Apple shares new ‘Vertical Cinema’ Shot on iPhone short film

[ahalpert]

Well, I'm not overanalyzing it. It's just that either it works for you or it doesn't.

The two guys are basically touching shoulders. People dont stand that way. Most of the time - and all the other times in this show - when people have stood unnaturally close for framing purposes, it has gone down fine with me. I don't care and I'm obviously not opposed to the practice. I don't spend my time measuring distances between actors (unless it feels wrong to begin with).

If they shot this today, they might have shot it the same way or they may have taken advantage of a 16:9 frame to space the actors more like how they'd stand in real life. If they shot this in 16:9 with a looser frame around the same framing on actors, I would have felt the same awkwardness. I have no problem with the two actors on the edges of the frame (who are also probably standing unusually close to each other for the situation). It's the guy sandwiched between them who bugs me.

I posted it to this thread because I'm thinking about the implications of narrower aspect ratios for shooting 9:16.

But again, either it will bother you or it won't. I'm not looking to pick a fight with ST: Voyager, I've been enjoying the revisit. I also saw it during its first run.

Were you a Voyager fan when it first aired, you're saying?

 

[ahalpert]

A clearer example of the narrative misfire, run&gun, from earlier in this thread, was this shot:

View attachment 140177

When I saw the shot, I literally thought to myself, "Is he trying to intimidate her?" The thought literally passed through my mind.

After watching the rest of the episode, I concluded that he was not.

There's no analysis there - just reaction.

But it was a misfired dramatic cue - noise in the narrative signal. Not a big deal - didn't ruin my enjoyment of the episode - but notable.

 

[NorBro]

But if she was smiling at him, and you saw her teeth, and her eyes were lighting up, you may have felt she was falling in love with him.

Her facial expression is also sending signals to your brain for processing of "intimidation" (along with the shot and their body distance and language/firm shoulders).

 

[Mike Krumlauf]

I continue to weep for... The World.

I forced myself to watch 30 seconds. Now I have to go squirt hand sanitizer in my eyes and bang my head against the wall to hopefully forget that this was done ON PURPOSE by people that know better. This was proof that vertical video SUCKS DONKEY C*** no matter who shoots or directs it.

You and I share the same feelings about this. Then again, Im against shooting anything serious on cell phones so... the day cell phones can shoot raw video, ill start paying attention to the "fad"

 

[JAMedia]

You and I share the same feelings about this. Then again, Im against shooting anything serious on cell phones so...

There are times when the only thing you can use is a phone. Though I am thinking journalism or documentary rather than theatrical.
OTOH Bentley Cars managed to not only use an iPhone for their advert video but edited it on an iPad in the car in 2014.

https://youtu.be/lyYhM0XIIwU

And behind the scenes

https://youtu.be/PQmzuT0C8T4

At least it wasn't Vertical

 

[Paul F]

... We weren't there, right?

Now your talking sense. Watch an Andy Griffith show from the '60s. You will see the same awkward shoulder to shoulder frames. You'll see Andy and Aunt Bee inexplicably sit so close to each other on the couch that they look like they are lovers. Yet in that same show, they would have wide shots with people sitting at the dinner table. Go figure.


I did the same directing live TV in SD. I was taught by producers to cram the talent together because it 'looked better'. New talent would always feel awkward being literally (and I'm using literally correctly) pressed up against each other. There is no analysis to be done. Each era has its fashions in framing, camera movies, lighting, etc.. It just is what it was.

 

[NorBro]

ha...I cater sense on this forum; that's how I always have thought and try to explore all possibilities in everything.

You never know what people are thinking or why they do certain things.

You're exactly right in that there is no analysis to be done (at least not all of the time).

 

[ahalpert]

I did the same directing live TV in SD. I was taught by producers to cram the talent together because it 'looked better'.

...but why did they think it looked better? and do you agree or disagree with them?

I livestreamed a wedding recently and the internet speed limited the stream to a very low resolution. So, I zoomed in as far as I could on the couple in order to devote more precious pixels to their facial expressions. I would have zoomed in farther if they had been standing closer together. Thus, if they had been standing closer, it would have looked "better." Or am I overanalyzing it? Lol

It's the same reason Lawrence of Arabia can have massively wide desert shots where Lawrence is a speck in the frame. With a high-resolution film format and projected at large sizes, the viewer can still see him.

 

[Paul F]

The what and why of art for any moment in time can't be explained. Some art is timeless. Other art is of the moment. During Vincent Van Gogh's time, his art was garbage. Even his own brother, who was a noted art dealer, couldn't sell Vincent's junk. Now it is genius. Consider fashion, eyewear and hairstyles. Look at this. People actually thought they looked good. You're sporting a beard because that looks good now. It didn't in other times. How does stuff gets in vogue? Why does something look stupid now but looked good in the past? I don't know. That's art.

