Blair Witch -- Verismilitude, and Dramamine
Chris Hurd
“In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared
in the woods near Burkittesville, Maryland, while shooting a
documentary. One year later, their footage was found.”
Okay, so the story is complete fiction. The fact is, however,
that the Blair Witch Project, an indie made for twenty grand,
shot completely P.O.V. with a Sony one-chip Hi-8 palmcorder,
a DAT and a CP-16 loaded with super-grainy Tri-X and
breaking every convention of proper cinematography, is
packing the theaters right now, relying almost entirely on
word of mouth, no TV ads. Kelly and I saw it this past
weekend in Austin, finally getting in at the Arbor after
two other theaters were sold out.
Blair Witch is hot right now, and I guarantee you've never
seen anything like it. But some of you guys won't be able
to watch it. It is shakey-cam extreme, beyond the contrived
MTV shakey-cam. This is *real* shakey-cam. All the way through.
Plus jump-cuts, thrown focus, poor composition, you name it,
all the mistakes are there, and guess what? It works. It works
great. This movie is making a lot of money. I'll probably pay
full price to see it at least once more and I'm going to buy the
DVD.
This concept -- amateurish, truly awful "home video" as a
device to tell a documentary-style story -- works because
of the cultural verisimilitude employed to propel the
narrative. Verisimilitude -- the "degree of reality," see
http://oryx.mth.uct.ac.za/projects/belief/index.html will
oftentimes make or break a film. Example: Private Ryan:
Verisimiltude high. Felt like D-Day. Felt like World War Two.
Attention to detail, M1's wrapped in plastic when hitting
the beach, krauts looked like krauts and had kraut gear.
Felt real. Result, good movie.
Verisimilitude in Blair Witch: looked like amateur footage.
Was particularly amused by how awful the Hi-8 artifacting
looked on the big screen (diagonal lines aliased, colors
washed out, etc.) The mostly improv dialog helped out a
lot. I suspended my disbelief and bought into it, which is
how movies work if they're good. If you can prevent
yourself from getting white knuckles over the sea-sick
camera work, then you're in for a treat, because the story
is a damn good creep-out.
I'm not much for the horror genre, because seldom have
I ever seen a horror film that's ever even remotely scary.
Some of my favorite horror films aren't really in the horror
genre... Hector Babenco's "Pixote," for instance. The
first half of "Schindler's List."
But Blair Witch, while not qualifying for the horror earmark,
is easily one of the most unsettling, disturbing films I've
seen in a long time. And it's very important, I think,
because it proves that the story is ultimately what makes
any film work, not what camera you use or what video format.
The degree of verisimilitude, the believability with which BWP
is told -- and a large measure of that verisimilitude comes from
the the distinctly awful way this film looks -- makes it a very
effective film. People were hanging around in small groups
afterwards, talking about it. It was sold out all over Austin
this weekend, and Austin is a film-geek mecca. It is the
worst looking film and video you'll ever see at the multi-plex,
and one of the best, original, well-executed independant
film projects to come around in recent years.
All you pro shooters out there, take your dramamine
and check this one out. I wish I was making the money
this film is getting right now.
See http://www.blairwitch.com/legacy.html
Chris Hurd
San Marcos, TX
Steve Roark
Can you imagine how many Blair clones this movie will launch...
$20,000 production cost/ $28 million gross in one week
they'll be coming out of the woodwork with $700 Handycams
That's the real curse
Clay Schneider
Others see .....
an opportunity ;-)
Steve Roark wrote in message <37a5d...@news.tamu-commerce.edu>...
Bill Farnsworth
>Can you imagine how many Blair clones this movie will launch...
>$20,000 production cost/ $28 million gross in one week
>they'll be coming out of the woodwork with $700 Handycams
>That's the real curse
Probably not that many. The style has a place. Just like Bob Fosse's film
direction had a place. (Rarely seen since the early eighties)
A novel approach it is. And should be applauded.
But I think that the majority of the applauds should go to the brilliant folks
in the marketing and PR departments who had more money to work with than the
production company.
Bill Farnsworth/Videographer
Redmond, WA
Stuart Smith
Derek Dexheimer
gritting my teeth in expectation of the dreck that will inundate us over
the coming years.
I am certain that Chris' most important and most obvious
point--powerful, well-developed story makes a movie--will be totally
lost.
You know, I think our greatest collective regret is that young people
who want to make movies don't read books.
Derek
Rich Satterlee
: Howdy from Texas,
: “In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared
: in the woods near Burkittesville, Maryland, while shooting a
: documentary. One year later, their footage was found.”
: Okay, so the story is complete fiction. The fact is, however,
Hi-
I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen the results. My 18 year old
son saw it with a girlfriend of his. He came back chattering all about
it for quite awhile (and I was getting ready for bed, the old sod that
I am). He has studied film in High School and he mentioned all the points
that Chris mentioned. He really liked the mix of Hi8 and 16mm b&w,
quoting that the believability of the movie, rocked him. In fact,
the girl that he went with had to go back to the car, and after she
dropped him off, he had to call her house and ask someone to meet
her at the car and walk her inside! No kidding. I heard the phone call
myself. It's really nice, I think, that Haxan Films (www.haxan.com)
which are not newcomer's to the picture entertainment world, worked
on this radical approach. It's also very nice to see that a zero
budget film can touch the almost average movie goer. It should add
alot of creditability to the "indies" out there.
