Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Hand-held or sticks? What's your preference?

That's my real question, Kim. . .

. . . how easy is it really to intercut all of these different types of "motion" (or non-motion) shots? We pretty much shot all of "Works in Progress" on sticks, dolly, or steadycam. Only a few scenes were done handheld, and we did all of them handheld.

Anyway, I sincerely appreciate the input!

Stephen
 
Jeff Coatney said:
LOL! Poor girl! I wish she were a regular at studio screenings, maybe something could be done about the shaky camera syndrome.
Click to expand...

she was pregnant with our child and we were at a screening in hollywood. out of nowhere, the flick cut to a shaky dog POV cam and she barfed and passed out. we were removed from the mailing list.
 
Just a thought about any sort of trendy camera work; it doesn't seem to hold up any better than '70's fashions. I find movies with male actors wearing bell-bottom suits unwatchable. The too loud and inappropriate jazz music tracks don't help much either.

Not saying there's not a place for almost any sort of shot, but the "look at me" stuff doesn't stand the test of even a short time.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
I've had a bias against handheld ever since I saw The Bourne Supremacy, which made me really frustrated. I can't stand watching anything that shaky for that long. It doesn't make me nauseous, which I observed in a lot of other people in the theatre, but i just find it unnecessarily distracting. Steadier handheld I have a lot more patience for. The limited amounts of footage I've seen with a Red One on an Easyrig I've found very pleasing. Not as steady as a Steadicam, but much better than the majority of straight handheld I've seen.

Ultimately, I think it depends on the scene and the overall feel you're trying to achieve for the film. I don't think the mansion sequences in Eyes Wide Shut would have looked good if done handheld, and I don't think the majority of District 9 would have looked right if done primarily with a tripod/dolly/steadicam.
 
Wait... handheld doesn't just refer to trendy uber dramatic mtv crap right?
It can also mean "handheld" can't it? Like Herzog, Wong Kar Wai, Emir Kustirica, Spike Jonze and even parts of Stanley Kubrick films -cause if so, I love handheld. Most of the movies that are shot entirely locked down look even more amateur than ones that aren't afraid to utilize handheld. Unless you are living in the 50's.
It's dangerous to limit yourself so much just because you think something is a trend.
 
Handheld can be done well, and it can be done poorly. Yesterday I stumbled across "Parks and Recreation" which has a shooting style of:

1) Whip pan from something meaningless to a character in the scene.
2) Zoom in on them.
3) Wobble and shake a little.
4) Zoom in tighter on them when they say their next line.
5) Wobble and shake some more.
6) Whip pan or cut to another character, and repeat.

And that's what I really can't stand... a scene which is just some people standing or sitting around talking, and the camera whips around, shakes, and constantly does twitchy zooms as if constantly shouting "Ooooh! Look at THIS! Now THIS! I've got so much style because ADHD is trendy right now!"

The most recent well-executed and justified use of handheld I've seen would have to be Children of Men.
 
hand held doesn't have to stand for shakiness at all. I don't like shaky images, but I have found that if you film moving people--and I don't mean running but moving around--you're never troubled with hand held unless you do a really bad job. It's when you're filming interiors, buildings or people sitting still for a long time that you really need sticks; that's when a little shakiness starts to stand out.
 
Same here. Hate handheld, unless you're in the middle of a battle. If the audience notices "Hey, the camera's handheld," you've failed.

That said, I would consider shooting an entire feature on a Steadicam. And I would also consider stabilizing footage in post (big resolution is a big plus for that). But jerky worlds look sort of incompetent after a while.
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
That's my real question, Kim. . .

. . . how easy is it really to intercut all of these different types of "motion" (or non-motion) shots? We pretty much shot all of "Works in Progress" on sticks, dolly, or steadycam. Only a few scenes were done handheld, and we did all of them handheld.

Anyway, I sincerely appreciate the input!

Stephen
Click to expand...


I am sorry Stephen ...
Maybe my english isn't good enough to u derstand your question.
Did you or did you not shoot everything handheld aswell?
Although I am trying to get a filmmaker my own I had the honnor to play the main part in a movie shot by Frank Griebe (you may know him cause of "the perfume" or "the international". I had the chance to watch his work over two and a half months in front of his lenses and learnd a lot. I think I can say he mostly likes "steady/fluid" shots, but he does what the scene needs. And from time to time that's handheld or a mixture. Being educated by the classical thinking I once asked him the same question as you did: can you really intercut those different camera styles in one scene and he simply said: deffinetly. And after that I discovered the same thing.
One last thing... All the guys who complain about handheld should get a good operator IMHO
 
Stephen, I would say it depends how "unhandheld" the handheld looks in terms of the intercutting. As has been suggested, handheld following actors with a good operator doesn't draw attention to itself. Static shots handheld do. If you have static handheld shaking around, then intercut that with steady frame on sticks or dolly etc, it will look pretty inelegant. And probably draw unwanted attention to itself.

