Why do a lot of movies have this camera movement?

I

ironpony

Carbonite Member
Everytime I watch a movie I study the camera movement to understand the emotional reason for the movement. In a lot of movies it's very obvious but a lot movies employ movement that I don't see an emotional reason for. One camera movement that is frequently used is the one in the beginning of this example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dHrspngJnU

The slow sliding movement. I never get why in very quiet stationary scenes, it is used, and figure you might as well just keep the camera still. I actually had a DP quit on me, saying I don't have enough movement in my storyboards and it's going to come off as unprofessional and make him look bad. He wanted to move the camera just like that in lots of the stationary dialogue scenes. But I don't like using movements unless I see an emotional context to them. Maybe I am wrong though and their is a reason for this movement?
 
It's a while that I have seen the film but it looks to me that the movement is there to show Los Angeles that has an important roll in the movie by it self. And it leads the audience into the scene, I think it's a great use of a camera movement, subtle and effective.
 
Love that scene!

Camera movement is expected in just about all TV shows and most films; if for no other reason to add production value. Stationary shots (supposedly) aren't as interesting and will lose the audience's attention quicker, especially when they can change channels to another show.

Look at CSI MIAMI - camera always moves, funky gels lighting the backgrounds, but the story is cliched and pedestrian. And David Caruso hams it up no end!

I totally agree with you, static shots can work for a lot of quieter situations, and certain auteurs use it to great effect. But often a gentle dolly in/across etc. looks better IMO.

In the above shot, it makes the shot more interesting.
 
I guess so. I guess I am only like movement for my own personal stuff, if something big and emotional happens that warrants a beat change. And I guess since my stuff is very low budget, I don't have a lot of production value to show off, so I like to keep it contained, as far as showing scenery goes.
 
I'm actually with the Pony on this one. However in that particular instance it looks like a way to lead you into the scene instead of just hard static cutting to that shot. I skimmed through but it looked like that was the ONLY shot with movement; other angles were static. So that slide functions as an establishing shot.
 
In that scene from Heat I think the movement is an effective reveal and draws you into the scene. But I was watching a new crime series the other night (forgettable, don't even remember the name) where the constant slider movements just became annoying. There was no effective motivation and they were always in the same direction. Slider moves are becoming the cliche equivalent of constant zooming in 70's TV shows. Sometimes I think it is just there to keep the cinematographer from getting bored or as an attempt at a personal "style". Personally I prefer less obtrusive camera work that is motivated by the scene itself.
 
well to me it just looked like they wanted you to take in the atmosphere, get a glimps of the view.
 
I do see it a lot on TV, I suspect a lot of directors and DoPs see it as an cheap/easy way to add a little visual life to an otherwise static or talking head shot, which it is - but like any camera technique (hello there, hand-held), it can be badly used or overused.
 
Razz16mm said:
In that scene from Heat I think the movement is an effective reveal and draws you into the scene. But I was watching a new crime series the other night (forgettable, don't even remember the name) where the constant slider movements just became annoying. There was no effective motivation and they were always in the same direction. Slider moves are becoming the cliche equivalent of constant zooming in 70's TV shows. Sometimes I think it is just there to keep the cinematographer from getting bored or as an attempt at a personal "style". Personally I prefer less obtrusive camera work that is motivated by the scene itself.
Click to expand...
+10
 
That's true in Heat it worked better as an establishing shot. A lot of recent movies have been using it as a fad though it seems. Compliance and Trance, had it used frequently. Is it really so bad to cut to a hard static shot though for an establishing shot? I mean in the 60s, Hollywood got ride of fades cause they knew that fades were not necessary and that audiences will not find the cuts jarring and will still understand that time has passed and location has changed. So maybe in our current movie making stage, it's time we did away with these sliding moving shots, and just cut to hard statics. The sliding establishing shot is really just the same thing as a fade, so why not just do away with it for good?
 
No one technique should never be used, or used exclusively. It's up to you to have a vision for the cut and the style of the final product, and the only thing that can improve that is practice and study.
 
