Guidlines for Guerrilla Filmmaking?

[nate_dog]

After reading many posts by various individuals, I have noticed that many people here are not guerrilla filmmakers in that they work on professional shoots or pay for their own expensive productions. I understand that the term 'guerrilla filmmaker' is loaded with an undefinable range, yet it strikes me that if you have a paid cast/crew then you do not qualify. Are there parameters for guerrilla filmmaking? I always associated it with no-budget and unprofessional, but can Hollywood still be guerrilla.

Thoughts?

[miker]

Indeed, it's like that "low budget" film which costs ?2million.

Guerrilla or multi-million pound budget, it's the story that matters. Stories cost nothing.

I don't judge a film on how it was made. I judge it on whether I like it or not, and whether I'd like to see it again.

IMO it's worth paying at least expenses to talented crew and actors, else your poor production values may get in the way of your good story.

Given a choice, yes, I would spend money on getting a production as good as it possible can be.

I don't always have a choice.

[richard.fisher]

If you love film, and care about your project, then you can only make a film for no money if you have no money. Money allows you to do things you otherwise couldn't. For example if you can afford the price of a travelcard, it increases your range of locations from, your house, your street and the park, to everywhere in London. When my first script called for one character to brandish a gun, I spent ?2.50 on a toy gun from the newsagent, because I (like everyone i know) don't have any guns - toy or otherwise - lying around my house. In my experience your budget is every penny you have + every penny you can beg, borrow or steal. For most of us that doesn't mean millions, it means a number in the hundreds or low thousands.

[somedeadguy]

I agree with nate dog. I came on here looking for a cheap way to make a presentable film, and everybody jumps all over me for being cheap. I am a poor motherfucker, and I want to do something which generally costs tens of millions to make, by any means necesary.

In order to make a scene about a cop, I had to borrow someone ford taurus for the in car shots, chase around a police officer for the outside car shots, and call in a fake robbery to get the action shots with the lights. If that's not guerrilla I don't know what is.

I totally agree that most people in this forum are sitting around their tennis club wondering how they can pull off a 50 meter crane shot for under $3,000. Unfortunately they will get rich and I will stay poor, but at least my films will have thaqt much more genuity, and that's how I sleep at night.

[Patriarch]

Originally posted by The Imaginable Sean Moss:

In order to make a scene about a cop, I had to borrow someone ford taurus for the in car shots, chase around a police officer for the outside car shots, and call in a fake robbery to get the action shots with the lights. If that's not guerrilla I don't know what is.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOL - thats comedy gold. It would even make a funny short.

[eddie123456789]

&gt;I totally agree that most people in this forum
&gt; are sitting around their tennis club wondering
&gt; how they can pull off a 50 meter crane shot for
&gt; under $3,000. Unfortunately they will get rich
&gt; and I will stay poor, but at least my films
&gt; will have thaqt much more genuity, and that's
&gt; how I sleep at night.

um...*most* people??? Thats hilarious.

I think *most* people here would agree that its the story that counts, how you get it told is up to you.
If you get distracted by technology, special effects, or 'getting enough money together for a particular crane shot' then thats your look out.

How much money you want to plough into (lose in) a project that will never re-coup its cost is up to you.

Perhaps that crane shot is integral to what you want to say.

miker is right, to some a low budget film costs
$2 million
to others it costs $5
To some Geurilla filmmaking is all about parking the van, leap out, grab the shot, get back in the van before the police arrive, to others it means crying into your storyboard late at night because you cant find anyone reliable enough to help you, or its just a trendy tag to attach to something to help sell it.

Whatever...

As guidelines for low budget 'geurrilla' filmmaking, I always felt that the
Dogme Manifesto
(give or take the more pretentious bits)
pretty much covers it.

good luck

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ May 22, 2006 04:59 AM: Message edited by: eddie123456789 ]</font>

[sn-films]

I haven't thrown up a rant in a forum for a while, so I figured it was about time I pulled out the soapbox and did some preachin'.

Nate_Dog brings up an interesting question... what is a "guerilla" filmmaker? Personally, I think that eddie123456789's list (see link above) takes it a bit too far. If I'm reading it right, I'd wager that most of the people on this board aren't guerilla filmmakers because we're guilty of one or more (or all) of the following:

- Bringing props to the set
- Adding a soundtrack and sound effects in post
- Using a tripod
- Using additional lights
- Throwing a $20 ND filter on the lens
- Having a character killed in the story
- Shooting action, thriller, horror, supernatural, and science fiction story
- Shooting on something besides 35mm (i.e. 16mm, 8mm, VHS, Hi8, Digital8, and MiniDV, etc.)
- Taking credit for their work

I don't know that I've ever seen a movie that truely follows that list. Maybe the following is a better way to look at the question.

