Story Test Shoot

I’m going to shoot a story test of a whole movie with full cast, but no crew. The footage will be edited into a feature length movie. The end result should be wonderfully compelling, because the story and the performances should be compelling. If it isn’t, the movie is not worth making… yet.

I’m always horrified being on sets where there are a lot of story points being worked out while there are 20 other people being paid to sit around. Then on the other side, being in the editing room with the editor and the director saying, “I wish I had that shot!” Or in the worst case, viewing a movie at a post house, where the story is painfully bad, and being asked, “What do you think?” It doesn’t matter what I think. You can’t change anything!

It seems like there is a huge gap in between having a decent story, and going into incredibly expensive principal photography.

Why do indie film productions want to mimic the way studio movies are made, just scaled back? Probably because the incentive structure of a producer, large or small, is to get that shit done, and get that shit done quick. Indie movies have such a great opportunity to innovate on process - yet being blinded by “the way things should be done” seriously limits ability to make iterative changes.

I hope we can agree that the most important aspects of a movie are: story, and performance.

So why not shoot a movie, in earnest, with what you think is a great story and the best performers, but none of the technicalities? The footage doesn’t need to be well lit. The camera doesn’t need to be on a 100 pound rig. All you have to care about is telling the best version of that story. And because there is no crew, the cost is minimal.

Additionally, you go through the process of editing the whole movie, just as you would a full production. If you’re missing anything, you’ll definitely be making a note for real principal photography. And ultimately, at the end of having a full cut of the movie, you will have conveyed a full story. Is it compelling? It should be. It’s the great story you wrote, with the actors you cast. If it’s not, you now have the amazing luxury of being able to make changes to the story. It didn’t cost much money, it just cost time.

Pros:

• Test to see if the story works - Once you have a cut of the story test, you will know if the story works.
• Test to see if the actors work - Are the performers conveying the story? Are they easy to work with?
• Fast to shoot - Using a small camera means that setup changes are almost instantaneous. No makeup. No waiting on anyone to be ready.
• Cheap - No equipment, no crew, just the director and cast - maybe a first AD.
• Low stress - No worrying about technicalities.
• Improvisation - Change lines in the script on the fly.
• Play - You have more time. Live in the moment. Try things. Play with ideas.

Costs:

Because I’ve not done this before, I don’t know what the downsides are, but I can imagine…

• Producers don’t like it - Producers are paid a fee. This step lengthens production time, diluting their fee.
• It’s possible actors won’t want to be in a movie the world won’t see - But it’s basically rehearsal. So if they don’t like that, they probably aren’t right for you.
• It takes time - To shoot, but also to edit it.
• It does cost a little money - Actors cost money. You have to feed them. If you have an AD or PA you have to pay them too.
• It’s possible you get the best of your actors in the test, but not in the production - I’ve heard this from some people. It sounds dubious. But since I’ve heard it from a few people, there must be at least something to it.

Process

1. Shooting script
2. Board shot for shot
3. Hire a casting director
4. Cast
5. Find & Secure locations.
6. Prepare shot list and schedule
7. Shoot during day / Edit at night
   • Director
     • Direct
     • Operate Camera
     • Edit
   • Cast
   • First AD (optional)
     • Manage schedule
     • Check continuity
     • Address general problems
     • Operate clapper
   • PA (optional)

Story Test Shoot Duration: ??? I’m curious how long a Story Test Shoot should take. It should be faster than principal photography because everything moves quicker. However, you still want to be relaxed enough to make changes in the moment if need be. Perhaps 3/4th the time of principal photography? I’d love people’s feedback on this.

Is there something I’m not seeing about this? It seems like a good idea, and an absolute necessity to test the story. If you have any thoughts, please text me: 917-696-5465.