Question about movies
I have noticed that, in some movies (big production) I've seen, shots of someone talking aren't still. The shot looks handheld. It's not always shots with someone talking either. That's just what I can think of.
How and why do they do this? Are they using handheld?
Fashion.
Film, like television, is susceptible to the over-use of new techniques and fashions.
Directors will soon movie on to something new.
Oh. Thanks for that clear-up. I thought it was more significant than that. heh.
The nervous documentary-like zoom in/zoom out, as seen in "24" belongs to the same category. Zooming in movies has been a big no no since the 70's, when it was a overused especially in cheap crime/police flicks and Hong Kong movies. Back then, it was used differently, though, to enhance the dramatic effect. Today, the "24" nervous-zooming (I can't help but calling it like that) is being copied over and over in other productions, until noone can't stand it anymore (I find them already annoying).
Some handheld footage is used as 'point of view' shots. Someone/thing lurking in the bushes, watching... hand held footage.
In that case, it's an effective dramatic cliche, but otherwise it's merely down to, IMHO, an unimaginative director.
My whole last short was shot handheld!Originally Posted by Worley
Check out my videos here: http://www.youtube.com/24Peter
Handheld footage implies "found footage" or documentary-like footage.
It's a conscious decision by some directors to make the movie seem more "real" because it's almost accidentally being shot by a news crew or some guy with a camcorder.
With the glut of stuff on youtube, etc. being shot handheld, now directors are trying to get that look even more (see the trailer for JJ Abrams upcoming monster movie "1.18.08").
It's a good decision for some movies/shows ("The Office" is the prime example, because it is supposed to be a documentary of an office) and not for others.
For what I think is the best use of this technique (because it isn't obnoxious), watch Joss Whedon's "Firefly" or "Serenity", and listen to the director's commentary.
The part I find most ironic about the current fad of "shaky hand held" is that a GOOD camera operator can do a handheld shot that you almost can't differentiate from a shot done from a tripod. It takes extra effort for a pro to make a shot look bad by shaking the camera.
Anyway, the who convention drives me nuts, especially on the big screen. I mean, I want to get my 10 bucks worth and watching a film that looks like it was a shot by a drunken monkey doesn't do it for me.
Until some years ago, I have been looking up to the Giants that made television. Not today any more. They seem to mimic the guy that just bought his first cam and started shooting without any preparation.
My son is a professional editor and he also meets young guns (directors they call themselves) who feel the push to deliver, but who do not have the faintest idea of what has to be done.
This has nothing to do with fashion. It is a degradation of the trade.
I too am bored with the overuse of handheld when not called for, and I can tell you that as an operator in the feature and episodic world, it's awfully tiresome to work with (the handheld setups can top 50 lbs, which gets pretty old over the course of 14 hr day after day).
Jo, my feeling is that it is very much a fashion conceit, the look is flavor-of-the-month at the moment and much of it will go away with time, as trends always do. And there are some brilliant uses of the handheld look also--"Children of Men" was pretty stunning, both from an operating and a shot design standpoint.
I have to agree with Jo, with it being degradation of the trade, not that i know much of the trade,
sure in some movies it adds to the dramatic effect.
but i've noticed shaky/lots of camera movement shots in movies lately (can't remember the name of the movie now) but it was some romantic comedy, where the in scene, it had a sorta head and shoulder conversation shot and the camera wasn't really shakey, but moving around alot looking like it was handheld.
maybe we should call it the small drunken swaying look...
I've seen handheld shots used as a kind of tension, or anticipation for an emotion. It is often effective to use a handheld shot in which the camera isn't necessarily shaking, but swaying side to side to amplify a kind of empty space in dialogue, or perhaps there is a tension between two characters. I've seen it used in very valid ways, and also very over-done ways (Bourne series)
If you've seen "Chocolate", Lasse Hallström used hand held for the scene by the river during the fire to help give the audience a sense of 'being there'. I thought it was very nicely done.
I am a huge, huge fan of Cinéma-vérité. I think the style, as a tool, can be effective either on a single shot or for an entire film. I loved Children of Men, I am a huge Battlestar Galactica fan and I've shot a film or two with identical motif. I sincerely appreciate using, not the complete style, but fragments of it selectively, such as a hand held sequence of bank robbers as police give chase on foot.
But nowadays, less imaginative filmmakers think that they can make their movie better by shaking the camera around a whole bunch without motivation. I nearly walked out of the theatre when I saw the second Bourne movie.
But this hand-held, documentary look that we're talking about, it's called Cinéma-vérité. It's also called free cinema or direct cinema. But what we see largely today is not so much that technique as true, but a bastardization of it. Cinéma-vérité is motivated and subtle, "shaky cam" is not motivated other than to draw attention to itself.
Jason R. Johnston | HV30 | HVX200 | RNG35vb | FD | EF
i saw the 'nervous cam' the other day in the third Bourne movie. it was awful, overused and self conscious in my opinion. the movie itself was like a video game.
One place I've noticed a handheld look even in classic movies is in shots which closely follow a person walking. It is almost a pov thing, but over the shoulder. I think it works well.
Yes sir. Hitchcock did that a few times.
Jason R. Johnston | HV30 | HVX200 | RNG35vb | FD | EF
I agree with you.
It's just too much and I can't watch it (I get a headache).
I mean, NO ONE here using their HV20 would be THAT BAD in hand holding a cam, especially with OIS!
I also don't watch 24, NYPD Blue, and all those who overuse this horrible fad.
The ONLY film I thought used this "handheld" wobble technique effectively (no, or hardly any zooming), and which was subtle enough to not cause headache, and actually add to my viewing experience was MARIA FULL OF GRACE, but then again, that's one of my 10 all-time favourite movies, so I guess I show bias.
24 wasn't the pioneer of that look, nypd blue was, in my opinion. nor that they were the first to shoot handheld or anything but they used a very particular "fluid" style that has become the norm for suspense television. homicide for example, similarly themed and from the same period, uses a much more conventional "verite" handheld style.
a good way of achieving this look is to use some unstable camera support, like an eaysyrig or one of the dvtec rigs.
/matt
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote