Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tangerine

Options
  • 16-11-2015 11:45am
    #1
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭




    So here we have an American independent comedy-drama, shot entirely on iPhones, about transgender characters, and whose closest point of reference is probably the two Crank films. Safe to say this is a little different than your usual fare...

    Directed by Sean Baker, the film is set in downtown Hollywood on Christmas Even and primarily focuses on two transwomen sex workers - Sin-Dee (Kitana Kiki Rodriguez) and Alexandra (Mya Taylor), the former of whom has just been released from a short stint in jail. An offhand comment leads Sin-Dee (Sin-Dee Rella, geddit?) to go look for her boyfriend, who has apparently been cheating on her. Meanwhile, an initially separate story about Algerian taxi driver Razmik (Karren Karagulian) ends up colliding with the other characters in a few surprising ways (but not in that 'everything is connected' sort of way, because **** that noise).

    Initially I was concerned the film was walking a thin line between laughing at the characters and laughing with them, but as it goes on it emerges as a supremely confident and ultimately hugely affectionate piece of work. The situations and characters are often outlandish and the whole thing has a manic intensity about it (hence the Crank comparisons - it has that same total restlessness and casual bawdiness). But Baker has an absolute respect for his characters that shines through, and the emotional throughline here is startlingly strong. Indeed, showing sex workers and buyers, drug addicts and dealers as thoroughly human individuals is an all too rare thing within cinema. These are troubled people (although Baker hints at rather than starkly emphasising it), but very likeable too, and that's particularly evident in its quietly beautiful final ten minutes and pitch-perfect closing shot.

    The decision to shoot the film using a camera not ostensibly designed for cinematic exhibition - albeit with an adjustable anamorphic lens attached - is a perfect one for the material. The lightweight iPhone is ideal for capturing a jittery intensity that helps enhance what is often a manically paced film, while proving a capable device for unobtrusively - and almost documentary-like at times - portraying the mood and landmarks of the Hollywood streets the film is shot on. A wisely hypersaturated colour palette starkly adds to the effect. As good an example of considered, appropriate camera choice as you'll find. The artfully frantic editing and smartly confrontational soundtrack really help, too.

    Tangerine is ultimately the sort of film that, with a even just a little less care, could have emerged as a far weaker film than it is. But the material and form is handled with such confidence here it instead feels like one of the freshest, most successful independent American films of recent years, and totally its own thing. It's out in cinemas at the moment, and as you can probably guess I'd very much recommend it :)

    Oh, forgot to mention it's funny. Very funny!


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭MakeEmLaugh


    An interesting and insightful look into lifestyles of which most will have little experience. The fact that it was (allegedly) shot on iPhone 5s is all the more impressive – maybe even a little hard to believe.

    For all the constant string of profanity, drug use, lewd sex acts and references, the final scene in the laundrette was surprisingly tender.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,019 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    For a film with as many hysterically funny moments as this (
    my favourite bit being the exchange when Ramzik has inadvertently picked up a cis female hooker, leading to the exchange "What the f*ck is this?" "It's a pussy."
    , it managed to treat all the characters involved as individuals rather than stereotypes. There isn't even an antagonist, really, and the film is all the better for it. Even Dinah, arguably the closest to an antagonist the film has for most of its runtime, is clearly presented as more of a victim than anything else, one who seemingly doesn't even have a friendship to rely on like Sin-dee and Alexandra do.

    I think my favourite comment about it was on the poster, with some reviewer having described it as "the transgender revenge comedy of the year". They weren't wrong :)


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,019 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    An interesting and insightful look into lifestyles of which most will have little experience. The fact that it was (allegedly) shot on iPhone 5s is all the more impressive – maybe even a little hard to believe.

    If you have the right knowledge and software, you can get surprisingly professional results out of modest equipment like a mid-to-high-range smartphone camera.

    Bear in mind that the production used Final Cut Pro for assembling the footage, managing scene transitions etc, and they also used Davinci Resolve for colour correction (both are widely-used and pretty standard software packages for these kind of tasks). The iPhone 5s they used were used as cameras, with a custom anamorphic lens and a commercial video recording app that allowed greater control over the camera settings. So the end result would naturally be a far cry from some of the "straight from the phone to your screen" stuff you see sometimes on Youtube.


  • Registered Users, Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,335 Mod ✭✭✭✭yerwanthere123


    Wasn't as taken by the film as most seemed to be. It was basically just a chaotic day in the lives of two prostitutes and I would have liked more of a resolution at the end. It did have some funny moments, particularly (
    when she's giving the guy the hand-job on the car and he says "come on, you know you want it" to which she replies "you see right through me don't you?!".
    Otherwise though, I thought it was only ok.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Fysh wrote: »
    If you have the right knowledge and software, you can get surprisingly professional results out of modest equipment like a mid-to-high-range smartphone camera.

    Bear in mind that the production used Final Cut Pro for assembling the footage, managing scene transitions etc, and they also used Davinci Resolve for colour correction (both are widely-used and pretty standard software packages for these kind of tasks). The iPhone 5s they used were used as cameras, with a custom anamorphic lens and a commercial video recording app that allowed greater control over the camera settings. So the end result would naturally be a far cry from some of the "straight from the phone to your screen" stuff you see sometimes on Youtube.

    Haven't seen it but the "shot with an iphone" thing seems like a smart way of getting attention.
    I know the reason being given is that it made the subjects act more naturally as it wasn't a big camera but IMO don't believe it.
    It was attached to a steadicam rig and had a custom lens so it wouldn't be perceived the same way as a friend shooting handheld phone video anyway.
    Since that was the case why weren't they using a dSLR which would have a similar rig and give "better" results unless the whole point was for it to be a promotional gimmick.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    I think the director has tried to play down the iPhone thing, which I believe wasn’t revealed until after the film's premiere at Sundance. He says his next film will be shot on 35mm and shooting this on iPhones was purely a cost thing. I suppose he could have shot it on DSLRs as well but the anamorphic adapters and lens might have been more expensive and I think the anamorphic look was probably the crucial thing that made this look filmic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    I love what a blessing in disguise the iPhones were to this film's success. The swift, light motion of the camera movements and the unique angles really added to the sense of living in a space with people we've rarely seen on screen before (other than being the butt of a joke).

    I can't help but think that this film's humor, authenticity and energy will be so much more positive than the award baiting stuffiness of something like The Danish Girl, which I've yet to see to be fair.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,019 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    On the "filmed on an iPhone" front, the first I read about it was in Sight & Sound's feature when the film was released, so it's not like the marketing for the film was built around it or anything. And as I've mentioned above, there has never been any claim of it being straight from phone to screen. From what I've read, the main thing that the iPhones facilitated was a minimum overhead filming setup, which I imagine was particularly helpful on the bus scenes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,020 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    e_e wrote: »

    I can't help but think that this film's humor, authenticity and energy will be so much more positive than the award baiting stuffiness of something like The Danish Girl, which I've yet to see to be fair.

    I watched it soon after Bridge Of Spies and I see your point. Bridge Of Spies had everything ticked, top director, slick, top notch cast, worthy etc, but Tangerine had so much more life, energy, fun and felt so much more fresher in comparison. That might sound snobby, but I really aren't, love a big budget blockbuster as much as anyone.

    Only found the other day that was Ziggy from the wire as the pimp, astonished I missed that first time around as I was such a massive fan of it back in the day.:o


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I watched Baker's previous film Starlet the other night on Netflix. Well worth a watch if you dug this. It's quite a different film in a few ways. Despite the fact it's quite unusually shot on a mid-tier digital camera, it's undoubtedly a more traditionally stylised film - some of the compositions are beautiful, but more obviously 'framed' than anything here. It also feels more traditional in terms of storytelling - it's less unusually paced, more conventionally structured than anything here. That means it's not always as impressive as its follow-up, but it works great on its own terms.

    But at the very same time it displays a lot of the same great stuff as Tangerine. He really has a peculiar talent for telling human stories with the sorts of characters either under-represented or crudely represented in American cinema. In Starlet's case it focuses on the relationship between a young woman and a much older one - and Baker explores their characters with an uncommon affection and humanity. It, like Tangerine, is also a brilliant 'LA' film - unromantic but warm nonetheless. He's also a wonderful conjurer of moods - Starlet has the type of dreamy atmosphere I'd associate with vintage Sophia Coppola at times. And a few familiar faces from Tangerine pop up too.

    I was surprised to discover he has a few more features complete already, so definitely going to endeavour to track them down.

    A brief aside: I turned on Starlet the other night when I stumbled across it without reading the blurb. I paused it for dinner at one point, and when I came back I noticed an unusual 'explicit content' warning in the Netflix blurb. Which was really strange as up until that point there had been nothing remotely explicit beyond a couple of curse words. Within the next 15 minutes, however, I found out what they meant in a not unexpected (it had been well teased beforehand) but still cleverly played sequence that probably did justify that warning :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    e_e wrote: »
    I love what a blessing in disguise the iPhones were to this film's success. The swift, light motion of the camera movements and the unique angles really added to the sense of living in a space with people we've rarely seen on screen before (other than being the butt of a joke).

