Look. I get it. A director has an amazing film in mind, but they can’t gather the proper resources to make it come true. An aspiring filmmaker wants to be ambitious, but they have very little to start with. A budget can absolutely make a film difficult to bring to fruition because of so many limitations. Today’s quick article will show that great filmmaking can overcome low budgeting and avoid sterilizing a well budgeted production. Since filmmaking has so many variables, I’ll just use examples to bring up a few points from each clip, rather than have many things to point out. What I hope to show is that knowing what you’re doing — no matter what your budget is — will still guarantee a positive result.

Let’s observe a small budget first. This is where most filmmakers begin. You’re not going to be able to do much without any money, and we all know that. If you have a bit of a platform, maybe you’re Quentin Tarantino and you can splurge your budget on big names like Harvey Keitel for Reservoir Dogs. Maybe you’re lucky and a megastar can offer to act in a film for barely anything, just because they believe in the project. Anyway, chances are this won’t happen. So, what does a director do? This low budgeted film is meant to be a stepping stone in a director’s career. This will lead to better productions. So, your best bet is to make a great first impression, even with limited means. So, let’s look at π by Darren Aronofsky for a minute.

π was made for just under 61,000 dollars. For a feature film in the late ‘90s, that isn’t very much. You can’t guarantee star power, so no major performers were hired. The first thing you may notice is the grainy film quality. Clearly, the film was held back on cinematography, but it was still shot effectively. Shot on a handheld Bolex camera on 16mm film, π was made cheaply and yet it looks gritty and claustrophobic, matching the subject matter of a paranoid conspiracy believer. From this clip alone, you can see at least a good portion of the budget went into production, since the lead character’s living space is meant to be cluttered and with technological equipment. To make do with how the film was shot, you can see sped up footage used to mimic flurry cuts (representing a spastic mind), and the same footage of the lead character being cut back to time and time again. It’s done quickly and briefly, so you don’t notice it too much. For a first watch, you may not even notice it at all. Aronofsky and company were very wise with making this film, since a good portion of its successes are made from creative work arounds.

Now, let’s see a low budgeted film made with absolutely no effort. Here’s Saving Christmas.

So, there’s a similar technique done here where the lead subject is cut back to often, with clearly the same portion of footage being used. Unfortunately, this clip resorts to that way too often, so it is obvious and actually bothersome. Sure, the camera quality here is also not great, but not much is done to make it less noticeable (like π working the low quality camerawork into the film’s nature). Instead of trying to disguise shortcomings, Saving Christmas relishes in them. We get the point that a party guest won’t stop yapping away, and yet this scene is not trimmed down to any proper length. Did we need to hear the crazy shirt Friday ordeal and get the montage with the music to show that the main character isn’t paying attention? Did we not get the idea that this is a boring topic from hearing the topic alone? Saving Christmas suffers from a lot of padding throughout the entire duration, but that’s the king of mistake that hinders a low budgeted film. Rather make a great short film than go for a terrible feature. Also, to compare, Saving Christmas was made for 500,000 dollars in 2014. I can guarantee much of that money went towards Kirk Cameron (the film was shot with family and friends of his). Yikes.

But, what happens when you get that dream budget you had hoped for? Well, you can absolutely over produce a film as well. One can go overboard with making a feature, since they have the finances to do so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going all in on a feature. I despise the word pretentious, because what artist isn’t going to try to make a good film (outside of Saving Christmas, maybe)? So, you will find big budgeted movies with lots going on that are actually well made. The first example that always comes to mind for this topic, for me, is Mad Max: Fury Road.

So, there is a lot of cutting, tons of action, and a lot of speed. Yet, you can still understand everything that is going on. You get sucked into the action and the exhileration, because of how well put together the film is. The cutting always has the previous and following shots in mind, so you can follow along with the on screen story at all times. The action is flashy, yet the way it is captured absolutely appreciates the stunts and choreography taking place (considering much of Fury Road wasn’t CGI). The budget for this film was a massive 185 million dollars. With Fury Road, you can tell a lot of money went into it, but it was made wisely.

