If you're a regular watcher of independent cinema, you've probably
experienced them: the glaring errors, the awkward glitches, and the
low-budget blunders that characterize a film as, in the worst sense
of the word, independent. When they make their awkward appearance
on the screen, we roll our eyes heavenward, struggling to understand
how filmmakers could let such monstrous gaffes slip under the radar.
While studios can underwrite lengthy reshoots, artful editing,
and enough F/X explosions to distract an audience from almost anything,
indie filmmakers are often forced to cross their fingers and hope
no one notices the boom in the shot, the hole in the plot, or the
day the lead actress was having an allergic reaction to her cough
suppressant. And while some flubs can actually lend a low-budget
charm to the film, others are serious enough to send viewers streaming
out of the theater. For beginning low-budget filmmakers, the trick
is knowing which indie cliches are merely annoying and which are
truly deadly.
Sound Advice
"Technical flaws in the picture don't bother me as much, whether
the film is grainy or dark, but I think people don't put enough
thought into their sound" says Diana Williams, producer of
the documentary Another First Step. "If the sound sucks the
uninformed person will attribute that to the actual quality of the
filmmaking."
The informed viewer will also have a reason to condemn the film
- especially when it comes to coughing up distribution dollars.
"The absolute benchmark of a cheap film, and the reason a lot
of them don't get distribution, is because they have such terrible,
lousy sound," explains Doug Blush, the producer and director
of the nationwide film and video showcase TV Babies. "It really
will shoot down an independent production because you have to spend
so much money to fix it."
Strong sound is especially important for filmmakers traveling the
festival circuit. "There's no guarantee you'll screen in a
studio theater," says Williams. "A lot of festivals have
screening in gymnasiums, for example. So if you're coming in with
bad sound and then screening in a theater that may not have great
sound, you've got two counts against you."
One reason for bad location recording cited by sound editors is
that inexperienced producers have a tendency to hire novices for
important sound work. "Often you have someone who's just learning
as the boom operator," says Steve Hamilton, president of Spin
Cycle Post and as well as an editor and supervising sound editor
for such films as Hal Hartley's Amateur and upcoming Henry Fool.
"People don't think about sound until the last minute - the
image is afforded much more importance," he continues. "The
best-sounding films are [the ones in which] the producer cared enough
to get the d.p. and sound department rehearsing ahead of time."
Low-budget locations can prove to be problematic sound-wise; often
locations are chosen because they're cheap and without a thought
given to background noise. Hamilton advises, "The director
should be designing all his shots to get good audio. Sometimes a
great-looking location is just too noisy to mike well." Short
schedules also contribute to poor sound. When there's a problem,
inevitably someone in production will say, "We'll just loop
it later." However, low-budget productions unable to afford
a lengthy mix with a top-notch mixer may discover that cheaply recorded
and hastily mixed ADR sounds just as bad as a muddy location track.
Sound problems not anticipated and corrected in production end
up costing the filmmakers a lot of money in post. The filmmaker
ends up relying on the post process to correct for conditions such
as improper sample rates, no pulldown, using video speed instead
of film speed, improperly referencing decks so that there end up
being drifts, and times codes that are off. "The computer age
can save you money," says Hamilton, "but only if you plan
ahead. [Before you start shooting] you should know who's doing your
audio post, get their specs, determine the most effective way to
sync dailies, decide whether you'll use simuldats or have someone
else provide you with flexfiles."
Bad Booming
Booms that make it into the final print are often the first sign
of a limited budget. Because the 35mm film exposed inside the camera
contains a frame significantly larger than both the 1.85 aspect
ratio picture that usually shows in theaters and the taller picture
that plays on TV, the boom will appear within the d.p.'s eyepiece,
but it shouldn't dip below the frameline. On complicated dolly moves
or scenes in which actors stand up and move around, this can be
harder than it sounds. The boom gets in the shot when, as location
mixer Brian Miksis (Gummo, Two Girls and a Guy, Buffalo 66, Wide
Awake) says, "The boom operator thought he knew the boundaries
but didn't; the camera operator should have noticed but didn't...."
