|
Gimme Five Director/producer Amit Tripuraneni discusses making self-funded digital feature 'Five'. What is your film about and what was the inspiration for it?
I had wanted to work with D F Mamea for a while but the opportunity never arose, so one day I dropped him an email and asked him if he wanted to write a script for my third feature. The challenge I laid down to him was to write with specific constraints - single location with five central characters written in such a way that it could be filmed quickly and made without requiring a massive budget. He took up the challenge and sent me a couple of treatments. I picked the one I liked and both of us sat on it for a while. At the start of July 2006 I gave D F Mamea a ring and told him about my plan to shoot the movie over the weekends in November 2006 and told him that I needed a base script/story within a month. He took up the challenge and gave me the first draft in mid-August. After that we were constantly talking about how to make the story better and I was also thinking from a production and directing point of view about what we could achieve within the constraints I had set for the project. Also, I had cast all the roles for the movie within a month of kicking off the project and I involved the actors in the script process, so there was constant feedback on what was working and what wasn't. All of us spent a fair bit of time brainstorming ideas to keep adding depth to the script without losing the original intention. After the second draft I sat down and broke the story down into a beat sheet to see what was happening with each of the characters across the period of time. This gave a clearer picture of where we needed more stuff to happen and I added more plot points to the beat sheet. I then sent it across to everyone and we brainstormed it again to see if the new elements were working for each of us. As we started getting closer to the production date we started dividing the workload and Anita Crisnel, one of the actors, helped out with the screenplay as well. While the work on script was still being done I got the actors to start doing workshops where we focused on improvisational situations and finding our characters within that space. Some plot points also formed during the workshops and were readily incorporated into the script. The script process was pretty unconventional in that everyone was heavily involved in it. D F Mamea would take in the stuff that was constantly coming out of the talks and kept refining the script until the point we went into production, at which stage he stepped back and gave the ownership to the cast and crew. Once we started filming and the movie started taking its own shape, the cast felt that some of the story elements would not work and we all sat down and changed two-thirds of the script after shooting for two days. On set we improvised the dialogue a fair bit while still retaining the meaning and intention of the script. The whole scripting process was a massive experiment and was a high risk process but it paid off because it got everyone so involved with the project. What was the budget and source of funding? I set the budget for the movie at NZ$10,000 as that was what I had in my savings but I have now spent about NZ$12,000. And I still haven't started putting it into major international film festivals outside of the country, which again will add another grand to the total at least. What format did you shoot the film with and why? We shot the movie on miniDV because it was the format which was the most cost-effective for the production while still giving us the look we wanted. The first constraint was that the production schedule was very short - we only had a total of eight days scheduled for filming and I decided that it would be best to shoot on two cameras so that we could get maximum coverage within the same amount of time. The second constraint was that the location was an hour's walk into the woods and everyone was carrying their own food, water, bedding, equipment and clothes to last us two days, so trying to carry two bigger cameras to and from the location (in tricky walking conditions) would have virtually halted the production. The third constraint was that the location had no electricity, so we needed a format that was not dependent on electricity, while giving us the flexibility of shooting a higher ratio. So taking into consideration these factors I decided that shooting on two Panasonic DVX102s would be the best step for the production, and everyone involved was happy with the look we got out of the camera. In practice, what were the advantages and disadvantages of the format? While shooting 'Memories' we'd already got to know the strengths of the DVX and felt we could use those strengths while shooting 'Five'. One of the biggest advantages is the way it handles natural light and its ability to shoot in low light conditions (with the right tweaks in the settings). Because of this about 98% of the movie was shot with natural light, while the night scenes were lit up by candles or gas lanterns. Considering that the location had no electricity, this was a huge bonus for the movie as we did not have to carry any generators or lights to make things look good. The second advantage was the camera battery life - since each of them last a while we did not have to worry about constantly charging them through