Camera Movement-"How & Why"

[Ozgur Baltaoglu]

Everything changes when the camera begins to move. The hard part of making any movement is knowing why you move the camera and it seems to me, having a "gut feeling" is generally not the best motivation for a choreography. I would like to share your thoughts on camera movement and hopefully then the topic will evolve into a discussion about every relevant aspect i.e. framing, miseenscene etc. Looking forward to reading your thoughts. Thanx ;)

[Jason Maeda]

i have a long list of reasons why the camera should move written in my notebook. if i see a move i like i think about why it worked then add it too my list. i think there is no substitute for the joint benefits of shooting (practice) and viewing (research).

jk :ph34r:

 

some reasons:

 

- to reveal a new element

 

- to suggest depth, seperate "planes"

 

- to add "energy" (use discretion)

 

- to show a change in a character's perspective/position

 

- to follow the action

 

there are so many....

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, those are all good reasons. The main issue for me is that camera movement often will compromise lighting and composition, so what it adds to the shot should be more than what you lose. In other words, don't just move the camera for the sake of showing off.

 

On the other hand, much of art will always be subconscious, a "gut feeling". Nothing wrong with that - I'm sure that Conrad Hall's gut feelings were better than most other DP's intellectual rationalizations.

[Jason Maeda]

i totally agree with david. half the reasons i compiled on my list (and by no means do i assume that it is either complete or completely accurate!) came from first trying something because of a "gut feeling", then rationalizing it later. sometimes it seems like the most important thing a DP can do is to get to a place where he can identify what it is he wants to "say"...after that decisions like whether or not to move the camera become much easier.

jk :ph34r:

[Jason Maeda]

i'm kind of a broken record on these two guys, but you may want to check out the work of antonioni and tarkofsky. those slow, methodical moves are so deliberate i think it's much easier to research than by watching "armageddon" where the camera never stops moving once.

jk :ph34r:

[Mitch Gross]

It can also be useful to study a film where the camera hardly moves, then to note the impact when it does. Great examples of this are the Godfather films. The slow dolly in on Pacino when he announces that he'll do the assassination (the turning point in the first film), the parallel dolly moves of deNiro walking along the rooftops as his target walks in the festival on the street below (brilliant existential moment in the second film) or even the cross movement and -- heaven forbid -- ZOOM in on Pacino at the Atlantic City casino just before the helicopter attack (externalizing his internalized senses in the third film).

[Leon Rodriguez]

Sometimes the camera just moves simply to retain the same relationship to talent when the talent is in a kinetic activity like tracking a walking two shot. Trying to be "invisible" in this kind of a shot is tricky. It's about constant framing. I mention it only because instead of implying a change to a still target you're implying no change to a moving target.

[IBL]

If you want to see camera movement that detracts from the scene because the camera attracts too much attention to itself then watch "Resident Evil".

 

It also has bad edits. I think when cameras attract attention to themselves by bad movement it totally reduces the immersion effect and detracts the audience from the scene. Usually this is a speed problem. The camera moves slightly too fast for the content.

 

On the other hand like Jason said watch Tarkovsky. The guy is king of the camera movement department and even though he is shooting on Soviet equipment with small bugets he manages to pull off some great stuff.

 

I think slower movements are much more preferable to sharper quicker movements unless hand held. Hand held seems to be able to handle quicker and sharper movements than shots that are supported.

 

However it all depends on the scene but check out a few of the above films.

 

BTW - Did anyone notice that in Star Wars EP 2 Lucas did some zooms in the battle sequence. There is one great zoom shot into the interior of a space craft during the final battle. There are a few more too. Those zooms where great.

[Alvin Pingol]

If you want to see camera movement that detracts from the scene because the camera attracts too much attention to itself then watch "Resident Evil".

Funny you mention RE. I was about to say something about that, but about the games, not the movie. These games are great examples of powerful camera placement without camera movement. Yes, I know it's all CG, but just because the camera is placed high above the stairway in a CG mansion doesn't mean it can't be done in real life.

 

RE: Code Veronica was the first RE game to run in full-3D, and thus the first game to employ camera movement within the game. Sure, it was neat seeing the camera dolly behind a steel fence as you walked along, but it was fairly distracting. The developers took advantage of the moving camera and no CG, and therefore didn't take as much time and put enough thought into where the static shots were placed.

