Thoughts on handheld camera work

I don't think being aware of the camera is intrinsically a bad thing. as an audience member, I'm always aware of the point of view through which i'm watching the story, whether it's john cassavettes (doc style) or wes anderson (controlled frame). poor choices come into play when the chosen form doesn't supplement the content.
 
Hi,

As an old film teacher, I would tell my students that the real difference between 'shaky camera work' and 'cinéma vérité' is that the latter worked.

It takes judgment to know the difference.
 
Zak Forsman said:
and actually, it isn't so much that it "adds" a documentary feel to the content -- becasue if the camera has the freedom to look where it wants, it actually IS more real because it's capturing the action in the moment and is not restricted by what the shot is supposed to be. the inherent spontaneity is tangible and is more real, imo. it doesn't just "look" more real. you know?
Click to expand...

exactly, well put.
 
What we are all beating around the bush here is visual language. Every frame and method of capture is part of our visual vocabualry. For instance the dutch angle is to set things out of balance. We could go through a long liist of visual vocabulary and that maybe a good exercise for all of us as filmmakers to do. This is what I understand when I see hand held;

1. It is a witness, just as the news reporter on the street, we are witnessing the event through the eye of the camera.

2. It is a character POV. This use should be real as how we see things, My eye sight is never bouncing all over the place and I think this type of visual language is better told from a steadi cam.

3. A weak attempt to add tension to an otherwise non suspensful scene. OK so thats my bias, it does work in some instances, but it is way over used IMO.

SO maybe some others can fill in other definitions of the visual language they interpet from hand held footage. Every generation is going to have different interpretations, so it will be interesting to read what everyone has to post.
 
Gopher_Greene said:
Every generation is going to have different interpretations, so it will be interesting to read what everyone has to post.
Click to expand...

There are, despite what some might opine, hard and fast rules in cinematography that simply cannot be cast aside. Whether you like handheld or not, there are hard and fast rules to its use. Obey the law and be rewarded, disregard the rules and the viewer's experience is compromised.

Crossing the line and the rule of thirds and the rest of the conventions are there for a reason.

e
 
Erik Olson said:
There are, despite what some might opine, hard and fast rules in cinematography that simply cannot be cast aside. Whether you like handheld or not, there are hard and fast rules to its use. Obey the law and be rewarded, disregard the rules and the viewer's experience is compromised.

Crossing the line and the rule of thirds and the rest of the conventions are there for a reason.

e
Click to expand...


True, but as new conventions are used, they become part of the visual vocabulary. For instance the word ain't, used to be just a slang, now it is in some dictionaries. Hand held or the shaky cam was a deviation of the hollywood style, yet now it is a comon practice with meaning. Crossing the line is a much more strigent case because of the screen direction reversal, yet it is done. The rule of thirds I see broken all the time.

Thats why I said to me the shaky cam is less effective, because I tend to have an older vocabulary then the younger generation. Yet it has always been present to them, so it is not a deviation but another word in thier visual vocabulary. However we can all hope that all camera movement, framing, color, composition etc. is being utilized to further the story, not for gee look what I can do.
 
The Office really shouldn't be considered when analyzing this. In films, the point of the camera is too be as non-existent as possible, people should not notice the camera. In the office, the entire point is to realize you're viewing these scene from a documentary crew. It works in the office, or say any other mock-umentary. In film, each scene should be judged on how you want to affect your audience. Sometimes you need shaky shots to illustrate motion and kinetic energy, sometimes slow and deliberate shots should lead the viewers on intensifying the scene.
 
cubitfox said:
The Office really shouldn't be considered when analyzing this. In films, the point of the camera is too be as non-existent as possible, people should not notice the camera. In the office, the entire point is to realize you're viewing these scene from a documentary crew. It works in the office, or say any other mock-umentary. In film, each scene should be judged on how you want to affect your audience. Sometimes you need shaky shots to illustrate motion and kinetic energy, sometimes slow and deliberate shots should lead the viewers on intensifying the scene.
Click to expand...

i don't think that the camera has any distinct point in any one film. That is up to the storyteller.
 
What I think is that most films of the films that use hand held camera that have been discussed here have used it in a very pro context. When using a hand held camera try and block it out just as you would any other shot. Don't just rush through it and say "well it's hand held so thats what I wanted" take the time to make sure that you get what you need and that the technique was justified. Take a look at Rescue Dawn, Herzog is a master of making HH camera seem natural.
 
I like handheld camera movements, when justified, and when LIGHT.

I saw I am Legend in the last row of the theatre, but not because I was expecting the handheld moves...I just did for some reason. Even then the handheld movements annoyed me to no end.

