The ethics of zero-budget film

Unpaid actor with plastic gun.

I always wondered about the cast of El Mariachi. It was Robert Rodriguez's $7,500 action film which made it into theatrical distribution. It was filmed on 16mm. Filmstock and processing cost $7,100, so, if it had been done on digital video, it would have cost only $400---probably less. Only one actor in the movie was paid, if I remember correctly.

So when this thing started making money, did Robert Rodriguez go back and pay the cast and crew? I have no idea.

One thing he did, by the way, which I found interesting, is, he didn't have any actor on the set for more than three hours at a time. This way, he didn't even have to feed them.

An article in Variety reports that "no budget" movies are becoming common in Japan and some filmmakers there are questioning the morality of it.

In recent years, increasing numbers of filmmakers have redefined low budget to mean next to nothing. That has widened the gap between major Japanese studio productions, and the independent majority. It may also have led to the disappearance of most mid-budget films...together with many of the companies that once distributed them.

A recent example from the ultra-low category is “One Cut of the Dead,” a zombie comedy scripted and directed by 34-year-old Shinichiro Ueda. The film premiered in April at the Udine Far East Film Festival, Europe’s largest showcase for Asian popular cinema, and finished a close second in the Audience Award vote.

Produced by Tokyo film school Enbu Seminar, of which Koji Ichihashi is president, and financed partly by crowdfunding, “One Cut of the Dead” was made for $23,000 (JPY2.5 million). Its student cast paid to participate in what was essentially a school project.

On social media, Ueda and producer Ichihashi expressed their joy at the Udine success. “That an extremely low-budget film with a cast and crew of no-names should come so close against such distinguished giants of the film world is a story that even (comic magazine) Shonen Jump would reject as impossible!”

But not everyone shared Ueda and Ishihashi’s glee. On May 10 Koji Fukada, whose “Harmonium” won Cannes’ Un Certain Regard jury prize in 2016, took to Facebook to air his dismay. “If you speak as though enduring poverty to make a film is somehow normal and positive, today’s excessively unfair industry will continue that way forever,” he said. “If you have the energy to make a film I’d like you expend it on raising money. Improve, if just a little, the industry system.”

Fukada is also co-founder of Independent Cinema Guild, an organization of film professionals that supports the indie sector with crowdfunding assistance, networking events and other initiatives. His retort to Ueda sparked many comments from filmmakers who shared his discontent with poor on-set conditions, and a dislike for those who profited from them.

...

Production budgets for films released by those leading distributors typically range from $1 million to $5 million, though the top end can be higher, especially for animation. Isao Takahata’s 2013 film “The Tale of the Princess Kaguya” cost an estimated $46 million (JPY5 billion).

That then leaves the indies living on fumes. And, accordingly, they squeeze their production costs as close to zero as possible. While attacking Ueda, Fukada confessed to himself having a “criminal record” of making low-budget films that “take advantage of the cast and crew’s love of cinema.” Chastened, Ueda responded: “I can’t deny that such a small budget made it a bit harder for (the cast and crew) to survive economically.”

Ueda is unlikely to greatly profit from his triumph, save in more festival invitations and offers to make more films. As Fukada noted, Japanese directors usually only get a fee for their labors. No back-end participation. But it’s still better than the position of his cast, who paid for the privilege of starring in a hit.

Read the whole article here. 

There was one comment on the article I found interesting:

Variations on this problem exist everywhere these days it seems. ANYONE can make a movie now. And their mothers, too. Consumer-grade technology — even iPhones — can help create movies worthy (and just as often unworthy) of theatrical distribution and/or discs and streaming. The barriers to entry have effectively been lowered or removed and film school (snicker) and prior employment in a video store (chortle) are no longer the primary prerequisites to get your foot through a door that’s been taken off its hinges. Decades of DVDs and Blu-rays (and laserdiscs) put EVERYTHING you could possibly learn in either institution into the hands of anyone who cared to learn from it via commentaries, interviews, documentaries and more. Even YouTube has tutorials demonstrating how to do pretty much anything. There are no substantial trade secrets in filmmaking anymore, nor in many other industries for that matter. But since filmmaking is one of the less essential skills one could choose for a career, why not let the current market run its course? The studio system won’t die out completely. Audiences will still crave higher production value and established storytelling tropes. Eventually, these no-budget wonders, even in Japan, may tire of working for peanuts and increasingly NOT landing much-coveted “studio” gigs, and focus their careers elsewhere while the next wave of impoverished dreamers takes their chances. The biggest new barrier, I think, is that contemporary audiences only have so much time to binge on the current and vast oceans of filmic detritus to find the few rare gems with promise. The flood might abate in due time as all the wannabes grow tired of working solely for the love of it.

There was a documentary about Jim Wynorski called Popatopolis. He sets out to shoot an R-rated semi-pornographic horror movie in three days. He wanted to do it in two days, but his friends talked him out of it. But they commented on how the American film industry had changed. There used to be A movies and B movies---now there are A movies and Z movies. The middle ones are gone. 

In the '80s there was Rick Schmidt's book Feature Filmmaking at Used Car Prices which advised paying actors a $100-per-day per diem ($200-a-day in today's money.) Years later, I looked at Craigs List. There were people looking for actors for their zero budget movies. One or two may have offered $100-a-day, but most offered $50 or $20 a day. Then I saw one that didn't offer money but would provide craft services--they would feed you. Then some didn't offer food but would give you a DVD of the finished movie, which I wouldn't offer since I might start editing, realize it was no good and scrap it.

Now they offer actors nothing.

I have no suggestions. Let it all run its course, I guess. We have no power over these people. Think of the Communists. In Communist countries, a movie director made about the same money as a factory worker. They lived in apartments that were identical to everyone else's, and people still fought to work in the movie industry. Why should you get rich making movies? The world is full of people who would do it for free. Why should you be different from any other artist?