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

[Chris Graham]

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.

 

and then this trend will influence indie kats to only do digital =P

[Paul Bruening]

I am going to go ahead and ask something bothersome. Is this an indication of our industry and its relationship to the market? Are the big producers turning more and more to CG and shaky cam just to brain-candy viewers into the seats? Have viewers changed? Is this what it really takes? Is there something wrong with story telling as it used to be? Has big budget grind displaced the magic of a well crafted story? Are we, the consumer (me included), getting stupider? Have we lost the sense of meaning that can be crafted into movies?

[jake ross]

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.....

 

(from apples dashboard dictionary)

 

kinetic = of, relating to, or resulting from motion.

 

I would say that the majority of steadicam shots and handheld shots have some sort of motion within them... even if its just the slightest, tiniest frame jiggle.... but I feel like were now engaging in very minute and meaningless nitpicking.... I'll stop :-)

 

by the way, what'd everyone think of cavite?

[Daniel Sheehy]

I am going to go ahead and ask something bothersome. Is this an indication of our industry and its relationship to the market? Are the big producers turning more and more to CG and shaky cam just to brain-candy viewers into the seats? Have viewers changed? Is this what it really takes? Is there something wrong with story telling as it used to be? Has big budget grind displaced the magic of a well crafted story? Are we, the consumer (me included), getting stupider? Have we lost the sense of meaning that can be crafted into movies?

 

I've wondered the same thing. People talk about 'the MTV generation'...

I think its fair to say that the viewing audiences values have changed... instant gratification & 'brain candy' have become much more important than the appreciation of a job well done.

[Brad Grimmett]

Is this an indication of our industry and its relationship to the market? Are the big producers turning more and more to CG and shaky cam just to brain-candy viewers into the seats? Have viewers changed? Is this what it really takes? Is there something wrong with story telling as it used to be? Has big budget grind displaced the magic of a well crafted story? Are we, the consumer (me included), getting stupider? Have we lost the sense of meaning that can be crafted into movies?

You're inferring that there is something wrong with shooting in an unconventional style. That it's dumber than other more conventional styles, and has less meaning. Well, I disagree. Sure, the style should fit the story, I agree. But I don't think that any particular style is stupider than any other, or has any less meaning.

A good parallel is painting. Is throwing paint onto a canvas stupider than brushing it on? Does it have less meaning? It's a whole different process, but both styles are respected (or should be) because they're both art.

Some of the best art ever made was judged very harshly when it was first created because it was different. But many times what makes it different is what makes it interesting and good.

I wish more people would just appreciate what they like about certain styles, instead of constantly bashing everything they don't like.

[Brad Grimmett]

(from apples dashboard dictionary)

 

kinetic = of, relating to, or resulting from motion.

 

I would say that the majority of steadicam shots and handheld shots have some sort of motion within them... even if its just the slightest, tiniest frame jiggle.... but I feel like were now engaging in very minute and meaningless nitpicking.... I'll stop :-)

 

by the way, what'd everyone think of cavite?

Got it. So by your definition, Steadicam, handheld, dolly, crane, doggicam, and any other way of moving the camera all look the same. Got it. No more nitpicking, your point is clear. Of course, you're completely wrong, but whatever helps you sleep at night.......

[jake ross]

Got it. So by your definition, Steadicam, handheld, dolly, crane, doggicam, and any other way of moving the camera all look the same.

 

no sir, not at all.

 

not trying to create more argument and minutia.... what'd you think of cavite?

[Brad Grimmett]

no sir, not at all.

 

not trying to create more argument and minutia.... what'd you think of cavite?

OK, cool.

I haven't seen Cavite or even heard of it before you mentioned it.

[David Auner aac]

One question for you guys here in Europe: anyone seen "Mondovino" like two years ago? It was a doco shot on MiniDV blown up to 1.85 :1 35mm.

Great story, well researched well done interviews with interesting people, but the worst camera work I have ever seen on the big screen. The camera was constantly and pointlessly waving around, IMO not by design but ignorance. It was really a shame to see such a good story ruined by that camerawork.

I'm not sensitive to nausea but a couple of people in the room couldn't take it, my girlfriend also said she had slight nausea.

I think the line is to be drawn between shaky-cam well done and badly done. Well and deliberately done it serves a purpose. I for my part still prefer steady shots and movements, but that's just my taste....

 

Cheers, Dave

[jake ross]

OK, cool.

I haven't seen Cavite or even heard of it before you mentioned it.

 

its a very lofi handheld feature that was shot with the dvx100, on location in the Philippines.... worth checking out... raw and gritty but suprisingly well done... 2 man crew/cast, absolutely low/no budget

[Leo Anthony Vale]

.... what'd you think of cavite?

 

Do you mean Cavorite?

[jake ross]

Do you mean Cavorite?

 

no. the film is called Cavite

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0428303/

[Jamie Metzger]

I'm watching "The Heart is Decietful among other things" - The handheld is terrible.

