That's what at least four of Paul Greengrass's movies have been referred as. But what makes it that? The shaky cam? Lots of documentaries have a steady cam. In fact there are just as many on a steadicam, as there are movies on a shaky cam perhaps. The lighting in those movies is lit more like a movie more than a documentary, and they are directed from multiple angles, unlike documentaries were fewer angles are used. The sound is also very high budget Hollywood compared to documentaries. So what makes them documentary style exactly?
What makes a "documentary style" thriller?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Paul Greengrass's four most recent films are Green Zone, The Bourne Ultimatum, United 93, and The Bourne Supremacy.
The cinematic style they all share in common is most accurately described as docu-style rather than documentary.
Typically, documentaries are largely "in situ" as they happen rather than staged, which certainly applies to his films.
Strangely, on a simple google search there's not a whole lot on docu-style.
http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/2008/01/documentary_style_shotmaking_1.php
http://www.tvwritersvault.com/realitytv/documentary_series.asp
They get their look from not being on tripods, dollies and glide tracks, or within built sound stages.
The cinematic style they all share in common is most accurately described as docu-style rather than documentary.
Typically, documentaries are largely "in situ" as they happen rather than staged, which certainly applies to his films.
Strangely, on a simple google search there's not a whole lot on docu-style.
http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/2008/01/documentary_style_shotmaking_1.php
http://www.tvwritersvault.com/realitytv/documentary_series.asp
They get their look from not being on tripods, dollies and glide tracks, or within built sound stages.
rayw's answer is technically correct.
My answer is that it means that they are shitty movies.
My answer is that it means that they are shitty movies.
Paul Greengrass is better than the vast majority of other filmmakers at pulling off a legitimate docu-style. A less "good" example is Battle LA, whose intensity was raised by the camera motion but it was obviously not as well-made.
This is also opposed to "mockumentary" (Cloverfield) or one that goes in-between the two (District 9).
This is also opposed to "mockumentary" (Cloverfield) or one that goes in-between the two (District 9).
Okay, but what do you mean they happen in situ, rather than staged? They are obviously staged.
It looks a lot like this, only "prettier".
The real sh!t.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGkGScHJbLE
Note the fixed focus & tight aperture.
Here's a slightly "better" example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCqJqgdNqc0
The pretty sh!t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkTpAYrLcOo
Note the variable rack focus and "ranging" DoF.
Also note that Greengrass et al are using what looks like cameras with EXPENSIVE resolution, nothing you'd really wanna spend money on just to get shot or shrapnelled in the real world of combat journalism.
Last edited:
Alright, now here's some "classic" Hollywood "combat" bullsh!t, complete with tripods, sliders, dollies, and track shots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hOup21_A9k
I think d@mn near every single shot in that sequence was on a fixed tripod.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDxnGHQNgZE
Skip to 2:14.
And I want you to start saying out loud (trust me, it helps with the acute conscious awareness process) if it's a track shot, or pan shot off a tripod, or fixed on a tripod.
First few here:
- "traaaaack" shot of soldiers running to helo. Note parallel movement with actors.
- "paaaaaan" on tripod on a little closer shot of the guys running. Note the change in perspective from 90° to about 40° right.
- "loose fiiiiiixed" on tripod from inside the helo. Note the corners of the frame moving about a single pivot point.
- "fiiiiiixed" shot on tripod of helo lift off. Note the bottom corners never moving.
- "paaaaan" of soldier running.
Go ahead. Say it out loud. It's synergistic when you see it, say it, hear it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3qfijFYnJI
- "Fiiiiixed" on tripod close up of knife.
- "Fiiiiixed" on tripod of bandana.
- "Fiiiiixed" on tripod close up of necklace.
- "tillllt down traaaaack" of jungle down to JR playing in the mud.
- "Fiiiiixed" on tripod of JR's profile as he navels his motivation.
- "Fiiiiixed tillllllt down" on tripod of his hands in the mud going to grab his compound bow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpVmwnXzVzo
Tripod.
Track right and then track left.
Tripod.
Tripod.
Tripod.
Tripod.
Blah blah blah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHjvxxZ_1yg
Tripod.
Tripod.
Tripod.
Tripod slight pan after dud fire. ('Cause anyone who knows anything about semi-auto pistols knows that 1911 wasn't empty).
Tripod.
Tripod tilt down.
Tripod pan left.
Lemme guess what comes next... ?
Tripod.
Tripod.
Tripod.
I bet this was cheap as sheep with so many tripod shots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hOup21_A9k
I think d@mn near every single shot in that sequence was on a fixed tripod.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDxnGHQNgZE
Skip to 2:14.
And I want you to start saying out loud (trust me, it helps with the acute conscious awareness process) if it's a track shot, or pan shot off a tripod, or fixed on a tripod.
First few here:
- "traaaaack" shot of soldiers running to helo. Note parallel movement with actors.
