Caution! This Movie May Cause Motion Sickness!
Has the 'shaky cam' overstayed its welcome?
 Loading ... |
The picture above came from a posting at The Film Experience and while Nathaniel makes fun of the use of the definitive article before 'hand held shooting style', I started thinking more about the use of hand-held camerawork in films nowadays and the complaining that comes as a result. As someone that doesn't have much of a problem with what has now been dubbed "shaky cam," it is easy for me to hear these complaints and dismiss them as ramblings, but I know that's not the case as evidenced by Roger Ebert's collection of letters to the editor. People actually do get nauseous and the complaints don't begin and end in comment sections on movie blogs.
Only two days ago Caitlin Petrakovitz at io9 posted an article headlined "Stop Shaking My Movies Like A Polaroid Picture" taking a look at what she deemed to be the good, the bad and the ugly of hand-held camerawork in films and television. Her "good" includes District 9 and "Battlestar Galactica," her "bad" looks at Paul Greengrass's work on the last two Bourne films and her "ugly" includes Quarantine and Cloverfield.
I agree with Caitlin on the Bourne films and actually think Greengrass's cameramen need some practice in holding a camera steady. My problem, however, is never with action sequences, which is where Caitlin says she feels "as though the movement detracts from the pivotal action." Even the complaints regarding the action in Batman Begins I didn't necessarily have a problem with. My biggest issue is when I am watching a couple of people having a conversation and their heads keep floating all over the screen as if they are lost at sea, such is the case throughout much of The Bourne Supremacy, which is the first time I can personally recollect the technique being used in an exaggerated form in a movie that wasn't approaching the film as if it were a mockumentary.
You'll notice in Caitlin's list above Quarantine and Cloverfield are her "ugly" films and both are filmed with actors holding the cameras as they tell the story in a mockumentary approach, an approach that has grown in popularity since the release and success of The Blair Witch Project back in 1999. The release of Cloverfield really brought the conversation over "shaky cam" back into the fold, but apparently District 9 is doing the same, even though I can't remember a moment where the camerawork in that movie ever became all that epileptic.
So, I have to ask, do you have a problem with hand-held camerawork in movies? Is it something you notice and are there specific moments when it bothers you and others when it doesn't?
I recently found a lot of pleasure in Marc Webb's use of hand-held camerawork in 500 Days of Summer and it just happened to be the main reason I interviewed him, but for the most part I think I have trained myself just to realize it as part of the cinematic landscape.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 31 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
The shaky camera effect is one of the main reasons why I feel the Bourne series is overrated (along with all 3 movies being woefully repetitive). But I think it worked well in District 9 and 500 Days of Summer. In gerneral, I'm not a fan of the style though.
I personally have absolutely no problems with the shaky cam effect, it doesn't distract me one bit. If anything the worse it can do is annoy me, like Michael Bay's use of it in some of his films (i just think he goes over the top in quite a few scenes leaving me unengaged as a result.) I saw District 9 last friday and don't particularly remember the effect being employed to the extent where it would cause problems but some people see it and do complain. When i saw The Bourne Supremacy i sat in the fifth row or so with my brothers and we all came out of the theater thinking it was an amazing experience, a bit too close but thoroughly enjoyable nonetheless.
It seems as though some audiences prefer the frame to be composed in a way that can see everything and not get confused, i like "messy" frames every now and then, each to their own i guess
After half way through cloverfield movie, I started getting headached and stopped watching the movie. I dint dare to watch it again for fear of getting sick. Shaky cam is a good technique to get the feel of live action. But too much use is going to be a headache. Bourne series is good for the way the story unfold. Action scenes in the movie can not be rated as the best.
Often surprisingly to me, no, absolutely not. I sat in the first row while watching Cloverfield and The Bourne Ultimatum, and never felt sick one bit. Needless to say, all the other similar experiences, have been alright too. I will also say that the opening chase in Quantum of Solace and the Munich fight in the middle of Bourne Supremacy are the only shaky-cam sequences that weren't shot and (especially) edited good to me, and I was relieved when I actually had absolutely no problem with the Moscow chase later in Supremacy. Ultimatum however is the whole other level, I'd go as far as say Oliver Wood deserved an Oscar nom (possibly win) for the Tangiers scenes alone. Absolutely brilliantly shot and edited to me, I watched it two times in the theater and it was a f#cking blast, I actually felt like I was running after Bourne all over the city with the cam on my shoulder. Emmanuelle Lubezki's work in Children of Men is a great example too.
No (most of the time). For starters, I think that the shaky-cam mockumentary is going out of style…. but isn't quite out of style yet. So that covers District 9, Blair Witch, [REC], and Cloverfield.
Other than that…. I love a good shaky camera, but think that less than half of the times it is used, it is used well. I think that such shaky cameras as Children of Men, Tell No One, and Mission Impossible III are positively excellent, while the myriad other films in the last couple of years that use the style are ineffective and pointless.
