What Creates Production Value?

[cameronchapman]

I have a vague idea of what goes into production value (talent, cinematography, editing, SOUND, etc.), but not really any concrete ideas as to how to improve production value, short of spending millions of dollars (which I would gladly spend if someone wants to give them to me).

I'm planning to film a drama feature next fall (and will hopefully be shooting a handful of shorts and possibly a web series between now and then), and want to maximize production value to increase my chances of getting distribution/getting into festivals/not embarrassing myself .

So, going on the basis that this is a drama film without any complex sets, no special effects, etc., what would you do to increase the production value? What gives you the most bang for your buck? What's the least effective thing to spend your limited funds on?

Let's also assume that the budget for this is likely going to be under $50,000, though possibly could go as high as $100,000. And let's also assume that I'm not opposed to begging if that will get things done/get me things for free.

 

[Kholi]

Wow. I don't believe I've ever heard another person make filmmaking sound so easy. Do you have any examples of a short or a clip of how you did all this by yourself?

Second this.

 

[JoshL]

Dusting off one of my favorite quotes (that I've heard so many times and in so many places, I can't remember where it came from):

"You can have things done well, cheap or fast. Pick two."

Keeping budgets down, cheap is a necessity. So take your time, and do things well!

 

[cameronchapman]

Dusting off one of my favorite quotes (that I've heard so many times and in so many places, I can't remember where it came from):

"You can have things done well, cheap or fast. Pick two."

Keeping budgets down, cheap is a necessity. So take your time, and do things well!

It's a great quote. And I'm totally a believer in it. I'd love to have a shooting schedule of 12 days for this thing (and I think it could be done in that time), but I'm afraid that quality would suffer way too much. So I'm planning on 18 days, and building a budget around that. I'd rather have that extra week, even though I know it will cost more, and be able to take the time to get shots done properly, and not have to work everyone 18 hour days to get things done the way I want them done.

Maybe, once I've got the script locked down and my final production schedule I can shave a few days off of that, but I'd rather do an initial budget and schedule with that timeframe in mind.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Wow. This discussion became really interesting. I'd like to chime in on the discussion of directors editing their own work. I won't have it any other way. However, I don't think there is any one correct answer -- I think it all depends on the individual, and the team.

Kholi pointed out that guerilla is probably an editor 1st, director 2nd. Likewise, if I were forced to narrow my job-title down to one thing that I'm really good at, it's editor. Not coincidentally, like guerilla, I strongly prefer coverage over anything else.

However, I don't believe the two job titles need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, for me, in my mind, they are one and the same. I'm not saying that's how it should be for everyone, but that's how it is for me. I don't care what the traditional definition of the term "director" is; in my movies, if I don't also edit it, then it's not truly my vision.

During production, and in pre, I don't feel the need to script every single shot. In fact, for most scenes, there are only a couple of very specific shots that I want to use at particular times. For the most part, I just want coverage, and where I do the bulk of my directing is choosing exactly how to get that coverage, and more importantly -- what are we covering (in other words, the action). So, I wouldn't say that I'm a director 2nd; I would phrase it as I am directing with the edit in mind.

I know that conventional wisdom is that a director shouldn't edit their own work. But have we ever really questioned why that logic exists? Yeah, yeah, I know that everyone always says it's because you need fresh eyes.

Do we? Do we need fresh eyes? Says who? Couldn't someone also make the argument that sometimes there are too many cooks in the kitchen? Think about this -- for every director who is in love with their editor's work, how many are there that think the editor has ruined their work? Does having fresh eyes always make for a better result? I don't think anyone here can honestly answer that question.

On the contrary, I would put forth that the reason a tradition has developed, in which director and editor are two different job titles, performed by two different people, is simply because one of those jobs used to be very technical. If you had to generalize, I think it'd be fair to say that most directors know a little bit about a lot of stuff, but not necessarily a whole bunch about one particular thing. That's what you have specialists for. That's why you hire a DP, and a gaffer, and an audio recordist, and a makeup artist, etc. -- because each of those people is highly specialized for one particular thing, so they can achieve results that the director wouldn't have any clue how to get.

Back in the day, the same was true for an editor. The same is not true today. For simple editing, it's really not all that technical. Seriously, pretty much anyone can do it, without much practice. That doesn't mean that some editors aren't incredibly better than others, but for the task of simply making cuts, I'm pretty sure you could teach a chimp how to do it. Really, the difference between a top-notch editor and a chimpanzee is in their artistic sensibility, not technical capability.

Anyway, my point is that I think the old-school logic is outdated. It depends on the person. Maybe some directors simply don't want to edit their own work, and that's fine. But if someone feels like they're up to it, and if they feel like their work is best off in their own hands, I say why not?

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Compressed shooting schedule is really the biggest challenge of micro budget I think. I would LOVE to be able to shoot 3 or 4 pages a day instead of 7 or 8 pages a day. That's just not reality when you are paying people, renting gear, paying for locations, etc... Standard on my films has been 14 to 16 hour days shooting 6 to 8 pages per.

