screenplay_square

First, I want to thank Tambay for allowing me to share my thoughts on Shadow and Act, a blog I read daily and hope to continue to contribute to and learn from as it grows and improves.

In recent years, the independent filmmaking community’s rallying cry has been that the means of financing, production, distribution and exhibition have been democratized. “There’s no excuse for not telling your story,” is what filmmakers looking for their way in, have heard repeatedly. There’s crowdfunding to help with financing (although obviously not all campaigns are successful); film is *dead* and digital is the future, some have argued, as there are more models of cameras to shoot with, and ways to edit your footage than ever before; there are online platforms like YouTube and Vimeo to distribute your work and maybe even make a little money as well.

You’ve heard or read it all before.

But is it time that we take that proclamation one step further and say that there’s no excuse for making a *bad* film, even at the indie/low-budget level? Maybe at one time, when shooting film was the only option, and Final Cut Pro didn’t exist or wasn’t widely accessible, before the more recent, evolved world wide web, etc, one could grade films on a curve and look less critically on *smaller* films compared to the multi-million dollar movies the Hollywood studios produce annually. You’d watch a no-budget/low-budget film and say something like, “well, the sound is bad, or the acting is weak or even cringe-worthy at times, or the camera work is jarring, but it’s what it is; the filmmaker didn’t have a lot of money to spend and so I’m willing to forgive these problems for that reason, because I want to support and encourage them.”

“Support.” “Encourage.” We hear those words a lot these days. But is that kind of approach to independent cinema today, in 2016, still warranted? Was it ever? Is it actually maybe more harmful than helpful to pat filmmakers on the back for a job well done, because of the little amount of money they had to work with, even if the job isn’t so well done, and in some cases, actually poorly done?

Obviously one man’s trash can be another man’s treasure, as the saying goes, and we all don’t like the same things, nor should we. So what one person considers a *good* film may not be what the next person believes what a *good* film should look like. But I’m approaching this from an almost strictly technical point of view – those aspects of filmmaking that really can’t be debated and aren’t necessarily subject to individual tastes or influenced by personal experiences. I believe most of us who’ve seen more than a few films throughout the course of our lives will agree on what poor acting looks like, for example. Or I think most of us would agree that not being able to clearly hear what actors in an exterior scene are saying, because it was filmed close to a busy street, is a problem. The implication there would be that the filmmaker (obviously without the budget to shut down entire city blocks so that he/she would have full control of a location, or afford the most technically-advanced mics) failed to realize how much filming a dialogue-heavy scene in the middle of chaos he/she can’t control, would present a problem in properly capturing the dialogue. It also suggests that the filmmaker for some reason didn’t see this scene as a problem while in the editing room – enough that they would think to do something about it, since leaving it in, as is, would only cheapen the completed product.

I watch a lot of movies, both mainstream and independent, and one problem that I’ve noticed in some independent/low-budget films is that the filmmakers try to mimic the more expensive studio films, but fail miserably, obviously, because they don’t have the budgets to match. So what they end up with are, for example, clunky action or fight sequences that would’ve been better left out of the script, or swelling soundtracks that just don’t fit the images we are looking at on the screen and fail to create the desired mood or effect. One thing that I’ve learned by watching other much more experienced independent filmmakers is that, keeping things simple is best when you have little money to work with. Yes, sure we all would like to make our own “Blade Runner,” or “The Conjuring,” or “Bad Boys” but realistically, even though the tools of production are more available to us now than ever, as outsiders we’re still limited in how big we can get with our movies. Simplicity and a huge does of creativity and resourcefulness lead to low-budget success in my opinion. You can still make your sci-fi picture, or your horror movie, or your action movie, but you have to be smart about your approach and most importantly, appreciate and work within your means.

But beyond the “technicals,” one key stage of the development process is the scripting. The story you want to tell may not be of interest to every audience, but there’s little excuse for not telling that story well for those who will appreciate it, and it starts with the script. There are a variety of avenues that filmmakers can take to ensure that their scripts are as solid as they can be before going into production. Obviously not every writer/director is going to get into Sundance’s filmmaker labs, or IFP’s, or any of the other high profile programs. But they aren’t the only ones to apply to. There are also numerous books written on screenwriting, and various online resources that can be of help. You will also find workshops featuring professional screenwriters offering their services. Yes, you will have to pay for them, but it’s a cost (whenever there is a cost) that can be very worth it.

Ultimately, my point is this: Filmmaking is a resource drain. You spend a lot of money, time (yours and other peoples’), physical and mental currency, so why not make the absolute best film that you can, within your means, which is key here. Yes, we have different tastes when it comes to the cinema, but surely anyone who decides to become a filmmaker has done (or will do) the necessary work required to achieve at least a basic understanding of how best to go about the process of making a competent film.

Of course not every filmmaker has film school training, but the argument can and has been made that an official film school education isn’t a guarantee of anything. Not every filmmaker working today went to film school. But some of them, like the most obvious, Quentin Tarantino, got their education in other ways.

Every weekend we pay attention to what critics are saying about opening films; thanks to social media, we are more informed on these matters than maybe ever before in the history of film. We see which films are mostly well-reviewed (sites like Rotten Tomatoes make it easy with their TomatoMeter, which gives you a rating telling you how well a film has been received by critics). We also watch the major awards shows every year, and we see which films make it to the big dance even if they don’t win coveted trophies. And from all of that (reviews, award nominees, award winners), we have some idea of what is considered *good* cinema. Granted not every well-reviewed film, or every film up for an award is without flaws. And it can be argued that awards wins aren’t always based entirely on merit. But, still I think it’s reasonable to say that many of these well-reviewed and and/or award-nominated/winning films can claim to be so for a good enough reason – that being because they mostly are. The same applies to films rewarded at film festivals. You’ve also hopefully watched the classics – the masters of cinema from the early days through the present. And if, as a filmmaker, you’ve watched enough of all these films over time, you should have some idea of what is considered *good* filmmaking, if not the best that cinema has to offer. They give you a reference point as you go about making your own film.

I don’t believe anyone sets out to make a bad or technically problematic film, but yet there are so many of them (both at the studio and independent levels I must clarify). And one has to wonder why that is. Is it a lack of know-how? Surely it can’t be that the filmmakers don’t care. Why go through the entire grueling process, expending so much, if you don’t care?

I have gotten a very late start to filmmaking. I’m older than a lot of you reading this I would bet, as a child of the 1960s. But it’s a medium that I’ve come to fall in love with, and have spent the better part of the last 5 years learning as much as I can about – practice and theory. I am about to embark on making my first feature film with a budget of just under $125,000 (raised from family, friends and my own savings combined), and I have taken a very long time to ensure that I have the best of everything possible, starting with the script. I know very well that I don’t have a lot of money to spend, and my choices must be very well thought out before I act on them. I want to be fully prepared so as not to waste a single penny or anyone’s time. And most importantly, I want to make sure that I produce the absolute best $125,000 film possible!

I want to thank Tambay for allowing me to share my thoughts on Shadow and Act. I will be writing more in the future, during which I will talk more about my project and introduce it to you all. Consider this a tease.

Chris Reed