Open Forum Friday: Is Shaky Cam Good or Bad for Action Movies?
With so many recent action movies striving for a sense of realism and intensity, we are seeing more and more directors attempting to use handheld and erratic camera movement as a way to inject energy into their scenes. When used skillfully and/or sparingly this can be very effective, but the downside is that it has been known to induce nausea and motion sickness in some viewers (Cloverfield). It is also sometimes used as a crutch when a director wants to hide poor special effects or a lack of fight choreography.
While this current trend is probably a direct result of the success of The Bourne Trilogy, the idea of replicating a documentary feel within fictional films is not particularly new. What is somewhat new, however, is the sudden wave of criticism coming from moviegoers who now automatically assume that all handheld camera work is a sign of bad filmmaking. Surely there are certain situations where it is appropriate, and certain directors who are adept enough to utilize it properly? What do you think… is shaky camera work always a bad thing? Does handheld camera movement add to the action or is it simply too chaotic to appreciate? Which movies have used it well, and which ones have used it poorly? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (43)
In the case of Bourne series i give thumbs up especially in the first one..
At the third part …maybe they overdone it a little..
From the other hand shaky cam in movies like ”Friday Night Lights” i don’t like..
When you re having just simple conversations why the fuck shake the fucking camera..?
its like the director its trying to steel the attention from the actors..
Posted by Kyriacos on July 3rd, 2009If done right, it’s okay (rare).
If done wrong, it’s horrible.
Posted by Dom_G on July 3rd, 2009Just finished Children of Men. That tracking shot was good at the end, made you feel like you were in “the shit”.
I thought Cloverfield was really good. Some people just like to complain.
REC was great. Much better than Cloverfield. I felt it worked more for the horror, but at some point you want to say, “Put down the fucking camera and run!”
Posted by David Wilson on July 3rd, 2009Yes and no.
It really depends on how much the camera is shaking and during what part. Like Kyriacos said, you don’t want a shaky camera during simple conversations. However, if the conversation isn’t necessarily simple (meaning it’s intense dialogue), feel free to with a steady cam so that the shake still isn’t taking too much for the scene (this is still dependent on the nature of the dialogue).
With an explosion, I say go for it. Just make sure your timing isn’t off.
During chase scenes, it can work, as well. Just don’t overdo it. Leave most of the work in a chase scene to the editor. As far as the camera is concerned in this type of scene, get a lot of different angles and keep the shots short. This way the editor can make the chase seem as intense as you want it with quick cuts.
All-in-all, a shaky camera is really a call for the filmmaker. There are far too many variables to say whether or not camera shake is good or bad. Use your best judgment. It may take a while to really get the hang of it.
Posted by Sean on July 3rd, 2009Mainly no, but when it’s done right it’s absolutely awesome.
Posted by Mitch on July 3rd, 2009To put a spin on it, I hate when no budget filmmakers try to capture the feel of a big movie, by sticking their mini dv/hd cam on a dolly or on a jig! Instantly it looks cheap and nasty. It should be handheld for most no budget stories.
So in a way, sometimes big films can be a bit annoying in the same way, as they try to create that doc no budget feel when they have a $100m.
On a whole, if it all makes sense in the script, I don’t mind either way. But you can tell the people that shoot in a certain style to feed the story, and others because they really have no clue about how to use a camera to enhance a movie.
I have to admit, I did like when speilberg used some amatuer cameramen for private ryan opening scene. I used a student to shoot my latest movie, simply because it was meant to be a student shooting it.
Romero said he wanted to use students for “diary of the dead” to get the raw feel. I think he should have, because it was too produced for my liking.
David
Posted by david on July 3rd, 2009Shaky cam is like shooting a gun; everyone can do it, but only a scant few know when they’re on target.
Posted by Ryan M. on July 3rd, 2009It’s like anything else in Hollywood. Someone tries something succesfully, the rest of Hollywood beats that idea into the ground long after the public is sick of it.
Posted by Travis on July 3rd, 2009Shaky cam is ok in the right situations, and when its use is rare. Now every action movie tries for the Bourne look and it is way overdone.
Paul Greengrass is definitely the best at it. His Bourne sequels and Bloody Sunday and United 93 are the four best examples of handheld camera work done right and justify the style’s existence. I think he’s the only one who can pull it off for an entire movie though. Everyone else should use it sparingly.
Posted by Nate on July 3rd, 2009No, it’s always awful IMO. Even in something like the Lord of the Rings movies, I think the combat scenes would be a lot better if you could actually tell what was going on.
Posted by Ben on July 3rd, 2009It would be at least interesting, only in the hand of good director.
