Primer - Perfect Micro-Budget Film Making
September 19, 2007 by clive
So, for a long time now we’ve been banging on here about how it’s possible to make great, successful films on micro budgets. And, I think it’s fair to say a lot of indie film makers have been incredibly sceptical about the whole idea.
Then this week I find out about Shane Carruth, an engineer turned film maker, who tore apart Sundance in 2004 with his film Primer, a movie he wrote, directed and acted in; all produced on film for $7000.
Watch the trailer, this is a great film. Then read the story of its production.
Not only is this a good movie, the thing I love about this story is how Shane approached making this movie. From everything I’ve read about this movie, he seems to have applied exactly the approach we’ve been advocating here on $1000 movie:
He found a subject he was passionate about.
He sat down and taught himself how to write screenplays by studying technique and by reading other peoples scripts.
He then figured out how to make the movie he wanted to make for the money he could afford to spend; putting a priority on getting the performances he wanted through extensive rehearsals.
And finally, he decided that he could only achieve the film he wanted on film and found a way to achieve that on the budget he had.
I can’t say enough good things about either him as a film maker or the film.
However, this isn’t a flawless film. And, I think there is an important point here. Sure, from a technical POV there are things that could have been done better and not all the performances are good as perhaps they could have been if the director had had more wiggle room in his budget and a more experienced cast. But, with all that said, it really shows how much latitude there are in those areas, if you get your story telling right.
But, that’s just my take… rent it, or better yet buy to for yourself and come to your own opinion.
Primer is an excellent film, especially for the budget. Didn’t know it was made for 7Gs… wow. I knew it was low budget, but I didn’t know it was that low.
$7,000 is the same figure that’s bandied about for El Mariachi as well.
It seems to be just about the lowest figure you can shoot a movie on Super 16mm. As the vast majority of those costs are bound to be tied up in the cost of using film as a medium, I don’t see any reason at all why you can’t do the same thing digitally for $1000.
Where I thing the $7,000 Film scores over the $1000 Movie from a sales POV is the industry is still overly impressed with film. They still see it as “grown up” film making. Whereas a low budget on a digital movie is often considered a reflection of the quality — or, in other words, a low budget film shows real skill and a low budget digital movie shows a lack of it.
That in itself is rubbish, it’s possible to turn out rubbish on almost any budget.
Primer is an excellent example of doing a lot with a little. Whether it be by accident, which is a factor that a lot of people don’t include, or by newbie drive, Carruth made an excellent film that I will watch again and again. Everything lent itself to the film he was making. The performances were played very straight without reaching too much to either side of the pendulum. That works because this is how I would expect this group of guys to act. The aesthetic is great, I’m impressed by the look. It’s a very interactive film, it asks something of its audience.
The story above all is the issue here. It’s a puzzle film that 90% of the world is probably still trying to decipher. It’s one of the things I like about it but the unfortunate thing is it “died on the vine” to quote a speaker at the IFC Conference in New York I went to this past week. It never got any legs even though it deserved to.
“Whereas a low budget on a digital movie is often considered a reflection of the quality — or, in other words, a low budget film shows real skill and a low budget digital movie shows a lack of it.”
Clive - Don’t you think this has changed significantly though? I think if Primer was shot with the DVX-100 it still would have gotten the attention it got.
“Clive - Don’t you think this has changed significantly though? I think if Primer was shot with the DVX-100 it still would have gotten the attention it got.”
I really, genuinely don’t know.
There’s still a lot of “film” snobbery and the distribution end of the business is lagging way behind the producers in their eagerness to embrace digital production for movies.
One of the first things every sales agent and distributor I’ve spoken to has ever asked about my film was “What was the budget and what was it shot on?”
I was pitching a $700,000 movie, shot on HD and the room temperature definitely dropped just based on that information alone.
I think things are changing out there, but I’m sure he had an easier sell because he shot on film. I’m pretty sure it helped at Sundance as well.
I’m not sure that it matters too much that Primer didn’t do massive business, because after all the investment was so low and the end result certainly got his profile in the industry up. He ought to be able to translate that into a second film.
I think the ideal position to be in, is to get the level of industry attention with a micro-budget film and then to also do good business.
That has to be the dream ticket. It’s also what we’re aiming for here.
I think if you shoot digitally, then you have to produce something spectacular in order to get attention for it — I still think film holds so much cache with the industry.