$1000 FILM

The last post created such an interesting debate, I’ve decided to give it a post all of its own. The conversation goes to the real issues of indie film making and the guys involved are smart, passionate film makers… each with their own perspective.

If you’ve already read the comments on the previous post feel free to scroll down to my response, which is at the end!

CARLO: “If only it was that simple. 1000$ funds enough to hire actors and a barebones crew on pizza, and for some equipment. I’ve been looking into this method. It’s very interesting. However, this post made it all look a little too simple. Getting quality out of a 1000$ production is not easy. Telling someone to “make a cheap movie cause you’ll likely profit from something so cheap” is a little misleading. People need to be willing to spend 90~whatever minutes watching your film, so there better be something about it that makes it worthwhile.”

$1000: “I agree, if you’re going to charge for a movie it’s got to be worth watching. However there isn’t a direct relationship between production methods, budget and what an audience will find enjoyable. The idea that it’s budget that adds production values is something I’ve disproved time and time again. What makes good movies are compelling stories told in an interesting way. What I’m asking people to do is think outside of the constraints of “conventional” film making… do something astounding… just don’t spend more than $1000 doing it. I also get that the kind of lateral thinking require to make a feature film for $1000 doesn’t come naturally. So, let me help you: tell me what’s preventing you from doing this and I’ll make some suggestions of how to get round the problems.”

AEG: “It’s worth repeating that you, the content creator, have complete control over the end result in this day and age. Good or bad, you have final cut at this level of filmmaking. The only other time that happens is when a person has scored at least a couple of mega huge hits in a row under the “current system,” and becomes mainstream as a result just long enough to fall from grace and retire wealthy enough not to care anymore.

Here’s a simple recipe for everyone considering a microcinema level film that I have learned through trial and error over the past five years:

#1) Not just a good but a great story. Even a very good story attracts decent attention from talent. For example, talented actors drive the narrative with rich characterizations that support the plot. This is their PASSION! Work with it! Collaborate with them and create something active and brave because this one factor alone will beat 99% of bigger budgeted movies all to hell.

Why?

Because BIG movies need to be homogenized and risk-free enough to be accessible for the stupidest ones in the audience in order to make a return on the BIG investment.

#2) Great sound. Simple as that. If the audience can’t hear it you may as well not have bothered at all. Sound is a hair’s breadth away from being first in this list.

#3) Know how to use a camera and what that camera can - and most importantly - can’t do in a variety of lighting situations. It doesn’t matter if you use a webcam, a RED ONE, or dad’s old college 8mm stored in the tool shed. If you don’t understand how the equipment works it’s the express train straight to hell. Find the user’s manual and read it. More than once if one must.

#4) Practice, practice, practice. Actually consider criticisms and practice some more. It’s great to be talented and/or creative but the filmmakers that actually get it done are the ones who persist when others just give up. You can always tell the quitters because they talk more about what they’ll do when they get there rather than just demonstrating a good example by actually working towards getting there. Go to your limits and then go past them. Fail enough times to appreciate what little success you’ll receive as a filmmaker. That way you can be damn sure you won’t forget how awesome it feels to earn ANY success as a filmmaker.”

$1000: “Feel free to step up to the pulpit any time you like… I completely agree with you. I’d like to add to your suggestion “learn how stuff works” and say that also applies to all your post production software, as well. All to often in indie film making, people have a mental wish list: HDX200, Final Cut Studio 2, Manfrotto Tri-pod, Intel Macbook Pro, After Effects, a great mic and some lights. They have this mental list, because they believe this kit will allow them to make movies. In the meantime they already have some level of movie making equipment… even if they don’t know it. I’m constantly surprised at how few people really understand what an incredibly powerful piece of software your basic, free, Quicktime application is. One of the things that has inspired me in recent years to question what film making is about is the Straight 8 group. Their philosophy is simple: an 8mm camera, one cartridge, no budget, no editing. If you check out the site, there are some great short films on it… all edited in camera. Now I can’t think of even one indie film maker who would consider for 3 seconds the possibility of editing “in camera.”

