Much Ado

by Doctor Science

Last Saturday I went up to New York City to meet some fans I've known online for years. After dinner, we all went to the new movie of Much Ado About Nothing. The movie was put together by Joss Whedon basically to reboot his brain between filming and post-production on The Avengers. The actors are from Whedon's Usual Suspects, the shooting schedule was 12 days, the only location was his house, and it was shot in black-and-white with static cameras. I haven't been able to find out how much it cost, but the expression people are using is "micro-budget".

But the thing is, it's a *really good movie*, this is no micro-film. Seeing it really makes you recognize that there are other ways to make good movies than how Hollywood usually does, and to see that there might be different options for structuring the business.

The crucial factor that makes this a first-rate film is a script everyone involved -- including the audience -- can absolutely commit to. I confess that I came pre-committed: "Much Ado" is my favorite Shakespeare comedy. I was involved in a college production decades ago, and I still know pretty much every line. I've seen movie and TV versions, pro and amateur theater, reading groups, the works.

Whedon's restricted format really makes you listen to the words, to the flow of Shakespeare's language. Filming in black-and-white creates enough of a sense of distance and unreality that you can accept the artificial and antiquated way the characters are speaking -- helped by the fact that they're all *really good* at speaking Shakespeare's lines naturalistically, so it sounds like human speech and not a studied recitation.

Tom Lenk as Verges and Nathan Fillion as Dogberry.

All the actors are good-to-excellent, but I have to single out Nathan Fillion for his portrayal of Dogberry. As I said, I've seen many productions of "Much Ado", and Dogberry is the hardest role for modern actors to do well; William Kempe's style of comedy doesn't translate easily to modern times. Fillion actually got the audience to laugh: he does funny things while appearing perfectly unconscious that he's being funny. His performance finally buries the horror that was Michael Keaton in the Branaugh "Much Ado", who was always smirking at the audience, conscious that he's a *comedian*.

I do think there's something "off" about the editing of the trailer, because it made me very doubtful about Clark Gregg's performance as Leonato, though he turns out to be excellent. It's less of an achievement than Fillion's Dogberry, though, because Leonato is an easier role to get right.

"Much Ado" has had a very limited release so far, but it's already set some box office records for take per screen. Probably a lot of this is indeed due to Whedon (and the cast's) popularity with genre and TV fans, but another part is, I think, because this is a feel-good movie for grownups -- and there are damn few of those.

The exact circumstances under which "Much Ado" was made aren't going to be duplicated for other films, but I see some factors that could go in to making other first-rate movies on very small budgets.

• A great script. A script, especially one heavy on dialogue, doesn't have to "scale" with a movie's budget. That is, you don't necessarily get a better script by spending more money, not the way you get better cinematography or costumes or special effects.
  
  On the contrary, what I've noticed is that the quality of the script often seems to go *down* as a movie becomes more expensive. I believe this is because FX are so very expensive that they tend to drive the script instead of vice versa -- because there's nothing worse than spending money on FX and not using them. Better to cut character development and plotting, which you haven't paid extra for in the same way.


• Actors from TV. TV actors are used to working quickly, which is helpful when you have a limited shooting schedule. That's necessary because the cost per day of making a movie is very high. Whedon's "Much Ado" is much more polished and professional than most "indie" movies, which I guess comes from keeping to expensive, professional standards -- but for only a brief period.


• Some kind of visual restriction. In the case of "Much Ado", there's the limitation of setting, the use of black-&-white, and the static cameras. Basically, visual complexity costs money, whether that's in the form of locations, sets, costumes, cinematography, or effects.
  
  This is where there's a lot of room for cleverness. For instance, Paranormal Activity was made on a micro-mini-budget, using only a few static video cameras. It's an *extremely* effective horror movie in large measure *because* of those limitations, not in spite of them.

What I noticed "Much Ado" did *not* cut corners on: director, cast, editing, sound.

I don't know if there are a lot of actors and directors in Hollywood who'd like to do small but good movies ... hold on, who am I kidding. "Out of work" and "actor" are about 90% synonymous. *Of course* there are plenty of actors -- and probably directors and support staff too -- who'd like the chance to do quality work in small movies. The real question is what it will take for such projects to become normal, not just a single remarkable film.

Movies, Five Cents by John French Sloan (1907). Very notable for being a multiracial American crowd scene.

Comments

[bobbyp]

I don't know if there are a lot of actors and directors in Hollywood who'd like to do small but good movies ...

As you go on to note, plenty of them....willing producers, not so much it would seem.

[wj]

I think it is even easier to get good actors and directors than to get good scripts. And, as you note, getting good scripts is critical. I even think you can find producers willing to finance these kinds of films.

Where you run into problems with Indie films, in my experience, is marketing. Most indie films will not have a producer with Whedon's name recognition to drive theaters to book the film. And among all of those producers, directors and actors who are willing to work on something good, understanding and skill at marketing is the quality in far the shortest supply.

If someone out there is looking for a great business opportunity, offering marketing services for indie films might be a real good one. You'd have to have some expertise in what makes a saleable indie film, of course. But if you have that, and can get the word out about your business, you could do real well, I suspect. Certainly there are likely to be a lot of theaters which would be delighted to have inexpensive material to fill up their calendars between blockbuster offerings.

