is made and what people are necessary
depends on hundreds of different things. But the director is always
in charge. At no time does having a production designer (or a DP
or an editor or a makeup artist or a costumer or....) reduce the
influence of the director. Specialists in their fields enhance the
directors vision and makes the overall production that much better.
The director knows what they want - the art department delivers.
On micro budget movies filmmakers cannot count on other people
to be skilled and experienced so often times the director feels they
must do everything. And most of the time the art department is
not even considered by filmmakers working with no money.
The bigger the project and the more ambitious the project the more
people are needed. Even really small projects can benefit from a
small art department. But only if the director/producer knows someone
who is dedicated.
Making a movie is damn complicated. Making one with good enough
quality to go to the film festivals and for DVD sales is even more
complicated. However, we all know of very small, very inexpensive
movies that have been in film festivals and have been sold on DVD.
That's what drives us, isn't it?
And sometimes, when luck is on your side, you can stumble into a location that doesn't require a lick of set design. In fact, often owners of the locations will offer to "clean the cobwebs" or "organize the junk" to which I say "Can you wait until after we shoot?"
This was one of those locations. Everything you see was there when we found it. Originally the scene was supposed to take place on the docks where the first shot is, but it was so windy we had to move inside. Luckily this tool shed was available to us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evp7gzA7NhA
Not my best work and the export setting were off, but there ya go.
This was one of those locations. Everything you see was there when we found it. Originally the scene was supposed to take place on the docks where the first shot is, but it was so windy we had to move inside. Luckily this tool shed was available to us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evp7gzA7NhA
Not my best work and the export setting were off, but there ya go.
Yeah, my exprience with both art directors and costume people has been:
I haven't been able to pay enough to get someone I KNEW was good, and the people I got on the cheap were marginal at best. That basically meant I had to lead them by the hand and stress they would deliver a little more than I would hope to have to do with a pro. It's still worth having them.
I haven't been able to pay enough to get someone I KNEW was good, and the people I got on the cheap were marginal at best. That basically meant I had to lead them by the hand and stress they would deliver a little more than I would hope to have to do with a pro. It's still worth having them.
I always hope I'll be able to do that Flicker, but it hasn't happened yet. Another position I long for is location producer. I always wind up looking a few times for the "right" set, not finding it, and saying "Screw this, I could build it for less pain in the ass than trying to find it is".
Well my script is very original and the very idea has never been done before. And it has some scenarios in which I have never seen anything like in other movies. So I do think it is not only original but the subject matter in it pushes a lot of boundaries that I have never seen any other movie do. And that is saying something cause I have seen a lot of indie films that have pushed them. It is not just a simple short story action movie like most action films. It does have a lot of twists and turns and a more epic plot, like The Departed or Heat. Would fans of those movies still like them if they were shot on a micro budget? Cause if yes, than I have a really good feeling about mine.
Even though it's an action movie, it is written as realistic as I possibly could write, with only a few more fake things being necessary to drive the plot. So maybe I should just go for a realistic look. This means no specific colors or anything and just shoot everything as how it really would be. Have the characters where what a character like that would normally wear in that situation and all that. Rather than certain colors just to create a look. Plus my script is loosely based off true events so could it perhaps that will add to the realism of those events if I go that route?
And yes I know my first time with a micro budget I cannot afford big action. I am even considering scrapping a car chase if I can't afford it, and going with something else. But I can go with very dark gritty realistic action like some movies have. Not that the kind that requires a lot of effects, but the kind that concentrates more on character behavior and emotion. That's what I wanted to do anyway.
Last edited:
A lot of this comes down to an individual's aesthetic. One is no better than another, they are just diffferent.
In my world a movie is supposed to be better than life. I see life every day. Why do I want to pay $11 to see life on the big screen? I can see that anytime by walking out my door. In the movies the colors are brighter, the characters are bigger, the explosions are louder. I am the anti dogma 95. Except for cost I'd rather shoot on a soundstage than on a real location any day of the week.
I got into it with a back seat directing kid on that movie I consulted on a couple weeks ago. We were shooting a car interior and I put a 100W in the floorboard shining on the talent's face.
Kid: The interior light went off when she closed the door. Where is that light coming from?
Me: The same place the incidental music is coming from. The "this scene is going to fucking suck if I can't clearly see the expression on face place". Now go get me some coffee or something.
Now, that's just me. Not saying it's better or worse than anybody else's aesthetic. It's just mine.
Sorry, rant over. Not even sure what prompted it.. lol
In my world a movie is supposed to be better than life. I see life every day. Why do I want to pay $11 to see life on the big screen? I can see that anytime by walking out my door. In the movies the colors are brighter, the characters are bigger, the explosions are louder. I am the anti dogma 95. Except for cost I'd rather shoot on a soundstage than on a real location any day of the week.
I got into it with a back seat directing kid on that movie I consulted on a couple weeks ago. We were shooting a car interior and I put a 100W in the floorboard shining on the talent's face.
Kid: The interior light went off when she closed the door. Where is that light coming from?
Me: The same place the incidental music is coming from. The "this scene is going to fucking suck if I can't clearly see the expression on face place". Now go get me some coffee or something.
Now, that's just me. Not saying it's better or worse than anybody else's aesthetic. It's just mine.
Sorry, rant over. Not even sure what prompted it.. lol
