Handheld Shooting

[Jeff Coatney]

I just watched a new critically acclaimed film two nights ago that was shot with the now "standard shaky hand held camera". I've seen this device used to great effect in such films as "Children of Men" where it was brilliantly executed. Having said that, I feel that the time has come for this technique to pass into cinema history, where it can reside along with the unmotivated zooms of the early 1970's.

While I've seen this technique used effectively early in its lifespan, I think its safe to say that it has become a humorous visual cliché. In the film I saw, the erratic, documentary feel (the camera shake) was so disconnected from the action on-screen it felt as if the camera operator was simply repeating the same motion over and over again with each and every shot. It got to be so pronounced that I began to predict the movement of the camera. Was the operator simply relying on muscle memory to move the camera? Anyway, the actors were acting their asses off, in very tense situations, and the lame camera work was taking me right out of the movie.

I think that using a hand-held camera is great, except when it is overly rehearsed, self-conscious, needlessly shaky and repetitive. And it just doesn't work inside a vehicle at all. Does the cameraman only have one arm? It really calls attention to itself and it is no substitute for real tension in a scene. Honestly, if you aren't getting the tension and suspense out of the writing, acting and directing, is the camera movement going to help you? No.

Sub-consciously, the audience believes the camera operator is an unacknowledged character when they see the movie through the shaky hand-held camera. I think you ideally want the audience to feel that THEY are the unacknowledged character and that the camera is their POV. That's how its worked in movies in the past. I think the overly shaky, "news gathering" look, creates a distance between the audience and the world created in the film. The movement does call attention to itself and it can easily upstage the actors.

You know its been played out when every TV series on the air is using it. It was novel and new when it was used on Thirtysomething in the late 80's but come on, that was like 20 years ago. Enough already!

The preceeding rant is my own opinion and is not meant to hurt anyone's feelings, just an observation.

 

[Andrew Wilding]

I just saw The Hurt Locker the day before yesterday, and felt the same way. I thought the movie had some very tense, fantastic moments, and was generally very well done and shot. but every single shot being shaaaaaaaky handheld and frenetic little mini zooms brought me out of the picture fairly often. Especially in a scene where the lead goes into a shower to be alone and release some emotional buildup - the acting was great in the scene, but I couldnt help but think - Hes not alone! why is he crying with a news reporter filming him in the shower?

Contrast this with Children of Men or The Wrestler, to other films that were almost entirely handheld. I thought they did a great job of immersing you into the story and making you empathize with the lead character, largely through the camera work. It can work.

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

Sub-consciously, the audience believes the camera operator is an unacknowledged character when they see the movie through the shaky hand-held camera. I think you ideally want the audience to feel that THEY are the unacknowledged character and that the camera is their POV. That's how its worked in movies in the past. I think the overly shaky, "news gathering" look, creates a distance between the audience and the world created in the film. The movement does call attention to itself and it can easily upstage the actors.

I agree with this paragraph. I think it has become more technique than substantive as more people reference what has been done before. There are times when shaky works for making the viewer feel they are part of the scene, but it has to be motivated by what the unacknowledged character is doing, not just to create an unmotivated tension or to keep the camera endlessly moving for the sake of doing so.

Have to say that I like the "unmotivated" (your word) zooms of the '70s films now in retrospect. The seem almost fresh today by comparison of the overly referenced techniques that are pervasive in the last 20 years.

 

[Imran Farouk]

I didn't get the pleasure to see the hurt locker on the big screen but rather DVD,
the movie alone was good but I must agree,these shaky handheld shots in most of the films in the last two years has even caused some of my friends to walk out of the cinema,one such movie is cloverfield,I didn't mind it and don't mind these shits but it's come to the point where it's over used and sometimes seems as said "cliche",

time to move past handheld...only use it if it's needed for the story and the audience are going to understand and feel ok with it...

Just to add...I'm tired of being able to predict certain cuts and certain movie plots...but that's just me

 

[A. Clint Litton]

Which film did you recently watch that inspired this outpouring? Inquiring minds...