I'm not planning on seeing in in the theater. I don't like scary movies.
Maybe when it comes out on video.
Cheers,
Rich S.
Robert K S
newsgroups such as the screenplay and independent production groups, at least I
can comment on the film from the standpoint of a videographer/editor rather
than a writer or producer:
It is true than anybody out there with a video camera can make a great movie
that can be shown in cinemas and make big-time money. The Coppola Proposition
has been realized in part if not in full. No one enjoys this fact more than I
do because I hope some day to be in the same position that the Blair Witch
contrivers have found themselves in now.
Only difference is, I'll make a good movie.
The Blair Witch Project represents a paradigm shift, the first wave thrust
forth of an interesting phenomenon sure to become commonplace now that everyone
sees how easy it is. This film twisted Hollywood's most powerful tool around
on itself: HYPE. Instead of spending millions on TV spots and billboards,
however, it used the INTERNET as a hype-generation vehicle. It's purported
gothic spookiness permitted it to penetrate where other mass-media internet
hype machines could not; its absolute lack of investment and production value
was likewise twisted around and made into an appealing feature of fascination,
a selling point, rather than a detraction.
Now--the first thing we must realize is that nothing happens in this movie. I
hope this isn't a spoiler for those of you who haven't wasted your money yet,
but be mindful, nothing is learned in this film, there are no real characters
or events. Sure the production, at times, exhibits that feeling of
spontaneity, of reality that we don't get too often in films, but it's nothing
new. This film will sell repeat tickets to suburban kids who haven't seen any
of the million bad European films made in the past few decades.
I can't speak for all my fellow amateurs, but I'm out to use my XL1 and my
DVRex to create a lasting filmic literature. Seeing as Blair Witch represents
the first and final film to be able to make a quick buck by giving a few people
some cameras in the woods and then hyping it with a dozen "fan" sites (actually
created by the filmmakers), I give my best wishes to those who wish to try to
repeat the excercise, and my blessing to those who see it for the mediocre
crapfest that it is and focus their amateur film work on substance rather than
hype.
Springboarding from Derek's suggestion I can instantly give the Robert K S
recipe for good filmmaking. A filmmaker must READ and LEARN. He or she must
invest in his or her mind and spend the time to understand the CRAFT of
writing. Next, the filmmaker must invest in his or her project by putting
financial resources into it. Cinematography is NOT dead, and good AUDIO goes a
long way too. Finally, the filmmaker must invest his or her SOUL, to tell a
story that he or she knows will ENRICH the audience, and not just CHEAT them
out of an Alex Hamilton and a Friday evening.
I've highlighted certain words above for reasons. Likewise films should be
made for reasons. My request is that filmmakers decide upon their reasons
before beginning a film.
Robert K S
=============================
There are two secrets to success in life:
1) Never tell everything you know.
=============================
Chris Hurd
Rich Satterlee wrote ...
>
> I'm not planning on seeing in in the theater. I don't like
> scary movies. Maybe when it comes out on video.
Actually I think this particular film will be even more
effective when seen at home. Alone. At night. Right
before your weekend campout.
Chris Hurd
Robert K S wrote ...
>
> Chris, while I can't thank you for importing this diseased
> thread from other newsgroups... at least I can comment
on the film from the standpoint of a videographer/editor
> rather than a writer or producer:
Thanks, Robert, that's why I brought it in over here.
I wanted to hear what you guys had to say about it,
to discuss it from a shooter's standpoint.
> The Blair Witch Project represents a paradigm shift, the
> first wave thrust forth of an interesting phenomenon sure
> to become commonplace now that everyone sees how easy
> it is. This film twisted Hollywood's most powerful tool around
> on itself: HYPE. Instead of spending millions on TV spots and
> billboards, however, it used the INTERNET as a hype-generation
> vehicle. It's purported gothic spookiness permitted it to penetrate
> where other mass-media internet hype machines could not; its
> absolute lack of investment and production value was likewise
> twisted around and made into an appealing feature of fascination,
> a selling point, rather than a detraction.
You're right. All I can say is "how about that." It worked.
> Springboarding from Derek's suggestion I can instantly
> give the Robert K S recipe for good filmmaking. A filmmaker
> must READ and LEARN. He or she must invest in his or her
> mind and spend the time to understand the CRAFT of writing.
> Next, the filmmaker must invest in his or her project by putting
> financial resources into it. Cinematography is NOT dead, and
> good AUDIO goes a long way too. Finally, the filmmaker must
> invest his or her SOUL, to tell a story that he or she knows will
> ENRICH the audience, and not just CHEAT them out of an Alex
> Hamilton and a Friday evening.
Very well said and I wholeheartedly agree. Blair Witch is an
anomaly, an abberation in the world of indie film. A significant
one, but it's not likely to happen again, I think, at least not at
this level of success. It's very much a gimmick film.
Whether you love it or you hate it -- and there really is no
middle ground -- it has caused a paradigm shift as you
point out. For that reason alone it's significant. It has my
respect, regardless of whether I like it or not.
I liked it for what it is. I know how to watch a film and I was
able to suspend my disbelief and fall into it. I got creeped
out. It made me feel uneasy. It made me not want to go
camping anytime soon.
