Shaky versus Still Cameras - Observations From IFFB

[ahennessey]

I've just spent a week at the Independent Film Festival Boston where I saw about 12 films. I noticed something that has come up from time to time here on Indietalk - Shaky versus Still camerawork. There were many films that deployed both techniques, but I saw the contrast most notably in two films.

Beneath the Harvest Sky, which opened the festival, is a gritty coming of age story about two teens in a rural town on the Maine/Canada border. The entire film, every frame, is shot in a very shaky style. You can see what I mean in the trailer below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYMlSN1aTc


I know a lot of this is personal taste, but I have to be honest and say that for me this style became very distracting, very quickly. If you look at the trailer, they had some great shots, great locations and fantastic lighting, but then it was all defeated by the extreme jumpiness of the camera at the edges of the frame.


As a contrast, the Jenny Slate film Obvious Child, which I also saw at the festival, was pretty locked-down. One thing I noticed is that the camera gets bit of shakiness only when showing us Jenny's POV to the audience. You can actually see this in the trailer below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2GN3wdfqbA


I also noticed this in short films. In one in particular, they had a great location and several really good shots that seemed well composed, but the camera seemed almost as if the DP was shaking the camera a little extra on purpose.

Like I said, I think this is a matter of personal taste, but do some people find shaky-cam a bit distracting?

 

[Zensteve]

It's terribly detrimental in film & tv where it's used as a filler effect - which tends to show up in far more indiefilm that I care for.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I find it very distracting when it's used for effect - I basically can't watch shows like 24 for this reason, it feels like someone's trying to parody a good action film.

Shaky cam seems to be used to try and create the more naturalistic feel you might commonly see in documentary work - it's 'gritty' and 'authentic'. What people don't seem to get is that your typical professional documentary shooter is doing their best to hold the camera steady - the shaking that remains is what's truly unavoidable.

So it's counter-intuitive, but if that's the look you're going for, you should do the same - try to hold the camera as steady as you can! Deliberately shaking it around is similar to excessive zooming, it just draws attention to the fact that there's a camera and operator between the audience and the scene they're watching.

 

[moonshieldmedia]

Your example in Beneath The Harvest Sky does not bother me at all. That's not intentional shake, that's just what is looks like when you use a camera with a handheld rig.

I agree that purposeful camera shake is annoying. Also, camera jitter is really bad too, which is what you get when your camera is too light and you're not using a good enough rig (any film shot on DSLR handheld).

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Your example in Beneath The Harvest Sky does not bother me at all. That's not intentional shake, that's just what is looks like when you use a camera with a handheld rig.

I agree it's not too bad - it doesn't look like they're exaggerating it too much. But we're also watching it on a small screen, at best the shot is swinging back and forth a few inches. Put that on a theatrical screen and those inches are feet; 90 minutes of stuff constantly swinging around a few feet at a time can do a number on the audience.

 

[jax_rox]

Your example in Beneath The Harvest Sky does not bother me at all. That's not intentional shake, that's just what is looks like when you use a camera with a handheld rig.

Nope, that's intentional. And very much designed that way. With a well-balanced camera, and a skilled strong operator, you can get much steadier handheld shots than that. Most of what's in that trailer is 'for effect.'

If I were shooting both those films, I probably would have done it the same way. Much more than what's already in that first one, however, and it could potentially be a bit much, depending on the content of the scenes.

 

[harmonica44]

When it comes to action movies, I think it's okay to use the shaky cam in some shots of the action scenes, but not the whole movie, including simple dialogue scenes. A lot of movies the Bourne films, and The Hunger Games, use the shaky cam for the WHOLE movie!

At least Michael Bay only used it in some of the action shots in Transformers. Say what you will about him but at least he does not use the same type of camera movement for every single shot. I only like it used sparingly, and therefore, more effectively.

At a film festival I went to, the director of the festival said he is sick of shaky cam indie films, and that way too many are using it, to the point where he is now going to reject any movie coming in with that style, cause that's how tiring it is, he said. I think it's kind of harsh to reject all movies of a certain camera style, but at the same time, it does give me something to think about as an aspiring filmmaker, that maybe it's not good to redo the same thing over and over again, especially for every shot.

 

[DamonT]

In the film 1st & Main that I will be doing over the next year I plan to use some of both. The "Shaky Cam" look will be used during the more documentary styles scenes with the street kids. I will use a more locked down effect when scenes are of other aspects. The key will be in what scenes get shot which way to give the audience a feel of what parts represent the reality. I will also be using different color grading in the same way.