Cinema-quality movie shot entirely with iPhone

Chris Santucci

Chris Santucci

Veteran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3A3XanquHM

Somehow, I don't think audiences for this film will complain about what it was shot on.


"The movie, made on a budget of 150 million won ($133,000), was shot using the iPhone 4 and is slated to open in South Korean theaters on Jan. 27. Park made the 30–minute film with his younger brother Park Chan–kyong, also a director."
 
Last edited:
That's ridiculous. If it really was shot just to inspire young filmmakers and students, then bravo... but I suspect ulterior motives
 
He obviously used it to the effect of the short film.

No one will complain because it'll serve the story.

As any tool, shot, light,etc should.

And it definitely doesn't look cinema quality, to me.

Signed: Park Chan Fan
 
This whole philosophy is something I've really been trying to embrace lately, mostly in still photography, but the concept is the same in video. Most on this forum (at least form what I've seen) will say that it's not the price tag of the camera, but the photographer/cinematographer. It's one thing to read it, but its another thing entirely to see it done.

This guy is just one example.
http://gizmodo.com/5580276/professional-fashion-shootwith-an-iphone-3gs
 
Yep - i think thats marvelous, of course there will also be ulterior motives (and why shouldn't there be) - all business

'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public'

That said, it opens the door whenever any credible filmmakers (as percieved by the public/market/industry) do this, for filmmakers with less resources. So good for him!
 
hmm. Maybe it's me but I didn't think it looked that good, at least not enough to convince me it was worth even trying. I've seen much better stuff shot with other phones.
 
(Banging his head on the wall)

Filmmaker with no resources??? All the accessories and stuff attached to each of those phones was worth more than any given camcorder from electronic store! When you are trying to use a populistic gimmick to gain some audience then stop talking half baked "philosophy" about opening doors or democratization as there is many folks out there that will see through your BS. The phone didn't add anything to the image other then the "talking point" for the news media.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
(Banging his head on the wall)

Filmmaker with no resources??? All the accessories and stuff attached to each of those phones was worth more than any given camcorder from electronic store! When you are trying to use a populistic gimmick to gain some audience then stop talking half baked "philosophy" about opening doors or democratization as there is many folks out there that will see through your BS. The phone didn't add anything to the image other then the "talking point" for the news media.
Click to expand...

I was just going to comment on that. The 35mm Adapter for the iPhone is yet another price to pay.

Oi...
 
But just wait a minute. When you KNOW that the film was made based on a gimmick aren't you seeing the film through a different prism? The prism that it's a gimmick based film, the director is a quack not capable of coming up with a story that can stand on its own, etc, etc?
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
But just wait a minute. When you KNOW that the film was made based on a gimmick aren't you seeing the film through a different prism? The prism that it's a gimmick based film, the director is a quack not capable of coming up with a story that can stand on its own, etc, etc?
Click to expand...

Who says it can't stand on its own? Have you seen it? Do you know it can't stand on its own?

All we know about it, is that it was shot on an iphone. So people are talking about it. I don't think that has any bearing on whether the film is any good or not. But he's found a way to differentiate himself from the crowd and got people to talk about it.

28 Days Later did the same thing, having been shot on an XL1. Did it stand on its own? I dare say it's in the top rungs of its genre.

You have to do something to get people to notice your film. For some people that's getting a name actor. For some it's licensing a known property like a book. For others it's a massive advertising campaign. For this guy, it was shooting on an iphone. So what? It got people talking about it... now it's up to the film itself to prove that it's worth the talk.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
But just wait a minute. When you KNOW that the film was made based on a gimmick aren't you seeing the film through a different prism? The prism that it's a gimmick based film, the director is a quack not capable of coming up with a story that can stand on its own, etc, etc?
Click to expand...

Okay, well, while it may or may not be a marketing thing... Park Chan-Wook's material definitely does not stink of quack.

He has yet to make a bad feature film, dare I say he hasn't even sunk to "decent" yet.
 
Camera's are just tools...
It's not the tool, it's the technician...
Cameras don't matter, talent and storytelling ability do...
It's not the tool, it's what you do with it,

If all those things are true, what's the hubbub?

The story said that there were limitations imposed due to the choice and his work-flow changed. That's brilliant. That's a guy challenging himself. Kudos.
He stated his reasons for doing it. Cool. Here comes the iphone vs. 5d vs. af100 vs. pinhole questions. People are talking. Ideas are being generated. Craft is explored. It's all good. I say have at it. I'll be trying to get my hands on it for sure.
 
Ulterior motives? Why can't any filmmakers do anything interesting with cheap tech without it turning into a conspiracy theory around here?
 
Barry, now we totally disagree. We are not talking about the film in way: "yo, you saw this new film by so-and-so it's so spooky it looks like it was shot with a cell phone!" are are arguing about something totally not related to the film itself - and that is not healthy no matter how you paint it. The small camera chip was with us for ages so how will this film differ then a film shot by anybody with say HV20??? And even more so how will it differ then other video experiments such as the "28 Days Later"? Done like, what, 9 years ago...

If anything it screams of the maker, "I got nothing, but LOOK i shot it with iphone!!!!"
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
(Banging his head on the wall)

Filmmaker with no resources??? All the accessories and stuff attached to each of those phones was worth more than any given camcorder from electronic store! When you are trying to use a populistic gimmick to gain some audience then stop talking half baked "philosophy" about opening doors or democratization as there is many folks out there that will see through your BS. The phone didn't add anything to the image other then the "talking point" for the news media.
Click to expand...

you mean the five figure Dolley???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top