Shaky Cam: Discussion and debate

[Gamma_Winstead]

Good use= Saving Private Ryan

bad use= Hancock

for sure.

[LynxFX]

One of the worst film techniques to turn into a filming method which turned into a filming cliche.

It has its place when used sparingly, but for many director's it has become a crutch to cover bad directing/action/acting/effects. I much prefer an incredible steadycam shot.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by GreenScar

Another terrible use was the entirety of Hancock.

That's Peter Berg for you.....it looked abysmal in Hancock....

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

I thought it was excessive in Green Zone. That's the only film it's bothered me in.

[Packerfan75]

Originally Posted by ed4246

I thought it was excessive in Green Zone. That's the only film it's bothered me in.

Agreed. I find it really unnecessary and frustrating. The Green Zone was all over the place. Besides, what's the point of putting together a cool action piece (fight,chase, etc) only to lose the whole scene due to shaky cam. What's the point if we can't even see it???

This is one of the worst fads in film making these days.

[GreenScar]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

That's Peter Berg for you.....it looked abysmal in Hancock....

Not only Shaky but he was zooming in and out and in and out and in focus and out of focus. I thought more than once during the movie WTF are they thinking here?!

Sus - You brought back my favorite Avatar -

[CaptainYoda]

I hate shaky cam as well, for the same reasons as most others. It covers up shoddy fight choreography. And when people are talking it is totally unneccessary. In Bourne Ultimatum, there is a scene where is questioning the old boyfriend or whoever he is, and his head is bouncing all over the screen like in a game of Pong. Mount the camera and leave it alone for goodness sake!

[Monkey]

Most of the time horrible... Horrible in Cloverfield, 3rd Bourne movie, Car chase scene in The Rock.. That is one annoying thing is when you can tell cars are going 5 mph but then they use shaky work and ridiculous cuts to try to make it appear fast/intense.. instead it is just nauseating.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Most of the time horrible... Horrible in Cloverfield, 3rd Bourne movie, Car chase scene in The Rock.. That is one annoying thing is when you can tell cars are going 5 mph but then they use shaky work and ridiculous cuts to try to make it appear fast/intense.. instead it is just nauseating.

I forgot about that one!!!


Try watching that sucker on HDTV when it is cropped to 16:9!

You literally cannot tell what the bloody hell is going on!

[haphilli]

It is usually credit to good cinematography when I don't notice the shaky cam, or it is in an environment that benefits from it, for example Cloverfield. In Quantum of Solace I was completely distracted by it.

Like it or not it is a part of modern filmmaking, but I agree it should lend itself to be a benefit for films rather than just throwing it in there because you saw that it worked good in the Bourne films.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by 42041

For the most part I don't have anything against it. Like all cinematic techniques, it can be misused. Quantum of Solace was an example of terribly directed action scenes.. like they thought shaking the camera and cutting several times a second was all you need to make a scene intense

I'm glad I'm not the only person that movie bothers. That movie's action sequences are horrible compared to the first one. Not just the shaky cam , but the editing.

The shaky cam is just over used. Seems to happen all the time that a technique is used in a successful movie then overused for years afterwards.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Q!

In my opinion the worst editing in the history of cinema, alright... pretty bold statement but whatever

Agreed x 100

[dcowboy7]

Hate it.

[Jezza]

It's never really bothered, but in certain films it could have been used better.

I recentley watched Quantum of Solace again and found that there really isn't all that much shaky camera work, it mainly happens it the pre-title sequence. The editing I found reflected the mood of the film more than anything, so no I've never had many issuses with it.

[KubrickFan]

I think it gives movies an intense look. When the director and director of photography opt for it, you're not supposed to see everything clearly. It worked great in the Bourne movies (although it was a bit too much in some scenes), and in movies like District 9 and Cloverfield. Of course, if it's being overused, then it can be bothersome (just like overuse of steadicam, crane work, etc.). I just don't think that's the case in those movies.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I forgot about that one!!!


Try watching that sucker on HDTV when it is cropped to 16:9!

You literally cannot tell what the bloody hell is going on!

Haha, yeah I have watched it on HDTV as well as owning the blu-ray. I think they would have done better to just keep a steady cam and pull a Knight Rider and play the scene out in fast forward

[MajorlyCool]

Originally Posted by wallendo

Shaky cam, like most camera effects should be subtle. Unfortunately, far too often the picture looks like the cameraman is having a grand mal seizure.

Well put. I thought it was pioneering when I first saw it in the Blair Witch Project. Now it just seems like a fad and one that will not be missed! I saw Star Trek in Imax and it was hard to follow the action. I think it should be on the Director's list of options but only in circumstances where it makes sense, it's way overused and being done poorly.

The audience should not notice the camera work!

[Xombito]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

Bourne Ultimatum is the reason why I gave up on all films made by Paul Greengrass. I didn't see Green Zone because the trailer was shaky as hell on it too.

The camera in Supremacy ruined the experience for me. Ultimatum was a little (and I mean a little) better.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by MajorlyCool

The audience should not notice the camera work!

That's a bit dismissive. You notice the shaky camerawork and the added filters on a movie like Saving Private Ryan too, should those not be used? What about movies that use very long steadicam shots? I notice those, should those not be used either?

[GreenScar]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

That's a bit dismissive. You notice the shaky camerawork and the added filters on a movie like Saving Private Ryan too, should those not be used? What about movies that use very long steadicam shots? I notice those, should those not be used either?

I think if the movie does its job, then your submersed and you don't "see" the camera work. He's referring to when it's a so bad that it takes you out of what's going on.

The first time I saw Private Ryan, I didn't give the camerawork a thought during the invasion. I was too awestruck by what I was seeing on the big screen.

I'm thinking that's what he meant. Of course on multiple viewings, being the cinemaphiles we are, we tend to break the movie down at that point