MovieChat Forums > Jeff, Who Lives at Home (2012) Discussion > What's with the hand held camera ??

What's with the hand held camera ??


1) Who wants to make a "comedy" more realistic, even if its an "american beauty" style comedy ?
2) Who still thinks hand held camera adds realism ? Yes, in 1997, it was different. This is 2013.
3) We don't look at the world thru a hand held camera. Yes, our head is not perfectly stationary.. but its not like our head is tied to the chair while watching cinema - its still moving.
4) After 2 hours my eyes get tired and it doesn't make for a pleasant viewing.

--
Well, do ya, punk?

reply

Often we think the problem is the others, but often we are wrong and we are the problem. Maybe in that case, the problem is your eyes? Ever thought of that?

What added realism in 1997 is still adding realism today because we are still living in the same reality. Only, the world changed.

reply

Heh.. maybe its my eyes which got older. LOL! :)
Though I think there might be others who think that the Blair Witch Project novelty of the handheld camera has worn off..!
--
Well, do ya, punk?

reply

:)

I second you. I'm a bit worn off by that handheld camera style.
In indy film is often a classic, in bad action movie too.
I like the concept. When it's horror or a scene of whatever suspense, it can work really well.
Blair Witch Project, REC, Cloverfield are good examples of done right in that kind of style, imo

reply

Agreed.. its very rare for directors to use it judiciously.. I think since
its cheaper and easier to use handheld (instead of, say, dolly)- directors
are getting lazy and endup using it more than they should.

--
Well, do ya, punk?

reply

I hate that as well. I think its fine for certain scenes...like an action scene or something. But it especially bugs me for scenes where 2 people are sitting down and talking.

We accept the love we think we deserve
http://mrsantonyelchin.tumblr.com/

reply

Thanks for your post, I absolutely agree. The shaky camera was VERY annoying.

-------------------------------------
Victims, aren't we all?

reply

I guess I've become so accustomed to the hand-held camera that I don't even notice it anymore. I certainly didn't here.

reply

I have no problem with hand held. Its all the pointless little zooms that does my head in. When it's two or three a scene, it gets tiresome very soon.

reply

[deleted]

I just laughed out loud at your username and profile picture. You must be Australian, haha.


You heart me? What is that? Is that like I love you for pussies?

reply

Glad I could provide some laughter! :)
--
Well, do ya, punk?

reply

The movie still touched me, but you are entirely right that the camerawork is poor and distracting; I almost gave up on the film in the first 20m just because of it...

reply

Watch the interviews with the directors, they are idiots and have no idea how to make a film. They use lame justifications as to why they used handheld whilst completely ignoring the fact that it is a massive handicap to their film and is just laziness. All round this film was just lazy and bland and not funny in the slightest. It was pandering and pretentious. And not pretentious in the artsy/ambiguous way, it's pretentious in the "i'm so quirky, i'm gonna try and be indie like Juno lolz, cause that makes me all spiritual and *beep* lame kinda way.

reply

the hand held was very annoying all the zooming in and out p**sed me off . nearly gave up on it but was st*ned so could not be arsed to change it .
i nearly ruined the chance to see this film for judging it in the 1st 15 mins
after 45 mins i am so happy i was to lazy to change it
by the end i was in tears . very powerful plus the zoom in and out seemed to disappear half way through but then made a return at the end but by then i didn't even care.
love the idea of destiny and this film makes me happy that jeff found his.

reply

The only thing I didn't like about this film was the camera. It made it feel like a mockumentary or something? I don't know. It reminded me of The Office USA.

reply