The most recent one is HURT LOCKER, totally take you into the field
Posted by Xu on July 3rd, 2009Depends on the movie and the way the rest of the narrative, etc. are structured.
Posted by Ian on July 3rd, 2009As long as you know what is going on I am fine with the shaky cam just sprinkled in. It is best when it is used to just enhance a part of a scene. Do not shake the cam every time there is action. No different than a guitar player… If they shake the wham bar for the whole tune it gets annoying and you loose the tune they are playing but if they choose the right spot to use it enhances the tune. It is really a matter of finding the right spot to use it with out losing the feel of the tune. I feel the last Bond film did hit the wham bar (Shaky Cam) a little too long for my tastes. Sorry for the music analogy but that is the best way I can explain it.
Posted by Big Hungry on July 3rd, 2009I think Shaky cam is fine as long as it is used sparingly, and has a motivation behind it. one Shaky cam moment i always loved is the scene in seven, where Morgan Freeman is running towards brad pitt after he sees the head in the box. it’s not overdone and puts the viewer right in the scene with the characters. however I agree that these days it is overused.
Posted by Joe C on July 3rd, 2009Maybe a little less shaky cam just so the Steadicam operators don’t go out of work! They got a tough job running around with that rig on them and to think that all that long work that went into developing a no-shake camera system is now all for nought! But really, the shaky cam works if it replicates the experience of the actors on the screen and makes the audience feel it. So if a guy is running fast and frantic, the camera should match. In fact during a chase scene, have the camera fall down and get back up and run as if it’s in a documentary.
Posted by Maopheus on July 4th, 2009Shaky Cam doesn’t bother me as much as it does others.
Posted by Matt Keith on July 4th, 2009No, Shaky-Cam is absolutely awful, and dare I say it, it’s practically killed the modern action movie.
Posted by bullet3 on July 4th, 2009What the fuck happened to showing us the stunt/action/awesome moment? Shaking things around just confuses and takes you out of it. Look at the great Arnie movies, imagine how fucking lame and annoying they’d be if the camera was shaking so much. It’s ridiculous that no-body even seems to remember how to make a good 80’s style action movie anymore (I’m looking at you WWE films). People keep bringing up children of men, but that was the opposite of shaky-cam. Yes the camera was right there, but it was steady-cam and kind of just glided along with the action, giving you a good clean look (hell, the car scene, it was completely stable, just slowly turning 360 degrees). Actually, the last action scene that really kicked my ass was the shootout in The International, which didn’t have any of that shaky bullshit, instead giving you clear geography, and drawing you into the scene through Clive Owen’s scared as fuck performance instead of the camera moving frantically. The movie isn’t great, but action fans should seek it out for that sequence. Sorry for the rant, but this has been pissing me off a lot lately.
The best use of shaky-can is in the Southpark episode “Pandemic” in which they spoof Cloverfield’s overuse of the “shaky-cam”
It’s laugh out loud hilarious, like most Southpark epidsodes.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on July 4th, 2009okay i’m not the biggest fan of this technique. apart from some of the unique shots that can be captured with the shaky cam, i really don’t like the idea. it’s too chaotic and at points, especially if not done properly, the viewer might get lost without having any idea of what’s happening in the screen. i also think it’s lazy of some directors do just shot an action scene in shaky cam and thus the exploiting the technique.
however, if it’s done in the right way and under the right situation (i.e. if the story demands it) then only it’s use can give us something good.
Posted by modesilver on July 5th, 2009I enjoyed the amount of SHAKY CAM in the remake of “The Hills Have Eyes”.
Posted by Tomas on July 5th, 2009Shaky Cam ruined the last two Bourne movies for me.
Posted by Jeff on July 5th, 2009I had no interest in seeing Bourne Identity when it came out.
Posted by bickle on July 5th, 2009I saw the trailer for Bourne Supremacy and thought it looked like “the Shield” which I love.
I rented the BI and loved it. I love the entire trilogy. I have to admit, it was the shooting style that drew me to the Bourne series…but it in conjunction with the writing and editing, made an awesome bunch of flicks.
shaky cam can be used as a crutch though.
as experienced movie buffs, I think we can easily pick out the best uses for it.
There’s a difference between “just shaking the camera” to hide ineptitude and controlled chaos which is what the Bourne movies are.
Posted by Glendon on July 5th, 2009I forget what I just saw recently where a bunch of people were sitting in a conference room talking about something and the camera was jiggling ALL OVER THE FUCKING PLACE. I mean, COME ON. People are discussing something! IT ISN’T THAT EPIC. Shaky Cam (I really hate that term, too) should be used in very specific moments. I don’t really see the need to slap it into any scene, no matter how dry or bland the action. Making it seem like we’re on a swaying ship won’t help poor dialogue, subpar acting, or bad direction.