 

I've heard of people refer to it as the poor man's dolly, which is dumb as hell. A lot of indie productions are crunched on time and money and crew, so they think spending 20 extra minutes to setup the dolly and then tweak the movements...etc are not good descisions to make based on time constraints and the effect given. I understand that, but then again if we could stop paying the director to shoot his/her own movie and pay a key grip to do poop right, you'd sacrifice less.

 

 

I know it's not that simple, but jesus the handheld work is really bad in a lot of movies these days. Children of men was incredible.

[Ram Shani]

you shuold read this

 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...ENTARY/70816001

 

and this

 

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1175

[Chris Graham]

Bill Holm, Westford MA:

"You should warn your viewers about movies like this. They should be rated MS, for motion sickness."

 

 

lol. i told you guys. i wasn't jokin! blame it on Traffic! people wanting to copy Soderberg and MTV esque

[Chad Stockfleth]

this is a great comment:

 

This rationale puts us close to Poe’s suggestion that we shouldn’t confuse obscurity of expression with the expression of obscurity.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Chad Stockfleth

[Brad Grimmett]

I liked the quote from the guy who had gone to see Bourne Ultimatum twice and was writing to complain. If it was so bad why did he see it again? People are just silly.

[Annie Wengenroth]

Get ready to shoot me down. But. I love handheld. Sometimes yeah, it's too much, or it's unmotivated, or it looks like poop, whatever. But from the perspective of a focus puller, I find handheld to be exciting....when it's done well and when it's not done as a last resort due to poor planning. Then again, there's something to be said for the spontaneity of "Oh man, I gotta get that shot...hey, where's the sticks?" "On the truck." "...Ah, f*ck it, just gimme the camera!" Suddenly, it's like you're THERE. You're not standing there on a locked-off shot thinking about how great it would be if the operator could just pan, or tilt, or something. Or if one of the actors could just like..MOVE a little more. Instead, the crew is totally absorbed. I think when it's done right, it can be a really good way to shake things up.

 

Handheld camerawork is like the punk rock of cinematography. Why do people compare it to dolly shots? It's a totally different aesthetic. Plus, everyone knows the poor man's dolly is the wheelchair they jacked from the hospital.

 

Like so many things in this industry, there's not much middle ground...it's either overdone, or completely unappreciated, or else it's done by people who don't KNOW what they're doing, so of course it's gonna look bad on occasion. Like everything else. I think it's kinda cool that it's a product of the times, something that filmmakers of the 90's and the millenium can lay claim to.

[Chris Graham]

Get ready to shoot me down. But. I love handheld. Sometimes yeah, it's too much, or it's unmotivated, or it looks like poop, whatever. But from the perspective of a focus puller, I find handheld to be exciting....when it's done well and when it's not done as a last resort due to poor planning. Then again, there's something to be said for the spontaneity of "Oh man, I gotta get that shot...hey, where's the sticks?" "On the truck." "...Ah, f*ck it, just gimme the camera!" Suddenly, it's like you're THERE. You're not standing there on a locked-off shot thinking about how great it would be if the operator could just pan, or tilt, or something. Or if one of the actors could just like..MOVE a little more. Instead, the crew is totally absorbed. I think when it's done right, it can be a really good way to shake things up.

 

Handheld camerawork is like the punk rock of cinematography. Why do people compare it to dolly shots? It's a totally different aesthetic. Plus, everyone knows the poor man's dolly is the wheelchair they jacked from the hospital.

 

Like so many things in this industry, there's not much middle ground...it's either overdone, or completely unappreciated, or else it's done by people who don't KNOW what they're doing, so of course it's gonna look bad on occasion. Like everything else. I think it's kinda cool that it's a product of the times, something that filmmakers of the 90's and the millenium can lay claim to.

 

hi, Annie. you're in New York. remind me to buy you a ticket to see Ultimatum via front row seating! you're going to love it! =)

[Greg Traw]

So, I've just finished scrolling down this thread, and the going consensus seems to be against the trendy shaky-cam look. (Which, for the most part, I don't particularly care for either.) But I would like to hear one member's argument, if there is one, for it. And a real thoughtful argument too. Hopefully, they won't get crucified too badly by the cinematography.com mafia.

 

My own theory on why this is becoming so popular is the same as most as said before -- New technologies in lightweight digital cameras and reality entertainment. And why has this look effected television more than cinema? Probably because this is where the majority of the new blood (i.e. video kids) are getting jobs presently as they haven't quite broke down the castle doors on features yet. But this will probably be changing soon.

 

I have to wonder though? How many people were saying this about Raoul Coutard's camera work in the early days of the French New Wave or maybe the American experimental filmmakers (i.e. Stan Brakage, Jonas Mekas, etc.)? All of which I love.

 

Perhaps this is just the antithesis, and we'll eventually find a synthesis for both schools-of-thought? Which will eventually bring us back to what's at the core -- Good story telling!