As for editing, I have never edited my own work, and don't really have a desire to. I threaten to edit the next film every time I am watching rough cut 11 from the editor and wishing I could go hunt him down and beat him with a shovel because he still didn't tighten this or that edit as much as I wanted. However that usually passes once the film is finished. Ideally the editor is the representative of the audience. He doesn't care how long it took to get shot A or how much you love it. He only cares about what plays and makes sense for the audience. The interplay between the director and the editor usually produces the best result.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Compressed shooting schedule is really the biggest challenge of micro budget I think. I would LOVE to be able to shoot 3 or 4 pages a day instead of 7 or 8 pages a day. That's just not reality when you are paying people, renting gear, paying for locations, etc... Standard on my films has been 14 to 16 hour days shooting 6 to 8 pages per.

Amen, brother! For my next feature, I'm budgeting 30 days of shooting, for the very reason you just mentioned.

 

[rayw]

Compressed shooting schedule is really the biggest challenge of micro budget I think. I would LOVE to be able to shoot 3 or 4 pages a day instead of 7 or 8 pages a day. That's just not reality when you are paying people, renting gear, paying for locations, etc... Standard on my films has been 14 to 16 hour days shooting 6 to 8 pages per.

Of course I've yet to manage/direct a full or partial cast and crew on a shoot for either a feature or even short, and it looks like a bloody nightmare.

I recall Eli Roth's director's commentary for CABIN FEVER that they were shooting an average of 40 scenes a day and got up to 60/62 scenes on one day. He stated they were able to shoot just two or three takes of most things and then move on.
Having listened to probably a hundred of these DirComs I remain impressed by that capability of his entire cast and crew.
That must've been some seriously professional runnin' N gunnin'.

Would you and others here be able to share some experiences on ensuring shots move along ASAP?
What's the importance of pre-planning, conferences both before and on set, things that slow everything down, etc. ?
Do people frequently or only sometimes interview well - but then sandbag production? (God knows I experienced that when doing the general contracting on a house. I figured the potential was similar/same in this biz).
Things that are useful to know that unless you've been there and done that you wouldn't have predicted.

Ideally the editor is the representative of the audience. He doesn't care how long it took to get shot A or how much you love it. He only cares about what plays and makes sense for the audience. The interplay between the director and the editor usually produces the best result.

I like the idea of this very much.
I guess it's a tough call to make (unless $$ are the determining factor! ha!) to separate ourselves as directors from PITA or expensive shots that we're just dying to include even though the best thing is to perhaps leave it out.

Perhaps a third party sometimes does make a better advocate for the audience rather than for the director & producers who provided the meat for the sausage.

Nice idea. Something to keep in mind when I'm blowing serious money.

 

[Alcove Audio]

"You can have things done well, cheap or fast. Pick two."

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

And don't get me wrong, it's a "director's cut" for sure. Every editing decision is approved by me and me alone, but the editor gets an opportunity to give his input and try to convince me to do it his way (plus he gets to do all the technical and shot organization BS I would rather get a root canal than do).

 

[trueindie]

Normally, I edit everything I do, because the film is already edited in my head. So I tend to think that giving it to somebody else would mess things up, because they can't see what's in my head and they'll tell a different story. But if I could afford it, I'd probably hire an editor and just sit in with him and discuss with him/her why s/he chose one shot over another and why s/he chose to tighten something or not, etc.

That would be the ideal world.

But this... this is phenomenal advice:

Dusting off one of my favorite quotes (that I've heard so many times and in so many places, I can't remember where it came from):

"You can have things done well, cheap or fast. Pick two."

Keeping budgets down, cheap is a necessity. So take your time, and do things well!

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

All my editors have been long distance. The editor on my first film was in Orlando and the editor on the current one was in LA. It's a tough process and takes forever (usually about a month to edit a short). He sends a rough cut, I send him notes, he makes changes and sends another cut, I send him notes, lather rinse repeat for about 12 to 15 cuts.

 

[Cracker Funk]

lather rinse repeat for about 12 to 15 cuts.

Holy shit!

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Holy shit!

Haha, I know. 109 went final on revision 12.
Now by the 4th or 5th cut you are really in "tweaking" mode with minimal changes between cuts. I think the difference between cut 11 and cut 12 may have been shortening one shot by 6 or 8 frames and changing a simple cross fade to a fade through black.

 

[Kholi]

And don't get me wrong, it's a "director's cut" for sure. Every editing decision is approved by me and me alone, but the editor gets an opportunity to give his input and try to convince me to do it his way (plus he gets to do all the technical and shot organization BS I would rather get a root canal than do).

It is definitely a directors cut.

Equally as great as being able to learn how to cut a feature, to work with someone that's more experienced than yourself in the area of editing is a grande eye opener. Editors have fantastic ideas, the best ones can show you the nuance in performance and open your eyes to thins you would've never thought of.

Of course to each their own.

