[Figo]

I disagree completely with the premise of this thread.

No offense, but if you study film, the use of hand-held cameras is both prevalent and quite appropriate.

Remember that Kubrick was one of the greatest proponents of filming scenes personally with a handheld device.

The German Expressionist and Noir film-makers like Fritz Lang also used quite a bit of hand-held techniques.

In short,

 

[Figo]

Just for reference:

 

[Kilane]

On the one hand I see the ops point, I'm getting pretty tired of the shaky cam for action sequences (see Braveheart/Borne movies)... but I can definitely see it as a means of artistic expression as well. To be honest, i'd be less bothered if it were a style change up instead of slowly becoming the norm.

 

[progo]

Old film based cameras look much better than the digital new ones. I have not much seen any digifilms, Cloverfield only briefly and Lynch's Inland Empire that's filmed with a cheap Sony DSR-PD150 standard definition camera. I understand they are much easier to use, their editability is superb and so on. But come on, the picture is grainy and sunlight overexposes the picture often. It may be easy to film and cut, but it's not nice looking.

Yes, I may now realize there's better cameras than that Sony that is not even a professional gadget. But that spesific movie did not praise the digital techniques at all.

 

[Punnisher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Figo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree completely with the premise of this thread. No offense, but if you study film, the use of hand-held cameras is both prevalent and quite appropriate. Remember that Kubrick was one of the greatest proponents of filming scenes personally with a handheld device. The German Expressionist and Noir film-makers like Fritz Lang also used quite a bit of hand-held techniques. In short,

I don't condemn the use of handheld cameras, I'm absolutely fine with that. What I find annoying is when the cameraman makes the camera shake more than is natural, and it's unwatchable for me.

 

[SonicArmada]

I really enjoy this style when used in NBC'S The Office. It's often used tastefully and doesn't degrade the experience.

However, I haven't enjoyed many movies that use this style. One movie that I considered leaving the theater while watching was Bourne Ultimatum. I just thought it was sloppy, and in the end left me with a head ache.

 

[JadeEast]

A dynamic camera can cover up a multitude of weaknesses in a film form poor acting to poor special effects. Films like the Bourne series are always pushing, pushing each cut only holding a single piece of information and then on to the next bit. I think the combination of rapid cutting and shaky cam is more what people can find unsettling.

It can be used well but like any cinematic device it can become overdone and cliched in a short amount of time.

I also think that it should be noted that the cinema verite style of shooting co-opted by television is much different that the rapid fire and shaky action style we are seeing.

 

[Figo]

American entertainment films have taken the French New Wave style jump-cutting and completely ruined it.

Jean-Pierre Melville is rolling over in his grave.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by progo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Old film based cameras look much better than the digital new ones. I have not much seen any digifilms, Cloverfield only briefly and Lynch's Inland Empire that's filmed with a cheap Sony DSR-PD150 standard definition camera. I understand they are much easier to use, their editability is superb and so on. But come on, the picture is grainy and sunlight overexposes the picture often. It may be easy to film and cut, but it's not nice looking. Yes, I may now realize there's better cameras than that Sony that is not even a professional gadget. But that spesific movie did not praise the digital techniques at all.

The entire point of that movie was to seem like it was taken by an amateur with a consumer camera. Not a fair point of reference by any means.

 

[craiglester]

I think we got spoiled with the steadycam. Theres room for both styles.

And i'm not sure thetre exaggerating the shake.. more like not making the effort to supress it.
In film school we actually had to practice walking/ running without making the camera jiggle.. man you look silly doing that i can tell you. And you'll lose count of things you walk into/ trip up on at first. you learn to completely trust the camera assistant guiding you

 

[Asr]

shakycam done well = Black Hawk Down, SPR, & other war movies
shakycam done terribly = Bourne Supremacy & Ultimatum

 

[Kilane]

On the counter-point... Children of Men was probably the antithesis to the Shaky cam and heavy cut oriented cinematography. While the plot might have left something (not a lot) to desired, the last 30 minutes had my jaw on the floor.

I wish it wasn't the exception.