The unknown independent filmmaker has many challenges.
Scenes will struggle for life because there is no anticipation. He/she has no television previews or radio station plugs to spread the word. The people involved in making the film will not be on a talk show to promote it. Every frame needs to be seen, but nobody knows this. If there’s going to be a limited showing of your film, most won’t care what happens in the end or the first few minutes. Therefore, at the premier, your audience members duck out early or show up late.
So how do you captivate when no one’s heard of your talent, or actors, or stars, or however you describe your semi-photogenic faces to an investor? You’ll need money to make the movie, promote the movie, and with which to feed your actors, but you first need a story. And how gritty should the story get? When filming, how far do you take the gore or language? Will it ever receive a rating from the MPAA? Do you need that? Do you dare sell out to get noticed?
The average filmgoer may not be privy to what happens to them as they struggle to keep their interest with the indie film; but if you can stomach the acting, and the sound avoids metallic screeching and annoying clicks, editing will tell the story.
Now, there’s going to be a screen up there exposing your work to fans. It’s no longer a witty idea. Flashy images will be torn apart, ridiculed, and dismissed. The most daring factor of being independent is that the story of your choosing is going to be birthed out of nothing. There will be no deals made regarding national distribution, and the finished film will be a goal which manifests into a delicate and sacred reality. Success will be rare, but the means of finishing the film will be glorious.
Independent film are no longer hard to come by. There are different versions of what qualifies as independent, but we’re not going to waste time describing those levels. The key is getting a name attached – someone of whom you, or an investor, are familiar. If a name is relatively known after their first picture, that name will most likely get noticed in the next.
We’re going to concentrate on three independent film. Two have familiar names attached: “Big Fan” and “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire.” The other does not: “Primer.” These are films that may or may not have a built-in audience, and we’ll see what they’ve done right and wrong.
“BIG FAN”
Stars Patton Oswalt (stand-up comedian who did the voice of Remy in Pixar’s “Ratatouille”) and cameo-like moments with indie actor Michael Rapaport. Written and directed by Robert D. Siegel (screenwriter of “The Wrestler”).
Enjoying those gritty, man-on-the-edge films inspires some to go out and make one of their own. The aching heart, if there’s one pumping inside the writer or director (in the case of “Big Fan,” both), can sometimes slow and fails to pump during the making of. This has been known to happen to many creators once their project is seen by the public. (Woody Allen has been known to lose his initial vision during filming and dislike some of his own finished products. The portrait of a beautiful city and relationship was painted in the black and white “Manhattan,” but Allen has never been happy with this popular and respected work. Anthony Burgess, author of “A Clockwork Orange,” has written forwards regarding his disrespect for his own work, blaming himself for misconceptions within the novel’s morals.) Perhaps writer/director Siegel is trying too hard to get it right the first time around.
Forcing a heightened sense of danger, or mimicking the upbeat editing style of mainstream movies, are not ingredients to raise emotions. Presenting dazzling surface elements is performing a trick and not creating what experienced predecessors properly pulled off. It’s like the video game imitating original ideas and camera angles from popular action and sci-fi movies, and then the lazy action and sci-fi movies copying the technicals used in the video games. Everyone’s borrowing, and no one benefits. The fact that personal time and money were spent on the independent adventure should yank it apart from the circle. Why rip off someone else’s success by imitating what has already been done right the first time?
“Big Fan” has overly-long montage sequences (to represent time passing) over happy Motown music to capture a moment; only, nothing’s happening. They merely used roll after roll of the footage they shot on location to force an atmosphere that was already there. If the montage were to develop suspense or quirkiness, it would not come across as filling time. You may not know it, but you’re asking yourself why your focus is being drawn to this or that. Remember the awkward and dated party scenes of the 60′s and 70′s where it seemed a dancer or smoker was being introduced with a close up, but actually had nothing to do with the film? Well, they were showing the setting in a new way. The camera operators and directors were being innovative and were most likely part of the party. We should have learned, by now, what is chosen to be filmed should be meaningful to every situation following. Back when camera movement was limited, high establishing shots boomed down over a terrace and entered the next soundstage to reveal Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman amidst the tuxedoed people who don’t have any bearing on the story except to attend the grand ball. That’s an entrance. That’s a focal point. That’s how you establish anything and everything without wasting our time.
“PRECIOUS”
New faces, an unrecognizable Mariah Carey, and a book promoted and PUSHED by Oprah Winfrey. The Academy Awards gave a special nod to the overlooked films that year and put their choice of ten best picture nominations for the first time since 1944. (Why this year, I have no idea.)
Perhaps they (be it editor, producer or director) don’t have what it takes to make a good film and fail to follow the easy-flowing pacing that has worked over the years. They may learn, but should probably test their skills before national distribution. (Unless they’ll be nominated for their careless filmmaking, regardless.)
A transition or a simple pan of the camera are some of the best ways to stay with our heroes and villains. When the initial capturing of the movements and blocking are flawed, the only way to fix it is in the editing room. Time can be cut to avoid unforeseen boredom, but there’s a process. This foul-up in pacing has to be seen as a possibility, not a mistake.
Our then no-name star Precious exits an elevator and steps to a desk. For what reason should that be cut up? You now know (possibly subconsciously) that something isn’t right in the budget or quality. Precious wasn’t in a hurry, so why have they sped up the time it took for her to get from one place to another? There is also the familiar crowded city-sidewalk shot. Precious, however, is immediately blocked by someone in the foreground, so a dissolve helps place her back in the center where we can now watch her walk among the busybodies. Why the dissolve? Where’s the other take? And if there wasn’t one, then perhaps they shouldn’t use the entire shot. If the end of the shot was used, was it too brief to grasp her place in the world? Then cut it from the picture. Don’t nominate it for best editing.
“PRIMER”
“Primer” stars no one and cost $7,000. But knowing what you want, and presenting your talent for an audience, is truly precious. And, I have to say, I’m a big fan.
The editing is unique, and time travels simultaneously with the time-traveling picture. A tone is set, and the viewer is a part of the main characters’ overlapping lives. Due to first-time writer/director Shane Carruth’s lack of experience, the story is, at times, confusing; but the pacing is fast when it needs to be. Character arcs are adjacent to the twists and turns of a carefully laid out storyline. Carruth used almost every frame of film he shot. Nothing was covered up and fixed in the editing room, but explicitly placed in order (and out of order). The shooting was precise. The editing was precise. The style was predetermined. The Sundance Film Festival awarded “Primer” with the Grand Jury Prize (2004).
Indie films aren’t for the general audience, art houses, or the bottom shelf at a video store. The independent film seeks independence and wishes for you to follow them through the world they were able to finish creating. Congratulate the hard workers who reach the top and disregard the fakers cashing in for a prize.
If you are looking for info about internet marketing, then please check out the page that was mentioned right in this passage.
written by Blogger Guru
\\ tags: movie review
