Camera movement
- Thread starter randomname
- Start date
memento515
Active member
well, it's genius, or its the simple application of the realist idea (Bazin, Kracauer) that cinema is created when we allow reality to unfold without interfering through editing. an expressionist would not have necessarily made a worse scene. Just a different one.
as far as camera movement, the movement here is acting as the pov of an -objective- observer and also asserting the reality of the three-dimensional space in front of the camera. This is an extension of a realist cinematic point of view, not an isolated technique.
sorry to sound like a broken record, I just find myself continually astonished that film theory is so overlooked on this forum, since so many of the answers to "how do I make video look cinematic" are found in the studies of what is cinematic.
Hmmpff!!!!!
<<drinks tea with pinky in the air>>
No seriously tho read your nerdy film theory folks:
"I love showing my movies to my students because they can easily make them"
-Ramin Bahrani
director of realist films such as Chop Shop and Man Push Cart....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUjusA87QI
as far as camera movement, the movement here is acting as the pov of an -objective- observer and also asserting the reality of the three-dimensional space in front of the camera. This is an extension of a realist cinematic point of view, not an isolated technique.
sorry to sound like a broken record, I just find myself continually astonished that film theory is so overlooked on this forum, since so many of the answers to "how do I make video look cinematic" are found in the studies of what is cinematic.
Hmmpff!!!!!
<<drinks tea with pinky in the air>>
No seriously tho read your nerdy film theory folks:
"I love showing my movies to my students because they can easily make them"
-Ramin Bahrani
director of realist films such as Chop Shop and Man Push Cart....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUjusA87QI
Last edited:
But the problem is you seem absolutely stuck in someone else's film theory. This renders you completely helpless when it comes to looking at what each individual artist does in each scene, each frame, each movement. Instead, simply referencing Bazin or some other film theory really is meaningless. Those guys had their own ideas- and own analysis- and all you're doing is footnoting them. So really, to just slap a label on the scene is unfortunately shallow on your part. Sorry if it comes off mean, but well, you're coming off a bit pretentious, even if you are joking around (which I realize you are). For you all you know Angeloplous has never even read Bazin, so to simply say he's using Bazin's theory is silly.
Instead of simply labeling the technique I'd say these things:
In the first shot the truck pulls up to the camera, filling the frame, as the camera slowly tracks left. This very slow movement, acting as a parallel to the truck driver's movement, creates a sense of wonder and unease for the observer. The driver eventually pulls the young girl out, and as she futiely runs away from us we sense the inevitable.
The next shot is the real interesting one. Look at the at way the shot is framed, first of all. The back of the truck creates a giant block in the composition, a quite literal void where things are not seen or heard. The genius of this, of course, is that the director lets us imagine, and certainly realize, what's happening in that void. But he goes further- the rape, the sexuality, the violence, is kept under wraps even in public. The director fools our expectations by having a car pull off the side of the road to the left, and we THINK someone is going to investigate or help the poor child, but instead we sense the ignorance of society as another car pulls up and a banal exchange is made. The is no accusation of the public or people in general- the director is simply pointing out that there's no way for humans in general to sense others' suffering, even when in close proxmity. Things like this happen all the time without anyone's knowing, and there's nothing we can do to stop it because of our ignorance of the situation. The director is juxtaposing the private, personal suffering of a person with the entire outside world in one composition.
After the cars drive off, the little girl's brother pops out, first on the right side of the frame, then on the left, and runs off. This reinforces the idea of ignorance in the scene. Here we have a small child's ignorance- and innocence- as his sister horrifically loses hers. While her brother may remain ignorant of the true horros of life for another few years, she's experiencing it first hand, dealing with the weight and suffering like a matyr.
The man comes out, the shot continues. He is flustered, visibly worried about being seen, and perhaps profoundly ashamed of himself. As he disappears, we don't know if the girl is alive or dead.
Strikingly, her bare legs are the first thing visible, appearing from under the tarp's frame.
This compositional choice conveys all we need to know about the events that took place- the complete and total atmosphere of the event is expressed within the girl's light legs against the darkness.
As she comes out completely and sits upright, she blankly stares at her bloody hand. The cameras has slowly moved closer and closer, until we now share the same personal space with her instead of being a distant observer.
She knows what has happened, but of course cannot fully comprehend it.
She does the only thing she can- wipe the blood off on the side of the truck. She cannot erase what has happened, only shrug it off and move on.
What is very important about this shot, and why it needs to be unbroken, is that it expresses a fact of life within the time of it's frame. We move from the ignorance and confusion of the situation and the world to a close up of a bloody hand, to the personal suffering of one person.