I agree with ironpony on his main point but I didn't think that wide slide in the scene suggested was over the top. It worked. But I agree that those gratuitous slider shots that don't do anything to add to the story other than offer 'production quality' are a bane. I see it most often in TV as you guys already pointed out. It makes me work so hard to try to make sure that the move is helping do something, a good push in, a pull back reveal, or just a well blocked shot that moves and ends in a meaningful frame are the goal for me. I think Hollywood Camerawork does a good job of detailing meaningful camera moves and I subscribe to much they say but these TV slider shots would be better more often with a locked down camera and a meaningful pan or tilt.
 
Two observations.

-Moving a camera 'proves' the scene is three dimensional

It sound pedantic but - lets say two people on a golf course, is the distant one far away - or a tiny little person? When one moves the camera the relation between the two people changes and we 'prove' to the viewer that the person behind is not tiny but far away. On that basis one could suggest every shot needs a move!


-Moving the story along.

Shot - hands on gun
Story/viewer: "someone has a gun"
Pan/Move up to Pete's face
Story/viewer: "It is Pete who has a gun"
The story has moved forward

A move connects the elements of a story and may make the connection better than a cut sequence?

That opening shot says 'a city'.. 'with two people in that city' .. (these are city people)

So I guess move the camera to..
-prove the space/relation of objects
-move the story forward
??

S
 
Well, if your visual style and your DP's visual style are not in alignment, then it does make sense to part ways. I've shot many different ways for different projects and different directors. It is my job to provide them what they are looking to achieve and still make the film a quality production. In The Godfather, Gordon Willis and Francis Coppola hardly ever moved the camera, not just dollies, they barely even panned. I don't think anyone's complaining that the movie isn't particularly cinematic.

One note about that scene from Heat. LA played a large part in the look and feel of that film. It was very important to director Michael Mann that those city lights bee seen as distinct point of light and not out of focus blobs. So for that scene, which Mann insisted be shot at the actual location, the balcony was wrapped in greenscreen material and every camera position shot with the actors was carefully noted. Then they pulled the greenscreen, focused the lenses to the far distance, and shot the backgrounds for later compositing. The result appears quite natural, even though it defies the laws of physics.
 
That scene would have been soooo dull without something to break it up - the entire point of the shot was to show the night panorama. With no movement, the shot would have been cut, and the 2-shot used instead with face detail. I have to say I liked it. I have a big heavy jib arm, about 6 feet end to end, so no huge crane ups, but it can do very slow movements. I tend to use this when shooting fairly dull sequences - like a factory conveyor belt dropping washing down a chute. With the movement it isn't quite as boring.
 
Mitch, that's an interesting piece of information. I think it's safe to say that the opening shot was done practically without greenscreen, otherwise it would have required motion control, don't you agree? I actually watched Heat again a few weeks ago and the closeups really popped out to me as looking rather unnatural, to be honest--I sensed that they were composited (the edges are pretty funky) and in rewatching in this clip, the idea that the background would be sharper on closeups than it is on master shots is visually counter-intuitive which didn't help. I mean, it's an interesting choice, but I would call it anything but natural.

Getting back to the question of camera movement; it's one of many choices a director can make, it's a personal aesthetic. I spent many years moving the camera on the request of others and some of it (especially in epsidodic television) was inspired by nothing other than an attempt to liven up material that was otherwise lacking in interest. Ironically, these days I'm probably more guilty of hedging my bets the other direction and moving the camera less than I used to.

When it works, it's dynamic, interesting and creates a three dimensional aspect, rhythm and/or energy that complements the scene. The ability to guide the viewer's eye, their attention is one of the most powerful aspects of cinema and to categorically deny camera motion or to limit it to "only move when the actors move" is to me a little restrictive. It's a specific vocabulary, just as handheld is another one (and something that is far more over-used these days than arbitrary dolly moves).

Oh speaking of which: guys, if you are talking about movies and TV shows it's much more accurate to refer to these as dolly shots than slider shots. We do use sliders but generally not for extensive on-camera moves like the ones in discussion here.
 
Don't recall if the greenscreen was just used for the closeups, but that would make sense. The wide shot not only has the background lights less in focus than the closeups, but you can actually seen that the bokeh is squared off by the mattebox, an artifact that I particularly find distracting.
 
It seems to me like LA itself is a big character in Heat, and this emphasizes the physical quality of it, the horizontal nature of the city, as opposed to the verticality of NYC, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top