In this Reviewer’s Roundtable, MicrocinemaScene’s review team discuss what it’s like to be on the other side of the of the game. By speaking from their personal experiences as writers, Gary M. Lumpp, John Oak Dalton and Jason Santo commiserate on the lonely, poverty-stricken life of the scribe and why so many find screenwriting an “easy” part of the moviemaking process.
The MCS staff gathers around the table once again, this time offering their opinions on some of the questions facing the micro-budget community. Keep in mind these are opinions, and everyone in the scene is welcome–and encouraged–to offer their own thoughts on the MCS message boards. And now, the hard-hitting questions…
True or False: Horror will always be the dominant genre in the micro scene.
JASON SANTO: TRUE. I think the voyeuristic nature of no-budget moviemaking lends itself best to horror and that’s largely why I believe low budget horror has always been dominant. If you look back at the 60s and 70s, horror exploitation flicks were just as prevelant as the no-budget quickies we see today. I think the design of no-budget cinema fits well with horror because when you have no name talent doing the acting, you have a real sense of not knowing what will happen to characters in the story. That suspense is easier to build. And when you mix in amateur actresses dropping trou, the voyeur crowd gets a woody and opens their wallets. Hell, I believe that’s why a lot of no-budget horror is made - some moviemakers like to see no namers get naked, terrorized and gore drenched. And no, their isn’t anything wrong with that. It’s just the way it is.
JOHN OAK DALTON: TRUE. They are the easiest to make; as we’ve pointed out on the site before, all you need are some strippers, some kayro syrup, and somebody’s backyard to shoot in. Seriously, though, a lot of the filmmakers grew up on this genre and are looking to these to emulate. Though I do think it would be sensible for a micro-Western revival to start up; it would be even easier to produce oaters again, once a dominant genre in television and movies.
GARY LUMPP: TRUE. As long as males and teenagers are the dominant market for micros, horror will remain king in my opinion. Horror movies also tend to require less of the writer and the cast when it comes to a performance - it’s easier to fill a horror movie with stereotypes and screams than craft deep characters who have to emote. This isn’t an indictment of the micro horror scene - the same can be said of Hollywood blockbusters that are guilty of the same thing.
TIM SHRUM: TRUE. Next to adult films, horror films will always do well. I think it’s because of the cheap thrills that it can provide. Rent any horror flick these days and an audience member can get laughs, frights, gore, and a bit of skin. It’s fun entertainment and within safe confines.
HEIDI MARTINUZZI: TRUE. Most people who are into horror are geeks, and geeks are less likely to be playing football or going out on Saturday night than they are to be making homemade horror or genre flicks in their dormrooms or backyards. As these people get older, their passion sticks with them. It’s a strange thing how horror and other forms of geekdom are all related. Filmmaking geekdom and computer geekdom, for instance, are related, and you can see that in a site like Microcinemascene.
PETE BAUER: TRUE. It’s a proven formula tailor made for the limitations of microcinema. And horror fans appear to be the most forgiving audiences when it comes to acting and production value. I do hope, however, that the microcinema scene will make that next leap in the genre as far as story-telling technique. As Halloween made a paradigm shift in how to tell a horror story, I’m hopeful someone out there in the microcinema universe will help define the next great shift.
MIGUEL COYULA: TRUE. But I think a well written drama with (let’s be extreme) two people talking in a room is easier to make than a horror movie, production-wise. Of course it will require a good screenplay and good actors. I love psychological horror movies like The Shining, and even The Blair Witch Project where the horror is suggested through the creation of an atmosphere rather than explicit graphic usual stuff. But really a tongue in cheek gore fest really doesn’t do it for me. Frankly, that does not HORRORIZE me, which is what the genre is supposed to do. It’s another thing if we are talking about a horror comedy, but unfortunately the line between seriousness horror and comedy horror becomes too blurry in microcinema movies. One microcinema horror movie I like is Shockheaded, although it mixes other genres rather than just horror, it is intriguing and succeeds in creating an atmosphere.
PETER JOHN ROSS: FALSE. Comedy is gaining quickly, and if you count the short form, comedy already outweighs it. TRUE if we are solely referring to features…
JACK ORMAN: FALSE. I’m not so sure it is the dominant genre at this time. If you look at the top-rated films on the microcinema home page, true horror films are in the slim minority. While there may be a glut of low budget quickly made horror films that depend on blood, screams and teens to fill the two hours, the best filmmakers are already moving beyond that to a new plateau.
True or False: With the continuing advancements in technology, the scene will become so watered down that it will not be taken seriously.
MIGUEL COYULA: TRUE. You can’t buy talent with technology.
GARY LUMPP: TRUE. But it’s a “true” with reservations. I think that CG will help the product become better, but I’m afraid that the marketing improvements will make it easier for people to create professional looking packaging for amateur productions. Currently I think there’s a bit of a glut thanks to better, cheaper cameras and non-linear editing, but hopefully this will help the cream to rise to the top and the people with talent will help to keep the scene legitimate.
JASON SANTO: TRUE. This scene isn’t ever going to be “its own thing.” Whenever someone breaks out of this category, it will become an “ultra-independent” flick or something described as such.
PETER JOHN ROSS: TRUE, sadly it already is. Look at the downfall of short film sites from 2000 to current…
FilmFilm.com
RadicalZoo.com
alt.sho.com - Showtime channel’s Alternative Media Festival online, now long gone
Cinemanow.com (no longer shows shorts)
Screen47.com
Dearfilm.com
AlwaysI.com (sold to Hollywood.com and henceforth retired)
AntEye.com
Atom-Bomb.com
Zoomgo.com
Imtalented.com
NotFilms.com
Icast.com
Dearfilm.com
Studiocities.net
Pepper-View.com
and that’s just a few I can think of off the top of my head.
TIM SHRUM: FALSE with some reservations. Digital technology is such an awesome and amazing tool that we have that many before us never even dreamt of nor possessed. But with great tools comes great responsibility; it is so easy for us to forget that and we try to add as much eye candy as we can, leaving little room for the story. Now however, if one can understand that story comes first, then digital technology can only help to achieve greater story elements that were never possible before.
JOHN OAK DALTON: I think this is FALSE, because new media platforms actually level the playing field, creating more opportunities to compete at a more professional grade rather than at a less.
HEIDI MARTINUZZI: Hopefully FALSE, but I worry that this is true. It’s so easy for everyone to make a film now. Which is a great thing! If no one has access to the equipment, how can any new talent come around? There are, however, as a result, some terribly untalented people making film after film after film…I seriously hope that this is false.
PETE BAUER: FALSE. It’s hard to water down an arena where everyone’s starting budget hovers around $100 and the audience scope is limited to something slightly greater than family and friends. I do think that there will be more participants in microcinema, but that won’t translate into a watering down as it will a greater diversity of stories.
JACK ORMAN: FALSE. It is the message not the media. A strong film will stand on its own whether made with a 35mm Arri or a Fisher Price camcorder. The glut of cheaply-made poor quality movies will only make the best movies look that much better.
True or False: Self-distribution will become the norm, not the exception, for the most popular low budget flicks.
JOHN OAK DALTON: I hadn’t really thought about this before, but it may be TRUE, and that is a double-edged sword. Thanks to the Internet people can display and sell their work in a very accessible forum; but traditional distribution channels remain the most widely accepted measurement of success.
JACK ORMAN: TRUE. It is already happening to some extent and there are self-distributed films breaking into Blockbuster, Best Buy and other chain stores. It is a tough road to travel but will ultimately be more rewarding, both financially and personally, for moviemakers who can handle the business side of distribution. Promotion is an expensive aspect that is different from distribution…one could distribute a film that ultimately sold few copies because it lacked the proper promotion. Self-promotion can be financially inaccessible to the micro-budget filmmaker.
HEIDI MARTINUZZI: TRUE, but I think that for a film to be termed “successful” it will have to get some sort of distribution deal. Self-Distribution will be the norm for all the films that can’t get distribution, and (see rule #2) that may happen more and more as the amount of filmmakers increase…
TIM SHRUM: FALSE. As the saying goes he who has the most money rules the world, the same is true for distribution. The greater and larger the distributor the more people will take notice of your work. Because they have the money to hype you and your film.
