camera movement

[Guy Meachin]

If camera dynamics are nessacery for telling your story better then there should be no avoiding them - In my very humble opinion - isn't that what Cinematography is about?

 

When I shoot a short film I love to use the dolly especially, they give your film more credibility, you've made the effort to set it up for one thing. The fact that track can take ages or you have a dolly shot in an obscure place will give an educated audience more to enjoy. But your movement must be motivated by the story eitherwise it will look like you're trying to be too fancy.

[Jonas]

***

Im not professional by any means - so take this for what it is - my humble opinion.

***

 

I go by instinct. (I make low-budget films in order to learn what I like)

 

I don't like to make 'rules' or analyze my work. BUT I know what I like and I know what I DON'T like - when I see it. I also don't analyze my screenplays. If I were to analyze my work I wouldn't be productive. But I police my work. I make changes until it pleases my eyes.

 

I think you have to learn the basics. But in the end it's your vision that's important. You need to find YOUR vision. That's what will make you succesfull in the long run, IMO.

 

The reason I don't analyze too much - is that I don't think it's possible to fully understand filmmaking, but that you can get the flair for it.

Edited December 6, 2004 by Jonas

[Michael Nash]

So I'm watching Frequency just now, you know the one with Jesus--oops, Jim Cavaziel in it--and I notice for many of the scenes where he and pappy are on the radio with each other, there's PHil's ever so subtle tracking shot, and I don't see what it symbolizes, if anything.  Was it just cool?  Did it symbolize how talking to your dad across the span of time, and some sketchy sci-fi, is dizzying?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what would keeping the camera still in that case have symbolized? What would that have conveyed?

[Max Jacoby]

It wouldn't have attracted attention to unmotivated camera movement...

 

If there's one thing I don't like it's these unmotivated lateral tracking shots on static, talking subjects. Most of the times it cries out: 'I don't know what to do with this shot and I don't have confidence in the actors' performance to keep the camera static.'

[Guest fstop]

Couldn't agree more with Max. Murder in the First is an example of LUDICROUSLY needless and intrusive steadicam for steadicam's sake. It just comes across that the director hasn't got a clue how to tell a story with images even though he has every tool at his disposal. If the same thing had been done by students with a miniDVCAM or poorly telecined 8/16mm for a short film with exactly the same story and performances you'd give the filmmakers HELL and call them clueless students. Et voila, that's our biggest problem today...

[Keith Mottram]

the soft slow ttracking shot, done well, is an excellent way to make a literal representaion of a climax to a conversation. as the track ends so does the dialogue. its straight forward, however if there is no point in the conversation, then there is no point in tracking to its conclusion. at the end of the day you can only turd polish so far........

[Michael Nash]

I think you guys are missing the point. It's as if you're saying that the camera should be static by default. If the camera shouldn't move in such scenes, then why should it be static? Unless you can make a credible argument for what you're trying to convey by keeping the camera still, you're going to have a hard time arguing that the camera shouldn't move.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the camera should move all the time, or that filmmakers should throw in camera movement gratuitously. I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, and trying to reinforce the notion that camera movement usually IS motivated, even if you don't quite understand what it represents at first. The visual language filmmakers use is kind of like poetry; a single word may not have a particular meaning on its own, but it helps convey something in the context of the whole poem (pattern of words the poet uses). Moving shots can be kind of like that; they can help create a more emotional or subjective POV in conjunction with other visual devices, more than a static shot might at that same moment.

 

The assertion that a director moves the camera because he doesn't have confidence in the actor's performance assumes that an objective POV of the actor is the proper way to tell the story. That's clearly not always the case, as movies often try to convey drama through a more emotionally "engaged" POV, whether it's of one of the characters or still 3rd person. In the case of a camera dollying around a static subject, the move can help visually separate the character from the background similar to the way a shallow depth of field might. It's one more framing choice like how low to "cut" the close-up or how close to the lens the eyeline is.

 

One thing I've noticed with some of these more stylish TV shows (like all the Bruckheimer shows) is that the constant cutting and camera movement within a simple dialogue scene are adding another layer of information on top of the actor's performances and dialogue. To me, it's stimulating when a filmmaker actually uses the filmmaking to convey something, and not just rely on the actor's performance! ;)

 

Of course there are plenty of examples where camera movement becomes a bit gratuitous and more an element of style or aesthetic than of storytelling per se. I get turned off by movies and shows that use camera movement and visual gimmicks with disregard for how they help tell the story. But at least in those cases there's still a visual design at work, just unfortunately separated from the story. TV's Fast Lane was like that; too much aesthetic disconnected from the storytelling.

