Tiny Furniture : The cinematography…

Or lack there of. Seriously what was this shot on? I could have done a better job on a point and shoot camcorder! Fair enough, it's an indie film, budget restraints, etc but seriously with all the affordable DSLRs with HD capacity these days, there's no excuse for some ugly looking footage. AND even so, like some shot were just awful. It looked like absolutely none of the scenes were planned, visualised or blocked or anything, that they just rolled the camera and went for it. Awful. Don't even get me started on the rest of the film! So so over rated!

You should see one of Dunham's early shorts, Pressure.

Technically atrocious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRZhZiA5q9o

Oh god. I am four seconds in and already it is shocking. Thank you for linking me to this- Hilariously awful!

It is terrible. Not only from an aesthetic standpoint (the dialogue is awful), but technically, it's absolute *beep* Shaky camerawork, bad editing. And Criterion actually put this short on the Tiny Furniture DVD! What the F?

I actually think the cinematography has a lot of strong points. In fact, I think the pleasing asthetics are part of the reason that so many perhaps overlooked a rather un-inspired script and some pretty weak acting.

I think the use of white walls and a lot of flat space works very well in all the scenes in Aura's Mother's apartment. It creates a sense of a sterile white world that plays into how emotionally dead her Mom is.

The other scenes are not so great but certainly a lot better than I've seen from a lot of indie/mumblecore fair.

I did not really care for this movie but I actually thought the cinematography was one of the stronger points in comparison to a lot of the other elements.

I'm not sure if I agree with you, but I have to say what you're describing there is the production design- Nothing got to do with the cinematography.

I disagree. The camera was a canon 7d and I have yet to see better cinematography from a dslr. Please prove me wrong. But I think this photography was better than any 5d mark2 or 7d short or features I've seen. At least when the picture is trying to convey realism and not making colors pop off the screen. Jody lee lipes I think has a promising future.

Both Chromeskull: Laid to Rest 2 and Like Crazy were shot on DSLR's, both look light years better than this film. In addition to that, the footage was probably sent to a colorist and almost completely reworked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-ZV-bwZmBw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEh_xNzfBDA

The trick to Tiny Furniture's clean look are the wide open spaces and the fact that they are literally DUMPING light everywhere. And another interesting trick is that none of the setups are complex. They just went with the standard shots and made sure they got them right. And you do that by making sure everything is well lit. Most indie films don't have the budgets to afford everything, and typically the first to go is lighting. You have to have a cameraman, you need sound, and you have to be able to pay your crew. Script supervisors, makeup, gaffers, and proper lighting equipment are often seen as secondary additions. But that's not the way to go.

For any indie filmmaker, I suggest you spend the bulk of your budget on lights, you camera set up, and a director of photographer. I cannot stress this enough.

Nice. I'm a guy that learned on film and get very frustrated with my do 5d mark 2s getting highlighted or blown out. What lights would you recommend for getting a the clean look of tiny furniture? Also I thought the skin tones in that trailer like crazy were some of the best ive seen on a dslr so any info on that would be helpful too because sadly my knowledge of film lighting doesn't get me the picture I want.

I'm no lighting expert, but I'll give it a shot.

Anything Lowell is going to be solid. Expensive, but worth it. The hardcases their lights come in can be dropped off buildings and they'll keep your lights safe.

I'd suggest a good supply of 250's, 650's, 1k's, barn doors, black flags, 4 bank kinoflo's, diffusionlots of it. Reflectorssilver, gold, and flat white. C-standsa lot of these. Door clamps. Soft box fluorescent lights are nice.

Also, it all depends on what kind of piece you're shooting, as well as the mood you're attempting to portray. Comedies dump light EVERYWHERE. Dramas go for more characteristic and realistic light, so anything soft that falls off nicely will accent your performers. Horror stuff, I've noticed, uses a lot of hard lighting. Where things can fall into darkness really quickly.

But again, I'm not an expert. Hire a director of photographer. Please for the sake of all things film. And if they don't have/know what a light meter isRUN. AWAY. FAST.

Like Crazy has subtle soft lighting that I just love. It's warm and really plays to the content extremely well. You don't need to have complex lightingjust make sure the setups that you do chooseyou get them rightevery time. With good lighting, a solid sound person, and a good camera opyou'll be producing pro looking stuff in no time. Good luck.

Yes, all these elements such as lights, camera setup, and having a good Director of Photography are extremely important. But the absolute most important thing in your film are the performances. Basically every Independent Filmmaker is looking to hit the Film Festival circuit. And a lot of the audience members at these festivals are their to watch a great story unfold. A typical audience member (even at these festivals) isn't really going to notice the great lighting and composition in your film. However, every single person on earth will always first and foremost notice bad acting. And that's all it takes to destroy your film.

"Tiny Furniture" does have a simplistic approach to the technical side of things but what works is the story, acting, and naturalism. The best example I can think of is "The Puffy Chair." Yes, the cinematography is wretched, everything is always falling out of focus, and the lighting is extremely minimal. But the story is good and the performances are incredible. And for doing those two things very well it won the Audience Award at the SXSW Film Festival.

ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE!!! I'm 10 minutes into this movie and I'm thinking the opposite. It is not the normal, shaky cam, look at my depth of field in and out of focus crap work that I'm used to seeing in independent productions shot with DSLR. I like the fact that the story, writing and acting, whether you like it or not, is the centerpiece and not the irritating cinematography that seems to be taking over young filmmakers minds these days. Are you watching the same film I am? And for the comments below about lighting, i say congrats to the filmmakers for making a film that I can watch without wanting to turn up the brightness on my TV. Again, another failure of young filmmakers, heck even old filmmakers, is making a picture that's too dark, in a film that doesn't call for it. I'm all for atmosphere when needed, but not every film needs to look like noir. A simple comedy/drama about everyday life can be nice and bright and let the story do the work. i am quite impressed with the look of this movie for the fact that it doesn't get in the way, when too many low budget films are unwatchable, due to the obnoxious camera work.