the day, and to cover ourselves we rented out extra batteries from A2Z Technologies. But because there was no electricity, we couldn't charge the batteries up at the end of the day, so D F Mamea would tramp into the location on Saturday evening, pick up the batteries and charge them at his place, and then drop them back on Sunday morning. That way we never had to stop shooting because we were short of batteries. The third advantage was that since it was miniDV format, we could shoot 60 minutes on each tape. Because the tape cost being low, it was a very affordable way to shoot a feature. One of the biggest disadvantages we faced with the camera was that it doesn't have a native 16:9 chip, so the image resolution was not the greatest as we were shooting 16:9 FHA [Full Height Anamorphic] on a 4:3 chip. So the image quality definitely suffered a bit. The second disadvantage was the inherent low bandwidth and colour sampling of miniDV/DV format, which meant that the camera had problems dealing with the changing light and the green spectrum. That obviously was a huge problem since we were shooting in the woods, where it is all green and the light keeps changing rapidly. Overall, however, shooting with the format gave us lots of flexibility with the shooting ratio and we did not have to worry about lighting anything up. And the biggest thing was it enabled the production instead of restricting it. So it was a great way to shoot this movie. Would you use the same format again? If I have to keep making movies out of my own pocket then I will definitely keep using the same format as it makes storytelling possible in an affordable manner. In an ideal world, where time and money wasn't an issue, what format would you have preferred to use and why? Ideally, I would have loved to use a Panasonic HVX200 to shoot this movie - mainly because it would have given us DVCPRO-HD in native 16:9 while still keeping the form factor small, portable and unobtrusive. Plus we could have used different lenses with the M2 adaptor attached - and that would have added a whole new layer to the visual aesthetics of the movie. I'm assuming you couldn't afford to pay anyone in the cast and crew for their time, so how did you entice them to be involved in the film? When 'Nowhere' came to a halt I did not want to lose the creative energy of the core team I worked with and so I passed the idea about this project to Lance Wordsworth (DP and co-producer on 'Memories of Tomorrow') and Benji Dalton (editor on 'Memories of Tomorrow') and they readily jumped in. Lance was away in UK at that point and I was in constant communication with him via email. He landed back in NZ a week-and-a-half before the production began. Meanwhile Benji was flatting with me, so we would discuss the visual aesthetics of the movie whenever we got the chance. I wanted Grace Tye-Wood (art director on 'Memories') to be the art director but she was busy with some personal projects during the scheduled production time and could not commit time to the project. So she recommended Michael Williams for the job, and he came on board the project after a brief chat. He turned out to be a blessing for the project - he would do so many small things that saved the production so much time that it is hard to imagine what we would have done without him. As far as the cast was concerned, I had wanted to work with Richard Thompson and Andy Sophocleous again after working with them on 'Memories'. I asked them if they were interested in doing this crazy experiment with me and they happily accepted the challenge. I had seen some of the work that Anita Crisnel and Marjan Gorgani had done and had wanted to work with them since then. When this project came up I proposed the concept to them and Anita came on board straight away. I must say that the hardest person to get on board was Marjan as I had never worked with her before and she had never seen any of my work, so it took a good couple of hours of explaining my vision about the movie before she came on board, convinced that I was genuinely mad. Once she came on board, though, she just brought so much energy and vitality into the project that everyone had a ball. Do you have an arrangement in place to share any profits the film might make? The cast and crew are again on a profit share basis but personally I am getting a bit frustrated with this scenario. I feel bad that I can't pay anyone for their time and energy and trying to earn money from small movies like this is virtually impossible. I still haven't seen any money from traditional distribution sources for 'Memories of Tomorrow', which at last count had sold to five international territories besides NZ and Australia. This time I hope to somehow recoup the costs, so there is a likelihood of actually turning in a profit. How long was the shoot? The principal photography lasted eight days. We shot over the weekends in November 2006. We would hike into the bush on Friday evening, stay there through the weekend and come out on Sunday evening. We shot another four half days of pick-ups, making the total shoot tally up to 10 days. What did you find most challenging about the shoot process? The location we were shooting at was an hour's walk from the nearest road and all of us were carrying our own backpacks with our supplies in them and we had to tramp in no matter what the weather was like. There