Please stop the shaky-cam!

[retlaw]

I know almost everbody is complaining about it but just wanna say it again.
I watched 12 rounds last week and although it was kind of fun watching it at the same time i was getting pissed of.
Renny harlin also caught the shaky-cam-zooming-in-and-out-disease.
He has made some bad movies but also a couple of entertaining ones and he did them in his own style. I really hate seeing directors changing their own style of filming to the style now almost every director is using for action movies(or scenes), they all could have been made by the same director. Tony scott too, although he always had a fast style of filming he's doing it too. I really like man on fire but the camerawork, almost never at ease, flashing,zooming and shaking is just too much. Maybe the studios think it's "hip" and they demand that this is the way the audience wants it, well they are very wrong.
The reason many pre-shake action movies are so cool is because you can SEE the action. I first noticed the zooming in and out on the battlestar galactica show and thought it was cool because it made it more realistic, but now everybody is copying it and its just overkill. END RANT my apologies,

[LordSimen]

I think the first problem you got there is that you were watchin' 12 Rounds in the first place. ;)

But joking aside, no. I hope they don't stop "shaky-cam," and they continue to use it because it has been used very effectively over the years and I see no problem with it.

[Tweek]

I think there's effective shaky cam...But then there's Paul Greengrass. :(


I think the first problem you got there is that you were watchin' 12 Rounds in the first place. ;)
it.

Beat me to it. hehe

[athf1980]

shaky cam is like any other movie trick it can be used either in the good or bad way

[Inglorious]

Just being used in a mostly bad way lately. I fully agree with Mr. Retlaw. 1/10 times this crap just drives me nuts and seems forced. It doesnt come off as a gesture of artistic expression AT ALL.

[dellamorte dellamore]

When there's a logical narrative reason for it , a sort of abstract justification , i have no problem with it , but when i watch two people sitting down drinking coffee and the camera is tilting to and fro , it's simply artifice at that point .

You want to see what i feel is effective and justified and " organic " use of handheld , watch any Dardenne bros. or Laurent Cantent film , they have perfected it . It always seems natural instead of distracting .

I guess it's supposed to convey a you are there asthetic (sp) but most times it conveys a my drunk uncle got a hold of the camcorder and he's clueless about how to operate it . A relative of mine got a hold of my camcorder one time and taped trees , the grass , the clouds etc ... :) . One segment had the camera pointing straight down as he walked , it was pointing towards his shoes . He didn't know he was still taping . We have since labeled this POV as the Dickcam .

Come to think of , this style is just as much a reflection of the anxious , impatient era we live in as it is an attempt to cover up narrative deficiencies and yes to appear hip and cool .

[The Postmaster General]

I think it depends. For instance I liked in Public Enemies, which uses a lot of handheld, how like in the theater scene it goes from very steady shots, but when they show Dillinger on screen and he's squirming it has that hand held angled shot on him.

Having not seen the Bourne movies, I have to admit I'm hard pressed to think if of examples where it's actually bothered me. I think it's kind of cool to have both spectrums, like I also appreciate the long steady shots. Something that bothers me more than hand held is when there is a long steady shot, and it seems like the camera man hiccuped or hit a stone with his caster. That happens in the famous into the freezer truck shot in Goodfellas, but it's still an awesome movie, so again, it just comes down to the overall movie for me and not fragmented details like that.

[MightyCelestial]

Sometimes the shaky-cam works, sometimes it doesn't.
I don't think that people who know how to use it should stop just because of those who don't.

[APzombie]

i problem is when shaky cam has quick cuts. Saving Private Ryan, for example, works well with the shaky cam technique because each of the cuts last longer than 5 seconds. Most shaky cam films that don't work like the Bourne films have shaky cam in addition to absurdly quick cuts making it geographically impossible to know where anyone or anything is.

[overwatch]

I hope that people can tell the difference between quick editing and shaky cam. In Quantum of Solace was constantly critisized for shaky cam when there is very little. Most of it is in the hand to hand combat scene which is actually the best part of the movie. The Car chase can't be accused of shaky cam because its a god damn car chase all of the shots a placed on rigs, cars etc. It's just the quick editing that makes it difficult to tell what is happening. The Bourne movies however managed to shit all over their car chases with shaky cam.

[Donnie_Darko]

But joking aside, no. I hope they don't stop "shaky-cam," and they continue to use it because it has been used very effectively over the years and I see no problem with it.

Really? Okay then.

If an action scene is choreographed right, and shot right, you can lock it down, and shoot from trees, and it will still be amazing and full of action. It drove me up the wall in the second Bourne flick, with the fight scene at the town house. Watching the behind the scenes, they spent a lot of time on that sequence, but it didn't matter in the end, after the shaky cam, and chop editing, it could have been 2 chicks, just slap fighting, and nobody could tell in the end. I find myself yelling "LOCK IT DOWN!", far too much lately, and because of that, I tend to stay away from "action" flicks now.

Between shaky cam, and chop editing (multiple edits from multiple angles), action cinema has been ruined.

[LordSimen]

I've seen all three Bourne movies and I never had trouble telling what was going on, where it was going on or with who. The scripts themselves seemed to be more confusing than the action, editing or camera work.

[razgriz21]

Greengrass has the worst shaky-cinematography.

I can't tell who is who in a fight or what happens in a car chase.

That and Marc Forster effectively killed Quantum of Solace for me.

[someguy]

I wouldn't say the problem is about whether or not handheld is used at all, it's more about how the style is implemented and how much it works in the movie.

