Notes on Style

You would think this would be obvious.

You would think it wouldn’t have to be said: clear your frame.

That is Director-speak for “whatever is not supposed to be in the frame must be framed out, or removed.”
If, after having told any member of your camera crew repeatedly to check and clear their frame, they do not, then you are dealing with:

1. incompetence
2. passive-aggressive behavior
3. willful insubordination

None of these are acceptable. Remove them from set immediately.

It is essential for any filmmaker who is responsible for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars (and eventually millions of investor and studio dollars) to learn the power of dismissal.

Always be fair, but be firm.

Tyranny breeds rebellion, so you can’t be a tyrant. But you should be running a benevolent dictatorship, not a democracy.

Make the call. If you don’t have the answer, get a short list of options from people with opinions you trust. Then make the call, and politely demand everyone to comply.

But in the end, it doesn’t matter how pretty your shot is, how compelling the acting is, how gorgeous the art direction is – if Camera B is reflected in the mirror behind the actors YOU CAN’T USE THE SHOT. And forget “camera safe” — clear your frame edge to edge.

Be a professional. Clear your frame.

Style

Dictionary.com defines style as:

(Def. 9.) a particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode or form of construction or execution in any art or work: Her painting is beginning to show a personal style.

Don’t worry about the previous eight definitions: they are very close to this one.

First, you figure out what your style is. That’s easy, it’s what you like in the work of others. Start there, then add your own flourishes to it, make it your own.

Second, you find someone who thinks like you, sees things the way you see them. Find someone who shares your style. Now you have a team. Find a third person and your team is bigger.

Once you have the same language you can communicate directives to achieve your style in any part of your filmmaking.

Do not make the mistake in believing everyone else sees what you see – they do not.

An invaluable part of pre-production is showing your camera operators and your lighting team the movies and the moves you like. Storyboards and pre-visualization is critical to getting your team thinking in the right direction.

I learned this the hard way.

If any person of your crew doesn’t understand what you want. Explain it to them, meticulously if necessary. Thereafter, if they are incapable or unwilling to give you what you want – replace them immediately. Find someone who can follow your orders. You do not want to start the editing process with shots that embarrass you, deconstruct pace and mood, and weaken the story.

I would spare you that pain.

Handheld Camerawork

There is a chance, albeit a slight one, that with the breakthroughs in modern medicine and the benefits of living a largely guilt-free life, that I will live long enough to see the end of hand-held camera work.

Having just finished a feature film, I can unequivocally inform and educate you that the best investment you can make for your first time is a [expletive] tripod.

Mount the camera. Lock down your shot.

Do not be deceived by others or yourself into thinking hand-held camera work is some instant and immediately comprehended mechanism for being “edgy” or “organic” in storytelling.

New Rule: nothing screams amateur like the inability to stabilize a shot – nothing. Would you settle for out of focus photography? Then why settle for camera work than cannot even demonstrate the basic ability to be still, or follow the action properly.

Any camera movement (zoom, dolly, pan, crane, hand-held, swing) should only be considered in service of the scene, and the mood contained therein. If as a filmmaker you are picking any shot arbitrarily you have failed in your first obligation to the audience: you are not hip, naturalistic or defying film’s many choking rules – you are being selfish and ignorant. It may take too long to get a great shot, but it takes the same amount of time (whether you have a lot or little of it) to frame a steady, good shot as it does to frame an unbalanced, compositionally flawed one.

This should be common knowledge. The bad news is that it isn’t. You must communicate your visual expectations or you will not get what you, the scene and the story need. Beyond this, you must be strict with your expectations.

Buy a tripod then use it.

The Atlanteans — big fans of hand-held camera work. Look what happened to them.

David Jetre
Writer | Producer | Director
 
Last edited:
interesting read. I have a friend that likes hand held shots, i'm not a massive fan I would much rather track or keep a shot still. worst comes to worst steadicam -> but only when its needed. maybe I should get him to read this :P
 
There is a chance, albeit a slight one, that with the breakthroughs in modern medicine and the benefits of living a largely guilt-free life, that I will live long enough to see the end of hand-held camera work.


