Half a year ago I wrote a Twitch-O-Meter (found here) about five directors who I'd like to receive a boatload of money, so with the above in mind I'll work that idea the other way around. There are several directors who I'd like to see and try making a film which doesn't cost diddly squat.

Well... 150,000 dollars at the most.

Nothing malicious, mind you. Just some curiosity as to how well these guys can fend for themselves when the only tools in their toolkit are a good script (or a good way to "tell" it), ingenuity, and charm.

And the lack of budget is not meant as a kiss of death either. Look at Joel Schumacher, who after the disastrous "Batman and Robin" (rumored to have been more expensive than "Titanic" actually) returned with the low budget movie "Tigerland" and retrieved a lot of his acclaim with it.

So here is my list of five directors who I'd like to see become a cheapskate.

1: Michael Bay.

You saw this one coming, didn't you? With his recent movies costing about 150,000 dollars for every FIVE SECONDS, let's see Michael trying to tell a full length story with that same amount.

Seriously, I'm curious what would happen if Bay needs to make a shot last a while, or has to concentrate on selling the narrative instead of the image. Michael Bay has shown in the past to be a focused filmmaker with some talent, but he looks more limited with each new film he releases and doing a low-budget film would show if there is actually a director in there instead of a gadget-freak.

2: George Lucas.

Believe it or not, the very first Star Wars movie (simply called "Star Wars" for its first three years of release) cost less than a quarter of the next one, and was considered to be low-budget enough to be an acceptable risk. And the director allowed to play around with that money was someone known to be able to work with tight budgets: George Lucas, who had scored a decent hit with "American Graffiti".

Nowadays of course, George Lucas almost seems to be made of money. Judging by the prequel trilogy, having his own special effects company seems to have invited the wrong sort of creativity in him. And maybe the thought that ANYTHING can be fixed post-shoot has tainted his handling of actors a bit. What would a 150,000 dollar movie made by the current George Lucas look like? Here's wondering...

3: Paul Anderson.

Now a lot of people here at Twitch hate Anderson, while most are indifferent and one actively admires him. Me, I don't hate the guy. He pulled off a successful "Mortal Kombat" film which was highly enjoyable (as well as stoopid), and each of his films contain bits I like a lot. Unfortunately, each of his films also contain a wealth of wasted opportunities.

For studios he has become a reliable moneymaker, and handing him a franchise seems to secure two things: tons of free publicity by infuriated fanboys, and films that make their money back.

But I'd like to see him make something that he created all by himself, and without a budget which assures studio interference. Because, you know, "Event Horizon" did show promise (even if I don't like the sewn together end result). I am curious to see Paul Anderson direct a true labor of love. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if that would turn out to be a good film.

4: James Cameron.

With every single movie he made, Cameron has put the available budget visible on the screen for all to see. A master at spending huge amounts of money he doesn't actually seem to be wasting it most of the time, and each of his (few) films look spit-shined glossy because of it.

But it happened again last week: someone broadcasted "The Terminator" on television. And again I fell halfway into the film while zapping, and again I finished watching it. I stand by my assertion that there isn't a better edited film in the world. It flows like water without a single slow second. Most of the film is perfect even without any special effects or insane stunts. 

James Cameron undoubtably can work magic when given a camera. And I'd love to see him make something tiny, something that would exercize that part of his talent, the part that makes even the filler in some of his films watchable.

5: Ridley Scott.

I want Ridley Scott to do a "cheapy" is because he is one of the most technical directors in the world. What loopholes would he invent when faced with a tiny budget? How would he try to spice up his film?

The same could of course be said about his brother Tony, only in Tony's case I would just be curious to see if he would cope with the budget, while with Ridley I want to see how well he would cope... 

 .