Unlike, perhaps, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

So, as much as I hate this film, this isn’t really the worst scene of all time, but it does have issues. There is clearly cutting for the sake of cutting, like a moment where the battle cuts to the lead character looking on for a split second, and then back to the battle. This isn’t the worst idea, since it’s good to know a character’s whereabouts at all times, but we just saw where this character was mere moments before. There’s also some sloppy editing, including a cut to Optimus Prime as a truck literal seconds after he is in Autobot form; I don’t mind jumping ahead in time, but there is no clear indication that this is that far ahead into the future, so it just looks like a loss of information rather than a time lapse. Then there’s the extra stuff. A character having to flip over a log instead of just leaping over it (this is absolutely unnecessary). The amount of slow motion detracts from the moments that need it the most. The fighters — while incredibly detailed — are difficult to really focus on just because their many compartments are too much. There is excess in some instances, and clear lapses in others. Keep in mind, this is one of the better scenes of the film, too. Revenge of the Fallen was made for 200 million dollars in 2009.

I used this scene, because I wanted to compare it (at its best) to a similarly busy Fury Road scene, so it wouldn’t seem unfair. So, here’s a Fury Road scene which also has an insane amount happening.

Again, the editing is seamless. Even during a crazy storm with a crazy amount of action and noise happening, you can still understand what’s going on, and nothing seems excessive. This scene is easily as noisy and busy as the one from Revenge of the Fallen (if not even more so), but — for me — it is way more digestible, because of how fine tuned the film is. Instead of putting effort and time into silly, unnecessary stunts or a plethora of slow motion sequences, the money went into cleaning up footage of madness, and one moment of slow motion to really drive a specific instance home.

So, with this in mind, let’s find a happy harmony. A modestly budgeted film that still doesn’t finance enough for a filmmaker to go all out. There’s always Moonlight, made for about four million dollars.

In case you didn’t notice it (thanks to how hypnotic the film is), this scene takes place all in one location (as does a good portion of the third act of the film). So, that’s a money saver right there. The entire film used both unknown and reasonably known performers, so proper casting found raw, untapped talent for main roles (the different ages of Chiron and Kevin), and bigger names for supporting roles (so they would require less screen time and shooting time, but would still be effective (Naomie Harris, a rather well known actress, shot her entire part in only three days). A good portion of the budget went into how a film looks (great cinematography and lighting) and sounds (the usage of very specific songs used effectively). The end result is a decade defining masterwork, and you can barely tell that it was made for a rather slim (but workable) budget.

Before I wrap up the article, I want to use one unique example. Here’s Star Wars (or, otherwise known as A New Hope) and its various changes over the years.

Look. Do some of the changes improve the original feature? Maybe. I particularly think the CGI rocks blocking R2-D2 are done well and aren’t distracting. However, a good amount of these changes are distracting for a few reasons. Firstly, they may feel not of the same nature as the original footage (this is true, given the technological advancement of these features; I don’t care how much you remaster a film, you can still tell that the original footage is from the ‘70s). Secondly, the heart of the original scenes may now be lost. Even if George Lucas and company made Star Wars for less than they may have wanted, these workarounds are great for what they are. If anything, Star Wars set a precedent for what you could do in a film with enough creativity, and I think this series (and any other franchises or films that have suffered the same fates) should be left alone and admired as they are.

In short, you can do a lot with no money if you use it smartly. You can also do too much with a lot of money if you feel the need to splurge it. Knowing what is best for a film is key. A lack of effort will make a film uninspired. Too much excess will make a film annoying, especially if corners are cut in other departments. Sometimes, great filmmaking with shoddier effects is fine, because the powerful storytelling and professionalism will overtake the areas where money had to be saved (hence why some films age better than others, even without great effects). Essentially, a budget can help or hinder a film, but a great filmmaker will know how to work with all budgeting scenarios.

Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Ryerson University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.

Over Making or Under Making a Film: What a Budget Can Be Used For