I also noticed that the film’s audio completely dropped off in a couple places. Whether this was a problem with a microphone, faulty audio, or something done in the editing room to get rid of an unwanted sound bite, it sounded very strange. Dropping all audio completely is never a good idea, unless there’s a very clear purpose for it. To avoid running into this problem in the editing room, it’s always best to make a recording of “room tone” (the sound a room or location has going in the background when no action is occurring). To record room tone, you basically sit in your location (with no one moving around), turn on the camera and your audio equipment, and press record. It’s something that many of us forget to do, but there are few things worse than being stuck in the editing room without room tone to patch in over bad audio. This is an especially good idea when shooting outside – one can get some great sound bites of local wildlife, people, and vehicles.
Use of Budget
The filmmakers were actually quite clever in raising part of their budget for this film – they sold $100 shares to friends and family members (for a total of $1,000) in exchange for a percentage of the profits made on the film’s premiere. Darren Aronofsky (noted director of Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain) used a similar fundraising approach for his first film, Pi. I’ll give the filmmakers full marks for creativity here!
The $1,000 went toward a camera, tripod, and microphone adaptor. The remaining $2,000 came from the director’s full-time job, which also required the crew to shoot only on weekends, and do their planning and shot lists in the evenings on weekdays. Many independent filmmakers are forced to adopt similar schedules, as few of us can afford to quite our full-time jobs just to make our dream film. It can be tough to keep up that kind of schedule, but anyone who sticks with it ought to be commended.
The $2,000 was spent on props, wardrobe, Kraft services, transportation costs, an editor ($500), and $30 for a blow-up doll which was featured only briefly in the scene in which Trent and Lance leave their apartment, bags of possessions in hand. While this was a funny moment, it seemed like an odd extraneous expense just for one laugh. It would have been even funnier if, for some odd reason, the blow-up doll continued to appear in random places throughout the movie. Given this genre, no explanation would be needed, and it could even prompt a sort of Where’s Waldo-type drinking game for fans of the movie!
The film has a few strengths, but as mentioned before there are a lot of things that need work. While a meandering-type plot is perfect for First Timers, there still needs to be a certain amount of structure and planning to avoid too many dull moments. It’s admirable that these filmmakers actually took the step to make a movie as many people only talk about it, but they still have some things to learn – of course many of us have only learned what we know through trial and error, so there’s certainly nothing wrong with that!
Lasting Appeal
First Timers has a creative plot which could attract an audience similar to that of Clerks or the Harold & Kumar series.
Its weakness, however, is that the dialogue isn’t all that entertaining, and I personally didn’t feel any sympathy for the main characters. For instance, after buying Subway sandwiches with the money they begged for (rather than trying to save some of this money, or even trying to ask for employment at the store) Lance complains for nearly a full minute about how one of the employees cut his sandwich wrong. Perhaps someone who has found themselves in this type of situation might be more sympathetic, or even more of a male audience who enjoy what I term “stupid-funny” films. But even still, the lack of creative dialogue is still a big weakness.
Overall Comment
First Timers shows a lot of promise; it has an eager cast and crew, an interesting plot, and actors with potential. It’s a story that could be very funny, but it needs a lot more work.