 

One movie that impressed me recently with its camera movement and blocking was Swimming Pool . The movement was so slow and subtle that you barely noticed it, yet it was meticulously crafted so that the camera revealed or concealed information more inconspicuously than a cut would. It was the complete opposite of gratuitous movement -- it was effective because you didn't notice it.

 

BTW, the term tracking shot usually describes a moving camera following a moving subject. The camera is following or "tracking" the subject as it moves, like a "walk and talk" where the camera tracks the characters to maintain a medium two-shot. When the subject is static the move is usually described by the axis of movement. Like "dolly in" or "dolly around" or "pull back" or whatever.

[F Bulgarelli]

I was watching "Winter Light" the other day. A perfect example of excellent static camera work.

 

Sometimes movement can be used as a sort of "bridge" that enhances transitions between different scenes in the story.

 

Movement is as much a part of the cinematic vocabulary as non-movemet, the trick is how and when to use it.

 

Francisco

[Brad Grimmett]

A great steadicam shot is the intro to Keanu's FBI office in Point Break - very "macho" operating. Nescessary? Not really, but very "cool".

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steadicam is never really "necessary", but it can certainly have a great effect. A couple of examples:

Goodfellas... following Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco through the backdoor and kitchen of the restaurant out into the dining area.

The Birdcage...the opening shot.

Pulp Fiction...following Bruce Willis into his apartment (through a hole in a chain link fence) where he kills John Travolta.

These scenes could have been shot in any number of different ways, but steadicam helps to connect you to the characters....you feel like you know them. It can help put you into their world.

I agree about the 360's and gratuitous steadicam thoough....sometimes it's just distracting. The best steadicam is that which you don't even realize is steadicam. And contrary to many people's beliefs....steadicam is NOT a replacement for a dolly.

[Guest fstop]

Interesting thoughts, Brad. I'd have to disagree with you that the best steadicam is when you don't conciously realise it's steadicam, in the same way it's true for aerial shots, zooms, crane shots, skycam, etc. the Goodfellas shots and all of the Shining, American Werewolf, Halloween, etc. SCREAM steadicam but do it more effectively than anything else, enhancing the storyteller's direction.

 

It's interesting hearing what you too have to say Michael on the subject, particularly I think because of your informed American perspective- I say that because there's always been a fear over here that the US makes the most stylish, cinematic and interesting TV and film while Britain is still stuck in a world of locked off shots and understatement. Whenever you hear of a young new British director doing TV or what not over here they always praise American entertainment for keeping things fresh and dramatic (ironic as historically those MTV-isms derived from Brits like Tony Scott and Adrian Lynne working in the UK and taking it to Hollywood), and we're now always embarrasingly desperate to keep up, even to the point where our oldest historical moving image heritage such as the TV soaps Coronation Street, Eastenders and even the James Bond films are trying to emulate the US MTV slickness with ER style steadicams and whip-pans, handheld close ups, "ants in their pants" unjustified dolly work and other gimmicky movement, not so much to compete with the US but to show that they are with the times. I can hear that is certainly something Max is screaming in his posts too, especially now that Britain particularly is full of form obsessed film school student directors who are trained to grab audience attention in order to sell a product in 30 seconds as oppose to telling a story.

[Michael Nash]

I can hear that is certainly something Max is screaming in his posts too, especially now that Britain particularly is full of form obsessed film school student directors who are trained to grab audience attention in order to sell a product in 30 seconds as oppose to telling a story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's been happening over here as well, most notably when music video directors try to cross over into feature filmmaking. The glitz and flash that works in a music video or commercial doesn't always work in a long form narrative. But then those directors don't sustain that approach for very long; they either mature as filmmakers or their feature careers sputter.

 

Did anyone see Torque? That's another perfect example of music video glitz slapped onto a narrative. It just became too much, too hokey...

[Brad Grimmett]

Interesting thoughts, Brad. I'd have to disagree with you that the best steadicam is when you don't conciously realise it's steadicam, in the same way it's true for aerial shots, zooms, crane shots, skycam, etc. the Goodfellas shots and all of the Shining, American Werewolf, Halloween, etc. SCREAM steadicam but do it more effectively than anything else, enhancing the storyteller's direction.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, sure, some shots "scream" steadicam because there is no other way the shot could have been done. What I meant is that good steadicam doesn't pull you out of the story "Oh, look steadicam!", it pulls you deeper into it. I think The Shining is a bad example though, because steadicam was still so new that many people didn't know how they did those shots. Sure, when we watch it now it screams steadicam because it was so revolutionary at that point, and it's one of the films that made steadicam famous, but when it was released in 1980 it was just mind boggling to most people.

