The problem with it being so cheap to make films is that there are so many bad ones
For the past three months I have been reviewing films for the Times and it has been quite an eye-opener. Before embarking on the job, I subscribed to the general view that cinema is not what it used to be. With the exception of a brief renaissance in the early 1970s, the art form has been in a state of decline since its heyday in the 1930s and 1940s. But I had no idea just how bad things had become.
Take The Spell, for instance. This low-budget British horror film, released a couple of weeks ago, was so bad that the critics started pouring out of the preview theatre within the first five minutes. By the end, there were only three people left. It was so amateurishly made, it was as if a group of delinquent teenagers had been given a camcorder and told to remake The Exorcist within the next 24 hours. Actually, that makes it sound more interesting than it was. I emerged from the screening room with smoke billowing from my ears and spent the rest of the day organising a petition to send to the Society of Film Distributors demanding that they change the rules regarding which movies are eligible for review.
The Spell was far from exceptional. The national film critics are forced to endure this form of torture all the time. If you’ve ever come out of a movie wondering why it got so many good reviews, the answer is because we’re comparing it to the other films we’ve seen that week. Next to The Spell, the latest Jennifer Aniston romantic comedy seems like a work of staggering genius.
I used to do the same job for the Guardian in 1992 and that now seems like a golden age. I remember being shocked by how poor My Cousin Vinny was — something that seems scarcely credible today. If I had to review it again next week, I’d give it four stars.
The problem is that the number of movies released each week has increased exponentially — and an increase in quantity has not meant an increase in quality. In the month of September, 40 films came out, at least half of which were along similar lines to The Spell. The reason for this glut is because the cost of making movies has fallen dramatically in the past 15 years. Advances in digital video technology — and the reduced cost of converting films shot on video to 35mm as well as the emergence of cinemas able to show movies shot on digital video — means that films made for under £10,000 can now be screened.
They don’t even need distributors. There are several cinemas in central London, such as the Apollo in Piccadilly, that will show your film for a relatively modest sum. Provided it’s in a cinema for one week, even if it’s being released on DVD directly afterwards, the critics are obliged to treat it as a ‘national release’. It’s the equivalent of self-publishing a novel and then seeing it reviewed in the book pages of every national newspaper.
About 15 years ago, people in the arts welcomed the array of technological advances that made it easier for amateurs to participate in fields like filmmaking. The politically correct line was that it would expose a whole new layer of creative talent. We were witnessing the dawn of a new era in the arts that would rival the Renaissance.
Today, such optimism seems wildly misplaced. How many filmmakers have taken advantage of this new technology to pose a challenge to the likes of Martin Scorsese, Bernardo Bertolucci and Steven Spielberg? The answer is zero. The only effect it has had is to encourage people who have had no formal training — who’ve never been to film school — to imagine that they’re proper movie directors. It’s the filmmaking equivalent of the sentimental message at the heart of Ratatouille: anyone can cook. As someone who’s spent the past seven years working as a restaurant critic, I can confirm that that is a big fat lie. Not everyone can cook and not everyone can direct a film — particularly those who haven’t even bothered to study the craft.
Reducing the cost of making movies and hoping a new generation of young filmmakers will emerge from the ether is the equivalent of lowering the cost of violins and expecting an army of Yehudi Menuhins to spring up out of nowhere. The sooner the barriers go up again, the better.
Article by Toby Young (Spectator – November 12, 2009)
Gary’s Thoughts….
Life is all about context and reading between the lines.
On the face of it, Toby Young’s article suggests an ever-increasing glut of independent films ranging from unworthy to simply unwatchable. His thesis could easily be interpreted as the decline of Western Civilized Filmmaking, all thanks to the economic and technological democratization of the tools that bring filmmaking within the reach of the many who previously were not invited to dine at the film roundtable.
My view is a bit different and I read this article with a sense of excitement for the massive opportunity put squarely in front of us. Yes, I’m an optimist, but a rather pragmatic optimist. The subtext of this article defines my very philosophy and approach to the business of filmmaking.
The contraction, if not the death, of the independent film business as we’d come to know it over the past two decades merely signals renaissance and unbounded opportunity for those who are prepared.
Yes, literally dozens of films every month are making their way onto the big screen – films that would never have seen the inside of a theatre in years past. That they’re not very good is just an interesting aside. Access and opportunity is the noteworthy headline. And this trend will only continue and grow and expand.
So what’s the problem ? Too few filmmakers take the art and business of film seriously enough to prepare, to bullet-test their wares, to insure quality craft and storytelling. For the few who do, they’ve an opportunity like never before to stand out like a shiny penny.
But it’s the old story: 95% or more don’t take the time or exercise the discipline to succeed, and 5% or fewer will. Most fling themselves headlong, brimming with unfounded confidence and having fallen too in love with their project, without stopping to test their work – at every step.
Every film I’ve developed or produced involved countless rewrites and revisions and polishes, embracing the best of notes from a stready stream of trusted peers, masterminds, script consultants, other producers and writers.
Every screenplay was put to the test of a minimum of one table read, with full participation of audience and actors to give critique in a post-read focus group.
Every film was test screened multiple times, only to rush back to the editing room to incorporate the best of what we’d learned from yet more focus group responses.
The same scrutiny is applied to every day’s dailies, to casting auditions, to marketing materials and ad campaign. From dozens of rewrites to craft the perfect logline to countless edits to achieve the best possible version of the film – and at every step in between – being open-minded, flexible, questioning and discerning – discounting sleep for weeks and months on end – to insure every detail has been considered, addressed, tweaked, refined… that’s filmmaking, that’s storytelling.
Being deeply collaborative is not optional for filmmakers who want the best. It’s not a matter of budget or resources. Testing and re-working needs be an hourly preoccupation, no different than the old saying “rewriting is writing”, and it applies to absolutely every facet of the process.
The good news is we have choice. We can choose not to film til we’ve done absolutely everything possible to create the best screenplay, assemble the best crew, attend to the smallest details, cast the best available actors, care deeply and pay attention to every single detail and moment as if it’s your first born child.
The technology is there to support us, access to the marketplace and audiences is growing like never in our history, and all we have to do is be brilliant, committed and willing to do whatever it takes to stand out from the sea of mediocrity and complacency. Be the filmmaker who’s the exception. Be the one whose film is held aloft as the fresh voice that breathes new hope into the ‘indie’ experience.