the exaggerated trend of hand-held film needs to stop!

[Brad Grimmett]

Excessive NYPD/Battlestar Galactica/24/most TV use of it becomes gimmicky and and IMO is just a trend thing.... Also Gerry by Gus Van Zant is another great example.

 

cheers

NYPD was not a handheld show. People constantly use it as an example of handheld, but it wasn't. It didn't even look handheld. Most of that show was shot on geared heads and had a look entirely it's own. You may not like it, but it still wasn't handheld.

Gerry was also not handheld. It's almost entirely steadicam and technocrane. And it's not bad steadicam that looks like handheld, so I'm not sure where the confusion came from.

[Douglas Sunlin]

Around that time, it even got to a stage where directors were wanting shaky cam effects on Steadicam.

Advancing to the rear. Funny.

[jake ross]

NYPD was not a handheld show. People constantly use it as an example of handheld, but it wasn't. It didn't even look handheld. Most of that show was shot on geared heads and had a look entirely it's own. You may not like it, but it still wasn't handheld.

Gerry was also not handheld. It's almost entirely steadicam and technocrane. And it's not bad steadicam that looks like handheld, so I'm not sure where the confusion came from.

 

I've only seen a very few limited number of NYPD shows, so I cant say I'm the most well versed on its technical specs... I was mainly refering to the current style going on in TV today (I wasnt tryin to point out NYPD exclusively). Steadicam IMO is a form of kinetic movement akin to handheld but alot more elegant. Which is what good handheld or shoulder operating can resemble. Excessive jerking, shaking, zooms, and pans which serve no real purpose to the story are mainly what I'm speaking of. I tend to look at really well done, story driven, tension heightening, kinetic camera work as one in the same.... whether it be a really long and well rehersed steadicam shot (Goodfellas, the kitchen/club scene) or a frantic handheld shot (Narc, the beginning drug/junkie chase)

 

I guess I'm "technically" wrong by lumping steadicam and non-steadicam shots together but they create the same, if not similar effects.

[Brad Grimmett]

I guess I'm "technically" wrong by lumping steadicam and non-steadicam shots together but they create the same, if not similar effects.

By non-steadicam I assume you're referring to handheld. And I disagree. It's not just a technicality, Steadicam does not inherently look like handheld, or vice versa. That's like saying that handheld and a dolly move look the same. They just don't. It's a completely different look.

NYPD Blue didn't look like handheld to me either. It just looked like movement done on a head.

[Chris Graham]

imo steadicam's justification and introduction was more flexibility to shooting, and the blatant stability of an image within a frame. i'm not a cinematographer. my concentration was in directing. one can't obviously blame a cinematographer since shots are made by executive (direct) decision or instruction.

 

i guess in the end it's all about preference. i will say that if a director decides to go with fast paced "shakycam," only use a little...i guess. one did mention a good point about depth of field compensation...moreso the zoom effect. the more the zoom the more potential for jiggle. but every pro cinematographer knows this.

 

my theory is that in this late period, 24p, digital, light weightness, easy accessibility, mtv...

 

sorry for the rant fellas. maybe the bourne ultimatum was just bad that i jump into a tangent. i prefer steady framing because I KNOW for a FACT that many many individuals DO get dizzy with fast camera movement and imo that's not fair. you want your viewer to enjoy every part of the picture and not have them turn away. as another individual mentioned what may seem cool within a small screen edit vs. a theatre are two totally different proportions.

[Brad Grimmett]

i prefer steady framing because I KNOW for a FACT that many many individuals DO get dizzy with fast camera movement and imo that's not fair. you want your viewer to enjoy every part of the picture and not have them turn away.

Not fair? Not turn away? What if the directors whole point is to have the audience want to turn away? What about a film like Irreversible? It's hard to watch that film. You want to turn away, and sometimes you do. But I think that's the point. Horrible things happen, and if you don't want to turn away something may be wrong with you.

My point is: Who's to say that making the audience squeamish or uncomfortable, or nauseated is bad. It's the directors movie! He or she can decide if they want to impart these feelings on you or not. Filmmaking is still an artform afterall. The creator of the art has the power, as they should. To back off and make the film "more watchable" would be a copout. I like commercial movies as much as the next guy, but I also like artistic, daring movies that aren't afraid of what people will say about them.

Movies are like any other art...if you don't like them, you don't have to look at them. But the fact that people don't like it doesn't mean it's not good. Everyone has a different opinion of what's good and what isn't. I wish people respected and appreciated that more....

[Douglas Sunlin]

In some of the sequences in The Bourne Ultimatum. particularly the car crashes, frenetic movement is essential to selling the story. In fact, they stuck in some very quick shots of things (a car, I think) coming straight for the camera, producing an intensely visceral reaction. Did anyone catch that?

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Everything on the boat in 'Jaws' is hand held.

[Matt Pacini]

Oh brother.

You guys get caught up in arguing the technicalities.

I don't know why this has to be stated, since it seems obvious to me but...

 

The complaint being made here, is not just the physical fact that a camera is being hand-held, but the LOOK of shaky camerawork.

Particularly INTENTIONAL SHAKY CAMERAWORK.

