Need Critique of Plan for Low Budget Feature

C

cyan

I am writing a screenplay for a micro-budget 35mm feature to take place in one location. Because of time and money constraints, I plan to shoot everything over the course of one long weekend using a 1:1 shooting ratio (it will be shot almost entirely in masters, with dolly, crane moves or zoom lenses framing characters to create "scenes.") Hitchock did something similar with Rope, shooting for 10 minutes at a time (corresponding to the amount of time he could get out of a 1000' film load).

One of the questions I have is about 1000' film loads. On a fresh can, will I actually get 10 minutes out of it? To be safe, the scenes will be timed to come out anywhere between 7-9 minutes. Any additional film will be used to get short cutaways to mask errors.

Thoughts, suggestions and critiques are all welcome. Thanks!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I'll say this, cyan. There seems to be a general consensus around here that you are absolutely insane for trying this thing the way you are. I say "Screw 'em!" Do your movie the way you envision it. If you want to try and shoot on 35mm in a "long take" film with a 1:1 ratio all in one weekend, do it. Just remember your film could fail miserably or succeed brilliantly.

I could spend a ton of time bringing up other directors that were told they couldn't do something and they went ahead and did it, but we've all heard the stories over and over again. If anyone can pull this off it's you. You know why? Because you have the desire to do it. Desire is the cornerstone of indie filmmaking, without it nothing would ever get made.

Now, do I think, like the others, that you would be well advised to try and "simple" it down? Well, yeah. But it's not my movie, it's yours. All this advice is helpful, but in the end we aren't shooting the thing, you are.

Just freakin' do it and prove everyone wrong.

Poke
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Here's a suggestion -- since you appear to have your cast for free, get them all rehearsed, and then shoot a dress rehearsal on a borrowed low-end DV cam for free. Maybe just do the first act or so.

My point is that, for very little or no money, you could get a feel for whether this plan of yours stands a chance of yeilding a movie that you'll be happy with. This would give you the opportunity to re-group and come up with a different shooting plan if you decide your current one isn't going to work.

I will say that I think your plan is a bad one (or perhaps just insanely risky), and that you might be placing too high a value on '35mm film' at the expense of visual story telling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The new Dogma?

I've been thinking about this question all week, because it is just the kind of thing that appeals to me on a gut level .

The more I think about it, the more I think that this isn't a format question. It's about something else, it's about the ways of working that we take for granted. For instance I almost always shoot dialogue with triangulated coverage, master shot, over the shoulder MS/CU and the reverse. Therefore, as director and consumer I get used to seeing that convention. I get coverage, so that I can get as close to perfection as possible, I can hide/edit round the defects in performance and the same for any camera problems/lens flare, focus, poor framing etc.

As I've thought about this 1:1 ratio, shooting on the master, I guess I've been thinking about the practical problems and just like everyone else, I think they come down to the following:

1) No possiblity to cover performance errors
2) No possibility to cover camera errors
3) The film will be full of imperfections (slightly off framing/composition)
4) The sound will be very, very difficult to get right

It seems to me, that if you decided that you could live with a certain amount of imperfection, if you thought very hard about how to achieve this, that it would be possible to shoot whole scenes on one master take. it probably wouldn't have 1:1 shooting ratio, more a 3:1. You wouldn't have any additional coverage, but you'd take more than one go at getting the scene right.

I think the thing that would work against the finished product, is not to do with whether it can be done, but about how watchable it will be in the end. We as audiences, have become used to the idea that rapid cutting means something interesting is happening (even when it's not) and that the closer the camera to the subject, the higher the degree of intimacy. The problem here, is that the more camera movement you do, the more likely you are to run into focusing/exposure/actors not hitting their mark problems. So the project is going to be a constant compromise between the practical aspects of getting the scene in one continuos take and the need to keep the POV moving to stop the audience falling asleep.

Have you considered making this a studio shoot? (At least it would give you control of the light and sound.) Derek Jarman did a film of Wittgenstein's life, in a black studio with minimal props to create the illusion of a set. I really like it as a film, if only because it challenges the ideas of what is and isn't possible with film.

