Thanks for bringing that up because that was the other side to my question. With what kind of indie film would you need 9 crew members ? Unless its just friends (which seem to be the case) all just wanting to be together half heartedly in eachothers projects but not needed
why do small indie films need AD's and such
- Thread starter davidevans10
- Start date
Thanks for bringing that up because that was the other side to my question. With what kind of indie film would you need 9 crew members ? Unless its just friends (which seem to be the case) all just wanting to be together half heartedly in eachothers projects but not needed
Yes. I used helpers. Some became quite skilled at the end of the 3+ year shoot that they could put their new skills to work elsewhere.
Good luck.
So i'm not crazy. I'm not the only person to have something a little more elaborate than a 18 day straight shoot
Let's see...
1st AD
Script Supervisor
Grip x 2
PA x 2
Hair/Makeup combined
Audio/Boom
DP or at least operator, if Director operates, maybe just an assistant
That's what I would consider a bare bones crew for narrative fiction. Could you cut that, sure, but, any time I'm filling the role of any of those jobs I'm not thinking about directing. I'd rather add than take away, another AD, maybe a line producer, a gaffer, a camera assistant, etc...
"Indie" is a very broad term. It can mean everything from a zero budget film made by 3 people to films approaching 3 or 4 million dollars (or more) with A- grade actors burnishing their indie street cred. It can also be everything in between.
Yes if we are talking about pulp fiction indie. But most people on here dont know simple low budget questions so i dont think so. what you are describing is bigger because the films made by guys on here dont need all that
I'm making a bigger film than the average film and i dont need close to that. I'm looking for realistic answers
Well what are you making? What are your resources? What's your experience level? etc
Again, as you've been told countless times now, you don't have to have any of these people - but they do jobs that let you focus on simply directing. And oftentimes they're better at it because they're devoted to in.
Typically I've done the do-everything-yourself type approach. But my latest shoot (the community project we're doing on IndieTalk) I had 1 actress, a lighting grip, a DoP, an AD/script supervisor, a boom op, a psm, a set designer and a production assistant (who doubled as our caterer). The only person not doing something regularly was the production assistant. I knew I didn't really need her from the start, she was just there because it was her house, she's a friend, and she wanted to help out - though it was useful having someone making coffees when we were running behind schedule and going through the planned dinner break.
In the past I haven't needed all those people (and that's still a fairly minimal crew) - but my god, it helped so much. We would have never gotten through the shoot in the time we did with just me and one or two others. It was so so nice to be able to focus on just directing, rather than running camera, and trying to monitor sound at the same time as I'm using a friend for a boom op. My AD filled out continuity sheets for the editor in a way I wouldn't have been able to while focusing on directing. Something would've suffered.
As Directorik suggested - if you don't know why you don't need something, then you probably don't need it.
Again, as you've been told countless times now, you don't have to have any of these people - but they do jobs that let you focus on simply directing. And oftentimes they're better at it because they're devoted to in.
Typically I've done the do-everything-yourself type approach. But my latest shoot (the community project we're doing on IndieTalk) I had 1 actress, a lighting grip, a DoP, an AD/script supervisor, a boom op, a psm, a set designer and a production assistant (who doubled as our caterer). The only person not doing something regularly was the production assistant. I knew I didn't really need her from the start, she was just there because it was her house, she's a friend, and she wanted to help out - though it was useful having someone making coffees when we were running behind schedule and going through the planned dinner break.
In the past I haven't needed all those people (and that's still a fairly minimal crew) - but my god, it helped so much. We would have never gotten through the shoot in the time we did with just me and one or two others. It was so so nice to be able to focus on just directing, rather than running camera, and trying to monitor sound at the same time as I'm using a friend for a boom op. My AD filled out continuity sheets for the editor in a way I wouldn't have been able to while focusing on directing. Something would've suffered.
As Directorik suggested - if you don't know why you don't need something, then you probably don't need it.
no this has been helpful thanks.
Other than 48 hour films (which I despise and will never do again), I've never done anything with less than a $3000 or $4000 dollar budget (80% of which went to pay and feed crew), which in the film world is "no budget". In the film world $30,000 or $40,000 can be "no budget" (for a feature). I've been to film festivals where there were 12 minutes shorts with $75,000 budgets.
Again, "Indie" is a VERY broad term. It's the guy with 2 friends and a 7D, it's also the gal spending $150,000 on a "no budget" feature.