I've handheld a camera many times that is rock steady.

That's very obviously not the point being made, it's JITTERY & SHAKY-CAMERA WORK that we're talking about, not "technically" what the camera happens to be resting on.

 

Sure, fast, frantic camera work is sometimes appropriate. But IMO 95% of the time you see this, it's not appropriate, they're just trying to be "edgy" or whatever. I'm telling you, in a few years, this is going to seem as cool, as quick zooms were in the 70's. Today, those zooms look absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

 

MP

Edited August 13, 2007 by Matt Pacini

[Marcel Zyskind]

Sure, fast, frantic camera work is sometimes appropriate. But IMO 95% of the time you see this, it's not appropriate, they're just trying to be "edgy" or whatever. I'm telling you, in a few years, this is going to seem as cool, as quick zooms were in the 70's. Today, those zooms look absolutely ridiculous.

MP

 

I must say, I really like those ridiculus zooms. Check out Marathon Man, maybe not quick zooms, but well excecuted and firm zooms. Some good ones in there. Even a simple one of Roy Scheider crossing the street in Paris. But it's not just the zoom. It's the enviroment, the time, the costumes. Nostalgia perhaps.

 

French Connection 2. Amazing zoom.

 

M

[Daniel Sheehy]

Not fair? Not turn away? What if the directors whole point is to have the audience want to turn away? What about a film like Irreversible? It's hard to watch that film. You want to turn away, and sometimes you do. But I think that's the point. Horrible things happen, and if you don't want to turn away something may be wrong with you.

My point is: Who's to say that making the audience squeamish or uncomfortable, or nauseated is bad. It's the directors movie! He or she can decide if they want to impart these feelings on you or not. Filmmaking is still an artform afterall. The creator of the art has the power, as they should. To back off and make the film "more watchable" would be a copout. I like commercial movies as much as the next guy, but I also like artistic, daring movies that aren't afraid of what people will say about them.

Movies are like any other art...if you don't like them, you don't have to look at them. But the fact that people don't like it doesn't mean it's not good. Everyone has a different opinion of what's good and what isn't. I wish people respected and appreciated that more....

 

Very true... but I still think its fair for people to express their views on the issue. The movie was, after all, released for all of us to watch.

 

I personally felt that in the case of the Bourne Ultimatum, the exaggerated hand held technique unnecessarily interfered with the viewers ability to see what was happening. It was superbly used in some places.. but it was (I felt) misused in others.

Again, a personal taste issue.. but I still get the right to critique the movie.. don't I?

[Brad Grimmett]

Again, a personal taste issue.. but I still get the right to critique the movie.. don't I?

Of course. I never meant to infer that you, or anyone else didn't have the right to voice their opinion. But some people aren't stating their opinion, they're saying the filmmakers are wrong and not being fair to the audience by shooting in a particular way, which is a whole different thing.

[Chris Graham]

Of course. I never meant to infer that you, or anyone else didn't have the right to voice their opinion. But some people aren't stating their opinion, they're saying the filmmakers are wrong and not being fair to the audience by shooting in a particular way, which is a whole different thing.

 

well if you notice my initial post refers to the initial showing, hence, the screen! the thEEathA! =) not home watching where there are more variables at hand such as distance from the screen and the many marketed sizes. my ARGUMENT is that it's a stupid technique not well thought out. in fact its just as stupid as the whole idea of front row seating. why? because filmmaking isn't like theatre plays, which films so immaturely adapted. of course side viewing of seats of plays, in akward spots, isn't even comparable to a film screen which by sideview or up close and personal becomes distorted!!!! how can any front row viewer enjoy that type of fast handheld jittery stuff when their field of vision is already horrible. i don't know anybody that enjoys seating at the front. if you have to then you have to for the fact that the individual bought the tickets. this doesn't apply to all film theatres, but most do this, and so fu**ing stupid! why? because the theatre didn't think right, doesn't care about distorted vision, but knows that $$$$$$$$$$$ is better than anything.

 

front row seating to a certain point should be eliminated and replanned upon building new theatres. geez, there's needs to be a freaking cut off! that's my rant. and you don't get that whole idea, well then in all honesty you really don't know the entertainment of a good film. architects wake the f*ck up

[Brad Grimmett]

well if you notice my initial post refers to the initial showing, hence, the screen! the thEEathA! =) not home watching where there are more variables at hand such as distance from the screen and the many marketed sizes.

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with my comments, but OK....

 

my ARGUMENT is that it's a stupid technique not well thought out.

 

You're making an absolute statement, not an argument, which itself is not well thought out.

[Shane Bartlett]

"The 18th century french and spanish only had 50mm lens and always had the camera on a heavy tripod and hadn't yet developed a practical crane."

 

The 18th century! That's amazing. Shots have been locked down for so long, of course it's about time for a little shaky-cam. Come on.

