• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

iPhone Filmmaking. The New Indie?

M

mariaajudice

Great article in Okayplayer magazine about indie filmmaker Anisia Uzeyman and her iPhone movie DREAMSTATES. Do you think filmmakers are reaching for more mobile/affordable cameras more than ever?

"Anisia Uzeyman seeks to provide the answer with her 2015 directorial debut Dreamstates, which screened at the 2016 BlackStar Film Festival in Philadelphia on August 6th. Armed with a pair of iPhones, Uzeyman contrasts the American Dream with endless highway and sun bleached relics of fading Americana — the euphoria of falling in love with the palpable angst of a failing partnership. The film starring Uzeyman (Indigo) and husband, Saul Williams (Spoonie), begins in a dream, where the pair first meet before crossing paths in the real world when she joins his touring band."

okayplayer.com/news/dreamstates-review-indie-blackstar-film-festival.html
 
Welcome to indietalk.

You're new so you don't know that most of us here have been telling
“newbees” to use what ever camera they have available to make their
movie. Even if it's a camera phone.

There are several success stories and more are showing up every month.
The camera isn't the most important aspect of making a movie. People
respond to story and characters. Okay, major Hollywood “blockbusters”
aside where all people care about is lots and lots of “eye candy” and
adenine rushes. But then we aren't saying that anyone will get a 1,500
theater release by a major distributor with their “shot in iPhone” feature,
but it's a great way to start a career.

I see you're the co-producer of DREAMSTATES. Did you have any input
into the camera used? Was using the iPhone a creative choice or a budget
practical one?
 
I commend anyone who uses it or whatever they got but I find it corny. Not the quality but it's against the art of filmmaking. The scalpel separates the surgeons from the butchers and the type of camera one uses does that for filmmaking. Fortunately, film is about storytelling as directorik said. The gifted prosper.
 
FreddyLongSongs said:
I commend anyone who uses it or whatever they got but I find it corny. Not the quality but it's against the art of filmmaking. The scalpel separates the surgeons from the butchers and the type of camera one uses does that for filmmaking. Fortunately, film is about storytelling as directorik said. The gifted prosper.
Click to expand...

... the hell?

Against the art? For Pete's sake, art is about creating, not about what was used to create. It covers many different media. Who gives a flip if it was shot on Alexa or an iPhone 5? Don't tell the producers/directors of "Tangerine" that they should have used a scalpel. They seem to have done just fine.

What truly "goes against the art" are folks who write off artists as unfit or unworthy just because they use chalk instead of pastels.
 
FreddyLongSongs said:
The scalpel separates the surgeons from the butchers and the type of camera one uses does that for filmmaking.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the scalpel separates the surgeon from the butcher but the camera
used to tell a story does not separate the filmmaker from the filmmaker. Why
do you find it "corny" for a filmmaker to create their "art" using what ever tool
they find best? Is it against the "art of filmmaking" to use video or digital
instead of film stock? In not then why does the choice of camera go against
the art of filmmaking?

And who decides what is "the art of filmmaking"? You?

An artist can use a stick and sand. Or a #2 pencil. Or pen and ink. And still be
called an artist. Why not the same with the filmmaker?

I hope that someday you can open your mind to the "art" of filmmaking. It's
a wide world of talent and passion and hopes and dreams. To suggest that
a filmmaker using an iPhone is in any way less an "artist" then one using the
Arriflex 535 seems closed minded and limiting. We use what we can. We use
what is personal. That in no way is against the art of filmmaking.
 
It's called opinion and subjectivity.

I found it commendable but my opinion is merely preference. However, to say the iPhone is the new indie is drastic measures. My reason for feeling the way I feel is as justified as any counter. If it was about merely about making the film then why were we told the tools? Seems like a gimmick because these aren't people without the means. Narcissistic?


Hey look at us! Let's deviate from the beautiful story of literally finding the person of their dreams and have a circle jerk about how it was done on an iPhone. Apple cut them a check too?

My reason is because as someone who started in music and seen it become what it is now because for a hundred dollars anybody can record nonsense and call it music. I refuse to let that become of film. Now any Tom, Sally, and Bob with a phone can call themselves a filmmaker.

Let's not stop there... Any kid stacking Lego blocks is a civil engineer. Who are we to tell them different? I just find this passionate.

I stay up late writing scripts learning all I can about film now. Respect the film and use a camera especially when you can afford one.
 
I know some pretty creative butchers.
 

Attachments

  • creative_butcher.jpg
    creative_butcher.jpg
    74.7 KB · Views: 95
Right. And butchers aren't trying to be doctors. I don't like analogies, in most cases it's better to just say what you mean as related to the subject.

PS. There are plenty of doctors that butcher with a scalpel. ;)

I'm gathering from you, the camera is a status symbol.

