Filmmaking by committee

[Jon O'Brien]

I just read an interview, given a few short years ago, by a DP. I'm not going to give his name, or say what country he is from. He talked about how the process of making feature movies has changed over the years.

He described how in the old days a cinematographer or "lighting cameraman" as they were called in the UK had pretty much sole responsibility for lighting and all other aspects of the look of the movie, or at least the cinematography itself, in conjunction of course with the wishes/vision of the director and sometimes the producer. But then things started to change.

He described how it began. Firstly, a colleague he worked with closely on the camera crew had to leave the production at short notice, and a new and presumably younger crew member took his friend's place. This new 1st Assistant cameraman actually started to tell the DP how to light and film the shots, and frequently told him the 'right' way to do things. This caused immediate problems of course.

The DP then went on to talk about how this situation is now basically worse (he was very polite and diplomatic in the interview, but you could see what he was alluding to, and also how he was obviously cautious of being a boat rocker in the industry). He went on to hint that the now-common 'video village' style of filmmaking has taken over. In this way of making movies, someone always has a 'better' idea of how to film the shot. This resulted in the DP's role as being 'just a job'. In other words he implied that there is no joy in that work anymore and it was now just a pick up the paycheck situation, and that alone.

Such a creative environment (and, really, any work environment) is conducive to mediocrity. Mediocrities flourish in such a system. It's a failure of management. Admins, tech staff, and execs running the show, not the people who truly know what they're doing, the artists. I found it an interesting and enlightening interview.

[Jon O'Brien]

Restore full creative control to the cinematographer is the answer of course. The cinematographer must answer directly to the director and the producer, and to them alone. That was the original and best way of working. Don't like the cinematographer's work? Don't hire them. If you do hire them, trust them ... and then let them do their thing.

[Tyler Purcell]

I mean, I doubt any of the guys who work on film have this mentality. I agree that "Filmmaking by committee" is quite common, but it's only common because that's where the money is. If the money were in films like One Battle After Another, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

Had One Battle made half a billion dollars in the box office, we could have a discussion. But until an indy does really well and breaks records in box-office, we will be stuck where we are. 

Edited November 20 by Tyler Purcell

[Karim D. Ghantous]

22 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I just read an interview, given a few short years ago, by a DP. I'm not going to give his name, or say what country he is from. He talked about how the process of making feature movies has changed over the years.

He described how in the old days a cinematographer or "lighting cameraman" as they were called in the UK had pretty much sole responsibility for lighting and all other aspects of the look of the movie, or at least the cinematography itself, in conjunction of course with the wishes/vision of the director and sometimes the producer. But then things started to change.

He described how it began. Firstly, a colleague he worked with closely on the camera crew had to leave the production at short notice, and a new and presumably younger crew member took his friend's place. This new 1st Assistant cameraman actually started to tell the DP how to light and film the shots, and frequently told him the 'right' way to do things. This caused immediate problems of course.

The DP then went on to talk about how this situation is now basically worse (he was very polite and diplomatic in the interview, but you could see what he was alluding to, and also how he was obviously cautious of being a boat rocker in the industry). He went on to hint that the now-common 'video village' style of filmmaking has taken over. In this way of making movies, someone always has a 'better' idea of how to film the shot. This resulted in the DP's role as being 'just a job'. In other words he implied that there is no joy in that work anymore and it was now just a pick up the paycheck situation, and that alone.

Such a creative environment (and, really, any work environment) is conducive to mediocrity. Mediocrities flourish in such a system. It's a failure of management. Admins, tech staff, and execs running the show, not the people who truly know what they're doing, the artists. I found it an interesting and enlightening interview.

This probably comes from the modern attitude that "every voice needs to be heard." Um, no. Not on a film set. Not anywhere in performing arts. It's a quasi military operation. The person at the top works the least. The person at the bottom works the most. If you want to move up the ranks, earn it, and get in line.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

I don't think there's any field of work where absolute democracy wins.

Many folks conflate collaborative input within a specific temporal context (i.e., when designing the production) vs. constant revisionism by all and at all times - this would never work in any kind of laborious activity, not just in a movie and is a recipe for disaster.

Collaboration is key - but ultimately you set up the goals and move with those - everyone serves that purpose including the people making the overarching decisions, they too should follow their own guidance.

