Trailer for Sundance favorite, TANGERINE, shot on iPhone 5s

refocusedmedia

refocusedmedia

Veteran
Along with the Moondog Labs $160 anamorphic adapter. What do you guys think of the cinematography in the trailer? This is the first footage released since the media blitz out of Sundance about this film and it being shot on an iPhone. It's not the first to do so, but it might be the first feature-length film to do so, and certainly the most talked about up to this point.

It's a red-band trailer btw:


Some interviews with the filmmakers if you're interested:

http://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/indie-hit-tangerine-shot-iphone/
http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/sean-baker-mya-taylor-tangerine-sundance-2015
http://variety.com/video/sundance-sean-baker-on-filming-tangerine-and-making-the-most-of-an-iphone/
 
Last edited:
That's awesome. Like the filmmakers, I also live nearby that area, like 10 minutes away, and I often have coffee in the starbucks kitty-corner across the donut shop :)... love seeing all those locations. The thing about the iPhone is so true regarding the discrete aspect of it... small cameras and inconspicuous is where it's at when it come to this kind of low budget guerilla filmmaking, and these guys did an amazing job. Thanks for posting this, refocusedmedia!
 
That's such a nice breath of fresh air.... I love when competent people take something simple and turn it useful. You can have all sorts of pretentious film theory ideas of this being bad, but I honestly think it's well achieved and makes the iPhone look like a damn good tool. Also nice to see that the old statement that sound is 50% of the movie is still valid.
 
It's very nicely done. They have a great editor and having a good sound person on set make all the difference.
 
All true, wrt. sound, editing etc.; what I found intriguing, is that they were able to shoot relatively unmolested, because using the iPhone and skeletal crew, the public didn't even realize they were shooting most of the time - read the interviews with the director... I love the idea of keeping things so minimalistic that nobody even knows you're shooting. I wish they talked about how they got the sound so good - was it all lavs? Because the moment you appear with a boom, the jig is up and people realize you are shooting footage. Regardless, the production sound is really good!
 
hey so, i'm "Facebook friends" with the director and just asked him. he said sound was actually their biggest footprint and was done conventionally -- lavs on everyone, a boom when they could use it, etc.
 
Thank you Zak for getting the lowdown on sound. Amazing. It sounds so good, I thought a boom must have been involved at some point, but then, you are more visible... looks like they decided it was a price worth paying. And they were right 100% - because sound really is at least 50% of the experience. Bravo! These are some sharp folks! Can't wait to see the whole film.
 
I think this has pretty much been answered, but I'll ask just for clarification. . .was it all available light? As others have said, cam doesn't matter as much as composition, color, lighting, etc. Did they time their shooting around when places were lit well naturally?
 
i watched it on netflix. the iphone definitely gave it more of a documentary vibe. i think it added to the believability of the story more so than an expensive camera would have.
 
It has an air of reality type TV show to it that I have never been a fan of, but that's just me. Overall it looks well done.

But heres the deal...... We have gotten to the point where it really doesn't matter which camera was used. I have grown so tired of posts like "Camera X used to shoot music video" or "Camera Y used to shoot feature", when the only people who care which camera was used are pixel peeping camera geeks. No offense to users of this site. Seriously though, just pick the right camera for the job at hand and go shoot. I have also seen a bunch of derogatory posts toward smart phone users. I'm not going to call anybody out on this, but come on. 2016 is here and even the cheap hobby tools have gotten really really good. We now have audio interfaces for smart phones to record good quality audio, as well as add-on lenses for shooting very nice 4K video. Sure it's not the same as shooting with an Alexa and a 788T. But if you know your craft, you can get very very close. And that's the whole point about me spewing my dribble here. It's no longer about the camera, it's all about the craft!

All the best!

Dave
 
The biggest problem i see is that no one knows ANYTHING about the film other then "it was shot on iphone." Thus i suspect it's one of those desperate cries for help (that worked this time around) of a filmmaker who was at this for quite some time without much success and then simply decided to buy into pop culture phenomenon (everyone has or knows what iphone is) under the veneer of doing something outside of the box (using very consumer camera). On one hand i can't blame the guy. On the other when we were young there was thing thing called "selling out" and i just wonder how this label (that doesn't exits for current generation of high schoolers, by the way) will be redefined in the world where it's not only ok to do so but is actively supported by both commercial and intellectual/art generation.
 
