Bourne Ultimatum

[Douglas Sunlin]

Question: Were the cameras really "handheld" or do they have some sort of post-production effect that randomly shifts the frame? For the "still" scenes, it was possible to observe the movement of the "camera"; it looks like it might be "randomized" rather than truly handheld, which I think might produce a different effect.

 

There was a police drama on TV about 10 years ago that used this for every doggone shot. Even real documentaries use tripods from time to time.

[Tom Lowe]

I loved the movie. Nonstop action from start to finish. One of the best actions movies to come along this decade.

 

Having said that, the hand-held effect was taken too far, IMO. Anytime that a technique like this draws too much attention to itself and pulls you out of the story, it has gone too far. I mean, Bourne is sitting in a café and the camera op is shaking the camera so violently it seems like they loaded him up with about 35 triple espressos right before the shot.

[Douglas Sunlin]

I mean, Bourne is sitting in a café and the camera op is shaking the camera so violently it seems like they loaded him up with about 35 triple espressos right before the shot.

:D

Know what you mean. It would have been a good chance to slow down and build up some tension.

[Robert Hughes]

Yep, pretty wobbly on long lenses. Made me carsick. Speaking of which, how many cameras did they destroy in the car chase?

 

Hmm, think Jason Bourne will win? As he always does?

 

The part of the story I liked best was the battle of nerves between the 2 main CIA bosses; the powermad guy who's only solution is "kill everybody now" and the woman who's position is "this is not what I signed up for". The CIA folks I've met are all in the second camp, legit gov't workers, but my suspicion is that this sort of turf war goes on all the time in Langley.

[Max Jacoby]

Finally saw this one. It's more intelligent than most action flicks to say the least. I liked how you got thrown straight into the story, even though I didn't really recall how the previous one ended! After reading people's posts here I thought I would need to take an airsickness bag, but it turned out to be alright. There were some nice scenes in there (Waterloo Station and the fight with Desh inside the appartment in Tangiers), but yeah, most looked terribly undirected. Somehow I liked Greengrass' direction on 'United 93' much better. On the negative side, I didn't dig the lighting too much and Technicolor Di managed once again to make film look like video.

[Jason Maeda]

just saw it. a couple great action scenes (the fight with desh was very well directed, shot and edited) and some nice sequences counterpointing bourne vs. the cia, but mediocre otherwise. really looked like video to me, and not in a good way, and didnt have any of the romantic, globetrotting feel found in the first one or in, say,"ronin" or "the talented mr ripley".

 

as far as the jitter-cam, i felt it worked in precious few scenes, but elsewhere felt unmotivated.

 

jk :ph34r:

[Paul Bruening]

I have read a couple of threads on this movie (my friends are calling it The Bourne Old Tomato). Can we look at it in this light: Would the movie be as interesting if it had been shot in a more conventional style, even if it caused somewhat different reactions and emotions? The point is, if the movie needed shaky cam to avoid sucking, then the movie sucked. If the story, acting and other aspects were good enough to entertain without the shaky cam, then it's a good movie, even if it makes some people blow chunks.

[Rupe Whiteman]

... Finally saw the movie last night and thought it was a pretty stunning action film and far superior than the average 'Hollywood tosh. There are a numbe or bravura sequences but like Max I think the Waterloo and Tangiers scenes were best... the fight with 'Desh in Tangiers was stunning and so tense it made me sweat watching (and I bet it did for the operator too..)

 

This movie for me is an example of how a really good director can tell a complex story well with a lot of hand-held and moving camera. No shots were wasted and a lot of story information/plot was constantly coming across even though the pacing was incredibly frenetic. Greengrass obviously really knows his stuff and carefully preps/maps out how he is going to tell the story with such a kinetic camera - quite a feat in itself.

 

It made you realize just how boring Casino Royale was in comparison...

 

This is not a director and dop who just point and shoot and sort out in the cut as much lesser mortals so often do... 'Good stuff, 'though not sure where they're going to go with the next one...

