The formula for a successful indie movie

I think all of us are on some level searching or trying to get a handle on what makes a successful movie, and although my first feature is on many levels the very opposite of success (in that in damn near bankrupted me and is still mired in obscurity) I still think this is a discussion worth having. So I thought I'd try to share where my thinking is at and see where the thread leads us.

1) Before the script a concept -
I've had a lot of input from other indie film-makers recently because of a project I'm running over here and the thing that crops up time and time again is that they can't explain to me what their film is about - or when they do try there just isn't a story; just half an hour of rambling about a list of characters that never seem to do anything. More and more I believe that a successful film is going to need to have a story that can be clearly explained in three lines, and that is so straight forward that my Aunt Esme could explain it to me after hearing about it once. As someone who has come from an advertising background this makes perfect sense to me: easy to understand products sell better than complex ones. If you think that DVD hire choices are made on two three factors, Is there anyone on the cover I've heard of? Does the picture and the one sentence on the front cover motivate me enough to pick the case and read the back? and three, Have I heard of this film? Of those three things, the first one means hiring names (so not for me, at the moment), the third one is down to advertising (more on that later) and the last one is only one we have any control over. So we better have a film that can be explained in one visual image, one title and one sentence ... otherwise distributors are going to pass on our film - unless of course your marketing is so good that they can't.

2) Script - Everytime I finish a draft of a script I think that this time I have created perfection - based on this script I should be immediately discovered by Hollywood, given more money than I can imagine and have my perfect screenplay rushed into production immediately. Of course ... three weeks later I look at it and I can see areas where it needs more work. This always, always, always happens. And I'm a writer who works hard at building a plot structure, invests weeks in research and character development and, who has a natural flair for dialogue.

I get sent a fair number of screenplays ... put your website up and mention that you make films and this happens... So far, 99% of what I get sent is not so much bad, as mind numbingly awful. And here is what is wrong .... no plot, all the characters talk and act the same ... there is practically no description of characters or locations ... the dialogue is unreadable (in that it can't be read out loud) ... in most cases I can't get beyond the first three pages without loosing the will to live.(Oh ... by the way the two scripts I've been sent by mates on indietalk were both good ... so no paranoid moments guys ... these are script by people you've never heard of).
For me the writing in indie-films is where they stand or fall and getting a screenplay perfect is a long process, that needs input from people other than the writer. I've been writing professionally for fourteen/fifiteen years now and I still learn something new about this process everyday. And, the one thing I really do understand is that a good screenplay is going to take something like ten drafts to get right - and three of four of those drafts will be where 80% of the script gets binned and rewritten from the ground up.
People these days have attention spans of about three minutes .. if my script can't continue to entrall them every single second for at least ninety minutes their minds will wander and they'll hate me for making them pay good money to be bored. Now I know that my last screenplay isn't at that point yet, because if it was it would have been optioned months back. The fact that it isn't tells me I've come to the market too soon.

3) Acting ... a micro-second of bad acting will destroy a film. An audience will sit though a badly lit, out of focus movie shot on any format you can imagine if the story and the perfomances are good. But you can spend all the money in the world on production values and you'll bomb if the actors don't get the job done. I've written plenty about this before.

4) A unique visual approach to the film. Art direction, lighting, cinematography and post production working to a plan to create a particular visual look to the film.

5) Marketing - More and more I believe that a film needs to have a marketing/advertising plan before it has a script. As indies this is the area that will make sure that when we make a great film someone will want to see it. This for me really ties into point one ... having a film where the concept itself makes the sale ... in some respects a great concept with a good advertising strategy is more important than making a good film. I think the Blair Witch taught me that lesson ... if that film had had to survive on it's script, performances or cinematography it would never have been released.

OK I've ranted enough ... but seriously, let's talk about this. I'm sure that I'm right about this .. If I look at "No Place" I can see where it falls short of the mark ... plot not structured properly (so film doesn't entrall for the full ninety minutes) ... not able to explain the concept of the film simply ... no real genre (drama isn't a real genre anymore) ... went into the film without a marketing/advertising plan ...
However .. I go a lot of writing right .. good characters, good dialogue ... I got the cinematography right .. it looks great .. I got the actors right ...

and the conclusion ...

It's not enough to get part of the formula right: you have to get all of it right.

Now I've finished ranting ... give me a couple of days and I'll explain why I'm ranting like this today ... I promise.
 
I would switch 3 and 4, or at the least make them equals. Think of all the successful indie films with bad acting that had a unique visual style (Primer comes immediately to mind).. But at the same time think of all the excellently acted films with very bad visual style.

Poke
 
I agree .. I see them all as equal .. I just put them in list to organise my thoughts, not to rank them. My fault ... I use lists a lot and tend to think in that way.
 
As usual Clive, your thoughts aloud make me think. I love a man who wears his brain on his sleeve. :) It is great that you allow us to share in your musings. Thanks.
 
Pretty interesting post there.

I recall someone saying the secret to a good indie film is taking 12 people to a house and chopping them up. Shame its not that simple or we'd all be doing it :D

Whenever I am writing, aside from me not having a natural ear for dialogue(to the extent I'd probably write something to give a feel for the scene and then ask actors to improvise to make it sound natural), I find my biggest problem is that my ideas aren't as well versed out as I think they are when I think of the idea.

With this problem comes a whole host of other problems, mainly that I change my mind and dismiss ideas too quickly(mainly for budgetary reasons) and lose track of where I am going.

This is all despite having read a lot of the scriptwriting books. So as you can imagine my mind isn't as clear as I would like it to be so that the story can naturally flow. I tend to find the problem with screenplays I read are exactly the same as mine, not developed enough, rushed, shite dialogue where everyone speaks the same and it sounds more like an episode of Sunset Beach than a film! and its probably more widespread than I'd have thought. This is itself makes it even more apparent just how difficult it is to be a brilliant scriptwriter and the sort of struggles you face at the very first stage of making the film.

In regards to acting, I totally agree. 98% of indie films have appalling acting and the problems are so apparent you wonder why on earth the director didn't deal with it. I don't really believe anyone should ever "just settle" for an actor. In auditions you should be seeing something special there especially for the main parts. I think the main problem is directors just settle for anyone who was gracious enough to come and audition for their little old film. As you said, I'd glady forgive a shaky handheld camera which gives me motion sickness to see a good story that is well acted.

Marketing does appear to be a very powerful film, and I think that for the vast majority of indies, its something that is taken out of your hands. Something like Blair Witch is a one off but it was the greatest marketing campaign I've ever seen in my life. The rest of us have to rely on high profile festivals accepting the films and getting a good response there.

Its often easy to see faults in other films but its harder to see them in your own. I noticed glaring flaws in from Dusk Till Dawn as I watched in TV the other week and I was suprised that they were let go(If I saw a vampire you can be damn sure I wouldn't be acting calm. I'd be running around like a big girl :D). And its rather difficult to get constructive criticism from those who know you well, as they tend to be a bit too supportive.

It would be fantastic to have someone point out the problems with your film without fear of hurting your feelings.

@ Poke: Bad visual style can be destructive, but I'd probably say bad acting would make me turn it off sooner than bad camera usage. Then again, if someone started zooming in and panning and tilting like a madman I'd probably be sick before I even get the chance to turn it off. Damn motion sickness, I even struggle to play Call of Duty on the XBox360 for too long :D
 
Back
Top