[/quote]Although there are "many examples" of the pocket camera creations on the festival site, the narrative structures seem to be rather conventional and the editing is pretty straight forward. I have only watched a few of the videos and really only found one that I would consider experimental; it was kind of a dream-like, unconscious reflection.
Another thing that is a bit difficult to determine is the intent to be "experimental" visually. Is it the low quality of the camera that creates the illusion of being experimental or if it was intended to be more avant-garde in nature?
The answer isn't traceable to an artistic aesthetic. It's all about money.
I think when you have just a few hundred bucks, you do what you can. The producers of Blair Witch had just video cameras, and they made a film that LOOKED like it involved simple video cameras, and didn't "pretend" it was film-quality. They took advantage of the cheap, unsteady, shaken-camera, poor quality look and feel of video and came up with a story that was believable BECAUSE it was shot with actual video.
And I think right now we have a bunch of young aspiring film makers who WISH they had a few million to spend on cinemetography. But don't. (Go figure.) And so they take what they've got and work with it.
A poor filmmaker will try to pretend the quality of the image isn't bad and will hope the audience will be forgiving of it and somehow look past it to the cool story. Only his mother will be forgiving. The rest of the world will roll their eyes and walk away. But a superior filmmaker will accept the reality of the limited resources he has and will work WITH them.
This, I believe, is what we have going on right now. Speilberg and Cameron aren't making cell phone movies, but young, penniless studenst are. (Most quandries can be solved if you examine the money angle