the list of 9 for march 25, 2005:
NINE THINGS I WOULD HAVE DONE IF "CLAUSTROPHOBIA" HAD A BIGGER BUDGET
Now that Claustrophobia (aka Serial Slayer) is out in America, it's been interestingfor me to read reviews - good and bad - that say "I'd like to see what Mark Tapio Kines could dowith a bigger budget." My glib reply may be "Then go see my first film ForeignCorrespondents!" but deeper down, the comment confuses me. After all, everybody knows thatthrowing more money at a movie doesn't exactly make it better. (Recall the countlessmulti-million-dollar stinkers you've had to sit through.) So I asked myself - first defensively,then seriously - how could I have improved my own film if I'd simply had more money? Givena fantasy budget of a modest $5 million, this list details what I'd probably do with it.Hopefully this will give you an idea of how much movie money goes to ultimately expendable things.For even on my minuscule budget, I managed to make and sell something that had all the elements -script, actors, lights, camera, locations, music, editing - that a film needs.

  1. I'D SHOOT ON 35MM. Claustrophobia was shot onhandheld DV. The raw look worked for the story, but I'll admit that I was hoping that by shootingit on PAL, I'd have more of a film look when I transferred it to NTSC. Wrong. It looks like video.35mm film is expensive, but in this scenario I'd have more than enough money to cover thecost.

  2. I'D HAVE A LONGER PRODUCTION SCHEDULE. With 35mm, you needmore time just to set up the lights and camera. No way could we have gotten all the shots we didin our nine shooting days if we had high-maintenance film equipment. With $5 million, I could planfor at least four weeks of production. This would have allowed for a more relaxed set wherecast and crew could have the time to perfect their work, particularly with the lighting.

  3. I'D BUILD A SET. Shooting on location has its advantages -you can't beat that "this is an actual house where people live" feeling - but since this filmtakes place entirely during the late afternoon, building a set on a soundstage (which is lessexpensive than you'd think) would mean we'd have complete control over the lighting, since itwould all be artificial. Not to mention the fact that we could design any house we wanted. And, ofcourse, we wouldn't have to deal with neighborhood noise - or with cranky homeowners.

  4. I'D PAY THE CREW MORE MONEY. Independent film people workso hard, for so little. I'd up their daily rate so they could put food on the table. Actually,with $5 million I'd have the option to go union. Would I want to? Shrug. But at least I'd be ableto afford a crew with more feature experience (though not necessarily more talent). Hire anOscar-winning cinematographer? Maybe.

  5. I'D PAY THE ACTORS MORE MONEY. This is less a choicethan a necessity: working with SAG talent, I'd have to pay them a higher salary simply becauseSAG's basic scale increases with a film's budget. And chances are, if I was given $5 million toplay with, it probably would come from someone who insisted I hire "name talent." ButI could afford to cast at least one kinda-big star in the film. (Not that I'd really want to.)

  6. I'D PAY MYSELF MORE MONEY. I actually had no salary at allwhile making Claustrophobia. Why should I? I paid for the damn movie myself! But given $5million, I'd definitely set aside a nice chunk of that for my own salary. And I'm not being greedy- like most independent filmmakers, I put years of labor into each project. I need to make aliving too.

  7. I'D GET AN ORCHESTRA FOR THE SCORE. My talented composerChristopher Farrell was in heaven when he got to conduct a small orchestra for hisForeign Correspondents score. And that film cost just half a million. Music by liveperformers isn't that expensive, especially at our imaginary budget. Chris did a great job onClaustrophobia just with the odd instruments that he played himself and sampled into hissynthesizer. But he would agree that the music would've been so much richer if I could have gottenmusicians for him. (And, I'm sure he'd add, more time and money for himself as well!)

  8. I'D HIRE THE BEST REPRESENTATIVES MONEY CAN BUY. I'mpleased with the work that my current sales reps have done for me. But with more at stake, inorder to succeed this movie would have to hit festivals. Get some mainstream press. Find adistributor who would release it theatrically. There are people who can do all that for you, butthey ain't cheap, and they don't usually touch scruffy little shot-on-video thrillers. And by"representatives" I'll also include attorneys who can negotiate contractual deal points for mesuch as, oh, you can't change the film's title to Serial Slayer without the director'sconsent. Stuff like that.

  9. BUT WOULD I HAVE A BETTER FILM? Doubtful. It would be aslicker film, to be sure. But in the end, it still comes down to my writing and directingabilities. With more money to spend, my original script may have changed a bit - but probably not.I can't think of anything I would have added to the story, simply from knowing that I'd have abigger budget to play with. And whether I'm making a movie for pocket change or for $200 million,I'd still be the same guy with the same ideas about filmmaking, which you'd love or hate no matterhow much money was behind it. Though never underestimate the power of an Oscar-winning DP to makea director look like he knows what he's doing!

Copyright © Mark Tapio Kines 2011