Maybe if the Cannes Film Fest had a new category - films under such
and such a budget - some of them would try? I think it would be a
great effort. Or if there was an award for best film under X amount...
Andrea
On Jul 22, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Patrick Michael Tupy wrote:
Yeah, Dave, I definitely agree with you about John's post as a
'challenge' for today's A-List Directors. But times have clearly
changed so I think that without sufficient motivation for one of
these A-Listers to take on a smaller project, it's all speculative
on our parts. Could they do it? I think they could but only if
they HAD to. That's why I mentioned the certain 'Director' in the
40's who sought and possibly had to prove to the studios that he
could direct a studio film on time and under budget.
Ultimately, we'd all have to agree that it's not in any of their
interests to do so. The studios would possibly expect them to cut
their future budgets and there's no guarantee that studios would
sufficiently support their shoestring project with advertising or
wide distribution for their smaller films so there's no guarantee
that anyone would flock to the lower budget film made by one of
these highly successful Directors. Not that it couldn't happen, but
put yourselves in their shoes, it's virtually a 'lose/lose' for
them. Making a small film has all the same headaches (and possibly
more) than making a film with a fat budget. Trust me, I'm working
on one now and production has been pushed back a month already due
to scheduling and budget issues and everyone's scrambling to pay
their bills everywhere. I was supposed to be working from July 4th
forward and now it looks like I'm not going to be there until mid-
August. I'm losing thousands of dollars in preproduction income I
was counting on. That rarely happens on a full-fledged Studio
film. So I'll ask you, which situation would you rather find
yourself in? If you're younger and hungry, I get it. You're still
trying to prove yourself. If you've 'arrived' and have 'earned' and
been used to the perks, why would you throw them back? I mean, if
you could fly first class all the time would you suddenly decide to
fly economy if you don't have to? Especially when you're not paying
for it but you're still getting all the frequent flyer miles!
Bottom line, these Director's could always choose to fly economy,
but why?
I can tell you this, from own experience as a writer having been
employed at Warner Brothers, I would NEVER drop my quote if my films
were continually successful unless I had a 'vanity' project that I
was going to be allowed to direct or receive some ownership of the
film, etc. in order to make it worth my risk. Times have changed
from the '60's. Too few films are made anymore, the business is too
fickle, the risks MUCH higher than they were when PSYCHO was made,
and the window for a career is just too damned small.
Patrick
On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:02 PM, David Kusumoto wrote:
I believe John's post was designed to challenge whether our most
successful film directors today -- are capable of "going back to
making films on the cheap" as most at one time did.
But I your reply was on the mark -- esp. your comparisons to
"Duel" (a TV-movie released theatrically overseas) and "Memento,"
an indie film throughout. Spielberg demonstrated he could in fact
"go back" in 1993 -- after a string of classic blockbusters (and
some duds in between). And I believe he was "indulged" by
Universal because he always intended to deliver the $65 million
"Jurassic Park" -- which was briefly the #1 box office hit of all
time -- the same year as his $22 million "Schindler's." In
interviews, Spielberg later acknowledged his track record enabled
him to make a Holocaust picture few would finance, and that he
himself intended "Schindler's" to be a "non-fiction novel," an
"artifact" -- told in a style akin to Truman Capote's, "In Cold
Blood" and author Thomas Kenneally's own source material,
"Schindler's Ark."
Good points, though, Patrick.
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:42:57 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an "epic" on a low budget?
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Dave, clearly you did not read my response to John's original
post. Here is what I posted in reply:
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John:
And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play
a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no
incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us
to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made
DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960
dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years
after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars.
Point being, we expand to our budgets personally and
professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less than Hitchcock
was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question is still
interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion
where a certain Director did exactly what you propose:
In the 1940's, a director sought to prove to the studios that he
could produce a film within the system on budget and on time. He
not only came in on time but was under budget:
What was the film's title? And who was the Director?
Those who know me have a built-in advantage.
Patrick
ps: I'm completely serious about wanting to see a 'wooden racket'
tennis tournament!
On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote:
** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was
thought to be an "unbankable" Holocaust picture in March 1993 --
that made it to theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost
$22 million, a pittance by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after
"Psycho." He ended up with a three hour, "mostly" black-and-white
picture with no zooms, steadicams, cranes or "Spielberg camera
tricks," near zero post-production time. "E.T" was the only other
Spielberg release considered made on the "cheap" for $10 million,
but that was in 1982. The budget for "The Dark Knight" is said to
be $180 million plus. I doubt Spielberg himself could shoot a
modest "epic" in many locations for under $30 million today, unless
it was a documentary w/less expensive foreign production crews.
** What would be intriguing, though, which gets to your point -- is
whether Spielberg could do a "Sundance-type" film in the U.S. --
with no stars or sets, armed only with a talky script. Oscar-
winning director Peter Jackson shoots his action films "down under"
because of cost. Imagine how much they'd cost if shot in the
U.S.? This is why I'm extremely curious with what Jackson will do
with his next film, "The Lovely Bones" (now in post production),
which is based on the 2002 mega-bestselling book by Alice Sebold --
a modest "talky" story about a small American town -- narrated
throughout by a 14-year old girl who's murdered on page one.
-kuz.
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:45:38 +1000
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: I saw THE DARK KNIGHT tonight. . .
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>
> I just returned from seeing The Dark Knight this afternoon and
although it
> was reasonably entertaining I have to wonder if a really
successful movie
> can be made today without throwing truckloads of money into the
project and
> relying almost totally on whiz bang special effects and mass
destruction of
> cars, buildings etc etc.
>
> I also thought that it was a little remiss of the director that
in a number
> of scenes it was very hard to hear what Gary Oldman was saying. I
actually
> have no idea what he said in the fairly key final scenes, bearing
in mind
> that his were the last words of the movie, and the people I saw
the movie
> with made the same comment.
>
> In 1960 Hitchcock made a movie with his TV crew for a budget of
under a
> million dollars and shot the film in a matter of weeks. If it
hadnt been for
> the shower scene, he would have completed the project even
quicker. I would
> like to see one of the major directors like Spielberg, or
Christopher Nolan,
> make a film with a low budget and see what they could come up with.
>
> Regards
> John
>
> Sign up for my regular newsletter on movie memorabilia:
> http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?mod=account&go=register
>
> Visit my Website: www.moviemem.com
>
> All About Australian posters:
> http://search.reviews.ebay.com/members/johnwr_W0QQuqtZg
>
> My eBay Store and Lisitngs: http://myworld.ebay.com/johnwr/
>
> Exhibitions: http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?page=15
>
> JOHN REID VINTAGE MOVIE MEMORABILIA
> PO Box 92
> Palm Beach
> Qld 4221
> Australia
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
"Let us resolve and work toward achieving some very simple
propositions: There are no acceptable limits and there are no
acceptable prejudices in the twenty-first century."
- Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