 

[ahalpert]

The what and why of art for any moment in time can't be explained. Some art is timeless. Other art is of the moment. During Vincent Van Gogh's time, his art was garbage. Even his own brother, who was a noted art dealer, couldn't sell Vincent's junk. Now it is genius. Consider fashion, eyewear and hairstyles. Look at this. People actually thought they looked good. You're sporting a beard because that looks good now. It didn't in other times. How does stuff gets in vogue? Why does something look stupid now but looked good in the past? I don't know. That's art.

People have whole careers devoted to analyzing and explaining art for its style and historical context.

"Impressionists rebelled against classical subject matter and embraced modernity, desiring to create works that reflected the world in which they lived." (History Channel) Popular opinion always lags behind the avant-garde.

I've been wearing a beard since before it was in fashion and will wear it after it goes out of fashion, god willing. I'm a naturalist and believe in allowing the expression of the body's natural tendencies. My wife likes it because it's manly. You can analyze why it goes in and out of fashion. I'm guessing this latest trend coincided with the maturation of millennials, a large generation seeking ways to react against tradition. My dad wore a beard because doctors are forgiven for not having time to shave, and he was happy to not have to.

Cinemascope was a reaction against TV. Now, the cinema could offer you a much wider view than you could get at home, hence a differentiation and, arguably, an advantage.

9:16 arises from people watching things on their smartphones which are naturally held in one hand in a portrait orientation. The form of the phone follows from the comfort of holding it in a human hand. The smartphone evolved from a traditional cell phone as a means of having a portable computer and internet interface. Soon, the specifics of the vertical format will create new tropes, framings and techniques that will become familiar. But that doesn't alter the geometry of human interaction.

Analysis is only overanalysis if you start making up things that aren't there. You yourself said that an explicit goal in SD TV was to cram people together on screen. I'm postulating why and commenting that the effect was distracting. If I'm correct about the reasons why, the dynamic will also come into play in vertical film, but even moreso.

From the article you linked: "it really took off when the creation of synthetic material allowed for inexpensive clothing prices." Thus, wearing crazy suits was taking advantage of a newfound freedom, something they couldn't do before.

Earlier, you had Zoot suits: "Some servicemen and others in the community felt that the continued wearing of zoot suits represented the youths' public flouting of rationing regulations." (Wikipedia)

In both fashion cases, the suits connote wealth and liberation.

Similar to the use of blue dye, which was historically difficult and expensive to produce: "Wherever it came from, blue pigment remained costly to produce. It was an expensive, aspirational colour – and it peaked in the year AD431, when Virgin Mary worship and the use of her image was sanctioned by the Christian church at the Council of Ephesus. Images of Mary became wildly popular, and she was usually depicted wearing a blue robe, as befitting the queen of heaven." (The Guardian)

 

[Gord.T]

They made this short film to sell phones. I don't think the director woke up one day with an idea for a vertical
film.

Also my first impression. I was thinking while watching "How much did Apple pay him to do this?". I also can't imagine this being done on purpose as an artistic choice but as stated in the video it does show the possibilities for new future ideas and that's the kind of thinking that I can get behind.

Look, it’s all a creative choice - 2.35:1 included. Art is bigger than a technical specification.

In the end that's what it's about. There is no right or wrong, no good or bad, in art. Do we have to like it? Nope. Thus the number of people commenting and all making very good observations I might add.

My 2cents: I think, right now, vertical shooting falls into my WTF category. Maybe in decades it will be a norm. After all, the earth was flat once too. Who knows? Not me.

Very good reading and opinions here anyways.

 

[Run&Gun]

People have whole careers devoted to analyzing and explaining art for its style and historical context.

But that doesn't alter the geometry of human interaction.

I'm postulating why and commenting that the effect was distracting.

1) Great bullshitters. These are the same people that take 10 minutes to describe a red car when asked simply, "what color is that car?".

2) Actually one of the simplest and most solid arguments against 9:16 for general use.

3) But it wasn't. At least not then.

 

[ahalpert]

1) Great bulls*%tters. These are the same people that take 10 minutes to describe a red car when asked simply, "what color is that car?".

Sometimes. But what the hell is the point of art if we're not going to discuss it?

Or take 2001: A Space Odyssey - this is not a movie that presents its meaning clearly on the surface. Clearly, the movie was meant to be investigated to figure out what the hell was going on, despite Kubrick having a clear idea.

Or, to look outside the movie itself, you can talk about the space race and the moment in history that the film was made, the exuberant imagination about the pace of scientific discovery and where we might be by 2001.

2) Actually one of the simplest and most solid arguments against 9:16 for general use.

That's what I'm saaaaaying! Although, to be fair, different types of stories, content, or shots can benefit from different aspect ratios. It's not an accident that their vertical film showpiece centered around a man falling off a building - which framed quite easily in a wide shot. But there's so much group activity in film... Someone mentioned earlier that they were working on a spot for an alcoholic beverage, and in a vertical format you could only see the drink or one person in the group at a time. There was no group shot of all the 20-somethings together laughing it up.

3) But it wasn't. At least not then.

Not to you, but to me. If I'm the only person who ever felt that way, then who cares besides me. But now imagine trying to pull off the same shot in 9:16.