I liked the movie, but what is the damn deal with every movie using this tired technique? Has technology actually REGRESSED to the point where no one can hold a camera steady anymore? Honestly, this cliche is played out, and I am tired of leaving the theatre with a minor headache (or worse), especially in a freaking COURTROOM DRAMA, where shaky cam is not the least bit appropriate. I'd like to find the people responsible for shaky cam and shake their heads off.
thanks you SO MUCH for saying this. played out is right.
i found an @ss kickin article on this. i will try to post it
------------------
behold, sublime genius: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLPe0fHuZsc
My guess is that this camera technique is to appeal to the "MTV generation" that constantly needs the stimulus of motion in order to keep paying attention. This is just my opinion of course.
And somebody correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't this all start right after "The Blair Witch Project"?
Personally, I don't mind it here and there, but when it's used too much in a film, or not in the 'right place' (like in a courtroom drama) it's very irritating and amateurish IMO, and now of course it's risen to the level of cliché.
ROTA Top Foreign Language Films: http://www.imdb.com/list/qQvbXmXhhCU/
"And somebody correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't this all start right after "The Blair Witch Project"? "
no it didn't start with "the blair witch project". that was just when people started to notice that they can actually get motion sickness from a movie. The "shaky cam" has actually been around for quite some time used a lot in war movies. for example, steven speilberg's "saving private ryan". one of the very few times that i thought it fit perfectly and was done masterfully. he actually strapped a jack hammer to a camera and thought he had invented the "shaky cam" but later realized that there are actually devices that shake the camera for you.
The super shaky cam might have started with Blair Witch. I remember in the 80s Wall Street using the constantly-moving-and-circling-the-room cam. That might have started the trend and Blair Witch, along with ADD inspired MTV quick shots, has propelled it to new levels. Bring back Orson Welles' and Hitchcock's long and steady shots.
Love's turned to lust and blood's turned to dust in my heart.
I believe it was NYPD Blue that started the shaky cam craze...
shareNYPD Blue starting a trend? Come on, man, the first movie with the shaky camera I saw was the excellent Battle of Algiers produced by the amazing Pontecorvo in the 60's. You guys need to learn a bit more about the history of cinema. Thinking that everything got invented after you were born is just plain idiotic.
I've gotten to the point where I ask friends that have seen a film if it's got the shaky cam. If so, I simply won't see the film.
It makes no sense, even in an action film, because that's not really what the world looks like when you are running. If it does, you need to see a doctor because your reflexes would have to be seriously impaired.
End the shaky cam!
i think discounting any movie that uses a handheld camera at any point in the film is like saying you won't see a movie because it has a scene in slow motion. Is slow motion overused and sometimes reduced to a gimmick? Probably. Does that mean you should get upset every time a movie uses slow motion and boycott those films? Probably not. I think the same should go for handheld camera work.
sharequietrobert: i think discounting any movie that uses a handheld camera at any point in the film is like saying you won't see a movie because it has a scene in slow motion. Is slow motion overused and sometimes reduced to a gimmick? Probably. Does that mean you should get upset every time a movie uses slow motion and boycott those films? Probably not. I think the same should go for handheld camera work.
Your points are all presupposing that all movies using shaky cam are using it constantly and also that all movies have action scenes. I don't think anyone would get sick from this movie because the shaky scenes are brief and not particularly chaotic. Maybe people got sick watching Cloverfield or Rachel Getting Married cause it's the whole movie but 90 seconds probably wouldn't ruin a movie for anyone. And about not being able to see what's going on. I'll believe that that was the case when you watched fight scenes in the Bourne movies but if you couldn't tell what was going on in the opening shot of this movie you need to get your vision checked.
shareWell I am speaking generally here but -- honestly -- I find the shaky cam so annoying that I don't want to watch ANY movie that uses it for ANY scene. That's my opinion. Why are we debating my personal opinion?
shareWe're not debating your opinion we're just debating whether it's ridiculous or not. I think it is. But I'm okay with that if you are.
shareWhen I watch a film (ANY film) I want to feel like I am really there, witnessing the events in question. The shaky cam makes the scene (ANY scene) look completely unrealistic because there is basically no situation in real that would look like that. It makes the scene look like it was filmed by a news reporter (or even an amateur) with a hand-held video camera.