AEG: “You forgot to add the 35mm digital adaptor with [insert brand name camera] primes to your kit, sir. I’m constantly amazed how the microcinemaristas out there are more fascinated with the technical than the creative side of this “business.” That’s like building a house from the roof down. I believe you had a post earlier that touched upon this and how it’s easy for people to fall into the trap of fancy camera gear as opposed to studying basic storytelling technique.

I really enjoyed the Straight 8 site too and will have to go back and explore it some more. One of the first exercises I had in college media class was to shoot a story on VHS without any edits. One learns real, real fast to previsualize their story. In fact, I just used this technique to storyboard my upcoming film, I Witness, with my digital camera and quickly realized afterwards that I’m not going to be able to do 200 camera set ups in such a small space that this story transpires in and a) believe that it won’t be too choppy to follow as a short film, and b) too hard to access the characters thoughts because it’s too choppy to follow as a short film. This rehersal and staging saved me time, cash and God willing, will make the story stronger in the end. The actors and I also had a chance to prefigure their blocking so they can concentrate more on their performances when we shoot latter this month.

So yeah, there is a vast amount of space yet to be considered and discussed here on this great site. It’s both humbling and inspiring to know that there is at least one other person on this planet that understands this “outside-of-the-box” technique and is willing to pass that info onwards to the rest of those people that are looking for it.”

$1000: “Thanks… I often feel like a lone voice in the desert, because my views on production fall well outside of the mainstream, even amongst indies. What I worked out years ago was that it’s a combination of RESOURCES and CREATIVITY which allows you to make a great movie.

What this means is sometimes a film maker with $1000 can have more production resource than someone with $50,000.

Now, this can happen in many different ways… one way is to beg, steal and borrow everything you need… the other end of the spectrum is to pervert existing free or cheap production resources… the final way is to search through film history until you find an abandoned technique that suits modern digital production. (Like combining Ray Harryhausen style stop frame animation with live action) In real terms this means… if you need a steady-cam you can either persuade a professional steadycam op to work for free… or you can build one out of pipes like Johnny Chung Lee… or you can invent some fabulous new way of getting the same or better shots (like handing an Xacti to an Extreme Inline Skater). For me the key is this… use your mind not your wallet”

TREVOR: “I’m the first person to say that you could make a dynamite film for a thousand dollars. I believe it can and has been done many times over. That, I don’t believe, is the point. The point is, do you really want to make any money and take a piece of the pie for yourself and your film? And if that answer is yes, I would like to make enough money making films to have a somewhat normal life, then SOMEWHERE there has to factor in certain fees, whether on the front end or the back. And you aren’t the only one, EVERYONE wants to make money doing this. Now I could sit here and explain in detail why it takes money to pay people or promise to pay people, or how you can get a lot with a little, but very rarely can you get anything with nothing, but the truth is you know that.

What you are trying to do is rationalize the 21st century indie no-budget mantra of making a high-quality film for nothing and collecting on it. And what I am trying to tell people is that is an extremely dangerous and unnecessary method of producing all in the hope of, not a guarantee of, a return on your investment (of your s and everyone else’s time and resources). You HOPE to earn back enough money to recoup your budget. You HOPE to be able to stick some money in your pocket.

But it all really becomes cyclical when you realize that most good talent belongs to a union already. Why? Because they make their money working day-to-day in the industry and unions are created to protect exactly that person. That means if you want to hire them you have to pay them and treat them to everything that their union mandates. On a feature, it would easily eat up the entire budget of $1000 you have set aside to accommodate a SAG actor, if not more. So what then? Don’t use SAG, IATSE, WGA, DGA, AFTRA talent?

Besides reducing your talent pool substantially, now you are talking about have no connections to the industry whatsoever, and no marketable names for use with your picture. And, as I said at the beginning, there are PLENTY of super low budgeted high quality indies out there already making the rounds featuring no-name casts and crews. Then all you have to sell it is the concept and the promotional materials, and that just won’t put tens of thousands of dollars in your pockets over a short amount of time, no matter how great the film is.

So as I said, its all a cyclical process. I wish I could say that short of making exploitative genre films for consumption via internet outlets which would be predominantly supported by advertisements and non-paying film festivals that there were markets for those types of films, but I just don’t believe they exist. This is all further compounded by the fact that much of the movie-going audience still prefers either somewhat or completely mainstream cinema approaches, and does not crave independent arthouse cinema as much as we would all like them to.

