THE MICROBUDGET CONVERSATION: SCRIPT V. STORY

By John Yost in Columns
on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

I have come across many folks who have allowed the completion of a perfect script to derail their entire production. I have also sat through (I’m including my own films here) more films that I can remember in which the filmmakers hoped improv will create something magical. In microbudget the latter is a necessity, in large indie films, it’s risky, and in Hollywood, no one but a select few can pull it off. I recently started a conversation with an Austin filmmaker in the very thick of making her second feature film, What’s the Use (pictured below), and this battle between script and story was on her mind. Nicole Elmer sees these magical moments as not only a micro-udget necessity but a way to create a film that boxes out of it’s weight class. I couldn’t agree more with her stance. In my own experiences I found my earlier films desperately in need of structure, and now they are being strangled by it. That perfect balance is in there somewhere and it may be the secret of making amazing stories for next to nothing.

Scripts as Hindrances vs. Stories as Door Openers

I have sadly watched so many colleagues of mine spending thousands on spec trailers, or short films to attract investors for the feature they want to make. They blow their savings making their “calling cards,” or forever tweak scripts for which they keep trying to raise money. Years pass and their projects remain in limbo or credit card debt amasses. And all the while, they are not doing what they should be doing: making films. Artists only improve by continually working on their craft. If we filmmakers are always chasing dollars, are we granting ourselves the creative stretching we need, or only getting real-world lessons in economics?

Flashback to our youths: lots of us were picking up our parents’ VHS recorders and making movies at home after school, or on weekends. For example, my sister and I made horrible but entertaining horror films when we weren’t suffering through hours at school. We were just teenagers. We were our own two-person crew and cast and had no money. Yet, we made movies. I know I was not the only kid out there doing this. So why has this energetic approach and creative abandon gotten lost as adults? This is a different topic for a different day, but it has a great deal to do with what I call the Mental Colonialism of Hollywood, brainwashing us to believe we must have epic scripts and gobs of cash to create movies worth watching.

This simply isn’t true anymore. I’d like to say cheaper technology has empowered most of us, but it hasn’t completely. We are still stuck in the first phase of what makes a great film: a good story. And here is where things can get expensive…quickly.

So, this leads me to scripts vs. stories. But first, I should define what I mean by scripts, and what I mean by stories.

With “scripts,” I mean film scripts written by one or more screenwriters based on fictional characters, locations, and plot lines. With “stories” I mean the things happening around you, to you, or to the people you know. Traditional scripts are usually written without budgets in mind, guided by the imagination of the writer(s). However, this often requires a great deal of collective fabrication of locations, sets, costumes, etc. which drives up the budget, making it hard for most independently-minded filmmakers to actually launch their projects. For example, there is a scripted scene where a man proposes to his girlfriend in a restaurant. Sounds simple, right? Okay. The script calls for a restaurant, the costumes the actors wear, the engagement ring, perhaps a bouquet of roses, some background actors in the restaurant, food…and on and on. This “simple” scene suddenly requires resources that must be pulled together for this completely fabricated event. And the budget climbs. It is this phase that has hindered the micro-budget filmmaker. However, stories as they exist around us, with the people we know, in the places we live…or films integrating these elements, become more approachable financially because they are happening already without our manipulation. We don’t have to pay for life to roll out its strange course. We just have to find a way to sneak around it and play with it a bit, and once it’s comfortable with our presence, let us be a voyeur to its intriguing mysteries.

My own experience with this began as such. Having finished my first feature quite recently, after working on it for over three years, my producing partner and I sort of experienced the period of filmmaker limbo I described above. Fearing the future of the film we had just spent so much time and money on, we wondered where the money to create the next film would come. We thought about all the scripts we had written that, while still low budget for most standards, were beyond our financial means without relying on investors, and we felt rather disempowered. Instead of resigning to “keep our chins up” to raise funds, applying for dwindling grant money and filmmaker support programs with 1% acceptance rates, we decided to not wait for money to come. We aren’t being innovators here at all, but we had to take a hard look at the resources around us. We decided to ignore the notion that one has to have an expensive camera to capture a story. We had a small HD camcorder and here in Austin, sound equipment is cheap to rent. We would use the people we knew, including actors and non-actor friends and colleagues. We would shoot in the locations we had available, or make them available through guerrilla methods. We would do it ourselves. We would become the teenage filmmakers once again.

