# Shaky Cam - Your Thoughts? (Forked Thread: The new Star Trek movie is...)



## WhatGravitas (May 12, 2009)

Forked from:  The new Star Trek movie is... 


			
				Arnwyn said:
			
		

> That twit Abrams love of the shakey-cam was also detrimental to the movie (I chuckle when I see that thread/Onion headline about the movie being "watchable". Heh... hardly, with that craphole cam!)



This stood out to me. Nowadys, shaky cams are actually pretty common in film and television - but what do people think of it?

I'll comment on my personal view a bit later, when some responses trickle in.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## EricNoah (May 12, 2009)

I'm agnostic (and non-voting) for now.  I would like to hear the theory of what shaky cam brings to the experience (what is it supposed to achieve)?  Same deal with lens flare.  What do these tools help communicate or imply, etc.


----------



## Rykion (May 12, 2009)

I voted it can sometimes ruin a movie for me, but it has to be very excessive to do so.  I would probably have hated _The Blair Witch Project _and _Cloverfield_ on the big screen.  In other movies it annoys me when it is used to cover the lack of decent fight choreography.

Recently, I often don't even notice it unless it seems overused.  I really didn't notice the shaky cam in the new Star Trek movie.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 12, 2009)

I did not notice shakey-cam at all during Star Trek, which I suppose means it was used well for my taste. On the other hand, frenetic cuts and shaking really turned me off to the fight scenes in Nolan's two Batman films. No other egregious examples jump out to me right now.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 12, 2009)

I think it has its place. I prefer a mix, I think.

I love large "beauty shots" where you see a scene from far and can make out what is happening everywhere. 
But to "feel" the action, the shaky cam works well, in my opinion. 

I think they did this mix pretty well in BSG. But then, I probably can't talk rational about that, since I love BSG.


----------



## Mallus (May 12, 2009)

My response to shaky-cam usually ranges from 'like' to 'do not mind'. It has its place. 

The technique is meant to suggest the film is really a documentary. It's actually happening and the camera operator is experiencing the violent action occurring in the scene; getting jostled about, often unable to focus on the proper spot.

It heightens the sense of realism (unless, of course, it makes you sick). It's the opposite of stately crane shots which glide over and above the action like the POV of a graceful, somewhat curious god.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 12, 2009)

I am not a big fan of shaky cam in general even if the motion doesn't bother me in and of itself. _The Blair Witch Project_ and _Cloverfield_ worked for me because the entire film was designed to be a first person camcorder perspective. Unless a particular shot is supposed to be first person camcorder I would prefer not to see shaky cam in a movie.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 12, 2009)

Obviously, since it was my quote, my vote is "Can sometimes ruin a film for me" (but heavy emphasis on the 'sometimes' - it can be effective if done well, as I do understand the intent to make you feel the action).

Unfortunately, in the past couple of years it has been very poorly done in a surprising number of movies - I chalk it up to lazy cinematography or general incompetence.

In ST, for example, I'd put it at the level of "annoying" - not _tremendously_ bad or anything like that, but definitely noticeable and definitely annoying, for my taste. A little goes a long way, I'd suggest.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 12, 2009)

I chose not caring either way, but only because it was the middle answer. Sometimes it's irritating, but like someone posted above, I didn't notice it _at all_ in the new Star Trek movie, so apparently they used it exactly the amount that I like.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 12, 2009)

It really defined BSG, and really helped set the tone for the series. There were only a few times where it got too showy.

As far as the best known shaky cam work (i.e. the two new Batman films), it was a good idea but was sometimes over the top and made things hard to follow. I still can't figure out exactly what happened to Bruce's parents.

Verisimilitude is critical to successful fiction. The Lord of the Rings books are often referred to as reading 'like a history textbook', but that is part of what gives them their impact-you feel like you're reading history.

Similarly, the shaky-cam gives the feel of a documentary. The apparently inferior and less clear technique can actually be an asset.


----------



## Pbartender (May 12, 2009)

Arnwyn said:


> Obviously, since it was my quote, my vote is "Can sometimes ruin a film for me" (but heavy emphasis on the 'sometimes' - it can be effective if done well, as I do understand the intent to make you feel the action).
> 
> Unfortunately, in the past couple of years it has been very poorly done in a surprising number of movies - I chalk it up to lazy cinematography or general incompetence...
> 
> ...A little goes a long way, I'd suggest.