It is definitely a complex issue, that is why you don’t see independent filmmakers making films for $1000 and becoming rich overnight, and believe me there are good attempts being done right now.”

$1000: “You’re right, getting a return on a movie is a complex issue.

However, neither established talent or a big budget are a guarantee of either distribution or financial success. The industry buries hundreds of films a year… including those with good budgets and name talent. So, in many respects ALL movies sell on whether people are excited by the idea behind the film. What watching the industry has taught me is this: the opportunity to make money from a film is no different for a film maker, regardless of whether they spend $1000 on production or $500,000. In fact, the industry treats both budgets the same… both fall into the micro-budget range. Paying your cast and crew doesn’t get you a better cast and crew. Even a no name cast and crew, paid at union rates is going to cost in the region of $600,000 for a twenty eight day shoot.

Now, for lots of film makers, the real goal is as you stated… to make a living wage from production. Which isn’t the same as making money from selling films. It’s entirely possible to make a living within conventional film making, without ever making a film that turns a profit, providing people still keep investing in your projects. The only problem is, the second you step into the world of “waged” film making, your chances of creating a “breakout film” decrease. This is because the second you have investors, you come under pressure to do exactly what you’re talking about… turn out easy to sell genre movies, with just enough name talent to ensure room on the shelves of Blockbuster.

So, what it seems to come down to are four choices:

1) Forget about making a “great” film and make a wage churning out genre movies… where everyone gets a wage.

2) Write a phenomenal script, get a big name and big money backing and launch yourself into the top 4% of the industry as a writer; then turn that access into an opportunity to direct/produce

3) Take a personal gamble on a script you really believe in, investing the $700,000 you need to make it professionally and hope that it becomes the “breakout film” you thought it was.

4) Make $1000 movies, develop a unique visual style and your own talent pool… build a following for your movies by giving them away. Create a storytelling style that is so different from anything anyone else is doing and then wait for the industry to catch up with you.

The truth is, no one has a magic formula for success in this industry and people fail at every budget level. The more I see of the industry, the less inclined I am to play the game by their rules. At the moment I’d rather make a movie for $1000 and give it away than any of the other options.

However, I’m off to Cannes in a few days.. maybe I’ll have my head turned by the bright lights and the scent of cash.”

AEG: “I respectfully disagree with part of your assessment by saying not EVERYONE is in this for the cash. I don’t do this to make money. I do this for a variety of reasons and making money is not even on that list. I’d like it to be some days sure, but I don’t schedule my creative endeavors around having/not having enough money to dictate my choices. I adjust to make the smartest choice based on the resources at my disposal. You go to war with the movie you can make…yadda yadda yadda. Your assessment is dead on accurate though about simply qualifying movies by their budget as pathways to being recogized as a success however. Ever try telling a Hollywood producer that you made that award winning film they gushed on and on to you about at the after party for what they spent on their cell phone bill last month? They don’t just get miffed. They get pissed. Why? You are messing up their systems, man. If you are making films simply to make money, you are going to forever be disappointed.

The short run, and I believe this may be the very crux of this site, is to get outside of the industry methods that have been ingrained in us all by a system hellbent on propagating that system and strike out on your own. Think ouside the box and apply it accordingly. Be unsafe. (Wink, wink.)

If you say you are a filmmaker, then make films. Why on Earth would anyone spend all of their time and energy shucking, jiving and hustling in this day and age of Generation Youtube just to *hopefully* get some one else to give them the cash to make a film? It is indeed beyond me. There seems to me to be so few people willing to lay down good examples but everyone has a good reason they are willing to share at the drop of a hat. Exploit the system, don’t ever let it exploit you. Everyone, everywhere can subscribe to that ideal. As human beings we thrive for that very reason. The four ways to become “recognized” that Clive ($1000) lists in the post prior are indeed the road(s) to success. #4 though allows one to call the shots right now, not latter.