Self-distribution has been around for decades. In the 50s and 60s filmmakers would go town to town with an old projector to show their film inside a tent. They would sell their films out of Famous Monsters and men’s magazines. They did whatever they could to get their film out there even if it meant being screwed by a shady distributor.
Today it is no different, we send our films to film festivals, sell them on the internet and out of Fangoria, hell, some of us have even tried flea markets. The bottom line is that to play in the big kid’s pool, you need to have a distributor, because it’s a lot of work for little to no money to do it the DIY route.
PETE BAUER: FALSE. The term “most popular” insinuates a larger than normal audience, which means someone will want to make money off of it. So, some structured, proven distribution channel would then enter the mix. Granted, I believe there will eventually be more avenues for self-distributed films to be available, but, in the end, putting it on a shelf is not enough. Someone has to buy it in order to it to become a long-term success.
GARY LUMPP: FALSE. I think that there will always be a market for the best of the best, even in the no-budget world. As long as something makes a profit it’ll be accessible, and with the low overhead (or no overhead) I’m betting that there will always be room for a small distributor with ties to a big video chain. However right now there are too many good movies out there that aren’t being seen, but that might have to do more with the genres they’re in (read: not horror).
JASON SANTO: FALSE. Self-distribution is an impossibly hard thing to do. Just selling movies over websites is incredibly unprofitable, even if it’s a free website and your movie was made for a dime. Factor in camera costs and a budget for a computer and the replication costs. Then the taxes you have to pay and yada yada yada… that’s all fine and dandy - you might recoup all of it if you have the right kind of marketing. But what you won’t get money for is the time you spend marketing, selling, replicating and sending stuff out. Leave that work to a distributor if you want to be a moviemaker.
Unless you have a great business mind, a terrific movie and an incredibly tenancious will to develop contracts with sales aganecies, self-distribution isn’t going to get anyone anywhere. You might develop a small fan base and have people patting you on the back (and that’s totally cool too), but financial success is almost a pie-in-the-sky notion. Hell, even with outside distribution financial success is elusive.
PETER JOHN ROSS: FALSE, again there will be MORE, but not really the “norm” as most people aspire to the 100 year old tradition of “screw-you-little-guy-Hollywood” style distribution.
MIGUEL COYULA: Self Distribution requires a big investment of money or time. If you are a truly No-Budget moviemaker, you must decide whether you want to make movies or dedicate your time to self distribute them. It also happens that some people have the talent to make movies and others to sell them.
True or False: There will never be another “Blair Witch Project” success story.
HEIDI MARTINUZZI: TRUE. I’ll explain. I think that ever since Blair Witch everyone goes ga-ga over every damn microcinema film that has even the semblance of a plot. Look at Primer, for example. A mediocre film with a decent plot that cost 7,000 dollars. Now it’s being distributed theatrically, and Shane Carruth is a real “genius.” Example number two, Tarnation by Jonathan Caouette. Dear God, he’s being hailed as a prodigy. Isn’t he in Newsweek, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Inside the Actors Studio? Lecturing on Directing at Harvard? Okay, I’m exaggerating, but it’s just sickening, to be honest. I think there are Blair Witch situations happening all around us, to a lesser and greater degree, where people are making one film, and as long as it’s independent everyone in Hollywood goes nutso freako and declares them the next “big thing” for at least the next 15 minutes.
JASON SANTO: FALSE. Micro indies will continue to beat down the mainstream’s resistance to shot-on-video and lower budget fare. Movies like Open Water, Tarnation and even Capturing the Freidmans are all working in tandem with Reality Television in establishing the video image as “real life” - as the norm. I think we’re looking at a revolution that could be on par with the great 70s revolution headed up by all of those young kids coming out of Corman’s studio (Coppola, Scorscese, et all). Once more and more no-budget indie movies discover something important say while remaining entertaining, we’ll see another Blair Witch. Hell, we could see many of them.
TIM SHRUM: FALSE. Personally, I liked the format for Blair Witch and want to see more of those films, but as far as a film being just as successful, I really do think it can happen, but it all depends on luck and how good the film is, but more luck than anything.
PETER JOHN ROSS: FALSE, we already had one this year with Open Water…and more to come, I’m sure of it. As HDV starts to filtrate and with a 24p version of it en route, we can expect some more breakouts. I judge a high school film fest every year and the talent a 17 year old has combined with technology available, it will be more and more prolific and the bar will be raised for everyone.
JOHN OAK DALTON: FALSE. I think that the way it’s going to happen perhaps hasn’t even been thought of or invented yet.
GARY LUMPP: FALSE. It might take decades, but if Hollywood can make money off of something they’ll exploit it for everything it’s worth. And “Blair Witch” had as much to do with marketing as it did the actual flick, so I think with the right backing there’s always a chance.
PETE BAUER: FALSE. You mean Blair Witch was the creative apex of marketing and low-budget filmmaking? If that were true, we should all hand in our cameras and become low-cost out-sourced computer programmers. There are too many creative people out there for Blair Witch to be the end of it all.
MIGUEL COYULA: FALSE. It’s just a matter of coming up with a cheap, “high concept” clever movie. Though as Gary said it might take decades to create something that kicks in so strongly.
JACK ORMAN: FALSE. Never say never. It might even happen next year. If there is money to be made exploiting an indie movie, some film company will take it on - it’s a cheap gamble.
True or False: Within the next year, microbudget productions will be taken seriously in the “independent film” community.
JASON SANTO: I was thinking it was Red Cockroaches that was going to make the change, and there’s still a chance it could be, so I’m hanging onto TRUE. Again, I don’t believe Microcinema as a category will ever be taken very seriously, there’s just too much sludge for people to have to wade through. But I can see Microcinema-level projects breaking out into the mainstream, thus validating the existance of a no-budget realm. These movies will ascend to a different category that will separate shot-in-the-backyard camcorder opuses from well-though out, well written and well directed no-budget cinema (presumably still shot in backyards, no?).
TIM SHRUM: TRUE. It will take a few more years, but as the technology gets better, more and more people will become accepting of the formats that most of us shoot on and will come to no longer focus on the flaws, but on the story.
JOHN OAK DALTON: Despite the buzz surrounding Open Water and 28 Days Later, as two quasi-micro examples, I think the micro community still has a long way to go; so I have to say regrettably that this one is FALSE.
GARY LUMPP: FALSE. I think this has more to do with the image of the microbudget world than anything else. Too many people view it as being “amateur,” which is a shame. Hopefully more video cameras that offer a film-style look will help to give the impression that micros have as much to offer as independents, but a lot of that has to do with the talent involved. Plus, most “independent” films have million dollar budgets nowadays.
PETE BAUER: FALSE. There are a ton of micro-budget ideas out there than never reach their potential because the execution fails on some level, whether its the acting, lighting, sound, image quality, etc. It’s the nature of the beast. However, at some point, the technological gap will close and I believe more opportunities will arise, but not within the next year.
HEIDI MARTINUZZI: FALSE. Anyone who manages to get more than 100 grand for their film is probably bitter and jaded from all the ass-kissing they had to do to get the money, and will most likely shun anyone who makes a film, whether good or bad, that has a budget less than that. The bitterness and jadedness will eventually rub off onto those who made the microcinema films, and they will wonder why they wasted their time when no one takes them seriously. They, in turn, will shun microcinema made by others who haven’t experienced the harshness yet. It’s a vicious cycle.
MIGUEL COYULA: FALSE. The affordability of digital gear has fired up the microcinema production. Everybody is a filmmaker nowadays.
PETER JOHN ROSS: EEEHHHHHH MAYBE. I think the term “Microcinema” will be taken more seriously and its definition entered into the lexicon. Can you really call both a $100 mini DV feature and Pulp Fiction “Independent film”? No. “Microcinema” is the new buzz word of tomorrow and it will begin to be the definition of our no- to low-budget, home-PC world of moviemaking.
JACK ORMAN: FALSE. Micro-budget films, even the very best ones, are not up to the production values of a low budget indie film. There are some excellent micro-budget movies available but if you compare them to even a cheap indie film, they come up short on some level, as Pete said. An original movie made for the Sci-Fi Channel will have a $750,000 budget which allows a lot of value to be put up on the screen - even a $10,000 micro-budget film is not able to match that.
