shaky camera: love or hate?

shaky camera: love or hate?

  • Love it! it makes everything better!!

    Votes: 2 1.4%

  • Hate it! it makes me sick!

    Votes: 45 32.4%

  • Only when it's done right.

    Votes: 92 66.2%
  • Total voters
    139
F

Fahad

Veteran
(a little rant)

personally, i hate it. very rarely is it done properly.

aesthetically, it's like vomiting on a perfectly good picture.

the popularity of the shaky camera is what happens when people get hung about technique rather than art.

yes, there are moments where it might be useful, but those are few and far between, imo.

i've heard comparisons to directing with ADD and all that....

but seriously, we have to remember that we are making motion PICTURES to tell a STORY!

we're not making shaky pictures, special effects pictures, we are not a production company, we are story tellers.

if they say a picture is worth a thousand words, then here we have an opportunity to work with 10,000+ words!

in my opinion, every single frame in a movie should hold up just as well, aesthetically, as a beautiful still picture.

this sums it up neatly:

in Roger Ebert's review of 2001: A Space Odyssey:

The genius is not in how much Stanley Kubrick does in “2001: A Space Odyssey,'' but in how little. This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn't include a single shot simply to keep our attention. He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations. Alone among science-fiction movies, “2001'' is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe.
Click to expand...

so, do you love or hate it? why?
 
I'm a fan of it. As a viewer, it brings me more into the story. The only issue I have with it is that it dates films, much like "bullet time" did after the Matrix came out.
 
if i consider a smooth camera movement as steady.

someone running with a steadi-cam as shaky footage.

actually shaking the camera excessively stupid.

(my third generation stupid theory, 1st generation does something good, 2nd generation trying to emulate 1st generation and failing by emulating everything except what made the 1st generation good, 3rd generation trying to emulate 2nd generation, total failure.)
 
I used to love it and wanted to make my films all in handheld shaky type camera. However as time has gone on i've begun to like it less and less. I am still a huge fan of handheld but think it looks much much better when it's steady...basically my ideal cinematography is the style form Children of Men.
 
Has Zak Forsman ever used a tripod?

I don't mind it when appropriate... I've seen some t.v. shows where it is so deliberate it is painful... little intentional jerks here and there... All depends on whether it serves the content or not (to me) and if it is "natural" looking or contrived.
 
You should always be using a tripod basically, or something better, i.e. jib, dolly, etc.

On my feature I would say it was the largest part tripod, we didn't have a ton of gadgets, so maybe 60% tripod, 20% slider, 15% split evenly between handheld and steadicam, and 5% doorway dolly.

I don't like the shaky camera look much at all, I find it annoying, but sure it can be used well. Give me really smooth, beautiful shots over that any time, though. That being said, different aesthetics for different parts of a film and different films in general. Just no Blair Witch Project, that movie sucked.
 
I absolutely hate it, and I really can't think of a film that has used it properly. Okay, I understood it in The Blair Witch Project, but nothing else.

To me, shaky cam should only be used for those rare shots when the content of the shot calls for it, and you want the audience to feel uncomfortable.

All of these films that do it for entire action scenes or even the entire film have destroyed the effect.

To me it almost has the opposite effect now of what it is supposed to achieve. It is supposed make the audience feel more viscerally connected to the characters, but now it just calls attention to the fact that it is a camera filming the characters.
 
I think it worked for: The Shield, BSG, The Bourne Flicks and District 9. other than that it usually appears obviously deliberate.
 
It depends. The list above is pretty good. Most of the time it's overdone by someone who doesn't understand how these things work, and it seems to be used to hide a lack of dramatic action rather than to enhance it. Sometimes it works flawlessly, and I love it in those cases and use it myself. On set, whenever the cameraman goes shoulder mount, I tell him never to actually shake the camera, since it's enough just holding it still.
 
El Director said:
I'm a fan of it. As a viewer, it brings me more into the story. The only issue I have with it is that it dates films, much like "bullet time" did after the Matrix came out.
Click to expand...

Or the 'late 60's early 70's action film zoom', which seems to have gained a significant following in Hong Kong...
 
I'm not crazy about this question, because the answer can't be yes or no. It's a tool. Knowing when to use it is everything.