[Giray Izcan]

I mean back in the olden days, cinematographers weren't even allowed to make their lead look ugly or bad or dark.. Gordon Willis nearly got fired from Godfather because how dark his dailies were.. Filmmaking is an expensive endeavor and people who fund your films want to make sure they make their money back.. 

[Jon O'Brien]

2 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

I mean back in the olden days, cinematographers weren't even allowed to make their lead look ugly or bad or dark.. Gordon Willis nearly got fired from Godfather because how dark his dailies were.. Filmmaking is an expensive endeavor and people who fund your films want to make sure they make their money back.. 

Being pulled into line by those above you because you need to comply with their vision ... perfectly fine. I covered that in what I wrote above. Yes I do understand that the DP is there to make people money.

A lot of good things seem to become devalued in the contemporary world unless we are vigilant. It is helpful to figure out how and why this process occurs, because it lets you see how to improve things.

Edited November 21 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

Again, same thing as I'm describing here happens in science, too. Oh yes. The public is taught to believe in 'the Scientific Method' but if they only knew how things really work. In a word, money.

Truth is very far down the list.

In the creative world, another word for truth is art.

Edited November 21 by Jon O'Brien

[Tyler Purcell]

Which goes back into the whole discussion about your value as an artist. 

Most artists I know take commissions even if they're very private people. From metal work to painting/sculpting, if you have a skill, why not try to make money from it? 

If you can make something yourself, then why would you ever need a democratic "made by committee" framework? Nobody tells me what to shoot when I'm out making my documentaries, but I'm also not trying to make money from that work because I already have other methods of making income which are way less risky/stressful. 

The film industry has been a business since the first nickelodeons and as financing becomes harder to access, creatives have more guardrails. This is just how things work today, unless you're self financing and then who cares. 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

20 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

.. Filmmaking is an expensive endeavor and people who fund your films want to make sure they make their money back.. 

Which is why in Europe there's a lot of help provided by government, European union, non-profits etc. to help co-sponsor films and help promote different visions/cultures/perspectives.

Because a profit-driven only context is a major issue in film productions - Helping productions get a leg up despite profitability is not really understood as normal in the U.S - I guess some studios are willing to lose money somewhere for the kudos from time to time, but private enterprise should not be the only benefactor of cinema.

20 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

Gordon Willis nearly got fired from Godfather because how dark his dailies were

Now we have the opposite were the VFX people and colorists dictate how things will look.

Hollywood used to at least leave a bit of room for creativity -  in some productions, now all the differentiation gravitas is given to indie productions (if that) or well established film-makers like PTA that are sometimes "allowed to do their thing" and I am not even sure by how much.

I am actually thankful that OBAA has at least broken even globally. (passed the 200m mark) France only has "donated" more than 50m to that "cause".

 

 

 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Which is why in Europe there's a lot of help provided by government, European union, non-profits etc. to help co-sponsor films and help promote different visions/cultures/perspectives.

Yes, this is something that has propelled the European film industry that does not exist at all in the United States. 

Having been involved in two funded projects by the board, I can attest to how challenging it is to even get them to sign off. One of them took 3 years of development with the board before they finally agreed and when the producer died suddenly of a heart attack, the board canceled the request entirely. The other one made it a bit further, but kept on getting delayed due to budgetary constraints year over year, that it just never got made. So where it's cool that money exists, for the most part, it goes towards the bigger productions who already have substantial budgets from other sources AND most importantly distribution. They won't dump money into products that aren't full packages with some sort of end game for returning investment. 

The problem doesn't change, it really doesn't. Ok sure, there is 2.5M available from the EU, but you won't get anything from anyone without a distribution deal. You can't get a distribution deal without some sort of signed talent, including a producer who is a known entity. The circle jerk to making and distributing a feature film properly, is not a 'creative' thing at all, it's all business. If you know the right people, if they have faith in your work, it's easy to get things done. I have been involved in 4 projects like that, money came easy, even though the scrips were shit because guess what? There was guaranteed distribution at the back end and the investors knew they'd get their money back. The point of making the films wasn't necessarily the end result, it was about keeping people employed.

