November 4 at 4:00pm

Gareth Edwards’ MONSTERS Is A Microbudget How To Model

, , ,

I recently had the great pleasure of watching MONSTERS.  I enjoyed the movie on many levels, including that it is just good fun.  But what I really loved was how well micro-budget production techniques enabled good story telling.  In my raving about this, Jonathan Stromberg responded and pointed me to his far better articulated post on the same subject.  What follows is his first two paragraphs in CineSpect , but check out the whole post here.

The following review is partially adapted from a workshop I gave to film students at the State University of New York at Purchase College on 6 October 2010.

“Monsters”, the debut feature of writer/director Gareth Edwards, is, from the point of view of a spectator, an imperfect film. It is, however, from the point of view of a filmmaker, one of the most exciting releases I’ve seen this year. Edwards’s production reads like a map for young filmmakers, marking pitfalls with his struggles and showing a way forward with his successes. “Monsters” is one of the clearest case studies yet for the challenges—and advantages—of micro-budget filmmaking.

The ostensible auteur Edwards approached his first feature from his background in visual effects and documentary television. In some ways, this spelled destiny for the production style of “Monsters.” The narrative is basically theatrical, but the shooting style is strongly influenced by the production necessities of non-fiction television. For example, the film has no script per se. Edwards shot using scene outlines and necessary plot points but allowed his cast, Whitney Able and Scoot McNairy, to improvise freely within the scene. The apparent production doctrine was for Edwards, also the cinematographer, to shoot the scene multiple times from different angles to get broad coverage of every beat. The film in this way develops a signature somewhat different from more traditional narrative constructions. Edwards foregoes the “establishing wide then punch in for medium shots and close ups” archetype for something that ends up more like a multi-camera shoot. The angles in any particular scene are more varied, but also less predictable. In documentary television we—I work in non-fiction television as well—often shoot this way. In this way, a decision regarding the mode of production has significant impact on the film’s aesthetic, for better or worse, in a way that contrasts it to traditional productions.


Share
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print

  • This movie points to two ideas I think are important for filmmakers to consider:
    1) It CAN be done on a super-low-budget, but audiences still crave spectacle. There's a reason that a lot of the most enduring pre-1989 indie films were genre films - they have a built-in audience and people want to see something they can't get anywhere else.
    2) 10 years ago it became necessary for every filmmaker to learn how to edit as nonlinear editing became ubiquitous and cheap. Today the same thing is happening with VFX, and more and more filmmakers will need to have a command of these complex visuals which don't necessarily cost a lot to do, but do take another level of creative knowledge to pull off.

    As the producer's job takes on more tasks in the low budget world, so does the director's. To work at these budget levels (and be able to pay the bills at the same time) we can no longer afford to assume that the final product will go through anyone's hands but our own.

  • Also, FYI, the name of the website that published my review is Cinespect (http://www.cinespect.com). CineFile is Nelson Carvajal's (et al.) social networking site.

    Hopefully Ted can correct this?

  • CAS

    Just my two cents. I felt bait and switched by the title and was given a sappy and heavy-handed romance with subpar writing. Yes, it was improv, but improvised movies tend to have a stronger dramatic arc for the characters. The character's choices hit perfunctory beats to lead up to a predictable resolution.

  • Thanks for reading, BTW!

  • To say that improvised movies tend to have stronger dramatic arcs might be a little bit of a stretch. Certainly though, the drama within the scenes in Monsters was stronger than it likely would have been given the caliber of Edwards's scripting.

    I agree that the title is awful, and considered saying as much. The film isn't at all about the eponymous monsters, and the title has no symbolic or metaphorical meaning to add to the story. I think not intentionally misleading so much as a grossly poor choice. Maybe a working title that just stuck?

  • CAS

    I am willing to concede that. Perhaps I misspoke. Improvised scripts NEED a stronger arc to carry the potential for weaker scenes. It may just be a taste thing because I felt like the film was riddled with unnecessary pregnant pauses, which read to me like Gareth had nothing to cut to because of the inconsistency of improvised performances.

  • I mean, you're probably right.

  • Scottbwilkinson

    Stop pseudo intellectualizing and make your own low budget movie then.

  • CAS

    Pseudo intellectualizing? Sorry for thinking.

    And, I did, so suck a lemon.

blog comments powered by Disqus

This site could not have been built without the help and insight of Michael Morgenstern. My thanks go out to him.

Help save indie film and give this guy a job in web design or film!