|
|
Letters
Arran Henderson responds to Brian Guckian’s article Low-Budget Dystopia in Film Ireland 115.
Dear Editor,
There is nothing wrong in principle with Brian Guckian’s recent attempt to question whether low-budget practice may be having an adverse effect on filmmaking in Ireland in general terms. Specifically he claims that low-budget practice (scrounging and exploitation, essentially) and standards (poor and bad, basically) undermine notions of professionalism right across all sectors: low-budget, no-budget and even (he implies) by extension to the properly-funded sector (mainstream), and thus undermine the industry in general. This is quite a claim to make.
Some of his claims are so illogical they verge on hysteria, notably when he seeks to imply (with dubious logic) that film might otherwise be a booming and profitable industry in this country were it not for the cowboy practices of the low-budget sector.
Certainly to accuse no-budget Irish films of low artistic and technical standards is often valid. Yet only rarely the same charge can be levelled at low-budget. In addition, to blame low- and no-budget filmmaking for exploiting, say actors, is – however emotionally satisfying – highly dubious. But to blame no-budget films for the current plight of the industry here overall is frankly a ludicrous proposition and won’t stand up to any kind of logical scrutiny at all. In fact Brian Guckian’s piece in general is so full of shoddy reasoning and illogical non-sequiteurs that it demands correction on a number of points. One barely knows where to start.
Firstly, Brian uses the term low-budget throughout his piece when it is clear that most of the practices and aspects he discusses are actually those of the so-called no-budget sector. He should have made clear at the outset the crucial distinction between low-budget projects, which are at least partly funded, where cast, crew and facilities are often reimbursed (albeit badly), and no-budget projects. No budget, although itself a slight misnomer, means (both by its definition and by common consent) that the project has received no funding. Consequently almost nobody and nothing is paid or paid for. This distinction (between low and no) is crucial, yet Brian confuses the two sectors and speaks of low-budget throughout, when in fact he what means often refers to no-budget. In doing so he not only tars everyone with the same brush, he also muddies his own arguments.
In fact, almost all Irish films (as opposed to the occasional US and other foreign films shot here) are low budget. While story creation and development, originality and so on are not always everything one would wish for, production values per se are normally at least adequate and often far better. Therefore when Brian quotes a British cinematographer worrying about untrained students and amateurs waving cheap DV equipment about to produce grainy ill-lit pictures, he is really speaking of no-budget practice. He should say so, because the difference is crucial.
For example, the majority of Film Board-sponsored product is low-budget. All Filmbase-sponsored product is low or very low budget. Yet cast and crew are sometimes paid for their work on such projects. In any case, such projects clearly have some budget. Despite his confusion, or lack of clear distinction between these two forms, most of Brian’s examples and his venom seem directed at no-budget film. Accordingly, for the purposes of this piece, I will defend the no-budget sector and use that term.
Brian claims such projects exploit other film workers, notably actors and film crafts people, and also facilities such as post-houses and suppliers of equipment. There are two reasons why this is specious. Firstly and most obviously, we should briefly consider, in the real world, the people Brian means. For the sake of brevity let us take actors as a form of shorthand for all of those cast and crew (plus equipment suppliers) who collaborate on such projects for little or no pay. Consider all these victims of low-budget requests. Each one is able and entitled to say ‘no’ if or when they feel it is not in their long-term interest to collaborate on such projects. They are able to say ‘no’ if agreeing to such collaborations does not suit them or undermines their ability to make a living. Myself (and my low- and no-budget colleagues) credit potential collaborators with the required intelligence to make such judgements for themselves. Bizarrely, Brian does not.
His accusation automatically begs the question why would actors and others meekly allow their own exploitation? Well, there are many reasons, ranging from work enjoyment to personal loyalty, to belief in a specific script or project, why actors and others support low- and no-budget film through their labour. But the main reason should have been obvious to Brian, because it stares us all in the face.
