This week Lionsgate press releases their slate of upcoming "microbudget" movies. Read about it HERE. This is the new economy, folks. While I chuckle at the price tag (at $2 million a pop, someone on these movies is walking away with a cool million in his pocket) I see this as a new model for the industry.
You would say, of course, that this is just a knee-jerk (emphasis on the jerk) reaction by a less-than-reputable studio to cash in on PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. (When a movie makes a hundred million dollars, studio people always believe the American public will fall for the same old shit) But it makes sense to cut the fat from production, especially for genre films. Did everyone forget the genius of Roger Corman? Lionsgate is basically pumping out exploitation films for the new generation. And no man in his right mind pays a premium for exploitation.
Exploitation films in the Sixties and Seventies were an essential part of moviemaking. They not only fed the public what they wanted, but they advanced the genre (however low on the cultural totem that may be). They also proved fertile breeding ground for the next generation's most important filmmakers (Joe Dante, James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola, Peter Bogdanovich, do I need to go on?)
They really haven't gone away. Instead of the drive-ins, you see them on your basic cable channel.
This method can work, if the movies are faithful to their genre and can deliver maximum bang for the (lack of) buck. But come on, guys... 2 million???
INSIDIOUS
The same week Lionsgate anounnces a slate of film for their "Micro-budget Series", io9.com posts an article about how INSIDIOUS was made for the relatively cheap price tag of $800,000 - and it didn't even look like crap! (you should read this article at io9.com HERE.) This is a stronger model for indie moviemaking. Check out the points Oren Peli makes (Mr. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY himself):
1) when the budget is low, you rely on practical effects, not CGI
2) lack of budget leads to a need to be creative (something you don't have on a higher budget movie, interestingly)
3) small efficient crew (the more crew you have, the more crew you need for the crew)
4) your creative partners (director, producer, editor, actor) collectively OWN THE MOVIE. No huge salraries are paid UP FRONT. You all PARTICIPATE in the success of the movie.
There's also a cool interview with James Wan and Leigh Whannel at Collider.com HERE
ALWAYS QUESTION TRADITION!
The above article mentions Robert Rodriguez and of course he's a hero to the indie world. What gets lost among his trailblazing is how he urges filmmakers to get on board to the digital age. He says filmmakers are the last ones to get on board with technology. Embracing technology is the ONLY WAY you will get the freedom you so desperately want. Pay close attention to the parable about Grandmom's ham at 1:21. It illustrates everything that is wrong with the Film School Mentality:
RUBBER
And who'd have thought that the best indie movie since DONNIE DARKO would be a horror-absurdist-comedy directed by a Frenchman with a Canon 5D? Literally, it's about a murderous rubber tire wreaking havoc on a desrt town while a group of spectators watch from a hillside. Figuratively, it's about horror technique and style.
Sound pretentious? You bet. A one joke movie? Actually, it's two jokes. But trust me you've never seen anything like this. (The rubber tire makes people's heads explode. 'Nuff said)
(It was shot on a Canon 5D then transferred to 35mm for a budget under $500K)
0 comments:
Post a Comment