Arvind Ethan David
MAKING MOVIES ON A MICRO-BUDGET
A Showcase of Films with Links to the Region
Arvind Ethan David
www.slingshot-studios.com
Stephen Reynolds
www.tombraiderascension.com
August’s Creative Networks presented a Showcase of films with links to the region, with guest speakers Producer Arvind David and Director Stephen Reynolds.
Arvind introduced himself by saying that his company. Slingshot, had been in existence for three and half years, during which time they had made three and half films. He then questioned what might be described as ‘Micro-Budget’ – pointing out that it’s a pretty vague definition. It also changes over time - what might have been the average low budget in 2005, at say £2.5M, had now reduced to much less in the last two or three years and so the space between micro budgets and low budgets was shrinking.
In addition, there is a popular notion that micro-budget refers to a certain type of film.
In fact, in an increasingly competitive field, the idea is to achieve a common and consistent quality of filmmaking for significantly less cost. In order to dispel any misconceptions, Arvind then showed Trailers from the three films that Slingshot had completed to date.
‘Sugarhouse’ made in 2007 could best be described as a Gangster Thriller; it did well in sales of DVD.
‘French Film’ – a Romantic Comedy will be released at the start of next year and there will be a test premiere at the Dinard Film Festival in France this October.
‘Faintheart’ – a Slacker Comedy, some of which was filmed in the West Midlands, is the first of seven films that Slingshot will be making in the region as part of a deal with Screen WM. It was to be released this September but will not now be released until February, taking advantage of the latest ‘digital’ methods of release by simultaneously showing at 200 screens for one day only and being released on DVD just one week later.
Slingshot is currently making a fourth film ‘Tormented’ which is best described as a High School Horror Movie. It is being shot here in the West Midlands, involving pupils from schools around Sutton Coldfield (and filming in Streetly School and Bishop Vesey's Grammar School) as Extras plus young actors who have gained experience in (and are recognisable from) such programmes as Skins, Wild Child and the Harry Potter films.
Arvind maintains that Slingshot are not restricted by working with low budgets, to prove his point he challenged us in the audience to decide which of the films was the most expensive and which was the cheapest?
‘Sugarhouse’ being the first of his company’s films turned out to be the cheapest, although it did require £300K in total. The film that is currently in Production ‘Tormented’ will be somewhere between £700K to £900K, however it does have a cast of 600 school children as Extras!
‘French Film’ had a budget of £700K but was shot at 21 locations in 2 countries. ‘Faintheart’ cost £1.4M but the people who worked on the film were paid more. In all cases, actors and crew were paid less up front and more at the back end when revenues are realised, a different business model about which, as Arvind acknowledged, there is endless debate.
On this note, Stephen Reynolds joined our proceedings to interview Arvind and chair the Q & A session with the audience.
Stephen’s first question concerned whether it was now cheaper to make films because of the availability of digital equipment that was far less costly than traditional means of production? Arvind agreed that it was a big aspect but that it affects the industry in differing ways. A producer can now bank on a camera costing less than £10K still providing great results and a film that looks good. Slingshot filmed its first three films on SONY 750s and 900s, however ‘Tormented’ is being shot using the Red Camera, the latest in Hi-Def digital cinematography. This decision was not taken lightly, Arvind and his colleagues and crew tested the equipment thoroughly before proceeding. It has the advantage of requiring the same sort of lighting set up as 35M film; this is how the DOPs and crews have been trained to do their jobs so the whole process of achieving the best results is made more straightforward. In addition, the day’s ‘rushes’ can be uploaded direct to the edit hard drives so that ‘assemblies’ can even be made on location – these can then be cut to so that the whole edit process is much faster.
Although physical production is cheaper, above the line costs for ‘Talent’ are becoming more expensive. At £70M, the average Hollywood film has increased in cost by 25% over the last few years. The low budget end of Hollywood produces films for around £40M. The increased use of special effects is what uses up a great deal of the budget.
The lower entry level for filmmakers that the digital revolution has brought about has conversely meant that there is a great deal more product made for the Industry – and not all of it’s any good.
There are now 560 movies released here in the U.K. every year, which is more than 10 per week! A lot of these are withdrawn after only a few days – so in such a climate, one would imagine there is a market for what might be considered ‘small’ films. The reality is that the chances of a theatrical release are much reduced when there is so much content available. The slim chances of success (around 1% for films made for £1M or less) have to be acknowledged and accounted for with astute budgeting and clever production and marketing strategies.
Stephen then asked Arvind if it is difficult to lure in the big names and how is it done? Arvind said that the most important thing is that the material must be good; this is what attracts the big names. There is also a defined pay scale structure of 3 tiers that is always used at Slingshot, which works: Star, Director and Production in that order. Often, there is a value proposition to be assessed by an actor, rather than a straightforward financial consideration.