 

[cameronchapman]

I don't know if editing a feature is anything like editing a book (I have plenty of experience with the latter but none with the former), but with a book it helps a lot to set it aside for a period of time after you've written it so you can approach it with fresh eyes. I'm thinking the same kind of thing would work with a film: set it aside for a few weeks after filming before starting in on the editing process, so you're looking at it without remembering everything you were thinking during filming. Of course, as soon as we finish filming we want to dive into editing to get it done, but I would bet leaving it for at least a week or two would greatly benefit the process if you're doing your own editing (which I'm planning on doing, because I enjoy doing it).

 

[Kholi]

However, I don't believe the two job titles need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, for me, in my mind, they are one and the same. I'm not saying that's how it should be for everyone, but that's how it is for me. I don't care what the traditional definition of the term "director" is; in my movies, if I don't also edit it, then it's not truly my vision.

Its always the directors vision if the director had a vision. The task ofevery single cut is always to support, not to deconstruct and transform into something that was not meant to be. However, even that can turn something great.

I don't feel I need to cite the most infamous cases in our short industry's history.

During production, and in pre, I don't feel the need to script every single shot. In fact, for most scenes, there are only a couple of very specific shots that I want to use at particular times. For the most part, I just want coverage, and where I do the bulk of my directing is choosing exactly how to get that coverage, and more importantly -- what are we covering (in other words, the action). So, I wouldn't say that I'm a director 2nd; I would phrase it as I am directing with the edit in mind.

There are only a number of ways to cover traditional narrative. Story boarding and shot lists are for more important scenes and setups, and will generally help decrease the time needed to shoot out a scene.

It also increases the time alotted to net the best performance on all fronts, behind and in front of the camera. I've grow as a shooter and now, after this feature, I do not want to shoot anymore. I only wan to direct performance.

If there is any way to make your Vision stick it's there. But again, whichever way that works for an individual is that.

I know that conventional wisdom is that a director shouldn't edit their own work. But have we ever really questioned why that logic exists? Yeah, yeah, I know that everyone always says it's because you need fresh eyes.

All the time. Many many people question it. The answer is the same most of the time.

Anyway, my point is that I think the old-school logic is outdated. It depends on the person. Maybe some directors simply don't want to edit their own work, and that's fine. But if someone feels like they're up to it, and if they feel like their work is best off in their own hands, I say why not?

It will always be personal choice to a degree, or until someone drops money on you and demands you get an editor.

I think these sort of factors are what separate Robert Rodriguez from Quentin Tarantino. One cuts his own stuff and it's gotten stale. One doesn't and he's won prestigiuous awards.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I don't know if editing a feature is anything like editing a book (I have plenty of experience with the latter but none with the former), but with a book it helps a lot to set it aside for a period of time after you've written it so you can approach it with fresh eyes. I'm thinking the same kind of thing would work with a film: set it aside for a few weeks after filming before starting in on the editing process, so you're looking at it without remembering everything you were thinking during filming. Of course, as soon as we finish filming we want to dive into editing to get it done, but I would bet leaving it for at least a week or two would greatly benefit the process if you're doing your own editing (which I'm planning on doing, because I enjoy doing it).

The biggest difference between editing a book and editing a film is that a film is a collaborative effort. If you need to re-shoot a scene or do ADR you want the talent and crew available ASAP; the longer you wait the less chance you have of getting your people back together. As someone who has done a lot of ADR sessions the more time there is between the shoot and doing the ADR longer (read: more expensive) the ADR session will be; the talent is no longer in character and their passion has moved on to the next project.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"It will always be personal choice to a degree, or until someone drops money on you and demands you get an editor. "

Yep, in Hollywood having approval of the edit is reserved for A list directors and is a sticky negotiating point in contracts. In the vast majority of cases the director turns the film over to the editor and has no input whatsoever in the final edit of the film.

 

[Kholi]

I don't know if editing a feature is anything like editing a book (I have plenty of experience with the latter but none with the former), but with a book it helps a lot to set it aside for a period of time after you've written it so you can approach it with fresh eyes. I'm thinking the same kind of thing would work with a film: set it aside for a few weeks after filming before starting in on the editing process, so you're looking at it without remembering everything you were thinking during filming. Of course, as soon as we finish filming we want to dive into editing to get it done, but I would bet leaving it for at least a week or two would greatly benefit the process if you're doing your own editing (which I'm planning on doing, because I enjoy doing it).

With most, if not all, getting away and returning later on is part of the process. It's not a short process, in that case, but steppIng away or getting someone else who cares and understands your vision is helpful in many ways.

 

[Kholi]

"It will always be personal choice to a degree, or until someone drops money on you and demands you get an editor. "

Yep, in Hollywood having approval of the edit is reserved for A list directors and is a sticky negotiating point in contracts. In the vast majority of cases the director turns the film over to the editor and has no input whatsoever in the final edit of the film.

Indeed. You won't even get a final cut unless it's in your contract, and even then you're trying to keep your neck safe so you're making decisions that arent yours.

It gets a little easier, I've read and heard around here, as the budgets begin to decrease. But not much.