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
Film Plan

Hitchcock also had Jimmy Stewart to work with on "Rope" and he wasn't filming it in two days.

I think everyone intends to nail every take the first time, but your actors will need to rehearse like crazy in order to get through every scene without a mistake. Shooting in one location in one weekend is fine, but depending upon how much you intend to get from your cast, you might be better off scaling the idea down from a feature to a short. There's only so much attention span one can reasonably expect his cast to maintain over the course of a marathon shoot before the mistakes start flowing.

The alternative is to shoot on DV, which is much cheaper can be taped over if need be -- plus it can run for hours at a time without needing to reload. We shoot on DV and attempt to work at least one lengthy steadicam shot into every few episodes of our series and even that results in an average of 8 takes per scene. Maybe you could do a DV test to get your cast familiar with the scenes and use that as a springboard to acquire funding for the film-quality feature?

Good luck!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
STBD1,

Thanks for the input. The point is well taken about Stewart and the amount of time Hichcock had. The one thing we do have time and money for is rehearsal. My estimate was that the cast would treat it as a play, we would rehearse it as such for 2-3 weeks and then shoot.

DV is, of course, an option but if I went that route, I would shoot a more traditional shooting ratio. Shooting 1:1 allows me to shoot a feature on film for less than $7,000 (which I can do without selling the house - maybe just the car).

Anyway, your comments are appreciated and I look forward to more. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Check out Melvin Goes to Dinner. They shot all the dinner stuff in one night (albeit on DV, with a five cam set up), but it's interesting to note that it started as a play and all the actors were so ingrained intheir parts that when it came time to shoot on the fly it worked like a charm.

Poke
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Why?

There was a film project done recently where the whole film was shot in one piece of action, in one location, with multiple cameras.
I don't have all the details, but I do know that the thinking behind it was about artistic preference and not a budget decision. I'm sure one of the the guys will know the film I'm talking about.

So, what you're talking about isn't impossible. However, they put months of rehearsal into the film, in particular rehearsing the camera movements against the action. The problem with long moving shots with dollies, track and jibs is getting everyone to hit their marks dead on. For me, those shots always require more takes than static shots.

If I was going to shoot a film fast and wanted to keep the budget down, but still wanted something of cinematic quality, I'd shoot on Hi Def. Video set ups are just so much faster than film. I'd still run long scenes on master shot, because your long weekend is still too short for a feature shoot, with even basic coverage.

One way you might approach this problem is to shoot the feature in stages. Write your story so it's episodic, split into say six episodes, You shoot the first episode over your first long weekend, then raise the cash for the next, if you make the centre of each episode an object rather than a person, you don't have to worry about any continuity problems with cast.

There was British film in the 1950's called the Yellow Rolls Royce, which was structured like this. it was the story of the different owners of the car.

The only other way I can think of to do this is to use studio based TV techniques. I recently saw a taping of Frasier at Paramount. They had rehearsed for a week and then shot whole scenes with only two takes per scene and a few pick ups. They basically put down 24 minutes of programme in just over four hours. However they had about five cameras giving them the coverage they needed.

One thing you might consider is putting everyone on your cast on radio mics for the sound, this will speed the wholle process up and will make sure that even though you can't get in any closer than your master shot, you'll still have clean sound on everyone.

Good luck with it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Really appreciate everyone's thoughts. I saw Russian Ark, really intersting film and pretty amazing since they ran back and forth through time (modern time, Russian revolution and back). One disadvantage was that everything was shot with the same lens and "stock." I never realized how much you miss variety in the image until you don't have it. We will at least be able to switch lenses and stock every 10 minutes to give it a different feel for different long takes.

Clive, great advice on different options. I am actually a big fan of Hi-Def and hope to use it for a more ambitious project after this one.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Changing stock?

We will at least be able to switch lenses and stock every 10 minutes to give it a different feel for different long takes.
Click to expand...

Uh oh! Alarm bells ring! I wouldn't ever think of changing stock frequently within a film unless you are really forced to! Change lenses like the wind but keep your stock the same. If you want to shoot on 200 shoot on 200. If you want to shoot 400 shoot it all the same. Otherwise you'll have a wild job with colour matching, the grain structure will jump all over the place and all!

Get mood by lighting differently, changing shooting style, etc etc for varied atmosphere. Lenses change mood considerably with depth of field alongside aperature.

Keep stock constant! ;)

radical.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Renegade,

Point well taken about stock, changing lenses is more what I had in mind from take to take.

Anyone know if you actually get 10 minutes out of a 1000' load? All I've ever worked with are short ends so not familiar with fresh cans.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Film

It of course depends on your fps but at the standard 25 on 35mm you'll get about 10mins and 40secs running time. knock off about 3mins for colour charts and claps and you get about 7mins shooting time!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As an editor, let me tell you quite frankly that I think you're headed full-tilt down the wrong path. You're trying to do less with more. Consider instead trying to do more with less.

