Camera shake in films

[Ashtar]

I'm just wondering how many people are bothered by excessive camera movement (or shakes) in films these days?

There are a few examples that come to mind, for example the battle scenes in LoTR 2 & 3, where the actors (and team) put a lot of effort into making beautifully choreographed fight scenes, only to have it shown on screen as a shaky 5s shot.
Another example is the car pursuit scene in the Bourne Supremacy, where it’s even hard to see you are in a car, there’s so much shake.

I can understand that using camera shake can give you the feel of being “in the action”. But 90% of the time it’s used in current films, I feel it’s intrusive and distracting.

A good example of camera shake, where it is used correctly would be the Blair Witch Project for example. Even though the shake can be extreme, it is “justified” and even enhances the action instead of distracting.

Also, with steadicam it is now possible (even with a 5$ DIY steadicam) to make very long, fast moving, near picture perfect shots.

I’d also like to know if you have other examples of “good” shake and “bad” shake movies?

[Irenaeus]

It largely depends. Sometimes I think a shaky camera can be a really good thing, highligthing the danger and confusion of battle. However, too many directors seem to have drawn the conclusion that a shaky camera creates a good scene in and by itself, rather than just being one of many tools they can utilize.

I almost always get annoyed by a wobbling camera if I think the movie is more concerned about coreography than realism. The camerawork then seems out of place and I don't get to see any high quality fighting.

Much of my annoyance with this style can be effectively neutralized by having longer shots. The last battle scene from Children of Men has a fair amount of the shakes, but it is done a single shot over six minutes long. I think it is both conveys the events that happen clearly, and is one of the damned best battle scenes done in the last few years.

(Warning: Violence and spoilers)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEL0ORFaz5g

Now if the main character was running around kicking ass with his No Shadow Kick of Wu Shan, I would prefer a more steady cam, constantly showing all the moves of him and his opponent. But the single-shot approach would still be brilliant.

Edit: I should note that the scenes are not really single-shot, but spliced together to appear that way. The feeling of continuity is of course unaffected by this.

[Ashtar]

The battle scene in Children of Men is what I call a beautiful shot. The shake never gets in the way and gives you an excellent 3rd person view, fully immersed in the action.

I'll try to see if I can find one or two horrible shake examples on youtube.

[The J Pizzel]

The battle scene in Children of Men is what I call a beautiful shot. The shake never gets in the way and gives you an excellent 3rd person view, fully immersed in the action.

I'll try to see if I can find one or two horrible shake examples on youtube.

QFT
I was going to log on and talk about Children of Men, but it's already been donw twice, so i'll let it go. Anyone who hasn't seen needs to though.

The area of I Am Legend at the beginning where he's trying to get a deer, shakeycam done wrong.

All fight scenes in Saving Private Ryan, shakeycam done right.

Long fight scene with no cuts (kinda like Children of Men) from The Protector, sakeycam done right.

Blair Witch shakeycam done right by marketing.

Bourne movies, shakeycam done wrong (although I do like the movies) Constantly goes to and from shakeycam, confuses the viewer.

LotR, I don't remember much shakeycam in there...so I guess it wasn't bad.

I'll post more as I remember them.

JP

[GolemsVoice]

I agree with the original poster. As a person who has problems cathcing fast moving scenes (not to the point that it might be a real problem, just a small annoyance), the battle scenes in many newer films, which are already cut in very short pieces and moving very fast, get sometimes very confusing to follow. But, as others said, it does add a little realism and immerses the viewer in the action. I particularly like this technique when, for examples, fleeing crowds are depicted, and the view is supposed to be "part of the crowd". In concert with other effects, this can really evoke the feeling of terror and fear, which, as fleeing goes, is an essential part of the whole thing.

[Indon]

Minimal shaking I have little problem with.

But, say, in the case of Transformers, where the shake and angles were so severe that you honestly couldn't tell what was going on in a fight? Eeew.

[rubakhin]

Well, at least it's better than camera whirl, I swear to God the camera was attached to a pinwheel during the first half of Irreversible. My head hurts just thinking about it. :smallsigh:

Really, what jpbooth said. The shakycam thing is like any other kind of film technique. There's a right place and time, and a certain level of skill required to pull it off. In my opinion, clarity should be the first concern when it comes to most aspects of filmmaking. (This means you, artsy types who confuse obfuscation with profundity. :smallannoyed:)

[Muz]

In most cases, I'd much prefer to be able to see what's going on--the "geography" of a scene as Spielburg puts it (though I don't figure he came up with that term). Shaking the camera makes sense in SOME cases--like a panicked scene, for example, if you've got either a reason the camera should be panicked (Blair Witch, Cloverfield, Saving Private Ryan). However if it's just to make it "exciting" or "edgy," it's just irritating.