I think we can all agree that "Hollywood" sets the bar for production values and dictates the propper way to make a movie. Unless a major studio is throwing piles of money at you, you're instantly an "independent" filmmaker. I think we can also agree on that. From there, you really start dabbling in the gray area of whether or not one is a "guerilla" filmmaker.

The easiest way to approace the question is probably in terms of a linear spectrum. On the extreme right is the "Independent" filmmaker with an insane budget. With the exception of the backing from a major studio, this type of filmmaker follows an identical blue-print to "Hollywood" when it comes to making a movie. Meanwhile, a "guerilla" filmmaker is on the extreme left. The process by which a "guerilla" makes a movie bears very little resemblance to the way "Hollywood" makes a movie.

For example:
Don't have a dedicated team of grips on the set to move things around... slide a little to the left. Maybe you don't have a dedicated person in charge of craft services... scoot over to the left a little more. Maybe you didn't storyboard EVERY shot, but you've got everything mapped out in your head... slide a little more to the left. None of the members of your cast and crew part of a union?... keep moving to the left. Is your NLE the same machine your wife uses to check her email?... move just a bit more to the left. Maybe you're shooting on video instead of film... slide a little further to the left. Is the dolly you're using for that one shot something you made in your garage from an old skateboard, some scrap lumber, and a pair of PVC pipes?... roll that dolly a little more to the left. Is the director running the camera, fixing the lights, in charge of the sound, and responsible for ordering the pizza to feed the cast and crew?... take a flying leap to the left. Eventually, you'll reach the the far left end of the spectrum where you're looking at a hard-core guerilla filmmaker with a camcorder, a few friends, and a dream.

All that being said, I think the process by which you make a movie dictates what kind of filmmaker you are. The more resources (skilled cast and crew members, professional lights, professional mics, etc.) you have at your disposal, the easier it is to approximate the "Hollywood" blue-print, but I don't think that most of us can say we haven't cut corners off the Hollywood blue-print in order to produce a movie. For that reason I'd argue that most of the people on this board can still claim the title of "guerilla filmmaker" to some degree.

In conclusion, I think The Imaginable Sean Moss deserves the freshly invented Golden Chavez award for the most guerilla tactic employed in the name of filmmaking.

Anyway, that's my 2? on the subject. I'll get off my soapbox now.

[richard.fisher]

Originally posted by curtinparloe:
"guerrilla" has nothing to do with "professionalism".[/size][/color][/QB]

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very true. Some people on this board have pointed out that paying cast and crew a small fee means that they will behave in a 'professional' manner. But for many of us, our financial situation is such that even a small fee is prohibitive. In my (limited) experience your cast and crew will behave professionally if treated properly, and respond well to being given clear timetables etc. and not messed around.

[curtinparloe]

It's definitely a matter of perspective.

The budget on the 5 minute short I've just finished was about ?150, and that's because I spent ?150 making it:

?30 Fuel costs (someone drove us to the location)
?40 Travel expenses (an actor's train fare)
?30 Location hire (I couldn't wangle it for free)
?35 Props and costumes
?15 Sundry costs

That was money from my own pocket, and as a student, I'm not exactly Rockerfeller (it's always worth thinking before you type [img]wink.gif[/img] ).

From one point of view, I'm guerrilla because I used minimum crew, minimum costs, and shot and edited everything within a month on MiniDV.
On the other hand, I didn't shoot anything without permission, everything was highly organised, and all was legally done.

So am I a guerrilla film maker?


EDIT: While I remember, "guerrilla" has nothing to do with "professionalism".
Whether you make a film for the cost of the tape, or the cost of an island, a production without professionalism just isn't worth it. It's more difficult on a no-budget shoot to get a level of prefessionalism, but my philosophy is that you're inversting your time in a project, whether you're getting paid for that time is immaterial.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ May 24, 2006 12:35 PM: Message edited by: curtinparloe ]</font>

[nate_dog]

The Dogme 95 "vow of chastity" rules are interesting but not all of them are for the benefit of the no-budget filmmaker, for example the format must be in Academy 35. Nonetheless, many of these rules are simply wise suggestions aimed at stripping the production value allowing the focus to be brought on the story/script. The guidlines such as all shooting must be done on location, or special lighting is not permitted are helpful tips (though I don't believe it should be mandatory).

Allow me to list my own rules for no-budget guerrilla filmmaking:

1. Must be shot on video
2. Must not pay cast/crew (feeding them I suppose is...fine)
3. Use real locations
4. Never pay for permission of anything (music rights, locations, etc.)
5. Use natural light or given light (i.e. street lamps)
6. Writing and rehearsal is free, therefore 90% of the filmmaking process should be just that.

Can a feature be made for under $100? Have you ever seen a good one? Please include a link to where I may find something like that.