By John Oak Dalton, Gary Lumpp, Jason Santo, Heidi Martinuzzi and Pete Bauer

There has been a lot of talk about “standards and practices” in Microcinema, and even a “Microfesto” that producers could adhere to—although in any discussion, enforcement always rears its ugly head. In this Reviewer’s Roundtable, our intrepid band fantasizes about what would happen if they came down from the mountaintop with Ten Commandments of Microcinema etched upon a pair of stone tablets, and all fell before such rules in worship. What would be inscribed upon those tablets?

JASON: I guess I just want to start this off with a bit of an “intentions statement.” The whole idea of “enforcing” rules or restrictions on anyone’s creativity probably makes us all bristle a bit. To tell new moviemakers what to do or how to do it, especially when they are early in the game and just starting out in moviemaking, is too inhibiting. People should be allowed to make their mistakes or let their freak flags fly because honestly, at this stage of the game, we’re all mostly making movies for ourselves.

All this said, when a movie goes on sale, and these moviemakers begin accepting money for their work, any criticism is justified. As a paying customer, you have a right to state why you do or do not like something, and if you want to voice your opinion loudly (through websites like this) or softly (by mentioning it to a close circle of friends alone), that’s your choice.

Because of this, my first rule for a proposed standards and practices for Microcinema is that if you “release” a crap movie, expect that there will be people out there who will call it crap. Don’t get mad about it. Don’t make little snide comments about reviewers on a variety of websites. Just pull your shit together and make something you can be truly proud of next time. You know it’s bad. We know it’s bad. So just move on.

As always, I like to furnish my arguments with examples. Recently I read that Terry West, one of Microcinema’s most recognizable names - thanks to his work on last year’s bigger budgeted Flesh for the Beast as well as several Seduction Cinema movies – is making a new movie called Satan’s School Girls. Those who have read other roundtables have read MicrocinemaScene reviewers’ disdain for West’s Satan’s School for Lust, so most probably think we would recoil at news of his return to the subject. Alas, I credit West for going back to the subject because he has acknowledged the first attempt didn’t work correctly and he wants to revisit the subject to tackle it in a fashion more close to his original vision. I believe West’s original intention was to make an ode to Jess Franco movies, and it sounds like he may very well succeed this second time around. He’s doing what I would love to see more people do: acknowledge shortcomings in previous work, stress what shortcomings were evident, and on a future project, just do better. I’m not saying everyone should go back and remake things or work again with a similar storyline or within a similar genre, but when you put out something laced with problems or lacking effort, don’t sit there and expect everyone to pat your back. Free rides won’t get you anywhere.

JOHN: If I could enforce one unbreakable law in Microcinema, it would definitely be “No Excuses.” The fact that you wrote it in a couple of hours, shot it in one weekend with your beer buddies, and posted it with two VCRs slaved together, does not mean that it should be judged differently. I know I’ve used this example before, but it bears repeating: when Italy had its studio system reduced to rubble in World War II, Vittorio de Sica didn’t make excuses, he made The Bicycle Thief. Pair that with Robert Rossellini’s Open City and suddenly you don’t have people trying to explain away their shortcomings, you have the Italian Neorealist movement.

JASON: It sounds like we’re coming to the same conclusion from different places, John. So that’s two “Commandments.”

Commandment #1: Thou shall not expect a movie that is obviously bad or made with little effort to be praised.

Commandment #2: Thou shall not make excuses for a movie’s failings.

PETE: No Excuses is perfect. In the end, no one cares about anything that happens outside of Action and Cut… and they shouldn’t.

