do you think major movies look too good now?

[Robert Hart]

Maybe the first sign of the maturity of a technical product is when it does "not" appear on the tail of the end-credits with a bold logo but has simply been used as the tool it is.

However being a bit of a tech nerd, I do like to know what was used. So "Boxcameracam provided by Soandso Rentals" ( substitute real details ) is not such a bad thing to leave there to be read.

While I prefer any film to be faithful to the story and performances, I do get vexed when a project attempts to pass off plainly cheap or less than stellar technical work as "creative choice" which disrespects the story and the actors.

I'm apologise in advance to the creatives out there I may upset but I do place handheld shaky-cam in this category.



If it does not fit the context or a person's actual POV, it suggests to me that it is lazy or expedient film work driven by cost containment. Or worse, it is somebody with perhaps inapppropriate power and influence trying to show off and making a bad judgement call in doing so.



Our real world does not dance about as we watch others walk upon it. Our eyeball set and the brain's interpolative ability provide a fairly good image stablisation system when we toss our noggins about in the real world. Shaky-cam therefore is not faithful to reality except in special circumstances that plausibly serve the story. Given that I am a bit colour-blind and shortsighted, I am perhaps a bit more inclined to be less tolerant of anything that further gets in the way of the picture as "I" want to see it than most others. Visual styles I cannot therefore validly criticise or commend. I think my preference is the low-contrast moving artwork.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I still love Spielberg's filmmaking, because he still uses nice longer shots, that don't feel long because they move a lot. At the same time, he really uses blocking of actors well, in an old-fashioned way. I'm not a fan of how Peter Jackson often lets his camera fly like in a video game. It *feels* CGI, because you know a camera cannot fly like that. Sometimes it works, but often I think the movies should be more told, not from a CGI perspective, but from a human perspective, both in camera-placement and as in story focus, etc.

Thinking about this topic has lead me to these two guys as well as a few others. They are of a rare breed of film maker who can maintain control of the film through to the finish. They are among the few directors who can still claim authorship when the film hits the screen. They have created an identifiable brand of their own. The majority of other directors have to answer to the real author of the film; the studios, and they have more fine control over the look and feel of the product now than ever before.

The studios always put their mark on their films, and I'm not suggesting that is an inherently bad thing. As a couple of examples; I know what to expect from a Warner Brothers, or Fox film. Their brands are still identifiable to me to a large extent, but all of the brands are becoming rather dilute and there are too few of them. To make matters worse they all want to be in the Michael Bay business, or the Jerry Bruckheimer business, and with the modern DI at their disposal they are in a position where they can more closely emulate those looks across all of their films as they search for the sure thing.

Too few studios chasing the same look with the tools to copy one another in fine detail equals one homogenized product. Studio pictures are more commodity than art. If you want art go to an art house or gallery. :-(

 

[David Mullen ASC]

While I prefer any film to be faithful to the story and performances, I do get vexed when a project attempts to pass off plainly cheap or less than stellar technical work as "creative choice" which disrespects the story and the actors.

I'm apologise in advance to the creatives out there I may upset but I do place handheld shaky-cam in this category.

If it does not fit the context or a person's actual POV, it suggests to me that it is lazy or expedient film work driven by cost containment. Or worse, it is somebody with perhaps inapppropriate power and influence trying to show off and making a bad judgement call in doing so.

Our real world does not dance about as we watch others walk upon it. Our eyeball set and the brain's interpolative ability provide a fairly good image stablisation system when we toss our noggins about in the real world. Shaky-cam therefore is not faithful to reality except in special circumstances that plausibly serve the story. Given that I am a bit colour-blind and shortsighted, I am perhaps a bit more inclined to be less tolerant of anything that further gets in the way of the picture as "I" want to see it than most others. Visual styles I cannot therefore validly criticise or commend. I think my preference is the low-contrast moving artwork.

Sorry but I think this is a limited view of what cinema can be -- that it always has to be realistic or always has to be technically polished. You really believe that a technically rough-looking movie is always due to lack of skill being passed off as a creative choice -- rather than believe the possibility that it is an actual creative choice? Isn't that rather cynical? That every shakey-cam movie was actually trying to do smooth camera operating but failed and then lied and said the mistakes were deliberate? Or that a rough-looking movie like "The Hurt Locker" was made by lazy people, that they showed up on set every day trying to do a minimal amount of work and go home early? You really can't believe that technical roughness can be a deliberate choice made by an artist who feels that it best represents the story they are trying to tell?