And if fate does not intervene with a favorable money inducing future, at least you can sleep well at night knowing you left something of value to the world with your integrity and vision intact. Well, somewhat anyhow as I could sure use a new HD camera for my next film, you know? ”

TREVOR: “You say you’re not in it to make money. That’s the end of the conversation right there. I appreciate your artistry and willingness to die penniless from your Youtube filmic achievement. If that is what sincerely makes you happy god bless you, I’m not here to change you. But lest someone else, like an impressionable teenager with a new mini-dv camera, read this and honestly believe that some magical fairy will bestow good fortune upon them for making zero dollar films with no name great talent, not paying the crew and feeding everyone peanut butter sandwiches 3 meals a day for an 18 day shooting schedule, and posting this film on the internet, I just want to remind them that filmmaking as a career, as in in order to make enough money to pay bills and have a car to drive and a house to live in, requires hard work and a lot of money raising and project development in order to make a product that a sizable amount of people will want to purchase with THEIR hard earned money.

You show me the first check that you get for more than $5,000 for making or selling your $1000 film and I will personally become a believer.”

MY RESPONSE

I want to start by saying just how much respect I have for any indie film maker who is prepared to look the industry in the eye and then carve out a place for themselves within it. God knows, it’s a hard industry and an equally hard road to travel… the bottom line of this debate is that anyone making that journey is heroic and what this debate shows is the true nature of the heroic struggle involved. All indie film makers have to not only figure out how to tell a story, but also how to deal with the complex issues connected with production… then, having found out how to make a film, they then have to figure out how to connect with an audience, and for those whose ambitions are to do this full time, also how to sell, in an industry where the first question a sales agent asks is “How much was the budget?”

The $1000 film approach (dogma) is just one attempt to look at the industry and how to carve out a place for yourself in that industry. I think it’s the best strategy for any film maker, because it is endlessly flexible and can be applied whether you’re a screenwriter who has never made a film or if you’re a twelve year veteran writer/director/editor like myself.

At the heart of my approach to being a micro-cinema Producer is one key concept:

DON’T SPEND MONEY MAKING A FILM, UNLESS YOU’VE GOT A GUARANTEED PRE-SALE… or, until you’ve exhausted all the other options.

There is a lot going on in this concept and for most people, their initial reaction is “It can’t be done, because X costs Y.” The classic example has cropped up at least twice in this thread “On a $1000, I’ll have to feed my crew peanut butter sandwiches for eighteen days straight.”
It’s a fair point, because crews have to be feed… and food costs money.

The $1000 way to come at any budget problem, is to start by asking question… like:

“Do I REALLY need eighteen days to shoot this movie?” … “Could I multi-camera it, and shoot it over two weekends?” … “Do I REALLY need to pay for food?”… “Can I ask a local supermarket/pizza place/restaurant to donate crew food in return for a credit?” … “Will the crew bring packed lunches if they know how skint I am?”

Now, the reason most producers won’t look at solutions like this, is because nobody likes to admit that they are THAT hard up. It’s hard to find a producer who is prepared to get a reputation for not being able to feed their crew… and, for me, asking the cast and crew to find their own meals is always the last but one option.

However, by re-thinking your shoot, so you can do it in less than five days, and begging food from local merchants you could easily feed the crew, well, for $0… and the truth of the matter is, when crews volunteer to do a movie they understand that it’s being done for love. The only time I’ve ever heard crews bitching about conditions is when they’re being paid scale.

One of the first things a $1000 film maker has to do, is to question everything they’ve ever been told about making a film… and this is the reason the title of this post is “Why you can’t make a ‘proper’ film for $1000.” The truth is, if you can’t let go of received ideas about how a film is made, then you’ll always have to solve your problems with money.

One of the other major assumptions people make about $1000 film makers, is that they’re going to make films with low production values — and this just isn’t true. In $1000 film making your resources are as good as your address book. So, ironically, I could probably pull together a ten day shoot, with a Panasonic Varicam, a full set of primes and a professional sound guy, with his own kit, with one phone call. I can do this because I have friends who have resources and also because I offer them cool projects to work on.

However, it doesn’t matter what resources you do have… the important thing is that everyone has some resources and getting the most out of them is what a $1000 film maker does.

The final piece of the $1000 film makers strategy is understanding exactly why spending money on film is counter-productive to your career. It’s actually really simple:

If you have a $50,000 budget and you make a film that looks like it cost $100,000 then no one is going to give a damn about it… because anyone could have done what you did… if you make a film using only your webcam, a ball of string and $37 and it entertains people for an hour and a half, then the industry will beat a path to your door. The only problem is… you have to be very, very, very good at film making to entertain people for 90 minutes with string and a webcam.