Not saying the way I want to work is the "right" way, it's just the way I have to make the movies I want to make. You can absolutely make a brilliant movie with no money and virtually no crew. I personally just have no interest in that at this stage. If you do, more power to you and good luck. It's certainly been done successfully before. However, in my experience, the best "no budget" films usually come out of film schools. It's the one place you have free access to high end equipment and a large crew of at least semi-trained and dedicated people you don't have to pay. It's one of the things that drove me out of doing festivals. I had to compete with films students made for $300 that would cost me $30,000 to make.
Again, "Indie" is a VERY broad term. It's the guy with 2 friends and a 7D, it's also the gal spending $150,000 on a "no budget" feature.
Not saying the way I want to work is the "right" way, it's just the way I have to make the movies I want to make. You can absolutely make a brilliant movie with no money and virtually no crew. I personally just have no interest in that at this stage. If you do, more power to you and good luck. It's certainly been done successfully before. However, in my experience, the best "no budget" films usually come out of film schools. It's the one place you have free access to high end equipment and a large crew of at least semi-trained and dedicated people you don't have to pay. It's one of the things that drove me out of doing festivals. I had to compete with films students made for $300 that would cost me $30,000 to make.
+1
For the community project I shot outsight in daylight.
My crew:
director (me), DOP, boom/sound, AD (+ making food), mua/hair.
5 people.
Plus BTS filmer/photographer. His role isn't vital for production, but for marketing it is.
2 Weeks ago I've been shooting all weekend all across the country.
Our team:
1 director/producer/driver, 2 camera operators/DOP (sometimes doubling as camera assistent/grip when shooting 1 camera), boom op/driver/traffic controller, AD/catering/traffic controller/MUA, driver/traffic controller, driver/production assistent, MUA. 4 cars (2 normal cars, a truck and a 'loader' with an old 2CV that's used as a car in the scenes).
We needed them all. (I was DOP on this project.)
Sometimes you just need someone to really help the director with stuff like notes, preparing people, overview of the schedule, etc.
Truth is: I'm often working very skeletoncrew on corporte stuff: me (directing/camera) + sound/light.
A lot of clients don't like to pay for more crew... :/
This all comes down to perspective. You're looking for realistic answers, and it sounds like this is rather subjective to you.
The more experienced and skilled your crew is, the less you'll need. On the other hand, the more experienced and skilled your crew are, the more they'll expect the standard infrastructure to exist that will allow them to do their job to the best of their ability.
There are lots of duties on a film set. Depending on how complex each scene (or combination of scenes) depends on the necessity of each role. The more complex, the more crew you need. The more crew you need, the more management and infrastructure you need to keep them efficient.
It comes down to some factors: Ability, resources (time and money), production value and respect.
I'm going to assume you're paying people and you want to limit what you pay each person. Lets take this simple. You hire a MUA/DOP/Gaffer/Grip/Soundie each at $20/hr, costing you $100/hr. You're running on your own schedule without an AD. You get everyone at 6am and wrap at 8pm (14 hours) costing you $1400 total (you're a cheap ass and you're not paying overtime). You cheaped out and didn't hire a caterer so you had everyone waiting for an hour on set while you go and source food, shots weren't set up in advance since you were focusing on getting the shot right etc. The AD is the person who runs the set efficiently so you're in and out in 10 hours, costing you 6 people ($120/hr) and getting out in 10 hours for a total of $1200 while supporting you to get a higher production value.
While it doesn't always work out like this. As a director, you need to know what an AD does, pick the right one for you and let them do their job. I've seen multiple directors neuter a First AD through their own incompetence and ignorance. There was a two day shoot where the director refused to answer virtually all the AD's questions and refuse to share the shot list due to his own ignorance. The shoot went as a snails pace. We ended up needing to go into over time on the first day as he would have lost his entire crew and all but one of the cast on the second day.
While I can appreciate that you feel you can run without an AD, it's a sure fire way to ensure cast and crew lose faith in your ability to complete your project on time without unnecessarily wasting their time.
I dont have a tight schedule though and i know what i want. I would be inclined to cheap out but i'm making the only worthwhile film in my small city and i have the studio and the story. I want to capture some audio? some volunteer will capture it.
Any real artist isnt going to spend extra money because any real artist can make it happen and does this for a living hence the lack of extra funds
Well that's good. But what about the other people involved in your project? They're not going to want to spend unnecessary time on your project (even if they love it, they're not going to want it to drag on). Don't waste peoples time if you can help it - even if you personally have a lot of time.
But it seems you've made up your mind, and only you can know if you do really need an AD. Maybe you don't.
