|
|
Author
|
Topic: What is it with shaky-cam?
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 06-18-2008 07:35 PM
With CLOVERFIELD and DIARY OF THE DEAD, the reason is story-driven. Characters are recording the action on-screen, and that's what stuff looks like when you do that.
For HANCOCK, Peter Berg's talked about why he uses a lot of hand-held cameras on the commentary track for THE KINGDOM. I forget exactly what he said, but I think it had something to do with keeping the camera mobile in order to allow for more improvisation. He also said that he understands that most people don't like it, and implied that he'd like to find a way around it. He said something like, "It would be a big help if cameras were smaller." I don't quite understand the logic there, but that's what he said. I'll see if I can find his exact quote.
But in general, I think the biggest reason for the increase in hand-held photography is television. Because of the news, and reality TV, etc., viewers have come to associate hand-held photography with realism. By having a perfectly composed, obviously pre-planned shot, the filmmaker is screaming to the viewer, "You are watching a movie." That can be as distracting as a shaky image, depending on the content.
An example of this which I recently ran into was with HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET and THE WIRE. I started watching HOMICIDE, knowing its reputation for realism. The photography, which is almost entirely hand-held, reinforces that aesthetic. However, the lack of profanity and graphic depictions violence rang false. So I decided to give THE WIRE a try, since I'd been told that it was basically the same show, only with all the good stuff. I was immediately thrown off by its beautiful lighting and static compositions. There's never a sense of danger on that show, because you're being constantly reminded that it's just a show. I think that's a bad choice. But it's still an awesome show.
Also, in regards to hand-held stuff being limited to straight-to-DVD content, I think what's happening is sort of the opposite of this. People from TV (like Matt Reeves and Peter Berg) are now making movies for the big screen, and screen-size is not necessarily a factor which they are taking into account.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|