Camera movements in movies

[ie]

So, there was some discussion of this in the Seen any good movies lately? thread, so I thought I'd just go and start up a topic about it:

kiddo said:

First off, I did not fucking get the grasp of anything. Secondly, the camera was nearly always shaking, like a heroin-addicted girl not getting her drugs. I don`t know what it is, but I hate this (unncessesary) use of "shaky camera". I like the camera to be static. It feels so much more right for me. I don`t know, it`s quite difficult to explain. It feels much more artistic, more valuable.

ie said:

I don't like "shaky cameras" either, and this was actually part of the reason why I could not enjoy the movie Miami Vice.

I do like static shots (such as all of Tokyo Story), but I think I like some regular camera motion more, and I find some sweeping motions to be great. I don't like subtle motion because, to me at least, it seems like the director/cinematographer was not planning and didn't really realize that something was going outside of their frame, so they were like "oh, let's go move just a little bit over," where they could have been all along.

kiddo said:

ie said:

I don't like "shaky cameras" either, and this was actually part of the reason why I could not enjoy the movie Miami Vice.

I do like static shots (such as all of Tokyo Story), but I think I like some regular camera motion more, and I find some sweeping motions to be great. I don't like subtle motion because, to me at least, it seems like the director/cinematographer was not planning and didn't really realize that something was going outside of their frame, so they were like "oh, let's go move just a little bit over," where they could have been all along.

Yes! I totally agree. At least if I understand you correctly.
I don`t like when the camera kind of follow every movements of the character(s). You know, if we`r talking about big movements it`s most often ok (or very appropiate for that matter), but when it`s only a small movement with the arm or anything, it most often only destroy when the camera follow the "action". I think this is very hard to explain, though. Partly because I now write in my "second language", partly because it`s, well, difficult to explain. Even in norwegian.

ie said:

You're right, and I agree with you as well.


Taxi Driver made some great use of cinematography. The two examples I can think of is when Travis is on the phone, and then all of a sudden the camera just pans away. It was slightly distracting because I was expecting something to happen, but I thought it was good. A better example would be when Travis is leaving the taxi company, and he walks one way, but the camera doesn't follow him and instead we see a few taxi cabs and such.

We don't always need to see the character. Sometimes, seeing what's in the background can help us better understand the character, or at least, be a change of pace from seeing actors all the time.

police386 said:

ie said:

You're right, and I agree with you as well.


Taxi Driver made some great use of cinematography. The two examples I can think of is when Travis is on the phone, and then all of a sudden the camera just pans away. It was slightly distracting because I was expecting something to happen, but I thought it was good. A better example would be when Travis is leaving the taxi company, and he walks one way, but the camera doesn't follow him and instead we see a few taxi cabs and such.

We don't always need to see the character. Sometimes, seeing what's in the background can help us better understand the character, or at least, be a change of pace from seeing actors all the time.

woody allen does this a lot. there's a scene early on in Annie Hall where he and tony roberts are walking along and talking about living in new york vs. living in L.A., and for the first 2 minutes or so of the conversation we just see a static shot of a sidewalk with no sign of the 2 people talking, until they slowly but surely make their way towards the camera. it's a pretty daring way to film a simple conversation, but also mighty effective if you ask me.

I'd respond over there, but I'll just respond here: Yeah, I thought that was a great shot in Annie Hall too. It's also stimulating because as we're trying to look for who's talking, we just kind of look around at the scenery, and by the time they walk into the frame, we've already had a sense of what's around them.



Any additional thoughts? I figure this conversation will be most interesting for the filmmakers or will-be filmmakers among us, but those who just like watching movies and also have an opinion can also write in as well.

[PTAhole]

As far as the shakey camera technique that seems to be all the rage nowadays, I'm quite getting sick of it. Paul Greengrass, who I think is a talented writer, uses this all the time, and it infuriates me. Bloody Sunday is a great movie, and Bourne Supremecy was cool, but it jus irritated me throught the whole thing. I can see it's purpose in small doses, but all the time just gives me motion sickness.
I especially hate it during action sequences. This is what angers me about Batman Begins, an otherwise great film. The action scenes feature mostly extremely shakey closeups, which makes it impossible to tell what the hell is going on. I understand that it was supposed to show that Batman was stealthy and quick, but using it in every fucking action scene was stupid.

