What makes a film look "cheap?"

I had a conversation with a friend a while back about what makes a film look "cheap." I don't think there can be any confusion or debate about what a "cheap" film looks like. Everyone knows a cheap, cheesy, or low budget looking film when they see it. Lay people might not be able to verbalize or identify exactly what makes it cheap looking but nonetheless, as with a bad smell, we just know - it's a bad smell. We can also think of "cheap" as the opposite of "cinematic," which should just be synonymous with beautiful, or what we've all come to understand as what "a real movie" looks like.

To my mind, there are 7 things that stand out in terms of cinematic technique, and what is lacking in a cinematic approach in a cheap looking film:

1) Deep Focus

Deep focus, as with wide angle lens use can be amazing and cinematic - if - production design is also amazing and cinematic. Of course, cinematic lighting also helps.

However, with an uninteresting or aesthetically dull setting, seeing ALL of it from foreground to background in perfect focus tends to scream "cheap," especially in the case of a small sensor camera whereby everything is normally in focus. And also especially when in-camera sharpening is set too high and highlight clipping is visible. Deep focus in that instance is just drawing attention to even more flaws in the footage, especially with regard to a lack of control over production design.

2) Clipped Highlights

Clipped highlights are overexposed highlights. They're pure white if clipped but even just too close to white (overexposed) looks cheap and indicates a lack of control in recording the footage. And I'm not talking about small pure white highlights as when glinting off a piece of glass, I'm talking about areas of a frame that just should not be overexposed.

It looks cheap and it looks amateur.  Keeping your range of tones within what the camera is capable of recording is what professionals do. Once clipping occurs, any detail or color is lost and all you can do at that point is gray it down in post which looks unnatural.

3) Poor Composition

This is a dead giveaway and I think even lay people can identify poor composition. Again, it often betrays a lack of control as in the case of working in a practical location and not having enough room to get a suitable framing, for example in this 2-shot.

Another awkward framing that could have been improved by repositioning the camera to the right and framing a little more to the left, or just framing more to the left, or backing the camera up and framing more to the left or framing the guy out and following the ladies to the car by panning left and revealing the guy in the bench (see below clip).

4) Shaky Hand Held Footage

Sometimes we need shaky footage as in the case of action scenes, but there's good shaky and there's bad shaky. Shaky all the time, is not good. Jerky/shaky is not good. Micro-jitter shaky is really not good. And even good shaky should be reserved for moments when it will have more of an impact by heightening the emotional effect of what's taking place in the scene. This is an example of the micro-jitter shakiness that comes from hand holding a lightweight camera. Because the camera is so light, it registers every tiny movement of the camera operator.

5) Poor Lighting

This gets down to just basic photographic technique. It's less an aesthetic approach than it is just a poor command of lighting. 

Poor lighting is fairly evident in a number of ways. Frontal broad lighting tends to look "sourcey." Placing the key lights behind camera, in this case also placed at eye level height or lower, cast ugly, unnatural looking shadows. Here, there are two fixtures of the same size placed on either side of camera. You can get a lot of scenes shot using this approach for all your setups with dialogue, but it looks cheap.

"Sourcey" lighting is lighting that looks like it's coming from a source, meaning a photographic fixture, not from some naturally occurring source. It looks unnatural and can be unflattering on people's faces. The goal with lighting should be to achieve a natural look, as if the light is just naturally occurring, OR by cheating and using film lighting as motivated by a nearby fixture that may be visible in a shot. 

An underlit scene is what it is. At the very least, it's preferable to see highlights in the eyes of a character even when they're underlit, especially when they have dialogue. Again, this approach indicates a lack of control and screams "low budget."

One thing I see often are available light setups where talent are placed in shade. Getting an adequate exposure of their faces means having an overexposed background. In most cases like this, a proper exposure would mean the actors would be in silhouette. This dynamic generally betrays a lack of control, meaning the cinematographer was not able to, didn't have time, or didn't know how to light the talent.

6) Over Sharpening

Digital cameras have a sharpness setting generally, and over sharpened footage tends to look very "video." Many drones and action cams tend to have noticeably sharpened footage while also having small sensors and wide angle lenses which give them a unique, very often non cinematic look. I see a fair amount of over sharpened footage in low budget indie films. When combined with highlight clipping, over sharpened footage screams "video."

