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
Craig_Tarry said:
I think filmmakers notice that more than the general moviegoing publc. The audience may dislike a film like that but not realize why. Of course, either way, you want 'em to like your film.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've seen some shows that just drive me crazy with their camera movement, and I mention it to someone else watching with me, and they don't know what I'm talking about.

On the point of wanting people to like the film, I suppose those using shaky-cam really aren't concerned about alienating the people who don't like it...
 
The first time I saw it used was for NYPD Blue. It worked there because it suited the aesthetics of the show and it was new and it was done correctly. (It emulated what it would look like for the viewer to "be there") Almost every other place it gets used it is overdone, too deliberate or inappropriate. A good recent example would be Antichist. http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Antichrist/70117549?trkid=1211017#height2210This is a beautifully shot movie that was slower paced and would have benifited from only dolly/tripod/steadycam shots. It isn't overdone here but it is from an artistic point of view - unnecessary and totally detracts from established look and feel of the movie.

When it is done correctly it is a great tool in the director's toolbox. 99% of the time it isn't done correctly and it makes the production look low budget or like the director is trying too hard. I equate it too trying to watch a movie while there is some kid throwing popcorn at the back of my head or some other juvenile way to deliberately annoy me.
 
David Yates chose to use it in the latest Harry Potter film, and not to good effect. He doesn't go overboard with it, but he doesn't use it consistently. Some shots are rock solid, and others, for no apparent reason to me, float just enough to make it noticeable and distract from the scene action. Dude, just put the damn camera down and step away. It doesn't help that I've been reading a biography of John Ford lately, whose camerawork was famously static even during cinema's largely immobile golden age. Billy Wilder said in all of Stagecoach, there was but a single panning shot of about fifteen degrees. And yet his films feel anything but still; they're full of constant motion. He simply let the movement take place on screen: stagecoaches or cavalry streaming through, actors crossing and recrossing. Jean Renoir feels like Paul Greengrass by comparison. (And this doesn't even touch on Ford's almost pathological avoidance of close-ups. I'm becoming curiouser and curiouser about what a modern audience's reaction would be to a new film shot the same way. In time, I hope to answer the question myself.)
 
KMR said:
Agreed. I've seen some shows that just drive me crazy with their camera movement, and I mention it to someone else watching with me, and they don't know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

They've become used to it. As with the fast-cut editing they've been exposed to since the 1980s, it's become ubiquitous enough that unless it's really dramatic, a la Bourne 2 and 3, it's simply part of the film experience.
 
It actually added to the tension in "The hurt locker" But annoyed at times as well. If done right it can blow your senses. If done wrong, than it's just simply crap.
 
Time to declare war on the shaky camera
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2011/03/15/battle_la_shaky_cam

"The movie is the work of professionals who decided to make their film look bad on purpose."

"Get yourself a tripod. Make a shot list. Think about where you're putting the camera and why you're putting it there, and try to redirect the audience's attention by moving the camera or refocusing rather than cutting every three to five seconds. Stop covering action. Start directing again."
 
I feel it can be useful if it serves a purpose. For example, in this clip I purposly went handheld, and added movement just to try and create the feeling of motion in the helicoptor. The copter never left the ground, but when I shot it. I moved the camera in way I thought it would really move had it been off the ground. This is a teaser from a Vietnem war film Im shooting and directing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3qWpXbyxbk


We welded the landing gear, and brought it to the location of the shoot, then we put the camera under it, and had a guy lift up on it to create the effect that it was comming off the ground. Seemed to work ok. We also had guys with backpack blowers adding wind to the scene. this helped a bit too. But in the copter was when I really added the shake.
 
Last edited:
It depends. But I think it's been over done. If there is no dramatic reason to do otherwise, use a tripod. The shaky cam has had it's day.
 
If it tells the story it's okay.

If it's just used as a "style" it's quickly an eye soar.

An aesthetic tool - nothing more, nothing less.
 
Normally I like it during action scenes, but if it's not well used, I hate it.

I went to see Battle: Los Angeles with a friend last week and during dialog scenes, the camera was shaking and there was random zooms, I was like "WTF are they doing?"
 
From the book "Directing film techniques and aesthetics":
David Mamet in On Directing Film protests that too much fiction filmmaking consists of following the action like a news service. Do you want to document happenings like an Observer, or tell them like a Storyteller? The first is surveillance, and the second involves inflection; that is, having an active and critical eye for contradictions and ironies, raising questions, and implying a critical mind and heart at work.
 
I think "handheld" (not necessarily shaking like an epileptic) can be very powerful in intense dialogue scenes, to communicate things like tension or "anything can happen" or add a sense that someone is observing.

I just saw "Melancholia" and while the handheld work added a tremendous amount to the sense of unease, it was often just too much. Too many zooms saying "look! I'm handheld!"

If they'd just dialed it back a bit it would have been much more effective. But Von Trier's never been known for dialing things back, has he? (Overall a very impressive film for my tastes.)
 
vcassel said:
I hate any technique when it's used lazily or isn't at all appropriate.
Click to expand...

That about sums it up for me. I actually really enjoy ShakyCam, but even I can tell when it is overused or used without valid reasoning.

Aside from that though, I think many people's dislike for the particular technique is actually (or at least partly) due to them having an adverse physical reaction to it. I know people who get nausea or motion-sickness from its use. I don't know of many techniques that can cause that type of reaction, and I think it's one of the reasons it gets a complete dismissal from some, even when it is being used well or appropriately.
 
"too much fiction filmmaking consists of following the action like a news service. Do you want to document happenings like an Observer, or tell them like a Storyteller? "

Missed this one when I replied earlier.
There you have your answer.
 
It can ruin shots and it can save shots. If it's done well when the actions fast like on a battlefield for example and everything exploding etc, then it should be used. It immerses you in the film. But sometimes it can be used too dramatically and the shot is ruined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top