Is the actor currently in need of a vehicle that primarily offers the opportunity to demonstrate his acting ability to his peers? Arvind said that Slingshot makes such choices very carefully and the decisions about whom to approach are based on thorough research, thereby minimising any risk of big names rejecting the company’s advances.
Stephen next asked Arvind how many people were employed at Slingshot? There are 5.5 full time staff, based in London. They are all passionate film fans, with a fondness for Teen Movies which is why they are currently making ‘Tormented’. For this kind of movie, the actors don’t have to be big names in order to draw an audience. Actors who have a brand value from being associated with such films, have a fan following because they’re talented and energetic – this is a real bonus for a Production Company meaning it doesn’t have to be reliant on Stars, the brand value is available on the cheap.
Arvind is a huge fan of the ‘Buffy’ series and, with his colleagues, shares an enthusiasm for Teen Horror in general. He emphasised that there is an absence of this kind of ‘fare’ in the U.K. because it’s perhaps more difficult to make the material relevant here, an example would be the ‘American Pie’ franchise. So this is the kind of niche market that Slingshot aims to associate itself with.
Going back to the question about luring big names to the productions, Arvind said that Slingshot only deals with writers, directors, actors and crew who have experience and credibility in their craft and generally will only work with people who are represented by Agents within the Industry.
Stephen also asked about the circumstances surrounding Slingshot’s engagement with Screen WM? Arvind described how they contact many organisations during the process of raising finance and that for the purpose of dealing with only one film at a time this is extremely time consuming. In discussion with Lee Thomas at Screen WM it was decided that it made more sense to work on a batch of films, in this way it is less hit and miss. At the outset of Slingshot’s existence it was obviously their money that supported production but over time they have convinced others, such as Screen WM and BBC Films, to back their efforts. In fact, Slingshot are about to announce a tie up with PATHE. Screen WM were of a similar persuasion and shared a common goal with Slingshot, so now they are a year into the contract with 2 Films in various stages of production. The deal obliges the company to spend the money here in the region, employing local crews and talent.
Stephen asked how Slingshot ever managed to get reviews of their films when it was so difficult to get distribution? Arvind explained that you more or less had to ignore Cinemas as a means of screening one’s product. The way the system works is that the Cinemas have a 4 month exclusivity ‘window’ which is designed to aggregate the overall slice of return available – but this acts as an obstacle to ‘small’ films which take time to build up, often by word of mouth, a significant amount of interest. So such a film may well be withdrawn very early in this ‘window’ and is consequently further disadvantaged by the restriction to distribute by any other means, such as DVD, before the end date of the exclusivity period. In the U.S., the IFC Channel has had some success in collapsing this ‘window’ and the model is changing so that, for instance, a premium (of say 2 or 3 times the normal cost) will be charged to the customer for an early DVD, or Pay per View release. In future, it should be possible for Independent Filmmakers to grow the overall slice of the pie they receive by reaching their audience through these other means. However, for obvious reasons, the Industry Gatekeepers are none too keen to relinquish control.
Lastly, Stephen asked Arvind what advice he had to give to any aspiring filmmaker who had ideas but struggles to realise them? The advice from Arvind was – beg, borrow or steal to realise your dreams!
The answer is to make stuff, use Digital technology to good effect; there are no excuses to be made for not doing the business. Take your time, write stuff, use YouTube, make it good – if you’re not doing these things then you shouldn’t be in the business. Slingshot are desperate for good scripts, 99% of what they receive is bad.
There then followed questions from the audience – starting with reference to Slingshot’s first film ‘Sugarhouse’ with one member of the audience asking about alternative distribution platforms? Arvind replied that, yes, things had moved on but we are not quite at the point where we are able to turn a corner. There is a silver lining but all we have at present is a new platform and the possibility of new revenues, it isn’t anything big yet. Video on Demand still only represents 3.5% of the home entertainment market. It is predicted that, by 2011, that share will have increased to 10 - 13% of the home entertainment market. This would still be small and not necessarily enough for the micro-budget end of the market to survive, but it’s a step in the right direction. In the meantime, it makes more sense to sell direct via the internet. However, the future represents a 4 eyed monster to the ‘indi’ market – for $25K a trailer can be produced for distribution online, the locations of where interest is aroused can be plotted, or mapped, using Google. It’s literally possible to discover what zipcodes or postcodes signal the most interest in an online trailer, which means it’s then possible to say to the cinema chains in that area that X number of people are likely to want to see the full version of a film at their local cinema if they are afforded the opportunity.
