Is it me or do a lot of indie films in festivals feel kind of empty?

H

harmonica44

I went to my first festival, since I wasn't living near any before, and just wasn't familiar with the indie scene as much before. A lot of the indie movies were good, to not bad, but a lot of them felt like there just really could have been more. More characters, more plot twists, more surprises. Some of them seem a little more routine, but have the potential to ramify. Some of them feel like even though the movies were 90 or more minutes, they really only had a plot that should fill about 45 ideally.

I'm guessing maybe this is because of low budget, maybe they didn't finish and had to go with back climaxes and maybe make them fit. Is this often true, do you think?
 
I don't think so, I think some indie films however (and it depends on what you're classifying as indie) tend to feel somewhat slow compared to say a Hollywood blockbuster becasue they are slower. Hollywood films are conditioned to be at a certain pace, and indie films tend to hold shots longer and really spend time developing the characters and the story and often the climax or point of the story is not obvious at all. If you're used to watching Hollywood films, this may be weird and jarring and I have a couple of different opinions about it..
I personally think that indie films tend to allow more opportunity to make films that wouldn't necessarily otherwise get made. Films that explore major subtext, that general audiences wouldn't necessarily get but are profound nonetheless. An indie film (and again, it depends on your classification of indie) can be a chance to tell a story and find an audience for that story that wouldn't necessarily have made it to Hollywood in the first place. I used to have the opinion that indie films shouldn't get so caught up in trying to prove their cinematic ability both in the technical achievements and in the major subtext within the stories, but now I see them as an outlet for telling that much more complex and subtextual story that a studio would likely not approve because it won't sell as good as the latest Jason Segel romcom.
 
The reason because some indies are boring is not because they are filmed differently. They ARE boring, plain simple.
 
You might not like indie films.

Personally, I'm into character. I like films that really delve into and explore characters. A plot should serve that. What you are describing (way too many plot twists, more characters than you can shake a stick at) are films I personally don't like. I feel that the moment the film starts caring more about what is going on, rather than who it's happening to, it's lost me. A really great film achieves a balance.

There is of course, no "correct" or "better" style; they're just two different ones. What you are essentially asking is "why isn't anyone making the film I want to see?" Which is a good reason to make your own.
 
It's simple Big Budget Hollywood films fill the empty parts of a film with…
1. Music Video montage
2. Car chases
3. Action scene
4. Glorious Special Effects

Indie films don't have the budget for this, so they have "empty"
If a 90 minute film has 45 minutes of plot, it needed to be re-written before filming.
I don'r think it's you Harmonica. The films ARE BORING because they were poorly written.
 
I am a lot more use to Hollywood movies and a lot of foreign films and just getting into the more indie scene now. I like some of them for sure, but slow pacing does not necessarily develop the characters more. I mean most people seem to like The Dark Knight cause the characters were very well developed, and it's really fast paced. 24 is fast paced and does at least just as good as a job of developing characters as well. None of the slow paced thrillers I saw did a better job by any means, so I don't think the slow pacing helped. I love some slow paced character developed movies, like Unbreakable (2001), or The Shawshank Redemption, but those ones I thought the development was done better.
 
There's various degrees of independent film making today. You didn't have this 10 years ago. Digital has changed the game. Anyone can make a movie. And anyone does. That's where the problem comes in.

The major festivals will be 90% known entities. Lo-Budget movies with names attached. So, their films have a built in audience. Other festivals choose movies that have something that will attract asses in the seats. One way is to take films from locals, good or bad. They will at least bring the cast and relatives. That's a few seats sold.

That's just the problem with festivals.

The two main problems with lo/no budget film making script and acting.

Acting: If a director leaves the acting to the actors it's gonna suck. I've been around actors since 1985 and maybe 5 (if even) are so good that don't need notes, and massive amounts of notes. The two movies I've worked on, I always ask the actors about previous experiences, and inevitably they all say the same thing, hours to set up a shot and then one or two takes, with the absolute minimum amount of notes. That's built in failure. No matter how good your film looks, bad acting will make a viewer hit the FF or Off button. The DP I've been working with told me a great story where the Director was so involved with getting the camera movement just right, that he asked the DP to watch the actors.

