How do you make a low-budget project look big-budget?

(This entry cowritten by Larry Boothby, DP on “High Roller.”)

There’s no better way to improve the look of a project than by shooting it on film. Film has a much richer palette for a DP like me to work with, and in my estimation, still is the best way to shoot for a project bound for the big screen. Sure, high-def can look great, too, and is probably the way to go when you’re headed directly for TV (and won’t need to create prints for theatrical exhibition) and are very-cost conscious. But there’s still really nothing sexier than film.

 

Yes, film is expensive, but there are creative ways to get the most out of each foot you shoot. An interesting approach that my DP and I came up with when we shot High Roller was the “diagonal dolly.” Simply put, we set up dolly track diagonally across the line of action, allowing both a wide shot and a tight two-shot to be accomplished in the same take. In many cases, this removed the need for coverage, and added a lot of interest over a static camera. Another thing we did was stage scenes in depth, and allow the actors to work themselves toward the camera. Again, very efficient, even it requires a bit more planning for blocking, lighting and audio. Finally, putting a mirror in a scene offers a lot of opportunities to use reflections, which allows actors to work away from the camera and still capture their performances. Plus, mirrors are handy for bouncing light.

 

So if you’re looking to spice up your low-budget production, don’t dismiss film out-of-hand. It’s still the best-looking solution out there, and with a little planning, can be just as cost-effective.

THE CRAFT OF ACTING.

What makes a good actor?

 

The answers you’ll probably get will be mostly about emotive skill, or screen presence, or “it,” or some other intangible gobbledygook.

 

The problem with those answers is that they generally refer to actors who are well known, well paid, highly experienced, and have the luxury of multiple retakes to “explore” their character. But what if you’re looking to cast your movie from a local group of unknowns who will be paid in long nights and donuts? What will you look for beyond a nice headshot and an ability to memorize lines?

 

For me and my budgets, this is good acting:

 

1. Hit your marks: Setting up shots take time, and time is money, as is every inch of film exposed. There is nothing worse than setting up a cool dolly shot and having an actor beautifully deliver their lines in soft focus because they’re two feet off the finish mark.
2. Repeat your action: Movies, at the end of it all, are delivered in the cutting room. The best thing an editor can see is an actor who remembers to touch their chin on the same word every time, from every angle. This provides options for cutting, and in a low-budget scenario, options are priceless.
3. Be decisive: The time to ask the director questions about your character is before you’re ready to shoot. Once you’re on the set, everyone needs to know how you’re going to play it. Robert Altman aside, acting curveballs are expensive.
4. Throw your lines away: This is a tricky one, but film is not theater. Film is a representation of (some kind of) real life. The biggest moments in real life are generally delivered casually, without regard to the sanctity of language or enunciation. Owning a script means disowning the words. Be strong enough to play it small, and let the camera blow it up.
5. Make others better: The very best actors bring every other actor in a scene up a level. Through their professionalism and focus, they inspire revelations in even unseasoned performers. And that sure makes it easier on those of us on the other side of the camera.

 

Like usual, there are exceptions to most of these rules, but for the most part, they’re a solid guide to a successful shoot.

In the end, never forget that acting, like most of filmmaking, is craft first, and art second. 

Hang On, I’m Procrastinating.

What is it about procrastination that makes it so damn easy to do, and so hard to live with?

 

Maybe it’s just my Catholic roots, but I seem to need to feel guilty about something I haven’t done most every day. Sure, I could say I was “percolating the idea,” or “going through my process,” but the raw truth is, I’m putting off something important until tomorrow.

 

Looking back, I’d have to admit that waiting until a deadline is looming has pretty much been my modus operandi. Luckily, for the most part I’ve managed to get that report done or that science project completed without major repercussions. Even this column is only a day late (according to my self-imposed weekly schedule).

 

So how does procrastination apply to filmmaking? As a screenwriter, obviously, not writing isn’t a good way to get a script completed. However, if you are actually working an idea in your head, I’m starting to believe that procrastination adds a level of anxiety that can help make the actual writing more urgent and alive, almost as if the holding back adds to the ultimate release. Place colorful metaphor here.

 

I wrote High Roller this way, the movie I ultimately needed to shoot, after I had slogged through fifteen drafts of another script that never got any better. And I feel another one welling up now, too, letting off little steam vents toward my friends when I tell them about the idea. Even writing this adds to the internal pressure.

 

Here’s another thing: procrastination helps you be a better filmmaker, because it teaches you to think on your feet. If you have a lot of practice flying by the seat of your pants, you’ll feel right at home on a movie set, where every day has fifty deadlines and a hundred problems flying at you. See, there is a value to figuring out how to make a science project out of floor lint and cleaning products the night before it’s due.

 

So if you’re putting something off by reading this, don’t feel so bad. Or, actually, do feel bad. It could be the start of something great.

Format Counts.

Recently, I was told that scripts should no longer have “Cut to:” at the end of each scene. Somehow, I missed that convention change, and I’m abashed: mainly because I’m one of those people who totally agree with those agents, readers, and other industry types who say that the second they see a typo, they put the script down. (Not that a convention change is a typo, but you know what I mean. Rules be rules). So, in the interest of making sure that everyone is up on the current rules of screenplay formatting, below is a reprint from the Nicholl Fellowship site offering just such info, and they should know: they offer up to five 30k fellowships a year for new screenwriters (aren’t REAL prizes cool?). Sure, some of them are silly, but there’s also something comforting about them in their specificity.

 

A Few Notes on Formatting

There is no absolute “standard” format used by all professional screenwriters working in the American film industry. Slight variations abound in scripts written by professionals. That said, professional scripts will invariably resemble the formatting guide that follows. Nuances may vary — margins slightly different, a dash here or there, parentheticals used this way or that — but overall, professional screenplays fit these guidelines.

Realize that “shooting scripts,” the form in which scripts are most often available at libraries and elsewhere, are not the form in which most professional writers submit their scripts. Submission scripts, sales scripts, first draft scripts — all share certain characteristics: no scene numbers, few if any camera shots designated and sequences written in master scenes.

Your script does not have to mimic the following pages exactly, but it should closely resemble them. If you’re confused about which nuances are acceptable and which would push your script into an “out-of-format” category, you would do well to follow these guidelines and eliminate those questionable nuances.


Screenplay Format Sample (PDF)
Screenplay Format Sample (Text only version)

While the PDF version should maintain format when printed, we have found that it is extremely difficult to put a script online in a “Text only version” that will maintain formatting, margins, font size, etc. when printed. Top and bottom margins never seem to be maintained, and when printing, the page number will probably roll down the page. While this formatting guide script looks correct on screen, we have also found that it typically will print in a smaller font, reducing from the correct 12 point Courier/Courier New to the incorrect 10 point Courier/Courier New. Be aware of the potential reduction when printing and don’t try to mimic the margins of the printed script; instead follow the margin, font, spacing guidelines found in the on-line version.

If you click on the text script link, you will have access to a text version of the script. From there, you should be able to print with the correct font size (although the top and bottom margins will still roll down the page). Or you can save the script text file and then import it into a word processor (which will cause the correct margins to be lost) or import it into a script formatting program (which should then reconstitute the margins).

 

Script Foibles That Might Cause a Negative First Impression of Your Script

Can your script give a reader a negative impression before the reader starts reading?

The answer is “possibly,” and whether it does will vary from reader to reader. Does a negative first impression mean that a script will be automatically dismissed? Of course not. If a script is good enough, no minor “fault” is going to stop it. But why cause a reader to have a negative first impression of your script if you can easily avoid it?

Writers who entered scripts with one or several of these “faults” (variant covers and brads are the most obvious) have won Nicholl Fellowships. Undoubtedly, many scripts with some such “faults” have sold.

Twelve foibles that might cause a reader to think less of your script before it has been “cracked”:

0.      Art on the script cover.

0.      Hard, slick Acco covers (with long metal connectors).

0.      “Permanently” bound scripts (i.e., plastic spine binding).

0.      Commercial, “college paper” covers.

0.      Wimpy brads.

0.      Long “dangerous” brads.

0.      Cut “dangerous” brads.

0.      A “clipped” or “rubber-banded” script on non-three hole paper.

0.      Overly thick scripts.

0.      Thin scripts.

0.      Three-ring binding.

0.      Color of card stock cover that inadvertently bugs a reader.

(You’ll notice that I did not include the number of brads, though scripts with one brad generally aren’t too good. And once you turn inside a thin script and discover that it’s been copied on both sides of the paper, you forget the thinness [unless you hate having to fold back the pages to read them].)

What about after the cover is turned?

Fourteen foibles that might invoke a poor first impression (based only on a script’s title page and page one):

0.      Typo/misspelling on the title page.

0.      Typo/misspelling in the first scene header.

0.      Typos/misspellings in the first sentence or paragraph or page.

0.      Triple/double spacing of every/many line(s) on first page.

0.      Lack of spacing between scene header and description and/or between description and dialogue and/or between dialogue and dialogue.

0.      Use of font other than Courier 12-point, ten-pitch, non-proportional.

0.      Extensive use of bold print.

0.      Dialogue that stretches from the left margin to the right margin.

0.      Extra space between character name and dialogue.

0.      Description and/or dialogue typed ALL CAPS.

0.      Extremely narrow or extremely wide outside margins.

0.      Long, long, long descriptive passages.

0.      Handwritten or hand-printed script.

0.      Other glaring, non-standard format usage.

Writers who entered scripts with one or several of these “faults” (non-Courier and lengthy description being the most obvious) have won Nicholl Fellowships.

Remember, these remarks are based on subjective observation of subjective reactions. Not all readers are affected by the same “problems” when picking up a script. And if Shane Black were to have six typos on page one, would anybody care? Probably not. Until you are paid to write scripts, it’s probably more reasonable to be careful about your submissions.

Greg Beal
Program Coordinator
Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting

Uwe Boll is My Hero.

Before you go off on a diatribe like most everyone else on IMDB, hear me out: because if you’re an indie filmmaker, Uwe Boll should be your hero, too.

 

If you don’t know who he is, let me illuminate: Uwe is a German writer/director/producer who put together a deal to make a bunch of films based on well-known video games including “House of the Dead,” “Alone in the Dark,” and “BloodRayne,” with several more planned. Sounds like Hollywood, right? Except for this: people think they are bad. Very, very bad. In fact, if you’re to believe the criticism leveled at him on the web, he may very well be the worst filmmaker that ever lived. This criticism has gone so far as to result in a series of televised boxing matches in which Uwe literally kicked the crap out of his biggest detractors: video available on YouTube.

 

But that’s not why Uwe is my hero (although fighting ANY four people in a row is pretty ballsy). Here’s my number one reason:

 

He’s doing what the rest of us all wish we could do.

 

That is: set it up so you can continue to make movies and earn a great living without real regard to the quality of the film, or the returns on the investment. For me, that’s genius.

 

According to a foreign distribution exec I know, Uwe takes around ONE MILLION DOLLARS out of every movie he makes. Legitimately. How? Apparently Uwe finances all the films through BOLL KG, which uses a German tax shelter to provide investors with a great deal: the law allows investors in German-owned films to write off 100% of their investment as a tax deduction; it also allows them to invest borrowed money and write off any fees associated with the loan. The investor is then only required to pay taxes on the profits made by the movie; if the movie loses money, the investor gets a tax writeoff. How sweet is that?

 

Now, up until January of this year, Hollywood had been abusing the system by funneling money through German shell corporations and getting the same advantages. But the German legislature plugged that hole. However, since Uwe is a real German, he may very well be able to continue on his merry moviemaking way.

 

And who knows; with more practice, maybe his films will improve. Maybe he’ll find some more talented people to help. But maybe not.

 

Whatever the case, he gets to continue making movies, and extending a middle finger (if not a boxing glove) to those who wish him ill.

 

You go, Uwe.

DOES THE WORLD NEED ANOTHER FILM FESTIVAL?

According to IMDB, there are over 1,000 film festivals worldwide today. So do we really need another one? Absolutely not. Not in the traditional sense, anyway.

 

The idea of a film festival is great: provide a venue where worthy films get to be seen by enthusiastic audiences and compete against other films. Win an award or two, receive some acclaim, and get a distribution deal. Everyone wins, right? Well, to quote a recent ad campaign: not exactly. There are fundamental concerns with the existing film festival system that bear discussion. So, in no particular order:

 

1.              There are very few festivals that count — To say that all film festivals aren’t created equal is an understatement in the neighborhood of saying that Hannibal Lecter isn’t a very nice guy. According to the acquisition executives with whom I’ve spoken, there are four or five festivals that have true commercial significance: distributors attend them en masse, winning an award there means something, and even being selected to screen there holds cache. If you’re a filmmaker, you know who they are. Mr. Redford, take a bow.