Do I like unneccessary shaky cam? Over-indulgent shaky cam? Of course not. Who does? I'd be surprised if anyone clicked anything other than "Only when it's done right."
 
Hate the shaky cam. Reminds me of movies like Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity, or any of the POV action movies like Crank, Bourne. etc. I understand its purpose though.
 
I don't like it and I don't even understand its purpose, since most of the time, the human eye never actually experiences the shaky P.O.V. being shown. It's supposed to make you feel you're "part of the action," but in real life, that's not what the action actually feels like to someone involved. To me, it's supposed to emulate the sense of something being filmed by someone, but somewhere along the way it got substituted for personal P.O.V., which just doesn't make sense. Set the camera down and step away. If you've written, cast, and directed well, all the action you need to keep people's attention should already be on the screen. No gimmicks necessary.
 
I think every camera shot should serve a purpose emotionally and visually.

I think shaky cam is over used and the classical compositions we saw from the 50's till the late 70's (and still seen today from the gods) are a lost art on todays filmmakers who are learning the craft or coming from the music video sector
 
I think it can be used sparingly, but I gotta say, I've been watching a lot of older films lately, like the 60's bond films (which look AMAZING on blu-ray), and the rock solid compositions and smooth camera work allows me to get lost in the film easier. The borders of the frame seem to disappear because I can actually focus on what's happening. Shaky cam too often makes me aware I'm watching a movie.
 
When it is actually handheld or shoulder mount POV unstabilized footage where the cameraman is doing his best to be steady and put the viewer in the scene I think it can work well. Otherwise it is pretentious crap.
 
i agree with everyone's reasons for disliking it.

steadicam is a far cry from shaky cam, and it's much better. what i like about good films, is that, steadicam or tripod, every shot is composed. no sloppy 'is it here' 'is it there' 'oh look over here'.

someone mentioned children of men. i loved that movie, story-wise, and aesthetically. it was stable camera motion that kept you (as the viewer) in the action. i.e. the camera movement didn't distract from the drama. kind of like the steadicam in memento.

another 'technique' that's bothered me a lot about newer films is the overuse of the medium shot and close up shot. i don't need to see everything! as has been mentioned before, it only works when it's called for, but most of the time, MOST of the time, it ain't.

as an exercise in aesthetic appreciation, i highly recommend 'a clock work orange' and '8½' <- this one's out on blu-ray, simply amazing b&w cinematography.

maybe it's just the photographer in me, but when you're directing your new project, please remember to consider the most beautiful way to present a scene. really think about it. you know how they say, to succeed you have to 'keep it original', 'keep it fresh', i think that applies to the directing, editing, sound, cinematography, IN ADDITION to writing.

just because a blockbuster is using technique X, doesn't mean that you should use X too. was it X that made it a blockbuster or was it something else? more likely than not it was something else.


well, that's my rant. it wasn't directed to anyone specific.

cheers.
 
Fahad said:
another 'technique' that's bothered me a lot about newer films is the overuse of the medium shot and close up shot. i don't need to see everything! as has been mentioned before, it only works when it's called for, but most of the time, MOST of the time, it ain't.
Click to expand...

There are a number of techniques that have been bothering me, and I see more often in the infrequent TV viewings I get in hotel rooms on travel...

1) Shaky cam
2) Zooms that stop, backup, then adjust a couple of times more.
3) visble focus adjustments, due to shallow DoF, moving camera, moving people, etc.

I don't recall this much futzing around with news reportage, where one could justify the need to be 'dynamic' shooting a live, unscripted, perhaps explosive, but ever changing event...
 
The shakey cam thing is a bit overdone and to obvious in many movies. I am a HUGE fan of the Bourne series... but that technique was used extensively in the second and third Bourne films. I can understand why they use it during fights scenes and car chases, but the scene where Bourne and Nikki were having a discussion in the coffee shop, the shakey cam was all over the place, overzooming to partial faces, etc... distracted me from the dialog and was annoying.

The D-Day beach invasion scene during SAVING PRIVATE RYAN however, was phenomenal and the shakey cam greatly added to the intensity and chaos of combat. That is one of the best, most realistic scenes I've ever watched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top