 

The RE games that use CG backgrounds (specifically RE0 and RE Remake) give great examples to anyone looking for interesting ideas regarding camera placement. Lots of super-low angles, high angles, crooked framing, and everything in-between.

 

 

I hope you enjoyed my video-game speech in a film forum. :lol:

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

One popular use for camera movement is the following-a-very-long-conversation-through-corridors trick beloved of U.S. episodics (and the steadicam operators employed to shoot them!)

 

Phil

[IBL]

Another film with a lot of camera movement is IRREVERSIBLE. Then when the camera is static for 15 minutes during a particular scene you wish to Gawd that it moved.

 

Great camerawork if you can stomache that movie.

 

Actually great flick.

 

The director also used a sound effect at the start of film that was recorded using sonic sound waves that riot police use to disperse crowds.

 

Lunatic.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the movement in Kubrick films are brilliant and very precise and controlled (I guess after dozens of takes, they would be...) To me, something like the maze chase at the end of "The Shining" will always be one of the greatest camera moves in film history. Or the static shots in the hotel room at the end of "2001" punctuated by the slightly moving POV of Bowman and finally ending in that dolly-in towards the blackness of the monolith.

 

I also like the "sliding" movements in Fellini's films, especially "8 1/2".

 

David Lean also used camera movement very precisely. The long sideways tracking shot during the attack on Aqaba that ends on the guns pointed out to sea was perfect.

 

The telephoto lens tracking shots in Kurosawa's film were also very impressive.

[Ozgur Baltaoglu]

Hi guys,

 

I enjoyed reading the responses. I saw Ivan's Childhood, Tarkovsky's first feature the other day and the cam movement in the film signals his later work of movement, however his best film if you ask me is Solaris and it has the least movement in it... many good films seem to have a few yet heartful movements... exceptions acknowledged... Question: are you fans of the subjective or the objective? and yes I know "story dictates" but does it really?... I believe that I dictate the story not the other way around.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Also: does there come a point where, if you're working on a fairly basic genre movie which'll make its money on video rentals, where you have to recognise your responsibility to create something saleable, and produce some appropriately whizzy visuals regardless of motivation?

 

Call me an artless philistine, but at some point it becomes necessary to just go through the motions - literally.

 

Phil

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I used to spurt filmschool-isms like "you shouldn't move the camera

unless it's motivated", and so on. It was a good rule, I thought. I

even think I tried to convince someone much more experienced than

myself that anything else was wrong.

 

I'd like to apologise for that here and now. Because, who says you can't

move the camera unless it's motivated? BTW, what exactly IS a motivated

camera move? It's a load of croc.

 

You can move the camera any way you want in any given situation for no

apparent reason whatsoever. It's all up to you (and the director, of course).

Most films today have completely random camera movements that don't

follow any "grand thought". Michael Bay, Martin Scorsese and John Woo

have built entire careers doing just that.

 

I like a static camera as much as the next guy, in fact I love it. But I also

love a crazy moving camera at times. There's no right and wrong.

 

I completely agree with the one who talked about the gut-feeling. Do what

your gut says. Then ignore the head:-)

[Bill Totolo]

I've been picking up a few of the Kubrick DVD's lately because his compositions are a big influence on me. I feel he brings a sense of power to the screen.

 

Lately though, I've been paying attention to Hitchcock. No one can use a zoom like ol' Hitch, although DePalma and Soderburg do it some justice. I just rented the restored version of Vertigo. What an amazing looking film (I recently stayed in the hotel Kim Novak was living in during the 2nd half of the film).

 

Personally, I've found nothing is more helpful than rehearsing with the actors.

I can come up with a lot more behind the lens than I could with a stoyboard artist. I like to use what I guess I'd call point-counterpoint where I always move with or against the subject but always motivated by that subject. As in all things it's not a rule but something for me to think about between takes.

 

I spent last year improving my operating skills. This year I'm thinking about the best ways to introduce un-motivated music during a scene. In other words music that doesn't come from a source on screen. Your thoughts besides the obvious "emotional turning points" etc...

[Sam Wells]

Question: are you fans of the subjective or the objective?

Well I'm a fan of the camera movement in Kenji Mizoguchi films where the camera moves not just through space but non-real time.

 

I'm not sure what category that falls under: "objective" time of the movement, "subjective" time of the narrative... ?