7) Production Design

Nothing screams "cheap," like a cheap looking apartment, a cheap car, or a cheap wardrobe. "Cheap" in this case can mean messy, sloppy, boring, dull, or just uninspiring. Many indie filmmakers tend to use whatever locations and scenery they have easy access to. This, often times means working with less than ideal settings, visually speaking. 

Smart filmmakers often will avoid wide shots in cases where they just don't have a budget for control of production design, or want to avoid seeing equipment or crew that they don't have time to move. This results in a lot of closeups which can become visually tiresome for a viewer. 

All things being equal, production design is production value.

 ©Chris Santucci 2021

Too original?

I watch a LOT of movies so I eventually came to have an understanding of the ins and outs of film storytelling with respect to what flies and what doesn't fly with audiences. Do audiences appreciate and embrace originality?

Up to a point, yes.                                                                                                                              

When people put a movie on or walk into a theater, they do so with certain expectations. These expectations have to do with story, the manner in which the story unfolds, and even expectations of a certain level of technical quality. People generally point their face at a screen with an expectation of what to expect which is based in large part on what they've become accustomed to (as per their preferences of course). We've been watching movies for a hundred years, so we ALL know what a movie is and what it isn't by now. Experimental cinema notwithstanding, commercial films (movies) ARE a certain thing and everyone knows what that thing is.

Audiences have become accustomed to a known spectrum of film story types, a finite number of different film plots, and a finite amount of different types of story structures.

Having an original idea for a film story doesn't mean it's a good idea. It might only mean that it's an original bad idea and was never entertained up to present because it was always deemed a bad idea. You won't win any prizes for making a film based on a dumb original story idea unless you're hoping lightning strikes as in the case of good bad films which are as rare as June rain in Arizona.

Most films involve human beings interacting with one another. People love watching other people do things. That said, a film audience also has expectations of "types" and behavior with respect to a film's characters, which also brings up the subject of casting. Generally speaking, certain "types" are cast to match certain roles/characters.

If you get a new job as a lumberjack for example, you will have certain expectations of who your co-workers are going to be. As you drive to your first day of work in your diesel Super Duty F250, you'll envision big burly men (like you), not women, not children, not senior citizens, and not scholarly looking Asians. As such, it's very much the same with casting movies and the expectations of an audience.

Film genres, and character types exist for a reason. An audience will want to see certain things and will only allow a certain degree of deviation from their reasonable expectations.

Sure a certain amount of artful genre and character type juggling can and should sometimes be employed but in the end it still all falls within a finite range that works for an audience.

As such, I would assert that audiences embrace the familiar far more than the unfamiliar when it comes to films (and of course art, food, music, etc.) You can lose an audience as much by withholding details (having them fill in too many blanks - being too ambiguous) as you can by throwing too much nonsense at them. If you're creating farce, that's fine, but that of course is a genre so it comes with certain rules as do all other film parameters.

I suppose it's a bit disheartening to think there's a ceiling with respect to film story telling, that we can't just use an "anything goes" aesthetic or exploit complete originality in filmmaking, but our tastes have limits as does everything else in life.

©2018 Chris Santucci

What is production value & how?

I had a conversation with a fellow producer a while back about production value. He wondered what it was exactly and how to achieve it. I had already been well past the point of being enamored of gear and technique, and was of the mind that production value was (all things being equal) made possible by production design, wardrobe, and the actual faces of your actors.

In other words, it's the stuff you SEE in the footage. When I say "all things being equal," I mean two productions with roughly the same script quality, tech, personnel, budget, and capability, one putting more into production design, wardrobe, and casting will have a higher level of apparent production value than one which expends more budget on equipment, effects, or crew rates for example.

For example, say you need an "office" for a scene in a film. Oh look, there's an office! It has a desk, a window, and a computer. Perfect, right? You can stop scouting now!

But, obviously all offices are not the same. Here we have a nice view (production value) of more office buildings through giant corner office windows, nice woodwork and furnishings. Of course, if you need a boring, aesthetically crappy office, then that's what you need. My point is, you can settle for a generic "office" or you can spend more time looking for one you can afford that's nicer OR you can pay for a nicer office location.

Say you have to cast a male lead to play a romantic counterpart to your female lead. Considering that actors faces tend to occupy a significant amount of screen real estate, I'd suggest taking into account the aesthetic value of your prospective cast. Movie stars are movie stars for a reason. 

All things being equal (acting ability and experience) consider casting the best looking (or yes, most apropos) talent you can, especially considering you're asking an audience to stare at these people for 90 minutes (or 10 minutes). Human nature being what it is means people just prefer looking at attractive people. There are reasons why some very excellent actors have been relegated to character roles and only otherwise supporting roles in films. It's heart breaking I'm sure but a reality nonetheless that you have to consider. 

If nothing else, having a good looking cast will at least give your audience something nice to look at. Nothing against this guy here on the right, but he'll never be James Franco. He may be your best buddy and willing to work for free, and let you use his garage, but none of that will be of value to your audience. What's that? He's a great actor? OK, fine, but he's still not James Franco. 

Remember, you're making your film for an audience of strangers (ya know, people who don't know you or care about you), not your family and friends. 

Considering wardrobe and how crucial it is to production value: years ago I filmed a friend's band playing a live gig at a club. They showed up wearing just what they normally wear; hockey jerseys, jeans, whatever. When they saw the footage, they decided they looked like a bunch of schmoes and didn't want to use the footage. They made an objectively aesthetic judgement that I couldn't really disagree with, but with a little forethought and maybe some guidance from a stylist, they'd have looked cooler to their audience and had footage to use in promoting themselves. 

My point is, if an audience SEES it in the frame, it's VERY important and really IS what gives a film production value. Remember films are very illusory. You are using the magic of filmmaking to create something 2 dimensionally that isn't real. You are literally creating a world for your film characters to live in and your audience to become immersed in. Consider, heavily, everything an audience will see in the scenes of your film. Even if it means you use 5 year old tech to make the film so you can spend more on these visual elements, do it.

Nobody in your audience will SEE the difference between a $10,000. lens and a $1,000. lens, but they will most definitely SEE and know uninspired mall bought wardrobe right off the shelf, an economy grade residential dwelling, and mundane locations with no depth or character.  

©2017 Chris Santucci

The Truth About Why Most Indie Films Don’t Get Distributed

I've written about this a bit regarding the idea that there's distribution and then there's distribution (where you actually get paid.) It used to be that a real distribution deal was nearly impossible without many of the elements mentioned in this blog post as well as high production value. Now, nearly anyone (as I've mentioned) can get a distribution deal for nearly any kind of film, but most of those result in zero payment, so you have to be selective in embarking upon a feature length film project because the odds are very, very high that you will see no return on your investment in time and money:

http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/truth-indie-films-dont-get-distributed/

Staying in the game - professionally.

If you intend to make a living from working in the production world in part or in whole, you have to understand that there's more to getting hired than performing adequately (if you even do that.) There are a host of other things one should be aware of in order to keep getting hired which especially in the absence of experience or ability - can help get you hired often enough for you prove yourself:

Don't make more work for your employer

People get hired to work. That's the entirety of your reason for existence as an employee or crew member. The biggest part of doing the work means you're not creating more work or problems for your boss. Adding work comes in many forms:

• Not doing it right the first time (necessitating the need for your boss to do the work themselves or requiring redundant activity to get it done.)
• Requiring lengthy explanations or having discussions about minutia (know your job and do it but if you're not sure - ask, and don't get mired in peripheral stuff.)
• Breaking/misplacing stuff (keep your head in the game 100% and be OCD about the small parts.)
• Wasting time (your boss knows exactly how long it should take to perform a task - trust me.) 

Be early - Stay late

As a noob, nothing shows gratitude and interest like showing up early and staying late. If you're still learning the ropes it especially behooves you to show up early and stay late because it means you genuinely want to become a better worker, it shows that you're invested in the entire enterprise, and it shows gratitude for the work. Noobs who think they deserve regular and well-defined work hours can enjoy such rigid work windows in call centers and fast food positions.

Show interest

As mentioned, showing interest is always appreciated and noticed. This can take the form of merely your level of attention. Do you watch and listen, or do you spend more time socializing during moments of pause or breaks in the action? What you do with your time when these intervals occur says a lot about your interest. An experienced professional who is 100% effective and efficient with their time on work days is on another level than someone starting out, so bridging the gap in your lack of experience by at least watching, listening, and being nearby is amazing.

