Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Shaky movies SUCK!

This is topic Shaky movies SUCK! in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=004982

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-28-2007, 01:46 PM:

Cristi Puiu needs to learn the meaning of the word "STEADICAM"!

I specifically refer to his movie, "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0456149/

This is one of those movies shot with a single handheld camera... probably a cheap video cam, from the look of the picture. The picture shakes and jiggles throughout the entire movie, even the static shots!

There is an IMPLICIT contract between the director and the public when it comes to making movies:

THOU SHALT NOT GIVE THE AUDIENCE A HEADACHE FROM WATCHING A MOVIE!

I spend a LOT of time keeping my projector running well and keeping the picture looking nice and I DO NOT appreciate arty-farty assholes fucking up my clean picture!

"Dogme 95" SUCKS! [fu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95#List_of_Dogme_films

JUST RENT A STEADICAM YOU FUCKING RETARDS! [Mad]

There's no reason they can't use "Fluid" camera technique. I don't care for that very much, either, but at least it doesn't make the audience want to puke!

Not only do I have to watch that piece of Romanian shit three times in 24 hours but I have to get it back into the can as soon as the run is over because Technicolor wants to pick it up at midnite tonight! Not that I'm sorry to see it go but, who in the world could want to watch this piece of shit?! [bs]

Flame off... [scream]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-28-2007, 01:59 PM:

but it isn't a dogme film.

imdb says it's shot 35mm. unfortunately i saw it on a really crappy screen so i can't say for sure. it's sometimes hard to tell when you can see the screen perforations.

don't you think handheld jiggle is quite different from projector jiggle?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-28-2007, 02:07 PM:

quote:
JUST RENT A STEADICAM YOU FUCKING RETARDS!

LMAO!

Amen Randy!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-28-2007, 03:16 PM:

What the hell is the point of a "dogme" film? That's the most retarded thing I have ever heard of. Murders can't happen? WTF? It's basically saying that your movie must be a home video of the family traipsing about or worse. I can't even remember the last time where I didn't shoot sound and picture separate.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-28-2007, 03:33 PM:

Agreed, completely!

There's a great new invention called a "tripod" and there are a number of directors and DPs who need to learn how to use it (along with a fluid or geared head).

There's nothing wrong with the occasional handheld shot when it is justified by the story or circumstances (e.g. for certain types of documentaries), but I'm completely sick of films where the handheld shots outnumber the tripod/dolly/steadicam shots.

In a related rant, the Sony handycam is great for home use...it is NOT suitable for use in making a feature film. [Mad]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-28-2007, 03:57 PM:

I know it's not a Dogme 95 film but the mere idea of "Purity" POLLUTES the movie making world. It's because of the shitfucks who thought up the idea that we have to put up with this kind of abuse.

And I can tell you for CERTAIN that it is NOT projector jitter!
As I said above, I spend a lot of time keeping my projector working as well as it can. It is a 1950's vintage straight-gate Simplex. (PR-1003) I know it isn't "rock steady" but when you pull the aperture plate you have to actually look to see the sprocket holes move.

Further, the subtitles are steady on the screen and you can see the characters and objects on the screen jiggling all around while the letters don't move.

I don't care what they call it... "Dogme" or "Verité" or whatever. "Dog-shit" and "VOMIT-té" are more like it! Any redeeming qualities this film might have had are completely erased by the simple fact that the director is too busy mentally masturbating himself about what constitutes "art" and not making a movie that people will WANT to actually sit down and watch all the way through!

I'll say what the guy from E.W. said about "Blair Witch Project":

I could eat a can of Kodak and PUKE [puke]

a better movie!

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-28-2007, 04:44 PM:

Those ShakyMovieMakers(TM) just never did their homework.
If they believe that shaking pictures give a more exciting or lifelike representation, they must be drunk or stoned all day long.

The human eye/brain combination is a perfect stabilization system, unless you are experiencing an earthquake or comet hit, you always perceive your vision as steady.

