Camera movement

MeAgain: I appreciate your ability to judge my ignorance based upon my personal opinion. I suppose that you are correct and my tastes are completely ignorant for being different than your own...

All snarky-ness aside, I "get" what the director is doing. I see what he's trying to make me see and feel. I just don't really care for it. It feels forced to me.

I just have different views on things and different tastes. Heck, I like surrealist paintings. I can't stand impressionist paintings. Most people are the opposite.
 
We're not talking about what you like and don't like- you didn't say "I don't care for Tarkovsky, to each his own". You criticized his work very harshly and in a shallow way based on a 40 second clip. I felt an obligation to counter that criticism. It's just a discussion.

The "ignorant" comment wasn't meant as a personal attack. I was defending the artist's work with concrete points and observations based on his camera technique, not making jabs at you. I meant "ignorance" not as stupid, I meant you made claims about his work without using an argument to back it up or really seeming to know what he was doing- in a thread about camera movements and what constitutes "necessary". By simply calling it superfluous and "Artistically self-serving"- which is quite derogatory- and not explaining yourself, some young filmmaker on here may read it and be discouraged. And since I like his work, I felt obligated to defend it. If you simply said "I do not care for Tarkovsky", I wouldn't have even responded.

If we're going to have serious discussions about camera movements beyond what you like and don't like, I feel like people need to have concrete arguments. You can have your opinion, but don't take it personality when people disagree and then argue their point. And don't be surprised when you trash a filmmaker and somebody defends him- which I did politely and calmly.
 
Haven't looked through the whole thread yet, not sure if it was mentioned. But, I think the best camera work with movements and such was in 'children of men'
One shot, so much movement, so much work. Just beautiful.
 
The children of men shot was outstanding but it wasn't *really* a single shot. It was a few different shots digitally put together into a seamless sequence. At least that's what they say in the "making of" on my DVD.
 
Svart said:
The children of men shot was outstanding but it wasn't *really* a single shot. It was a few different shots digitally put together into a seamless sequence. At least that's what they say in the "making of" on my DVD.
Click to expand...
Really? huh. I need to see that.

But still, no matter how it was pulled off, it was just awesome!
 
NextWaveG said:
I like to think of the camera as the audience member. In high intensity scenes where there are explosions and gun fire, the camera should be moving somewhat erratically. In scenes of intense dialogue, a person would be still, glued to every word. I love Law & Order SVU, and anytime they are in the precinct going over the case, the camera moves from one character to the next as they give their dialogue as opposed to lots of cutting. I would imagine that's how someone would move around if they were in that situation. If you're in a living room and want to dolly through the room, that would be how someone would move to get from one point to the other.
Click to expand...

Wow. This is a very eloquent answer because it doesn't focus on just one or two situations you might find yourself in. It can be applied every time you compose a shot. "What would the camera do if it were me?" Simple.
 
even better than "What would the camera do if it were me?" is...

whose pov is this?

'cause thats what the audience is asking, which is why we **** bricks everytime Bigelow cuts to a wide shot in The Hurt Locker, because we subconciously assume that it's possibly the the pov of someone ready to trigger the bomb or shoot.

The primacy of the POV shot also expains the success of Blair Witch (and the whole "found footage" trend), the meta-concept of Avatar, and why 3-d wont go away, but I won't go into details ...

it can be the pov of an objective observer at times, but one of the strongest techniques is to put the viewer, literally, in the movie, by turning the camera into the eyes of someone whose literally, in the movie.

its what an over the shoulder shot does btw.
 
the original question (which was pertinent and interesting IMHO) related to a very specific type of camera movement that has become prominent over the past few years.

a pity it has been ignored by almost all the responses
 
I've seen some of Tarkovsky's work, and I'm split on it. It's often too staged, too obviously preplanned. In the above example, the falling object is the problem.

One of the beautiful concepts of cinema is that it's happening like real life. Tells that it most definitely is not real seem like mistakes, to me.

Some like it staged, like a musical number, glorifying the falseness. And that's okay in small doses. Lots of styles exploit the hyper (comic book?) reality and various traditions from theater and circuses.

But there's something off-kilter in some of these examples. They are interesting as examples of technique, but lack the connection to the audience that other films provide. They have a distant forced voyeuristic feeling that frankly takes too long to get to the new information often. Slow, drawling shots can misfire and suddenly the audience wants to know why you're taking so long to get to it.