True or False: Something other than zombies, vampires and serial killers will become popular in micro horror films.
MIGUEL COYULA: TRUE. It is an interesting subject. Why trying to emulate Hollywood by copying zombie, vampires, shootouts between cool guys wearing sunglasses indoors, etc? It’s fine to make movies with those elements, but at least we should try to add something to the genre that Hollywood can’t offer, and I don’t mean extra gore or sex. I mean to introduce new concepts, themes or structures. We should take advantage of since we are all MicroCinema moviemakers and have no Hollywood suits watching over our shoulders. We are never going to emulate Hollywood in the technical side, no matter how good FX we can do.
Even if your dream is to be assimilated by Hollywood, the industry won’t be interested, unless you have a fresh approach to the genre. Emulating Tarantino or other success stories is not the way. They worked precisely because they were unique at the time they came out. You’ve got to bring your own sensibility instead of thinking: I’m going to do this and that, because that’ll be cool. Talk about something that truly speaks to you. Ask yourself a question: If there will be no audience left, will you still make a movie? What would that film be like? Then do it. If it is sincere to you it will always speak to a group of people. Steven Spielberg and David Lynch are both doing the films they love. Trouble is that unlike Lynch, Spielberg loves what most people love.
TIM SHRUM: TRUE. I expect to see more ghost, Japanese-horror rip offs and more, “faster zombie” films. But I would like to see someone pull off an amazing sci-film. Obviously it can be done, especially if you see the work that is possible on a Star Wars fan film. Now if they can stop wasting their time on fan films and use that same energy and knowledge to make a(n original) sci-film, that would be sweet.
GARY LUMPP: TRUE. With Hollywood tapping into the Japanese horror market, I think there’s a whole new world that can be explored (and exploited) on the micro level. Look for more “curse” and haunted house flicks in the near future.
HEIDI MARTINUZZI: TRUE. I see amateur microcinema porn becoming really big. Oh wait, that’s kind of the same as regular porn. Can I change my answer? No. Zombies, Vampires, and Serial Killers will always be the most common characters in genre microcinema films, but I expect to see a lot of amateur Kung Fu being inserted into these plots as time goes on.
JASON SANTO: TRUE. Horror fans’ palettes are becoming more and more diversified as Asian cinema grows in popularity. And since the Microcinema horror front is largely driven by fans who become moviemakers, you’ll see the slashers, zombies and what have you give way to ghost stories and curse type fare.
PETER JOHN ROSS: TRUE…although I’m thinking the trend will be aliens and CGI as it becomes more accessible and render times lessen.
JOHN OAK DALTON: FALSE, unless desktop CGI programs get sophisticated enough to create satisfactory FX for sci-fi to finally get a real toehold.
PETE BAUER: FALSE. Proven formulas never go away. Zombies, Vampires and Serial Killers can all be lumped into the term “Boogy Man” and I’m certain Boogy Man stories have been alive and well since mans first campfire.
JACK ORMAN: FALSE. It is much easier for a beginning filmmaker to imitate than create.
True or False: Someone will create a microbudget film that is so controversial it receives national attention.
PETE BAUER: TRUE. With video cameras so entrenched in our society, someone will make something so disturbing that it will make a splash. I don’t think a fictional microbudget film would receive national attention, but a low-budget, disturbing documentary would. For example, a Columbine-esque video shot by the killers or something of that nature. Someone will put a video camera in a place or situation no one would ever imagine and create a controversial film.
PETER JOHN ROSS: TRUE, although it might not be controversy, but simply quality and story that brings it to the forefront.
JACK ORMAN: TRUE. It is inevitable that someone will try to push the envelope and all it takes is a bit of hype for it to get some national press–especially if some group or person tries to suppress or censor it.
HEIDI MARTINUZZI: TRUE. It’s just a matter of time. If low budget indies can get attention after beng ignored for years, then certainly microcinema, especially since the number of microcinema films is increasing exponentially by the power of a trillion every millisecond, will be given the attention they deserve. Someone will do something so shockingly horrible, probably illegal or stupid, that yes, it will receive national acclaim. We are just not able to think of that something, because if we could, we’d probably film it and get some national acclaim for ourselves.
JASON SANTO: TRUE. It’s only a matter of time before a Reality TV gimmick gets to big for the small screen and garners big screen attention for recording the truly horrific. I expect to see a big retreat from the Reality TV bandwagon when this happens. Perhaps someone will make Series 7 for real. Who knows… but I can see it coming.
TIM SHRUM: FALSE. There are tons of filmmakers out there who have done things that have raised the bar since the days of I Spit in Your Grave and Last House on the Left such as some of Sub Rosa Extreme’s films. The only time it got mentioned in the international media is when Wicked Pixel were filming a movie and forgot that they had left some fake body parts in a dumpster which were believed to be real when some unfortunate person discovered them, it then made CNN news. So even after that, nothing. It all goes back to style and distribution. The person with the most money is the loudest and people will only take notice if the distributor becomes the loudest for those films.
JOHN OAK DALTON: FALSE, because there are so many shocking things out there already, like stuff from Eric Stanze, Scooter McRae, and Andy Copp, that haven’t made a ripple outside the micro community. The only way I think it could happen would be if, God forbid, somebody taped some idiotic stuff or tried for mock-reality scares that lead to bodily injury.
GARY LUMPP: FALSE. As John mentioned there’s already been a case where a woman was abducted by her friends under the guise of making a movie, but the actual movie itself didn’t get the attention it was the action of the filmmakers. This is an area though where I think more producers can take chances - if you’re not catering to the general public, why not push the boundaries?
True or False: Someone from the microbudget community will break out in the big budget Hollywood scene in 2005.
JOHN OAK DALTON: Wouldn’t it be nice if this would be TRUE; my short list includes Miguel Coyula and Jason Santo, and I’m not just saying that because we work on this site together. Other potential breakouts include Brett Piper, Jay Woelfel, Brian Clement, Debbie Rochon, the Linn Brothers; if you project out five years I’d include Steven Judd, Tyler Wilson, Jay Bauman. If I answered this question tomorrow I might come up with a few others.
TIM SHRUM: TRUE: I can see it happening, however not in 2005.
PETE BAUER: TRUE. It’s just a matter of time. Microcinema is the training ground for the next great writer, director, producer or star. It’ll happen, no doubt.
GARY LUMPP: TRUE. However, I think it’s more likely to be a writer or actor or producer than a director. I hope I’m wrong, but Hollywood seems more enamored with music video and commercial directors instead of investing in young talent. People working behind the scenes will have a better chance, and I think someone who has dabbled in the scene who’s in the right place at the right time and - most importantly - knows the right people is a phone call away from making it big. At least that’s the dream.
PETER JOHN ROSS: TRUE. God help me I hope it’s me… I’ve got two feature films shooting before June 1st of 2005, so I’ve doubled my chances. Horrors of War is being represented at AFM next week, so I’m hedging my bets now…. http://horrorsofwar.sonnyboo.com. I have hope for everyone else too, but I pray I never make another short as long as I live….
JASON SANTO: FALSE. 2005 is too soon. I think it could happen, and there are plenty of moviemakers at this level that could burst from our scene and onto a larger one, but I’m not sure it’s quite there yet. I do wonder what Red Cockroaches chances are in 2005, and judging from what I’ve seen from Chris Sharpe’s Sex Machine, there’s another possibility. And the Bluebox Limited crew too. Yeah, it’ll happen, but 2005 is just so soon. Here’s hoping I’m wrong.
MIGUEL COYULA: I think it is possible, but it is more a stroke of luck. In my case, I make the movies I really want to make without any concession to an audience or a market. I personally think my movies won’t ever be a part of Hollywood because I’m just not playing that game. I don’t even know how to play it. Very unlikely, so I hardly even consider the idea. On the other hand, Tyler Wilson definitely has a very strong wrist in directing for such a young filmmaker. After seeing Abomination I can imagine him in the future making great films about social and political issues. Jason Santo is getting up there slowly, he has a great talent for marketing.
JACK ORMAN: We all would like for it to happen, but whether it occurs in 2005 or later is not something we can really foretell especially since we probably do not know what contacts, projects and ideas our friends may be working on behind the scenes. But it is more likely that they will actually break into low-budget Hollywood because no studio is going to entrust an unproven moviemaker with a big budget.
