Low budget film
We are often told money makes the world go around, and one might assume it is the same for the film industry and film production. Despite the general concept that the higher the budget on a film, the better quality the film will be, this is not always the case; a large variety of low budget, successful films exist. A film can be considered low budget when it has little to no funding from a private investor or studio, where as high budget films do have higher financial backing. Budget size does not dictate the quality of a film. You might wonder; if money is not the ultimate deciding factor of a film’s success, what is?
My research indicates there are several contributing factors to making a high quality low budget film. This includes but is not limited to:
- story development
- improvised dialogue
- few takes
Producing a low budget film
Indie Films, films produced outside of major film studios, are one category of low budget films. Although having high budgets for films would be nice, it is not always possible to achieve. Noam Kroll, an established filmmaker in the the Los Angeles region, and writer of his own blog, distinguishes his work through several low budget films, even as low as “ultra low budget,” films where scripts are written quickly and produced in short amounts of times with actors getting paid as little as a buck twenty five ($1.25) an hour. He goes into explaining how he is able to do so and his process for such films. In his experience they are often high stress situations because of all the “necessities” one tries to go around in a bid to save money. This includes skipping permits for filming in “private” or restricted locations such as certain beaches and minimal transportation methods. An example of a film done this way is “Shadows on the Road,” made with micro-budgets with few individuals on set. Indie films, despite low budgets and often little production time, involve lots of sweat and work going into the final project in a bid to make up for the lack of resources.
Those like myself, who are still students or do not have the funds to engage in movie-making the way Hollywood often has the power to do, can learn a lot from what else, besides money, can make a film successful. To sum it up, these tools include
- having a good story line
- working in more natural mediums instead of studio type setting that are manufactured to give a certain vibe.
- utilizing what you have and finding resources
Money should never be the deciding factor for whether a creative piece of work is great or not.
Source
Going about making a low budget film in the Mumblecore Movement
The idea of low budget films with quality content can be hard to accomplish but that is what many film creators set out to do often times. One such instance that encompasses that thought process includes the Mumblecore movement in film. Maria San Filippo, a teacher at Wellesley College and Harvard College, tries to explore the phenomenon of Mumblecore in her scholarly article. The basic gist of the movement includes producing films with
- low budgets by utilizing natural light
- simple sets or even real locations
- improvised dialogue
- very few takes
This is possible by allowing a lot of creative input by actors to make their characters come alive despite the little pay they are receiving. Most of the actors in films classified as part of the Mumblecore movement range in age of 20 to 30 years old (the ones that can afford to work for so little for the time being). This is in part a reason why these movies can be made with lower budgets, but a larger attributing factor is the fact that most of the stories focus on real life stories with struggling people and so forth. A few examples of successful films in this movement include “Funny Ha Ha” and “Humpday.”
What is the story despite your budget?
To develop the story line aspect of low budget films further, it seems that most people would classify films as low or high budget films based on their story line/ content rather then whether they are actually made with low or high budgets. An example of this is considered to be Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds.” Although boasting a budget of a high 132 million dollars, its horror content seems to make it a “low budget film.” For more elaboration on this example, Blair Davis in his book, The battle for the Bs : 1950s Hollywood and the rebirth of low-budget cinema, goes on to explain how films are often categorized into two categories. One being an A class film versus a B class film, which are considered to be “low budget” films. However what this example allows us to explore is how the story line of this film is essential to consider; it won several awards and raked in a decent profit of $591,745,540 worldwide, but its content of horror still makes it a “low budget film.” Many horror films are produced with low budgets when compared to other genres, but still go on to do very well. So budget is not as important as one would believe in the success of film, if a high budget film, considered and perceived as low budget film can do so well, so can an actual film with a low budget.
Source
Last Notes
A person should not get discouraged by the amount of money they have when they are producing films since so many other components are also necessary for a great film. Films have the power of story and connecting people for the duration of a film, and often end up sticking with us past just playing time. If one has stories to be told, ways to accomplish telling those stories can transcend being restricted by a budget.
Film Life 