I like the technique, actually. When films have a dark plot or there's alot of action it wlrks well because,from what ive noticed, it gives it a grittier look. An absolutely HUGE film: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows used. Red One Handheld cameras to take it to that gritier look, whuch might work well since the final harry potter is quite dark
I didn't notice the shakey camera in "500 Days of Summer" so that either means I've gotten used to it or it was well done. Ahh, that's the crux of the matter. In the mocumentaries the shakey camera is part of the conceit that the characters are doing the filming amidst a panic filled experience, therefore the camera really shakes. The problem being that shakey camera comes with a time limit of interest for the general public who already knows they're seeing a film. Driving to the theatre and paying for ticket is a dead giveaway. Over an extended period of time, I agree that it causes headaches and irritabilty in equal parts.
But what I most often adhor is the shakey camera technique used to personalize a scene or group of scenes, once again done rather poorly to reflect the conceit that the characters are filming. Case in point, "Rachel Getting Married." I can't tell you how annoying and phony I found it. Well, I could tell you. A lot. At least it was limited.
Kimberly Peirce, however, used handheld in "Stop-Loss" for good reason and to good effect. She cut in hand held clips taken by actual soldiers fighting in Iraq and added her own characters using the identical shakey camera so that it was seamless. And occasionally she used handheld to depict the group of friends filming each other. In addition she used hand held for really close shooting in various parts of the film. The portions that were done for this last purpose were extremely well done. Quick movement but no shakey camera. And although I think it was appropriate and well done, people have still complained about the use of hand held camera.
I think some people, film critics specifically, just take a stand against hand held camera. I can't tell you how many reviews of "Stop-Loss" I read that mentioned it…almost all of them. But the truth is, it's here to stay. What we should be criticizing is poor use and/or poor technique. Does "District 9" qualify for either of those? Not that I've heard.
I don't think the shaky cam should be used ALL the way through *cough* Cloverfield *cough*.. but it is a good tool if you're trying to generate a certain feel to the film – like Spinal Tap gives it a raw documentary edge.. with Action it can feel like you're there.. but in Cloverfield it just annoys me.. same with Blair Witch, I wanna see some great cinematography and camera angles not some Parkinson's Disease tribute act.
Shaky cam is quickly becoming a mark of hack-work, not just from overuse or even poor use so much as from being used as a crutch to cover up a filmmaker's shortcomings. It reminds me of comic book artwork from the 90's, where pencilers added a great amount of detail to comic art through crosshatching, as well as adding wrinkles, belts, pouches, seams and what-not to clothing. It created a great mess of visual energy on a page, and the comic-buying public ate it up. But eventually, the public grew discriminating enough to see that the basic compositions under all this extraneous visual energy were often horrible… bad anatomy, bad flow from panel to panel, just a mess overall.
Shaky cam has never made me sick, but almost any time I have ever noticed it has been a negative, pulling me out of the story and making me realize what a mess the scene actually is under all that visual energy.
completely agree with Chewtoy. shaky camera is only poor cinematograph evidence. it doesn't make me sick, but makes only wish stand up and leave.
i cant believe people still blame bourne supremacy for motion sickness, its one of those movies where using a handy cam actually added more intensity and adrenaline to the movie, on the other hand i agree with most part of your article, both district 9 and cloverfeild were annoying and extremely shaky. i guess its a hit or miss, more importantly if the camera crew knows what they are doing i.e(supremacy), you can still pull off a watchable movie.
Sorry, but you better get your believer fixed, I have gotten sick at bourne supremacy, cloverfield and tonight while watching safe house. However, you are right, the handy cam adds more intensity and adrenaline….too much for my belly!!!! lol
It can work well in a horror movie, like Blair Witch, it gave the movie much more tension than if it had a more steady can. And it also matches the documentary style of the movie, so that's ok for me.
Same applies for Cloverfield or [rec]. I know some people get motion sickness, but I don't, so I don't mind… =P
As long as it fits with the style of the picture.
I don't like the use of it in the last two Bourne movies. It became boring! The camera never stops, even in more calm and silent scenes. The camere shakes even when Bourne itself is steady, wtf?
Some action movies does them right, though, because they won't abuse it.
Like Batman Begins and Quantum of Solace. It's okay for the 'shaky camera' to come in action during chase sequences or fight scenes. But during dialogs? No, thanks!
District 9 didn't bother me. I saw Gamer this weekend, and that movie's camera work made me physically ill. I was nauseous for hours afterwards, and a movie hasn't affected me like that since Blair Witch Project. Gamer itself wasn't that bad.
I do think the technique is becoming overdone. Enough already!
I never watched The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield on cinema screens and I haven't watched Quarantine at all. But the first time I watched the first two movies on DVD/HBO, I actually felt the shaky cam technique had successfully managed to accentuate the heightened paranoia of both movies and was one of the main reasons I enjoyed those flicks. But I can imagine people getting headaches by watching Cloverfield on the big screen. So yeah, unless your movie is direct-to-DVD or a HBO original or whatever, dump the excessive use of shaky camera shtick, for ticket sales' sake!
I don't like the shaky camerawork, generally. In District 9 and Slumdog Millionaire, I had no problems with it, because the movies were so awesome. In Push, it was quite distracting, and I ended up hating the movie (except for the Screamers of course).
