However while I don't wish to criticise Stanton exactly, I do wish to take issue with him. About this. In an interview with Mark Lawson on BBC Radio 4, Stanton claims that he has "always ignored what the budget is."
This attitude doesn't belong in the modern filmmaking world, where hundreds of billions of dollars can't guarantee success and where Paranormal Activity (budget $15,000) is still the most profitable movie of all time. This attitude belongs to the Golden Age, when directors would demand six elephants in their film, while their producers insisted that the same effect could be achieved with one. Let's say you are privileged enough to command a budget of $200 million. Indeed you are James Cameron, the director of Titanic. You have a responsibility to make that money count, to make the film that could not otherwise be made. You have the knowledge of your craft, which should tell you, in artistic terms, where that money will have the most impact. And you cannot afford to forget that the money has not appeared by magic – somebody is going to want some kind of return on investment.
What did the Titanic budget buy? A series of dives to the Titanic wreck to shoot authentic footage, a six-month campaign of historical research, extensive full-scale reconstructions of the Titanic and several interior locations. Cameron and also Chris Nolan have stressed the value of decent set construction: while you can create a virtual set more cheaply and without the technical difficulties, you get more authentic performances from actors on a physical set. Cameron also supported the research and development of several cinema technologies – one example is the pioneering use of virtual actors in crowd scenes.
To be continued...
Posts
8 comments:
Yeah, any director that says he doesn't watch his money is fooling himself. I haven't seen John Carter, but I heard an interview before the release where he scoffed about the money spent on the film. Should be an interesting review.
- Maurice Mitchell
The Geek Twins | Film Sketchr
@thegeektwins | @mauricem1972
I think he may live to regret some of those interviews...
I think you make a good point. The whole idea of director's using excess just seems egotistical to me. Plus if I were a film executive, those words would sure make me flinch. It's not just the movies, it's the movie BUSINESS. Good job pointing that out.
To be fair I'm not saying that it's always about money - this depends on who's funding. Some investors are looking for a financial return but others may wish to endorse a particular message or further a cause they believe in; it could be about raising the profile of a community or country through art, or trying to change society e.g. challenging discrimination or prejudice; there could be an educational angle; and there are those who genuinely want to support the creation of high quality works of art for art's sake or for public enjoyment.
The one thing all these different investors might have in common is, none of them want to see their investment pissed up the wall.
I'm sure he does now. LOL I added this to our weekly link list on our blog.
Geek BitsFYI
Thanks Maurice! Part II to follow very soon...
Publicity is a very big part of getting a good return on a film. If you are making a film to make money, money is an important ingredient. If you are making a film because you want to learn or you want to achieve a certain effect money is not that important. Audience is not the only consideration for film makers, it's important to backers but film makers have very different drives.
You're right about the different drives DD - and we can all agree making films to learn or for other more artistic purposes is worthwhile. Unfortunately money is often an important ingredient even if this is your goal: just like any resource you can use it to achieve something or you can waste it.
Post a Comment