Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Captain Phillips (2013)

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Captain Phillips (2013) (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Captain Phillips (2013)

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 10-26-2013 05:33 PM

I don't really remember the shaky cam in Cloverfield so it must have been better/more appropriate/less distracting.

| IP: Logged

Stu Jamieson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 524
From: Buccan, Qld, Australia
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 10-26-2013 06:27 PM

Shaky cam certainly has a place in film making. If you're trying to create disorientation or chaos then it works great. The problem is those things are not appropriate in every scene. For instance, in the first Bourne film (not a Greengrass film admittedly) there was an office briefing scene where the camera was "focussed" on a computer and rocking all over the place. You couldn't read shit. Ridiculous! If it's important that you actually be able to follow the proceedings then shaky cam will ruin it.

Green Zone is another good example of this. The opening scene is masterful - complete chaos, nobody knows exactly what's going and neither do we because the cameras rocks around so much. This is entirely appropriate because that's the whole point of the scene.

Later on in the film where we have a chase scene it doesn't work because in a chase scene you have to be able to follow who is where doing what and shaky cam doesn't allow you to do that.

In The Blair Witch Project the camera work was nauseating but that was the point!

Fast forward to Captain Phillips and it works because it creates a sense of bewilderment and irritation and that is exactly what we want - to make us feel what Phillips feels. The action isn't difficult to follow so the technique works perfectly here.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-26-2013 09:19 PM

Are we talking about handheld camera work here, or intentional camera shake? (I have not seen the film being discussed here.)

There are plenty of legitmate reasons for a camera operator to shoot handheld (with the intention of holding the camera as steady as possible, of course, and usually with a fairly wide-angle lens, which minimizes the effect of camera movement), but I cannot think of any film that I have seen that was shot with intentionally shaky camera work where this "style" enhanced the film experience in any way. Usually it is just distracting, and occasionally it makes people sick.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 10-26-2013 10:12 PM

Agreed. Cloverfield was shot on a handheld camera running at 24.0fps with an amazing 5.1 microphone and insane battery life even with a wicked spotlight using up that battery. That's what made it realistic and appropriate. But scenes like the 3rd Bourne movie where they're just sitting at a conference table in a building does not need a handheld camera operated by someone who couldn't hold it even remotely still even if they were encased in concrete.

I have a feeling that at parties, Paul Greengrass snorts his own vomit through a 7-11 straw/spoon. He is the kind of nothing. Except maybe ass.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 10-26-2013 10:54 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
I don't really remember the shaky cam in Cloverfield so it must have been better/more appropriate/less distracting.

I didn't think that shaky-cam was 'that' bad, but I remember there was a sign on the box office of the Uptown theater stating this film had "excessive camera movement - buyer beware!"

'Blair Witch Project' though, my sister and I felt really REALLY nauseous after seeing that. [hand me the barf bag!]

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 11-17-2013 07:23 PM

I finally got to see this and it was much better than I had anticipated. The pacing was good and it really was exciting until the very end. Also, in my humble opinion, Tom Hanks still is one of the better actors currently around.

I'm generally not a fan of shaky cam or overly grainy or soft pictures. Yes, it does have its purposes if used in the right way. But all to often, it's just a cheap trick to hide something. In this movie, it worked, although was kind of superfluous in the first 20 minutes or so.

Although I usually find them extremely distracting, I've personally never gotten sick from shaky cam scenes until now, even not in 3D. The only kind of scenes that sometimes make me feel dizzy are those slowly rotating shots, often combined with some dolly effects. Those are especially popular in sci-fi franchise: Closing in on a big planet, star ship or whatever structure.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.