Does it really need to be re-stated that all of the arts (from painting and music to dance and film) are highly over-subscribed? Consequently funding resources will never match the demand for them. Financial hardship is a source of personal anxiety to many, including many aspiring filmmakers as well as actors. Nonetheless, Brian spectacularly misses the point that many actors judge for themselves that – on balance – it makes sense to seek both exposure, contacts and experience in no-budget projects when paid work is not available to them. That decision is a personal one. My own real-world experience is that actors judge each such opportunity on its individual merits and in a spirit of enlightened self-interest. Does Brian have a shred of evidence that they do not do so? Does he feel that actors and other film craftspeople are some how incapable of doing so? What is that evidence, and would he care to produce it?
My guess is that Brian’s references for his imaginary exploitation scandal are mostly anecdotal, specifically complaints of the genuine hardship suffered by many actors and others, then twisting the causes for this hardship for the purposes of his argument. Doubtless some of Brian’s sources may have regretted some career decisions, and may thus have appreciated his sympathetic ear. However none of this adds up to exploitation. In the long term, neither Brian’s distorted arguments nor his rhetorical showboating will be of any real use to actors or other film workers. By seeking to cast actors and others as passive victims of ‘exploitation’ Brian robs them of credit for adult judgement as well as their individual agency (and thus personal responsibility for such choices). I have a friend (a dancer and choreographer) who complained eloquently about precisely this kind of infantile treatment of performers. However temporarily satisfying it may be, avoidance of personal responsibility is not healthy.
To add insult to injury, by seeking to blame the no-budget film sector Brian avoids any serious or accurate analysis of actors’ real plight. There may never be enough paid work to support all the actors, nor the other aspiring creative talents who work gratis on no-budget projects. But that is because of unequal ratio of paid work to applicants. The blame cannot logically be laid at the feet of additional projects made outside the remit of funding agencies and without their assistance. By definition such projects add to the total of filmed project in Ireland, without subtracting from the meagre funding cake. Therefore they provide additional opportunities for work experience, not subtract from the total of such work available.
Brian further claims that low-budget films degrade the art and craft of cinema through low standards. I agree with Brian that many no-budget films fall well short of the minimum standards required in say, lighting expertise, and in many other aspects. Notably the quality of recorded sound, for example (even in the low-budget sector) seems to be a worrying and on-going problem, yet others manage well on their limited resources. In other words his generalisation is so sweepingly broad that becomes effectively meaningless. Would it not be more honest to simply say that many low- and no-budget films come up well short, but others do not?
To elaborate the crucial point made previously: non-funded projects cannot be responsible for lowering standards overall, simply because they are by their very definition always in addition to funded projects. In other words, they do not displace funded projects. In this sense no-budget is, if anything, a bonus to the overall picture, and at worst simply irrelevant to it. Bad product will, or at least should be, weeded out when it gets to exhibition stage. And let us be clear, in the case of no- and low-budget shorts ‘exhibition’ normally means at best, a handful of screenings at film festivals.
Therefore the reality is that while Brian may feel that the no-budget filmmakers (directors, actors and crew) are wasting their own time, they are unlikely to be wasting much of anyone else’s time, least of all an audience.
In fact, a thriving unfunded no-budget sector will ultimately benefit the mainstream in the long term. It does this since it provides, free of charge, filmmaking activity that gives valuable experience to its practitioners. In that sense no-budget and (currently) amateur filmmakers, including actors and other crew, effectively subsidise the mainstream over a longer-term period. This is ironic, given the economic status of most such no-budget collaborators, yet it remains a fact.
In fairness to Brian, he sought to make a similar or related point about people who work for free effectively paying for the film. For the sake of clarity I would refine the statement and say that they pay in kind (through their labour), or at least ‘pay’ for the portion of it in which they appear or collaborate. This is quite true. What Brian fails to acknowledge is that this statement is just as true of those (like writers, directors, producers and editors) who initiate, drive and complete such projects, as it is of actors and other participants. In fact the only difference is the amount of time spent on each work; in the case of actors the participation is usually measured in days. In the case of project drivers (directors, editors etc) this unpaid time is usually weeks or months.
Unfortunately Brian goes still further. Instead of recognising low- and no-budget project drivers (writers, producers or directors) as additional workers-for-free, Brian seeks to cast them as immoral scroungers, exploiters and the villains of his piece. In doing so he ends up examining the issue through the wrong end of the telescope and thus drawing all the wrong conclusions. His hysteria reaches a surreal pitch when he claims no-budget is somehow polluting the industry as a whole. No-budget films simply cannot be responsible for a deterioration in the mainstream (or even the separate low-budget sector) because it is not physically possible for them to do so; they are separate entities.
Brian extends his finger of blame in ever wilder and increasing circles. Some of his points verge on hysteria, especially when he goes on to accuse no-budget of tarnishing the image of Ireland abroad. He should know that most no-budget film never gets the chance to tarnish the image of anything. The figures make depressing reading for any short filmmaker. On the other hand they should be a source of comfort to Brian if he is seriously concerned about the malign and insidious influence of no-budget film. The bald facts and figures are these. Around 200 short films are made in Ireland every year. At most perhaps 35-55 get shown at festivals, specifically in the setting of short film screenings, which are effectively side-bar events amid the three main festivals (Galway, Cork, Dublin) Of the remaining c. 145 shorts unselected for festivals, most vanish without any trace whatsoever. Those successful few which are selected are chosen by festival panels, and so represent (one hopes and imagines) approximately the best 25 per cent of the 200. Some also play again at smaller festivals, joined occasionally by a few of the remaining 150 (again, presumably the better ones).
Brian should be comforted on two fronts. Firstly this filtering system weeds out any potential embarrassment to the nation. Secondly, the exposure of what Brian imagines as appallingly embarrassing low-budget product to the public is still microscopic, because frankly the majority of the audience at these small events tend to be a pooled collection of the filmmakers themselves, their exploited collaborators, and the friends and family of both.
Finally, Brian spends several paragraphs patiently explaining how DV and HDV image capture technology is inadequate for (and unworthy of) large-screen theatrical projection. This is hotly debated and, in any case, due to constant improvements in DV technology, the terms of that debate are rapidly changing. In support of his argument he quotes legitimate but completely unrelated concerns by an accomplished British cinematographer (John Mathieson) about lack of quality in DV film capture imagery due to inadequate expertise and experience preparation and professionalism. Can Brian not see that these are two separate and discreet issues? One is about equipment; the other is about the correct, creative and professional use of that equipment.
Again it is true that many low and no-budget shorts are poorly lit and filmed, whether on film, or (far more likely in recent times) on DV/HDV. This has to do with the very reasons cited by Brian’s source, namely inadequate expertise, experience, preparation and professionalism. It really does not have that much to do with DV capture technology. In fact most would now acknowledge that in the right hands it is possible to film critically and commercially successful work on HDV (Ivansxtc) or occasionally even on mini-DV (28 Days Later).
In summary, much low- and no-budget film product is of poor or indifferent quality. A significant minority is not. All such films provide vital experience for the minority who go on to work in the professional sector, even if they are partly learning what not to do. It subsidises the mainstream by providing experience (unlike Filmbase or Film Board product) at no expense to the taxpayer. No-budget films make their own mistakes, but unlike other sectors, on their own time, and at their own expense.
It is not easy making any kind of film and a lot of experience and learning, indeed a lot of mistakes are required in order to make good ones. No-budget product, in terms of distribution or theatrical release, is a non-starter and thus has effectively no real-world commercial application in the short term. Yet by way of process and experience it has a crucial role in the development of talent and the forging of expertise.
Learning to tell stories visually, and perhaps even with flair, is a learnt skill. Almost every great director of the last thirty years once mucked about when young with cheap equipment and a gang of colleagues or friends. Because there is something else Brian overlooks, almost the elephant in the corner he ignores. For many people filmmaking is addictive and a passion. Some even consider it a vocation. Such people would love to get their hands on a proper budget. The scant funding available, or sometimes the quality of their project or script, means they cannot source any budget at all. These people choose to do it anyway. Because most will never gain wide exposure they cannot possibly do much harm, indeed they may eventually do a lot of good. Exactly why this earns them the contempt and derision of Brian Guckian is frankly beyond me.
Arran Henderson
If you would like to voice an opinion about
any aspect of Irish film culture, please e-mail letters@filmireland.net
|
