Hand Held Camaras

Mikey D

Mikey D

I just finished watching a rather interesting film and I noticed an aspect of indie films that I find rather unsettling. What happened to the idea that a camara move should only occur when it would be least noticable so as to not distract from the story?

Please note that I used the word "idea" not "rule" as I recognize that there will be times when a noticable camara move can be used to advance a story.

The nausea factor aside, I find that the incessent use of unstabilized hand held camaras to be annoying and distracting. I understand that in the ultra low budget indie that sometimes the tools to create complex camara moves are just not available and in that case I am far more forgiving. However I am talking about the kind of film that has enough money to afford the big toys. I mean for crying out loud he hardly spent any cash on building a set, the least he could of done was sprung for a steady-cam.

So why? von Tier said, I paraphrase, that in this day and age that the filmic look is too easy to accomplish. The filmic look is too perfect and it is uninspiring.

Hey, I have complete respect for the need to rebel against the status quo. I am all for breaking through that high gloss veneer that has been placed over the world. But didn't he do that when he painted a bunch of freakin lines on the floor of a sound stage. Like the material wasn't enough to give me a headache.

But I rant. :mad:


Another film I find the hand held to be VERY distracting is "Eternal Sunshine..." I love that film.

I have to say it again, I love that film. Its the only film that I can think of that I actually paid to see a second time in the theater. I now own it. But damn. I have spoken to some that found that shakey camara to be so distracting that they were unable to enjoy the story.


So my question to all of you- do I just need to get over it or should these filmmakers invest in a :idea: tripod?
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine refuses to plop down $20 for a basic no-frills tripod.

His video footage is all over the place... and he loves closeups. :rolleyes:

I'm getting him a tripod for Christmas. It's just painful to watch. :no:
 
The nausea factor aside, I find that the incessent use of unstabilized hand held camaras to be annoying and distracting
Click to expand...

I blame Godard :lol:

Seriously, The technique of hand-held can be effective to convey certain moods. But I think too many choose it because they consider it a rule-breaker (therefore revolutionary -yep, in the 50's it was) or perhaps they're just too lazy to set a tripod up or use a steadi-cam?
 
Last edited:
It is quite possible that some people just simply don't realize how horrific it is to view (or attempt to view) a film entirely, or nearly all shot hand held. By the time they get to edit and it would be "too much work" to go back and reshoot they just settle for the terrible footage they've gotten. Perhaps many simply don't realize that the larger the image is the worse the shake gets. When you are out shooting with a little cam-corder looking thru the viewfinder or at the little flip out screen it doesn't show up nearly as much as it does on a computer screen, or heaven forbid a projection.

I recently (ok it was almost a year ago) went to see a premiere of a local indie horror flick, and damn I was ill by the end. I had thought Blair witch was about as bad as it could get for camera shake, but this was worse. had to keep closing my eyes to try and stick it out. Getting home afterward was not entirely easy either, as I was on my motorcycle. Equilibrium attacking handheld shots and motorcycles don't mix well. ;)
 
I personally detest the use of handheld camerawork. If a person can keep the camera steady while shooting handheld then it is fine but shaky cameras....

I honestly don't even see the reasoning between using a "shaky" handheld camera to impart tension. Yes it imparts tension but it takes you straight out of the story. It's far more distracting than useful. I even tend to dislike super fast editing. Tight editing is good but when you edit things so that the brain cannot percieve anything but a moving mess the effect is useless. Far more useful to use a fast crane and/or dolly to impart that feeling. It's steady and provides the necessary tension.

Alas I digress though. Just my opinions of course. I'd love to hear others thoughts.
 
Films which use self-referencing techniques like shakey camera, jump-cuts, scratching on emulsion, etc are more concerned with the tangible properties of the medium and are, as such, quite valid artforms. I'm just not sure how many filmmakers have, successfully, weaved this formal approach with the art of (traditional) storytelling.
 
Last edited:
True bird16 :)

It can be classified as art (anything can be really...) but I don't believe it works for storytelling. There is quite a distinction there that I think many people forget about (not saying you have or anything).
 
Totally agree that the hand-held aesthetic is no friend of the 3-act narrative structure. ;)
 
Last edited:
Films which use self-referencing techniques like shakey camera, jump-cuts, scratching on emulsion, etc are more concerned with the tangible properties of the medium and are, as such, quite valid artforms. I'm just not sure how many filmmakers have, successfully, weaved this formal approach with the art of (traditional) storytelling.
Click to expand...
yeah, yeah, what bird16 said. ;)


I even tend to dislike super fast editing
Click to expand...
Ooh that grinds me too. As a filmmaker you take all that time to set up a shot and then you barely give my mind time to register what I have seen. Combine this with fast camara moves and I have no choice but to just sit back, close my eyes and wait for it to be over. re Moulin Rouge.

Well maybe that's not the greatest example since it actually did advance the story. Absyinthe is NEVER a good idea.:no:
 
Absyinthe is NEVER a good idea. :no:
Click to expand...

Lies... vicious lies! There is a time for everything.
smiley_creepy.gif


close my eyes and wait for it to be over. re Moulin Rouge.
Click to expand...

That's in my top-10 movie list. :cool:

(For real)

Films which use self-referencing techniques like shakey camera, jump-cuts, scratching on emulsion, etc are more concerned with the tangible properties of the medium and are, as such, quite valid artforms. I'm just not sure how many filmmakers have, successfully, weaved this formal approach with the art of (traditional) storytelling.
Click to expand...

So very true... and rather well put.
 
Just like to mention, there are some directors who use the hand held camera technique beautifully. A perfect example being Tarantino in pulp fiction when Travolta crashed his car into the drug dealer's garage. Perfect example of a well timed, and well used hand held camera technique.
 
The constantly moving camera and cutting every half second are cheap confidence tricks that filmmakers play on us.

As animals we are hardwired to pay more interest to movement, because our mind percieves any movement as a potential threat to our survival. (You know, lion jumping out of tree, drunk driver coming wrong way up one way street etc.)

Shaky hand-held and constant camera movement keeps the nervous system of the audience constantly on edge. It gives the impression that something interesting is going on, when most of the time it isn't.

When we were planning "No Place" we made a conscious decision to keep the camera static, for the most part, only using hand held and jump cuts for the more violent sections of the film. We also decided to minimise the number of close ups, staying on the mid for most of the dialogue.

I think well used hand held can be great, but like the rest of you I really hate "home movie" handheld where the movement of the camera seems forced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top