 

The D.I. didn't bother me and I liked it's unflashy look - I don't think you can really say it looked like video... a cheap shot...

[Morgan Peline]

The flashbacks (done in the style of The Limey - but not as extreme) were especially pleasing.

 

I really enjoyed it, though I have to agree the constantly moving camera becomes artifice after a while - just a bit too overdone. I also liked the fact that for once Hollywood had the guts to bring up the subject of the US government illegally kidnapping foreign nationals and 'rendition' - which as we all know is still happening these days.

 

Does anyone know how the flashbacks were created?

[Rob van Gelder]

My wife, who likes Horror movies and is used to this shakey cam feeling asked me after 10 minutes or so,"why does the camera never stop moving, it makes me dizzy"........

 

Other than that, the movie really kept me on the front of my chair and it was really thrilling at times.

Excellent operating on the Desh-fight, I noticed I was moving my fists and body in the pace and action of the fight!!

That's a first for me!

[Rob van Gelder]

Does anyone know how the flashbacks were created?

 

some flashbacks were created with the out-of sync shutter/pull-down available in for instance Arriflex camera's, as you could clearly see the streaking going in and out and appearing from the bottom and the top in sequence.

Specially visible in the long flashback in the facility with the old medical supervisor.

[Max Jacoby]

In the ICG article David Wood mentions that the look of the flashback scenes was created in the DI. I think what gives it away that it is not a practical effect is that the streaking is pretty uniform all over the image, while if one does it in camera, the highlights always streak most.

[Morgan Peline]

Were the juddery / choppy motion created by a narrow shutter?

[Guest]

Oh man my jaw is still shaking, that was one bumpy ride. Hand held snap zoom guy...you're the best!

 

They wrecked a VW Touareg! Same colour as mine too, geez that was painful to watch :(

 

R,

[Scott Fritzshall]

I've honestly got to say that I didn't mind the handheld at all. Maybe it's because I knew what it would be like beforehand, but it didn't seem out of place to me at all, nor did it seem like a "cheat" to artificially enhance the action. During the action scenes, the camera was all over the place, but to me it felt like an excellent way to put the audience into the minds of the characters- there's all this incredibly complex information flying at them, and they're just trying to make sense of it all. During the chase sequences at Waterloo Station and in the marketplace, everyone is just trying to figure out where everyone else is. "He's there! No, he's there! Now he's over there!" The camera work reflected this, just getting the tiniest snippets of information and making you put it together yourself. It added up to a feeling like you knew what was going on overall, even if you couldn't quite get a handle on the specifics. It's not the sort of thing that's appropriate for every film, but given the themes in this one I thought it worked excellently.

 

They could have gone to sticks for the non-action scenes, but it would have been a noticible departure. The handheld during the conversation in the diner, for instance, lets you know that the danger hasn't subsided- he's still being hunted, and just because there's no immediate danger doesn't mean that they're out of the woods. Bourne must constantly be "on," he can never rest. I can see how people wouldn't like it, but again I thought that it worked really well overall.

[Oliver Ojeil]

I thought the movie is very well put together and everything was tight from start to finish. The handheld camera work gave the plot a dry portrait I think. I would have liked to see some less shaky shots especially for those emotional ones. It's interesting to watch closely Greengrass' approach to the "master" shot and blocking, I think in some shots it was sort of innovative. In general, the shakiness didn't really bother me in this movie, I just hope not everybody will imitate it just to look cool. Oh, and I also liked a lot the color gradient effect on some close-ups; I love this kind of lighting for slick high-tech/action movies

[Charlot Vega]

It is true about the handheld shots;

 

There was no motivation for using them in the office-type scenes with no action (style reminded me of "24" circa 2002). And as for the majority of the action scenes, they were poorly executed.

 

Why? Because they were noticeable (and very much so) in all of the above. It's as though the camera became a character (and an annoying one at that!).

 

Too bad really, because this film looked wonderful, was acted very well, and was (by far) the best written script in the trilogy. I wonder if, perhaps, Greengrass only used a monitor to analyze footage - and thereby not 'feeling' the effects a very shaky handheld would have in a theater.