Agree with you, Jeff. Choosing handheld because the filmmakers believe it will inherently create tension. The belief that it can be applied across the board, working under any circumstances, within all genres. Maybe people think it will simply allow them to move through the day faster, and it's something that's been dictated in part by schedule and budget? Regardless of the reason, there seems to have been a major drop-off in craftsmanship and artistry, in terms of working out the visual design of a film with regards to shot design. Movement for the sake of movement is another played-out abuse, as if that magically ups the production value.

Please understand that I'm not suggesting that there haven't been any recent productions that have taken these matters to heart, that have been able to use the camera to great effect in contributing to the telling of a story. It just doesn't seem to be as much of a concern as of late to the great majority.

I can feel myself starting to get carried away, so I'll cut it short. But to anyone listening, when developing shots, especially with narrative work, it rarely hurts to ask the question "what am I saying with this frame?" There may not always be a clear answer, but asking it means that at the very least you'll be thinking about it.

Cheers,
Clint

 

[Sam Roberts]

It's always been gimmicky and amateurish looking and Joe Blow in the audience usually hates it..makes them tense and seasick. It has been use effectively in a few movies and many documentaries but I agree, I wish people would stop it already.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

With regards to Cloverfield specifically, I like the camera work. In that film, the characters are literally filming their experience, so the camera is not an unacknowledged character. I believe Cloverfield is a case where the "dirty" camerawork is warranted and actually improves the experience.

 

[DCC Erickson]

The more film I see and shoot, the more I appreciate a good master shot. The interminable face pops during a conversation can really get tiresome. And one well framed image can be very powerful. The moving camera stuff gets so arbitrary that I sometimes spend more time wondering what the hell the DP was thinking (or being told by the director) or what gear they're using to get the effect - and less time enjoying the movie.

 

[Andrew Wilding]

Have to say that I like the "unmotivated" (your word) zooms of the '70s films now in retrospect. The seem almost fresh today by comparison of the overly referenced techniques that are pervasive in the last 20 years.

Kubricks use of zoom was/is completely brilliant. His technique, the slow, incredibly steady zooms are unbelievably effective. Im surprised it hasn't been copied more extensively.

 

[Patrick Scheller]

... Especially in a scene where the lead goes into a shower to be alone and release some emotional buildup - the acting was great in the scene, but I couldnt help but think - Hes not alone! why is he crying with a news reporter filming him in the shower?

Yeah exactly, you either make it consequently to be a documentary-style or to switch visually between "real" and "doc". Kinda silly this shower scene, alas.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Kubricks use of zoom was/is completely brilliant. His technique, the slow, incredibly steady zooms are unbelievably effective. Im surprised it hasn't been copied more extensively.

I couldn't agree more. I've read that in Barry Lyndon especially, Kubrick liked the flattened perspective of zoom lenses because they reminded him of late 18th century and early 19th century paintings.

Kubrick personally shot some hand held for Clockwork Orange. His hand held shots do not have the artifice and sterility I see in contemporary work.

 

[Sam Roberts]

There is a very cool off the sticks sequence in the mid 60's B&W film Seconds starring Rock Hudson, directed by John Frankenheimer with James Wong Howe as director of photography.

It's been years since I've seen it but if I remember correctly Hudson, as an old man made young again, goes to a hippie party and suddenly feels disoriented...maybe he was stoned..don't remember....something like that anyway. Wong Howe put the camera on Hudson's shoulder or on his back shooting forward so you could see the side of the actors head as he did a POV shot walking around the party. It was very creepy and perfect for the psychedelic theme of that scene. I don't think anyone had attempted such a shot before.

If anyone ever wants to do a remake, Seconds is one I'd love to see updated. I believe it was Rock's only Science Fiction movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_(film)

 

[Sam Roberts]

if the link didn't work just type Seconds (film) in the Wiki search box

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Saw District 9 last night and noted the great handheld shooting. Clearly for me the delineation is the difference between an organic style and one that is obviously an affectation. You can really tell when the camera operator is just jiggling the camera for the sake of artifice, vs. organically handheld shooting.