I hope I make it to that promised land with you.
 
Do you really mean to say there is NEVER an acceptable use of a hand-held camera? No example in the in the history of cinema where it's been the correct choice? I disagree. I'm not talking about most of the shaky-cam cinematography you see today and I agree with your comments about it being used by amateurs as an easy gateway to somehow appear "edgy" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). Rather, I'm talking about thoroughly planned and competently controlled hand-held shots. One that comes to mind in particular is the military boxing match and other fight scenes in Barry Lyndon, which serve as an excellent counterpoint to the landscape painting feeling of the rest of the film. We've had this reserved, rule-bound system of pent up living that when broken up is horrifically shocking to society. The carefully chosen hand-held photography only helps.
 
Unforunately, your way too opinionated and one-sided in your rant.

Although I agree with you in a sense, you still need a lot of work to be informative and not come off as ignorant and opinionated.
 
Misconstrued Hyperbole

I guess I have to write this...

"Any camera movement (zoon, dolly, pan, crane, hand-held, swing) should only be considered in service of the scene, and the mood contained therein."

If your scene is best served by a hand-held shaky camera, then you should use it -- absolutely, unequivocally, intentionally. Let no one talk you out of it, including me.

Everybody understand that?

Good. Moving on...

There is a pervasive collapse of style (specifically in camera movement) in modern television and filmmaking. In every age, there is some gimmick that invariably gets absorbed by the legions of lesser men which they use to mimic more qualified visualists. In the 90's it was slow-motion. Anyone remember the endless slow-motion shots in John Woo's movies and the flood of equally bad copycats that followed? It is only mimicry. They are aping the style not knowing why or what the style's purpose is for.

This is an opinion. And it's mine.

Because it is an opinion, it will be agreed with by those who understand THE PURPOSE and proper use of style in camera movements is to capitalize on the emotional current/sub-current of a scene. This opinion will be disagreed with (in most cases) by those people who, believing themselves directors, will move (i.e., shake) the camera arbitrarily, smug in the false assertioin they are magically creating rich tension.

The fallacy rests here: the camera cannot CREATE mood or emotion, it can only AMPLIFY mood or emotion. Shaking the camera does not make a scene tense.

I have watched over a dozen films recently where the whole film is shot hand-held (shaky cam). It is always amazing to me that no one ever thinks shooting an entire movie only in close-ups is a good idea, or shoot the entire film in overhead camera shots, or from a worm's eye view.

Of the twenty films, one used the hand-held camera style dramatically (in service of the drama). The other nineteen just wanted to be like The Bourne Identity, or anything J. J. Abrams.

Guys, if you don't understand this, don't respond to this post. Why? Because if you don't know it by now, us talking about it will resolve nothing.

Too many people actually believe "I will just shaky-cam the entire film, and I will be deep and tense."

As with anything else -- name your industry -- when one is faced with this level of ignorance it is very difficult not to have a response of anger. There are a few properties that, by their design, incorporate shaky-cam (i.e, Blair Witch, Cloverfield), but that does not grant immunity en masse from filmmaking fundamentals. And if anyone in this forum believes it does, being an adult, there is nothing I or anyone can say that will dislodge you. Some things are just patently obvious.

But people have to fail at it in order to honestly audit their style and hopefully grow into something visually compelling and real.

Shaky-cam: Like anything else, must be used with moderation and only when/where appropriate.

In my opinion, 95% of all use of shaky-cam testifies to these three obvious facts:
1) the director does not understand the scene; or,
2) the director does not understand blocking; or,
3) the action (usually fight choreography) is not good enough to actually show.

That's it.

Oh, and CDCosta -- I totally disagree with you.

Jetrefilm
 
Last edited:
So you do believe there are acceptable instances where a hand-held camera could be the correct choice. That's a far cry from wishing to live long enough to see "the end of hand-held camera work." That's all I was interested in clearing up.

By the way, it might be worth pointing out that if a director doesn't understand his shot or his story/blocking/fight choreography isn't good enough to actually show, buying and using a tripod isn't going to help him.
 
To Shaky-Cam or Not To Shaky-Cam

My opening sentence was a literary device called hyperbole.

