McGee's Movie Moments: Shun the shaky cam
Ever since I saw The Perfect
Storm in theatres and had to make a
real effort to keep my lunch from
coming back up, I have been solidly
in the I-hate-shaky-cam camp.
The more I studied film, the
stronger my hatred grew.
This past weekend I got the chance to go out and see Zero Dark Thirty. Now, I had a couple of problems with this film, particularly the title — coming from a military community, not using the proper terminology for things is a pet peeve of mine — but the biggest one was the extensive use of shaky cam.
Everyone knows what shaky cam is, right? It's when the camera is carried around by hand or balanced on a person's shoulder instead of being placed on a tripod — think Cloverfield and Super 8. I do admit, and give credit to the fact, that shaky cam is a legitimate filmmaking technique. My problem with it comes when it is overused and relied upon too heavily.
When making movies like Cloverfield, it makes perfect sense that a tripod wouldn't be used. The entire point of the viewing experience is that you are watching footage that one of the characters within that film captured while running away from a giant monster. Of course they don't have time to set up a tripod. In this instance, shaky cam as a stylistic choice makes the film seem more accurate, more real.
But now let's take Zero Dark Thirty as an example of when shaky cam is not the best choice, stylistically speaking. In this case at least two-thirds of the film is set within office buildings of one kind or another — CIA headquarters, the American consulate, the Situation Room — and the rest of the film is spent chasing down suspects and raiding a compound in Pakistan. Sure, use shaky cam for the raid, the city street scenes and possibly even the interrogation scenes, but I find it not only totally unnecessary but also very distracting when it is used in interior shots.
When a handheld shot is done during an office scene, for example, the cameraperson isn't moving around so the shot has the illusion of being almost steady. However, because even camerapeople need to breathe, the shot moves slightly.
If we're being honest here, I have to say that extensive use of shaky cam, of which Zero Dark Thirty is not the only offender, is lazy filmmaking. If you can't take the time to set up a tripod to capture the shot properly, you aren't really putting in the effort. You're really just saying, "Hey, you. Grab that camera and stand over here and film."
Hopefully some directors will realize that most audiences aren't a big fan of the shaky cam style for a two-and-a-half-hour flick. It's dizzying, nauseating, infuriating and a whole host of other adjectives. So let's all try to shun the shaky cam, okay?
This past weekend I got the chance to go out and see Zero Dark Thirty. Now, I had a couple of problems with this film, particularly the title — coming from a military community, not using the proper terminology for things is a pet peeve of mine — but the biggest one was the extensive use of shaky cam.
Everyone knows what shaky cam is, right? It's when the camera is carried around by hand or balanced on a person's shoulder instead of being placed on a tripod — think Cloverfield and Super 8. I do admit, and give credit to the fact, that shaky cam is a legitimate filmmaking technique. My problem with it comes when it is overused and relied upon too heavily.
When making movies like Cloverfield, it makes perfect sense that a tripod wouldn't be used. The entire point of the viewing experience is that you are watching footage that one of the characters within that film captured while running away from a giant monster. Of course they don't have time to set up a tripod. In this instance, shaky cam as a stylistic choice makes the film seem more accurate, more real.
But now let's take Zero Dark Thirty as an example of when shaky cam is not the best choice, stylistically speaking. In this case at least two-thirds of the film is set within office buildings of one kind or another — CIA headquarters, the American consulate, the Situation Room — and the rest of the film is spent chasing down suspects and raiding a compound in Pakistan. Sure, use shaky cam for the raid, the city street scenes and possibly even the interrogation scenes, but I find it not only totally unnecessary but also very distracting when it is used in interior shots.
When a handheld shot is done during an office scene, for example, the cameraperson isn't moving around so the shot has the illusion of being almost steady. However, because even camerapeople need to breathe, the shot moves slightly.
If we're being honest here, I have to say that extensive use of shaky cam, of which Zero Dark Thirty is not the only offender, is lazy filmmaking. If you can't take the time to set up a tripod to capture the shot properly, you aren't really putting in the effort. You're really just saying, "Hey, you. Grab that camera and stand over here and film."
Hopefully some directors will realize that most audiences aren't a big fan of the shaky cam style for a two-and-a-half-hour flick. It's dizzying, nauseating, infuriating and a whole host of other adjectives. So let's all try to shun the shaky cam, okay?