FreddyLongSongs said:
My reason is because as someone who started in music and seen it become what it is now because for a hundred dollars anybody can record nonsense and call it music. I refuse to let that become of film. Now any Tom, Sally, and Bob with a phone can call themselves a filmmaker.
Click to expand...

And sorry but the problem with the music industry is not accessibility to cheap recording. The demo quality you hear on youtube, you take issue with? Musicians getting their work out there when 20 years ago they couldn't because of funds? So basically you are saying, you don't want to hear or see any work done on a shoestring. They should have to pay more, so you are seeing and hearing quality. Because quality trumps creativity and the expensive camera automatically means quality film. That's ridiculous.

One could argue accessibility is flooding the market with poor quality, but you want to try to control that by not allowing young filmmakers to express themselves. That is a scary thought actually. It's just percentages man. All the quality is still there.

Imagine for a sec that the government regulated filmmaking and what goes on the net. Now imagine the outrage over that. Why not let "the people" do what they want?

Essentially you are saying you have a problem with what I want to do. If I want to use an iPhone. There are countries you can move to where an iPhone is contraband. Maybe that would put your mind at ease. :)
 
Amen, Indietalk!

People do not have to earn the right to be creative. In fact, creativity often thrives when having to work within limited, available resources.

indietalk said:
So basically you are saying, you don't want to hear or see any work done on a shoestring. They should have to pay more, so you are seeing and hearing quality. Because quality trumps creativity and the expensive camera automatically means quality film. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

And besides, since when is quality of a visual story strictly determined by the tool used to create it?
 
That's a blanket statement. And question. Did you watch the trailer? It piqued my interest. I'm always interested in ways you can maximize your tools. There's all kinds of hacks for other tools, and filmmakers are always looking for DIY solutions, but when it comes to the camera some are unforgiving it seems. It's hypocrisy really.
 
indietalk said:
Right. And butchers aren't trying to be doctors. I don't like analogies, in most cases it's better to just say what you mean as related to the subject.

PS. There are plenty of doctors that butcher with a scalpel. ;)

I'm gathering from you, the camera is a status symbol.



And sorry but the problem with the music industry is not accessibility to cheap recording. The demo quality you hear on youtube, you take issue with? Musicians getting their work out there when 20 years ago they couldn't because of funds? So basically you are saying, you don't want to hear or see any work done on a shoestring. They should have to pay more, so you are seeing and hearing quality. Because quality trumps creativity and the expensive camera automatically means quality film. That's ridiculous.

One could argue accessibility is flooding the market with poor quality, but you want to try to control that by not allowing young filmmakers to express themselves. That is a scary thought actually. It's just percentages man. All the quality is still there.

Imagine for a sec that the government regulated filmmaking and what goes on the net. Now imagine the outrage over that. Why not let "the people" do what they want?

Essentially you are saying you have a problem with what I want to do. If I want to use an iPhone. There are countries you can move to where an iPhone is contraband. Maybe that would put your mind at ease. :)
Click to expand...
You purposely left out other points such as why was the point of the iPhone brought up to begin with if it is about the art? They want some extra admiration? It shouldn't become a wave or thing. If someone asked "Hey, what you used to shoot that wonderful piece?" Then they can say just a couple of iPhones or even smartphones (I don't believe in free advertisement assuming it's free). Explain to me why it had to be mentioned that they shot it with iPhones initially, please.
 
FreddyLongSongs said:
You purposely left out other points such as why was the point of the iPhone brought up to begin with if it is about the art?
Click to expand...

Why not? You can make a mosaic out of dick pics, but part of the art is, it was done with dick pics. :lol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-its-breathtaking_us_56464bb5e4b08cda3488c07e

What's wrong with waving an iPhone flag? It's an accomplishment.

I guess painters who paint with blood shouldn't say anything. Or if I use aluminum cans or bottle caps for my sculptures, or whatever you use... don't say anything, because it is art. That makes no sense.

Of course they mentioned they made a feature with iPhone! They'd be stupid not to.
 
indietalk said:
That's a blanket statement. And question. Did you watch the trailer? It piqued my interest. I'm always interested in ways you can maximize your tools. There's all kinds of hacks for other tools, and filmmakers are always looking for DIY solutions, but when it comes to the camera some are unforgiving it seems. It's hypocrisy really.
Click to expand...

Yes I did. I also watched a second time. I understand some people may like it, but I personally did not. I saw cell phone footage, some sortof widescreen, some vertical, some sortof boxed virtually all shaky some pretty sharp most pretty unsharp. That entire combobulation I find unwatchable. I appreciate good quality effort. I do not care that someone decided to throw something together and not seeming to care enough to make a quality effort. I know there is someone out there that did a phone project with full grip and lights. Stupid. Again, I understand some people like this type of stuff. I don't.
 
Fair enuf!

This iPhone fact also sparks internet debate (obviously) ie. promo, I wonder if the OP will return or if this was a hit and run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top