In some of the early films that used this method, it made a little bit of sense because we WERE supposed to believe that the whole thing was being filmed by an amateur with a hand-held camera. I still found it really annoying to watch, but at least there was a plot-driven reason for it. Then, it seems, filmmakers decided that it would good to film other scenes that way -- even when there is no plot-driven reason why anyone would be filming it with a hand-held camera. I don't want a needless reminder that someone is filming all of this with a camera. It's like seeing the film crew, microphones, or cameras in the background of a shot.
The shaky cam also makes the scene harder to see -- not necessarily impossible, but definitely harder.
Finally, you are wrong when you say that a short shaky cam segment won't make anyone sick. That's just not true. There ARE people out there that become ill very rapidly from seeing something like that. One person in this thread said the opening scene nearly made him sick. Do you think he is lying to us about that or did you just not read the thread?
I don't really agree with anything in your second paragraph but if that's how it seems to you, that's alright. Even with it being as bad as it apparently is for you I would still argue that boycotting a movie that has a scene where some film equipment is visible in the background is pretty extreme. Sure, it tends to make it harder to see things but so do lots of film techniques. And if the opening scene if this movie "nearly" made him sick, then I think my point stands because the scene was sort of on the long side of what could be considered short. You gave me the impression that you won't watch a movie even if it's only shaky for like 5 seconds. If some one really would get sick then I don't expect them to watch the movie but that doesn't seem to be your issue.
shareI don't really agree with anything in your second paragraph but if that's how it seems to you, that's alright. Even with it being as bad as it apparently is for you I would still argue that boycotting a movie that has a scene where some film equipment is visible in the background is pretty extreme. Sure, it tends to make it harder to see things but so do lots of film techniques. And if the opening scene if this movie "nearly" made him sick, then I think my point stands because the scene was sort of on the long side of what could be considered short. You gave me the impression that you won't watch a movie even if it's only shaky for like 5 seconds. If some one really would get sick then I don't expect them to watch the movie but that doesn't seem to be your issue.
shareI completely agree Sojaw, it shouldn't shake unless it's supposed to be footage from a camera. Why? Because it makes me think of a camera!
Cloverfield's shaky cam was an excellent way to matte in the CGI, so they used all the blur to their advantage. Although - "Puke on isle 6!"
Even camera dolly movements and cranes sometimes have major shaking, and it ruins it for my involvement - at least for a short while. I saw Inglorious Basterds the other day, and there was a panning shot that looked up the cinema's stairs and it wobbled all over the place! Amateurs.
It's amazing that so much effort has gone into making fantastic steady-cams, as they float beautifully, and make really pro looking sweeps and pans.
Then someone gives just the camera for 'Gary' to hold in his hand and tells him to run about like a wobbly fool!
OK, I've gone too far, but hey.
.
.
.
Was there a shaky cam? I didn't notice it... but I did feel a bit weird after the movie which is usually caused by that. There was one point in the court room where the camera circled around Mic (Matthew) like 5 times and that was annoying.
shareAgreed. Defenders of shaky cam always say, "Oh, it makes you feel like you're right there in the action." Which is a load of bull. I never once felt like I was kick-boxing alongside Jason Bourne in any of his movies. It makes me feel somthing, though. It makes me feel nauseous.
shareI'm very sensitive to the "shaky cam". So much so that I need to close my eyes. I'm amazed someone hasn't had a seizure watching some of these movies. This type of tired cinematography adds nothing aesthetically. I think it gives most people over the age of 25 or 30 migraines.
Whenever I'm in a courthouse things are pretty straight!
[deleted]
I liked this movie a lot, but the photography was...odd. A couple of times they racked the camera (zoomed slightly forward or back) for...some kind of effect? Don't know. I found it momentarily distracting, but the story was good enough I shrugged it off.
It was pretentious and unnecessary, though.
[deleted]
I agree, the cinematography was terrible and inappropriate.
shareyes. really. and the movie did pretty well too. how does that suit you?
share