Why I'm sick -- literally -- of shaky handheld cameras
This article from last year discusses my least favorite aspect of modern films: the shaky handheld camera. I really, really, really wish ALL filmakers would stop with this technique. I don't care if you're producing a $300 million dollar Hollywood blockbuster or a $300 indie flick, buy a fucking tripod. The shaky handheld cam technique has become tired, annoying and almost self-parodying. When I see it in a trailer, I think the director and cinematographer lack imagination and, for some reason, deliberabtely want to alienate the audience.
Why I'm sick -- literally -- of shaky handheld cameras, by Graham Milne, 3/26/2012
Like millions of others, we went to see The Hunger Games this past weekend. I haven't subscribed to the phenomenon (the premise of kids forced to kill each other for food strikes me as a tad dark for the age group it's appealing to) but it's good to see a strong, brave and loyal heroine who isn't unrealistically pretty or overly unfeminine, or dependent on the obsessive love of an emo vampire. With that in mind, bravo to Katniss Everdeen, her creator Suzanne Collins and her performer Jennifer Lawrence. Congratulations are also in order for writer-director Gary Ross, who doesn't make movies very often but usually crafts a thought-provoking tale when he does (Dave, Pleasantville). And healthy kudos to all involved in putting together an entertaining if surprisingly low-key adventure. My only major complaint is, did the camera have to be so damn shaky throughout the whole thing?
Hand-held camera work has been popular among filmmakers for some time. I first became aware of it when NYPD Blue premiered in the early 90s -- couldn't figure out why the camera couldn't stay still! From a critical standpoint, letting the camera bounce around invokes the realism of documentaries, placing the audience member in the middle of gritty, cheap life and death, not in the safe, million dollar air-conditioned artifice of a soundstage. "Shakycam" in Saving Private Ryan helped to convey the rawness and bloodiness of the D-Day invasion the way the bolted-to-the-floor approach of the 60s John Wayne war epics didn't. And low-budget horror movies like The Blair Witch Project use shakycam to build tension so that those of us watching feel as unsettled as the characters wondering if the axe murderer is lurking beyond the doorway.
But there is a major difference between being creeped out by a movie and contracting motion sickness from it. The first hour of The Hunger Games had me longing for a barf bag -- which I'm certain wasn't the intention of Gary Ross or his director of photography. (Luckily once Katniss and Peeta reach The Capitol the camera settles down a bit.) I could not watch at least half of The Bourne Ultimatum in the theater -- I remember sitting there staring at the back of the seat in front of me hoping my stomach would calm down. And Blair Witch made me so ill I had to walk out of the theatre twice -- and I was 13 years younger then. As the sensory experience of movies intensifies via surround sound, digital projection and 3D, the more shakycam messes with our inner ears, and the more difficult it is to sit through a movie without tossing the candies you just scarfed down. My question is -- when the moviegoing experience has become miserable enough with phones going off and audience members yakking at each, do we have to add nausea to the reasons to stay home?
|by Anonymous||reply 28||01/06/2014|
Shakycam even pops up where it's genre-inappropriate. One of the worst recent offenders was Public Enemies, Michael Mann's tale of the pursuit of John Dillinger starring Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. Mann chose to shoot a 1930s period piece on digital video with plenty of 2000s shakycam. As a result, I never believed I was in the 1930s -- I was watching a reality show with a bunch of celebrities playing cops and gangsters. I can't imagine actors are very fond of it either, particularly if they're trying to convey nuanced emotional moments with the camera zipping around their face like a drunken mosquito. One of the most beautiful elements of The King's Speech was that the camera work was almost invisible, letting you focus on the words and actions and reactions of the characters. The anchor of a stable camera helps to immerse you in that world because you forget the camera is there. If the aim of a movie is to give the audience an escape, then directors should not erect barriers. Shakycam does exactly that, even if it doesn't make you physically sick, by reminding you of the camera present in the room with these characters, and that whoever is operating it probably should have eaten more protein with his breakfast.