Some folks who know how to watch films are going to really
hate it and I respect that point of view, I understand. Other
folks who don't know how to watch films are going to say
"huh?" and not get it at all. But like it or not, people are
standing around outside the theaters talking about it and
it's making money, and without question it's the worst
production values you'll ever see on the big screen.
But unlike a poorly produced movie like, say, the king
of bad production values, my man Ed Wood's "Plan
Nine from Outer Space," the Blair Witch Project's
poor production values are intentional, carefully
calculated, part of the script. And this concept
still blows me away... the filmmakers got away
with it, a one-time trick you can only do once,
and with the proper type of hype, made it big.
Really big. Is that a good or bad thing? I'm not
passing judgement on it, just pointing out the
significance of this film and just how *odd* all
these aspects about it really are.
Chris Hurd
Chris Hurd
D. Sosnoski wrote ...
>
> Great Review Chris! Haven't seen the film yet
> but after reading your review it's on my list.
The review which snagged me into it belongs to good
'ol Harry Knowles, an Austin film geek legend, keeper
of my all-time favorite movie reviews site, Ain't It Cool
News at http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/ On the left
side of the main page there's a quick-search box; drop
in "Blair Witch" and check out his "version 2 review."
He doesn't spoil it, he does a very good job of setting
you up to see it. So as much as I hate to admit it, my
good friend Robert KS is right... I had heard about this
film, but ultimately the internet hype is what piqued my
interest. Robert didn't like Blair Witch but I did. That's
the way it works, there's no middle ground with this film.
You'll either love it or hate it. Some people don't get it at
all. I understand and respect all three points of view.
I guarantee, however, you've never seen anything like it.
> By the way does anyone remember that great
> low budget scary classic, Night of the Living Dead?
Oh, boy, George Romero, now there's a whole 'nother
can of worms. My first exposure to this... this thing called
Night of the Living Dead was a Reader's Digest article
that I read as a kid back in the 70's, something like "what's
wrong with the movies" or some such. The reviewer talked
about the gruesome plot and about having to comfort a
little girl sitting nearby and assure her that it wasn't real.
At the age I was when I first read that, I thought, yeow,
now that sounds scary. Stupid recollection now, but at
the time, that article alone had scared the snot out of me.
A few years ago, I found that same Reader's Digest at my
dad's house, in a box that had been retired from the bathroom,
the favored domain of Reader's Digests worldwide. I reread
the review and was amused to find that it had been written
by Roger Ebert, years before Roger Ebert became Roger
Ebert. The review still had me seriously bugged, even
though I'd lost my Living Dead virginity back in my film
school days, at some drunken midnight-movie fest. As I
recall, I made it through only by adopting a sense of humor
about the whole thing and the fifth of Captain Morgan helped
out somewhat. We walked home in a large group that night.
I've got a copy of it on video here in the house somewhere,
but Kelly and I both prefer Dementia 13 and that flavor of
Corman-esque "suspense," if it qualifies for that genre.
D. Sosnoski
Haven't seen the film yet but after reading your review it's on my
list.
I prefer shaky cam to slick anyday. Down with The Titanic! Up with
films made with more integrity than money.
By the way does anyone remember that great low budget scary classic,
Night of the Living Dead?
Diane
Stuart Smith
Chris Hurd wrote in message ...
>I understand and respect all three points of view.
I, personally, thought it was a very disapointing film. Handing 3 kids (who
appear to have no production skills whatsoever, and they are supposed to be
filming a documentary) a couple of cameras and scaring them at night does
not make a great movie. However, I think the web site is great
www.blairwitch.com
>I guarantee, however, you've never seen anything like it.
Whoa, hang on a sec. This is not an original, either the genre or plot line.
People seem to have conveniently forgotten "Cannibal Holocaust" and a huge
plethora of "kids being tracked in the forest by monsters" movies. If people
(and there will be a lot) like this film that's fine, but it is *very* far
from being original. Sorry to burst that bubble.
Chris Hurd
Stuart Smith wrote ...
>
> I, personally, thought it was a very disapointing film. Handing
> 3 kids (who appear to have no production skills whatsoever,
> and they are supposed to be filming a documentary) a couple
> of cameras and scaring them at night does not make a great
> movie. However, I think the web site is great www.blairwitch.com
Yeah, okay. From what I've read on usenet and message boards,
there's a *lot* of people who were disappointed with it. However,
the box office on this thing was $28.5 million this weekend, and
it's word of mouth and the web that's bringing in the audience.
Regardless of whether or not you like it, what do the numbers
say about this movie? From Dark Horizons, at
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news.htm ...
"Box-Office: This weekend's results proved one of the most
interesting of the summer so far... the second place star -
the indie horror flick "The Blair Witch Project" which expanded
its cinema release from 30 to 1,000 screens and pulled in a
massive $28.5 million. The film which was made for only
$60,000 (and the rights sold for only $1 million), is now
expected to surpass the $100 million domestic mark. It
also might be Number One next week when it expands
to 2,000 screens..."
That's what I'm looking at and what I'm wondering about.
For film students and people like me who used to be film
students, it's a bit of a slap in the face to portray these kids
as not having the presence of mind to bring along a set of
sticks or at least a monopod. I wished they'd written this as
"anthropology students with gear checked out from the film
department." No budding film student worth his or her salt
would actually shoot like that for a graded project, at least
I hope not. But that firehosing shakey-cam and the awful
degraded image quality is an integral part of how this
film works (or doesn't work, as your opinion may be).
