Black Swan handheld camera operating

[Peter Moretti]

Almost no shots are literally "locked down." Even close-ups the operator is subtly following the subject's movement. With the exception of wides and certain shots, almost all shots in contemporary films have movement of some kind, whether small or radical.

 

Not trying to pick on you, either, John, but "putting the camera on a tripod and walking away" would most certainly create the most visually boring film ever made.

 

About Black Swan: I think it's some of the best handheld I've ever seen. And compared to most handheld work, it's very fluid.

 

Okay, Gabe, I'm going to have to live somewhere between you and John. I think you could certainly make an interesting film locking down the camera. IIRC, "Raise the Red Lantern" was essentially locked down (and deep focus). More recently, IIRC, "500 Days of Summer" was mostly locked down. I remember this b/c I loved the camera movement in "Juno" so much, that I was disappointed to see so many static shots.

 

But locking down the camera as an edict is just not supportable (no pun intended), AFAICT.

[Tom Sykes]

Having just seen Black Swan tonight, unfortunately having read this forum post beforehand throughout I was plagued by watching meticulously the handheld work and everything else for that matter. I found myself watching the film overly critically, more so than usual that is. I've come to the following conclusion/opinion.

 

At the beginning I feel as if it is unnecessary and is a bit too shaky, especially as we don't yet know what is going on with the story, I'd have preferred to have seen the handheld work subtly get more unsteady (within reason) as the film reaches its climax, not jumping in straight in at the deep end, effectively I think the opening ballet sequence in the dance studio would have been brilliant with the use of a steadicam.

 

Would it be bold to say as steady as handheld work in Werkmeister Harmonies or other brilliant steadicam sequences like, the chase scene in Point Break, i think that chase would be an allowable amount of steadiness than the way Libatique shot Black Swans early sequences, obviously saying this as an opinion as i'd quite happily consider cutting off my left bollock to be in his position, as would many people, or other limbs they deem fit :P

 

I think a good mix of stationary, even locked off shots with a mix of handheld and gripwork is a nice style to shoot in, taking some of Haneke's films into consideration or even Ulrich Seidl's Import/Export. Maybe a bit too biased towards the foreign film department and european films., but I always find these styles very good from a storytelling point of view.

 

At least Black Swan wasn't like the opening of Quantum of Solace, deary me, now that was god awful camerwork!!! Worse than Bourne I would say, at least in Bourne you can see what on earth is going on.

[victor ponce]

Love the camera work¡.

I think is amaizing the camera hand held.

 

Everyone that says is too shaky, is jelous.

 

I think it was the intention, and they got what they wanted.

[Jesse Cairnie]

I'm with Victor on this one.. Great operating.. Suits the film to a T.. I cant think of anything I would change about the film.. I hope Matty gets the ASC award for it..

[Marcus Allemann]

I'm pretty much in the middle on the topic. For the most part, I think the choice to be handheld rather than steadicam was appropriate BUT I did also think it was a tad too confronting smack bang at the start of the film to be the first point of orientation.

 

What I am more intrigued by was the blending together of different stocks. If anyone could tell me which sequences were filmed with what specific format, I would be most grateful. I am still not so sharp as to differentiate subtle aesthetic changes but am trying to develop a better sense of scrutiny.

 

Overall, I was surprised at the level of grain/ noise they had chosen over the film.

[Ian Blewitt]

I LOVED the opening shot where the camera followed Natalie (her dream,) I was blown away by that shot.. and it all went downhill from there.

 

I think shaky-cam should be reserved for intense action. It works in things like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers because the characters are running and stuff is blowing up and such. With shaky-cam like this, it doesn't affect me emotionally, it distracts me from the story. When it's overused all I can think about is how much I hate shaky-cam and end up missing important things that happen.