[kiddo]

I agree with most of what you say here, if not all. Bourne Supremacy could have been a good or great film, but because of the shaky camera (let us call it that), I was just pissed off. In fact, that film may just be the best example on the type of camera work I don't like in movies.

[criterionmaster]

I personally, when filming, just move the camera with the actions; I don't purposefully move the camera or try to steady it. A steady camera can sometimes make the film, a film, and a shaky camera can come of as forced, or making you feel a certain way (like oh this is suppose to be scary so I am shaky the camera rapidly). If the camera moves with the actions it feels much more like you are present with the film, and you won't be taken out in any way. Although I myself have never been taken out of a film by the camera staying steady, it is just something I feel makes the movie, and movie and I don’t want to do that.

[ie]

I wanted to comment on action a little bit. I haven't seen Batman Begins so I couldn't work off of that example, and my other examples would include "an episode of the Batman" or "the Cowboy Bebop episode Pierrot le Fou," so those wouldn't work. So instead, I decided to draw up a diagram.



The action is the light green ball, the path of action is the dark green trail. The current "steady" camera (which would be a slight pause) frame is regular red, the last "steady" shot being the dark red frame, the red trail being the path the camera takes, and the black spot being just a quick little black frame.


I feel Example 0 is more conventional, where the camera just follows the action.

But I like Example 1 more for action shots. What happens is you barely see the "ball" in the first shot, so the camera tries to quickly look around for the "ball," and to mimick how a person might be looking at it, there's a quick "blink." The camera then stands still for a second or two, but the "ball" still isn't completely in the shot, so there's some more movement with the same blink effect before coming to a stop on the third steady shot with the "ball" completely in frame.

It's more erratic, but I think the effect feels more natural. If you were looking for the "ball" in this instance, you wouldn't know the path it's going, so you might move your eyes up to look for it, and then you'd eventually catch another sight of it, so you'd move more in that direction, before finally seeing it completely.

The effect would get old really quickly, and it probably might give most people a feeling of motion sickness, but if it's used sparing at best, it wouldn't be that bad.

[criterionmaster]

I understand what you are saying, most film’s script doesn't call for that second approach, and only occasionally does it work out. I am so fucking sick of horror films using that to try and be scary. Oooohhhh the camera is shaking, I am so scared! I also hate when horror films use that jumpy shit they use, like in the Ring, with that girl like skipping frames in between each movement so it is all jumpy, that is so old and dare I say cliché already.

[ie]

Yeah, most scripts don't call for "okay, do something with the camera!"

The second example I used is something I haven't seen too often; I could only name two examples so that's how often I've seen it, I guess. I don't watch many horror movies, so I wasn't thinking in terms of horror movies where the camera shakes because it is in "first person" and the character is scared.

[criterionmaster]

Well also for films like Blair Witch Project too, where they shake it to try and make it "realistic" that irritates me as well. The camera should only move with the film, you should force-shake it. What were the two examples you have seen, I know I have seen it a lot but for some reason can't think of any.

[Nomansvally]

the camera for the filmmaker is like the paintbrush of the painter.

[ie]

The two examples I was thinking of:

"an episode of the Batman"
In this episode whose name I forget, the Batman is fighting hand-to-hand against the Joker. I don't remember the specifics, but the effect was frantic but didn't seem, well, unprofessional.


"the Cowboy Bebop episode Pierrot le Fou,"
Basically, the first five or so minutes would be my example here.

nomansvally said:

the camera for the filmmaker is like the paintbrush of the painter.

I agree. It's a tool, and if the director can use it well, then great. I like Ozu shots maybe slightly less than everyone else, but I still like how carefully he planned his shots, but still, it'd be boring if you just see the same camera movements all the time. These kind of uncontrolled camera movements, when done properly, work quite well. But when they fail - Miami Vice (2006), I'm looking at you - it gets distracting and stupid.