Of course the greatest filmmaker ever to walk the earth does not need to concern himself with such thoughts. But some of the rest of us may.
 
<<<<
the original question (which was pertinent and interesting IMHO) related to a very specific type of camera movement that has become prominent over the past few years.

a pity it has been ignored by almost all the responses >>>>>

Sorry.

here goes:

the reason the camera is moving is:

1. creates a bit more depth (even moving slightly sideways gives a feel of 3-d space, because the foreground moves at a slightly different speed than background).

2. gives a feeling of energy or kinesis/movement what have you.

3. the slight movement is part of the whole modern handheld aesthetic which creates, some would say, a feeling of realism because we subconciously associate it with news footage or home video or the eye of someone actually on the scene or whatever.

Is it a technique to copy? sure go ahead cant hurt. There's cooler techniques to focus on copying tho. Like moving the camera for reasons related to the story.

Here's a comparison:

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=10077
 
Last edited:
polfilmblog said:
I've seen some of Tarkovsky's work, and I'm split on it. It's often too staged, too obviously preplanned. In the above example, the falling object is the problem.

One of the beautiful concepts of cinema is that it's happening like real life. Tells that it most definitely is not real seem like mistakes, to me.
Click to expand...


While I disagree with you, it's a somewhat valid point. Tarkovsky himself called his films "too fussy" at times, so he was perhaps aware of what you're saying.

BUT...I wouldn't say it's glorifying falseness or similar to say, a musical number. And DEFINITELY not false or distant. In that film he's specifically re-creating his memories and dreams, so to have it seem very "Realistic" would sort of defeat the mood. Also, the object falling actually makes the camera move in a way- watch it again and see how the object's movement helps link the camera's movement to make it much more fluid. Obviously we know it's planned- like every movie is planned- and I guess if it's off-putting to you, not much I can say against it. But I like to view each film as a gateway to the filmmaker's world rather than an accurate view of "real life" as we know it.

Anyway, cinema CAN'T happen like "real life" because it isn't...what it does is look beneath what we think of as reality to bring out the "truth" in life. Even documentaries are fiction on some level, we just see that style of camera movement (generally handheld, interviews, etc) as being more "real" even though it really isn't. Like the poster above me said, we're gotten used to this idea of "realism" because of newsreel footage, but that idea and technique has been so overused. Now I think it's just a lazy technique by people who can't be bothered with a tripod...I actually find it less engaging because it looks like people are just trying to copy documentaries and pass it off as ultra-real....which I think is actually much much much more false.

And I'd say very long shots actually have the opposite effect. At first, you may think "Why is this shot so long?", but eventually that really long shot creates a much different, enveloping experience that feels like reality's truth rather than just a film cut together. Eventually, you accept it. And this type of shot draws much more attention to itself if the camera is static,

Personally, I like long static shots if it fits the atmosphere. They can be very effective. I think it's better than simply moving the camera a lot just so the audience won't get "bored", as if they're cats or something.

**And if you're stuck on Tarkovsky...check out Andrei Rublev if you haven't seen it yet. It's 3 and a half hours long, but it's really great, I promise. Stylistically, it's his least intrusive...most of the the time you don't really notice the "Style" at all. Sorry, he can be a challenging or offputting filmmaker but I think he has some of the best examples of camera work in cinema **




Annnd to re-answer the question, camera movement is really just one way for the filmmaker to speak and create his own unique language. Some directors move the camera a lot, some are all static, some use tracking shots, some handheld- it's whatever feels best for you. It's a sort of intuitive thing after a while, like most aspects of directing.
 
Last edited:
Okay, to further get into the Tarkovsky scene -- Several problems shot out at me including audible ones. Some of this is budget and technology and the period it was shot, but some are purely the director's preferences.

The audience is finicky about long shots these days. We have a more modern audience that likes to get to the point, and they aren't very patient. This isn't good or bad; it just is.

Next, the boy appearing and his response shouting seemed badly timed, as he jumped out from where a mirror was located. Maybe it was off by half a second, or maybe he was standing there waiting for a cue and he suddenly rushed forward a bit too obviously. Something.

