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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Overdue Indictment of Shaky-Cam? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Overdue Indictment of Shaky-Cam? Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-16-2011 05:49 PM                     Camera movement is fine if the camera movement has relevance to the energy of action being shown on screen. One of my favorite examples of this is a scene from The Shining -a movie that kicked ass on a number of different fronts in terms of its cinematography. Late in the movie Jack Nicholson's "Jack Torrance" character has flipped his lid and is intent on chopping Wendy and Danny into pieces with an axe. I love the shot of Jack chopping into the doors. With each axe swing the camera pans left as Jack draws back the axe and then rapidly pans right following the swing of the axe into the door. The shot amplifies the energy and terror of Jack taking the axe to the door. What impressed me technically about the shot: the sudden stop of the shot as it panned right. It matched the sudden stop of the axe blade as it hit the door. How DP John Alcott keep the camera from bouncing back to left or moving around at all at the end of that rapid pan to the right? I've seen plenty of other camera movement tricks that helped rather than hurt a shot. In Born on the Fourth of July Tom Cruise is firing a rifle just before he gets shot. The camera does a rapid left-right pan repeatedly to follow the recoil of the rifle shots. Odd camera angles are good when they serve the story. How about the overhead camera angle in Psycho when "Norman Bate's mother" rushes out of a door and stabs the investigator at the top of the stairs? There is a certain insanity to the camera angle and it makes the fall the victim is about to take down the stairs even more threatening. The use of camera shake just to keep a talky scene from being boring is outright bullshit movie making. If the director thinks the scene is boring he needs to do something about the script or actors' performances rather than trying to use camera movement in an attempt to polish a turd. The same thing goes for really elaborate camera angles and moves. I often criticize Tony Scott for some of his crazy dolly shots and other camera tricks that take me out of the movie thinking about the camera shots rather than the damned story. He used 360 degree dolly shots in Unstoppable in a manner that couldn't naturally exist on a railroad locomotive. In Spy Game he had Robert Redford and Brad Pitt talking on some city rooftop with the scene being inter-cut between circling helicopter shots of the rooftop and circling close-up Steadicam shots. Distracting!  |  IP: Logged Jim Henk Master Film Handler Posts: 364 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 03-16-2011 07:54 PM                     Yes. Normally I find myself giving people the benefit of the doubt in things like this. I think I'd do the same in this instance. If only there *was* one.  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 03-17-2011 11:34 AM                     Bobby, the crane shot in PSYCHO also makes the viewer feel helpless, seeing "Mother" attacking is almost like watching a crime on a surveillance camera. This angle is used again when Norman carries "Mother" to the cellar, it also helps to camouflage the fact that he is carrying a stuffed body, not a living person. Glad you mentioned Kubrick, because there is a good use of handheld camera movement in EYES WIDE SHUT. Remember the scene with Cruise and Kidman arguing, with her sitting on the floor? It is played in static setups, with only slight framing changes on both actors. Until the moment when Kidman breaks up laughing, as she cringes, there is a short - maybe handheld - camera movement. On a big screen, this has an enormous effect. After seeing minutes of locked-off shots with only the intensity of acting building up, the sharp movement is really powerful, as if the foundations of their marriage had been hit by an earthquake. Kind of hard to describe, but very effective.  |  IP: Logged Tony Bandiera Jr Film God Posts: 3067 From: Moreland Idaho Registered: Apr 2004 posted 03-17-2011 03:26 PM                     The trend of shaky cam is indeed bullshit. I don't go to see movies much anymore because of it. And try running changeovers watching for the cues in shots with violent camera moves/shot changes...it is a challenge. The other thing that I absolutely HATE is the lens flare...used WAAAAYYYYY too much in the "Star Trek" film. It ruined an otherwise visually pleasing film.  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-17-2011 08:43 PM                     Shaky-cam means that there was nothing interesting to show you, so we will just shake the camera around so that you don't figure that out. Just like 3D means that they could not come up with a plot or story line, so just watch all these goofy 3D effects instead. Hollywood is going to be in trouble when they have to go back to making REAL movies with a plot, story line, and interesting visuals. Will they be able to do it?  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 03-17-2011 09:46 PM                     AMEN Bruce. Hollywood is responsible for poor boxoffice for the very reasons you mention.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-17-2011 11:17 PM                        quote: Just like 3D means that they could not come up with a plot or story line, While I agree that Hollywood is responsible for the low grosses lately, statements like this are just dumb. Didn't you see Toy Story 3, Despicable Me, Up, or about a dozen others I could mention? 3-D cannot rescue a bad story but its presence doesn't mean there ISN'T a good story.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-17-2011 11:36 PM                     quote: Tony Bandiera Jr The other thing that I absolutely HATE is the lens flare...used WAAAAYYYYY too much in the "Star Trek" film. Yeah, I have to agree the artificial lens flare thing is pretty annoying. It's arguably as cheesy as the Photoshop lens flare filter. There's really little if any need for that stuff to be thrown into visual effects shots unless it occurs naturally. With Douglass Trumbull's visual effects for Close Encounters of the Third Kind the lens flares on the 65mm visual effects occurred naturally. This is kind of where the acceptable lens flare visual effects thing begins and ends. I began to be distracted by bullshit lens flare effects nearly 20 years ago by a couple of effects shots in Alien³. It wasn't so much the appearance of lens flare that took me out of the movie as much as it was the attempt to imitate the anamorphic photography look of oval shaped halos and horizontal flares. Modern science fiction movie visuals were NEVER filmed anamorphic. As least not the old school optical effects in the good movies. They were all shot on VistaVision or 65mm based plates. Nothing anamorphic. ALL spherical and larger format. Fast forward to the ADHD generation version of Star Trek, a movie I disliked for a number of different reasons. JJ Abrahms or whoever chose to pile on the artificial anamorphic styled lens flares in many of the visual effects shots. So what if Star Wars had its visuals lensed in 8/35mm spherical or Bladerunner had its visuals lensed in 5/65mm? We're copying the anamorphic look! We're copying all those oval looking thingies that were so popular in the live action plates of Die Hard!  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 03-18-2011 05:08 AM                        The lens flares usually weren't artificial unless it was a space/CGI scene. They had a dude that actually shined light into the lens specifically to get the lens flares. It was shot on film in scope. The guy was paid more in 3-4 months to shine light into the lens than you will ever make in your entire... year.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-18-2011 10:36 AM                     I was complaining about the overuse of lens flares in the CGI stuff. Not the live action footage. Babylon A.D. is another show that went completely ape shit with lens flare stuff on visual effects shots, again often trying to imitate the anamorphic look.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.