RANT: "Indie" doesn't have to mean completely hand-held, right?

John C Lyons

John C Lyons

Veteran
I've noticed a trend that seems to be spreading, and I'm not so sure it's a good thing: more filmmakers going entirely hand-held

Obviously I am not talking documentaries, or a narrative that is supposed to feel like one. I mean, even "indie" films starring big names and sporting budgets much larger than most of us have imagined (yet) feel the need to ditch the tripod. Why? We know they can afford it.

Since when did it become artistic to bob and weave during a very usual, very normal conversation? No arguing, no intensity, no chaos...just gabbing. Is it just the new cool thing to do? Is it the belief that viewers aren't patient anymore unless they're bashed over the head with ever-changing visuals? Does it help make the movie seem more low-budget/amateur than it really is? And, if so, why do we want the audience to think that? Should we blame shows like Arrested Development, 24, and on-the-fly reality TV?

Personally, I see going hand-held as another tool the filmmaker has to convey an emotion to the viewer, just like lighting, music, etc. It can be extremely effective, but should be used sparingly and within reason: "Batman Begins" when Batman drops down catching the bad guys off-guard and quickly beats the crap out of em, or in "the Bourne Supremacy" when there's raw hand-to-hand fighting or an intense car chase.

When an entire film is bobbing from shot-to-shot it can be extremely distracting and can even ruin the experience for some viewers. I've heard people complain of headaches after coming out of some films, and especially on the big screen it's much more harsh than on the tube. Maybe subconsciously you aren't so taken back when an emotional scene comes because you're already worn out visually?

So...any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
While I agree with your 'rant' in theory - it's hard not to.
You're basically saying that you don't like bad and umotivated camera work.
Not much to discuss there.
I mean, who's going to stand up and say "I love it, shaky unmotivated camera moves are the best!"

Personally I thought the hand held fighting in 'Bourne Supremacy' was WAY too much for me. I coudln't tell who was who or what the hell was going on. In fact, I got bored during the fight scene (I'm talking about the one with the assassin in the apartment here) - shooting an action scene like that is the same to me as watching a plain dialogue scene in another language. I like to see what's going on in the action - just like I like to be able to understand what characters are saying.

Now that doesn't mean I don't like handheld - "Bloody Sunday" was brilliant, in my opinion (and oddly enough the same director).

But as far as movies who use handheld entirely for no good reason... I don't think many people are going to disagree with you.
 
I totally agree.

I think the hand-held stuff is way over done.

One of the best pieces of advice I heard about shooting with a small camera, was treat it like a big camera and it will (pun intended) give your shots more weight.

Chris
 
It's a style, just like anything else.
Especially, if they're a "run and gun" type filmmaker.

Use it sparingly, use it on every take, don't use it at all.... I think it's entirely up to the filmmaker and whatever they wanna do.

I don't think it's "the cool thing to do" and I don't think it makes it "more low-budget or amateur."
 
I'm not saying we all need to throw away our tripods and follow, I am just saying I think this is a trend I have started to notice more recently and I am just wondering why it is increasingly being used and in some cases abused.

I am all for unique and creative ways to tell a story, and I am definitely guilty of enjoying a movie a LOT because of it's style more than anything else, but I am just wondering about the reasoning, from a filmmaker's perspective, behind this technique when there oftentimes doesn't seem to be a purpose to it.
 
michael_summers said:
this is such a stupid reason to be angry... bad movies are made every day. so what? watch good ones, make good ones.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's angry Michael - just wanting to discuss what he sees as a growing trend.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
I think the reasoning is to look "raw" - almost like a 'verite' throwback.
Click to expand...

Totally...

For the "documentary" look, to make it seem more real, like its a news crew filming it or something.
 
I'm with you, man. That amateur handheld crap annoys the holy crap outta me. Poor craftsmanship is all I have to say. It's like every dweeb with a Handycam can shoot a piece of handheld, image-stabilized crap and say, "Oooh, ooh, I'm a FILMMAKER."

Fluid head stix shots, track dolly shots, low-angle high-hat shots, car mount shots, Steadicam shots (both vest and hard-mount), and of course, the occasional MOTIVATED handheld shot, is what I'm all about.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
I don't think he's angry Michael - just wanting to discuss what he sees as a growing trend.
Click to expand...

v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rants
v. intr.
To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave.

v. tr.
To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.

dictionary.com, to the rescue
 
But when it comes down to it, it's about the story and characters that will determine the success of the film and the filmmaker, not the camerawork, not the 24p, not the dvx, not the varicam, not 35mm, etc....

Camerawork can only add to the story, not make it better... In my opinion.
 
Filmjunkie677 said:
Totally...

For the "documentary" look, to make it seem more real, like its a news crew filming it or something.
Click to expand...


I was trying to stay away from using the word 'documentary.'
After seeing "Bourne Supremacy" a friend of mine complained about the shaky camera work - and without thinking I said, "he was probably going for that documentary look."

My friend is a documentary filmmaker - and apparently I'd hit a nerve.
He told me "you know, people always say that...but I'd never even shoot a documentary that way"

:)
 
michael_summers said:
v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rants
v. intr.
To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave.

v. tr.
To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.

dictionary.com, to the rescue
Click to expand...


I never said he didn't use the word incorrectly - only that I didn't think he was angry.
:)
 
haha. still an interesting issue nonetheless. I didnt like bourne supremacy either... something about shakey camerawork is unappealing to me.
 
I am a fan of hand-held work when done right (Bourne Supremacy is **** whilst Saving Private Ryan rules) but I also find it a lazy way to shoot.
 
Filmjunkie677 said:
But when it comes down to it, it's about the story and characters that will determine the success of the film and the filmmaker, not the camerawork, not the 24p, not the dvx, not the varicam, not 35mm, etc....

Camerawork can only add to the story, not make it better... In my opinion.
Click to expand...
Not if the lame-azz camerawork distracts from the story.
 
OK, ok, so it didn't really end up being a "RANT" but I wanted to get your attention, so I guess it worked...:rolleyes:

I LOVED "The Bourne Supremacy". And while the shakey-cam bugged me (just a bit) during the assassin fight in the apartment on the big screen, it didn't at all on the small screen. But otherwise I wasn't distracted by the camerawork. I thought the movie was pretty intense so it made sense to me (and the amount of shake varied depending on mood/feel of a scene).

I understand that hand-held is a stylistic choice, in general, but my thoughts here are that maybe it is moving out of that realm and more into a "trend" without necessarily having a point to it. And that's what bugs me. It's a choice of the filmmaker, and we're all filmmakers here, so that's why I posted to see where you all weigh in on this choice and if there's an increase to it that you are seeing as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top