spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Jul 26, 2017 14:44:52 GMT
The proliferation of meaningless (that is unmotivated) camera movement has become too much the norm these days. Style for style's sake. And it's permeated television, too, with all the "shaky cam" nonsense where the camera never stops moving. All too often this "style" is just a way of masking the fact that there isn't a meaningful story being told. I also think it's a way of stimulating a mostly over-stimulated audience that needs more and more stimulation to feel satisfied.
There has always been camera movement, of course, at least since the 1920s, if not before. Murnau's The Last Laugh (1924), Milestone's All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Hawks' Scarface (1932), Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) and Pabst's The Three Penny Opera (1931) all have exceptional camera movements in them. The battlefield dolly shots in All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) are stunning, as is the incredibly long dolly shot in The Last Laugh (1924), which takes the audience from a top floor in a hotel, into an elevator and down, across the lobby and out into the street - all in one shot. Even Keaton and Chaplin used movement in a few of their films, way before the invention of the crab dolly in the 1940s - improvised and make-shift, but effective and ALWAYS done in the service of the story and not just for the sake of movement alone.
More recently, Bertrand Tavernier's film, A Sunday in the Country (1984), doesn't have one static shot in it. It's a ballet of beautifully choreographed moving shots, one after the other, in long, elegant takes. But the movement is organic to the story in every way. Another example is the marvelous Max Ophuls film, Letter From an Unknown Woman (1948) - again so many beautifully choreographed shots that convey the emotional truths of the story.
Only in recent times has camera movement become a means unto itself. And most of the time, in my opinion, films that have non-stop unmotivated camera movements would tell their stories better from a static or semi-static position. Visual style should support the emotional truths of a film. And when the camera never stops moving, I feel like I'm on a roller coaster ride, unable to grasp ANY emotional truth but my own annoyance and distraction. I want to learn something I don't already know. And for that, I need content, not just style.
Put another way, when style takes you out of the story, narrative filmmaking fails.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Kimble on Jul 26, 2017 15:14:52 GMT
And it's permeated television, too, with all the "shaky cam" nonsense where the camera never stops moving. All too often this "style" is just a way of masking the fact that there isn't a meaningful story being told. I also think it's a way of stimulating a mostly over-stimulated audience that needs more and more stimulation to feel satisfied. It's done to provide constant movement in talk fests like the Law & Order shows |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 26, 2017 15:47:35 GMT
The proliferation of meaningless (that is unmotivated) camera movement has become too much the norm these days. Style for style's sake. And it's permeated television, too, with all the "shaky cam" nonsense where the camera never stops moving. All too often this "style" is just a way of masking the fact that there isn't a meaningful story being told. I also think it's a way of stimulating a mostly over-stimulated audience that needs more and more stimulation to feel satisfied. There has always been camera movement, of course, at least since the 1920s, if not before. Murnau's The Last Laugh (1924), Milestone's All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Hawks' Scarface (1932), Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) and Pabst's The Three Penny Opera (1931) all have exceptional camera movements in them. The battlefield dolly shots in All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) are stunning, as is the incredibly long dolly shot in The Last Laugh (1924), which takes the audience from a top floor in a hotel, into an elevator and down, across the lobby and out into the street - all in one shot. Even Keaton and Chaplin used movement in a few of their films, way before the invention of the crab dolly in the 1940s - improvised and make-shift, but effective and ALWAYS done in the service of the story and not just for the sake of movement alone. More recently, Bertrand Tavernier's film, A Sunday in the Country (1984), doesn't have one static shot in it. It's a ballet of beautifully choreographed moving shots, one after the other, in long, elegant takes. But the movement is organic to the story in every way. Another example is the marvelous Max Ophuls film, Letter From an Unknown Woman (1948) - again so many beautifully choreographed shots that convey the emotional truths of the story. Only in recent times has camera movement become a means unto itself. And most of the time, in my opinion, films that have non-stop unmotivated camera movements would tell their stories better from a static or semi-static position. Visual style should support the emotional truths of a film. And when the camera never stops moving, I feel like I'm on a roller coaster ride, unable to grasp ANY emotional truth but my own annoyance and distraction. I want to learn something I don't already know. And for that, I need content, not just style. Put another way, when style takes you out of the story, narrative filmmaking fails. I agree. If camera moves dominate over story, a director has failed, and "shaky cam" is always obnoxious. Before its advent there was way too much Steadicam usage. Its advent was a great advance in cinematography, allowing shots such as continuous takes that had been difficult to obtain previously. But it became over-used. Just because a tool exists, it doesn't have to be used in a gerat number of shots. I feel the same way about CGI, it can be used to do some very interesting shots with the audience unaware there are watching an effect. My favorite is in "Notting Hill" ...very seamless shot with changing seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 26, 2017 16:04:51 GMT
In the wise words written by Charles Schnee (as spoken by Ivan Triesault as director Von Ellstein) for The Bad and the Beautiful, "I could make this scene a climax. I could make every scene a climax. But then I would be a bad director."