This is awfully close to how I feel about it...

If used sparsely and appropriately, it can really enhance a scene.  But it's easily overused...  In recent years, it seems to have become a crutch and a cover-up for directors who want to show high action combat scenes, but can't seem to afford a good choreographer.

In Star Trek it didn't bother me too much...  The scenes in which it was used generally it made sense to use it.  For example, the fight scene on the rumbling, unstable, dangling platform high above the planet's surface, or on the bridge of the starship frantically dodging through a field of debris that keeps bouncing off the hull.  If the used too much more than they did, I would have gotten annoyed.


----------



## EricNoah (May 12, 2009)

I'm not sure I buy "it's supposed to feel like a documentary" as the main reason to use it.  In "Blair Witch" or "Cloverfield" sure, there was an actual camera _in the story _and it was acknowledged.  

In Star Trek, never once did I feel like it was implied that there was a cameraman in the room.  So ... I guess the technique is supposed to imply that the viewer _is_ the camera, so to speak?  If the camera is shaking, that's where I would be shaking because of the movement of what is going on in the immediate area?  I guess I can see that.  In the Kelvin battle, when the "camera" is kind of sucked outside the ship and it goes dead silent, that was pretty effective I guess - I kind of felt like I was pulled out there for a moment.  

Still not sure what lens flare is supposed to do, though - all it does to me is make me think there is a big piece of glass between me and the action.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 13, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> I guess I can see that.  In the Kelvin battle, when the "camera" is kind of sucked outside the ship and it goes dead silent, that was pretty effective I guess - I kind of felt like I was pulled out there for a moment.



This sums up how I think of it - a cinematic device to convey action and motion.

And in Star Trek (and BSG), I thought it was used pretty well and the film (and the series) would be worse without it. Hence I like the effect (as long as it is used in moderation, but that's true for everything) and think it's something that's probably going to stay in the repertoire of camera usages for quite a while (just like big, panning beauty shots of scenes).

And I have to say, in Star Trek, I knew it was there, but it didn't really register as being used - it was a pretty good use of it.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Pbartender (May 13, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> I'm not sure I buy "it's supposed to feel like a documentary" as the main reason to use it.  In "Blair Witch" or "Cloverfield" sure, there was an actual camera _in the story _and it was acknowledged.




It depends on the movie and the scene, to some degree.

Take a look at how it was used in Battlestar Galactica, for example...  

Typically, the shaky cam was used in the middle of a space battle, usually following the flight one or a few fighters.  The view of the camera would grope around for a bit, before lining up on the subject, and then zoom in and out and focus and refocus erratically for a second or two.  After all that, you'd be following the ship flying through space, with the small jitters of the shaky-cam bobbling it about a bit.  That is meant to emulate a tracking scope, to put you in the viewpoint of an observer trying to follow the action through a telescope or a pair of binoculars or something similar--it's what the crewmen the Battlestar itself might have seen if they were looking out a window.  It's also meant to remind us of the WWII gun camera footage you sometimes run across.

Onboard the starship Enterprise, a lot of the shaky cam work is a substitute for the old standby of rocking the camera back and forth and having everyone lean sideways, whenever the ship got hit.


----------



## Klaus (May 13, 2009)

I tried watching Cloverfield on the TV and nearly vomited from motion-induced nausea. So very little, very discreet shakycam for me.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 13, 2009)

I absolutely despised the shaky camera in the most recent Batman movie, and the shaky camera during action sequences in the later two Bourne movies made them almost totally unwatchable.

I really enjoyed Cloverfield, and any shakiness felt very natural and was an important part of that film. It wouldn't feel as natural and real without all that motion.

I didn't even _notice_ the camera shaking in Star Wars.


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2009)

I think shaky cam can be used well, but is more often used poorly.  And, these days, the technique is simply used too often.  Rather like 3D - it is being used in movies for which it simply isn't an enhancement.


----------



## frankthedm (May 13, 2009)

shaky cam is physically harmful to me. While i enjoyed Blair witch in the theater, the headache it caused me was sheer agony. I also have trouble playing a lot of FPS games for the same reason. 