And we would not have a script.

This last part is important. It was a creative choice as much as a budgeting choice. Because of the specificity involved, a script would have required the costly fabrication I mentioned earlier. Instead, the writer created a very basic outline that was broken down into scenes. Locations were replaceable and everything could be moved as needed, as long as the general symbol of the moment was still expressed. A script would have also forced us to shove dialogue in the actors’ mouths. Instead, we gave the actors their goals, they developed their characters WITH the writer, and we gave them responsibility for their dialogue, a creative choice normally made by a screenwriter.

So with our outline in hand, we started production. By allowing real life to creep in, keeping scenes rather open, and giving actors a lot of collaborative power, some rather interesting things happened along the way that would not have occurred with a more structured script. The characters began to deepen in ways we had not expected. Elements of the actors’ real lives filtered in. For example, one character who had originally served as a henchman to the antagonist and nothing more, suddenly was also trying to be a bass player in a band, inspired by Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, all while still doing his dirty work. To express the symbol of personal transition, we decided one of the lead characters should get a shave and a haircut. We found an old barbershop here in Austin that has been around for 40 years and they allowed us to film there. While shooting, the barber spoke of his own life as an ex-marine and insurance salesman. His name was stitched in white thread on his work jacket shirt. He had a tattoo of a goldfish on his inner arm. How does one write characters like this? We’ve also had an obese bus driver show up in a scene. Cyclists have beautifully zoomed past our frame while two actors walked down a bridge. A train moved through once unexpectedly, allowing us to drop everything and film an impromptu moment with an actress almost confronting the train in a suicidal manner. We found a huge foam genie in a dumpster and integrated an abandoned plastic Santa lawn ornament into another scene. Another actress gave us a rather interesting comedic spiel about Certs mints that had us in stitches. No one on set could have written what came out of her mouth, even if they had wanted to. The financial cost of all of this: zero.

A scene from What's the Use

You cannot get this sort of magic by closing off your sets, altering your locations, and passing scripted dialogue to your actors. I’m not saying I don’t like scripts. I love them and will continue to work with this format. But if our goal as micro-budget filmmakers is to make films free of budget restrictions, we need to find alternative methods that embrace the places we live, allow us to believe they are interesting, and trust the people around us to bring us some really interesting material. We all know this familiar adage: life is stranger than fiction. Once we let life leak into our narratives, I think we will be shocked at the abundance we suddenly have with the stories that are available. I know I am looking forward to sniffing out the next film story.

- Nicole Elmer studied acting and film production at the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University and the University of Texas at Austin. Nicole has produced, directed, and written several films and music videos, but before all this was a solo electronic musician, writing under the names of Neutral and Squab Teen. She shot her first feature film, In the Shadow, in Puerto Rico from 2008-2011 and is currently in post-production for her second feature film, What’s the Use?

I think Nicole brings up a great point for all of filmmaking, not just micro-budget. I recently had the pleasure of watching Tree of Life. Say what you will about this film, but it felt natural, it felt free of cinema convention, and it felt honest. Furthermore it felt unscripted. Perhaps it was scripted down to the letter, and if it was, then Malick is an absurd genius. None of us are Malicks…yet, but understanding how much foundation to have, and how much of the structural design should be left to chance, is the first step in making something wonderful.

We’d never turn down the chance to hear from you, especially microbudget fans and filmmakers. To become part of the conversation please send us your thoughts, responses, and questions.

braveandthekind@gmail.com

Tags: art, filmmaking, In the Shadow, indie, micro-budget, Nicole Elmer, script, story, Terrance Malick, What's the Use

Alexander Berberich

Brilliant piece. I could not agree more.
Ted Nope

The prescriptive tone and incredibly narrow interpretation of “story” catches me up here. And the assertion that improvisation is somehow a “necessity” of micro-budget filmmaking, one that will give your film that little extra something. As though “improvisation” were a color.

