Style & Look Vs. Budget

Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC

Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC

As I see it, in the Indie low/no budget range, developing our own style and look is what we should be exploring, instead of a Hollywood Studio look.

When a Hollywood director chooses to use close-ups and blurry shots for action scenes, he is not blasted as he should be for making junk and chastised for not knowing what he is doing, but rather praised by critics for developing a new style of film making. Take for instance, the last Bourne movie and SALT. Real action fans that have seen these movies hate the blurry shots and wonder what the director and editor are covering up.

So, in our line of work, I'm all for making our own look and style in making a movie. Filmmakers need to be more open minded to new styles of looks, editing, and doing action.

Two years ago, I saw a group of filmmakers ripping a lady filmmaker to shreds because she made an experimental film and the filmmakers were unfamiliar with experimental films.

In the independent field especially, filmmakers should be open to a wider range of style and also recognize new styles and looks a filmmaker may be trying out. There should not be just one way of designing a look for a science fiction or a horror movie, as examples.
 
Last edited:
Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:
When a Hollywood director chooses to use close-ups and blurry shots for action scenes, he is not blasted as he should be for making junk and chastised for not knowing what he is doing, but rather praised by critics for developing a new style of film making.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

Why should any director, regardless of workplace, be lambasted for choosing a particluar style?

I'm not a huge fan of that handheld shaky zoom in-out reframing thing they use constantly in The Shield, but that's just 'cos I personally find it irritating. It's not really a "shouldn't be doing that 'cos the budget is over $3mill".

What am I not getting, here?
 
Zensteve said:
I'm not quite sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

Why should any director, regardless of workplace, be lambasted for choosing a particluar style?

I'm not a huge fan of that handheld shaky zoom in-out reframing thing they use constantly in The Shield, but that's just 'cos I personally find it irritating. It's not really a "shouldn't be doing that 'cos the budget is over $3mill".

What am I not getting, here?
Click to expand...

If you were to talk to people who work in doing professional stunts, they will tell you the proper way to shoot action is with the camera back for long and medium shots where viewers can see all of the action in clear focus.

Compare the way Iron Man 2 was shot as opposed to Salt. Stunt professionals will tell you Iron Man 2 was filmed the right way and Salt is covering the fact that Angelina can't do her own stunts properly. However, a film critic will say, the filmmakers of Salt are using a new style of shooting action.

If a no budget filmmaker was to try a new style they are designing, they will be criticized they are doing something that looks horrible and bad and they need help.

I already gave the example of a young lady getting lamb blasted as making a pointless video that looked horrible because they could not relate to her experimental film because the ideas were abstract. I directed her to a creative group who only makes experimental plays, videos, and abstract art.
 
Last edited:
Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:
If a no budget filmmaker was to try a new style they are designing, they will be criticized they are doing something that looks horrible and bad and they need help.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is universally true. Lots of people can tell the difference between shoddy craft and experimental techniques - it sounds like the folks in your example could not.

It's also on of those things dependent on taste. I'm not really a big fan of that Jarmusch movie that is all done with just master shots. Was it a stylistic choice, was it a budget choice, was it both? Some folks found it "brilliant." Others thought it was <insert derogatory adjective here>. I just thought it was bland and over-rated. Tons of examples of this throughout film history. Goddard and his early films going 180 degrees from continuity style, Italian Neo-Realists and non-actors, and so on. Not really folks with big budgets in their early careers either.

One of my favorite films of all time is a short called "Removed" where the film maker (her name escapes me at the moment) took clips from 1970s 16mm porn and bleached out the women by hand. Simply amazing found footage work, and brilliant for what seem like obvious reasons *after* seeing it.

Let's take that example further, truly an experimental work - but no one criticized her for not making every line on every bleached frame perfect. Several frames retained ghostly shapes of the removed women as well, no one criticized that either that I can remember.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it is the perspective of the eyes of the beholder. Not everyone is familiar with every style or technique. So, they may knock it if they don't know what the filmmaker is after to trying to accomplish.
 
David.rhsc said:
I don't think that is universally true.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but I do understand what this guy is saying. I was told once by a fella who helped with props and consulting work for films (sorry, don't remember his name), "Learn one thing and learn it well." The same could be said about a style and if it clicks then go with it (examples: Lynch, Kubrick, Altman, Cohen(s), etc.). But it is up to the person who is learning their craft. Some are comfortable with eating McDonalds each night and can handle it, some like to mix it up their meals each night. Neither is wrong as long as you are learning...........Well, maybe eating McDonalds each night isn't the best idea.

But we all benefit with both because variety is the spice of life.