HEIDI: I used to feel differently than you guys do, because I truly enjoyed some low budget films I saw and was making allowances for the bad camera work, the crappy acting, saying to myself “They’re all amateurs, give them a break.” But lately I have changed my mind and I tend to agree with you. I have seen some Microcinema epics lately that have blown me away, that are more artistic, more moving, and more meaningful than any big Hollywood production I’ve seen ever. One film that really changed my mind was Razor Eaters. The director didn’t make any excuses for not having a big budget. When the script called for real explosions, he used a real explosion. If the script called for guns, he used real guns. Even if it meant putting off shooting for another 8 months, another year, that ten second shot made all the difference and propelled the movie into a whole new league. I’m blown away with the amount of dedication that the cast and crew had and it shows in their film. Anything else is just lazy. If you’re not willing to make all the sacrifices and sweat it out, why bother making a movie? Why do anything if you’re just shooting for mediocrity?

JASON: A call for more “real” effort being put into movies. I gotta say, I’m starting to sweat here. I’m not certain I put enough blood, sweat and tears into my own work. I’ve compromised plenty of times, mostly with the acting in my movies, and while I don’t make excuses, Heidi isn’t saying just don’t make excuses – she’s stating something very simple: Try harder.

Commandment #3: Thou shall put real effort into moviemaking.

GARY: I would like to ask all filmmakers, especially at this level, to tell the consumer just what they’re getting. In other words, be honest. If your movie’s only 50 minutes long, let the consumer know that. I don’t know how many different moviemakers I’ve seen bragging that they’ve made a dozen “movies,” when in reality they’ve made a bunch of shorts that nobody would pay money to sit through.

JASON: It sounds like you’ve got two commandments in here, Gary. One is fibbing about running time, which is totally lame. Don’t call a short movie “feature-length.” But the second part of your statement refers to something different: boasting about a body of work when there’s no proof really it actually exists.

Ouch! That hurts because I resemble that remark! When I was with Random Foo Pictures, I made a ton of movies I didn’t really want many people to see, but I still count them as projects on my resume even if they didn’t go past my living room in terms of exhibition. Is it kind of silly to count them as completed movies? Yeah, I guess so. The Foo guys recently hit their Eight Year Anniversary and they have 73 movies in their “Vault” – almost all of them unavailable. I’d argue there’s some good work in there – the stuff we put on our old public access show “Fade to Black” was decent and I think it’s worthy of an audience, but I will say this – we only charged for the tapestock and shipping whenever something was sold.

Blah, blah, blah… I guess you’re probably right, Gary. As much as it pains me to say it, I probably shouldn’t count my old work as part of my moviemaking because it spanks of being a poseur. Point for you there and I should get a nice ruler across the wrist.

Commandment #4: Thou shall not misrepresent a short movie as a “feature length” picture.

Commandment #5: Thou shall not boast about the quantity of movies made when no one can actually see the work.

JOHN: That is so true. According to some (low) standards, my filmography starts with Garage Wars, a ten-minute space opera shot on Super-8 in 1980 when I was a freshman in high school, and shown to much acclaim on the side of my parent’s garage to all the neighbor kids. Some of the claims I see on the ‘net are about that funny.

GARY: Those are the kinds of credits I’m talking about. Backyard opuses where sis plays a zombie in blue grease paint and the like. I think it’s one thing to gather together like-minded individuals and create a movie, another to grab some friends and some beers and “wing it.”

PETE: Another possible law should be that they should Be Honest With Yourself. In other words, know what your end goal is for the project and release it as such. Are you shooting a movie to try some cinematic technique out, to have fun with your friends, to try to make it to the next level… because each one of those expectations means vastly different release strategies. Yet, it seems that, no matter what the intent, they are all “publicized” the same way…like a legitimate film instead of what it truly is…a work in progress or a learning experience, etc. When I watch a movie that has great packaging and is a crappy product because of bad acting, lighting, sound, story, editing, special effects, etc. then not only do I feel duped, but I feel like the filmmaker should stop playing around with Photoshop and start reading books on how to make effective movies.