Indon mentioned Transformers. That definitely irritated me. It's the end of the movie. Time to let us really see what these guys look like--hold the frigging camera still! Or in Battlestar Galactica (the new one) where they seemed to like to do that so they could be "edgy" in order to hide the show's other flaws. A number of the scenes in Gladiator were like this, too (well, some were, some were easier to track), though more for the "you're in the action!" reason than the edginess.

Close-ups of shields and swords clashing where the camera's shaking all around and I can't tell who's doing what isn't exciting. It's just boring and off-putting. Then again, that's what I thought about any Neo/Smith battle in Matrix 2 & 3, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, as I understand most people loved those. :smallsmile:

[factotum]

I don't think I even notice it most of the time. The one time it really irritates me is when it's used in space scenes in SF--the new Battlestar Galactica, brilliant as it is, has this irritating tendency to make all the space scenes look like they're shot by a drunk documentary maker floating around near the action in a spacesuit. To me, that just kills any sense of immersion, because I keep finding myself thinking "Why haven't the Cylons noticed this cameraman floating around next to their base ship?" rather than concentrating on the action.

[Swordguy]

As a fight choreographer, I can say that there are only 3 reasons to use handicam-style shots while shooting a fight:

1) The director wants it, for whatever reason. Usually not a good one.

2) Hide choreography flaws. Choreography for film is done months in advance whenever possible because fight techniques on film have to be performed at a MUCH higher speed than on a live stage. The camera action makes fights performed at a normal, realistic speed seem very slow. That means you've got to have a low of rehearsal time beforehand to get it right and up to speed. However, a lot of the time, something changes between the planned, storyboarded shot that you've rehearsed for 20 hours, and the time of filming, you you have to rechoreograph on the fly. You can use handicam-style shooting techniques in order to hide the flaws that by definition will creep into a fight shot under these circumstances. It's not ideal, but it's better than a static shot that shows the flaws.

3) Bring the audience into the action. The seminal example of this is the D-Day sequence in Saving Private Ryan. The audience is made a participant in the action with their first-person view. This can be done poorly as well - did anyone watch DOOM?

Now, as a choreographer, what I REALLY hate is very short, close-up shots of a fight. Remember the problem about having to fight really fast so it looks "right" on camera? You can fake it by using lots of short shots and cutting between the characters, who are just swinging weapons about randomly. The fast shots actually speed up the viewer's perception of the fight - making it seem faster. Unfortunately, you tend to lose track of the actual choreography and the storyline of the fight, because you can't see what's going on out of frame (the "short shot" effect really only works on medium shots on down - fast cuts between wide shots just look dumb). The first X-Men movie did this, as did Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Really good fight cinematography is the Hector/Achilles duel in Troy - it uses a mix of tight, medium, and wide shots that are open enough to let the audience follow what's happening in the fight, and enough tight shots to speed up the action.

[Obrysii]

In all of my film-making courses, and in my own opinion ... film shakiness and excessive movement are marks of unprofessional filmmaking.

Most, if not all, of the great classics do not have such unnecessary movement. As others have pointed out, it can really detract from the experience--as it was in Transformers.

[Vespe Ratavo]

Yeah...the camera shake pretty much ruined Transformers...shame, since what I could see of the fight scenes was so good...

[Nasrudith]

The only reason I can see for a camera shake is cheaping out on earth quake special effects. I also hate the depiction of nights in video games (if there's a nightvision mode with unlimited timer and I don't need stealth it will be on 24/7), movies, and television because its impossible to see anything without straining your eyes. Is it just me or do they all look like its being viewed through the eyes of someone with night blindness?

[Swordguy]

In all of my film-making courses, and in my own opinion ... film shakiness and excessive movement are marks of unprofessional filmmaking.

Most, if not all, of the great classics do not have such unnecessary movement. As others have pointed out, it can really detract from the experience--as it was in Transformers.

I'm rather looking forward to reading this thread after seeing Cloverfield.

The bolded text is, in most cases, absolutely true.

[Metal Head]

Minimal shaking I have little problem with.

But, say, in the case of Transformers, where the shake and angles were so severe that you honestly couldn't tell what was going on in a fight? Eeew.

I have to agree with you. I could only figure out what the hell was happening when the whole scene ended. You'd have some metal fly in front of the screen, but the camera would be at some ridiculous angle, shaking, and moving in some different direction. The problem with shake angle these days is that it's used with other bad camera techniques at the same time.

[Amotis]

Uses of unconventional camera work that turns out making a security net to hold up the piece when it falters in other areas: Firefly

[Oeep Snaec]

I couldn't stand the fight scenes in the most recent Batman movie. With the darkness included, I couldn't tell one person from another, and so it ruined the effect.

[Ashtar]

So I'm happy to learn I'm not the only one that excessive shake bothers.

