Tangerine?

G

Greg_E

Veteran
Anyone watch this film? Wanted to see what an iPhone could do and can't say I was terribly surprised, even through the dirty yellow grade they put over it. Didn't finish it, the story doesn't really compel me to watch, just wanted to see the "state of the art" in phone film making.

It's on Netflix right now.
 
It was one of those movies that really pays off in those last few minutes. I'll admit, I spent most of it wondering why I was watching, what it was trying to say, etc...and then the ending happened, and I felt sad, even angry, because of what it made me ask myself. Hard to explain online, but that was something important the movie gave me. It's not for everyone though.

Yea the iPhone didn't look fantastic, but the kinetic nature of the film complimented it. The reviews, the attempt at Oscar attention, and the financial success it had should still inspire anybody. I don't care what you shot something on because in the end...story/character is what shines.
 
I saw it, and liked it a lot. Of course, I'm slightly biased, in that it was shot in my neighborhood, just a few blocks from where I live, so I know the locations inside out :)...

I thought it was pretty fantastic. Of course, there are flaws, but given what they had to work with, I thought they did very well. And I disagree about the iPhone - I thought the look fit the material brilliantly, and I thought the dramatic color worked, so I disagree 100% with anyone who thought this was a flaw... it was one of the films key assets, next to the choice of subject matter. Sound could've been better - the only technically significant weakness both in acquisition and in mixing, in fact it was borderline outright bad... ironic, since they apparently put quite a bit of effort into it (I read a bunch of interviews with the director, producer, actors etc.).

If you are an indie filmmaker, and thinking of making your own feature, I think this is mandatory viewing: shows you what can be done with little means.
 
I agree, given the limitations of their equipment, they did a great job. But I wonder what could have been done if they used something like a gh2 and one or two lenses.
 
Greg_E said:
I agree, given the limitations of their equipment, they did a great job. But I wonder what could have been done if they used something like a gh2 and one or two lenses.
Click to expand...

My suspicion: not much better, but very possibly much worse... let me explain... One huge advantage of the iPhone - a non-technical one - is that it's inconspicuous; that makes people act more naturally and is also faster to operate. When you're dealing with amateur actors - and these were non-actors - putting them at ease, and capturing them while having them forget as much as possible that you are shooting, is one way to get natural feeling performances. Combine that with the ability to move fast without having to mess around with a bunch of lenses means you are really shooting freely. The other thing is the well-known paradox: with limitations, comes freedom... that's the whole idea behind dogma films. You make a set of rules, and you have to shoot your movie within those limitations. That can really spark creativity and also result in a much more original look - because you can't fall back on the same old tried and true tropes all filmmakers use and that we've seen a billion times with ordinary cameras... the iPhone puts limitations on you, and playing within these limits allows you to come up with solutions and a look you might not have ever thought of if you shot on a f.ex. GH2... in fact, perhaps had they shot on a GH2, it would have been a much more boring looking - or at least a much more conventional looking film.

A big strength of this movie was its look and unconventionality. A bigger budget and more conventional equipment may have just resulted in a more conventional, less interesting movie. Sometimes less is more.
 
OldCorpse said:
My suspicion: not much better, but very possibly much worse... let me explain... One huge advantage of the iPhone - a non-technical one - is that it's inconspicuous; that makes people act more naturally and is also faster to operate. When you're dealing with amateur actors - and these were non-actors - putting them at ease, and capturing them while having them forget as much as possible that you are shooting, is one way to get natural feeling performances. Combine that with the ability to move fast without having to mess around with a bunch of lenses means you are really shooting freely. The other thing is the well-known paradox: with limitations, comes freedom... that's the whole idea behind dogma films. You make a set of rules, and you have to shoot your movie within those limitations. That can really spark creativity and also result in a much more original look - because you can't fall back on the same old tried and true tropes all filmmakers use and that we've seen a billion times with ordinary cameras... the iPhone puts limitations on you, and playing within these limits allows you to come up with solutions and a look you might not have ever thought of if you shot on a f.ex. GH2... in fact, perhaps had they shot on a GH2, it would have been a much more boring looking - or at least a much more conventional looking film.

A big strength of this movie was its look and unconventionality. A bigger budget and more conventional equipment may have just resulted in a more conventional, less interesting movie. Sometimes less is more.
Click to expand...

Doesnt matter how inconspicuous an iPhone is, when you have got a fully equipped sound team doing their job, as on this film (the sound is excellent, you will notice), there isn't a person in the world who can't see it's a film set. For info they often used up to 3 iphones at a time as well. This was purely for economical reasons. The director deemed it "good enough" and preferred to put his budget into other things. The resulting look is a side benefit, but fully embraced nonetheless.

I think the film is extremely well done. It definitely has a soul. It's a fun ride and an excellent example of exploiting to the max the means you have at your disposal.
 
Last edited:
I agree: It's a good film. Worth watching to the end (and as Kyle says, the ending makes up for the bit of the lull beforehand). BTW- Location audio was recorded by Irin Strauss without a boom op or third...he mixed & boomed & wired everything/everyone himself. But he's been around for a while and worked with top-notch kit (Schoeps, Lectrosonics, Sanken, Sound Devices). Here's a short promotional article on his work that has some interesting tidbits:

http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/indie_film_tangerines_depends_on_sound_devices/av

And of course, the post team did a good job too.
 
I finished watching it, still only luke warm on the story. Still thinking its big claim to fame is shot on iphones with 1.33 anamorphic adapters.

Bunch of jump cuts when the mother is in the cab. Bunch of shaky handheld where I think some sort of support should have been used.

Still wondering if it would be this famous if it had been shot on a Canon cinema, or GH2, or anything more mainstream. Gritty and dirty, could have been shot on almost anything.
 
I hear you... Though I think the idea of using transgender people to play transgender people also has something to do with the film's popularity.

And Tangerine is much closer to actual ultra low-budget work than that Bentley "shot on iPhone" advert a couple years ago. Good looking spot, but lots of kit, crew, craft, and budget. Remember?

Promotional BTS article:
http://www.filmicpro.com/documentary/bentley-motors-nyc-commercial/

The spot (which is also embedded in the above article):
 
Last edited:
Jim Feeley said:
I hear you... Though I think the idea of using transgender people to play transgender people also has something to do with the film's popularity.

And Tangerine is much closer to actual ultra low-budget work than that Bentley advert a couple years ago. Good looking spot, but lots of kit, crew, craft, and budget. Remember?
Click to expand...


Yes, I think transgender, given the topicality of the subject, would be the draw, whether shot on iPhones or anything else. "Dallas Buyer's Club"(2013) was shot on an Alexa, and has a gritty look. But it is still pretty clean.

I applaud anyone who gets a film out... however... although I can also say some films are hard to watch due to the technical choices or lack of 'proper' equipment, but trying to do an effect (like steady cam with no steadying equipment...).

There are also some subjects that some set of people 'don't like', and such films probably won't be seen in the Metroplex all that frequently. But the democratization of filmmaking is in progress.
 
Yes, I too applaud anyone that can write, produce, shoot, edit, and deliver their own feature. The story certainly has some thought behind it (which is more than some Hollywood blockbusters). The technological innovation that they chose is still pretty impressive, they got that out of a phone. I do wish they had made more use of even a monopod for a lot of the shots, a gimbal might have been even better for some of the walking shots. But in the end, they took on a monumental task... and completed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top