Good Advice Never Gets Old

Ryan Patrick O'Hara

Ryan Patrick O'Hara

Veteran
From American Cinematographer, Camera Technique Dominates Filming Results by Claude W. Cadarette (January 1940)

Every movement of the camera must have a definite purpose behind it, and if it is done without a good reason you are just retarding the tempo of the picture.
Click to expand...


This is not something new to me, but a truth I've known retold from an article written over 70+ years ago! It's quite frustrating that such advice and wisdom has been around for so long, yet legions of new filmmakers and directors insist on camera moves with no motivation or justification. What Claude failed to mention, is unjustified camera moves not only slow the tempo of the picture, but the tempo of the production. Elaborate dolly shots can cause longer set-up and execution times.
 
Couldn't agree more. Thanks for bringing this up :thumbsup:

I think this holds a larger truth: Everything should serve to develop the story.
 
The camera should move to keep actors in frame. TEchnichally, thats why it should move.

Artistically.... well. back in the day, thy shot at a T16 to make sure everyhtign was in focus, cause if you had shallow DOF, you got fired. so. yea.
 
The same goes for flairing a lens, That was a big NO-NO back in the day. But yeah, I couldn't agree more. Im so friggin tired of seeing dslr slider footage, It's become nausiating. Back and fourth, in and out. C'mon, leave the slider in the truck until it's needed.
 
TimurCivan said:
The camera should move to keep actors in frame. TEchnichally, thats why it should move.

Artistically.... well. back in the day, thy shot at a T16 to make sure everyhtign was in focus, cause if you had shallow DOF, you got fired. so. yea.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. I think it's all well & good to heed the advice of industry professionals, but there comes a point where only following the 'rules' will just make your work stagnant & predictable. It's often through breaking these 'rules' that true innovation will occur. Sure, naysayers will grumble & complain about your crazy new techniques for a couple of years, but after a while they tend to just become accepted as legimate use of visual language & not some taboo way of making movies.

But to be honest, I agree that Michael Bay really takes the p*ss sometimes. His camera movements nearly always seem to be motivated by ego & wanting to make each of his movies more ridiculous & technically complex than the last.
 
Ground-breaking [read: gimmicky] camera work has come and, sometimes, gone over the years and through generations of filmmakers. From the first helicopter shots in movies like Picnic to Howe's work on pictures like Seconds, cinematographers have been doing crazy stuff almost since the beginning to try and tell the story in a better way.

I like frenetic handheld work to some extent - especially when it makes sense - but I really admire cinematography that simply and quietly helps move the story forward.
 
What do you guys think about the camera movement in Panic Room? Sometimes I liked it when the camera would travel through otherwise impossibly small spaces or around the house as Fincher wanted,.... but sometimes it felt super over the top.... such as when the burglars are first at the house.

I love the shot going from front door, to back door, to attic, and etc. I just don't like how the camera glides inches from the counter or goes through stupid objects with no significance, like the coffee pot. It feels very sensationalist, like I'm sitting in a 'Honey I Shrunk the Kids' 3D ride at an amusement park. Didn't mean anything to the story to be super crazy like that. Now going through vents when the gas is leaking and other moves were completely motivated.... and I liked those too.

The camera starts inside the house looking out the front windows, the robbers can't get in so they go around to the back... the camera, inside the house, turns around and travels to the back door, but goes in-between a coffee pot handle or something ridiculous. I love the sequence but sometimes they make us 'travel' through objects and spaces for a 'wow' factor and it takes me out of the story.

It was really hit and miss for me, as far as being appropriate for the story... when the camera does really crazy things, I stop thinking about the story and think "oh wow, we just flew through that coffee pot!" and I think that is the wrong thought to have at that moment of the story.




 
Last edited:
I dunno. None of that really offended me, although the going into the keyhole was a bit much. I would have never really paid attention to things like going through the coffee pot handle until you brought it up. It seemed like pulling back from the bed was to show how empty and alone the sleeper was while going through the coffee pot was somewhat of a way to show juxtaposition between normal life(coffee) and something very foreign and rare to most of us(break-ins).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top