Reuters is carrying a story about a South African filmmaker who shot a movie entirely using cell phones. The “radically low budget” was set at $160,000, and it is being proclaimed as an incredible achievement.
But is it?
I mean, surely $160,000 would be better spent on actual cameras? Is it not more likely that the whole thing was done as some sort of gimmick?
I don’t mean to sound like a pessimist, it’s just I can’t for the life of me see how it has any benefits doing it that way. He talks about being able to film non-stop, and yet, every cellphone I’ve used stops recording after about 3 minutes, and there’s only so much you can record onto a memory card, certainly less than an hour offered by video tapes. For a camera phone with a decent lens, it’ll cost more than hiring even the most basic video camera, and the frame rate is something like 12 or 15 frames per second. Even if you forget about the spatial or chromatic quality, what’s the plus side to all this? Apart from maybe an endorsement from Nokia*?
Anyway, I propose some ideas as to how the budget may have been spent:
1) Champagne (every night, as they laugh at the rest of the world for being suckers)
2) Bribing Reuters into running the story.
3) Regular laser eye surgery, needed to combat the effects of squinting at a small display.
4) Endless takes, because people’s phones keep ringing during the shoot.
5) Phone calls…
*note, digitalintermediates.org is not affiliated with Nokia in any way… We just like their phones.
Read more »
Posted: February 2nd, 2006
Categories:
News
Tags:
Comments:
No comments