A Short Film for Apple: Three Minutes

How & Why Apple made a film where they never show their product

During the Chinese New Year people leave major cities to visit family who live in rural areas. It was estimated last year that three billion trips would be made during the holiday using public transport (source). It is one of the busiest times of year in terms of transportation and it’s when the story of “Three Minutes” takes place.

Based on a true story and directed by Peter Chan for Apple, “Three Minutes” tells an emotionally investing narrative and serves as an example of the potential benefits of keeping branding and product placement out of a commercial.

The film tells the story of a mother who works on an express train during the Chinese New Year. As a result of her work the mother is unable to be with her son, Ding, whom she has left in the care of her sister. The mother’s sister brings Ding to meet at a station but their reunion can only last three minutes.

Three Minutes benefits from both what it does not show as much as what it does.

Up until seconds before the credits we do not see any hint of the fact that this film is an ad for apple other than the presence of the Helvetica Neue Ultra Thin font and the brief mention of the iPhone X on the title card.

In an alternate dimension there is another version of this film that is much heavier on its product placement. This would not be difficult to do particularly given the slice of life aspects of much of the film. The film opens on a Ding playing with a sparkler. Narratively, you could have the film open on the Ding looking at an iPhone he’s borrowed from his aunt, checking the train’s schedule as he impatiently awaits his mother’s arrival.

Then we see inside of the train. They train cars are filled with people, all doing various things. One of them could have easily had an iPhone with them, whether it be for checking the news, taking a call ,or playing a mobile game to pass the time. In fact this may have been more realistic than what the film presents. Not one person in all of the train is on their phone.

Then there is the crowded platform, where people are waiting for family, boarding the train and leaving the train. It’s a sizeable crowd. And despite this there is not a single person on their phone. Typically, an ad would frequently show a product, especially when the product can so easily an naturally be integrated into the story.

The film seems to actively avoid showing any phones.

What the film does show over the course of the film is a vast range of cinematography. The flexibility of iPhone cameras is presented through the cinematography of Jing-Pin Yu.

The film opens on a lowlight shot. We see shots with shallow depth of field as well as the opposite. We get close up shots as well as extremely wide cinematic shots. We are even shown a couple slow motion shots as well as time lapse shots.

The film illustrates that Apple products particularly the iPhone X is capable of shooting at a cinematic level. To do this they needed to create an ad which was an immersive and engaging film to prove that the iPhone was an effective tool for the medium. If the iPhone X is able to be used in a film that can make you forget it was shot on a phone then the quality of the phone’s camera has been proven. The mere existence of the commercial is evidence of the product’s quality. This is in part why we never see an iPhone in the film. It ads to the immersion.

And if the iPhone X is able to capture the moments within the film so well, it will certainly be able to capture the intimate memories you want to capture in your everyday life. This is the other cause of the iPhone’s absence in the film

Because the film isn’t really selling iPhones. Rather, the film is selling the ability to capture moments, fully and richly.