This is why I feel there is so much mediocrity in modern content, nearly everyone just wants to stay busy. It's way easier to make lots of "safe" content and keep raking in the paycheck, than it is to take risks that may not pay out. 

When looking at last year's Academy Award winning "Anora", you can see how smart the business side of things were. Baker is a hustler, the guy thinks fast, he makes snap decisions and does deals on a handshake, then moves on. When the union shut his production down, he capitulated immediately and gave them everything they wanted, but 2/3rds of the film had already been shot, so he got away with not paying union dues for most of the production, very smart. He took a 6M budget and made a 57M return globally and boosted his record from being some random indy filmmaker, to being an academy award winning producer/director, I mean it doesn't get better then that. So yea, if you can follow his formula, then you're going to be successful, but you also need a lot of talent. 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

Part of what you say might be true in the U.S.

European funding on films whether through multi country synergies or local government, is far from perfect,  but I am sorry, it is not a reflection of what you describe.

I know absolutely firsthand that there is budget and leg-up provided to complete nobodies that have a semblance of plan to produce something worthwile although not as much as everyone would hope for obviously.

 

[Tyler Purcell]

On 11/22/2025 at 12:29 PM, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I know absolutely firsthand that there is budget and leg-up provided to complete nobodies that have a semblance of plan to produce something worthwile although not as much as everyone would hope for obviously.

Then you're discussing a totally different program than the EU based one. 

I've been involved with the EU program for years, I know how it works pretty well. 

[Brian Drysdale]

On 11/22/2025 at 8:29 PM, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

European funding on films whether through multi country synergies or local government, is far from perfect,  but I am sorry, it is not a reflection of what you describe.

I know absolutely firsthand that there is budget and leg-up provided to complete nobodies that have a semblance of plan to produce something worthwile although not as much as everyone would hope for obviously.

 

There are schemes around for new talent, but you need more than just a semblance of a plan, the script is usually key. Getting the funding is pretty competitive and the director etc usually needs to have built up experience in shorts, other productions or theatre. 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

11 hours ago, Brian Drysdale said:

There are schemes around for new talent, but you need more than just a semblance of a plan, the script is usually key. Getting the funding is pretty competitive and the director etc usually needs to have built up experience in shorts, other productions or theatre. 

Of course, I was being a bit abstract on that. There is alot of help provided to "build up" scripts to where they should be assuming there's a good starting point. Also alot of these people - as you said, get funding for their shorts and that helps them down the line when they submit feature proposals, usually with the help of a production company that believes in the effort (and the additional funding they'll be getting) 

I think its important that we retain a positive outlook in the future of cinema, there's alot of cynicism and a "what's the point?" attitude at the same time as alot of naivete and overconfidence - none is particularly productive.  

Was reading a weird story on reddit about a guy who shot a 17 minute short on 35mm film and used all of his money and credit cards to do so (obviously most spend on stock and development) and subsequently failed to gain any traction - which is more akin to some of the stories Tyler describes.

I am not gonna critique whether the movie was bad or good and I am not even going to critique whether it was worth going to into debt for a movie - the Oscar winning guy for "The lives of others" did it right?

But, I think there's alot of strange expectations attached to this craft that creates these weird dynamics, it's difficult to have a relaxed attitude, focus on your art and take a measured approach and understand what the stakes are I guess...

[Giray Izcan]

5 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Of course, I was being a bit abstract on that. There is alot of help provided to "build up" scripts to where they should be assuming there's a good starting point. Also alot of these people - as you said, get funding for their shorts and that helps them down the line when they submit feature proposals, usually with the help of a production company that believes in the effort (and the additional funding they'll be getting) 

I think its important that we retain a positive outlook in the future of cinema, there's alot of cynicism and a "what's the point?" attitude at the same time as alot of naivete and overconfidence - none is particularly productive.  

Was reading a weird story on reddit about a guy who shot a 17 minute short on 35mm film and used all of his money and credit cards to do so (obviously most spend on stock and development) and subsequently failed to gain any traction - which is more akin to some of the stories Tyler describes.

I am not gonna critique whether the movie was bad or good and I am not even going to critique whether it was worth going to into debt for a movie - the Oscar winning guy for "The lives of others" did it right?

