Holopirek: Small budget, big thrills

Large production costs don't necessarily mean good movies.

Column photo

By Jodi Holopirek

Monday, March 5, 2007

The old saying goes like this, “You have to spend money to make money.” But the movie industry is figuring out that the saying isn’t always right.

If you haven’t noticed, low-budget films have been taking over movie theaters in the last decade and have been garnering impressive numbers in the box office, too. Huge budgets are no longer required to make outstanding, highly praised films.

“Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” cost $140 million and grossed almost $305.5 million. “The Blair Witch Project” cost $35,000 and grossed $140.5 million — that’s 4,000 times what it cost to make.

—“The Blair Witch Project” Budget: $35,000 Gross: $140.5 million

—“Napoleon Dynamite” Budget: $400,000 Gross: $44.5 million

—“Saw” Budget: $1.2 million Gross: $55 million

—“Garden State” Budget: $2.5 million Gross: $26.7 million

—“Lost in Translation” Budget: $4 million Gross: $44 million

—“Hostel” Budget: $4.5 million Gross: $47.2 million

—“My Big Fat Greek Wedding” Budget: $5 million Gross: $241.4 million

—“Crash" Budget: $6.5 million Gross: $54.5 million

—“March of the Penguins” Budget: $8 million Gross: $77.4 million

—“Little Miss Sunshine” Budget: $8 million Gross: $59.6 million

—“Good Will Hunting” Budget: $10 million Gross: $138.3 million

— Source: www.imdb.com

While low-budget films often lack the thrill of computer-generated graphics, popular songs and famous actors (though this last trend is diminishing), the plots are most often character-driven, making the stories more detailed, intricate and intimate.

These films are beautiful in how they capture the little moments of everyday life. They’re not about some hero saving the day. They’re about people making difficult decisions that affect the people around them. These films mirror everyday life more accurately by focusing on the problems of one or two characters. Sometimes, the problems are resolved; sometimes they’re not.

With Johnny Depp as the lead and special effects involved in almost every scene, “Pirates” may have been amusing and pleasing to watch, but “Crash,” which cost $6.5 million to make and grossed $54.5 million, was just as enjoyable to watch with its intricate plotline and bounty of popular actors; plus it gave attention to a subject often ignored: the rise of racial hostility.

Most notable in low-budget films is the profusion of acclaimed actors jumping on the bandwagon. Years ago, when prominent actors were seen in low-budget, artsy films, rumors would circulate about their careers being in trouble. Now, famed actors vigorously search out films like “Crash” because they know it will add depth to their filmography.

Their hard work for little pay has proven successful for them, too. Just last week, the Academy Awards gave the Best Supporting Actor award to Alan Arkin for his role in “Little Miss Sunshine.” “Pan’s Labyrinth” won for Best Art Direction and Cinematography. And Ryan Gosling was nominated for Best Actor in “Half Nelson.”

And that’s just a partial list of low-budget films in this year’s Academy Awards. Last year, “Crash” won Best Picture.

Blockbusters such as “The Departed,” “Casino Royale” and the “Harry Potter” films won’t be going away anytime soon. However, with low-budget films becoming more popular, audiences should expect more artsy, character-driven movies flooding the theaters soon.

And I couldn’t be more happy about it.

Holopirek is an Otis graduate student in journalism.

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Advertisement