MovieChat Forums > Ballast (2008) Discussion > Was this shot with a hand-held camera?

Was this shot with a hand-held camera?


This film sounds well worth investigating, but I have one question. How much of it was shot with a hand-held camera? I'm probably getting grumpy in my old age, but I'm often irritated by the jerky hand-held camera work that is increasingly prevalent in today's films. I get especially annoyed when there are shots that are (or should be) static, except that the camera is constantly wobbling around.

reply

There is a ton of jerky shots. It won the Dramatic Cinematography Award at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival. It is shaky but in a good way. It isn't excessive like some newer films are today. I adore it.

reply

Yeah, the hand-held wasn't actually as annoying as in the majority of mainstream/action films these days. It's "handled" with care.

reply

Also no or little use of artificial light, which makes for very tiny depth of field, explaining why it's often out of focus, then back in focus, out again. I did not mind it on the contrary, it added something.

reply

Can't say I enjoyed the soft focus and hand-held shooting. In fact, it was a major problem for me.

reply

I don't think it was soft focus at all. It really looked like manual focus or simply random focus to the subject and camera moving back and forth.

The depth of field was teeny tiny, probably half an inch.

reply