For me it certainly accelerated the creepiness. If it had
been shot conventionally, I'd have had no interest in
seeing it at all. The "gimmick" drew me in and I happily
bought into it.
Please understand that I'm not about to go out and copy
the style. It ain't for me. I think anyone that tries to emulate
Blair Witch is going to waste their time and money. But
hell, this thing got made and it's in national distribution.
Like I said... how about that?
Robert KS is at the very least partially right by calling it a
paradigm shift. To me it's more like an unexpected tremor...
but it definitely appears on the seismograph, you can't deny that.
>> I guarantee, however, you've never seen anything like it.
>
> Whoa, hang on a sec. This is not an original, either the
> genre or plot line. People seem to have conveniently forgotten
> "Cannibal Holocaust" and a huge plethora of "kids being tracked
> in the forest by monsters" movies. If people (and there will be a lot)
> like this film that's fine, but it is *very* far from being original.
Sorry
> to burst that bubble.
Touche. Point taken and I concede. Perhaps I should have
said "I guarantee, however, *most* of you have never seen
anything like it." I was referring to the purposefully lousy
production values being an integral part of the verisimilitude
of the story and how that makes the narrative work. I know
that strictly POV films have been done before... there's a
Vietnam war movie called 84 Charlie Mopic, for instance,
about a combat cameraman; the whole thing is shot from
his camera's POV. Orson Welles had wanted to do
Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" this way, but wound up
doing Kane instead (or was it Magnificent Ambersons?)
On the "kids stalked in the forest" genre, Blair Witch
operates in very subtle tones, and I happened to like that.
I liked this story and I think it's a good one as far as campfire
freakouts go. But I don't give a damn about this genre at all,
and as I said, if this were a conventionally shot film, you wouldn't
be able to get me to waste my time on it. As it is, though, it's just
really bizarre that this movie was made the way it was and is
as succesful as it is. That raises some serious questions for
me and that's why I brought it up. Some of you guys feel like
it's a waste of time the way it is now, but I ask you... can you
believe this movie is as big as it is, and how do you feel
about that?
Forget whether or not you felt "unsettled." I felt quite
unsettled. A lot of folks did not feel unsettled and felt
let down. But forget about that... consider how this
movie looks and how that's such a device... it's
everything that a knowledgeable videographer
despises. The shooting is a videographer's
nightmare (and a horror story on a level of its
own). It's crappy looking film *on purpose* and
it made 28.5 million dollars this weekend all
*because* it's crappy looking film. Why? We
can see how, but why? That's what I'm asking.
Stuart Yamane
effect for me. I did think the "actors" where fantastic though. They
could have really screwed it up but thanks to them and good direction and
editing all the characters seemed very real.
In article <7o5s3p$bpo$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Stuart Smith"
<stuart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Chris Hurd wrote in message ...
> >I understand and respect all three points of view.
>
> I, personally, thought it was a very disapointing film. Handing 3 kids (who
> appear to have no production skills whatsoever, and they are supposed to be
> filming a documentary) a couple of cameras and scaring them at night does
> not make a great movie. However, I think the web site is great
> www.blairwitch.com
>
w b smith
them anymore.
w b smith
Victor Khong
<ch...@mediadesign.net> wrote:
>Howdy from Texas,
>
>Stuart Smith wrote ...
>>
>> I, personally, thought it was a very disapointing film. Handing
>> 3 kids (who appear to have no production skills whatsoever,
>> and they are supposed to be filming a documentary) a couple
>> of cameras and scaring them at night does not make a great
>> movie. However, I think the web site is great www.blairwitch.com
Hi Stuart,
I think you are missing the point here. It _is_ disappointing if you
expect ground breaking video cinematography but that wasn't the
production design of BWP. It was meant to replicate amateur video.
Which it did.
>Yeah, okay. From what I've read on usenet and message boards,
>there's a *lot* of people who were disappointed with it. However,
>the box office on this thing was $28.5 million this weekend, and
>it's word of mouth and the web that's bringing in the audience.
>Regardless of whether or not you like it, what do the numbers
>say about this movie? From Dark Horizons, at
>http://www.darkhorizons.com/news.htm ...
Let me first say, I am disappointed with BWP. My wife and I could not
stay through the entire movie. We had to leave due to feeling motion
sick from the extreme shakiness - we were also watching it in a
super-duper new large screen theatre called Cineplexes.
I felt I had watched enough anyways to understand the phenom.
Couples of points:
1. The storyline, while not original (as has been pointed out by
others), is fresh to the present generation of the younger viewing
audience.
2. The storyline and production design was well executed. Building
website in advance of the filming (shooting?), using method acting
(some would say it wasn't true acting) by making the actors live in
the woods and really "feel" lost and seeing the witch artifacts first
time and being shot at the same time. Still well executed and it
gives the filmmakers a marketing angle.
This was what probably caught the eye of the distributor in the first
place. BWP already had a marketing infrastructure waaaaay in advance
of the first distribution date.
3. Remember the distributor probably had to spend money looping (ADR)
sweetening certain aspects of the film and audio to prep. for
theatrical release. Same with "El Mariachi" - it was only a USD $7000
when Rodriguez handed it to the distributor who subsequently spent
about $250,000 sweetening it for release.