The fact of life here is that some people will take what they want from weaker people. They will make them suffer. It happens in nature, it happens in our society, and these weaker people will be utterly helpless to do anything about it. And the only thing they can do is endure while the rest of the world is ignorant to the suffering that occurs. It happens to every living thing at some point on some level.
It's a reoccuring theme in the film- take for instance, the scene with the dying horse in the town square. The director chooses to frame it so we see and hear a happy wedding dance occuring the background. Again, he is juxtaposing the horrific experience of these two children with the blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. He's drawing attention to the suffering that we perhaps ignore more often than not out of habit.
What makes it important is that the director is examining a concrete experience and what makes it genius is the details of his composition, movement, and use of sound (notice the constant sound of traffic and the appearance of mist seem to drown all of the horror out). This shot NEEDS to be expressed, as I said, as one single continous movement, not so much for realism, but to create the full experience stemming from this fact of life.
For another really good, horrific rape scene where you DON'T see what happens- watch Bresson's 1966 film Au Hasard Balthazar. It expresses the same idea although in a completely different way with a difference experience- Bresson uses several shots- several emotional movements by the characters- to express the back and forth between the two character's power sway. It's also another example of genius within the cinema.
Again, not trying to sound mean. But instead of trying to impress us with your knowledge of Bazin, I'd actually really like to read YOUR personal examination of the camera movements in the scene!
Instead of simply labeling the technique I'd say these things:
In the first shot the truck pulls up to the camera, filling the frame, as the camera slowly tracks left. This very slow movement, acting as a parallel to the truck driver's movement, creates a sense of wonder and unease for the observer. The driver eventually pulls the young girl out, and as she futiely runs away from us we sense the inevitable.
The next shot is the real interesting one. Look at the at way the shot is framed, first of all. The back of the truck creates a giant block in the composition, a quite literal void where things are not seen or heard. The genius of this, of course, is that the director lets us imagine, and certainly realize, what's happening in that void. But he goes further- the rape, the sexuality, the violence, is kept under wraps even in public. The director fools our expectations by having a car pull off the side of the road to the left, and we THINK someone is going to investigate or help the poor child, but instead we sense the ignorance of society as another car pulls up and a banal exchange is made. The is no accusation of the public or people in general- the director is simply pointing out that there's no way for humans in general to sense others' suffering, even when in close proxmity. Things like this happen all the time without anyone's knowing, and there's nothing we can do to stop it because of our ignorance of the situation. The director is juxtaposing the private, personal suffering of a person with the entire outside world in one composition.
After the cars drive off, the little girl's brother pops out, first on the right side of the frame, then on the left, and runs off. This reinforces the idea of ignorance in the scene. Here we have a small child's ignorance- and innocence- as his sister horrifically loses hers. While her brother may remain ignorant of the true horros of life for another few years, she's experiencing it first hand, dealing with the weight and suffering like a matyr.
The man comes out, the shot continues. He is flustered, visibly worried about being seen, and perhaps profoundly ashamed of himself. As he disappears, we don't know if the girl is alive or dead.
Strikingly, her bare legs are the first thing visible, appearing from under the tarp's frame.
This compositional choice conveys all we need to know about the events that took place- the complete and total atmosphere of the event is expressed within the girl's light legs against the darkness.
As she comes out completely and sits upright, she blankly stares at her bloody hand. The cameras has slowly moved closer and closer, until we now share the same personal space with her instead of being a distant observer.
She knows what has happened, but of course cannot fully comprehend it.
She does the only thing she can- wipe the blood off on the side of the truck. She cannot erase what has happened, only shrug it off and move on.
What is very important about this shot, and why it needs to be unbroken, is that it expresses a fact of life within the time of it's frame. We move from the ignorance and confusion of the situation and the world to a close up of a bloody hand, to the personal suffering of one person.
The fact of life here is that some people will take what they want from weaker people. They will make them suffer. It happens in nature, it happens in our society, and these weaker people will be utterly helpless to do anything about it. And the only thing they can do is endure while the rest of the world is ignorant to the suffering that occurs. It happens to every living thing at some point on some level.
It's a reoccuring theme in the film- take for instance, the scene with the dying horse in the town square. The director chooses to frame it so we see and hear a happy wedding dance occuring the background. Again, he is juxtaposing the horrific experience of these two children with the blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. He's drawing attention to the suffering that we perhaps ignore more often than not out of habit.