 

 

 

 

All kidding aside, I do agree. It has gone overboard. But you can't despise effective techniques; you can only despise the people who use them without fully understanding their implications and psychology. I sigh every time a director says "and for this scene, we'll go handheld, I want gut-wrenching realism". I sigh because it seems like canned direction (and usually is). A vulgar display of non-thought. Like when directors, when asked about the look they have in mind, go directly to Traffic. Hot and cold. Think, damnit. Designing shots and a style that will create the film's overall look requires so much more than a canned response about color balance. Sometimes a fight scene is just a fight scene. Sometimes, it is another character's perception of that fight scene that is more important. Sometimes context and subtext are more important. Once you understand the intent of the scene, the way to shoot it becomes obvious.

 

I've been told time and again that zooms are baaaaaad. Yet no one complains when Kubrick throws one in (Eyes Wide Shut, just to name one example). How can any technique be worse than limiting oneself to an "approved" few? Just because so many use a hammer to cut 2x4's doesn't mean you can't use a hammer to drive nails.

[Matt Pacini]

My point exactly.

Obviously, every filmmaker can use whatever they want to use, it's their film. And viewers can like it, or not like it, it's up to them.

 

However, I think the justification that it's somehow "realism" is completely bogus. You're shooting action that is staged. Everything in front of your camera is "fake", not real, and your camera technique doesn't make it "more real".

The only reason this can be so, is news-style footage, which usually IS footage of real stuff actually happening.

Hence my comment about it's only really intellectually justified if it's actually supposed to be news or amateur-shot footage in the scene.

 

MP

Edited August 15, 2007 by Matt Pacini

[Phil Rhodes]

I just watched "The Bourne Ultimatum"

 

I feel physically sick.

 

Phil

[jake ross]

By non-steadicam I assume you're referring to handheld. And I disagree. It's not just a technicality, Steadicam does not inherently look like handheld, or vice versa. That's like saying that handheld and a dolly move look the same. They just don't. It's a completely different look.

NYPD Blue didn't look like handheld to me either. It just looked like movement done on a head.

 

not saying handheld looks **exactly** like steadicam or vice versa.... just saying that they both are kinetic and have more in common with eachother than locked off shots.

[Brad Grimmett]

I just watched "The Bourne Ultimatum"

 

I feel physically sick.

 

Phil

I just got back from seeing Bourne. I can't figure out why people are saying they felt sick while watching it. I didn't find that at all, and neither did the two people I was with. Yes, it's an aggressive style, but I never lost track of what was going on or felt disoriented, and certainly not sick. I did lose my sense of geography during the motorcycle chase, but that's about it. I do see how it could be more disorienting if you sat very close to the screen though.

I guess I'm in the minority on this one.

[Brad Grimmett]

not saying handheld looks **exactly** like steadicam or vice versa.... just saying that they both are kinetic and have more in common with eachother than locked off shots.

But neither steadicam or handheld are always kinetic. Yes, they both look different than a lockoff, but every shot that isn't a lockoff looks different than a lockoff.....

[Chris Graham]

I just got back from seeing Bourne. I can't figure out why people are saying they felt sick while watching it. I didn't find that at all, and neither did the two people I was with. Yes, it's an aggressive style, but I never lost track of what was going on or felt disoriented, and certainly not sick. I did lose my sense of geography during the motorcycle chase, but that's about it. I do see how it could be more disorienting if you sat very close to the screen though.

I guess I'm in the minority on this one.

 

i have two grunts. the front row seating in the film industry, and the "jerkycam" movement relating to that in particular! again, this goes back to architectural cutoff of seating and being smart. all i'm saying is that you're going to do this sort of stuff for a blockbuster just please think about the front people. static images aren't so bad, but ughhh i'm pretty sure most get the point. that's not fair. on the upside when the film is release for dvd it becomes a totally different scenario.

[Phil Rhodes]

I was way too close - only about a screen height away, and looking up at it, which doesn't help.

 

Still, though. If I'd submitted rushes like that, I'd be expecting chat in someone's office the following day.

 

Phil

[Chris Graham]

I was way too close - only about a screen height away, and looking up at it, which doesn't help.

 

Still, though. If I'd submitted rushes like that, I'd be expecting chat in someone's office the following day.

 

Phil

 

ah, you bring me back to film school! =) you sound like a strict instructor =P

[Guest Tim Partridge]

Here is the perfect example of how this shakeycam thing SHOULD be used:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzfNQkwwT3c#

 

This deserves a thread in it's own right (best trailer I've seen in over ten years)-

 

It's the Blair Witch "home movie" approach in terms of direction, but the cinematography is every bit as stylish as say whatever Tony Scott is doing this week. They didn't just go "it's the Blair Witch approach, so it can look like crap" however there is an amazing feeling of spontaneity, the type of which you associate with B camera reality television. A compromise is met midway in terms of content and style, rather than just being superficial- cinematography should always compliment the DIRECTION.

 

Did anyone else feel the initial fire ball crash zoom an ominous reminder of the 9/11 fire crew footage? This movie looks likely to summarize the Western misery/paranoia of this decade, and I am first in line!

 

PS Having never been to New York, I did not know Lady Liberty's head was so small.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Here is the perfect example of how this shakeycam thing SHOULD be used:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzfNQkwwT3c#

 

I really fail to see how mass audiences can find these things entertaining. Tastless....