4. The best thing BWP has done for all filmmakers is that next time
your pitch says, "No stars, low budget, story driven, shot on video
and grainy film: distributors might actually be willing to listen
since the door to MAINSTREAM theatrical release has been opened by
BWP.
Question is... if BWP did not get the release in as many theatres as
it did, would it still have raked in this much money?
I wonder if the filmmakers will go back and pay their cast and crew
more than what they signed on for?
I know I would.
Victor
Victor (movie...@sprint.ca)
------------------------------------
Director, Actor, Fight Choreographer
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Location/5272/index.htm
Rich Satterlee
: Howdy from Texas,
: Chris Hurd
: San Marcos, Tx
Oh no. I was thinking about the middle of the afternoon, with a bunch
of friends, right before a football game..........
Cheers,
Rich S.
Stuart Smith
Rich Satterlee wrote in message <7o71g7$pn8$1...@ocean.cup.hp.com>...
LOL :)
>
> Cheers,
> Rich S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dirtygoth
>I am). He has studied film in High School and he mentioned all the points
>that Chris mentioned. He really liked the mix of Hi8 and 16mm b&w,
>quoting that the believability of the movie, rocked him. In fact,
>the girl that he went with had to go back to the car, and after she
>dropped him off, he had to call her house and ask someone to meet
>her at the car and walk her inside! No kidding. I heard the phone call
>myself. It's really nice, I think, that Haxan Films (www.haxan.com)
>which are not newcomer's to the picture entertainment world, worked
>on this radical approach. It's also very nice to see that a zero
>budget film can touch the almost average movie goer. It should add
>alot of creditability to the "indies" out there.
Pi was alot better..so was La Mariachi(sp?) and it was made for around 10k and
shot on film...I think the cool thing about blair was that is was shot(in oart
) on video...butthen so was Phantom Menace<chuckle> and that could open doors
to more "films" shot on video. This could cut the production cost of indies a
great deal without detracting from the quality. Of course I still prefer
film(as do most people) but when one must choose between grainy film with poor
sync and good video..in many cases I would go video. The movie had an ok story
and will no doubt be remade(hopefully better) someday on a larger budget. I
would have been proud to make that film for that price, but as a consumer I was
not that impressed. Also it did not scare me at all!!! I mean it was slightly
more scary than say Bambi, but less than say Clueless:)...I myself had
considered shooting a horror movie(splatter genre) on video for home
release...still may....
Johnny Wu
after watching it, but I think BWP has one of the best marketing ideas I've
seen so far, it is hyped up soo much that it becomes a talk and it grossed
so well in theatre because people want to see if it's good or not, and hence
it brings $ to the cinema and the people producing it.
I'm in a the middle of 2 projects: one is an hourly long documentary, and
the other is a feature film (indie film) shot in 16mm color, and edited with
computers and the finalizing both on tapes.
The film will then be blown up to 16mm or 35mm (since we've decided not to
care about the graininess of the film but rather in it's color and artistic
and the story line). It is based on a true story, but if you watch the
movie, it's more as a fiction (which is why we decided to shoot this film).
http://www.mdifilm.com/Twisted
Why am I mentioning this? Simple, we did a budget planning and realized
since we have the stands, grips, lights, cameras, a 1000 sq ft studio,
outside locations, stunts and special effects for martial arts scenes (all
free), actors, actresses, supporting actors, crew, casting director and
agency, sponsors, all doing it for the sake of art (hehe), our only cost of
the 90 minute film will be the cost of films (400ft and 100ft) and the
processing cost (from $.20 to $40/ft), and perhaps the food and drinks for
the big party scenes and the legal fees.
In total, the production of this film, shot all in 16mm will be about $3000.
(yes, we have our film transfer equipment as well) and shooting on reverse
films instead of negative so we won't lose much colors, plus adding effects
using computers (not as much as matrix but in certain fight scenes, you see
the scene blurred out or expands out). ;)
And our error margin ratio is 2:1 (since we will videotape on hi8 for the
first 2 scenes and filming based on the 'angle' n necessity). My partner is
a prof. photographer and filmmaker, so he knows what he is doing.
:) Anyway, as I can see it, it doesn't matter how great a film look, but
rather how 'smart' the marketing to the public (to obtain a profit), people
will go and watch the movie for eithe
like it or not like it.
J. Eric chard
> Why am I mentioning this? Simple, we did a budget planning and realized
> since we have the stands, grips, lights, cameras, a 1000 sq ft studio,
> outside locations, stunts and special effects for martial arts scenes (all
> free), actors, actresses, supporting actors, crew, casting director and
> agency, sponsors, all doing it for the sake of art (hehe), our only cost of
> the 90 minute film will be the cost of films (400ft and 100ft) and the
> processing cost (from $.20 to $40/ft), and perhaps the food and drinks for
> the big party scenes and the legal fees.
So, you aren't going to FEED these people who are working for free?
I'd be off that set SO fast...................
--
********************* Synergy Video Productions ***********************
** Shooting, Gaffing, and Animation for the End of the Millenium **
***************************** Seattle *********************************
Chris Hurd
J. Eric chard wrote ...
>
> So, you aren't going to FEED these people who are
> working for free? I'd be off that set SO fast...................
Don't forget, then there's the photocopier budget, gasoline,
telephone calls, cel-phone calls, all that gaffer tape... plenty
of expense hidden in these "little consumables" nobody
seems to think about during preproduction.
Eric DeBlackmere, S.O.C.
<ch...@mediadesign.net> wrote:
>Don't forget, then there's the photocopier budget, gasoline,
>telephone calls, cel-phone calls, all that gaffer tape... plenty
>of expense hidden in these "little consumables" nobody
>seems to think about during preproduction.
But which they expect -you- to pull out of your runbag at a moment's
notice. And for free.
Eric
Eric DeBlackmere, S.O.C.
Director of Photography/Operating Cameraman
Deep Focus Productions
edeb...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~edeblack
Bill Farnsworth
> So, you aren't going to FEED these people who are working for free?
>
> I'd be off that set SO fast...................
You got that right. I was gonna mention that when I was done reading the
post. You beat me to it.
Enthusiasm from the crew for your pet project D' Jour could turn into
lots of "See Ya's" about one o'clock in the afternoon on the first day.
If any of you neophite newbie producers have one thing to learn, it's,
"nobody but you is expected to sacrifice their meal break for your "life's
visionary work of the moment".
If you need us to hustle before lunch or the wrap hour...... we will. (by
the way....... wrap time IS part of the ten hour day)
If you need us to show up for a 4:00am crew call..... No problem. Just
remember...... brunch is at 8, or 9:00am
If your shooting schedule is tight, that there isn't time for a meal break
........ then your shit out of luck ....... Time to go back and learn how to
produce a schedule that meets the needs of EVERYONE involved. Client AND crew.
If you can't do that. Then let the crew members know EXACTLY what the
shoot schedule involves and what corners need to be cut, BEFORE you ask for a
commitment for the production days.
Sorry if I pissed off the pros here. You are not included in this ranting.
Bill Farnsworth/Videographer
Redmond, WA
Derek Dexheimer
isn't a development over the past few years, since I got my first jobs,
then. You can imagine how baffling it was for me to land a real live job
at a production house only to find out that the producers and their
clients were mostly whiny children who thought nothing of
nickel-and-diming the facility with little ego-boosting favors, but
would raise holy hell about an extra $75 on a $10,000 invoice.
Bill and Eric are both clearly far more experienced than me, so I take
heart in that I've already gathered the gems of their knowledge. Namely:
there appears to be no relationship between a production's quality or
efficiency and the relative brilliance of its brain trust (producer,
director, and so on, all with capital letters). Efficient, quality
production--regardless of the amount of money spent or the incandescence
of those who appear in front of the camera--comes from the head brain
being clear with crew about what will happen and what will be required
of them, and by requiring the client to have firm ideas of what they
want and a solid script long before crew is booked. It is a shame that
I've found this basic competence to be generally rare.
Derek
Bill Farnsworth
> Efficient, quality
>production--regardless of the amount of money spent or the incandescence
>of those who appear in front of the camera--comes from the head brain
>being clear with crew about what will happen and what will be required
>of them, and by requiring the client to have firm ideas of what they
>want and a solid script long before crew is booked. It is a shame that
>I've found this basic competence to be generally rare.
The producers and production companies that get my best "Production Day Rates"
ARE those rare ones.
It's not hard to figure out why.
Thanks for bringing that up Derek.
Bill Farnsworth/Videographer
Redmond, WA
J. Eric chard
> Sorry if I pissed off the pros here. You are not included in this ranting.
>
> Bill Farnsworth/Videographer
> Redmond, WA
Screw the "pros": if they don't do as you say, THEY AREN'T PROS.
I worked a shoot for Weyerhauser as gaffer. After three days of eating while
sitting in the back of the trucks, on logs, on camera cases, I pointed out that we
had a caterer, and she always brought tables and chairs. Why weren't we using
them?
For the rest of the shoot we got to eat like civilized folk.
Eric DeBlackmere, S.O.C.
<der...@hyperbole.com> wrote:
>Efficient, quality
>production--regardless of the amount of money spent or the incandescence
>of those who appear in front of the camera--comes from the head brain
>being clear with crew about what will happen and what will be required
>of them, and by requiring the client to have firm ideas of what they
>want and a solid script long before crew is booked.
Derek -
You've summed it all up right there. -That's- the recipe for a
successful production. Waver from that recipe and you send out an
invitation for disaster to come knocking on your door.
BAYCITVIDGRP
robe...@aol.comdontspam (Robert K S) writes:
>
>Springboarding from Derek's suggestion I can instantly give the Robert
K S
>recipe for good filmmaking. A filmmaker must READ and LEARN. He or
she must
>invest in his or her mind and spend the time to understand the CRAFT
of
>writing. Next, the filmmaker must invest in his or her project by
putting
>financial resources into it. Cinematography is NOT dead, and good
AUDIO goes a
>long way too. Finally, the filmmaker must invest his or her SOUL, to
tell a
>story that he or she knows will ENRICH the audience, and not just
CHEAT them
>out of an Alex Hamilton and a Friday evening.
Robert K S
>=============================
Read it.
Gee. I'm still waiting for Godot?
this is it? you purport.
too many questions come to mind? i retort.
much malaise about what is sphincter release...
such a "hype" of nothingness seeking it's own peace.
are you so sure that what you have purported above is
what is needed to do it? innuendos about Coppola rather
demented.
Look at "Apocalypse Now" and where it went. A place
of memories for GI's their time at that hell-hole spent.
A giving forth of waht it was like, maybe. Or to the
GI a recollection of many a "visual misery". Friends
being killed as they ate or as they laughed and did not
see it coming.
Coppola knew. he found the "moment" which exploded
into a new understanding of "that was a moment in time we
so hurredly want to forget" and looking at this movie
we cannot, especially if we were there in the Delta's
of nam or cam or laos?
Kubrick or Coppola Knew Full Metal Jacket and he saw into the
past as if he was the jacket holding that bullet over
and over again. putting those jacket's into the magazine
and emptying them blindly most of the time endlessly. The
reality re-found was the messaging that things like this
happen without anyone's permission.
Put these two geniuses into a common can or worms and you
find that they had a genius within for finding what was
needed to escape the reality of that day's happenings. THEY
created more than what it was seen as.
Then.
How many GI's who were over there and walked those walks
and saw themselves reborn due to what these two authors/
filmakers saw from their perspective. Their assignation.
You had to look at the moment they captured as "oh yes,
it did happen like that".
the telling moment in FullMetal was when the photographer
was at the table wanting to get some "fur" and the local
on the motorcycle came at them and stole their viewpoint
piece. The guy on the cycle did not care for or give a
damn what they were there for...that camera was the story
unto itself.
They sort of said, "the world will never know what really
happens here" as the passenger stole the images for
that moment which had been clicked away so many times
and in that before time. Never to be seen and never
to be "viewed" as "we were there"....
That theft signified the whole damn fuckin Vietnam
War. Steal the images and no one will know. Because
of the camera the world emits a cry for the victims.
A moment cry. Then business as usual.
That theft said much. But it was what the whole fuckin
war was about over there or in Cambodia with Coppola's
vision.
Your entertaining ditty was "missed" compared to the
findings Coppola and Kubrick found in their perspective
captured forever.
you forgot about "perspetive" and how it affects people
who need to know things are not as they appear to be
when you are living thousands of miles distant. The
GI's knew. But they also died knowing it.
These two showed that no matter how high the hype
is back home the reality is "blood loss equals death"
no matter the hype. They saw that the end of life
is momentary. It just happens faster when in a war.
And some general comes up and asks the GI "are you
with the program or not?"
you forgot about a vision. Within. Burning.
Develp these spots on your eye-lids and you see
what they saw. There was a feeling that they
were able to see deeper than the people that were
there. Who experienced it.
Who gave the oath and were killed eating dinner
in some fox-hole waiting orders so some one with
a camera could capture that moment about to occur.
Kubrick/Coppola found that moment. We remember
them because it opened us up to their vision.
That is what is missing from your tryst with what
a film is.
keep on truckin'
bill conduit
etc.
Ron Smith
values but Robert seems to have good thoughts on values.
Sometimes a crapfest can be entertaining. Content is king.
We have a generation raised on MTV. If they love it, great.
To the vast majority who just want to be entertained, and
dont consider or understand production values, it may work
just fine. I cant help but remember the big disco scare of
the 70's. This might be the video equivilent.
Ron
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Tim Gibbons
Not bad Bill. Good read....
-- Tim
Tim Gibbons
Just saw the movie tonight and I have to say I liked it.
For what it's worth, I thought they did an amazing job. Talk about hiding
your weaknesses! I especially liked how they never cheapened the story with
a romance, fight scene (against the "evil"), or even gave a hint of what the
"evil" really was. They learned the "Psycho" lesson well. Everything rang
true to me. From the debate about "meters vs feet" to the fact that they
reminded us how cold it was while they feared for their lives to how she
expressed another layer of fear, the fear of being alone, as she struggled
to find the sound man in the rooms of the house. It all was extremely
believable to me. For me her final walk down those stairs was with full
knowledge that death waited for her. She just wanted it to all end. She
wanted a release from the nightmare.
I think gifted filmmakers realize that half the strength of filmmaking comes
from the Rorshact effect. It's about what you don't see or only half see and
hear. I challenge anyone to take $60,000 and make a more compelling horror
film. I'd love to see it.
-- Tim
I'm a bit superstitious and paranoid which I think only heightened the
effect for me. For any of you that haven't seen this movie, walk into it
with this question in mind:
Is it possible that these three actors were not actors at all but were
actually the real thing? Could it be possible, even in the most remote way,
for this to be a true documentary and that these kids never made it out
alive. What are the odds of a filmmaker being able to find three no name
actors who are willing to work for peanuts and could so convincingly sell
their roles. . . . ? Even if you don't believe it, can you be absolutely
sure that it's not real?
If you can hold onto a shred of doubt, I promise you you'll enjoy this
movie.
Boo Haaa Haaaa Haaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaaa . . . . . .
Jasper Sharp
Firstly, you work within the parameters you are set, so if you have a
zero budget then obviously you're not going to shoot on 72mm and load
the movie full of special effects. From a technical standpoint, Mario
Bava ('Blood and Black Lace', 1963) could make a hell of a lot of a
better film then George Lucas, because he knew how to hold a camera.
Budget forces you to be more inventive. Big budgets encourage lazy film
making.
Secondly, their is absolutely nothing new about a low budget movie
making a virtue of its cheapness. 'Night of the Living Dead' and 'Texas
Chainsaw Massacre' are two obvious examples, and it was almost de rigeur
for exploitation films in the 60s and 70s to be working on tiny budgets.