The other thought I had about this project, is that it has a kind of Dogma feel to it. In the sense that a set of rules could exist:

1) Shoot every scene in one continous take
2) Accept the imperfects in performance and camera work as a rejection of the artifical "perfect moments' concept of normal film making
3) The story must take in real time and the camera can not magically jump from one location to the next etc.

I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with enough other rules to get up to the ten that seem to be standard for this kind of thing.

The best thing about having this kind of gimmick, is that you can do a lot of denouncing of other kinds of film making as 'compromised and artifical' and then when you've got some recognition, you break all your own rules and make films just like everyone else.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cyan said:
the further you get from film, the lower the quality when it gets transferred back to film and the closer in cost you get to having shot on 35mm in the first place.
Click to expand...
Let me say that well shot video will always look better than poorly shot film. Shoot whatever format is best suited to your budget, but make it look as good as possible.

cyan said:
And in the end, 35mm has many more opportunities for distribution, exhibition, etc. This is changing, of course, but it is the reality on the street. If you can afford a short film, you can afford a feature (but that's a discussion for another time).
Click to expand...
Believe me, no distributor is going to reject a film because it's not on 35mm. If they do, then it was only the last reason that they rejected it, not the 1st or only reason. A distributor will pick up a film because they think they can make money on it, meaning people will pay to see it. If they think it has the potential to make money, they will advance the cost of transferring video or blowing up 16mm.

film8ker said:
I’m still surprised that no one has mentioned how unrealistic the 1:1 ratio is. It also defeats the entire point of shooting on film. Why not just do a play? Besides you’re not going to get 1:1. Since you’re using 35, you’d have to have a fantastic AC and if the shot is ever soft you’re SOL and it’ll look amateurish.
Click to expand...
Amen. You need to put your best foot forward at every stage of the process. Why shoot yourself in that foot? Why hamstring yourself to this one impractical thing? (Hint: I don't have enough money is not an excuse.)

film8ker said:
I also feel that trying to film a successful feature on 35 in one “long weekend” is silly.
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn't say 'silly', but I would certainly say misguided.

It sounds to me that you don't have enough money to shoot the film on 35mm in a reasonable amount of time, so you've hatched this plot to see if you can just make a film in a weekend. I'm certain that you can, but I don't think it will be that interesting to watch.

As for the "Rope" analogy, well, Hitchcock never tried it a 2nd time. That tells me something. Also, I think the picture may have been a flop (please correct me if I'm wrong).

The only other noteworthy examples 'one shot' filmmaking I can think of are:
The opening shot of "Touch of Evil", which is about a reel long, and is one of the best crane shots I've ever seen. But it's only 1 shot in the film.
The opening shot of "I am Cuba", also several minutes long, and probably on a crane. Once again, not he whole film, though they do use other impressively long crane shots at the head or tail of some sections.
"Russian Ark" shot on 24p HD, with a steady cam.
Notice, that they're all moving shots, not masters. The camera pushes in & out, pans & tracks as the story dictates. And only "Russian Ark" tries this method of story telling for the whole length of the film.

And that's just it. It's about telling the story, not about doing it in 1 weekend, or 1 shot. In the end, you only have 1 chance to sell the picture to whomever is looking at it, be they a distributor, or an audience. If they lose interest, or if it's full of technical glitches, you've lost them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks again to everyone for their great insight, I will be printing these pages out and discussing many of these points with my DP, sound and the rest of the cast and crew.

Okay, so we're all in general agreement, this is an insane way to do a film. The main concern seems to be that the film may be unwatchable (even if all the technical aspects and performances and hitting of marks, etc. are dead on perfect).

So let's pretend for a moment that we look at the thing like Clive suggested (as a sort of "Manifesto" about art). I don't much go in for Manifestos (Dogme 88, Steve Soderburgh in Full Frontal, etc.) but it serves as a good starting off point for my question:

Let's say you have 10,000' of 35mm film, one camera package (on a three-day weekend rental), necessary lighting and control of your one-room location, track, dolly and jib as needed, ample rehearsal time and a professional cast and crew. Your goal is to make a feature length film (no shorts allowed) that is watchable.

How would you do it?