JASON: I think again we’re almost mirroring one another’s beliefs. Pete’s idea seems to be that we should advertise our intentions when we sell our movies – that our motives should be evident with each project. I think we’d all like to be spared crappy movies, Pete, but I think what’s most usable in your statement is this: If a movie is an experiment with a certain kind of storytelling, or an amateur production with bad sound, dialogue, etc., then don’t hide that fact behind a marketing campaign that sells it as something different.

Commandment #6: Thou shall not advertise a movie as something it is not.

JOHN: It’s interesting, Pete, because I’ve been reading a lot about the Dogme 95 movement lately, and their “Vow of Chastity.” The manifesto of the Dogme 95 filmmakers insists they use only a hand-held camera, natural lighting, and on-set sound—almost all things that we complain about in Microcinema! But one element I find interesting is there must be “no superficial action.” And boy, could we use a dose of that in Microcinema, from those long driving scenes (always cut to a hopeful unsigned band’s music), to those much-maligned but oft-enjoyed vampire lesbian make-out scenes. So my next rule: No Padding.

HEIDI: Some of the best movies ever made have no padding. Conan the Barbarian, for example. (Santo scratches his head and looks across the table with mouth agape. Heidi sticks out tongue at Santo.) Another is the original Star Wars. Look at Scorpion King and the new Star Wars monstrosities by George Lucas and you’ll see that even in films today with big budgets, padding makes a movie awful. Sometimes people feel that if they make their film feature length it will get taken more seriously than if it’s a short. Wrong. Look at a short like the original Sling Blade. It was a compelling black and white piece that starred Molly Ringwald as a journalist interviewing Billy Bob Thornton’s character in jail. It was so highly praised, he got to make it into a feature-length movie.

One aspect of padding that really makes me want to puke is excessive, unnecessary dialogue. When a script calls for actors to dictate to you step by step what they’re feeling, (as in, “Oh no! What could this be? Here we go again!”) you know that you’re headed for disasters. Sorry. Got a little sidetracked, but God that bothers me. People definitely focus on the packaging and selling of their film more than the film itself. What they don’t see is that if a movie is really great, people like us will notice even if it comes wrapped in a brown paper bag with the title written in pencil on the front. A good movie sells itself.

PETE: I always use the example of the original Law & Order for economical screenwriting. That show has absolutely no padding whatsoever and it’s been on the air for over 200 episodes. I doubt that’s a coincidence. Story, story, story. That is the only thing that matters. It amazes me how many people jump into the hard part, making movies, without having spent time actually formulating a good story first. If someone is not going to invest the time in creating an engaging script, then I don’t have much hope that the same person will invest time in completing an engaging film. It’s inclusive in the process and yet so many people skim over the writing part.

JASON: I’m right there with you, guys. How many short movies have been turned into features through padding? Ugh… A great addition to the commandments.

Commandment #7: Thou shall not use padding to make a movie longer.

GARY: I think the “no padding” rule is a great one. All too often someone walking down the street or getting in his or her car is shown for no real reason other than to eat up some time. Bringing up Dogme 95 (as John did) though opens up a whole other can of worms, and maybe that can be the subject of our next roundtable. But since this one is about potential rules or guidelines, I’d be remiss in not mentioning a very simple yet very necessary one: have an actual screenplay. It seems so basic, yet time and again I find myself watching a microbudget effort and I wonder if the filmmakers had spent as much time on the screenplay as they did trying to get actresses to disrobe they might have actually made an entertaining movie.

JASON: Man, Gary… you’re after my head with this list! As a huge fan of improvisational moviemaking, I have to argue a bit with this point. If you have a decent concept and some pretty good actors, I think you can make a good flick without a script. I think the trick here is to adhere to Commandment #6 and advertise the movie as such. If it was made without a screenplay, then you should advertise that fact and not pretend that the movie was made like any other.

At root, though, I completely hear what you are saying: You want moviemakers to focus on story and less on the various trappings that go along with making a “movie.” So many people seem to be in love with the idea of being a moviemaker, and they spend all of this time throwing together schlocky, low-effort productions because it makes them something bigger than they are. What really needs to happen is that they must focus on what’s important (like story) before calling themselves moviemakers. I love this.

