rlogan

Hi folks. I don't know how to get this answered except to ask experts in the field. In 1967 the most famous hoax involving bigfoot was filmed by Roger Patterson with a hand-held Cine Kodak 16 mm camera, Kodachrome II color film ASA film speed 64, K-12 development process. The original film has never surfaced. Copies were made on Ektachrome film, and these copies are the only thing that has ever been seen publicly. The hoax has been adequately exposed, most particularly by Greg Long in his book "The Making of Bigfoot" where both the costume maker (Phillip Morris) and the fellow who was wearing the suit were interviewed, along with the provision of a tremendous amount of supporting material and witnesses. It is still a fascinating subject in terms of some remaining details on how he pulled it off, and there are yet true believers who despite all evidence to the contrary still believe it was not a hoax. One of the remaining issues of a technical nature is whether by inspection one can see by examining copies of a film whether the original had been edited. There are definitely numerous stops and starts, and that is not at issue. Rather, the question is whether one can edit an original, then make copies, and have the splicing "mark" or "line" or whatever you call it be undetectable by physical inspection of those copies. Of course we are not talking about splicing through frames, but splicing between frames. This subject is of interest to participants in a forum dedicated to debunking hoaxes, named after James Randi, a retired magician who demonstrates how various tricksters use sleight-of-hand to bend spoons or make objects move, or "see" objects printed on cards, read minds etc. Despite that anti-hoax bias, it is extremely important to remain dedicated to truth and not make assertions unsupportable by the facts. Hence the inquiry here, and your professional opinion would of course be very much appreciated.

Obviosly I would agree with this. I don't want to speak for KHendrix2, but whatever you want to call the "Shaky" camera work that is not hand-held - it imparts no sense of reality to me whatsoever. Contrary to it, in fact. After many years of boxing, I always felt fight scenes that had the shaky camera work were just cover for bad choreography. You don't see Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan fight scenes waving the camera all over the place because there is a lot of merit in the choreography itself. Yes, a sense of chaos and confusion is induced with shaky camera work, panning too quickly and what-not. And there is a place for it. But the NYPD style put me on edge not because it was realistic, but because it was totally contrary to real life where I could actually focus on something while moving myself. Brian Reynolds won an emmy for it. It was not "Blair Witch" level of shaky handheld - but that camera just had to be moving at all times. I just disagree that this is "reality". Reynolds thinks so, and I agree there is an "edge" created by it. The very same edge I get when someone in the room is talking to me while I am on the phone with someone else. Tension, yes. But not a tension associated with plot, character conflict, or whatever - it is the tension of an annoyance making the brain work harder to process chaotic information. If you google Bourne Supremacy, you'll find a tremendous number of complaints about the shaky camera work for example. Tension in fans. But not the right kind. To those who have responded with the comment "you don't have to watch it" - that's right. I don't. What I have asked is how this fad has become so dominating, and there have been several good posts on it. I am hoping that it is rather like clothing fads - and its overuse will pass.

This was well said, and I thank you for it.

I think that you are spot on insofar as identifying a physiological basis. Processing rapid-fire information, and especially that which is distorted in some way may trip the endorphine trigger. I was a university professor for about 20 years, and one of the alarming trends over time was the kids adopting a horribly superficial communication pattern that mimics sit-com dialogue. The one-liner slam retort in the place of careful multi-step logical reasoning. I believe these to be corollary developments.

I know that TV commercials are sometimes subjected to focus group testing, and there is one case where the quick cut is at its most extreme. I very nearly phrased the opening post as an observation that what has been true for commercials in 15 second spots has now become full length feature film application. All tactics are subject to a point of diminishing returns, and why complete saturation has come to dominate seems to stand in contradiction to that basic rule. I do not question your personal experience. What I see coming out in production is overuse. Adam, I also see the over-use of close-ups too. So close that only a portion of the actor's face is visible, for example, and not even framed in a way that makes sense to me. Also at weird angles. dgoulder, I would agree completely with the statement that the camera work needs to pull people in. I have found myself needing to look away because of the combined effect of the cut-cut-zoom-pan-shake-shake- blitzkrieg. There is only so much of it one can take.

Never be back? Exactly so. A great deal of pent-up frustration, and apologies to those offended. Yes. I found it extremely annoying. I have a specific interest in boxing productions, and handheld or zooming is required in order to follow the action better. It is not a nuisance for that very reason. Agree 1000% and this is why I am seeking some hard data on why camera movement is so ubiquitous. From Rik, and others with the MTV history of this abominable fad: This is getting closer to the heart of my question on marketing data. So let me try posing the question this way: Will a film that has outstanding characters, actors, plot, and so forth be viewed by producers and directors as a failure to this marketing group if it does not have the in-your-face camera movement? Exactly how have producers and directors determined so? Is there an example of a film or show that flopped and there is some actual evidence that the failure to use these techniques caused the fatality? From Andy: Thank you for this parallel. I mentioned in my post that all of the techniques have been around for decades. It is the extreme overuse that is at issue.

I am sick beyond description of the ubiquitous "in your face" camerawork the industry seems to have fallen into, and am curious what is actually driving this stupid fad. One facet is the extreme overuse and exaggertation of handheld. It isn't just mandatory that all fight scenes have the camera shaking so badly that you can't tell what is going on - even scenes where almost nothing at all is happening have this annoying intrusion on the plot and characters. But that isn't all. It is also in zooming, panning, close-ups, quick cuts lasting no longer than .0000000001 second and the ridiculous swooping 360's. I know full well what some industry people claim about handheld, for example - that it supposedly creates "tension". Sure it does - it makes me want to tension my hands around the throat of the person responsible for it. Likewise, each of the other techniques has some purported benefit. But most of them have been around for many decades, and it is only in recent years that I find myself leaving movies that would otherwise have been fine because of the nauseating distractions of this pox. Forget how revolting this is for me, and what a huge fan of it that you may be. My question is what is actually driving this fad? Is there some marketing data demonstrating that fans pay more for movies where they cannot focus on anything for more than a millisecond? I don't mean opinion. I mean are there any facts? Obviously, directors who worship the speeding, shaky camera think they are doing the right thing. I am not interested in opinion because frankly this crap makes me angry and I am not wishing to be patronized. Instead, has there been (for example) surveys, focus groups, sales figures or whatever from the consumers that demand front-to-back waving, zooming, cut-cut-cut? Is this now the 11th commandment of film school: "Thou shalt never hold the camera still?"