MovieChat Forums > Silent House (2012) Discussion > Camera Work'Lighting Really Diminishes t...

Camera Work'Lighting Really Diminishes the Movie


Even if I had been more interested in the half-assed story that was dragging out, I couldn't take the awful camera work any longer. If I want a headache from seeing bad quality filming, I'll pull out my family's home videos, thanks.

This movie was so incredibly dark, my eyes were straining and the whole "shaky" effect just sucks. I don;t know why they keep insisting making movies like this, it's shoddy and strains the eyes unnecessarily.

I'd go on but I need another ibuprofen.

reply

Yes, camera was too shaky and much too dark to see what was happening.

reply

Are you kidding me? The camera work was astonishing, with beautiful and strategic lighting and beautifully staged shots. Very creative. Its one of the few reasons I enjoyed this little film.

reply

Ditto. The camera work was incredible.

reply

I didn't think that the camera or lighting was bad at all and did not notice any shakiness. However, I am sorry that it gave you a headache Sparkling Lily.

reply

@SparklingLily

There wasn't any shaky camera work in this film at all---you must have gotten this confused with another film or something, because there was none of that in here. I liked how the camera was a eye's length with the main character---it really let you see everything only from her point of view, which made things creepier because you could only see what she saw.

When this film came out, it was hyped and got mixed reviews, but Olsen's performance was praised. From the trailers, I just assumed the plot was about some chick having herself filmed for a reality show while going through a haunted house, which is why I passed it up during its theatrical run. Now I think it was ingenious how it was promoted as a straight-up horror flick when it's actually more psychological than anything, but no less creepier,though.

reply

Admittedly, the style and atmosphere is best viewed in a theater, or at least in complete darkness. When I saw it in theaters I thought the cinematography was great, and the flashes of light here and there made it beautiful. When I saw it later on a home television, I couldn't see a thing.

reply

Pretty sure you would fail miserably in a film class.

reply

The camera work was brilliant. The only time there was really any "shakiness" was when she first ran out of the house. Too much is terrible I agree but I dont think they did that here and not every movie that uses a hand held is The Blair Witch Project.

The perspective the camera gives us was really quite amazing in my opinion. Like an invisible mute eye floating along with the action, peeking at characters through cracks in the door one moment then slowly orbiting Sarah as she moved. It all reinforced the atmosphere of displacement and separate sentience that exists within the main character herself. Plus the way they lined scenes up, even small things like moving the camera to focus on Sarah's terrified face and then adjusting the focus just enough that you realize theres a figure in the background directly in your line of site that goes into focus then out of focus again then disappears. Really well done stuff.

---
http://letterboxd.com/blakkdog/

reply

Considering is was filmed on a Canon 5D, its pretty incredible!

reply