District 9 had the added benefit of the acknowledged cameraman, which I'm finding helps keep the audience grounded in the reality. District 9 also changed from first person POV to third person which was noticeable as a narrative device. I also noticed that when they cut from the acknowledged camera on the ground to the aerial perspective of the helicopter, the cameraman was jarringly absent from the group. Not complaints, mind you, I enjoyed the film very much. I'm just pointing out aspects of the production which captured my attention.

 

[Rob Castiglione]

"You can really tell when the camera operator is just jiggling the camera for the sake of artifice, vs. organically handheld shooting. "

I think you have to do a lot of hand held work to get it right. A background in extensive documentary work can come in handy. If you have always operated on sticks I think it would be very hard.

I like the fluid hand held work in "The Son" by the Dardenne brothers. It is executed with an amazing kind of military precision.

 

[Rich Schaefer]

IMHO there is no right or wrong. As shooters we have many techniques at our disposal. Like hand-held, tilt-shift, green in the mids, 45 degree shutter and on and on. I like to keep all of them in my bag of tricks I pull out what I think the story needs.

What we choose to apply is the art of it!

I will say how you apply the art/techniques can be directly linked to how $ successful your footage is

Happy shooting!
Rich

 

[Rick Presas]

I know i would have loved Public Enemies a lot more if they had brought out a tirpod or two, and saved the hand held stuff for chases/high tension times.

there were times when there was simply no reason for the shake and it took you out of an otherwise pretty-good movie.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It's all art and open for interpretation. That said, I think the hand-held shaky-cam or "barf cam" is being over-used lately. It's the trendy thing to do and can be used to great effect when the story calls for it. But I think the real problem is that too often lately there are so many productions that are forcing this look to the point of it being totally unbelievable within the context used.

For Public Enemies, it was overdone, IMO, and I agree with Rick. For District 9 it worked pretty well. However, I thought many camera angles were annoyingly restricted and it had too much camera movement at times. They over-exaggerated the whole combat documentary aspect in terms of the camera work. Compare troop deployment and firefight combat footage in Iraq with District 9. While I think District 9 did a good job and they got the general feel of this to the audience, they missed the mark on the "realism" factor. ...Then again, the rest of the movie wasn't exactly grounded in reality either, so perhaps this was exactly the look they wanted and the moderately over-done documentary style was right on the money. Good movie though... I like it more each time I see it. Seen it three times now, yeah, I'm kinda strange that way.

 

[Charles Papert]

If you guys think it is tiresome to watch, I can assure you that it is beyond tiresome to shoot--I've spent countless hours and days shouldering 50 lb cameras both film and digital through endless takes of dialogue that could just as effectively have lived on the dolly. I've gotten to the point that when offered features or episodic series to operate that are described as "all handheld", I more often than not turn them down (politely!)

While I can come up with many examples of great use of handheld in recent years, there are many more that just seem to be following the trend in a self-serving fashion. It's becoming a cheap way to attempt to engage an audience.

While I'm at it, I'd really like to see a more elegant approach to shooting action than the uber-frantic camera histrionics and lightning fast cuts that continue to be in vogue also. I remember as far back as "The Rock" having no clue how a particular fight was resolved because I couldn't discern the action--punches barely connect before the next is thrown, bodies fly through the air, and on to the next bad guy. Couple that with the relentless handheld through every scene, and for me its an experience that evokes more confusion, motion sickness and ultimately indifference than any kind of real thrills or excitement.

I too am looking forward to whatever visual trend comes next; it HAS to be an improvement on this stuff!

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I'd really like to see a more elegant approach to shooting action than the uber-frantic camera histrionics and lightning fast cuts that continue to be in vogue also.

I agree completely. The audience needs some sense of spatial orientation in order to perceive how brutal the fights or how daring the stunts can be. What seems to be universally lost is the concept of cause and effect. We collectively wince not at the punch, but the impact. We need the repercussions to be fully explored visually in order to evaluate the power of the precipitating action.

There seems to be a fascination on the part of editors to obscure the real action beneath a subterfuge of rapid cutting, kinetics, and motion blur. Sometimes I feel like the movie stops for a juggling act to occur then restarts again.