By committing to 35mm on such a small budget, you're leaving yourself no room for flexibility, error, or even chance. The 1st time an actor misses a cue, mark or flubs a line, you'll be over budget & behind schedule. What if the weather doesn't cooperate? What if a light goes down? What if you decide to make a change? What if just about anything other than exactly perfect happens?

Also, by trying to make a movie mainly with master shots, there's no way to control the pacing & timing or to establish a rhythm. There's also no way to give emphasis where & when you want to. And it's not likely to be particularly compelling to watch.

If you have additional coverage, you can speed up & slow down the rhythm to match the mood, or stretch & compress time to help add to suspense or shock. You can also give emphasis where needed by using close ups of people's faces or hands, of props, whatever.

Consider a few alternatives:
Super 16- It's still film & it can be blown up to 35mm without any trouble. The cost of film & processing will be less than half, and you're camera rentals will be much lower as well.
HD 24P- There's no expense for processing. You still get the 'filmic' motion of 24fps. You get 40 min on an inexpensive tape instead of 10 to a much more expensive load. It transfers very well & easily to film. If you go with Varicam, you can even over & undercrank the camera for slow & fast motion effects. (BTW, Russian Ark was shot on Sony 24P, not on film.)
DVCPro 50/DigiBeta- Sure it's video, but it's as good looking as SD video will get (if you light it well). You can even get 24P in the DVCPro 50 format, and you also get 40 minutes to a tape.
DV- Well, it's cheap. Actually, if you get hold of a 1/2" or 2/3" DV camera (including DVCam & DVCPro) & light it well, it can look really good. Panasonic even has a 24P option for you. You'll get 40-60 minutes on a tape, and it will be very cheap to post.

Think about it. It's your movie. It should be the best movie that you can make. Why paint yourself into a corner where you don't have the option of making the best movie possible, or even of telling the story in an interesting way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As a fellow editor (by day, at least, and "full-fledged filmmaker" on the weekend), I concur with the possibility of painting yourself into a corner with this approach. It "can" be done, but it doesn't necessarily mean it "should" be done. Granted, I've had to save numerous projects that didn't shoot enough coverage, or use the ever-despised Unnecessary Cutaway to rescue a flub in the middle of an otherwise uninterrupted take, but I'd much rather NOT have had to perform that emergency surgery. If we / they had filmed enough footage in the first place, we wouldn't have had that problem. But that appears to go against the grain of this project.

The only way something filmed exclusively in master shots would work is if, like in "Rope," you had the ability to move in and out on various actors and transition from closeups to medium shots to wides within the same scene. Hitchcock used an elaborate dolly setup; what's your plan? Doing this on a tripod won't work because there's only so much variety you can get from one vantage point. A Steadicam is a good option, but then that's one more variable you have to worry about -- the steadicam operator is both a crew member AND a cast member in his own way (discuss)...

The saving grace here may be the extensive rehearsal time. If everyone gets to a point where they can run through the script without a flaw from the top -- which is a test for even the greatest actors to pull off smoothly AND still manage to keep it feeling "real" rather than "rehearsed to within an inch of its life" -- you may be able to pull it off. But as the overwhelming opinion on this thread so far seems to indicate, restructuring or scaling back the project, or shooting on something more disposable than 35mm, may result in a better finished film.

The question is: is the gimmick of shooting a film in uninterrupted takes on 35mm going to be enough of a hook to get people to watch your film if it ends up feeling stilted and half-panicked because of it?

Or, to basically sum up the last few entries, wouldn't you like to leave yourself some room for error?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
stbd1 said:
The question is: is the gimmick of shooting a film in uninterrupted takes on 35mm going to be enough of a hook to get people to watch your film if it ends up feeling stilted and half-panicked because of it?
Click to expand...

Fantastic point stbd1. and arniepix before.

Sounds like you're stretchin yourself beyond sensibility.

That schedule of yours will look brilliant before the first day's shoot, but as arniepix said - one step on the other side of the line and you'll be shot like a duck out of water.

With just masters you could be in for a boring cut. Especially if you don't have the equipment. Doing masters with the wrong kit and you can forget about the emotive camera, and remember the longer the time the camera is running on action the longer the time there is for something to go wrong - imagine if you get a take brilliantly on a 3min master and then the camera op trips and jolts it 3.30mins in! Ouch.

Getting coverage gives you opportunity.

Like the other guys are saying... I would recommend HD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Arniepix, stbd1 and Renegade, this is all eminently helpful. Working through some responses helps me better define my goals with this project and see if it still makes sense. First, why this method?

