Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "REC" and the shaky-cam syndrome...

This is topic "REC" and the shaky-cam syndrome... in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002021

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 04-09-2008, 03:24 PM:

I've heard about a new movie coming out soon called "REC", involving a TV crew following a group of firefighters - who get more than they bargained for!

From what I've seen of the trailers, most of it seems to be shot from the TV crew's point of view... and that means shaky-cam effects. I couldn't cope with Cloverfield, and while I'd like to see "REC", I don't know whether I'd last the entire movie! Is the movie out in the US yet? If so, is the shaky-cam as bad as Cloverfield?

This is the brief synopsis from the cinema's website:

What appears to be a routine emergency call quickly turns to hell as a news team are trapped inside a building with no means of escape as things go from bad to horribly worse. The only thing that matters is trying to escape while capturing everything on camera.

A team of local TV reporters are following a squad of firemen on night duty. The footage is completely live and their task is to make a show on the life of these professionals who work tirelessly while we are sleeping. The first job of the night is to rescue an old lady who is trapped inside her apartment but the routine rescue soon takes a sinister turn. Something evil is spreading throughout the building, out of control. Trapped inside, the firemen and the TV crew have to confront an unknown and lethal horror. Now, the only thing that matters is hiding, surviving and trying desperately to escape. They must keep on recording. No matter what happens. Until the very last moment.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-09-2008, 04:56 PM:

They should edit these movies in Final Cut Pro 6. It gets rid of the shaky cam in most scenarios.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 04-21-2008, 07:41 PM:

Having just watched it, i'd say the shakey-cam is on a par with Cloverfield. Apart from that it's worth watching.

Did you have that much trouble watching Cloverfield? I used to have travel sickness as a child, but I've never had any trouble watching movies.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-21-2008, 08:15 PM:

Big screens and low-resolution makes it worse.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-22-2008, 02:16 PM:

Anyone see the trailer for that piece of [bs]

called Quarantine. That and that other [bs]

called Poughkeepsie Tapes are [puke]

waiting to happen.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-22-2008, 06:46 PM:

These are the product of filmmakers who grew up watching MTV and the like. They just don't understand rapid camera moves and fast cutting do not translate to the big screen. Or the importance of keeping audience eye movement to a minimum.

Posted by Frank Bruno (Member # 1871) on 04-23-2008, 04:18 PM:

I'm sure Daryl will be thrilled to know Quarantine is going to be a remake of {REC,} from a John Erik Dowdle, who also will bring us... the Poughkeepsie Tapes (which I guess is benched until after Quarantine has come & gone...?) Already has Cloverfield-y internet viral games going.

Starting to think I might want to track {Rec} down.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-24-2008, 08:11 PM:

Actually if Cloverfield had been shot in typical greased smooth "Hollywood Style" it would have been far less effective. I thought the shakey cam actually added to the film considerably... but its the only film that I've seen so far that I feel was enhanced by it.

Posted by Blake Zaugg (Member # 1455) on 04-27-2008, 11:15 PM:

Has anyone heard if the sequel to Cloverfield is going to be done in the same style?
I read last week the same director has signed one for the next one.

Posted by Michael Moore (Member # 3867) on 05-05-2008, 11:34 AM:

I call it "Clovershit". I can't watch that stuff, makes me sick. I can't stand over the top crap like this. Ever since "Blare Witch Project" people have been trying to capture the "magic" and it never comes. And I really did not like Blari Witch I wish these film makers would stop it already. At least Blari Witch was "almost" novel, but now with reality TV these kinds of films are almost cliché

Mike

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 05-05-2008, 03:10 PM:

There are several sequences in "Man In The Chair" that are fast cuts during rapid motion. Used sparingly, they are very effective at showing passing of time.

Hand held was terrible before "Steady-Cam" and it still is without it!

KEN

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-09-2008, 09:49 AM:

You're absolutely right, Kenneth.

Cloverfield was a total loss because of the intentional shaking. If one understands editing concepts, how people watch movies, and the language of film; you will realize there are a plethora of reasons not to do this - some of which I already touched on. The movie could've been made more interesting and enjoyable with a simple fluid camera mount.

Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-09-2008, 10:18 AM:

I have no problem with handheld camera work when it is used sparingly and when the camera operator is at least making an attempt to hold the camera steady and is using a relatively short lens to minimize the effect of camera movement. Handheld shots can look surprisingly good when used like this and are often necessary for some types of films, especially documentaries. Handheld shots can create excitement and/or generate a sense of urgency in a way that a fixed camera cannot.

The real issue that I have is with intentionally shakey shots and also with films where the majority of shots are handheld. Tripods and dollies exist for a reason, though most of the documentary video makers who are shooting with small handycam-type cameras seem not to have learned this yet. Never mind that it is actually easier to shoot good handheld footage with a heavy camera than with a light one.

The steadicam has its uses, but I think that it tends to call attention to itself more often than not. Most steadicam shots would probably work better if shot some other way (handheld, dolly, tripod, etc.).

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-09-2008, 05:54 PM:

Sorry Tim I think you missed the entire point of what Cloverfield was trying to do (like Mark already said). It was supposed to look as if It was shot by an amateur using a low quality home video camera. If it was shot as you put it "on a fluid camera mount" i.e. a tripod then the whole intention of the film would be lost.

Anyway we had a version of Cloverfield shot in typical hollywood style back in 1998. It was called 'Godzilla' and as far as I remember everyone hated it.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-10-2008, 08:13 AM:

Oh, I understand the narrative was subjective, Michael. The filmmakers, however, didn't understand that you can't DO those kinds of moves on the big screen. It just doesn't work. My eyes fatigued and came to a rest somewhere near the center of the screen, which translates into tuning out the picture. Those kinds of movements have to be scaled back for theatrical subjects.

Which gets back to what I said earlier - it's MTV borne (small screen). The story could've been told in exactly the same way, only done in a manner that Scott mentioned.

That stuff's fine for TV, but there's propagation to consider when you work in theatrical dimensions. And it's not old guy/young guy... it's physics.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 05-10-2008, 10:26 AM:

Well, it's all about contrast!

If you ever listened to the soundtrack of a science fiction film you noticed that the characters talk ever so softly and you are almost struggling to hear them then there is a loud blast as the monster appears.

If you think shaky camera adds to the nervous immediacy of a scene, fine then you have to have some slow paced and steady scenes around it to supply contrast.

KEN

Posted by Michael Moore (Member # 3867) on 05-10-2008, 10:34 AM:

quote: Tim
Which gets back to what I said earlier - it's MTV borne (small screen). The story could've been told in exactly the same way, only done in a manner that Scott mentioned.

Exactly right.... I agree with this...