Looking for features shot (largely) with a stationary camera

[jpp]

"In the Company of Men"
"Millenium Mambo"

Mambo starts with a famous steadicam shot, but the vast majority of the film is on planted sticks.

Guys, I'm beginning to feel like the thread's dirty cop. "Mambo" was largely masters, no?

 

[Nick Gardner]

I missed the why part of this question. Why are you looking for this material?

Nick

 

[jpp]

I missed the why part of this question. Why are you looking for this material?

It's in one of the earlier posts. I'm looking for shot structures and editing rhythms which compensate for the [missing] dynamics of motion and reframing, as scenes play out and develop. Or to determine whether shot design and editing *can* compensate for lack of motion.

That's why films shot largely in masters aren't of interest here, whether on sticks or not.

 

[Nick Gardner]

hi,

I guess my question is more "is this an experiment to see if it can be done?" there are so many easy ways to add the dynamics of a moving camera to a film, I just don't see why one would want to deny themselves the story telling tools of a moving camera.

Cheers,

Nick

 

[jpp]

I just don't see why one would want to deny themselves the story telling tools of a moving camera.

For the same reason there are compromises on many other aspects of the production -- time and money. I think everyone has seen enough bad hand-held camera work, and bad steadicam can be worse than hand-held, which at least has the excuse of being hand-held.

So there is an incentive to find ways of suggesting motion, without having to achieve it, particularly when shooting with small crews.

 

[Liam Hall]

"Rope" is full of moves.

Oops, in my defence - it's way over twenty years since I saw that one.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Any period or nationality is fine, but I'm not looking for films shot largely or entirely with wide masters, or early sound films.

Sorry, jpp. I skimmed over this part of your request. :blush:

Yes, as you say, it's much harder if you exclude wide masters.

 

[Shawn Booth]

For the same reason there are compromises on many other aspects of the production -- time and money. I think everyone has seen enough bad hand-held camera work, and bad steadicam can be worse than hand-held, which at least has the excuse of being hand-held.

So there is an incentive to find ways of suggesting motion, without having to achieve it, particularly when shooting with small crews.

Okay, sure I can see your point here.... But how does this serve your story?

So you're fed up with over used hand held and whatever...
What about the story?

Time and budget are your motivations?

 

[Joe G.]

Chaplin.

 

[Liam Hall]

Chaplin.

Nope. All done in master shot.

 

[jpp]

Okay, sure I can see your point here.... But how does this serve your story?

So you're fed up with over used hand held and whatever...
What about the story?

Time and budget are your motivations?

It serves the story by getting a film made which might otherwise be impossible. Or which has great dollies but bad performances. Or, more likely, bad dollies and bad performances.

Good enough reason?

The fact that you need a story to make a movie doesn't mean that all you need to make a movie is a story.... Time and budget may not be motivations, but they're certainly sobering factors.

 

[Shawn Booth]

It serves the story by getting a film made which might otherwise be impossible. Or which has great dollies but bad performances. Or, more likely, bad dollies and bad performances.

Good enough reason?

The fact that you need a story to make a movie doesn't mean that all you need to make a movie is a story.... Time and budget may not be motivations, but they're certainly sobering factors.

I understand this - I was asking how lack of movement in the way you're after serves the story (besides getting the flick made). It was just a question.

And you're right, just because you have a story doesn't mean you can make a movie. However, when making a movie, all decisions should serve the story...
Time and budget ARE motivations... great ones that CAN lead to great things...

Sorry I couldn't help you here.

 

[jpp]

I understand this - I was asking how lack of movement in the way you're after serves the story (besides getting the flick made). It was just a question.

It serves the story by creating an illusion through technique for what the production can't afford. A crane might also serve the story, as would locking off Times Square or casting Daniel Day-Lewis.... But these are not options.

However, when making a movie, all decisions should serve the story...

One or both of us is having a bad day, I really don't get it.

 

[Nick Gardner]

You can have a fully functional dolly for a few hundred bucks, and it doesn't take but a few minutes to set up. If you are interested in discussing the options I'd be happy to help.

Cheers,

Nick

 

[Jason Murphy]

Not that this is necessarily what JPP's doing here, but as an aside, there's certainly no small value to placing seemingly-arbitrary artistic limitations on projects you're working on; properly done, it can force you to be creative in ways you otherwise might not think of, and really do the hard work of figuring out what best serves the finished product as opposed to simply working in the accepted, conventional manner.

Of course, in many cases, this can be necessitated by concerns of time or money. But it remains an important discipline at any budget level.