I also hate how in my Camera Operating class we had a brief lecture on it. I don’t think it should be this staple in cinematography. :\
Posted by Falsk on July 5th, 2009It’s a technique that’s suddenly appeared almost everywhere and it’s become a little jarring in certain films. But I usually don’t have an issue with it if used correctly. I really liked it when used in Public Enemies for example, but much of that is down to the unusual choice of shots that Mann uses.
One of my new fave films cloverfield would be horrible if done in any other way.
I have seen it done very badly in films but I cannot for the life of me remember any examples.
Posted by Byron on July 6th, 2009it all depends on the movie. Just because it was good for borne, cloverfield, blair witch etc….does not mean it is good for every movie. i.e. casino royale, and quantum of solice.
Personally I think it’s annoying. fast action sequences where you can’t tell what’s happening and who’s hitting who. It’s all over the place and hard to follow. I could do with out it.
but again, i guess it’s what some movies need. I just wish they would quit it with bond. Bond is not supposed to be borne. end of story
Posted by Rick on July 6th, 2009I couldn’t stand the fight scenes in Batman Begins… the camera was a little shaky, but the really bad thing was that the camera was zoomed in and all you saw was arms and legs thrashing about. The actual fighting looked good on the zoomed out ‘making of’ feature, so why did they have to ruin it, they could have achieved the same effect by zooming in on two high school kids having a brawl.
Posted by Duke Togo on July 6th, 2009Please Stop Shaking the god damned camera!!!
For me, it goes beyond style or story or budget concerns. Shakey Cam is KILLING my movie experience for one simple reason: it makes me physically sick!
And I love movies. I love horror (no REC), action (Bourne, et al), and really all good movies. Yet I can not go to the theater and enjoy myself. Half-an-hour in I start to wonder why I am so unhappy about the movie. My skin is all wet and I can’t sit still. And ten minutes later I am about to hurl on the floor.
Please please! Directors everywhere, just tell the damn story without all the shaking!
Posted by ShakytheClown on July 8th, 2009Falsk that board room scene that you mention, I’m pretty sure you’re thinking of Hancock, near the beginning when Jason Bateman pitches his logo to a company. By the time I saw Hancock I already hated Shakey Cam with an undying passion, but that one scene nearly made me get up and leave the theater.
One guy standing, pitching an idea to a bunch of seated businessmen and the Director has decided that this should involve the screen bobbing up and down, and the camera zooming in and out as Bateman talked. It’s not like there was (nor meant to be) any drama in that scene.
Sometimes people try to convince me that Shakey Cam makes it more realistic, but I don’t buy that excuse. If I go jump on a tramp-o-line, my field of vision doesn’t match a shakey cam clip from a movie, because your vision stays stable.
Posted by Phlux on July 9th, 2009This looks cool so far, what’s up people?
If there’s anyone else here, let me know.
Oh, and yes I’m a real person LOL.
See ya,
Posted by BlueHornet on July 17th, 2009I find shakey Cam the absolute worst thing from the movies ever. It disturbes me and I cannot stay in the movie no matter what kind of scene. I hope this horrible trent stops very soon again. Luckely I hear more people complain.
Posted by Jan Valk on August 6th, 2009After reading reviews and watching trailers on my PC, I was psyched about seeing The Hurt Locker, which turned out to be another shaky movie. What the hay? I didn’t remember the trailers as being shaky. Oh wait, the trailers I saw on my PC was probably no more that 6 inches across and the shaky cam seemed negligible. However, on the giant theater screen, even the tiniest shakes in the camera is noticed by the eyes, which then automatically work with the brain to smooth out the image. The key word is work. Thirty seconds into a shaky scene and my eyes needed to rest and the only way to take a break is to close my eyes for a while. Wait a minute. I am not going to close my eyes for an extended time at a movie, at something I wanted to see and paid to see. So I toughed it out, all the while wishing the camera would stop from almost constantly shaking, panning, zooming, and I left the theater with a big headache. Shaky cam hurt The Hurt Locker. This is a movie I would have watched multiple times and then buy the Blu-ray when it’s released.
Posted by siwallace martin on August 7th, 2009The Shakycam plague gives me the resolve I need to resist paying $9.50 at the theater. If a new movie’s reviews mention any shakycam at all, I just wait until it’s free on cable, record it to DVR, and fast-forward thru the shaky parts and the commercials too. Zero revenue for the Shaky-ShitHead Director: customer satisfaction guaranteed.