HEIDI MARTINUZZI: FALSE. But in 2008 Chris Seaver will break out in Hollywood, and Jason Santo will have a heart attack. It will happen!
By Gary Lumpp, John Oak Dalton, Heidi Martinuzzi, Jason Santo
It’s been a while, but it’s summertime and even Reviewers need a break and a chance to get away from the table for a vacation. But now that the summer is halfway over, it’s time once again to gather together the writers at MCS. This time around we’re discussing the most memorable moments in the micro-budget realm – the moments that we point to when people ask us about the scene and we say, “THAT’s why we watch and make these movies.”
GARY: One scene immediately jumps out at me, and I’m still shocked that this flick hasn’t been picked up for distribution yet. That’s the shoot out in the parking garage in The New Chapter. Expertly shot, professionally edited, and featuring enough guns and bullets to make John Woo drool, this is the cream of the crop when it comes to micro action scenes.
JASON: I can’t say I’ve seen too many action scenes in microcinema that have been worth mentioning. Maybe the final stand-off in Queequeg Films’ The Bags. There was some excellent stuff happening in that scene, much of it shockingly suspenseful considering, y’know, it was about a group of high school kids fighting off a demonic army of, ahem… plastic grocery bags.
HEIDI: What about the Mexican standoff in Reservoir Dogs? Okay, I know that’s cheesy.
JASON: That’s soooo not Microcinema.
HEIDI: Well, you suck, Jason.
JASON: (snickering) Well… it’s not!!
HEIDI: So I’ll talk about two more. There’s the “saw-off-your-own-foot” scene in Saw, which is coming out this fall, and the scene in Open Water when the couple finally realizes that no one is coming to help them. Okay. So those are both not out yet. I think I need to pick scenes from the past, huh? For my first pick I choose the scene in Project Valkyrie by Hero Pictures that has the lead hero performing shot for shot the Raiders of the Lost Ark fight scene between Indiana Jones and the Nazi strongman in front of the airplane. It was so funny, yet so well done and well shot. It somehow made me laugh out loud and sit, awestruck, at the same time. Very fun and very worth watching.
JASON: I have a real love/hate relationship with imitation. When done right, á la the Slimer-catch scene in Freddy vs. Ghostbusters, I think it’s great. When done wrong, it can be frustrating. This Project Valkyrie movie has good word of mouth going for it. I know John likes it a lot.
JOHN: Actually, I’ve thought a lot about Project Valkyrie too, but it’s the little slice of character study where the lumpy, slacker lead spends a few amiable minutes trying to teach his robot pal a childhood game. That’s where microcinema works for me - not in emulating blockbuster movies, but giving us perspectives and ideas glossed over or missing in Hollywood work.
JASON: John, you hit the nail on the head about Microcinema’s strengths, man. No budget flicks work their best when they are doing their own, original thing. Like, for instance, when the mechanic Barry in American Indian Graffiti finally admits to his young friend (an eight year-old named A’an) why he cannot be her friend anymore. The incredibly human, honest and overwhelmingly sad revelation, as well as A’an’s defiant response, proved to be one of the only (if not THE only) microcinema moment that nearly brought me to tears. (Okay… maybe it DID bring me to tears…) The originality comes from the relationship between this bitter, older man and this innocent little girl – both Native Americans – whose friendship becomes something of a wonder as the movie progresses.
JOHN: I thought I heard you sniffling during American Indian Graffiti! Though it was hard to hear because I was sniffling too.
JASON: Another startlingly original scene that I have to mention is from Esther Doorly and Hilary Cahil’s movie Sarah, a short picture with the coolest opening I’ve seen thus far in a micro-budget flick. Imagine ten superbly svelte gals in tank-tops with angel wings dancing to some funked-out disco mayhem. Then, quite suddenly, they are interrupted by a large man in a British judge’s wig who snaps his fingers. And who speaks French. And who is missing a “lamby lambkin.” Oh yeah… and he’s God, too. Anyhow, the big G is looking for the title character who was killed by her boyfriend the night before and who doesn’t realize she’s dead. While the rest of the picture is pretty solid, the opening is just phenomenal. If you visit the website from the New Media Technical College of Dublin, you can see it for yourself.
GARY: I’m going to have to go with another parking garage shoot out for my second pick, and that’s the extended tracking scene in (Brian Clement’s) Meat Market. It’s one long shot, following explosions and gunfire and zombies, and it’s an impressive set piece. It shows what good planning and timing can do for a micro.
JASON: If nothing else, we’ve learning that you really like scenes set in parking garages, Gary! But, seriously… that is such an incredible scene, and it’s that kind of ambition that made Clement’s Exhumed such a worthwhile effort.
JOHN: That is a great set piece, Gary, like the dizzying greasy spoon robbery that opens the Rock City crime drama The Passage or the super-charged kung fu fight that closes Shockheaded. But I have to go with the hard-rawkin’ teens of Wichita, getting chased by a vampire horde through a bleak night in Leif Jonker’s Darkness. There’s this scenes where they zip through an eerie car wash in the dead of night that just made me think, as I said in my review at this site, if this movie had come out to drive-ins in the 70’s Jonker would be a cult hero today. And (despite what is said about the power of the internet) I could rattle off a dozen others right off the top of my head that would be cult classics if people could see them at the widespread level of a Texas Chainsaw Massacre back in the day.
JASON: Hell of a point, John. There’s some great work out there that simply isn’t getting seen. But I think the more worthwhile projects that are made on digital video or 8mm and are released on DVD, the more people will see that a big-ass budget isn’t needed for moviemaking.
JOHN: One would hope.
HEIDI: True, Jason. But now we see films that don’t have a big-ass budget (big-ass in terms of Hollywood) getting to theaters and making a crapload of money. Moviemakers don’t stick with Microcinema after their first big hit, which is a shame.
JASON: Okay… we’re rambling off-topic. Here’s another scene to love – or really, a whole movie: The Magical Time-Traveling Thugtastic Jug. If I had to pick a scene out of this hilarious “movie” starring Andrew Isaac (who I’m certain is fairly magical himself), I’d probably go with the whole “inveesable money” gag that occurs when the lead character tries to buy the item of the title from a pirate. It cracks me up without fail, and I’ve seen the movie about ten times now.
HEIDI: How about the scene in Denice Duff’s independent vampire flick Vampire Resurrection that has her dancing in a very ultra-Goth romance novel way around a graveyard, with smoke and haunting music surrounding her? She’s wearing this Lily Munster-esque dress, and it’s breathtaking. It comes off as an awesome tribute to all the Hammer films of the 60’s, but adds it’s own modern appeal. Denice is basically poking fun at, while improving upon, her role in the Subspecies films. I’m really proud of her for that film, and in particular, that scene. It’s a tough one to actually pull of in a respectable way, but she did it.
JASON: Hmmm… Heidi brings to the table your favorite scenes with a Scream Queen with this last pick. I’m thinking mine would be Debbie Rochon’s great bit in Dr. Horror’s Erotic House of Idiots when she’s receiving a bit too much pleasure out of a vibrating cell phone that one of the other character’s keeps calling. It’s a well-acted (and very well-paced) scene that, like Duff’s in Vampire Resurrection, is very tough to pull of in a respectable way.
JOHN: I think the opening scene in The Evilmaker with Stephanie Beaton crouched in the bathroom holding a pistol is a knockout opening, although it devolves a bit from there.
JASON: Okay, so let’s talk scary stuff. While I wasn’t a big fan of this movie, there’s a scene with a little girl on a swing in Vengeance of the Dead that absolutely sent me out of my skin. It’s easily the best jump scare I ever experienced while watching a micro-budget movie.
HEIDI: Jason, isn’t Escape from the Dead one of your favorites too?
JASON: You’re taunting me, Heidi.
JOHN: When you talk Vengeance of the Dead, how can you pass up the scene of grandpa “planing wood” while watching his granddaughter in the shower? And before anyone thinks I’m overly clever, he really was planing wood.
GARY: I’m sure someone else might mention this, but there are several “make you jump” scenes in Hardcore Poisoned Eyes that are worth mentioning. Granted they have more to do with the audio cues that what you’re seeing on screen, but that’s the point – one can make an audience jump if they buy into the premise and think they’re about to see something scary.
