|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Shaky movies SUCK!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 02-28-2007 04:44 PM
Those ShakyMovieMakers(TM) just never did their homework.
If they believe that shaking pictures give a more exciting or lifelike representation, they must be drunk or stoned all day long.
The human eye/brain combination is a perfect stabilization system, unless you are experiencing an earthquake or comet hit, you always perceive your vision as steady.
So if you don't like the smooth geometric dolly movements, use a Steadicam to get the shot. There is definitely no reason to imitate 1950s/1960s cinema verité aesthetics - back then there was no alternative!
Making ShakyMovies(TM) is just a poor excuse for improper direction and/or cinematography. It takes the hand of a master to make intelligent use of handheld camera work.
In EYES WIDE SHUT, there's a dialogue scene with Kidman/Cruise with her sitting on the floor against the wall. They talk about fidelity in their marriage, and when Cruise says that he is "certain of her", the Kidman character starts laughing, literally rolling on the floor.
The whole scenes is shot with locked down camera, no fancy stuff to detract from the actors' work. BUT in the cut when Kidman starts laughing violently, Kubrick cuts to a handheld, perfectly organic shot that follows her body movement, giving a sudden shock to the viewer. Suddenly you feel that the whole foundation of the marriage has been shaken. Kidman recomposes herself, and the shot steadies again. The rest of the scene is continued in static shots.
The difference between a cinematic ace and hundreds of hacks who believe that a "look" is something that can be imposed upon a movie instead of growing from the material.
End of rant. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 02-28-2007 05:16 PM
I totally agree that Dogme '95 is ridiculous, stupid, and ultimately harmful to movies. I've actually written papers detailing my hatred for the "movement". But I could not care less if a filmmaker chooses to shoot something hand-held. In fact, I prefer that aesthetic. When a camera is locked down, it supports the perception that the events taking place are staged. It's just one more level of disbelief to suspend. I'm not saying that that's always a bad thing, but it's usually not a good thing. A hand-held camera much more interesting, because it provides us with the sense that anything can happen. That's usually desirable.
I've made a few little movies, all terrible, and have a reputation amongst my friends for using a hand-held camera almost exclusively. On the last movie I made, I consciously decided to use a tripod as my default, and only go hand-held when necessary. That lasted for a whole scene. I soon realized that with the aesthetic choices I had made for the writing, acting, and cutting, locked-down cameras really didn't make any sense. Of course the movie still sucked, but that's beside the point.
This reminds me of a debate which was raging on the AVS Forum, where some people were arguing that film grain should be eliminated during High-Def video transfers because, after all, it's high-def. That doesn't make any sense to me. Our job is not to make movies look good. It's to make them not look bad.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 02-28-2007 06:15 PM
Mike Schindler wrote:
quote: Mike Schindler
I've made a few little movies, all terrible, and have a reputation amongst my friends for using a hand-held camera almost exclusively. On the last movie I made, I consciously decided to use a tripod as my default, and only go hand-held when necessary. That lasted for a whole scene. I soon realized that with the aesthetic choices I had made for the writing, acting, and cutting, locked-down cameras really didn't make any sense.
But you didn't show your movie for two hours on a 70ft. screen in a theatre, did you? - I find that a certain movement - yes, even hand-held - is fine on TV if it fits the story, like they did in "24". But to do the same on a huge silver screen is another thing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
![[scream]](graemlins/scream.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
a better movie!
Printer-friendly view of this topic