 

It was definitely merited for SOME of the shots it was used in but when it wasn't used,.. I was able to enjoy the film much much more.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Ian Blewitt

[Fhj Ais]

To my perception, Kubrick did not write most of his stories. He has set the bar very high with his technical knowledge and perfection to a film but most of his stories came from novels. So, I guess you can't be good at everything.

 

You might want to consider glasses then. He cowrote all of his screenplays which were adaptations. ACO he adapted without a co writer. So yes, he did write his stories. Even if what you were saying was accurate, he still had amazing taste for choosing them. Not something to just dismiss the way you did.

[Otis Grapsas]

I don't like shaky camerawork. I don't operate cameras of do cinematography but I have always felt the camera is just a voyeur, the viewer placed on set. Under this lens, instability is only justified if the virtual voyeur has to violently move with the person talking, if the voyeur is part of the crowd being pushed around, that sort of thing. It adds some realism. The alternative of the steadicam is very annoying and unnatural by comparison, I never moved into space in that fashion so I will take moderate shake instead.If I were standing in a room listening to a conversation, I would get a very stable view. I wouldn't shake without a reason. It's unnatural.

 

Almost all viewers hate shaky camerawork and most complain openly about it. Shaky camerawork in tv screens is sometimes acceptable, but in theaters the screen covers a very large part of my viewing angle, it's annoying. It does not fit the medium well.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Otis Grapsas

[Frank Glencairn]

It took us years to get the perfect camera stabilization platforms like cranes, dollies, Steadicams, fluid heads andwhatnot.

 

Now - that we have finally achieved that - we throw it all out of the window and do shaky, handheld on propose. Sounds insane to me.

 

The only situation, where I can see handheld/shoulder work, is a POV shot and maybe scenes like the invasion in private Ryan.

 

Sometimes the situation calls for shoulder work. When I have to do that, I always smooth it out with some sort of anti-shake software.

 

Frank

Edited February 11, 2011 by Frank Glencairn

[Brad Grimmett]

The operating in Black Swan is some of the best handheld work I've ever seen. Anyone calling it "shakycam" needs to watch the film again. It's one thing to disagree with the directors choice to shoot the film this way, which is a valid opinion, but to bad mouth the operating is crazy to me. There are very few operators in the world who can do what these operators did on this film.

I guess I'm a bit biased since I'm an operator, but I think being an operator informs me a bit more of what it actually takes to make handheld look as great as these guys did.

[Don Norman]

Not just the stabilization platforms, how about the all the effort and expense expended to create the other advanced technologies such as fine-grained film, sharp lenses, precision camera movements, high MP sensors etc.. Shaky-cam or handheld camerawork degrades or erodes the image quality that all these technological advances were meant to elevate. Right?

 

 

It took us years to get the perfect camera stabilization platforms like cranes, dollies, Steadicams, fluid heads andwhatnot.

 

Now - that we have finally achieved that - we throw it all out of the window and do shaky, handheld on propose. Sounds insane to me.

 

The only situation, where I can see handheld/shoulder work, is a POV shot and maybe scenes like the invasion in private Ryan.

 

Sometimes the situation calls for shoulder work. When I have to do that, I always smooth it out with some sort of anti-shake software.

 

Frank

[Stuart Brereton]

The operating in Black Swan is some of the best handheld work I've ever seen. Anyone calling it "shakycam" needs to watch the film again. It's one thing to disagree with the directors choice to shoot the film this way, which is a valid opinion, but to bad mouth the operating is crazy to me. There are very few operators in the world who can do what these operators did on this film.

I guess I'm a bit biased since I'm an operator, but I think being an operator informs me a bit more of what it actually takes to make handheld look as great as these guys did.

 

I'll second that.

[Brad Grimmett]

handheld camerawork degrades or erodes the image quality that all these technological advances were meant to elevate. Right?

Oh, of course that's correct! I personally will never drive any other car besides the Bugatti Veyron ever again because it's so technologically advanced, and if I drove any other car I would erode the advancements that have been made. I'm sure all of you have already spent that $1 million as well, or will very soon.

