Where Is The "Tiny Furniture" Discussion Thread?

[David G. Smith]

Where Is The "Tiny Furniture" Discussion Thread? I just saw it at the flicks, and got things to say.... but can't believe that there is not a thread discussing this movie... or I can't find it. Any links?

[Jawa Ex Machina]

The best way to get a link to a thread you can't find around here is to just start a new one on that topic.

Someone always have enough time on their hands to search up the old one and tell you about it. =)

[Billy Pilgrim]

I guess this is the thread now. I saw this film tonight and really enjoyed it. It was very well-made and subtly funny. And it was shot on a 7D!

[David G. Smith]

I guess this is the thread now. I saw this film tonight and really enjoyed it. It was very well-made and subtly funny. And it was shot on a 7D!

Yep, I guess so... Yeah, I really enjoyed the film, but it took a little while, I have to admit. Of course, I went to see it, really, because I wanted to see a feature flick, shot on a HD-DSLR, and because of the great press it has been getting as a SXSW darling. However, watching it was another thing. It did take me a while to get into it. While I admire, without qualification, the writer/director Lena Dunham, as the lead character Aura, I had a hard time warming up to her. I think it is mainly because of our totally different backgrounds. I am working class and Southern, and this character is from the New York intellectual/art scene elite. My first, knee jerk reaction to the character's "Dilemmas" was, "Jes*s Henry Kay-Rist, quit your b*tching, get a job and get on with your life....". The more I watched the more I really warmed up to the character, and her situation, and the more I came to admire the writer/director. While she and I are from very different backgrounds, she took what she knows, who she is, where she is from and even her actual family, and made a rather enjoyable movie about it. I love that!

Now, I do have some issues with the flick, that is for sure. The acting of the mother and sister, played by the director's actual mother and sister, pretty much sucked. Also, there were some scenes that just did not work. The "Party scene" and the "Break down in the hallway" were, IMHO, ham handed and did not work. However, there are some gems to be found. The character Charlotte, played by Jemima Kirk, is an example. Her scenes are outstanding and Ms. Kirk has great screen presence and is very compelling as the character Charlotte. All in all, it was an enjoyable movie, made much more so with the realization that it was made by a person using her available resources to there full advantage.

As far as, "How did it look?" Well, I saw it at one of the Detroit area's premier alternative cinema venues, projected digitally, on a screen about 60 feet wide, and I was blown away by how good it looked. My biggest issues with the look are differences in opinion about some of the cinematographic choices made, mostly in the lighting, then in the capabilities of the format chosen. I come from a film back ground, shooting a lot of 16mm, and what I have been really looking for, in the "Digital Video Revolution", is the ability to have a low cost alternative to 16mm film, that would look as good on a big screen. "Tiny Furniture" proved to me that we have reached this threshold, and, maybe, surpassed it. We are NOW at the point where unaffordable gear can NOT keep a passionate independent filmmaker from telling his, or her story. Are HD-DSLRs "Good enough" to make A feature fictional narrative movie? YES. Are they good enough to make ANY feature fictional narrative movie? Of course not. BUT, if you are a low budget filmmaker and want to make passionate personal films, well, you can not use the excuse of, "The gear cost too much", anymore. What I learned most from "Tiny Furniture" is to get up off of my ass and go out and make the films that I want to make, and has given me the confidence that this is possible. So, if you get a chance to see "Tiny Furniture", I recommend it.

[J Davis]

What a great and balanced review David. Your words about different backgrounds and knee-jerk reactions also describe my own initial feeling to this film but now I'm going to make a point to see it.

Yep, I guess so... Yeah, I really enjoyed the film, but it took a little while, I have to admit. Of course, I went to see it, really, because I wanted to see a feature flick, shot on a HD-DSLR, and because of the great press it has been getting as a SXSW darling. However, watching it was another thing. It did take me a while to get into it. While I admire, without qualification, the writer/director Lena Dunham, as the lead character Aura, I had a hard time warming up to her. I think it is mainly because of our totally different backgrounds. I am working class and Southern, and this character is from the New York intellectual/art scene elite. My first, knee jerk reaction to the character's "Dilemmas" was, "Jes*s Henry Kay-Rist, quit your b*tching, get a job and get on with your life....". The more I watched the more I really warmed up to the character, and her situation, and the more I came to admire the writer/director. While she and I are from very different backgrounds, she took what she knows, who she is, where she is from and even her actual family, and made a rather enjoyable movie about it. I love that!

Now, I do have some issues with the flick, that is for sure. The acting of the mother and sister, played by the director's actual mother and sister, pretty much sucked. Also, there were some scenes that just did not work. The "Party scene" and the "Break down in the hallway" were, IMHO, ham handed and did not work. However, there are some gems to be found. The character Charlotte, played by Jemima Kirk, is an example. Her scenes are outstanding and Ms. Kirk has great screen presence and is very compelling as the character Charlotte. All in all, it was an enjoyable movie, made much more so with the realization that it was made by a person using her available resources to there full advantage.