[Yama001]

I am always amazed at the performances Whedon coaxes from his people. They are all talented, but Joss really is key to the mix.

[bob mcmanus]

I follow Bordwell on the business end of this, distribution and production

Links to a couple pages

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/category/independent-american-film/

First article is global, TIFF

"The soundness of investing in Western films seems borne out by local box-office figures. Seventy percent of China’s market receipts come from English-language imports; the several hundred domestic films produced earn only twenty percent. And theatrical receipts provide, according to Peter Shiao, ninety percent of a film’s earnings. Windows in the Western sense don’t exist, and there’s no legitimate home video market."

We aren't talking MAAN there

And this is a link to his book on digital film, and I checked at Wiki, the Whedon was digital. Download for $3.99, or read parts of it on the blog.

http://www.davidbordwell.net/books/pandora.php

I have little to say about content, what filmmakers should make. I just want more people to have the opportunity.

[bob mcmanus]

Certainly there are likely to be a lot of theaters which would be delighted to have inexpensive material to fill up their calendars between blockbuster offerings.

Blockbusters come with a three week minimum. The smaller or local theaters really can't afford to do both. The bigger theaters don't care.

I noticed that Whedon filmed this in his wife's house. Nathan Fillion can obviously afford to take a month at low pay. So the professional and experienced actors aren't what you lose with lower budgets, it is the costumers, lighting, set design and construction, the people who don't make Fillion's day job money.

[bob mcmanus]

David Bordwell, who is great on indie film and int'l distribution, and has a new book on digital:

"The soundness of investing in Western films seems borne out by local box-office figures. Seventy percent of China’s market receipts come from English-language imports; the several hundred domestic films produced earn only twenty percent. And theatrical receipts provide, according to Peter Shiao, ninety percent of a film’s earnings. Windows in the Western sense don’t exist, and there’s no legitimate home video market. Gradually local filmmakers are experimenting with Western ancillary tactics; Painted Skin: The Resurrection recently tried out apps and games."

When I said above "bigger theaters" I do believe that 60% of American screens are owned by three companies. Overseas markets are similar or worse. Production or distribution companies typically make demands on exhibitors:Marvel doesn't want competition.

Much Ado is on five screens in the USA. Used to be the marketing for a small film wasn't the problem so much as the cost of making film copies, at $50k a pop. Marketing and advertising was also prohibitive. But I really don't know about the cost to exhibitors of digital copies. The projection equipment is expensive.

[wj]

Bob, thanks so much for the links. (I am so far from the field that I didn't even know they existed.)

[bob mcmanus]

This is a site I came across last night, help for indie filmmakers. The site is full of good posts. Apparently I was mostly wrong on some numbers. $150 for a digital film copy, if you can find a theater.

Domestic Distribution Pt 2

The money is out there, and always has been. You too, can find a million dollars to make a movie. Rich people think it is fun to finance!

The talent is out there. Today's twenty-somethings did not get dumb, in fact, as we get the lead out, they are probably a little smarter. Sturgeon's Law remains true, but that still means there is terrific stuff being made. A lot, globally.

The problem, and it is the same long-tail problem for the great music you make in your basement, is getting people to find your stuff. The capitalist pigs want it all.

(This story is also partly gendered in several ways. Production and distribution gendered male, theater audience somewhat gendered female. Overseas they make more women-oriented films, because Japanese men just won't go. In the US, the woman can talk him into it, if it's Iron Man 17

I exaggerate, and hope I don't offend. But if you want better films, just stay home and Netflix one. The studios will learn)

[dr ngo]

Just saw the movie, and agree it was brilliant . . . IF you were already familiar with the play. I'd be curious about anyone watching it who had never seen (or read) Much Ado before; my guess is that things develop so fast (and so many of the lines are "thrown away") that much of it would be hard to follow, and that much of the humor would simply be lost.

FWIW, "throwing away" is not exactly the right phrase for the rapid, naturalistic speech that is used (as noted in the OP), but many of the most important words are neither beautifully articulated, as in classic British drama, or heavily "punched," as in some amateur(ish) production. Which means if you're not already listening for them - as I was - you'll probably miss them, and thus the gist of the jest, as 'twere.

But if you know the play: Lord, this was brilliant! Fillion, yes, of course, but who knew Amy Acker had so much nuance in her?! And most of the cast was solid or better, and the sight gags were actually funny WITHOUT disrupting the rhythms of the drama, and Josh Whedon, along with everything else he knows, knows that Shakespeare is a really, really good writer, so you should trust his words as much as you can, even if you decide to cast Conrad (?) as a woman.

The back story on how this got made, and the analysis on how indie films are made and distributed and why not more of them are -- these things are of interest, too, but they are (IMHO) as nothing compared with a real work of art. Which this is.

[dr ngo]

And an appreciative review of same: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/much-ado-about-nothing-2013

[etv13]

dr ngo: I saw it Friday night with my 15 year old daughter, and she followed it just fine, and, in her blase-about-everything way, liked it. The only Shakespeare she has read is Romeo and Juliet; we took her to see A Midsummer Night's Dream on stage a couple of years ago.

I liked this, I think, even better than the Branagh. I particularly liked the way Amy Acker and Alexis Denisoff played the scene that starts "My Lady Beatrice, have you wept all this while?" The way he stops and thinks before he says "I am engaged," which really brings home what a serious undertaking it is, I thought was especially good.