[Brad Grimmett]

The Bourne trilogy. Worst camera work ever.

I couldn't disagree more. I do agree that speaking in absolutes is a good idea, though.

[Brad Grimmett]

I thought the ending was botched by the camerawork and editing. It was difficult to really take in the choreography, and yet at the end we're asked to accept that she gave the performance of her life. It felt like cheating.

FYI, the end was the only scene in the movie to use steadicam. What did you think was "botched" about it?

And when Aaronofsky said he wanted the film to feel real, hence the use of shaky cam, my respect for him fell several orders of magnitude. It's such a cliched thing to say. Who says shaky feels real? It's simply that it codes for real because it's a techniques coopted from 60s documentary cinema. And it's not like THEY were striving for an intentionally shaky image, but rather the shakiness was a functional byproduct of necessity. They had to go handheld to get the shot, which gives it an immediacy.

Wait, is it a cliche or not? You've contradicted yourself a bit.

There is nothing shaky about the operating in this movie. Anyone who's seen it clearly knows that, yet at least 20 people in this thread have referred to the operating in Black Swan as shaky cam. Did any of you SEE the film? If I had operated on the film I would consider those comments direct insults. I'm guessing at least some of you can understand how hard the operators worked on the film....

Like I said in an earlier post, it's one thing to disagree or question Aronofsky's decision to shoot the majority of the film hand held, but it's a whole different thing to bad mouth the operators who, by all important accounts, did a magnificent job and gave the director exactly what he wanted.

[Brian Rose]

Brad, I have, in fact, seen it. As a matter of record, I was in the audience at the fourth public screening EVER, and only the second in the United States.

 

And nowhere do I blame the operators, because they're simply doing their job, and doing what they're told. I blame the director for making bad decisions and I blame the DP for endorsing them. I found the handheld camerawork to be utterly lazy, uninspired, unoriginal, and distracting. The inconsistent grain structure and mediocre lighting made the film difficult to watch. That I came away still with a great deal of admiration for the film is a testament to Natalie Portman's performance (though she is no Moira Shearer).

 

"Black Swan" speaking cinematographically, is one more example of how the artistry, in my opinion, is being lost in our craft. My god, we've gone from a day when cameramen had slow-ass film and bulky blimped Mitchell BNCs to work with, and did marvelous shots of visual dexterity. They didn't even have reflex viewfinders! Look at what Jack Cardiff did in "A Matter of Life and Death" using a 200 hundred bloody pound camera and with it creating a POV shot of a patient being wheeled on a gurney!

 

Today we have cameras that can be held in the palm of the hand. We can review our shots and do retakes based on them. Speeds of films and sensors are orders of magnitude faster and clearer than older film stocks, and how has the profession honored those old DPs and what they did? We shoot in bloody murkiness. We hand hold and shimmy and shake. And then we take all that footage and chop it up into incoherence. Of the five nominees, "Black Swan"'s cinematography was easily the weakest. Thank goodness Deakins and Pfister are nominated.

[Tim Tyler]

I thought it was pretty cool that Natalie Portman thanked Black Swan's camera operators in her Oscar acceptance speech!

[Francesco Bonomo]

I thought it was pretty cool that Natalie Portman thanked Black Swan's camera operators in her Oscar acceptance speech!

 

I thought so, too. Classy and quite rare, I'd say.

Also nice to see Pfister thanking his crew and union members on the "thank you cam".

[Brian Dzyak]

Was working with a Producer the other day that suggested a new drinking game for every time the camera followed Natalie from behind. :lol:

 

 

I guess if you think about it long enough in a coffee house with a bunch of beatnicks, anyone can come up with a rational that explains those shots, but if ANY shot has to be thought about that much, then there's something wrong. I'm all for innovative and different from the norm, but when the "style" tears the audience OUT OF the story to the point where they notice the "filmmaking," then it is a bad choice. It's like acting or visual effects. I know they are there, but I don't want to notice them while I'm watching the movie. The same goes for camera moves/frame choice/lighting. If a choice LOOKS LIKE it's trying to be "cool" or "different" then it isn't.

