Annoyed by Shaky Cam

[Alex Wuijts]

From the Free Online English dictionary: We define intuitive as NIntuitive \In*tu'i*tive\, a. [Cf. F. intuitif.]1. Seeing clearly; as, an intuitive view; intuitive.

 

When I, a live human being, watch something I don't see a shaky image, I see a steady image even if I'm bouncing along through a field on a dirt bike. I possess a visual processing computer system that transcends any piece of photographic hardware existing by a huge margin. Look at all the work being done on facial recognition with only some success. You and I have possessed that ability since we were infants and as adults can differentiate between thousands and thousands of faces.

 

There is absolutely nothing "intuitive" about shakycam, it's a fad that's being overused by individuals without a scrap of real creativity. It works in very small doses where it can express chaos but when it's the entire visual presentation it's just visual noise. And like most other noise, I tune it out...or turn it off.

 

And then there's editing where everything is blenderized into sequences consisting of snippets of four frames or less...DATA would have trouble following those stories.

 

Intuitive also means 'following a gut feeling', but let's not get into semantics. Do you think this is shakycam?:

 

It's a film of which the entire visual presentation is a little shaky, and where you can clearly see what I mean by 'more intuitive camerawork'. The frame is unstable, little mistakes aren't cut out, you can see the operator making small corrections. This is the least extravagant example I could think of.

[Alex Wuijts]

or this one:

 

If City of God is shakycam, and the makers of City of God are the ones without the 'scrap of creativity', then I think you're missing out on a lot of good things, to say the least.

[Ben Syverson]

I'm 100% with Brian Rose on this... I imagine that same conversation in my head when I watch one of these scenes. It's like being bludgeoned over the head by the director and DP, both screaming "THIS PART IS INTENSE! IT IS VERY EXCITING!!" More often than not, it's just a complete turnoff. Motion blur is not exciting to me. Nor is using a 45° shutter for no reason. Saving Private Ryan was an interesting experiment, but it's been done to death overy the past 12 years. Now it's just a boring shortcut.

 

If your camerawork and editing are more dynamic than your action, you have a problem. This is not restricted to shaky cam; I see it all the time, especially with young directors. It'll be a wide crane shot of a city that transitions into a dolly shot through a doorway and then it goes into a close-up of a flower. Stuff like that makes me roll my eyes and think "oh boy, the director was real excited about this shot." The subject is boring, so the shot is boring. Overly elaborate camerawork is a band-aid that only excites other filmmakers, not the audience.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Ben Syverson

[Justin Hayward]

I just don’t understand why anyone would get so angry about the way another director or DP chose to execute their own movie. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. If it makes you nauseous, definitely don’t watch it. If it raises your blood pressure, consider if you should be watching movies at all.

 

It also drives me nuts when people start throwing the names of the best directors and DP’s in the history of filmmaking in the pool and screaming “see, they did it right!” Of course they did. Those guys are geniuses. How could anybody expect every working director and DP to be that good?

 

Now if anyone says someone shouldn’t be making films if they aren’t as good as these guys, and you make films… then that’s really saying something about yourself.

 

Making a feature of any budget is killer, so when people jump on these forums screaming how all these pros are doing it wrong, all I can think is, get out there and show us how it’s done. But, please don’t start name dropping the best filmmakers out there, because that’s a near impossible standard to live up to.

 

I gotta stand up for the directors and DP’s in this case. At least they’re trying.

[Daniel Sheehy]

I just don’t understand why anyone would get so angry about the way another director or DP chose to execute their own movie.

This is where we get into the impossible debate about to what degree art is made for the artist vs. the degree to which it is made for the audience. :) And film making is most definitely an art which is intended for an audience, so in a way, it ceases to be their own movie. Once they release a work into the public sphere, they are opening it up to interpretation, criticism or acclaim from anyone and everyone.

[Justin Hayward]

I was waiting for this to be brought up. I believe a filmmaker should absolutely make a film for themselves and hope an audience will connect with the material as they did. The reason is this; if you say you are going to make your film for an audience, you’re flat out saying you know what an audience wants. And if that’s the case, why aren’t you the richest man on the planet? And, why have studios (who only care about the return) made so many flops?

 

The answer is, to quote William Goldman, “Nobody knows anything.”

 

When a director or DP or writer or any creative steps on board to make a film, the only thought in their head should be, “how can I make this something I would enjoy?” That’s it. As soon as they start letting thoughts creep in of what the audience would want, they’re certainly going to be left with bland, generic, garbage. Nothing original comes from that.

 

I guarantee when Steven Spielberg takes a script, all he’s thinking is that he likes it and how he’ll make it the best he thinks it could be. It just so happens his taste coincides with the majority of the movie going public.

[Daniel Sheehy]

...and hope an audience will connect with the material as they did.

And to that end, they make a point of trying to keep the audience engaged. You will agree that audience perception of the events and characters in a film is an important consideration..? 'We want people to sympathise with so-and-so. We want the audience to sense the fear..'