- "paaaaaan" on tripod on a little closer shot of the guys running. Note the change in perspective from 90° to about 40° right.
- "loose fiiiiiixed" on tripod from inside the helo. Note the corners of the frame moving about a single pivot point.
- "fiiiiiixed" shot on tripod of helo lift off. Note the bottom corners never moving.
- "paaaaan" of soldier running.
Go ahead. Say it out loud. It's synergistic when you see it, say it, hear it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3qfijFYnJI
- "Fiiiiixed" on tripod close up of knife.
- "Fiiiiixed" on tripod of bandana.
- "Fiiiiixed" on tripod close up of necklace.
- "tillllt down traaaaack" of jungle down to JR playing in the mud.
- "Fiiiiixed" on tripod of JR's profile as he navels his motivation.
- "Fiiiiixed tillllllt down" on tripod of his hands in the mud going to grab his compound bow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpVmwnXzVzo
Tripod.
Track right and then track left.
Tripod.
Tripod.
Tripod.
Tripod.
Blah blah blah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHjvxxZ_1yg
Tripod.
Tripod.
Tripod.
Tripod slight pan after dud fire. ('Cause anyone who knows anything about semi-auto pistols knows that 1911 wasn't empty).
Tripod.
Tripod tilt down.
Tripod pan left.
Lemme guess what comes next... ?
Tripod.
Tripod.
Tripod.
I bet this was cheap as sheep with so many tripod shots.
Last edited:
Right, but they don't LOOK staged. Paul Greengrass movies never claim to be real-life documentaries, but the viewer feels as though it is through the camera style. My other two examples above (District 9 and Cloverfield) actually DO claim to be real and in-the-moment (and to an extent District 9 actually was), but I'd consider them all "docu-style" because of the camera movement.
In all of these cases, it wouldn't make sense for a camera-man to set up a tripod that perfectly frames the action, so the filmmakers opt for an "imperfect" camera style to mimic a real-life situation.
Well even though the camera is shaky, they still manage to capture the perfect camera angles, for each shot in the action scenes. That's why it feels staged still. If it was shot without good takes and editing, and shot like Paranormal Activity or Blair Witch, then I can see it being more documentary style, but I guess most fans would not want to watch a Bourne movie shot like that.
...And that is the difference between "mockumentary" (one that claims to document "real" events), and "docu-style" (one that is staged, but takes a similar stylistic approach as documentaries). Docu-style movies (Bourne, Battle LA, etc) are sort of a hybrid between "found-footage"/"mockumentary" (think Blair Witch) and the omnipresent "traditional Hollywood" movies (think Lord of the Rings). Because they aren't true mockumentaries, there is no reason to purposefully include bad cameras/angles, and since they aren't "traditionally" shot, there is no necessity for tripods/etc or perfect takes.
Or, perhaps I'm not making any sense at all...
Last edited:
No I get it. I thought that mockumentary implied that it's a humorous documentary spoof, like Borat. So how much percent of the movie has to be shaky cam for it to be called that? For example, Quantum of Solace is probably not enough.
Another thing that was mentioned, was that Paul Greengrasses documentary style movies, are shot with expensive resolution. Perhaps if they were shot with the camera look that is used to capture real combat, that would add to the style.
Another thing that was mentioned, was that Paul Greengrasses documentary style movies, are shot with expensive resolution. Perhaps if they were shot with the camera look that is used to capture real combat, that would add to the style.
Last edited:
It isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but Quantum of Solace would not be considered docu-style to most people. Nearly all action movies (or movies with action scenes) employ shaky-cam -- that's a more recent phenomenon. You get docu-style when the entire movie (or at least the vast majority of it) is shot with that camera style.
The action stuff in Children of Men is a killer example. Whenever something is about to go down they start hanging on one camera, then through an entire action scene it's the same one camera following the leads. Feels like you're there. My favorite one was during a car ride. One camera, it felt like you were in the middle of the back seat. You could see the driver and front passenger talking, then look left or right for other passengers. Pretty neat-o.
Yup. Obviously not claiming to be a documentary, but during the action it feels like one.
I LOVE "Children of Men", and it is the exact opposite of "ducumentary-style", or whatever Paul Greengrass is doing. In "Children of Men", they took the most painstaking efforts to create incredibly cinematic shots. Paul Greengrass just hires camera operators in detox.
Cuz they've got the shakes.
A lot of documentaries seem to be shot in 60fps, so maybe if Paul Greengrass shot in that it would add more to the style.
Documentary style makes you feel as though you are there because the people involved with the story react to "you" because the camera is your POV. Like District 9.
Whereas in non-documentary style, it is like you are watching but not "in" the story. Like Lord Of The Rings.
Does that help or am I re-stating the obvious? Sorry if I am
-- spinner
Whereas in non-documentary style, it is like you are watching but not "in" the story. Like Lord Of The Rings.
Does that help or am I re-stating the obvious? Sorry if I am
-- spinner