What makes it important is that the director is examining a concrete experience and what makes it genius is the details of his composition, movement, and use of sound (notice the constant sound of traffic and the appearance of mist seem to drown all of the horror out). This shot NEEDS to be expressed, as I said, as one single continous movement, not so much for realism, but to create the full experience stemming from this fact of life.
For another really good, horrific rape scene where you DON'T see what happens- watch Bresson's 1966 film Au Hasard Balthazar. It expresses the same idea although in a completely different way with a difference experience- Bresson uses several shots- several emotional movements by the characters- to express the back and forth between the two character's power sway. It's also another example of genius within the cinema.
Again, not trying to sound mean. But instead of trying to impress us with your knowledge of Bazin, I'd actually really like to read YOUR personal examination of the camera movements in the scene!
Last edited:
Zblock
Well-known member
I think You move camera to establish a "Feel" for the movie. Look at "Fargo". Hardly any camera movement in that movie at all. I think this was a budget related choice not a STORY related choice. "Saving Private Ryan" camera movement has less to do with story and everything to do with making you feel like your right there with the actors dodging bullets. Other times I think you can do what you want as the director.
4 or more choices to show a scene.
1. Show a wide of a destroyed room with a person sitting on the bed hunched over and mumbling....
or 2. Sweep camera along the floor showing bits and pieces of broken alarm clock, glass, spare change. Rise up the bleeding arm of a "somebody" whose sitting on a bed and come to rest on their mouth as the mumble inaudibly.
or 3. start off looking out a window at a seemingly normal and lovely day. Pull back inside the room to reveal destruction and mumbling psychopath
or 4. Close up of broken alarm clock... beat... cut to broken glass in carpet... beat... cut to destroyed picture frame and picture of a beautiful girl holding hand with... cut to similar looking bleeding guy to the one in the picture.
It's really just directors choice (or whoever's making the choice) you could tell the story very intricately or simple. It's up to YOU.
I personally love dolly shots/crane shots/and handheld I like to get off the sticks but time and money keep me on them more than I'd like. Break the rules, do what you want... JUST DO IT WELL!!!!!
Last edited:
Zblock
Well-known member
Originally Posted by NextWaveG
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.
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.
Agreed
memento515
Active member
<<What makes it important is that the director is examining a concrete experience and what makes it genius is the details of his composition, movement, and use of sound (notice the constant sound of traffic and the appearance of mist seem to drown all of the horror out). This shot NEEDS to be expressed, as I said, as one single continous movement, not so much for realism, but to create the full experience stemming from this fact of life.>>>
talking like this you sound exactly like a realist film theorist or critic. great job of explaining why the shot works. I still think someones better off reading kracauer and bazin, tho. Theory doesn't tell you what to do it only explains what artists already do and why it works, so we can learn from it.
<<<The director is juxtaposing the private, personal suffering of a person with the entire outside world in one composition.>>>>
your words.
" Visconti's neo-realism heightens the interplay between characters and surroundings, the bleak, unforgiving interiors and street shots reflective of the lousy hand these no-hopers have been dealt. "
from the green-cine primer on neo-realism.
good job.
http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/neorealism1.jsp
talking like this you sound exactly like a realist film theorist or critic. great job of explaining why the shot works. I still think someones better off reading kracauer and bazin, tho. Theory doesn't tell you what to do it only explains what artists already do and why it works, so we can learn from it.
<<<The director is juxtaposing the private, personal suffering of a person with the entire outside world in one composition.>>>>
your words.
" Visconti's neo-realism heightens the interplay between characters and surroundings, the bleak, unforgiving interiors and street shots reflective of the lousy hand these no-hopers have been dealt. "
from the green-cine primer on neo-realism.
good job.
http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/neorealism1.jsp
Last edited:
I'm not saying people shouldn't read those works...and for the record, I haven't read the site you linked nor have I extensively read Bazin. If my ideas or analysis overlap with his or anyone else's, than it's just coincidence...which is my point. These people all noticed these things on their own...they became aware of these things in cinema by studying cinema themselves. Reading them can help, but mostly by making us more aware to begin with so we can notice/analyze on our own.
My point is that it doesn't just stop at reading the criticism. It's important that people speak up using their own voice and vision.
My point is that it doesn't just stop at reading the criticism. It's important that people speak up using their own voice and vision.
memento515
Active member
I know you haven't read the site. I was saying you just happened to explained it in the same exact terms that realists do, and, of course you did, because its a realist film. I'm sure Angelopoulos has seen and studied multitudes of italian neo-realist films and knows that he's working in that tradition, even as he puts his own stamp on it. All the great film directors know their film history and where their movies are either playing with or against the conventions of their chosen genre/style.