And, as Williams adds, "Not only don't independent filmmakers
have the resources to shoot again, but a lot of first-time indie
filmmakers don't use video monitors. They may not even be getting
dailies, so they don't see the mistakes until they're in post."
Almost as common as the boom in the shot is the boom shadow in
the shot. Boom shadows are often a result of limitations in the
lighting package. Cheaper packages often contain smaller instruments
with harsher light sources which create harder, more visible shadows.
And of course, raising the boom higher in the frame to keep a shadow
from falling means sacrificing sound quality. Lack of communication
on set is also often responsible. "The better the relationship
the sound department has with the d.p. and the lighting people,
the better the film will be," Miksis explains. "It's important
that everyone knows what the other departments' needs and limitations
are. Too often, however, you'll have a d.p. who works very quickly
and isn't sound-friendly, who doesn't communicate or doesn't even
know what the frame is. Or you'll find a lighting department that
isn't keeping sound and shadows in mind. Sloppy communication leads
to sloppy errors."
You've Got to Focus
A sharply focused picture would seem to be the minimum requirement
of any motion picture. That said, it's surprising how many films
- mostly independent but also a startlingly high number of studio
releases - contain soft and sometimes out of focus scenes.
Inexperienced focus pullers, combined with d.p.s working with extremely
shallow depth of fields, are the main reasons scenes go soft. Also,
many indie filmmakers, especially those who cut on video, opt to
forgo workprinting because it's an extra expense. "In cases
where the filmmaker doesn't print right away, there are shots out
of focus that get into the film if the performance is good,"
notes Hamilton. The video transfer process often tightens up a shot
or corrects exposure problems, making it impossible to determine
how soft, light, or dark a shot is until it's finally printed on
film. When the first answer print arrives, "filmmakers are
often so wedded to the performance that they'll let mistakes slide
for the sake of keeping the take."
Soundtrack Shortcomings
While an occasional soft shot isn't a tragedy, an inappropriate
soundtrack, even on the festival circuit, is. Mentioned repeatedly
as a pet peeve by everyone from producers to screenwriters to grips,
a jarring tune or cheesy score can irretrievably taint a viewer's
perception of the entire film.
"Lounge-lizard-type music, even though I like that kind of
music, is the cliche of independent films," explains Drew Ann
Rosenberg, the director of the feature The Dog People. Besides investing
the film with a perhaps unwanted ironic sensibility, a familiar
or over-amped soundtrack can simply distract. And overuse of expensive
source cues may work for films like Forrest Gump but are distracting
when used in low-budget indies. One of the most difficult problems
for a new filmmaker is the temporary soundtrack that grows to be
"perfect." "A lot of first-time directors get very
attached to their temp tracks and this is dangerous," says
composer Christopher Lennertz, who recently scored Battle of the
Sexes. "Inevitably the songs will be well beyond the scope
of the budget, so their next recourse is to ask the composer to
copy it. You end up with a weak imitation rather than allowing the
composer to come up with something fresh and innovative." Lennertz
says that another habit is to not even consider scoring. "A
lot of directors will use the Quentin Tarantino route - instead
of taking advantage of the emotional richness and impact that a
score can add, they try to use songs, many of which just won't work
as well."
Yet another scoring error is putting it off. "Scoring comes
last, usually just after the budget has been all used up,"
says Lennertz. "Instead of waiting, hire your composer before
you start shooting. Find out how much it will cost and how long
it will take. Then you'll know to reserve that in the budget."
Lennertz adds, "It's amazing what a well-crafted score can
bring back to a film."