Why would writing and improvisation oppose each other? Why would script and reality? Script and story? A director can be open to reality, to life’s little accidents, if a director so chooses–with or without a script. A director can guide or wrangle reality. A director can shut out reality. It’s a major choice, none better than the other, but money shouldn’t play a part either way. Is it cheaper to drive a production along on a sea of beautiful accidents? Not necessarily. Odds are, a script written strictly for a budget would be much more likely to keep you steady. All approaches are valid–just don’t expect a reliance on improvisation plus crappy little HD camera to somehow yield a more exciting micro-budget “story.”

Beyond that, it seems to me placing the burden of imagination (dialogue, shape, drama, etc.) on whatever the actors can whip up on set isn’t necessarily an embracing of “story”–in a lot of ways, it’s just not doing the job of a writer. If you’re actually OPPOSED to writing–which includes dialogue, yes, but also structure, well-watered ideas, etc.–that’s one thing. But to suggest that writing is in opposition to “story” is odd and, I think, wrong. Follow a script, stay alive to the world. Or don’t. (An actress goes on about Certs, and it turns into a monologue. And you wouldn’t necessarily have written it yourself. This is good fortune, not a persuasive argument against writing.)

Many great films follow their script to the letter. Many don’t. There’s room on the budget floor for Herzog and Rohmer, Shelton and Bujalski.

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com Scott Macaulay

You know, I don’t think this piece, or any other as part of this series, or, frankly, any piece on any website in the world should be read as a dictatorial fiat about how things should or should be done. What you call the “prescriptive tone” I read as a rhetorical stance that helps frame the piece. (By the way, the condensed “script v. story” headline is ours, not Nicole’s, and maybe it doesn’t do the piece justice.) As with everything, I think it’s best to take the advice that works for you and leave the rest. I really like this piece. In fact, it’s one of my favorite’s in this whole series. Why? Because the advice here is very useful for me at the moment. Sure, you can improvise on a bigger budget and be locked down on a tiny one… but the fact is, once you have a specific budget and more formal script, you do have to work very hard to incorporate time for improvisation and discovery. You’re so concerned about making the day, completing your shot list, and maybe picking up those shots you lost on another day that it becomes very hard to think about splintering off a B-unit and grabbing stuff, or locking down a set for three hours while the actors just play. I think it’s easier to do those things if you decide that’s the kind of movie you want to make in the first place and budget and staff accordingly

When I said this piece was useful for me, that’s because I had virtually the same conversation Nicole writes about with regards to the restaurant with a director the other day. We’re trying to re-envision a script written for a larger budget for a smaller one. And that has involved thinking about the broader story and not the script. (With her “script as hindrance v. story as doop opener” framing, Nicole said succinctly what we’ve been talking about for a while.) Whenever we try to go back to the script, we start thinking of the production realities and all the stuff we don’t have money for. We are finally realizing that we’re making a different kind of movie, and that we should embrace the positives of that — the things we can do — as opposed to the restrictions. This realization took us a bit of time, and Nicole’s description of it is especially what I liked about the piece.

Finally, I also responded to this piece because I’ve produced two feature films without scripts, and I’m really proud of both of them. And I can swear that their best moments simply would not have been concocted by a screenwriter in a more formal development process. They came out of the weird alchemy of everyone involved in the moment. Were these moments better than something that might have been “written”? Maybe not. But they were pretty great, and they’re certainly different than anything that would have been written. And if we had waited for those scripts to be written, the films wouldn’t exist.

Again, I don’t think any of this is either/or, but I think there’s a lot here that people trying to think about their own practice can learn from.

Thanks, by the way, for commenting. Nice to read you at longer than 140 characters!

http://www.toddterwilliger.com CriticalTodd

“A script would have also forced us to shove dialogue in the actors’ mouths.”