If I shoot on digital, there is no reason not to shoot a traditional shooting ratio. Video is so cheap, it would be foolish not to get coverage and have the broadest range of options in the editing suite. However, coverage takes time and time is money. Even limited coverage will quickly make a weekend shoot into a week long shoot. A weeklong shoot increases the cost of cast, crew and equipment. If I went with a cheaper route (24P HD, miniDV, 16mm, 8mm, Pixelvision, flipbook, etc.), I would still only be able to afford an entire crew for a weekend. So cost is the initial problem.

Next, 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. I did a short film on 35mm and then ended up having to finish on digital because of the high cost of transfer. 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).

So lets say that you have a limited budget but still want to end up on 35mm using a professional cast and crew. Shooting a "Rope" like film is one solution and I am open to others. This group is proving to be very helpful so if anyone disputes the above or has better ideas, I encourage you to have at me, it can only help.

Of the other issues raised, I am least concerned with actors flubbing their lines or not quite hitting a mark since the performace is being prepared more like a play. Which means that the actors (and crew) will be prepared for a "live" performance where errors will have to be convered on the fly and nothing short of a collapse of the stage should stop them. (I know what you're thinking "this guy is shooting for Alfred Hitchcock but he'll be lucky to hit Ed Wood - and I'm the first to admit you may be right!) Of course, even if everthing goes right, that doesn't mean anyone will want to watch it.

Which brings us to the other major issue raised which is also at the top of my list. How to make the film compelling to watch and have a rhythm which we won't be able to help in editing? Plays, of course, do this all the time. And while I know that "filming a play" sounds like a sure-fire ticket to obscurity for an aspiring director, I do recognize that film is a visual medium and I do have some thoughts on how to achieve this. Among them are working with jibs, track, dolly and zoom lenses to move the camera and frame close-ups, medium and wide shots. Different lighting set ups in different long takes can also help to create mood and atmosphere. And, of course, the actors will be blocked in such a way as to create different "scenes" from one moment to the next (we see this a lot in "long take" dramas like ER).

If there's anyone who isn't bored by this discussion (or my comments), I would love to hear your feedback. I love internet forums because they usually provide something you can't get from family and friends: no bullsh-t honesty.

So I'll end with this: Is there anything about this project that is compelling to you? Does this seem completely like folly, destined for a spectacular crash and burn? Or do the challenges seem intriguing or interesting at all? I love hearing stories about how a director didn't have access to a piece of equipment (s)he needed or the money to do a scene the way (s)he would have liked and instead came up with something more creative because of the limitation. Is this like that scenario? Or is it just stupid? Don't worry, you won't offend me.

Thanks again to everyone who has commented, looking forward to more great thoughts!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cyan said:
so I'll end with this: Is there anything about this project that is compelling to you?
Click to expand...

Compelling? Absolutely... I love the concept.

Obviously if you're shooting theatre for film the actors are going to have probably had some rehearsal time, and the rehearsal time will have enabled you to pre-visualise the entire film. Because if you're attempting to do it in just a weekend then you'll need to know exactly where you're heading in the next second.

cyan said:
However, coverage takes time and time is money...
Click to expand...
This part is interesting. Now, if the piece is based on a play it's likely that the staging is going to be fairly basic, in that the actors are in one space and arn't running around town. If you shoot on video (maybe HD but then stock is more expensive) you could do multiple camera set up for move coverage.

That way you strike three birds with one stone. The only downside to this is that it'll push up your crew costs as you'll need to double your camera op specs. The upside is that you get a host of coverage that makes the editing stage slightly more engaging.
I wouldn't advise you do multiple camera set-ups on film - ouch - one take goes wrong the other takes go wrong - shabaam - and you've just blown $200 ;)

I guess if you did do multiple camera setups, you could get round the crew problem by just having two 'manned' cameras doing motion and then the rest static and covering ls / ms / and cast moving into cu's... this could be an interesting blocking excercise.

What is your crew set up? Who have you got onboard? Have you found your cast?

By the way, beware of hammed actors. Theatre is awful for over exagerration... it could look bad on close ups ;) hehehee
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
arniepix, I am so glad you said what you said, but 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. Besides, you can’t cutaway to anything in post unless you’re doing a multi-camera setup, one on a wide and one on a CU for the cutaways, and that can be impossible sometimes with blocking. I also feel that trying to film a successful feature on 35 in one “long weekend” is silly. Just to light correctly is going to take too much time. You could shoot straight through three days and maybe have it if you were lucky, but you’d have to hand out so many amphetamines to keep everyone awake that you’d blow your budget. Especially trying to use zoom lenses will reduce your lens speed so you have to throw more light and then just add one BPM filter and that’s another stop to stop and a half, you’d better have a really good gaffer. Take the time and stretch the money with HDDV or something. You’ll be much happier with the product and you won’t have wasted the money.

I don’t know, maybe I’m just being a Cassandra, but I foresee doom and destruction. Or, maybe it’s just beyond my capabilities and I can’t understand a viable way to get it done and still have it marketable. But I wish you luck and I hope it turns out well whatever you decide to do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top