 

-sam

[Tony Brown]

I worked on " Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". That was an eye opener. I was struck by the fact that the camera was NEVER static. Mostly it was subliminal movement, but it was dramatic when it needed to be. It raised the question why NOT move the camera. It makes a static shot a very deliberate statement.

 

Its not a bad way to think. Film image is two dimensional window, but the best way to open the 3rd dimension is to move the portal we look through. Even ECU's can benefit from a subtle track in or a lateral slide to move a soft background image. If it looks wrong, its probably just because its too fast.

[Matt Pacini]

Couldn't agree more.

 

You have to remember that in art, many "rules" exist solely because there's an industry of educators that have to justify their jobs, therefore they have to invent rules that may, or may not make any sense.

I don't believe in any rules in art, as far as absolute right & wrongs, only rules in relation to:

 

Do "A" if you want this particular result, and do "B" if you want this particular result.

 

I know from my musical experience and training (my first life!) that so many of the so-called rules were, and are consistently broken by the very masters that these educators revere and idolize.

Betthove and Hayden wrote music with parallel 5ths (supposedly the absolute unbroken rule in classical music), and you can hardly listen to any classical music by any major composer including Mozart, without hearing parallel octaves, another load of crap taught to be "wrong".

Naturally, I was quite unpopular in music classes, because I would ask the teachers how they could teach this when Bach and all the masters didn't follow these rules, and they made great music!

(Sorry to bring up music theory for those of you bored by it...)

 

Matt Pacini

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, I've argued with directors against a camera movement that I thought was unnessary -- in that I thought it would take more time to set-up only to end up with a WEAKER shot, plus I thought it was gratuitous and distracting. Plus I thought it didn't work with the way the shot would be edited.

 

I think having SOME sort of reason for doing something is, in general, a good idea. It doesn't have to be overly rationalized beyond, perhaps, "it looks nice" or whatever. But it would be nice if it served some purpose other than merely decorative.

 

However, I think using camera movement to add energy to the shot is enough of an excuse IF the shot benefits from it.

 

I mean, I might put a sliding motion on a shot just to enhance the 3-D feeling -- that doesn't really have an intellectual justification, but it might pull the viewer into the scene a little more, who knows.

 

The thing you must keep in mind about any "trick" or cinematic device is that it becomes diluted with overuse. So a close-up has no dramatic power if all the proceeding shots were close-ups. A camera move is less special if the camera never stops moving. You want to be able to pull up a cinematic trick and have it pack some sort of punch. Nowadays with so many close-ups and camera moves being used, you have to cut to a wide static shot for dramatic impact!

[Mitch Gross]

Often firsttime directors will ask me to do this wild shot and that crazy camera move. Sometimes it's justified and I'm all for it. But often I warn them that it'll take away from the overall production and siphon away their limited resources of time and money. The one shot may look nice but the sequence will suffer. "They'll love me and hate you," is my warning.

[Matt Pacini]

I love camera movement, but rarely have the time to actually do much of it.

Lack of time, crew, equipment, etc., usually means that the camera sits there on the tripod (sigh...).

If only there were such a thing as a cheap Steadicam vest, I'd be set, because I've already figured out the "pogocam" thing, but my arm is just about to fall off after one shot, from hoisting my 15 pounds camera around with one hand.

 

Matt Pacini

[Mitch Gross]

If only there were such a thing as a cheap Steadicam vest, I'd be set

There are, but they aren't the greatest. Still you might find that they're good enough for your needs. Check the Homebuilt Stabilizer website and do some Google searches. There's now more than 40 companies making Steadicam-like devices.

[Ozgur Baltaoglu]

Has anyone seen Gothika? (gothic?)...

 

Lots of wild crane and stdcam moves, ghost p.o.vs and all ?? generallywhat scares us is following the action through the subjective pov but whose subjective pov?- definetely not the ghost's (I know some of you will scream "6th Sense" and "Others" but we identify with them just the same and I dont want to score a double spoiler by further explaining why it's a different case with them. )

 

What could be a narrational justification for ghost pov shots other than the obvious possibilities for seemingly interesting moves which infact are not.

 

Anyway I think Gothika is a typical text book example of a Hollywood blockbuster gone wrong... problematic script/ narrational ambiguity and showy, uninteresting camera movement not to mention poor acting. I think Kassovitz is an above average director but if he's going to shoot hollywood he should indulge himself less in conventional hollywood filmmaking.