Is it me or do a lot of indie films in festivals feel kind of empty?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
As I argue a lot there is a "good enough" point for both audio and video where it's not a distraction even if it doesn't add much. In a few of those movies the content carries it and it works. It would have better with more attention to those things. Maybe going from good to great, but it works as is. Not everything has to look and/or sound great. It just can't sound/look distractingly bad. Again, I'm all for better, but films can be imperfect and still be pretty good.
I agree with this too. You can keep spending and spending and spending, but will you get a larger audience (people paying to watch the film in one form or another)? Only studios can afford to justify the expense.
What it all comes down to - at least as far as sound-for-picture is concerned - is a desire to have solid audio in the first place. As I opine so frequently, your project will only look as good as it sounds because "Sound is half of the experience." Far too often sound is treated as an afterthought, especially by fledgling indie filmmakers. This is a problem because no one has ever told them that they could and should to better. As Greg (AudioPostExpert) mentioned sound can work in very subtle ways. Even experienced filmmakers, critics and discerning audiences don't notice it much of the time; they only notice when sound is bad, never when it is good or even great. When the original "Star Wars" came out everybody was blown away by how it looked, and the phenomenal score; no one talked about Ben Burrts extraordinary sound design.
As someone who works much further down the food chain than Georgia (for whom I have tremendous respect) or Greg I have worked on too many projects where I am more often than not consigned to polishing turds. Some were pretty good too, with a decent story, looked nice and were acted well, but I was unable to "save" them because the production sound was so bad. On those rare occasions where solid production sound appears in my studio even with my own modest talents I can bring a film up to another level if there is anything even resembling a budget.
Filmmaking is the most collaborative of all the arts, and the director and producer must rely on others; there a just too many interlocking disciplines for them to do it all themselves. I completely understand the problems of working on low/no/mini/micro budgets, but poor sound kills many otherwise worthy projects. There has been some discussion about visually and sonically substandard films that still manage to capture the audience, but in those cases the script/story and the acting are good enough to overcome those drawbacks; films like that are very few and far between.
If the filmmaker makes the effort to capture solid production sound even minimal audio post - leveling out the dialog, adding the most important Foley & sound effects and a decent mix - can make the project stand out from the crowd.
As someone who works much further down the food chain than Georgia (for whom I have tremendous respect) or Greg I have worked on too many projects where I am more often than not consigned to polishing turds. Some were pretty good too, with a decent story, looked nice and were acted well, but I was unable to "save" them because the production sound was so bad. On those rare occasions where solid production sound appears in my studio even with my own modest talents I can bring a film up to another level if there is anything even resembling a budget.
Filmmaking is the most collaborative of all the arts, and the director and producer must rely on others; there a just too many interlocking disciplines for them to do it all themselves. I completely understand the problems of working on low/no/mini/micro budgets, but poor sound kills many otherwise worthy projects. There has been some discussion about visually and sonically substandard films that still manage to capture the audience, but in those cases the script/story and the acting are good enough to overcome those drawbacks; films like that are very few and far between.
If the filmmaker makes the effort to capture solid production sound even minimal audio post - leveling out the dialog, adding the most important Foley & sound effects and a decent mix - can make the project stand out from the crowd.
I for one noticed how good Star Wars's sound was. It came out one year before Superman, and I remember thinking years ago, that Superman did not have as good as sound while watching it. And the person who runs the film festival even said that the reason why most movies get rejected is cause of poor sound.
Some of these movies which I found to be empty though, were made for over a million dollars. I assume the filmmaker was not self funding. So you think that if a real producer was, than maybe they would want to get a better editor.
Some of these movies which I found to be empty though, were made for over a million dollars. I assume the filmmaker was not self funding. So you think that if a real producer was, than maybe they would want to get a better editor.
The discussion about "paying pro's to do the job" is nice and all, but it misses the point. You can achieve good quality sound WITHOUT throwing 10k for audio design out of the window for your 7 minute short.
Look at some guys like Kevin Smith or Robert Rodriguez. They used what they had and I am SURE they wouldn't buy equipment or hire people for 100k+ if they would start their first movies today. Rodriguez made El Mariachi for about 8.000 Dollars. With todays cameras, personal computers and cgi he could do it for 2.000! And it would even be better. Well, actually it IS better than 90% of the so called indies that are made today that have nothing to tell.
I am really sick of the big hollywood actors that take roles in "indie" productions. They don't do it for the art or because they want to help the underdogs. They do it so they can tell everyone "hey, I am not just a moronic hollywood actor with only 3 facial expressions. I am a REAL artist".