But, I think there's alot of strange expectations attached to this craft that creates these weird dynamics, it's difficult to have a relaxed attitude, focus on your art and take a measured approach and understand what the stakes are I guess...

Imagine had that filmmaker spent the money for profuction design, hiring better talent, better locations instead of allocating 3/4 of the budget on just to keep the canera running. Let me guess, the project clearly stated "My 35mm film" or something along those lines too..

[Brian Drysdale]

It's possible that the funds spent on shooting 35mm may have been better invested in the cast and/or the art direction. Shooting 35mm can restrict the shooting ratio, so perhaps Super 16 may have been a better option, allowing more takes for the performances.

The script and the acting usually gives a film the advantage, specially since the films are projected digitally at festivals, the difference to the audience/jury may not be that obvious, to a well photographed digital production.    

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

I mean there's something really endearing about (literally) going for broke, gotta admire that.

For me the red flag was film duration which was clearly off for any kind of short - you gotta minimize the movie footprint to focus on the substance.

Finally, he clearly could've gone for 16mm if it had to be film.

Obvs: talent/production design/sound>shooting format.

I think the difficult part is accepting you have a losing card vs digging in.

Ten years ago I started a documentary project for a segment of the old NYC jazz scene - basically with some of people who were still alive reminiscing a different era - think Charles Mingus band, people that worked with Miles Davis etc. Got to 20% of the way including shooting etc. But it became clear to me it was too niche, it wasn't as engaging as it should be - and wouldn't get much funding traction, as much as I adored the thing, I dropped it - and all for the better (I hope).

[Brian Drysdale]

There are award winning shorts that are longer than this (some Oscar winning). Although, they need to be outstanding because festivals tend to favour shorter films because they can pack more in.

[Jon O'Brien]

I agree, shorter shorts has always been my plan. Film on 16mm or S16 and put all the energy and talent you can into the story, dialogue, art direction, and acting. It's got to be film for me or not doing it.

Edited November 24 by Jon O'Brien

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

Imagine had that filmmaker spent the money for profuction design, hiring better talent, better locations instead of allocating 3/4 of the budget on just to keep the canera running. Let me guess, the project clearly stated "My 35mm film" or something along those lines too..

I shot my last three narrative shorts on 35mm, the film aspect didn't hinder the production necessarily. 

One of them the lab screwed up 600ft of the film and because of that, the story had to be re-written and the finished  result just wasn't what any of us wanted, so it got shelved. 

One of them we had juvenile actors, both very dedicated. We had 3 total shoots, 2 days each shoot. So it was a 6 day shoot. After the first shoot, one of the actors couldn't show to the 2nd shoot weekend, which meant we had to shift the script slightly to reduce his senes, but it was ok because we had 2 more shoot days with him. Then the day before the 3rd and final shoot weekend, he went to a party, got drunk, went out in public drunk, fell over and the cops arrested him. So he was in prison during our two day shoot and had no access to his phone. He apologized prolifically, but his parents refused to let him come in for ONE DAY to finish the film. So we basically had to cut 2/3rds of the film's material, the stuff with the other actress and re-do the entire story. The film went to festivals and did win some awards, but it was not what we intended. 

The most recent film, we lost the lead talent and couldn't shift dates because the other 2 of the talent couldn't change their dates. So the Producer/Writer, who wanted to pursue acting, stepped in to play one of the critical roles and he over acted. We cut a 38 minute movie down to 22 minutes and it still doesn't work, this is because all of the critical scenes with bad acting, I had to removed. The only way to solve it, was to do a small re-shoot with a new open AND one little scene at the end, which would bookend the two other actors who did a great job and kinda remove the bad actor. He loved the idea, but the other two refused to come back together again, both of them hated each other post production due to some childish bullshit and they refused to be involved. It's horribly sad to picture in my head what could have been and what we made, it's just embarrassing for all of our efforts. We had a great crew, money and fantastic locations, but it fell short due to ONE actor.

So yea, none of the issues really had much to do with 35mm outside of the single lab issue. I learned a lot of lessons on those films and the cinematography is good in some places, so they're good demo material if anything, but at a great cost that may not have been worth it in the long run. My next short narrative that I'm writing now, will also be 35mm, but I have a great new team of more dedicated people. It's just going be down to casting really, I feel that's the biggest mistake I've struggled with the most. Dedicated actors who are talented are the most critical aspect. 

