Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What is it with shaky-cam?

This is topic What is it with shaky-cam? 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=005504

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 06-18-2008, 05:33 PM:

Everywhere I look, I see more and more movies coming out that use the shaky hand-held camera effect a LOT. In fact, it seems like there's at least one movie a month that's shot with 90% shaky-cam!

This year alone, I've counted four movies that use shaky-cam, coming out about every month:
1. Cloverfield
2. Diary of the Dead
3. [REC]
4. Hancock

Why are directors using the shaky-cam effect so much now? Is it some kind of new fashion?

My opinion is - by all means use shaky-cam on a brief shot for dramatic effect, but using it all the way through the movie just makes everything worse. An entire movie with shaky-cam would be best released straight-to-DVD.

Any comments on this? (feel free to move it if you think it's in the wrong forum)

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-18-2008, 07:35 PM:

With CLOVERFIELD and DIARY OF THE DEAD, the reason is story-driven. Characters are recording the action on-screen, and that's what stuff looks like when you do that.

For HANCOCK, Peter Berg's talked about why he uses a lot of hand-held cameras on the commentary track for THE KINGDOM. I forget exactly what he said, but I think it had something to do with keeping the camera mobile in order to allow for more improvisation. He also said that he understands that most people don't like it, and implied that he'd like to find a way around it. He said something like, "It would be a big help if cameras were smaller." I don't quite understand the logic there, but that's what he said. I'll see if I can find his exact quote.

But in general, I think the biggest reason for the increase in hand-held photography is television. Because of the news, and reality TV, etc., viewers have come to associate hand-held photography with realism. By having a perfectly composed, obviously pre-planned shot, the filmmaker is screaming to the viewer, "You are watching a movie." That can be as distracting as a shaky image, depending on the content.

An example of this which I recently ran into was with HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET and THE WIRE. I started watching HOMICIDE, knowing its reputation for realism. The photography, which is almost entirely hand-held, reinforces that aesthetic. However, the lack of profanity and graphic depictions violence rang false. So I decided to give THE WIRE a try, since I'd been told that it was basically the same show, only with all the good stuff. I was immediately thrown off by its beautiful lighting and static compositions. There's never a sense of danger on that show, because you're being constantly reminded that it's just a show. I think that's a bad choice. But it's still an awesome show.

Also, in regards to hand-held stuff being limited to straight-to-DVD content, I think what's happening is sort of the opposite of this. People from TV (like Matt Reeves and Peter Berg) are now making movies for the big screen, and screen-size is not necessarily a factor which they are taking into account.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-18-2008, 09:44 PM:

Don't get me started. [Wink]

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-19-2008, 12:07 AM:

This very thing ruined The Bourne Supremacy for me. It seems that Greengrass dialed it down a bit for The Bourne Ultimatum. Any Given Sunday was another where the shaky cam ruined the movie.

I realize they are trying to make the viewer feel more involved with the action, but I would much rather have the camera pulled back so we can actually see what's happening.

Posted by Andy Frodsham (Member # 4061) on 06-19-2008, 12:41 AM:

Having taught for a number of years (in both schools and colleges) I'm convinced that it's all to do with the 'maximum attention span'. I find an increasing number of young people unable to cope with 'stillness' or 'quietness'; there is a constant need for stimulation. I think the shaky camerawork panders to this need because of the constantly shifting visual cues.

It's not just 'shaky cam', look at TV or film graphics now. Everything is moving. The words on the screen don't stay still anymore. We are teaching audiences to become increasingly passive - ever likely kids cannot cope with speech-based radio or even listening to a story being read aloud! I do, very seriously, worry for the future!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-19-2008, 05:13 AM:

The reason for the shaky cam is so that there isn't any screen burn in when the movie gets to home video. Duh.

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 06-19-2008, 06:55 AM:

If I may stray just a little from the shaky-cam which I am not a fan of, moreover what bothers me worse is the liberty the TV folks take with this "old scratched film" software we are seeing every time you turn on the tube. What's up with that? With all the money being spent to make the visual sooooooo clean and digital "looking" why in hell would you want something that wasn't even on film to look like it just came over from the local dollar house? Scratched looking TV is much more annoying than shaky-cam.....at least it is to me.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-21-2008, 05:30 PM:

Amen, Don! And, it's not even real-looking film damage.