I just watched This Film and the Cinematography is just Fine it Looked pretty Good to me nothing stylistic or movement or lighting wise to make you say wow but the Kind of film it is, it doesn't need to be I thought it was very Classy & simple and the scenes looked like they were blocked out enough . you're entitled to your opinion But I just don't think its as bad as you're as some of you are painting it to be .

I think you're WAY off on this one. What really distinguishes this film from typical mumblecore films is that it is so well composed. There are aspects one could criticize about TF but composition is not one of them. In fact, you should listen to Paul Schrader (no slouch himself) talking about the exceptional visuals in this film on the Criterion DVD. I tend to agree. Look at the symmetry, the use of depth, the excellent use of anamorphic. I teach at a film school and I can tell you that a lot of people think the widescreen format is just a gimmick to give a film a more "professional" look. Dunham uses the aspect ratio very effectively and pays great attention to what is in the frame.

I can totally respect people not enjoying TF, but two elements that can't be denied are Lena Dunham's gift for dialogue and her skill (along with her cinematographer) for composition.

STWIKE HIM CENTUWIAN, VERY WUFFLY!

I'm a film student watching this to see if how the 7D looks, I also watched Like Crazy. I enjoyed the way this was shot. I was wondering what kind of lens they used, I suppose anamorphic. I always refer back to John Carpenter's use of the 2:35 aspect ratio and this film keeps that idea alive: empty spaces look full and full spaces look empty.

In this article The DP talked about his choice of camera and how he did the lighting. He didn't sound happy with the 7D at all.

http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/videography/features/tiny-budget- 39tiny-furniture39-big-ideas/20854

---

After graduating from Oberlin College, an awkward, self-conscious young woman named Aura returns to her wealthy mother's sprawling New York apartment to try to come to terms with the breakup of her college relationship, her confusion about men in general and the terrifying possibility of not achieving immediate wealth and success. Her mother, a famous photographer of scale-model furniture, and her younger sister, who exceeds all of Aura's high school successes, go about their lives with apparently no sympathy for Aura's plight.

Whether writer/director/star Lena Dunham, also a recent Oberlin graduate, designed Tiny Furniture to be autobiographical is not clear, although the mother, the sister and the massive white apartment really are Dunham's mother, her sister and the lower Manhattan apartment they inhabit. Made on a very small budget (nobody would commit to real numbers, but the filmmakers used the terms "micro" and "miniscule" a lot), Tiny Furniture follows Aura around as she interacts with eccentric friends, egotistical boys and unsympathetic family members.

Dunham brought cinematographer Jody Lee Lipes to shoot. The two had met at the 2009 SXSW Film Festival, when her 60-minute film Creative Nonfiction and his work (as director), NY Export: Opus Jazz, were screened.

Lipes had hoped to not have to use a DSLR to shoot Dunham's film, preferring the RED or one of the Panasonic HVX cameras with a 35mm lens adapter, but he ultimately went with a Canon EOS 7D to accommodate the script's requirement of some night exteriors and the fact that his lighting package was almost non-existent.

He had an open-faced 2K tungsten unit and some Kino Flos, but nothing that would make much difference for walk-and-talks along the New York streets at night. Although he realized that dialing the ISO way up to 1600 for some scenes would result in rather flat, gritty images, there was really no better option for those conditions. Meanwhile, at ISO settings like 50, which he used for day exteriors, and 200 for interiors where he could bounce his few lights around the very white walls of the apartment location, the images held up well even on a theater screen.

Lipes presented Dunham with his reluctant decision to shoot with the 7D and she agreed. "My tech brain isn't always screwed on," she says. "Jody told me it could work, so I believed him even though it looked ridiculously small to me. It was particularly nice because it allowed us to shoot places we weren't necessarily permitted for."

As with most people who shoot with the Canon cameras, Lipes' primary issues had to do with ergonomics and the lenses, which are designed for still photographers to auto focus rather than for filmmakers to manually control. He used a Redrock shoulder mount, which he says was helpful, but he considered the accessory gears designed to help follow focus "an unnecessary layer of crap." Likewise, he made very little use of external monitors or magnifiers, preferring instead to make the best of the camera's LCD as-is. He and Dunham both sing the praises of first assistant Joe Anderson for being able to pull focus extremely well with equipment that was not designed for it. "It was like watching a great musician play an instrument," Dunham says.

Lipes considers the HDSLR camera "a thorn in my side" because "it's become the go-to camera for any very low-budget project, and the images have a noticeable kind of feel that is no longer aesthetically pleasing to me." He admits that the cameras may well have allowed some projects to come into existence that might not have otherwise, but that doesn't excuse the smearing and artifacting and all the rest to his cinematographer's eye.

He did make a point of praising the highlight protection function. "That's really the most special thing about the camera," Lipes says. "It gave us more information in the highlights than I would have ever expected. It's nothing like film, of course, but for a camera this size and this price, that was pretty impressive."

As for Aura's alter ego, Lena, she might not have to worry too long, at least about her professional life. Based in part on Tiny Furniture, she is already in business with HBO and Judd Apatow

---

I think the cinematography is very good.