That sentiment translates equally well to the subject of camera movement: when there's nothing but movement, no individual one means anything. It's rather like a symphony consisting only of crescendo. When every shot is accented with visual flourishes of tracking, dollying, swoops and swirls to enliven even the most mundane action or dialogue, the effect of what should be dramatically emphasized is diluted, rhythm and pace are sacrificed and - ironically - the result of injecting visual "interest" for its own sake is monotony.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 26, 2017 17:34:12 GMT
In the wise words written by Charles Schnee (as spoken by Ivan Triesault as director Von Ellstein) for The Bad and the Beautiful, "I could make this scene a climax. I could make every scene a climax. But then I would be a bad director."And I don't remember that quote, but it's a great one, and, oh, so true. Of all the "films about films," The Bad and the Beautiful imparts more educational film philosophy than any I can think of. This exchange, for example: JAMES LEE: "I don't think you understand. The boy's going away, probably to be killed! So when the mother speaks..."JONATHAN: "She doesn't speak. We move the camera in close. She opens her mouth, but is too emotional to speak. What she feels, we'll let the audience imagine. They'll imagine it better than any words you or I could ever write."
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Jul 26, 2017 17:58:43 GMT
My favorite 'camera movement' story:
REBECCA -- back at Manderley one evening Maxim is showing his new bride the home movies of their honeymoon.
'Oh look,' he tells her -- 'here's where I put the camera on the tripod.'
On the screen he snuggles next to her on the blanket spread out on the grass -- and the camera dollys in for a romantic closeup.
Hey Hitch -- who's moving the tripod in on them???
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jul 26, 2017 18:09:49 GMT
A Fish Called Wanda 1988, DVD commentary track by John Cleese, ha says that the director, Charles Crichton, teached them how to use a camera effectfully and where to place a camera so you have to move the camera as little as possible, so the story has as much movement as possible without having to use too many cuts. It is like that in many scenes, it's just very few camera movements in many key scenes, just a little swing to the right or left.
Dark Passage 1947, The camera is the eyes of Humphrey Bogart as long as he is in bandage, it's pretty amazing how they did it, since cameras were very heavy back then. Lady in the Lake 1947 where the camera is Robert Montgomery's eyes, used it in the same way.
The High and the Mighty 1954, the simple use of waving the camera back and forth slowly to simulate that the airplane is up in the air.
The above was just a few examples I came to think of. Smart use of camera movements are good.
I too, is deadly tired of shaky-cams.
One thing I also think is a component why there has to be too much editing and hysterical camera movements nowdays, was the coming of music videos and MTV and similiar music channels, when much music were sold, not always for the music in itself, but because many thought the video's were "awesome".