I am not a fan. I recently noticed this effect in the new Star Trek movie where Kirk and Pike are sitting at a table and talking. There heads kept floating all over the screen from corner to corner. This was irritating to watch. It distracted you from a pivotal conversation piece of the movie. Does it have its place in some actions scenes maybe, in still moments; no.
'Rachel Getting Married' made me barf in my mouth
'Hurt Locker' had it's queasy moments but it's a war movie so it enhances the experience.
my $0.02
i love it.
(when its done by a skillfull eye and mind.)
I think it has its place, and District 9 is exactly it.
From time to time, I'll get motion sickness but the only movies I've seen in theatres that have ever bothered me that horribly were The Bourne Supremacy (and not Ultimatum – they definitely eased up on it), Cloverfield, and The Hurt Locker.
In my opinion, The Hurt Locker would be close to a masterpiece if the camerawork wasn't ridiculously shaky.
When cloverfield came out I remember taking dramamine before going to the movie, it worked because my girlfriend who didn't take anything got dizzy and I didn't.
Handheld in Bourne series: perfect. Every cut and every zoom adds to the scene/film as a whole.
Handheld in District 9: tolerable. Great film, but I liked a whole lot better after it moved away from the mockumentary style and more into the action/thriller style in the second half.
Handheld in Blair Witch: bad. The story was good, if a little sparse, but the camerawork made me woozy.
Handheld in Cloverfield: ugly. It was a shame, because I was enjoying the story and the characters, but the camerawork was so shaky and nauseating I couldn't finish it.
Basically: if the handheld camerawork adds to the story, then keep it. If it detracts from the story or stands out way too much, ditch it. "(500) Days of Summer" had some amazing handheld work, mostly because I never even thought about it being handheld until I read this article.
What makes some of these movies great are the filming techniques but it doesn't take away from the fact that there will be some like myself who get terribly motion sick from watching them. It doesn't happen to everyone but it does happen. I really wanted to see district 9 when I finally went I had to run out the theater. I would really like to see more theaters posting a warning so that people like myself won't have waste time, money and stomach contents.
BTW it's not really motion sickness its called simulation sickness.
DANCER IN THE DARK was a film that had some patrons leaving my local cinema because of the widescreen seasickness effect, and the theatre had to post a notice about it. I don't mind it at all in commercial films. In 'arty' films it just doesn't work – take ANTICHRIST for example…there were times when I was getting drawn in to what was happening but always broken out of it again by thinking "Oh, there's a guy holding a camera in front of these two actors" because it was continuously floating and fidgeting around.
i dont really mind the shaky cam style in movies as long as it is what was intended for. blair witch project was kinda annoying but it was the heart of the thrill back then. for the other movies that was mentioned here, there were scenes that were over the top. but for me, tony scott's shaky cam work on 'Domino' was really for the an unnecessary one to have the shaky cam effect. actually most of tony scott's film since the remake of 'Man on Fire' until "Taking of Pelham 123' was quite annoying already. another quite over the top shaky cam for me is the 'Bourne Ultimatum', though it compensated with great story & character driven performances
In most cases the school of St. Vitus cinematography employs the idea out sheer laziness and or the need to not spend too much money on a film. Instead of giving the audience a view of the "action" or elaboration of story and to cover up lack of technique the shaky cam is utilized as a cover. "I won't spend any money on background or good cinema, instead I'll just shake the camera a lot and let the audience make up their minds about what is going on." Not only is laziness and stupidity inherent in this ploy it minimizes the supposed "art" of film making.
I don't mind such idiotic behavior because upon sensing it I walk out and demand and get my money back and go see a better film.
As well as making movies unwatchable due to motion sickness, I think there are more fundamental flaw in the technique in most instances.
The problem for me, is that as soon as the camera is intentionally made to look hand held, the director has introduced two problems.
First, the camera and camera operator are cast as characters in the piece. For footage where you'd expect a camera operator (in a crowded street, trying to get footage from an event etc.) the technique can work. However, in private moments, such as an intimate scenes, the technique totally destroys the illusion. The camera work places the cameraman in the scene's space. That for me ruins the illusion, and I am no longer prepared to 'believe' the illusion. In effect the minds eye sees the entire crew.
Secondly, the camera operator in most cases 'acts' as if there is camera shake. This adds another layer of vulnerability. The camera operator's ability to act influences the outcome (and invariably, they 'over act'). This is most evident in my view, with the nauseating and frankly ridiculous constant change of focal length in a scene.
I think that as soon as a viewer notices that the scenes are shot 'hand held', you've probably failed.
"The Hurt Locker" made me nauseous about 30 minutes in. For the remainder of the movie I had to literally watch the area a the bottom of the screen and only occasionally look up at the movie. My dad, who was with me, got up at one point and came back. Afterward he told me that he had gone to the bathroom and literally puked!
Hey movie directors! It's called a tripod! Look into it.
Shaky cams make me physically nauseous, but I have a long history of motion sickness issues. Apparently, the motion on screen tricks the brain into thinking the body is moving. My husband thinks I can "psych" myself out of it, but no success with that yet…! It is a physiological problem.