An indie movie-making poll (kinda)

[ussinners]

When you're watching a true indie picture (limited time, no budget): Would rather watch a movie that might not look the greatest, but have very good acting, or a movie that looks great, but the acting is not just lacking but pretty bad?

I've noticed with a lot of the micro-budget and lo-lo-lo budget movies I see, the ones that look great have terrible acting. I understand that to properly set up a shot you need time. Even if you do 5 takes of a shot that most of the time is spent setting everything up. But if movie-makers take so much time to get things set-up why don't they take the same amount of time to be sure their actors are doing a great job?

I've seen many MiniDv movies, that are fortunate enough to look close to film. Then the actors open their mouths and I think "why did they even bother?"

Then on the other hand I recently saw "Sleeping Dogs Lie". This was shot on film, and I was so impressed that Bobcat Goldwaithe wrote and directed it, I had to listen to the commentary. He said that he had a choice "Shoot quickly and get the best shots possible or take time and go for a more artsy feel". He chose to do the best he could in a short amount of time. He knew that everyone was working basically for free, so he chose to do the best he could. Which more then makes sense to me. There were some reviewers who commented that his film looked like video. But, I was intrigued by the story and fine acting, that it didn't influence my viewing pleasure.

Maybe it's just me, but good believable acting takes far more precedent over a poorly acted movie any day.

What's your opinion?

 

[ricklwinters]

After my first feature film THE EVADING I realized that both the acting and the look and feel of the film were equally important for the success of a film. I spent more time setting up shots and less time working with the actors and it shows. The acting not that bad, but throw in the fact that 25% of the film was shot with the actors moving in reverse and then reversed later to make the actors move forward more time was needed for the shots and that was my main focus.

Now for my second feature BLANK that all changed. I learned from my mistakes on my first film and put more focus on balancing the shots with working with the actors and the end result is outstanding. Of course while a budget makes all the difference in shooting a movie you can still spend more time in pre production and work with the actors developing their characters so you can focus on the shot during production. SO my advice is spend more time in pre production.

 

[M1chae1]

I think you should have both good acting, and a good film. That's what separates the bad films from the truly good films. When all elements come together, the whole becomes a true work of art.

Yes, you can have films that are good with bad acting...but those films won't be great. And you can have films that look bad with great acting and the film will be good...but again, it will never be a great film.

I'm mainly an actor, but I also spend a lot of time crewing as well...so I'm picky about both aspects. I don't understand how productions can put so much time into making a film, and then hire bad actors...bad acting will spoil a perfectly good execution any day. And good acting won't save a shitty looking film. Again, you need all elements to be of quality.

If I had to choose? I'd rather see a less than professional film, with great acting.

I know the constraints of finding talented actors for some production teams can be difficult--depending on where you live, and how active your community is. If you have trouble finding talented actors, try your nearest theaters. Your much more likely to get a good performance from a stage actor, then you are from your neighbor or friend.

And although favor casting happens all the time, just be sure to give them small parts. Casting your friend in the lead may be nice and all, but your movie will suffer, I promise.

 

[EvsFX08]

I'm not a bonafide film maker yet, but if I were to actully produce something, I would rather have good acting over good looking film. My theory is that good actors will be able to portray my vision better and tell the story in my words, the way I want it portrayed; and also allow me to display my directing abilities. I would think that if having to choose between the two, like Goldwaith had to, I would pick the acting and story line because that's what is going to attract investors and distributors, someone can say, ok, he didn't have the budget for a RED camera, but he's Indie, what do you expect? But his directing and story telling was great, so let's finance his next film and give him the tools he needs to make a great story AND film. Of course, this is in my perfect, motionless, frictionless world where everything makes sense and falls into place. Perhaps if I were in the position of producing a film, my mind would change, but this is my initial thoughts I'd rather have good acting over good film.

 

[M1chae1]

... I would pick the acting and story line because that's what is going to attract investors and distributors...

Actually, sometimes it's the production value that will attract investors and distrubutors. That is why people try to put together whippin' looking pilots for potential investors. And sadly, us actors have to be aware that if and when a film we worked on gets investment, this MAY mean that the investors will want a name actor be put in the movie...and sometimes this name actor may take our place.

Hopefully, if you are working with a cool team, the director or whomever will not allow their lead actors be replaced. Each team is different...and we have to understand that's just the way of the game.

Of course all that aside...I still think it's important to have all aspects of the film tight--acting and production value.

 

[EvsFX08]

Actually, sometimes it's the production value that will attract investors and distrubutors. That is why people try to put together whippin' looking pilots for potential investors.


Of course all that aside...I still think it's important to have all aspects of the film tight--acting and production value.