Posted by Dave Andersen on August 9th, 2009Adobe has software to eliminate Shakycam: see http://videosift.com/video/New-technique-to-make-shaky-cam-videos-stable. What we need is to unshake every new shakyfilm and post the “Unshaken Version” on filesharing networks so the Shaky-Shithead Director gets deprived of income. They may be stupid but they’ll get the message eventually: “Shake This, Mr. ShakyCam Shithead Director.”
Sign online petition at
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-the-shaky-cam
If, this trent of shaky cam movements don’t go away. (I hate it with all my guts!!!) It would be a great idea to rate a move fore its intensety and frequency of cam movements Like the PG , R ratings. A movie like the Kingdom, cloverfield , Hankock and now District 9 for that matter…rated PN what stands for: rated Puking and/ or nausea.
Posted by Fernando Luidens on August 15th, 2009This all started with that dam movie the blair wihch project if you ask me….
Today, I walked out of District 9 after 45 minutes. I was seated in the 3rd row and the shaky cam was making me nauseous. It didn’t help that it was shaky cam of some nasty looking ‘prawns’.
It’s one thing to use this technique in specific instances to heighten a scene’s intensity. But, I can’t sit through hours of it.
Posted by Mike on August 29th, 2009I’m not bothered by “shaky cam” and I think it helps in some movies. When I first heard of people getting sick watching The Blair Witch Project I had to laugh.
Posted by Tomas on August 30th, 2009Shaky cam ruined what otherwise appeared to be the best action/fight sequencing ever performed: the Bourne trilogy. The shaky cam absolutely ruined those fights scenes, absolutely reuined them.
Posted by Will on September 9th, 2009Shaky cam and rapid zoom is the worst thing that could happen to a movie.
Look at the new “Star Trek”. They used it there at every 2nd scene and even forgot to switch it off in steady scenes, like the one where in the pub there is a fight, and then an interview, eveyone is sitting, but the camera goes crazy.
Look at “District 9″. Totally ruined the film. I also had to go out of the room to empty my stomack, although I were surprized by the one scene where the camera was fixed to the gun. that was a good idea. the rest was just bad.
Look at “I am legend”. Total disaster. If he is alone, then who the hell can carry that stupid camera??? then why is it shaking???
I think that I am not alone. 10% of the Sci-Fi and Fi fans are afraid to go to the movies because of this stupid camera shaking trend of hollywood. I gave it a try, and it made me physically sick for days.
Shaking is OK if it is used _very_ conservatively.
Normally the human eye stabilizes in 2 dimensions and also via turning the eyeball!! it always focusses on something even in fights. the human brain normally can only cope with stabilized scenes.
On 3D computer shooter games there is a big red “Warning!” stating that the movemen can cause illness and epilepsia etc. So why dont they do it on these movies? I insist on it!!!!
Posted by Asteri_x on September 15th, 2009I turn off all shaky-cam movies now. First five minutes of the movie if the camera is shaking like some voyeur with Parkinson’s I just switch off the movie and send it back to Netflix with a 1 star rating. Why even put movies in high definition if you’re going to make it look like it’s shot by somebody having a seizure? I hate Hollywood more and more each year.
Posted by JP on October 2nd, 2009there needs to be a shaky cam warning website. i truly love cinema, but i will never ever again knowingly pay money for a film using this tired, cheap, and nauseating tactic.
Posted by rowdy on October 10th, 2009Personally, I’m over shaky cam. I think it ruined Transformers : Revenge of the fallen, espcially in a theatre – it also ruined Gamer. It’s rarely ever done right, how can nausea ever be done right. Eeew, fuck you shaky cam! Fuck you hard!
Posted by Phrakture on November 6th, 2009No no no! I for one absolutely hate shaky-cam for any reason. The only examples where it is just about justified are things like Saving Private Ryan in the battle sequence at the begining- but then I stress it -get’s away with it- I didn’t like it. Used at all is too much IMHO, but used to hide bad fight choriography (Batman Begins) is shameful. I watched Cloverfield in short bursts on DVD because I hated the camera work (aside from the syrupy love plot to glue it together). I just whish this fad for artificially making films look ‘real’ will blow over.
Posted by Mat on November 9th, 2009I don’t think it is just shaky cam that people are reacting to. I think it is shaky cam combined combined with ridiculously fast editing. I remember seeing “Batman Begins” and the fight scenes were completely disorienting. All shaky, fast cuts, close-ups but rarely pulling back and giving the viewer an establishing shot so you can get your barrings.
Posted by xego on November 9th, 2009Leave a Reply