The New "B" Grade

[Marty Hamrick]

Having seen a few of the DV originated independent films and offered my 2 cents on this and other forums,I can honestly say I am unimpressed with what I've seen.

The statement I've gotten from some of my comments about the given quality of a piece,or lack thereof that concerns me is."It worked for that film because..."

What bothers me is not the fact that these films originate on video,or that they're done cheaply,or that they simply may just suck as a film,but that where they lacked was a certain degree of believability that sells an audience on the story.At some point we have to feel for the characters, be drawn into their world,if that doesn't happen, for whatever reason, then the film failed.

I remember one night I was watching a late night horror film, a typical B grade movie,I don't remember the title(this was over 20 years ago).The plot was ridiculous,but the way it was done kept you watching and at the end you went,"That wasn't so bad,I'm almost ashamed to admit it,I enjoyed that".The story was one of those recycled dead come back to life to terrorize a young cast of good looking white kids who were unfortunate enough to get stuck on their island.Circa about 1971-73.The zombies were leftovers from a Nazi experiment of Hitler's attempt to create the perfect soldier(this sound familiar anybody?).At any rate,the film was competent.The cinematography wasn't fantastic,but it was competent.The cliched day for night scenes worked because the rules were followed.The sparse lighting worked in the claustrophobic interiors because they worked for the story and you didn't see things that called attention to the fact that there wasn't a lot of money for a lighting package like overly washed out practicals that look like a shot from a surveillance camera.

Yet now we have movies that you have to strain to see and hear and they are excused because they're low budget indies.I ain't buying it.Low budget indies were around a long time before DV came about.Some became cult films.I don't give this new breed of "B' movie that high of a mark.

Marty

[Bob Hayes]

The film you are referring to is called ?Shock Waves?. It?s one of those rare low budget films that is moody and spooky and scary with out really trying.

 

I have to agree with you regarding the lack of creative spark in this generation of film makers. I know it is there and smoldering. In the 70?s new lightweight cameras and the Neo Realism of European film makers sent out the signal that you don?t need to be a big studio to make films. The success of ?Easy Rider? created a movement that reinvented cinema. I thought the success of ?Blair Witch? and the inexpensive Digital medium would have the same effect. It doesn?t seem like it has, yet. There may be some great films out there and I?m just not looking in the right place.

[Marty Hamrick]

What's even sadder to me is that when some of these guys get better budgets as a result from the success of their low budget attempt,they often go on to do just more expensive exploitation films.

Thanks for jogging my memory on that title,Bob.Did that star a very young Mark Harmon?Or am I thinking about another film?

Marty

[David Mullen ASC]

It's true that "B" movies used to have more production value than some films today. I just saw two Roger Corman directed films from the 1960's, "Tomb of Ligeia" and "Pit and the Pendulum" on DVD and was surprised that both were shot in 35mm anamorphic with decent sets and lighting, even complex camera moves. Of course, many "B" movies attempted to look like they were more expensive than they were.

 

But you're forgetting that there were also "Grade Z" movies, some shot in 16mm and blown-up. The quality of those films -- like "The Creeping Terror" -- can be quite horrible, both sound and picture.

 

What's changed is the notion of "acceptable quality". This has its artistic advantages: a mainstream theatrical movie made by a studio like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Minority Report" can be quite grainy, rough, handheld, something not acceptable to the studios forty years ago. But it also means that there's no generally acknowledged level of technical competence anymore.

 

Anyway, it's not as bad as you think. The majority of studio films are still shot in 35mm, and many low-budget people still want their films to look good, and digital technology is improving and Super-16 is not only viable, but looks better than ever. But you will have to deal with the occasional DV movie in the theaters...

[Marty Hamrick]

But you're forgetting that there were also "Grade Z" movies, some shot in 16mm and blown-up. The quality of those films -- like "The Creeping Terror" -- can be quite horrible, both sound and picture.

 

What's changed is the notion of "acceptable quality". This has its artistic advantages: a mainstream theatrical movie made by a studio like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Minority Report" can be quite grainy, rough, handheld, something not acceptable to the studios forty years ago. But it also means that there's no generally acknowledged level of technical competence anymore.

 

Anyway, it's not as bad as you think. The majority of studio films are still shot in 35mm, and many low-budget people still want their films to look good, and digital technology is improving and Super-16 is not only viable, but looks better than ever. But you will have to deal with the occasional DV movie in the theaters...

I remember the "Z" movies,some gained cult status and some were so bad they were good for a laugh.There was a 50's Sci-Fi "Moon Maidens"I remember running it at an independent station years ago.It had a very strong following,we got letters from people wanting to know when it would run again so they could arrange parties.

Movies like Saving Private Ryan and Minority Report may have elements of untraditional camera moves,but those are in certain scenes which are there to convey a certain aspect of the story.To break such "rules",as you well know,David,requires much technical skill.They don't exist because the budget couldn't afford a tripod,dolly or steadicam.

I don't mind a movie originating in DV or having a really low budget,as long as I can follow the story and somehow manage to get absorbed in the plot enough to where the cheapness doesn't draw attention to itself.Or if it does draw attention to itself at least give us something to laugh at.I've yet to see too many of the newer breed of this genre do that.

In recent years I've been asked to veiw some locally done DV originated films.Most are exploitation type and a few are actually competent enough to be picked up by a distributor.The latter remain a minority.

Marty