So if you don't like the smooth geometric dolly movements, use a Steadicam to get the shot. There is definitely no reason to imitate 1950s/1960s cinema verité aesthetics - back then there was no alternative!

Making ShakyMovies(TM) is just a poor excuse for improper direction and/or cinematography. It takes the hand of a master to make intelligent use of handheld camera work.

In EYES WIDE SHUT, there's a dialogue scene with Kidman/Cruise with her sitting on the floor against the wall. They talk about fidelity in their marriage, and when Cruise says that he is "certain of her", the Kidman character starts laughing, literally rolling on the floor.
The whole scenes is shot with locked down camera, no fancy stuff to detract from the actors' work. BUT in the cut when Kidman starts laughing violently, Kubrick cuts to a handheld, perfectly organic shot that follows her body movement, giving a sudden shock to the viewer. Suddenly you feel that the whole foundation of the marriage has been shaken. Kidman recomposes herself, and the shot steadies again. The rest of the scene is continued in static shots.

The difference between a cinematic ace and hundreds of hacks who believe that a "look" is something that can be imposed upon a movie instead of growing from the material.

End of rant. [Smile]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-28-2007, 05:16 PM:

I totally agree that Dogme '95 is ridiculous, stupid, and ultimately harmful to movies. I've actually written papers detailing my hatred for the "movement". But I could not care less if a filmmaker chooses to shoot something hand-held. In fact, I prefer that aesthetic. When a camera is locked down, it supports the perception that the events taking place are staged. It's just one more level of disbelief to suspend. I'm not saying that that's always a bad thing, but it's usually not a good thing. A hand-held camera much more interesting, because it provides us with the sense that anything can happen. That's usually desirable.

I've made a few little movies, all terrible, and have a reputation amongst my friends for using a hand-held camera almost exclusively. On the last movie I made, I consciously decided to use a tripod as my default, and only go hand-held when necessary. That lasted for a whole scene. I soon realized that with the aesthetic choices I had made for the writing, acting, and cutting, locked-down cameras really didn't make any sense. Of course the movie still sucked, but that's beside the point.

This reminds me of a debate which was raging on the AVS Forum, where some people were arguing that film grain should be eliminated during High-Def video transfers because, after all, it's high-def. That doesn't make any sense to me. Our job is not to make movies look good. It's to make them not look bad.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-28-2007, 05:23 PM:

quote:
"Dogme 95" SUCKS!

Amen to that! Towards the end of my days in the booth, my favourite memory was of a sporadic round of applause from the audience as Bjork gets strung up at the end of Dancer in the Dark. Revenge is a dish best served ... on handheld Mini DV?

If you want to do realism, there are better ways which don't involve punishing the audience who pay your wages. Robert Flaherty, the Soviet montage brigade, the British Documentary Movement, the Italian Neo-Realists, etc. etc. etc. and even Hitchcock (the continuous 80-minute take in Rope) all got this point...

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-28-2007, 06:15 PM:

Mike Schindler wrote:

quote: Mike Schindler
I've made a few little movies, all terrible, and have a reputation amongst my friends for using a hand-held camera almost exclusively. On the last movie I made, I consciously decided to use a tripod as my default, and only go hand-held when necessary. That lasted for a whole scene. I soon realized that with the aesthetic choices I had made for the writing, acting, and cutting, locked-down cameras really didn't make any sense.

But you didn't show your movie for two hours on a 70ft. screen in a theatre, did you? - I find that a certain movement - yes, even hand-held - is fine on TV if it fits the story, like they did in "24". But to do the same on a huge silver screen is another thing.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-28-2007, 06:26 PM:

quote: Christian Appelt
But you didn't show your movie for two hours on a 70ft. screen in a theatre, did you?