If someone wants to use camera movement in the same way, it helps if they understand what that whole cinematic approach is about (using unedited 3-d space, camera acting as a passive observer to true-to-life events, and as you pointed out, contrasting elements in the frame to make a social point). You cant isolate the shot from the whole movie or the movie from its genre.
originality and tradition you need them both.
Last edited:
You're confusing knowing cinema history with hiding inside a label. I'm sure the director wasn't thinking "I'm going to make a realist film". That's pretty silly.
You must be a cinema studies student. What will you do when faced with something truly and shockingly original that you can't stick a label on, I wonder?
polfilmblog
Well-known member
"Not sure why people are getting so offended over having discussions about films and cinematography on a filmmaking site?"
When you misrepresent what the other fellow says, it's called a Straw Man. Look it up. Genius.
My mother took me to see a psychiatrist when I was a young boy. Rather not go into the reasons. The psychiatrist said I had an Oedipus complex. Fortunately my mother was an educated woman and knew right away that couldn't be so: "Don't be stupid - the boy knows nothing about Greek mythology and has never read Freud".
The original post implied the director was reading Bazin and applying the methods of this film theorist directly. Just because he's doing things Bazin would have liked or agreed with does not mean he's trying to make a "____" theory film. I haven't known a lot of artists who think that way..."Oh, I feel like making a neorealist film!". Did the original realists work in Bazin's theory too? Did they use time machines to go forward, read Bazin, then come back and make such films? No. They simply make it and someone labels it as such. I'm sure Angelopolous wasn't trying to appease Bazin's ghost when he made that shot. He was thinking about his vision and emotions of the scene rather than saying "Oh boy, this is going to be SOOOOOO realist! I hope I get bonus realist points for having such a long take!"
memento515
Active member
lol, geez, chicken or egg huh.
Sorry its such a shock, but film theorists and critics influence the development of the art. As a matter of fact, Tarantino has read Pauline Kael religiously and is highly influenced by her. If you read your film history, you'll see that the French New Wave was -directly- influenced by Bazins writings.
sorry to break your illusion that art is some mystical magical thing, but theres these things called books and theres information in them and nerdy people analyze movies and yes, it ends up helping people make cool art.
People who care enough about cinema to learn about it, that is.
go find out for yourself, theres like a whole internet for you to do your research. Look up Batman 1999 and German Expressionism if you like. Thats your first homework assignment.
Sorry its such a shock, but film theorists and critics influence the development of the art. As a matter of fact, Tarantino has read Pauline Kael religiously and is highly influenced by her. If you read your film history, you'll see that the French New Wave was -directly- influenced by Bazins writings.
sorry to break your illusion that art is some mystical magical thing, but theres these things called books and theres information in them and nerdy people analyze movies and yes, it ends up helping people make cool art.
People who care enough about cinema to learn about it, that is.
go find out for yourself, theres like a whole internet for you to do your research. Look up Batman 1999 and German Expressionism if you like. Thats your first homework assignment.
memento515
Active member
find out what it's influences are, cause they're there!
and im not a student im self- taught through reading you can do the same if you like.I apologize for being rude on my last post; my intent is to share, not come off like a know it all tho I fail at that sometimes.
dont want my point to get lost, which is that anyone interested in using long moving camera takes can read theory of film by kracauer, what is cinema by bazin, or find out about the neo-realists and their beliefs about what great cinema is and what the film/video camera does best, because, the Angelopoulos' shot in question, is from a film that can, yes, be classified as realist.
I'm not refuting your point. I'm not saying reading film theory is bad or doesn't help artists. I'm saying artists generally don't plan to make a specific theorist's film. They make the film, then somebody else classifies it as whatever. But it's MUCH MUCH more useful to look at a film directly rather than take a big realist checklist and check off things on a list. Reading critics can help you see things you didn't notice before...but labels are really just shortcuts. They aren't all that important and can be very dangerous and a dead end.
The neo-realists came up with their own ideas about film by DOING it. Tarkovsky and Bresson and Bergman and Cassavetes (who actually didn't give two shits about ANY theory) all created their own world by doing doing doing things themselves. Creating their vision. And yes, they had influences. But they weren't just copying them or trying to make them like a "Realist" film. They were creating what was in their souls, their lives.
Reading film theory and certain critics can be very enriching. But some people get too caught up in OTHER people's ideas...which is bad for the creation or appreciation of art. I went to a school where they taught us to look at films from a "Feminist" stance or a "symbolic" stance or whatever. It's so idiotic. I look at films and make my own analysis. I feel my own emotions. I don't go "Well, does this coincide with the REALIST stance? Or does this promote FEMINISM? Or does it..." Blah blah blah. It kills the human spirit.
