MicroCinema Scene

In late September 2002, I was laid off from a great nine-to-five job as a multi-media producer for an energy research company. Having started up a Boston-based movie company in February of that year, it was a blessing of sorts: I was given the time to work on my movies 24/7.

A lot of no-budget producers take time off to make a go at moviemaking. Perhaps they have some cash in their savings or maybe unemployment keeps them financially stable while they are pursuing their dreams. Regardless, most don’t get much more time than one year to make things happen, and before they realize their time is up, many return to the nine-to-five grind, shelving their full-time dream and deciding to treat it again as a part-time hobby. This is pretty much what happened to me. After releasing four feature-length short movie compilations, I returned to work as an editor at a local production house a year to the day of being laid off. I also decided that maybe being a full-time no-budget moviemaker wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Sure, there’s creative freedom and that’s very fulfilling, but I can honestly say I’ve never worked so hard in my life for so little emotional or financial reward. When September 2003 rolled around, I had a lot to show for my efforts, but I had no energy to get the work really out there to be seen. As a result, it felt like I had done all of this work for nothing.

When living in the “free world,” (read: democratic, capitalistic societies) the only things that really matter when one is trying to realize one’s own dreams are time and money. In the minds of many, the two are synonymous: time is money. To me, they’re related in a Catch 22 sort of way: you need money to buy time, and you need time to make money. It seems the only way to break out of this cycle is to create a demand for whatever it is your Hell-bent on producing. If you know the masses are interested in what you are making, then you will have a better chance of persuading someone to give you the funds needed get your idea off the ground. Everyone in the world of moviemaking - from we plankton in the Microcinema underground to the big fish at the top of the Hollywood food chain - all rely on investors. Without the deep pockets of the moneymen, ideas are nothing but unrealized intentions and whimsical ruminations.

Now take a quick look at Microcinema, or as the category is better known, “no-budget moviemaking.” Given that ideas need financial backing in order to be made into movies, the term is an oxymoron. If a movie is made without money, Joe Audience-member automatically assumes something quite accurately: it must not be very good. But why exactly does Joe Audience-member think a no/low budget movie is bad without seeing it? And why is his assumption that a no-budget movie is bad so often proven as correct?

Because all they can afford to shoot their movies with are formats such as 8mm or 16mm film and digital video, most Microcinema moviemakers believe the masses dislike no-budget movies because the work looks “cheap.” This may be true, to some extent. The visual of a no-budget movie isn’t often confused with that of a Hollywood feature shot on 35mm film, but since 35mm film traveling at 24 frames-per-second is what audiences define as a “movie,” if something different comes along it’s hard for them to accept it on the same terms.

Alas, the frowned-upon look of no-budget movies is more of a “result” than it is a “cause” when it comes to the real reason why people don’t like no-budget work. The same can be said of other critical shortcomings, most notable of which include acting, editing and audio recording. All of these “results” come from another bigger “result:” the fact that no-budget moviemakers don’t have enough money to put something of quality together. They can’t afford better cameras. They can’t afford better talent. They can’t afford a professional editor. They can’t afford decent audio equipment. In a nutshell, all of the shortcomings of a movie could be based on a lack of cash, but as mentioned before, that too is a “result.” Indeed, the lack of cash flow and all of the other problems people cite Microcinema as having can be traced back to one very glaring problem: the ideas themselves aren’t very good and thus no one is giving the moviemakers money.

Do the math. As mentioned before, ideas need money to be made into movies. Thus, a good idea comes along that is deemed as something people would really like to fork over $10 to see on video or in a theater. The idea guy goes to money people and, if he’s persuasive enough with his pitch, he can score investment to make the movie happen. Admittedly, this is a dumbed-down version of a very complex and time-consuming process that involves many different parties, but it is a process with which many a no-budget moviemaker is unfamiliar. Why? Either because no one has ever said, “Wow… that’s a great idea” to the aspiring producer, or because the moviemaker never took the time to secure funding.

Truth be told, almost every single no-budget feature I have seen - and I have seen a lot of them over the past several years - had a story so underdeveloped and/or uninteresting that the only way it could be made was as a no-budget picture. No one with any substantial business sense would have sunk money into any of these movies. And when the story/concepts are decent enough to possibly gain some interest, the characters are cardboard or cliché, and there’s very little understanding of how to let the tale unfold to fulfill potential. To be blunt – most no-budget movies are no-budget because the ideas suck. And as an addendum, Microcinema then becomes an “excuse category.” It could be considered a home for talent-challenged moviemakers who couldn’t cut it on the “independent scene.”

Now, I’m not saying everything out there being made on a dime and a prayer is terrible. I’ve been very happy to find some quality work here and there in no-budget land that’s re-buffed my theory regarding the inherent badness of Microcinema flicks. And I also want to remind you of the fact that I count myself among the dregs in the Microcinema world; shoveling out sub-par work over the past year while on a free-ride after being laid off. I was actually given the time to try to make money to keep this dream alive, but the work was just too great for me and I folded near the end, looking for a way to pay off debts via regular nine-to-five work. Several people have told me that they would love to see what I could do with a budget, but thus far I’ve not seen anyone writing checks. Again, do the math, and what shows up on the other side of the equal sign isn’t pretty: the ideas are not worthwhile enough for investment. But you know what? I’m not quitting.

Regardless of the lack of measurable success that stares all of us in the face each day and despite how that math adds up, we will all no doubt keep making movies, even if some of us downgrade our attempts as a kind of “hobby.” Just as many of you believe about your own work, I believe that there is something worthwhile in my movies and I believe that Microcinema, though an inherently flawed category of moviemaking, could be the birthplace of some of tomorrow’s great moviemakers. As loved ones constantly remind me, “everyone has to start somewhere.” Perhaps through the storytelling gaffes, the lack of production value and technique, and the rough-hewn performances we will see through to the other side. We’ll start learning that worthwhile ideas are in fact rare, talent is in fact hard to come by and many of the people who raise money for their productions do in fact deserve it for not only their ideas, but also their persistence. Yes, many a poor quality film is made with lots of money… but there are decidedly less good movies being made for no money. 

Related Articles:

• Confinement
• Breath Mints at the AFM?
• Broken
• Die and Let Live
• Ross Releases Front Line Account