However, I am talking about the micro/no budget variety
which has been made more attainable by digital technology. This has given
filmmakers the ability to shoot longer form narratives cheaply and quickly. The
problem though appears to be this:
The quality of the
screenplay
I read one such script recently that to me was a rough first
draft. I was bemused to discover it was the shooting script. Knowing some of
the people involved I hope they salvage something from it. But it has train
wreck written all over it.
Why?
It may be technically
“easier” to make a film but is sure as hell ain’t easier to write one.
I know anything I write will generally be pulled apart by
key collaborators, especially the director, before it goes through the funding
process grindstone. If you’re fortunate enough to receive development funding then
it’s onto drafts with script editors and more notes and feedback as the script
evolves and gets better. In other words it is submitted to expert scrutiny.
Sure, we can have a discussion about over-development or bad notes but the
point is, the script is prodded and tested.
Who scrutinises these no budget feature scripts especially
when a lot are by first time writer-directors? It feels to me like people are
in such a rush to “make something” that the script is almost an afterthought. For
these types of projects I would have thought it should be everything. What’s
the point of spending your own money and that of family and friends on
something that no-one will see or, if they do, could cruel your career right
from the get go?
Then again, most of these seem to be on deferred payments
and/or rely on the goodwill of actors and crew to work for free. Yet I see the
same people going to that well time after time, requesting talent and crew on
social media with only the promise of catering and “something for your show
reel” as reward. Never mind the amount of actors I hear complaining that they
never receive a copy of the film.
When does someone
transition from this approach to being a professional filmmaker?
When it's done right - Zak Hilditch's The Actress. |
The only no budget films of note I have seen from Perth are
The Actress and The Toll with an honourable mention to A Day at the Oasis. The first two
are from Zak Hilditch who I am delighted to say has received government funding
and financing for the aforementioned These Final Hours. The Actress, famously
made for only $700, was well written and acted showing that Zak could tell a
long form narrative. I’m looking forward to see what he can do with a proper
budget. That script has also been through the Screen Australia’s Springboard
initiative so I expect it will be in excellent shape. He is the exception to the rule.
Part of me is jealous of all these people with their no/micro budget films who can tout
the fact they have a feature film credit… but then I remember that’s not what
motivates me. It’s to tell good stories. To me that means working hard to
get scripts into shape to attract the type of financing and professional expertise
that will do them justice.
None of my key collaborators are interested in making no budget features. They are all developing projects through more 'traditional' routes. As a result there seems to be a clear divide here - those who compete for funding and private investment and those who prefer the "do it yourself" approach.
I admire the latter's enthusiasm but can I suggest they spend as much energy on the script as they do on the "beg, borrow, stealing" to get their film made. After all, no budget, low budget, mega budget, if the script is broken you're going to have an uphill battle making a good film...
I incorrectly attributed Drift as being based on a Tim Winton novel. I was thinking, of course, of Dirt Music. I have amended the text and apologise for any confusion.
ReplyDeleteWhen the alternative is between make a film - even a bad one - and making nothing I feel making something is always the wisest choice. There's always something to learn as part of the film-making process, plus it's fun. Who cares whether they're good or not? This is the age of UGC, where one badly-written SFX laden short can bring Hollywood moguls knocking.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have to say holding up the traditional funding route as the ideal is fraught with peril. They really don't have a great record for making quality films that a global audience wants to watch.
I say let film-makers make films no matter how they can. Good, bad, indifferent. It's nobody's business how they spend their own hard-earned time and money.
I respectfully disagree:
ReplyDeleteActors and crew are exploited in many instances to make these sorts of films.
No one should ever knowingly set out to make a bad film.
Learn from shorts. Don't use features as a plaything when so many other people are involved.
I care. More quality. Less rubbish.
Nobody deliberately sets out to make a bad film, they just don't know any better. To learn how to make a feature you need to make a feature. That's why Robert Rodriguez raised $6000 by undergoing medical experiments to make El Mariachi. He hoped to sell it for $12k to the Mexican video market. Enough so he could make 2 sequels, all three films that would teach him how to make a feature film. Instead, El Mariachi, shot him and his producer wife to superstardom. Now, that's an extreme case but everything we do in the entertainment industry is powered by dreams and the belief that could be us.
ReplyDeleteAnd what qualifies as a bad film? Is Superdingo a bad film? I would say yes, but a million viewers disagree. And part 2, which I believe is worse, generated 200k hits in 2 days. I refer to the quote attributed to Goldman: Nobody knows nothing.
I say, if you have the drive and social skills to put together any feature film then go for it. Better to live the dream than to die wondering.
Drive, social skills... and a respect for script and storytelling. Don't go off half-cocked with something that resembles a script just to shoot something. Spend the time and energy, skill and yes, respect, to get the script into a decent shape.
ReplyDelete