Advertisement
Micro Budget Movement and the Digital Revolution
 |
Beginning a Moviemaking Movement
The ultra-low budget feature movement started in 1992 when three filmmakers made outstanding features on minuscule budgets. Nick Gomez’s Laws of Gravity ($38,000), Robert Rodriguez’s El Mariachi ($7,225), and Gregg Araki’s The Living End ($22,769) each did well at film festivals and with critics, were acquired for theatrical distribution, and established their writer-directors as exciting up-and-comers.
I wrote a series of articles (for Filmmaker magazine) on these films, which included budgets and detailed production histories. A year later I wrote a second series, which included Kevin Smith’s Clerks, Rose Troche’s Go Fish, Lodge Kerrigan’s Clean, Shaven, and several other micro-budget wonders. These articles stimulated many other filmmakers to shoot micro-budget features and, before I knew it, the ultra-low budget feature trend had turned into a movement.
After speaking about micro-budget filmmaking at panels across the country, I started to think about what I could do to support the movement that my articles had helped catalyze. Since most ultra-low budget filmmakers run out of money during post-production, I decided to try to establish a revolving finishing fund.
I asked the advice of fellow IFP/West board member Steve Bannon, the head of Bannon and Company (now called Societe Generale Bannon Company), a Beverly Hills investment bank that works with major studios and independent film companies. Following lunch, I described a number of ideas to Steve, who did his valiant best to stay awake. When I eventually mentioned a finishing funds for ultra-low budget features, he snapped to attention and said “That's a great idea. We'll help you make it happen.” And they did. Steve Bannon and Beth Polish helped me write a business plan, approached possible investors, and guided me through the process. Through many frustrating and some decidedly odd encounters, we persevered.
I was spared further financing highs and lows after executives at the Independent Film Channel heard about my proposal and contacted me. They were setting up IFC Films to do feature financing in the $500,000 to $3 million range and wanted to get involved with exceptional new filmmakers. A finishing fund for ultra-low budget films seemed a great way to do this, and they decided to fully finance it. Next Wave Films hit the ground running last March.
Many of the most talented American independent filmmakers began by making ultra-low budget features. During the 1970s and ’80s, very low budget films launched the careers of David Lynch (Eraserhead), Charles Burnett (Killer of Sheep), John Sayles (Return of the Secaucus 7), Wayne Wang (Chan Is Missing), Jim Jarmusch (Stranger Than Paradise), Spike Lee (She’s Gotta Have It), and Gus Van Sant (Male Noche). Because they were made on such tiny budgets, these films were regarded as exceptions, not models that other filmmakers could follow. In the mid-’80s the availability of money from home video companies enabled a number of filmmakers to raise $3 million for first features. But this money soon dried up, and by the early ’90s it was harder and harder to find money for first features. Made for $27,000, Rick Linklater’s Slacker was a precursor to the ultra-low budget wave.
When three micro-budget features (El Mariachi, The Living End, and Laws of Gravity) broke through in one year, filmmakers finally took note. With the successes of Clerks, Go Fish, and The Brothers McMullen, the ultra-low budget movement achieved critical mass and established a new model for filmmakers. Since then, micro-budget feature production has exploded. I estimate that a thousand completely independent features were made last year in the U.S. Without financing from companies, these movies were funded primarily by filmmakers and their families and friends. I believe that at least 80% of these films were made for under $200,000.
Ultra-low budget filmmaking is starting to spread around the world. In countries such as Australia, New Zealand, England, and Canada, filmmakers have traditionally written scripts and then sought government support. If they failed to receive it, they went off and wrote new scripts and then applied again. Recently, frustration with traditional government sources of financing (which have declined significantly in countries such as Canada), and the success of a number of ultra-low budget features have stimulated many filmmakers to take a new path. In Canada, Lynne Stopkewich got her first feature, Kissed, in the can without government support. In Australia, Love and Other Catastrophes was also shot without government support. The producer had been waiting for years for government financing for a higher budget film. After encountering a friend in a video store who suggested he make a film like Clerks, he and the writer-director, Emma-Kate Croghan, decided to take the guerilla approach. They got Love and Other Catastrophes in the can for about $38,000. Although Kissed and Love and Other Catastrophes both eventually received substantial government support during post-production, they have inspired many other Canadian and Australian filmmakers to take their fate into their own hands. Last November when I went to Australia, ultra-low budget projects were coming out of the woodwork. Since then, the pace of micro-budget production has accelerated.
Looking for a Few Good Films
Next Wave Films is focused on helping filmmakers launch their careers. We're looking for films from first and second-time directors with exceptional talent - the kind that jumps off the screen. We're seeking films which we believe have a theatrical audience.
Next Wave Films provides vital resources to filmmakers working at the ultra-low budget level, which we define as under $200,000. Most of the films we receive are shot for less than $60,000. We can provide up to $100,000 in additional funding. The other support that we furnish to filmmakers is at least as important as our finishing funds. We provide a range of support during post-production, including assistance organizing blow-ups and transfers, unsnarling music rights, and negotiating lab and sound deals. We also help filmmakers implement festival and press strategies, secure domestic and foreign distribution, and find financing for subsequent features.
While we are only able to provide finishing funds to a maximum of four films a year, we do provide other support to many other micro-budget filmmakers. We give feedback and advice to many of those who submit films to Next Wave. We will soon be launching our website, which will be a unique source of information about ultra-low budget production.