I remember many years ago after having watched so many movies with hysterical editing and camera angles, I watched Anchors Aweigh 1945, it was such a relief for the eyes, I even wrote about it on old Imdb.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Jul 26, 2017 18:11:51 GMT
My favorite 'camera movement' story: REBECCA -- back at Manderley one evening Maxim is showing his new bride the home movies of their honeymoon. 'Oh look,' he tells her -- 'here's where I put the camera on the tripod.' On the screen he snuggles next to her on the blanket spread out on the grass -- and the camera dollys in for a romantic closeup. Hey Hitch -- who's moving the tripod in on them??? Okay, matt. I haven't seen this film in ages, so I'll show my ignorance here: Is this true or are you having some fun with me? |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Jul 26, 2017 18:13:49 GMT
When have I ever had fun with you, Spider? (OK, there was that one time in Tampico).  Nope, that really occurs in the film. I'll see if I can track it down for you. |
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Jul 26, 2017 22:40:39 GMT
spiderwort
Absolutely true. David Lean said something about "the audience should never be aware of technique"
Doghouse6
I love The Bad and the Beautiful. A prime example - Schindler's unnecessary long speech to his workers at the end of the movie. Spielberg should have heeded Jonathon Shields' advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Jul 27, 2017 15:44:27 GMT
...smooth camera movement is fine with me. On the other hand, the herky jerky camera work in films like Blair Witch Project sucks...
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 27, 2017 17:40:42 GMT
If it's something like a found-footage movie or certain types of war films, I'll allow it and adjust my brain to it. Otherwise it's very distracting and obnoxious if I'm watching a drama or something but the cameraman is acting like a crackhead having a stroke.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jul 29, 2017 19:03:44 GMT
You make some excellent points spiderwort. Shakycam has ruined so many horrors in recent times, as has a proliferation of coloured lighting, or lighting so poor it can't penetrate darkness, things which either draw attention to themselves or unnecessarily obscure the action unfolding on screen.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, some workaday directors seem lazy and uninspired to me when they insist on shooting everything with a static camera taken around eye-level. Works can appear stiff and stagey with no movement although some filmmakers turned the tableaux style into an artform by using it to their artistic advantage, Tod Browning being an example. It all depends how you want to tell a story.
I think it was Alfred Hitchcock who said directors are like that naughty kid peeping through the window to spy on their neighbour undressing. It's perhaps unwise to admit such things but there are male directors who like shooting women from different angles because they're mesmerised by their shape, movement and physical allure, it's like they're hardwired that way. This can have a good side though; it encourages directors to explore the visual form. The same can be said of a director shooting an exotic island or a stunning vista, there's so much beauty before you, why wouldn't you be at least curious to reposition the camera and capture this in different ways.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Jul 31, 2017 0:06:23 GMT
At the opposite end of the spectrum, some workaday directors seem lazy and uninspired to me when they insist on shooting everything with a static camera taken around eye-level. Works can appear stiff and stagey with no movement although some filmmakers turned the tableaux style into an artform by using it to their artistic advantage, Tod Browning being an example. It all depends how you want to tell a story. Well said, petrolino, and I agree completely. I especially appreciate the paragraph above. Elia Kazan once said that a script was architecture, and I agree. I also believe that film is architecture, comprised of many different building block elements. And just as I disapprove of those who use style for the sake of style, I also disapprove of those whose work is stagey, stiff, and always at eye-level. That's just plain bad (or at the very least boring) directing. But, as you say, the tableaux style can be turned into an art unto itself by the use of static shots with varying heights and interesting compositions. Browning is certainly a good example of a director who did that well. And John Ford at his best was a true master, imo, utilizing remarkably well designed static shots married to complimentary static shots with different heights and stagings that when edited together became a beautiful architectural tapestry with an endless flow of movement even though the camera never moved in any shot.
It does depend upon how you want to tell the story. But I do think it's important to have a clear style when directing - just as long as it's not style for style's sake.
Thanks for your most interesting comments. |
|