My reaction shaky-cam is temporal, and has been largely formed by 5 years of reckless bombardment by it.

Of course, there is a time to use it -- its just not the 9 out 10 times bad directors choose to use it.

The rest we can just disagree over.

Jetrefilm
 
Love it. Love it Love it. I love posts like this. Posts by intelligent, opinionated, experienced film makers and film fans.

Sometimes diplomacy and sugar-coating is boring...sometimes I like to hear it opinionated. One of my best friends Richard Griffin (of Scorpio Film Releasing) is uber opinionated...sometimes abrasively, but overall you can't help be entertained and enlightened by his freedom to express his beliefs.

This is something Jetre, you and he (Richard) would get along swimmingly on. We can't stand hand-held work (for the most part). It is to be used absolutely sparingly. It is not a gimmick or a crutch to be used to be 'edgy' or create 'tension.' It is to be used sparingly to *enhance* tension. Far too many films try and 'go handheld' and fail miserably. Before the director, DP, or camera op decides to go handheld, the least you can do is educate yourself fully in proper shot composition. More often than not, the indie directors you see 'going handheld' can't compose a shot on sticks to save their lives.

It's uncanny to see just how many indie directors/dps/camera ops are unable to properly compose a shot with a tripod. Going handheld is not going to save your lack of understanding of shot composition, balance and framing. Learn these things first, and I promise you your usage of handheld will diminish drastically because you'll finally understand (and be comfortable with) shot composition.

And as far as the other portion of your post Jetrefilm...I'm I agree as well. If an actor or crew member will NOT work with you...get rid of them early. Be firm about that.

And finally, yes, find a team that shares a similar style, sense of humor, sense of work ethic, and attitude. I swear to god it's all about synergy...the team I work with all the time (SFR) keeps a small crew (5 or so, including actors that help too) and we crank out shots, setups, and feature films faster than any 15+ crew I've ever worked with. So many crews I've worked with bring a bunch of people to set...and more often than not it slows things down--a lot of waiting around or gabbing about BS. I don't mind BSing on set...as long as you're working while doing it. It's not the size...it's the synergy--how well people work together, understand each others needs and wants, and sharing a common goal with no ego (very important).

Thanks all.
 
Last edited:
The rest we can just disagree over.

Or hopefully we could agree to agree...that's allowed, right?

I can't stand it when one uses the word "opinionated" as an insult. We should all be more opinionated. We should all stand up for our convictions and be willing to defend them. It leads to better art. Sure, it's impossible to change other peoples' minds 99% of the time. You shouldn't post thinking you'll change someone's mind. One of the reasons we all write on this forum is to hopefully educate and inform the readers of this forum. Stand up for your opinions and defend them! People are gleaning information. Better art is the result.

I'm happy to hear M1chae1 talk about a dedicated, smaller crew. That's something I thought only I did. It's amazing when we get together and pull off stuff crews twice the size can't even come close to. We've got an intimate shorthand of nods, clicks and jargon that speeds things up. No time is wasted. It's a fun way to work. I like working on bigger things, too...there's no one way to do this sort of thing. But it's special to see what a true team with working knowledge of craft, each other, vision and focus can come up with without wasting energy.
 
There certainly are times when handheld is the correct choice, they are just somewhat rare.

92.6% of handheld work is some combination of laziness, inabilty/unwillingness to spend the cash to rent or make a dolly and buy a good tripod, and inability to frame a good shot.

"I'll make it look all edgy and frenetic by using a lot of shaky hand held, and as an extra benefit I don't have to think about framing shots, or shooting the multiple angles it would take to create the same mood from static/dolly shots"
 
I stopped watching TV in 1987. I figured I could go anywhere and be insulted for free, why should I pay a cable/satellite company every month in order to be insulted in my own home?

Every once in a while, though, I catch something on the tube at my parents' house, usually part of some insipid cop show. Invariably, I can't concentrate on the story because I'm so distracted by the f***ing camera jerking all over the place. It doesn't even look hand held; instead it looks like the movement is being introduced intentionally using a geared head. My heart goes out to the poor bastard camera op who went through the ranks learning how to shoot properly, then got told by some idiot director or producer to make it look like crap. Gives me a headache.
 
