On Evaluating Local Film
A couple of weeks ago my wife and I made our first movie, a four-and-a-half minute short film called Sleep. I’m almost hesitant to even describe what we created as a movie. It’s more like a sketch or an exercise. It’s a movie that should’ve been made with an old, unwieldy camcorder when we were young teenagers. So while I’ll never have the precious filmmaker story about making all sorts of movies as a child, I can positively say that my first “movie” is done. Now that the first is completed, many can follow in succession with (hopefully) improving quality.
I learned quite a bit in the 12 hours I worked on the movie. Those lessons can then be applied to future endeavors, where more mistakes can be made and more lessons learned. And now that Number One is done, the process of making a movie doesn’t seem nearly as scary and insurmountable as it once did. I can’t wait until I can start on the next one.
If you get better at your art through repetition (and certainly repetition isn’t the only requirement), then this movie was simply the first iteration. That’s why I see it more as a sketch. It is not Citizen Kane. And knowing that makes everything else all the easier to handle.
I’ve been thinking a lot about how I judge movies. In this particular instance–how I judge some of the smaller movies from local filmmakers that played at this year’s deadCENTER Film Festival. I have this nagging feeling that I may have been a bit too negative. Perhaps I was expecting too much. But, that begs the question–what should you expect, if anything, out of a low-budget, local film? Which imperfections can be easily excused and which cannot? And is it possible that negative criticism should be refrained when it comes to local and/or amateur filmmakers? Do films submitted to a regional film festival deserve a critical pass?
If I have negative criticism for a big, Hollywood movie, it is rarely tinged with any regret. But when I say something negative about a lower-budget movie made by local filmmakers, then regret becomes a very real possibility. As I’ve been mulling all this over, I came to the feeling that I may have been too negative in my recaps of a pair of Oklahoma films that screened at this year’s deadCENTER. The two films in question were Adam Davis Beatty’s The Rounder Comes to Town and Singletree Productions’ Simmons on Vinyl. Here’s what I wrote:
The Rounder Comes to Town was highly anticipated. It was perhaps a little too indulgently Tarantino-ish and lacked an assured tone. I wasn’t quite sure how funny or campy it was genuinely going for. Perhaps I was taken aback knowing the actor who spouted the oddest lines (something like: I like kitty cats. Kitties in the morning, day and night. Kitties for brunch. Mimosas and kitties. Except he wasn’t talking about kittens.) Still, it showed a bunch of promise. A few changes here and there and it could’ve easily been my favorite of the festival.
Then onto Simmons on Vinyl, by Mark Potts and his Singletree crew. I really liked their short film (Hit Boys II Men) and their festival promos (Hard Justice) from last year. So, I was excited about seeing this one. I have to say that I didn’t care all that much for it. It was just too scattered. These guys look like three good friends having fun making a movie. But I’m afraid that in this one, three good friends having fun making a movie doesn’t also provide somebody who can or will rein them in when necessary. That being said, the filmmakers admitted their budget was only like $300 and that they spent very little time writing. So, there’s no real loss here. I’ve spent that much and had much less to show for it after a half-dozen trips to McNellies. And, I can’t say whether or not it deserved its festival award. I say if the filmmakers had fun then it was worth it. For me as a viewer, I would have preferred something that had been developed some more. Of course, I may have just not been in the right “frame of mind” for it. I still want to check out their previous feature, The Stanton Family Grave Robbery, to see if a little more development time led to a better product.
I can see now that I was somewhat cautious when I wrote both items. In the first instance, I tried to mitigate the negative criticism with the statement that “a few changes here and there and it could’ve easily been my favorite of the festival.” In the second, I praised previous work and then suggested that I might’ve “not been in the right ‘frame of mind’” for it. Now, I wasn’t brutal with either movie. And neither case could fairly be called film criticism; they’re just a few sentences among a longer recap post. Nevertheless, something of what I wrote has affected me and led me here.
I stand behind what I wrote about The Rounder Comes to Town, aside from the “too indulgently Tarantino-ish” comment. I’m not even sure what that means. All art is indulgent to some degree, and this movie was not overly so. And I haven’t seen enough of those films that influenced Tarantino to be able to say with much confidence that which is derivative of him and that which is derivative of his influences. Otherwise, I liked the film. A very impressive first feature. The uncertainty of the tone was really the only thing that kept this impressive deadCENTER entry from being a favorite deadCENTER entry.
About Simmons on Vinyl, I wrote that it looked like “three good friends having fun making a movie…[without] somebody who can or will rein them in when necessary” and that I would have “preferred something that had been developed some more.” On one hand, you can excuse a lot when you know that the budget for this was $300. On the other hand, that doesn’t make every no-budget movie worthwhile.
If I have any genuine criticism regarding Simmons on Vinyl it isn’t with the movie, it’s with the festival’s awarding of the Grand Jury prize. If I were handing out that award, I would’ve likely given it to another film. But that’s one man’s opinion. The Grand Jury Narrative Feature award has its own criteria for selecting a winner, just like every other contest that takes place on this fine Earth. And that’s perfectly fine. Not liking a movie isn’t the same as the movie being bad.
That being said, the movie is way better than any movie I’ve ever made. And with just about every movie, saying that it could have been “developed some more” is simply stating the obvious. It’s like saying that I really wish they’d spent $375 on this movie. Also, I don’t really remember the movie too much at this point. Too much Stella, I think.
Also having made my first movie, albeit a 4-minute piece of crap, I can now better appreciate both the hunger and struggle of making movies. There is something very lovely and admirable about it. Along with Rounder, I genuinely look forward to seeing Simmons again. I also look forward to whatever Beatty and Singletree Productions create in the future. Sometimes early iterations can show the promise of great things to come in the future.
I do think local filmmakers do deserve all the praise and support that they can get. As for myself, I plan on being both more positive and more open-minded when it comes to the output of local filmmakers. It’s not that I don’t care about being genuine, I just think that emerging filmmakers need all the help they can get. Without it, the fight to make an even better movie down the road will be even more difficult.
I also think that these types of films need to be judged with the knowledge that they’re created outside of “the industry” with very little money by filmmakers who must create their own opportunities. These aren’t full-time, studio-financed filmmakers. These are scrappy Okie artists. To some degree, you must judge their films based on their promise. A great artist, I believe, can push through the limitations of budget and access. I look forward to seeing what they can do. I also can’t wait to throw my own hat into the ring.
[...] good friend Dwight over at The Filmcake published a really interesting blog post we think deserves your attention. Having just finished his first short film, he has begun to [...]