When I watch 'The Office,' the handhed is justified, and less annoying. However, when I watched 'Friday Night Lights,' I felt LIKE I was watching 'The Office.' It was completely annoying. It was a narrative, and totally unnecessary. Do I need to watch a conversation between a coach and a mother through the blinds of his office? Not in that situation.

When I saw Cloverfield, I didn't mind it at all. I don't know why. I was sort of expecting it, and after 20 minutes got pretty used to it. My neck hurt a little bit, that's all.

Basically, great camerawork is when you DON'T notice the camerawork; you simply feel the scene.
 
PaPa said:
i don't think that the camera has any distinct point in any one film. That is up to the storyteller.
Click to expand...

When the audience becomes aware of the camera, it takes away from the viewing experience as a whole. Many directors (kubrick, scorsese, etc.) and film writers agree that the camera is meant to increase emotions, moods, and themes without being noticeable to the audience.
 
you referenced Scorsese as someone who doesn't think the camera should be noticed? :undecided i can't sit through a single one of his films without noticing the camerawork. Kubrick either.
 
Zak Forsman said:
you referenced Scorsese as someone who doesn't think the camera should be noticed? :undecided i can't sit through a single one of his films without noticing the camerawork. Kubrick either.
Click to expand...

But you're a filmmaker, and probably more well versed in the technical aspects of filmmaking than others. You watch films differently. You study them. The ordinary moviegoer, or even the well-knowledged critic wouldn't necessarily notice the camerawork.
 
ffaf07 said:
But you're a filmmaker, and probably more well versed in the technical aspects of filmmaking than others. You watch films differently. You study them. The ordinary moviegoer, or even the well-knowledged critic wouldn't necessarily notice the camerawork.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. Anyone who studies movies and makes them is going to notice handheld/crane/ tracking shots far more easily than most of the people watching the movies. One of the hardest part of being a director (imo) is being able to judge what techniques the audience will notice and which ones they won't. Then deciding if you want WANT them to notice the technique.

For example, in Children of Men would a normal audience member have noticed how long those takes were unless someone told them? Not likely.

In Memento would does the audience realize the story's told backwards simulating the main character's life? Yep, but it's appropriate for the story.

Classic soap opera moments where they play dramatic music on sad scenes. Most normal people roll their eyes as they're aware of the music being used to try and make them feel sorry for the characters.
 
I guess I credit the audience with more intelligence -- that they're not just sitting there, drooling into their popcorn. Cinema is over 100 years old, and the audience ihas grown ever more sophisticated. To think that Scorsese's more wild theatrics hasn't supplanted the viewer's attention for character or story (good or bad) is a little hard for me to swallow. Not to mention his often expressed desire to do exactly that. Scorsese's aesthetic (as described by him) is one designed to deny the audience their own perspective, instead it's to figuratively grab them by the back of the head and force them to look at things as he would.
 
Last edited:
cubitfox said:
When the audience becomes aware of the camera, it takes away from the viewing experience as a whole. Many directors (kubrick, scorsese, etc.) and film writers agree that the camera is meant to increase emotions, moods, and themes without being noticeable to the audience.
Click to expand...

don't you find this limiting point of view to be slightly arrogant as an artist? Why limit yourself to what "should" be done, simply because thats how it has been and simply because these guys have stated this argument, Dare someone question it and regard it as an untruth. I believe in tools and unique approaches.

But perspective also comes into play, as i don't find hand held camera work, for the most part, to make me aware that there is a camera there. Or if it does become apparent, i generally don't care, and become accustomed to their style. such as Cloverfield ( for an extreme case ) and for a lesser extreme, Children of Men.
 
cloverfield doesn't really count when discussing handheld style in general because the movie's plot and premise required a handheld style, so it was less a choice than a necessity.

I agree however that we should be questioning rules and conventions about production technique. we may end up being wrong, but if we're right, that makes it all that much more worth it.
 
cubitfox said:
The Office really shouldn't be considered when analyzing this. In films, the point of the camera is too be as non-existent as possible, people should not notice the camera. In the office, the entire point is to realize you're viewing these scene from a documentary crew. It works in the office, or say any other mock-umentary. .
Click to expand...

how about Arrested Development? basically shot the same way, minus the documentary crew angle. was that distracting?
 
kudos PaPa - couldn't agree more.

The fact of the matter is that cinema is an art and like all forms of art, everyone is entitled to their own approach and style. While we can all sit here and critique it as harshly or positively as our hearts desire, it doesn't negate the fact that it's still a vision. I am a fan of handheld camera work, especially during "tense" scenes. I feel it can add to the realism of the scene and put the viewer there, as oppose to a traditional fixed shot. The right amount of movement, intentional or not, keeps the viewer focused and attent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top