You definitely do NOT need to spend $20k on your audio to get into Sundance!
I am NOT saying you have to spend $20k on audio post to get a short into Sundance. I'm saying $20k is probably somewhere around the minimum realistic TOTAL budget (excluding marketing, fest expenses, etc.). Having said this, there are some who seem to spend this amount on audio post for an exhibited short though and the average feature would have spent several times more than $20k on audio post.
1. First of all it really depends on the type of film you're making .... 2. Now don't tell me any of us couldn't have shot that with a DSLR and a lav mic for $0 if we thought of it first. 3. Don't let budget or production quality limit your creativity.
1. I agree, but only to an extent and not to the extent you seem to mean it.
2. Sure, many here could probably have made that for $0 but: A. It couldn't be exhibited at Sundance! As SkyCopland stated, there are technical requirements which have to be met. A theatrical 5.1 sound mix is one of those requirements and getting a theatrical 5.1 mix for $0 is not possible (without exceptional circumstances) and B. "Thinking of it first" is a big one! There are other examples of fest (and commercial) successes with very low or apparently very low production values, predicated on those very low prod values being a fundamental requirement of the story itself and of course of the audience believing it. A "found footage" film (for example) is far more difficult to pull off than for those who first thought of it because audiences are now wise to them and don't believe the footage is found. Basing a film on a truly innovative filmmaking idea is certainly a potential route to success but are again very much exceptions to the rule because truly innovative filmmaking ideas are very hard to come by! And, just to reiterate, even a truly innovative idea/approach won't allow you to bypass those tech requirements.
3. The flip side to your statement is: Don't let your let your approach to budget or production values limit the potential success of your creativity! I'm not disagreeing with your statement, freedom from having to recoup seven figure feature budgets means more creative freedom and is, IMHO, the greatest potential strength of the indie scene. What I am saying, is to "box clever" rather than to "box blind" and just hope you hit something before you're knocked out! Low tier fests exist to cater to the demand of amateur/hobbyist video makers to have their videos projected on a big screen. The top tier fests are different, they don't exist for the benefit of amateur video makers, they don't even have the least interest in amateur video makers, they exist for the benefit of the film industry! For the industry to premier it's own products, buy products from others already in the industry (or others on the cusp of the industry with actual theatrical products on offer) and occasionally to invest and develop exceptional (demonstrated) theatrical ideas. Generally, amateur video makers are barred from even participating in the top fests! ... Many amateur filmmakers seem to think that the route to the top fests (or the industry) is improving their ability to make better amateur videos, it isn't, the final destination of that route is the mid tier festivals. The top fests require a new route, a theatrical filmmaking route, not an amateur video-making route. Some get this, play clever, maximise the efficiency of their (relatively) limited budget/resources and get in. Many others never get it and never get much beyond the mid tier level, even blowing fairly substantial budgets along the way.
1. Also, a large number of filmmakers submit their films as a Work-in-progress. Usually they have spent very little, if anything, on sound, and Sundance will still accept those films into the festival under the understanding that you will finish the audio before the screening. Happens every single year. 2. If your film gets into Sundance, you shouldn't have problems raising the extra funds, 20k or not, to finish your sound in time.
1. I dispute your use of "large number" and "Usually" or, if it is true, these submissions are the ones least likely to get accepted. If you're submitting a work in progress and your name is Mike Liegh, Ken Loach or David Lynch (for example), it's assumed they know what they're doing and a theatrically screenable film is inevitable. There's no such assumption as far as Joe Wannabe is concerned. Submitting a work in progress to a top fest as a no-namer, is not good advice!
2. You're guessing/assuming, I've personally seen a lot of problems. I've had directors crying on the phone to me and one who was so desperate they even tried the threat of physical violence! Again, this approach can be made to work, if you've played it clever to start with but many don't and then don't have the budget or time to fix to a high enough standard what's been screwed up earlier.
Sure, one does hear of all these things happening but you're missing the point that you hear of them because they're so unusual! You don't hear of the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands who took this route and didn't succeed. You don't hear of those who were rejected in the first place for technical issues, those who were initially accepted but couldn't ultimately be exhibited or even those who scraped in by the skin of their teeth and sunk without trace, without anyone knowing they even existed in the first place.
It seems to me, that many here on indietalk are only interested in success
on their own terms and frequently throw about examples of miracles/rare exceptions to the rule to try and prove that doing it "on their own terms" will work, that there is a market for amateur narrative videos. The statistics demonstrate that most (even reasonably well budgeted and made) indie films struggle, let alone amateur videos! Those who succeed almost invariably have to adapt their own terms to the terms of the industry or don't need to adapt because they've come up through the industry and are already working under the industry's terms. In other words, do you want to maximise your chances of success or minimise them? Are "your own terms" worth the almost guaranteed failure, the huge reduction in your chances of success or is success more important than "your own terms"?
However, he'd been in the cinematography business for YEARS and used his connections and favors to make the film using all professional crew.
Yes, I didn't explicitly mention this route, I only implied it with my use of the phrase: "
(without exceptional circumstances)".
so let me rephrase my assumption, I doubt there is much chance for anything below a Production Value of 20 grand in top festivals such as Sundance.
The danger of this phrase is that many might believe they can achieve "Production Value" themselves, due in part to a misunderstanding or ignorance of exactly what you mean by "Production Value". For many, "Production Value" is little more than the application of a camera (and/or grading) technique which achieves the vague definition of "cinematic look", rather than the entire approach to filmmaking itself.
Oh Cannes! I want to go there so badly!
Yep, it's certainly an experience. Probably not quite what many amateur filmmakers might hope/expect. It's a bit of a mad circus to be honest, where everyone are either desperate fans, press desperate for stories or filmmakers desperate to make deals, push their services, their films or film ideas. It seemed to me to have more of the air of the NY sales, with crazed shoppers shoving each other out the way to get that bargain, than an air of camaraderie, of filmmakers "all in the same boat", which one sometimes finds at the amateur fests. And of course, those with any real power/influence spend most of their time protected from the mad throng of "shoppers", so it's all very cliquey. Definitely worth a visit if you've never been though, even if you're not part of one of those cliques. I've never been to Sundance, so I don't know how the reality compares.
G
