Can beggars be choosers?

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

What do you think about shooting films where you could do some interesting work but at the same time you know the script is weak or has a laughable ending. I've looked at a few of those lately and they are tempting to shoot because they actually have a budget and I will get paid. Does it matter if you wind up shooting a great looking B (more like a C) movie? I know some of you have... opinions.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Story of every DP's life, I'd say. Purely content-wise, I'd probaby put one, maybe two projects on my reel - the rest are all poop. I don't think Dean Cundey wants to do Flubber, he just does it because it's a reasonably funny job, he can get the gear he wants, they pay him good and he can drive home from the soundstage every night and be with his family. I can understand that. Or as Gordon Willis said when they asked why he chose to do The Godfather III; "They backed a truck full of money up my front lawn".

 

I still got some more years in the trenches, muddy, exhausted, making no money, but hopefully making reasonably good stuff.

 

You spend half your life building your reel, the rest cashing in on it:-)

Edited October 29, 2004 by AdamFrisch

[Guest fstop]

Frederick Elmes once gave the wise advice:

 

"Only take the projects you care about".

 

Hypocritically, Frederick Elmes had previously shot (with absolutely no heart) Allan Quartermain and the city of Gold for Cannon Films and last year shot Ang Lee's deplorable Hulk. Fred Elmes is still held in very high regard as a respected filmmaker for his work on offbeat studio films such as Blue Velvet and The Ice Storm. The moral of this story is: uninspired B schlock never hurt Fred Elmes!

[Matt Pacini]

I read Michael Caine's autobiography, (which was great, by the way), and he had a great outlook on working on films that were perhaps not masterpieces.

 

He said first of all, you don't always know if it's going to be great, or crap, and that's obviously true. (I watched "the making of Raiders of the Lost Ark", and Speilberg said at one point he had no idea if they were makign a masterpiece, or a total bomb).

 

Anyway, Caine said that even films that aren't that great, it keeps his chops up, it employs perhaps a couple hundred people for many months, and the films that aren't good tend to fade into the background and be forgotten anyway.

 

The thing about his work, is that even in films that aren't that good, he's always great, and I think that's probably the best testament to being a good artist.

Whatever you do, do your best.

 

Besides, nobody (and I mean NOBODY) gets to do masterpieces before they do a bunch of crap, and this goes for every art form.

 

 

Matt Pacini

[mark leuchter]

>>Besides, nobody (and I mean NOBODY) gets to do masterpieces before they do a bunch of crap

 

Except for Orson Welles (though I doubt any of us would consider his body of work subsequent to Kane to be crap)

[Stephen Press]

I got suckered into a lame no budget feature film project because I really liked and respected some of the other people involved in the shoot. The scrip sucked, the acting was rank and the food was bad vegan. What annoyed me more than anything was the way the "Director/ lead actor" completely ignored any advice from what was an astonishingly experienced crew. We were treated like dirt and I had my first and only tantrum on set threatening to pull the camera department if some of my safety concerns involving cars were not met. The final film is technically sound but an utter dog that will never see the light of day... but somehow the dammed thing generated a buzz around town that lead to paid work and better projects. So while the experience was less than positive the outcome made up for it.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Thanks for the replies. These films are only just a step above what Phill calls the "PD-150 in your mates flate" feature. There is a budget so it will get completed, I'm really just concerned about these trust fund kids who think they are directors.