Well, yeah, I guess I can see your point. This boils back to another Thread I saw about high end special effects and graphics versus good acting/storyline. There seems to be more emphasis on computer generated effects than actual good storylines, but then again, I'm a post production guy, so I'm not complaining about that.

I agree completely that if possible, one should strive to have both acting AND production value. But, I guess that's not always possible. I don't know, I've only produced a music video, and that wasn't acting, just an artist singing his lyrics. It was up to me to put together the best shots, so quality was more of an emphasis. I'd love to work on an actual Indie film, just haven't found anyone to work with yet.

 

[spinner]

Not too many people have said much about story here. It won't matter the level of actor or the look of your film without a good story. I agree with Evs basically. But you have to have a story that people will hang around for.

The Blair Witch had a look that made alot of people seasick, but they hung around til the end because of the story. Basically a film can look great and have good actors but if the script sucks you end up with Aeon Flux, which by the way had an interesting story that the filmmakers ignored when creating the film.

I would pick the acting and story line because that's what is going to attract investors and distributors, someone can say, ok, he didn't have the budget for a RED camera, but he's Indie, what do you expect?

I agree with this, besides if you have a look that is not so great or "strange", you can sometimes play that off as "experimental" or "stylized". But only sometimes. Oh well, fake it 'til you make it

...But his directing and story telling was great, so let's finance his next film and give him the tools he needs to make a great story AND film. Of course, this is in my perfect, motionless, frictionless world where everything makes sense and falls into place.

...well, it worked for the guys who made "SAW". I thank Will Vincent for sending this my way and I now give it to you. This is the FIRST SAW FILM. It's 9:26 long. Its great because it shows you where this film started. Enjoy! I know I did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olj57iN3pm8

-- spinner

 

[ussinners]

You should always strive for your best in all facets of the process. Sometimes it's impossible, and sometimes it just doesn't work out.

As for attracting investors: I would rather see a finely acted movie, then a great looking one with awful acting. If the movie maker is honest and intelligent, they can explain the short comings in the process. But, if a movie looks great and it's shot in or around any major city, it's hard to explain away poor acting.

As for distributors, that's true. A better looking movie with poor acting will probably secure distribution easier.

Story of course is extremely important. But in the long run doesn't matter, as long as it's coherent. Because that's a preference. One person can love a story and another hate it. Where as most people can agree on poor acting and a low quality movie.

There aren't many posts in this subject, but the ones that are here seem to agree that acting is more important then how the shot looks (though in a perfect world they'd both be excellent). So, I don't understand why the majority of movie-makers do the exact opposite.

 

[EvsFX08]

So, I don't understand why the majority of movie-makers do the exact opposite.

Maybe because they can. Major studios can afford to have a "bad" movie knowing they have 3 other good ones lined up for summer hits. Boobs, beer, ass-kicking and Explosions trump good acting, I'd like to bring up Steven Segal movies again as an example. Sadly, Indie films can't get away with that.

 

[ussinners]

Maybe because they can. Major studios can afford to have a "bad" movie knowing they have 3 other good ones lined up for summer hits. Boobs, beer, ass-kicking and Explosions trump good acting, I'd like to bring up Steven Segal movies again as an example. Sadly, Indie films can't get away with that.

I'm not sure what you mean. This topic is about micro budget movies that look great, but the acting is horrible vrs micro budget movies that might not look great, but have very good acting.

Major studios can churn out anything they want. They have the resources to cram garbage down the public's throat.

 

[EvsFX08]

Oh I thought by the statement "So, I don't understand why the majority of movie-makers do the exact opposite." you were referring to the mainstream film makers- meaning the major studios. But, yes, that was my point, they can cram whatever they want down the public's throats. If you're referring to the majority of INDIE film makers doing the exact opposite, well, I don't know. Maybe they are just thankful to work with what their given, Indie films can't usually afford to pick and choose their actors like the big dogs can, can they? I don't know, like I said, I haven't produced anything yet, so I really can't answer that.

 

[M1chae1]

Oh I thought by the statement "So, I don't understand why the majority of movie-makers do the exact opposite." you were referring to the mainstream film makers- meaning the major studios. But, yes, that was my point, they can cram whatever they want down the public's throats. If you're referring to the majority of INDIE film makers doing the exact opposite, well, I don't know. Maybe they are just thankful to work with what their given, Indie films can't usually afford to pick and choose their actors like the big dogs can, can they? I don't know, like I said, I haven't produced anything yet, so I really can't answer that.