My friends and I made a no-budget, feature-length action comedy in our last year of high school, using my family's video camera. Fortunately one of my pals was able to procure a tripod, which we considered a godsend, because the last thing we wanted for our epic was the unprofessional look of an unsteady camera. Even in Hollywood, an unsteady camera used to be lambasted as the shoddy workmanship of a bad director. Now, hacks jerk the camera around to up their artistic credibility and are praised for a "realistic" approach. Personally, I'm tired of just hoping I'm going to make it to the end of the movie without my stomach leaping out through my mouth. I think it's time we thanked the shakycam and packed it off to the realm of the intertitle and other cinematic techniques long since abandoned. Either that or start selling Gravol at the snack counter along with the Skittles.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||01/20/2013|
r2, if getting pissed when I pay $10 to see a movie that looks like it was photographed by my 7 year old nephew makes me an eldergay, I'll wear the badge proudly.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||01/21/2013|
I can't agree more, OP. I get seasick watching that style, just awful.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||01/21/2013|
Ever see "Battlestar Galactica"?
The whole fucking series is shot in shakycam.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||01/21/2013|
Thanks for the warning, r5. It's also why I won't watch "Modern Family."
|by Anonymous||reply 6||01/21/2013|
OH, PLEASE, with the "eldergay" crap. I'm as elder as anyone, and so-called shakycam doesn't bother me in the least. The person I know who hates it most is in his 20s.
What a bunch of crap, "eldergays."
|by Anonymous||reply 12||01/22/2013|
I agree, OP. It is an overused, hackneyed camera "trick". It doesn't make me nauseous, it only annoys me. Lazy direction (and cheap too).
|by Anonymous||reply 13||01/22/2013|
I agree with the poster who said it does the opposite of what they are intending; the stupid epilepsy cam takes me out of the movie and only make me more aware of the camera and the spastic who's operating it.
Another thing that takes me out of the film is when they do that thing where blood splatter goes on the camera. It's not immersing me into what's happening, it's just highlighting the fact that this is being filmed and a camera guy is right there and ought to clean that obstructing blood splotch off.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||01/06/2014|
It's at the top of my list of things to worry about.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||01/06/2014|
[quote]That show with Porsha de Rossi is the worst I've seen of shakycam. It is exaggerated beyond any reason.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||01/06/2014|
You prolly don't like push button phones either. Get with the times.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||01/06/2014|
You sure are some delicate flowers. I don't even notice the difference and can't tell you, off the top of my hand, if the last movie/tv show I saw was shaky cam or non-shaky cam.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||01/06/2014|
Oh, fall into an outhouse pit, r19. It has nothing to do with age or "being hip." It's an aesthetic quality that is annoying, cheap, lazy and overused.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||01/06/2014|
Then you're not very observant, r20.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||01/06/2014|
I also don't notice. You guys always have to have something to bitch about.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||01/06/2014|
I think there are two reactions. Some people literally can't stand to be in the room or the theatre when shakycam is on. Others barely notice it, if at all. For example, I've never noticed it on Modern Family (though I haven't watched it since its second season). But I remember going to a theatre once with a friend, and he literally had to sit in the lobby while it the movie was shakycamming.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||01/06/2014|
r24, I had a similar reaction at "Captain Phillips" -- the shaky cam was so bad that I had a pounding headache and thought I was going to throw up. Seriously, it was that bad for me.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||01/06/2014|
I hear you, R25. We ended up leaving, my friend was so sickened by it.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||01/06/2014|
The "shaky cam" has become pretentious and stupid. As is the "we're making a documentary" comedy. As if anyone would sit and film the same subject for seven, eight years straight.
The studios need young talent to shake this shit up. We're really coasting on fumes at this point.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||01/06/2014|
I almost left "Man of Steel" in the first ten minutes, as Jor-El was nearly shaken out of frame, and Krypton hadn't even begun breaking up yet...
|by Anonymous||reply 28||01/06/2014|