Make Movies For Free
May 6, 2008 by clive
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 $1000 a unit.
If only it was that simple. 1000$ funds enough to hire actors and a barebones crew on pizza, and for some equipment.
I’ve ben looking into this method. It’s very interesting. However, this post made it all look a little too simple. Getting quiality 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.
Great post.
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.
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.
SPICY SIDEBAR: Practice by making several short films first before you make a feature. I realize Clive doesn’t appreciate the short film format per se but it’s smarter (I.E. you learn more) burning a thousand dollars making 5 to 10 short films to learn your limits rather than making one feature for a thousand dollars to very likely learn less. This has been my humble experience. Your egoism will vary.
So with all that said, (many advance thanks Clive for allowing me to stump at your pulpit) I can’t vouch for making money at this unless you sell out early and make chintzy horror films with the blood, boobs and beast formula. But I can say, if the goal is to have some fun and create opportunity for yourself to do bigger and better films YOUR way, then you are well on your way all.
Peace!
P.S. Clive, it turned out that I took far longer to write this response than I anticipated and so please forgive me when I cross post it as a blog on my site. I’ll back link to this super cool post of yours of course.
There are a lot of interesting things you can do with the internet now. I mean, look at Story2Oh. That was nifty.
AEG
Feel free to step up to the pulpit anytime 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.”
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.
Keep up the awesome work, sir!
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
Clive and AEG,
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.
Trevor,
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.
Trevor,
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 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?
Peace!
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.
Trevor, AEG
I want to thank-you both of you for the effort and passion you’re putting into this debate… and because I think it goes to the heart of what indie film making is all about, I’m going to paste the comments so far into a new post and put my responses there.
You guys are great!
Thanks Clive and thank you Trevor.
Each to their own way in their own way then. If I happened to offend you with my second person references then I apologize. I intended the “you” in my response to be taken more globally rather than personally directed towards yourself, sir. My bad. Welcome to the Internet.
The way I pursue my “career” at least ends up with me getting it done as a result. The act of actaully doing something rather than talking about doing something has weight and value regardless of the amount of money in my account or the validation that some people defind themselves with by having it.
Money = happiness? No.
Passion = happiness? Yes.
If I waited for someone elses permission to engage my passion then I too would live a life filled with skepticism, and more than just purportedly penniless, I’d be mighty unhappy as well.
I can’t think of a stronger example to provide to our youth. Be you. Don’t be definded by others who want you to be what they think you should be.
I want artistic collaborators not prison wardens watching over me as I engage my passion.
Who cares what I do? Duh. I do.
The crux of the matter here isn’t about what I, filmmakers (teenaged or otherwise) or anyone else does for that matter but instead what are YOU going to do?
I.E. Who cares what you do?
Can you dig it?
And as always, peace!
And just an amusing side note here: why does a $1000 film have to creat a 400% return of profit to make one a believer?
I bet your favorite Hollywood film that inspired you to want to be filmmaker didn’t return 400%, did it?