Using iphones they were able to be a little more stealthy than if they were using a more conspicuous rig. IPhone certainly don't raise any red flags going thru customs and we'll see more films both narrative and docs shot this way for better or worse. In an age when reality hacks are role models and sexting is all to common is it really surprising that paying ones dues or selling out have no meaning. Now get off my lawn!!! :furious3:
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Thus i suspect it's one of those desperate cries for help (that worked this time around) of a filmmaker who was at this for quite some time without much success and then simply decided to buy into pop culture phenomenon (everyone has or knows what iphone is) under the veneer of doing something outside of the box (using very consumer camera). On one hand i can't blame the guy. On the other when we were young there was thing thing called "selling out"
Click to expand...

i never thought i'd see the day when one filmmaker accuses another filmmaker of being a sellout because he shot his movie with a phone.
 
ugafan said:
i never thought i'd see the day when one filmmaker accuses another filmmaker of being a sellout because he shot his movie with a phone.
Click to expand...
Not what it was shot on - but rather using the name recognition of the device to promote your production. It's one of many in the line of "first production shot with [insert the new cool device]" where the only thing worth mentioning about the production is that label.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
The biggest problem i see is that no one knows ANYTHING about the film other then "it was shot on iphone." Thus i suspect it's one of those desperate cries for help (that worked this time around) of a filmmaker who was at this for quite some time without much success and then simply decided to buy into pop culture phenomenon (everyone has or knows what iphone is) under the veneer of doing something outside of the box (using very consumer camera). On one hand i can't blame the guy. On the other when we were young there was thing thing called "selling out" and i just wonder how this label (that doesn't exits for current generation of high schoolers, by the way) will be redefined in the world where it's not only ok to do so but is actively supported by both commercial and intellectual/art generation.
Click to expand...

What a load of stupid crap. Are you accusing the filmmakers of having made a bad film? Yes or no? Did you see it? No? So why are you shooting your mouth off about how what it was shot on must be a desperate cry for help? Why can't it be that it is BOTH a good film AND was smartly marketed, AND happened to be shot on an iPhone. And 2 minutes of googling would have clued you in to the fact that you are FULL OF CRAP. Because the quality of the film was evidenced by the fact that it has a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, where the CRITICAL CONSENSUS was about the artistic merits of the film, not just the fact that it was shot in an iPhone. More on critical reception here - all positive. It also won awards - including audience award - see the list here. And unlike so many hyped films made by indies, this one actually got distribution by a respectable distributor and not some unknown - Magnolia Pictures - that doesn't happen unless you reach a certain threshold of quality (not just that it was shot on an iPhone) . And say what you may, it actually got into Sundance - which I assure you, most indies do not, and again it speaks to some quality - and no, it was not admitted because it was shot on an iPhone. It doesn't take long to find all this info.

So before you proclaim that the ONLY merit of this film is that they managed to get publicity because it was shot on an iPhone - do some research... and I assure you, that tons of films get made on iPhones as a matter of fact, there are festivals devoted to films made on iPhones - iPhone Film Festival - getting a film shot on an iPhone is so common, that whole festivals are devoted to it. So your entire premise that the sole claim to fame of this film is that it was shot on an iPhone - is simply stupid and does not match the facts... you are out of touch with what's happening out there.

You know nothing about the quality of the film, something that you can easily find out - yet you are eager to WRONGLY ascribe the source of success of this movie as springing from being shot on an iPhone. But you sure are happy to accuse the filmmakers of selling out - knowing NOTHING about them or the film. Shame on you. This makes you look petty and bitter - and not very smart.
 
OldCorpse said:
What a load of stupid crap. Are you accusing the filmmakers of having made a bad film? Yes or no? Did you see it? No? So why are you shooting your mouth off about how what it was shot on must be a desperate cry for help? Why can't it be that it is BOTH a good film AND was smartly marketed, AND happened to be shot on an iPhone. And 2 minutes of googling would have clued you in to the fact that you are FULL OF CRAP. Because the quality of the film was evidenced by the fact that it has a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, where the CRITICAL CONSENSUS was about the artistic merits of the film, not just the fact that it was shot in an iPhone. More on critical reception here - all positive. It also won awards - including audience award - see the list here. And unlike so many hyped films made by indies, this one actually got distribution by a respectable distributor and not some unknown - Magnolia Pictures - that doesn't happen unless you reach a certain threshold of quality (not just that it was shot on an iPhone) . And say what you may, it actually got into Sundance - which I assure you, most indies do not, and again it speaks to some quality - and no, it was not admitted because it was shot on an iPhone. It doesn't take long to find all this info.

So before you proclaim that the ONLY merit of this film is that they managed to get publicity because it was shot on an iPhone - do some research... and I assure you, that tons of films get made on iPhones as a matter of fact, there are festivals devoted to films made on iPhones - iPhone Film Festival - getting a film shot on an iPhone is so common, that whole festivals are devoted to it. So your entire premise that the sole claim to fame of this film is that it was shot on an iPhone - is simply stupid and does not match the facts... you are out of touch with what's happening out there.

You know nothing about the quality of the film, something that you can easily find out - yet you are eager to WRONGLY ascribe the source of success of this movie as springing from being shot on an iPhone. But you sure are happy to accuse the filmmakers of selling out - knowing NOTHING about them or the film. Shame on you. This makes you look petty and bitter - and not very smart.
Click to expand...