That’s a rather dim view of the craft of writing, don’t you think? Sure you can get some great stuff through improv. You can also get a whole lot of not so great stuff as well. And you lose out on getting the most out of your writer’s talents, if you presume he has some (the quote would suggest otherwise).

Also, writers can and do write to stay within budgets. It sounds impossible, I know, but it’s true.
http://www.etactivity.com Owen Mulligan

Awesome article, just stumbled upon this. This is actually the same approach I’ve taken with my 1st feature Extraterrestrial Activity which I’m shooting next summer (2012). Very inspiring and informative stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Brooks Ralph

With articles this informative about filming a feature movie major Hollywood big budget block busters producers should watch out there is a lot of creative ideas that could make good movie out and about. This is one question i find more different answers on; which comes first the micro budget, then you need the cost of your performers, props etc. or the story line then you have to get construction cost per scene, then camera and the different lenses and lighting. you can still crunch 25 to 35 million on a micro-budget film. i said all of this to ask how do you create a budget?

http://www.facebook.com/stolaroff Mark Stolaroff

Brooks Ralph, the short answer, if you were going to be in LA Aug. 20-21, would be to take my No Budget Film School class, but so I don’t sound like one of those spammy commenters, I’ll give you the slightly longer answer. The road to micro-budget success is to start with your resources and work from there. Build your story and your production technique from your available resources. The more you can do that, the less your film should have to cost. But maybe even more importantly, if you REALLY let your resources–your circumstances–be your guide, then you have the potential to create something truly unique, something none of us has seen before. I’ve contributed a blog piece to this very Micro Budget Conversation that discusses this in more detail. It should be up in the next few days. Stay within the framework of available resources, write for what you have, (locations, props, vehicles, costumes, cast, equipment), and beg, borrow & steal to fill in the gaps, if you have NO money. You can’t make every movie this way, but you can make one unique film this way. And uniqueness may just be the most important virtue an independent film can have.

Brooks Ralph

With articles this informative about filming a feature movie major Hollywood big budget block busters producers should watch out there is a lot of creative ideas that could make good movie out and about. This is one question i find more different answers on; which comes first the micro budget, then you need the cost of your performers, props etc. or the story line then you have to get construction cost per scene, then camera and the different lenses and lighting. you can still crunch 25 to 35 million on a micro-budget film. i said all of this to ask how do you create a budget?
Toni McFall

I think it was Robert Altman who said that anyone who even completes a movie deserves an award. With this in mind, Nicole Elmer deserves a healthy dose of congratulations. However any article that advises filmmakers or want-to-be filmmakers to not use a script is leading them down the wrong path, as is the implied advice to self-finance your own movie. Think about the last time you paid to see a movie that was shot without a script. In the highly unlikely event you can remember such a movie, ask yourself if it even made enough money to recoup its budget. Now let’s talk about film finance. I have been raising money for movies, big-budget and small, since 1982 and during that time have observed that most filmmakers (especially low-budget indie movie-makers) view the business side of moviemaking the same way Rush Limbaugh views Nancy Pelosi. But the reality is, if you ever want to have a career making movies, you need to climb down off the artistic pedestal and spend a little time learning about how to raise money from investors to finance your movies. The reality is, it’s not hard. Movie making is a glam business and people want to invest their money in your movie. A little time reading a couple of books and you will have a good grasp of what it takes and how simple it really is. If you don’t do this, you will likely never make a living doing what you love to do, but will always have to pursue filmmaking as a hobby or at best a side venture.

I know most movie-makers don’t want to hear it, but unless you are making movies as a hobby, you are going to have to make movies that have some commercial value and that means making movies that have a script, and that have a budget large enough that self-finance is out of the question (unless you or your daddy is very wealthy). Come to grips with the reality that movie making is not making art, but entertainment. If you want to know how to make low-budget movies I suggest researching a guy like Roger Corman who has produced and/or directed over 450 movies – all money makers except one. You can’t argue with success.

http://www.etactivity.com Owen Mulligan

Paranormal Activity did not have a script. It was retroscripted meaning it was shot from an outline. Self-financed for only about $15,000 and hmmm how many millions did it make? Even if the film only made $30,000 it would have been a success. It is important to understand how to write a script and tell a story, etc. before shooting without one though.