 

It is my personal opinion that the audience, knowing that film maker wants to keep them engaged in the story, has every reason to put their hand up and say 'I can't engage with your story when you shake the camera so much I can't see a damn thing.'

[Justin Hayward]

I said hope, not know. It’s far more arrogant to say you’re making a movie for an audience than for yourself, because you’re claiming to know what other people want.

 

If Paul Greengrass suddenly decided to stick the camera on a tripod and try to emulate “Klute” because of what a few people on the internet said, or even ninety percent of the world said, he’d probably quit making films the next day. I would.

 

 

And I don't even like the "shaky cam" stuff...

[Hal Smith]

or this one:

 

If City of God is shakycam, and the makers of City of God are the ones without the 'scrap of creativity', then I think you're missing out on a lot of good things, to say the least.

 

Now take that youtube tiny screen video and blow it up on 50' screen, it won't look just a little bit shaky. The amount of shake HAS to be matched to the delivery format.

[Brian Drysdale]

Now take that youtube tiny screen video and blow it up on 50' screen, it won't look just a little bit shaky. The amount of shake HAS to be matched to the delivery format.

 

I don't recall "City of God" being too bad when I saw it in the local art house cinema, however, the screen there isn't 50 ft wide, perhaps 20 ft at the most. Although, I suspect sitting in the front row (perhaps about 10ft away) could cause you to reach for the sick bag.

 

"Breaking the Waves" is one that people commonly mention causing problems.

[Jet Graphics]

It is my personal opinion that the audience, knowing that film maker wants to keep them engaged in the story, has every reason to put their hand up and say 'I can't engage with your story when you shake the camera so much I can't see a damn thing.'

AMEN!

I have to close my eyes, ffwd, or turn my head, because it is not worth the effort to try and follow "action" scenes that are unwatchable.

It makes no sense to expend talent and money to record a jittery action sequence... might as well just cut in a "blur", with appropriate sound effects.

 

IMHO - the decline in audience is due, in part, to the disregard for the audience's enjoyment. Entertainment that becomes irritation, ceases to be entertaining. People might not articulate their dismay, but their departure speaks volumes.

 

When there's no audience, there's no "Show Business".

[Leticia Alaniz]

I think the masters of cinematography would highly disapprove of the heavy use of camera shake to film action scenes that are poorly choreographed and executed. A lack a sense of visual aesthetics to tell the story makes for poor photography in a film. Camera shake is when movement of the camera results in an image that lacks clarity. The film medium is visual and if the visuals are sacrificed then it is just a set of photographs of people talking or executing an action and then the whole scene is lost. Sometimes I see slow drama films where there is not even any action and the DP chooses to film a two person scene chasing with the camera the dialog as each person speaks instead of making a master shot and then covering the reaction shots. Then to try to give the scene intensity, the scene is cut with fast splices as if that is going to make the scene more dramatice or give it an even more sense of urgency. Sometimes those efforts are used when the script lacks good writing and good dialog that should stand alone and tell the story.

[Doug Palmer]

I think the masters of cinematography would highly disapprove of the heavy use of camera shake to film action scenes that are poorly choreographed and executed. A lack a sense of visual aesthetics to tell the story makes for poor photography in a film. Camera shake is when movement of the camera results in an image that lacks clarity. The film medium is visual and if the visuals are sacrificed then it is just a set of photographs of people talking or executing an action and then the whole scene is lost. Sometimes I see slow drama films where there is not even any action and the DP chooses to film a two person scene chasing with the camera the dialog as each person speaks instead of making a master shot and then covering the reaction shots. Then to try to give the scene intensity, the scene is cut with fast splices as if that is going to make the scene more dramatice or give it an even more sense of urgency. Sometimes those efforts are used when the script lacks good writing and good dialog that should stand alone and tell the story.

In these slow drama films the hand-held camera is usually brought in to give a sense of anxiety or tension between the actors conversing or whatever. I think it usually works, but I wonder if it's in danger of becoming another cliche. I suppose because like any camera movement, it draws some attention to itself. Then it becomes another barrier to what is actually going on between the characters. A very slight camera wobble seems to not create problems, almost like the breathing of the observer, but sometimes when it's overdone it feels like we are being told what to think.

[Bill DiPietra]

In these slow drama films the hand-held camera is usually brought in to give a sense of anxiety or tension between the actors conversing or whatever. I think it usually works, but I wonder if it's in danger of becoming another cliche.

It became a cliche a long while ago. It can still work if used judiciously - just like any other camera technique. A recent film I really enjoyed was "Dallas Buyers Club," but virtually every shot was hand-held. The performances were so good that the hand-held camera became an unnecessary device. I would have liked to have seen a few more steady-shots, especially considering the gravity of the subject matter. I think the spectator would have gotten more of a sense of the unstoppable nature of the disease during that time...always lurking in the calm.

[Roberto Pirodda]

Jet Graphics (Your real name ?) , i totally agree with your point of view. I like rock steady shots in action sequence too. I think that they use that shaky technique to put "smoke in the eyes", to hide cheap story telling, in short to confuse the audience mind. I could justify a shaky shot in an earthquake sequence only