I am not trying to get around your concerns, I find this group to be quite intelligent and realistic about the problems with this idea. What I am trying to do is get your intellects over the hump of "why it shouldn't be done" and into the mode of "how could it be done?" I suspect that if you allow yourself to play around with the idea, you might even surprise yourself with some suggested solutions.

If I've already bored you with the discussion, I apologize. I certainly have gotten a great deal out of the discussion and hope you got something out of the interchange as well. I thank everyone who's taken the time to read this thread and comment, it's like have a virtual film class and I love the energy.

PS: I watched an episode of Third Watch (US TV drama about cops, firefighters and paramedics) about a month ago that was shot in a similar way. Every take between commercial breaks was one, uninterrupted take. I was impressed that they would try something so unique on a very traditional cops and robbers type show. It was both watchable and interesting, although I wonder what non-filmmakers thought if it. Also, I believe it was shot on HD (not film).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you really want a feature

This just my opinion ...

Attempt to shoot about nine minutes of the overall feature in the three days, using conventional shooting techniques, picking the parts that best illustrate your story and production values.

Cut that nine minutes into the best trailer for the film ever and use that trailer to raise the cash from investors to shoot the rest of the film properly.

You will run the risk of not raising the money and also of having to reshoot the original footage because of cast/location continuity problems, but those risks pale in comparison to the near impossibility of shooting a whole feature, in a weekend, on 35mm.

If I had no other choice than to shoot a whole feature in three days, I'd switch from 35mm to High Def, do everything hand held and shoot it documentary style. I'd put radio mics on every cast member to control the sound and I'd have at least two camera ops taking over from each other, so they could work in shifts.

Good Luck
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cyan said:
Let's say you have 10,000' of 35mm film
Click to expand...
That's only about 90 minutes of film, give or take. Even John Ford would have used a lot more film than that.

Let's say you do manage (or just force yourself) to shoot everything in 1 take. If you have any coverage at all, you're still going to need more film. Why? Because you need to run through all or most of each scene for each camera setup you use. And you need a few feet at the head of each take for slate, color charts, etc. You either need to buy a lot more film, or you need to change formats, or you need to scale back your script to 20 pages. Which of these options will tell your story the best way possible?

If you can't get away from the "Rope"-like single shot concept, then you're going to need a steady cam, a crane or a dolly (or maybe all 3).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just to be insane, How would I actually make this work?

The key is to make sure that the dialogue and the camera moves and the actors' motions are all generic enough that at least coming close to what you'd intended would work. If you want a 1:1 ratio, the only way to make sure everything you shoot would be useable is to make sure that NOTHING you shoot is UNUSEABLE.

Thus:

Keep the script loose, so that actors are having a conversation ABOUT something rather than having specific lines. As long as everyone gets the general gist of the story, even ad-libbing won't throw them off too far. Give everyone a goal to reach and a general space in which to reach that goal, and then make sure they know their characters inside and out. That way they can all be aiming toward their individual (and group) goal at all times and even a completely disruptive ad-lib will be countered if the next speaker knows he or she has to get the subject back on track. This way, you have a very loose, free-flowing dialogue that won't sound stilted AND which removes the fear of people stumbling over lines or botching inflections, etc.

Keep the camera moves vague. What do you NEED to see at each point in the shot? Follow those items and make sure everyone is aware of the need for those items to be seen, and otherwise people can move about freely and the camera can wander a bit and you'll still be on target because you won't be locked into a strict series of camera moves.

The more freedom you give yourself in this venture, the more likely you'll be able to end up with 90 minutes of useable footage. Will it all be great? No, but then, if everyone's adding something completely unpredictable to their dialogue and the plot, it'll at least be interesting to see who comes up with the best material -- or it'll be a car wreck. Either way, it'll still be watchable, and that's the key.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will it all be great? No, but then, if everyone's adding something completely unpredictable to their dialogue and the plot, it'll at least be interesting to see who comes up with the best material -- or it'll be a car wreck. Either way, it'll still be watchable, and that's the key.
Click to expand...

It's not my movie, nor is it my checkbook. Clearly, we see this in a different light. In my book, quality always matters. Picture quality, acting quality, dialogue, sound, etc., but story telling quality 1st.