I really don't feel that long shot unbroken, on a wheeled dolly, added enough to warrant it continuing. A cut or two would have been better. Wheeling a camera around on a dolly has its own telltale quirks. Giving the audience enough time to figure out that's what you're doing isn't exactly keeping them in the scene. It's pulling them out.

There is a psychological game with the audience, of creating expectations and then either delaying their fulfillment or fulfilling them. It's a subtle game. When you make it not so subtle by leaving them hanging on a very slowly moving dolly, over and over, you can piss them (me) off.

And then again -- who is this dolly? Who is this camera POV supposed to represent? Most peasant households don't have short intruders rolling about endlessly. This camera, by calling so much attention to itself, becomes a strange element of the scene that would be best hidden and forgotten about. The camera that doesn't dance around so obviously can have better effect. The camera that simply cuts from the most interesting element to interesting element, and therefore fades into the back of the mind, leaving focus on the elements it presents instead, is preferable most of the time.

I also mentioned the technological, as in instead of a dolly wheeled around on a 2D plane (with bumps and jerks no less to boot), we now have 3D movement options that are smooth as butter. Different feel, different sensibility altogether.

There are lots of possibilities, but some appeal to me and I suppose to my culture more than others.
 
polfilmblog said:
Okay, to further get into the Tarkovsky scene -- Several problems shot out at me including audible ones. Some of this is budget and technology and the period it was shot, but some are purely the director's preferences.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by audible ones? You do realize he's not trying to re-create some sort of ultra realistic "real life" as you see it, right?

The audience is finicky about long shots these days. We have a more modern audience that likes to get to the point, and they aren't very patient. This isn't good or bad; it just is.
Click to expand...

This is complete nonsense. What "audience"? I and a lot of people I know happen to love long shots. You're creating an audience in your head based on current modern trends in films. If what you said was true, there would be no Tarkovsky fans, no Apichatpong Weerasethakul fans, no Bela Tarr fans, no Alexander Sokurov fans...etc. Audiences are composed of all different types of people, not just one single person. Just like you may not like these techniques, another person will.

Next, the boy appearing and his response shouting seemed badly timed, as he jumped out from where a mirror was located. Maybe it was off by half a second, or maybe he was standing there waiting for a cue and he suddenly rushed forward a bit too obviously. Something.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're being unrealistically picky. Half a second? I don't think it's a case of bad ques, this may have been 1974 Russia, but these were all professionals working on this. I happened to find the timing smooth and working quite well with the camera movement, but I guess we disagree here.

I really don't feel that long shot unbroken, on a wheeled dolly, added enough to warrant it continuing. A cut or two would have been better. Wheeling a camera around on a dolly has its own telltale quirks. Giving the audience enough time to figure out that's what you're doing isn't exactly keeping them in the scene. It's pulling them out.
Click to expand...

I've seen this scene probably over a hundred times and I don't really notice or mind any "bumps". And that really only happens once or twice as it's leaving the house- and again, it's barely noticable. Not sure why everyone has this obsession with things being "perfect" in a film. Especially because you mentioned not liking things too "pre-planned" or "Staged".

And a cut or two would have made the scene worthless. It would have destroyed the entire concept behind the scene- quick cutting wasn't his style. That'd be like adding cuts to the end shot of his film The Sacrifice. The camera movement, the time it takes to move from one room to another and the characters and events it connects with its fluid movement is the entire point behind the scene.

And again, this fake audience that's apparently getting mad at these techniques...it sounds like you're just speaking for yourself here. It apparently didn't piss me off- or the thousands of fans he has world wide- so I don't see the point in saying this.

There is a psychological game with the audience, of creating expectations and then either delaying their fulfillment or fulfilling them. It's a subtle game. When you make it not so subtle by leaving them hanging on a very slowly moving dolly, over and over, you can piss them (me) off.
Click to expand...

He's not trying to play a pyschological game. That's Hitchcock's style. This is Tarkovsky. He's merely showing you what's important to him in the style he feels conveys it best. I don't think there is anything wrong with a slow, dreamy style or making the audience "wait". What's so bad about that? If the audience members are in such a rush to finish the film, why did they go and see it to begin with?

That's the problem with a lot of things today- everything's too quick quick quick quick. No time to really sit and take in what's going on, absorb the atmosphere. Film suddenly becomes just a way to convey "information"....for that matter, just read a plot synopsis of the film you'd like to see. That way, you get all the "Facts" without having to sit through anything.