The other side of this coin is that a movie would have to record exceptional interest, indeed it would have to hit the number one spot, in order to gain a wider theatrical release and therefore benefit from the kind of reviews that in turn might secure a larger audience. The distribution of ‘Faintheart’ is planned to accelerate in this way – with the use of MySpace to plot the ‘heat’ map of interest in the movie – with a campaign of ‘hearts’ (Google maps) getting bigger in certain areas to illustrate increased interest and demand for the movie. If money were spent to generate the same amount of interest then the movie would have to end up at number one position in order to make a return, whereas the climate of interest can be gauged in other ways to realise enough theatrical releases to stimulate reviews and encourage the sale of subsequent DVDs.
On this note, Arvind had to take his leave of us – in order to return to filming this very evening!
We thanked him with rapturous applause and counted ourselves privileged to have been present for this occasion where there was so much to be learnt from our speaker. We can only repeat our sincere thanks to Arvind for taking the time to share his experiences with us – it was a memorable evening.
Stephen Reynolds continued his excellent chairing of the evening’s discussion by leading a panel of colleagues who had worked with him on ‘Tomb Raider Ascension’. He introduced Hugh Hemmings, an actor who worked on the film, Julia Higginbottom from Aquila, who, with her husband Nat, produced the film and Phil Mountford who had been responsible for all the music in the film. The panel was joined by Michelle Duffy, a Senior Lecturer in Film Production at tic who had also been instrumental in the production of the film. Michelle had also been responsible for gathering together such a stellar cast for this Creative Networks event.
Stephen explained how he started off making short films for no budget, never mind a micro-budget! He had previously directed short films via the ‘Brummiewood’ scheme at the Birmingham School of Acting (also a part of Birmingham City University located at Millennium Point). Through his work with ‘Brummiewood’, Stephen met the actress Anna Tyrie and was impressed with her performance, so much so that he considered the real possibility of making a short fan film about the origins of Tomb Raider’s Lara Croft, in much the same way as ‘Batman Begins’ acknowledges the origins of the character. Stephen was fascinated by the idea of how these characters assumed their identities.
‘Tomb Raider Ascension’ cost £15K to make, over 7 days. It looks as though it entailed far more money and time to realise, since it doesn’t skimp on quality and production values. It is an hour long and required many filming locations. Stephen felt that it was worth the cost, his efforts and the labour of love to produce what he regarded as a good calling card that contained all the flavours of film work that he himself admired.
The film is due for internet launch on 11th September, 2008 and will be available from www.tombraiderascension.com and on YouTube.
As Stephen showed us clips from the film he tested the audience with questions such as “How long did that scene take to film?” Needless to say, the answers were always surprising; with scenes that one would imagine taking a day or days being completed in 3 hours! There were also scenes shot in a cave, although these were shot after children had returned to school, there was still the general public to contend with at some of the locations.
Even though the film was shot using a SONY DSR 500 camera, it looks as though it has been shot using High Definition equipment. With such a tight schedule and minimal production budget, there was no recovery time for the actors or crew. Such money as there was tended to be used up on securing locations and paying for extras such as the helicopter – but it was only hired for an hour!
Stephen’s panel of co-workers on the film contributed much to the evening’s discussion – Phil explained how the music was realised, for the most part, when he got to see the shot footage rather than basing his ideas on the initial script. Julia described the ongoing negotiations with Tomb Raider’s originators – the games company EIDOS. Hugh Hemmings spoke about the need to struggle hard not to act, but to perform - so that when music was added the emotion shines through and the piece works.
Our audience were spellbound and asked many questions. How was the final audio mix executed? (Answer - legendary audio expert John Catlow was utilised). What was the timeframe from concept to final product? (Answer – 6 months). How did the producers secure the Hummer vehicle with such minimal funds? (Answer – all down to the good nature of friends with Hummers, not a product placement backhander to Stephen). How was the ‘Armageddon’ shot put together so effectively? (Answer – boring, extremely effective but derived from freely available library imagery at I-Stock). What was the reaction of the character’s originators EIDOS? (Answer - they were supportive but didn’t actually put their hands in their pocket).
By this time, nearing 9pm, we were in danger of having to exit the building in a hurry at the behest of our Security staff who were concerned that we were happy to stay the night! In truth, we were absorbed by the evening’s proceedings and probably could have continued regardless of how late we would have ended.
We can only applaud our Speakers for this event and plead that we are not worthy! The contribution they made to ensure our enjoyment and education during the evening has rarely, if ever, been surpassed. It was our pleasure to have been present at such a valuable event and again we thank those present for their time and energies spent in entertaining us.
Long may ‘Making Movies on a Micro-Budget’ continue and we look forward to a return visit in the future from our talented guests who are sure to thrive, due to their talent, passion and commitment, whatever circumstances they encounter – they have provided an example to us all.
|