 

2.              Some festivals are just plain scams — In most cases, a festival is a heartfelt effort to bring independent cinema to a community that may be starved for it. In many others, I’m sad to say, it’s a narcissistic, money-grubbing scam that enriches only the proprietors. The venues are awful, the audiences non-existent, awards a joke, industry participation nil, and even the parties are cash-on-the-barrelhead. Believe me, I’ve been to them, I’ve screened at them, and I left feeling slightly queasy, as if someone had fondled me on the subway. (Okay, worse than that).

3.              Art and commerce make strange bedfellows — In a world of ever-more-squeezed arts dollars, the goal of most traditional film festivals is to survive. And that happens by making money: selling tickets. For the savvy festival director, that typically means two things: enticing already-acclaimed films to screen (read: have done well at top-tier fests), and to favor locally made films in the selection process (who will bring friends and crew and family to the show). It also makes sense to look more closely at projects supported by potential sponsors, or celebrities who might be willing to make an appearance. Even the most high-minded festivals have to submit to this reality.

4.              The power of the press belongs to those who own one — Beyond the influences described above, traditional film festival selection is also subject to the tastes of what is typically a very small group of people. In general, you’ll never know who saw your movie, or why it was rejected. Your only option is to submit to another festival, and hope that you catch the next committee in a better mood.

5.              There is no other option — Absent of a great connection to the Hollywood machine, or unless you’re REALLY rich (even after making your movie), there’s really no alternative to the existing paradigm. Sure, you can send off tapes and DVDs by the truckload, but with over 4,000 films looking for distribution each year, your odds of success are slightly lower than having Martin Scorsese offer to shoot your bar mitzvah video.

That’s not to say that little films don’t get discovered at little festivals and go on to wide acclaim: I’m sure they do. I just can’t name any.

 

So we created FYLMZ as a response to these concerns. Because we truly believe that there are HUNDREDS of films out there that deserve to find their audience. Because we believe that it’s not up to us to determine which movies should be seen and which shouldn’t. Because we believe that a festival should offer significant prizes for significant reasons. But most of all, because we believe there needs to be an alternative to the existing system.

 

Will it work? We have no idea. (Now we do: the answer is yes, intrinsically, no financially, for now… :[ — Tony) But, because we’re filmmakers, we retain an eternal optimism about our projects, our peers, and our audiences, and hope beyond hope that we’ve put a system in place that aligns all three in a way that will lead to real rewards for all concerned.

 

The rest is up to you.

MALIBU FILM FESTIVAL

A week of opposites: we screened at the Director’s Guild on Friday the 3rd: the print never looked or sounded better. At the Malibu screenings: never worse — I would heartily advise any filmmaker to avoid this fest like the plague if you care about film and fair play: real bush-league stuff. Luckily, the screening that meant something was the DGA, and we’ve been running the prints all over LA for distributor executives to see, then shipping them to NY for more screenings (thus the delayed update). — Tony

SAN DIEGO FILM FESTIVAL

Holy smokes, what a great festival! Karl Kozak and Robin Laatz (but they’ll be Mr. & Mrs. in a couple of weeks) put on one heck of a show: great venue (Pacific Gaslamp Theater), great parties (800 people at the black-tie awards ceremony that was a 40’s theme!), and great people (the staff was ever-friendly and well-organized). It certainly helps that Chris Gore (of Film Threat fame) is an active, attending board member, and that the sponsors have really stepped in to help. Clearly, they’ve taken the very best ideas from film fests worldwide, and included them here. Best of all: two screenings (so you can build buzz — our second was sold out), and plenty of time for a Q&A. Anything else? Oh, yeah, I won Best Director. Almost forgot… :0] — Tony

BOSTON FILM FESTIVAL

We heard we had big crowds!

RHODE ISLAND INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL

We’ve really gotten to dislike this one screening thing. First, you can’t build buzz that is a big part of a fest. Second, if you have technical problems (like they did — one projector on the fritz), you don’t get to recover. So, despite our big audience and great response, we were left feeling a little cold about the whole thing, especially since there wasn’t even time for a Q&A. Overall, it seemed that the fest is geared to shorts (because it’s Academy-eligible), and not to features. Oh, well. But while we were away, for some reason (or combo of reasons), the website went berserk with hits — so much so it crashed the server twice! And the deluge of emails has just been phenomenal (sorry to anyone we haven’t responded to yet..) Seems like people want to see the movie. A good week after all… :0]. — Tony Vidmer