JOHN: My favorite scene in Hardcore Poisoned Eyes has got that perfect 70’s scare, like a Rosemary’s Baby, chilling without being gory; when the girl has to bend down and kiss the goat’s foot. Man, that one gave me the shivers. Hardcore Poisoned Eyes would definitely be in that 70s time-warp cult classics list, and while I’m at it I might throw out there Sinyster, Exhumed, the aforementioned Meat Market and Darkness, and Shatter Dead, drive-in heroes all.
JASON: Ooooooooh… Shatter Dead. So many memorable scenes. I’m thinking the storming of the “safehouse” by the Howard Stern look-a-like and his unmerciful cronies would probably be tops. That’s, of course, the scene during which a pregnant zombie has a “shotgun delivery” in the most literal sense. But most memorable about that “zombie baby” sequence was how the entire scene ends so quietly with undead mother and newborn in the shower with the mother cleaning the blood off the baby. Chilling.
HEIDI: Okay, I can’t ever discuss good Microcinema without talking about Razor Eaters, my favorite Australian film ever. There is a scene with an exploding house, and its all real. No cheesy CGI for Shannon Young, the director. He actually waited eight months to shoot that scene cause he knew what a difference it would make in his film, and he was right. Having the actual explosion not only was fun, but also brought the film up to a higher level. You must respect that kind of dedication. Plus, Heidi likes explosions. Funny. Go Boom.
JASON: Okay, Heidi’s gone bye-bye. What do you got, Gary? (Whoever can name the movie and the actual quote I’m riffing on and post the answer in the forums will get a free copy of Escape From the Dead!)
JOHN: I’ll throw in my copy too!
GARY: I know I might get some flack for this, but the final scene in The Blair Witch Project stuck with me for some time after watching the movie. It was like when a kid tells you this long rambling set up for a joke, and when the punchline comes it’s actually funny. That’s how BWP was for me – lots of boring black screen and screaming and wandering, just to turn around and in one image truly become frightening.
HEIDI: The Blair Witch Project rocked, Gary, with that guy standing in the corner like that. It’s been beaten to death, but I will go ahead anyway; Blair Witch was so innovative in so many ways in terms of the storyline and camera work, that the ending was a perfect balance to the rest of it. I have to admit though, that the best is Blair Witch. Other films that involve people exploring an old legend in the woods with cameras…man. That’s lame. And we’ve all seen them. Off the Beaten Path for instance. But I digress… we’re supposed to be talking about GOOD films here….
JOHN: I think people sort of forget what Blair Witch meant to audiences when it first came out, as opposed to later, when everyone had heard about it and every micro-hack was ripping it off. I saw it the first weekend, and it was dead silent in the audience at the end, except for crying. I didn’t quite get the ending until I was in the lobby and my wife explained it. Then a cold chill ran down my spine, seriously.
JASON: That cold chill that you felt down your spine was the same chill I felt when you explained the ending to me recently, John. Even years later, it carried a tremendous amount of power. Originally, I found it creepy, but when you informed me as to your interpretation, I was stunned by it. And despite the fact that it grossed a butt-ton of millions, The Blair Witch Project certainly is a denizen of Microcinema – albeit one many of us wish we could have thought of ourselves. Admittedly, The Last Broadcast (also from our humble ranks) came out first, pioneering that whole first person documenting doom idea, but I found The Blair Witch Project far more engrossing (and more consistent, since The Last Broadcast breaks the first person rule as it closes). An excellent scene, undoubtably.
GARY: I know I’m going to be a bit of a homer with my last pick, but the final sequence in the Polonia Brothers’ Among Us (written by MCS staffer John Oak Dalton) is done very well. Maybe it’s because my expectations weren’t that high for a PoBros production, but when Bigfoot finally does show up it’s a great moment and it’s shot in such a way that the seams aren’t showing (if you know what I mean). The attack at the end shows that a monster movie is possible on no budget – it’s just a matter of knowing how to show (or not show) the big guy.
JOHN: Well, thanks for the homer!
JASON: I guess my last pick will continue with the largely horror-themed second-half of this roundtable as it is truly horrific – though the movie is not a horror picture. Alas, I must be careful as this is a spoiler. Let’s just say that something very shocking happens at the end of current microcinema flavor-of-the-year Red Cockroaches that makes entire audiences collectively gasp at once. It involves a pyramid-shaped necklace. Seeing that movie in a crowd made this initially very startling scene that much more powerful. If you get the chance to catch this movie with an audience at a festival, do so. You’ll see what I mean. In fact, there’s another movie with a scene that carries a similar impact to the one in Red Cockroaches – the climax of the domestic abuse period piece Tom’s Wife. It’s only a moment, but it’s a moment that knocks the wind out of the viewer, resulting in the very same collective gasp everyone participated in with Cockroaches.
And I guess that’s what this is all about. Great scenes in any movies, Microcinema or otherwise, result in the audience understanding the overall meaning of a moment. There’s no confusion, and the feelings felt by one person are the same ones felt by the next person, and the next and the next. Great moments in cinema transcend personal differences, and I think many of these, whether they are simply impressive due to scale, or due to emotional impact, feel the same for most viewers because the moviemakers understood how to reach their audience. That’s a tough part of moviemaking to get right.
By Gary M. Lumpp, John Oak Dalton, Heidi Martinuzzi, Pete Bauer
The microcinema scene is in constant flux; it would take just as many gigabytes to store all of the message board postings about its impending doom as it would to store all the posts about its coming revival. Take its temperature at any one time, and you’ll find flameouts, one-hit-wonders, also-rans, and never-will-bes. But then there are those who can make the microcinema pulse quicken. For this roundtable, our reviewers each pick three people who, at this moment, could deliver that needed shot in the arm. And the best thing about any list? It helps you think of your own.
John: I think J.R. Bookwalter is a modern microcinema pioneer who continues to reinvent himself and his company. He started as Sam Raimi’s disciple and has since spawned a legion of devoted followers, and spun off some pretty talented people from his stable. Among those I definitely like Danny Draven, who has the creative energy to be his own mogul in the next ten years after learning at Bookwalter’s knee. So far I think he has a solid body of work.
Gary: If there’s another director I’ve been waiting to see turn out another flick, it’s Hall of Mirrors’ Brad Osborne. I’d love to see what he’d be able to do with the kind of resources Tempe has to offer. Another would be Brian Clement of the Meat Market series. His latest Exhumed shows that he knows how to do the zombie flick, and I’d love to see him tackle another genre.
Heidi: Ryan Cavalline of Fourth Floor Pictures made a film called Dead Body Man, which, despite its odd title, was incredibly witty and innovative for the style it was emulating. The low budget didn’t seem to hold him back. He knows what his limits are when it comes to the budget, and he works with it, not against it. I think we’ll see good things from him as time goes on. Also, I’ve got to mention Andy Kumpon and Wayne Spitzer. Their short films Last Stop Station and Garden of Shadows are really artistic and creative. They really know how to direct and tell a story without the use of excessive dialogue or gaudy gore. Very artistic, those two. Mark Engle of CultCuts made a film called In the Loaming which was terribly good. I think that after watching all those bad movies, he’s learned what NOT to do.
Pete: My first thought was also Brad Osborne because Hall of Mirrors was the first microcinema effort at that time to spend a lot of time crafting an excellent story before gathering resources and shooting a project. I, too, am anxious to see his next film. After seeing Red Cockroaches, I’d have to say that Miguel Coyula exemplifies all that microcinema can be. Red Cockroaches is risky and inventive and fun and weird and visually stunning and, most of all, effective. All of the freedoms that microcinema has to offer Coyula utilized with that film.
John: From the starlet camp I’d have to take Tanya Dempsey, who I think has remarkable charisma and the potential to be a breakthrough talent. I know we only get three, but she is in a dead heat with Debbie Rochon, who has the uncanny ability to elevate any project she’s involved with.
Heidi: Debbie Rochon has so much innate talent it’s sick. I love how she steals every film she’s in, and I’m thrilled that she’s started taking on more “real” roles where she can actually show her abilities, and where they can be appreciated. She is a great low budget actress; it’s just a fluke that she ended up being so talented. I feel the same way about Angela Bettis of May. She’s too good for microcinema, and now she’s been snatched away by the higher-budgeted films.
