Camera movement

Your are absolutely correct randomname. The motion usually serves no purpose and you don't see any pointless moves in the work of the great cinematographers. Anything that does not serve a specific need makes the material weak. It distracts the viewer. The rule is simple. The frame contains what is important to the story and the specific moment in the drama. You move the camera is you have to follow the subject, if movement will actuall express something or show something important. A tilt up that shows the cathedral your character enters to pray has no relation to a tilt up that shows something unimportant. A slow dolly that expresses an emotional state of your character has no relation to a dolly that is only done to use the recently purchased equipment. Unstable camera work that matches your character's state and helps the user enter a scene, has no relation to constant instability. And most importantly, a focus pull that serves the photographic need for focus change has no relation to a distracting, pointless and annoying focus pull on the insignificant.

I would recommend against Hollywood Camera Work. The important cinematographers do not block like arranging seats in a wedding reception. They think about what's important and spend some time on the location to make it natural to them. This leads to simpler and a lot most effective solutions that are usually entirely obvious if you don't let analysis take over.
 
"Important" cinematographers huh? To you?

I'd bet that some dolly moves that contribute to the telling of the story were made by a dolly that was newly acquired.

I just can't get behind your stance. I'd say that sometimes, sure, A DP will work with what he's got location wise. But other times he's gonna collaborate with the Art director and scenic and arrange for say a row of hedges to be set up to allow for sexy foreground movement as the dolly traverses tracking two characters as they walk and talk in the garden. There is a whole arsenal of possibilities at our disposal if we're creative enough to exploit them. Man have you ever heard of a branchaloris?

The audience will never know whether those hedges were there originally or not. Or whether the dolly is new or not.
 
jimpatro said:
"Important" cinematographers huh? To you?

I'd bet that some dolly moves that contribute to the telling of the story were made by a dolly that was newly acquired.

I just can't get behind your stance. I'd say that sometimes, sure, A DP will work with what he's got location wise. But other times he's gonna collaborate with the Art director and scenic and arrange for say a row of hedges to be set up to allow for sexy foreground movement as the dolly traverses tracking two characters as they walk and talk in the garden. There is a whole arsenal of possibilities at our disposal if we're creative enough to exploit them. Man have you ever heard of a branchaloris?

The audience will never know whether those hedges were there originally or not. Or whether the dolly is new or not.
Click to expand...

Cinematography is an art and art is difficult to quantify, but as time passes, we can tell superfluous junk from art right? There is no superfluous junk in Tarkovski films, would you agree?

I disagree on the dolly, I would bet the dolly is a 10yo rental:) Im not against acquiring and using tools, I just believe in careful application. Lack of experience and maturity lead to abuse. Most cinematographers jump right in these days, so we do see a lot of that.

I'm not against planning and I'm no Dogme advocate for sure. As a matter of fact, it bores me as much as its antidiametric opposite. I was refering to the Hollywood Camera Work approach.

The moment it even starts being described as sexy, I switch off. It's not bad to show the set design, if you spent lots of money on it, but IMHO it has to help establish a theme, it has to be a means to an end.

I googled branchaloris because I have never heard anyone use the word to describe the technique. There is nothing wrong with any technique, the problem is abuse.
 
One thing I can tell from just two posts is that you probably have a really good eye.
Heck, Tarkovsky.
I bet a lot of your stuff is pretty sexy even if you won't admit it yourself.
 
The rape scene from Landscape In the Mist by Theodoros Angelopoulos, photographed by Giorgos Arvanitis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOKz0BgNJDE

Rapid camera motion, multiple handheld cameras, dutch angles, violent cutting, and music wouldn't add any impact to this. The traffic noise expresses everything, the two children are alone and the world keeps moving. Decency and maturity.
 
One of the most interesting takes on camera movement I have found came from a sound editor: Randy Thom.

In Soundscape: the School of Sound Lectures, he said (disconnected sections that I have put together), "I think that almost all almost all great sound sequences in movies are POV (point of view) sequences. …once the audience realizes or feels that what they are seeing and hearing is being filtered through the brain of one or more of the characters in the film – and it doesn’t even have to be a character that you’re seeing, and it doesn’t even have to be a person – then they’re willing to accept almost anything you give them in terms of sound...Almost any time the camera is moving it gives us the impression that what we’re seeing is somebody’s point of view. Certain camera moves and certain slow motion techniques in Scorsese’s films are so subtle that you don’t even notice that they’re there unless you watch the film several times and think about it; but they have their effect and that’s what’s important. …playing a chord at a practically inaudible level still has its effect on you, even if you never consciously register that it’s there."

Pete
 
I may be a heretic for saying it but I find that the Tarkovsky shot sequence to define superfluous. It's somewhat pretty and moving but it's ultimately artistically self serving and I feel like it's forced upon me. It has loads of excessive information that doesn't need to be in there, you know, the same stuff you guys are talking about..
 
You're not a heretic, you're just ignorant of Tarkovsky's methods. To be fair, that shot is part of an incredibly complicated and challenging film and since it sounds like you've never seen it, you should probably see it in context before making such a harsh judgement.