 

Oh, and by the way, if all of you hate this kind of camera work then don't support it. Hit them where it really hurts. The almighty dollar. I noticed a lot of you shelled out the bucks to see the Bourne Ultimatum.

 

"Be like water." -- Bruce Lee

[Chris Graham]

Oh, and by the way, if all of you hate this kind of camera work then don't support it. Hit them where it really hurts. The almighty dollar. I noticed a lot of you shelled out the bucks to see the Bourne Ultimatum.

 

"Be like water." -- Bruce Lee

 

for me I set my standards high, and would like to achieve newer, traditional, or very challenging camera work. if i had the money i'd go to Colorado or Wyoming and have a field with Spydercam or something. or if I really had the money try and engage with a true set, not cgi, but a real set and try and do something like Ben Hur's racing scene. for me that's what filmmaking is about. granted in film school you're more boundary oriented to more real world style shooting. BUT every film school does not encourage this. i mean "shoot," (pun intended), they always teach the ground basics. every adult/instructor may have been on a traditional bias toward high production standards, but you can't blame them. 50's golden era style filmmaking imo would've been the mecca. no cgi to worry about. you either did it or didn't. long shots of Lawrence of Arabia where they show numerous tents out in a field. btw, only an idiot would shoot that frame in hand-held! lol

 

and Greg Traw, we're all real people. you make it seem like an individual digs in his funds to see whether something is worth watching. you should know better about film (movie buying purchases), the average person isn't a filmmaker. i'm a filmmaker, but i don't elite myself within that mode and try to suspend myself with disbelief of the industry. if i don't what fun is it to not hanging out with friends. and that's my point, many of have seen this what a family, friend, gf, etc... many are not going to judge it or argue with the person they're going to see it with. in fact, the average joe doesn't care about those technical values they just want to see the film, so exclude filmmaking critique and nerdiness for that part. another point, i think the many reasons why cinematographers might not like this style relates to what i last said. if a he/she is out with his gf and all the film is hand-held how is this professional supposed to suspend himself with disbelief when they know they could do it as well. chances are he/she will end up critiquing it. but when you have steady framing and you see something like Lawrence of Arabia on a big screen you're caught in magic because teh focus of content is what's in the frame, and not being disturbed by the stability of the frame!

Edited August 21, 2007 by Chris Graham

[Greg Traw]

Please don't think I'm pretentious, but I really am having a hard time understanding your post? I've read it several times, and it really confuses me because it's hard to read? So forgive me if I miss your point.

 

I think the main point I was trying to make was that content and context should dictate what the camera does -- Not technique or production value! Not to get stuck in any kind of dogmatic approach to camera work. (Be like water...) Sticks, dolly and Steadicam or shakycam? All approaches have their inherent ways of psychologically affecting an audience. So I think this kind of agrees with what you thought I was arguing against?

 

As an example, should an intimate, romantic scene between two individuals be shot with thousands of extras in a field ala Lawrence of Arabia just because you have the money to do it? Well, it depends on the content and context but my intuition tells me no.

 

And, by the way, what film school instructor encourages low production value for the sake of low production value? I find that most are pretty conservative in their thinking and just want their students to learn the basics before venturing out to try something "new?" Now weather or not the film student is going to listen to the instructor's instructions that's another story. I think the main hope of film instructors, at least the good ones, is to just get the students passionately and creatively thinking about cinema (watching and more importantly crafting) and hopefully killing the fantastic idea that fame and fortune awaits them when they start their career in the industry. Which is what seems to drive most film school students now days.

 

As far as going to see films goes. Do I love cinema? -- Yes! The whole process! Do I go to the theatre that much? No. Because I honestly don't like most of the films that come out these days. That's my choice, and I don't inflict that choice on anyone around me (friends, girlfriends, etc.). Nor do I inflict my tastes on them... well, sometimes. ; ) I guess the main point is anyone can complain but most are hypocritical when it comes to what really drives and motivates them.

 

And about CG, what does that have to do with anything? Did I even mention that in my previous post? (I was actually watching some King Vidor films earlier today in utter amazement at what the studio system was able to accomplish during the Golden Age, pre-CG.)

[Chris Graham]

And about CG, what does that have to do with anything? Did I even mention that in my previous post? (I was actually watching some King Vidor films earlier today in utter amazement at what the studio system was able to accomplish during the Golden Age, pre-CG.)

 

yeah i had a hard time reading my post as well. a lot of the time i'm high so i drift off in run-on sentences and poor grammar. that's pretty much how i post, unfortunately. regarding CG? no you didn't mention it. i mentioned it. it's not like i went on a tangent and talked about submarine engines, unless they're beneficial or contribute to today's filmmaking. aren't they nuclear powered?

Edited August 21, 2007 by Chris Graham

[Greg Traw]

Anyone ever heard of Abel Gance's film Napoleon before?...

[Brad Grimmett]

a lot of the time i'm high so i drift off in run-on sentences and poor grammar.

Being high and incomprehensible should really help your career.