Pete: Not as one of my top three, but Seduction Cinema grad Tina Krause in Mindscapes flicks has been very good. She’s got a natural beauty and a nice screen presence. I don’t know if she’s got the acting chops to take on more demanding roles, but I’d sure like to see her try.
Gary: I’d love to see some of the "scream queens" from Toe Tags actually get to do more than run around and get stabbed, and the same goes for the ladies of Dark Legend. But since there’s no way of knowing yet if they’ll have the acting chops, I’m going to have to be a homer and go with Emily Albright, who starred in my first feature When Heaven Comes Down Easily one of the best actors I’ve worked with, and I’d love to see what she can do with a real director and budget.
John: I’d like to turn this around and kick it old school; how ‘bout Kevin J. Lindenmuth? His feature Addicted to Murder is often pointed to as one of the cornerstone microcinema projects of the 90s (and one of the first SOV features accepted at the Holy Grail, Blockbuster), and he is still doing it and finding ways to get it out there.
Gary: If we’re going old school, I’d love to see what Tim Ritter would do with the latest in the digital revolution. His Truth or Dare kick-started the micro scene (I still remember the Fangoria ads), and he was doing that without the help of nonlinear editing and digital video. Considering his place in micro history, I’d be interested in seeing what he can do with all the new toys available now.
Heidi: Old School? Hmmmmm….How about Greg Araki? I was really into his films back in the day. Doom Generation sucked in such a compellingly great way, and he handled the gay/AIDS issue in film in a very tongue-in-cheek way. His films are filled with that “ironic bullshit” that worked so well in film back in the early 90’s, but that is painfully redundant now.
John: Araki reminds me of a Jim Jarmusch or Hal Hartley-type guy, or early John Sayles. I’d love to see more microcinema stuff that leaned toward Brother from Another Planet or Stranger Than Paradise, but the market sure doesn’t seem to be going that way.
Pete: Roger Corman is the definitive Old School microcinema master to me. J But, for my last pick I’d have to say Mike Amato, from Jodom Pictures. I’m a stickler for story more than anything else and Amato has quickly turned into an impressive screenwriter. I’ll be honest and say that I haven’t seen his visual talent as a director equal his natural talent as a writer, but if you want a good story, Amato seems to be the guy. I’m anxious to see if he nails it with A House Divided I hope so. And, an honorable mention of sorts goes to Marc and Michael Linn for being such staunch supporters of microcinema, even though their talents and projects seem to have moved beyond microcinema as a whole.
John: Pete, those are both good choices because you start to look at a “body of work,” as they say at the Oscars. We pimp Brad Osborne so much on this site he should start sending us ten percent commission, and Coyula’s not far behind. But those two, along with directors like Leif Jonker and Scooter McRae, need to keep building on what they began. I think they have the potential to really bust out if they keep going.
Pete: Yeah, we do bandy about Osborne and Coyula’s names quite a bit, but it’s so rare in microcinema to see a complete, or relatively complete, project. Coyula’s Red Cockroaches is supposed to be the first of a trilogy, so we’ll know soon enough if he’s ready to break out or not. And Osborne’s been quiet for a long time, so we’ll see if his next project Interstate makes him a one-shot wonder or not. Gary: I know this might seem like I’m pandering, but there’s a guy out there who’s made some terrific shorts and I’d really like to see his first feature: Jason Santo. Sure he’s the head honcho around here, but his Bent series proves that he knows his way around a set and could use the challenge of a full-length movie. I’d also love to see more women behind the camera, and I wonder if director of photography Jessica Gallant has thought about directing something of her own.
Pete: I thought of Jason right off the bat, but was reluctant to state it for the same reasons. He’s shown varying levels of brilliance at this level and I’d like to see him put it all together in one project.
Heidi: I’d like to see more women behind the camera too, Gary! This makes me want to mention Amy Lynn Best. She directed Severe Injuries, a microcinema horror comedy earlier this year. She’s got a great new perspective on things, and especially on comedy that is sorely needed in microcinema.
John: Hey, isn’t that more than twelve? The most interesting part of this discussion will be looking back at it next year and see where all these folks are!
THE B-12:
NOT ONLY GOOD, BUT GOOD FOR YOU:
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.
After the Roundtable that produced a theoretical “ten commandments” of microcinema, there was some heated discussion on the Microcinema Scene message boards about the topic. One of the outcomes of that discussion was that, as Mike Amato stated so succinctly, some microcinema filmmakers are “Breath Mints” and some are “Candy Mints.” Breath Mints are those microcinema filmmakers who want their projects to “smell nice” and would love to make movies for a career. Candy Mints are those who simply have fun making movies and don’t have any real movie making career ambitions.
Well, this article is for all of the Breath Mints out there.
By Gary Lumpp, John Oak Dalton, Jason Santo
After a busy Holiday season of watching and reviewing many a Microcinema offering, MicrocinemaScene’s review team has gathered together again for another Reviewer’s Roundtable. The discussion this time centers around what kind of movies our reviewers would like to see more of on the no-budget scene scene.
GARY: I’ve always wondered why members of the micro cinema scene don’t take more chances. While many claim to love the scene, and even stay in it after given a chance to move on to bigger budgets, few seem to want to stretch the boundaries. Unfortunately all too often if you see a drama, it’ll be about college kids coming to grips with being adults. Horror movies will most likely feature zombies, vampires, or a guy in a mask killing co-eds. Micro action flicks won’t have much action, but a lot of Tarantino-esque dialogue. My question to the other reviewers: what kind of movies would you like to see micro filmmakers tackle, and in what ways? For example, I would love to see a horror flick without a serial killer (and yes, I realize I’m guilty of that very offense with my own first project).
JASON: Gary, I totally see your point in one way, but I do think that if you look hard enough – and that’s if you look really, REALLY hard – you’ll find most genres being covered in decent fashion by a couple producers out there. Looking for actually funny comedy? Try some of the Rigged Productions stuff or check out Breakfast With the Colonel. Looking for real action? I know the guys at Divergent Thinking and Pirahna Pictures that did Lethal Force would be offended if you said it didn’t deliver in that area. And horror flicks without serial killers? I’d say check out Mike Prosser’s The Dividing Hour or Scooter McCrae’s Shatter Dead (which is available at many a Best Buy store).
Alas, yes… these writers and directors are often the exception to the rule because their movies have a lot of soul. That, more than any one thing that can be categorized, is what is missing from Microcinema work. Soul. It’s one thing to love movies and love making movies. It’s another thing completely to have enough passion to tell a story that others will care about. Passion informs the efforts of a creative artist. And most of what we see is the work of people just kind of doing this because it’ll get them somewhere, and not because they actually care about the work.
All this said, I do wonder why more no-budget writer/directors aren’t treating sex with more respect. T&A is about the extent of which sex is brought up in Microcinema, but it’s one of the most primal instincts we have and it powers so much of what we do. I’m amazed more people haven’t done some serious work with the subject.
JOHN: “Serious work on the subject?” Ah, so many one-liners, so little time. I think the short answer is you need people willing, at this level, to get naked and also be able to act. It’s tough, but not impossible. And although you’ve offered up some good examples, it’s more often harder to take the road less traveled.
JASON: A movie about sex doesn’t even necessarily have to be gratuitous. A few evenings ago I watched a movie called Exit in Red starring Carre Otis and Mickey Rourke, whose last teaming was in the Zalman King shag-fest Wild Orchid. The movie was God-awful… just terrible. But the love scenes were very nicely choreographed and non-exploitive. They were sexy without showing any flesh.
There seems to be a very American attitude regarding sexual content in Microcinema. People don’t want to put it in a serious context. Most of what we see in Microcinema are actors and actresses who just drop their gear for a scene and that’s all they were hired for. Look at the amount of strippers who get cast in these flicks!
GARY: I agree with what Jason is saying. Even without nudity, sexuality usually gets the short end of the stick (so to speak) on the micro level. Certain roles tend to exist only because the actor will get naked, and sex is something couples do right before they get killed or go off to the final showdown. It would be interesting to see a micro producer tackle real relationships - sex included - and see what they bring to the table.