I agree Aric, no need to fear handheld. Just do it well, when appropriate. No need to fear sticks either. As Jaime says, there can be simplicity and power in the static frame with well thought out expressive movement within the frame -- and these days, even a certain bravery in allowing the audience to actually study a frame. It isn't necessary old-fashioned -- just as good grammer isn't. Or common decency.

Leo is right. Style for style's sake or trendiness -- is like bad fashion -- doesn't hold up. Of course a lot of cinema is not striving to last -- but to make a quick buck. Where respect for an audience is at a minimum.
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
What is your personal aesthetic? And when would you choose one style of shooting over another?
Click to expand...
Handheld is very amateurish and only to be used when there is absolutely no other "lock down" option. For those that think DoF is the be all and end all ... hand held is the mark of low budget, and erases all your DoF efforts.
 
Why all the hate for handheld? Some of the most influential, high budget, and successful films have been shot primarily handheld. When done right, the technique provides a sense of kineticism that can't be achieved using sticks. Like people have said before, its a tool that has a time and place.
 
I don't ever put any camera on sticks really. The only time it's mounted is either on a dolly, jib or steadicam, and it will always be moving.

I cannot stand locked off shots. I love the chaotic camerawork that goes into some movies. Star Trek is an excellent example of how drama can be shot using handheld or steadicam and be shaky. For teh close ups, a lot of them are wavering around a bit, and it works.

Not that we notice it, but when you're standing talking to someone, various factors in your body and your environment cause you to waver slightly. Life isn't locked off, so why should film be?

It's for that reason that I will always dislike Kubrick films. Kubrick films always have stylistic, very stable shooting, and a lot of things are done on wide shots for his films. That bugs me because he tries to make all his shots fairly perfect, and in doing that I feel it alienates the viewer.
 
Mark Collins said:
It's for that reason that I will always dislike Kubrick films. Kubrick films always have stylistic, very stable shooting, and a lot of things are done on wide shots for his films. That bugs me because he tries to make all his shots fairly perfect, and in doing that I feel it alienates the viewer.
Click to expand...

Different strokes for different folks, but this is incomprehensible to me. How does perfection alienate the viewer/listener/whatever? Does the "perfection" of Mozart's music make it unable to effect you emotionally? Beethoven's? Or the technical perfection of Renaissance artists?

There seems to be a feeling or misconception among people that I know that a lack of polish, or professionalism, somehow imparts a deeper sense of humanity to a film. Real human feeling isnt achieved through a lack of effort and perfectionism - it achieved by mastering the medium to such an extent that it is no longer a medium, but a direct, unfettered representation of the human soul. You dont achieve that by just taking the camera off of the sticks, or by winging it and being lazy about composition.

Not that a looser appearing style is any less valuable - Look at the work of Rothko - I personally find it very powerful. On the surface it seems simple, like a child could do it - but a lifetime of dedicated study and craft lie behind each piece, and hours and hours of labor, layers and layers of paint make up each one. It looks haphazard, but I think its as true as an expression of the soul as, say, Brahm's Clarnet Quintet in b minor, which is of course ordered and perfect.

It seems absurd to me to write off a brilliant artist because his technique involves some stable wide masters that you currently find boring. I guess Im ranting. I hope I havent offended anyone with this tirade - I find myself overpassionate about art sometimes. And to each his own - I'm not under the impression that my opinions are the only valid ones.
 
Andrew Wilding said:
Different strokes for different folks, but this is incomprehensible to me. How does perfection alienate the viewer/listener/whatever? Does the "perfection" of Mozart's music make it unable to effect you emotionally? Beethoven's? Or the technical perfection of Renaissance artists?

There seems to be a feeling or misconception among people that I know that a lack of polish, or professionalism, somehow imparts a deeper sense of humanity to a film. Real human feeling isnt achieved through a lack of effort and perfectionism - it achieved by mastering the medium to such an extent that it is no longer a medium, but a direct, unfettered representation of the human soul. You dont achieve that by just taking the camera off of the sticks, or by winging it and being lazy about composition.

Not that a looser appearing style is any less valuable - Look at the work of Rothko - I personally find it very powerful. On the surface it seems simple, like a child could do it - but a lifetime of dedicated study and craft lie behind each piece, and hours and hours of labor, layers and layers of paint make up each one. It looks haphazard, but I think its as true as an expression of the soul as, say, Brahm's Clarnet Quintet in b minor, which is of course ordered and perfect.

It seems absurd to me to write off a brilliant artist because his technique involves some stable wide masters that you currently find boring. I guess Im ranting. I hope I havent offended anyone with this tirade - I find myself overpassionate about art sometimes. And to each his own - I'm not under the impression that my opinions are the only valid ones.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, and yes, every shot in a Kubrick film is extremely beautiful and deliberate.