Toni McFall

OK. Did it make $30K? Did it make back it’s budget of $15K? Where can someone buy or rent a copy? Not a problem if you want to make movies as a hobby and make your living working some other job. But if you want to be a professional movie-maker look at what is working for professional movie-makers. It isn’t unscripted, self financed flics. If you want to make movies as a career, learn everything about making movies, which includes writing/buying a good script and knowing how to raise the money needed to make your movie.

http://www.etactivity.com Owen Mulligan

I’m well aware of what happens to an indie film if a major studio buys it. They fix up the movie and spend millions on P&A for its release. Still doesn’t change the fact that the original Paranormal Activity was shot without a script and self-financed for about $15,000. If Oren Peli had self-distributed and was smart about it he probably could have made back his budget and then some. But he got lucky with a great deal and he deserved it. I believe the future for many indies is low budgets, self-financed (or crowd funded) and self-distributed works. This is the route more and more indies are taking and there is a growing number of case studies that prove this is viable. There’s no rule written that to be a professional you have to have a script, a million dollar budget, investors, a huge crew, etc. If you can make a good movie and are smart about marketing and distribution then the sky’s the limit. But if you’re making movies to become rich and famous then you’re doing it for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. It’s all how you define success and what you’re goals are. If ‘professional movie-maker’ is defined as making millions with your name in the limelight then it needs to be redefined.

Jdoe

Toni McFall is very threatened by the changing nature of the business wherein Kickstarter and self-distribution puts him out of a job…alongside thousands getting their pink slips from studios…or old financing/production models made irrelevant by digital technology and web 2.0. Remember he’s been raising money the old way for almost thirty years and is thinking as if everything is still in 1982.

Toni McFall

Don’t believe the promotional hype. The Paranormal Activity that was seen in the theaters was not the Paranormal Activity that was bought by the studio. The actual budget of the version seen in Theaters was in the $6 million range – and yes there was a script used.

Toni McFall

Yep, just checked the P&A budget for Paranormal Activity, the movie
that was supposedly made for $15,000 – the P&A budget was . . . take
a guess . . . $28 million – yes just the prints and advertising budget.
Want to venture how much the movie would have made without that P&A
budget?

Ted Nope

“Come to grips with the reality that movie making is not making art, but entertainment.”
You’re on the wrong site. And the wrong wavelength. No one here has argued that independent filmmakers shouldn’t be involved somehow in fundraising. Still, I’m glad you could tell us all about Roger Corman! Such knowledge!

Save your this-is-the-real-world speeches for those inexperienced and/or gullible enough to swallow ‘em.

http://www.facebook.com/daren.afshar Daren Afshar

A fun read. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Pingback: Script or story in microbudget production? | writewhatyoudontknow
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001128909120 Mark Georgeff

This can go either way, depending on what you’re trying to do. What is your main goal?
To just do your own thing and not worry about any kind of sale? Or to prove to investors, distrib., etc., that you can make them a profit. I started off writing short stories because I was heavily influenced by great storytellers…who really made an impact in my life. They allowed me to dream without any constraints — in other words, not caring what others thought. But even with my first short story, I wanted to give that same feeling and empowerment to others. I had to also be my toughest critic long before I was my best supporter. The short fiction lead to writing news articles and a dual undergrad in creative writing-journalism. This eventually led to graduate film school.
It’s always about telling the story — and what medium you’re working in.
In this new digital world…I’m so open to trying it with and without a script. And as tight as my scripts are, I still have to make them malleable — because in this new, digital age…where everything is possible, and the audience is global and diversified — I can go from a low to no budget indie…to a high budget studio spec. Just like that.
Mwajr01

