Indie Feature Film Review: Mission X

Written by Paul Cryer Wednesday, 24 February 2010 15:48

Mission X image

Mission X Review

Mission X is a low budget Scottish gangster film that has action, suspense and a good bit of humour. Shot on a tiny budget over the course of a year, it doesn't take away from the fact that the film is an enjoyable piece that kept me entertained for its near 90min run time.

With the low budget, David Baker decided to use the 'this was a film shot by a student' angle so that he could get away with the handheld, lower quality look. For the film, it works perfectly. As this is a documentary shot by short film student Grant as he gets an interview with mercenary Ryan, getting more than he bargained for as he becomes embroiled in Ryans mission, the way it looks is perfect, infact it may not have worked if it had looked too polished. It looks and feels authentic.

The plot unpeels slowly, with snapshots of what is to happen thrown into the film at various stages to keep you wondering how they end up and this point and what exactly is going on. As such there is a good tension and suspense to the film as it progresses. Acting is strong throughout and the dialogue good. The film also has a good level of humour that runs through it as well, one of my favourite exchanges being Grant wondering how Ryan got his blog, to which the reply was simply "It's on the Internet". I also enjoyed the docu style start with clips and some talking heads about what people had seen that day, it gets you straight into the film, wondering what exactly is the plot about. I also loved Grant doing his best 'Taxi Driver' impression in the bathroom too.

Mission X then certainly puts David Baker on my radar, it showed a quality of work in all aspects of the production that suggests we should see some interesting stuff coming from his camp in the next few years.

Read More for the Q&A with David P Baker ....

Mission X Q&A with David P Baker

What was the films budget?

Filmmakers rarely tell their budget for sales reasons, but I only tell you mine because I never made this to give distributors. The total cash for production and post, was about £3,500. Cost around £2000 to shoot. I couldn't have made it for that price if it was a non stop shoot. Spreading it over a year, and shooting for a few hours here and there when we could was the key

What compromises did you have to make due to the budget?

Producing it myself too, production design, basically the lot, took a huge focus away from the creative side in directing, acting. I didn't have any crew as such, so everything was a compromise. However, I very specifically wrote the film to stand up to that. Example. We couldn't really afford to have great sound (And sound is more important than visuals) But I played the fact in the story, the film student had a battered old cam, with dodgy sound, so lets use that creatively.

I wanted a subtitle scene, to add to the reality style, so I waited until we had a location where we had to shoot without permission (Pubs) And where the noise was so loud. So I turned the problems into the creative style of the film. (Remembered that from Rodriguez advice)

The same with lighting. I picked locations that were naturally well lit, but in some spots, the light is bad, but again, if a student really was shooting this, that's probably how it would look. He would not have a crew with him. Its when you are making a film that does need those things to be slick, and you shoot it for nothing, you are then in trouble! But I figured doing this type of story I could get away with a lot.

So in a way, my compromises were not really that bad. If I had cash, I would have done some of my action better, more blood, a few other messy carnage scenes I wanted, but couldn't do that because a lack of cash. On a whole, I got more on this for my buck than I did on my first £350,000 budget film. And MX is a better film than that.

What were the main issues you encountered that weren't budget related?

Biggest hurdle was getting to shoot A-47's in a city centre. That took a lot of persuading. A chief inspector made me walk through every shot, threw potential problems at me, but I was prepared for every answer. I also had to clear it with every resident in the area.

I think the biggest problem was hair! Seriously! Because we shot over a year, and had no continuity person, that created some problems. We shot a scene on a boat with with one of the merc guys. He was unshaven, but months later he turned up to shoot guns, and he had a beard! I did not fully notice until we shot the gun battle, so we had to lose the boat scene. Hair caused a few problems, apart from the baldy dudes!

The biggest problem was after the film. I got Cineworld interested in screening it across Scotland, but I didnt even have the money for the basics. You need money for marketing and distribution, even if its just for the basics. I knew this before I shot, but I only made the film to get started again, as a calling card.

I tried the cinema just for my own curiosity to see if I could get them interested. I did, and got investment interest, but the guy wanted a cut that was too big, so I left the cinema route.

How long did it take to write, film and produce?

I come up with concepts in minutes, then I write without writing for a long time. I have ideas in my head for months, take notes of scenes, etc, and then I write a 1st draft in about a week. Done about 5 drafts, a week a draft. Then I also let the actors play around with it on the shoot to get it more natural.

It took a year to shoot. If you added all the days together, probably about 20. However, I probably shot the whole movie twice. We would get a location for free, so would shoot. I would see it that night, and in a lot of cases I wasn't happy with the look. So it inspired me to get better locations. And we shot again. This happened several times.

I found the location where the gang hang out before the attack in my town. But I had already shot in a space I didn't like. So we reshot it over a weekend. It was a much better location. The actors didn't complain, they were happy that I wouldn't just settle for what I could get for free, I wanted to push for better each time. The good thing was, it was almost like a rehearsal time for them, so when we shot again, they knew their characters spot on.

Was it self funded or did you get any grants or help?

The Grants in Scotland all go to the same people. Not new talent, just the people they have worked with before. I know people that have had grants of £50,000 for a short film, and you never hear of them again. So no, I got no grants. No criteria for me!

I made the movie, got the cinema deal, but among all the funding for shorts etc, nothing! And this was a guy that flew 20 Scots actors and crew to Los Angeles for my first film. I could start a war but my revenge will be making a success of myself over next few years. I don't want them, don't need them! Scottish Screen don't REALLY develop new talent. The Americans don't get grants, so going with that diy route helps you to be stronger anyway.

That's another story, another time. However, doing it yourself means you can keep control. I funded the first 7 months shoot from my car park attendant wages. I met a guy there who gave me some investment after he started to see footage. The gun battle in the city was the final seller for him. I needed to do a 2nd gun battle, and several other scenes that would cost me some cash, so it means I could finish six months earlier with his money.

What did you learn from the experience of making it?

I had done a feature before that was set all over the world. And that was a worse experience than "MX", because of that lack of control. I came to this conclusion. I know why directors like Sam Rami's, Chris Nolan. Rodriguez, Peter Jackson, and countless other financed the production of their first films. It helps you keep total creative control. It means you can take risks, experiment.

Its not by coincidence they are the biggest directors in the world. You go out and get budget before you know how to make films, and the money people will be all over you like a rash. If you come to the industry with completed films you made, and show some sort of vision, they test you out with money, leave you alone, and you build trust that way.

Lots of filmmakers talk the talk but don't walk the walk. You have to get out there and just start making your film. I started my first day with about £30, and it spiraled like a snowball from there. Biggest lesson, making good films or bad films is not the main problem anymore. If you cant make a feature, you are screwed, as that is not the toughest part. Making a "career" is the key!

What would you do differently next time?

A million things! I am NEVER happy. You have to reach for the bar you cant reach. But I have no regrets about moving, as I was waiting for budgets for too long. So I could not have really not anything differently in the same circumstances. I don't even regret not having marketing money, because if I waited until I had that, I would probably never move. Doors are now opening more, more opportunities because I did make this. I am now ready to do another film, and developing a bigger remake because of it.