I hear this "reality" stuff all the time. From client's, public, crew.
Everyone talks about social, real, connection with the audience, believable vehicles.
There is nothing new about "real". There is something new about turning out mediocre work and then saying it's good because it's real, or saying we don't want professional production because nobody believes it.
That's just not true.
This was edited by an editor I know, produced 9 years ago. I didn't shoot this, but actually love it.
http://russellrutherfordgroup.com/6_m_football.mov
I'ts Shot on 16mm film (which might make a difference), maybe could be shot on a phone, though it wouldn't have the look and sound.
But it's real, has real quotes, real people, real locations, real heart.
It also has talented but limited production, a good script, well selected voice over excellent storyline.
And btw: I'm not writing this because I'm afraid that all I've learned will become redundant or not needed because in real paid advertising or entertainment . . . creative, thoughtful production and well crafted content wins.
Hell I don't care if I shoot with an I phone or xt, but then again, if the I phone looks like crap, takes 4 hours a clip to fix, then I have zero desire to work that way.
If using a small camera or phone looks unique, or better yet fits the story, I'm in and I can think of a few scenarios where phone production would work, many, many more where it won't.
So producing something in a real situation is not unique. Producing something that someone wants to watch is a lot more difficult and the camera to some extent does matter.
But it has to be kept in context. This was a home movie I did a year ago during a family reunion. It's shot with a 70d, out of camera, quick edit and only produced for the participants . . . my family.
I probably didn't shoot more than 15 minutes of footage, if that, because I didn't want to be the family documentarian, I wanted to enjoy the day.
My family loved it, it meant something to them, but I'm under no impression that it would mean anything to anyone else, because it's personal and it really shouldn't.
http://www.russellrutherford.com/final_new_branfels_mac_web_play.mov
IMO
BC
Hi James,
I agree with in all you said actually. Maybe I expressed myself badly.
The idea I wanted to share is that independently of the reality we see, some brands have ADs who build their strategies based in part on studdies. What I'm seeing from the companies side is in fact the same as we see in most imagery forums: a tendency to pull the string to both extremes.
For one side they tell you: "we don't want Alexas any more but i.phones and no actors but you and me" (the social media mantra)
and for the other side other tell you: "we want 4,6,8ks and above..." (the Marvel mantra)
Then, in the end, they will say: "we want 4k sophisticate and then an unsophisticate simulation of the same in lowres as if it was filmed by the next door girl"
wich means that the only way is that the filming always starts with the highest possible mediums (because we can downgrade but not the other way) and then they bark when they see the bills of hiring the Arri crew for an hour of filming and
so...
next meeting, they are back again with "we don't want that because it's too expensive and i.phones will do the job"... "we hired a studdy...blablá....social media....blablablá...instagram videos...."
then...the next day they strike back: "is there something higher than 4K?" (ya know...my nefew has a 4K Sony camera so profesionals should therfore be already at 10Ks...)
then....
Honestly they don't f....g know where they are (the ADs), don't they?
And James, not to be negative but many are scared of the time when they will ask higher than 4k and then you realise that everything was aimed to social medias advert...
Ps: liked both movies, specially the hand filming of the family reunion and color. (just a selfy of you is missing)
IMO, many people (not shooters but outside this industry) will probably find the family movie very close to them. Because, if it's not their family, we are all the same in fact. We have very similar worries, attachements, values, and conditionings etc...so even if the characters themselves are not directly linked to others, the content yes.
In that sense, I'm back to the car race film. And the family film goes in this spirit too: IMO it is using high-end tools (or very good) BUT, keeping the "non profesional touch" so people feel close.
It's keeping freshness, etc...and that is not easy to balance. The car race has it. This family movie has it also, and the look is there. I'm convinced that when we start to add more and more gear, crew etc...it's not working that well, more
Exactly it becomes more difficult to keep spontaneousness with heavy artillery and complex set. It's posible but require
More experience not being trapped by the gear.
So in a way I understand the ADs torture: if a shooting costed 50.000 and the revenues are 80.000 and 1000"likes" but a phone shooting costed 5.000 and revenues are still 80.000 and 10.000"likes"...they make numbers.
Maybe we don't care about how many "likes" but those dudes seem to
Take those social medias very seriously.
Of course what I'm saying does not apply to brands like McLaren, Chanel (although chanel...), or General Dynamics etc... Those need extremely detailled and sophisticate imagery shooted by highly
Competent crews. But not all products require that level, as you said, it depends.
But something is happening. Some WW brand perfumes are still using parts of shootings
That have been done many years ago. They just cut differently. Then,
All now do the same stupidity: you got those english voices tinted with false french accent
To make it more fashion (Paris still sells).
Imagine the voice: ”cooter...the new fragrance by Janes Russell”...
Same text, same voice for all brands. Pathetic.
And in fashion all they do is blowing the footage so it looks
Dynamic and they can hide the MUAs (they smoke too much herb actualy) disasters
Super visible in 4k. Because again, when resolution jumps,
All problems in the chain jump also.
So my point was: where do we go like this? More and more pixels
And complexity to end in social medias culture?
Got a app in a mobile that shoots squared MP4 with vintage filters
In wysiwyg. The footage obtained is incredibly crap but the audio
Surprizingly ”good” (editable). People love it. They are crazy with it.
It makes me think that I will create a fake advert of a perfume with
All the filters revued and upload this in vimeo.
I'm sure I can do a beleivable campaign with it...lol
Very sweet you shared part of your intimacy.