I don't know if all of the superfluous comments here are derogatory. But that shot, or anything else in this incredible film, is far from narcissistic and self serving.

I'll explain some broad analysis of the shot to explain why it's length and movement are important.

The shot begins directly after the two children learn there is a fire outside causing all the commotion. As they run off, they leave the table, the room empty. Tarkovsky moves backwards, but instead of cutting, lingers on the empty table as an object slowly rolls off the table. Both camera movement, object falling and clock sounds, together with the emptiness and stillness of the room, are all artistic choices that accentuate the moment and the hole left in the family (the family is waiting for the father to come back from war). Tarkovsky wants you to feel what most films wouldn't examine, the emptiness and passage of time created by these characters' movements. More importantly, he's examining this moment in time and wants it to be connected with this other, larger event.

Tarkovsky, instead of cutting, STAYS WITHIN this moment in time and tracks over to a mirror showing the two boys presumably watching the fire. On the soundtrack, we hear voices that seem very close yelling about the fire. Someone's name is called, one of the sons, and he enters and suddenly the camera is following him outside. The camera tracks outside the door to reveal the raging fire, brilliantly framed by the porch roof and falling raindrops. We linger on it before the cut.

The first thing to notice is that this is Tarkovsky's general shooting style, and he does it for a reason. Tarkovsky's focus in cinema was to capture a specific and unique flow of time, so he tended to use less cuts and longer, flowing camera work to connect characters and events. This film is made entirely of strong memories from his childhood. The rhythm of this shot works within the context of the rest of the film.

You can view the movement on the outside for what it is: a beautiful and quiet camera movement that works like music, like a passage from Chopin or Bach. He isn't trying to wow you or be cool. He's trying to draw your attention to certain things within his memory and he's trying to create a unique flow of time that simply wouldn't have had ANY emotional impact if done in a bunch of cuts.

That fire needed to be connected with the start of the shot. The darkness and emptiness and smallness of the shot is now evolved into a a larger frame brimming with brightness and uncontrolled force. The way everyone empties the house, the way that there is no father to run in and save a child that may be trapped, the way they all simply stand and watch the fire burn, helpless...these things need to be connected in one flow.

Tarkovsky's films are much more than simple story telling or "artistically self serving" things, as you say. He deplored egoist art.

Him and his cinematographers work to make cinema like music. Georgi Rerberg deserves much credit for pulling this shot off so beautifully. All of the cinematography in this film is top notch. So are the performances. You should really see his entire filmography- he's one of the greatest filmmakers to ever walk the Earth. Also one of the greatest artists.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "forced upon you"? Also, "excessive information"? All films are excessive information, for that matter. This scene is not about giving you some silly "plot points" so you know the "story". Not trying to be mean to you here, I simply don't understand the dismissive behavior of one of the most important films to ever exist.

Perhaps the shot within a bigger context (and with subtitles) will help you understand why the "flow" the shot is very important in this cinematography.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pu49SYGRnk
 
Yes and no.

Tarkovsky's methods of story telling, are a totally different beast from what we are used to see in Hollywood productions - 3 acts, character ark, hero`s journey andwahtnot. That he also uses film as a medium, is just a coincidence.

The typical Hollywood movie is made to entertain the folks and make money. Period.
Tarkovsky's films are "selfish" in a way that he is not interested in money or entertainment or even audience.
I doubt he ever made a film for anyone else but himself.

He said that film has the duty to explain the meaning of life or - at least - provoke that sort of questions.

So he is more a lecturer than a story teller.

Tarkovsky has also expressed interest in the art of Haiku and its ability to create "images in such a way that they mean nothing beyond themselves."
I think that says a lot.

Frank
 
Frank, I happen to think you're totally wrong about Tarkovsky- he was far from being a lecturer or a guy who just happened to work in film- that's a little insulting to him considering how deadly serious the took cinema. Also, how is not wanting money or not wanting to dumb things down for your audience selfish? Isn't that...the opposite of selfish? What Tarkovsky does is way way more advanced and important than something like the 3 act structure or hero's journey, which, sorry to tell you, are simply cliches. Tarkovsky's cinematographic choices are a direct reflection of his vision and temporal rhythm, which is much more important than simply entertaining the audience. It's a unique, personal style.

I have a lot more to say but for the sake of the thread I'll PM you.
 
Last edited:
As you said, Tarkovsky was a man on a spiritual mission.
His own, personal mission - that´s why I said, he made his films foremost for himself - hence selfish.
I was putting selfish in quotes for that reason. It was not mend negative.

His propose was not to entertain the audience, but to take it on a mythical, symbol loaded, journey.
Nothing wrong with that.
But it was always HIS personal journey - heck, sometimes it seems to me, he made his films as a therapy.

Once again, no offense here - I already stressed, that his movies are a different beast as the usual "Hollywood - 3 act - structure".

In my book, he was putting too much of himself in his films.
It´s never "a film by Tarkovsky" - it´s always a "Tarkovsky film" .

But here it comes down to taste.
Some like that, some not and we should respect that different folks have different taste.

To each his own.

Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top