Don't brag about averting disaster

You might think it advantageous to show (after the fact) how you fixed something that went wrong on your watch but you have to be careful associating yourself with a malfunction in the first place. You might feel like a hero and you might very well be, but in the end, it's the completed work that matters, not how you got there.

Be responsive

Everyone everywhere has smart phones in their hands nearly 24/7. There's no excuse (for people living in civilized parts of the world) not to provide timely responses - ever. At the very least, confirm reception of a message even if you cannot elaborate right away. Not responding as quickly as possible gums up the works and slows down the whole machine because of the chain reaction of everyone in the chain waiting for a response.

If you're email is "screwed up," fix it. If your phone is broken, get a new one. If your phone bill isn't paid, pay it and only then try to get work. A fully functional smart phone is an essential tool for getting work. Don't cut corners with a phone or phone service.

Be likable

No, not everyone is going to like you, but if you're likable it at least helps to keep a certain amount of people in your camp. If three people decide if you get hired again and one out of the three likes you, that can mean you get hired. Nobody wants to work with people they don't like, so being likable is essentially a prerequisite for survival in the work place.

Being generally likable as simply as it can be put involves making eye contact, showing a sense of humor, showing interest, being interesting, having some sense of style, speaking clearly and understandably, and offering to go out of your way for your employer.

And when you get "in," try to avoid being too political. Taking sides can bite you in the ass and always be nice to people you work with because you never know who may end up with the work.

Be thankful

Unless you work in a market where nobody else can do your job, you almost always have competition for your job in some form. I feel lucky to work in the industry I work in and as such, I tend to always go above and beyond whenever possible. Anyone who doesn't simply say - "thank you" in response to paying work is in trouble because when someone who's likable and at least as good (or better) at doing the same job comes along and they show the requisite gratitude, that could mean that they get the work instead.

A producer once told me she never got a thank you for the work she gave someone when she called me about doing that work instead. Say thanks. It's easy and it means something. People who give you work may not always (or ever) compliment you, but if they keep hiring you, that's the important thing. And don't make the mistake of ever thinking you're doing an employer a favor (by doing the work.) Unless you're a world renowned brain surgeon, the work you get is a gift.


©2014 Chris Santucci

Screenwriting - The Basics

I'm not a screenwriter, nor am I a "writer." I spend a lot of time writing and I have spent a lot of time editing screenplays and reading screenplays. I have studied one book on screenwriting quite a bit which I credit in helping me form 2 finished feature length screenplays which I've gotten a lot of feedback on from Triggerstreet and American Zoetrope forums.

The Tools of Screenwriting is an amazing book that presents the nuts and bolts of screenwriting and also then compares all those elements to actual movies you've probably seen in an attempt to drive an understanding of it all home.

In my years as a filmmaker I've pored over many drafts of many different screenplays in an attempt to make them better. One thing I would say to anyone writing or who wants to write screenplays is - read "professionally written" screenplays.

There is SO much to be learned from reading actual screenplays that got made into successful movies. Especially with regard to formatting and the manner of writing that is most accepted for screenplays.

As for my meager contribution to the craft of screen writing, please take these items to heart:

What a screenplay is and is not

A screenplay is not a series of events in which characters do stuff.

I've had film stories explained to me in those terms multiple times by wannabe filmmakers, and each time I had to inform them that they in fact had NO story.

A screenplay in simplest terms is a A) Protagonist struggling against opposition in the form of a B) Antagonist in order to C) achieve something and during the course of this struggle, the Protagonist experiences "growth," better known as a "character arc."

That, in a nutshell is what you need to do with your film story. All the gun fights and carnage in the world will not mean much if you don't have these elements firmly established in a written script and depicted in your film story.

Save the drama for your mama

Beginner or untrained or inexperienced screenwriters tend to write stories that involve primarily arguments and similar conflict between characters. This in itself is fine, but when it's essentially all you have in a script, it can get very tiring for an audience.

Many of the feature length films I worked on as DP early in my career featured primarily characters bickering and arguing, with little else of interest. Constant melodrama in a film can work IF the script is crafted by a skilled writer. If you're a neophyte writer, do yourself a favor and steer clear of melodrama.