The video rentals market has obviously killed off the demand for this
sort of low budget film making as in the 90's all the major releases are
out on video within 6 months, but sooner or later it was inevitable the
tide was going to turn, as people get sick of watching the same tired
big budget extravaganzas rehashed and repopulated with the flavour of
the month stars. Has no one ever heard of or seen Lars von Trier's 'The
Idiots' or Thomas Vinterberg's 'Festen', both offerings from the Danish
Dogma95 movement, and causing a big stir around Europe over the past
year from audiences sick of formulaic glitzy tripe churned out by the
major studios. No one seems to have mentioned either of these two films
in this thread. Nor Harmony Korine's 'Gummo'.
Finally, anyone can learn to play the guitar and form a band. It doesn't
mean you'll be topping the charts all round the world. Anyone can make a
movie too. Given the same resources it is obvious that some people will
make a better one than others. They've still got to find someone to
distribute it, and advertise it. How many thousands of low-budget
features lie in a distribution limbo? Thousands are made every year, I'd
hazard a guess, that will never get seen by anyone but a few close
friends of the film maker. Most are tripe.
I haven't seen the BWP, but I'll summarise by saying the whole phenomena
is nothing new, not even in recent film history, though the magnitude of
its success might be. You don't need billions of dollars to make a film,
just a sense of perspective, a good script, an awareness of your
limitations, a good business head and a modicum of talent.
An obscene amount of hype always helps too....
Jasper.
Chris Hurd wrote:
> Howdy from Texas,
>
> “In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared
> in the woods near Burkittesville, Maryland, while shooting a
> documentary. One year later, their footage was found.”
>
> Okay, so the story is complete fiction. The fact is, however,
> that the Blair Witch Project, an indie made for twenty grand,
> shot completely P.O.V. with a Sony one-chip Hi-8 palmcorder,
> a DAT and a CP-16 loaded with super-grainy Tri-X and
> breaking every convention of proper cinematography, is
> packing the theaters right now, relying almost entirely on
> word of mouth, no TV ads. Kelly and I saw it this past
> weekend in Austin, finally getting in at the Arbor after
> two other theaters were sold out.
>
> Blair Witch is hot right now, and I guarantee you've never
> seen anything like it. But some of you guys won't be able
> to watch it. It is shakey-cam extreme, beyond the contrived
> MTV shakey-cam. This is *real* shakey-cam. All the way through.
> Plus jump-cuts, thrown focus, poor composition, you name it,
> all the mistakes are there, and guess what? It works. It works
> great. This movie is making a lot of money. I'll probably pay
> full price to see it at least once more and I'm going to buy the
> DVD.
>
> This concept -- amateurish, truly awful "home video" as a
> device to tell a documentary-style story -- works because
> of the cultural verisimilitude employed to propel the
> narrative. Verisimilitude -- the "degree of reality," see
> http://oryx.mth.uct.ac.za/projects/belief/index.html will
> oftentimes make or break a film. Example: Private Ryan:
> Verisimiltude high. Felt like D-Day. Felt like World War Two.
> Attention to detail, M1's wrapped in plastic when hitting
> the beach, krauts looked like krauts and had kraut gear.
> Felt real. Result, good movie.
>
> Verisimilitude in Blair Witch: looked like amateur footage.
> Was particularly amused by how awful the Hi-8 artifacting
> looked on the big screen (diagonal lines aliased, colors
> washed out, etc.) The mostly improv dialog helped out a
> lot. I suspended my disbelief and bought into it, which is
> how movies work if they're good. If you can prevent
> yourself from getting white knuckles over the sea-sick
> camera work, then you're in for a treat, because the story
> is a damn good creep-out.
>
> I'm not much for the horror genre, because seldom have
> I ever seen a horror film that's ever even remotely scary.
> Some of my favorite horror films aren't really in the horror
> genre... Hector Babenco's "Pixote," for instance. The
> first half of "Schindler's List."
>
> But Blair Witch, while not qualifying for the horror earmark,
> is easily one of the most unsettling, disturbing films I've
> seen in a long time. And it's very important, I think,
> because it proves that the story is ultimately what makes
> any film work, not what camera you use or what video format.
> The degree of verisimilitude, the believability with which BWP
> is told -- and a large measure of that verisimilitude comes from
> the the distinctly awful way this film looks -- makes it a very
> effective film. People were hanging around in small groups
> afterwards, talking about it. It was sold out all over Austin
> this weekend, and Austin is a film-geek mecca. It is the
> worst looking film and video you'll ever see at the multi-plex,
> and one of the best, original, well-executed independant
> film projects to come around in recent years.
>
> All you pro shooters out there, take your dramamine
> and check this one out. I wish I was making the money
> this film is getting right now.
>
> See http://www.blairwitch.com/legacy.html
r...@jetlink.net
<j.s...@publitec.vnu.com> wrote:
>The video rentals market has obviously killed off the demand for this
>sort of low budget film making as in the 90's all the major releases are
>out on video within 6 months, but sooner or later it was inevitable the
>tide was going to turn, as people get sick of watching the same tired
>big budget extravaganzas rehashed and repopulated with the flavour of
>the month stars.
Actually, this is untrue. There is a huge demand for low budget
pictures -- many production companies make there livings producing
nothing but direct to video, low budget genre pictures. Most of them
star faded names or about-to-be stars and are rented more regularly
and have a longer shelf life than their high-budget counterparts.
rgb