JOHN: Myself, I’d like to see more sci-fi movies. The knock is that you can’t do it at the micro level, but look at Doctor Who; they would take what looked like old detergent bottles spray-painted silver and dangle them on a string in front of a velvet background, and that was about as fancy as it got. Think about it, that show was beloved by people on both sides of the pond and was on for what, thirty years?
JASON: Or look at Mike Conway’s Terrarium. The majority of that movie is very clever sci-fi and it was done quite on the cheap. Shot on 16mm for about $12, 000, I think.
GARY: I think both science fiction and horror are two genres that could benefit from new perspectives. I remember reading on a message board that a director was looking for a way to shoot Hell - the actual place - on no budget. There were plenty of suggestions, from paper mache’ in the garage to hanging chains from the support beams in the basement. I wrote in that Hell doesn’t have to be smoke and red stones and torture devices - Hell means lots of different things to different people. Your grandmother’s broom closet, where she’d lock you in if you were bad. The attic upstairs where you’d go to hide from The Boogeyman. The waiting line at the DMV. So I guess what I’m saying is that I’d like to see someone take the scene in a less literal direction, and maybe explore some new territory instead of covering the same ground we’ve seen over and over already.
JASON: Again, The Dividing Hour offered up a great representation of a kind of purgatory without resorting to cheeseball sets and special effects. Well… at least until the very end… Gary’s right on about this.
JOHN: I’m kind of sorry Westerns have died out as a genre, after being so huge for so long. Those sure are cheap to make, but I wonder if people could even connect to that kind of black and white storytelling today since the revisionist Western of the 60s. And speaking of black and white, good noirs are in short supply. They have to be as inexpensive costume-wise and FX-wise as most horror, but one thing they do need is a well-plotted script. And I think that goes back to what Jason has said about effort, passion, and soul.
JASON: Too many producers seem to think film noir is just about shooting in the black and white mode on a camcorder. They don’t pay any attention to interplay of light and dark either in their visuals or in their written material. Film noir to a novice moviemaker is nothing but a selling point – an excuse to have a detective as the lead character, to shoot in black and white, and spout chinsy dialogue that’s supposed to be “clever” but comes off as hackneyed and ludicrous. I would love to see someone do something more fun and daring with film noir – something that harkens back to the real tone of that genre and not just something that tries to do a Cliff Notes version of older movies.
As for Westerns, I can’t say I’ve seen anyone really make a try at it, but I kind of dread any attempts. Considering the resources that need to be acquired, it would be a shame to see them wasted on the kind of half-assed storyline we’ve come to expect in this category.
GARY: My favorite Westerns were always the ones that didn’t have such black and white storytelling (The Searchers, High Plains Drifter), and I think it’s still a genre that can be used to tell effective stories (the big budget The Missing looks like it might be a step in the right direction). Unfortunately, if you don’t live in the Midwest or have access to a stable that’s willing to loan you horses for your shoot, it might not be such a cheap alternative for micro producers.
I’d love to see more noir-style pictures - Hall of Mirrors is a great example of telling a dark story with plenty of twists and turns, and I think that’s something that can be done well on the micro level - AND take the story in new directions.
I guess that was my original impetus for starting this discussion: why do you think it is more micro storytellers don’t take more chances with their movies, and take them in new directions? All too often the Hollywood formula is followed, and I would think that on this level it would be easier to take the audience somewhere that they’ve never been before. That’s one of the reasons why I enjoyed the first Evil Dead so much - sure we’re all big Bruce Campbell fans now, but if you watched the movie before he became a cult figure it was clear that his character was a jerk and a wuss, and the blond guy was the "hero." But halfway through, half the cast is dead - including the guy who was supposed to be the lead. It turned the story on its head, and not only was the audience unsure of who would survive - or if any of the actually would live through the night - but since we didn’t have the same feelings for the Ash character as we would a traditional hero, it was okay for us to enjoy him getting the crap beat out of him by the forces of evil.
So while I would love to see more soul and passion in these micro efforts, I’d also love to see someone take more chances and see where they can take a story that’s fresh and new instead of the same ol’, same ol’ that’s been plagueing Hollywood for so long.
JASON: Amen!
By Jason Santo, Gary M. Lumpp, John Oak Dalton
In this Reviewer’s Roundtable, the boys take on Dept. 13’s Boobie Trap and other movies our wives and girlfriends are better off not knowing about. Pictured at left is Melissa Wolf enjoying a particularly soothing shower in Boobie Trap.
Boobie Trap
Consensus review rating: **
Written and directed by: Herb Henderson
Starring: Randy Byars, Stacy Sheets and Lou Cyphere
Available from: Dept.13
JOHN: So there’s always a scene in Sex and the City where Sarah Jessica Parker is typing away on her laptop and looking pensively over the Manhattan skyline. She then poses a question. I’ve done this. Except I’m a little hairier and bit more burly, and I’m looking out over a cornfield. But you get the idea. So the question is, “If sex comedies aren’t funny, and soft-core horror’s not scary, then why not rent a porno and be done with it?”
GARY: I’m convinced there will always be a slice of society that can’t drag itself to rent an "adult" movie, so there will always be a market for soft-core. Be it a comedy or a horror flick, if it features young, good looking men and women gettin’ it on, there are people who would like to think that as long as there’s a story, they’re not committing some kind of sin. That, and you can’t go into the video store and rent a porno without looking like a sex fiend, since they’re always in some darkened back room. The soft core is right alongside the Hollywood blockbusters, and usually cheaper too. I think that on the micro-budget scene, though, it has more to do with marketing and making money. We all know sex sells, and if you can’t make a funny comedy or a scary movie, you’d better deliver on the skin or the consumers won’t come back for more.
JASON: I guess I’d just like to interject here with a personal preference: I like softcore movies. Some of the ones I’ve seen HAVE been very funny and interesting, in addition to being right sexy in an inoffensive way. Titles that come to mind are The Sex Files (aka: Alien Files), Playboy’s Embrace the Darkness series, Femalien and Seduction Cinema’s TITanic 2000. I’ve always been more partial to non-explicit depictions of sex, so I like the stuff that comes out of Image Entertainment (or Indigo… either way it’s Playboy’s video label) and I used to like the Full Moon/Surrender Cinema stuff. Hell, as stated above, there have even been a few decent Seduction Cinema offerings, although they’ve gone to crap in recent years.
But yes, I can see the side of the coin you guys are looking at. The stuff that hides under the guise of not being erotic – the stuff that poses as comedy or horror when not offering either – is certainly terrible. And what’s most wrong about these flicks is how little sexiness they possess. Not funny, not competently made, and not sexy despite a truckload of gear-dropping actors and actresses, I wonder if all these guys care about is what the front cover of the DVD or VHS will look like on the shelves at Best Buy. Need names? Hookers in a Haunted House, Erotic Survivor, and Satan’s School for Lust top my list of just plain terrible cross genre offerings.
JOHN: The painful truth is that a lot of microcinema offerings don’t look as good as the average porno! But one that does is Department 13’s Boobie Trap, a rather spindly horror/mystery that has some fun moments but is especially notable for extremely polished production values. Too bad they didn’t marry those with a more robust story.
GARY: Agreed, the storyline in Boobie Trap seems more suited to a short than a feature, so the running time is padded out with very long scenes of the nubile Melissa Wolf walking around naked (and doing other things naked - but the key is the lack of clothes). While she looks great, after a while I lost interest. Yes, even as a red-blooded American man I lost interest in a naked woman - because there wasn’t much else going on. I did like the detective and his story, but I think it was clear that the producers knew that Miss Wolf was going to sell copies and they justifiably gave her the majority of the screen time. I just wish she was given more to do.
JASON: I felt Boobie Trap was a clever little flick, a two-star entry in the Microcinema horror field saved by those polished production values John was speaking about (particularly some nice no-budget sound) and a nifty twist ending. And yes, I too was bored after a while of seeing Ms. Wolf naked scene after scene. I like the women, but like Gary, I like the women doing something, not just lounging around or making a sandwich or whatever.
JOHN: It seemed a remarkable waste of considerable production talent to be phoning it in on the script side. But there are many, many of these films out there doing the very same thing.