Handheld Hell
Thanks to the trendiness of handheld camera-work, most filmmakers
assume they have some leeway when it comes to cinematography. "Fashion
aside, it's probably a good idea to spring for a tripod. I've seen
some incredibly bad camerawork, and I feel sometimes it's done on
purpose, like handheld stuff that makes you want to vomit,"
complains Rosenberg. And Blush comments, "Handheld is a big
staple. It's like, 'My film is very cinema verite,' when you know
that the filmmaker couldn't afford a tripod. It's all about motivation.
Is there a reason why this film has lots of shaky cinematography?
If so, great, but if not, you've got to make the time to lock your
shot down. Not everything can be justified as art."
So how do you get good handheld camerawork? According to Nick Gomez,
director of the upcoming illtown as well as Laws of Gravity, the
film that boasts perhaps the best use of handheld camerawork in
recent years (and which may be responsible for the technique's continued
popularity), the key is getting the right cinematographer. Gomez
explains: "I knew that Laws of Gravity would be handheld, so
I put out the word that I needed a good handheld d.p. Jean de Segonzac's
name kept coming up. While he didn't have a lot of dramatic experience
he did have experience in documentary filmmaking."
Gomez notes that there's a common misapprehension regarding the
skills to shoot handheld. "d.p.s are very macho about handheld
cinematography - they all want to put the cameras on their shoulders
and prove that they can do it. But some can't. It takes a special
kind of skill, and either you have that sense of composition and
grace or you don't."
Editing Evils
On a film constrained by budget, fancy camerawork should be of secondary
concern; usually it's difficult enough to provide adequate footage.
The indie director who avoids coverage - multiple camera setups
covering the same action from different positions and with different
kinds of shots - risks cutting off his nose to spite his face. Too
many directors decide to shoot just masters, considering it a stylistic
choice. Dody Dorn, film editor of Kirby Dick's Sick, explains, "With
one of the films I'm now working on, it's all shot in masters -
and sometimes with only a single take - so what can I do? There
are huge story holes I can't fill." With a little bit of coverage,
editors can better performances, fix narrative gaffes, and improve
pacing, yet many first-time filmmakers are unable to anticipate
their editing needs while on the set.
Without adequate coverage, editors are often left with few options;
budget permitting, the editor can hand the director a long list
of insert shots or resort to using stock footage, which won't always
work. Plus, as Dorn cautions, stock footage is very expensive: "If
you're relying heavily on [stock footage], you're already offsetting
any savings of not shooting it in the first place." Dorn recommends
bringing the editor on early to discuss the shot list, especially
if there's a low shooting ratio. There are many issues an editor,
working with the director and d.p., can resolve before the shooting
starts. "Anyone using a master-shot style, with long tracking
shots and what not, is wise to back it up with additional coverage,"
Dorn affirms.
Continuity mistakes are another production problem editors are
commonly called upon to remedy. Kate Williams, who edited Trees
Lounge and The Myth of Fingerprints, laughs, "One of the most
difficult problems to fix is missing the shot that gets the actors
from one end of the room to the other." "[This isn't to
say] continuity mistakes aren't in big budgets too," Dorn adds,
"but without coverage they are really hard to cover up."
One editing trick is cutting from frame during action so the eye
is distracted by movement and won't notice a gaffe.
Stale Sets
A few of the other common low-budget, first-timer gaffes don't require
inborn talent and can thus be more easily remedied. Blush lists
a few: "If you watch carefully, sometimes you'll see the reflection
of the crew in a close-up of a car, or you'll see a lightstand or
a cable trailing off into the void." The reflection of the
camera and crew off of glass can be avoided. "Using polarizing
filters can lessen the reflections," says cinematographer Stephen
Berkman. "Or you can try to black out the camera. It depends
on how much of the window and the reflection you want versus what's
on the other side of the window."
D.P. Patrick Keating notes that shifting the angle of your shot
might also work, as does making sure that the subject being photographed
is brighter than the light around the camera.