The truth is, the only thing that determines a film’s value in the industry is the number of people who are prepared to pay to watch it. My take on that is, the more feature films you make, the better you get at making them… and the more shots you have at creating a “breakout film… and for those wishing to make a career out of this, the breakout film is what we should all be aiming for.

The downside of $1000 film making is you have to have more knowledge, greater skill levels, do more research, work harder, be a better writer and better director than everyone else… because you don’t have a budget to hide behind. Your films are only as good as your ability to inspire people to work with you. The reason the 17 year old with the camcorder doesn’t make a fortune making a $1000 film, isn’t because of either the budget or the level of the equipment… it’s because they don’t have either the story telling or production skills to carry it off. However, if they make seven or eight feature films, with the stuff they already have… well, then the ninth just maybe the movie that pushes them into the limelight… but, only if they resist the urge to up their budgets as they progress as indies.

In this article I want to go deeper into the heart of the digital revolution than I ever have before; I also intend to say some pretty controversial things about movie making.

One of the first things I think I need to make clear, is that when you step into the world of micro-budget film making your production options INCREASE, rather than decreasing.

Let’s have a look production of an “Old School” conventional approach to making a movie: firstly, if you’re working “old school” you need to get the latest production equipment, a crew… and, because those things cost money, you then have to get both investment and some kind of “name” actor attached to your project, because your investors have to make a return on their investment. Not only that, you also need insurance and a lawyer to do your contracts. The second you decide to make a feature film the traditional way, you are immediately put under pressure to conform to the demands of the existing distribution industry… an industry which rejects hundreds perfectly good films every years, simply because THE DISTRIBUTORS don’t know how to make money from them.

Now, I could talk for hours about the short comings of the existing distribution industry, but for the sake of this article, all anyone needs to understand is that conventional distributors like: particular kinds of easy to sell genre movie, star names and “originality” providing it’s actually just a clever twist on something they already understand. Another way of understanding the film industry’s take on distribution, is it is still mired in 20th Century marketing, where “mass market” is the only solution. Unlike many other industries, the film industry hasn’t got it’s head around the idea of “boutique markets” … that is, a market where you’re catering to a smaller, but better defined audience.

Now, the second you step out of the conventional film industry and push your budget range to $1000 or less to produce a feature film… then at that point you are free to do ANYTHING you want… with anything you want… and distribute it anyway you want.

Now, in my opinion, one of the reasons the indie film scene is still not having a major impact on the conventional industry, is because, by and large it is trying to copy the approach of the traditional film industry… but with prosumer equipment.

I think this is a mistake.

Where I think the future of film making lies, is in people making movies that they want to see, using a huge variety of tools… not just those normally associated with film making.

Rather than provide all the answers in this post, instead here are a list of questions:

1) Why does a movie have to be 90 minutes long?

Well, if you’re going for conventional distribution, then distributors like a 90 minute movie, because that’s what DVD buyers currently expect and it fits nicely with TV station’s output.

However, if you start you project with no intention of seeking conventional distribution, then you can make your movie any length you want.

2) Why does a film maker need to own a HD camcorder?

Well, if you’re going for conventional distribution a HD camcorder gives you a resolution and picture quality which just about competes with film… so you can play the conventional movie game, but at lower budgets.

However, if you’re to distribute via the web, why bother with that? I don’t see any reason at all why a clever writer, with some decent actors couldn’t make an entire movie just using a webcam… and if you wanted to get sophisticated about this, you could set an entire film in one location, set up a dozen webcams on tripods and mix the outputs using cheap VJ software.

3) How do you make money?

Well the truth is the vast majority of conventional films don’t make money, partly because they spend too much on production and partly because the film distribution industry is bloody useless.

However, anyone who makes a movie for $1000 can sell it online for as little as $1 a download and all they need to find are 1001 customers.

Now the truth is there are thousands of possibilities for making movies spending little or no money… there is a whole exciting world out there of computer based 3D animation>… VJ is throwing out some incredible and very cheap software, which can be used for all kinds of things for which it wasn’t intended. There are programs like istopmotion, which gives you an easy to use stop motion animation studio for a couple of bucks… basically there are thousands of creative/cheap/free digital choices for story telling… and now is the time to start using them.

