Clerks and El Mariachi were made 20 years ago, when the Sundance Film Festival received something like 200 feature submissions a year, rather than the 4000+ they get today, and when everyone and his uncle wasn't making movies. And both films exploited the then prevailing interest in no-budget filmmaking for its own sake, an interest which is long dead now. Today, Clerks would never get distribution and El Mariachi is very doubtful.

Primer is a more complicated case, but in itself proves nothing. The fact that somebody wins the lottery every week doesn't mean the lottery is a viable career. And "Primer" happens once every 10 or 20 years, not once a week. Note also that Primer wasn't a commercial success and apparently hasn't led to a filmmaking career for the director/writer.

The better example for these times is something like "Paranormal Activity". But that example again proves nothing other than the fact that with a certain kind of material and a certain execution, there's always a chance of hitting the jackpot. That doesn't mean no-budget filmmaking is a sustainable filmmaking model.

Note that Americans currently spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on the hope and expectation of becoming movie directors, so dismissing these 3 examples as meaningless, over a period of 20 years, isn't entirely theoretical.

@kavadni

...pornographic zombie splatter road movie...

AJJajajaja, no doubt the will succeed and cheaper the better.

I once went to a panel discussion on "Producing no budget films". Toward the end of the discussion one of the producers said "And please go see our film at Sundance". Then one smart guy in the audience spoke up and said "Hey how do you know you are in Sundance, they don't even release the list for another month." She didn't respond as they all walked off the stage.

Having a staff -it doesn't matter if your friends work for free- is half the work, indeed. However, I think that most of the people with a poor budget only attempt to recreate Hollywood-look film,failing miserably, instead of discovering a new approach to filmmaking. This is due to the fact that even aspirant filmmakers (who should have a good background as a "spectateur") often know only hollywood films (and its bad imitation). History of cinema is full of masterpieces by directors having no money - I say no money, not low budget under 30 000 $. Last week, I talked with Mario Masini, an Italian cinematographer that in the late sixties worked with the great director/actor Carmelo Bene. Bene, with his very small troupe (only 6 people) realized his first masterpiece "Our Lady of the Turks" (second prize Venice Biennale 1968). They shooted in 16 mm because they had no money (and Jean Luc Godard himself was strucked by the quality "I can't believe it, it seems to me 35mm!", he said). Masini used only 12 mini spot lights (only 150W each). Next films by Bene were shooted in little set, I daresay claustrophobic.. ("Don Giovanni" is set in his living room, 3 x 3 m ) however, editing was so fast (3000 clips!) that you will never complain a larger set!

@Aria @ Albertz I believe the same to be true ; )

Hello. My true name is Jonathan Briceño De Luise.

Im from Perú, and i am in the NO BUDGET filmaking, i have achive already 30 minutes of grate footage with a lot of effort, good location, and using the things we have. My vision was more dynamic than i thought and my experience before was cero. I never filmed before, and never wrote a script, either study fotography or audiovisual stuff. Im only a graphic designer. I dont come from a wealthy family, but i can say i had a good education and know some people with the chances of helping me. I shoot in the center of Lima, in a bad place near prostitudes, drug dealers and thieves in an abandoned house for 3 days, pay 2 cops in their free time and then i call my fathers friend for use his slauther house (where you kill pigs and cows) for 1 shooting day. I allways recall people that can actually help me and i pay nothing cos sometimes dreams are bigger than money. I promised my friends and i delivered what i said visually. I have spend allready no more than $2000, the only thing i rented was the dolly and some cheap arri lights. I got my GH1 hacked and used 2 more cameras canon T2i and Canon 60D. I MADE MY ONW LIGHTS FROM CHINA BASED SHIT that reflectors for the garden and stuff, wrote a script from nothing, and decided to make a movie last year. I have allready 4 days of shooting in diferent moments of 2011, very separated times and each one was quiet unique. I never make anyone do what they dont want to, and im always open in the shooting day for consultation and advice from ANYONE. and i said ANYONE, the one that cleans and the cops any data is GOOD cos is a diferent perspective. My friends help me alot, and belive in me. Food and transportation is not a problem when you have all set up. My actors and all are friends that wants to make movies and dream about it. i cant take a no for an answer and effort and hard work pays off. Every shooting day was only for like 8 hours. I directed, make the photogrpahy, wrote the script and payed for everything expept my friend s cameras. if you want it to do it make it happen. 3 month ago a big company in my country wanted to buy my idea, and make a 1 million invesment, FUCK THEM, FUCK THEM HARD, i have crushed the ring of movie making here, going against every fucking rule that should be the standard in making a movie, and i think i have achived a diferent look, with a diferent aproach, i was badly critisaised by productors, and friends cos my shooting way was diferent, IT DOENST MATTER HOW YOU DO IT, JUST DO IT. with 0 experience in making movies here, i made something that was never make here in the history of peruvian cinema. Terror. Its in russian i dont know russian only spanish and english. BUT I DONT CARE lol.

Look, 30 minutes of footage, less than 2000 bucks, 4 days separated in between and 32 hours of shoting in total, i think i have achived something good, and i dont care what @CRfilms said you can do it, but not IN THE USA ANY MORE.

Whatch for yourself and if this is just shit, then tell me and ill stop for real!! it will go out next year though. i have 6 herniated discs and had back surgery in 4 if them, i now have a fucking protesis with 6 scres and kind of a makpherson suspension in my back and thats why i couldnt continue, this year will be diferent!!!! im better now, with no pain no gain.

here is the back stage day 4 :

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150891949425343

Make your film because it's your passion. If it "gets you into the industry" then good for you, but don't count on it.

Do it because you're compelled to tell the story inside.

Hola @subco.

Gracias por aprecias mi esfuerzo

Aun no he terminado y falta grabar mucho. Creo que unas 8 fechas mas a 10. Pero con el tiempo y un trabajo reciente que puede ser que me traiga buenaventura, pueda ser el que me ayude a finalizarlo. Quiero 2 horas de calidad, y quiero lograrlo aun me demore 2 años mas. Pude venderla pero la verdad perderia su espiritu y no cumpliria con el rol que ha estado cumpliendo. Romper el esquema de realizacion de largometrajes aqui en el Peru. Todos hacen cortos, es facil hacer corto, pero terminar un largo a esta forma y con tu propio dinero rompiendo estandares de realizacion y produccion personalmente demuestran mas que hay otras formas de hacer cine en este paiz que es plagado de argollas y circulos de cine que ce cierran y no dan oportunidad a que vengas nuevos talentos. Demuestra que si se puede. Sobre el precio de la camara mas los 2000 dolares, me parece bueno para un largometraje hasta ahora. Tampoco es que todo sea gratis, pero no conozco otro caso de terror a este nivel en largo que se haya realizado con esa cantidad aqui en el Perú.

@CRFilms: My clarification re: the budget wasn't aimed at you but at Gabel who said CLERKS only cost $10,000 with the rest going to music rights. CLERKS was actually shot much in the style you prefer. The few scenes that had to be broken down into "traditional coverage" were not filmed in the "Hollywood" coverage way- i.e., the entire scene being shot straight through from many different angles multiple times- but they rather tended to be broken up. For example, an actor might make it half way through a take then flub, and rather than reshooting the entire take, on take two they'd start one or two lines before the flub, then shoot a cut-away reaction to bridge the edit, or move the camera to a different angle to facilitate a cut. The specific cadence that Kevin was going for in the dialogue delivery was largely worked out during the extensive pre-production rehearsal process, which was a HUGE help in keeping the actual shooting ratio so low.

Vincent

@Vincent_Pereira I know it's easy to take some of this type of stuff personal, but I know you're cool. I've seen Clerks multiple times and heard all the commentaries multiple times but it's been years since I heard them so I'm going as best I can from memory, I'll easily defer to your recollection.

I think it's important to recognize that in today's climate, no two micro budget filmmakers are going to be able to get their films made in the same way. Rodriquiz did it one way, you do it another. He didn't have a gh2 or digital editing or internet distribution. We do.

We're going to have to cobble together our own way to make a film. Borrowing, writing in only sets we have free access to, and the one thing everyone has to have- connections. This is the single biggest benefit of film school, getting connected with filmmakers- so you have people to call who might work on your film.

There's just no way to make a micro budget film without a crew and actors that will do it for nothing or near nothing. And the filmmaker has to be able to do it all, direct, write, edit, film.

There's also no rule to say filming has to be done in a compressed two week time period. If we have equipment and access to sets and friends, it can take months or even years to get principal photography done here and there.

It seems to me a far bigger challenge is getting the film seen and distributed. There's too many psuedo beret-wearing "filmmakers" out there who haven't learned their craft, who haven't paid dues, who have no passion, who just want to be famous and cool. They create noise and too many good and great films never have the opportunity to find an audience because there's just so much of this noise.

The internet has been the great equalizer- everythings is on the same crap level. Distribution is everything if we're ever going to make any money. But fuck it, get the fim made. Make the film you have to make.

@CRFilms

"Fair point on if they'd get distribution now, but that doesn't change the fact that they're great movies...."

But I don't believe El Mariachi or Clerks are "great movies", or that any subsequent Rodriquez or Smith movies are great movies, and I'm not alone there. These movies attracted attention at the time, because they were curiosities -- thanks to their low budgets, which was still a novelty at the time. That's how I see them, anyway.

Note that Eraserhead is a very different case -- that film cost several hundred thousand dollars (a long time ago) and enjoyed all sorts of resources which would never be available to an unconnected filmmaker (Lynch was in the AFI MFA program for much of that time).

As for "making it", I have no opinion, that's a marketing, not a filmmaking question. There may always be movies, maybe one out of ten thousand, which succeed on a gimmick -- like Paranormal Activity today, or Clerks in the early 90s. But that it's an entirely different question from whether it's possible to make movies requiring dramatic illusion, persuasive performances and a decent visual aesthetic, for little or no money. The example of Clerks or El Mariachi doesn't in my view answer this question with "yes".