Shaky hand held camera movie making
Gusto Brunt
Posts: 12,351 Forum Member
✭✭
I hate lost footage horror movies.
But there is also something similar, where the camera moves around from person to person as if it is lost footage.
Normally, in the average movie, a camera will switch from one person to the next, but in hand held camera movies (not lost footage), the camera is shaky and sweeps across from one person to the next. There are also irritating jump cuts.
I noticed this in several movies, notably Wer (2014). Is there a technical term for this and WHY is this film making style used? I find it very annoying.
But there is also something similar, where the camera moves around from person to person as if it is lost footage.
Normally, in the average movie, a camera will switch from one person to the next, but in hand held camera movies (not lost footage), the camera is shaky and sweeps across from one person to the next. There are also irritating jump cuts.
I noticed this in several movies, notably Wer (2014). Is there a technical term for this and WHY is this film making style used? I find it very annoying.
0
Comments
Fine, there are plenty of films for you on the Disney channel. Also some cartoons on high number channels, Spongebob and also Night Garden Is sometimes on.
A reaction shot in handheld, maybe?
And why not? It's just a matter of style and grammar on director's part.
When a shot seems new or revolutionary, a bunch of directors will want to try it out as a stylistic choice in their own films. Some will try to develop it further with a modification or improvement to make it their own.
Let's take the Spike Lee shot as an example. Watch this YouTube collection of scenes featuring the Spike Lee variation of the dolly shot in Lee's films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR589pyshxI The first instance of that shot made an impact on other directors at the time. Off my head right now: Johnny To used it in Protégé, Ole Bornedal in Nightwatch (Ewan MacGregor) and Dante Lam in The Demon Within.
Lee didn't invent it, though. It's his riff on Scorsese's shot, used in Mean Streets. Scorsese didn't invent it either. He borrowed it from Vincente Minnelli, who used it in Madame Bovary. Minnelli didn't invent it. He borrowed it from Irmin Roberts, who invented it for Hitchcock's films. All those directors - Lee, Scorsese and Minnelli - didn't "rip off" each other. What they took the essence of a shot and made it their own, which is what makes their shots so distinctive.
Another example of directors influencing each other: American director Terence Malick's using Japanese director Hideaki Anno's signature directorial style (especially framing and distancing) in his three recent films and his upcoming film, Prince of Cups. You can see some of Anno's techniques and stylistic choices from Love & Pop and Shiki-Jitsu in Prince of Cups if you compare those trailers:
trailer of Malick's Prince of Cups (2015): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC-3rnv_b3o
trailer of Anno's Shiki-Jitsu (Ceremonial Day) (2000): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32WdNraeZwE
(I tried to find a trailer for Love & Pop (1998), but no luck.)
Gaspar Noe's Enter the Void (2009), Danny Boyle's 127 Hours (2010), Juan Jose Campanella's The Secret in Their Eyes and other films used the Anno style as well.
However, part of the Anno style is a component of British director Alan Clarke's style and distinctive tracking shot, used in Elephant (1989): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyRL73HIvqg
That long tracking shot shows up in many films - Brian De Palma's Snake Eyes, Gus Van Sant's Elephant, Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers, Scosese's Goodfellas, Park chan-wook's Oldboy (which also borrows techniques and ideas from Andrew Lau's Young & Dangerous film series), Juan Jose Campanella's The Secret in Their Eyes (the football stadium scene), etc.
Until Malick reveals his influences, we don't know exactly which film influenced him to use the Anno style for Prince of Cups. Could be Enter the Void, Elephant, Love & Pop... who knows? I'm betting on Love & Pop, Enter the Void, Wenders's Wings of Desire -- sorry, I'm digressing.
That's probably why you see the 'shaky' reaction shot in a number of films lately.
I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with it until they find the latest oooh-that's-soooo-cool!-I-must-try-that-some-day fad for a new technique, effect or shot.
You are probably taking the auteur theory of film creation as read when really it is problematic. The creative process is collaborative and sometimes works within and outwith the tropes of genre. That is, some techniques are genre-based as much as directorial signatures. E.g. Campanella is not an auteur director much of his work is in TV. He used the long take in 'Secrets' to breakup the pace of the story and to heighten the tension in the chase. That suggests the technique was used in service of exposition not as a stylistic device. That's been repeated in the 6 minute tension filled chase/ escape sequence in EP 4 of 'True Detective' directed by Fukunaga.
But even if we are dealing with what may be described as auteur directors such as Hitchcock and Malick, then they use signature film techniques in service of cinematic exposition. That is style with purpose not just style for the sake of it, which is probably close to what the OP is complaining about. The handheld shaky camera techniques are achieved in different ways but where they were once used to give some heightened sense of realism or documentary e.g. 'The Evil Dead' or 'The Blair Witch Project', they have become hackneyed and overused.
Also all great artists build on the work of past masters. In cinematic art so many of the techniques were devised early on by Melies, Griffith, Eistenstein. The deep focus and long takes of Welles weren't invented by him it's how he used them in his movies to develop the cinematic language. The long take of 'Touch of Evil''s intro predates any of those you mention. So does Antonioni's end sequence to 'The Passenger' which visually imparts the death of the lead character without showing you the fact.
Nope, I wasn't. I worked as an editor years ago. In other words, I have a mental catalogue of distinctive shots, techniques, grammatical rhythms and styles in terms of editing. That's the basis I used for my response. Nothing intellectual about it, I'm afraid.
Thanks for sharing a bit of your knowledge, though. I enjoyed reading it.
Edited:
Oh, I see. You were objecting to my mention of influences? In that case, fair enough, but I think you're thinking in context of each film whereas I was thinking in context of trends. From the editing perspective, it's fairly easy to spot a trend in films made within five or ten years of each other. Hence, my mention of influences. I hope this makes sense.