For the most part, I love smooth, steady shots. I like the stability of a tripod shot. However, my last shoot dictated that we move very quickly, so locking down and using a monitor was the occasional luxury. When I'm racing the sun and trying to get as much good light as I can use, I often go handheld.

I don't like BOURNE SUPREMACY or CLOVERFIELD handheld sequences. I generally use a wide angle lens and slow movement. I'm showing the audience a lot of things, but at the same time trying not to make them aware of the camera. If you think about it, when you are trying to show a character's point of view, his eyes are going to be shaking and jarring. Our vision has built in stabilizers, so to speak. Steady cam is almost too smooth for a P.O.V., but a smooth, wide angle is about perfect. If you are trying to mimic the point of view of a news camera, that's different - shake away. :lol:

To the original poster, I know what you are saying about this handheld, reality show style that is permeating many productions. The quick zoom in or whip pan, while a character is talking just bugs the crap out of me. It says something about the boring material, when they have to wake the viewer up with a quick zoom.

I notice that you are a martial artist. Now, didn't that piss you off in the BOURNE SUPREMACY, when you were actually trying to see the choreographed fight moves, but the camera movement ruined the experience? I was so mad, because the first BOURNE did it much better and I just love that series.
 
Martial Arts & Hand Held

I am a career martial arts (since I was 8) and enjoyed studying many, many styles that are unique and effective.

Now, regarding martials arts in movies, I am of the Fred Astaire and Bruce Lee schools of fight choreography: just turn the camera on in wide shot and let the them do their thing.

Of course that doesn't work with most actors who have zero martial arts training. You have to cheat the scene in order to conceal the lazy choreography or the physical clumsiness of the scene.

Every once in a while you get a beautiful exception: The Matrix (1999) comes to mind. They trained the actors for months in a dedicated martial arts regimen and that enabled the director to SHOW the elegance and complexity of eye-catching fight moves.

That, among other reasons, made the film a blockbluster.

Jetrefilm
 
I've had the experience repeatedly of going to films with lots of shakycam and having companions forced to leave the theatre because they've been made physically ill (or in a couple of cases, to bravely close their eyes and just listen to the soundtrack, while the rest of the group feel guilty about watching the show) . I'm looking at you, J.J. And the Danish noodles you ate. You've all been relegated, by this consumer at least, to the maybe-on-DVD bin.

This is what happens when people watch films on monitors and in little screening rooms and on Avids but not a big screen, and what happens when filmmakers have egos that have grown to be bigger than their respect for their own audiences.

In each case, the theatre refused to refund those people's tickets. And in every case, there were SEVERAL people leaving early, from EVERY showing. Not only does this show a lack of respect for the audience, but also a lack of respect for the material. If you can't get people to even sit through your show: FAIL.
 
I don't like movies that use hand held throughout the entire film, but I like it when they use it to enhance certain shots. For example, if you have a shot of someone weeping intensely, a hand held mid shot might be more effective than a static one. You could follow that shot with a long shot of the person crying(NOT HANDHELD) I like it when people mix it up appropiately.

However, there are some movies that use alot of handheld that I liked.

Children of men - really enjoyed the film
Blair Witch Project - I enjoyed it
Cloverfield - I also enjoyed it

Then theres something like
Amores Perros - It's really highly rated so I bought the dvd, but I couldn't finish the film, the hand held was dreadful. I might give it another chance.
The good the bad the weird - Only the action sequences are hand held, but I hated the hand held work. It was so disorientating and I couldn't even see any of the action. There was this awsome chase scene, but the camera kept on wobbling around it totally spoilt it.
Bourne trilogy- not a fan

Then you have the MASTERS who can do amazing things with hand held shots
Christopher Doyle and Wong Kar Wai did an amazing job on Chungking Express(one of my fav films). I think the entire film, apart from a few shots are hand held, but it still looks stunning!
The hand held worked perfectly for the mood and atmosphere of the film. but it wasn't lazy hand held, even though it was hand held they still composed amazing shots.
 
Back
Top