Good luck. :beer:

Also, I think most filmmakers are open to a experimental style, maybe the movie didn't work?
 
Maybe I’m confused, but it seems contradictory.

If this guy shot action close and shallow for such and such a film shouldn’t we be open
minded to that technique or style as well?

-Thanks-
 
Maybe I’m confused, but it seems contradictory.
Click to expand...

I was going to say his/her first post is contradictory but after reading his/her it three times I finally got what they are saying. He/Her are making a statement at the beginning and then posing a question next (in a sense and ironically with no question marks).

Mainly we should at a early stage to learn a style and nurture it. For some reason then he brings in how people should be open to a style which could change the way we look at a genre. Nothing wrong with what he is saying and can be useful, but not everyone works the same.
 
Last edited:
Well when I first read the title of the thread I was thinking of Set Design and Style and look of the film in that regard. I was thinking that if you pick good locations that all ready have the look you are looking for you can get a look that is as good as any set they can build. It is just a matter of deciding to make your movie around locations that will work. With out having to build sets. This would of course save money. But if you have to build a set then you are at a disadvantage to a large studio that has a huge budget.

As far as your choice of camera approaches that is up to you but keep in mind that people do notice unprofesionalism if it looks bad. Personally I hate shakey camera work and zoom up close up shots during action sequences. I am sure I am not the only one. Reminds me the new Robin Hood was horrible the way they shot the action sequences made we want to leave the theater. I prefer the way action movies looked in the 80s and 90s.
 
Why won't anybody get behind me? I feel so gung-ho about my idea, I'm feeling perhaps borderline narcissistic about it. Dude, you just gotta give this movie a "Laser Cats" treatment. That would be so awesome!
 
Okay, I certainly agree that an *artist* needs to find their own avenue of expression(style), but this expression needs to have a common denominator drawn from the era this artist lives in order for her/his contemporary audience to 'relate' to. It is then the artists' responsibility to mold any neo-artifacts from his/her personal visual vocabulary into a form understandable/relatable for/by his intended audience. There are many, MANY ways for this to fail, from failure of an artist to understand the history of a medium to an abuse of technique (in the guise of *art*).

I was witness to the thread (on another forum) which you have cited, but will not link because the video is now set on 'private'. You have the facts a little confused. First, after re-reading the thread, only one person (not a group of filmmakers) presented a less than favorable critique...and from what I can remember, pretty on the mark, imo. Second, you seem to have forgotten that a number of us, myself, Rocket, James, DOM, few others...come from an academic Fine Arts background and can fully appreciate the film avant garde. Third, the film was made specifically for a 48 hour competition, there are certain, unspoken formal parameters. Fourth, the filmmaker in question posted a litany of his/her filmic 'mistakes' which leaves absolutely no question the work wasn't pushing the 'art' of it all. Fifth, it was not two years ago, it was one. :P
 
Budget has nothing to do with the style--who's attached to the camera and production is where the style comes from.

The majority of the time, Hollywood kinda bores me. I mean not completely, but there is just too much bleh in your standard lighting setups, camera moves, angles, etc. Yes, there are a ton of camera moves that I see all the time in Hollywood movies, and I'm very impressed. There are great lighting setups too. But for the most part, it's a 'standard' that is sharp and skilled, but mostly not very inspired.

As far as the Boyle or Bourne style...I can admire bits of it, and other bits annoy the hell out of me. The only reason I can deal with The Shield's and Bourne's camera work is because it's being shot by extremely talented operators with a lot of experience.

What annoys me to high heaven, is when indie filmmakers try and mimic this style. I barely like it when the pros do it, let alone someone who's messy, inexperienced, and insecure about their choices.

Before you become some crazy hand held expert, why don't you try and compose some beautiful classic shots that edit seamlessly and smoothly together to tell a great story? Nahhhhhh...fuck that...just give me that camera, I'm going hand held with it! Check this tension out!!!

:)
 
accessibility also comes into play.. Seems to my nooby brain..

If you want to pull an emotional response from a large audience, you have to embrace and use techniques that the largest portion of your audience will respond to. This includes style and not just story.

Regarding using close ups and shaky cam to "cover up" inability to execute stunts. I think thats a BRILLIANT solution, especially for low budget filmmakers who wont have pro stunt coordinators, FX teams ,etc. Seems indie film making is all about working with what ya got!

Thats my $0.02
 
Wait, are we actually talking about experimental films or are we just talking about different approaches to shooting action sequences? I'm lost now.
 
We're talking about the double standard where studios that try something new are credited with a new technique and if an unknown independent filmmaker tries a new approach or technique, they are lamb blasted as making junk, don't know what they are doing, and should try someone else's nonsense. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top