Script: I've read hundreds of scripts (or at least the beginnings) and 99.99% all have the same problem, talk instead of action, and long monotonous monologues of exposition instead of anything remotely truthful. It's not even that the stories are bad (ANY story can work), they're just told WRONG. There is a definite right and wrong when it comes to screenwriting. Because it's so easy to make a movie, these awful, unprofessional, poorly written pieces of crap are getting made.

It's almost impossible now to find the golden gems lost amid the massive amount of crap that's being released. That's why I find myself watching TCM more and more. They don't show anything bad.
 
I think the problem with the ones I saw is that the plots just don't simply have enough turns. There should be a turn for at least half the scenes maybe, where as there is just a lot of slow drawn out eposition instead, and I have scene more character development in even faster paced movies but with even more plot that they somehow have time for. They just need more plot, but at the same time, still have just as much character development to satisfy as well. Some say the less plot, the more character development you have time for, but these movies aren't even showing that they can do that, compared to fast paced movies which the characters have just as much development.
 
Last edited:
As noted a lot of them ARE bad.

Some of this is likely also taste. You talk about plot turns, which is something you like and it is important. However, for example, I thought Inception was one of the worst films I have ever seen. It's about as close as I have ever come to literally getting up in the theater and walking out on a film.

The biggest issue with MOST films, not just indie, is the dragging second act.
 
This is kind of a sore subject for me, harmonica44, and I suspect for a few other filmmakers on this board. I've been making it a point to see a lot of indie movies over the past few years, and you are right, for the most part. Many of them either have a second act that is almost entirely devoid of forward momentum, or they tend to completely fall apart in the third act. Nevertheless, they are being accepted into festivals, left and right.

I'm very much into plot and story progression, so all of my own films make that a priority. My latest feature has been almost universally well-received by audiences (see Scoopicman's review here: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=34670 -- and I did NOT pay him to write that :) ), yet it was rejected from all but one of the festivals into which it's been entered.

The producer's rep handling the movie said that he was not surprised at the lack festival interest because, in his words, the movie is too "mainstream" for festival programmers. That was an eye-opening comment, though it didn't exactly make me feel better about blowing a grand on submission fees.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
However, for example, I thought Inception was one of the worst films I have ever seen. It's about as close as I have ever come to literally getting up in the theater and walking out on a film.
Click to expand...

So glad someone else feels this way!!!

I think a lot of indie films out there suffer from poor editing and struggling to fill what they think the appropriate time for a feature should be. A lot of the pacing issues in most of the slow/boring indie films I've seen could be fixed by just tightening up the editing and shaving 15-20 minutes off the overall length.
 
"Slow" is NOT "boring"!

Look at some tv shows (f.e. Mad Men or Boardwalk Empire). They develop their plots VERY slow, but they are interesting and really not boring. Believable characters, plots that matter and the overall theme is much more important.

Also, special effects as fillers are the worst you can do to your movie and your audience. Every plot element has to be there for a reason. Watch "The Sunset Limited". Two guys in a room. No special effects. Just talking. And it will keep you interested for the whole movie... well, if you're not a "Transformers" fan :lol:

If your story is just able to fill 60 minutes, don't try to squeeze in brainless crap. A story that only needs 60 minutes to be told is NOT too short.

Maybe that's the problem with the indies... most of them make 20+ short films and excel at that, but when they want to make their first full length, they are not used to the amount of story needed. Some full length indies feel like an overblown short film. That's why.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
However, for example, I thought Inception was one of the worst films I have ever seen. It's about as close as I have ever come to literally getting up in the theater and walking out on a film.
Click to expand...

Yeah, finally a person that feels the same like me! I haven't seen it in the theater and instead watched it on DVD. Take away the beautiful visuals and special effects and you have a meaningless pile of pretentious crap lying before you. The plot with his wife gives nothing to the story and I NEVER understood why they had to smash through a bridge railing and hit the water for the kick, while right at the beginning their car rolled over about 7 times and they were still dreaming.

I nearly lost faith in Nolan after this trash.
 
2001 Productions said:
This is kind of a sore subject for me, harmonica44, and I suspect for a few other filmmakers on this board. I've been making it a point to see a lot of indie movies over the past few years, and you are right, for the most part. Many of them either have a second act that is almost entirely devoid of forward momentum, or they tend to completely fall apart in the third act. Nevertheless, they are being accepted into festivals, left and right.

I'm very much into plot and story progression, so all of my own films make that a priority. My latest feature has been almost universally well-received by audiences (see Scoopicman's review here: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=34670 -- and I did NOT pay him to write that :) ), yet it was rejected from all but one of the festivals into which it's been entered.

The producer's rep handling the movie said that he was not surprised at the lack festival interest because, in his words, the movie is too "mainstream" for festival programmers. That was an eye-opening comment, though it didn't exactly make me feel better about blowing a grand on submission fees.
Click to expand...


"Festival" films are at least as formulaic as "Hollywood" films, maybe even more so. It's a different formula, but if you don't fit in the very narrow confines of what they want you can forget about it.

I frequently "joke" that if I made that film about the lesbian Iraq war vet getting married to her third world immigrant partner who suffers from AIDS I'd get in 300 festivals. Except[t I'm not really joking.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
if I made that film about the lesbian Iraq war vet getting married to her third world immigrant partner who suffers from AIDS I'd get in 300 festivals.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it. :yes:

First Act: The Wedding.

Second Act: An hour of the two of them wandering through various landscapes, peering soulfully into each others' eyes, drinking coffee, and being misunderstood by their respective parents. Oh, and driving. Lots and lots of driving scenes down tree-lined roads with dappled sunlight.

Third Act: One dies.

I think you've got the recipe, Gonzo! :lol:
 
Last edited:
2001 Productions said:
This is kind of a sore subject for me, harmonica44, and I suspect for a few other filmmakers on this board. I've been making it a point to see a lot of indie movies over the past few years, and you are right, for the most part. Many of them either have a second act that is almost entirely devoid of forward momentum, or they tend to completely fall apart in the third act. Nevertheless, they are being accepted into festivals, left and right.

I'm very much into plot and story progression, so all of my own films make that a priority. My latest feature has been almost universally well-received by audiences (see Scoopicman's review here: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=34670 -- and I did NOT pay him to write that :) ), yet it was rejected from all but one of the festivals into which it's been entered.

The producer's rep handling the movie said that he was not surprised at the lack festival interest because, in his words, the movie is too "mainstream" for festival programmers. That was an eye-opening comment, though it didn't exactly make me feel better about blowing a grand on submission fees.
Click to expand...

I was told before by others on here to make my first feature, mainstream though. Now festivals say that that's not what they are looking for?
 
harmonica44 said:
Now festivals say that that's not what they are looking for?
Click to expand...

Festivals don't say anything about their criteria - other than general categories like narrative, documentary, experimental, etc. - or some specify genres. They want your entry fee.

I was just outlining my own experience. Your mileage may vary.
 
@Jax-Rox
Dude, you hit it right on the head with your comment: "..... I think some indie films however (and it depends on what you're classifying as indie) tend to feel somewhat slow compared to say a Hollywood blockbuster becasue they are slower."

I always found 'indie' films really, really slow because how it was shot. In fact you can tell a film when it was done by a 'non-pro' person. Then, GUERILLA ANGEL mentioned it can be made shorter and I agree. However, if they still cut it in that pace, it's still a slow moving film.

The solution is to re-cut and give it a better pace.
I know an editor who can take a real bad film and re-cut it into a decent film. The story and how it's told may change, but it's for the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top