If if was my movie, my main priority would be how to tell the story in the most effective way possible; my 2nd priority would be to paint the most vivid, memorable characters possible. Very far down the list would be what format I shoot on.

It seems to me that your top priority is to shoot on 35mm, and everything else is being compromised to achieve that one thing.

Why 35mm? George Lucas & James Cameron have both given it up for HD. There are now well established pipelines to transfer all formats of video to film. And, most important, most films never get distribution because distributors don't think they'll make money. Why force the issue by not being able to shoot anything 2X? Or by eliminating the possibility to make the story visually compelling?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As long as we're all tossing opinions out...

My personal opinion is, if you're going to do the 1:1, look through your script and make sure it's damn good. You're not going to make a 'visual' movie with 1:1. However, you CAN make a great 'diologue' movie, and the audience will be much more accepting of errors/mistakes, a la My Dinner With Andre (though, granted, they used more than one camera).

No matter which way you go, good luck to ya and keep us updated on how it goes.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cyan said:
I am writing a screenplay for a micro-budget 35mm feature to take place in one location. Because of time and money constraints, I plan to shoot everything over the course of one long weekend using a 1:1 shooting ratio (it will be shot almost entirely in masters, with dolly, crane moves or zoom lenses framing characters to create "scenes.") Hitchock did something similar with Rope, shooting for 10 minutes at a time (corresponding to the amount of time he could get out of a 1000' film load).
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone just left Dov S.S. Simmons Two Day Film School...

(he quotes Rope & doing a 35mm feature just like this).

Don't do it. Not at a 1 to 1 ratio. Even at 2 to 1, it's so risky. Have you ever made a short film? Have you mastered telling a story with the camera? Are you positive that your story shot in one room is so completely compelling that it will caputre the audience?

It's hard, but not impossible. But as close to impossible as you can get.

Think long and heavy on this before committing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
All Comments Appreciated

Since posting this question and getting feedback, I got a hold of Dov Simons class on tape through eBay since it had been mentioned a couple of times here an elsewhere. Sure enough, he does mention it as the last ditch effort for people who want to make a 35mm film on the lowest possible budget. He glosses over the difficulties, of course, of which there are many. I thank the group here for reminding me of that and for their suggestions, comments and criticisms.

The script is coming along nicely and I am looking forward to shooting it sometime early next year either using this technique or another, whatever it takes to get it made.

I will keep everyone posted and I appreciate all the kind help and support. Good luck to everyone out there with your own projects!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
pokewowplayer1 said:
Stop telling cyan it can't be done.
Poke
Click to expand...

It can be done... but can it be done well?

Is it possible to do this 1 to 1 35mm shoot as proposed? Yes.

Will it be great? I don't know. It can be, but it also might not.

No one is saying not to make a movie. I think the advice is to try a different WAY to make it so that the first feature will be the best that it CAN be.

I believe firmly in the practice makes perfect. Filmmaking is an artform like any other. You can't expect to play Mozart the first time you pick up a violin. So why would you expect your first attempt at a feature film to be any different? PRACTISE. Eitehr make soem shorts, or at least make your first feature on DV and learn HOW to tell a story before attempting a 1 to 1 35mm feature.

Cyan - PLEASE make your movie, don't NOT make it, but try to consider alternatives to making it the best it can possibly be.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
One room, ten minute long long shots, sounds very boring to me for a feature film.

But if you're going to do it, great, no matter what you should have an incredibly experience whether you succeed even your highest expectations or fall flat on your face.

I like this approach, high risk, but kudos to you for thinking of attempting it. You should however consider all the suggestions here, especially about going Super16 if you're adamant about film.

It would definately take the right kind of story to pull it off. Maybe you should consider having people here read your script to give you a little more insight into problems you might run into.

Best of luck
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sonnyboo said:
It can be done... but can it be done well?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but wouldn't it be great if cyan pulls it off? No, no one is saying "Don't do it at all.", but many are being overly discouraging. The reason we're all indie filmmakers is because we want to do things differently than Hollywood thinks they should be done, right? Here we have a guy that is doing something incredibly daring and incredibly risky, and everyone seems to be discouraging him. Being daring and risky is what indie film is all about.

Poke
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top