So I guess artistically the best steadicam is that which allows you to do shots you couldn't do any other way. But as a steadicam operator, some of my favorite shots are those which are imperceptible to me as steadicam. Although, I'm certainly impressed with the stuff that stands out as well.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I think the problem in the UK with music-promo glitz is that there's been such a long tradition of very staid and boring photography, and it's a reaction to that. People at the bottom of the industry - people like me -see the success of American cinema and compare it to the awful, boring, grey, lacklustre photography that passes for the professional standard here, What d'you expect to happen?

 

Phil

[Guest fstop]

Call me old fashioned but I long for the days when Britain had very old school cinematographers with traditional tastes who grew up under the direct influence of either David Lean or Michael Powell, STORYtellers who were experts at prioritising essentials and never overwhelmed by form. Hollywood's innovative youngsters and new blood responded to these classical disciplines and all of a sudden you had partnerships like Spielberg and Slocombe, Francis and Lynch/Scorsese and even Canadian Cronenberg and Peter Su.

 

Since the end of that (late 80s/early 90s) we now have a new generation of film school MTV promo DPs who are just trying to imitate current US DPs who grew up on directors who admired our older DPs...

 

I'd rather be a boring DP who prioritises story and aims to realise the directors vision rather than some bandwagon MTV aping visual stylist desperate to keep up with what's hot Stateside...

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I'd rather be a boring DP who prioritises story and aims to realise the directors vision rather than

> some bandwagon MTV aping visual stylist desperate to keep up with what's hot Stateside...

 

Yes, I got that impression - and that 's why we don't have a film industry in this country. Nowhere else could anyone say "I'd like to be a boring DP."

 

Phil

[Sam Wells]

"BTW, the term tracking shot usually describes a moving camera following a moving subject. The camera is following or "tracking" the subject as it moves, like a "walk and talk" where the camera tracks the characters to maintain a medium two-shot."

 

But it can also "track" an idea, the idea of space and characters relationship to it.

 

See the scroll-painting like moving camera shots in Mizoguchi films, which can even move through extended periods of time. In "Ugetsu" a track /dissolve move ends a year (in the narrative) later than it started.

 

Or what you might call the encirclements and (paradoxically) confinements of charcters and their social space in films by Max Ophuls (his films surely Kubrick's model for his own tracking strategies)

 

-Sam

[Guest fstop]

Hi,

 

> I'd rather be a boring DP who prioritises story and aims to realise the directors vision rather than

> some bandwagon MTV aping visual stylist desperate to keep up with what's hot Stateside...

 

Yes, I got that impression - and that 's why we don't have a film industry in this country. Nowhere else could anyone say "I'd like to be a boring DP."

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"RATHER" be, thanks. :)

 

Ed Zwick had the same beliefs as you on GLORY, Phil. He thought Freddie Francis was boring, old fashioned in his execution (I guess Zwick would have prefered the picture to look like Top Gun) and visually out of touch with the day. Consequently, Francis won an Oscar for his work on the film followed by an immediate phone call from Martin Scorsese to work on his next project!

 

Anyway, I really like the work I've seen of yours, Phil, that b/w stuff with the "skin cream" (as you'd call it) portrait look particularly seemed very classical and much the opposite of the US MTV-wannabe visuals you see too often on this side of the atlantic- suprises me more than anything that in our last posts we've ended up disagreeing!

Edited December 9, 2004 by fstop

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Well, that was kind of supposed to be old-style, but really - that's the easy bit, that's just three-point.

 

Phil

[Guest fstop]

JUST three-point? You make it sound like three point done well is a walk in the park!

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Tim, do you know anything about David Odd? Some of his work on the "Masterpiece Theatre" programs is very "staid' and classical in a very good way. Some of the best composition I've seen in a long time.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> JUST three-point? You make it sound like three point done well is a walk in the park!

 

Exactly, and the three-point to which you're referring wasn't done particularly well, QED.

 

Phil

[Guest fstop]

Tim, do you know anything about David Odd?  Some of his work on the "Masterpiece Theatre" programs is very "staid' and classical in a very good way.  Some of the best composition I've seen in a long time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Odd did a really well shot film that made it theatrical here for a week or so back in the late 90s called Girl's Night with Julie Walters and Brenda Blethyn- totally matches your description, btw- he has does alot of ITV prime time stuff here- he certainly has restrain and just tells the story, and he makes his work visually exciting when the story calls for it: Odd's photography of the American Desert planes for example in Girl's Night are every bit as exotic and visually spectacular as what Bryan Probyn shot for Badlands or Adrian Biddle lensed for Thelma and Louise.

 

Phil- you are a modest man- I can only admire that! :D