Inappropriate set design is another indie staple. "Some cliches
work for characters, but there's often another way to create a character
without sticking to a cliche," explains set decorator Susan
Benjamin, whose credits include The Stand. "For instance, you
can have a nice bohemian pad without jalapeno lights." Capturing
the boho essence is often tricky, yet its importance cannot be underestimated
- a false note can raise eyebrows in a style-conscious indie crowd.
But there can be too much of a good thing. "I think there's
a tendency to make everything look like the East Village in New
York. Everything has to have this avant-garde feel to it,"
says Rosenberg.
White walls are a commonly cited critique of low-budget production
design. "They just look bad," comments production designer
Susan Block (Welcome to the Dollhouse, Goosed). "Darker walls
show off the skin tones of your characters. And it's easier to light
when you don't have to keep the lights away from the walls. When
lights hit the white paint, the wall looks flat," she explains.
Block says that she often will use thin wood covered with wallpaper
as a way to cover walls that can't be painted. "Or I'll put
up foamcore covered with fabric. Then you don't have to spend the
time restoring the wall when you're finished."
Familiar Faces
Indie filmmakers are just as capable as their studio brethren of
casting cliches. "I'm getting a little tired of seeing all
the same familiar old faces in independent films" says Scream
screenwriter Kevin Williamson. "Some actors are just getting
known as independent film actors, and it's just like seeing a big
name actor in the same old role." Comments UCLA screenwriting
instructor Frank Deese, "People go to movies to see stars because
they're getting the same familiar persona from movie to movie, and
that's not what you want in a good independent film."
Narrative Nuisances
While many of these cliches are ones that are only discovered after
the camera is already rolling, there is at least one that can, if
caught in time, be fixed before anyone's on the payroll. Michelle
Satter, director of the Sundance Institute's feature film program,
comments, "Scripts don't necessarily need to be plot-driven,
but they need to be well-structured. Many independent films are
personal or autobiographical, and this leads writers to make assumptions
about their characters. The writer knows him or herself well, but
may not know how to develop that character onscreen. There's a loss
of clarity."
For Satter, however, the chief error she encounters in indie scripts
is a lack of focus. "The writer often hasn't come to terms
with what the story is about, and this contributes to basic structural
problems in storytelling."
Often the scripts aren't gold - and filmmakers look for other hooks
to lure distributors. "There are a lot of art films that feature
nudity that tries to apologize for itself," says Blush. "Usually
it's not necessarily erotic nudity, it's the nudity of somebody
who's being horribly abused or the nudity of someone who is trapped
in a difficult situation." Post-Tarantino excessive violence
has become an indie staple and not always to great effect. "I'm
not against an ear getting lopped off if it's done for a reason,
but there seems to be a need in independent films for some especially
gory, violent thing that pushes it into another realm," says
Blush. Screenwriter Rick Dahl agrees. "You need to find the
thing that's unique in your story," he says. "A lot of
times people end up imitating other films, or they use the same
kinds of references that seem currently hip. Right now it's '70s
pop culture and sudden violence. But you know when people are trying
too hard to be hip or wacky. It doesn't work."
While the studio system may frequently churn out tired material,
it usually conforms to the tried-and-true three-act structure -
a device that more indie filmmakers may want to look into according
to Deese. "Another cliche would be a lack of resolution - abrupt
endings. I tend to jump a little when the credits roll on an independent
movie. It's over already? That was the ending?" says Deese.
"I don't want a message, but the movie needs to be complete
unto itself in some way. Some filmmakers don't think they have to
follow the rules of dramatic structure because artists don't follow
the rules."
Of course, there are films that break every one of these rules
and succeed because of, not in spite of, their disobedience. The
great film auteurs do break the rules, but they break them brilliantly.
"All the hacks break them horribly," says Deese. Fledgling
filmmakers plagued by memories of chili-pepper lights and shopping-cart
dolly shots can comfort themselves by placing themselves in the
former category - and perhaps next time learn from their mistakes.
Top >
|