GARY: I tend to think that nudity is the one thing you can put on screen and everything else will be forgiven. Make a horror movie with no scares? Bad. Make a comedy with no laughs? Bad. Put a gorgeous young thang on camera naked? Good. Even if he or she isn’t doing anything, it’s forgiven because - hey, they’re nude! We may be human, but we’re still animals. Playboy has made a mint on videos that are nothing more than attractive women posing for an hour on tape. But on the Microscene, it’s hard to find a beauty that could fill the pages of a men’s magazine. That’s why I think certain production companies are on the right track by taking their sexy young stars and putting them in parodies - they’re losing their clothes, which is good for the male viewers, and they’re at least trying to tell (or retell) a story, which is good for those of us who actually care about things like that.
JASON: And of course it doesn’t hurt if you’re piggy-backing on a well-known marquee name…
JOHN: There are very few women on the microcinema scene that I think could be catapulted to that next level, based on not only their looks and acting chops but on their screen presence; among them Debbie Rochon, Felicia Pandolfi, Amber Newman, Tina Krause, and Tanya Dempsey. I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of them jump the fence at some point.
JASON: That’s a fine list, John. Many well-known actresses have gotten their start in b-movies, so it’s not hard to imagine some of those listed making the leap. One of the better-known actresses of today that I can think of off the top of my head is Brooke Adams who started her career doing a bizarre underwater Nazi Zombies movie called Shockwaves. Oh yes… and Academy Award-winning Renee Zwelleger started out with Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation!
GARY: The vast majority of actors won’t do nudity though because there’s a perceived bias against those who have appeared naked in previous works. None of the regional actors I’ve auditioned have wanted to appear in any state of undress - a bikini? Sure. Lingerie? If it’s not see-thru. But topless? No. Hollywood has severely cut back on having leading ladies appear undressed since the 80s and the Basic Instinct boom, and I think most actors fear a backlash if they do a micro without a bra and then try out for a co-starring role in a bigger budget production. Hence the proliferation of exotic dancers making the transition to the screen, at least on the micro level.
JASON: It all depends on the story, I think. If you have a strong story, actors will relax about shedding clothing because it’s a necessary contribution to the narrative. In my movie Here Comes Your Man, I wanted very graphic depictions of sex because that was the modus operandi for the murderer of the piece. He killed women by spreading HIV to them via sex. The angry and frank tone of the piece necessitated actors be cool with this. And they were because those who got involved believed in the work we were doing.
I can understand an actress or actor balking at doing a horror picture with a sex scene in it or just random nudity – in that context it often adds nothing to the piece but marketability. Same with comedy. Why does this person need to be nude in the screenplay? What is the reason? Answer: to move units.
I’ve often stated that unless sex or nudity plays a role in the greater context of a movie (or even an individual scene) it’s unnecessary. I think it would be fantastic if more people started making movies ABOUT sex – started studying it more closely. Make erotic pictures with strong characters and storylines. It can be done. And if you want to blend comedy or horror within the context of a sexy storyline, then do so. Just think it through first! Naked people does not equal sexy. It equals marketing points. And not many marketing points either. But make something really, truly sexy, and people will want to see the movie.
I do think we’ll be seeing this kind of work coming from people as they mature as directors on the scene. There’s talent out there, and sex is an undeniable part of almost everyone’s life.
JOHN: So there is good news on the MicrocinemaScene! Oh, did I mention that all of this information of course comes second hand, and I would never watch any of these types of movies, especially if my wife reads this column?
By John Oak Dalton, Gary Lumpp, Jason Santo
Once more into the breach at the Reviewer’s Roundtable, with Scott Phillips’ kooky short Science Bastard, and an examination into the nature of short films, micro festivals and fan films.
Science Bastard
Writer/Director: Scott Phillips
Running time: Approx. 40 minutes
Available from: Exhilarated Despair
Horrovision
Writer: Scott Philips
Director: Danny Draven
Running time: Approx. 90 minutes
Available from: Tempe Video
JOHN: Scribe Scott Phillips (Horrorvision, Cryptz) jumps behind the camera for an offbeat outing featuring a troubled, self-proclaimed “Science Hero” who gets into a confrontation with a villain known as “Skunk Ape” and his nubile henchwoman “Skunk Girl.” A strange brew of dark comedy, philosophy, gore, and nudity, I felt this was a fun short despite its technological shortcomings.
GARY: There seems to be a bit of a cult surrounding this short, and I unfortunately don’t understand why. It is quirky, and it does try to tell a strange little story. Most of the best elements though are lifted from other movies (Lunatics: A Love Story, Bad Taste, etc.). To me it feels like someone’s backyard opus, but not something that should be taken seriously. "Technological shortcomings" is being awful nice - the lighting is rough, the shots bland, and the fight scenes are nothing to write home about. I just don’t understand how the guy who wrote Drive, one of my favorite low budget action flicks, is the same guy behind the scenes here.
JASON: I found it very fun in spots, and I – like almost every other man on the planet – fell hook, line and sinker for the charms of Skunk Girl (played by Stephanie Leighs.) She’s a button-nose cutie with a very sexy side.
Alas, I can see where Gary is coming from too. The movie is very technically challenged and flatly photographed, but I think it has a raw kind of energy that makes up for its shortcomings. It’s a loose flick that seems to be all about having fun, and I have to credit any movie that presents a villain named Skunk Ape. I mean, that costume was terrific.
JOHN: I think the tougher question is—and maybe Jason can jump in here—is the microcinema short merely showcase for a person’s work, or can it be a viable sales commodity? From what I’m seeing, shorts aren’t really any cheaper to purchase, and who doesn’t want more bang for their buck? I like compilations, but I understand that historically they don’t sell that well.
JASON: Short movies aren’t viable sales commodities unless you package them in anthologies. My Bent series hasn’t exactly broken sales records for s.o.v. titles, but it’s certainly the most successful selling series of movies I’ve ever released. When with Random Foo Pictures, I oversaw the production and sale of 16 hours of our anthology series Fade to Black that never managed to attract much of an audience. I think the concept may have been too vague, which is sort of the problem I’ve had with Bent as well. Anyhow, selling shorts on their own does work at conventions. I noted at the Chiller Convention in New Jersey this past Spring that people will buy a short over an anthology because it’s obvious what the short is about, and not so obvious for them what something like the nebulously titled Bent series contains.
Most successful, I believe, is doing what Kevin Lindenmuth and his Brimstone Productions company does: taking one subject and binding three movies around that one subject. He does genre anthology series, like the recently reviewed Werewolf Tales, and the forthcoming Monstersdotcom. It’s a smart move because people know what they’re getting into with each story. Coming out in September, I’ve followed a similar path and created MINDSCAPE PICTURES Presents #1: Schemes and Schemers, which contains three shorts that are bound together by the theme of deception.
GARY: Unless the short has something remarkable to offer, I can’t imagine it being a source of regular income for someone. Maybe as a part of a full-length compilation, but not as a stand alone. I’ve made my own short movies, and I might include them as a bonus on a DVD. But I wouldn’t think of selling them as stand-alones. I do think that they can be a good calling card though. The guy behind Batman: Dead End is getting a lot of attention for his "little" eight minute short - that cost him thirty grand to make. But it looks extremely professional and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s gotten some studios interested in his talent. Will he helm the next Bat-flick? I doubt it. But at least he’s getting noticed. I like to compare the micro cinema scene to garage bands, and to me a short is the same as a single song demo. Not something you’d sell for full price on your site, but easy enough to send around town and generate interest.
JASON: Ugh… Fan films. I see them as a make or break proposition, with most of them falling on the side of “breaking.” The majority are terrible, and those that are very good can create buzz, but do little else to enhance the careers of moviemakers. At this level, we should be concentrating on finding our own voices and not recycling stuff we grew up with. I understand paying homage, but actually using characters from another movie’s universe? No. Occasionally, you’ll see something like what happened with the guys who made that Phantom Menace fan-film Duality – they made a technically incredible movie based around a kick-ass light-saber battle and got FX jobs from it – but that’s the exception, not the rule.
JOHN: And maybe the guy who did Troops who later wrote some Star Wars comics, and the Spider-Man/Green Goblin guy. But when you look at the ten zillion fan films out there (and throw in fan fiction to double that amount) it’s lightning in a bottle. The rest of the people are expending a lot of their time and energy in something that is a literal dead end creative