-
Someone asked for a proper debate so lets have one!
A lot of ye seem to aim to one day be in a position to make "big" movies. I put forward the idea that often a directors best work comes out of adversity, financial or otherwise. To put it more broadily, too much freedom ruins an artist.
The example I will use is that of Frank "One man, one film" Capra. He felt that working for Columbia held him back artistically, despite notching up some very successful films there. He did not see film as a collabrative media and could only see his crew as a limitation he must endure. When he eventually left Columbia, he never again captured the magic of his earlier work, despite having total stylistic and genre control.
In our case working low-budget encourages us to be more creative. Restrictions may even become a blessing from an educational point of view.
------------------
I can't believe I sold my image rights for a pint of Guinness!
-
i kinda agree - but the financial limitations are always a pain in the butt for me and usually stifle my creativity.. forever am i saying "bollocks, wish i had a crane for that shot" or "damn that brand new PC could render my stuff a lot quicker that this one" - some of the most creative pieces of cinema have come from big budgets but to counter that some have come from low budgets too - i love to improvise - and i feel that sometimes not having that ?2 million budget is not a hinderance but an insentive to push you that bit further to get that video just how you want it (with the resources avalible), in the hope it might get recognised...
------------------
a carefull man tries to dodge the bullets, while a happy man takes a walk!
-
That can be very true, Mr Skinhead, and there are many examples which demonstrate it. It's true of all the arts not just film too and is a strange phenomena (just look at people from successful bands that have decided to go solo - most fail to deliver and disappear into obscurity). Total freedom often results in self indulgence.
Total budgetry freedom can also mean a tendancy to be over-concerned with technicalities and effects over what is really important - the story.
[This message has been edited by twister! (edited February 13, 2002).]
-
Hey there.
If you have the movie in your head as a completed vision and you have a completed script with everything worked out. Having more money can only bring you closer to getting your exact vision up on screen. Not having the cash only makes you change your vision to what you can afford.
Now if your vision for the movie is bad. Its gonna be bad if you have a 100 million or not.
That could be the problem with Lucas. He is now in a position to get his exact vision up on screen. Just becuase hes vision may be bad doesnt mean its bad he had the cash to try.
If hes vision for his movie was faultless and he made that exact movie it would be a faultless movie. It would be great. I for one cant wait to be in that position asa filmmaker.
Despin out.
------------------
"Ive got bad feeling about this."
-
wow, it took just three posts to turn into another lucas debate...
I agree that cash may not necessarily be a bad thing. It is only when the finance and technology clouds your vision and none of that cash goes into the story. Take a look at pearl harboUr... all the effects and hollywood polish. Strip that away and you are left with next to nothing. Having said this limitations allow you to break away from formula and try something new... or as they say "think outside the box".
However to think outside the box you must first be in it...
------------------
There can be only one.
-
I agree that to people with no money like us - having at least SOME money would be a great help in achieving 'the vision'. Most people here struggle to get a camera, let alone anything else - meaning that 'the vision' must be compromised - a definite hinderance!
[This message has been edited by twister! (edited February 13, 2002).]
-
I have the budget and resources for a film in my head from step 1 - when I'm writing. I have lots of good ideas that I haven't written because they are impossible to acieve in my present situation. Not because special effects (well most of the time) but because of things like the ability of actors and locations. I try to make it possible so that the vision of the film I have in my head, will be the same as the on screen version. That way I dont get disapointed or lose enthusiasm for it. I think this forces me to be more creative on a basic level and instead of learning mistakes from other people (e.g using 200X zoom - not that I do!), I learn from my own experinces from the beginning.
------------------
-
Although it would undoubtedly kick ass, I'm not that fussed about working in Hollywood.
As long as I make films, big budget or not, I'm happy.
------------------
"The problem is, I lost creative control of the project...And I forgot to ask for any money."
http://www.untamedaggression.iofm.net
-
I agree to some degree Mr. Head.
Some of the best films have been made for the price of a few used cars. Like El Mariachi. Or Clerks. Financed largely from a stay in a hospital and credit cards respectively. And how about ingenuitive things like Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert for the Evil Dead? They went out and got investors to make their idea happen the way they wanted it. With no money, comes no pressure, and that means no limits.
------------------
"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you do start to criticize him, you're already a mile away, and you have his shoes." -CEO of Stebner Getting Hit By a Car Productions Ltd.
-
Hey Mr. Head.
I think that some of the best films have been made for the price of a few old cars. Like El Mariachi and Clerks. And the Evil Dead with Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert seeking funding from doctors and lawyers and such. Ingenuity. You have more incentive to be creative with no budget. But the freedom comes with money. Weird. In my opinion. No money, means no pressure, gives you no limitations.
------------------
"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you do start to criticize him, you're already a mile away, and you have his shoes." -CEO of Stebner Getting Hit By a Car Productions Ltd.
-
some of the best advice I've had is:
first, start by making a short film about two people talking in a room.
then take it from there.
too many think they can to so much too early and it is only to their detriment.
and
film making is like sex. you start doing it, then you get interested in getting better at it.
limitations are by their nature limiting. learning to compromise and remain positive is a good skill to learn. and so is asserting *exactly* what you want, when it is appropriate.
------------------
-
A suspect that a lot a lot of the time, having all the money you could want, limits you because the money comes from people who will do anything to ensure they at least break even. Unfortunatley this means that most hollywood films are crap because of this.
As for working in hollywood; I don't like the films they make so why would I want to be a part of that. Why don't they just call Erin Brochervich, 'Julia Roberts' and have done with it.
I haven't seen Lord of the rings yet but I suspect i won't like it as much as most people. Other than that I can't think of a decent film that's come out of hollywood in the last 3 years.
------------------
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the frying pan!
-
I thought Moulin Rouge was "decent." And I'm going to see Oceans 11 over the weekend...
So, while it is obvious that being broke is not going to help you realise your vision, perhaps Mega-bucks invite too much pressure from outside people who will try to impose themselves on your movie in return for their investment.
Most of the films I've enjoyed recently are mid to low budget-enough money to get off the ground, but not having to compromise the film to please fucking Pepsi, Sony Music or whoever.
------------------
I can't believe I sold my image rights for a pint of Guinness!
-
Here's a good point. I've often been asked why I didn't go pro. The reasons are too numerous but from the film side a few stand out. Picture House Films works it's own ventures as 'amateur' but is set up to assist everyone in the industry who might want assistance regardless of pro or amateur status. The tight budgets of amateur work are definately educational and my dedication to the continuing growth of Super8 has taught me some ways of production that could have pros spending unholy and un-nessecary sums of money for dogey end products (the Scorpion King cgi in Mummy Returns). My defense of the amateur corner is that well film has been with us for over 100 years and that experience has taught us that the simple tricks work best. If you have learned the craft on film film then you would never listen to anyone telling you "it's impossible". Video is a useful medium but it's only in that area that I've heard the word "impossible" used. All things find there place eventually, so whether a video or film user amateur or professional we all have a knowledge to share so lets crack at it and make lots of movies. P.S. Maybe I should reset my pc clock, I'm somehow a month ahead of the lead submissions?
------------------