was no cell phone coverage, which meant no communication with the outside world, and the only form of entertainment was our fellow team mates. And the plan was to shoot the whole movie in the eight days. So the biggest challenge was that there was literally no downtime for the cast and crew while shooting. We were doing solid eight hour days where we were continuously shooting the movie or planning what to do next. So it was a physically challenging and demanding shoot for sure. What did you find most rewarding about the shoot process? I enjoyed the shoot process heaps because the cast and crew jelled together so well and it was a close-knit family where we were supporting each other through the difficult phases. As far as work was concerned everyone took project ownership, which gave us a shared goal. And we enjoyed each other's company, so it was like going out on an adventure trip with friends over the weekend and doing some work while at it. How did you manage your double duties as director and cast member? It was more than double duties actually; I was also producing the movie, so I had to take care of everything - logistics, locations, schedules etc leading up to each shoot weekend. It was tough job producing and directing and acting in the movie but I enjoyed every moment of it. The decision to play one of the characters came from both a production point of view and also my personal point of view. From the production side, I wanted to keep the cast and crew really small as it would mean the production costs would be contained and if I played one of the characters that was one person less in the team. From a personal point of view, I wanted to get back into acting as it was something I was interested in even while I was studying but it came to a standstill for three years when I was in my last job. So I thought it was a great opportunity to get back into it. There were multiple challenges for me as a result though, because I had to first get out of my head as much as I could while acting but then had to get back straight into it to make directorial decisions. And the other big challenge was that there was no one to direct me and I wasn't completely confident about analysing my own performances. But in the end it worked out fine as other cast who were not in a particular scene would give me directions in case I was off the mark. I had faith in the team and I had no problems whatsoever taking directions from others on the team when it was needed. The relative affordability of shooting digital (whether on tape or other media) as opposed to film obviously means there's not the same financial imperatives dictating a particularly disciplined approach to shooting ratios etc. The positive upshot is that in the editing suite one generally has a great deal more options to choose from; the negative upshot is that this can mean being buried in footage. So, on balance, do you see this as a curse or blessing? Or have you learnt from past experience not to "shoot the shit" out of scenes just because you can? I don't believe in a "shoot the shit out of it" approach as it can be painful in the editing suites as you quickly lose perspective while watching that amount of footage - you do get buried. But by the same token I think it is liberating on location in having the freedom to experiment and try things out without being too stuck up on shooting ratios. As a director one has to take responsibility and move on to the next scene once you are happy with the take you've got. "Let's do one more take for safety" seems like an easy way out of taking responsibility. Safety of what? You are using up everyone's energies by doing more takes when you have just said that you are happy with the take. It is a completely different issue if, say, a technical problem arose during the shooting of the scene and you are not sure if it has impacted on the footage - at that point it would be stupid not to do a safety take. On the other hand - when the actors are in the zone and they want to try something new, you have to let them try it. It could work wonders for the scene and that is the magic of cinema - you will never know what will work until you get back into the editing suites. It is better to have lots of great moments to play around with rather than being stuck with 'normal' footage. So I think it entirely depends on the situation and the project. There is no hard and fast rule for how much you shoot. The key is not to be rigid and just go with the flow, while acknowledging that as a director you are responsible for how the project shapes up. How long was the post-production process? Post-production has been so sporadic it is hard to say exactly how long the process has taken. I started editing the movie from mid-December 2006 and since I still need to earn a living I have been editing in whatever time I get outside of my freelancing work. Some weeks I would edit for three days while there would also be stretches of two to three weeks in a row where I couldn't touch the project. As of the first week of July (2007) I have just finished the first phase of post-production. Overall it took me about 35 days to get to the locked cut and I have spent another 10 days in the colour-grade and finishing off process. And this is just for the 2.0 mix - we have another month to go with sound post, so we can finish a 5.1 mix. What software and hardware did you use to edit the film? Oh no… I hate answering this question. 