And then again -- who is this dolly? Who is this camera POV supposed to represent? Most peasant households don't have short intruders rolling about endlessly. This camera, by calling so much attention to itself, becomes a strange element of the scene that would be best hidden and forgotten about. The camera that doesn't dance around so obviously can have better effect. The camera that simply cuts from the most interesting element to interesting element, and therefore fades into the back of the mind, leaving focus on the elements it presents instead, is preferable most of the time.
Click to expand...

Preferable for you, but apparently not Tarkovsky. This is his style...you either like it or you don't, but it isn't just gibberish. By cutting from one object to the next, he would be a different director. He'd be trying to conform to everything else. What's the point?

Also- very confused why you think this is the POV of a person? It isn't and was never meant to be. It's just the camera. The camera is just the observer- observing for the audience. Like in many other films. It isn't supposed to be a peasant servant or whatever (they also weren't peasants, although the detail doesn't really matter).

I also mentioned the technological, as in instead of a dolly wheeled around on a 2D plane (with bumps and jerks no less to boot), we now have 3D movement options that are smooth as butter. Different feel, different sensibility altogether.
Click to expand...

Don't know- like I said, the dolly movement was smooth enough for me. Didn't seem to be on a 2D plane either, as it winds up leaving through the door of the house.

Not sure why this camera movement is viewed as so scandalous- it's really just a simple fluid dolly movement from one end of the house to the other. It actually doesn't take that long- I've seen other directors (AW, Godard, Tarr) have much, much, much longer shots that draw much more attention to the camera apparatus than this.

If people dislike the style, that's fine I suppose, but you can't ask that directors, especially CURRENT directors (like guys in this thread looking for help) to change their style to fit some "modern" mold. That's why every movie looks the same now. That's why no films look unique. Tarkovsky certainly isn't for everybody, but when you watch his films, you can't demand things from him that he was never trying to give you in the first place. You have to tune yourself to his speed, to his style. It has nothing to do with old movies from another country- there are slow moving films being made today. In this country!

Look at Jim Jarmusch's style- a lot of static cameras, slow pans, long takes. Should he also adjust his style to what's expected? it's just a very confusing outlook.

There are lots of possibilities, but some appeal to me and I suppose to my culture more than others.
Click to expand...

What culture is that, exactly? I think saying things like this can be a bit dangerous. You have every right to hate Tarkovsky and simply find him and every slow moving film boring. But people are different, everywhere, in every culture...and to be honest, there were quite a lot of people in Tarkovsky's native Russia that shared your opinion at the time of the film's premiere. It really has nothing to do with "modern" audiences.
 
I suppose fan derives from "fanatic."

You win.

By the way, I never said at least 3 things you just accused me of saying.
 
Not sure why people are getting so offended over having discussions about films and cinematography on a filmmaking site? But OK.

This isn't a pastime or hobby for me. Filmmaking and art is my life. I take it seriously and like having serious discussions with people.
 
This is internet ,you dont see the faces,emotions of people you talk to ,you dont know if someone is joking or not ,its different, there's no need to be angry or too serious on internet ,its different world.Like the stuff i just wrote ,it sounds serious but i am in a happy mood ,completely different.:2vrolijk_08::laugh::-Laugh(DBG)-1
Not worthy to argue on internets most of the time.
 
wow, great link thanks a lot.
memento515 said:
<<<<
the original question (which was pertinent and interesting IMHO) related to a very specific type of camera movement that has become prominent over the past few years.

a pity it has been ignored by almost all the responses >>>>>

Sorry.

here goes:

the reason the camera is moving is:

1. creates a bit more depth (even moving slightly sideways gives a feel of 3-d space, because the foreground moves at a slightly different speed than background).

2. gives a feeling of energy or kinesis/movement what have you.

3. the slight movement is part of the whole modern handheld aesthetic which creates, some would say, a feeling of realism because we subconciously associate it with news footage or home video or the eye of someone actually on the scene or whatever.

Is it a technique to copy? sure go ahead cant hurt. There's cooler techniques to focus on copying tho. Like moving the camera for reasons related to the story.

Here's a comparison:

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=10077
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top