An artist needs to know their brushes. If they are to render the visions in their head into tangible reality on canvas then they must be able to manipulate the tools of that application. They must know how different brushes react to different pigments, how different bristles will produce different textures, how each type of brush will effect the work that is created.
The exact same is true of filmmakers and, in particular, cinematographers. The DoP must know cameras, all kinds of cameras. must know their strengths and weknesses, their pros and cons. How different cameras will handle different types of light, how different sensors will manipulate the image, how different sizes and shapes will shape camera movements.
Thee only catch is that cameras are a whole lot more complex than paint brushes, so there is much more to know.
This chart availible here is a good step to that knowledge. it covers all the major digital cinema cameras from the very high-end (Phantom and F35) to the efficient-end (Sony Ex1 and Ex3). It details some of the notable productions shot on the different cameras, lays out their tech specs and succinctly summarises their key advantages and attributes.
For all the copious books on Screenwriting and endless re-hashings of Hero's Journey, 3-Act Structure and misappropriations of Aristotle; sometimes the best advice comes not in lengthy paragraphs but in concise, powerful and singular Words and Phrases.
This is no 12 step formula or another diatribe of structure from a script guru who has never actually written a screenplay; it's simply an investigation of the distinct qualities that engage and edify us as viewers.
Qualities Of Ambitious Film:
1. Ambition 2. Originality 3. Innovation 4. Integrity To The Concept 5. Discipline 6. Truthfulness 7. Joy Of Doing 8. Singularity 9. Communication Of Themes 10. Clarity of Intent 11. Synthesis of Style & Themes 12. Application Of Techniques 13. Reality Of Actors 14. Pleasure 15. A Good Story Well Told 16. Accomplishment Within The Means 17. Awareness & Appreciation Of The World 18. Acknowledgement Of The Limits Of Feature Film Form 19. Consideration Of Effects Of Representation 20. Recognition Of Film History 21. Subversive To The Status Quo 22. Provocation Of The Audience 23. Respect For The Audience 24. Confidence In The Filmmaking 25. Restraint 26. Awareness Or Avoidance Of Pretension 27. Access To The Subconscious 28. Differentiation Among Characters & Environments 29. Leaving Some Things Unexplained 30. Emotional Use Of Technique 31. Depth Of Character / Depth of Characters 32. Impassioned Point Of View
He then goes on to flesh out those terms and it's an article well worth the reading.
District 9 by Neill Blomkamp is arguably one of the most exciting new films to come along in some time. A film that feels fresh, original and unique - traits that are all too often lacking in mainstream cinema. The Los Angeles Times described it as a "thoughtful sci-fi standout in a season characterized by big, dumb studio tent-pole movies"
Now certainly with a budget of $30 million District 9 can hardly be called 'low-budget' but in comparison to Hollywood standards for what they problematically term a 'High Concept' sci-fi special-fx film, its extraordinarily efficient.
What is most significant is that whilst the film cost $30m to make, it has thus far made back $163m - more than 5 times it's budget (and that’s before it hit's DVD where it's reasonable to assume it's going to do very well). 5x return on investment is good by any standards and it's this 'return' that is the only thing major Hollywood studios are really concerned with.
So let us then compare that to the hideous abomination that Michael bay inflicted on the world with Transformers 2: Revenge of the fallen. Cost $200m to make and has thus far taken in about $800m. Sounds impressive - but that’s only 4x it's investment in return. The key factor is not that Transformers 2 made more money but that the proportional 'return' is comparable. Importantly however the Risk is not. Massive budget Hollywood monstrosities demand monstrous risk of failure. A $30m film demands not nearly as much risk.
Now, one might argue that an un-tested director making a 'low' budget alien film, in South Africa, with a cast of unknowns was a risk and that Transformers 2 was no risk at all because it was a known commodity franchise, regardless of budget.
Yet that doesnt really hold up. take for example Speed Racer; it cost $120m to make and made back just $44m. huge flop, lost heaps of money and yet investors could have been forgiven for thinking Speed Racer was risk-free. Speed Racer is a hugely popular brand, with the right demographic, had comic-book hipness and was being made by the Matrix guys...!
Likewise Speed2, big budget sequel to hugely popular film with same star lead as original - Cost $110m and returned just $150m. Didnt loose money but $110m is a lot to risk up front to make less than 50% return.
Batman and Robin should have been a slam-dunk with that cast and the uber Batman Brand but it cost $125m and made back just $140m.
Meet Joe Black starred 2 huge starts in Pitt and Hopkins, should have been a safe bet but it cost $90m and made back just $180m. Doubled its money but not even close to the percentage return of District 9.
What does this tell us?
Well perhaps a few things....
First is that first-rate visual effects and 'high-concept' filmmaking is not the sole domain of huge-budget filmmaking. You simply dont need mega-bucks to do mega effects. The $30m District 9 is one example, the inspiring Moon by Duncan Jones - made for just $5m and before it’s even gone into main release and DVD it’s made back more than $7m – is another.
The second is that low to mid-range budget films can and SHOULD be arguing their value NOT only on artistic integrity but on pure economics. It strikes me that for too long indie filmmakers have defined their value purely in self-indulgent artistic parameters instead of exerting their viability as products of strong economic credentials.
Low-budget filmmakers should Not be knocking on investors doors with pleas for artistic patronage and good-will but rather banging down their doors with a powerful argument for moderate risk, high return investment. Blockbuster Hollywood studio films are simply not good investment – massive outlay with massive risk. Mid and low budget films are a much better investment. They can take advantage of multi-platform delivery and should be able to compete head on financially on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
What Directors have to do to prove this and make it a reality is get Pragmatically Smart. Not self indulgent with artistic whimsy but proactively savvy in making films that are dynamic, viable, adventurous but also with a strong eye for the audience and being, heaven forbid, popular.
If there’s one director who intrinsically understands this it’s Peter Jackson. Lord Of The Rings may have been mega budget cinema (though it was proportionally far less than it would have cost had it been made in the US by and American) but all the films Jackson had made to that point where low-budget but profitable and viable films that always gave good return to investors. In this regard I was quite taken with Peter Jackson’s funny but astute comments to Niell Blomkamp in regard to District 9:
“I told him that was what he could do that Transformers and GI Joe couldn’t. We could be grungy and dirty and rude and violent. That’s how he could compete with movies like that. Once you have 100 million dollars, you naturally get more conservative and you think about the demographic and such. We were able to have total freedom.”
---
Below is the original short film that was the basis for District 9
This short video documentary brings together some of Australia's leading cinema practitioners - from across directing, script editing, acting, producing and sound designing - to garner insights and perspectives on their artistic practice and industry perspective. It features exclusive interviews with actor Miranda Otto, feature film and TV director Samantha Lang and multi-award winning sound designer Annie Breslin. For any filmmaker this video presents an array of articulate and considered ideas and concepts about what cinema is and can be.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 3:20PM 
