I believe John's post was designed to challenge whether our most
successful film directors today -- are capable of "going back to
making
films on the cheap" as most at one time did.
But I your reply was on the mark -- esp. your comparisons to
"Duel" (a
TV-movie released theatrically overseas) and "Memento," an indie film
throughout. Spielberg demonstrated he could in fact "go back" in
1993 --
after a string of classic blockbusters (and some duds in
between). And I
believe he was "indulged" by Universal because he always intended to
deliver the $65 million "Jurassic Park" -- which was briefly the
#1 box
office hit of all time -- the same year as his $22 million
"Schindler's."
In interviews, Spielberg later acknowledged his track record
enabled him
to make a Holocaust picture few would finance, and that he himself
intended "Schindler's" to be a "non-fiction novel," an "artifact"
-- told
in a style akin to Truman Capote's, "In Cold Blood" and author Thomas
Kenneally's own source material, "Schindler's Ark."
Good points, though, Patrick.
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:42:57 -0700From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re:
Can a major director shoot an "epic" on a low budget?To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], clearly you did not read my
response to
John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
John:
And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a
tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no
incentive
for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your
point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for
$450,000 in
1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and
Christopher Nolan
made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely
close
to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our budgets
personally and professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less
than
Hitchcock was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question
is still
interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion
where a
certain Director did exactly what you propose:
In the 1940's, a director sought to prove to the studios that he
could
produce a film within the system on budget and on time. He not
only came
in on time but was under budget:
What was the film's title? And who was the Director?
Those who know me have a built-in advantage.
Patrick
ps: I'm completely serious about wanting to see a 'wooden racket'
tennis
tournament!
On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote:
** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was
thought to
be an "unbankable" Holocaust picture in March 1993 -- that made it to
theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost $22 million, a
pittance
by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after "Psycho." He ended up
with a
three hour, "mostly" black-and-white picture with no zooms,
steadicams,
cranes or "Spielberg camera tricks," near zero post-production time.
"E.T" was the only other Spielberg release considered made on the
"cheap"
for $10 million, but that was in 1982. The budget for "The Dark
Knight"
is said to be $180 million plus. I doubt Spielberg himself could
shoot a
modest "epic" in many locations for under $30 million today,
unless it was
a documentary w/less expensive foreign production crews. ** What
would
be intriguing, though, which gets to your point -- is whether
Spielberg
could do a "Sundance-type" film in the U.S. -- with no stars or sets,
armed only with a talky script. Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson
shoots his action films "down under" because of cost. Imagine how
much
they'd cost if shot in the U.S.? This is why I'm extremely
curious with
what Jackson will do with his next film, "The Lovely Bones" (now
in post
production), which is based on the 2002 mega-bestselling book by
Alice
Sebold -- a modest "talky" story about a small American town --
narrated
throughout by a 14-year old girl who's murdered on page one. -kuz.>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:45:38 +1000> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I saw THE DARK KNIGHT tonight. . .> To:
[email protected]> > I just returned from seeing The Dark
Knight this afternoon and although it > was reasonably
entertaining I have
to wonder if a really successful movie > can be made today without
throwing truckloads of money into the project and > relying almost
totally
on whiz bang special effects and mass destruction of > cars,
buildings etc
etc.> > I also thought that it was a little remiss of the director
that in
a number > of scenes it was very hard to hear what Gary Oldman was
saying.
I actually > have no idea what he said in the fairly key final
scenes,
bearing in mind > that his were the last words of the movie, and the
people I saw the movie > with made the same comment.> > In 1960
Hitchcock
made a movie with his TV crew for a budget of under a > million
dollars
and shot the film in a matter of weeks. If it hadnt been for > the
shower
scene, he would have completed the project even quicker. I would >
like to
see one of the major directors like Spielberg, or Christopher
Nolan, >
make a film with a low budget and see what they could come up
with.> >
Regards> John> > Sign up for my regular newsletter on movie
memorabilia:>
http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?mod=account&go=register> >
Visit my
Website: www.moviemem.com> > All About Australian posters: >
http://search.reviews.ebay.com/members/johnwr_W0QQuqtZg> > My eBay
Store
and Lisitngs: http://myworld.ebay.com/johnwr/> > Exhibitions:
http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?page=15> > JOHN REID
VINTAGE MOVIE
MEMORABILIA> PO Box 92> Palm Beach> Qld 4221> Australia
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