[Rupe Whiteman]

It is true about the handheld shots;

 

There was no motivation for using them in the office-type scenes with no action (style reminded me of "24" circa 2002). And as for the majority of the action scenes, they were poorly executed.

 

Why? Because they were noticeable (and very much so) in all of the above. It's as though the camera became a character (and an annoying one at that!).

 

Too bad really, because this film looked wonderful, was acted very well, and was (by far) the best written script in the trilogy. I wonder if, perhaps, Greengrass only used a monitor to analyze footage - and thereby not 'feeling' the effects a very shaky handheld would have in a theater.

 

- You're saying the operating was 'poorly executed' in the movie...Really? I find that a pretty hard statement to understand. The hand-held operating is pretty incredible. I've shot a lot of documentary work and have operated on a few pretty big film shoots and would have been pretty proud to have operated, framed and everything else that goes into the process - on this movie.

 

... As Greengrass directed the previous film with the same cinematographic style how could he not not know what effect it would have in this film?!! - and he's far too experienced a director not to be able to judge from a monitor. Besides with 3 camera's operating a lot of the time I would expect, like many of the better directors, he was too busy watching the actors performances with his own eyes as they shot. You can see he plans his shoots very very carefully, and as fast moving as the camera's are, he's making sure what is in the frame is what he wants in it to tell the story he wants to tell...

 

I didn't mind the hand-held office stuff, and I liked the framing in many of the dialogue pieces, and sure it could have been shot in a safer way but, Greengrass wanted to create the feeling of constant, unease and high tension from beginning to end and hence stayed with the on the shoulder style. Framing-wise The Ipcress File was a big influence... one of my favourites too... It's all about choices, form and content and for me Greengrass got it pretty dead right in this movie...

[Charlot Vega]

- You're saying the operating was 'poorly executed' in the movie...Really? I find that a pretty hard statement to understand.

 

If the handheld style was properly executed, then this discussion wouldn't exist.

 

Now the term 'properly' can be debated, of course, but I define it as keeping the camera invisible no matter what - the camera should never be stronger than the action. In the scene where Bourne runs down into the metro, for example, the shaky handheld following him was violently stronger than the action. While watching it, I was honestly worried that the cameraman was going to trip down the stairs. That's how aware I was that there was a camera.

 

(Is this not the cardinal sin of (narrative) filmmaking?)

 

A traditionally used handheld, along with good photography, action, and music, will achieve the same - if not better - dramatic tension/effect desired, and without the jackhammer! (eg; Saving Private Ryan). At times, didn't it seem as though Greengrass would tell the cameraman to deliberately shake the camera - just for effect?

 

Many enjoyed this style, so it was successful as such. But for many others, like myself (and my, indeed, sensitive equilibrium) it was too much. It continuously took me out of the movie.

[William A Chapman Jr]

Dose any one have an idea of the DVD release date, I missed it when it was played in town.

[Brad Grimmett]

If the handheld style was properly executed, then this discussion wouldn't exist.

If it's wasn't properly executed, then no one would care to talk about it.

Now the term 'properly' can be debated, of course, but I define it as keeping the camera invisible no matter what - the camera should never be stronger than the action.

Your definition is obviously much different than many other people, Greengrass included.

(Is this not the cardinal sin of (narrative) filmmaking?)

No, it's not. A bigger sin would be making a film that no one cares to talk or write about.

A traditionally used handheld, along with good photography, action, and music, will achieve the same - if not better - dramatic tension/effect desired, and without the jackhammer! (eg; Saving Private Ryan).

So you would say that just doing the same thing as everyone else when making a film is ideal? I disagree, and think that innovation and style are important aspects of filmmaking. Otherwise every movie would be the same, and probably not terribly good.

Many enjoyed this style, so it was successful as such. But for many others, like myself (and my, indeed, sensitive equilibrium) it was too much. It continuously took me out of the movie.

I can understand where you're coming from, but to say that the directors choices were wrong because you have sensitive equilibrium isn't fair. Not everyone will like every movie, and it seems that this movie just wasn't for you.

