Cheap Ways To Make Your Movie Interesting

It’s really bizarre that people think the more money you have, the better your movie will be. This is really bad thinking. There are things that will make your movie look more expensive. For instance, visual FX, if the story requires it. Or more expensive camera gear. But big time professional cameras or getting Industrial Light & Magic to do your FX isn’t going to guarantee you get a return for your movie. Nor does it make your movie any better. Even being able to afford bankable stars is no guarantee. Our competition is no longer theater patrons, but streaming as well. You tell a story through a small window, a bigger one isn’t that large a leap.

Movies often inflate their budgets to appear like they spent more. I’d say…the mid-sized movies more than likely spent a 1/3 of what they say they do. To pump up their numbers. The psychology behind that is that you won’t go to see a movie that has no money behind it, because you’ll more than likely be around people sitting around talking. Which, if you ever produce anything in L.A. even that could go above the tens of thousands of dollars. Movie money, as explained before is really funny.

There are things that sorta’ do put your movie into a different budgetary bracket. For instance, anything that requires stunts, or explosions. Yeah, that’s a lot of money. In insurance alone. So the balance is, making a movie that has SOME appeal, to not making it about two people sitting at a table talking.

I started to see this a lot. People make “talking heads” movies. Sit them at a table or computer and communicate like that. I have a co-worker that let me read a script he wanted to make. All of it took place at a computer screen. That is DEATH. It worked for the character study, since it is about a person who doesn’t venture outside her room. But…fuck is that boring. There really is not much you can do here. Because it’s all exposition. Mom talks to daughter, daughter to friend (through computer screen). I suggested he try to make it more “cinematic.” Two people can talk or move or whatever, but at least do it at a café. Forget that, because that costs money. EVEN if you have a friend who works at one, you still have to have insurance for them NOT to get sued. So that’s out of the question. How about near the beach or around the beach or something that makes the movie feel more “open?” It took me some time to figure this one out, but even the insinuation of something outside the walls of a room makes it feel bigger. I’m not sure why, but I suspect it’s because we live a lot of our lives looking at walls. We know what that looks like. Movies are suppose to move. To feel like there is a destination. Having people talk in a room IS the destination.

The other thing is that getting people outside walls also effects performances. In my short film I comically directed the lead as “pretend like you are in a van.” I laugh every time I think about that, because, well, he IS in a van. As silly as it seems, the more you move the more audiences move with you.

Something interesting I saw in the behind the scenes stuff of “Blade Runner.” In the scene, Deckard is attempting to find out if Rachel is a replicant (android/robot/whatever). It’s in this cavernous space that Tyrell has meetings in. Director Ridley Scott suggested to the production that they have some type of shimmering moving light just playing on the actors. To which he was met with “What is the motivation of that light?” “What’s that coming from?” “Is it some type of atmospheric issue?” And so on. To which Ridley just wiggled his hands and said “just something just jittering like watery effect.” If you watch the movie, it’s in there. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AXOjlPF0Y


Why? No reason was given. Except, here’s why I think…it’s two people talking at a table. How boring is that? And it’s also an investigation where the words aren’t particularly interesting. It’s a simple Q&A. There is humor in it, but…Ridley had the instinct to know it still needed a moving effect of some kind. The audience may question it. Or just chalk it up to whatever this world that was created. Either way, FAR more interesting than blank, flat wash. Now I’m not suggesting you do that for your movie. Since this was sci-fi, it made sense. Yours may not.

Another example is the interrogation to “Basic Instinct.” Crotch shot aside, watch how the camera whip pans and quick dollies into characters. Which was essentially another Q&A moment. While it may not be as boring as “Blade Runner” could’ve been, since Sharon Stone is sexy and infinitely watchable in her frosty fuck doll persona, it still is I ask, you answer.

These little things cost very little money to make your movie much more interesting. In a strange way, the small things in movies do make it feel bigger than sometimes expensive FX.

I think it’s why I love road movies so much. The movie constantly moves, and at any point, you could just hole up at some hotel and have something crazy happen. It still has the potential to just keep moving. Check out a movie like “Something Wild” to really see how it can be done right. Or “Midnight Run.” This movie is amazing, in that everything fits perfectly to the end.