Start with an outline and an ending

It makes very little sense to just start writing, believing that it's somehow going to all work out by the time you reach page 90. Nobody ever sets out on a journey without a map unless they don't mind a high probability of failure. Without a guide, your script (especially if it's a first script) will more than likely end up a meandering mess or you'll spend far too much time re-writing.

Half the battle is a good outline. Think about that. Having all the major points of the story laid out in order will alleviate a lot of frustration during the crafting of scenes in the screenplay. Do it.

Don't ever start writing without an ending already determined. Again, nobody sets out on a journey without a destination in mind, unless it's only the journey that's important. To you, the screen writer, if you want something to show for your work - have the ending in mind.

Consider the names of characters

Use character names that are easy to remember and that don't sound or look similar. Even if your story is very well told, confusion can creep in (for a reader) when lapses in scene descriptions occur or non-linear story telling technique is employed. Confusion will ruin your screenplay especially if added to those shortcomings - you also have a high number of characters in the story. Pick names thoughtfully, as you would for your own child so that they're not distracting and not adding to the potential confusion a reader might experience.

Don't leave out scene intros

Consider this scene & character intro:

INT. WAREHOUSE - EVENING

COLIN is wild eyed.  He stands with a gun aimed at man tied to a chair.

OK... so as we're reading this, we're trying to form a mental image of the setting where the scene is taking place rather than just concentrating on the story, most likely based on the action(s) of the characters depicted.

The scene intro should set the stage for the scene with just enough words. Adding descriptive words that characterize the space is helpful. What size is the warehouse? What condition is it in? Is it dry? Wet? Clean? Dirty? What else is in it? Cars? Boxes? Nothing? Is moonlight streaming in through the skylights or is it completely dark except for a single nearby light bulb?

You don't want to write a book here, but a lot could be said in one sentence about the setting your characters are in and it helps to frame the scenes so a more complete picture unfolds in a readers mind.

Don't leave out character descriptions

As in the above scene and character intro, COLIN is not described at all. So this leaves the reader to forced into using their intellect to uncover who this person might be. THAT is not what you want a reader to be doing while reading your screenplay.

COLIN is holding a gun, so we know he's probably a male with at least one functional arm and hand, and two legs...

We don't know if this is in fact a male just because COLIN is a males name. We don't know the age of this character, the race, and nothing about them except that this person is "wild eyed."

"Wild eyed" is not nearly enough of a character description. Not even close, and again ONE sentence of carefully worded writing can provide a suitable mental image of this character so the reader doesn't have to waste brain power putting clues together to do it themselves.

Proof read - please

Nothing says "I don't care" to a reader more than poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, and diction. It's very hard to have a 100% correct screenplay, but if you have typos, misspellings, and odd phrases throughout a screenplay, you'll lose the reader and chances are you'll be asking for feedback on your work so don't make it harder for readers to get through your screenplay.

Take the time to proof read because not only will you look like a dumbass if you have more than a few dozen instances of the above shortcomings, but the reader's interest will wain if they sense you rushed through the writing.

The writing happens in the rewriting 

Don't ever think you'll write a script and then take your first draft and produce a film from it unless you don't care about anyone ever liking your film. Rewriting is what separates the men from the boys and it's where the story and dialog are made to really work for an audience.

If you're so enamored of your own writing that you don't feel rewriting is necessary, please stop writing. Screnwriting is not like playing the lottery, it's a process of arduous work that often yields no reward.

If you're unable to improve a script through rewriting and aren't willing to pound away at the writing until it's perfect, please stop writing.

The writing really happens in the rewriting.





©2013 Chris Santucci

Case study in independent film failure

Many years back I sold an Eclair Super 16 film camera to some guy from the New England area who told me at the time that he was planning on shooting a feature film with it.

As it turned out - he did.

His film went nowhere and he ended up posting it online for people to watch for free, which is really the only thing left to do when you discover nobody will buy, rent, or distribute your film. You're better off having people see your film than not ever see it, even if you give it away.

What good is a film if nobody can see it?

Anyway, this guy kept a pretty detailed and amusing journal of his entire filmmaking journey and it shows how all the good intentions in the world won't result in a film that will find an audience:

alt.sex, an independent film



©2013 Chris Santucci