[FireCaptain4]

I agree on it's being how it's used and whether it works or not. Take Bourne Ultimatum, for instance. The scene where Paddy's character meets with the man at the public dinner features an impressive use of handheld. Not being able to see the face of the contact adds a certain suspenseful element to the meeting. The scene itself reminded me of when Redford meets Deep Throat in All the President's Men (I even listened to the commentary on the Ultimatum dvd and Greengrass mentions that All the President's Men was an inspiration during scenes like the meeting in the diner). There are numerous other scenes in the movie, however, where the effect is headache-inducing. The scene where Bourne is trying to protect Paddy and navigate him through away from the security cameras and such confuses me because it's hold to get an idea as to where the characters are and what they're doing. It seems like Bourne and Paddy are just running about and the urgency and cleverness if somewhat lost to me. A great film, but sometimes the technique messes with the presentation of a certain scene.

[John Galt]

I fucking despise shaky cam and how it has been used in the last decade or so.
I just watched the french horror movie THEM and even though it already sucked from being a weakass story and horror cliche ridden; the common usage of shaky cam throughout it brings the movie down way more.
I would rate it a 3/10 instead of a 5 because of it.

Directors: Don't use shaky cam to compensate for your shortcomings and lack of ability to provide suspense, mystery, and action.


The only worthy usage of shaky cam I can think of are those underwater explosion sequences in Crimson Tide.

Batman Begins would have been the best Batman ever without it.

[DaveyJoeG]

Batman Begins would have been the best Batman ever without it.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I thought that movie suffered more from quick cuts than shaky cam. I could be wrong, I've been meaning to revisit the film, but I think that's a distinction worth making.

However, I am getting sick of the frequent use of shaky cam. I also recently saw Them and wasn't impressed, I didn't find it suspenseful at all. The next night I watched Frontier(s) which I found simply mind numbing, it made me wish I was watching Them again simply because it was 30-40 minutes shorter, and it did have a very beautiful lead actress.

[John Galt]

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I thought that movie suffered more from quick cuts than shaky cam. I could be wrong, I've been meaning to revisit the film, but I think that's a distinction worth making.

However, I am getting sick of the frequent use of shaky cam. I also recently saw Them and wasn't impressed, I didn't find it suspenseful at all. The next night I watched Frontier(s) which I found simply mind numbing, it made me wish I was watching Them again simply because it was 30-40 minutes shorter, and it did have a very beautiful lead actress.


Martyrs is the best one I have seen of that ilk in some time.

[DaveyJoeG]

Martyrs is the best one I have seen of that ilk in some time.

I've been meaning to check that one out. I'll have to shoot that to the top of my Netflix queue. If you haven't seen Frontier(s) avoid that one at all costs. That movie wasted two hours unsuccessfully emulating better horror movies.

[John Galt]

I've been meaning to check that one out. I'll have to shoot that to the top of my Netflix queue. If you haven't seen Frontier(s) avoid that one at all costs. That movie wasted two hours unsuccessfully emulating better horror movies.

Cool. Thanks. That is one I'd been meaning to see but now it isn't that high of a priority.

Inside is slightly overrated as well but definitely way better than THEM.
Martyrs is better though.

[Donnie_Darko]

Goes to show differences in taste. I kind of dug Frontier(s), but absolutely loathed Matyrs. A mindless blood orgy that went nowhere. Now, I like blood orgies, but they've gotta go somewhere... anywhere!

Back on topic:

I always hear things like "it adds tension to scenes", and I tend to disagree. While hand held CAN add tension, it can also take away. "Historically", hand held was used to add a sense of "uneasiness" for the audience. Making you feel like a voyeur, looking in on the scene. And when used properly, and subtlety, it does work. But over the years, lazy directors have taken that way too far, and that's where the shaky-cam virus first took hold. Again, if you're a competent filmmaker, and have a great script, then you can lock it down and still convey action/tension. Look at the hallway fight in Oldboy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OzB-mop6AA). I can just imagine the remake. They'll take that scene, and chop it up 1000 times, shoot it from 100 angles, and use shaky-cam throughout.

The first 2 seasons of 24 used the "hand held/zoom" technique, and it really played well. But now, I just get a "okay already" feeling when watching that technique on that, or any other show/movie.

Basically now, you have to just "accept" the whole shaky-cam virus, and realize, it's not going anywhere. Hacks and pros alike are using it, cause apparently, it's what ADD riddled audiences want in "action". Keep the rest of the film rock steady, but when you want to tell the audience, "this is where the action is", you put the camera in a hamster ball, and use the epileptic monkeys in the editing room.

[overwatch]

You know what's ironic. One of the criticisms for QoS was that it was "too Bourne" when you compare the knife fight in QoS to a hand to hand fight in Bourne, QoS is so superior. I can JUST follow the fight in Ultimatum but the one in QoS does the "shaky" cam thing but you can actually tell what's going on. And for such a actiony moment it's not edited the fuck out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yXV_g4BaOU

If you can't tell what's happening here, wtf.

[retlaw]

Shaky cam ruins the experience of a good action or fight scene. Example: the first matrix, how cool was it to see the fight scenes. With a remake of the matrix the experience would be gone because you just know they would use a lot of shaky cam. And with john woo in his older movies, how would it ruin those scenes?

[jbar1026]

i like it unless its over done and over used. bourne 1 was good but by 3 you could hardly see anything. transformers 1 is also guilty of this.