[Charlot Vega]

No, it's not. A bigger sin would be making a film that no one cares to talk or write about.

I suppose this all depends upon one's priorities.

 

So you would say that just doing the same thing as everyone else when making a film is ideal? I disagree, and think that innovation and style are important aspects of filmmaking. Otherwise every movie would be the same, and probably not terribly good.

These are some very broad statements (using words like 'everyone' and 'every movie would be...'), and frankly, they're way off base. The bottom line is that there is nothing innovative whatsoever about an overly shaky handheld. It's been done many times (LOL)! And further, it could easily be interpreted as self-indulgent filmmaking because it chooses style over story.

 

I can understand where you're coming from, but to say that the directors choices were wrong because you have sensitive equilibrium isn't fair.

You must have misread my post... I never said the director made a wrong choice, I merely said that the director's choice (handheld stuff) wasn't 'properly' executed. And it wasn't because of my (LOL again) sensitive equilibrium, it was because the camera was more noticeable than the action!

[Brad Grimmett]

I suppose this all depends upon one's priorities.

Yes, if your priority is to make a bland and boring film then I guess you don't want anyone to care or talk about it.

These are some very broad statements (using words like 'everyone' and 'every movie would be...'), and frankly, they're way off base. The bottom line is that there is nothing innovative whatsoever about an overly shaky handheld. It's been done many times (LOL)! And further, it could easily be interpreted as self-indulgent filmmaking because it chooses style over story.

But you didn't answer my previous question....

YOU say there's nothing innovative about the way they chose to shoot the movie, but again, many people would disagree with your opinion. You seem to think that your opinion is fact. It's not.

You can "easily interpret" anything however you want. Whether it's true or not is a whole different issue.

You must have misread my post... I never said the director made a wrong choice, I merely said that the director's choice (handheld stuff) wasn't 'properly' executed. And it wasn't because of my (LOL again) sensitive equilibrium, it was because the camera was more noticeable than the action!

No, I didn't misread your post, you implied that Greengrass's choices were wrong. You say the director's choice wasn't "properly executed", but how would you know? It seems to me that that is exactly what Greengrass wanted. That's why the film looks like that. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong or improper. And remember, you're the one who said your sensitive equilibrium couldn't handle the film, not me.

I'm happy to have a conversation about this here, but you can ditch the patronizing LOL's.

[Charlot Vega]

The choice to use a lot of handheld was not a wrong choice - filmmakers make choices, not 'wrong choices.' However, in my opinion, the execution of said choice was not 'properly' done because half the people I know who saw this film, myself included, thought much of the handheld was irritating. Greengrass - or the producers, by no means would want to alienate half the audience like that. Therefore, etc...

 

Yes, if your priority is to make a bland and boring film then I guess you don't want anyone to care or talk about it.

 

Ouch.

 

I'm happy to have a conversation about this here, but you can ditch the patronizing LOL's.

Lighten up, cranky pants!!! LOL!!!

[Brad Grimmett]

The choice to use a lot of handheld was not a wrong choice - filmmakers make choices, not 'wrong choices.' However, in my opinion, the execution of said choice was not 'properly' done because half the people I know who saw this film, myself included, thought much of the handheld was irritating. Greengrass - or the producers, by no means would want to alienate half the audience like that. Therefore, etc...

Oh, OK, I see. You've spoken to Greengrass and the producers of The Bourne Ultimatum and they told you that they didn't want to alienate anyone in the audience. That makes perfect sense then since you have all of that inside information that no one else has.....

You act as if you know exactly what every filmmaker wants. And you're essentially blaming the DP and operators for not executing what the director wanted properly. I mean really, how would you know?

Like I said before, it sounds like this was just a movie you didn't like. Fine. But don't try to say that it wasn't properly made just because you didn't like it. That's just stupid. Can you really possibly believe that they shot this movie for months and months around the world and the whole time the crew wasn't executing what Greengrass wanted "properly"? I really don't believe anyone could be that naive.