Can we make ourselves heared by hollywood?

[Oeep Snaec]

Hmm... With the writer's strike and all, I don't think too many will listen to people complaining about their filmmaking techniques, especially with their fixation with shaking.

[Obrysii]

I'm rather looking forward to reading this thread after seeing Cloverfield.

The bolded text is, in most cases, absolutely true.

Well, with a movie such as Cloverfield, where we've known from day one that it is supposed to be filmed on a handycam (as the first trailer literally shows someone filming a going-away party in a fairly realistic fashion), the shaky camera is to be expected.

But if they switch to a traditional camera mode, and its still shaky ... shame on them.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

The car chase in the first half of The Rock is a classic example of how not to do "shaky camera". It's just stupid, even for that silly film.
Here it is in all its wobbly, motion-sickness-inducing cliched daftness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIDqfzIvw0g) - (there's some naughty language in this clip, sorry).
:smallsigh:

Steadycam shots, to give a documentary feel - now that I like. When it's appropriate.

[Irenaeus]

The car chase in the first half of The Rock is a classic example of how not to do "shaky camera". It's just stupid, even for that silly film.
Here it is in all its wobbly, motion-sickness-inducing cliched daftness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIDqfzIvw0g) - (there's some naughty language in this clip, sorry).
:smallsigh:

Steadycam shots, to give a documentary feel - now that I like. When it's appropriate.Come to think of it, I can't remember seeing a single Michael Bay movie that did not suffer from this.

[Tweekinator]

28 Weeks Later suffered from this. I felt it was used properly in one scene(the chaotic subterranean panic) and then extremely overdone in all the rest of the movie. I want to see what's going on from a decent point of view; not that of a Parkinsons afflicted cameraman who can't decide what to look at.

[Logic]

I am here to defend camera shake in one instance, for it adds to the atmosphere of the scenes.

Battlestar Galactica (2003 and on)

While in most instances, the camera shake is intended to give you a sense of a semi-novice cameraman, as nearly the whole series is done in a documentary style filming. It also happens to be the first instance of where I recall it was being used.

There are some that do this poorly, and in Transformers as well as the Bourne series, this effect was lost, mostly because it doesn't feel like it is possible to be a documentary.

Most other instances of the camera shake feel too much like they are trying to reproduce a trend that happens to be popular.

[Obrysii]

The shakey camera was one of the big reasons I strongly dislike the new Battlestar Galactica--that, and its overuse of zooming.

[bosssmiley]

Camera shake and wobbly refocusing = an attempt to induce a sense of faux-urgency when the writer, director or cinematographer isn't up to creating urgency through the medium of plotting, writing and/or editing.

As far as I'm concerned, unless shaky camera-work is in a genuine documentary it is no more than a visual shorthand for "I'm a lazy, gimmick-prone director who sucks. Go watch something by someone who was awake in the lecture about camera lock off". :smallamused:

[Irenaeus]

Camera shake and wobbly refocusing = an attempt to induce a sense of faux-urgency when the writer...Honestly, filmmaking in itself is about inducing a sense on faux-anything in the audience. The horribly overused camera shaking, or any special use of camera work in general, is only one of many tools the director have at their disposal. I think blanket condemnation of this technique as lazy and gimmicky is a to strong generalization for my taste.

Edited for clarity

[Tom_Violence]

'Camera shake', from an artistic-theoretical point of view, can be used to great effect when one needs to add tension to a shot by making it hard for the viewer to tell what's going on. Essentially, its a way of making the audience identify with the character to some extent, making them as confused etc. Obviously this is most effective in horror/thriller films, where without such things you'd have very little expressive effect at all. However, where it goes completely wrong is when its used in action films, in which identifying with the characters isn't really the point - people just want to see the action - for example the aforementioned Transformers (personally I think that in this film it was a case of over-zealous directing and a cheaper-than-generally-thought budget, but that's a different debate entirely).

This only applies to the over-the-top kind of shaky camera work. A lessened version of it can be used well in action scenes, but then the effect and intent is completely different. Instead of a shaky Point Of View shot (which does your head in when you're trying to pay attention to action, but is nicely confusing in horror films), you have a weaker slightly-disorientated impartial observer shot. The effect there is not one of viewer confusion, but of an all-round vibrant chaotic scene. Hence why it works in films like Children of Men (which has a sort-of 'observer' thing going all the way through).

So, in conclusion, it can work, it just has to be used properly and appropriately. Either for viewer confusion when the audience doesn't need/want to know exactly what's going on, or a lesser version from a detached point of view to add chaos to a shot.

[Mc. Lovin']

I remember in the "Bourne Ultimatum" it got really over the top somtimes, like you couldnt even see the faces of who the camera was pointed at

[dehro]

gives me a headache, nuff said:smallannoyed: