June 29th, 2007

Sports report

Is Michael Jordan the worst NBA exec, or is Danny Ainge?  Both screwed the pooch in the draft yesterday, trading away their high picks for players who're adequate but not franchise saving.  On the other hand, Paul Allen treated the draft like David Stern was having a yard sale, completely reshaping the franchise...and Seattle didn't do much worse.  Chicago shored up their middle by adding Joakim Noah of the Gators and Aaron Gray.  ..If Cleveland doesn't do something big, I see LeBron playing in LA in a couple of years.

I'm ready for Football and glad I'm going to be out of the country for a chunk of the steroid ball season.  Less than two months until kickoff.  Yah!
  • pgdf

Fast, cheap, and onto the screen

Last night Deborah and I watched CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962). She was viewing it for the very first time, and I was seeing it for the first time since catching it on TV as a teen. I won't rhapsodize about this film except to say it still held up wonderfully, and is worth your time.

But what intrigued me more was how little it cost to make.

A documentary included on the DVD about the making of CoS revealed that the total budget for the film was $13,000 in 1961.

Looking at the Online Inflation Calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/), we learn:

"What cost $13,000 in 1961 would cost $85,485.47 in 2006."

Still pretty cheap.

What other high-quality films out there cost so little to make?

Wikipedia has a very primitive list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_least_expensive_films

But they don't include a famously inexpensive film: John Carpenter's DARK STAR (1974):

http://imdb.com/title/tt0069945/

In the profile of Carpenter cited below, we learn that he spent $60,000 to get his film ready for theatrical release.

http://movies.msn.com/celebs/celeb.aspx?c=300282&mp=b

What would that cost today, Oh Mighty Inflation Calculator?

"What cost $60,000 in 1974 would cost $263,010.19 in 2006."

Not as cheap as the legend, but still good.

Of course, as the next article tells us, when you're done filming, you've only spent about half the necessary money.

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/summer1994/myth.php

And then there's the fact that high-powered home computers and editing software and digital filming have upset the whole equation, as detailed here:

http://www.peterbroderick.com/writing/writing/ultralowbudgetmoviemaking.html

So: who has other candidates for great little films made for next-to-nothing?