The bottom line is this… if you have a camcorder and imovie, make a movie; if you have a webcam and an idea, make a movie; if you have a computer and a story, animate it… but what ever you do, don’t put your movie making life on hold whilst you try to do it the way the “big dogs” do it… because those guys are the past. Ten years from now they’ll be the ones beating a path to your door, wanting to know how you’re making five films a year, distributed to audiences world-wide, with costs of less than $1000 a unit.

Just watch this video of JJ Abrams, the writer of Lost, talking at the TED conference about magic, writing and the future of film making…

It’s taken me a long time to get round to writing this post; partly because I’ve been busy setting up a new business… but mainly because I knew what I wanted to say about writing for actors is quite controversial… and simply by writing it, it may harm my very good relationship with the acting community. Which is never a good idea for any film maker who relies on good will to make films.

However, after many years experience of both directing and training actors I’ve come to a conclusion about the causes of bad acting and it basically comes down to two things:

Bad scripts and/or self consciousness… and NOTHING else!

Good acting happens the second the actor stops thinking about their performance, because they are busy doing something else.

The reason most indie films are so very, very bad, is because the scripts suck and the performers are very inexperienced… and, inexperienced performers are incredibly self-conscious. This combination of self consciousness and bad scripting is what makes so many indie films hideous to watch.

Now, one way to make your bad script into a watchable film, is to do what Hollywood does… throw money at the problem. Basically, if you throw a brilliant director and some great actors at a piss poor script, providing they have license to mess around with it, they’ll turn out something somebody is prepared to pay for… especially if you spend enough money on CGI.

At the indie level, although we can get creative with cheap ways to do CGI, and other ways to emulate Hollywood production values… but, we CAN’T buy our way out of a bad script and therefore the biggest advantage any indie ever will ever have is a script which makes it easy for actors to give good performances.

But, how do you write a script that makes it easy for actors to be great, effortlessly?

There are two important things to understand about writing for actors:

The LESS time actors have to feel self-conscious, the better the scene will go…
and,
The easier it is for them to UNDERSTAND why things are happening, the better they will perform.

It’s traditional for screenwriting gurus to tell you “Do NOT tell the actor how to do their job.” I’m now going to tell you the opposite… in order to get great performances you have to tell your actors EXACTLY how to perform the scene. I know this is a controversial statement… but, I stand by it, because it is self doubt in actors which cause self consciousness. However, what do I mean when I say you have to tell actors exactly how to perform the scene?

In basic terms, every scene is in the film for a reason: to give the audience insight and clues about the unfolding story. The first thing a writer needs to understand is what is the scene in the film for? Where many writers go wrong, is they get self indulgent… the writing is there to serve the ego of the writer rather than the needs of either the audience or the actor.

A great scene, like most great literature, should be incredibly simple:

Somebody needs to do something… something or someone gets in their way and in the process the audience gets either a piece of information which explains something they’ve already seen… or, they get a clue which will become significant later on. What makes the acting process easy for the actor, is if the writer links every part of the process to an action… or an interaction with an object or person. Or, in other words, your actors should always be DOING something… and, their action should be linked to the character’s objective.

Let me give you a concrete example:

The retired Russian Army Captain, Grigori, wants to save his daughter from the Serbian Gangsters and by doing this, win back the love of his ex-wife. Half way through the film, is a scene where Grigori discovers his daughter is a sex slave in Romania. How this happens is: an American journalist takes him to a strip club to meet the owner, whilst they are talking Grigori sees his daughter’s image projected onto the wall of the club, acting in a porn film.
The question is, how to make this scene easy for the actor?
Well, in my experience, the trick is to give the actor actions which betray his true emotions, whilst his words are trying to hide the truth. In other words, the audience knows that Grigori wants to kill the club owner, but that he can’t if he wants to save her. And, the way you show that, is by explicitly writing in a visual clue for the actor to perform… in this case Grigori appears relaxed and natural from the waist up… but under the table his knuckles are white with stress, fingers straining to press down on the trigger of his Glock. At any moment he may shoot the guy… but he doesn’t.

What you’ve actually done, is take the true emotion of the scene and shown it to the audience… and, at the same time given the actor a specific way of communicating the emotional content of the scene.