'Five' was edited on a borrowed piece of popular editing software running on my laptop, with an external hard drive for storage. I remember answering the same question with 'Memories' and things haven't changed since then. I am still using the same software and system as I can't afford to buy anything new. My plan was to buy a licensed copy once I earned some money from my last movie but that hasn't happened, so I am stuck in my current position. All my projects have been running on goodwill and prayers. Any other major considerations involved in the post process? One of the problems I had while editing my first movie was that we had a couple of weeks of technical downtime as we were cutting the movie in low resolution and the bringing it up to online resolution once the cut was locked. So this time I circumnavigated the problem by bringing all the footage in online resolution and cutting the whole movie in online resolution. There weren't any major VFX involved, so the post process was pretty straightforward as far as the visual component went. What about the sound mix? We did not have an audio recordist on the shoot as the person who was supposed to do it pulled out at the last minute and the only thing I could think of to solve the problem was to run three radio mics and a boom, giving us four channels of audio (two channels on each camera) in total to play with. I had worries about the audio component and so did Benji, who was doing the sound design and mix for the movie. Since the audio was not mixed while recording we really had no idea how good or bad the levels were. And then there was also the issue of trying to synch up the audio from the two cameras, which was hard because we did not have a clapper to get a synch point and it would have been time consuming to synch all the footage from the two cameras manually. So I discarded that idea and did the visual cut with whatever sources of audio were available. And after the picture lock, I passed on the project to Benji, who then went through and found the relevant audio and also worked out what dialogue we had to re-record because of bad audio. We went ahead and did ADR for those parts to clean things up as much as possible. It hasn't been the easiest project to do sound post on and much credit is due to Benji for undertaking this massive mission and sticking through what was a time-intensive and heavily creative process. So were there any unforeseen technical hitches during post? For most part the post workflow was smooth sailing but there were three days where I was really tense as unexpected problems cropped up with accessing the project. After I had completed the rough cut I passed on my external hard drive to Benji, in order to hook it onto his machine and clean up the audio, so the test screenings had decent audio. After doing his work, he passed the drive back to me along with the project files, but when I loaded up the project onto my system it wouldn't let me access the files or the project, saying instead that the hard drives were inaccessible. It took a good day-and-a-half before we found that we could access the files using a Mac. So we then backed up the files before formatting the hard drive and loading the files back on to it again. It took us two whole days to carry out this process and it solved the problem as the project got back on track again. We still don't know exactly how it happened but it has most likely got to do with incompatible equipment as we had different file systems running on each of our machines. After that incident I formatted my laptop to have the same file system as Benji's machine so that the incident won't occur again. Were you able to access any post production funding? Ha ha haa. I was able to access some post-production funding from my bank account. I did apply to the usual sources of funding but the application was rejected and it seems to be an ongoing issue with whatever projects I want to do. Where are you at now as far as releasing the film goes? Arkles Entertainment picked up the NZ/Australia DVD rights to the movie early in the post-production stage - John Davies has been really supportive of our efforts and he picked up the movie after seeing the assembly edit in February 2007. Greecine.com, a leading VOD website will be picking up the internet rights to the movie. And I am currently in talks with three American distributors regarding the US rights and possibly finding an international sales agent who can sell the movie to other territories. My ambitions for this movie are simple - to recover the costs and earn a small profit off it, so that I can share it with the team who worked so hard in bringing the story to life. Anything else you'd like to mention? I would like to plead with anyone reading this to keep supporting independent filmmakers like me - we are not making any money out of doing this and whatever savings we have go into trying to bring stories to life. I always believed that the industry worked on the principle of nurturing talent and not ignoring it. It is painful being treated like dirt just because you are doing it outside of the system. We need all the encouragement and support to keep at it when there is no obvious tangible reward or remuneration for doing it. © Copyright Onfilm magazine, July 2007 www.onfilm.co.nz |