Awesome! Out of curiosity, what's your film about, if you can say? Is it a short? A feature? What are your resources and experience level.
So you're willing to have a "volunteer" on audio..? I take it this means someone who isn't experienced in production sound? You may want to look into the extremely complex world of production sound. But if you're willing to have a volunteer, why not also have someone "volunteer" as an AD? You talk about them being a waste of money, but it doesn't seem you're paying people, so you can afford an AD! You don't have to sacrifice creative control - they can just free you up to be more creative, while they manage the boring logistical stuff!
So you're doing this for a living? It doesn't sound like you have a heap of experience (correct me if I'm wrong).
The "making it happen" stuff is a fair bit of what the AD does - they keep the project on track, manage a lot of logistical stuff, while the director focuses on being an "artist."
Also, is someone not an artist if it's not their livelihood? I'd argue a lot of people (not all) in the film industry are far less artists than a lot of the people who hold 9-to-5s whilst creating something they're truly passionate about.
---
Again, it seems you've decided not to use an AD - I'm not arguing with you as you've made your mind up. That's fine. Go for it, everyone here will wish you the best. And please share some info about your project, it sounds ambitious and interesting. Would love to hear more about it.
I shot over 3 years and a couple years in post. Most of cast and crew ("helpers") off craigslist -- no one got paid. Film played in some festivals and won a few awards. I've been selling DVDs on Amazon for a while and just recently, you can "instant view" the film via Amazon as well. Haven't quite made back my investment, but getting there.
All I can say is beware of some people here insisting that films can only be made with a sizeable crew and with certain gear.
Good luck.
Just wanted to note that I agree with this. Good film's can totally be made without fancy gear or big crews - and it is counter productive when one starts obsessing over these things. I am advocating the role of an AD here, but it's by no means necessary and of course depends on the project. My next project won't use a designated AD. One doesn't need an AD, but for certain projects it can be very useful.
Absolutely they can, particularly docs, but narrative also.
Million ways to skin a cat.
The films I can make without a substantial support crew don't interest me. I could make them, but have no desire to. That's me. not anybody else, who would have their own situation, aesthetic, interests, etc...
LOL
Indeed, sometimes it seems like some people believe a movie can only be made with a dozen of people with all of them some designated task.
It can help you shoot faster, but it isn't always a must to have them all on board.
Certain gear is only needed to create certain things.
For anyone wanting to make a movie, the best camera is the one you have (access to).
But not all cameras are created equal
I underline your statement that a large crew isn't always necessary.
However, the opposite is also through: not every movie can be made by a one-man-band or 3-headed-skeleton-crew.
It all depends on the project.
Anyway: I'd love to have an AD on every set: would make directing much easier, but it isn't always possible.
Just like I'd love to have an assistent producer for every project that needs a larger crew and storyboards and stuff. That way I could only focus on the creative side.
But reality is that sometimes you just need to things yourself to save money. Or because you know nobody who can pull it off better than you doing it yourself.
You've pretty well discredited yourself with this statement. You're either naive, or deluded.. but either way you clearly don't understand the importance of various roles on set. I might have been able to get on board with you opting not to have a 1st AD, but an "oh, yeah some schmoe who's never touched a boom can handle audio today" attitude makes you look like a tool.
You might call yourself an artist, but it's apparent now you really don't care about the craft of filmmaking.
"really don't care about the craft of filmmaking"
That really is the crux of it.
Why do I hire an audio guy... because he's skilled in an area I am not. He will do a better job than me (or a random friend). Why do I hire a DP, because he is more skilled and practiced in that craft than me. He'll do a better job than I would. Makeup, hair, gaffer, craft services, right down the line. I would have a skilled professional in every single role if I could afford it (which I have never been able to) because they will do a better job in that specific area they know very well than I could ever do. The job of the director is making all those parts work in concert towards a common goal established by his vision for the film. Every time I have to step outside the role of director and do one f those jobs the film will likely suffer.
That really is the crux of it.
Why do I hire an audio guy... because he's skilled in an area I am not. He will do a better job than me (or a random friend). Why do I hire a DP, because he is more skilled and practiced in that craft than me. He'll do a better job than I would. Makeup, hair, gaffer, craft services, right down the line. I would have a skilled professional in every single role if I could afford it (which I have never been able to) because they will do a better job in that specific area they know very well than I could ever do. The job of the director is making all those parts work in concert towards a common goal established by his vision for the film. Every time I have to step outside the role of director and do one f those jobs the film will likely suffer.