Now, and this is the controversial part… acting is only difficult because 99.9% of the time writers don’t do their job properly. We don’t provide the action which explains the emotional conflict of the scene and because of this we expect actor to do this for us. In other words we write a scene; we then expect the director to work out the emotional route of the characters; and, we then expect the actor and director to figure out how to show it to the audience… and, if the director is lazy s/he delegates that job to the actor.

What this means is our great actors have been those who were good at communicating the emotional subtext… but, if we get actually sat down and did our jobs, then actors wouldn’t need to do that. Their jobs would become easier.

The truth is, the only reason the industry requires so many great actors, is because there are so few great writers.

Close to the end of the movie “Paris Texas” is a key scene where Harry Dean Stanton tells the story of how he ended up wandering in the desert; he tells this story to the ex-wife who he hasn’t seen since the night he tried to kill her. Now, what interests me about this scene, is for the entire three and a half minutes, as the story unfolds, the camera remains static on Natasha Kinski (the ex-wife). We’re not watching Harry Dean Stanton talk, we’re watching Natasha listen… at no point does the editor cut away to Harry’s moving delivery of this key monologue.

When you look closely at most films this is actually closer to the norm than you might expect, the camera often remains on the person listening, rather than the person delivering the line. This is especially true at key dramatic moments. This is because at these moments, what the audience is witnessing is impact of a line on the inner life of a character.

However, there is a deeper significance to the importance of this editing choice and I believe it holds one of the keys as to why so many indie films and spec scripts fail to create high quality drama. This is because, in order to write a scene where the listening is more important than the delivery, you have to write stories from the inside out… and not the outside, in.

In order to build a performance that makes an audience hold its breath in anticipation, you have to create moments of vulnerability. A moment where the audience understands the deep significance of what’s being said or done. In my opinion, in order to do that you have to write stories that flow round the inner life of the characters, rather than the externals.

Let me give you another example:

Towards the end of Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco’s “Crash” the Cop takes his Mother to identify the dead brother. She lays into the Cop for not finding him, like she’d asked… and, at the same time tells him how the dead brother was a good son, because he came by and put groceries in her fridge when she was asleep. This is a heart breaking moment in the film, because we know the truth, it was the Cop who left the groceries. We also know the sacrifices he’s made, throughout the film, to look after his junkie Mother and to protect his criminal brother.

Now, when you attempt to write a story like that, you have to make a relationship between the characters inner life and what they do, and what they experience in the outer world.

My belief is that this link between what’s happening in the character’s inner life and how that impacts on the outer world should be the basis for ALL thinking, when it comes to screen writing. And yet, it’s incredibly rare to see that kind of approach… even in films that make it to the screen. More often than not, films are written with a view to the externals… and, if it’s given a thought at all, the inner lives of the characters are delegated to the actors.

I also have a theory about why this is happening.

When I talk to indie film makers and spec screen writers, by and large they are driven into the industry by their experiences as an audience member… “I love movies, therefore I will make them.” There’s nothing wrong with that, I’m a big film fan as well. However, more often than not, when people attempt to write and make their own movies, they still view the product from the POV of an audience member. For the audience the movies is just a set of images on a screen which they experience passively. The bad news is this passive experience flows over into people’s attempts to tell stories.

For most film makers and screenwriters, what they try to do, is take the pictures in their head and recreate the images they have there… in the belief that if they can figure out what it should look like, they’ll be able to make it.

Which is why indie film makers are obsessed with new camcorders/formats/effects packages/new plugins… and in newbie writers this trait shows in a desire to write the shots to be used, expressions like “we see” and endless sentences constructed in passive voice. Even if you manage to train a screenwriter out of writing “We see a close-up of Betty-Lou sitting, reading on a bench in the park” deep in their hearts that’s what they really want to write, because it feels natural. And, it feels natural because they’re still viewing drama as an audience member does, not as a practitioner.

Now, for me, all of these trends in indie film making point to a very real chasm of misunderstanding about what drama is, how actors work and what’s really happening when they watch a film.

Instead of writing for the audience, the script writer should be writing for the actor. And, in order to do that you have to understand what it is an actor is doing when they work.

And, in my next post I’ll talk about how we can start doing just that.