Seriously bro, the film is on Netflix. Look around how easy it is to see it before accusing people that they don't do research.
As for your other points:
1. in case you weren't aware of it, serious film criticism is in decline. Your have new critics who basically ponder to the masses and old timers who scratch their heads wondering what the F is going on. So bringing up that it has 98% on RT is a bit meh... I mean, just look at the quality of the quotes in your link.
2. In case you didn't register it yet, audience awards and critic awards usually had nothing to do with one another. Audiences wanted "heart warming," "fun" and "delightful" films [i'm using examples from your critical responses] that tick their emotions while critics USED to want something that goes much further then "filmmaking techniques [that] are up-to-the-minute". The up-to-the minute technique wouldn't even register in the past as it was simply reflection of what's is ALREADY going on. So either the film deserves critical accolades because it indeed breaks the mold or something peculiar is happening where the critical response is doing something unthinkable and it's simply reflecting the mass tastes.

Which brings me back to my point, if serious criticism is in decline and more and more of it tries to match the preferences of the masses, who will stand up for the future of serious filmmaking? Are we doomed to talk about stuff because of what it was shot on (or other Blair Witch-esque marketing gimmicks)?
 
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Seriously bro, the film is on Netflix. Look around how easy it is to see it before accusing people that they don't do research.
As for your other points:
1. in case you weren't aware of it, serious film criticism is in decline. Your have new critics who basically ponder to the masses and old timers who scratch their heads wondering what the F is going on. So bringing up that it has 98% on RT is a bit meh... I mean, just look at the quality of the quotes in your link.
2. In case you didn't register it yet, audience awards and critic awards usually had nothing to do with one another. Audiences wanted "heart warming," "fun" and "delightful" films [i'm using examples from your critical responses] that tick their emotions while critics USED to want something that goes much further then "filmmaking techniques [that] are up-to-the-minute". The up-to-the minute technique wouldn't even register in the past as it was simply reflection of what's is ALREADY going on. So either the film deserves critical accolades because it indeed breaks the mold or something peculiar is happening where the critical response is doing something unthinkable and it's simply reflecting the mass tastes.

Which brings me back to my point, if serious criticism is in decline and more and more of it tries to match the preferences of the masses, who will stand up for the future of serious filmmaking? Are we doomed to talk about stuff because of what it was shot on (or other Blair Witch-esque marketing gimmicks)?
Click to expand...

So. Audience awards don't count, because audiences are stupid and only like "heartwarming" and "fun" films. And critics don't count, because even if the film scores 98% of critical approval, critics are stupid nowadays, so they don't count. I wonder, if audiences and critics don't count - who does? Critics from the past, especially the dead ones, because critics alive today are very bad? Or maybe only Patryk Rebisz opinion counts? So because critics and audiences like this movie, it means there is no one else left to "stand up for the future of serious filmmaking" (except for Patryk Rebisz, of course)? So I guess no matter how well-known the critic or venue, they're all worthless? Because Tangerine got top nods of top publications, whether for the broader public - Manohla Dargis of the New York Times - or industry - Variety and Chief Film Critic Justin Chang. For that matter, it made the Rolling Stones Best 25 Films of 2015. I mean, maybe all the critics and all the audiences are stupid and for some reason they were all deceived by the iPhone, but how did the film get into the BEST 25 films of 2015... in the company of such movies as Mad Max: Fury Road, because that movie was not shot on an iPhone.

Of course, the very premise of your attack is fundamentally wrong - you think that somehow the film only is called good, because it was shot on an iPhone... forgetting that this is not 2010 when shooting a film on an iPhone was maybe a novelty. Today, shooting a film on an iPhone has zero novelty value - as I pointed out, there are whole festivals devoted to iPhone films - so common is it and so many are there. If all it took to gain fame and critical praise in 2015 was to shoot on an iPhone, why don't all those dozens and dozens of movies shot on iPhones every year similarly successful? That tells us, that your diagnosis of the issue is SH|T. You don't have a clue.

It's pathetic that a film made on so little money you somehow managed to call a sellout by the filmmakers! As if here we have filmmakers who sold their principles and their souls for a big budget and big money... which is the exact opposite. As if they used the iPhone for a gimmick - forgetting all the others who also used iPhones... but it doesn't occur to you that maybe the filmmakers used the iPhone not because they "sold out", or wanted a "gimmick", but because they had NO BUDGET for an Alexa, and also because they could accomplish stylistically things with an iPhone they would not be able to with a big camera and big crew and big budget. Wow, your knowledge of film history is very, very poor - because you cannot even make connections between examples from the past... as in: Cinema Verite - was both a stylistic choice and of necessity - I guess to you, it would be a "gimmick" if you lived in those times. Or the New Wave, which employed much cheaper gear for both artistic and practical reasons. Such lack of perspective. The iPhone in this case was an artistic and practical choice to achieve effects that you couldn't with different means - just as it was in the past history of cinema. It fit the style of the movie - and that's what matters. It was not a gimmick and not "selling out".

But whatever, hold to whatever opinion you want, since clearly, all the critics and all the audiences are idiots in your opinion. Best of luck with that attitude.
 
haha, are you complaining that the quality of film criticism is in decline while simultaneously criticizing a movie you haven't seen? :D

this isn't the filmmaker's first rodeo. sean baker had a lot of success with Starlet a few years ago too -- winning awards at sxsw, indie spirit and locarno. he'd already earned our attention before making tangerine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top