It's so hypocritical. Being indie should be a movement against the old conventions. So why do we even bother with RED cameras for 40k and festivals that are advertisement events for the studios?
Look at some guys like Kevin Smith or Robert Rodriguez. They used what they had and I am SURE they wouldn't buy equipment or hire people for 100k+ if they would start their first movies today. Rodriguez made El Mariachi for about 8.000 Dollars. With todays cameras, personal computers and cgi he could do it for 2.000! And it would even be better. Well, actually it IS better than 90% of the so called indies that are made today that have nothing to tell.
I am really sick of the big hollywood actors that take roles in "indie" productions. They don't do it for the art or because they want to help the underdogs. They do it so they can tell everyone "hey, I am not just a moronic hollywood actor with only 3 facial expressions. I am a REAL artist".
It's so hypocritical. Being indie should be a movement against the old conventions. So why do we even bother with RED cameras for 40k and festivals that are advertisement events for the studios?
El Mariachi did not go straight from Rodriguez's VHS deck to the cinema, without a massive amount of audio (and video) fixups by the studio that bought it.
He made a lot of money selling a book telling people he made it for $7k. That version of the film wasn't fit to release.
I'd have to look it up for sure, but I seem to recall about $300k being pumped into post to make it passable. It's just not accurate to call the film a $7k miracle.
Yeah I know they invested lots of money to make it fit for a theatrical release.
But that's the difference to today. Rodriguez made a not perfect movie for 8k and the studios picked it up and invested 300k so everybody involved could make assloads of money from it.
Today "indie guy" needs to spend 300k by himself and won't even be considered to be on the official Sundance selection and will never receive a chance to get picked up by a major studio, because the studios have their OWN indie branches with budgets that could feed a third world country for a month.
Maybe I'm just too angry at Hollywood and the turds they release one after another
But that's the difference to today. Rodriguez made a not perfect movie for 8k and the studios picked it up and invested 300k so everybody involved could make assloads of money from it.
Today "indie guy" needs to spend 300k by himself and won't even be considered to be on the official Sundance selection and will never receive a chance to get picked up by a major studio, because the studios have their OWN indie branches with budgets that could feed a third world country for a month.
Maybe I'm just too angry at Hollywood and the turds they release one after another
That's your personal experience. A problem with sound currently exists in cinema because of mis-matched calibration with the Dolby dubbing treatres. This is caused by management who change the calibration due to customer complaints. Just because you are unaware of a problem, does not mean it does not exist.
OK, you're crazy! You may be right about Mugato but I'd be very surprised if White Goodman did not have designed footsteps. There was a very good Foley team on that film. Maybe you don't know what "Foley" really means? Commonly film makers use the term Foley to mean any sounds created in post recorded in sync with the picture. But Foley is named after Jack Foley, who revolutionised audio post in the 1930's by studying how people walked and creating footsteps with a personality for each character. If footsteps haven't been designed with a personality, then really they are just footstep SFX rather than Foley. This is why the official credit is "Foley Artist" and not "Foley Technician".
Why? The chances are that you would be wasting some or all of that budget by hiring me. I think you're missing the point of what I've been trying to say. At the end of the day, many of the value judgements about the use of sound are made by the director, not by me. If the director is incapable of making good value judgements then at least some of my work/skills/knowledge will be wasted. I've watched some of Take Shelter and IMHO, there is still plenty of room for improvement but the sound (and music) is of decent professional standards. Unlike the trailer, where the sound is truly dreadful and appears to have been done by someone without even the most basic understanding of sound.
I'm sure you could tell the difference between decent professional standards and dreadful when judging the quality of a script, the cinematography, the VFX, the acting or the set design for example, why not the sound? I'm not trying to be insulting here, it's just that unfortunately this situation is not at all uncommon and results the substantially poorer quality indi films than should be the case, with any given budget!
I try to judge movies in two ways, as a film maker and as an ordinary film goer. Film makers and aficionados make subjective judgements based on their understanding of the various elements which combine to make a film. The vast majority of film goers have relatively little appreciation of the individual elements and judge a film purely on whether or not they enjoyed it. Were they excited or shocked or were they bored, were they moved emotionally or left uninvolved? In essence then, a good film maker is one who can manipulate the audiences' emotions and like it or not sound (including music) is one of the major players, if not the most major player, when it comes to the game of emotional manipulation.
The problem with much film making, which is particularly pronounced in indi film making, is the preoccupation of film makers with the visuals at the expense of the sound. A better balance between the audio and visual would result in a far better film for the same budget. It's no surprise this lack of balance exists because film schools spend about 95% of their time teaching students to create and manipulate the power of visual images, about 5% of their time teaching about the technical use of sound and about 0% of their time teaching the power of sound to manipulate the audience.
