I write screenplays (mostly comedy & dramedy features) and have started shooting some comedy shorts as well (e.g. "Script-a-Lax") that I think would be accepted at low-level festivals.
But I'm not sure I can call these things "films" or call myself a "filmmaker". I take the planning and execution seriously, but I'm never going to invest beyond a smartphone and basic audio / lighting, the most my actors will get is pizza and beverages, and I do all the post-production myself.
Am I a cheapskate poser? Where do people draw the line to discount something as not a "film"?
Sounds to me like you're of a 'hobbyist' than a 'cheapskate'. There is absolutely nothing with that. Personally I don't use the term 'video' anymore; I label 'em as movies or films. In my mind there is a very distinct difference.
If you need to label it, then I'd suggest you're a 'visual storyteller'.
1 person likes this
Wannabe with no future would be the label I might use.
Geoff Wise I think the first question you need to ask yourself is, what's my ultimate goal? If all you ever want to do is what you're doing right now, then I think Doug's moniker of "hobbyist" is accurate. If you ever want to make a living (or at least some money) and have your stories seen by other people, you're going to have to step it up, invest in yourself and grow into bigger projects.
There is a great history of very well done short films. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I draw the line on stuff that's just thrown together in a hurry for the sake of getting it done. No planning, no serious work, just "Hey, let me get my camera and we'll make something up." In short 99% of Youtube.
2 people like this
Thanks for all the comments. It sounds like the distinction is in the intentionality, thought, and time invested in creating a visual story. My goal is to invest that time, to tell visual stories that, after watching, people will be happy they invested the time to watch them.
Would be happy to talk to you about this more. Been doing this type of filmmaking on my own for a long time.
Mmm! LOVE this question! Although I do feel like it tips towards "fighting words", but it's worth the discussion for sure! I'll come back with my two cents in a few...
1 person likes this
The basic question is what differients a film from a video. My opinion is that it has much to do about intent. A film's first responsibility is to entertain in a creative way whereas a video's primary goal is to inform. Obviously there is a lot of crossover and I break it down into three basic categories. i.e. the Hurt Locker is a film, Kindergarten Cop is a movie, the evening news is a video - hopefully you understand what I'm saying but It's just my opinion.
Doug Nelson I tend to agree with you. In IB Film, or any film theory class for that matter, they would break it up into intention as depicted by the production design, camera language, and editing. If you are trying to present information as truthful or objective, then the camera language is neutral - eye-level shots, wide shots, long takes to avoid manipulation through editing and feels more like a recording of something playing out in front of you (Lumiere Bros. https://www.indiewire.com/2020/03/lumiere-brothers-workers-leaving-facto...), possibly in a "real" setting. BUT if your intention is to present something subjective, to tell a story through a very specific point of view, then those aspects will be exaggerated. Generally speaking, film is subjective and video is objective, but clearly, there is overlap.