By the time cloverfield rolled around, I had heard [here i think] Dramamine helped with shaky cam motion sickness, thankfully.


----------



## Dykstrav (May 13, 2009)

I actually work in the film industry, and from what I've seen, shakey cam has gotten popular (at least in part) because it's cheap. Cranes and dollies are expensive pieces of gear, so when a DP tells a production manager that they don't need one, it's music to their ears. Professional steadicam operators are also expensive--most shows won't hire a professional steadicam operator for more than a day or two. It also saves on labor costs, since having less gear means that the production needs fewer grips to manage that gear. It also allows the production to move faster since the crew isn't waiting on the grips to set up a dolly track or crane, and saving shoot time saves labor for every department.

Personally, I hate the steadicam look. Some people say that it's "more immersive," but it looks extremely unnatural. Our anatomy and visual acuity tends to make things look level and steady, even when our bodies are in frenetic motion. Take a quick jog around the block and look around at several different objects quickly--things don't look like shakey cam just because you happen to be moving or changing the focus of your attention quickly. Shakey cam looks like someone that can't hold a camera steady (and in professional films, looks like someone who is too cheap to hire a steadicam operator or get a crane or dolly).

In short, shakey can absolutely ruins movies for me. It looks unnatural and inexpensive, especially when someone on a multimillion-dollar film can't srping the greenbacks to rent a dolly. But then again, these folks are making multimillion-dollar pictures while I work on movie-of-the-week stuff and direct-to-video releases, so make of that what you will.

When I direct, I try to get classically-trained instituional mode DPs. I'm probably one of the few people in the world under the age of sixty that still shoots a master shot then breaks up the coverage... Most people my age don't even storyboard or come up with a shot list any more, they just show up and shoot "what feels right." That sort of attitude also contributes heavily to the use of shakey cam.

Lens flare is also gaining popularity, especially with shakey cam, because it makes convenient points to edit. You can cut from shot-to-shot around the lens flares and (theoretically) the flare is distracting enough that the audience doesn't notice the edit. I personally think of lens flare as a technical error, but it somehow seems to be a badge of honor amongst those seeking an "indie" or "young" look for their projects. People are even deliberately adding lens flare into CG scenes to make them "more realistic."

One last deal, as long as I'm griping about technical minutiae... The use of soft focus is also way overdone. Soft focus can be used effectively in a dramatic context, but using it all over the place makes it look like the DP or director didn't want us to see something in the background (at best) or that the 1st AC doesn't know how to pull focus (which makes the shot look cheap and amateurish).


----------



## Wombat (May 13, 2009)

For me a little bit of shaky cam goes a long way.

Originally it was used to give the "You Are There" feel -- look at late 60s/early 70s _cinéma vérité_ for that level.  Then came _The Blair Witch Project_ -- again, handhelds gave a "you are there" feel, a "reality" to an unreal situation...

...and now it is used so often that if merely feels like, "Oh.  They used shaky cam ... again.  Whatever."  Like many trendy ideas, handhelds have been overused to the point where they are ultimately a parody of themselves.  

So, let's cut back on them a bit, okay?  It's beginning to feel redundant.  As I said, a little bit goes a long way.


----------



## Agamon (May 13, 2009)

I didn't even notice it in Star Trek, so it doesn't bother me much.  BWP and Cloverfield didn't make me ill, unlike my friend (who tells me Cloverfield "sounded" like a good movie, but he couldn't watch it).

One movie that this is a problem for me is Gladiator.  The fight scenes pretty much ruined that movie for me.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 15, 2009)

Shaky cam doesn't make me ill - it makes me IRRITATED.  It goes hand in hand with lightning fast cuts and the two combined make it impossible to follow any action.  I'm no film editor but it sure does seem to me that it gives editors an excuse for being really bad at their jobs.  At the end of some sequences I can literally say, "Wow!  Something very frantic just happened.  I'd better pay attention now so I can figure out what it WAS!"

These are techniques that can be and have been used to good effect, but are indeed VASTLY overused.  There are far too many filmmakers who are so wrapped up in what they CAN do that they don't stop to think about what they SHOULD do.  Some movies are getting to be like staring into a strobe light for 90 minutes, but like others I'm either getting numb to it or it's actually used more tolerably in Trek, because I didn't notice it.  I was too busy enjoying the movie to ANALYZE it, so that says that for me at least it was actually working.