    You see this is the is the talk about "shot on phone" thing that annoys me, though fair enough as others have pointed out it wasn't part of the initial promotion of the film.

    Its shot with a steadicam for smart phone so its this.

    http://www.tiffen.com/userimages2/Steadicam/iPhone5_Back_up_72.jpg

    A dSLR like the Nikon D90 (which has been used for films before) is only going to be a maybe two pounds heavier, which since your using a weighted steadicam anyway isn't going to make a huge difference.
    I've not used a steadicam myself but I know from 'normal' photography a camera with a bit of heft in it is actually far easier to use than a phone camera which is too light, compare handheld footage of a smart phone vs an SLR (with battery grip), it will still have all the swiftness of movement with far less of the shake.
    These aren't the big film camera's of yester year and on the flipside the iphone with steadicam, audio pickups and presumably various video outs for shot framing etc is going to be a very difference experience to having a friend shoot a quick video of you anyway.

    I'm sorry if this seems pedantic I'd be very curious to hear what somebody with experience of shooting video both these ways feels.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    How much does a D90 cost, keeping in mind they shot the film with multiple iPhones? And what about the lenses? DSLR lenses aren’t cheap. And I’m pretty sure you are talkin’ at least a thousand for a DSLR anamorphic adapter, which as I said before gives the film a very cinematic look. And it's going to add weight.

    If the director didn’t already have access to these things he probably felt that money was better spent elsewhere, like on the sound. iPhone cameras are pretty impressive for the price and i’m guessing he and his crew already had the iPhones or borrowed them from friends. And the anamorphic lens adapter they used only costs a couple of hundred. The film was made for 100k. Every penny counts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    How much does a D90 cost, keeping in mind they shot the film with multiple iPhones? And what about the lenses? DSLR lenses aren’t cheap. And I’m pretty sure you are talkin’ at least a thousand for a DSLR anamorphic adapter, which as I said before gives the film a very cinematic look. And it's going to add weight.

    If the director didn’t already have access to these things he probably felt that money was better spent elsewhere, like on the sound. iPhone cameras are pretty impressive for the price and i’m guessing he and his crew already had the iPhones or borrowed them from friends. And the anamorphic lens adapter they used only costs a couple of hundred. The film was made for 100k. Every penny counts.

    I now get the usage of the usage of the phones because they could get the lenses for a cheaper price* , I'm just pointing out (and I could be wrong I've no experience with this type of things) that the non cost advantages in terms of shooting style, informality and flexibility apply equally too using dSLR rigs (which is why budget film makes have been using them for the last number of years).
    Take a look at this it has all the unique camera angles etc (its not the best shot)
    https://vimeo.com/42252615
    This short here is a nice example of how they can very much feel cinematic
    https://vimeo.com/52401060
    (note AFAIK the comment about weight is referencing the weight of holding lense to the body and isn't using a steadicam yet)

    Both of those are examples of completely amateur setups rather than professionals/semi-professionals involved in Tangerine.

    I do intend to watch the film and I'm not hating on it, for no reason I'm just exploring the gushing over the way it was shot when other films have been using similar tech (would love if somebody involved in the industry could comment)

    * Thinking about it and the budget I would say that its likely they went with this set up unlike the various hacks or combinations involved in the shorts I linked too because it offers multiple redundancy at a cheap price.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    I still haven't gotten around to seeing this, but Mya Taylor won best supporting female at the Independent Spirit awards:



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Really sticking it to the conservatism and myopia of the Oscars there. Excellent and deserving winner.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,020 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Links234 wrote: »
    I still haven't gotten around to seeing this, but Mya Taylor won best supporting female at the Independent Spirit awards:


    You really should, Netflix USA and America have it, and its not even 90 minutes long. I was really pleased about the award Saturday night, hopefully its the final push my friends who I have pestered for so long will need to watch it. :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,484 ✭✭✭Chain Smoker


    Not only is it short, it's edited in such a way that the film flies by at a furious pace.


    Sean Baker's almost certainly opened up a whole world of opportunities to himself here, the film's funny in a way that shows he could do very well with a HBO/Netflix comedy series, the editing and pacing and general chaotic nature of the whole thing could make him well worth a punt at a blockbuster.


Advertisement