But too me, it's too deliberate. It's far too perfect, and it let's you know instantly you are watching a film.

Look at the opening sequence of Star Trek where Kirk is born. That's for more emotion invoking than any Kubrick film I have ever seen. There are no static shots, there's little imperfections, such as the lens flares all over the place, and the camera tends to shake a lot. However, that whole part of the film is extremely dramatic, and definitely much more engaging than any Kubrick film. There's more humanity there, because it feels more organic and natural, it's more chaotic.

Kubrick films have a lot of chaos in them. There's tons of conflict, but doing almost everything on wide shots or with slow dolly and steadicam shots, with few close ups takes away from that really. Full Metal Jacket has a decent battle near the end of it, but because of the way its shot, it doesn't invoke the chaos of war. It simply feels far too forced, far too unnatural.

i mean, his style is suited for say The Shining, which is an excellent film, and there needs to be a lot of tension, a lot of things in the background that aren't quite right. And it works for that film, but for Full Metal Jacket, it doesn't work because FMJ is far more chaotic.

So, really, I find moving shots such as steadicam shots, dolly shots, and jib shots, or handheld/shouldermount are far more interesting than simple wide shots and slow camera moves. I enjoy having that little bit of wiggle there to give it that little extra bit of imperfection that is far more engaging.
 
Mark Collins said:
I get what you're saying, and yes, every shot in a Kubrick film is extremely beautiful and deliberate.

But too me, it's too deliberate. It's far too perfect, and it let's you know instantly you are watching a film.

Look at the opening sequence of Star Trek where Kirk is born. That's for more emotion invoking than any Kubrick film I have ever seen. There are no static shots, there's little imperfections, such as the lens flares all over the place, and the camera tends to shake a lot. However, that whole part of the film is extremely dramatic, and definitely much more engaging than any Kubrick film. There's more humanity there, because it feels more organic and natural, it's more chaotic.

Kubrick films have a lot of chaos in them. There's tons of conflict, but doing almost everything on wide shots or with slow dolly and steadicam shots, with few close ups takes away from that really. Full Metal Jacket has a decent battle near the end of it, but because of the way its shot, it doesn't invoke the chaos of war. It simply feels far too forced, far too unnatural.

i mean, his style is suited for say The Shining, which is an excellent film, and there needs to be a lot of tension, a lot of things in the background that aren't quite right. And it works for that film, but for Full Metal Jacket, it doesn't work because FMJ is far more chaotic.

So, really, I find moving shots such as steadicam shots, dolly shots, and jib shots, or handheld/shouldermount are far more interesting than simple wide shots and slow camera moves. I enjoy having that little bit of wiggle there to give it that little extra bit of imperfection that is far more engaging.
Click to expand...

Im curious as to how well versed are you in Kubrick's films. His movies are full of lens flares, wide angle hand held shots, fantastic dollying, etc. For example: The dolly through the trenches and the dolly war charge in Paths of Glory; The amazing, graceful and gravity defying camera work in 2001; flares, crazy hand held, slow motion in Clockwork Orange. I think he was a master of changing his style and composition to suit the emotional, dramatic point he was making. The long, perfectly slow pull outs in Barry Lyndon perfectly capture the ordered, inhuman and lonely world of the 18th aristocracy. The chaotic handheld and wide angle distortion of faces in Clockwork Orange are the perfect visual representation of a dystopian future where children run the world and find pleasure only in sensory and physical stimuli, primarily violence. The perfect symmetry and steadicam of The Shining seems to capture the fractured mental state of jack and also some sort of primal, evil element that lies under the surface. I dont think Kubrick was one to film every movie in the same fashion - He has hallmark, like any artist does - a stamp of his spirit, personality, genius, what have you, that is indelible mark on everything he did. But each film if approached differently and appropriately, I think. And as for him doing so much in wide masters - this mean that when he cut to a close up, it had tremendous power. Close ups of Malcolm Mcdowell from clockwork orange, and Jack Nicholson from the Shining, and of Hal 9000 (!) have become completely ingrained into the public consciousness.
 
If you're serious about "that little extra bit of imperfection that is far more engaging" you shouldn't be shooting on a RED! :biggrin5:
 
I'll echo the artistic choice sentiment. Don't ask for outside opinions, this is your interpretation, so make it your own! Instead, use this time to make informed choices that are justified by the material. Let the material inform each shot, each set up.

You will feel less doubt and confusion about your choices later when the "suggestions" start rolling in if you prepare well and can justify every one. You don't get that kind of confidence by taking generalizations as artistic direction. That has been my experience anyway, FWIW.
 
I'll concede that the handheld in Star Trek was fantastic. It didn't feel like handheld a lot of the time. The cameraman was phenomenal. Vibrations and judders were timed by the director personally, who drummed on the actual camera at specific times. It was a good approach that worked.

Good luck going after Kubrick on a filmmaking forum though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top