[Francesco Bonomo]

Was working with a Producer the other day that suggested a new drinking game for every time the camera followed Natalie from behind. :lol:

 

:lol:

 

I'm all for innovative and different from the norm, but when the "style" tears the audience OUT OF the story to the point where they notice the "filmmaking," then it is a bad choice.

 

I agree 100%, Brian. It's funny, though, because it didn't happen to me while watching Black Swan, but it happened with some shots in King's Speech, especially regarding some framing/composition choices which felt too "literal" to me (don't know if that's the right word). I guess it depends a lot on how much the movie is affecting you while watching it, though: Black Swan was one of the most visceral films I've seen in a long time...but that's me ;)

[Brian Dzyak]

 

I agree 100%, Brian. It's funny, though, because it didn't happen to me while watching Black Swan, but it happened with some shots in King's Speech, especially regarding some framing/composition choices which felt too "literal" to me (don't know if that's the right word). I guess it depends a lot on how much the movie is affecting you while watching it, though: Black Swan was one of the most visceral films I've seen in a long time...but that's me ;)

 

 

Well, for me, the first hour was utterly boring. I found myself fidgeting and checking the time. Adding to that were the relentless "style" shots following Natalie from behind and (as a disclaimer), the jerk who sat next to me at the last minute who could not stop f'ing moving or chewing on something or fixing his Justin Bieber hair. What a douche that guy was!

 

Anyway, the second hour kinda flew by. So there's that.

[Freya Black]

I'm pretty much in the middle on the topic. For the most part, I think the choice to be handheld rather than steadicam was appropriate BUT I did also think it was a tad too confronting smack bang at the start of the film to be the first point of orientation.

 

What I am more intrigued by was the blending together of different stocks. If anyone could tell me which sequences were filmed with what specific format, I would be most grateful. I am still not so sharp as to differentiate subtle aesthetic changes but am trying to develop a better sense of scrutiny.

 

Overall, I was surprised at the level of grain/ noise they had chosen over the film.

 

The film is cropped Super16 to get a scope style ratio.

Film was mostly Fuji Vivid 500T with some shots also on Vivid 160T but mostly 500. There is also apparantly a short bit shot on a canon dslr (7D?), I think in the subway?

 

Here are some links:

 

Variety article

 

ASC article

 

Fuji Exposure .pdf file

 

I've been excitedly reading about it all!

 

Still not seen it yet! Got some great little postcards of the posters tho! :)

 

love

 

Freya

[Brad Grimmett]

I'm all for innovative and different from the norm, but when the "style" tears the audience OUT OF the story to the point where they notice the "filmmaking," then it is a bad choice.

I completely agree with you. But I agree with Francesco as well. I wasn't taken out of the film by the way it was shot at all, just the opposite. I was drawn into the film because of the way it was shot.

I'll also agree with Francesco regarding the King's Speech. I was taken out of that film over and over again because of the odd composition. I'm still puzzled as to exactly why it won so many awards.

[Bill DiPietra]

Gevorg - Please update your display name with your full name.

 

Regarding Black Swan... I got a little tired of all the hand-held shots. I don't (want to) understand how a film can be purposefully shot without a tripod or dolly. I'd like to know what Aronofsky's reasoning was.

 

There was absolutely no motivation for the scenes that had hand-held work in them. They cried out for tripods.

[Brian Rose]

There was absolutely no motivation for the scenes that had hand-held work in them. They cried out for tripods.

 

My primary reaction when I think about "Black Swan" is immediately to recognize how much better "The Red Shoes" is at capturing the same subject matter, without the frenetic editing, the shaky camerawork, the emphasis of style over substance. Film's like Black Swan remind me of just what masters the filmmakers of the golden age were, and how much most films today pale by comparison. I also thank God for "The Red Shoes."