Steven Soderbergh: Are iPhone-shot Films A Gimmick?

Steven Soderbergh: Are iPhone-shot Films a Gimmick?

Steven Soderbergh’s 2nd iPhone-shot feature film was released yesterday on Netflix. Amongst the filmmaking community, there is a still a division between those who believe shooting on a smartphone is a misguided gimmick and those who see it as a bold step forward in the ongoing democratisation of film.

Those who hate the idea argue that, although they might just be able to understand using one if you have absolutely no budget, someone of Soderbergh’s stature in the industry doesn’t have that problem, so what the hell is he doing? They just cannot comprehend why anyone would choose to use what they see as a poor quality camera unless you were really desperate.

My belief is that these filmmakers are often technicians who have never had to persuade film funders to give them money to fulfill a creative idea. Either that, or directors/producers who have never had to either. Filmmakers who perhaps are happy to be paid to play with their equipment, but are not too bothered what it’s pointing at.

To state the argument for the use of iPhones (or smartphones) as a creative choice for Soderbergh, it might be worth pointing out that just before he quit as a feature film director he was fired from Moneyball for wanting to change the script too much.

So, should we really be surprised if Steven Soderbergh has since been looking for ways to make films without being told what he can and can’t do?

Yeah, but he made Unsane with $1.3m and High Flying Bird cost $2m. With that money he could have got a better camera.

Yes, I hear this statement a lot. I think I even said it once. But then I thought some more about it and realised…

Moneyball had a budget of $50m.

And when a director – even someone well known as Soderbergh – is “given” $50m to make a movie they can be more easily fired if they appear to be taking too many risks. I’m sure Soderbergh doesn’t need the cash, but what he probably would like is to work on a project and not have the threat of being dumped from it at any point. Time he spent on Moneyball is time he’ll never get back, kinda thing.

So, shooting with a smartphone means Soderbergh can shoot a film for 1/50th of the cost. Investors know with Soderbergh at the helm, they will almost certainly make that back – no matter what creative risks he takes. In other words, with a budget of $50m Soderbergh is creating under the microscope, his every move watched. With $2m, I’m sure funders are much more relaxed.

Yes, but there’s still plenty of budget cameras he could use. A decent DSLR for example.

I know, but these cameras are just not quite as easy to use. They are simply not as fun to play with. They require a little bit more technical expertise, a few more crew, a bit more equipment. And as anyone who loves browsing the web for kit knows – that is one hell of a slippery slope.

“If we just had a slightly better DSLR… or maybe those prime lenses… and just a couple of extra lights… then we need a couple more crew… then, heck, we may as well have an Arri… and then some more lights…”

You have to understand that every piece of equipment you add, every light, every track, every lens means (even in smartphone filmmaking) you are adding the time needed to deal with all this stuff. In film, time absolutely = money. Every day spent filming has a cost – the cost of all the cast, crew and kit hire for that day.

So not only are you adding the cost of the kit hire, you are adding the cost of the time it takes to use this kit. If you are working out your budget by simply adding up the cost of kit hire without factoring in the cost of the time and crew to deal with the kit, you’re not doing it right.

I had this same decision to make when I made my feature film. At the time (2009) DSLRs were on the horizon. I certainly could have afforded one, if I wanted to. But I think I knew that once I started to think that way, I would always feel like I didn’t have the best kit… and… why not just one more piece of kit?

I chose a £600 consumer camcorder because I read a lot about how great this camcorder was. Plus I knew then my mind would be set – there is no way this film can be about the kit. I don’t have any. It’s a goddamn camcorder. And that means… I’m free. I’m free of that bullshit about equipment and now I can simply focus on the film… the story.

You see, it’s about unblocking yourself creatively. And creativity is not a mechanical process where simple facts are employed to achieve the best results. What happened to emotions? What happened to feeling the creative process?

In our tech-obsessed age, it seems some people cannot get over the idea a creative person might choose not to use technology that’s available because we simply don’t like using it – and we don’t care about the damn specs.

2K… 4K… 120K… I don’t give crap. Does the film move me? Is the story getting to the core of what it means to be human? Is that our future – to be judged on technical specs?

“Sorry mate, you can’t come in. You’re only rendered in 1080p”.

“But I’m human.”

“Sorry, you don’t count to us unless you’re 4K.”

(note to self: idea for future episode)

There is some irony of course. The advance of smartphone camera technology has liberated us from… technology. Well, yes. Because to me that’s the good kind of tech. The stuff that actually improves your life – that actually makes what you want to create. That’s what liberation feels like.

But quite often, technology has the opposite effect. We are drawn to the sparkly, tantalizing numbers in the specs list. Before we know it, we can’t think of anything else but specs and technical stuff. We start to believe the technical stuff is why we are doing this. We live with the dream of one day acquiring that sexy piece of kit which is just out of reach – as if that is some kind of meaning of life. The kit manufacturers have got us hooked.

And we have lost sight of why we got involved in film in the first place – the magic of cinema.

Picture wrap on HIGH FLYING BIRD at 1:09pm. First cut complete at 3:41pm. pic.twitter.com/GXIEZICHYg

— Bitchuation (@Bitchuation) March 15, 2018

Some of the greatest cinema ever made was made with some of the most basic kit. Because in the early days of cinema, there wasn’t much choice. And what did this mean? it meant those filmmakers had to use their creative wits to tell a great story.

So I say this – smartphone filmmaking is not a gimmick. In fact, it is the opposite. Bokeh, lens flares, shallow depth of field, 4K or 8K, 3D, bitrates, LUTs, lenses, filters, drone shots, dolly shots and all the other stuff… those are the gimmicks. Is your story better because of the Bokeh behind the main actor’s head? Is it a trick to fall back on so we can kid ourselves we made a great film, when actually we just made some great Bokeh?

When I was a songwriter, the saying went, “Sing it just you and an acoustic guitar and if it still sounds good, you know you have a good song.” Because with all the reverbs, compression, choir sounds, multi-tracks of 37 guitar layers and amazing snare sounds – you can get lost in that stuff and kid yourself it’s a great song.

So, the smartphone camera is the filmic equivalent of an acoustic guitar. There’s less tricks to hide behind so you better make it a great story.

Eager to learn more?
Join our weekly newsletter featuring inspiring stories, no-budget filmmaking tips and comprehensive equipment reviews to help you turn your film projects into reality!