No, but I've seen plenty of other feature-length hand-held movies on the big screen, and it's never bothered me. I know it does bother some people. My dad got sick while watching THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE. But I've never had a problem with it, and if I were to make a movie to be shown on a 70-foot screen, I don't think I'd alter my style.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-28-2007, 07:17 PM:

Sounds like THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE is a piece of shit that didn't even deserve to be made. To me handheld is usually very distracting (and amateur looking), even on a TV screen or a small Quicktime window on the internet. Yes, it has its uses and certainly isn't completely worthless by any means, but when the screen moves, I notice. It is far easier for me to suspend disbelief when the screen isn't moving or is moving smoothly.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-28-2007, 07:18 PM:

Well my favorite hand held shot is in Bladerunner, I think its the only handheld shot in the whole movie, When Harrison Fords character is asked if he had ever taken the replicant test himself.

I also liked the fake camera jitter in Saving Private Ryan. It worked for me.

Overall though constant hand held shots, especially wide establishing shots look stupid on screen, unless the director wants to make the audience sea sick as his main priority, they are simply incompetent at their job.

Dogma films at least come with a warning! anyone who chooses to see one by now must realise what they are in for. Cinemas could provide brown paper bags with the tickets!

Hand held cinematography can be one of many valuable tools in storytelling if used wisely by talented filmmakers. Its a shame its used so much by a few idiots!

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-28-2007, 07:50 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Sounds like THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE is a piece of shit that didn't even deserve to be made.

Actually, it's not bad. It's really weird. Jonathan Demme adopted the hand-held look of the film as an homage to the French New Wave. I don't know why he chose to do this while remaking a Stanley Donen movie, but it works. Not as good as the original, CHARADE, but still worth taking a look at.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 02-28-2007, 09:38 PM:

I remember, when I shot footage, following numerous tips on how to keep the frame steady if you had no alternative to hand-holding. It can be done with reasonable success, even with Super 8.

So for shaky 35mm you'd have to hire an operator with an unfortunate addiction.

Posted by Paul Burt (Member # 3743) on 03-01-2007, 12:51 AM:

The only hand-held feature that really was done right, imho, is Children of Men. It works, there's no headache, and it's not at all distracting. That's because the technique is integral to the film.
I saw a Lars von Trier film, Breaking the Waves, some years ago. Hand-held SCOPE, the whole film. An utter atrocity in terms of cinematography. I won't comment on the film itself, but the technique was making people in the audience physically ill. If there's a decent dogme film it's in spite of the concept, not because of it.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 03-01-2007, 01:16 AM:

And we can't forget the king of all shaky movies: The Blair Witch Project!

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-01-2007, 02:29 AM:

The scary thing is ... you never get to see Cherie!

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-01-2007, 03:14 AM:

better a film make you ill than put you to sleep.

i like the dogme 95 movement. i don't necessarily like everything it's produced, in fact i've only seen (looking at list) 6 of them. i sure as hell wouldn't want it to be the only movement around. the worst thing about dogme is that it's mostly done on video, although that's not a requirement at all.

randy, i didn't mean to imply you had a shaky projector, just that i wouldn't confuse it with a handheld shot.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-01-2007, 03:35 AM:

What? I'd rather catch some ZZZ's than vomit. I think most humans would. Anyone who makes a movie in which the audience becomes ill does not deserve to be alive.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-01-2007, 09:50 AM:

quote: Carl Martin
the worst thing about dogme is that it's mostly done on video, although that's not a requirement at all.

In fact, it was originally a requirement that films be shot on 35mm.

quote: Joe Redifer
I'd rather catch some ZZZ's than vomit. I think most humans would.

There are lots of people out there who are willing to vomit if the price is right. Look at the world's crazy/stupid obsession with alcohol.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-01-2007, 03:35 PM:

I really hate stupid people.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 03-04-2007, 07:18 AM:

quote: Randy Stankey
who in the world could want to watch this piece of shit?!

I saw it ('Moartea domnului Lazarescu') theatrically back in May, and I quite liked it. I can honestly say that in remembering the movie I never thought of it as shaky. Now you've piqued my interest and I'd like to take another look at it.