For those with a wider understanding of film making, it's obvious that one of the main differences between the legendary directors and the also rans is their approach to the use of sound. Unfortunately, many film makers spend years or entire careers blissfully unaware of this. In a way this is due to the fact that much of the great sound design get's it's power from the fact that the audience is not aware that the sound is being used to manipulate what they are experiencing and most film makers have little more understanding of this fact than the audience.
I've never once used the word perfect in any of my posts. But the difference between perfect and dreadful is almost infinite! Very bad sound will not necessarily make a film unwatchable (although in extremis it could) but it severely limits the ability of the film to stimulate and engage the audience. If a film has bad sound yet is still judged to be a reasonably good film, what a terrible shame, with a little more appropriate planning (not necessarily a bigger budget) it could have been a great film or even a masterpiece.
With all due respect, if you want to aim for a perfect movie, then you need to be able to make value judgements to differentiate between perfect and dreadful and like it or not, in film that means sound as well as visuals. As a maker of audio / visual products you really should have been able to identify that the trailer had dreadful sound and therefore did not "work tremendously well". It might have worked well enough to inspire you to go and see it but how much better and more inspiring should it have been (with decent sound), is something you really should have some idea of, as a film maker.
G
EDIT: I've just read this through and it sounds rather confrontational, possibly even insulting. Not my intention at all, just trying to provide some information to help those who read it to understand film making a little better and thereby make better films.
Last edited:
APE, in my view, you are absolutely right. Too often sound is given second class status in a film when, in fact, it is as crucial as every other creative element, and even more important in some cases. The audience will happily accept bad images (see Blair Witch), they will not tolerate bad sound. Sadly, film makers tend to almost obsess over images, but give little interest to sound. Sound and music can make or break films.
Don't judge Take Shelter's sound by the trailer. The film uses the sound of wind (almost like a musical instrument) to create a chilling sense of foreboding doom.
A lot of the time it's part of a learning process all round when 'some' indie films that can be found in Independent or low budget festivals are concerned.The scriptwriter is learning his trade and very often so is the cast and crew.It's just entered into a festival for some objective and positive criticism from complete strangers and film lovers.Hence they can be slower in pace and yes,in some cases empty !
Wouldn't it be a good idea for them to post the movie online, on a site with a password, so that other filmmakers can watch the movie first, and give some editing tips? They can then use those tips, to make a better edit, before sending it off to film festivals, where more people will be judging the work.
This is something I don't understand: why people post their work on forums or anywhere else looking for feedback on how to make it better from a majority of people who actually don't know what they're doing either?
Find someone who's work you admire and opinion you know you can trust, ask them to watch it.
At least that's how I see it, which probably sounds bad but, well.
I've gotten some great feedback from this forum. If it's a rough cut and I'm looking for feedback, I post it in the private premiere section.
I also posted a script in the public section. In either situation, you have to put on a filter and weed out the feedback that really makes sense to you, vs some feedback that is, quite frankly, bunk. I don't take in all feedback equally.
And by the way, there are regulars on this website whose work I admire, and whose opinions I trust.
I'm no rookie editor; I'm kinda good at it to be honest. If you ever see a weird edit in one of my movies, it's safe to say that Joseph-the-director is to blame, not Joseph-the-editor. Even so, there have been numerous times when I've gotten ideas from people that I just never would've thought of on my own. I've gotten those ideas from people I know in real life, as well as from people on this website.
I highly encourage posting your work in this forum. The internet is like the Wild Wild West, so you gotta be careful about what you take to heart. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I've gotten some great feedback from this forum. If it's a rough cut and I'm looking for feedback, I post it in the private premiere section.
I highly encourage posting your work in this forum. The internet is like the Wild Wild West, so you gotta be careful about what you take to heart. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, yeah, if there are people on the forum that you do trust then for sure. In this case, I'm probably speaking from a place that's way too "specific", as in having people that I can access for feedback.
Not everyone has that, and it's short-sighted to either assume they do or assume that there can't possibly be any good feedback on a forum.
Need to keep that stuff in mind.
Actually, you should be asking perfect strangers . . . would you buy the DVD? If not, why?
Well would ya look at that... something we agree on. xDDDD
I never said that people should spend $10k; I said that they should make an unswerving commitment from the start of preproduction to have solid sound. That's a far cry from throwing money at the problem. It means having as a part of the thought process "I'm going to have great sound" for every minute of pre-, production and post.
Amen. And contrary to what could be read from my above conversation with AudioPost, I am listening!