Holding auditions as a non-paying, non-union film can be a disaster. The range of talent you get is all over the boards...and you're lucky if the good ones match a character at all. I'm talking micro-budget here, but you either have it two ways: 1) you have a staple of friends you go to for casting. For the most part these friend cast films aren't too great. The acting leaves much to be desired. 2) You are an established indie production company in the area, and a lot of the quality actors know about you...so they are hip to your next auditions. This usually leads to a pretty tight cast. The team I work with the most is extremely lucky to have a staple of 7 or 8 very solid non-union actors that we use all the time--actors anyone would be proud to have. And of course we have the occasional favor casting we give to friends for bit parts...and these parts are usually the weakest (almost cringe worthy sometimes).

My point being...finding quality actors on a micro-budget is a difficult process. That's why it's best to keep the good ones coming back, until you have a pool of talent to draw from at will. Keep em happy.

Because let's face it...the level of indie acting is entirely different than Hollywood. We let SO much more slide by in indie films. It's almost like it's on a different sliding scale. Personally, I won't abide by that. I don't think indie films should settle for sub-par acting. Unless you live out in Po-Dunk Alabama with a town population of 50...don't settle for shitty actors--at least not for your leads.

As far as production value...well...I've said enough already...I'll hold off on that end. Whew!

 

[EvsFX08]

Hey, what's wrong with Po-Dunk, Alabama? That's right down the road from me. I'm in Bumfuk, Alabama.

 

[amtriska]

I started an annual short-film festival a few years ago, and I've often noticed this correlation - great look/sound but bad acting, or crappy look/sound but good acting. I've received films shot by teenagers on great uncle Lloyd's late-eighties-model camcorder and been impressed by the professionality of the acting and amazing, funny scripts - I'm thinking, "Imagine what they could do with some decent equipment!" On the other hand, I've been sent plenty of films with great sound and picture quality shot with boatloads of expensive equipment and wanted to claw my eyes out. One in particular even showed parts of "the making of" in the credits - shots of the crew etc. - reavealing that they had half a dozen crew members and a bunch of professional equipment. But the script sounded like it was written by a ten-year-old and the acting sucked.

So, yeah, I'd take a low-budget but well-directed film any day. Limitations make you creative, budget or otherwise. Have you guys seen "The Five Obstructions"? Out of all those artificially created obstructions came five great short films. That's the sort of thing that happens when you hit walls - you work around it and come up with something better.

ok, he didn't have the budget for a RED camera

Argh! Don't mention the RED! You're ruining my keyboard with my drooling. Sigh. I need to win the lottery.

 

[Alcove Audio]

What I want out of a film:

Great story/characters

Great acting

Great sound

The three are intertwined. Solid acting draws me in, the characters and story hold me. The sound had better be good; if I can't understand what the characters are saying I can't follow the story, so why bother.

 

[M1chae1]

Hey, what's wrong with Po-Dunk, Alabama? That's right down the road from me. I'm in Bumfuk, Alabama.

LOL. So you know what I mean?

 

[EvsFX08]

Absolutely. I relocated down here from Kansas City. It's quite different here. It's in the bible belt which means they don't have a State lottery, but ironically, they have no issues with playing Bingo in churces and having actual casinos set up around the state.....but, no lottery? Welcome to the Hypocracy Belt. Overall I like it here, it's quite and cheap, and nobody cares what or where I film. Film permits? Never heard of them, the county register didn't even know why I would have asked about one, "You want to film around HERE? Why?" As a film maker, it's great, they actually offer tax incentives for major film makers to produce in this state. So, it's an odd State, but friendly and pretty good overall and the BBQ restaurants are the best, but I'll be the first to make fun of Alabama. I can, I've got the T-shirt, hanging on my banjo.

 

[M1chae1]

That's awesome. You've got free reign...which is priceless. Plus you don't have HBO's Brotherhood filming in your area, giving local businesses 5K a day to shoot. Then when you come along and want to use the location, they want to charge YOU 5k a day. It's silly.

Plus, we have to worry about permits bigtime. In fact, just recently, now we have to contact two separate committees, and get two separate pieces of paper. And these people don't like to get back with you right away either...which can put a damper on your shoot.

Anyway. It's nice you have a relaxed atmosphere. That's a pro. But your cons can be multiple also...try finding a handful of good actors or knowledgeable crew...it's nice not to have to teach your lighting designer about key and rim lighting concepts.

 

[EvsFX08]

Well, i'm more of a post production guy, visual effects and all, but I dabble in music video production. I like having controlled environments for lighting and all as I'm not an expert on lighting yet. Eventually I do want to make a movie, but for now, the steady money for me is in editing and special effects. By the way, need a VFX guy for your films? I have no issues with deferrements since you already have a history of distributed films. PM me if interested so I don't hijack this Thread from the original subject. I figure you already have a VFX guy, but doesn't hurt to ask. My profile has more info as well.