Not saying it wasn’t an interesting perspective or relevant point, but you better believe Malick had Tree of Life down to a tee. You don’t work on a movie for 25 years on-the-fly :P

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com Scott Macaulay

“Down to a ‘t’”? I don’t believe that at all. Malick famously finds his films in the edit room. Adrian Brody was the de facto lead in “The Thin Red Line” and then was practically cut out of the movie.

http://twitter.com/MegaMarkHarris Mark Harris

A lot of movies are like this. Both studio and indie. Probably many more movies than any of us suspect. I’ve used looping to change an actor’s performance in the edit, thus altering the tone of a scene. It’s very very common to continue figuring out the story in post.

I used to make my shorts very very strictly according to the plan. But with my first feature I actually forced myself to find the movie in the edit. As a result, it’s shifted focus several times. as I discover the story. It’s often frustrating but also very very exciting and probably the way I will continue working for the next few features.

We worked in a similar way to the author of this article. We never had a script, but we had a beat sheet, and developed the scenes for months ahead of time through improv with the actors. So though there was no script, the actors always knew their objectives and actions from scene to scene. I am starting to develop my next movie the same way, building on what we learned this time around.
“A script would have also forced us to shove dialogue in the actors’ mouths.” – but I think this is a bad way to phrase the alternative. I chose not to have a script for artistic reasons, but obviously many great movies have scripts and work out just fine.

Pingback: Make Money - THE MICROBUDGET CONVERSATION: THE NO-BUDGET WAY
Pingback: Double7 Images » Blog Archive » Story vs Script
Anonymous

Wow, I’m way late in this conversation!

Excellent article!!! I especially love your point about our childlike filmmaking: ” So why has this energetic approach and creative abandon gotten lost as adults?” Very sad indeed and I will be thinking about this for some time – thank you!

On the flip side, you make a giant claim that many agree with by default and rarely question: “…what makes a great film: a good story.” This is not necessarily true. To begin with, a great story is not in and of itself enough to make a film great – many, many more elements need to be executed well.

But more importantly, a “good” story is not a necessary condition to a great film. By good, I’m assuming you mean captivating, complex, layered, etc.. The use of story within a film is a formalistic choice the filmmaker makes. There are other ways to drive a film forward; however, story has become the default choice in America. In fact, most filmmakers don’t even realize they are making a choice by structuring their film upon a story.

And to all who disagree, I simply reply with Ozu, Antonioni, Bergman, Bresson. Generally speaking, these filmmakers had minimal stories and relied on other formalistic approaches to structure their films. And it’s interesting, Ozu never made it big in America, whereas Kurosawa (a story-driven filmmaker) did. Antonioni never made it big in America, whereas Fellini (a story-driven filmmaker) did!

I’ll never forget what happened at the Academy Awards on the year both Bergman and Antonioni died. During the tribute montage of those who died that year, both Bergman and Antonioni were given a couple seconds of “screen time” with limited applause (only the old-schoolers knew who they were). However, the tribute ended with a long tribute to Heath Ledger, with a huge round of applause. Don’t get me wrong, his death was tragic; however, I really was saddened by the disproportionate response between him and the two great directors.

A bit of a tangent, but it all comes down to story. Because Bergman and Antonioni chose not to primarily utilize story, Hollywood forgot about them.

I personally believe that filmmaking, especially American filmmaking, will not evolve and mature if story as default continues….
Pingback: THE MICROBUDGET CONVERSATION: SCRIPT V. STORY | The Filmmaker Magazine Blog « MindSoulStory
http://profiles.google.com/polfilmblog Joe Giambrone

The question is: did anything watchable result from this actor improv business? A lot of actors aren’t very good at it. Micro-budget means you aren’t working with world class talent.

A saw a film called Shortbus that did something like this. They took in a bunch of talented actors who then workshopped and developed the characters and rehearsed for MONTHS prior to filming. That process intrigued me. What you’re saying here above does not, I’m sorry to say.

THE MICROBUDGET CONVERSATION: SCRIPT V. STORY

VOD CALENDAR

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives