How little money can you get away with?

I had a film in a short fest recently and my greatest wish was not to have the worst one there. When we got out and had beers, I was talking to a few people who were all talking about the best and the worst.

The best had a ton of money, professional crew etc... but the worst also had a ton of money. The most used comment was 'what a waste of money.' And it truly was a waste as the director had created something we all agreed was just a disaster.

So that got me thinking. If money doesn't buy you a good short, how little can you get away with and still have a quality short which is accepted into festivals? My entire short cost me under £500 including actors, locations, food, transport etc... How low can you go?
 
question doesn't really make sense because it depends on your available resources.

you don't have to spend money on actors if you have a ton of talented actor friends. you don't have to spend money on locations if your family owns 8 businesses…

you don't have to rent equipment if you already own equipment
 
and you don't have to spend money on food if you're happy making your cast and crew starve etc...

The more connections you have that have similar goals to you (or favors owed to you), the less you'll have to spend. It's feasible that you get away with $0 if you manage to convince local people/business to feed you for free too.

Hell, go for sponsorship, you may even get your costs in the negative ;)
 
The best had a ton of money, professional crew etc... but the worst also had a ton of money. The most used comment was 'what a waste of money.' ....
If money doesn't buy you a good short, how little can you get away with and still have a quality short which is accepted into festivals?

IMHO, your question is based on 1, a logical fallacy and 2, a misunderstanding of "festivals":

1. Concluding "money doesn't buy you a good short" is a bit of a logical fallacy. When buying anything, more money will virtually always buy you something better/higher quality, depending of course on how wisely you spend it!

2. "Festivals" is an extremely broad term. There are thousands of film festivals around the world which cater for the whole gamut of filmmaking, from newbie amateurs all the way up to experienced professional/commercial grade filmmakers. And, it's not just the expected range of filmmaking standards which varies from festival to festival but also commonly the type of content. For example, some festivals are limited to specific film genres and even those which aren't, will often have slight prejudices towards/against certain film genres or type/subject of content. In other words, a film/short of higher quality might loose out to a film of lower quality at a particular festival because it's subject matter doesn't fit in as well with the festival's ethos. Not to mention that some (generally lower tier) festivals often favour certain filmmaking elements over others, say cinematography over sound or acting for example.

In other words, as sfoster basically said, your question is far too vague and therefore the correct answer could be anything from about zero to tens of thousands of pounds.

G
 
The best had a ton of money, professional crew etc... but the worst also had a ton of money. The most used comment was 'what a waste of money.' And it truly was a waste as the director had created something we all agreed was just a disaster.
What, in your opinion, made the films a disaster? Clearly not money. So
what was it?

So that got me thinking. If money doesn't buy you a good short, how little can you get away with and still have a quality short which is accepted into festivals? My entire short cost me under £500 including actors, locations, food, transport etc... How low can you go?
Feeding the cast and crew is a courtesy - it doesn't mean the finished
movie will appeal to everyone who sees it. So theoretically a quality short
could be made for no money at all. Well, not really because someone has
to purchase a camera even if it's a cell phone camera. Good lighting can
be done with skill and talent over expensive equipment. Is it the location
that makes a quality short? I did one in a closet. A guy in a closet. Won
many awards and people liked it.

So assuming one has or has access to the equipment (camera, audio,
lighting) one could make a quality short for no money at all. Not spend a
single penny. A little disingenuous because the actors and crew will spend
their own money to feed themselves, but in theory it can happen.

Now...

What is "good"? If it's a horror film and you are filled with dread and
scared is it not a "good" film if the lighting is flat and the audio rough? If
it's a comedy and you laugh out loud is it not "good" if the filmmaker didn't
spend money on equipment? If the sets, costumes and efx in a sci-fi short
are cheesy but the story is interesting and exciting is it not "good"?
 
And then we/you get into a direct vs. indirect vs. value added cost accounting structure.

If you use $5k worth of equipment to record and edit a ten minute video and audio of your girlfriend chasing park pigeons costs directly associated are maybe nothing, $0.

But your equipment and vehicle wear and tear plus mileage all have asset costs associated with them making for your overhead or indirect costs amortized over the life of the products for this project. Maybe $100 for the time you use them, maybe $800 if you had to rent everything.

And then there's the value of your time to plan, record, and edit the park pigeon video and the value of your girlfriend's time and effort just to get camera ready before she arrives. (Girls spend a lot of time to get presentable and often own a lot of "support equipment". They don't just wake up looking gorgeous, you know.) Maybe you didn't pay yourself or your GF, but your time that you or others volunteered toward those any project has a value cost associated with it.



So, how much does it cost to make a no-budget short film using found objects in a public setting with volunteer help?
Depends upon how you want to do your accounting, liberal or conservative.
 
Feeding the cast and crew is a courtesy

We spent three days shooting a short last month and actually charged the cast & crew for food. Okay, it only worked out at 5 euros a head for the whole three days, but it still meant we didn't have to spend our 200 euro budget on food. Everyone was happy to do it because they were all enthusiastic about being involved with the project. On previous shorts, we asked people to bring sandwiches, but that didn't work out so well. This time, we had a volunteer with catering experience who was able to make stews & cakes at low cost. Everyone was very happy.
 
No way you get good crew by not feeding them. That is beyond acceptable. There is huge frustration from up and comers to do stuff for free,but on short narratives which never gonna sell,that's understandable. Not feeding crew is plain insulting.
 
Back
Top