----------



## Dykstrav (May 15, 2009)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Shaky cam doesn't make me ill - it makes me IRRITATED.  It goes hand in hand with lightning fast cuts and the two combined make it impossible to follow any action.  I'm no film editor but it sure does seem to me that it gives editors an excuse for being really bad at their jobs.




In all fairness to editors... Many times, it's not their fault. It's usually the director or the DP. They don't want to pre-visualize or storyboard, they just want to show up the day of on the set and figure out how to shoot it when the production is spending multiple thousands of dollars per hour. Either that, or they want to achieve that look.

It's pretty common for an editor to not even be hired until about half the footage is in the can, then get handed a melange of clips and a copy of the script and be expected to make magic. "We'll fix it in editing," pretty much equates to "we're not going to deal with this problem right now." To top it all off, some directors are known for getting upset when a scene can only be cut one particular way because they didn't get enough coverage when they were shooting the scene. But that's what you get when you shoot something without a shot list...

Since most of the project's budget is spent during principal photography, editing can be one of those things where they're really trying to shave dollars in the eleventh hour. So not only will the project not have enough footage, but they'll hire an editor for only a certain number of hours and make sure that they understand that there's not enough money to reshoot something.

Sometimes, it _is_ the editor's fault. But not always. I've seen enough editors get handed a pile of footage with the expectation of a miracle that I have respect for them.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 15, 2009)

_Hate_ it. People go using that 'technique', and they've immediately lost another viewer/buyer here.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 15, 2009)

I despise the use of shaky-cam. I think it typically covers up bad film-making and does the opposite of what it is 'supposed to'



EricNoah said:


> I'm not sure I buy "it's supposed to feel like a documentary" as the main reason to use it.  In "Blair Witch" or "Cloverfield" sure, there was an actual camera _in the story _and it was acknowledged.




This is the point. In those two films you are supposed to be viewing it through a hand held camera.

Take drek like its use in transformers though. It ruined what immersiveness there might have been by putting you the viewer at one extra remove. It made the transformer fight scenes look like news footage rather than being there (and I think a good action film needs to put you in the action, so you feel like you are there. Transformers felt like I was watching a television report from a cameraman who was there).

Bottom line - don't say never, because there are some styles where it is appropriate (blair witch, cloverfield) and sometimes it is appropriate for parts of a film (take Aliens - the distinction between the bits we see as an audience and the confused melee which comes over on the marines headcams is effective and telling. I loved Aliens, but I wouldn't want to have seen it if the whole thing had been shaky-cam. The Michael Bay's of this world seem to have misunderstood its use for immersiveness in one particular genre (blair witch, cloverfield) as general immersiveness, when it actually does the opposite.

Regards,


----------



## Mallus (May 15, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> This is the point. In those two films you are supposed to be viewing it through a hand held camera.



Like it or not, its just a technique. Do all techniques need in-story justification? Consider a novel written in the closely attached 3rd person. Does the author have to specify that another character is following the protagonist around, writing down what they do and say? 

In a way, shaky-cam is a bit like a cinematic form of free, indirect discourse (when a 3rd person narrator starts to sound like the person it's attached to). The bodiless 3rd person POV behaves as if it were a character in the scene.     



> Take drek like its use in transformers though. It ruined what immersiveness there might have been by putting you the viewer at one extra remove.



Agree completely with this one.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Like it or not, its just a technique. Do all techniques need in-story justification? Consider a novel written in the closely attached 3rd person. Does the author have to specify that another character is following the protagonist around, writing down what they do and say?
> 
> In a way, shaky-cam is a bit like a cinematic form of free, indirect discourse (when a 3rd person narrator starts to sound like the person it's attached to). The bodiless 3rd person POV behaves as if it were a character in the scene.




The problem is not that 3rd person needs to be mentioned, it is that using shaky cam is like going from 3rd person to 1st person then back to 3rd person. In a book I would find it confusing if the narrative kept jumping between 1st and 3rd person without a justification. Its not that it can't be done, but when it is, it is mostly by stating some means like a diary entry or 3rd person omniscient stating that this is what is going on inside some person's head.  

Blair Witch and Cloverfield were the equivalent of 1st person throughout, while Aliens used the justification of helmet cams to show 1st person action in an otherwise 3rd person omniscient perspective. 

