Thoughts on handheld camera work

I'll just say first that AD is one of my favorite network comedies of all time and yes, the camera work called unnecessary attention to itself, causing the viewer to ask if these people knew they were being followed and it was distracting.

e
 
When the audience becomes aware of the camera, it detracts from the artistry. Audiences only notice camerawork when it is distracting from the story and character development. They can no longer focus on the movie, they are only distracted. That is one remark i always hear about the Borne movies; their shaky camera often takes away from the action within the story instead of improving it. I completely disagree that in both Kubrick and Scorsese's work you are aware of the camera. Their films are some of the few that completely involve me into the story and characters.

This comes down to the point of cinema. Audiences should not be placed outside of the screen, only viewing from their angle in a dark, noisy room. They should be enthralled and involved in the movie. This happened whenever i watched There Will Be Blood and NCFOM this year. I never noticed the camerawork and techniques they used, which doesn't happen often considering i notice these things in just about all movies.
 
I think we both agree then, that handheld camera work should be used in moderation and to set a mood. The show, "24" for example, goes to the extreme with the "shaky" feel, to me - that's overkill.
 
:) well, there are dozens of examples of Scorsese's camera drawing attention to itself. for example....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGImdPtnf1s

and it's suppose to draw attention to itself. Scorsese wants you to think about why he moved to the empty hallway. it's part of the "idea" he's trying to communicate to the audience. and it's the independent movement of the camera, unmotivated by the story or characters that expresses that idea.

or in this scene...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ITDfFmL5-0

he wants you to consider the way the overhead slo-mo shot 1:50 in of Betsy's desk is so... unusually composed. Scorsese, more than most other filmmakers wanted you to consider the form as well as the content.
 
Last edited:
LightningFilms said:
great movie - didn't like that sequence. just my opinion.
Click to expand...

haha. why? travis' rejection was, you know, sort of essential to his becoming an avenging angel of sorts. and the composition of an empty hallway illustrated that in a very powerful way. when I watch that, it's as though the camera (which serves as a collective "we" for the audience) looks away because his rejection is just too painful to watch. it's powerful stuff that adds another layer missing from more conventional camerawork. but then, Scorsese doesn't do what he does for the average joe. he's aiming for an audience that comes with an appreciation for the artistry. not that you don't, i'm not criticizing your opinion. it's completely valid to reject his choices. just saying he isn't dumbing it down for fear of imposing a "distraction".
 
Last edited:
it depresses me. i'm not negating the fact that it's well done. that scene just makes me nervous. haha....i'm an odd critic.

by the way, zak - the YouTube rant & rave, "Unbelievable" is one of the funniest monologues I've seen/heard in a while.
 
Last edited:
I have a similar friend, Tim Kornblum. John reminded me a lot of him. Very quick and hilarious deliveries. He's been in every film of mine since I started directing, regardless of genre.
 
those things are supposed to sink in subconsciously, just like all the visual symbols in The Shining. When i first saw Taxi Driver, i hadn't noticed the that, but i did the second time. That is part why i love the film so much, it hit a cord with me that was hard to describe. I knew it had gotten under my skin, but i didn't know why. the audience is not supposed to notice visual metaphors; they deepen overtime, and become much more effective. that creates real cinema. films you just can't shake because they're purely unnerving.
 
really? i think those shots are pretty ostentatious. they're like the cinematic equivalent to being hit over the head with a frying pan -- in a good way, but reeeaaalllly hard to miss.
 
Zak Forsman said:
really? i think those shots are pretty ostentatious. they're like the cinematic equivalent to being hit over the head with a frying pan -- in a good way, but reeeaaalllly hard to miss.
Click to expand...

i couldn't agree more - and that's why I said what I said about being nervous and uncomfortable...nobody likes a T-FAL upside the cranium.
 
i agree they're hard to miss... if you have been studying films or film making. When i first saw Taxi Driver, i never caught it. Then, when watching it many months later (after some independent study and watching many many great films) i fully understood it. The thing was, my love for the film was not increased by me noticing it, because it had sunk in previously. films like that really give you goose bumps, and you think about them a lot, and you always wonder why you still have them on your mind.

Films aren't made for other filmmakers, they're made for everyone. that's the purpose of art. filmmakers will get these symbols, but the general public doesn't. they're not idiots, they just aren't trained to notice these things. like kubrick said, making things obvious in a film would be like Da Vinci telling everyone why Mona Lisa is smiling. it ruins art and interpretation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top