Commandment #8: Thou shall pay more to the important elements of moviemaking and put less emphasis on simply “being a moviemaker.”

JOHN: I think that is the first lesson anybody learns the hard way when they decide to delve into the industry; there are more people who talk game than who actually have game. There are lots of people who dream about being a filmmaker, without any of the physical, emotional, technical, or financial tools to do so. But they will drain the life out of you trying to preserve their fragile fantasy life.

GARY: While this might be a bit picky, and probably falls in line with “be honest” and “truth in advertising” – if you have a genre “star” (for lack of a better term) make an appearance or a cameo in your flick, please let the credits reflect that. If they’re one of the leads, then by all means credit them as such. But if a scream queen shows up just long enough to take off her top, please don’t list her as one of the “stars” of your movie. I hate that my distributor currently lists my movie as “starring” a certain strong-chinned actor - he plays one small part - and my credit list correctly lists him as a “featured” actor. After the lead actors are listed, it’s then “with such and such,” and that’s how it should be. He’s not a lead, and I don’t want people coming into the movie thinking they’re going to get an hour plus of his work. It doesn’t star him, and I think it takes away from the work of the other actors who did play the leads and carried the whole movie.

HEIDI: Gary! I so agree with you on that. I have seen some really awesome “genre stars” hailed as stars of certain films that are just mortifyingly awful. When I actually watch the film, I find out they play the “Girl in Store” for about a minute. What is more baffling is why filmmakers believe that having a certain star in your film is actually going to make it more successful. Let’s face it, unless you actually get Julia Roberts in your film, it doesn’t make much of a difference, especially if your film never goes to the box office. And these actors allowing their names to be exploited just furthers the view that independent genre films are just a forum for inside jokes, tributes to other films, and a cult of “underground” entertainment. All movies are movies, and should be judged the same way. Universal can’t say Robert DeNiro is the star of a film because he happens to drive through the back lot at the time of the shooting and ends up in a shot with Frankie Muniz. They’d be sued. Microcinema should be subject to the same rules. Although I really need to add here that I am a huge fan of genre actors and in no way disapprove of a film simply because the budget is small. I kind of think that goes without saying, since I write at Microcinemascene. Am I just being redundant now?

JASON: No, Heidi, you’re just being passionate. I think you and Gary have nailed down another commandment and almost nailed down two, but we’ll spare critical discussions of actors and actresses for the moment and keep in on the topic of producers.

Commandment #9: Thou shall not bill a recognized name as a “star” if said talent is only in the movie in one or two small scenes.

PETE: I think Microcinema filmmakers should focus on two other areas… Raising your standards and being unique. Rodriguez, Soderbergh, Tarantino and Linklater became successful because they told stories in their own inventive way. They used the limitation of the independent film to separate themselves from everyone else, not to become just like anyone else. Use the freedom Microcinema gives you to make something uniquely you. My goal is to have "a Pete Bauer film" mean something important, something that has my "fingerprint" on it. I may not succeed, but my goal is to continually define what separates me, what qualities that only I bring to the table. Granted, we often learn filmmaking by imitation (fan films, genre flicks), but raise the bar and try to turn it into something no one else has seen.

JASON: An excellent and very positive closer to our commandments list, Pete. We certainly do learn by imitation sometimes, but in the end, moviemaking is about individual vision and that’s what will make a flick made by some no name out of Wisconsin memorable, not how precisely he or she mirrored the horror “formula,” or how much the special effects looked like special effects from a particular Hollywood franchise. It’s been said time and time again, but every story has been told a thousand times. It’s how each one of us interprets a story that makes it fresh.

Commandment #10: Thou shall not be content to copy other movies, but will instead strive to add a unique and individual vision to new work.