[Tyler Purcell]

4 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Ten years ago I started a documentary project for a segment of the old NYC jazz scene - basically with some of people who were still alive reminiscing a different era - think Charles Mingus band, people that worked with Miles Davis etc. Got to 20% of the way including shooting etc. But it became clear to me it was too niche, it wasn't as engaging as it should be - and wouldn't get much funding traction, as much as I adored the thing, I dropped it - and all for the better (I hope).

Dang, that would have been great. I love Mingus. It may only work by finding some sort of treasure trove of archival footage that nobody has seen before. Davis was difficult to work with so maybe there is some sort of story there? But yea, not much conflict for sure. 

I have a similar doc that I started in 2018 shot entirely on film, mostly 16mm, but quite a bit of 35mm. We had to stop due to Covid and a few of the key people have left the project, so it would be a total re-boot from scratch. However, I think focusing it on one person and her trauma/issues, would work way better than multiple people anyway. So we may be able to make it all work in the end, but it will take 30k feet or so more filming and that will require a substantial budget, not just for film but travel. Make it a shorter more personal film, than a larger project. So we'll see... but I feel ya on the struggles. 

I got very lucky with my train films because I have a huge built-in audience, so they've been garnishing a lot of views and positive feedback. I feel because there all under 15 minutes, it's a very easy market and even though it's niche, the audience will watch anything I produce. We have released 2 films out of the 7 total in production. One of them needs some studio shooting which I can do at home and a final VO. One of them we're waiting for an engine to be finished being rebuilt, which should be sometime in the summer or fall 2026. Once we shoot that out, the 4th film will be done. I think we may be even able to finish the 5th film in 2026 as well. So maybe we'll have only two more left to shoot. My goal is to wrap up all the production in 2026 and release some in 2026 and maybe the last two in 2027. It's been a great project and entirely shot on film, which is very challenging. We will have A LOT of material on the cutting room floor as well, that may be another 8th film, who knows. 

[Doyle Smith]

On 11/21/2025 at 6:06 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Which goes back into the whole discussion about your value as an artist. 

Most artists I know take commissions even if they're very private people. From metal work to painting/sculpting, if you have a skill, why not try to make money from it? 

If you can make something yourself, then why would you ever need a democratic "made by committee" framework? Nobody tells me what to shoot when I'm out making my documentaries, but I'm also not trying to make money from that work because I already have other methods of making income which are way less risky/stressful. 

The film industry has been a business since the first nickelodeons and as financing becomes harder to access, creatives have more guardrails. This is just how things work today, unless you're self financing and then who cares. 

There's a distinct difference between artistic collaboration by the DP, director, costume designer, production designer,  makeup and hair supervisor and a democratic "made by committee" at the video village. Time=Money and a production needs to move at certain pace to steward both parameters. The department heads were hired to lead so let them do their respective jobs. If your department head asks for your input, by all means provide it. If not, shut your mouth, open your eyes and wait for your turn in the "hot seat".

[Tyler Purcell]

34 minutes ago, Doyle Smith said:

Time=Money and a production needs to move at certain pace to steward both parameters.

Well yes, the industry seemingly just doesn't care about money anymore. They've clearly decided that budgets are irrelevant, so time suddenly is no longer a problem as a consequence. If budgets WERE relevant, the whole filmed by committee situation would never exist, there would be no time. Heck most of the big stuff released globally in theaters today, the minim budget is 100M. 

Edited November 25 by Tyler Purcell

[Doyle Smith]

7 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Well yes, the industry seemingly just doesn't care about money anymore. They've clearly decided that budgets are irrelevant, so time suddenly is no longer a problem as a consequence. If budgets WERE relevant, the whole filmed by committee situation would never exist, there would be no time. Heck most of the big stuff released globally in theaters today, the minim budget is 100M. 

No doubt. I never worked in that echelon and I'm certainly out of touch with today's filmmaking.

Nonetheless, I always felt that any efficiency we could muster through creativity or common sense, (i.e. not taking a poll about the next shot) bought me and/or the director more time for a better end result.

Edited November 25 by Doyle Smith