Gareth Edwards' appropriately-titled monster movie Monsters opened earlier this year and has grossed $1.7 million to date. With a $500,000 budget, Edwards shot the film himself on a Sony EX-3 and a Letus 35mm adapter; here's a look behind-the-scenes.
A video from the NYTimes at the DIY 3D modeling:
Best Buy has an interview with Edwards about his use of low-cost digital techniques:
Click on through to Brad Bell's post for a good interview with Edwards as well as a look at his studio, which puts the "studio" in "studio apartment." As the interviewer states, "the technology has gotten to the point that if you... have the mind to tell a story with visual effects and the technological know-how, you can physically do it. It doesn't mean you're artist enough to do it." Exactly. The technology is there, which is not to say that the technology is what's important; but it is consequential in the sense that it's enabling, and that's what's new in DIY filmmaking. On the other hand, IFC has an interesting take on Monsters, raising the following questions:
To what degree do the flaws [of] "Monsters" deserve a pass simply because of the ingenuity of its creators? How much does how a movie was made affect what a movie is? If "Monsters" had cost $30 million dollars -- and the movie looks so good, you could believe that it might -- would we be less forgiving of its flaws?
I certainly find myself being much more forgiving of DIY and low-budget films than I am of $100 million movies, even in areas that have very little to do with production budget (i.e., writing). Maybe it's because we assume on high-budget films that the creators had more time and resources, and therefore they should've been able to execute better than those of us working under more limited conditions. However, there's a whole world of other problems that crop up when you're working in a studio system...
I haven't seen Monsters -- anyone out there catch it?