As far as, "How did it look?" Well, I saw it at one of the Detroit area's premier alternative cinema venues, projected digitally, on a screen about 60 feet wide, and I was blown away by how good it looked. My biggest issues with the look are differences in opinion about some of the cinematographic choices made, mostly in the lighting, then in the capabilities of the format chosen. I come from a film back ground, shooting a lot of 16mm, and what I have been really looking for, in the "Digital Video Revolution", is the ability to have a low cost alternative to 16mm film, that would look as good on a big screen. "Tiny Furniture" proved to me that we have reached this threshold, and, maybe, surpassed it. We are NOW at the point where unaffordable gear can NOT keep a passionate independent filmmaker from telling his, or her story. Are HD-DSLRs "Good enough" to make A feature fictional narrative movie? YES. Are they good enough to make ANY feature fictional narrative movie? Of course not. BUT, if you are a low budget filmmaker and want to make passionate personal films, well, you can not use the excuse of, "The gear cost too much", anymore. What I learned most from "Tiny Furniture" is to get up off of my ass and go out and make the films that I want to make, and has given me the confidence that this is possible. So, if you get a chance to see "Tiny Furniture", I recommend it.

[Chris Adler]

Haven't seen it. I'll wait until its on Netflix Instant Streaming. Absolutely not my cup of tea. But I watched the trailer.

I guess what it shows me is that the indie scene is ALL about marketing. If you can get your tiny film noticed, and it doesn't even have to be very good, then it can take you places. I guess in reality film isn't any different than any other business in that regard. Quite often success doesn't go to the best product, it goes to the one that, for whatever reason, was noticed and got attention. In the film world, the cheaper the budget the further that attention will take you. It looked okay in my web-watched trailer though I thought it was maybe all too brightly lit. It felt harsh.

If this was really the best movie to show at SXSW then I flinch thinking about the crap that must have been submitted, and worst of all, the crap the programming team scheduled.

[Kholi]

As far as, "How did it look?" Well, I saw it at one of the Detroit area's premier alternative cinema venues, projected digitally, on a screen about 60 feet wide, and I was blown away by how good it looked. My biggest issues with the look are differences in opinion about some of the cinematographic choices made, mostly in the lighting, then in the capabilities of the format chosen. I come from a film back ground, shooting a lot of 16mm, and what I have been really looking for, in the "Digital Video Revolution", is the ability to have a low cost alternative to 16mm film, that would look as good on a big screen. "Tiny Furniture" proved to me that we have reached this threshold, and, maybe, surpassed it. We are NOW at the point where unaffordable gear can NOT keep a passionate independent filmmaker from telling his, or her story. Are HD-DSLRs "Good enough" to make A feature fictional narrative movie? YES. Are they good enough to make ANY feature fictional narrative movie? Of course not. BUT, if you are a low budget filmmaker and want to make passionate personal films, well, you can not use the excuse of, "The gear cost too much", anymore. What I learned most from "Tiny Furniture" is to get up off of my ass and go out and make the films that I want to make, and has given me the confidence that this is possible. So, if you get a chance to see "Tiny Furniture", I recommend it.

Welcome to the next phase titled: Now I actually have to do something.

Haha. Kidding, but not really. I had the same experience about three or more years ago when I saw my HVX200 + Redrock M2 footage projected at the Kodak Theater. Now, that's ORIGINAL HVX200, and ORIGINAL M2... and I was pretty much blown away at how awesome it looked. At that point, I think I did realize that the cameras weren't the issue anymore...

It still took another four years to get to business, though.

I haven't seen Tiny Furniture, I've heard that it's fairly bad but I'd like to watch it and formulate my own opinion. I'm going to see if I can bum my friends Netflix account off of him.

[MeAgain]

I haven't got a chance to see this yet, it's from the same girl who did "Creative Nonfiction". I'm really happy all these young filmmakers who are my age are able to make cheap, tiny films that people actually want to see. It makes me very hopeful.

That being said, if I see one more film about a college graduate who sits around all day unemployed, I'm going to jump off my roof. And this is coming from someone who is living that exact life right now.

[David G. Smith]

Welcome to the next phase titled: Now I actually have to do something.

Haha. Kidding, but not really. I had the same experience about three or more years ago when I saw my HVX200 + Redrock M2 footage projected at the Kodak Theater. Now, that's ORIGINAL HVX200, and ORIGINAL M2... and I was pretty much blown away at how awesome it looked. At that point, I think I did realize that the cameras weren't the issue anymore...

It still took another four years to get to business, though.

I haven't seen Tiny Furniture, I've heard that it's fairly bad but I'd like to watch it and formulate my own opinion. I'm going to see if I can bum my friends Netflix account off of him.

Oh Kholi, you are absolutely right. It is all about, "Now I actually have to do something". This is really the first time I have seen any low budget/prosumer HD projected and was impressed. I just came back from seeing "Black Swan" and thought that the HD-DSLR footage in that movie held up well to the Super 16mm footage of the rest of the film. Like you said, NOW, it is the hard part.... Quite MY bitching, get up off MY ass, and MAKE the movies I want to make.

[Kholi]

As much as I dislike the canon cameras the 7D footage held up fine beside 16mm film in Black Swan.

Do with what you have.