Most Played Out Trends in Cinematography Today

[Richard Foster]

Andrew is right on. Cinematography, like music, editing, etc. should serve the story - not unnecessarily call attention to itself in any way. I am prepping for a feature now and have in my spare (LOL) time reviewing a few films by some of the great cinematographers like Conrad, Caleb, Vilmos, and Nestor. It may surprise you how seldom the camera moves, and when it does, it supports the frame.

BTW shaky-cam is the worst, and Friday Night Lights does have a lot of it - yuck!

 

[Mark Phelan]

To add to the nausea created by shaky cam, what drives me nuts is a camera constantly in motion that never stops on anything to focus one's attention. Just drifting through aimlessly, like a bad home movie rushing because there's only three minutes per side and it's imperative to get it all in.

 

[D Fuller]

Zoom went from bering an artistic choice to a lazy man's camera move

Yes. In 1978.

 

[scott william]

breaking bad has some of the most inspiring style i've seen in awhile. i love that show. everything about it, the music is very very cool also.

 

[D Fuller]

breaking bad has some of the most inspiring style i've seen in awhile. i love that show. everything about it, the music is very very cool also.

Wait. This thread is not about stuff you love. It's about stuff you hate. Take your love somewhere else. ;-)

 

[Mark Phelan]

Wait. This thread is not about stuff you love. It's about stuff you hate. Take your love somewhere else. ;-)

:thumbsup:

 

[Steve Gibby]

I also dislike many of the played out camera trends mentioned so far - except zooming, which has its place in certain situations and genres of production. Here are a few more played out camera trends IMO:

Shallow depth of field overused - when for many shot sequences deeper DOF may more effectively tell the story to the viewer

Accessories on cameras that aren't necessarily needed to get the shots - but they are basically on the camera to help the shooter feel like he/she is a "real" cinematographer

An over-reliance on technology and gadgets - at the expense of not using the core techniques of cinematography

Someone exclusively shooting RGB just because its always been their comfort zone - avoiding raw capture

Too much time lapse - at the expense of not learning and using more traditional camera techniques

Shooting 3D just for the sake of shooting 3D

Using heavy tripods all the time - thus reducing mobility

Not shooting for the edit - trying to fit round pegs into square holes

 

[scott william]

i meant to say breaking bad has a lot of handheld (shaky cam) but it works, i think.

 

[Chuck Z]

Forced camera shake attempting to glue tension over nothing.

A++++++++

 

[Gunleik Groven]

HM...

I actually fall off this thread!
I think anything can be used - if it works. Even Zooms.
Come to think of it: I like zooms! They can be used in so many different ways in tandem with dollies and cranes.

The problem is more like stuff is done "because it is cool/one have to" rather than as a story-telling choice.

The forced shallow DOF (and the lack of thinking about how the viewer sees it at different focal lengths) is probably what annoys me the most.
It's become more of a sport than an aestethical choice.
"I shoot all my stuff at 1.3" I have heard people claim.

And I go: Why?????
Except as a show off for your AC, what do you accomplish by that?

 

[Brett Reynolds]

I hate any camera action that takes me out of the movie and makes me aware of the camera and cameraman. Cinematography is becoming a lost art.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Side to side dolly moves are PLAYED OUT.

What??? No way, side dolly is a classic element. Now I'd say way-too-quick-and-unmotivated side to side dolly shots are played out, but a nice slow dolly creep, when motivated, is gold.

 

[Brian Rocafort]

http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/archives/video_essay_matthias_stork_calls_out_the_chaos_cinema/

 

[Jim McKinney]

"It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it."

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Anything that is unmotivated feels played out, because then it becomes a cheap trick. Cheap tricks are lame, even rude.

I don't care if you shoot macro wide open on a 1200mm f/0.95, on a steady, while the Steady Op is jerking the camera by the lens to make it 'awesome-shaky', all while standing on a dolly that's being thrust back and forth by a team of drunk monkeys, and with so much flaring that you can't even see the atrocity being committed... If it somehow works to tell the story, then cheers my brother. And if it doesn't... get off my TV!

 

[Mark Pedersen]

Tripods are like pants[/I] — you use them because you have respect for yourself.

love it

M

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

HM...

I actually fall off this thread!
I think anything can be used - if it works. Even Zooms.
Come to think of it: I like zooms! They can be used in so many different ways in tandem with dollies and cranes.

The problem is more like stuff is done "because it is cool/one have to" rather than as a story-telling choice.

Agreed.

What I find that is just as irritating as trends is the anti-trend stance. If it works for the story, then it works.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I hate any camera action that takes me out of the movie and makes me aware of the camera and cameraman. Cinematography is becoming a lost art.

This is the problem. Cinematography has just become another form of attention whoring. Most modern cinematography is simply a case of one random fancy shot per three seconds, with no rhyme, reason or relevance to the narrative or style of the film. Andrew's post mentions a few things that should be thought about.

Staging or mise-en-scene was always the foremost visual element of cinema. In Europe, directors where credited as "mise-en-scene" or "metteurs-en-scene". Thanks to close-up and shallow focus fetishists the whole idea of mise-en-scene is vanishing. The root cause is the editing - what happened to actually putting some thought and planning into a sequence of shots? It's just coverage and random shots every 3 seconds today. The only reason such a disturbing style is surviving is the sound. The first question that comes to mind is - how can one even appreciate "cinematography" when you just see fragments?

I can go on forever, but let's just leave it at that for now.

The good news is there are a handful of filmmakers around the world who don't deal with chaos cinema.

Edit - To clarify, my problem is not with the above techniques mentioned, but with the abuse of the same.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

This is the problem. Cinematography has just become another form of attention whoring. Most modern cinematography is simply a case of one random fancy shot per three seconds, with no rhyme, reason or relevance to the narrative or style of the film. Andrew's post mentions a few things that should be thought about.

Staging or mise-en-scene was always the foremost visual element of cinema. In Europe, directors where credited as "mise-en-scene" or "metteurs-en-scene". Thanks to close-up and shallow focus fetishists the whole idea of mise-en-scene is vanishing. The root cause is the editing - what happened to actually putting some thought and planning into a sequence of shots? It's just coverage and random shots every 3 seconds today. The only reason such a disturbing style is surviving is the sound. The first question that comes to mind is - how can one even appreciate "cinematography" when you just see fragments?

I can go on forever, but let's just leave it at that for now.

The good news is there are a handful of filmmakers around the world who don't deal with chaos cinema.

I think you're complaints are taken to the extreme of the problem, not all great shots involved sitting around with a storyboard artist for hours on end discussing and debating the philosophical reasons for one character to stand there and the speed which he should move through frame.
Sometimes you just stick a camera where it looks aesthetically pleasing to the eye and use it because it feels right for the story, that doesn't make you any less of a cinematographer or a director.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I think you're complaints are taken to the extreme of the problem, not all great shots involved sitting around with a storyboard artist for hours on end discussing and debating the philosophical reasons for one character to stand there and the speed which he should move through frame.
Sometimes you just stick a camera where it looks aesthetically pleasing to the eye and use it because it feels right for the story, that doesn't make you any less of a cinematographer or a director.

Of course. I believe that there's no technique in cinema that does not have its place. And a spontaneous camera works beautifully in films like Chungking Express or The Tree of Life. At the same time, both of these films have a coherent visual style. Anyway, even if they were fragmented, it could still work, but the keyword here is "sometimes". I have watched about 30 Hollywood films this year and 28 of those were the same super rapid editing with coverage and random fragment shots. Once again, to clarify, my problem is not with the technique - but with the abuse / overuse of it.