When I read a critical analysis of a film, I don't want people to tell me about OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas. I don't care about that. I want NEW ideas, NEW theories, NEW outlooks, NEW ways of making art. And we aren't going to get there by getting caught up in film theory rhetoric. Film history and criticism is important. But it's important to read and learn, not regurgitate it. All those film theorists you love came up with these theories on their own.
AND...I'll say this...anyone interested in doing long camera takes should first learn from the artists themselves. Watch Bela Tarr. Watch Tarkovsky. Watch Angelopoulos. Watch Weerasethakul. REALLY pay attention to what the artist themselves are doing. THEN read. Then watch again. THEN make the films.
So I want to make it clear I think film history is very important. I just don't think labels are very important. And personally, I happen to find art pretty magical. But if I didn't, I wouldn't be much of an aspiring artist. I'd make pretty boring art.
The neo-realists came up with their own ideas about film by DOING it. Tarkovsky and Bresson and Bergman and Cassavetes (who actually didn't give two shits about ANY theory) all created their own world by doing doing doing things themselves. Creating their vision. And yes, they had influences. But they weren't just copying them or trying to make them like a "Realist" film. They were creating what was in their souls, their lives.
Reading film theory and certain critics can be very enriching. But some people get too caught up in OTHER people's ideas...which is bad for the creation or appreciation of art. I went to a school where they taught us to look at films from a "Feminist" stance or a "symbolic" stance or whatever. It's so idiotic. I look at films and make my own analysis. I feel my own emotions. I don't go "Well, does this coincide with the REALIST stance? Or does this promote FEMINISM? Or does it..." Blah blah blah. It kills the human spirit.
When I read a critical analysis of a film, I don't want people to tell me about OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas. I don't care about that. I want NEW ideas, NEW theories, NEW outlooks, NEW ways of making art. And we aren't going to get there by getting caught up in film theory rhetoric. Film history and criticism is important. But it's important to read and learn, not regurgitate it. All those film theorists you love came up with these theories on their own.
AND...I'll say this...anyone interested in doing long camera takes should first learn from the artists themselves. Watch Bela Tarr. Watch Tarkovsky. Watch Angelopoulos. Watch Weerasethakul. REALLY pay attention to what the artist themselves are doing. THEN read. Then watch again. THEN make the films.
So I want to make it clear I think film history is very important. I just don't think labels are very important. And personally, I happen to find art pretty magical. But if I didn't, I wouldn't be much of an aspiring artist. I'd make pretty boring art.
Film Theory is really at least 2 distinct efforts. The first is a discussion as to what films ought to do and the second a discussion of how films do what they do. You can certainly expect NEW theories of what film-makers ought to do. But to expect NEW theories of how a certain series of images are interpreted by the brain is not so realistic. The basic laws of composition are intrinsic to our physiology, the more subtle being influenced by our culture. They are not arbitrary.
Aren't you fed up with the theory of relativity? Isn't it just sort of OLD? Maybe Apple could hook up with Lady GaGa and come up with something NEW that would get objects falling up instead of down?
Aren't you fed up with the theory of relativity? Isn't it just sort of OLD? Maybe Apple could hook up with Lady GaGa and come up with something NEW that would get objects falling up instead of down?
"When I read a critical analysis of a film, I don't want people to tell me about OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas."
Yes, sometimes when I read analysis of a film I get a rising sense of frustration. If you cut out the references to other people's interpretations/ideas there is very little original material on the page. It seems dispassionate and dishonest. It also seems to jar (like some of the unmotivated camerawork out there).
Can't remember what it was I saw a few month's back but a couple were having an intimate conversation in a woodland clearing. The jerky handheld camera 'watching' them made me think that someone (or something) was going to jump out of the trees at them. Nothing happened.
Yes, sometimes when I read analysis of a film I get a rising sense of frustration. If you cut out the references to other people's interpretations/ideas there is very little original material on the page. It seems dispassionate and dishonest. It also seems to jar (like some of the unmotivated camerawork out there).
Can't remember what it was I saw a few month's back but a couple were having an intimate conversation in a woodland clearing. The jerky handheld camera 'watching' them made me think that someone (or something) was going to jump out of the trees at them. Nothing happened.
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
Your metaphor, while cute, has no practical application in this discussion. There aren't half a million scientists all drawing upon Einstein's theory to make their own theories of relativity.
Not to mention, your suggestion about Apple and Lady Gaga making a new theory that would get objects falling up instead of down? Yeah, filmmakers do that every day.