The Common Features of These Uncommon Features
There are certain key things that many ultra-low budget films have in common. I recommend that filmmakers start out with a no-nonsense resource assessment. (see sidebar “By Any Means Necessary” - ed.) Writing a script which requires $4 million of other people’s money to produce is dependent filmmaking. You could try for years to raise the money and end up with no financing and no film. Ultra-low budget production may be the most independent form of feature filmmaking. It allows directors greater creative control than they may ever have again as their budgets, investors, and stars get bigger.
The second thing that links most successful ultra-low budget films is the serious commitment of a core group. The filmmaker and two or three other truly dedicated people decide they are going to do whatever it takes to make their movie.
While most of these films are financed close to home, some filmmakers can get pretty creative and/or desperate. One example is Mr. Vincent, a feature shown at Sundance 1997. The filmmakers needed $20,000 for production. They had only raised $10,000 with a week to go. Having exhausted every other possibility they could think of, they went to Atlantic City and put it all on black. They got lucky and won enough money to get their film in the can.
Another key element of successful micro-budget features is a strong, unique script. Next Wave Films is not looking for films that we have seen before. Instead of a high concept like the impending destruction of the earth by renegade meteors, we are looking for films that grow out of a filmmaker’s personal experience and passions. Films like Clerks, Go Fish, and The Brothers McMullen have a remarkable authenticity. Although they present worlds that many viewers have not previously been exposed to, they still ring true.
Ultra-low budget filmmakers must place a high priority on acting. They don't have the luxury of money to pay established actors, they must take advantage of the luxury of time for careful casting and extensive rehearsal.
The most important production value is good sound. When I saw a 35mm print of Clerks for the first time, my friend Amy Taubin, a critic for the Village Voice, turned to me and said “I think this is the first independent film I can hear better than I can see.”
Ultra-low budget filmmakers need to be creative each step of the way. Before, during, and after production, they must take advantage of every opportunity. These filmmakers must combine optimism with opportunism.
Whatever you do, resist high concepts. When a filmmaker called to pitch his ultra-low budget sure-thing, a cross between Pulp Fiction and sex, lies, and videotape, I managed to resist saying, “I think you've called the wrong number because I know that film couldn't be good.”
With budgets as Low as $1,000, Movement's Next Wave is Digital
Now let's talk about the digital revolution that has just begun. (see sidebar “The Digital Revolution” - ed.) Last year the typical budget of films received by Next Wave Films was in the $40,000-60,000 range. This January we started getting movies made on budgets of $1,000-1,500. More remarkable than the budgets was the fact that these were well-made movies.
These features were made with powerful new tools that have just become available. Filmmakers on the cutting edge are shooting with digital video cameras, recording sound with DAT recorders, and using the latest software to edit, create special effects, and mix on home computers. Each of these elements are key links in a new digital production process that enables filmmakers to make films in a radically different way.
The arrival of affordable digital video cameras has created unprecedented ultra-low budget production possibilities. For the first time, many independents will be able to own a camera that captures high-quality issues/30/images and uses low-cost stock that doesn't require expensive processing.
Not only have video cameras improved significantly, but so has the quality of transfers from video to film. These developments enable directors to shoot on video, do post-production digitally, and then transfer their movies to 35mm film for theatrical distribution.
There has also been a breakthrough in the quality of video projection. The number of film festivals able to show films on video will increase in the next few years. Using new digital video projectors, it is now possible to screen movies for discerning festival audiences who won't know if they are seeing film or video. It may soon be possible to have a feature (that was shot and finished on video) presented on video at major festivals. If critics and audiences are enthusiastic, then the movie may find theatrical distribution, along with the $35,000 needed to transfer it to 35mm film. If theatrical distributors aren't interested, there may be several other distribution options, including home video, cable, broadcast, and satellite television.
The implications of these digital breakthroughs are very significant. For the first time you can make a feature for $1,500 that has the possibility of wide distribution. As one writer-director said to me a few weeks ago “You mean I don't have to be a financier, I can just be a filmmaker?”
At this budget level, someone can afford to make a first feature, decide it isn't good enough to show as a debut film, and then make another. Digital video will enable directors to make features more frequently, allowing them to practice their craft, take new risks, and keep improving. Instead of making a feature on film every three years as is typical today, filmmakers may be able to make a movie a year.
Scott Saunders won the Someone To Watch Award (given by the IFP/West and SWATCH) this year. His first feature, The Lost Words, was shot on Hi-8 for a budget of $9,169 and transferred to 16mm for another $11,000. Scott's second feature, The Headhunter's Sister, was shot on BetaSP (analog video), completed for $30,000 and then transferred to 35mm for an an additional $30,000. Although it would have been unaffordable if he had been using film, video provided the luxury of a 30:1 shooting ratio, enabling his actors to improvise during production. In the two years since his very impressive transfer from video to 35mm was completed, there has been further progress in transfer technology.
Digital video was a surprising success at this year's Cannes Film Festival. The Idiots, the new film by Lars Von Trier (director of Breaking The Waves), was shown in the main competition. Few people who saw it had any idea that it had been shot on a Sony VX1000 mini-DV camera, and later transferred to 35mm film. Festen (Celebration), made by Von Trier compatriot Thomas Vinterberg, was also shown in the main competition. Shot on a one-chip video camera the size of a paperback book, it was also transferred to 35mm and shared the Jury Prize.
The digital revolution has begun. MM
SHARE THIS STORY |
TAGS |
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Reddit
YahooAdvertisement
COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT 
This story was published in the September 1998 MovieMaker Magazine. The headline was:
The Making of a Movie Movement
Order this issue | Subscribe to MM
posted 07.1.09
posted 06.25.09
SITE DELIVERY OPTIONS