Or maybe you are just suggesting that half the rough-looking movies are lying about why they are rough, I don't know. I think one can question a choice without assigning hidden motives to it.

 

[Robert Hart]

My comments may have been a little more broad-stroked than they should have been and perhaps should be aimed more at the moneymen than practitioners.



QUOTE: "Sorry but I think this is a limited view of what cinema can be -- that it always has to be realistic or always has to be technically polished. You really believe that a technically rough-looking movie is always due to lack of skill being passed off as a creative choice -- rather than believe the possibility that it is an actual creative choice?

No. I do not. When "shakey-cam" as it has been defined or floating handheld vision is not appropriate to the story and draws attention to itself, then I am moved to question why the choice was made. It may be a personality deficiency on my part and on reflection, probably is. However, once dragged back onto the cinema auditorium perch instead of remaining in the story zone, I find myself wondering why?



QUOTE: Isn't that rather cynical? That every shakey-cam movie was actually trying to do smooth camera operating but failed and then lied and said the mistakes were deliberate?

When I find myself observing the changes in respiration rate of the cameraman doing handheld static wides and speculating the cameraman was becoming a bit overworked, then for me it suggests an inferior choice was made by somebody.



QUOTE: Or that a rough-looking movie like "The Hurt Locker" was made by lazy people, that they showed up on set every day trying to do a minimal amount of work and go home early?

I do not pass that judgement on "The Hurt Locker" at all. The style was appropriate to the story and the environment it portrayed. It was only on a re-watch of the movie that I even noticed.



QUOTE: You really can't believe that technical roughness can be a deliberate choice made by an artist who feels that it best represents the story they are trying to tell?

Not in all instances but in some. I saw a movie on free-to-air TV a while back. There may have been creative decision. Extreme economy may have been imposed. If there was creative decision, it may have been one of applying the techniques you might have seen in the days of old live-to-air studio television drama.

Often it was two characters bouncing dialogue from near static positions. It then looked like a two-cam videoconference with zooms and pans on wides for continuous coverage. The style was not contemporaneous to the depicted times, the late 1800's.



QUOTE: Or maybe you are just suggesting that half the rough-looking movies are lying about why they are rough, I don't know. I think one can question a choice without assigning hidden motives to it.

It was probably an indelicate broad brush I was slinging around. However, what is right about a fixed wide shot of two characters, small in the shot, against a backdrop gently swaying in sync with the operator's breathing.

Is that driven by a creative choice, an impossible schedule to meet, impossible position in which to set up a camera support? - Any number of legitimate reasons may apply but if it pulls me out of a story, then it has not worked. I think I am fairly easy to please but maybe I am not.

All that said, it is not the crafters of vision I am always picking on. I am also rather cross when I find myself knowing more and more often these days, what the next respondent line is going to be word-for-word in dialogue. It is sometimes as if there is a raft of ready-to-use cut and paste choices parked on a second screen on the writer's computer.


And then I also become a bit cross when the voice audio has all the clarity of having been spoken from a jacketed armpit. On a multimillion dollar project, I think there are few excuses for that. Maybe its the actors, maybe its the recordists, maybe it is post sound? On "Slumdog Millionaire" when one who is a bit judgemental might have expected the voice audio to be subpar, the actor's dictions were as good as it gets and the audio recovery was too.



As for myself, I am very far from qualified to critique and complain as I am very much a one-handed grasper of the bottom rung of the skill set. It is very easy to be an armchair, - correction, - kitchenchair commentator.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Perhaps my critique of your post was also too broad, for which I apologize... It's just that what I am arguing for is visual diversity, which to some extent means allowing some things that might rankle one's aesthetic sensibilities or even, occasionally, show poor taste or judgement to many people, even to me... Because the alternative is worse, which is bland and blind conformity to rather conservative values of what constitutes a proper image. I also think that the majority of shaky-cam operating is a choice not driven by budget simply because it costs little to operate a camera smoothly.

 

[Robert Hart]

By "shakey-cam" I am probably misdefining. My vile gall was at much aimed at handheld work which seemed it should have been on a camera support as genuine "shakey-cam" as such. I concur with you on diversity. Modern digital tools offer so much to enable diversity. Maybe I am just too plain old, cranky and have seen too many films old and new. It is a good time for practitioners of all ages to be working and learning. It is always also fascinating to be on the verge of saying, we can't do this because -- and then have somebody who knows what is what say, yes we can and then make it happen with the apparent ease and confidence of putting marmalade on the toast.