If a movie or a book wants to do a 2nd person observer perspective that is fine as well, but I would not want that 2nd person observer perspective to get muddled with a 3rd person perspective without some justification or demonstration of that 2nd person in the 3rd person view.


----------



## Mallus (May 15, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> The problem is not that 3rd person needs to be mentioned, it is that using shaky cam is like going from 3rd person to 1st person then back to 3rd person.



Yup. 



> In a book I would find it confusing if the narrative kept jumping between 1st and 3rd person without a justification.



I like tricks like that. Then again, when it comes to art, I freely admit I'm a sucker for tricks. Or rather, I view art as a bundle of tricks that produces profound responses when done right. 



> Its not that it can't be done, but when it is, it is mostly by stating some means like a diary entry or 3rd person omniscient stating that this is what is going on inside some person's head.



The most common form of this is the free indirect style I mentioned, when there's deliberate confusion between _who_ is speaking; the 3rd person narrator or the character?

Consider the difference between:

Marie left without saying another word. "How can she be so cold?" said John to the empty room.

and...

Marie left without saying another word. How can she be so cold? The room was empty. 

The first example is strictly 3rd person. In the second we start in the 3rd, slide into 1st, then back to 3rd. Happens all the time. A good chunk of the 3rd person novels since Flaubert (who's usually credited with inventing this trick) do this. 

Whether something like this, say shaky-cam, becomes a lasting _film_ technique is anybody's guess.

(sorry for the tangent... I've been thinking about criticism lately, thanks to a great --and short!-- book called [ame=http://www.amazon.com/How-Fiction-Works-James-Wood/dp/0374173400]How Fiction Works[/ame])


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 15, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I despise the use of shaky-cam. I think it typically covers up bad film-making and does the opposite of what it is 'supposed to'



I rather think a big problem is that some people _think_ it covers up bad film-making, just because it is a "trendy" technique, when, in fact, it rather exacerbates existing problems.

It's like CGI - when you don't really notice it, while still being there, the effect is working well. If you notice it, you've done it wrong (unless you're doing a film centred solely around it - like Toy Story was CGI incarnate, so is Blair Witch/Cloverfield shaky-cam incarnate).

Star Trek did it right, in my opinion, because it was there, helped to convey the action, without being noticeable.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> I like tricks like that. Then again, when it comes to art, I freely admit I'm a sucker for tricks. Or rather, I view art as a bundle of tricks that produces profound responses when done right.
> ...




Colour me an old fuddy-duddy but I find that second example extremely hard to follow. I would give up on any book very quickly if the writing style were like that.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 15, 2009)

Lord Tirian said:


> It's like CGI - when you don't really notice it, while still being there, the effect is working well. If you notice it, you've done it wrong




I agree - Jurassic Park was really excellent CGI work, as it seemed real. Forrest Gump was truly excellent because there were some scenes when it was only after the event that I realised that they must have used CGI because Tom Hanks just couldn't get _that_ good at table tennis.

I like the BSG 'hunting and focusing camera' effect in some of the space scenes because that is reasonably 'me looking through a camera', and it isn't overused in other situations.

I hated it throughout Bourne Identity 2 & 3 and it completely spoilt the films for me by making everything jerky and obscuring what is going on.

I've not seen Star Trek yet, I'm hoping that it is done well there - a number of people here seem to think so, and my hopes are pretty high as a result.

Cheers


----------



## Mallus (May 15, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Colour me an old fuddy-duddy...



How old are we talking? This style came into being around the middle of the 19th century . It's considered one of the hallmarks of the modern novel. A cutting edge literary technique it ain't. 



> I would give up on any book very quickly if the writing style were like that.



I'd bet you just don't notice it (when it's done right).


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> How old are we talking? This style came into being around middle of the 19th century .




Well there are accounts of me dating back as early as 1692. 




Mallus said:


> It's considered one of the hallmarks of the modern novel. A cutting edge literary technique it ain't.
> 
> 
> I'd bet you just don't notice it (when it's done right).





I don't read much of the modern stuff, and even Sci-Fi I haven't really bothered ready much past the 90s. I am not an English professor (unlike my father) and don't pay much attention to writing styles.


----------

