“Fast, Cheap, Good”
There’s a saying that in film you can choose two of the following three things: fast, cheap, and good, but you can’t have all three. That is, if it’s fast and cheap, it won’t be good, if it’s cheap and good, it won’t be fast, and if it’s good and fast, it won’t be cheap. In my experience, this has held up pretty well.
Now, perhaps it’s because of my newfound belief that anything is possible, but an idea for a film project came to me in the night that I thought might just be able to break this curse. But upon further reflection, it became clear that it wouldn’t be fast. Then upon further further reflection, it occurred to me that nothing in film is fast. An eternity can pass between the idea and the first viewing of even the fastest of the fast tracked projects.
So, if fast is hereby eliminated, and you’re allowed to have cheap and good, and there are several examples of this in film, then…
The real question, I think, is whether the final product is any good.
I would love to hear some responses on this fast – cheap – good idea, so please write me or post a comment.
Of course, fast/good and cheap/good are what one hopes for, but too often (most often), there’s only one side of that triangle represented — usually fast or cheap, sometimes fast/passable or cheap/tolerable. Often, claiming even one of the three is a stretch… You think if you scaled back a little on each, you could have them all? I like to hedge my bets; I’m a coward that way. How about fast-ish/reasonably-budgeted/somewhat-effective? Fuck, that’s depressing.
Here are some thoughts I hope you might find helpful, since you asked…
I write screenplays in a workshop, and one thing I have found helpful is to watch movies that have only about a two-star rating. When a movie is only kinda good, whatever really works stands out in sharp contrast to everything that doesn’t, and it is very illuminating. I have seen movies where I thought the whole thing was terrible except for just one scene that was really good, and because it was the only good thing it was easy to identify as such. So that’s one way to find things that work well. It also doesn’t hurt that these films also tend to have been cheap (often, but not always).
Isn’t it odd how “three” comes up in rules? When I read your entry, the first thing it reminded me of was the rule of three in clothes — well, women’s clothes, anyway. That rule of three is that among a short skirt, a tight fit, and a low neckline, the combinations go like this… one out of three is acceptable; two out of three is provocative; and all three is hooker. (That’s not counting shoes, though… whole ‘nother can of worms there.)
But I digress… okay, cheap and good in films. Some old stand-bys to keep in mind are your hanging elevator suspense; unfolding someone’s dark secret from the past; and two interesting/sympathetic characters working together to solve something while each is struggling to keep a significant secret from the other. If you’re really clever and can work all three of those together, I think you’ve got something. And lastly, to keep it cheap, keep all sets as simple as possible and limit effects to things you can accomplish with simple light and sound techniques. Really old movies are a good reference for that. Check out “The Uninvited” with Ray Milland from the 1940’s… simple yet very compelling effects.
Hope this helps! I enjoy your blog, and good luck with your idea.